january 10, 2011--Portrait of America
The other day over dinner with older and younger cousins we got into a discussion about the changing nature of family. Not ours, but in America. While discussing these matters from an "objective" perspective, however, we discovered that our own family had, in its own way, been tracking along with some of these larger demographic trends.
The older cousins were upset to see the breakdown of the supportive extended family of immigrants they had grown up within and felt had contributed so much to their feeling protected, loved, and encouraged. This latter feeling, they claimed, was largely responsible for previous generations of young people succeeding in school and life.
"Now, with everyone working and so many single-parent situations," one ruefully said, "young people are left to grow up on their own and thereby are deprived of the opportunity to learn the discipline and respect for authority so important to doing well."
"It used to be," a cousin who is in his mid-80s said, "that every family had two parents and that in itself delivered a positive lesson. And, as with us, there were homes that included multiple apartments so that grandparents and their children and grandchildren all lived together. Today, again as with us, families are all living separately. Mostly scattered around the country. Some in Florida; others in California; you still in New York; and still more in Massachusetts and on Long Island. Everyone gathered for Thanksgiving and other holidays. Today the only time we all get together is for a funeral."
"And even then," his wife said, "half the family doesn't even come for that."
One of the younger cousins who up to that point had been sitting quietly, taking this all in, finally said, "What you are not seeing is that the concept of family has always been in a state of change. This is nothing new. We studied family history in one of my sociology classes and read about how the modern definition of a family--a close-knit group of parents and children, the nuclear family--is a relatively new 'invention.'" She made quotation marks in the air.
"Until the middle of the 17th century children were not as valued as they are today. They were thought of as mini-adults. Yes, sons were valuable workers on family farms and girls helped raise their younger brothers and sisters, but they were not supported by parents and other adults during years and years of childhood. They were not regarded as emotionally important as they are today and were expected to be independent or contribute to the economy of the family from a very early age. The so-called 'child-centered' family is a relatively new invention. A product of a less-agricultural economy and relative affluence where childhood can be extended well into young people's 20s."
A number of us were listening intently and nodding. "So, what we are seeing now," she continued, "for example, with gay families and intentionally single-parent families is just a continuation of this evolution."
"Very interesting a 50-year-old cousin said, sighing, "I guess I straddle two generations in this regard. I do see the kinds of changes you're talking about, especially in cities, and respect people's choices; but still I feel things would be better if there were more two-parent families with lots of aunts and uncles and cousins around to help raise the children and provide more role models for young people."
"One thing that upsets me," a 70-year-old cousin said, "are all the single-parent families. No one can convince me that this is a good thing for children. I'm especially talking about women, some with men in their lives, who opt to have children out of wedlock. Isn't that an old-fashioned term?"
"I think I read somewhere," a 60-something cousin said, "that about 25 percent of children are born to unmarried women."
Only the youngest cousins smiled knowingly at that. One said, "Like it or not, this is where we are. And older notions of what constitutes a family have to be adjusted. Otherwise, we'll wind up criticizing a lot of people who have chosen to live in these new ways."
Over the next few days I continued to think about this, not really sure where I stood. I recognized the changed reality, knew something about the history of childhood, had read Phillippe Aries' book, Centuries of Childhood, but still felt pulled in conflicting directions.
Then there was a report in the New York Times about the Census Bureau's new Statistical Abstract of the United States , which among other things found that between 1980 and 2009, live births to unmarried women rose from 22 percent of all births to an astonishing 41 percent.
This in itself was fascinating, but then I dipped further into the findings and discovered more intriguing, and at time disturbing, information about Americans and how we have changed through the decades.
Here are a few of my "discoveries":
Of course, I wondered about people's indebtedness. This is so much in the news. Though more than 80 percent of the adult population carry debt, by far the largest percentage is for housing. For mortgages. And "only" about 3.5 percent of all debt is for what people people owe on their credit cards.
Americans drink more beer and wine than either milk or fruit juice. And consume five times more soda than fruit juice. In 1989 people's average daily caloric intake was 3,400 but by 2006 we were ingesting 3,900 calories per day. We are eating more fiber, which is a good thing--178 grams versus 151--but we are consuming much more fat. So it is no wonder that we as a nation are so obese.
In regard to leisure activities, we do more barbecuing than baking, more going to bars (20 percent do) than playing Bingo (only 5 percent of us), while 4 percent play chess. Surprising to me, 41 percent say they read books and 23 percent claim they cook "for fun."
And again in regard to family matters, since 1970 the marriage rate has been declining so that compared to then, when 10.6 per 1,000 married every year, now it's only 7.3 per thousand. On the other hand, divorce rates have remained the same--3.6 per thousand.
