The Changing Family - Pearson · together with my youngest son for several years. ... mom has died and dad is raising the kids. ... such as brother and sister, father and daughter,

The Changing Family1

3

OUTLINEWhat Is a Family?

How Are Families Similar Across Societies?

How Do Families Differ Across Societies?

Family Structure and Social Change

Some Myths About the Family

Family Values: Three Perspectives on the Changing Family

Trends in Changing Families

Why Are Families Changing?

A Cross-Cultural and Global Perspectiveon the Family

TTwo generations ago, the typical American family consisted ofa father, a mother, and three or four children. In contrast, in arecent survey that asked respondents what constitutes a fam-ily, a woman in her 60s wrote the following:

My boyfriend and I have livedtogether with my youngest sonfor several years. However, ourfamily (with whom we spendholidays and special events)also includes my ex-husbandand his wife and child; myboyfriend’s ex-mother-in-lawand her sister; his ex-wife andher boyfriend; my oldest sonwho lives on his own; mymom and stepfather; and mystepbrother and his wife, theirbiological child, adopted child,and “Big Sister” child. Need-less to say, introductions tooutsiders are confusing (Cole,1996: 12, 14).

Clearly, contemporary fam-ily arrangements are more fluidthan they were in the past. Doesthis shift reflect changes in indi-vidual preferences, as peopleoften assume? Or are otherforces at work? As you will seein this chapter, individualchoices have altered some fam-ily structures, but many of thesechanges reflect adaptations tolarger societal transformations.

■ The “traditional” family (in which thehusband is the breadwinner and thewife is a full-time homemaker) has de-clined from 60 percent of all U.S. fami-lies in 1972 to 29 percent in 2007.

■ Almost 19 million American singlesages 30 to 44 have never been mar-ried, representing 31 percent of allpeople in that age group.

■ Today, the median age at first mar-riage is higher than at any time since1890: 27.5 years for men and 25.6years for women.

■ On average, first marriages that endin divorce last about eight years.

■ The percentage of children under age18 living with two married parentsfell from 77 percent in 1980 to 67 per-cent in 2008.

■ Single-parent American householdsincreased from 11 percent of allhouseholds in 1970 to 29 percent in2007.

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2008, Tables 56,580, and 1293; U.S. Census Bureau, CurrentPopulation Survey, 2008, Table MS-2; U.S.Census Bureau Press Releases, 2008. Based on Federal Interagency Forum on Child andFamily Statistics, 2009.

DATA DIGEST

You will also see that despite both historical andrecent evidence to the contrary, we continue to clingto a number of myths about the family. Before weexamine these and other issues, we need to definewhat we mean by family. First, test your knowledgeabout current trends in U.S. families by taking thequiz above.

WHAT IS A FAMILY?It may seem unnecessary to define a familiar termsuch as family, but its meaning differs from one groupof people to another and may change over time. Thedefinitions also have important political and eco-nomic consequences, often determining family mem-bers’ rights and obligations. Under Social Securitylaws, for example, only a worker’s spouse, dependentparents, and children can claim benefits based on theworker’s record. Many employers’ health and dentalbenefits cover a spouse and legal children, but notadults, either heterosexual or homosexual, who areunmarried but have long-term committed relation-

ships, or children bornout of wedlock. And inmost adoptions, a childis not legally a memberof an adopting familyuntil social service agen-

cies and the courts have approved the adoption.Thus, definitions of family affect people’s lives byexpanding or limiting their options.

Some Traditional Definitions of the FamilyThere is no universal definition of the family becausecontemporary household arrangements are complex.Traditionally, family has been defined as a unit madeup of two or more people who are related by blood,marriage, or adoption; live together; form an eco-nomic unit; and bear and raise children. The U.S.Census Bureau defines the family simply as two or

more people livingtogether who are relatedby birth, marriage, oradoption.

Many social scien-tists have challengedsuch traditional defini-

tions because they exclude a number of diversegroups that also consider themselves families. Socialscientists have asked: Are child-free couples families?What about cohabiting couples? Foster parents andtheir charges? Elderly sisters living together? Gay andlesbian couples, with or without children? Grandpar-ents raising grandchildren?

Some Current Definitions of the FamilyFor our purposes, a family is an intimate group oftwo or more people who (1) live together in a com-mitted relationship, (2) care for one another andany children, and (3) share activities and close

4 C H A P T E R 1 The Changing Family

True False� � 1. Teenage out-of-wedlock births have in-

creased dramatically over the past 20 years.

� � 2. Cohabitation (living together) promotes ahappy and lasting marriage.

� � 3. Singles have better sex lives than marriedpeople.

� � 4. The more educated a woman is, the lesslikely she is to marry.

� � 5. People get married because they love eachother.

� � 6. Divorce rates have increased during the pastfew decades.

True False� � 7. Having children increases marital

satisfaction.

� � 8. Married couples have healthier babies thanunmarried couples.

� � 9. Generally, children are better off in stepfami-lies than in single-parent families.

� � 10. Family relationships that span several gener-ations are less common now than they werein the past.

(The answers to these questions are on page 5.)

A S K Y O U R S E L F

How Much Do You Know about Contemporary Family Life?

Since you asked . . .

C Does it really matter howwe define family?


C Are people who live to-gether but don’t havechildren a family?

C H A P T E R 1 The Changing Family 5

All the answers are false.1. Teenage out-of-wedlock births have decreased over the past 20

years, especially in the early 2000s (see Chapters 10 and 11).2. Couples who are living together and plan to marry soon have a

good chance of staying together after a marriage. In most cases,however, “shacking up” decreases the likelihood of marriage (seeChapter 9).

3. Compared with singles, married people have more and bettersex and enjoy it more, both physically and emotionally (seeChapter 7).

4. College-educated women tend to postpone marriage but aremore likely to marry, over a lifetime, than their non–college-educated counterparts (see Chapters 9 and 10).

5. Love is not the major or even the only reason for getting married.Other reasons include societal expectations, economic insecurity,or fear of loneliness (see Chapters 6, 10, 16, and 17).

6. Divorce rates have been dropping since the early 1980s (seeChapter 15).

7. The arrival of a first baby typically pushes mothers and fathersapart. Generally, child rearing lowers marital satisfaction for bothpartners (see Chapters 11, 12, and 16).

8. Social class is a more important factor than marital status in a baby’shealth. Low-income mothers are less likely than high-income moth-ers to have healthy babies, whether or not they are married (seeChapters 11–14).

9. Income levels are usually higher in stepfamilies than in single-parent families, but stepfamilies have their own set of problems,including interpersonal conflicts with new parent figures (seeChapter 16).

10. Family relationships across several generations are more commonand more important now than they were in the past. People livelonger and get to know their kin, aging parents and grandparentsoften provide financial support and child care, and many relativesmaintain ties with one another after a divorce or remarriage (seeChapters 3, 4, 12, 16, and 17).

Answers to How Much Do You Know about Contemporary Family Life?

emotional ties. Some people may disagree with thisdefinition because it doesn’t explicitly include mar-riage, procreation, or child rearing, but it is moreinclusive than traditional views of a wide variety offamily forms.

Definitions of the family may become even morecomplicated—and more controversial—in the future.As reproductive technology advances, a baby mighthave several “parents”: an egg donor, a sperm donor,a woman who carries the baby during a pregnancy,and the couple who intends to raise the child. If that’snot confusing enough, the biological father may bedead for years by the time the child is actually con-ceived because his sperm can be frozen and stored(see Chapter 11).

Our definition of the family could also includefictive kin, nonrelatives who are accepted as part ofthe family because they have strong bonds with bio-logical family members and provide important ser-vices and care. These ties may be stronger and morelasting than those established by blood or marriage(Dilworth-Anderson et al., 1993). James, an AfricanAmerican in his forties and one of my former stu-dents, still fondly recalls Mike, a boarder in his home,who is a good example of fictive kinship:

Mike was an older gentleman who lived with usfrom my childhood to my teenage years. He waslike a grandfather to me. He taught me how toride a bike, took me fishing, and always told mestories. He was very close to me and my familyuntil he died. When the family gets together, westill talk about old Mike because he was just likefamily and we still miss him dearly (Author’sfiles).

Fictive kin have been most common amongAfrican American and Latino communities, but arecent variation involves single mothers—many ofwhom are unmarried college-educated women—whoturn to one another for companionship and help inchild care. For example, they take turns watching oneanother’s kids (including taking them to Saturday-morning gymnastics classes and on short summervacations), help during crises (such as a death in thefamily), and call each other constantly when theyneed advice about anything from a child who istalking late to suggestions on presenting a paper ata professional conference (Bazelon, 2009).

In Hannah Montana, a popular television show, momhas died and dad is raising the kids. The show portraysa nontraditional family, but is it representative of mostAmerican families, especially single-parent households?


C MAKING CONNECTIONS

■ Ask three of your friends to define family. Are their defini-tions the same as yours? Or are they different?

■ According to one of my students, “I don’t view my biologi-cal family as ‘my family’ because my parents were abusiveand didn’t love me.” Should people be able to choosewhomever they want to be as family and exclude theirbiological parents?

HOW ARE FAMILIES SIMILARACROSS SOCIETIES?The institution of the family exists in some form inall societies. Worldwide, families are similar in ful-filling some functions, encouraging marriage, and try-ing to ensure that people select the “right” mate.

Family FunctionsFamilies vary considerably in the United States andglobally but must fulfill at least five important func-

tions to ensure a soci-ety’s survival (Parsonsand Bales, 1955). As youread this section, think

about your own family. How well does it fulfill thesefunctions?

REGULATION OF SEXUAL ACTIVITY Every society hasnorms, or culturally defined rules for behavior,regarding who may engage in sexual relations, withwhom, and under what circumstances. In the UnitedStates, having sexual intercourse with someone underage 18 is a crime, but some societies permit marriagewith girls as young as 8. One of the oldest rules thatregulate sexual behavior is the incest taboo, culturalnorms and laws that forbid sexual intercoursebetween close blood relatives, such as brother andsister, father and daughter, uncle and niece, orgrandparent and grandchild. Sexual relationsbetween close relatives can increase the incidence ofinherited genetic diseases and abnormalities by about3 percent (Bennett et al., 2002). Incest taboos arebased primarily on social conditions, however, andprobably arose to preserve the family, and do so inseveral ways (Ellis, 1963):

■ They minimize jealousy and destructive sexualcompetition that might undermine a family’ssurvival and smooth functioning. If familymembers who are sexual partners lose interestin each other, for example, they may avoidmating.

