Public and private families an introduction free download

Short Answer Homework

Public & Private Families A N I N T R O D U C T I O N

8eA N D R E W J . C H E R L I NJohns Hopkins University

Final PDF to printer

che27152_fm_i-xxviii.indd ii 07/14/16 09:14 AM

PUBLIC AND PRIVATE FAMILIES: AN INTRODUCTION, EIGHTH EDITION

Published by McGraw-Hill Education, 2 Penn Plaza, New York, NY 10121. Copyright © 2017 by McGraw- Hill Education. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America. Previous editions © 2013, 2010, and 2008. No part of this publication may be reproduced or distributed in any form or by any means, or stored in a database or retrieval system, without the prior written consent of McGraw-Hill Education, including, but not limited to, in any network or other electronic storage or transmission, or broadcast for distance learning.

Some ancillaries, including electronic and print components, may not be available to customers outside the United States.

This book is printed on acid-free paper.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 DOW 21 20 19 18 17 16

ISBN 978-0-07-802715-4 MHID 0-07-802715-2

All credits appearing on page or at the end of the book are considered to be an extension of the copyright page.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Names: Cherlin, Andrew J., 1948- author. Title: Public & private families : an introduction / Andrew J. Cherlin, Johns Hopkins University. Other titles: Public and private families Description: Eighth edition. | New York, NY : McGraw-Hill Education, [2017] Identifiers: LCCN 2016018980 | ISBN 9780078027154 (alk. paper) Subjects: LCSH: Families--United States. | Families. | Family policy. Classification: LCC HQ536 .C442 2017 | DDC 306.850973—dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2016018980

The Internet addresses listed in the text were accurate at the time of publication. The inclusion of a website does not indicate an endorsement by the authors or McGraw-Hill Education, and McGraw-Hill Education does not guarantee the accuracy of the information presented at these sites.

mheducation.com/highered

Chief Product Officer, SVP Products & Markets: G. Scott Virkler Vice President, General Manager, Products & Markets: Michael Ryan Managing Director: Gina Boedeker Brand Manager: Penina Braffman/Jamie Laferrera Product Developer: Anthony McHugh Marketing Manager: Meredith Leo Director, Content Design & Delivery: Terri Schiesl Program Manager: Jennifer Shekleton Content Project Managers: Melissa Leick, Katie Klochan Buyer: Laura M. Fuller Design: Studio Montage, Inc. Content Licensing Specialists: Beth Thole Cover Image: Image Source/Glow Images Compositor: SPi Global Printer: R. R. Donnelley

Final PDF to printer

che27152_fm_i-xxviii.indd iii 07/14/16 09:14 AM

For Claire and Reid

Final PDF to printer

che27152_fm_i-xxviii.indd iv 07/14/16 09:14 AM

Final PDF to printer

Courtesy of Will Kirk, Johns Hopkins University

v

che27152_fm_i-xxviii.indd v 07/14/16 09:14 AM

About the Author Andrew J. Cherlin is Benjamin H. Griswold III Professor of Public Policy and Sociology at Johns Hopkins University. He received a B.S. from Yale University in 1970 and a Ph.D. in sociology from the University of California at Los Angeles in 1976. His books include Labor’s Love Lost: The Rise and Fall of the Working-Class Family in America (2014), The Marriage-Go-Round: The State of Marriage and the Family in America Today (2009), Marriage, Divorce, Remarriage (revised and enlarged edition, 1992), Divided Families: What Happens to Children When Parents Part (with Frank F. Furstenberg, Jr., 1991), The Changing American Family and Public Policy (1988), and The New American Grandparent: A Place in the Family, A Life Apart (with Frank F. Furstenberg, Jr., 1986). In 1989–1990 he was chair of the Family Section of the American Sociological Association. In 1999 he was president of the Population Association of America, the scholarly organization for demographic research. He is a member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, the American Academy of Political and Social Science, and the National Academy of Sciences.

In 2005 Professor Cherlin was awarded a John Simon Guggenheim Memorial Foundation Fellowship. He received the Distinguished Career Award in 2003 from the Family Section of the American Sociological Association. In 2001 he received the Olivia S. Nordberg Award for Excellence in Writing in the Population Sciences. In 2009 he received the Irene B. Taeuber Award from the Population Association of America, in Recognition of Outstanding Accomplishments in Demographic Research. He has also received a Merit Award from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development for his research on the effects of family structure on children. His recent articles include “Nonmarital First Births, Marriage, and Income Inequality,” in the American Sociological Review; “Family Complexity, the Family Safety Net, and Public Policy,” in the Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science; “Goode’s World Revolution and Family Patterns: A Reconsideration at Fifty Years,” in Population and Development Review; and “The Deinstitutionalization of American Marriage,” in the Journal of Marriage and Family. He also has written many articles for The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Nation, Newsweek, and other periodicals. He has been interviewed on the Today Show, CBS This Morning, network evening news programs, National Public Radio’s All Things Considered, and other news programs and documentaries.

Final PDF to printer

vi

che27152_fm_i-xxviii.indd vi 07/14/16 09:14 AM

Contents in Brief Part One Introduction, 1 1 Public and Private Families, 3 2 The History of the Family, 33

Part Two Gender, Class, and Race-Ethnicity, 69

3 Gender and Families, 71 4 Social Class and Family Inequality, 95 5 Race, Ethnicity, and Families, 119

Part Three Sexuality, Partnership, and Marriage, 153

6 Sexualities, 155 7 Cohabitation and Marriage, 181 8 Work and Families, 217

Part Four Links across the Generations, 237

9 Children and Parents, 239 10 Older People and Their Families, 265

Part Five Conflict, Disruption, and Reconstitution, 295

11 Domestic Violence, 297 12 Union Dissolution and Repartnering, 329

Part Six Family, Society, and World, 361 13 International Family Change, 363 14 The Family, the State, and Social Policy, 389

Final PDF to printer

vii

che27152_fm_i-xxviii.indd vii 07/14/16 09:14 AM

Contents List of Boxes, xix Preface, xxi

Part One Introduction, 1

Chapter 1 Public and Private Families, 3 Looking Forward, 4

WHAT IS A FAMILY?, 5 The Public Family, 6 The Private Family, 9 Two Views, Same Family, 11

HOW DO FAMILY SOCIOLOGISTS KNOW WHAT THEY KNOW?, 13

SOCIOLOGICAL THEORY AND FAMILIES, 17 Four Widely Used Perspectives, 17

The Exchange Perspective, 17 The Symbolic Interaction Perspective, 18 The Feminist Perspective, 20 The Postmodern Perspective, 21

GLOBALIZATION AND FAMILIES, 24

FAMILY LIFE AND INDIVIDUALISM, 26

A SOCIOLOGICAL VIEWPOINT ON FAMILIES, 28

Looking Back, 30 Study Questions, 31 Key Terms, 31 Thinking about Families, 31

Boxed Features

HOW DO SOCIOLOGISTS KNOW WHAT THEY KNOW?: The National Surveys, 18

Chapter 2 The History of the Family, 33 Looking Forward, 34

WHAT DO FAMILIES DO?, 36 The Origins of Family and Kinship, 36

Final PDF to printer

viii Contents

che27152_fm_i-xxviii.indd viii 07/14/16 09:14 AM

THE AMERICAN FAMILY BEFORE 1776, 38 American Indian Families: The Primacy of the Tribe, 39 European Colonists: The Primacy of the Public Family, 40 Family Diversity, 41

THE EMERGENCE OF THE “MODERN” AMERICAN FAMILY: 1776–1900, 42 From Cooperation to Separation: Women’s and Men’s Spheres, 44

AFRICAN AMERICAN, MEXICAN AMERICAN, AND ASIAN IMMIGRANT FAMILIES, 46 African American Families, 46

An African Heritage?, 46 The Impact of Slavery, 47

Mexican American Families, 49 Asian Immigrant Families, 50

The Asian Heritage, 50 Asian Immigrants, 51

THE RISE OF THE PRIVATE FAMILY: 1900 –PRESENT, 52 The Early Decades, 52 The Depression Generation, 55 The 1950s, 56 The 1960s through the 1990s, 58

THE CHANGING LIFE COURSE, 61 Social Change in the Twentieth Century, 61 The New Life Stage of Emerging Adulthood, 62

The Role of Education, 62 Constrained Opportunities, 63 Declining Parental Control, 63

Emerging Adulthood and the Life-Course Perspective, 64 What History Tells Us, 64

Looking Back, 65 Study Questions, 66 Key Terms, 67 Thinking about Families, 67

Part Two Gender, Class, and Race-Ethnicity, 69

Chapter 3 Gender and Families, 71 Looking Forward, 72

THE TRANSGENDER MOMENT, 72

THE GESTATIONAL CONSTRUCTION OF GENDER, 75

THE CHILDHOOD CONSTRUCTION OF GENDER, 77 Parental Socialization, 77 The Media, 78 Peer Groups, 78

