The Myth and Reality of the “Traditional” Family, Article Critique Example

The word, “traditional” appears in the first sentence of this article and then not again until the top of page 3, which is located in “The 1950s Family” section, a period that many North Americans associate with traditional family life. This outlook was certainly helped along by such family shows as “Father Knows Best” and “Ozzie nnd Harriet” that became popular during that decade and the early 1960s. Yet, Coontz (1997) writes, “The 1950s family that resulted from these cultural and economic trends, was hardly ‘traditional.’ Indeed it is best seen as a historical aberration.” Consequently, this student is left wondering which were the decades of the traditional family—if, indeed, there was such a period– something to which Coontz seems to ascribe to, but does not say in her article. For many the traditional family seems to equate with “the good ol’ days,” which for many consist mostly of the 50s and the early 60s.

If there was—and if there is—a traditional family, then its characteristics should be quite recognizable. It is, however, virtually impossible to point to a family and say, “This is the traditional family” because there are many family forms. Diversity within the family structure has been with us since the colonial days. During those days, the extended family was more prominent than the nuclear family, a situation that was necessary so that no family would be alone. Wealthy settlers from Europe mostly formed nuclear families because they could afford to get needed help from poorer neighbors and relatives. Some also had indentured servants and slaves. As a result there were truncated families. Consequently, there existed three types of families; namely, the extended, the nuclear, and the truncated. In addition there was a fourth type that “built extensive kinship networks and obligations through fictive kin ties, ritual co-parenting or godparenting, adoption of orphans, and complex naming patterns designed to preserve family links across space and time” (ibid.). Which of these family types would have been considered the traditional family, the one to emulate? This student says, “none.” One characteristic that was, however, very strong among white families was absolute patriarchal authority. Although wealthy wives had it quite good, getting by in poor households was generally done on the backs of women, as it still is in many cases today. Patriarchal rule was still quite strong in the 1950s. Husbands to sign consent forms for operations

Today, we have married homosexual couples, couples cohabitating, singles, divorced parents, widowed parents, absent marriage partners, common law marriages, communal arrangements, single parent, the childless heterosexual couple, the heterosexual couple with 2.4 children, and blended families (Melville, 1980). This makes the traditional family seem more like a myth than a reality. In less than a month there will be a vote on Amendment One, which ” would make marriage between one man and one woman the only valid domestic legal union” (Northham, 2012). Coontz says that “some people say that traditional marriage is one man, one woman. Actually the most traditionally preferred marriage form is one man, many women. That’s also the type of marriage referred to most often in the first five books of the Bible” (ibid.). A quote such as this is badly needed in Coontz’s article being critiqued.

Works Cited

Coontz, Stephanie. The Way We Weren’t: The Myth and Reality of the “Traditional” Family. Reprinted from The way we really are. Basic Books, a division of Harper Collins Publishers, Toronto. 1997. Print.

Melville, Keith. Marriage and Family Today. Random House: New York. 1980. Print.

Northham, Ron (April 10, 2012). WCHL News Special with Stephanie Coontz Wednesday. Retrieved on April 10, 2012, from http://www.chapelboro.com/WCHL-News-Special-With-Stephanie-Coon.