CHAPTER
8
Families and households It is no longer possible to pronounce in some binding way whatt family wha family,, ma marriag rriage, e, par paren entho thood od,, sexuality or lo love ve mean mean,, what they they should or could could be; be; ra rather ther these vary in substance, substance, norms and morality from individual to individual and from Beck ck and and Beck-G Beck-Ger ernshe nsheim, im, 1995 relationship to relationship. Be
460 Is the family universal? 462 The family – a functionalist perspective 464 Marxist perspectives on the family 465 Feminist perspectives on the family 466 Marxist feminist perspectives on the family 467 Radical feminist perspectives on the family 470 Di Difference fference feminism feminism 473 The family family,, indus industt r ializa ializatt ion and and modernizat modernizat ion 482 Family diversity 495 The changing functions of the family 497 Conjugal roles 501 Ma Marr r iage, ma marr itita al brea breakdown kdown and family family decline 508 The family family,, polit ics and and social social policy 512 Families, milies,modernit modernit y and postmoder postmodernit nity y
459
Introduction The family has often been regarded as the cornerstone of society ociety.. In premoder premo dern n and modern mode rn societies alike alike it has been seen as the most basic unit of social organization and one which carr carries ies out vital tasks, tasks, such as socializing socializing children. Until the 1960s few sociologists questioned the importance impor tance or the benefits of family family life life.. Most sociologists sociologists assumed that family life was evolving as modernity progresssed, and that the changes inv progres involved olved made the family better suited to meeting the needs of society and of family memberss. A particu member particular lar type of famil family y, the nuclear family (based around a two-generation household of parents and their children), was seen as well well adapted adapted to t o the th e demands of modern societies. From the 1960s 1960s, an increas increasing ing number of critical critical thinkers began to question the assumption that the family was necess necessarily arily a beneficial beneficial institution. institution . Feminis Feminists, ts, Marxis Marxists ts and critical psychologists began to highlight what they saw sa w as some some of the negative effects and and the t he ‘dark ‘dark side’ of family life. In the following decades the family was not just under attack from academic academic writ w riters. ers. Socia Sociall changes als also o seemed to be undermining un dermining traditional traditional famili families es.. R is ising ing divorc divorcee rates,, cohabita rates cohabitation tion bef before ore marriage m arriage,, increa increassing numbers of single-parent families and single-per single-per son households ho useholds,, and other trends all suggested that individuals were basing their lives less and less around conventional families. Some have seen these changes as a symptom of greater individualis individua lism m within modern societies societies.. Th They ey hav havee welcomed what appears to be an increasing range of choice for individuals. individuals. People no longer hav h avee to base their liv li ves around around what may be outmoded and, for many, unsuitab uns uitable le conv conventional fa famil mily y structures structures.. O thers thers,, however, howev er, hav havee lamented the chang changes es and and wor ried about their eff e ffect ect on society ociety.. Such changes are seen seen as both a symptom and a cause of instability and insecurity in people’s lives and in society as a whole.This view has been held by traditionalists who want a return to the ideal of the nuclear nu clear family family. For them, many of society’ ociety’ss problems are a result of increased family instability. Some postmodernists argue that there has been a fundamental break between the modern family and the postmodern family.They deny that any one type of family can be held up as the norm against which other family types can be compared. While modern moder n societies societies might might havee had one central, hav central, dominant family family type, this is no longer the case. case. As a result, result, it is no longer poss possibl iblee to produce a theory theor y of ‘the family’ family’.. Different explanations explanations are needed for different types of family. Alongside these developments in society and sociology, family life has become a topic of political debate.What was once largely seen as a private private sphere, in which politicians p oliticians shou hould ld not interfere, int erfere, is now seen as a legitimate legitimate area for for public debate and political action action.. As concer n has grown in
C H A P T E R 8
F a m i l i e s a n d h o u s e h o l d s
460
S o c i o l o g y
some quarter qu arterss about the t he alleged decline decline of the family, family, politicians have become somewhat more willing to comment on families.. Sometimes they have devis families devised ed policies to try tr y to deal with perceived problems surrounding the family. In short, the family family has has come to be seen seen as more problematic than it was in the past.The controversies that have come to surround families and households are the subject of this chapter chapter.. We begin by examining examining the assumptio as sumption n of the th e ‘universality’ of the family. family.
member s of the same generation as the spouses, members spouses, such as the hus hu sband’ band’ss broth brother er or an addition additional al wife. Th Thus us the functionalist sociologists Bell and Vogel define the extended extende d family as‘a ‘any ny grouping groupin g broader than t han the t he nuclear n uclear family famil y which is related related by descent, descent, marr marriage iage or adoption’. Either on its own or as the basic unit within an extended extende d family family,, Murdo Murdock ck foun found d that the nuclear famil family y was present in every society in his sample.This led him to conclude:
The nuclear family is a universal human social grouping. T Either as the sole prevailing form of the family or as the h basic unit from which more complex forms are e compounded, compounde d, it exists as a distinct and strongly funct functional ional m 1949 9 group in every known society. Murdock, 194 e H owev owever, er, as we will discover discover in the foll following owing sections, s Murdock’s conclusions might not be well founded. a n d Kat hleen Gough Kathleen Gough – the N ayar P e George Peter Murdock:the family Some societies have sets of relationships between kin r which are quite different from those which are common in s p – a universal social institution Britain. O ne such society society was that of the N ay ayar ar of Kerala Kerala e In a study entitled Social Structure (1 (1949 949), ), Georg Georgee Peter in south southern ern India, I ndia, prior to British rule being establ establis ished hed in c Murdock examined the institution of the family in a wide 1792. Sociol Sociologis ogists ts disagree disagree about whether w hether this society society had t of societies ocieties.. Murdock took a sample sample of 250 a family family sys system tem or o r not, not , and thus whether or not n ot it dis disprov proves es i v range small hun hunting ting and gathering gatherin g bands Murdock’s claim that the family is universal. e societies, ranging from small s to large-scale large-scale industr industrial ial societies. H e claimed claimed that some some Kathleen Gough (1959) provided a detailed description
Is the family universal?
form of o f family family exis existed ted in every society society,, and concluded, on the evidence of his sample, sample, that the t he family is univers universal. al. Murdock defined the family as follows: The family is a social group characterized by common residence, reside nce, eco economic nomic cooperation cooperation and reproduction. It includes adults of both bot h sexes sexes,, at leas l eastt two of whom maintain maint ain a socially socially approved sexual sexual relationship, and one or more children, children, ow own n or adopted, of the t he sexua sexually lly 1949 9 cohabiting adults. Murdock, 194
T hus the family lives lives together, pools its res resources ources and works together, and produces offs offsprin pring. g.At At leas least two of the adult members conduct a sexual relationship according to the norms of their particular society. Such nor ms vary vary from from society to society ociety.. For example, among the Banaro Banaro of New Guinea, the husband husband does not have sexual relations with his wife until she has borne a child by a frien friend d of his father. Th Thee parent–child relationship hip,, theref therefore ore,, is not necess necessaril arily y a biol biologi ogica call one. one. Its importance impor tance is prim primarily arily social, social, children being recognized recognized as members of a particular family whether or not the adult spouses have biologically produced them.
Variations in family structure
of Nay N ayar ar society society.. Bef Before ore puberty pube rty all Nayar Nayar girls were ritually married to a suitable Nayar man in the tali rite. After Af ter the th e ritual r itual marr marria iage ge had taken taken place, place, howev however, er, the tali husband husb and did not li liv ve with his wife, wife, and was was under no obligation obliga tion to ha h ave any cont contact act with her whatsoever. whatsoever. T he wife owed only one duty to her tali husb husband: and: she had to attend his funeral to mourn his death. Once a Nayar girl reached or neared puberty she began to take a number number of visiting visiting husbands husbands,, or sandbanham husbands.T husbands .The he N ay ayar ar men were usually usually profess professional warriors warr iors who spent long periods of time away from their villages acting as as mercenaries. Du During ring their th eir time in the th e villages villages they were allowed to visit any number of Nayar women who had undergone the tali rite and who were members of the same caste cas te as themselv themselves es,, or a lower cas caste. With the agreement agreemen t of the woman involv involved, the sandbanham husband arriv arr ived ed at the home h ome of one of o f his wives af after ter supper, had sexual sexual intercoursee with her, and left intercours left before breakfa breakfasst the th e next morning. mor ning. Du Durin ring g his stay he placed his weapons out outsside the building to show the other sandbanham husbands that he was there. If they arr arriv ived ed too late, then they th ey were were free free to sleep sleep on the th e veranda, veranda, but could not sta tay y the night with their wife. wife. Men could hav havee unlimited unlimited numbers of sandbanham wiv wives es,, al although though women seem to hav havee been limited to no more than twelve visiting husbands.
The structure of the family varies from society to society. The smallest family unit is known as the nuclear family An exception to the family? and consists of a husband and wife and their immature Sandbanham relationships were unlike marriages in most offsprin offs pring. g. U nits larger larger than the t he nuclear nu clear family family are are usually usually societies in a number of ways: known as extended families. Such families families can be seen seen as extens extensions ions of the basic basic nuclear nuclear unit, either vertical lifelong union: either party could 1 They were not a lifelong example,, the addition of members of a terminate the relationship at any time. extensions – for example 2 Sandbanham husbands had no duty towards the third generation such such as the spous spouses es’’ par parents ents – and/ or horizontal extensions – for for example example,, the addition addition of offsspring of their wives off wives.. When a woman became became
pregnant, it was ess essential according to N ay ayar ar custom custom that a man m an of appropriate cas caste te declared himself to be the father of the child by paying a fee of cloth and vegetables to the midwife who attended the birth. H owe owev ver, it mattered little little whether or o r not he was the biological parent, so long as someon omeonee claimed claimed to be the father, father, beca becaus usee he did not help to maintain maintain or socialize the child. 3 Husbands and wives did not form an economic unit. Although husbands might give wives token gifts, they were not expected to maintain them – indeed, it was fr frowned owned upon if they attempted attempted to. Ins Instead, tead,the the economic unit consisted of a number of brothers and sis isters, ters, sis isters’ ters’child children, ren, and their th eir daughters’child daughters’ children. ren. The eldest male was the leader of each group of kin.
Support for M urd urdoc ock k
Supporters of Murdock could argue that the matrifocal family usually makes up a minority of families and is not regarded as the norm in any of the societies mentioned above abo ve.. Further Furthermore, more, matrifoca matrifocall famili families es could could be seen as the result of nuclear families breaking down rather than being an alternative family form which is valued and which people aspire to. However, Howev er, ev even en if matrifocal matrifocal famil families ies are in the minor ity ity,, this does not neces n ecesssarily mean that they cannot be recognized as an alter alternative native family family stru tructure. cture. In many societies which practis pr actisee polygyny, polygy polygynou nouss marr marriag iages es are in the minor ity ity,, yet sociologists sociologists accept them as a form of extended family. Members of matrifocal families regard the unit as a N ayar society society, then, was a matrilineal society ociety.. Kins Kinship hip fa family mily and, and, fr from om her Wes Westt Indian I ndian data, data, Gonzál González ez (1970) (1970) groupings were based on female biological relatives and argues that the female-headed family is a well-organized marriage played no significant part in the formation of social group which represents a positive adaptation to the households,, in the social households ocializing izing of children, children, or in the way that circ circums umstances tances of poverty poverty.. By not tying herself herself to a the economic needs of the members of society were met. husband, the mother mot her is abl ablee to maintain casual casual relationrelationIn ter ms of Murdo Murdock’ ck’ss definition, no family existed existed in ships with a number of men who can provide her with N ay ayar ar society society,, since those th ose who maintained maint ained ‘a sexually fi financia nanciall support support.. She retains retains strong links with her approv appr oved ed adult relations relationship’ hip’ did not li liv ve together and rela relativ tives es,, who give give her both economic and emotional cooperate economicall economically y. O nly the women lived lived with the support. children. child ren. Therefore, either Murdock’s def definition inition of the The above arguments suggest that the matrifocal family famil y is too narrow narrow,, or the t he family is not universa universal. l. family can be regarded as a form of family structure in Gough claimed claimed that marr ia iage ge,, and by implica implication tion the th e its own right. right. If thes thesee arguments arguments ar aree accep accepted, ted, it is family fa mily, exis existed ted in N aya yarr society society.. In order to mak makee this possible to see the matrifocal family as the basic, clai cl aim, m, though, she had had to broa broaden den her her def definiti inition on of minimum family unit and all other family structures as marriage beyond that implied in Murdock’s definition of additions to this unit. the famil family y. She defined marr iage as as a relationship relationship between a woman and one or more persons in which a child born The female-carer core to the t he woman ‘is ‘is giv given en full birth- status rights’commo rights’ common n to normal members of the society. This Th is view view is suppor supported ted by Yanina Sheeran. She argues that the female-carer core is the most basic family unit:
Matrifocal families – an exception to the rule? Murdock’s definition of the family includes at least one adultt of each adul each sex. sex. Howev However, er, both today and and in the past, past, some children have been raised in households that do not contain adults of both sexes sexes.. U sually these households have been headed by women. A significant proportion of black families in the islands of the Wes Westt Indies Indies,, parts of Central America America such such as Guyana, Guya na, and the USA do not include adult adult males males.. The ‘family unit’often consists of a woman and her dependent children, child ren, sometimes with the addi addition tion of her mother.T moth er.This his may indicate that the family is not universal as Murdock sugges uggests, ts, or that t hat it is necessary necessary to redefine the famil family y and state that t hat the th e minimal min imal family family unit consis consists ts of a woman and her dependent children, children, own or adopted, and that all all other family types are additions to this unit. Female-headed families are sometimes known as matriarchal families and sometimes as matrifocal families famil ies,, although both bo th of o f these these terms ter ms have have been used in a number of senses.We will use the term ‘matrifocal family’ here to refer to female-headed families. Can we then see the matrifocal family as an exception to Murdock’ M urdock’ss clai claim m that the t he family is universa universal, l, or, if it is accepted as a family family,, as an exception to his h is claim claim that the th e nuclear family is a universal social group?
The female-carer unit is the foundation of the single- mother family, the two-parent two-parent family f amily,, and the extended extended family in its many forms.Thus it is certainly the basis of familyy house famil household hold life in Britain Brit ain today, and is a ubiquitous phenomenon, since eve even n in Sout South h Pacifi acificc longhouses longhouses,, pr pre- e- industr indus trial ial farms farm steads teads,, co communes mmunes and Kibbutzim, we know that female carers predominate. Sheeran, 1993 In Britain, for example, example, Sheeran maintains maintains that children usually have one woman who is primarily responsible for their care. Th Thes esee primary prim ary carers are often but not al alway wayss the biological biological mother; they may may ‘occa ‘occassionall ionally y be a grandmother gra ndmother,, eld elder er sis sister ter,, aunt, ad adoptiv optivee mother or other female’. Sheeran seems to be on strong ground in arguing that a female-carer core is a more basic family unit than that identified by Murdo Murdock, ck, since in some some societies famil families ies without an adult adult male male are are quite common. Howev However, er, she herself admits that in Britain a small minority of loneparent households are headed by a man.Thus it is possible to argue that the female-carer core is not the basis of every individual individu al family family,, even if it is the bas b asis is of most families in all societies. Matrifoca Matr ifocall families families,, and one- parent families in general, are becoming more common in Britain.We will consider the significance of this development later in this chapter (see (s ee pp. pp. 485–8).
461
C H A P T E R 8
F a m i l i e s a n d h o u s e h o l d s
462
S o c i o l o g y
T h e m e s a n d P e r s p e c t i v e s
Gay families Another type of household that may contradict Murdock’s claims clai ms about the t he univers u niversality ality of the family, family, as defined by him, is the gay gay or les lesbia bian n household. household. By defi definition, nition, such housseholds will not cont hou contain ain ‘a ‘adults dults of both sexes exes,, at least least two of whom wh om maintain a socially socially approved approved sexual relation relation-ship’ (Murd (Murdock, ock, 194 1949) 9).. Such househol households ds ma may y, how howev ever, er, include children who are cared for by two adult females or two adult males.The children may have been adopted, or be the t he result of a previous heterosexual heterosexual relationship, relationship, or they may have been produced using new reproductive technologies involving sperm donation or surrogate motherho mot herhood. od. A lesbian lesbian may hav havee sex sex with a man in order to conceive a child to be raised by her and her female partner. Most children of gay couples result from a previous heterosexual rela relationship tionship.. Les Lesbian bian mothers are more common commo n than gay fathers, fathers, due to the difficulties ga gay y men are likely to encounter in being granted custody or adopting children. O ff fficial icial statis tatistics tics are not produced on the number nu mber of gay gay couples rais raising ing children, but there the re is little doubt that the numbers are increasing.This raises the question of whether such households should be regarded as families. R ather like lone-parent families families,, househol households ds with gay gay parents are are seen by some some as not being be ing ‘pr ‘proper’ oper’ famil families ies.. In most Western societies the gay couple will not be able to marry and any children will have a genetic connection with only on ly one of the partners. partners. Howev However, er, Sidney Calla Callahan han (1997) argued that such households should still be seen as families famil ies.. H e claimed claimed that, if marr marriage iage were ava availab ilable, le, many gay ga y and and lesbia lesbian n couples would marr marry y. Further Furthermore, more, he believed that the relationships involved are no different in any fundamental way from those in heterosexual households househol ds.. Call Callaha ahan n therefore claimed claimed that gay gay and lesbian households with children should be regarded as a type of family, at least least where w here the t he gay or lesbian lesbian relationship is intended to be permanent. He concluded: I would argue that gay or lesbian households that consist of intimate communities of mutual support and that display permanent shared commitments to intergenerational nurturing share the kinship bonding we Callaha han, n, 1997 observe and name as family. Calla Although gay couples still cannot marry in Britain, since December 2005 they have been able to register a civil partn partnership ership.. C ivil partn partnerships erships give give gay gay couples many of the same same legal legal rights as as marr married ied couples. couples. Fig Figures ures released by National Statistics show that a total of 15,672 civil partnerships were registered in the UK between December 2005 and the end of December 2006. 2006. An unknown number of these civil partners were looking after af ter children, children, but the fact that these these couples hav havee registered civil partnerships does seem to strengthen Callahan’s claim that they should be seen as families.
The universality of the family – conclusion Whether the family is regarded as universal ultimately depends on how the family family is def defined. ined. Clearl Clearly y, though, a
wide variety of domestic arrangements have been devised by human beings which are quite distinctive from the ‘conventio ‘conv entional’ nal’ famil families ies of moder n industrial societies. As Diana Gittins Gitt ins (1993) (1993) puts it, ‘R ‘Relationships elationships are universal, universal, so is some some form for m of co- res residence, idence, of intimacy, intimacy, sexuality and and emotional bonds bonds.. But the forms forms these these can can take take are are infinitely variable and can be changed and challenged as well as embraced.’ It may be a somewhat pointless exercise to try to find a single definition which embraces all the types of household and relationship that can reasonably be called families. H av aving ing examined whether wheth er the family is univers universal, al, we will now examine various perspectives on the role of families in society.
The family – a functionalist perspective George Peter Murdock – the universal functions of the family Functions for society From his h is analys analysis is of 250 societies, societies, Murdo Murdock ck (1949) argued that the family performs four basic functions in all societies, which he termed the sexual, reproductive, economic and educational. T hey are ess essent ential ial for for social life life since without the sexual and reproductive functions there would be no members of society society,, without the economic econom ic function function (for example, example, the provision provision and preparation of food) food) life would ceas cease, and without education (a term Murdock us u ses for social socializa ization) tion) there would be no culture. Hu Human man society society without culture could not function. Clearly Clearl y, the family family does not perform these functions functions exclusiv exclus ively ely.. H owev owever, er, it makes makes impor important tant contr ibution ibutionss to them all and no other institution has yet been devised to match its efficiency efficiency in this respect. respect. O nce this th is is realiz realized, ed, Murdock claimed, claimed, ‘The immens immensee utility of the nuclear nuclear family and the basic reason for its universality thus begin to emerge in strong relief.’
Functions for individuals and society The family’s functions for society are inseparable from its functionss for its individual function individual members. It serves both at one and the same time and in much the same way.The sexual function provides a good good example of this. H usba usband nd and wife have have the r ight of sexual sexual access access to each other, o ther, and in most societies there are rules forbidding or limiting sexual activity outs out side marr m arriag iage.T e.This his provides sexual sexual gratification for the spouse pousess. It also also strengthens strengthens the family family, since the powerful and often binding emotions which accompany sexual activities unite husband and wife.
The sexual function also helps to stabilize society.The rules which largely contain sexual activity within the family prevent the probable disruptive effects on the social order that would result if the sex drive were allowed ‘free play’.The family thus provides both ‘control and expression’ expression’ of sexual sexual drives, drives, and in doing so so performs perfor ms important functions function s, not only o nly for for its individual individual members, members, but also for the family as an institution and for society as a whole. Murdock applied a similar logic to the economic function. H e argued that, lik likee sex, sex, it is ‘mos ‘mostt readily readily and satisfactorily achieved by persons living together’. He referred in glowing terms to the division of labour within with in the family, family, where whereby by the hu sband specializ specializes es in certain certa in acti activiti vities es,, the wife wife in in others. others. For exa exampl mple, e, in hunting societies men kill game animals which provide meat for their wives to cook and skins for them to make into clothing clothing.. This economic economic cooperati cooperation on within the family not only fulfils the economic function for society society as a whole, but also also provides ‘re ‘rewarding warding experiences’’ for the spouses experiences spouses working together, which ‘cement their union’. Murdock argued that his analysis provided a ‘conception of the family’s many-sided utility and thus of its inevitability’.. H e concluded: ‘No society has succeeded in inevitability’ finding an an adequate substitute substitute for the nuclear n uclear family family,, to which it might transfer transfer these these functions. functions. It is highl highly y doubtful whether any society will ever succeed in such an attempt.’
Crit icis icisms ms of M urdoc urdock k Murdock’s picture of the family is rather like the multifaceted, indispens indispensabl ablee boy-scout knife. Th Thee family family is seen as a multi-functional institution which is indispensable to society ociety.. Its ‘ma ‘many-sided ny-sided utility’ u tility’ accounts for its universality universality and its inevitability. In his enthus enthu sias iasm m for the family, howev however, er, Murdo Murdock ck did not seriously consider whether its functions could be performed by other social institutions and he does not examine exa mine alternativ alternatives es to the family family. As D.H .H.J .J.. Morgan (1975) notes in his crit criticis icism, m, Murdo Murdock ck does not state ‘to what extent these basic functions are inevitably linked with the institution of the nuclear family’. In addition, Murdock’ Murdock’ss des description of o f the family family is almostt too good to be true. almos t rue. As Morgan states, states, ‘Murdock’ ‘Murdock’ss nuclear family is a remarkably harmonious institution. Husband and wife have an integrated division of labour and have have a good time in bed.’ As we will see see in later sections, some other ot her researcher researcherss do not no t share share Murdock’ Murdo ck’ss emphasis on harmony and integration.
Talcott Parsons – the ‘basic and irreducible’ functions of the family Parsons (1959, Parsons (1959, 1965b) concentrated concentr ated his analys analysis is on the th e family famil y in modern American society society.. Despite this, his ideas havee a more general application, hav application, since he argued that the th e American family retains two ‘basic and irreducible functions’which are common to the family in all societies. Thes Th esee are the ‘primary socializ socialization ation of children’ and the ‘stabilization of the adult personalities of the population of the society’.
Primary soc ociali ializat zation ion Primary socialization refers to socialization during the early earl y years years of childhood, which tak t akes es place place mainly m ainly within the family. Secondary socialization occurs during the later years when the family is less involved and other agencies (such as the peer group and the school) exert increasing increas ing influence. There are two basic processes involved in primary socia ocializ lization: ation: the internalization of society’s culture and the structuring of the personality. If culture were not inter nalized – that is, is, abs absorbed orbed and accepted acc epted – society would would cease cease to exis exist, t, since without shared norms and values social life would not be possible. However, Howev er, culture is not simply simply learned, learned, it is ‘internaliz internalized ed as part of the personality stru structure’.T cture’.T he child’ child’ss personality personality is moulded in terms of the central values of the culture to the point where they become a part of him or her. In the casee of cas o f American society, society, personality is shaped shaped in ter terms ms of independence and and achiev achievement ement motivation, motivation, which are are two of the central values of American culture. Pars Pa rsons ons argued that th at families families ‘are “factories” “factories” which produce human personalities personalities’’. H e believ believed ed they are are esssential for es for this pur purpose pose,, since primary socializ socialization ation requires a context which wh ich provides provides warmth, security and mutual support. support. He could conceive conceive of no institution other than the family that could provide this context.
Stabilization of adult personalities O nce produced, the personality personality mus mustt be kept stabl stable. e.This This is the second basic basic funct function ion of the family: family: the stabilization of adult personalities.The emphasis here is on the marriage relationship and the emotional security the couple provide for each other.This acts as a counterweight to the t he stress stresses and and strains of everyda everyday y life, life, which tend to make the personality unstable. This function is particularly important in Western industrial society society,, since the nuclear nu clear family family is larg largely ely isola is olated ted from from kin. It does not have have the security security once provided prov ided by the close-knit close-knit extended family family. Thu Thuss the married couple increasingly look to each other for emotional support. Adult personalities are also stabilized by the parents’ role in the th e socializa socialization tion process process.. Th This is allo allows ws them to t o act out ‘childis ‘childish’ h’ elements of their own personalities which they have retained from childhood but which cannot be indulged in adult society society.. For example, example, father is ‘k ‘kept ept on thee rails’by th rails’ by playing playing with wit h his son son’’s tr train ain set. According Acc ording to Pa Pars rsons, ons, therefor therefore, e, the fa family mily provi provides des a context in which husband and wife can express their childis child ish h whims, giv givee and receiv receive emotional support, support, recharge their batter batt eries ies,, and so so stabilize stabilize their personalities pe rsonalities..
Criticisms of Parsons This brief summary of Parsons’s views on the family is far from complete. O ther as aspects pects will be discuss discussed ed later in this chapter (pp (pp.. 474–5 474–5;; see als also o Chapter 2, p. 96), but here we will consider some of the arguments which criticize his perspective:
1 As with Murdock, Mu rdock, Pars Parsons ons has has been accused accused of idealizing the family with his picture of well-
463
C H A P T E R 8
F a m i l i e s a n d h o u s e h o l d s
464
S o c i o l o g y
T h e m e s a n d P e r s p e c t i v e s
2
3
4
5
adjusted children and sympathetic spouses caring for each other’ oth er’ss every need. It is a typically optim optimis istic, tic, modernist theory which may have little relationship to reality. His picture is based largely on the American middle- clas classs family family,, which he treats as representative of Amer American ican families in general. gener al. As Mor Morgan gan (1975) states tates,, ‘there are are no cla classses es,, no regions, no religious, ethnic ethn ic or status status groups, no communit comm unities ies’’ in Parsons’ Parsons’ss analyssis of the family. For example, Pars analy Parsons ons fails fails to explore possible differences between middle-class and working-class working-class famil families ies,, or different different family family structures in minority ethnic communities. Like Li ke Murdock, Pars Parsons ons largely largely fa fails ils to explore functional al altern ternativ atives es to the family family. H e does recognize that some functions are not necessarily tied to the famil family y. For instanc instance, e, he notes that that the family’s economic function has largely been taken over by other agencies in modern industrial society. H owev owever, er, his belief that its remaining functions functio ns are ‘bassic and irreducible’ ‘ba irredu cible’ prevents him from from examining examinin g alternatives to the family. Parsons’s view of the socialization process can be criticized. H e sees sees it as a one-wa one- way y process process, with the th e children being pumped full of culture and their personalities being moulded by powerful parents. He tends to ignore the two-way interaction process between parents and and children. Th There ere is no place in his scheme for the children who twist their parents around their little finger. Parsons Pars ons sees the family as as a distinct distinct institut institution ion which is clearly separated from other aspects of social life. Some contemporary perspectives on the family deny that such clear-cut boundaries can be establ es tablis ished hed (see (see pp. 516–1 516–17). 7). Th Thee family family as as such such cannot therefore be seen as performing any particular functions on its own in isolation from other institutions.
The very positive view of the family advanced by functionalists has not been supported by sociologists who advocate adv ocate more radical and and conflict perspectives. perspectives. T hese include Marxists Marxists,, femi feminis nists ts and some postmodernists postmodernists.. Their views will now be examined.
Marxist perspectives on the family
its origin and evolution evolution through time. H e combined an evolutionary ev olutionary approa approach ch with Marxist Marxist theor y, arg arguing uing that, as the mode of prod production uction chang changed, ed, so did the family. Dur ing the earl early y stage stagess of human evolution, evolution, Engel Engelss believed the means of production were communally owned and th e family family as such did no t exist. Th This is era of primitive communism was characterized by promiscuity.. Th ere were no rules cuity ru les limiting sexual sexual relation relationsships and society society was, was, in effect, effect, the family. family. Although Engels has been criticized for this type of specula peculation, tion, the anthropologist anthropologist Kathleen Gough argues that his picture may may not be that far from from the tr uth. She notes that the nearest relatives to human beings, chimpanzees, liv livee in ‘promis ‘promiscuou cuouss hordes’ hordes’,, and this may may have been the pattern for early humans.
The evolution of the family Engels arg Engels argued ued that, throughout human history history,, more and more restrictions were placed on sexual relationships and the production of child children. ren. He specula speculated ted that, fr from om the promiscuous promis cuous horde, marriage and and the th e family family evolv evolved ed through throu gh a series of stages tages,, which included include d polygyny polygyny,, to its present pres ent stage stage,, the monogamous monogamous nucle nuclear ar famil family y. Ea Each ch successive stage placed greater restrictions on the number of mates available to the individual. The monogamous nuclear family developed with the emergence of private private property, property, in particular particular the th e priv pr ivate ate ownership of the means of production, and the advent advent of the state. state. Th Thee state state instituted instituted laws laws to protect the system of private property and to enforce the rules of monogamous marriage marriage.. This for form m of marriage and the family developed to solve the problem of the inheritance of private private proper ty ty.. Proper Property ty was owned by males and, in order for them to be able to pas pass it on to their heirs,, they had to be certain of the legitimacy heirs legitimacy of those those heirs.. They therefore heirs therefore needed greater greater control control over over women so that there would be no doubt about the paternity of the offs offspring. pring. Th Thee monogamous fa family mily provided prov ided the mos mostt efficient efficient device for for this t his purpose. purpose. In Engels’s words: It is based based on the supremacy supremacy of the man, the express purpose being to produce children of undisputed paternity; such paternity is demanded because these children are later to come into their father’s property as his natural ngels, els, 1972 1972,, fir st published published 1884 heirs. Eng
Evidence for Engels’s views
Engels’s scheme of the evolution of the family is much more elaborate elaborate than the brief outline described described above. above. It ncient ient Soc S ociety, an interpreta was largely based on A nc interpretation tion of the evolution of the family by the nineteenth-century Friedrich Engels – the origin of American anthropologist Lewis Henry Morgan. Modern research has suggested that many of the details the family of Engels Engels’s scheme scheme are incorrect. For example, example, monogaThe earliest view of the family developed from a Marxist mous marriage and the nuclear family are often found in O rigin of hun perspectivee is contained perspectiv cont ained in Friedr Friedrich ich Engels En gels’’s T he Orig hunting ting and gathering gatherin g bands. bands. Since humanity has liv lived ed in the Family, Priv Private ate Prop Proper erty ty and the State State (Eng (Engels els,, 1972 1972,, firs firstt hunting and gathering bands for the vast majority of its published publis hed 1884). existence, exis tence, the various for forms ms of group marriage postulated postulated Like Li ke many nineteenth- century scholars scholars,, Engel Engelss took by Engels (such as the promiscuous horde) may well be an evolutionary evolutionary view of the fa family mily, attempting to t race figments of his imagination.
H owev owever, er, Gou Gough gh (1972) argues that ‘the general trend of Engels’ Engels’ argument still appears appears soun sound’. d’.Although Although nuclear nu clear families and monogamous marriage exist in small-scale societies, they form a part of a larger kinship kinship group.W hen individuals marry they take on a series of duties and obligation obliga tionss to their th eir spouse’ spouse’s kin. Co Commun mmunities ities are united by kinship ties and the result is similar to a large extended family famil y. Gou Gough gh argues: argues: It is true that although it is not a group marriage in Engels Eng els’’ se sens nse, e, marr iage has a group character character in i n many hunting bands and in most of the more complex tribal societies that have developed with the domestication of plants and animals.With the development of privately owned, owne d, herit heritable able proper property, ty, and espe especially cially with the t he ririse se of the stat stat e, this group group character gradually disappears.
Criticisms Jennifer Somerville (2000) argues that Z arets aretsky ky,, ev even en af after ter the quali qu alifica fications tions he makes, makes, exagg exaggerates erates the importance impor tance of thee family as a refuge from th from life in capitalist socie society ty.. She suggests that Zaretsky underestimates ‘the extent of cruelty cruel ty,, viol violence ence,, ince incesst and negle neglect’ ct’ within fami famili lies es.. He also exaggerates the extent to which family life is separa eparated ted from work. Acc According ording to Somervill omerville, e, during the t he early stages of capitalism most working-class women had to take paid work in order for the family to survive financially,, and relatively few financially few stayed stayed at home as full-t full-time ime houssewives hou ewives.. Somerville herself herself adv advocates ocates a feminist approach appr oach (see (see p. 470) 470),, and we will now start start to t o examine competing feminist views on the family.
Gough, Goug h, 1972
Further aspects of Engels’s views on the family are examined exa mined in in Chapter 2, 2, pp pp.. 106–7 106–7..
Eli Zaretsky – personal life and capitalism Eli Zarets Z aretsky ky (1976) analysed analysed devel developmen opments ts in the family in industrial societies societies from from a Marxis Marxistt perspective. perspective. H e argues that the family in modern capitalist society creates the illusion illusion that the t he ‘private ‘private life’ of the family is quite separa separate te from from the econo my my.. Bef Before ore the early nineteenth century the family was the basic unit of production. For example example,, in the early early capital capitalis istt textile industry indus try,, production of cloth cloth took to ok place place in the home and inv involv olved ed all all family family members members.. O nly with the development of factory-based production were work and family life separated. In a society society in which work wor k was al alienating, ienating, Zaretsky claims the family was put on a pedestal because it apparently ‘stood in opposition to the terrible anonymous world of commerce and industry’. The private life of the family provided opportunities for satisfactions that were unavailable outside the walls of the home. Zaretsky welcomes the increased possibilities for a personal life for the proletariat offered by the reduction in working hours since since the nineteenth nineteen th century centu ry.. H owev owever, er, he believes the family is unable to provide for the psycho psy chological logical and personal needs need s of individuals individu als.. H e says says,, ‘it simply cannot meet the pressures of being the only refuge in a brutal society’.The family artificially separates and isolates isolates personal personal life life from ot her as aspects pects of life. life. It might cushion the effects of capitalism but it perpetuates the system and cannot compensate for the general alienation produced by such a society. Furth erm ore, Zaretsky sees the family as a major major prop t o the t he capitalist capitalist economy eco nomy.. Th e capitalist capitalist system system is based upon the domestic labour of housewives who reproduce future generations generations of workers workers.. He also also believes the family has become a vital unit of consumption. cons umption. Th e family family cons consumes umes the products of capitalism and this allows the bourgeoisie to continue producing sur surplus plus va value. lue. To Zaretsky, Zaretsky, only socialis socialism m will end the artificial separation of family private life and public life, life, and produce t he possibility possibility of personal personal fulfilment.
Feminist perspectives on the family The influence of feminism In recent decades feminism has probably had more influence on the study of the family than any other approach to under standing society society.. Lik Likee Marxis Marxists, ts, feminists hav havee been highly critical cr itical of the family. H owev owever, er, unlike other critics, they have have tended to emphas emph asize ize the harmful harm ful effects of family family life life upon women. women . In doing doin g so, so, they have developed new perspectives and highlighted new issues. Feminis Femi nists ts hav have, for example example,, introduced the study study of areas of family life such as housework and domestic violence into sociology sociology.. T hey have have challenged some widely held views about the inevitability of male dominance in families and have questioned the view that family famil y life life is becoming more mo re egalitarian. Feminis Feminists ts have have also highlighted the economic contribution to society made by women’s domestic labour within the family. Abovee all, Abov all, feminis feministt theor th eory y has encou encouraged raged sociologists sociologists to see the family as an institution involving power relationships. relations hips. It has h as challenged the image im age of family family life life as being based based upon cooperatio cooperation, n, shared interests and love, love, and has tried to show that some family family members members,, in particular men, obtain greater benefits from from families than others. R ecently ecently,, some feminis feminists ts hav havee questioned questioned the tendency of other feminists to make blanket condemnations of family family life life.. Some have have argued that feminists feminists should recognize the considerable improvements in family famil y life life for women over the last last few decades. decades. O ther therss have emphasized the different experiences of women in families famil ies.. Some feminists feminists have have rejected the idea that there t here is such such a thing thin g as ‘the family’ rath rather er than t han simply differen differentt domestic domes tic arrang arrangements ements.. Al Alll femi feminis nists ts,, howe howeve ver, r, continue to argue that family life still disadvantages women in some ways. In later sections of this chapter we will consider the impact of feminism on the study of conjugal roles,
465
C H A P T E R 8
F a m i l i e s a n d h o u s e h o l d s
466
S o c i o l o g y
domestic labour, social policy and marr marriag iage. e. In the next section, howev however, er, we will examine some some of the feminist feminist theoretical approaches to understanding the family.
When wives play their traditional role as takers of shit, they often absorb absorb their t heir husbands husbands’’ legitimat e anger anger and frustration at their own powerlessness and oppression. With every worker provided with a sponge to soak up his possibly poss ibly revolutionary ire, i re, the bosses bosses rest rest more secure. secure. Quoted in Bernard, Bernard, 197 6
Marxist feminist perspectives on the family
T h e m e s Marxists such as Engels and Zaretsky acknowledge that a women are exploited in marriage and family life but n emphasize the relationship between capitalism and d they the family, family, rather than t han the famil family’ y’ss eff effects ects on women. women . P Marxist feminists use Marxist concepts but see the e exploitation of women as a key feature of family life. r The next few sections will examine how these theories s p hav havee been applied to the family. family. (More details det ails of the e Marxist feminist approach can be found in Chapter 2, c pp pp.. 101 101–2.) –2.) t i v e s The production of labour power Margaret Benston stated:
The amount of unpaid labour performed by women is very large and very profitable to those who own the means of production.To pay women women for their work, ev even en at minimum wage sc scales, ales, would involve a massive massive redistribut redistr ibution ion of wealth. wea lth. At present, present, the support support of the family is a hidden hidden tax on the wage earner – his wage buys the labour power Bens nstt on, 1972 of two people. Be The fact that the husband must pay for the production and upkeep of future labour acts as a strong discipline on his beha behaviour viour at work. He cannot easily easily withdraw his labour with a wife and children to support.These responsibilities weaken his bargaining power and commit him to wage labour. Bens Benston ton argues: As an economic economic unit, the nuclear family f amily is a valuable valuable stabilizing stabilizi ng force in capitalist capitali st socie society. ty. Since the husband–father’s earnings pay for the production which is done in the home, his ability ability to withho wit hhold ld labour from t he market is much reduced. Be Bens nstt on, 1972 Not only does the family produce and rear cheap labour, la bour, it als also maintains it at no cost to the th e employer. employer. In her role as housewife, housewife, the woman wo man attends to her h er hus hu sband’ band’ss needs,, thus keepi needs keeping ng him in good running order order to perform his role as a wage labourer. Fran Ansley (1972) translates Parsons’s view that the family functions to stabilize adult personalities into a Marxist framework. frame work. She sees sees the emotional emo tional suppor supportt provided by the wife as a safety valve for the frustration produced in the husband by working working in a capitalist capitalist system. system. R ather than th an being turned tur ned against against the sys system tem which wh ich produced it, this frustration frustration is abs absorbed orbed by the comforting co mforting wife. wife.In In this t his way way the sys ystem tem is not threatened. In Ansley Ansley’’s words: words:
Ideological conditioning Th e social The social reproduction of labour labour power does not simply involve producing children and maintaining them in good health. health. It also also involv involves es the reproduction reproduction of the attitudes essential for an efficient workforce under capital cap italis ism. m. Thus, Dav David id Cooper Co oper (1972) (1972) argues argues that that the th e family is ‘an ideological conditioning device in an exploitivee society’. exploitiv society’. With Within in the family family,, children learn learn to conform and to submit submit to authority authority.. The founda foundation tion is therefore laid for the obedient and submiss submissiv ivee workforce wor kforce required by capitalism. A simila similarr point poin t is made by Diane Feeley Feeley (1972), (1972), who argues that the structure of family relationships socializes the young to accept their place in a class-stratified society ociety.. She sees sees the family as an author itarian unit dominated by the husband in particular and adults in general. Feele Feeley y claims claims that the family with its ‘a ‘autho uthoriritarian ideology is des designed igned to teach pass passivity, not rebellion’ rebel lion’.. Thu Thuss childr children en learn to submit to par parental ental authority and emerge from the family preconditioned to accept their place in the hierarchy of power and control in capitalist society.
Criticisms Some of the criticisms of previous views of the family also apply to Marxist approaches. approaches. T here is a tenden tendency cy to talk about ‘the ‘the family’ in capitalis capitalist society without withou t regard to possible variations in family life between social classes, ethnic ethn ic groups, heterosexual and gay gay and lesbian lesbian families, families, lone-parent famili families es,, and over over time. As Morgan (1975) (1975) notes in his criticism of both functionalist and Marxist approaches,, both ‘pres approaches ‘presuppose uppose a tradition traditional al model of the nuclear family where there is a married couple with children, childr en, where the husband husband is is the breadwinner breadwinner and where the wife stays at home to deal with the housework’. This pattern is becoming less common and the critique of this type of family may therefore be becoming less important. Marxist feminists may therefore exaggerate the harm caused to women by families and may neglect the effects of non-family relationships (apart from class) on exploitation within marriag marriage. e. Thus, for examp example le,, they sa say little little about how the experience of racism might influence families.They also tend to portray female family members as the passive victims of capitalist and patriarchal exploitation.. Th tion They ey ignore ignore the possibility possibility that women may hav havee fought back against such exploitation and had some success in changing the nature of family relationships. Furthermore, Further more, they are are not usuall usually y prepare prepared d to concede that there t here may m ay be positive positive elements to family life. life. As we shall see, some liberal feminists femin ists and difference differenc e feminists are more prepared to accept that there may be some positive advantages for women in some families.
2
Radical feminist perspectives on the family Th ere are many va There variet rieties ies of radical radical feminism. feminism. H owev owever, er, Valerie Bryson (1992) argues that they share at least one characteris chara cteristic tic in common. Ac According cording to her, al alll radica radicall feminism ‘sees the oppression of women as the most fundamental and universal universal for form m of domination’. dominatio n’. Society is seen as patriarchal, or ma male-do e-domi mina nate ted, d, ra rathe therr tha than capitalis capital ist, t, and women are held to have have different different interes int erests ts from those of men. R adica adicall feminists feminists do not no t agree on the source of male domination, but most do see the family family as important in maintaining male power. We will now analys analyse a range of major radical feminist theories of the family.
