Talk:Nuclear family/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Article has gone negative

In the expansion of the article, although some of the style of writing and editing is good, the balance of the article has shifted to where we might as well call the article a criticism of the nuclear family. Since this isn't what the article is, I think we either need to add pro-nuclear family content, or move the massive criticisms section into its own article to retain balance. DavidBailey 02:43, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Why does the article need to be "pro-" or "anti-" at all? A nuclear family is simply a neutral sociological term meant to distinguish the concept from an extended family. The rest of the ideology around it is just baggage.--Bhuck 07:34, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I would agree, however, the text that you've added is hardly neutral. DavidBailey 11:27, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

That is not text which I added, but text which Paulscf added. I merely modified it slightly (making it less POV, I think you would agree, than what it used to be) and moved it to what I considered a more appropriate section of the article.--Bhuck 10:14, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

The article has not 'gone negative'. all that is required is for the other sections to be extended, that would balance the article, not deleting simply deleting text. further, the topic is not supposed to be positive, it is a social topic with many complex perspectives, reflecting the complex nature of ppl and society. Lets not present the topic as we would if the date was 1950. (Paulscf 14:29, 7 June 2006 (UTC)).

I have not suggested that we take a 1950s view, only a balanced view. DavidBailey 01:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Text moved from article

Here is text I have moved from the article because of problems I have either with its strongly POV tone, or because it is uncited. If we're going to include it, it needs further work. DavidBailey 11:40, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Block 1

...and is therefore a relatively new idea. Some people believe it to be a result of “suburbanisation and a repressive post war cultural campaign for family togetherness”. Others argue the nuclear family arose from urbanisation and industrialisation, as increased mobility meant that multi-generational extended families often no longer lived in the same place. If we consider both explanations as having contributed to the rise of the nuclear family concept, we can see that it is a new concept and the result of social change. This explanation contrasts with the concept of the nuclear family being somehow particularly "natural."

My problem with this is two-fold. Firstly, three or four authors are being quoted extensively without showing the opposing view which is not following WP:NPOV guidelines. Secondly, assertions such as 'This explanation contrasts with the concept of the nuclear family being somehow particularly "natural."' are definitely POV and unsupported. Also, while the term may only date back to 1947, families consisting of a mother and father and children have been around for a very long time and are documented in nearly every major civilization that we have records for, so the statement that it is a "new idea" is faulty. DavidBailey 11:40, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you that the final sentence of this block needs some work. I think pointing out the contrast is useful, but the problem with this sentence is that it imputes that there are people who believe that the concept of the nuclear family is somehow particularly "natural". I think there are such people, but you are right to point out that this has not been documented at this point in the article and should be. Do you think that there are no such people, or can you perhaps suggest a documentation of the fact that there are indeed such people? Perhaps their views, as a contrast to the theory that the concept originated only recently, could be explained at greater length.

I am not sure that I agree with you, however, that "families consisting of a mother and father and children have been around for a very long time"--that depends on how you read that sentence. Previously, perhaps, families consisted of a mother, a father, an aunt, a grandmother, a cousin or two, and perhaps a grand-niece. Or maybe they were clan-like structures. It was to differentiate from these sorts of structures and these sorts of definitions of family that the term "nuclear family" was introduced. Do you have a problem with the idea that increased mobility meant that multi-generational extended families often no longer lived in the same place?--Bhuck 10:24, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I have included cites to back my position. I have no problem with your final statement. DavidBailey 12:01, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Block 2

Some also use the term to describe single-parent households and families in which the parents are a "non-conjugal" couple, as illustrated by a document written for the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, which states: 'Finally - although still not recognized in most countries and affecting only a small percentage of the population - the increasing display of sexual orientation implies the slow emergence and recognition of same-sex couples, with or without children, in a new "same sex nuclear family" form.'[1]

