What is Family? Reading 1

The first reading, by David Popenoe, on the decline of the American family, was by far the most controversial reading for this week. Popenoe caused a lot of disturbances in the Anthropolgy world. Other authors like Stacey and Cowan, found his ideas off the wall and without true background data. In his writings he focuses on the change of the makeup of the family as the decline of the great era of the nuclear family. Even though times have changed, like our world and cultures, he focuses on the beauties of the 1950s where the "traditional" roles of the family flourished. The family, in Popenoe's opinion is at his best when there is one dominant figure, the man, and at least one dependent individual, such as the wife and children. The fault of today's world, in his opinion, is the role of the women. Women are supposed to be subordinate. A family cannot function with the woman outside the home. Her duty is to raise the children and be an anchor at home, while the husband brings home the bread.
Cowan's argument is that Popenoe really has no idea what he is talking about. The reading by Cowan uses statistics and known facts to prove his argument. He completely denies all of Popenoe's arguments because he claims they are based on opinion, not facts. Cowan says that the family has been in decline since the beginning of time. Government and society have shaped a world where it is impossible for the traditional role of the family to stay the same. Families have been interfered with, where he argues they should be left alone. Government should play no role in the hands of a family. He feels differently that Popenoe because he feels the equality of women is not a negative thing. He sees gender equality as a positive change in our ever changing society. Independent women are good role models for their daughters in future generations. A group of individuals should not be oppressed to preserve a traditional way of the family.
Stacey argues, 'What is traditional?' Is there a certain way a family should act? Is their a certain, distinct framework of a family? Stacey says no. Traditional changes with the way of the world. We must modernize to keep up with the world. He claims that Popenoe is too focused on what he feels what was, but yet again not based on fact. He cannot base an entire idea on the way he was raised, or how his own family acted. He argues that the family hasn't always been the only strong institution, like Popenoe claims. Individuals have always looked inside their family, as well as outside for support and love. Today, the definition of family is always changing with homosexual relationships and cohabitation. Can friends be considered part of the family? Who is to define what family means to a person?
Both authors feel like Popenoe is dwelling on a past that never existed. He is obsessed with the idea of a nuclear family. A type of family that could never exist in present day society. Divorce has always been present in history. It is present because of tensions in a relationship. Tensions brought upon by society pulls that have never been present in past societies. Divorce happens. Studies have shown, unlike what Popenoe claims, that a marriage continuing on hostile terms is actually harder on children than the divorce itself. To stay together would only cause heartbreak for all involved.
The debate surrounding the American family, is what is actually going on with it. Is it truly declining, or is it just changing with the times? Some would claim the lower birth rates and higher divorce rates are the results of families falling apart. Really though with social pressures and governmental interference, are these statistics just proof that there is something else in the decline? Such as morals. Should we be so concerned with trying to keep families from changing, or should we move with the tides and make it possible for people to survive through divorce, breakup, or other social curses?
Popenoe claims the decline of the family is proven by lower birth rates. But honestly, the cost of children has multiplied. It is not financially sound to have multiple children, if you don't have the money to afford them. Families are trying to give their children decent lives. He also feels since the nuclear system failed, families have failed. Not true. Families have evolved making it possible to function with oppressing a group of people. He also applies this theory to time spent together. We are living in a fast paced world, families cannot always spend time together. Is this the parents fault, or is it the fault of the society we exist in. Women and children need their independence. Without making their own place in this world, they will not be able to survive outside the family.
Personally, I would take the side of Stacey in this debate. We need to focus more on how to make situations better for families, than try to change them. We need to except change as a way of life. I come from a family that has been divided by divorce. I feel it would have been extremely unhealthy for me to have seen my parents fight day after day. Going through what we have been through as a family has only made us stronger. Being raised by a single mother, I have earned an amazing role model. I feel I am ten times more independent because of how I was forced to grow up. If my parents divorce impacted me in any way, it was a positive one. I have learned to make the best out of my situation and how to be a strong person. I hope I can disprove statistics and have a wonderful marriage and family someday. I would hate to think that because my parents could not make things work, I will never be able to have a functional relationship.