Christine Delphy and Diana Leonard – Familiar Exploitation
3
4
5
6
Types of feminism Christine Delphy and Diana Leonard (1992) are unlike most radical feminists in that they attach considerable importance to mater ial factors in in causing causing women’s women’s oppress oppression. ion. In this th is respect their views have some similarity with Marxist feminis fe ministt theories. t heories. In partic particula ular, r, Delphy and and Leonard attach attach special importance to work and say that their approach ‘uses Marxistt methodology’ Marxis meth odology’.. N ev everth ertheles elesss, they see see themselves themselves as radicall feminists radica feminists since since they th ey believe believe that th at it is men, rather than t han capitalis capital ists ts or capitalism, capitalism, who are the pr imary beneficiaries of the exploitation of women’s women’s la labour. bour.T To them, th em, the family has a central role in maintaining patriarchy: We see the familial basis of domestic groups as an important element in continuing the patriarchal nature of our socie society: ty: that is, in the continuance continuance of men’s men’s dominance over women and children. Delphy and and Leonard, Leonard, 1992
The family as an economic system Delphy and Leonard see the family as an economic involves olves a particular set of ‘l ‘labour abour relations in system . It inv which men benefit benefit from, from, and exploit, exploit, the work of women women – and sometimes that of their children and other male relatives’ relativ es’.. Th Thee key to this th is exploitation is that family members work not for themselves but for the head of the househol hous ehold. d. Women in particul particular ar are are oppres oppresssed, not becausee they becaus t hey are socialized socialized into int o being passiv passive, e, but becaus becausee their work is appropriated within the family. Delphy and Leonard identify the following features as the main characteristics of the family as an economic system:
1 Every family-based household has a social structure that involves involves two types t ypes of role. Th Thes esee are head of household househol d and their th eir dependants or helpers. helpers. Fema Female le
7
8 9
heads of household are uncommon – the vast 4 6 7 majority are men. C The male head of household is different from other H members because he ‘decides what needs doing in a A given giv en situation’ and ass assigns tasks tasks to other o ther member memberss or P delegates deleg ates to them. O ther family family members may T change his mind about decis decisions, ions, but it is his mind to E R change. H e makes the final decision. decision. The head of household provides maintenance for 8 other oth er family family members, and they receive receive a share share of family fa mily property property on his death. death. Howev However, er, they have have to work for him unpaid. The type and amount of work family members have to do are related to sex sex and marital status. status. Femal Femalee relatives relativ es have have to do unpaid domes dom estic tic work; wives in addition have to carry out ‘sexual and reproductive work’. Although the t he precise allocation allocation of tasks tasks varies varies from fr om household household to household, household, domes domestic tic work work remains a female responsibility. Money and resources resources for for maintenance, and money inherited by by dependa dependants nts,, ar aree not related related to the amount of work done. A man must must provide provide for his dependants’ bas basic ic needs, needs, and may may be very generous, generous, but, unlike an an employer, employer, he does not purchas purchasee labour power pow er by the hour, wee week k or amount produced. produced.The The amounts inherited by family members are related more to position position – with, for example example,, sons inheriting inheriting more than daughters – than to work. The relations of production within the family often, therefore, inv involve olve payment payment in kind kin d (such (such as a new coat or a holiday) rather than payment in money. The economic relationships rarely involve formal contracts cont racts or bargaining.T bargaining. T his means means family family members mustt use mus use informal informal methods of negotiation. negotiation. For example, ‘Wiv ‘Wives es and children have have to study their husbands and fathers closely and handle them carefully so as to keep them sweet.’ ‘The head of the family may have a near monopoly over,, and he al over alway wayss has greater access access to and control co ntrol of, the famil family’ y’s property and extern ext ernal al relation relationss.’ When dependa dependants nts,, pa particul rticularl arly y wiv wives es,, ha hav ve paid paid employment outside the home, they still still have have to carry out household h ousehold tasks tasks,, or pay others out of their wages to do housework or care for children for them.
Who gets what from the family Having outlined how the family works as an economic sys ystem, tem, Delphy and and Leonard Leonard go on to examine in more detail who contributes to and who benefits from family life. lif e. They admit that that most men do some some housework, housework, but point out that such tasks are usually done by women.They claim that time-budget studies show that women do about twice as much domestic work each day as men. Furthermore, women are are stil stilll expected expected to care care for for children and the th e sick, sick, except in special circumstances circumstances (for (for example, if the wife w ife is dis disabl abled). ed). As well as carrying out housework and caring for children, child ren, the sick sick and older people,women people, women also also contribute cont ribute a great great deal to their husbands husbands’’ work and leis leisure by providing ‘for their emotional and sexual well-being’. Drawing on the work of a British sociologist, sociologist, Janet Finch, Delphy and Leonard Leonard describe describe some of the types of
F a m i l i e s a n d h o u s e h o l d s
468
S o c i o l o g y
T h e m e s a n d P e r s p e c t i v e s
help provided by wives wives.. Sometimes they provide provide direct help – for example, doing office work for a self self-- employ employed ed husband, or doing constituency constituen cy work if he is an MP. MP. Th They ey may stay at home to answer the phone or arrange dinner parties for colleagues of their husband. Wives al alsso give moral suppor upport, t, ‘obs ‘observing erving and moderating his emotions, arranging entertainment and relaxation relaxa tion,, and supplying supplying personal needs’.W needs’.Wiv ives es are are there to listen when their husbands unburden themselves of their work problems. problems. Th They ey provide provide ‘trouble-free ‘trouble-free sex’ sex’,, which is important since ‘men frequently unwind best post-coitally post-co itally’. ’.Wives Wives als also o make the th e house ho use into a home h ome so that it is ‘c ‘comfortabl omfortable, e, warm and undemanding undemanding’’. Women even control their own emotions so that they can provide emotional care care for husbands husbands.. Th They ey ‘fl flatter atter,, excus excuse, e, boos boost, t, sympathize and pay pay atten attention tion to t o men’, all to give them a sense of well-being. In contras contr ast, t, men make little little contribution contr ibution to their t heir wives wives’’ work and the husband’s career remains the central one. Delph Del phy y and and Leon Leonaard beli believ eve, e, then then,, tha thatt wives wives contribute much more work to family life than their husbands husb ands.. Desp Despite ite this, this, they get fewer fewer of the material material benefits benefi ts of famil family y life life than men. Men retain ultimate responsibility res ponsibility for family family finances finances,, and women cons con sume lesss than male family members.T he (us les (usually ually)) male head of o f household househol d has the ‘decis ‘decisionion-maki making ng power’ to determine what goods are produced or bought for the family and who us u ses them. For instance instance,, ‘the food bought is the sort sort he likes, likes, and he gets more of it and the best bits’. bits’. H us usbands bands get more leisure leisure time, more access access to the family fa mily car car,, or to the best car car if there is more than one; on e; and sons get get more spent on their education than daughters. daughters. In every area of family consumption it is the status of different family members which shapes who gets what.
Evaluation
Empirical evidence
Germ ain Germa ine e Greer – The Whole Woman and the family
Delphy and Leonard use four main sources to try to back up their claims. claims. Th Three ree of these are are studies studies of Brit Britis ish h factory workers and their famili families es.. They use Goldthor Goldthorpe pe and Lockwood’s 1962 study of affluent workers in Luton (see pp. 58–9 for further details details), ), a 1970s 1970s study of 500 workers workers and their wives in a Bristol company which made cardboard packing cases cases,, and a 1980s study study of o f redundant steel workers wor kers in Port Ta Talbot, lbot, Wa Wales les.. T hey als also o use data data from from Chr C hris istine tine Delphy’s own own studies of French farming farmin g families families.. In these t hese studies they found some evidence to support their theories. In all these contexts they found that men were dominant and women did a disproportionate share of the work.
Conclusion and summary Delphy and Leonard believe the family is a patriarchal and hierarchical institution through which men dominate and exploitt women. Men are usual exploi usually ly the head of household, household, and it is the head who benefits from the work that gets done. Women provide ‘57 va variet rieties ies of unpaid service’ service’ for men, includi including ng providing providing them with a ‘plia ‘pliant nt sexual sexual partner and children children if he wants them’. Wiv Wives es do do sometimes resist their husbands’dominance – they are not always passive victims – but ‘economic and social constraints’make it difficult for women to escape from the patriarchal family.
Delphy and Leonard provide a comprehensive analysis of the family from a radical feminis feministt perspective. perspective. Th They ey highlight many ways in which the family can produce or reinforce inequalities between women and men. H owev owever, er, their work can be criticized both theoretically and empirically:
1 Th Theoret eoreticall ically y, Delphy and Leonard Leonard do not succeed in demonstrating that inequality is built into the structure of the family.Their argument is based upon the as asssumpt umption ion that all families hav havee a head, usual usually ly a man, and it is the head who ultimatel ultimately y benefits benefits from from family lif life. e. H owev owever, er, they do not show show theoretically the oretically or empirically that all families have a head who has more power than other family family members, or that power is never shared equally between men and women. 2 Empirically, their work wo rk is bas based ed upon unrepresentative data. data. Th Thee three British studies studies used used are all all of manuall workers manua workers,, and all all of them are are dated. dated. Most researchers have found less gender inequality in middle-class families than in working-class families. 3 Delphy’s study of French farming families was specifi pecifical cally ly directed at testing testing their theories, theo ries, but farming families are hardly typical of other families. Family members tend to work in the family business – the farm – and few wives have an independent source of income which could reduce marital inequality. Delphy and Leonard tend to make rather sweeping statements about inequality which may not apply equally to all families families.. In doing d oing so they perhaps perh aps overs overstate tate their th eir case case by denying the possibility of exceptions.
Germaine Greer is another radical feminist who argues that family life continues to disadvantage and oppress women (Greer, 2000) 2000).. Greer believe believess that that there are many non-economic aspects to the exploitation of women in families and she therefore takes a wider view than Delphy and Leonard. Leonard. Greer’ Greer’ss general views views are examined examined in Chapter Ch apter 2 (s (see ee p. p. 135) 135);; this section will focus on her specific comments on the family.
Women as wives Greer argues there is a strong ideology suggesting that being a wife (or as she puts it a ‘female consort’) is the most important impor tant female role. role. Th Thee wives of presidents presidents and primee ministers get prim get cons con siderable publicity, but the th e likes of Hillary Clinton and Cherie Blair have to be very much subservient to their t heir hus hu sbands bands.. Such a role demands that the woman must not only be seen to be at her husband’s side on all formal for mal occasions, occasions, she must also be seen seen to adore him, and never to appear less than dazzled by everything he may say or do. H er eyes eyes should should be fixed on him but bu t he should do his best never to be caught looking at her.The Greer, r, 20 2000 00 relationship must be clearly seen to be unequal. Gree
Th is inequality extends to all oth This other, er, les lesss celebrated relati rel ations onships hips,, but this does littl littlee to under mine the enthusia enthus iassm of women women for getting married. Greer complains that the ‘ghastly figure of the bride still walks abroad’,, and notes abroad’ note s that the th e average average wedding costs costs over over £ 10, 10,000 000.. Howev However, er, the honeymoon period will will not la lasst for ever, ever, and inequalities will soon soon appear: H aving bee been n so lucky lucky as to acquire a wife, [ the husband] begins to take the liberties that husbands have traditi tr aditionally onally taken, comes and goes goes as he please pleases, s, spe spends nds more time tim e outside the connubial home, spe spends nds more money on on himself, leave leavess off t he share share of t he housewo housework rk that he may have form formerly erly done. She sees sees her job as making him happy; he feels feels that in marr ying her he has has Greer,, 200 2000 0 done all that is necessary in making her happy. Greer Yet all this is a ‘con’ becaus becausee it is men who w ho need marriage more. Married men score score much higher on all all measures of psychological well-being than unmarried men, whereas singl inglee women tend to t o be more content cont ent than th an married marr ied women. women . Wives are seen seen as having having a duty to keep their husbands husbands interes interested in sex with them, th em, ev even en though th ough they may may no longer ‘f ‘fancy ancy’’ their husband. husband. H owe oweve ver, r, they have no realistic chance of maintaining his sexual interest because ‘Wives are not sexy. Male sexuality demands demand s th thee added stimulus of novelty.’ Greer points out that families are now much less stable than they were, with very high divorce divorce rates in Britain. According to Greer, this is largel largely y due to the unhappiness un happiness of wives wives,, who are no longer content cont ent to accept oppression oppression by their husbands.Three-quarters of divorces are initiated by women. However, Howev er, fa farr from from being concerned about family family instability insta bility,, Greer sees it as a positiv positivee development, becaus becausee it shows that women are becoming less willing to accept unsatisfactory unsatis factory relationships. relationships. She comments: commen ts: The truth behind the so-called decline in family values is that the illusion of stable family life was built on the silence sile nce of of suffering women, who lived on on whatev what ever er their t heir husbands hus bands thoug thought ht fit f it to give give them, did menial menial work f or a pittance, pit tance, to buy the neces necessities sities that their husbands would not pay for, put up with t heir husband’ husband’s drinking and and their bit on the side, blamed themselves themselves for t heir husband’s s violence t owards t hem, and endured abuse silentl silentlyy because because Greer,, 200 2000 0 of their children. Greer
Women as mothers If women get little fulfilment fulfilment from being wives, wives, perhaps motherhood offers women better prospects? Greer does not deny that motherhood can be intrinsically satisfying, but she claims that it is not valued by societ society y. She says says:: ‘Mother Motherss bear childr children en in pain, fee feed d them from their bodies,, cheris bodies cherish h and nourish no urish and prepare prepare to los losee them.’ Children are expected to leave their mother’s home when quite young and to owe their mother little or nothing. Many of the elderly who die of hypothermia are mothers, yet their children accept no responsibility for helping or supporting them. Society attaches attaches no value value to motherhood. Greer says says:: ‘M other’ is not ‘Mother’ not a career career option; the woman who who gave gave her all to mothering mot hering has to get in shape, find a job, and keep keep young young
and beautif beautiful ul if she wants wants to be loved.‘ loved.‘M M otherly’ is a word for peo p eople ple who are frumpish fr umpish and suffocating, suffocating, people who who wear cotton hose and shoes with a small heel. Greer, 200 2000 0 This is reflected in ‘the accepted ideal of feminine beauty’, according to which women are ‘boy ‘boyis ishly hly slim slim and hiplesss’ and the ‘broad hiples ‘broad hips and full bosom bosom of o f maternity’ maternit y’ are seen as ‘monstrous ‘monstrous’. ’. Women are expected to ‘regain ‘regain their fig figure’ ure’ as quickly as they can after childbirth. childbirth . In childbirth, medica medicall attention focuses focuses on the wellwellbeing of the th e baby, while the t he mother mo ther’’s health health takes t akes a back seat. Af After ter birth, birt h, women find that ‘mother ‘motherss and babies are not welcome in adult society society,, in cinemas, cinemas, theatres theatres,, res restautaurants, shops or buses’ buses’.Women .Women are often expected to ret ur urn n to work wor k ‘to service service the th e family family debt’, and end up exhausted. N ev evertheles erthelesss, women who are mothers hav have a final final function to perform: perform: ‘to take the blame’. blame’. Both children children and society at large blame mothers for what goes wrong in the children’s children’s liv lives es.. Singl Singlee mothers moth ers are are particularly targeted by commentators and politicians as scapegoats for social problems such as crime and unemployment.
Women as daughters According to Greer, then, fa According family mily lif lifee does little little to benef benefit it women in their adult roles as mothers and wives. H owev owever, er, it is als also o unrewarding un rewarding for for them t hem as daughter daughterss. Greer suggests recent evidence shows that daughters are quite likely to experience sexual abuse from fathers, stepfathers and other o ther adult male relatives relatives.. Greer sees this as a particularly horrendous extension of patriarchal relations within families families.. Men expect to exercise exercise control over over women within families and believe women should service their needs. needs. As adul adults ts,, women become les lesss will willing ing to accept such such subservience, subservience, but female children become a relatively easy target of exploitation. Such abuse is ‘very much commoner than we like to believ beli eve’ e’ and is not confined to ‘a ‘a specia speciall group of inadequate individuals’. individuals’. Instead, it is an extension of male male heterossexuality hetero exuality.. Greer say sayss: ‘It is is under undersstoo tood d that heterosexual men fancy youn young g things, that youth itsel itselff is a turnturn on, but no one is sure sure how young is too young.W hy after after all are sexy young women called “babes”?’
Conclusion and evaluation Given the dismal prospects for women within patriarchal famili fa milies es,, Greer argues argues that that the bes bestt bet for women is segregation. Women do not no t need to dissociate dissociate thems them selv elves es from men completely, completely, but they th ey would would benefit from living living in matrilocal households where all the adults are female. Greer say ayss: ‘S ‘Such uch segregated communities com munities may hold great advantages adv antages for women and children, es especiall pecially y if they can find a way of incorporating older women who are now the majority major ity of the elderly livi living ng alone alone on benefit. benefit.’’ Th Thee only alternative is for women to continue to accept their ‘humiliation’ by men in conventional families families.. Germaine Greer’s work is very provocative and makes some important points about the position of women in contemporary society society.. H owe owev ver, it does mak makee sweeping sweeping generaliz genera lizations ations,, many of which are not backed backed up by research evidence. Jennifer Somerville (2000) is very critical of Greer. Somerville argues that Greer underestimates the progress
469
C H A P T E R 8
F a m i l i e s a n d h o u s e h o l d s
470
S o c i o l o g y
T h e m e s a n d P e r s p e c t i v e s
made by women over recent decades decades.. She also also argues that Greer offers little in the way of practical policy proposals that might make a real difference to women’s lives and she fails to discuss the effectiveness of policies that have been introduced.
Somerville thinks is particularly important is the introduction of new policies to help working parents.The working hours and the culture of many jobs are incompatible with family fa mily lif life. e. Many jobs jobs,, whether done don e by men or women, are based on the idea of the male breadwinner who relies upon a non-working wife to take full responsibility for children. Th This is makes equality within marriage mar riage difficult difficult to Jennifer Som omer erville ville – a liber liberal al attain and contributes to the tensions which do much feminist perspective on the family harm to many families. Somerville therefore believes:‘There is a crisis in family Compar Co mpared ed to Greer, Jennifer Somervill Somervillee (2000) hers herself elf life and it does stem from the contradiction between the offers a more measured critique of the family from a partial achievement of feminist ideals for women’s greater feminis femi nistt perspectiv perspective, e, with more concern for realis realistic tic equality and the institutional framework of their lives policies polici es which might improv improve the pos position ition of women. H er which ass assumes their inequality inequality..’ If that institut institutional ional proposals involve relatively modest reform rather than framework framew ork can be changed, for example example by increas increased ed revolutio rev olutionary nary change with within in society society.. For these reas reasons ons flexibility fl exibility in in paid employment, then the t he liberal feminis feministt Somerville can be seen as a liberal feminist, feminist, although she dream of egalitarian relationships between men and does not use this term herself. women will move closer to being a reality. Somerville argues that many young women do not feel entirely sympathet sympathetic ic to feminis feminism, m, yet still still feel some some sense of grieva gr ievance. nce.T To Somervill Somer ville, e, many feminists feminists have have failed to Evaluation acknowledge the progress that has been made for women. Somerville’s arguments are largely based upon a review of In particular, particular, women now hav havee much greater freedom freedom to other feminist approaches to the family and consequently take paid work even if they are married and have young her study is not backed up by detailed empirical evidence children. childr en. They also also have have much more choice about when or by specific suggestions for changes in social policies. or whether they marry marry or cohabit, cohabit, bec become ome sing single le H owev owever, er, her work wor k does recognize recognize that significa significant nt changes ch anges mothers, enter lesbia lesbian n relationship relationshipss, or live live on their own. have taken place in family life, it suggests ways of making Thee increas Th increased choice for women, and the tendency for feminis femi nism m more appe appeal aling ing to the t he majority of women, and working-class and middle-class families alike to have both it offers the realistic possibility of gradual progress towards partners in in employment, employment, hav havee helped to create greater greater greater equality within the family. equali equa lity ty within within marriage marriage.. Somervil omerville le argues argues:: ‘Some To radical feminists such as Delphy and Leonard and modern men are voluntarily committed to sharing in Greer such an approach will fail to deal with the persistthosse routine tho rout ine neces ne cesssities of family family survival survival,, or they t hey can be ence of patriarchal structures and a patriarchal culture in persuaded, pers uaded, ca cajoled, joled, guil guiltt-tripped tripped or bulli bullied. ed.’’ Despi Despite te this, this, contemporary family life. howev how ever er,, ‘Women are are ang angry ry,, res resentf entful, ul, but abov abovee all all disappointed dis appointed in men. men .’ Many men do not take t ake on their full share of responsibilities and often these men can be ‘shown the door’. Somerville raises the possibility that women might do without mal malee partners, es especia peciall lly y as so many prove prove inadequate, and instead instead get their sense of fulfil fulfilment ment from their the ir chi chilldr dren en.. Unl Unlik ikee Germa Germain inee Greer Greer,, tho thoug ugh, h, Somerville does not believe that living in households Marxist and radical feminist approaches to the family are without adul adultt males is the answer. answer. She says says,, ‘the high not particularly sensitive to variations between families. figures for remarriage suggest that children are not Both approaches tend to assume that families in general adequate substitut substitutes es for adult relations relation ships of intimacy intim acy and dis disadv advantage antage women and benefit men (and, in the case of companionsship for most women’. Such a solution companion solution fail failss to Marx Marxis istt approac approaches hes,, benef benefit it capita capitali lissm). Both can can be ‘mention desire – that physical and energizing interest in criticized for failing to acknowledge the variety of the Other – which defies being tailored to the logic of domestic arrangements produced by diff different erent groups grou ps,, and equality and common sense’. the range of effects that family life can have. From Somer Somervill ville’ e’ss viewpoint, hetero heterossexual attraction Jennifer Somerville (2000) does take some account of and the need for adult companionship will mean that the existence of increased pluralism in the forms of family heterossexual families hetero families will not disappear. disappear. H owev owever, er, nor will w ill lif life. e. Howev However, er, some feminis feminists hav havee taken taken this line of ‘the conflicts endemic to current inequalities in hetero- reasoning considerably further and have seen variations in sexua exuall unions’ unions’. These will will lead lead to more women the family situations of women as the defining issue in cohabiting, cohabiti ng, li living ving in non- fa family mily households households or on their their theories. theories. Thus, they hav have argued argued that women women in own; but most will return to ‘further ‘further renewed attempts at at single-parent famil families ies are are in a different different situation compared a permanent commitment to partners partner ship hip,, inv involvi olving ng ever ever to women in two-par two- parent ent families families;; women in lesbia lesbian n more complex com plex familial familial networ networks ks of relation relationsships, res responpon- families are in a different position to women in heterosibilities and residences’. sexual families families;; bla black ck women wom en are often o ften in a different different famil family y What is therefore needed is a principled pragmatism in pos position ition to white w hite women; poor women are in a differ different ent which feminists devise policies to encourage greater pos position ition compared to middle-clas middle-class women, women, and so so on. on . equality within relationships and to help women cope Feminists who analyse the family in these terms have with the practi practical calities ities of family family lif life. e. O ne area that sometimes been referred to as ‘difference feminists’.
Difference feminism
Difference feminists have been influenced by a range of feminis feministt theories theories,, incl including uding liberal liberal feminis feminism, m, Marx Marxis istt feminism feminis m and radica radicall feminism feminism (s (see ee pp. 101–3).Th 101–3).Their eir work often has affinities with postmodern theories of the family (see (s ee pp. 517–18) and with wit h ideas relating relating to family diversity diversity (see (s ee pp pp.. 482 482–95 –95). ). Howev However, er, they shar haree a suf uffi ficie ciently ntly distinctive approach to be considered a separate feminist perspective on the family.
Michèlle Barrett and Mary McIntosh – The Anti-social Family One of the earliest examples of a theory of the family put forward by difference feminists is provided by the work of Michèlle Michèlle Barrett Barrett and Mary McIntosh (1982). (1982). Th Their eir work was influenced by Marxist feminism but moves beyond the kinds of Marxist feminist views discussed earlier (see (see p. 466). Barrett and McIntosh believe that the idea of ‘the family’ famil y’ is misl misleading, eading, giv given en the th e wide variation variationss that exist in life within families and the varieties of household types in which people live. live. (Fa (Family mily and and household ho usehold diversity diversity is discuss dis cussed ed on p. 466.) If there is no one norm no rmal al or typical family famil y type, then it may be impossible impossible to claim claim that the th e family famil y always always perfor performs ms particular functions functio ns either for men or for capitalism.
The ‘anti ‘anti-s -soc ocial’ ial’ family Barrett and McIntosh believe there is a very strong ideology ideolo gy supporting supporting family family lif life. e. To them, ‘the family family’’ is ‘anti anti-soc -socia ial’ l’ not just just becaus becausee it exploits exploits women, and benefits capitalis capitalists, ts, but also also because the ideology of the family destroys life outs out side the t he family. family. T hey say say, ‘the family ideal makes everything else seem pale and unsatisfactory’. People outs out side families suffer as a consequence. Family members are so wrapped up in family life that they neglect negl ect socia sociall contact with others other s. ‘Cou Couples ples mix with other oth er couples coup les,, finding it difficult difficult to fit single single people in.’ Lifee in oth Lif other er institutions institut ions (such (such as children’ children’ss homes, old people’ peo ple’ss ho homes mes and and students’ studen ts’residences) residences) comes to be seen seen as shallo hallow w and lacking in meaning. Barrett and McInto McI ntossh argue that homes for those with disabilities could be far more stimulating if life in institutions were not devalued by the ideology of the family. Like other feminists feminists,, Ba Barrett rrett and McIntos M cIntosh h point out that the image of the family as involving love and mutual care tends to ignore the amount of violent and sexual crime that takes place within a family context.They note that 25 per cent of reported violent crimes consist of assa as saults ults by hu husba sbands nds on their th eir wives w ives,, and many rapes take place within marriage. They do not deny that there can be caring relationships within with in families families,, but equally they do not think t hink that th at families families are the only places in which such relationships can develop. devel op. In their view, view, the ideology that idealizes idealizes famil family y life: has made the outside out side world cold and fr iendles iendless, s, and made it harder to maintain relationships of security and trust except exce pt wit h kin. Caring, sharing and loving loving would all be more widespread if the family did not claim them for its own. Barr ett and McIntosh, McIntosh, 198 1982 2
Linda N ic ichols holson on – ‘T he myth m yth of the traditional family’ Like Barrett Barrett and McIntosh, McIntosh, Linda Nicholson Nicholson (1997) (1997) believes there is a powerful ideology which gives support to a positive positive image of family family life. life. She argues that this th is ideology only supports certain types of family while devaluing deva luing other types t ypes.. N ichols icholson on contras con trasts ts what she calls calls the ‘traditional’ ‘traditional’ famil family y with ‘altern ‘alternativ ative’ e’ famil families ies.. She is an an American feminist and her comments largely refer to the USA, but they may be appli applicab cable le more generall generally y to Western societies.
The ‘traditional’ ‘traditional’ family Nicholson defines the traditional family as ‘the unit of parents par ents with children children who live live together’. together’. The bond between husband and wife is seen as particularly important, and the family feels itself to be separate from other kin.This family group is often referred to as the nuclear family (see p. 474). Wh When en conserva conservativ tivee social social commentators expres expresss concern about the decli decline ne of the fa family mily, it is this sort of family fa mily they are are concerned about. Th They ey tend to be less less worried about any decline of wider kinship links involving grandparents grandpa rents,, aunts aunts,, uncles and so so on. Nicholson claims that the nuclear family which is idealized by many commentators is a comparatively recent phenomenon and only became the norm for working-class families fa milies in the 1950s, 1950s, and even even then it was uncomm uncommon on among Af African rican Americans Americans.. Furth Furtherm ermore, ore, alternativ alternativee family family forms were already developing even before the traditional family reached its zenith zenith.. N icholson say says: s: Even as a certain ideal of family was coming to define ‘the American way of life’, lif e’, suc such h trends tr ends as a rising divorce rat rate, e, increased participation of married women in the labour force, and the growth of female-heade female-headed d households households were making this t his way way of life increasingly increasingly atypical. In all cases cases cholson, on, 199 1997 7 such trends preceded the 1950s. Ni chols Some of these changes actually altered what was perceived as as a ‘traditional’ ‘traditional’family family. For example, it came to be seen as ‘normal’ for married women to work, ev even en if they had smal malll child children. ren. O ther changes changes,, though, wer weree seen seen as as producing alternative alternative fa familie miliess. Al Altern ternativ atives es to traditional families included, included,‘No ‘Nott only o nly gays gays and and les lesbians bians but heterosexh eterosexuals living alone; marr married ied couples with husba h usbands nds at at home hom e caring for children’, as well as as stepfamilies tepfamilies,, single parents, heterosexual hete rosexual couples living togeth together er outside marr marr iage iage,, and gay or lesbian couples with or without children.
The merits of different family types Alternative families families,, or alternatives alter natives to traditional families, families, tend to t o be devalued. devalued. Th They ey are are seen as les lesss wort worthy hy than traditional families families.. H owev owever, er, N icholson rejects this view view.. Alternative families are often better than traditional ones for the women who live live in them. For example example,, poor black black women in the USA derive some benefits when they live in mother-centre mother-centred d fa famil milies ies,, of often ten without men. They develop strong support networks with other friends and kin, who act as a kind of social social ins insurance urance sys system. tem. They help out the families who are most in need at a particular time if they are in a position to do so.
471
C H A P T E R 8
F a m i l i e s a n d h o u s e h o l d s
472
S o c i o l o g y
T h e m e s a n d P e r s p e c t i v e s
Such families do hav havee disadvantages disadvantages.. If they th ey have some some good fortune fortune and come into money, money, ea each ch famil family y is expected expecte d to share resource resourcess. T his makes makes it difficult difficult for individual indivi dual fa families milies to escape escape pov poverty erty.. Further more, the lack of stable heterosexual partnerships means ‘children frequently do not have the type of long-term relationships with father figures which is normative within middle- clas classs households’ h ouseholds’.. Traditional families also have disadvantages: Becaus usee both partners now tend to work, they have have • Beca tremendous time press pressures ures,, maki making ng it dif diffi ficult cult to carry out satisfactory and rewarding childcare. • Children who are the victims of abuse by parents have relatively little opportunity to turn to other relatives for help. • Traditional families place a heavy burden of expectation on the partners, partners, and and,, with work and and childca childcare re commitments, commitm ents, it may be difficult difficult for them to provide the love and companionship each partner expects. • The traditional family also precludes and excludes gay and lesbian relationships. H owev owever, er, tradition traditional al families families do hav h avee some adv advantages antages::
• Their small size tends to encourage intimacy between famil between family y members members,, and and,, when the relationrelationships work, they can be rewarding and and long- las lasting. ting. • Traditional families can be economically successful because they are not usually expected to share their resources with others.
Conclusion The fact that they have some advantages does not mean that traditional families are better than alternative types. From N icho ichols lson’ on’ss poin pointt of view, view, different types of family suit different women in different circumstances. She believes the distinction between traditional and alternativee families should be abandoned. Th alternativ Thee distinction implies that traditional tradition al famili families es are better, when this is often not true. In any ca casse, the idea of the traditiona traditionall family misleadingly implies that such families have long been the norm, when in fact fact they hav havee only become popular in recent times, times, and have have never been totally dominant. By the late 1990s so many people lived in alternatives to traditional families that the idea of the traditional family had become totall totally y outdated. outdated. N ichol icholsson therefore therefore concludes that all types of family and and household h ousehold should be acknowledged and accepted because they could suit women in dif differ ferent ent circumstances circumstances.. She advocates advocates the celebration of greater choice for people in deciding on their own living arrangements.
Cheshire Calhoun – lesbians as ‘family outlaws’ Like Linda Like Linda Nichols Nich olson, on, C heshire Calhoun (1997) devel develops ops a type of difference feminism influenced by postmodernis ern ism. m. U nlike N icholson, she focuses focuses on lesbian lesbian famili families es rather than looking at the merits of a variety of family forms for women. Calhoun is a pos postmodern tmodern,, dif differ ference ence feminist from the United States.
Lesbians and families Calhoun argues that traditional feminists are right to argue that women are exploited exploited within families families,, but wrong to argue that the exploitation of women is an inevitable feature fea ture of family family lif life. e. R ather, exploitation results from the heterosexual family. In lesbian families, families, the there re is no pos po ssibility that women wom en can become dependent dependent on men and exploi exploited ted by them. Some lesbian feminists argue that women should avoid forming famil fa milies ies,, but Cal C alhoun houn dis disagr agrees ees.. Ac Accordi cording ng to her, it is not family life itself that leads to the exploitation of women; rather,, it is fa rather family mily li life fe within patriarc patriarchal hal,, heteros heterosexua exuall marriages that is the problem. Les esbian bian marr marriag iagee and mothering can avoid the exploitative relationships typical of heterosexuall marriage. heterosexua marriage. Indeed, les lesbian bian partner partnerss may be able able to develop forms of marriage and family life which can point the way to creating more egalitarian domestic relationships. This view is in stark contrast to a more conventional view that lesbians and gays cannot develop proper marriages or cons con struct genuine famili families es.. Acc According ording to Calhoun, ga gays ys and lesbians lesbians hav havee histor histor ica ically lly been portrayed as ‘family outlaws’.Their sexuality has been seen as threaten threatening ing to the t he family. Th They ey have have been portray por trayed ed as ‘outsiders to the th e family and as displa displaying ying the most virulent viru lent forms of family-disrupting behaviour’. H owev owever, er, C alhoun believes believes the anxiety amon among g hetero hetero-sexuals about gays and lesbians has in fact been caused by anxiety about the state of the heterosexual nuclear family. R ather than recognizing and and acknowledging the problems with such families families,, hetero heterossexuals hav havee tried to attr ibute the problems to cor rupting outs out siders or outla ou tlaws ws:: that is, is, gays and lesbians. According to C alhoun, moder modern n family life life is ess essentially entially characterized by choice. Les Lesbians bians and gays gays introdu introduced ced the th e idea of chosen families.You can choose whom to include in your family without the restrictions of blood ties or the expectation of settling down with and marrying an opposite-s oppos ite-sex ex partner. partner. N ow ow,, how howev ever er,, heter heteros osexua exuals ls al alsso construct cons truct ‘chos ‘chosen en famili families es’’ as they div divorce orce,, rema remarry rry,, sep epaara rate te,, choo choosse new new partner partnerss, adop doptt child childre ren, n, ga gain in stepchildren and so on. R ather than t han seeing the above changes in a positive positive light, many commentators commentato rs have have seen seen them the m as a threat to families famil ies and the institu institution tion of marriage marr iage.. Th This is time there have been two main types of family outlaw who have been scapegoated scapegoated and blamed for for the t he changes. T hese are are ‘the unwed welfare mother and … the lesbian or gay whose mere public visibility threatens to undermine family values and destroy the family’.
Conclusion Calhoun concludes that such scapegoating of lesbians and gays is used to disguise the increasingly frequent departures from the th e norm no rmss of family life life by heterosexuals. heterosexuals. She say sayss: Claiming that gay and lesbian families are (or should be) distinctively queer and distinctively deviant helps conceal the deviancy in heterosexual heterosexual families, fam ilies, and thereby helps to sustain the illusion that heterosexuals are specially entitled to access to a protected private sphere because they, unlike their gay and lesb lesbian ian counterp counterpar arts, ts, are suppor supporter ters s of the family. Calhoun, 1997
Thus the ideology of the heterosexual family has played an important part in encouraging discrimination and prejudice against gays and lesbians. To Calhoun, ga gay y and les lesbia bian n relations relationships hips,, with or without with out children, ch ildren, are just just as much family relationships relationships as thosse of heterosexual couples. She does not believ tho b elievee that arguing for them to be accepted as such in any way legitimates the heterosexual het erosexual,, patriarchal family family that has been so criticized by radical and Marxist feminists. In the contempora contemporary ry world, heteros heterosexua exuall famil families ies engage in ‘multiple deviations from norms governing the family’ famil y’.. A wide variety of behaviours and and family for forms ms havee become common and widely hav widely accepted. accepted. Acc Accepting epting gays and lesbians as forming families involves the acceptance of just one more variation from traditional conventional families families.. It has the potential pot ential benefit of reducing the anti-gay and anti-lesbian prejudice that has been promoted in the name of preserving the family.
Industrialization refers to the mass production of goods in 4 7 3 a factory system which involves some degree of mechanized C production technology. Modernization refers to the H development dev elopment of socia ocial, l, cultura cultural, l, economic and politi political cal A practices and institutions which are thought to be typical of P modern moder n societies societies.. Such developments developments include include the repla replaceceT ment of religious belief systems with scientific and rational E R ones,the ones, the growth of bureaucratic ins institution titutionss, and the replacereplacement of monarchies with representative democracies (see pp. 8 890–1 for an introduction to the concept of modernity). Some sociologists sociologists regard industrialization industrialization as the central cent ral process involved in changes in Western societies since the eighteenth century; others atta attach ch more importance to broader broa der process processes of modernization. modernization. Howev However, er, there are a number of problems that arise from relating the family to industrialization or modernization:
1 The processes of industrialization and modernization
do not follow the same course in every society. 2 Industrialization and modernization are not fixed states but developing developing processes processes.. Th Thus us the indus indu str trial ial Difference feminism – conclusion system in nineteenth-century Britain was different in The feminists discussed in this section all avoid the important impor tant respects from that of today. Simil Similarly arly, mistake of making sweeping generalizations about the British culture, society and politics are very very different effects of family life on women.They tend to be sensitive now from how they were two hundred years ago. 3 Some writers dispute that we still live in modern to the different experiences of family life experienced by women of differ different ent sexual sexual orientations, orientations, ethnic groups, groups, industrial societies and believe that we have moved classes and so on (although each writer does not into a phase phase of postmoder nity nity.T .The he issue issue of o f the family necessarily discuss all the sources of difference that affect and postmodernity will be examined later in the how families influence influence women’ wo men’ss liv lives es). ). In these respects chapter (see (see pp. pp. 517–19). they can be seen as representin representing g theoretical the oretical advances advances upon Further difficulties arise from the fact that there is not some of the Marxist and radical theories discussed earlier. one form form of pre-ind pre-indus ustria trial, l, or premode premodern, rn, fa fami mily ly, but H owev owever, er, some diff d ifference erence feminists do sometimes lose lose many. sight of the th e inequalities between men and women in families Much of o f the research research on the th e family family,, industrializa industrialization tion by stressing the range of choices open to people when they and modernization has led to considerable confusion are forming formin g families families.. By stress stressing ing the th e different exper iences of because it is not always clear what the family in modern women they tend to neglect the common experiences indus industrial trial society society is being being compared compared to. In addition, within shared by most women in famil families ies.. N ev everth ertheles elesss, this general modern industrial society there are variations in family approach may be right to suggest that it is possible (if not structure. As a starting starting point, therefor therefore, e, it is necess necessary for common) for both men and women to develop rewarding us to examine examine the family family in premodern, pre-industrial and fulfilling family relationships. societies in order to establish a standard for comparison. The last few sections have examined the family from a variety va riety of o f perspectiv perspectives es.. Th Thee focus now changes to various The family in non-literate societies themes that are significant to our understanding of the family as a unit of social organization.The first theme is the In many small small-- scale cale,, non non-- literate societies the family and and effect of industrialization and modernization on the family. kinship relationships in general are the basic organizing principles prin ciples of social social life. life. Societies are often divided into a number of kinship kinship groups, groups, such as lineages, whi which ch are are groups descended from a common ancestor.The family is embedded in a web of kinship relations relationships hips.. Kins Kinship hip groups are responsible for the production of important goods and services services.. For example example,, a lineag lineagee may may own own agricultural agricultur al land land which is worked, and its produce shared, by members of the lineage. Members of kinship groups are united by a network of mutual mutu al rights and and obligations. In some cases cases,, if individuals individuals are insulted or injured by someone from outside the group,, they have group have the right to call on the support of members of the group in seeking reparation or revenge. Many areas of an individual’s behaviour are shaped by T he pre-indus pre-industt r ial fam fam ily his or her status status as as kin. kin. An uncle, for example example,, ma may y have have A major theme in sociological studies of the family is the binding obligations to be involved with aspects of his relationship between the structure of the family and the nephew’s socialization and may be responsible for the related processes of industrialization and modernization. welfare of his nieces and nephews should their father die.
The family, industrialization and modernization
F a m i l i e s a n d h o u s e h o l d s
474
S o c i o l o g y
T h e m e s a n d P e r s p e c t i v e s
Something of the importance of family and kinship relationships in many small-scale societies is illustrated by the following statement by a Pomo Indian of northern California: What is a man? A man is nothing.Without his family he is of less less importance than that t hat bug crossi crossing ng the trail. In the t he white ways of doing things the family is not so important. The police and soldiers soldiers take care of protec prot ectiting ng you, you, the courtss give court give you justi justice, ce, the post offi office ce carr carries ies messag messages es for you, the school school teaches you. Ev Everythi erything ng is taken care of, even ev en your your children, if you die; die; but with wit h us the family famil y must must Aginsky, ky, 1968 do all of that. Quot ed in Agins In this brief description of the family in small-scale, pre-industrial society we have glossed over the wide variations in family and kinship patterns which are found in such societies. societies. Even so, so, it does serve serve to highlight some of the more important differences between the family in kinship-based society and the family in industrial society.
The ‘clas ‘class sic’ ext extended ended fa family mily A second second form form of pre-industrial, pre-industrial, premodern family family, somet ometimes imes known as the clas classsic extended exten ded family, family, is foun found d in some traditional tr aditional peasant peasant societies.T his family family type has been made m ade famous by by C.M. C.M . Arens Arensberg berg and S.T. S.T. Kimball Kimball’’s study of Irish Irish farmers, farmers, entitled Family and Community in Ireland (1968). As in kins kin shiphip-bas based ed societies, kinship ties dominate lif life, e, but in this case the basic unit is the extended family rather than the wider kinship kinship grouping. The traditi t raditional onal Irish Irish farming family is a patriarchal extended family, socalled because of the considerable authority of the male head. hea d. It is al alsso patrilineal because property is passed down through thro ugh the male line. line.With Within in the family, social and economic econo mic roles are welded welded together, togethe r, status being as ascribed by family membership. O n the th e farm, the father–son father–son relationship relationship is als also o that th at of owner–employee.The father–owner makes the important decisions (such as whether to sell cattle) and directs the activities of all the other members of the extended family. He is head of the family and ‘director of the firm’. Typically Ty pically,, th thee classic classic extended extend ed family consis con sists ts of the male head, his wife and and children, his ag ageing eing parents parents who have have passsed on the farm to pas t o him, and any unmarr unmarried ied brothers and sis ister terss.Together, they work as a ‘production unit’, un it’, producin producing g the goods necessary for the family’s survival. Some people have have argued that, as industrializa industrialization tion and modernization proceed, proceed, kins kinship-bas hip-based ed society society and and the classsic extended family tend to break up, and the nuclear clas nu clear family – or some form of modified extended family – emerges as the predominant family form.
Talcott Parsons – the ‘isolated nuclear family’ St ruc ructt ural is isolat olation ion Talcott Parsons argued that the isolated nuclear family is the typical family form in modern industrial society (Paars (P rsons ons,, 19 1959 59,, 19 1965 65b; b; Pa Pars rsons ons and Ba Bale less, 19 1955 55). ). It is ‘stru ‘s tructurally cturally isolated’ isolated’ becaus becausee it does not for m an integral integr al
part of o f a wider sys system of o f kinship kinship relationships. relationships. O bvious bviously ly there are social relationships between members of nuclear families famil ies and their kin, but thes th esee relationships are more a matter of choice than binding obligations. Parsons saw the emergence of the isolated nuclear family famil y in terms of his theo theory ry of social social evolution. (Th (This is theory is outl outline ined d in Chapter Chapter 15, 15, pp pp.. 86 860– 0–1.) 1.) The evolution of society involves a process of structural differentiation. This simpl simply y means that institutions institutions evolvee which evolv wh ich specialize specialize in fewer fewer functions. functio ns.As As a result, result, the family and kinship groups no longer perform a wide range of functions function s. Instead, specialis pecialistt ins in stitu titutions tions such as business business firms, fi rms, schools chools,, hospi hospital talss, polic policee forces forces and churches tak takee over many of their functions. This process of differentiation and specialization involves the ‘transfer of a variety of functions from the nuclear family family to other oth er stru structures ctures of the society’.T society’.T hus, in moder n industrial society society,, with the th e transfer transfer of the production of goods to factories, speciali pecialized zed economic institutionss became differentiated tion differentiated from the t he family. Th Thee family ceased to be an economic unit of production.
The family and the economy Functionalist analysis emphasizes the importance of integration and harmony between the various parts of society.. An efficient social sy society system stem requires requi res th thee parts to fit smoothly rather than abra abrade. de. The parts of society society are are functionally related when they contribute to the integration and harmony of the social system. Parsons argued that there is a functional relationship between the isolated nuclear family and the economic sys ystem tem in industrial industrial society society.. In particular, particular, the isola isolated ted nuclear family is shaped to meet the requirements of the economic system. A modern industrial system with a specialized division of labour demands considerable geographical mobility from its labou labourr force. Ind Individuals ividuals wit with h specialized skills skills are required to move to places where those skills are in demand.The isolated nuclear family is suited to this need for geographical geographical mobility. mobility. It is not tied t ied down by binding binding obligations oblig ations to a wide range of kin and, compar compared ed to the pre-industrial preindustrial families families described above, above, it is a small, small, streamlined unit.
