Since the postwar era, various groups of people have understood the “traditional” family form as the key to U.S. political and economic stability, a source of oppression and repression, and an imperiled institution. And although American families have often been portrayed in these various ways, American families have recently been pushing against the norm since WWII.
What is this “traditional” family form being mentioned? At the very least, this “traditional” family consists of a husband who works to provide for his stay-at-home wife. This family form could be fulfilled by just about any white heterosexual married couple with enough income to own a house and drive a car. Therefore, if being part of this “traditional” family form is key to U.S. political and economic stability, does that mean that differing in the slightest will ensure an unsuccessful livelihood? Arthur Miller presents his perspective on this contention in his play Death of a Salesman.
The play Death of a Salesman focuses on a fictitious African American family living in Brooklyn, New York. The father of the family, Willy Loman, has been a salesman his whole life, trying to provide for his wife and two sons. Although Willy considers himself to be a successful, popular, and well-liked salesman, it is the exact opposite that is true. As Mr. Loman aged, He tried to make himself feel better by living in his world of delusion, by lying to himself and his family; the fact of the matter was that he could no longer drive competently, pay his bills, or sell anything. For example, Willy tells his boys that one day, he’d take them up to New England where “[he has] friends. [He] can park his car in any street in New England, and the cops protect it like their own” (Miller, p. 31). Mr. Loman demonstrates his utter faith in his twisted version of the “American Dream”; he is a slave to the delusional idea that he is in fact the poster boy for that dream. Willy Loman had the house, had the car, had the wife, had the life that consisted almost exactly to what the “traditional” family form was – yet his ethnic background and socioeconomic status prevented him from moving up, from achieving the “American Dream” he so longed for all his life. Being a black, middle-class man meant it was an unrealistic goal for, something Willy never came to terms to before his death.
Whereas the Loman family had no choice in choosing their ethnicity and no chance to change it, the same cannot be said for their socioeconomic status. Yes, they never moved out of the middle-class bracket, but there could have been a chance to change that status. Whether or not it is easy to move up socioeconomic classes relies more on the government’s decisions on economic policies. Some policies can help minimize the gap between classes, while others, like Reaganomics, can extensively widen that gap to the point where it makes it difficult for families like the Lomans to ever get out of a difficult financial situation.
The term “Reaganomics” was coined during Ronald Reagan’s presidency in association with his economic policies. Reagan sought to cut taxes on businesses and the wealthy, to decrease government spending on social services, and double the defense budget. The main policy to what Reagan viewed as the key to political and economic stability was this sort of supply-side, “trickle-down” economic system, which is what mainly defined “Reaganomics”. The idea of this “trickle-down” economy is that by cutting taxes on the wealthy and companies, a higher economic output would result, as well as a higher number of jobs created. Nonetheless, this never occurred to be true. The fact of the matter is that instead of spending the extra money from lower tax cuts, wealthy people and companies instead would save this surplus or invest it to make even more money. Consequently, during the 1980s, the gap between the rich and poor classes began widening at an accelerated rate, the number of people living below the poverty line increased, the rate of homeownership fell, and by the mid-1990s, the richest 1 percent of Americans owned 40 percent of the nation’s wealth. This enlarged gap portrayed an emphasis on the correlation between white “traditional” families and a high socioeconomic status.
In addition to cutting taxes for the wealthy to make them wealthier, the cut of government programs for the poor made them poorer, such as with the HUD Scandal in the 1980s. The Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Scandal started when Reagan slashed public housing budgets by half. Racial discrimination by banks and real estate agents were beginning to become unmonitored during this time, and the amount of lower-class people who received federal housing subsidies declined dramatically. It wasn’t until a decade later that 16 members of the HUD were convicted of favoritism, as well as engaging in bribery and fraud during the 1980s. What was supposed to be a key to political and economic stability contrarily converted to an oppression for anyone other than the white “traditional” family. Nevertheless, this oppression extended to more than just the “inferior” ethnicities and socioeconomic statuses of citizens – their sexuality was to become victim as well.
Oppression, as well as repression, towards those of “untraditional” sexuality is recognized in the family of the tragicomic Fun Home. But first, what is different between oppression and repression? An oppression is more of an external force controlling one’s actions, while repression is an internal force, a controlling force coming from within. Although very similar in meaning, these distinctions are important in Fun Home. This memoir revolves around two stories: Alison Bechdel, who grew up openly lesbian during the 1980s, and her father Bruce Bechdel, who was secretively gay. To keep something secretive, one must repress the secret internally – but what would make Bruce keep his homosexuality to himself, albeit he was married to his wife and had kids? This is where the oppression takes over. Because LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender) movements were unheard of when Bruce was growing up, he instead conformed himself to look like the “breadwinner” of a traditional family to fit in with society. In page 100 of Fun Home, Alison recounts finding a provocative picture of their babysitter, Roy, in her deceased father’s box of family photos. This secret photo hidden in a box until Bruce’s death symbolizes his homosexuality: he had closeted his sexuality, and it wasn’t until his death that Alison discovered the truth. What is simultaneously uncovered is the effects of oppression, a rather indirect one, from the U.S.’s “traditional” family form.
Because any family form other than the traditional one was unacceptable, events like the Stonewall riots broke out. The mafia-owned Stonewall Inn in Greenwich Village was one of the few gay bars in the 1960s where gays could be themselves without worrying about being arrested. However, that changed on June 28, 1969, when police attempted to raid the place and arrest those involved in “illegal, homosexual activities.” The patrons violently resisted arrest, and over the next few days, demonstrations continued. This incident is credited with beginning the modern gay liberation movement – but the gay movement had started long before these Stonewall riots. It was after this event that the movements only became more militant. To tie in with Bruce’s story, although this event did not directly affect him, events like these did reveal what might happen to those who defy the traditional form of family, what could happen if one “chose” to be gay in the U.S. at the time. This indirect oppression led Alison’s father to repress his sexuality.
This same-sex issue covered more than just oppressions and repressions; it likewise went into issues related to imperiled institutions. What is an imperiled institution? This refers to any form of society that is threatened to become destroyed. In the case of Braschi v. Stahl Associates Co., the “traditional” family form is what was at stake of becoming erased by same-sex couples. Braschi lived with his partner, Leslie, who rented an apartment controlled by Stahl Associates Co. However, when Leslie died, Stahl threatened to evict Braschi, for Leslie was technically the only tenant of record. Braschi argued that since he was Leslie’s lifetime partner, they were family, and thus should be able to continue living in the apartment of a deceased family member. Here, the “traditional” family form of a heterosexual couple was being challenged; should a homosexual couple, who were not even married, be considered “family”? In favor of Braschi, the court ruled that the homosexual couple was considered family. This decision not only kept Braschi from becoming homeless, but on a much larger scale, it represented the first time any court in the United States granted any kind of legal recognition to a same-sex couple. As a result, the definition of family expanded to more than being blood relatives or owning a marriage license; the definition of family extended to any cohabitation of partners exhibiting a long-term relationship characterized by an emotional and financial commitment and interdependence.
Today, there is no longer one dominant, “traditional” family form. Although normalcy can form societies and create a sense of being, it can likewise dismantle a society when the amount of people who do not conform to traditions become a larger group. At which point do common rules and regulations meant to provide political and economic stability become an oppression and repress citizens? When is it “right” for citizens to defy “tradition”?