Final PDF to printer

Contents ix

che27152_fm_i-xxviii.indd ix 07/14/16 09:14 AM

THE CONTINUAL CONSTRUCTION OF GENDER, 80 Doing and Undoing Gender, 80

GENDER AS SOCIAL STRUCTURE, 83

THINKING ABOUT GENDER DIFFERENCES TODAY, 86 Causes at Multiple Levels, 86 The Slowing of Gender Change, 87 The Asymmetry of Gender Change, 88 Intersectionality, 88

MEN AND MASCULINITIES, 89

THE CONTRIBUTIONS OF GENDER STUDIES, 90

Looking Back, 92 Study Questions, 93 Key Terms, 93 Thinking about Families, 93

Boxed Features

HOW DO SOCIOLOGISTS KNOW WHAT THEY KNOW?: Feminist Research Methods, 80

FAMILIES AND PUBLIC POLICY: Do Employers Discriminate Against Women?, 84

Chapter 4 Social Class and Family Inequality, 95 Looking Forward, 96

FAMILIES AND THE ECONOMY, 97 The Growing Importance of Education, 97 Diverging Demographics, 99

Age at Marriage, 99 Childbearing Outside of Marriage, 99 The Marriage Market, 100 Divorce, 101 Putting the Differences Together, 101

DEFINING SOCIAL CLASS, 102 Bringing in Gender and Family, 103 Social Classes and Status Groups, 104

The Four-Class Model, 104 Three Status Groups, 107

SOCIAL CLASS DIFFERENCES IN FAMILY LIFE, 107 Assistance from Kin, 108

Kinship among the Poor and Near Poor, 108 Chronic Poverty and Kin Networks, 108 The Limits of Kin Networks, 109 Kinship among the Nonpoor, 110

Social Class and Child Rearing, 110 Social Class and Parental Values, 110 Concerted Cultivation versus Natural Growth, 111

SOCIAL CLASS AND THE FAMILY, 113

Final PDF to printer

x Contents

che27152_fm_i-xxviii.indd x 07/14/16 09:14 AM

Looking Back, 115 Study Questions, 116 Key Terms, 116 Thinking about Families, 117

Boxed Features

FAMILIES AND PUBLIC POLICY: Homelessness, by the Numbers, 106

Chapter 5 Race, Ethnicity, and Families, 119 Looking Forward, 120

RACIAL-ETHNIC GROUPS, 121 Constructing Racial-Ethnic Groups, 122 “Whiteness” as Ethnicity, 124

AFRICAN AMERICAN FAMILIES, 127 Marriage and Childbearing, 127

Marriage, 128 Childbearing Outside of Marriage, 128 Single-Parent Families, 128

Explaining the Trends, 128 Availability, 129 Culture, 130 Reconciling the Explanations, 133

Gender and Black Families, 133 The Rise of Middle-Class Families, 133

HISPANIC FAMILIES, 136 Mexican Americans, 136 Puerto Ricans, 138 Cuban Americans, 139

ASIAN AMERICAN FAMILIES, 141

SOCIAL CAPITAL AND IMMIGRANT FAMILIES, 143

AMERICAN INDIAN FAMILIES, 144

RACIAL AND ETHNIC INTERMARRIAGE, 146 Variation in Intermarriage, 146 Intersectionality and Intermarriage, 147

RACE, ETHNICITY, AND KINSHIP, 148

Looking Back, 149 Study Questions, 150 Key Terms, 150 Thinking about Families, 151

Boxed Feature

FAMILIES AND PUBLIC POLICY: How Should Multiracial Families Be Counted?, 124

Final PDF to printer

Contents xi

che27152_fm_i-xxviii.indd xi 07/14/16 09:14 AM

Part Three Sexuality, Partnership, and Marriage, 153

Chapter 6 Sexualities, 155 Looking Forward, 156

SEXUAL IDENTITIES, 158 The Emergence of Sexual Identities, 159

Sexual Acts versus Sexual Identities, 159 The Emergence of “Heterosexuality” and “Homosexuality”, 159

The Determinants of Sexual Identities, 160 The Social Constructionist Perspective, 160 The Integrative Perspective, 164 Points of Agreement and Disagreement, 165

Questioning Sexual Identities, 166 Queer Theory, 166 Strengths and Limitations, 167

SEXUALITY IN AND OUT OF RELATIONSHIPS, 168 Sexuality in Committed Relationships, 170 Sexual Activity Outside of Relationships, 170

ADOLESCENT SEXUALITY AND PREGNANCY, 172 Changes in Sexual Behavior, 172 The Teenage Pregnancy “Problem”, 173 The Consequences for Teenage Mothers, 173

SEXUALITY AND FAMILY LIFE, 176

Looking Back, 178 Study Questions, 178 Key Terms, 179 Thinking about Families, 179

Boxed Features

HOW DO SOCIOLOGISTS KNOW WHAT THEY KNOW?: Asking about Sensitive Behavior, 162

FAMILIES AND PUBLIC POLICY: The Rise and Fall of the Teenage Pregnancy Problem, 176

Chapter 7 Cohabitation and Marriage, 181 Looking Forward, 182

FORMING A UNION, 183 American Courtship, 184 The Rise and Fall of Dating, 185 Independent Living, 186 Living Apart Relationships, 187

Final PDF to printer

xii Contents

che27152_fm_i-xxviii.indd xii 07/14/16 09:14 AM

COHABITATION, 188 Cohabitation and Class, 191

College-Educated Cohabitants, 191 Moderately Educated Cohabitants, 192 The Least-Educated Cohabitants, 192 Summing Up, 194

Cohabitation among Lesbians and Gay Men, 194

MARRIAGE, 195 From Institution to Companionship, 196

The Institutional Marriage, 196 The Companionate Marriage, 196

From Companionship to Individualization, 197 Toward the Individualistic Marriage, 198 The Influence of Economic Change, 199

THE CURRENT CONTEXT OF MARRIAGE, 200 Why Do People Still Marry?, 200 Marriage as the Capstone Experience, 201 The Wedding as a Status Symbol, 201 Marriage as Investment, 203 Marriage and Religion, 204 Same-Sex Marriage, 205 Is Marriage Good for You?, 206 The Marriage Market, 207

The Specialization Model, 208 The Income-Pooling Model, 209

SOCIAL CHANGE AND INTIMATE UNIONS, 209 Changes in Union Formation, 210 Marriage as an Ongoing Project, 212 Toward the Egalitarian Marriage?, 212

Looking Back, 214 Study Questions, 215 Key Terms, 215 Thinking about Families, 215

Boxed Features FAMILIES AND PUBLIC POLICY: The Legal Rights of Cohabiting Couples, 189

Chapter 8 Work and Families, 217 Looking Forward, 218

FROM SINGLE-EARNER TO DUAL-EARNER MARRIAGES, 219 Behind the Rise, 220 A Profound Change, 221

THE DIVISION OF LABOR IN MARRIAGES, 222 Rethinking Caring Work, 222

Breaking the Work/Family Boundary, 222 Valuing Caring Labor, 222 Toward an Ethic of Care, 224

Final PDF to printer

Contents xiii

che27152_fm_i-xxviii.indd xiii 07/29/16 07:22 PM

Who’s Doing the Care Work?, 224 Wives’ Earnings and Domestic Work, 226 The Current State of Sharing, 226

WORK-FAMILY BALANCE, 227 Overworked and Underworked Americans, 228 When Demands of Work and Family Life Conflict, 229

Task Size, 229 Task Stress, 230

Toward a Family-Responsive Workplace?, 232

Looking Back, 235 Study Questions, 235 Key Terms, 236 Thinking about Families, 236

Boxed Features

FAMILIES AND PUBLIC POLICY: Paid Parental Leave, 233

Part Four Links across the Generations, 237

Chapter 9 Children and Parents, 239 Looking Forward, 240

WHAT ARE PARENTS SUPPOSED TO DO FOR CHILDREN?, 240 Socialization as Support and Control, 241 Socialization and Ethnicity, 241 Socialization and Social Class, 242 Socialization and Gender, 243 Religion and Socialization, 244 What’s Important?, 244 What Difference Do Fathers Make?, 245 Adoption, 246

Domestic Adoption, 247 Transnational Adoption, 247

Lesbian and Gay Parenthood, 249

WHAT MIGHT PREVENT PARENTS FROM DOING WHAT THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO DO?, 250 Unemployment and Poverty, 250

Unemployment, 251 Poverty, 252

Family Instability, 252 Different Kinds of Households, 253 Multiple Transitions, 254

Family Complexity, 254 Mass Incarceration, 255

Final PDF to printer

xiv Contents

che27152_fm_i-xxviii.indd xiv 07/14/16 09:14 AM

Time Apart, 256 How Parents Compensate for Time Apart, 256 The Consequences of Nonparental Care, 257

THE WELL-BEING OF AMERICAN CHILDREN, 257 Which Children?, 257 Diverging Destinies, 259

Poor and Wealthy Children, 260 Children in the Middle, 260

Looking Back, 262 Study Questions, 263 Key Terms, 263 Thinking about Families, 263

Boxed Features

HOW DO SOCIOLOGISTS KNOW WHAT THEY KNOW?: Measuring the Well-Being of Children, 258

