Marriage, Cohabitation, and Parenthood

This week we look at the controversial states of marriage, cohabitation and child rearing as they vary by geography and demographics. These readings ask us to consider the choices we make with regards to family and children, while taking our individual and societal context into account. More often than not these two are in conflict, and it is important to consider whether the resulting dissonance has a positive or negative effect on our lives and the lives of our family. For Canada and the United States, traditional marriage has been and continues to be the predominant social norm. The various legal rights and protections inherent in marriage are limited within cohabiting couples. In the United States, some states such as California provide cohabiting couples with almost equal protections as married couples, however other parts of the country limit the rights provided. In addition, the definition of “cohabitation” varies by state. In Canada there is less property right protection for cohabiting couples, however common-law marriages are available to straight and gay couples. Interestingly though, only a small percentage of Canadians qualify two married homosexual individuals with children as a family. (We will post the survey that discussed this shortly.)

In the United States, recent controversy over the definition and “protection” of marriage erupted onto the political field with a bid for same-sex marriage. While support for same-sex marriage seems to be growing, (according to CNN, 46% of the US now feels that the government should give legal recognition), the rhetoric is still not acceptable within politics. Neither President Barak Obama nor Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, two politicians lauded for their socially groundbreaking presidential campaigns, say that they support gay marriage (President Obama did support the overturn of Proposition 8 in California despite his lack of commitment to gay marriage).

Furthermore, the existence of cohabitation appears also to be in constant conflict with the institution of marriage: recent debates rage over the ideal family to raise children, the legitimacy of non-heterosexual marriage, and the rights of non-married family members to legal protection and support.

This week’s readings have demonstrated that lived realities may not coincide with ideology. Perceptions of ideal families, marriages, and ways of raising children are encoded in specific societal beliefs, and can severely affect the lives of those who deviate from those expectations. Universal rising cohabitation rates show us that change is occurring. The example of Quebec illustrates that an “avant-garde” life choice can become a stable norm when there is societal acceptance.

More and more people are making the conscious choice to cohabit, to be single mothers, to fight for the rights of gay and lesbian couples, but will this be enough to synthesize the realities and ideals of family life?

As Mannis states toward the end of “Single mothers by choice”,

“Most social institutions operate as if the traditional heterosexual, married, two-parent family is the only family form. This places burdens and stigma on nontraditional families. The dominant view supports the traditional family as ideal and the norm against which other families are compared. Other family structures are viewed as deficit models (Rice, 1994).”

Mannis, however, along with much of Western society, continues to base assertions of familial variability on the traditionally White, high-status normative family structure. In so doing, fails to fully acknowledge the societal differentiation between valued and non-valued groups. A reorganization of single mothers (or any other social group) across socioeconomic, racial, or geographical boundaries (artificial or otherwise) does not recognize the intersectionality of disempowerment. Indeed, the above statement takes on an ironic meaning considering the subjects of the article.

While many continue to challenge the two-parent, heterosexual family ideology, individuals who engage in non-traditional relationships adopt or retain highly traditional sexual roles (gay parents as disciplinarians, lesbians as nurturers, single mothers in need of children to mother). The evidence on cohabitation suggests that marriage no longer meets the needs of the post-modern family. As societal expectations and personal goals shape and shaped by the broader socio-political environment, many areas (Sweden, Quebec, to name but two) no longer seem to be compatible with traditional marriage. Take a look at these two articles on the changing nature of marriage and cohabitation:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jane-minogue/traditional-marriage-and_b_191423.html

http://www.newsweek.com/2010/10/06/is-living-in-sin-still-bad-for-your-marriage.html?from=rss
As well as these:
A simple definition of marriage from our friendly neighborhood monsters
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQJvSzkVfRg
And this offensive yet effective video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QNiqfRyoAyA

We look forward to reading your responses!

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?

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?