The Myth of the Traditional Family

Article Analysis:

“The Way We Weren’t: The Myth and Reality of the ‘Traditional’ Family”

Summary of the Article

In “The Way We Weren’t: The Myth and Reality of the ‘Traditional’ Family” Stephanie Coontz shatters our misconception of the “traditional family”. She writes with fervor to refute what many have been urging society to lapse back into – a mold. With eloquence and a bitter pen she recalls how the so-called traditional families throughout our history were demeaning; filled with sexual and racial intolerance, class chasms, and interpersonal conflict.

To support her argument Coontz took us back through our history – all the way back to the colonial period. She starts off by comparing the Native Americans with the White settlers. The “Native American kinship systems subordinated the nuclear family”(I-417) meaning that the entire group was connected through obligations to relatives and alliances through marriage. The settlers “formed independent households that pulls in labor” (I-417) from poor around them. She describes the inequality between the genders within the wealthier class. It was as if the women and children were a caste beneath the men vulnerable to persecution should they err. Those most at mercy were the children who were deprived of any sentimentality from their mothers. Coontz also portrayed the unfortunate tatters of the slave family. They were broken apart and regrouped as if in a puzzle or building blocks causing much confusion. Children were brought up by various “co-parents or godparents”. According to Coontz “family relations were based on power, not love”. (I-418)

Taking us into the 19^th Century we understand that children become the center of attention – however the father figure fades into the shadows of the machinery and the women begin to covet each other. The male-breadwinner female-homemaker stereotype developed mostly at this point in time. However Stephanie Coontz tells us that this did not apply to the immigrants and the African Americans who had to work several jobs to just make ends meet.

The 20^th Century “traditional family” is depicted as a bizarre one. Literally a mold. The sentimentality or warmth towards the youngsters again wanes and the same-sex ties merely linger. The woman becomes literally a sex object: per Coontz “we get the idea that women are sexual, youth is attractive, and that marriage should be the center of our emotional fulfillment” (I-418). Privacy was hindered by various public institutions including the government. Not many fell into this mold mind you, but it became the ideal. During the Great Depression domestic abuse increase, and while the divorce rates were low many families were abandoned, and fertility fell. It seems that when World War II occurred marriages increased but soon afterwards divorce rates peaked.

While scrutinizing the “traditional family” of the 1950's Coontz points out that teenage births were double then what they are now and that educational and work gap was much broader between men and women than ever. She also notes that marriages/ families then were nowhere near as diverse. This however caused some form of stability, especially due to the economical factors. However that didn't last long. Abuse was just as high as in the 1930's if not more – and making it worse was that it was legal. Incest-rape was also an issue however kept in the closet due to fear.

The 1960's marked a revolution. Simply put “the civil rights, antiwar, and women's liberation movements exposed the racial, economic, and sexual injustices”(I-419). Stephanie Coontz mentions the influence of the Ozzie and Harriet television show as well. Again media is a major factor – a block in the functionalism of this element of society. A lot of issues associated with defunct families have been overcome. Economically speaking the poverty level encouraged food-stamps and welfare programs which have helped narrow the nutritional gap. This has benefited children immensely.

In the final section of her article Coontz focuses on the stress factors of the present that affect all families in general. Due to sharp drop in income and the high income taxes presented you find many struggling to juggle two or three jobs just to be able to feed their families. The school and work structures are foibled in the sense that they still assume that there is still someone at home able to provide all the necessary attention at all times. Poverty has spread and it's mostly affecting African American and Latino men. Divorce rates are therefore increasing.

Winding down only to pack a punch, Coontz, stresses that the solution to enhancing and reorganizing our society is not by going back to a backwards ideal, but rather working on improving our economy, or government tactics, or schools and methodology, and to inspire open minds. “We need to build values and institutions that can reconcile people's needs for independence with their equally important rights to dependence”(I-420).

Sociological Perspective Within

Coontz seems to tackle the Functionalism theory with her article in question. The theory suggests that society is a complicated structure formed of many blocks as opposed to two extremes (Bourgeoisie and Proletariat). Supposedly these blocks keep society balanced. Most notable are family, law, and religion. Legitimation is what members of society strive for to keep society stable. Supposedly this is done through consensus or agreement amongst all those involved.

Applying this theory to the article you find that much of it applies. Family is one of the building blocks of society, and without it it would not function. Coontz simply focused on this block. In all her depictions of the “traditional family”throughout American history there hasn't been any stability or any form of consensus. It was an illegitimate social element.

Consensus was absent when it came down to the difference between race and gender. At first slavery was of course without consent. People were forced into harsh labor and the families were split as well as combined unwillingly. Regarding women it was worse no matter what color you were. They had to obey their masculine counterparts or face the lethal consequences. The same went to children. Moving through history consent was still an issue. The media, government, and society in general placed women in a mold.

Various political and economical factors also influence the “traditional family” till this day as well as the media. This is where the other “blocks” (law etc.) from the theory come into the scene. Percentages on income have dropped while poverty levels have increased. It seems that it depends on racial factors as well, the economy doesn't favor color. Divorce rates are higher amongst the impoverished and not many are likely to wed. Most even have children “out of wedlock” (I-420) Coontz claims as well.

