1/15/03
Introduction to Sociology of the Family
Cherlin points out that Americans are ambivalent toward marriage and family. Most Americans prefer marriage and raising children within a marriage. However, more Americans than ever before tolerate the unmarried and other lifestyles.
Factors contributing to ambivalence and postponement of marriage
Increasing investment by young women in labor market
Decline in young men's earning power.
Greater acceptance of premarital sex
Increase in cohabitation
Advances in contraception
Greater cultural emphasis on personal fulfillment.
Sociology of family - what does this mean?
Sociology - study of the behavior of groups as simple as the interaction of two people - as complex as the whole of society.
How do we define family?
Why do we need to define it ? Definitions will affect economics, power, status, self-esteem. A unit defined as a family may be in line to receive such benefits as housing, health care, and sick leave, not to mention legitimate recognition within its community. Those who fall outside the definition, however, are not only ineligible for such benefits but their relationships may be treated by some as illegitimate, inappropriate, or immoral as well.
At the societal level, our beliefs about what a family is determine our beliefs about what is isn’t. Our ideas about which family forms are acceptable, normal, desirable, and praiseworthy, determine which are considered abnormal, problematic, and in need of fixing or condemnation.
Throughout the United States, government is grappling with the problem of how to define family and kinship relationships. What is a family? What is a spouse? What is a parent?
Nationwide poll - Roper Poll - 98% of respondents identified a married couple living with their children as a family’ 54% identified an unmarried man and woman who’ve lived together for a long time as a family; 27% felt a lesbian couple raising children was a family; and 20% felt two gay men committed to each other and living together constituted a family.
The official Census definition of family - Households are defined as all persons who occupy a dwelling such as a house, an apartment, single room, or other space intended to be living quarters. They can consists of one person who lives alone or several people living together. A family, on the other hand, is defined s two or more persons who are related by blood, marriage, or adoption and who live together as one household.
The sociological perspective recognizes that the family is a social institution whose major functions are rearing of children, caring for elderly and providing comfort and emotional support to its members. The sociological perspective looks at the effects of external forces on the family.
Sociologically speaking families contain not only individuals but relationships: husband-wife, parent-child, brother, sister, and so on. These relationships imply connections, bonds, attachments and obligations between people, and they combine to form a type of social group. But the groups we call families are different from other types of social groups, such as friendship groups, church groups, and so on.
Differences - the intensity of involvement
The range of activities we share with family members is much broader than contacts with friends.
Another big difference is that families last for a considerably longer period of time than do most other social groups. The strong prospect for future interaction gives families a history and tradition rarely found in other groups. - family ties are not easily severed.
More than most other social groups, the family is also considered a social institution within the larger society. To be a member of a family group means more than simply being connected to other individuals. It also means having certain legal and culturally recognizable rights and responsibilities, which are spelled out in he formal laws of the state and in the informal norms of custom and tradition.
Cherlin points out that we can view the family in two ways:
The public family which focuses on caretaking of dependents.
The private family which focuses on intimacy, commitment, support, and pooling of resources.
Recognition of diversity in American families
Breadwinner-homemaker model no longer dominant family form.
Other family types include single-parent, remarried families, two-earner families.
Increasing demographic diversity introduces new cultural norms, particularly from Latin America, Asia, and from changing family structure among African Americans.
Judging from the strong emotions evoked by debates over the definition of family, it’s clear that family is important not just for what it looks like but what it symbolizes. Many people strongly believe that as the family goes, so goes the country. In American society the idea of family has become a powerful symbol of decency.
Contrasting viewpoints on marriage and family
Optimistic view -
Shared by political liberals
Views family as changing but not in danger.
Focuses on better relationships between adults, greater autonomy for women, ability to leave abuse relationships, and greater personal independence.
Solutions center on greater government effort in helping U.S. citizens.
Pessimistic view
Usually shared by political conservatives
Views family as in great trouble.
Focuses on instability and on children.
Solutions center on lessening government intervention.
How are we to study it? -
Theoretical Perspectives on Family
Sociobiology (also know in its newer form as Evolutionary Psychology) - Some theorists focus on the biological imperatives that underlie human family relationships. We are endowed by nature with a desire to ensure that our genetic material is passed on to future generations. In order to accomplish this, men and women use different reproductive strategies. Women will seek 1 partner, the most capable male to be the father of their children, who will protect her and her children. Most likely, she will seek older males than herself because; an older male will be more stable partner. The male’s reproductive strategy is to produce as many children as possible. Therefore they will seek more than one partner and will seek women younger than themselves. Therefore, the socio biologist will say that infidelity is more tolerated by women than men; that women look for older, richer, more educated men. That is natural for men not to be faithful and to marry younger women, etc. This biological imperative then is basis for social relations in the family.
