It Takes (Away) A Village: The Nuclear Family, Its Problems, and Alternatives
Summary: Wisdom tells us that it takes a village to raise a child. But the modern nuclear family often does the exact opposite: it isolates family units, making everyone’s lives more stressful and difficult, and leaving us with disconnection and trauma. It takes away the village. But it doesn’t have to be this way. Through learning and imagining alternatives, we can uncover new possibilities for social connections, better relationships, happier lives, and collective healing.
Contents:
1. In a Nutshell
2. Rise of the Nuclear Family
3. Problems with the Nuclear
Family
4. Why the Nuclear Family
Persists
5. Where Do We Go from Here?
6. Toward Healing
1. In a Nutshell
The nuclear family is central to the myth of the
American Dream. Two married parents, two or three kids, a house in a safe
neighborhood. The members of this nuclear family usually spend a large part of their
time together, in relative isolation.
Many of us – especially those in the
middle-to-upper-classes – grew up in nuclear family households. And we turned
out fine, right? So, what’s the problem? Why not just continue living in small,
isolated family units?
For some people, there might not be a problem. Some have
childhoods filled with love and freedom and close, connected relationships with
a small family unit. For others, as ME O’Brien wrote,
the family was perhaps a solution to bigger problems – a source of support and
care against the injustices of capitalism and a racist police state. Either
way, the nuclear family was good for some.
For others, the nuclear family is hell; they feel
trapped in a stress-filled and terrifying unit. Physical abuse, emotional
manipulation, and overbearing control – this is also the nuclear family.
For many, the family is something between the extremes:
a sometimes-uncomfortable, sometimes-supportive, stressful yet loving experience.
For these people in the middle, abolition of the nuclear family might sound
extreme. But the status quo isn’t quite satisfying either.
Even though many of us take the current situation as a
given today, the nuclear family is anything but. And it may be making some of our
lives harder than they need to be.
Personally, I had never really considered that there
were other possibilities for family life until I was well into adulthood. But I
have since learned what millions of people (especially people who aren’t white,
middle-to-upper-class U.S. citizens) already know: there are many possible ways
to arrange families and raise children. For instance, multigenerational and
communal living have long been sources of support and happiness in many communities
and cultures.
In short, the nuclear family is not inevitable. In
fact, historically, it’s an anomaly. Throughout history, and in many cultures
and communities today, children were and are raised communally: parents,
relatives, and friends all share in the responsibilities of caring for young
people.
Wisdom tells us that it takes a village to raise
children. But the modern nuclear family sometimes means the exact opposite:
isolated family units and limited social interactions. With two parents trying
to do the work of an entire village, everyone’s lives can become more stressful
and difficult.
Now, I want to be clear that I
am not saying the nuclear family is “bad” or that enjoying or desiring a
nuclear family is morally wrong. My point is that, for many people, the nuclear
family structure doesn’t meet their needs, and that other arrangements are
possible.
It comes down to prioritizing care and people’s
wellbeing over rigid structures and ideologies.
We all want loving, resilient relationships and
communities where everyone has the support and autonomy they need. The nuclear
family can provide these things, but often it is a barrier to meeting our
needs.
What we need to do is create the conditions where options
for alternative family and child-raising arrangements are possible and achievable.
But first, let’s explore how the nuclear family came
about; how it fails to meet the needs of many; and why it persists.
In other words, I’m going to ask: how did we end up so stuck in one paradigm that many of us can hardly even imagine alternatives? And how do we get unstuck?
2. Rise of the Nuclear Family
For tens of thousands of years, in early human societies,
people relied on their extended family and wider kin for support in every realm
of life. This included everyone in the community – not just biological kin. So,
how did we shift from these wide family networks to the nuclear option?
According
to some, the origins of the modern nuclear household owe much
to the Protestant Reformation, when the domestic divine (the father) began
replacing the Catholic Church as the center of life. The
ideal of a small household of father, mother, and children became something
that middle-class Europeans strove for.
Then, as Ilana Strauss writes, during the latter half of the 19th
century, the rise of industrialization made it
possible to earn a living and support oneself without extended communities.
According to Kay Hymowitz, this trend accelerated in the West after World War
II: “As societies became richer and goods cheaper and more plentiful, people no
longer had to rely on traditional families to afford basic needs like food and
shelter.”
A related trend, explains David Brooks, is that the
decline in multigenerational living exactly tracked the decline in farm employment.
