Examining the Influence of Gender Inequality - Literature review Example

Individualisation Thesis Table of Contents Table of Contents 2 Introduction 3 Contribution by Individualism Thesis to Develop Understanding about Contemporary Family and Intimate Life 4 Understanding the Influence of Pure Relationship 4 Understanding the Influence of Confluent Love 5 Determining the Role of Women 6 Examining the Influence of Gender Inequality 8 Focus on Democratic Relationship 9 Optimism and Pessimism 11 Critical Discussion 12 Conclusion 14 References 16 Introduction According to Beck-Gernsheim (2002) and Giddens (1992), social actions performed today are becoming increasingly mediated by as well as through individuals, giving rise to the notion of individualisation. This particular notion or ideology of individualisation can be referred as “an influential characterisation of contemporary Western Society”, which stimulates the human decision-making behaviour to be inclined much more towards self-satisfaction and personal accountability, thus diverting individuals’ behaviour from the traditional class oriented reflexivity to a fresh relationship emerging between the society and the person (Ray, 2005). Certainly, studies have been conducted at a much wider context to elaborate on the state proposition, resulting in a cosmic collection of individualisation theses. According to Duncan & Smith (2006), study of individualisation in individualisation theses have been crucial in signifying the implications of such behavioural transitions observed within individual persons and the society overall. These implications can be observed in terms of changes observed in the family formations and intimate life decisions taken by individuals today in comparison to the traditional practices. Irrespective of these claims made and duly explained with rationality in individualisation theses, the extent to which it has been beneficial to sociologists in understanding family formations and intimate life in the contemporary era has been a subject of debate. For instance, where on one hand, individualisation theses have been quite significant in developing sociological understandings to the identification as well as elaboration of the new paradigms of the contemporary society, its extent of contribution have also been limited owing to the lack of diversity and criticality in the discussions, especially in the cross cultural context. In this essay, the aim will be on examining the extent to which individualisation theses have been helpful for modern sociologists to understand social formations and intimate life and reflect on the stated debatable subject matter. Accordingly, both the extent of contributions made by individualisation theses and the extent to which it failed to help sociologists will be argued in this discussion. This discussion further aims at concluding on the extent of contributions made by individualisation theses in understanding contemporary social relations, elaborating on the various facets of intimate life and family formations. Contribution by Individualism Thesis to Develop Understanding about Contemporary Family and Intimate Life Understanding the Influence of Pure Relationship A prominent illustration of contributions made by individualisation theses to sociological understandings of contemporary intimate life and family formation can be justified with reference to the concept of pure relationship. According to Jamieson (1999), pure relationship imposes a wide impact on the facets of human lives. It can be termed as a good relationship, as it involves knowing and understanding the partner and keeping each other satisfied unconditionally, but also denoted that from a theoretical perspective, pure relationship is unrealistic to build a successful relationship between parent and child in terms of financial and materialistic influences. Similar to the notion presented in Jamieson (1999), Charles & et. al. (2008) and Henry-Waring & Barraket (n.d.) stated that pure relationship is built on the foundation of equality and intimacy and helps in understanding the people involved in the relationship. Giddens (1992) accordingly presented a view that pure relationship involves acceptance of each of the partners and it can only be successful in the long run, if both of them derive enough benefits from the relationship. Hence, in this context, the contribution of individualisation theses can be observed to an apparent extent, which has been beneficial for sociologists in judging the traditional ideology changes of pure relationship in the contemporary era. Individualization theses argue that reformations of family life with lesser inclination towards abiding traditional norms of sexual bonding indicate individualism. However, on the contrary, critics of individualization theses have stressed on the fact that although such variances are radical and apparent, not every instance of such manoeuvre implies to individualism. For instance, in the case of cohabiting couples and single mothers, this space offered by the individualization trends is used to deliver their care towards others rather than secluding themselves from the mainstream of the society (Duncan & Smith, 2006). It is in this sector that the individualization theses do not contribute to a significant extent in understanding how individualization operates in alignment with the traditional values, rather emphasizing their polarized ideologies. Understanding the Influence of Confluent Love Individualisation theses explain confluent love as an active and contingent relationship binding two people. According to Giddens (1992), confluent love prevails in those communities wherein every individual possesses the equal chance of getting into a relationship, i.e. in a highly individualistic society with low degree of gender inequality. Furthermore, Giddens (1992) referred that confluent love does not determine the difference