Family And Households - Changing Family Patterns (topic 5) Flashcards
What is the explanation for the increase in divorce? (Changes in law)
Divorce was very difficult to obtain in 19th-century Britain, especially for women. Gradually, changes in the law have made divorce easier. There have been three kinds of change in law:
- Equalising the grounds (the legal reasons) for divorce between the sexes.
- Widening the grounds for divorce.
- Making divorce cheaper.
When the grounds were equalised for men and women in 1923, this was followed by a sharp rise in the number of divorce petitions from women. Similarly, the widening of the grounds in 1971 to irretrievable breakdown made divorce easier to obtain and produced a doubling of the divorce rate almost overnight. The introduction of legal aid for divorce cases in 1949 lowered the cost of divorcing. Divorce rates have risen with each change in the law.
Although divorce is the legal termination of a marriage, couples can and do find other solutions to the problem of unhappy marriage. These include:
- Desertion = where one partner leaves the other but the couple remain legally married.
- Legal separation = where a court separates the financial and legal affairs of the couple but where they remain married and are not free to re-marry.
- Empty shell marriage = where the couple continue to live under the same roof but remain married in name only.
What is the explanation for the increase of divorce? (Declining stigma and changing attitudes)
Stigma refers to the negative label, social disapproval or shame attached to a person, action or relationship. In the past, divorce and divorcees have been stigmatised. For example, churches tended to condemn divorce and often refused to conduct marriage services involving divorcees.
Juliet Mitchell and Jack Goody noted that an important change since the 1960s has been the rapid decline in the stigma attached to divorce.
As stigma declines and divorce becomes more socially acceptable, couples become more willing to resort to divorce as a means of solving their marital problems. In turn, the fact that divorce is now more common begins to normalise it and reduces the stigma attached to it. Rather than being seen as shameful, today it is more likely to be regarded simply as a misfortune.
What is the explanation for the increase of divorce? (Secularisation)
Secularisation refers to the decline in the influence of religion in society. Many sociologist argue that religious institutions and ideas are losing their influence and society is becoming more secular. For example, church attendance rates continue to decline. As a result of secularisation, the traditional opposition of the churches to divorce carries less weight in society and people are less likely to be influenced by religious teachings when making decisions about personal matters such as whether or not to file for divorce. At the same time, many churches have also begun to soften their views on divorce and divorcees, perhaps because they fear losing credibility with large sections of the public and with their own members.
What is the explanation for the increase of divorce? (Rising expectations of marriage).
Functionalist sociologists such as Ronald Fletcher (1966) argue that the higher expectations people place on marriage today are a major cause of rising divorce rates.
Higher expectations make couples less willing to tolerate an unhappy marriage.
This is linked to the ideology of romantic love - an idea that has become dominant over the last couple of centuries. This is the belief that marriage should be based solely on love, and that for each individual there is a Mr or Miss Right out there.
It follows that if love dies, there is no longer any justification for remaining married and every reason to divorce so as to be able to renew the search for one’s true soulmate.
In the past, by contrast, individuals often had little choice in who they married, and at a time when the family was also a unit of production, marriages were often contracted largely for economic reasons or out of duty to one’s family.
Under these circumstances, individuals were unlikely to have the high expectations about marriage as a romantic union of two souls that many couples have today. Entering marriage with lower expectations, they were therefore less likely to be dissatisfied by the absence of romance and intimacy.
Today, on the other hand, marriage is increasingly viewed not as a binding contract, but as a relationship in which individuals seek personal fulfilment, and this encourages couples to divorce if they do not find it. As Graham Allan and Graham Crow (2001) put it:
‘Love, personal commitment and intrinsic satisfaction are now seen as the cornerstones of marriage. The absence of these feelings is itself justification for ending the relationship.’
However, despite today’s high divorce rates, functionalists such as Fletcher take an optimistic view. They point to the continuing popularity of marriage. Most adults marry, and the high rate of re-marriage after divorce shows that although divorcees may have become dissatisfied with a particular partner, they have not rejected marriage as an institution.
However, feminist critics argue that this is too rosy a view.
They argue that the oppression of women within the is the main cause of marital conflict and divorce, but functionalists ignore this. Although functionalists offer an explanation of rising divorce rates, they fail to explain why it is mainly women rather than men who seek divorce.