The Purpose of this Article

It seems there has been an uprise and a call for society to return to the “traditional family” lifestyle of the past by various politicians and religious leaders in order to improve it's quality. In her article “The Way We Weren’t: The Myth and Reality of the ‘Traditional’ Family”, Stephanie Coontz shatters the stereotype by retracing our history – claiming that the “traditional family” is nothing more than a myth. This article aims at bring to light mostly the the situation of children the and now but even more so the transformation of women's rights. The article is crude and pulls at quite a few strings. In the questions the article triggers the reader to place themselves into the positions these women once were. The conclusion of her article is that no version of the “traditional family” was exempt from the prejudices, immorality and lack of judgment on both the family member level and society and the government as a whole.

Answers to the Questions

1. Unlike our sentimental society now, the (Caucasian) colonial family was patriarchal and based on power. The women as much as the children were to obey the men or risk being considered to have commit heinous crimes “theoretically punishable by death”. Therefore no connection or warmth existed between the parents and the child. This is evident by how the youngsters were left to the care of servants or older siblings. As far as African Americans during the colonial period; they found that they were restricted from maintaining a proper household. Constantly being torn apart they engaged in what Coontz claims to be “co-parenting or godparenting, adoption of orphans, and complex naming patterns designed to preserve family links across space and time” (I-418). It seems like in our society now we are more sentimental in regards to our children. Although daycares have replaced servants and siblings only slightly by babysitters – the attachment to mother and child is quite obvious. Amongst minorities today, especially African Americans, family ties bind. Our present day situation has been brought on by various movements. These include women's rights in particular, economical fluctuation, politics, and the media in general.

2. If I was a Caucasian female as well as African American I would still want to live the present family lifestyle. I have more control over my life. The abuse is not tolerated and punishable by law. I have earned the respect of my lover and with my current mindset (with the encouragement of society and the media) I would be more caring of my children. Regarding the Caucasian status, I would have been forced to succumb to patriarchal dominance in the colonial period against my free will. Even in BDSM culture today everything revolves around consent. African American women were worse off; they were more prone to rape and abuse as well as ideal slaves for trade. In the nineteenth-century a Caucasian would have been isolated in domesticity. And while there is nothing with intimate relations amongst persons of the same gender (whether sexual or not) I would still not want to be swayed just because society inflicted it upon me. As an African American I would be free in name only. I would still have to toil and slave to earn a meager living. In the early twentieth-century and during the 1950's as both a Caucasian and an African American woman I would not want to have to deal with privacy issues nor would I want to forfeit my rights to control childbearing, control of money and basic human rights.

3. There are various factors that put stress on the present day family according to Coontz, “job structures, work policies, childcare, medical practice, educational preparation, political discourse, and gender inequities” (I-420). As far as work policies some positions assume that a male employee has nothing to do but devote his entire day to his job. Perhaps falling back on the default assumption that he has someone who does the cooking and cleaning for him (a traditional wife?). Executives and officials should redevelop their structures and methodologies to incorporate gender equality as well as take into consideration the modern day situation of nuclear families. Economically incomes have gone down while prices and taxes have risen. It's harder, especially for younger men, now to establish households and be he bread-winners if not aid in the household income. The government should do something about the decreasing wages instead of raising taxes and turning a blind eye on the rest. Educational preparation means to instill the correct functional values starting from the young all the way up to our adults. Coontz states “We need to build values and institutions that can reconcile people's needs for independence with their equally important rights to dependence”(I-420).

4. To Whom It May Concern,

I understand that you are calling out for the nation to return to the “traditional family” in order to save our society. Wanting to stress that that this is neither feasible nor desirable I would like to remind you of a few facts about or “family history”;

Going back to the Colonial period wealthy women and children were sadomasochistically subject to patriarchal puissance without consent. If they dared breathe the word they were condemned as traitors and punished horrifically as such. There was no sentimentality between mother and child – only alienation or abandonment to the servants who themselves were torn apart and had to salvage their roots and offspring with co-parenting and mass adoption.

During the 19^th Century the entire family slaved away as the Industrial Revolution manifested. Sure children became the center of attention but women seeked solace with each other as the men indulged in their work. African American, although free, still labored away as they were still impoverished and were thus treated as slaves.

Advancing into the 20^th century was scrutinized and began to lose it's privacy. There was too much socio-political demand. The family is confined to a stereotype where the “women are sexual, youth is attractive, an that marriage should be the center of our emotional fulfillment” (I-418). All were forced to live by it. How is that by any means fulfilling? Worse – in the 1950's wife-battery was legal and diversity was scorned. It's demeaning and quite backwards in all that has been achieved in the fight for equality.

In closing, please reconsider your ideals and the basis of your reasoning. History is there for us to learn from our mistakes, not to revert back to what has been reformed and revolutionized for the better interest of all persons involved.

Cordially,

Fatima Mekkaoui

Works Cited

Coontz, Stephanie. “The Way We Weren’t: The Myth and Reality of the ‘Traditional’ Family”. Sociology. Stephen Beach and Linda L. Lindsey. Pearson: Prentice Hall, 2006. I-417-I-420.