Status in the family Status in industrial society is achieved rather than ascribed . An individual’ individual’s occupational occupational status status is not automatically fixed fixed by their as ascribed cribed status in the t he famil family y or kinship group. group. Pars Parsons ons argued argued that the isolated isolated nuclear family is the best form of family structure for a society based on achieved status. In industrial in dustrial society society,, individuals are judged in ter ms of the status they achieve. achieve. Such judgements are are based based on what Parsons termed universalistic values – that is, values that are universally applied to all members of society ociety.. H owev owever, er, with within in the family, status is as ascribed cribed and, as such, bas based ed on particularistic values – that is, is, va values lues that are applied only to particular individuals.Thus a son’s relationship with his father is conducted primarily in terms ter ms of their ascribed ascribed statuses statuses of father father and son. T he father’’s achieved statu father statuss as a bricklayer, school teacher teach er or
lawyer has relatively little influence on their relationship, since his son does not judge him primarily in terms of universa un iversalistic listic val values. ues. Parsons Pars ons argued argued that, th at, in a society society based based on achieved status, conflict would tend to arise in a famil family y unit larger than the is isola olated ted nuclear family family. In a three- genera generation tion extended family, family, in which the t he children remained as part of the family family unit, the following following situation situation could produce conflict. If the son son became a doctor and the father was a labourer, the particularistic values values of family life life would giv givee the father a higher status than his son.Yet the universalistic values of society as a whole would award his son higher social status. Co Conflict nflict could res result ult from this situation ituation,, which might undermine the authority of the father and threaten the solidarity of the family. The same conflict of values could occur if the nuclear family famil y were extended hor h orizontally izontally. R elations elationships hips between a woman and her sister might be problematic if they held jobs of widely differing prestige. The isolated nuclear family largely prevents these problems from arising.T arising.There here is one main breadwinner, the husband–father. husband–fa ther. H is wife wife is mainly responsible responsible for raising raising the children and the latter have yet to achieve their status in the world of work. N o member of the family family is in a position to threaten the ascribed authority structure by achieving a status outside the family which is higher than the achieved status of the family head. Thesee problem Thes problemss do do not occur in premodern, premodern, preindustrial societies because occupational status is largely ascribed, as cribed, since an individual in dividual’’s position position in the t he family and kinship group usually determines his or her job. Parsons Pars ons concluded that, giv given en the univers universali alisstic, achiev achieveement- or oriented iented values values of industr industrial ial society ociety,, the isolated isolated nuclear family is th thee most suitable suitable family str tructu ucture. re. Any extension of this basic unit might well create conflict which would threaten the solidarity of the family. As a consequence of the structural isolation of the nuclearr famil nuclea family y, the conjugal bond – the relationship between husband and wife – is strengthened.Without the suppor upportt of kin beyond the nuclear nu clear family family, spouses are increassingl increa ingly y dependent on eac each h other, oth er, particul particularl arly y for emotional support. As we outlined prev previous iously ly, Pa Parsons rsons argued that the stabilization of adult personalities is a major function of the family in modern industrial society. This Th is is larg largely ely accomplished accomplished in term t ermss of the husba h usband–wife nd–wife relationship.
Criticism of Parsons So far, far, the arg arguments uments examined in th is section section sugges uggestt that modernization and industrialization led to a shift from predominantly extended to predominantly nuclear family types.The nuclear family is portrayed by Parsons as being well adapted to the requirements of modern industrial indus trial societi societies es.. Furthermore, the nuclear nuclear famil family y is generally portray portr ayed ed in a positive positive light. David Cheal Ch eal (1991) sees this view as being closely related to the modernist view of progress. Cheal describes modernism as ‘a self-conscious commitment to and advocacy of the world-changing potential of modernity’. modernity’. Wr Writers iters such such as Pars Parsons ons put forward forwa rd a modernist interpretation of the fa family mily. Cheal strongly attacks Parsons’s views.
Parsons saw the change towards a nuclear family as part 4 7 5 of the increased speciali specialization zation of institutions institution s. T he family C was seen as an increasingly well-adapted specialist instituH tion which interacted with other specialist institutions A such as tho thosse of o f the welfa welfare re state. C heal is very very sceptical of P the modernist view of the family advocated by Parsons. T He claims that the faith in progress expressed by writers E R such as Parsons and Goode ignored contradictions within modernity moder nity.. C hanges in different different parts of society did not 8 alway al wayss go handhand-inin-hand. hand. For example, example, increas increased ed employemployment of women in paid jobs did not lead to men sharing domestic tasks equally. From C heal’s point of view, view, there is nothing inevitable about modern institutions developing in such a way that they function well together. Furthermore, Further more, Cheal arg argues ues:: Parsons arsons’’ ge generalizat neralizations ions about about family f amily life were oft en seririous se ously ly parochial, reflecti reflecting ng narrow experiences experiences of gend ender, er, clas class, s, race and and nationality. Inev Inevitably, itably, that res resulted ulted in Parsons drawing some conclusions that have not stood up well to empirical empir ical inves investigat tigation, ion, or to t he passag passage e of Cheal, l, 1991 time. Chea
Peter Laslett – the family in pre-industrial societies The family in kinship-based society and the classic extended family represent only two possible forms of family fa mily structure in pre- indus industrial trial society society.. Historical research in Britain and America suggests neither was typical of those countries in the pre-industrial era. Peter Pe ter Las Laslett, a historian, historian, studie tudied d famil family y siz sizee and composition compos ition in pre-indus pre- industrial trial Engla England nd (Las (Laslett, 1972 1972,, 1977). 1977 ). For the period between 1564 and 1821 1821 he found that only about 10 per cent of households contained kin beyond bey ond the nuclear family. Th This is percentage is the same as for England England in 1966. Evidence from America presents a similar picture. This surprisingly low figure may be due in part to the fact that people in pre-industrial England and America married marr ied relatively relatively late in lif lifee and lif lifee expectancy expe ctancy was shor short. t. O n averag average, e, there were only a few few years years between between the marriage of a couple and the death of their parents. However, Howev er, La Lasslett found found no evidence evidence to support support the formerly accepted view that the classic extended family was wides widesprea pread d in pre-industria pre-industriall England. England. H e states states:: ‘Th There ere is no sign sign of the la large rge,, extended co-residential co-residential family group of the traditional peasant world giving way to the small small,, nuclea nuclearr conjugal conjugal household household of modern industrial society.’
The ‘Western family’ Following on from his research research in England, La Lasl slett ett (1983, 1984) began to draw together the results of research into pre-industrial pre-in dustrial fa family mily size in other countr coun tries ies.. H e reached reached the conclusion that the nuclear family was not just typical of Britain. H e uncovered evidence evidence that th at there was a dis distinctinctive Western family found als also o in northern north ern France, France, the N etherlands etherlands,, Belgi Belgium, um, Sc Scandina andinavia via and parts parts of Italy and Germany Ger many.. T his type of family was typically nuclear in stru tructure: cture: children were born relatively relatively late, late, there was little age gap between spouses, spouses, and a large number of families
F a m i l i e s a n d h o u s e h o l d s
476
S o c i o l o g y
T h e m e s a n d P e r s p e c t i v e s
contained servants servants.. Th This is contrasted with Easter Eastern n Europe and other ot her parts p arts of the world wo rld (such as R uss ussia ia and Japan), Japan), where the extended family was more common. According to Laslett, Laslett, it was at at least least possible possible that the th e predominance of the nuclear family was a factor that helped Western Europe to be the first area of the world to industrializ indus trialize. e. He reversed reversed the more common argument that industrial industr ialization ization led to the nuclear family family,, clai claiming ming that the th e nuclear family family had social, social, political and and economic econ omic consequences which in part led to industrialization.
Criticisms of Laslett Although Laslett successfully exploded the myth that the extended extende d family family was typical of pre-indus pre-indu str trial ial Britain, his conclusions should be viewed with some caution. Michael Anderson (1980) points out some contradictory to ry evidence evide nce in Las Laslett lett’’s own research. Las Laslett lett’’s research might hav h avee shown average average hous hou sehold size to be under un der five people, but it also also revealed revealed that a major majority ity of the population in pre-industrial Britain (53 per cent) lived in households consisting of six or more people. Anderson also refers to other research which suggests a much greater variety of household types than Laslett’s theory theor y of the Wes estern tern fa family mily implies implies.. For instance, instance, research res earch has shown shown that in Sweden extended famil families ies were very ve ry common. Further more, there is evi evidence dence of cons consididerable erab le variati variation on within w ithin Britain: the gentry and yeoman yeoman farmers fa rmers,, for exa exampl mple, e, tended to hav have much much lar larger ger households than the average. For these reasons,Anderson is critical of the idea of the ‘Wes ‘W ester tern n family’. family’. H e believes believes prepre-industrial industrial Europe was characterized by family diversity without any one type of family being predominant.
Michael Anderson – household structure and the industrial revolution
periods of high unemploy unemployment, ment, la large rge fa famili milies es,, a high death rate and overcr overcrowded owded housing. housing. In these circumcircumstances the maintenance of a large kinship network could be advantageous to all concerned. In the th e absence absence of a welfa welfare re state, state, individuals were largely dependent on kin in times of hardship and need. Ageing Ag eing parents parents often often lived lived with their marr ied children, children, a situation that benefited both parties. It provided support support for the aged and allowed both the parents to work in the factor fac tory y, since the grandparents grandparents could care care for for the dependent children. children. N etworks of mutual mutual support support were useful in the event of sickness or unemployment or if children childr en were orphaned. Co- res residence idence als also allowed allowed the sharing of the cost of rent and other household expenses. Anderson’ss study Anderson’ study of Preston indicates that, in the th e midnineteenth ninet eenth centur cen tury y, the working-clas workin g-classs famil family y functio functioned ned as a mutual aid aid organization organization.. It provided an insurance insurance policy against aga inst hardship hardship and cris cr isis is.. Th This is function encour e ncouraged aged the extension of kinship bonds beyond the nuclear family. Such links would be retained as long as they provided net gains to those t hose involved.Ander involved.Ander son concludes co ncludes that the early stages of industrialization increased rather than decreased the extension of the working-class family.
M ic icha hael el You oung ng and and Pet eter er W illmot illmottt – four stages of family life Michael Young and Peter Willmott conducted studies of family famil y life life in London from the 1950s to the 1970s. In their th eir Sy mmetrical Family Family (1973) they attempt to trace book T he Symmetric the development of the family from pre-industrial England Engla nd to the 1970s. 1970s. U sing a combination of o f historical research and social sur surveys veys,, th they ey suggest suggest that the t he family has gone through four main stag stages es.. In this t his section section we will concentrate on their analysis of the working-class family.
Stage 1 – the pre-industrial family
Stage 1 is repres Stage represented ented by the pre- industrial family family.. T he family fa mily is a unit of production: the husband, husband, wife and Michael Anderson’s own research into the effects of unmarr unm arried ied children work as as a team, team, typical typically ly in agriculindustrializ indus trialization ation on famili families es does not, howev however, er, support ture or t extiles extiles.. Th This is type of family family was gradual gradually ly the view that during industrialization extended families supplanted as a result of the industrial revolution. began bega n to dis disappe appear ar (Anderson, (Anderson, 1971 1971,, 1977 1977). ). H owe oweve ver, r, it continued well well into the nineteenth century U sing data from from the t he 1851 census of Preston Preston,, Anderson and is still represented in a small minority of families found that some 23 per cent of households contained kin today,, the best examples being some farming today farmin g families families.. other than the nuclear family – a large increase over Laslett Las lett’’s figures figures and tho t hose se of today. today. T he bulk bu lk of this th is ‘coresidence’occurred among the poor.Anderson argues that Stage 2 – the early industrial family co-residence occurs when the parties involved receive net The Stage 2 family began with the industrial revolution, gains from the arrangement: developed throughout the nineteenth century and If we are to understand variations and changes in patterns reached its peak in the early years of the twentieth century.. Th century Thee family family ceas ceased to be a unit of o f production, of kinship relationships, relationships, the only wort hwhile approach is since individual members were employed as wage earners. consciously and explicitly to investigate the manifold Throughout the nineteenth nineteenth century, century, worki working-cl ng-clas asss advantages and disadvantages that any actor can obtain poverty was widesprea widespread, d, wages were low and unemployun employfrom maintaining one relational pattern rather than ment high. Lik Likee Anderson,Y Anderson,Youn oung g and Willmott argue that Anderson, rson, 197 1971 1 another. Ande the family responded to this situation by extending its network to include relatives beyond the nuclear family. Extended families and mutual aid This provided an insurance policy against the insecurity Preston in 1851 was largely dependent on the cotton and hardship of poverty. industry indu stry.. Lif Lifee for many workingwor king- clas classs families was was characThe extension of the nuclear family was largely terized ter ized by sev evere ere hardship, hardship, res resulting ulting from low wages wages,, conducted by women who ‘eventually built up an organi-
zation in their own defence and in defence of their children’ child ren’.. The bas basic ic tie was between a mother and her married ma rried daughter, daughter, and and,, in comparis comparison, on, the conjugal conjugal bond bond (the husband–wife relation relationsship) was weak.Women weak.Women created an ‘i ‘informal nformal trade union’ which largely largely excluded excluded men. Young and Willmott claim: ‘Husba ‘Husbands nds were were often squeezed out of the warmth of the female circle and took to the pub as their defence.’ Compared Co mpared to later stages, stages, the Stage 2 family family was more often headed by a female. female. H owev owever, er, unlike the situation situation of N ew World black black families families (s (see ee p. 861), this resulted resulted more mo re from the high male death rate than from desertion by the husband. The Stage 2 family began to decline in the early years of the twentieth twent ieth century cent ury,, but it is still still foun found d in many low low income, longlong-es establis tablished hed working- clas classs areas areas. Its survival survival is documented in Young and Willmott’s famous study entitled Family and Kinship in East London .The study was conducted in the mid-1950s in Bethnal Green, a low low income borough bo rough in London’ London ’s Eas Eastt End. Bethnal Green is a long-s long-settled, ettled, traditi traditional onal working-cla working-classs are area. a. Children usually usual ly remain in the same locality locality after marr iag iage. e. At the time of the researc research, h, two out of three married people had parents living within two to three miles. The study found that there was a close tie between femalee relatives femal relatives.. O ver 50 50 per cent of the marr ied women in the sample had seen their mother during the previous day, ov over er 80 per cent within the th e previous week. week.T T here was a constant exchange exch ange of services such such as was washing, hing, shoppin hopping g and babys babysitting between bet ween female relatives relatives.. Youn oung g and Willmott argued that in many families the households of mother and married daughter were ‘to some extent merged’. As such they th ey can can be ter med extended exten ded families families,, which Young and Willmott define as ‘a combination of families who to some degree form one domestic unit’. Although many aspects of the Stage 2 family were present pres ent in Bethnal Bethn al Green, there were also also indications of a transition trans ition to Stage 3. For example, example, fa fathers thers were increas increas-ingly inv involved olved in the rearing of their children. (For details of a later study which examined how Bethnal Green had changed chang ed by the 1990s, 1990s, see pp. 492–4 492–4.) .)
Stage 3 – the symmetrical family In the early 1970sYoun oung g and Willmott condu conducted cted a largescale social survey in which 1,928 people were interviewed in Greater London and the outer metropolitan area.T area. T he results formed the t he basis basis of their book, boo k, T he Symmetrical Family. Young and Willmott argue that the Stage 2 family has largely larg ely disappeared. disappeared. For all social social clas classes es,, but particularly par ticularly the working clas class, the Stage Stage 3 family predomin predominates ates.. T his family is characterized by ‘the separation of the immediate, or nuclear family family from from the extended ext ended family’. family’. The ‘trade union’of women is disbanded and the husband returns to the family circle. Life for the Stage 3 nuclear family is largely homecentred, particul particularl arly y when the children children are are young. young. Free time is spent doing chores and odd jobs around the house, and leisure leisure is mainly mainly ‘home‘home-bas based’, ed’, for example, example, watching television. televis ion. Th Thee conjugal bond is strong and relationships between husband and wife are increasingly ‘companionate’.. In the home,‘They ionate’ h ome,‘They shared shared their work; they shared shared
their time.’The nuclear family has become a largely self- 4 7 7 contained, self elf-reliant -reliant unit. C Young and Willmott use the term symmetrical H family to describe the nuclear family of Stage 3. A ‘Symmetry’refers to an arrangement in which the opposite P parts are are similar similar in shape and and size. size. With res respect pect to the T symmetr ymmetrical ical famil family y, conjugal roles, roles, al althou though gh not no t the same – E R wives still have the main responsibility for raising the children, al althou though gh husbands husbands help – are simila similarr in term t ermss of 8 the contribution made by each spouse to the running of the hous hou sehold. Th They ey share share many of the chores, chores, they share share decisions, decis ions, they work together, t ogether, yet there t here is still still men’s men’s work and women’s women’s work. Co Conjugal njugal roles are not interchangeab interchangeable le but they are symmetrical in important respects.
Reasons for the rise of the symmetrical family Young and Willmott give the following reasons for the transition from Stage 2 to Stage 3 families:
1 A number of factors have reduced the need for kinship-based mutu mutual al aid groups. Th They ey include an increasee in the increas th e real wages wages of the male breadwinner, a decrease in unemployment and the male mortality rate, increas increased ed employment employment opportu oppo rtunities nities for women and the provision of a wider range of services and benefits by the welfare state. 2 Increasing geographical mobility has tended to sever kinship kins hip ties. ties. In their t heir study of Bethnal Bethnal Green,Y Green, Young and Willmott showed how the extended kinship network largely ceased to operate when young couples with children moved some twenty miles away to a new council housing estate. 3 The reduction in the number of child children, ren, fr from om an average of five or six per family in the nineteenth century to jus justt over two in 1970, prov provided ided greater greater opportunities opportun ities for wives wives to work. This in turn tur n led to greater grea ter symmetry symmetry within the family family, since both spouses are more likely to be wage earners and to share financial responsibility for the household. 4 As living stand standards ards rose, th thee husband hu sband was drawn more m ore closely clos ely into the th e family family circle, circle, since the home h ome was a more attractive place with better amenities and a greater range of home entertainments.
Class and family life Young and Willmott found that the home-centred symmetrical family was more typical of the working class than the middle class class. Th They ey argue argue that member s of the working class are ‘more fully home-centred because they are less less full fully y work-centred’. work- centred’. Partly as as compen compenssation for boring and uninvolv uninvolving ing work, and partly partly becaus becausee relatively little interest and energy are expended at work, manual workers tend to focus their attention on family life.Young and Willmott therefore see the nature of work as a major influence on family life.
The ‘Principle of Stratified Diffusion’ Symmetrical al Family Family Young and Willmott devise a In T he Symmetric general theory which they term the Principle of claim this theory explains explains Stratified Diffusion. They claim much of o f the change in family life life in industrial society society.. Put
F a m i l i e s a n d h o u s e h o l d s
478
S o c i o l o g y
T h e m e s a n d P e r s p e c t i v e s
simply imply,, the theor t heory y states states that what the th e top of o f the stratificastratification sys system does today, the bottom bott om will w ill do do tomorrow to morrow.. Lifes Lif estyles tyles,, patter patterns ns of consumption consumption,, attitude attitudess and expectations will diffuse from the top of the stratification system downwards. Young and Willmott argue that industrialization is the ‘source ‘s ource of momentum’: it provides provides the opportunities o pportunities for for higher living standards standards and so so on. H owev owever, er, industrializa industrialization tion alone cannot account accoun t for the th e changes in family lif life: e: it cannot fully explain, for example, example, why the mass mass of the population havee chos hav cho sen to t o adopt the lif lifestyl estylee of Stage 3 families. families. To complete the expl explana anation, tion, Young and Willmott maintain that the Principle of Stratified Diffusion is required. Industrialization provides the opportunity for a certain degree of choice choice for the mass mass of the population. This choice will be largely determined by the behaviour of thosse at the tho th e top to p of the th e stratification stratification system.V system.Values alues,, attitudes and expectations expectation s permeate down dow n the th e class class sys system; tem; tho thosse at the bottom copy those at the top.
T he middle-clas m iddle-class s fam family ily Quantity and quality of contacts
A major problem in studies of the family is the difficulty of measuring the importance of kin beyond the nuclear family famil y. In a study study of o f middle-class middle-class family family life life carried out in Swans Sw ansea, ea, Co Colin lin Bell Bell (196 (1968) 8) ques questioned tioned whether the frequency of actual face-to-face contacts between kin provides provi des an accurate accurate ass asses esssment. Bell points to the importance of contact contact by telephone telephone and mail. mail. He also also distinguishes between the quantity and quality of contacts. For example example,, bumping into into mum on a street street corner in Swansea may have far less significance than a formal visit to her mother by a middle-class daughter. In his h is study study,, Bell found found a low level level of direct face-toface-to face cont contact act with kin beyond the nuclear family family.. Despite this relativ relatively ely low low level level of contact, he argues that, compared to the working clas class, ‘Middle-cla Middle-classs kin kin networks may have fewer day-to-day demands but I A Stage 4 family? think that there is little evidence to suggest that they necesssa nece sari rily ly show show any different affective affective quality. quality.’ T hus Applying the Principle of Stratified Diffusion to the future direct contact may be less frequent but the emotional (writing in 1973), Young and Willmott postulated postulated the bonds are the same. possible poss ible development of a Stage 4 family.T family.T hey examined in Similar conclusions were reached by Graham Allan detail the family family life life of manag managing ing directors, directors, which, in terms ter ms (1985) in research conducted in a commuter village in of their theor t heory y, shou hould ld diffuse diffuse downwards in years to come. co me. Eastt Anglia Eas Anglia.. Although he found foun d some some evidence that th at the Managing directors were work-centred rather than relationship between working-class wives and their home-centred – ‘my business is my life’was a typical quote mothers mot hers was particularly close close,, in general there was little from thos tho se in the sample.T heir leisure activities were less less difference between the middle-class and working-class home-centred and less likely to involve their wives than kinship networks networ ks.. In both bo th cases relations relationships hips were characthosse of Stage tho Stage 3 families. families. Sport was an an important impo rtant area of terized ter ized by a ‘pos ‘positive itive concern’ for the welfare of the kin recreation, particularly swimmin swimming g and golf.The golf.T he wife’s wife’s role regardless of the frequency of face-to-face contacts. was to look after the children children and the home. ho me. As such, the managing director’s family was more asymmetrical than the Stage 3 family. Contempo Contem porr ary family networks networks Young and Willmott suggest that changes in production technology may provide the opportunity for the Peter Willmott – networks in London Stage 4 family to diffuse throughout the stratification sys ystem. tem. As technology reduces routine work, a la larger rger In research conducted during the 1980s in a north number of people may have more interesting and London suburb, suburb, Peter Willmott (1988) found found that contacts con tacts involving jobs and become increasingly work-centred. with kin remained important in both the middle and Young and Willmott admit:‘We cannot claim that our working clas classs. In the th e area he studied, studied, about a third of the 190 managing directors were representative of managing couples had moved to the district in the previous five directorss generally.’ H owev director owever, er, giv given en the evidence av avail ailable able,, years ears.. O nly a third of all all the couples had parents parents or they predict that the asymmetrical Stage 4 family parents parents-in-in- la law w living living within ten minutes’ trav travell elling ing represents the next major development. distanc dis tance. e. Howev However er,, des despite pite the distanc distancee between between their homes hom es,, two- thirds of the couples saw saw relatives relatives at leas least weekly. Working-cla Working-classs couples saw saw relatives relatives more Evaluation frequently than middle-class middle-class couples, but the differences A number of features of Young and Willmott’s work are were not great. open to criticis criticism. m. Many feminis feminists ts have have attack attacked ed the Maintaining contact was relatively easy for most concept of o f the symmetr symmetrical ical famil family y, arguing that there has families because so so many m any had access to cars. c ars. Mo Most st also also had h ad been little progress towards equality equality between husband and homes that were sufficiently spacious for relatives to come wife (see (see p. 497 for for details det ails). ). Th There ere is als also o little evidence and stay stay. Some 90 per cent had h ad telephones telephone s which enabled e nabled that the Principle of Stratified Diffusion has led to the them to keep in touch with relatives even if they did not Stagee 4 family Stag family becoming typical of all all strata. strata. Marr ied meet fa face-toce-to- fa face. ce. women have continued to take paid employment and few Willmott also found that ‘relatives continue to be the working-class families can afford to adopt the lifestyle and main source source of informal inform al suppor upportt and care, care, and that again again family arrangements of managing directors. the class class diff differences erences are are not marked’. For example, example, nearly Later research by Peter Willmott has not used or 75 per cent had relatives who sometimes helped with suppor upported ted the t he concept co ncept of the Stag Stagee 4 family, as we will see see babysitting and 80 per cent looked to relatives to help below. them when they needed to borrow money.
changes chang es,, McGl McGlone one et al. actually found considerable 4 7 9 continuity between 1986 and 1995. C The British Social Attitudes Surveys revealed that even H Margaret O’Brien and Deborah Jones (1996) conducted in 1995 contacts with relatives remained quite frequent. A research res earch in in Barking and Dagenham, in east east London, in the For exa exampl mple, e, in 1995, 1995, 47 per per cent cent of peopl peoplee without P early 1990s 1990s.. Th They ey collected collected survey survey data on 600 young young dependent children and 50 per cent of those with T people and their parents in this predominantly workingdependent children saw their mother at least once a week. E class area.They compared their findings with a 1950s study R Furthermore, Further more, 35 per cent cent of those those without children and and of the same area conducted by Peter Willmott (1963). 45 per cent of those with children saw their father at least 8 O ’Brien and Jones found that, compared with the 1950s 1950s,, once a week. (Al (Alll figures figures refer to the proport propo rtions ions of tho thosse this area had developed a greater variety of types of family with living relatives of the type specified.) and household. household. O f the young young people survey surveyed, ed, 14 per cent The proportions were even higher for those who lived lived with a step-parent and 14 per cent lived in lone-parent within one hour’s drive of their relatives.Among this group, families fa milies.. Acc According ording to census statis tatistics tics,, ov over er one- third of for example example,, 75 per cent of those without child children ren under 16 births in the area took pla place ce outside marriage. marriage. There were saw their mother and 63 per cent saw their father at least many dual-earner dual-earner families families,, with 62 per cent of women in once a week. Among those those with children, 70 per cent sa saw their sample sample working in paid employment, employment, and 79 per cent their mother and 69 per cent saw their father at least once a of men. In Willmot Willmott’ t’ss 1950s study tudy,, family lif lifee was much week.Telephone contact was also common.Among women more homogeneous homogeneous.. Then, 78 per per cent cent of peopl peoplee were were with a dependent child, child, 78 per cent talked talked to their mother married and just 1 per cent were divorced. divorced. Most singl singlee at leas leastt once a week, 54 per cent to their father, 45 per cent people were young and lived with their parents. to an adult sibling, sibling, and 39 per cent to another relative. relative. Despite the move towards a greater plurality of family In line with other o ther studies, studies, it was found that there were and household types, types, O ’B ’Brien rien and Jones Jones did not find find that signifi ignificant cant social clas class differences. differences. For example, 65 per cent there had been any major erosion in the importance of manual workers but only 39 per cent of non-manual attached atta ched to kins kinship hip.. In both Willmott’ Willmott’ss and and O ’Brien and workers with a dependent child saw their mother at least Jones’s research, research, over 40 per cent of the sample had once a week. grandparents grandpa rents livi living ng locall locally y. In the th e 1990s, 1990s, 72 per cent o of f Although contacts with relatives remained frequent in those studied had been visited by a relative in the previous 1995,, a comparison 1995 comparison with 1986 did did find that they had had week, and over over half the sample sample sa saw their maternal matern al declined decl ined somewhat. somewhat. In 1986, 1986, 59 per per cent of those with grandparent at leas leastt weekly. weekly. Twenty per cent had a large dependent children saw their mother at least once a week, network of local kin numbering over ten relatives. declining decl ining to 50 per cent in 1995. Con Contacts tacts with all other O’Brien and Jones conclude that there has been a relatives relativ es had fallen fallen as well. H owev owever, er, the fal falls ls were partly pluralization of lifestyles, an incr increa easse in mari marital tal accounted for by people living living furth further er apart. Th Thee fall fall in breakdowns and a big rise in dual-earner households. contact with mothers was less for those who lived within H owev owever, er, they also also found foun d that th at ‘kin contact and association association an hour’s driving distance than for the group as a whole. do not appear to have changed significantly since Contacts with fathers remained unchanged and those with Willmott’s study study of the borough in the th e 1950s’ 1950s’. Th This is adult siblings had increased. sugges uggests ts a greater greater contin continuity uity in kin relationships, relationships, at least least What fall there had been was largely accounted for by among the working workin g clas classs in London, than that implied by non- manua manuall workers, particul particularl arly y middle-class middle-class famili families es some other studies. where the woman was in full-time full-time paid employment. employment. It appeared that in many dual-earner families there was too time to maintain regular weekly contact with parents Families and kinship in the 1980s little and other relativ relatives. es. Th There ere was no significa significant nt change in and 1990s maternal and paternal contacts among manual workers.
M ar arg garet O ’Brien and Deborah D eborah Jones – families and kinship in east London
F a m i l i e s a n d h o u s e h o l d s
All of the above studies are based upon specific geographical areas at a particular point in time. t ime. Th Thee British Social Social Attitudes Surveys of 1986 and 1995 contained a number of questions on families and kinship (reported in Jowell et al. , 19 1989 89,, and McGl McGlone one et al. , 1996) 1996).. The surveys surveys us used ed large representative samples of the British population.The results of these two surveys were analysed by Francis McGlone, McGlon e, Alis Alison on Park and Kate Smith (1998).
Table 8.1 Proportion with a dependent child who see specified relative living within one hour’s journey time at least once a week (1986 and 1995) 19 8 6 % Base
1 995 % Base
Mot her
76
269
70
328
Changes in family contacts
Fat her
69
196
69
253
McGlone et al. (1996) start by noting that a number of important changes that might affect family life took place between 1986 and and 1995.T hes hesee included: a rising rising proportion of o f elderly elderly people in the population; increas increasing ing levels levels of di div vorc orce, e, coh cohaabi bita tation tion,, lo lone ne pa pare renthood nthood,, and bi births rths outsside marr iage; a decline in male unskilled out unskilled jobs and an increasee in female increas female employment; and some some young people stay taying ing reliant on their th eir families for longer. Despite thes the se
Adult sibling
55
300
56
336
O t her r elat ive
70
313
64
383
Note:The base for each percentage comprises all those with the specified relative living within one hour’s journey time (nonresident) and with dependent children. Source: F. McGlone, McGlone,A. A. Par k and and K. Smit h (1998) Families and Kinship , Family Policy Policy Studies Studies Centr Centr e, Lond London, on, p. 17.
480
S o c i o l o g y
T h e m e s a n d P e r s p e c t i v e s
Families and help
majority thought that you should try to keep in touch with relativ relatives es such such as aunts, uncles and cous cou sins, even if you you As earlier studies studie s suggested, even where whe re there the re was a lack lack of did not have much in common with them. contact cont act between family family member memberss, that did not necessarily necessarily mean that kinship networks had become unimportant. The British Social Attitudes Surveys of 1986 and 1995 Conclusions asked people who they would go to for help with things McGlone et al. found that families remain very important such as doing hous hou sehold and garden garden jobs, suppor upportt during dur ing to people in contemporary Britain. Britain. Th They ey argue argue that their illnes ill nesss, and borrowing money money.. For household household jobs jobs and study confirms the results of earlier research showing that help while ill, most said said they would turn first of all all to a families remain an important source of help and support, spouse or partner, while tur ning to other oth er relatives relatives was the and that family contacts are still maintained even though second most most popular popular choice. choice. For borrowing borrowing money, the family famil y members tend to live furt further her apart. Th Their eir research research most popular options were borrowing from other relatives sugges uggests ts that the t he ‘core’ ‘core’ of the famil family y does not just include or from a bank. parents and children – in most households grandparents Among those who had received help in the previous are part of the core as well. fiv fi ve years years,, a high high proportion had got that help from from McGlone et al. also found that differences between relatives relativ es.. For example, example, 59 per cent of tho thosse without withou t a child child social class classes remained significant, significant, with the working clas classs under 16 and 71 per cent cent of those with a child, child, who had h ad still more likely to have frequent contacts than the middle received receiv ed a loan or gift of money mon ey,, had got it from a parent classs. Despite all the social changes clas changes aff affecting ecting families or in- la law w, and over over a third of those who had h ad received received help between 1986 and and 1995, kins kinship hip networks bey beyond the th e when ill had got it from one of these sources. nuclear family remain important to people. McGlone et al. conclude that family members remain the most important source of practical help.While people tend to tur turn n first first to a spouse spouse or partner, partner, af after ter that they tur n Survey research on family contacts to other rela relativ tives es,, with friends or neighbours n eighbours being being less less important. More recent research has been carried out for the British Social Attitudes Survey (Park et al. , 200 2001) 1).. This res resea earch rch investigated the likelihood of adults seeing family Attitudes to families memberss. Th member Thee results results are summar summarized ized in Ta Table ble 8.3. Th They ey Here, McGl McGlone one et al. found that ‘the majority of the adult show that only 10 per cent of those who had a mother population are very family centred’.Table 8.2 summarizes who was still living saw her less than ‘several times a year’, the res results ults of the study in this th is area. area. It shows that less less than while 20 per cent saw their father less often than this. 10 per cent thought that friends were more important to Seventy-one per cent saw their brother or sister at least them than th an family family members members.. The va vasst majority thought ‘s ‘severa everall times a year’; year’; and only 4 per cent of o f those with that parents should continue to help children after they adult children saw them less frequently. had left left home, and around around 70 per cent thought th ought that people Government research for the Omnibus Survey (a should keep in touch with clos closee family family members. members. A government survey) found that 61 per cent of grandpar-
Table 8.2 At Attt ititude udes s t owards t he family family,, by whet whet he herr t here is a dep depen enden dentt child
% agr eeing
N o child under 16 % Base
A ll wit h child under 16 % Base
A ges of child U nder 5 5 t o 15 % Base % Base
People should keep in touch with close family member s even if t hey don’t have much in common
74 1,407
68
595
66
265
69
330
People should keep in touch with relatives like aunt unts, s,uncles uncles and and cousins even even if t hey don’t ha have ve much in common
59 1, 1,414
49
594
42
264
54
330
People should always turn to their family before asking t he st at e for help
54 1,394
42
594
36
264
46
329
I tr t r y to st ay in touch with wit h all all my relat relat ive ives s, not just my close family
50 1,381
43
583
42
259
43
324
I’d rather spend time with my friends than with my family
15 1,370
11
584
9
263
13
321
O nce childr children en have left home, t he hey y should should no longe longerr expect help fr om t heir par ent s
15 1,413
6
596
8
264
4
332
8 1,393
7
588
8
264
6
324
On the t he whole, my fr friend iends s are more import impor t ant to to me t han member s of my family
Source: F. McGlone, McGlone,A. A. Par k and and K. Smit mith h (1998) (1998) Families and Kinship , Family Poli Policy cy St udies Centr e, London.
However, he maintained However, maintained that the nuclear family family is 4 8 1 stru tructurally cturally isolated. isolated. It is isolated isolated from other parts of the C friends fr iends,, 200 2001 1 (Grea (Gr eatt Brit ain, pe percentag rcentages es)) socia ociall structure structure,, such as the economic economic sys system. tem. For H 2 example exa mple, , it does not form an integral pa part rt of the econom economic ic A d d il n system as in the case of the peasant farming family in h e P r c fr i r g e traditional Ireland. T t e n l s t t h t h li u In addition, addi tion, the s o-ca ocall lled ed ‘ ‘extended extended famil families ies’ ’ of moder n E o ib d e a R M F S A B industrial society ‘do not form firmly structured units of the social social sys system’. tem’. R ela elations tionships hips with kin beyond beyond the th e 8 Daily 8 4 2 12 9 nuclear family are not obligatory – they are a matter of At least several times individual choice. In this sense,‘extend ense,‘extended ed kin constitut constitutee a a week 19 14 10 17 21 resource which may be selectively taken advantage of At least once a week 24 24 18 22 28 within considera co nsiderable ble limits’ limits’.T .T hus, extended families do not form ‘firmly ‘firmly stru structured ctured unit unitss’ as in the th e case case of the th e class classic At least once a mont h 17 16 16 14 18 extended family or the family in kinship-based societies. Sever al t imes a year 19 19 25 10 16 Many recent studies of family life would support Parsons’s view that relationships with extended kin, Less oft en 7 11 15 2 4 though often maintained, are a matter matter of choice. Howev However, er, N ever 3 9 7 2 – as we will see see later in the chapter, ch apter, it may be that nuclear All3 100 100 100 100 100 families themselves no longer (if they ever did) make up a 1 By people aged 18 and over.Those without the relative and vitall structural vita structural unit in contemporary societies societies.. Th There ere is evidence that the decision to form a nuclear family is those who live with the relative are excluded. 2 Best friend is the respondent’s own definition. increasingly increas ingly als also a matter m atter of o f choice (s (see ee pp. 514–15).
Table 8.3 Frequency1 of adults seeing relatives and
3 Includes respondents who did not answer.
Source: Social Trends 2003 , 2003 , Office for N ati ona onall St ati stics stics,, Lond London, on, 2003 20 03,, p. 44 44..
ents saw their grandchildren at least once a week and a furtherr 17 per cent at least furthe least every month. month . Grandparents als also o made use use of techn technology ology to contact cont act their grandchildren: 60 per cent used used letter, letter, telephone, fa fax x or e-mail to keep in in touch at least least once a week, and 12 per cent used used one of o f these methods metho ds at least least once on ce a month. month . T his research research shows shows that both face-to-face and other contacts between family members remain quite frequent.
The isolated nuclear family? The evidence we have presented so far under the heading of ‘The fa family mily, indus industriali trializa zation tion and modernization’ provides prov ides a somewhat somewhat confusing confusing picture. picture. O n the th e one hand there th ere is Talcott Parsons’ Par sons’s isolated isolated nuclear family fami ly,, and on o n the th e other a large body of evidence suggesting that kin beyond the nuclear family play play an an import imp ortant ant part in family life life and that the importance of that role may not have been greatly diminishing. In America, America, a number of researc researchers hers hav have rejected Parsons’s con concept cept of o f the isolated nuclear nu clear family. family. Sus Sussman sman and Burchinal Burchinal (1971) (1971),, for example example,, arg argue ue that the t he weight of evidence from a large body of research indicates that the moder mo dern n American family is far from from isolated. isolated. Th They ey maintain that the family can only be properly understood ‘by rejection of the isolated nuclear family concept’. Parsons replied to his earlier critics in an article entitled ‘Th Thee normal America American n family family’’ (196 (1965b). 5b). He argued that close relationships with kin outside the nuclear family are in no way inconsistent with the concept of the isolated nuclearr family nuclea family. Pa Pars rsons ons stated: stated: ‘the very psychologic psychological al importance for the individual of the nuclear family in which he was born and brought up would make any such conception concept ion imposs impossible’ ible’..
The dispersed extended family and the beanpole family A number of attempts have been made to characterize contemporary families in the light of the research which has found that people often continue to maintain contact with extended family members even if they live some distance away. On the basis of research carried out in London in the 1980ss, Peter Willmott (1988) claimed 1980 claimed that th at the dispersed extended family is becoming dominant in in Britain. Britain. It consists of two or more related families who cooperate with each other even though they live some distance apart apa rt.. Co Contacts ntacts are are fairly fairly frequent frequent,, taking place place on average average perhaps once a week, but less less frequent than they th ey were were among extended families who lived clos closee together. Cars, public transport and telephones make it possible for dispersed dis persed extended families families to keep in touch. touch . Member s of dispersed extended families do not rely on each other on a day-to-day basis. Willmott sees each nuclear family unit as only partially dependent depe ndent upon extended extended kin. kin. Much of the time time the nuclear family family is fairl fairly y self-suf self-sufficient, ficient, but in times t imes of emergency the existence of extended kin might prove inval inv aluabl uable. e.Thu Thuss Willmott argues that, that, in modern mo dern Britain, ‘althou ‘a lthough gh kinship is largely largely chosen, it not no t only o nly survives survives but most of the time flourishes’. The research discussed by McGlone et al. (1998) reaches broadly simila imilarr conclusions. conclusions. Kins Kinship hip networks net works outside the nuclear family family are still import important. ant. Indeed, they argue argue that the core of families with dependent children includes not just the nuclea nu clearr family family but also also grandparents. Despite all all the social changes that could cou ld have have weakened kinship kinship,, people still value kinship ties and for the most part try to retain them even when they live some distance from their relatives. Support for this view is provided by Julia Brannen (2003). Drawing on research in which she was inv involved olved (Brannen et al. , 2000) 2000),, Bra Brannen nnen arg argues ues that there are strong strong
F a m i l i e s a n d h o u s e h o l d s
482
S o c i o l o g y
T h e m e s a n d P e r s p e c t i v e s
intergenerational links (links between generations) in contemporar cont emporary y British families families.. Th This is is partly becaus becausee people are living longer and therefore there are more families with three or even four generations alive than there were in the past. Brannen et al. (2000) found that grandparents are increasingly providing informal childcare for their grandc gra ndchil hildr dren. en. In addition, addition, gra grandpa ndparen rents ts often often give give financial help to their children and grandchildren. According to Brannen et al. ’s research, adults still still provide practical or emotional support for elderly parents in many families famil ies,, and sometimes help them out financia financially lly as as well. well. Although these family links are generally regarded as optional, optio nal, they are commonplace common place and and play a crucial role role in maintaining family family cohesion. Brannen (2003) claims claims that these intergenerational links tend to survive changes in families famil ies such such as those resulting resulting from div divorce. orce. For example, lone parents may rely more on help with childcare from grandparents than parents living with a partner do. In contras cont rastt to the intergenerational links links,, Bra Brannen nnen et al. found that intragenerational links (links between those from the same generation, generation , for example siblings siblings and cousins) cousins) were somewhat somewhat weaker. weaker. Bra Brannen nnen therefore t herefore characterizes characterizes contemporary family structures as being long and thin – she compares them to a beanpole. She concludes: concludes:
Many multigenerational families are now long and thin – typically described described as beanpole families; they have fewer fewer intrage int ragenerational nerational t ies bec because ause of high divorce rates, falling fertility fert ility and smaller smaller family size, size, but more vert vert ical intergenerational ties because of increased longevity. Brannen, Brann en, 2003
Although there are some differences in the way that Willmott, McGl Willmott, McGlone one et al. and Brannen et al. characterize contemporar cont emporary y British British families, families, they all agree that extended kinship networks remain important. In this section we have focused on how social changes have affected household composition and kinship networks netwo rks in Britain. Some of the research research has been based based upon the assumption that a single family type has been dominant in Britain in differ different ent eras. eras. We will now examine whether there is (or ever has been) such a thing as the ‘typical ‘typical family’ family’ in Britain. Br itain.
Family diversity Introduction Although some historians such as Michael Anderson (1980) have pointed to a variety of household types in pre-industrial times and during industrializ industrialization, ation, it has generally been assumed that a single type of family is dominant in any particul particular ar era. Wheth Whether er the modern family famil y is regarded as as nuclear, modified extended, modified elementary elementa ry or dispers dispersed ed extended, the ass assumption has been that this type of family is central to people’s experiences in modern industrial industrial socie societies ties.. Howev However, er, rec recent ent research has suggested that such societies are characterized
by a plurality or diversity of household and family types, and that the idea of a typical family is misleading.
The ‘ce ‘cereal real packet packet imag image’ e’ of the t he family Ann Oakley (1982) described the image of the typical or ‘conventio ‘conv entional’ nal’ famil family y. She says says ‘conv ‘conventio entional nal families are nuclear families composed of legally married couples, voluntarily choosing the parenthood of one or more (but not too many) children’. Leach (1967) called this the ‘cereal packet image of the family fa mily’. ’. The imag imagee of the happi happily ly marr married ied couple with two children is prominent in advertising, advertising, and the ‘famil ‘familyysized’ packets of cereals cereals and and other ot her types t ypes of product are aimed at just just this type of grouping. grouping. It tends ten ds als also o to be taken for granted that this type of family has its material needs met by the male breadwinner, while the wife has a predominantly domestic role.