What is the explanation for the increase of divorce? (Women’s increased financial independence)
One reason for women’s increased willingness to seek divorce is that improvements in their economic position have made them less financially dependant on their husband and therefore freer to end an unsatisfactory marriage.
- Women today are much more likely to be in paid work. The proportion of women working rose from 53% in 1971 to 72% 2020.
- Although women generally still earn less than men, equal pay and anti-discrimination laws have helped to narrow the pay gap.
- Girls greater success in education now helps them achieve better-paid jobs than previous generations.
- The availability of welfare benefits means that women no longer have to remain financially dependant on their husbands.
These developments mean that women are more likely to be able to support themselves in the event of divorce. Allan and Crow put forward a similar view. They argue that marriage is less embedded within the economic system now. There are fewer family firms and the family is no longer a unit of production, so spouses are not so dependant on each other economically.
In particular, women now have their own separate source of income from paid work. Not having a rely on their husband financially, women therefore do not have to tolerate conflict or the absence of love, and in such circumstances they are more willing to seek divorce.
What is an explanation for the increase of divorce? (Feminist explanation)
Feminists argue that married women today bear a dual burden: they are required to take on paid work in addition to performing domestic labour (housework and childcare). In the view of feminists, this has created a new source of conflict between husbands and wives, and this is leading to a higher divorce rate than in the past.
While there may have been big improvements in women’s position in the public sphere of employment, education, politics and so on, feminists argue that in the private sphere of family and personal relationships, change has been limited and slow. They argue that marriage remains patriarchal, with men benefiting from their wives triple shift of paid work, domestic work and emotion work.
Similarly, Arlie Hochschild argues that for many women, the home compares unfavourably with work. At work, women feel valued. At home men’s continuing resistance to doing housework is a source of frustration and makes marriage less stable. In addition, the fact that both partners now go out to work leave less time and energy for the emotion work needed to address the problems that arise. Both these factors may contribute to a higher divorce rate.
According to Wendy Sigle-Rushton, mothers who have a dual burden of paid work and domestic work are more likely to divorce than non-working mothers in marriages with a traditional division of labour. But where the husband of a working wife is actively involved in housework, the divorce rate is the same as for couples with a traditional division of labour.
Radical feminists such as Jesse Bernard observe that many women feel a growing dissatisfaction with patriarchal marriage. She sees the rising divorce rate, and the fact that most petitions come from women, as evidence of their growing acceptance of feminists ideas: women are becoming conscious of patriarchal oppression and more confident about rejecting it.
What is the meaning of high divorce rate?
- The new right = they see a high divorce rate as undesirable because it undermines marriage and the traditional nuclear family, which they regard as vital to social stability. In their view, a high divorce rate creates a growing underclass of welfare-dependant female lone parents who are a burden on the state and it leaves boys with out the adult male role model they need . They believe it also results in poorer health and educational outcomes for children.
- Feminists = they see a high divorce rates as desirable because it shows that women are breaking free from the oppression of the patriarchal nuclear family.
- Postmodernists and the individualisation thesis = they see a high divorce rate as showing that individuals now have the freedom to choose to end a relationship when it no longer meets their needs. They see it as a major cause of greater family diversity.
- Functionalists = they argue that a high divorce rate is not necessarily a threat to marriage as a social institution. It is simply the result of people’s higher expectations of marriage today. The high rate of re-marriage shows people’s continuing commitment to the idea of marriage.
- Interactionists = they aim to understand what divorce means to the individual. David Morgan argues that we cannot generalise about the meaning of divorce, because every individual’s interpretation of it is different.
What are the reasons for changing patterns of marriage.
- Changing attitudes to marriage = there is less pressure to marry and more freedom for individuals to choose the type of relationship they want. The quality of a couples relationship is more important legal status.
- Secularisation = all major religious organisations are in favour of marriage but as their influence declines people feel freer to choose not to marry.
- Declining stigma attached to alternatives to marriage = cohabitation, remaining single and having children outside marriage are all widely regarded as acceptable, so pregnancy doesn’t always lead to marriage.
- Changes in the position in women = with better educational and career prospects, many women are now less economically dependent on men. This gives them greater reason not to marry.
- Fear of divorce = with the rising divorce rates, some may be put off marrying because they see the increased likelihood of marriage ending in divorce.
What is cohabitation?
