WordPress.com



Changing Family Patterns - Family In the past 40 or 50 years there have been some major changes in the family and household patterns. E.g. more people live alone, there are more births outside marriage, women having fewer children and having them later etc.DIVORCESDivorce is a major cause of changing family patterns and greater family diversity. E.g. most re-marriages involve a divorcee, and divorce creates both lone-parents families and one-person households.CHANGING PATTERNS OF DIVORCESince the 1960s, there has been a great increase in the number of divorces in the UK. The number of divorces doubled between 1961 and 1969, and doubled again by 1972. About 40% of all marriages will end in divorce.One reason for the fall in the number of divorces since the 1990s is that fewer people are marrying in the first place and are choosing to cohabit instead.About 65% of petitions for divorce now come from women, in contrast to the situation in the past.EXPLANATIONS FOR THE INCREASE IN DIVORCE 1: Changes in the lawThe changes in the law have made divorce easier to obtain. 3 kinds of change in the law:Equalising the grounds (the legal reasons) for divorce between the sexes;Widening the grounds for divorce;Making divorce cheaper.The introduction of legal aid for divorce cases in 1949 lowered the cost of divorcing.Although divorce is the legal termination of a marriage, couples can and do find other solutions to the problem of an unhappy marriage. These include:Desertion: where one partner leaves the other but the couple remain legally married;Legal Separation: where a court separates the financial and legal affairs of the couple but where they remain married and are not free to re-marry;‘Empty Shell’ Marriage: where the couple continue to live under the same roof but remain married in name only.As divorce becomes easier to do, these solutions have become less popular.2: Declining stigma and changing attitudesStigma refers to the negative label, social disapproval or shame attached to a person, action or relationship. In the past, divorce and divorcees have been stigmatised. E.g. churches tended to condemn divorce and often refused to conduct marriage services involving divorcees.There has been a decline in the stigma attached to divorce. As it declines and divorce becomes more socially acceptable, couples become more willing to resort to divorce as a means of solving their marital problems.3: SecularisationRefers to the decline in the influence of religion in society. Many sociologists argue that religious institutions and ideas are losing their influence and society is becoming more secular. E.g. church attendance rates continue to decline.The traditional opposition of the churches to divorce carries less weight in society and people are less likely to be influenced by religious teachings when making decisions about personal matters such as whether or not to file for divorce.Many churches have also begun to soften their views on divorce and divorcees, perhaps because they fear losing credibility with large sections of the public and with their own members.4: Women’s increased financial independenceImprovements in their economic position have made them less financially dependent on their husband and therefore freer to end an unsatisfactory marriage.Women today are much more likely to be in paid work;Although women generally still earn less than men, equal pay and anti-discrimination laws have helped to narrow the pay gap;Girls’ greater success in education now helps them achieve better-paid jobs than previous generations;Availability of welfare benefits means that women no longer have to remain financially dependent on their husbands.These developments mean that women are more likely to be able to support themselves in the event of divorce.Women not only have to rely on their husband financially, women therefore do not have to tolerate conflict of the absence of love, and in such circumstances they are more willing to seek divorce.5: Modernity and IndividualisationBeck and Giddens argue that in modern society, traditional norms, such as the duty to remain with the same partner for life, lose their hold over individuals. Each individual becomes free to pursue his or her own self-interest individualisation thesis.Relationships thus become more fragile, as individuals become unwilling to remain with a partner if the relationship fails to deliver personal fulfilment.Instead, they seek ‘pure relationship’ - one that exists solely to satisfy each partner’s needs and not of a sense of duty, tradition or for the sake of the children. This results in higher divorce rates.Modern society also encourages individualism in other ways. E.g. women as well as men are now expected to work and are encouraged to pursue their own individual career ambitions. This can cause conflicts of interest between spouses and contribute to marital breakdown.Modernity encourages people to adopt a neoliberal, consumerist identity based on the idea of freedom to follow one’s own self-interest.THE MEANING OF A HIGH DIVORCE RATE (HDR)1: The New RightSee a HDR as undesirable because it undermines marriage and the traditional nuclear family, which they regard as vital to social stability.A HDR creates:A growing underclass of welfare-dependent female lone parents who are a burden on the state;It leaves boys without the adult male role model they need; It results in poorer health and educational outcomes for children.2: FeministsSee a HDR as desirable because it shows that women are breaking free from the oppression of the patriarchal nuclear family.3: Postmodernists and the individualisation thesisSee a HDR as showing that individuals now have the freedom to choose to end a relationship when it no longer meets their needs. They see it as a major cause of greater family diversity.4: FunctionalistsArgue that a HDR is not necessarily a threat to marriage as a social institution.It is simply the result of people’s higher expectations of marriage today.The high rate of re-marriage shows people’s continuing commitment to the idea of marriage.5: InteractionistsAim to understand what divorce means to the individual. Morgan (1996) argues that we cannot generalise about the meaning of divorce, because every individual’s interpretation of it is different.6: Personal life perspectiveAccepts that divorce can cause problems, such as financial difficulties and lack of daily contact between children and non-resident parents.However, Smart (2011) says that divorce has become ‘normalised’ and that family life can adapt to it without disintegrating. Rather than seeing it as a major social problem, we should see it as just ‘one transition amongst others in the life course’.PARTNERSHIPSMARRIAGEThere have been a number of important changes in the pattern of marriage in recent years:Fewer people are marrying: marriage rates are at their lowest since the 1920’s;There are more re-marriages. In 2012, 1/3 of all marriages were re-marriages for one or both partners. For many people, this is leading to ‘serial monogamy’: a pattern of marriage-divorce-re marriage;Couples less likely to marry in church;REASONS FOR CHANGING PATTERNS OF MARRIAGE1: Changing attitudes to marriageThere is less pressure to marry and more freedom for individuals to choose the type of relationship they want. There is now a widespread belief that the quality of a couple’s relationship is more important than its legal status.2: SecularisationThe churches are in favour of marriage, but as their influence declines people feel freer to choose not to marry. 