Family Togetherness and the Suburban IdealAuthor(s): Laura J. MillerSource: Sociological Forum, Vol. 10, No. 3 (Sep., 1995), pp. 393-418Published by: SpringerStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/684782Accessed: 11/01/2010 23:36

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available athttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unlessyou have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and youmay use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained athttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=springer.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printedpage of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Springer is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Sociological Forum.

http://www.jstor.org

Sociological Forum, Vol. 10, No. 3, 1995

Family Togetherness and the Suburban Ideal

Laura J. Miller1

An examination of the history of suburbanization in the United States shows that the suburban ideal has, from its beginnings, been associated with a vision of family togetherness, meaning that husband, wife, and children choose to spend their leisure time with one another. While the migration to the suburbs has been in part fueled by a desire to escape the mix of classes and ethnic groups of urban areas, and by government- and market-shaped economic incentives, the suburban ideal has stressed finding an environment in which family ties can be strengthened. The social and spatial structure of suburbia promotes familial isolation through a lack of public space and through an emphasis on home maintenance and home-centered entertainments. It is argued that by providing such optimal conditions for togetherness, suburbia may actually undermine familial harmony by exacerbating the strain of trying to live up to an essentially unattainable ideal.

KEY WORDS: suburbs; family; public space; isolation.

INTRODUCTION

Americans are well accustomed to hearing the press, policymakers, and advocacy groups issue warnings about the state of the family, voicing concerns that the strength of this institution said to be at the foundation of the nation's moral fiber and social stability is endangered. Those who agree that the contemporary family is buffeted by forces threatening to tear it apart anxiously search for the best environment to shelter and nurture the life inside the home. And so reports sound especially alarmed by the decline of intact families in the suburbs (Patner, 1990) or the increase in suburban domestic homicides (Bates and Duggan, 1992) because suburbia

1Department of Sociology 0102, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, California 92093-0102.

393

0884-8971/95/0900-0393$07.50/0 ? 1995 Plenum Publishing Corporation

has long been thought to be the most promising place for the family to flourish. Indeed, the very rise of the suburbs in the early 19th century was closely connected to a new preoccupation with domesticity, one that arose out of changes in the family that transformed it from a center of economic activity to a unit that emphasized raising children and providing affection to its members. At the same time as the family was being redefined as a source of companionship and emotional sustenance, the suburbs began to be seen as the ideal location for it.

In this paper, I show how the suburban ideal has, from its beginnings, been associated with a particular vision of family life. This vision regards the family not only as a domestic alliance that creates a household to take care of its members' basic needs for food and shelter, but also as a group of people who enjoy one another's company and share leisure pursuits. This is a vision of family togetherness,2 meaning that husband, wife, and children choose to spend the time not claimed by wage labor or school with one another, preferring each other's company to the competing attractions of the outside world.

It is partially in order to realize this image of cozy family life that so

many have turned to suburbia.3 By 1990, 46.2% of the U.S. population was

living in the suburbs. This compared to 31.3% living in central cities, and 22.5% in nonmetropolitan areas (based on United States Bureau of the Census, 1993:1). The move to the suburbs, which originally was a white middle-class phenomenon but now includes a much wider range of the

population, probably always was and still is largely motivated by a desire to escape the mix of classes and racial and ethnic groups that characterize urban areas. This migration has also been fueled by government- and mar-

ket-shaped economic incentives that make suburban property not only af- fordable to large numbers of people, but among the most wise investments individuals can make. However, the meaning of suburban life for its resi-

2The term "togetherness" was not coined until 1954 by the publishers of McCall's magazine (Friedan, 1963/1983:48). Nevertheless, the ideas behind it can still be applied (while acknowledging variations in emphasis and intensity) to an earlier era.

3Social scientists and urban planners have not agreed upon any definition of suburbia, but it is useful to think of it as both a geographic and social environment. The suburb is generally characterized by proximity to a large city (along with a close economic relationship) and low-density housing. Yet as Jackson says, suburbia is also a "state of mind" (1985:4), and so brings with it certain expectations about a family-centered way of life. Part of the problem in defining suburbia is that the prevailing forms of urban space are changing. Some analysts even argue that the suburb has been eclipsed. Instead, they speak of the "technoburb" (Fishman, 1987), "exopolis" (Soja, 1992), or Edge City (Garreau, 1991), neither suburb nor city, but an altogether different kind of decentralized environment containing jobs, services, and housing. While I agree that it is important to recognize the transformation of the traditional city-suburb relationship, I do not think it is necessary to posit an entirely new urban entity. The city-suburb distinction is still a useful one. For an extended discussion of this issue, see the symposium on suburbia in American Quarterly 46(1), March 1994.

394 Miller

Family Togetherness

dents is not purely one of racism or rising property values. The suburban ideal is about finding a homogenous community of like-minded people, about living in a home that provides comfort and diversion, and quite cen- trally, about finding an environment in which family ties can be strength- ened.

This valuation of suburbia for a particular form of family life has thus provided some of the primary ideological underpinnings for the exclusion- ary actions of individuals moving to suburbia, as well as for the various government policies and business strategies that have built suburbia. But the suburban ideal also demonstrates its power through the simple fact that it continues to persist, even when its vision of family togetherness is so difficult to realize.

There is little doubt that, in many ways, the social and spatial struc- ture of suburbia does promote family togetherness. In large part, this is because the geography of suburbia makes it relatively difficult, during non- work hours, to associate with people who are not members of one's house- hold. In most suburbs, there is a decided lack of public spaces-sidewalks, squares, taverns, central shopping districts, etc.-where nonfamily members habitually gather. And as the phrase "suburban sprawl" implies, the suburb is so decentralized that an automobile trip is necessary for most visiting or other tasks that might bring one in contact with others. Equally important, suburbia presents people with comfortable houses that keep their occupants home bound by offering a wide variety of entertainments and by demanding continuous maintenance.

Nevertheless, I want to suggest that the suburban ideal of family to- getherness may, in some fundamental sense, still be highly elusive. By pro- viding such optimal conditions for togetherness, these structural features of suburbia may actually be exacerbating the strain of trying to live up to an ideal that is essentially unattainable. Aries claims that when urban forms of social intercourse declined, the family expanded its role in order to try to fulfill the individual's social needs and leisure time (1977:234-235). But as he and others have argued, this is simply too great a responsibility for the family to bear. Family members, who to a large degree have different experiences and concerns, may not particularly like doing things with one another in isolation. Public spaces can then actually provide the company that makes being with family easier. But suburbanization, by eliminating the spaces in which different age groups and both genders congregate, has done away with the sites for socializing that defuse the claustrophobia of family togetherness.

Since the 1950s, both historians and sociologists have debated the re- lationship between suburbanization and domesticity. But for the most part, even when decrying the isolating tendencies of the suburbs, these scholars

395

rarely make problematic the very ideal of family life contained in the sub- urban dream. On the other hand, those critics who do suggest that the family shoulders too much responsibility for its members' well-being and happiness have rarely looked at how social and geographic environments contribute to this problem.

Because it is an environment formed to a large degree in order to encourage family interaction, suburbia is especially useful for highlighting the meanings and incongruities attached to the notion of togetherness. My intention, therefore, is to look at the connections between suburbia and family togetherness, first, through an examination of the history of the sub- urban ideal, and second, through an analysis of how that ideal fits with the suburb's spatial and segregatory features. In the process, I will challenge two assumptions that have long been central to the family-suburbia con- nection: that public sociability is incompatible with familial sociability, and that family togetherness is identical to family harmony.

