Changing Household Compositions in Great Britain - Essay Example

?TMA 03 Assignment The tables show the changing household compositions in Great Britain over a period of almost 40 years, from 1971 to 2008. Whilethe first table compares the type of households, the second table examines the size in the households. There are some obvious trends in both tables, along with some links between the two which will be discussed below. In the first table, it can be seen that one person households have grown over the decades, having doubled from 1971 to 2008. However in the last decade, since 2000, the percentage of one person households has remained steady. The most marked change can be seen in the decrease in ‘no children’ families, going down at an average of 4% every ten years. However, in 2008, this type of household, at 36%, still represents the biggest cohort among all the other different types in Great Britain. The percentage of families with dependent children has stayed relatively steady; while the composition of single parent families in the overall study decreased at a relatively small change rate, over the years. This latter cohort also represents the smallest group. Other types of households, which comprise of same sex couples and civil partners, have increased from 19% to 25%. Overall, people in private households have increased over the decades from 53.4 million to 58.8 million. Let us now take a deeper look at the size of households using the second table. This table looks at the size of households based on the number of persons living in them, from 1 person up to 6 or more. This study also covers nearly 40 years from 1971 to 2008. The biggest group in these cohorts is comprised of two people households, which is related to the couples and families with no children data shown in the earlier table. Starting at 32% in 1971, this category has increased marginally to 35% in 2008. One person households have increased significantly over the decades also, going from 18% in 1971 to 29% in 2008. This single group, in fact, represents the biggest chunk in the overall increase in households that Great Britain has seen since 1971. It is interesting to note that all the other categories of households of more than two people, including households with three, four, five and more than six people, have decreased in the past decades: three people households have decreased from 19% to 16%; four people households have decreased from 17% to 13%; five people households have gown down from 8% to 5%; and households with 6 or more people have decreased from 6% to a mere 2%, maintaining its status as the smallest group. This data concludes effectively that the size of the average household in Great Britain has decreased from 2.9 persons to 2.4 persons from 1971 to 2008. The contributing factors to this change are a) the increased number of one and two person(s) households, and b) the decreased number of households with 3 or more persons. Assignment 2: Examine the argument that neighbourly relations are characterised by friendly distance. Neighbours make a very important component of societal life: how neighbours behave and interact with each other has a direct effect on the type of communities that are established; whether these communities have cordiality, understanding and generosity or aloofness and mistrust is dependent on how neighbourly relations are. This essay attempts to describe the various characteristics, components and manifestations of strong and good neighbourly relations to shed light on the question of whether these relations are best when friendly but at a distance. The word ‘neighbour’ is used to describe the person living right next door to another person; in speaking terms, neighbours includes people who reside close together on a street or residential area. A ‘neighbour’ holds an intrinsic social identity (Taylor, p. 167) and associations based on a neighbour’s role. Having good neighbours or a ‘nice neighbourhood’ is a very important characteristic of fruitful social life. However, the definition of a ‘good neighbour’ varies across cultures, countries and societies. Good neighbourly behaviour in a village in India will be very different from that in a high-end apartment building in Manhattan. In any neighbourhood, houses are clearly demarcated, ownership specified and infrastructure in place to keep the inside ongoing activities inside and the outside world clearly outside. Byford (2009, p.251) explains that the many paraphernalia of a house and the neighbourhood are in effect designed to keep the houses and the outside people separate: “any street’s infrastructure...timber fences, hedges, walls, gates, doors, locks, curtains and other structural artefacts... are designed to keep residents apart rather than bring them together”. This fundamental fact of social living argues in favour of the discussion that neighbourly relations should have a certain, minimum distance. This also sheds light on the difference between ‘community’ and ‘family’ and their rights. As mentioned at the beginning of this essay, neighbours are basic components of societies. The neighbours’ interaction with each other determines the qualities of ‘solidarity, security and proximity’ (Byford, 2009) in the community. The question that now arises is how do neighbours actually interact with each other? Byford quotes Willmott in explaining this: it is an expectation from one’s neighbour to be generally cordial and friendly, concurrently acknowledging and respecting the other’s need for privacy. In other words, this expectation has two components of a) being friendly in a general way and b) maintaining sufficient reserve and distance to respect interpersonal privacy. Neighbourly relations vary significantly with cultures. In fact, it would not be erroneous to say that neighbourly relations are directly affected by the culture of the area or city or country. In some cultures, say in the West, a respectful distance and aloofness is expected from neighbours: While one neighbour may suggest to visit one another, that does not mean a commitment or even an expectation of the visit – they were merely being neighbourly and courteous; being overly inquisitive or curious about a neighbour’s affairs is an outright intrusion and frowned upon. Conversely in other cultures, such as some in the East, enquiring after the neighbour’s business is very common and often expected. People in communities must know what kind of activities are going on behind closed doors and any attempt to hide or keep private is looked at with reproof and mistrust. The reaction to the robustness of neighbour’s children is also varied across cultures: in some cultures the neighbours’ children are treated as family children, doors and food is always open to them and tolerance for their antics is very high; in other cultures, neighbours do not have much tolerance for the high energy level of children and they are excepted to be quiet, disciplined and indoors after certain hours. Having said that, there are some general expectations from all neighbours, in all cultures: to be civil and respectful and to be helpful when needed (in case of emergencies). However, the understanding of these civic expectations is also dependent upon cultures. Byford (p.278) explains that in some situations involving many neighbours (groups of people), there is more likelihood of each person using a more distanced, mind-my-own-business approach even in case of emergencies: it is a neighbourly expectation to not meddle into other people’s personal affairs. This can and does lead to confusion and misunderstanding at times; however, there is no real solution to this issue. The most common place for the realisation or acknowledgement of neighbourly relations is not the ‘drawing room’, so to speak, of the neighbour’s house but actually the front garden or front door (Byford, p. 256), which represents the boundary separating the public life with the private. However, these relations are formed even without face-to-face meeting. Impressions are made about people without actual interaction by looking at how the garden of the house is maintained, the comings and goings (and the timing of these activities), being unwillingly able to hear private conversations and noises from inside the house (Byford 2009, p. 266) – all of these help in the creation of an image and thus placing the first foundation of neighbourly relations. The actual meeting will most likely take place at the front lawn. These first impressions can be negative or positive and will likely affect how future relations with neighbours are shaped. In either case, it is the expectation that neighbourly relations will be maintained with each other in a friendly, but distant manner, further adding in favour to the premise of this essay. Summing up, it is important to have good relations, of civility, friendship and trust with neighbours in any community and culture. Neighbours are the first persons to assist new residents and help in shaping community life. At the same time, it is important to maintain a certain respectful distance from one’s neighbour, preferably taking cues from them regarding their openness and willingness to friendship. This fosters a healthy community environment, without unwillingly intruding on another’s privacy and private life. References Byford, J. (2009) ‘Living together, living apart: the social life of the neighbourhood’, in Taylor, S., Hinchliffe, S., Clarke, J. and Bromley, S. (eds) Making Social Lives, Milton Keynes, The Open University. Taylor, S. (2009) ‘Who do we think we are? Identities in everyday life’, in Taylor, S., Hinchliffe, S., Clarke, J. and Bromley, S. (eds) Making Social Lives, Milton Keynes, The Open University. Read More