No open-access location is known for this record yet.
No open-access location is known for this record yet.
Two contrasting interpretations of the consequences of change in the modern family have polarized scholars of the family. David Blankenhorn (1990) has appropriately nicknamed the debate optimism versus pessimism. Some optimists point out that with changing family patterns women have been able to move beyond the confines of the traditional nuclear family, and the concomitant result is that their status has risen dramatically (e.g., Schroeder, 1989). Others welcome the changes because of their implications for expanding the definition of the family to encompass diversity of form and membership (e.g., Stacey, 1993). There are pessimists, though, who claim that the situation has deteriorated for a segment of the population as a result of changing family patterns. These pessimists believe that the changes have created conditions that are detrimental to the well-being of children (e.g., Blankenhorn, 1990; Popenoe, 1988; 1993a). The weighting of the perceived consequences is important in determining which of these ideological stances is adopted because each side sees some merit in the claims advanced by the other (cf. Popenoe, 1993a; Stacey, 1993). Without question, the most prominent spokesperson for the pessimists is David Popenoe. In 1988 the publication of his book, Disturbing the Nest: Family Change and Decline in Modern Societies, set off the was escalated in 1993 by an article written by Popenoe (1993a) in Journal of Marriage and the Family, three responses to that article (Cowan, 1993; Glenn, 1993; Stacey, 1993), and the editor's (Coleman, 1993) note emphasizing the controversial nature of the article. The heat of the debate is reflected in the term, national family wars, which both Popenoe (1993b, p. 543) and Stacey (1993, p. 545) used to describe the dispute, in general, as well as the controversy surrounding Popenoe's work, in particular. Glenn (1993, p. 543) wrote, Many reactions to Popenoe's notion of family decline have been quite negative, some authors' rejection of it being stated with a vehemence uncharacteristic of most intellectual and academic debate. Popenoe himself said, It is a sad day for the social sciences when a family scholar cannot discuss, without being denounced, some possible problems connected with what has been one of the most dramatic social changes of the past three decades (1993b, p. 554). Popenoe (1988; 1993a) states that the change in the family that has occurred in recent times represents family decline. And, for him, family decline is of great concern because of its serious social consequences for children. Although others (e.g., Cherlin & Furstenberg, 1994) have noted the negative impact of family change on children, they have not set off a reaction near the magnitude of that set off by Popenoe. The fervent response to Popenoe (e.g., Kain, 1990; Skolnick, 1991; Stacey, 1990) is due to a combination of factors, including the salience of the topic, the controversial position he takes when he considers family nontraditionalism as family decline, and his lack of methodological rigor in examining the special focus of his work-the negative impact of family decline on child well-being. Although Popenoe compiled some data on family change, his data on child well-being are conspicuously weak (cf. Cowan, 1993). In short, he failed to provide adequate support for his notion that recent family change constitutes family decline, and so he comes off sounding like someone with an ideological ax to grind. And, in fact, much of the criticism of his work focuses on his idea that family change is family decline (e.g., Cowan, 1993; Stacey, 1993). Glenn (1993) also considered what it is about Popenoe's work that has elicited such a strong reaction. He suggested that it is because most social scientists are liberals, some feminists view any negative evaluation of recent family trends as potentially damaging to the women's movement, and some misread or attribute views that are not espoused. …
Loading…
Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 28 citations exist upstream.
Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.
Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.