American Family Decline: A Debate

Explain the debate surrounding the contemporary changes in American families (“American Family Decline” debate). According to Popenoe, what indicates that American family is in decline? What are the Stacey’s and Cowan’s critiques of his argument? What position would you take in this debate and why?

David Popenoe writes on his disappointment and unhappiness about the current state of the American family. His argument presents many comparisons to the “traditional nuclear family” of the 1950s and the immense changes that today’s family suffer. He dubs today’s society the “me-generation” and argues that it is because of this, that family has so greatly been altered. He explains that part of the decline in family is greatly due to the fact that the “child centered” focus in family has been lost, and the as a whole the family has become less authoritative and less focused on the children. He defines the family, explaining that a main part of it includes the idea of “dependents.” He explains that he does not consider a married couple alone as a family, because they lack domestic kin and thus lose the important family function of domestic care. He also states that families today are less concerned with their duties as a whole. He states that two of the main reasons accounting for this decline in family are the rising divorce rate and the decreasing fertility rate. This is due partially to the decision to get married later in life thus causing the first child to be born later. He also believes there to be a decrease in positive feelings towards motherhood and a positive feeling surrounding childlessness. Because of this there are fewer children in the population. Popenoe also sees the traditional family, that is the nuclear family of “mother at home, father at work” to be tremendously decreased. Today mothers are working much more than ever before and older males are working less. He also points out a shift from the nuclear family of yesteryear to the “step-parent family” and the “single-parent family.” These families are seen as problematic, because they are results of what he deems as most plaguing, the rise in divorce. Popenoe explains how divorce has replaced death, and how there is an increase in the probability that marriage will end in divorce. He goes on to state a number of causes for the increase in divorce, highlighting those related to the self-centered nature of today’s society. His unhappiness with this leads into his description of the place of marriage today. He believes that there is a different stigma surrounding the unmarried, it is no longer a problem to be single. Rather than marry for society’s need for procreation, he sees people as choosing to decide whether to marry based on self fulfillment and desire rather than need. He also looks negatively upon the idea of cohabitation before marriage, as it often leads to independent life rather than married life. He highlights his argument by explaining that “the family as an institution has weakened” (p.36). He believes this due to demographic shifts, women working more and depending less on marriage for economic support, a decrease in parent and child connection, less influence by older generations on children, decline in parental involvement in terms of sexual behavior with their children, and loss of power over as the family as a source of authority. Popenoe is focused on the shift from the family as a “whole unit” to the function of the individual, “me.”
Stacey responds to Popenoe by explaining that his view is far too conventional. He needs to broaden his horizons and view the possibility of different types of family. The concept of family is much more open than he has defined it and in this ever changing world he needs to account for these differences. He sees family not as an institution but rather a symbol. It is far too difficult to place on set definition on this vague and ever changing idea. He in turn does agree with some of what Popenoe says, however he believes that some of his claims are “anthropologically incorrect” since he lacks statistics and research from the post 1960 era. He also fails to analyze the post industrial changes in society that are reason for the change in familial structure. He also points out that unfortunate way in which divorce is viewed as worse than equality between men and women in the work force. Although women working is beyond the traditional view of the family it gets closer to a more equal balance between man and women in today’s society. His belief is that Popenoe and many others are too focused on the ideal vision and the nostalgia of the past, the “Ozzie and Harriet” family of the 1950s and ignoring the psychological, geographically and social changes that account for the new type of family. For him it is necessary to restructure social policy in terms of work schedules and unemployment in order to “restore” what has been lost. We need to have a broader view of what is acceptable in terms of a family, and diversify our view according to today’s needs and ever-changing society.
Cowan also finds Popenoe to be far too nostalgic. He states that his argument lacked data and ignores many of the differences people are faced with today. It is necessary to recognize the economic necessity for both parents to work. He also fails to realize that what he deems as negative (women in the workplace) is a positive stride for women’s equality. He also believes that his arguments lack research because as Cowan discovered, people’s reasons for having fewer children or having no children at all are based on their desire to be good parents. Cowan also finds political neglect to be a large problem as well. Cowan believes it is necessary to look at patterns as well as other reasons for this change in family including the developmental psychopathology approach. We need to do more research, listen to what families are saying and experiencing and recreate a new definition. We cannot generalize as Popenoe did and we must be open to new visions.
After reading all three of the articles I was struck by many of the same feelings. I too agree that there does seem to be a trend towards parent and child separation. I feel lucky to come from a family in which both of my parents are equally involved in my life. However, I disagree with Popenoe’s argument that a single parent family is not a good one or strong. One of my best friend’s has grown up with her mother only, since her parents were divorced at a young age and it has proved to be a wonderful and nurturing experience. I do agree that divorce can sometimes be detrimental for children, but it is necessary to do further research and studies on the subject as a whole. I hope that there can be a balance and an increase in marriages that stay strong, but I also think that has a lot to do with the people involved rather than the society as a whole. I think it would be interesting to conduct interviews with children of all parenting backgrounds in order to discover a better sense of how children are feeling in today's world.