ISSUEAre Stepfamilies Inherently Problematic?
ISSUE SUMMARY
After World War II the typical family pattern was for children to live to late adolescence with their married biological parents. Much has changed since then. According to projections from family demographers, no longer will even half of the children born since 1980 have that experience. Divorce and remarriage will likely be a major part of many children's lives. Children in stepfamilies face a sequence of three major life events. First, the dissolution of their parents' marriage. Second, the establishment of a single-parent family. Finally, the reorganization of their lives into a stepfamily arrangement. Each of these stressful life circumstances requires major adjustments on the part of children and parents. Some research indicates that children raised in stepfamilies are at higher risk of school failure, fragmented social relationships, and psychological problems than other children. Other studies conclude that living in a stepfamily is just one of the many factors that influence how children develop as they grow into adulthood, that only a minority of children have long-term problems. Lawrence Ganong and Marilyn Coleman, in their book Remarried Family Relationships (Sage Publications, 1994), argue that family scholars who talk excessively about risk factors and negative outcomes are assuming that step families are dysfunctional compared to first-married families. Such comparisons, which they label "deficit-comparison," are said to stigmatize stepfamilies and make it more difficult for them to gain useful knowledge, kin and community support, and needed improvements in government policies and programs. Much of the recent literature on stepfamilies takes a problem-solving approach. For example, in an article in the Journal of Divorce and Remarriage (vol. 14, 1990, pp. 3–12), Emily Visher and John Visher describe six characteristics of successful stepfamilies:
The same journal contains a report of a survey in which 200 remarried couples were asked what advice they would give to other couples that were considering remarriage. They gave the following recommendations (ranked in order of importance): have open, honest communication; clarify expectations and reasons for remarriage; ensure compatibility of values and philosophies; be patient, supportive, and compromising with new family members; work hard; seek counseling, if needed; and learn from prior experiences. Do overly negative images of stepparents and their children impinge on a stepfamily's ability to construct a successful new relationship? Do overly positive images fare any better? Each may prompt parents and children to miscalculate the tasks before them. Perhaps it would be more productive to ask, Can we identify parents and children who have benefited from remarriage? How have well-functioning stepfamilies gone about building successful relationships? Are there coping strategies and negotiation styles that seem to facilitate better parent-child relationships in stepfamilies? Can we identify policies and programs that are most helpful to stepfamilies? How do age of parents, age of children, gender, ethnicity, stage in the marital life cycle, and income affect stepfamily relationships? Do certain stepfamilies face a greater chance of family breakup? As you read the two selections that follow, consider whether or not David Popenoe is correct in his belief that encouraging two-parent families to stay together would be better for children than providing support during the process of divorce and eventual remarriage. Or is Lawrence A. Kurdek's view that stepfamilies are coping well despite the social, economic, and cultural changes in American life since the 1950s more accurate? YESDavid Popenoe The Evolution of Marriage and the Problem of Stepfamilies: A Biosocial PerspectiveOne of the fastest growing family types in every advanced industrial nation has been the stepfamily…. Since 1960… the chances of spending part or all of one's childhood outside an intact family have grown dramatically. According to various estimates, the chances that a child born around 1980 will not be living at age 17 with both biological parents have increased to over 50% (Hernandez, 1993)…. In 1960, an estimated 83% of all children are living with their two married, biological parents; by 1990, this figure was 58%…. More than 9 out of 10 stepchildren live with their biological mother and a stepfather…. The Problem of StepfamiliesMany, and perhaps most stepfamilies today lead contented home lives and produce happy and successful children. But a growing body of evidence suggests that the increase of stepfamilies has created serious problems for child welfare…. Contrary to the view of some social scientists in recent years, who believed that the effects of family fragmentation on children were both modest and ephemeral, there is now substantial evidence to indicate that the child outcomes of these alternative family forms are significantly inferior to those of families consisting of two biological parents. Compared to those in intact families, children in single-parent and stepfamilies are significantly more likely to have emotional and behavioral problems, to receive the professional help of psychologists, to have health problems, to perform poorly in school and drop out, and to leave home early. Moreover, some of these negative effects have been shown to persist into adult life. Social