Cohabitation involves an unmarried couple in a sexual relationship living together. Cohabiting continues to increase while the number of marriages have been falling. More cohabiting couples with children are a fast-growing family type, 3.5 million cohabiting heterosexual couples in Britain, estimated 120,000 same-sex cohabiting couples and about a 5th of all cohabiting couples have been in one or more previous cohabitations.
Reasons for the increase in cohabitation are the result of the decline in stigma attached to sex outside of marriage. Previously around 44% of people believed it was not wrong to have a sec outside of marriage in 1989 but now in 2012 65% changed their view. Another reason is that the young are more likely to accept cohabitation, there has also been an increased amount of career opportunities for women and lastly secularisation: young people with no religion are more likely to cohabit.
Although cohabitation is increasing as marriage decreases, the relationship between the two is not clear-cut. For some couples, cohabitation is just a step on the way to getting married, whereas for others it is a permanent alternative to marriage. Chester argues that for most people, cohabitation is part of the process of getting married.
What are some sociologists arguments on chosen family for same-sex relationships?
- Jeffrey weeks argues that increased social acceptance may explain a trend towards same-sex cohabitation and stable relationships that resemble those found among heterosexuals. Weeks sees lesbians and gay men as creating families based on the idea of friendship as kinship, where friendship becomes a type of kinship network. He describes these as chosen families and argues that they offer the same security and stability as heterosexual families.
- Similarly, Kath Weston describes same-sex cohabitation as quasi-marriage and notes that many same-sex couples are now deciding to cohabit as stable partners. She contrasts this with the gay lifestyle of the 1970s, which largely rejected monogamy and conventional family life.
- Other sociologists have noted the effect on same-sex relationships of a legal framework such as civil partnerships and marriage. For example, Allan and Crow argue that, because of the absence of such a framework until recently, same-sex partners have had to negotiate their commitment and responsibilities more than married couples. This may have made same-sex relationships both more flexible and less stable than heterosexual relationship.
- Similarly, Anna Einasdottir notes that,while many gays and lesbians welcome the opportunity to have their partnerships legally recognised, others fear that it may limit the flexibility and negotiability of relationships. Rather than adopt what they see as heterosexual relationships norms, they wish their relationships to be different.
Explain Murray’s argument on lone-parents, the welfare state and poverty?
The new right Charles Murray sees the growth of lone-parent families as resulting from an over-generous welfare state providing benefits for unmarried mothers and their children. Murray argues that this has created a perverse incentive; that is, it rewards irresponsible behaviour, such as having children without being able to provide for them. The welfare state creates a dependency culture in which people assume that the state will support them and their children. For Murray, the solution is to abolish welfare benefits. This would reduce the dependency culture that encourages births outside marriage.
However, critics of new right views argue that welfare benefits are far from generous and lone-parents families are much more likely to be in poverty. Reasons for this include:
- Lack of affordable childcare prevents many lone parents from working. They are more likely to be unemployed than parents with partners.
- Inadequate welfare partners.
- Most lone parents are women, who generally earn less than men.
- Failure of fathers to pay maintenance, especially if they have formed a second family that they have to support.
Evaluate stepfamilies.
- Stepfamilies account for over 10% of all families with dependant children in Britain.
- In 85% of stepfamilies, at least one child is from the woman’s previous relationship, while in 11% there is at least one child from the man’s previous relationship. In 4% of stepfamilies there are children from both partners previous relationship.
- Elsa Ferri and Kate Smith found that stepfamilies are very similar to first families in all major respects, and that the involvement of stepparents in childcare and childrearing is a positive one. However, they found that stepfamilies are at greater risk of poverty.
- According to Graham Allan and Graham Crow, stepfamilies may face particular problems of divided loyalties and issues such as contact with the non-resident parents can cause tensions.
- Jane Ribbens McCarthy et al conclude that there is diversity among these families and so we should speak of stepfamilies plural rather than the stepfamily. Some have few tensions, while for those that do, the tensions are not so different from those in intact families.
Reasons for the patterns:
. Stepfamilies are formed when lone parents form new partnership. Thus the factors causing an increase in the number of lone parents, such as divorce and separation, are also responsible for the creation of stepfamilies.
. More children in stepfamilies are from the women’s previous relationship than the man’s because, when marriages and cohabitations break up, children are more likely to remain with their mothers.
. Stepparents are at greater risk of poverty because there are often more children and because the stepfather may also have to support children from a previous relationship.
. Some of the tensions faced by stepfamilies may be the results of a lack of clear social norms about how individuals should behave in such families.