Structural Functionalism – Other sociologists see families as essential for survival not because they ensure genetic fitness but because they serve as an individual’s primary source of emotional and practical training. This perspective emphasizes how a society is structured to maintain its stability. Structural functionalism says that in preindustrial society, women because of their child bearing and rearing responsibilities stayed near the campsite and therefore, assumed responsibility for domestic tasks. Men, because they were not intimately, involved in raising the children, became hunters and therefor protectors of the family. This specialization of roles between mothers and fathers is still viable in industrial societies. Women provide the emotional support for children and husbands (this is called the expressive role) and therefore assume the domestic tasks. Men assume the instrumental role – they go out to work and provide income for the family. They interact with the outside world. These roles for men and women should be mutually exclusive
Conflict Perspective – examines society not in terms of stability and agreement but in terms of conflict and struggle. The focus is not on how all the elements of society contribute to its smooth operation and continued existence but on how social structure promotes divisions and inequalities between groups. Social order then arises not from the societal pursuit of harmony but from dominance and coercion. Political, religious, educational, and economic institutions foster and legitimate the power and privilege of some individuals or groups at the expense of others. The key question that the conflict perspective asks is, Who benefits from and who is disadvantaged by particular social arrangements?
Conflict sociologists see families as a small version of such a society in which relationships and expectations benefit some members more than others. They are particularly likely to focus on the link between families and larger systems of political and economic inequality. For example, how does racial discrimination in education and employment affect family life? How does a family’s position in the class structure affect its ability to act on its own behalf?
Inequality can also exist within a particular family. The well being of one family member sometimes results from the oppression and exploitation of another. Family relations can be characterized by a competitive struggle to control scarce social, emotional and economic resources within a family.
Feminist perspective – A version of conflict theory. This approach attempts to explain women’s subordination in families by arguing that men’s dominance within families is part of a wider system of male domination. The way gender is defined and expressed in families is linked to the way its defined and expressed in the larger society. For instance women have traditionally been encouraged to perform unpaid household labor and child care duties while men have been free to devote their energy and attention to earning money and power in the economic marketplace. Women’s wages when they do work are often justified by the assumption that their paid labor is secondary to that of their husbands.
But the oppression of women exists not just in specific household arrangements but in the ideology of family.
Social Exchange Theory
Like the conflict perspective, social exchange theory uses the principles of economics to explain family experiences. But it pays special attention to the way people make decisions and choices. In particular, it focuses on why we are attracted to some people and not others, and why we pursue and remain in some relationships and avoid or leave others.
This theory assumes that the same forces that drive economic marketplaces motivate humans: a desire to maximize rewards (profits) and minimize costs. Rewards can assume many forms: money desired goods and services, attention, status, prestige, approval by others and so on.
When applied to intimacy, this fundamental premise implies that those relationships that are the most “profitable” to both partners will be the most satisfying and the most likely to last.
Social exchange theory also directs our attention to people’s expectations. These expectations are derived from past experiences. We judge the attractiveness of the outcomes we receive in present relationships by comparing them to outcomes we’ve received in previous ones.
We also compare the attractiveness of a present relationship to the kinds of profits we think are available in an alternative relationship. …When people feel that they have few or no alternatives, they tend to stay in their relationship, even if it is far from satisfying.
Cherlin points out further that modification to the exchange perspective focuses on different bargaining positions of the actors in the exchange.
Symbolic Interactionism
Also called the interactionist perspective
The interactionist model is based on the assumption that society is created and maintained through the interaction of its members and how its members define reality. In this sense, reality is what members agree to be reality.
W.I. Thomas - A situation defined as real is real in its consequences.
An ongoing process of social interaction in specific settings based on symbolic communication. Individual perceptions of reality are variable and changing. Communication is the main feature of symbolic interactionism.
This perspective attempts to understand society and social structure through an examination of the personal day-today interactions of people as individuals, pairs, or groups. These forms of interaction take place within a world of symbolic communication. The symbols we use- language, gestures, posture, and so on – are influenced by the larger group or society to which we belong. When we interact with others, we constantly attempt to interpret what they men and what they’re up to. Most human behavior is determined not by the objective facts of a given situation but by the subjective meanings people attach to it.
This perspective presents an image of family as a reality that must be negotiated. In sum, although all families consist of identifiable statuses, roles, and norms, each individual family adapts these structural features to its own everyday experiences. The reality of family life is not fixed and inevitable it is created, sustained, and changed through the day-to-day interactions that place among members.