The monolithic image of the family The American feminist Barrie Thorne (1992) attacked the image of the ‘mono ‘monolithic lithic family’ family’.. She argues: argues: ‘F ‘Feminists eminists have challenged the ideology of “the monolithic family”, which has elevated the nuclear family with a breadwinner husband and a full-time wife and mother as the only legitimate family family for form. m.’’ She believes believes the focus on the family unit neglects structures of society that lead to variations va riations in famili families es:: ‘Structures of gender, gender, genera generation, tion, race and class result in widely varying experiences of family famil y life, life, which are obscured obscured by the glorification of the nuclearr family nuclea family, motherhoo motherhood, d, and the family family as a lovi loving ng refuge.’ Th Thee idea of ‘The Family Family’’ inv involves olves ‘f ‘fals alsify ifying ing the actuall variety actua variety of household household forms’ forms’. In fact, acc according ording to Thor Th orne, ne, ‘Hou ‘Housseholds have have alwa always ys va varied ried in composition, even in the 1950s and early 1960s when the ideology of The Family was at its peak.’By the 1990s such an ideology was more obviousl obviously y inappropriate, inappropr iate, since changes ch anges in in society had resulted in ever more diverse family forms.
Family and household diversity in Britain The view that such images equate with reality was attack atta cked ed by R obert and R hona R ap apoport oport (1982) (1982).. They drew attention attention to the fact fact that in 1978, 1978, for exampl example, e, jus justt 20 per cent of families consisted of married couples with children in which there was a single breadwinner. In 1989, R hona R apoport argued argued that family family div divers ersity ity was a global global trend: tren d: a view supp suppor orted ted by a stud study y of family family life in Europe.At the end of the 1980s the European Co-ordination C entre for R es esear earch ch and Documentation Do cumentation in Social Social Sciences organized a cross-cultural study of family life in fourteen Europea European n nations nations (Boh, (Boh, 19 1989) 89).. Al Alll Europea European n countries count ries had experienced exper ienced ris r ising ing divorce divorce rates and many had made it easier easier to get divorced. divorced. Coh Cohabi abitation tation appeared appeared to havee become more common hav common in most countries, countries, and the birth rate r ate had declined declined everywhe everywhere. re. Katja Boh argued that, overall ov erall,, there was a consis consistent tent pattern of convergence convergence in diversity div ersity. Wh While ile family life life retained considerab considerable le variations from fr om country count ry to country country,, throughout Europe a greater range range of family types was being accepted as legitimate and normal.
As Ta Table ble 8.4 shows, shows, since the R apoports firs firstt advanced adv anced the idea of family family diversity diversity,, there has been a steady decline in the proportion of households in Great Britain consisting of married couples with dependent children, childr en, fr from om 35 per cent in 1971 to just 22 per cent in 2005.There has been a corresponding increase in singleperson pers on hous hou seholds in the same same period, with the th e proportion of households of this type rising from 18 per cent in 197 1971 1 to 29 29 per per cent cent in 200 2005. 5. Furth Furthermor ermore, e, the proportion of households that were lone-parent households with dependent children more than doubled, fr from om 3 per cent in 1971 to 7 per cent in 2005. The proportion of all lone-parent households rose from 7 per cent to 10 per cent over the same period. (Lone-parent families are discussed in more detail on pp.. 485–8 pp 485–80.) 0.)
Types of diversity The fact that the ‘conventional family’no longer makes up a majority of households or families is only one aspect of diversity div ersity identified identified by the R apoport apoportss. T hey identify fi five ve distinct elements of family diversity in Britain:
1 There is what they term organizational diversity. By this they mean there are variations in family structure, household hous ehold type, type, and patterns patterns of kins kinship hip network, and differences in the division of labour within the home. For example, example, there are the t he differences differences between conventional famil families ies,, one-parent fa famil milies ies,, and dual-worker families, in which husband husband and wife wife both work. There are also increasing numbers of reconstituted tut ed families.T families.These hese families families are formed af after ter div divorce orce and remarriage.This situation can lead to a variety of family fa mily forms forms.. The children from from the previous previous marriages of the new spouses may live together in
the newly n ewly reconstitu reconstituted ted family, or they th ey may may live live with 4 8 3 the or iginal spouses of the new couple. Although it C might be seen to reflect a failure to create a happy H family famil y life, life, some adults in a reconstituted famil family y may A find positive aspects of reconstitution. P On the basis of a study conducted in Sheffield, T Jacqueline Burgoyne and David Clark (1982) claim E R some individuals in this situation see themselves as ‘pioneers of an alternative lifestyle’.They may choose 8 to remain unmarr unmarried ied to their new partner, partner, and may may find advantages in having more than two parental figures fig ures in their children’ ch ildren’ss liv lives. es. Sometimes they believee stepsiblings believ stepsiblings gain from living living together. toget her. Some couples in the Sheffield study felt a considerable sense of achievement from the successful reconstitution of a family family. (For furt further her details on divorce, see pp.. 504 pp 504–7.) –7.) 2 The second type of diversity is cultural diversity. There are differences in the lifestyles of families of different diff erent ethn ethnic ic or igins and different different religious beliefs beliefs. There are differences between families of Asian,West Indian India n and Cypriot origin, origin, not to mention other other minor ity ethnic groups. groups. (W (Wee discuss discuss ethn ethnic ic family family diversity div ersity in more detail on pp. 488–92.) Differences Differences in lifestyle between Catholic and Protestant families may also be an important element of diversity. 3 There are differences between middle-class and working-class families in terms of relationships between adults and the way in which children are socializ ocialized ed (see p. 477). 4 There are differences that result from the stage in the lifee cycle lif cycle of the family family. N ewly married couples without children may have a different family life from those with dependent children or those whose children have achieved adult status.
F a m i l i e s a n d h o u s e h o l d s
Table 8.4 Ho Hous useholds: eholds: by t ype of househol household d and and family family (Grea (Gr eatt Bri Britt ain, percentag percentages es)) 1 97 1
1 98 1
1 9 91
2 0 01
2 00 5
Under st at e pension age
6
8
11
14
15
O ver st at e pension age
12
14
16
15
14
N o childr en
27
26
28
29
29
1–2 dependent childr en
36
35
30
19
18
3 or mor e dependent childr en
9
6
5
4
4
N on-dependent childr en only
8
8
8
6
6
Dependent childr en
3
5
6
7
7
N on-dependent childr en only
4
4
4
3
3
Two or mor e unr elat ed adult s
4
5
3
3
3
Mult i-family households
1
1
1
1
1
18.6
20.2
22.4
23.8
24.2
One person
One-family households Couple
Lone parent
All households (=100%) (millions)
Source: Social Trends 2006 (200 (2006) 6) Office for N ati ona onall Statistics, Statistics, Lond London, on, p. 22.
484
S o c i o l o g y
T h e m e s a n d P e r s p e c t i v e s
Thee fifth fifth factor identified ident ified by the R apoport apoportss as 5 Th producing family diversity is cohort. This refers refers to the period during which the family passed through different diff erent stages of the famil family y life life cycle. Co Cohor hortt affects affects the life experiences of the family family. For example, example, tho thosse families whose children were due to enter the labour market in the 1980s may be different from other families famil ies:: the high rates of unem unemployment ployment during dur ing that period may have increased the length of time that those children were dependent on their parents.
Continuing diversification More recently recent ly,, Graham All Allan an and and Graham Crow C row (2001) commented on a continuing trend towards the diversification of family family types. types. Th They ey argue argue that th at there is now ‘f ‘far ar greater diversity diversity in people’ peo ple’ss domestic arrangements arrangement s’, so that there is no longer a clear ‘family cycle’through which mostt people pas mos pass. That is, is, mos mostt people no longer pas pass through a routine series of stages in family life whereby they leav leave home, get married, mov movee in with their t heir spouse spouse,, and have children who in turn leave home themselves. Instead, each individual individual foll follows ows a more unpredictable famil fa mily y cours course, e, compl complica icated ted by cohab cohabita itation, tion, div divorce orce,, remarr iage iage,, per periods iods liv living ing alone alone and so so on. This diversity is based upon increased choice.Allan and C row say: say: ‘Individu ‘Individuals als and families are now more mo re able to exercise choice and personal volition over domestic and familial famil ial arrangement arrangementss than previously previously, their options opt ions no longer being constrained by social social conventio convention n and/ or economic need.’ need.’ In part, this is due to ‘the increa increassing separa eparation tion of sex, sex, marriage and parenthood’. parenthood’. Most people feel they do not have to get married before having sex, and being a parent outside of marriage is increasingly accepted as a legitimate option. According to Allan Allan and C row row,, such is the div diversity ersity that in an important sense there is no such thing as ‘the family’.There family’.The re are many differe diff erent nt families families;; many different family fami ly relationships; relationships; and conseque consequently ntly many different diff erent family fami ly forms. Eac Each h family fam ily develops develops and changes changes ove overr t ime Alla an and and Crow, 2001 as its personnel develop and change. All H owev owever, er, while there th ere is increas increased choice,All choice, Allan an and Crow C row emphasize that families are not egalitarian institutions – some members have more power over changes than others. Allan and Crow identify the following demographic changes as contributing to increased family diversity:
1 Th Thee divorce rate has risen. Th This is has af affected fected most countr ies in the Wes countries Western tern world, not jus justt Britain. 2 Lone-parent households have increased in number. This Th is is partly due to increased increased divorce, divorce, but also also becausee pregnancy is no longer automatically becaus aut omatically seen seen as requiring legitimation through marriage. 3 Cohabitation outside marriage is increasingly common. In the early early 1960s 1960s only one in twenty women lived with their future husband before marriage marr iage,, but by the late 1980s one in two t wo did so. so. 4 Marr Marriage iage rates hav havee declined. T his is partly because because peopl peo plee are are,, on av avera erage ge,, ma marryi rrying ng lat later er,, but als also o ‘lifetime marriage rates also appear to be falling … even ev en by middle age, signifi ignificantly cantly fewer fewer of o f the generation born in the 1960s and 1970s will have married compared to the cohorts of the 1940s and 1950s’.
5 A big increase in the number of stepfamilies also contributes to increased diversity. Allan and Crow, Allan Crow, wr writing iting some some two decades af after ter the th e R apoport apoportss or originall iginally y identified famil family y divers diversity ity,, believ believee the trend towards family diversity has continued and strengthened in the intervening period. We will now examine a number of different aspects of the increasing diversity of family and other intimate relationships.
Gay and lesbian families and the decline of the heteronorm Differences in sexuality have contributed to increasing diversity accordin according g to many socio sociologists logists.. Gay and and lesbian households have become more commonplace – certainly there are more openly gay and lesbian households than there the re were several decades ago. ago.As As Jeffrey Weeks Weeks,, C ather ine Donov Don ovan an and and Brian Heaphey (1999) (1999) argue, argue, ‘During the past generation the possibilities of living an openly lesbian and gay life have been transformed.’As discussed earlier (see p. 462), many sociologis ociologists ts believ believee that such such hous hou seholds, where they incorporate long-term gay or lesbian relationships,, shou ships hould ld be seen seen as con consstitu tituting ting families. According to Weeks et al. , homosexua homosexuals ls and and les lesbia bians ns often look upon their th eir households households,, and even even their friendship networks net works,, as being chosen families. Some see see their relationships as involving a greater degree of choice than thosse in more convention tho conventional al hetero heterossexual families families.. Th They ey choose whom to include in their family and negotiate what are often fairly egalitarian relationships. Some see their families as an alternative type of family which they are consci co nsciousl ously y developing. developing. Weeks et al. argue that this may be part of wider social changes in which ‘we culturally prioritize individual choice and the acceptance of diversity diversity. Co Commitment mmitment becomes increasingly increasingly a matter of negotiation rather than ascription.’ ascription.’ (Their views are are similar similar to those th ose of Anthony Giddens – see see pp. 512–14 for for details details.) .) Sasha Sas ha R oseneil (2005) develops th thee idea of chosen families famil ies further. She uses uses the ter m heteronorm to refer to the belief that intimate relationships between heterosexual couples are the normal form that intimate relationships take. R oseneil believes believes that the t he heterono he teronorm rm is increas increasingly ingly breaking down. She points to television television series such as Friends, Seinfeld , Ellen and W ill and Gr G race as examples where it is the ‘sociability ‘sociability of a group of o f friends rather than a conventional conventional family family,, which provides the love, love, care and and suppor upportt essential essential to everyday everyday life life in the city’ (R oseneil, 2005, 200 5, p. 242 242). ). R oseneil goes on to t o argue that th at there is an increasing increasing blurring of the boundaries between intimate sexual relationship and frien friends dship. hip. Th This is is particularly tru truee of lesbian and gay intimacies where ‘Friends become lovers, lovers become friends and many have multiple sexual partners of varying degrees of commitment (and none).’ Indeed, an individual’ individual’s ‘s ‘signifi ignificant cant other oth er may not be someone with whom she or he has a sexual relationship’ (Ros (R osenei eneil, l, 200 2005, 5, p. 244 244). ). The increasing flexibility and diversity of sexual relationships and friendship might be most marked amongstt homosexual amongs hom osexualss, but it is als also o developing developing among heterosexual heteros exualss. R os oseneil eneil therefore therefore argues that that there t here is a ‘decentring ‘d ecentring of heterorelations’ heterorelations’ so that th at the heteros heterosexual exual
couple is less less central to the th e social social life life of individuals, individuals, the culture of society society and public policies policies.. She say sayss that ‘individuals are increasingly being released from heterosexual scripts and the patterns of heterorelationality that accompa ac company ny them’ (R (Ros osenei eneil, l, 200 2005, 5, p. 247 247). ). This shift has resulted from social changes such as the rise in divorce, divorce, the increas in creasee in births birt hs outside outside marr iag iagee and heterossexual relationships hetero relationships,, the increase increase in single-per single-per son households househol ds and the growth of lone lone parenthood. R os oseneil eneil points to the passing of the UK’s Civil Partnerships Act of 2004 (which allows civil partnerships between gay and lesbian les bian couples) as a symptom symptom of this change. change. She concludes that: that: ‘The heteros heterosexual exual couple, couple, and particularly particularly the marr marr ied, co-res co-resident ident heteros heterosexua exuall couple with children, child ren, no longer occupies the centre-ground of western western societies and cannot be taken for granted as the basic unit of socie society’(R ty’(R os osenei eneil, l, 200 2005, 5, p. 247 247). ).
New reproductive technologies U nlike gay gay and and lesbian lesbian relationships, relationships, new reproductiv reproduct ivee technologies add an entirely new dimension to family diversity div ersity.. In 1978 the th e first first ‘test-t ‘test-tube ube baby’, baby’, Louis Louisee Brown, was bor born. n. Th Thee process is call called ed in vitro fertilization and involves fertilizing an egg with a sperm in a test-tube, before then implanting it in a woman’s womb.The woman may or may not be the woman who produced the egg. Surrogate motherhood involves one woman carrying a foetus produced by the egg of another woman. This raises questions about who the parents of a child are, and about what constitutes co nstitutes a family family.. As not noted ed earlier (see pp.. 472 pp 472–3) –3),, Cal Calhoun houn sees sees this as undermini undermining ng the centrality of the reproductive couple as the core of the family famil y, and it introduces introdu ces a greater range of choices choices into families than was previously available. John Macionis and Ken Plummer (1997) show how new reproductive technologies can create previously impossible sets of family relationships.They quote the case of Arl Arlette ette Schweitzer Schweitzer,, who in 1991 gav gave birth in South Dakota Dak ota in the USA to her own grandchi grandchild ldren. ren. Her daughter was unable to carry a baby and Arlette Schweitzer acted acted as a sur surroga rogate te mother. mo ther. She gave gave birth to twins,, a boy twins boy and a girl. Maci Macionis onis and Plummer Plummer ask, ask, ‘i ‘iss Arlette Schweitzer the mother of the twins she bore? Grandmother Grandmo ther?? Both Both??’ Such examples, examples, they say say, ‘f ‘force orce us to consider the adequacy of conventional kinship terms’. They note that such technologies have largely been made available to heterosexual couples of normal childrearing age, but they t hey have have also also been used by lesbi lesbians ans,, homosexual homosex ualss, and singl singlee and older women. The impli implicacation of new reproductive technologies is that biology will no longer restrict the possibilities for forming or enlarging families famil ies by by having having children. Th They ey therefore add considerably to the range of potential family types and thus contribute to growing diversity.
Single parenthood The increase in single parenthood As ment mentioned ioned earlier, single-parent famil families ies hav havee become increassingl increa ingly y common in Britain. Acc According ording to governgovernment statistics statistics,, in 1961, 2 per cent of the popula popu lation tion lived lived
in households consisting of a lone parent with dependent 4 8 5 children, but by 2005 this had increas increased sixfold sixfold to 12 per C 20 06 ). Be cent (HMSO, (HMSO, 200 2002a 2a;; Social Trends 2006 Betwee tween n 1972 1972 H and 2002 the percentage of children living in singleA parent families increased from 7 per cent to 23 per cent P 19 98 , 2006 ). (Social Trends 1998 ). T According to European Union figures (Lehemann and E R Wirtz Wir tz,, 20 2004 04), ), in 200 2003, 3, lone one-pa -pare rent nt hous househo ehollds wi with th dependent children made up 3 per cent of households in 8 Europe,, but 5 per Europe per cent of household householdss in Britain. Britain. Britain had the second highest proportion of such households in Europe, Eur ope, exc exceede eeded d only by by Swed Sweden en with 7 per cent. In Italy, Lux Luxemburg emburg and Spain only 1 per cent of o f households contained single parents with dependent children. Althou Al though gh useful, useful, these figures figures need to be interpreted inter preted with caution.They caution.T hey provide only a snaps snapshot hot picture of o f the situation at one point in time and do not represent the changing family life of many individuals. individuals. Many more children than the t he above figures seem to suggest spend part of their childhood in a singlesingle-parent parent family, but many fewer spend spend all of their childhood in one. Ch Children ildren may may start start their life livi living ng in a singleingle-parent parent family. H owever owever,, the single parent may well find a new partner partner and marry or cohabit with them. Th Thee child will then end up living with two parents. The British Household Panel Survey revealed that about 15 per cent of lone mothers stopped being lone parents each year.T year. T his was usual usually ly because because they t hey had h ad establis established hed a new relationship (quoted in Social Trends Trends 199 1 998 8). It should also be noted that many children who live in a single-parent household do see and spend time with theirr other thei other pare parent. nt. Fu Furthermor rthermore, e, ev even en in in two-pare two-parent nt families famil ies,, one parent (usually (usually the mother) mot her) might be responsible for for the th e vas vast majority majorit y of the childcare. In ter ms of childre chil dren’ n’ss exp experienc erience, e, then, the dis distinc tinction tion betwee between n single-parent and two-parent households is not clear-cut.
F a m i l i e s a n d h o u s e h o l d s
The causes of single parenthood – demographic trends Single parenthood can come about through a number of differ dif ferent ent routes. Peopl Peoplee who are marr marr ied can can become single parents through:
1 Divorce 2 Separation 3 Death of a spouse Lone parents who have never been married:
• may have been living with the parent of the child when the child was was born, but they subs subsequently equently stopped living together. • may not have been living with the parent of the child when the child was born. Official statistics give some indication of the frequency of the diff different erent paths to lone parenthood, parenthood, but do not provide a complete picture. Figures for Britain based on the General Household Survey of 2005 show that 27 per cent of families with dependent children were lone-parent families families.. O f these, these, 24 per cent were headed by lone mothers and just 3 per cent by lone lone fathers. fathers. In 1971 only 1 per cent of households were headed headed by a never-marr never-marr ied lone mother, but by 2005 this had had risen to 11 per cent. Th Thee proportion of o f famil families ies
486
S o c i o l o g y
T h e m e s a n d P e r s p e c t i v e s
headed by a divorced, divorced, separated or widowed lone mother moth er rose from 6 per cent to 13 per cent over the same period. Allan and Crow (2001) note that the increase in lone parenthood parentho od is clearly due to two t wo factors: an increase increase in marital breakdown breakdown (particularly div divorce), orce), and a rise in births to unmarried mothers moth ers.. Th They ey cla claim im that both these trends ‘reflect an acceptance of diversity and individual choice which was far less pronounced in previous eras’. H owev owever, er, as we shall shall see see shortly, shortly, there may be limits to the extent to which attitudes have changed. David Morgan (1994) suggests the rise in lone parenthood could partly be due to changing relationships between men and and women. He says says important factors factors causing the rise could include ‘the expectations that women and men have of marriage and the growing opportunities for women to develop a life for themselves outside marriage or long-term cohabitations’.
H owev owever, er, res responde pondents nts were particularly concer concerned ned about the ability of teenage single single mothers mother s to cope: 83 per cent agreed or strongly agreed that ‘Bringing up a child is simply too hard for most most teenag t eenagers ers to do al alone’. one’. O nly 6 per cent disagreed or strongly disagreed. Thuss, while the public hav Thu have become more accepting of children childr en being bor n outsi o utside de marital relations relationships hips,, many remain remai n concerned about about lone par parenthood, enthood, particul particularl arly y where the parent is a teenager. Some time before before Al Alla lan n and Crow (2001), (2001), the R apoport apoportss (1982) clai claimed med that the th e lone-parent lone- parent family was increasingly becoming accepted as one aspect of growing family divers diversity ity.. T hey believed believed it was an important import ant ‘emerging ‘e merging form’ form’ of the family family which was becoming accepted as a legitimate alternative to other family structures. O ther writers writers,, too too,, ha hav ve cla claime imed d that that the stig stigma ma attached to lone parenthood has been decreasing. According Acc ording to David David Morgan Morgan (1994), (1994), the reduction in The causes of single parenthood – stigma is reflected in the decreasing use of terms such as changing attitudes ‘il ille legiti gitima mate te chil children’ dren’ and ‘unma ‘unmarried rried mothers mothers’’, which The increase in single mothers may partly result from a seem to imply some deviation from the norms of family reduction reductio n in the number nu mber of ‘s ‘shot hotgun gun weddings’ weddings’ – that is, is, lif life, e, and their the ir replacement by concepts con cepts such such as ‘s ‘singleinglegetting married to legi legitimate timate a pregnancy pregnancy.. Mark Brown Brown par parent ent fa famili milies es’’ and ‘lone-parent families families’, ’, which do not n ot (1995) suggests that in previous eras it was more common carry such such negativ negative connotations. The reduction in the for parents parents to get married, rather than simply simply cohabit, if stigma of single single parenthood parenth ood could relate to t o ‘the ‘the weakening they discov discovered ered that the woman was pregnant. Marr Marriages iages of religious or community controls over women’. that resulted from pregnancy were often unstable and H owev owever, er, there is little evidence that a larg largee number of o f could end up producing lone motherhood through an single parents see their situation as ideal and actively eventual ev entual div divorce orce or separa eparation. tion. N ow ow,, the partner partnerss ma may y choose it as an alternativ alternativee to dual parenthood. parenthood. Burghes choose to cohabit cohabit rather than marry marr y and, if their relationrelation- and Brown (1995) conducted research on thirty-one lone ship breaks up, up, they end up appearing in the statistics as a mothers and found that only a minority of the pregnansingl ingle, e, nev never-marr er-marr ied, par parent. ent. cies were planned. planned. N one of the mother mot herss had activel actively y set set Evidence from the British Social Attitud Attitudes es S Survey urvey gives out to t o become lone mothers mot hers and and all of them attributed the some indication of changing attitudes towards having break-up of their relationship to ‘violence in the relationchildren outside marriage and towards lone parenthood in ship or the t he father’s father’s unw unwillingnes illingnesss to settle down’. In this th is particular. Alis Alison on Park et al. (2001) analysed data from the small sample ample,, al alll as aspired to forming a two- parent British Social Attitudes Survey and found that younger hou houssehold, but had failed failed to achieve it despite despite their th eir preferage groups are much more accepting of parenthood ence. outside outs ide ma marriag rriage. e. For exa exampl mple, e, in 2000 2000,, of thos thosee born Lone e parents parent s, bene benefi fitt s and the the underclas underclass s between 1915 and 1924, 90 per cent agr agreed eed that ‘people ‘people Lon who want children ought to get married’.This compared According to some sociologists the increase in lone to just 33 per cent of those born between 1976 and 1982. parenthood is largely a result of the generosity of welfare The British Social Attitudes Surveys also show a payments pa yments.. Charles Murray’ Murray’s theory of the th e underclass underclass gradual increase in the acceptance of parenthood outside (discuss (dis cussed ed on pp. 64–5 and 242–4) is the most influential marriage marria ge ov over time. time. In 1989, 1989, 70 per per cent agree agreed d that version of this viewpoint. ‘people ‘p eople who want children children ought to get married’, married’, but by A number of politicians have supported this view. 2000 this was down to 54 per cent. By 2000, 2000, only 27 per Accordi Ac cording ng to Mary Mary McIntosh McIntosh (1996) (1996),, the former former U S cent agreed that ‘Married couples make better parents President Bill Clinton suggested that Murray’s explanation than unmarried couples’. for the development of the underclass was basically correct. H owev owever, er, these figures figures do not rev reveal eal how acceptable acceptable New Labour politicians in Britain have been less willing to people found single single parenth parenthood ood as such, rather than th an births suggest openly that lone motherhood is caused by welfare outsidee marriag outsid marr iage. e.There There is evidence evidence that people continue payments. pay ments. H owev owever, er, they have have developed developed a ‘New Deal’for D eal’for to dis disapprov approvee of teenage t eenage pregnancy, pregnancy, which is often often seen as lone parents which encourages them to find employment closely clos ely linked linked to single single parenthood. parenthood. Fig Figures ures from from the rather than th an relying relying upon benefits (s (see pp. 511–12 for for a British Social Attitudes Survey show that 82 per cent discussion of New Labour policies on families). disagree or strongly disagree with the statement ‘Teenage H owev owever, er, there are a number of reasons reasons for for supposing pregnancy isn’t really that much of a problem in Britain that the welfare state is not responsible for the increases: today’.. In part, this was today’ was becaus becausee people felt felt that women on their own would struggle struggle to bring up children. children. Forty-two 1 Some commentators do not believe that lone parentper cent agreed or strongly agreed that ‘Bringing up a hood gives advantages to those seeking local child is simply too hard for a woman of any age to do authority au thority hous housing ing.. In 1993 1993 John Perry Perry,, pol policy icy alone’; al one’; 33 per cent dis disagr agreed eed or strongl trongly y disagr disagreed. eed. director direc tor of o f the Institute of H ousi ousing, ng, sai aid: d:
I’ve not been able to find a single housing authority which discriminates in favour of single parents over couples with children.The chil dren.The homeless homeless get get pr iorit y, but there is no suggestion that a homeless single parent gets priority over a homeless couple. Quoted in the Independent on Sunday , 11 July 1993
2 As the next section indicates, lone parents who are reliant upon benefits tend to live in poor housing conditions and have low standards of living.There is little material incentive to become a lone parent. 3 There is evidence that a large majority of lone parents do not no t wis w ish h to be reliant reliant on o n state state benefits.T benefits.They hey would prefer to work for a living but find it impractical to do so. The 1998 Britis British h government government Green Paper, Paper, Supporting Families, quoted figures showing that 44 per cent of lone mothers had had paid paid employment, employment, and 85 per cent of the remainder would like to be employed. R es esearch earch for the Departmen Departmentt for Work Work and Pens Pensions ions (DWP, 2006) has has shown that th at the N ew Deal for for Lone Parents has raised the proportion of lone parents who are not reliant upon state benefits to about 20 per cent. DWP figures from 2004 (DWP, (DWP, 2004) showed showed a rise r ise in the proportion of lone parents in employment from 27 per cent in 1991 to 56 per cent ten years later. As well as the New Deal for Lone Parents other New Labour policies have contributed to this change.The implementation of a National Childcare Strategy has made childcare more widely available for lone parents parents who wis w ish h to work, and tax credits credits have made work more financially worthwhile for many (McKnight, (McKnight, 2005 2005). ). Allan and C row (2001) say, ‘it is a mistake Allan mistake to as assert sert that t hat lone-pare lone -parent nt fa famil milies ies,, incl including uding sing single le-mother -mother ones ones,, ar aree promulgating radically different values to those held by more prosperous families … in the main lone-parent families do not reject or denigrate a two-parent model’. Indeed, lone parenthood parenthood is often a temporary and relatively relativ ely shor shortt-liv lived ed family situation ituation.. Lone parents may may cohabitt with a new cohabi new partner, get marr married, ied, or be reconciled reconciled with their previous partner to form a new two-parent household. househol d. Drawing on a number of studies tudies,, Al Alla lan n and Crow estimate that the average length of time spent as a lone-parent family is around five years. This Th is view is backed up by gov govern ernment ment research. A longitudinal study carried out for the Department for Work and and Pensions Pensions (DWP (DWP,, 2004) foun found d that, of those who were lone parents in 1991, a third were living living with a new partner in 2001, while a further further 17 per cent had had a new partner since 1991 but were lone parents again in 2001.
The consequences of single parenthood Single parenthood has increasingly become a contentious isssue, with some arguing it has become a serious is seriou s problem problem imess in 1985, for society society.. For example example,, in a letter to T he T ime Lady Scott said: A vas vastt majority of t he population population would still still ag agree, ree, I think, t hink, that the normal family is an influence for good in society and that oneone-parent parent famil families ies are bad news. news. Since not not many single parents can both earn a living and give children the t he love love and care they t hey need, need, so society ciety has to support them; the children suffer suffer through lacking lacking one parent. Quot ed in Fletcher, Fletcher, 198 1988 8
Similar sentiments have been expressed by British 4 8 7 Cons Co nserva ervativ tivee politicians politicians and, and, when they were in governgovern C ment,, such views began ment began to influence social policies (s (see ee H pp.509–10). pp. 509–10). N ew Labour Labour politicians po liticians hav havee been less less inclined A to condemn singl singlee parenthood parenthood outr ight, but the Labour Labour P govern gov ernment ment’’s 1998 Green Paper, Supporting Families, did say, T ‘marriage is still the surest foundation for raising children’. E R Sociologists such as Charles Murray have even gone so far as to claim that single parenthood has contributed to 8 creating a whole new stratum of society society,, the underclas u nderclasss – a claim claim discuss discussed in detail det ail in Chapter Ch apter 1 (pp. 64–6). Mary McIntosh McIntosh (1996) sa says ys:: ‘O ver recent years, years, the media in the United Kingdom have been reflecting a concern about lone mothers that amounts to a moral panic.’ She claims claims that, as a group, lone mothers mot hers have have been stigmatized and blamed for problems such as youth crime, high taxation to pay pay for for welfare welfare benefits, benefits, encou encouraging raging a culture cul ture of depende dependency ncy on the state state,, and producing producing children who grow up to be unemploy un employabl able. e. She sa says ys,, ‘Perhaps the most serious charge is that they are ineffective in bringing up their children.’ However, Howev er, while most commentators agree that single single parenthood can create problems for individual parents, many sociologists sociologists do not n ot see it as a social social problem, and some believe it is a sign sign of social progress. progress. As Sa Sarah rah McLanahan and Karen Booth have said: Some view the mother-only family as an indicator of social disorga dis organization, nization, si signa gnalling lling the ‘demise ‘demise of t he family’. Others regard it as an alternative family form consistent with the emerging economic independence of women. McLanahan and Booth, 199 1991 1
Single parenthood and living standards H owev owever er single single parenthood parenthoo d is viewed, there is little little doubt dou bt that it tends to be associated with low living standards.The General Household Survey of 2005 found that loneparent families were disadvantaged in comparison to other Britissh famil Briti families ies.. In 2005, 2005, 41 per per cent of lone-par lone-parent ent families had a gross household income of £ 200 per week or less less, compar compared ed to 8 per cent of married couples with dependent children and 11 per cent of cohabiting couples with dependent children. Many of these differences stem from the likelihood of lone-parent families families relying relying upon benef benefit. it. Acc According ording to the Department for Work and Pensions Green Paper on welfare welf are reform reform (2006), (2006), of 1.8 mill million ion lone parents, parents, 787,000 were receiving income support. Lone parents may also receive maintenance payments from the non-resident parent or parents of their children. The Child Support Agency (CSA) was set up in 1993 to pursue non- res resident ident parents for for maintenance mainten ance payments. payments. (In 2006 it was announced that it would be replaced in 2008 with a Child Maintenance and Support Commission.) H owev owever, er, All Allan an and and Crow C row (2001) argue that the CSA C SA provides little help to lone lon e parents. By the late 1990s only around 30 per cent of non-resident parents were making any cont contribut ribution ion towards their child’s child’s maintenance. (CSA Quarterly Summary Statistics from 2003 show that by then around 75 per cent of non-resident parents who were required to pay maintenance were making at least some payment.) payment.) Further Furthermore, more, the non-res non- resident ident parents parents have little incentive to pay if the lone parent is receiving
F a m i l i e s a n d h o u s e h o l d s
488
S o c i o l o g y
T h e m e s a n d P e r s p e c t i v e s
income support, support, since the recei receipt pt of mai maintenance ntenance payments leads to income support being cut. Maintenance payments assist lone parents who are employed and earning more than income support levels, but this affe affects cts only only a minority of lone parents. parents. Lone parents who are employed employed tend to t o be on low wages. wages. Most work part-time, part-t ime, and the vas vast majority are women and as as such suffer from ‘gendered inequality in the labour market’ mark et’ (A (All llan an and Crow Crow,, 2001) 2001).. N ot all lonelone- parent families families are poor. A few few are very very affl af fluent, uent, but the majority do suff suffer er from from poverty poverty.. According to Flaherty et al. (200 (2004), 4), in 2001/ 2001/ 2 gove government rnment figures on households below 60 per cent of median earnings showed that 53 per cent of lone-parent families were in povert poverty y, a much higher figure figure than for any oth other er household househol d type (see (see Figure Figure 4.5, p. 234) 234)..
Cashmore also suggests single parenthood can have attractions attrac tions for the parent, parent, particul particularl arly y for for mothers mother s, since conventional family life may benefit men more than women. He says ys:: Given the ‘darker side of family Given f amily life’ lif e’ and the t he unseen unseen ways ways in which the nuclear nuclear unit serves ‘male power’ rat rather her than the interests of of women, the idea of of parents parent s breaking free of marriage and raising children single-handed has its Cashmore, hmore, 1985 appeals. Cas
It can give women greater independence than they havee in other fa hav family mily situations situations.. Howev However, er, Cas Cashmore hmore does acknowledge that many lone mothers who are freed from dependence on a male partner end up becoming dependentt on the dependen th e state state and facing facing financial financial hards hardship. hip. H e concludes:‘Lone parents do not need a partner so much as a partner’s income.’ David Morgan (1994) believes the evidence does Other effects suggest that the children of single parents fare less well More controversial than the low average living standards than thos th osee from two- pare parent nt househol households ds.. He qual qualif ifies ies this of lone parents is the question of the psychological and by saying,‘we still do not know enough about what causes social effects on children raised in such families. these differences differences’. ’. As with the eff effects ects of financia financiall McLanahan and Booth (1991) listed the findings of a hards hardships, hips, the children could cou ld be aff affected ected by the stigma stigma number of American studies which seem to indicate that attached to coming com ing from from a single-parent single-parent family. family. Morgan children are harme harmed d by single parenth parenthood. ood. Th Thes esee studies studies argues argues:‘It :‘It is possible, possible,for for example, that school teachers t eachers may may claimed that such children have lower earnings and be more likely to label a child as difficult if they have the experience more pove poverty rty as adul adults ts;; that children children of knowledge that a particular child comes from a singlemother-only families are more likely to become lone parent household.’ parents par ents themselv themselves es;; and that they are more likel likely y to For Morgan, Mor gan, it is very very difficult difficult to dis d isentangle entangle the direct become delinquent and engage in drug abuse. and indirect effects on children of being brought up in a The findings of such studies must be treated with single-parent household, ho usehold, and therefore dangerous to make caution. As McLa McLanahan nahan and Booth themsel th emselves ves point out, o ut, generalizations about such effects. the differences outlined above stem partly from the low income of lone-parent families and not directly from the absence of the second parent from the household. Ethnicity and family diversity In a review review of researc research h on lone parenthood, parenthood, Louie Ethnicity can be seen as one of the most important Burghes (1996) notes that some research into the relationsources of family family diversity diversity in Britain. Ethnic groups gro ups with ship between educational attainment and divorce suggests different diff erent cultural backgrounds may introduce family forms that children in families where the parents divorce start to that differ significantly from those of the ethnic majority. do more poorly in education before the divorce takes British sociologists have paid increasing attention to the place.. Burghes argues that this implies ‘it is the quality of place family patterns of minority ethnic groups.They have been the family relationships relationships,, of which the th e divorce divorce is only a particularly concerned to establish the extent to which the part, that are influential’ influential’.. family relationships typical of the societies of origin of the The more sophisticated research into the effects of lone minority ethnic groups have been modified within the parenthood tries to take account of factors such as social British context.Th context. Thus, us, sociologis ociologists ts have have compared compared minority minor ity classs and low income. clas inco me. Th These ese studies studies find that ‘the ‘the gap in ethnic families in Britain both with families in the country outcomes between children who have and have not experiof their origin and with other British families. enced family change narrows. In some cases they disappear; disappear; Although some changes in the traditional family life of in other ot herss, statistical tatistically ly significa significant nt differences may may remain. thesee groups might thes might be expected, the degree to which wh ich they Some of these differences differences are small’ small’(Burghes, (Burghes, 1996). change could provide important evidence in relation to Some support for this view is provided by research by the theor t heor y of increasing increasing family family diversity diversity.. If it is tr true ue that th at Sara Sa ra Arber (2000). Arber found that th at the children of o f lone lone cultural diversity is becoming increasingly accepted in parents did overall suffer more ill-health than other Britain, then thes thesee families families could be expected to change children. childr en. Howev However, er, this dif diffe ference rence dis disappe appeared ared for the little. littl e. If, howev however, er, the famili families es of minority ethnic groups children of lone lone parents in employment employment,, who suffered suffered no are becoming more similar similar to other Britis Brit ish h families families,, then more ill-health than other groups. family diversity resulting from ethnic differences might be E.E. Cashmore (1985) questioned the ass assumptio umption n that only temporary. children brought up by one parent are worse off than thosse brought up by two. Cashmore argues that it is often tho Statistical evidence preferable for a child to live with one caring parent than with one on e caring and and one uncaring parent, parent, particul particularl arly y if Statistical evidence does suggest there are some differences the parents are constantly quarrelling and the marriage has in the prevalence of different household types in different all but broken down. ethnic groups.
The size of households varies significantly by ethnic group. According to figures figures from the General Hous Hou sehold Survey (200 (2006), 6), amongs amongstt the main ethnic groups the smallest household size is found among Black Caribbeans (2.22), (2.22 ), fol follo lowed wed by whites (2.27 (2.27), ), Indians (2.93 (2.93)) and and Pakistanis Pakis tanis (4.04), with Bangl Banglades adeshis his (4.38) (4.38) having having the larges la rgestt h ousehol ouseholds ds.. Th Thes esee differences differences can can partly be explained by differences in household and family types. The Labour Force Survey in autumn 2002 found significant differences in the proportions of different houssehold types in different hou different ethnic eth nic groups. Ta Table ble 8.5 shows that jus ju st 9 per cent cen t of o f Pakistani/ Pakistani/ Bangl Banglades adeshi hi households and 5 per cent of Indian households consisted of lone parents parents with with dependent child children, ren, compar compared ed to 25 per cent of Black Caribbean and 26 per cent of Black African Af rican families. families. Perhaps sur urprisingly prisingly, there was a lower lower proportion of lone parents among white households (8 per cent) cent ) than among amon g Pakistani/ Pakistani/ Bangl Banglades adeshi hi households ho useholds.. Among all Asian groups a high proportion of households consisted of couples with dependent children – for example example,, 57 per cent of Pakis Pakistani/ Ba Bangl nglades adeshi hi households and 43 per cent of Indian households – compared to 29 per cent of white households and just 22 per cent of Black Caribbean households. The sample sizes of some minority ethnic groups in the Labour La bour Force Survey are are quite small, small, but other ot her research research confirms that there are significant differences between the household and family types of different ethnic groups. Fourth th N ationa ationall Surve S urveyy of The Policy Studies Institute’s Four Ethnic Minorities, condu conducted cted in Engla England nd and Wales Wales in 1994, also found important differences between the families and households of different ethnic groups (Modood et al. 1997 19 97;; see pp pp.. 00 000– 0–00 00 for further details of the survey).
Table 8.6 shows the marital status of adults under 60 in 4 8 9 diffferent ethnic groups. dif groups. It shows shows that that whites and and C Caribbeans had higher rates of divorce and cohabitation H than other groups groups, and that that Indians Indians,, Af Africa rican n As Asia ians ns,, A Pakistanis and Bangladeshis were the ethnic groups who P were most likely to be married. T U sing data from previous sur surve veys ys,, Ta Tariq riq Modo Modood od et al. E R were able to calculate the proportions of families with children in different ethnic groups which were headed by 8 lone parents at different different points point s in time. Ta Table ble 8.7 shows shows that there had been a substantial increase in lone parenthood in al alll three ethnic groups, but that the t he increase increase had been most noticeable in minority ethnic groups.The rate among South Asian Asian families had ris r isen en most m ost quickly, quickly, but from a very low base, base, so that t hat by 1994 they th ey were still by far the least likely group to have formed lone-parent families. R ates amon among g Caribbean Car ibbean families had also also r is isen en rapidly r apidly and were probably the highest rates at the time of all three surveys (there were no figures for whites in the 1974 survey). It is signific significant ant that th at very high rates of single single parenthood were not present among families of Caribbean origin in 1974.This would suggest that diversity of family types among minority ethnic groups has developed over time.The family types of minority ethnic groups have not remained static and Modood et al. conclude that minority ethnic families in Britain changed rapidly between the 1970ss and the 1990s 1970 1990s.. Howev However, er, as both statis statistics tics and qualitativee studies sugges qualitativ suggest, t, the patter patterns ns of ethnic groups grou ps do remain somewhat different.There has not been a convergence to a single, typical typical,, British family family type, characteristic of all ethnic groups. We will now examine the significance of variations in family life by ethnic group.
F a m i l i e s a n d h o u s e h o l d s
Table 8.5 Pr opor t io ions ns of wor wo r king-a king-ag ge households households by by household household type t ype and ethnic or igin of the t he household household reference person,1 UK, autumn 2002, pe percentag rcentages es O ne per son
C ouple, no childr en
Et hnic or igin of household reference person
C ouple wit h dependent childr en
Lone par ent wit h dependent childr en
O t her
A ll household t ypes
White2
20
25
29
8
17
100
Mixed3
27
15
21
24
13
100
Indian
12
14
43
5
26
100
6
8
57
9
19
100
O t her Asian
18
*
40
*
27
100
Black Car ibbean
31
8
22
25
15
100
Black Afr ican
23
7
30
26
14
100
O t her Black
30
14
16
30
*
100
Chinese
22
18
23
*
32
100
O t her
23
13
36
12
16
100
All et hnic gr oups
20
24
29
9
18
100
Pakist ani/Bangladeshi
1 Excludes cases where ethnic origin of head of household is not known. 2 Includes British and other white. 3 Includes all mixed origin.
* Sample size size too to o small small for fo r estimate. Source:‘Labour Market Spotlight’ (2003) Labour Market Trends ,April, , April, p. 16 167. 7.
490
S o c i o l o g y
T h e m e s a n d P e r s p e c t i v e s
Table 8.6 Ma Marr itita al status, status, adult dults s unde underr 60 Percentages A fr ican Pakist ani Bangladeshi C hinese Asian
W hi hit e
C ar ibbean
I ndian
Single
23
41
21
21
19
22
34
Mar r ied
60
39
72
72
74
73
62
Living as mar r ied
9
10
3
2
3
1
1
Separ at ed/divor ced
7
9
3
3
3
1
3
W idowed
1
2
2
1
2
3
–
Weight ed count
4,194
1,834
1,539
960
1,053
344
467
Unweight ed count
4,187
1,298
1,560
951
1,709
815
271
N ot ote: e:Analys Analysis is bas based on all individuals in sur survey vey households who were w ere neither neit her dependent children childr en nor aged aged 60 or more. mo re. Source:T ource:T.. Modood et al. (1997) Ethnic Minorities in Britain , PSI, Lon London don,, p. 24 24..
