Sociological Analysis of Families
Sociological Analysis of Families
1. Definition of family: Now and Before
Families are the foundation of all societies. They can be formed by father-mother-children combination or even more complicated combination of aunt-cousin-grand relatives along with father and mother. In the primary stage of family life in the United States everyone from every generation lived together in one or two houses. Those were the multigenerational families. After that, the idea of traditional family evolved. Married couple with children is often called traditional families. "The family is a social institution that unites people in cooperative groups to oversee the bearing and raising of children." (Macionis P.336) Family scholars Bubolz and Sontag have their own definition of family:
"We define families in an inclusive sense to be composed not only persons related by blood, marriage or adoption, but also sets of interdependent but independent persons who share some common goals, resources, and a commitment to each other over time." (Hines P.18)
As societies change, so does the family structure. Major changes such as increase in divorce, the reluctance to marry or remarry, homosexuality, escalated acceptance of cohabitation, child bearing by unmarried teenagers made it complicated to characterize families as a heterosexual married couple with children. Some people reject the on-going changes as catastrophic to family values and norms. Others observe the trend as evolutionary and progressive.
2. Family: The present trend
According to David Popenoe, the American family has been undergoing a profound and far-reaching transformation since 1960. Both family structure and family values have been changing. Marriage plays a less dominant role than it once did. The proportion of adults who have never been married rose from 15 percent to 23 percent between 1972 and 1998. The divorce rate has increased from 9.2 divorces per year per one thousand married women in 1960 to 22.6 in 1980. Divorce doubled from 17 percent in 1972 to 33 - 34 percent in 1998. Cohabitation rate is up as a result of delayed marriage. Cohabitation has become the norm for both men and women as their first form of union. Women born in 1933-1942 only 7 percent first lived with someone in cohabitation rather than in a marriage, but for women born in 1963-1974, 64 percent started off cohabiting rather than marrying. Major changes within families are-escalated number of working families, single parent families, and multigenerational families. Another substantial change that put a huge dent on the traditional family is homosexuality. Homosexuals are coming out with full force not only to be recognized as married couples, but also to form families by adopting children.
2.1. Working Families
Working families are those where one of the spouses or both spouses work full-time or part-time. In the past husband was the breadwinner to the families. But situation has been changing by the increasing number of families where both husband and wife work. More and more mothers are joining the work force. These trends are due mainly because of the escalated economical needs of families.
The number of dual earning families (both spouses work) has increased in recent years. The traditional home with an employed husband and a wife keeping house declined from 53 percent in 1972 to 21 percent in 1998. Conversely, the modern pattern of both spouses being employed swelled from 32 percent to 59 percent. In 1998, according to the U.S. Census bureau, 68% married couples were in the labor force with children under 18 years compared to 59.3 percent in 1986.
The issue of working mothers is not new. In recent decades mothers of school age and younger children have joined the labor force in increasing numbers. Women shifted their attention to employment not only to support their families but also to have taste of respect, social relationships, and self-esteem. Some women take jobs to secure themselves in a society of shakier marriages.
As more wives are outward, the nature of duties of husbands has changed. The husbands of working wives are in charge of nurturing the children or performing house chores. Although most men still do ...
This is a preview of the whole essay
The issue of working mothers is not new. In recent decades mothers of school age and younger children have joined the labor force in increasing numbers. Women shifted their attention to employment not only to support their families but also to have taste of respect, social relationships, and self-esteem. Some women take jobs to secure themselves in a society of shakier marriages.
As more wives are outward, the nature of duties of husbands has changed. The husbands of working wives are in charge of nurturing the children or performing house chores. Although most men still do less homework than their wives, that gap has dwindled in half since the 1960's. According to a census 49 percent of couples say that they share childcare equally, compared with 25 percents in 1985. According to a survey of U.S. Census Bureau, 1.9 million fathers of children younger than age 15 considered themselves as the primary caregivers.
Families in which both parents work or only the mother work has raised questions concerning negative consequences of work on their children. In some cases, researchers have found negative impact on the bond with children. But it is more likely to happen when children receive inferior care, stay extraordinarily long hours with childcare provider, and frequent changes in childcare schedule. In general, with some exceptions, employed parents are not rejecting or endorsing traditional family structure, rather, they simply yearn for a less stressful life.
2.2 Single parent Family
One of the most significant changes in family structure over the last twenty years is the increase in single parent families. Single parent families are those, which are headed by a single mother or a single father. From 1970 to 1990, the total number of single parent families with children under the age of 18 more than doubled from 3.8 million to 9.7 million. These parents are mainly either divorced or never married before. Single parent families formed by divorce, separation, and teen-aged maternity actually bring radical changes in family formation.
