Ms Gitten's article also refers to Lawrence Stone's (1977) proposal, which indicated that Western families were primarily based on the ideologies of values and kinship rather than the family structure while conciliating that Western families were always prone to change.
Stone argued that there were three main different types of families in Western society between 1500 and 1800, namely the ‘Open Lineage Family’, which was considered to be common from the medieval times until the early sixteenth century and which was characterised by lack of privacy, extended kin ties and lack of close relationships within family. The ‘Restricted Patriarchal Nuclear Family’ which existed in Europe from about 1530 to 1640, was mainly distinguished by declining loyalties to member kin and communities while increasing loyalties to State and Church, both of which also encouraged to defy father/husband. The final type consisted of the ‘Closed Domesticated Nuclear Family’ which arose during the 1640 and gave rise to affective individualism. Shorter (1975) and Stearns (1975) both agree and have made similar points of view.
The article also concludes with many important factors dividing society from earlier times for example, the high mortality rate had many important repercussions for the family. In comparison some factors having remained common throughout the nineteen and some into the twentieth century such as remarriages, widowhood and orphahood.
In brief, Ms Gittens is reiterating that much of the problem is trying to define the family in a singular framework thus implying that there can ever only be one type of family at a given point in time, simply when there is no such concept as families will eventually go through a serious of different ‘type’ over a period of time. Lutz Berkner (1972) and Tamara Hareven (1982).
In trying to analyse how families in the Western society have changed I feel sociologists such as Parson and Murdock were far too simplistic in their interpretation of the history of the family. Parson in particular argued that the industrial revolution brought three fundamental changes to the family; industrialisation led to a more geographically mobile workforce, thus the need for a nuclear family, specialised areas such as education, and welfare took over some of the former functions of the family, the nuclear unit provided the husband and wife with clear gender roles.2
In contrast much of the evidence suggests that industrialisation may have followed different patterns in different industrial societies.3 The Japanese experience, for example, has been quite different form that of Britain and, consequently extended families has remained important in Japan. Jean-Flandrin (1971) also demonstrated how a variety of family types exited in different regions of France.4
The study of English parish records suggests that only 10% of households in the pre-industrial period contained extended kin. In other words, most pre-industrial families may in fact have been nuclear, and not extended as some sociologists claimed. Such small families were probably due to late marriage, early death and the practice of sending children away to become servants or apprentices.
It may also be the case that industrialisation took off so quickly because nuclear families already exited - and so people could move quickly to those parts of the country where their skills were in demand. Michael Anderson's historical study (1971) of the industrial town of Preston, using census records from 1851, also contradicts Parson's view that the extended unit had been replaced by the nuclear family. Anderson found a large number of households shared by extended kin.5 These probably functioned as a mutual support system in a town in which unemployment and poverty were common.
The British sociologists Young and Wilmott (1957) take issue over the speed of change. They suggest that the movement towards the nuclear unit was not as sudden as some sociologists suggest, but rather that it was more gradual in nature.6 Their empirical research conducted in the 1950's, in the East End of London (Bethnal Green), showed the extended families exited in large numbers even at this advanced stage of industrialisation. This extended kinship network was based upon emotional attachment and obligation.
It was also a mutual support network, offering its members assistance with money, jobs, childcare and advice. Young and Wilmott (1973) argue that the extended family unit went into decline in the 1960's, when working-class communities were rehoused in new towns and on council estates after extensive slum clearance.
Moreover, the welfare state and full employment in the 1950's undermined the need for mutual support system. Young and Wilmott therefore conclude that the nuclear family only became the universal norm in Britain in the late twentieth century.7
Many sociologists have argued that industrialisation has encouraged the development of the privatised nuclear family, which is isolated from both its extended families and neighbours. This is because industrialisation led to some family members leaving the extended family who worked together on the land to work in factories in the towns for their own individual wage.
However, a number of sociological studies of the 1950's and 1960's suggested that the isolation of the nuclear family from the wider family had been exaggerated.8 The study of Bethnal Green in London by Young and Willmott (1957) found extended families with frequent and strong contact between kin. By the late 1960's, studies of new council states and factory workers with high incomes were suggesting that contact with kin, although not totally severed, was in decline.