Table 8.7 Proportion of families with children which were lone-pa lone-parent rent fa famili milies es,, 197 1974–9 4–94 4 W hite Ca Cari rib bbea ean n South Asian 1974 (household definit ion)
n.a.
13
1
1982 (household definit ion)
10
31
5
1994 (household definit ion)
16
36
5
Source:T. ource:T.Modood Modood et al. (1997) Ethnic Minorities in Britain , PSI, London London,, p.40 p. 40..
South Asia ian n fa famili milies es R oger Ballard Ballard (1982, 1990) examined South Asian Asian families families in Britain and compared them to families in South Asia itself. its elf. Migration from this t his area area began began in the 1950s and was mainly mai nly from from the Punjab, Punjab, Gujar Gujarat at and Benga Bengal. l. Al Although though there are important differences in family life within these groups, which stem from from area of or origin, igin, religion and cas caste, Ballard identifies some features generally held in common. Families in South Asia are based traditionally around a man, his sons sons and grandsons,and grandsons, and their th eir respective respective wives and and unmarr ied daughters. Th Thes esee family groups ideall ideally y live live and work together in large large multi-generational multi-gener ational hou housseholds, sharing both domestic do mestic and production tasks. tasks. In practice, in the past, past, many households were not as large as might be expected. A high death rate limited the number of generations living together, togeth er, and sons sons might establish establish different households ho useholds after after their father’s death when the family land was divided up.
Changes in South Asian families Ballard found that some changes had taken place in Asian families famil ies in Britain. Women were increasingly increasingly working outsidee the home, and production was les outsid lesss frequently frequently family-based because wage labour provided the most common source source of income. income. Ba Ball llar ard d claims claims married couples in Britain expected more independence from their kin. In some famil families ies extended kinship kinship networks were less important than they traditionally are because some of the kin remained in South Asia or lived in distant
parts of Brit Britain. ain. Famili Families es were also also split split into smaller domestic units, partly because because British hous hou sing was rarely suited to the needs of large groupings.
T he strengthe strengthening ning of South Asian fa famili milies es Despite De spite these the se change changess, Balla Ballard rd says says:: It should not be assumed that such upheavals have either undermined or stood stood in contradict contradiction ion to family unity. On the contrary, contrar y, migrat migration ion has taken place withi within n the context context of familial obligations and has if anything strengthened Ballard, llard, 1982 rather than weakened them. Ba Many migrants found that British culture seemed to attach little value to family honour and placed relatively little emphasis on maintaining m aintaining kinship ties. ties. As a result, result, many first-generation immigrants became conservative and cautious in their attitudes attitu des to family lif life. e. Th They ey were vigilant in ensuring that standards of behaviour in the family did not slip and kept a close check on their children. Ballard found that many children had the experience of two cultures.They behaved in ways that conformed to the culture of the wider society society for for part of the time, but at home conformed to their ethnic subculture. Al Although though children increasingly expected to have some say in their choice of marriage partners, partners, they generall generally y did not rejec rejectt the principle of arranged marriages. The maj majority ority of o f famili families es relied relied on wage labour, labour, but some of the more successful began to establish family businessses (such busines (such as buying a shop), which provided a new focus for the family’s economic activities. Ballard Bal lard found that, th at, despite the distances distances inv involved, olved, most families retained links with their village of origin in South Asia. As ia. Extended kinship k inship links could stretch over thousa tho usands nds of miles. miles. H e found that th at money was somet ometimes imes sent sent to t o help support family members who remained in South Asia. In Britain, des despite pite the housi housing ng problems problems,, clos closee family family ties rema remained. ined. By li living ving cl clos osee together together,, or buying buying adjoining houses and knocking through a connecting door, people were able to retain strong family family links. links. Ballard concluded that South Asians had suffered comparatively little disruption to family life as a result of settling in Great Britain.
G ha hazz ala Bhatt Bhattii – Asian childre children n at ho home me
married and ‘a relatively high proportion of South Asian 4 9 1 couples,, includi couples including ng many with children, children, li live ved d in the t he same same C housse as the young man’s hou man’s father’. N evertheless evertheless,, there was H some evidence that family patterns were changing. A There were some divorces and some single parents in P South Asian Asian communities, commun ities, and another sign of change was T a fall in the number of children born to each married E R couple. T he study als also found some evidence of changing attitudes to family family lif life, e, with, for exa example mple,, young people people 8 expecting more say in the choice of marriage partner than their parents had expected.
In a more recent ethnographic study study,, Ghaza Ghazala la Bhatti Bhatti (1999) carried out res research earch into int o fifty British As Asian families living liv ing in a town in souther n England. England. Th Thee research research was was largel la rgely y based based upon in-depth interviews interviews:: forty-four of the families were Muslim with Pakistani or Bangladeshi backgrounds bac kgrounds,, and six six were were of Indian origin: four were were Hindu and two Sikh. Like Bal Balla lard, rd, Bhatti found found there th ere was a continuing emphasis on loyalty to the family and on trying to maintain mainta in traditional practic practices es rela related ted to marriage marriage.. For example, most families families were keen to maintain links with relatives relativ es in India or Pakistan. Pakistan. If they could afford afford it, they Families in the West Indies would return ‘back home’to the Asian subcontinent to see R es esearch earch into the famil family y life life of Wes Westt Indians I ndians in Britain Brit ain relativ rela tives es,, on a family family trip lasting lasting sev several eral weeks weeks.. Many and in the Caribbean has found greater diversity in their families felt some obligation to help out their kin in India cultural patterns pattern s. Jocelyn Barrow Barrow (1982) argues that there th ere or Pakis Pakistan tan financially financially. Bhatti says says that the tradition of bhai are three main West Indian family types in the Caribbean: (literally ally, brot brother her’’s help) is taken very seriously serio usly. chaara (liter 1 The conventional nuclear family, or ‘Chris As in other ot her studies of As Asian ian family family life, life, Bhatti found ‘Christia tian n that izzat or family honour was also taken very seriously, marriag marr iage’, e’, which is often often little different different from nuclear with particular emphasis being placed on the behaviour of families famil ies in Britain. Families of this type tend to be daughters. Bhatti found that mother mo therss saw their family family roles typical of the more religious or economically as being of paramount import impo rtance. ance. She say sayss: ‘Motherh ‘Motherhood ood successful groups in the population. bestowed status upon these women and they saw child frequently 2 The common-law family, which is more frequently rearing as their most important impor tant role and duty du ty in life.’ Paid found among amon g the less less econo economicall mically y success successful. ful. An work was seen as much less important than caring for unmarried couple live together and look after children child ren and and others. others. Fa Fathers, thers, on the other hand, saw their children who may or may not be their biological family responsibilities more in terms of a traditional offspring. 3 The mother household, in which breadwinner role. Bhatti says says:: ‘A ‘Assian fathers felt felt they had which the mother or to provide for their families.They saw themselves as heads grandmother of the children is head of the household of their households.’ and, for mos mostt of the time at at leas least, the household household So far, far, the evidence from Bhatti’s Bhatti’s research research sugges suggests ts contains no adult mal m ales es.T .T his type of household often Asian families retained their distinctive emphasis upon relies a good deal on the help and support of female traditional family life and family obligations well into the kin living nearby to enable the head of the household 1990ss. But was there any evidence 1990 evidence that that the younger to fulfil her family responsibilities. generation was moving away from this towards patterns West Indian families in Britain prevalent among the white population of Britain? Bhatti did find some evidence of conflict between To a large large extent, extent , res research earch has shown that t hat a similar similar different diff erent generations. gener ations. In four of the families studied, ‘open mixture of family types exists among West Indian groups clashes clas hes had developed developed between be tween parents and and children’. ch ildren’. In all in Britain. Geoff Geoffrey rey Dr Driv iver er (1982), (1982), howev however, er, found that in thesee cases thes cases,, the elder brother had ‘d ‘decided ecided to marry marr y an some cases what appears to be a nuclear family is rather English Englis h girl instead of somebo omebody dy of his own kin’. Th Thee different diff erent beneath ben eath the surface. surface. H e uses uses the example of a parents of these children all felt that they had failed as family famil y called called the Campbells. Campbells. In this th is famil family y the wife took parents par ents and and wor ried about whether their younger children children on primary responsibility both for running the household would follow a similar path. and for being the breadwinner after her husband lost his H owev owever, er, Bhatti stress stresses that these t hese families families are are ‘not ‘not the job. In reality job. reality,, then, this was was a mother-centred family family, ev even en norm’ nor m’.T .There here were some tensions tensions between between the t he generations though it contained an adult male. in many of the other fa famili milies es,, but for the most part part thes thesee Barrow (1982) found that mother-centred families in were minor and generally the children seemed happy to Britain, whether or not they contained contained an an adult adult male, male, adheree to tradi adher traditional tional patterns patterns of family family lif life. e. Bha Bhatti tti could rely less on the support of female kin than they therefore found that the distinctiveness of Asian families could in the Wes Westt Indies.Th Indies.They ey were much mu ch less likely likely to live was largely continuing and therefore contributing to the closee to the clos t he relevant relevant kin, kin , and in some cases cases appropr appropriate iate kin family diversity of Britain. were still still in the Wes Westt Indies, and could not therefore t herefore be called upon to provide assistance. Asian families in the PSI national survey H owev owever, er, Barrow discov discovered ered that equivalent equivalent networks networ ks Data on families collected in the Policy Studies Institute’s tended to build up in areas with high concentrations of Fourth Fo urth N atio ational nal Surve Surveyy of Ethnic Ethnic Mi Minor norities ities were analysed by Wes estt Indians. Indians. Informal help help with childcare childcare and other R icha ichard rd Berthoud Berthoud and Sharon Sharon Beis Beishon hon (1997). (1997). They domestic tasks tasks is commo common n among neighbours, neighbou rs, and selfselffound that British South Asians Asians ‘w ‘were ere more mo re likely to marry m arry help projects such as pre-school playgroups are frequent and marr marry y earlier earlier than their white equival equivalents. ents. Fe Few w of fea features tures of o f Wes Westt Indian commun communities. ities. them lived as married and separation and divorce were Mary Chamberlain (1999) studied the importance of relatively relativ ely rare. rare.’ N early all all Sout South h As Asian mothers moth ers were brother s, sis isters, ters, uncles and aunts to Caribbean C aribbean families families in
F a m i l i e s a n d h o u s e h o l d s
492
S o c i o l o g y
T h e m e s a n d P e r s p e c t i v e s
the U K and the C aribbea aribbean. n. She found that sibling siblingss often played a significant part in the upbringing of their younger brothers and sisters or of their nephews and nieces.. Like Ba nieces Barrow rrow,, Ch Chamberl amberlain ain found that dis distance from kin made it difficult or even impossible for relatives to play such a significant role in childcare as they played in many man y fami famili lies es in the Caribbea Caribbean. n. N ev everthel ertheles esss, some British African Caribbeans were able to choose to live clos cl osee to their relativ relatives es,, and brothers brothers,, sis isters ters,, aunts and uncles played a greater role in the upbringing of children than is typical in white British families. Berthoud and Beishon Beishon (199 (1997), 7), who ana analy lyssed the data from the PSI P SI survey survey,, found some distinctive distinctive features of black blac k family life life in Britain, but also also a great deal of variety between famili families es.. T hey say say that ‘the mos mo st striking str iking characteris ter istic tic is a low low emphasis emphasis on long- ter term m partners partner ships, and especiall especi ally y on formal for mal marriage’. British Af African rican C aribbean families had high rates of divorce and separation and were more likely than other groups to have children outside of marriag marr iage. e. Among this group group there th ere were als also o high proportions of lone lone mothers, but Afric African an Caribbean Caribbean lone mothers were much more likely than those from other groups to have have paid employment. employment. N ev evertheles erthelesss, ov over er half of Caribbean families with children were married or cohabiting in long-term relationships. Tracey Trace y Reynolds R eynolds (2002) argues argues that the concentration concen tration on on female-headed households among Black Caribbean families in Britain Br itain is rather misleading. misleading. She emphasizes emphasizes the diversity diversity and fluidity of Black Black Caribbean Car ibbean families families.. In part this reflects reflects cultural diversity within the Black Caribbean community. Family patterns vary between Caribbean islands and these variation va riationss are reflected reflected in Britain. For example, example, in Jamai Jamaica, ca, femalefemal e-headed headed households are dominant, but in Barbados Barbados and Antigua nuclear households are more common. In Britain (and in the Caribbean) Black Caribbean family diversity is increased by the existence of visiting relationships. Ev Even en where there th ere is no adult male in the hous hou sehold, the female head of household may still have a male partner, who does not live with her but visits frequently.The visiting man may play a full and active role as a parent. Sometimes visiting relationships are maintained because they have advantages in terms of claiming social security benefi benefits ts.. Howev However, er, R ey eynolds nolds’’s own resea research rch suggests they are often seen as a stepping-stone towards a stabl table, e, cohabi cohabiting ting rela relations tionship hip,, which might ultima ultimately tely lea ead d to ma marria rriag ge. Other wome women, n, tho thoug ugh, h, value ued d the independence that a visiting relationship brought and had no desire to cohabit with and marry their partner. R eynolds concludes that the tendency in policy rese research arch to t o present present Black, female- headed households as the unitary Black family model disguises the fluid and adaptive nature of Black family relationships and living arrangements and also the fact that, similar t o families in other other racia r aciall and ethnic groups, groups, the Black family has diverse family and household patterns. Rey eynolds nolds,, 200 2002, 2, p. 69
Ethnicity and family diversity – conclusion The general picture provided by these studies suggests that immigrants and their descendants have adapted their family famil y life life to fit British Br itish circumstances, circumstances, but they th ey are are still still influenced by family patterns in their country of origin.
This would suggest that the presence of a variety of ethnic groups has indeed contributed to the diversity of family types to be found in Britain.These minority ethnic groups havee succeeded in retaining many of the hav th e culturall cultu rally y distincdistinctive features of their family life. N evertheless evertheless,, there is als also evidence of changes taking place in in the th e families families of minor ity ethnic groups grou ps,, and British culture may have have more effect effect on future futu re generations. Each ethnic group contains a variety of different family types, which are influenced by factors such as class and stage in the life cycle, cycle, which relate to div diversity ersity in white families. families. David Morgan warns: While seeking to recognize ethnic diversity in a multicultural society, so ciety, ethnic boundaries boundari es may be too readily or t oo easily easily constr cons tructed ucted by, by, say say,, whit white e Western analysts.There may be oversimplified references to ‘the Chinese family’,‘the Muslim family’ and so so on jus just as, in the past, past, there have have been been Morgan, n, 199 1996 6 oversimplified references to ‘the Jewish family’. Morga Minority ethnic families have not just contributed to family diversity through each group having its own distinctive family pattern.They have also contributed to it through developing devel oping diverse diverse family patter patterns ns within each ethnic ethn ic group.
Geoff Dench, Dench, Kate Gav Gavron ron and and Michael Young – Bethnal Green revisited The study Ethnic and other oth er forms for ms of diversity diversity are reflected reflected in a 1990s study carr carried ied out by Geoff Dench, Ka Kate te Gavron Gavron and Michael Youn oung g (2006) in the Eas Eastt End of London. Th They ey returned to Bethnal Green to see how family life had changed in the area since Young and Willmott had carried out pioneering family research some decades earlier (see pp.. 476–7 pp 476–7). ). As part of the study study they survey urveyed ed 799 799 residents res idents from all ethnic groups grou ps,, and a separate separate sample sample of 1,021 Banglades Bangladeshis, his, as well as carrying out in- depth intervie interv iews ws.. Dench et al. comment that: In the old East East End, End, it was families, and especially especially mother mothers s and motherhood, motherhood, which cons constit tituted uted the heart of local community life. lif e. Family ties ti es gav gave e people the suppor supportt and securit se curityy which made life tolerable, t olerable, and provided provided a model for organizing relations relati onships hips with close neighbours. neighbours. Be Being ing a member of a family gave you kin and quasi-kin locally and . , 20 2006 06,, p. 10 103 3 made the world a safe place. Dench et al ., Some of the older respondents recalled family life in Bethnal Green in the 1950 1950ss with fondness fondness. H owe owev ver, Dench et al. found that the earlier family patterns had largely disappeared.
The new individualism Amongst the white population, only a fe Amongst few w famili families es remained which had strong kinship networks in the local area. T hese families families tend tended ed to be based based around family businessses where diff busines d ifferent erent family members worked together t ogether and local contacts were important for maintaining business. T he businesses businesses were usually usually handed handed down dow n the th e male line, but women were important in maintaining family ties and ties with the local community.
Th esee families apart, famil Thes family y life life in Bethnal Bethn al Green in the th e 1990s was characterized by much greater fluidity and variet va riety y than had been the case in in the 1950s. For example, example, the survey found that 21 per cent of the sample were living li ving in in single-pers single-person on hous ho useholds eholds.. O f these, these, 52 per cent were singl single, e, 30 per cent widowed, 14 per cent divorced divorced or separa eparated ted and 4 per cent married. A furth further er 9 per cent lived in households which consisted of unrelated adults. Dench et al. argue that a new individualism had devel dev eloped oped.. In part part this had had been an an unintended unintended consequence cons equence of developments developments in the welf welfare are state. state. In the t he early post-w post-war ar years, years, state welfare reform based upon the th e Bev Be veridg eridgee R eport (see (see pp. 262–3 262–3)) had tried to suppl upplement ement the welfare provided provided by families families and communities. commun ities. By the 1960s,, however 1960s however,, state welfare placed placed an an increased emphasis emphasis on the citizenship rights of individuals.This resulted in the welfare state taking over many of the support roles for individuals which had previous previou sly been provided by families. families. There Th ere was a ‘b ‘bureaucra ureaucratis tisation ation of caring’ (Dench et al., 2006, p. 105) 105).. Th This is change allo allowed wed individual individualss to be more independent indep endent of fami famili lies es,, which in turn led to women having more freedom to take paid work. The new individualism is reflected in changes in families and households. M any people people are now living in very casual, casual, flui fluid d households hous eholds,, or in more than one place, place, or in uncon unc onve ventional ntional relationships. relationships. On top of this, the ris r ise e of … single sing le parenthood … means that many are engaged engaged in undisclosed cohabitation which they simply do not discuss … for fear of los l osing ing benefits. benefits. Dench et al ., . , 20 2006 06,, p. 10 109 9 Family life is much more varied than in the 1950s. Cohabita Co habitation, tion, div divorce, orce, separa eparation tion and single single parenthoo parenthood d are all more common com mon.. Individual families families take a wide variety of forms.. For example forms example,, in one family family where the parents were separa eparated, ted, they still still spent spent time together and the th e woman spent a lot of time with her estranged husband’s relatives. Although some of the changes had benefited women, they were still usually usually the ones left caring for children. At the same time, male detachment from family concer concerns ns was was becoming more common. common. More men were liv living ing apart apart from their children and although some played a full and activee part in their children’ activ children’ss liv lives, es, oth others ers did not.
The slide back towards conventionality Despite all Despite all these these changes changes,, Dench et al. did not find widespread rejection of marriage among the white population. Some single single mother s had escaped escaped fr from om unsatisfactory relationships and were not keen to find another partner part ner immediately, immediately, but most youn young g women women still saw marr m arriag iagee as the ideal. Most cohabitants saw saw cohabitation as a step step on the t he road to marr iag iage. e. Th There ere was little evidence that single mothers who were reliant upon state benefits were happy with their situation – most were hoping to get off benefits as soon as possible. Despite Des pite al alll the cha changes nges,, then, Dench et al. detected a ‘slide ‘s lide back back towards conv conventionality entionality’’ (2006 (2006,, p. p.115). 115).N N ot only did people still still val value ue conventional marr marriag iage, e, but most disapproved of gay couples and there was a widespread feeling that family patterns had moved too far from traditional tradition al patter patterns. ns. Many people believed believed that cas casual and and fluid relationships were acceptable before children were
born, but once you became a parent more stable stable households households 4 9 3 were preferable.The middle-class residents who had moved C into the area seeking affordable housing were particularly H likely to believe that the additional responsibilities of A parenthood were best addressed in stable relationships. P For the white res residents idents of Bethnal Bethnal Green, then, T life for most people still seems to follow broadly the same path as it always always has, has,that that is from childhood, childhood, through a period period of independence, independence,on on to parenthood and the interdepen i nterdependenc dence e between adults characteristic of married life.What has changed chang ed is … that many (middle-class) (middle-class) now wait long longer er 2006, 6, p. p.11 116 6 before becoming parents. Dench et al .,., 200
Once women became parents they felt more constrained and they lost some of their sense of having the freedom to choose whatever life they wished, es especiall pecially y as women still had primary responsibility for childcare.
Bangla Bang lades deshi fa famili milies es According to Dench et al. , the new individualis individualism that had affected white family life had had little discernible impact on Bangladeshi Bangladeshi family life. life. O ut of o f the sample sample of over 1,000 Bangladeshis Bangla deshis,, on only ly four lived lived in singlesingle-per persson households. ho useholds. Thes Th esee consis consisted ted of one single single woman, one single single man, a man with a wife in Bangladesh and one divorced man. The reason why so few Bangladeshis live alone, according to Dench et al. , is that divorce divorce and separation separation rates are are very low in the Bangl Banglades adeshi hi community comm unity,, widows tend to li live ve with their children, and the elderly are are still still usually cared for by their children. Furthermore, Further more, couple households households were very very uncommon: uncommon : only two of the Bangladeshi households consisted of a married couple couple with no child children. ren. O n the other hand, hand, extended families families were common: 61 per cent of the sample sample consis cons isted ted of a married couple with their children, and 25.7 per cent were extended family family households. households. In mos m ostt cases cases extended families developed because young couples decided to live with the husband’s parents. Thee Bangla Th Banglades deshi hi households were larg large, e, with an averag eragee size size of nearly nearly six. six. Dench et al. found that Banglades Bangl adeshis’ his’ famil families ies were closeclose-knit knit and supportiv support ive. e. Many of the Bangladeshis interviewed were critical of white families for failing to support vulnerable family memberss such member such as elderly parents. Den Dench ch et al. say that most Bangladeshis ‘still believe in the moral solidarity of the family and the importance of putting family interests before bef ore those of the individual individual’’ (200 (2006, 6, pp pp.. 84–5) 84–5).. Bangladeshi men have a religious obligation to marry and be involved involved in family life. life. Men also also feel a strong strong obliga obli gation tion towards towards their mother, and, by marrying, a son can get domestic domestic help for his moth mother er from his wife. It is also considered part of a son’s duty towards his mother to hav ha ve children children to continue the famil family y line. line. Some Bangla Ba nglades deshi hi women, howev however, er, are not happ happy y with hav having ing to take on responsibili responsibility ty for for their the ir mothermothe r-inin-la law w, and some some therefore prefer to marry a man from Bangladesh in the hope that his mother will not come and settle with them. Dench et al. challenge the view that Bangladeshi families are male-dominated male-dom inated or o r patriarchal patr iarchal.. A man’s man’s role is to serve serve his fa famil mily y through through paid paid work, not to dominate it. it. In the Bangladeshi community the family is seen as the centre of power and is more important than the public world of
E R 8
F a m i l i e s a n d h o u s e h o l d s
494
S o c i o l o g y
work. Bangl Banglades adeshi hi wives are less less likely likely to work than t han their th eir Percentage of people versus percentage of white counterparts, count erparts, but that does not mean that they lack lack households power. pow er. Dench et al. comment:‘Far from conforming to the Chester believed that a snapshot of household types at a notion of the complia compliant nt “littl “littlee women”, in our study study particular time does not provide a valid picture of the British Bangladeshi mothers – certainly those in the senior generafamily. tion – emerge in the domestic context as decidedly matriarThe first point that Chester made is that a very different chal,, in firm chal firm control of their families families’’ (2006 (2006,, p. 86). picture is produced if the percentage of people in various types of hou housseho ehold ld is calcula calculated, ted, instead of the percent pe rcentage age of Conclusion households of variou variouss types types.. Ho Households useholds with parents and children contain a greater percentage of the population than The study by Dench et al. clearly shows that in the four the percent p ercentage age of hou households seholds they make up.T up. T his is because decades since You oung ng and Willmott’ Willmot t’ss previous stu study dy,, th there ere family households tend to have more members than other had been enormous changes in the family life of Bethnal types of household. Green. Little remained remained of the extended family family networks Chester’s arguments were based upon figures from 1981. typicall amongst typica amongst the t he white wh ite population of the 1950 1950ss. Th Thee As Tab Table le 8.8 shows, the way the figures are calculated calculated does do es strongest family networks were amongst the Bangladeshi make a diff difference. erence. In 1981, 40 per cent of households were community commun ity,, but they had distinct distinct family patter patterns ns of their made up of two parents and children, but over 59 per cent of own which adde added d to the overall overall dive diversi rsity ty.. In the th e white peoplee liv peopl lived in such such households households.. In 2005, 2005, 27 per cent of population, popula tion, the new individualis individualism m undermined traditiona traditionall housseho hou eholds lds consis consisted ted of two parents plus children, but 44 per patterns patter ns of famil family y life. life. H owev owever, er, marr marriage iage and and family were cent of people lived lived in this type of household. household. Despite the still val valued, ued, particul particularl arly y by those those who had children, children, and changes,, jus changes justt under un der half the population were still living living in Dench et al. detected a move back towards valuing nuclear nucl ear,, two-genera two-generation tion households households,, with a further further 26 per conventional family life amongst some residents. cent living in couple households.
T h e m e s a n d P e r s p e c t Robert Chester – the British i v neo-conventional family e s The conclusions of Dench et al. suggest that it might be
The nuclear family and the life cycle
The second point made by Chester was that life cycles make it inevitable that at any one time some people will not be b e a member of a nuclear family family household. Many of too simple to argue that British family life is characterized those who lived in other types of household would either by diversity and that conventional family life is no longer havee experienced hav experien ced living living in a nuclear family family in the past, past, or valued. va lued. In an early attack upon the idea that fundamental would do so so in the future future.. He said aid:: ‘The 8 per cent living living changes are taking taking place place in British British family family life life,, R ober obertt alone are mostly the elderly widowed, or else else youn younger ger Chester (1985) argued that the changes had been only people who are likely to marry.’He described the parentsminor. H e claimed claimed the evidence advanced advanced by advocates advocates of and-children andchildren household ho usehold as‘one which wh ich is nor mal and is still still the theo theory ry of o f family family diversity diversity was misleading, misleading,and and the th e basic basic experienced by the vast majority’. features of family life had remained largely unchanged for the vast majority of the British population since the The ‘neo-conventional family’ Second World War. War. H e argued: M os ostt adults still still marr marryy and have have children. children. M os ostt childre children n are reared by their nat ural parents. M os ostt people live in a household hous ehold headed headed by a marr ied couple. couple. M os ostt marr m arriage iages s continue until par ted by death. death. No great change se seems ems Chester, ter, 198 1985 5 currently in prospect. Ches
According to Chester, there was little evidence evidence that people were choosing to live on a long-term basis in alternatives to the nuclear nuclear fa family mily. H owe oweve ver, r, he did acc accept ept that that some some changes were taking place place in family life life.. In particular part icular,, many families famil ies were were no longer ‘conventional’ ‘conventional’ in the th e sense sense that th at the
Table 8.8 Ho Hous useholds eholds and and people in househol households ds in Grea Gr eatt Bri Britt ain, 1981 and and 2005 1 9 81 Type of household
H ouseholds ( %)
20 0 5 People ( %)
H ouseholds ( %)
People ( %)
O ne per son
22
8
31
14
Mar r ied or cohabit ing couple
26
20
29
26
Married or cohabiting couple wit h dependent childr en
32
49
21
36
Married or cohabiting couple wit h non-dependent childr en
8
10
6
8
Lone par ent wit h dependent childr en
4
5
7
8
O t her
9
8
6
8
Source: Social Trends (1982) (1982) HMS H MSO, London, and Gener Gener al H ouse ousehold hold Sur Sur ve vey y, 2005 (2006) (2006) Office O ffice for N ational St St atisti cs cs,, London.
husband was the sole breadwinne husband breadwinner. r. H e accepted that women were increasingly making a contribution to household finances by taking paid employment outside the home. However, Howeve r, Ch Ches ester ter argued argued that, al although, though, acc according ording to his figures, fig ures, 58 per cent of wives worked, often they th ey only did so for part of their married m arried lives lives,, and frequently frequently on a part- time basis bas is.. Many ga gave ve up work for the period when their children childr en were young; young; a minority of marr married ied mothers (49 (49 per cent) were employed; employed; and only 14 per cent of working married mothers had had full-time full-time jobs. jobs. Ch Ches ester ter argued: argued: ‘The pattern is of married women withdrawing from the labour forcee to become mothers, forc mot hers, and some some of o f them taking (mostly (mostly part-time) work as their children mature.’ Although Chester recognized this was an important change in family family life life compared to the past, he did not no t see it as a fundament fundamental al alteration alteration in the family. family. H e called called this new famil family y form – in which wives hav havee some involvement involvement in the labour market – the neo-conventional family. It was little different from the conventional family apart from the increasing numbers of wives working for at least part of their married lives.
Family diversity – conclusion While Chester makes an important point in stressing that nuclear families remained very common and featured in most peop p eople’ le’ss lives, lives, he perh perhaps aps over oversstate tated d his h is case. case.As As Tabl Tablee 8.8 shows shows,, there has been a continuing reduction in the proportion of people living in parents-and-children households househol ds,, fr from om 59 per cent in 1981 to 44 per cent in 2005. Th Thee percentages of people living living alone alone or in lonelone parent hous hou seholds have have increas increased. ed.T T hus, since Chester C hester was writing, wr iting, there has h as been a slow slow but steady drift away away from from living in nuclear families in Britain. In 1999 Elizabeth Silva and Carol Smart summed up the situation by arguing that fairly traditional family forms remain important.They note: In 1996 19 96,, 73 per cent of households households were compose composed d of heterosexual couples (with just under 90 per cent of these being marr ied), 50 per cent of thes t hese e households households had children, childre n, and 40 per cent cent had dependent dependent children … only 9 per cent of households with dependent children were va and and Sma Smarr t , 1999 headed by lone parents. Sililva N ev evertheles erthelesss, they arg argue, ue, ‘p ‘pers ersonal onal choices appea appearr as as increasingly autonomous and fluid’. Jennifer Somerville (2000) believes the decline of the traditional family family can can be exaggerated. exaggerated. She notes that the argument that traditional families have declined is often based bas ed on a comparis compar ison on with w ith figures from 1971. H owev owever, er, this is misleading because the 1960s were an untypical decade in which women ‘had a greater propensity to marry than in previous generations and married at the earliest age ever recorded since civil registration began in 1837’ 183 7’.. In succe succeedi eding ng decad decades es,, women went went back back to a pattern of marrying and having children later in life. Furthermore,, echoi Furthermore echoing ng the arguments arguments of Chester Chester,, she points out that most of the figures are based upon snapshots of how many are married with children at a particular particul ar time, rather than a life-cycle life-cycle approa approach ch which looks at how many marry and have children at any point in their the ir lives lives.. Somerville claims claims that only on ly about about 5 per cent of people never marry at some stage in their lives.
H owev owever, er, she recognizes there are ‘considerabl ‘considerablee dis d isconcon- 4 9 5 tinuities with the pas past’.Th t’.Thes esee include the ‘s ‘separation of o f sex sex C from fr om reproduction’, so that pre- marital sex sex is now the H norm and cohabitation outside or before marriage is A increasingly increas ingly commo common. n. C hildles hildlesssness is becoming more P common, and there are many many more working mothers and and T much more div divorce orce than t han several several decades ago ago.. Lone parentE R hood hoo d is als also o more common, commo n, tho though ugh it is often transitory, transitory, with most lone parents finding a new partner (or their 8 children reaching adulthood) within a few years of becoming lone parents. Somerville also accepts that minority ethnic groups add to the t he diversity diversity of British family lif life. e. She therefore identifies iden tifies a broader range of changes that increase diversity in family lifee than C hes lif hester. ter. N ev evertheles erthelesss, she reaches the conclus con clusion ion that ‘changes should be seen in the context of continuing commitment by the vast majority of the population to a framework of belief in the value of family life and to behaviour which seeks to approximate to that ideal’. This analysis is rather more balanced than that advanced adv anced by the R apoport apoportss, who in 1982 first first put forward the idea that there was a new era of choice and diversity in British Br itish family family life. life.T T hey argued that th at it was increas increasingly ingly acceptable to form alternative households and families to conventional nuclear ones.They said: Families in Britain today are in a transition from coping in a society in which there was a single overriding norm of what family life should be like to a society in which a pluralit y of of norms are recogn recognized ized as legitimat legitimate, e, indeed, Rapopor popor t and Ra Rapopor popor t , 1982 desirable. Ra The statistical evidence indicates increasing diversity and several sociologists have tried to link ideas of choice and diversity with their particular views on modernity and postmoder pos tmodernity nity.. (These views will be examined examined on pp.. 512–1 pp 512–19.) 9.) Howe H oweve ver, r, sociologi ociologissts such such as Chester and Somerville believe most people continue to aspire to a conventional family life. Having surveyed the ways in which the structure of the family famil y may hav havee changed over the years, years, we will now investigate whether the functions of the family have also changed.
The changing functions of the family The loss of functions Some sociologists argue that the family has lost a number of its functions in moder n industrial society ociety.. Institutio Institutions ns such as busi business nesses, es, political part parties ies,, schoo chools ls and welfare welfare organizations now specialize in functions formerly performed perform ed by the family. family. Ta Talcott lcott Parsons argued argued that th at the family has become:
F a m i l i e s a n d h o u s e h o l d s
496
S o c i o l o g y
on the ‘macrosc ‘macroscopic’ opic’ lev levels, els, almost completely functionless. functionless. It does not itse it self, lf, exce except pt here and there, eng engage age in much economic eco nomic production; production; it is not a significant significant unit in the political politi cal power sys system; tem; it is i s not not a major m ajor direct agency agency of integration of the larger socie society. ty. ItItss individual members par partiticipate cipate in all these funct functions, ions, but they t hey do so so as individuals, not in their roles as family members. Parsons, 1955 H owe owev ver, this does not mean that the family family is declining in importance – it has simply become more speciali pecialized. zed. Pars Parsons ons maintained that t hat its role is still still vital. By structuring the personalities of the young and stabilizing the personalities of adults, adults, the famil family y provides its members with the psychological training and support necessary to meet the requirements of the social social sys system. tem. Pa Pars rsons ons concluded: ‘the family family is more specialized specialized than before, but not in any general sense sense less less impor important, tant, becaus becausee society is dependent more exclusively on it for the performance of certain cert ain of its vital funct functions’ ions’.. Th Thus us the loss loss of certain functions by the family has made its remaining functions more important.
individual. T hus the modern mode rn family demands fitted carpets, ca rpets, three-piece suites, suites, was washing hing machines, machines, telev televiision sets and and ‘family’ ‘family’ cars. Young and Willmott (1973) make a similar point with respect to their symmetr respect ymmetrical ical Stage Stage 3 family family (see (see p. 477). They Th ey argue: ‘In its capacity capacity as a consumer the th e family has also als o made a crucial alliance alliance with techn technology ology.’ Indu Indusstry needs both a market for its goods and a motivated workforce.The symmetrical family provides both.Workers are motivated to work by their desire for consumer durables.This desire stems from the high value they place on the famil family y and a priv pr ivatized atized lifes lifestyle tyle in the t he family home. This provides a ready market for the products of industry. In this way the family performs an important economic function and is functionally related to the economic sys ystem. tem. In Young and Willmott’ Willmott’ss words, words, ‘Th Thee family and technology have achieved a mutual adaptation.’
T h e m e s a n d P Feminism and economic functions e Feminist writers have tended to disagree with the view r s shared by many sociologists of the family that the family has p The maintenance and lost its economic role as a unit of production and has become e improvement of functions simply a unit of consumption.They tend to argue that much c t N ot all sociologists would agree, agree, howev however, er, that the family of the work that takes place in the family is productive but it i v has lost lost many of its functions in moder m odern n industrial in dustrial society society.. is not recognized as such because it is unpaid and it is usually e R onald Fletcher, a British Fletcher, British sociologis sociologistt and a staunch staunch done by women.The contribution to economic life made by s suppor upporter ter of the family family, maintained that just just the oppos oppo site women is frequently underestimated. Family and Mar M arriag riage in Britain Britain (1966) has happened. In T he Family Fletcher argued that not only has the family retained its functions but also those functions have ‘increased in detail and importance’. impor tance’. Specia Specialized lized institu institutions tions such such as schoo chools ls and hospitals have added to and improved the family’s functions,, rather than superseded functions superseded them.
The radical feminists Christine Delphy and Diana Leonard (1992) accept that industrialization created new units of production production such such as fa factories, ctories, but deny that it removed the productive produ ctive function from the family family. Some productivee functions productiv functions hav have been lost, lost, but others other s are performed to a much higher standard than in the past. They cite as examples ‘warm and tidy rooms with 1 Fletcher maintained that the family’s responsibility attention attent ion to décor, and more complex meals meals with a variety variety for socializing the young is as important as it ever of forms of cooking’. wass. State educ wa educati ation on has has ad added ded to, rathe ratherr than than The family has taken on some new productive remov remo ved, this res respons ponsibi ibility lity, since ‘Pa Parents rents ar aree functions,, such as giving functions giving pre-school pre-school reading tuition to expected to do their best best to guide, encourage and and children, childr en, and functions such as was washing clothes and and support their children in their educational and freezing food have been reintroduced to the household occupational choices and careers.’ with the advent of new consumer products. way, the state state has not remov removed ed the 2 In the same way Delphy and Leonard also point out that there are still a family’s responsibility for the physical welfare of its fair number of families which continue to act as an members.. Fl members Fletcher etcher argued argued:: ‘The famil family y is is stil tilll economic unit producing goods goods for for the market. French centrally concerned with maintaining the health of farming families families,, which have have been studied studied by Ch Christine ristine its members, but it is now aided by wider provisions provisions Delphy,, are a cas Delphy case in point. po int. (Delphy and Leonard’s work work is which have been added to the family’s situation since discus dis cusssed in more mo re detail on pp. 467–8 467–8;; and housework housework is pre-industrial preindustrial times. t imes.’ discuss dis cussed ed on pp. 497–9.) R ather than removing this function from from the t he family famil y, the state provision provision of health services has served to expand expand and improve improve it. Compared to the th e Summary and conclusions past, pas t, par parents ents are are preoccupied with their children’s health. heal th. Sta State te health and and welfare welfare prov provis ision ion has Most sociologists who adopt a functionalist perspective provided additional support for the family and made argue that the family has lost several of its functions in its members more aware of the importance of health modern industrial society ociety,, but they maintai maintain n that the and hygiene in the home. importance importa nce of the famil family y has has not declined. declined. R ather ather,, the 3 Even though Fletcher admitted that the family has family has adapted and is adapting to a developing industrial industr ial largely larg ely lost lost its function as a unit of production, production , he society ociety.. It remains a vital and and bas b asic ic institution institut ion in society. society. argued it still maintains a vital economic function as Others dispute the claim that some of these functions a unit of consumption consumption.. Particularly in the case case of the hav havee been lost, or argue that new n ew functions function s hav havee replaced modern homeh ome-centred centred family family, money is spent on, the old o ld ones. From all these viewpoints the family remains and in in the name of, the famil family y rather rather than the a key institution.
All the writers examined here have a tendency to think in terms t erms of ‘the ‘the fa family mily’’ without dif diffe ferentiating rentiating between differ dif ferent ent types of fa family mily. They may may not, therefor therefore, e, appreciate the range of effects family life can have or the range of functions it may perform. Graham Allan and Graham Crow (2001) argue that attempts to identify the functions of the family can be criticized because of the ‘excessively abstract and overgeneral nature of functionalist frameworks of analysis which, by treating treating family family for forms ms as things shaped shaped by exter nal forces, forces, allo allowed wed little scope for individual agency agency or variations va riations from from the th e nor m’. Pos Postmoder tmodernis nists ts and and difference difference feminists certainly reject the view that there is any single type of family which always performs certain functions. (See (S ee pp. 517–19 for a discus discusssion of o f postmoder postmoder nis nism m and pp. 470–2 for a discuss discussion of o f difference difference feminism.) The writers discussed above also tend to assume that families famil ies reproduce the existing social social stru structure, cture, wheth whether er this is seen as a function functioning ing mechanism, mechanism, an exploitative exploitative capitalistt system capitalis system,, or a patriarchal patr iarchal societ society y.Y .Yet et families are not no t necesssarily suppor neces supportive tive of, or instrumental instrumen tal in reproducing, existing exis ting societies. societies. With increas increasing ing family family diversity diversity, some individual families and even some types of family may be radicall forces radica forces in society society.. For example, example, ga gay y and and lesbian lesbian families sometimes see themselves as challenging the inegalitarian relationships in heterosexual families (see p. 462 for a discussion discussion of gay and lesbian families). families). In this section section we have discuss discussed ed the t he va vario rious us functional roles that the th e family family performs;in performs; in the next n ext section we focus focus on roles within the family.
withdrawal of the wife from her relationships with female 4 9 7 kin, and the drawing of the hus hu sband into the th e family family circle. circle. C We looked at the reasons they gave for this in a previous H section (see pp. 477–8).Th 477–8).Thee extent to which w hich conjugal roles roles A have been changing and what this indicates about inequalP ities between men and women have been the subject of T some cont rov roversy ersy. Th Thes esee controversies controversies will now be E R discussed.
8
Inequality within marriage Although much of the recent research on conjugal roles has been concerned with determining the degree of inequality between husband and wife within marriage, there has been no generally accepted way of determining the extent of inequality inequality.. Diff Different erent researc researchers hers hav have measured meas ured different different as aspects pects of inequality inequality.. Some have have concentrated on the division division of labour labour in the th e home: they have examined the allocation of responsibility for domestic work between husband and wife and the amount of time spent by spouses on particular tasks. Others have tried to measure the distribution of power within marriage marriage.. Youn oung g and Willmott are among those t hose who hav havee argued that conjugal roles are increasingly becoming joint. H owev owever, er, many sociologists sociologists who hav havee carried carr ied out ou t research research in this area have found little evidence that inequality within marriage has been significantly reduced.
C onjug onjugal al roles, roles, hous housewor ework k and and childcare
Conjugal roles A major characteristic of the symmetrical family – which Youn oung g and Willmott (1973) claimed was developing when they were writing in the 1970s – was the degree to which spouses shared shared domestic dom estic,, work and leisure leisure activities activities.. R elationships of this type are known as joint conjugal roles,, as opposed to segregated conjugal roles. roles In You oung ng and Willmott’ Willmot t’ss Stage Stage 2 family, family, con conjugal jugal roles – the marital roles of husband and wife – were largely segreg egregated. ated. There was a clear-cut clear-cut div divis ision ion of labour between the spouses spouses in in the househol household, d, and the husband husband was relatively uninvolved with domestic chores and raising the children. Th This is segregation of conjugal roles extended to leisure.The wife associated mainly with her female kin and neighbours; neighbours; the hus h usband band with his male male workmates, workmates, kin and neighbours. neighbours. This pattern pattern was typic typical al of the traditional working-class community of Bethnal Green. In the Sta Stage ge 3 symmetrical symmetr ical family family, conjugal roles become more joint.Although the wife still has primary responsibility for housework housework and child rearing, husbands become more involv inv olved, ed, often washing washing clothes, clothes, ironing and and sharing sharing other o ther domestic domes tic duties. H us usband band and wife increas increasingl ingly y share share responsibility for decisions that affect the family.They discuss matters such as household finances and their children’s education to a greater degree than the Stage 2 family. Young and Willmott argue that the change from segregated to joint conjugal roles results mainly from the
The symmetrical family Young and Willmott’s views on the symmetrical family (see (s ee above) above) have have been heavily criticized. Ann Oakley O akley (1974) argues that their claim of increasing symmetry within marriage is based on inadequate methodology. Although their figure of 72 per cent (for men doing houssework) soun hou sounds ds impress impressiv ive, e, she points point s out that t hat it is based on only one question in Young and Willmott’s interview schedule: schedule: ‘Do you/ does your your hus h usband band help at least once a week with any household jobs like washing up,, mak up making ing beds beds (hel (helping ping with the childre children), n), ironi ironing, ng, cooking or cleaning? cleaning?’’ O akl akley ey notes that that men who mak makee only a very small contribution to housework would be included in in the th e 72 per cent. She sa says ys:: ‘A man who helps h elps with the children once a week would be included in this percentage, so would (presumably) (presumably) a man who ironed his own trousers on a Saturday afternoon.’
