A strong family is defined as one that is united in the face of adversity and provides for the basic needs of its component members. Examples of these needs include financial support for those who require it, moral support and emotional support. On the other hand, a family is weak when it either serves no purpose that cannot be provided by any other institution or when it fosters negative emotion in the hearts of its members. Recently we have heard of various occurrences of family violence, divorce and other negative incidents concerning the family from mass media sources. Naturally, the majority would have the perception that the family institution is on the decline. However, we believe that this is just an unfair generalization and that the family is just simply changing or evolving not deteriorating.
The evolution of the family is not a new concept. It started as early as during the 18th century industrial revolution in Europe. Industrialisation had a great deal of impact on the family then. The concept placed great pressure on traditional family ties as work moved from around the home to outside the home. Families had to adapt themselves to the new society requirements, so as to integrate into the mainstream society. This overall evolution brought prosperity and advancement to the European nations as a whole.
The basic traditional definition of “the family” can also be expanded upon to include the assumption that there is only a certain degree of personal choice allowed, and it is expected that in many situations the interests of the family be put first. This is the mutual system of selfless support that is regarded as the moral foundations of society, and therefore families that do not conform to this marriage-centred nuclear model are considered abnormal, and a threat to the very fabric of society.
However, looking back in history it is hard to find evidence of a period in which the happy nuclear family was the norm. The Victorian age, often heralded as a “golden era of high morals”, was in fact anything but that. Autobiographical evidence suggests that domestic violence was common, with both wives and children suffering at the hands of distant, unloving, alcoholic men. Illegitimacy was far from rare, caused partly by the prudish double-standard sexual morals of the day.
Next, marriage is seen as the component of “the family”. Thus, a slump in the number of ceremonies in conjunction with the huge increase in the divorce rate could be seen as a rejection of family values. However this interpretation is overly simplistic. In order to gain a true understanding of the situation, it is necessary to look into the reasons behind the trends revealed in the raw data. Undoubtedly changes in the legislation over the past 150 years have had a huge impact upon the popularity of the divorce. One could argue that the reason why there were so few marital break-ups in the 19th century was not because families were stronger but simply that divorce was only possible for men, and that death was responsible of ending a third of all marriages within 20 years. To compare today’s divorce rate with that of the past is not to analyse like with like.
One reason for the slump in the marriage rate is that an increasing number of people are now choosing to cohabit, i.e. lives together as an unmarried couple. In 1998, 29% of single women aged 18 – 49 were cohabiting, as opposed to only 11% in 1979. The change in attitude towards pre-marital sex, brought about partly by secularisation and partly by the 1960’s sexual revolution, has further encouraged this trend. The average age at first marriage has gone up by approximately five years for both men and women since 1961. “Living in sin” is no longer the crime that it once was; pragmatic reasoning and the growth of radical individualism are now taking centre stage.
Let us now examine this topic in the Singaporean context. Modern innovations have greatly shaped the modern Singaporean family. Since the 1990s, various technological devices such as the internet and handphones have become extremely popular and practically essential. Although so, there are those that argue that such devices have contributed towards the decline of the modern family, as they often say that the internet is used mainly for pointless chatting and surfing for entertainment, hence depriving the family from time to interact. However, they fail to consider the fact that these technological advances can actually help to strengthen family bonds. Personal handphones and the internet are widely used as communication tools for family members to communicate with each other. This is especially prominent in IT-savvy Singapore as both the usage of the internet and the ownership of handphones are very common. According to Neilsen//Netratings, Singapore’s internet penetration rate in 2003 was 60% of its estimated 3.5 million population, placing Singapore ninth highest in the world. In addition to that, 57% of people aged 18 – 50 years old claimed that they use modern communication technology to contact members of their extended family at least once a week, says a family poll.
Dual working parents in Singapore could actually be a blessing in disguise. This is because two breadwinners will result in better financial stability in the family. In the past, the men were usually the sole breadwinners in the family. Thus, the entire livelihood of the family was in the hands of only one individual. If the father lost his job, the family would inevitably face a financial crisis. However, recent government policies have given women equal opportunity to pursue their careers, so as to spread out the burden, easing the pressure on the working father. The more astute would be able to spot the true reason of such policies, which is mainly to supplement Singapore’s manpower shortage. In order to maximize Singapore’s economic potential, an estimated minimum of 10 million workers would be required. Without the involvement of women in the labour force, it would be hard for families to handle their financial responsibilities well, let alone for Singapore to achieve maximum economic efficiency. Thus, it can be seen that the family infrastructure is strengthened in certain aspects by the existence of dual working parents. Working wives instead of housewives merely reflect the diversity within conjugal roles today as a result of the evolution of the family institution.
Part of the traditional ideology is the belief that families go through a particular life-cycle, beginning with a young married couple and proceeding through the arrival of children, their growing up and flying the nest, followed by two or three decades of full time work and then finally, retirement. The notion that the future pattern of family life can be predicted by looking at past generations is simply nonsensical. The passage of time, in conjunction with choice and chance, ensures that any picture of a family is merely a snapshot – there is constant evolution within the unit that does not necessarily follow any pre-determined course, hence bringing about the immense possibility for diversity.
Having reviewed the evidence presented earlier, it is not possible to conclude that the family is dying, weakening or deteriorating. Instead, we are actually witnesses to the continuity in the evolution of our society. The family institution has always been and will always be the central pillar of society. Such an institution cannot undergo a physical death. What we are seeing is not the demise of the family, but the diversification of such a highly regarded institution. Families have always evolved, for a multitude of reasons, and to claim now that this fluidic nature is the cause of all societies’ woes is to deny the existence of our basic evolutionary instincts.