Although this paradigm of the nuclear family and its concordant sexual division of labour, both in public and private spheres, was by no means prevalent across all aspects of society, it was certainly adopted as the traditional concept of family form. Since the 1960s however, dramatic changes in the structure of the family and the ideologies that surround it have occurred, both in economic and demographic contexts. Statistics have shown substantial increases in cohabitation, births outside marriage, the level of separation and divorce, and the number of lone-parent and stepfamilies which “have all resulted in old certainties about family and household arrangements being questioned” (Allan & Crow, 2001). Giddens (2001) identifies that “those who choose to marry are doing so at a later age” which is also true of women having children. He also identifies that demographic shifts include a decline in the percentage of couples with dependent or non-dependent children, an increase in the percentage of lone-parents with dependent children and an increase in the percentage of one-person households. For these reasons the family can no longer be seen as a static or rigid social entity.
A number of theories exist as to how and why the family structure can be shaped and modelled by wider society and vice versa. The family network can be extensively influenced by individual agency; the individual’s active consideration of how they connect with others around them in their intimate relationships. However, it can also be said that external, macro-social forces contribute a major influence. As such it can also be useful to consider the influence of both individual and wider social forces as a two-way relationship. The combination of these guiding controls has heightened since the 1960s as a result of a complex arrangement of changing attitudes, differing individual needs and fluctuating economic stability, all of which have been equally assisted and encouraged in certain directions by changing legislation, policies and practices surrounding the family. Katja Boh describes this set of changes as “increasing gender symmetry in work patterns, more freedom in conjugal choice and a more hedonistic view of marriage and love, premarital and experimental sexuality, higher marriage instability and alternative forms of ‘living together’, decreasing fertility and change in forms of parenting”.
The above developments and shifts in attitudes can be seen as significantly attributable to the substantial increase in the diversity of family forms. The late twentieth century family saw rises in divorce and separation rates, cohabitation and lone-parent families combined with a decrease in rates of marriage and childbirth, which can be seen as an adaptation of the concept of “family course” (Finch, 1987) which allows for variations in how people’s family lives develop in the family commitments they generate over time. Another influential dimension to consider is the changing economy whereby people in affluent societies are “no longer materially constrained to conform to the conventional gender roles associated with the nuclear family, and that this opens up the possibility of greater individual choice over how a person lives his or her own life” (Beck and Beck-Gernsheim, 1995). This relatively new concept in history has liberated women from the binding imperative support provided by a husband allowing a new found freedom of choice within relationships and educational and labour market opportunities. Beck sees this transition as an indicator of the process of individualisation evidenced by the “increasing extent to which people are choosing to depart from traditional norms of family life”. Giddens takes this interpretation further, introducing the notion of ‘pure’ relationships whereby the emphasis is placed upon individuals’ aspirations and choices rather than adopting pre-set conventional family roles. He describes the personal life as “an open project”. To aid the process of individualisation modern social structures like those of the welfare state have been encouragingly modified for the individual, contributing an important element of human rights. Parker highlights the fact that by 1985 “married couples living with children made up just 28 percent of households” meaning that previous assumptions about family roles and responsibilities create false representations in legal, social and educational spheres, necessitating an abundance of new laws, reformations and mediations within the foundations of society.
As a result of the above mentioned liberation of women and freedom of individual choice and personal fulfilment, the transition towards greater diversity of family forms has been heralded a beneficial and progressive move forward by many sociologists and radical feminists. A common theme amongst such theorists is the positive way in which the new diversification of family forms has to an extent opened up and exposed the nuclear family for the obscure and ominous realm of violence, exploitation of women and domination that it can be.
The clear distinction between private and public spheres predominantly associated with the traditional nuclear family is expressed in an extremely negative sense by Marxist tradition. Marx and Engels looked at the widespread nuclear family and saw that the cause of its prevalence was due to the passing on of private property, through the male line, effectively safeguarding the capitalist system which was understood as being a highly unbalanced, exploitative class system in which class relations are characterised by conflict. Even before Marx, Durkheim was suspicious of the family as a private realm under no scrutiny of society. In conjunction with these more classical theories, much of the modern feminist derived sociology emerging in recent times portrays the traditional family sphere as a dark world of violence, led by a dominant patriarchal male, against women and children.
The combination of the above mentioned theories and perspectives convey a general consensus of thought that the distinctly private sphere of the traditional nuclear family is exploitative, unbalanced, rife with inequality and even potentially violent. From this theoretical foundation it is clear to see the benefits of the new wide-ranging diversities of family forms within post-modern societies. Direct effects include the expanding liberation of women economically, the diminishing gendered division of labour and a greater potential for the formation and fulfilment of personal ambitions. It can also be argued that the more freely accepted various social mediations aimed at providing help and support for families can act as an essential regulatory body ensuring a safe society and environment for the socialisation of children and maintenance of family environments that are free from repression caused by power conflicts. However, there also exists a school of thought that the decline in the traditional nuclear family can only be conceived as a negative transition. Sociologists such as Betty Freidan, a libertarian feminist, argue the importance of keeping a distinction between public and private spheres, claiming that the wider society would not be able to hold together with the demise of the traditional family and the increase of intrusion from agencies. Parsons also saw the transition towards a greater diversity of family form as one that has left the family “almost completely functionless” (Haralambos & Holborn, 1996). He recognises that individual family members are continuing to participate in functions such as economic production, political power systems and integration of the larger society, but do so “as individuals, not in their roles as family members”. Therefore the functionalist notion that the nuclear family and its clear division of roles is best suited for modern economic society maintains that the collapse of such traditional family formations will lead to a serious fundamental breakdown of society. However, Parsons also recognises that it is not necessarily true that families are declining in importance, but have become more specialised as a result of influences from both wider social forces and individual actions.
It cannot be denied that dramatic changes and shifts in patterns of family structures have occurred throughout the last half century. It is also clear that these changes have in turn altered theories of family ideologies regarding both function and economy. A number of causes and reasons for these shifts have been explored in depth. Changing lifestyles and attitudes, the focus within modern society on the individual, the decline in religion and the adaptation of social welfare policies have contributed in the ability of these changing family groups to expand and become an accepted part of society. It could also be concluded that the shifts are simply another stage in the ongoing evolution of trends in family formations.
However, faced with this extensive diversification and surrounding implications on society, it is then impossible to discard the notion that evolution of this magnitude will inevitably lead to a fundamental breakdown of family structures and their role in society, albeit for the good of society. Parsons recognised two basic functions of the family; firstly, “the primary socialisation of children so that they can truly become members of the society into which they have been born”, and secondly, “the stabilisation of the adult personalities of the society” (www. ). Although Parsons argued that it was within the traditional nuclear family that these two functions were best accomplished, it can also be said that the wide range of meanings understood by the term ‘family’ in contemporary society still provide effective institutions for the socialisation of young and the strive for economic and mental stability. At the other extreme it can be argued that contemporary family groups are effectively eradicating traditional patterns of inequality and therefore assisting in a fundamental re-education of attitudes in society.
Bibliography
-
Allan, G and Crow, G 2001: Families, Households and Society (Hampshire:Palgrave)
-
Giddens, Anthony 2001: Sociology, 4th Edition (Oxford:Polity Press)
-
Haralambos, M and Holborn, M 1996: Sociology: Themes and Perspectives, 4th Edition (London:Collins Educational)
-
Parker, Stephen 1990: Informal Marriage, Cohabitation and the Law, 1750-1989 (Hampshire:The Macmillan Press Ltd.)
