| Few
sociological metaphors have ever been as successful as that of the
nuclear family, which entered the language in 1949 at the beginning
of what turned out to be the baby boom - another highly successful
figure of speech. The phrase "nuclear family," meaning a
married man and woman living with their offspring, was introduced
by the anthropologist George Murdock, who openly acknowledged the
implicit metaphor. "Among the majority of the peoples on earth,"
he wrote, "nuclear families are combined, like atoms in a molecule,
into larger aggregates." But he also noted that in our own society,
the nuclear family was "the type of family recognized to the
exclusion of all others."
The cultural
truth acknowledged in that last sentence is one of the reasons why
the Census Bureau's new data on family structures in America are
so interesting. For the past half-century, this country has tended
to think of the state of the nuclear family as a leading moral indicator.
Now, for the first time, fewer than a quarter of the households
in this country are made up of nuclear families - 23.5 percent to
be exact, down from 25.6 percent in 1990 and 45 percent in 1960.
Also, for the first time, the number of people living alone is greater
than the number of nuclear families. Meanwhile, the number of unmarried
couples nearly doubled in the past decade to 5.5 million, still
vastly fewer than the 55 million married couples.
It is certainly
possible to read these figures as unwelcome deviations from a fundamental
norm, as conservative groups like the Family Research Council do.
But the dominance of the nuclear family in the 1950's and 1960's
was just as much an expression of prevailing economic and sociological
forces as its lack of dominance is now. The broad social shifts
underlying these data - the prevalence of women working outside
the home, the decline of agricultural households, the ever-growing
mobility of Americans, the postponing of marriage and childbearing,
the extension of life spans - do not necessarily point toward a
more fragile social structure, even though some changes, like the
increase in the number of single women with children, are troubling.
What they point to is the flexibility and the increasing complexity
of American family arrangements.
The ideological
emphasis on the nuclear family in recent decades has caused us to
forget that the nuclear family itself, especially in its suburban,
Ozzie and Harriet form, is a reduction of what family has meant
in most places at most times in human history. The American nuclear
family has been notable, to borrow George Murdock's words, for not
combining into larger aggregates, like extended families, but for
sticking to itself.
You only have
to have grown up in a nuclear family to understand the good it can
do. But even children who grew up in nuclear families have contributed
to their decline as they have gone on in many cases to form non-nuclear
families of their own. What the new census data underscore is an
increasing awareness that the nuclear family is not the only kind
of family or even the only healthy kind of family. In modern America
no type of family can really be recognized to the exclusion of all
others.
|