318 CHRISTOPHER NEUMAIER AND ANDREAS LUDWIG
to denote not only so-called familial lifestyles (traditional nuclear family,
single parents, and unmarried couples with children), but also nonfamil-
ial lifestyles (singles and unmarried couples without children).^120
All together, these shifts fed into the evolution of a broader notion of
the family between the late 1960s and the early 1980s that included not
only single parents, but also unmarried couples with kids and remarried
couples. This more fl exible defi nition of the family gradually entered the
mainstream, and it is now accepted by the majority of society.^121 Parallel
to this process, Lebensform established itself as a more generic term that
could be used to refer to the limited pluralization of familial and nonfamil-
ial ways of life. Although the emergence of these new kinds of lifestyles
did not result in a statistically proven mass phenomenon, it nonetheless
had a considerable infl uence on the speeches, thoughts, and actions of
politicians and researchers.
A shift also occurred in the GDR in the 1960s and 1970s, although the
traditional nuclear family also continued to be the main point of refer-
ence. Single parents, however, already accounted for about 11 percent
of families at this point in time, which does in fact point to a given re-
jection of the ideal of the middle-class nuclear family, especially in ur-
ban milieus.^122 On the whole, however, family lifestyles in East Germany
changed less dramatically than in the FRG because the legal and socio-
political frameworks were diff erent. Moreover, the resources needed to
create space for alternative lifestyles were missing. In particular, the lack
of living space in the GDR made it considerably more diffi cult to adopt
alternative lifestyles, thereby decreasing the potential for change.
Even before social practices began to change in East Germany, the
introduction of the Family Code (Familiengesetzbuch) in 1965 outlined
the political and legal framework for the model “socialist family.” It set
out a number of signifi cant principles, including the idea that the basic
interests of the family and society should be the same and that women
and men were to be treated equally and share in the opportunity to work
and participate in social life. Above all, this law emphasized the integra-
tion of the family in places of socialization outside of the home, such as
the workplace, schools, and preschools. In essence, this ate away at the
child-raising aspects of two-generation families. Of course, the Family
Code established a set of ideals that did not necessarily refl ect the re-
alities of daily family life. Nonetheless, it can still be used to tease out
diff erences between the two Germanys on a discursive level. Whereas
social practices became more pluralized in both countries in the 1960s
and 1970s, the diff erences in the way in which the topic of “family” was
approached within society multiplied. For example, as the debate about