The Nuclear Family:
A haven from, or a location for abuse.
Synopsis
The nuclear family has been described as idealised and exploitive. This essay questions this view by considering whether the benefits individuals gain from being in a family structure, such as family identity , are real, and what value people place on the family. Also considered is whether exploitation and violence are outcomes of the family structure or are caused by factors unrelated to it. It will show the family is valued, and still popular, due to its believed benefits to the individual, and that violence and exploitation are not necessarily connected to family structure.
The family structure has been the foundation of human societies for thousands of years. In the twentieth century the nuclear family has been the norm in western societies, but many have questioned its value by claiming that it is idealised, and in reality is the location of violence and exploitation. This essay will question these views by considering the benefits of the family structure to the individual, and whether this structure causes the violence or is merely taken advantage of.
Before discussing the question it will first be necessary to define the meaning of ' the conjugal nuclear family'. For the purposes of this essay the definition used is that from Turner, "The nuclear family is a unit consisting of a man and woman united as husband and wife in socially recognized marriage and the natural and adopted children they have accepted as part of that unit." and will simply be referred to as the family. (Turner, 1970, p.5)
The family structure is very important for individuals because it provides the type of emotional security not usually found anywhere else, such as ultimate loyalty, acceptance and unqualified love (Mackay, 1993, p.269). As well the family helps to build a strong sense of identity in an individual and to teach important lessons such as responsibility and compromise, and that 'good' families produce 'good' citizens (Mackay, 1993, p. 62).
Yet this view of the family was contradicted in the final report of the 1977 Royal Commission on Human Relationships, which found that many Australian families were failing to supply the type of support and emotional nourishment normally expected of them, especially to women and children (Bolton, 1990, p.259). Along with this, families are seen to fail in financially supporting its members, as in the United States, where children from broken or dissolving families can often have a higher standard of living in foster care as state wards, than that available with their families (Thurow, 1996, p.33). This would appear to show that the reality of the family is very different than its ideal, and the value people place on it may be unrealistic.
Nevertheless, in Australia at least, the idea of the family is still very popular, even though defining the family is increasingly difficult. The less stable family reality becomes, the more attractive becomes the ideal (Mackay, 1993, p.61). An example of this is seen in the formation of different, non-nuclear, family types such as blended families, step-families etc. in an attempt to "capture some of the sense of identity and security which flows from being a real family" (Mackay, 1993, p.270). In fact in 1993 the 'non-kin household', where non-related people choose to live together, was the fastest growing type of family in Australia, because of peoples' need to be part of a family structure (Mackay, 1993, p.270). For example, people not in an existing family structure sometimes found it difficult in establishing a sense of their own identity which, Mackay argues, is usually defined from relationships with others (Mackay, 1993, p.268). Still this does not mean that Australians consider that the family is the most wonderful or only decent way to live, rather they accept the family as being central to their beliefs of human life and society, while they redefine what the family actually is (Mackay, 1993, p.61). What seems clear is the value most Australians place on being in some sort of family structure in order to gain the benefit from both the structure itself and the sense of values they believe it engenders. A sense of identity is one such benefit, not just in an internal sense of ' I am part of this group', but also an external sense of identity where others see you as belonging to a particular group.
Families are also seen as the location of exploitation, violence, and abuse, with women seen as being most at risk . One reason for this is that the family structure tends to promote a sense of privacy and the exclusion of others from the family's affairs (Barret, McIntosh 1982, p.56). This can lead to violence in the family: for example, of reported violent crimes, a quarter are for wife assault and many women are raped by their boyfriends, husbands or other family members (Barret, McIntosh 1982, p.56). In contrast to this bleak view, Turner (1970, p.139) suggests that the closeness of families also plays a role in avoiding and resolving conflicts.
But is this violence simply due to the family structure or are there other possible reasons The financial situation of the family can lead to pressures on relationships, causing quarrels and violence, and family members may lack the elementary family skills needed due to limited education (Bolton, 1990, p.260). Other reasons could be the lack of a proper attitude towards marriage and family, immaturity, incompatibility and personality problems (Turner, 1970, p.154). Moreover, violence and exploitation are not contained in the family alone, but can be found in the work-place, in prisons and in various groups e.g. political. What this shows is that the family itself may not be the actual cause of violence and abuse, rather the family structure may magnify existing problems, and the privacy of the family may simply make it easier for violence and oppression to be sustained. Put another way, are people violent simply due to the family structure, or because they are intrinsically violent people, who may otherwise be violent out in the community, but find it easier and safer to be violent at home.
In conclusion, it seems clear that although families may not be ' havens ' and may be idealised, nor can it be said that they are simply the location of violence etc. For all their problems, the family structure is still the preferred, due to the perceived benefits to the individual and because it is still seen as being central to human life and society, as seen in the growth of alternate family structures. Certainly the family structure of privacy and exclusiveness can magnify and sustain violence and exploitation, but much of this can be caused by outside influences, personal characteristics and cultural behaviour. Nevertheless, the continued belief in, and need for families, by individuals, shows that people believe that the benefits of the family far outweigh the costs.
REFERENCE LIST
Barret, M. and McIntosh, M. 1982. The Antisocial Family. London: Verso.
Bolton, G. 1990. The Oxford History of Australia: The Middle Way 1942-1988. 5 vols, vol.5, Melbourne: Oxford University Press.
Mackay, H. 1993. Reinventing Australia: Australian Attitudes in the 90s.
Sydney: Angus and Robertson.
Thurow, L. 1996. The Future of Capitalism: How Todays Economic Forces Will Shape Tomorrows World. Sydney: Allen and Unwin.
Turner, R.H. 1970. Family Interaction. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
----------------------------------------------------