Family Chapter

INTRODUCTION As you have probably guessed, this chapter deals with family life in all its many forms, and the main aim of this opening section is to explore ‘different conceptions of the relationships of the family to the social structure, with particular reference to the economy and to state policies’. To do this successfully we need to: • outline different perspectives on family life • examine how these perspectives see the role of the family in society • explore how economic and social policies impact on family structures and relationships.

At a guess, I’d say your definition of a family Defining the will probably involve two basic ideas, family group considered in terms of family. • Characteristics: You will have identified certain features of a family (such as Preparing the different generations sharing a common ground residence) that make it different to other social groups. The first thing we need to do is define ‘a family’ given that, in order to relate the • Relationships: This involves the idea family to social structure and social policy, families share particular social relationships it would be useful to know what it (for example, that someone is a mother or involves. grandfather to a child) that clearly mark them out as a distinctive group in society. WARM UP: FAMILY DEFINITIONS As I am sure you have discovered, however, To get you started, in small groups, defining a family is not quite as easy as you think about and discuss among the group might have first thought, for a couple of what a family means to you. Make a note reasons. of the kinds of things you believe it involves. • Is there such an institution as ‘the family’ Once you have done this, as a class, compare in any society? In other words, is there your notes and identify the common features only one family type or is it possible to (if any) of a family. talk about many different types? • If there are a variety of types, are they

57 AS Sociology for AQA really different or are they simply suggests families do not have to be variations on a basic theme? For example, monogamous (for example, one man if our definition of a family involved the married to one women), they can also be idea of ‘two adults and their children’, is a polygamous – where one man is married to family consisting of ‘one adult and their a number of women (polygny) or one children’ a different form of family? woman married to a number of men (polyandry). However, it also suggests a Although they may not seem too important family involves children – which raises at the moment, how we answer these the question, how do we classify a questions is going to be central to our initial childless couple? Are they a family (and if exploration of family life. not, what are they)? If we look at some sociological definitions of families, we can begin with a classic one • Sexuality: Does this definition allow for provided by George Murdock (Social the possibility of homosexual families? Structure, 1949): • Common residence: Do family members The family is a social group characterised have to live together to consider by common residence, economic themselves a family? cooperation and reproduction. It includes adults of both sexes, at least two of whom maintain a socially-approved sexual Discussion point: relationship, and one or more children, own or adopted, of the sexually cohabiting adults classic or As an initial definition, it is useful for a outdated? couple of reasons: firstly, it is both a starting- Is Murdock’s definition too restrictive in the point (we have to begin somewhere) and, way it defines the family? speaking personally, a definition most of us Can you identify any groups that might would recognise as being ‘a family’. constitute a ‘family’ without conforming to Secondly, whether we go with it or not, it is his definition? useful for highlighting a couple of general Murdock’s definition was originally points about families. It tells us, for example: produced in the USA in the 1940s. • Social relationships are a key concept to Do you think the world has changed and, if consider (families are not necessarily so, what implications does this have for the linked to the concept of marriage, for way we can define a family? example). • Functions: Family groups seem to exist to If Murdock’s definition raises more questions fulfil a number of purposes, the main ones than it answers, perhaps we need to being reproduction and the investigate a slightly different way of raising/socialisation of children. defining the family group – and one way involves introducing the concept of kinship. There are, however, a few debatable areas to This involves relationships based on biology consider. (so-called blood relationships – such as • Adults and children: This definition between a mother and her child – where

58 Families and households there’s a genetic link between the two) or affinity (relationships created through Digging deeper custom – such as two adults living together – So far we have seen that defining a family is or relationships created by law, marriage not unproblematic (that is, there are being an obvious example here). arguments over how best to define it), which Weiss (‘Family support and education should alert us to a key characteristic of programs’, 1988) uses this concept to define family life in our society, namely its diversity the family group as, ‘A small kinship (considered in terms of both different family structured group with the key function of . . . structures and relationships). We will socialisation of the newborn’. Giddens develop these ideas in a moment, but for (Sociology, 1993) suggests family groups can now we can note we have identified a be defined as, ‘A group of persons directly distinction between two types of definition: linked by kin connections, the adult • Exclusive definitions (such as that members of which assume responsibility of produced by Murdock) where the focus is caring for the children.’ on the specific characteristics of a family However we decide to define a family, it is that make it different to other social clear we need to distinguish this group from a groups (such as a household or a school concept used with increasing frequency, class). This type has the advantage of namely a household. This, at its most basic, being clear about what is – and is not – a involves a single person or group living family group but, as we have seen, it is together in the same location (such as friends perhaps difficult to produce a definition sharing accommodation). In this respect, we that applies to all possible types of family. can note most families are households, but not all households are families. • Inclusive definitions (such as those of Weiss or Giddens) where the focus is on defining a family group in terms of the general relationships (such as kinship or

Growing it yourself: families or households? Using the following table as a template (and working individually, in small groups or as a class) what advantages and disadvantages can you identify to the use of concepts like families and households?

Families Households Advantages of Disadvantages of Advantages of Disadvantages of this concept this concept this concept this concept Identifies Difficult to define Includes all groups A household can kinship as who live together be different to a significant family

Further advantages and disadvantages?

59 AS Sociology for AQA affinity) that make it different from other surrounded in various ways by ‘family’ of social groups. One advantage to this some description. This being the case, definition is that it covers a variety of therefore, it would be useful to examine how different family forms, but if the different sociologists have explained the definition is drawn too broadly it may social significance of these groups. include family-type groups (such as households) that are significantly Family different to families in terms of their relationships. perspectives Each type of definition has, therefore, certain advantages and disadvantages for the Preparing the sociological researcher and, whichever definition you choose to use, it is ultimately just ground that – a choice reflecting your personal ideas, Family groups, considered mainly in term of interests and preoccupations; there is, in effect, what they exist to do, are generally no correct way of defining a family group. considered by sociologists to be important Thus, rather than see families as a institutions in any society. However, as you particular type of social group it might be might expect, there are disagreements over better to think about them in terms of what how we interpret the role of the family group John Goldthorpe (Family Life in Western and, in this section we can introduce some Societies, 1987) calls ‘a network of related different perspectives on the relationships of kin’; in other words, as a social process based families to social structure. Functionalist on relationships involving a particular set of: perspectives start from the observation the • labels – such as mother, father, son and family group has existed – in one form or daughter another – in all known societies (in other words, the family is considered to be a • values – such as the belief parents should ‘cultural universal’ because it has existed in raise their own children all known cultures in one form or another). • norms – such as living together (through For this reason, families are seen as crucial to marriage or cohabitation) the functioning of any social system (you will • functions – such as primary socialisation. recall, no doubt, functionalists consider the family to be one of the four major functional By adopting this view we start to capture the sub-systems in any society). To put this potential richness of family relationships another way, the family group is considered and, by extension, reflect the diversity of functional – and therefore essential – for any family experiences in our society. social system because it has a couple of vital However we eventually decide to define purposes, namely: ‘the family’ (something, as I’ve suggested above, that is actually quite difficult to do) it • Socialisation: Families are the main is probably safe to say that family groups are institution for the initial socialisation of important to us – the majority of us, after children and any institution charged with all, spend at least some of our lives this responsibility plays a significant part

60 Families and households in the reproduction of cultural norms and roles and relationships (which normally values. means men as family breadwinners and • Social order: The family acts as a women as domestic workers). stabilising force in society. Great stress is Marxist perspectives on family life reflect placed by functionalists on things like their conflict view of society, where they emotional and sexual stability, economic relate what the family group does co-operation and so forth. (socialisation, for example) to how it benefits powerful groups, whether this be on New Right perspectives, although closely a group level – how a ruling class benefits related to functionalism, involve more from various ‘free family services’, such as directly political (rather than sociological) raising children to be future employees – or ideas about the significance of families. For a personal level, such as how men dominate New Right theorists, whether we define and exploit women. them in terms of personalities (politicians For Marxists, it is not what the family such as Margaret Thatcher in the UK, does that’s important, but why it does it. Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush in the One argument here is the family helps to USA) or practices (issues such as anti- maintain and reproduce inequalities by abortion, anti-immigration, anti-Europe and presenting them as ‘normal’ and ‘natural’ liberal economic policies), the family group within the socialisation process. is the cornerstone of any society. Feminist perspectives have, traditionally, The New Right particularly like to focused on the role of the family group in the promote the idea of ‘traditional family exploitation of women. In this respect, relationships’ – families should consist of attention has mainly been given to identifying two, heterosexual, adults, preferably married how traditional gender roles within the family (to each other) with clearly defined gender have been enforced and reinforced, mainly for the benefit of men. The family group, therefore, has tended to be seen as oppressive of women, trapping them in a fairly narrow range of roles and responsibilities (domestic labour and child care, for example) that defines female roles in terms of the kind of service functions just noted. In modern families, the notion of women’s dual role or double shift (women as both paid workers and unpaid housewives) has been emphasised as has, more-recently, the idea of women performing, according to Duncombe and Marsden (‘Love and intimacy: The Gender Division of Emotion and “Emotion Work”’, 1993) a triple shift – the third element being the idea of emotional labour (that is, investing time and effort in the The New Right view of a traditional family psychological well-being of family members).

61 AS Sociology for AQA Postmodern perspectives reject the kinds and relationships. On the other, we have of views we have just noted (since they all, postmodern perspectives that suggest the in their different ways, are seen as putting question of any relationship (of whatever forward narrow (or prescriptive) views about type) between families and social structures what families are and how they should be). is not worth posing (let alone trying to The key ideas of this perspective in relation answer). to family life and relationships are diversity Whatever your position in relation to and choice, two concepts that reflect the above, we need to dig a little deeper postmodern ideas about behaviour and into the different perspectives we have just lifestyles. outlined, if for no better reason than this is From this viewpoint, sociological an AS textbook designed to provide a range perspectives such as functionalism, Marxism of views for you to personally evaluate, or feminism are hopelessly outdated in their accept or reject. In this respect, therefore, view of societies and individuals. A family – functionalist sociology has tended to look in short – is whatever people want it to be at the family as the initial, essential, (whether it involves adults of the opposite bedrock of social integration in any given sex, the same sex, own children, adopted society. This involves the idea that ways children or whatever). From this have to be found to make people feel they perspective, therefore, the relationship belong to the society into which they were between families and the social structure is a born – to believe they have something in largely meaningless question for two reasons. common with the people around them. Firstly, they reject the idea of social Ronald Fletcher (The Family and Marriage structures – which makes trying to identify in Britain, 1973), in this respect, has and isolate any relationship between family identified the core functions of the family as groups and something that doesn’t exist being: (social structures) a fairly pointless exercise. • procreation and child-rearing (the Secondly, they reject the idea we can talk, ‘having sex and its consequences’ bit – in any useful way, about ‘the family’; all we which includes, of course, the initial, have, in effect, is a variety of people living general, socialisation process) out their lives and lifestyles in ways they believe are acceptable and appropriate to • regulation of sexual behaviour (between how they want to live. adults, for example, by defining the limits of sexual freedom) Digging deeper • provision of a home (in the widest sense of the word). In thinking about families and their In addition, Fletcher argues families perform relationships to social structure we have two certain non-essential functions, many of distinct viewpoints to consider; on the one which provide linkages with the wider social hand, we have traditional sociological structure. These include: perspectives (such as functionalism) that emphasise how the structure of society • consumption of goods and services impacts (for good or bad) on family forms • basic education

62 Families and households • health care (both physical and family, for example, many women are still psychological) generally expected to do the majority of • recreation. domestic labour tasks (a situation that mirrors, the exploitative work For Talcott Parsons, on the other hand, the relationships experienced by many men). modern family has become increasingly This situation is, to some extent, specialised. He argues it performs only two considered right and proper or, at leant, essential functions: legitimate by many men and women • Primary socialisation: Families are because it is seen as being part of the ‘factories whose product is the female role in (patriarchal) society. development of human personalities.’ • Free services: The basic idea here is that • Stabilisation of adult personalities, the majority of children raised within a which involves adult family members family group will grow-up to be future providing things like physical and workers who will, according to this emotional support for each other. perspective, be taking their place amongst those exploited by capitalist owners. The Marxist perspectives have been generally costs of replacing ‘dead labour’ (a concept more critical of the role of the family group, that includes both those who literally die seeing it in terms of: and those who become too old or sick to • A safety valve for (male) frustrations: The work anymore) are, in the main taken on majority of men are relatively powerless in by the family group in a couple of ways. the workplace and this condition is • Economic costs involved in raising disguised by allowing males to be powerful children to adulthood fall on the figures within the family group. This serves family group. Employers make little or as a safety value for the build-up of tension no contribution to these general family and frustration at work and directs costs. frustration away from criticism of employers, • Psychological costs are also involved workplace conditions and so forth. In this since the family group is an important respect, we could also note the family is a socialising agency. If children are to be fairly violent institution in our society: The future workers they need to be Home Office, for example, through its socialised in ways that orientate them Crime Reduction Service (‘Domestic towards seeing their future in such Violence’, 2004) documents the range, risk terms. and consistency of family-related violence Complementing the idea of free services, in terms of the fact that: ‘Every year, around we can note how Marxists relate such 150 people are killed by a current or former ideas to that of the family group as a: partner. One in four women and one in six men will suffer from domestic violence at • Stabilising force in capitalist society. some point in their lives.’ This idea reflects the argument that the responsibilities people take on when they • Channelling and legitimising the create family groups locks them into exploitation of women. Within the capitalist economic relationships. In

63 AS Sociology for AQA other words, family members have to work to provide both the basic necessities of life – food, clothing and shelter – and the range of consumer goods that goes with modern lifestyles (Personal computers, DVDs, the family car and so forth). The requirement to take responsibility for family members (both adults and children) also acts as an emotionally stabilising force in society. Finally, in this respect, we can note the idea of the family group as: • Consumers of products: Marxists note how the family group has, historically, moved from being active producers of goods and services to passive consumers of these things – someone, after all, has to • capitalist exploitation as employees in buy the things that make proﬁts for a the workplace. ruling class and the family, with all its • Reserve army of labour: Mary expenses and expectations represent an Macintosh (‘The State Oppression of increasingly important source of Women’) argues that women are called consumption. into the workforce at various times when Feminist perspectives on family life tend to there is a shortage of male labour and stress things like: forced back into the family when there is a surplus. Women are a marginalised • Service roles: Women, by and large, take workforce, forced into low pay, low status, on the role of ‘unpaid servants’ to their employment on the basis of sexual partner and children. This is sometimes discrimination. done willingly – because they see it as part • Oppression: Feminists also point to the of the female role – and sometimes idea that women’s lives within the family unwillingly because their partner will not, are oppressive when considered in a or is unable, to take it on. This type of role – couple of ways. Firstly, in terms of the especially when it’s part of a female double ‘housewife role’ effectively forced on shift involving both paid and unpaid work – women. Even though many women seem contributes, according to feminists, to: to perform this role willingly it could be • Exploitation: In this respect, feminists argued this willingness to identify point to the idea women in our society domestic labour with femininity is a result increasingly suffer from dual forms of of both socialisation and patriarchal exploitation: ideologies. Secondly, in terms of violence • patriarchal exploitation as domestic within the family. Dodd et al (‘Crime in labourers within the home England and Wales 2003/2004’), for

64 Families and households example, note ‘16% of all violent out their personal choices and lifestyles in incidents were incidents of domestic the best ways they can. violence’. They also report just over two- As Judith Stacey (‘Fellow Families?’, 2002) thirds (67 per cent) of the victims of puts it when discussing same-sex domestic violence were women. relationships, ‘Under the postmodern Postmodern perspectives, on the other family condition, every family is an hand, tend to view family groups in alternative family.’ Because of this individualistic terms – as arenas in which uniqueness, as we have seen in the previous people play out their personal narratives, as section, one of the problems we encounter it were. In this sense, we can identify two when discussing families is the difficulty basic forms of individualistic experience: involved in trying to precisely define this group; exclusive definitions appear much • Choice, in the individual sense of the too narrow and restrictive, in the sense they word, whereby people are increasingly generally fail to account for all types of able to make decisions about their family structures, whereas inclusive behaviour – from the basic choice of definitions may be so widely drawn in terms whether or not to form a family group to of what they include as a family as to be the variety of extended choices now somewhat less than useful for students of available in terms of how people express AS Sociology (and their teachers, come to their ‘lived experiences’ in family that). In this respect, David Elkind relationships. Think, for example, about (‘Waaah, Why Kids Have a Lot to Cry the multitude of different family forms About’, 1992) has suggested the transition and relationships in our society – from from modern to postmodern society has childless couples, through step-families, produced what he terms the permeable to gay couples with children and family which, he notes, ‘encompasses many beyond. This notion of choice links into different family forms: traditional or the idea of: nuclear, two-parent working, single-parent, • Pluralism as the deﬁning feature of blended, adopted child, test-tube, surrogate postmodern societies. In other words, mother, and co-parent families. Each of such societies are increasingly these is valuable and a potentially characterised by a plurality of family successful family form’. In this respect he forms and groups which coexist – argues: ‘The Modern Family spoke to our sometimes happily and sometimes need to belong at the expense, particularly uneasily. Within this context of family for women, of the need to become. The pluralism, therefore, Postmodernists argue Permeable Family, in contrast, celebrates it’s pointless to make judgements about the need to become at the expense of the family forms (in the way we’ve seen other need to belong.’ sociological perspectives make such While Elkind doesn’t necessarily see this judgements about the form and function latter state – the idea individual needs and of family groups). From this perspective desires override our sense of responsibility to therefore, each family unit is, in its own others (and, in some respects, the ‘denial of way unique and involves people working

65 AS Sociology for AQA self’ in favour of one’s children and their needs) – as generally desirable Dyske Family and Suematsu (‘Postmodern Family’, 2004) is not so sure: ‘A family is essentially a unit of social policy support. There were days when human beings could not survive without it. Those Preparing the days are over.’ ground We can begin this section by defining social Discussion point: policy which, according to Susan and Peter is the family Calvert (Sociology Today, 1992) refers to: the main principles under which the dead? government of the day directs economic Do you agree or disagree with the resources to meet specific social needs.’ argument Suematsu puts forward that, in We can add some flesh to the bare bones some respects, families have outlived their of this definition by noting Susannah usefulness? Morris’s observations (Social Policy: From the What arguments could you put forward to Victorians to the Present Day, 2004) that either support or reject this idea? social policy involves the government identifying and regulating: Whatever your personal perspective on • social problems – such as an increase in family life, whether you see yourself as a the level of crime family traditionalist, looking forward to • social needs – such as those of the producing 1.6 children – the current average unemployed family size in the UK – in a loving, heterosexual, relationship or as a • social conditions – such as the provision postmodern free-spirit ready-and-willing to of health care through something like a indulge whatever sexual craving takes your National Health Service. fancy,(with whoever takes your fancy), in a WARM UP: SOCIAL POLICIES loose-knit family-style relationship, it Although you may not be aware of it, you remains true that governments – the makers already know a great deal about how social of social policy – tend to have quite specific and economic policies impact on family life. views about what constitutes a family. The technical term for this idea is an Using the following table as a starting point ideology (a set of related beliefs about (and working initially in small groups, something) and, in the next section, we can adding any further family areas as required), examine some ways social and economic identify as many things as you can that ideologies and policies impact on family impact on what you’re allowed/not allowed structures and relationships. to do in the context of family life. Once you have done this, get together as a class to combine the things you have identified.

