An Article about Marriage and Cohabitation

Today this article appeared in the NYTimes about marriage and cohabitation rates in the United States. It also makes some interesting points about perceptions of marriage and cohabitation.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/29/us/29marriage.html?_r=1&hp
Enjoy!

Polytechnique film- Oct. 7th. 6pm

Hello, I think this information may interest you. Have a nice day.
-----

The first screening of the McGill Anthropology and Sociology Film Initiative is Polytechnique (2009, Denis Villeneuve), a dramatization of the massacre of 1989 where a young man murdered fourteen women at Montreal’s Polytechnique School.

After the film we will have a panel discussion featuring Dr. Alberto Sánchez-Allred (Anthropology) and Dr. Jason Carmichael (Sociology).

Please have a look at the posters attached to this email. You can watch the trailer at
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H0_bmNH6o0g

Where: Cultural Studies Screening Room, 3475 Peel Street
When: Thursday, October 7th, 2010
Time: 6 pm

Hope to see you there!

Theoretical Perspectives of the Family

It is clear that Parson’s functional perspective of the family was a once dominant theory in terms of its functional location in the social system. Today this theory can easily be criticized due to the evolution of the family and sex roles. I see his view as old-fashioned, with inexplicit consensus reasoning and lack of testability. Parson distinguishes the different sex roles when he claims that the working parent, the father, represents the “instrumental” role by attaining a “job which is fundamental to his [father’s] social status”, and there is the stay-at-home parent: the mother; the nurturer. Parson does mention his observations on women beginning to take up occupational roles, but states that “only a very small fraction have gone very far in this direction”. I wonder what he would have to say about my family where my dad stayed at home with the children and my mom founded and ran a successful business. I do not think that children need to be socialized into what Parson would consider proper sex roles, keeping society stable.

Theoretical Perspectives of the Family

I found that when I read Parsons article many aspects of it were very interesting to me. After I read about half the article, I decided to check when it was written. I was not surprised to find out that it was 1942, over seventy years ago. So much has changed since he wrote his article but still there are many similarities that remain. Although I believe that much of what he says is sexist, it is definitely a thought that remains in the minds of many women in current time. “The woman’s fundamental status is that of her husband’s wife, the mother of his children, and traditionally the person responsible for a complex of activities in connection with the management of the household, care of children etc.” (609) There are so many women who turn down careers in order to be what they imagine as the perfect woman, mother, wife, caregiver and nurturer. He also introduces the terms “swell guy” and “glamour girl”. I think both of these terms are what many teens strive to be and are reinforced by much of the media today. I still wonder though, if he were writing today, how much would he change and would he have a whole new perspective with the working woman and stay at home dad? Would those still be considered dysfunctional?

I really enjoyed reading the article written by Booth, Carver and Granger. It gave me a whole new outlook on how a woman picks her life companion. I have never really been interested in science not because I don’t find it interesting but more because I don’t understand it. The article was interesting as it pointed out the fact that our hormones have an affect on so much in our lives. They influence our decision making process from birth to death. I also agree with Ben-Porath in saying that the formation of the family requires “human capital, allocation of time, fertility, altruism and intergeneration mobility.” (52) Although his work was written over twenty years ago his words are as important and maybe even more important and applicable now.

1. 1. At the beginning of Parson’s article he points out that girls are able to basically “learn” how to properly function as a woman since they are able to copy and participate in daily household activities with their stay at home mothers. If the family had a stay at home father, would boys learn to be proper women or men?

2. 2. In Booth, Carver and Granger’s article they state that “compared with men, women are much more discriminating because future investment in offspring will be higher.” Do you think that is the case? Also do you think it has to do with the fact that women are required to stay with that child longer than men?

3. 3. Do you think the Rotten Kid Theorum should be used? Should money be used as an incentive to help out siblings in order not to have a rotten kid?

Theoretical Perspectives Compared

The interactions between this week’s articles are varied.  Parson’s article concerning the relationship between individual roles in society and the health of the family coincide with the Aldous article exploring the effects of life course and family development perspectives on family dynamics and attitudes.  Although the Parsons article is understandably a bit dated, the shifting importance from adult to youth roles is evident; as more women occupy positions of power in the workforce than seventy years ago, it is possible that less emphasis is placed on maternity as a symbol of adulthood, than on other forms of adult performativity.  If Parsons is correct (that we should explore how socialization influences family roles), then it is also necessary to examine the rejection of these traditional roles in light of the roles that are replacing them.  Additionally, Parsons makes headway into understanding reasons behind the failure of the traditional family: women are required to subvert interests outside of traditional feminine roles after marriage, while men are reduced to one-dimensional robots.  It is no wonder that youth culture has grown in popularity while traditional adult roles have been altered (and also, as these youth roles fail to confront the expectations of adult gender roles, why they continue to perpetuate unequal sexual relations).  When one looks at the tendency for powerful or less traditionally feminine women to appeal sexually appealing outside or within married roles, or the current glorification of one-dimensional, immature, married men in popular media, it is not surprising that traditional marriage roles are declining ( and more interesting when one considers how many unmarried men are returning to their childhood homes).

