The Family as the Fundamental Unit in a Contemporary Society - Coursework Example

THE FAMILY AS THE FUNDAMENTAL UNIT IN A CONTEMPORARY SOCIETY Introduction The family is illustrated as the fundamental unit in the society which consists of a father, a mother and their children. It also provides the foundation for the development of the character and personality of an individual. The family usually is basically accountable for what the person is or what he or she has become. This paper endeavours to explore the concepts regarding the family and its role in the contemporary society. There are a wide array of concepts pertaining to the family, it is but fitting that to understand the family and its role in the contemporary society, one must first gain understanding of its definition, types and other significant terms associated with it. Definitions of Family Different meanings have been provided by a variety of authors regarding what a family is; hence, this paper will unleash the diverse definitions of family according to the perspective of different authors. A family as defined by Corbett (2004) is a unit of people connected by genealogical links most basically and ideally consisting of a father and mother with their children, or in a means which morally and legally replicates these natural genealogical associations such as through adoption. On the contrary, Newman (2008) described the family as the most structured and culturally valued intimate relationship, which is simultaneously a public and private institution (p. 215). Moreover, Newman (2008) also portrayed the family as a unit encompassing two or more persons, including the householder, who are linked by birth, marriage, or adoption, and who live together as one household (p. 216). A family remains as the basic social unit as given emphasis by Potts and Mandleco (2012, p. 58). The legal definition of a family highlights relationships through blood ties, adoption, guardianship or marriage (Potts & Mandleco, 2012, p. 58). However, the biological definition concentrates on perpetuating the species; on the other hand, sociologists simply define the family as a group of people living together whereas, psychologists describe a family as a group with strong emotional ties (Potts & Mandleco, 2012). The definition of a family for Hammersmith and Stewart (2003) is basically made up of people who love and take care of each other (p. 4). Types of Family The several categories of a family depend on a variety of factors. Many types or structures of families exist, structures change over time as they are affected by birth, work, death, divorce and the growth of family members (Pillitteri, 2009, p. 41). To gain further insight of the term family, the different types of family especially those present in the contemporary society will be tackled in this paper. Dyad Family A dyad family as illustrated by Pillitteri (2009) involves two people living together, usually a woman and a man, without children. An example of this family structure is newly married couples; this type of family also pertains to single young same sex adults who live together as a dyad in shared apartments, dormitories or homes for companionship and financial security while completing school or beginning their careers (Pillitteri, 2009, p. 41). Moreover, this form of family structure is frequently perceived as temporary arrangements, but if the couple chooses a child-free living, this can also be a lifetime arrangement (Pillitteri, 2009). Nuclear Family Nuclear family was first coined to depict the average family which consists of a mother, father and 2.5 children (Corbett, 2004, p. 2). On the other hand, Newman (2008) described a nuclear family as a family unit consisting of at least one parent and one child (p. 216). An advantage of this type of family structure is its capability to provide support to family members, because of its small size; furthermore, people know each other well and can feel genuine affection for each other (Pillitteri, 2009, p. 42). Couple Family This type of family is based on two persons who are in a registered or de facto marriage and who are typically resident in the same household (Corbett, 2004, p. 8). Moreover, this kind of family can encompass of a couple without children present in the household (Corbett, 2004, p. 8). Couple-only Family A couple with no dependent children or other family members such as non-dependent children is present (Corbett, 2004, p. 8). Extended Family or Multi-generational Family This type of family unit consists of the parent-child nuclear family and other relatives such as grandparents, aunts, uncles or cousins (Newman, 2008, p. 216). An advantage of such family as cited by Pillitteri (2009) is that it encompasses more people to serve as resources during crises and provides more role models for behaviour or values. On the contrary, it was also stressed that a probable disadvantage of an extended family is that family resources, both financial and psychological, must be stretched to accommodate all members and usually there is only one main income provider and that can strain the familys resources (Pillitteri, 2009, p. 42). The Cohabitation Family Cohabitation families as portrayed by Pillitteri (2009) are composed of heterosexual couples, and perhaps children, who live together but remain unmarried (p. 41). This type of relationship is believed to be temporary though it may also be long-lasting and as meaningful as a more traditional alliance; many couples choose cohabitation as a means of getting to know a potential life partner better before marriage as it seems as if this might eventually make their