Non-traditional families in the United States

Sociology

Family Relations: The Role of Non-Traditional Families

The family is central to human culture, yet the family, like so much else in modern society is changing. In times past, the family could be easily defined. It consisted of a married father, mother, and their children. Sometimes the definition allowed for the remnants of that same grouping - a widow or widower and the children of the marriage, plus any stepchildren or wards. Still others would have included among the family, a married couple living alone, their children either grown - an "empty" nest" - or a childless couple growing old together. Families performed both economic and social functions. Through much of history, and probably prehistory too, marriage was a kind of economic arrangement. Property was apportioned and redistributed, and new heirs to that property were provided. A family name or legacy was perpetuated. Love often played but a small role in such arrangements. Still, throughout time, there are many who have created families based on strong emotional ties. Many an arranged marriage blossomed in love, and in recent centuries, the ideal became that the married couple should be man and woman who had chosen each other for reasons of mutual attraction and affection. In traditional American culture marriage was forever, but divorce has now become common. Also, many others now aspire to the dream of marriage and family. Not all of these people fit the traditional mold, though they do - in very real terms - represent the realities and ideals of the traditional family. Gay couples join together because they also believe in love and mutual responsibility. They wish to build lives together and to perpetuate their dreams through children. Many conceive or adopt children - and these arrangements, too, are families. In many cases, single men or women also conceive or adopt children. Conservative elements attack these non-traditional families, but how do they really differ from the long-accepted ones? Love, caring, and sharing - these are the definitions of family. Non-traditional families present these features and more. Non-traditional families are as much an asset to modern day America as any other kind of family arrangement. The non-traditional family epitomizes the old ideals cast in new forms for a new age. The non-traditional family is here to stay.

The non-traditional family differ sin many ways from its traditional counterpart. Notably, the aspect of choice is far greater than in the time-honored forms. While marriage has, in recent times, been largely a voluntary institution, its specific forms have been rather rigidly defined. A man and woman cohabit within the bounds of a legally, and often religiously, recognized framework. They have children. Both ancestors and descendents relate to the nuclear family in a hierarchy of generations. This is frequently not so among non-traditional families. More often than not, the overall family - the support group - is made up of friends and age-mates who possess like preferences and ideals. According to Nardi,

Structurally, friendship circles do not look like families: they certainly do not have the legal, ceremonial, or religious attributes that characterize the family institutions in American society. To say they are like family may serve, then, as a shorthand form of communication.

Still, the bonds of family are fully recognized by those who call themselves families, and also by their support groups, that is, their chosen extended families. These networks of individuals of shared belief form the foundation for non-traditional families that also seek to make themselves like traditional families. In 1970, traditional families constituted 40% of all American households; by 2000 that number was only 24%, the number of individual households actually having increased by 15%.

The change reveals a profound shift in attitudes. Clearly, many more Americans are seeing the wisdom of making their own choices about what defines a family. The more common these families become, the more they seem a regular part of the American social fabric; the more they serve as positive role models for others.

As recently as the 1990s ad the Defense of Marriage Act, the family was largely defined from the outside. Choice - at least on a legal level - was taken away from the non-traditional family. Figures compiled in 1996, do not accurately reflect the number of non-traditional families with children because censuses permitted only the categorization of heterosexual couples as families. By 2000 this had changed - in a sense - through the allowance of a category of "unmarried partners."

The change in categorization involved a recognition that individuals in today's society increasingly define themselves and their relationships. Gay men and women are no longer the unseen and non-existent. They are viable members of a larger society, yet they must still, in many cases, struggle to define their roles within that society. Coming out is along process that involves not only a process of re-definition of the past, but also one setting goals and expectations of the future. Many of these expectations include dreams of family arrangements - children and life-partnerships - that most certainly accord well with traditional ideals of family life. Herdt saw the definition of gayness as a means of defining self and of creating a self-sustaining culture, a "distinctive system of rules, norms, attitudes...and beliefs from which the culture of gay men is made, a culture that sustains the social relations of same-sex desire... [Being] Gay, in his view, can no longer be seen as merely a sexual matter, or a lifestyle, or an enclave."

The new families, like their traditional counterparts, sustain and nourish their members, and help to create a real society with recognized structures and identities.

