Vanier Institute of the Family -- Contemporary Family Trends - Strengths in Families: Accentuating the Positive

The first Canadian Conference on the Family, held in Ottawa on June 7-10, 1964, was planned and organized to allow Canadians to focus attention on family life in contemporary society; its role and meaning, the conditions under which it exists, its strengths and weaknesses, its problems, and its probable future.

The idea of the Canadian Conference on the Family was initiated by the Governor General and Madame Vanier, both of whom had a deep interest in all aspects of family life and a strong desire to encourage practical efforts to strengthen this central institution. In addition to being sponsors of the Conference, they actively supported and participated in its planning and in the Conference itself. (Morrison, 1965)

From this effort, the Vanier Institute of the Family (VIF) was established in 1965. The conference asked Frederick Elkin (1964) to produce The Family in Canada, a pioneering effort in examining the knowledge and gaps in knowledge about Canadian Families. Elkin (1964:7) points out in his first comments

The family is alive and well in the twentieth century despite widely published reports that it is an outdated social institution. Social critics bemoan the disintegration of the family, and use as evidence the high divorce rate, juvenile delinquency, wife and child abuse and the isolated elderly. This gloomy outlook is not what most families in Canada are in touch with. Most families cope well most of the time even though they are aware that life doesn’t proceed smoothly all of the time. (Guldner, 1983;44) Claude Guldner (1983) points out that to understand how families function, we must explore the areas of family organization, family ideology and family structure. In many ways all families are alike in that they all have organization, ideology or belief systems, and structure. However, the way in which each family handles each of these is what makes every family unique in the world. Families do not live in isolation. They interface with other significant systems in our society. Eight of these have primary impact upon families and in turn families impact them. These are:

We cannot really understand the family apart from the context in which it interacts day in and day out. (Guldner; 1983;45)

Carlfred Broderick (1983:24) states that the family is the toughest evolutionary human structure. It will out last every other organization. The evidence is clear that it bears more of the burden of individual human survival and also of the transmission of civilization and culture than any other social structure. He continues his discussion by pointing out that the family is easy to take for granted, and one forgets that the family is the standard unit of material functioning and survival. It is the basic unit of residence and of economic support. Food, clothing, shelter, and personal services are centred in the family, including the overwhelming responsibility for nearly all dependent members of the society: i.e. children, elderly, handicapped, ill and idle. Beyond these direct services they also are primary instructors in basic skills (rules of social interaction and communication, personal hygiene, responsibility etc.), and are a crucial support system ensuring the success of secondary institutions such as schools.

He completes his discussion of the family with the following statement, (Broderick, 1983:25):

The Vanier Institute of the Family (1994:10) defines family in the following way:

"Family is defined as any combination of two or more persons who are bound together over time by ties of mutual consent, birth and/or adoption/placement and who, together, assume responsibilities for variant combinations of some of the following:

As the VIF definition indicates, families perform vital functions for society and for their members. Society as we know it would be simply unimaginable without them. Researcher Shirley Zimmerman (1988; 75-76) has listed six basic functions of families that demonstrate how important and far-reaching these functions are:

In the 1990’s we have different types of families. During the International Year of the Family, the Vanier Institute of the Family (1994) described them as follows:

Since 1972, the Vanier Institute of the Family has recognized same-sex couples as families. A search of the family literature in the 1990’s indicates that we also have to add one more group of families.

In a recent release Statistics Canada (1997:2) presented some preliminary results of the 1996 Census. Some of the highlights are:

A positive interpretation of this data, is that "couplehood" is the most favoured relationship among Canadians. This has been achieved through common-law families and married-couple families. To add to this "couplehood" theme, Statistics Canada (1996:4) examined the growth of "stepfamilies".

Stepfamilies are a mix of biological and step relationships between parents and children. There are three kinds of stepfamilies: those with only the mother’s children (the most common), those with only the father’s, and "blended" families. In 1995, slightly over 50% of stepfamilies consisted only of children who lived with the biological mother and a stepfather. Stepfamilies which consisted only of children living with the biological father and a stepmother represented 13% of all stepfamilies. Evidently, more mothers than fathers brought their biological children to a new union. More than a third (37%) of all stepfamilies in 1995 (about 161,000) were "blended". That is, they included a mix of children that both parents brought to the family from previous unions, or they were a mix of children from previous unions and the current one.

Stepfamilies are a growing phenomenon. In 1995, it is estimated that 10% of all families composed of couples with children (about 430,000) were stepfamilies. Of those, slightly over half consisted of couples who were currently married, while the remainder were common-law couples.

In 1994, the Angus Reid Group (1994), published a report on the State of the Family in Canada. The survey consisted of 2,051 respondents who were interviewed nation-wide. Some of the findings related to family strengths were: (pp. 3-4)

In the recent National Study of Children and Youth (Human Resources Development Canada, 1996), Ross, Scott and Kelly (1996: 28-29) reveal that 84.2% of children in Canada aged 0 to 11 years lived in a two-parent family, 15.7% lived with a single parent and less than 1.0% lived with someone other than a parent (typically another relative or a guardian). Among children with single parents, the vast majority (92.8%) live with a single mother. Perhaps one of the most striking findings of the survey is that of all children aged 0 to 11 years, 78.7% live with their biological parents in two-parent families. This finding also can be added to the ‘good news’ about the lives of Canadian families.

