Is it Realistic to Assume That There Is a Single Entity Known as the Family - Assignment Example

Running header: Family entity Student’s name: Instructor’s name: Subject code: Date of submission: Is it realistic to assume that there is a single entity known as the family? An entity may be defined as something that exists by itself with specific components and rules that govern the components and its existence. While many have argued that the family is an entity, this might have been true in the past but the argument can not hold in the modern world. In the past, it was a widely held understanding that a family consisted of the married couple and their children. Beck (2003), states that the family was seen as a community of need that was held together by an obligation of solidarity and which catered for the various needs of the members. However, in the contemporary society, the family has become more of an elective relationship between individuals where each bring their own interests, plans and experiences and who are each subjected to different controls, risks and constraints (Beck, 2003). Therefore, members of modern families have to devote more effort if the family is to hold together than it was in the past. Whereas in the past there existed a set of rules and rituals that guided how families were run, the prospect now is of a staging of everyday life, an acrobatics of balancing and coordinating. This implies that the traditional family entity has gradually lost the monopoly it enjoyed for a long time. In his book, Kreppner (2009) argues that the quantitive significance of the family has greatly declined as new lifestyles have emerged and spread. This essay details out the reason why it may no longer be realistic to assume that there is a single entity known as the family owing to the many changes that have affected the family. The family as an entity Some scholars see the family as the basic entity which combines to form the society. As such, they view the family entity as a co residential group that is composed of the married couple and their children and which lives apart from other kin. The family entity has specific roles and responsibilities that it plays in the society and it also has rules that guide its members and its existence in the society. Furthermore, the family is viewed as an entity having a specific lifecycle with various stages (Blankenhorn, 2005) .The lifecycle starts from the time that it is established. Between 2-7 years after marriage, the couple gets children, between 8-14 years, the couple is assumed to have school age children. Between 15-21 years, the couple’s children should be at their adolescence. The final stage is known as the aging stage where the couple is assumed to have been married for at least 44-50 years. After the couple’s children have reached adult ages, they start their own families and the lifecycle is repeated all over again (James, 2011, p.54). The family is seen as living together and performing specific roles and responsibilities that make the family complete. One of the function of the family is reproduction where the couple reproduce to make the family complete. The family is supposed to bring up responsible children who then become responsible members of the society (Coontz, 2002). The family is also supposed to cater for spiritual, social and psychological needs of the members, caring for one another and making one feel and accepted member of the society. Biblarz (2003) argues that when the family can no longer be able to meet the above needs of its members, it is seen as having ceased to exist or having failed in its mandate. Therefore, the entity is seen as being closely held by tight bonds of love, care and responsibilities where each couple cares for their children and provides for the needs of each other. Criticism While the above description of the family as an entity may apply for the nuclear family, it may not hold for all the other types of families. Family roles and responsibilities as well as composition are changing on a day to day basis. For instance, today we have nuclear families, polygamous families, single parent families and even lesbigay families (Biblarz, 2003). Furthermore, it is not realistic to assume that families are only composed of biologically related members. This is because modern families and even in traditional times were not necessarily composed of the couple and their biological children. Adopted children are also part of the family that adopts them (Blackenhorn, 1995). Therefore, assuming that there is a single entity known as the family is not realistic. Why there is no single entity called the family That Social and cultural pressures have challenged conventional assumptions and habits regarding the family and its roles has been a major concern to many that see the family values declining. According to Cassidy (1994), the concern is about what will become of the society if the family is extinct, who will raise the children into responsible adults with increasing divorce and families splinter, who will teach the children the value of commitment and stability if men and women continue living together without marriage or who will assume the traditional role and responsibilities of the family if they continue declining. However, the concern has been occasioned by the false assumption that there