Liberal Social Justice, Critical Social Justice & the Nuclear Family
In the starkly divided cultural environment of America today, it’s easy to feel overwhelmed. Public discourse is currently dominated by polarized conversations where hard lines are drawn in the proverbial sand over almost every topic — something especially apparent in the vastness of digital space, where the strident arguments of culture warriors ceaselessly circulate and mutate into ever more sensationalized perspectives. In such a contentious environment, is it any wonder that many of us find ourselves growing defensive? This is especially true when social justice advocates push to overhaul or abolish our long-established societal structures, such as within the debate around the hotly contested matter of LGBT rights and the concept of the “nuclear family.” The confrontational voices that frequently dominate that conversation are enough to tempt a person to turn their back on the social justice movement altogether.
Instead of throwing out the proverbial baby with its extremist bathwater, however, it might be helpful to recognize that not all social justice activists subscribe to the same worldview when it comes to effecting change. There’s a common misunderstanding that fails to distinguish between two distinct approaches: Critical Social Justice (CSJ) and Liberal Social Justice (LSJ). CSJ is a recently evolved hybrid of Marxist theory and postmodern epistemology that has become popular over the past few decades, while LSJ has deep roots in the Enlightenment values that inspired the founders of the US and, in turn, liberal democracies around the world. Learning to tell them apart makes it possible for moderate liberals and conservatives to find productive common ground — something that is imperative if any actual progress is to be made toward expanding our definition of the nuclear family to be more inclusive.
In A Dictionary of Sociology (1968), the nuclear family was defined by sociologist G. Duncan Mitchell as “a small group composed of husband and wife and immature children which constitutes a unit apart from the rest of the community.” Though once a widely accepted definition that still holds true for some, there are many people today who consider it outdated. Proponents of LSJ believe this description lacks inclusivity and needs to be refreshed to reflect modern interpretations of what families are. However, defenders of the traditional nuclear family are resistant to this reassessment, often because they wrongly associate any call for change with the ideas propounded by those who support CSJ, which seeks to destroy the norm of the nuclear family altogether.
Many who oppose reworking the traditional definition claim to do so in order to protect the many benefits nuclear families have been shown to provide. For example, children in nuclear households are more likely to experience strong emotional support and a stable environment at home, and are also exposed to collaboration, conflict resolution, and other communication skills expected by society. Additionally, children from these households have a higher quality of life thanks to the sharing of finances, time, and other responsibilities among adults. They are also more likely to exhibit positive behavior, earn good grades in school, and become more involved in community and extracurricular activities.
Proponents of LSJ are not looking to eliminate these benefits nor demolish the nuclear family as a whole, they’re simply seeking to renovate. Their aim is to take the dated concept of what a nuclear family looks like and update it to reflect the diverse makeup of modern families, which importantly, does not omit the previously understood definition. By building upon existing elements, the nuclear family will not be destroyed, but instead receive the facelift needed to move forward with the rest of the world. One could even argue that reinvigorating the concept of the nuclear family will help it become even more ingrained in our society, as it would apply to a much larger group than ever before. The LSJ approach is meant to be a collaboration, a way to enhance the existing benefits a nuclear family can provide regardless of where your ideological beliefs fall. We’re all after the same goal: a happy, healthy, and safe family unit that provides the needed support for each family member to thrive.
Having been raised in a community with strong ties to conservatism and traditional values, I’ve had many conversations regarding the “correct” way to successfully build and support a family, which often goes hand-in-hand with discussions about appropriate partnerships. I do not believe in the traditional tenets that many religious partnerships require (such as monogamy, adherence to certain rituals, and clear gender roles), so I’m often the odd man out in these situations. However, I’m not pushing one type of partnership or family structure over another; I simply believe it is up to the adults in the family unit to decide what works best for them. One can find successful partners and families in open marriages, polyamorous relationships, and virtually countless other non-traditional configurations. Considering this, I question the rationale behind supporting and accepting only one narrow path forward. If everyone under the adults’ care is happy, healthy, and safe, who is to say a family is being steered in the wrong direction? It’s a question many seem to have never considered, but with patience and perseverance I’m confident I’ve swayed at least a few minds to open up a bit, even when it comes to building a nuclear family with multiple partners.
For example, my last relationship — which just so happened to be with a man — was open from the beginning, and this was a concept my parents, who are junior high sweethearts, had some trouble with. They weren’t exactly against the idea; they just didn’t see how I could be happy in a situation that was so far beyond their realm of experience as an Armenian couple raising a family in a rural, midwestern town. They struggled to grasp how I could build a future with a partner while still engaging in what they considered “relationship-only” activities with other people.
Rather than attacking their understanding of how relationships work, I challenged them to expand upon it. I asked them, “If I am happy and communicating effectively with my partner, what exactly is the issue? I have no desire to restrict myself or my partner in terms of experiences, but that doesn’t mean we are incapable of building a future together. Just because my preferred relationship style is new and different to you doesn’t mean it is wrong or immoral; it just means you’ll have to spend some time learning to understand it.” Through many conversations, I was able to show them that I could still have all the benefits they associate with traditional relationships while rejecting the aspects that, to me, felt constrictive and dated. By having a calm conversation and pushing them to think outside of their own experiences, they gained an understanding of where I was coming from, and through that understanding came acceptance.