Family strengths may be defined as those relationship patterns, intrapersonal and interpersonal skills and competencies, and social and psychological characteristics that create: (1) a sense of positive family identity, (2) promote satisfying and fulfilling interaction among family members, (3) encourage the development of the potential of the family group and individual family members, (4) contribute to the family’s ability to deal effectively with stress and crisis, and (5) function as a support/network to other families (King, 1983, 49).

In talking about family strengths Dr. Kay King (1983: 48) adds the following positive assumptions.

A key issue in strengthening families is to promote the characteristics and traits of strong families. As Dr. Moncrief Cochran has indicated, "we must move away from a family deficit model (one which focuses on troubles or problems) to a family strengths model, with emphasis on prevention rather than treatment (equipping rather than repairing)," (in King, 1983, 48).

The next section is a summary of research findings in Canada and the United States during the 1980-1997 period. It covers the wide area of family strengths and includes such topics as healthy families, functioning families and lasting marriages. The survey also includes the family strengths found among one-parent families, stepfamilies, and gay and lesbian families. The comprehensive bibliography lists all of the resources used in this section.

Can family be all bad if the urge to have a family and be a family is so strong? I find the beginning of an answer in metaphor: If the family were a container, it would be a nest, an enduring nest, loosely woven, expansive, and open. If the family were a fruit, it would be an orange, a circle of sections, held together but separable – each segment distinct. If the family were a boat, it would be a canoe that makes no progress unless everyone paddles. If the family were a sport, it would be a baseball: a long, slow, nonviolent game that is never over until the last out. If the family were a building, it would be an old, but solid structure that contains human history, and appeals to those who see the carved moldings under all the plaster, the wide plank floors under the linoleum, the possibilities … The possibilities are there for the family as well, if we can figure out what is worth preserving and what to discard. To rethink the family’s design, purpose, and meaning, we must begin with some "essence of family" that is pure and true. And for me the essence of family is:

Stinnett et al (1979) discussed the characteristics of strong families, and Stinnett et al, (1982) further examined this type of family. A total of 438 husbands and wives from all regions of the United States responded, by citing their strengths. Stinnett et al (1979) developed six qualities of strong families. They are: appreciation for each other, spending time together, good communication patterns, commitment, a religious orientation, and an ability to deal with a crisis in a positive manner. Stinnett et al (1981) also examined 66 strong families. For the vast majority of families, crises were catalysts for growth in a positive direction. The family is able to seek and use this help in a family crisis. Thus they acknowledge their vulnerabilities. Strong and DeVault (1995:600-612) summarize some American studies of `strong families’. Strong families:

The families in Stinnett and DeFrain’s study (1985) describe the "spiritual dimension" in various ways: "faith in God, faith in humanity, ethical behaviour, unity with all living things, concern for others, or religion." Spirituality has a broad definition because the experience is entirely subjective; it means different things to different people. Yet strong families share common spiritual ground. In these families, spiritual wellness is a "unifying force, a caring centre, within each person that promotes sharing, love, and compassion for others. It is a force that helps a person transcend self and become part of something larger" (Stinnett and DeFrain, 1985).

Families with a spiritual orientation see a larger purpose for their family than simply their own maintenance and self-satisfaction. They see their families as contributing to the well-being of their neighbourhood, city, country, or world, and as being an avenue through which love, caring, and hospitality can be expressed. Many families find support and expression of spiritual strength and purpose in religious associations. These families find in religious activities a transcendent framework on which they formulate family values, behaviour patterns, and goals, as well as a source of strength with which they attempt to live out those values.

A Canadian pioneering study by Westley and Epstein (1969) nearly thirty years ago examined the emotional health of families in Montreal. Their most important finding was that children’s emotional health is closely related to the emotional relationship between their parents. When these relationships are warm and constructive, such that the husband and wife feel loved, admired, and encouraged to act in ways that they themselves admired, the children are happy and healthy. Couples who are emotionally close, meeting each other’s needs and encouraging positive self-images in each other, become good parents. Since they meet each other’s needs, they do not use their children to live out their needs; since they are happy and satisfied, they can support and meet their children’s needs; and since their own identities are clarified, they see their children as distinct from themselves. All this helps the children become emotionally health people. (p. 156)

The family with a balanced division of labour proved to be the only one in which the majority of couples had a vigorous sex life and experienced increasing satisfaction with the sexual relationship, had a good marital relationship, and had emotionally healthy children. Though it is true that this was also the only type of family in which the majority of husbands and wives were emotionally healthy, they still found that there was a direct relationship between the division of labour and the emotional health of the children. (p. 161)

Lewis et al (1976) add that parental role modelling is a crucial factor in the development of qualities that ensure personal psychological health and growth in families. In their study Lewis et al (1976) also found that healthy families have a relationship of trust, shared power and close communication which formed the basis of health of the family system. Gantman (1980), reviewed the literature on healthy families written in the 1970’s. Some of the findings are:

When Dolores Curran (1983) interviewed 551 professionals, she asked them to describe characteristics of healthy families. The 15 traits which topped the list were that the healthy family (23-24):

Barnhill (1979) reviewed the concepts of the healthy family system as developed in the theoretical literature on family therapy. His eight basic dimensions of family mental health include:

Fisher, Giblin, and Hoopes, (1982) surveyed 208 non-clinical family members about their views on the nature of a healthy family. These results were compared to a previous study of family therapists’ perception of healthy-family functioning.