In recent days, the rate of divorce and separation is high. The changes are striking from the perspective of the children and who heads the households. In 1972 less than 5 percent of children under age 18 were living in a household with only one adult present. By the mid-1990's this had increased to 18-20 percent. The same study of 1972 shows that two parents in an uninterrupted marriage who were rearing 73 percent of children fell to 49 percent in 1998. Thus, the norm of the stable, two-parent family is close to becoming the exception for American children rather than the rule.
Divorce is a crisis for children. But long-term outcomes depend on the custodial parent's success in creating a stable and child-friendly environment and limiting further conflict with the non-custodial parent. It is encouraging that a lower proportion of children from divorced families are exhibiting problems than in earlier decades.
Another reason for increase in single parent families is childbearing by teen-agers-a fact referred to as 'babies having babies'. Although the rate of teenage pregnancy in the United States has been declining it remains the highest in the developed world. Birth rates for US females of 15 to 19 years old decreased sharply until 1986. But in 1996, the birth rate was 54.7 per one thousand, which is higher than the rate for 1980 but lesser than the rate of 1950. Teenaged pregnancy raised greater concern both because today's teen mothers are less likely to be married and more vulnerable to poverty.
According to Dr. Furman, a professor of psychology at the University of Denver, adolescents' lack of social skills and emotional control is the primary reason for teenagers to have sexual relations. There is less benefit and more complications in becoming Romeo and Juliet, and having babies. Teen-age relations turn out to be harmful when teenagers are already troubled and if there is more than two years age difference between partners. Dr. Ehrensaft of New York State Psychiatric Institute has advised the parents of teen-agers-"Rather than saying that's good or bad, try to help them form positive ones."
2.3 Multigenerational Families
Aging of the American population has been shifting families from three to four generational. In the early twentieth century, life expectancy in the U.S. was 47 years, and only four percent of the population was 65 of older. Nowadays, life expectancy is 76 years, and projected 20 percent people will be 65 or older by the year 2025. As a result, a generation of adults is obligated to pay attention both for their children and their aging parents.
American families find themselves spread more geographically than ever before. In the earliest stages of family life in the U.S. everyone from every generation lived together. But today adult children often live hundreds of miles away from their aging parents or grandparents. This situation is considered as the deterioration of family values. But the truth is that these older family members are left in old homes or adult care centers so that they can get proper care and service.
Despite a belief that cross-generational ties have been diminishing in recent decades, the national survey of more than 800 grandparents over the age of 50 has found that these grandparents interact with their grandchildren on a regular basis. They also considered their relationships as "very positive". Another data from the American Association of Retired Persons (AARP) shows that the grandparents who don't live in the same household with their grandchildren, 44 percent visit them once every week.
The average grand parent in the United States has five grandchildren and great grand children. Twenty-five percents of these grandparents have great grand children. There are almost 22 million families caring for aging parents and aging family members. The number of older generation is growing steadily. So the American families must be ready to take care them either at home or outside.
2.4 Homosexual Families
The debate over whether a gay or lesbian couple should be allowed to be foster parents is an example of the newest uncertainty about the definition of a family. According to the gay and lesbian activists:
"Family is not only a father and mother with traditional and sometime too conservative of values, but rather a unit of love, with one or more consenting adults regardless of gender, creed or color, providing support and unconditional love to their children with human compassion and understanding."( HRC on the internet.)
In 1950, the U.S. Senate tried to scrutinize homosexuals, so that they could be fired from government jobs. The Senate characterized homosexuals as "sex perverts." The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) that was passed in 1996 explicitly excludes same-sex couples from receiving federal protection rights and responsibilities of marriage. Despite of these rules and social obstacles, gay and lesbian movement didn't fall apart. After a phase of seeking liberation from the family, gay and lesbians are now expressing a pro-family movement. Far more gay and lesbian couples feel comfortable being out now. In 1973 the American Psychiatric Association declared that homosexuality is not an illness rather it is simply a form of sexual behavior. Second-parent adoption rights for gay partners have been granted in Vermont, Massachusetts, and New York.
Nowadays, gay and lesbian families are non-detachable part of the American society. The number of gay couples is increasing steadily. In 1990, the U.S. Census Bureau reported 145,130 total gay and lesbian families. The number of gay and lesbian families totaled 601,209 in 2000 with 304,148 male families and 297,061lesbian families. The total percentage of same sex families in the U.S.A. is 0.99 according to the 2000 census.
Sexual orientation or an individual's romantic and passionate attraction to another person is highly debated. But all arguments settle down to two major reasons: (a) sexual orientation is a product of the society, and (b) sexual orientation is a product of biology. Some sociologists also support combination of both reasons. Recent increase in homosexual families in the United States is the result of both reasons. If we recognize freedom of choice, we have to accept the present trend of adoption by homosexuals and childbearing by artificial insemination as an evolving way of family formation.