marriage and their bond stronger (Pillitteri, 2009). The said arrangement frequently have higher divorce rates probably because of the fact that couples enter in union without the sense of real commitment in contrast with the union bonded by marriage; however, it is supposed that this form of arrangement when effective provides psychological comfort and financial security comparable to marriage (Pillitteri, 2009). The Polygamous Family Polygamy as stressed by Pillitteri (2009) is the marriage between one man and several wives. Therefore, a polygamous family can be illustrated as one man with his wives and their children; this type is usually illegal in the United States of America since 1978 and is rarely seen today, though such type is typical in other countries worldwide (Pillitteri, 2009). This family structure usually occurs in nations where women have low social status or are not valued for their individual talents; moreover, this form may be attractive for men as it provides sexual variety (Pillitteri, 2009, p. 42). This may also serve as the mark of a wealthy man for wife costs money; furthermore, with more than one wife having children, the likelihood of producing a male heir has greater chances (Pillitteri, 2009). On the contrary, this type of family is also perceived to provide women with several benefits. Women are able to have fewer children than if they were a lone wife; hence, it lowers their chance of dying in childbirth which is a common concern in nation where prenatal care is not considered a national priority (Pillitteri, 2009, p. 42). Subsequently, problems that can arise with this type of family structure are jealousy and rivalry between wives as a result of perceived favouritism (Pillitteri, 2009). The Single-Parent Family This type of family as the name implies is headed by a single parent. Low income is often a predicament encountered in this kind of family structure for the reason that in most cases, the parent is usually a woman (Pillitteri, 2009). Furthermore, single parents may also experience difficulty with role modelling or clearly determining their role in the family for the reason that they must function duplicate roles such as financial support as well as child care (Pillitteri, 2009, p. 42). In an attempt to play several roles, the single parent may feel not only physically but also mentally exhausted aside from the fact that such part is time-consuming; moreover, the single parent may also develop low self-esteem if things are not going well as what is perceived or planned (Pillitteri, 2009). Single-parent families have a special strength in that such a family can offer the child a special-parent child relationship and increased opportunities for self-reliance and independence as given emphasis by Pillitteri (2009, p. 42). The Blended Family In a blended family, or a remarriage or reconstituted family, a divorced or widowed person with children marries someone who also has children as depicted by Pillitteri (2009). The advantages of blended families include increased security and resources for the new family; another benefit is that the children of blended families are exposed to different customs or culture and may become more adaptable to new situations (Pillitteri, 2009, p. 42). However, a negative impact of this type of family is usually encountered with child-rearing for the reason that rivalry among the children may arise in an attempt to get the attention of a parent as stressed by Pillitteri (2009). Moreover, each spouse may also be confronted with difficulties in rearing the children of the other spouse; consequently, there may be times that the parent and the children of the other parent may not get along well for the reason that the children may still not accept that they already have a step-parent, also stories of evil step-parents may also add to the childrens belief of indifference (Pillitteri, 2009). Another point highlighted by Pillitteri (2009) is that although blended families most of the time lessen financial difficulties, finances can also be severely limited, specifically if one or both parents are obligated to provide financial assistance for his or her children from the previous marriage and at the same time, shouldering the resources and expenses of the children of the current marriage (p. 43). Consequently, if there are economic differences between the biologic parents, a variety of conflicts and distorted expectations are also more likely to transpire according to Pillitteri (2009). The Communal Family Communes as defined by Pillitteri (2009) are formed by groups of people who choose to live together as an extended family in which their relationship to each other is motivated by social or religious values rather than kinship (p. 43). In addition, the values of the members of this type of family structure may be more geared toward freedom and free choice rather than those of a traditional family according to Pillitteri (2009). Some communes may also be labelled as cults or composed of a group of people who follow charismatic leader; such unit may be appealing to teenagers for the reason that they are still seeking for a culture with its values that they will adopt in the future when they grow up and mature (Pillitteri, 2009). The Gay or Lesbian Family In homosexual unions, individuals of the same sex live together as partners for companionship, financial security and sexual fulfilment; it also provide support in times of crisis similar to that rendered by a nuclear or cohabitation family (Pillitteri, 2009). Some gay and lesbian families may consist of children from previous heterosexual marriages or through