Housework and childcare A rather different picture of conjugal roles emerged in O akle akley’ y’s own research research (1974). She collected information on forty married women who had one child or more under the age age of 5, who were Britis British h or Ir is ish h born, and aged ag ed between 20 and and 30. H al alff of her sample sample were were working- clas classs, half were middle-clas middle- classs, and all liv lived ed in the th e London area. She found greater equality in terms of the allocation of domestic tasks between spouses in the middle class than in
F a m i l i e s a n d h o u s e h o l d s
498
S o c i o l o g y
T h e m e s a n d P e r s p e c t i v e s
the working class class. H owev owever, er, in both cla classses fe few w men had high levels levels of participation in hou houssework and childcare: few marriages could be defined as ega egalita litarian. rian. In only o nly 15 per cent of marriages did men have high levels of participation in hous hou sework; for childcare the figure figure was 30 per cent. Since these pioneering pioneer ing pieces of research, research, more sophisticated methods have been developed for examining the domestic division of labour.
Survey research Survey research has used large samples to produce more reliable data.The British Social Attitudes Survey conducted research res earch on household household tasks tasks in 1984, 1991 and 1997. 1997. It detected a trend towards men undertaking an increasing proportion proport ion of o f domestic domestic tasks tasks,, but the th e change has been slow slow and women still do most of the domestic work. The 1997 British Social Attitudes Survey also included comparative comparati ve data from from Europe, but only o nly included data on a restricted range of household tasks (Jowell et al. , 19 1998 98)) (see (s ee Ta Table ble 8.9). 8.9). It showed a smal smalll reduction in the t he gendered nature of washing and ironing in Britain (it was a mainly female task in 84 per cent of households in 1991, while the equiv equival alent ent figure for 1997 was was 79 79 per cent). Th There ere was al alsso a small small reduction in the th e tendency for men to be responsible for making repairs around the house (although the precise wording of the relevant question changed between surveys).Washing and ironing were less female-dominated in Britain than in other countries,, but in Sweden countries Sweden looking afte afterr sick sick famil family y members was considerably less likely than it was in Britain to be a mainly female activity.
responsibility for children. It is the wives who relegate responsibility non-domestic aspects of their lives to a low priority. Some empirical support for Boulton is provided by a study conducted con ducted by Elsa Elsa Ferri Ferr i and Kate Smith (1996) (1996).T .They hey produced data based upon the National Child Development Dev elopment Surve Survey y. This surve survey y follo followed, wed, as fa farr as possible poss ible,, the lives of everybody everybody born bor n in Great Britain in a specific week in 1958.The data came from the 1991 survey when those th ose inv involv olved ed were 33 33 years years old. By that time, the sample included 2,800 fathers and 3,192 mothers. The survey found it was still very unusual for fathers to take primary responsibility responsibility for childcare. childcare. For example, example, according to the male male responden respondents, ts, in dual-earner dual-earn er families families where both worked full-time the father was the main carer in only 2 per cent cen t of families, families, the wife w ife was was the main m ain carer in 24 per cent of o f families families,, and childcare was shared equally in 72 per cent of families families.. Wh When en mothers mot hers were asked the same question they said that they were the main carer in 32 per cent of families and men in just 1 per cent. Even when the woman had paid employment outside the home hom e and the man did not, it was still more common for the woman than the man to take main responsibility for routine childc childcare are or childcare childcare in the ev event ent of illnes illnesss. Th This is suggests that the increasing employment of married women outside the home had made comparatively little impact on the contribution of the male partner to childcare. The study also found little evidence for the development of egalitarian gender roles in relation to other types of house housework. work. Ferri and Smith sa say, ‘Thus ‘Thus,, for exampl example, e, two-thirds of full-time working mothers said they were responsible res ponsible for for cooking coo king and cleaning, and four out of fiv fivee for laundry.’
Childcare Mary Boulton (1983) argues that studies which focus upon the allocation of tasks in the home exaggerate the extent of men’s men’s inv involvement olvement in childcare, and she she denies that questions about who does what give a true picture of conjugal roles roles.. To her, childcare: is essentially about exercising responsibility for another person who is not fully responsible for herself and it entails seeing to all aspects of the child’s security and well-being, well-be ing, her growth and development development at any and all Boult lt on, 198 1983 3 times. Bou Boulton claims claims that, al although though men might help with particular particul ar tasks tasks,, it is their wives wives who retain primary
Time Another way to study gender roles is to examine time spent on o n different different tas t asks. ks. Th This is giv gives es some indication ind ication of whether,, in total, whether total, men or women women spend spend more more time time on paid and unpaid work. Jonathan Gershuny Gershuny (1992, (1992, 1999) exa examined mined how social changes have affected the burden of work for British husbands and wives. wives. Perhaps the mo st impor tant change affecting this area of social life has been the rise in the proportion of wives taking paid employment outside the hom e. Soci Sociologis ologists ts such such as Oakley have have argued that women have increasingly been taking on a dual burden: they have have retained pr imary responsi responsibili bility ty
Table 8.9 House Household hold divis di vision ion of o f labour, labour, 199 1997 7 % saying always or usually t he wom an:
W est er n G er m any
Br it ain
I r ish Republic
N et her lands
Sweden*
Washing and ir oning
88
79
85
87
80
Looking aft er sick family member
50
48
50
47
38
80
75
69
78
82
1,604
6 01
607
1,255
% saying always or usually the man: Makes small r epair s around t he house Base (households wit h par t ner s only)
* For Sweden the t he base base varies for the different tasks and this t his is the smalles smallestt unweighted base. base. Source: R. Jowell et al. (1998) British and European Social Attitudes , Fift ee eenth nth Rep epor or t, Ash Ashg gate, Aldersh Aldershot ot , p. 32.
883
499 for household tasks while also being expected to have Tab Table le 8.10 8.1 0 Ti Time me spent spent on on main main act act ivit ies by sex, in paid employment. C Grea Gr eatt Bri Britt ain, 2005 (peopl (people e ag aged 16 and over over ) Gershuny examined 1974 and 1975 data from the BBC H Audience Audi ence R es esear earch ch Department, and 1997 1997 data from from an A Hours and minutes per day Economic and Social Social Res R esearch earch Council Coun cil project, project, to discover discover P Malles Fema Ma malles how the share share of work had changed changed (Gershuny, 1999, T Sleep 8.04 8.18 discuss dis cussed ed in Laurie Laurie and Gershuny, Gershuny, 2000). In 1997 women E R continued to do in excess of 60 per cent of the domestic Rest ing 0.43 0.48 work even when both partners were working full-time. 8 Per sonal car e 0.40 0.48 H owever, owever,Ger Gershuny shuny did find a gradual shift shift towards husbands husbands Eat ing and dr inking 1.25 1.19 doing a higher proportion of domes domestic tic work. work. O veral erall, l, he found little difference in the amount of time men and Leisure women in employment spent on paid and unpaid work. Watching TV/DVD and listening H owev owever, er, Graham Allan Allan (1985) sugges suggests ts the work wo rk that t hat t o r adio/music 2.50 2.25 women carry out in the home may be tedious and less satisfying than the more creative tasks that are frequently Soci ocia al life life and and ent enter ertt ainment inment/ / done by men. H e sa says ys:: ‘much female female domestic domestic work is cult ur e 1.22 1.32 monotonous and and mundane, mundane, pro provid viding ing few few intrinsic intrinsic Hobbies and games 0.37 0.23 satisfactions’. Spor t 0.13 0.07 R ecent survey survey resear research ch sugges suggests ts that, ov overal erall, l, there is little difference between men and women in the time Reading 0.23 0.26 spent on paid and unpaid unpaid work. In 2000–1 and and 2005 All leisure 5.25 4.53 (ONS,, 20 (ONS 2001 01;; Lade derr et al. , 2006 2006)) the Britis British h government government conducted detailed time-use surveys which involved Employment and st udy 3.45 2.26 collecting data using questionnaires and self-completed Housewor k 1.41 3.00 time diaries in a sample of over 5,000 homes. Childcar e 0.15 0.32 In the th e 2000 survey survey,, men spent a total of 6 hours hour s 20 minutess per day on employment and study minute study,, hou houssework Volunt ar y wor k and meet ings 0.15 0.20 and childca childcare, re, compar compared ed to 6 hours hour s 26 26 minutes per day day Tr avel 1.32 1.22 spent by women. In 2005, men spent spent 5 hours 41 minutes O t her 0.13 0.15 on these th ese activities activities,, compared to 5 hours hou rs 58 minute minutess spent by women (see (see Ta Table ble 8.10). 8.10). Therefore, the gap between men and women had widened from six minutes to Source: Time Use Survey 2005 , 2005 , ht httt p:// p://stati statistics.g stics.gov.uk? ov.uk?CCI CCI? ?nug nugg get.asp et.asp? ?ID seventeen minutes. =7&Pos=1&ColRank=2&Rank=352 Furthermore, Further more, in 2005 men had had a total of 5 hours 25 minutess’ leis minute leisure ure a day day, compared to women’ wom en’ss 4 hours hour s 53 minutess. Howev minute However er,, thes thesee figures figures incl include ude all all men and tized. It was most likely likely to be the th e man who decided where wh ere women, not just those those who cohabit with a partner of the the couple cou ple were to live live,, and men tended to make decisions decisions opposite sex. La Lader der et al. found that ‘Men and women in about cars. cars. Howev However, er, hus husband band and and wife usual usually ly made made a partnerships have similar totals of work and leisure time, joint decision about buying or renting a house. with men overall having a little more work time than Although men dominated domin ated in most most households, this was was women’(2006, p. 23). 23).Much Much of the overall overall differ difference ence could not the case in a significant minority of households where be explained by the fact that women who were not in a there appeared to be more egalitarian relationships. partnership were much more likely than single men to be Power can also be examined in terms of the control of lone parents, parents, and singl singlee women also also tended to spend money money.. Jan Pahl (1989, 1993) was the firs firstt British Br itish sociolosociololonger working than single men. gist to conduct detailed studies of how couples manage their money mo ney.. H er study study was bas based ed upon interviews int erviews with 102 couples with at least one child under 16.The sample, Conjugal roles and power although small, small, was fairl fairly y representative representative of the th e population popu lation as a whole in terms of emplo employment, yment, cla classs, housi housing ng and Another approach to studying conjugal roles is to examine ownership owners hip of cons consumer umer goods. goods. Howev However, er, the very very rich power within marriage. mar riage. Th This is has usual usually ly been attempted attempt ed were under-represented. through an examination of who makes the decisions. The study found four main patterns of money A stud study y by by Irene Irene Hard Hardil ill, l, Anne Gree Green, n, Anna management: Dudlestone and David Owen (1997) examined power in 1 Husband-controlled pooling was the most dual-earner households in Nottingham using semistru tructured ctured interviews. in terviews.Th Thee hous hou seholds were clas classsified into common pattern pattern (thirty (thirty-nine -nine couples couples). ). In this those where the husband’s career took precedence in sys ystem, tem, money was shared but the th e husband had the making major household decisions (such as what part of dominant role in deciding deciding how it was spent. This the countr cou ntry y to live live in), tho thosse where the wife’ w ife’s career took system was often found in high-income households, precedence, precede nce, and those where neither career career clearly clearly took especiall es pecially y if the wife did not work. wor k. It was als also o precedence precede nce over over the other. In nineteen households households the common if the woman worked part-time or if she man’ss career man’ career came firs first, t, in five five the th e woman’ wom an’ss career career took t ook had a lower-status job than her husband.This system precedence, and in six six neither career was clearl clearly y prioriprior itended to give men most power.
F a m i l i e s a n d h o u s e h o l d s
500
S o c i o l o g y
T h e m e s a n d P e r s p e c t i v e s
2 Wife-controlled pooling was the second most common categ category ory,, inv involving olving twenty-seven twenty-seven couples. couples. In this sys system, tem, mon money ey was was shared but the th e wife had the dominant role in deciding deciding how it was was spent. Th This is group tended to be middle-income couples couples,, es especia peciall lly y where the wife was working and had a better-paid job than her husband or was better educated.This tended to be the most egalitarian system of financial control. 3 Husban Husband d control c ontrol was found in twenty-two couples. Among these couples the husband was usually the one with the main m ain or only wage, wage, and often often he gave gave his wife housekeeping housekeeping money. money. Some of these familie familiess were too poor to have have a bank bank account; in others other s only the husband husband had an account. account. Sometimes the women worked, work ed, but their earnings earnings la large rgely ly went went on housekeeping. housek eeping. In some sys ystems tems of husband husband control, the husband gave his wife a housekeeping allowance out of which she had to pay for all or most of the routine costs of running the household. Th This is sys system tem tended to lead to male dominance. least frequent pattern, found 4 Wife control was the least in just just fourteen fourt een couples. Th This is was most common in working-classs and low working-cla low income households. households. In a number of these households neither partner worked and both receive received d their income from from benefits. benefits. In most of these households neither partner had a bank account and they th ey used cash cash to t o pay any bills bills. Although this system appeared to give women more power than tha n men, it was was mos mostt common common in poorer poorer households where the responsibility for managing the money was more of a burden than a privilege.
analysed data from the British Household Panel Survey from 1991 and 1995. Th This is showed showed movement awa away y from the housekeeping allowance system (in which the man gives the woman an allowance to pay for household expenses), expenses ), which was being used by by just just 10 per cent of o f households by 1995. The use of shared management systems had increased marginall margina lly y to 51 51 per cent in 1995. 1995. H owe owev ver, there was was more evidence of change towards greater equality in terms of major major fina financia nciall decis decisions ions.. In 1991, 1991, 25 per cent cent of couples said the male partner had the final say on big financiall decisions, financia decisions, but by 1995 this th is had declined to 20 per cent.The proportion saying the male and female partners had an equal say had risen from 65 per cent to 70 per cent over the same same period. perio d. Greater equality was particularly in evidence where the women were well qualified and had high earnings, ear nings, es especiall pecially y if they were employed in professional or managerial jobs. O veral erall, l, La Laurie urie and Ger shuny concluded that while there was some evidence of a movement towards greater equality e quality,, ‘we are are still still far from from a position in i n which wh ich the balance between the sexes in the workplace, corresponds corres ponds to the balance balance of work, work, and economic economic power, powe r, in the home’. home’.
Conjugal roles and emotion work Jean Duncomb D uncombe e and and Dennis Dennis M ar ars sden – emotion work
Drawing on the work of va variou riouss sociologis ociologists, ts, Jean Duncombe and Dennis Marsden (1995) argue that some Inequality and money management forms of domestic work cannot be measured in convenAccording to Pahl, Pahl, the mos mo st egalitarian egalitarian type of cont control rol is tional survey urveyss. In particular particular,, al alongs ongside ide such tasks tasks as wife-controlled wife-controll ed pooling. In househol households ds with this th is sys system tem housework and childcare members of households also the male and female partners tend to have similar amounts carry out emotion work. of power in terms ter ms of decis decision ion making, and they are equally equally The term ‘emotion ‘emotion work’ was fi first rst used used by Arl Arlie ie likely (or unlikely) to experience financial deprivation. Hochschild (1983) to describe the sort of work done by They also tend to have similar amounts of money to spend female airline cabin crew in trying to keep passengers on themselves. happy happ y. Duncombe and Marsden Marsden also also tr y to dev develop elop the Wife-controlled systems appear to give women an work of o f N. James (1989), who dis discuss cussed ed how ‘from ‘from a very very advantag adv antagee over over men. Howeve However, r, they tend to be found in early age girls and then women become subconsciously households where money is tight and there is little little,, if trained to be more emotionally skilled in recognizing and anything, left over over after after paying paying for for necessities. necessities.O O ften women empathizing with the moods of others’. will go shor shortt themsel the mselves ves (for example, example, by eating less less, Hochschild and James were mainly interested in delaying buying new clothes and spending little on their emotion work work in paid paid empl employ oyment. ment. Duncombe and and leisure) rather than see their husband or children go short. Marsden examine the implications of their ideas for Husband-controlled systems tend to give husbands relationships between heterosexual partners. more power than their w iv ives es.. In thes th esee households men Their research was based on interviews with forty white usually spend more on personal consumption than wives. couples who had been married for fifteen years.They asked Where husband-con husband-controll trolled ed pooling occurs occurs,, men tend the couples, couples, separa eparately tely and and together, how their marriag marr iagee had to ha h ave more power power than women, but the inequal inequality ity is not sur urviv vived ed for so so long in an age of high divorce divorce rates. Th They ey as great as in sys systems of husband husband control. con trol. In the t he highest- found that many women expressed dissatisfaction with their income households there is usually sufficient money to partner’s emotional input into the relationship and the family. meet the personal expenditure of both partners. Many of the women felt emotionally lonely.A number of the O ve veral rall, l, then, Pa Pahl hl found that just just over a quarter quarter of o f the men concentrated concentr ated on their paid employ employment, ment, were unwilling unwilling couples had a system (wife-controlled pooling) associated to express exp ress feelings of love love for their the ir partner, partn er, and were reluctant with a fair degree degree of equality equality between the partners. This to discuss discuss their feelings feelings.. Most of the men did not believ believee would sugges suggestt that in domestic relationships relationships,, as in a there was a problem.They problem.They did not no t acknowledge that emotion number of other areas, areas, women h hav avee not yet come close to work needed to be done to make the relationship work. reaching a position of equality. Duncombe and Marsden found that many of the More recent research by Laurie and Gershuny (2000) women in the study were holding the relationship
together by doing the crucial crucial emotion work. In the early stages of the relationship relationship,, the partners, partn ers, but particularly the women, deep act away any doubts about their emotional closeness or suitability suitabilit y as part partner ners.At s.At this t his stage stage any doubts doubt s are suppressed because they feel in love and are convinced of the worth of the relationship. Later, La ter, howev however, er, ‘with growing suspicions suspicions,, they “shall “shallow ow act”’ ac t”’ to maintain maintain the ‘pictur ‘picturee for their partner and the outside world’. Shallow acting involves pretending to their partners and others ot hers that the t he relationship is satis satisfa factor ctory y and they are happy happy with it. Th They ey ‘l ‘liv ivee the famil family y myth’ or ‘play ‘pl ay the couple game’ to maintain the ill illusion usion of a happy family. T his places places a considerable emotional emotio nal strain strain on o n the th e woman, but it is the price pr ice to pay for keeping the family together. H owev owever, er, ev eventually entually some some women wome n begin to t o ‘lea ‘leak’ k’ their unhappines u nhappinesss to outsiders. outsiders. In the t he end this may may result result in the break-up of the relationship and separation or divorce. In the meantime, women’ women’ss grea greater ter participation participation in emotion work can be ‘a major dimension of gender inequality in couple relation relationsships’ hips’.. With married mar ried women increasingly increas ingly having paid employment, employment, they can end up performing a triple shift . H aving completed their paid paid employment they not only have to come home and do most of the hous hou sework, they also also have have to do most m ost of the emotion work as well. As women have gained paid employment this type of inequality has not reduced. redu ced. Progress in this area area would require even even more mo re fundamental fundamental changes changes.. Duncombe and Marsden say: In fact if we consider what would be a desirable future, the most important change would be for boys and men to become meaningfully involved in the emotional aspects of family life and childcare from an early age.And this would require not only a massive reorganization of work and childcare but also a deep transformation in the nature of heterosexual masculinity. Dunco Duncombe mbe and Marsden, 1995
Gillian Dunne – the division of labour in lesbian households In an interesting departure from studies of conjugal roles in heterosexuall households, heterosexua households, Gillia Gillian n Dunne D unne (1999) conducted a stu study dy of the division division of o f labour labour in lesbian households. hou seholds. She examined thirty-seven cohabiting lesbian couples who took part in in-depth, semi-structured interviews interviews.. Dunne found that ‘A high level of flexibility and evenhandedness characterized the allocation of employment responsibili res ponsibilities ties in partnerships partne rships..’ A number of the couples were responsible responsible for for the t he care of at least least one on e child, making it diffi difficult cult for for both to work full-time. full-time. Howev However, er, unlik unlikee mostt heterosexual mos heterosexual couples couples,, one of the partners did not usually take primary responsibility for childcare.The birth mother moth er of the child was not necess necessarily arily the main carer,and carer, and the partners often took tur turns ns to reduce their paid employemployment to spend more time with the children. The women were also asked to keep time-budget diaries.Th diaries. Thes esee revealed revealed that in most hous hou seholds there was a fairly equitable division of time spent on household tasks tas ks.. In 81 per cent of households households neither partner did more than 60 60 per cent of the housework. housework. Where the division of tasks was more skewed towards one partner than the th e other, othe r, it was usua usually lly the case case that the one o ne who wh o did less housework spent much longer in paid employment.
Many of the women felt that their sameness as women 5 0 1 and the lack of different gender roles made it easier to C share tasks tasks equitably equitably.. O ne of the women said, ‘I suppose suppose H because our relationship doesn’t fit into a social norm, A there are no pre-set indications about how our relationP ship should work.We have to work it out for ourselves.’ T Dunne concludes that the boundaries between E R masculinity and femininity and the hierarchical nature of gender rela relations tionships hips,, with men being dominant, help to 8 produce conventional domestic divisions of labour in heterosexual households.The best way to change this is to give greater value to ‘femin ‘feminine’ ine’ tasks such as childcare and housework. Many middle-class women have avoided the consequences of men’s lack of involvement in housework by employing other women to help with domestic tasks. Their career opportunities have been gained at the expense of low-paid, low-paid, exp explo loite ited, d, wor worki king-cl ng-clas asss clea cleaners ners,, na nannie nniess, childmind chil dminders ers,, etc etc.. To Dunne, this is not an an accep acceptab table le solution, since it helps to perpetuate perpetu ate the exploitation exploitation of women in what w hat she sees as as a patr patriarchal iarchal society society.. Du Dunne nne say ayss: We have a common interest in dissolving gender as a category of both content and consequence.This involves acting upon our recognition that gender has a social origin, is possessed by men as well as women and can thus be transcend transc ended ed by both. both. In practical terms, this means recognizing and celebrating the value of women’s traditional areas of work rather than accepting a masculine and capitalist hierarchy of value which can lead to women passing on their responsibilities to less powerful women. Dunne, 1999
Inequality within marriage – conclusion Dunne’s study of lesbian households suggests equitable domestic divis divisions ions of labour can be achieved. achieved. H owev owever, er, it is not easy to achieve them in the context of a culture that still differentiates quite clearly between masculinity and femininity. Most of o f the evidence suggests suggests women are still still a long way from achieving equality within marriage in contemporary Britain. Th They ey are are still still primarily responsible responsible for for domes dom estic tic tasks and they have less power than their husbands within marriage.. In terms of the amount of hours marriage hour s spent spent ‘working’ ‘working’,, though, the general picture of inequality inequality seems seems to be less less clear-cut. clear-cu t. H usba usbands nds of wives with full-time full- time jobs do seem seem to be taking over over some of the burden of o f housework, housework, al although though the change is slow and some inequality remains.
Mar r iage, mar it al Mar breakdown and family decline Many social and political commentators in Western societies have expressed concern about what they see as the decline of marr iage and and of o f family family life. life. Many see see this th is as as
F a m i l i e s a n d h o u s e h o l d s
502
S o c i o l o g y
T h e m e s a n d P e r s p e c t i v e s
a threat threat to the th e family family, which in tur n they see see as the bedrock of a stable and civilized society. For example, example, Brenda Almond (2006) believ believes es that the family is fragmentin fragmenting. g. She argues th that at there the re has been a shift away from concern with the family as a biological institution based upon the rearing of children, children, towards the family as an institution which emphasizes ‘two people’s emotional need or desire desire for for one another’ (A (Almond, lmond, 2006 2006,, p. 107) 107).. There is an increased emphasis on the needs of individuals and less emphasis on society’s need for the rearing of children in stable relatio relationships. nships. T here is increasing social and legal legal acceptance acceptance of marital breakdown, breakdown, cohabitation, gay ga y and lesbian lesbian relations relation ships and so so on, on , all of which lead to the decline and fra fragmentation gmentation of families families.. Al Almond mond believ believes es that the t he decline of o f the family is dama damaging ging to society ociety,, and steps should be taken to reverse the trend. Another writer who believes that the family and marriag marr iagee are in decline is Patricia Morgan (2003). She argues that factors such such as increas increased ed cohabitation, co habitation, declining fertility, fertility, the decline in the proportion of marr married ied people, people, the increase increase in single single parenthoo parenthood d and and childbirth outside marr marriag iage, e, and the rise in the numbers living alone are all indicative of this decline. Lik Likee Almond, Almond, she sees this as as harmful for society, society, for indivi indi vidua duals ls and for for children. children. For exampl example, e, coha cohabiti biting ng couples are much more likely to split up than married couple coup less, ca caus using ing,, ac accor cordi ding ng to Morga Morgan, pr probl oblems ems for children and for a society which may have to provide financial support for the resulting lone-parent family. In addition, addition, cohabi cohabitation, tation, div divorce orce and and the delaying delaying of marriage until later in life all contribute to the low fertility rate. This leads leads to an ageing ageing of the population, population, which places a massive burden on those of working age who need to support the growing proportion of elderly in the population. The threats to marriage and family life fall into two main categor categories ies:: threats res resulting ulting from from alter alternativ natives es to marriag marr iagee and conventional families families;; and threats resulting resulting from the breakdown of marriages. O n the th e surface surface,, the evidence for a crisis crisis in the ins institutitution of marriage and in family life seems compelling. However, Howev er, as we will will see, the evide evidence nce needs needs to be interpreted carefully and the crisis may not be as acute as it first seems.
rising to 82.3 in 1971, but by 2004 rising 2004 it was jus justt 24.7 (PopulationTre 2006). ).Amongs Amongstt women the rate was 83 Trends nds, 2006 in 1961, 97 in 1971 and 30.8 in 2004.As Figure Figure 8.1 shows, the number of first marriages fell from a peak of nearly 400,000 per year in the mid-1960s to well under 200,000 per year by 2003. H owev owever, er, Ch Ches ester ter did not no t see these these sort sortss of figures figures as conclusive evidence for a decline in the popularity of marriage.. H e said marriage said,, ‘Mainl Mainly y we seem seem to be witnessing witnessing a delay dela y in the timing of marriag marr iage, e, rather than th an a fal fall-o l-off ff in getting marr married ied at at all. all.’ He thought th ought future generations generations might marr y less less frequently frequently,, but he believed there would be only a small (if any) reduction in marriage rates. Chester was certainly right about the delay in marriage since much of the decline in first marriages does seem to be due to people delaying marriages.According to British govern gov ernment ment statis tatistics, tics, in 1961 the average average age age at first first marriag marr iagee in the th e UK U K was 25.6 years years for for men, men , and 23.1 years years for women. In 2004 the average average age age at first first marr iag iagee was considerably considerabl y older: 31.4 years years for for men m en and 29.1 yea years rs for for women (Population Tre 2005). ). Some commentators are Trends nds, 2005 keen to point out that most people do get married at some stage in their th eir lives. lives.According According to Jon Bernardes: It is important to realize that around 90 per cent of all women marry in the UK today compared to 70 per cent in the t he Vic Victor torian ian era. Brit Britain ain has one one of the t he highes highestt rates r ates of marr iage in the European Union. By the age of 40 4 0 years, 95 per cent of women and 91 per cent of men have married. Be Berr na nardes, rdes, 1997 R ecent figures sugges uggestt continued cont inued reductions reduct ions in the proportion who have have never never marr married. ied. The Government Actuary’s Department (2005) calculated that in 2003 89 per cent of 45- to 64-year-old men and 93 per cent of
Figure 8.1 Marriages and divorces in the UK, 1950–2003 Thousands 500 50 0 All marriages
400 40 0
‘Threats’ from alternatives to marriage First, it is argued First, argued that t hat marr iag iagee is becoming less less popular popular – decreasing decreas ing numbers of people are getting married. More people are developing alter alternativ natives es to conv co nvention entional al married life.These alternatives can take a number of forms.
300 30 0
First marriages1
200 20 0
Divorces2 Remar r iag iages es3
100 10 0
M arriag arriage e rates Wr iting in the 1980s 1980s, R obert C hes hester ter (1985) (1985) was was among those who noted that marriage rates among young adults had declined declined in many Wes estern tern countr countries ies.. Firs First, t, Sw Sweden eden and Denmark experienced falling marriage rates among the under-thirties under-thirties.. The trend contin continued ued in in Britai Britain, n, the U SA and Wes Westt Ger many in the early 1970s 1970s,, and later spread to France. In England and Wales the first-marriage rate (number of marriages per 1,000 single people) was 74.9 in 1961,
0 1950
1960
1970
1980
1990
2003
1 For both partne part ners rs 2 Includes an annulments. nulments.Data Data for 1950 to t o 1970 for Grea Gr eatt Britain Brit ain
only 3 For one or both partners Source: Social Trends 2006 , 2006 , Office for National National Statistics, Lon London, don, p. 26.
women had women had married married at at leas leastt once. once. Howe Howev ver er,, they predicted that the lower rates of marriages in younger age groups would lead to an increase in the never-married. They projected that by 2031 amongst the 45–64 age group only 66 per cent of men and 71 per cent of women would have been married at least once. Whether Wh ether these projections prove prove accurate accurate remains to be seen, but if the proportion of o f the never-marr never-married ied amongs amongst older age groups groups does rise this much, it would sugges suggestt more than a simple delay in the timing of marriage.
Cohabitation One alternative to marriage is cohabitation by couples not legally lega lly marr married. ied. According to Social Trends 2006 betwe ween en 20 06 , bet 1986 and 2004/ 2004/ 5 the proportion of non- married adults adults aged under 60 who were cohabiting rose from 11 per cent to 24 per cent amongst amongst men, and from from 13 per cent to 25 per cent amongs amongstt women. Amongs Amongstt cohabiting cohabiting men, men, 23 per cent were singl ingle, e, 12 per cent cent were widowed, widowed, 36 per cent were divorced and 23 per cent were separated. Amongst women the proportions were 27 per cent single, 6 per cent widowed, 29 per cent divorced divorced and 23 per cent separated. Whilst there is no doubt that cohabitation has become increassingl increa ingly y common, there is no agreement about the significance of this trend. Patricia Morgan (2003) sees it as part of a worrying trend in which marriage is going out of fashion and the family famil y is in serious decline. Mor Morgan gan believes believes that cohabitation used to be seen primarily as a prelude to marriage but increasingly it is part of a pattern which simply reflects an ‘increa ‘increasse in sexual partners partner s and and partner part ner change’ (2003, p. 127) 127).. She quotes statis statistics tics from from the Britis British h H ousehol ousehold d Panel Survey showing that less than 4 per cent of cohabiting couples stay together for more than ten years as cohabi cohabitants tants,, al although though ar around ound 60 per cent get married. A different different view is taken taken by Joan Joan Chandler C handler (1993). She sees the increas in creasee in cohabitation as rather more signific ignificant: ant: ‘The time couples spend cohabiting is lengthening and increasingly they appear to be choosing cohabitation as a long-ter longterm m alternative to marriage.’ marriage.’ C handler sugges suggests ts this is reflected in the increasing proportion of children born out of marriage – partners no longer feel as much pressure to marry mar ry to legitimize legitim ize a pregnancy pregnancy.. She argues: argues: Many of today’s parents have detached childbearing and rearing from traditional marriage and 28 per cent of children are now born to unmarried unmarr ied mothers. Howeve However, r, many fewer fewer are born to t o residentially residentially lone parents, as 70 per cent of these children are jointly registered by parents who usually share the same address. Cha Chandler, ndler, 1993 Although Chandler sees cohabitation as increasingly popular, popula r, she does point out that th at it is is nothing new. new. Unofficial self-marriage (where people simply declare themselves to be married – sometimes called ‘living over the brus bru sh’) was was ve very ry common in past past centur ies ies.. She quotes research which estimates that as many as a quarter to a third of couples lived in consensual unions in Britain in the eighteenth century. Changing public attitudes to cohabitation were discuss dis cussed ed by Anne Barlow Barlow,, Simon Duncan, Dun can, Grace James James
and Alis Alison on Park (2001). U sing data from from a number of 5 0 3 British Social Attitude Survey Surveyss, Barl Barlow ow et al. found clear C evidence of changing public attitude attitudess. More people were H beginning to see it as acceptable to have children without A getting marr married. ied. In 1994, 70 per cent agreed agreed that ‘Peopl Peoplee P who want children ought to get married’, but by 2000 2000 this T was down to 54 per cent. E R They found increasingly liberal attitudes to pre-marital sex, with the t he proportion thinking that it was ‘not wrong at 8 all’’ increas all increasing ing from 42 per cent in 1984 to 62 per cent in 2000. By 2000 more than two-thirds two-t hirds of responden respondents ts (67 per cent) agreed it was ‘all right for a couple to live together without intending to get marr married’ ied’,, and 56 56 per cent thought it was ‘a good idea for a couple who intend to get married to live together first’. Barlow et al. als also o found foun d clear evidence that t hat younger age groups were more likely to find cohabitation acceptable than older o lder age groups, but all age age groups had moved some some way towards greater acceptance of pre-marital sex and cohabitation. cohabi tation. Ba Barlow rlow et al. argue:‘Over time … there is a strong likelihood that society will become more liberal still on these matters, matters, al although though particular groups, groups, such as the religious, are likely likely to remain more traditional tr aditional than the rest.’ H owev owever, er, they do not sugges suggestt that this indicates indicates the breakdown brea kdown of marriag marr iagee as a res respected pected institution. institution. In the th e 2000 sur surve vey y, 59 per cent cen t agreed that th at ‘ma ‘marr rr iage is still the bestt kind of bes o f relationship’ relationship’.. A mere 9 per cent agreed that ‘there is no point getting married – it is only a piece of paper’, while 73 per cent cent disagreed. disagreed. Despite the increasing acceptance of cohabitation, Barlow et al. therefore argue that, ‘o ‘overa verall, ll, marr marriage iage is still widely valued valued as an ideal, but that t hat it is regarded with much mu ch more ambivalence when it comes to everyday partnering and (especially) parenting’. Many people showed considerable commitment to their relations relationships hips ev even en if they were were not married. O n avera verage, ge, current cohabitants had had been together t ogether for six and and a half yea years. rs. For some, extended cohabitation co habitation was a prelude to marriage. Ba Barlow rlow et al. therefore argue that many people still val value ue long-ter long- term, m, stable heterosexual heterosexual relations relationships hips.. While many see marriage as preferable to cohabitation, cohabitation is increasingly accepted as a valid alternative. Barlow et al. suggest Britain will ‘probably move towards towa rds a Scandi candinav navia ian n pattern, therefore therefore,, where longlongterm cohabita cohabitation tion is widely widely seen seen as quite nor mal mal,, and where marriage is more of a lifestyle choice than an expected part of life’.
F a m i l i e s a n d h o u s e h o l d s
Declining fertility and birth rates Patricia Morgan (2003) points out that total fertility rates (the number of children born per woman of childbearing age) hav havee fallen. fallen. In the 1870s, around five five children were born per woman, but this decl declined ined to below below two in the 1930s.. Many people dela 1930s delayed yed getting married marr ied or having having children dur ing the Second World World Wa War, r, but after the war there was a baby boom boom.. T his led to the th e total tot al fertility rate peaking at at 2.94 in 1964. By 1995 it had fallen fallen to 1.77. According to Social Trends 2006, it fell fur further ther to 1.63 in 2001 before returning to 1.77 in 2004. In part, the decline decline in fertility fertility is a consequence consequence of women having children children later in life. life. According to Social
504
S o c i o l o g y
T h e m e s a n d P e r s p e c t i v e s
Trends 2006 , in 1971 the average average age age of mothers moth ers at at first first birth was 23.7 but by 2004 it had risen considerably to 27.1. Th Thee average average age age for all births als also rose, fr from om 26.6 in 1971 to 28.9 in 2004.The later women leave it before they havee their firs hav firstt child, the fewer fertile years years they have have remaining, making it likely likely that they th ey will will have have fewer fewer children. Morgan Mor gan (2003) sees sees the decline in fertility as part part of the general decline in family family life life.. She links it to the t he ris r isee in cohabita coha bitation, tion, noting that that women who ar aree cohabiting cohabiting rather than married are more likely to have only one child. She points out that th at the birth rate would be even even lower and the average age at birth even higher were it not for a rise in the number of pregnancies amongst unmarried teenage girls. H owev owever, er, from anoth another er point of view view there is not nothing hing surprising about a decline in the birth rate and it does not necessarily indicate a decline in family life. According to a number of geographers (see Waugh, 2000), the decline can be seen as a part of a demographic transition which takes place in all developed societies. According to this model, the birth birt h and fertility rates fal falll for the following reasons:
Acces esss to contraception, steriliza terilization tion and abortion 1 Acc make family planning easier. 2 An increased desire for material goods coupled with an increasing cost of raising children creates incentives for smaller families. 3 The emancipation emancipation of women, and their consequent consequent greater grea ter participation participation in pai paid d work, lea leads ds to women combining care careers ers with motherhood. motherh ood. This encourages women to have fewer children and to delay childbirth until their careers are established. 4 A decline decline in the death de ath rate for youn young g children, as a result of improvements in hygiene and medical care, means that there is less pressure to have many children in case one or more of them dies before reaching adulthood. Eventually these changes can lead to a situation where,, without immig where immigrati ration, on, the popul populati ation on decl declines ines since there are more deaths than birth s. If the decline in births and fertility is seen as an inevitable consequence of socia sociall change, change, it does not n eces ecesssarily indicate indicate a declining decl ining commitm commitment ent to fa famil mily y li liffe. Indeed Indeed,, some theorists theo rists hav havee argued that as fewer children are are born, bor n, the family fa mily simply simply becomes becomes more child-centred. More time and energy are devoted to the smaller number of children in each family.
Single-person households An alternative to marr iage is to live on one’ one ’s own. Many single-person households may be formed as a result of div di vorc orce, e, sepa epara ration, tion, the brea break-up k-up of a pa partners rtnership hip involv inv olving ing cohabita cohabitation, tion, or the death of a partner. partner. H owev owever, er, oth others ers may may result result from a deliberate choice to live alone. There is statistical evidence that single-person households househol ds are are becoming more common. Acc According ording to govern gov ernment ment statistics, statistics, in 1971 6 per cent of people lived lived alone in Great Britain, but by 2005 this had doubled to 12 per cent. O ve verr the same same period the proportion of oneperson households rose from 18 per cent to 29 per cent.
In part this increase is due to the ageing of the population, but it is also a result of an increase in the proportion of the young living alone. 20 06 , there was a doubling According to Social Trends 2006 doubling in the proportion of o f young young people aged aged 25 to 44, and men aged ag ed 45 to 64, li living ving alone alone between 1986/ 1986/ 7 and 2005/ 2005/ 6. R ichard Berthoud Berthou d (2000) used data data from from the General G eneral Household Survey to show that the proportion of people in their twenties who lived alone increased from 3 per cent in 1973 to 9 per cent in 1996. Jon Bernardes (1997) believes there are strong social pressures discouraging people from remaining single becausee society becaus society portrays por trays marr marriage iage as the ideal state. state. H e say ayss, ‘Predominant ideologies ide ologies emphasize emphasize the “norm “no rmality ality”” of forming intimate partnerships and the “abnormality” “abnormality” of remai rem aining ning sing ingle le for for too long. long.’ Howe Howev ver er,, des despite pite Bernardes’s claims claims,, the increas increasing ing frequency of o f singlesingleperson households among those below retirement age does suggest there is greater acceptance of a single status as an alternative to marriage or cohabitation. Jennifer Somerville (2000) certainly sees the rise in single-per ingle-persson hou housseholds as a significa significant nt trend. She argues there has been a particularly large rise in the percentage of young men who liv livee alone, alone, both becaus be causee of later later marr iage and increased divorce. John Macionis and Ken Plummer (1997) claim that among women aged 20 to 24 in the USA the proportion who were single (although not necessarily living alone) increased from 28 per cent in 1960 to 67 per cent in 1994. They comment:‘Underlying this trend is women’s greater participati partici pation on in the labour labour for force: ce: women who are are economically secure view a husband as a matter of choice rather than a financial necessity.’ Fran Was Wasoff, off, Lynn Jamies amieson on and Adam Adam Smith (2005), however,, anal however analys ysed ed data from from the Br itish Hous Hou sehold Panel Survey between 1991 and 2002 to discover how the situation of people living alone alone changes over over time. Th They ey found that only 7 per cent remained living alone throughout the whole period.They therefore argue:‘This sugges uggests ts that transition between bet ween solo liv living ing and livi living ng with w ith others is commonplace and that the boundaries between solo living and family living are frequently crossed’(Wasoff et al. , 20 2005 05,, p. 21 213) 3).. Furthermore, Further more, Was asoff off et al. used data from the Scottish Household Survey to show that most people living on their own retain frequent contacts with other family members membe rs.. For exam exampl ple, e, 59 per cent cent had been been to visit visit relatives in the last fortnight (compared to 68 per cent of those who did not no t live live alone). alone). For most most young people, people, solo living is a temporary phase which often ends with cohabitation cohabita tion or marriage marriage,, and during solo solo living living most most people retain family contacts.
Marital breakdown The second type of threat to contemporary marriage and family life is the apparent rise in marital breakdowns.The usual way way of estimating the number of such such breakdowns is through throu gh an examination of the divorce statis statistics, tics, but these th ese statis tatistics tics do not, no t, on their t heir own, prov provide ide a valid valid meas measure of marital breakdown. Marital breakdown can be divided into three main categories:
refers to the legal legal termination of a 1 Divorce, which refers marriage. 2 Separation, which refers re fers to the th e physical physical separation of the spouses: spouses: they no longer lon ger share share the same dwelling. dwelling. 3 So-called empty-shell marriages, wh wheere th thee spous pouses es li live ve together, rema remain in lega legall lly y marr marr ied, but their marriage exists in name only. These three categories must be considered in any assessment of the rate of marital breakdown.
Divorce statistics Despite minor fluctuations, there was a steady steady rise rise in divorce rates in modern industrial societies throughout the twentieth century. In 1911, 859 petitions petition s for divorce divorce were filed in England England and Wal ales es,, of which some three-quarter three-quarterss were were granted. The number of divorces gradually increased in the first half of the twentieth t wentieth centu century ry,, but was still still relativel relatively y low during dur ing the 1950s at less less than 40,000 a yea year. r. H owev owever, er, the numbers doubled between 1961 and 1969 and doubled again by 1992.The number of divorces peaked in 1993 at 180,000 before dropping a little to 155,000 in 2000.There was an increase to 167,100 in 2004 ( Social Trends 2006 20 06 ), though the number declined to 153,399 the following yearr (National yea (N ational Statis Statistics tics News R eleas elease, e, September 2006). Figure 8.1 (see p. 505) shows shows trends in divorce between 1950 and 2003 and illustrates the closing gap between the number of first marriages and the number of divorces. The proportion of marriages that are remarriages has also als o been ris r ising. ing. For example, example, gov govern ernment ment statistics statistics show that 15 per cent of all marriages in the UK in 1961 were remarr iag iages es for one or both bot h partner s; by 2005 2005 this fig figure ure had risen to approximately 40 per cent. Whichever Wh ichever way way the figures figures are are presented presented,, the increas in creasee in divorce is dramatic.This rise is not confined to Britain. Thee USA has an even Th even higher rate than Britain, Brit ain, and nearly all industrial societies have experienced an increase in the divorce rate over the past few decades.
divorce today than divorce than in the past. past. Willi William am J. J. Goode argues 5 0 5 that in nineteenth-century America: C People took for granted that spouses who no longer loved one another and who found life together distasteful should at least live together in public amity for the sake of their children and of their standing in the community. Goode, 197 1971 1
Even though an increasing number of empty-shell marriages marr iages may end in separation separation and divorce divorce today tod ay, this does not necessarily mean that the proportion of such marriagess, in relation marriage relation to the total tot al number of marriages marriages,, is decreasing. In view of the problems involved in measuring marital breakdown it is impossible to be completely confident about overall overall rates of breakdown. breakdown. H owev owever, er, levels of divorce are now so high that it is probably true that more marriages break down today than they did several decades ago.