3. Reasons of changes and future trends.
The reasons for changes in family structure and motivation are very complex. An understanding of these changes and their likely future direction can be gained by looking across countries, family types, and cohorts. A comparison between the United States and other countries shows that there are many complex, alternative views of the family that exist in the world. Family changes have not been caused by moral decay, but specific demographic, economic, and social changes. Technological innovations and greater commercial opportunities have undermined community control and fostered individualism. Contemporary society often demands highly mobile groups of workers who will go where the jobs are. The desire to maximize economic opportunities and the concern for individual advancement often takes precedence over interest in extended family ties and obligations.
Although the social changes are normal, it appears to be occurring at a very fast rate. Two views on the future of the American family exist-liberal and conservative. Conservatives consider families to consist of heterosexual parents with children. According to this group, the on-going trend is detrimental to the society. They don't support families formed by the artificial insemination and by homosexuals. To them, single-parent family is not a family either. David Popenoe, a conservative, concluded that it might not be an exaggeration to say that the family is falling apart. On the other hand, liberals cheer the on-going changes up. They reject the traditional family because it perpetuates social inequality and encourages patriarchy. Liberals applaud the breakdown of the traditional family as a measure of social progress. Judith Stacey, of course a liberal, argues that traditional family is more problem than solution. She says:
"The family is not here to stay. Nor should we wish it were. On the contrary,
I believe that all democratic people, whatever their kinship preferences,
should work to hasten its demise." (Macionis P.353)
Family life in the United States will continue to change in coming years causing controversy and debate. Sociologist cannot predict the outcome of this debate, but a few coming trends can be forecasted. The divorce rate is likely to remain high. Cohabitation, single-parent families, homosexual families will increase. Economic changes will continue effecting family life. The importance of new reproductive technology will increase. Despite of these changes most people will remain happy in their very own world.
4. Last words
Changes have always inspired fears of breakdown of an established custom and nostalgia for the past. We need to realize that many of our worries should reflect how much better we want to be, not how much better we used to be. According to Arlene Skolnick,
"Social changes first goes through stages of personal distress and public conflict before social institutions can stabilize by adopting to new realities." (Macionis P.353)
Since there is no single universal family form that satisfies everybody, families must be open to revision and change. Harmful evaluations in any trend will not last long rather; it will stumble or die out. What is usually seen as a family crisis is really a larger social crisis that requires a broader social response. Today's families are troubled and having hard time responding creatively to the on-going trend but they are not falling apart. Families are in the middle of an evolution. Some changes have been good, others bad, and still others both good and bad. But given the breadth and depth of changes in family life, the changes both for the better and the worse have been disruptive. Society has had to readjust to continually evolving structures and new attitudes. It is through this process of structural and value change and adaptation to these changes that the modern, 21st century family is emerging.
Works cited
01. Mason, Skolnick, and Stephen D. Sugarman, Eds. All Our Families: New Policies for a New Century. 1998. 12 Oct. 2001 <http://www.familydiscussions.com/books/mason.htm>
02. Farrel, Betty G. Family: The Making of an Idea, an Institution, and a Controversy in American Culture. 1999. 13 Oct. 2001 <http://www.familydiscussions.com/books/farrel.htm>
03. Ginzler, Elinor. "The American Family". Department of States, International Information Systems 12 Oct. 2001 <http://www.usinfo.state.gov/journals/itsv/0101/ijse/gingler.htm>
04. Dizard and Howard Galdin. The Immergence of The Modern Family.
12 Oct. 2001. < http://www.familydiscussions.com/books/dizard.htm >
05. Kirby, Jacquiline. Single Parent Families in Poverty. 18 Oct. 2001
<http://hec.ohio-state.edu/famlife/bulletin/volume.1/bullart1.htm>
06. "Census 2000 PHC-T-17." U.S. Census Bureau. 7 Sept. 2001. 25 Oct. 2001.
< http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2000/doc/sft.pdf >
07. Smith and Gary J. Gates. Gay and Lesbian families in the United States: Same
Sex Unmarried Partner Household. August 22. 200. Oct. 24. 2001.
< http://www.hrc.org/familynet/chapter.asp?article=341 >
08. "States with anti-gay marriage laws." Human Rights Campaign." Sep 26. 2001.
< http://www.hrc.org/familynet/chapter.asp?article=195 >
Macionis, John J. Society: The Basics. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall. 2001.
09. Hildebrand, Phince, Gary, Rebecca Hines. Knowing and Serving Diverse
Families. Ohio: Prentice-Hall.1996.
0. Gallagher, Winifred. "Young Love: The Good, the Bad and the Educational."
The New York Times 13 November 2001: F6
1. Holcomb, Betty. "Yes, Families Are Changing-For the Better." Between Worlds:
A Reader, Rhetoric, and Handbook. 3rded. Susan Bachman and Melinda Barth.
New York: Longman, 2001. 80-87
