Topic 6 - Family diversity Flashcards
Postmodern society and family
Diversity and fragmentation:
Society has become more diverse with a range of lifestyles, cultures instead of one universal one.
People can ‘pick and mix’ different elements to establish their identity (e.g., Gender, sexuality, subcultures etc.)
Postmodern society and family
Rapid social change:
New technologies have dissolved barriers of time and space and transformed patterns of work and leisure.
The accelerated pace makes life more unpredictable which consequently makes family life less stable
However, individuals have more choice of relationships which means it’s no longer possible to generalise about families
Modernist Perspective
is a structural ‘top down’ approach
Family is a structure that shapes the behaviour if its members to perform functions
Individuals have limited choice of patterns of family life with patterns being orderly, structured and predictable
Postmodern Perspective
Postmodernists go much further than the Rapoport’s 5 types of diversity
Cheal (1993) Society has shifted to become chaotic and uncertain, without the structure of modernist times
Nuclear family is no longer dominant family structure. Instead family structure has come fragmented and individuals have more choice over lives (e.g. relationship, lifestyle, family etc) - Institutions are becoming too diverse to define under one label, e.g. ‘family’.
Postmodernism
Some writers argue that this greater diversity and choice brings with it both advantages and disadvantages:
It gives individuals greater freedom to plot their own life course – to choose the kind of family and personal relationships to meet their needs.
But greater freedom of choice in relationships means a greater risk of instability, since these relationships are more likely to break up.
Stacey: postmodern families
Stacey (1998) argued postmodern society has allowed women to free themselves from patriarchal oppression and live a life that meets their needs
Women rejected traditional family types for version which better suited their needs.
Divorce extended families was an example of this where families are connected by divorce instead of marriage.
Stacey provided the example of Pam Gamma who had formed a divorce extended family with Shirley who was the partner of her former husband and supported each other domestic and financially
postmodern families
Morgan (2011)
pointless to make generalisation about ‘the family’. Instead family is now whatever arrangement people choose to call their family
Individualistion thesis
Giddens (1992): Choice and equality
In recent decades the family and marriage have been transformed by greater choice and more equal relationships between men and women
This has happened because:
Contraception has allowed sex and intimacy to be the main reason for a relationship rather than reproduction
Feminism - women have greater independence, better education and better job opportunities
Giddens (1992): The pure relationship
‘The pure relationship’ - one that is based on individual choice rather than laws and norms
It exists solely to satisfy each partner’s needs
Couples stay together for love, sexual attraction or happiness, not because of a sense of duty or for the sake of children
As a result, the relationship is only likely to survive as long as both partners think it is in their interests to do so
Individuals can choose to enter and leave relationships as they see fit
Trying out different relationships become part of our self-discovery or self-identity - a way of establishing who we are
However, with this comes instability - the pure relationship is a ‘rolling contract’ that can be ended at any point by either partner
This creates more family diversity e.g. lone-parent families, step-families, single person households etc.
Giddens (1992): Same sex couples as pioneers
ame-sex couples are leading the way towards new family types and the creation of more democratic, equal relationships
This is because same-sex relationships are not influenced by tradition - in the past they were criminalised / stigmatised
Same sex couples can therefore develop relationships based on choice rather than conforming to traditional roles (as heterosexual couples traditionally had to do), since these didn’t exist
Same sex-couples can negotiate personal relationships and create family structures that suit their own needs
Supporting evidence: Western (1992) - found same-sex couples created ‘families of choice’ from friends, former lovers and biological kin
Supporting evidence: Weeks (2000) - friendship network functions like kinship networks for gay and lesbian people
individualistion thesis
Beck (1992): The Negotiated Family
We now live in a ‘risk society’ where tradition has less influence and people have more choice
We are therefore more aware of risks as making decisions involves calculating risks and rewards of different options
In the past people’s roles were fixed by tradition and strict norms dictated how they should behave
e.g. people married for life, family was patriarchal: men and women had different clear roles
The patriarchal family was oppressive and unequal, but predictable and stable - everyone know their responsibilities
However, this has been undermined by two trends:
Greater gender equality: challenging male domination - women expect equality at work and in relationships
Greater Individualism: people’s actions are influenced more by their own self-interest than obligation to others
Beck (1992): The Negotiated Family
These trends have led to a new family type replacing the patriarchal family - Beck and Beck-Gernsheim called this the ‘negotiated family’
These vary depending on the wishes and expectations of family members, who decide what is best for themselves by negotiation
They enter the relationship on an equal basis
But, it is less stable - members are free to leave if their needs are not met
This leads to greater family diversity by creating more lone-parents families, remarriages, one person households etc
Beck (1992): The Zombie Family
In today’s uncertain risk society people turn to the family in the hope of finding security
In reality, family relationships are now subject to greater risk and uncertainty that ever before
Beck therefore describes the family as a ‘zombie category’: it appears to be alive but, in reality, it is dead
People want it to be a haven of security in an unsecure world, but today’s family cannot provide this because of its own instability
strengths of postmoderism
It has highlighted some important cultural changes, particularly in the areas of the media, culture and identity and how these impact the family
It emphasizes that the construction of identity has become a more fluid and complex process and cannot be reduced to simply a response to social structural factors.