THE SUBURBAN IDEAL

Beginning in England in the late 18th century, wealthy, formerly ur- ban families began to establish their primary residences in the countryside on the outskirts of large cities (Fishman, 1987). Similar developments were seen in the United States, in Boston and New York, starting in the second decade of the 19th century (Binford, 1985; Jackson, 1985), and becoming a full-blown movement by midcentury. These suburbs, in which affluent families could live in a restorative, semirural environment while their men commuted to jobs in the city, were a thoroughly novel form of living ar- rangement for people who had long assumed that the most desirable loca- tion was in the heart of the densely packed city. But this alternative to urban life could not have happened until major shifts within the institution of the family had occurred. It was only with the separation of the workplace from the place of residence, and the corresponding separation of men's and women's spheres, that the possibility of removing the home far from a man's place of business became thinkable. Furthermore, it was not until these developments took place that the family could begin to conceive of its most meaningful time together as those hours spent away from work. The ideal of domesticity that glorified intimate family relations and spawned the notion of togetherness did not in itself cause suburbanization. But the two phenomena did start to develop around the same time, and were mutually reinforcing influences upon one another.

The suburban ideal encompasses a view about the morally and physi- cally healthful influences of rural living, and a concomitant view of the city

396 Miller

Family Togetherness

as sinful and providing temptations that can lure individuals away from fa- milial pursuits. Connected to this is a strong desire to escape the "danger- ous" classes and races that are almost unavoidable in city living. Those

participating in suburbanization anticipate a home-centered lifestyle, with

parents and children finding gratification in homemaking as well as both indoor and outdoor activities that involve the whole family.

The American vision of ideal family life in the suburbs has not, of course, remained static over time. Rather, it intensified and grew more

widely accepted since its origins, perhaps reaching its height during the 1950s. Still, this ideal persists today. What has remained consistent over time is a valuation of private life, centered on the family, over all forms of public intercourse.

The Early Suburbs

According to Fishman, the earliest form of the modern suburb was seen in London in the 1790s. He claims that this novel move by a small

group of the bourgeoisie was in large part fueled by a new conception of the middle-class family based on the companionate marriage and emotional

intimacy. The traditional urban household, with its poor separation between

public and private space, and the nearby presence of theaters, public gar- dens, cafes, and street life to entice family members away from home, was not conducive to nurturing domestic intimacy (1987:30, 34). Thus, the mid- dle class looked to create a new environment where families could limit the intrusiveness of urban life.

However, relocating to the suburbs was not the only option available. Fishman points out that this move by the English was essentially anoma- lous; most other European bourgeois found urban solutions. For instance, when the French urbanites developed their notion of domesticity, they carved out a new purely residential district within Paris that allowed for class segregation (1987:109). What was key to the English experience, Fish- man argues, was the tradition of Evangelicalism. The Evangelicals not only were leaders in the new vision of the family, but were especially concerned with the dangers the city posed to family life. They prohibited their fol- lowers from indulging in all urban amusements, and found the constant presence of business associates, apprentices, lodgers, and other nonfamily members disruptive to the intimacy and serenity of the household. Further- more, the Evangelicals encouraged an aversion to the city by stressing the separation of male and female spheres. Women, who in particular needed protection from the evils of the city, were to restrict themselves to the

397

home, giving religious and emotional support to their husbands and chil- dren (1987:36).4

Similar to the English experience, the growing interest in the suburbs by mid-19th century Americans was also accompanied by an emphasis on creating a moral and sheltering home. The various accounts of the early suburban movement show a preoccupation with achieving a particular ideal of family life-one that emphasized the family's ability to offer gratifica- tions previously sought in more public or communal settings. Despite the 19th century stress on male and female difference, the family was seen as a moral unity and the center of its members' existence. The home, not public places, was where good Christian men and women should choose to spend their time and find satisfaction and meaning (Jeffrey, 1972:22).

While not limited to suburban architecture, it is notable that midcen- tury American houses emphasized to a greater extent than ever before the separation of family space from public space. Instead of rooms with mul- tiple purposes that were open to family members and guests alike, the mid- dle-class home now included a hall and formal front parlor where visitors could be greeted, while the family's quarters were unseen upstairs and in the back of the house. The primacy of detached homes, and the use of lawns, which were trademarks of the suburban style (Jackson, 1985:56) also represented ways to separate the home from the rest of the world. This sentiment is summed up by Frederick Law Olmsted, the landscape architect and one of the principle figures in American suburbanization, who wrote, in 1869,

In the present shape of civilization people are not in a healthy way who do not want to make the line between their own families and family belongings and others, a rather sharp-at least a well-defined one. (Fishman, 1987:130)

The suburban ideal was always and explicitly about guarding against the encroachment of nonfamily members.

The move to the suburbs was, therefore, in some ways simply an ex- tension of the retreat from the "world" that the home symbolized. But the "world" was also very much one defined by class and ethnicity. The middle class' visions of a graceful home life were closely wedded to efforts to sepa- rate and distinguish themselves from the riffraff left in the city. The cities

4While Fishman's account of the ideological underpinnings of the early Anglo-American suburban movement is generally quite persuasive, his attempt to grant so much independent weight to the ideology of domesticity is problematic. He asserts that the new kind of middle-class family, centered on emotional ties, was responsible for the separation of the home from the place of work. However, many historians turn this equation around, claiming that the separation of home and workplace led to the new ideology of domesticity (e.g., Hareven, 1986:46; Matthaei, 1982:106). Therefore, suburbanization could not have happened until there was already an acceptance of the split between work and residence.

398 Miller

Family Togetherness

were not only crowded, dirty, noisy, and populated by the poor and immi- grants, but they were also filled with the temptations of saloons, gambling dens, dance halls, and other amusements considered immoral to the proper 19th-century white, middle-class Christian. While the family could try to establish an enclave of morality and repose amid the dangerous city, min- isters and domestic advocates agreed that a rural setting offered the best hope.5 Nature was seen as a source of truth and beauty, as well as encour- aging a quiet, peaceful life. By the latter half of the 19th century, houses themselves had become integrated with nature. Not only did a semirural setting help reach this end, but designers promoted porches, bay windows, and earth colors for the home (Clark, 1986:17, 24).

The residential suburb was thus seen by many as the perfect innova- tion. It encouraged continuous contact with godly nature and sheltered the family from the evils of the city, yet still allowed the family to take advan- tage of urban economic opportunities and the urban amenities available for the home. In several respects, then, the suburban way of life epitomized middle-class Victorian conceptions of domesticity. This lifestyle grew even more popular by the turn of the century as city life became ever more untenable.

