FAMILIES AND HOUSEHOLDS
Diversity in Families and Households
Introduction
Remember that although there are undoubtedly differences between now and the recent past, for example,
immigration, values and affluence, that there are also likely to be strong continuities. In addition it is possible that
the more unified view of the family we see in sociological literature from the 1950s is a distorted view that ignored,
or did not observe real differences in family structure and life course.
Much recent research supports the view that diversity is the rule in family arrangements. In Britain. Rapoport,
Fogerty and Rapoport (1982) concluded that: "Families in Britain today are in a transition from coping in a
society in which there was a single overriding norm of what family life should be like to a society in which a
plurality of norms are recognised as legitimate and, indeed, desirable".
As Crowley(1992) argues: "The normative family is a statistical minority".
Explaining diversity
There are a number of factors that have contributed to the increasing diversity of family and household forms.
Choice
Do we choose the sort of life we live or are we, at least to some extent, the victims of circumstance?
In sociological theory Social Action theorists support the belief that human action is based on choice. This approach
emphasizes that people can choose/negotiate alternative lifestyles in the light of their understanding of their
situation, and within the limits that their circumstances allow. People’s behaviour is not determined by society.
People choose the sorts of family arrangements that they want.
However, it could be argued that we now have more freedom to choose. We have more freedom because:
q Choice is now written into our social scripts, it’s allowed. We are not slaves to tradition.
q We are increasingly socialized into expecting to have to exercise choice. We take responsibility for decisions.
Values have changed. People are increasingly likely to view their circumstances in terms of what’s best for themtheir rights.
For example: Giddens, The Transformation of Intimacy (1992) argues that pre-modern couples married for
economic reasons, modern couples married for romantic reasons and late modern couples co-habit or marry because
they ‘want’ to. The only thing that keeps late modern couples together is the existence of a ‘good deal’. It is judged
to be worth it. If it is no longer worth it then leave it.
Chance
EACH OF US PRODUCES A ROUTE THROUGH LIFE- A LIFE COURSE. SOME ROUTES WE
CHOOSE, SOME JUST HAPPENS TO US. A CONSEQUENCE OF CHOICE AND THE PURSUIT OF
INDIVIDUAL HAPPINESS IS RISK.
Like Giddens, Beck(1995), emphasizes choice, but the choice is exercised on the basis of individuals exercising
responsibility for themselves and thinking about what is good for them as individuals. But if we a freed from
previous constraints we are also cut loose from previous certainties.
Demography
Increased lifespan has meant that the population has aged. This is one of the most important reasons for the increase
in one person households-old people living alone.
Discourse
Much Postmodernist and Structural theory takes a much more determinist approach. Postmodernists tend to see
us all as the result of our exposure to differing and contradictory accounts which via history, culture and our social
world produce different kinds of people. This approach explains the diversity of family structures as being a
consequence
of
contemporary
society
being
made
up
of
competing
and
contradictory
discourses(stories/explanations), which act upon people in different circumstances.
Time
One way to study family life is to divide up a family in terms of a number of stages that a 'normal' family would be
expected to pass through. This is the Life-cycle approach. Life-course approaches are, by contrast, much more
focused on the individual as the unit of analysis, rather than the family unit.
The life-cycle approach views family life as essentially predictable. However, it also demonstrates that all families
change and that the idea of ‘the’ family can never be more than a snapshot of some families at a particular stage in
the family life cycle. The assumption is that the future in most ways resembles the past and that there are regular
patterns that can be discerned.
Technology
New reproductive technologies permit new types of family and family relationships (Macionis &Plummer 1997).
There is now the possibility of surrogate motherhood, and of test tube babies. This is bound to add to the range of
possible family diversity.
Immigration/multi culturalism
Immigration has meant that the cultural life of Britain has been greatly enlarged by the mass immigrations of the
1950s and 60s.
Material factors
Material factors have lead to greater affluence, greater geographical and social mobility. The greater economic
independence of women has also contributed to increased diversity in families and households.
Social Policy
It has been argued that the existence of welfare secures the survival of many lone parent families. Without state
support many such families could not survive economically.
Types of diversity
The Rapoports(1982) argue that there are five types of diversity in contemporary families. These are:
Organisational diversity
This refers to different types of family structure, for example single parent and reconstituted families, It also refers
to differing kinship patterns and to the domestic division of labour.
Diversity of lifestyles also reflects people at different points in their life course. For example many people live
alone, but for different reasons and this may or may not be a permanent state.
Cultural(Ethnic)
Britain is a multi-ethnic society. In the case of South Asian families, both Hindu and Muslim, there is a tendency for
the families to be extended, traditional and patriarchal. Afro-Caribbean families, like Asian families, tend to reflect
the societies from which they migrated. The stereotypical image of the Afro-Caribbean family in Britain is of a
single parent household, but perhaps the key point is that Afro-Caribbean families tend to be mother-centred.
Modood et al(1997), found the following variations:
- Whites and Blacks had higher rates of divorce;
- South Asians were more likely to be married;
- South Asian families were least likely to form lone parent families.
- The highest rate for lone parents was among black families.
R. Oakley(1982) in a study of Cypriot families in Britain, found strong extended family ties. He argued that parents
retained strong connections with their married children, a pattern native to Cyprus, but little changed by the
migration to Britain.
Class
Inequalities in lifestyle possibilities have increased since the 1980..
Wealth and income have an obvious impact in terms of type of housing, room size/number, financial problems,
holidays etc.
Life Course
The life course of individuals within families can vary greatly. This can reflect choice or circumstance. This covers
such factors as the number of children, the spacing of the children, divorce, remarriage, widowhood.
Cohort
A cohort of individuals refers to those born in the same year(or band of years). Such individuals may well have a
shared experience of historical events, for example, the introduction of comprehensive schools, the introduction of
the birth control pill.
To these we can add:
Regional
Eversley & Bonnerjea(1982) argue that there are distinct regional variations in household type within Britain. They
argue that there are distinct patterns of household form in different parts of Britain. For example; they describe the
‘sun belt’ families of the affluent south east as family builders. The south coast towns, where many elderly retired
live, are named the ‘geriatric wards’. Inner city areas tend to have more lone parents, and ethnic minority
households.
International
Boh(1989) analysed the data from a cross cultural study of 14 European countries. She found that the countries
produced different patterns of family life. For instance, the likelihood of married women working varied
considerably, as did marriage rates and co-habitation. However, there were some common trends, a rise in divorce,
co-habitation becoming more common and a decline in birth rates. Boh characterizes the diversity she found as
being a consequence of the increased choices available to people.
Gay & Lesbian
Weeks et al(1999) argue that there are many ore openly gay or lesbian households than there were in the past. These
area a consequence of the growth in choice and the relaxation of tradition. Such households, argues Weeks, do see
themselves as families, and would even include friends as members of ‘chosen families’. For Weeks, such
relationships are founded on commitment rather than acknowledgment.
Evidence of Stability
There is another viewpoint, that the family has not changed much and that the predominant form of family
organization continues to be the traditional nuclear family. Signs of stability can be gauged in two ways.