66 Families and households

Family Area What can you do? What can’t you do?

Marriage Marry someone of the Marry someone of same sex opposite sex Marry a close relative (brother or sister) Marry someone under 16 Divorce You can get divorced Marry someone else while already married Sexuality Have a sexual relationship Have a sexual relationship with someone under 16 Children (0–12) Paid employment

Teenagers (13–16) Paid employment: a limited number of hours each day Adults Cohabit (with people of same/different sex)

Some of the areas we’re going to look at • identifying a selection of government later (such as divorce) may also provide policies that impact on family life examples of policies. • reviewing a sample of recent social and As should be apparent, from the work economic policies to give you a ﬂavour you’ve just done, social and economic policy for this area (and your further research if is a potentially vast area to cover (even if we so desired). restrict ourselves to considering only those polices directly affecting families), since it Before we look at these ideas, don’t forget involves both a: family life is also covered by general social policies relating to the criminal law; • Historical perspective: identifying, for although we tend to talk about things like example, polices from both the distant domestic violence as if they were somehow a past – such as the various Factory and special legal category, it is actually a form of Child Labour Acts of the nineteenth criminal assault. Areas such as child abuse century – and the recent past – such as and bigamy are also covered by crime the Child Support Agency, created in 1993 policies. to ensure parents living apart met ‘their ﬁnancial responsibilities to their children’. Digging deeper • Future perspective: thinking about polices Rather than simply list a selection of recent now being proposed – such as limits on the social and economic policies that have smacking of children – and polices whose impacted on family life, a more interesting impact cannot be adequately judged, as yet. way to think about this information might Rather than trawl through this vast sea of be to use a biographical approach. This policy, therefore, this section focuses on two involves creating an imaginary individual main areas, namely: and showing some of the ways social policies

67 AS Sociology for AQA impact on their life – from birth to • Pregnancy: Working women are retirement. You should also remember what entitled to maternity leave, statutory follows is just an illustration – it is designed maternity pay and, once they have to give you a general overview of how social given birth, they have a right to policy impacts on family life. Having duly resume their former job. From 2003, noted this proviso, we can begin our fathers also have the right to a period biological approach with: of paternity leave (up to two weeks), during which they can claim statutory • Conception: Until recently, paternity pay from their employer contraceptive devices were available ‘free’ (currently £100 a week or 90% of (paid for out of general taxation) from average weekly earnings if this is less the National Health Service (NHS); than £100). however IVF (fertility treatments) are now available for those unable to • Birth/infancy: The NHS provides free conceive ‘naturally’. medical services, the level and range of which depends on government funding policies and decisions made by Regional Health Authorities. In general, the lower the social class of your parents, the greater the chance of you not surviving childbirth (child mortality) or the first few years of life (infant mortality), as the following table illustrates:

Higher Semi-skilled managerial manual (non-manual) 2.7 per 1,000 7.5 per 1,000 live live births births

Table 2.1 Infant Mortality rate 2002 (for babies born inside marriage) by father’s Here’s one I made earlier. occupation (Standard Occupational Classiﬁcation 2000)

• Abortion is also available for a period of If, for whatever reason, your parents can’t 24 weeks (under the Abortion Act, 1967) care for you, the government (through after conception. Whether or not you are local councils) makes provision for conceived will depend upon a range of fostering/adoption. family circumstances governed by • Pre-school: Nursery facilities are not government policy (child care facilities, provided by the government (although employment prospects for your parents tax credits are available for nursery and so forth). places), which restricts the ability of one

68 Families and households parent to work and affects family living standards. If your mother works, you are most likely to be looked after by a grandparent (one-third of children under 15 in 2002). If you are abused or neglected, you may be taken into local authority care – something that happened to 40,000 children in 2002. • Education: Between the ages of 5 and 16 you must, by law, receive formal tuition, either through attending a state (free)/private school or by a private tutor (who can be your parents). The education you receive may depend on your parents’ income (if they can afford to send you to a private school) or where they live (children who attend schools in inner city areas achieve fewer GCSE and earnings, however, will be subject to A-level exam passes than those who Income Tax and National Insurance attend schools in suburban areas). Such deductions. things may affect your future employment • Adulthood (18): Adult family members prospects and may affect the decision are affected in numerous ways by social about whether or not you remain within and economic policies. the family home. • You can get married (subject to various • You may be eligible for free school restrictions – incest, bigamy, age of meals and there is the possibility you prospective partner and so forth), could be suspended or excluded from cohabit (live with someone) and school. divorce. • A range of health/welfare services and • If you start your own family, your beneﬁts are provided by the state, but housing options may be limited. In the these no longer include things like free past 20 years the government has prescriptions or dental and eye care. discouraged the building of low-rent • Early adulthood (16–18): Once you (subsidised) housing and local reach the minimum school-leaving age, a authority (‘council’) housing has been range of government policies come into progressively sold to private owners effect. You can legally marry (as long as and housing associations. your parents agree) and you can have • Your ability to afford a mortgage is sexual intercourse (as long as your partner affected by your employment – of whatever sex – is at least 16). If you prospects, which relate to things like get a job, you have to be paid the legal your level of education and where you minimum wage for your age. Your live (the South East has lower rates of

69 AS Sociology for AQA unemployment than the north of National Insurance contributions you England, Scotland and Wales). have – or have not – paid throughout • In 2002, the average house price was your working life (many women in our £128,000 (although regional society, for example, have not paid differences apply; living in London, for enough contributions to qualify for a full example, is more expensive – a state pension). detached house, on average, will set • Pensioners who rely solely on a state you back £385,000 in 2004). These pension are one of the most likely factors may result in children groups to experience poverty (roughly continuing to live within the family 20% of all pensioners are classed as home (see above). poor). Means-tested income support is • Mortgage tax relief was abolished in available for pensioners who, at 52%, 2002. are the largest recipient group of social security expenditure (the next largest • Between the ages of 18 and 24, if you group – 26% – are the sick and claim the Job Seeker’s Allowance disabled). continuously for six months you will have to enter the New Deal scheme; if • As a pensioner, you may receive some you can’t find a job through this free services (the bus pass!), but you scheme you will be required to do one have to pay VAT (at 17.5%) on of the following: subsidised heating costs (although the employment; work experience with a government does make provision for voluntary organisation/environmental ‘bad weather payments’). Hypothermia task force or full-time education. If you (death through lack of heat) is one of refuse to do one of these options your the greatest causes of premature death Job Seeker’s Allowance will be stopped. • The government provides a range of (means tested – they depend on your level of income) social security benefits for adults and families. These include working families’ tax credit/income support; council tax benefit; incapacity or disability benefits and housing benefit. In addition, child benefit is paid to all families with eligible children, regardless of income. • Old age/retirement: State pensions currently start at 65 for men and 60 for women (although this may change by 2010 with the retirement age for all set at 65). Pension payments depend on the Old age – the happiest days of your life?

70 Families and households in our society. Medical services are still free, but the elderly are often Family and considered a low priority in terms of health provision. You may have to household wait months or years for non-essential surgery. changes • Services such as home helps, district nurse/health visitor, day centre care, Introduction social workers and meals-on-wheels are As I have just noted, the focus of this also provided for those aged 65 and section is an examination of changes in over. family and household structure and their • If you reach a stage where you are relationship to industrialisation and unable to adequately care for yourself, urbanisation. To understand the nature and you will be faced with the choice of extent of such changes we need to do two entering a private nursing home main things: ﬁrstly, we have to outline what (which will be expensive and largely we mean by: unsubsidised – which may affect any • family and household structure inheritance for your children) or, more likely, you will be forced to rely on • industrialisation your children for care and • urbanisation. accommodation (‘care in the Secondly, we need to examine how family community’). If you have no children and household structures have changed or no means of support you will receive historically in our society and how such some form of state care. changes can be related to processes of In this section we have looked at a range of industrialisation and urbanisation. social policies affecting family life and WARM UP: FAMILY GENOGRAMS experiences in our society which, as I indicated earlier, involves a sense of A genogram originally developed by historical development and continuity. McGoldrick and Gerson (Genograms in Continuing this general theme, therefore, Family Assessment, 1985) is a way of we can turn next to an examination of describing family relationships and their changes to family and household structures structure. It is similar to a family tree, but a and their relationship to processes of little more sophisticated in terms of the industrialisation and urbanisation. information it contains. Draw a genogram for your family (using the examples of McGoldrick and Gerson’s notation over leaf). Start by identifying your immediate family and work outwards from there . . . Males are indicated by squares, females by

71 AS Sociology for AQA circles. Marriage/cohabitation is shown by an unbroken line. Preparing the The person drawing the genogram is ground indicated by a double box. Put the birth date of each family member at the top left. Family/household structure is based on the idea we can identify differences in the way Links between living family members can be people relate to each other; in other words indicated as a broken line. Indicate the (going back to the work we did on the relationship (uncle, for example) beneath concept of structure in Chapter 1) family the line. and household structures are differentiated (or Marriage dates are recorded above the link different) from each other on the basis of line. the different lifestyles, values and norms A separation is recorded by a slash (with surrounding people’s relationships. The date) along the line. following examples of different family and Divorce is recorded as above, except two household structures make this a little more lines are used. understandable: Remarriage (or ex-marriage) is indicated to • Nuclear families consist of two one side with a smaller shape. generations of family members (parents and children) living in the same household. Contacts with wider kin (aunts and cousins, for example) are 45 44 usually infrequent and more likely to involve ‘impersonal contacts’ such as the telephone or email. For this reason, 81 79 this family structure is sometimes called an isolated nuclear (reflecting its isolation from wider kin and it’s ‘economic isolation’ from the rest of society) or conjugal family – a self- contained unit where family members m. 90 are expected to support each other socially, economically and psychologically. m. 90, s. 94 • Extended families, as the name suggests, involve additional family members. This m. 90, s. 94 d. 96 structure comes in three basic ﬂavours: • Vertically extended consists of three m. 1990, d. 96 m. 99 or more generations (grandparents, parents and children) living in the same household (or very close to each other). Matrifocal families are a

72 Families and households variation on this type of family • Single-parent families involve a single structure in that they involve (or are adult plus their dependent children. focused on) women (a female Although this is more likely to be a grandparent, female parent and female parent, a signiﬁcant proportion children). Conversely, patrifocal involve a male parent. This type of family families (quite rare in our society) are is sometimes called a broken nuclear family, focused on men. because it often – but not always – arises • Horizontally extended involves from the break-up of a two-parent family. relations such as aunts, uncles, cousins, • Reconstituted (or ‘step’) families (usually etc. (relations of the same generation as nuclear in form) result from the break-up the parents). These ‘extensions’ to the of one family (through things like death or basic family group branch out within divorce) and its reconstitution as a unique generations – a wife’s sister and her family by remarriage or cohabitation. It partner, for example, living with the may, therefore, involve children from a family group. Polygamous families previous family as well as the new family. (where one man lives with many women or vice versa) sometimes take this form – the parents may, for example, be drawn Remarriage from the same generation. (Either partner) • Modiﬁed-extended refers, according to Parents Step Parents Michael Gordon (The Nuclear Family in Crisis: The Search for an Alternative, 1972) to the idea that wider family members keep in regular touch with each other. This may be both physically (in the sense of visiting or exchanging help and services) and emotionally (contacts Step brother/ by telephone, email and the like). Child Step sister Related to this idea is a distinction drawn by Peter Wilmott (‘Urban Kinship Past A reconstituted (step) family and Present’, 1988) when he talks about • Homosexual families: Usually nuclear in local extended families, involving ‘two form, this type of family involves adults of or three nuclear families in separate the same sex plus children (own or households’ living close together and adopted). Homosexual couples cannot providing mutual help and assistance; currently legally marry in the UK (a dispersed extended families, involving Labour Government Bill to recognise less frequent personal contacts; and ‘Civil Partnerships’ – giving each partner attenuated extended families involving, legal rights similar to married for example, ‘young couples before they heterosexual couples – was rejected by have children’, gradually separating from the House of Lords in June 2004). Gay their original families. couples can, however, legally cohabit.

73 AS Sociology for AQA reason, a group of people living together. This may be a temporary arrangement (such as students sharing a flat) or a permanent arrangement whereby families/individuals live together as a commune. We can complete the first part of this section by briefly outlining what we mean by the concepts of: • Industrialisation – a process whereby machines are extensively applied to the production of goods in society (mechanisation). One result of this process is the development of factories and the ability to mass produce consumer goods (clothes, cars, mobile phones). Related to Tony Barlow and Barrie Drewitt, who have this process is the concept of: lived together since 1988, paid an American surrogate mother to carry twins • Urbanisation, which involves the idea of artificially conceived using one of the population movement away from rural partner’s sperm. (village) living to larger communities based in towns and cities. This is Household structures in our society, sometimes called social migration from involve the following: the countryside (rural areas) to towns – • Single households consist (as you might urban areas which developed as have guessed) of an adult living alone. industrialisation and factory production Traditionally, death and relationship developed. breakdown have been the main reasons for this type of household, although there Digging deeper is increasing evidence people are Having familiarised ourselves with some choosing to live this way (in 2003, for basic concepts about family and household example, 13% of all households consisted structures, industrialisation and urbanisation, of a single person). we need to explore the relationship between • Couple households consist of two people these ideas. To do this, we need to frame living without children. In 2003, 25% of debates about possible changes in this all households were of this type, making relationship within a sociological context, it the second most common household one that involves thinking about the type after couples with dependent relationship between social change and social children (38% of all households). behaviour in a historical context – and to • Shared households are not particularly explore possible historical changes within common and involve, for whatever both society and family structures, we need

74 Families and households to do two things: firstly, establish a live in a postmodern/post-industrial framework for our analysis of social change society. I have included it as a type here and secondly examine historical changes in mainly because it’s easy to make the society and how they link to economic mistake of thinking ‘industrialisation’ is changes over time. Since we want to look at something that happened a long time the effects of industrialisation, we can ago. Whatever we want to call present organise the framework in terms of the day society (postmodern or late modern, characteristics of three ‘historical types’ of for example) the important thing is to society, namely: relate family and household change to both an understanding of the past and the • pre-industrial (or pre-modern) present. • industrial (or modern) and • Mass production refers to the idea that • post-industrial (or postmodern). machines were used to produce goods to a The table below identifies a range of standard design, cheaply enough to make significant social and economic features of them available to large numbers of each of these basic types. When referring to people. this table, keep the following in mind: • Service production refers to the idea that providing services to people (either • Types of society: These are not ‘hard- physically – as in McDonald’s – or and-fast’ categories – pre-modern through things like banking, insurance society didn’t end abruptly, to be and knowledge-based systems) is the replaced by modern society. The table dominant form of economic activity in simply helps you identify some possible postmodern society. differences between different types of society. • Feudal refers to a political system involving a major social distinction • Post-modernity: There are arguments between the Nobility (large within sociology about whether we now