scientists used to believe that, for positive child outcomes, stepfamilies were preferable to single-parent families. Today, we are not so sure. Stepfamilies typically have an economic advantage, but some recent studies indicate that the children of stepfamilies have as many behavioral and emotional problems as the children of single-parent families, and possibly more (e.g., Kiernan, 1992)…. Certain problems are more prevalent in stepfamilies than in other family forms. A common finding is that stepparents provide less warmth and communicate less well with their children than do biological parents (Thomson, McLenahan, & Curtin, 1992). A number of studies have found that a child is far more likely to be abused by a stepfather than by the biological father…. Compared to children in intact and single-parent households,… "stepchildren are not merely ‘disadvantaged,’ but imperiled" (Wilson & Daly, 1987, p. 230). As in single-parent families, a major problem of the stepfamily phenomenon is the net loss of fathering in children's lives…. Many studies have shown that stepfathering acts to diminish contact between original fathers and their biological children (Furstenberg & Nord, 1985; Furstenberg, Nord, Peterson, & Zill, 1983; Mott, 1990; Seltzer & Bianchi, 1988). In their turn, stepfathers take a considerably less active role in parenting than do custodial biological fathers, according to many studies, and frequently become disengaged from their stepchildren following the establishment of a stepfamily…. Another problematic aspect of stepfamilies is their high breakup rate, higher than that of two-biological-parent families. According to the most recent census data, more than 62% of remarriages among women under age 40 will end in divorce, and the more that children are involved, the higher the redivorce rate…. By one estimate, about 15% of all children born in recent decades will go through at least two family disruptions before coming of age (Furstenberg, 1990). In summary, according to the available evidence, stepfamilies tend to have less cohesive, more problematic, and more stressful family relationships than intact families, and probably also than single-parent families. Put more strongly by a recent article in Psychology Today, stepfamilies "are such a minefield of divided loyalties, emotional traps, and management conflicts that they are the most fragile form of family in America" ("Shuttle Diplomacy," 1993). Biosocial Bases of Family LifeIn order to better understand the special problems that stepfamilies pose, it is necessary to delve into the fundamental biosocial nature of human family life…. From the perspective of evolutionary biology, the organization of the human nuclear family is based on two inherited biological predispositions that confer reproductive success, one that operates between parent and child, and the other between parent and parent. The first is a predisposition to advance the interests of genetic relatives before those of unrelated individuals…. With respect to children, this means that men and women have likely evolved to invest more in children who are related to them than in those who are not…. The second biological predisposition is for males and females to have some emotional affinity for each other beyond the sexual act, and to establish pair bonds. We tend to fall in love with one person at a time. Although we think of love attachments as being highly social in character, they also have a strong biological component. There exists an "affective attachment" between men and women that causes us to be infatuated with each other, to feel a sense of well-being when we are together with a loved one, and to feel jealous when others attempt to intrude into our relationship. Around the world today, almost all adults pair-bond with someone of the opposite sex for at least a portion of their lives, and monogamous relationships are the rule…. One fundamental reason for family instability is that, at heart, human beings are probably more self-interested than truly altruistic, even toward our own relatives and intimates. We act, first and foremost, in the interest of self-survival. But another reason is that the male-female bond, especially when compared to the mother-infant bond, is notoriously fragile. Although marriage is universal, divorce has also been a central feature of human social life…. Possibly the most disintegrating force acting on the human pair bond is the male sexual drive…. Universally, men are the more sexually driven and promiscuous, while women are more relationship-oriented…. Sexual and Reproductive Strategies… Biologically, the primary reproductive function for males is to inseminate, and for females is to harbor the growing fetus…. Males, therefore, have more incentive to spread their numerous sperm more widely among many females, and females have a strong incentive to bind males to themselves for the long-term care of their more limited number of potential offspring. The woman's best reproductive strategy is to ensure that she maximizes the survivability of the one baby she is able to produce every few years through gaining the provision and protection of the father…. The man's best strategy, however, may be twofold. He wants his baby to survive, yes, and for that reason he may provide help to his child's mother. But, at the same time, it is relatively costless to him… to inseminate other women, and thereby help to further