FAMILIES AND PUBLIC POLICY: Do Children Have Rights?, 261

Chapter 10 Older People and Their Families, 265 Looking Forward, 266

THE MODERNIZATION OF OLD AGE, 268 Mortality Decline, 268

The Statistics, 268 The Social Consequences, 268

Fertility Decline, 270 Rising Standard of Living, 271

Variations by Age, Race, and Gender, 271 Social Consequences, 272

Separate Living Arrangements, 274 Contact, 277

INTERGENERATIONAL SUPPORT, 278 Mutual Assistance, 278

Altruism, 279 Exchange, 279

Moving in with Grandparents, 280 Multigenerational Households, 280 Skipped-Generation Households, 281 Rewards and Costs, 281

The Return of the Extended Family?, 281 Care of Older Persons with Disabilities, 283 The Rewards and Costs of Caregiving, 284

THE QUALITY OF INTERGENERATIONAL TIES, 284 Intergenerational Solidarity, 285 Intergenerational Conflict and Ambivalence, 288 The Effects of Divorce and Remarriage, 289

Final PDF to printer

Contents xv

che27152_fm_i-xxviii.indd xv 07/14/16 09:14 AM

THE FAMILY NATIONAL GUARD, 290

Looking Back, 292 Study Questions, 293 Key Terms, 294 Thinking about Families, 294

Boxed Features

FAMILIES AND PUBLIC POLICY: Financing Social Security and Medicare, 272

Part Five Conflict, Disruption, and Reconstitution, 295

Chapter 11 Domestic Violence, 297 Looking Forward, 298

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE IN HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE, 299 Early History, 299 The Twentieth Century, 300

The Political Model of Domestic Violence, 300 The Medical Model of Domestic Violence, 300

INTIMATE PARTNER VIOLENCE, 302 Two Kinds of Violence?, 302 Trends and Prevalence in Intimate Partner Violence, 305

Trends, 305 Prevalence, 306

Which Partnerships Are at Risk?, 308 Marital Status, 308 Social Class, 308

Child Abuse, 309 Incidence, 310 Sexual Abuse and Its Consequences, 311 Physical Abuse and Its Consequences, 312 Poly-victimization, 313 Poverty or Abuse?, 313

Elder Abuse, 313

SEXUAL AGGRESSION AND VIOLENCE IN EMERGING ADULTHOOD, 317

EXPLANATIONS, 319 Social Learning Perspective, 320 Frustration–Aggression Perspective, 320 Social Exchange Perspective, 321

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AND PUBLIC POLICY, 322 Policy Choices, 322 Social Programs, 323

Looking Back, 324 Study Questions, 325

Final PDF to printer

xvi Contents

che27152_fm_i-xxviii.indd xvi 07/14/16 09:14 AM

Key Terms, 326 Thinking about Families, 326

Boxed Features

HOW DO SOCIOLOGISTS KNOW WHAT THEY KNOW?: Advocates and Estimates: How Large (or Small) Are Social Problems?, 306

FAMILIES AND PUBLIC POLICY: The Swinging Pendulum of Foster Care Policy, 314

Chapter 12 Union Dissolution and Repartnering, 329 Looking Forward, 330

FACTORS ASSOCIATED WITH UNION DISSOLUTION, 333 Societal Risk Factors, 333

Cultural Change, 334 Men’s Employment, 334 Women’s Employment, 335 Summing Up, 335

Individual Risk Factors, 336 Age at Entry into Union, 336 Race and Ethnicity, 336 Premarital Cohabitation, 337 Parental Divorce, 338 Spouse’s Similarity, 338

HOW UNION DISSOLUTION AFFECTS CHILDREN, 339 Child Custody, 339 Contact, 340 Economic Support, 341 Psychosocial Effects, 344

The Crisis Period, 344 Multiple Transitions, 345 Long-term Adjustment, 345 Genetically Informed Studies, 347 In Sum, 348

REPARTNERING, 349 Stepfamily Diversity, 349 The Demography of Stepfamilies and Remarriages, 350

THE EFFECTS OF STEPFAMILY LIFE ON CHILDREN, 351 Cohabiting v. Married Stepfamilies, 352 Age at Leaving Home, 352

UNION DISSOLUTION AND REPARTNERING: SOME LESSONS, 353 The Primacy of the Private Family, 353 New Kinship Ties, 355 The Impact on Children, 356

Final PDF to printer

Contents xvii

che27152_fm_i-xxviii.indd xvii 07/14/16 09:14 AM

Looking Back, 357 Study Questions, 358 Key Terms, 359 Thinking about Families, 359

Boxed Features

HOW DO SOCIOLOGISTS KNOW WHAT THEY KNOW?: Measuring the Divorce Rate, 331

FAMILIES AND PUBLIC POLICY: Child Support Obligations, 342

Part Six Family, Society, and World, 361

Chapter 13 International Family Change, 363 Looking Forward, 364

THE CONVERGENCE THESIS, 365

THE GLOBAL SOUTH, 366 The Decline of Parental Control, 367

Rising Age at Marriage, 368 Hybrid Marriage, 369

The Spread of the Companionate Ideal, 371 How Social Norms Change, 372 The Spread of Postmodern Ideals, 374 The Decline of Fertility, 375

GLOBALIZATION AND FAMILY CHANGE, 375 The Globalization of Production, 376 Transnational Families, 377

FAMILY CHANGE IN THE WESTERN NATIONS, 380 Globalization and Family Diversity in the West, 381 The Return to Complexity, 382

THE PAST AND THE FUTURE, 383

Looking Back, 385 Study Questions, 386 Key Terms, 386 Thinking about Families, 387

Chapter 14 The Family, the State, and Social Policy, 389 Looking Forward, 390

THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE WELFARE STATE, 393 The Welfare State, 393 The Rise and Fall of the Family Wage System, 394

Final PDF to printer

xviii Contents

che27152_fm_i-xxviii.indd xviii 07/14/16 09:14 AM

FAMILY POLICY DEBATES, 396 The Conservative Viewpoint, 396 The Liberal Viewpoint, 398 Which Families Are Poor?, 399

SUPPORTING THE WORKING POOR, 400 The Earned Income Tax Credit, 401 Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, 402

Reasons for the Policy Reversal, 403 The Effects of Welfare Reform, 404

CURRENT DEBATES, 405 Supporting Marriage, 405 Same-Sex Marriage, 406 Nonmarital Childbearing, 407 Responsible Fatherhood, 408 Work–Family Balance, 409

SIGNS OF CONVERGENCE?, 411

Looking Back, 412 Study Questions, 413 Key Terms, 413 Thinking about Families, 413

Boxed Features

FAMILIES AND PUBLIC POLICY: The Abortion Dilemma, 397

Glossary, 414 References, 420 Name Index, 450 Subject Index, 458

Final PDF to printer

xixxixxix

che27152_fm_i-xxviii.indd xix 07/14/16 09:14 AM

Families and Public Policy Chapter 3 Do Employers Discriminate Against Women?, 84 4 Homelessness, by the Numbers, 106 5 How Should Multiracial Families Be Counted?, 124 6 The Rise and Fall of the Teenage Pregnancy Problem, 176 7 The Legal Rights of Cohabiting Couples, 189 8 Paid Parental Leave, 233 9 Do Children Have Rights?, 261 10 Financing Social Security and Medicare, 272 11 The Swinging Pendulum of Foster Care Policy, 314 12 Child Support Obligations, 342 14 The Abortion Dilemma, 397

How Do Sociologists Know What They Know? Chapter 1 The National Surveys, 18 3 Feminist Research Methods, 80 6 Asking about Sensitive Behavior, 162 9 Measuring the Well-Being of Children, 258 11 Advocates and Estimates: How Large (or Small) Are Social Problems?, 306 12 Measuring the Divorce Rate, 331

List of Boxes

Final PDF to printer

che27152_fm_i-xxviii.indd xx 07/14/16 09:14 AM

Final PDF to printer

xxixxixxi

che27152_fm_i-xxviii.indd xxi 07/14/16 09:14 AM

Preface The sociology of the family is deceptively hard to study. Unlike, say, physics, the topic is familiar (a word whose very root is Latin for “family”) because virtually everyone grows up in families. Therefore, it can seem “easy” to study the family because students can bring to bear their personal knowledge of the subject. Some textbooks play to this familiarity by mainly providing students with an opportunity to better understand their private lives. The authors never stray too far from the individual experiences of the readers, focusing on personal choices such as whether to marry and whether to have children. To be sure, giving students insight into the social forces that shape their personal decisions about family life is a worthwhile objective. Nevertheless, the challenge of writing about the sociology of the family is also to help students understand that the significance of families extends beyond personal experience. Today, as in the past, the family is the site of not only private decisions but also activities that matter to our society as a whole.

These activities center on taking care of people who are unable to fully care for themselves, most notably children and the elderly. Anyone who follows social issues knows of the often-expressed concern about whether, given developments such as the increases in divorce and childbearing outside of marriage, we are raising the next gen- eration adequately. Anyone anxious about the well-being of the rapidly expanding older population (as well as the escalating cost of providing financial and medical assis- tance to them) knows the concern about whether family members will continue to provide adequate assistance to them. Indeed, rarely does a month pass without these issues appearing on the covers of magazines and the front pages of newspapers.