The idea of norms being created by individuals can appear quite threatening to some. A hallmark of the non-traditional family is the fluidity of its definition. Structures are created in accordance with individual needs rather than by social or legal fiat. These structures mimic age-old aspirations. For those who define family as a married man and woman with children, the counterpart is found in the gay couple, or unmarried heterosexual couple, that chooses to conceive or adopt children. The specific structure may be different but the reality is the same - children are reared in a stable and loving environment. The goals of the family and its reason for being have not changed. The attitudes of those not involved in non-traditional family arrangements toward those who are tend to reflect pre-existing assumptions and cultural expectations. Recent studies show a movement toward greater acceptance of gay adoption, with 53% of women favoring adoption by lesbian couples and 49% by gay couples. For men the figures were 58% against lesbian adoptions and 61% opposed to gay make adoptions. Figures in support were higher among the young and well-educated.

Married men were at the top of the hierarchy in the traditional family. Conservative-minded married men would be the most threatened by changes to the traditional patriarchal order. Perhaps, too, traditional notions of woman as nurturer play a role in the higher level of female support for gay and lesbian adoptions. Women might be socialized to place a greater emphasize on the importance of a child's possessing a loving home, as opposed to a stereotypically acceptable one. Time-honored norms can be less important when it is seen that the real needs behind those norms are still being adequately met.

Again, acceptance of non-traditional families depends to a considerable extent on the viability of these family forms. The well-educated and introspective will tend to look behind the carapace of definitions and see a deeper purpose. There is no need for ossification in a society that is rapidly changing. If other forms can be altered, why not those must fundamental, like the family? In their search for personal fulfillment, and their desire to "give back" to future generations, and to society as a whole, those who constitute non-traditional families make choices about what our society truly values. Non-traditional families give substance to deeply-held ideals. A major stumbling block in the acceptance of the non-traditional family has indeed been the conflation of "morality" with preconception or prejudice. The new, the non-traditional, is automatically rejected by some - even those who have the authority to decide otherwise on questions central to the well-being of those who find themselves involuntarily in non-traditional families, children and other recipients of care. For a large number of judges, politicians, and conservative activists, the ability to have a family is a privilege awarded those who hold to certain outward forms. No recognition is given to the actual values of the family, or to its possible roles in the larger society. As Smith has shown, judges who believe that the gay lifestyle is immoral will tend to have similarly unfavorable attitudes towards gay rights general.

The presumption of immorality leads directly to a belief that non-traditional families are somehow unhealthy, or themselves immoral, or guilty of inculcating immoral or antisocial values. Such presumptions also ignore the family's real role and purpose.

Interestingly, the true nature of family seems most easily understood when special needs are involved. In 2003, Brodzinsky, Patterson, and Vaziri conducted a study of applicants for adoption at various licensed adoption agencies. Some two-thirds of these agencies reported application from potential gay and lesbian parents. Agencies that focused on placing special needs children generally reported more favorable attitudes toward gay and lesbian applicants.

The message appears to be that where care of individuals is given first priority, the actual abilities and nature of individuals are also given primary consideration. In situation where it is difficult to place children i.e. where the children themselves do not meet the "ideal" of what children are supposed to be, the parents also need not meet the societal ideal. The change in preference reflects a genuine understanding of the underlying nature of the family relationship. At their core, families exist to provide a nurturing, supportive, and protective environment for their members. The gay, and other non-traditional applicants, are providing these services as well as more traditionally-defined potential parents. In fact, their very willingness to take on the additional burdens of raising a "non-traditional" child may reveal a yet greater level of caring and persistence. Adoptions of special needs children by non-traditional families reveal the family as an adaptive institution that works toward the greater inclusiveness of society in general.

Such inclusiveness is to be lauded in today's increasingly diverse world. Politicians and activists are continually emphasizing the importance of multiculturalism and diversity. Restrictive and prejudicial laws and regulations do little to enhance understanding and broaden core values. If the real aim of society is to provide a welcoming home for all, why should not the talents of all be utilized toward this end? As Hodge shows, gay people are being represented so frequently in contemporary media that some gay activists fear that gay culture as a distinct entity is actually beginning to disappear.