insure that his genes are passed on…. Why aren't all men promiscuous cads? Because, in addition to the pull of the biological pair-bonding and parenting predispositions discussed previously, virtually all human societies have established strong cultural sanctions that seek to limit male promiscuity and protect the sanctity of the family…. If a man is to stay with one woman rather than pursue many different women, according to sociobiologists, the "paternal certainty" of his offspring is extremely important. An woman can be certain about her own offspring, but a man cannot be…. [A] male tends to invest in his mate's children only when his paternal confidence is high…. Cultural Contexts… During the most recent stages of the development of the human species, rapidly paced cultural evolution has overtaken slow-moving biological evolution as the main force of social change (Hallpike, 1986; Scott, 1989). One result if that family structures around the world today are widely variable, determined more by cultural differences than by biological predispositions…. Associated with the rise of horticultural and agrarian societies was fundamental shift in people's attitudes toward reproduction (Lancaster & Lancaster, 1987)…. [W]ith increased density of population and wealth, people came to perceive that resources were limited, that major differentials existed between who survived and who did not, and that survival was very much dependent on who controlled the most resources. It was no longer sufficient merely to rear as many offspring as possible and hope that they would survive to reproduce. Reproductive strategies became individually tailored to maximize the use and control of resources. It was necessary to try to guarantee children access to resources in the form of education or inheritance, for example, so that they would have an advantage over other parents' children. Marriage and Divorce in Premodern SocietiesThe new perception of resource scarcity in complex societies generated a dramatic transformation in family life and kinship relations, including concern for the "legitimacy" of children, the rise of inheritance laws, and the careful control of female sexuality. The nuclear family gave way to the complex, extended family; the conjugal unit became imbedded in an elaborate kinship network. The father role of authority figure and head of household grew in importance, where as the status of women deteriorated…. Through the institutionalization of cultural norms and sanctions, complex societies have become heavily devoted to socially controlling male and female sexual strategies. The most important social institution serving this purpose is marriage. Marriage can be defined simply as "a relationship within which a group socially approves and encourages sexual intercourse and the birth of children" (Frayser, 1985, p. 248)…. Throughout most of recorded history, until recently, most marriages were arranged (although the principals typically had a say in the matter); they were less alliances of two individuals than of two kin networks, typically involving an exchange of money or goods. Various theories have been put forth to explain the fundamental purposes of marriage. But certainly one purpose is, as noted previously, to hold men to the pair bond, thereby helping to ensure high quality offspring and, at the same time, helping to control the open conflict that would result if men were allowed unlimited ability to pursue the "cad" strategy with other men's wives…. Marriage and Divorce in Urban-Industrial Societies… In urban-industrial societies, reproductive concerns about the quantity of children have largely given way to concerns about quality. Children in these societies require massive parental investments if they are to succeed, and childrearing has become extraordinarily expensive in terms of time and money…. The modern nuclear family that accompanied the emergence of urban-industrialism and cultural modernity in the West was distinctly different from its preindustrial predecessor…. The new family form was emotionally intense, privatized, and child-oriented; in authority structure, it was relatively egalitarian; and it placed a high value on individualism in the sense of individual rights and autonomy…. The big winners from the emergence of the modern nuclear family… were… children. In preindustrial Europe, parental care of children does not seem to have been particularly prominent, and such practices as infanticide, wet nursing, child fosterage, and the widespread use of lower status surrogate caretakers were common (Draper & Harpending, 1987)…. Draper and Harpending (1987) suggested that one of the greatest achievements of the modern nuclear family was the return to the high-investment nurturing of children by their biological parents, the kind of parenting characteristic of our hunter-gatherer ancestors…. Family stability during this era, together with parental investments in children, may have been greater than at any other time in history. Cultural sanctions concerning marriage were powerfully enforce, and thanks to ever lowering death rates and low divorce rates, both parents were typically able to see their children through to adulthood. This remarkably high family stability helps to explain why the family situation in the United States today appears so troubled, particularly in the minds of the older generation. Recent Family and Cultural Change in AmericaIn the past half