Changing Family Form American Family

¶ … Changing Family Form

AMERICAN FAMILY DECLINE

Popenoe (1993:529) argues that the American family, which he defines as "a relatively small domestic group of kin…consisting of at least one adult and one dependent person" has been in decline since the 1960s. According to Popenoe (1993) the family serves societal needs or functions which include: procreation and the socialization of children; economic cooperation; and sexual regulation. Family decline then means that families are not as successful as they once were in carrying out these functions.

Popenoe (1993) describes several changes to American families which have contributed to this decline. First of all, families are having fewer children. According to Popenoe (1993) women in the late 1950s had an average of 3.7 children. By 1990, this number had decreased to 1.9 children, which Popenoe (1993) explains is below the number of 2.1 children required for population replacement. Popenoe (1993) attributes this to a decrease in positive feelings toward parenthood and motherhood and explains that it also reflects the attitude society has toward the importance of children. The second family change is that of marital roles. According to Popenoe (1993) in 1960, 19% of married children with young children worked outside the home. In 1990, this number increased to 59%. The third family change is family structure and marital dissolution. Popenoe (1993) explains that an increased rate of marital dissolution is due to the increased acceptance of divorce, growing affluence that reduces economic dependence, higher psychological expectations of marriage, secularization, and the stress of changing gender roles. As a result Popenoe (1993) predicts that children born in 1980 have a 70% chance of living in a single-parent household. The fourth family change is the attitude toward marriage. Although the marriage rate is still very high, Popenoe (1993:53) suggests that the nature of marriage has changed. Whereas, marriage was once viewed as a social obligation, "marriage today is a voluntary relationship that individuals can make and break at will." Therefore, people no longer marry for economic security and procreation, but for a path toward self-fulfillment. The final family change is nonfamily living. Popenoe (1993) explains that there has been a dramatic increase both in young adults living independently before marriage and in non-marital cohabitation.

Popenoe (1993) argues that these changes in the American family have led to the decline of the family, particularly of the traditional nuclear family. Demographically and culturally, the traditional family unit has decreased in importance. The decline of the family is evidenced by the fact that families no longer perform their societal functions. As evidenced by a birthrate that is lower than the replacement level, the function of procreation is weakened. According to Popenoe (1993) families are also not performing the function of the socialization of children, as demonstrated by absentee fathers, the decline in the amount of time parents spend with children, and the increase in the amount of time children spend either alone or outside the home. Additionally, increases of premarital and extramarital sex demonstrate that the function of sexual regulation is not being performed by families. While some may argue that some of the changes are positive and indicate progress (economic independence for women, for example), Popenoe (1993:540) asserts that the decline in the American family "will likely have adverse consequences for children, and thus for generations to come."

GOOD RIDDANCE

Stacey (1993) agrees with Popenoe's assessment that the family is in decline; however, she disagrees with his definition of family. According to Stacey (1993:545) "no positivist definition of the family is viable…the family is not an institution, but an ideological, symbolic construct that has a history and a politics." It is this definition of family to which she bids good riddance. Stacey (1993) identifies three systematic errors in Popenoe's analysis of the family decline. First of all, Stacey (1993:546) asserts that Popenoe's claim that the family "was once the only social institution in existence" is based upon flawed anthropology and history. Secondly, she points out that while Popenoe admits that the family structures in the 1950s were an anomaly, it is this decade that is used as a baseline for his arguments. Finally, she objects to Popenoe's assessment that if one does not believe that the family has declined as an institution, one must believe that the family has strengthened or remain unchanged. According to Stacey (1993) this premise is only true if one accepts Popenoe's definition of family. While Stacey (1993) agrees with Popenoe that the decline of the family is harmful to children, she criticizes him and other critics who offer few solutions to the problem. Rather than lamenting the loss of a family structure from an admittedly anomalous decade, Stacy (1993) argues that social reforms are necessary to ensure that children are cared for.

In Beck-Gernsheim's (2002:85) assessment, the focus should not be on "the black-and-white alternative 'end of the family' or 'family as the future'" but on "the many grey areas or better, the many different shades in the niches inside and outside the traditional family network." According to Beck-Gernsheim (2002) traditional definitions of family exclude many groups such as single people, the childless and single-parent families who have never married. They also ignore the potential conflict that occurs within traditional families. Beck-Gernsheim (2002) explains that changes in families, which have been occurring since industrialization, are the result of individualization.

In pre-industrial times, family structure was centered on work and economics, which each family member having a role to support the family farm or business. This structure left few choices for the individual. However, historical changes such as industrialization, the advent of social security mechanisms, and the feminist movement have resulted in a trend towards individualization. Therefore, families must make decisions about issues that were once understood, such as where they would live, what religion they would practice, and whether or not to have children. As Beck-Gernsheim (2002:97) explains, "The family is becoming more of an elective relationship, an association of individual persons, who each bring to it their own interests, experiences and plans and who are each subject to different controls, risks and constraints." The traditional definition of family, while not disappearing, is no longer the dominant definition of family. Instead, there is what Beck-Gernsheim (2002) calls the "post-familial family" which may be comprised of different relationships, such as childless couples, single-parent families, same-sex partnerships, or families living between more than one home.

INVISIBLE INEQUALITY

Lareau's (2002) study confirmed Beck-Gernsheim's assertions of individualization, at least for middle class children. According to Lareau (2002), middle-class parents and working-class parents exhibit different parenting styles. Middle-class parents, in a style Lareau (2002) calls "concerted cultivation," enroll their children in many activities in an effort for them to develop their talents and learn important life skills. Additionally, middle-class parents emphasize the importance of developing language and reasoning skills. This approach results in a wider range of experiences for children, a sense of individualism within the family, and an emphasis on children's performance (Lareau 2002). Children quickly develop a sense of their own talents and skills and are able to differentiate themselves from siblings and friends. However, this approach creates a hectic schedule for parents and results in sense of entitlement in children.