The Role of Family for Individuals and Society - Essay Example

 Family Study Outline: (The documents answers to the following questions) What is family? Are Families universals and constant or are they culturally and historically variable? What has happened to the family in Western Post-Modernity? Are families central to our lives? Should they live up to an ideal or be debunked? Do families both make us and break us? Are they really necessary? The word “family” has always been a topic of hot debate and has always intrigued social scientists as well as policy and law makers because of the impact this social grouping of people has had on almost every facet of life. It has been defined differently by sociologists and lawyers. The question “what is the family” remains notorious, because there have been an array of changes and resolutions with the passage of time. One cannot define the family likewise as it how it once was previously, because there have been drastic changes and relations seem to have changed as per time. (Stacey 1990, Cheal 1993). In normal terms, if asked to define Family, one would claim that it is basically groundwork of the society. Mattessich and Hill (1987), on the other hand, take a different approach to defining a family. According to them, a family is a group of people who are related to each other through some biological affinity, living together and forming emotional bonds, and that they also have four traits: close dependence on each other, adapting to the changing environment around them as a single unit, maintaining a boundary around them that everyone from within the family agrees on, and the ability to preserve their identity with the passage of time. They state that along with these traits, families also display performance of tasks such as physical maintenance of their structure, the way they socialize with people around them, how they are educated, control of inter-gender social behavior, which may include sexual encounters and interaction with members of the opposite gender, performing inter and intra family roles, maintaining the morale of the family, acquiring and introducing desirable and , in a sense, powerful individuals into the family by making matrimonial and sexual partnerships, addition of new family members through the process of birth or when children, who aren’t biologically related to the parents, are adopted , and releasing or severance of young members of the family once they’ve reached an age of maturity (Mattessich and Hill 1987). The Universal Declaration of Human Rights defines a family as the natural and fundamental group unit of society, with no restrictions on race, religion and nationality. When the same “family” is approached by lawyers, they define it as a group of people who are born or acquire the rights of being called a member of a certain family after being married into that social group related to each other by blood i.e. by a natural relationship. On the other hand, sociologists don’t limit the definition of family to that proposed by the lawyers, but they extend it to add people who even share a common household, or are linked by certain relations whether they are biological, psychological, moral and legal, or even social. (Cetean-Voiculescu, 1918) But what makes families so significant to us? Has it been like this, has family always played an important role in the lives of humans or is it something that we invented as we progress, to give the society a proper shape and purpose? Ever since the dawn of mankind, since the time the first humans started forming social groups and living in caves, family has been an important part of a human being’s life. Even before those times, when humans weren’t that much evolved and socially developed, families were those essential social building blocks that held the society intact. But with the passage of time, the definition of the word family has changed, from something being essential to the mere existence of mankind, to being some sort of the nuisance, a barrier that stops humans in their path of continued success and development. At the same time, different demographics developed a new kind of a relationship with families as time passed, some people started to live in even more closely knitted social units while others distanced themselves from it. Since man is a social animal, it was impossible for man to live in isolation and even from the earliest of days, humans had to make some sort of groups that were essential to their existence in a world where they were surrounded by hostilities. Under such circumstances, the only logical and easy choice was to form a group with the people who were already close to you, and they were easy to get along with because in most of the cases, the emphasis being on most, people from the same family share some traits that would enable them to get along with each other easily. This was the reason the earliest man chose his immediate family i.e. wife, children, parents, to live with and to rely on. This is probably the reason why all of the major and important religions, societies, civilizations throughout the history, have highlighted the importance of families, because families have been around for as far in the past as we can imagine, and their importance can’t be ignored. In the past three or four decades, the post modern period has had an enormous effect on the way families, and the people within a family, behave. The Post Modern period has been defined as a time when most of the employment opportunities would be shifted to the new industrial sector that is non-unionized from the previous unionized heavy industry (C. Wright Mills, 1959). People have started to drift away from the closely bound family unit, and have become more independent. Families tend to provide a set of rules and boundaries which, on one hand can introduce stability and discipline into an individual’s life, but at the same time, can make one feel suffocated and unjustly bound. In the past, the whole family used to follow the same religion. It usually had a proper set of rules that were supposed to be followed by all the members. People used to live together, in huge family homes, with almost all the members