From the Turn of the Century to the Postwar Era: The Move from Morality to Fulfillment

Historians of the suburbs agree that the American domestic ideal be- gan to change around the 1870s. Instead of an emphasis on creating the moral home, there was a move toward improving the quality of life (Clark, 1986:104). Included in this change was a relaxing of the separation of male and female spheres, and a greater stress on the notion of family together- ness. In the earlier period, the attention paid to differences between men, women, and children led to some segregation of interests and activities. By

5This interpretation of the suburban movement has been challenged by Marsh (1988, 1989, 1990), who claims that the suburban ideal and the ideology of domesticity in the United States were not originally part of the same belief system. She suggests that in the mid-19th century, the suburban ideal taking shape was male defined, stressing the connections between living in a rural setting, property ownership, and the preservation of democracy. Marsh claims that the city, in contrast, was thought to present the best opportunities for a female-centered domesticity. However, while it is true that many middle-class women hoped to extend their influence to the sinful city (see Stansell, 1987), this does not mean that they regarded the city as offering the best environment to realize their domestic vision. Furthermore, Marsh understates the mid-19th century importance of domesticity for men. Men who ventured forth every day into the harsh world needed a moral home to return to that would redeem and soothe them. Still, Marsh raises interesting questions about the divergent interests of men and women regarding the move to the suburbs, and this is a topic that deserves further research.

399

the turn of the century, husband, wife, and child were redefined as sharing more interests, particularly recreational ones.

During this period, there also began to be a flood of periodical arti- cles, stories, and books that advocated the good life in the suburbs (Stilgoe, 1988:168). As before, publicists were portraying the suburbs as the best locale for a family-centered lifestyle, but the features they chose to fore-

ground had changed somewhat. Along with a continued preoccupation with

independence from outside interference, the suburban ideal now empha- sized recreation and affectionate family relationships (Clark, 1986:99). This was joined to a heightened interest in consumerism, nurtured by a growing advertising industry, which raised new opportunities for familial expression (Braden, 1992:146; Clark, 1986:140; Spigel, 1992:19).

Changes in domestic architecture again highlighted the new ideals. The first major modification in floor plans in nearly 150 years occurred in the 1890s as entrance halls and front and back parlors were eliminated in favor of a multipurpose living room (Clark, 1986:132). That single room was not only practical in terms of the smaller houses being built, but it demonstrated a greater willingness to expose family life to the view of

guests. Furthermore, the centrality of the living room signaled the family's intent to spend more time in one another's company. Even larger homes did away with the extra rooms that had previously been the designated retreats of husband, wife, or children (Fishman, 1987:150).

The stress on family togetherness perhaps came across best in new ideas about appropriate recreation. While reading aloud, playing games, and

talking were central home activities, there was a surge in enthusiasm for the outdoor amusements that suburban living made so accessible. Lawns were

put to use for croquet and archery, and the scenic suburban landscapes be- came settings for roller skating and bicycling by the whole family. Suburbs also created golf and tennis clubs, as well as other types of cultural and social clubs that involved both husbands and wives (Marsh, 1988:178-179).

Even though the image of life in the suburbs had switched from one of moral redemption to opportunities for fulfillment in the context of family life, a fear of the immoral city continued to be a primary concern. Such fears were often put in terms of how difficult it was for the urban family to thrive. For instance, Marsh reports that at a 1909 American Sociological Association meeting, "a number of the participants warned explicitly that

city life and family togetherness had become contradictory" (1988:178). While these expressions reflected concerns about urban-inspired competi- tiveness and individualism, the preoccupations of middle-class residents still focused on urban diversity. These families not only continued to worry about European immigrants, but also about the migration of Southern blacks into Northern cities (Jackson, 1985:150).

400 Miller

Family Togetherness

Those families hoping to leave the city were aided by the railroads, which had opened up large tracts of land that speculators and developers seized on for their suburbanization potential. Even more people were able to consider this lifestyle by the 1920s, when an enormous amount of sub- urban construction took place, spurred by the rising wages of potential homeowners and the impact of the automobile (Jackson, 1985:175). How- ever, the suburban boom was interrupted by the Depression and World War II. During this period, new construction came to an almost total halt.

After the end of the war, pent-up demand for housing, combined with government policies regarding home construction, mortgages, and highway building, led to a flood of families moving to the suburbs. The suburban ideal became the hope of unprecedented numbers of Americans as the pos- sibility of owning a home became available to even working-class families. Furthermore, beliefs about domesticity, family togetherness, and life in the suburbs became more tightly intertwined than ever before. As May states,

The legendary family of the 1950s, complete with appliances, station wagon, backyard barbecues, and tricycles scattered on the sidewalks, represented . . . the first wholehearted effort to create a home that would fulfill virtually all its members' personal needs through an energized and expressive personal life. (1988:11)

Several themes of previous generations were repeated in exaggerated form. This included the valuation of the home over public spaces, the desire to incorporate the outdoors into one's lifestyle, an enthusiasm for consumer- ism, and perhaps most prominently, a vision of the family engaged in rec- reational activities and generally having fun together.

Once again, shifting styles in architecture provide a good measure of the direction in which the ideal had gone. The belief in the soothing effects of contemplating nature was reinforced by the ranch house's single story, and its use of picture windows, sliding glass doors, and patios that brought nature right into the living space (Clark, 1989:178). The division between public and private space in general remained strong, buttressed by the om- nipresent lawn.6 And the dominance of the kitchen and family room dem- onstrated the concern with togetherness. This becomes most apparent when contrasted to the Victorian home, which had a multiplicity of rooms (with doors that could shut others out), each with a well-defined role, and usually the domain of a particular family member (Clark, 1986:40). A century later, the number of rooms had diminished, the walls between kitchen and family room were lowered, and these two spaces were transformed into multipur- pose rooms, appropriate for playing, socializing, eating, and housework. With this arrangement, not only could mother watch her kids as she

6Riesman (1958:398) likens the front yard to the "parlor," and the backyard to the "family room."

401

worked, but children had greater rights to more areas of the house-the most important spaces belonged to all (Clark, 1989:179-180).

The Ideal Persists

The heightened rhetoric of family togetherness, as well as the domes- tic optimism of the 1950s, have certainly died down as people have become more aware of the breakups and pathologies that strike so many families. But while "togetherness" as a term has perhaps been discredited, there is still a strong sense that the sentiment behind it is a noble goal, and that suburbia offers the best chance to reclaim the spirit of togetherness. Sub- urban living is thought to hold the possibility of shielding children from urban drugs and urban-inspired nihilism, and of reminding adults that do- mestic "values" are the ones that really matter the most to them.

Although little research has been done on the contemporary suburban ideal, there are indications that older themes persist. Clearly, the suburban

lifestyle continues to figure prominently in people's aspirations. A 1992 sur- vey conducted for the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) found that 80% of Americans identified the "traditional single-family de- tached home with a yard as the ideal place to live," and four-fifths said "they would rather own a home some distance from work than rent within easy commuting distance" (New York Times, 1992). Scholars have found that people settling in the suburbs are more likely to be families with chil- dren and those who express child-centered concerns, such as the desire for

large yards, good schools, and safe environments (England, 1993; Varady, 1990). These studies show a definite orientation to family life when making the decision to go suburban.

Further evidence for how this ideal has persisted and evolved can be seen in the appeals made to prospective suburban home buyers. An analysis of real estate advertisements between 1960 and 1990 shows a continuing preoccupation with the access to nature and recreational opportunities of- fered by suburbia, as well as hints about the unwholesome environment of the city.7 Boasting of houses that provide comfort and privacy, such adver-

71 analyzed the weekly real estate section of the San Diego Union for every second Sunday in May between 1960 and 1990. These years saw tremendous development in the San Diego region, especially in the outlying areas to the north and east. Of course, as a prototypical sunbelt metropolis, San Diego is often characterized as being all suburb with no city center. But such a characterization overlooks patterns of development that have placed most newer residential neighborhoods away from commercial and industrial areas, away from older, more densely populated, and more heterogenous neighborhoods, and often beyond the city limits. As I will show, these ads make quite explicit a division between "in town" where the jobs and most services are, and outlying suburbs where people live and play.