the utilization of artificial insemination, adoption or surrogate motherhood as added by Pillitteri (2009). The Foster Family There is also a type of family at present that supports children who can no longer be supported by their biological parents; the child is usually assigned to this family type by a child protection agency (Pillitteri, 2009). Foster parents may or may not have children of their own; moreover, they are usually paid in remuneration by the agency to take care of the child, such set-up also may deemed temporary until the children can return to their original home (Pillitteri, 2009). However, in such cases, the children may feel emotional difficulties from being removed from their original home or a sense of insecurity if they are continuously transferred from one family to another (Pillitteri, 2009). The Adoptive Family Many types of families adopt children today especially if they cannot have a child of their own; but such set-up may confront not only the parents but also the children of a variety of challenges (Pillitteri, 2009). The Family Today Family ideology ensures that certain parts of everyday family life are viewed in a certain way and that other elements of family lives are not seen at all (Cheal, 2008, p. 5). Ideologies gloss over the diversity, complexity and contradictions in relationships in favour of a unified construct of how the world is thought to work (Cheal, 2008, p. 5). One of the ideologies guiding the perspective of what the family is today is the ideology regarding the nuclear family, this approach defines that the nuclear family as the natural basis for family life (Cheal, 2008, p. 5). Furthermore, it supposes that the nuclear family is a universal social institution that is the basic unit of society, and it recommends policies that encourage formation of nuclear families (Cheal, 2008). The modern nuclear family with a specific sexual division of labour is elevated as the legitimate family form (Cheal, 2008). A variety of definitions have been provided in an attempt to describe the family. From the past, the family has always been the fundamental unit in a society. At present, the family still holds the same connotation or meaning that describes the role of the family in the contemporary society. The family has always been where the basis of an individuals culture and values take its root. In the past, there may only be the traditional types of a family such as the nuclear family and the extended family but it is apparent that as previously discussed, there are now several types of family based on a wide array of factors. Previously, the typical family is viewed as composed of a mother, father and their children but now the family can be a group of people that live together and build a relationship with each other regardless whether they are bonded by blood or share the same DNA. The family is a unit that aids an individual in developing his or her values as a person which he or she can further utilize in facing the challenges posed by life. The concept of home as we know it in Western societies has not always existed, and the close identification of family with home is a relatively recent phenomenon (Cheal, 2008). In Europe and America it came into existence between the end of the eighteenth century and the middle of the nineteenth century, during a period of considerable change in family life (Cheal, 2008, p. 17). The development of the concept of home was closely associated to the development of the family as a private, emotional unit (Cheal, 2008). By the middle of the nineteenth century, the home had emerged as a physical and symbolic space different from other spaces; it was a place for private retreat and the cultivation of nuclear family relationships (Cheal, 2008). In the pre-industrial household, many activities including work activities were carried out in the domestic dwelling, and households often contained individuals who were not related by blood or marriage but who contributed to carrying out of everyday tasks (Cheal, 2008). Family Cultures and Issues To better understand the concept of the family, it is fitting to explore the family in a variety of culture in different countries. The American Family The American family has undergone and continues to undergo significant change as highlighted by Wiseman (2008). Many families today represent the traditional definition of a family, that being a married man and woman and biological offspring living in the same domicile; however, additional family definitions are now a part of the mainstream culture being influenced by social changes such as attitude towards divorce, marriage partners, remarriage, culture, and values along with economic influences and government practices (Wiseman, 2008). It is also evident that many more families than ever before are comprised of individuals who are not married but cohabiting; these could be individuals of the same or opposite sex as cited by Wiseman (2008). Furthermore, families today could also be comprised of households of biological children, adopted children, or both, from a single race, multiple races, or mixed races (Wiseman, 2008). In addition, families in the United States of America could be a grandparent headed with one or no biological parents on the scene and where grandparents are engaged in the carrying out of meaningful and significant child-rearing responsibilities as stressed by Wiseman (2008). The Australian Family In Australia, the essence of family life was the material maintenance of the household as emphasized by Uhlmann (2006). In the cities, an increasing share of families came to rely primarily on wages