1. Behaviour
Robert Chester, "The Rise of the Neo-Conventional family, New Society 9/5/85 argues that:
1. Most adults still marry and have children.
2. Most children are reared by their natural parents.
3. Most people live in a household headed by a married couple.
4. Most marriages continue until parted by death.
Chester argues that no great change in family organization has occurred. There is, in general, continuity with the
past.
2. Attitudes
Sheena Ashford, British Social Attitudes 1987, argues that: “in their attitudes towards marriage and other family
matters, the British emerge as highly and consistently conventional. The family may be dead but the idea of the
family survives unchallenged.”
Silva & Smart(1999) conclude that there are strong continuities in British family life, but that at the same time there
was drift towards more varied forms of family organization, based they argue on more freedom of ‘personal choice’.
Conclusion
The shackles of social convention have been loosened. People now have far more freedom to form the sort of family
they prefer. A large number of people still seem to prefer relatively conventional/traditional relationships, albeit with
modifications in one aspect or another. There is much wider tolerance of difference. Overall there are clear patterns
of continuity with the past, but within an overall trend towards increased diversity.
STATISTICS
Households
More people were living alone in 2004
Households and families, GB
In 2004 there were 7.0 million people living alone in Great Britain, nearly four times as many as in 1961.
In 2004 there were 2.6 million more families in Great Britain than in 1961, but there were 7.8 million more
households. The growing trend in people living alone accounted for much of the increase in the number of
households. As a result the average household size has declined from 3.1 to 2.4 over the same period.
The proportion of one-person households more than trebled for working-age people over the last four decades, while
people of pension age were twice as likely to be living on their own. The rise in the proportion of one-person
households has leveled since 1991.
In spite of the growth in the number of one-person households, most people in Great Britain still live in a family
household. In 2004, eight out of ten people lived in a family household, compared with nine out of ten in 1961.
More than two thirds of the 24.7 million households in the UK in 2004 were family households.
The largest proportion of households consisted of just one family. In 2004 just 1 per cent (0.2 million) of households
in the UK were families sharing with at least one other family. This is down from 3 per cent in Great Britain in
1961. The decline can be attributed to an increase in the provision of first public, and then private, housing in the
1970s and 1980s. Lone-parent families, who historically were more likely than other families to live in multi-family
households, increasingly became one-family households throughout this period.
The next most common type of household were one-person households, which by definition is not a family. In 2004,
29 per cent of households were people living alone.
A small proportion of households consisted of two or more people who either were not related or were related but
did not form a family. These multi-person households accounted for 3 per cent of households in the UK in 2004
compared with 5 per cent of households in Great Britain in 1961.
In addition, a small proportion of the UK population live in communal establishments. In 2001, 1.0 million people
(or 1.8 per cent of the population) in the UK were living in communal establishments. These include for example,
students living in halls of residence, people living in residential care homes, hotel staff who live at the hotel, or
people staying in hostels (including people sleeping rough).
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Sources: Censuses, Office for National Statistics; General Register Office for Scotland; Northern Ireland Statistics
and Research Agency
Household estimates, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister
Household estimates, Scottish Executive
Labour Force Survey, Office for National Statistics
Notes:
Household: a person living alone, or a group of people living at the same address who have the address as their only
or main residence and either share one main meal a day or share the living accommodation (or both).
Family: a married/cohabiting couple with or without child(ren), or a lone-parent with child(ren).
Dependent children: aged under 16, or aged 16-18 in full-time education and never married.
Multi-family households: families sharing a household with at least one other family.
In multi-person households two people who are not related may be a same sex couple.
State pension age is 60 for women and 65 for men.
Communal establishments’ data are from the 2001 Census.
Families
Married couple families still the majority
All families: by family type, 1996 and 2004, UK
There were 17.0 million families in the UK in 2004 and around 7 in 10 were headed by a married couple.
Although married couples were the main family type, the number of married couple families fell by 4 per cent (0.5
million) between 1996 and 2004. This decline occurred despite an overall increase of 3 per cent (0.5 million) in the
total number of families.
Between 1996 and 2004, the number of cohabiting couple families increased by over 50 per cent to 2.2 million,
while the number of lone-mother families increased by 12 per cent to 2.3 million.
Children in lone-parent families were more likely to live with their mother than with their father. In 2004 nearly nine
out of ten lone-parents were lone-mothers.
Not all families have dependent children living with them. In 2004, 42 per cent of all families did not have children.
Of couple families, 49 per cent of married and 58 per cent of those cohabiting did not have children living with
them. For a further 14 per cent of all families, the only offspring living in the family were non-dependent children.
Nearly 40 per cent of married couple and cohabiting couple families did have dependent children. Lone-mother
families were more likely to have dependent children than lone-father families, 73 per cent compared with 50 %.
Comparing the four constituent countries of the UK in 2004, the proportion of families headed by a cohabiting
couple in Northern Ireland (6 per cent) was less than half of that of the UK (13 per cent). Equivalent figures for
Scotland and Wales were both 12 per cent and England 13 per cent. All countries have seen a marked increase in
these figures since 1996.
There were more likely to be dependent children in families in Northern Ireland than in the rest of the UK. In 2004,
50 per cent of all families in Northern Ireland had dependent children living with them compared with 43 per cent in
England. These patterns reflect the younger population age structure and higher fertility in Northern Ireland.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Sources: Labour Force Survey, spring 1996 and 2004, Office for National Statistics
Notes:
Family: a married/cohabiting couple with or without child(ren), or a lone-parent with child(ren).
Dependent children: aged under 16, or aged 16-18 in full-time education and never married.
Non-dependent children: never married children aged 16 and over who have no children and are living with their
parent(s) (excludes children aged 16-18 in full-time education). There is no age limit.
FAMILIES AND HOUSEHOLDS
What is happening to ‘the family’? There is a lot of debate about the social change said to be transforming family
life and other intimate relations, and the ESRC has funded a number of important studies into the subject.
Comparisons with the 1960s Researchers led by Professor Nickie Charles, of the School of Social Sciences and
International Development, University of Wales, repeated a 1960s study of family and kinship in Swansea to find
out how family life there has altered in the past 40 years and how such change varies between different social and
ethnic groups. Key findings• Fewer people marry or cohabit now compared with 1960, fewer have children and
more remain unpartnered. As a result, the proportion of their lives spent by people in nuclear family households has
declined.• The classic extended family consisting of three generations living under the same roof, already rare in
1960, is now all but extinct. Almost the only group where such households remain is amongst the ethnic minority
population, particularly Bengalis, the largest ethnic minority in the city. • As in 1960, the extended family continues
to exist in a dispersed form. Contact between households and generations remains high with contact between
mothers and daughters being the highest. This relationship remains crucial for the functioning of family groups
despite the fact that women’s employment has increased and the time available for domestic tasks has decreased. •
In the case of brothers and sisters, however, there has been a marked decline both in living nearby and in contact.
