Wendelln/aBelln/an/an/an/a

Familism and Suburbanization: One Test of the Social Choice Hypothesis¹

INTRODUCTION

Social choice and population types.—Within certain population types, the relationship between the food economy and population growth fairly well resembles the conditions described by Malthus. These societies, described by Notestein as having high growth potential and described by Schultz as having endogenous relationships between the agricultural economy and population changes, contain populations which tend to expand to the limits of the food supply. In these societies, the "positive checks" of Malthus operate to control population size; birth rates remain high and relatively stable, variations in population growth being tied to variations in the death rate. Although a large proportion of the world’s people still live under such conditions, it has been demonstrated that in other societies, especially large-scale industrial societies, population changes cannot be explained by changes in the agricultural sector of the economy. These societies are freed from the Malthusian limits, and population variations within them will be an expression of a wide range of alternatives for individuals, death rates being characteristically low and stable and variations in population growth being tied to variations in the birth rate rather than to variations in the death rate. Thus the pressure of the population on the food supply no longer explains population growth in such societies as the United States, and other explanatory concepts are needed. A range of available choices which may affect the birth rate have been postulated. These include familism, upward vertical mobility, and consumership, among others.

The three alternative choice patterns defined.—By familism is meant spending time, money, and energy on family life; marriage at young ages, a short childless time-span after marriage, large families, and other such characteristics are indicators of familism. By upward mobility is meant movement into social positions of greater prestige, property, and power.

These are fairly common notions and many writers have discussed the relationship between the family and economic systems, usually positing an inverse relationship between familism and upward vertical mobility. Recent writers have pointed out, for example, that the spending of time and money on family life may have deleterious consequences for upward mobility; and, conversely, that the spending of time and money on one’s career may limit one’s family life by delaying marriage or postponing children.

Those persons who eschew spending on either career or family and prefer having as high a standard of living as possible in the present represent the consumership choice pattern.² These persons expend their efforts on "having a good time," "living it up," or "enjoying life as much as possible," and they do this in ways which are unconnected with family or career goals.

THE HYPOTHESIS

There is some evidence that these alternative choice patterns and the recent shift of population to the suburbs may be linked together, although there does not seem to be complete agreement concerning which choice patterns are most reflected in the suburban shift. Demographic comparisons between central cities and their suburbs have shown that there is generally a higher socio-economic status group in the suburbs, suggesting that vertical mobility was involved in the suburban move. On the other hand, these comparisons also have shown for the suburbs a larger family size, more married males, more intact families, and more women not in the labor force, suggesting that a preference for familism was reflected in the outward move. Statistically analyzed surveys as well as impressionistic articles by popular writers have reflected one or another aspect of these two themes, and in some cases both themes are present.

The hypothesis of this study is that the move to the suburbs expresses an attempt to find a location in which to conduct family life which is more suitable than that offered by central cities, i.e., that persons moving to the suburbs are principally those who have chosen familism as an important element of their life styles. This is not offered as a complete explanation of the move to the suburbs. The sheer growth of our cities has brought about an expansion into the areas around them. This hypothesis concerns the selective or differentiating factors involved in the movement.

THE SAMPLE

One hundred interviews were obtained in two adjacent suburbs in the Chicago metropolitan area. These were Park Ridge and Des Plaines, both of which have had relatively large increases since the end of World War II. Park Ridge increased 37.6 per cent between 1940 and 1950 and about 44.6 per cent between 1950 and 1955. Des Plaines has had a somewhat larger relative growth, increasing its population 57.5 per cent between 1940 and 1950 and about 80 per cent between 1950 and 1955. Both have increased every decade since 1880; the largest relative increase over the years in each case occurred during the 1920’s. Both suburbs are primarily residential in character, and are located along a Chicago and Northwestern Railway commuter line. Park Ridge has a somewhat higher average income, occupation, and education than does Des Plaines; and the sample, having been drawn from both places, contains a relatively wide range with respect to economic status characteristics. Thirty-two per cent of the sample are classified as blue-collar; 24 per cent, lower white-collar; and 44 per cent, upper white-collar.³

A sample of dwelling units was randomly drawn from those areas where about 30 per cent or more of the housing consisted of post-World War II building. Substitution of next-door neighbors was allowed in case the selected respondent refused or was not at home. Half of the field work was done on the weekends in order to obtain about an equal split between men and women respondents. The interviewing was done during the early summer of 1955. Most of the interview schedule was memorized by the interviewers, and the average interview was about 30 minutes long.

THE FINDINGS

Sixty-eight per cent of the respondents had been living in Chicago just prior to their present move to the suburbs; 24 per cent came from nearby areas, mostly other suburbs, outside of Chicago; and only 8 per cent came from other places. Persons of lower socio-economic status were more likely to have moved from Chicago than were those of higher socio-economic status—88 per cent of the blue-collar, 62 per cent of the lower white-collar, and 57 per cent of the upper white-collar persons reported their last residence within the city limits of Chicago.

