Recent Tendencies in Defining a Concept of Family - Literature review Example

Today, people the world over are clamoring for freedom – freedom from bondages, from parents, from spouses, freedom from mundane life of caring for children and family. These inner frustrations have brought about important changes in the structure and definition of family. Over the last few decades trends and values have changed due to a wide range of family issues - gender inequality, lifestyle changes, marriages, divorce, childlessness, premarital sex, extramarital sex, committed relationships, and out of wedlock mothers (Thornton & Young-DeMarco, 2001). These have led to a shift from traditional families to non-traditional families. Non-traditional families include same-sex parents, single parents, and committed relationships without marriage or unwed mothers. Within the framework of single parents, single motherhood could be produced through divorce or widowhood. The concept of parenthood, relationships and marriage has already undergone a change driven by the advent of non-traditional families. This paper holds the premise that the care, endurance and intimacy in traditional families cannot be found in non-traditional families. This necessitates a definition of ‘family’. A standard text defines family as “a relatively stable group related by descent, marriage or adoption who live together with a view to procreation”, and which can occur in a variety of forms and have various functions (Ishwaran: 1992 cited by Belle n.d.). A family does not comprise of the parents alone. Parenting is received from the grandparents, unless and aunts, from community and Church elders and from siblings. Making a family involves the process of creating and sustaining close relationships that in turn nurture and support all the members. Traditionally family consisted of various extended family forms and the nuclear family has emerged only due to industrialization and modernization. Family was then seen as a unit with existence and values beyond the sum of its members. Family structure started declining in the latter part of the 20th century which led to moral collapse and social crisis. This was because of fewer social functions, less stability and power. There was an emphasis on self-determination and egalitarianism which encouraged women to pursue other goals rather than just take care of the family. Margrit Eichler (1986) describes a family as “a social group which may or may not include adults of both sexes, may or may not include children, may or may not involve marriage, and may or may not live together or have sex” (cited by Belle). This definition advocates gender equality where everyone is responsible for themselves and for their dependents. This implied an end to the privilege of marriage and other enduring forms of family. This gives more importance to the individual rather than the household unit. Traditionally women have played the expressive and moral guardian role while men have played the function of the breadwinner and a disciplinarian. The division of labor by sex is a sign of gender inequality. This inequality has increased with reduction of the male-dominated work force in USA. Women now comprise of an increasing share of the paid labor force. The public support for women being responsible for childcare, care of the home and the men, is no longer acceptable. This attitude change took place between 1977 and 1985 (Brewster & Padavic, 2000). Women are clamoring for equality and this could change the concept of sexual division of labor (Mahony, 1997). Men are already doing half the unpaid work at home which translates into men staying at home when children are sick. This could result in high rates of divorce in such non-traditional families and the children could be most affected. Research however suggests that divorce would be less harmful for children because the trauma and frustration that precedes the divorce is more taxing and stressful. Prolonged exposure to conflict can be distressing and frightening for children and can have both short and long term negative effects on self-esteem and educational achievement (Biblarz & Gottainer, 2000). It is further exacted that a single, bread-winning mother (after divorce) will be more emotionally attached to the child. The child is more likely to feel emotionally secure with a single parent than living with two parents who are mentally and emotionally divorced. Divorce rate in US doubled between 1965 and 1980 and evidence suggests that children brought up in single-parent households had lower levels of psychological well being and socioeconomic achievement than those raised by two biological parents (Biblarz & Gottainer, 2000). With two parents, children learn about structure of authority relations and how to interact with authority figures. When that structure is removed children will not learn to respect and deal with power holders and they miss out on important lessons in life. In the first half of the 20th century most families were headed by single mothers – either through divorce or through widowhood. Family values started declining and it was a debatable issue whether single motherhood through divorce had more negative consequences for the children or single motherhood through widowhood. Children raised in single-mother families through divorce have a lower average level of happiness and education than the children brought up in single-mother families through widowhood (Biblarz & Gottainer, 2000). According to Hetherington (1993), a recent study indicates that the absence of father or presence of stepfather in divorced or remarried families lead to early physical maturity (cited by Bogenschneider et al.,) and the children start showing behavior problems. It also affects their adult life as the emotions suppressed in childhood are very likely to emerge and disturb their adult life. Sex and spirituality are becoming a private affair to many and marriage does not necessarily require God’s blessing or approval. The US constitution on marriages is likely to be changed with 50% of the people in support of same-sex relationships (Grossman, 2003). The basis of the American ideal of human rights is that you cannot deny people their rights unless there is a compelling reason to deny them this right. Hence, there is no compelling reason not to allow gay people to get married or lead the kind of life they wish to live. Those in support of gay marriages argue that there is no written law that marriage has to take place between a man and a woman. Molesters, murderers, and convicts are freely allowed to get married and procreate and no questions are raised on the environment that their children would be subjected to. If children are the priority then this should be immediately stopped. Besides, isn’t there ample proof of children going astray in heterosexual marriages? It is the love and commitment of the parents that is important, not the gender. They are seeking affirmation of their family status – both legally and socially. They argue their stand saying that if procreation is the ultimate purpose of marriage then all couples she be tested for fertility for