This, of course, affects potential extended family groupings and weakens the sense of people in an area being ‘kith
and kin’. • Support and contact are key to who is counted as ‘family’. Kin can lose the status of family members if
they do not provide support and there is little contact. Bythe same token, friends can become ‘family’ and distant
relatives become ‘close’ if they are seen often and help each other out. • And heterosexual partnerships are no longer
necessarily based on a male breadwinner - in 30 per cent of cases, women’s work status is higher than their
partners’. Variation in family forms • In the relatively affluent, middle-class area, families were usually a
heterosexual couple where the man was the main provider and the woman the main carer.
• In the inner-city area, amongst Bangladeshis, men were central to the family, as providers and heads of extended
family households. In some cases sons and their partners formed separate households in the same streets as their
parents. • In the deprived, working-class area, men were notable by their absence from family groups and paid work.
Women and their mothers and children, by contrast, were at the heart of family groups and relationships between the
generations and households. Social Change, Family Formation & Kin Relationship'. For the full research report go
to ESRC Society Today (www.esrcsocietytoday.ac.uk). Despite changes in family life, personal ties are still
important There are two dominant views of present-day personal relations, each reflecting a particular ideological
stance. Both are based on the premise that social and economic transformation has profoundly influenced the way
people relate to one another. However, some commonly made claims about changes to family life are not supported
by actual research, according to Val Gillies. A senior research fellow at South Bank University, she conducted a
review of existing written works on the subject. Key Findings • Those who regard traditional family values as
crucial to social and economic stability speak of the cultural shift in negative terms, emphasising family breakdown
and moral decline. • Liberal theorists favour a more positive version – talking about the benefits for people in less
conventional personal relationships, and stressing their potential for more equal treatment. • Another perspective that there has in fact been little substantial change in the way people relate to one another – is rarely heard. This is
despite research evidence suggesting that people continue to place great importance on personal ties and obligations.
• Evidence points to a largely enduring status quo, particularly in terms of gender and class. Statistics drawn on to
show an increased diversity of arrangements, such as divorcees, lone parents and step-families, can also be used to
demonstrate that traditional ties continue, with the majority of families still centred on a heterosexual couple. The
ethics of friendship • In the past, intimacy was seen very much as part and parcel of the obligations and functions of
family and kinship. Today, the strong focus is on the ethics of friendship, talking through issues and compromising,
and being open and honest with each other.
The paper - Family and Intimate Relationships: a review of the sociological research - was produced as part of the
Families and Social Capital ESRC Research Group. For more go to: (www.lsbu.ac.uk/families) Divorce and stepfamilies The very familiarity of divorce today suggests far reaching changes in how people conduct personal
relationships. Step-families are the most rapidly growing type of family unit. It has been estimated that just under 20
per cent of dads aged 34 are step-fathers - nearly double the number among men born just 12 years before them.
Most step-families are made up of a step-father who has partnered and formed a household with a biological mother
and her resident children. But they can also be particularly complex set-ups, in which the adults may combine
biological and step-parenting, and the children can be from both previous and current relationships. Research led by
Dr Bren Neale and Dr. Jennifer Flowerdew, at the Centre for Research on Family, Kinship and Childhood,
University of Leeds, examined in depth the changing lives of young people whose parents have divorced or
separated. It tracked the lives and experiences of young people over three or four years. Key findings• It is wrong to
assume that multiple changes in a child’s life after divorce are necessarily detrimental. Rather, it is the nature of
these changes, how quickly they occur and their cumulative effect that are significant. • Divorce and its
consequences should not be regarded as the central factor to define children and determine their chances in life after
a marriage break-up. Many are pre-occupied with a whole range of personal or family issues that may have arisen
after divorce but were not necessarily a consequence of it.• Relationships between young people and their parents
are played out in a complex variety of ways. For example, the success or otherwise of living with a parent can
depend on whether it is based on a flexible and supportive arrangement with the young person having a large
measure of control. A rigid regime can become a real trial for youngsters. Divorce must not be centre of the equation
• It is important to see the lives of young people in a broad context rather than purely through their parents’ divorce.
Many involved in the Leeds study faced a range of personal or family-related challenges that followed their parents’
separation, but were not necessarily due to it. These included issues around sexuality, schooling, economic hardship
and redundancy, higher education, friendships, long term limiting illness, terminal illness and death.
Changing relationships with parents • Relationships between young people and their parents are played out in a
complex variety of ways over time, and the nature and quality of these relationships are not necessarily reflected in
or determined by particular contact or living arrangements. Shared parenting, for example, is an attentive and
supportive style of relationship between a parent and child, which can be enjoyed by young people in a variety of
living arrangements, including those who may spend relatively little time with their non-resident parent. It should
not, therefore, be confused with shared residence. • Whether shared residence – or sharing a home with both parents
– actually works, depends on how the parents and child go about it. A flexible and supportive arrangement, in which
young people themselves have a large measure of control, is a positive experience for them. On the other hand, a
rigid regime can become a real trial for the young person. In any case, the task of sustaining this way of life over
many years is a particular challenge for young people and, over time, the disadvantages may begin to outweigh the
benefits. ‘In’ or ‘out’ of kinship This study also provides insights into the bases on which someone is counted ‘in’ or
‘out’ in terms of kinship, and to what extent the experience of their parents’ divorce may playa role in this.
Children’s reflections A book for children – ‘Looking back at our Parents’ Divorce: The changing lives of young
people’ by Dr Jennifer Flowerdew and Dr Bren Neale, is published by Young Voice (www.young-voice.org.). An
anthology of young people’s reflections on their lives, it covers some of the key themes to have emerged from this
study. Two homes not necessarily better than one The Fathers 4 Justice movement is among those calling for family
law to adopt a principle of pure equality between parents. Its members, with support from organisations such as the
Equal Parenting Council, demand that on divorce or separation, children should be shared equally. But the Leeds
research shows that children who spend an equal amount of time in two homes are not necessarily better off than
those with one. The principle of parental equality fails to take into account how young people experience these
arrangements. Where shared residence is built on rivalry or, even worse, ‘war’ between the parents, then children
can be considerably worse off than those living in one place. Enduring Families? Children's long term reflections on
post divorce family life. For the full research report go to ESRC Society Today (www.esrcsocietytoday.ac.uk)
Brother and sister relationships are not just about blood ‘Brother and sister’ relationships are now about far more
than blood ties and living in the same home. As 21stCentury children and young people create their own, complex
understandings of who and what is a sibling, the important social implications need to be taken on board, says a
paper from a team led by Professor Rosalind Edwards of the London South Bank University. Key findings• For
many, the definition of brothers and sisters has less to do with biology and living arrangements than with their own
circumstances and experiences. • Rising rates of divorce and separation, re-partnering and step-families, mean that
children may now have full siblings (sharing both biological parents), half siblings (sharing one) and step-siblings
(who are not related by blood, but each has a biological parent in a relationship). • This diversity is, however, rarely
picked up when official statistics are collected on children and families. Figures collected by official bodies, notably
government, about the number of children living in families, are overwhelmingly gathered from the point of view of
the family as a household unit. But separated parents and re-partnering can mean that children do not necessarily
live in the same household as their full biological siblings. They may also have half or step-siblings living in the
same or another home. The paper - Who is a sister and a brother? Biological and social ties - was produced as part of
the Families and Social Capital ESRC Research Group’s core program of work. For more go to:
(www.lsbu.ac.uk/families) Step-families at Christmas Dilemmas and tensions in step families are brought into sharp
relief at Christmas, as parents and step-parents aim to do what is best for the children. Decisions about where, with
whom and for how long youngsters will spend their time, and the giving and receiving of gifts for children within
and between households, take on an increased significance and symbolism, says a study led by Professor Rosalind
Edwards of London Southbank University. Parenting and Step-Parenting after Divorce/Separation: issues and
negotiations. For more go to ESRC Society Today (www.esrcsocietytoday.ac.uk )
The ESRC has a range of research that looks into the subject of Families, Relationships and Households, including: •
Research Group on the Study of Care, Values and the Future of Welfare (CAVA) – www.leeds.ac.uk/cava• Centre
on Micro-Social Change – www.iser.essex.ac.uk/misoc• Families and Social Capital Group –
www.lsbu.ac.uk/families• Identities and Social Action Group – www.identities.org.uk• For the full list of research in
the
area
of
Life
course,
Lifestyles
and
Health
seewww.esrcsocietytoday.ac.uk/ESRCInfoCentre/research/LifecourseLifestylesHealth/ESRC The Economic and Social
Research Council (ESRC) funds research into the big social and economic questions facing us today. We also
develop and train the UK’s future social scientists. We are an independent organisation, but receive most of our
funding through the Government’s Office of Science and Technology. Our research shapes public policies and helps
to make businesses, voluntary bodies and other organisations more effective. ESRC research is rigorous and
respected because we support independent, high quality but also relevant social science. If you are looking for high
quality social science research and if you would like to find out more about ESRC and our research why not take a
look at ESRC Society Today the ESRC's new website. On the site you can: • search the ESRC database of research
reports, along with plain English summaries and overview facts sheets• find new research, topical features and latest
news• track down researchers in particular areas of expertise • Cross search full texts and original datasets.
