AS Sociology Unit 2: The sociology of the family

Key concepts and key trends within the family:

The family- key concepts
Murdock (1949) defined the family as a social group characterized by common residence, economic cooperation and 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. Criticism of Murdock: Not al societies have nuclear families: in Southern India wives did not live with the man they married, and instead had several visiting husbands. They slept with a wife but did not live with her permanently. Each man could have several wives. So, this society did not possess a family, since fathers did not live with their children. Murdock ignores the importance of the extended family Extended families may share a common residence, or they may live apart but keep in touch. When close contacts are kept with kin even though they live apart, this is called an extended kinship network. Some families do not include two adults It is increasingly common for families to be headed by a lone-parent. In parts of the Caribbean there is a high number of female-headed families, or matrifocal families. The mothers who head these families often get strong support from female relatives that help them to cope with raising children. Some families do not have adults of both sexes In 2005 in the UK, civil partnerships for gay and lesbian couples were legalized, implying that gay and lesbian relationships are now socially accepted and their household should be regarded as families. Conclusion: Murdocks view of the universal nuclear family is not reflected in Britain today. Allan and Crow (2001) therefore argue that it has become much more difficult to define the family in Britain today, and there are now a wide variety of family types.

Nuclear family and ideology

An ideology is an idea/ set of beliefs/ vision that has an impact on members of society. In contemporary society, and particularly in the media, sociologists argue that the nuclear family is a powerful ideology. The nuclear family has traditionally been portrayed as the ideal family.

Two opposing ideological viewpoint on nuclear families in Britain can be identified: 1. New Right thinkers see the nuclear family as the ideal type of family. Morgan (1993)- the family is an institution under threat. They believe that the stability of society depends upon strong families, with a male breadwinner and a female responsible for domestic labour. 2. Postmodernists believe that individuals increasingly form chosen families where they can decide whom they choose to regard as being part of the family. Gay and lesbian relationships are accepted. The Cereal Packet image of the Family Ann Oakley (1982) marketing and advertising often tries to sell products to what is sees as a typical family. She believes that the image of the typical family presented, portrays the conventional family as nuclear families composed of legally married couples, voluntarily choosing the parenthood of one or more children. Problems with the ideology Feminists say this devalues relationships outside the family, for example in residential homes and houses shared by students. There are no arguments why living arrangements outside of conventional families should not be satisfying and fulfilling. Robert and Rhona Rapoport (1982) see greater diversity as a good thing, because it gives people more freedom to choose how to live their lives. So, any household with intimate relationships can be seen as a family regardless of the exact combination of adults and children who live within it.

Extended families
Extended families include kin in addition to the members of the nuclear family. The ideology of nuclear family suggests that in Britain today extended families are no longer very important. Key study: Young and Wilmott There was a strong bond between married daughters and their mother, who often lived close together, even if not under the same roof. This family type demonstrated close-knit extended kinship networks. 1970s- the nuclear family had become dominant, based on a strong conjugal bond between husband and wife, who had similar roles: both doing paid work and housework and childcare. It developed because: rising wages and more welfare; increased geographical mobility; improved entertainment and facilities; fewer children per couple. Criticism: Francis McGlone et al. (1996)- kin outside the family are important because they provide both practical and emotional support (e.g. advice, financial help, assistance with childcare, emotional support in times of crisis). Rising living standards, growing car ownership and technological developments make it much

easier to keep in touch. McGlone found that contacts remained frequent, with the working class having more contact with kin than the middle class.

Trends in household and family size

A household consists of one or more people using or sharing accommodation; can include unrelated people who are financially or socially independent. Between 1998 and 2008, the percentage of people in family household decreased while the percentage of people in non-family household increased. This is in line with longer-term trends: 1971-1998, one person households rose from 18% to 29% A fall in average household size from 3.1 in 1961 to 2.9 in 1971 and 2.4 in 2008, as a results of an increase in the number of one person household, an increase in the number of single parents and a decline in family size Reasons: Increasing life expectancy, resulting in an increasing number of elderly people living alone. Rising divorce rates Increased geographical mobility Rising living standards, people can afford to pay rent or mortgage with just one income Greater employment opportunities for women People become more individualistic and seek greater freedom and choice in their lives.