But the rise in the nuclear family hasn’t happened
equally across society. The nuclear family isn’t really how most people live,
even in the U.S.
As Brooks notes, “Today, only a minority of
American households are traditional two-parent nuclear families and only
one-third of American individuals live in this kind of family.”
So, who lives in these nuclear families? Privileged
people, mostly. Meanwhile, immigrants and people of
color are more likely to live in multigenerational and extended-family
households. This is partly due to the greater economic and social stress these
populations often face.
For instance, the oppressive conditions in
the U.S. – from slavery to Jim Crow to police violence – have made it so
African Americans have always relied on extended family more than white
Americans. Mia Birdsong says that “black families are expansive, fluid, and
brilliantly rely on the support, knowledge, and capacity of ‘the village’ to
take care of each other.”
In short, the nuclear family is a relatively recent phenomenon that is most common in privileged segments of society.
3. Problems With the Nuclear Family
For many of us, especially those who grew up in
communities where the nuclear family is the norm, it can be so ubiquitous that
we don’t realize how it fails to meet our needs. The nuclear family can
become so internalized that we don’t see its problems. But it does have
limitations, and it can cause problems. I will briefly discuss ten of these
issues.
First, the modern nuclear family liberates the most
privileged, while making the vulnerable more vulnerable. It provides freedom
for rich adults but takes away the family safety net that is crucial for poorer
families. David Brooks explains that rich people have the resources to
effectively buy extended family and child-care labor, while low-income families
cannot. As Brooks argues, “The shift from bigger and
interconnected extended families to smaller and detached nuclear families
ultimately led to a familial system that liberates the rich and ravages the
working-class and the poor.”
Second, it has been bad for many elders. (See my post
on Elderhood here.) Until 1850, approximately
three-quarters of Americans over age 65 lived with their children and
grandchildren. In 1990, only 18 percent did. This has created widespread
loneliness: According to the AARP, 35 percent of Americans over 45 say they are chronically lonely.
Third, it has been bad for many kids. The
nuclear family can be suffocating and put too much pressure on kids. They can
become the sole focus of “helicopter parents” and develop anxiety and
narcissistic tendencies. It’s also bad for kids who are in abusive or
emotionally toxic family situations. In the nuclear family, there is no escape
valve; and foster care is often a worse option. Moreover, children still largely are treated as property, and it
is legal in all 50 U.S. states for parents to hit their kids. The nuclear
family perpetuates these harmful ideas of ownership.
It takes a village because different people have different needs at
different times in their lives. Kids – and adults
– need exposure to different people and ideas and perspectives. They need a
variety of social interactions and relationships. In a communal situation, kids
live around many adults, learning different perspectives, relating to a variety
of people. But the nuclear family limits these opportunities. The nuclear
family isolates children from the village.
Fourth, the nuclear family causes more instability
and uncertainty in families and society. Extended families and social groups
provide resilience because more people can share burdens and can help deal with
unexpected problems – if a family member gets sick or loses their job, there
are more hands to help out. But the nuclear family has weakened these
networks. This creates a cascade of instability. The nuclear family leads
to individualistic mindsets, which in turn leads to more isolation. Which leads
to more uncertainty and instability. It’s a self-perpetuating cycle.
Fifth, the nuclear family can be bad for health
and wellbeing because it causes more isolation and loneliness. In an article
titled Alone, Kay Hymowitz says there is an American epidemic of
loneliness: “Only around half of Americans say they have meaningful, daily
face-to-face social interactions…Loneliness, public-health experts tell us, is
killing as many people as obesity and smoking.” In contrast, multigenerational
and communal living means more social interactions.
Sixth, the nuclear family can create more stress
and greater burdens for adults and parents. R.D.
Laing, a radical psychiatrist active in the 1960s, examined the irreconcilable demands and pressures of modern family life. “‘In the nuclear family’, Laing
explains, ‘husband and wife are supposed to be everything to each other to
satisfy all economic, emotional and sexual needs... They’re kicked in but feel
too guilty to escape. And their frustration and resentment sticks to their
children. It’s a pretty miserable scene.” The nuclear family may be
making our lives more difficult because it means more work and pressure for the
parents, and more pressure on the kids. Having only two adults in the household
can mean greater burdens and more stress for all.