century, the U.S. family has been on a social roller coaster. The ups and downs have been quite astonishing. Following World War II, the United States entered a two-decade period of extraordinary economic growth and material progress. Commonly referred to as simply "the 50s," it was the most sustained period of prosperity in U.S. history. Together with most other industrially developed societies of the world, this nation saw improvements in the levels of health, material consumption, and economic security that had scant historical precedent. For most Americans, the improvements included striking increases in longevity, buying power, personal net worth, and government-sponsored economic security. The 1950s was also an era of remarkable familism and family togetherness, with the family as an institution undergoing unprecedented growth and stability within the middle and working classes. The marriage rate reached an all-time high, the birth rate returned to the high levels of earlier in the century, generating the baby boom, and the divorce rate leveled off. Home, motherhood, and childcenteredness reigned high in the lexicon of cultural values. A higher proportion of children were growing up in stable, two-parent families than ever before in U.S. history. Beginning in the 1960s, however, a series of unanticipated social and cultural developments took place that shook the foundations of the modern nuclear family…. Men abandoned their families at an unprecedented rate, leaving behind broken homes and single-parent, female-headed households. Women relinquished their traditional mother/housewife roles in unexpectedly large numbers and entered the labor force. The percentage of births taking place outside of marriage skyrocketed. Highly permissive sexual behavior became acceptable…. Not only did the modern nuclear family become fragmented, but participation in family life went into a precipitous decline…. Underlying these family-related trends was an extraordinary shift in cultural values and self-definition…. Trust in, and a sense of obligation toward, the larger society and its institutions rapidly eroded; the traditional moral authority of social institutions such as schools, churches, and governments withered. What emerged, instead, was a new importance given by large segments of the population to the personal goal and even moral commandment of expressive individualism or "self-fulfillment" (Bellah, Madsen, Sullivan, Swidler, & Tipton, 1985)…. The institution of marriage was particularly hard hit…. The marriage rate has steadily declined over the past few decades, from 76.7 marriages per 1,000 unmarried women in 1970, to 54.2 in 1990. The divorce rate, although it has leveled off, remains at an historically high level. Marriage has become a voluntary relationship which individuals can make and break at will. As one indicator of this shift, the legal regulation of marriage and divorce has become increasingly lax. In summary, fewer people ever marry, those who marry do so at a later age, a smaller proportion of life is spent in wedlock, and marriages are of a shorter duration (Espanshade, 1985). … One of the significant attitudinal changes of recent years is the rising acceptance of divorce, especially when children are involved…. The high voluntary dissolution of marriages might not be a serious problem if only adults were involved although, even then, it certainly generates considerable instability and anxiety. The problem is that young children, if they are to grow up successfully, still need strong attachments to parents. The evidence strongly suggests that parental bonds with children have suffered in recent years, and that the tremendous parenting advantages of the modern nuclear family are on the wane…. The Social Response to StepfamiliesThe decline of marriage and the increase of divorce are, of course, the major contributors to the recent growth of stepfamilies…. It is surely the case, especially in view of the diminutive of kinship and neighborhood groupings, that stepfamilies need our collective help and understanding more than ever. But we should not confuse short-run actions aimed at helping stepfamilies with long-run solutions. If the argument presented [here] is correct, and the family is fundamentally rooted in biology and at least partly activated by the "genetically selfish" activities of human beings, childrearing by nonrelatives is inherently problematic. It is not that unrelated individuals are unable to do the job of parenting, it is just that they are not as likely to do the job well. Stepfamily problems, in short, may be so intractable that the best strategy for dealing with them is to do everything possible to minimize their occurrence. Unfortunately, many members of the therapeutic and helping professions, together with a large group of social science allies, now take the view that the trend toward stepfamilies cannot be reversed…. A close companion to this belief in stepfamily inevitability and optimum fit with a changing society is the view that we should now direct most of our attention toward understanding the familial processes of stepfamilies, and seek to develop social policies and interventions that will assist children's adjustment to them…. Once stepfamilies become more common and accepted, it is argued, and once our society comes to define the roles of stepparenthood more clearly, the problems of stepfamilies will diminish. This may be a