Download Family Structures and Dynamics: A Sociological Perspective and more Study Guides, Projects, Research Family Sociology in PDF only on Docsity!
Sociology
Unit B672 (Socialisation, Culture and
Identity) Revision
Sociology of the Family
Part 1- Family and Identity
At some stage in our lives most of us will live in a family unit. This is why the family is very significant in our society. However, even though we are likely to have personal experience of family life, this does not mean that it is an easy topic for sociologists to study. This is because we can all experience difficulty in separating the facts about families from our own experience of them and our own personal beliefs about them. What is the family? Initially, the answer to this question might seem obvious. One possible-- but very narrow-- definition of the family is that it consists of a married couple and their children who all live together. Once we begin to probe this definition, however, the task of defining the family becomes much more difficult. When we begin to look more closely at the idea of the family, the picture becomes much more complicated. It is very difficult to devise an adequate definition which includes all of the possible variations. Sociologists disagree on how to define a family. Some prefer to use the term “families” rather than “the family”, recognising that a variety of different household arrangements and family types exist in modern Britain. How do sociologists approach the study of families and family life? Our identity is shaped by our experiences in society and the people with whom we come into contact. The way others see us influences how we see ourselves. Most of us are involved in, and are influenced by, many different groups in society. These groups (family, school, religion, peers, the mass media and
workplace) are agents of socialisation (teaching us society's culture) and agents of social control (controlling our behaviour). In each group to which we belong, we learn to play different social roles. Some roles we can choose (such as being a parent), whilst others (such as daughter or son) are simply given to us. It is these achieved roles and ascribed roles which become an important part of our identity. The families we belong to can have a big effect on our identity. Some sociologists believe that the family plays an important role because it performs a number of essential functions , both for individuals and for society as a whole. This view, known as the consensus or functionalist approach, starts off from the assumption that people and society have basic needs that must be met if society is to function smoothly. Functionalists identify four main functions of the family. These are reproduction, primary socialisation, emotional gratification and economic provision: Reproduction: Society obviously needs new members if it is to survive. The family has an important role in procreation and childbearing. The family reproduces the human rights and the future workforce. Sometimes families also help to regulate adult sexual behaviour. This is because the nuclear family in particular is based on monogamy (a relationship between two individuals-- a man and a woman). Consequently, marry people are expected to have only one sexual partner, and extramarital sex is viewed with disapproval. Primary Socialisation: Society needs to ensure that new members will support its norms and values. Through the primary socialisation process, which takes place within the family, we learn the culture and way of life of our society. In so doing, we learn how to fit in and how to conform. In this way, the family also acts as an agency of social control. The effects of not having undergone a process of primary socialisation are very serious. Emotional Gratification and Nurture : most of us need stable relationships with, and support from, other people. The family supplies “The family is the most important agent of socialisation.” Evaluate the arguments for and against this claim. [24] Identify and explain two ways that families act as agents of social control. [8]
Part 2- Traditional Definitions of the Family
Nuclear and extended families There are two basic types of family: nuclear and extended. A nuclear family is one made up of an adult man, an adult woman and their dependent children. Traditionally, the man was the “ breadwinner ”, responsible for providing what the family needed to survive and prosper, while the woman was responsible for home and family. This kind of family has often been thought of as the “normal” or “typical” family. An extended family contains a nuclear family, but added to it are other relatives. If there are three generations living together (grandparents, parents and children) this is a vertically extended family. If there are other relatives of the same generation, such as two brothers, their wives and children living together, this is a horizontally extended family. This kind of family has often been more common in the past than today, and more common in poor countries. Almost everyone has extended family; nowadays though we are less likely to live with members of our extended family. The extended family Before the Industrial Revolution It used to be thought that the extended family was typical of preindustrial Britain. More recently, however, sociologists and historians have rejected this view. Evidence suggests that before the Industrial Revolution there was not one main family type that existed everywhere as the norm.