■ Because incest taboos ensure that mating willtake place outside the family, a wider circle of

people can band together in cooperative efforts(such as hunting), in the face of danger, or in war.

■ By controlling the mother’s sexuality, incesttaboos prevent doubts about the legitimacy ofher offspring and the children’s property rights,titles, or inheritance.

Most social scientists believe that incest taboosare universal, but there have been exceptions. Therulers of the Incan empire, Hawaii, ancient Persia,and the Ptolemaic dynasty in Egypt practiced incest,which was forbidden to commoners. Cleopatra issaid to have been the issue of at least 11 generationsof incest; she in turn married her younger brother.Some anthropologists speculate that wealthy Egypt-ian families practiced sibling marriage to prevent los-ing or fragmenting their land. If a sister married herbrother, the property would remain in the family inthe event of divorce or death (Parker, 1996).

PROCREATION AND SOCIALIZATION Procreation isan essential function of the family because itreplenishes a country’s population. Some marriedcouples choose to remain child free, but most planto raise children. Some go to great lengths to conceivechildren through reproductive technologies (seeChapter 11). Once a couple becomes parents, thefamily embarks on socialization, another criticalfunction.

Through socialization, children acquire language;absorb the accumulated knowledge, attitudes, beliefs,and values of their culture; and learn the social andinterpersonal skills they need if they are to functioneffectively in society. Some socialization is uncon-scious and may be unintentional, such as teachingculturally accepted stereotypical gender traits (seeChapter 5). Much socialization, however, is both con-scious and deliberate, such as carefully selectingpreschoolers’ playmates or raising children in a spe-cific religion.

We are socialized through roles, the obligationsand expectations attached to a particular status orposition in society. Families are important role-teaching agents because they delineate relationshipsbetween mothers and fathers, siblings, parents andchildren, and other relatives and nonfamily members.

Some of the rights and responsibilities associatedwith our roles are not always clear because familystructures shift and change. If you or your parents haveexperienced divorce or remarriage, have some of thenew role expectations been fuzzy or even contradic-tory? For example, children may be torn between loy-alty to a biological parent and to a stepparent if theadults compete for their affection (see Chapter 16).

ECONOMIC SECURITY The family is also animportant economic unit that provides financialsecurity and stability. Families supply food, shelter,clothing, and other material resources that ensure the


C Do we really need families?


family’s physical survival. Especially during theeconomic downturn beginning in 2008, manyfamilies have relied on their kin for loans to pay offcredit debts or rent; help in caring for children whilesearching for a job after being laid off; and a place tolive, such as with parents or grandparents, after ahome foreclosure (see Chapters 13 and 17).

In traditional families, the husband is the bread-winner and the wife does the housework and caresfor the children. Since the 1980s, however, manymothers have been in the labor force. The traditionalfamily, in which Mom stays home to raise the kids,is a luxury that most families today simply can’tafford. Because of high unemployment rates,depressed wages and salaries, and job insecurity,many mothers must work outside the home whetheror not they want to (see Chapters 5 and 13).

EMOTIONAL SUPPORT A fourth function of thefamily is to give its members emotional support.American sociologist Charles Horton Cooley(1864–1929) proposed the concept of primarygroups, those characterized by close, long-lasting,intimate, and face-to-face interaction. The family is acritical primary group because it provides thenurturance, love, and emotional sustenance that itsmembers need to be happy, healthy, and secure. Ourclose friends are usually members of our primarygroups, but they may come and go (especially whenthey move to another state). In contrast, our familyis usually our steadfast and enduring emotionalanchor throughout life.

Sociologists later introduced the concept ofsecondary groups, those characterized by impersonaland short-term relationships in which people worktogether on common tasks or activities. Members ofsecondary groups, such as co-workers, have few

emotional ties to one another, and they typicallyleave the group after attaining a specific goal. Whileyou’re taking this course, for example, you, most ofyour classmates, and your instructor make up a sec-ondary group. You’ve all come together for a quar-ter or a semester to study marriage and the family.Once the course is over, most of you may never seeone another again.

You might discuss your course with people inother secondary groups, such as co-workers. Theywill probably listen politely, but they usually don’treally care how you feel about a class or a professor.Primary groups such as your family and close friends,in contrast, usually sympathize, drive you to class oryour job when your car breaks down, offer to doyour laundry during exams, and console you if youdon’t get that much-deserved “A” in a course or apromotion at work.

I use a simple test to distinguish between my pri-mary and secondary groups: I don’t hesitate to callthe former at 3:00 A.M. to pick me up at the airportbecause I know they’ll be happy (or at least willing)to do so. In contrast, I’d never call someone from asecondary group, such as another faculty memberwith whom I have no emotional ties.

SOCIAL CLASS PLACEMENT A social class is acategory of people who have a similar standing orrank in society based on their wealth, education,power, prestige, and other valued resources. People inthe same social class tend to have similar attitudes,values, and leisure interests. We inherit a socialposition based on our parents’ social class. Familyresources affect children’s ability to pursueopportunities such as higher education, but we canmove up or down the social hierarchy in adulthooddepending on our own motivations, hard work,connections, or even luck by being at the right placeat the right time (see Chapter 12).

Social class affects many aspects of family life.There are class variations in when people marry, howmany children they have, how parents socialize theirchildren, and even how partners and spouses relate toeach other. Middle-class couples are more likely thantheir working-class counterparts to share houseworkand child rearing, for example. And as you’ll see inlater chapters, families on the lower rungs of thesocioeconomic ladder face greater risks than theirmiddle-class counterparts of adolescent nonmaritalchildbearing, dropping out of high school, commit-ting street crimes, neglecting their children, and beingarrested for domestic violence (see Chapters 10, 12,and 13).

MarriageMarriage, a socially approved mating relationshipthat people expect to be stable and enduring, is alsouniversal. Countries vary in their specific norms and

The family provides the love, comfort, and emotionalsupport that children need to develop into happy,healthy, and secure adults.


Some religious groups, such as Orthodox Jews in theUnited States, are endogamous because they requirethat couples marry within their own faith.

laws dictating who can marry whom and at whatage, but marriage everywhere is an important rite ofpassage that marks adulthood and its related respon-sibilities, especially providing for a family. To belegally married in the United States, we must meetspecific requirements, such as a minimum age, whichmay differ from one state to another.

U.S. marriages are legally defined as either cere-monial or nonceremo-nial. A ceremonialmarriage is one in whichthe couple must followprocedures specified bythe state or other juris-

diction, such as buying a license, getting blood tests,and being married by an authorized official.

Some states also recognize common-law marriage,a nonceremonial relationship that people establish.Generally, there are three requirements for a common-law marriage: (1) living together for a significantperiod of time (not defined in any state); (2) present-ing oneself as part of a married couple (typically usingthe same last name, referring to the other as “my hus-band” or “my wife,” and filing a joint tax return); and(3) intending to marry. Common-law marriages arelegal in nine states and the District of Columbia.Another seven states recognize common-law marriageonly under certain conditions, such as those formedbefore a certain date (National Conference of StateLegislatures, 2009).

In both kinds of marriages, the parties must meetminimum age requirements, and they cannot engagein bigamy, marrying a second person while a firstmarriage is still legal. When common-law marriagesbreak up, numerous legal problems can result, suchas a child’s inheritance rights and the father’s respon-sibility to pay child support. Even when common-law marriage is considered legal, ceremonialmarriage usually provides more advantages (such ashealth benefits for spouses and social approval). Inaddition, the rights and benefits of common-law

marriages are usually recognized only in the statethat has legalized them.

Endogamy and ExogamyAll societies have rules, formal or informal, about the“right” marriage partner. Endogamy (sometimescalled homogamy) requires people to marry or havesexual relations within a certain group. These groupsmight include those that are similar in religion (suchas Muslims marrying Muslims), race or ethnicity(such as Latinos marrying Latinos), social class (suchas the rich marrying the rich), or age (such as youngpeople marrying young people). And, in many coun-tries, marrying cousins is not only commonplace butdesirable (see the box “Why Does Cousin MarriageMatter in Iraq?”).

Exogamy (sometimes called heterogamy) requiresmarriage outside the group, such as not marrying one’srelatives or members of the same clan or tribe. In theUnited States, for example, 24 states prohibit marriagebetween first cousins, even though violations are rarelyprosecuted. Even when there are no such laws, cul-tural traditions and practices, as well as social pres-sure, usually govern our choice of sexual and maritalpartners. In those jurisdictions in India in which mostpeople still follow strict caste rules, the government isencouraging exogamy by offering up to a $1,250 cashaward if a male or female marries “down.” This is ahefty sum when the annual income in many areas isless than half that amount (Chu, 2007).

HOW DO FAMILIES DIFFERACROSS SOCIETIES?Despite similarities, there are also considerableworldwide variations in family form. Some includethe structure of the family and where married coupleslive.

Nuclear and Extended FamiliesWestern societies tend to have a nuclear family thatis made up of married parents and their biologicalor adopted children. In much of the world, however,the most common family form is the extended family,which consists of parents and children as well asother kin, such as uncles and aunts, nieces andnephews, cousins, and grandparents.

As the number of single-parent families increasesin industrialized countries, extended families arebecoming more common. By helping out with house-hold tasks and child rearing, extended families makeit easier for a single parent to work outside the home.Because the rates of unmarried people who are livingtogether are high, nuclear families comprise only 23percent of all U.S. families, down from 40 percent in1970 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2008).


C Does living together meanthat someone has acommon-law marriage?


According to some of my students,“It’s disgusting to even think aboutmarrying a cousin.” Why, then, aresuch endogamous marriages preva-lent in parts of the Middle East, Africa,and Asia? For example, half of allmarriages in Iraq, Pakistan, and Nige-ria are between first or secondcousins.

This form of marriage is both legaland even preferred (instead of marry-ing outside of one’s group) in societiesin which families are organizedaround clans with blood relationshipsrather than outsiders. Each clan is a“government in miniature” that pro-vides the services and social aid thatAmericans routinely receive from theirnational, state, and local governments.

The largest and most unified clanshave the greatest amount of powerand resources. These, in turn, motivatepeople not to trust the government,which is often corrupt, but to be at-tached to the proven support of kin,clan, or tribe.

Cousin marriages in Iraq (as inmany other societies) create intenseinternal cohesiveness and loyalty thatstrengthen the clan. If, for example, aman or woman married into anotherclan, he or she would deplete the orig-inal clan’s resources, especially prop-erty, and threaten the clan’s unity. Inaddition, cousins who marry arebound tightly to their clans becausetheir in-laws aren’t strangers but auntsand uncles who know them best and

have a strong interest in supportingthe marriage.

