American Family Decline

The first journal article by David Popenoe discussed the issue of american family decline over the second half of the 20th century. "Popenoe basically states that families have lost functions, social power and authority over there members. He belives that familism as a cultural value has diminished" (Popenoe 528). The articles by Philip Cowan and Judith Staccy are in response to Popenoe's claims about the decline of family. Both writers see weaknesses in Popenoe's arguement. Cowan points out that Popenoe provides a warning about family decline but provides no real guidance on what should be done. Staccy differs with Popenoe in her definition of the family. To her family is not an institution, but an "ideological, symbolic construct that has a history and a politics" (Staccy 545). The debate surrounding the contemporary changes in american family are between those like Popenoe who believe that family has taken a turn for the worst and is in a steady decline. However there are those, who Popenoe states, "believe that family decline is a "myth" and that "the family is not declining, it is just changing" (Popenoe 527). "The preferred term is change, leading to diversity. Popenoe indicates many factors in his article that he believes have led to the decline in family. Popenoe belives one such thing is the decline in the number of children in the typical family. He belives that this change is a result of a decrease in positive feelings toward parenthood and motherhood" (Popenoe 530). Cowan points out the flaw in this therory. "Popenoe fails to consider alternative casual hypotheses. He does not consider the role that modeern birth control now plays. The reduction in family size may not reflect a dislike of children as Popenoe suggests, but rather an ability to regulate and space children in a way that will give them the best quality of life" (Cowan 549). "Another reason Popenoe states for the decline of the American family is the shifting role of women in the family and workplace" (Popenoe 531). "Today mothers are in the labor market to almost the same extent as nonmothers. Popenoe thinks that having two parents working at the same time is a disservice to their children" (Popenoe 531). However, Cowan points out another hypothesis. He states "that Popenoe does not consider the worldwide economic upheaval that makes it necessary for two parents to work" (Cowan 549). Staccy aproaches Popenoe's arguement as anthropologically and historically flawed. "He compares the american family now to the families of the 1950s. That time period was an anomaly and should not be the sole time period that Popenoe compares today's situation to" (Staccy 546). This debate has many different angles and I don't know if I can take anyone side. I agree with Popenoe that there is an undeniable decline, which in my experience has been most evident through divorce. Divorce has replaced death as a dissolver of marriages. However, at the same time I understand the critical arguments that Cowan and Staccy take against Popenoe. I do belive that it is not simply a loss of respect for the institution of a family. Others factors must be considered as we do live in a very different world in th 21st century. I belive that it is both decline and change, not one or the other and that both terms can be used when discussing this issue.