Family

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia - View original article

 
Jump to: navigation, search
Two parents and a child; statue Family in the garden of the Palace of Nations (Geneva, Switzerland)

In human context, a family (from Latin: familia) is a group of people affiliated by consanguinity (by recognized birth), affinity (by marriage), or co-residence/shared consumption (see Nurture kinship). Members of the immediate family may include a spouse, parent, brother and sister, and son and daughter. Members of the extended family may include grandparent, aunt, uncle, cousin, nephew and niece, or sibling-in-law. In most societies the family is the principal institution for the socialization of children. As a unit of socialization the family is the object of analysis for anthropologists and sociologists of the family. Sexual relations among the members are regulated by rules concerning incest such as the incest taboo. As the basic unit for raising children, anthropologists most generally classify family organization as matrifocal (a mother and her children); conjugal (a husband, his wife, and children; also called nuclear family); avuncular (for example a brother, his sister, and her children); or extended family in which parents and children co-reside with other members of one parent's family. Genealogy is a field which aims to trace family lineages through history. "Family" is used metaphorically to create more inclusive categories such as community, nationhood, global village and humanism.

Family is also an important economic unit studied in family economics.


The social reproduction of the family[edit]

A group portrait of a mother, son and daughter on glass, Roman Empire, c. 250 AD

One of the primary functions of the family is to produce and reproduce persons, biologically and/or socially. This can occur through the sharing of material substances (such as food); the giving and receiving of care and nurture (nurture kinship); jural rights and obligations; and moral and sentimental ties.[1][2] Thus, one's experience of one's family shifts over time. From the perspective of children, the family is a "family of orientation": the family serves to locate children socially and plays a major role in their enculturation and socialization.[3] From the point of view of the parent(s), the family is a "family of procreation," the goal of which is to produce and enculturate and socialize children.[4] However, producing children is not the only function of the family; in societies with a sexual division of labor, marriage, and the resulting relationship between two people, it is necessary for the formation of an economically productive household.[5][6][7]

Christopher Harris notes that the western conception of family is ambiguous, and confused with the household, as revealed in the different contexts in which the word is used:

"We have seen that people can refer to their relatives as 'the family.' 'All the family turned up for the funeral.... But of course, my brother didn't bring his family along - they're much too young.' Here the reference is to the offspring (as distinct from 'all' the family). The neighbors were very good, too. 'The Jones came, and their two children. It was nice, the whole family turning up like that.' Here the usage is more restricted than 'relatives' or 'his relatives,' but includes just both parents and offspring. 'Of course, the children will be leaving home soon. It's always sad to see the family break up like that.' Here the reference is not only to parents and children but to their co-residence, that is, to the household."[8]

Olivia Harris states this confusion is not accidental, but indicative of the familial ideology of capitalist, western countries that pass social legislation that insists members of a nuclear family should live together, and that those not so related should not live together; despite the ideological and legal pressures, a large percentage of families do not conform to the ideal nuclear family type.[9]

Family types[edit]

The diverse data coming from ethnography, history, law and social statistics, establish that the human family is an institution and not a biological fact founded on the natural relationship of consanguinity.[10][11] The different types of families occur in a wide variety of settings, and their specific functions and meanings depend largely on their relationship to other social institutions. Although the concept of consanguinity originally referred to relations by "blood," cultural anthropologists have argued that one must understand the idea of "blood" metaphorically and that many societies understand family through other concepts rather than through genetic distance.[1] Sociologists have a special interest in the function and status of these forms in stratified (especially capitalist) societies.

