The Way We Really Are: Coming to Terms with America's Changing Families

by Stephanie Coontz

Stephanie Coontz, the author of The Way We Never Were, now turns her attention to the mythology that surrounds today's family--the demonizing of "untraditional" family forms and marriage and parenting issues. She argues that while it's not crazy to miss the more hopeful economic trends of the 1950s and 1960s, few would want to go back to the gender roles and race relations of those years. Mothers are going to remain in the workforce, family diversity is here to stay, and the nuclear family can no longer handle all the responsibilities of elder care and childrearing. Coontz gives a balanced account of how these changes affect families, both positively and negatively, but she rejects the notion that the new diversity is a sentence of doom. Every family has distinctive resources and special vulnerabilities, and there are ways to help each one build on its strengths and minimize its weaknesses. The book provides a meticulously researched, balanced account showing why a historically informed perspective on family life can be as much help to people in sorting through family issues as going into therapy--and much more help than listening to today's political debates.

Genres: Nonfiction, Sociology, Family, History, School, Gender Studies, Gender

256 pages, Paperback

Published May 9, 1998

About the author

Stephanie Coontz is director of research and public education for the Council on Contemporary Families, which she chaired from 2001 to 2004, and emeritus faculty of history and family studies at The Evergreen State College in Olympia, Washington. She has written about gender, family, and history, and her writings have been translated into a dozen languages.

Reviews

[Billie Pritchett · Rating 2 out of 5]

Stephanie Coontz's Way We Really Are didn't really speak to me. It could be because I'm not married or that I don't have children, but I suspect it has more to do with the structure of the book. In her previous book, The Way We Never Were, Coontz spent most of her time looking at the ways in which American families differed over time. One of the major insights that emerged from the book was that the nuclear family of the 1950s, which is so idealized in America today, was a rebellion from the previous generation's interpretation of family as consisting of grandparents, parents, and children, and also an institution that owed its success to the economic boom, low-cost housing, government support, suburban infrastructure, etc., of the 1950s, without which the 50s nuclear family never could have existed. The final chapter of The Way We Never Were was thought-provoking as well, where, Coontz convincingly argues, "It takes a village to raise a child," translating into something like the following: "In the modern world, in addition to the parents, without social and economic support, and extended networks of friends and family, role models in the community, good teachers, good peer groups, and good environments (on an on), a child is not going to develop and cope successfully." It seems almost a truism, but something that is often overlooked with the competing mantra "It takes a family to raise a child."

The last chapter of The Way We Really Are was helpful, too, looking at the real and diverse ways in which families are now structured and the way parenting occurs, and in this chapter, Coontz suggests good, practical advice. For example, she writes that no matter what the family structure is, a parent ought not be too authoritarian nor too libertarian in child rearing, but rather cut the middle. This means something like being an authority toward your child about matters in which you would be justified in being an authority (providing your child with good nutrition, clothing your child, providing love and emotional support for your child) and acting as an empath in matters when your child can express herself, and taking the child's opinions and reasons into account about decisions.

I wished more of the book would have been like the last chapter, but perhaps that says more about me than the book. Most of the book is railing against conservatives who simplistically reduce all problems related to families being a matter of having the wrong family structure, namely any structure that deviates from a two-parent traditional family. Along the way, though, a lot of nuance gets lost. I mean to say that these kinds of people exist, people who believe in one family structure without much argument or support. But there are still others who advocate this kind of family structure because they truly believe, all things being equal, it is better for a child to be reared by two parents than one. And yes, sometimes they believe, all things being equal, a man and a woman in a married, loving relationship should rear a child. Coontz really doesn't analyze or examine this claim. And as for me, I am not even saying it's right; it's just an empirical matter. One way to check to see if there's a correlation between the successful development of a child and a traditional man-woman marriage is to compare that family structure to the others, using a large enough sample size and also considering the different variables one would want to include would make for more or less successful child development. The claim might be right, for all we know at least because society has traditionally favored this arrangement, and any other arrangement has been stigmatized socially and legally, non-traditional families not having enjoyed the same economic benefits, for example, afforded to heterosexual marriage. Even that in itself would be a revelation, though, and it would not mean that people ought to only have this kind of family structure. Experiments could instead bear not only on what is working but why and that could be adjusted for the other family structures.

I will give you an example of some of the statistics in the book that were troublesome, and why I did not like the bulk of the book very much. In one portion of the book, for example, she talks about the statistic that children from divorced families are two and a half times more likely to struggle academically than children who live in a household where both parents are married. But about this statistic, she writes something to the effect (I'm paraphrasing) that if the researchers control for other issues other than family structure, the distinction disappears. The kind of other factors she cites are such things as income level, access to good schools, and so on. The problem, though, it seems to me, is that this is neglecting, as she often mentions, that marriage has been typically an economic institution (not only that but in the eyes of the State, most definitely), and so it wouldn't be any surprise that a single mother or father for example (quite often a mother), who had been financially dependent or codependent on the other partner per the marriage arrangement does not have enough money and cannot afford to put the child in a decent school. What I'm saying is that these other factors are more related to family structure than she suggests.