With regards to the remaining two articles, Ben-Porath makes me wonder if it’s possible to generalize at any great geographic or temporal scale between/across families, while Booth draws numerous chicken-egg conclusions concerning genetic predisposition and family dynamics and outcomes.

Considering the former, I will ask my three questions:

1.      Using the Ben-Porath article as a reference point, Is it possible to generalize across time and space when it comes to families?  Are families heavily, and subtly, influenced by local or regional factors that make comparisons between countries/regions difficult or impossible?

 2.      To quote Aldous, “The household division of labor also became more traditional, a consequence with a positive effect on husbands' marital satisfaction but a negative effect on the more work-burdened wives”, considering that Popenoe’s conclusion was that males and females are happier after marrying, what, if any, changes to the domestic division of labor would lead to “happier” marriages?

3.      Finally, is there a connection between co-habitation of young couples outside of marriage and the identification with non-sexual family relations?  Could this negatively alter the expectations or roles of the partners, in effect weakening the romantic union?

Theoretical Perspectives of the Family

A few pages into Parson’s, I was getting a little offended. Who was this guy saying, “the majority of married women, of course, are not employed…” Then I flipped to the front of the article and looked to the date, 1942. So these trends of the family and the sexes are almost 70 years old. What I was surprised about was how much was still applicable today. He states there is no difference in formal education, that it is not until the post-graduate level is reached do the sexes begin to differentiate. This is true today, how many women are go into the engineering program? As well, he mentions “girls are given a kind of protection and supervision by adults to which boys of the same age group are not subjected.” This definitely continues today. As well, there still exists a “youth culture” that elicits rebellion, as well as an idealized “swell guy/glamour girl.”

I found Becker’s mention of the quality of the child to be very interesting. Parent’s want quality children, not quantity. A quality child is in need of many resources (he mentions how expensive children are), which affects the amount of children one can raise. I see this as true today, and one of the explanations as to the decline in fertility. Parent’s want to provide the best they can for the children they have, which creates a quality child. Also fascinating of Becker is his ideas on monogamy and polygamy. I believe today that people date and mate with people like themselves, in the same socio-economic group, same ideals, and sometimes the same religion. This is similar to his idea that high-quality men and women mate with each other, and low-quality men and women mate with each other. It is interesting to hear about polygamy from an economic standpoint, my favourite explanation being that “several women can substitute for one high-quality woman.”

Although complicated, the bio-social perspective was enlightening. I never knew testosterone could affect how I choose a sexual partner, or how its level would affect how traditionally or non-traditionally I choose to live my life. However different these groups of theories are, I don’t see any of them as complete explanations to the family. They do however compliment each other, and together contribute to a greater understanding of family dynamic, roles, and relationships.

1. In Joan Aldous’ article, it states that the family development approach emphasizes a family as a unit of interdependent members. Does being a family necessitate being independent?

2. Is there any truth to Parson’s article in a 21^st century world? What trends can you see that continue or do not continue into today’s family?

3. After reading the biosocial article, are you more apt to believe nature (the impact of genes, hormones on environment) or nurture (the impact of environment on genese and hormones)? Which one do you believe is more prevalent. (Keep in mind the example of the blank slate twins)

Theoretical Perspectives of the Family

After considering the diverse strategies presented in these articles, I began to ask what the point of all these approaches were. To me it seems two-fold: personal development and policy. One part of sociological research is an attempt to explain individual behavior, and even justify it in accordance with greater observed trends. The other is, as Ben-Porath discusses, an appeal to policy makers. Many of the articles discussed the importance of social welfare. However research on all types of the family is necessary to understand how this should be implemented- should there be more support for single mothers? Should more money be provided during the first year of childbirth?

As necessary as this is for policy, there are two glaring problems. First, all the research presented in these studies is retrospective, and leads to the formation of policies which are reactionary rather than preventative. When looking at life-courses, biosocial, or economic approaches to family research, we observe trends and general effects of history, which show that the family is pretty constantly in flux. There are general life changes that all these theories address (marriage, having children, etc), but if attitudes towards divorce, marriage, and even the age of undergoing puberty is changing, how can we predict future trends? In addition, questions of “should” imply that there is a correct way the family and “life courses” need to develop. These articles skim over the studies used, and don’t release demographic information on their participants, making me wonder how applicable they are to the general population.

