The Concept of The Family:
Demographic and Genealogical Perspectives
Charles B. Nam
Center for Demography and Population
Health, Florida State University
The social sciences include many
concepts that are basic to the understanding of the subject matter.
Some of these concepts are defined differently and measured differently
by social researchers, such as those concerning socioeconomic status.
Others are defined and measured in a fairly consistent way across studies
and over time. These latter concepts usually follow previous usages
either because of research tradition or because of limitations in the collection
of data, race perhaps being an example.
A key concept in the social sciences,
and especially in demography and sociology, is that of the family.
The family is generally regarded as a major social institution and a locus
of much of a person's social activity. It is a social unit created by blood,
marriage, or adoption, and can be described as nuclear (parents and children)
or extended (encompassing other relatives).
It is generally assumed today that
the modern family has undergone significant transformations in its structure.
We are told that societal changes have contributed to a sharp reduction
in the percentage of classical "typical" families, principally "nuclear"
families. Replacing these, we are made to understand, are childless
families, one-parent families, other family configurations, and quasi-family
units based on non-marital cohabitation. This argument of the
decline has been advanced for a number of decades, but little research
has been conducted to test the premise. Bane (1976) disagreed with
that conclusion and pointed out that family sizes were getting smaller
and mobility was splitting up some families, but the family remained as
a functional social institution.
The main contention of this paper is
that analysis of changing family patterns is distorted by the definition
of the family that is generally used and the way relevant data are collected.
In support of this contention, two different approaches will be used to
gauge family status, and the two will be compared. First, the standard
demographic approach to defining and measuring the family concept will
be reviewed. Second, the genealogical view of the family will be examined.
A comparison will then be made of the two perspectives and their consequences
for understanding the nature of changes in the modern family.
The family is generally recognized as an element of a
broader kinship network that links ancestors and descendants of a person.
Most published statistics on the family are based on census or household
survey questions and responses. In the United States (and, for the
most part, throughout the world), the "family" is defined in censuses and
surveys as two or more persons related by blood, marriage, or adoption,
AND living in the same residence (Fields and Casper 2001).
The first part of the definition excludes non-marital cohabitation but
can include extended as well as nuclear family members. However,
the second part of the definition severely restricts family composition
by limiting the family members to those who share living facilities under
the same roof (Glick 1957). This standard definition is basically
an accommodation to requirements of data collection in censuses and surveys
in which identifying population in geographic contexts down to the separate
dwelling unit is necessary. Moreover, the questions needed to identify
non-residential family members would be burdensome and the information
costly to obtain.
Persons who might be considered part
of a family but do not reside at the same residential address are not included
in demographic data. They may be part of a family at another address
or they may be living alone or in group quarters (housing for a substantial
number of unrelated individuals). This is the case even if such persons
live close by (maybe even next door) and/or visit or otherwise regularly
communicate (by phone or mail) with their family of origin. Additionally,
because of census and survey residence rules, college students living in
a college community and some long-term workers at remote places are excluded
from the family group even if their intention is to return to the family's
residence after school or work is completed. In other words, the
family definition is controlled by the household definition, where households
describe current or potential housing markets.
In fact, some persons who meet the
standard demographic definition of the family and are included may have
little association with other family members in the same residence.
For example, they may have different schedules of sleep, work, or other
activities, and they may not communicate by phone or mail. Their
inclusion in the family is pro forma and based only on the given family
definition. These facts raise questions about the boundaries of the standard
demographic definition of the family and its consequences for interpretations
of how family structure might be changing over time.
The Genealogical Approach
Genealogy is the study of family structural
history, drawing basically on demographic data sources such as censuses,
birth and death certificates, immigration records, and other administrative
records. The aim of genealogical research is to construct a family
tree of ancestors and dependents of a key person (Smith and Mineau 2003).
The tree can be limited in its extension to cousins and other persons remotely
related, but typically the attempt is to be inclusive of related kin.
Some genealogists prefer the term "family history" to "genealogy" because
the latter term implies a genetic connection that may not be real because
of questionable paternity and because it would not apply to adoptive persons.
Many types of information can be included
in family trees, but the pattern of relationships is not dependent on residential
locations. Residence can be one item of information for each individual
in the tree, along with such items as dates of birth and death, place of
birth, occupation, and other personal markers. One can examine a
family tree and extract a family structure using a variety of family definitions,
based on how extensive one wishes to consider the family (Finnegan and
Drake 1994). Family trees typically distinguish between living and
dead members of the family, so that several family definitions can be applied
to only living members. In this sense, the genealogical approach
to looking at family structure provides for a broader range of family forms
than is possible from the demographic approach. Thus, one can describe
a couple and their offspring, living together or not; a multi-generation
family, living together or not; as well as extended family groupings.
Genealogies have not been incorporated
into family research very much. Smith (1987) indicates that obtaining
any type of kin count or structure (and, by implication, residence-based
families) "is often difficult or impossible …. Genealogical research,
even when done with the aid of computers, is labour- intensive and requires
extensive archival data." The use of genealogies in demographic research
has been heavily oriented to estimating population size, as well as fertility
and mortality of communities.
Because sets of family trees are often
hard to come by, the broader kinship network that the family tree describes
can be obtained by having survey respondents reconstruct the history of
a family’s changing structure by tracing the family’s evolution from
the marriage date of a couple to the point where only one member
of the family group is still living.