According to the work of scholars Max Weber, Alan Macfarlane, Steven Ozment, Jack Goody and Peter Laslett, the huge transformation that led to modern marriage in Western democracies was "fueled by the religio-cultural value system provided by elements of Judaism, early Christianity, Roman Catholic canon law and the Protestant Reformation".[12]

Mother and children during the Great Depression, Oklahoma, 1936
A miner with his children, West Virginia, 1946

Much sociological, historical and anthropological research dedicates itself to the understanding of this variation, and of changes in the family that form over time. Times have changed; it is more acceptable and encouraged for mothers to work and fathers to spend more time at home with the children. The way roles are balanced between the parents will help children grow and learn valuable life lessons. There is great importance of communication and equality in families, in order to avoid role strain. [13]

Conjugal (nuclear) family[edit]

The term "nuclear family" is commonly used, especially in the United States, to refer to conjugal families. A "conjugal" family includes only the husband, the wife, and unmarried children who are not of age.[14] Sociologists distinguish between conjugal families (relatively independent of the kindred of the parents and of other families in general) and nuclear families (which maintain relatively close ties with their kindred).

Matrifocal family[edit]

A "matrifocal" family consists of a mother and her children. Generally, these children are her biological offspring, although adoption of children is a practice in nearly every society. This kind of family is common where women have the resources to rear their children by themselves, or where men are more mobile than women.

Extended family[edit]

The term "extended family" is also common, especially in United States. This term has two distinct meanings. First, it serves as a synonym of "consanguinal family" (consanguine means "of the same blood"). Second, in societies dominated by the conjugal family, it refers to "kindred" (an egocentric network of relatives that extends beyond the domestic group) who do not belong to the conjugal family. These types refer to ideal or normative structures found in particular societies. Any society will exhibit some variation in the actual composition and conception of families.

Blended family[edit]

Male same-sex couple with a child

The term blended family or stepfamily describes families with mixed parents: one or both parents remarried, bringing children of the former family into the new family.[15] Also in sociology, particularly in the works of social psychologist Michael Lamb,[16] traditional family refers to "a middleclass family with a bread-winning father and a stay-at-home mother, married to each other and raising their biological children," and nontraditional to exceptions from this rule. Most of the US households are now non-traditional under this definition.[17]

In terms of communication patterns in families, there are a certain set of beliefs within the family that reflect how its members should communicate and interact. These family communication patterns arise from two underlying sets of beliefs. One being conversation orientation (the degree to which the importance of communication is valued) and two, conformity orientation (the degree to which families should emphasize similarities or differences regarding attitudes, beliefs, and values).[18]

Kinship terminology[edit]

Degrees of kinship[edit]

Family in a wagon, Lee County, Mississippi, August 1935.

A first-degree relative is one who shares 50% of your DNA, such as a full sibling, parent or progeny.

KinshipClosenessGenetic
overlap
Identical twinsnot applicable100%
Full siblingfirst-degree50%
Parentfirst-degree50%
Offspring/progenyfirst-degree50%
Half-siblingsecond-degree25%
Grandmother/grandfathersecond-degree25%
Aunt/unclesecond-degree25%
Niece/nephewsecond-degree25%
First cousinthird-degree12.5%
Half-aunt, half-unclethird-degree12.5%
Half-niece/half-nephewthird-degree12.5%
First cousin once removedfourth-degree6.25%
Second cousinfifth-degree3.125%
Third cousinseventh-degree0.781%

Terminologies[edit]

Family tree showing the relationship of each person to the orange person. Cousins are colored green. The genetic kinship degree (excluding maternally-passed mitochondrial DNA and sex chromosomes) of relationship is marked in red boxes by percentage (%).

Anthropologist Lewis Henry Morgan (1818–1881) performed the first survey of kinship terminologies in use around the world. Although much of his work is now considered dated, he argued that kinship terminologies reflect different sets of distinctions. For example, most kinship terminologies distinguish between sexes (the difference between a brother and a sister) and between generations (the difference between a child and a parent). Moreover, he argued, kinship terminologies distinguish between relatives by blood and marriage (although recently some anthropologists have argued that many societies define kinship in terms other than "blood").

