Is the Family Changing In Contemporary British Society?

GCSE Religious Studies (Philosophy & Ethics)

Is the Family Changing In Contemporary British Society

The family is for the most part the source that passes on to the children the ordered pattern of society. So a shift in how the family works will have extensive ramifications across society over a relatively short period of time. In order to give this question a full answer one must not only look at the change in structure of the family unit but also its changing role.

Statistical research has illustrated that throughout the nineteenth century divorce rates have increased. Changes in household and family patterns reflect changes in household and family patterns reflect changes in the parenting and marital status of the family over time. The total number of marriages in the UK has fallen from its peak in 1972 and has continued to fall year on year. In 1997 there were 310000 marriages a 70000 fall from 1996.

The economist 14/01/00 ran a story `is marriage going out of fashion` and it showed the fall in weddings and the rise in cohabitation. All this evidence shows that there is no question that the structure of the family unite is changing. Divorce is on the increase but crime and social degradation has not set in as had been predicted by several well known sociologists. So even though the structure of the family unite is no longer that which it once was, the job that it once did is still being done by the new style family unites. This breakdown of the ideal of the family unite has created three new family unites. The first is the unite that is created with divorce, which refers to the legal termination of the marriage. This often creates two homes for the child/children and two families with both usually vying for the affections of the children. The second is separation which refers to the physical splitting of the partners and while for the most part is a temporary measure before either they divorce or get back together it can last several years. Finally there is the `empty shell marriage` where the spouses live together, remain legally married but there is no love just a marriage that exists in name only. This shell usually will only exist for the sake of the children but can often be more damaging than helpful.

After looking at these arguments and the statistical evidence on marriage break-ups leads you to only one possible conclusion, the family unite has changed. Has this new and dynamic structure affected the role that the family plays in the lives of the offspring. It is clear to us that there has not been a social collapse even though the family unite is changing so from this we can see that this dynamic new unite is doing the same job as the old.

According to the Marxist perspective, divorce is viewed to bring about various effects on individual members. They argue ...

This is a preview of the whole essay

According to the Marxist perspective, divorce is viewed to bring about various effects on individual members. They argue that in capitalist societies, marriage is an imperative institution as it stabilises the workforce and keeps them content. This in turn benefits the employer as a happy worker is a productive worker it also allows pro capitalist ideology to be passed from one generation to the next. Therefore Marxists believe that divorce is necessary to stop capitalism from perpetuating. Marxists believe that the children should be raised in a communal environment very much in keeping with the ideals of communism.

In 1980 a study was competed by Watterstein & Kelly entitled "Surviving the Break-up". 60 affluent white Californian couples. They discovered that almost all 131 children experienced intense emotional disturbances at the time of the divorce/separation. However after five years, only two thirds of the children were coping reasonably well but the remainder were dissatisfied even after the parent that they were living with remarried. Watterstein & Kelly concluded by showing that 70% of children receiving some form of counselling are from broken homes. They have of course been criticised by a number of sociologists on the grounds that their sample is unrepresentative, of society, therefore it provides an inaccurate view on the effects of divorce. While the results of this study are being argued and it took place in another country it still shows that even in affluent families the effects of divorce for 33% of them are still there five years latter. I find it hard to believe that the less affluent families will find it any easier to deal with as with most things in life.

While the separation of families is a large factor in finding a possible answer one must also look at the non-married with children couples. Many sociologists argue that the increase in cohabitation is a direct result of high divorce and separation statistics. There are those people who believe that marriage put unnecessary stress on a relationship and if they love each other then they have no need to consummate the relationship. The general household survey shows the % of non-married women cohabiting, the figures say it all the last survey saw 11% of women cohabiting now 23% are. Almost 13% of 17 to 24 year olds are cohabiting and of those 7% are cohabiting with people over the are of 25. R Chester held an investigation into the figures and found that in most cases investigated, cohabitation was a temporary phase showing only around 2% of women aged between 18-49 are living and bearing children in `Consensual Unions `which may be permanent. In contrast J Chandler argues that the time couples spend cohabiting is lengthening and they appear to be choosing cohabitation as a long term alternative to marriage. She concludes by pointing out that this phenomena is nothing new. Chandler quotes research which estimates that a quarter to a third of couple lived in consensual union in Britain in the 18th century. These figures do not show how many of these consensual unions went onto be consummated. It also does not take into account unregistered weddings.

In a sense, functionalist would agree that an increase in cohabitation is a symptom of a rise in instability within families. Although a traditional approach, functionalism believes marriage to be the most effective institution that serves the purpose of transmitting social solidarity through value consensus. Dobash in 1980 did the larges study on domestic violence ever to be held in Scotland and found out that 25% of assault is family related. Does this mean that there is no assault in cohabiting couples, obviously not but, it is harder to define a consensually unified couple and therefore harder to calculate the figures.

The large amounts of statistical analysis and theory suggest to me that there is no all encompassing solution that can be drawn. All that one can say is that the family is a dynamic and since its conception in caveman times it has been changing and will continue to change with time and contemporary ideas.