It Takes (Away) A Village: The Nuclear Family, Its Problems, and Alternatives

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 19^th 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.