Pre-modern Modern Post-modern

Time Pre-18th century 18th-late 20th Late-20th century to century present Features of Pre-industrial Industrial Post-industrial economic Agriculture Mass production Service production production Tools Mechanisation Automation Scale Local National Global Political Feudal Capitalist Late capitalist system

Table 2.2 Selected characteristics of types of society in Britain

75 AS Sociology for AQA landowners) and the Peasantry (largely landless). Family and household Feudal system changes King Land Preparing the Taxes Nobles ground Military Church In terms of the question just posed, there are Knight Knight two basic positions we need to examine. Protection The first argument suggests industrialisation and urbanisation were important factors in Peasants Peasants the promotion of family and household change. These processes, as they developed over a couple of hundred years between the Serfs/Slaves late seventeenth and late nineteenth centuries, radically changed the nature of • Capitalist refers to a political system work and economic production as Britain based on a class distinction between gradually moved from an agrarian owners (employers) and workers (agricultural) to an industrial (factory-based) (employees). society. This change in the nature and organisation of work – from the land-based, In the table I have suggested significant rural, agricultural, family-centred, historical changes in our society based on organisation of pre-industrial society to the the idea of economic changes to the way capital-intensive, urban, industrial, factory- goods are made and services provided. There centred, organisation of industrial society – is, in this respect, little doubt Britain today produced, from this viewpoint, radical is a very different place to Britain 500 years family and household changes. The basic ago and it would not be difficult to establish argument here is that family structures changes in, for example, personal changed from the predominantly extended- relationships (family or otherwise) between family organisation of pre-industrial society these two periods. However, the crucial to the predominantly nuclear family question we need to explore next is the organisation of industrial society. The main extent to which the social changes created reason for this was that industrialisation saw by industrialisation and urbanisation the development of factories and, in turn, produced changes in family and household the rapid growth of large urban centres structures. (towns and cities) to support and supply labour for factory-based production. To accommodate such changes, the old extended families of pre-industrial society

76 Families and households (ideally suited to the demands of a family- In addition, the relatively large number of based, subsistence form of farming) were extended households in pre-industrial times broken down into nuclear families that fitted (which included, for example, servants who the economic requirements of: had few, if any, emotional or economic ties with their employers) also represented • geographic mobility – the need for flexible structures that could adapt relatively families to move to towns and easily to the changed economic world. This factories idea of flexibility translates relatively easily • labour flexibility – the need to move to to post-modern society, which, so this where jobs were located. argument goes, requires highly flexible Industrialisation, therefore, was seen as the family and household structures if new motor for family change – people were economic opportunities are to be grasped forced to change the way they lived to and exploited. Our society, it is suggested, accommodate new forms of economic has already evolved fragmentary family and production. household structures (through If we trace this idea into the late industrialisation and changes to legal twentieth/early twenty-first century, a relationships – the easy availability of similar pattern emerges, but this time the divorce, the growth of single-parent families emphasis is on family fragmentation and and single-person households etc.) that are diversity. The nuclear family structures well-suited to taking on board globalised created by industrialisation and urbanisation forms of work (living and working in are disrupted by the needs of global different countries, working at home using economic systems and work processes, computer technology and so forth). processes of de-industrialisation (a decline in Having identified two opposing sides to the economic importance of manufacturing) the debate, therefore, we need to examine and of de-urbanisation (a move away from the historical evidence to help us decide towns and cities to the countryside). which, if any, of these two arguments best The second, alternative, argument also describes the relationship between changes involves thinking, initially, about in family and household structures, industrialisation and urbanisation. The industrialisation and urbanisation. argument here is that these occurred in Britain (the first country to industrialise) Digging deeper because pre-industrial family structures were mainly nuclear and thus ideally Evidence for the first argument (generally positioned to take advantage of new known as the ‘Fit Thesis’ because it proposed economic opportunities requiring family a close fit between changes in family mobility and flexibility; in other words, structures, industrialisation and pre-industrial family structures – with few urbanisation) has been put forward by unbreakable physical or emotional ties Functionalist writers such as Parsons (‘The with extended kin – are seen as the motor Social Structure of the Family’, 1959) and for subsequent industrial development. Goode (World Revolution and Family Patterns, 1963) as well as, in a slightly different way,

77 AS Sociology for AQA the social action theorist Max Weber (The required as many people as possible to Protestant Ethic and Spirit of Capitalism, work the land. 1904). • Geographic mobility: The ability to move In basic terms, extended family structures away from the family group was severely were seen as the norm for pre-industrial limited by poor communications (no society because they were: railways or cars, basic road systems and so • Multi-functional: A wide family network forth). This meant, in effect, family performed a range of different functions members – even if they had wanted to – related to the economic and social well- were physically unable to move far from being of family members. the family home. • Kinship-based: Members of the extended • Society: In pre-industrial society there family group shared not only a was no well-developed welfare system household, but a common economic (few hospitals existed, for example) position that involved working together which meant family members relied on as a social group (mainly as subsistence their own resources when it came to farmers but also in various craft trades – looking after and caring for the sick, the brewing and baking, for example – within elderly and so forth. the home). The development of industrial society • Economically productive: People lived produced, according to this view, a structural and worked within a family group that family change – nuclear families became provided the only viable means for their dominant because of the demands of factory physical survival. forms of production and the opportunities this system created. • Geographic mobility: People had to be mobile to ﬁnd and keep work in the new industrial processes. There was a huge – if gradual – movement away from rural areas to the developing towns and, in such a situation, the extended family of pre-industrial society gradually broke down. • Social mobility: New opportunities arose for social mobility and economic advancement as different types of work developed – people were no longer simply subsistence farmers. However, to seize these new opportunities, families had to This situation arose, according to this be ready and willing to move to those argument, for three main reasons. areas where the chances of economic • Agriculture: Labour-intensive farm work advancement were greatest.

78 Families and households • Nepotism (favouring your relations over on people’s behaviour. The single-person others) was no longer a significant social household is, of course, potentially the asset (as it was in extended families), most geographically mobile of all since the new industries demanded the family/household structures and reflects demonstration of skills and knowledge the changing (increasingly global) nature rather than family connections. of work. If we extend this argument to post-industrial Having outlined the evidence for the first society we can identify significant changes to argument, we can turn to an alternative both family and household structures. interpretation of the relationship between family and household structures and • Family structures: One feature of post- industrialisation. industrial society is the increasing diversity and fragmentation of family life – Pre-industrial society notwithstanding Chester’s observation (The Rise of the Neo-conventional Family, Carlin (‘Family, Society and Popular 1985) that the majority of people in Culture in Western Europe c. 1500–1700’, Britain still live at least part of their life 2002) argues, ‘most households in early within some form of nuclear family modern Western Europe were nuclear family structure. Just as, in the industrial period, households, i.e. all the blood relations they family structures changed to contained were one couple and their accommodate new forms of economic children’. Although extended families organisation, so too, in the post-industrial existed, the main reasons for this type of period, further changes have occurred. family not being more common seem to be: New forms of working (especially through • Life expectancy: Average life expectancy computer technology and networking) was low (around 35–40 years) and, open up opportunities for homeworking consequently, parents didn’t always live which, in turn, means single-parent long enough to become grandparents. families are, potentially, no longer Although this may have been a reason for excluded from the workforce. The many families remaining nuclear, we relatively small size of nuclear families should note calculations of average life and improved communications (such as expectancies in pre-modern societies may the ability to stay in close contact with be biased by high rates of infant and child extended family members relatively easy) mortality (large numbers of children makes this family group increasingly dying drags the average down). mobile – both in terms of national and • Choice: Carlin (2002) notes that some international movement. parts of Western Europe, with similar • Households: One of the features of post- birth and death rates to Britain, contained industrial society is the increase in the more vertically extended (sometimes number of single-person households, called stem) families. This suggests, at least indicative, according to this argument, of in part, people in Britain were choosing the way economic changes have impacted not to live in extended family structures.

79 AS Sociology for AQA • Retirement: Demographic evidence • An inheritance system that (information about how people live) from concentrated wealth, making capital areas where people did survive into old (investment money) available to age suggests they were expected to retire relatively small numbers of people. A into households separated from their close-knit, nuclear structure allied to a children. system of primogeniture (inheritance, by • Extended households: Peter Laslett (The the first-born son, of a family’s total World We Have Lost, 1965 and Household wealth) made this possible. In addition, and Family in Past Time, 1972) notes that it forced those who didn’t inherit to upper-class households frequently move away from the family home. included both wider kin and servants Wegge’s (really quite fascinating) (mainly because there was sufficient room research into peasant population for them to live within the household). movements in Germany (‘To Part or Not Lower-class households, although to Part’, 1999) supports this idea when frequently nuclear because of high she notes, ‘it is the primogeniture mortality rates among the elderly, institution which better promotes probably contained ‘lodgers’ (who are emigration’. likely to have been kin) staying • Population growth: According to the temporarily within the family group. Office for National Statistics, the Laslett, however, estimates only 10% of population of England and Wales trebled pre-industrial households contained more between 1700 (6 million) and 1851 (18 than two generations of kin. million), indicating the existence of a • Modified extended structures: Michael large, landless, potential workforce. This Gordon (1972) suggests arguments that is significant because it suggests the extended family was dominant in pre- geographic mobility wasn’t a industrial society confuse temporary requirement for the development of extensions to a family (such as a relative industrialisation since what we see here living within a nuclear family for a short is a population explosion in urban areas, period) with the idea of a permanent rather than migration from the extended family structure which, he argues, countryside to towns. ‘is seldom actually encountered in any • Migration: If ideas about population society, pre-industrial or industrial’. growth are valid, it suggests urbanisation didn’t result from the break-up and According to this argument, therefore, the migration of extended rural families; mainly nuclear pre-industrial family was rather, it occurred as the result of the actually necessary for industrialisation. population growing rapidly during the Industrialisation early industrial period. Harris (‘The Family and Industrial Society’, Rosemary O’Day (Women in Early Modern 1983) argues nuclear family structures Britain, 2000), for example, notes that a dominated pre-industrial society because large rural class of agricultural labourers industrialisation required: existed in the seventeenth century. They

80 Families and households owned no land and lived by selling their • Employment: Where the vast majority labour outside the family group. could barely read or write, an ‘unofﬁcial’ kinship network played a vital part in In terms of this argument, therefore, Michael securing employment for family members Anderson (Approaches to the History of the through the process of ‘speaking out’ Western Family, 1995) points out there were (suggesting to an employer) for relatives ‘many continuities’ of family structure during when employers needed to recruit more the change from agricultural to industrial workers. forms of production, during which no single family or household structure was wholly • Child care: Where both parents worked, dominant. Thus, although we have focused for example, relatives played a vital part on extended/nuclear family and household in child care. In addition, high death structures, this doesn’t mean other types rates meant the children of dead relatives (with the possible exception of gay families) could be brought into the family were not in evidence. Both reconstituted and structure. In an age of what we would single-parent family structures, for example, now call child labour, young relatives existed in pre-industrial societies, mainly could be used to supplement family because of high adult death rates, especially income. among the lower classes. Middle-class family structures tended to be However, the historical evidence does nuclear, mainly because of: suggest that, at least during some part of the industrialisation/urbanisation process, • Education: The increasing importance of changes to family and household structures education (for male children) and its cost did occur, especially in relation to social meant middle class families were class and the increasing diversity of family relatively smaller than their working class and household structures. Anderson (1995), counterparts. for example, notes the working classes, • Geographic mobility among the class during the process of industrialisation, from which the managers of the new developed a broadly extended family industrial enterprises were recruited structure which resulted from: weakened extended family ties. • Urbanisation: As towns rapidly Upper-class family structures, according to developed around factories, pressure on Roger Gomm (The Uses of Kinship, 1989) living space (and the relative have historically been a mixture of nuclear underdevelopment of communications) and extended types, although extended resulted in extended family living family networks, even up to the present day, arrangements. are used to maintain property relations and • Mutual aid: The lack of state welfare for mutual economic aid amongst kin. provision meant working class families In addition, wealth meant extended kin relied on a strong kinship network for (such as elderly grandparents) could be their survival. During periods of sickness relatively easily accommodated within the and unemployment, for example, family family home and the evidence suggests it members could provide for each other. was – and still is to some degree – relatively

81 AS Sociology for AQA common for the vertically-extended family extended depends, as I have suggested, to exist among the upper classes. on how you define such things). Post-industrial society • Social changes: Relatively easy access to divorce (resulting from legal changes over Family and households structures in the late the past 50 years) has led to greater twentieth/early twenty-first centuries are, numbers of reconstituted/single-parent arguably, more complex, fragmented and families and single-person households. diverse than at any time in our history, ideas • Social attitudes: Whatever the origins of we can briefly examine in the following such changes, it is clear lifestyle factors, terms. in terms of greater social acceptance of • Diversity: As we have seen earlier, our single-parent and homosexual family society is characterised by a wide range of structures, has played some part in different family and household structures creating family structural diversity. The (nuclear, reconstituted, single-parent, gay Office for National Statistics (2000), for and extended) apparently co-existing. It example, recorded 26% of all families is, however, difficult to disentangle this with dependent children as containing a diverse range of family structures, for two single adult parent. reasons. • Life expectancy: Increased life • Nuclear family structures seem to be expectancy, a more active lifestyle and the dominant family form, although changes to the welfare system (which in they clearly involve a range of recent years has encouraged the de- different family relationships; a single- institutionalisation of the elderly) has parent family contains a different set of created changes within family structures, relationships to those in a giving rise to the concept of a new reconstituted family, for example. The grandparenting (grandparents play a question here, therefore, is the extent greater role in the care of grandchildren, to which either or both these family for example, than in the recent past). structures can be characterised as These trends have led to what Julia nuclear families. Brannen (‘The age of beanpole families’, • Definitions of nuclear and extended 2003) calls the beanpole family structure – family structures determine, to some a form of inter-generational (different degree, your view of their relationship. generations of family members), For example, Willmott’s (1988) vertically-extended family structure with concept of a dispersed extended family very weak intra-generational (people of appears to plausibly characterise many the same generation – brothers and types of family relationship in our sisters, for example) links. society – what we have here, therefore, Similarly, Bengston (‘Beyond the nuclear is a basic nuclear family structure family’, 2001) speculates about the extent surrounded and supported by extended to which the phenomenon of increasing family networks (and whether or not bonds between different generations of you count this structure as nuclear or family members (as represented, for

82 Families and households example, by the new grandparenting) 2003, for example, this household type represents ‘a valuable new resource for was the single most common family or families in the 21st century’. household structure in our society – • Ambivalence: Luscher, (‘Ambivalence: according to the Ofﬁce for National A key concept for the study of Statistics (Social Trends 34, 2004), 29% intergenerational relations’, 2000) on the of families and households in the UK now other hand, suggests that people are involve a single person, marginally becoming increasingly uncertain outstripping ‘couples with no children’ (ambivalent) about family structures and (28% of all family and household relationships in the light of family structures). changes. Increases in divorce, for In turn, on current projections example, have led to the widespread (‘Complicated Lives II – the Price of creation of single-parent and Complexity’, Abbey, 2002), the ‘Couple reconstituted families. These may have with no children’ household will soon be resulted in a weakening of family more common in our society than the relationships as family members seek to ‘Couple with children’ family – at present, create new social spaces for themselves according to the Ofﬁce for National and their (new) families away from the Statistics (Social Trends 34, 2004), each relationships that previously existed in of these types constitutes 28% of all their lives. One result of these changes, family and household structures. perhaps, is families seeking ‘to put geographical distance between different Growing it yourself family generations’. Having looked at the two arguments about the relationship between family and household structures, industrialisation and urbanisation: 1. Create a list (based on the following table) of what you think are the three most important strengths and weaknesses of each argument.

Argument 1 Argument 2

Strengths Weaknesses Strengths Weaknesses 1.

2. Based on the strengths and weaknesses • Households: Finally, one of the most you’ve identiﬁed, write a brief (500–600 striking features of our society is the words) comparison of the two arguments. growth of lone person households. In

83 AS Sociology for AQA In this section we have looked at the debate considering, firstly, how this social group can surrounding the significance of historical be defined and, secondly, how different family and household changes and, in the family structures have developed in our next section we can bring things a little society across the centuries. We can build on more up to date by looking more closely at this work in two main ways. Firstly, by both the diversity of contemporary family investigating in more detail ‘the diversity of structures and changing patterns of family contemporary family and household relationships. structure’ (in other words, the differences within and between family and household groups). Once we’ve done this we can then Family and examine ‘changing patterns of marriage, cohabitation, separation, divorce and child household bearing’. diversity and WARM UP: DISCUSSING FAMILY DIFFERENCES One way of thinking about diversity is to change discuss your family experiences with others. I have identified some questions to get you Introduction started in the table below. In small groups, In the two previous sections we have looked discuss and record your answers to these at the complexities of family life by questions – and any others that spring to mind during the discussion.

Your Division of Rules Parents and Structure plans? labour children Do you Who does Who makes What’s the Is your family plan to what in your the rules, what relationship nuclear, marry, have family – paid are they, how between you extended, children, a work, are they and your single-parent, career? domestic enforced (and parents? etc.? work, child by whom)? Do you have care, etc.? brothers and sisters? Natural or step-parents?

