The “traditional American family” can feel almost timeless: a married mother and father raising their children in a single-family home, with Dad earning the paycheck and Mom devoting herself to the household. But historian Samira K. Mehta argues that there has never been one traditional American family structure. The version many Americans now picture as traditional has a history of its own.
As Mehta explains in a longer conversation about her book God Bless the Pill, religious support for contraception in the mid-20th century was often less about sexual freedom or women’s autonomy than about building and protecting a particular kind of family. Religious leaders hoped that by limiting the number of children couples had, contraception could help produce healthy mothers, sexually satisfied marriages, economically secure households, and women who could remain at home rather than entering the workforce.
By the 1950s and ’60s, that vision had become entangled with Cold War ideas about what made the United States superior to the Soviet Union. The prosperous, churchgoing, consumerist nuclear family—with its suburban house, modern appliances, well-cared-for children, and male breadwinner—was not simply an ideal way to organize private life. It could be held up as evidence that American capitalism and religion produced happier, freer human beings than godless communism.
But even at its cultural height, this supposedly traditional family was neither universal nor particularly traditional. Race and class determined who could access it, while American families had long taken radically different forms in response to enslavement, immigration, poverty, death, incarceration, discrimination, and countless other circumstances.
How did birth control become tied to the idea of the nuclear family?
It’s really tied to certain Cold War ideals. In the 1950s and ’60s, there was a lot of rhetoric in the United States comparing life here to life in the Soviet Union. A lot of narrative about a sexually dynamic American marriage with a strong bread-winning father and a beautiful, well-kept homemaker mother who is able to raise her children in an extremely labor-intensive way because she has modern conveniences—a KitchenAid mixer and a washer and dryer and all the rest. This imagined life involves a husband who’s a white collar worker, and the one-income family has two cars—or at the very least one car and access to a train station Dad can take into the city. This lifestyle requires a lot of consumption, and this is contrasted with American rhetoric about Soviet families.
Imagine the American family all living in technicolor movies, and the Soviet family living in the black and white newsreels people saw before the movie. In the Soviet family, both the husband and wife go off to work in assembly lines in a factory. The children are “warehoused” in daycares—not getting labor-intensive child care, but rather a kind of industrialized, almost assembly-line child-rearing. They live in shared apartments with shared bathrooms and kitchens and have to stand in line for bread.
There’s this idea that cooperatively raised children are raised without love, without individual attention, and without nurture. The nuclear American family, meanwhile, is supposedly raised by well-educated mothers who can apply the science of child-rearing. They know how not to be too smothering or too strict because they’ve gone to college and are applying their education to child-rearing and homemaking. They are also consumers; because things free up women’s time and allow them to maintain a big house in the suburbs. So this all gives U.S. family life a comfort and appeal in contrast to Soviet life, but it also keeps the capitalist engine going and turns family units into effective consumers.
Where does religion come into these narratives about family?
In this ideology, the United States is depicted as a God-fearing country, and communism is portrayed as godless. Religious leaders believe that communism is a threat to a religious way of life, and they are interested in supporting the nuclear family structure with religious ideology.
How many U.S. families were actually living this life? Who was left out of the narrative?
The reality is that birth control does make this life more available for both the middle class and the upper echelons of blue-collar workers. If you have two children instead of six, you have more money for family vacations. You can buy a KitchenAid mixer. If you decide you want to redo your kitchen to be cherry red, you can donate the old one to the church fundraiser and buy a new one to match your new kitchen.
If you’re a Catholic or Jewish family moving to the suburbs because you can benefit from the GI Bill, then you can scale the size of your family. Both of these groups really want to access the American Dream, and part of how you access the American dream is by having 2.6 children—or in the 1950s, four children—and a white picket fence.
That said, this dream is still aspirational for a lot of people, and maybe in particular racialized minorities, who can’t afford for women not to work. Black women would work as domestic workers in the homes of white families—their own children didn’t have their mothers at home. They also worked in factories or other pink-collar jobs. Not everybody could live out this American Dream.
You describe this family vision as depending on having relatively few children. But while current day proponents of “traditional” families have similar values around consumerism and gender roles, they often argue for large families. So, is there even such a thing as a traditional family structure?
No, I don’t think there has ever been a traditional family structure.
Alexis Wells-Oghoghomeh wrote a brilliant book titled The Souls of Womenfolk, which talks about enslaved women’s experiences of sexuality, pregnancy, and maternity. She talks about mothers who, on the one hand, love their babies, and on the other hand know what might happen to them. She writes about enslaved midwives, who both care about the women they treat and know perfectly well they’re part of an animal husbandry project; that they, as human beings, are part of the reproductive economic engine of their enslavers. This is a hard piece of scholarship to read, but she talks about how infanticide becomes a morally acceptable choice in certain settings.
We might not call that a traditional family structure, but it is real and very much a product of some of the horrors American history and American society have demanded of people. And there are many more examples of family structures that might be called traditional.
Dianne Stewart wrote a book called Black Women Black Love that talks about how the United States— from the first moment of enslavement to right now—has undermined the Black family in myriad ways. Think about people being sold away from their spouses and children. People who, after the Civil War, discover they’re in bigamist marriages because their spouse, who was sold away, had to create a new life.
She has amazing stories about how people create families in the face of that. People go looking for and find their spouses and form new families, often with multiple wives and one husband. Frontier families faced extremely high mortality rates, and so people remarry and step-families are common. Different Indigenous communities all have different family structures. Immigrant families are a part of the Jewish and Catholic stories in this country: People come from the old country because they’ve got a sibling or an aunt and uncle who’s established here, and they get grafted onto that family. And sometimes that’s a wonderful loving experience and sometimes they end up being kind of the unwelcome poor relation who’s raising the kids.
During the Great Depression, men couldn’t provide for their families. They would go looking for work and when they couldn’t find it, they wouldn’t return so that they didn’t have to watch what happened. Extended families live together and band together. Steward talks about matriarchal families that have developed because of how the welfare system combines with incarceration rates for Black men: If your partner is incarcerated and you can’t see him, the welfare system incentivizes you not to remarry or have another man around, because then he will be seen as responsible for your children, even if he doesn’t have a way of supporting them. And not to mention queer families and queer kinship networks that look very different.
Many people imagine the “traditional American family” as the Cleavers with their two boys and white picket fence, or maybe as Ballerina Farm, where there’s an entire apparatus happening off camera. But all of these are American families.
This article was adapted from the interview conducted for our December 2026 Expert Witness. Subscribe to U.S. Catholic to read the rest of the interview with Samira K. Mehta in print!
Image: Unsplash
