The society is composed of different units that make it functional and continuously evolving. Its units are dynamic. One of this dynamic units is the family—the most basic unit and the central to society. Its ever changing characteristic makes it interesting and calls for a constant need for studying it.
Like families in other countries, modern families in America have also undergone a drastic evolution. This paper will discuss different views on the concept of the family and combine these various views into a concept of the family in America.
American families experience family decline
While the family is defined as a group of people that consists of parents and children living together in one household, the Crane family provides us a different concept of a family. Aside from being raised by his single mother, Robbie’s source of care comes from his uncle Ben, his mother’s friend Tracy, and his grandmother Fran, although his father also plays a central role in his life.
This can still be considered a family, although Robbie’s parents do not live in the same house. Popenoe (1) defined the family as a “domestic group” of kin with dependents, which lives together in a household and works as a cooperative unit. Cooperation happens when each member has a share in the economic resources of the family. Through this definition, the Crane family can be considered as a “family” where each has a role to play in the pursuit of their marital activities.
As described by Popenoe (2), a family has functions for the society, which include “procreation (reproduction) and the socialization of children; the provision to its members of care, affection, and companionship; economic cooperation (the sharing of economic resources, especially shelter, food, and clothing); and sexual regulation (so that sexual activity in a society is not completely permissive and people are made responsible for the consequences of their sexuality.)” (Popenoe 2). Popenoe (2) argues that as the family cannot perform such functions, it declines. He says that American families suffer from family decline, one example of which is the Crane family. However, although the Crane family experiences this decline, it does not weaken the bond among the members, especially between the parents and the children. Family decline, as concluded by Popenoe (2), has a negative effect on children, as they long for a long-term family bond.
Also discussed by Coontz (7), the children of American families experiencing a decline add up to the depressing figures of the sexually abused, hungry, homeless, and unhealthy. Though there is no clear connection between family decline and these misfortunes, Coontz (7) argues that there is a logical connection.
Coontz (7) says that traditional families are a myth. Though they still exist today, this type of family cannot ensure a good life for the children. She believes that no form of family can protect its members from social misfortunes and also, that there is no model that can guide people on how to organize their family relationships.
Families caring through recruitment
According to Hansen (14), the Crane family is a typical American family. The parents are not together—and extended members of the family take over the responsibility of the other. This may be far from the traditional families Americans have, but ultimately, today’s families resort to a type of arrangement called kinscription. Through kinscription, people are recruiting people from outside the family to do kin-work, which involves caring for another’s child, contributing to weekly groceries, and sharing part of the house such as the kitchen, among others. These are all possessed by the Crane family.
Having this type of family can be beneficial for each member as it would give them a sense of interdependence and the knowledge that they have each other to rely on in times of need. This also builds a strong, non-individualistic support system, which can influence a child and each member’s personality and outlook in life. However, the case of the Crane family may be a little different, as this type of relationship may not always benefit them. As Hansen (18) reported, the family’s resources are plentiful in some areas while in others, they are scanty. The members of the Crane family lack regular employment; some are unhealthy; and all of them suffer from poverty (Hansen 18). Although they have scarce financial resources, which lead to an unsafe shelter and neighborhood, as well as insufficient schooling, they know that they can depend on their networks to aid them in times of economic downturns. They have realized that they can save more money if they share resources and provide a healthy environment built on love and generosity. Hansen wisely described them in the following,
While they might be short on money, the Cranes have great wealth in people. Although the number of people may be smaller than in other networks, the members who participate exhibit unadulterated, full-bodied commitment. (Hansen 19)
Through kinscription, Robbie is provided with the care, love, and hands-on assistance that traditional families have.
Social constructionist definition of the family
For Braithwaite (10), families are socially constructed, which means that the definition of the family depends on what the society depicts it to be. This also means that even the non-legal kin is part of the family.
In this regard, the Crane family is composed of voluntary kin relationships. Voluntary kin is described as a group of people who mutually select to be together. It is synonymous to fictive kin, which was described using the deficit comparison model “family-like relationships that are neither genetically nor legally bound” (Braithwaite 11).
In a social constructionist point of view, the word family is dependent on everyday discourse (Braithwaite 12). People tend to legitimize the family as a social entity; thus, no individual meaning is being adapted. However, there is a socially constructed idea of a “real” family. Those that do not fall under this idea become problematic in discourse and people try to justify its existence. Take the case of Tracy, who fulfills a voluntary kin relationship with all other members of the Crane family. Because voluntary kin relationships do not follow the traditional definitions of families that are related by blood or by law, the members of the family who experience them may feel insecure and they may need to explain themselves to others.
Braithwaite (12) also describes voluntary kin as “filling family-like roles (e.g. parent, sibling) or performing family-like functions (emotional fulfillment, acceptance, a sense of common identity, temporal and spatial presence in one’s everyday life) (Braithwaite 12).” In this case, everyone in the Crane’s family network is a voluntary kin who performs the functions of the mother in taking care of Robbie and the father in contributing to the economic resources of the whole family.
Voluntary kin relationships have four main types, according to Braithwaite (12). These are (i) voluntary kin as substitute family, (ii) voluntary kin as supplemental family, (iii) voluntary kin as convenience family, and (iv) voluntary kin as extended family |(Braithwaite 12). These types of voluntary kin make the family more legitimate since they fill in the absence of a person that was lost as a result of death and other scenarios. They also perform a role that the missing person cannot do. It is interesting, though, that the most legitimate type of family based on Braithwaite’s study is the voluntary kin acting as extended family (Braithwaite 12). It is because it is just a reframed version of the traditional family, taking into account the family’s “expansiveness and permeability.”
This paper suggests that the concept of the American family has evolved and will continuously change, along with the changes in the forms of the family in society. These four essays suggest that the Americans’ concept of the family is no longer bounded by the traditional definition. Rather, it has become more complex, yet still adjusting to the needs of its members, which are beneficial for the family’s survival. Although these types of families are not legitimized by blood or by law, they are still real and their existence is undeniable.
Works Cited
Braithwaite, D. O., Bach, B. W., Baxter, L. A., DiVerniero, R., Hammonds, J.R., Hosek, A. M., Willer, E. K., & Wolf, B. M. (2010). Constructing family: A typology of voluntary kin. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 27, 388-407.
Coontz, Stephanie. Introduction. The way we never were: American families and the nostalgia
trap. New York, NY : BasicBooks, c1992.
Hansen, Karen V. Not-so-nuclear families class, gender, and networks of care. New Brunswick,
N.J.: Rutgers University Press, c2005.
Popenoe, David. American Family Decline, 1960-1990: A Review and Appraisal. Journal of
Marriage and Family, Vol. 55, No. 3 (Aug., 1993), pp. 527-542
