Familial Power Under Digital Public Negotiation: Discourses on Mother-In-Law/Daughter-In-Law Relationships in Vietnam

In the context of digital media, family conflicts are increasingly moving beyond the private sphere to become subjects of public discourse across digital platforms. While previous studies have examined family communication and digital media as separate areas of inquiry, limited attention has been paid to how online publics actively participate in negotiating the legitimacy of family power through public discourse. This theoretical gap is particularly significant in societies shaped by Confucian traditions, where family authority has historically been grounded in intergenerational hierarchy and filial obligations. This study examines how social media restructures power relations in mother-in-law/daughter-in-law relationships in Vietnam. Using a combination of Thematic Analysis and Critical Discourse Analysis, the study analyzes 6,832 comments posted by online users collected from 67 public Facebook posts related to a highly visible mother-in-law/daughter-in-law controversy in early 2026. The findings reveal four major discursive trends: the mediatization of family power relations as public entertainment, the weakening of traditional authority, the empowerment of vulnerable subjects, and the persistence of cultural inertia in family power relations. These findings suggest that social media not only reflects but also actively restructures family power by transforming the legitimacy of actors within traditional family relationships into objects of continuous public negotiation and contestation. The study contributes empirical evidence from an East Asian and Confucian cultural context while extending family communication scholarship by arguing that family authority should be understood not solely through private interpersonal interaction but also as a public discursive process negotiated within platform-based digital environments.
Keywords: family power dynamics; mother-in-law/daughter-in-law relationship; intergenerational communication; public discourse; social media

Family Sociology and Digital Communication

1. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77-101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. boyd, d., Golder, S., & Lotan, G. (2010). Tweet, tweet, retweet: Conversational aspects of retweeting on Twitter. Proceedings of the 43rd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS), 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1109/HICSS.2010.412 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. boyd, d. (2014). It’s complicated: The social lives of networked teens. Yale University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Baxter, L. A., & Braithwaite, D. O. (Eds.). (2008). Engaging theories in family communication: Multiple perspectives. SAGE Publications. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Baxter, L. A. (2011). Voicing relationships: A dialogic perspective. SAGE Publications. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Banet-Weiser, S. (2018). Empowered: Popular feminism and popular misogyny. Duke University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2021). Thematic analysis: A practical guide. SAGE Publications. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Couldry, N., & Hepp, A. (2017). The mediated construction of reality. Polity Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Couldry, N. (2012). Media, society, world: Social theory and digital media practice. Polity Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Duong, H. T., & Hopfer, S. (2023). Exploring intergenerational communication on social media group chats as a cancer prevention intervention opportunity among Vietnamese American families: A qualitative study. JMIR Formative Research, 7, e35601. https://doi.org/10.2196/35601 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Drummond, L. (2006). Gender practices in contemporary Vietnam. Vietnam Studies, 1(1-2), 515-541. https://doi.org/10.1525/vs.2006.1.1-2.515 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Fairclough, N. (2013). Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language (2nd ed.). Routledge. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. General Statistics Office of Vietnam. (2023). Statistical summary book of Viet Nam 2023. https://www.nso.gov.vn/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/Nien-giam-tom-tat-2023.pdf [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Galvin, K. M., Braithwaite, D. O., & Baxter, L. A. (Eds.). (2015). Family communication: Cohesion and change (9th ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315663982 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Harwood, J. (2005). Shared family identity, age salience, and intergroup contact: Investigation of the grandparent-grandchild relationship. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 22(5), 689-708. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637750500534388 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Harwood, J., & Lin, M.-C. (2014). Intergroup contact and communication in families: A review and theoretical integration. In Y. Y. Kim (Ed.), The International encyclopedia of intercultural communication. Wiley-Blackwell. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Horton, P., & Rydström, H. (Eds.). (2011). Heterosexuality in Vietnam: The remaking of intimacy. Nordic Institute of Asian Studies Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Hepp, A. (2020). Deep mediatization. Routledge. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Highfield, T. (2016). Social media and everyday politics. Polity Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Ikels, C. (Ed.). (2004). Filial piety: Practice and discourse in contemporary East Asia. Stanford University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Jenkins, H., Ford, S., & Green, J. (2013). Spreadable media: Creating value and meaning in a networked culture. New York University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. Kandiyoti, D. (1988). Bargaining with patriarchy. Gender & Society, 2(3), 274-290. https://doi.org/10.1177/089124388002003004 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. Koerner, A. F., & Fitzpatrick, M. A. (2002). Toward a theory of family communication. Communication Theory, 12(1), 70–91. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.2002.tb00260.x [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. Lindlof, T. R., & Taylor, B. C. (2019). Qualitative communication research methods (4th ed.). SAGE Publications. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. Marwick, A. E., & boyd, d. (2011). I tweet honestly, I tweet passionately: Twitter users, context collapse, and the imagined audience. New Media & Society, 13(1), 114-133. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444810365313 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

