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?

Is the family in decline?

According to Popenoe, my life has been an example of family decline. My parent’s got divorced, and my mother was in the workforce. And I do not think that my mother was in the workforce because she was “turning instead to investments in (her)self.” I believe it was because she wanted to provide best for her family, ensuring her children had everything that we needed, not at all signaling the end of “the century of the child.” Reading Popenoe infuriated me. I don’t mind that he postulates that family is in decline, but writing a scholarly article that is filled with personal opinion and speculation makes his article offensive. A prime example of this speculation occurs when he discusses his feelings towards parenting; the number of those who viewed it as a role to fulfill major values reduced in the past, so obviously “it has probably dropped still lower today… these attitudinal changes are associated with a remarkable decrease in the stigma associated with childlessness.” The first of which is speculation, and the second of which is only a probable reason. Changes in family form, such as single-parents and, two earner households, according to Popenoe are display of family decline, rather than just a change in family structure.

The reading I identified the most with was that of Cowan’s, as he shares many of my views on Popenoe. He agrees that Popenoe speculates, that women joining the workforce is not the problem (rather this is blaming the victim), and that having a working mother can be more beneficial for the child than having a stay-at-home mother (“they are less depressed than stay at home mothers”).

According to the blog posted online, Canada differs quite vastly from the USA in relation to maternity leave. This leave eases the burden and conflict that Popenoe references by allowing the mother to still hold her job, yet be at home with the child for the first year of life. The unpaid year in Canada can be split between the mother and father, ridding of this conflict, whereas in the United States only 12 weeks is allowed, all unpaid, and can only be used by the mother.

It is undeniable that the family is changing. But as someone who has experienced this ‘change’ I would never say that the family is in a decline. I still had two loving parents, who both cared enough about me as a child to give me the best life possible.

1. Which article either of Popenoe, Stacey, Glenn or Cowan do you most identify with? Did any elicit an emotional response?

2. In light of the Canadian statistics, that of maternity leave, the legalization of gay marriage, as well as our universal healthcare, do you think that this would alter Popenoe views on non-nuclear family’s ability to raise children? Would this shift his view of decline?

3. Do you believe in Popenoe’s statement “family change as family decline”? Why or why not. (Think about Coontz’s piece on marriage, and how these seemingly new changes of the family existed in years past e.g two parent families or divorce being common in the past without women’s say)

Reading Commentary and Questions Week 1

In “ American Family Decline: 1960-1990: A Review and Appraisal” Popenoe, in my opinion, falls short in making his argument stick. To begin with, his definition of the ‘family’ is not at all inclusive of the different family types that exist in the modern world. Popenoe does try to include different types of families (single-parent families, stepfamilies, non-married and homosexual couples) but he does not include group of kin that consist of an adult and a non-dependent person (for example, co-habitors who both have jobs but with no child). I agree with Stacey in that the term ‘family’ is an ideological, symbolic construct that has a history and politics rather than an institution (Stacey, 545). There is no universal definition and because of this, there are bound to be numerous disagreements.

In addition to this, throughout his article, Popenoe mentions the detrimental effects that this “decline” of family has on children but he falls short in providing conclusive evidence in backing up his argument. Just as Glenn argues, Popenoe is over-generalizing and making assumptions, which result in ambiguousness. Rather than looking at the present state of the family in the eyes of modern times, Popenoe looks at it through the 1950s perspective (which he admits himself is an abnormal period of family stability). In order to fully understand the state of the family, we must look at the societal, economic, and political changes that happened in relation to the changes in the family structure. As the societal norms and expectations change over time, it is no surprise that the family is changing in order to meet these new expectations. In relation to this, the term “decline” (which Popenoe uses throughout his article) has a negative connotation while the current changes in family does not necessarily equate to disadvantages.

Discussion questions:

1. Is it truly impossible to come up with a universal definition of the family? Is this because we tend to see this term more as a social construct rather than as an institution?

2. In your opinion, are children from broken families (non-traditional nuclear families) more prone to disadvantages? In addition, is there any conclusive (official) data in which this statement can be supported?

3. In his response to the other responses on his article, Popenoe mentions the issue of political correctness. Is political correctness relevant to the “decline” of the family?

Is the 'family' in decline?

We begin the semester with arguments about changes in the family within North America over the past 60 years--changes, which, depending on your definitions, social location, and choice of statistics, are fairly uncontroversial empirically but hotly contested politically.  Through this debate, we get a glimpse of the theoretical perspectives, historical contexts, and issues facing families that will be addressed in more detail throughout the semester.  In essence, this debate sheds light on the messy entanglements of family life in North America today.  Over the course of the next 11 weeks, we will untangle its threads slowly to arrive, by the end of the semester, with some more clarity of thought with reference to its contours and implications. 

To better understand the family wars discussed in your readings, there a few points to raise in preparation for Monday.  First, this debate, framed and argued by prominent American sociologists, begs the question of generalizability.  While most of the critiques very aptly call into question the historical and class biases of Popenoe's analysis, our most immediate concern is whether these same patterns and same anxiety about the institution of the family are reflected in Canada.  The short answer to this (though we will complicate this later) is yes.  Check out these patterns:

These address massive changes in women's labor force participation, changes in co-habitation and children in the home (source:  Statistics Canada).  In 2001, 12% of Canadian families with children were stepfamilies, according to the General Social Survey.  In addition, divorce rates spiked in Canada after the 1968 and 1985 liberalization of divorce laws, but have declined since then.  Check out this fact sheet published by the Vanier Institute on the family:  Divorce rates--Canada

Second, where the U.S. and Canada do differ (again, broad strokes here), it is in the direction that Poponoe sees as indicative of further erosion:  in 2005, Canada was the third country to legalize same-sex marriage and thus expand the institution formerly associated with the "nuclear" family (based on a two-parent heterosexual couple) to include lesbian and gay families.  While Popenoe's definition of the family ostensibly includes these individuals, his lament about the erosion of the family certainly seems to paint this trend as part of the proverbial problem.  Additionally, Canada has a much more generous (though not as generous as Sweden!) welfare state, including healthcare, benefits to poor families, and parental leave policies which he argues are correlated with family decline. 

Finally, concern over the changes and challenges to the family have also been popularly debated (though perhaps not as hotly) here.  The Vanier Institute, dedicated to providing leadership on assessing trends and advocating policies for the Canadian family, reflects these concerns.  It is perhaps not surprising that this is the case; our experience and understanding of the family is both a social and political matter as well as an intensely emotional and personal one.  These shifts are bound to raise questions and anxieties irrespective of political commitments and convictions.  Stacey, Cowan, Coontz, and Hochschild certainly reflect this, though they favor different explanations for changes within the family and thus recommendations for research and/or policy.     

Please label your posts with your name and "Is the family in decline?"  See you Monday.

Anna-Liisa