Sources: Based on Bobroff-Hajal, 2006, andMichels, 2008.

C Stop and Think . . .■ What functions do endogamy and

cousin marriages serve in Iraq?

■ “Clan loyalty p strengthened by cen-turies of cousin marriage was al-ways bound to underminePresident Bush’s fantasy of creatinga truly democratic government inIraq. Never again should the UnitedStates blithely invade a countryknowing so little about its societalfabric” (Bobroff-Hajal, 2006: 9). Doyou agree or disagree with thisstatement? Why?

Why Does Cousin Marriage Matter in Iraq?

Cross-Cultural and Multicultural Families

Residence and Authority Families also differ in where they live, how they tracetheir descent, and who has the most power. In apatrilocal residential pattern, newly married coupleslive with the husband’s family. In a matrilocal pat-tern, they live with the wife’s family. In a neolocalpattern, the newly married couple sets up its ownresidence.

Around the world, the most common pattern ispatrilocal. In industrialized societies such as theUnited States, married couples are typically neolocal.Since the early 1990s, however, the tendency foryoung married adults to live with the parents ofeither the wife or husband—or sometimes with thegrandparents of one of the partners—has increased.At least half of all young couples can’t afford amedium-priced house, whereas others have low-income jobs, are supporting children after a divorce,or just enjoy the comforts of a parental nest (seeChapters 10 and 12).

Residence patterns often reflect who has author-ity in the family. In a matriarchy, the oldest females(usually grandmothers and mothers) control cultural,political, and economic resources and, consequently,have power over males. Some American Indian tribeswere matriarchal and in some African countries, theeldest females have considerable authority and influ-ence. For the most part, however, matriarchal soci-eties are rare.

A more widespread pattern is a patriarchy, inwhich the oldest males (grandfathers, fathers, anduncles) control cultural, political, and economicresources and, consequently, have power over females.In some patriarchal societies, like Saudi Arabia,

In China’s Himalayas, the Mosuo may be a matriarchalsociety. For the majority of Mosuo, a family householdconsists of a woman, her children, and the daughters’offspring. In a practice called “walking marriage,”women choose no-strings-attached lovers for a night ora lifetime. An adult male will join a lover for theevening and then return to his mother’s or grand-mother’s house in the morning. Any children resultingfrom these unions belong to the female, and it is sheand her relatives who raise them (Barnes, 2006).


women have few rights within the family and noneoutside the family, including not being able to vote,drive, work outside the home, or attend college. Inother patriarchal societies, like Qatar, women can voteand run for a political office, but need permissionfrom a husband or male relative to get a driver’slicense (see Chapter 5).

In egalitarian family structures, both partnersshare power and authority about equally. ManyAmericans think they have egalitarian families, butour families tend to be patriarchal. Employedwomen, especially, often complain that their hus-bands don’t always consult them before makingimportant decisions such as when to buy a home ornew car (see Chapter 10).

Monogamy and Polygamy In monogamy, one person is married exclusively toanother person. When divorce and remarriage ratesare high, as in the United States, people engage in

serial monogamy. That is,they marry several peo-ple, but one at a time—they marry, divorce,remarry, redivorce, andso on.

Polygamy, in which a man or woman has two ormore spouses, is subdivided into polygyny—one manmarried to two or more women—and polyandry—one woman with two or more husbands. Nearly1,000 cultures around the world allow some form ofpolygamy, either officially or unofficially (Epstein,2008). There are no known cases of polyandry today,but the practice might have existed in societies inwhich property was difficult to accumulate. Becausethere was a limited amount of available land, the kin-ship group was more likely to survive in harsh envi-ronments if there was more than one husband toprovide food (Cassidy and Lee, 1989).

The Todas, a small pastoral tribe that flourishedin southern India until the late nineteenth century,illustrate polyandry. A Toda woman who married oneman became the wife of his brothers—includingbrothers born after the marriage—and they all livedin the same household. When one of the brothers waswith the wife, “he placed his cloak and staff outsidethe hut as a warning to the rest not to disturb him”(Queen et al., 1985: 19). Marital privileges rotatedamong the brothers; there was no evidence of sexualjealousy; and one of the brothers, usually the oldest,was the legal father of the first two or three children.Another brother could become the legal father ofchildren born later.

In contrast to polyandry, polygyny is common inmany societies, especially in Africa, South America,and the Mideast. In Saudi Arabia, for example, Osamabin Laden, who orchestrated the 9/11 terrorist

attacks, has 4 wives and 10 children. His father had11 wives and 54 children. No one knows the rate ofpolygamy worldwide, but some observers believe thatpolygyny may be increasing (Nakashima, 2003;Greenberg, 2006; Coll, 2008).

Western and other industrialized societies forbidpolygamy, but there are pockets of isolated polygy-nous groups in the United States, Canada, and Europe.The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mor-mons) banned polygamy in 1890 and excommunicatesmembers who follow such beliefs. Still, an estimated300,000 families in Texas,Arizona, Utah, and Canadaare headed by males of the Fundamentalist Church ofJesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (FLDS), a polyga-mous sect that broke off from the mainstream Mor-mon church more than a century ago. These dissidentleaders maintain that they practice polygamy accord-ing to nineteenth-century Mormon religious beliefs.The leaders perform secret marriage ceremonies andmarry girls—as young as 11—to older men (who aresometimes in their 50s and 60s) at the first sign ofmenstruation (Divoky, 2002; Madigan, 2003).

In 2008, state troopers raided an isolated 1,700-acre ranch near Eldorado, Texas, that housed mem-bers of the FLDS. State officials believed that theFLDS forced girls younger than 16 into sex and mar-riage with older men, and, in some cases, into multi-ple marriages—both illegal in Texas. The state wonthe right to remove more than 400 children from thecompound to protect them from abuse, but the TexasSupreme Court ordered Child Protective Services toreturn the children from foster care to their parents,ruling that child welfare officials had not proven thatthe children were in any immediate danger.

Wives who have escaped from these plural familiesreport forced marriage, sexual abuse, child rape, andincest. Why don’t these girls refuse to marry or try to

Law enforcement officers escort FLDS children—some ofthem mothers under age 18—to a temporary housingfacility in San Angelo, Texas, after allegations of younggirls’ being sexually abused and forced into marriage.


C Is serial monogamy amodern version ofpolygamy?


escape? They can’t. Among other things, they’re typi-cally isolated from outsiders: They live in remote ruralareas and their education is cut off when they’re about10 years old. Their parents support the marriagesbecause elderly men, the patriarchs, have convincedthem that “This is what the heavenly father wants”(Egan, 2005; Jones, 2009). Sexual abusers are rarelyprosecuted and, even then, receive remarkable leniency.A father who was convicted of regularly molesting hisfive daughters spent only 13 days in jail. The presid-ing judge said that the abuse was really just “a little bitof breast touching” (Kelly and Cohn, 2006).

Some church elders have banished hundreds ofteenage boys—some as young as 13—to reduce thecompetition for young wives. Gideon, 17, is one ofthese boys. He is one of 71 children born to his 73-year-old father, who has eight wives. Because mostof the boys don’t attend school past the eighthgrade, they have few skills to fend for themselvesafter being expelled from the community (Kelly,2005; Knickerbocker, 2006).

Some African and Middle Eastern families thatimmigrate to other countries continue to live inpolygamous families but often run into problems.The French government, which declared polygamyillegal in 1993, estimates that there are about 20,000polygamous families within the nation’s borders.Because they are not legal residents and are not enti-tled to any form of social welfare such as public hous-ing, the families end up living in crowded andimpoverished conditions. Also, “tensions arise withFrench neighbors who tend to be flabbergasted whenconfronted with families consisting of a husband, twoor more wives, and as many as 20 children” (Renout,2005: 17). Whether the families immigrate to Europeor the United States, wives are reluctant to reportdomestic violence because they fear deportation orbeing branded a bad woman by family members intheir native country (Bernstein, 2007; Wilkinson,2008; Kelly, 2009).

Why is polygyny widespread in some countries?A study of marriage patterns in South Africa con-cluded that there is often a shortage of men (usuallybecause of war), that poor women would rathermarry a rich polygamist than a poor monogamist,that wives often pool incomes and engage in cooper-ative child care, and that rural wives often contacturban wives when they’re looking for jobs. Thus,polygyny is functional because it meets manywomen’s needs (Anderson, 2002).

FAMILY STRUCTURE AND SOCIAL CHANGEMost people are born into a biological family, orfamily of origin. If a person is adopted or raised inthis family, it is her or his family of orientation. By

leaving this family to marry or cohabit, the individ-ual becomes part of a family of procreation, the fam-ily a person forms by marrying and/or having oradopting children. This term is somewhat dated,however, because in several types of households—such as child-free or gay and lesbian families—procreation isn’t a key function.

Each type of family is part of a larger kinship sys-tem, a network of people who are related by blood,marriage, or adoption. In much of the developingworld, which contains most of the earth’s popula-tion, the most common family form is the extendedfamily.

For nearly a century, the nation’s family structureremained remarkably stable. Between 1880 and1970, about 85 percent of all children lived in two-parent households. Then, in the next three decades,the numbers of divorces and single-parent familiesskyrocketed. By 2007, almost one in four childrenwas living in a mother-only home (see Figure 1.1).

Some people are concerned that the nuclear fam-ily has dwindled. Many social scientists contend,however, that viewingthe nuclear family as theonly normal or naturaltype of family ignoresmany other householdforms. One researcher, for example, identified 23types of family structures, some of which include onlyfriends or group-home members (Wu, 1996). Familystructures have varied not only across cultures anderas but also within any particular culture or histor-ical period (see Chapter 3).

Neither parent

Father only

Mother only

Two parents

2007

4%

1990

22%

3%

1970

11%

3%

1940

8%

5%

1910

7%

5%

1880

8%

83% 85% 85% 85%73%

3% 3% 3% 3% 3%1%6%

23%

71%

FIGURE 1.1 Where American Children Live: SelectedYears, 1880–2007

Sources: Based on Fields, 2001, Figure 7; and U.S. Census Bureau, 2008,Table 68.


C Are TV depictions of fam-ily structure realistic?


As reflected in many television shows, diversefamily structures are more acceptable today thanever before. At the same time, some of the most pop-ular programs are rarely representative of real fam-ilies. For example, in Hannah Montana and Twoand a Half Men, a single dad is doing most of thechild rearing; in iCarly, an older brother is takingcare of his sister; and in True Jackson VP, the par-ents apparently don’t exist or aren’t very importantin the girl’s life. In reality, most American childrenlive with both parents or only with the mother (seeFigure 1.1 on p. 11).