Questions:

1. What assumptions do the writers make in assuming the way a family “should” develop?
2. Did you find that your personal feelings and biases affected your readings of these articles? If so, what were they?
3. Are there other factors that could explain the biological approach to family development?

Theoretical Perspectives of the Family

Personally, I agree with the tied theories of life course stages and family development.  On an individual level, various religions and cultures worldwide have recognized the passage of life stages with different rites and rituals, although different definitions and names have been used across time and place.  Overlapping these personal life transitions with the “movement” of the family unit as a whole sheds light on their importance to create social cohesion and to reduce personal and familial strain.  Although the perspective does not allow much room for variance, it presents a conclusive argument for the underlying causes of familial turmoil surrounding major life events.

However, I was particularly drawn to the article discussing the biosocial perspective, not because I agree with some of the conclusions, but rather because its biological determinist slant contrasts heavily with the social determinist views of the other articles.  One study I found particularly interesting was the immunological differences between humans as the root of mate selection.  Although I have heard that olfactory cues influence mate selection (and even have a friend who only baths with a salt ball so as to leave his natural “eau du man”), the discussion on the role of the contraceptive pill enticed me.  The authors highlight a study that said use of the pill “may affect the stability of courtship relationships…. [users have] higher rates of union dissolution” (Booth, Carver, Granger, 1028).  I am interested in knowing what covariates were, in fact, controlled for because I see this as more of a social factor established by the normative female type using the contraceptive pill – new age, independent, self-controlling – in relation to her marital role within a social and familial context.

Finally, I found Ben-Porath’s overview of Becker’s Treatise quite funny.  To directly apply microeconomic theory to the family only works, as with most microeconomic theory, with “the assumptions of maximizing behavior, stable preferences, and equilibrium in implicit or explicit markets,” a fact that Becker acknowledges in his preface (Ben-Porath, 61).  To fulfill these assumptions within a family unit would be impossible, or at least difficult.  Understanding that Becker wrote his Treatise in a different societal context, an examination of the changing roles and division of labor within the family are necessary, as Ben-Porath’s points out, to see if the new home economics theory has any applicability to today other than as a source of a humor.

Q1: With respect to the life course perspective, how would you respond to the issue of those who identify as queer who may not necessarily want, or be legally allowed, to pass into the “family” stage?  Can the same theory apply or should a different framework be established for those who don’t fit within the “traditional” family type?

Q2: With respect to the biosocial perspective, is it right to “blame” (in a loose sense of the word) humans’ physiological makeup as a factor in unstable family relations, divorce, parental control, etc.?  Does this establish reasonable biological evidence or does it allow scapegoating?

Q3: As society sees increases in rates of divorce and separation, there has also been an increase in reality TV shows, such as “American Idol” and “Survivor,”  featuring adults undertaking tasks traditionally associated with adolescence such as eating worms, building rafts, participating in talent shows, etc.  Although Parsons wrote his essay several decades ago, do you think this correlation is a modern day form of “the idealization of the youth culture by adults [as] an expression of elements of strain and insecurity?” (Parson, 614)

Structural Functionalism, New Home Economics, Life Course, and Biosocial Perspectives

It was interesting reading about the different theories behind the formation of the family. I agree with earlier posts that Parsons’ article falls short in providing a conclusive view on the separate roles of men and women. I strongly disagree with his argument that the characterization of male youth culture involves a strong emphasis on “having fun” and on achievement/competition while the female youth culture seemed to only involve an emphasis on qualities of attractiveness. I believe that Parsons’ “swell guy”/”glamour girl” pattern highly stigmatizes female roles while upholding their male counterparts role. I also cannot clearly understand his statement claiming that these sexually polarized roles are “complementary, both emphasizing certain features of a total personality in terms of the direct expression of certain values rather than of instrumental significance” (Parsons, 607). Parsons claim that a woman’s fundamental status and function is of the “domestic” pattern—a supporting figure for her husband and children—is of a highly restrictive nature. If Parson were to update his article, how stunned he would be to see how different the world turned out to be today!

The neoclassical micro-economic analysis of the family was very interesting and I agree with Ben-Porath in that Becker’s cumulative work is very important. This economic approach holds true even more so in modern days. The allocation of time, human capital, and wages does play an important part in the formation of the family.

The family development and life course perspectives seem to explain the transformation in the traditional to the modern family, unlike the other perspectives, by looking at the family structures according to the different life stages. It seems to be a more comprehensive and historical outlook on the family. Booth, Carver, and Granger’s article on the biosocial perspectives on the family was also interesting—the linking of science and social aspects was very new.

Individually, these theories are, in some ways, incomplete. However, if we look at these theories as one, they will be to complement each other perhaps provide a comprehensive outlook on the family.

