Following on from this, many sociologists argued that the principal type of family was the extended family (Abercrombie, 1994) before the industrial revolution. Many theorists thought it before industrialisation people had closer contact with their kin than they do today and that due to industrialisation with ‘greater geographical mobility’, (Abercrombie: 303) people lost contact with their extended families, which in turn reduced them to small nuclear families similar to what we apparently have today. However this view that pre-industrial families were extended has been disproved by many because evidence of factors such as high infant mortality, low life expectancy and low fertility suggest otherwise. In fact families were rarely extended since ‘Only 1 household in 20 contained more than two generations’ (Laslett cited in Abercrombie, 1994) and therefore pre-industrialised families were in actual fact closer to the nuclear family than originally expected.
The arguments of sociologist Talcott Parsons are important when understanding the changes of the family since the 1950’s. His main view was that the functions that the modern family or the nuclear family fulfilled were best suited to industrial societies. Parsons saw a shift in families with respect to the importance of family kinships. According to Allan, Parsons recognised that families:
‘Have some obligations and duties towards non-conjugal kin, but these are usually secondary to our obligations and duties to conjugal family members.’ (Allan, 1985)
A major change that has taken place in family life in Britain is the issue of divorce. Since the 1950’s divorce has become legally easier and therefore socially acceptable causing increased divorce rates. According to Allan:
‘The increase has been most rapid since the passing of the 1969 Divorce Reform Act’ (Allan, G.1985:101), however one could argue that the rising divorce rates were reflected by the Act itself rather than the Act shaping the increase. In keeping with this in today’s society ‘Around forty percent of marriages now end in divorce’ (Giddens, 2001). There are many debatable causes for the rise in divorces. A substantial cause is in respect to the changing position of women in society. Women no longer have to be subservient and in contemporary society they have the power to change their situation that was not always the case (Abercrombie, 1994). Women are also more likely to be unsatisfied with a marriage as ‘They account for 72 percent of the petitions for a divorce’ (Abercrombie, 1994: 296). Perhaps the most obvious cause for divorce rates is the changing attitudes towards it. In today’s society attitudes are much more relaxed. Because of these changing attitudes Allan argues:
‘There is less pressure for a couple to stay together because their break-up has little impact outside the domestic sphere and causes fewer ripples than it would in a society where kinship is more central to the wider social organisation’ (Allan, 1985: 104). Many sociologists see the decline of family life through the idea that family members are neglecting their moral duties rather than the fact that it is their right to be able to divorce. As Edmund Burke writes:
‘The rising divorce rate demonstrates that spouses are putting personal satisfaction before marital and parental duty’ (Burke, E. cited in Harris, C.C., 1983). But many would argue that after divorce this is not so since reconstituted families are increasing, therefore a degree of stability is restored.
Although divorce is increasing this has not resulted in the decline in the popularity of marriage. Another change in family life since the 1950’s which is linked to divorce is the rise in single parent families and reconstituted families. For Abercromie and Warde ‘Present estimates are that some two-thirds of divorcees will eventually remarry’ (Abercrombie, 1994). This also seems to be regardless of whether or not children are involved. Single parent families are family units where only one parent, most often the mother resides with the children. A common characteristic of single parent households is that of social and economic strain. When sociologists refer to the decline in the family single parent families are often exemplified since it is difficult for lone parents (more often women) to earn a substantial amount of money. As a result of this many one-parent families live in poverty (The Finer Report, cited in Abercrombie, 1994). Generally speaking, many previously married women may have had their careers interrupted by children and find it difficult to work as opposed to single-parent men who have better paid careers and receive greater help with their children (Abercrombie, 1994). Reconstituted families are also of great significance in understanding the changes since the 1950’s. A reconstituted family is a family unit that includes one or more step-parents as a consequence of marriage, divorce and remarriage. There are both obvious benefits and there are difficulties with reconstituted families. Major tensions often arise from these families since strain is put on the divorced individuals. For Giddens the difficulties are:
‘In the first place, there is usually a biological parent living elsewhere whose influence over the child or children is likely to remain powerful. Second, cooperative relations between divorced individuals are often strained when one or both remarries’ (Giddens, 2001).
As well as family life in itself undergoing continuous change ideologies have also developed since the 1950’s. People’s views and accounts of family life are changing due to the rise in single parent households, reconstituted families and higher divorce rates.
Another important factor that has affected the family since the 1950’s is the issue of gender and differentiation of sex roles. Before the 1950’s a clear division of labour in the household may have been easy to identify but sociologists Young and Willmott (1973) argue that today this is not so. They claim:
‘A new family form – the symmetrical family – which does not require a domestic division of labour, is slowly emerging, in which the roles of women and men are less differentiated.’ (Young and Willmot cited in Abercrombie, 1994: 288).
The differentiation of sex roles within the household is perhaps difficult to measure since duties included in the husband’s role and duties included in the wife’s role may be completely different from one another.
Role allocation for Parsons sees that the ‘masculine role tends to be instrumental and the feminine role to be expressive’ (Farmer, M. 1970: 54) and these contribute to the maintenance of the nuclear family as a social system. However masculinity in today’s contemporary society is often said to be in crisis since many changes have occurred benefiting women with evidence suggesting that men are becoming the new victims of sex discrimination. Because women in contemporary society now lead a more independent life the masculine role of the husband’s status is now evaporating (Farmer, M. 1970). Although the male of the household may be the sole breadwinner, the fact that the female is also working can undermine the masculinity of the husband’s role however:
‘Basically the distinction between the masculine instrumental roles and the feminine expressive roles remains in western societies’ (Farmer, M. 1970:55) but the distinction between the husband and wife role has become ‘blurred’.
In conclusion, since the 1950’s family life has seen many changes. Families in Britain today are in some ways more privatised than they used to be due to more interest in immediate family life although activities outside the home.