1

The debate surrounding the contemporary changes in American families is centered on whether the institution of family is declining or simply changing. Popenoe is one of the main critics of the current state of marriage and family, who adimantly states that society must be aware and concerned that family is in steep decline and that this has serious consequences for the children of today. His adversaries claim that the ideas he uses as proof of his argument can be looked at in a more positive light, and instead show progressive changes in current society and ideology.
Popenoe defines family as "a relatively small domestic group of kin (or people in a kin-like relationship) consisting of at least one adult and one dependent person". According to Popenoe, since the peak of family life in the 1960's, there are many demographic, institutional and cultural indicators of a decline of this definition. He claims that authority has diminished within families, the function of families is no longer as strong, that the cultural ideal of familism has weakened, and that overall individuals today are more interested in their own advancement instead of investing time and energy in others. Specifically, he states that the divorce rate increases, the number of children in families has substantially decreased, and is now below the required number for population replacement. Marital roles have dramatically changed, with both parents often in the workforce, and consequently women are no longer economically dependent on their families. The idea of marriage as a societal necessity has almost been eradicated, and not only do many couples marry at a later age now, but many even discard the institution of marriage completely.
Stacey and Cowan offer critiques of Popenoe's arguments. Stacey's opposition is grounded in the fact that she has a different definition of family from Popenoe. She claims that family "is not an institution, but an ideological, symbolic construct that has a history and a politics". She argues that Popenoe's definition is ephemeral and outdated as it fails legitimize today's diversity in race, class, gender and sexual orientation. She claims that his mistakes lie in naming family as the only prior social institution in existence, in failing to recognize the post-industrial economic transformations in our country, and that his declaration that one must either believe that the family has strengthened or that its institutional power within society has remained unchanged, is flawed. Although she agrees with come of his points, she sees women's ability to survive outside of marriage as a positive societal change and claims that Popenoe continuously confuses symbol with reality in labeling the causes of family distress, and that instead of trying to keep that traditional ideology of the family alive, we should create a social environment in which diverse family forms can survive. Cowan claims that many of Popenoe's analysis is scientifically and logically flawed in its conclusions from data on family trends, as correltion does not prove causation. He also ignores alternate causal hypotheses, such as birth control to explain the reduced number of children in families, the idea that earlier family arrangements posessed inherent inequalities, especially for women, and the fact that very few individuals actually choose to be child-free just to increase their own personal growth. Cowan claims that a more logical solution to strengthen the idea of family is for politicians to start adressing family issues and policies, and to make the environment more favorable in order to foster the growth of marriage and family.
I would steer away from Popenoe's argument and adopt Cowan's approach, as his proves more realistic and actually acknowledges the positive side of the societal changes that Popenoe simply blames for the decline of family. He sees the equality and power that women have gained in recent years, and doesn't ignore the fact that despite today's anti-marriage and family values, the majority of adults still get married, still have children, and many stay married for life. Along with this more optimistic approach, he also offers very realistic solutions to counter the decline, such as reconsidering the dated definition of family, discovering more sophisticated and accurate ways of studying family functioning, and ending the neglect of family policy by politicians in both parties.