SOC22O6a-b IDENTIFICATION EXERCISE: TO WHICH THEORETICAL
FRAMEWORK DO THE EXAMPLES BELOW BELONG?
EXAMPLE I “THE ECONOMY OF GRATITUDE” (Hochschild, 1989)
The interplay between a man’s gender ideology and a woman’s implies a deeper interplay
between his gratitude toward her, and hers toward him. For how a person wants to
identify himself or herself influences what, in the back and forth of a marriage, will seem
like a gift and what will not. If a man doesn’t think if fits the kind of “man” he wants to
be to have his wife earn more than he, it may become his “gift” to her to “bear it”
anyway. But a man may also feel like the husband I interviewed, who said, “When my
wife began earning more than me I thought I’d struck Gold!” In this case his wife’s salary
is the gift, not his capacity to accept it “anyway.” When couples struggle, it is seldom
simply over who does what. Far more often, it is over the giving and receiving of
gratitude.
Source: Arlie Hochschild. 1989. The Second Shift: Working Parents and the Revolution
at Home, page 18. New York: Viking Books.
EXAMPLE 2 “THE SOCIOLOGY OF PROSTITUTION” (Kingsley Davis, 1937)
Where the family is strong, there tends to be a well-defined system of prostitution and the
social regime is one of status. Women are either part of the family system, or they are
definitely not a part of it. In the latter case they are prostitutes, members of a caste set
apart. There are few intermediate groups, and there is little mobility. This enables the two
opposite types of institutions to function side by side without confusion; they are each
staffed by a different personnel, humanly as well as functionally distinct. But where
familial controls are weak, the system of prostitution tends to be poorly defined.
Not only is it more nearly permissible to satisfy one’s desire outside the family, but also it
is easier to find a respectable member of society willing to act as partner. This is why a
decline of the family and a decline of prostitution are both associated with a rise of sex
freedom. Women, released from closed family supervision, are freer to seek gratification
outside it. The more such women, the easier it is for men to find in intimate relations with
them the satisfactions formerly supplied by harlots. This is why the unrestricted
indulgence iii sex for the fun of it by both sexes is the greatest enemy, not only of the
family, but also of prostitution....
But even if present trends continue, there is no likelihood that sex freedom will ever
displace prostitution. Not only will there always be a set of reproductive institutions
which place a check upon sexual liberty, a system of social dominance which gives a
motive for selling sexual favors, and a scale of attractiveness which creates the need for
buying these favors, but prostitution is, in the last analysis, economical. Enabling a small
number of women to take care of the needs of a large number of men, it is the most
convenient sexual outlet for an army, and for the legions of strangers, perverts, and
physically repulsive in our midst. It performs a function, apparently, which no other
institution fully performs.
Source: Kingsley Davis. 1937. “The Sociology of Prostitution.” American Sociological
Review, Number 2 (October), pages 746-55.
EXAMPLE 3 “WHAT’S FAIR IS FAIR” (Sandra L. Titus et. at 1979)
Even where a will or the law of intestacy calls for equal division of a bequest among a
group of beneficiaries and the beneficiaries accept the principle of equal division, conflict
may occur. Some possessions are indivisible but desirable to more than one person, such
as a prized antique clock. Problems may arise iii the attempt to divide valuables equally.
Under what circumstances can a treasured rocking chair and a family Bible be divided
equally between two or more family members?
If all beneficiaries want fair treatment and a will attempts fair treatment, conflict may
occur because beneficiaries have different perceptions of what is fair. Fairness can mean
that something is divided equally, but fairness also takes into account various principles
of deservingness or right; a division of an estate can be fair without being equal. Because
fairness can be determined on many different bases, there may be many competing
interpretations on what is fair. The following list, derived from the work of Marvin
Sussman et al. (1970) and from interviews carried out during our research, indicates some
of the competing principles for determining if the outcome in inheritance is fair.
1. Long residence in a house confers some right to it.
2. Last name identity with the deceased confers some rights to the property of the
deceased.
3. Blood relationship confers some rights.
4. High frequency of contact with the deceased confers some rights.
5. Material support of the deceased confers some rights.
6. Co-residence with the deceased confers some rights.
7. Having given the deceased a thing confers rights to its return.
8. Need arising from relative poverty, handicap, minorhood, orphan status, or infirmity
confers rights.