As a group the family members under study valued "unity" in the family, in contrast with society’s emphasis on individualism. "Expressing thoughts" was important. Communications was also valued highly. Good communication includes the tone of voice, body language, eye contact, silences, touch, or a `gift’ to a family member.

What is a well functioning family? Cocivera (1982) lists the following characteristics:

Hansen (1981) lived with three functioning families, staying with each family for seven full days. Among her 14 findings were the following:

Mudd and Taubin, (1982) reported a twenty-year ongoing study of successful family functioning. Fifty-nine families completed the follow-up questionnaire in 1978-79. The authors found that relations with adult children are frequent, reinforced by a thriving transfer economy. Close friendships and active community involvement are cited as important sources of strength. While severely troubling situational events affecting family members are enumerated, few are defined as problems. Perceived problems are most often resolved within the family, or less often, with appropriate professionals. Husbands and wives express continuing satisfaction with marriage and family. They are optimistic about the future, and through careful planning, anticipate positive later-year development.

We (married couples) have been so furtive and secretive about our married happiness that many people have grown cynical about marriage altogether. It has been said and written that marriage is an overrated and outmoded institution; and the tens of thousands of gloriously happy married people have never raised their voices to deny it. I have been told in all seriousness by an able man and a keen observer of human affairs that he had scarcely ever in his life come in contact with a successful marriage. Why, I said to myself, are the best married people hiding their light under a bushel? Is it not time that some of them emerged from the seclusion of their happy, peaceful homes, and began to "sell" marriage to a generation rapidly becoming cynical and disillusioned about it? (Marriage Counselling [London: Churchill, 1948, p. 149] 1948:149)

The first Canadian study on lasting marriages was conducted by Benjamin Schlesinger (1982, 1983, Schlesinger and Giblon, 1984, Schlesinger and Schlesinger, 1987). In metropolitan Toronto, 129 couples married on the average for 25 years were interviewed. There were 19 items which were chosen by more than 83 percent of the respondents as "extremely important" in helping marriages to last. The first ten, in order of importance, were:

Other important ingredients were a sense of humour, friendship, companionship, honesty, caring for each other, commitment to the marriage, and a good sexual life.

Of 43 couples studied by Altrocchi (1988), most indicated they had good or excellent communication and resolved issues by talking. They also stated that their partner was their `best friend’. Humour was a very important part of their marriages. Their sex life was satisfying and important, and they stated that their spouses cared about them a great deal.

Sporakowski and Hughston (1978) examined the lives of 66 couples who were married for 50 or more years. Their responses about what made their marriages last included: love, give and take, home and family, religion, understanding and patience, commitment, and "it takes two to make a marriage work". The latest American study of "The Good Marriage" was completed by Wallerstein and Blakeslee (1996). The study included 50 couples living in northern California who were predominantly white, middle-class, and well educated. They were married during the 1950’s – and early 1960’s period. Both wife and husband had to consider their marriage a happy one (p. 9-10). Wallerstein and Blakeslee (1996: 12-13) point out that: Happy marriages are not carefree. There are good times and bad times, and certainly partners may face serious crises together or separately. Happily married husbands and wives get depressed, fight, lose jobs, struggle with the demands of the workplace and the crises of infants and teenagers, and confront sexual problems. They cry and yell and get frustrated. They come from sad, abusive, neglectful backgrounds as well as from more stable families; all marriages are haunted by ghosts from the past.

But somehow, for reasons that are critically important and that I explore here, these people have stayed married despite the Sturm und Drang of modern life. They feel, and say with conviction, that the marriage will last. After ten, twenty, thirty, or more years of being together, they regard the marriage with contentment and feel confident about its survival.

Wallerstein and Blakeslee (1996: 27-28) have developed nine tasks that help to build good marriages, and distinguish them from those that do not last. They are:

There have been very few studies of successful families from various ethnic groups. One of the best was done by Douglas Abbott and William Meredith (1988), who compared Caucasian, African American, Mexican American, Hmong, and Native American families. The researchers asked these families to rank various family traits that were derived from earlier studies of successful families. The most agreement across ethnic groups was among the Caucasian, African American, and Mexican American families. The Hmong differed the most from all the other families; their greatest difference was with the Caucasian families. Native American families were somewhat similar to African American and Mexican American families but different from Hmong families. Nevertheless, they were surprised to find generally more agreement than disagreement across the various ethnic groups, although they also identified some important differences. Table 1 presents the findings.

In a review of the literature dealing with one-parent families (Schlesinger, 1996) and the children of one-parent families (Schlesinger, 1995) specific family strengths among these families were identified.

For example, in their study of 26 American middle class one-parent families, Olson and Haynes (1993) identified seven themes related to the strengths in these families.

In another study of 71 American white, middle class one-parent families, Richards and Schmiege (1993) pointed out that the parents had strengths in the way they related to their children. These included: being supportive of the children, being patient, helping children cope, and fostering independence. Building a sense of honesty and trust, and conveying ideas clearly to family and friends, also were indicators of strengths. In their study most respondents stated that single parenting became easier over time.