Seventh, the nuclear family has
long been criticized by feminists for its central role in regulating gender and
sexual freedom; subordinating women and children; and epidemic amounts of
private, gendered violence. Women were – and often still are – expected to do
the majority of the domestic labor. Women were long treated as passive property
and are still subjected to horrific levels of domestic violence. A 2018
UN report, which found that a majority of female homicide victims worldwide
were killed by their partners or family members, was released with the telling
headline that the home is “the most dangerous place for women.”
Eighth, the nuclear family perpetuates inequality and class divisions. The wealthy
nuclear family manages and passes down
property and wealth to children, rather than distributing resources for the
betterment of society.
Relatedly, the nuclear family can work against taking care of others in the
community. People start looking out for their children at the expense of
others. Many parents will do “anything” for their kids, but they do nothing for the unhoused, hungry, and oppressed who live
in their communities.
Ninth, the nuclear family weakens community and
strengthens the power of the state and corporations. When we live in small,
isolated families, we rely on our broader communities less and have fewer
social connections. When people and communities have fewer connections, they
communicate less; they don’t build collective power. They become more
polarized and easier to manipulate. In turn, they need to rely on the state and
corporations to provide for their needs.
Tenth, the nuclear family is harmful to the environment because it consumes more resources and energy, per capita, than more communal forms of living. From an environmental perspective, it is usually less efficient because there is less sharing of resources and energy. For example, each small family unit might have their own dishwasher, washer/dryer, food pantry, kitchen, etc. They prepare meals and clean for four or five people at a time. They might have two cars for four people. This is much less efficient than large, communal meals, which use common spaces and share resources. The nuclear family is good for consumerism and capitalism but arguably bad for the environment.
4. Why the Nuclear Family Persists
If the nuclear family has all these problems, why is
it still so common?
The first and most obvious reason is that, while many
childhoods are unhappy, most families are actually not that miserable. For many
people, the nuclear family is a relatively happy place. If there is no visible
alternative, there is nothing to compare it to. It becomes ingrained. By
accepting what is (or, what seems to be), many people find happiness in the
nuclear family.
A common reason given for the popularity of the
nuclear family is that it can provide more freedom and independence than
communal living. According to this view (which is held by David Brooks, for
example), in a nuclear family, everyone can have their own space and do their
own thing. The flip side of this narrative is the assumption that living with
extended or communal families offers less freedom and privacy.
But I think this is a limiting, Western-centric view
that is biased toward the nuclear family. The reality is that many people who
grow up in nuclear families feel controlled, stifled, and trapped. And many
people who grow up in multigenerational or extended-family households have lots
of freedom and autonomy.
Moreover, this biased view misses a key point: the
nuclear family can actually undermine the values of autonomy and freedom.
Individual freedoms can’t effectively be realized without community support.
Individual wellbeing depends on interdependence and community – on loving
relationships and care.
Another possible reason is that “the market” wants us
to live alone or in isolated units. In other words, the nuclear family is
better for wealthy capitalists. That way, as Brooks describes, the rest of us “are mobile, unattached, and uncommitted, able to devote an
enormous number of hours to our jobs.” And the nuclear family is good for
companies selling consumer goods, because then we need to buy more products for
each household.
Laws and business practices in the U.S. also make other
family arrangements difficult. The legal and economic system routinely favors
and promotes conventional marriage and family arrangements. For example, it’s
difficult to get a loan for cooperative or shared housing. And child protection
agencies often privilege conventional nuclear families over alternatives, which
has a disproportionate effect on Black, Indigenous, and other families of color.
For instance, social workers often interpret a Black or brown child moving
between different households as instability, when it might actually be a sign
of community resilience, adaptability, and support.
Inertia is another reason the nuclear family sticks
around. Many people never learn that alternatives to the nuclear family are
possible, so they continue to follow the same patterns.
But some people do learn about alternatives. They might
then question the idea of the nuclear family and realize it isn’t above
criticism; they might see how it actually harmed them. For these people, reversion
to the nuclear family might be caused by psychological resistance. Most people
want to tell themselves a story about how they had a happy childhood, and how
their parents did the right things. Questioning the nuclear family means
questioning that story. That learning process can feel uncomfortable and
painful. Some people may find it easier to ignore the issue.
Finally, the nuclear family persists because it can be a refuge from violence in society, especially for the most vulnerable. As Kathi Weeks points out, “while it is clearly not a separate haven from capitalism, the private family may nonetheless offer a place of sanctuary” where love, tenderness, and compassion can find refuge from ruthless capitalism, racism, and other oppressive forces.
