MF pink - HHero 1440x700px
5 min. read
Vario Blog

How relevant is the term 'nuclear family' today?

MODERN FAMILIES
| 28 Apr 2023 | 8:58 am
Kwan Cheung

Where it all began

The 1960’s were a radical period for the UK and western world; there was a strong anti-establishment sentiment, vocal demand for equal rights for women and a strong civil rights movement towards racial equality, with Martin Luther King delivering his famous ‘I have a dream’ speech in 1963.

It was also a radical and transitionary period for the typical family unit.  The traditional model of what constituted a family (typically a father as sole breadwinner, one or two children and a mother looking after them and the household) began to crumble and became more nuanced. The role of the Christian church and values began to diminish and worshippers were in steep decline over the decade.  There was a strong counter-culture promoting ‘free love’ and freedom from the shackles of social norms and expectations.

If I had to trace back the diversity and inclusion we see in today’s society, I would unequivocally say that this particular decade was the origin of today’s D&I.  Obviously there has been so much more social change and development since then of course. 

 

One-size-fits-none

The increasing inclusion and acceptance of more diverse people, groups and cultures in our society at large meant that ‘norms’ and traditions of a previously more homogenous society were becoming less applicable to the wider UK population.  We now hear much more diverse and varied personal stories, anecdotes and experiences from our friends, our colleagues and of course on social media.

So we know that other family structures exist in our society now, perhaps some of which differ from our own. So why do we have a tendency to presume that a family is composed of the nuclear family outlined at the start of this article? Perhaps because until very recently families on TV, movies and in books were largely depicted this way.  However, as we become a more egalitarian and more accepting society, coupled with the use of social media, other stories are being told and heard.  

I spoke to a Pinsent Masons colleague who described her home situation of three generations of family living under one roof (Her and her siblings, her parents and her grandparents):

“I do think we (my parents and grandparents) argue often over their generation’s thinking. My grandparents are rather old school so don’t understand my parents’ approach to giving us full freedom…Growing up, it was definitely mentally draining growing up with constant arguments, especially when they would be over what you would be doing.”

When asked whether her and her family were well-represented or felt included when the media depicts families, she replied:

“No, I don’t think my family dynamics have matched what the media interpret as a ‘family.’ Growing up it made me feel weird or embarrassed about the way my family works. However, I do think media is more diverse now and there are more family dynamics shown, although I still haven’t found a family portrayed similar to mine.”

Another colleague I spoke to is a single-parent to one child working full-time at Pinsent Masons.  Here’s how she describes her feelings of representation in society:

“I perceive the media´s understanding of family is rather couple based, than bears in mind one-parent-families -like mine. Especially single-parents-by-choice and one-parent-families, still seem to be perceived as incomplete – the names imply being incomplete and missing some one. The couple based family is presented as the norm. Every other form of ‘people being a family’ is less represented. Especially children's books mainly showing classic family structures. It takes a lot of effort to research titles or rather publishing houses which show other forms of family. This goes further since the represented structures show certain roles. Questioned Gender-roles/stereotypes require also some extra research to be found in (good) books for children.”

Finally, another colleague I spoke to described yet another different family structure from the perceived ‘norm’, she also felt more could be done in social perceptions:

“I don’t feel that we as a family are excluded when reading about family in the media, however I do feel that society still promotes the idea that a ‘2.4 family’ (i.e. Mum, Dad, 2 kids) is the perfect kind of family. Being a parent of one child in a same sex marriage, we definitely do not fit that mould. Whilst I feel there is more acceptance in society, the media could do more to portray different family set ups, including same sex families. For example, being more mindful when running advertising campaigns or perhaps having more children’s programmes and cartoons promoting a more diverse range of families. “
Clearly, much work is needed to ensure that when we discuss families we are as inclusive as possible so that we can represent as many families as we can.  Representation matters. Representation is important for both working professionals but also our families, particularly children or young adults who will eventually form ideas of ‘what a family is’ based upon what they see represented in media. They may develop preconceptions or ingrained stereotypes when they come across a family different from the ‘norm’ or from their own structure. Or as my colleagues have described, they may feel disconnected from the conversation if not represented adequately. My colleague living in her multi-generational household commented on how helpful representation of her family would have been:
 
“I think I would have grown up less embarrassed of my family and I would usually opt to not mention my family structure as I felt people found it strange and would ask numerous questions about it. I would often tell them it was just me, my siblings and parents. But I think media diversity would have solved my issues 100%.”
On the other end of the familial spectrum there are many in the workplace who are either childless or have no dependents in their households. We recently reached out to our community of freelance lawyers and asked them how they felt about their circumstances in relation to balancing their needs with the demands of work.  Here are some of their comments:
“There is a great focus on parental responsibility, which is of course important, but that doesn't mean that those who do not have childcare responsibility should carry more of the burden and be expected to be more flexible.”
“This is not something I have seen myself but if I had no children or other caring responsibilities I would feel awkward asking for the same flexibility as someone who did.”
“I had 15 years in law before I had children. I was frequently (often with no notice) left with the workloads of colleagues who needed to leave for children-based-reasons. There was an unspoken expectation that I would be able to extend my hours to cover the additional work as if my childless life outside of the workplace was less of a priority.”
Clearly from these comments there is a disparity between those with children and those without, even if this is just a perception.  We’ve examined this as part of our campaign and is something that firms such as Pinsent Masons are keen to achieve parity amongst all employees. 

Ultimately, I think as human-beings, we will always use a default template in our mind’s eye as to what a ‘family’ looks like.  We’ve been conditioned by social history and our media to create this in the image of what we call the ‘nuclear family’ (I imagine this term conjures up a very similar image of a family in your mind as mine).  This unconscious bias is prevalent in many aspects of our society, a famous example is the following riddle:

A father and son have a car accident and are both badly hurt. They are both taken to separate hospitals. When the boy is taken in for an operation, the surgeon (doctor) says 'I can not do the surgery because this is my son'. How is this possible? 

The answer is of course that the doctor is the son’s mother. However, many of us are conditioned to automatically think of a doctor as a man. A similar dynamic is happening when we try to imagine someone else’s family.  This isn’t necessarily problematic in itself but being aware of our own unconscious bias means that we should try to not assume what we don’t fully know about others, in this case the family situation of others.  To directly address the title of this article then, the nuclear family is indeed still relevant today as there are many families for whom that structure describes, however we should also be mindful that there are many other families which do not prescribe to the same structure and by being more inclusive of them.  In summary, I’m going to directly quote one of my colleagues who described so wonderfully why this matter is so important:

This piece is part of our Modern Families campaign.  Read more about the wider campaign here.

“It’s important to include more diversity in our conversations about family as there are so many different kinds of families in modern day. We as a society and we as a business should be mindful of showing humanity and respect, if not celebrate these differences, offering relevant support and flexibility if required. By doing this, society and business will benefit from a more harmonious and productive environment. It has also become increasingly apparent that the future workforce really values such acceptance and flexibility, perhaps as it shows that businesses are moving with the times. While there is a lot to be said for tradition, the same can be said for challenging the status quo.”
We are processing your request. \n Thank you for your patience. An error occurred. This could be due to inactivity on the page - please try again.