living under one roof. This changed as people felt the need to be more independent. New couples started to live separately, children started to move away in the hunt for new jobs and opportunities that life had to offer. In contrast to that, the post-modern era is defined by freedom of religion, freedom of speech and thought, freedom of choice, diversity, consumerism, increased access to news and entertainment through a variety of media, and mobility. People living in the post-modern era understand that different people have different beliefs, there are multiple realities and they have an abundance of opinions and views about the world that can be both exciting and frightening. It is a society that, instead of believing in a singular and absolute truth defined by some authority figure, prefers to give its members the freedom of choice and lets everyone choose whatever they want to believe (O'Hare and Anderson 1991). Post modernity has changed the meaning of a home. It is no longer considered a place of harmony, serenity or of understanding and support, but instead has become a place where differences between the thoughts and actions of people belonging to different age groups, genders, beliefs and mindsets gives rise to conflicts and confrontations. The new type of family in the post modern world is what can be called a “saturated family” where the members feel their lives are scattering due to the increased busyness (Gergen, 1991). Technological advances have created a sense of chaos and fragmentation within the family. But the post modern family did not come into being because of some rebellious that the new generations waged on their ancestors, but in fact, it was the imbalance and rigidity of the roles and the lack of freedom in the nuclear family system that gave rise to thoughts of change. For example, because of the rigid and strict nature of the nuclear family system in the United States in the 1950s gave rise to a sort of a rebellion of thoughts in the minds of people who felt the family as a rope wrapping itself around their necks, choking them. This in turn gave rise to some radical social changes in the post modern era which tried to stabilize the family and keeping in mind the changes in the roles of people in terms of age and gender. But these desperate attempts for change may have created new imbalances in the family. If the post and pre modern era families are compared to each other, one finds out that there are some very distinct differences in the way the families are bound together, their members and the way these families behave both within and with the outside world. According to Marian F. Zeitlin et al. (1995), post modern era families tend to reverse the modern family back into the pre modern era families, and that there are very minute but distinctive differences between the two types of families. Pre modern families used to be large in size, is tightly knit together, with their dependencies lying in their kinship. In contrast, the post modern family is way smaller in size and is the least dependent on their kin. Life with the family was mostly pleasantly spent in the actual real life, but these days people are more distant, formal and most of the time spent together is through technology like social media websites, the telephone, and electronic mail etc. Physically people are not involved with each other anymore within the family. Inter and Intra family communication gaps have started to appear and gradually widen in the post modern family while on the other hand, in the pre modern times, people preferred to have communication through direct physical means and even through a distance, people liked to use more permanent methods of communication like letters and telegrams because they could be read again and again and had this sense of permanency about them; telephones and chat rooms have removed this sense from the communication these days. In the olden days, people didn’t need to store information regarding their family members and therefore needed less time to process that information as almost all the members of the family lived close together. On the other hand, in today’s family, one has to store this information and also has to strain their memory and processing skills in time of need. There used to be a small number of stable physical and social contexts but in the post modern times, these have changed into somewhat shifting physical, symbolical and social contexts. All the above mentioned differences between pre and post modern families give us the impression that the former was better for members of the family as compared to the latter. But there are also a few things about them that give us a hint of why the need for this evolution in the family system was needed in the first place. According to Marian F. Zeitlin et al. (1995), the pre modern family imposed some values on its members. Participations in communal life, regardless of an individual’s choice, were compulsory; there was a lack of privacy and personal choice. This led the individuals to feel oppressed and helpless. Functional identity was limited to a small number of predetermined social roles. There used to be a set of predetermined rules, set by some authority figure in the family, usually the eldest male. These rules were used to determine the right from wrong, and they lacked both flexibility as well as evolution with the passage of time or change of authority in the family (which wasn’t very often). Fundamental beliefs of the family regarding different aspects of social and religious life were forced on every individual whether they were of the same opinion or not. It is probably because of these strict and sometimes unjust rules and regulations that during the post modern era, families evolved dramatically and became more flexible. Participation in communal life became optional. Individuals were given the freedom of choice that they felt was their birth right. Privacy was probably given more importance than anything else, even though it might have played a vital role in creating barriers and distances between the family members. The new family system is more pluralistic and is based on more realistic values. Gender