Parish register research by Laslett [1965] for the time period 1564 – 1821 supports Starkey’s views. Laslett found that the extended family was not at all dominant before the industrial revolution, in fact extended families were quite rare. Instead, he argues the nuclear family was the typical form — only about 10 per cent of families included kin from outside the nuclear family / were nuclear. This percentage, and the average household size of 4.75, were much closer to the pattern we are familiar with today than the previously held image of the large, extended rural family.
According to Laslett a similar situation existed in other European countries and he concludes that the nuclear family preceded industrialisation and probably also facilitated the development of industrialisation in Europe. This evidence, then, is in direct contrast to the theory that the nuclear family was the product of industrialization.
Anderson’s [1971] study of the nineteenth-century family structure, based on census data for Preston in 1851, supports Starkey’s view that the extended family didn’t go into decline as a consequence of industrialisation. The percentage of households that contained kin from outside the nuclear family rose to 23 per cent, higher than in both preindustrial Britain and modern industrial Britain. The extended family seems to have acted as a sort of mutual aid organization providing insurance against unemployment, sickness and old age. Both in times of crisis and in everyday life, families could help. Older relatives could provide child care for mothers, in return receiving support and care themselves in old age. Orphans and other young family members might be taken in by relatives to become working lodgers and add to the total family income.
There is also considerable evidence showing the continued presence of the extended family, in significant numbers into modern times. Research by Young and Willmott (1962) based on Bethnal Green in the in the East End of London found strong extended family ties, centred on the mother and daughter. Mutual aid and support was the norm, and although the extended kin did not usually live in the same household the mother would often ‘speak for’ her daughter with a landlord in order to obtain a house very close by. In the same way the father might help obtain a job in his place of work for his son, son-in-law or other male relative. This pattern of extended family life and mutual support was also found in a number of other studies carried out at the same time, especially those which looked at communities dominated by one of the traditional industries, for example Coal is Our Life (Dennis et al., 1956) and The Fishermen (Tunstall, 1962). All of these studies emphasised the fact that, even as recently as the 1950s, for many the coming of industrialisation certainly did not mean the coming of the nuclear family. Rather than industrialisation destroying the extended family structure, historical research
indicates that the opposite was generally true — industrialisation seemed to increase the likelihood of such structures, especially in the earlier industrial periods.
Research from the 1960s onwards has shown the increase in the numbers of the nuclear family but many question the march of progress / theory of transition emphasis on the isolation of the nuclear family. It seems that although the members of the nuclear family live together as an independent unit, there are still strong ties, either local or more distant, with other extended kin, especially grandparents. Research by Litwak found that the geographical and social mobility that had separated kin had not weakened the affective ties between them. For 52 per cent of his sample, this meant one or more family visits per week. Modern methods of communication such as the telephone and private cars, together with letters and so on, enabled families to keep in close contact even when living in different parts of the country. Litwak coined the term ‘modified extended family’ to describe this situation, emphasising the connections between families rather than their isolation.
Supporting evidence for modified extended families, is provided in a study of working class families in Swansea by Rosser and Harris (1965). They too found that the entirely isolated nuclear family was a rare occurrence. Different employment patterns had made the family less close-knit, but strong sentimental ties between family members resulted in practical help for each other. Extended kin provided social identity and social support, particularly in times of crisis, when relatives were the first port of call for help.
Bell (1968) also conducted research in Swansea and found a similar picture amongst middle-class families. Again, the family was a source of aid and service in times of difficulty or crisis. Greater geographical distances meant little day-to-day contact, but longer visits and telephone calls maintained a close relationship, mostly with grandparents but also with other kin.
By the 1970s Willmott and Young [1975] published their work The Symmetrical Family, which further supported the historical evidence that the nuclear family existed before the industrial revolution. They outlined the three stages through which they believed the family had progressed, with a further stage predicted for the future.
Stage 1: the preindustrial family. In this period the family was a unit of production, the members working together, mostly in agriculture. Examples of this stage can still be found today in farming areas.
Stage 2: the early industrial family. This was the family of the industrial revolution, ‘torn apart’ by the economic and social changes. It characteristically had extended kinship networks to provide support and aid in times of need. There were mother—daughter ties that held the family together but often only a weak relationship between husband and wife — they tended to have separate roles, carrying out their own chores and responsibilities.
Stage 3: the symmetrical family. This is the modern nuclear family of today. According to Young and Willmott it has three main characteristics:
• This family is predominantly nuclear, not extended. The nuclear family is much more isolated from extended kin and members depend far more on each other for help and companionship.
• Life in the modern family is home-centred — the home itself is much more comfortable and family life is more affluent, so the home has become a pleasant place for the whole family to spend their leisure time.
• The relationship between husband and wife is strong: work and interests are increasingly shared. This situation is referred to as ‘joint conjugal roles. The relationship between husband and wife has also become more companionate. They share the household tasks and childcare as well as decisions and interests, and they spend much more time in each other’s company.
This is referred to by Young and Willmott as the ‘symmetrical family because the two sides or parts of the family play similar roles and make similar contributions. Husband and wife have a more egalitarian relationship where the contribution and importance of each is equal but different. Responsibilities are shared, though the two halves do not do exactly the same things.
Stage 4: the asymmetrical family. This is the family predicted by Young and Willmott for the future. It already exists in some middle-class households and is likely to spread to the rest of the population. It is characterised by the wife becoming more home-centred so that the husband can become more work-centred. This type of family was predicted to arise as a result of changes in work patterns. The managing directors studied by Young and Willmott spent less time in the home and more time at work or in work-centred leisure activities such as golf. As a result, more of the domestic home activities were left for their wives to tackle alone.
The march of progress / theory of transition claim, that the nuclear family is relatively isolated or privatised has been challenged by research done int the 1980s / 90s. Devine found that families in the 1980s had regular contacts with kin. This contact was particularly strong between grandparents, parents and children. Although families were often geographically isolated, just as the studies by Bell, Litwak and so on found in the 1960s, Devine discovered that distance was not necessarily an impediment to regular contact — cars and telephones were frequently used.
In support of Devine, Finch argues that family obligations still exist and may constitute very strong guidelines for action. However the nature and extent of these obligations vary considerably according to factors such as ethnicity, gender and the individual family circumstances. For example help and
personal care is often expected more of women than men and more of parents and children than other relatives.
Finch and Mason carried out interviews with 978 respondents in Manchester and they found that assistance between family members was widespread. Over 90 per cent of their sample had given or received financial help. Half the women (slightly fewer men) had helped to look after a sick or incapacitated relative. Other types of help that were frequently provided were child care, emotional support and practical help. Throughout the sample the relationship between parent and child was of paramount importance.
The overall picture revealed by Finch and Mason, therefore, is not one of isolated, privatised nuclear families but of members of family groups connected by a web of assistance that can take many forms. Although there are no clear rules governing these relationships, there are guidelines, and the existence of such widespread assistance emphasises the importance of relationships beyond the nuclear family. They certainly do not present us with an image of an isolated and introspective nuclear family, cut off from other kin.
In conclusion, the early assumptions by the supporters of the march of progress / transition theories have been successfully challenged by modern research. Historical document records, based on Parish registers, have shown that the nuclear family clearly existed before the industrial revolution. Historical census data further shows that the extended family didn’t go into decline as a consequence of the industrial revolution. Whilst research from the 1970s onwards shows that although the nuclear family has clearly increased in numbers it is not particularly isolated / privatised, and large numbers of nuclear families maintain regular contact with kin, benefit from the support of kin. Many so called nuclear families are really part of modified extended family networks.
