The Family Has Changed for the Better - Essay Example

The family has changed for the better’. Compare and contrast past with present families. The of the The of the Professor (Tutor) The Name of the School (University) The City and State where it is located The Date The conception of family is considered to be well known for us, and it may even seem eternal and perpetual as laid naturally and genetically in our minds. Ancient Greek mythology provides examples of family relationship and strong protection of kinsmen. Straightforward historical facts remove us to the evidences due to which people have formed families and built a close relationship between each other. It is obligatory to mention that concept together with the understanding of the family have been changed through the history and humane evolution, but the notion of family is long-term and is rooted in our mentality and consciousness. It would be interesting to understand the difference and conduct parallels between relationships in the family of a few last centuries and ideological views of nowadays family. This is both the process of humane revolution which is never stopped and part of our daily routine, people whom we share our life with. Still, the concept of family observes to be diverse and multifarious through the history. It considered being interesting to provide a comparison through the development of the family notion and its evolution. Family is considered to be the one of basic human groups. Due to biological approach it appears like a “group of individuals who share genetic materials” (Blundell, McNeill, and Griffiths 2003). Still, in moral dogmas family has seen as an intimate and darling people who are the closest and most native to you. “The term ‘family’, however, has a social meaning above and beyond a domestic arrangement”(Blundell, McNeill, and Griffiths 2003). The matter is that we usually feel emotional close to the set of people which can be regarded as our kinsmen. This is an effective concept even if we do not appreciate their company and are not delighted from their behaviour. It appears like an obligation in our minds to feel love and respect to such people Nevertheless family is regarded as an essential institution in society and takes a central section in both personal and public spheres of life. It is the existence core of every person and determines status of individuality in our social surrounding. That is why it is essential to determine the evolution of family notion through the history. George Peter Murdock (1949) determines the family as “a social group characterized by common residence, economic cooperation, and reproduction.” He also appends that the family “includes adults of both sexes, at least two of whom maintain a socially approved sexual relationship, and one or more children”. Two major functions or purposes of family life which are related to the question of why we live in families are investigated by Parsons (1955). He argues that family life encourages stabilisation of the adult personality which means abandonment from easy, youthful and carefree life and involving serious obligations and responsibilities into your existence. The second important issue which is mentioned is generation and socialisation of a young person. This presupposes his/her incipience in a society as a complete and effective member. Also it is suggested that the process of building family is naturally indispensable to men and women. Male representatives need “to play a role of breadwinners” while female representatives are required “emotional needs of the family” (Parsons 1955); they are looking for person to care about and to feel in safety. Marxists claim “the nuclear family is an ideological conditioning device, which reproduces the ideologies which prop up capitalism – children are in effect trained to copy the values and behaviours of their parents and so unsurprisingly often follow them into the same sorts of work” (Abbott 2010). These perspectives are rather outdated modern society does not follow them now. Feminist explanation of the family provides critics on functional view of the family. “Feminists argue that this view is blind to the gendered aspect of power in the family” (Abbott 2010). Female representatives are able to build a prosperous career and to “take the chief responsibility for childcare and household duties” (Abbott 2010). Blundell, McNeill, and Griffiths (2003), based on Parsons, Laslett and Anderson researches, provide a strong and clear comparison between modern families and nineteenth century families in Great Britain. They suggest seven basis points which are under the influence and confirm them with the arguments and evidences. These changes which are of high impact are: Turnover the form of the family Change the role of the family Change the status of a woman Shifting the part of man Alteration the charter of children Upheaval of the moral principles of the family Alteration in sexual codes. What can be rather momentous in the development of family life is changing of the form of the family. Two centuries ago people from one family live altogether in one house. It means that a few generations may exist in one dwelling area or it is better to say in one house, so extended families are prevailing type for those time society (Janssens 1993). People live with a big number of relatives and have less personal space to live in comfort. The common type of family for modern people is “nuclear family” (Parsons 1955). It is convenient to society representatives to live in small groups. Moreover, it is a widespread tendency to reside separately from parents if you have your husband or wife. That provides people with high intimacy and wide personal space. In the nineteenth century the rights of female representatives in the society are inferior and lover than nowadays. Simkin argues that women in this proper period are fully dependent from their men. The only expectance from them is to get married and engender good and healthy progeny. Even if woman has a desire to work at that time, “all her earnings belong to her husband” and he feels free to dispose them. Also, the fertility rate is high and a big number of newborn children are died because of low sanitation mark. Moreover, Simkin notes that because of political and social issues the mortality rate of male society representatives is high, so the human institutions needs boys more than girls and the birth of boy is more valued in these times. In contrast, the role of woman in today’s society is rather high and appreciative than two centuries ago. Female agents have independence and a right to be complete representatives of the contemporary surroundings. Also, a legal