between a respectable woman and those belonging to the orthodox background, further encouraging equality based social values to promote such relationships within the society. Sutton & Giddens (2013) also stated that the system of separation and divorce in the recent days are the effects of confluent love rather than being a cause; hence, contributing to a new dimension in sociology researches concentrating on intimacy in individualised societies. According to Hull & et. al. (2010), people who enter into the confluent love relationship are often aware of the fact that these are certainly temporary relationships. Hence, it can be determined that individualisation theses have its apparent sociological contributions in explaining the notion of confluent love emphasising that people enter into this relation with the intention of meeting certain expectations or desires, which has further raised the frequency and numbers of divorces and separations in the modern individualistic society (Hull & et. al., 2010). However, a critical understanding to the arguments further stimulates a certain degree of scepticism concerning the extent of contributions made by individualisation theses in generating understanding of confluent love amid sociologists, on the basis that it lacks in considering other economic and demographic features responsible for divorces and separations in the contemporary societies. As examined by Coontz (2006), there are many other reasons for divorces and separations in the contemporary society, which cannot be completely defined through individualisation ideology. This in turn limits the extent to which individualisation theses shall have their contribution in developing sociologists’ understandings of social relations in the contemporary world. Determining the Role of Women Contributions made by individualisation theses in enriching the theoretical understandings of sociologists concerning the role played by women have also been non-negligible in the contemporary scenario. According to Giddens (1992), women are recognised as the key participants in the development as well as in the decease of romantic love. Following this notion of Giddens (1992), it can be argued that individualisation theses have a major role in developing fundamental understanding of sociologists to the way women are held responsible for encouraging an intimate relationship and again for the demise of that relationship providing theoretical evidences to the role of women played in the formation of families. Emphasising a similar notion, Gillis (1997) stated that women from the post-industrial period are provided with immense employment opportunities. Concentrating on the role played by women in the development of intimate life and contemporary family settings in the modern era, Giddens (1992) stated that considering marriage as a trap for women and as a mandatory social obligation for them would be irrelevant as per the traditional perspectives. However, as women are regarded on the basis of gender equality principles with almost equivalent rights offered to male members in the modern society, both men and women depict their contrary perceptions to traditional ideologies agreeing that getting into a committed relationship is a trap for them (Impett & Peplua, 2003). Giddens (1992), if considered as an example of an individualisation thesis, also presented the view that women consider marriage or involvement in pure relationship has really became a trap for them. Therefore, contributions of individualisation theses can be apparently observed with reference to the gender equality notions increasingly evident in collectivist societies, such as Iran, Iraq and Bangladesh, exhibited through an independent depiction of human rights demands by women (Moinifar, 2011; Parvez, 2011). Thus, it can also be termed that individualisation theses has contributed immensely to help sociologists in developing their critical underpinnings to social implications of intimate life and family orientations observable within the contemporary scenario, by exhibiting the role played by women in both positive and negative forms. Accordingly, studying various individualisation theses it can be apparently observed that the role of women has always been contradictory between liberation and reconnection to the traditional roles and responsibilities of the society, replicating their (individualisation theses) contributions at a significant extent. Examining the Influence of Gender Inequality Gender inequality has long been one of the most interesting subjects in individualisation theses, determining their unique contribution to sociological studies. With regards to the aforementioned subject of the gender inequality, it can be assessed that gender inequalities has been existing in the society since the traditional period with defined roles for women and men in the family settings. For instance, as was highlighted in individualisation theses of the traditional era, women were treated as caregivers and were held responsible for performing the tasks of households. On the other hand, men were the sole decision makers in the family with their defined roles to accumulate resources for the well-being of the family households (Feinberg & et. al., 2011). This division of responsibilities, as highlighted in the individualisation theses, apparently depict the existence of gender biasness in the society, which can also be denoted as their valuable contribution to the understanding of sociologists regarding the changes observable within the family setting of modern era. According to Reis & Grossmark (2009), heterosexuality is an apparent trend in the countries with high gender equality features. Often, in a societal structure with high prevalence of individualism and gender equalities, very often the cases of heterosexuality among the people are observed. In the primitive days, wherein the system of gender inequalities