Traditional Family and Its Alternatives - Term Paper Example

Traditional Family and its Alternatives 2006 Outline: A) Contemporary ‘family’ situation. B) The ‘family’ statistics C) The reasons of traditional family form transformation D) The liveness of the alternative family forms The turn of the new century is marked by growing concerns about ‘family values’ and the crisis in the family. More and more we hear claims about the collapse of marriage and crisis in the family life. From traditional functionalist point of view the institution of marriage has been considered central to ideas of social stability and cohesion. From recent different perspectives the social science acquired a position ‘in which the idea of the heterosexual family has itself surfaced as a contested terrain, a site of competing discourses.’ (Collier, 1999, p.38) Contemporary family theory has accepted that family life of the modern society is diverse and ‘no one model of family structure is implicitly more ideal than any other.’(ODonnell, 1999, p.77) The traditional family unit is opposed by the increasing diversity of family structures, the part of which is lesbian and gay families. Actually the ‘traditional family’ described by sociological theory and designated from historical perspective as ‘an intact nuclear family household unit composed of a male breadwinner, his full-time homemaker wife, and their dependent children’ is no longer a dominant form in the US. (VanEvery, 1999, p.165) In the study conducted by the American Bar Association in 1988 it’s estimated that gay and lesbian households raised around 10 million children. The fact that bisexuals families have children that come through prior relationships, artificial insemination, surrogacy, and adoption along with social permissiveness of this phenomenon force the state to redefine the state of marriage. Thus contemporary marriage is best defined as "some sort of relationship between two individuals, of indeterminate duration, involving some kind of sexual conduct, entailing vague mutual property and support…’ (Smith, 1998, p.45) It’s true that the perception of the family has changed during not only last century but last few decades. Numerous researches (White and Wells, Stinnett and Taylor, Billingham and Sack) on student’s willingness to participate in alternative marriage and family forms reveal positive attitudes on such experiments. The negative attitudes are gradually changing for positive from year to year. In 1986 Billingham and Sack found 64.7 % women college students were unwilling to cohabitate while in 2003 this number dropped by 28.9. In 1986 unwilling to participate in "Serial monogamy" were 91.1 % of women while in 2003 it dropped to 19.5. (Billingham, Perera & Ehlers, 2005) Traditional nuclear families are now substituted by divorced families, one-parent families, never-married families, minority families, and dysfunctional families. During recent years the number of lone women having children outside marriage or out-of-wedlock births grew significantly. Since 1960 the divorce rate has more than doubled, out-of-wedlock births have boosted to one in three, tripled the percentage of single parent families, cohabitation increased tenfold, the fertility rate has decreased by almost half. (Iannone, 2001) The ‘family’ statistics of some countries shows us general trends which are observed in the modern global society. During the last two decades more and more young people prefer cohabitation to civil marriage. In Norway cohabitation is growing quickly – in 1996 74,059 cohabiting families constituting a 22% rise compared to 1993. The same trend is observed in Sweden, Finland and Denmark. In Great Britain and France children born outside wedlock constitute 30% of all. (Who or what constitutes a family) Homosexual partnerships are also a rapidly spreading form of marital connection. Some countries legally recognize this family form and the law established equal rights of homosexuals with other citizens. Sociologists describe also the phenomenon of ‘serial monogamy’ when people have 2-4 long-term partnerships during their life. Single parent families have become widespread since 1980s. Denmark, Britain, and Germany has 21%, 16% and 15% of single parent families respectively being in the forefront of all other European countries. In Britain one-parent families has risen by about 60 per cent since 1971. In 1984 they reached 1 million and already in 1997 they numbered 2 million. In Finland 43% of firstborn children and 30% of all infants have been born to unmarried mothers. (Who or what constitutes a family) In the U.S. among two-parent families stepfamilies comprise nearly 17%. Single parent families bring up 50-60% of children born in 1990. (Martin et.al., 2003) A survey of FSA member agencies conducted in 1985 revealed that the traditional nuclear family of husband and wife with two or more children constituted less than 10% of all households. (A profile of tomorrow’s family, 1985) What’s influenced the transformation of traditional family form? The reasons are in the changing lifestyles and economic reality of the modern society. Women gained economic and social independence. Homosexuality was normalized. Divorce, unmarried parenthood and co-habitation has become the norm. The decline of the family is linked to social pathologies - crime, welfare dependency, educational underachievement, substance abuse, and sexually transmitted diseases. TV also plays a significant role in ‘accustoming people to gross vulgarity and thoughtless sensualism in the living of life’. (Iannone, 2001) The family formation has been also influenced by US population diversity. Black population first challenged the traditional family form. For example, single parenthood and out-of-wedlock births have been more characteristic for blacks than for the rest of the population. (Kahn & Kamerman, 1997, p.312) Now more and more Americans accept nontraditional family structures. The public opinion concerning family and its form has been constantly transforming. Divorce as the human right has been accepted 25 years ago. The same time the antitraditional household, such as communes and “swinging,” were supported by mainstream voices. (Eberstadt, 2004) However, we cannot claim that rapid expansion of alternative family forms is solely on the account of the transformation in the lifestyles of the 21st century people. The historic contexts show us the existence of homosexuals before 1800. So we cannot claim that homosexuality and family is determined by modern cultural and economic reasons only. The homosexual subculture existed in Venice of 16th century, same sex marriage existed in the early Roman Empire, Spain and Italy gay subcultures were peasant-based despite the view of the emergence of queer subcultures in capitalism societies. In 18th and 19th century the Skoptsy sect of Old Believers in Russia had a practice of adopting a younger assistant–lover as his son and heir who after the death of the older merchant continued his business and practice. (Capitalism And The Family) So we come to the conclusion that family in the traditional understanding of this notion has been transforming in different alternative forms which challenge the ideality of the traditional structure. We see that normative heterosexual family has been opposed by homosexual unions from early times of human civilization and by a number of alternative forms which appeared during the last century. The family has undergone such transformations that legislators change the definitions of the laws and scientists avoid definition ‘family’ substituting it for ‘household’ or other more broad notions. This suggests that normative heterosexual family is no more dominant structure if to oppose normative and alternative forms along with heterosexual and homosexual opposition. The traditional family future is obscure as different forces push it from side to side. What is sure is that family will encounter many problems and challenges. It’s difficult to say what a future alternative to family is going to arise. As a matter of fact the institution of marriage has become less valued and cohabitation, have become more popular. During the past 30 years the number of unmarried people grew as well as the number of nonmarital cohabitants. According to Edmondson (1997) more than 4 in 10 women aged 15 through 44 cohabitated at some period of their lives. (Martin et.al, 2003) Taking into account the trends which persist during several recent decades we can assume that family can be substituted by form of cohabitation of two free equals legally protected by the state. This structure will be distinguished by mutual moral and legal obligations of the partners irrespective of their sex but without legal confirmation of these obligations. However, the state will ensure the civil safety of the partners and their children. This way the formal side of the traditional family as a marriage ‘blessed by God and state’ be eliminated. The obligations of the parties will be highlighted. A partner raising children will be benefited the superiority status. Single parents will be granted state protection and at least material support of the other partner in case of separation. In case of separation the partners will have equal rights for the property earned during the time of cohabitation. In the offered family form we stress on the equality of partners irrespective of their sexual preferences. That means that both heterosexual and homosexual cohabitations are allowed. All in all the proposed ‘family form’ is based on the equality of partners and their obligations to each other and includes many features of diverse family forms. Some other legal and moral aspects cannot be fully described within the limits of this paper and research. However in this paper we’ll try to comprise some of the obstacles which the proposed family structure can face on the way of its implementation. Cohabitation as a persisting structure can be opposed by traditionalists and supporters of old family values. Despite the existence of alternative family structures people support the ‘sanctity’ of the traditional family. One cohabitating couple married because their 6-year-old daughter was teased at school for her parents ‘were not married’. (Martin et.al., 2003) Homosexual families particularly those of lesbian mothers are more likely to face economic strains. Women tend to earn less than men and the loss of the job by one of the partners will likely to push the family into the poverty and challenge the relationship. ‘Same-sex couples also experience a similar relationship strain when confronted with issues of involuntary unemployment and the resulting poverty’ (Perrone, 2005). That’s a problem inherent in the lesbian partnership. Unless the state starts granting cohabiting partners the same legal privileges as for married couples, this family form will be disadvantageous. By now the homosexual partners also enjoy no legal benefits and rights which makes the cohabitation rather risky venture for both partners. There are also psychological factors which make the cohabitation not so attractive. The research by the Howard Center for Family, Religion and Society, a traditional family-values group in Rockford, Ill along with other related studies came to the conclusion that cohabiting partners are more unfaithful, have higher levels of conflict and abuse, cheat on their partners more often than spouses. (Martin et.al., 2003) The future of the traditional family is still vague. Despite the growing number of alternatives, family stays to be the most beneficial environment for raising children who can easily adapt to the social environment. As the author of the book ‘Family Values and the New Society: Dilemmas of the 21st Century’ George P. Smith (2003) put it: “The traditional nuclear heterosexual family provides for the survival of the larger social community for it is from this social unit that a bond of faithfulness and trust is forged which allows for the creation of children as a testament to its steadiness.” References Capitalism And The Family. 8 August 2006 . Collier, Richard. "Men, Heterosexuality and the Changing Family. (Re)Constructing Fatherhood in Law and Social Policy " Changing Family Values. Eds. Gill Jagger and Caroline Wright. London: Routledge, 1999. Eberstadt, Mary. "The Family: Discovering the Obvious". 2004 8 August 2006. . Iannone, Carol. "All in the Family - the Broken Hearth: Reversing the Moral Collapse of the American Family -." National Review (Oct 15, 2001). Kahn, Alfred J., and Sheila B. Kamerman. Family Change and Family Policies in Great Britain, Canada New Zealand, and the United States. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1997. Martin, Paige D., et al. "Expressed Attitudes of Adolescents toward Marriage and Family Life" Adolescence (Summer, 2003). ODonnell, Kath. "Lesbian and Gay Families. Legal Perspectives " Changing Family Values. Eds. Gill Jagger and Caroline Wright. London: Routledge, 1999. Perrone, Kristin M. "Work-Family Interface for Same-Sex, Dual-Earner Couples: Implications for Counselors." Career Development Quarterly (June, 2005). Smith, George P. Family Values and the New Society: Dilemmas of the 21st Century. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers, 1998. VanEvery, Jo. "From Modern Nuclear Family Households to Postmodern Diversity? The Sociological Construction of Families." Changing Family Values. . Eds. Gill Jagger and Caroline Wright. London: Routledge, 1999. "Who or What Constitutes a Family". 9 Aug.2006. . Read More