Research indicated that people were mainly living in nuclear families which were more inward looking, home centred and less inclined to be sociable outside the home with kin and friends.
Authors such as Parsons and Fletcher have suggested that it was the process of industrialisation that brought the later symmetrical stages, which contrasted to their prequel stages. They believe that the along side the isolated nuclear family, there emerged the modified extended family (in which through the use of technology such as the phone, there can be maintenance of contact and support across great distances). Anderson did research based on the historical research carried out by Preston, intent on showing the rise of the Modified Extended Nuclear Family that came about due to hardship in early industrial society.
Laslett studied Northern Europe and found that families were not likely to consist of a nuclear family structure, but he also found that the average size of families in Western Europe stayed constant at 4.75 persons, which gives us reason to believe that nuclear families were around before the industrial revolution. Laslett therefore does not agree with Parsons or Willmott and Young, as he believes families were already nuclear pre-industry and still are today. Michael Anderson was also a social historian who agreed with Parsons because he believed that the pre-industrial families were based on extended kinship networks.9
In the light of my argument, I am particularly sceptical about Parsons, Murdock and other sociologist's claims that the nuclear family meets the needs of the industrial society. They suggested that the nuclear family benefited the powerful at the expense of the working class. Moreover it also benefited men a like. I also feel one of the main effect of industrialisation was that women's prime function was defined as mother-housewife, allowing men to dominate paid work. There are however some disagreements as to whether or not women have always been subordinated and exploited in the family, or whether their subordination is a result of the growth and development of industrial capitalism.10
The article closely relates aspects of family and households within the social processes characteristic of an industrialising society, such as increasing rates of social and geographical mobility and the shift of production from the home into the factory. The article also reveals a striking continuity in the strength of nineteenth century to twentieth century family relations despite the gradual but profound process of social change surrounding these Western families which have occurred.
To conclude I feel the family in the western society seems to be dwindling as a social institution. The stark figures would suggest that British society has turned its back on those things normally associated with the idea of the 'family' within one generation. We have seen many changes, mainly the following; only half as many people are getting married, lone-parent families have increased threefold, children being born outside marriage have quadrupled in numbers, and the number of divorces has trebled. However, there is strong evidence to suggest that these so-called ‘changes’ in the family are not so recent as one may think.
Word Count: 948* (apologies for exceeding word limit)
* Excluding references and bibliography
References/Bibliography
Textbooks
1 - by Tim Curry, Robert Jiobu, and Kent Schwirian
3 ()
2 Anderson, M. (1971) Family, household and the Industrial Revolution in M. Anderson (ed) The Sociology of the Family, Harmondsworth: Penguin
5 Bernardes, J. (1997) Family Studies: An Introduction, London: Routledge.
6 P. Abbot and C. Wallance (2000) An Introduction to Sociology 2nd edn London: Routledge pp. 141-5
7 M. Denscombe, (1998) Sociology Update, Leicester: Olympus Books, p 20
Journals/Articles
8 Towards a New Sociology of Families, S. Chapman, Review, vol,9, no.3
9 Contemporary British Society, N, Abercrombie and A. Warde, 3rd edn, Cambridge: Political Press, pp. 302-9
10 Investigating Families and Households, N. Jorgensen (1995) London: Collins Educational, pp 14-15
Electronic/Web Documents
J, Peters. (2001) ‘Family is Good for Us’ [Home Page of Guardian Unlimited] [Online] 13 Nov 2003, Available from: http://www.Guardian.co.uk/non-html/loader.asp?=group&d=governance.html [Accessed 05 November 2003]
Gibbon, J. (2002) ‘Family & Industrialisation ’ BBC News [Online] 19 Oct 2003, Available at http://www.news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/941031.stm [Accessed 19 October 2003]
‘Industrialisation and its Critics’ (2003),Economsit.com [Online] 24 Nov 2003, Available at
?Story