Characteristically, the suburbanites interviewed had been apartment dwellers before moving to their present residence, 65 per cent so reporting. Thus the shift to these two suburbs typically involves not only a move from the central city, but also entails a move from an apartment to a house.

The bulk of each interview was devoted to probing the reasons the respondent gave for moving to the suburbs. The reasons given for the move were classified into five broad categories (Table 1). Four-fifths of the respondents gave reasons which

TABLE 1 BROAD CLASSES OF REASONS GIVEN FOR MOVING TO THE SUBURBS, AND PERCENTAGE OF RESPONDENTS MENTIONING EACH TYPE had to do with bettering conditions for their children. Three-fourths of these responses concerned physical features of the suburbs in contrast to those of the city (Table 2). More space outside the house with less traffic and cleaner areas were cited as allowing the children to play out of doors "like children should," with much less worry and supervision on the part of the parents. Also, the fresh air, sunshine, and other features of "the outdoors" were mentioned as providing a "more healthy" life for the children. Living in a single-family detached house—instead of next to, above, or below other persons as in an apartment—was cited as giving the children more freedom to run and play in the house without the constant repressive demands of the parents. Also, the additional space inside the house, according to the respondents, allows the children to have a place of their own within the house, and permits them to "be children" without constantly "being on top" of their parents. Naps are less interfered with in the quiet of the suburbs.

Only a quarter of the responses having to do with moving for the children’s sake referred to social factors. The most frequent reason was the belief that the schools would be better in that classes would be smaller, more individual attention would be given by the teachers, and the teachers in the suburbs would be more interested in the children as well as generally more competent than those in Chicago. Other features concerning the social aspect of suburban living thought to be better for children were the following: other children of about the same age to serve as playmates for the respondent’s children; more organized activities available for children;

TABLE 2 PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF SPECIFIC REASONS IN THE "BETTER FOR CHILDREN" CATEGORY

owning one’s own home, which gives the children a sense of security they could never get in an apartment; other adults in the suburbs have children and, therefore, the adults treat all children with understanding; and better churches in the suburbs to which the children can go.

In 9 per cent of these responses (a third of those classed as "social") there were words to the effect that there were "nicer" children in the suburbs to serve as playmates for one’s children. When tiffs reason was given, extensive probing was employed to determine whether or not an upward mobility motif was involved. In one case this seemed to be so. The mother said, "We moved here mainly because of my daughter. The environment and schools are better, and her companions are of high caliber." (Interviewer probed "high caliber.") "I mean more highly educated families." (Interviewer asked what difference that made.) "If it’s a girl I suppose you’re thinking of who she’s going to marry and grow up with." (Pause.) "When it comes down to it, it’s a matter of income isn’t it? We want to give our child the best possible chance." (Interviewer asked what she meant by "chance.") "So she can enjoy life to the fullest and live graciously, I suppose."

This case was an exception, however, for probing indicated that other respondents giving this response seemed to be referring to their belief that there are fewer "juvenile delinquents" and "bad" influences among their children’s playmates in the suburbs. Thus, the response generally seems to indicate a maintenance of present social status rather than upward mobility aspirations for children.

Three-fourths of the respondents (Table 1) gave reasons for their move to the suburbs which have been classified as "enjoying life more." These are shown in detail in Table 3. In these reasons, social features were mentioned more often than the physical features of the suburbs as being important influences in the decision to move. The respondents expected more friendly neighbors, greater participation in the community, and easier living at a slower pace than they had had in the city.

TABLE 3 PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF SPECIFIC REASONS IN THE "ENJOY LIFE MORE" CATEGORY

Another theme was the "people-like-ourselves" idea. Some respondents said they wanted to live in a neighborhood where people had the same age, marital, family, financial, educational, occupational, or ethnic status as themselves. Ten per cent of the responses fell into this category, and extensive probing seemed to indicate that the mobility motif was not involved. Instead, it appeared that it was more a matter of feeling more comfortable and having more in common with persons of similar interests. For example, a white-collar man living in a predominantly blue-collar block indicated that he would move elsewhere in the suburbs because he didn’t have much of a common interest with his neighbors. He went on to say that his chief concern, although by no means his only one, was the fact that none of his neighbors played bridge.

Only 9 per cent of the respondents indicated that one of their reasons for moving to the suburbs was that they expected a "higher class" of person to be living there as compared with the central city. When probed on this point, the respondents referred to higher education and income, better occupations—especially engineering and sales occupations—good manners, quiet rather than loud and boisterous habits, a gracious manner of living, and intelligence. Certainly, a mobility motif must be admitted in most of these cases, but even here some persons seemed to be trying to find a group of persons "like themselves" with which to live, rather than trying to "better themselves" socially.

The physical features which attracted these suburbanites were the fresh air, sunshine, growing trees and other characteristics of the "open country" in contrast to the central city; also, the opportunity to garden and to "putter" around their "own home" was important. The quiet, lack of congestion, and cleanliness of the suburbs were also mentioned, as was the fact that a new house with modern conveniences was to be had in the suburbs for a lower price than its equivalent in the city.

As is also shown in Table 1, a fifth of the respondents said that the husband’s job was a factor in their move to the suburbs. Of these, more than half were transferred without a promotion or increase in salary or were just moving closer to a job which they had held for some time. The others, 9 per cent of the respondents, indicated that their move was a consequence of upward mobility, although none felt that their move was consequential for future increases on the job.

SOCIAL CHOICE TYPES

The following interpretation should be accepted with caution since these findings may not hold for the movement into suburbs of different types from those studied here. Even though a fairly wide range with respect to value of homes and occupations of the respondents was included in the sample, different reasons for moving may be found in other types of suburbs, such as industrial suburbs or suburbs in which only families of the very top socio-economic stratum reside. For the two suburbs studied, however, the findings are quite convincing.

The respondents were classified with respect to the dominant theme underlying their reasons for moving to the suburbs. Upward vertical mobility does not seem to be greatly associated with choosing to live in the suburbs, despite the contention of some recent writers. In fact, only 10 per cent of the respondents could be classified as having upward mobility aspirations involved in their move to the suburbs, and even here most of these persons also had other reasons for moving.

On the other hand, 31 per cent of the respondents can be classified as exemplifying pure familism, and a familistic orientation entered into the decision to move to the suburbs in a total of 83 per cent of the cases. That familism as it eaters into the suburban move is largely "conjugal familism" is indicated by the fact that only a relatively small percentage of the respondents moved in order to be closer to rela-fives not living with them while a much larger percentage indicated that they moved "because of the children." In fact, several who moved because of the children also noted that it was a little farther away from their relatives—a condition which they considered desirable.

In many of the responses which were categorized as familistic, it was evident that the respondents tended to think of the move to the suburbs in terms of the move from an apartment to a house. Thus, some respondents pointed out that if they could have found the same house in the city they would have preferred to live in the city. Although they realized such sections did exist within the city, they also noted that homes in them cost more than in the suburbs. Also in these responses there was the definite notion that the move from apartment to house was mutually beneficial for parent and child. In fact, several of the wives, according to their own testimony, had been on the verge of nervous collapse living with small children in an apartment. Since moving to a house in the suburbs, they reported they were no longer "nervous."

In general, the respondents reported moving because of the children, but they also reported that since they had lived in the suburbs they had learned to enjoy "suburban living" so much that they would never come back to the city. Seven per cent of the respondents, however, said that they would move back to an apartment in the city as soon as their children were married.

Ten per cent of the respondents were classified as pure examples of the consumership pattern, and an additional 43 per cent gave consumership reasons along with other reasons.

The three original life styles did not seem adequate to account for all of the responses given. A fourth theme, labeled the "quest-for-community," was apparent. This was the idea of moving to the suburbs to get more friendly neighbors, greater community participation, and a sense of belonging to the community. About 73 per cent of the respondents included such reasons as important factors in their decision to move to the suburbs, and usually this was in conjunction with the familistic orientation.

Thus the data support the hypothesis that the new suburbanites are largely persons who have chosen familism as an important element in their life styles, and in addition suggest a relationship between the desire for community participation or sense of belonging and the move to the suburbs.… The data of the present study .. confirm that suburbanites, in general, desire the advantages of modern technology and many of the facilities of urban "culture." However, if anonymity, impersonality, defilement of air and land by industry, apartment living, crowding, and constant nervous stimulation are inherent in "urbanism as a way of life," as some writers have said, then the findings of this study necessitate the conclusion that the suburbanite is seeking an escape from many traditional aspects of city living. The suburbanite seems to be seeking a way of life in which family, community, and immediate enjoyment through living the "good life" are dominant and interdependent ends.

¹ From , 1956, 21:276–283. By permission.

² There is a characteristic economic consumption pattern associated with each of the choice patterns. Certain types of purchases should be more typical of those who have chosen familism, other types more typical of those who are upward-mobile, and still other types more typical of those classified in the "consumership" pattern as the term is used here.

³ Professionals, managers, officials, and proprietors were classified upper white-collar; clerical and sales workers were classified lower white-collar; and craftsmen, foremen, operatives, private household workers, service workers, and laborers were classified blue-collar. None of the sample dwelling units contained persons reporting the occupations of farm laborer, farm manager, or farm proprietor.