www.esrcsocietytoday.ac.uk
The Family and Historical change
Historical study of the institution of the family involves:
 The careful statistical examination of household composition and population changes. In the UK this
is associated with the work of P. Laslett.
 Broad descriptive attempts to chart the emergence of the ‘modern’ family. Examples include the
work of Aries, Shorter and Stone.
 Specific case studies of how families both in the past and currently have adapted to economic and
social change. For example, Anderson.
The study of the family is a good example of the necessary relationship between sociology and history. Only
knowledge of the past can instruct us to changes that occur, patterns that emerge and provide clues as to causation
(why change happens). It was historians, rather than sociologists, who exposed the previously widely held
functionalist account of the evolution of the western isolated nuclear family as a necessary adaptation to industrial
society as seriously flawed, and essentially a theoretical rather than empirically grounded account.
Be aware that the family and household are not the same thing. A family does not always live in the same household
and most households are not comprised of families.
The Functionalist account
The basic argument of functionalism is that:
 Prior to industrialisation the most common family form in western Europe was the extended family.
 As a result of industrialisation the extended family form gave way to the nuclear family.
 The nuclear family represents an adaptation to industrial society.
Some Key Texts.
What follows is mainly a criticism of the functionalist position. The functionalist position is, for the most part,
clearly untenable, it is theory divorced from close scrutiny of available information-it is armchair theorising.
Peter Laslett
A Cambridge historian, Laslett studied family size and composition in pre-industrial England. From 1564-1821, he
found that only about 10% of households contained kin beyond the nuclear family. This is the same percentage as
for England in 1966. Evidence from the USA presents a similar picture. Laslett found no evidence to support the
formerly accepted view that the classic extended family was widespread in pre-industrial England. He stated:
"There is no sign of the large extended co-residential family group of the traditional peasant world giving
way to the small, nuclear conjugal household of modern industrial society."
It is a distinct possibility that it was not industrialisation that produced the nuclear family, but, the reverse. The
nuclear family may have been one of the factors encouraging the development of industrial revolution in England.
As the predominant form of family structure perhaps it was pre-adapted to the requirements of industrial society.
The industrial revolution is seen as the 'great divide' the 'before and after' division of family forms (Morgan).
A question here of what was cause and what effect.
Michael Anderson
Anderson provides evidence that rather weakening kinship ties industrialisation may have strengthened them. He
used data from the 1851 census in Preston. He found that 23% of households contained kin other than the nuclear
family. The bulk of co-residence occurred among the poor. He states: "If we are to understand variations and
changes in patterns of kinship relationships, the only worthwhile approach is consciously and explicitly to
investigate the manifold advantages and disadvantages that any actor can obtain from maintaining one
relational pattern rather than another.
C. Harris
Harris questions an assumption that functionalists assert, that the family ‘fits’ society. He considers that the problem
can be looked at the other way round. He argues that sociologists have seen the family as the dependent variable,
whereas, in contrast, economic historians see the family as the independent variable. Harris is arguing that the
family can change society.
In order to gauge the influence of the family on industrialization Harris outlines what he considers to be necessary
for industrialization to start. He lists:
 A surplus of capital
 The ‘correct’ socialization of individuals.
 Sufficient labor.
 Legitimation of the system.
The extent to which capital is available, Harris argues, is dependent upon the system of inheritance that exists in a
particular society. The system of inheritance determines the extent to which is dispersed or concentrated. Where the
inheritance is divided equally the wealth of parents is divided. Where only one child inherits the wealth is
concentrated. Thus the effect of a single(one person) inheritance system can be important in making large sums of
capital available for investment.
The family as a socialising agency will have a vital role to play in influencing the beliefs, attitudes and behaviour of
individuals. This will determine their propensity to save and invest, and a willingness to innovate and take risks.
The family as a reproductive agency will affect the size of the population and hence the size of the labour surplus
which can be used in non-agricultural production.
The family has an important role to play in determining the reaction to the new systems of production involved in
industrialisation, and in their legitimation.
Harris argues that single inheritance systems will tend to make those children who do not inherit more willing to
travel. If there is also population growth this will produce a landless labour force. Given population growth
therefore, a single system will produce both a labour force and prevent the dispersion of property.
Habbakuk points to an association between single inheritance systems and early industrialisation(England and
Germany); and equal inheritance systems and late industrialisation(France and Russia).
In order to understand the impact of socialisation within a family we need to understand the importance of the
differing systems of inheritance. Where a child grows up knowing that s/he will inherit, all they have to do is sit
back and wait. But where a child knows that they will not inherit, both they and more importantly their parents, will
want to prepare them for this. The emphasis will shift to the value of personal achievement. Hence it would appear
that the single inheritance system not only provides a mobile labour force and keeps capital in large lumps, but also
it provides this labour force with the values of achievement necessary for entrepreneurial activity.
Unlike functionalists, Harris also argues that occupational and geographic mobility were not required by early
industrialisation. He argues that much of the supposed transfer of population from rural to urban areas was, in fact,
the result of differential growth rates, rather than migration.
Harris also argued that since the level of skill required in the first stage of industrialisation was low that there was no
need for occupational mobility..
