Is the nuclear family the only stable enviroment for children to grow up in?

[The Don]

As I’m sure many of you have noticed, the extent of family diversity has increased rapidly over the years, if you went back 30/40 years, majority of the population's families would be a 'nuclear' family, whereas today, you have families with dual earning parents, extended families, reconstituted families and even families with same sex parents.

If you aren't aware, a nuclear family consists typically of a married couple with children, where the man would go out to work and the woman will stay at home to cook, clean and look after the house/children.

Some people would argue that this typical formation of the family represses women and restricts their freedom. Others would argue that children from this type of family typically end up with better, higher paying jobs and are less likely to turn to crime.
So anyway, here’s the question. Do you think the traditional family is the most suitable environment for children to be raised in, or do you think that the family type doesn’t matter as long as they have all the care and support they need?

[Mathew]

I don't really have an opinion on this because I'm completely in the middle. You can see pros and cons for each side. I studied this stuff for AS Sociology last year and enjoyed it SO much; after all, half of the course is on Family and Households! Whilst I won't be contributing to the debate right now, I look forward to seeing what people say about the topic!

[buttons]

ncan not be assed with this debate cause dan won't take "no" as an answer to this question, reckons anyone not in a nuclear family is from a 'broken home' but you know broken home refers to any type of family. just wanted to point out that a nuclear family is NOT traditional, only been in the past 30/40 years like you said. look at italy/asia for example, their 'traditional' family is the extended family of grandparents, aunts etc - think greece is the same. traditionally and NATURALLY worldwide, two parent families were unheard of. the guys would have many kids to many woman and the woman would look after the child(ren). however, times have changed, women dont need to marry to depend on men and can work themselves and divorce is also easier so we see more single-parent families. while the nuclear family has its advantages its not necessarily the best, an unloving mother and/or father is far more damaging than a loving single parent. even then it doesnt have to be a mother, just someone that cares for you, biologically or not - hence why i'm also for adoptio. it's how you're brought up, not necessarily by whom. my opinion anyway n i feel fairly strongly about it but dont feel like wasting my time here.

[Hecktix]

As a psychologist I don't believe that the nuclear family is beneficial for children. Research has shown that at birth a child only has the need to bond with it's mother (this research also changed systems such as ensuring whenever possible a mother is with her newborn baby in hospital at all times). It is thought that this bond is the most important aspect of that child's individual development. I believe this is true. Some psychodynamic theorists such as Erikson proposed that during these stages the child will make unconscious choices, Erikson's first stage being the choice of Trust V Mistrust. It isn't necessarily a "choice" but more of a passing through a stage but it's also referred to as a choice as things that can happen can affect it, for instance if a mother neglects a baby they will choose mistrust and generally have a mistrust of people of a caring position. If it's all smooth, they learn to trust. If you think about this it makes sense. Erikson is an interesting psychologist to look into, especially if you're someone who saw what Freud was trying to get at with his stages of development (with the sleeping with your mother part removed).

I'm not going to back any more of this up with theory as it's late and I have a 10am start, but I believe that this initial bond can be with anybody. Although there is evidence to show prenatal learning, such as a child recognising it's own mothers voice from being just a few hours old I don't think this is relevant to the bond a baby forms with it's carer at birth - note I said carer where in the first paragraph I said mother, most theory refers to mother although a lot of this theory is very old and outdated and the new theorists and journals are much harder to remember as half of them are crap. Basically, I think looking at it from a 21st century perspective that as long as a baby makes that initial bond with a caring figure, mother, father, adoptive mother, adoptive father, adoptive homosexual father, whoever then that child has hit the first criteria of a successful and happy development, it's important for this figure to maintain it's care throughout the childhood, other figures may appear and bonds with these figures can appear but the bond will always be strongest with the carer who formed the initial bond with the child, there's evidence of mothers who suffered from post-natal depression who rejected their children not being as close to their children as the father later on in early childhood, although this is difficult to measure as in the 21st century a favourite parent tends to be the person who treats the child the most (whether this be in a material way or other).

So no, a nuclear family is not the only way to ensure a child has a stable mental and social development, as long as the child can form an initial bond at birth with a caring figure and this caring figure is there throughout childhood with or without other figures then the child can develop in a stable manner. There's even evidence to suggest that at certain ages, the figure who formed the initial bond can actually be replaced, although this is more successful with certain ages and I can't remember which or why. This certainly doesn't fit in with the nuclear family.

Naturally, divorce hurts a child and causes issues for the childs development but this isn't in support of the nuclear family either, as divorce could have a similar impact to a child as say, a loved grandparent dying or a friend. These things aren't related to the nuclear family but can impact the development in the exact same way? Surely this is more trauma associated than what kind of family it is?

That is my viewpoint as a psychologist, a scientific viewpoint really. Scientifically if a child is born into a family (whether that's naturally, or handed over through adoption) that child's mental and social development will be the exact same quality irrelevant of family structure providing the basic needs of an initial bond and latter care and love are met. However that's not to say that there aren't benefits to the nuclear family, however I feel that the only benefits are actually quite sad.