If you actually read the article, you'll see that the term "nuclear family" is not used to describe a "non-conjugal" couple, but to distinguish from it. My edit of the text is accurate. The above text is not. DavidBailey 11:40, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I did actually read the article, and I saw the term "nuclear" being applied not only to same-sex (non-conjugal) couples, but also to single-parent households (a page or two earlier). Your edit implies that the authors argue the term should be used one way or another. My interpretation of the text is that the authors are simply using the term in the way they feel is appropriate and they do not address the question of whether other people should or should not use the term in that way, which your proposed text inaccurately suggests is the case.--Bhuck 10:29, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I also read the article and the only time they use the term non-conjugal is in comparison to, not alignment with, nuclear family. DavidBailey 16:25, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

If you will refer to point 3) at the top of page 4, you will see that the term "nuclear" is applied to family structures involving non-conjugal couples. Thus, the authors are using the term in this way, and not suggesting that it be used in this way.--Bhuck 07:37, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, you are correct. I must have misread. DavidBailey 12:09, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Block 3

The nuclear family does not include unmarried couples, singles, or the family structures commonly found among certain ethnic groups, such as Aborigines. Although many people, especially social conservatives, seek to exclude homosexual unions from the nuclear model, this argument fails to acknowledge gay couples' similarities to heterosexual couples: homosexuals seek similar qualities in their partnerships as heterosexuals and “separate for reasons that are not different from those of heterosexual couples”

What is this reference to? Who is Sarantakos? What material are you citing? Also, statements like "especially social conservatives, seek to exclude homosexual unions from the nuclear model" are unsupported. There is no active effort to keep them out by social conservatives, it just doesn't match the definition. Why do you think the definition should be changed? DavidBailey 11:40, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

If we followed DavidBailey suggestions there would be a citation after each sentence. Each citiation in the article is a reference to the surrounding idea/theory/statment. look at the article feminism for example, a controversial topic, 5 times as long but has only 13 references. this article is small and it has 9 individual references, and then its claimed to not be well cited.(Paulscf 14:36, 7 June 2006 (UTC))

Is that really what you believe? Have you read the references to see that they support the statements? The number of references is not what is at issue as much as that there is not supporting evidence of these statements. Also, because the references are all books, which I do not have, I cannot verify the validity of the references. There seem to be some pretty controversial statements being paraded as fact, but unsupported by the quotes, and frankly, four sources which are repeatedly quoted over and over again is not a good way to ensure NPOV. DavidBailey 01:17, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the problem here is what is meant by "the nuclear model". I believe that social conservatives are attempting to shape how the term is defined in such a way as to ensure that homosexual unions do not fit the definition. That is, in some sense at least, an "active effort". Can you suggest any instances in which social conservatives have acknowleged that same-sex nuclear families exist? If I come up with an example of where a social conservative asserts that a same-sex nuclear family is not actually a nuclear family at all, would you agree that at least that one social conservative has actively tried to define the term in a way that excludes same-sex unions from the definition? Maybe we should be using the term "definition" here instead of "model"--and perhaps that aspect of the "criticism" should be moved out of the "Criticism" subsection of the article and into the section about varying definitions.--Bhuck 10:34, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, my primary concern is that social liberals are attempting to reshape the term to include groups that were never considered part of the term. A sort of revisionist linguistics. The idea that it does include homosexuals is certainly new and uncommon, and therefore, not suited for the article, except perhaps in a breakout sub-section that discusses this topic in a political context. DavidBailey 21:30, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Section on violence