licence for contraceptive means are existed and widely used. That is why modern woman has a freedom to make a decision and to share her own opinion. The next relevant point is the change of the male role in the family. Men compose a “dominant” part of a nineteenth century family and are able to make important decisions by themselves (Blundell, McNeill, and Griffiths 2003). In today’s world both wife and husband play an important role in the family building and try to solve occurred problems together. There is no discrimination of female representatives of a family and all important decisions are admitted hand in hand. Moreover, it is suggested that men are main money generators in the family and spent all his time while working and earning shekels in that time (Brent and Lewis 2014). Family income responsibilities are experienced chances nowadays. It is absolutely normal for both men and women to generate income in the family and to share incumbency for family welfare in modern society. One more important issue is change in status of children. It is suggested that “birth rate and death rate are high” in the nineteenth century (Blundell, McNeill, and Griffiths 2003). The circulation of people is on a high level and there are a big number of children in this section. Also, the question of children exploitation is essential for nineteenth century, “especially for working-class children” (Blundell, McNeill, and Griffiths 2003). There are a high number of them who need to work since ten years old. Current society protects children by legal rights. What is more they are provided by opportunities to have an education and to grown up in care and concern of their parents. Also, children who are considered to be orphans are sheltered by the government and are nurtured in special places. Also, a variety of family types is growth and become broader. We may face gays and lesbian couples, sole-parent families, racially mixed marriages and other unusual family formations (Brent and Lewis 2014). Such cases are rather normal for today’s world and they have a big right to exist at the present time. Office for National Statistics (2013) suggests the variety and number of family types in United Kingdom figuring 2013 year. The most common type of families is considered to be “a married or civil partner couple family without dependent children”, the number of such families is 7.7 million. The 4.7 million families are “married or civil partner couple family with dependent children”. There are a high number of lone-parent families and unconventional families with and without children, but nuclear traditional family form a main quantity on modern British household and family life. Family moral issues are the next relevant point which undergoes changes. In the nineteenth century “the moral code is rigid” (Blundell, McNeill, and Griffiths 2003). People live due to rules which may seem to be ridiculous for present-day person. Any kind of rules failure may cause social shame and people’s contempt. Moreover, there is practiced violence and torments in the family life which was fully ignored by society. Modern world do not experience such moral dogmas. All codes of morality are “flexible” and actually every person is able to determine these corpuses for itself (Blundell, McNeill, and Griffiths 2003). There no sexual abuse and any kind of violence are prohibited by the government. The last issue is the alteration of sexual codes. Only heterosexual marriages and families are acceptable in Marxism family while modern society provide more tolerant attitude to alternative sexualities and nonconformist families. All in all family life during this time has changed for the better. We may observe qualitative and structural changes in family organization basis. They all are occurred because of social, technical, political and moral modifications in the world. This process is rather normal for humane revolution, but it is absolutely definite that family issues and moral principles are improved and became more humane and auspicious. The progress is visible and strictly directed to democratic doctrine. Reference List: Abbott. D, (2010), Revision Notes - Family Perspectives - New Version, Available From: http://www.tutor2u.net/blog/index.php/sociology/comments/revision-notes-family-perspectives-new-version Blundell. J, McNeill. P, Griffiths. J, (2003), Sociology AS: The Complete Companion AQA, London, Nelson Thornes. Boss. P,Doherty. W. J, LaRossa. R, Schumm. W. R, Steinmetz. S. K, (2009), Sourcebook of Family Theories and Methods: A Contextual Approach, NY, Springer. Brent. E, and Lewis. S. (2014), Learn Sociology, USA, а Jones & Bartlett Publishers. Carruthers. A, (2013), Freedom from Toxic Relationships: Moving On from the Family, Work, and Relationship Issues. USA, Pengiun Group. Chambers. D, (2012), A Sociology of Family Life, UK, Polity Press. Cooke. H, Philpin. S, (2008), Sociology in Nursing and Healthcare, UK, Elsevier Limited. Goody. J, (1983), The Development of the Family and Marriage in Europe, UK, Cambridge University Press. Haralambos. M and Holborn. M, (1980) Sociology Themes And Perspectives, 7th Edition, London, Collins. Herron. T, (2003), Family Relationships & The American Heart, USA, Xlibris Corporation. Hill. R, (2009), Family Development in Three Generations, USA, Schenckman Publishing. Janssens. A, (1993), Family and Social Change: The Household as a Process in an Industrializing Community, UK, Cambridge University Press. Kirby.M, Kidd. W, Koubel. F, Barter. J, Hope. T, Kirton. A, Madry. N, Manning. P and Triggs. K (2000),Sociology In Perspective, Oxford, Heinemann Lamanna, M.A, Riedmann. A, (2012), Marriages, Families, and Relationships: Making Choices in a Diverse Society, USA, GENGAGE Learning. Murdock. J.P, (1949), Defining the Family: A Historical and International Perspective, Available From: http://www.socqrl.niu.edu/collarcounty/DEFFAMILY.html Office for National Statistics, (2013), Families, Available From: http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/family-demography/families-and-households/2013/stb-families.html#tab-Families [31/10/13] Parsons. T, (1955), Family, socialization and interaction process, UK, Free Press. Parsons. T, (1951), The Social System, England, Routledge. Parsons. T, (1954), Essays in Sociological Theory, UK, Free Press. Simkin. J, (n. d.) Marriage in the 19th Century, Available From: http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/Wmarriage.htm Taylor. P, Richardson. J, Yeo. A, Marsh. I, Trobe. K and Pilkington.A (1995) Sociology In Focus, Lancashire, Causeway Press Ltd Wyatt. G, (2008), Family Ties: Relationships, Socialization, and Home Schooling, USA, University Press of America. Read More