Consumer Culture and the Family Paradigm, Essay Example

According to a 1991 publication in The Nurse Practioner, the “Family paradigm theory explains variations in families that are based on their shared beliefs about the social world and their family’s place within it (Campbell 1). However, it is essential to consider that the beliefs and values we share as both individuals and families develop, in part, due to outside influence. In the modern world, it is impossible to avoid the fact that media controls our lives. We are constantly connecting with one another through use of cell phones and the internet and when we rest for the day, we have the option to either watch television or sit outside. Throughout all of these activities, we are faced with messages that are brought to us by companies from across the country and world. While we believe that they have no influence on our personal choices, they are responsible for shaping what our society has become. They depict, how we should look, how we should behave, and how we should interact with one another, and in turn, they occasionally convince us to purchase their product. Ultimately, consumer culture has impacted the family paradigm by changing its essence; different media messages throughout the ages have effectively transformed our culture. As a consequence, gender roles have transformed in the home and can be readily observed by examining the consumer culture of various decades.

Advertising and our access to advertisements plays a major role in convincing us what our wants and needs should be. This has resulted in a major shift in the description of what consumer culture is in modern times and what it was in the early 1900’s. In “Nothing But Big Work: From Shipyard to Space, The Closing of The American Job”, Susan Faludi demonstrates this concept by describing the promise of work and opportunity that many men in the shipping business were given during the baby-boom generation (Faludi 662). It seemed that the shipping industry was indestructible; it was responsible for bolstering the economy and enabling trade worldwide. Many companies wanted to profit from this opportunity, so it seemed that the job availability in this field was endless. However, while many businessmen were distracted by the potential that shipping had, others dedicated their time and resources to determining how trade and transportation could be made more effective. As a consequence, commercial aerospace and freight trains were emphasized. The uprising of these two industries led to the downfall of the shipping industry, and many shipping workers lost their jobs.

When many former shipping workers lost their ability to support their whole family, many workers needed to begin to rely on their wives to earn additional income. Although women did not make as much money as men and were not able to pursue as lucrative positions, they worked hard to ensure that enough money would be collectively earned to support the family. Before this event, women served primarily as housekeepers and mothers and rarely worked positions outside the home. After this event, factory jobs and domestic positions became more commonplace for these individuals. As a result, the downfall of the shipping industry led to the shift of the women’s place being solely in the home to one that resembled a partnership with her husband in order to support the family.

“Branding The American Family” by Laura Oswald helps bridge the gap between the family paradigm that existed in the 1960’s and the one that currently exists in the modern era. She claims that one of the major factors that led to the decline of patriarchy is market segmentation. As stated earlier, there is a clear connection between social institutions and marketing communication (Oswald 311). This communication in marketing detracted from the role of wants and needs of the family as a whole to the wants and needs of the individual. Essentially, this contributed to the downfall of the patriarchal family by emphasizing the differing wants and needs of each individual in the family. This phenomenon marked a shift in the decision making process that occurs within the family; while the father was expected to make a majority of the decisions in the 1960’s, this was found to no longer be the case in the modern era. Instead, the family functions as a decentralized network of relationships in which each family member is able to speak on his or her opinion. Typically, this culminates in the mother and father making a combined decision.

While the above example only considers the family paradigm in terms of a traditional family, it is essential to consider that the definition of family has changed significantly since the 1960’s. In a patriarchal society, lesbian and gay families were not included in the understanding of what a true family is. However, this view has changed significantly in modern times. This demonstrates that there is not only a shift away from the patriarchal family structure, but a complete lack of patriarchal authority in some instances. This occurrence is reflected in the modern workforce. Before the 1960’s men worked virtually all jobs outside the home. After this decade, women began to perform basic jobs. By the 1970’s and 80’s however, women had begun to comprise about half of the workforce and many had been awarded leadership positions within their companies.

It is interesting to note that women have become more prevalent in the workforce because the media led society to believe that it was okay to do so. After marketing segmentation techniques targeted women for specific products and they had the ability to make their own purchasing decision, they felt empowered because they were considered to be relevant enough to be addressed personally. When marketing agencies recognized that this marketing technique was helping them sell product, this sensation increased, and women tended to become more independent. Today, women are seen as near equals to men, and this is continuously reflected in the media. However, this phenomenon will only allow equal rights to the extent that companies are able to sell products; any women’s rights movements past this initial phase have not been widely successful. It is obvious that even though women work similar jobs to men, they are not paid equally and are less likely to land leadership positions compared to their male counterparts. “Why Women Still Can’t Have It All” by Anne Marie Slaughter makes the reasoning behind this clear.

The traditional role of women as home keepers is the opposite of what many women living in the modern era desire. Instead, they envision that they will have successful careers and exceed the expectations that many have of them purely based on their gender. While some women can achieve this and be happy, others feel that there are many tradeoffs for this type of lifestyle. Anne Marie Slaughter talks about this phenomenon as it applies to her personal life, although it is likely that many other women agree with her point of view. Slaughter boasts that she is the first woman director of policy planning at the State Department, and while many women should be excited about obtaining this status, she finds that it is often difficult to focus on her career because she is worried about her children (Slaughter 1). Slaughter discusses that women are often forced to have a dual role in modern society; on one end, it is expected that women make something of themselves and have a successful career and on the other end, it is expected that they perform their duties as a mother and a member of the family. Unfortunately, the transition from women as mothers to women as workers has not changed much in this sense of the family paradigm; women are still expected to be the primary caretakers of their children and many believe this of themselves as well. Furthermore, extra pressure is put on these individuals because rather than a complete paradigm shift, they are now expected to take on more responsibilities to support and care for the family.

Unfortunately, the line that divides the paid line that divides the paid sphere of labor and unpaid sphere of home is blurred. While media has allowed women to become equal in the workforce and the family paradigm has shifted to allow this, women still remain unequal in the home. There are very few situations in which men are the primary caretakers of children and in cases where both family members work lucrative jobs, the mother is still expected to take on the primary responsibility of caring for and raising children. It is likely that the future of the family paradigm will continue in this direction. If women are allowed equal pay and higher positions within their companies, it will not offset the expectation that they are needed in the home. As a consequence, even more pressure will be placed on these individuals while the hope of achieving true equality inside the home will be even further.

Works Cited

Campbell DW. “Family paradigm theory and family rituals: implications for child and family health”. The Nurse Practitioner Feb. 1991: 16(2):22, 25-6, 31.

Faludi S. Stiffed: The Betrayal of the American Man. Harper Perennial, 2000.

Oswald L. “Branding the American Family: A Strategic Study of the Culture, Composition, and Consumer Behavior of Families in the New Millennium”. The Journal of Popular Culture 2003: 37(2): 309-335.

Slaughter A. “Why Women Still Can’t Have It All”. July/August 2002. Web. 12 March 2014. <http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/07/why-women-still-cant-have-it-  all/309020/>