'Families' evolve to give us what we need

Editor's note: This is the second column in a two-part series.

Last week we began discussing the "crisis" in the American family. We pointed out how we often look to the idealized family of the 1950s as the norm and how such a seemingly stable, secure family was very unusual in the overall history of the family. We also noted that the '50s family as we remember it may not have really existed at all, but was rather something we wanted badly to pretend to have.

As part of our discussion, we drew up the history of the family to develop an understanding of the family "in transition." From this perspective, which we are going to talk about further this week, the family is a social institution that has been changing all along.

As with all social institutions, the family is one way people come together to meet certain needs. The procreating and raising of children; emotional, sexual and other forms of intimacy; economic security; social or political advantage; and so on all have been needs addressed by the family at one time or the other.

These needs change over time, with some being more important than others at any given period in history. And our families adapt as these needs change.

For example, in Biblical times men often had two or more wives. One of the needs this met was having as many children as possible - children who would grow up to be warriors, shepherds, etc. The larger the tribe, the better the chance of survival. Such polygamy is hardly accepted in families today.

In the Middle Ages, marriages often were arranged for economic or political reasons. Love (or even freedom of choice) was irrelevant. Now we value both love and freedom, and would not think of letting our parents choose our spouse because of his or her wealth or political connections.

Nineteenth century farm families were large. They needed cheap labor. Early 21st century white-collar families don't. They tend to have fewer children and devote more time, attention and resources to each of them.

Sixteenth century women often remained in marriages - even violently abusive ones - because they had limited economic potential. Women today have remedied this to some degree, though there is still a good way to go.

"Everybody" got married and had lots of kids, usually at an early age, in the 1950s. We were searching for tranquillity and security and sought to create it through the family. An awful lot of men, women and children suffered needlessly in families that shouldn't have been because of this. Today we accept delaying marriage and parenthood, limiting family size, or choosing to remain single as viable alternatives. Perhaps we learned something.

We could go on and on. The examples of variations in family structure and function are almost limitless. But one final point about the early 21st century family will make my point.

Beginning in the late 1800s and escalating through the 1900s, the family has undergone another major transition. More and more, we look to the family to be our refuge from the world at large, a place of unconditional love, the relationship sphere in which our various needs for intimacy are met, the people who will always be there for us.

That is asking a lot. And though the family is adapting to attempt to meet these needs, the transition has not been easy. A good many families have been unable to live up to such expectations; more than a few have fallen apart in trying to do so. One reason (though certainly not the only one) so many marriages fail today is that we are asking more of such relationships than we ever have before.

There are, however, some successes to point to as well. "Partnership" marriages in which spouses share equally the responsibilities of family life seem to be meeting the needs suggested above. "Democratic" families in which children are given an age-appropriate say in what goes on in the family offer hope. The women's and men's liberation movements have opened eyes to how we can better meet each other's needs for closeness and personal growth. We are even experimenting with broadening our definition of family to include just about any group of people who gather together in the same household and attempt to be family for each other.

So is the family really in trouble? Well, yes. But the family is always in trouble if we choose to see change as trouble.

In more than 25 years of working with families, I have decided that families are incredibly resilient and creative in dealing with change. Often such adapting is difficult, painful, even frightening. But the family as a human institution has been doing it for thousands of years. I see no reason it would stop now.

We are not witnessing the demise of the family. We are in the midst of its transformation. And it is because it can adapt, because it can change, that the family is around now and will be as long as we need it.

• Dr. Ken Potts is on the staff of Samaritan Counseling Center in Naperville and Downers Grove. He is the author of "Mix Don't Blend, A Guide to Dating, Engagement and Remarriage With Children."