Nancy Morrison (1995) studied successful single-parent families in the Mid-West of the United States. Interviews lasted two hours. The sample consisted of small families, the mothers were older and more mature (mean age 38 years), they had a high level of education, and were employed. All had been divorced. Many of the families had faced significant problems and challenges as well as the divorce adjustment. In addition to early financial crises and housing moves that are common in divorced families, some of these families had also experienced such crises as invalid parents, alcoholism, cancer and rape. For these families, the process of overcoming these obstacles had strengthened their family units and greatly contributed to their feelings of success as families. (p. 200)

Each family interviewed was also asked to respond to the question, "How do you feel successful single-parent families differ from successful two-parent families?" All agreed that if a two-parent family was working well, it would be preferred. Many felt that in a two-parent family, success is predicated on a successful marriage and without that a family was inevitably going to experience dysfunction. In each of these single-parent families, the marriage had failed, but the mothers felt the families had succeeded because they were able to avoid the stress of continued marital discord and also take advantage of some aspects of their singlehood.

By definition, the key difference between a single-parent family and a two-parent family is that the former has only one adult in the household. The families pointed out many advantages of having a single parent: life was simpler and easier with only one adult in the home because the mother did not have to cater to a husband, there was less tension and conflict, and the household seemed to be more peaceful (p. 212).

In spite of the fact that all the mothers in this study could relate both positive and negative aspects of being single parents, the consensus was that single parents have to work harder to succeed at parenting. They have to be more flexible in managing schedules more efficiently; they have to be more organized, finding ways to meet all the needs of the family that have to be handled by an adult; and they have to be more creative, developing new and uncharted coping skills. Some of the mothers were aware of these new strengths, but others had trouble identifying specific strengths, saying "I only did what I had to—is that a strength?" (p. 213)

Most evident in these mothers was a sense of confidence and pride that they were able to manage being a single parent. Along with this confidence was the development of increased independence, responsibility, and self-esteem in their children. Morrison (1995:217) summarizes her study by stating:

In the nearly 25 hours of interviews with these successful single-parent families, the investigator was notably struck by the positive attitudes exhibited by all of these families. It was expected that families identifying themselves as "successful" would present themselves as happy and content, but the positive approach to living exhibited by these families was much more pervasive. They did not present themselves as devoid of faults; they freely identified their problems and weaknesses, and talked openly about negative experiences and feelings. Nevertheless, the mothers had generally given up their anger at their ex-spouses and the families had successfully moved beyond the crisis of divorce to a higher level of functioning. They were looking ahead, open to positive growth experiences and excited about increasing closeness and success as a family.

There had never really been a script for stepmothers and stepfathers, other than the nasty stories about Cinderella’s stepmother and other similar images. Now, because it is so frequent, we are trying to define these roles. What does it mean to be a stepmother, stepfather, stepsibling, half-sibling and so on? It’s another one of those examples of our need to consciously define the kind of family we are creating. (Glossop, 1994:9)

Most stepchildren live in blended families. In 1994, almost 9% of Canadian children under the age of 12 were living in a stepfamily. Almost half of them were actual stepchildren, and the others had been born or adopted into stepfamilies. The majority of children in stepfamilies lived in a blended family, which most often included the couple’s biological children and the wife’s children from a previous relationship (that is, "their children" and "her children").

Most stepchildren lived with their natural mother and a stepfather and very few with their natural father and a stepmother; in fact, stepfathers outnumbered stepmothers five to one. The most common stepparenting relationship was the stepfather-stepdaughter relationship, while the least common was that between a stepmother and a stepdaughter. (Statistics Canada, 1997:9) In 1995 we had 430,000 stepfamilies in Canada (Statistics Canada, 1996:4). For a good analysis of the lives of stepchildren in Canada see David Cheal’s (1996:93-102) study.

Margaret Crosbie-Burnett, an assistant professor and researcher at the University of Wisconsin, completed a study assessing stepfamily adjustment. For this study, 87 upper-middle-class households—mainly caucasion, mother custody-stepfather households were used. (Stepfamily Bulletin, 1984:15)

Patricia Kelley (1994), who is director of the School of Social Work at the University of Iowa, Iowa City, studied 20 healthy stepfamilies. Kelley (1994:86-90) summarized the major strengths of her findings related to stepfamilies. The importance of clear communication, with some planned mechanism for implementing it, was a common thread. Regular family meetings with rules discussed and agreed upon by as many people as possible were suggested and carried out in these families, especially in the beginning stages of marriage.

Another, related, theme that emerged from these interviews was the importance of respect over love in steprelationships. The expectation of instant and equal love was not present in these families. In most of these families it was all right to call the stepparent by the first name, and to feel closer to and spend more time with the biological parent.

Allowing for privacy and space was a matter attended to by these families. More privacy and space are needed than in biologically based families, and many families found it useful to develop their own sense of space by moving to neutral territory. Flexibility was probably the word heard most often when these families discussed what was important. Last, a common theme found in these families was the ability to have fun together, not taking things too seriously and having a sense of humour.

Suggestions and themes from these families that would be useful for families in general include flexibility, clear communication, decreased sex role stereotyping, fun and good humour, and strong social and community support systems. In stepfamilies, however, these ideas assume extra importance. Themes from these families suggesting differences included discipline and nurturing from one, not both of the adults in the home, more cross-generational alliances, more permeable boundaries allowing for children to move back and forth between homes, without feeling out of the system, inequality of parental roles, and somewhat different resources and rules for different sets within the family.

The literature on gay and lesbian parenthood has only emerged in the 1990’s (Arnup, 1995; Bozett, 1987; Martin, 1993; Nelson, 1996 and Slater, 1995).