In this textbook, consequently, I have written about the family in two senses: the private family, in which we live most of our personal lives, and the public family, in which adults perform tasks that are important to society. My goal is to give students a thorough grounding in both aspects. It is true that the two are related—taking care of children adequately, for instance, requires the love and affection that family mem- bers express privately toward each other. But the public side of the family deserves equal time with the private side.

Organization This book is divided into 6 parts and 14 chapters. Part One (“Introduction”) introduces the concepts of public and private families and examines how sociologists and other social scientists study them. It also provides an overview of the history of the family. Part Two (“Gender, Class, and Race-Ethnicity”) deals with the three key dimensions of social stratification in family life: gender, social class, and race-ethnicity. In Part Three (“Sexuality, Partnership, and Marriage”), the focus shifts to the private family. The sec- tion examines the emergence of the modern concept of sexuality, the formation of partnerships, and the degree of persistence and change in the institution of marriage. Finally, it covers the complex connections between work and family.

Part Four (“Links across the Generations”) explores how well the public family is meeting its responsibilities for children and the elderly. Part Five (“Conflict, Disruption,

Final PDF to printer

xxii Preface

che27152_fm_i-xxviii.indd xxii 07/14/16 09:14 AM

and Reconstitution”) deals with the consequences of conflict and disruption in family life. It first studies intimate partner violence. Then the formation and dissolution of mar- riages and cohabiting unions are discussed. Finally, in Part Six (“Family, Society, and World”) family change around the world and social and political issues involving the family and the state are discussed.

Special Features Public and Private Families is distinguishable from other textbooks in several impor- tant ways.

First and foremost, it explores both the public and the private family. The public/ private distinction that underlies the book’s structure is intended to provide a more balanced portrait of contemporary life. Furthermore, the focus on the public family leads to a much greater emphasis on government policy toward the family than in most other textbooks. In fact, most chapters include a short, boxed essay under the general title, “Families and Public Policy,” to stimulate student interest and make the book relevant to current political debates.

In addition to this unique emphasis on both the Public and Private Families, the text:

• Addresses the global nature of family change. Although the emphasis in the book is on the contemporary United States, no text should ignore the impor- tant cross-national connections among families in our globalized economy. New in this edition, the text includes a chapter on “International Family Change” that provides a comprehensive treatment of the major types of change that are occurring in family life around the world (Chapter 13).

• Includes distinctive chapters. The attention to the public family led me to write several chapters that are not included in some sociology of the family textbooks. These include, in addition to the new chapter on international family change, Chapter 14, “The Family, the State, and Social Policy,” and Chapter 10, “Older People and Their Families.” These chapters examine issues of great current inter- est, such as income assistance to poor families, the costs of the Social Security and Medicare programs, and the extension of marriage to same-sex couples. Throughout these and other chapters, variations by race, ethnicity, and gender are explored.

• Gives special attention to the research methods used by family sociologists. To give students an understanding of how sociologists study the family, I include a section in Chapter 1 titled, “How Do Family Sociologists Know What They Know?” This material explains the ways that family sociologists go about their research. Then in other chapters, I include boxed essays under a similar title on subjects ranging from national surveys to feminist research methods.

Pedagogy Each chapter begins in a way that engages the reader: the controversy over whether the Scarborough 11 in Hartford, Connecticut, constitute a family (Chapter 1); the transgender moment (Chapter 3); the letters that Alexander Hamilton wrote to a man he loved (Chapter 6); the courtship of Maud Rittenhouse in the 1880s (Chapter 7); and so forth. And each of the six parts of the book is preceded by a brief introduction that sets the stage.

Final PDF to printer

Preface xxiii

che27152_fm_i-xxviii.indd xxiii 07/14/16 09:14 AM

Several Quick Review boxes in each chapter include bulleted, one-sentence summa- ries of the key points of the preceding sections. Each chapter also contains the follow- ing types of questions:

• Looking Forward—Questions that preview the chapter themes and topics. • Ask Yourself—Two questions that appear at the end of each of the boxed features. • Looking Back—Looking Forward questions reiterated at the end of each chap-

ter, around which the chapter summaries are organized. • Thinking about Families—Two questions that appear at the end of each chapter

and are designed to encourage critical thinking about the “public” and the “private” family.

What’s New in Each Chapter? As always, all statistics in the text and all figures have been updated whenever pos- sible. Many minor revisions have been made in each chapter. The most prominent addition is a new chapter on international family change. It pulls together some material that had been included in other chapters in the previous editions, but it also adds much new material. Other changes are presented in the following list:

CHAPTER 1. PUBLIC AND PRIVATE FAMILIES

• A discussion of the “Scarborough 11” controversy and what it can teach us about the definition of the family begins the chapter.

• The section on “Marriage and Individualism” has been moved to later in the chapter and retitled “Family Life and Individualism.”

• The “Families and the Great Recession” boxed features that were in several chapters in the previous editions have been deleted now that the Great Reces- sion has been over for several years.

CHAPTER 2. THE HISTORY OF THE FAMILY

• The family and public policy boxed feature on divorce reform, which was out of date given the recent decline in divorce, has been deleted. Chapters 3 through 13 still include family and public policy boxes.

• The stage of life that was called “early adulthood” in the previous edition is now called “emerging adulthood,” which is the term most researchers and writers are using.

• Discussion of Lawrence Stone’s term affective individualism, which is not used much in current work, has been deleted. However, individualism and its two forms, utilitarian individualism and expressive individualism, are still empha- sized. See the “Family Life and Individualism” section of Chapter 1.

CHAPTER 3. GENDER AND FAMILIES

• An opening section that discusses the great increase in public attention to transgender people has been added.

• A new subsection on intersectionality has been added. • The boxed feature “Feminist Research Methods” has been updated.

CHAPTER 4. SOCIAL CLASS AND FAMILY INEQUALITY

• The section on “Family Life and the Globalization of Production” has been moved to the new Chapter 13 on “International Family Change.”

Final PDF to printer

xxiv Preface

che27152_fm_i-xxviii.indd xxiv 07/14/16 09:14 AM

• Citations to growing middle-class parental investment of time and money in children’s development are new.

CHAPTER 5. RACE, ETHNICITY, AND FAMILIES

• The “How Should Multiracial Families Be Counted?” boxed feature has been updated to discuss how the Census Bureau is considering dropping the term “race” from the 2020 Census.

• Updated section on Mexican Americans notes that net migration from Mexico is nearly zero.

• Discussion of the intermarriage boom has been updated.

CHAPTER 6. SEXUALITIES

• The section on hooking up has been moved from Chapter 7 to this chapter.

CHAPTER 7. COHABITATION AND MARRIAGE

• Same-sex marriage is discussed in a new subsection. • Recent articles claiming that a new equilibrium of stable, egalitarian marriage

is emerging in most Western countries are discussed. • The section on living apart relationships has been moved from Chapter 6 to

this chapter. • The subsection on “The Globalization of Love” has been moved to new Chapter 13.

CHAPTER 8. WORK AND FAMILIES

• The chapter now opens with a section on the Fast-Forward Families study of working parents in the Los Angeles area.

• An up-to-date consideration of parental time use is included.

CHAPTER 9. CHILDREN AND PARENTS

• Discussion includes the friend-of-the-court brief submitted by the American Sociological Association comparing children raised by gay or lesbian parents with children raised by heterosexual parents.

• The decline in the number of transnational adoptions is discussed. • The section on transnational families has been moved to new Chapter 13.

CHAPTER 10. OLDER PEOPLE AND THEIR FAMILIES

• The term active life expectancy has been replaced by health span, following cur- rent practice, and the discussion of life expectancy and health span has been revised.

• The latest figures on spending levels and trends in Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are provided.

CHAPTER 11. DOMESTIC VIOLENCE

• The type of intimate partner violence previously labelled intimate terrorism is now called coercive controlling violence, a change that is happening in the litera- ture. I was never a fan of the term “intimate terrorism.” The new terminology is also more consistent with the other main type of intimate partner violence, situational couple violence.

• Greater attention is given to research and legislation on intimate violence among LGBT people.

Final PDF to printer

Preface xxv

che27152_fm_i-xxviii.indd xxv 07/14/16 09:14 AM

CHAPTER 12. UNION DISSOLUTION AND REPARTNERING

• This heavily revised chapter combines two chapters from the previous edition, Chapter 12, “Divorce,” and Chapter 13, “Stepfamilies.”

• The chapter is now oriented toward both marriage-based events (divorce and remarriage) and cohabitation-based events (the formation and dissolution of cohabiting unions). This shift reflects the large and still growing proportion of all dissolutions and repartnering that are occurring outside of marriage.

• The discussion of custody and child support has been updated to reflect the sharp rise in joint custody awards in divorces.

CHAPTER 13. INTERNATIONAL FAMILY CHANGE

• In this chapter, new to the eighth edition, changes in family life around the world in the past 50 years are examined.

• The successes and failures of the predictions made in 1963 by William J. Goode in his important book on world changes in family patterns are dis- cussed. The argument is made that family patterns have remained diverse, with great changes in some world regions and modest changes in others.

