Changes and Trends in Family Structures in Britain - Essay Example

Changes and Trends in Family Structures in Britain over the past 70 Years: An Interdisciplinary Approach Introduction Family structures are important to any political economy because they produce the labour force, socio-cultural identity and religious affiliations. Historically, the family has constantly been an influential in fighting for human rights in the global, regional and local politics. It has acted as a measure against which various formulated policies and implemented by governments can be weighed. However, despite the importance portrayed above, it has been seldom when a specific family policy has found universal approval. The paper aims at discussing the various changes and trends that have been witnessed within family structures in the UK over the past 70 years, through an interdisciplinary approach. Critical approach will focus on the utility of psychological and sociological approach, both being augmented by other pertinent approaches. Family Policy in Britain: An Overview Family policy is an important entity that shows the political and ideological differences, which clearly show the prevailing basic values of any society. The continuation of humanity’s development requires a change not only at the basic family level, but also socially and nationally. An important issue in this regard has been the obligations that family members must fulfil in terms of providing each other with physical, emotional or psychological and financial support (Kamerman and Alfred 92). This is contrary to the normal channels previously used that made demands on the society and/ or the state to provide those needs. An important aspect here is the role of the UK government through the various administrations that have been founded and influenced by ideological differences to protect the family (Kamerman and Alfred 92). In British politics, the Conservative Party, which has been in power for a sometime has been able to preserve its relevance through majority representation in the British parliament. In addition, the presence of strong leadership has further endeared the party to many British citizens given the party’s link to the family unit (Kamerman and Alfred 93). Form the mid 1970s, the party has actively campaigned for the need to preserve, advance and nurture the important relationship between the state and family portraying itself as UK’s party of the family. The most important factor is that other parties have often affiliated themselves to society as representatives of cohesion, sustenance and development in regard to family and social relations, hence the presence of a rich relationship between the political ideals and social-cultural developments undertaken (Barnes, Bryson, and Smith 45). This view is informed by three critical assumptions. First, that there is only a single true and natural type of family, the ‘nucleus’ family which is composed of a father (figurehead) as the principal breadwinner, the wife and mother and their children. Accordingly, other forms of families, except elderly households are therefore regarded not only imperfect but also problematic (Barnes, Bryson, and Smith 47). Secondly, another perspective is that the family unit is a fundamental aspect of social control, which is effectively achieved through strong paternal authority and family administration. Thus, the absence of a father in a family unit has been shown to be a causal factor of different social problems primarily associated with the increased rates of juvenile delinquency. Thirdly and most importantly is the notion that the family unit as the basic building block of society is often set against the state (Goode 329). This concerns the perception that the family acts as the main form of defence against state regulation in terms of defending individual rights and freedoms against the threat posed by state-sponsored collectivism (Goode 330). Accordingly, the traditional family values are seen as foundational blocks on which reliance can be achieved in ensuring that the family units can adequately take care of their members. This mainly aims at ensuring that the next generations are nurtured and grow up on a foundation based on proper values especially the need to respect and obey appropriately exercised authority (Goode 331/ Kamerman and Alfred 93). Changes and Trends in Family Structures: An Interdisciplinary Approach To analyze the prevailing trends and changes in family structures in the UK, there is need for an interdisciplinary approach. This is based upon the fact that different contexts are responsible for the dynamism witnessed within basic family settings. This is majorly in terms of socio-economic, psychological, religious, cultural and political contexts. In terms of both psychological and sociological approaches from the 1950s onwards and especially throughout the 1980s, the customary family values were put under constant pressure. This was primarily because of the growing importance, influence and impact of the ‘feminist’ movement, which called for the empowerment of women in society. Accordingly, women (even those with young children) increasingly began to enter into the labour market. As a result, the emergence and subsequent continuation of the dual-worker family setting became a necessity economically. This affected the husband-wife relationship and also the parent-children relationship because both parents were busy with their responsibilities in formal employment (Giddens 77 / Averett, Gennetian and Peters 404). Furthermore, through