84 Families and households marriage is arranged by the parents or Preparing the ‘freely chosen’ by the participants ground • division of labour: considered in terms of whether family roles are patriarchal (for The previous exercise will have sensitised example, the male in paid employment you to a range of differences – some minor and the female as housewife) or and others quite major – between the symmetrical (where roles and family/household groups in which we live. responsibilities are shared equally among We can develop this ‘sense of difference’ by family members). identifying ﬁve main types of family and household diversity in contemporary Britain, Richard Berthoud’s analysis of diversity using a general framework suggested by amongst White British, Black Caribbean and Rhona and Robert Rappoport (Families in South Asian families (Family formation in Britain, 1982): multi-cultural Britain, 2004) highlights a number of key differences within and between Organisational diversity these broad ethnic groups. For example: This refers to differences in family life and • Black Caribbean families are experiences both within and between family characterised by: groups. In this respect we could think, for • Low rates of marriage. example, about differences in: • High levels of single parenthood. In • family structures: nuclear and extended, 2001, 43% of Black or Black British for example families with dependent children were • roles: in terms of things like the headed by a lone parent (Social household division of labour – who does Trends 34). what within the group? • High rates of separation and divorce. • status of the family members: married or • Relatively high levels of mixed cohabiting, natural or step-parents etc. partnerships (living with someone • relationships: in terms of things like from a different (usually white) ethnic contact with extended kin, the extent to group). which the group is patriarchal (male • Absent fathers (not living within the dominated) or matriarchal (female family home but maintaining family dominated). contacts). Cultural diversity • South Asian (Indian, Pakistani and Bangladeshi) families are characterised by: This refers to differences within and between different cultural (or ethnic) groups • High rates of marriage. in terms of things like: • Low rates of separation/divorce/single- parenthood. In 2001, 11% of • size: the number of children within the Asian/Asian British families were headed family by a lone parent (Social Trends 34). • marriage: for example, whether the

85 AS Sociology for AQA • Lower rates of mixed partnerships. leisure and friendship networks (which is • Greater likelihood (especially among a sociologist’s way of saying they do Muslims and Sikhs) of arranged things together and have friends in marriage. common). • Majority of Pakistani and Bangladeshi Diversity between social classes involves women look after home and family full things like: time. • Relationships between the sexes • High fertility rates among Pakistani (whether the family group is patriarchal and Bangladeshi women. or symmetrical, for example). Middle- • Larger family size (four or more class families are more likely to be the children). latter. • Grandparents more likely to live with • Socialisation of children (upper- and son’s family. middle-class families, for example, tend to • Patriarchy – power and authority more stress the significance of education and likely to reside with men. the importance of qualifications). Diane Reay (‘Activating Participation’, If you want to review Berthoud’s 2004) has also highlighted the importance research, you can find a more of middle-class women’s emotional labour, detailed description at: which is invested in their children’s www.sociology.org.uk/as4aqa.htm education; she notes, for example, the Class diversity active educational involvement of many middle-class women in terms of helping This refers to divisions between social classes their children, monitoring school progress, (upper, middle and working, for example) questioning teachers about their children’s and within these broad groupings. For school performance and so forth. example, a distinction (identified originally by Goldthorpe et al’s ‘Affluent Worker’ • Kinship networks and their importance, (1965) study) is sometimes made within considered in terms of the different level working class families between the: and type of help (financial, practical and the like) family members can provide. • traditional family, characterised by segregated conjugal roles (family members Life-cycle have different household and work roles, This refers to differences occurring at develop different leisure and friendship different stages of a family’s lifetime. This patterns and so forth) and the may include factors such as: • privatised family, which involves a ‘home and child-centred’ focus, characterised by • Age: The family experience of a young the family partners having joint conjugal couple with infant children is quite roles (where both partners may work and different from that of an elderly couple take responsibility for domestic labour with adult children who may have left tasks such as childcare) and common home and started a families of their own.

86 Families and households • Attachment: For example, families with likely to be found in urban areas, children of school age may become dual- especially large cities such as London and income families, with both partners Glasgow. working for at least part of the day. This family’s experience will be very different to that of a single-parent family. Discussion point: Generational differences single people These may be in evidence in terms of how Brighton and Manchester are two areas in the UK that have the highest proportion of people of similar generations have broadly single households, whereas Northern shared experiences. For example, family Ireland has the lowest. members who were raised during the 1940s What single factor might explain this have the experience of war and post-war difference? (For the answer, see below austerity (hardship – things like the under Region.) experience of rationing, for example); family members who grew up during the 1980s, on Couples with no children are a significant the other hand, may well have developed household type, although over the past 40 very different attitudes and lifestyles. years their proportion has remained largely The extent to which the generations are unchanged (at 30–35% of all households linked (such as the relationship between and 28% of all families and households). parents and children, grandparents and Within single-person/couple households we grandchildren) is also relevant here. could note differences in: Although family diversity is clearly important, we also need to keep in mind the • Economics: Important distinctions can be increasing significance of household diversity made between employed and unemployed in our society. We can, for example, develop single people, for example, as well as some ideas about the ‘non-family’ between dual and single-income couples. households we identified earlier in this Each group’s economic situation will chapter. impact on their lifestyles and Single person households have some relationships. interesting features: • Age and lifestyle: a young single person, • Proportion: One-person households in for example, is likely to have a very our society have doubled in the past 40 different lifestyle from an elderly single years (from 14% in 1961 to 29% in person. 2003). • Region: Urban areas such as Brighton, • Age: Within this group, an important Manchester and London have large gay demographic change is the proportion of communities which contributes to their people under retirement age living in high percentage of single-person single person households – just over 50% households. in 2003, up from 33% in 1961. Shared households cover a range of • Region: This type of household is more differences, from the not uncommon (a

87 AS Sociology for AQA group of friends living together – short or On the other hand, we could probably long term – to share rent and living costs) to make a convincing argument that some the less common communal living type of modified extended family is the arrangements we find in some societies (the norm, given many families enjoy some kibbutzim of Israel, for example). Again, the form of contact with extended kin. lifestyles and experiences of these diverse • Family processes: The idea of diversity in groups are likely to be very different. family relationships may be overstated. The ‘cereal packet family’ (consisting of Digging deeper married adults with one male and one When we start to think about the extent of female child living in a loving family and household diversity – and its relationship where dad earns the money possible social implications – there are a and mum does the housework) beloved of number of observations and explanations we media and advertising may not be a need to consider. Before we do so, however, realistic representation of family life, but, it is important to note that when thinking following Chester’s (1985) argument, about the extent of such diversity in our most people are, at some point in their society a pertinent question might be ‘How life, either living in nuclear-type deep do you want to go to discover arrangements or, perhaps more diversity?’ significantly, wanting to live in that type In other words, if you drill down deeply of arrangement. enough you’ll find differences between every family or household relating to how they’re Explanations structured and organised in terms of roles It is one thing to observe the idea of family and relationships. There comes a point and household diversity (however we choose when sociologists have to draw some sort of to define it), but it is quite another to line about diversity – but, unfortunately, explain it. It is possible, though, to identify there are no guidelines to tell us where to factors that contribute to diversity, in terms draw such a line. Keeping this idea in mind, of demographic changes, that relate to however, we can make the following things like: observations about diversity in terms of: • Life expectancy: As the following table • Family structures: Although we have illustrates, people in our society are identified a range of diversity here, we generally living longer. can note that, depending on how you Average Life 1926 2001 draw your definition, nuclear family expectancy (years) structures are the general norm in our Women 59.3 80.4 society (if you assume the majority of single-parent families were originally Men 55.4 75.7 nuclear and would like – given suitable Table 2.3 opportunities – to be nuclear or will, at In addition, the overall population is some point in the future, become generally ageing; that is, there are nuclear). proportionately more elderly than young

88 Families and households people in the population (a consequence families (the average size is now 1.6 of longer life expectancy and a declining children, compared with 2.3 in 1950 and birth rate). These ideas are significant for 4 in 1900) releases adults from childcare family diversity in a couple of ways. responsibilities and increase the Firstly, couples are potentially living opportunities for both partners to have together for longer (especially after their paid work outside the home. children have left home) and the longer a Economic changes include ideas like: relationship has to last, the more likely it is, statistically, to end in separation or • Female independence: According to divorce. Secondly, it raises the increased Abercrombie and Warde (Contemporary possibility of grandparents becoming British Society, 1992), ‘One of the most involved in the raising of their significant changes in the labour market grandchildren (allowing both parents to in the 20th century is the rising have paid work, for example). proportion of married women returning to • Relationships: Apart from things like a work after completing their families . . . relative decline in the number of people Greater participation by women in paid marrying, an increase in the number work and changes in family structure thus cohabiting and an increasing likelihood seem to be closely related’. of people choosing to remain • Affluence: The relationship between single/unattached throughout their poverty and family size is well lifetime, the average age at which men documented (poorer families tend to have and women marry is increasing, as the more children), so it is little surprise to following table demonstrates: find a relationship between increasing affluence and smaller families. Average age at 1971 2001 • Globalisation: As our society becomes first marriage ever more open to influences from other Men 24.6 30.6 cultures, we’re presented with a greater Women 22.6 28.4 range of choices about how to behave. Table 2.4 This has a couple of dimensions: firstly, family and household arrangements from Some consequences of this particular one society may be introduced into trend include smaller families and another (different ideas about male and increased opportunities for women to female roles, for example) and, secondly, establish a career before marrying and it opens up the potential for a then returning to that career after hybridisation of family and household completing a family. cultures – that is, a situation in which • Immigration: Diversity has been two different cultural family forms increased by different forms of family combine to produce a new and slightly organisation and relationships among different form. immigrant groups. Attitude and lifestyle changes • Family size: The trend towards smaller involve a range of different factors:

89 AS Sociology for AQA • Sexuality: Increasing tolerance of rearing and domestic labour than their ‘alternative sexualities’ (homosexuality, grandmothers, for example. Similarly, bisexuality, transsexuality and the like) changing perceptions of masculinity have and lifestyles (such as transvesticism) resulted in changes to how some men serves to increase household diversity. view family roles and relationships. Legal/technological changes make important contributions to diversity in terms of: • Divorce: Legal changes relating to both the availability and cost of divorce encourage diversity through the development of different family structures. Similarly, changes in attitudes to divorce, step- and single-parenting have resulted in less stigma (social disapproval) being attached to these statuses. • Medical: The availability of contraception (enabling couples to plan their families) and abortion change the way people relate to each other in terms of starting and continuing families. The popular comedian Eddie Izzard are we, In this section we have outlined a number of as a society, more tolerant of alternative observations about family and household sexualities such as Transvesticism than in the past? diversity and suggested a range of social and economic factors contributing to this • Religion: The decline in the power of process. As you should be aware however, organised religion amongst some ethnic the concept of diversity does not simply groups – known as secularisation – may involve listing examples and offering general account for increases in cohabitation, the explanations; sociologically, it has a moral decline of marriage, the availability of dimension, in the sense it would be useful to remarriage after divorce and so forth. understand the social and psychological Conversely, among some ethnic groups implications of family diversity. the reverse may be true – their religion In this respect, Bren Neale (‘Theorising may put great emphasis on marriage and Family, Kinship and Social Change’, 2000), disallow divorce. poses the question, ‘How are we to view the • Femininity and masculinity: Changes in diversity and fluidity of contemporary the way we view our bodies (and our patterns of partnering, parenting and sexuality) create changing meanings for kinship?’, and answers it in terms of two male and female lives. Women in the further questions: ‘Should we view these twenty-first century are less likely to transformations with optimism or, at least, define their femininity in terms of child- accept the reality of them and attempt to

90 Families and households work with them, or should we view them as • developing successful interpersonal a cause for concern?’ relationships. To complete this section, therefore, it Patricia Morgan (Marriage-Lite, 2000), for would be useful to outline some of the views example, argues a marriage – rather than associated with these two basic perspectives cohabiting – is a more desirable relationship on diversity, beginning with a perspective state for both individuals and societies. For that generally views family diversity as a Morgan, this is not just a moral argument ‘cause for concern’. but also one based on the notion that New Right perspectives cohabitation is not simply, to paraphrase Penelope Leach (Children First, 1994), These perspectives on family diversity can ‘Marriage without a piece of paper’. On the be summarised in terms of how they view contrary, Morgan asserts cohabitation is: family structures. The traditional (heterosexual) nuclear family is seen as more • Unstable: She notes, for example, the desirable than other family structures – such fragility of cohabiting relationships in as single-parent families, for example – terms of the idea that they ‘are always because it provides a sense of social, more likely to fracture than marriages economic and psychological stability, family entered into at the same time, regardless continuity and primary socialisation. It is, of age and income’. In addition, for New Right theorists, an arena in which, cohabiting couples tend to behave in a according to Neale’s (2000) more sexually promiscuous way than characterisation, ‘traditional family values’ married couples (‘Cohabitants behave are emphasised and reinforced, thereby more like single people than married creating a sense of individual and social people’, as she puts it) – another reason, responsibility that forms a barrier against she argues, for the instability of this type ‘rampant, selﬁsh, individualism’. In other of family relationship. words, within the traditional family children • Fragmentary, in the sense that their and adults learn certain moral values that instability means cohabitating couples are continually reinforced through their with children who marry are statistically relationship with family members. In this more likely to divorce. Of those who respect, family relationships are seen as a never marry, ‘50% of the women will be crucial source of both individual happiness lone unmarried mothers by the time the and, perhaps more importantly, social child is ten’. One reason for this, Morgan stability because of the moral core at the argues, is that, unlike marriage, heart of such relationships – a sense of cohabitation for women is ‘not so much morality that includes things like: an ideal lifestyle choice as the best • caring for family members arrangement they can make at the time’. • taking responsibility for the behaviour of • Abusive: both women and children, children Morgan notes, are at greater risk of physical and sexual abuse ‘than they • economic provision for both partners and would be in married relationships’. children

91 AS Sociology for AQA Neale summarises the general New Right An alternative interpretation of family position on family and household diversity diversity suggests it should be embraced, in terms of: either because it points the way forward to an optimistic realignment of family roles and • Community: Stable family relationships – relationships or, not to put too fine a point such as those created within married, on it, because it is going to happen whether heterosexual, dual-parent nuclear families we want it to or not. – provide significant emotional and psychological benefits to family members Postmodern perspectives that override any possible dysfunctional aspects. In addition, a sense of personal This view of the world is neatly summarised and social responsibility is created which by Zeitlin et al (Strengthening the Family: is translated into benefits for the Implications for International Development, community in general, for example, 1998) when they note: ‘The post-modern children being given clear moral and world is shaped by pluralism, democracy, behavioural guidance within traditional religious freedom, consumerism, mobility, family structures. and increasing access to news and entertainment. Residents of this post- • Commitment to others, both in terms of modern world are able to see that there are family and the community, is encouraged many beliefs, multiple realities, and an by the sense of moral duty created through exhilarating but daunting profusion of world stable family relationships. Within the views – a society that has lost its faith in traditional family, for example, each adult absolute truth and in which people have to partner plays a role – such as breadwinner choose what to believe’. or domestic worker – that involves a sense As you might expect, a number of ideas of personal sacrifice and commitment to about family diversity follow from this type other family members. of view, which we can identify and • Morality: Developing from the above, the summarise in the following terms. notion that any type of family structure is just as good – or bad – as any other (what • Economic changes: Global economic New Right theorists call ‘moral changes impact on national and local relativism’) is not only mistaken but economies in numerous ways, one of dangerous since it questions the concept which, according to Zeitlin et al, is the of moral commitment to others – both breakdown of ‘economic forces underlying family and community – which, for the social conformity’. For example, in the New Right, sits at the heart of social past women generally needed to marry (as responsibility. They emphasise, in this advantageously as they could) because respect, the need for a moral consensus they were either barred from the that encourages ‘beneficial’ forms of workplace or consigned to low-pay forms family structure and ‘discourages’ forms – of work which made their financial such as single-parenthood – that are seen survival problematic without male as damaging to both individuals and support. In addition, inheritance laws communities. focused on the need to produce children