9. Contribution in building the deceased’s estate increases rights.
10. Kinship closeness confers rights.
11. Previous perceived underinheritance increases rights.
12. Hostile relationship with the deceased reduces rights.
13. Congenial relationship increases rights.
In addition to people having discrepant interpretations of what is equal or what is fair,
there will be instances where equality and fairness may be competing principles. Some
individuals will believe that the estate should be divided equally, while other individuals
will believe that it should be divided on the basis of what is fair, though fairness may be
perceived differently by different persons.
Because there are so many possible interpretations of what is fair or what is equal and
because people often seek fairness or equality, a dispute may not be resolved easily.
Disputes over inheritance may be one of the major reasons for adult siblings to break off
relationships With each other. hi some cases the inheritance dispute may be the final
battle between competitive siblings, and in that sense it resembles the “last straw”
reported in breakups in other close relationships (1-1111, Rabin, and Peplau, 1976;
Nevaldirie, 1978).
Source: Sandra L. Titus, Paul C. Rosenblatt, and Roxaime M. Anderson, “Family Conflict over Inheritance
of Property,” The Family
Coordinator, July 1979, pp. 337-338. Copyrighted 1979 by the National Council on Family Relations, 3989
Central Ave. N. E., Suite 550,
Minneapolis, MN 55421.
EXAMPLE 4 “THE POWER OF ADOPTION: BiRTHright or birthRiGHT?” (Glenn
M. Vernon arid Michael Leming)
(W)hat happens in the process of family creation... In order to function as a family, all
family members have to be adopted. In marriage, a male and a female typically adopt
each other as family—or as husband spouse and wife-spouse——so that from the two
persons, one family can be created. The adoption process is reciprocal in that each is both
an “adopter” and “adoptee” at the same time. We jointly create family entity. The
meaning is shared by both spouses. Each individual must also label themselves as a
family member or as a spouse.
In adopting my spouse “self’ or role, I have to define myself as someone’s spouse.
Therefore, I define myself in terms of the other. This role of spouse is social in nature and
requires two persons adopting each other, and thus sharing a social role, It is the sharing
of meaning which is essential in the family adoption process or in family creation.
The ability to create “we” identities is a prior requisite of family creation and child
adoption. With this symboling ability, the children and the parents know of their multiple
identities. Each is both one person as well as one part of one family. Each learns how to
activate different identities in different situations.
In a two-child (or more) family, the parents, from the perspective of the children, become
“our” parents. For family functioning, it is the adoption and acceptance of a family
identity which produces the “our” in either direction. For the biological offspring of the
parents, two types of synthesizing or merging are involved. In biological conception there
is a biological synthesis or merging in which what was two becomes one. The merging of
adopting of the husband and wife into one family is the foundation from which the
children acquire “our,” joint or multiperson parents—-our mother and our father.
Adoption involves symbols, not biology. Symboled adoption can’t extensively, directly
influence biological factors but can have a significant impact upon the meaning of
biology. Symboled factors can have a significant indirect influence. The impact of
meaning is illustrated in birthright patterns in which the consequences stem for the
“rights” not directly from the birth.
“Birth rights” may be involved in the adoption process of those who are born into a
group. Some interpretations of birth rights emphasize the birth component (BIRTH
rights), with the implication that it is the biological birth per se which establishes the
family rights of the individual. Actually, it is just the reverse. Symbolically-socially
established “rights” have to be given to persons born into a family if they are to
participate in meaningful family behavior. This emphasizes “birth RIGHTS” rather than”
BIRTH rights.”
Rites of passage or religious rituals, such a baptism or infant dedication, may be used by
members of the family to firmly establish the child’s family identity and its
corresponding rights and obligations. Engaging in such behavior communicates
membership meaning to the one joining, to those who are already members, and to the
general society as well.
The very young child usually does not have the opportunity to learn or think in any terms
other than the family into which he or she was adopted. That is “the world”—the
experienced world for that child. For their children, the parents are the “world builders.”
In order for this process to be as effective as we have described, adoption has to include a
voluntary, free will, or intentional component. the adoption must also be accepted by the
significant persons involved in the process—-the social audience. If there were some
biologically given parent-child behavior, drive, or mechanism; the adoption process, as
we have described it, would not be necessary. However, it is possible to have nominal (in
name only) family membership. without commitment between the family members. Such
a relationship, as in the case of abandonment, is usually considered marginal to kinship
behavior.
Source: hnp//www.stolaf.edu/people/1ernng/soc37Ires!theory.html retrieved Sept. 15, 2006