Clearly, there is much diversity in family arrange-ments both in the United States and around theworld. As families change, however, we sometimesget bogged down by idealized images of what a“good” family looks like. Our unrealistic expecta-tions can result in dissatisfaction and anger. Insteadof enjoying our families as they are, we may waste alot of time and energy searching for family relation-ships that exist only in fairy tales and TV sitcoms.

Myths Can Be DysfunctionalMyths are dysfunctional when they have negative(though often unintended) consequences that disrupta family. The myth of the perfect family can make usmiserable. We may feel that there is something wrongwith us if we don’t live up to some idealized image.Instead of accepting our current families, we mightpressure our children tobecome what we wantthem to be or spend alifetime waiting for ourparents or in-laws toaccept us. We may also become very critical of fam-ily members or withdraw emotionally because theydon’t fit into a mythical mold.

Myths can also divert our attention from wide-spread social problems that lead to family crises. Ifpeople blame themselves for the gap they perceivebetween image and reality, they may not recognizethe external forces, such as social policies, that createdifficulties on the individual level. For example, if webelieve that only bad, sick, or maladjusted peoplebeat their children, we will search for solutions at theindividual level, such as counseling, support groups,and therapy. As you’ll see in later chapters, however,and as millions of Americans have experienced since2008, numerous family crises come from large-scaleproblems such as racism, greedy corporate executivesin financial industries, economic downturns, andunemployment.

Myths Can Be FunctionalNot all myths are harmful. Some are functionalbecause they bring people together and promotesocial solidarity (Guest, 1988). If myths give us hopethat we can have a good marriage and family life, forexample, we won’t give up at the first sign of prob-lems. In this sense, myths can help us maintain emo-tional balance during crises.

Myths can also free us from guilt or shame. Forinstance, “We fell out of love” is a more face-savingexplanation for getting a divorce than “I made a stu-pid mistake” or “I married an alcoholic.”

The same myth can be both functional and dys-functional. Belief in the decline of the family has beenfunctional in generating social policies (such as child-support legislation) that try to keep children ofdivorced families from sinking into poverty. But thissame myth is dysfunctional if people become unreal-istically preoccupied with finding self-fulfillment andhappiness.

Myths about the PastWe often hear that in the good old days there werefewer problems, people were happier, and familieswere stronger. Because of the widespread influence of


You may not even remember some of the television showsthat came and went in the 1990s. Some, such as Married . . .with Children, Mad about You, Home Improvement, Frasier,and The Bill Cosby Show, are now syndicated. Others, such asLife with Derek, Two and a Half Men, and The New Adventuresof Old Christine, offer a wide variety of family forms.

■ How many of the TV programs—in the past or now—arerepresentative of most U.S. families? Or of your own family?

■ Do past and current shows shape our ideas about what ourfamilies should be like?


C Do myths affect me andmy family?

SOME MYTHS ABOUT THE FAMILYAsk yourself the following questions:

■ Were families happier in the past than they arenow?

■ Is marrying and having children the naturalthing to do?

■ Are good families self-sufficient, whereas badfamilies rely on public assistance?

■ Is the family a bastion of love and support?■ Should all of us strive to be as perfect as possi-

ble in our families?

If you answered “yes” to any of these questions,you—like most Americans—believe some of themyths about marriage and the family. Most of thesemyths are dysfunctional, but some can be functional.


movies and television, many of us cherish romanticnotions of life in earlier times. These highly unrealis-tic images of the family were presented in televisionshows such as Father Knows Best and Leave It toBeaver in the 1950s and early 1960s; The PartridgeFamily and The Brady Bunch during the 1970s; andthe strong, poor, but loving rural family presented intelevision shows such as The Waltons and LittleHouse on the Prairie in the 1970s and Dr. Quinn,Medicine Woman in the late 1990s. More recently,popular television shows such as 7th Heaven and Lifewith Derek are probably appealing because they haveresurrected images of the family in the good old dayswhen its members solve all of their problems quicklyand live happily ever after.

Many historians maintain that such golden daysnever existed. We idealize them only because weknow so little about the past. Even in the 1800s,many families experienced out-of-wedlock births ordesertion by a parent (Demos, 1986; Coontz, 1992).

Family life in the good old days was filled withdeprivation, loneliness, and dangers, as the “Diary ofa Pioneer Daughter” box illustrates. Families workedvery hard and often were crushed by accidents, ill-ness, and disease. Until the mid-1940s, a muchshorter life expectancy meant that parental deathoften led to the placement of children in extendedfamilies, foster care, or orphanages. Thus, the chancesof not growing up in a nuclear family were greater inthe past than they are now (Walsh, 1993).

People who have the nostalgia bug aren’t awareof several facts. For example, teenage pregnancyrates were higher in the 1950s than they are today,even though a higher proportion of teen motherswere married (many because of “shotgun mar-riages”). Until the 1970s, few people ever talked or

wrote about child abuse,incest, domestic violence, mar-ital unhappiness, sexualharassment, or gay bashing.Many families lived in silentmisery and quiet desperationbecause these issues werelargely invisible. In addition,parents spend more time withtheir children today than theydid in the good old days (seeChapter 12).

Myths about What Is NaturalMany people have strong opin-ions about what is natural orunnatural in families. Remain-ing single is more acceptabletoday than it was in the past,but there is still a lingering sus-

picion that there’s something wrong with a personwho never marries (see Chapter 9). And we some-times have misgivings about child-free marriages orother committed relationships. We often hear, forinstance, that “It’s only natural to want to get mar-ried and have children” or that “Gays are violatinghuman nature.” Other beliefs, also surviving fromso-called simpler times, claim that family life is nat-ural and that women are natural mothers (seeChapter 5).

The problem with such thinking is that if moth-erhood is natural, why do many women choose notto have children? If homosexuality is unnatural, howdo we explain its existence since time immemorial? Ifgetting married and creating a family are natural,why do millions of men abandon their children orrefuse to marry their pregnant partners?

Myths about the Self-Sufficient FamilyAmong our most cherished values are individualachievement, self-reliance, and self-sufficiency. Thenumerous best-selling self-help books on topics suchas parenting, successfully combining work and mar-riage, and having great sex also reflect our belief thatwe should improve ourselves, that we can pull our-selves up by our bootstraps.

We have many choices in our personal lives, butfew families—past or present—have been entirely self-sufficient. Most of us need some kind of help at onetime or another. Because of unemployment, homeforeclosures, economic downturns, and recessions,the poverty rate has increased by 40 percent since1970, and many of the working poor are two-parent

Like these Nebraska homesteaders, many families in the so-called good old dayslived in dugouts like this one, made from sod cut from the prairie.


families (see Chapter 13). From time to time, thesefamilies need assistance to survive.

The middle class isn’t self-sufficient, either. In the1950s and 1960s, for example, many middle-classfamilies were able to prosper not because of familysavings or individual enterprise but as a result of fed-eral housing loans, education payments, and publiclyfinanced roads linking homes in the suburbs to jobsin the cities (Coontz, 1992).

Currently, all people age 65 and older, whetherpoor or rich, are eligible for Medicare, and the govern-ment provides numerous tax cuts for middle-incomeand affluent families (see Chapters 13 and 17). Evenif you’re in the middle class, you or other familymembers have probably collected unemploymentpayments after being laid off from a job. In addition,state-based merit scholarships are more likely to sub-sidize the college costs of students from rich familiesthan those of students from poor and minority fam-ilies (Fischer, 2008).

The Myth of the Family as a Loving RefugeOne sociologist has described the family as a “havenin a heartless world” (Lasch, 1977: 8). That is, one ofthe major functions of the family is to provide love,nurturance, and emotional support.The home can alsobe one of the most physically and psychologically bru-tal settings in society. An alarming number of childrensuffer from physical and sexual abuse by family mem-bers, and the violence rates between married andcohabiting partners are high (see Chapter 14).

Many parents experience stress while balancingthe demands of work and family responsibilities. Inaddition, the U.S. unemployment rate surged from 4percent in 2006 to almost 10 percent in mid-2009and is expected to increase to about 12 percent in2010 (see Chapter 13). If 1 in 10 Americans is unem-ployed, the anxiety underlying that unemployed per-son’s ability to provide for his or her family is bound

Many scholars point out that frontier lifewas anything but romantic. Malaria andcholera were widespread. Because oftheir darkness, humidity, and warmth, aswell as the gaping windows and doors,pioneers’ cabins were ideal environmentsfor mosquitoes. Women and childrenhave been described as doing householdtasks with “their hands and arms flailingthe air” against hordes of attacking mos-quitoes (Faragher, 1986: 90).

Historian Joanna Stratton examinedthe letters, diaries, and other documentsof pioneer women living on the Kansasprairie between 1854 and 1890. The fol-lowing selection is from the diary of a 15-year-old girl:

A man by the name of Johnson hadfiled on a claim just west of us and hadbuilt a sod house. He and his wife livedthere 2 years, when he went to Salina tosecure work. He was gone 2 or 3 monthsand wrote home once or twice, but hiswife grew very homesick for her folks inthe east and would come over to ourhouse to visit Mother.

Mother tried to cheer her up, but shecontinued to worry until she got bedfast

with the fever. At night she was fright-ened because the wolves would scratchon the door, on the sod, and on the win-dows, so my mother and I started to situp nights with her. I would bring myrevolver and ammunition and ax andsome good-sized clubs.

The odor from the sick womanseemed to attract the wolves, and theygrew bolder and bolder. I would stepout, fire off the revolver, and theywould settle back for a while whenthey would start a new attack.

Finally the woman died and motherlaid her out. Father took some wideboards that we had in our loft andmade a coffin for her. Mother made apillow and trimmed it with black cloth,and we also painted the coffin black.

After that the wolves were more deter-mined than ever to get in. One got hishead in between the door casing, and ashe was trying to wriggle through, motherstruck him in the head with an ax andkilled him. I shot one coming through thewindow. After that they quieted down forabout half an hour, when they came backagain. Their howling was awful. We foughtthese wolves five nights in succession. . . .

When Mr. Johnson arrived home andfound his wife dead and his house badlytorn down by wolves he fainted away.After the funeral he sold out and movedaway (Stratton, 1981: 81).

Rebecca Bryan Boone, wife of thelegendary pioneer Daniel Boone, en-dured months and sometimes even yearsof solitude when Boone hunted in thewoods or went on trading trips. Besidesdoing household chores, she choppedwood, cultivated the fields, harvested thecrops, and hunted for small game in thewoods near her cabin. Although Rebeccawas a strong and resourceful woman, shetold a traveling preacher that she felt“frequent distress and fear in her heart”(Peavy and Smith, 1994: xi).

