David Popenoe's American Family Decline, 1960-1990 was a very interesting social commentary on the state of the American family and it's seeming breakdown into the bare essentials, mother, father and child. His essay discusses the inevitable change from the 1950's nuclear family that took on a very different shape and scope then families today. He cites changes of women's equality, working, and economic independence as one of the key reasons for the breakup of the family. His conclusion is that the continual breakup of this family will have detrimental consequences for the future and for the children of these families. He states that divorce is on the rise and that people don't value marriage and children as much as they once did due to "me-reasons" (people are more self-interested than they once were and aren't as likely to give up personal ambitions to support a family." Essentially he states that the main structures that hold a family together are being torn apart: procreation, socialization of children, affection, companionship, economic cooperation, and sexual regulation. He asserts that many of these structures have been better placed in different institutions (ie. education to the public school system and out of the home) but that it's leaving little left for the family and time together. His critics, Stacey and Cowan both seem to agree with his main statement that family is in decline but disagree about the details. Stacey who supports a seemingly more liberal approach to this idea says that his definition of a family doesn't allow room for change and seems to suggest that the changes are positive and are allowing for greater equality for women. She says that his evidence lacks proof and that he makes casual relationships between things that don't add up. Cowan also agrees that the American family is in decline but he states that Popenoe gives no advice on how to help it. He gives a lot of statistical facts that fail to appeal to any sort of sense and that he gives no sort of opinion on how to respond to these changes.

I am more likely to agree with Stacey. I thought Popenoe's analysis lacked any type of substantial argument either way and sort of just proposed facts for the mere sake of proposing facts. I agree with her that the family is a lot more difficult to define now and that this is not necessarily a bad thing. Perhaps the traditional family is just something we created to feel emotional connection to another set of humans. It's not written in a textbook that a family consists of a mother, father, and child and that they have to live and support each other. This is a nice notion, and if it works it should continue to thrive, but it doesn't always and it's not something we should mold ourselves into for the sake of social convention. While I think the idea of family is important, because all humans need someone they can rely on to care for and love them. But this doesn't necessarily stem from a parent. Many times it doesn't. Often love and compassion is found from different sources entirely. Like Stacey states, we need to focus more on how to support the types of families that are emerging and not on preserving the traditional family --that isn't necessarily the best family structure.

I also agree with Cowan's observations. He states that Popenoe doesn't focus enough on consequences on the changing shape of the family on children. It could be for better or for worse, but Popenoe fails to adequately analyze these effects. I also believe that he doesn't really identify the positive aspects of the changing role of the family, --mother's working and becoming economically dependent. Cowan also brought up another good point, Popenoe fails to mention changes in technology and thought which have allowed for family planning, like of course birth control. It's entirely possible that families were so large in the 1950's because they need the kids to survive and support them in old age and additionally had no way in which to prevent more.

In conclusion, I agree most with Stacey's observations about the changing scope of the family and how we need to reevaluate our definition of what a family is before we start saying it's in decline. We need to figure out how to support the idea of a family that we have now instead of trying to recapture the past. Why should women stay in failed marriage just for the kids? That's illogical. Most likely the child will suffer greater consequences from living with unhappy parents then from seeing their parents separate. Also, many very responsible parents are single, gay, fathers etc. There is no reason to say why the biological nuclear family is the best.
I learned a lot about this argument but it's hard to draw any specific conclusions about the topic until you create a specific definition of the family in your head. Whether or not it is in decline is really irrelevant though, as long as people are growing up healthy and happy.