largely incorrect understanding of the situation. The reason why unrelated stepparents find their parenting roles more stressful and less satisfying than biological parents is probably due much less to social stigma and to the uncertainty of their obligations, as to the fact that they gain fewer intrinsic emotional rewards from carrying out those obligations…. If, as the findings of evolutionary biology strongly suggest, there is a biological basis to parenting, we must question the view, widespread in the social sciences, that parenthood is merely a social role anyone can play if only they learn the part…. The biosocial perspective presented in this essay leads to the conclusion that we as a society should be doing much more to halt the growth of stepfamilies. It is important to give great respect to those stepfamilies that are doing their job well, and to provide both assistance and compassion for those that are experiencing difficulties. But such efforts should not overshadow the paramount importance of public policies designed to promote and preserve two-biological-parent families, and of endeavors to reverse the cultural drift toward radical individualism and the decline of marriage. ReferencesBellah, R. N., Madsen, R., Sullivan, W. M., Swidler, A., & Tipton, S. M. (1985). Habits of the heart: Individualism and commitment in american life. Berkeley: University of California. Daly, M., & Wilson, M. (1987). The Darwinian psychology of discriminative parental solicitude. Nebraska Symposium on Motivation. Draper, P.,& Harpending, H. (1987). Parent investment and the child's environment. In J. B. Lancaster, J. Altmann, A. S. Rossi, & L. R. Sherrod (Eds.), Parenting across the life span: Biosocial dimensions (pp. 207–235). New York: Aldine De Gruyter. Espenshade, T. J. (1985). The recent decline of american marriage. In K. Davis (Ed.), Contemporary marriage (pp. 53–90). New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Frayser, S. (1985). Varieties of sexual experience: An anthropological perspective on human sexuality, New Haven, CT: HRAF Press. Furstenberg, F. F., Jr. (1990). Divorce and the American family. Annual Review of Sociology, 16, 379–403. Furstenberg, F. F., Jr., & Nord, C. W. (1985). Parenting apart: Patterns of childbearing after marital disruption. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 47(4), 893–905. Furstenberg, F. F., Jr., Nord, C. W., Peterson, J. L., & Zill, N. (1983). The life course of children of divorce: Marital disruption and parental contact. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 656–658. Hallpike, C. R. (1986). The principles of social evolution. Oxford: Clarendon. Hernandez, D. J. (1993). America's children. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Kiernan, K. E. (1992). The impact of family disruption in childhood on transitions made in young adult life. Population Studies, 46, 213–234. Lancaster, J. B., & Lancaster, C. S. (1987). The watershed: Change in parental-investment and family formation strategies in the course of human evolution. In J. B. Lancaster, J. Altmann, A. S. Rossi, & L. R. Sherrod (Eds.), Parenting across the life span: Biosocial dimensions (pp. 187–205). New York: Aldine de Gruyter. Mott, F. L. (1990). When is father really gone? Paternal-child contact in father absent homes. Demography, 27(4), 499–517. Scott, J. P. (1989). The evolution of social systems. New York: Gordon & Breach. Seltzer, J. A., & Bianchi, S. M. (1988). Children's contact with absent parents. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 50, 663–677. Shuttle diplomacy. (1993, July/August). Psychology Today, p. 15. Thomson, E., McLanahan, S. S., & Curtin, R. B. (1992). Family structure, gender, and parental socialization. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 54(2), 368–378. Wilson, M. I., & Daly, M. (1987). Risk of maltreatment of children living with step-parents. In R. J. Gelles & J. B. Lancaster (Eds.), Child abuse and neglect: Biosocial dimensions (pp. 215–232). New York: Aldine de Gruyter. From David Popenoe, "The Evolution of Marriage and the Problem of Stepfamilies: A Biosocial Perspective," in Alan Booth and Judy Dunn, eds., Stepfamilies: Who Benefits? Who Does Not? (Lawrence Erlbaum, 1994). Copyright © 1994 by Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Reprinted by permission. Notes and some references omitted. NOLawrence A. Kurdek Remarriages and Stepfamilies Are Not Inherently ProblematicMy strongest reactions to [professor of sociology David] Popenoe's chapter ["The Evolution of Marriage and the Problem of Stepfamilies: A Biosocial Perspective," in Alan Booth and Judy Dunn, eds., Stepfamilies: Who Benefits? Who Does Not?] were disappointment and irritation…. I had expected a critical review of the factors that determine both relationship commitment (e.g., Kurdek, 1993a) and relationship stability (e.g., Kurdek, 1993b) in remarriages involving children. No such review was presented. Instead, Popenoe uses a biosocial perspective to make sweeping claims about the nature of family life that result in the conclusion that society should do more to halt the growth of stepfamilies…. Children of Stepfamilies Have as Many Behavioral and Emotional Problems as the Children of Single-Parent Families, and Possibly MoreMy response to this claim has four parts: (a) comparisons between family structures should include mention of the size of any obtained differences between these