The 20th Century Relationship Revolution - Essay Example

? Case Study on the 20th Century Relationship Revolution Introduction Most conceptual frameworks regarding family structures and life in the contemporary environment largely revolve around the premise of social transformation over time. For this reason, social discussions on family life centre on, the influence of a wide scope of societal and structural variations, on personal relations. Analysis of households’ composition, coupled with examination of certain trends in familial structure, plays a significant role in following development of families from a traditional setting to the current setting. Most sociologists appear to agree on the fact that, significant familial changes have occurred over the years, as is evident from the increased diversification of living conditions. In this case, sociological analysis of the relationship revolution of the mid to late 20th century, seeks to exert emphasis on the changes that have taken place in family frameworks from the advent of industrialization up to date. For instance, unlike in the traditional setting, the modern environment reveals increased cases of divorce, single parenthood and co-existence with step-families. However, while most theories emphasize on the negative changes that have taken place, it is also imperative to recognize and demonstrate the endurance of customary family bonds among most British families. The idea that radical variations have occurred in ways that individuals associate with each other has not been examined extensively using experiential approaches. It is, therefore, hard to visualize all changes that have taken place over the years in a factual manner. All the same, familial transformation is largely examined in modern literary works on the basis of family and personal relationships, theories on factors motivating change, as well as, diverse conceptual models. This paper attempts to critically examine the transformation that has taken place in family structures and related social aspects, over the past half century, following radical societal changes like industrialization. Topic Justification Majority of early literature on sociological aspects of family life begins with the misguided assumption that, the immense gender restructuring which started in the late 1960s could, unlike other key historical social transformations, depict immediate results. Most sociology scholars at the time failed to account for the long term effects of this noteworthy transformation. I based the selection of the topic, “the relationship revolution of the 20th century”, on this insufficient analysis of social change over a long period of time. Additionally, I think this topic is crucial in sociology studies, since it covers a broad range of family dynamics, thus providing a wide base for understanding an equally diverse assortment of sociological perspectives on family life. Sociological Perspectives on the ‘relationship revolution’ of the late 20th century Based on a sociological perspective, the radical variations evident in modern personal and family relations occur, as a direct result of events in the post-industrialization era. Most family sociologists believe that, occurrences after the commencement and progression of industrializations have led to disintegration of traditional norms and values governing family ties. Further the loss of traditional family values has prompted people in modern family settings to think principally about their interests other than those of the entire family, hence bolstering a sociological concept referred to as individualization. Experts in family social life have different opinions regarding the potential impact of the resultant variations. For instance, those that adopt the pessimistic outlook tend to think that the disintegration of customary family ties culminates in the breakdown of societal morals. On the other hand, sociologists that adopt the optimistic view, tend to think that this breakdown of traditional family values paves way for better interaction. Some of the benefits used by the optimists to support their outlook include: increase in diversity, lifestyle diversification within the family framework, and better assertion of individuals’ opinions owing to their newly acquired autonomy. Overall, these benefits contribute towards democratization of family or personal relations. The complementary sociological perspectives on family changes are both charged by ideological notions, in the sense that, they both depict and support specific political stands. For example, the social change account oriented towards negativities fosters a conservative argument that advocates for renewed reverence for traditional relationship values and structures. On the other hand, the optimistic outlook appears to encourage further disintegration of traditional relationship values. This is because, this sociological perspective tends to advocate for liberalism in relationships which, in turn, is characterized by justice and equality. The optimistic view also seems to suggest that personal relations can be strictly distinct from the broader economic and political scope. There is limited space to acknowledge continuity in family life and its diverse components, owing to the dominance of the two ideology driven and contrasting sociological views (Ribbens McCarthy et al. 2003). All the same, despite the constant contention over the impact of familial ties and values disintegration, most experiential research explicitly shows that family bonds and obligations are highly instrumental in sustaining relationships (Gillies et al. 2001). There are, however, sociology theorists who argue that the degree of social transformation in society has most often