Trends in family size Family size is primarily affected by the birth rate and the fertility rate. The birth rate There has been a long-term decline from 1901 to 2008. Much of the decline in the birth rate has been the result of a declining fertility rate (from 3.5 in 1900 to 1.7 in 1997, though in 2009 it rose slightly to 1.94) Reasons: 1. Changes in gender roles: women choosing to have fewer children; Improved contraception from the 1960s; Easier to access abortion; Cohabiting women are less likely to have children More women in paid employment Improved education opportunities for females

Greater legal equality for women, made working more worthwhile Difficulty in combining work with the care of a large number of children in dual-earner families. 2. Falling infant mortality: the number of children dying before their first birthday per thousand live births. Rising living standards Improved hygiene and sanitation Improvements in health care Development of the welfare state Women no longer feel they need to have a large number of children to protect against the risk of infant mortality 3. Children as an economic burden In the 19th century, children were seen as an economic asset Legislation restricted the opportunities for children to work and the schooling time has gradually increased This made children economically dependent upon their parents and so they represent an economic cost 4. Changing attitudes Society is more child-centred, more concerned with the well-being of children Parents are more likely to concentrate their efforts on raising a small number of children as well as they can Linked to the process of individualisation, people make their own decisions Family households- children living with parents Not all trends led to a decline in family size. Trend: increase in the number of non-dependent children living with their parents. In 2009, 25% of men and 13% of women aged 25 to 29 were living with their parents. Travis (2009) attribute this trend to: Problems in the housing market: long term rising in property value. Particularly young adults on low incomes. The growth of higher education: after graduation and having debts, a period living with parents may be the only affordable option. Problems in the labour market: recession- shortage of employment for young people entering the labour market encouraged them to live with their parents. Age of marriage: relatively late age.

Trends in marriage and cohabitation Marriage rates falling in many Western countries. Despite a rising population, the number of marriages has decreased considerably since the 1940s.

Reason: delay in the timing of marriage; both men and women postpone their first marriage until later in life. 1996-2006, age at first marriage rose from 29.3 to 31.8 years amongst men, and from 27.2 to 29.7 yrs. amongst women. Reasons: Changing social attitudes: marriage is less desirable and living outside marriage is more acceptable Secularisation: weak commitment to marriage as an institution Increase in cohabitation Individualism

Cohabitation has increased rapidly. General Household Survey in 1979 less than 3% females were cohabiting; in 2005 more than 12%. Morgan (2003) sees rising cohabitation as part of a trend in which marriage is going out of fashion. Cohabitation represents an increase in the number of sexual partners and the frequency of partner change. Cohabiting couples stay together for a shorter time than married couples. These changes are part of a pattern of moral decline. Chandler (1993) disagrees, seeing cohabitation as a relatively stable, long-term alternative to marriage. Younger age groups are more likely to find cohabitation acceptable than older age groups. Trends in divorce, marital breakdown and remarriage Divorce the legal ending of a marriage. Separation the physical separation of spouses so that they live apart. Empty-shell marriages continue to live together and remain legally married, but the relationship has broken down. Trends in divorce: dramatical increase. Separation stats: 2001 census 2% of individuals are separated in Britain. Empty-shell marriages: very difficult to define and identify empty-shell marriages. More of them in the past than now, because divorce was more difficult to obtain. Explanations: 1. Factors affecting the value attached to marriage: Cohabitation has been increasingly accepted as alternative to marriage; Secularisation; 2. Factors affecting the degree of conflict between spouses:

Nuclear family is becoming more isolated from other kin; emotional burden for people who have little support from other relatives; The family is less likely to be an economic unit, so, easier to split up

Modernity, freedom and choice Gibson (1994) links marital breakdown to modernity. Increase in individualism and personal satisfaction through consumer choice. Marriage is treated like other consumer products, and if it is not providing satisfaction it is more likely to be discarded. The ease of divorce: More socially accepted. Secularisation Society lacks shared values Changing divorce laws: Divorce Reform Act 1971 irretrievable breakdown of marriage, divorce easier and without blame; Family Law Acts 1996 no longer any need to prove irretrievable breakdown: could simply state that the marriage broken down Less expensive to get divorced

Remarriage: people are rejecting particular marriages not the idea of marriage itself.