family structures, (b) comparisons among divorce-related family structures need to take into account the number of parental divorces experienced, (c) the key family structure comparison involves stepfamilies and single divorced-parent families, and (d) comparisons involving stepfamilies need to consider the structural heterogeneity of stepfamilies. I expand on each of these parts. In their influential meta-analysis of parental divorce and children's well-being, Amato and Keith (1991) presented information on the nature of differences between children in intact families and children in stepfamilies. True to the pattern Popenoe describes, relative to children in intact families, those in stepfamilies had more conduct problems, lower psychological adjustment, and lower self-esteem…. Although reliable, the differences between the two groups are fairly weak…. Based on evidence from the life events, attachment, and family process literatures, there is reason to expect that the children and adolescents most at risk for behavioral and emotional problems are not those in stepfamilies, but those who have experienced multiple parental divorces and, consequently, multiple parenting transitions. Although evidence on this point is limited, it is consistent. Studies that have examined the effects of parenting transitions on child and adolescent outcomes have typically compared four groups. These are children living continuously with both biological parents, children who have experienced one parental divorce and live with a single mother, children who have experienced one parental divorce and have made the additional transition to living with a mother and stepfather, and children who have experienced more than one parental divorce. Because of their relatively small numbers, children living with single divorced fathers and children living in stepmother families are usually excluded (see Kurdek & Fine, 1993). Across a range of outcome variables and sources of information, it is the multiple divorce group—not the stepfamily group—that differs most strongly and negatively from the two-parent group. In fact, few differences emerge between children living continuously with both biological parents and either children living with a singly divorced mother or children living in a stepfather family. These findings lead to the plausible conclusion that what negatively affects children's well-being is not so much the kind of family structure in which they happen to reside, but the history of the quality and consistency of the parenting they receive…. Despite the emphasis Popenoe places on family structure, he fails to recognize that stepfamilies themselves are quite structurally diverse. To his credit, he does note that stepfamilies may result from parental death, parental abandonment, or parental divorce. However, he does not mention that there may be important differences between stepfather families and stepmother families, or that the remarriage history of each spouse may affect the stability of the remarriage. Nor does he state that a joint consideration of the husbands' and wives' parent and custody status relevant to previous marriages leads to at least nine types of stepfamilies, and highlights the distinction between residential and nonresidential stepfamilies, or that a substantial number of children—as many as 300,000 children for women in second marriages alone—are born into stepfamilies (Wineberg, 1992). Given such diversity within stepfamily structures, the general and unqualified claim that stepfamilies are no better than single-parent families in unfounded. Stepfamilies Are More Unstable Than Intact FamiliesPopenoe claims that one problematic aspect of stepfamilies is their high breakup rate. However, a close reading of the limited data on this topic reveals that the findings on this issue are actually inconsistent. Most of the evidence concerns the stability of second marriages. Some of these studies report no difference in the marital stability of second marriers with and without children. Others report slightly higher instability rates for second marriers with children compared to those without children. Still others report that for second-marriers, a slightly increased instability rate occurs only for dissolutions occurring within the first 5 years of remarriage and that the birth of children to a mother in a second marriage increases the stability of that remarriage (Wineberg, 1992). In short, because stepfamilies are a diverse group, it is misleading to characterize their stability as if they represented a homogeneous group. The current evidence gives every reason to expect that stability rates of remarriages vary by divorce history and parent history of each spouse; length of remarriage; age, gender, and pattern of residence for stepchildren; and whether mutual children are born to spouses in the stepfamily. A Biosocial Perspective Leads to the Conclusion That Stepfamilies Are Intractably ProblematicPopenoe claims that in order to understand the special problems posed by stepfamilies, one must consider the biosocial nature of human family life. Based on an evolutionary biology perspective, Popenoe states that the organization of the human nuclear family is based on two inherited biological predispositions that confer reproductive success. The first predisposition operates between parents and children and entails advancing the interests of genetic relatives over those of unrelated