Morgan made a distinction between kinship systems that use classificatory terminology and those that use descriptive terminology. Classificatory systems are generally and erroneously understood to be those that "class together" with a single term relatives who actually do not have the same type of relationship to ego. (What defines "same type of relationship" under such definitions seems to be genealogical relationship. This is problematic given that any genealogical description, no matter how standardized, employs words originating in a folk understanding of kinship.) What Morgan's terminology actually differentiates are those (classificatory) kinship systems that do not distinguish lineal and collateral relationships and those (descriptive) kinship systems that do. Morgan, a lawyer, came to make this distinction in an effort to understand Seneca inheritance practices. A Seneca man's effects were inherited by his sisters' children rather than by his own children.[19] Morgan identified six basic patterns of kinship terminologies:

Family roles[edit]

Georgian family of writer Vazha-Pshavela (in the middle, sitting)

Most Western societies employ Eskimo kinship terminology.[citation needed] This kinship terminology commonly occurs in societies based on conjugal (or nuclear) families, where nuclear families have a degree of relative mobility. Members of the nuclear use descriptive kinship terms:

An infant, his mother, his maternal grandmother, and his great-grandmother

Such systems generally assume that the mother's husband is also the biological father. In some families, a woman may have children with more than one man or a man may have children with more than one woman. The system refers to a child who shares only one parent with another child as a "half-brother" or "half-sister". For children who do not share biological or adoptive parents in common, English-speakers use the term "stepbrother" or "stepsister" to refer to their new relationship with each other when one of their biological parents marries one of the other child's biological parents. Any person (other than the biological parent of a child) who marries the parent of that child becomes the "stepparent" of the child, either the "stepmother" or "stepfather". The same terms generally apply to children adopted into a family as to children born into the family.

Typically, societies with conjugal families also favor neolocal residence; thus upon marriage a person separates from the nuclear family of their childhood (family of orientation) and forms a new nuclear family (family of procreation). However, in western society the single parent family has been growing more accepted and has begun to make an impact on culture. Single parent families are more commonly single mother families than single father. These families sometimes face difficult issues besides the fact that they have to rear their children on their own, for example low income making it difficult to pay for rent, child care, and other necessities for a healthy and safe home. Members of the nuclear families of members of one's own (former) nuclear family may class as lineal or as collateral. Kin who regard them as lineal refer to them in terms that build on the terms used within the nuclear family:

For collateral relatives, more classificatory terms come into play, terms that do not build on the terms used within the nuclear family:

When additional generations intervene (in other words, when one's collateral relatives belong to the same generation as one's grandparents or grandchildren), the prefixes "great-" or "grand-" modifies these terms. Also, as with grandparents and grandchildren, as more generations intervene the prefix becomes "great-grand-," adding an additional "great-" for each additional generation. Most collateral relatives have never had membership of the nuclear family of the members of one's own nuclear family.

Cousins of an older generation (in other words, one's parents' first cousins), although technically first cousins once removed, are often classified with "aunts" and "uncles." Similarly, a person may refer to close friends of one's parents as "aunt" or "uncle," or may refer to close friends as "brother" or "sister," using the practice of fictive kinship. English-speakers mark relationships by marriage (except for wife/husband) with the tag "-in-law." The mother and father of one's spouse become one's mother-in-law and father-in-law; the female spouse of one's child becomes one's daughter-in-law and the male spouse of one's child becomes one's son-in-law. The term "sister-in-law" refers to three essentially different relationships, either the wife of one's sibling, or the sister of one's spouse, or, in some uses, the wife of one's spouse's sibling. "Brother-in-law" expresses a similar ambiguity. The terms "half-brother" and "half-sister" indicate siblings who share only one biological or adoptive parent.

