1) The definition and structure of "family" has changed significantly over time due to social constructionism and historical events like the Industrial Revolution. 2) Before the Industrial Revolution, families were economic units focused on survival rather than emotional bonds. Childhood was not sentimentalized and children worked to support the family from a young age. 3) The Industrial Revolution caused families to restructure around gender roles, with men working outside the home and women focused on domestic duties. It also led to viewing the home and childhood differently.

1. Popelaski 1
Billy Popelaski Essay #1
March 16th, 2016 Professor Seale
Throughout time, the term that many people believe they know the concrete definition of,
is family. The term “family” may seem simple, but it is quite the opposite due to social
constructionism. Social constructionism is “the idea that our social life and ideas are constructed
by people through interaction (Seale SOCL 235, 2016). Therefore, at one point in time, the term
“family” had a different meaning and interpretation than what it does today. With this, there are
many other common myths about family. Three common myths that will be discussed in this
paper are that, family is a safe haven, childhood is about innocence, and that family was always
defined by blood relativeness and love.
Today, when people think of home, they believe it to be place of love, relaxation and
comfort from the tribulations they face at work, essentially a safe haven. However, before the
industrial revolution began in the eighteenth century, homes were seen as patriarchal and as the
forefront of economic survival. “Colonial society was based on a system of agrarian household
production, sustained by a patriarchal political and ideological structure that greatly constrained
the individual freedom of action of individual households” (Coontz, 2010). This economic
survival was vital, when it came to kids “the goal was to get children, speaking, reading,
reasoning, and contributing to their family’s economic well-being as quickly as possible” (Mintz,
2010). It was also well known at the time that parents would be very careful not to get too
attached to their newborns because infantile death was very common. With this, the parent’s
main concerns weren’t about cherishing the child’s youth; rather it was to shape them into mini-
adults so they could help out within the family. Unfortunately, as technology advanced and as
the industrial revolution drew closer, many farmers fell into debt and lost their farms.

2. Popelaski 2
“Households could no longer get by as they had traditionally, mostly consuming things they
made, grew, or bartered in the community” (Coontz, 2010). However, this wasn’t a bad thing, it
helped pave the way and socially construct how labor forces are today.
Since men and women needed to find new ways to earn money, they began to reorganize
their division of labor based on age and gender. The wake of the industrial revolution began the
separate spheres ideology. The two separate spheres were the public and private spheres. Men
belonged to the public sphere in which they started to find employment outside of the home for
wages. The private sphere on the other hand was where women who were placed in. Women’s
jobs were to focus more attention on housework and child rearing. Unmarried women, on the
other hand would find employment at factories or continue to help around the household. The
separate spheres are a clear and concise example of the social construction of gender; having
cultural and social attitudes regarding what men and women should and should not be doing.
Today, families are still expected to be a haven and a place of stability, however the norm says
otherwise. During the beginning of the twentieth century, it’s been noted that “fully one third of
all American children spent at least part of their childhood in a single-parent home, and as
recently as 1940, one child in ten did not live with either parent- compared to one in twenty-five
today” (Mintz, 2010). Divorce is becoming more and more common, as women can now support
themselves and not stay in a toxic relationship just for the economic benefits. Every family has
their problems, not one family is perfect.
The term “family” had many definitions over time due to social constructionism. The
modern definition of family is “Parents and children, whether living together or not, or any group
of persons closely related by blood” (Coontz, 2010). Many people today marry and start a family
out of love; however during the seventeenth century it was very different due to social and

3. Popelaski 3
economic circumstances. The definition of family during the seventeenth century according to
most middle class Europeans and North Americans was “Common residence under the authority
of a household head rather than on blood relatedness, a definition that included boarders or
servants as family members” (Coontz, 2010). This just goes to show how far society has come
today, as most people don’t consider their maids or butlers to be family. Additionally “little
distinction was made between a biological child and an unrelated household member of about the
same age” (Coontz, 2010). Children were seen just as little workers as well, the more children
had, the more hands to help around the business. Marriage was also a big factor when it came to
getting help around the family business, which is a main reason why men sought out to get
married. Similarly, women married for the same reason “it was hoped that love would develop
after marriage, but prior to the late eighteenth century, love was not supposed to be the primary
motive for marriage, and children were expected to be guided by their parents’ wishes in their
matches” (Coontz, 2010). Therefore, economic prosperity triumphed over love in most cases in
both men and women. Now today, majority of women are in the labor force, and are able to
support themselves, rather than latch onto a man for economic survival.
Childhood today is primarily seen as a period of time that’s supposed to be
sentimentalized, and as a time of innocence and purity. Economic status played a huge role
regarding how a child would be brought up. If the child was born into a lower class family, the
family would sometimes “volunteer to send their children to live in another household at a
relatively young age to work as a servant or apprentice” (Coontz, 41). This goes to show how
weak parent and child relationships were back in the seventeenth and early eighteenth century, it
wasn’t guaranteed that they would see their child again. However, this could have all been for
the child’s benefit. Perhaps, the parent couldn’t afford taking care of the child or maybe they

4. Popelaski 4
wanted to offer the child skills that they couldn’t offer them themselves. When it came to labor,
strength and stamina mattered more than chronological age. Children’s jobs varied upon their
region and class, urban working class children got by scavenging and collecting coal, wood, and
various other items that could be used at home or sold. Meanwhile in mining towns, boys began
as breakers and eventually became full-fledged miners, usually in their mid-teens. Lastly, in rural
areas, children as young as five would usually pull weeds and keep animals away from the crops
on the farm; as they grew older they gained more responsibilities such as milking the cows,
churning butter, collecting eggs, doing laundry and harvesting crops (Mintz, 2010).
The industrial revolution once more, changed lives for the better; especially for children.
Today, we see children obtaining their first job while in high school, rather than starting at the
young age of five. There is now a focus on education and a notion that children should stay
enrolled in school until they’re eighteen. However, parents still continue to hold pressures over
their children in the three forms of psychological violence. These three forms of psychological
violence go against the assumption that childhood is innocent with these pressures. The first
form has to do with parental expectations in their child. With this, a parent constantly pushes a
child beyond their limits to meet the parent’s expectations regarding academic, physical and
social capabilities. Next is the violence of labeling normal childish behavior as pathological. For
example, a girl may prefer playing with video games which is associated with boys more than
they like playing with Barbie dolls. Lastly is the violence of representation, this is when
“children and adolescents are exploited by advertisers, marketers, purveyors of popular culture,
and politicians, who exploit parental anxieties as well as young people’s desire to be stylish,
independent, and defiant” (Mintz, 2010). Children always want to fit in with their peers, so it’s
understandable that they want to be up to date on the hottest trends. Most of the times children

5. Popelaski 5
badger on their parents about things they want, and sometimes the parent will give in, no matter
how much they were originally against the idea of the product the child wanted. This gives
children a sense of power over their parents and will most likely use it to their advantage.
Economic, political, and social changes over the course of time heavily influence social
constructionism, especially in regards to family life. The industrial revolution brought all three of
these changes. This was also just one prime example on how families were seen differently
afterwards, how children are portrayed over time, how a family is not always a safe haven and
how it may just be the farthest thing from it. One day, maybe one generation may think 21st
century customs are strange too, this just proves that social constructionism is never ending.
Works Cited

6. Popelaski 6
Risman, B. J., & Rutter, V. E. (2010). Families As They Really Are. New York, NY: W.W.
Norton.