Increasing Family Diversity - Essay Example

?Running Head: Increasing Family Diversity Increasing Family Diversity Increasing Family Diversity Family is one of the most significant social institutions as it is present in one form or the other in almost every society. It is of utmost importance due to its essential role in the socialization of children in the culture of their society. Although family exists in almost every society its form varies and has been constantly changing over the years. Here we will recognize and analyze the reasons behind these changes and increasing family diversity. (Browne,2006) There are many social institutions in our society apart from family such as peer group, religion, mass media, education and healthcare. However, family is considered to be the most important because it is the most significant institution for primary socialization of the young and to provide support and security to the members of the family. With time it has been claimed by many sociologists that the institution of the family is in decline due to the changes which are occurring in our surroundings. (Giddens,2005) There have been many changes in the family over the years. There has been a decline in marriage followed by an increase in cohabitation and lone parent families. The loss of functions supported by the weakening of extended kinship links have resulted in declining family sizes. It is these changes that have caused increasing diversity in the family structures and these changes will be discussed in detail. Family is said to have lost most of its functions. Functionalist as a perspective, specialize in explaining the functions of all social institutions. Parsons and other functionalists argue that with the coming of industrialization the functions of the family have reduced and have been taken over by other institutions through the coming of the welfare state. This has resulted in structural differentiation of the functions (Browne, 2006, pg 43). According to Parsons Family now have two basic functions: primary socialization of the young and the stabilization of the adult personalities. Initially family was a unit of production as well as a place which was not only responsible for the primary socialization of the young but also involved in their health and education aspects. However, with the coming of the welfare state health and education are no longer the primary functions of the family. Now family is more a unit of consumption rather than a unit of production. (Giddens, 2005) The next visible change in the family is the weakening of the link with the extended kin. As time has progressed after industrialization there has arrived a need of a more geographically mobile workforce. This has resulted in different members of the extended family to go for work to different places. People have become richer now and the standard of living has improved due to the existence of the welfare state. The society has now transformed into a meritocratic one where the name and background is no longer important and this result in the weakening of the ties of the extended family. (Browne, 2006) There is an argument put forward by sociologists that the extended family does exist in the modern society. It has just evolved into a different shape. A very good example will be the Asian community in Britain (Browne, 2006, pg 50). The Asians are usually found living close to each other where there might be separate nuclear families living in the same street or neighborhood, and in regular contact with each other. Such examples have been visible in many areas and giving rise to the concept of modified extended families. This means that even though the children are living away from their parents they are in contact with their kin. It can be said the kin are a means of support and this type of family is common in many parts of the world. Julia Brannen (2003) argues that now we are living in the age of the beanpole family. As the expected lives of people are increasing and they are living longer this is giving rise to a family where there are four generations: grandparents, parents, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren. Therefore, the vertical links between the families are increasing due to the longer lives, and this strengthening result in the beanpole family. One very important change which has resulted in the families over the years has been the changing position of children. Children were once considered as an economic asset which will help the large extended family in the process of production. But in the late 19th and 20th century has resulted in an entirely new aspect. With the structural differentiation of roles as discussed earlier one of the prime responsibilities of the modern family is the primary socialization of the young. As a result we can now see a very child-centered society. There are many reasons which contribute to the evolution of child-centeredness. The most significant reason is the smaller size of the family and the concern of parents for the security of their child. As the standard of living has increased and the working hours have reduced they are able to dedicate more and more time to their children. The arrival of the welfare state has also caused the parents to be more concerned about the needs of their children. Apart from this even huge corporations which are working towards consumerism, are targeting the children. The increasing demand for child products shows that the parents are willing to spend for the pleasure of their children.(Browne, 2006). Perhaps the most important change which is becoming visible in families throughout the world is the fall in the average family size. The birth rate in Britain has declined from 28 per 1000 in 1902 to 11 per thousand in 2005. This has resulted in a reduced number of children per household falling from 6 per family in the 1870s to 1.8 in 2004. (Browne, 2006 , pg70-71). The fall in the household size is primarily for the trend towards smaller families. There are many reasons for the fall in family size. Contraception has been an important factor. With more awareness and more effective contraception methods there has been a great reduction in the number of births. These allow couples to plan their families as per their wish. Another very significant reason behind the reduction in family size is because of compulsory education. Now it is compulsory for everyone to study till the age of 15 to 16 in many countries. As a result they cannot help their parents in work and in fact the costs increase per child. This results in fewer children per family. Changing position of women has also brought about a big change in family structures. Women these days are more concerned about their careers and children can be a hindrance. Considering this many women prefer to marry late and intend to have fewer children. This is complemented by the fact that when both members are in paid employment they tend to have fewer children as this supports the idea of a mobile workforce. (Browne, 2005) There has also been a fall in the infant mortality rates and as a result, parents do not give births to more babies with the idea that a few will survive in the end. The