92 Families and households within marriage if they were to inherit • Choice: Just as when we go to the land and property. Increasing economic supermarket we expect a choice of things independence and gradual changes in to buy, so too do we increasingly expect legal norms relating to inheritance no our personal relationships to be governed longer makes marriage an economic by choice. necessity for women. • Uncertainty: Smart and Neale (‘Good • Political changes: One feature of enough morality? Divorce and globalisation – as it relates to political Postmodernity’, 1997) draw our attention ideas – is the ‘questioning of the old to the idea that, although the downside of order’ as people are increasingly exposed increased choice is uncertainty (‘Have I to new and different ways of doing things. made the right choice?’) we should not In situations where the possibility of simply assume marriage, as opposed to choice develops, it is hardly surprising to cohabitation for example, involves greater find people exercising such choices in personal certainty because it is legally their personal relationships and lifestyles sanctioned (it is legally more difficult to – which, as the established political and break away from a marriage than from a legal order changes, results in family and cohabiting relationship). On the contrary, relationship diversity. perhaps, it is our knowledge of uncertainty • Cultural changes: Related to the above – that a family relationship is not backed changes, the media contributes to up by legal responsibilities and sanctions – relationship diversity by both exposing that makes people work harder within people to new ideas and, in some ways, such relationships to make them work. endorsing or failing to condemn new Finally, we can note how Neale (2000) types of family relationship. People summarises the general postmodern position, become, in this respect, generally more in terms of a ‘relational approach’ to accepting of single parents, surrogate understanding family and household mothers and gay and lesbian families. diversity that involves: For writers such as Jagger and Wright (‘End • Commitment: Family (and other of Century, End of Family?’, 1999) attempts personal) relationships are increasingly to ‘turn back the tide of family diversity’ and played out in micro networks. That is, ‘recapture an idealised “nuclear” version of people are increasingly likely to negotiate family life where time stands still and their relationships with other individuals traditional values are re-vitalised’ is no in ways that take more account of longer a possibility or an option personal needs and responsibilities, rather (presupposing, of course, it ever was). Family than, perhaps, worrying about what relationships reflect the wider economic, ‘others in the community might think’. political and cultural changes in our society • Morality: In situations where a wide that have, according to different diversity of family roles, relationships and postmodernist writers, become characterised structures exist, notions of social morality by things like: (that one way of living is better than any

93 AS Sociology for AQA other) become much weaker. In this Marriage respect, society in general becomes ‘less judgemental’ about how others choose to form family relationships (the idea of gay Preparing the ground family structures, for example, being a When examining changing patterns of case in point). marriage we have to keep in mind that the picture is complicated by serial monogamy (in our society people can marry, divorce Family and and remarry), which makes simple comparisons between past and present household difﬁcult. However, this doesn’t mean marriage statistics tell us nothing of changes importance. Introduction Look at ‘Growing it yourself’, below. From this we can note a number of broad changes: This section examines ‘changing patterns of marriage, cohabitation, separation, divorce • First marriage: A steady and absolute and child bearing’ and this involves, ﬁrstly, decline in the number of people marrying establishing what these respective patterns over the past 50 years. are (using a variety of statistical material) • Second marriage: Conversely, remarriage and, secondly, offering a range of (which includes second and subsequent explanations for why these patterns exist. marriages) peaked in the 1980s and has Growing it yourself: thinking about marriage What changing patterns of marriage can you identify in the following table? Year All First Remarriage Remarriage UK marriages marriage (000s) as % of all population (000s) (000s) marriages (Millions) 1901 360 – – – 38 1950 408 330 78 19 49 1960 394 336 58 15 51 1970 471 389 82 17 53 1980 418 279 139 33 53 1990 375 241 134 36 55 1999 301 180 128 43 56 2000 306 180 126 41 57 2001 286 180 106 37 58 Table 2.5 UK patterns of marriage Source: Social Trends 34: 2004

94 Families and households since slowly declined. Remarriage, as a percentage of all marriages, has doubled in the past 50 years. • Marriage was most popular just after the Second World War and during the 1970s, since when it has rapidly declined. Digging deeper There are a number reasons we can consider for changes in the popularity of marriage. • Alternatives: In contemporary society the main alternative option is cohabitation (see below); this has increased in popularity in recent years and, although many cohabiting couples eventually marry, many do not. Does the increasing popularity of non- Church weddings indicate a decline in the • Social pressures: There is less stigma religious significance of marriage? attached to both being unmarried and bearing/raising children outside marriage. • Lifestyle: The decision not to marry may These ideas, coupled with the easy have become something of a lifestyle availability of contraception (allowing choice. Among women especially, sexual relationships outside marriage to increased financial, career and personal be relatively free from the risk of independence may be reflected in conception) mean social pressures to decisions about alternative relationships – marry have declined. something related to both male and female • Secularisation: For some (but by no expectations of marriage (questions of means all) ethnic groups, the influence of who, for example, is expected to perform religious beliefs and organisations has child care and domestic labour roles). declined (secularisation), leading to The argument here is that women are changes in the meaning and significance increasingly less likely, for a range of of marriage. If people fail to see marriage reasons, to enter into a relationship (such as special or important, this opens the as marriage) that restricts their ability to way to the development of other forms of work and develop a career. As Andrew partnership (such as cohabitation). Oswald (‘Homes, Sex and the Asymmetry Hypothesis’, 2002) argues: In addition, if some men and women are increasingly choosing to remain childless, Women are now more highly educated and the legal and moral aspect of marriage can look after themselves financially. They may lose its significance, making it less do better at school than boys. They go to university in equal proportions to men and likely for people to marry. often go into better jobs. Their skills are in demand in the workforce. Nobody needs

95 AS Sociology for AQA brute strength any more, and certainly The historical picture of marriage in our having brutes in a high-powered white-collar society is, however, complicated by: office, where teamwork matters, is worse than useless. In a sense, the modern world • divorce – it wasn’t, for example, available of work is better suited to females. In 2002 to most people 150 years ago a lot of women do not depend on men. • data availability – marriage statistics were • Risk: Ulrich Beck (The Risk Society: not collected as accurately in the Towards a New Modernity, 1992) has argued nineteenth century, for example, as they that, in contemporary society, people’s are now. behaviour is conditioned by their knowledge of risk – in other words, we These two factors make tracking long-term increasingly reflect on and assess the likely historical changes in the popularity of consequences of our actions. In this respect, marriage both difficult and potentially knowledge about the statistical likelihood unreliable. of divorce – with all its emotional, legal When assessing the validity of marriage and economic consequences – may lead statistics, we need to keep in mind how people to the simple step of avoiding the population changes may affect their validity. risk by not marrying. To understand the significance of this idea we need to note two main ways in which • State support: Until recently, the state marriage is measured. offered a range of tax incentives (Married Man’s (sic) Tax Allowance and Mortgage • Raw number measures involve a simple Interest Relief, for example) for couples counting of the number of people to marry; these are no longer available. marrying in any given year. For example, in the previous table (UK Patterns of Although the type of explanations for the Marriage) we saw there were 286,000 decline in the popularity of marriage just recorded marriages in the UK in 2001. noted are significant – either alone or in This type of measure, however, creates combination – we need to consider data problems when we take into account reliability and validity. In terms of the differences in population size (in terms of reliability of contemporary (or recent) data, both historical and cross-cultural we can note two things. comparisons). An obvious example here • Internal reliability: All marriages are is any attempt to validly measure the recorded by law and the definition of a relative popularity of marriage between marriage hasn’t changed over the past 50 the UK and the USA, using a ‘raw or so years, so we can be reasonably number’ measure, would have to take into confident that marriage statistics accurately account the large difference in population measure what they claim to measure. size (in 2001, for example, the UK • Longitudinal changes (changes over population was approximately 58 million, time) in marriage can be accurately while that of America was approximately tracked using official statistical data – but 275 million). only up to a point. • Marriage rates (as in the following table) can be both a more valid way of

96 Families and households

1981 1989 1993 2001 2002 UK 7.1 6.8 5.9 5.1 4.8 France 5.8 5.0 4.4 5.1 4.7 Ireland 6.0 5.0 4.4 5.1 5.1 Germany 5.8 6.4 5.5 4.7 4.7 Denmark 5.0 6.0 6.1 6.6 6.9 Spain – – – 5.2 5.1 Table 2.6 Marriage rates (per 1000 population): Selected European countries Source: Social Trends 30–34

measuring marriage and used as the basis there were 360,000 marriages for a total for comparing both historical and cross- population of 38 million; in 2001, in a cultural changes in the popularity of population of 58 million, there were 286,000 marriage. marriages. This would indicate a significant decline in the popularity of marriage, However, we need to keep in mind both something seemingly confirmed by looking these forms of measurement are sensitive to at marriage rates over the past 20 years – a population changes, which we can illustrate near 32% decline in the UK. in two ways. Secondly, therefore, we need to Firstly, in terms of the overall number of understand how the validity of marriage people living in a particular society at a statistics can be sensitive to changes in the particular time, which we can illustrate by characteristics of a population, which we can using the concept of a ‘babyboom’. During the illustrate in terms of marriageable cohorts. Second World War in Britain people, for This is the idea that, in any given various reasons, delayed starting a family. In population, some age groups (cohorts) are 1950, the average span for family completion more likely than others to marry. We can (from the birth of the first to the last child) see the significance of this idea – in relation was 10 years and this compression of family to questions of whether or not marriage has formation is important because it produces a declined in popularity – in a couple of ways. population bulge – a rapid, if temporary, Firstly, in any population there are ‘peak increase in the number of children in society periods’ for marriage (the age range at which (a so-called baby boom). As these children marriage is more likely – in 2001, for reached adulthood in the 1970s and 1980s we example, the average age at first marriage for saw an increase in the number of people men was 30 and for women 28). The more marrying. For this reason, we shouldn’t simply people there are in this age range (as a result assume a rise in the number of people marrying of baby booms, for example) the greater the means marriage has become more popular. number of likely marriages (and vice versa, Having said that, the fact there are more of course). people in a particular society doesn’t Secondly, the relationship between this necessarily mean there will be more marriageable cohort and other age-related marriages. For example, in the UK in 1901,

97 AS Sociology for AQA cohorts in a population is also significant. nineteenth centuries as many as one-fifth of For example, if there are large numbers of the population of England and Wales may children or elderly people in a population, have cohabited. this will affect both raw marriage numbers Keeping this in mind, we can note trends and, most importantly, marriage rates; in the about cohabitation in our society in case of children, for example, they are not terms of: legally allowed to marry and, in the case of the elderly, they are less likely to marry. The • Gender: Haskey (‘Trends in marriage and size of these cohorts (both in absolute terms cohabitation’, 1995) notes that in the in the case of raw marriage numbers and in mid-1960s, approximately 5% of single relative terms for marriage rates) does, women cohabited. By the 1990s, this had however, affect the validity of marriage risen to 70%, a figure confirmed by statistics. Ermisch and Francesconi (‘Patterns of If, however, we control for these groups household and family formation’, 2000). and focus our attention on the ‘marriageable However, they observed that, on average, population’ rate we can note that, for this such partnerships lasted only two years, cohort, there was a decline from 7.1 were largely ‘experimental’ and not marriages to 6.8 marriages between 1981 and intended to develop into long-term 1989 – a decline in the popularity of relationships. marriage on a much smaller scale than that Haskey (‘Cohabitation in Great Britain’, suggested by either raw marriage numbers 2002) also notes that, of women marrying or rates. in the late 1960s, 2% had previously cohabited with their partner. By the late 1990s, this had risen to 80% of all women Cohabitation marrying. According to the General Household Survey (2004), cohabitation Preparing the among women aged 18–49 rose from 11% ground in 1979 to 32% in 2001. • Age: According to Social Trends (2004), Unlike marriage and divorce data, 13% of adults aged 16–59 reported living information about cohabitation is not legally in a cohabiting relationship that had recorded, so anything we say about the since dissolved. Twenty-five per cent of number of couples ‘living together’ outside the 25–39 age group reported cohabiting marriage in contemporary Britain will always at some point, compared with 5% of be limited by data reliability. As Gillis (For those aged 50–54. In 2002, 25% of Better, For Worse: British Marriages, 1600 to unmarried adults aged 16 –59 reported the Present, 1985) notes: living in a cohabiting relationship. Couples living together ‘as husband and Ferri et al (Changing Britain, Changing wife’ have always been difficult to identify Lives, 2003) noted a trend for younger and quantify. Informal marriage, however, is people to cohabit, not simply as a prelude not a new practice; it is estimated that between the mid-eighteenth and mid- to marriage (approximately 60% of

98 Families and households cohabiting couples subsequently marry) • Trial marriage: For some of the mothers but also as a possible alternative. The involved, cohabitation represented a trial General Household Survey (2004) for their partner to prove they could confirmed that 25–29 year olds represent settle down, gain and keep paid work and the main age group for cohabitation in interact successfully with the mother’s our society. children. Among older age groups, Berrington and • Legal factors: Many cohabiting parents Diamond (‘Marriage or Cohabitation’, were either unwilling to enter into a 2000) found cohabitation was most likely legal relationship with their partner in situations where one or both partners (often because they were suspicious of had been married before. The likelihood the legal system) or they believed it of cohabitation is also increased in easier to back away from a cohabiting situations where one or both partners had relationship if it didn’t work out as they parents who cohabited. had hoped. • Opposition to marriage as an institution Digging deeper was also a factor, with some parents Given that cohabitation (or consensual union believing cohabitation led to a more as it is often termed) is a similar form of equal form of relationship. living arrangement to marriage (and the Table 2.7 summarises the different only form currently available – until or if ‘commitments to cohabitation’ identified by civil partnerships are recognised in law – to Smart and Stevens. same-sex partners) it is not too surprising to Finally, we can note Lewis et al find the reasons we have examined in (‘Cohabitation, Separation and Fatherhood’, relation to changing patterns of marriage 2002) found three distinct orientations to (lack of stigma, secularisation, lifestyle cohabitation in their sample of 50 parents choice, risk avoidance and lack of incentives who had cohabited, had a child and then to marry) all apply to cohabitation. Having separated. noted this, however, we can briefly explore reasons for cohabitation in a little more • Indistinguishable: Marriage and depth Smart and Stevens (‘Cohabitation cohabitation were equally preferable. Breakdown’, 2000) interviewed 40 separated • Marriage preference: One or both parents and identified the following reasons partners viewed cohabitation as a for cohabitation. temporary prelude to what they had • Attitudes to marriage: These ranged hoped would be marriage. from indifference to marriage to being • Cohabitation preference: Each partner unsure about the suitability for marriage saw their relationship in terms of a moral of the person with whom they were commitment on a par with marriage. cohabiting.

99 AS Sociology for AQA

Contingent commitment involved couples Mutual commitment involved the couple cohabiting ‘until they were sure it was safe feeling as committed to each other and their or sensible to become permanently children as married couples. committed or married’. Characteristics of contingent commitment Characteristics of mutual • the couple have not known each other for commitment long • the relationship is established before • legal and/or financial agreements are cohabiting absent • there are some legal and financial • the children are not planned (although agreements they may be wanted) • children are planned and/or wanted by • pregnancy predates the cohabitation both parents • there is a requirement for significant • both parents are involved in childcare personal change if the relationship is to • there are mutually agreed expectations of work the relationship • there is no presumption that the • there is a presumption that the relationship will last – only a hope relationship will last

Table 2.7 Growing it yourself: marriage and cohabitation Copy the following table and then individually, in small groups or as a class, identify as many advantages and disadvantages of marriage and cohabitation as possible. The following statements from Lewis et al’s respondents might help get you started: • ‘My commitment to a relationship is the same, regardless of the piece of paper.’ (Father) • ‘I don’t honestly see a lot of difference between marriage and cohabitation . . . what matters is the relationship and whether it works or not.’ (Mother)

Marriage Cohabitation

Advantages Disadvantages Advantages Disadvantages

100 Families and households Divorce Digging deeper Preparing the We can start by noting that the same population changes affecting the validity of ground marriage statistics also apply to divorce In ‘A Brief History of Marriage’ (2002), statistics. If more people marry, for example, Samantha Callan notes: ‘The first divorce this increases the chances of a rise in the [in Britain] took place in 1551 and, over the numbers of people divorcing. We can next 187 years, 300 marriages were dissolved however suggest some reasons for changes in by private acts of parliament . . . ’. patterns of divorce. In 1857, the Divorce Act allowed divorce • Legal changes: Whenever we examine for adultery (but only for men – and rich historical changes to the number of men at that). It wasn’t until the mid- people divorcing in our society, we always twentieth century that divorce (as opposed need to be aware of potential reliability to separation) became a possibility for both problems with divorce statistics. The legal men and women, rich or poor. definition of divorce, for example, has This brief – and highly selective – changed many times over the past overview tells us that, for most of our century (as Table 2.10 shows) and, each history, divorce has been beyond the reach time divorce is made easier, the number of most people. However, as ‘Growing it of people divorcing increases. yourself’, on page 102 shows, once it was available, people seem to have taken Legal changes, although significant, are advantage of it in ever increasing numbers. not necessarily a cause of higher divorce; In terms of the trends illustrated by these rather, an increase in divorce after legal tables, over the past: changes probably indicates the number of people who would have divorced – given • 40 years divorce has become increasingly the opportunity – before the change. This popular and rates for both sexes have includes, for example, couples who had increased separated prior to a change in the law and • 30 years divorcees, both male and female, those living in empty-shell marriages – have been getting older (reflecting, couples whose marriage had effectively perhaps, the later average age of modern ended but were still living together marriage partners) because they could not legally divorce. • 20 years divorce peaked and then • Economic changes: for example, in 1949, returned to its previous level (a result of Legal Aid was made available for the baby boom bulge) divorcing couples for the first time. This • 10 years we have witnessed a slight created opportunities to divorce for those decline (and flattening out) in the other than the well off. numbers divorcing. • Social changes cover a range of possible reasons.

