The idealism of these approaches is countered by many social scientists who believe that the nuclear family can be extremely damaging for its members. Radical psychologist R. D. Laing lays the blame for serious psychiatric conditions such as schizophrenia, squarely on the shoulders of the nuclear family. He and others who share his views see the family as an oppressive force in the lives of its members. Cooper even suggests that only a complete change of how society performs the job of raising its next generation can improve the lives of individuals and the oppressed masses. Whilst these views can sometimes be seen as being extreme these arguments find evidence from research into domestic violence and abuse. Dobash and Dobash found that 97% of reported domestic violence was committed against women, although this is a shocking figure it is seen as being the ‘tip of the ice berg’ as most domestic violence goes unreported and prosecutions are rare.
Divorce and marital breakdown are viewed by many as being firm evidence to support the claim that the nuclear family is facing a crisis. The statistics do indicate an increase, over time, of the numbers of divorces in the UK. For example, 40% of new marriages will end in divorce. Many argue that the cause of this trend are the progressive changes to the law over the past 50 years. In the 1950s it was considerably more difficult to obtain a divorce than in is in 2008. Major legislation includes the Matrimonial and family proceedings Act in 1984 which made it possible to get a divorce after one year of marriage, considerably less time than before. This change is seen as being responsible for an upturn in the number of divorces granted and later the law was changed to encourage mediation and reconciliation which now stipulates that couples seeking divorce must wait one year and attend mediation to make sure that if the marriage can be ‘saved’ then it is given every opportunity to be so before divorce is granted. The argument that changes in the law are responsible for divorce is too simplistic, people do not get divorced simply because the law says it is OK to do so. Indeed, it is impossible to tell the true extent of marital breakdown before the divorce laws as it was hidden by ‘empty shell’ marriages where people might ‘keep up appearances’ for ‘the sake of the children’ or social acceptance, as of course, divorce and the failure of a marriage was viewed shamefully by society at that time. Changes to the law merely facilitate the solution to a problem previously hidden by laws and attitudes that trapped people in unhappy marriages.
Most divorces are requested by women, this is evidence of the changes to the lives of women in British society. Changes to the economy have led to a ‘feminisation’ of the workforce with women able to pursue careers and achieve an economic security not possible before changes to attitudes and laws about sexist practices in the workplace. Women have increasingly been able to take more control over their own lives and careers and are perhaps wanting more from their relationships with men than in the past. Hart has argued that the increase in the divorce rate clearly indicates a ‘consumerist approach’ to marriage. As with our role of consumers we are less and less likely to ‘make do’ with something once it ceases to please us. For example we are more likely to buy a new television to replace a ‘faulty’ (or even merely less fashionable) set rather than try to fix the one we already have. For Hart the same is true of our attitude to marriage; once it ceases to please us we seek to replace the old with a better, more desirable arrangement than try to repair it. Essentially divorce is a result of a more ‘throwaway’ attitude to marriage. Goode supports this idea by contending that as the moral significance of marriage declines so too does the value we place on our own marriages per se, rather the focus is on individual fulfilment and happiness. If the marriage is not meeting our personal needs and making us happy then we are far more inclined to reject the relationship in favour of one that it more mutually beneficial, without the consequences of social disapproval or economic insecurity.
Marriage has already been mentioned and requires further examination. Over the past 30 years the rate of first marriages has declined, people are leaving it later to get married, preferring to co-habit before marriage and to concentrate on education and careers before having children. This is seen by some as being evidence for a decline in significance of marriage in society. However, the decline of first marriage offset against the increase in people remarrying. The number of remarriages has made up for the shortfall of people waiting longer to marry and marriage statistics indicate that when looked at as a whole, marriage is, in fact, buoyant. The changes to the law in 2005, making it possible for gay men and women to get married and enjoy the same recognition of their civil-partnerships in the law as heterosexual marriage. It does appear then that marriage is still valued by society and is still something that people desire. The majority of people cohabiting are thinking about marriage (Chester, 1984) and serial monogamy increasingly replaces only one partner for a life time. Perhaps the family is adapting to fit the demands of our modern society rather than experiencing a decline in significance?
Rapoport argues that there is not an idea form of family that suits everyone. In fact our modern society enables choice in the relationships we have and how we choose to shape them is based on what we want and need. The nuclear family is an option, but there are other options too, this is not a threat to the nuclear family but is a positive move towards choice and personal fulfilment.
In conclusion, although the evidence of marriage and divorce statistics suggests that there are changes to the nuclear family, they can not be taken at face value as the picture is much more complex and are not on their own an indication of the decline of the nuclear family. Family diversity, choice, gender equality in the workplace and improved opportunities for women, consumer culture, serial monogamy, divorce and marriage are indications of the emergence of a modern family form that is defined by the individuals within those families, rather than conforming to a ‘one size fits all’ approach. The arguments suggest that the family is not in decline but that it constantly adapts to the needs of its members and the society within which they live
