What Evidence Is There for the Decline of the Nuclear Family - Coursework Example

Family is a comforting presence in the life of an individual. The same can also turn into a limiting factor regarding an individual’s growth, particularly in a traditional and ritual-bound, patriarchal society. For a woman who cares for her freedom and dignity, the second statement is more close to reality than the first. Nuclear family came into being replacing the traditional, extended family. In a traditional family, production, reproduction, consumption and socialization largely remain inside wide kin networks. These families exist in pre-industrialized societies and they usually survive on land based agricultural units that produce their own food. Traditional families are also strongly patriarchal (Parreñas, 2001, p.105). A large share of traditional families was matrilineal and gave women an important position in decision making. Even in patriarchal traditional families, there was always a scope for scrutiny of the action of a male towards his female partner by other members of the family, particularly, the elders. Domestic labour, though assigned to females in the family was shared by many making it less time-consuming and hard to complete. Industrialization saw the genesis of nuclear family which invented a private space for individuals and also a clear cut labour division between man and woman. When industrial labour became the income source for a major chunk of the population, the life style based on agricultural labour had to go through a transformation. Nuclear family system was the most convenient system to control and maintain a labour force. Thus, the evolution of nuclear family had an economic and social cause, often sidelined by the self styled spokespersons of nuclear family. It was this new family structure that erased all traces of gender democracy from the structure of a co-resident system. One of the common definitions of a nuclear family is that “a nuclear family consists of mother, father, and dependent children, living as a household, with the man as the economic provider, and the woman as the primary carer in the domestic sphere.”(Abbot et al. 2005, p.6). The definition relates to division of labour, economic dependence of women, un-paid and unaccounted domestic work being the responsibility of women and also care and parenting being the sole obligation of the female adult. This household gives its male members the comfort of being taken care of. The same household is a place of unending and unpaid drudgery for the women involved. A more comprehensive definition which underscores the role of nuclear family as a sexual, reproductive, economic and legal entity states that, “Modern family consists of two adults and at least one child who is the biological offspring of the two adults; the couple were married before they had children; All parental and marital tasks were performed exclusively by the married couple; and family members belonged to only one nuclear family and had boundaries that had legally, geographically and biologically explicit ( Elkind, 1995, p.27). The boundaries mentioned in this definition exclude the outside world and at the same time imprison the member who is forced to stay back to do the domestic scores. The undemocratic labour division inside the nuclear family is one of the major facts that show explicitly the female oppression inside it. A study (Wilcox, 2004, p.4) analysing the American domestic life throws light on the fact that men in families have not taken up an equal share of the paternal, domestic and emotional work associated with family work. Sixty eight percent of households with children have married parents, but women in these homes bear a disproportionate share of family responsibilities (Wilcox, 2004, p.4). Another finding is that in US, 65% of mothers of children aged six, are now doing paid work. (Ely et al. 2003, p.404). But in the same country, “men were still found to spend only 1.7 hours per week by 1995 in scrubbing, vacuuming, and sweeping, whereas women still spent 6.7 hours per week performing these particular chores” (Ehrenreich, 1993, p.13).” “ In UK, it is only when women are employed full-time that men do more of the un-paid household work, and even then this amounts to only around 27 percent of the household’s un-paid work” (Rubery and Fagan, 1998, p.200). The logical summarisation of these data provides evidence to the unfair division of labour existing inside the family. The most influential theory on nuclear family and the most quoted one by feminists (Engels, 1884, quoted in Abbot et al. 2005, p.37) was delineated by Frederich Engels who theorised that bourgeois nuclear family was formed because of the needs of the capitalist system, and specifically because men wanted to pass on their property to their legitimate heirs. If this is the cause or even one of the causes, it logically derives that the model of female sexuality based on modesty, monogamy and romantic love is an economic necessity of male identity. All these morals, one should remember, are very rigid regarding women in a nuclear family. But they are much more flexible and pardonable when it comes to the sexual behaviour of men. The most dangerous consequence of familial ideology, argue feminists, is that it always places women in private sphere. Silva.E and Smart.C (1999, p.2-3), in their book, New Family, discuss how the favourite slogan of feminists, ‘personal is political’, gains relevance in the backdrop of a male-oriented society. The authors point out that “the family is still supposed to stand outside and above economic restructuring, market forces and financial, legal and technological change, as a pillar of supposed stability.” The states, advertisements and social initiatives are always found to address the nuclear family in their communication processes. This shows how embedded is the notion of stability of a nuclear family in the social psyche. But the recent years are seeing a slow transition in which the nuclear family is losing its edge and a wide variety of different kinds of family forms are emerging. The renowned social scientist David Elkind (1995, p.1) sums up this phenomenon by these words, “ The modern nuclear family, often idyllically portrayed as a refuge and a retreat from a demanding world, is fast disappearing. In its stead, we now have a new structure- the post modern permeable family- that mirrors the openness, complexity and diversity of our contemporary lifestyles.” According to other sociologists (Farley, 1995, p.6) also, the present day world is seeing a radical change in the positioning of man as the breadwinner and woman as the home maker. After studying the changes in the family structure in U.S.A, Farley (1995) says that “four demographic changes have profoundly affected the American family in the past 40 years: the decline in marriage, the increase in marital instability, the change in marital and non-marital fertility and the increase in mothers’ labour force participation.” Co-habitation without marriage is on the rise. Many marriages end up in divorces. A considerable share of the new generation is born outside wedlock. And women are regaining their status as a social being by joining the public space as members of work force. Figures are self-speaking. Only one in twenty households in Britain consist of a father in paid employment, a dependent wife and two children. Data show that only 10 percent of all marriages in the world are monogamous. In Sweden, more than 20 percent of adults live alone. Another 25 percent live together outside marriage. Half of the children are born to unmarried parents. 