Given this viewpoint Harris believes that it is impossible to argue that the extended family was a prerequisite of
inndustrialisation.
Very important, Anderson alerts us to the fact that humans are intelligant. Given our predisposition to maximise our
advantages we will adapt our behaviour to our cicumstances and adopt the family form that gives us, as individuals
and families, gives us the best outcome in terms of wellbeing.
Dependent variable-acted upon, independent variable acting on-back to cause and effect!
The adult population of cities were young and thus produced more children than the older adults in rural areas.
J. Flandrin
Flandrin(1979) argues that it is misleading to link one family type with a particular period. He argues that a variety
of types exist in any given period. Additionally, any one family will go through various different types over time.
Families are constantly changing.
A pause for thought
If the functionalist account were accurate what could we expect research to show?
 Before industrialisation the vast majority of families were extended in structure.
 After industrialisation extended families would disappear.
The first of these claims is clearly inaccurate. There is extensive evidence that nuclear families were extremely
common , indeed numerically the most common family form, in pre-industrial England.
The second claim, that industrialisation destroyed extended family structures, is also unsustainable. There is research
that clearly demonstrates the existence of extended family structures in industrial societies. In the UK the research of
Willmott and Young in Bethnal Green, and Bell in Swansea both indicate the vitality of the extended family in
Britain during the mid part of this century. More recently, Peter Willmott has written about the importance of
extended families to all of us currently living in the UK. His work is a reminder that families cannot be reduced to
membership of the same household. All of us generally acknowledge as family, and associate with, kin beyond the
parent child bond. Willmott reminds us to distinguish between household and family and also between proximity
and contact. Beyond research and theory think of your own family. Do you refuse to acknowledge family
members who do not live with you? Do you maintain contact with family members beyond the sibling parent
link? We all have extended families but most of us do not live under the same roof as them.
So have there been any changes?
The changes suggested by functionalism seem mistaken but its impossible for institutions to remain unaffected by
time. Humans are creative and adaptable and institutions are their creations, nobody keeps on tolerating conditions
that they are capable of changing and advances in knowledge will further hasten changes in social organisation and
belief.
D. Gittins
In "The Family in Question(1985) Gittings suggests some historical changes in families. The first of these is
mortality.
Mortality
Life expectancy has increased dramatically. In England in the late 17 th century average life expectancy was 32 years.
This short life expectancy had clear repercussions. First, if parents wanted children to survive they needed to
produce a relatively large number of children(some would die). Second, marriages and families were frequently
broken by death. Widowhood like orphanhood were a common experience. So the belief that families in the past
were more stable and solidaristic than today cannot be borne out.
Many children would experience the surviving parents remarriage and live with step siblings and half siblings.
According to Houston and Smith(1982), perhaps as many as 30% of all those marrying in the late 16th century were
widows and widowers.
High mortality meant it was rare for children to know their grandparents for long, if at all. Given this the extended
family could never have been widespread, or long lived.
Fertility
In pre-industrial society there was always a high fertility rate. Until the late 19 th century society was a very young
society. In the 20th century Britain has become an increasingly old society. Age has an important affect on family
resources. The elderly require time and attention but cannot contribute much(materially!) in return. Additionally it is
women who are seen as responsible for caring for many of the elderly.
The amount of time spent on child-rearing is also increasing. Men and women in pre0-industrial society married
quite late(about 25 yrs old). Caring for young dependents was a common feature of women’s lives throughout their
childbearing years. In contemporary society couples tend to have one or two children. Most women have stopped
having children by their early 30’s and thus have the prospect of a further 40 years without childbearing. However, it
must also be considered that although less time is spent actually having children, more time is spent rearing them.
Work
Apart from the very wealthy, everybody in medieval and early modern society was expected to work, economic
survival depended on it. If working for wages, a family needed more than one to survive , there was no such thing as
a ‘family wage’. A common form of work for children was as servants. Over 50% of the young people in preindustrial England would have experienced a period of living in someone else’s household. It was an important
transition in their life cycle, they would be sent away at the age of seven or eight. Such servants were defined as part
of the family for whom they worked. Many households were extended but not by kin but by servants. The existence
of such extensive use of servants disproves the notion that pre-industrial society was static. Service encouraged both
geographic and social mobility, and regulated household size.
Because the wages of women were low most women needed(materially) to reside with a man. Industrialsation
increased the dependency of women on marriage. Alongside this the trade unions developed the concept of the
family wage with the husband/father as sole breadwinner which was a powerful factor in the development of modern
notions of masculinity. This development coincided with the new middle class ideology of women and children as
dependents of the husband/father.
This bourgeois ideology developed between 1780-1850. It was not just a family ideology but a gender ideology, a
careful and deliberate attempt to reorganise relations between the sexes, according to middle class values.
There is no end to this, nor a lack of people who want to argue their corner. Whatever, some things are clear:
 The functionalist account is untenable-there is no basis in the available data for their argument.


Diversity seems the best description of both historical and contemporary family arrangements.
There have been changes to family life because of societal changes such as advances in sanitation and
communications leading to changes such as increasing life expectancy, the lowering of infant
mortality rates and the aging of the population.
Family: As defined by the Census, family is a group of two or more people who reside together and who are related
by birth, marriage, or adoption.
Family Household: A family includes a householder and one or more people living in the same household who are
related to the householder by birth, marriage, or adoption. All people in a household who are related to the
householder are regarded as members of his or her family. A family household may contain people not related to the
householder, but those people are not included as part of the householder's family in census tabulations. Thus, the
number of family households is equal to the number of families, but family households may include more members
than do families. A household can contain only one family for purposes of census tabulations. Not all households
contain families since a household may comprise a group of unrelated people or one person living alone.
Household: A household includes all the people who occupy a housing unit as their usual place of residence.
Householder: The householder is a person, or one of the people, in whose name the home is owned, being bought,
or rented. If there is no such person present, any household member 15 years old and over can serve as the
householder for the purposes of the census. Two types of householders are distinguished: a family householder and a
nonfamily householder. A family householder is a householder living with one or more people related to him or her
by birth, marriage, or adoption. The householder and all people in the household related to him are family members.
A nonfamily householder is a householder living alone or with non-relatives only.
Dependent
1 in 4 in lone-parent families
Children
In 2004 there were 7.4 million families with 13.1 million dependent children living in them in the UK. Most of these
children (66 per cent) lived in a married couple family.
One in four dependent children lived in a lone-parent family in 2004. This was an increase from 1 in 14 in 1972.
The average number of children in a family declined from 2.0 in 1971 to 1.8 in 2004. Married couple families were
generally larger than other family types, with an average 1.8 children in 2004, compared with 1.7 in cohabiting
couple and lone-mother families.
Number of dependent children in a family: by family type, 2004, UK
In 2004 nearly two thirds (64 per cent) of lone-father families had only one child living with them, the largest
proportion of any family type. The proportion of married couple families with one child was the smallest at 37 per
cent. Married couples were more likely than other family types to have three or more children.