Trends in parenting 1. Increase in the number of lone parents: lone parent households have grown rapidly; 1971-2008 rose from 3% to 7%. Reasons: Increase in divorce Increase in the number of single, never-married parents

2. Delaying parenthood: increase in the age of women at the first birth from 23.7 in 1971 to 29.3 in 2007; average age of women giving births rose from 26.6 in 1971 to almost 30 in 2007. Reasons: Greater female participation in the labour market: career before children; Higher levels of educational achievement: more women in education. Reliable methods of contraception: women can control the timing of childbirth.

The role of the family in society:

Functionalist theories of the family
George P. Murdock the universal functions of the family: 1. The sexual function limits sexuality to monogamous relationships 2. The reproductive function new generation is vital for the survival of society 3. The economic function - economic unit, provides food and shelter 4. The educational function children are socialised into the culture of their society Parsons (1959) the basic and irreducible functions of the family: 1. Primary socialisation children internalise the norms and values of their society 2. Stabilisation of adult personalities isolated nuclear family gets little support from extended kinship networks. Working husband can be supported through the warmth and security offered by the nuclear family. Pre-industrial society extended family was the norm. Industrial society - the nuclear family developed, because: Geographical mobility Social mobility

Parsons changing functions of the family Family loses some of its functions. Structural differentiation in industrial society specialist institutions take over some of the functions of the family. Fletcher (1966) family act as a unit of consumption goods are bought for families as a whole. Criticism of functionalism: Some societies do not have traditional families Ignores dark side of the family: domestic violence, sexual abuse Feminists argue that men benefit more than women Feminists view it as patriarchal and sexist Postmodernists argue there are many viable alternatives for the nuclear family

Marxist theories of the family The bourgeoisies owned the economic base (land, capital, labour) and hence, they were able to control the other, non-economic institutions of society, which make up the superstructure (agents of socialisation, excluding workplace)

Marxist perspectives on the family: Engels (1884) men needed to be certain of the paternity of children, with marriage controlling womens sexuality. They could pass their property down to their biological offspring. Zaretsky (1976) the family helps the capitalist system. Unpaid domestic labour of housewives reproduces future generations of workers. The family consumes the capitalist goods. Provides comfort to alienated workers, enabling them to carry in working and not allowing them to reach class consciousness. Poulantzas (1969) the family is a part of the superstructure. Used by the bourgeoisies to create values, attitudes and beliefs, which support the capitalist system. David Cooper (1972) sees the family as an ideological conditioning device in which children are thought to conform to authority so they will become easily exploited workers.

Criticism of Marxism: Zaretsky the family is not so comforting for alienated workers, as it can also characterized by cruelty, neglect and violence. Not all the families are pro-capitalist and they socialise their children intro critical beliefs Feminists criticise M. for neglecting the exploitation of women; Postmodernists criticise them for ignoring the variety of family types. Functionalists believe that M. ignore the beneficial functions of the family for society.

Feminist theories of the family Radical feminism: family plays a major role in maintaining the oppression of women a patriarchal society. Greer (2000) single women are happier than married women, and this is supported by the high number of divorces instigated by women. Wives and daughters are likely to suffer physical and sexual abuse. Marxist feminism: the family benefits the bourgeoisies and in doing so exploits women. Benston (1972) wives are used to produce and rear cheap labour for employers (childcare; maintain the husband) Ansley (1972) wives suffer as a result of the frustration experienced by their alienated husbands. Liberal feminism: Somerville (2000) women are still disadvantaged in families; she criticises radical and M. feminists for failing to accept the progress made: Women have more choice about marriage and work during marriage Greater sharing of responsibilities within marriage. Most women still value relationships with men

Criticism of Feminist perspective on the family: Exaggerate the exploitation of women within the family Fail to acknowledge the increasing equality between men and women Ignoring examples where men are victims of abuse in families Do not take intro account class, ethnicity and age differences. Functionalists criticise F. for failing to acknowledge the positive contribution of the family in society. Postmodernists criticise F. for failing to acknowledge the extent to which society and family life have changed.