It is estimated that 3 million lesbian and gay couples in the United States are raising one or more children. (Schwarz and Scott, 1997:244). In Canada it has been estimated that about a half million gay and lesbian parents are raising children. (Arnup, 1995:167) Same-sex families challenge traditional notions about families and parenting while at the same time pointing up the fact that many lesbians and gays, like their "straight" counterparts, view parenting as a rewarding endeavour (Macionis, 1995).

In spite of the relatively recent development of this area of research, we can still consider the strengths inherent in this family pattern. Although little is known about the parenting styles of lesbians and gays, the available research indicates that lesbians tend to form extended networks of support that operate like any other family except that they are not patriarchal. Lesbian households tend to be less structured around a gender-specific division of labour; thus, children in these homes tend to experience more equitable family arrangements. Bozett (1990) and Anderson (1993) on the basis of their research have claimed that, as mothers, lesbians tend to be more child-oriented; they tend to be more responsive to their children’s needs and more actively involved in their lives than heterosexual mothers. In fact, some feminists have claimed that when lesbian mothers leave an unhappy heterosexual relationship where children are involved, the children may actually get more nurturing in a lesbian household where two or more women share the work of child care.

Like lesbians, many gays who raise children tend to be more nurturing and less rigid in terms of gender role socialization and the gender division of household labour than heterosexual fathers. Gay fathers also tend to be more strict disciplinarians than heterosexual fathers (Andersen, 1993). Miller (1992) and Laird (1993) claim that in general, lesbian and gay parents tend to have fewer problems with their children’s behaviour than do heterosexual parents. When problems do arise, often it is due not to the sexual orientation of the parents but rather to outside influence and interference and the degree to which society accepts the negative stereotypes of lesbian and gay parents (Lindsey, 1994).

Many people believe that growing up in a lesbian or gay household is emotionally unhealthy for children and can cause confusion about their own sexuality. However, research consistently shows that the children of lesbians and gays are generally understanding, adaptable, and accepting of their parents’ lifestyle, and they are as well adjusted as children who grow up in heterosexual households. In addition, these children experience no significant psychological damage, nor do they have a tendency to be homosexual themselves; in fact, they are no more likely to be homosexual than are children raised by straight parents (Flaks et al, 1995). According to Charlotte Patterson (1992), there can be positive effects of being raised by lesbian or gay parents. For example, having a nontraditional adult role model gives children a greater appreciation of diversity. In addition, having a parent who is different can make it easier for a child to be different and independent. The child might be more tolerant, accepting, and less judgmental because she or he has been taught to accept social and personal differences in others. Lesbian mothers often feel that their children have strength, compassion, and maturity beyond their years.

A substantial number of gay men and lesbians have previously been in heterosexual marriages, and some have children from those marriages (Lamanna and Riedman, 1997:355-356). About 56 percent of lesbian couples have children living with them (Harry 1983) often from previous marriages. Gays and lesbians have also sought parenthood as single adoptive parents, and as birth parents, as one partner gives birth to a baby they both parent.

Table 2: Sixty selected Qualities in Lasting Families in the United States and Canada: The Research Findings.

On the other hand they give us a good glimpse into the lives of strong families.

The United Nations, in its 1992 Human Development Report, declared that Canada had the highest quality of life in the world. Canadians can expect to live longer, have a higher average income, have more opportunities for education and advanced education, and live in a less crowded country than people in most other countries in the world.

The United Nations NGO Committee on the Family (1994) in its guiding principles on the family included two items (p. 3):

We live in a country where most families are managing their day by day existence in a satisfactory manner. Stephanie Coontz (1992:278) pointed out that to handle social obligations and interdependency in the twenty-first century, we must abandon any illusion that we can or should revive some largely mythical traditional family. We need to invent new family traditions and find ways of reviving older community ones, not wallow in nostalgia for the past or heap contempt on people whose family values do not live up to ours. There are good grounds for hope that we can develop such new traditions, but only if we discard simplistic solutions based on romanticization of the past. We cannot return to the `family of nostalgia’.

Leo Tolstoy wrote "Happy Families are all alike, every unhappy family is unhappy in its’ own way". We do not believe that we can accept his quotation. From our review we find that all lasting families are unique in their own family life cycle. Each one manages to continue to grow in their unique style of living. It’s time that we accentuate the positive aspects of family life, and give credit to those families who manage to survive the day by day stresses and meet the twenty-first century as strong families.

It is also important to realize that all of our diverse family patterns have strengths. Robert Glossop (1994:10) echoes this statement after reviewing life in `Families of Canada’. He states:

Here is perhaps the most welcome surprise: despite the diversity in the patterns of family formation and function, it is possible to define the common aspirations, common needs and common obligations of Canada’s families. It doesn’t take long when you get a group of people from different circumstances in a room, for them to come to appreciate and understand that what is at issue for them as individuals is at issue for most others. We are increasingly going to have to acknowledge diversity and understand it better. But equally, we need to understand the common elements and aspects that cut across the different patterns of family formation and function...if we are going to, in fact, learn how to deal constructively with that diversity and lend support to Canada’s families.

Abbott, D.A. and Meredith, W.H. (1988). Characteristics of strong families: Perspectives of ethnic parents. Home Economics Research Journal, 17 (2), 140-147.

Alberta, Premier’s Council in Support of Families (1993). Perspectives on Family Well-being. Edmonton, March.

Altrocchi, J. (1988). Happy Traditional and Companionship Marriages. Social Casework, 69 (Sept.), 434-442.