26. Marwick, A. E. (2015). Instafame: Luxury selfies in the attention economy. Public Culture, 27(1), 137-160. https://doi.org/10.1215/08992363-2798379 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

27. Mesch, G. S. (2003). The family and the Internet: The Israeli case. Social Science Quarterly, 84(4), 1038-1050. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.0038-4941.2003.08404016.x [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

28. Markham, A., & Buchanan, E. (2012). Ethical decision-making and Internet research: Recommendations from the AoIR ethics working committee (Version 2.0). Association of Internet Researchers. https://aoir.org/reports/ethics2.pdf [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

29. Miller, D., Costa, E., Haynes, N., McDonald, T., Nicolescu, R., Sinanan, J., Spyer, J., Venkatraman, S., & Wang, X. (2016). How the world changed social media. UCL Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

30. Pyke, K. D., & Bengtson, V. L. (1996). The “normal American family” as an interpretive structure of family life among grown children of Korean and Vietnamese immigrants. Journal of Marriage and Family, 58(2), 329-339. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2000.00240.x [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

31. Papacharissi, Z. (2015). Affective publics. In P. V. Alphen, P. McGowan, & J. M. Smith (Eds.), Affective societies: Key concepts. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351039260-28 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

32. Papacharissi, Z. (2015). Affective publics: Sentiment, technology, and politics. Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

33. Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Sage Publications. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

34. Rittenour, C. E., & Soliz, J. (2009). Communicative and relational dimensions of shared family identity and relational intentions in mother-in-law/daughter-in-law relationships: Developing a conceptual model for mother-in-law/daughter-in-law research. Journal of Family Communication, 9(4), 294-316. https://doi.org/10.1080/10570310802636334 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

35. Suter, E. A., Sahlstein Parcell, E., Adebayo, C. T., Romo, D. C., & Weadock, C. R. (2024). Charting a research agenda for relational dialectics theory: Forwarding critical theorizing in interpersonal and family communication research. Journal of Family Communication, 24(3-4), 177-195. https://doi.org/10.1080/15267431.2024.2394027 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

36. Serewicz, M. C. M., & Canary, D. J. (2008). Toward a triangular theory of the communication and relationships of in-laws: Theoretical proposal and social relations analysis of relational satisfaction and private disclosure in in-law triads. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 25(5), 823-844. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407508096697 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

37. Serewicz, M. C. M., & Canary, D. J. (2008). Assessments of disclosure from the in-laws: Links among disclosure topics, family privacy orientations, and relational quality. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 25(2), 333-357. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407507087962 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

38. Sipocz, D., Freeman, J. D., & Elton, J. (2021). “A toxic trend?” Generational conflict and connectivity in Twitter discourse under the #BoomerRemover hashtag. The Gerontologist, 61(2), 166-175. https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/gnaa177 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

39. Sung, K.-T. (1995). Measures and dimensions of filial piety in Korea. The Gerontologist, 35(2), 240–247. https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/35.2.240 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

40. Senft, T. M., & Baym, N. K. (2015). What does the selfie say? Investigating a global phenomenon. International Journal of Communication, 9, 1588-1606. https://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/view/3183 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

41. Shih, K. Y., & Pyke, K. (2010). Power, resistance, and emotional economies in women’s relationships with mothers-in-law in Chinese immigrant families. Journal of Family Issues, 31(3), 333-357. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192513X09350875 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

42. Saldaña, J. (2021). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (4th ed.). SAGE Publications. Turner, F. (2010). From counterculture to cyberculture: Stewart Brand, the Whole Earth Network, and the rise of digital utopianism (2nd ed.). University of Chicago Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

43. United Nations Entity for Gender Equality and the Empowerment of Women (UN Women). (2021). Country gender equality profile Viet Nam 2021 (CGEP). UN Women Asia-Pacific. https://asiapacific.unwomen.org/sites/default/files/Field%20Office%20ESEAsia/Docs/Publications/2021/10/vn-CGEP_Full.pdf [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

44. van Dijck, J. (2013). The culture of connectivity: A critical history of social media. Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

45. Wolf, M. (1972). Women and the family in rural Taiwan. Stanford University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

46. Wodak, R., & Meyer, M. (Eds.). (2009). Methods of critical discourse analysis (2nd ed.). SAGE Publications. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

47. Yan, Y. (2016). The individualization of Chinese society. Bloomsbury Academic. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• The Dynamic of Religious Pluralism and Cultural Identity in Rongmei Naga (Kabui) Society
• Effects of Social-Economic Empowerment of Teenage Mothers and Nurture Care. A Case of Kimbilio Hope Centre, Machakos, Kenya
• Gendering Caste and Casteing Gender: A Study of Social Sickness in Uma Chakravarti’s Gendering Caste: Through a Feminist Lens
• Counselling as Social Work for Women Empowerment in Akwa Ibom State: A Case Study of Ibiono Ibom Local Government Area. Implications for Counsellors
• Motherhood: Inclusion and Containment, A Case Study