The extended family was one type of family to be found in preindustrial times. Evidence suggests that, before industrialization, many families in various parts of Europe were of the extended type. The nuclear family was also to be found before the Industrial Revolution. A historian named Laslett studied the Parish records of 100 villages in 16th to 19th century England. He argues that the average family was relatively small and that most households during this time contained an average of 4.75 people. Laslett concludes that nuclear families existed widely in preindustrial England -- in fact, they were the norm. Only 10% of households contained more kin than the nuclear family and this figure is the same as for 1966. Laslett (1965) points out that in the period he studied the average age of brides was 24 and the average age of grooms was nearly 28. Life expectancy was in the low 30s. Few families, therefore, could live as three-generational extended families. Early industrial families Anderson (1971) studied census data on Preston, an early industrialising cotton town in Lancashire, for the year 1851. He found that 23% of households contained kin other than from the nuclear family and that there was an increase rather than a decrease in family size at this time. This was because jobs were created in Preston's cotton industry and so relatives from the countryside migrated to the town to live with family members who were already there. According to Anderson, it seems that working class families became more extended during the early stages of the Industrial Revolution. The mid 20th century Young and Willmott carried out a series of important studies of working-class families in London in the 1950s and 1960s. Their findings have added to our understanding of how families changed and developed. Studying working-class families in Bethnal Green in the East End of London in the 1950s, they found strong extended family networks. The extended family, built on strong relationships between married women and their mothers, was alive and well. For example 43% of daughters had seen their mothers within the last 24 hours. Women lived in the same street as all very close to their mothers, and relied on them for help and advice. The extended families were part of a strong local community.
assumed that men are naturally better suited for the world of work, and that women are better at doing domestic work, looking after the home and family. Functionalism These ideas about the family are connected to a particular view within sociology, that of functionalism. For functionalists, the conventional nuclear family is the ideal family for modern society because it fits the needs of society so well, and makes the best use of men's and women's different natural abilities. In the past, people had to rely on their families for many needs, for example to care for them when they were sick or old, to lend or give money, to teach them. And extended family then was more useful: a large family meant that there were more people to turn to. Today these functions have been taken over by, for example, doctors and hospitals, banks, schools and so on. We no longer need to be able to turn to large extended families. Modern industry also need people who can move to where there are jobs available. It is much easier to move a nuclear family to a new area than an extended one. Although the family has lost many of its functions, it still has two important functions according to a functionalist sociologists, Talcott Parsons : The primary socialisation of children. Parents still need to teach their children the norms and values of their society, how to tell right from wrong and so on. The stabilisation of adult personalities. The family also provides comfort and security for example members as well as children. The second function has sometimes been called the “ warm bath ” -- the family has a warm, loving environment where the cares of the world can be washed away.
Is the nuclear family changing? Less than a quarter of households in Britain are now couples with dependent children. This percentage has been falling slowly for many years; in 1961 it was 38%. This suggests that the nuclear family is in decline. A growing proportion of couples living together are not married, and a growing number of families are reconstituted -- that is, they are created from one or two families breaking up through separation or divorce. Many people do spend parts of their lives in nuclear family still. If we are to the households we count as nuclear families couples before they have children, and couples after the children have grown up and are independent, then more than half of households are based on nuclear family relationships. Another way of looking at the figures is to ask how many people are living in nuclear families at any particular time. The answer is about 40% (if you are wondering how this can be so different from the figure of percentage of households, remember that nuclear family households on average contain more people). The family in multicultural Britain Minority ethnic groups who have come to live in Britain bring their own cultures and distinctive family patterns. In many Asian communities patrilocal extended families are traditional. Dench, Gavron and Young (2006) studied family life in Bethnal Green. Extended families had almost disappeared from the white community, but were very common among Bangladeshis; over a quarter of Bangladeshis lived in extended family households, usually consisting of a married couple, their children and the husband's parents. The mother-headed ( matriarchal ) household, often supported by other female relatives, has been recognised as one important family type in the West Indies. This type of family is still much more important among the Afro- Caribbean community in Britain than, for example, among Asian groups. What can we learn about families and households from cross-cultural evidence? Often the nuclear family is seen as normal and natural while all the family types are seen as deviant. Cross-cultural evidence, however, reminds us that different forms of family and household exist in different cultures. If we examine households around the world today, we will find a range of household organisations and personal relationships that are not based on the