been exaggerated, since plurality and diversity are features always present in relationships and this has been the case, even prior to industrialization and accompanying societal changes (Crow 2002). These discussions that contravene both extreme views of sociological change in a relationship, attempt to focus on formulating proper definitions of transformation and continuity. Theorists under this category also contend the actual implication of demographic variations, like the rise in number of co-habitation and divorce cases. Even though numerous sociology theorists insist that drastic shifts have taken place in social relations, others argue that this change occurs in a gradual and non-uniform manner, yet it has cumulative impact on the manner in which people opt to live and interact with those around them. Family Models, Relationships and Change According to McCarthy, Edwards, and Gillies, (2003, pp. 35-65), the lack of methodical analysis in regard to sociological change in families led to the emergence of absurd theories and myths discussing the same. Concepts about family relationships in the modern and pre-industrialization era vary extensively, as depicted in sociology literature. For instance, in the duration before industrialization, family kinship was perceived to be the fundamental platform for effective fulfillment of obligations, such as producing goods and services. This is an aspect largely attributable to the fact that, production and other life practices were simply meant for subsistence of relatively small families. An exemplary example of such familial interaction was demonstrated by Arensberg and Kimball’s (1968) examination of an Irish rural community. The authors clearly showed that, the structure of extended families in this farming community was based on ascribed status and patriarchal or paternal social organization. There was virtually no identifiable difference between family, economic and social functions of society. As time progressed and industrialization began, bonds between communities and extended families gradually weakened. Based on early sociology literature, the duration following industrialization was characterized by social disintegration of communities and heightened hardships. Evidently, this duration was largely characterized by pessimism. However, the functionalist theorists of this time shifted focus from the perceived disintegration, making the suggestion that, the changes brought about industrialization guaranteed a stronger nuclear family. Additionally, the changes were perceived to foster social evolution, thus suiting the contemporary industrial society. Sprey (1999, p.68) suggests that, as the economy increasingly became a separate entity from familial duties, and as the requirement for specialized and mobile workforce grew continuously nuclear families were no longer bound by extended family duties. This paved way for close-knit nuclear families capable of adapting to the needs of the gradually developing society. Following the commencement of industrialization, family relationships were no longer based on economic factors, rather relations were created to perform the crucial role of stabilizing parents and socializing children. During this era, ranging between the 1960s and 1970s relationships had their basis on distinct gender roles. The females were supposed to bear and nurture children, and at the same time carry out household chores. On the other hand, males had the responsibility of providing for the family’s needs and acting as mediators between the nuclear family unit and the outside world. As a result of the perceived isolation and re-grouping of nuclear families, family units were considered to be the perfect model for civilization, order and social cohesion. Further, a nuclear family was regarded as a framework substantiating society’s moral health. The impact of industrialization on family and community relationships not only took the direction of changed working conditions, but also sparked concerns about the moral degradation of society as a whole. Many sociologists attribute the decline in moral values (especially rampant after industrialization) to increased individualism. The concept of individualism stems from reduced familial responsibility in an individual. As such, people tend to engage in ruthless business practices for their own selfish benefits, forgetting about their close relatives. According to Beck and Beck-Gernsheim (2002) such a scenario would undoubtedly occur, since under harsh working conditions, a person would be better off alone or with limited commitments to the family unit. This image of a fragmented and isolated working class has been prevailing since the advent of industrialization. For instance, to acquire a well paying job, one has to travel far or work for long hours, thus limiting or completely diminishing the time spent with family members. However, this image of lack of unity was not universal, since some families still managed to sustain their ties. The families with the capability to maintain their bond mostly fell under the affluent category of individuals. This is because such individuals had the financial power and influence to guarantee constant meetings. However, even average working families with high susceptibility to financial constraints and geographical mobility, still managed to keep close contact with family members. This serves to show that, with commitment, families could sustain their close ties thus upholding unity and relatively healthy relationships even if they did not meet each other frequently. Studies conducted during the 1970s showed that, interaction between family members was largely selective, unlike before when relationships were general and all-encompassing. For