1) Parson argues that since the father plays the instrumental role in the family, he is seldom at home with his family. This in turn results in many of the masculine functions to be abstract and of intangible character, unable to provide a meaningful role model for boys. Do you agree with this statement? If so, can this statement explain why this may lead to the alleged instabilities related with dysfunctional families/children?

2) What are your opinions on the treatment of altruism? How does the distributional conflict within the family affect the family utility function?

3) Why is it important to look at the transformation from the traditional to the modern family in the historical context? Would it not suffice to look at the theories that can be best applied to the modern context to explain some of the social problems happening in the family setting? Of what use is it to look at the different life stages?

Theoretical perspectives of the family

I am very sure we will all write this week criticizing Talcott Parsons for saying that our “primary status-carrying role is in a sense that of housewife” (1942, p. 609) and that the strain of this duty and insecurity will translate into neurotic behavior. We could argue that things have changed in these seventy years since 1942. I do not agree with Parsons; however I believe that many of his views are still present in many women’s and men’s minds. It is true that the roles of the sexes have changed, but much is constant. For Parsons the working mother and stay home father, homosexuals, single parents, divorced and cohabitating couples are all ‘disfunctional’. But the “swell guy” and the “glamour girl” patterns are still around and have been reinforced by much of the culture and media that developed countries has exported to the rest of the world. The existence of homophobia is just one example that many still believe on Parson’s adult sex roles. Where do LGBT fit? What are the desirable outcomes or life expectations of many?

Yes, women and men are different biologically because our bodies are different and perform different functions. Men cannot have children and I am very sure this has implications on the levels of different hormones and other chemicals in our bodies. Just as what we eat, where we live, genetics and what we do will have effects on the ways our body deals with the different chemicals, hormones, etc. Booth, Carver and Granger’s arguments (2000) search causal relationships that I am unsure you can actually isolate. For example, they say “testosterone-related los occupational success was attributable in part to testosterone-related antisocial behavior during adolescence that got the young men into trouble at school” (p. 1027). What does this imply? I do not know what the implications for intervention were if they were thinking intervention was needed. For me, the issue of the tabula rasa (Steven Pinker, TED talk) and socialization versus biology cannot take us far in understanding the complexity of family theories.

I sympathize with the demographic and life course perspective and the implications that Becker’s models have for empirical research. I agree with Aldous that “life course analysis has forced us to consider how societal events affect the families experiencing them as well as changes in the family institution over broad sweeps of time” (1990, p. 579). While the life course perspective has been criticized for its overcomplexity and the Economics approaches (like Becker’s) have been denounced for its simplicity in the assumptions, I argue that it’s our challenge to deal with multidimensional phenomena with complementary approaches. In this sense, I agree with Ben-Porah that all theories should by “confronted by evidence, by skeptics, and by alternative theories” (1982, p. 62).

1) How are Parsons’ ideas transmitted by the educational system, the media, religion, the rearing of children, etc? How are these ideas different in different cultures in the world?
2) In a future, if the biosocial perspective of the family prospers in academic research, do you think people will discuss the prescription of hormones to prevent couples from divorcing or to encourage women to have children? Where do choices and values fit in this intervention model?
3) How do we deal, as academics, with the different theoretical perspectives in order to study our research problem? How can we convey different approaches into our research to deal with the multidimensionality of the issues and alternative explanations?

Theoretical Perspectives of the Family

I was at first flabbergasted when reading Parson’s article. I could not believe what he was saying about the role of women and that men and women should be socialized into their roles better. Then, I looked at the date that this article was written in and it all made sense! This article definitely reflected the points of views of the roles of women and men in the 1940s but I believe these beliefs are no longer or I hope no longer reflected in our society. For example, Parson stated that, “only in very exceptional cases can an adult man be genuinely self-respecting and enjoy a respected status in the eyes of others if he does not "earn a living" in an approved occupational role” (1942, p.608). Although, I do agree it is still uncommon in our society for a man to stay home with the children and not leave the home in order to earn a salary it is becoming more and more “normal”. Especially, since with the technology we now have access to it is becoming easier for men to work at home and take care of the children. I think the main problem with Parson’s article is that it is just plain outdated. For example, it stated that, “the majority of married women, of course, are not employed, but even of those that are a very large proportion do not have jobs which are in basic competition for status with those of their husbands” (1942, p.608). Since this article was written, there has been s major shift in the work force in which females are now more employed and do have jobs that are often better then their male counterparts or husbands.