C Stop and Think . . .■ Do historical descriptions of pioneer

life differ from those that we’veseen on television shows such asThe Waltons and Little House on thePrairie?

■ If we had time machines, would youwant to be transported to the goodold days of pioneers?

Diary of a Pioneer DaughterCo

nstr

aint

s


to negatively affect the family’s dynamics and todecrease the feeling that the family is a loving refuge.

Also, family members are often unrealistic aboutthe daily strains they encounter. For example, if peo-ple expect family interactions to always be cheery andpleasant, the level of tension may surge even whenroutine problems arise. And especially for familieswith health or economic problems, the home may beloving, but it’s hardly a haven in a heartless world.

Myths about the Perfect Marriage,the Perfect FamilyHere’s how one woman described the clash betweenmarital expectations and reality:

Marriage is not what I had assumed it would be.One premarital assumption after another hascrashed down on my head. . . . Marriage is like tak-ing an airplane to Florida for a relaxing vacation inJanuary, and when you get off the plane you findyou’re in the Swiss Alps. There is cold and snowinstead of swimming and sunshine. Well, after youbuy winter clothes and learn how to ski and learnhow to talk a new foreign language, I guess you canhave just as good a vacation in the Swiss Alps as youcan in Florida. But I can tell you . . . it’s one hell of asurprise when you get off that marital airplane andfind that everything is far different from what onehad assumed (Lederer and Jackson, 1968: 39).

This observation was made in 1968, but it’s stillvery relevant today (see Chapter 10). Even if part-ners live together and believe that theyknow each other well, many may findthemselves in the Swiss Alps instead ofFlorida after tying the knot. Numerousmarriages dissolve because the partnerscling to myths about conjugal life. Afterthe perfect wedding, the perfect couplemust be everything to each other: goodproviders, fantastic sexual partners, bestfriends, sympathetic confidantes, stimu-lating companions, and spiritual soulmates (Rubin, 1985). Are such expecta-tions realistic?

Myths about the perfect family are justas pervasive as those about the perfect mar-riage. According to historian John Gillis(1996, 2004), we all have two families: onethat we live with (the way families reallyare) and another that we live by (the waywe would like families to be). Gillis main-tains that people have been imagining andreimagining the family since at least the lateMiddle Ages because the families we areborn and marry into seldom satisfy mostpeople’s need for a sense of continuity,belonging, unity, and rootedness.

FAMILY VALUES: THREEPERSPECTIVES ON THE CHANGING FAMILYWe began this chapter by defining the family, exam-ined how families are similar and different, and thenconsidered some of the current myths about family life.Let’s now look at the major theme of this chapter—how the American family is changing.

Several national surveys show that we place ahigh value on family. For example,

■ Americans rank their family as the most impor-tant aspect of life, above health, work, money,and even religion (see Figure 1.2).

■ Among high school seniors, 82 percent of girlsand 70 percent of boys say that having a goodmarriage and family life is “extremely impor-tant” (“The State of Our Unions,” 2007).


■ Do media images of the family affect your perceptions?When you watch some TV shows, for example, do you feeldisappointed in your own family? Or better than them?

■ Do you believe any (or all) of the myths about marriageand the family that you have just read? If so, are these be-liefs functional or dysfunctional in your life? How?

Very important

Extremely important

Fam

ily

Hea

lth

Wor

k

Frie

nds

Mon

ey

Relig

ion

Leis

ure

time

Hob

bies

Com

mun

ityac

tiviti

es

96%

47%

49%

90%

46%

44%

73%

52%

21%

70%

46% 40% 38%

44%

35%

26%27% 27%

15% 11%6%

24%

67% 65%

59%

46%

32%

FIGURE 1.2 How Important Is Family Life?

Note: Results of Gallup Poll conducted December 5–8, 2002.Source: David W. Moore, 2003, Gallup Poll Analysis.


■ Almost 77 percent of first-year college students(both women and men) say that raising a familyis “very important” in their lives (Chronicle ofHigher Education, 2008).

■ Nine in 10 millennial teens (those born after1982) say that they trust and feel close to theirparents and describe themselves as happy, con-fident, and positive (Howe et al., 2000).

Despite such upbeat findings, many Americansworry that the family is falling apart. Some journal-ists and scholars refer to the “vanishing” family,“trou-bled” marriages, and “appalling” divorce statistics assure signs that the family is disintegrating. Others con-tend that such hand-wringing is unwarranted.

Who’s right? There are three schools of thought.One group contends that the family is deteriorating; asecond group argues that the family is changing butnot deteriorating; and a third, smaller group maintainsthat the family is stronger than ever (see Benokraitis,2000, for a discussion of these perspectives).

The Family Is DeterioratingMore than 100 years ago, the Boston QuarterlyReview issued a dire warning: “The family, in its oldsense, is disappearing from our land, and not only areour institutions threatened, but the very existence ofour society is endangered” (cited in Rosen, 1982: 299).In the late 1920s, E. R. Groves (1928), a well-knownsocial scientist, warned that marriages were in a stateof “extreme collapse.” Some of his explanations for

what he called the “mar-riage crisis” and highdivorce rates have a sur-prisingly modern ring:self-indulgence, a con-cern for oneself ratherthan others, financialstrain, and incompatiblepersonalities.

Even some of those who were optimistic a decadeago have become more pessimistic because of recentdata on family changes. Some of these data includehigh rates of divorce and children born out of wed-lock, millions of latchkey children, an increase in thenumber of people deciding not to get married,unprecedented numbers of single-parent families, anda decline of parental authority in the home (seeChapters 5, 12, and 13).

Why have these changes occurred? Those whobelieve that the family is in trouble echo Groves, cit-ing reasons such as individual irresponsibility, minimalcommitment to the family, and just plain selfishness.Many conservative politicians and influential acade-mics argue that the family is deteriorating becausemost people put their own needs above family duties.This school of thought claims that many adults areunwilling to invest their psychological and financial

resources in their children or that they give up on theirmarriages too quickly when they encounter problems(Popenoe, 1996; Wilson, 2002).

Adherents of the family decline school of thoughtpoint out that marriage should exist for the sake ofchildren and not just adults. Simply telling childrenwe love them is not enough. Instead of wasting ourmoney on a divorce industry that includes lawyers,therapists, and expert witnesses, the argument goes,we should be investing in children by maintaining astable marriage (Whitehead, 1996).

Many of those who endorse the “family is dete-riorating” perspective contend that numerous long-term trends have weakened marriage and family life.For example, fewer adults are married, more aredivorced or remaining single, more are living out-side of marriage or alone, and more children areborn out of wedlock and live with a single parent(Popenoe, 2007).

Others maintain that if women spent more timefinding husbands who are good providers, they could“devote their talents and education and energy tothe rearing of their children, the nurturing of familyrelationships, and the building of community andneighborhood” (Gallagher, 1996: 184). The impli-cation is that the deteriorating family could beshored up if fathers were breadwinners and motherswere homemakers.

Many of those who believe that the family isdeteriorating are communitarians, people who arepolitically more moderate than conservatives onsome family issues. For example, they accept the ideathat many mothers have to work outside the homefor economic reasons. Communitarians claim, how-ever, that because many adults focus almost exclu-sively on personal gratification, traditional familyfunctions such as the care and socialization of youngchildren have become a low priority (Glenn,1996).They contend that there has been a generalincrease in a sense of entitlement (what peoplebelieve they should receive from others) and adecline in a sense of duty (what people believe theyshould give to others).

The Family Is Changing, Not DeterioratingOthers argue that the changes we are experiencingare extensions of long-standing family patterns. Forexample, more women have entered the labor forcesince 1970, but the mother who works outside thehome is not a new phenomenon. Mothers sold dairyproducts and woven goods during colonial times,took in boarders around the turn of the twentiethcentury, and held industrial jobs during World War II(see Chapter 3).

Many analysts also contend that family prob-lems such as desertion, out-of-wedlock birth, and


C Most of the families weknow seem to be lovingand close knit. So why domany people think thatthe family is in trouble?


child abuse have always existed. Family literaturepublished in the 1930s, for example, included issuessuch as divorce, desertion, and family crises result-ing from discord, delinquency, and depression(Broderick, 1988).

Similarly, there have always been single-parentfamilies. The percentage of single-parent householdshas doubled in the past three decades, but that per-centage tripled between 1900 and 1950. Divorce,also, is not a recent phenomenon because it becamemore common in the eighteenth century. Amongother changes at that time, parents had less controlover their adult married children because there waslittle land or other property to inherit and theimportance of romantic love increased (Cott, 1976;Stannard, 1979).

There is no question, however, that a greater pro-portion of people divorce today than they did sev-eral generations ago. As a result, the decision of manysingles to postpone marriage until they are older, aremore mature, and have stable careers may be a soundone (see Chapters 9 and 15).

Families are changing but are also remarkablyresilient, despite numerous adversities. They copewith everyday stresses and protect their most vulner-able members: the young, old, ill, or disabled. Theyovercome financial hardships. They handle everydayconflict and tension as children make a bumpy tran-sition to adolescence and then to early adulthood(Conger and Conger, 2002; Patterson, 2002).

Those who hold that the family is changing, notdeteriorating, point out that most poor families havestable and loving relationships despite constant

worries and harsh economicenvironments. And many gayand lesbian families, despiterejection by much of main-stream society, are resilient andresourceful in developing suc-cessful family relationships(Oswald, 2002; Seccombe,2002).

Many researchers main-tain that there is little empir-ical evidence that familychange is synonymous withfamily decline. Instead, datasupport both perspectives—the belief that the family is introuble as well as the notionthat most families are resilientdespite ongoing changes ingender roles, divorce rates,and alternatives to marriagesuch as living together(Amato, 2004).

The Family Is Stronger than EverDo our nostalgic myths about the past misinterpretthe contemporary family as weak and on the decline?Yes, according to a third school of thought. Thesesocial scientists assert that family life is much moreloving today than it was in the past. Consider thetreatment of women and children in colonial days:If they disobeyed strict male authority, they wereoften severely punished. And, in contrast to some ofour sentimental notions about the good old days,only a small number of white, middle-class familiesenjoyed a life that was both gentle and genteel:

For every nineteenth-century middle-class familythat protected its wife and child within the familycircle . . . there was an Irish or a German girlscrubbing floors in that middle-class home, a Welshboy mining coal to keep the home-baked goodieswarm, a black girl doing the family laundry, a blackmother and child picking cotton to be made intoclothes for the family, and a Jewish or an Italiandaughter in a sweatshop making “ladies” dresses orartificial flowers for the family to purchase(Coontz, 1992: 11–12).