402 Miller

Family Togetherness

tisements stress the physical and mental distance between home and the

public realm. And these ads are clearly speaking to families-even as the

demographics of the suburbs change to include more households without children.

Certainly the features most touted in these advertisements (the ma-

jority of which are promoting homes in "master-planned communities") are the houses' luxury and affordability. But along with this, the use of pictures and text conjure up a fuller image of life in the suburbs-one that is in- tended to resonate with the desires of readers. While in some years it is much more pronounced than in others, the image of these suburbs as being the ideal locations for families is one that endures: "Dorado. A community of family values," announces the headline of one ad (San Diego Union, May 14, 1989:F18). These family-friendly developments are often counter- poised to a menacing and troubled world that lies just down the freeway. Another ad begins, "More and more thinking-ahead families are forsaking concrete jungles for the friendly slopes of Vallecitos" (San Diego Union, May 14, 1972:F14). In contrast to the advertisements for houses and con- dominiums "in town," which stress the convenience of being near shopping, cultural facilities, and the absence of a commute to work, ads for suburban areas present these sites as domestic refuges, even as they play down the commute suburban living necessitates. "What kind of person would want to drive an extra half hour a day?," asks a headline:

Only one kind! The kind who feels that the quality of family life is more important than sheer quantity. And the kind who feels that an extra half hour on the highway is a small price to pay for the privacy and safety of a private community, crystal clear skies, over 300 days of sunshine, and the assurance of an uncrowded future for you and your children. (San Diego Union, May 9, 1976:F7)

These ads tell the reader what a relief it would be to escape the "hus- tle and bustle," "noise," and "push and shove" of the city. But not only do cities apparently offer too much excitement, they also offer unpre- dictable and unwelcome neighbors. These two themes come together in the stress on privacy in these ads. On the one hand, privacy appears to be a code word signaling the suburb's distance from urban crime and other bad elements. "Country private. Country safe" (San Diego Union, May 9, 1982:F26). "A village-like atmosphere. . . . The ultimate in security and seclusion" (San Diego Union, May 9, 1976:F3). Privacy also extends to the now common practice of restricting neighborhood facilities to residents, thus assuring that encounters with different kinds of people are minimized. "Designed for family fun!. . . Starlight's delightful park is NOT public! It belongs to the 116 lucky families that buy a home here. It's YOURS! YOU own it!" (San Diego Union, May 9, 1965:F14). On the other hand, privacy is valued for its own sake. These ads assume that one of the best-selling

403

points of the suburbs is that they offer families the opportunity to be left alone. "Our best feature is that nobody can find us up here," proclaims one ad (San Diego Union, May 11, 1981:F10). The separation between home and the outside world is firmly in place.

Related to this is a ubiquitous emphasis on country living and the healthful effects of residing amid tranquil nature. Oddly enough, the term "suburb" is rarely used in these ads. Rather, they attempt to transform what are, after all, massive real estate developments into an image of open sky, fresh air, and undisturbed nature. Indeed, these "open spaces" are very often "landscaped," belying their supposedly natural settings. Nevertheless, the notion of living in the country, with its "genuine family atmosphere where nature sets the pace" (San Diego Union, May 14, 1989:F16), remains.

One of the advertised benefits of living in "the country" is the en- hanced recreational opportunities available there. As one ad with the head- line "City Close, Country Quiet" puts it, "EastLake is a place where family values are still treasured. Where a neighbor is a friend. Where recreation abounds-swimming, sailing, fishing, biking, jogging, tennis . . . it's all here" (San Diego Union, May 11, 1986:F17). Family values are thus asso- ciated with, and appear to be bolstered by caring neighbors and outdoor activities. In fact, so prominent are listings of available leisure facilities that the image of suburban life presented in these ads is one of carefree and healthy fun for families who apparently have little more to do than swim, hike, and golf together.

Togetherness is therefore an implied virtue of moving to these devel- opments. However, these ads are not stressing an unrelieved togetherness. Rather, they convey the message that family members can have it all-both the room to pursue their own individual activities (in solitude, not with other people), and the incentive to join with one another in common pur- suits. "Rancho Bernardo. . . . Room to be together and places to be alone. Time to really get to know your kids" (San Diego Union, May 13, 1973:F13). "Family warmth and tradition begin at Cimarron. . . . There is plenty of space for a variety of interests while still retaining the unity of family in- volvement, in junior's studies, in mom's projects, in dad's work" (San Diego Union, May 11, 1986:F11).

Of course, during this 30-year period, various changes can be seen. For instance, by the end of the 1960s, ads stopped mentioning develop- ments' proximity to churches. In the mid-1970s, gated communities begin to make an appearance. Perhaps most prominently, this period sees the growth of suburban retirement and adults-only communities, as well as con- dominium developments [the latter of which are notoriously difficult to sell to families with children (Daniels, 1976:F1)]. Yet these changes do not di- minish the importance of the family for selling the suburban ideal. In fact,

404 Miller

Family Togetherness

what is striking about these ads is what could be called the gratuitous use of the word "family." This term is frequently sprinkled throughout the ads for suburban developments, so that "family-sized" is a euphemism for "large," features are designed to please "you and your family," and com- munities are not just populated by nice people, but by nice families. The underlying message is clearly that children are welcome and will thrive here. These ads are employing the concept of the family to sell homes, and in the process, they are selling an image of the suburban ideal. The continuing use of these devices by advertisers indicates that the suburban ideal remains firmly connected to notions of domesticity.

MATERIALIZING ISOLATION AND TOGETHERNESS

The suburban ideal does not simply exist in its residents' imaginations. In many ways, suburbia's social space actually concretizes this ideal. While analysts are not in complete agreement, it appears that to a large degree, suburbia isolates families, and consequently promotes togetherness. This happens in two senses: suburban families are isolated from different classes and races, and the individual family is isolated from everyone else. Of course, this is not to say that the suburban family has no outside social life, or that nonwhites cannot be found in the suburbs, or that the middle- class urban family does not also try to achieve some form of familial soli- tude. But there are particular aspects of the suburban environment that make the family's isolation effortless.

Supports for Suburbia

It is important to recognize that both the suburban ideal and the re- ality of suburban life are not simply, or even primarily, creations of the people who move to the suburbs. Other governmental and private groups have been crucial for promoting and realizing the suburban dream. A num- ber of governmental policies, beginning during World War I, encouraged the middle class to buy suburban, single-family dwellings. In recent decades, these have included tax policies that reward new construction over improve- ment of existing buildings, and that allow mortgage interest and property taxes to be deducted from gross income, but that do not provide compa- rable deductions for renters (Jackson, 1985:191). Of vital importance for the postwar suburban boom was the Federal Housing Authority (FHA) and Veterans Administration, which insured mortgage loans and established na- tional standards for construction (1985:204). FHA policies favored the sub-

405

urban pattern as they set unfavorable lending terms for multifamily pro- jects, favored the purchase of new homes over the repair of existing ones, and created a system for rating prospective home buyers, properties, and neighborhoods. The criteria used for rating neighborhoods was especially significant as it led to the "red lining" of older, urban, low-income, and nonwhite areas (1985:206-207). Consequently, urban families saw their property values decline, while those buying homes found loans easier to obtain if they purchased in the suburbs. Equally important for promoting suburban decentralization were the massive, federally sponsored highway building projects, and the simultaneous removal of government support for public transit systems (1985:170).

