Sociology of families is the study that focuses on the institution of the family. The fundamental assumptions of this area are the universality and inevitability of different family forms, as well as the necessity for family integration into society. Family sociology generally concerns the formation, maintenance and growth of kinship ties. It is often used in research on courtship, marriage, childrearing and marital adjustment. These research areas have expanded to include a wide range of topics related to gender and sexuality, intimacy, affection, as well as any other topic that could be considered family-related.
70 SOCIOLOGY of FAMILY TOPICS
– Households in the United States
– Working in the care industry
– Child custody and support
– Childcare
Living together
– Social networks and conjugal roles
– Couples can live apart
– Household labor divisions
– Divorce
– Couples with dual earners
– The earner-carer model
Marriage within a specific social group
– Children with disabilities and their families
– Family, community
– Family structure and household structure
– Population and family
– Religion and family
Strife among family members
– Family Demography
– Varied family structures
– Laws that govern family relationships
Family Migration
Reproductive planning
– Reproductive health, family planning and abortion
– Western Family Policy
– Family Size
Domestic composition
– The Family Structure and the Child Outcomes
– Domestic relations theory
Family Therapy
Domestic abuse
– Family history
Men’s involvement with family
– Being a dad
– Liability of a branch office
– Being a grandparent
– Families
– Immigrant families
– Inequalities within marriage
– Marital affairs and infidelity
– Intermarriage
– Close affection
– Intimate Union Formation and Dissolution
– Family types and kinship systems
– Later life marriage
– Lesbian and Gay Families
Family and life course
– Single parent families
– Love, commitment
Relationship satisfaction
– The theory of marital power/resources
– Marital quality
Union between two individuals in a legally recognized ceremony.
– Divorce and marriage rates
– Marriage and sex.
– Motherly behavior
– Matriarchy
Family money management
Being a mom
– Non-resident parents
– Parental Roles
Getting married a second time.
– Civil unions/same sex marriages
– Sibling relationships during old age
– The bond between brothers and sisters
Blended families
Acting as a father figure
– Being a stepmother
– Being a widow
– Youth/adolescence
The nineteenth-century family studies effort resulted in a well-known, modern sociology that focuses on family. Early anthropologists suggested family was necessary to go from primitive human civilization to civilized society. These explanations focused on the marital regulation for sexual encounters. Also, they debated matriarchy over patriarchy to determine which was the best and most durable family form. These discussions focused on endogamy/exogamy, polygamy/polyandry, monogamy, and polyandry. However, the majority of commentators settled for monogamy and the patriarchy to be the most successful family forms.
Herbert Spencer and William Sumner were sociologists in the 19th century who adopted evolutionary views about family. They used anthropological terminology, but instead of discussing best family types, they began to consider family life’s customs, conventions, traditions, and ways of doing things. Sociology moved away form the evolutionary view and towards a pragmatic understanding of the family that can adapt to changing social conditions. Sociology’s focus on the social and cultural contexts of societies and individuals allowed us to observe that American and European families are rapidly changing as a result of the modern world.
FAMILY & HOUSEHOLD STUCTURE
The United States’ family system is commonly described as consisting only of nuclear-family homes. This is true for the vast majority of family households. Extensive-family households are statistically the most dominant in American history (Ruggles 1994a; Seward 1979). About 4.1 percent in the United States’ total families were “related Subfamilies” (a married couple, single parent with children who live with the same householder) in 1997. Glick (1997) and his associates (1997) discovered that the proportion of households with non-nuclear family members increased from 9.9 percent to 12.2 percent between 1980 and 1990. This markedly reversed a nearly 100-year-long decline. Ruggles 1994b: In 1910, nonnuclear children were present in 20 percent of white households and 24% of black households.
The long-term decline of extended family households has been apparent. This is slightly offset by a slight increase in the 1980s. But, what happened in 2000?
The stereotypical extended family, consisting of two parents plus their dependent children, is not the only type of household that does not include extended families. The diversity of American households and families is growing. There have been significant changes even in the relatively short time period between 1960 and 1998. Although the average household size and family size has decreased significantly between 1960-1990, they both remained stable during the 1990s. There are fewer married couples living in households today than there were in 1960. In contrast, the ratio of non-family households has almost doubled and that of single-person households has increased by more than tenfold. The proportion of female householders in all households has increased dramatically.