After having read Becker’s article I was still a little unclear as to what, “The Rotten Kid Theorem” was but I was intrigued. I looked it up on the internet now understand it as being a theory that says even a “rotten” kid who in other circumstances would take pleasure in hurting his siblings would not do so in fear that this type of behavior would make their parents unhappy and decrease the amount of money or presents they will receive. I do not think I agree with this theory because I do not think young children think this way. Perhaps, young adults who have a more complex understanding of money and a knowledge that their parents will give them or leave them money when they die but I do not believe younger children or even teenagers will not hurt their siblings in fear that they will be losing presents or money. I mean, most children and even teenagers take part in “horseplay” with their siblings on a daily basis and I am sure often hurt their siblings as a consequence.

I also enjoyed the biosocial perspective proposed by Booth, Carver and Douglas which explored the effect hormone levels have on men and women and subsequently the family. I found many points of this article to be quite interesting like the fact that there is a difference between the testosterone levels in single and married men. I had previously not taken into consideration the role that hormones plays in the selection of our mate, in our relationships and ultimately in marriages. I am not sure how scientifically proven the biosocial theory is but I thought it brought up a subject that I had not thought of before and in theory seems to make sense to me.

1) 1) After having read these four articles and learning about their theories concerning the family do you find one more appealing then the others? Is their one that you completely disagree with or agree with?

2) 2) In Parson’s article, he describes what he thought was the role of female and male in the 1940s. After having read this article do you think there is still any truth in what he was proposing as the roles men and women should play in society? Do you find in ways we still play these roles in today’s society? And, do you think if women and men did play their roles “better” there would be less strain and perhaps even divorce in our society?

3 3) In Ben-Porah’s article he claimed that when it comes to choosing one’s mate that high-quality men are most likely to be matched with high-quality women and low-quality women are most likely to be matched with low-quality men. What do you think of this statement?

From the micro to the macro in theoretical perspectives on the family

Theoretical perspectives on the family vary almost as much as our own experiences and expectations of family life.  What draws this week's readings together most is their effort to provide some explanatory weight to persistence and change in empirical patterns (though either implicitly or explicitly often drawing upon and/or advocating normative expectations).  While only Parsons is here associated with the field of functionalism within sociology (even though he eschewed such a label for his theories personally), all of the articles are built on the foundations of sociological inquiry concerned with explaining why and how families act within a (presumably) functioning North American society.  More simply, they paint a picture of the world as it is and, within that landscape, provide differing perspectives on why the family looks and acts the way it does in North America.  More often than not, they are concerned with the "norm", or the largest and/or most significant pattern or group.  Explanations range from the utility maximizing Becker with an emphasis on micro-level decision-making to Parsons' broad brush strokes of a macro-level "system" within society. 

A few comments of note:

1.  Parsons discusses the functions of the "sex roles" as they vary throughout the life course in terms of patterns within upper and middle-class white families in 1942.  From this article and this work, he developed a model of the 'nuclear family' based upon complementary roles of the instrumental (attached to the work world and head of household) husband and the expressive (attached to the family and community) wife.  In this, he argued that the family was an important agent of socialization in society, first for the children who needed guidance in understanding their roles in society and second for the adult partners, who needed the institution as an anchor for stabilizing their roles in the occupational and kinship structures.  If we perhaps think of Popenoe in his question about whether kids want to live in a "post-modern" family (and thus implying "what kid doesn't want to fit in?), Parsons presumes that what both children and adults need most is to fit in.  As such, sex roles "stabilize" their adult personalities.  Even though men and women may experience strain as a result of these roles, they ultimately serve important functions for society at large as well as for the health and welfare of the individuals in the family.  It is perhaps no surprise, then, that he argued that strain could best be reduced by "socializing" men and women into their roles better.

2.  Becker's treatise on the family, which charted a new field within family studies under the banner of new home economics, is largely credited with breaking open the "black box" of the family to understand the role of material resources and individual decision-making, from women's decision to have children (and how many to have) to the breakdown of family roles and tasks that follow.  For fun, pay attention to the "Rotten Kid Theorem" and his treatment of altruism.


3.  Family development and life course perspectives place the family within the broader sweep of historical change as well as individual life course and stages within families.  In this regard, preference for a temporal perspective potentially locates sex roles as well utility decision-making within a historical context and addresses the impact that changes in family arrangements over time have on both parents and children. 

4.  Finally, biosocial perspectives, encompassing both studies of hormone levels of men and women as well as the impact of evolutionary psychology, proffer explanatory mechanisms for social patterns through the interaction of the social with our genetic and physical make-up.  Perhaps the most well-known and controversial arguments predicated on evolutionary psychology and biology is that of Steven Pinker (author of well-known book the Blank Slate).  Check out a talk he gave for TED:

http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/steven_pinker_chalks_it_up_to_the_blank_slate.html

Whether as a result of the provision of social roles, human capital, life course, or biology, families are most commonly associated with and judged with reference to the "traditional family".  We will complicate some of the assumptions of these arguments next week and, in particular, ask whether and how they address the issue of power as well as societal change.  Please label your post "Theoretical Perspectives on the family"

Family Decline?