Jackson points out that "suburbanization was an ideal government policy because it met the needs of both citizens and business interests and because it earned the politicians' votes" (1985:216). While citizens re- sponded enthusiastically to the chance to purchase suburban homes, busi- ness interests were active participants in furthering suburban development. Most obviously, suburbanization benefits land speculators and builders. This is clearly seen with the "transit tycoons" of the late 19th century who built railways and streetcars near their large landholdings, which then be- came prime real estate (1985:20). It is also seen with major developers, like the Levitt family, who perfected the art of mass-produced housing fol- lowing World War II.

But the suburban lifestyle has also been promoted by marketers of consumer goods who, by the 1920s, made the theme of "the American fam- ily at home" paramount in their sales pitches (Ascher, 1987:50). All kinds of consumption opportunities were opened up when the family moved into its own spacious suburban house. In fact, building construction and the pro- duction of automobiles and domestic appliances were so important to the post World War II economic boom that Hodgson speaks of the "suburban- industrial complex" (1978:51).

Suburban Segregation

One well-discussed consequence of these various incentives to go sub- urban has been the ability of people to distance themselves from different classes and races. Of course, as the suburbs come to claim nearly a majority of all Americans, they are also now host to a wider range of people than ever before. No longer merely the outpost of white, middle-class home- owners, suburbia has its measure of low-income families, apartment dwell- ers, singles living alone, gay couples, and people of all races and ethnicities. Yet a comparison of suburban and central city populations shows that in

406 Miller

relative terms, the former is still the home of the privileged. As is common

knowledge, the middle class has left the city in droves. Data from the 1990 census present a mixed picture of racial integra-

tion in the suburbs. The results show that in 1990, the suburbs were 82.4%

non-Hispanic white, down from 86.9% in 1980. Blacks in 1990 made up 6.7% of the suburbs; Hispanics, 7.5%; and Asians and other groups, 3.4%. However, the proportion of whites in the central city declined by an even

greater amount: this figure was 59% in 1990, down from 64.7% in 1980. In 1990, blacks made up 21.4% of the central city population; Hispanics, 14.8%; and Asians and others, 4.8% (Frey, 1992:10).

While these figures may lead one to believe the suburb (if not the

city) is gradually becoming more integrated, one observation by Frey sug- gests otherwise. White flight is not only a phenomenon whereby whites leave the central city for the surrounding suburbs. As nonwhites increase their numbers in the suburbs, whites are actually leaving the suburbs of one metropolitan area for the suburbs of other metropolitan areas that have fewer people of color (1992:12). Other researchers have also found con- tinued racial segregation by suburb, especially for African Americans (Alba and Logan, 1993; Massey and Denton, 1988).8 Thus, it appears that social

homogeneity continues as an important element in the suburban ideal of the white population (and perhaps for other ethnic groups as well).9

What has developed in many places is a hierarchy of suburbs (see Logan, 1978) whereby the most privileged settle in the outlying suburbs, and those with fewer resources remain in the inner circle. This latter popu- lation now watches as their communities develop urban congestion and other urban problems, yet they are without the urban infrastructure to help them cope. The reality of life in these suburbs is becoming ever more distant from the ideal.

The long-standing desire of suburbanites to segregate themselves from the lower classes and people of different ethnicities and races is a mixture of racism, economic calculation, the hope for a community of like-minded people, and the attempt to find an environment good for family life. White suburbanites are keenly aware that both nonwhites and people who do not keep up a general appearance of affluence in the neighborhood lower prop- erty values for all-and by acting on these beliefs, they help perpetuate that reality. The suburbanite also hopes that by bringing together similar

8Suburbs with large numbers of African Americans tend to be older, closer to the central city, more densely populated, and of a lower socioeconomic status than suburbs dominated by whites (summarized in Massey and Denton, 1988:593).

9For a journalist's account of middle-class African Americans developing their own suburbs, see Dent (1992). Alba and Logan, however, are skeptical that voluntarism can fully account for the presence of suburbs that are disproportionately black (1993:1423).

Family Togetherness 407

kinds of people, conflict among neighbors can be reduced, and everyone will feel more comfortable (Bellah et al., 1986:180; Clark, 1986:183). Sub- urbanites are trying to create, in Bellah et al.'s terms, a lifestyle enclave, in which the socially similar, who know one another by their private leisure lives, can forget about those who are both different from them and might make demands on them. In such enclaves, families can leave behind re- sponsibilities of work, politics, and solving social discord. But this entails vigilance and precautions, as the outside world constantly threatens to break in. Perhaps the ultimate attempt to build this kind of enclave is the growing phenomenon of gated communities. These enclaves have gained attention for homeowners' associations that specify everything from what colors residents can paint their houses to whether they can park cars in their driveways. These enclaves are also notable for their guards who check the identities of all who wish to enter. The community thus enforces its standards of behavior and admittance, guaranteeing protection to the fami- lies within.

Such familial protection is key to understanding suburban segregation. Much of the rationale for avoiding the city and all that goes with it has been couched in terms of finding the right place in which to raise children. In the name of protecting the children, efforts, such as the use of armed

gates, are made to prevent seemingly dangerous groups from entering the suburban refuge. Another effective measure to keep suburbs inaccessible has been the refusal by some communities (for instance, in the San Fran- cisco Bay Area) to allow public transportation systems to extend to their borders. The suburb's geography also discourages its members from leaving. When exposure to those who are different is minimized, family members are perhaps less likely to embrace ways of thinking and acting that are alien from the family's own. Instead, suburban families are left to the pri- vacy of their homes.

Private Homes and Public Spaces

The rise of women's participation in the paid labor force means that the majority of women, like their husbands, leave the house each work day to spend time in the public realm. But since so many Americans consider their "real" lives to begin at the time they leave the job, these after-hours take on enhanced importance. For most people, most of those hours are

being spent at home or out with family. Even in the indulgent 1980s, this trend appeared to be increasing. A 1985 Use of Time study found that, compared to 20 years earlier, Americans were spending a greater propor- tion of their social time with immediate family, and less with friends and

408 Miller

Family Togetherness

neighbors (Robinson, 1990:39). Suburban space encourages this pattern in a number of ways.

Undoubtedly, the modem, relatively spacious suburban home is more commodious and inviting than the typically cramped apartment or urban house. While various home improvements have over the years enhanced the comfort level of most dwellings, suburbia has been a leader in this movement. Seemingly simple innovations, such as window screens (intro- duced in the late 1880s), turned the indoors into a much less oppressive place. More recently, the diffusion of air conditioning has left the house generally more comfortable than the outdoors, even in the summertime, so that people are content to stay in (Jackson, 1985:280-281). Furthermore, the house is now outfitted with all sorts of entertainment gadgets that promise to occupy and amuse family members in their leisure hours. These range from the backyard, where the family can barbecue, sunbathe, play ball, or maybe swim together, to the stereo, VCR, and most important, the television.