After the removal of certain allegedly unsupported sentences, the remaining sentences appear out of context. If they are to remain in the article, the paragraph needs to be re-written. One cannot start a paragraph with "Silence from the perpetrators..." if one has not said what it is that they are perpetrating. If the use of the term "perpetrators" is supported by the source, the source must also have said what they are perpetrating, and this needs to be written into the article. Perhaps a sentence, such as "Domestic violence has been known to occur within the nuclear family" would be a good way to begin the paragraph. Or do any of the editors of this article believe that that is not the case, and that domestic violence only occurs when parents are unmarried? (If so, I would think that that theory should be a) documented and b) mentioned.)
On the other hand, I wonder about the extent to which it is advisable to address these concerns in this article at all--perhaps they belong more in the article Family, since domestic violence can also occur in single-parent families, extended families, etc. I am not sure that the "nuclearness" of the families is a contributing factor to the violence. (Or perhaps the presence of aunts, uncles, and grandparents is an inhibiting factor?) Both DavidBailey as well as Paulscf seem to want to equate "nuclear family" with a kind of white-bread, Leave-It-To-Beaver ideal, which I believe goes far beyond the distinction that the sociological/anthropological use of the term would warrant. (The comparison to aboriginal family structures, on the other hand, seems to me to be very appropriate for this article.)--Bhuck 07:47, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I would agree that these have no place in this article. As far as your "white-bread", "leave-it-to-beaver" ideal, you are quite wrong. I'm just weary of your using Wikipedia as a soapbox for your causes with no interest in balance. DavidBailey 21:28, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I would argue that a section on domestic violence in families is best handled in our Domestic Violence article, though I am not adverse to something here if it deals with the NUCLEAR family, as opposed to a family. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:48, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Since I don't revert war, here's why a nuclear family includes both singles and homosexuals

Imagine, for instance, a traditional nuclear family - a father, a mother, and two sons.

Imagine one of those sons was 15 years old. He's single. He lives at home.

Imagine another one of those sons was 18 years old. He's gay, single, and lives at home.

Does this not falsefy "The nuclear family does not include unmarried couples, singles, homosexuals, or the family structures commonly found among certain ethnic groups, such as Aborigines," as this family includes both a single (son 1) and a homosexual (son 2?) Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:36, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I think I'm fine with those edits, and I had nothing to do with the Aborigines part of the article, and do I consider myself informed on Aborigine traditions, and so have stayed away from it. I also had nothing to do with the Violence portion of the article. As far as the other definitions of nuclear family, a single person living alone does not qualify as a nuclear family, whether he's gay or not. Neither does a single parent, whose spouse was killed. It's not that I'm trying to exclude anyone, it's just that those families don't match the definition.[2] I've seen discussion over whether a nuclear family with a grandparent living at home qualifies or not. I tend to think it does, in that, you have a nuclear family, plus a member of an extended family, and that member of the extended family doesn't automatically disqualify the nuclear family living there to also be such. DavidBailey 17:50, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I was also somewhat uneasy about that issue, Hipocrite--perhaps the solution would be "The nuclear family does not include the family structures commonly found among certain ethnic groups, such as Aborigines, nor families in which the parents are not a married couple" -- though actually I don't believe that last bit, either. As for DavidBailey's concerns about excluding grandparents, I think one needs to differentiate between household and family. The household consists of the nuclear family plus the grandparent. The family consists of the nuclear family plus the various other relatives, regardless of whether they live in the household or not.--Bhuck 07:59, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

This is true. I think the most recent US Census Bureau confused this issue. DavidBailey 11:56, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Text moved from article for discussion

I think there may be some good text here, but it appears there is a lot of original work and POV. I feel we need to discuss, edit, and pair it down some before inclusion in the article. DavidBailey 03:33, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Economic criticism of the nuclear family model

The nuclear family as we know it in the Western world is largely a product of the rise to prominence of the merchant class, supported by the collateral development of capitalist economies in England and the Netherlands, and entrenched by the Industrial Revolution. It was a mark of economic success that a young husband and wife could afford to live in their own home instead of living with one of their sets of parents, as people of lesser economic means still do today. This divide between middle class and working class has prompted many to criticise the nuclear family model as a symbol of class deprivation.