Ambert, A. (1986). Being a stepparent: Live-in and visiting stepchildren. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 48, 745-804.

Ammons, P. and Stinnett, N. (1980). The Vital Marriage: A Closer Look. Family Relations, 29, 1, 37-42.

Andersen, M. (1993). Thinking About Women: Sociological Perspectives on Sex and Gender. New York: Macmillan, 3^rd edition.

Arnup, K. (Ed.) (1995). Lesbian Parenting: Living with Pride and Prejudice. Charlottetown, P.E.I.: Gynergy Books.

Barnhill, L. (1979). Healthy Family Systems. The Family Coordinator, 28, 94-100.

Beavers, W.R. (1985). Successful Marriage. New York: W.W. Norton.

Bozett, F.W. (Ed.) (1987). Gay and Lesbian Parents. New York: Praeger.

Bozett, F.W. and Sussman, M.B. (Eds.) (1990). Homosexuality and Family Relations. New York: Harrington Park Press.

Broderick, C. (1983). Family as Inventor of Resources for Revival. (In) National Symposium of Family Strengths. (pp. 24-25). Oakville: Sheridan College.

Brown, K. (1987). Stepmothering: Myths and Realities. Affilia, 2, Winter, 34:45.

Cameron, P. and Cameron, K. (1996). Homosexual Parents: Adolescence, 31, No. 124, Winter, 757-776.

Canada Committee for the International Year of the Family (1995). Family Policy in Canada: What comes after the IYF? Ottawa: January. (a position paper)

Cheal, D. (1996). Stories about Stepfamilies. (In) Growing Up in Canada, pp. 93-102. Ottawa: Statistics Canada.

Cocivera, M. (1982). Normal Families Deserve Support and Encouragement. Guelph: University of Guelph, Facs Sheet. 2pp.

Coontz, S. (1992). The Way We Never Were: American Families and the Nostalgia Trap. New York: Basic Books.

Costello, C.Y. (1997). Conceiving Identity. Bisexual, Lesbian and Gay Parents Consider their Children’s Sexual Orientation. Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare, 24, 3, September, 63-85.

Curran, D. (1983). Traits of a Healthy Family. Minneapolis, Minnesota: Winston Press.

Daly, K.J. (1996). Families and Time: Keeping Peace in a Hurried Culture. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage.

Eastman, M. (1989). Family: The Vital Factor. Melbourne, Australia: Collins Dove.

Elkin, F. (1964). The Family in Canada. Ottawa: Vanier Institute of the Family.

Fields, N.S. (1983). Satisfaction in Long-Term Marriages: Social Work, 28, 1, 37-41.

Fine, M.A. (1995). The Clarity and Content of the Stepparent Role: A Review of the Literature. Journal of Divorce and Remarriage, 24, ½, 19-34.

Fisher, R.; Giblin, P.R.; and Hoppes, M.M. (1982). Healthy Family Functioning: What Therapists Say and What Families Want. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 8, (July), 273-284.

Gantman, C.A. (1980). A Closer Look at Families That Work Well. International Journal of Family Therapy, 2, (2), 106-119.

Gattrell, N. et al. (1996). The National Lesbian Family Study. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 66, 2, 272-281.

Glossop, R. (1994). Robert Glossop on the Canadian Family. Canadian Social Trends, No. 35, Winter, 2-10.

Gottman, J.M. (1994). Why Marriages Succeed or Fail. New York: Simon and Schuster.

Greif, G.I. (1985). Single Fathers. Lexington: Lexington Books.

Guldner, C. (1983). Well Family Functioning. In National Symposium of Family Strengths. (pp. 44-47). Oakville: Sheridan College.

Hansen, C. (1981). Living with Normal Families. Family Process, 20, 58-75.

Hanson, S. (1986). Healthy Single Parent Families. Family Relations, 35, 1, 125-132.

Hanson, S. and Trilling, J.A. (1983). A Proposed study of the Characteristics of the healthy single parent family. Family Perspective, 17, 2, 79-88.

Harry, J. (1983). Gay Male and Lesbian Relationships. (In) E. Macklin and R.H. Rubin eds. Contemporary Families and Alternative Lifestyles: Handbook on Research and Theory, pp. 216-34. Newbury, California: Sage.

Hobbs, N. et al. (1984). Strengthening Families. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Human Resources Development Canada (1996). Growing Up in Canada: National Longitudinal Survey of Children and Youth. Ottawa: Statistics Canada, Catalogue #89-550-MPE, No. 1.

Ihinger-Tallman, M. (1988). Research on Stepfamilies. Annual Review of Sociology, 14, 25-48.

Johnson Foundation (1978). Strengthening Families Through Informal Support Systems. Ravine, Wisconsin: Wingspread Conference.

Kantrowitz, B. (1996). Couples Come Out: Same Sex Parents. Newsweek, November 4, 51-54.

Kaslow, F.W. and Hammerschmidt, B. (1992). Long Term `Good’ Marriages: The Seemingly Essential Ingredients. Journal of Couples Therapy, 3, 15-38.

Kelley, P. (1994). Developing Healthy Stepfamilies: Twenty Families Tell Their Stories. Binghamton, New York: Haworth Press (Harrington Park Press).

King, K.F. (1983). Recognizing Family Strengths. In National Symposium of Family Strengths. (pp. 48-60). Oakville: Sheridan College.

Kissman, K. and Allen, J.A. (1993). Single-Parent Families. Newbury Park: Sage.

