The family is the smallest unit of group in the society. It has functions to fulfill whether within or outside this group. However, there are now questions that plague society regarding the roles of a family. Are these roles still the same as before or do they change or vanish over time?
David Popenoe defined the family in various ways. He stated that “the term has become a sponge concept, with multiple meanings that can include two friends who live together, the people who work in an office, a local unit of a Mafia, or a family of a man” (Popenoe 1). Another definition given by Popenoe about the family is that it “is a relatively small domestic group of kin consisting of at least one adult and one dependent person” (Popenoe 1). In other words, it is not restricted only among a mother, father and the children; rather, it is a unit, which is composed of (or once included) children, disabled and infirm adults, and other dependents. It also includes single-parent families, stepfamilies, non-married and homosexual couples, and all other types of dependents. Popenoe (1) also emphasized that most scholars miss the point that a family is not necessarily needed to be connected sexually nor is it a sexually based primary relationship.
David Popenoe explained, however, that there was a big change in the family in America, as observed in the way that certain functions in society are carried out. He reiterated that the functions of a family included procreation (reproduction) and the socialization of children; the provisions to its members of care, affection, and companionship; economic cooperation (sharing of economic resources, specifically shelter, food and clothing); and sexual regulation (so that sexual activity in society is not completely liberal and people understand that they are responsible for the results of their sexual acts) (Popenoe 2). However, as asserted by Popenoe (2), these functions are no longer carried out properly by a family either because other institutions may have taken over it or because it is no longer as important as it was before.
These things bring us to the real meaning of change in a family. In particular, the change of function or role is identified as the decline. Popenoe gave an example of this decline by citing that fewer persons are marrying and that they are marrying in their late 30s or 40s. More marriages are also broken by divorce and those who get married have fewer children (Popenoe 2). Over time, the roles within the family also change. Cherlin (as cited in Popenoe 4) cited instances where the weakening of a family is probably due to the economic interdependence between husbands and wives. He said that wives are less likely to stay in a bad marriage for economic reasons. Another study further found that if a wife earns more than the husband, then there is a bigger chance of divorce, which again causes the decline in the family functions (Popenoe 4). In addition, Popenoe (5) discussed that the decline in the family has a connection to its culture in that some cultures may put a great importance on their family while others may not. For example, Popenoe (5) said that American families do not place much value on the family. According to Popenoe (5), familism refers to the belief in a strong sense of family association and loyalty, reciprocated assistance among family members, a concern for the continuation of the family unit, and the relegation of the interests and personality of individual family members to the interests and welfare of the family group (Popenoe 5). However, unlike before, American families now are less unified.
Popenoe (3) asserted that the family as an institution has three key dimensions for their strength: the institution’s cohesion or hold, which it has over its members; its efficiency in performing its functions; and its power in society compared to the other institutions. First, the individuals in the family had become more independent, making these people insensitive to the needs of the other members of the family. Second, a family is less able or less willing to carry out their supposed functions. For example, families no longer give importance to procreation and socialization, which is demonstrated by the low replacement levels of birthrate. Third, the function of the family in economic cooperation has reduced considerably, examples of which include the decline of joint accounts and the rise of prenuptial agreements (Popenoe 4).
There are serious repercussions of this family decline. As Popenoe (6) analyzed, there are two dimensions of family decline, which are alarming. The first is that the nuclear family that breaks up and leaves only a man or a woman without a child is a serious matter to be considered. Second, parents no longer personally care for their children; rather, parents consider schools as repositories for their child when they are busy working.
The second dimension is tackled by Stephanie Coontz. This is with regards to how children are affected by the absence of parental support. She gave a scenario where when schoolchildren return from a vacation and are asked to describe how they spent it, their list tends to be equally long for both the good things and the bad things about the vacation. However, after a year, the children were asked again to do the same activity and this time, the list of bad things became shorter such that they were already describing a different story from what really happened (Coontz 7). This illustrated that children are really affected by the parents’ lack of time for them. As a result, this lack of parental time will lead to the development of violence among children, some examples of which are children bringing guns to school and the violent death rate among teenagers.
The two authors underscore the case of Karen Hansen about the Cranes. The Crane family is an extended family. This family seeks help from other people who they consider a part of their family even if they are not blood-related. As Braithwaite said, families come in various forms, many outside the bonds of a heterosexual first marriage; for example, single parent families, stepfamilies, adoptive families, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgendered families, grandparents raising grandchildren, and families that are child-free by choice (Braithwaite 10). Hence, another definition of the family emerged. According to Brommel and Bylund, families are “networks of people who share their lives over long periods of time bound by marriage, blood or commitment, legal or otherwise, who considered themselves as family and who share a significant history and anticipated futures of functioning in a family relationship” (qtd. in Braithwaite 10). This definition provides an opportunity for a non-legal kin to be a part of a blood-related family. In the case of the Cranes, they ask Tracy, their next-door neighbor, to look after Robbie, Patricia’s son. The family of Patricia is somewhat different from other extended families in that it includes a grandmother but not the father. In this regard, the relationship of the people connected to the Cranes is unique. As Braithwaite explained in the definition of a family by Brommel and Bylund, the fictive kin is a part of the Cranes’ family in the person of Tracy Johnson. In this case, the fictive kin is also referred to as chosen kin, self-ascribed kin, urban tribes, friend-keepers, other mothers, and ritual kin (Braithwaite 10). In addition, Leeds- Hurwitz explained that the theory of voluntary kin is on the assumption that “people make sense of the experience by constructing a model of the social world and how it works” and the use of talk to make things happen (Braithwaite 11). Thus, people create connections outside their family to fulfill a gap, which their own family can’t fill.
As shown in the study, Tracy, a single mother of four, helps Patricia who is of the same situation as her. They found comfort in having the same state in life as single mothers. Tracy was the chosen kin or the voluntary kin who readily lends a hand to Patricia when she has to go to work. In this regard, a voluntary kin denotes a mutuality of selection rather than the framing of these relationships (Braithwaite 11). Thus, the voluntary kin is a member of a family outside of the blood and legal ties that exist between family members.
Braithwaite alo provided four legitimate types of voluntary kin relationships: (1) voluntary kin as substitute family, (2) voluntary kin as supplemental family, (3) voluntary kin as convenience family, and (4) voluntary kin as extended family (Braithwaite 12). These four types of voluntary kin were given to present the roles that non-blood-related people play in a certain family. By playing family-like roles such as parent-sibling or performing family-like functions such as emotional fulfillment, acceptance, a sense of common identity, and temporal and spatial presences in one’s everyday life, a voluntary kin is accepted in a family (Braithwaite 12).
As stated by Popenoe, there might have been a decline in the family in America where break-ups in the nuclear family -- the last vestige of the fundamental element of the family -- occur and where familism no longer exists. On the other hand, Coontz underscored the effects of the lack of the temporal presence between a parent and a child. However, Braithwaite expounded on the new definition of the family and the change of concept of fictive kin into voluntary kin, as well as the significant findings of the case by Hansen, which indicated that a person who is not blood-related but who can fulfill one or two family functions is a part of a family.
However, although such changes -- divorce, late marriages, and single
parenthood -- lead to a decline of the family, it also brings about some good things in that people who genuinely care are now accepted into the family despite the lack of blood or legal ties.
Works Cited
Braithwaite, Dawn, et al.”Constructing Family: A Typology of Voluntary Kin.” Journal
of Social and Personal Relationships, 27 (2010): 388-407. Print.
Coontz, Stephanie. Introduction. The Way We Never Were: American Families and the
Nostalgia Trap. New York: Basic Books, 1992. Print.
Hansen, Karen. Not-so-Nuclear Families Class, Gender, and Networks of Care.
Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press, 2005. Print.
Popenoe, David. “American Family Decline, 1960-1990: A Review and Appraisal.”
