Industrialisation and the Family - Assignment Example

?Industrialisation and the Family In studying how the family has evolved, it is useful to use the framework of economic sociology. We can define economic sociology as a sub-discipline in sociology that looks for explanations in the evolution of social roles and structures in a changing economics. Of course, not all of the explanations can be found in economics and, most likely, social structure and culture can explain the changing economics as well. However, looking for explanations in the changing economics for sociological phenomena enriches our insights and sharpens our sociological analysis. I will attempt to do just that in this work. According to Eshleman and Bulcroft (2010, p. 4), a family traditionally refers to “two or more persons related by birth, marriage, or adoption who reside together in a household.” It is a definition that “emphasizes the structural dimension of families because it focuses on the requirements for membership and spatial arrangements of members.” Simultaneously, families can also be defined “in terms of their functional significance as societal institutions” (Eshleman and Bulcroft 2010, p. 4). The function of a family can be for “procreation” or “socialisation” of children (Eshleman and Bulcroft 2010, p. 4). Social structure and power distribution in society influence how a family is defined (Eshleman and Bulcroft 2010, p. 5). How a family is defined mirrors adaptation to circumstances and is a product of cultural innovations and of a process in which “those in positions of power and privilege promote definitions that serve their interests and values” (Eshleman and Bulcroft 2010, p. 5). Eshleman and Bulcroft identified three basic types of family structure. These are the extended, modified nuclear and modified extended, and nuclear and conjugal (Eshleman and Bulcroft 2010, p. 28). The extended family counts many kin, enjoys geographic proximity, involves daily contact, manifests economic interdependence, reflects “kinship network as a model for socialisation”, and conveys a notion of “kinship as the complete source of emotional support and protection” (Eshleman and Bulcrot 2010, p. 28). The modified nuclear and modified extended family is of intermediate size, the kin are within easy visiting distance, contacts are regular, provides autonomy for families in decision making, manifests considerable exchanges of goods and services, and provides roles for kin, friends, and non-kin in the socialisation process (Eshleman and Bulcroft 2010, p. 28). The nuclear and conjugal family is small, experiences geographic isolation, is exposed to only minimal kin contact, enjoys family autonomy, displays economic self-sufficiency, usually acquires socialisation from non-kin and get emotional support and protection from non-kin (Eshleman and Bulcroft 2010, p. 28). Of the latter type are the transnational families (Eshleman and Bulcroft 2010, p. 11). Transnational families are families whose members are scattered all over the world. There is a variety of transnational families (Eshleman and Bulcroft 2010, p. 11). In particular, Eshelman and Bulcroft (2010, p. 11) identified that some of the several types of transnational families are: 1. families created by marriages between individuals from different nationalities; 2. families residing in one nation but some of whose members may be working in other parts of the globe; 3. families residing in one country but “recreating their home culture with that nation (diaspora families)”; 4. families whose members are scattered across several nations; and 5. families that regularly move across several countries. Elliot and Gray (2000, p. 7) defined a nuclear family as a “two-generation family consisting of a father and mother and their children or a single, possibly widowed, parent and his/her children.” However, besides a nuclear family, Elliot and Gray (2000, p. 7) also identified a stem family which is “a three-generation consisting of a father and mother, a married child, their spouse and their children.” A family performs several roles in society. We can identify at least four. First, it can provide the socialization that an individual requires to function well or better in society. Second, it can provide the emotional support that an individual need. Third, it can provide individuals with an identity or a sense of belonging. Fourth, a family can provide an important organisation for livelihood. As society moves from traditional economic systems and industrialize, we can identify several transformations in the role of families. It is easy to see at least four transformations. First, the family increasingly reduces its role in the socialization of family members. From having a large role in the socialization of family members in early history, families find that schools have acquired the larger role in educating the young as societies move from traditional economies into capitalism. Other organisations such as the mass media, the church, the peer groups, and