Popenoe’s article, American Family Decline: 1960-1990: A Review and Appraisal argues that there is a concerning decline of the American family resulting in negative consequences. To prove the latter, Popenoe brings to light the decrease of the number of children in families, the increase of divorce rates and it’s connection to the feminist movement, and the “me-centered” attitude in modern society. This article is just asking to be criticized from the start when Popenoe tries to define the family; “a relatively small domestic group of kin consisting of at least one adult and one dependent person”. Not intending to leave out the different types of families such as single-parent families, stepfamilies or homosexual families, he constantly reverts back to a structural-functional definition of the nuclear family. His inconsistency and weak arguments are not enough to prove a correlation between the family decline and it’s negative social consequences. As Cowen states in his response to Popenoe’s article, “correlation does not establish proof of causation”. Another problem with Popenoe’s arguments can be seen from a feminist perspective. Stacey’s responds by pointing out Popenoe’s assumptions on this matter, including his correlation between the increase in divorce rates and feminism. I see Popenoe’s issue with the change in society as more of a shift away from the traditional nuclear family rather then a decline in family values. Thus in my opinion this shift promotes openness, acceptance and humanity rather than associating so much negative change when using the word “decline”.

Questions:

1. Popenoe associates serious negative change with his use of the word “decline”. Do you agree with this choice of word? What word(s) might you have used instead of the word “decline”.
2. From your personal experience, what negative consequences, if any, have you observed in the non-nuclear families around you?
3. A new reality tv show will be coming out about a polygamous relationship between a man and three sisters. They all live under the same roof with children between all of them. How do you think Popenoe would respond to this family structure? What are your thoughts about media and the decline of the American family?

The Tangled Web of the Family and the State

Popenoe’s argument begs the question of which came first: “family decline” or state involvement.  He emphasizes the “loss of power to other institutional groups” as hurting the familial institution and highlights family protection services and abuse laws as examples of state interference that deny “power to the family unit,” thus ignoring the consequences of the alternative (Popenoe, 537).  Although these laws may be an indication of families “disinvesting,” it could also be simply the state filling a void left previously neglected. 

Furthermore, in critiquing maternal employment and low birthrates, Popenoe overlooks the increasing cost of living, high education tuition rates, etc.; Becker-Schultz’s neo-economic view of demographic transitions clearly demonstrate why women are increasingly entering the workforce and couples are choosing to remain childless.  Thankfully, Cowan acknowledges this fact, although he also neglects to mention the long-term tax and pension fund burdens created by lower fertility rates.  The short-term benefits to this generation of parents will have long term consequences to their children’s generation, an issue that may require state intervention.

There is no denying that the state is inextricably connected to the family at this point; we are past the point of untangling the two institutions.  Therefore, I agree with Hochschild’s push for more “family-friendly reforms” with the knowledge that it’s not a long-term solution (Hoschfield, 5).  But, by providing a space for growth through tax breaks and parental leave, the next generation of parents may receive the support they need to reverse these trends.  The state must support the family as much as the family must support the state. 

 

Q1: Popenoe discusses the decline in the traditional nuclear family form as the “basis for much ideological conflict” (Popenoe, 535).  He says that the “women’s movement came to view the traditional nuclear family in very negative terms” while he personally laments the deterioration of the traditional nuclear family as a cause of social, institutional and individual problems (Popenoe, 535).  Does a happy-medium exist between the two extremes?  Are such examples outliers?  In what form would a family exist which satisfies both sides of the argument? 

Q2: Popenoe highlights several issues, such as increasing social ties to nonrelated friends and the increase in premarital sex, as indicators of the decline of the family institution.  Do you think it is valid to use these factors as indicators of overall family life conditions?  Does fluctuations in these factors reflect changes in the family structure or a shift in the overall culture of society?

Q3: In creating a definition of “family,” Popenoe chooses to exclude married couples with no dependents.  Yet, many of his arguments arise from issues of fertility and children.  Do you think his exclusion of children within the definition hurts his argument or is he correct to define the family as such? (Keep in mind that several of his indicators of family decline are a decrease in the overall number of children, changes in feelings towards parenthood, and a shift in the stigma surrounding childlessness).   

Is the family in decline?