Explanations for marital breakdowns In W hen Mar (1976), 6), N icky Hart argued that that any Marria riag ge Ends (197 explanation of marital breakdown must consider the following factors:
1 Those which affect the value attached to marriage 2 Those which affect the degree of conflict between the spouses 3 Those which affect the opportunities for individuals to escape from marriage We will first consider these factors from a functionalist perspective. perspectiv e. From this viewpoint, viewpoint, beha behaviour viour is larg largely ely a response res ponse to shared shared nor ms and and values. values. It therefore th erefore follows follows that a change in the rate of marital breakdown is to some degree a reflection of changing norms and values in general, genera l, and, in particular particular,, those as associa ociated ted with marria marr iage ge and divorce.
Separation statistics
The value of marriage
R elia eliable ble figures figures for separation separation are unobtaina unobt ainable ble.. In Britain Br itain some indication is provided by data from the 2001 census, which suggest that around 2 per cent of people are separated and living alone. alone. T he number num ber of judicial separaseparations increased increased in the 1960s by about about 65 per cent according to Chester C hester (1985), (1985), but this did not necessarily necessarily mean mean an increasee in separations increas separations,, since the number nu mber of unrecorded separations is unknown.Today few separations are officially recorded so there are no official statistics which give a reliable indication of long-term trends in separation.
Functio nalists Functionalis ts such such asTa Talcott lcott Pars Parsons ons and R onald Fletcher Fletche r argue that the rise in marital breakdown stems largely from the fact that th at marr iag iagee is increas increasingly valued. valued. People expect and demand more from marriage and consequently are more likely to end a relationship which may have have been acceptable in the th e past.T past.T hus Fletcher (1966) argues,‘a relatively high divorce rate may be indicative not of lower but of higher standards of marriage in society’. The high rate of remarriage apparently lends support to Parsons’s Parsons’s and Fletcher’ Fletche r’ss argume argument nts.T s.T hu hus, s, paradoxically paradoxically,, the higher value placed on marriage may result in increased marital breakdown. R es esearch earch sugges suggests ts that people peo ple do still attach a high value va lue to marr marriag iage. e. From their th eir analys analysis of the British Social Attitudes Survey, Barlo Barlow w et al. (2001) found that most people do regard marriage as more than ‘just a piece of paper’. pape r’. Howev However, er, they al alsso regard regard cohabita cohabitation tion as an acceptablee alternative (see acceptabl (see p. 503 for further details details).T ).T hus, Barlow et al. found no evidence that people attach a higher hig her value value to marriage marriage than than they used used to. O ther explanations therefore seem more plausible.
Empty-shell marriages Estimates of the extent of empty-shell marriages can only be based based on guesswork. guesswork. Even where data exis exist, the concept con cept is difficult to operationalize (that is, is, put into a measurmeasurablee form). abl form ). For example, if a couple express express a high level of disssatis dis atisfa faction ction with w ith their th eir relationship relationship,, should th is be be termed an empty-shell marriage? Historical evidence gives the impression that emptyshell marriages are more likely to end in separation and
H A P T E R 8
F a m i l i e s a n d h o u s e h o l d s
506
S o c i o l o g y
T h e m e s a n d P e r s p e c t i v e s
Conflict between spouses Hart (1976) argues that the second set of factors that must be considered in an explanation of marital breakdown are those which affect the degree of conflict between the spouses. From a functionalist perspective it can be argued that the adaptation of the family to the requirements of the economic system has placed a strain on the marital relationship.. It has led to the relative relationship relative isolation isolation of the nuclear family from the wider kinship network.William J. Goode Goo de (1971) argues argues that, as a result, result, the family ‘ca ‘carr rr ies a heavier emotional burden when it exists independently than when w hen it is a small small unit within wit hin a larger kin fabric. As a consequence, this unit un it is relativel relatively y fragile. fragile.’ Edmund Lea Leach ch (1967) makes a similar similar point. H e suggests suggests the nuclear family family suff suffers ers from from an emotional emot ional overload, overload,which which increases the level of conflict between its members. In industrial society the family specializes in fewer functions.. It can be argued that, as a result, functions result, there are fewer fewer bonds to unite its its membe members rs.. The economic bond, for example, is considerably considerably weakened weakened when w hen the family ceas ceases to be a unit of production. N. Den Dennis nis (1975) sugges uggests ts that the specializa specialization tion of o f function which characterizes the modern family will lead to increa increassed marital breakdown. breakdown. Dennis argues argues that that this t his can place a strain on the strength of the bond between husband husb and and wife wife.. Put simply simply, when love love goes goes,, there is is nothing much left to hold the couple together. Similar points have been made by sociologists who would not regard themselv themselves es as functionalis functionalists. ts. Graham Allan and Graham Crow (2001) believe ‘marriage is less embedded within the economic system’than it used to be. There Th ere are fewer fewer family family-owned -owned bus busines inessses and, mos mostt impor tantly tantly,, husbands and wives wives now usually usually have have independent sources of income from paid employment. Since fewer people now rely as much as they used to on membership members hip of the family family to maintain their income, they are less willing to accept conflict with their spouse and more willing to contemplate divorce. divorce. Al Alla lan n and C row (2001) say say,‘incomp ,‘incompatibilities atibilities which were tolerated are now seen as intolerable; and the absence absence of love love,, once seen as as unfortun unfor tunate ate but bearable, bearable, is now taken as indicativ indicativee of the irretrievable breakdown of marriage’. These changes particularly affect the willingness of married marr ied women to contemplate cont emplate divorce. divorce. It is increas increasingly ingly likely that married women will have an independent source of income. O ff fficial icial statis tatistics tics seem to support the view that th at it is largely largely wives wives’’ dis disssatis atisfaction faction with w ith marr marriage iage that accounts accounts for for the r is ising ing divorc divorcee rate. In 2005, 69 per cent of o f divorces divorces were granted to wives wives,, and in over half of these cases the husband’s behaviour was the reason for the divorce div orce (Nationa (N ationall Statis Statistics tics N ews Relea R eleasse, Se September ptember 2006). T his was a dramatic dramatic change in comparison with 1946, when wiv w ives es acc accounted ounted for 37 per cent of o f petitions petitions for divorce and husbands for 63 per cent.
M od odernity, ernity, freedom and choic choice e Colin Gibson (1994) combines elements of the previous two arguments in claiming that the development of modernity moder nity has increas increased the th e likelihood likelihood of conflict between spouses.The way modernity has developed puts increasing emphasis upon the desirability of individual achievement.
Gibson argues that people now live in an ‘enterprise and free-market culture of individualism in which the licence of choice dominates’. dominates’. H e adds: adds: ‘A higher divorce rate may may be indicative of modern couples generally anticipating a superior standard of personal marital satisfaction than was expected by their grandparents.’ People increasingly expect to get most of their personal satis atisfac faction tion from their home life, life, and ‘tel ‘televis evision ion programmes reinforce the feeling that togetherness is the consummate life life style’ style’.. H owev owever, er, the emphas emph asis is on togethtogeth erness is somewhat undermined by ‘the Thatcherite manifes manif esto to of unfettered self self-- seeking interest’, interest’, so that conflict between spouses becomes more likely if self-fulfilment is not delivered by the marriage. Individualistic modernity and the ideology of the market mark et emphasize emphasize consumer consumer choice, and, if fulf fulfilment ilment is not forthcoming through your first choice of marriage partner, then you are more likely likely to leave leave and and try tr y an alternative in the hope of o f greater greater satisf satisfaction. action. In the th e past past it was difficult for women in particular to escape from unsatisfactory unsatis factory marriages, marriages, but with greater independence independen ce – resulting from paid employment and other sources – this is no longer the case. case. Gibs Gibson on says says,, ‘Greater freedom freedom to judge, judge, choos choosee and change change their mind has encourag encouraged ed women to become more confident and assertive about what they th ey expect from from a marriage.’ marriage.’ Th They ey increas increasingly exercise that freedom by leaving marriages that fail to live up to what they expect. A similar view was supported by Graham Allan and Graham Crow (2001).They argue that marriage is increasingly viewed viewed as a ‘rel ‘relationship ationship rather than a contract’. con tract’. By getting married, people do not no t see themselve themselvess as as entering a bindi bi nding ng,, lif ifel elong ong contr contraact; ra rathe ther, r, the they y are are hoping hoping to to establis estab lish h a pers per sonally satisf satisfying ying relations relation ship: ‘L ‘Love ove,, personal commitment and intrinsic satisfaction are now seen as the cornersstones of marr corner marriag iage. e. The abs absence ence of these these emotions and feelings is itself justification for ending the relationship.’ Furthermore,, as the div Furthermore divorce ra rate te rises rises,, di div vorce is ‘normali ‘norm alized’ zed’ and ‘the emergent definition of marriage marr iage as centrally concerned with personal satisfaction and fulfilment is bolstered further’. (For a general discussion of the relationship between moder nity and changes in the family, see pp. 512–14.)
The ease of divorce So far we have considered the factors which affect the value attached to marriage and those which affect the degree of conflict between spouses.The third set of factors that Hart considers essential to an explanation of marital breakdown are those which affect the opportunities for individuals to esc escape ape from marr iage iage.. Th This is view view is backed backed up by the British and European Social Attitudes Survey carried out in 1997 (Jowell et al. , 199 1998). 8). It found found that that 82 per cent of their sample disagreed with the view that ‘Even if there are no children a married couple should stay together even if they don’t get along’. If, as the functionalists functionalists argue, behavi behaviour our is directed directed by nor ms and and values, values, a change in the th e nor ms and and values as asssociated with div divorce orce would be expected. It is generally generally agreed agreed that the stigma attached to divorce has been considerably reduced.Th reduced. This is,, in itself, itself, will make make divorce divorce easier. easier. Colin Gibson (1994) believes secularization has weakened the degree to which religious beliefs can bind a
couple together and make divorce less likely (see pp. 429–45 for for a discuss discussion ion of secularization). secularization). H e say sayss, ‘Secularization has also witnessed the fading of the evangelical bond of rigid morality which intertwined the cultural fabric of conformist social mores and habits and the declared public conscience.’ Along with a decline in religious religiou s beliefs beliefs,, there has als also o been a decline in any set of shared values that might operate to stabilize stabilize marr marr iage iage.. H e describes describes the change in the following way: Within our pluralistic society it has become increasingly difficult to sustain an identifiable common culture containing generally generally held value values, s, aspirations and sy symbols. mbols. George Formby and his ukulele had a cultural identity embracing men and women, women, rich and poor, yo young ung and old; the vocal form of Madonna does not offer the same symbolic universality. Gibs Gibson, on, 199 1994 4 In the t he absence of any central, shared beliefs in society, society, anything goes, goes, and there is little or no stigma attached to divorce.
Divorce legislation The changing attitudes towards divorce have been institutionalized by various changes in the law which have made it much easier easier to obtain obt ain a div divorce. orce. In Britain Brit ain before 1857 1857 a private Act of Parliament was required to obtain a divorce. div orce. T his was an expensive expensive procedure procedure beyond the th e means of all but the most wealthy. Since 1857 the costs of obtaining a divorce have been reduced and the grounds for divorce have been widened. Divorce legislation was influenced by the idea of notion on that that one or both both matrimonial offence, the noti spouses had wronged the other.This was the idea behind the Matrimonial Causes Causes Act of 1857, 1857, which largel largely y limited grounds groun ds for for divorce to adultery adulter y. Although divorce legislation in 1950 widened the grounds to include cruelty and desert desertion, ion, it was still bas based on the same same principle. The Div D ivorce orce Reform R eform Act, which came came into force force in 1971,, no longer emphas 1971 emphasized the idea of matrimonial offence and so so avoided avoided the th e need for ‘guilty ‘guilty parties’. parties’. It defined the grounds for divorce as ‘the irretrievable breakdown of the marriage’.This made divorce considerably easier and accounts in part for the dramatic rise in the number of o f divorces divorces in 1971 (s (see Figure 8.1, p. 502). New legislation relating to divorce was introduced at the end of 1984.T 1984.This his reduced reduced the period per iod a couple needed to be married before they could petition for divorce from three years to one o ne year. year. It also also altered the bas b asis is on which w hich financiall settlemen financia settlements ts were determined determ ined by the courts. cou rts. From 1984 the conduct of the partners became something the courts could take take into ac account. count. If the misbehav misbehaviour iour of one partner was res responsible ponsible for the divorce, divorce, they could be awarded less than would otherwise have been expected. The intention behind this seemed to be to counteract what some saw as the anti-male bias in maintenance payments from men to their ex-wives. The Family Law Act of 1996 introduced a number of new measures measures.. N o longer did it have have to be demonstrated demonstrated that one or both bot h partners partner s were were at fault fault in order o rder to prove that the marriag marr iagee had broken broken down. Ins Instead, tead, the partners partner s simply
had to assert the marriage had broken down and undergo a 5 0 7 ‘period of reflection’ reflection’ to cons con sider whether wheth er a reconciliation reconciliation C was pos posssibl ible. e. N orm ormal ally ly this period was one year, year, but for H those with children under 16, or where wh ere one spouse spouse asked asked A for more time, the period per iod was eighteen months. P The Act also encouraged greater use of mediation, T rather than t han relying on solicitors, to resolve resolve issues issues such such as E R the division of money and arrangements for children. H owev owever, er, af after ter trials t rials,, most of these measures measures were delayed delayed 8 indefinitely indef initely and have have not been implemented. implemented. O ne part of the Act that was introduced (in 1997) allowed a spouse who had been the victim of violence from their husband or wife to obtain a non-molestation order. Despite a reductio reduction n in costs, costs, div divorce orce was still an an expensive process during the first half of the twentieth century centu ry.. It was bey beyond ond the t he means of many of the less wealthy weal thy.. T his was partly changed by the Leg Legal al Aid and Advice Act of 1949, which provided free legal legal advice and and paid solicitors’ solicitors’ fees for those who could not no t afford afford them. th em. The economics of divorce were further eased by the extension of welfare welfare provis provisions, ions, particularly for for single single parents par ents with dependent childre children. n. Th Thee Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Act of 2000 (which was implemented in 2002) provided for absent parents to contribute a fixed proportion of their take-home pay towards maintenance costs. costs. T his varied varied from 15 per cent for one child to 25 per cent for three children. children. Al Although though many consider these provisions provisions far far from generous, genero us, they do provide single-parent families with the means to exist. (For a discussion of changes relating to parental responsibilities for children after after divorce, divorce, see pp. 516–17.)
F a m i l i e s a n d h o u s e h o l d s
Conclusion A decline decline in the rate of marr marr iag iage, e, increas increasing ing cohabitation outside outsi de marriage, marriage, the ris r ising ing number of singl ingle-parent e-parent families fa milies and single single-- person homes, homes, and the apparent apparent increase in marital breakdown all seem to suggest the decline of marriage as an institution in modern Britain. Yet all of these changes are open to different interpretations, and none non e – at least least on its it s own – seems likel likely y to make marriage obsolete in the near future. It is easy to exaggerate the extent to which there has been a retreat from from marr iag iage. e. R ober obertt Ches Ch ester ter (1985) say sayss, ‘O n the evidence, evidence, mos mostt people will continue not only o nly to spend most m ost of their liv lives es in a family family environment, but also also to place a high value on it.’ The socialist feminist sociologists Pamela Abbott and Claire Wallace (1992) are also rather sceptical of the belief that the family and marriage are in danger of falling apart. They suggest this view has been encouraged by the New R ight (right- wing politicians and thinkers who whosse views and policies are discuss discussed ed on pp. 509–10). To Abbott Abbott and Walla Wa llace, ce, such people hav h avee succeeded in settin etting g the agenda of public debate about the family by trying to portray it as under serious threat from moral decay in society as a whole, who le, and they have have caref carefully ully inter interpreted preted the evidence to supportt their suppor th eir case. Abbot and Wal Wallace lace say: say: We are told how many marr iage iagess end end in divorce, how many children live in single-parent families and so on.Yet we can also look at these statistics another way – to show the stabilityy of stabilit of the t he family. Six out of t en couples couples who get get
508
S o c i o l o g y
T h e m e s a n d P e r s p e c t i v e s
marr ied in the 199 0s, acc married according ording to present present trends, will stay stay together until unt il one of of them t hem dies. Sev even en out out of eight children chil dren are born to t o parents living toge together, ther, three-qu three-quart arters ers of whom are legally marr ied. Only one one in five children will experience parental divorce divorce by by the time he or or she is 16; that is, four out of five children born to a married couple will be brought up by them them in an intact family. family. In 1985, 198 5, 78 per cent cent of British children under 16 were living with both natural parents who were legally married. Abbott and Wallac Wallace, e, 199 1992 2
oth er words, they ass other assume that th at one family member will w ill put primary emphasis during their life on childcare rather than work; that families will usually usually take care care of their elderly and sick; sick; and that wives wives are economically economically dependent on their husbands. Daphne Johnson (1982) argues that schools are organized in such a way that it is difficult for single-parent families and dual-worker families to combine work with domestic responsibilities responsibilities.. School hours ho urs and holiday h olidayss mean Abbott and Wallace recognize the increasing diversity of that families with children find it difficult for the adult family famil y forms, but see the al alleged leged decline decline of the t he family and and members to combine the requirements of employers with marriage as having been exaggerated for political ends. their domestic res re sponsibilities ponsibilities.. Jennifer Somerville (2000) argues that there have been R oy Parker (1982) claims that state ass assistance (of a major changes in marr iag iagee and family family life life,, but she too practica practicall rather than t han financial financial nature) tends ten ds not to t o be giv given en thinks they can can be exag exaggera gerated. ted. Lone parenthood, parenthood, singl inglee- to the t he elderly and and sick sick if they live live with relatives relatives.. It is person pers on hou seholds eholds,, incre increas ased ed cohabitation cohabitation and the as asssumed that th at the family will will care care for them. them . In both bot h the th e care nor maliz malization ation of o f pre-marital pre-m arital sex sex are all as aspects of contemcontem - of the elderly elderly and and infirm and the care of children, children, this porary society society.. Howev However, er, the vas vast majority of people people in generally means wives will be expected to take up these Britain still get married, marr ied, most marriages still continue until un til domestic responsibi responsibilities lities,, or at leas leastt to t o work wor k only on ly partpart- time. one spouse dies dies,, most people still still liv livee in households It can be arg argued ued that, th at, in recent years, years, Park Parker’ er’ss argument argument headed by a married couple, couple, and extended kins kinship hip has become increas increasingly ingly valid, valid, at least least in ter terms ms of its applicaapplicanetworks netwo rks remain strong in most people’s people’s lives lives.. Somerville tion to elderly people.The state has encouraged families to therefore argues: take responsi responsibili bility ty for their elderly members, either in practic pra ctical al or financia financiall terms. Furthermore, the elderly elderly are diversification of family fami ly forms and relationships … must increasingly required to use their savings to pay for their be seen in the context of a commitment by the vast care in old age rather than receiving free care from the state. majority of the population to a framework of belief in the The situation in relation to childcare is less clear-cut.The value of family life and behaviour which seeks to government now guarantees two and a half hours of 2000 0 approximate to that ideal. Somerville, 200 approved childcare per weekday for all 3- and 4-year-olds. H owev owever, er, it is not pos po ssible to offset offset the t he costs of childcare childcare against aga inst earnings to reduce redu ce the th e size size of tax t ax bills bills. Th This is reduces the incentive for mothers (or the primary carer) to seek paid employment, since any childcare childcare costs hav havee to be paid out of income from employment which is liable to taxation. The Working Tax Credit and Child Tax Credit (introduced in April 2003) 2003) do, do, howev however, er, al allow low help with childcare,, but the childcare t he Working Working Tax Tax Credit only applies to low income families where both partners are in paid employment.. Th ment This is dis discourages courages women in thes th esee families families from Despite the traditional British belief that politicians should staying at home to look after their children. nott interfere no int erfere in the t he family, family, state policies have have always always had an In public housing policy the formal emphasis is usually impact impa ct on fam famil ily y lif life. e. Ta Taxa xation, tion, wel welfa fare re,, hous housing ing and upon making children’s children’s needs a prio priorit rity y. H owev owever, er, Lorraine education policies all influence the way in which people Fox Harding (1996) believes believes that in practice married marr ied couples organize their domestic lif life. e. Th Thee policies adopted can with children tend to be favoured over single parents with encourage people to live in certain types of household and children. Singl Singlee parents are usually usually provided provided with the leas leastt discourag dis couragee them fr from om li living ving in other types types.. Further more, desira des irabl blee housing. housing. Furthermore, ‘Mos Mostt dwell dwellings ings ar aree in recent decades the family has come to be seen as a constructed for the nuclear family and are planned and legitimate and important subject of public debate. designed des igned by men. U nits are are privatized privatized and self self-- contained. The centrality of family housing reinforces dominant notions not ions of family family and and nonno n-famil family y households. households.’ Few council Bias towards conventional or other public houses have been built to accommodate families groups larger than conventional nuclear families. Fox Harding believes regulations relating to maternity Feminists and other radical critics of government policies leave lea ve and and pay reinforce traditional gender roles. In Britain, Br itain, have sometimes seen them as biased.They have argued that unlike some some other oth er European countr ies ies,, fathers hav havee very very they tend to favour the traditional nuclear family in which limited rights to leave from work on the birth of a child, there are two parents: a male male breadwinner and a wife who compaared with women. comp women. Furthe Furthermore rmore,, ‘Be Benef nefits its for stay tayss at at home h ome when there are young young children. All Allan an (1985) pregnancy and the period after childbirth are inadequate, argues:‘Much state provision … is based upon an implicit reflecting the assumption that women have the support of ideolog ideol ogy y of the “normal” fa famil mily y which through through its a male partner.’ incorporation incor poration into standard practice discourages discourages alter alternativ nativee In 1993 the Child Support Agency was established. forms of domestic organization from developing.’ It overs oversees ees the payment of maintenance mainten ance by ‘a ‘abs bsent’ ent’ parents To Allan, Allan, these policies encourage ‘the ‘the standard form of to the th e parents res responsibl ponsiblee for looking after after the th e children. Its gender and generational generational relations relations within families families’’. In
The fa fam milily y, pol olititics ics and social policy
work therefore covers covers divor divorced, ced, separa eparated ted and nev n everermarried couples who live apart. The agency was set up to make sure that fathers in particular would find it more difficult to escape financial responsibili res ponsibility ty for their children. In this th is res respect pect it can be seen as supporting the traditional family by imposing financiall costs financia costs on those th ose who do not live in one. (In 2006 it was announced that the Child Support Agency would be replaced in 2008 by a Child Maintenance and Support Commission which would have similar functions.) The Child Support Agency has been highly controversial and and highly criticized. For example, example, many argue argue that its main aim is not to help children but rather to save the Treassury money Trea mon ey,, since maintenance payments payments usually usually reduce the benefits paid to single single mothers mother s. Indeed, in its first first year the agency was set a target of saving £ 530 million of taxpay taxpa yers’ money money.. H owev owever, er, it was clea clearr that th at Conserv C onservati ative ve ministers suppo supporte rted d the agency not jus ju st to save save money, money, but also because they saw it as helping to uphold moral values relating to parental parent al responsibility responsibility. As we will see, see, the La Labour bour government elected in 1997 in some ways continued to support such policies on similar grounds. As Fox Harding notes note s, cuts in welfare welfare provision provision in the t he 1980s and 1990s had the effect of extending family responsibili res ponsibilities ties beyond beyond the immediate, nuclear family. T his was in contrast to earlier decades of the twentieth century, when there was a tendency for the state to take over responsibilities that had previously been left to families. Fox Harding gives the example of care of the elderly and care of offs offsprin pring g aged 18–25. In both cas cases es cuts in benefits havee put the onus hav onu s on famili families es to help, help, ev even en though tho ugh they havee not hav no t been made legally legally responsible responsible for for doing do ing so. so. Fox Harding also sees the increased emphasis on absent parents supporting their offspring as an example of the state’s attempt to extend familial responsibilities.
Policies which do not support conventional families Not all government policies can be seen as supporting conventional families or traditional gender roles within them.. For example, them example, there have have been some some measures measures which might be seen as undermining traditional male dominance within families families.. Fo Fox x Hard H arding ing points out that in 1991 the House of Lords ruled that men were no longer exempt from being charged charged with raping their wives. wives. Traditional patriarchal authority relations within families have been further undermined by increasing intolerance of men using violence to discipline their wives or children. The gradual liberalization of divorce laws shows a willingness to accept that marriage does not guarantee the long-ter longterm m stability of a family. Some legal concession concessionss have have been made to recognize the rights of cohabitants who are not married. Fo Fox x Harding Harding sa says ys,, ‘there are are some some rights which ha h ave been extended to cohabitees cohabitees,, such as succes succes-sion to tenancies and inheritance in certain circumstances, and the right to have orders made to restrain violence’. Cohabiting gay or lesbian couples have few legal rights relating specifically to such relationships (although from 2005 they were able to register civil partnerships). Brenda Almond (2006) believes that recent policies under mine traditional tradition al famil family y stru structures. ctures. She claims claims that tax legislation discriminates against families where there is
one breadwinner. Th They ey cannot cannot us usee their partner’s partner’s tax tax 5 0 9 allow al lowances ances and two-earner two- earner families families tend, therefore therefore,, to pa pay y C less tax than one-earner families. H Almond believes that the liberalization of divorce laws A undermines the idea of marriage as a lifelong commitP ment,, and that the recognition ment recognitio n of civil civil partn partnerships erships for gay gay T and lesbian couples sends signals to people that convenE R tional families are no longer seen as preferable to other living liv ing arrangement arrangementss. 8
Pamela Abbott and Claire W allac allace e – t he fam family ily and t he N ew Rig Right ht Pamela Abbott and Claire Wallace (1992) examined the view of the family and social policy put forward by the New R ight (sometimes called called market m arket liberals or neoliberals neoliberals)) in Britain and the USA U SA in the 1980s. 1980s. Instead of arguing arguing that government policy was biased in favour of the conventional family fa mily, the N ew R ight argued argued that government government polic policy y was undermining it and policies had to be changed. In Britain, Britain, N ew Rig R ight ht thinking thinking was was promote promoted d by individual jour jour nalis nalists ts and academics academics – for example, Paul Johnson and R oger Scruton – and by ‘think‘think-tanks tanks’’ such as the Centre for Policy Studies and the Adam Smith Institute. In the USA a variety of pressure groups campaigned to reassert traditional morality and family relationships. Abbott and Wallace describe them as a ‘Pro-Family’ movement and say it ‘developed out of an alliance of political politic al,, reli religious gious,, anti-feminis anti-feministt and pro-lif pro- lifee anti-abortion anti- abortion groups’. In Britain, Britain, the ‘Pro-Fa Pro-Famil mily’ y’ mov movement ement was was not as as strong, but the anti-abortion mov m ovement ement and individual individualss like Victoria Gillick (who campaigned to stop doctors prescribing contraceptives to girls under 16 without parental consent) and organizations like Families Need Fathers (which is opposed to divorce) supported similar causes to their American counterparts. Abbott and Wal Walla lace ce argue that the N ew R ight advocated advocated ‘liberal economic policies with support for conservative social moral moral values values’. ’. Members of the N ew R ight saw saw the th e family as being under und er threat th reat from permis perm isssiv iveness eness,, social change and and governmen governmentt policies, policies, and this in turn tur n threatened t hreatened the stability of society society.To .To them, them , the family operates properly when it remains stable and the wife is responsible for socializing children so that they conform to society’s norms and values.T va lues.The he husband, husband, as prin principal cipal breadwinn breadwinner, er, is dis disciplined ciplined by the need to provide for his family. Thee N ew R ight saw Th saw many m any signs signs of the fami family ly becoming unable unable to carr carry y out its proper role. role. These included ‘working mothers (who by taking paid work fail to put the t he needs of their children first), increas increased ed divorce divorce rates,, higher numbers rates num bers of single-parent families and open homosexual homosex uality’ ity’.. Members of the N ew R ight argued argued that such changes played a major role in causing social problems such such as crime, delinquency and dr ug abuse. abuse.
The New Right and politics In trying to influence political debate and the actions of government gov ernmentss, the N ew R ight tried to change what it it saw saw as harmful social policies.
F a m i l i e s a n d h o u s e h o l d s
510
S o c i o l o g y
T h e m e s a n d P e r s p e c t i v e s
Abbot and Wa Walla llace ce argue that the t he N ew R ight attacked welfare systems for encouraging deviant lifestyles and family fa mily forms forms.. For example example,, welf welfare are pa payments al allow lowed ed mothers to bring up their children in single-parent families famil ies,, taxation policies dis discrim criminated inated agains againstt married marr ied couples, div divorce orce laws laws made it eas easier to end marr iag iage, e, and abortion laws and the relaxation of laws against homosexuality undermined traditional morality. Indeed,, from this point of view Indeed view,, go gov vernment policy policy further undermined the family by taking from conventional tion al families families and and giving to t o deviant hou housseholds. Wel Welfare fare payments to single mothers drove up taxation to the point where wives with young children were forced to take paid employment emplo yment to mak makee ends meet. As a result, result, ev even en thos tho se who wished to live live in conventional nuclear families families,, with the mother at at home, wer weree unabl unablee to do so, so, and more children were socialized in unsatisfactory ways. T he N ew R ight was in a position position to t o influence social social policy because of the election of political leaders sympathetic to its views.T views.These hese included included R onald R eaga eagan, n, president presi dent of the USA U SA from 1980 to 1988, and Margaret Margaret Thatcher Th atcher,, who was prime minister minister of Britain Britain throughout the 1980s. In a speech in May 1988,Thatcher said: The family is the building block of society. society. ItIt’s ’s a nursery, a school, sc hool, a hospit hospital, al, a leisure leisure place, a place of refuge and a place of rest. rest. It enc encompass ompasses es the whole of socie society. ty. It fashions fash ions belie beliefs. fs. It’s the preparation for the rest of our life and women run it. Quot ed in Abbott and Wallac Wallace, e, 199 1992 2
The New Right and policies O n the surfac surface, e, it would appea appearr that the New R ight had had a major impact on government policy on both sides of the Atlantic.Abbott and Wa Walla llace ce do identify some policies po licies that were influenced by its ideas ideas.. For example, the 1988 budget changed taxation so that cohabiting couples could no longer claim more in tax allowances than a married couple. It also also prevented cohabiting coh abiting couples from from claiming two lots of income tax relief on a shared mortgage when a married couple could only claim one. H owe owev ver, in many other ways ways the N ew R ight failed failed to achievee the changes achiev ch anges it wanted. In ter ms of moral policies, policies, divorce div orce was actuall actually y made eas easier in 1984, and fur further ther legislation legis lation gave gave ‘illegitimate’ ‘illegitimate’ children the t he same rights r ights as those born within marriage. Conservative governments did not introduce any tax or benefits policies to encourage mothers to stay at home with young children children and, to Abbot Abbot and Wal alla lace ce,, man many y Thatcherite policies actually undermined family life. Such policies policies included: the freezing freezing of child child benefit, economic policies policies which forced forced up unemployment, unemployment, the emphasis on home ownership and opposition to the provission of council provi council housing, housing, and cuts in education spendin pending g and the th e real levels levels of stude student nt grants. All of these policies hit the t he finances of families families,, with the result that, far from from encouraging enco uraging self-reliance, self-reliance, ‘Many families and individuals have had their ability to care for themselves reduced, not increas increased. ed.’’ To Abbott Abbott and Wall allace, ace, the main pur pose of governgovernment policies under Thatcher was to reduce public spending; mainta maintaining ining the traditi traditional onal family family was was very very much a secondary consideration.They conclude:
The welfare and economic policies advocated by the New Right – in so far as they have been implemented by the Thatcher and Reagan administrations – have been more concerned with reasserting the rights of middle-class men and maintaining capitalism than they have been with a genuine ge nuine conce concern rn for f or men, women and children and the Wallace, 199 1992 2 quality of their lives. Abbott and Wallace,
T he family fami ly under under John Major ’s government Margaret Thatcher left office in 1990 and was replaced as primee minister prim minister by John John Major. Major remained in office office until the Labour Party displaced the Conservatives in government in the election of 1997. R uth Lister Lister (1996) reviewed reviewed the approach to the th e family family adopted by John John Major Major.. She notes that Major did take take an interesst in the family as intere as an iss issue. H e gave gave specific responsiresponsibility for family matters to a cabinet member (Virginia Bottomley).. He al Bottomley) alsso ended the erosion in the th e value value of child benefit in an apparent attempt to give extra support to families fa milies with children. Th Thee Child Ch ild Support Support Agency Agency,, which tried to get absent fathers to pay maintenance costs for their children, was als also o launched dur during ing Major’s Major’s period in office office.. A White Paper concerned with adoption came down strongly in favour of giving priority to married couples, and against allowing adoption for gay and lesbian couples. Many of Major’s cabinet ministers made strong attacks upon single parents, parents, particularly at at the th e 1993 Cons Con servativ ervativee Party conference. con ference. Lis Lister ter desc describes ribes this th is as as an an ‘orgy ‘orgy of lonelon eparent bashing’. bashing’. John Major hims h imself elf launche launched d a ‘Back ‘Back to Basics Bas ics’’ campaig campaign n at the same same conference, which included an emphasis on the virtues of conventional family life. Howev owever, er, the Back to Basics campaig campaign n floundered after a number of embarrassing revelations about the personal lives of severa everall Conservativ Conservativee MPs MPs and and ministers.According to to Lister, Lister, from 1994 John Major encouraged his cabinet colleagues to tone down their rhetoric criticizing single parents. In general, gen eral, Major’ Major’ss period in office saw saw a considerable considerable concern about families families,, but little change change in governm government ent policies.. Li policies Lisster therefore concludes concludes that the Major government: is more likely to be remembered for the ‘moral panic’ aboutt the breakdown abou breakdown of t he ‘family’ and for t he backlash backlash against lone-parent families that it helped to unleash, together with the legacy it inherited in the form of the Child Suppor Supportt Act, Act, than for f or any distinct distinctive ive policies policies of its it s own directed towards families and women. Lis Lister, ter, 199 1996 6
Carol Smart and Bren Neale – childcare and divorce Carol Smart and Bren Neale (1999) examined one particular area of family policy – laws relating to childcare after divorce – during the era of Margaret Thatcher and John Major’s administrations.They detected a significant shift in the emphasis in policies during this period. In the 1960s and 1970s, 1970s, most legislation legislation involved involved liberalizing the law in response to public demand for more freedom to choose how they organized their family life. lif e. Peopl Peoplee were becoming increasingl increasingly y unwilling to
accept that their own happiness should be restricted by laws which reinforced conventional morality and made it difficult for them to divorce. However, Howev er, by the 1980s 1980s, gov governments ernments were were changing changing the emphasis towards trying to combat some of the negative effects they believed stemmed from the liberal legissla legi lation. tion. In particular particular,, they were were concerned concerned about the effects of divorce on children and felt it was important to ensure that parents honoured their responsibilities to children after divorce. divorce. Sma Smart rt and Neale N eale say say:: There has been a notable shift fr from om a ‘perm ‘permiss issive’ ive’ approach of the late 1960 19 60s, s, which basically basically led to gov governments ernments responding to popular pressure concerning the private sphere sphe re and personal p ersonal morality, moralit y, towards social social engineering engineering designed to mitigate the perceived harms generated by the previous pr evious permiss perm issivenes iveness. s. Sma marr t and N ea eale, le, 1999 This change of emphasis was evident in a number of Acts of Parliament: Parliament: the C hildren’ hildren’ss Act (1989), (1989), the C hild Support Act (1991) and the Family Law Act (1996). Earlier Earl ier divorce legislation legislation had encouraged en couraged the th e idea of th e ‘clean ‘c lean break’ break’ between ex- spouses on divorce, so that th at they could start a new life and put the problems of their disssolved marr dis marr iag iagee behind them. th em. Th This is new legislation legislation emphasized the priority that should be given to the needs of children and was based upon the principle that both biological parents should share responsibility for their off offssprin pring. g. Divorce was regarded as a social problem in this legislation because because it could disadv disadvantag antagee the children. The Children’s Act (1989) stopped the practice of awarding custody cus tody of children children to one or o r other par parent ent and introduced ‘an automatic presumption that mothers and fathers simply retained all the parental responsibility they enjoyed during dur ing marr marr iage bey beyond ond legal legal div divorce’. orce’. Wh While ile the cour ts could decide on where children lived and how much accesss the nonacces no n-res resident ident parent could cou ld have have,, joint responsibility was assumed and parents were encouraged to make their own arrangements where possible. Smart and Neale argue that this legislation was intended to reinforce parental aspects of traditional family respons res ponsibil ibilities ities,, while acknowl acknowledging edging it would be impossible to force spouses to stay together against their will.The implicit aims were to: • • • • •
prioritize first first families families; ; discourage disc ourage clean breaks on divorce; divorce; priorit pr iorit ize parenthood ov over er spous spousal al obligations; obligations; priorit ize biologic biological al parentage and desce descent; nt; challenge challeng e the popular understanding of divorce as as a solution to private problems; • identif identifyy divorce divorce as a social social problem. In all these ways the policy was intended to emphasize moral values associated with traditional families without actively trying to prevent the formation of the types of family diversity which are the result of divorce. In terms ter ms of this anal analys ysis is,, then then,, as aspects pects of the convenconventional family were supported by legislation in this period, albeit in a form which recognized the existence of diversity div ersity.. Sma Smart rt and N eale do not examine how far these principles continued to be important after the Labour government gov ernment took office office in 1997. This iss issue will be examined next.
The family and New Labour Family values Although suppor upportt for ‘famil ‘family y values’ values’has has traditionally been associated with more right-wing thinkers and political parties, it has begun to exercis exercisee some some influence over the British Labour Party. Elizabeth Silva and Carol Smart (1999) claim the ‘political mantra on the family is not peculiar to Conservative governments but has also become a theme of New N ew Labour in Britain’. Britain’.T T hey quote quot e Tony Blair’s 1997 conference speech in which wh ich he said: ‘W ‘Wee cannot say we want a strong and secure society when we ignore its very foundations founda tions:: fa family mily lif life. e. This is not about preaching to individuals about their private lives lives.. It is addres addresssing a huge hu ge social problem. problem.’’ H e went on to t o cite teenage teen age pregnancies pregnancies,, families famil ies unable to care care for for their elderly members, poor parental par ental role role models, models, truancy truancy,, educa educational tional underachiev underachieveement and even unhappiness as among the social problems which could stem from the failure to achieve successful family fa mily lif life. e. Bl Blair air pledged pledged that the government government would examine every area of government policy to see how it could strengthen family life. Silva and Smart suggest that Blair was really talking about a specific specific type of family family life life.. Th They ey say say, ‘S ‘Strong trong famil fa milies ies ar are, e, of course, course, seen as as conj conjuga ugal, l, heter heteros osexua exuall parents par ents with an employ employed ed male male breadwinner. breadwinner. Lone mothers and ga gay couples do not, by defi definition, nition, cons constitute titute strong families in this th is rhet rhetor oric. ic.’’ H owev owever, er, they believe believe that Blair and the Labour government recognized that social change had occurred and that it was not possible to follow policies that pretended that most people continued to live in conventional families.
Supporting Families This concern with families led to the Labour government setting up a committee, chai chaired red by the home secreta secretary ry Jack Stra Straw w, to produce a cons consultati ultation on paper, paper, or Green Paper.. Th Paper This is was publis published hed in 1998 under the title Supporting Families. The Green Paper sugge suggessted a whole range of measures to provide ‘better services and support for parents’, parents’, such as a National Nation al Family and Parentin Parenting g Institute to coordinate and publicize services available to families famil ies.. It suggested suggested a greater role for health h ealth visitor visitorss in helping out famil families ies.. It also also made proposals proposals which would wo uld help people to balance the requirements of work and their home life. life. These included longer longer maternity leave leave,, a right to three t hree months month s’ unpaid leav leave for both par parents ents,, and a right to time off (from employment) for family reasons. The paper included measures designed to strengthen marriage and to reduce the number nu mber of marriag marr iagee breakdowns. breakdowns. These included giving registrars a greater role in advising married couples couples,, and improv improvements ements to the inf information ormation couples coup les received before before marr iage iage.. It also also sugges suggested ted making pre-nuptial pre-nu ptial agreements agreements (for (for example,about example, about who wh o gets what in the event of divorce) legally binding. The paper suggested it was necessary to take measures to cut teenage pregnancies because these were associated with wider socia sociall problems problems.. With reg regard ard to single single parents parents,, the Green Paper heralded the introduction of a New D ea eall.This involved ensuring that single parents received personal help
511
C H A P T E R 8
F a m i l i e s a n d h o u s e h o l d s
512
S o c i o l o g y
T h e m e s a n d P e r s p e c t i v e s
and advice to assist them in returning to paid employment if they wished wished to do so. so. For low income famil families ies a Working Families Tax Credit was to be introduced which allowed all owed them th em to t o claim some tax relief against against a proportion propor tion of the childcare costs they incurred by going to work.
Conclusion In general the measures proposed and introduced by the New Labour government were based around strengthening conv conventiona entionall fami famili lies es.. Howev However, er, they certa certainl inly y moved away from the idea that families should have a single earner and that women should stay at home to look after af ter children. As desc described ribed above, above, a number of meas measures were taken to help parents combine paid work with domestic responsibilities.The Green Paper said: We also need to acknowledge just how much families have changed. Famil amilyy str str uctur uctures es have become more complicated, with many more children living with stepparents or in single-parent households.They may face extra difficulties and we have designed practical support 1998 98 with these parents in mind. Supporting Families , 19 The paper accepted that single parents and unmarried couples could sometimes sometim es raise raise children ch ildren success successfull fully y, but none the less said that ‘marriage is still the surest foundation for raising children and remains the choice of the people in Britain’ Britain’.. N o mention was made of prov providing iding support for single people. Alan Ala n Barlow, Barlow, Simon Duncan Du ncan and Grace James James argue argue that New Labour ‘proclaims moral tolerance. N evertheless evertheless,, it still firm firmly ly states states that marr iage is the ideal state and that living with two biological and preferably married marr ied parents is the best for for children’ (Ba (Barlow rlow et al. , 2002 20 02,, p. 11 116) 6).. They note note,, thoug though, h, tha thatt there there is a stro trong ng emphasis on paid work ‘as a moral duty and not the unpaid caring that most most lone mothers moth ers place firs first’ t’ (p. 114). Although Al though not condemning con demning lone lone mothers mother s, N ew Labour Labour sees two parents as preferable because this makes it easier for one or both adults to do paid work and therefore avoid reliance reli ance upon benefi benefits ts.. Ba Barlow rlow et al. see New Labour as having done little to introduce policies to support alternatives to conventional convention al famil family y life life.. For example, example, they have have not introduced new rights for people who cohabit. Despite a toning down of the rhetoric criticizing unconventional unconv entional fami familie liess and and non- fa family mily groups groups,, the policies of New N ew Labour Labour continu co ntinued ed to idealize stable, stable, longlasting las ting marriage mar riage and nuclear nu clear families families.. Jennifer Somervill Somer villee (2000) says that Tony Blair’s government idealized the family as ‘a working example of mutual interdependence, care and responsibility’ responsibility’.. It als also o ‘increas ‘increased ed the th e expectations expect ations of parental responsibility with regard to financial support for children, children’ children’ss condu conduct ct and educational achieveachievement’. ment ’. As Aspects pects of New Labour thinking thin king still still reflect reflect the family agenda originally pushed to the forefront of politics in Britain Britain by the N ew R ight. However, Howev er, at leas leastt in one area, area, the Labour Labour government government took steps to introduce legal protection for an alternative to conventional conv entional marriag marriage. e. N ot only did it introduce civil civil partnersships for partner for ga gay y and lesbian lesbian couples, but it als also o banned bann ed discrimin dis crimination ation on the bas basis is of sexuality sexuality, including in applic applicaations for adoption, meaning that gay and lesbian lesbian families families gained an unprecedented degree of legal recognition.