for income; children would join the workforce and support the family while mothers would typically support the family income through productive activities such as taking in lodgers, laundry work or the performance of piecework for factories but the father always remained as the principal breadwinner (Uhlmann, 2006). Often family members might reside elsewhere in pursuit of work; in this case, the father and the sons might follow seasonal or distant work, and girls might move to affluent households to work as live-in servants (Uhlmann, 2006). In the said example of a household, the mother who is the practical hub of the family is usually the one who permanently reside in the home (Uhlmann, 2006). The Canadian Family The perspective of a family in Canada is similar to the views in different countries which usually consist of a wife, husband and their children bonded by love and commitment to each other (Conway, 2003). At contemporary times, however, the structure of the family has taken on a variety of forms. Like with what has been tackled in the previous parts of this paper, the discussed family types are also evident in Canada though it is apparent that the economic aspect of the family is given emphasis in Canada (Conway, 2003). Statistics usually highlights who is the breadwinner or the one earning in the family which is one of the main advantages of having a family as what was aforementioned in the previous parts, that is, providing financial security for the members of the family (Conway, 2003). The Chinese Family Families in China are challenged by a variety of family-related problems in lieu of the introduction of economic reforms (Leung, 1997). Demographic and social changes are influencing both the capacity and willingness of the family to provide care for its members; thus, the government in this country are motivated to promulgate laws highlighting family care (Leung, 1997). However, this seemed to be inadequate for the needs of the family members are sometimes neglected despite the fact that China is one of the countries known to be observant of their family values. Other Family Cultures There are varied family cultures that usually share the same idea of what a family is, who are its members and the role of such unit in the society. However, the family differs in what values they usually upheld which is evident in the different countries worldwide such as in the diverse countries in Africa, Europe and Asia. Different Approaches to the Family The study of the family and family life has been tackled differently by sociologists of opposing persuasions (Giddens, 2006). To better gain perspective about the family, this paper will explore the varied approaches pertaining to the family. Functionalism The functionalist perspective sees society as a set of social institutions that perform specific functions to ensure continuity and consensus as illustrated by Giddens (2006). According to this perspective, the family performs important tasks that contribute to societys basic needs and helps to perpetuate social order; moreover, sociologists upholding the functionalist tradition have considered the nuclear family as fulfilling certain specialized roles in modern societies and with the commencement of industrialization, the family became less significant as a unit of economic production and more focused on reproduction, child-rearing and socialization (Giddens, 2006). The familys two main functions as highlighted by the American sociologist Talcott Parson are primary socialization and personality stabilization (Giddens, 2006). Primary socialization is defined as the process by which children learn the cultural norms of the society into which they were born; hence, for the reason that this stage usually occurs during childhood, the family is then valued as the most essential influence for the development of the personality of individuals (Giddens, 2006). Conversely, personality stabilization refers to the role that the family plays in assisting adult family members emotionally (Giddens, 2006). For instance, the marriage between adult men and women is the arrangement through which adult personalities are supported and kept healthy; on the contrary, in industrial society, the role of the family in stabilizing adult personalities is deemed to be crucial for the reason that the nuclear family is frequently distanced from its extended kin and is unable to draw on larger kinship ties as families could perform more before industrialization (Giddens, 2006). In addition, functionalists perceived the nuclear family as the unit best equipped to handle the demands of industrial society; in the conventional family, one adult can work outside the home while the other adult cares for the home and the children (Giddens, 2006). Simply, the father plays the role of the breadwinner while the mother functions as the one caring for the needs of their children and their home in general (Giddens, 2006). Feminism An array of new questions and ways of thinking about the definition and features of families took its form during the birth of the feminist movement. There may be considerable differences between varied feminist perspectives; they share specific concerns which are a focus on womens family experiences, family diversity and gender-based imbalances of power (Strong, DeVault & Cohen, 2011). Feminists critically scrutinize the means in which family experience is shaped by gender, that is, focusing on the social elements of being male or female, which at the same time is the orienting concentration that unifies most feminist writing, research and advocacy (Strong, DeVault & Cohen, 