demotion or dismissal from work may be imposed. A woman who has an abortion is entitled to a holiday with pay. All methods of birth control are free. Some pregnant women, known in the press as “ birth guerrillas ”, hide out in the countryside until their baby is born. Male children are preferred and there are reports in the press of female infanticide -- the practice of killing female infants soon after birth. During the 1980s, an increasing number of children were abandoned, partly as a result of the one child population control policy. Many children, particularly females, end up in state run orphanages. Chinese government statistics show that the majority of these children end up dying in the orphanages. Historical evidence from India and the USA The Nayar people Historical evidence suggests that household arrangements and personal relationships have taken many forms in the past. Among the Nayar people of Kerala, India in the 18th century, for instance, the family group consisted of brothers, sisters and the sister's children. The Nayar were a warrior group and the men were absent for part of each year because they were hired as mercenaries. Before reaching puberty, a Nayar female was involved in a ritual marriage ceremony after which she could have a number of lovers. Each female had her own room where she might be visited at night by one of her lovers. She did not live with her husband but with her kin group -- her mother, brothers and sisters. Children were brought by, and lived with, their mother's kin group rather than in a nuclear family. Descent was traced through the female line. The Oneida community The Oneida community, based in New York State between 1848 and 1880, is an interesting example of a group which had an alternative form of marriage and family life. This community aimed to live by Christian moral standards. Oneidans rejected personal wealth and private property. Items such as clothes, watches and children's toys were jointly owned. All members were housed under one roof in the communal home, each having his or her own room. Marriage was based on group marriage and it was believed that all members of the community should love each other and not live as monogamous couples. Children were expected to treat Oneidan adults as they would their own parents. In effect, children, sexual partners and property were shared.
Part 3- Structural Changes in the Family
The decline of marriage The number of first marriages has been declining steadily since 1971. In 1996, for example, there were 185,00 0 first marriages -- less than half the number in
1970. Remarriages, where one or both partners have been married before, now account for about 40% of all marriages, whereas they were only about 20% of marriages in 1970. Divorcees have more than doubled over the same period, although the rise seems to have levelled off in the last 20 years. As a result of these changes, a smaller proportion of the British population is married (although most adults are married). More people are getting married later in life, or not marrying at all, or divorcing and not remarrying. Types of married relationships Monogamy -- in modern Britain and the rest of Europe, the USA, and most Christian cultures, monogamy is the only legal form of marriage. Monogamy is a form of marriage in which a person can have only one husband or wife at the same time. Monogamy is not the most common form of marriage in the world, and it is found in only about 24% of all societies. In a society where monogamy is the only form of legal marriage, a person who marries while still legally married to someone else is guilty of the crime of bigamy - a serious offence punishable by imprisonment. Serial monogamy -- in modern Britain, most of Western Europe and the USA there are high rates of divorce and remarriage. Some people keep marrying and divorcing a series of different partners, but each marriage is monogamous. The term serial monogamy is sometimes used to describe these marriage patterns. Polygamy -- while marrying a second partner without divorcing the first is a crime in Britain, in most societies it is perfectly acceptable to have more than one marriage partner at the same time. Polygamy is a general term referring to marriage between a member of one sex and two or more members of the opposite sex at the same time. According to Murdoch, polygamy is found in about 76% of all societies. They're two different types of polygamy: o Polygyny - polygyny is the marriage of one man to 2 or more women at the same time. This is very common and is found in about 75% of all societies. It is widely practised in Islamic countries such as Egypt and Saudi Arabia. It is also practised (illegally) among some Mormons in the State of Utah in the USA. The possession of several wives is often seen as a sign of
Divorce There are about 170,000 divorces a year. This is about three times the number just before the Divorce Act of 1971 made it easier to get divorced. Britain has one of the highest divorce rates in Europe (though it also has one of the highest marriage rates). About 40% of marriages taking place now will end in divorce. Usually it is women who start divorce proceedings; about two and a half times as many divorces are given to women than men. Why are there more divorces? The simple answer to this question is that it has become much easier to get divorced. Until the 20th century, divorce was a long, difficult and expensive procedure. Before 1971, the partner who wanted to divorce had to provide evidence of grounds for divorce, such as cruelty, desertion or adultery. People could not get divorced simply because they wanted to or because they felt the marriage had failed. This changed in 1971, when it became possible to divorce because of “irretrievable breakdown” of the marriage, after a period of separation. It is no longer necessary to provide evidence of irretrievable breakdown. However, the fact that divorce is easy this does not necessarily mean that people will want to take advantage of it. When divorces increased after 1971, this may have been because there were lots of marriages that had broken down – “ empty shell marriages ” -- and couples just waiting for the opportunity to divorce. Other reasons why there may be so many divorces are: Changing social attitudes -- There has been a big change in attitudes to divorce. It is now seen as more acceptable, and sometimes as the best thing to do for the children. Divorce no longer means shame and social disapproval. High-profile divorces have helped this change in public opinion. Higher expectations of marriage —Feminists say that women particularly now realise they do not have too put up with a marriage which does not live up to what they expect and want. Women today are more likely to be able to support themselves after divorce, so there is an escape route from empty shell marriages.