Families, mode oderr nit y and postmodernity Much of this chapter has suggested that significant changes have taken place in family life in Europe and North America (as well as elsewhere) over the last few decades. Altho Although ugh some sociologists sociolog ists have stress stressed ed that th at it is important not to exaggerate exaggerate the extent of the changes, changes, al alll acknowledge that at least some changes have taken place. A number of sociologists have related the changes to the concepts con cepts of modernity or pos postmodern tmodernity ity.. They have have seen them as part and parcel of changes in society as a whole. who le.Although Although the th e sociologists sociologists examined in this th is section disagree about whether social changes should be seen as part of the development of modernity or as part of a postmodern postmoder n stage stage in the development of society society,, there are some similarities in the sorts of changes they relate to the development of the family.
The e Anthony Giddens – Th Transformation of Intimacy In an influential influential book, the British sociologis sociologistt Anthony Anthony Giddens argues that major changes have taken place in intimate relationships between people (particularly relationships between sexual partn partners). ers). H e relates these changes to the development of what he calls high modernity (his concept of high modernity moder nity is dis discus cusssed on o n pp. 895–9).
Romantic love Giddens (1992) argues that premodern relationships in Europe were largely based around ‘economic circumstance’. People got married to t o particular people largely largely to provide an economic context in which to produce a family famil y. For the t he peas peasantry antry,, lif lifee was so so hard it ‘was ‘was unlikely to be conduciv conducivee to sexual pas passsion’. Married couples, couples, according to research research quoted quo ted by Giddens, rarely kis kissed or caresssed. Th cares Thee aristocracy als also o marr ied for reasons reasons to do with reproduction and forming economic connections between famil families ies.. However, Howev er, in the eig eighteenth hteenth century the idea idea of romantic love began to develop, develop, firs firstt among the aris ar istoctocracy.. R omantic lov racy lovee involved involved idealizing the object o bject of o f one’s one’s lovee and, lov and, for women in particular, telling stor stor ies to ones one self about how one’s life could become fulfilled through the relationship. The idea of romantic love was closely connected to the emergence of the novel as a literary form – romantic novels played an important part in spreading the idea of romantic love. lov e. It was als also o related to the t he limitation limitatio n of family size.T ize.This his allo al lowed wed sex, sex, for women, to gradually gradually become become separa separated ted from an endless round of (at the time very dangerous) pregnancy and childbirth childbirth.. R omantic love love contains the idea that people will be attracted to one another and this attraction will lead to the partners being bound together.
In theory, theory, romantic lo love ve should be ega egalita litarian. rian. The bond is bas based ed upon mutual attra attraction. ction. In practice practice,, however, howev er, it has tended to lea lead d to the dominance of men. Giddens says,‘For women dreams of romantic love have all too often led to grim domestic domestic subjection. subjection.’’ Sex is important in romantic love, love, but a succes successsful sexual sexual relationship is seen as stemming from the romantic attraction, and not the other way round. In the ideal of romantic romantic love, lov e, a woman save savess herself, herself, pres preserves erves her virgi virginity nity,, until the perfect man comes along.
Plastic sexuality Giddens argues that in the most recent phase of modernity the nature of intimate relationships has undergone profound changes.Virginity for women is no longer prized, and few few women are are virgins virgins on their marriage day. Plastic sexuality has dev devel eloped. oped. With plastic plas tic sexuality, sexuality, sex can can be freed from its it s as asssociat ociation ion with w ith childbirth child birth altogether. altogether. Peopl Peoplee have have much greater choice over ov er when, how often and with whom they engage engage in sex. sex. The development of plastic sexuality was obviously connected to the development of improved methods of contraception. To Giddens Giddens,, howev however, er, it bega began n to emerge before these technological developments and has more social than technical techn ical or origins. igins. In particular, as we will see, it was tied up with the development of a sense of the self that could be actively chosen.
Confluent love and the pure relationship The emergence of plastic sexuality changes the nature of love. lov e. R omantic lov lovee is increasingly increasingly replaced replaced by confluent love . C onfluent lov lovee is ‘a ‘active ctive contingent lov love’ e’ which ‘jars ‘jars with the the “for “forev ever”, er”, “one-and-onl “one-and-only” y” qua quali lities ties of the romantic love complex’. In earlier eras divorce was difficult or impossible to obtain and it was difficult to engage openly in pre-marital relations rela tionships hips.. O nce people had married through th rough romantic love they were usually stuck with one another however their relations relationship hip developed. developed. N ow people hav have much more choice. They are not compell compelled ed to stay together together if the relationship is not working. The ideal which people increasingly base relationships on is the pure relationship, rather than a marria marr iage ge based based on romantic romant ic pass passion. Pure relationships cont continue inue because because people choos choo se to stay stay in them. Giddens say sayss: ‘What holds the pure relationship together is the acceptance on the part of each each partner,“until partner,“u ntil further further notice”, n otice”, that each each gains gains sufficient benefit from the relationship to make its continuance worthwhile.’ Love is based upon emotional intimacy and only develops ‘to the degree to which each partner is prepared to reveal concerns and needs to the other and to be vulnerable to that other’.These concerns are constantly monitored by people to see if they are deriving sufficient satisfaction from the relationship relationship to continue it. Marr Marriag iagee is increas increasingl ingly y an expression of such relationships once they are already establis esta blished, hed, rather than t han a way way of achieving achieving them. them . However, Howev er, pure relations relationships hips ar aree not confined to marriage marr iage or indeed to t o heterosexua het erosexuall couples. couples. In some cases cases and in some ways gay and lesbian relationships may come closer to pure relationships than heterosexual ones. Furthermore, Further more, pure relations relationships hips do not no t have have to be based based
upon exclusivity if both partners agree that they will not 5 1 3 limit their sexual relationships to one another. C In general, gener al, Giddens sees sees pure relation relationsships as as having having H the potential for creating more equal relationships A between men and women. Th They ey have have an an openness open ness and a P mutual concern and respect which make it difficult for T one partner to be dominant. H owe owev ver, that does not mean E R that Giddens has an entirely positive view of contemporary marriage and other intimate relationships – far from 8 it. H e documents a whole range of emotional, ps psychol ychologogical and physical abuses that can occur within contemporary relationships.The pure relationship is more of an ideal than a relationship that has actually been achieved by most intimate couples coup les.. But Giddens does think there t here is a trend towards such relationships, relationships, becaus becausee their development is intimately bound up with the development of modernity.
M ode odernit rnity y and selfelf-iden identt it ity y Giddens sees institutional reflexivity as a key, perhaps the key, chara characteris cteristic tic of modernity modernity.. In premodern times institutions ins titutions were largel largely y governed governed by tradition. tradition. They carried on in certain ways because they had operated that way wa y in the t he past. Moder nity involves involves the increasing increasing applicaapplication of reas reason. R eas eason on is used used to work out how instituinstitutions can can work better. R efl eflexiv exivity ity describes describes the way way in which people reflect upon the institutions that are part of the social world and try to change them for the better. Increasingly Increas ingly, such refl reflexivity exivity reaches into all areas areas of socia ociall life, life, includi including ng very personal personal areas areas.. For example, example, publications such such as the Kinsey R epor eportt (a survey of sexual sexual behaviour among Americans) opened up sex to critical reflection. ref lection. An increas increasing number of self-help self-help books, books, magazine columns and so on are written to help people reflect refl ect upon and try tr y to improve improve their sex sex lives lives.. Giddens says sa ys,, ‘the rise r ise of such such researches signals signals,, and contr con tribut ibutes es to, an accelerating reflexivity on the level of the ordinary, everyday sexual practices’. R eflexi eflexivity vity extends into the th e creation of o f self-identit self-identity y. People can increasingly choose who they want to be.They are no longer stuck with the roles into which they are born and confined by the dictates of tradition.Within the limits of the opportunit opport unities ies av availa ailable ble to them, people can increasingly shape who they are and who they think themselves to be. Giddens argues there is a ‘reflexive project of the self’ which ‘i ‘iss or oriented iented only to control. It has no moral mor ality ity other than authenticity authen ticity,, a modern da day y version version of o f the old o ld maxim “to thine own self be true”. tru e”.’’ People want want to t o discov discover er who wh o they really real ly are, are, and trying different different relationships relationships can be an important part of this process process. Seek Seeking ing a pure relationship relationship may ma y, for example example,, al allo low w an individ individual ual to try to deci decide de whether wheth er they th ey are truly homos homo sexual, exual,heterosex heterosexual ual or bisexual. bisexual. People have far more choice of lifestyle than in the past, pas t, and trying different different ones o nes may may be part of creating a self elf-- identit identity y. Giddens say ayss, ‘T ‘Today oday, howev however, er, giv given en the laps lapsee of tradition, tradition, the question “W “Who ho shall shall I be?” is inextricab inextricably ly bound up with “How shall I live?”’
Conclusion If Giddens’s analys analysis is is cor correct, rect, then it certainly cer tainly seems seems to explain the increasing rates of divorce and other relationship breakdowns and the greater pluralism of family
F a m i l i e s a n d h o u s e h o l d s
514
S o c i o l o g y
forms. The continuing popularity forms. popularity of marriage could could be seen as part of the quest for the pure relationship. Certainl Cer tainly y, Giddens seems to be on strong ground in arguing that there is more sense of choice in personal relationships than in the past. H owe owev ver, Giddens ma may y underestimate underestimate the degree to which factors such as class and ethnicity continue to influence infl uence the form that relationships relationships tak take. e. Further more, other oth er sociologists sociologists,, while agreeing that there is now more choice, see this as res resulting ulting from from somewhat different different processes process es from from those t hose discuss discussed ed by Giddens. G iddens. Some see the changes in a much more negative light than Giddens does.
T h e m e Ulrich Beck and Elisabeth Beck s Gernsheim – The Normal Chaos a of Love n d Another influential interpretation of changes in relationand family life was put forward by the German P ships e sociologists Ulrich Beck and Elisabeth Beck-Gernsheim (1995, 95, fi firs rstt publis published hed in German in 1990) 1990).. Be Beck ck and r (19 s follow a similar line of argument to p Beck-Gernsheim in claiming that changes in family life and e Giddens relationships are being shaped by the development of c t moder nity nity.. Th They ey als also o follow follow Giddens in arguing that i v modernity is characterized by increasing individual e choice , in contrast contrast to an emphas emphasis upon following following s choice, tradition in in premodern societies societies.. H owe owev ver, they chara characcterize this process as involving individualization rather than reflexivity reflexivity,, and see see it as having rather different consequences from those outlined by Giddens.
Individualization Individualization involves an extension of the areas of life in which individuals are expected to make their own decisions. decis ions. Beck and Beck-G Beck-Gernsheim ernsheim sa say: ‘The proportion of possibilities in life that do not involve decision making is diminishing and the proportion of biography open to decision making and individual initiative is increasing. increas ing.’’ Li Like ke Giddens, Giddens, they contrast contrast this increas increasing ing choice with a premodern era in which choice was much more limited and tradition much more important in shaping social life. Beck and Beck-Gernsheim trace the origins of the process of individualization back to a range of factors, including the influence of the Protestant ethic (see pp. 407–9), 407–9 ), urbaniz urbanization ation and and secula secularization. rization. Most important of all all,, thou though, gh, was an increas increase in personal personal mobility mobility,, both social and and geographical. As moder n societ societies ies open opened ed up, moving place place and moving jobs became became easier, easier, and this presented individuals with more choices about how to run their lives. In the second half of the twentieth century this process went on o n to t o a new stage in which there was a rapid increas increase in avail availabl ablee choices. Th Thee reasons reasons for this included the opening up of educational oppor opportunities, tunities, the improvement improvement in the th e living standards of the lower class classes, which freed them from the daily grind of trying to survive in poverty, and improved labour market opportunities for women. This last change has led to new uncertainties in gender roles and has particularly affected intimate relationships.
Choice in families and relationships If premodern societies gave people little choice about their roles in families families and marriages marr iages,, they did at leas least provide some some stability stability and and certainty certaint y. Beck and and BeckGernsheim say that for individuals the ‘severing of traditional ties means being freed of previous constraints and oblig obligations ations.. At the same time, howev however, er, the support support and security offered by traditional society begin to disappear dis appear..’ In the abs absence ence of o f such such suppor upports ts and secur security ity,, individuals hav havee to t o try t ry to t o create pers per sonal relationships that will provide for their needs. Beck and Beck-Gernsheim say the nuclear family seems to offer ‘a sort of refuge in the chilly environment of our affl affluent, uent, impers impersonal, onal, uncertain society society,, stripped of its traditions and scarred scarred by all kinds of risk. risk. Lov Lovee will become more impor important tant than t han ever and equally impossible. impossible.’ Love is important because people believe they can express and fulfil their individuality through a loving relationship. Lovee offers the promise of an Lov an ‘emot ‘emotional ional base’ base’ and a ‘secur ‘s ecurity ity sys system’, tem’, which are absent absent in the world wor ld outside. H owe oweve ver, r, contemporary societies societies prev prevent ent the th e formation of such relationships. Love in the context of successful family relationships has come to depend on individuals finding a successful formula.. It can no longer formula longer be bas based upon norms nor ms and traditions,, since these no longer exist traditions exist in a form form that is generall genera lly y or even even widely acc accepted. epted. Peopl Peoplee try out a number of arrang arrangements ements,, such as cohabita cohabitation, tion, marriage and divorce, divorce, in their searc earch h for lov love. e. In eac each h relationship relationship they have to work out solutions for how to order their relationships anew anew.. Beck and Beck-G Beck-Gern ernssheim describe describe the situation in the following way: It is no longer possible to pronounce in some binding way what family, marriage, parenthoo parenthood, d, sexu exuality ality or love love mean, mean, what they t hey sho should uld or could be; be; rat rather her these vary in substance, subs tance, norms and morality from individual to individual and from relationship to relationship.The answers to the questitions ques ons abov above e must must be worked out, neg negotiat otiated, ed, arranged and justified justified in all t he details details of how, how, what, why or why not, ev even en if this t his might unleash unleash the conflicts conflict s and devils devils that lie slumbering among the details and were assumed to be tamed tam ed … Lo Love ve is beco becoming ming a blank t hat lov l overs ers must must fill f ill in Beck k and and Beck-Ger Beck-Ger nshe nsheim, im, 1995 themselves. Bec
The causes of conflict The amount of choice in itself causes the potential for conflict, confl ict, but there are other fa factors ctors that make make it even more likely. likely. Earl Earlier ier per iods of industr industrial ial modern societies were based upon relatively clear-cut gender roles involving a male breadwinner and a female carer and homemaker homem aker.. Industrial work by men was founded upon the assumption of a wife who was carrying out houssework and childcare tasks hou tasks.. With increas increased ed opportu oppo rtu-nities for for women in education edu cation and employment, employment, this has has chang cha nged. ed. Now Now,, both men men and and wome women n migh mightt seek seek fulfilling fulfill ing careers. Furthermore,, the demand Furthermore demandss of the capita capitali lisst workplace contrast markedly with those of domestic life. lif e. Bec Beck k and Beck-G Beck-G erns ernsheim heim comment: ‘Indiv Individua iduall competitivenesss and mobility, competitivenes mobility, encouraged by the job market, run up agains againstt the opposite expectations expectations at
home where one is expected to sacrifice one’s own interests for others and invest in a collective project called family.’ The family is the arena in which these contradictions and conflicts are played played out. Men and women wom en argue over who should do the housework, housework, who should look after after the kids and whose job should take priority.The results of the arguments are are unlikely to satis satisfy fy both parties. In the th e end one person’s career or personal development has to take a back seat. In a world where individual individualiza ization tion has proceeded so far this is bound to cause resentment.
Conclusion Beck and Beck-Ger nsheim believe believe these contradictions lead to ‘the ‘the nor mal chaos of love’. love’. Lov Lovee is increasingly increasingly craved cra ved to provide provide security security in an insecure world, but it is increasingly difficult to find and sustain.The quest for individual fulfilment by both partners in a relationship makes it difficult for them to find common ground. Beck and Beck-Gernsheim conclude pessimistically that ‘perhaps the two parallel lines will eventually meet, in the far dis distant future. Perhaps not. We shall shall never know.’ Giddens’s conclusions seem a little over-optimistic, those of Beck and Beck-Gernsheim seem rather too pesssimis pes imistic. tic. Some couples do manage to work out their t heir differences and produce mutually satisfactory relationships hips.. Howev However, er, Beck and and Beck-Gerns Beck-Gern sheim may be right to suggest that the apparent greater choice over relationships can create problems in making them work.
D avi vid d H .J. M or org gan – pas pastt -m -modern odern sociology and family practices Past-modern sociology David Morgan (1996, 1999) has attempt attempted ed to develop an approach to studying the family which takes account of recent changes in family life without fully embracing postmodernis pos tmodernism. m. He borrows the term past-modern from fr om R . Stones (199 (1996) 6) to characterize characterize his appr approach. oach. Morgan claims this approach draws upon a wide variety of infl influences uences,, including femi feminis nism, m, pos postmoder tmodernis nism m and and interactionism. interactionis m. It tries to avoid avoid the sort sort of modern approach to studying ‘the family’which family’ which as asssumes families have a fixed structure and clear boundaries between themselve themsel vess and the outside outside world. He wou ld reject, reject, therefore,, the kinds of approa therefore approaches ches used used by Parsons Parsons (see (s ee pp. pp. 463 and and 474–5) and and Youn oung g and Willmot Willmottt (pp.. 476–8 (pp 476–8), ), which tend te nd to see a single dominant type of family evolving alongside the development of modern societies. O n the other hand, Morgan is al alsso opposed opposed to an extreme version of postmodernism ‘that would threaten to empty sociological enquiry (of any kind) of any content’ (Morgan, 1999). Morgan believes believes we shou should ld acknowledge acknowledge the changes taking taking place in family liv lives es,, but we shou hould ld not rejectt the us rejec u se of all all empirical empirical evidence evidence.. H e sa says ys:: ‘the asssemblag as emblagee of carefully carefully collected collected “facts” “facts” about family living is not to be despised but neither is it to be seen as the culmination of family analysis’.
Changes in family living Morgan believes modern approaches to studying family living have become outdated because of changes in families and societ societies. ies. Both are increas incre asingly ingly characterized character ized by ‘f ‘flux, lux, fluidity fl uidity and and change’. change’. ‘The family’ family’ is not a static static entity which can be frozen at a moment in time so that its form can be clearly clearly analy analyssed. R ather, it is constituted by ongoing processes process es of change, and overlaps overlaps considerably (and (and in changing ways ways)) with the society that surrou surrounds nds it. In the conventional sociological way of thinking about families: Family living is not not about hospital waiting lists, size of classrooms or the availability of public transport.Yet such matters, matt ers, in the t he experience experiencess of individual individual members, members, may be at least as much to do with routine family living as the matters subsumed under the statistical tables [such as those about about hous household ehold size, size, divorce rates and so so on]. on] . Mor gan, 1999
Morgan’s alternative approach attempts to take account of the blurred boundaries between families and the outside world, and the constantly changing changing nature of family family life. life.
Family practices Morgan believes the study of the family should focus on family practices ra rathe therr than, than, for examp examplle, fa fami milly structure. Fa Family mily prac practices tices are concerned with what family famil y members actually actually do, and with the th e accounts they give of what they do. U nlike some some postmoder nists nists,, Morgan does not believe that what families do should be reduced to the descriptions of what they th ey do. H e believes believes there is a social social reality reality that really exists and can be described and analysed by sociologis ociologists. ts. Th That at reality is independ independent ent of sociologists sociologists’’ descriptions des criptions of it. it. Howev However, er, that should should not stop sociolosociologists from also discussing the way in which people talk about and describe their own family lives. Morgan goes on to outline the central themes brought out by the idea of family practices:
1 ‘A sense of interplay between the perspectives of the social actor, actor, the individual whose actions actions are being described desc ribed and accounted account ed for, and the perspectives perspectives of the observe observer. r.’’ For exa example mple,, res resear earchers chers should examine how far individuals see themselves as memberss of families member families,, and they should consider where people draw the boundary between their family and non-family members. 2 ‘A sense sense of the active rather than t han the t he passiv passive. e.’’ People do not just occupy particular roles roles,, they activ actively ely construct their liv lives es.. Gender, cla classs and and fa family mily relationrelationships are all worked out by people in the course of their ac actions tions;; they ar aree not pre predete determined rmined.. Ev Even en something as apparently passive as sleeping involves actively working out what are seen as appropriate sleeping arrangements for different family members. 3 ‘A focus focus on the ev everyday eryday.’ R out outine ine family practices, practices, such as how breakfast is organized and consumed, can tell you you as much, if not more, about family lif lifee as examining less mundane ev events, ents, such as weddings weddings.. stress on regularit regularities. ies.’ Althou Although gh family life life may 4 ‘A stress change frequently, there are often regula regularr patterns patter ns that reoccur,, partic reoccur particula ularly rly in daily daily routines routines.. Sociol ociologis ogists ts
515
C H A P T E R 8
F a m i l i e s a n d h o u s e h o l d s
516
S o c i o l o g y
T h e m e s a n d P e r s p e c t i v e s
should not n ot los losee sight sight of these regularities, regularities, which may well be part of the taken-for-granted life of families. 5 Despite the importance import ance of regularities, Morgan als also believes believ es there shou hould ld be ‘a sense sense of fluidity’. Famil Family y practices will flow into practices from other spheres of social social life. H e says says:: Thus a family outing might consist of a variety of different family practices while also blending with gendered ge ndered practices, leisu leisure re practices pract ices and so on. on. Fur urther, ther, the family outing may well be linked in the perceptions of the t he participan part icipants ts to other such outings outings,, to anticipated future outings and the planning involved in each case. Mor gan, 1999
‘An n inter pla play y between history and biography. biography.’ Th Thee 6 ‘A focus should not be entirely upon the experience of family life life on an everyda everyday y basis basis,, but shou hould ld also also be linked to a consideration of the historical development of society as a whole. whole. Fa Famil mily y outings outings, for example, are linked to ‘a ‘a wider historical histor ical framework framework to to do with the development development of leisure, leisure, trans transportation portation and shifting constructions of parenthood and childhood’. Although Al though a little vague vague,, Morga Morgan’ n’ss pas past-moder n approach does offer the possibility of analysing family life in a way which is sensitive to contemporary changes but which als also o rests upon detailed evidence. It suggests suggests that some of the older debates about family structure and the ‘typical’ ‘typica l’ or ‘conv ‘conventio entional’ nal’ famil family y may may be becomin becoming g les lesss useful usef ul for under undersstanding family life life today t oday. It als also o off o ffers ers the possibility of examining areas of family life (such as outings and use of health services) which have not usually been the focus of study for sociologists of ‘the family’.
Carol Smart and Bren Neale – Family Fragments? A positive sense of self In a study of divorce and parenthood based upon interview int erviewss with sixty parents parent s in Wes Westt Yorkshire, Smart and Neale (1999) make use of aspects of the work of both Giddens Gidd ens and Morgan. Morgan. Fo Foll llowi owing ng Giddens Giddens,, Sma mart rt and Neale found that the process of divorce often involves an attempt to re-establish a positive sense of self by moving beyond a relationship that has failed to provide satisfaction. As dis discuss cussed ed earlier (see (see pp. 510–11), Sma Smart rt and Neale N eale believe divorce law in the 1960s and 1970s embraced the idea that individuals should have the opportunity to reestablish a sense of self after divorce by accepting the idea of a ‘c ‘clea lean n break’. break’. Freed from from any need to continue to asssociate with their for mer spouse, as spouse, each divorcee divorcee could cou ld go about constructing a new sense of identity and perhaps seeking a new ‘pure’ relations relationship. hip. However, Howev er, in the 1980s 1980s and 1990 1990ss new laws laws under mined the th e possibility possibility of a clean clean break, at least least where wh ere there were children from from the marriag m arriage. e. Div Divorcing orcing couples were forced to continue a relationship with their former spouse through the need to negotiate over childcare responsibilities. Furthermore, Further more, Smart and Neale argue argue that a probl problem em with Giddens’s ideas is that he fails to distinguish between the situations of men and women. Influenced by feminis feministt
thinking, Sma Smart rt and Neal N ealee maintain maintain that men and women can be in different situations when they try to develop a new identity af after ter divorce. divorce. In their researc research, h, they found found that,‘In order to reconstitute the self on divorce therefore, it was necessary for many women to disconnect themselves and to cease to be bound up with their former partners.’ Some women were intimidated by their former husbands husb ands,, and some some had been victi victims ms of violence violence.. Many remained in what had been the marital home and their former partners would show little respect for the idea that it was now the woman’s space space.. For example example,, one of the women studied, Meg Johnson, Johnson, initia initiall lly y tried al allowing lowing her husband to look after their children in the marital home at weekends while she she stayed stayed at at her he r mother’ mot her’ss. H owev owever, er, she soon tired of this arrangement because she felt she didn’tt hav didn’ havee her own independence or o r space. space. Indeed, Smart and Neale N eale comment: ‘is ‘isssues of space and and independence indepen dence were a common theme for very many of the mothers’. T hey go on to t o say: say: ‘W ‘Wom omen’ en’ss sens sensee of powerlessness powerlessness seemed to be embedded in their inability to become their “own” pers person on once on ce agai again. n.’’ The situation situation was rather differ different ent for men. N one of them expressed concern about lack of independence or space or felt this was hindering them from establishing a new identity. identity. N ev evertheles erthelesss, they did experience a sense sense of powerlesssness and frustration. ‘Ma powerles ‘Many ny of the fathers in our ou r sample experienced having to negotiate with their exwives as demeaning and as a tangible sign of their powerlessness.’What troubled them was not their loss of an independent independ ent identity ident ity,, but their loss of power ov over er others. oth ers. They were no longer able to exercise the same degree of control over their ex-wives as they had done when they were married to them.
Power Smart and Neale Smart N eale use use thes th esee arguments to dis distinguish tinguish between debilitative powerlessness and situational powerlessness.They define debilitative powerlessness as ‘an effacement of the self’ self ’ – the th e loss of a sense sense of control cont rol over one’ one ’s own identity and destiny.This was the sort of powerlessness most usually usual ly experien experienced ced by women. T hey defined defined situational situational powerlessness as something ‘which is experienced as an inability to control others and a denial of rights’. Although both types of powerlessness could be experienced by by men or women, women, the latter latter type was was mos mostt commonly experienced by men because the children usual us ually ly liv lived ed with the mother, m other, at leas least for mos mo st of o f the week. Further Furthermore, more, Sma Smart rt and Neale arg argue ue that debilita debilita-tive powerless powerlessness is ignored ignored in public debates, debates, whereas men have succeeded in putting situational powerlessness on the agenda of public debate and political discussion. ‘Men’s rights’ rights’ (or their lack of them) in relation relation to children after divorce have been highlighted in the media and elsewhere, elsewhere, while the th e difficulties difficulties women face in feeling feeling free of their former partner are not usually recognized.
Family practices In this as aspect of their work, then, Sma Smart rt and N eal ealee accept accept much of Giddens’s arguments about identity and the changing nature of relationships relationships,, but they th ey criticize him for for
assuming that ass t hat men and women face the same problems.To problems.To Smart and N eal eale, e, the experience of o f divor divorce ce is gendered; gendered; it is different for men and women. In other oth er aspects aspects of their work, wor k, Sma Smart rt and N eale express express approval for Morgan’s ideas and illustrate some of his pointss. Lik point Likee Morgan, they argue that family family life life shou hould ld be seen in ter terms ms of ‘f ‘family amily practices’ practices’.. R es esearch earch into famil families ies should focus on what goes on in families and recognize that they change, although certain cert ain patter patter ns of activity activity may may be common and may be repeated frequently. To Smart and N eale eale,, it is fruitless fruitless to try tr y to anal analys ysee ‘the ‘the family fa mily’’ as a static static entity. entity. R ela elations tionships hips and pattern patternss of family famil y life life are flexible flexible and change. N owhere is this more evident than in family relationships after divorce, especially since legislation has made it unlikely that there will be a clean break between divorcing parents. The biological father continues to play a part in family life, lif e, even when he lives apa apart rt from his for former mer spouse and and children. child ren. Soci Social al fathers fathers (the (the new n ew partners of divorced divorced mothers) have little formal role or responsibility for their new partner’ partn er’ss children, but obviously obviously have have an an important impor tant role within the household and an important relationship with the mother. Grandparents may may als also o have have a role. role. Sometimes the grandparents from the father’s side will have more contact with the th e children than the father himself. himself. A father father in one household may have important attachments to children in another. Al Alll this means means that ‘the family’ family’ is no longer a single entity based on common residence in one houssehold. Instead, there are ‘f hou ‘fragments ragments of families families spread across a number of households’. Smart and Neale go on to argue that ‘Divorce will inevitably come to mean something different – less an end to marriage and more the start of a set of relationships bassed on parenthood. ba parenthood.’ In additi addition, on, they note that the increasing frequency of gay and lesbian parenting and new reproductive technologies (such as surrogate motherhood) will lead to further complexity in family and household relationships.They conclude that these changes will produce a very different spatial dimension in family connections and brings us directly back to David Morgan’s concept conc ept of family fam ily practices.As M organ has argued, we need nee d increasingly increasingly to think t hink in terms t erms of of ‘doing’ ‘doing’ fami family ly life rather than in terms of ‘bein ‘being’ g’ in a family or or part par t of an marr t and Nea N eale, le, 1999 institution called a family. Sma
Judit udith h Stacey – t he post post m oder odern n family The shift to the postmodern family Unlike Giddens, Giddens, Bec Beck k and Beck-Gernsheim, Beck-Gernsheim, and Morgan, Morgan, the American sociologist Judith Stacey (1996) believes contemporary societies such as the USA have developed family mily. Li the postmodern fa Like ke the other wr iters examined in this th is sectio ection, n, she ass associates changes in the th e family wit with ha movement away from a single dominant family type and with greater variety variet y in family family relatio relationships. nships. She say says, s,‘I ‘I use use the term postmodern family … to signal the contested, ambival ambiv alent, ent, and undecided character character of our contemporary cont emporary family famil y cultures. cultures.’ She goes goes on: ‘L ‘Like ike postmoder postmodern n culture,
contemporary Western family arrangements are diverse, 5 1 7 fluid, fl uid, and unresolv unresolved. ed. Li Like ke postmodern cultural forms, our C families today admix unlikely elements in an improvisaH tional pastiche of old and new.’ A Stacey does not see the emergence of the postmodern P family as another stage in the development of family life; T instead, it has h as destro destroyed yed the idea that t hat the t he family progress progresses E R through throu gh a series of logical logical stages stages.. It no longer makes sense sense to discuss what type of family is dominant in contempo 8 rary societies because family forms have become so divers div erse. e. Further more, there can be no ass assumption that t hat any particular for form m will become accepted as as the main, bes bestt or normal type of family. Stacey believes th this is situat ituation ion is here to t o stay stay. It will w ill be impossible for societies to go back to having a single standard (such as the heterosexual nuclear family) against which al alll families families are are compared and judged. Societies will have to come to terms with such changes and adapt to cope with the greater variety variety and uncertainty u ncertainty in famil family y life. life. Although some commentators deplore the decline of the conventional, conventional, heteros heterosexual exual nuclear nuclear family family, div diversi ersity ty is here to stay. Social attit attitudes udes and social policies will have have to adjust to this diversity if postmodern families are to have a good chance of o f facilitating facilitating fulfilling fulfilling lives for their th eir member m emberss.
Postmodern families in Silicon Valley Stacey’s claim that the postmodern family is characteristic of the U SA is bas based upon upo n her he r own res research earch into famil family y life life in Silicon Silicon Vall alley ey,, condu conducted cted durin du ring g the mid- 1980s 1980s.. Sil Silicon icon Valley in California is the ‘global headquarters of the electronics industry and the world’s vanguard postindustrial indus trial region’ (S (Stace tacey y, 1996 1996). ). U suall ually y, trends in in family family life in the USA take on an exaggerated form in Silicon Vall alley ey.. For example, div divorce orce rates in this t his area area have have ris r isen en faster fas ter than t han in other ot her areas of the countr cou ntry y. Trends there are generally indicative of future trends elsewhere. Most sociologists have tended to argue that higherclass and middle-class families lead the way in new family trends and that working-class families then follow later (see, (s ee, for example example,, Will Willmott mott and Young’ oung’ss idea idea of the symmetr ymmetrical ical family family,, p. 477). Sta Stacey’ cey’s research research suggests suggests the reverse might be true with the rise of the postmodern family fa mily. Her res resear earch ch focused focused on two working-class working-class extended- kin networks ne tworks in Silicon Vall alley ey,, and uncov un covered ered the wa way y in which w hich these t hese families families had become adaptable and innovative in response to social changes. According to Stacey Stacey, the moder mo dern n family was largel largely y based around the idea of the male as the primary breadwinner brea dwinner,, ea earning rning a ‘fa ‘famil mily y wage’ wage’.. In other words, words, the man earned enough to keep the whole of the family. H owev owever, er, this sor sortt of family life life only on ly became availa available ble to working-class families relatively late in the twentieth century.. It was not until century u ntil the 1960s that some working-class working-class men started earning enough to keep a whole family. Furthermore, Further more, the situation situation was to be short-liv short- lived. ed. By the late 1970s,, economic changes began 1970s began to threaten the th e viability viability of families dependent on a working-class male wage earner. The two central people in the two kinship networks studied by Stacey’s research were Pam and Dotty: working-class women who had to adapt their family life to changing personal circumstances and the changing society that surrounded them.
F a m i l i e s a n d h o u s e h o l d s
518
S o c i o l o g y
T h e m e s a n d P e r s p e c t i v e s
Pam and Dotty Both Pam and Dotty got married to manual workers around the end of the 1950s and the start of the 1960s. Both their hus h usbands bands were of working-clas working-classs origin, but both worked hard and worked their way up in the electronics industry until they had middle-class jobs. Despite Despi te this, this, neither husband husband was earning enough to maintain their family in the sort of middle-class lifestyle they desired. desired. Pam took on some cleaning cleaning and childcare childcare work, but she kept it a secret from her husband to avoid avoid injuring his male pride in being the sole breadwinner. Dotty took on a range of temporary and low-paid jobs. In the early 1970s Pam and Dotty both started courses at their local college – courses designed to give them a chance of getting getting better work. At the college college they were exposed to feminist ideas for the first time and this encouraged them to take steps to change their marriages and family family life. life. Both were unhappy un happy with aspects aspects of their marriag marr iage. e. Both husba h usbands nds took little part in family lif lifee and were unwilling to help with hous hou sework. Do Dotty’ tty’ss husband, Lou, phys physicall ically y abused abused her. For these reasons reasons both women wom en left their husbands. Pam Pa m got divorced, divorced, studied for a degree, degree, and pursued pursued a career working for social social services. services. Some time later Pam became beca me a born- ag again ain Chr is istian tian and remarr remarried. ied. Her second marriage was a more egalitarian one and her family network was was fa farr from from conv conventional. entional. In particula particular, r, she formed a close relationship with her first husband’s live-in lover and they helped each other out in a range of practical ways. Dotty Do tty eventu eventuall ally y took her husband back, back, but only after after he had had a serious heart attack which left him unable to abusee her abus h er physica physicall lly y. Further Furthermore, more, the reconcil reconcilia iation tion was largely on Dotty’s terms and her husband had to carry out most of the house ho usework. work. Dot Dotty ty meanwhile got involv involved ed in political campaig campaigns ns in the community com munity,, particularly tho thosse concerned conc erned with with helping helping ba batter ttered ed wiv wives es.. Lat ater er,, she withdrew from political campaigning and took part-time work in an insurance insurance office. office. Her husb husband and and two of her adultt children died. O ne of her decea adul deceassed daughters lef leftt four children behind and Dotty successfully obtained custody of the children, aga against inst the wishes of her sonson- inlaw la w, who had abused abused members of his famil family y. Dott Dotty y then formed a household with one of her surviving daughters, who was a single mother. These complex changes in the families of Pam and Dotty showed how two working-class women developed their family life to take account of changes in their circumstances in a rapidly changing changing environment. Sta Stacey cey comments that by the end en d of the study, study, ‘Dotty and Pamela both had moved partway back back from from feminist fervour, fervour, at the same same time both bo th had moved further away from the (no longer) modern family fa mily’. ’. Furthermo Furthermore, re, none of Pam’ Pam’ss or Dotty’ Dot ty’s daughters daughters lived liv ed in a convention conventional, al, moder modern n nuclear nu clear family family.
The working class and the postmodern family Stacey found that the image of working-class families clinging on to conventional family arrangements longer than the middle class class was quite erroneou er roneouss. She say sayss: ‘I found postmodern family arrangements among blue collar workers at least as diverse and innovative as those found within the middle-class.’
The women she studied had drawn upon the tradition of working-class and African American women being suppo upporte rted d by their female kin (s (such as mot mother herss, daughter daughterss, sisters and aunts) to find new ways of dealing with the changes to their family family circumstances circumstances.. In pos po stt-indus industrial trial conditions, condit ions, whe when n jobs were less less secure and workers were expected to work ‘fl ‘flexibl exibly’ y’,, women drew on such traditions to find ways ways of coping with uncer u ncertainty tainty and change. Stace Stacey y says the working-class women she studied were: Str trugg uggling ling creatively, creatively, oft often en heroically, heroically, to sustain sustain oppress oppressed ed families fami lies and, to escape escape the most oppressive oppressive ones ones,, they drew on ‘t‘tradit raditional’ ional’ premodern kinship resources resources and crafted craft ed untraditional untradit ional ones. ones. In the process process they created created postmodern family strategies. Rising divorce and cohabitat cohabitat ion rates, working mothers, mother s, two-earner households, households, sing single le and unwed parenthood, parent hood, along with inter-generational female-linked extended kin support networks appeared earlier and more extensively acey, y, 1996 among poor and working-class people. St ace
Gay and lesbian families Stacey argues that th at gay and lesbian families have also also play played ed a pioneering pioneerin g role in developing developing the postmoder n family family. In the early 1970s gay and lesbian organizations were often strongly anti-famil anti- family y, but by the th e late 1980s this attitude had h ad been reversed.T here was a major major ‘ga ‘gay-by y-by boom’ boo m’ – that th at is, is, a boom in babies and children being looked after by gay and lesbian couples. Stacey quotes research which suggests that by the late 1980ss, 6–14 million 1980 million children children were being brought up in gay ga y and lesbian lesbian families. families. Gay and lesbian lesbian families are themsselv them elves es extremely diverse, diverse, but becaus b ecausee of the th e prejudice they sometimes face face they form a ‘new embattled, vis visible ible and necess necessarily self elf-- conscious conscious,, genre of postmodern kinship’ (Sta (Stacey cey,, 1996). Furthermore,, ‘self Furthermore elf-cons -conscious ciously ly “queer” coupl couples es and and famili fa milies es,, by neces necesssity ity,, hav havee had to reflect reflect much more seriously on the meaning and purpose of their intimate relationships’. relationships ’. Th This is forced reflection reflection makes them more mo re creative and imaginative in developing family forms to suit their circumstances circumstances,, and it makes them more m ore likely likely to include people from outside conventional nuclear family relationships in their th eir famil family y circle. Stac Stacey ey believes: believes: Gays and lesbians improvisationally assemble a patchwork of blood and and intentional relations – gay, gay, straight, and other – into int o creative, creative, extende extended d kin bonds. Gay communities communities more adeptly integrate single individuals into their social worlds than th an does th the e mainstream heteros het erosexual exual society, society, a social social skill quite valuable in a world in which divorce, widowh widowhood ood and singlehood are increasingly normative. St acey, 1996 Wit hin this Within th is creativity and and flexibility, ga gay y and and lesbian lesbian couples have have increasingly increasingly as assert erted ed a right to claim, if they wish, as aspects pects of more conventional co nventional family relation relationsships for themsselves them elves.T .This his has inv involved, olved, for example, claiming custody custody of childr children, en, les lesbia bian n women intentionall intentionally y becoming becoming pregnant so that they can raise a child with their partner, and trying to have same-sex marriages legally recognized. Slowly Sl owly,, they have made gains gains on all these front frontss, although at the time Stacey was writing same-sex marriage had not become legal in the USA U SA.. (A court case over over the legality legality of same-sex marriage was pending in Hawaii.)
Stacey argues that research indicates that gay and lesbian relationships are at least as suitable for raising children as heterosexuall marr heterosexua marr iag iages es.. Generally, res research earch finds finds there is virtually no difference in the psychological well-being and social development of children with gay or lesbian carers and thos tho se with heterosexual carers carers.. Sta Stacey cey sa says ys:: ‘The rare small differences reported tend to favour gay parents, portraying them as somewhat more nurturant and tolerant, and their children children in turn, turn , more tolerant tolerant and empathetic, empathetic, and less aggressive than those raised by non-gay parents.’ Stacey believes children raised in gay and lesbian families are less likely to be hostile to homosexual relationships and more likely to try them for themselves. H owev owever, er, she regards this as an advantage advantage rather than t han a problem. T his is becaus becausee it discourages discourages intolerance of families famil ies who are different, different, and in a world of increasing increasing family diversity diversity this th is is ess essent ential. ial. It also allows allows people more m ore freedom to explore e xplore and develop develop their th eir sexuality sexuality,, free from from
what Adrienne R ich has called called ‘compuls ‘compulsor ory y heteros hetero sexuality’ ali ty’ (quoted in Stacey Stacey, 1996).
Conclusion Stacey does not believe the development of the postmodern postmoder n family has has no disadva disadvantages ntages.. She acknowledges that it creates a certain degree of unsettling instability insta bility.. N evertheless evertheless,, she generally welcomes it as an opportunity to develop more egalitarian and more democratic family relationships. As we have have seen earlier in the chapter ch apter (see (see pp. 494–5, for example) example),, it is ques questionabl tionablee how far the undoubted un doubted diversification of families has supplanted more conventional families. families. It is poss possible that Sta Stacey cey exaggerates exaggerates the extent of o f change. N either gay and lesbian lesbian families families nor families in Silicon Valley are likely to be typical American families or typical of families in Britain and elsewhere.
Summa ummarr y and and concl conclus usiions Many of the earliest sociological attempts to understt and families unders famil ies and hous households were from a functionalist perspective.They tended to assume t hat the t he family was a basic, basic, univ univer ers sal inst inst it itution ution of society.T society.T hey accepted accepted t hat fam ily life chang changed ed as society evolved, but believed t hat in any one era a sing single le family typ t ype, e, whic which h met me t the needs of society and individuals individuals,, would be dominant. dominant . A rguably rguably,, func functt ionalis ionalism m had an idealized and romanticized rom anticized view view of the family. family. Cer tainly tainly,, sociological research and theorizing have challenged the assumptions on which functionalism alis m was bas based. ed. Mar xis xistt s and feminist feminist s, am among ongs st others other s, ha have ve ques questt ioned whet whether her t he family can be seen as functional for individuals and for society. T hey have have highligh highlightt ed what t hey see see as exploitative and abusive aspects of family life such as the unpaid work of women and domestic violence. Increas Incre asing ingly ly,, t heoret ical approach approaches es t o the family, such as difference feminis fem inism m and post post m odernism ernis m , ha have ve emphasized emphasized the variety of family types and living arrangements that exist in contt emporar y soci con society. ety. By and and large, they have have
welcomed these changes as offering increased freedom and choice choice for individ individuals uals.. Research certainly confirms that nuclear family households are becoming less common in Brit ain and sim imilar ilar societ societies ies,, and that households households and families families are becoming mor more e diverse. diverse. N ot everybody welcomes these tr ends ends,, as som ome e see them as threatening the stability of society by underm ining an es ess sent ential ial inst inst it itution, ution, t he fam fam ily ily.. Polit olitical ical and sociolog sociological ical debate about t he family reflects the division of opinion about family fam ily change, change, wit h iss issues such as lone-par ent families familie s, ga gay y ‘m ‘marr arr iag iage’ e’ and the t he use use of new reproductive technologies attracting controversy. W het hether her t he chang changes es are regarded r egarded as des desir irable able or not, not , mos mostt soci ociolog ologis ists ts accep acceptt that impor importt ant changes are taking place which reflect broader changes chang es in societ society y as a whole. whole . Changes in family and household structure may well reflect changes in the nature of relationships within families and changes in the expectations that people peop le bring to m arr arriag iage, e, family life life and cohabitation.
For weblinks, weblinks,fur furtt her res r esour ources ces and acti activit vities ies r ela elatt ing t o this t his cha chapter, pter, visit the t he compa companion nion websit website e at :
www.haralambosholborn.com
519
C H A P T E R 8
F a m i l i e s a n d h o u s e h o l d s