Suburban homes are not just the sites of leisure though. They are investments, and as such, they require homeowners to maintain, and pref- erably improve, the property. The house thus not only increases the scope of recreation, but it restricts it as well, since large amounts of time must be spent mowing the lawn, gardening, painting, remodeling, etc. This at- tentiveness to property values may help limit social contact, as mowing the lawn keeps the family home on Sundays. But the family stays home for other reasons as well. An orientation to family and home arises in part simply because there is nowhere else to go.

One of the most important features of the suburb is its lack of public space that might bring nonrelated people into frequent contact. Not only do suburbs have relatively few cafes, taverns, central plazas, or similar kinds of spots, but there may even be social incentives not to use those public spaces that are available, such as sidewalks or parks. The consequence is that there are not many regular opportunities for contact between friends or acquaintances.

Among the most important developments in deemphasizing the cen- trality of the local neighborhood was the invention and ever-increasing pri- macy of the automobile. The automobile played a crucial role in helping to destroy public life. This is not only because it allowed residential zones to be situated far from commercial areas, but also because it virtually did away with the sidewalk and street as sites where people would spontane- ously congregate. Children may continue to play on suburban streets, but teenagers and adults no longer find much of interest there.

The automobile takes people off the streets, and it makes the streets dirtier, noisier, and more dangerous for pedestrians. The car's flexibility

409

also increases the options for destinations, allowing people to travel further and to previously inaccessible spots. While the car increases spontaneity, as people can go out whenever they please, without concern for weather or public transportation schedules, it also makes traveling more deliberate as one almost always must have a destination in mind. In contrast, when on foot, and when the neighborhood is the scene, one can wander about looking for friends and entertainment. In cars, people do not meet each other by chance.

Suburbs, most of which were built after the first decade of the 20th century, have generally been designed for the automobile. Consequently, suburbs are characterized by extreme decentralization, with homes sepa- rated from commercial enterprises by large distances. Indeed, services fre- quently must be sought in entirely different towns. But proximity is not the only factor that limits people's use of public space. Social conventions are also important. Obviously there is great variation between suburbs. But in many communities, suburbanites pride themselves on their respect for their neighbors' privacy. For example, in the New York City suburb studied by Baumgartner, people who use streets, parks, or other public places more than usual, especially for socializing, are considered deviant (1988:101-103). Halle also found that many suburbanites would rarely congregate idly on the streets, or even in front of their own homes, viewing such behavior as socially inappropriate (1993:45).

In several different ways, then, the geography of the suburbs interacts with and intensifies a culture of individualism and familism. Aries argues that the cult of privacy, aided by the automobile and the television, has caused suburbanization and the vanishing of social intercourse in the city. As this occurred, he claims, "the whole of social life was absorbed by pri- vate, family living" (1977:233-234). In this conception, the denigration of public space and the bourgeois attraction to privacy and domesticity are mutually reinforcing processes. The modern family, exemplified by the sub- urbanites, manages to achieve profound isolation when away from job and school. The trade-off for this isolation is supposedly greater family togeth- erness.

FAMILY TOGETHERNESS AND FAMILY TENSION

The suburban ideal and the geography of the suburbs have attempted to promote a way of life that builds closer, happier, more stable families. In large part, this is done by encouraging family members to spend their free time with one another, and less time, or at least not as meaningful time, with others. Many analysts have argued that a large portion of Ameri-

410 Miller

Family Togetherness

cans simply prefer the pleasures of familial intimacy, and deliberately choose an environment that will nurture this way of life (see, e.g., Cowan, 1983:149; Gans, 1982). If this desire is taken as a given, then it makes sense to assume that people will tend to seek the suburban lifestyle. But such a proposition needs to be made more problematic. Surely, Americans have shown some preference for privacy. But to maintain that this is a pure ex- pression of internal urges ignores how this preference may be shaped by social forces.

More specifically, the ideal of togetherness deserves closer scrutiny. The family ideal that suburbia embodies contributes to what Lasch calls the "emotional overloading" of the family (1986:534).10 The origins of this kind of family have been outlined by scholars such as Hareven (1986), Laslett (1978), and Ogburn (1962). They show how the premodern family's economic, status-giving, educational, religious, and protective functions were transferred to other institutions. The decline of the household as workplace and social center then led to "an exaggerated emphasis on emo- tional nurture, intimacy, and privacy as the major justification for family relations" (Hareven, 1986:49). But the ties of sentiment, while of great im- portance to family members, do not compare to economic interdependence and preparation for life in the community in their ability to hold people together.

Furthermore, as Hareven and others suggest (e.g., Aries, 1977; Barrett and McIntosh, 1991), the family by itself is not really capable of satisfying all the social needs of the individual. In the isolated family, not only are individuals asking one another to be their primary, if not exclusive com- panions, informal therapists, and providers of affection, but they are also making such demands on the dissimilar-on spouses and children who bring age- and gender-based differences in experiences and interests. Still, the heightened expectations for the family's ability to provide affection and emotional sustenance lead other types of sociability to be defined as sec- ond-rate substitutes. As opportunities for nonfamilial sociability become scarce, the family's responsibility for providing companionship grows even greater. So when the family cannot make good on its promise, all its mem- bers can do is hope to join a new and better familial unit.

There are numerous signs that the American family, even in the sub- urbs, is not having such a great time together, and may be feeling the effects of emotional overload. While the suburban lifestyle is surely not the main cause of family discord, suburbanization, by working so well, may actually

'OHowever, Lasch thinks this only describes the (now defunct) bourgeois family, and is critical of the literature that assumes the contemporary family is marked by privatism and isolation (1979: 141-157).

411

contribute to undermining the goal of familial harmony that has been so much of its raison d'etre.

Signs of Stress

Undoubtedly the suburb helps push people into the home. But there are many indications that what occurs indoors does not exactly match the expectations of family togetherness. To begin with, many observers of the suburbs, as well as the people they study, assume that home-centered lei- sure is equivalent to family leisure. Yet the stress on privacy that places a boundary between family and others also serves to separate family members from each other. For instance, in the suburb studied by Baumgartner, much of the time inside the house was spent alone in private bedrooms. Addi- tionally, in this affluent town where homes were relatively large, there were enough communal rooms so that family members could spread out without having to share space. Corresponding to this, Baumgartner says, family members avoided sharing personal possessions, preferring to accumulate their own clothes, cars, telephone numbers, etc. (1988:61). These individu- als deliberately try to minimize their contact and cooperation.

Furthermore, as both Halle (1984) and Perin (1988) point out (while not making the home/family distinction themselves), much suburban leisure, especially for men, is centered on home-improvement projects. Although this may be oriented toward improving the quality of life for the family (though most probably the primary aim is to improve property values), it does not mean that family members are engaged in the same pursuits. In contrast, women spend a good deal of their time away from paid jobs doing housework. The "technological systems" of the suburban home were cre- ated with the assumption that someone would be on the premises to run them. Appliances such as the washer and dryer, or children who must be chauffeured to various destinations, demand a considerable amount of time. Even as women have entered the paid labor force, they continue to be responsible for the bulk of these tasks (Cowan, 1983:212; Hochschild, 1989; Shelton, 1992). The domestic division of labor thus continues to separate men and women.

