More handpicked essays just for you.
Changes or trends in the American family
Sociological theories on the family
Sociological theories on the family
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Summary:
In her book Brave New Families: Stories of Domestic Upheaval in Late-Twentieth Century America, Judith Stacey completes an ethnographical study of postmodern families living in Silicon Valley. The modern nuclear family is no longer dominant; instead, families have become blended, diverse and fluid. In the introduction, Stacey that the book is about the unpredictable, often incongruous, and untested character of contemporary family practices in the postindustrial United States. (5) Modern families were accompanied by the rise of industrial capitalist society, and according to Stacey, there were four innovations that differentiated modern from premodern family life among white Americans. First, the women’s work became invisible and they became economically dependent on the earnings of men. Second, the purpose of marriage became about love and companionship. Lastly, middle-class family relationships became withdrawn from public scrutiny, and motherly nurturing became a
…show more content…
She mentioned that these women do not represent all postmodern families, which I would consider to be true, especially outside the Silicon Valley region. It would have been interesting if one of the women, or if she had several (5-10) where some are from minority communities where it is not unlikely to have a large family and social circle.
Relation to past readings
Marriage, children and the ‘traditional’ family were reoccurring themes throughout this book, regardless of the large somewhat non-traditional kin group, most of the members sought normative heterosexual relationships, where marriage was the preferred route to legitimacy. Through Stacey’s study we were able to see the strong connections women had, which made me consider the previous backlash feminist have received because of their strong connections to other women, and threat to
The idea of “family” is almost entirely socially constructed. From grandparents, to friends, to wives and fiancés, the means by which we decide who is related to us and who is not is decided by the person and their milieu. In Mignon R. Moore’s “Independent Women: Equality in African-American Lesbian Relationships”, Eviatar Zerubavel’s Ancestors and Relatives: Genealogy, Identity and Community, and Franz Kafka’s The Judgement, this idea is tested. Who do we consider close enough to us to share our most intimate details and how do we choose them? Each piece offers a different view, which is the “right” way for each of the people described, whether broad (as in Zerbavel’s reading) or specific (as in Moore’s reading), but there are also many similarities in the ways family is defined and actualized.
May begins by exploring the origins of this "domestic containment" in the 30's and 40's. During the Depression, she argues, two different views of the family competed -- one with two breadwinners who shared tasks and the other with spouses whose roles were sharply differentiated. Yet, despite the many single women glamorized in popular culture of the 1930's, families ultimately came to choose the latter option. Why? For one, according to May, for all its affirmation of the emancipation of women, Hollywood fell short of pointing the way toward a restructured family that would incorporate independent women. (May p.42) Rosalind Russell in His Girl Friday and Scarlett O'Hara in Gone with the Wind, for example, are both forced to choose between independence and a happy domestic life - the two cannot be squared. For another, New Deal programs aimed to raise the male employment level, which often meant doing nothing for female employment. And, finally, as historian Ruth Milkman has also noted, the g...
Today 's generation have changed many ways since the beginning of the century. In “The American Family”, Stephanie Coontz discusses many situations that has occurred during the beginning of the 21st century and suggested solutions to solve those issues in the future. For instance, she argued that women are being treated unfairly, family are not discussing their problems openly, and institutions need to change to fit the families’ requirement. In “Complexity of Family Life among the Low-Income and Working Poor” Patricia Hyjer Dyk, argued that women still doesn’t have enough choices, low income families doesn’t have enough jobs, and Government are not helping many families. Dyk’s review of the scholarly research on low-income families support Coontz’ evaluations of the problems faced by 21st century families and the solutions Coontz recommends, like improving women 's lifestyle, discussing problems openly, improving institutions and changing institutions so it can to fit to fulfil families need. .
There appears to be widespread agreement that family and home life have been changing dramatically over the last 40 years or so. According to Talcott Parsons, the change in family structure is due to industrialization. The concept that had emerged is a new version of the domestic ideal that encapsulates changed expectations of family relations and housing conditions. The family life in the postwar period was highly affected. The concept of companionate marriage emerged in the post war era just to build a better life and build a future in which marriage would be the foundation of better life. Equality of sexes came into being after...