These changes are caused by many factors. It will be examined briefly how these factors affect marriage rates and remarriage rates, as well as divorce and other remarriage rates. Each one of these factors affects the structure and family life.
Since 1960, the number of marriages has fallen dramatically. The “crude” ratio of marriages (number of marriages per 1000 population) does not reflect this trend. This rate doesn’t take into account marital status and age distributions. The 1960 postwar baby boom resulted in a low crude marriage rate. The rates of unmarried women aged 15 and older and 15 to 44 years old show the frequency with which marriages occur for people at higher risk. This shows that there has been a decline in the number of married couples. This can be explained in part by an increase in the median age of first marriage. It has declined over the 20th century, until 1960, but it has been rising rapidly since 1970. This is because more people become unmarried as they age, which in turn drives down the rate of marriage. The best evidence (Oppenheimer et al. The best evidence (Oppenheimer et al., 1997) shows that delayed marriages are caused by the declining economic situation of young men over the past 70 years. Perhaps some positive changes will be made by the better economy in the 1990s.
The decline in married-couple household numbers and the rise of single-person households have been greatly influenced by the increasing divorce rate. The crude divorce ratio rose from 2.2 percent per 1,000 in 1960 up to 5.2 percent in 1980. This reached peak levels in 1979 and 1981, at which point it dropped to 4.3. The divorce rate per 1,000 married women aged 15 or older was similar to the 1980 peak of 22.6 and then a decline to 19.5 in 1996. This decline may be illusionary, as large numbers of baby boomers are now aging out the most divorce-prone years. (Martin and Bumpass 1989). The divorce rate is still high, but it hasn’t been rising since 1980.
Sweeney (1997) noted that about half of all marriages involve at least one spouse in recent years. However, divorce rates are steadily falling. In 1970, the annual remarriage rate was 204.5 for 1,000 divorcing men and 123.3 for 1,000 divorcing women. By 1990, they had fallen to 105.9 and 76.2 respectively (U.S. Bureau for the Census 1998).
Decreasing marriage rates, increasing remarriage rates, as well as rising divorce rates have resulted in an increase of single-parent and single parent households. The increasing number of heterosexual cohabitation is a minor factor in this trend. The National Survey of Families and Households shows that cohabitation was a common practice in the early 90s for nearly 25% of unmarried adults between 25 and 29 years of age. Although this percentage drops as you get older, it still exceeds 20 percent in the late thirties. According to the National Survey of Family Growth, over 41 percent of women between 15 and 44 were cohabiting or currently cohabiting in 1995 (National Center for Health Statistics 1997). Many women who didn’t cohabit at time of survey will eventually. According to the best estimates, more than half of married couples cohabit before marriage. Further, approximately 60 percent of cohabiting unions end in marriage (Bumpass 1994; Bumpass and al. 1991).
A significant amount of the declines in marriage have been counterbalanced by cohabitation.
This is especially true for blacks who have seen their marriage rates drop faster than whites over the past few decades (Raley 1996; Waite 95). While cohabitation is less stable than marriages it does not mean that cohabitation is more common in America.
Despite the rise of cohabitation, changes made in marriage and the behavior of divorce have had significant impacts on the structure and functioning of American families over the past forty years. People are less likely to marry, people who do marry are getting married later in life, divorce rates are rising, and people who are already married are more likely to remarry. While Americans live in fewer households today than in 1960, they are still living in larger ones. The growth in household numbers has outpaced that of the families. Between 1960 and 1998, the number households grew more than 94 per cent while the number families grew only by about 57 per cent. The U.S. Bureau on the Census 1998 shows that the total US population increased just slightly by 50 percent over the same period. As a result, our population is more evenly distributed than in 1960.
A decrease in fertility is one reason for the shrinking household size. In 1960, the fertility rate was 118.0. By 1997 it had fallen to 65.0. However, most of this decrease took place before 1980 (National Center for Health Statistics 1999). This trend towards smaller families and households is partly due to a decrease in the number of children per household.