What is Berthouds argument on ethnic differences in family patterns?
Berthoud have argued that British culture is becoming more individualistic and that this is having an impact on patterns of family life among different ethnic groups. Berthoud compared family patterns among three board ethnic groups in the late 1990s: British South Asians, Black British Caribbeans and White British.
British South Asian families had a more traditional family life than the other groups, with higher rates of marriage and low rates of cohabitation and divorce. Couples married younger and fertility rates were higher. Arranged marriage was relatively common among Sikhs and Muslims and there was little intermarriage with other ethnic groups. Bangladeshi and Pakistani wives were usually full-time homemakers. In Berthouds view, despite the differences both between and within these groups, all three were moving in the same direction: away from families based on old fashioned values and towards ones based on modern individualism, where individuals choice in personal relationships is more important than binding obligations and commitments. South Asian families are very much behind this while Caribbeans are ahead.
Black British Caribbean families had lower marriage rates than the other two groups and fertility rates similar to those of white British families. They had higher rates of loneliness parenthood, and high rates of intermarriage with other groups, especially white British partners. Among black British families there is a higher proportion of lone parents and a lower proportion of married and cohabiting couple families. Berthoud believes that in part this is a continuation of a family pattern in the Caribbean, where mother households are headed by females who relies on the support nearby female kin, including fictive kin. In these households, for most of the time no men are present.
What is Safia Mirzas argument with Black British families?
Safia Mirza argues that the higher rate of lone parents black families also reflect the high value that black women place on their independence. Black lone parents are often highly invested in their children’s education and take active steps to support their academic success, despite the challenges they face. For example, these parents may rely on strong familial or community networks, use informal educational resources or engage in advocacy to ensure their children receive better educational opportunities. Mirza points out that these mothers frequently demonstrate resilience and resourcefulness, working hard to counteract the disadvantage of single parenthood and racial inequality. In this respect, it reflects Berthouds idea that black British Caribbean families are leading the trend towards modern individualism and personal choice.
What are four studies that prove the continuation of extended families?
- Charles = the study of Swansea found, the classic three-generation family all living together under one roof is now all but extinct. The only significant exceptions she found were among the city’s Bangladeshi community.
- Willmott = However, while extended family may have declined it has not entirely disappeared. Willmott argues it continues to exist as a dispersed extended family, where relatives are geographically separated but maintain frequent contact through visits and phone calls.
- Chamberlain = the study of Caribbean families in Britain found that, despite being geographically dispersed, they continue to provide support. She describes them as multiple nuclear families with close and frequent contact between siblings, uncles, aunts and cousins, who often make a big contribution to childbearing.
- Bell = earlier research in Swansea found that both working-class and middle-class families had emotional bonds with kin and relied on them for support:
- among the middle class class, there was more financial help from father to son.
- working-class families had more frequent contact (they lived closer) and there was more domestic help from mothers to daughters.
Extended families, which include relatives beyond the immediate nuclear family, still provide vital emotional and practical support, such as childcare and financial help, despite the rise of the nuclear family model.
Working class families tend to maintain stronger ties with extended family members, while middle class families May rely more on external resources and nuclear family structure.
While extended families used to live closer together, modern families are often more geographically dispersed due to factors like work and housing. Still they maintain connections through communication and visits.
The strength of extended family networks can vary by ethnicity and culture. For example, families from South Asian or Black Caribbean backgrounds have stronger extended family ties compared to other groups.
What does beanpole family mean?
- It is extended vertically (up and down) through three or more generations: grandparents, parents and children.
- But it is not extended horizontally (sideways): it doesn’t involve aunts, uncles, cousins etc.
The result of this is because of the increased life expectancy which means there are more surviving grandparents and great-grandparents as our health care has been changed for the better. There are also smaller family sizes which means people have fewer siblings and thus fewer horizontal ties.
What is Cheals argument with obligations to relatives?
Cheap notes that where personal care for an elderly women is needed, a daughter or daughter-in-law is preferred if the husband is not available. Sons are rarely chosen as caregivers for an elderly woman. On the other hand, daughters are rarely chosen as appropriate people to provide money. But while daughters are more likely than sons to take responsibility for the care of elderly relatives, not all the daughters in a family necessarily play an equal part. As Mason found much depends in the history of the relationship, the particular obligations women feel towards their relatives, and what other responsibilities they have that would give them legitimate excuses not to be involved.
