Family in Europe - Coursework Example

 Family in Europe How and why did the political role of the family change? The political role of the family tracing back into antiquity was the concept of the household as it comprised a man with women and slaves. From this organization was ultimately born the state. As a result, the family was seen as the ultimate denominator of the political body. In many respects, the state was seen to reflect the social organization and hierarchy of the household and was expected to uphold their ideals. To rule, those in power would typically deal with the next head under him, such as the head of households, who would then deal with the household in the same way – from father to sons and wife and from these to lesser siblings and servants. This was generally expressed in terms of the father as king over the family. He was the ultimate authority who decided all things and in whose hands the welfare of all rested. However, problems at the state level began to change this dynamic. It was proven again and again that the kings did not necessarily take their paternal duties seriously, allowing many of their ‘children’ to die of disease and starvation. In order to break with these monarchs, it was necessary to break the linkage in people’s minds between the king and the father. This break, once instituted, remained and the political role of the family in terms of defining the operations of the state waned. What family functions were adopted by political states and why? The idea that the father was the king of the family led to a natural relationship between the king and the father. Viewed as a king, the King of a nation was often too abstract and distant for common people to fully understand or heed allegiance to. However, thinking of the king as the father made him instantly more accessible as his duties became clear in the minds of the populace. While peasants had very little conception of what a king was required to do in order to make the state operate efficiently, they were able to envision him as the man taking care of all the top level orders that would be necessary for the running of an efficient estate as the father normally did. This was true whether the estate was a leased cottage on farmland or a grand collection of homes and properties that each had to be maintained. This connection was reinforced by Biblical connection to the tasks laid upon Adam and the analogy between king and God in that each determined the fates of the flock of ‘children’ under him. Adam was given the rulership over all life on earth, highlighting the need for a supreme ‘decider’ while God was the ultimate father in heaven. The King, as father, was God on earth looking out for the many children of heaven that had been placed, by God himself, under the king’s care. As a result, he was seen as a benefactor to the people, the loving, sometimes distant and yet ultimately interested father, regardless of his actual inclinations, intentions or actions. As a result, for many years, bad policies had a tendency to be blamed on evil advisors rather than the king himself. This served to make the king more accepted and ultimately purchased for the state a greater leniency on the part of the people than might have otherwise been achieved. Eventually, however, enough abuse would be heaped on them from unscrupulous kings and they revolted, insisting that at a certain point, even children must be permitted to find their own way. How did the family develop into an emotional unit? It is conjectured that the family always comprised an emotional unit at least to some extent, particularly in smaller households where people were forced to live on more intimate terms with each other and depended on each other to greater degree for the daily necessities of life. However, the expression of this emotional content within the family did not start appearing in the literature available to historians today until around the beginning of the eighteenth century. Emotion was certainly involved in a man’s desperate desire to have a son to perpetuate a long family name or history, but the family as an emotional unit was something much more than this. It may have started with the veneration of family ancestors that was an unexpected natural outgrowth of the value placed on bloodline and kinship as a source of status and wealth. The children, by being named after these ancestors, were the hope for the new generation to continue the grand tradition. Both church and state took the position that the family was the training ground for children to grow up knowing the proper ways of behavior and pious acts. From this religious approach to family connection, the family as an emotional unit has evolved into something more personal as we recognize individual relationships shared with sisters and brothers as compared to parents or grandparents. Part of the process of evolving can be traced through the literature of the ages, as authors such as Shakespeare began to explore these relationships and their interactions on both the personal and political levels. More and more, people wrote about the truth of the relationships they shared with others, placing value on them for their emotive qualities rather than social connections. What socio-political theories developed to explain the role of the family in society? I do not understand what this question is referring to from the readings. In what major ways does the modern family differ from the family of the past? The modern family differs from the family of the past in many ways. The first is that the patriarchal family structure as it existed then no longer exists in the modern world today, if only because inheritance is no longer the primary means by which individuals might attain wealth. Advances in technology and medicine means that women don’t necessarily always get pregnant when they have sex, so they aren’t obligated to get married early in order to protect the family name. At the same time, they have also achieved a much higher level of equality with men meaning they can support themselves without the presence of a man if they wish. This has led to a much more fluid society in which men and women may live together without being married and without necessarily bringing condemnation on their families. This is, in large part, because of the fractured nature of the family unit through the process of urbanization. In modern times, it is more likely that the family will be divided among the generations. Children move far away from parents and raise their children from this distance. These children then also move far away and the connection to the ancestors and the family line loses its power. A much higher rate of divorce between couples has further worked to introduce divisions in the concepts of family in the modern age. As a result, it seems the idea of the family as a unit has finally broken down to feelings of connection developing mostly between the members of a single generation and only those who have been raised within a single household – i.e. grew up together regardless of the house they lived in, the parent they lived with or the location of their upbringing. Read More