History of theories of the family[edit]

Social Darwinists[edit]

Early scholars of family history applied Darwin's biological theory of evolution in their theory of evolution of family systems.[20] American anthropologist Lewis H. Morgan published Ancient Society in 1877 based on his theory of the three stages of human progress from Savagery through Barbarism to Civilization.[21] Morgan's book was the "inspiration for Friedrich Engels' book" The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State published in 1884.[22]

Engels expanded Morgan's hypothesis that economical factors caused the transformation of primitive community into a class-divided society.[23] Engels' theory of resource control, and later that of Karl Marx, was used to explain the cause and effect of change in family structure and function. The popularity of this theory was largely unmatched until the 1980s, when other sociological theories, most notably structural functionalism, gained acceptance.

The nuclear family in industrial society[edit]

Family arrangements in the United States have become more diverse with no particular household arrangement representing half of the United States population.[24]

Contemporary society generally views the family as a haven from the world, supplying absolute fulfilment. Zinn and Eitzen discuss the image of the "family as haven [...] a place of intimacy, love and trust where individuals may escape the competition of dehumanizing forces in modern society".[25] During industrialization, "[t]he family as a repository of warmth and tenderness (embodied by the mother) stands in opposition to the competitive and aggressive world of commerce (embodied by the father). The family's task was to protect against the outside world."[26] However, Zinn and Eizen note, "The protective image of the family has waned in recent years as the ideals of family fulfillment have taken shape. Today, the family is more compensatory than protective. It supplies what is vitally needed but missing in other social arrangements."[27]

"The popular wisdom", according to Zinn and Eitzen, sees the family structures of the past as superior to those today, and families as more stable and happier at a time when they did not have to contend with problems such as illegitimate children and divorce. They respond to this, saying, "there is no golden age of the family gleaming at us in the far back historical past."[28] "Desertion by spouses, illegitimate children, and other conditions that are considered characteristics of modern times existed in the past as well."[29]

The postmodern family[edit]

Percentage of births to unmarried women, selected countries, 1980 and 2007[30]

Others argue that whether or not one views the family as "declining" depends on one's definition of "family". Married couples have dropped below half of all American households. This drop is shocking from traditional forms of the family system. Only a fifth of households were following traditional ways of having married couples raising a family together.[31] No longer are marriages arranged for political or economic gain, and children are not expected to contribute to family income. Instead, people choose mates based on love. This increased role of love indicates a societal shift toward favoring emotional fulfilment and relationships within a family, and this shift necessarily weakens the institution of the family.[32]

Margaret Mead considers the family as a main safeguard to continuing human progress. Observing, "Human beings have learned, laboriously, to be human", she adds: "we hold our present form of humanity on trust, [and] it is possible to lose it" ... "It is not without significance that the most successful large-scale abrogations of the family have occurred not among simple savages, living close to the subsistence edge, but among great nations and strong empires, the resources of which were ample, the populations huge, and the power almost unlimited"[33]

Oedipal family model and fascism[edit]

The model, common in the western societies, of the family triangle, husband-wife-children isolated from the outside, is also called the oedipal model of the family, and it is a form of patriarchal family. Many philosophers and psychiatrists have analyzed such a model. In such a family, they argue, the young develop in a perverse relationship, wherein they learn to love the same person who beats and oppresses them. They believe that young children grow up and develop loving a person who is oppressing them physically or mentally, and that these children are not taught in a way that will raise affectionate children.[34] Such philosophers claim that the family therefore constitutes the first cell of the fascist society, as the children will carry this attitude of love for oppressive figures in their adult life.[35][36] They claim that fathers torment their sons.[37][38] Deleuze and Guattari, in their analysis of the dynamics at work within a family, "track down all varieties of fascism, from the enormous ones that surround and crush us to the petty ones that constitute the tyrannical bitterness of our everyday lives".[35]

As it has been explained by Deleuze, Guattari and Foucault, as well as other philosophers and psychiatrists such as Laing and Reich, the patriarchal-family conceived in the West tradition serves the purpose of perpetuating a propertarian and authoritarian society.[39] The child grows according to the oedipal model, which is typical of the structure of capitalist societies,[10][11] and he becomes in turn owner of submissive children and protector of the woman.[38][40][41][42][43]

