A common residence differentiates family from close friends

The argument

The claim is carefully limited, and the limitation is what makes it work. Shared residence is not offered as a definition of the family; it is offered as a condition without which the other elements do not add up to one. Not all households are families, but all families have a household, and that asymmetry is the whole of the argument. The first half is easy to establish. A group of university students sharing accommodation and chipping in to pay the bills satisfies the residence test and a good deal of the economic cooperation test, and nobody would call them a family. Residence cannot, then, be sufficient; something else is doing work as well, and a definition built on shared living alone would sweep in every flatshare. The second half is where the criterion earns its place. Consider the cases that satisfy the other conditions but not this one: friends or lovers who are in a sexual relationship and economically entwined, pooling money, making plans and depending on each other in the ways that matter, but living in separate homes. Nothing in the usual list of family characteristics excludes them, and yet the common understanding does not treat them as a family either. What separates them from a couple who do share a home is residence and nothing else, which means residence is carrying the distinction. That is why the criterion survives the flatmate objection. The objection shows that a shared residence is not sufficient; it does not show that it is dispensable. Each element of the definition — a shared residence, economic cooperation and reproduction — fails on its own and does its work in combination, and residence is the element that marks the boundary between a family and the close relationships that most resemble one.

Context

The notion of a shared residence, or “household” must feature into any sociological understanding of a family. Without this important distinction, there is nothing to separate a family from a non-family social group.

Premises

Counter-arguments

If the three criteria to become a family are shared finances, shared accommodation, and sexual relations, a group of students sharing accommodation could meet all the criteria. If they are engaging in sexual relations with each other, are sharing the payment of bills, and living under one roof, they would meet the criteria for a family group. Does this mean they can be considered a family for sociological purposes? Additionally, when children grow up and leave home, they are no longer be living under a shared roof as their siblings and parents, but few would say they stop being a family. Therefore, a shared residence should not be a critical component of a family.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P2] This does not solve the issues. It is possible to be a non-family group with shared finances, shared accommodation, and a reproductive relationship. It is also possible to be a family without a shared accommodation.