Divorce has become much cheaper -- It is now within everyone's reach. The lower figures in the past were partly because only the rich could afford divorce. Growing secularization -- secularization- the decline in religious belief- has meant that divorce is not seen so much today as breaking some bells or morally wrong, and many people today probably do not attach much religious significance to their marriage. The growth of the privatised nuclear family -- this has meant that, during marital crises, it is no longer so easy for marriage partners to seek advice from or temporary refuge with relatives, and there is also less social control from extended kin pressuring couples to retain marriage ties. Effects of divorce The husband and wife Divorce is not just the legal process. It is emotionally stressful, usually accompanied by arguments and tension. Decisions have to be made about: how to divide possessions who will live in the family home and who will move out custody of children rights to see children for the parent who does not have custody. Friends may take sides and lose contact with one partner. For children Custody of children is usually given to the mother, although courts now consider each case on its own merits before making a decision. Research has found that children whose parents are divorced or separated are more likely than other children to: live in poverty as children, behave in antisocial ways do less well at school Identify and explain two reasons why a couple may seek a divorce. [8]
More people are still in higher education in their 20s and may not feel financially independent enough for marriage for years. Many different family types There no longer seems to be one form of family that is by far the most popular. The conventional nuclear family has been in decline though this can be exaggerated. A wide range of family and household types now exists in Britain, and the disapproval that used to be attached to some types -- cohabitation, lone parent families, same-sex couples -- is now less strong than it used to be even a few decades ago. The existence of many different types of family is called diversity. Diversity also exists in the roles people take within families, as well as in the types of family. Even within nuclear families, women may work full-time, part-time or not at all; they may choose to stay at home as househusbands, or to attempt an equal relationship as “ New Men ”. Others may juggle different responsibilities, as parents and stepparents to children who may or may not live with them. Other types of family include: Lone parent families -- one parent and his or her dependent children. Today lone parent families are usually the result of separation or divorce, but some people decide to bring up children alone. In the past lone parents were more likely to be the result of the death of one parent. Women often died in childbirth, men in walls and both sexes from diseases. The reconstituted family -- a reconstituted family is usually referred to as a “ step family ” and consists of parents and children. While both parents are the children's social parents, in that they bring their children up, they are not both their biological parents. A reconstituted family might come about as the result of a previously widowed woman with two children marrying a previously divorced man with one child. Beanpole extended families -- the shape of extended families is changing. People have fewer children, so extended families are “narrower”, with fewer siblings or aunts and uncles. At the same time, people are living longer, so extended families are becoming “taller”. Grandparents play a vital role in the beanpole family. More “dual- earner households”, single-parent families and divorces mean that grandparents are often called upon for childcare and for financial “Marriage is no longer important.” Evaluate the arguments for and against this claim. [24]
support. They might also be looking after their own (often very elderly) parents. No wonder Julia Brannen (2003) called grandparents the “ pivot generation ”: the success of the family hinges on what they do. Grandparents might get great satisfaction from their (on page) family role. Evidence suggests that some find it a burden and a worry: having raised one family, they feel they deserve their retirement. Empty nest families -- originally nuclear families, but the children have grown up and left home. It was people live longer on average than in the past; the parents are now likely to have many more years of life ahead of them. Boomerang families -- nuclear families normally contain dependent children. Recently, or adult children are returning (or staying at) home to live with their parents, creating boomerang families. Parents might prefer this to be “empty nesters”, and children can benefit, especially financially. However, Parentline Plus (2008) said that, in some cases, “boomerang” children in their 20s and 30s turned their parents home into a battleground, causing money problems or them verbal or physical abuse. Homosexual families -- with changing social attitudes and laws, there has been a significant increase in same-sex partnerships and same-sex families. The Civil Partnership Act (2004) gave same-sex couples and officially recognised are only and similar legal rights to marry couples (e.g. pension and inheritance rights). About 17,000 civil partnerships were formed in the first year of the act, about 60% of them between men. A small, but growing number of children are brought up in same-sex families for all or part of their childhood. This has led to a debate about the advantages and disadvantages for children of living in this type of family. Identify and explain two alternatives to the nuclear family. [8] “Nuclear families are always the best.” Evaluate the arguments for and against this claim. [24]