instance, when individuals went off in search for jobs, they could still sustain a connection to the family, but with a particular individual(s). This prompted additional investigation of social connectedness within family systems. Evidently, the principal matter of concern in family relations, during the period following industrialization, was disintegration of family bonds and consequent moral decadence. Another noteworthy aspect of relationships during this progressive era involves obligatory norms and mutual dependence of individuals within certain associations. Based on analysis of sociology literary works, there seems to be a consensus that, kinship bonds were characterized by utmost dedication and closeness. On the other hand, biological bonds and marital ties principally featured association values such as trust, moral rights and responsibility. However, there is no empirical evidence affirming this disparity and neither is there an explanation, as to why there is a difference in bond strength in diverse associations. Nevertheless, the only logical and sociology based explanation for this difference in affection or commitment reciprocity, is cultural expectations. Culture largely moulds people’s perceptions and if a given community’s way of life ascribes certain level of commitment to a given relationship, then this is likely to prevail. For example, a culture may expect higher levels of interaction between members of a family, than between neighbors and friends. As mentioned earlier, the structure, function, as well as, kinship between or among people of the same or different family is ideologically driven. This perception extensively deflects attention from the family as a critical societal unit and concept. The ideological functionalist perspective fails to effectively address relationship problems encountered by families, instead justifying the ways people live as a form of adaptation to the modern society. Nevertheless, there are social changes that followed the spread of industrialization, such as the feminist evolution and their contribution to the 20th century relationship revolution is discussed in subsequent paragraphs. The most organized and understandable challenge to the family ideology surfaced in the second phase of feminist movement. This is because; at the front position of the evaluation was a huge rejection of the impression that the family compositions are in any way conventional, necessary or inevitable, and a substitute prominence on the principal role of the family in copying capitalism and patriarchy. Renowned feminist philosophers like Stivers (2002, pp. 43-51), argued that the nuclear family exists as the key site for women subordination, showing that women are usually taken for granted especially when it come to the roles that they play in the society and within the household. Some feminists, like Fevre (2000, p28), apply the Marxist psychoanalysis of family, as a significant aspect of maintaining capitalism, as well as, demonstrating the different ways that women are exploited in the family setting. Additionally, there are arguments that gender disparity in the labor section is one of the major issues, negatively affecting the relationship between men and women in the society today. While in the past there were diverse theories explaining these disparities, it is hard to establish such arguments today because women are learned and research has shown that females are even better than men in work delivery, due to their exceptional commitment. To begin with, feminist analysts have scrutinized the attention of family existence by attacking the diverse functions and roles of women in the society. The idea that, a family is supposed to be run by a man and also that men play the disciplinary functions or the head of the family has greatly changed in the present world. There are socially constructed aspects of gender in the core of family existence and power maintenance in the family. There are also arguments that, power in the family is held by the male, but this should not be the case. This means that, even though, we are different people, we should strive to maintain some level of togetherness as a family. Peaceful co-existence is a highly pertinent issue despite the fact that, it has become virtually impossible for a family to exist as a unit and for the members to feel like they have been assigned the right responsibility in the family. This lack of consensus in regard to living conditions and familial roles has undoubtedly played a vital role in increasing divorce cases and consequent social displacement of children. Another aspect that has been actualized when discussing the family is the notion of publicity and privacy, showing how the structures of the family have affected the existence of individuals in the family setting. Comprehending the existence of a family is more general especially when demonstrating the importance of this duality in comprehending the male and female sex roles. Many people have highlighted that women have been excluded from imperative public responsibilities because of their reproductive responsibilities in the private family sphere. As Gillies et al (2001, pp. 43-47) argued, the concept that a lady’s proper position is in the home is an issue that was maintained prior to industrialization and the consequent feminism evolution. This efficiently denotes the patriarchal power that men hold in both private and public spheres. The role of woman in the family has been discussed in numerous occasions and women have tried to establish that they should have a better role in the family. They need to be recognized as part of the private sphere and this would new comprehension in the Family setup. Additionally, women have