It provides insight into the most contemporary social changes, such as growing risk and uncertainty, globalization, and the growing power of the media.
It has encouraged sociologists to reflect more on some of their assumptions, how they set about their research, and the meaning of some contemporary social changes.
weaknesses of postmoderism
Marxist feminists would argue that class means that only the wealthy have choice over family relationships
Radical feminists such as Duncombe and Marsden argue that gender roles are still not negotiated and women experience a triple shift
Data from the ONS shows that the nuclear family is still the most common family structure
It exaggerates the scale of social change, such as that cultural distinction is blurred, and that there is a global culture. Cultural tastes are still strongly influenced by class, gender and ethnicity, and national cultures and identities are still strong
Postmodernism is itself a metanarrative, and if metanarratives and absolute truths are dismissed by postmodernists, then it has, in effect, dismissed itself as having anything to say that is any more valid than anything else.
Functionalists believe that negotiated roles are wrong for the individual and society - The New Right believe this could lead to welfare dependency
Modernism & the Nuclear Family
Modernism refers to the notion that society is fixed, structured, rigid & predictable. In this type of society it is suggested by perspectives such as Functionalism that the Nuclear Family ‘fits’ this structure better than other types of family structures
Parsons – there is a ‘functional fit’ between the nuclear family and society. It meets the needs of society
Other family types are inadequate, abnormal or deviant, since they are less able to perform the functions required of the family.
There is no need for family diversity
The New Right Family Diversity
Charles Murray argues that non-traditional types of families are to blame for educational failure, high crime rates, low employment, health problems & the ‘dependence culture’ i.e. dependence on welfare & benefits
Murray argues that an ‘Under-Class’ has formed which is to blame for the majority of society’s problems (Particularly poor Child rearing practices). This Under-Class is made up primarily of Lone-Parent families.
The New Right
Link to Social Policy
New Right Family Policy focuses on reducing benefits and welfare, encouraging marriage & putting pressure on fathers to work to support their families – above all they encourage traditional values & nuclear families.
Benson
Family breakdown is much higher in cohabiting couples
Couples are more stable when they are married because they have made a commitment to each other
Benson believes the government needs to encourage couples to marry through social policy
Critique of New Right Perspective:
Faminist Oakley (1997): the NR wrongly assume husbands and wives roles are fixed in biology - cross cultural studies show great variation on the roles played by women in the family
Smart (2011) argues that cohabitation is more common among poorer people, so poverty is more likely to be the factor that causes relationship breakdown, not the decision not to marry
Cereal packet family - Functionalism
he functionalist ideas about the nuclear family is often referred to as the Cereal Packet family
This is because of the way it has traditionally been used to advertise cereals.
This is an idea based on the 1950s version of the family and household, ignoring the fact that the families have changed in structure and diversity.
For example, this stereotypical view of the family does not take into account same-sex relationships.
Ann Oakley (1982) Cealreal Packet Family
described the cereal packet image of the family as one in which ‘conventional families are nuclear families composed of legally married couples, voluntarily choosing the parenthood of one or more (but not too many) children. While Feminist Barrie Thorne (1992) attacked this image for being ‘monolithic’ as it ignores diversity in family structures.
FAMILY DIVERSITY IS DETRIMENTAL TO SOCIETY
Only one correct family type – the patriarchal, nuclear family with a clear-cut division of labour between the husband and wife (instrumental and expressive).
Chester (1985): The Neo-Conventional Nuclear Family
FAMILY DIVERSITY ISN’T AS SIGNIFICANT OR AS WIDESPREAD AS PEOPLE THINK
Dominant family type is still nuclear - most people don’t choose alternative long-term
Most still aspire to the nuclear family (see it as ideal)
Chester - life cycle
- Due to our life cycle, most people will still be part of a nuclear family for a major part of their lives
Rapoport & Rapoport (1982): Five Types of Family Diversity
Rapoport & Rapoport argue that society is now a ‘Pluralistic Society’ where lifestyles & culture are diverse.
1) Organisational Diversity:
2) Cultural Diversity:
3) Social Class Diversity:
4) Life-Stage Diversity:
5) Generational Diversity:
Rappaport and Rappaport
1) Organisational Diversity:
Refers to how ‘Roles’ are organised eg. Dual worker families
Morgan (1996): Family Practices
Morgan highlights how different families have different practices depending on the attitudes, beliefs and values that individuals hold.
Rappaport and Rappaport
2) Cultural Diversity:
Different cultural, religious & ethnic groups have different family structures.