101 AS Sociology for AQA

Growing it yourself: reasons for divorce In small groups, identify as many reasons as possible why people may want to divorce. Once you have done this, look at the following tables and cross off any reason on your list that would have applied equally to the dates in the table (for example, ‘not being in love any more’ or ‘adultery’ would have applied equally in 1921 and 2001). As a class, write any remaining reasons for divorce on a white board/ﬂipchart. Read the ‘Digging deeper’ section and match your reasons to those I have provided.

Year No. of divorces (000s) Average age at divorce Males Females 1921 3 – – 1941 7.5 – – 1947 47 – – 1951 29 – – 1961 20 – – 1971 80 39.4 36.8 1981 160 37.7 35.2 1991 180 38.6 36.0 1999 170 – – 2000 155 38.6 36.0 2001 157 41.5 39.1

Table 2.8 Divorce in the UK Source: Social Trends 30–34

1961 1981 1999 Male Female Male Female Male Female 16–24 1.4 2.4 17.7 22.3 29.0 30.3 25–29 3.9 4.5 27.6 26.7 31.5 32.3 45 and over 1.1 0.9 4.8 3.9 6.3 5.1 All 16 and over 2.1 2.1 11.9 11.9 13.0 12.9

Table 2.9 Divorce by gender and age per 1000 of population Source: Social Trends 30–34

102 Families and households

Year Main Change Pre-1857 Only by Act of Parliament 1857: Matrimonial Available through Law Courts for first time (but expensive to pursue). Causes Act ‘Fault’ had to be proven. Men could divorce because of adultery, women had to show both cruelty and adultery. 1923: Matrimonial Grounds for divorce made the same for men and women. Causes Act 1937: Herbert Act Added range of new grounds for divorce (desertion, cruelty etc.) and no divorce petition was allowed for the first three years of marriage. 1969–1971: Abolished idea of ‘matrimonial offence’ (adultery, etc.) as grounds for Divorce Reform divorce. ‘Irretrievable breakdown of marriage’ became the only Act requirement. Divorce could be obtained within two years if both partners consented and five years if one partner contested the divorce. 1985: Matrimonial Time limit on divorce reduced from three years of marriage to one. and Family Proceedings Act 1996 – 2000: Introduced range of ideas (‘no-fault’ divorce, counselling, cooling-off Family Law Act period to reflect on application for divorce – not all of which have been applied). Idea was to make divorce a less confrontational process.

Table 2.10 Divorce: selected legal changes in the UK

• War-time marriages, for example, have • Social position: As women have a high probability of ending in divorce. experienced increased financial • Attitudes to marriage: The weakening opportunities and independence they of the religious significance of marriage have become more willing to end an (people probably no longer view it as unsatisfactory marriage. ‘until death do us part’) also goes some • Romantic individualism: The arguments way to explaining attitudes to divorce here are two-fold: firstly, that family – there is little moral stigma attached relationships have, over the years, to it anymore (or, if you prefer, less become stripped of all but their stigma attached now than in the past). individual/personal functions – if people • Lifestyle choices: Some couples see ‘fall out of love’, therefore, there is marriage as a search for personal nothing to hold their marriage together. happiness, rather than a moral Secondly, that we increasingly have commitment to each other (which , as (media-fuelled) illusions about love, an aside, may also explain the increase romance and family life and once the in remarriages; divorcees (90% of reality hits home, many people opt for whom remarry) are not unhappy with divorce as a way out of an unhappy marriage as an institution, just the marriage experience. person they married).

103 AS Sociology for AQA ‘At risk’ relationships Separation Statistically, those marriages most at risk of ending in divorce involve: Preparing the • Different social backgrounds: Pressure from family and friends can create ground conﬂict within the marriage that makes Our ability to understand changing patterns divorce statistically more likely. of separation are complicated by two factors, Differences in class, religion and ethnic divorce and cohabitation. background also lead to a higher risk of divorce. Divorce • Short acquaintance before marriage. In the past – before divorce was either available or affordable – it was not • Separation for long periods. uncommon for married couples to end their • Teenagers: A range of reasons apply here relationship by separation. However, we (length of potential marriage, low have no reliable data about those who incomes, shared accommodation with separated (or those who would have parents and so forth). separated had divorce been possible). The • Remarriage: Divorcees are twice as likely best we can do is make educated guesses – to divorce again. based on the number who currently divorce and the fact that, every time it is made easier more people divorce – about the Strange reasons for prevalence of separation. Once divorce divorce became readily available, of course, Anita Davis, a family law solicitor has identiﬁed some odd reasons for divorce: • a husband was divorced because he made irritating noises with Sellotape • a wife divorced her partner because he crept into bed for sex during her hospital treatment for sexual exhaustion • a woman divorced her partner for refusing to let her buy her own underwear • a man sued for divorce because his wife used their Pekingese dog as a hot water bottle. Charles and Diana – one of the most famous separated couples of recent times.

104 Families and households

Year of marriage Males Females 1965–1969 7 7 1970–1974 10 10 1975–1979 14 13 1980–1984 10 14 1985–1989 13 16

Table 2.11 Percentage of first marriages in Great Britain ending in separation within five years: by year of marrige and gender [Source: Social Trends 34] separation as a way of ending a relationship couples who separate? Numbers here are became much less common – couples difficult to estimate and data reliability is divorced (which allowed them to remarry) low because this information is not legally without the need to separate. recorded. The 1969 Divorce Reform Act, however, However, one area in which we do have introduced the concept of separation into reliable data for contemporary separation is the divorce process itself; a divorce could be for marriages that breakdown within the first granted after two years of separation if both 12 months. This is because of judicial partners consented and five years if only one separation decrees. Although couples cannot partner consented. divorce – and they remain legally married – In terms of married couples therefore, they can apply to the family courts for a legal separation is, as Table 2.11 suggests, likely to separation. All marital obligations are ended be a prelude to divorce rather than, as in the and it can be granted for things like adultery past, an alternative. or unreasonable behaviour, although it is not actually necessary to show the marriage has Cohabitation irretrievably broken down. Table 2.12 gives To further complicate matters, do we some idea of the (relatively small) number of include in our analysis figures for cohabiting such separations.

Year Petitions Decrees granted 1980 5423 2560 1983 7430 4854 1990 2874 1794 1997 1078 589 1998 1374 518

Table 2.12 Judicial Separation: 1980–1998. Source: Office for National Statistics 2000. A ‘petition’ is an application for separation. The separation is confirmed when a decree is granted by the Courts. The difference between the two figures results from couples deciding to stay together following the petition but before any decree.

105 AS Sociology for AQA • family conflict Digging deeper • parental ability to recover from stress of When thinking about separation, we can separation note two points. Firstly, we can’t reliably • multiple changes in family structure establish comparative historical patterns of • quality of contact with the non-resident separation and secondly, the concept itself is parent. largely redundant in our society given the easy availability of divorce. Lewis et al (2002) noted in their sample of What we can usefully do, however, is 50 parents who had cohabited, had a child change the focus slightly to briefly examine and then separated: the possible consequences of separation for • 40% gave ‘irresponsibility of their partner’ the breakdown of marital or cohabiting as the main cause of separation relationships. Rodgers and Pryor’s review, for example, of over 200 research reports in • 70% of separations were started by the this general area (‘Divorce and Separation’, woman 1998) showed children of separated families • Mothers initially took primary had a higher probability of: responsibility for the child (which is similar to the pattern for marriage • poverty and poor housing breakdown). • poverty during adulthood • behavioural problems Child-bearing • school underachievement • needing medical treatment Preparing the • leaving school/home when young ground • pregnancy at an early age. Changing patterns of fertility and child- They also identified a range of factors that bearing involves looking at the behaviour of influenced these probabilities: those who decide, for whatever reason, to • financial hardship have children and the following table identifies some key recent changes.

Year Number of Births per Average age % of births live births 1000 women of mother outside (000s) aged 15–44 (1st child) marriage

1964 876 93 – 7.2 1971 – – 23.7 – 1991 699 64 25.6 30.2 2003 621 54 26.7 41.4 Table 2.13 Live birth statistics: England and Wales Source: Ofﬁce for National Statistics

106 Families and households Over the past 40 years, changing patterns One reason for this situation is later of child-bearing in our society can be marriage. As we have seen, men and women summarised in terms of the following: are increasingly choosing to marry later and, consequently, start a family later. This has • general fertility has substantially declined, led to an increase in child-bearing among in terms of both the number of live births women aged 30 and over. and the birth rate McAllister and Clarke (‘Choosing • family size has declined from an average childlessness’, 1988) noted the following of 3 to 1.6 children points about childless households: • the average age at which women have • Rates: The UK has one of highest their first child is increasing European levels of childlessness. • births outside marriage now account for • Decisions to remain childless are affected nearly half of all births – a substantial by a range of life events. increase over 40 years ago. • Education: Highly qualified women are Digging deeper more likely to remain childless. • Security When we think about reasons for changing : Parenthood was identified with patterns of fertility, a number of factors disruption, change and poverty; the spring to mind. childless chose independence over the constraints of childcare and material Contraception security over financial risk. The development and widespread use of the Technology contraceptive pill, for example, has allowed Improvements in both child and mother people to plan their fertility more easily than care, IVF treatments and so forth have in the past. extended fertility into age groups which, in Childlessness the past, would have been too old to safely bear children. An interesting feature of modern households is the number of people who choose to Financial costs remain childless (who, as we have seen, form One factor in decisions about the number of the majority of UK households). The Office children produced within families is likely to for National Statistics (Social Trends 34, be the cost of raising them. 2004), has noted: ‘Related to the trend of The Family Expenditure Survey (Office delaying childbirth, is the growth in the for National Statistics, 2000) estimated the number of women remaining childless’: average spend on each child (for both Year of birth % childless at age 35 single- and two-adult households) as £52 per week. Pregnancy & Birth magazine (March 1960 11 2001) estimated having a baby ‘costs parents 2000 25 £20,315 for the first five years alone’ (although this rises to £36,000 for more Table 2.14 affluent households). 107 AS Sociology for AQA

First child Subsequent children Typical spend Less Child Beneﬁt Typical spend Less Child Beneﬁt About About About About £67 pw £52 pw £56 pw £46 pw

Table 2.15 Middleton et al (‘Small Fortunes: Spending on children, childhood poverty and parental sacriﬁce’, 2002) estimate of the cost of children in 1995

In this section we have looked at areas such • Sex: Anthony Giddens, (Sociology, 1989) as family diversity and changing patterns of notes, ‘sex’ refers to the physical family life (in terms of things like marriage, characteristics that lead to people being divorce and cohabitation). In the next labelled ‘male’ or ‘female’. Sex section we can continue the general theme characteristics are, in a sense, biologically of family and social change by looking more determined and ‘ﬁxed’ (although it is, of closely at possible changes in family course, now possible to change your relationships. biological sex). • Gender, on the other hand, refers to the Family and social characteristics assigned by any given society to each biological sex social change (whatever these may actually turn out to be). In other words, gender represents the things we, as a society, associate with Introduction being biologically male or female. The focus in previous sections has been on The classic expression of these ideas is the family group as an institution – although Robert Stoller’s argument (Sex and Gender: we have, at times, touched on relationships on the Development of Masculinity and within this group. In this section, the focus Femininity, 1968): ‘Gender is a term that has changes to the family group itself in order to psychological and cultural connotations; if examine ‘the nature and extent of changes the proper terms for sex are “male” and within the family’. To do this we can look at “female”, the corresponding terms for gender evidence relating to ‘gender roles, domestic are “masculine” and “feminine”; these latter labour and power relationships’. The section may be quite independent of (biological) is completed by looking at ‘changes in the sex’. status of children and childhood’. WARM UP: WHAT DOES IT MEAN? Gender roles To get you thinking about gender, consider the following categories of masculinity and Preparing the ground femininity. In small groups, think about The ﬁrst thing we can usefully do is to what the two concepts mean to you and also outline the distinction sociologists generally how you think our society views them (make make between ‘sex’ and ‘gender’. a table like the one I’ve started and add your ideas to it). As a class, bring your ideas 108 together. Families and households

Masculinity Femininity

What does What do you think What does What do you think ‘masculinity’ masculinity means femininity mean to femininity means mean to you? in our society? you? in our society?

Men should be Men are expected Women should Women should be strong and to be unemotional make themselves in touch with their protective. (‘boys don’t cry’). attractive to men. ‘caring side’. Further Meanings

While all societies (considered both in When we start to think about gender roles historical and comparative terms) have ‘men within the family group, therefore, we must and women’, the meaning of gender can vary understand their content (what people do considerably in the same society over time and how do they do it, for example) and, by and, of course, between different societies. extension, how such roles have changed. Masculinity (what it means to be ‘a Gender perspectives: Traditionally, man’), for example, is a concept that has a sociological perspectives on conjugal roles different general meaning in our society (the roles played by men and women within than it does in Australia or Peru. In a marriage or cohabiting relationship) have addition, its meaning changes to reflect fallen into two (opposed) camps different stages in our physical development characterised by their different views on the – ‘boy’, for example, is a different gender essential nature of family roles. We can, for category from ‘man’. example note the concept of: Femininity (what it means to be ‘a • Patriarchy: This view, mainly associated woman’) similarly has different meanings at with feminist and conflict perspectives, different times and in different places generally sees the family group as male although, as Beattie (‘Who Was That dominated, oppressive and exploitative of Lady?’, 1981) notes, there are significant women. Over the past few hundred years differences in the way we use language to the form of patriarchy may have changed describe gender: (it no longer, perhaps, takes the aggressive . . . ‘girl’ like ‘lady’ is often used for form of the Victorian family, with the ‘woman’ in contexts where ‘boy’ or father ruling the family roost through a ‘gentleman’ would not appear for ‘man’. We mixture of violence and economic find Page Three ‘girls’ (not women) in The Sun. Calling a nude male pin-up a ‘boy’ threats), but both violence and more would be derogatory. Our tendency to call subtle forms of male control (in relation to all women ‘girls’ is enormously significant. who does housework, controls decision We stress their positive evaluative properties making and so forth) are still characteristic (especially the physical ones) and suggest a of family life from this perspective. lack of power. We are to some extent creating immaturity and dependence • Symmetry is the other side of this coin, through linguistic devices [language]. and is associated (mainly) with

109 AS Sociology for AQA functionalist perspectives, such as Willmott and Young (The Symmetrical Digging deeper Family, 1973), who argued it was possible If we move away from these types of to track historical changes in family ‘standard’ arguments about gender roles relationships in the following way. within the family, the first thing to note is • Pre-industrial family (pre-1750), an families are potentially confusing and economically productive unit with the contradictory institutions, an idea neatly father as patriarch (head of household), expressed by Decca Aitkenhead (‘When exercising complete physical and Home’s a Prison’, The Guardian, 24/07/04): economic control over his family. ‘ “What about Dad?” Eileen demanded “He • Asymmetrical family (1750–1900), used to hit you”. “Your father never laid a characterised in terms of segregated finger on me! Not once!” flamed Kathleen conjugal roles involving a separation Ward. Eileen knew her father had once been between home and work – both for the to prison for beating her mother – yet . . . husband, who spent long periods away nobody bothered to correct the discrepancy’. from the home and the wife, whose An alternative way of thinking about role as mother and domestic labourer gender roles (which we can relate to ideas started to become established. about domestic labour and power), therefore, • Symmetrical family (twentieth is to think about them in terms of identities. century), which they characterised as That is, how family members organise their involving joint conjugal roles that relationships on the basis of two concepts demonstrate greater levels of equality noted by Hogg and Vaughan (Social between males and females in terms of Psychology, 2002), namely: both paid and domestic (unpaid) work. • Social identity – which represents how Whatever the reality of the situation, as I’ve our membership of social groups briefly characterised it, a third way of influences our perception of certain roles. looking at gender roles within the home is For example, in our culture, the roles one that straddles the two. ‘male’ and ‘female’ carry general social New Right perspectives argue family characteristics that define the meaning of relationships should be ‘symmetrical’ in the ‘being a man or a woman’. These ideas sense of husband and wife (this perspective are important because they represent a doesn’t particularly like non-marriage family structural aspect to our relationships – I relationships) performing ‘different but know how men and women are expected complementary’ roles within the family; to behave, for example, because my these roles are, supposedly, tuned to male cultural (gender) socialisation has taught and female biological capabilities – men as me the general characteristics of such the traditional family breadwinner and roles. women as the family carer and domestic • Personal identity, on the other hand, labourer. In other words, a patriarchal form works at the level of social action. How I of family relationship based around a actually play (in my case) ‘the male role’ biological (as opposed to social) symmetry. is open, to apply Goffman’s ideas (‘The

110 Families and households Presentation of Self in Everyday Life’, In this respect, as Alison James 1959), to interpretation and negotiation (‘Imaging Children “At Home”, “In the within, for example, my family. Family” and “at School” ’, 1998), argues, ‘The home is a spatial context where Thus, how I interpret and play the role of identities are worked on’ – which, in plain ‘husband’ is conditioned by my perception of English, means family identities are not what this role means in general cultural terms fixed, but, on the contrary, fluid. They are, (what husbands are expected to do) and in the as Anne-Marie Fortier (‘Making home: more specific, personal, context of my family queer migrations and motions of relationships – which probably goes some way attachment’, 2003) puts it, ‘continuously re- to explaining why, in my household, I have to imagined and redefined’. iron my own clothes and mow the lawn (although not, of course, at the same time).