There's a lot more there. So download the Abstract that I've linked below and browse for yourself.
The older cousins were upset to see the breakdown of the supportive extended family of immigrants they had grown up within and felt had contributed so much to their feeling protected, loved, and encouraged. This latter feeling, they claimed, was largely responsible for previous generations of young people succeeding in school and life.
"Now, with everyone working and so many single-parent situations," one ruefully said, "young people are left to grow up on their own and thereby are deprived of the opportunity to learn the discipline and respect for authority so important to doing well."
"It used to be," a cousin who is in his mid-80s said, "that every family had two parents and that in itself delivered a positive lesson. And, as with us, there were homes that included multiple apartments so that grandparents and their children and grandchildren all lived together. Today, again as with us, families are all living separately. Mostly scattered around the country. Some in Florida; others in California; you still in New York; and still more in Massachusetts and on Long Island. Everyone gathered for Thanksgiving and other holidays. Today the only time we all get together is for a funeral."
"And even then," his wife said, "half the family doesn't even come for that."
One of the younger cousins who up to that point had been sitting quietly, taking this all in, finally said, "What you are not seeing is that the concept of family has always been in a state of change. This is nothing new. We studied family history in one of my sociology classes and read about how the modern definition of a family--a close-knit group of parents and children, the nuclear family--is a relatively new 'invention.'" She made quotation marks in the air.
"Until the middle of the 17th century children were not as valued as they are today. They were thought of as mini-adults. Yes, sons were valuable workers on family farms and girls helped raise their younger brothers and sisters, but they were not supported by parents and other adults during years and years of childhood. They were not regarded as emotionally important as they are today and were expected to be independent or contribute to the economy of the family from a very early age. The so-called 'child-centered' family is a relatively new invention. A product of a less-agricultural economy and relative affluence where childhood can be extended well into young people's 20s."
A number of us were listening intently and nodding. "So, what we are seeing now," she continued, "for example, with gay families and intentionally single-parent families is just a continuation of this evolution."
"Very interesting a 50-year-old cousin said, sighing, "I guess I straddle two generations in this regard. I do see the kinds of changes you're talking about, especially in cities, and respect people's choices; but still I feel things would be better if there were more two-parent families with lots of aunts and uncles and cousins around to help raise the children and provide more role models for young people."
"One thing that upsets me," a 70-year-old cousin said, "are all the single-parent families. No one can convince me that this is a good thing for children. I'm especially talking about women, some with men in their lives, who opt to have children out of wedlock. Isn't that an old-fashioned term?"
"I think I read somewhere," a 60-something cousin said, "that about 25 percent of children are born to unmarried women."
Only the youngest cousins smiled knowingly at that. One said, "Like it or not, this is where we are. And older notions of what constitutes a family have to be adjusted. Otherwise, we'll wind up criticizing a lot of people who have chosen to live in these new ways."
Over the next few days I continued to think about this, not really sure where I stood. I recognized the changed reality, knew something about the history of childhood, had read Phillippe Aries' book, Centuries of Childhood, but still felt pulled in conflicting directions.
Then there was a report in the New York Times about the Census Bureau's new Statistical Abstract of the United States , which among other things found that between 1980 and 2009, live births to unmarried women rose from 22 percent of all births to an astonishing 41 percent.
This in itself was fascinating, but then I dipped further into the findings and discovered more intriguing, and at time disturbing, information about Americans and how we have changed through the decades.
Here are a few of my "discoveries":
Of course, I wondered about people's indebtedness. This is so much in the news. Though more than 80 percent of the adult population carry debt, by far the largest percentage is for housing. For mortgages. And "only" about 3.5 percent of all debt is for what people people owe on their credit cards.
Americans drink more beer and wine than either milk or fruit juice. And consume five times more soda than fruit juice. In 1989 people's average daily caloric intake was 3,400 but by 2006 we were ingesting 3,900 calories per day. We are eating more fiber, which is a good thing--178 grams versus 151--but we are consuming much more fat. So it is no wonder that we as a nation are so obese.
In regard to leisure activities, we do more barbecuing than baking, more going to bars (20 percent do) than playing Bingo (only 5 percent of us), while 4 percent play chess. Surprising to me, 41 percent say they read books and 23 percent claim they cook "for fun."
And again in regard to family matters, since 1970 the marriage rate has been declining so that compared to then, when 10.6 per 1,000 married every year, now it's only 7.3 per thousand. On the other hand, divorce rates have remained the same--3.6 per thousand.
There's a lot more there. So download the Abstract that I've linked below and browse for yourself.
posted by Steven Zwerling at
5:49 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home