As the young undergoes physical and psychological repression from someone for whom they develop love, they develop a loving attitude towards authority figures. They will bring such attitude in their adult life, when they will desire social repression and will form docile subjects for society.[39] Michel Foucault, in his systematic study of sexuality, argued that rather than being merely repressed, the desires of the individual are efficiently mobilized and used,[35] to control the individual, alter interpersonal relationships and control the masses. Foucault believed organized religion, through moral prohibitions, and economic powers, through advertising, make use of unconscious sex drives. Dominating desire, they dominate individuals.[44] According to the analysis of Michel Foucault, in the west:

the [conjugal] family organization, precisely to the extent that it was insular and heteromorphous with respect to the other power mechanisms, was used to support the great "maneuvers" employed for the Malthusian control of the birthrate, for the populationist incitements, for the medicalization of sex and the psychiatrization of its nongenital forms.

—Michel Foucault, The History of Sexuality vol I, chap. IV, sect. Method, rule 3, p. 99

Size[edit]

Natalism is the belief that human reproduction is the basis for individual existence, and therefore promotes having large families. Many religions, e.g., Islam, Christianity and Judaism,[45] encourage their followers to procreate and have many children, however many of them also propound stewardship and responsibility to care for the environment and society. In recent times, however, there has been an increasing amount of family planning and a following decrease in the total fertility rate in many parts of the world, in part due to improvements in health care, concerns of overpopulation, decreasing need for manual labor and increasing cost of raising a child as workers need to be more skilled. Many countries with population decline offer incentives for people to have large families as a means of national efforts to reverse declining populations.

See also[edit]

Notes and references[edit]