Growing it yourself: social and personal identities. In pairs, identify ten words commonly used to describe adult men and women. Enter the most popular words identiﬁed by the whole class in the table below.

Men Women

For each male and each female ‘describing word’, decide as a group whether you think they are used positively (), negatively () or neither (/) in our culture.

111 AS Sociology for AQA reinterpretation of our roles within the Discussion point: family. take my wife • Diversity of gender roles within contemporary families is, consequently, Use the table on page 111 as the basis for much more apparent – family groups with a discussion about how language can be very similar social and economic used as a means of social control. You might want to think about the following: circumstances may display marked differences in the way gender roles are How do you feel about being described in allocated and performed. certain ways (such as being called ‘boy’ or ‘girl’)? My wife, for example, dislikes being Allan and Crow (Home and Family: Creating called ‘dear’ (she also dislikes being called the Domestic Space, 1989) reinforce this idea ‘my wife’, but that’s another story). when they note: ‘The creation of the home How does the language used to describe is an active process which is an integral part the sexes impact on how we see ourselves of people’s family projects’. Stacey (Brave (our masculinity and femininity) and on our New Families, 1998) observes that in ‘post- behaviour (you could, if you wish, explore some of the derogatory (insulting) ways modern society’ both the public domain (the males and females are described)? workplace) and the private domain (the home) have undergone radical changes in recent times to become ‘diverse, ﬂuid and If we think of gender roles in terms of unresolved, with a broad range of gender identity, therefore, we can note two things: and kinship relations’. Reich (2001) argues • Changing gender roles: In the past, social the ‘incredible shrinking family’ is one identities relating to gender roles were where: ‘People spend less time together, dominant; they provided clear, couples are having fewer children, ﬁnancial unshakeable, guidelines for roles within support between spouses is eroding, and care the family (the classic idea of husband as and attention are being subcontracted . . . breadwinner and wife as domestic living together remains a conjugal norm, but labourer/carer, for example). There were there is no longer adherence to permanent few opportunities to develop personal monogamous family units as the basis for identities that differed from the social family life, or of heterosexual relationships norm – and the penalties for trying were composed of male breadwinner and female severe (in terms of, for example, male homemaker’. violence against women who attempted Finally, Michael Willmott (Complicated to reject or renegotiate personal identity Lives, 2000) argues: within the family). It no longer makes sense to rely on In contemporary families, although we traditional roles when dividing up tasks in are aware of social expectations about the home. Instead, new roles must be gender behaviour, we have far more negotiated by every couple depending on their individual circumstances. In the future, sources of reference for our personal the important thing will be who has the time identities – and far more opportunities for or the inclination to do the housework, and the successful renegotiation and not whether they are a man or a women.

112 Families and households Which is as good a reason as any turn to an includes the standard stuff like cooking, examination of domestic labour. cleaning and shopping as well as things like household repairs (mending the microwave!) and chores; it may also include things like care Domestic labour of children, the sick and the elderly. Complete the ‘Growing it yourself’ Preparing the exercise below. Having done this exercise, ground we can summarise recent evidence about domestic labour in our society. Like it or not (and, on the whole, I don’t), housework is something that has to be done Amount and type – and, to explore who does it (and why), we As Table 2.16 (Ofﬁce for National Statistics, need to think about what counts as 2002) demonstrates, on average women housework (or ‘domestic labour’ if you spend twice as long on housework each day prefer). as men. It also suggests that men and women For our purposes, domestic labour refers to do different tasks within the household – anything that needs to be accomplished in order women spend more time on routine to ensure the running of a home and family; it domestic tasks (cooking, cleaning, etc.),

Growing it yourself: who does what? A relatively simple piece of social research you can carry out is to establish who does what around your home, using a content analysis grid to record your observations. As a class, identify as many aspects of housework as you can (don’t go into too much detail, except where it’s necessary to distinguish things like general care of children (washing, feeding, dressing and so forth) as against things like playing with children). Once you’ve agreed this, draw and complete the following grid for your family.

Household task task usually performed by? Male Female Both Children Other parent parent parents (male or relative female?) (e.g. grandparent) Cooking Laundry Shopping Playing with children Further tasks . . .

113 AS Sociology for AQA men spend more time on repair work and with age – younger women do less playing with children). Ramos (‘Domestic housework than older women. Work’, 2003) noted how women’s share of • Comparative: According to the Future domestic labour increased with children in Foundation (‘Complicated Lives’, 2000) the household. there has been a slight decline in the amount of housework done by women Men Women and an increase in male housework. They (2 hrs 20 mins.) (4 hrs) estimate 60% of men do more housework Cooking Cooking than their father, while 75% of women Childcare Childcare do less housework than their mother. Gardening Cleaning house • Employment: Although Man-yee Kan (‘Gender Asymmetry in the Division of Pet care laundry Domestic Labour’, 2001) found levels of Table 2.16 UK 2000 Time Use Survey: female housework were marginally average daily housework and main chores reduced by paid employment, unemployment or retirement increased • Age: Ramos (2003) notes how the female housework hours and reduced amount of female housework increases those of her partner. Throughout the

Household Chores Done By Children in the UK 100

90 Females 80

70 Males

40 Percentage

0 s s he s None Other e Bed Meal k k h Di Lay Table s Ma Do Ironing Tidy Room Mow Lawn Coo Chore Wa Source: Phase 2 CensusAtSchool Project www.censusatschool.ntu.ac.uk

Table 2.17

114 Families and households 1990s, total family workload (paid and • more working women domestic labour) stayed roughly constant • long and unsociable working hours for men, whereas for women it decreased • more active grandparents (an increase in paid work was off-set by a decrease in domestic work). However, • high cost of child care. Ramos (2003) noted that, where the man A more detailed set of statistics on is unemployed and his partner works full domestic labour can be found at: time, domestic labour is equally www.sociology.org.uk/as4aqa.htm distributed. • Income and Education: Man-yee Kan Digging deeper (2001) noted how levels of both male and Debates over domestic labour can be a female housework decreased by income methodological minefield in terms of: and level of education. • Gender Beliefs: Ramos (2003) found that, • Reliability: There is no clear definition of in families with ‘traditional gender beliefs’, housework – some researchers focus on women do more housework than in families domestic tasks, whereas others, such as where beliefs reflect sexual equality. In Duncombe and Marsden (1993) have households where partners hold conflicting included ‘emotion work’ (the work women beliefs, men do less domestic work. do to ‘make their partners and children feel good’) as part of the definition. • Children: One area of domestic labour often overlooked is that performed by • Validity: We need to be aware of observer children. However, as table 2.17 effects (when housework is recorded in demonstrates, they contribute to diaries by respondents) and interviewer housework in a number of ways. effects (when people are questioned about their housework chores). A general Jens Bonke (‘Children’s household work’, problem here is men overestimate – and 1999) notes that children generally make women underestimate – the amount of a relatively small contribution to time spent on domestic labour. domestic labour – contributions peak at 1 age 20 (approximately 2 ⁄2 hours a week) In order to interpret the data, however, we and boys contribute less than girls. In can return to the distinction, noted earlier, lone children families, girls averaged five between social and personal identities. 1 times as much housework as boys (2 ⁄2 hours/week as against 30 minutes). Social identities • Grandparenting: A final area we should It is clear that, in some respects, cultural note is the role played by grandparents in beliefs about male and female abilities and the care of children. Tunaley et al roles are significant in terms of explaining (‘Relatively Speaking’, 1999), for differences in domestic labour. Evidence example, suggested almost 50% of drawn from a range of studies suggests working parents in the UK rely on domestic labour is both overwhelmingly grandparents for child care, for any of four performed by women and that, to some main reasons: extent, this is tied up with notions of:

115 AS Sociology for AQA • Patriarchy: Ideas about gender roles and reflected their socialisation and life behaviour reflect patriarchal attitudes experiences – where ‘men undertook mainly – but not exclusively – amongst limited household work, married women older age groups in the population. Pleck had limited involvement in paid work (‘Working Wives. Working Husbands’, and where a marked gendered division of 1985), for example, noted the ‘more labour was the norm’. traditional’ the views held by couples • Femininity: Although changing, notions about gender roles, the greater the level of what it means to be a woman are still, to of domestic labour inequality. some extent, tied up with ideas about Pilcher (‘Gender Matters?’, 1998) found caring and nurture (and, as Ramos (2003) similar views. Older respondents – unlike suggests, responsibility for child care still their younger counterparts – didn’t talk falls mainly on the female partner). about equality but thought instead in • Masculinity: Conversely, traditional traditional ways about gender roles, notions of masculinity are still, to some responsibilities and relationships which extent, bound up with ideas about Discussion point: is housework the new sex? Housework is not the new sex. It’s the same old dreary chore Rachel Johnson: Daily Telegraph: 23/05/2003 You know that thing when you have your hands in the kitchen sink, and your beloved comes up behind you and wraps his arms around you. ‘Mmm, I love it when you’re doing the washing-up,’ he says. The whole point of this manoeuvre, as we all know, is to signal the attractiveness of women pinned, like butterflies, in the middle of committing an act of domesticity. As Pat Mainardi wrote in The Politics of Housework, women are conditioned to want to live in a clean, sweet-smelling home, with piles of folded laundry in drawers, plumped cushions and gleaming surfaces. Men are quite happy to do some light carpentry, moving furniture around, some weekend DIY, to help live this dream. ‘But men recognise the essential fact of housework right from the very beginning. Which is that it stinks,’ says Mainardi. That was in 1970. Three decades later, housework – which is unrewarding, unrecognised, unpaid work that never ends – is being sold back to women, who do most of it anyway, as sexy and glamorous. Marigolds the new Manolos? Phwoar! We’ve come a long way, baby’. To help you discuss this (frankly quite scary idea), think about: What does the phrase ‘women are conditioned to want . . . ’ mean? How do you think men and women are conditioned in relation to housework? How is ‘housework being sold back to women’? What does the article tell us about changes in gender roles over the past 30 years?

116 Families and households providing for a family by taking on the • Social identities, relating to deep-seated main economic role. Linda McDowe cultural beliefs about male and female (‘Young men leaving school’, 2001), for ‘natures’ exert a powerful pull, through example, noted the ‘continued the socialisation process, that leads to the dominance of a “traditional” masculinity’ reproduction of traditional forms of in her study. gender relationship (women as ‘carers’ for example). Personal identities • Socio-personal identities involving the Although social identities are clearly way the latter are pragmatically important, personal identities give us a sense (‘reasonably’) shaped by the former. For of the way gender roles are interpreted and example, in a family where the man is the negotiated according to the speciﬁc family main breadwinner, decisions about who circumstances of those involved; this is will give up work to care for children may especially clear when we consider class be guided by the reality of differences in differences (although in some ways this earning power. represents a displacement of domestic • Personal identities involve looking at responsibilities – high income families can quite speciﬁc relationships between the pay others to do their housework), age and family partners and may be played out educational differences. against a background of complex personal Callaghan (‘The Interaction of Gender, and cultural histories. For example, a man Class and Place in Women’s Experience’, may be able to get away with doing little 1998), for example, highlights the importance in the household; on the other hand, his of considering these factors when thinking relationship with his partner may not about how gender roles are created and allow him to shirk his share of family performed within the family and Dench (‘The responsibilities. Gender roles and place of men in changing family cultures’, relationships are shaped, to some extent, 1996) argues that younger men, as a group, by how partners personally relate to one believed ‘couples should share or negotiate another. family roles’ and resist conventional ideas that men should be the main breadwinners. Speakman and Marchington (‘Ambivalent Power patriarchs, shift workers, breadwinners and housework’, 1999) however, noted how some relationships men used learned helplessness when trying to avoid domestic tasks – their ‘inability’ to work Preparing the domestic machinery served to throw domestic tasks back into the hands of their partners. ground To sum up the ideas at which we have Like any social institution, family groups just looked, we can identify three main involve power relationships. In other reasons for the generally unequal words, they involve ‘struggles’ between distribution of domestic labour in our family members – both adults and society. children – in areas like:

117 AS Sociology for AQA • Physical resources – things like food, clothing and shelter – considered in terms Growing it yourself: of who provides and consumes these power and control things. Copy and complete the following table to • Social resources – things like decision identify how power/authority is exercised in making, control over family resources your school or college. (such as money) and so forth. • Psychological resources – things like Examples of situations which use: love, trust, affection and care – in short, Power Authority the range of emotional securities (and Detentions Taking notes in insecurities) that surround our Attendance class relationships.

In this section, therefore, we need to explore Having outlined the concept of power, we this aspect of family life in more detail and can examine some examples of how it is to do this it would be helpful to define exercised within families. power. According to Anthony Giddens (1989) power involves ‘the ability of Domestic violence individuals or groups to make their own This covers a range of behaviours (physical concerns or interests count, even where and emotional), the aim of which is to others resist. Power sometimes involves the aggressively control the behaviour of a direct use of force, but is almost always also family member (adult and/or child). It can accompanied by the development of ideas involve physical violence (assault), sexual (ideology) which justify the actions of the violence (rape) and economic sanctions powerful.’ (denying a family member something they In terms of this type of definition, need, for example). The one common thread therefore, power has two dimensions we linking these examples is the desire for need to note: power and control on the part of the • Force: This aspect is probably the one perpetrator. that springs most readily to mind because The extent of domestic violence is it involves making someone do something difficult to estimate reliably since it generally against their will – usually through the happens behind closed doors within the act or threat of violence. privacy of the family group and victims may • Authority, however, is an important be reluctant to admit or acknowledge their aspect because it suggests we can get victimisation. Keeping this in mind, Hilary people to do what we want because they Abrahams (Domestic Violence Research think it’s right – or they feel they want – Group, University of Bristol) has identified to obey us. some significant facts about domestic violence: • British Crime Survey (2000): 20% of all crimes and 23% of all violent crimes were

118 Families and households classified as domestic violence (more cruelty. Roughly 80 children are killed recent figures from Dodd et al (‘Crime in each year, mainly by parents and carers – England and Wales 2003/2004’) suggest a level that has remained constant for this percentage has recently fallen – they almost 30 years (Office of National report 16% of all violent incidents were Statistics: 1998–2001). incidents of domestic violence). • Twenty-five per cent of all recorded rape In 1995, 10% of 16–29 year old disabled victims are children (Home Office women were assaulted within the home. Statistical Findings 1996). Women are most likely to be sexually • The most likely abuser is someone known assaulted by men they know, and 45% of to the child (National Commission of reported rapes were carried out by a Inquiry into the Prevention of Child current partner. Abuse, 1996). • Repeat victimisation: Nearly 50% of all • According to the NSPCC, around 30,000 victims experience more than one violent children are currently on child protection attack by their partner. registers for being at risk of abuse. • Gender: The majority of victims (81% according to the 2002 British Crime Decision making Survey) are female. Power relationships are not always played • Reported crime: In 1999, nearly 40% of out in terms of violence or abuse – the female murder victims (92 women) were majority of family groups experience neither killed by present or former partners. The of these things (the rate of child deaths from comparable figure for men was 6%. abuse/neglect each year is less than 1 in 100,000, for example). Power relationships, Kirkwood (Leaving Abusive Partners, 1993) therefore, can take other forms within the notes that domestic violence has home. psychological consequences, including low self-esteem, dependence on the perpetrator • Financial decision making is a significant and a tendency to minimise or deny the indicator of where power lies within a violence. In addition, a Zero Tolerance family, since these types of decision – Charitable Trust report (1998) found 20% of buying a house, a car or a holiday for young men and 10% of young women agreed example – involve concepts of authority. abuse or violence against women was Edgell’s influential study (Middle-Class acceptable in some circumstances. Couples, 1980) suggested men made the most important financial decisions within Child abuse the family, whereas women made This is a further aspect of power within decisions about everyday domestic family groups, with writers such as spending (food, clothing and the like). Humphreys and Thiara (‘Routes to Safety’, Although Edgell’s study is nearly 25 years 2002) claiming a strong link to domestic old, Pahl and Vogler (‘Money, power and violence. In terms of statistical evidence: inequality within marriage’, 1994) broadly confirmed his argument, although • One child dies each week from adult