However, the increase in single-person homes is a larger factor in the decline of household size. A single-person household is composed of three types: those who never married, or who have been divorced without children and who are typically young and middle-aged. The widowed, which are mainly elderly, are the ones who are not married. Each one of these categories has seen an increase, though for different reasons. Each type must be studied separately.
The average age of marriage has increased dramatically since 1960. However, the proportional increase in young adults who have never been married (Waite 95). The average age at which a child leaves the home is on the decline since before World War II (Goldscheider, 1997). The decline in marriage ages was the main driver of the decline, but it has become more apparent that there is a growing gap between the beginning of the family for procreation and the end of the family of orientation. Many young adults live without the support of either their parents or spouses. Although some are cohabiting, more are living in single-person households or non-family homes (Goldscheider and White 1997, 1994).
The proportion of young adults living with their parents has increased since 1970. This represents a significant reversal in the long-term decline observed in the number of young adults living with their parents (White 1994). This can partly be attributed to an increase in the age of married couples. Goldscheider 1997 states that recent increases in the number of young adults living with their parents have been offset by decreases in divorces from parental homes. However, it is becoming more difficult to launch children than ever before. Goldscheider (1997) shows that the percentage of young adults returning to their parents’ homes following an initial divorce has more than doubled between the 1930s and the 1990s. These increases are particularly dramatic since the 1960s. This is partly due the increasing divorce rate. However, it also shows that it has become increasingly difficult to make a decent living for young adults (Oppenheimer. 1997). The prevalence of nonfamily households is increasing despite the fact that young adults continue to live apart from their spouses and parents.
An increase in divorce and decreases in remarriage has led to a rise in single-person homes. Married people have started their own properties and continue to live there for longer periods. They also contribute to the increase in family households without married couples. Family sizes with a female head (without a husband) have increased from 10 percent to 18 percent in 1998. Also, the proportion of male-headed families (with or without wives present) increased from 2.8 to 5.5 per cent in 1960 to 5.5 percentage in 1998.
In 1998, 20 per cent of families had children under 18, while 5 percent was headed by men who were not married (U.S. Bureau of the Census 1998 Table 70).
This change, along with the rise of nonmarital childbearing has resulted in a drop in the percentage of children younger than 18 living with both parents (U.S. Bureau. the Census 1998. Table 84). There is also a wide range of living arrangements for children based on race. In 1997, only 35 percent of black children lived together with their parents. This compares to 75 percent for white children. 52 percent of all black children stayed with their mothers. 18 percent of children of color remained alone. Moreover, only 8 percent of children of color and only 3 percent of children of the white race lived with their parents. These children may live with their grandparents and be cared for by them (Pebley & Rudkin 1999). This raises questions about the living arrangements for older people.
It is worth taking a longer look to see the changes in older people’s living arrangements. Ruggles (1994a), which examined the lives of elderly whites, found that 65 percent lived with their child in 1880. More than 57% of non-white elderly had children. Ruggles estimates around 78 percent to whites and 70% to non-whites who have children live with them. In 1980, whites had 16 children and nonwhites 29. There has not been much evidence to suggest that the proportion of children living in the home with their parents has increased or decreased since 1980. Ruggles (1996) also found that 6 percent of all elderly females and 3 percent aged men were living alone in 1880. The percentage of women living alone rose to 41 and 17 respectively by 1997 (U.S. Bureau of the Census 1998. Table 50). Since about 1940, the number of older people living in single-person homes has increased rapidly.
The “migration” of elderly people to live alone or with their spouses in the latter part of the twentieth century seems to have been mainly due to two factors. First, the family’s life cycle was very different in 1900 from today. People married later than today, had more children, had them later in life. In consequence, a large number of sixties-aged people had unmarried kids who hadn’t left the home. Ruggles (1994a), reveals that about 32 percent and 57 percent respectively of unmarried elders lived with never-married children in 1880. These children could have stayed home to care more for their elderly parents. Unmarried seniors were more likely than married to have children.
The second was economic factors. Social security was not created until 1940. In 1900, 85 per cent of men aged 65-69 were working, and 49 percent of men 85 years and older were (Smith 1979). This option was not available for women. The labor force proportions were between 12 and 6 per cent. Many older people, especially those who were women, did not have other sources of support. As more seniors can live independently, the rate of coresidence for aging parents has fallen.
