"Where would you like to go to dinner?" my mother asked. "We're thinking of somewhere fairly fast and inexpensive, like Training Table or TGI Fridays."  "It doesn't matter to me," I replied. Apparently she had received similar responses from the other members of the family because we were having incredible difficulty deciding on a place to eat. No one seemed to care at all where we went until one person expressed a preference for a certain restaurant. Suddenly that became the one place that everyone else didn't want to go. "Let's just go to Training Table, then," I finally said. "That's probably my last choice," my father chimed in. Suddenly he did have an opinion after all. It was then that I realized that my family did alright when there were three or less of us gathered together. But on the rare occasion that you get all five of us together, it becomes nearly impossible to reach a consensus on even the most trivial of decisions. We finally decided to just pile into the mini-van and start driving--then we'd have to end up somewhere.

"Why do we do this to ourselves?" I asked myself. As integral a part of my life as my family is, I can't help but wonder from time to time why we have families? The more I thought about this question, the more I realized how little I knew about families. Although we are all connected to a family of some sort and they are usually a major part of our lives, it surprised me how many more questions I had about the family than answers. The decline of the family has been a much talked about issue in recent years. How is the family declining exactly? What has caused this decline? What are the results of it? I wasn't even sure what they meant by decline. I quickly found myself with a fairly long list of questions about the evolution of the American family over the past several decades.

Although at one time or another (most likely during the teen years!) we have probably all wished we didn't have a family, it is something that is essential to our development and existence. Families serve functions that cannot be performed in any other way. There are several functions of the family that are almost universally agreed upon: procreation, socialization of children, the provision of care, affection and companionship to its members, economic cooperation, and sexual regulation (Popenoe, 529; Henslin, 311). So when we say that the American family is in decline, it means that it is no longer fulfilling these purposes as effectively as it once did. This paper will further discuss the ways in which the family is failing to meet these basic functions.

Even the most elementary of questions proved to be more complex than it seemed initially. Our definition of family may be entirely different than in another culture. For example, in New Guinea there is a group in which "a young woman must give birth before she can marry, and she cannot marry the father of her child"(Henslin, 308). That stretches even the broadest of my ideas about family. Because of the incredible variety of family types in different cultures, I will limit my focus to American families. To me, it seemed that a family was simply two parents and their children. And perhaps 40 or 50 years ago that is exactly what the average American family consisted of. Today, however, the question is much more complex. There are such a variety of family structures--single-parent families, step-families, cohabitating partners, etc.--that it becomes nearly impossible to say what the "average" American family is today. Generally there seems to be two sets of definitions of the family--one defines the way the family used to be and is viewed almost as an archaic relic. The second, broader definition is intended to reflect a more diverse set of modern family structures.

David Popenoe, professor of sociology at Rutgers University and oft-cited expert on the family, gives us this definition of the traditional nuclear family: "The modern nuclear family was a truly remarkable development in the history of human social organization, and probably the only example in history in which voluntary lifelong monogamy was widely practiced. This family form consists of a monogamous married couple living with their children, apart from other relatives, with the husband working outside the home and the wife being a mother and full-time housewife" ("Can the Nuclear Family be Revived?", 29). This once common family form is generally held up as the ideal and, in that sense, the 1950's are used as a measuring stick against which subsequent decades have been judged in terms of their family stability. When I refer to the "traditional nuclear family," it is this family form that I mean.

Although it may be widely considered the ideal, this definition of the family is not as practical as it once was. With the rising divorce rate, increase in single motherhood, and introduction of homosexual partners into the mix, it has become increasingly difficult to give such a clear-cut definition of family. Popenoe suggests that a working definition of the modern family would be one that "consists of at least one adult and one dependent person." In this definition he includes single-parent families, step families, and nonmarried and homosexual couples ("American Family Decline," 529). It seems difficult, however, to include homosexual couples in the definition of family when we consider that one of the basic functions of the family is procreation. Though they are certainly capable of economic cooperation, provision of care and affection, etc., homosexual couples are incapable of procreation. For this reason, I will exclude homosexual partners from my general definition of the American family.

Whatever else may be said about the recent concern over the welfare of the family, it cannot be said that it is new. As Scott Yabiku points out, these concerns have existed for hundreds of years. William Ogburn, was studying family change in the early 1930's. In the 1800's, Emile Durkheim observed that family bonds were weakening. Even Karl Marx's criticism of capitalism was inspired, in part, by its destructive effect on the family (1494). Yet the family unit has perhaps never been studied and examined as closely as in recent years. Clearly there are some trends that are causing alarm among experts and other people in general. The television show "Who Wants to Marry a Multi-Millionaire" that recently aired and drew incredible ratings just serves to illustrate how the sanctity of marriage and family has been disregarded by many Americans. On this show many desperate women were vying for a chance to marry a man based solely upon his wealth. The man was no better--he was choosing what should be a lifelong partner based solely upon her looks. Predictably, the marriage was dissolved in a very short time, but not before it made a mockery of a sacred institution.