119 AS Sociology for AQA they found the 102 couples in their Rake (Fawcett Society Report, 2002), for sample could be grouped into four main example, noted that in 5% of families categories: men had secret accounts and in 10% of • Wife-controlled pooling (27% of families women kept such accounts. Most couples) involved joint bank accounts families in their study reported a strong with female control of finances. belief financial decisions should be shared, but this didn’t seem to be the case • Husband-controlled pooling (37% of in reality – particularly for women with couples) involved a joint bank account low personal incomes (less than £400 a with the husband controlling financial month). Twenty-five per cent of these decisions. women said their husband controlled • Husband-controlled (22%), where the family financial decisions. husband had his own bank account In general, the study suggested women and took responsibility for all major believed they either had some control family bills. This type was most over or input into financial decisions commonly found in higher income that, according to Rake, were objectively families. taken by the male partner. As she notes: • Wife-controlled (14%) included ‘Bringing money into the household couples with no bank accounts where brings with it a sense of entitlement to the wife controlled the family finances. decide how it is spent. Because men earn This type was common in low-income more than women they have greater families. control of how money is spent or shared, As the above suggests, financial decision and more access to personal spending.’ making can be a complex issue, not • Work and relocation: Other areas of simply in terms of ‘who makes decisions’ major decision making in dual-earner but, most significantly perhaps, in terms families include those relating to work, of the type of decisions made; men, it and includes things like whose work has seems, generally take the most important the greatest priority when, for example, (macro) decisions whereas women are the family is forced to move because of a given a degree of financial autonomy change in employment. Irene Hardill (‘A (freedom) to micro-manage household tale of two nations? Juggling work and accounts. This, in part, reflects traditional home in the new economy’, 2003) found gender roles in terms of household women were more likely to be the management being seen as part of the ‘trailing spouse’ – male occupations had female role. greatest priority and the family relocated A further aspect to financial decision mainly to follow male employment making is added by the existence of patterns. secret economies: In a small proportion • Status enhancement is an interesting – of families, one or both partners have and little-discussed – aspect of authority access to bank accounts of which their within families. It involves, according to partner has no knowledge. Jayatilaka and Coverman (‘Women’s Work Is Never

120 Families and households Done’, 1989), ‘work done by one partner 1990) argument that power has three main (typically the woman) to aggrandize the dimensions. other partner’s career’ (dinner parties, • The ability to make decisions: Although attending work functions and so forth). women exercise power within families, In extreme cases, status enhancement can it’s mainly in areas where they’re take the form of a ‘trophy wife’ – a traditionally seen to have greater marriage pattern used by some powerful expertise (the micro-management of (mainly, but not necessarily, older) men family resources to which we have as a form of status symbol, used to previously referred). Major decisions tend demonstrate their wealth and power. to be monopolised by men, mainly because men tend to earn more money Digging deeper and this ‘public domain resource’ gives There are a number of different aspects to them power within the family. power relationships within the family. Some Where both partners work, women have – domestic violence and abuse, for example more control over the wider decision – rest on the expression of physical force as a making process (which supports the idea form of power that creates control through power is substantially dependent on fear and intimidation; others – probably the control over a wide range of social majority – rest on concepts of authority resources). Having said this, female power (who has the right to make decisions, for depends on such things as the status of example). female work, relative level of income, When we think about the patterns of domestic responsibilities and so forth. domestic labour and power relationships we • The ability to prevent others making have previously examined, we can see decisions decision making (in its widest sense to involves the ‘ability to include things like how family life is manipulate any debate over the kinds of organised) involves a complex interplay decisions that actually reach the stage of between the private domain (the domestic “being made” ’. In terms of gender roles, arena of relationships within a family) and the personal identities of family members the public domain (work, for example). This are important (for example, how each distinction is useful because: partner sees their role within the family). Gender socialisation is signiﬁcant also, • Exercising power involves access to since if males and females are raised to sources of power. The greater the access have certain expectations of both their to (and control over) a variety of sources, own social role and that of their partner the greater your level of power. then the ability to make decisions • Major sources of power in our society affecting the family group takes on a originate in the public domain, mainly ‘natural’ quality. It appears ‘right, proper because it’s where family income is earned. and natural’ for women to raise children We can explore the theoretical side of these and men to have paid employment, for ideas by applying Stephen Lukes’(Power, example. In this instance, decisions about family roles never reach the stage of

121 AS Sociology for AQA actually having to be made, simply WARM UP: DEFINING CHILDHOOD because the stronger partner makes the decisions. To get us started, we can think about two broad indicators of childhood: • The ability to remove decision making from the agenda involves the idea that • biological (how people physically and who does what inside and outside the mentally develop) and family group is conditioned by various • cultural (the characteristics people give social factors (gender socialisation, male to the label ‘child’). and female social identities, the realities Using the following table as a starting point, of power distributions in society and so what characteristics of childhood can you forth) that reflect our personal identify? experiences. For example, decisions about paid Indicators of childhood employment, domestic labour and the Biological Cultural like may be removed from the decision Age at which Innocence? making agenda (the respective partners childhood begins Immaturity? don’t actually have to make conscious and ends decisions about them) for a variety of reasons: they may for example share the belief women are better child-rearers than It is not always easy – either biologically men. Alternatively, where one partner or culturally – to precisely identify an earns more than the other, has higher agreed set of characteristics about career expectations and so forth, this childhood (in this respect we sometimes partner may remain in work while the refer to the idea as a ‘contested concept’ other cares for the children. because there are always arguments about how to define it). Childhood Biologically, we are all young once and, with the passage of time, we all become old – but this simple statement hides a much Preparing the wider and more complex set of ideas. ground Culturally, two ideas are significant: In this final section we are going to • Duration: It is difficult to say precisely examine the changing status of children when child status ends (or even when it and childhood, which involves two things: begins, come to that). In my lifetime, the defining what we mean by ‘children’ and age when people are officially classified as exploring historical differences in ‘adults’ has changed from 21 to 18 perceptions of childhood. These tasks are (although, just to confuse things further, not unconnected, since our ability to at 16 you can legally do some of the identify and explain changes will depend, things ‘children’ can’t do – work full to some extent, on how childhood is time, marry, join the army and so forth). defined. This simple cultural change alters the way

122 Families and households we define childhood and, of course, because it helps us focus on a number of children. questions relating to the historical analysis • Social categories: ‘Childhood’ actually of childhood. hides a range of different categorisations • Recent construction: Aries argues that in of people who are ‘not adults’ (babies, Western Europe the idea of childhood is a toddlers, infants, teenagers, youth . . . ). relatively modern one that developed The status and experience of being a over the past 300 or so years – effectively teenager is very different to being an with the change from pre-industrial to infant – so should we classify them all as industrial society. While there were children? (obviously) ‘non-adults’ in pre-industrial Come to that, the status of ‘teenager’ – as society, Aries argues they were neither Thomas Hine (The Rise And Fall of the called ‘children’, nor treated in ways we, American Teenager, 2000) demonstrates – nowadays, would recognise as ‘childhood’. is a relatively modern invention (the • Religious beliefs: Changing beliefs about word was apparently first used in the children developed as the Christian USA during the Second World War – Church popularised the idea of children ‘teenagers’ didn’t make much of an as ‘fragile creatures of God’ – in effect, appearance in Britain until the mid to childhood became defined as a phase of late 1950s). ‘uncorrupted innocence’, to be nurtured What this shows is that societies develop and encouraged. Children were not to be beliefs about age categories and our seen as little adults, but as something understanding of their meaning helps us to different and perhaps highly vulnerable – interpret not only age differences, but also human beings who needed the protection concepts of age-appropriate behaviour. For of adults. example, while it may be considered • Physical and cultural separation: appropriate for a male child to cry, crying Gradually, children started to live in a may be considered inappropriate for an adult separate sphere from adults. As the male – although, just to confuse things education system developed (from the further, there are times – at a funeral for mid-nineteenth century onwards) example – when it isn’t inappropriate for a children were treated differently to adults. man to cry. Although this makes tracking As Aries puts it, they were ‘progressively changes in our general perception of removed from adult society’. childhood a little difficult, we can begin by Whether or not we agree with Aries’ looking at a historical dimension. The work argument about the ‘invention of childhood’ of Philip Aries (Centuries of Childhood, – Linda Pollack (Forgotten Children: 1962) stimulated debate about the changing Parent–Child Relations from 1500 to 1900, status of childhood and children and, 1983) suggests the view there was no although it has been extensively criticised in conception of childhood in pre-industrial recent times (for example, Martin society was mistaken – there seems little Shipman’s, ‘When Childhood Was reason to doubt that, over the past few Discovered’), it is useful for our purpose

123 AS Sociology for AQA hundred years, the status of children has adults and given the freedom to develop changed in a number of ways. As Archard ‘naturally’, away from the corrupting (Children: Rights and Childhood, 1993) influence of adult society. As Hendrick helpfully notes, ‘Aries claims to disclose an (‘Constructions and Reconstructions of absence of the idea of childhood, whereas he British Childhood’, 1990) suggests, the should only claim to find a dissimilarity in status of children has undergone a number of ideas about childhood between past and radical transformations since 1800. present’. • The delinquent child started to appear in We can, therefore, identify a number of the mid-nineteenth century, reflecting historical changes in the status of children. concerns about how to deal with law- Attitudes breaking children and provide protection and care. One solution was: If we accept (and as sociologists I think we should) that, according to Chris Jenks • The schooled child, involving ideas (Childhood, 1996), ‘childhood is not a about the need for education (moral and natural but a social construct’, it follows that spiritual as well as technical – the skills of its status is, to a large degree, determined by literacy and numeracy required for the adults. Jenks notes two basic historical newly-emerging industrial culture). statuses of children that have existed, in one • The psycho-medical child was form or another, over the past 300 years. constructed towards the end of the nineteenth century with the development • The Dionysian child is one constructed of psychological theories and techniques. as ‘a wilful material force . . . impish and This perception stressed the uniqueness of harbouring a potential evil’. This view childhood status and constructed suggests adults must control children in childhood as a time of biological and ways that prevent them falling victim to emotional ‘stress and turmoil’. At this their essential ‘badness’. time the concept of adolescence as a • The Apollonian child, on the other distinctive phase of childhood started to hand, is constructed as ‘angelic, innocent, develop, through the work of writers like untainted by the world it has recently G. Stanley Hall (Adolescence, 1904). entered. It has a natural goodness and a • The welfare child emerged in the clarity of vision that must be encouraged, twentieth century, stressing both the enabled, facilitated, not crushed or beaten vulnerability of children and ideas about into submission’. This view suggests the delinquent behaviour being shaped by role of adults is to create the conditions neglect, poverty and so forth. under which children can develop their essential ‘goodness’. • The psychological child has emerged in the late twentieth century and focuses on These ideas reflect a basic uncertainty, as a the idea of children having their own society, about how to understand the status needs which, in turn, should be protected of children – at one and the same time we and encouraged. feel they need to be both controlled by

124 Families and households Legal protections cultural variations (even within the UK) in the age of consent. The changing status of children has been Children’s Rights: The latter part of the reflected in their changing legal status – not twentieth century has witnessed moves – simply in terms of legal definitions of both official and unofficial – to develop ‘children’ (an 1833 Royal Commission, for concepts of ‘Children’s Rights’ – the idea example, decided childhood officially ended that children, like adults, have fundamental at 13) but also through laws designed to human rights that should be both stated and either protect children or control their protected. behaviour. The nineteenth century, for The United Nations ‘Declaration on the example, saw the introduction of Factory Rights of the Child’ (1959), for example, Acts designed to limit the type and length of defined the minimum rights a child should work done by children as well as laws expect and in 1989 the Convention on the governing a child’s education. Rights of the Child laid down rights that The regulation of childhood has, of included: course, continued throughout the last and into the present century – in 1972, for Article 6: All children have the right to example, the minimum school leaving age life. Governments should ensure children was raised to 16 (with a suggestion it may survive and develop healthily. soon be raised to 18 or even 19). Children Article 16: Children have a right to aged 13 to 16 can legally work 12 hours a privacy. The law should protect them week during school terms and not after from attacks against their way of life, 7 pm. Sexual behaviour is also regulated by their good name, their families and their law and the table below demonstrates homes.

Age of consent: selected countries Country Male–Female Male–Male Female–Female Canada 14 18 14 Chile 12 18 18 France 15 15 15 Guyana 13 Illegal Illegal Iran Must be married Illegal Illegal Korea 13 13 13 Saudi Arabia Must be married Illegal Illegal Spain 13 13 13 Tunisia 20 Illegal Illegal G. Britain 16 16 16 N. Ireland 17 17 17

125 AS Sociology for AQA Article 31: All children have a right to ‘care, attention and nurture’ (something relax and play, and to join in a range of which, rather conveniently, fitted the activities. new role assigned to women). Article 34: The Government should protect Governments in the nineteenth century also children from sexual abuse. took an interest in the status of children, for (Source: www.un.org) a number of reasons. • Education was needed to establish basic Growing it yourself: levels of literacy and numeracy for the new industrial enterprises. Since families children’s rights were largely unable to perform this task, A simple and satisfying task is to design separate institutions (schools) developed and create a poster, illustrating ‘changing which served to define and prolong constructions of childhood’, based on the childhood. ideas of Jenks and Hendrick. • Moral conformity: Education was also seen as a way of socialising the unruly Digging deeper working classes. To complete this section we can look at • Economic productivity: The use of reasons for the changing status of children machinery in factories made adult and childhood. In the early industrial period workers more productive and reduced the (seventeenth and eighteenth centuries), for need for (unskilled) child labour. example, we can note: • Moral entrepreneurs (people and organisations who take it on themselves • Economic roles: As the family group to ‘protect the morals’ of others) stopped producing things (and turned protested about the exploitation of into consumers), children lost their children. This, coupled with ideas about economic role. the ‘uncorrupted innocence’ of • Separation of home and workplace: ‘The childhood, led to legal and social changes home’ became a place different to ‘the to their status. workplace’ and, with the loss of their economic role, women and children In the twentieth century: developed new and different statuses. • Social science developed to underline the • The sexual division of labour: The concept of childhood as involving various removal of women’s economic role led to stages of social, psychological and an increasing focus on their ‘natural’ role biological development. This hardened as mother and child-rearer, responsible the division between full adult for primary childcare within the family. membership of society and the period in • Changing perceptions of children: Hand- which the child ‘learns how to achieve in-hand with altered adult statuses, the full adulthood’. social identities and status of children • Attitudes: In some ways, contemporary changed – they became people in need of attitudes to childhood reflect an extreme

126 Families and households reversal of pre-industrial concepts; moral childhood, based on the dependent concerns about the ‘increasing corruption status of children. of childhood innocence’, through such Contemporary trends: Disappearing things as child abuse and exposure to sex Childhood? Two (opposed) contemporary and violence in the media, reflect how perceptions of children and childhood can childhood is seen as a somewhat idyllic be summarised by, firstly, looking briefly at period before the cares and the work of those (liberationalists) who argue responsibilities of adulthood. children should not be seen as a separate, • Education: This is increasingly promoted segregated, category of human beings; rather, – especially at the post-16 level. The they argue children should be given the 2004 Labour Government has set a same rights as adults. target of 50% of all 18 year olds A second position in this debate is attending University (compared with characterised by writers such as Neil approximately 15% in 1974). This, Postman (The Disappearance of Childhood, again, serves to redefine notions of 1985) who argues: Discussion point: children’s liberation In the 1960s and 1970s, the debate over ‘children’s rights’ developed into calls for children’s liberation. The following table lists a number of rights put forward by John Holt (Escape From Childhood, 1974) and Richard Farson (Birthrights, 1974) Tick those you agree/disagree with and compare your views with those of the rest of your class (be prepared to argue your case).

A child has a right to: Agree Disagree Exercise choice in their own living arrangements Information that is accessible to adults Choose belief systems including to educate oneself Sexual freedom Work Vote Freedom from physical punishment Justice Own property Travel independently Whatever drugs their elders use

127 AS Sociology for AQA

Modern communications (Postman cites Child labour crackdown: Sean Coughlan: television, but recent developments in April, 2002 mobile phone technology and the Internet Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/ would also apply here) are blurring the uk_news/education/1949145.stm distinction between childhood and adult, When you hear of illegal child labour, the leafy changing the status of children, as he suburbs of Surrey might not be the first place describes it, to one where ‘adults have a that springs to mind. But in recent months, different conception of what sort of person a the county has seen some of the highest- child is, a conception not unlike that which profile prosecutions for child labour offences so far seen in the United Kingdom. prevailed in the 14th century: that they are miniature adults’. Television, for example, A McDonald’s restaurant, Woolworths, Tesco, represents ‘open admission technology’ – it Safeway, Burger King, Odeon Cinemas, Heritage Hotels, Fourbuoys and Thorpe Park cannot differentiate between adults and amusement park have all been successfully children; the latter, therefore, are exposed to prosecuted. images of adulthood (sex, violence, news What is believed to be the biggest ever fine and so forth) that, according to Postman, for such offences was imposed on a diminish both adult and child abilities to McDonalds’ franchise holder in Camberley. decide where childhood ends and adulthood The £12,400 penalty followed an investigation begins. Children, in this respect, become that found school pupils working up to 16 more like adults in terms of their criminality, hours a day, in what was described as a ‘fast- sexuality and dress, and adults, in our culture food sweatshop’. at least, become more like ‘children’ in their equation of ‘youthfulness’ with health, vitality and excitement. Will a point be Growing it yourself: reached when the distinction between them disappears? child status Internet technology has arguably closed Make a list of possible reasons why the this gap further since it effectively allows status of children has changed in the past 100 years. children access to information and images that, in former times, were denied until Select four reasons from your list and write adulthood. 100 words on each explaining how they illustrate the changing position of children Finally, one area in which the status of in our society. children is becoming increasingly blurred is in the workplace. The growth of service sector industries (such as fast-food outlets) has created a growth in (illegal) child labour.

128