On Families: Myths, Life-Span, Models, and Skolnick - Assignment Example

On Families: Myths, Life-Span, Models, and Skolnick What are some preconceptions we may hold about the significance of families and why is the family theoretically significant, according to your text?  There are four chief preconceptions we may hold about the significance of families. They are the preconception or myths of: (1) universality; (2) family harmony; (3) parental determinism; and (4) a stable past. First, the myth of universality stipulates that families all over the globe are the same regardless of race or ethnicity, place, and time. Family scholar Skolnick and Skolnick (2006) state that indeed families everywhere are “in some sense” similar, but different in many ways (e.g., family structure, social networks, etc.). Second, the myth of family harmony refers to the “two opposite types” of a theoretical family: either happy or not. This myth neglects the dark-side nature of family, not merely a deviation of the theoretical family. Third, the myth of parental determinism points to the preconception that parents profoundly influence the child’s whole being. It posits that the sort of family a child has will have “lifelong impact” to him or her (Skolnick & Skolnick, 2006). And fourth, the myth of a stable past implies that families are decaying in the progression of time. Skolnick and Skolnick (2006) note, however, that historians cannot find the “golden age” of a stable and harmonious family. The family is theoretically significant for the reason that it greatly contributes to the society’s well-being. According to Skolnick and Skolnick (2006), the family’s contributions to the larger society are the following: (1) reproduction; (2) physical maintenance; (3) social placement; (4) socialization; and (5) social control. First, the family biologically reproduces the young children for the society’s expansion or future reinforcement. The community’s population varies from its family’s average size. Second, the family maintains and develops its members’ physical appearance or robustness. It is within the family sphere that bodily nourishment is widely provided for its individual member. Third, the family is the institution that provides social placement for the community’s continued economic and social life. The values and system learned within the family become the social tool for this easy placement of a child. Fourth, the process of socialization is widely learned within the domain of the family’s function. Skolnick and Skolnick (2006) exemplify the inculcated role behavior within the family’s sphere as a “prototype for behavior” necessary for the society’s maintenance of its status quo. And fifth, the family functions as a “source of pressure” for the individual to strictly follow the social customs and expected behavior (Skolnick & Skolnick, 2006). In the process, the family becomes in itself a social institution that guides and controls the individual person’s character trait. 2. Discuss some of the impacts on the individual and on families of having a longer average lifespan.  The impacts of longer average life-span greatly vary from culture to culture; and longer average life-span or longevity is more common in remote areas of the globe. The impacts on the individual of longer average life-span are more pronounced on their role and importance within the nucleus family in particular and the community in general. According to physician Alexander Leaf, longevity is directly associated to social status and a “sense of of usefulness” (as cited in Berger, 1998). For instance, 100-year-old Galum Mohammad Shad of Pakistan continues to do community work like build houses, etc. On the other hand, companionship is an essential element to the individual for having a longer average life-span. In the Republic of Georgia, 113-year-old Selakh Butka and 101-year-old Marusya continue to enjoy in each other’s company amidst their late life. According to Pitskhelauri, one of the four characteristics commonly shared by long-lived people is the individual person’s worth and contribution within his or her family sphere (as cited in Berger, 1998). An enduring friendship also assures the individual for having a longer life-span. Old Ougula Lodara continues to live her life in the company of “younger” friends. There are two chief impacts on families for longer average life-span or longevity: (1) personality change; and (2) other relevant domains (Seltzer & Ryff, 1994). First, longevity largely shapes the personality of the family members, especially the parents. Few visible characteristics of personality trait include the efficacy, control, anxiety, masculinity (for the father and son), and femininity (for the mother and daughter). The sense of parental control varies in certain degree in the child’s growing age; also, the parent’s developing years alter the conception and practice of connecting or communicating with his or her kids (Seltzer & Ryff, 1994). Moreover, the concepts and praxis of the father’s masculinity and the mother’s femininity are fluid and ambivalent in the family’s life-span. Culture also plays an important role to this parent-child relationship with respect to longevity. And second, the impact of longevity on family domain is the relative change in the aspect of nurturance, patience, social responsibility, among other things. This implies that the length or longevity of the average life-span in the family domain has direct impact to the character and attitude of the individual member in relation to others. 