Family diversity
The growth of family diversity
Family diversity in any one era, no particular type of family is dominant or can be considered the norm. Robert and Rhona Rapoport (1982) were the first British sociologists to point out that nuclear family household have become a minority in Britain. Household types increasing 1971-2008:

One person household under the state pension age One person household over state pension age Couple-only household Lone parent households with dependent children Lone parent household with non-dependent children

Family types decreasing 1971-2008: One family households with 1-2 dependent children One family households with 3 or more dependent children One family households with non-dependent children Households with 2 or more unrelated adults

These changes show an increase in the proportion of non-nuclear families. Types of diversity (According to the Rapoports); 1. Organisational diversity variations in family structure, household type, kinship network and the division of labour (eg. Lone-parent families, dual-earner families, cohabiting couples, reconstituted families) 2. Cultural diversity different lifestyles: ethnicity, national or religious backgrounds 3. Class diversity upper, middle or working class origin 4. Stage in life cycle newly married, couples with dependent children, etc. 5. Cohort diversity a group of people born over the same period of time. Reasons for diversification (According to Allen and Crow (2001)): A rising divorce rate An increase in lone-parent households Cohabitation Rise in the number of stepfamilies More reconstituted families

New types of diversity: due to liberalisation in attitudes to sexuality and new reproductive technologies Sexual diversity Beanpole families weak intragenerational ties (between brothers, sisters and cousins), but strong intergenerational ties (parents, children, grandparents and grandchildren)

Diversity and the decline of conventional families Key study: Young et al. (2006) family patterns where working-class residents lived in nuclear families with strong kinship links had largely disappeared. They have been replaced by individualism: cohabitation, divorce, separation and lone parenthood become more common. Almond (2006) claimed that the family is fragmenting and is more concerned with the needs of adult members than creating a stable unit in which children can be raised. The above mention idea has been challenged by Chester (1985). Stats used to support the idea of increasing diversity can be misleading, as they are usually based upon the proportion of households of different types and not the proportion of people living in different types of household. Nuclear families tend to be larger than the other households (at least 2 adults and one child). He concluded that people still live in nuclear families for much of their lives. Cultural diversity: diversity in family types that result from differences in lifestyle or culture. Religious and ethnic diversity: Can affect the likelihood of marriage and having dependent children Can affect family size (disapproval of contraception by the Roman Catholic Church)

Ethnicity and diversity: Stats: In 2001, 8% of white and 7% of Black-Caribbean household were headed by an unmarried, cohabiting couple, compared with just 2% of British 23% of Black-Caribbean households consist of lone-parents families May be linked to religion, nationality and other aspects of culture such as language and lifestyle As a result of migration. The largest minority ethnic groups are South Asians and African-Caribbean Adding to the diversity of family types as they have distinctive family patterns or lifestyles.

Black-Caribbean lone-parents are much more likely to be single than Bangladeshi lone parents 71% of Black-Caribbean adults are single (never married)

Bhatti (1999) Asian families in southern England have a strong emphasis on family loyalty and on trying to maintain traditional family practices. Traditional roles: breadwinner and housewife. Asian families add to diversity by maintaining traditional, nuclear families, but with very strong extended kinship networks and a strong sense of mutual obligation. African-Caribbean families: Fewer long-term relationships More likely to have children outside marriage Above average rates of divorce and separation Siblings play a significant part in bringing up younger brothers and sisters; women are likely to assist sisters in bringing up children Very diverse: nuclear families, female-headed families, visiting relationships. 23% of Black-Caribbeans live in single-parent families headed by a woman, called matrifocal families.

Ethnic minorities do continue to add to the diversity of family life, though there is a limit. Family diversity and lone parenthood: increase of 4% from 1971-2008. Reasons (According to Allan and Crow): 1. Increase in marital breakdown (particularly divorce) 2. Rise in births to unmarried mothers Because of Divorce being more accepted and more choice in family life Morgan (1994) greater equality between sexes, easier for women to bring up children on their own; more employment opportunities for women, so they are not dependent upon men; Morgan (1994) much less stigma is attached to illegitimacy; unmarried couples do not think it is necessary to legitimise a birth by marriage. Murray (1999) over-generous welfare system makes it possible for lone parents to live on benefits. He sees the lone parents as part of the underclass. Allan and Crow (2001) most of lone mothers find a new partner within a few years and do not rely upon benefits throughout their childrens childhood. Supported by the Department for Work and Pensions (2004)

Effects of lone parenthood: Greater chance of living in poverty. Rowntree Foundation (1999) children from lone-parent families were more likely to worry about having too little income than children from 2-parent families. Any negative effect are more the result of low income than the lack of 2 parents Burghes (1996) negative educational effects caused by family instability (divorce) rather than lone parenthood Cashmore (1985) having one parent may be better, if the absent parent is abusive or violent