But when all the cleaning and fixing up is finished, families still try to relax. Without question, the major chunk of Americans' leisure time is spent watching television. A 1985 study found that TV took up 38% of Americans' free time (Robinson, 1990:39). Watching television together may promote a shared worldview, but it is debatable whether it promotes much interaction. Furthermore, while some of this time is undoubtedly spent in the company of other family members, probably a significant pro-

412 Miller

Family Togetherness

portion is not. Not only do children view when parents are absent, but as the number of television sets per household grows, individual family mem- bers can retreat to separate rooms to watch what they like. Television, the VCR, and now the personal computer may keep the family housebound, but they hardly facilitate meaningful family connections.

In addition to family members going their own ways, the large amount of divorce, domestic violence, child abuse, and talk of "dysfunctional" fami- lies demonstrates that the family often does not resemble a tranquil and supportive haven. Such domestic pathologies are of course not new, and the publicity they receive is as much a product of political circumstances as their actual frequency in the population (see Gordon, 1988). Moreover, these problems do not respect class or geographic boundaries. But their persistence raises questions about whether the family, in its present form and social circumstances, is the most reliable provider of support and com- panionship.

On one level, suburbia may increase familial tension by contributing to the "time squeeze" faced by many Americans. According to Schor, the amount of leisure time available to Americans has been shrinking since the late 1960s. Suburban life may add to this problem in a couple ways. For many workers, once a house has been acquired, overtime or an extra job may be necessary to meet the monthly payments (1991:63). In addition, as people move to ever more distant environs in order to be able to afford a home, commuting time goes up. Schor claims that travel time to and from work has been rising since 1975, adding an average of 23 hours a year (1991:33). As people work longer hours, have fewer days off, or work more than one job, they have less time to divide between the obligations of family togetherness and other possibilities for social contact. Additionally, as Schor suggests, work may leave them too tired to do much else other than watch TV (1991:161).

Suburbia also adds to familial tension in that not all family members benefit equally from suburban living. The differences between responsibility for housework indicates one way in which the man's suburban refuge can become the woman's endless series of rooms to clean. Furthermore, it ap- pears that for teenagers, suburbia can be something of a disaster. While they are less likely than their inner-city counterparts to worry about dodging bullets between home and school, they frequently suffer boredom and frus- tration from a lack of recreational facilities and gathering places (Gaines, 1991; Gans, 1982; Oldenburg, 1989). Suburban adolescents, defiant in their support of ties with peers, and perennially looking for something to do, may provide some of the most glaring evidence that family togetherness is on shaky ground.

413

CONCLUSIONS

The reality of suburban life does not appear to completely match the ideal of suburban family togetherness. Indeed, those structural features of the suburban environment designed to promote togetherness may actually be exacerbating the problems felt by all American families who try to live up to this vision of family life. Therefore, it may be useful to speculate about how public sociability can actually aid familial harmony, for it is not always the case that domestic and nonfamilial sociability need be rivals (see Wellman and Wellman, 1992; Young and Willmott, 1962:104). Public socia- bility may provide the company that makes being with family members eas- ier. This can happen first of all, by reducing the claustrophobia of family togetherness. When it is assumed that some emotional and companionship needs will be met by others, expectations for the family are lowered, and it is less likely to disappoint.

Furthermore, public spaces not only facilitate contact with others, but they also provide sites where different ages and genders can mingle so that people can be with their peers and with their families at the same time. These spaces offer opportunities for the family to share common experi- ences, even though the socializing that occurs there may be with one's peers. For instance, the churches and country clubs that many early sub- urban planners tried to include served this function, as a declining number of regular participants find out now. In a sense, these sites can give the illusion of family togetherness, since parents and children are in one loca- tion but are often involved in separate activities with their own peers. Such possibilities suggest directions for future research.

In the current debates over the state of the family, some may argue that Americans have grown thoroughly cynical and no longer accept the sentiments behind family togetherness. Others maintain that Americans now engage in a multiplicity of family forms, depending on an extended network of related and nonrelated "kin" for social and emotional support (Stacey, 1990:252). But as recent election campaigns show so well, there is enormous support for a modified version of family togetherness. While di- vorce may be an accepted way of life, there remains the sense that the ties that really matter are with one's immediate family of origin and marriage. Bonds between spouses (even if the partner changes midway through life), parents, and children-not neighbors or co-workers-are what people hope to see strengthened (Coontz, 1992). Even with the rise of women's partici- pation in the paid labor force, the home and the affection freely given by family members are still seen as providing refuge from an untrustworthy outside world. The suburb continues to play an important role in this ide- alized image of the family.

414 Miller

Family Togetherness

As I have argued, the suburban ideal of family togetherness has long been buttressed by government policies, commercial interests, and the very architecture of the suburban landscape. The premise behind this ideal is that a physical and mental split between public life and private life, between work and residence, between different classes and races, and between the

family and others provides the best opportunity for personal happiness and fulfillment. The suburbs hold out the possibility of escape from a messy and chaotic social world into pure and tranquil nature-to a place where socioeconomic differences are hidden away, not just in the next neighbor- hood, but often in the next town. In the suburbs where there are fewer distractions for family members who otherwise could be drawn to nonfa- milial influences, and where public spaces are discredited and private houses are glamorized, the conditions for a focus on family interaction are formally established. But in the end, the ideal itself may be unrealizable. Not only are suburbanites excused from learning how to live with those of different classes and races, they are also expected to narrow their social ties to boundaries set by their property lines, and to look to a few people, dissimilar in age and gender, to meet most of their emotional and com- panionship needs. It is questionable whether this impoverishment of other social relationships will result in either social or familial harmony.

For close to two centuries, the suburbs have promised middle-class Americans both economic security and the possibility of splendid isola- tion-from social problems, from threatening populations, and from com- peting influences on the family's affections. The suburbs neither create the ideal of family togetherness nor the isolated family, but they do intensify this pattern by providing both attractive homes and few other convenient opportunities for socializing. However, the suburbs are not entirely working as designed. Outsiders creep in, women abandon the home during the day, and soothing nature disappears when development becomes more profit- able. Furthermore, despite residents' valiant struggles to make a good fam- ily life, dissatisfactions remain. Middle-class suburbanites certainly seem to love their privacy. But that privacy, nurtured at the expense of work rela- tions and public institutions, also subverts their hopes, while giving strength to and hiding the tensions behind the closed doors of their homes.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to thank Sharon Hays, George Lipsitz, and Chandra Mukerji for their suggestions and comments during the development of this paper.

415

Miller

REFERENCES

Alba, Richard D. and John R. Logan 1993 "Minority proximity to whites in sub-

urbs: An individual-level analysis of segregation." American Journal of So- ciology 98:1388-1427.

Aries, Philippe 1977 "The family and the city." Daedalus

106:227-235. Ascher, Carol 1987 "Selling to Ms. Consumer." (1977) In

Donald Lazere (ed.), American Media and Mass Culture: Left Perspectives: 43-52. Berkeley: University of Califor- nia Press.

Barrett, Michele and Mary McIntosh 1991 The Anti-Social Family. Second edi-

tion. London: Verso. Bates, Steve and Paul Duggan 1992 "Domestic violence fuels rise in sub-

urban slayings." Washington Post (January 5): B1, B7.

Baumgartner, M. P. 1988 The Moral Order of a Suburb. New

York: Oxford University Press. Bellah, Robert N., Richard Madsen, William M. Sullivan, Ann Swidler, and Steven M. Tipton 1986 Habits of the Heart: Individualism and

Commitment in American Life. New York: Perennial Library.