• The broad spread of the ideal of romantic love and the decline of parental authority over spouse choice are discussed.

• The position is taken that in areas where parents once chose their children’s spouse, a “hybrid” model of spouse choice has emerged in which parents and children work together to find a spouse.

• The consequences of globalization for family change are presented.

CHAPTER 14. THE FAMILY, THE STATE, AND SOCIAL POLICY

• The extent to which the American social welfare system has shifted toward providing more benefits for the working-poor and near-poor and less benefits for the nonworking poor is now emphasized in this family policy chapter. Examples of this shift are the expansion of the EITC and the restrictions the welfare reform bill placed on receipt of TANF benefits.

• The findings of two large, government-sponsored random-assignment studies of efforts to support marriage among the low-income population are reported.

• The causes and consequences of the momentous Supreme Court decision, Obergefell v. Hodges, to legalize same-sex marriage are assessed.

• Arguments in support of and against greater use of long-acting reversible con- traceptives among low-income women are summarized.

• The observation that the conservative and liberal positions on family policy may have converged somewhat over the past several years closes this chapter.

The 8th edition of Public & Private Families is now available online with Connect, McGraw-Hill Education’s integrated assignment and assessment platform. Connect also offers SmartBook for the new edition, which is the first adaptive reading experi- ence proven to improve grades and help students study more effectively. All of the title’s website and ancillary content is also available through Connect, including:

• A full Test Bank of multiple-choice questions that test students on central con- cepts and ideas in each chapter.

• An Instructor’s Manual for each chapter with full chapter outlines, sample test questions, and discussion topics.

• Lecture Slides for instructor use in class.

Final PDF to printer

che27152_fm_i-xxviii.indd xxvi 07/14/16 09:14 AM

McGraw-Hill Connect® Learn Without Limits Connect is a teaching and learning platform that is proven to deliver better results for students and instructors.

Connect empowers students by continually adapting to deliver precisely what they need, when they need it, and how they need it, so your class time is more engaging and effective.

Connect Insight® Connect Insight is Connect’s new one- of-a-kind visual analytics dashboard that provides at-a-glance information regarding student performance, which is immediately actionable. By presenting assignment, assessment, and topical performance results together with a time metric that is easily visible for aggregate or individual results, Connect Insight gives the user the ability to take a just-in-time approach to teaching and learning, which was never before available. Connect Insight presents data that helps instructors improve class performance in a way that is efficient and effective.

73% of instructors who use Connect require it; instructor

satisfaction increases by 28% when Connect is required.

Analytics

Using Connect improves passing rates by 12.7% and retention by 19.8%.

Required=Results ©Getty Images/iStockphoto

Final PDF to printer

che27152_fm_i-xxviii.indd xxvii 07/14/16 09:14 AM

SmartBook® Proven to help students improve grades and study more efficiently, SmartBook contains the same content within the print book, but actively tailors that content to the needs of the individual. SmartBook’s adaptive technology provides precise, personalized instruction on what the student should do next, guiding the student to master and remember key concepts, targeting gaps in knowledge and offering customized feedback, and driving the student toward comprehension and retention of the subject matter. Available on smartphones and tablets, SmartBook puts learning at the student’s fingertips—anywhere, anytime.

Adaptive

Over 5.7 billion questions have been answered, making McGraw-Hill Education products more intelligent,

reliable, and precise.

THE ADAPTIVE READING EXPERIENCE DESIGNED TO TRANSFORM THE WAY STUDENTS READ

More students earn A’s and B’s when they use McGraw-Hill

Education Adaptive products.

www.mheducation.com

©Getty Images/iStockphoto

Final PDF to printer

xxviii Preface

che27152_fm_i-xxviii.indd xxviii 07/14/16 09:14 AM

Acknowledgments To write a book this comprehensive requires the help of many people. At McGraw-Hill, Brand Manager Penina Braffman Greenfield provided initial and ongoing support, Product Developer Anthony McHugh and freelance development team at ansrsource, led by Anne Sheroff and Reshmi Rajeesh provided valuable editorial guidance. Melissa Leick smoothly managed the production process. In addition, the following people read the seventh edition and provided me with help- ful suggestions for this revision:

Jerry Cook, California State University, Sacramento

Julie Dinger, Connors State College, OK

Mel Moore, University of Northern Colorado

Akiko Yoshida, University of Wisconsin, Whitewater

Lisa Rapalyea, UC Davis, Sacramento State University

Todd A Migliaccio, California State University, Sacramento

David A. Strong, Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis

Final PDF to printer

che27152_ch01_001-031.indd 1 05/27/16 03:46 PM

Part One Introduction

The family has two aspects. It is, first, the place where we experience much of our private lives. It is where we give and receive love, share our hopes and fears, work through our troubles, and relax and enjoy ourselves. Second, it is a set-

ting in which adults perform tasks that are of importance to society, particularly raising

children and assisting elderly parents. To be sure, people undertake these tasks not to

perform a public service but rather to express love, affection, and gratitude. Neverthe-

less, family caretaking benefits us all by raising the next generation and by reducing

our collective responsibility for the elderly. Indeed, people today frequently express

concern over whether changes in the family have reduced parents’ abilities to raise

their children well. This book is about both the private and public aspects of families. It

examines the contributions of family life not only to personal satisfaction but also to

public welfare. The first two chapters provide an introduction to this perspec-

tive. • Chapter 1 explores the most useful ways to think about families, and it exam-

ines the approaches that sociologists and other social scientists use to study

families. • Chapter 2 provides an overview of the history of the family. Over the past

half-century family historians have produced many studies that provide useful insights.

A knowledge of family life in the past can help us to understand families today.

Final PDF to printer

che27152_ch01_001-031.indd 2 05/27/16 03:46 PM

© Digital Vision/PunchStock

Final PDF to printer

che27152_ch01_001-031.indd 3 05/27/16 03:46 PM

Chapter One

Public and Private Families Looking Forward What Is a Family? The Public Family The Private Family Two Views, Same Family

How Do Family Sociologists Know What They Know? Sociological Theory and Families Four Widely Used Perspectives The Exchange Perspective The Symbolic Interaction Perspective The Feminist Perspective The Postmodern Perspective

Globalization and Families Family Life and Individualism A Sociological Viewpoint on Families Looking Back Study Questions Key Terms Thinking about Families Boxed Feature HOW DO SOCIOLOGISTS KNOW WHAT THEY KNOW?: The National Surveys

Final PDF to printer

che27152_ch01_001-031.indd 4 05/27/16 03:46 PM

1. What do families do that is important for society? What do families do that is important for the individuals in them?

2. How do sociologists go about studying families?

3. What are the leading theoretical approaches to studying families?

4. How does individualism influence American family life?

5. How is globalization changing family life?

Looking Forward

4 Part I Introduction

In August 2014, a group of friends consisting of two couples with children, a couple without children, and two other individuals bought a house together on Scarborough St. in Hartford, Connecticut. To drive down Scarborough is to pass mansion after mansion on what may be Hartford’s most elegant street. But the eight- bedroom home that they purchased had fallen into disrepair and had been on the market for four years. The Scarborough 11, as they came to be called, deemed it perfect. “We didn’t see the need to live in these isolated nuclear family units,” said one of the residents. “It’s sustainable for the earth, it makes economic sense, and it’s a better way to raise our children. We didn’t need a multifamily house with separate kitchens and separate living areas.”1 The group includes two school teach- ers, a college professor, employees of a clinic and of a cultural center, and a stay-at- home dad. They share the renovation costs, the monthly bills, and the household chores. Each pair of adults cooks dinner for everyone one night a week.

The problem is that Hartford’s zoning law prohibits three or more unrelated individuals from living together in a single-family home. The law defines a fam- ily as two or more people who are related by blood, marriage, civil union, or adoption—which is pretty much the definition that the U.S. Census Bureau still uses. Defenders of the zoning law argue that it is necessary to protect residential neighborhoods from the establishment of rooming houses or (worse yet!) fraterni- ties. By this standard the Scarborough 11 comprised too many families: a Census- taker in the hallway might see one family consisting of parents and children to her left, a second family of parents and children to her right, a third family formed by the childless couple in the next room, and two other unrelated people making din- ner in the kitchen. By her rules, which Hartford follows, none of the three families is related to each other, nor to the two singles. So there are more than two “unre- lated” people in household, which violates the zoning law. Yet the Scarborough 11’s radical claim is that they are one family and should therefore be allowed to live in a single-family home. “We have systems in place to ensure that we are function- ing not just as a house but as a collective relationship,” a resident told a reporter.

Shortly after the Scarborough 11 moved in, some neighbors complained to the Hartford Zoning Board that the group did not meet the zoning law and therefore did not have the right to occupy the home. The attorney for the Scarborough 11

1 My account is drawn from stories in the Hartford Courant, including “Zoning Squabble: Family is What Family Does,” November 21, 2014; “Scarborough 11’s Family Dynamic One to Be Envious of,” February 26, 2015; “Hartford Upholds Action against Scarborough Street Family,” February 17, 2015; and in addition, “When 8 Adults and 3 Children Are a Family,” The Daily Beast, May 10, 2015.