studies and awareness enabled individuals to challenge the status quo authority figures and these roles started to shift freely among the members of the family in accordance with the situation at hand. All the above mentioned traits of pre and post modern families show that there has been a huge change in the way families behave and how the members of a family behave. It also shows how these changes have affected the individual and his or her role in the society. After looking at the above discussion about what families are and what happened to them throughout the history, a few questions come to mind: Are families even important anymore? If yes, what is the extent of this importance? Can we go as far as to say that they are necessary for our existence as a superior and social being? If not, then why? Can the building of life i.e. our society, hold up and exist without the building blocks, the family, that held it together so firmly for thousands of years? Can the conservative family system survive the new age and its challenges? With adoptions, surrogacy, same sex marriages being legalized throughout the world, can the family exist as the one social unit, there to support the individual when he or she needs help or if they merely need some love and moral support? Why is juvenile delinquency at an all time high? With the institution of marriage going through turmoil, can the family in fact keep intact? These are but some of the questions that come to mind, and are only a few of the challenges that the family faces in this new and unfamiliar world. In all fairness, families have been and will always be very important in the lives of people. Though many people will not agree with it, but families play a central role for a human being. Humans by nature need social attachments to survive. Sure, families can have negative effects on some individuals’ lives but that doesn’t make them less important. The family, though, is no longer flourishing, and the reasons for this are not easy to pin down. Many factors of legal, social, scientific and sometimes economic nature have been thought to have played a contributing role here. These include the numerous changes that the marital and family laws have gone through over the past decades, changes in the economic policies, new welfare policies introduced by the government, and also changes in the medical and other branches of science, especially in areas related to genetics and reproduction (Almond, 2008). Families have always been an entity representing stability and support for individuals as well as society. Their importance can never be undermined. Sure, the lack of a conventional family with all its constraints does give an individual the freedom to flourish and prosper but at the same time, the lack of family can also add up to the mental strain of that individual and when things are just too much or too hot to handle, an entity that is there to support one is needed more than ever. That entity can be an individual like a parent, a child, or even a spouse. It can also be a combination or a group of those individuals. There is saying that goes something like “Home is where the heart is.” And even though the word “home” might have lost it’s real meaning with the passage of time, the importance is never lost. Humans by nature are bound to be dependent on one another. When a child is born, it cannot survive its hostile surroundings without the love and care taking of a mother, or a parent for that matter. Similarly and elderly individual needs help and support the same way a child needs it. We have old age homes these days that take care of old people, but the care and help a family provides, can never be given at those places. We don’t need to abolish the family all together. What we can do is strive for more flexible, understanding families, with no one authority figures dictating every move of each member, but a system based on equality, freedom of expression and thought and democracy. We don’t need families with rigid rules, but with rules that are flexible and adaptable with the passage of time. Families, in the end, can make and break a society. A stable family system can help cure many of the ills that the society faces these days. Denying the importance of family is like putting a blind fold on one’s eyes and stepping onto a busy road. Whether we like it or not, every one of us, at some point in our lives, feels the need for a family member to be close, to be there to love us. Ignoring this fact would not do us any good, but will turn us into a bunch of ignorant people who try to beat the simple truth and logic. If we look at the eastern countries and eastern cultures, we will find that even though they aren’t that much developed or technologically advanced, they still enjoy a healthy family life. And at the end of a hard day’s work, one comes to enjoy the love and support of their family. This makes them happy and satisfied with what little they’ve got in their lives. And its not the kind of fake and materialistic happiness one gets from buying the latest iPhone or clothes from a designer, but it’s the kind of that real happiness that helps you sleep at night and gives you satisfaction. And in my opinion, that kind of happiness is the only thing that matters in the end. References: ZEITLIN, M. F. (1995) Strengthening the family - Implications for international development. New York. United Nations University Press. STACEY, J. (1990) Brave new families. New York. Basic Books. CHEAL, D. (1993) Unity and difference in post modern families. Journal of Family Issues. 14(1), 5-19. MATTESSICH, P., AND R. HILL. 1987. "Life Cycle and Family Development." In: M.B. SUSSMAN AND S.K. STEINMETZ, eds. Handbook of Marriage and the Family. New York: Plenum Press, pp. 437-469. CETEAN-VOICULESCU, L. (1918) Family-Social Phenomenon. Romania. MILLS, C.W. 1959. The Sociological Imagination. New York: Grove Press. O'HARE, M., AND W.T. ANDERSON. 1991. "Welcome to the Postmodern World." Networker, September/October. GERGEN, K.J. 1991. "The Saturated Family." Networker, September/October. ALMOND, B. 2008. Family: social construction or natural phenomenon? Studies, Spring, pp. 29-43. Read More