British Caribbean families: Emphasise individual choice and independence. This is reflected in low rates of marriage and high rates of lone parenthood. British-Caribbeans are less likely to live with a partner than white or Asian people and those who do have a partner are less likely to have married them.
South Asian families: Extended families are more common amongst south Asian families. Families are more often based on traditional ‘values’ such as marriage, births within marriage, women’s roles as housewives and having large numbers of children. Arranged marriages are also more common. The marriage rate among South Asian people is higher than any other group with many women being married by the age of 25. Divorce rates are low.
South Asian families tend to be larger than other families in the UK, both in terms of greater numbers of children remaining in the family home and in terms of multi-generation extended family units that incorporate older family members. It usually centres on the male side of the family with sons’ remaining in the family home when they get married along with their wife and any future children.
Rappaport and Rappaport
3) Social Class Diversity:
Different Classes = Differences in family structure, roles & child-rearing practices.
Classic extended families are more likely to be found in working class communities and privatised nuclear families in middle class.
Differences in income and wealth will also lead to different lifestyles, life chances, possibly in parenting practices and the household division of labour.
Regional diversity shows how family life differs based on geographical location. For instance, the highest proportion of over 65 year olds are found on the coast, extended families are found in older industrial areas and lone parent families are typically high in inner city areas.
Rappaport and Rappaport
4) Life-Stage Diversity:
Individuals are likely to experience living in many different family types throughout their lives
Allen and Crow (2001) point out that in contemporary societies, the traditional family life cycle and family life course have changed dramatically.
Rappaport and Rappaport
4) Life-Stage Diversity:
Hareven (1978): Life-Course Analysis
Hareven suggests that there is no point in talking about ‘fixed’ families as there is flexibility and variation throughout people’s lives. As such any one person could live in several different types of families & households throughout their lives – families are therefore ‘Ever-Changing’.
Rappaport and Rappaport
5) Generational Diversity:
Young people face growing uncertainty in their personal lives about what they should do and when they should do it.
Heath (2004) has described how young people are less likely to follow the traditional life-cycle route and instead choose alternative options.
At age 30 one in 10 men and one in 20 women are still living at home. This is referred to as ‘kippers’ (Kids living in Parents Pockets!)
Shared households of friends are also more common and there may even be a sense of greater loyalty between friends than family. This means that they are sometimes referred to as ‘families of choice.’
This exemplifies some of the alternative living arrangements that young people explore before choosing to ‘settle down’.
Budgeon (2011) cristiscims of the individualisation thesis
argues that the individualisation thesis exaggerates the amount of freedom of choice that people have. In reality, traditional norms still exist and influence our lives, including family life.
Individualisation sees people as disembedded, ‘free-floating’ individuals, whereas the personal life perspective argues that although we do have choices about personal relationships, these are made within a social context - they’re affected by the situation we’re in e.g. whether we have kids
It ignores how structural factors (e.g. class inequalities, patriarchal gender norms) limit and shape our relationship choices.
critiscms of the individiualision thesis CADGES
May notes, Giddens & Beck’s view is an ‘idealised version of a white, middle-class man’ and not everyone has same privilege as this group top make free choices about relationships.
THE CONNECTEDNESS THESIS
This is personal life alternative to the individualisation thesis
Smart argues that we are fundamentally social beings who choices are made in ‘web of connectedness’…‘where lives have become interwoven and embedded, it becomes impossible for relationships to simply end’ - this goes against the view that we are ‘free floating’ independent individuals with limitless choice
The thesis, sees us living in networks of existing relationships and interwoven personal history’s which influence our range of options and choices
Finch and Mason’s (1993) study
highlighted although individuals have some negotiation, they also embedded in connections and obligations (e.g. extended family), which restrict their freedom of choice
Findings challenge the idea of ‘pure’ relationships as families usually include more than just the couple that Gidden’s focusses on e.g. ex-couples can remain connected (e.g. through children)
ROLE OF CLASS & GENDER IN THE PERSONAL LIFE PERSPECTIVE
Gender norms usually dictate children stay with mother after divorce which may limit opportunity to form new relationships. In contrast, men are freer to form relationships & families
Men are generally better paid than women which gives them greater freedom of choice in relationships
Relative powerlessness of women and children compared to men means they lack freedom to choose so remain trapped in relationships
THE POWER OF STRUCTURES - Einasdottir (2011)
women are still expected to be heterosexual: while lesbianism now tolerated, heteronormativity (dominance of heterosexual norms) results in many lesbians not coming out as they feel it limits their relationship and lifestyle
Personal life perspective emphasises the importance of social structures in shaping the freedoms many people now have to create diversity
Thus while more freedom of choice, structures continue to play important role inequality restricting individual choice
THE POWER OF STRUCTURES
May argues that structures like class, gender and family not have disappeared (as Beck and Giddens argued) but have merely been reshaped
E.g. while women have made advances in relation to voting, divorce, employment etc, this does not mean they ‘have it all’.