training institutions also perform a role in the socialisation process. Second, in early times, families provide the emotional support that members of the family need. In the deeply industrialising economies, those that provide emotional support to the young include one’s friends and even one you newly meet such as those you met in Facebook. Third, the family also provide identity and basic affiliation for a family member. In early history, the family provides the basic identity and affiliation for individuals. However, with industrialisation and with the formation of larger units of social organisation, several other organisations are providing affiliation and identity for individuals: one ‘s club, school, or even one’s neighbourhood. Finally or fourth, traditionally, the family has continued to provide economic sustenance but with industrialization, this role has been seriously undermined. We can attribute the changing role of the family to the evolving characteristics of modern industrial production. First, as society’s needs become complex as result of commerce, production required the use of not only one but several agents of socialization. In order to standardize and create homogenous products, schools are created so education and training and can be uniform. Other agents of socialization had to be established where the workforce is and technological developments in the mass media and communications made possible for the agents of socialization to rely less on the family. Second, modern production required the development of more efficient and inexpensive communication system. This is important, for instance, in marketing as well as in organizing production on a national and worldwide basis. As industrialization proceeded to make the means of communication cheap, it created several by-products. Some of the most important by-products included the telephone, email, Facebook, and Twitter. This made possible friendships and relations over long distances. In the process of using these products, emotional support became no longer purely private and instead became public. A person can sometimes rely on his hundreds or thousands of “friends” in the networking sites for emotional support. People in the modern society can put on any networking site that he or she is sad and will most likely receive words of encouragement from many of his or her “friends”. Third, modern industrial production requires several socialisation modules and socialization organizations. This implies that a person who is the object of socialization will have several identities and affiliations. As the role of the family is reduced, the individual became less dependent on the family for his or her source of identity and affiliation. Finally or fourth, as new products and services are created, new skills or several skill sets are required and this initiated a process of reducing dependence on the family as a source of provisions, especially if the family can also align or direct the individual into a single set of skills. The following table illustrates the transformation of the role of the family from pre-industrial to industrial society. Family Role Pre-Industrial Industrial Socialisation Very Large Decreasing Emotional Support Very Large Decreasing Identity and Affiliation Large Decreasing Livelihood Almost Entirely Almost Zero As shown by the table, the role of the family seems to be decreasing as society moved into the industrial revolution. Likewise, the role of marriage in building a family has decreased in modern industrial society. Families can be created even without marriage. Decades ago, marriage was essential for a family to exist. Or at least, marriage was usually required before a family can be created. Today, marriage is no longer required for a family to be created. Beauregard et al. (2009, p. 7) pointed out this specially happens because the current definition of a family has been inadequate. Many couples are cohabiting and have not used marriage to build a family. In 2005, for example, 37% of US births were out-of-wedlock (Lundberg and Pollard 2007, p. 3). Lundberg and Pollack (2007, p. 3) identified another perspective on the family. According to the authors, another perspective on the family is that “the main purpose of marriage and families is the production and rearing of own children.” Yet, in the 2000 United States census, 11% of unmarried couples were same sex marriage (Lundberg and Pollack 2007, p. 3). In turn, unmarried couples made up 9% of all coupled households in the 2000 census (Lundberg and Pollack 2007, p. 3). In the 27 countries of the European Union, the marriage rate has decreased (UN DESA 2007, p. 16): the rate in years after 2000 was 5% lower during the late 1990s. It has been generally observed that relationships are less permanent or more temporary today than in the past. The less permanent marriage may have been promoted as industrialisation required the deployment of one or both couples overseas or in a distant city or region. Further, the opportunities