The American Historical Family Concept - Article Example

The Historic Evolution of the American Family on Child-rearing and Parenting Historic Evolution of the American Family The American family system evolved historically under the colonial, developing rules to decide the custody and guardianship over a child. Any violation could snatch from parents the custody of their children. The states contributed positively by helping the poor mothers to rear and nourish their children themselves. Thus, a mechanism for modern child welfare system came into being. Judicially, the trend was set to see mother as the natural custodian of the child in cases of disputes materializing in divorces. A number of state legislations ratified this trend in case laws as well. A leading change happened in the 1970s when both father and mother were preferred to be given the joint custody of their children after their parents’ separation, thus, reversing a well-rooted tradition in favor of mothers. Non-biological parents, especially step-parents, and foster parents who assisted in bringing up the children after the cracks started appearing in the traditional family system, were put on the next ladder preference-wise. The ever-increasing community of single-parents was given all support by the state governments. The rights of biological parents once again were on the verge of secondary preference because of new technology introduced in the reproduction, separating notion, and child-upbringing (Mason, 1994). Child custody issues open a window to observe American history of varied perspectives on childhood and parenting becoming a catalyst of social change. The transforming rank of mother is one of the significant factors of social change. Considering the colonial time when custody of the children was an issue, to quote the example of the Virginia Company, children were not keen to go to the Virginia colony to work as trainees, but the English Privy Council allowed the Virginia Company to take the children to the Virginia Colony by any means and also permitted it to take any suitable action, such as imprisoning them as per the company’s convenience. Important thing to consider was that most of the children who immigrated to the New England colonies did it in their capacity as members of their families. Thus, separation from parents was although not forced, but all children were not with parents. The strength of slave children was one/fifth of the total number of children sent for slavery by the end of the eighteenth century, taken away from their parents. Children could never feel the blossoming of their childhood, as change did not occur before the nineteenth century. The relationship between the child and father in the colonial hierarchical structure got ignored before the relationship between slave and master (Mason, 1994). Common law related to custody because of divorce or death of a parent, and the condition of orphans and bastards remained the same everywhere. Colonial laws were made for the New World Experience of meeting the labor needs from adult workers, which remained unchanged till the Nineteenth century. The custodial arrangements only came into practice for those children who were not aware of the common law (Mason, 1994). Later time saw custody disputes between mother and father after divorce or separation, which was the leading custodial problem. Rights of women were non-existent; divorce was not a common happening too. In comparison to these, widowhood had its share of problems where the custody was given to the mother or to the father for a short time or awarded by court to the guardian. In the case of illegitimacy, both mother and father were sentenced by the court, besides, the fate of the illegitimate child was decided by the court (Mason, 1994). Fathers: Rights and Responsibilities Responsibilities of fathers were pre-determined to teach their children different roles of life. Fathers had right over the wages of their children below 10 years of age. They had total command over their natural legitimate kids, leaving no room for maternal impact. Actually, there existed mutuality in the father-child relationship with education and maintenance responsibilities also shared by the father for the children to be eligible for the custody. Later, these responsibilities got widened to include provision of vocational training and religious education by fathers to their children. The state practiced total supervision of fathers not to let them exploit their children by compelling them to do menial work only. Court decrees in such cases were awarded against parents and inspection officers, as once the Suffolk County Court decreed the responsibility of maltreated children to the Selectment of Braintree (Mason, 1994). In Psychology, there are three kinds of theoretical perspectives on social issues, the structural-functionalist perspective, the conflict perspective, and the symbolic interactionist perspective. Each perspective presents a range of explanations about the reasons of and possible answers for social problems (Rubington & Weinberg, 1995)). The structural-functional perspective views society as a system of inter-related components that function in unison to preserve a condition of social equality through family for rearing, nurturing, and socializing children. For example, we see the impact of social changes on children: children of single parent families and dual-earner families are increasing performing bad in their studies, as parents can’t spare time to assist them in their homework (Mooney, Knox, & Schacht, 2000, pp. 10-16). The structural-functional view to social problems is that a solution creates another related problem, such as racial discrimination in public schools. It promoted compulsory integration, which, as a result, provoked violence and enmity between communities. Functional elements impact the society positively (Mooney, Knox, & Schacht, 2000, pp. 10-16). Seeing the American historical family concept from psychological perspective, particularly child rearing and custody matters, fathers were given the leading rights and responsibilities in the family hierarchy. This focus on men in the historical past has been explained from politically traditional viewpoint by Talcott Parsons and the Frankfurt School of critical analysis, from a leftist angle. Men could fulfill social expectations by finding employment and support their families economically. If we compare men’s roles in providing their children the psychological parameters over their childhood experiences in early family ties with modern times, their getting jobs seems very important to reason their conformity to the given historical roles of becoming custodians of their children. The psycho-dynamic theories presented by Chodorow explain the emotional angle of relational problems. It seems wrong to assume that personal qualities decide the role play in society, which is a functional error (Jackson, 2007). From functional perspective, it is assumed that separate personal traits fix the role of social status, which is a functional error. It can be further explained through distribution of occupations in society. Arguments are given that motive and ability are the deciding factors in occupations for the smooth working of the social system. The job of mothering does not fit here like the job of sanitation, janitorial, and typing are not given to people of motivation and grater abilities. Such jobs are taken by people who do not qualify for better jobs. Child-rearing job has not, therefore, been transferred from men to women in modern times, as there is no competition for this job among them. Another argument proves this fallacy that rich, career-oriented and socially ranked women shift child-rearing responsibility to others (Jackson, 2007). The historical important role of father was also accepted by the Consortium in 1980 for the Study of School Needs of Children from One Parent Families, claiming that children with fathers at home tend to do better in school, are less prone to depression and are more successful in relationships. Another study on pre-school children admitted to New Orleans hospitals as psychiatric patients substantiated the crucial role of father, as “…nearly 80 percent came from fatherless homes" (Jack Block, et al., 1988 as cited in SPARC, 2011). Another research in 1984 by P. L. Adams, J. R. Milner, and N. A. Schrepf confirms that "boys who grow up in father-absent homes are more likely that those in father-present homes to have trouble establishing appropriate sex roles and gender identity." According to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Center for Health Statistics, "fatherless children are at dramatically greater risk of suicide...the absence of the father in the home affects significantly the behavior of adolescents and results in the greater use of alcohol and marijuana” (Survey on Child Health, 1993 as cited in SPARC, 2011).  U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Center for Health Statistics, states that "fatherless children are at a dramatically greater risk of drug and alcohol abuse, mental illness, suicide, poor educational performance, teen pregnancy, and criminality." Source: (Survey on Child Health, 1993 as cited in SPARC, 2011). The above outcomes prove that functional fallacies existed in assuming that women more befit the role of mothering than men as fathers. References Mason, Mary Ann. (1994). From father’s property to children’s rights: a history of child custody. University of Columbia. Retrieved from http://www.law.berkeley.edu/3160.htm Mooney, L. A., Knox, D., & Schacht, C. (2000). Understanding social problems (2nd ed.). Cincinnati, OH: Wadsworth. Retrieved from http://www.bolender.com/Dr.%20Ron/SOC1023G%20Social%20Problems/Units/Unit%201%20Thinking%20about%20Social%20Problems%20as%20a%20Sociologist/Unit%201%20Theoretical%20Perspectives.htm SPARC. (2011). Divorce and fatherhood statistics. Retrieved from http://deltabravo.net/custody/stats.php Read More