The symbolic interactionist perspective is useful in analyzing family relations.
Our perceptions and expectations of families tend to be highly subjective because they are based more on cultural ideals and myths than knowledge.
Our objectivity is obscured by:
1. Our own experiences - We think we know what family is because we live in one. But individual family life is camouflaged in many ways
Individuals can have misconceptions about their own families.
Why ? Families have myths, secrets, and information-processing rules (what can be said and not be said)
Examples - don’t talk about Uncle Bob- the alcoholic
Was my grandmother pregnant before she married?
R.D. Laing “mystification” - the deliberate misdefinition of family matters or ‘ complicated stratagems to keep everyone in the dark.” Family life can become mystified as one individual defines reality in order to suit his or her own purposes and in so doing negates the needs of other family members.
Examples - this discovery came from working with schizophrenics. But when “normal” families were observed together the same mystification was in operation. That’s why you do family therapy.
2.Secrecy - Goffman’s “backstage” - we have a backstage view of our own families but we judge others only in terms of the front of the stage. This gap between public norms and private behavior can be wide - marital relationships tend to be even more private and invisible than those between parents and children.
3.Idealized myths/ images about family - At least 3 distinct images of family can be identified in American society. Understand what these images and myths are.
Images – (Baca Zinn and Eitzen)
Family as a Haven (emerged during industrialization) – This image revolves around the themes of love and protection, delineating dual roles for father and mother. This image has two distinct themes: love and protection. The sentimentalized notion of the family as a refuge from the cruel world reached its fullest expression in the Victorian period. The family was idealized as a repository of warmth and tenderness (embodied by the mother) standing in opposition to the competitive and aggressive world of commerce (embodied by the father). The family’s task was to protect against the outside world.
Family as Fulfillment (in the 1930s-40s)
Protective image of the family has been replaced by a compensatory image. Family provides needs unattainable through other social arrangements. Family members can find self-fulfillment and enjoyment through their joint activities. Fun vs. duty
Family as an Encumbrance (1960s-1970s) – The compensatory image of family has given rise to a negative image. Family relationships, including monogamy and the responsibilities of child-rearing are often viewed as inhibiting personal freedom and full human development.
Some of our myths regarding family:
The Myth of a Stable and Harmonious Family of the Past
The popular wisdom that we are witnessing a breakdown of the family is based on a stubborn myth that the family of the past was better than the family of the present. Families of past times are thought to have been more stable, better adjusted, and happier. Added to this myth is the belief that there were three generations living under one roof or in very close proximity. The reality of past family life was quite different.
The Myth of Separate Worlds – Since industrialization, the belief has existed that work and family roles operate independently of each other. This myth creates the notion that the family is a refuge from a cold and competitive world. It presumes that there are sharp boundaries between the family and the rest of society. And it assumes that families are freestanding, independent, self-sufficient units relatively free from social pressures. See Newman’s discussion on privacy that adds insight regarding this myth.
The Myth of the Monolithic Family Form - (Assumption of the Universal Nuclear Family)
The idealization of family life in society has given rise to a popular conception of the “typical” American family, a structure that is rigidly fixed and uniform. The image is a middle-class, monogamous, father at work, mother and children at home family living in a one-family house. This model now accounts for only approximately 10% of all U.S. families.
The Myth of Undifferentiated Family Experience – The assumption is that all family members have common needs, common interest, and common experiences. Recent research has uncovered differences even among members officially participating in the same families. Diversity can be found not only among families of different racial and ethnic background or families representing different socio-economic strata, but also among different categories of people within families. Example, Jessie Bernard’s work on “His” and “Her” Marriage.
The Myth of Family Consensus (Assumption of Family Harmony)
The idealized picture of family life is flawed in its assumption that families operate on the principles of harmony and love. This myth neglects the many contradictions that are intrinsic to family life. These contradictions stem from two conditions: 1. The power relations within the family and 2 the intense emotional quality of family life.
The Assumption of Parental Determinism – This myth assumes the complete power of the parents in the socialization of their children. Although there is no doubt that parents are very significant socialization agents in the child’s formative years, there is some debate concerning the degree of their influence over the child. The question is, is parental influence overwhelmingly dominant or is that influence only part of a larger network of influences, such as the educational process, peers, and other structures such as class
The Myth of Family Breakdown as the Cause of Social of Social Problems – Some the increase in fatherless families, is the primary cause of contemporary social problems. This claim is flawed in two respects: first, it treats the family as a causal agent, rather than a reflection of social conditions; second, it ignores structural reasons for family breakdown.
|
|