I have one more comment on the above statistic. Coontz writes that the difference between a poorly performing child from a married household compared to a non-married household is 1 to 2.5. The actual percentage, though, is something like this: 10% of children struggle with education who live in a traditional family and 25% struggle who come from a divorced family. As another argument, supplementing the one above, she writes that this statistic overlooks the 75% of children who come from divorce who are doing well. That is one way to look at it, I suppose, but the problem still stands: Why the 10% from the first group compared to the 25% of the second? It seems to me that we'd like to account for that difference and rectify, and perhaps even, if possible, improve the performance of those in traditional families.

This review is too long. Time to stop.

[Erika RS · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is one of those books where I underlined something on nearly every page. Coontz believes in getting beyond rhetoric and into data to figure out what works and doesn't work for families. She doesn't try to live in some unrealistic fantasy that the traditional[1] nuclear family is going to come back or that solves all problems. Instead, she examines the strengths and weaknesses of the many different family types that exist in the US -- they all have both strengths and weaknesses relative to the others.

One of the strongest points Coontz makes is that, historically, strong families, whatever their form, have been associated with strong, stable economies. The 1950s was a time when people married young and women stayed home with children largely because a man with a high school education could earn a salary that could support a family. This has rarely been true in other times[2]. As wages have stagnated, families have been put under more pressure. Coontz argues that this is the cause of many of the social ills that plague the US[3] and the cause of many of the changes in family life, not that the changes in family life cause the ills.

She also observes that not all the change is bad. Many people -- especially women -- are happier now than in the past.

These book is a short and important read for anyone who cares about the culture wars that surround family life or just wants to be reassured that deviating from the increasingly-non-normative normal doesn't mean disaster.

[1] By which everyone really means 1950s / 1960s
[2] Before the 20th century, and to a large degree in the early 20th century, everyone in the family contributed to the family economy. This was easier when the family economy was not primarily a cash economy.
[3] Although she also points out that when the present is compared to data rather than rose tinted memory, the ills of the present aren't as bad as they seem.

[Paige · Rating 2 out of 5]

Similarly to Coontz’s book “The Way We Never Were”, this book poses several truths often overlooked in 1950’s history. Not only is this done very cleverly, but Coontz also goes to say how modern issues could be resolved by connecting them to the warped way of the 1950s. So, why the two star rating? Personally, I feel like the information presented in this book is too similar to the previous book, I didn’t pick up a lot of new information. Also, not to discredit Coontz in anyway, but a lot of the “modern issues” discussed in this book are from the 1990s many of which have either been resolved or have changed since then. Not to say that these methods wouldn’t be useful now, but as someone who was not alive during the 90s, a lot of these suggestions don’t bring meaning to me. However, I still recommend the read if you’re up to it!

[Tannya · Rating 3 out of 5]

Yes, yes required. However, very interesting book. Its a little outdated, it was written in the 90s, but still a great read on families. It begins with some fantastic insight into the history of families, and then transitioned up to where we were at in the 90s. I found it to be really educational, and also very positive about families and how they "really are" as the title states. It had some great solutions for the problems facing children in our society, and for issues relating to single parenting and support systems. I liked it. I would have thought it was an interesting read even if it wasn't required for school. I am giving it only a 3 though because it is a little outdated, and there are some things I didn't necessarily agree with.

[Starbubbles · Rating 3 out of 5]

you know, after this massive paper, i feel like i became pseudo-coontz fan. by that i mean that i'm not, but i had access to a good number of books from her. the way we really are was practically her response and reassurance to the general public that families are not going to disappear from america. not that that fact is anything new, i think she said that one like page 2 of her intro. but b/c of that aim, she spends the majority of the time debunking family myths about american "tradition." quite interesting if you care to know about how things get distorted, and that distortion is how you form your family identity.

[Stephanie A. · Rating 3 out of 5]

Read cover to cover in 2008 (there must have been an updated edition, right?) for class, so it's going on here. Did not bore or enrage me the way I expected it would from the title, and in fact, if I hadn't had the class just a bit too late, I would have seriously considered making a minor out of sociology because it was that fascinating to study.

[Keiki · Rating 3 out of 5]

I always get side-tracked by the sociology section in book stores (and I should stay away!). I'm not exactly "enjoying" this book, but I am learning a lot. I wouldn't call it "academic per se", but it doesn't read in a conversational tone. Still - interesting!

[Samira]

Most of what I said about Marriage, a History would also apply here. This argument it much more based in contemporary society, however.

[Donetta · Rating 4 out of 5]

Fascinating and right on as a follow up to "The Way We Never Were"!

[Josephine Ensign · Rating 4 out of 5]

Liked this book better than 'The Way We Never Were' because it included more real life stories to illustrate her main points. Less stat/research study-heavy.