CONTROVERSY & DEBATE
Should We Save the Traditional Family?
What are "traditional families"? Are they vital to our way of life or a barrier to progress? To begin, people use the term traditional family to mean a married couple who, at some point in their lives, raise children. But the term is more than description; it is also a moral statement. That is, belief in the traditional family implies putting a high value on becoming and remaining married, placing children ahead of careers, and favoring two-parent families over various "alternative lifestyles."
On one side of the debate, David Popenoe warns that there has been a serious erosion of the traditional family since 1960. Then, married couples with young children accounted for almost half of all households; today, the figure is 26 percent. Singlehood is up, from 10 to 26 percent of present households. The divorce rate has doubled since 1960, so that almost half of today's marriages will end in permanent separation. Moreover, due to both divorce and having children out of wedlock, the share of youngsters who will live with a single parent before age eighteen has quadrupled since 1960, to 50 percent. In other words, just one in four of today's children will grow up with two parents and go on to maintain a stable marriage as an adult.
In light of such data, Popenoe concludes, it may not be an exaggeration to say that the family is falling apart. He sees a fundamental shift from a "culture of marriage" to a "culture of divorce." Traditional vows of marital commitment-"'til death us do part"-now amount to little more than "as long as I am happy." Daniel Yankelovich (1994:20) sums it up this way:
The quest for greater individual choice clashed directly with the obligations and social norms that held families and communities together in earlier years. People came to feel that questions of how to live and with whom to live were a matter of individual choice not to be governed by restrictive norms. As a nation, we came to experience the bonds of marriage, family, children, job, community, and country as constraints that were no longer necessary. Commitments have loosened.
The negative consequences of the cultural trend toward weaker families, Popenoe continues, are obvious and can be found everywhere: As we pay less and less attention to children, the juvenile crime rate goes up along with a host of other troublesome behaviors like underage smoking and drinking and premarital sex.
As Popenoe sees it, then, we must work hard and act quickly to reverse current trends. Government cannot be the solution and may even be part of the problem: Since 1960, as government spending on social programs has soared fivefold, families have become weaker and weaker. Instead, says Popenoe, we need a cultural turnaround. We must replace our "me-first" attitudes in favor of commitment to our spouse and children. Such a switch, he continues, is entirely possible: Just look at how attitudes toward smoking have changed in recent decades. We can save the traditional family in two steps: first, by publicly affirming the value of staying married and, second, endorsing the two-parent family as best for the well-being of children.
But Judith Stacey is unconvinced. She says "good riddance" to the traditional family and provides a counterpoint. To her, the traditional family is more problem than solution. Striking to the heart of the matter, Stacey writes (1990:269):
The family is not here to stay. Nor should we wish it were. On the contrary, I believe that all democratic people, whatever their kinship preferences, should work to hasten its demise.
The main reason for rejecting the traditional family, Stacey explains, is that it perpetuates social inequality. Families play a key role in maintaining the class hierarchy, transferring wealth as well as "cultural capital" from one generation to another. Moreover, feminists criticize the traditional family's patriarchal form, which subjects women to their husbands' authority and saddles them with most of the responsibility for housework and child care. From a gay rights perspective, she adds, a society that values traditional families inevitably denies homosexual men and women equal participation in social life.
Stacey thus applauds the breakdown of the family as social progress. She does not consider the family a basic social institution but, rather, a political construct that elevates one category of people-affluent white males-at the expense of others, including women, homosexuals, and poor people.
Stacey also claims that the concept of "traditional family" is increasingly irrelevant in a diverse society where both men and women work for income. What our society needs, Stacey concludes, is not a return to some "golden age" of the family but political and economic change, including income parity for women, universal health care and child care, programs to reduce unemployment, and expanded sex education in the schools. Only with such programs can we support our children and ensure that people in diverse family forms receive the respect everyone deserves.
Continue the debate . . .
1. To strengthen families, David Popenoe suggests that parents put children ahead of their own careers by limiting their joint work week to sixty hours. Do you agree? Why or why not?
2. Judith Stacey thinks that marriage is weaker today because women are rejecting patriarchal relationships. Do you agree? Why or why not?
3. Do we need to change family patterns for the well-being of our children? As you see it, what specific changes are called for?
For more information on this topic, please visit these websites....