existed at a high rate, the heterosexual cases were relatively higher due to the excessive prevalence of individualism (Reis & Grossmark, 2009). From the aforementioned analysis of the concepts of individualism in relation to gender inequalities and heterosexuality, it can be affirmed that both the aspects are directly related to each other. Offering a clear explanation regarding the influence of gender inequality in family formations as well as in intimate relationships, individualisation theses has helped the sociologists to determine the changing social dimensions of the contemporary scenario, which depicts the contributions made by these studies at an imperative extent. However, a much wider examination of gender discrimination in the contemporary scenario reflects that such practices have not yet abolished as often denoted in major individualisation theses, but has rather become more violent in pursuit of individualisation. From a critical point of view, it can further be asserted that unlike the contributions given by individualisation theses, gender equality has minimised but not abolished from the contemporary society. Perhaps, it has been due to the increased protests and feminism approaches taken by political institutions to counter such practices that individualisation theses have been influenced to deliver such contributions, which limits its effectiveness to a certain extent in idealising the true social discourse concerning gender inequality (Lorber, 1995). Focus on Democratic Relationship As was mentioned earlier, individualisation theses have its immense contribution in developing the understanding of sociologists regarding newer concepts of socialisation, apart from helping them in the identification of the same. Democratic relationship can be coined as the temporary relationship built by people on their own will, wherein the couples involved in such relation, which does not possess any kind of commitment or promises to their partner. As argued in the individualisation theses by Lippe & et. al. (2007), the formation of democratic relationship can be termed as the effect of individualism in the society. It is the individual desire of the people, which lead individuals towards the formation of intimate relationship between same genders (Lippe & et. al., 2007). As contributed by Lippe & et. al. (2007), it can be asserted that the relationship between individualism ideologies persisting within a modern society and democratic relationship is direct in nature. In the societies where the system of individualism exists, there are more chances of formation of democratic relationships. According to Stahlnecker (2007), it has observed that just like that of democratic relationship among the countries, wherein major stress is given on the development or creation of strong and healthy mutual relationship, democratic relationship among people is also the same. Stahlnecker (2007) further stated that with the increase in the numbers of democratic relationship, the family structure of the collectivist societies are getting more influenced and the individualism is rising more and more. It can also be termed that the democratic relationship are nurturing the societal structure along with the family structure wherein the contributions from individualisation theses are prevalent to a paramount extent. Apparently, the individualisation has helped the sociologists to understand the notion of democratic relationship on a wider scale as it promotes the individuals to nurture the structure of the family as well as the society (Frank & Mceneaney, 1999). However, on the contrary, a critical view to the contributions made by the individualisation theses in developing understanding of democratic relationships reveals that the early theorists have overlooked the aspects concerning the negatives of democratic relationship forms existing in the contemporary society. Subsequently, individualisation theses delivered greater significance towards the changing ideologies of the democratic society in the post-industrialising era, while disregarding the elements that illustrated the ‘oxymoronic’ attributes persisting within the democratic societies of the contemporary period under the influence of political as well as social power play (Rossiter, 2005). Apparently, this minimises the extent of contributions made by individualisation theses in developing the understanding of sociologists regarding democratic relationships. Optimism and Pessimism As dictated in individualisation theses, since the traditional period, optimism and pessimism has been termed into several categories in individualisation theses, mostly referring those as two entirely polarised ideologies of intimate relationship formations (Banks & Milestone, 2011; Williams, 2004; Gillies, 2003). Optimism is the propensity of expecting favourable positive outcomes from each person involved in the relationship. It is worth mentioning that individual differences exist within the optimism relationship. Optimistic relationship is believed to be activated and redeemable by the short-term factors (Srivastava & Angelo, 2009). On the other hand, pessimistic relationship is considered as the opposite ideology of optimistic relationship. The best example of pessimistic relationship is the divorce and separation cases, which has become a common trend in the modern individualistic society. In these types of intimate relationships, the concept of individualisation prevails at a higher degree, as the individuals involved get negatively motivated towards the relationship, which ultimately leads towards their separation or divorce (Flick, 2006). However, in the modern day context, Banks & Milestone (2011), Williams (2004), Flick (2006) and Gillies (2003) among others stated that the thesis of individualisation prevails in both the optimistic and pessimistic relationships despite of the fact that both the concepts being opposite to