One theme that threads through these very different opinions and approaches to the “family wars” is the inevitability and sometimes dangerous nature of individual opinions in social research and policy formation. However the different approaches presented, from Popenoe’s “traditional definition” and correlational studies to Coontz’s historical examination, illustrate the importance of considering multiple definitions and research methods to attempt to gain a broader picture. This highlights an issue that I imagine will reoccur though our studies of the family: reconciling the practicality of limited definitions and personal views with attaining a multidisciplinary, global, and hopefully more “complete” research.

These reading also made me think of the prominent American rhetoric to “protect the children and family”. On one side, this greatly influences political policy regarding controversial issues such as abortion and pornography, while governmental social programs like the “No Child Left Behind” program, which uses much of the same rhetoric, remains chronically under funded. I agree with Hochschild that more social programs are needed, not just because the institution of the family is in “decline”, but to create stronger versions of what we already see as important socializing forces, such as education. In America there is a strong stigma around government intervention, however the unique social times that Coontz addresses calls for an acceptance of greater social programs (both for the family and outside of it), and with this a change in what the family represents in society. Canada is leading the way somewhat with greater parental leave, child services, and health care, and America could use this as an example for institutional and cultural reform.

Questions:

1. Can there ever be one coherent definition of the family? What are the drawbacks and benefits of creating this definition? How has globalization affected research surrounding this definition?
2. Has any society reached Stacey’s state of the “post modern family”? Is it attainable in our current political and cultural climate?
3. How does the need to reconcile individual family structure with societal expectations of the family affect individual happiness? Familial happiness? Is there even a need?

Is the Family in Decline?

David Popenoe makes the point that the family is in decline, he uses various statistics and readings to try and prove his point, but in my case the article just left me aggravated. “People have become less willing to invest time, money and energy in family life, turning instead to investments in themselves.” (528) I agree with him that the family may be in decline, but now it is for the better I am in agreement with Cowan’s argument when he says that Popenoe is using correlation to try and prove causation. He is “consistently blaming the victim and ignoring the synergy of social forces that place American families at risk.” (549) The reason that people are getting married, getting jobs and having kids later in life is so that they able to establish themselves financially prior to bringing a child into the world. Better birth control has allowed couples to wait until they are not only emotionally better adjusted and physically able to handle a child but also financially able to provide everything that a child may require. This also means that many children now who are brought into the world are not only planned but wanted.

I also believe that it is important to leave a marriage where both parties are unhappy. Even if it does not cause a person physical harm it can be emotionally draining for not only the spouses but for the children as well.
The author is correct in the sense that things have changed dramatically and many people are waiting until they are more established to start a family. This may not be a bad thing and in fact can be deemed an improvement over the past. It is okay to be selfish when you are young and it is a time to make mistakes. As you get older and wiser the knowledge of being secure with yourself and your decisions and those of your loved ones allow you to bring other people into your lives.

1. Popenoe definition of family is “a domestic group – a group in which people typically live together in a household and function as a cooperative unit, particularity through sharing of economic resources, in the pursuit of domestic activities”. What do you think is the proper definition of family and who should be included?

2. Is it better to stay in a bad marriage for the sake of children?

3. Should the only focus of getting married be procreation?

Must Decline Precede Extinction?

The uncertainties elicited by this week’s articles all center around a common theme: the role of the researcher.  It is undoubtedly difficult to remain ideologically neutral when prescribing a remedy for family decline, however, as Popenoe provides merely a descriptive of family change; it is interesting that he is still unsuccessful in concealing his personal ideology.  Responses to Popenoe’s conclusions fall victim to similar pitfalls.  Coontz alone manages to utilize data on families in an objective, rather than subjective, manner, and to provide a glimpse into the reality behind “modern” changes.

Arguments presented by Coontz do not center on feminist-based agendas, whether to support or to attack, but rather describe similarities between historical variations of family life and recent Western phenomena.  Without doubt, our ability to track and categorize changes has improved, in part due to a wealth of available, high quality, qualitative and quantitative data, and if Coontz is correct, the quantity, rather than quality, of existing variations is significant.  Most importantly, the influence of broader social, political, and economic factors are finally considered. 

 What this leads me to is this:

1.       1.  Can the changes taking place be considered a breakdown of family values, or are they, as some authors suggest, representative of a strong commitment to unattainable family values? (ex: the desire to raise children in two parent households leading to delayed marriage)

2.       2.  What policies/strategies would best support the modern family?  Considering current phenomenon (large, simultaneous qualitative and quantitative changes), would these support systems successfully reverse any of the recent changes, or stimulate further change? (ex: maternal leave benefits supporting mothers who work outside the home)

3.       3.  Is love a necessary precursor to marriage?  Can a marriage be success without romantic beginnings?  Is Popenoe correct in concluding that marriage should exist outside of and despite of individual desires?  What are the qualities, if not love, that encourage marriage longevity?

Is the 'family' in decline?

