[This is another of my guest posts at “Family Scholars Blog.” It is also crossposted on “Alas” and on “TADA.”]
In her most recent post, Amy wondered what study (or studies?) a radio report referred to. There’s been one study in the news this week which certainly sounds like it fits the bill. For the sake of discussion, here’s some descriptions of the study:
From yesterday’s New York Times:
A majority of Americans now say their definition of family includes same-sex couples with children, as well as married gay and lesbian couples.
At the same time, most Americans do not consider unmarried cohabiting couples, either heterosexual or same-sex, to be a family — unless they have children.
The findings — part of a survey conducted this year as well as in 2003 and 2006 by Brian Powell, a sociology professor at Indiana University, Bloomington — are reported in a new book, “Counted Out: Same-Sex Relations and Americans’ Definitions of Family,” to be published on Wednesday by the Russell Sage Foundation.
The Russell Sage Foundation’s website provides a little more detail:
The book reports on and analyzes the results of the authors’ Constructing the Family Surveys (2003 and 2006), which asked more than 1,500 people to explain their stances on a broad range of issues, including gay marriage and adoption, single parenthood, the influence of biological and social factors in child development, religious ideology, and the legal rights of unmarried partners. Not surprisingly, the authors find that the standard bearer for public conceptions of family continues to be a married, heterosexual couple with children. More than half of Americans also consider same-sex couples with children as family, and from 2003 to 2006 the percentages of those who believe so increased significantly—up 6 percent for lesbian couples and 5 percent for gay couples. The presence of children in any living arrangement meets with a notable degree of public approval. Less than 30 percent of Americans view heterosexual cohabitating couples without children as family, while similar couples with children count as family for nearly 80 percent. Counted Out shows that for most Americans, however, the boundaries around what they define as family are becoming more malleable with time.
And a couple more numbers, drawn from the AP article:
Between 2003 and 2010, three surveys conducted by Powell’s team showed a significant shift toward counting same-sex couples with children as family – from 54 percent of respondents in 2003 to 68 percent in 2010. […] The surveys were conducted by telephone, among a random selection of households, and the characteristics of the samples were compared with census data to verify that they were representative. There were 712 interviews in 2003, 815 in 2006 and 830 this year.
Finally, I’d be remiss if I didn’t quote the end of the Times article, which quoted none other than a certain David Blankenhorn, who I believe has occasionally been sighted around these parts:
David Blankenhorn, president of the Institute for American Values, a marriage research and advocacy group, said he was not surprised by the findings. “I like the standard definition of family: two or more persons related by blood, marriage or adoption,” Mr. Blankenhorn said. “Keeps it simple and coherent.”
But, he added: “We live in groups, and we need each other. So it’s always a good thing, isn’t it, when any of us truly loves and is loved by another.”
David opposes same-sex marriage, but favors civil unions for same-sex couples. That brings up a question I’d like to ask David: Is a civil union-ized couple a family?
Sounds like “with kids” seems to be the defining factor for most people. If it involves kids, it’s a family.
Which matches my theory, which is that family is whichever part of society it is that’s responsible for waking me up at 3 in the fucking morning.
Which matches my theory, which is that family is whichever part of society it is that’s responsible for waking me up at 3 in the fucking morning.
I don’t know…that definition would make me related to several car alarms.
My dogs would fit that definition to a t.
If “with kids” is the defining factor, then wouldn’t older couples whose children are grown and living elsewhere thus….lose “familial” status? Or are they “grandfathered” in (even without grandchildren)?
With that said, I did like this from Amy’s post:
We continue to ask, “How do we speak clearly in a way that conveys compassion, honors experience, and yet still rings true?” For there can be much in a name.
That’s pretty much “exhibit A” for why the term “family” needs to encompass more than the married-heterosexual-couple-with-children model.
I agree with La Lubu that this is exhibit A.
I don’t think that kids are the defining factor, but having kids is one of many potential defining factors. My interpretation of that data is that THE defining factor has to be permanence and commitment.
Kids signify a permanent bond.
Marriage, theoretically, is permanent (which is why its so important).
Cohabitation without marriage still signifies a need to delay that commitment.
That’s the pattern I see.
I think we are squishy about whether or not a couple, without children, constitutes a family. For what it’s worth, I am pretty sure that I never described my wife and myself as a family until we had a baby.
In that window between marriage and parenthood, had someone asked me if I had a family, I probably would have responded with something like this: “Well, I’m married, but we don’t have any kids.”
It would shock me if David Blankenhorn regarded childless married couples differently in this regard (are they a family or not?) than childless same-sex couples joined in civil unions.
So people without kids are what? Worthless scum?
Lots42, am I missing the satire, or are you serious?
I’m willing to use family in a big umbrella kind of way, but I didn’t use the word “family” to describe myself and my wife before we had a child. Similarly, I don’t use the word “family” to describe a childless couple. How does that suggest that people without kids are worth less than people who have children?
Family is a description, not a valuation.
And just in case I need to make it clear, I would describe a single person with one or more kids as a family. I would describe a same-sex couple with one or more kids as a family.
What about heterosexual couples who can’t have children for whatever reason? Are they not a family unless they choose to adopt? What if some people don’t want kids at all? (WHOA, do some people really not want kids?!?!?!? Yes.)
I just want to be clear that I’m not trying to define “family” for everyone else. I have been writing about how I use the term.
Jeremy, we call couples without children “couples,” as you did in your question. Note that you didn’t write, “What about families who can’t have children for whatever reason?”
Similarly, in the “Jeff is reading” sidebar, one of the headlines is, “Tennessee lesbian couple burned out of home in suspected hate crime needs help.”
As for your third question, of course some people don’t want children. I call them wise. (This is coming from the perspective of one who has teenagers.)
I can broaden my definition of family to include couples, especially if I define family as something more like “household.”
Peter–I suspect the usage is fairly flexible depending on context; or at least, I think mine is. Like if someone says “I want to have a family” then I understand them to probably mean children, or if they want to have a family event, or something like that. And if someone says “I want to get home to my family” I’d understand them to probably be including children, because otherwise I’d expect them to say something more along the lines of “I want to get home to my partner.”
But if I’m talking about a family income tax credit (where family takes on the “household” meaning), then yes, my husband and I (childless) are a family. And if multiple couples who are forming an intentional community say something to me like “we’re forming a family” then I understand them to be indicating their grouping, with or without children. Etc.
I’ve now used the word family enough that it’s starting to sound weird. Family. Fam-i-ly. Whoa. ;-)