Being raised in Utah, I may have a bit of a warped view about what is normal as far as marriage and family are concerned. Utah's family sizes and marital patterns vary greatly from the rest of the nation. Yet I am not so naive to fail to realize how lucky I am to have grown into adulthood in a family with both of my biological parents. After all, there is now less than a 50 percent chance of that happening ("Can the Nuclear Family Be Revived?", 28). My family is unusual in many aspects--aspects that would have defined the average traditional nuclear family half a century ago but have become obsolete in today's society. For example, my mother has always stayed at home to raise the children while my father works outside of the home. Having four children is certainly larger than the national average for family size, and many families today don't even start off with two parents in the home, much less survive 20 plus years with them still intact and reasonably sane.

Current trends in families accentuate the uniqueness of my own family. Changing marital patterns have altered family structures dramatically. Although marriage and family are not the same thing and could certainly provide enough subject matter for separate papers, it is difficult to discuss family without recognizing the influence that marriage has on it. First off, there has been an increase in the number of couples who live together before they marry. Popenoe reports that the number of first marriages that were preceded by cohabitation rose from eight percent in 1960 to about 50% by 1993. Although it may seem somewhat surprising, living together before marriage has actually been found to increase the chances of divorce ("American Family Decline," 534). This indicates that couples are less committed to each other and to the idea of marriage. This decline in commitment could account for some of the increase in divorce rates.

Also on the rise is the number of unwed mothers. There seems to have been a dramatic shift in America's view on what is acceptable sexual behavior. In the 1950's it was generally considered immoral to have a child outside of wedlock. In fact, in 1960 unwed mothers accounted for only five percent of all births whereas nearly one quarter of all children in the U.S. are now born to single mothers, despite advances in contraceptive technology and increases in abortion rates ("American Family Decline," 532). As I will discuss further, starting off in such a situation greatly reduces the child's chances of educational and economic success.

Besides living together and having children outside of marriage, couples are also putting marriage off until later in life. Women today are marrying almost four years later than women did in 1960 ("American Family Decline," 532). This reflects a shift in attitudes about marriage. Popenoe reports, "In 1957, 80% of the population agreed with the statement, 'for a woman to remain unmarried she must be sick, neurotic or immoral;' by 1978, the proportion agreeing had dropped to 25%"("American Family Decline," 533). Of course delayed marriage is not inherently bad--marrying at an older age may decrease the chances of divorce. Yet it does have the effect of also delaying childbearing which has resulted in a decline in the average number of children a woman has in her lifetime. This begs the question whether this decline in childbearing is a desired or undesired effect for these women. Popenoe suggests that many women end up having fewer children than they desire because they put off childbearing for too long ("American Family Decline," 530).

Also calling for consideration is the divorce rate. In 1962, for example, death of a parent accounted for 68% of the families that did not have two biological parents at their head whereas divorce was the reason for only 28% of these families. However, in a 1992-1994 study, these numbers had practically reversed, with divorce accounting for 62% of single-parent families and death only 33% (Biblarz, 326). In other words, personal choice has taken the place of tragedy to take a parent away from the home. I will discuss in greater detail what effects single-parent families have on children. Combining the factors that I have discussed--single motherhood and increased divorce rates--experts estimate that a child now has about a 50% chance of growing into adulthood with his biological parents ("Can the Nuclear Family Be Revived?", 28). In fact, as James Henslin reports, "the United States has--by far--the highest divorce rate in the industrialized world"(328). So, yes, as it turns out I am quite lucky to still have both of my natural parents together.

Each of these marital patterns are significant to our discussion of family because they affect the family structure and the family structure affects the outcome of the children.

To note the modern evolution and erosion of the American family is one thing, to explain it is something else. There seems to be consensus among experts on the family that the erosion of the family began, or at least accelerated drastically, in the 1960's. What happened at the onset of that decade to bring such dramatic change in the American family? Although it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to pinpoint one specific cause, there are several theories about what fundamental changes in our society have brought about this decay.

Along with its many beneficial results, the feminist movement has added to family decline by shifting women's focus toward the workplace and away from family and home life. I do not mean to suggest that women are incapable of balancing both a career and a family, but it is difficult to say that a women who works can invest as much time in family as one who does not. Also, marriage as an economic cooperation has become less important as women have become more affluent. Some extreme women's rights advocates even view the traditional nuclear family as oppressive ("Can the Nuclear Family Be Revived?", 29). Due to their changing role, many women perhaps no longer view motherhood and family in the same favorable light that they once did. Also, the absence of mothers in the home has led to a decline in parental influence over children. Their socialization--one of the primary functions of the family--has been left to other groups. Schools, peer groups, and even mass media have filled this void for today's children. Can these groups socialize children as effectively as a parent?

Arguably the greatest detractor from the family has been the rampant selfishness of what Popenoe terms the "me-generation"("American Family Decline," 538). He observes, "People have become less willing to invest time, money, and energy in family life, turning instead to investments in themselves"(528). It is interesting that in an era of unparalleled economic expansion, people have become less willing to devote financial resources to family. Also, the abundance of labor saving devices which have supposedly given our society more free time than any before us has not made us any more willing to devote time to family. Popenoe also notes that "marriage has become a purely individual pursuit"("Can the Nuclear Family Be Revived?", 28). Ironically, seeking one's own satisfaction seems to have decreased overall marital satisfaction, as demonstrated by increasing instances of divorce.