5. Where Do We Go from Here?
We now know that the nuclear family is not
inevitable. We know that there are many problems with the nuclear family. We
know it can cause harm. And we know there are alternatives.
So, what comes next?
My feeling is that we should do whatever best
helps us meet our needs and support one another. This means exploring different
options for family and social arrangements. These options could certainly
include the nuclear family. But we should have more freedom to pursue
alternatives.
Some say that the way to achieve these goals is to abolish the nuclear family. “Abolish the family” is a startling phrase to many people. The proposal is triggering and is rife with uncertainty. M.E. O’Brien says that the idea of the abolition of the family evokes “the complete, almost inconceivable transformation of day-to-day life.”
But
what if we tried to conceive it? What could it look like?
According to ME O’Brien, “The abolition of
the family could be the generalization of human care in the real human
community.” In other words – a world where we all care for each other, regardless
of blood or legal ties.
The abolition of the nuclear family could also mean a much richer, more
diverse, and realistic view of relationships. As
Kathi Weeks writes, the nuclear family model “imagines that a single
partner can serve for a lifetime as sexual partner, romantic lover, friendly
companion, income-pooler, co-parent, domestic co-worker and partner in aging.”
If we disaggregated some of these roles, and spread them around to different
people, we could, as Weeks says, “open up infinite possibilities for different
households, patterns of intimacy and social networks to develop.”
So, basically, one path forward would be to reimagine our relationships and their functions; creating new ideas about who can fill different roles in our lives. We can reimagine who cares for who. And we can be open to new possibilities and arrangements.
In a world filled with options, some may choose a form of the nuclear family as their desired household setup. But as Weeks writes, “The point of the exercise is not to celebrate or condemn, but to imagine a future in which no one relational or household model is expected, privileged or over-invested with hope.” In other words, the abolition of the family is not about moralizing or shaming those in nuclear families; it’s about opening possibilities for how we relate to and care for each other.
Okay,
but how does this practically come about?
As discussed above, multigenerational and
extended-family living is one time-tested form of community. Other
concrete alternatives include cohousing and other forms of communal living. One
barrier to these, in the U.S., is the difficulty in getting loans for
cooperative housing. In contrast, Danish and Swedish
governments have long supported cohousing,
and made it easier for cooperatives to get loans because cohousing provides
more supports that strengthen the middle class and allows for better community
and childcare support.
But while cohousing works for some, other problems still need to be addressed. Care needs to become more widely available. Michele Barret and Mary McIntosh explain, in The Anti-Social Family, that “What is needed is not to build up an alternative to the family…but to make the family less necessary, by building up all sorts of other ways of meeting people’s needs.”
For instance, Sophie Lewis has argued for a version of
family abolition in which the family
as we know it no longer exists: “Everyone, regardless of gender, is a surrogate;
we mother each other” and do collective child-raising.
Another possibility would be state-provided
financial and housing support for young people so that they wouldn't remain
economically dependent on their nuclear families. Basically, making it possible
for kids to leave families they don’t like by giving them resources to live
independently.
It really comes down to meeting people’s needs. Different people have different needs at different times in their lives. Our social arrangements should accommodate these changing needs. That means they need to be flexible and responsive. So, the best approach is probably no single proposal. The best approach may be to continuously listen to and care for each other. Once we understand each other’s wants and needs, and commit to caring for each other, solutions will flow from that.
6. Toward Healing
The nuclear family has created fractures in our
social lives. The disconnection and fragmentation of social relationships has created trauma. There is trauma from isolation. There is trauma from
instability and uncertainty. These are deep intergenerational and societal
traumas.
Healing will be a long process during which we
learn to reestablish social bonds and create new connections and relationships.
Healing will mean learning to care for each other again. Not just our parents
or immediate family; not just our extended family; but our entire community.
As we learn, we heal.
We can learn about what kinds of connections and living arrangements are
possible. We can look to arrangements that have worked in the past – and that
continue to work for many cultures and communities – and see how to make more
satisfying and supportive living situations and relationships possible. We can imagine
alternatives. Through this learning and imagining, we heal.
The point is not that the nuclear family is
morally bad or wrong. But the nuclear family has caused us harm and trauma
through isolation and disconnection. Healing is needed. Imagination and
learning can help us find alternatives that better meet our needs. And these
new connections and relationships could provide us with happier and more
meaningful lives.