I think what is important about this text is that it mentions the prerequisites for a conjugal pair setting up its own household, which is itself a prerequisite for the nuclear family. I'm not sure how the term "class deprivation" fits in here. In many cultures, the need to be self-supporting is hard to meet, particularly where rents/property values are very high, and the foundation of a new household can be an obstacle to nuclear family formation instead of extended family forms (or people remaining single while living longer with their parents). It would be nice if you could suggest a way that would be acceptable to you for including this aspect--I don't think we need to mention the "merchant class" when we do so.--Bhuck 14:57, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I think with some citation this paragraph would be suitable in the article. DavidBailey 16:37, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I added a sentence of my own text from the previous paragraph, rather than trying to figure out who was being cited when mention of the merchant class was made. Hope that was ok.--Bhuck 10:51, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Persistence of older pre-nuclear family models

Although it may be regarded as something of an endangered species, the extended family model of multiple generations under one roof remains the norm in most parts of the world. This is sometimes to do with economic differences between socio-economic classes (and leads to the economic criticism of the nuclear family model noted above), but it is often a socio-cultural choice of societies to reject the nuclear family model in favour of their own historic tradition.

Often called the "extended family model," it is actually a differentiated immediate family model because it includes multiple collateral generations as well as multiple direct generations of relatives. In other words, the household is not constituted of an extended family but it relies upon a definition of immediate family that includes direct descedants and ascendants beyond mother and father, as well as collateral relatives beyond brother and sister. So, whereas the nuclear family includes only parents and their children, non-nuclear models might additionally include grandparents, grandchildren, aunts, uncles, and cousins.

An historically classic model is the old Celtic system of kinship found in pre-modern Ireland. Under the old system of Irish family law, the concept of family was construed in terms of tuath ("TOO-uh," meaning 'people' in the sense of "tribe") and fine ("FINN-uh"). The derb-fine ("JAIR-ub FINN-uh") was the basic family unit - the Celtic definitional bounds of immediate family - and included all persons who shared a common great-grandparent, as measured from any given person.

So, if "Aed" is our measuring life, Aed's immediate family extends outward and upward from himself to include his siblings (common parents), his first cousins (common grandparents), and his second cousins (common great-grandparents); AND his immediate family extends outward and downward from himself, to include all people to whom he is or will some day be a common great-grandfather. So, Aed's children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren also are or will be part of his immediate family. Finally, Aed's immediate family also includes any relative whose position lies in between those two points of measure. So, Aed's aunts and uncles, his nieces and nephews, great-aunts and great-uncles, great-nieces and great-nephews, and all the rest of the people in-between his own great-grandparents, and himself as a great-grandparent, are all members of his immediate family.

Broader definitions of "immediate family" also persist notably - though mostly rurally - in Middle Eastern and African families, in the family traditions of Greece, Italy (including Sicily and Sardinia), Spain, and Portugal; and throughout Latin America and the Caribbean. In these cultures, the nuclear family model is often regarded with disgust as anti-traditional family, or as a lever against economic advancement of people who live within the older, broader family model. This social conflict has been particularly apparent during periods of American history among various ethno-cultural groups that have avoided using the prevailing Anglo-Dutch nuclear family model.

Australian Aborigines are another group for whom the concept of family extends well beyond the nuclear model. Aboriginal immediate families include aunts, uncles and a number of other relatives who would be considered "distant relations" in context of the nuclear family. Aboriginal families have strict social rules regarding who they can marry. Their family structure incorporates a shared responsibility for all tasks.

Polygamous and polyandrous families were common in the past in places such as the Asia and the Middle East but are not acceptable in modern western cultures. Social anthropologists use evidence to suggest that for most of human existence man has been polygamous, indeed in some parts of the world polygamous and polyandrous families live in social harmony. The “social function of polygyny” supplies the families of Ghana great benefits. The polyandrous kin-group provides solutions for Ghanaian biological, psychological, ecological and social problems.