Children in families headed by lone-fathers tended to be older than children in other types of families. In 2001 the
youngest child in nearly half of lone-father families was aged over 11. This compared with around a quarter of
married couple and lone-mother families, and a seventh of cohabiting couple families. This pattern reflects
cohabiting couple families and lone-mothers being generally younger than married couple families and lone-fathers.
Some children live in different family types during their childhood, this is a result of changes in relationship and
childbearing patterns, such as the rise in births outside marriage and the growth in divorce and cohabitation.
Children can be affected by the breakdown of marriage and cohabiting unions and/or the creation of new
partnerships. In 2003, 153,500 children under 16 were affected by their parents divorcing in England and Wales, just
over one in five were under five years old.
One in four women who gave birth outside marriage in 1988 went on to marry in the subsequent eight years, most of
them married the child’s father.
Some children do not live in families at all. In 2001, 139,000 children were living in other households in the UK,
this includes living with adults or other relatives who are not their parents. An additional 52,000 children under 16
lived in communal establishments such as a children’s home.
Sources: Census, 2001, Office for National Statistics; General Register Office for Scotland; Northern Ireland
Statistics and Research Agency
Labour Force Survey, spring 2004, Office for National Statistics
General Household Survey, 1971 and 1972, Office for National Statistics
Children of divorced couples: Office for National Statistics
Notes:
Household: a person living alone, or a group of people living at the same address who have the address as their only
or main residence and either share one main meal a day or share the living accommodation (or both).
Family: a married/cohabiting couple with or without child(ren), or a lone-parent with child(ren).
Dependent children: aged under 16, or aged 16-18 in full-time education and never married.
All data refer to dependent children except for children in communal establishments. In the Census, children not in a
household are not classified as either dependent or non-dependent.
"Consider the diversity of contemporary family structure".
The Aims of these Notes are to allow you to understand:
1. That contemporary British society has a wide diversity of family structures.
2. The idea of family life being considered in terms of social groups (rather than as an institution in society).
3. Historical changes in family structure and the theoretical diversity of relationships within the family.
The Objectives of these Notes are to allow you to understand:
1. The difference between commonsense and sociological conceptions of family life.
2. The interpretation of statistical evidence relating to family diversity.
3. The concepts of life-cycle and family structure in relation to various theoretical forms of family diversity.
Introduction
In this set of Notes we are going to consider family life in terms of the idea of families as a social group within
different societies. In particular, the emphasis will be on the concept of family diversity; that is, the different forms
of family relationship it is possible to note and outline.
The Diversity of Contemporary Family Life
When we examined the "fit thesis" in relation to the way family structures have changed over to past 300 years in
Britain, we noted that writers such as Laslett and Anderson focused part of their criticism on the notion that a single
type of family structure could be considered "dominant" in whatever period of time one chose to examine (for
example, the idea that the "extended family" was the dominant (main) form in pre-industrial Britain or that the
"nuclear family" is the dominant form in industrial Britain).
As Anderson's research clearly indicated, this "monolithic" or "homogeneous" approach to the study of the family as
an institution is conceptually inadequate, precisely because different social classes:
Experience structural pressures in different ways
The economic position of the working class is radically different to that of the upper class and so forth
Adapt themselves differently to the demands (or "imperatives") of structural pressures.
Question:
How would you define the idea of the "homogeneous family institution"?
This idea is interesting for two main reasons:
1. It suggests that family diversity is a concept that is worth exploring if we are to arrive at an adequate explanation
for the relationship between:
The family and other social institutions / structures
Relationships within the family as a social group
2. It highlights a methodological "problem", namely the idea that the overall sociological perspective within which
one - as a sociologist - chooses to operate may radically affect the way in which you choose - or are able - to study
institutions such as the family.
For example: Functionalist theory,
Tends to emphasize broad structural pressures
Views social systems in terms of a broad value consensus
Emphasizes the way people adapt to structural imperatives / pressures.
Thus, if your overall theoretical perspective places primary importance on such ideas, this will affect the way in
which you carry-out your research. In short, in relation to the family, it will mean:
That you end to treat "the family" as some kind of homogeneous entity in society
That your approach is broadly ahistorical (that is, that the theoretical approach you are forced to adopt is one
whereby you construct a logical theory about the world as you consider it to be / have been and then look around for
evidence that confirms your theory).
That you tend to underestimate the significance of social action as an explanation of social change (or, at least, the
relationship between social action and social structure).
Question:
How might your "sociological perspective" affect the way in which you choose to study family life?
In the light of the above observations, it would, therefore, be useful to briefly examine explanations relating to the
nature and diversity of the family as a social group (primarily, but not exclusively, in relation to Britain), prior to a
closer examination of specific relationships within the family group.
As we have seen already, one starting-point for an analysis of family diversity in contemporary Britain might be to
identify four main types of family structure, namely:
Nuclear
Extended
Reconstituted
Single-parent
and to recognise that - to greater or lesser extents - all of these "family types" exist in contemporary Britain.
Question:
Using these examples, how could we define the concept of "family structure"? (Think about what makes the above
different types of family structure).
However, it should be evident that within each of these broad types there must exist a wide range of diverse forms of
family life.
For example: Extended family:
Vertically extended
Horizontally extended
Close kinship network (based upon mutual aid, for example)
Diffused kinship network (based upon financial ties, nepotism and so forth)
In this example, the quality of family relationships and family life will differ quite markedly depending upon the
precise form the extended family takes. In addition, you could go on refining the picture of diversity within the
extended family almost indefinitely, as we consider the exact nature of kinship networks and the "functions" they
perform for family members.
However, what is important here is a broad consideration of family diversity within these different types of family
arrangements, rather than a specific analysis of all possible refinements and combinations.
In this respect, an important point to grasp is one made by Ann Oakley ("Housewife", 1974), when she criticises the
"taken-for-granted" or "conventional" notion that we tend to hold about "the family" as being:
"...nuclear families composed of legally married couples, voluntarily choosing parenthood of one or more (but not
too many) children.".
Family Life In Britain...
When we start to think about family life in Britain, we all start with one big advantage (and, as it happens, one big
disadvantage):
The advantage we have is that we have all lived some or part of our lives within some kind of family - whether it be
a family created for us by our parents (the one into which we were born) or a family which we, as adults perhaps,
have helped to create. In this respect, we have an "insider's knowledge" about family life which can be valuable to
us as we try to look (in our guise as enquiring sociologists) at competing ideas and explanations relating to family
life in our society.
The disadvantage we have, however, relates to the fact that this "experiential knowledge" (that is, the knowledge we
gain from our experiences within a family) can easily blind us to other people's experiences of family life. In this
respect, we may (perhaps wrongly) assume that other people's experiences are much the same as our own - and this
applies not just to contemporary family life in our society, but also to family life in the past and in different
societies.
The information we receive about family life in our society is not, of course, simply restricted to our own
experiences. The mass media, for example, bombard us with images (both conscious and subliminal) concerning
family life - what it is like, what it was like, what it should be like and so forth. As sociologists, it should be our task
to sort-out the truth from the fiction, the myth from the reality, the Margaret Thatcher from the Kings and Queens of
England...