Lamanna, M.A. and Riedmann, A. (1997). Marriages and Families: Making Choices in a Diverse Society. Belmont, California: Wadsworth Publishing Co., 6^th Edition.

Laird, J. (1993). Lesbian and Gay Families. (In) E. Walsh ed. Normal Family Process, 2^nd ed., pp. 282-330. New York: Guilford Press.

Lauer, R.H. and Lauer, J.C. (1986). Factors in Long-Term Marriages. Journal of Family Issues, 7, 383-390.

Levy, J. and Munroe, R. (1938). The Happy Family. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.

Lewis, J.M.; Beavers, R.W.; Gossett, J.T., and Phillips, V. (1976). No Single Thread. Psychological Health in Family Systems. New York: Brummer-Mazel.

Lindsey, L. (1994). Gender Roles: A Sociological Perspective. Englewood, N.J.: Prentice Hall, 2^nd edition.

Macionis,k J. (1995). Sociology. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 5th edition.

Martin, A. (1995). The Lesbian and Gay Parenting Handbook: Creating and Raising Our Families. New York: Harper Colins, 1993.

Messinger, L. (1984). Remarriage: A Family Affair. New York: Plenum.

Miller, B. and Cafasso, L. (1992). Gender Differences in Caregiving: Fact or Artifact. The Gerontologist, 32, 4, 498-507.

Morrison, J. (Ed.) (1965). The Canadian Conference on the Family. Ottawa: Vanier Institute of the Family.

Morrison, N.C. (1995). Successful Single-Parent Families. Journal of Divorce and Remarriage. 22, 3/4, 205-219.

Mudd, E. and Taubin, S. (1982). Success in Family Living: Does It Last?A A Twenty-Year Followup. The American Journal of Family Therapy, 10 (Spring), 59-67.

NGO Committee on the Family (1994). Guiding Principles on the Family. Vienna: International Centre.

Nelson, Fiona (1996). Lesbian Motherhood: An Exploration of Canadian Lesbian Families. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Nichols, W.C. (1982). Preserving Traditional Families: The Myth, The Reality, The Need. Conciliation Courts Review, 20, December, 55-61.

Olson, D.H. and DeFrain, J. (1994). Marriage and the Family: Diversity and Strengths. Toronto: Mayfield.

Olson, D.H. and McCubbin, H.I. (1983). Families: What makes them work? Beverly Hills: Sage.

Olson, M.R. and Haynes, J.A. (1993). Successful Single Parents. Families in Society, 74, 5, 259-267.

Parron, E. and Troll, L.A. (1978). Golden Wedding Couples. Alternative Lifestyes, 1, November, 447-464.

Pasley, K. and Ihinger-Tallman, M. (Eds.) (1994). Stepparenting: Issues in Theory, Research and Practice. Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood.

Patterson, G.J. (1992). Children of Lesbian and Gay Parents. Child Development, 63 (October), 1025-1042.

Progrebin, L. (1983). Family Politics. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Reid, A. (1994). The State of the Family in Canada. Toronto: Angus Reid Group.

Richards, L.N. And Schmiege, C.J. (1993). Problems and Strengths of Single-Parent Families: Implications for Practice and Policy. Family Relations, 42, 3, 277-285.

Ross, D.P. Scott, K. and Kelly, M.A. (1996). Overview: Children in Canada in the 1990’s (In) Growing Up in Canada: National Longitudinal Survey of Children and Youth (pp. 15-46). Ottawa: Statistics Canada.

Schlesinger, B. (1982). Lasting Marriages in the 1980’s. Conciliation Courts Review, 20, 43-49.

Schlesinger, B. (1983). Lasting and Functioning Families in the 1980’s. Canadian Journal of Community Mental Health, 2, (September), 45-56.

Schlesinger, B. (1995). Children in One-Parent Families: A Review. International Journal of Sociology of the Family, 25 (2), 105-114.

Schlesinger, B. (1996). Lone-Parent Families in Cross-Cultural Perspectives. International Journal of Sociology of the Family, 26 (1), 89-105.

Schlesinger, B. and Giblon, S.T. (1984). Lasting Marriages. Toronto: Guidance Centre, Faculty of Education, University of Toronto.

Schlesinger, B. and Schlesinger, R. (1987). Lasting Marriages and Families: Accentuating the Positive. Pastoral Sciences, 6, 25-37.

Schlesinger, B. and Schlesinger, R.A. (1988). Canadian Families: A Resource Guide. Toronto: OISE Press.

Schlesinger, R.A. and Schlesinger, B. (1992). Canadian Families in Transition. Toronto: Canadian Scholars’ Press.

Schumm, W.R. (1985). Beyond Relationships Characteristics of Strong Families: Constructing a model of family strengths. Family Process, 19, 1, 1-9.

Schwarz, M.A. and Scott, B.M. (1997). Marriages and Families: Diversity and Change. Upper Saddle River: N.J., Prentice Hall, 2nd. ed.

Sheridan College (1983). National Symposium on Family Strengths. Toronto: Ontario.

Siegel, R.J. (1982). The Long-Term Marriage: Implications for Therapy. Women and Therapy, 1, Spring, 3-11.

Simenson, C.M. (1995). Building Family Strengths: Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Extension Service.

Slater, S. (1995). The Lesbian Family Life Cycle. New York: The Free Press.