Final PDF to printer

che27152_ch01_001-031.indd 5 05/27/16 03:46 PM

What Is a Family?

Chapter 1 Public and Private Families 5

disagreed: “They may not look like your or my family but they are a family nevertheless and have a right to live there.” But the zoning board sided with the complainants and ordered the Scarborough 11 to vacate the property. The Scarborough 11 appealed the ruling and lost. When they did not give up their home, the City of Hartford sued them. In response, the Scarborough 11 sued the city in federal court, challenging its definition of a family. The case was still pend- ing as this book was being published.

At the heart of the controversy over the Scarborough 11 is the question of what constitutes a family. It was a question that seemed to have a clear answer in the 20-year period after World War II, 1945 to 1965, when nearly all adults got married, divorce rates were modest, living together outside of marriage was frowned upon, and having a child out-of-wedlock was downright shameful. Back then, families centered on the marriage-based unit of husband, wife, and children. Starting in the 1970s, however, family life began a period of intense change that continues today. Divorce rates rose, cohabitation prior to marriage became the majority experience, young adults postponed marriage or forwent it entirely, childbearing outside of marriage became common, the family roles of women and men changed, and most recently same-sex marriage became legal. The uniformity of the post–World War II era gave way not to a dominant new family form but rather to a diversity of forms. It is therefore difficult today to impose a single definition of the family.

Yet the idea of family remains central to most people’s sense of themselves and their intimate connections in life, even as it has become harder to define exactly what a family is. In this regard it is similar to some other sociological concepts such as social class and race that are difficult to define precisely but too valuable to do without. Moreover, the definition of the family is important economically: It determines who is eligible for billions of dollars in government and corporate benefits that depend on rules about who is a family member. For example, if a low-income parent applies for food stamp benefits (now called the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program), how much she receives depends on how large her officially defined family is. We must place some boundaries around the concept of family, some limitations on its shape, or else it will lose its usefulness. But how do we determine what the key aspects of family life are today and how can we best specify what we mean by the term family?

At one extreme, some observers claim that families are so diverse that the concept may not even be useful anymore. At the other extreme are those who press politi- cians to use the singular form “family” (instead of the plural “families”) to signify that there is only one proper kind of family—the married couple living with their biological children.

For example, I am eligible for health insurance coverage through my employer for my “family,” which is defined as a spouse and children under 18. If I were unmarried but living with a woman who was the mother of my children, I could insure the children but not their mother. If I had been living for years with a man whom I considered my lifelong partner, I probably could not insure him. Moreover, how one defines a family plays an important role in the debate over whether the family has declined.

Final PDF to printer

che27152_ch01_001-031.indd 6 05/27/16 03:46 PM

6 Part I Introduction

I would argue that there is no single definition of a family that is adequate for all purposes. Rather, how you define a family depends on what questions you want to answer. Two key questions are

1. How well are family members taking care of children, the chronically ill, and the frail elderly?

2. How well are families providing the emotional satisfaction people value so highly—intimacy, love, personal fulfillment?

These questions address, respectively, the public responsibilities and the private pleasures the family is called upon to meet. For each of these questions, I submit, one of two definitions of the family will be helpful; I will call them the public family and the private family. These definitions provide two useful ways of looking at the same reality—and often the very same group of adults and children. Some observ- ers may impose their own theological definitions of what constitutes a family from religious works such as the Bible or the Koran. But social science cannot determine the moral essence of the family, nor need it do so.

THE PUBLIC FAMILY In examining the concept of the public family, it’s useful to borrow a few terms from the field of economics. Economists who specialize in public welfare have introduced the notion of externalities, of which there are two types. First, negative externalities occur when an individual or a business produces something that is beneficial to itself but imposes costs on other individuals or businesses. For example, factories that release sulfur dioxide through smokestacks impose a cost on everyone else by pol- luting the air. The factory gains by producing goods without having to install expen- sive smokestack scrubbers, but everyone else loses. Second, positive externalities occur when an individual or business produces something that benefits others but for which the producers are not fully compensated. For example, a corporation may start an expensive job-training program in order to obtain qualified workers; but some of the workers may take jobs with rival firms after completing the training. The other firms obtain skilled workers without paying the cost of their training.

Some positive externalities involve the production of what are called public goods. These goods have a peculiar property: It is almost impossible to stop peo- ple who don’t produce them from enjoying them. As a result, public goods are often produced in smaller quantities than is socially desirable. Suppose a town raises taxes to build a water filtration plant that cleans a polluted river. It can- not stop residents of other towns downstream from enjoying the cleaner water, yet these fortunate residents have paid nothing for the cleanup. In a situation like this, it is clearly in each town’s interest to have some other town farther up the river produce the public good—the treatment plant. Yet if no town builds the plant, no one will enjoy cleaner water. One solution to this dilemma is for the county or state government to raise taxes in all the towns and then build the plant. Another is for the towns to reach an agreement whereby one will build the plant but all will contribute to the costs. Either solution compensates the producer of the public good for the benefits that others obtain.

Although it may seem like a long leap from factories to families, the con- cepts of externalities and public goods still apply. Families do produce valuable public goods—most notably, children (England & Folbre, 1999). For example, when Americans retire, they hope to receive a Social Security check from the

externalities benefits or costs that accrue to others when an individual or busi- ness produces something

negative externalities the costs imposed on other indi- viduals or businesses when an individual or business produces something of value to itself

positive externalities benefits received by others when an individual or business produces some- thing, but for which the producer is not fully com- pensated

public goods things that may be enjoyed by people who do not themselves produce them

Final PDF to printer

che27152_ch01_001-031.indd 7 05/27/16 03:46 PM

Chapter 1 Public and Private Families 7

government each month. The funds for those checks come from payroll taxes paid by workers. During the next decade or so, the many men and women born during the post–World War II baby boom will reach retirement age. Currently, there are about five persons of working age for each retired person; but by 2030 there may be only three persons of working age for every retired person.2 This means that the burden of supporting the elderly will increase greatly. It’s in society’s interest, then, for families to have and rear children today who will pay taxes when they grow up. Children in this sense, are public goods.

U.S. families are more diverse today than in earlier times because of the great changes that have occurred since the middle of the twentieth century. Single- parent families, extended families, and complex families formed by remarriages are among the kinds of families with which the two-parent, first- marriage family must share its spotlight.

© Purestock/PunchStock

© Jack Hollingsworth/Corbis

2 Considering 20 to 64 as working age and 65 or older as retirement age. See U.S. Bureau of the Census 2011a, Table 8.

Final PDF to printer

che27152_ch01_001-031.indd 8 05/27/16 03:46 PM

8 Part I Introduction

More generally, it’s in society’s interest that today’s children become good citi- zens with traits such as obeying the law, showing concern about others, and being informed voters. It’s also in society’s interest that they be productive workers who are willing and able to fill the needs of the economy. To be sure, critics charge that families often raise children in ways that reproduce existing inequalities be- tween women and men (see Chapter 3) or between the working class and middle class (see Chapter 4). Nevertheless, what they do is of great public value. They are greenhouses growing the workers and citizens of tomorrow.

But children are costly to raise, and a retiree will receive the same Social Secu- rity check whether or not the workers were raised by her. Therefore, it’s in each retiree’s economic interest to remain childless and to have every other family raise children. Yet if everyone followed this strategy there would be no next generation. This dilemma is sometimes known as the free-rider problem: the tendency for people to obtain public goods by letting others do the work of producing them— metaphorically, the temptation to ride free on the backs of others. Luckily, people have children for reasons other than economic self-interest. At the moment, how- ever, they are barely having enough to replace the current generation of parents. Everyone benefits from the child rearing that parents do.

In addition, families provide other services that have the character of pub- lic goods. As will be noted in Chapter 10, adult children still provide the bulk of the care for the frail elderly. If I am old and ill, I will benefit if I have adult children who will care for me. But others will also benefit from the care that my family provides, because without them, I would need more assistance from the government-funded medical insurance programs for the elderly (Medicare) and for the poor (Medicaid). Consequently, the care my family provides will keep gov- ernment spending, and hence taxes, lower for everyone. The same logic applies to care that family members provide for the chronically ill.

The first definition, then, concerns the view of the family you take when you are concerned about the family’s contribution to the public welfare—the useful services family members provide by taking care of one another. It is a definition of what I will call the public family: one or more adults who are jointly caring for dependents, and the dependents themselves. Dependents are defined as children, the frail elderly, and the chronically ill. By “jointly” I mean working as a cooperative unit. The family members usually reside in the same household, but that is not essential. For example, an elderly woman may live in her own apartment but still receive daily assistance from her daughter or son. Nor is it essential that the fam- ily members be married or of different sexes. The important fact is that they are taking care of dependents and, in doing so, producing public goods. This defini- tion would include, of course, a married couple and their children or their elderly parents. But it would also include a divorced (or never-married) mother and her children, a cohabiting couple with children, or a lesbian couple who are jointly raising a child who they adopted or who was born to one of them. It would also include the Scarborough 11, who are jointly raising children. (“I love living here,” one of the children told a reporter, “If you need company there’s always someone there for you.”) Note also who would be excluded by this definition: a childless married couple with no dependent or elderly relatives, or different-sex or same- sex cohabitors without children, the elderly, or ill dependents.

The production of public goods invites public scrutiny, and public families are easily identifiable to outsiders by the presence of dependents. Because society has an interest in how well families manage the care of dependents, the law allows for

free-rider problem the tendency for people to obtain public goods by letting others do the work of producing them—metaphorically, the temptation to ride free on the backs of others

public family one or more adults who are jointly caring for dependents, and the dependents themselves

Final PDF to printer

che27152_ch01_001-031.indd 9 05/27/16 03:46 PM

Chapter 1 Public and Private Families 9

some regulation of these families—despite strong sentiment in the United States against intervening in family matters. For example, we require families to send their children to school until age 16. And state social welfare agencies have the power to remove children from homes judged to be harmful. More recently, sev- eral states have required medical personnel to report suspected cases of physical abuse of children. The public family, then, is about caretaking and dependency. It points us toward the kinds of kinship ties that are important for nurturing the young and caring for the elderly and the ill. It is a useful perspective for answering questions such as: How adequately will our society raise the next generation? How will we care for the growing number of elderly persons?

THE PRIVATE FAMILY At the same time, the family is much more than a public service institution. It also provides individuals with intimacy, emotional support, and love. Indeed, most people today think of the family and experience it in these private terms. Although some of the intimacy is expressed sexually, the family is also where we get hugs as children and back rubs as adults. It is where children form first attachments, teenagers take steps toward autonomy, and adults share their inner selves with someone else. The public family is not the most useful perspective in this regard because the central question is not how we will care for dependents or reproduce the workforce but, rather, how we will obtain the intimacy and emotional support we desire.

An appropriate definition of the private family must, therefore, encompass intimate relationships whether or not they include dependents. Yet if we are to maintain our focus on families, the definition still must encompass some rules for defining what kinds of intimate relationships constitute a family. It is difficult to know where to draw the line between private families and other kinds of intimate relationships, such as two people who live in separate apartments but consider themselves to be a couple. Where exactly is the boundary between family life and less intensive forms of intimacy? Rapid change has undermined the consensus among Americans about the norms of family life—the social rules about what con- stitutes a family and how people should behave when they are in one. Let me of- fer, then, a definition of the private family not as an authoritative statement but rather as a starting point for analyzing this uncertainty: two or more individuals who maintain an intimate relationship that they expect will last indefinitely—or, in the case of a parent and child, until the child reaches adulthood—and who usually live in the same household and pool their incomes and household labor. This definition allows for children to be part of the private family, although the character of the intimacy between parents and children is clearly different from that between adult part- ners. It does not require that the individuals be of different sexes. The relationship must be one in which the commitment is long term, in which the expectation is that the adult partners will stay together indefinitely. I do not require that they ex- pect to stay together for life because it’s not clear how many married couples even expect as much, given the high rates of divorce. The definition also includes the notion that the partnership usually is household-based and economic as well as intimate—shared residence, common budgets. This reflects my sense that intimate relationships in families are not merely erotic and emotionally supportive but also involve sharing the day-to-day details of managing one’s life. Nevertheless, I have added the qualifier “usually live in the same household” to allow for couples who live apart but in other ways meet the criteria of the private family.

private family two or more individuals who maintain an intimate relationship that they expect will last indefinitely— or, in the case of a parent and child, until the child reaches adulthood—and who usually live in the same household and pool their in- comes and household labor

Final PDF to printer

che27152_ch01_001-031.indd 10 05/27/16 03:46 PM

10 Part I Introduction

In fact, families are becoming so diverse and complex that it is hard to determine their boundaries from either the public or private perspectives. Suppose that after a divorce a father makes regular child support payments to his ex-wife and sees his children often. You might argue that he is still sharing parenthood and therefore part of the family. If he doesn’t make regular payments, on the other hand, and sees his children sporadically, you might not consider him to be part of the family any longer. When families are very complex, even the people who are involved may disagree about who’s in them. Take the example of a large national survey that asked the mothers of teenage children who else was living in their household. Several hundred mothers said that they were living with a man who was not the father of the teenager. In other words, according to the mothers’ re- ports, these were what might be called “cohabiting stepfamilies” that were similar to stepfamilies except that the stepfather and mother were not married. The survey also asked the teenage children in these households who besides their mothers was living with them. Strikingly, nearly half of them did not mention the man at all, as if their mothers were single parents (Brown & Manning, 2009). Perhaps in some of those households the men were present only half the week and the children con- sidered them to be visitors; or perhaps the children rejected them as father figures. The correct answer, then, to the question of who is in the family is sometimes un- clear. This is an example of boundary ambiguity, a state in which family members are uncertain about who is in or out of the family (Carroll, Olson, & Buckmiller, 2007). It is more common now than it was a half-century ago, when rates of di- vorce, remarriage, and childbearing outside of marriage were substantially lower.

To be sure, individuals also receive emotional support and material assistance from kin with whom they are not in an intimate relationship. The word “fam- ily” is sometimes used in the larger sense of relationships with sisters, uncles, grandmothers, close friends, and so forth. These broader kinship ties are still an important part of the setting in which people embed their intimate relations to spouses, partners, and children. The usual definition of “kin” is the people who are related to you by descent (through your mother’s or father’s line) or marriage. Yet the concept of kinship is also becoming broader and harder to define. In set- tings as varied as sharing networks among low-incom e African Americans, friend- based support networks among lesbians and gay men, and middle-class networks of adults who are related only through the ties of broken marriages and remar- riages, people are expanding the definition of kinship, creating kin, as it were, out of relationships that don’t fit the old mold. In fact, throughout the book I will distinguish between what I will call created kinship—kinship ties that people have to construct actively—and assigned kinship—kinship ties that people more or less automatically acquire when they are born or when they marry.

Created kinship is particularly valuable to people who can’t find adequate support among blood-based or first-marriage-based kin. Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) individuals, for example, are sometimes rejected by their parents, although less often than in the past. Poor African American moth- ers who cannot find suitable spouses exchange help not only with their mothers and grandmothers but also with close friends, creating kinship-like relationships. A divorced mother whose ex-husband provides little support can receive assis- tance from a live-in partner or second husband. Yet even people who could find adequate support in conventional arrangements may intentionally create new forms that fit their preferences and needs. The Scarborough 11, for instance, have created what we might call intentional kin (Nelson, 2013). You will recall

boundary ambiguity a state in which family mem- bers are uncertain about who is in or out of the family

created kinship kinship ties that people have to construct actively

assigned kinship kinship ties that people more or less automatically acquire when they are born or when they marry

Final PDF to printer

che27152_ch01_001-031.indd 11 05/27/16 03:46 PM

Chapter 1 Public and Private Families 11

that one of the members said, “We didn’t see the need to live in these isolated nuclear family units.”

Some observers look at all of these new forms of intimate relationships and conclude that the concept of family is outmoded. The strongest criticism is com- ing from scholars in Europe, where rates of marriage are lower than in the United States and where, in many countries, long-term cohabiting relationships are more common (Roseneil & Budgeon, 2004). Family is a “zombie category,” said social theorist Ulrich Beck (Beck & Beck-Gernsheim, 2002), a dead body walking around that we mistakenly think is still alive. The critics note the boundary ambiguities of many families and the ways in which people are constructing new forms of kin- ship. They point to phenomena such as couples in intimate, committed relation- ships who are living in separate households because they prefer to (value their independence) or have to (each has a good job in a different city) (Levin, 2004). They note the family networks gays and lesbians construct from friends, former lovers, and relatives. Some conclude that we should give up on the term “family” and use a broader, more inclusive descriptor, such as “personal community” (Pahl & Spencer, 2004). But I think that in an American context, where marriage re- mains highly valued by heterosexuals and gays and lesbians alike, we are not at the point where we should give up on the concept of family. Its boundaries are fuzzy, it takes diverse forms, it is stressed and strained by social change, but for the current day it is, I suggest, still worth studying.

TWO VIEWS, SAME FAMILY That there are two views—public and private—of the same reality may explain the paradox that Americans seem concerned about everyone else’s families but not their own. When people in a national survey by The New York Times, people were asked, “In general, do you think that because of such things as divorce, more working mothers, or single parents, etc., family ties in the U.S. are breaking down—or don’t you think so?” Seventy-seven percent responded that, yes, they thought family ties were breaking down.3 respond this way, they tend to think in terms of the public family. That is to say, when Americans view other families, they see their public faces: how their children are behaving, how they are pro- viding for their oldest members, and how they are contributing to the civility of neighborhoods and communities. They worry about the effects of divorce, about the difficulties that low-income single parents can have in raising children, about teenage childbearing, and about high school dropouts—the litany of problems we learn about in the media and see around us.

But when the people in the same survey were asked “What about in your own family? Are family ties breaking down, or not,” 82 percent responded that their family ties were not breaking down. When people respond in this sense, they think in terms of the love and companionship they get. That is, they see the fam- ily’s private face. And they tend to be satisfied, by and large, with the emotional rewards they are obtaining at the moment. So they respond that, no, their families are fine. Cue people one way and they respond in terms of the public family, but cue them the other way and they respond in terms of the private family. The two perspectives, then, can be thought of as complementary and sometimes overlap- ping ways of looking at the same reality: the institution of the family.

3 The data that I cite from the survey come from unpublished tabulations. For an overview, see Cherlin (1999).

Final PDF to printer

che27152_ch01_001-031.indd 12 05/27/16 03:46 PM

Table 1.1 Two Ways of Looking at the American Family

THE PUBLIC FAMILY THE PRIVATE FAMILY

Examples Married couple, cohabiting couple, or single parent with children Single person caring for ailing parent Cohabiting person caring for seriously ill partner

Married or cohabiting couples without children Gay or lesbian couples without children

Main Functions Raising the next generation Caring for the elderly Caring for the ill and disabled

Providing love and intimacy Providing emotional support

Key Challenge Free-rider problem Boundary problem

12 Part I Introduction

Table 1.1 reviews the basic distinction between these two perspectives. The first row shows examples of families as seen through the public and private family perspectives. The second row shows the main functions of the family in the pub- lic and private domains. In raising the next generation of children—the workers, citizens, and parents of the future—parents and other caregivers are best viewed as carrying out the functions of the public family. The same can be said for care- givers of the frail elderly or for disabled individuals. In contrast, when providing love, intimacy, and emotional support, family members are carrying out the func- tions of the private family. The third row shows the key challenges families face in these two guises. It’s in people’s narrow self-interests to let others do the hard work of raising children or caring for the elderly—activities that benefit society as a whole. (And much of this care is provided by women outside of the paid workforce. See Chapter 8.) But if too many people try to ride free, our society may not invest enough time and effort in producing the next generation or in caring for the elderly. In fact, some social critics believe American society has already reached this point. As for the private family, its key challenge is maintaining its dominant position as the setting where people experience emotional gratifica- tion. With the decline of marriage, there are many kinds of relationships that pro- vide intimacy, love, and sex. Will the private family continue to cohere as a social institution, or will its boundaries collapse into a sea of diverse, limited personal relationships?

In sum, to examine the contributions of families to the public welfare is to look at relationships through the lens of the public family. To examine the fam- ily’s provisions of intimacy, love, and fulfillment is to look through the lens of the private family. Sometimes, both lenses apply to the same situation, as when a par- ent derives great emotional satisfaction from raising a child. Both perspectives are embedded in each of the chapters that follow. Which is better? Neither. They are two takes on the same reality. Many textbooks emphasize the private family by focusing primarily on interpersonal relationships, cohabitation, and marriage. In doing so, they pay less attention to the socially valuable work that families do. Al- though this book, too, will have much to say about the private family, it will also emphasize the public family. Most chapters will include a short essay on families and public policy; and the concluding chapter, “The Family, the State, and Social Policy,” is directed primarily toward public issues.

Final PDF to printer

che27152_ch01_001-031.indd 13 05/27/16 03:46 PM

How Do Family Sociologists Know What They Know?

Chapter 1 Public and Private Families 13

Sociologists collect and analyze data consisting of observations of real families and the people in them. For the most part, they strive to analyze their data using objec- tive, scientific methods. Objectivity means the ability to draw conclusions about a social situation that are unaffected by one’s own beliefs. But it is much more dif- ficult for a sociologist to be objective than it is for a natural or physical scientist. Sociologists not only study families, they also live in them. They often have strong moral and political views of their own (indeed, strong views about social issues are what lead many people to become sociologists), and it is difficult to prevent those views from influencing one’s research. In fact, there are some sociologists who argue that objectivity is so difficult to achieve that sociologists shouldn’t try. Rather, they argue, sociologists should acknowledge their values and predispositions so that others can better interpret their work (see How Do Sociologists Know What They Know?: Feminist Research Methods, in Chapter 3).

But most sociologists, although aware that their views can influence the way they interpret their data, model their research on the scientific method. For a detailed ex- amination of the scientific method in sociology, consult any good introductory sociol- ogy textbook. For example, Schaefer (2007, p. 29) defines the scientific method as “a systematic, organized series of steps that ensures maximum objectivity and con- sistency in researching a problem.” The essence of the scientific method is to formu- late a hypothesis that can be tested by collecting and analyzing data. (A hypothesis, Schaefer writes, is “a speculative statement about the relationship between two or more variables” [p. 45].) It’s easy to come up with a hypothesis (God is a woman), but the trick is to find one that can be shown to be true or false by examining data. Sociologists therefore tend to formulate very specific hypotheses about family life that can be confirmed or disconfirmed by observation. For example, sociologists have hypothesized that having a first child as a teenager lowers, on average, the amount of education a woman attains; and statistical data are consistent with this claim.

Even so, there are inherent limitations in how well social scientists can use the scientific method. The best way to confirm or disconfirm a relationship between two factors is to conduct an experiment in which all other factors are held con- stant. Scientists do this by randomly assigning subjects to one of two groups: a treatment group and a control group. For example, doctors will study whether a new drug speeds recovery from an illness by assembling a group of volunteers, all of whom have the illness, and then randomly giving half of them (the treatment

objectivity the ability to draw conclusions about a social situation that are unaffected by one’s own beliefs

scientific method a sys- tematic, organized series of steps that ensures maximum objectivity and consistency in researching a problem

hypothesis a speculative statement about the relationship between two or more variables

• Families are more diverse in their forms than was the case in the mid-twentieth century. • No single definition of the family is adequate for all purposes. • This book takes two perspectives and proposes two definitions: • The “public family,” which focuses on the care that family members provide for dependents. • The “private family,” which focuses on the love and emotional satisfaction family members

provide for each other. • Both definitions can be applied to the same family unit because most families have both a public

and a private dimension.

Quick Review

Final PDF to printer

che27152_ch01_001-031.indd 14 05/27/16 03:46 PM

14 Part I Introduction

An interviewer goes door- to-door during the 2010 Census. Social scientists frequently use survey research to study families.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Public Information Office (PIO)

group) the new drug. By randomizing, the doctors hope that all other confounding factors (such as past medical history) will be equalized between the two groups. Then they compare the average recovery times of the treatment group and the control group (those who did not receive the drug).

But it is rarely possible for sociologists to conduct randomized experiments on families. Without randomization, there is always the possibility that another, unob- served factor, lurking just beneath the surface, is causing the relationship we see. Consider again teenage childbearing. Women who have a first child as a teenager tend to come from families that have less education and less money, on average, than do other women. So the reason that teenage mothers attain less education may reflect their disadvantaged family backgrounds rather than having a child; in other words, they might have had less education even if they hadn’t had chil- dren as teenagers. To truly settle this issue, a truth-seeking but cold-blooded so- ciologist would want to obtain a list of all families with teenage girls in the United States and then to assign at random some of the girls to have children and others to remain childless until their twenties. Because of the random assignment, teenage childbearing would be about as likely to occur in middle-class families as in poor families. In this way, the social scientist could eliminate family background as a cause of any differences that emerge between teenage mothers and nonmothers.

For very good ethical and legal reasons, of course, sociologists simply cannot conduct this type of study. Without random assignment, we can’t be sure that having a child as a teenager causes a woman to have less education. Still, the lack of randomized experiments does not mean that sociologists should abandon the scientific method. Astronomers, after all, can’t do experiments either. But this lim- itation makes the task of deciding whether a sociological study confirms or discon- firms a hypothesis more difficult.

If not from experiments, where does the data that family sociologists use come from? Generally, from one of two research methods. The first is the survey, a study in which individuals or households are randomly selected from a larger

survey a study in which individuals from a geographic area are selected, usually at random, and asked a fixed set of questions

Final PDF to printer

che27152_ch01_001-031.indd 15 05/27/16 03:46 PM

Chapter 1 Public and Private Families 15

population and asked a fixed set of questions. Sociologists prepare a questionnaire and give it to a professional survey research organization. The organization then selects a sample of households randomly from an area (a city, a state, or the entire nation) and sends interviewers to ask the questions of one or more family mem- bers in the households. The responses are coded numerically (e.g., a “yes” answer is coded 1 and a “no” is coded 0), and the coded responses for all individuals are made available to the sociologists as a computer file.

The random selection of households is done to ensure that the people who are asked the questions are representative of the population in the area. This kind of random selection of households shouldn’t be confused with conduct- ing a randomized experiment. A random-sample survey is not an experiment because the households that are selected are not divided into a treatment group and a control group. Nevertheless, data from surveys provides sociologists with the opportunity to examine associations among characteristics of a large number of individuals and families. (See How Do Sociologists Know What They Know?: The National Surveys, in this chapter.)

The advantage of the survey method (assuming that the households are ran- domly selected) is that its results are representative not only of the sample that was interviewed but also of the larger population in the area. The main disadvantage is the limited amount of information that can be gathered on each person or fam- ily. Most people won’t participate in an interview that takes more than an hour or two. Moreover, the same set of questions is asked of everyone, with little oppor- tunity to tailor the interview to each participant. Another disadvantage is that it’s difficult to determine whether the people in the sample are responding honestly, especially if the questions touch upon sensitive issues. (See How Do Sociologists Know What They Know?: Asking about Sensitive Behavior, in Chapter 6.)