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).