Ruggles (1994a), however, found that older, more wealthy people were more likely than those of lower income to live in the same household as their children. The majority of multigenerational families were headed by an elderly parent. These facts indicate that coresidence was a benefit for adult children. Many adults may have been motivated by the prospect of inheriting a farm from their parents or a business from them. Coresidence is now more common in the poor than among the wealthy (Ruggles 1994a and 1996).
Since March 1998, 41 % of all women 65 years and older live alone. For women over 75, the percentages rise to 53 per cent and 22 for men. This wide gender gap can be explained by the different marital statuses between men, women, and children. Nearly two thirds of 75-year-old men are married. Only one quarter are widowed. The reverse is true for women. 1980 census data indicate that the percentage of seniors living alone goes up from 22 percent for 65-69 year olds to 41 percent for 85-89, then to 33 percent if you are 90 or older (Coward and al., 1980). 1989, the modality category changes to living with children.
Many people over the age of 65 who have lost a spouse due to death tend to live alone.
The United States has almost 13 percent more elderly people than it did in 1900. Many of them have their own homes and are contributing to the rise of single-person, small-sized families.
Why were so many elderly people living with their children in late nineteenth-century? Ruggles (1994a), reveals that under 20% of white households included extended families in 1880, 1900 and 1980. Although this is less than 7% in 1980, it is still quite a rare statistical pattern. Three main reasons were involved. Primarily, because there were less older people and fewer fertility rates, it made a difference in how the country’s household structure was built. As mentioned above, many older people lived with unmarried children. This arrangement is considered a nuclear family regardless of whether the parents are married. Third, although these older adults had an average number of children (5.4 for each woman in 1880), they did not have to live together as adults. Instead, the children could be living with just one of their siblings. Ruggles (1994a), estimates that over 70% of elders who were able to live with a child in 1880 did. The comparable figure in 1980 was 16. The proportion of older persons living alone is much lower than in the last century.
The factors responsible for long-term drops in household size and increases in families and households have been identified. This evidence is evident across all age groups. However, these trends do not necessarily mean that American family life is more complicated.
The United States is not known for having a preponderance of extended-family families, as noted at the beginning. But, until the first decades of the 20th century, there was a preference to intergenerational coresidence through stem families, which are families that have one parent and two children. Extended family households are still common today. They are less than 10% in all households at any particular time (Glick. 1997; Ruggles 1994a). However, dynamic perspectives offer a different view.
Beck and Beck (1989), studied the household compositions for a large group of middle-aged woman who were followed over the period 1969-1984. It was possible to note the presence of non-nuclear family members in certain years. This was done over a fifteen year period. 1984 was the year these women were aged between 47 and 61%. Only 8% of white married women and 20% of unmarried white women lived with their parents or grandchildren. Similar black women had higher proportions: 27% of married women and 34% of those unmarried. Over the fifteen-year survey, however, only one-third of all black women and two-thirds fully of all black women were living in households that included extended kin.
These data and others (Ruggles 1994a,94b) indicate that today’s blacks are more inclined than their white counterparts to live with extended-family families. This was not true until around 1940. It has become apparent that intergenerational coresidence rates have declined significantly for whites compared to blacks since the end of the nineteenth century. This could be related to the lower rate of black marriage; multigenerational living is more common among unmarried people than it is for married ones. This may be due to the shift in how extended families are distributed from the wealthy to the less fortunate. Extended family living today is less about preserving wealth and ensuring inheritance, but more about a need for sharing and conserving resources.
Despite the fact that the United States’ family structure has changed significantly over the last century, it has remained essentially the same. Americans are increasingly living in single-person households, whether they were married before, during, or after their marriages.
There are more single-parent families. According to Watkins and others, Americans spend less time in families than in the past. 1987). They are now more likely to be in heterosexual unions that are not marital, and they live in homes with nonnuclear relatives at some time in their lives. Glick and colleagues. Glick et al. 1997) found that extended-family households increased in 1990 and 1980.
The increasing number of single-person and small households is an indication of Americans being more able to keep their home and avoid marriage. The proliferation in households is indicative of the expansion of options. These choices will have consequences.