individuals. The second predisposition operates between parents and concerns affective attachments between males and females. These seem like reasonable propositions. Popenoe further notes that family instability can be linked to the fact that human beings are more interested in themselves than in their own relatives, results from men being more sexually driven and promiscuous than women, and that because human pair bonds are fragile, men and women follow different reproductive strategies: Men inseminate as many women as possible, whereas women withhold reproductive access until they can be certain that the male will commit his resources to his offspring. I see two major problems with using these points to support the argument that childrearing by nonrelatives is inherently problematic. First, Popenoe ignores evidence that although the roles consistent with each gender's reproductive strategy do a reasonable job of accounting for differences between men and women in sexual attraction and mate selection, these same roles actually contribute to relationship problems and relationship instability. In what he termed the fundamental paradox, Ickes (1993) noted a tension between what genes predispose us to do in finding a mate and what current culture prescribes us to do in living happily with that mate. That is, although our evolutionary past may account for partner attraction, our cultural present accounts for how nonexploitative, equal partner relationships are established and maintained. Second, Popenoe does not use the term paternal investment very clearly, but I assume he means that biological fathers in stable marriages are directly —and not just genetically—involved in childrearing. However, most of the normative descriptive data on this topic indicate that although fathers believe they should be directly involved in their children's lives, most are not (Thompson & Walker, 1989)…. Thus, the bystander role played by some stepfathers may be functionally similar to the indirect parenting role played by some biological fathers…. Family Life in the 1950s Was Better Than Contemporary Family LifeI agree with Popenoe that it is important to place family life within a larger sociocultural context. Further, no one could disagree that divorce rates began to accelerate in the 1960s. However, I strongly disagree with Popenoe's claim that the 1950s were an era of remarkable familism and family togetherness. Certainly, marital stability rates were high at this time in history. Nonetheless, there is ample evidence that stable marriages are not necessarily happy or healthy marriages. In addition, prospective longitudinal studies that have assessed the same group of children when they lived with both parents as well as when they lived with a divorced single parent indicate that the relatively adverse functioning of children who have experienced parental divorce is predicted by conditions in the intact family that existed well before the divorce…. What irritates me most about the claim of familism in the 1950s is that it seems to value marital stability for stability's sake. Home, motherhood, and children did rank high among U.S. cultural values, yet current data on middle-aged persons who were children during this era strongly suggest that what transpired in many of these families belied these values. That is, the culture of the family was at odds with the conduct of the family. How can Popenoe extol the somewhat superficial endorsement of familism during this era in light of evidence that many children in these highly stable families were exposed to an interconnecting web of family conflict, domestic violence, harsh and inconsistent discipline, alcoholism, and, in some instances, abuse and neglect? Two biological parents were physically present in many of these families, but at what cost? The Family Is Being DeinstitutionalizedPopenoe rightly notes that marriage as a social institution has evolved in form and function to adapt to new economic, social, cultural, and even phychological settings. But for some reason, Popenoe does not seem to think that the current nature of the institution of marriage reflects this continuous process of economic, social, cultural, and psychological change. One of the most peculiar aspects to Popenoe's chapter is that although he endorses a grand model of change (the biosocial, evolutionary perspective), he urges us as members of society to put an end to a family form that could be viewed as the result of the very economic, social, cultural, and psychological changes that preceded it. … Like it or not, women are no longer economically dependent on their husbands. Like it or not, women no longer need to define themselves in terms of their social roles as wives and mothers. Like it or not, women benefit from participating in roles other than or in addition to that of mother. Like it or not, men and women are going to renege on vows of lifetime commitments to one person because life with that one person sometimes reaches intolerable limits that could not be foreseen at the time of marriage. Finally, like it or not, as a result of these economic, social, cultural, and psychological dimensions of contemporary life, many children will experience the stresses associated with parenting transitions. ReferencesAmato, P. R., & Keith, B. (1991). Parental divorce and the well-being of children: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 110, 26–46. Ickes, W. (1993). Traditional gender roles: Do they make, and then break, our relationships? Journal of Social Issues, 49, 71–85. Kurdek, L. A. (1993a). Determinants of relationship commitment: evidence from gay, lesbian, dating heterosexual, and married heterosexual couples. Manuscript submitted for publication. Kurdek, L. A. (1993b). Predicting marital dissolution from demographic, individual-differences, interdependence, and spouse discrepancy variables: A 5-year prospective longitudinal study of newlywed couples. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 221–242. Kurdek, L. A., & Fine, M. A. (1993). The relation between family structure and young adolescents' appraisals of family climate and parenting behavior. Journal of Family Issues, 14, 279–290. Thompson, L., & Walker, A. J. (1989). Women and men in marriage, work, and parenthood. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 51, 845–872. Wineberg, H. (1992). Childbearing and dissolution of the second marriage. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 54 879–887. From Lawrence A. Kurdek, "Remarriages and Stepfamilies Are Not Inherently Problematic," in Alan Booth and Judy Dunn, eds., Stepfamilies: Who Benefits? Who Does Not? (Lawrence Erlbaum, 1994). Copyright ©1994 by Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Reprinted by permission. Some references omitted. POSTSCRIPTAre Stepfamilies Inherently Problematic?Remarriage may mean additional family income and an extra adult in the family, but it also results in numerous stressors that may put children at risk. Because the physical and emotional health of children is closely linked to successful parental functioning, how well parents manage life transitions like divorce and remarriage is of great significance. If it is true that our genetic makeup as well as our cultural heritage leads us to designate "family" as a group of people with "blood" ties and assigns greater importance to the social, emotional, and material resources shared between people who demonstrate blood ties, then families of remarriage may have a double strike against them. Popenoe insists that biology and culture combine to determine parental behavior toward children. He believes that biological pre-dispositions influence parents to make stronger commitments to their birth children and that cultural beliefs buttress those "natural" tendencies. Without evidence of blood ties, Popenoe professes, men are predisposed to be less involved and supportive of children. He reasons that programs and policies that reduce rates of divorce and remarriage would help children by securing the attention of two attached, caring parents. In Growing Up With a Single Parent (Harvard University Press, 1994), Sara McLanahan and Gary Sandefur write that "stepfathers are less likely to be committed to the child's welfare than biological fathers, and they are less likely to serve as a check on mother's behavior." The authors assert that children often see the stepfather as a competitor for the mother's attention and love. McLanahan and Sandefur further state, "Children may reject their stepfathers because they resent having to share their mothers, or because they secretly hope their biological parents will get back together." If, as Popenoe suggests, parents are biologically as well as culturally pre-disposed to be less supportive of stepchildren, and if, at the same time, stepchildren typically report having difficulty accepting stepparents as "real" parents with rightful roles and responsibilities as caregivers, are stepfamilies destined to be problematic, even to fail? Popenoe would say yes. He argues that there is sufficient reason to believe that children fare worse in stepfamilies. Given his presentation of the evidence, should society be doing more to ensure that two-parent families stay together and work out their problems? On the other hand, if Kurdek is correct in his summary and evaluation of the research on stepfamilies, shouldn't society accept that divorce and remarriage are here to stay and begin to enact programs and policies that are more supportive of families of remarriage? If the traditional family of loving parents and cared-for children never really existed, as some believe, is it right to try to force families into cultural visions that do not match current societal expectations, values, and goals? Kurdek would say no. What do you say? Suggested ReadingsP. R. Amato, "Children's Adjustment to Divorce: Theories, Hypotheses, and Empirical Support," Journal of Marriage and the Family, 55 (1993): 23–38. W. R. Beer, American Stepfamilies (Transaction, 1992). A. Booth & J. N. Edwards, "Starting Over: Why Remarriages Are More Unstable," Journal of Family Issues, 13 (1992): 179–194. A. J. Cherlin, Marriage, Divorce, and Remarriage (Harvard University Press, 1992). A. J. Cherlin & F. F. Furstenberg, "Stepfamilies in the United States: A Reconsideration," Annual Review of Sociology, 20 (1994): 359–381. R. M. Counts, "Second and Third Divorces: The Flood to Come," Journal of Divorce and Remarriage, 17 (1992): 193–200. L. H. Ganong & M. Coleman, Remarried Family Relationships (Sage Publications, 1994). S. McLanahan & G. Sandefur, Growing Up With a Single Parent: What Hurts? What Helps? (Harvard University Press, 1994). P. L. Papernow, Becoming a Stepfamily (Jossey-Bass, 1993). Internet: http://www.parentsplace.com/readroom/stepfamily/index.html |
| Previous | Section IV Contents |
|