There is an abundance of research regarding the effectiveness of step-families and single-parent families in child rearing. Though there is not complete consensus among the experts, a majority believe strongly that the best family structure in terms of child outcomes is still the family with two biological parents. In fact, Biblarz states, "Glenn asserts that a plethora of evidence has led to 'virtually unanimous' agreement from the best social scientists that alternative families are not in the best interest of children"(325). He also points out that there are various theories as to why alternative family structures have negative outcomes. Some believe that single-parent families (which are usually headed by mothers) cannot provide as well economically for children because a single provider will never do as well as two providers. Also, women's earning potential is often less than a man's--in fact, Biblarz reports that "mother-headed families average less than a third the income of two-parent families and about half the income of alternative father-headed families"(324).

A second theory regards the socialization of children. When a single-parent becomes solely responsible for the financial support of a family, this will almost certainly reduce the amount of time that he or she will be able to spend raising the children (Biblarz, 323). Certainly if my parents had divorced when I was younger and my mother had become responsible for the family's financial well-being, she could not possibly have spent the time with us that she has. Children from single-parent families will also lack role models for how to act in social situations.

Scott Yabiku focuses less on alternative family structures and more on family integrationBwhich he defines as "the extent to which individual lives are characterized by a high degree of family organization"(1494). His main focus is on how family integration affects the self-esteem of children. He observes:

We can see, then, that declining families have many effects on children--economically, socially, and in their development of self-esteem. Not only are these factors influenced by alternative family structures, but also by the amount of time that a family spends socializing together. While these effects on children are negative, it is also important to recognize that there are some positive aspects to these changed family structures. For example, the increasing economic independence of women makes it easier for them to leave abusive situations. Although this does contribute to a higher divorce rate, most would agree that it is a positive result.

I am not married. Once I do get married, though, I hope to never get divorced. Yet I can't help but wonder if those are just the same thoughts that hundreds of thousands of divorced people had before they married. I can't imagine someone going into a marriage thinking, "This will never last." Yet one thing is sure--divorce will continue. At this point it is difficult to determine whether current divorce rates will continue at their present level, or if they will rise or fall. Henslin seems very confident that some current trends will continue into the future. He states, "Certain trends are firmly in place. Cohabitation, births to single women, and age at first marriage will increase. More married women will join the work force, and they will continue to gain marital power. Equality in marriage, however, is not even on the horizon"(333). Popenoe expects that marriage rates will continue to drop in the future. He cites changes in attitudes about marriage as the reason for this probable decline ("American Family Decline," 533).

The forecast for the future of families appears bleak. Is there anything we can do to change the current trends? In my opinion there is. Although it may not be popular, the best way to revive the family is to return to the traditional values that are at its foundation. We must once again recognize marriage and family for the sacred institutions that they are--instead of simply the vehicles to self-gratification for which they have recently been used. Once we realize that, we will be more willing to invest time, money and energy toward the propagation of family. Citing a study on the characteristics of good families, Henslin gives several suggestions for what makes a "happy" family. Among these characteristics are: they are committed to promoting one another's welfare, they are religious, they do a lot of talking and listening to one another, and they spend a lot of time together (332). Not surprisingly, several of these traits indicate a selfless concern for the other members of the family.

As for marriage, Henslin lists these traits for happy couples: they think of marriage as a long-term commitment, believe marriage is sacred and strongly want the relationship to succeed (332). Along these same lines, Popenoe gives suggestions about how to promote marriage. According to him we should: (1) "Spread the word about the emotional, economic, and health benefits of lifelong monogamy, and about how it is superior to other family forms," (2) "Educate people about the nature of modern marriage--that it is not merely finding the perfect mate and living a life of passion and romance. It is a long-term friendship between a man and a woman that requires constant effort and care plus a strong moral commitment to the institution," and (3) "Continue to privilege marriage through public policy and at the same time discourage the formation of alternative lifestyles"("Can the Nuclear Family Be Revived?", 30).

Also vital to the improvement of the American family is an emphasis on teaching appropriate sexual behavior. Sexual promiscuity undermines the family. Clearly it is responsible for single motherhood as well as infidelity--which often causes divorce. Popenoe observes:

I can still remember when my dad asked me if I wanted to go get some ice cream--I knew immediately what I was in for. I think that was his way of softening us up for what is inevitably an awkward situation--the "sex talk." I sat in the car and focused intently on my ice cream cone, the floor of the car--anything to avoid making eye contact as my dad explained certain things that he probably had no idea I had heard in school some time ago. Thinking back on it now, it was probably as awkward for him as it was for me--maybe that's what made him procrastinate it until I was about to graduate from high school. Well, that's an exaggeration, but you get the point. At any rate, as awkward as that was, it is something that is very important. Parents need to ensure that their children know exactly what is and is not appropriate sexual behavior. Increasingly, parents have left it up to schools, television, etc. to educate and socialize their children in this regard. If we are to strengthen the family of the future, it must begin in today's families.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Works Cited