is a single entity called the family with specific functions and whose absence would cause an irreparable damage to the society’s fabric (Engels, 2002). However, even history shows unambiguously that this is not the case. History perspectives clearly show that no single model of the family that does what we think families are supposed to do exist. Families have always had various shapes and assumed various functions (James, 2011). For instance, the biblical Abraham’s family consisted of his wife and child but it also consisted of Sarah’s maiden who was also Abraham’s sexual partner as well as Lot’s family for some time. It is easy to identify other biblical families that are similar to our modern families to some extent. Traditional families just like the biblical (Jewish) families have assumed multiple and varied forms with diverse responsibilities and have looked more or less like other families in the surrounding societies. For instance, Abraham’s family was greatly influenced by ancient nomadic cultural norms and a Rabbi’s family of Persian culture. As societies changed and Jews established homes in new cultures, they had no option but to create families based on the new cultures in which they made their home. It was through adapting to new cultures and societies that they survived and no one condemned them for assuming the shapes of families around them (German, 2006). This shows with no doubt that while families have been known as central institutions in societies through the ages, the shapes assumed by the families have been changing constantly and smaller groups within larger societies have had no choice but to adapt to the trends and assumptions of the societies surrounding them (Kreppner, 2009). This reality is not lamentable but is a sign of healthy survival tactics within human beings. As we change our environments, our choices are similarly influenced by the environments. By recognizing that changes occur within families, it implies that both their shapes and functions are dynamic. For instance, although traditionally families have been concerned with reproduction, and hence perpetuation of species, reproduction can and has always happened outside the family setting. Families have been seen as providing conducive environments for raising children (Harman, 2009). But this always happens in other ways as well as in the case of single mothers and children’s homes. Even devoid the modern option of kibbutz child-raising practices, it is easy to find examples of communities assuming responsibility for this task. Historically talking, how can it have been otherwise when early mortality was so common and children were as often left as orphans? With many children being orphaned therefore, parents could only be assumed as those adults who took the responsibility of raising the children and family therefore was a group of individuals whether biologically related or not who through the force of necessity found themselves living under one roof (Kreppner, 2009). This is the case even in the modern society and the education function as well as that of caring for the old can and has either been the responsibility of the family or the community depending on the age and the society in question Conclusion The simple truth is that families with their surrounding societies are ever changing and human beings being dynamic in nature, this is not surprising. Families will be in many forms in future just as they are today (Lipietz, 2004). They may or may not perform their present functions but human beings will of course adapt to their new settings. From the above discussion therefore, it is not realistic to assume that there is a single entity known as the family since what the family is thought to do can also be done else where. Furthermore, there are no specific elements that can be said to constitute a family. In some cases, the family will be a nuclear family while others will be polygamous. Some modern families are also gay or lesbian. In addition, some families are single families. The family lifecycle has also been found unrealistic now that it is not a must owing to divorces and other factors.   References Beck, G2003, On the Way to a Post-Familial Family, Theory, Culture and Society, vol.15 no.3, pp.53-70.  Kreppner, L2009, Family systems and lifetime development, London, Rutledge. Blankenhorn, D 2005, Confronting Our Most Urgent Social Problem, New York, Basic Books. James, C2011, The collapse of family life, Oxford, Oxford University Press.  Coontz, S2002, American Families and the Nostalgia Trap, New York, Cambridge University Press. Biblarz, T2003, The effects of family disruption on social mobility, American sociological review, vol. 58, pp. 97-109. Blackenhorn, D1995, Fatherless America, New York, International publishers. Engels, F2002, The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State, New York, International Publishers. Cassidy, L1994, The insecure ambivalent pattern of attachment. Child Development, vol.65, pp. 971-991. German, L2006, A Question of Class, London, Bookmarks. Catton, W2008, Family “divorce heritage” and its intergenerational transmission, Sociological Perspectives, vol.31, pp. 398-4 Harman, C2009, Explaining the Crisis: A Marxist Re-Appraisal, Bookmarks, London. Lipietz, A2004, Post-Fordism and Democracy, Oxford, Oxford University press. Read More