Today, they don’t even bat an eye when I present them with a non-traditional life choice. For example, on a recent trip back home, I asked my mom what she would think about me being in a throuple. Her reply was, “Damn! Don’t bring them home before I get more chairs for the dining room, because I want to make sure everyone has a seat!” Though I’m not sure what her response would have been if I asked her in the past, I can say that they don’t sweat the details anymore when it comes to my happiness. If they are confused they ask questions, and if they don’t totally agree they will let me know why. What matters is we are able to come to the table together (it has plenty of chairs nowadays) to have these conversations that move us forward as a family.
Some might say that a slight shift in perspective like the one mentioned above is too small a step forward, but if we can take that first step, who is to say we can’t take several more down the road? The important part is being able to bring opposing or differing sides together to share their perspectives without alienating each other, with the hopes of coming to a consensus that all parties find agreeable. If productive communication ends, or doesn’t start at all, it will just turn into a never-ending shouting match in which neither side can be heard or gain ground.
Of course, teamwork does not make the dream work for proponents of CSJ, who believe the issues plaguing our society are so deeply ingrained that it must be bulldozed to oblivion and rebuilt from scratch. They believe the traditions tied to marriage and nuclear families are too far gone to be saved — and were, perhaps, never worth saving to begin with, due to their patriarchal, heteronormative origins. This might seem an attractive viewpoint if you’re someone who is easily stirred by a spirit of revolutionary zeal, but it’s also strikingly counter-productive. Is it truly equitable to dismantle an entire cultural practice and implement a new one that only fits your system of belief? Or does that simply shift the oppression from one group to another? There are numerous examples of the benefits a nuclear family can provide, so it makes little sense to abolish the entire concept because some individuals are unwilling to work with others. If these benefits are destroyed simply for the sake of taking down an opposing ideological group’s prized institution, can that be considered progress?
This is not to say that changes can’t or shouldn’t be made regarding how nuclear families are understood and defined. Indeed, to reject wholesale the idea of change simply because of our discomfort with the most extreme positions on the leftist side would be to risk stagnation within a status quo that no longer meets the needs of an evolved society. After all, the West today enjoys an unprecedented level of sexual and romantic liberty, as well as strong majority support for human and civil rights, largely because of a long history of liberal thinkers pushing for change. Consider the case of Karl-Maria Kertbeny: he worked to destigmatize and decriminalize homosexuality (a word he coined) in a 19th-century social environment so repressive that he himself remained closeted, and yet the influence of his then-radical argument for LGBT rights — that same-sex attraction is an inborn and unchangeable trait, not a deliberately immoral choice deserving of social condemnation — can be heard in Martin Luther King’s vision of a world that judges people on the content of their character rather than the color of their skin.
It’s also worth pointing out that when liberal conservative journalist Andrew Sullivan championed same-sex marriage in his landmark 1989 essay for The New Republic, his ideas were faced with vehement backlash and resistance from the radical left, who disdained any perceived effort of “assimilation” and preferred to dismantle the traditional institution of marriage altogether — much as their modern counterparts would like to do with the nuclear family. Today, of course, marriage equality is the law of the land, and the movement that got us there began as a broadly liberal coalition of center-left and center-right activists, who took the LSJ path despite the objections of the CSJ contingent.
This in itself should be reason enough for hope. While it’s certainly true that our country — and indeed, the entire global community — is currently experiencing high levels of division (around nuclear families and much, much more), the ideas of people like MLK, Kertbeny, and Sullivan have never been more popular than they are today. The concept they espoused, of treating people as individuals rather than dividing them up on the basis of race, sex, sexuality, or any other “identity”, has long been well-established in the liberal world and had more or less won the culture war before CSJ exploded into the popular imagination. If we wish to preserve our gains and continue to further them, the best approach is to double down on an approach that was already working. There is nothing to be won by perpetuating endless discord and keeping alive a toxic culture war that might have already been over in the first place. CSJ is not the new frontier for civil rights. It is the repurposing of an old-fashioned, failed ideology that only holds us back.
As for the nuclear family, not only does the liberal approach to social justice pose no threat to it, but in fact makes it stronger. It is true that married couples live longer, that children with more than one parent do better, and that a healthy family life correlates with higher education attainment and financial stability. This is just as true for married same-sex couples and polyamorous families. In fact, if anything, they tend on average to outperform their more traditional counterparts. Gay, straight, or bi; monogamous, open, or polyamorous; everyone is better off (parent or child) as part of a stable nuclear family. Broadening the family unit so that we can all enjoy these benefits, regardless of sexuality or relationship model, is a good thing.
But if we want to see that happen, we have to remember that it will take patience to explain, learn, and collaborate with the people who don’t agree with us. Regardless of where your “movement” falls on the ideological spectrum, there will always be extremists within it whose opinions alarm those with other viewpoints. The reason for that alarm is fairly obvious — these are the viewpoints that they generally perceive as the greatest threat to their way of life, a fear that is perhaps often compounded by a tendency to mischaracterize all opposing ideas by cherry-picking nothing but the most extreme views. When threatened, people tend to either hunker down in defense or launch a counterattack. We must be prepared for these reactions, both emotionally and logically, and be willing to keep our minds open to the perspectives of others. If we want to be heard, we must be courteous enough to listen as well. Not everyone is going to agree, even among those on our own “side”, but we must be willing to engage in a constructive manner if we want to see any progress.
If we can do that, we can shift away from all this division and end up in a place of understanding, acceptance, and hopefully, unity, to ensure that the valuable societal benefits of the nuclear family will survive — and flourish — for the next generation.
Published Jan 5, 2022
Updated Apr 18, 2024
Published in Issue X: Clash of Ideologies