Lone parenthood adds to the diversity of family life in UK. Few lone parents bring up children on their own choice and many find a new partner or would like to do so. Morgan (1994) there are probably some negative effects of lone parenthood but most of the apparent effects are the results of low income or other factors. Social class and diversity Statistical difference between middle and working class (Reid, 1999) W.C. are likely to marry earlier Higher divorce rates in W.C. Husbands more likely to remarry than wives in M.C.; W.C. all the way round W.C. women likely to have children at an early age Stronger extended kinship networks in W.C. M.C. more geographically mobile New individualism, both middle and working class families are diverse M.C. more child-centred, Feinstein (2003) Blackstone and Mortimore (1994) W.C. parents are interested in their childrens education, but it is more difficult for them to take an active role, because of lack of knowledge, time and money Bourdieu (1984) cultural differences between classes are the result of material inequality, difference in the opportunities, life chances.

Family diversity and modernity Max Weber (1920) modernity was based upon rationality. Giddens (1992) intimate relationships have changed with modernity. Romantic love, marriage became more than an economic arrangement Plastic sexuality has developed (sex for pleasure, marriage not necessary)

Confluent love- partners benefiting from the relationship, divorce is more common, as partners are not satisfied by the relationship they have.

Beck and Beck-Gernsheim (1995) individualisation is the main characteristic of modern life. More freedom of choice (especially for women) Little security at work, people seek emotional security in families No generally accepted formula for love, relationships or family life Conflict resulting from the increased choice and pressure of work life Increased uncertainty leading to chaotic personal relationships and high divorce rates.

Beck sees these changes as part of the development of a risk society. Postmodernity, diversity and the family Lack of belief in political ideologies such as Marxism and even a lack of belief in traditional views on marriage and family life Freedom to choose from a vast range of identities and lifestyles Social class and traditional gender roles become less important Media-saturated society New technology and globalisation of social life Stacey (1996): postmodern family has developed in the USA. Varied in the structure and form they take Constantly changing No set structure that is regarded as the ideal. In case of homosexual relationships, family relationships have to be negotiated between the members. This makes these relationships more nurturing for children than heterosexual relationships. Increasing diversity within gay and lesbian relationships. Key study: in Silicon Valley, typical post-industrial and postmodern region. Pam and Dotty married to manual workers started courses at a local college and got an insight into feminist ideas Both divorced and started a career Pam started a degree and remarried a man; created an unusual extended kinship network with her ex-husband; Dotty took back her husband after he had suffered a heart a attack; when he and her adult children died, she formed a new household: her surviving daughter and 4 grandchildren; They demonstrate the fluid and constantly changing family and household structures, typical for postmodernity. Evaluation: Research based on a very small sample

Exaggerates the degree of fluidity and uncertainty by picking untypical examples Underestimates the continuing appeal of heterosexual nuclear families. The New Right and family diversity: increasing diversity reflects declining moral values. Traditional nuclear families are the cornerstone of stability in society They encourage self-reliance family members help each other, rather then relying on the state This helps reduce state expenditure on welfare They encourage shared moral values and they are the best way to pass down morality to children N.R. do not believe that the family is a stable institution performing certain functions for society. They see it increasingly unstable, leading to increase in social problems. Thatcher introduced laws and regulations to support and protect nuclear families Abbott and Wallace (1992) some of Thatchers policies encouraged people to live outside the traditional nuclear family (eg. Easier to get divorced, welfare payments for single mothers, illegitimate children had the same rights as those born to married couples). Morgan (2003) decline in the traditional nuclear family because of the increase in diversity. Key study: Increase in cohabitation Increase in the nr of children born outside marriage Increase in divorce rates Cohabitation more unstable than marriage, couples more likely to split up Decline in fertility rate Increase in the nr of one-person household

Criticism: Rapoport (1989) diversity gives people freedom to live in the household or family type that best suits them NR thinkers exaggerate the extent to which family life has changed Feminists- increase in divorce and lone parenthood can be beneficial for women escaping violent, abusive or exploitative relationships with men Postmodernists declining dominance of nuclear families is part of wider changes in society that are in some ways desirable.