3. Compare and contrast the three models (conservative, feminist, liberal) of family decline.  The three models of family pattern (i.e., traditional, feminist, and liberal) are similar in one major way: economic, social, and cultural change. These three family models are the results of the tremendous changes that systematically occurred in their time and place continuum. For instance, the emergence of the so-called traditional family pattern (also known as the Victorian model) is largely the influence or impact of the industrialization epoch to the domain of the family. The change of economic system -- from agricultural to industrial -- greatly alters the family structure in particular and the family life in general. On the other hand, the feminist family pattern is the result of the traditional family model’s “impossible to fulfill” ideal perfection (Skolnick & Skolnick, 2006). This feminist model strongly challenges the traditional or Victorian concept of femininity. Women start to assert their rights in various aspects of social and political life. However, the cultural crisis inherent in the feminist model apparently generates an emergence of the liberal family pattern. Skolnick and Skolnick (2006) note that the new model is a “more relaxed” version of the Victorian family pattern. On the other side of the scale, the three family models largely vary in one major way: perspective. First, the Victorian conception of the theoretical family is truly an ideal family model. It promotes an ideal “home-sweet-home” environment as a place of refuge amidst the cruelty of industrialization (Skolnick & Skolnick, 2006). The sheer negligence of class background, however, is a special feature of the traditional family model. Furthermore, the idea of femininity seems to be oblique within the framework of the Victorian model. On the other hand, the feminist model is entrenched, as the term implies, in the feminist worldview. In contrast to the traditional model, the feminist family pattern permits the women to study in the higher learning, to pursue career of their own choice, and to get involved in political issues (Skolnick & Skolnick, 2006). And the perspective employed in the liberal family model is the humanist viewpoint. The liberal family pattern posits that the centrality of marriage is within the facet of intimacy. Sexual intimacy is strongly celebrated in the liberal model. 4. Discuss some of the reasons Arlene Skolnik offers why marriages succeed and fail in modern society.  There are three essential factors why marriage succeeds: (1) happy couples; (2) ratio of five to one; and (3) second shift. First, successful marriage transpires when the couples are both happy in their married life. Happiness is defined as the sense of closeness, affection, and romantic relationship between husband and wife (Skolnick, 2002). Two couples who find companionship somewhat “good” will remain couples for the remainder of their lives. However, the happiness that the couples feel or experience within their marital life is not enough. Gottman states that there must be a ratio of five to one for husband and wife to remain in each other’s arms (as cited in Skolnick, 2002). This signifies that, for couples to succeed, the “good” marriage should be five times better than the marriage is bad (Skolnick, 2002). The balance between good feeling and bad feeling is significant for a happy and satisfied marital relationship. According to Hochschild, the ultimate key element for a successful and happy marital life is when the husband does his share of the “second shift” (as cited in Skolnick, 2002). Also called the marital work ethic, the husband’s willingness to accept the influence from his wife greatly affects the success or failure of marriage. Gottman’s “the four horsemen of the apocalypse” are the primary reasons why marriage fails: (1) criticism; (2) contempt; (3) defensiveness; and (4) stonewalling (as cited in Skolnick, 2002). First, Gottman’s criticism means not only the partner’s complaint over the other’s particular “wrong” doing but also his or her open denouncement against the other’s whole being. The criticism’s nature of attack is obviously too personal. Second, contempt involves the partner’s name calling, mockery, among others against the other. One or both partners explicitly insult or employ foul words against the other party during their heated argument. Third, defensiveness refers to the spouse feeling or thought of being misunderstood or mistreated; and fourth, stonewalling means that one or both couples avoid or refuse to respond to the other person’s effort to “make up” (as cited in Skolnick, 2002). It is the total avoidance or silence wherein the couples eventually end up living separate lives. References Berger, K. S. (1998). The developing person through the life span (4th ed.). New York, NY: Worth Publishers. Seltzer, M. M., & Ryff, C. D. (1994). Parenting across the life span: The normative and nonnormative cases. In D. L. Featherman, R. M. Lerner, & M. Perlmutter (Eds.), Life-span development and behavior (Vol. 12). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Skolnick, A. (2002). Grounds for marriage: Reflections and research on an institution in transition. In M. Yalom & L. L. Carstensen (Eds.), Inside the American couple: New thinking/new challenges (pp. 149-162). Berkeley, CA: University of California. Skolnick, A., & Skolnick, J. H. (2006). Family in transition (14th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Read More