I think the only benefit to being brought up in a nuclear family is avoiding prejudice. Whilst the family will provide all it can for the child and scientifically tick all the boxes to help them develop, a non-nuclear family can be frowned upon by society. Single parents, homosexual parents, a working mother and stay at home dad etc can all be frowned upon. Fortunately, with the way our society is changing this should gradually get less and less, single parents and stay at home dads are viewed with less negativity nowadays than they would have 15-30 years ago but children with homosexual parents get bullied all the time at school still, as do those with single parents or stay at home fathers but this is less common nowadays. Obviously, such occurrences can impact development and it is a direct result of the family status, it may break the trust the child had with the initial-bond figure.

The fact that the only advantage of a nuclear family I can think of is that a child won't be victimised for having a "different" family to normal is something I personally find quite despicable. I am just glad that we are slowly moving away from these prejudices however I feel it will be a long time until they are gone entirely, when they are - the nuclear family will be useless and a thing of the past.

To answer the question bluntly, no - a nuclear family is not the only way to bring up a child in a stable environment and I think in 50 or so years the term "nuclear family" won't really be used, as family will become a collective term and it will be universally accepted (as it already is in some societies, as buttons pointed out - I answered this from a Western perspective) that families differ family to family.

[Metric1]

mom, step dad, 9 kids works for me

[GirlNextDoor15]

Well, talking about 'nuclear family', I seriously do not know where to start. There are a lot of pros and cons, like Mathew said.

To me, they both balance out each other.

The child will be able to grow up in a good environment as long as their parents (and relatives) care about them and give them all the support. Somehow, it kind of depends on what environment they live in. When you live in a poor countries like India and Africa, you can see that the nuclear family thingy doesn't work like what you said. Children at poor countries are brought up in a different kind of culture which money, weapons and sons matter the most. That will change the children's mindset a lot. You cannot blame them. You can only blame the culture. But, you still cannot change anything. It takes a lot of effort to change their mindset and the environment because the culture is already there for decades.

Plus, wise and loving parents does not mean that their children will have good income jobs in the future.
What if they are NEGATIVELY influenced by their close friends? I'm pretty sure their parents cannot choose who they befriend and so on. It will only limit their social freedom, make them go unsatisfied and finally, they'll become 'no good' children of the future.

What about their parents are just too busy to take care of their children?
Fyi, there's a kindergarten beside my school and so, I always observe what's going on there. Well, not always but sometimes. Haha.. naughty me. Ok. Back to the point. Usually, I see parents sending their children ranging from 2 years old to 5 years old to the kindergarten. You might say that a kindergarten is a place for children to make new friends and learn ABCDs..

But, no. The reality tells me that parents send them there due to lack of time to take care of them. So, that's mainly why you can see babies or 1-2 years old children at kindergartens. Other than that, there are also parents who would send them to their grandparents or caretaker. Those are the general uncertainties about the environment children grow up in.

Well, after talking so and so, I think you get what I mean. They will not have the time to get to know their parents and they will turn to their friends. Then, friends will be closer to them than parents and there'll be fights/arguments in that family.

But, what about their parents still find time to interact with their children although they are really busy? That makes a whole world of difference. With nice interactions and understanding, the children will grow up better compared to parents who don't even give a **** about them.

Lastly, my answer is no. Nuclear family is NOT the ONLY stable environment for children to grow up in.

[Inseriousity.]

I would say that the nuclear family unit is actually less stable nowadays. It's only possible if one of the two parents (either mother or father) earns enough in their one job to sustain the family, which is impossible for the majority of families. Both parents need to work (my mum had 3 jobs at one point!). What is most important is love. Without sounding all Dumbledore, if a child knows that they are loved then they are likely to be more secure with various life challenges because they'll know they have a safety net to fall back on, regardless of whether it's 1 or 2 parents.

[Judas]

nahhhh

Edited by Infectious (Forum Super Moderator): Please do not make pointless posts!

[-:Undertaker:-]

...and yet despite all this 'research' by the sociologists (who also think that crime isn't to be blamed on the criminal, rather his background or society at large) that is so often quoted we have broken homes on estates which we never had on this scale before, children who have never known their fathers and know no discipline, mothers who rely on handouts from the state which then affects the children as they then see no need to commit themselves when they are older.

We rightly look down on divorce (or at least some of us still do) because it breaks a family up, and anybody who has attended school will notice, and i'm sorry for the sterotype here but its blindingly unavoidable, that the pattern is that children who have divorced parents/do not know one parent are more likely to be disruptive.

(as it already is in some societies, as buttons pointed out - I answered this from a Western perspective) that families differ family to family.

Actually I think you will both find that this is false. Asian families, especially Japanese families and religious families (Italy, Spain) are very conservative in their outlook in regards to the family and tend to uphold family values much more than we do today in the western world.

dan won't take "no" as an answer to this question

Correct, someone has yet to convince me that since the traditional family fell to the cultural revolutionaries during the 1960s, that family life is better or that parents are better than before. The opposite is the truth, following its [the traditional familys'] abolition.

[Ardemax]

Although if you are a male child in a family with a single parent, you become more protective in a sense, I think you are more liable to doing crimes.

I don't agree that women should stay home and do the cleaning, cooking and caring (we're not the Nazis, right?) but I think that without 2 parents, there is a high percentage unfortunately of you ending up in the wrong/not academically achieving what you are capable of.