Some social scientists argue that despite myriadproblems, families are happier today than in the pastbecause of the increase in multigenerational relation-ships. Many people have grandparents, feel closer tothem, and often receive both emotional and economicsupport from these family members. The recentgrowth of the older segment of the population hasproduced four-generation families. More adults intheir 60s may be stressed out because they are caringfor 80- to 100-year-old parents. On the other hand,

Some cities and towns have refused to give unmarried partners, such as the onespictured here, a “permit of occupancy” because they and their children are not afamily. City officials say that the laws prevent overcrowding. Others argue that suchlaws are legislating morality by defining the family as a married, heterosexual cou-ple and their children.


more children and grandchildren grow up knowingand enjoying their older relatives (see Chapter 17).

Some claim that families are stronger now than inthe past because family members have more equitableroles at home and are more accepting of diverse fam-ily forms (such as single-parent homes, unmarriedpeople who live together, and same-sex couples). Andmost Americans still believe that marriage is a life-time commitment that should end only under extremecircumstances, such as domestic violence (Thorntonand Young-DeMarco, 2001; see, also, Chapter 15).

Despite a sharp increase in the number of two-income families, mothers and fathers spend moretime interacting with their children today than theydid in 1965, at the height of the male-breadwinner/female-homemaker family. Single mothers have lesstime to spend with their families than do marriedmothers, but they, too, have significantly increasedtheir time with children. Even childless and unmar-ried individuals are doing immense amounts offamily work, with one in four American workersspending seven hours or more each week caring foran aging parent (Coontz, 2007). Thus, some main-tain, most American families may be stronger andmore satisfying today than in the past.

Each of the three schools of thought provides evi-dence for its position. Which perspective, then, canwe believe? Is the family weak, or is it strong? Theanswer depends largely on how we define, measure,and interpret family weakness and strengths, issueswe address in Chapter 2. For better or worse, thefamily has never been static and continues to change.

have declined. Since the end of the eighteenth cen-tury, most American women have been bearing fewerchildren, having them closer together, and finishingchild rearing at an earlier age. Second, the averageage of the population has risen from 17 in the mid-1800s to nearly 37 in 2007. Both of these shifts meanthat a large proportion of Americans now experi-ences the empty-nest syndrome—the departure ofgrown children from the home—at an earlier age, aswell as earlier grandparenthood and prolonged wid-owhood. In addition, as Americans live longer, manyadults must care for both children and elderly parents(see Chapters 11, 12, and 17).

We see other changes in the composition of house-holds as well: large numbers of cohabiting couples,higher divorce rates, and more one-parent familiesand working mothers (see Figure 1.3). We’ll look atthese changes briefly now and examine them moreclosely in later chapters.

CHANGES IN FAMILY AND NONFAMILY HOUSEHOLDSThe U.S. Census Bureau divides households intotwo categories: family and nonfamily. A familyhousehold consists of two or more people livingtogether who are related through marriage, birth, oradoption. Nonfamily households include peoplewho live alone or with nonrelatives (roommates,boarders, or cohabiting couples). In 2007, 32 percentof all households were nonfamily households, asubstantial increase from 19 percent in 1970 (Fields,2004; U.S. Census Bureau, 2008).

The number of married-couple households withchildren under age 18 declined from 40 percent in1970 to 23 percent in 2007 (see Figure 1.3a). Thepercentage of children under age 18 living in one-parent families more than doubled during this sameperiod (see Data Digest). Part of the increase in one-parent families has resulted from the surge of birthsto unmarried women (see Figure 1.3b).

SINGLES AND COHABITING COUPLES Singles makeup one of the fastest-growing groups for threereasons. First, many young adults are postponingmarriage. Second, and at the other end of the agecontinuum, because people live longer, they are morelikely than in the past to outlive a partner. Third,older women who are divorced or widowed remarryat much lower rates than do older men, whichincreases the number of singles in their later years(see Chapters 16 and 17). Also, singles are now morelikely than in the past to live alone (see Figure 1.3c)because they have the income to do so and enjoy theirprivacy (see Chapters 9 and 17).

The percentage of cohabiting couples has alsoclimbed since 1970. This number will probably growbecause there is greater societal acceptance of unmar-ried couples living together (see Chapters 8 and 9).


■ Which of the three perspectives on the family is closest toyour own views? Why?

■ Some of my students refuse to believe that many parentsspend more time with their children than did earlier gen-erations. Others agree with the studies because they be-lieve that today’s parents spend more quality time withtheir children. What do you think?

TRENDS IN CHANGING FAMILIESThe family is changing, but how? And why? Demo-graphic transitions, shifts in the racial and ethniccomposition of families, and economic transforma-tions all play a role in these changes.

Demographic ChangesTwo demographic changes have had especially far-reaching effects on family life. First, U.S. birthrates


MARRIAGE—DIVORCE—REMARRIAGE The numberof divorced people rose between 1970 and 2007 (seeFigure 1.3d). Divorce rates have decreased since2000, but almost one out of every two firstmarriages is expected to end in divorce. Teenmarriages and marriages entered into because thewoman became pregnant are especially likely tounravel (see Chapter 15).

Stepfamilies are also becoming much more com-mon. About 12 percent of Americans are currentlyin their second, third, or fourth marriage. One ofthree Americans is now a stepparent, a stepchild, astepsibling, or some other member of a stepfamily.We’ll examine marriage, divorce, and remarriage inChapters 10, 15, and 16.

ONE-PARENT FAMILIES As more adults remainsingle into their 30s and because divorce rates arehigh, the number of children living with one parenthas increased (see Data Digest). The proportion ofchildren living with a never-married parent rose

from 4 percent in 1960 to 42 percent in 2000(Hobbs and Stoops, 2002). And, of all one-parenthouseholds, 81 percent are mother-child families(U.S. Census Bureau, 2008). We’ll look at one-parent households more closely in several laterchapters.

EMPLOYED MOTHERS The high participation ofmothers in the labor force since the 1980s has beenone of the most striking changes in Americanfamilies. The percentage of two-earner marriedcouples with children under age 18 rose from 31percent in 1976 to 66 percent in 2007 (U.S. CensusBureau, 2002, 2008).

In addition, six out of every ten married womenwith children under age 6 are in the labor force (seeFigure 1.3e). This means that many couples are nowcoping with domestic and employment responsibili-ties while raising young children. We’ll examine thecharacteristics and constraints of working mothersand two-earner couples in Chapter 13.

…fewer intact familiesP

erce

nt o

f Mar

ried

Co

up

les

wit

h C

hild

ren

un

der

Age

18

…more births to unmarried women

Per

cen

t of B

irth

s to

Un

mar

ried

Wo

men

…more people live alone

Per

cen

t of A

ll H

ou

seh

old

sW

her

e P

eop

le L

ive

Alo

ne

0

20

40

60

1970 2007

(a)

40%

23%

* Data for 1970 are for people 15 and older; data for 2007 are for people 18 and older.

…more people are divorced

Per

cen

t of U

nm

arri

edA

mer

ican

s W

ho

are

Div

orc

ed*

0

20

40

60

1970 2007

(d)

8%

25%

…more older people

Per

cen

t of P

eop

leA

ge 6

5 a

nd

Old

er

0

20

40

60

1970 2008

(f)

9%13%

…more employed mothers of young children

Per

cen

t of M

arri

ed W

om

en

wit

h C

hild

ren

un

der

Age

6in

the

Lab

or

Forc

e

0

20

40

60

1970 2007

(e)

30%

62%

0

20

40

60

1970 2007

(b)

11%

40%

0

20

40

60

1970 2008

(c)

17%

28%

FIGURE 1.3 Some Changes in American Families since 1970

Sources: Based on data in Fields, 2004; Purcell and Whitman, 2006; Federal Interagency Forum on Child and Family Statistics, 2009; Kinsellaand He, 2009; U.S. Census Bureau News, “Unmarried and Single…,” 2009; U.S. Census Bureau, 2008, Tables 10, 55, 58, 62, 84, 578, and 580.


OLDER PEOPLE Americans are living longer thanever before. The 4 percent increase of people age 65and older since 1970 may seem small (see Figure1.3f), but this population rose from 19 million to 37million between 1970 and 2008. This means thatmany children will enjoy having grandparents wellinto their own adulthood, but our aging populationis also placing significant strains on family caregivingfor the elderly (see Chapter 17).

Racial and Ethnic DiversityWhat do you call a person who speaks threelanguages? Multilingual.

What do you call a person who speaks twolanguages? Bilingual.

What do you call a person who speaks onelanguage? American.

As this joke suggests, many people stereotype (andridicule) the United States as a single-language and asingle-culture society. In reality, it’s the most multicul-tural country in the world: Diversity is booming, eth-nic groups speak many languages, and foreign-bornfamilies live in all the states.

ETHNIC FAMILIES ARE BOOMING The nation’sforeign-born, 37.5 million people, account for almost13 percent of the total U.S. population, up from 8percent in 1990. America’s multicultural umbrellaincludes about 150 distinct ethnic or racial groupsamong more than 305 million inhabitants. By 2025,only 58 percent of the U.S. population will be white—down from 86 percent in 1950 (see Figure 1.4). By2050—just a few generations away—whites maymake up only half of the total population because

Latino and Asian populations are expected to triplein size (U.S. Census Bureau, 2008).

Because of huge immigration waves, one in five peo-ple are either foreign born or first-generation U.S. res-idents. Chinese, Filipinos, and Japanese people still rankas the largest Asian American groups. Since 1990, how-ever, Southeast Asians, Indians, Koreans, Pakistanis,and Bangladeshis have registered much faster growth.Mexicans, Puerto Ricans, and Cubans are the largestgroups among Latinos, but people from Central andSouth American countries—such as El Salvador,Guatemala, Colombia, and Honduras—have beenimmigrating in very high numbers.

ETHNIC FAMILIES SPEAK MANY LANGUAGESDespite the earlier joke about Americans speakingonly one language, approximately 336 languages arespoken in the United States. About 20 percent—almost 56 million people—speak a language otherthan English at home. The largest group, 13 percent,speaks Spanish. Next are those whose primarylanguage at home is Chinese, Vietnamese, Tagalog,French, or German (each is less than 1 percent). Otherlanguages include Italian, Greek, Hebrew, Arabic,Russian, Navajo, Korean, Japanese, and Hindi (Shinand Bruno, 2003; U.S. Census Bureau, 2008).