2011). Feminists deemed that family and gender roles have been constructed by society and do not originate from biological or absolute conditions; furthermore, they supposed that family and gender roles have been formulated by men to gain supremacy over women (Strong, DeVault & Cohen, 2011). Essentially, the aims of the feminist perspectives are geared toward accomplishing changes and designing conditions in society that remove hindrances to opportunity and oppressive conditions and simply formulate which are “good for women” (Strong, DeVault & Cohen, 2011). Although such viewpoint is shared by diverse feminist perspectives, it is evident that there is a disparity between them specifically in their area of emphasis. Liberal feminism, for example, highlights the acquisition and protection of equal rights and equal economic opportunities as crucial for women to ascertain a greater quality of life (Strong, DeVault & Cohen, 2011). On the contrary, radical feminism tends to portray the male-dominated family as a principal source of the oppression of women through either mens control of womens household labour or their sexuality and reproduction (Strong, DeVault & Cohen, 2011). On the other hand, socialist feminism asserts that womens status is a result of both capitalism and patriarchy, which exploits womens roles in both production and reproduction, whereas Marxist feminism concentrates on how capitalism exploits women specifically mothers and wives who provide significant yet unremunerated care (Strong, DeVault & Cohen, 2011). Finally, as stressed by one of the sociologists named Michelle Budig, there are also pro-family versions of radical and socialist feminism, both of which contend that it is womens family and roles and exclusion from politics and economics that lead women to develop superior female virtues such as cooperation, being caring and protecting (Strong, DeVault & Cohen, 2011). Marxism Marx was not particularly concerned with the position of women in capitalist society; he even rejected notions of morality, justice and equal rights as bourgeois ideas (Abbott, Wallace & Tyler, 2005). He was concerned in developing a scientific account of the exploitation of the working class under capitalism and not with reform, with a view of overthrowing that system (Abbott, Wallace & Tyler, 2005). The concepts that Marx employed seemed to be neutral, but they are in reality phallocentric; moreover, he fails to recognize that women are subject to a special form of oppression within capitalist societies and does not examine gender disparities and gender ideologies; although he utilizes abstract categories such as labour power, his specific analyses imply that he assumed a male waged labour force (Abbott, Wallace & Tyler, 2005). Marx also adopted a naturalistic approach to the family, maintaining that women should render care in the domestic sphere; furthermore, the paid labour of women and children was seen by Marx as a threat to male workers for he argued that women and children were employed by capitalists to reduce the costs of production, in simple terms, cheap female labour was utilized to replace expensive male labour (Abbott, Wallace & Tyler, 2005). It is apparent that the aforementioned analysis ignores the fact that women have always made a contribution to the economic survival of the household and does not challenge the notion that men should be remunerated more for their labour than women, presumably for the reason that he supposed that men should be paid a family wage (Abbott, Wallace & Tyler, 2005). The Family and Gender Issues In the present climate of family crisis, the inquiry regarding the place of women in the family has emerged as the central issue for both feminists and anti-feminists; conversely, conservatives perceived such trends as rising divorce rates, illegitimacy, cohabitation and family violence with alarm, seeing in them the breakdown of the family or at least their perspective of the family in which the presence and attention of women is what makes a family possible (Morgan & Cheal, 2003). Feminists have always perceived the traditional family as problematic for women, its possible diminution does not worry them, and instead their concern is the continued gender inequities despite the many alterations in household forms, domestic law and economic relationships (Morgan & Cheal, 2003). The opposing forces confronting women as a product of change, particularly the predicaments of managing both employment and domesticity have provided feminists further motivation to scrutinize critically the family and womens relationship to it (Morgan & Cheal, 2003). Exploring the aforementioned relationship is crucial especially to the overall enterprise of feminist reconstruction theory and research for both logical and substantive reasons for the reason that it is apparent that women is often associated with the family in popular and scholarly thought that rethinking gender necessarily postulates reconceptualising kinship, household and domesticity (Morgan & Cheal, 2003). Conversely, the substantive reason is that the family is the principal institution for organizing gender relations in society for it is where the sexual division of labour, the regulation of sexuality, and the social construction and reproduction of gender are rooted (Morgan & Cheal, 2003). Gender hierarchy is created, reproduced and maintained on a daily basis through the interaction among members of a household (Morgan & Cheal, 2003). Other Critical Concepts Linked with the Family There are other fundamental concepts associated with the family that will contribute to the understanding of the broad