One definition is “a significant social group in society typically consisting of one or two parents and their children.” While such definition is a good starting point, some modern family structures are excluded by such definition. In her essay, “Family: Idea, Institution, and Controversy,” Betty Farrell apparently assumes that the traditional family has dramatically changed, and the dynamics of change—altered the definition of a “family.” A family is no longer a picture of a particular image of the mythic past, referring to the golden days of the “1950s.” It is no longer a father, mother and their biological children living together under one roof (and certainly not with the a breadwinner father and a stay-at-home mother). In today 's modern society, it is now common to see women raising their children by themselves without their husbands’ help; unmarried couples living together; and gay and lesbian couples—while far from being universally accepted—adopting and raising children to complete their families. Therefore, despite the children living in one-parent households, or they do not live with their “married-heterosexual-biological-parents” under the same roof—does not necessarily mean they are not families. Farrell states that “a family is defined not so much by a particular set of people as by the quality of relationships that bind them together.” In other words, Farrell believes that a “family” is more than just a collection
In chronicling how the family structure has changed in America, it is important to understanding how family was actually defined. When referencing Leave it to Beaver (further referred to as LITB) times, family took on a substantive definition, or the idea that family was equivalent to relative, or related by blood or law. While this definition of family served the time period, it failed to evolve with society. For that reason, sociologists set out to determine a “more inclusive functionalist definition,” that focuses on what families do. “A functionalist definition of families focuses on how families provide for the physical, social, and emotional needs of individuals and of society as a whole” (Witt). With that, the functionalist perspective identifies six primary functions, which include reproduction, socialization, protection, regulation of sexual behavior, affection and companionship, and...
When an individual hears the words, ‘at risk’, they immediately think of all the negative characteristics of terminology: teen pregnancy, troubled teens, gang bangers, drop outs, substance abusers, and so on. I know I sure did. In reading Beth Blue Swadener’s article, “Children and Families “at Promise”: Deconstructing the Discourse of Risk”, I’ve learned that there are so much more to labeling at student ‘at risk’. There is actually a history behind the meaning and how ‘at risk’ became such a dangerous label. In rethinking the meaning of ‘at risk’ and changing it to ‘at promise’, places an entirely new meaning and may give hope to those who are lost and forgotten.
In conclusion this paper has shown my perceptions on the described topics. I have identified why the family is considered the most important agent in socialization. I explained the dramatic changes to the American family and what caused them. I explained the differences in marriage and family. I expressed my feelings on the trend of diverse families, and how a change in trends to traditional views would change women’s rights.
In the closing statements of John D’Emilio’s article Capitalism and Gay Identity, he posits “that the relationship between capitalism and family is fundamentally contradictory. One the one hand, capitalism continually weakens the material foundation of family life… On the other, it needs to push men and women into families … The elevation of the family to ideological preeminence guarantees that capitalist society will reproduce not just children, but heterosexism and homophobia” (474).
Talcott Parsons and Robert Bales, two of the leading figures in sociology, may be considered the founding fathers for the ideas of the “modern family” and the “male-breadwinner family.” Collectively, their work has influenced how Americans analyze families and has sparked new ideas regarding the American family from sociologists such as Stephanie Coontz and Arlie Hochschild. However, when studying the American family, Parsons and Bales fail to understand that the “ideal” family may not be so ideal for everyone. They neglect to consider societal influences and economic changes when discussing patriarchal social norms as the most optimal family structure. Their description of the male-breadwinner family consists of the father being the “instrumental leader” within the home, providing economically for his family based on his occupational earnings. Meanwhile, the mother is considered the manager of the household, providing for her husband and children physically, emotionally, and mentally.
A main theme in this small town’s culture is the issue of gender and the division of roles between the two. Not uncommon for the 1950’s, many women were taught from a young age to find a good man, who could provide for them and a family, settle down and have children – the ideal “happy family.” As Harry states after singing the showstopper “Kids,” “I have the All-American family: A great wife, 2 wonderful kids and a good job.”
The question remains as to why straight mothers, as a representation of the larger heterosexual community, would be so quick to ally themselves with lesbians, even lesbian mothers. For a scholar of feminist theorist Diana Fuss, this coalition seems to threaten the inside (read: dominant) status of heterosexual society.
Robert Kuttner, the author of “The Politics of Family” also believes that women should not only be the caretaker but whatever they want in a career. Robert Kuttner’s text does support Stephanie Coontz’ arguments about the issues related to traditional values and modernity in American families during the beginning of 1890 and how they have changed and need to be changed in order for families to have strong bonds with each other, especially women who need more freedom to choose their own lifestyle. During this generation people reveal everything to the society. They are open about premarital sexuality, birth control and they don’t hide anything from the society.
Overall, the information gathered by these interviews causes both hope and worry. The view of feminism is improving exponentially and gender roles are slowly becoming neutralized; however, the truth about the economic standing of minorities and women is anything but clear. There is still hope that with the changing views of the America people the reality of economic prosperity will truly be blind to color, gender, creed, and sexuality and the truly exceptional individuals will rise to the highest ranks. This will take time to occur; it takes time to turn a plain into a mountain or a dessert into a sea but it has happened and will happen again. It will take time and work but eventually a racist, sexist, classist, heterosexist society can become egalitarian society.
Jochild, Maggie. Feminism Unadulterated: Why I Want Wife. 5 April 2008. 27 February 2014. .