been having the notion of abolishing the private sphere if they cannot be included in it. Another challenge is the inherent assumption in the functionalist theories especially the fact that a family is taken to be principal the site of harmony and well modified social interactions. By basing the analysis on the ideals of a family, it shows that values of domestic privacy have the capability to facilitate oppression, cruelty, and injustice within the family setting. Presently, the family dynamic has changed and there are numerous cases of indecency that has been depicted by the family. It is believed that the family is supposed to be a safe place for everyone but recently there have been immense cases of abuse and rape of children, as well as, domestic violence within the home domain (Stivers, 2002, pp. 69-73). This clearly shows the vulnerability of people within the nuclear family unit, which is otherwise, perceived to be safe. The most imperative aspect to consider in a family that there is freedom in a family and people tend to feel loved and this is one of the principal aspects that hold the family as a unit. The family structure has evidently, undergone fundamental changes. For instance, there is a rise in divorce rates, as well as, cohabitation and people getting children outside of marriage. This is one of the factors that have led to the downfall of the nuclear family from its former morally upright pedestal. There are also other factors that need critical evaluation and consideration, especially in an environment where everyone seems to be following their own set of rules. It is apparent that, many people have changed their ways of living thus changing entire family structures. The big changes have been experienced because many people in the society today do not have time to raise normal families. Industrialization has changed many people by making sure that they do not have enough time to spend with their families. This is what has brought about the high rates of divorces today. Consequently many people in the in the society today are more focused on their careers than family. This is why many people have decided to cohabitate or become single parents. Presently, many people have named themselves as “pro-family”. This is because people have new ways of thinking on issues pertaining to marriage, sexuality, and children rearing. This is what has made people to believe that such moral laxities are the reason why many people in the society today are more reluctant on issues especially when it come to their lifestyle. This moral laxity is leading to other unnecessary aspects and it has consequently led to an increase in crime and also the spread of HIV. This means that the family values have all changed and people are venturing to discover new ways of life which is a major issue when it comes to the dynamic life of the family. In the past, there was no need to critique the way of life or the values of a family. Women in many cases placed their life before their children fast and then their issues would be considered later. This enabled them to live peacefully for long me. However, this has changed drastically in the present life. This is because women are now putting their personal lives first these are some of the underlying factors that are destroying the family foundation. The lack of morals and responsibility in the society has led to this radical change that is being experienced by many families today. This is because it is affecting the social order that has been created for us. For instance, illegitimacy in children makes up the main aspects that of increase in crime as well as the promiscuity of young people in the society today. This is why the government has stepped up to make sure that people are protected by law since there are many issues of criminal activities that has developed because of the new ways of living that has been introduced by people who do not value the existence of family (Sprey, 1999, 667-685) Basing the issue of family from the rising rates of divorce and separation is an indication that there is a negative change in the society. However, this is not the way it appears to people but it is regarded as just a change in nature of marriage. Marriage is not being viewed like a social institution but rather a personal issue. Instead, marriages, as well as, sexual relationships are now being associated with high levels of expectations in order to show a satisfying reflection of companionate partnership the view that the family is no longer a social unit is a problem that can be attributed to the diverse problems facing people in the family today. Therefore, institutions should be formed in order to ensure that families are active and value their existence as a social entity (Cherlin, 2004, pp. 848-861.). As a result of the unconventional marriages, there is a notion that intimacy is achieved and it is not achieved by a person’s marital status. This is seen in many couples that have not undergone the right channel of marriage, this is because there is no commitment in the way they live but rather they have aspects that support their way of life. For instance, it is the belief of people that success in marriage involves understanding one another’s way of life and appreciating both the positive the negative aspects of their partners’ life. Family is an institution that should appreciate. This is because it is the only organization that is able to keep people together regardless of the fact that the people in the families are different in the way they think and act. The everyday activities in a family make up the family experience, while reframing the individual activities rather than focusing on a person’s life as a single entity. The changes being