Binford, Henry 1985 The First Suburbs: Residential Com-

munities on the Boston Periphery 1815-1860. Chicago: University of Chi- cago Press.

Braden, Donna R. 1992 "'The family that plays together stays

together': Family pastimes and indoor amusements, 1890-1930." In Jessica H. Foy and Thomas J. Schlereth (eds.), American Home Life, 1880-1930: A Social History of Spaces and Services: 145-161. Knoxville: University of Ten- nessee Press.

Clark, Clifford Edward, Jr. 1986 The American Family Home, 1800-

1960. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.

1989 "Ranch-house suburbia: Ideals and re- alities." In Lary May (ed.), Recasting America: Culture and Politics in the

Age of Cold War: 171-191. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Coontz, Stephanie 1992 The Way We Never Were: American

Families and the Nostalgia Trap. New York: Basic Books.

Cowan, Ruth Schwartz 1983 More Work for Mother: The Ironies

of Household Technology from the Open Hearth to the Microwave. New York: Basic Books.

Daniels, Richard M. 1976 "There's life in the condominium yet."

San Diego Union (May 9):F1, F4. Dent, David J. 1992 "The new black suburbs." New York

Times Magazine (June 14): 18-25. England, Kim V. L. 1993 "Changing suburbs, changing women:

Geographic perspectives on suburban women and suburbanization." Fron- tiers 14:24-43.

Fishman, Robert 1987 Bourgeois Utopias: The Rise and Fall

of Suburbia. New York: Basic Books. Frey, William H. 1992 "Minority suburbanization and contin-

ued 'white flight' in U.S. metropolitan areas: Assessing findings from the 1990 census." Paper presented at the 1992 Annual Meeting of the Popula- tion Association of America, Denver, CO (May 2).

Friedan, Betty 1983 The Feminine Mystique. (1963)* New

York: Dell. Gaines, Donna 1991 Teenage Wasteland: Suburbia's Dead

End Kids. New York: Pantheon. Gans, Herbert J. 1982 The Levittowners: Ways of Life and

Politics in a New Suburban Commu- nity. (1967)* New York: Columbia University Press.

Garreau, Joel 1991 Edge City: Life on the New Frontier.

New York: Doubleday. Gordon, Linda 1988 Heroes of Their Own Lives: The Poli-

tics and History of Family Violence,

*Original publication date.

416

Family Togetherness

Boston 1880-1960. New York: Penguin Books.

Halle, David 1984 America's Working Man: Work,

Home, and Politics Among Blue-Col- lar Property Owners. Chicago: Univer- sity of Chicago Press.

1993 Inside Culture: Art and Class in the American Home. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Hareven, Tamara K. 1986 "American families in transition: His-

torical perspectives on change." In Ar- lene S. Skolnick and Jerome H. Skolnick (eds.), Family in Transition: Rethinking Marriage, Sexuality, Child Rearing, and Family Organization: 40- 58. Fifth edition. Boston: Little, Brown and Company.

Hochschild, Arlie, with Anne Machung 1989 The Second Shift: Working Parents

and the Revolution at Home. New York: Viking.

Hodgson, Godfrey 1978 America in Our Time. New York:

Vintage. Jackson, Kenneth T. 1985 Crabgrass Frontier: The Suburbaniza-

tion of the United States. New York: Oxford University Press.

Jeffrey, Kirk 1972 "The family as utopian retreat from

the city: The nineteenth-century con- tribution." In Sallie Teselle (ed.), The Family, Communes and Utopian So- cieties: 21-41. New York: Harper Torchbooks.

Lasch, Christopher 1979 Haven in a Heartless World: The

Family Besieged. New York: Basic Books.

1986 "The family as a haven in a heartless world." (1976) In Arlene S. Skolnick and Jerome H. Skolnick (eds.), Family in Transition: Rethinking Marriage, Sexuality, Child Rearing, and Family Organization: 533-543. Fifth edition. Boston: Little, Brown and Company.

Laslett, Barbara 1978 "Family membership, past and pre-

sent." Social Problems 25:476-490.

Logan, John R. 1978 "Growth, politics, and the stratifica-

tion of places." American Journal of Sociology 84:404-416.

Marsh, Margaret 1988 "Suburban men and masculine domes-

ticity, 1870-1915." American Quarterly 40:165-186.

1989 "From separation to togetherness: The social construction of domestic space in American suburbs, 1840- 1915." Journal of American History 76:506-527.

1990 Suburban Lives. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

Massey, Douglas S., and Nancy A. Denton 1988 "Suburbanization and segregation in

U.S. metropolitan areas." American Journal of Sociology 94:592-626.

Matthaei, Julie A. 1982 An Economic History of Women in

America: Women's Work, the Sexual Division of Labor, and the Develop- ment of Capitalism. New York: Schocken Books.

May, Elaine Tyler 1988 Homeward Bound: American Families

in the Cold War Era. New York: Basic Books.

New York Times 1992 "A house with a picket fence still fits

the American dream." (June 2): A8. Ogburn, William F. 1962 "The changing functions of the fam-

ily." (1938)* In Robert F. Winch, Robert McGinnis, and Herbert R. Barringer (eds.), Selected Studies in Marriage and the Family: 157-163. Re- vised edition. New York: Holt, Rine- hart and Winston.

Oldenburg, Ray 1989 The Great Good Place: Cafes, Coffee

Shops, Community Centers, Beauty Parlors, General Stores, Bars, Hang- outs and How They Get You Through the Day. New York: Paragon House.

Patner, Andrew 1990 "Shifting suburbs." Wall Street Jour-

nal (March 9): R20, R22-R23. Perin, Constance 1988 Belonging in America: Reading Be-

tween the Lines. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.

*Original publication date.

417

Miller

Riesman, David 1958 "The suburban sadness." In William

M. Dobriner (ed.), The Suburban Community: 375-408. New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons.

Robinson, John P. 1990 "The Leisure Pie." American Demo-

graphics 12(11):39. Schor, Juliet B. 1991 The Overworked American: The Un-

expected Decline of Leisure. New York: Basic Books.

Shelton, Beth Anne 1992 Women, Men and Time: Gender Dif-

ferences in Paid Work, Housework and Leisure. New York: Greenwood Press.

Soja, Edward W. 1992 "Inside exopolis: Scenes from Orange

County." In Michael Sorkin (ed.), Variations on a Theme Park: The New American City and the End of Public Space: 94-122. New York: Noonday Press.

Spigel, Lynn 1992 Make Room for TV: Television and

the Family Ideal in Postwar America. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Stacey, Judith 1990 Brave New Families: Stories of Do-

mestic Upheaval in Late Twentieth

Century America. New York: Basic Books.

Stansell, Christine 1987 City of Women: Sex and Class in New

York, 1789-1860. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.

Stilgoe, John R. 1988 Borderland: Origins of the American

Suburb, 1820-1939. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

United States Bureau of the Census 1993 1990 Census of Population: Social and

Economic Characteristics: United States. 1990 CP-2-1 (November). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Varady, David P. 1990 "Influences on the city-suburban

choice: A study of Cincinnati home- buyers." Journal of the American Planning Association 56:22-40.

Wellman, Beverly, and Barry Wellman 1992 "Domestic affairs and network rela-

tions." Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 9:385-409.

Young, Michael, and Peter Willmott 1962 Family and Kinship in East London.

Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.

418