  1. ^ a b Schneider, David 1984 A Critique of the Study of Kinship. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. p. 182
  2. ^ Deleuze-Guattari (1972). Part 2, ch. 3, p. 80
  3. ^ Russon, John, (2003) Human Experience: Philosophy, Neurosis, and the Elements of Everyday Life, Albany: State University of New York Press. pp. 61–68.
  4. ^ George Peter Murdoch Social Structure p. 13
  5. ^ Wolf, Eric. 1982 Europe and the People Without History. Berkeley: University of California Press. 92
  6. ^ Harner, Michael 1975 "Scarcity, the Factors of Production, and Social Evolution," in Population, Ecology, and Social Evolution, Steven Polgar, ed. Mouton Publishers: the Hague.
  7. ^ Rivière, Peter 1987 "Of Women, Men, and Manioc", Etnologiska Studier (38).
  8. ^ Harris, Christopher (1983). The Family and Industrial Society. London: George Allen Unwin. p. 30. 
  9. ^ Olivia Harris. Kate Young, Carol Wolkowitz, and Roslyn McCullagh, ed. Of Marriage and the Market: Women's Subordination Internationally and its Lessons. London: Routledge. p. 138. 
  10. ^ a b Lacan 1938–2001, pp. 24–25, 56
  11. ^ a b Fugier Pascal, 2007, p.226-8
  12. ^ "The Collapse of Marriage by Don Browning – The Christian Century". Religion-online.org. February 7, 2006. pp. 24–28. Retrieved 2007-07-10. 
  13. ^ Levitan, Sara (2010). "Working wives and mothers: what happens to family life?". Retrieved January 8, 2014. 
  14. ^ Oregonstate.edu, Nuclear family – "A family group consisting of wife, husband (or one of these) and dependent children." – Definitions of Anthropological Terms – Anthropological Resources – (Court Smith) Department of Anthropology, Oregon State University
  15. ^ Blended and Blessed – Encouraging Step-Families, blendedandblessed.com[dead link]
  16. ^ "Department of Social and Developmental Psychology: PPSIS Faculty, Academic Profile". Sdp.cam.ac.uk. Retrieved 2011-03-26. 
  17. ^ Civil Action No. 1:09-cv-10309 paragraph 17
  18. ^ McCornack, Steven (2010). Reflect & Relate an introduction to interpersonal communication. Boston/NY: Bedford/St. Martin's. pp. 369–370. 
  19. ^ Tooker, Elisabeth. "Another View of Morgan on Kinship." Current Anthropology 20, no. 1 (March 1979): 131–134.
  20. ^ "Sociology/Founding the discipline". Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved 2009-07-26. 
  21. ^ Morgan 1877
  22. ^ "Cultural Anthropology". Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved 2009-07-22. 
  23. ^ "The Marxists Internet Archive". Retrieved 2009-07-17. 
  24. ^ Williams, Brian; Stacey C. Sawyer, Carl M. Wahlstrom (2005). Marriages, Families & Intimate Relationships. Boston, MA: Pearson. 0-205-36674-0. 
  25. ^ Zinn, Maxine Baca; D. Stanley Eitzen (2002). Diversity in families (6 ed.). Allyn and Bacon. p. 557. ISBN 978-0-205-33522-0. Retrieved 2012-01-06. "This 'family as haven' image of a refuge from an impersonal world characterizes the family as a place of intimacy, love, and trust in which individuals may escape the competition of dehumanizing forces in modern society. Christopher Lasch (1977:8) has named this image a 'haven in a heartless world' and described it as a glorification of private life made necessary by the deprivations experienced in the public world." 
  26. ^ Zinn and Eitzen (1987) Diversity in American families, p. 3
  27. ^ Zinn and Eitzen (1987) Diversity in American families, p. 3
  28. ^ Zinn and Eitzen (1987) Diversity in American families, p. 8
  29. ^ Zinn and Eitzen (1987) Diversity in American families, p. 8
  30. ^ "Changing Patterns of Nonmarital Childbearing in the United States". CDC/National Center for Health Statistics. May 13, 2009. Retrieved September 24, 2011. 
  31. ^ Tavernise, Sabrina (2011). "Married Couples Are No Longer a Majority, Census Finds". Retrieved January 8, 2014. 
  32. ^ Coontz, Stephanie. 2005. Marriage, A History: How Love Conquered Marriage. New York: Viking/Penguin Books.
  33. ^ Male and Female, New York, 1949. pp. 193-194
  34. ^ "About Family". Word Press. 31 March 2012. Retrieved January 8, 2014. 
  35. ^ a b c Foucault (1984) Preface to the American edition of Anti-Œdipus pp. xiii–xvi.
  36. ^ Wilhelm Reich (1933) The Mass Psychology of Fascism, Chapter V, The Sex-Economic Presuppositions of the Authoritarian Family
  37. ^ John Phillips Structural Linguistics and Anthropology, courses.nus.edu.sg
  38. ^ a b Wilhelm Reich [1936] The Sexual Revolution, Chapter V, The compulsive family as educational apparatus, pp. 71–77
  39. ^ a b Deleuze-Guattari (1972). Part 2, ch. 7, pp. 129–31
  40. ^ (Italian) Gianni Vattimo Tutto in famiglia (article appeared on Il Manifesto October 15, 2004), feltrinelli.it (Italian)
  41. ^ (Italian) Luttazzi, Daniele Bollito misto con mostarda (2005) p. 262, books.google.com
  42. ^ Theodor W. Adorno and Stephen Crook Adorno ISBN 0-415-27099-5, p. 9-10, books.google.com
  43. ^ E. James Anthony, The Family and the Psychoanalytic Process in Children (1980). Psychoanalytic Study of the Child, 35:3–34, pep-web.org
  44. ^ Foucault, The History of Sexuality
  45. ^ Joys of A Large Family, by Rebbetzin Faige Twerski. angelfire.com

Bibliography[edit]

External links[edit]