marriage. These arguments demonstrate that people are opting for non-traditional family structure and only time will reveal how successful such relationships are as gay marriages are fairly recent and yet to be studied. Today people are looking for soul mates and do not prefer to be tied by the boundaries of a marriage. It is emotionally satisfying but it puts additional demands and expectations on time but there is no financial security in such relationships. It is a challenge to balance such relationships for the rest of the life. In such committed relationships endurance is often low as one has the option to walk out of it any time (Bellafiore, 1998). In the late 1990s in the US 23% of all couples less than 25 years old who were living together were unmarried (Martin & Kats, 2003). This is known as consensual union or cohabiting. Relationships mature over a time, expectations change and then the commitment can be a burden. The initial attraction is usually physical and dies after some time. Two people who come together in an emotional relationship carry with them their own fears, anxieties and unresolved problems. Human beings by nature are unable to accept their own problem which makes it difficult to accept others’ problems. It becomes natural to find the source of anxiety as lying within the other person. This leads to conflicts in relationships as there is no commitment to adjust and accept as in a marriage. It is essential to hold on to a relationship while sharing life with a partner. Living together or a committed relationship does not constitute a family and children in such families have high risk of behavioral problems. In the US part-time employment by women is not preferred because of the pay differentials. Secondly, part-time employers are less likely to offer health insurance as a fringe benefit (Martin & Kats, 2003). In the US the state encourages families to seek market-based solutions to work-family conflict. The state does not subsidize women to drop out of workforce and nor is the care-giving subsidized for working mothers. Social support is extended only to the impoverished families. The US has a low level of political commitment to the well being of the family. Fifty-nine percent of the women with children under one year are employed. Fifty five percent of families put their children under non-parental care. The US does not have any system of child care. Single-mother families face a high risk of poverty which can also be attributed to the fact that only full-time homemakers who are residents of California, Louisiana or New Mexico are entitled to half the family’s assets in divorce (Henneck, 2003). Race, ethnic and cultural affiliations, family structures and income are the contexts within which the youth live and which influence their behavior (Blum, Beuhring & Rinehart, 2000). There is a high degree of inter-relationship among race, income and family structure. Those living in single-parent home are more likely to be poor. Nearly two-thirds of adolescents in the lowest income group come from single-parent families while only 6.4% of those in the upper income group come from come from single-parent homes. Children of color are more likely to be poor than the children of whites. Studies suggest that teens from single-parent homes are at increased risk of smoking cigarettes or consuming alcohol irrespective of grade, gender and income. Even suicidal attempts and thoughts are more common among the teens in single-parent families. Youth in single-parent families are less likely to have had intercourse than two-parent families. Again, those from wealthier families are less likely to have intercourse than the poor families. Peer influence has been found to be a strong determinant of smoking and alcohol abuse among the adolescents. Black teens reported drinking less than the whites or the Hispanics which could be attributed to the fact that in the low income black community, social relationships and kinship networks are important (Belle, n.d.). When young people are close to their parents they are less likely to be influenced by peer behavior on indulge in drinking or smoking. When support of parents and family is provided, the teens benefit immensely – in education, in emotional balance and in general conduct. While the concept of family, relationships and marriage have undergone a tremendous change, but the fact that a family with two parents and/or extended family forms alone can provide the care, endurance and intimacy has not changed. Single-parent families are likely to be poorer than two parent families. Unwed mothers cannot provide the emotional and financial support while in a consensual union, the partners themselves are unstable. Adolescence is the time when children tend to go astray and parents have to be personally and psychologically available to their children. The parents and families have to be involved in the lives of the children. It has been proved that youth from single-parent families are more likely to have behavioral problems than from a traditional family. Income level also matters and since the blacks have string family ties, the black youth are less likely to resort to smoking and drinking than the Hispanics and the Whites. Same-sex relationships has only recently been legalized and it is yet to be seen how such relationships thrive and the outcome of children brought up in such families is yet to be know. The state support in the US is lacking which forces women to look beyond the home for employment and which is the root cause of the disturbed traditional family structure. References: Bella, L., (n.d.), Re-Conceptualising Family, 13 July 2007 Bellafiore, D., (1998), Enhancing Your Emotionally Committed Relationship, 13 July 2007 Biblarz, T. J., & Gottainer, G., (2000), Family Structure and Children’s Success: A Comparison of Widowed and Divorced Single-Mother Families, Journal of Marriage and the Family 62 (May 2000): 533–548 Bogenschneider, K., Kaplan, T. & Morgan, K. (1993). Single parenthood and childrens well- being. (Wisconsin Family Impact Seminar Briefing Report No. 2, 50 pages). Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Center for Excellence in Family Studies, Blum, R.W., Beuhring,T., Rinehart, P.M., (2000). Protecting teens: Beyond race, income and family structure, Center For Adolescent Health, 13 July 2007 Brewster, K. L., & Padavic, I., (2000), Change in Gender-Ideology, 1977–1996: The Contributions of Intracohort Change and Population Turnover, Journal of Marriage and the Family 62 (May 2000): 477–487 Grossman L Cathy (2003), Public opinion is divided on gay marriages, 13 July 2007 Henneck, R., (2003), Family Policy in the US, Japan, Germany, Italy and France: Parental Leave, Child Benefits/Family Allowances, Child Care, Marriage/Cohabitation, and Divorce, Council on temporary families, 13 July 2007 Mahony, R., (1997), Divorce, nontraditional families, and its consequences for children, 13 July 2007 Thornton, A., & Young-DeMarco, L., (2001), Four Decades of Trends in Attitudes Toward Family Issues in the United States: The 1960s Through the 1990s, Journal of Marriage and Family 63 (November 2001): 1009–1037 Read More