Why is the Nuclear Family “Nuclear?”

I grew up in what I believed was a clear example of a nuclear family: two parents and three children settled in a suburban neighborhood of Pennsylvania. I never assumed the term meant “cookie cutter,” perfect, condensed, or idyllic; my limited understanding presented the simple definition as two partners and their children. With an incomplete perception of the concept, I couldn’t answer the pervasive question: why is the nuclear family “nuclear?”

The word “nuclear” derives from the root word “nucleus” which, in Latin, means “kernel.” This term indicates that the nuclear family is an isolated, compact, and “essential” social unit. Therefore, “nuclear” implies that the extended family (grandparents, aunts, uncles, etc.) is essentially obsolete in this context. Because of its compact nature, the nuclear family had an innate ability to adapt to change. If ever necessary, it could sustain itself on reduced amounts of food and water within packed living quarters: this was ideal for urbanized “apartment living”. However, despite this efficiency, the nuclear family was considered “unstable” as it operated without sources of support beyond the family.

Coined in the 1920s, creator Bronislaw Malinowski used this term to describe the ideal parenting system for a child’s development. As he believed, a child’s development would be most successful if directly and legally connected to two parents: this simplicity promoted ease within the family dynamic and upbringing. It truly gained momentum through its application during the popularization of mass production and industry in the Roaring 20s. As industrialization dispersed through the United States and shifted many of its inhabitants into urban areas, nuclear families separated from their extended “family of orientation.” According to Jaganmohan Rao, industrialization’s promotion of urbanization was seen as having a negative social impact through its isolation of nuclear families, forcing self-sufficiency upon them: familial support was exchanged for potential economic benefit offered by urban areas. As Marvin B. Sussman states, the nuclear family proved incredibly versatile and practical in its ease of mobility: one in five families relocated to cities as a result of industrial employment opportunities. Through this process, families split from their relatives, who were often based in rural areas, inducing a heightened formation of nuclear families. Though they lacked a sense of stability, these newly-formed compact families experienced significant social progression as a result of their flexibility.

Mass production and urbanization grew rapidly throughout the early 1920s, allowing modernization to flourish. Modernization, the shift from traditional agricultural to secular and urban societies, was often welcomed by nuclear families, not only due to their relocation but also to their newly established family values. Some sociologists, like Jaganmohan Rao, theorize that extended families were resistant to changes like modernization due to their structure; many held onto traditional values while maintaining patriarchal authority figures within their organization. Though the nuclear family was sensitive to change and competition within its simplistic structure, it was quite adaptable to sudden changes to social and economic structures like industrialization and modernization.

Since the impressive post World War II baby boom, family life and procreation have seen a relatively stable descending slope (excluding a mini baby boom in the early 2000s). The nuclear family certainly still holds a place in American society, but has its popularity declined?

Before, during, and long after the 1920s, American women faced societal pressure to become homemakers and produce children. In addition to their lack of employment opportunities, many wealthy women stayed in the home as a societal indication of wealth: both partners did not need to work in order to support themselves and their children. Though opportunities for women in the workforce have expanded, wage disparities, or “gaps,” based on gender are still present. Even in the face of the wage gap, women, aided by increased gender equality, are

able to pursue a multitude of careers. What if they choose to have children? What happens to their career? The American system of parental leave, or lack thereof, does not often allow for either parent to take extended time-off after childbirth.

Societal pressures maintained through decades, if not centuries, of gender roles force women to consider motherhood simply due to their ability to carry children. To further complicate the lives of many women, studies indicate that companies are less likely to hire women due to their potential to have children: they are seen as a liability or an avoidable loss. Women who may want to have children often must avoid motherhood due to the steady increase in the cost of living. Prices have risen, and continue to rise, to unmanageable rates, which makes it extremely difficult to pursue a family without a heightened disposable income. The additional costs that children entail must be sacrificed in order to provide for oneself. These circumstances result in many people choosing not to have children and, therefore, promote the decline of the nuclear family.

This family structure, developed in an effort to become more compact and efficient for production, has been pushed out of its intentional environment just a century after its popularization. Though the nuclear family remains prevalent in modern-day America, the current economic climate and elevated real-estate prices have shifted many out of their former urban settings or prevented raising children at all. The nuclear family seems to be stable and capable of survival for the foreseeable future, but if the cost of living continues to rise, it is more than likely that the popularity of family life will form an even sharper slope of decline.

Ellie Capobianco ‘27 studies in the College of Arts & Sciences. She can be reached at c.ellie@wustl.edu.