created for people to meet more people as necessary for production and marketing may have created an important circumstance for a less permanent marriage. Leboutte (1998, p. 160) reported for instance that during the early phase of the industrial revolution, families tend to be extended and households tends to have multiple families (Leboutte 1998, p. 160). Hicks and Allen (1999, p. 5) identified some of the trends since the intensification of industrialisation from 1900. First, family size has fallen from 3.5 to 1.7 children (Hicks and Allen 1999, p. 5). Second, the growth rate of UK fell from 1% per year from 1901 to 1911 to about 0.26% per year from 1981 to 1991 (Hicks and Allen, 1999, p. 6). The trend towards a smaller family size and lower population growth appear to indicate the dwindling role of the family in the life of a modern person. In contrast, families in the Gulf countries where industrialisation is less pronounced continue to have extended families (Haddad 2003, 2). Kenworthy (2007, p. 580) has pointed out that family structure, particularly what gender dominates the family, can be the reason why there has been much gender inequality on wage rates. According to Kenworth (2007, p. 591), inequality is rising and that this may suggest that male dominance is becoming more deeply entrenched despite the widespread belief that the 21st century brought important advancements in the equality between genders. On the other hand, from a global perspective, the UN-DESA or the United Nations Department for Social and Economic Affairs has noted some encouraging developments. First, there have been slight increases in men’s time for caring activities (UN-DESA 2011, p. 13). Second, fertility rates have decreasing globally and this has implications for men as well as women (UN-DESA 2011, p. 13). For one, this can imply that women can work better instead of being tied down to take care of the kids. Third, the number of female-headed households has been increasing (UN-DESA 2011, p. 14). Finally or fourth, the UN DESA (2011, p. 53) identified the United Kingdom as one country in which “men generally wish to be more involved as fathers, and desire more balance between work and home life, than in the past.” More than anything else this will mean the family will be restructured further in 21st century. On the bad side, however, perhaps as an offshoot of the three developments, marital dissolution has increased (UN-DESA 2011, p. 14). Swedberg (2002, p. 240) observed that the one of the most encouraging developments in the 21st century is that the restructuring of the family also liberated the individual from the control of the family. In conclusion, this work pointed out that it is possible to understand better the evolution of institutions relative to the changing economics. In my opinion, I have done this in this work. I believe I have illustrated how industrialization influenced the evolution of the changing role and notion of the family. I believe that my discussion confirms what Maurisson (2000, p. 19) has argued on the existence of a linkage between family and work. References Beauregard, A., Ozbilgin, M. and Myrtle, P., 2009. Revisiting the social construction of family in the context work. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 24 (1), 46-65. Available, 1-40, in: http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/25220/2/Revisiting_the_social_construction_of_family_in_the_context_of_work_(LSERO_version).pdf (Accessed 24 May 2011). Borgatta, D. and Montgomery, R., 2000. Encyclopedia of Sociology. New York: Macmillan. El-Haddad, Y., 2003. Major trends affecting families in the Gulf countries. United Nations. Available in: http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/family/Publications/mtelhaddad.pdf (Accessed 24 May 2011). Elliot, S. and Gray, Alison. 2000. Family structures: A study for the New Zealand Immigration Service. New Zealand Department of Labour: Immigration Service. Eshleman, J. and Bulcroft, R., 2010. The Family. 12th ed. Pearson Higher Education. Hicks, J. and Allen, G., 1999. A century of challenge: Trends in UK statistics since 1900. Research Paper 99/111. House of Commons of the United Kingdom: Social and General Statistics Section, House of Commons Library. Kenworthy, L., 2007. Inequality and sociology. American Behavioral Scientist, 50 (5), 584-602. Leboutte, R., 1998. Family household and household dynamics: The Liegeoisie industrial area during the second half of the nineteenth century. Historical Social Research, 23 (1/2), 157-178. Lundberg, S. and Pollack, R., 2007. The American family and family economics. Available in: http://apps.olin.wustl.edu/faculty/pollak/Amer%20Family%20Final%2007.pdf (Accessed 24 May 2011). Maurisson, M., 2000. The family division of labour. Amsterdam: Institute for the Social Sciecnces. Swedberg, R., 2002. The economic sociology of capitalism. Journal of Classical Sociology, 2 (3), 227-255. UN-DESA, 2011. Men in families United Nations: Department of Economic and Social Affairs. Read More