empowerment of women, the presence of single-parent families grew rapidly and a growing majority of these family units became dependent upon social security. In addition, this was compounded by the presence of an increasing volume of elderly folk especially a swiftly growing population of the weak who needed specialized attention (Bumpus, Crouter and McHale 340). This is perhaps a key reason why the then Conservative government faced one of its biggest dilemmas. On the one hand, there was need to increase public provision for this growing number of society’s dependent members (especially the frail elderly and single parent families). On the other hand, the prevailing political goal was founded on the need for decreasing the collectivism agenda. This was in terms of gradually dismantling the heavily bureaucratized system present (Bumpus, Crouter and McHale 342/ Giddens 82). The thinking behind this process was that if the family units present were to effectively maintain their care-taker role, there was need to firmly encourage them to do so. As a result, counter to the government’s belief in the family unit’s autonomy, it reluctantly began developing varied intervention strategies (Averett, Gennetian and Peters 396). A distinct example of the intervention strategies was the 1991 child support legislation, which was primarily concerned with ensuring that absentee parents (especially fathers) effectively contributed to the sustenance of their offspring (Averett, Gennetian and Peters 400). This opposed to dependance on state support for their upkeep, which represented a drastic turn about in the Conservative party’s principle ideology. Thus, the most reluctant of parties to implement interventionist measures in the private arena of family life became the creator of interventionist and the most intrusive policies. This aimed at promoting and sustaining family self-reliance (Averett, Gennetian and Peters 402). Even the Labour Party, which is partly emphasized on the commitment to the customary traditional family values based on Christianity, realized the need for greater flexibility. This concerned maintenance of the traditional nuclear family, thereby increasingly embracing the diverse structural changes in family units through embracing new family forms. For a limited period of time, this focus was successful in its own way, propped against the backdrop of a growing economy, stable currency and limited need for enhancement of social policy initiatives (Barnes, Bryson, and Smith 50). However, economic turn of events resulted in major global crises that affected the local, national context and also the global economy. The domino effect of this state of affairs was that it required a change on family and social policy in reference to increased defence and circulation of established family-support and welfare-state systems (Giddens 84). An important aspect in this regard was the concentrated focus on increased social security and healthcare provision. Furthermore, there were different attempts at identifying and subsequently promoting diverse avenues vital in the reduction of tension between the often-contradictory demands of work and home for both genders (Bumpus, Crouter, and McHale 345). Under current contexts, due to the lack of a clear policy by the Conservative Party in terms of defending long-established family values, the Labour Party’s policies are enjoying greater pragmatic acceptance. This is in reference to the increased acceptance of a further complex individual, family and state relationship (Goode 331). Conclusion The increased diversity in terms of the nature of family structures and intimate relationships portrays clear evidence that there is a growing shift away from social identity that is based upon traditional family structures. The shift has been towards a more individualized, fragmented and reflective approach in the general organization of social lives. Accordingly, the diverse interference in family life and relations are inextricably connected to the prevailing socio-economic, cultural and political changes. These changes are clear characteristics of life in late modernity, post-industrial era. Accordingly, the presence of labour force profile changes shifts away from production and the gradual ascend of a consumerist society are all connected to the overall decline of the traditionalist notions of class or social identity. As a result, the traditional family structure no longer holds a dominant position, but has gradually been replaced by other forms of family structures as influenced by the presence of diverse contextual aspects. Works Cited Averett, S., Gennetian, L., and Peters, H.E. “Paternal child care and children’s development.” Journal of Population Economics, 18 (2005): 391-414. Barnes, M., Bryson, C., & Smith, R. Working atypical hours: what happens to ‘family life’? London: National Centre for Social Research, 2006. Print. Bumpus, M.F., Crouter, A.C., & McHale, S.M. “Linkages between negative work-to-family spillover and mothers’ and fathers’ knowledge of their young adolescents’ daily lives”. Journal of Early Adolescence, 2.1 (2006): 336-359. Giddens, A. Modernity and Self-Identity: Self and Society in the Late Modern Age. Polity Press, 1991. Print. Goode, W.J. The Dynamics of Modern Society, (reprint Ed.). Transaction Publishers, 2011. Print. Kamerman, Sheila and Alfred J. Kahn. Family Change and Family Policies in Great Britain, Canada, New Zealand, and the United States. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997. Print. Read More