experienced in a family have also altered the basic experience of family life, sexuality, intimacy in this dynamic life Shift to Negotiated Intimacies from Social Obligations Cultural ascendancy is a factor that discloses intimacy as fueled by some theoretical advance within social sciences that was generally emphasized by the western cultural aspects. This is reflected on the fact that people have diverse experience towards life. This is evident from the fact that the principal rules or structural frameworks for heterosexual partnerships greatly changed over the years. This is attributable to the fact that many women in the society have gained great financial independence via participating labour market and also the effect of increased level of divorces and separation (Sevenhuijsen, 2002, pp. 52-63). It is also imperative to note that the sex life has really changed when based on the aspect of intimacy. Many people believe that intimacy and sexuality are connected and this is different from family. This is why people engage in intimate sexual activities but that does not mean that they are going to get marries. Marriage and sex are two diverse entities and people should try to comprehend that when a person id in love, then there is intimacy but when an individual is interested in the sexual aspect of life, there is less involvement of intimacy (Lee, 1999, p.78). Therefore, the social aspect of intimacy and marriage is changed thus showing that in life personal relationships inside and outside the family forms very different beliefs as it was in the early days. Conclusion Evident from the discussion, there are diverse theories explaining the way of life of the modern family and the transformation that this crucial unit has undergone over the years to attain its current state. The chronological analysis of changes in relationships has shown without doubt that, families suffered a major blow following drastic industrialization, even though functionalist theorists insist that it was a basis for adaptation. The principal idea conveyed is that, it is highly difficult for people with competing demands to maintain intimate relationships. This explicates why many families in contemporary Britain and elsewhere, are either separated or divorced. The worrying trend is primarily attributable to the growth of a culture, where people are more concerned about their careers and the way that society views them. Britons should realize that, when it comes to dealing with contemporary family relationships, there are many risks involved. Therefore, they should be willing to take risks and rebuild their disintegrated associations. This is because; affection and constant contact with one’s close friends or relatives is instrumental in molding an individual’s social life, as well as, that of affiliated parties like children. Close contact, starting from the very basic family unit, would translate to better societal integration and help avoid some of the modern social problems like drug abuse and bullying, especially among young individuals who feel deprived for lack of strong social bonds with loved ones. Bibliography Arensberg, C. and Kimball S.1968. Family and Community in Ireland, Harvard: Harvard University Press. Baca Zinn, M. 2000. “Feminism and Family Studies for a New Century.” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 571:42-56. Bates, I. 2002. Resisting Parental Endeavours: Exploring the Dynamics of Transmission of Cultural and Social Capital, Leeds Strand, Working Paper 5, presented to the ESRC Youth, Citizenship and Social Change Programme European Context Workshop, 7-8 March. Beck U. and Beck-Gernsheim, E.2002. Individualization, London: Sage. Cherlin, J. 2004. “The Deinstitutionalization of American Marriage.” Journal of Marriage and Family 66:848-861. Crow, G. 2002. Social Solidarities: Theories, Identities and Social Change, Buckingham: Open University Press Fevre, R. 2000. The Demoralisation of Western Culture, London: Continuum Gillies V., Ribbens McCarthy J. and Holland, J. 2001. Pulling Together, Pulling Apart: the Family Lives of Young People, London: Family Policy Studies Centre/Joseph Rowntree Foundation. A. Carling, S. Duncan and R. Edwards (eds). Analysing Families: Morality and Rationality in Policy and Practice, London: Routledge. Lavee, Y., and David C. 1991. “The Linkage between Theory and Research in Family Science.” Journal of Marriage and Family 53:361-73. Lee, G. 1999. “Comparative Perspectives.” Pp. 93-110 in Handbook of Marriage and the Family, 2nd edition, edited by M. Sussman, S. K. Steinmetz, and G W. Peterson. New York: Plenum. McCarthy, J. Edwards, R. and Gillies, V . 2003.Making Families: Moral Tales of Parenting and Step-parenting, York: sociologypress Morrow, V. 1999. ‘Conceptualising social capital in relation to the well-being of children and young people: a critical review’, Sociological Review, 47, 4, 744-765 Sevenhuijsen, S. 2002. ‘A third way? Moralities, ethics and families: an approach through the ethic of care’, in A. Carling, S. Duncan and R. Edwards (eds) Analysing Families: Morality and Rationality in Policy and Practice , London: Routledge. Sprey, J. 1999. “Family Dynamics: An Essay on Conflict and Power.” Pp. 667-685 in Handbook of Marriage and the Family, 2nd edition, edited by M. Sussman, S. K. Steinmetz, and G W. Peterson. New York: Plenum. Stivers, R. 2002. Modern Morality: Extreme Individualism as a Component of Extreme Collectivism, paper presented as the conference Demoralization: Morality, Authority and Power, Cardiff University. Waite, L. 1995. “Does Marriage Matter?” Demography 32:483-507. Weeks, J., Donovan, C. and Heaphy, B. 2001. Same Sex Intimacies: Families of Choice and Other Life Experiments, London: Routledge. Read More