First of all, the debate we read for this class which is part of what has been called ‘the family wars’ reflect contested issues in the social sciences (modern versus postmodern theories, small versus large n studies) and bad practices (rhetoric and ideology versus empirical testing, personal opinions versus evidence). The debate is already thirty years old and I wonder how this discussion has changed to date in academic research.

Second, the readings reflect also a major problem in bad research: concluding causality. Popenoe’s arguments are full of causal links that have not been tested. For Popenoe, each of the five dimensions of the family decline is cumulative and causes each other but he does not provide a sound study of the mechanisms that may produce this and that would link family risk factors with the outcomes. In this sense, I agree with Cowan when he reminds the readers that correlation does not prove causation and that Popenoe fails to “consider alternative causal hypotheses, especially those at levels of analysis other than antichild and antifamily values” (1993, p. 549). If Popenoe would have provided a serious research account, he would have had to consider in his analysis important historical, economic, political, technological, social and cultural transformations that may shape family and fertility patterns.

Third, when Arlie Hochschild (1991) writes “Wallerstein does not compare children of divorce with a matched sample of children from intact marriages” (p. 3) she points out a major flaw in the family wars: what is the counterfactual? What are the appropriate comparison groups? I would say this needs a further thought.

Finally, the set of readings remind me a problematic in social policy: the unclear division of the private and public spheres. Can we enforce people to have a certain number of children? Should we even think of enforcing people to live with someone? What are the implications of designing family and fertility policy? Is the purpose to reduce risk factors or to impose values?

Questions.

1. What is the impact that policy has on family and fertility outcomes? How can we better design policy that respects the private decisions of individuals but offers means to reduce risks? For example, is legalizing abortion a way of reducing family, health and psychological risks?
2. What are the legal, social, cultural, economic, political differences that have made Canada and the US similar or different in terms of family outcomes?
3. What has more recent empirical research found on the changes in the five dimensions that alarmed Popenoe and that fueled the ‘family wars’?

Is the Family in Decline by Jessica Astle

When I began to read Popenoe’s article, “American Family Decline, 1960-1990: A Review and Appraisal” my first thought was is this a scholarly article? I questioned this because there seemed to be more of Popenoe’s personal opinion in this article then actual scientific or even evidence in the literature. For example, when discussing the definition of a family he stated, “I define the family as a relatively small domestic group of kin (or people in a kin-like relationship) consisting of at least one adult and one dependent person” (529). This is the definition that he used throughout his paper even though it was not fabricated through research but instead personal opinion. I further disagreed with Popenoe’s definition of a family because he said that in order to be considered a family there must be a child. I think this definition is offensive to both married couples who choose not to have children and couples who are incapable of having children. This may be stretching slightly but what if two adults who were married and incapable of having children and had no other living relatives. Could they not be considered to be a family? Or, what about a childless couple who fosters children? Would they only be considered a family according to Popenoe when they are fostering children and not a family if for a period of time they were waiting for a child to foster? It is because of these reasons I find Popenoe’s definition of the family to be lacking and incomplete.

Popenoe also argued that he believes divorce leads to a decline in child welfare. I myself am not from a divorced family but I think in many situations it is better for parents to divorce then stay together and this actually benefits the welfare of the child. For example, in the, “Fractured Family” the history of Dotty Lewinson and her family were described. Dotty was beaten by her husband and she in turn beat her children. Now personally, I think in this situation the children should have been taken away from the Lewinson’s by child services but I also see no positive effects of these two parents staying together. I do not see how their separation would lead to a decline in their children’s welfare as it would be separating them from an abusive father and the idea that hitting others is permitted in our society. I believe this is why in Canada there has been an increase in the rate of divorce because parents no longer think that the best situation for their children is always for the parents to stay together as it may create a negative environment for their children to grow up in. I believe that there are situations where a child’s welfare is more at risk when parent stay together then when parents choose divorce.

1) 1) In the, “Fractured Family” Popenoe described how he though government help was weakening the strength of families in Sweden by providing services for families expecting and those with children because it created an attitude of, "the state offers a service. My taxes pay for it. I might as well use it instead of doing the job myself." In Canada, we have a welfare state that like Sweden provides such things as healthcare, benefits to poor families and parental leave policies. Do you agree with Popenoe that such services weaken the family?

2) 2) Do you agree or disagree with Popenoe’s definition of a family? Do you think that in order for a relationship to be considered a family there must be children? How would your definition of a family resemble Popenoe’s definition of a family and how would it differ?

3) 3) In the, “Fractured Family” Popenoe states that, “the rate of break-up is greater among cohabiting than married couples” (2). Do you agree with this statement? And if this statement is true, why do you think a marriage certificate increases the likelihood of parents staying together?