subject matter of this paper, that is, the family; hence, this section will explore the said concepts to fully gain insight on the aforementioned topic of this paper. The Family and Post-modernity Changes in family theories often follow changes in family life as highlighted by Allan (2001). One of the theories often linked with the family is the theory of modernity. The theory of modernity has had a deep and lasting influence upon standard sociological theory; in this theory, powerful institutions that are central to modern society are held to transform everyday life in regular and predictable means (Allan, 2001). The Family and Psychoanalysis Psychoanalysts view the family as a social and emotional unit whose impact on its members necessitates exploration (Goldenberg & Goldenberg, 2008). As a result of this perspective, the said experts continued to assess and evaluate the needs of each family member to better respond to their welfare. Attachment Theory John Bowlby began his work in Britain on attachment theory in the early 1950s (Metcalf, 2011, p. 342). The attachment theory has become one of the most prominent theories emanating from the history of psycho-dynamic thinking and in thinking about family systems (Metcalf, 2011). Bowlbys attachment theory is best tackled and explored in his trilogy, “Attachment, Separation and Loss” (Metcalf, 2011). According to attachment theory, each individual develops consistent interrelational patterns to regulate his or her emotions in his or her relationships, such patterns were created based on the experiences the individual has in his or her present and past relationships (Metcalf, 2011). The aforementioned strategic patterns are known as attachment orientations, which affect both the individuals internal processes at the same time, influencing external relational behaviour (Metcalf, 2011). As this theory suggests, more secure individuals will have both more self-confidence in themselves and ability to connect to other people in a more open manner; whereas, individuals who are insecure tend to lack self-confidence and their relationship patterns are usually driven by fear of abandonment or inability to get close to people in the relationships (Metcalf, 2011). Conclusion Based on the subtopics tackled focusing on the broad subject of the family, it is evident that at contemporary times, the family is still considered as the fundamental unit in the society. The family has always been the groundwork of emotional, social and other developmental aspects of an individuals personality. The family has been responsible and accountable for who a person is and who that person will become. The traits and qualities that the individual portrays are rooted on what his or her family influenced him or her. It is also apparent that with the exploration of family and related concepts, it is unleashed that there are now more types of families compared before and the bond between the members is not the traditional sharing of the same blood or DNA; instead, a group of people living in the same household is often considered a family when they are looking after each other and sharing mutual feelings toward each other. The perspective regarding the family may be constantly evolving through the times but the fact that its impact on the individual contributes to his or her development, character and personality can never be neglected. Bibliography Abbott, P., Wallace, C. & Tyler, M. (2005) An Introduction to Sociology: Feminist Perspectives. New York, United States of America, Routledge. Allan, G.A. (2001) The Sociology of the Family: a reader. Malden, Massachusetts, United States of America, Blackwell Publishers Ltd. Cheal, D.J. (2008) Families in Todays World: A Comparative Approach. New York, Routledge. Conway, J.F. (2003) The Canadian Family in Crisis. Toronto, Ontario, Canada. Corbett, A. (2004) What is a Family? And why it matters. Smithton, Tasmania, Australia, Tasmanian Family Institute. Giddens, A. (2006) Sociology. Cambridge, United Kingdom, Polity Press. Goldenberg, H. & Goldenberg, I. (2008) Family therapy: an overview. Belmont, California, United States of America, Thomson Brooks. Hammersmith, C. & Stewart, J. (2003) What is a Family? United States of America, Compass Point Books. Leung, J.C. (1997) Family support for the elderly in China: issues and challenges. Journal of Aging and Social Policy, 9 (3), pp. 87-101. Metcalf, L. (2011) Marriage and Family Therapy: A Practice-Oriented Approach. New York, United States of America, Springer Publishing Company, LLC. Morgan, D.H.J. & Cheal, D. (2003) Family: Critical Concepts in Sociology. New York, United States of America, Routledge. Newman, D.M. (2008) Sociology: Exploring the Architecture of Everyday Life. United States of America, Pine Forge Press. Pillitteri, A. (2009) Maternal & Child Health Nursing: Care of the Childbearing & child-rearing family. United States of America, Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. Potts, N.L. & Mandleco, B.L. (2012) Pediatric Nursing: Caring for Children and their families. New York, United States of America, Delmar, Cengage Learning. Strong, B., DeVault, C. & Cohen, T. (2011) The Marriage and Family Experience: Intimate Relationship in a Changing Society. Belmont, California, United States of America, Wadsworth Cengage Learning. Uhlmann, A.J. (2006) Family, Gender and Kinship in Australia: the social and cultural logic of practice and subjectivity. England, Ashgate Publishing Limited. Wiseman, D. (2008) The American Family: Understanding its Changing Dynamics and Place in Society. Springfield, Illinois, Charles C. Thomas Publisher Ltd. Read More