each other. Thus, when assessing the contributions made by individualisation theses in developing understandings regarding optimism and pessimism, it was apparent that individualisation theses have contributed towards generating a succinct explanation to a significant extent. Critical Discussion Srivastava & Angelo (2009), Flick (2006) and Giddens (1992) stated that understanding of the notions of the abovementioned sociological aspects is much easier through the use of individualistic theses, which evidently argues the extent of contribution made by these studies in helping sociologists refine their understandings to the concept. As discussed in the earlier sections, individualisation prevails in every aspect of pure relationship, romantic love, confluent love, gender inequalities, influencing the optimism and pessimism ideologies forming the base of any intimate relationship (Giddens, 1992). In a pure relationship, individuals engaged in intimate bonding are assumed to decipher a certain degree of commitment towards each other at their own will and derive substantial outcome as compared to that of expected satisfactory level from the partners (Sutton & Giddens, 2013). According to the individualistic view, many of the sociologists such as Suttons & Gidden (2013) and Hull & et. al. (2010) has explained the notion of pure relationship under the influence of confluent love. The most effective way of understanding these concepts under the perspective of individualisation is through the views stated by Giddens and Beck & Beck-Gernsheim. The notion of pure relationship, as contributed by Anthony Giddens, gave a newer dimension to the sociological perspectives of transformation in the society. In accordance to the notion of Giddens, Smart (2007) stated that all the sociological aspects vary with the change in the structure of the society and the family life altogether. For instance, in the ancient American society, women had the significant position of looking after the household and their babies. In the similar context, men were regarded as the ultimate decision makers in the family. However, with the modernisation in the society and the various sociological transformations in the human lives, the role of women has been expanded from a mere caregiver to working women leading their life independently (Smart, 2007). From the above discussion, it can be assessed that individualisation theses have proposed the many new concepts of family formations and intimate life in the contemporary scenario. According to Beck and Beck Gernsheim, these developments and expansions in the meaning of social transformation, observable through family setting changes and intimate relationship ideologies, have been changing substantially due to the effects of globalisation. To note in simple words, the expansion of the role of women processed a contradiction between the liberation and traditional cultures and hence, caused substantial effects in the intimate relationship formations and family structures altogether. Taking the example of Holford (2012), it can be stated that more of the emphasis is given on the need and significance of love. Likewise, Giddens and Beck & Beck-Gernsheim have also explained a type of relationship existing in the current family formations, coined as democratic relationship, which is most commonly found in the modern scenario, depicting the immense extent of contribution by individualisation theses. According to Giddens and Beck & Beck-Gernsheim, plastic sexuality prevails in the democratic relationship, which also refers to the development of a relationship wherein there is no risk of reproduction, which again indicates to the contrasts between individualization trends and traditional views on intimate life. Apparently, the contribution of these theses have been crucial in developing an understanding that the traditional societal structure is changing from a collectivist nature to an individualistic society with lesser significance on gender defined roles having strong impressions on family structures. Apart from these aspects, individualisation theses, such as that of Giddens and Beck & Beck-Gernsheim, have made noteworthy contributions with emphasis on the development of the role of women in the current family structure, which also advocates the extent of contributions made by these studies (Widmer & Jallinoja, 2008). As stated by Smart & Shipman (2004) and also observed from the overall study in this paper, majority of individualisation theses replicate a monotony in defining the isolations prevailing in the recent family life and intimate relationship preferences, which again limits the benefits of individualisation these towards the understandings of the sociologists. Smart & Shipman (2004) further emphasised that the individualisation theses has been unable to a large extent to provide a critical understanding of these facets when it comes to a multi-cultural context, such as the differences prevailing in intimate life acceptance as well as prominence in Eastern cultures as compared to the Western societies and gender inequality classifications. This expands the extent to which individualisation theses can be helpful to sociologists in understanding these phenomena under a wide category. Woolley (2009) and Crompton (2005) also raised a similar concern when elaborating on the contributions made by individualisation theses in developing the critical understanding amid sociologists. Even though individualisation theses have been narrowing the study of the family life and intimate relationships and has been helping the sociologists to define the family life on a wider scale, the extent of its contributions have been limited in offering a critical understanding to the various economic, demographic and geographic influences to family formations and intimate life. The study of individualisation theses has also limited the sociologists’ perceptions