My opinion is that this is too long for the current article. Some of it would do well as the basis for an article on the extended family, if such an article exists. I do think, however, some of the anthropological comments about polygamous structures not being found in nuclear family structures are useful, and also the question of what the importance of the family is (this is discussed in the context of aborigines, that the family shares responsibility for all tasks, but we would discuss it more generally as well--is the family more than just a household, and if so, how?). Do you think you might be able to salvage any portions of this or at least rephrase it, DavidBailey?--Bhuck 15:02, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree that if it were edited down some (I find this section very wordy) it may be appropriate in extended family. I'll move it there and work on it. Perhaps we can refer to it from this article. DavidBailey 16:35, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, this section been moved to extended family and I've edited it there. I've left a small section with a reference to it in this article. DavidBailey 17:11, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I am still not sure that it wouldn't be better to explicitly state that nuclear families do not exist in polygamous societies, as well as mentioning the function and responsibilities of families. I do, however, object to conducting a discussion on which is more "traditional", the nuclear or the extended family, in the article on the nuclear family. I don't think either article is appropriate for that--instead that would belong in traditional family, if such an article exists.--Bhuck 10:54, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Bhuck, the only reason I had the "traditional" text was that it was originally inserted as a "criticism" of the nuclear family structure under the grounds that extended family is more "traditional". (See the original text.) DavidBailey 21:55, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Alternative family models

Increased opportunities for women in the workforce and the ready availability of contraception has resulted in more and more women rejecting “social pressure and the idea of normality”. Married couples are increasingly rejecting the idea of having children as "mandatory" to family life.

Meanwhile, increased rates of divorce and remarriage among people with children, the advent of same-sex marriage and other situations in which children have one or more non-biological step- or second-parents ("seccond" as in "second-parent adoption"), and so one, have produced a number of so-called "blended" variations on the original nuclear family model.

It is increasingly common, for example, for two or three nuclear families to be interrelated at the basic nuclear family level. For example:

1. Harry and Wanda marry and have two children. Ten years later, they divorce. 2. Harry marries Wendy and Wanda marries Herman. 3. Wendy was previously married to Hillary. They had two children before they divorced. 4. Herman was previously married to Willemina. They had two children before they divorced. 5. Harry and Wendy have two children together. 6. Herman and Wanda have two children together. 7. Hillary meets Willemina, undergoes gender reassignment surgery, and they move to Boston and get married there as a same-sex couple. They adopt two children.

The foregoing results in:

1. Harry's nuclear family with Wanda overlaps his nuclear family with Wendy, and the former nuclear family of Herman and Wanda, because the children of Harry and Wanda are half-siblings to the children of Harry and Wendy and to the children of Wanda and Herman; but they are not related to the children of Wendy and Hillary or the children of Hillary and Willemina. 2. Wendy's nuclear family with Harry overlaps her nuclear family with Hillary, and the former nuclear family of Herman and Willemina, because the children of Wendy and Hillary are half-siblings to the children of Wendy and Harry, and to the children of Hillary and Willemina; but they are not related to the children of Willemina and Hillary or the children of Harry and Wanda.

And so on, well into the realm of confusion - like the classic 1940's song I'm My Own Grandpa.

This version of the text is not very helpful, since it focuses on an assumed (and probably contrived) situation. I do think, however, we should include some text on the effects of divorce on the nuclear family, perhaps also referring to the term patchwork family. Aside from divorce, death can also result in stepchildren/stepparents. These aspects should indeed be discussed. The questions of women and their role in the economy or the decisions to delay childbearing (perhaps indefinitely) would probably be more suited to the economic section, which I believe should be put back into the article (see above), after being rewritten to avoid explicit reference to the "merchant class".--Bhuck 15:06, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I feel there is no reason for any of this text in the article. period. DavidBailey 16:34, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I see there is already a section in the article on the effect of divorce on nuclear families. I think the stepparent issue should be addressed there, and mention should be made that stepparents can also be the result of death, not just divorce.--Bhuck 10:56, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Links moved from article for discussion

I moved the following links out of the article because it is not clear to me in what ways these organizations advocate abandoning traditional, clan-oriented or extended family kinship structures in favor of the nuclear family. I would suspect that the Christian Coalition in fact has nothing at all against family structures which include grandparents and/or cousins, and does not therefore "promote" structures in which these relationships are not important.--Bhuck 14:52, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I think I may have put these links back when there was some debate over religion and relevence to family structures. I agree, they are probably not suited to the article now. DavidBailey 16:33, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Proponents/advocacy

• American Family Association
• Australian Family Association
• Christian Coalition
• The Family: A Proclamation to the World
• Family Research Council