Faceoff: Should the nuclear family remain indispensable?
The Messenger' debates on whether traditional family (biological mother, father, and children) should stay the norm.
The old-fashioned, “perfect” family has become less and less the norm these days.
Graphic by Meghana Ramineni, Editor-in-Chief
Yes
Brandon Tung, Staff Writer
When one hears the term “nuclear family,” what immediately comes to mind? Do you think of a family that is heavily conflicted, so much so that the tension in the room gives off the energy of a nuclear bomb? Or would it be a family that is struggling to survive the harsh aftermath of the nuclear apocalypse? Unfortunately, as much as I would like to tell you that a nuclear family is a post-apocalyptic, war-torn family, it is simply a family that consists of a couple and a varying amount of children, usually two. This image of two parents and two children has solidified over time as the defining trait of nuclear families. According to Britannica, however, in the updated definition of a nuclear family, a couple can consist of both married or unmarried adults, same-sex marriages/relationships as well, and children that can be adopted. This should clear up some of the politically-influenced problems that may impact or influence the indispensability of the nuclear family.
The nuclear family is considered to be the most basic social unit, and thus the question arises: should the nuclear family remain indispensable? To be considered indispensable, the nuclear family would have to be an utter necessity. For it to be an utter necessity in society, we must find its connection to the bigger picture.
The biggest argument against nuclear families is whether or not they are the foundation of a society. Are nuclear families utterly necessary to keep a society running? Well, nuclear families promote longevity and the passing of connections through history. I admit there are several cases where one does not fit into a nuclear family or simply is incapable of forming one. For instance, if there is one person living by themselves, then that is not a nuclear family. The same would go for two, three, or even 1 million people living together in a relationship; as long as there are no children, then it is not categorized as a nuclear family. Also, in terms of categorizing, what constitutes a child? Would something that you made with your own blood, sweat, and tears and hold in your heart and love dearly be considered as your child? If so, then I have plenty of LEGO children. There are so many nooks and crannies that cannot be explored in the given amount of time when answering this question; however, the thought of a traditional—nuclear—family continues to drive the notion of success and strength within families in America. It is this traditional thought, rather than the actual presence of nuclear families, that ensures that nuclear families must remain indispensable as they are highly influential in regards to the social dynamics of America. It is these family values of positive behavior and service associated with children of nuclear families that influence the many people who are not a part of nuclear families. Yes, through time these guidelines have included that the parents are two individuals only, that all members within a nuclear family are to be human (watch out for the Daleks), and that children can be adopted or of blood/breed, but cannot be conceived through some form of dark magic. And still, the guidelines have changed through time to stray away from the previous, traditional definition of a nuclear family. A person may not be able to insert themselves with a nuclear family, however, the presence of nuclear families in America consistently projects the traits associated with these families upon others. And so, it is the nuclear family dynamics, rather than the guidelines for what constitutes a nuclear family, that create the greatest impact on our society and therefore reveal that nuclear families are essential.
No matter what you may think or argue, a society must have the essential food, water, shelter, and energy to survive. A society is built upon communities, which are built upon education and social order, including supply and demand, trade, agriculture, economy, and all that good stuff. Starting from the basics, the vast majority functions of society stem from human actions and behavior (or if you can prove me otherwise, give me a call, and I’ll pay you handsomely). Where do human beings develop and thrive? Families. Or more specifically, within the dynamics of nuclear families; when a society advances, it is due to the families that make up the very communities that society works to advance. If society is to remain intact, then the nuclear family, the giga-max evolved form of the societal family, is undeniably going to and should remain an indispensable piece for many years to come.
No
Disha Kumar, Staff Writer
What comes to mind when you think of a family? A mother, a father, and their two children? This is what has been termed the nuclear family, sanctified as the “normal” family.
This mindset, however, inherently suggests that all other family types are an aberration from the norm. Although nuclear families are the majority in the U.S., their number has dwindled over the past few decades.
Skeptics wag a finger at this trend and blame the increasing omnipresence of non-nuclear households for a number of societal issues. Yet what they fail to realize is that the societal implications which stem from these families are no new phenomenon. Whether they are the extended families of the Chinese Song Dynasty or the rise of single-parent families after World War I, non-nuclear families have been around for centuries. So what exactly is the problem?
Nuclear families are often associated with “consistency” and “stability.” Does this mean that single parents and same-sex couples are unable to provide the adequate childcare that a traditional husband-wife pair is believed to? Too often, people conflate religious ideas with others’ personal lifestyle choices, deeming non-nuclear households blasphemous and incapable of caring for their children, that is, if they have any. These viewpoints tug at the heartstrings of contemporary families who do not conform to the beliefs of theological conservatism. The controversy surrounding the increasing ubiquity of non-nuclear families not only poses a moral dilemma for those who seek to adopt such a lifestyle, but also raises questions about the practices of these households.
Proponents of a nuclear lifestyle attribute several familial issues to single or homosexual parents. For example, they believe that unconventional forms of kinship can cause children to have disrupted upbringings and miss out on the opportunities that other children experience, leading to problems that persist into adulthood. The belief that homosexual parents are unable to love their children as their own or that single parents will only provide half of the support their children need, absurd as it is, is held by many. The ideals associated with nuclear households can lead many to strive for an unattainable lifestyle: one that involves them changing their daily preferences and binds them to daily responsibilities they need to fulfill—ones they may not be ready for.
For instance, families with single mothers are the second most common family type in the U.S. To burden these mothers with the idea that they need to remarry to raise children is remarkably insensitive and comes from a place of severe privilege. By denying individuals the right to choose their own lifestyles, we are stripping them of their inalienable right to pursue happiness.
Aristotle’s idea of true happiness is premised on making choices: ones that lead to the knowledge, relationships, and goods that an individual needs in life. When you take this choice away from people, you are condemning them to a life of monotony. This is not too far from the lives people live under an autocratic society, albeit governmental absolutism is different from the personal choices people make—but the principle remains the same.
Coming from a place of privilege, I am able to acknowledge the stereotypes and ideals tied to each type of household. I would be lying if I said that I came from the “perfect nuclear family”: a mother, a father, and their two children. The difference being that one of those children is a dog, who is adopted, of course. But that is not the reason why my family is not “perfect.” If our society consisted only of cookie-cutter households, that would be boring. In fact, do we not celebrate the very opposite? On Thanksgiving, we gather with distant relatives; does this not perpetuate the idea that having extended family over is a good thing? There are orphanages housing children waiting to be adopted; does this not suggest that these kids are also capable of attaining an enjoyable lifestyle? It is time we move past the notion that only one family type is acceptable and that the nuclear family should remain indispensable.