relationship. There are often no longer the separate male and female networks (of friends and especially kin) for male and female partner to mix with separately. This increases their dependence upon each other, and may avoid the teasing of men who adopt new roles from friends who knew them before they got married or began cohabiting. The myth of integrated roles? Young and Wilmott suggested in 1973 that conjugal roles were becoming symmetrical. They thought that this new family type developed first among middle-class families and was gradually spreading to working-class families. They call this the “ principle of stratified diffusion .” They interviewed 2000 adults in London, and 400 adults between the ages of 30 and 49 filled in “time budget diaries.” They found that the symmetrical family had similar roles, not identical roles. More wives had paid work and husbands were spending more time at home, helping with housework and childcare; decisions were also more likely to be shared. However, the husbands were still the main breadwinner and wives did not expect their husbands to take an equal role at home, just give a bit of help. Middle-class men generally helped more than working-class men. There does seem to be evidence of some role integration in leisure activities and decision-making, but housework and childcare remain predominantly “women’s work”. While men are perhaps more involved in childcare than they used to be, this would appear to be in the more enjoyable activities like playing with the children and taking them out. The more routine job such as bathing and feeding and taking children to the doctor still remain predominantly women's work. A survey by the Child Poverty Action Group in 1984 found that the time spent looking after children under the age of five was about 50 hours each week, and mothers put in 87% of this time. Gershuny (1992) gave a more optimistic view, showing that men are gradually taking on a greater share of household tasks; he used the term “lagged adaptation” to show that there seems to be a time lag between women taking up paid work and then getting more involved at home. Anne Oakley felt that Young and Wilmott exaggerated the amount of symmetry in conjugal roles. Oakley (1974), a feminist sociologists, conducted in-depth interviews with 40 London mothers who had young children. The mothers still felt housework and the children were their responsibility and were grateful for any “help” fair partners gave. This study, too, found that middle- class men were more likely to help at home, especially with childcare. Identify and explain two recent changes in family structure. [8]
Evidence from the 1988 British Social Attitudes Survey suggests that women still perform the majority of domestic tasks around the home, even when they have paid jobs themselves. Even among full-time working women, where one would expect to find the greatest degree of equality, cooking in the evening meal, household cleaning, washing and ironing, and caring for sick children were still mainly performed by women. A World in Action TV documentary in June 1991 found house work was the second largest cause of domestic rows at the money. It is still predominantly women who get the blame if the house is untidy or children dirty or badly dressed. Both of these studies showed unequal conjugal roles. Oakley highlighted the inequality. Young and Willmott highlighted the fact that roles were changing. Duncombe and Marsden (1995) argued that women had a “ triple shift ”: this involved paperwork, house work and children, plus “ emotion work ”. They interviewed 40 white couples who had been married for 15 years. The wives felt that men were unwilling to carry out the “emotion work” needed to keep their relationship special (e.g. showing love and affection, remembering anniversaries); the husbands did not seem to see the problem. Edgell (1980) studied decision-making in a small sample of middle-class families and found that the decisions the couple felt were most important (e.g. moving home) were usually made by the man. Recent studies show that men do not always dominate family decisions. Even in communities where the man’s status as family head is important, women, at the centre of the family, often seem to have a great deal of influence. Economic power affects family power, so higher female earnings or male unemployment can give women more say in family decisions. While there does seem to be some evidence of husbands doing marginally more around the home in recent years, this change would appear to have been massively exaggerated. In the majority of marriages the traditional roles of women and men remain. The change in position of children in the family The 19th century In the 19th century, the father and husband was the head of the family, and often had a great deal of authority over other family members. He would have little to do with his children. In upper and middle class families, children might see relatively little of their parents, often being sent off to private boarding schools or being looked after by a nanny or governess. In working-class families, children in the early 19th century were seen as workers and an “Family roles are equal today.” Evaluate the arguments for and against this claim. [24]