What this long - and possibly pointless - preamble is attempting to convey is the idea that we tend, for one reason or
another, to assume that family life in our society is not particularly complicated or diverse - two people (of different
sex) love each other quite a lot, they get married, have kids and everyone lives happily ever after...
In short, we can perhaps identify a kind of "commonsense" perception about family life that combines two basic
ideas:
1. That there is only one basic type of family structure in our society.
2. This basic type is normal, good and socially valuable.
Before we start to explore this idea in more detail, it might be useful for you to think about your perception of
"family structure". When you read the word "family", for example, a mental picture should pop into your thoughts,
describing in general terms the meaning that you give to this concept.
As an exercise, try describing the picture of "the family" that pops into your head.
When I tried this exercise, the mental picture of the "normal family" that popped into my head was as follows:
A man and a woman - a mother and a father.
Two children (one male, one female) - both quite young.
The man and woman are also fairly young (between the ages of about 25 - 35).
Their relationship is a monogamous one.
The man has a job outside the home. The woman may have a part-time job, but she is predominantly a "full-time
housewife".
These people represent a self-contained family unit - I do not see wider kin / relations in my mental picture.
Finally, they are all reasonably happy.
From the above, there are two main things that we can usefully consider:
1. Firstly, the social significance of this kind of "commonsense" perception of "the family".
Clearly, it will be important to me, since it is my perception of "normality" against which to measure my family
experiences (we could, if we were so inclined, pursue the ideological implications of this perception but, you will be
relieved to know, this is not particularly necessary here).
More importantly, it will have considerable ramifications for such things as social policies created by governments
in relation to family life if this kind of picture of normality is shared by those with political power. Again, while this
is an interesting line to pursue (okay, it would be interesting if you were the kind of person who thinks that standing
in the rain on a windy railway station platform noting down the numbers of trains is a wild and exiting kind of
lifestyle), we can develop this idea at a later point when we look at family life and social policy (bet you can't wait
for that one).
2.
Secondly and more importantly in this context, the question of whether or not this kind of "commonsense"
perception is actually valid in relation to family life in our society.
In thinking about family life in Britain, therefore, we have to initially understand two main things:
a. Firstly, the nature of family life itself.
b. Secondly, the significance of empirical evidence surrounding family life.
In order to do this, we need to look closely at empirical evidence (and statistical evidence in particular) about family
life. In addition, we have to evaluate the significance of such evidence in relation to such things as:
1. The "internal" consistency of this evidence (and, in particular, its reliability).
2. The interpretation of such evidence in relation to the idea that family life is a social process (about which
statistical evidence may give us a "snapshot" of family life in our society at the point at which the data is collected).
3. The concept of family life-cycle.
Our initial interpretation of evidence surrounding the question of family diversity would suggest that:
a. The nuclear family structure is the norm in Britain.
b. The "commonsense" (or "cereal packet") perception of family life consisting of "adults with dependent children"
is not particularly representative of household types at any given moment.
c. Although, at any given time, there are more people living outside the "cereal packet" type, it does appear that, for
the majority of people at least, their family life-cycle is broadly similar, proceeding along the lines of:
Single,
Married without children,
Married with dependent children,
Married with independent children.
Robert Chester ("The Rise of the Neo-Conventional Family", 1985) forcefully presses home this particular point
when he argues that, despite what the critics of the nuclear family may argue, most people spend at least part of their
life within this type of family structure.
Furthermore, he argues it is misleading to simply use “snapshot” statistical figures relating to the composition of
family structures at any given moment, simply because people’s lives are much more fluid (changeable) in modern
societies – which, in effect, means they are likely to experience a diverse range of “family experiences” (most of
which will, in some form or another, involve living in a nuclear-type arrangement or, perhaps more significantly,
wanting to live in that type of arrangement should the chance to do so be available).
In relation to the above, therefore, it looks initially as if the "cereal packet" norm is not just a commonsense
perception (or myth) but that, on the contrary, it is a reality in our society. However, just as, methodologically, we
have to interpret family / household statistics if we are to understand the reality of family life as it is lived /
experienced by people in our society, we have to dig a bit deeper (sociologically) if we are to understand the social
processes involved in family life. We need, in short, to understand family life in both institutional (or Structural)
terms and interpersonal terms.
Thus, what we have to do now is to attempt to interpret empirical evidence about family life in terms of the concept
of a family life-cycle process, since this will help us to evaluate the extent to which diversity in family life is either
"normal" or "abnormal" in our society.
In addition, the main reason for doing things this way (looking at empirical evidence and then attempting to interpret
its significance in overall terms) is that each statistical category at which we have just looked will contain a range of
different behaviours.
Thus, the "married with dependent children" category may hide a range of diverse behaviours - differences in family
size, role relationships and so forth - which need to be examined if we are to arrive at some conclusion about the
concept of family diversity.
Life –Cycle and Family Structure.
In this section, it would be useful to cover three main areas:
1. An understanding of the specific (historical background) factors that have conditioned overall family development
in a society such as Britain.
We can think of this in terms of the "life-cycle" process noted above.
2. To look at a theoretical framework against which we can broadly sketch some of the main types of diversity in
family life.
This will involve looking at the work of Rhona and Robert Rapoport ("Families in Britain", 1982) and the way in
which they identify five main types of family diversity in contemporary Britain, namely:
a. Organizational.
b. Cultural.
c. Class.
d. Life-course.
e. Cohort.
3. To illustrate the above with examples of diverse family types in contemporary Britain and America.
In relation to the first of the ideas noted above (historical background in relation to family formation), Abercrombie
and Warde ("Contemporary British Society") identify four main demographic changes affecting what they term the
"family formation" part of an individual's overall life-cycle.
We can look briefly at each change in turn and offer a similarly brief interpretation / evaluation of their respective
significance.
a. A reduction in the average age of marriage.
Leete ("Changing Patterns of Marriage and Remarriage", 1977) has noted the following about the marital status of
women aged 20 - 24:
1931 - 26% married.
1951 - 48% married.
1961 - 59% married.
In addition, the age at first marriage for males and females was:
Men
Women
1900
27
26
1975
25
23
From the above we can see that:
1. There appears to be an increasing proportion of women marrying.
2. The age at which people marry has been decreasing.
3. In relation to women's propensity to marriage, we can also note that the numbers unmarried by the ages 35 - 44
have declined from 14% in 1931 to 6% in 1974.
b. Life expectancy.
Women
Men
1926
59.3 years
55.4 years
1976
75.8 years
69.7 years
1999
79 years
74 years
The significance of greater longevity is two-fold:
1. Firstly, married people are potentially together longer (especially after their children have become independent).
2. The longer the life-expectancy, the longer a marriage has to last and the more-likely is the marriage to end in
divorce (rather than the death of a partner, for example).
c. The proportion of people marrying.
A rough comparison of the proportion of married people in the population is given in the following table:
Men
Women
1901
36%
34%
1974
52%
50%
In addition, two further points are significant:
1. Upper class males and females tend, on average, to marry slightly later in their life-cycle than people of other
classes.
2. Amongst all women, those most likely to remain single come from the upper / upper middle classes.
The above is perhaps explained by a couple of ideas:
a. Different social attitudes to starting a family - as we will see in a moment, a general decline in average family size
over the past 100 years has meant that people do not have to delay marriage in order to ensure that they can support
a larger family.
b. The increasing availability of contraception has meant that sexually-active couples can "safely" have sexual
relationships without the fear of pregnancy. In addition, families can be more easily planned.
c. As the number and proportion of women who are able and willing to pursue a career outside the family increases,
the average age of marriage for these women has also increased. This observation applies particularly to middleclass, professional, women who appear to be delaying marriage / family life until they have established a
professional career to which they can return following childbirth.
d. A decrease in average family size.
Although in contemporary Britain approximately 90% of all marriages in Britain involve children, the average
family size over the past 100 years has declined dramatically:
1860
1900
1950
1990
7
4
2.3
1.9
In addition to being relatively smaller, the modern family tends to be completed earlier in a couple's life-cycle. The
figures for "child-bearing life span" illustrate this idea:
1860 - 20 year span between 1st and last child.
1900 - 14 year span.
1950 - 10 year span.
Abercrombie and Warde note that "one of the most significant changes in the labour market in the 20th century" is
the “rising proportion of married women returning to work after completing their families…Greater participation by
women in paid work and changes in family structure thus seem to be closely related, although what the mechanisms
are that connect the two changes are less clear”.
Question:
What explanations can you find for the fact that “Greater participation by women in paid work and changes in
family structure thus seem to be closely related”.
In relation to the second of the areas to be covered that I noted at the start of this section, we can now look at a
theoretical framework against which we can broadly sketch some of the main types of diversity in family life.
Rhona and Robert Rapoport ("Families in Britain", 1982) identify five main types of family diversity in
contemporary Britain, that we can outline in the following terms:
1. Organisational Diversity.
This occurs within the family group, in terms of variations in:
Family structure
Household type
Kinship networks
Division of labour
Marriage and Cohabitation
Role relationships
Between families, this occurs in terms of broad family types such as:
Conventional families (Husband, wife, 2 children)
Single-parent families
"Dual-worker" families (where both parents work)
Reconstituted families (the product of divorce, remarriage or cohabitation).
As should be evident, there are huge organizational differences involved in the above - differences that perhaps
make it difficult to talk about "the" family as an institution in society.
2. Cultural Diversity
By this they mean differences in lifestyles between families of different ethnic origins, religious beliefs and so forth.
In broad terms, we have to consider such cultural styles related to marriage / cohabitation as:
Serial Monogamy,
Monogamy,
Polygamy,
Polyandry.
In addition, we may have to consider differences in religious beliefs and the way they affect family development.
In societies where the Catholic Church is politically, ideologically and (possibly) economically powerful, for
example, serial monogamy and the ban on contraception have significant consequences for the family, in terms of
such things as:
Relative size (number of children per family)
Stability (where divorce is not possible)
Division of labour (where "traditional" male / female roles may be ideologically
and structurally enforced - especially in terms of child care, for example).
An example that the Rapoports' give is that of the South Asian family in Britain. They note that there are
approximately one million South Asians living in contemporary Britain (having emigrated from areas such as the
Punjab, Gujarat and Bengal in the 1950's) and they argue that a distinctive family form has developed in South
Asian communities based around:
Religious beliefs
Area of origin
Caste
Kinship
In relation to this type of family structure, the Rapoports' note that conflicts tend to arise in relation to the
organization of home life (based upon the above) and the organization of such things as education.
For example, whereas home life emphasizes such things as:
Conformity to family and religious norms,
Respect for authority,
Loyalty to kin / family.
School life tends to emphasize such things as:
Competitiveness and
Individualism.
This may well be an example of the way in which the organization of different forms of family life creates conflicts
between the family and wider society.
3. Class Diversity
Clear class divisions exist both between different social classes (Upper, Middle and Working) and within those
broad class groupings (such as, for example, differences between the "traditional" and the "new" working class - in
the latter case, the concept of the "privatised family" (Goldthorpe and Lockwood et al (The Affluent Worker in the
Class Structure) argue, that this type of family involves both partners sharing a home-centred approach to family
life) is significant in relation to family relationships). These differences are manifest in such things as:
The relationship between the sexes
Socialization of children
The importance of kinship networks
The different kinds of support provided by wider kin.
4. Life-Course.
This idea refers to differences in family life that occur as the result of the life-cycle of the family.
For example, the family life of a young couple with infants is quite different to that of an elderly couple with adult
children. Similarly, class differences are manifest, insofar as there is a (very) general tendency for working class
children to leave the family home to start families of their own at an earlier age than their upper / middle class peers.
Similarly, parents with children of school age may develop a "dual-career" family, where both parents work for at
least part of the day.
5. Cohort.
This refers to generational links within different families.
For example, families with children in Higher Education may have different experiences than families whose
children leave home at 16. Kinship networks are also significant in this respect, especially when kin (grandparents,
for example) live in close proximity to the nuclear family.
Summary
1. The extent to which contemporary family life in Britain is characterized by a diversity of family structures.
2. The difference between the family considered as an institution and family life considered in terms of social
groups.
3. The way in which different family structures have evolved - and continue to evolve - over the past 2 - 300 years.
4. The potential diversity of social relationships within family groups.
5. That the "structure of a family group" is defined by the form of the social relationships that exist within that
group.
In terms of the different skill domains you are required to demonstrate, you should also feel confident that you can:
1. Evaluate commonsense and sociological conceptions of family life.
2. Interpret, apply and evaluate statistical data relating to family diversity.
3. Apply the concept of family life-cycle to an understanding of various forms of family diversity.
4. Interpret and evaluate the concept of family life-cycle in relation to the idea of family diversity.
Examination Questions.
1. How far do you agree with the idea that the "typical family model" remains central to all family ideology?
Support your argument with appropriate examples.
2. To what extent does sociological evidence support the idea that there is a "contemporary diversity" in the
structure of the family?
3. Assess the view that there is an "overall pattern of diversity" in family structure in Britain!
Britain Could Recognize Same-Sex Couples
POSTED: 5:39 pm EST March 31, 2004
The question of granting more rights to gay couples isn't only being debated in the United States.
The British government has released some proposals that would give legal status to same-sex couples, offering them
many of the same rights enjoyed by traditional married couples.
But British officials caution that the proposals, which involve what amount to civil unions, don't amount to gay
marriage.
Some gay rights advocates say they don't mind that the bill stops short of marriage. They say providing more rights
is the important thing.
But others say the bill reinforces discrimination by denying gays the right to marry and by preventing heterosexual
couples from signing civil partnerships.
In the United States, several states are grappling with the issue. In Massachusetts, the state's highest court ruled that
the state constitution obstruct discrimination against same-sex couples, and that they must be allowed to marry,
starting in May. Since then, the state legislature has proposed an amendment that would define marriage as only
between a man and a woman; that measure can't be finalized for two years.
The next flashpoint came when San Francisco started offering marriage licenses to homosexual couples. Thousands
took advantage.
Those events prompted President George W. Bush to call for an amendment to the U.S. Constitution defining
marriage.