In the largest cities of some states—especially thosein California and Texas—the percentages of peoplewho don’t speak English are higher than those who dospeak English (U.S. Census Bureau, 2008). With theadvent of globalization—the process of integrating eco-nomic, political, and cultural systems worldwide—being bilingual or multilingual is an asset in travelingabroad or conducting business. On the other hand, asyou’ll see in Chapter 4, not knowing a country’s nativelanguage, such as English, can block many immigrants’educational achievement and ability to find a good job.

1950 2000 2025

White86%

AfricanAmerican

10%

Latino3%

Asian Americanand other

1%

White69%

African American

13%

Latino13%


5%

White58%

African American

13%

Latino21%


8%

FIGURE 1.4 Racial and Ethnic Composition of the U.S. Population, 1950–2025

Source: Based on U.S. Census and Population Division, U.S. Census Bureau, August 14, 2008,www.census.gov/population/www/projections/tablesandcharts.html (accessed September 9, 2008).


WHERE ETHNIC FAMILIES LIVE Except for someareas of the Midwest, ethnic families live in all partsof the country but tend to cluster in certain regions(see Figure 1.5). Such clustering usually reflectsemployment opportunities and established immigrantcommunities that can help newcomers find housingand jobs. In some cases, however, past federalgovernment policies have encouraged somecommunities to accept refugees from Southeast Asia,forced many American Indians to live onreservations, and implemented a variety ofexclusionary immigration laws that limited certainAsian groups to specific geographic areas (see, forexample, Kivisto and Ng, 2004).

WHY ARE FAMILIES CHANGING? It’s clear that families are changing. These changesreflect both the choices people make (such as decid-ing to marry later or to divorce) and the constraints

that limit those choices (such as economic problemsor caring for elderly parents).

To understand people’s choices, social scientistsoften rely on a micro-level perspective, focusing onindividuals’ social interactions in specific settings.To understand the constraints that limit people’soptions, they use a macro-level perspective, focusingon large-scale patterns that characterize society as awhole. Both perspectives, and the ways in which theyare interrelated, are crucial in understanding thefamily.

Micro-Level Influences on the FamilyConsider the following scenario: Two students meetin college, fall in love, marry after graduation, findwell-paying jobs, and live the good life, feasting onlobster, driving a Corvette, and the like. Then theyhave an unplanned child. The wife quits her job to

Excludes White, not Latino.

100 Miles0

100 Miles0

100 Miles0

Minority group withhighest percent ofcounty population

Latino

African American

American Indian andAlaska Native

Asian American

Native Hawaiian and other Pacific Islander Two or more races,not Latino

FIGURE 1.5 Ethnic Diversity in the United StatesLook at where minority groups live. Do you see any patterns?

Source: Brewer and Suchen, 2001, http://www.census.gov/population/cen2000/atlas/censr01-1.pdf (accessedFebruary 26, 2003).


take care of the baby, the husband loses his job, andthe wife goes to work part time. She has difficultybalancing her multiple roles of mother, wife, andemployee. The stress and arguments between thepartners increase, and the marriage ends.

When I ask my students what went wrong, mostof them take a micro viewpoint and criticize the cou-ple: “They should have saved some money.” “Theydidn’t need a Corvette.” “Haven’t they heard aboutcontraceptives?” and so on. Almost all of the studentsblame the divorce on the two people involvedbecause they were unrealistic or immature or madebad decisions.

There’s much to be said for micro-level explana-tions. As you’ll see throughout this book, some ofthe biggest societal changes affecting families beganwith the efforts of one person who took a stand onan issue. For example, in 1986, Mary Beth White-head refused to give up her right to see the babyshe had borne as a surrogate mother. The ensuingcourt battles created national debates about theethics of new reproductive technologies. As a result,many states instituted surrogacy legislation (seeChapter 11).

On the other hand, micro explanations should bekept in perspective. Many marriage and family text-books and pop psychology books stress the impor-tance of individual choices but ignore macro-levelvariables. Micro analyses are limited because theycan’t explain some of the things over which familieshave very little control. For these broader analyses,we must turn to macro explanations.

Macro-Level Influences on the FamilyThe couple that got a divorce made some unwise per-sonal choices, such as not saving their money andperhaps not using contraceptives at all or effectively.However, their relationship deteriorated, in the end,because of macro-level factors like unemploymentand the unavailability of inexpensive high-quality daycare services.

Constraints such as economic forces, technologi-cal innovations, popular culture, social movements,and family policies limit our choices. These are broadsocial issues that require macro-level explanations.

ECONOMIC FORCES The Industrial Revolution andurbanization sparked widespread changes that hadmajor impacts on the family (see Chapter 3). Bythe late eighteenth century, factories replaced thelocal industries that employed large numbers ofwomen and children. As families became less self-sufficient and their members increasingly workedoutside the home, parents’ control over theirchildren diminished.

In the latter part of the twentieth century, manycorporations moved their companies to developingcountries to increase their profits. Such movesresulted in relocations and unemployment for manyU.S. workers. As the U.S. economy changed, millionsof low-paying service jobs replaced higher-payingmanufacturing jobs. This has wrought havoc withmany families’ finances, contributing to the rise inthe number of employed mothers. At the other end ofthe continuum, the higher-paying jobs require at leasta college education, so people seeking them tend topostpone marriage and parenthood (see Chapters 9and 11). The financial crisis in the United States andthe rest of the world in the late 2000s resulted in highunemployment rates, reduced work hours, and finan-cial distress, all of which disrupt family life (seeChapter 13).

TECHNOLOGICAL INNOVATIONS Advances inmedical and other health-related technologies haveled to a decline in infant death rates and to longerlife spans. On the other hand, because the average

American man or womancan now expect to liveinto his or her 80s andbeyond, poverty afterretirement is more likely.Medical services caneat up savings, and the

middle-aged—sometimes called the sandwichgeneration—must cope both with the demands ofraising their own children and helping their agedparents (see Chapters 12 and 17).

Television, digital video discs (DVDs), microwaveovens, personal computers (PCs), and cell phoneshave also affected families. On the negative side, forexample, multiple television sets in a home oftendilute parental control over the programs that youngchildren watch because many parents don’t use V-chips to block specific content (Rideout, 2007). Onthe positive side, television can enhance children’sintellectual development. For example, children ages2 to 7 who spent a few hours a week watching edu-cational programs such as Sesame Street, ReadingRainbow, Mr. Wizard’s World, and 3-2-1 Contact hadhigher academic test scores 3 years later than thosewho watched many hours of entertainment-only pro-grams and cartoons (Wright et al., 2001).

Some people believe that electronic mail (e-mail),instant messaging (IM), text messaging, iPods, andnetworking sites such as Facebook are intrusivebecause such technologies replace close personal rela-tionships with superficial but time-consuming onlineinteractions. For example, people who spend morethan ten hours a week on the Internet report adecrease in social activities and less time talking onthe phone with friends and family (Nie and Erbring,


C Has technology strength-ened or reduced the qual-ity of our familyrelationships?


2000). Either because of computer problems or highusage, 65 percent of Americans spend more time withtheir computers than with their spouses (PRNewswire, 2007).

On the other hand, e-mail and the Internet haveencouraged long-distance conversations between par-ents, children, and relatives that might otherwise notoccur because of busy schedules. Family memberswho are scattered coast to coast can become moreconnected by exchanging photos on the Web, orga-nizing family reunions, tracking down distant rela-tives, or tracing their ancestral roots. In a recentnational survey, 25 percent of the parents said thatthe new communication technologies—including cellphones, e-mail, and the Internet—made their fami-lies feel closer than when they were growing up, and70 percent of all couples felt that daily cell phoneand e-mail contact helped them be connectedthroughout the day (Kennedy et al., 2008).

Also, people in their 80s and 90s say that usinge-mail and the Internet makes them more “wellderly”instead of elderly: “Oh my gosh, I’ve never felt soyoung. I’m sitting around all these young people—they’re on the Web and I’m on the Web. I’m talkingto my granddaughter and she’s off in Europe!”(White, 2008: 10B).

POPULAR CULTURE Popular culture—which includestelevision, the Internet, pop music, magazines, radio,advertising, sports, hobbies, fads, fashions, andmovies—is one of our major sources of informationand misinformation about our values, roles, andfamily life. Television is especially influential intransmitting both fact and fiction because, in a 65-year lifetime, the average American spends nine yearsin front of a TV set (see Chapter 5).

Compared with even five years ago, today thereare many programs on black families. Asian and

Latino families are huge consumers of prime-timetelevision, but they’re almost invisible on it, exceptfor an occasional show such as George Lopez. And,to my knowledge, there isn’t a single family programthat features Asian or Middle Eastern families. We’llexamine the effects of popular culture on families inChapter 5.

SOCIAL MOVEMENTS Over the years, a number ofsocial movements have changed family life. Thesemacro-level movements include the civil rightsmovement, the women’s movement, the gay rightsmovement, and most recently, a marriage movement.

The civil rights movement of the 1960s had agreat impact on most U.S. families. Because of affir-mative action legislation, members of many minoritygroups were able to take advantage of educationaland economic opportunities that improved their fam-ilies’ socioeconomic status. Many black and Latinostudents were accepted at elite colleges and universi-ties, families received money to start small businesses,and a number of productive employees were pro-moted (see Chapters 4 and 13).

The women’s movements—in the late 1800s andespecially in the 1970s—transformed many women’sroles and, consequently, family life. As women gainedmore rights in law, education, and employment, manybecame less financially dependent on men and startedquestioning traditional assumptions about genderroles.

The gay rights movement that began in the 1970schallenged discriminatory laws in areas such as hous-ing, adoption, and employment. Many lesbianwomen and gay men (as well as sympathetic hetero-sexuals) believe that those challenges have resultedin only modest changes so far. There has beenprogress, however. Children with gay or lesbian par-ents, for example, are less likely to be stigmatizedthan they were a decade ago. Numerous companiesnow provide benefits to their employees’ gay or les-bian partners; a number of adoption agencies assistlesbians and gays who want to become parents;numerous municipalities and states recognize civilunions; and several states have legalized same-sexmarriages (see Chapters 8–12).

People who are alarmed by high divorce rates andthe increase in cohabitation are joining a burgeon-ing marriage movement. Among other things, themarriage movement seeks to repeal no-fault divorcelaws and wants to reduce out-of-wedlock births andstate benefits for children born to unmarried low-income mothers. It also promotes abstinence amongyoung people, lobbies for funding for programs thatpromote marriage, and embraces women’s home-maker roles. In addition, the marriage movementencourages proponents to lobby lawmakers to passstate laws that require couples to take premarital


counseling classes and marital skills programs (seeChapter 9). As the box titled “Should Uncle Sam Bea Matchmaker?” shows, however, many peoplebelieve that the government should stay out of peo-ple’s private lives.