most controversial and discussed change in family life over the last century has been divorce. There has been an exponential increase in divorce rates over the last few decades. The increase in divorce rates can be contributed to many factors. The leverage given be governments of most countries is a prime reason as there is more freedom in choosing partners. (Kirby, 2000, pg 59) A very important contributor to the increase in divorce rates has been the changing status of women. Now there are more and more women in paid employment and in regular contact with other men and it happen at times that they get attracted to someone else. Apart from this the work opportunities allow the women to become more self-empowered. They prefer to stay free from the hassles of marriage as it leads to extra responsibilities and hampering their leisure time. The expectations from marriage have increased due to the isolation of the nuclear family as the mates are spending more and more time with each other. Thereby, this results in greater risks of lack of satisfaction which later leads to divorce. Also marriage is no longer such an important ceremony as it once was. Due to secularization marriage ceremonies have become more and more uncommon. This is also supported by the fact that divorce has become more socially acceptable than it once was. The society accepts it and the religions do not take a rigorous line over this issue. The state has been a catalyst in the increase of divorce rates. This is because the state has not only made divorces easier but also cheaper. The welfare state allows for lone parent families and serial monogamy. This has given the freedom to people to opt out of marriages with not a much great need of troubles. (Kirby, 2000) A few new types of family which have surfaced over the last few years: cohabitation, single sex families, lone parent families and reconstituted families. Cohabitation means when a couple lives together in a sexual relationship without being married. This type of family has suddenly turned out to be extremely popular as there is less legal hassles and a sense of responsibility. It goes through the process of coupling and uncoupling (Giddens, 2005, 234). Lone parent families have been increasing as much as the rate of divorce because there are many who do not marry again. It can also be a result of children outside marriages or the death of a spouse. Single sex families are also a matter of concern for many devout religious people. (Giddens, 2005) Another area which should be discussed in relation to families is power and gender role distribution. This is more commonly referred to as conjugal roles. Conjugal roles basically refer to the roles of husband and wife in a family. If the roles are completely distinct then it can be said that there are segregated conjugal roles. If the responsibility is shared then it can be said that there are integrated conjugal roles. (Browne, 2006) Since the middle of the twentieth century it has been witnessed that there has been a shift in these conjugal roles and the families in the society are less patriarchal- male dominated. In 1975, Young and Willmott published a book entitled ‘The Symmetrical Family.’ This was based on their earlier research work carried out in 1971. In this book they not only accessed earlier data but carried out their own research on the changing structure of the family. The claimed that family has moved more towards the symmetrical roles with the increase in the women going out for paid work. Therefore, they explain that there is a more egalitarian distribution of roles. This point has been argued extensively by the feminists. One the most popular feminist in this regard is Ann Oakley. She is a very popular feminist sociologist and has extensive work in the field of household work in the families. This was put forward in her book ‘The Sociology of Housework,’ (1974). In her book Oakley argues that the symmetrical family is basically a myth. She uses the study of Young and Willmott and criticizes it to put forward her point. She argues that according to the research of Young and Willmott, only 72 percent of the males helped their counterparts in household work. This may not be an exact figure and even if it is the notion is very biased. This maybe because it is stated that these men ‘help’ their wives thereby, indicating that much of the responsibility of the household tasks still lies with the women. (Oakley, 1974). Another significant point which Ann Oakley raised is that the household work of the women is never considered as real work. It is only considered as the responsibilities of the females and in this way the monetary value of their tasks or jobs is simply ignored. This for females can be quite frustrating. (Oakley, 1974) Oakley did accept that the males especially those belonging to the middle class were more involved in the household chores. However, she claims that their contribution is not as significant. The males which were involved in these tasks usually took over simpler roles such as child care and females were still responsible for much of the heavier household work. Therefore, according to her such a small proportion of work should not generalize into an entirely new concept of symmetrical families as the females were still doing bulk of the work. This was not acceptable to feminists. Furthermore, Oakley argues that work of the household women and the role of the housewife should be constructed in the same way as the construction of male employment. However, this was not happening then despite the fact that when calculated the average work of the wives could be as much as 77 hours per week. And all of this work was unpaid. This turned out to be a very strong point in argument of the exploitation of females in household jobs and this has been used by feminists over and over again. (Giddens, 2005) To sum up the arguments of Oakley the four prime reasons for the exploitation of the females can be mentioned. (Oakley 138). Firstly, the role of the housewives is allocated entirely to the females which should instead be shared by the adults of both sexes. Secondly this role is strengthened by the fact that the women are dependent on their spouses, giving the idea of material and economic dependence. The work of the wives is not considered as ‘real.’ This is considered as contrary to the economic or productive role of the male working. Lastly, it is forced unto women as their prime role which is prior to all other activities and roles. Despite all the pros and cons or the strains in these forms family is still the predominant social institution in all societies. Although the forms may change the essence remains the same- socialization of the young in a way that they fit into the society as a building block. References Brannen. J. ,2003, Sociology of Families and Intimate Lives Browne, K. , 2006 Introducing Sociology for AS Level, 2nd Edition, Polity Publications Giddens, A., 2006,Sociology, 5th Edition, Polity Publications. Kirby,M., 2000, Sociology in Perspective, Heinemann. Oakley, A., 1974, Sociology of Housework, London: University of London Young, M. and Willmott, P., 1975, The Symmetrical Family. Read More