30 percent of UK households consist of only one person. (Abbot et al. 2005, 144-153) Feminists view the decline of nuclear family as a foreseeable change from a patriarchal and discriminatory mode of existence to a more democratic realm for women. They believe in family structures which are more flexible, varied and based on equality. Nuclear family was considered as a natural, biologically based and universal institution since its very inception. (Abbot et al. 2005, p.6) Any deviation from this family form is still considered unnatural by majority in any society. The perceived sanctity and inevitability of nuclear family is being questioned in the changing scenario. The nuclear family is revisited by feminists as a socially constructed entity to benefit the dominating males more than females. It is in this context that breaking the walls of the private space occupied by nuclear family assumes significance for feminists. When women turned into wage earners, the first major blow was unknowingly imparted to the security of this private space. Economic dependence was a big factor which ensured the submission of women to a male-dominated family system. Once women became economically independent, it naturally followed that they craved for freedom from submission. “Only about half as many wives (25 percent) as husbands (45 percent) say that there is nothing about their marriage that is not as nice as they would like. And twice as many wives ( about a fourth) as husbands (about 12 percent) in a Canadian sample say that they would not remarry the same partner” ( Jackson and Scott, p.209) Citing this economic and historical faces of family, the feminist critique endorses the transitional quality of familial ideologies. And the inference follows that what we think of as a family can vary enormously in terms of co-residence, economic relations, roles and responsibilities, sexual orientation and reproduction without being a cause of concern. The notion of family itself has varied historically geographically and culturally. (Abbot et al. 2005, p.144). Sociologists (Parreñas, 2001, p.105) testify that “households now encompass varied social arrangements and relations. They include dual wage-earning households, domestic partnerships, single parent families and divorced families.” The spectrum can also include same sex partnerships and extended families or re-formed families. All these new family forms come under an umbrella nomenclature: the post-modern family. The utilitarian functions which are attributed to the nuclear family system including socialisation, regulation of sexual activity, social placement and material and emotional security are retained in all these family forms also (Abbot et al. 2005, p.146). At the same time, gendered power relations, economic inequalities, domestic division of labour, difference in the role of men and women in parenting and possibility of male violence which are high in a nuclear family are, to an extent, averted in these free breathing systems. The pairing of people for emotional security is no more controlled by social sanctions. The human nature of variety is being acknowledged for the first time. If divorce rates are any indicators, the change from nuclear to post modern family system is very fast paced and beyond the normal projections. The average divorce rate as a percentage of marriages have tripled from 14.3% in 1970 to 41.2% in 1998 in OECD countries” ( OECD, 2001, p.32 ). In 1960, the number of co-habited households in US was about four and half lakhs. The 2000 figure peaks at more than 2.3 million. Though the followers of conventional wisdom may find this heart breaking, children are being brought up in single parented and even same sexed family systems. The patriarchal presence of the father, which endorses the value system which is associated with him, is no more a strong influence in such families. The mother that these children see is more confident and self dependent. How the new generation that comes out of this changed atmosphere will assimilate this change is for us to wait and see. How far the males are willing to forego the benefits enjoyed by them in the family is the second question. There are also several reported instances in which, the co-habitation imitates the gender power relations inside a nuclear family. Habits are going to linger even when the cause is gone. When nuclear families break up, women are often made to take up the sole responsibility of the care of the children. Circumstantial as well as emotional factors play a role in this regard. To conclude, the decline of nuclear family, while opening up new horizons for human civilisation, presents new challenges and complexities also. Abbott, P.et al. (2005) (3rd ed) An Introduction to Sociology: Feminist Perspectives, London: Routledge, p. 6-153. Ehrenreich, Barbara and Hochschild, Arlie Russel, (2003), Introduction, In Barbara Ehrenreich & Arlie Russel Hochschild (Eds.), Global woman: Nannies, maids, and sex workers in the new economy (1-14), New York: Henry Holt & Company, p.1-13. Elkind, David, 1995, Ties that stress: The new family imbalance, (1-27). Harvard: Harvard University Press, p.1-27. Ely, Robin J.et al(eds), 2003, Reader in gender, work and organization, Simmons College (Boston, Mass.), Center for Gender in Organizations, Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, p.404. Farley, Reynolds, (1995). State of the union: America in the 1990s, New York: Russel Sage Foundation, p.6. Jackson , S. and Scott, S. (eds) (2002) Gender; A Sociological Reader, London: Routledge, p.209. Parreñas, Rhacel Salazar, 2001 Servants of globalization: Women, migration and domestic work, Stanford: Stanford University Press, p.105. Rubery, Jill and Fagan, Colette, (1998). Women and European employment, London: Routledge. Silva, E. and Smart, C. (1996 ), The ‘New’ Family, Sage, p.2-3. Wilcox, William Bradford, (2004). Soft patriarchs, new men: How Christianity shapes fathers and husbands, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, p.4. OECD, Society at a glance: OECD social indicators, (2001),Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, OECD Publishing, p.48. Read More