Does the rapid transformation of family structures mean that the family is in decline?
Or are we instead simply witnessing the democratisation of family life?
Some sociologists have argued that the move away from the nuclear heterosexual family
structure has led to a decline in the institution of the family itself, and the values and functions that attach to it.
Those using the language of ‘decline’ claim that many of the social ills that we see in society
today, such as child abuse, crime, truancy, substance abuse, juvenile delinquency and
unemployment, can be attributed to moves away from a particular type of family life – nuclear,
heterosexual, with much lower divorce rates, women staying at home with young children.
They argue that changes in family life have weakened family bonds and the quality of
relationships within families, which in turn threatens social cohesion more generally.
To understand the link that is made between ‘family decline’ and the weakening of social
bonds, we have to return to the question of the functions of the family in society.
Families can be viewed as integral to the creation of social networks, and as a conduit to broader
forms of community engagement and participation.
For example, marriage can be a way to anchor individuals within a network of extended family and friends.
This is particularly important when families are also viewed as an important site for the transmission of behavioural norms.
It’s hoped that if children begin to build strong connections to communities through their families
from a young age, they will be more likely to become engaged and active citizens in adulthood.
Similarly, families are seen as sites where individuals can learn to take responsibility for
children and other dependent family members as parents, which will teach them to be more
socially responsible as community members as well.
From this perspective, strong family units are central to a cohesive society with strong bonds between members of the society.
The ‘family decline’ thesis is that the weakening of the family as a social institution is due to the prioritisation of individual
needs and desires over the family and society.
This in turn is said to lead to weakened communities that cannot weather social problems.
A leading example here is the work of American sociologist David Popenoe, who has argued that
individualism, with its emphasis on ‘self-fulfilment’ and ‘pursuit of individual rather than collective
interests’ is in direct opposition to what he terms ‘familism.’
He argues that individualism has led to precarious and expendable relationships within the family,
which are only maintained for as long as they deliver satisfaction for the parties involved, and then disposed of.
Proponents of the decline thesis believe that this phenomenon is a reflection of a selfish and
individualistic society, where people are only concerned with what makes them happy in the
moment, and not with the overall wellbeing of their families and of society more broadly.
Poponoe is especially concerned with what family decline means for children’s wellbeing.
He suggests that if individualism continues to prevail and family bonds continue to weaken,
adults will no longer be willing to give adequate attention to the care of children.
Changing gender roles are viewed as a particular threat to the cohesion of the family in this regard.
For example, women’s increased workforce participation may be viewed as a negative
phenomenon when it is seen to deprive children of socialisation within the family.
In contrast, sociologists who disagree with the family decline thesis remind us that it is mistaken
simply to assume that all families are good role models of strong, healthy relationships and civic engagement.
Nuclear families are not exempt from being violent, abusive, or otherwise dysfunctional.
Additionally, even if structural change in family life has weakened the internal bonds within family, it
is questionable whether this does then translate to weaker communities and societies.
An alternative perspective on the relationship between family and society suggests that family
bonds may actually conflict with community relations, if family relationships and obligations are prioritised above other sorts of social ties.
In these circumstances, the decline of the family may have a positive impact on community life., in
that it may lead to greater levels of association, trust and reciprocity outside the family.
Sociologists who interpret the changes in family life as a positive transformation, rather than
through the lens of ‘decline’, point out that while some family ties may have become weakened, others have become stronger.
For example, while women may spend more time in paid work, men have become more involved in
raising children, giving male parents more opportunity to strengthen their relationships with their children.
Similarly, while divorce inevitably results in the breakdown of some familial ties, it can allow for
the possibility of new bonds to be formed, rather than maintaining unhealthy and unhappy relationships.
Anthony Giddens is a leading example of those sociologists who disagrees with the thesis that
contemporary families are defined by individualism and selfishness.
Instead, family sociologists increasingly believe that we should view contemporary families as
aiming for the embodiment of trust, reciprocity and equality, and for being more conducive to egalitarian relationships.
Giddens argues, for example, that in recent decades, the family has become more democratised, evident in greater choice of family
structure and a more egalitarian relationships between men and women.
For Giddens, the main characteristic of relationships and families in late modernity are
that they are defined by choice to a greater extent than they were in the past.
Families are no longer formed simply because that’s what everyone has always done, but are
instead based on love, intimacy, and an experience of sexuality that’s separate from
procreation, a phenomenon made possible by contraception.
In contemporary Western societies, families are more likely to be created because it’s what
people want and desire, not because of social expectations.
This means that most people in the West have more freedom to make decisions about marriage,
separation, and childbearing without the same level of societal pressure that they would have experienced in previous decades.
Giddens suggests that this allows for the formation of ‘pure relationships’ – loving
relationships that are not simply formed and maintained out of a sense of duty to society.
If relationships are no longer held together by law, tradition or financial necessity, individuals
need to take seriously the needs and desires of their partner, which ideally underpins healthier and more fulfilling family relationships.
From this perspective, the increased level of negotiation required in modern relationships is not
an indication of the decline of the family, but of the democratisation of relations between men
and women, between partners in intimate relationship, and between adults and children.
The problems in family life – such as child abuse and family violence – are, from this perspective,
the result of falling short of these ideals, rather than of a widespread rejection of the concept of the family as an ideal to be valued and nurtured.