FAMILY POLICIES Family policy refers to themeasures that governments take to improve the well-being of families. Thousands of rules and regulations,both civil and criminal—at the local, state, andfederal levels—affect practically every aspect offamily life: laws about when and whom we canmarry, how to dissolve a marriage, how to treat oneanother in the home, and even how to dispose of ourdead. And, as you’ve just seen, the federal governmenthas actively promoted marriage since 2003.

Families don’t just passively accept policychanges. Instead, parents and family members haveplayed critical roles in major social policy changessuch as those dealing with the education of childrenwith disabilities, child pornography, joint custody ofchildren after divorce, the right of older people to diewith dignity, and better nursing care facilities (seeChapters 7, 12, 15, and 17).

A CROSS-CULTURAL AND GLOBAL PERSPECTIVE ON THE FAMILYWhy does this textbook include material on subcul-tures within the United States (American Indians,African Americans, Asian Americans, Middle East-ern Americans, and Latinos) and cultures in other

countries? First, unless you’re a full-blooded Ameri-can Indian, your kin were slaves or immigrants tothis country. They contributed their cultural beliefs,and their beliefs and practices shaped current familyinstitutions. The U.S. population today is a mosaicof many cultural, religious, ethnic, racial, and socio-economic groups. Thus, a traditional white, middle-class model is not adequate for understanding ourmarriages and families.

A second reason for this multicultural and cross-cultural approach is that the world today is an “inter-national place” where “the changes facing familiesare not only national but are also global, encompass-ing social forces that transcend national and even

regional or continentalborders” (Karraker,2008: 2, 5). Comparedwith even the late 1990s,more people are travel-ing outside the United

States, more students from abroad attend Americancolleges and universities, and more exchange pro-grams for students and scholars are offered at all edu-cational levels.

Students value their study-abroad experiences. Ina study of students at Northern Arizona University,for example, those who had participated in interna-tional study programs described their experiences aseye-opening and memorable in understanding othercultures. Consider, for example, a third-year collegestudent who went to Italy for a year of studies:

When she sat down for dinner with her host familyon her very first night, she asked for some waterwith her meal, a common request in the UnitedStates. Yet, the response she got from a 75-year-oldItalian was not what she had expected: “Wine is fordrinking, water is for washing,” he said. With this,she was welcomed to the world of living and study-ing abroad (Van Hoof and Verbeeten, 2005: 42).

In the late twentieth century, the Internet changedour communication processes significantly, effectivelyshrinking the modern world and linking peopleacross continents. As members of the global commu-nity, we should be aware of family practices and cus-toms in other cultures.

A third reason for this text’s cross-cultural empha-sis is that U.S. businesses recognize the importanceof understanding other societies. Since the late 1980s,more companies have been requiring their employeesto take courses about other cultures before goingabroad. For example, one of my students, who got ajob with a Fortune 500 company, believed that shehad an edge over some very tough competitorsbecause of her knowledge of Portuguese and ofBrazilian culture.

Fourth, understanding the customs of other coun-tries challenges our notion that U.S. family forms are

In 2005, tens of thousands of men converged on Washing-ton, D.C., for the second Million Man March. The purposeof the march was to demand social and economic equal-ity for African American and low-income families and toinspire young men, especially, to be more responsible fortheir children.


C Why should we care aboutfamily practices and cus-toms in other cultures?


the norm. According to sociologist Mark Hutter(1998: 12),

Americans have been notorious for their lack ofunderstanding and ignorance of other cultures. Thisis compounded by their gullible ethnocentric beliefin the superiority of all things American and notonly has made them unaware of how others liveand think but also has given them a distorted pic-ture of their own life.

Hutter’s perspective—and that of this book—is thatunderstanding other people helps us understandourselves.

Finally, families are changing around the world.Instead of clinging to stereotypes about othercountries, cross-cultural knowledge and informa-tion “may result in understanding instead of con-flict” (Adams, 2004: 1076).

CONCLUSIONFamilies are transforming, not destroying, themselves.There have been changes in family structures, butfamilies of all kinds seek caring, supportive, comfort-ing, and enduring relationships. There is nothinginherently better about one type of family form thananother. Moreover, family structures don’t appear bythemselves. People create families that meet theirneeds for love and security.

The greatly expanded choices in family structureand function mean that the definition of family nolonger reflects the interests of any one social class,gender, or ethnic group. This fluidity generates newquestions. How, for example, can parents increasetheir family time if they experience day-to-day pres-sures on the job? Who will provide adequate childcare when parents are employed? Is it possible to

In 2003, Congress passed a bill that allotted $1.5 billionover five years to promote marriage as part of welfare re-form. The money was used for a variety of promarriage ini-tiatives, including the following:■ Encouraging caseworkers to counsel pregnant women to

marry the father of the child

■ Reducing the rate of out-of-wedlock births

■ Teaching about the value of marriage in high schools

■ Providing divorce counseling for the poor

■ Sponsoring programs that might produce more marriages(Brotherson and Duncan, 2004)

A very vocal marriage movement enthusiastically en-dorses such initiatives. According to many of its members,government programs should encourage cohabiting parentsto marry and discourage married parents from divorcing(Lichter and Crowley, 2002).

Some of the movement’s members justify marriage ini-tiatives by pointing to the economic costs—from welfare tochild support enforcement—that states incur because ofhigh divorce rates and out-of-wedlock birthrates. Others,such as conservative religious groups, also endorse promar-riage legislation. They maintain that the governmentshould pass policies to support and strengthen marriagebecause “marriage and family are institutions ordained byGod” (Wilcox, 2002).

Most recently, President Obama’s administration hasfunded a $5 million national media campaign that extolsthe virtues of marriage for 18- to 30-year-olds. The cam-paign includes ads on Facebook and MySpace, videos on

YouTube, spots on radio talk shows, ads in magazinesand public transit, and a new Website, TwoOfUs.org(Jayson, 2009).

There are critics of the marriage initiatives. Some schol-ars point out that a husband’s income is often too low tolift a family out of poverty (Ooms et al., 2004). Otherscharge that promoting marriage for low-income womenstigmatizes them (but not high-income unmarried mothers)and compels them to stay in abusive or unhappy relation-ships. Many Americans also believe that a U.S. presidentshouldn’t encourage people to marry. Such complaintsmight be reasonable because researchers don’t know howmany people are poor because they are unmarried andhow many are unmarried because they are poor.

Some directors of fatherhood programs are also op-posed to promarriage legislation. They believe that mar-riage is not a “quick fix” because many poor men have a lotof problems. As Robert Brady of the Young Fathers Programin Denver observed, “I wonder if these conservatives wouldbe so dedicated to marriage promotion if it was theirdaughters they were trying to marry these guys off to”(Starr, 2001: 68).

C Stop and Think . . .■ Should the government pressure low-income mothers to

marry? Do you think that such strategies will reducepoverty?

■ Is the government meddling in people’s private affairs byusing tax dollars to promote marriage? Or is it doingwhat’s good for us?

A S K Y O U R S E L F

Should Uncle Sam Be a Matchmaker?


pursue personal happiness without sacrificing oblig-ations to other family members?

Our choices often are limited by constraints, espe-cially at the macro level, because of economic condi-tions and government policies. To deal with changes,choices, and constraints, we need as much information

as possible about the family. In the next chapter, we’llsee how social scientists conduct research on families,gathering data that make it possible for us to track thetrends described in this and other chapters, and tomake informed decisions about our choices.

1. The nuclear family—composed of husband,wife, and children—is still predominant in U.S.society, but this definition of family has been chal-lenged by those who believe it should include lesstraditional arrangements such as single parents,child-free couples, foster parents, and siblings shar-ing a home. Advances in reproductive technologyhave opened up the possibility of still more varieddefinitions of the family.

2. The family continues to fulfill basic functionssuch as bearing and socializing children, providingfamily members with emotional support, legitimiz-ing and regulating sexual activity, and placing fam-ily members in society.

3. Marriages, families, and kinship systems vary inwhether marriages are monogamous or polyga-mous, whether familial authority is vested in theman or the woman or both share power, andwhether a new family resides with the family of theman or the woman or creates its own home.

4. Myths about the family include beliefs aboutthe nature of the family in the good old days, thenaturalness of marriage and family as human inter-personal and social arrangements, the self-suffi-ciency of the family, the family as a refuge fromoutside pressures, and the perfect family.

5. Social scientists generally agree that the familyis changing. They disagree, however, on whether itis changing in drastic and essentially unhealthyways, whether it is simply continuing to adapt andadjust to changing circumstances, or whether it ischanging in ways that will ultimately make itstronger.

6. Many changes are occurring in U.S. families:There is more racial and ethnic diversity, familyforms are more varied, and there are more single-parent families, stepfamilies, and families in whichthe mother works outside the home.

7. The reasons for changes in the family can beanalyzed on two levels. Micro-level explanationsemphasize individual behavior: the choices thatpeople make and the personal and interpersonalfactors that influence these choices. Macro-levelanalyses focus on large-scale patterns that charac-terize society as a whole and often constrain indi-vidual options. Some constraints arise fromeconomic factors, technological advances, popularculture, social movements, and government policiesthat affect families.

8. Understanding the family requires an apprecia-tion of racial, gender, ethnic, religious, and culturaldiversity, both at home and around the world.

family 4fictive kin 5norm 6incest taboo 6socialization 6role 6primary group 7secondary group 7social class 7marriage 7common-law marriage 8

bigamy 8endogamy 8exogamy 8nuclear family 8extended family 8patrilocal 9matrilocal 9neolocal 9matriarchy 9patriarchy 9egalitarian family 10

monogamy 10serial monogamy 10polygamy 10family of orientation 11family of procreation 11kinship system 11micro-level perspective 21macro-level perspective 21family policy 24

S U M M A R Y

K E Y T E R M S

exams, view videos relevant to the subject matter,listen to audio files, explore topics further byusing Social Explorer, and use the tools containedin MySearchLab to help you write researchpapers.

MyFamilyLab provides awealth of resources. Go to

www.myfamilylab.com <http://www.myfamilylab.com/>, to enhance your comprehension of thecontent in this chapter. You can take practice


Documents

The Changing Family - Pearson · together with my youngest son for several years. ... mom has died and dad is raising the kids. ... such as brother and sister, father and daughter,