regarding optimism in any intimate relationship wherein less commitment prevails. Conclusion Major contributions made by these individualisation theses was in developing the notion that with growing individualisation trends, public in the social domains have been more inclined towards their personal benefits and gains, rather than focusing on the collective advantages. Individualisation theses also postulate that peoples’ ability to mould the social norms as per their personal convenience today and obtain a larger space to take decisions regarding their family and intimate life is a symbolism of individualisation. Although such findings and arguments have benefited in the development of new concepts to elaborate the changing trends in the contemporary society, for instance in terms of the meaning and classifications of the romantic love and confluent love or pure relationships, plastic sexuality and gender equalities. However, contrary to these contributions made by individualisation theses, critics have also argued that the extreme focus on idealising and disregarding the facts persisting in multicultural contexts, determining differences between institutional dynamism and self-referentiality have altogether limited the extent to which these studies contribute to developing the understandings of sociologists. Nevertheless, such debates emphasising the findings argued in individualisation theses have further helped sociologists develop their understanding towards the family formations and intimate life in the contemporary society. References Banks, M. & Milestone, K., 2011. Individualization, Gender and Cultural Work. Gender, Work and Organization, Vol. 18, No. 1, pp. 1-17. Beck-Gernsheim, E., 2002. Reinventing the Family: in Search of New Lifestyles. Polity Press. Charles, N. & et. al., 2008. Families in Transition. Social Change, Family Formation and Kin Relationships. The Polity Press. Coontz, S., 2006. The Origins of Modern Divorce. Family Process, Vol. 46, No. 1, pp. 7-16. Crompton, R., 2005. Class and the Family. GeNet Working Paper No. 9. Duncan, S. & Smith, D. P., 2006. Individualisation versus the Geography of ‘New’ Families. Families & Social Capital ESRC Research Group Working Paper No. 19. Elliott, A., 2002. Becks Sociology of Risk: A Critical Assessment. Sociology, Vol. 36, No. 2, pp. 293-315. Feinberg, L. & et. al., 2011. Valuing the Invaluable: 2011 Update. The Growing Contributions and Costs of Family Caregiving, pp. 1-28. Flick, S., 2006. Challenging Sociological Pessimism. Feminist Review, pp. 1-9. Frank, D. J. & Mceceaney, E. H., 1999. The Individualization of Society and the Liberalization of State Policies on Same-Sex Sexual Relations. Social Forces, Vol. 77, No. 3, pp. 911-943. Giddens, A., 1992. The Transformation of Intimacy: Sexuality, Love and Eroticism Modern Societies. Polity Press. Gillis, J., 1997. A World of their Own Making: a History of Myth and Ritual in Family Life. Oxford University Press. Gillies, V., 2003. Family and Intimate Relationships: A Review of the Sociological Research. Families & Social Capital ESRC Research Group Working Paper No. 2. Henry-Waring, M. S. & Barraket, J., No Date. Exploring Virtual Connections? Sociological Perspectives of Intimacy in Cyberspace. The Rise of Information and Communications Technologies (ICT), pp. 1-14. Holford, N., 2012. Making Classed Sexualities: Investigating Gender, Power and Violence in Middle-Class Teenagers’ Relationship Cultures. School of Social Sciences, pp. 1-269. Hull, K. E. & et. al., 2010. The Changing Landscape of Love and Marriage. Marriage’s Persistent Pull, pp. 32-37. Impett, E. A. & Peplua, L. A., 2003. Sexual Compliance: Gender, Motivational, and Relationship Perspectives. The Journal of Sex Research, Vol. 40, No. 1, pp. 87-100. Jamieson, L., 1999. Intimacy Transformed? A Critical Look at the ‘Pure Relationship’. Sociology, Vol. 33, No. 3, pp. 477-494. Lorber, J., 1996. The Variety of Feminisms and their Contribution to Gender Equality. Carl von Ossietzky Universität Oldenburg, pp. 7-43. Lippe, T. V. D. & et. al., 2007. Persistent Inequalities in Time Use between Men and Women: A Detailed Look at the Influence of Economic Circumstances, Policies and Culture. Department of Sociology / ICS, pp. 1-46. Moinifar, H. S., 2011. Gender Equality and Multicultural Conviviality in the Age of Globalization. GEMC Journal, No. 4, pp. 1-185. Parvez, K. N., 2011. Social Changes and Women-Initiated Divorce in Dhaka, Bangladesh: Gaining or Loosing Power? Department of Health Promotion and Development, pp. 1-101. Ray, C., 2005. Individualisation and The Third age. Central for Rural Economy Discussion Paper Series No., pp. 1-11. Reis, B. & Grossmark, R., 2009. Heterosexual Masculinities: Contemporary Perspectives from Psychoanalytic Gender Theory. Routledge. Rossiter, N., 2005. Virtuosity, Processual Democracy and Organised Networks. Cultural Studies Review, Vol. 11, No. 2, pp. 110-128. Smart, C., 2007. Personal Life: New Directions in Sociological; Thinking. Polity Press. Smart, C. & Shipman, B., 2004. Visions in Monochrome: Families, Marriage and the Individualisation Thesis. British Journal of Sociology, Vol. 55, No. 4, pp. 491-509. Srivastava, S. & Angelo, K. M., 2009. Optimism, Effects on Relationships. Encyclopaedia of Human Relationships, pp. 1-10. Stahlnecker, K. H., 2007. Democratic Relationships: An Institutional Way of Life with/in the Writing Center. Building Relationships, pp. 1-162. Sutton, P. W. & Giddens, A., 2013. Sociology. Polity Press. Williams, F., 2004. Rethinking Families. Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation. Widmer, E. & Jallinoja, R., 2008. Beyond the Nuclear Family: Families in a Configurational Perspective. Peter Lang. Woolley, C. M., 2009. Meeting the Mixed Methods Challenge of Integration in a Sociological Study of Structure and Agency. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, Vol. 3, No. 7, pp. 7-25. Read More