Comparison of the Two Approaches
The distinction between the demographic
and genealogical approaches can be illustrated by looking at the time trend
in family patterns using various family definitions. In the real,
illustrative example I have chosen here family structures are compared
based on the demographic concept and three alternative genealogical concepts
of the family.
The time span in this example is from 1956 to 2002 and covers
the years of five decennial censuses from 1960 to 2000. Initials
are used to designate different family members. The first person
listed is the key person. The first column describes the nuclear
family composition according to census definition. The second column
adds in living members of the nuclear family who are non-residents.
The third column adds in living parents, parents-in-law, children's spouses,
and grandchildren, whether or not living in the same residence The
fourth column adds in brothers and sisters of the key person, also not
necessarily in the same resideence. Of course, many other variations
and extensions of the family are possible. Over time, new members
are added as they meet the family definition and members are deleted when
they die or are divorced from a nuclear family member.
In this particular example, the family
begins with a 1956 marriage. Columns one and two show that
both census and genealogical approaches report the nuclear family the same
way. Columns three and four indicate two sets of parents and
two pairs of siblings. By the time of the 1960 Census, these family
patterns have remained the same. In 1961, a child is born to the
couple and is the only addition to the family. In 1962, a second
child joins the family and all family definitions expand similarly.
This pattern continues through the time of the 1970 Census.
In 1971, one of the couple’s parents
dies and the extended family definitions are reduced. In 1975, another
parent dies, further reducing the more extended family patterns.
No change takes place through the 1980 Census period. By 1981, one
of the children leaves for college away from home. Now, for the first
time, census and genealogical family approaches define the nuclear family's
composition differently. The following year, 1982, the other child
leaves home for college and further disparity in nuclear family composition
ensues. In the same year, a third parent dies, and the extended family
groups become smaller.
In 1983, the first child transfers
to a college near home and resumes residence with his parents. In
1984, the second child completes college and returns home while awaiting
marriage to someone she's engaged to. The next year, 1985, sees her
departure to her own household with the newest extended family member.
By 1986 the other child completes college and sets up his own residence
in the community. In 1988, financial considerations bring that child
back home for a considerable part of the year. The following year,
1989, he departs for professional school. In the same year, the other
child has a son and thereby expands the extended family patterns.
The family patterns remain the same through the 1990 Census period.
In 1991, a daughter is born to complement the son of the one child; and
in that same year one of the sisters of the initial couple passes away.
When 1995 rolls around, the son has gotten married, adding another extended
In 1999, the son divorces and rejoins
the couple. By the time of the 2000 Census, the son has found a new
residence in town; and later that year he remarries, thus establishing
the earlier extended family sizes. In 2001, the nuclear family as
defined by the demographic approach comes to an end as one of the original
couple dies. Then, in 2002 the remarried son has a child.
Family Definitional Implications
A scan of the chart shows important
differences in family composition according to the various definitions.
First, the nuclear family independent
of residence, as revealed in the second column, did not change from 1962
to 2001, a period of 39 years. In contrast, the nuclear family demographically
defined remained intact from only 1962 to 1980, a period of 18 years.
Second, according to the genealogical
approach, there is still an existent family by 2002, a period of 46 years
and counting. In contrast, based on the demographic approach, the
family ceases to exist after 2000.
Third, the family as defined by census
or survey has been quite variable over time, and some of the changes are
due to very short-term stays in the residence. In fact, in one year,
1984, the family structure that was established in 1962 and continued through
1980 is reconstructed.
Fourth, the versions of the extended family
shown here are at their smallest size when the family demographically-defined
is at its largest size.
One could reasonably argue
for any of the family definitions shown here, or for other variants.
A point to be made, however, is that the family as defined demographically
may not be the definition of the family that most of us think of when we
contemplate our own family pattern.
More importantly, from the perspective
of the dynamics of family changes, analysis of changing family structure
using the demographic approach may overstate the fluidity and demise of
the nuclear family form, whereas greater family stability is indicated
by the genealogical approach. Family researchers should consider
whether residential separation of family members reduces family structure
even when family functions are basically maintained, especially in light
of increases in the availability of travel and communication channels.
Bane (1976) argued further that smaller family sizes probably led to stronger
attachments of residence-based family members with their non-residence-based
family members. Those who design questions related to the definition
of families in censuses and surveys should consider if additional information
needs to be collected to add meaningfulness to the analysis of family composition
and changes in it. In any event, our analysis of changes in the family
as a social unit should not be held hostage to a definition and measurement
approach that may not adequately reflect its true character.
Bane, Mary Jo (1976). Here To Stay: American
Families in the Twentieth Century. New York: Basic Books.
Fields, Jason, and Lynne Casper (2001). "America's
Families and Living Arrangements." Current Population Series
Finnegan Ruth, and Michael Drake (1994). From
Family Tree to Family History. Cambridge University Press.
Glick, Paul C. (1957). American Families.
New York: John Wiley.
Smith, James E. 1987. "The Computer Simulation
of Kin Sets and Kin Counts," in Bongaarts, John, Thomas K. Burch, and Kenneth
W. Wachter, eds., Family Demography: Methods and Their Applications.
Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Smith, Ken R., and Geraldine P. Mineau (2003).
"Genealogical Records," in Demeny, Paul, and Geoffrey McNicholl, eds.,
of Population. New York: Macmillan.