Sporakowski, M.J. and Hughston, G.A. (1978). Prescriptions for Happy Marriage: Adjustments and Satisfactions of Couples Married for 50 or More Years. The Family Coordinator, 27 (Oct.), 321-327.

Stacey, J. (1996). In the Name of the Family: Rethinking Family Values in the Postmodern Age. Boston: Beacon Press.

Stafford, A.F. and Donelson, A.W. (1981). Profile of the Creative Family. Family Perspective, 15, Winter, 21-26.

Statistics Canada (1996). Canadian Families: Diversity and Change. The Daily, June 19, 1996.

Statistics Canada (1997). Canadian Children in the 1990’s. Canadian Social Trends. Spring, 2-9.

Statistics Canada (1997). 1996 Census: Marital Status, common law unions and families. The Daily, October 14, 1997.

Stepfamily Bulletin (1984). Study Assesses Stepfamily Adjustment. Stepfamily Bulletin, Spring.

Stinnett, N. et al. (1979). Building Family Strengths. Lincoln, Nebraska: University of Nebraska Press.

Stinnett, N. et al. (1981). Family Strengths #3. Lincoln, Nebraska: University of Nebraska Press.

Stinnett, et. al. (1982). Family Strengths #4. Lincoln, Nebraska: University of Nebraska Press.

Strong, B. and DeVault (1995). The Marriage and Family Experience. New York: West Publishing Co., 6th edition.

Thomson, H. (1966). The Successful Stepparent. New York: Harper and Row.

Vanier Institute of the family (1994). Profiling Canada’s Families. Ottawa: Vanier Institute of the Family.

Visher, E. and Visher, J. (1982). How to Win as a Stepfamily. New York: Dembner Books.

Visher, E. and Visher, J.S. (1988). Old Loyalties, New Ties. New York: Brunner-Mazel.

Wallerstein, J.S. and Blakeslee, S. (1996). The Good Marriage. New York: Time Warner.

Walsh, F. (Ed.) (1982). Normal Family Processes. New York: The Guilford Press.

Westley, W.A. and Epstein, N.B. (1969). The Silent Majority. San Francisco: Jossey-Boss.

Zimmerman, C. and Cervantes, L.F. (1960). Successful American Families. New York: Pageant Press.

Zimmerman, S.I. (1980). The Family Building Block or Anachronism. Social Casework, 61, 4, 195-204.

Zimmerman, S.I. (1988). Understanding Family Policy: Theoretical Approaches. Beverly Hills: Sage.

Families are one of the few groupings in society that embody values alternative to the technocratic and profit-centred motives that are endemic in contemporary society. Families and family values are the major alternative to a selfish, individualistic mentality. In this view, families should be supported not only because they create the stuff of society, human beings, but because the sharing, flexibility and communality of family life at their best provide a different model of what society can be. (Eastman, 1989, XI)

The family endures. We can assure its survival by offering support, enrichment, and encouragement and by helping families that function well most of the time through some inevitable rough spots. In a hectic, impersonal world, the family can and should be an oasis of security, trust and love. (Cocivera, 1982:2)

The family may be faring far better than other social institutions in asssessments of its performance, despite the dreary and depressing anomalies in which some families are involved and that consume so much of the public’s attention: child abuse, spouse abuse, drug abuse, suicide, homicide, and so on. Yet, in thinking about these anomalies, it is important to remember that they do not pertain to most families, and that most families, despite or because of changing structures and a frequently unfriendly environment, are performing their functions and meeting the needs of their members anhd society apparently better than society is meeting the needs of families. (Zimmerman, 1980:204)

Unfortunately, however, in this increasingly mean-spirited, practical world of contemporary economic retrenchment, political reaction, and social malaise, only a minority of primarily affluent citizens enjoy the kinds of resources that enable them to realize much of the tantalizing potential of postmodern family options. Little wonder that so many succumb to nostalgia for the modern family order. Yet we do not have the option of returning to that order, even if we truly wanted to. Instead, our urgent task is to begin to move forward, rather than backward, toward the postmodern family regime. We might do well to start distributing

access to its opportunities, responsibilities, and hazards far more equitably, because for better and/or worse, the postmodern family revolution is here to stay. (Stacey:37)

I came to Beijing to the Fourth World Conference of Women to speak on behalf of lesbian families. We are part of families. We are daughters, we are sisters, we are aunts, nieces, cousins. In addition, many of us are mothers and grandmothers. We share concerns for our families that are the same concerns of women around the world. (in Stacey, 1996:105)

The principal ingredients which are common to all these traits are Appreciation, Communication, Commitment and Caring for self and others.

These characteristics are best seen as areas your family might want to examine; as tools to facilitate family discussion and interaction; as information about actions members of your family can take on their own behalf; and as perspectives to support intuitive awareness and skills, and point toward new possibilities. DO NOT interpret them as another set of rules that must be followed to be successful or a checklist to grade your own or other families. A strengthening force is to identify and celebrate your family’s individualism and uniqueness.

Check the areas where you believe your family is particularly strong, and leave blank the areas which are potentials for your family to work on.

Keep in mind that every family has strengths and every family faces challenges. A good way to strengthen your family life is to focus on the positive, and celebrate the uniqueness of each family member. A family grows together from within. Healthy families are the result of many small efforts each day and over time.

The Vanier Institute of the Family
94 Centrepointe Drive
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, K2G 6B1
Tel: 613-228-8500 Fax: 613-228-8007
E-mail: