Study
booklet.
Theory – summary.
1. Functionalists argue that the family is a universal institution.
It performs functions which are essential for the
maintenance & well-being of society.
2. Parsons argues that the family performs ‘two basic and
irreducible’ functions in modern industrial society – primary
socialisation and the stabilization of adult personalities.
3. The New Right sees the nuclear family as the ideal family
form. They believe the nuclear family is under threat.
Alternative family forms, particularly lone mother families,
fail to provide adequate socialisation.
4. Marxists argue that the modern family has been shaped to fit
the needs of capitalism. It helps to maintain an economic
system based on exploitation.
5. Feminists see the family as patriarchal – it is dominated by
men and serves the interests of men.
6. According to the New Right, government policy should favour
marriage and the nuclear family.
7. Other argue that governments should recognise family
diversity and support all family forms.
8. The main political parties now agree that family diversity is a
reality and that governments have a duty to support all types
of family. However, Conservatives tend to see the ‘married
family’ as the best social arrangement for raising children.
Labour tend to focus on supporting children, whatever types
of family they are raised in.
Theory – Functionalism.
He wrote
social
structure. 1949.
A Functionalist theoretical perspective which argues the nuclear family
exists in all societies.
KEY CONCEPTS: universality of the nuclear family; sexual function;
reproductive function; economic function; educational function.
SUMMARY OF THEORY:
* Claimed that the nuclear family existed in every society across the
world – it was universal.
* Murdock defined the family as follows:
“The family is a social group characterized by common residence,
economic co-operation & reproduction. It includes adults of both
sexes, at least two of whom maintain a socially approved sexual
relationship, and one or more children, own or adopted, of the sexually
cohabiting adults.”
* He identified four functions of families: sexual (essential for
continuation of society); reproductive (as for sexual); economic
(essential for survival – production & preparation of food, shelter etc)
& educational (essential for passing on the society’s culture to the
next generation).
RESEARCH METHOD: He took samples of 250 societies across the
world, from small non-literate (‘uneducated’) hunting / gathering
tribes to large industrial societies and analysed the types of families
that he found there.
WEAKNESSES: Family diversity is excluded from this definition
which implies the following types of family are inadequate and don’t
do the job properly: single parent families, gay couples, childless or
childfree couples, single person households and reconstituted
families. Gough’s research shows that polygamy (having more than one
spouse; husband or wife), is common practice and this doesn’t fit
Murdock’s definition. Morgan points out that Murdock presents the
nuclear family as a totally harmonious institution.
Theory – Functionalism.
He wrote
the social
structure of
the family. 1959.
A Functionalist theory which examines the functions of the family in
industrial society & argues it’s essential to society harmony.
KEY CONCEPTS: two basic & irrucible functions of the family; primary
socialization; stabilization of adult personalities; instrumental male; expressive
female; families as ‘personality factories’; internalization; isolated nuclear
family.
SUMMARY OF THEORY:
* While modern families have lost many functions (due to the increasing
intervention of state agencies like the welfare state), they retain two basic
and irreducible functions which are primary socialization & the stabilization
of adult personalities.
* Primary socialization = teaching of norms, values, skills & attitudes of the
dominant culture of society to children within the family (this might include
manners & language). This involves internalization (taking on board) society’s
culture & structuring of the personality.
* Parsons argued that families are personality factories which produce human
characters.
* Stabilization of adult personalities – keeps adults mentally healthy through
emotional support provided through marriage. This usually involves the
expressive female (wife) supporting her working husband (instrumental male).
This is very important as modern isolated nuclear families have less contact
with their wider family.
* Adults are also stabilized in their roles as parents – they can act out childish
elements of their personalities from play with children.
RESEARCH METHOD: Analysed American families in the 1950s.
WEAKNESSES: This is a totally unrealistic & non-applicable picture of ‘perfect’
family life from 1950s America. It fails to consider how other institutions can
perform the functions of the family – Parsons thinks only the family can
stabilize adults’ personalities. Assumes primary socialization is a one-way
process where kids are pumped with parents’ culture; it can be a two way
process, too where kids wrap their parents around their little fingers!
Completely ignores the ‘dark side’ of family life.
Theory – New Right perspective.
This is a perspective held by many politicians and journalists
which argues that the family is the foundation of society, but
that it is under threat from single mothers, gay families &
divorce. They argue the nuclear family is the best sort of
family from which a decent society can grow.
KEY CONCEPTS: fatherless families; new rabble; new victorians; underclass;
welfare dependency; undeserving poor.
SUMMARY OF THEORY:
* Dennis & Erdos wrote Families Without Fathers in 2000 and argued that
the increasing numbers of children born outside of marriage to single mothers
was putting these children at a disadvantage. On average, they have poorer
health and lower educational success than children from nuclear families. They
are particularly worried about boys from lone mother households as they grow
up without the expectation that adulthood involves responsibilities for a wife
and children. This can result in irresponsible, immature & anti-social young men.
* Charles Murray argues that ‘increasing numbers of young, healthy, lowincome males choose not to take jobs’. Many turn to crime & drug abuse. He
argues that many of these boys have grown up in a family without a father &
male wage earner. As a result, they lack the male role models of mainstream
society. Within a female-headed underclass family, dependent on state
benefits, the disciplines and responsibilities of mainstream, ‘normal’ society
tend to break down. Murray argues that work must become the ‘centre of life’
for young men, they must learn the disciplines of work and respect for work as
well as becoming ‘real fathers’, accepting the responsibilities of fatherhood.
* New Right theorists point to the following factors as evidence that the family
is under threat: there have been increases in lone parent families; fatherless
families; divorce rates; cohabitation and gay and lesbian couples.
* These factors are caused by: a breakdown of ‘traditional family values’; overgenerous welfare state benefits to single mothers; influence of feminism which
has devalued marriage and housewifery; increased sexual promiscuity; greater
tolerance of gay and lesbian relationships as alternatives to ‘straight’ couples.
RESEARCH METHOD: Mainly theoretical with some examination of social
trends data to spot trends and correlations.
WEAKNESSES: It blames the victims of poverty for their problems, which are
often not of their own making, such as unemployment. It also makes rather
moralistic value judgements that the nuclear family is ‘better’ than the single
parent one.
Theory – Marxism.
He wrote
“capitalism,
the family &
personal life.
1976.
A Marxist theoretical perspective which argues the family is under huge
pressure to cushion the effects of capitalism on the individual.
KEY CONCEPTS: privatization of family life; capitalism.
SUMMARY OF THEORY:
* Argues that family life is becoming increasingly privatized in that it
is shut-off from the rest of the world. Look at the case of Baby P; he
was left alone by society because family life is meant to be a private
affair, behind closed doors.
* Before the industrial revolution and the rise of capitalism, families
were agricultural units of production where work & family life were
one & the same: they were strongly integrated with each other.
* In the modern, capitalist world, the family is valued more highly as
the only place that can give emotional refuge from the stresses of
the workplace.
* Zaretsky argues the family cannot “meet the pressures of being the
only refuge in a brutal society.” Like putting all your eggs in one
basket…
* The family is a major support to capitalism in two ways: 1) it
reproduces the future & maintains the present generation of workers
and 2) is a unit of consumption through buying products (food,
utilities, property etc) & thereby creating profit.
RESEARCH METHOD: Theoretical – opinion; not actual study.
WEAKNESSES: Zaretsky over-emphasises the idea that the family is
a refuge in the heartless world of work & capitalism. Families in which
domestic violence, incest & abuse go on are hardly refuges.
Theory – Marxism.
He wrote
the origin of the
family, private
property & the
state. 1972.
A Marxist theoretical perspective which argues the monogamous nuclear
family developed to protect private property.
KEY CONCEPTS: monogamy; private property.
SUMMARY OF THEORY:
* Engels tried to trace the evolution and development of the family
through history.
* He argued the monogamous nuclear family developed to solve the
problem of the inheritance of private property. Monogamy is when a
husband and wife have an exclusive sexual relationship – the marriage
vows make them promise that they will have sex with no one else, the
emphasis is particularly on women.
* Private property (animals, farms, equipment etc) was owned by men
who needed greater control over women (and their wombs) so there
would be no doubt over the paternity of their offspring – so the men
would definitely know that the children their wives produced were
definitely their children. The religious nature of the marriage
ceremony ensured women’s total obedience to their men; by literally
putting the fear of God into women they ordered women (and not
men) to “love, honour and obey”. Mmm.
* The ownership of private property is the foundation of capitalism –
so monogamy protects capitalism.
RESEARCH METHOD: Theoretical – opinion; not actual study.
WEAKNESSES: while this theory works for pre-industrial families, it
doesn’t really work for modern families. According to Oliver James,
around one in twenty men are bringing up children who, unbeknown to
them, are bringing up children who they think are theirs but in fact
aren’t. It assumes that women are utterly passive and will not commit
adultery. Eight words: “And now for that all-important DNA test…”
Theory – Marxist feminism.
She wrote
the
political
economy of
women’s
liberation.1972
.
Marxist feminists see the exploitation of women as a key feature of
family life which supports capitalism.
KEY CONCEPTS: capitalism; unpaid labour.
SUMMARY OF THEORY:
* “The amount of unpaid labour (housework and childcare), performed
by women is very large and very profitable to those who own the
means of production. To pay women for their work, even at minimum
wage scales, would involve a massive redistribution of wealth. At
present, the support of the family is a hidden tax on the wage earner
– his wage buys the labour power of two people.”
* In other words; by supporting their man in their jobs, by doing the
things like cooking and cleaning that they would not have time to do as
they’re at work all the time, capitalism is really benefiting from this.
To pay women for everything they do would cost an awful lot of money
and employers would have to pay men a huge wage. In her role as
housewife, the woman attends to her husband’s needs, thus keeping
him in good running order to perform his role as a wage labourer.
* A working man’s responsibilities to keep a wife and a family mean
that he is a slave to his job – he can be exploited as much as possible
by capitalism but he has no choice but to stay. So in this way, the
pressure of the financial responsibility of a family on a male
breadwinner supports capitalism by allowing the exploitation to
continue.
RESEARCH METHOD: This was theoretical, not supported by any
empirical evidence – actually going out there and observing…
WEAKNESSES: Er – housewives: how out-dated is that?!
Theory – Marxist feminism.
She wrote
1972.
Marxist feminists see the exploitation of women as a key feature of
family life which supports capitalism.
KEY CONCEPTS: stabilization of adult personalities; safety valve;
capitalism.
SUMMARY OF THEORY:
* Ansley translates Parsons’ view that the family functions to
stabilize adult personalities into a Marxist feminist framework.
* She sees the emotional support provided by the wife as a safety
valve for the frustration produced in the husband by working in a
capitalist system.
* Instead of being turned against the capitalist system which
produced the frustration, it’s absorbed by the comforting wife so the
exploitation capitalist system is not challenged and the exploitation
ends up on the wife’s doormat.
* “When wives play their traditional roles as takers of shit, they
often absorb their husband’s legitimate anger and frustration at their
own powerlessness and oppression. With every worker provided with a
sponge (the wife) to soak up his possible revolutionary ire (anger), the
bosses rest more secure.”
RESEARCH METHOD: This was theoretical, not supported by any
empirical evidence – actually going out there and observing…
WEAKNESSES: This should be adapted to ask if husbands now absorb
their working wives’ frustration. Duncombe and Marsden’s research
suggests that it’s not.
Theory – Radical feminism.
They wrote
familiar
exploitation.
1992.
Radical feminists see the family as important in maintaining male power
& focus more on patriarchy than capitalism as the main cause of
women’s oppression.
KEY CONCEPTS: patriarchy.
SUMMARY OF THEORY:
* They argue it is men, rather than capitalists, who benefit most from women’s
exploitation in the family which involves a set of “labour relations in which men
benefit from, and exploit, the work of women.”
* Women are oppressed by the family because of the unpaid labour they
perform for the head of the household – the man. “It is primarily the work
women do, the uses to which our bodies can be put, which constitutes the reason
for our oppression. “
* They identify the following features of the family: 1) most heads of
households are men; 2) the male head of the house makes the decisions; 3) the
man provides the money although family members have to work for him unpaid;
4) domestic work remains a female responsibility (women’s work) & sexual labour
is the wives’; 5) the amount inherited from the male head of household is not
related to the amount of work done – it’s more about position in the family, with
male relatives (sons) often inheriting more although they may have done little or
no domestic labour; 6) relations of production in the family often involve
payment in kind, not money with which women could buy what they wanted; 7) no
formal contracts or bargaining; 8) the man has greater control over property
and money and 9) working women still shoulder the domestic burden at home.
RESEARCH METHOD: they used four main sources of data; three studies of
British factory workers and their families & one of a French farming
communities.
WEAKNESSES: not all heads of families are male; unrepresentative data – the
samples were of manual working class families where housewives were common;
the family lives of French farmers are hardly applicable to modern British ones
where women not only work but have more power than ever before. The fact
that 75% of divorces are petitioned (started) by women show that although
they are dissatisfied by marriage, they’re not just going to accept it.
Theory – Radical feminism.
She wrote
the whole
woman. 2000.
A radical feminist who argues family life continues to
oppress women & sees their roles as mothers, as well
as other things as part of this exploitation.
KEY CONCEPTS: patriarchy; matrilocal families.
SUMMARY OF THEORY:
* Greer argues that there is a strong ideology (system of ideas or
attitudes/beliefs) that being a wife is the most important role and aspiration
for all women and that they will be subservient to their husbands. “Having been
so lucky as to acquire (get) a wife, [the husband] begins to take the liberties
that husbands have traditionally taken, comes and goes as he pleases, spends
more time outside the connubial (marital) home, spend more money on himself,
leaves off the share of the housework that he may have formerly (before) done.
She sees her job as making him happy; he feels that in marrying her he has done
all that is necessary in making her happy.”
* She points out that the high divorce rate is clear evidence that marriage
makes women unhappy.
* Motherhood offers women little satisfaction & argues society does not value
the work that mothers do. She argues women are expected to regain their
figures quickly after childbirth and return to work – which is exhausting for
them. Children and society blame mothers in particular for what goes wrong in
children’s lives; single mothers are particularly targeted by politicians and the
press as scapegoats (someone to blame) for crime, unemployment & anti-social
behaviour.
* Greer argues that women are exploited in the family as daughters, too when
she says that many are sexually abused by older male relatives.
* Separation from the patriarchal family by living in a matrilocal (female
centred) family is the only way to protect women from exploitation from men.
RESEARCH METHOD: purely theoretical.
WEAKNESSES: lots of huge sweeping generalisations in this theory which are
simply not backed up by research. Most women have enormously fulfilling and
positive relationships with their fathers, husbands and brothers. Somerville
argues Greer underestimates the progress women have made and are no longer
victims. Many women find marriage and motherhood immensely rewarding.
Theory – Liberal feminism.
She wrote
feminism &
the
family.
2000.
Her liberal feminist stance proposes more workable changes to society
to enable women achieve happiness in the family.
KEY CONCEPTS: heterosexual families.
SUMMARY OF THEORY:
* Women do have a lot more choice and power than they ever had
before. Many feminists, particularly radical feminists, fail to
acknowledge this.
* Despite greater equality in marriage, “women are angry, resentful,
but above all, disappointed in men.”
* Although poor husbands are shown the door and divorced by
disappointed wives, the high rate of remarriage shows women still feel
they need men, particularly for physical reasons.
* Heterosexual attraction and the need for adult companionship mean
that heterosexual families will always be around.
* She proposes policies to help working parents because long working
hours and the culture of many jobs are not compatible with family
life. Equality between men and women is difficult to maintain,
particularly if she takes part time work to be available to take care of
the children instead of her husband.
RESEARCH METHOD: This was theoretical and relied on carrying out
a review of other feminists’ work.
WEAKNESSES: this is not supported by empirical evidence; how does
she know women are disappointed in men?
STRENGTHS: suggests practical ways to make feminism something
which all women can benefit from. More constructive than moving out
and forming all female communes, anyway…
Theory – Difference Feminism.
She wrote
the myth of the
traditional
family. 1997.
This ‘Difference Feminist’ perspective argues there is a powerful
ideology (set of ideas/belief system) which supports a positive and
unrealistic image of family life.
KEY CONCEPTS: traditional families, alternative families, family
ideology.
SUMMARY OF THEORY:
* Nicholson contrasts the ‘traditional’ family with ‘alternative’
families. By traditional families, she means ‘the unit of parents with
children who live together’; the nuclear family. The nuclear family
developed only fairly recently and was a mark of middle class
respectability and affluence when nuclear families could afford to live
in their own house and not with a load of other relatives. This is why
the traditional, or nuclear family, is so highly valued.
* Alternative families include single parents, matrifocal households
(women only) & gay families. However, these are devalued compared to
nuclear families, by society, seen as less stable & independent.
* Nicholson argues that alternative families are often less oppressive
of women than traditional families, particularly the matrifocal
families that are so common in poor black families in America. This is
because women in such families share domestic and childcare
responsibilities.
RESEARCH METHOD: This was theoretical and based on American
society.
WEAKNESSES: Although it may be possibly to loosely apply these
ideas to British society, the existence of the welfare state in Britain
means women are more likely to depend on the benefit system than
other female relatives in alternative families.
Theory – Post-modern.
He wrote
the
transformation
of intimacy.
1992.
A postmodernist who suggests that changes in society have led to
changes in relationships in family life, particularly between sexual
partners.
KEY CONCEPTS: high modernity; romantic love; plastic sexuality;
confluent love.
SUMMARY OF THEORY:
•In the 18th century the idea of romantic love overtook the economic basis
of marriage. People used to choose partners on the basis of the money
they could bring into a family and how well they would work within the unit
of production. Now people were selecting partners on the basis of how
much they fancied & loved them. Fulfilment of people’s happiness was now
through relationships & was reflected in emerging novels, paintings and
poems. “How many ways shall I love thee?”
* Relationships based more on attraction & passionate love between
couples, but this led to the dominance of men. “For women, dreams of
romantic love have all too often led to grim domestic subjugation.” Women
were expected to preserve their virginity until the ‘perfect’ man came
along.
* There’s been a great change: virginity for women is no longer prized.
Because of contraception, sex is no longer associated with having children,
so people have greater choice about their sex lives. This is termed plastic
sexuality.
* Confluent love has replaced romantic love: people choose to stay with
their partners because they love them, not because they need them (the
pure relationship). People are no longer compelled to stay with partners if
it’s not working. Personal happiness is paramount.
RESEARCH METHOD: Purely theoretical, based on his experiences of
living in ‘post-modern’ society.
STRENGTHS: If Giddens is right, his theory would help to explain the
high divorce rate and the low marriage rate. It’s a plausible theory.
Theory – Post-modern.
She wrote
untangling
feminist
theory.
1993.
She associates changes in the family with a movement away from a single
dominant family type & with greater variety in family relationships.
KEY CONCEPTS: the post-modern family.
SUMMARY OF THEORY:
* She argues that the development of the post-modern family has
destroyed the idea that the family progresses through a series of
logical stages (marriage, children, empty nest, retirement, widowhood). Some choose never to marry, or to marry and have no children,
or to not marry and have children, some to divorce and remarry,
others to never marry and live as a same sex couple … etc, etc. The
post-modern family is a complete break away from the usual template
of nuclear family and an acceptance that people increasingly choose to
live in alternative types of family.
* Stacey says that we can’t assume that any particular form of family
will become accepted as the best, or normal, type of family. Diversity
is here to stay.
RESEARCH METHOD: studied family life in Silicone Valley, USA. It’s
a very futuristic place to live & family trends there are usually ahead
of trends elsewhere in the country & can be seen as the shape of
things to come.
WEAKNESSES: Can we really apply the family life of people living in
Silicone Valley, USA with modern British ones? It is questionable to
what extent family diversity and the post-modern family have become
common, she might be exaggerating. After all, 60% of children are
still born to married parents and clearly start life in a nuclear family.
Cohabitation, marriage and divorce – summary.
1. There has been a significant decline in first marriages and in
the overall total of marriages since in the early 1970s. Within
this total, there has been an increase in the numbers and
proportion of remarriages.
2. There has been an increase in single-hood.
3. There has been a large increase in cohabitation from the
1970s onwards. Cohabitation before marriage is not the
norm. While most people see it as a prelude to marriage,
some see it as an alternative to marriage.
4. The following reasons have been suggested for the increase
in cohabitation: changing attitudes; availability of reliable
contraception; reduction of parental control; expansion of
higher education; increased availability of housing for nonmarried people; increase in the divorce rate.
5. Reasons for the rise in divorce include changes in: the law,
leading to cheaper and easier divorce; rising expectations of
love and marriage; overloading marriage emotionally;
individualisation; positive attitudes towards divorce; rising
economic independence of women; secularization.
6. Divorce is not spread evenly throughout the population – e.g.
there are age, class and cultural variations in divorce rates.
7. Most children appear to experience no long-term harm from
their parents’ divorce.
8. While the New Right sees the rise in divorce as a threat to
society, feminists tend to see it as an expression of women’s
right to choose.
Cohabitation.
They wrote
just a piece of
paper? Marriage
& cohabitation.
2001.
Using data from a number of British Social Attitudes Surveys, they found
clear evidence of changing public attitudes to cohabitation.
KEY CONCEPTS: cohabitation.
SUMMARY OF THEORY:
* More people were beginning to see it as acceptable to have children
without getting married. In 1994, 70% agreed that ‘People who want
children ought to get married’, but by 2000 this was down to 54%.
* They found increasingly liberal attitudes towards pre-marital sex,
with the number thinking it was ‘not wrong at all’ increasing from 42%
in 1984 to 62% in 2000.
* By 2000 more than two thirds of respondents (67%) agreed it was
‘alright for a couple to live together without intending to get married’
& 56% thought it was a good idea to live together first.
* They found younger people were more likely to agree with
cohabitation than older people.
* Barlow et al found that marriage was still valued; in 2000, 59%
agreed that ‘marriage is still the best kind of relationship’. Only 9%
thought there was no point to marriage, that it was just a piece of
paper.
* They concluded that society would become one where “long-term
cohabitation is widely seen as quite normal, and where marriage is
more of a lifestyle choice than an expected part of life.”
RESEARCH METHOD: Used data from a number of British Social
Attitudes Surveys.
STRENGTHS: fairly reliable data from a large sample.
Marriage.
He wrote
divorce. 1975.
A sociologist who observed a decline in the popularity of marriage in
Europe and explained it as a delay, not a total rejection.
KEY CONCEPTS: delay in the timing of marriage.
SUMMARY OF THEORY:
* Writing in the 1980s, Chester was among those who noted that
marriage rates among young adults had declined in many Western
countries. First, Sweden & Denmark experienced falling marriage
rates among the under-thirties, then the trend continued in the UK,
the USA and West Germany in the early 1970s and later spread to
France.
* In England and Wales the first-marriage rate (number of marriages
per 1,000 single people), was 74.9 in 1961, rising to 82.3 in 1971 but by
2004 it was just 24.7. For women the rate was 83 in 1961, 97 in 1971
and 30.8 in 2004. The number of first marriages fell from a peak of
nearly 400,000 per year in the mid-1960s to well under 200,000 per
year by 2003.
* However, Chester did not see these figures as conclusive evidence
for a decline in the popularity of marriage. He said “Mainly we seem to
be witnessing a delay in the timing of marriage, rather than a falloff in getting married at all.”
* He thought future generations might marry less frequently, but he
believed there would be only a small reduction in marriage rates.
RESEARCH METHOD: Data analysis.
WEAKNESSES: The marriage rate reduced enormously – he was
wrong!
Fertility.
She wrote
the family
today. 2003.
Sociologist who examines the reasons behind the declining fertility
statistics.
KEY CONCEPTS: fertility rates.
SUMMARY OF THEORY:
* She points out that total fertility rates have fallen. In the 1870s
around five children were born per woman, but this declined to below
two in the 1930s. Many people delayed getting married or having
children during the Second World War, but after the war there was a
baby boom. This led to the total fertility rate peaking at 2.94 in 1964.
by 1995 it had fallen to 1.77 and fell further to 1.63 in 2001.
* The decline in fertility is a result of women having children later in
life. The later women leave it before they have their first child, the
fewer fertile years they have remaining, making it likely they will have
fewer children.
* Morgan sees the decline in fertility as part of the general decline in
family life. She links it to the rise cohabitation, nothing that women
who are cohabiting rather than married are more likely to have only
one child. She points out that the birth rate would be even lower and
the average age at birth even higher were it not for a rise in the
number of pregnancies amongst unmarried teenage girls.
RESEARCH METHOD: Data analysis.
WEAKNESSES: a small number of older women are able to benefit
from reproductive technology which boosts their fertility as they get
older.
Divorce.
They wrote
families,
households &
society. 2001.
Sociologists who examined the reasons for the rise in the divorce rate
and focused particularly on the romantic nature of marriage.
KEY CONCEPTS: romantic nature of marriage.
SUMMARY OF THEORY:
* Because families are no longer units of production, couples are not
willing to tolerate conflict as they do not rely financially on each
other as much as they had done in earlier family forms.
“Incompatibilities which were tolerated are now seen as intolerable;
and the absence of love, once seen as unfortunate but bearable, is
now taken as indicative of the irretrievable breakdown of marriage.”
* They argue that marriage is increasingly viewed as a ‘relationship
rather than a contract’. By getting married, people do not see
themselves as entering a binding, lifelong contract; rather, they are
hoping to establish a personally satisfying relationship: “Love, personal
commitment and intrinsic satisfaction are now seen as the
cornerstones of marriage. The absence of these emotions and feelings
is itself justification for ending this relationship.”
RESEARCH METHOD: theoretical.
STRENGTHS: provides a detailed examination of divorce that goes
beyond just looking at economic factors, it looks at emotional ones,
too.
Divorce.
He wrote
dissolving
wedlock. 1994.
He focuses on the factors of freedom of choice & the ease of divorce in
examining why so many marriages are ending in contemporary Britain.
KEY CONCEPTS: freedom of choice, individualism.
SUMMARY OF THEORY:
* He claims that the development of modernity has increased the
likelihood of conflict between spouses (husbands and wives). The way
modern life has developed puts increasing emphasis upon the
desirability of individual achievement.
* Gibson argues that people now live in an “enterprise and freemarket culture of individualism in which the licence of choice
dominates.” He adds “a higher divorce rate may be indicative of
modern couples generally anticipating a higher standard of personal
marital satisfaction than was expected by their grandparents.”
* People increasingly expect to get most of their personal satisfaction
from their home life, and ‘television programmes reinforce the feeling
that togetherness is the consummate life style.’ But the emphasis on
togetherness is somewhat undermined by ‘the Thatcherite manifesto
of unfettered self-seeking interest’, so that conflict between spouses
becomes more likely if self-fulfilment is not delivered by the
marriage.
RESEARCH METHOD: theoretical.
WEAKNESSES: lacks empirical rigor – he needs to get out there and
listen to divorced couples and find out exactly why they got divorced.
Social change & the family – summary.
1.
Families in pre-industrial society performed a range of functions. These
included economic, educational and welfare functions.
2.
Pre-industrial families were often extended – they formed part of a wider
kinship network. This wider network was needed to effectively perform the
family’s functions.
3.
Talcott Parsons saw the isolated nuclear family as the best family structure for
industrial society. He argued that family members no longer needed to rely on
large kinship networks because many of the family’s functions had been taken
over by specialised agencies, such as the Welfare State.
4.
According to Parsons, an industrial economy requires a geographically mobile
workforce. The small, streamlined nuclear family meets this requirement.
5.
Peter Laslett’s research shows that only 10% of pre-industrial households in
England contained kin beyond the nuclear family. However, family members do
not have to live under the same roof to form extended families.
6.
Michael Anderson’s research on Preston households in 1851 suggests that the
early years of industrialisation may have encouraged the formation of
extended families in the working class. Such families may have operated as
mutual aid organisations before the Welfare State existed.
7.
During the early years of industrialisation, married women often worked in
factories. They were generally excluded from the labour force and restricted
to the home. The mother-housewife role became their primary role. Today,
the majority of women have returned to the labour force.
8.
Defined by Young & Willmott as ‘a combination of families who to some large
degree form one domestic unit’, extended families continued well into the
20th century in many working class areas.
9.
Young & WIllmott claim that the family in Britain has developed through three
stages: 1) the pre-industrial family (classic extended) 2) the early industrial
family (asymmetrical nuclear – segregated conjugal roles) and 3) the
symmetrical family (nuclear with joint conjugal roles).
10. Studies from the 1950s to the early 1970s claimed that the typical family
structure was nuclear. Families were pictured as privatised, home-centred and
self contained.
11. Studies from the 1980s and 1990s suggested that this picture of privatisation &
self-containment was exaggerated. Kin beyond the nuclear family still played
an important role. Many families could be described as modified extended
families.
12. However, evidence from the British Social Attitudes Survey indicates that
contact with kin beyond the nuclear family declined towards the close of the
20th century.
Social change & the family; impact of industrialization.
He wrote
the social
structure of
the family. 1959.
This Functionalist argued that the isolated nuclear family was the most
appropriate family form to meet the needs of modern industrial society.
KEY CONCEPTS: isolated nuclear family; structural differentiation; achieved
status; ascribed status; universalistic values; particularistic values; functional
fit; geographical mobility.
SUMMARY OF THEORY:
* Parsons’ social evolutionary theory argued that society was under-going a
process of structural differentiation whereby institutions, particularly the
family, were losing functions which were being taken over by other, newer
institutions, such as the welfare state, in the case of the UK.
* He argued there was a functional fit between the isolated nuclear family and
the modern economy; the family is shaped to meet the needs of the economic
system because it is geographically mobile enough to move around the country
to take up employment where ever it becomes available.
* In industrial society, individuals are judged in terms of the status they
achieve in their work where they are also judged in terms of universalistic
values, which are applied to all members of society according to shared values.
In the family, however, individuals’ status is ascribed and fixed and based on
particularistic values, specific to particular individuals. This is another reason
why the isolated nuclear family meets the needs of modern, industrial society
because conflict will happen if there is more than one adult male in a family. If a
father has lower achieved, but higher ascribed status over his son – there will
be a clash of values.
* The conjugal bond will be strengthened in this environment because spouses
will be increasingly dependent on each other.
RESEARCH METHOD: This was theoretical, not supported by any empirical
evidence – actually going out there and observing…
WEAKNESSES: the nuclear family is portrayed by Parsons as being well
adapted to the requirements of modern industrial societies but neglects the
continued pressure on the family that has resulted in a high divorce rate and
the prevalence of domestic violence. Parsons’ theory is not applicable to modern
family life where women are no longer just the expressive female.
Social change & the family; impact of industrialization.
They wrote
family &
kinship in east
london. 1961.
March of Progress theorists who examined the changing structure of
family life in relation to industrialization.
KEY CONCEPTS: stage 1 pre-industrial family; stage 2 early industrial family; stage 3
symmetrical family; stage 4 family; principle of stratified diffusion; asymmetrical.
SUMMARY OF THEORY:
* The stage 1 pre-industrial family was a unit of production where they worked as a team,
usually in agriculture or a cottage industry.
* The stage 2 early industrial family began with the Industrial Revolution, it ceased to be a
unit of production as family members were now employed outside the home. The family
responded to the widespread poverty by extending its network to include relatives beyond
the nuclear family, therefore it was an extended family – there’s strength in numbers, having
more people to count on acted as a kind of insurance policy and support network. The basic tie
was between mother and married daughter, the conjugal bond was weak; “Husbands were
often squeezed out of the warmth of the female circle and took to the pub as their defence.”
The stage 2 family was more often headed by a female due to the high male death rate.
* The stage 3 symmetrical family has a strong conjugal bond where husband and wife are
more companionate in the home: “They shared their work, they shared their time.” Family life
was more home-centred and leisure was home-based, with the advent of the TV. Reasons for
the rise of the symmetrical family: 1) No longer needed kinship-based mutual aid group
because of the new welfare state, the lower male death rate, decrease in unemployment &
increase in women’s employment; 2) Increased geographical mobility broke kinship ties with
extended families; 3) reduction of the numbers of children freed women up to work; 4) as
living standards rose, husbands drawn closely into the family circle as the home was a more
attractive place to be with better facilities and home entertainment.
* Using the principle of stratified diffusion (what the rich do today, the poor will do
tomorrow), Young and Willmott’s examination of the family lives of managing directors led
them to conclude that a stage 4 family would dominate in the future. These families will be
work-centred, husbands will be work-centred, wives home-centred and will be asymmetrical
compared to the stage 3 family. This is because as technology makes peoples’ jobs more
interesting, they will become more involved in their work lives & relatively neglect home lives.
RESEARCH METHOD: Large scale social survey of 1,928 people interviewed in Greater
London, 1950s-1970s and combined it with historical research.
WEAKNESSES: many feminists have attacked the concept of the symmetrical family arguing
there is little progress towards greater equality between husbands and wives. There is also
little evidence of the stage 4 family happening as more women than ever taken up paid
employment and fewer have children to concentrate on their careers.
Social change & the family; impact of industrialization.
He wrote
household &
family in past
time. 1972.
Disagreed with the March of Progress idea that pre-industrial families
tended to be extended.
KEY CONCEPTS: the Western family.
SUMMARY OF THEORY:
* This historian studied family size and composition in pre-industrial
England between 1564-1821. He found that only around 10% of
households contained kin beyond the nuclear family.
* People in pre-Industrial England married relatively late in life and
life expectancy was short. There were only a few years between the
marriage of a couple and the death of their parents. He therefore
found no evidence to support the formerly accepted view that the
classic extended family was widespread in pre-industrial England.
* Laslett went on to find that the nuclear family was typical across
Europe and found evidence of what he called a Western family in
northern France, the Netherlands, Belgium, Scandinavia and parts of
Italy and Germany. In these families, children were born to relatively
older parents and there was little age gap between the spouses.
* According to Laslett, it may have been the predominance of the
nuclear family in these regions of Europe that was a factor that
helped Western capitalism to develop in these particular regions.
RESEARCH METHOD: As a historian, he examined various historical
documents and church records.
WEAKNESSES: church records are unreliable – not every birth was
recorded & many records were lost; Anderson refers to research that
suggests a much greater variety of household types than Laslett’s
theory implies.
Social change & the family; impact of industrialization.
They wrote
relative
values: kinship
& friendship.
1996.
Their survey of working-class families found extended kinship networks
aided women’s work through babysitting, care of elderly & young people
continuing to live with their parents into adulthood.
KEY CONCEPTS: contact between kin.
SUMMARY OF THEORY:
* They examined demographic patterns occurring between 1986 and
1995 that would affect family life: rising ageing population; increasing
divorce rate; cohabitation; lone parenthood; births outside marriage;
decline in male manual unskilled jobs; increase in female employment &
some young people being reliant on their parents’ for longer. Despite
all this they found that families coped relatively well with these
changes.
* Data from the British Social Attitudes Survey of 1995 revealed
that contact between relatives remained frequent: 47% of people
without dependent children and 50% with dependent children saw
their mother at least once a week.
* There were social class differences though: the working-class saw
their relatives more frequently than the middle class sample did.
* They concluded that families remain very important to people in
contemporary Britain & that they remain a source of help & support.
RESEARCH METHOD: They used data from the British Social
Attitudes Surveys of 1986 and 1995.
STRENGTHS: Because this is based on empirical research, it does
have more validity & is more representative of the British population.
However, McGlone et al lacked the control over the data because they
didn’t design the questions.
Social change & the family; impact of industrialization.
He wrote
family,
household &
the industrial
revolution. 1971.
A historian who contradicted Parsons’ idea that early industrial families
were nuclear & does not support the notion that extended families
started to disappear at the onset of industrialization.
KEY CONCEPTS: mutual aid.
SUMMARY OF THEORY:
* Using data from the 1851 census of Preston, Anderson found around
23% of households contained kin beyond the nuclear family, they were
extended. Most of this ‘co-residence’ happened amongst the poor as a
way of combating high rent charges.
* Life for many working class families was characterised by periods of
high unemployment, severe hardship, low wages, large families, a high
death rate and overcrowded homes - so the support of a large
extended kinship network was essential in the absence of the welfare
state. This is an example of mutual aid where families would simply
help each other out by exchanging services such as cooking, childcare
& asking their employers if they had any work for their relatives.
RESEARCH METHOD: Used data from the 1851 census of Preston.
STRENGTHS: Compared to Laslett’s study, the data this study is
based on is far more reliable.
Power and roles in the family – summary.
1. The division of domestic labour is gendered – household tasks are
divided along gender lines.
2. Housework and childcare remain the primary responsibility of
women.
3. There is evidence of a gradual increase in men’s contribution to
domestic labour, especially where their partners are in full-time
employment.
4. There are problems with time-use studies of domestic labour.
For example, women tend to underestimate and men to
overestimate the time they spend on domestic chores.
5. Emotion work is mainly performed by women. As a result, many
women have a triple shift – 1) paid work, 2) housework and
childcare and 3) emotion work.
6. Research into money management within families indicates that
control over money is gendered – men tend to have greater
control.
7. There is evidence of a trend to greater equality in access to and
control of family finances, especially where women are in fulltime employment.
8. Research indicates that power is unequally distributed in
families, with male partners having the largest share.
9. Decision-making studies indicate that in general husbands have
more power than their wives.
10. Non-decisions – issues that do not reach the point of decisionmaking – tend to favour men. They are likely to gain at the
expense of their partners.
11. There is a tendency for many women to accept their subordinate
position. From this, it can be argued that men have power over
women.
12. Studies of lesbian and gay households suggest that there is a
more equal division of labour between partners.
Power & roles in the family: domestic labour debate.
She wrote
housewife.
High value,
low cost. 1974.
A liberal feminist who examined the experiences of housewives from
both the middle and working class.
KEY CONCEPTS: alienation.
SUMMARY OF THEORY:
* She criticised Young and Willmott’s concept of the symmetrical
family arguing that it was based on inadequate methodology. Although
their figure of 72% (for men doing housework), sounds impressive,
she points out that it is based on only one question in Young &
Willmott’s interview “Do you/does your husband help at least once a
week…?” She says “A man who helps with the children once a week
would be included in this percentage, so would a man who ironed his
own trousers on a Saturday afternoon.”
* Oakley’s research found greater equality in terms of the allocation
of domestic tasks between spouses in the middle class than in the
working class.
* In both classes few men had high levels of participation in
housework and childcare: few marriages could be defined as
egalitarian. The women interviewed said they mostly felt alienated by
their roles as housewives: they were bored, isolated and unfulfilled.
RESEARCH METHOD: She collected information through interviews
on forty married women who had one child or more under the age of 5,
aged between 20-30. Half her sample were working class, the other
half middle class. They all lived around London.
WEAKNESSES: While this study was conducted on firm
methodological grounds, it fails to be applicable any more to modern
British family life as this study was conducted in 1974 and there have
been enormous changes in women’s lives since that time.
Power & roles in the family: domestic labour debate.
They wrote
the
symmetrical
family. 1973.
These March of Progress theorists examined the nature of the conjugal
relationship over time & concluded it was becoming more equal.
KEY CONCEPTS: symmetrical family, segregated conjugal roles, joint
conjugal roles.
SUMMARY OF THEORY:
* A major characteristic of the symmetrical family which Young and
Willmott claimed was developing when they were writing in the 1970s,
was the degree to which spouses shared domestic, work and leisure
activities. Relationships of this type are known as joint conjugal
roles, as opposed to segregated conjugal roles.
* In Young and Willmott’s Stage 2 family, conjugal roles – the marital
roles of husband and wife – were largely segregated. There was a
clear cut division of labour between the spouses in the household, and
the husband was relatively uninvolved in housework and childcare. This
segregation of conjugal roles extended to leisure time, too. The wife
socialized mainly with her female kin and neighbours, the husband
with his male workmates, kin and neighbours.
* In the stage 3 symmetrical family, conjugal roles became more
joint. Although the wife still has primary responsibility for housework
and childrearing, husbands became more involved, often washing
clothes, ironing and sharing other domestic duties.
RESEARCH METHOD: Their Bethnal Green study examined family life
in London from 1950-70s & used a combination of historical research
and social surveys.
WEAKNESSES: This was heavily criticised by Ann Oakley who said
Young and Willmott’s methodology was not good enough and presented
a false picture of men’s involvement in domestic work.
Power & roles in the family: domestic labour debate.
She wrote
money &
marriage. 1989.
She was the first British Sociologist to study how couples manage their
money and the power relationships surrounding it.
KEY CONCEPTS: husband-controlled pooling; wife controlled pooling;
husband control; wife control.
SUMMARY OF THEORY:
* The study found four main patterns of money management:
1) Husband controlled pooling – was the most common pattern , money
was shared but the husband mainly decided how it was spent. Common
in households where husband earned a larger salary than his wife.
This system tended to give men most power.
2) Wife controlled pooling – second most common, money was shared
but the wife dominated decision making about how it was to be spent.
This happened in households were woman earned more money or was
better educated, these were more egalitarian households.
3) Husband control – where the husband was the breadwinner and
gave his wife housekeeping money, this system led to male dominance.
4) Wife control – the least frequent pattern, common in low income
households where neither partner worked & they were reliant on
benefits. While it gave women more power, having responsibility for
such a small amount of money & trying to make it stretch as far as
possible was more of a burden for women.
RESEARCH METHOD: Her study was based upon interviews with 102
couples with at least one child under sixteen .
STRENGTHS: While inevitably social change has occurred, this study
is fairly representative of the wider population and is a valid method.
Power & roles in the family: domestic labour debate.
They wrote
women’s triple
shift. 1995.
This duo examined the nature of modern marriage and the emotional
dynamics at work in keeping it together.
KEY CONCEPTS: triple shift; emotion work; deep acting; shallow acting.
SUMMARY OF THEORY:
* Most studies of domestic work miss out the concept of who does the
emotion work & this is what Duncombe and Marsden focused on. Emotion
work refers to how “from a very early age girls and then women become
subconsciously trained to be more emotionally skilled in recognizing &
empathizing with the moods of others.”
* They found many women expressed dissatisfaction with their partner’s
emotional input into the relationship and the family and many of them felt
emotionally lonely. A number of the men concentrated on their jobs, were
unwilling to discuss or express feelings of love for their partner & most of
them did not acknowledge that there was either a problem or that they
needed to pay their wives emotional attention.
* Marriages were held together because of women’s emotion work. They
deep acted away any doubts at the beginning by convincing themselves
that marriage is what they wanted. Later on they shallow act to pretend
to the world and their partners that they’re happy, to prevent them from
‘rocking the boat’. This is enormously stressful for the woman and she may
‘leak’ to friends or outsiders, this can sometimes lead to the break-up of
the marriage.
* With married women increasingly having paid employment, they can end
up performing a triple shift. Having completed their paid job, they not
only have to come home & do most of the housework, they have to do the
emotion work, too.
RESEARCH METHOD: Interviews with 40 white couples who had been
married for fifteen years. They asked the couples, separately & together,
how their marriage had lasted.
WEAKNESSES: While this can be used to explain the increase in the
divorce rate, this is an ethnocentric study – how does this apply to West
Indian or Pakistani marriages, for instance?
Power & roles in the family: domestic labour debate.
She wrote
the wife’s
marriage. 1982.
She argues that being a housewife contributes to the poor
mental and emotional health of married women.
KEY CONCEPTS: psychological distress.
SUMMARY OF THEORY:
* She compared housewives, all of whom were married, with working
women, were also married. The comparison showed that wives who had
outside employment were relatively healthy.
* Further evidence of the destructive effects of the housewife role
is provided by the incidence of symptoms of psychological distress
among housewives and working women.
* Bernard provides evidence to show that when the incidence of
nervous breakdown is examined far fewer than expected of the
working women and more than expected of the housewives
experience: nervousness; inertia (not feeling in control of their lives);
insomnia (unable to sleep); trembling hands; nightmares; headaches;
heart palpitations.
* In terms of the number of people involved, the housewife syndrome
argues Bernard, might well be viewed a public health problem number
one.
RESEARCH METHOD: She used a comparative method with two samples of
married women, half of whom were employed and the other half of whom
were housewives.
WEAKNESSES: While this is an important acknowledgement of the
oppressive nature of the housewife role, this is becoming less and less
relevant in modern British society as most married women are employed.
Power & roles in the family: domestic labour debate.
She wrote
the overworked
american. 1993.
She argues that three major economic developments have
reduced the burden of housework on women
KEY CONCEPTS: commercialisation of housework; technology in the
home; women working; post-patriarchal family; death of the housewife
role.
SUMMARY OF THEORY:
* Housework has become commercialised: supermarkets and fast
food chains now provide relatively cheap, mass produced goods and
services that previously housewives had to produce themselves.
* Technology in the home: the widespread use of freezers, fridges
and microwaves in conjunction with ‘ready meals’ has significantly
reduced the amount of domestic labour that needs to be done in the
average home.
* Women working: the uptake of women in the economy now means
that they can afford to buy commercialised food and home-based
technologies as well as buy in domestic labour in he form of au pairs,
cleaners etc.
* As a result of these trends Schor argues that the dual burden has
all but been eliminated. The outcome is a post-patriarchal family
where economic and cultural changes have led to ‘the death of the
housewife role’.
RESEARCH METHOD: This is mainly theoretical, no involves no
empirical research.
WEAKNESSES: While this is purely theoretical, it provides a
refreshing modern update on the nature of family life. However, it
still does not address the fact that women remain primarily
responsible for domestic affairs.
Social construction of childhood – summary.
1. Many sociologists see childhood as a social construction
rather than a natural state. Ideas about childhood vary
between different societies and at different times.
2. According to Philippe Ariès: the concept of childhood did not
exist in medieval Europe. Children were seen as little adults.
Modern ideas of childhood as a separate state began with the
onset of formal education and the gradual withdrawal of
children from the workplace.
3. Rogers identifies two images of childhood in modern Western
society – the ‘innocent and wholesome child’ and ‘the
wicked and sinful child’. The first image suggests that
children are vulnerable and need protection – the welfare
view. The second image suggests children need regulation
and discipline – the control view.
4. According to Nick Lee, adulthood has become less stable and
more uncertain. In these respects, it has become more like
childhood. This similarity has led to a change in the social
construction of childhood in the 21st century. Children are
increasingly seen as having their own rights and interests.
5. Postman argues that the media is breaking down the
boundaries between the worlds of children and adults,
leading to the ‘disappearance of childhood’.
6. Postman has been criticised for overstating his case.
Childhood is a long way from disappearing. For example,
children remain a distinct group – they are a major force in
the market place (toys, media products etc), and they
remain dependent on their parents for longer.
Social construction of childhood.
He wrote
centuries of
childhood. 1960
He studied the historical perspective of childhood & examined how
there is historical relativity in how children are treated.
KEY CONCEPTS: social construction of childhood; historical relativity.
SUMMARY OF THEORY:
* He argued that the concept of childhood did not exist in medieval
Europe and claimed that soon after children were off their mother’s
milk, they were regarded as little adults & treated as such. From an
early age they worked alongside adults in the fields or in cottage
industries, they dressed like adults and in many ways behaved like
adults.
* Ariès sees the modern concept of childhood developing from the
separation of children from the world of adults which began in the
16th century when the upper classes started sending their kids to
public schools to be educated. Then, throughout the 19th century, a
series of factory acts banned the employment of children in mines
and factories. By the end of the 19th century, most European children
were made to go to school. So now children were physically and legally
separate from adults.
* Children are now seen to have special needs compared to adults and
as a result there are a variety of professionals to meet those needs:
child psychiatrists, paediatricians & parenting experts.
RESEARCH METHOD: Examined letters from medieval times and
other documents as well as how children were depicted in paintings.
WEAKNESSES: It has been said that Ariès has overstated his case &
that there were some separate laws for children in medieval Europe,
such as not being allowed to marry under the age of 12.
Social construction of childhood.
She wrote
the social
psychology of
schooling. 1982.
She examines the social construction of childhood in 20 th century Europe
& identifies two images of childhood.
KEY CONCEPTS: the welfare view; the control view.
SUMMARY OF THEORY:
* Rogers identifies two images of childhood : the ‘innocent and
wholesome child’ and the ‘wicked and sinful child’. These images exist
at the same time and are held by a wide variety of people and can be
seen in classic children’s books such as The Children of Cherry Tree
Farm (innocent and wholesome) & Lord of the Flies (wicked and sinful).
* These images suggest ways of treating children. The welfare view
advocates that the innocent and wholesome child should be protected
from all the nastiness of the adult world & be a happy and carefree
time. This view formed the basis of the Children Act of 1989 which
states that “When a court determines any question with respect of
the upbringing of a child…the child’s welfare shall be the court’s
paramount consideration.” The control view suggests that children
should be restrained, regulated and disciplined as they are wicked and
sinful. This view is reflected in education policy, children must attend
school and do what they’re told.
RESEARCH METHOD: This was mainly theoretical & relied on
examining historical and legal documents.
WEAKNESSES: Like all theoretical studies, it lacks the validity of an
empirical investigation. But the strength of this study is that it allows
us to understand where attitudes to children have come from .
Social construction of childhood.
He wrote
childhood. 2005.
Examines how modernity brought with it new ways of controlling &
monitoring children.
KEY CONCEPTS: Dionysian image of childhood; Apollonian image of
childhood.
SUMMARY OF THEORY:
* Jenks argues that the development of modern childhood can be
explained in terms of a shift from the Dionysian image of the child
to the Apollonian image. The Dionysian image is of children who are
pleasure loving, curious and adventurous – which can get them into
loads of trouble, particularly if they act in evil ways to achieve their
pleasure. So children are in need of strict moral guidance & control if
they are to grow up to be responsible adults.
* The Apollonian image overtook the Dionysian image and believes that
children need careful handling, whose good nature has to be coaxed
out of them and kept unpolluted by the badness of adults and where
each individual child is special. This is where child-centred education
came from, the avoidance of harsh physical punishment & the
withdrawal of children from paid work.
* Children are now increasingly monitored and controlled through
restricting their space and behaviour. This was particularly so
through the compulsory nature of schooling which made children sit
behind a desk and conform to school rules for much of their time.
RESEARCH METHOD: This was theoretical & involved the review of
historical and literary documents and sources.
WEAKNESSES: If modern society is so child-centred then why is the
birth rate so low and so many parents so focused on their careers?
Social construction of childhood.
He wrote
the
disappearance
of childhood.
1982.
Believes that childhood is under threat of losing its innocence because
of children’s increasing exposure to the adult world through the media.
KEY CONCEPTS: disappearance of childhood; bedroom culture.
SUMMARY OF THEORY:
* Postman argues childhood is only possible if children can be
separated and protected from the adult world. “Without secrets, of
course, there can be no such thing as childhood.” The mass media and
television in particular, have brought the adult world into the lives of
children. Secrecy has been wiped out by television, particularly as so
many children have TVs in their bedrooms – adult programmes are
totally accessible. Postman believes that, in the long run, this means
the end of childhood because it is no longer a time of innocence.
* Children spend increasing amounts of time alone in their bedrooms
with only their home entertainment technology for company – this is
bedroom culture.
RESEARCH METHOD: This was theoretical.
WEAKNESSES: Childhood is a very long way from disappearing. If
anything, children are becoming more and more separate from adults
and the period of dependency is getting longer – it is now compulsory
for young people to stay in education until the age of seventeen. When
your parents were at school, it was common for people to leave at
fourteen and begin work.
Family diversity – summary.
1. Many sociologists see families and households in today’s society as more
diverse than ever before.
2. In Britain, nuclear family households have declined as a proportion of all
households. The proportion of people living in these households has also
declined. Despite this, living in a nuclear family is a phase that most
people go through.
3. There is diversity within nuclear families – e.g. the couple may be
married or cohabiting.
4. In Britain since the early 1970s, lone-parent families have increased from
8% to 26% of all families with dependent children.
5. Lone parents are a diverse group – e.g. some were previously married,
some cohabiting, some neither.
6. Although very few women choose lone parenthood as their first option,
choices are involved – e.g. whether to keep, abort or give the baby up for
adoption.
7. Lone parenthood has become increasingly acceptable.
8. There has been a rapid increase in reconstituted families. They are a
diverse group – e.g. some are formed by cohabitation, some by first
marriage, others by remarriage.
9. There are particular tensions in reconstituted families, partly because
the roles of family members often lack clear definition.
10. Reconstituted families offer new opportunities – they can lead to a wider
support network and enriched relationships.
11. Gay and lesbian parents are adding further diversity to family life.
12. Most studies show that children raised by gay and lesbian parents are no
different to those raised by heterosexuals.
13. Social class and ethnic differences add yet further diversity to family
life.
14. According to Giddens, family diversity results from broader changes in
late-modern society. In particular, family diversity reflects the growing
freedom to choose identities and select lifestyles.
15. According to Stacey, family diversity reflects the lack of consensus
(agreement about norms concerning family life), the uncertainty and
changeability of post-modern society.
Family diversity.
They wrote
families in
britain. 1982.
This husband and wife team examined the different family forms that
had emerged in Europe in the late 1970s and early 1980s.
KEY CONCEPTS: organizational diversity; cultural diversity; class diversity; life
cycle diversity; cohort diversity.
SUMMARY OF THEORY:
* Their research found that in 1978, only 20% of families were nuclear, so this
showed that even then, the nuclear family was not as dominant as ideological
devices such as the media would have us believe. They point to the prevalence of
divorce as a major reason for increasing family diversity across Europe. They
identified five distinct elements of family diversity in Britain:
1) Organizational diversity: variations in family structure, household type &
patterns of kinship network as well as differences in the division of labour in
the home. More reconstituted families as well as ones where there is role
reversal between husband and wife.
2) Cultural diversity means there are differences in the lifestyles of families
of different ethnic origin & religious belief.
3) Class diversity can impact on the ways in which children from working and
middle class backgrounds are socialized.
4) Life cycle diversity means that, for example, newly married couples without
children may have a different family life from those with dependent or adult
children.
5) Cohort diversity refers to how living through specific phases in history can
affect family life. For example, those whose children came of age in the 1980s
during high unemployment & deindustrialization may have had to rely on their
parents for longer.
RESEARCH METHOD: they reviewed a variety of quantitative research studies
on the characteristics and composition of European family life.
STRENGTHS: They accessed a very large and therefore generalisable sample.
This makes their research more valid.
WEAKNESSES: Is out-dated research, is it still applicable to modern Britain?
Family diversity.
They wrote
families,
households &
society. 2001.
They commented on a continuing trend towards family diversity & that
there is no longer a predictable family life course.
KEY CONCEPTS: “No such thing as ‘the family’”.
SUMMARY OF THEORY:
•They argue that people passing through predictable stages of family
life such as leaving the nuclear parental home to go and get married
and have children themselves, is a thing of the past.
* Increasing family diversity is based upon increased personal choice.
Most people do not feel they have to get married before having sex
or to get married at all. They identify the following factors that have
caused increasing family diversity:
1) Divorce rate has risen and this has had an affect on the following:
2) Lone-parent households have increased in number.
3) Cohabitation is increasingly common.
4) Marriage rates have declined.
5) Far more reconstituted families.
* Such is the extent of family diversity that “in an important sense
there is no such thing as ‘the family’. There are many different
families; many different family relationships; and consequently many
different family forms. Each family develops and changes over times
as its personnel develop and change.”
RESEARCH METHOD: This is a commentary on the changing shape of
family life, therefore it is theoretical.
WEAKNESSES: Like all theoretical studies, it would be strengthened
with empirical research or data analysis.
Family diversity.
He wrote
south asian
families. 1982.
He examined South Asian family life in Britain & compared them to
families in South Asia itself & found some changes had taken place in
British South Asian families.
KEY CONCEPTS: extended kinship networks.
SUMMARY OF THEORY:
* He found families in South Asia are based traditionally around a
man, his sons & grandsons and then their wives & daughters. These
family groups worked together in extended families, sharing
resources and labour.
* Ballard found the following changes had taken place in South Asian
families that had migrated to Britain: i) women were increasingly
working outside the home; ii) families were less likely to be units of
production because wage labour had taken over; iii) married couples
expected more independence and privacy from their families; iv)
extended kinship networks were less important as many families had
relatives still living in South Asia or different parts of the UK; v)
families were split into smaller domestic units partly because of
having smaller houses in the UK which couldn’t accommodate large
families.
* Found that many children lived in two cultures of home and school
and that they didn’t generally reject arranged marriages. Despite the
distance, he found family ties remained strong as they helped each
other out, particularly with money.
RESEARCH METHOD: Empirical – examined South Asian families in
Britain and in South Asia itself.
STRENGTHS: conducted empirical research and got his information
first hand, this makes it more valid.
Family diversity.
He wrote
west indian
families: an
insider’s
perspective. 1982.
She researched into the family life of West Indians in Britain and in the
Caribbean & found great diversity.
KEY CONCEPTS: mother-centred families.
SUMMARY OF THEORY:
* Barrow found three types of West Indian families in the Caribbean:
1) The conventional nuclear family; 2) the common-law family which
include cohabiting couples and children who may or may not be theirs
biologically; 3) the mother household which contains no adult males.
* In Britain, Barrow found that mother-centred families in Britain,
whether or not they contained an adult male, could rely less on the
support of female kin than they could in the West Indies.
* They were much less likely to live close to their relatives and in
some cases, they remained in the Caribbean and could therefore not
be called upon to provide assistance.
* However, she found that equivalent networks tended to build up in
areas with high concentrations of West Indians. Help with childcare
and other domestic tasks is common among neighbours, and self-help
projects such as pre-school playgroups are frequent features of
West Indian communities.
RESEARCH METHOD: this was empirical – she went out and
interviewed West Indian families both in Britain and in the Caribbean.
STRENGTHS: conducted empirical research and got her information
first hand, this makes it more valid.
Family diversity.
They wrote
the new east
end: kinship,
race & conflict.
2006.
Their research in Bethnal Green, London showed that in the four
decades since Young & Willmott’s research, there had been enormous
changes in the patterns of family life.
KEY CONCEPTS: new individualism.
SUMMARY OF THEORY:
* Amongst white families, only a few remained which had strong
kinship networks in the local area. There was also far greater variety;
21% lived alone – of these 52% were single, 30% widowed & 14%
divorced. Dench et al argued this pointed to the emergence of a new
individualism which fostered a feeling of relying on no one apart from
yourself and the Welfare State which had emerged in 1948.
* Although women were now freer to take up paid employment, they
were still usually the ones left caring for the children. More men than
ever before were living apart from their families, many with no
contact at all.
* Despite these changes, Dench et al did not find evidence of
widesread rejection of marriage & found that most people held
marriage as the ideal, particularly in relation to children.
* They found that Bangladeshi families did not follow the trends of
the new individualism and that they lived very traditional extended
family lives, which were close knit and supportive.
RESEARCH METHOD: they surveyed 799 residents from all ethnic
groups and a separate sample of 1,021 Bangladeshis as well as carrying
out in-depth interviews.
STRENGTHS: Very good practice to replicate a previous study to test
its validity. This was empirical which accessed the relevant
information first hand which makes it more valid.
Demographic trends – summary.
1. The population of the UK has grown from 38.2 million in 1901
to 60.6 million in 2006.
2. Most of this growth is due to natural change.
3. Actual numbers of live births, the birth rate and the total
fertility rate have all fallen since 1901.
4. The annual number of deaths has remained fairly steady
since 1901. however, the death rate has almost halved from
1900 to 2005.
5. There has been a dramatic fall in infant mortality and a
steady rise in life expectancy from 1901 to 2005.
6. The UK has an ageing population.
7. There has been a decline in family size and an increase in
childlessness.
8. The following reasons have been suggested for the decline in
mortality (death rate): advances in medicine; welfare
measures from local and national government (NHS);
improvements in nutrition and living standards.
9. The following reasons have been suggested for the decline in
fertility: economic factors – the growing cost of children;
individualisation & creative single-hood; the growing risk and
uncertainty of societies in late modernity (don’t want to
bring children into this world); changing opportunities for
women; changes in women’s concerns and priorities.
What’s happening:
The UK population is projected to
increase by 4.4 million by 2016. This
increase is equivalent to an average
annual rate of growth of 0.7 per
cent.
If past trends continue, the
population will continue to grow,
reaching 71 million by 2031. This is
due to natural increase (more births
than deaths) and because it is
assumed there will be more
immigrants than emigrants (a net
inward flow of migrants).
Why it’s happening:
* Natural change – the difference between births and
deaths. Every year since 1901, apart from 1976, there have
been more births than deaths.
* Since the late 1990s, migration into the UK has increased
the population.
What’s happening:
Why it’s happening:
Women are having, on average, 1.92
children in England and Wales
according to the Total Fertility
Rate (TFR) for 2007. This is an
increase from 1.86 in 2006 and is
the sixth consecutive annual
increase from a low point in 2001
where the TFR was 1.63.
Live births in England and Wales
increased for the sixth successive
year in 2007. There were 690,013
live births in 2007 compared with
669,601 in 2006, an increase of 3.0
per cent. The number of live births
has been increasing since 2001 and
has now reached the highest level
since 1991 when there were
699,217 live births.
* Economic factors – children are becoming increasingly expensive as
their economic dependency on their parents last longer and longer.
They’re also more expensive because of the material goods they are
expected to be given. One survey estimated the cost of raising a
child through to university was £180,000 in 2006.
* Individualisation – people are increasingly not expected to follow
norms and values and they are freer to construct lives of their own.
Because children make demands on the time and energy of adults,
fewer people are having them or postponing them to a time when
they feel they’ve had their fun.
* Risk – many feel that their relationships are not healthy enough or
that they are not financially secure enough to have children.
* Changing opportunities – women’s far greater educational and
professional opportunities mean they are more likely to find
fulfilment outside of motherhood. They also have greater access to
contraception.
* Changing attitudes – women’s priorities are changing as Sue
Sharpe’s study showed, children are not top of the list any more.
There were 504,052 deaths
registered in England and
Wales in 2007, comprising
240,787 males and 263,265
female deaths. Compared
with the 2006 rates, this
represents a fall of 2.4 per
cent for males and 1.4 per
cent for females.
Over the course of the 20th
century there have been
fairly steady falls in these
rates, although during the
first half of the century,
year-on-year fluctuations
were particularly noticeable,
Source: http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=952
due mainly to influenza
epidemics and unusually cold
winters.
At the beginning of 1900 more than half of all deaths occurred under the age of
45. In 2007, only 4 per cent of deaths occurred at ages under 45. In 2007,
there were 3,345 infant deaths (under one year of age) registered in England
and Wales, giving a rate of 4.8 per 1,000 live births. This is the lowest infant
mortality rate ever recorded in England and Wales and compares with rates in
1901 of 151 per 1,000 live births, and 30 per 1,000 in 1951.
Childhood mortality has also declined, while decreases in the death rates for
young adults (ages 15 to 44) were mainly seen in the first half of the century.
Deaths at the age of 75 and over comprised only 12 per cent of all deaths in
1901, rising to 39 per cent in 1951 and 66 per cent in 2007.
What’s happening:
Why it’s happening:
* Advances in medicine – life can be improved through better access
to medicines such as antibiotics & immunisations.
* Welfare measures – the Welfare State was founded in 1948 and
resulted in measures such as free school meals etc which eased
malnutrition. It also raised the living standards in relation to
accommodation.
* Improved nutrition & living standards – there was a sharp decline in
absolute poverty over the 20th century as more people were able to
feed themselves.
What’s happening:
Life expectancy at birth in the UK has reached its highest level on record for
both males and females. A newborn baby boy could expect to live 77.2 years and
a newborn baby girl 81.5 years if mortality rates remain the same as they were
in 2005–07. Females continue to live longer than males, but the gap has been
closing. Although both sexes have shown annual improvements in life expectancy
at birth, over the past 25 years the gap has narrowed from 6.0 years to 4.3
years. Based on mortality rates in 1980–82, 26 per cent of newborn males would
die before age 65, but this had reduced to 16 per cent based on 2005–07 rates.
The equivalent figures for newborn females were 16 per cent in 1980–82 and 10
per cent in 2005–07. Within the UK, life expectancy varies by country. England
has the highest life expectancy at birth, 77.5 years for males and 81.7 years
for females, while Scotland has the lowest, 74.8 years for males and 79.7 years
for females.
Why it’s happening:
* Advances in medicine – life can be improved through better access
to medicines such as antibiotics & immunisations.
* Welfare measures – the Welfare State was founded in 1948 and
resulted in measures such as free school meals etc which eased
malnutrition. It also raised the living standards in relation to
accommodation.
* Improved nutrition & living standards – there was a sharp decline in
absolute poverty over the 20th century as more people were able to
feed themselves.
What’s happening:
The percentage of the
population aged under 16 has
been declining since 1995
and, for the first time ever.
has dropped below the
percentage of the
population of state
pensionable age. Average
growth in the population
aged over state pensionable
age between 1981 to 2007
was less than one per cent
per year, however, between
2006 and 2007 the growth
rate was nearly 2 per cent.
Source: http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=949
The population over state pensionable age has increased and this is partly due to
the number of women born in the immediate post World War Two baby boom
who reached state pensionable age in 2007. These women were born in 1947, the
men born in the same year will reach state pensionable age in 2012.
Why it’s happening:
BECAUSE FEWER CHILDREN ARE BORN NOW COMPARED TO
THE 1930s-1950s WHEN THE CURRENT OLDER GENERATION
WERE BORN.
BECAUSE PEOPLE ARE LIVING LONGER:
* Advances in medicine – life can be improved through better access
to medicines such as antibiotics & immunisations.
* Welfare measures – the Welfare State was founded in 1948 and
resulted in measures such as free school meals etc which eased
malnutrition. It also raised the living standards in relation to
accommodation.
* Improved nutrition & living standards – there was a sharp decline in
absolute poverty over the 20th century as more people were able to
feed themselves.
What’s happening:
Source: http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=1866
The number of households in the UK grew to 24.9 million in 2006 from 22.9
million in 1991. However, the number of family households has not grown as fast
as the overall number of households. Census data show that the proportion of
family households decreased between 1991 and 2001, from 70.6 per cent to
67.0 per cent, a drop of 3.6 per cent. This decrease was offset by a 3.9 per
cent increase in the proportion of one-person households over the same period.
The growing trend in people living alone accounted for much of the increase in
the overall number of households and, as a result, the average household size
has decreased.
Why it’s happening:
•Because of increasing childlessness for the following reasons:
* Economic factors – children are becoming increasingly expensive as their
economic dependency on their parents last longer and longer. They’re also
more expensive because of the material goods they are expected to be given.
One survey estimated the cost of raising a child through to university was
£180,000 in 2006.
* Individualisation – people are increasingly not expected to follow norms and
values and they are freer to construct lives of their own. Because children
make demands on the time and energy of adults, fewer people are having them
or postponing them to a time when they feel they’ve had their fun.
* Risk – many feel that their relationships are not healthy enough or that they
are not financially secure enough to have children.
* Changing opportunities – women’s far greater educational and professional
opportunities mean they are more likely to find fulfilment outside of
motherhood. They also have greater access to contraception.
* Changing attitudes – women’s priorities are changing as Sue Sharpe’s study
showed, children are not top of the list any more.