Over the past two decades there has been a considerable debate over the breakdown in the “traditional family”. Some argue that the decline is due to a breakdown in family values, while others maintain there are structural reasons for changing patterns. In order to understand the so called breakdown of the traditional family, we must first define what family is.
“By the late 14th century, the English word family, derived from the Latin word
for household including servants and slaves, had emerged to designate all those who lived under the authority of the household head…in the 17th century the word exclusively referred to a man’s offspring, as in the phrase ‘his family and wife. Not until the 19th century did the word commonly describe a married couple with their co-resident children, distinguished from a household or more distant kin (Coontz,).
Historically it was not until 200 years ago the definition of family was a married couple and their co-residing children. Ethnically the definition of family differs as well. A Montagnais-Naskapi Indian once said to a Jesuit missionary “you French people love only your own children; but we love all the children of our tribe.” The Cheyenne Indians daughters were expected to have hostile relationships with their mothers and their closest relationships with their paternal aunt (Coontz).
Throughout history the definition of family has changed. A family was once every person in the household, every person under the authority head. Some Indian tribes considered the entire tribe “family”. So, what is a “family”? More importantly, what is the “traditional family”? The traditional American family is a married couple, each only married once, and their 2.3 children. The male is the bread winner and female stays at home to care for the home and the children.
In colonial American families were “a patriarchal institution ruled by the father”. This was called a “godly family”. During this time, “the family was a school… a vocational institute… a church… a house of correction… a welfare institute… an orphanage… a hospital… an old people’s home… and a poor house.” Families, during this time, were also very public.
“The family with its permeable boundaries, did not contain or define an individual’s social life. Rather, people lived ‘in the streets’ in the community. Community members often intervened in family matters (Baca Zinn, et al).
During the modern era, the family changed again. The family was now more private, work was done outside of the home, romantic love brought couples together and the family was more “child-centered.
In modern times there are new variables in causing a decline in the “traditional family”. These variables include homosexuality, law, cohabitation, divorce and more. On homosexuality, Weston says,
“Claiming a lesbian or gay identity has been portrayed as a rejection of ‘the family’…Two presuppositions lend to such a dubious credence to such imagery: the belief that gay men and lesbians do not have children or establish long lasting relationships, and the belief that they invariably alienate adoptive and blood kin once their sexual identities become known. By presenting ‘the family’ as a unitary object, these depictions also imply that everyone participates in identical sorts of kinship relations and subscribes to one universally agreed upon definition of family (Weston).”
Another variable that has recently affected family is the law. While “in medieval Europe it was considered incestuous to have sexual relations with anyone less than a seventh cousin, and marriage between cousins was proscribed (Gittins)”, today,
each state stipulates the legal age of marriage, the allowed distance between relatives, health requirements, the length of waiting period required before marriage, rules concerning inheritance, Social Security, and the division of property in case of divorce (Baca Zinn et al).
Cohabitation also affects the “traditional family”, because cohabitating couples that marry have a higher divorce rate than those couples that do not live together before marry. Baca Zinn and Eitzen explain:
“Heterosexual cohabitation continues to increase in the United States. The 2000 Census found 4.9 million households headed by opposite-sex cohabitating couples…More than half of first marriages are now preceded by cohabitation (most cohabitating couples either marry or split up within eighteen months). About half of cohabitating couples do marry each other. Ironically, cohabitating couples who marry have a somewhat higher divorce rate than those who marry without having lived together (Baca Zinn et al).”
In the 1970’s the divorce rate increased and in 1981 it crested at 5.2 divorces per 1000 people in the population. Later, in the 1990’s it evened out at 4.2 divorces per 1000. In 2001, at a rate of 4 divorces per 1000 population, the divorce rate hit its lowest since the 1970’s. Today, however, about half of the people who do get married, will end up divorced. “African American couples are more likely than Whites or Latinos to divorce. (Baca Zinn et al). In addition to a higher divorce rate, another variable could be immigration. With immigration of non-Whites at an all time high, race and ethnicity play a large part in the decline of the traditional family.
The majority of people who get a divorce, will get remarried, according to Baca Zinn and Eitzen. “Three out of four men and six out of ten women eventually do so” (Baca Zinn et al). Remarriage plays a crucial role in the decline of the traditional family because, as stated before, the “traditional family” consists of a married male and female, never before married.
There are other variables including the economy. Today single income families are scarce. Today, “60% of married couples are dual-earner households (Baca Zinn et al).” In theory, dual-earners would extend their “non-traditional” values onto their kin.
Some couples have chosen to remain childless. So much for the 2.3 children. In fact, “one in six women will never have children (Baca Zinn et al).”
There are many possible reasons for the so-called decline in the “traditional family”. There is homosexuality, the law, cohabitation, divorce, race and ethnicity, remarriage, dual-earner families and families remaining childless.
Another possible explanation could be that what we call the traditional family (a male and female, never before married with 2.3 children, and the male as the bread winner) has only been around for fifty years or so. Before that, a family was an entire tribe, an entire household, including servants, living under the authority of a household head. Before the law told us it was wrong, it was appropriate to marry a cousin (Coontz). So, maybe, what we call a “decline in the traditional family” is not a decline at all. Maybe, this is simply the traditional family reforming to what it once was.
References
Baca Zinn, Maxine, and D. Stanley Eitzen. Diversity in Families. 7th ed. Boston: A and B, 2005. 43-281.
Coontz, Stephanie. “The Family in Question.” Shifting the Center. Ed. Susan J. Ferguson. Mountain View: Mayfield Publishing Company, 2001. 59-61.
Gittins, Diana. “The Family in Question.” Shifting the Center. Ed. Susan J. Ferguson. Mountain View: Mayfield Publishing Company, 2001. 10.
Weston, Kath. “Exiles From Kinship.” Shifting the Center. Ed. Susan J. Ferguson. Mountain View: Mayfield Publishing Company, 2001. 27.