3: Declining stigma attached to alternatives to marriageCohabitation, remaining single, and having children outside marriage are all now widely regarded as acceptable, so that pregnancy no longer automatically leads to a ‘shotgun wedding’.4: Changes in the position of womenBetter educational and career prospects mean that women are now less economically dependent on men. This gives them greater freedom not to marry. 5: Fear of divorceWith the rising divorce rate, some may be put off marrying because they see the increased likelihood of marriage ending in divorce.REASONS FOR OTHER CHANGES IN PATTERNS OF MARRIAGE1: RemarriagesThe main reason for the increase in remarriages is the rise in the number of divorces. The two have grown together so that the rising number of divorcees provides a supply of people available to re-marry.2: Age on marryingAge at which couples marry is rising because young people are postponing marriage in order to spend longer in full-time education, and perhaps to establish themselves in a career first. More couples are now cohabiting for a period before they marry.3: Church weddingsCouples nowadays are less likely to marry in church for two main reasons:Secularisation: fewer people see the relevance of religious ceremonies;Many churches refuse to marry divorcees: and divorcees may in any case have less desire to marry in church.COHABITATIONThis involves an unmarried couple in a sexual relationship living together. While the number of marriages has been falling, the number of couples cohabiting continues to increase. REASONS FOR THE INCREASE IN COHABITATIONIncreased cohabitation rates are a result of the decline in stigma attached to sex outside marriage;The young are more likely to accept cohabitation;Increased career opps for women may mean they have less need for the financial security of marriage;Secularisation: young people with no religion are more likely to cohabit than those with a religion. RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN COHABITATION AND MARRIAGEFor some couples, cohabitation is just a step on the way to getting married, whereas for others it is a permanent alternative to marriage. Cohabitation is part of the process of getting married. 75% of cohabiting couples say that they expect to marry each other.A TRIAL MARRIAGE?Many see cohabitation as a trial marriage and intend to marry if it goes well. Most of those couples decide to marry if they have children. In some cases, it is a temporary phase before marriage because one or both partners are awaiting a divorce.However, some couples see it as a permanent alternative to marriage. Cohabitation among some young people represents a conscious attempt to create a more personally negotiated and equal relationship than conventional patriarchal marriage. It does not mean the same thing to every couple. The term covers a diverse range of partnerships and the relationship between marriage and cohabitation is a complex and variable one.SAME-SEX RELATIONSHIPS5 to 7% of the adult population today have same-sex relationships. There is evidence of increased social acceptance of same-sex relationships in recent years. Opinion polls show more tolerance of homosexuality.Social policy now treats all couples more equally. E.g. since 2002, cohabiting couples have had the same right to adopt as married couples. In 2004, the Civil Partnership Act gave same-sex couples similar legal rights to married couples in respect of pensions, inheritance etc. Since 2014, same-sex couples have been able to marry.CHOSEN FAMILIESWeeks (1999) argues that increased social acceptance may explain a trend towards same-sex cohabitation and stable relationships that resemble those found among heterosexuals. Weeks sees gays as creating families based on the idea of ‘friendship as kinship’, where friendships become a type of kinship network. He describes these as ‘chosen families’ and argues that they offer the same security and stability as heterosexual families.While many gay and lesbians welcome the opportunity to have their partnerships legally recognised, others fear that it may limit the flexibility and negotiability of relationships. Rather than adopt what they see as heterosexual relationship norms, they wish their relationships to be different.ONE-PERSON HOUSEHOLDSFewer people today are living as couples:There has been a big rise in the number of people living alone. In 2013, almost 3 in 10 households contained only 1 person. 40% of all one-person households are over 65. Men under 65 were the group most likely to live alone.By 2033, over 30% of the adult population will be single.REASONS FOR THE CHANGESIncrease in separation and divorce has created more 1-person households, esp among men under 65, because following divorce, any children are more likely to live with their mother.Decline in the numbers marrying also mean more people are remaining single. It is possible that a growing number are opting for ‘creative singlehood’ - the deliberate choice to live alone.But, while many of these choose to remain single and live alone, some are alone because there are too few partners available in their age group. These are mainly older widows.‘LIVING APART TOGETHER’ (LATs)1 in 10 people are LATs - that is, in a significant relationship, but not married or cohabiting. This is about half of all the people officially classified as single. It has been suggested that this may reflect a trend towards less formalised relationships and ‘families of choice’.Duncan and Phillips found that both choice and constraint play a part in whether couples live together. E.g. some said they could not afford to. Public attitudes towards LATs are favourable. A majority believe that ‘a couple do not need to live together to have a strong relationship’, while 20% see LATs as their ‘ideal relationship’.While being a LAT is no longer seen as abnormal, it probably does not amount to a rejection of more traditional relationships. PARENTS AND CHILDRENCHILDBEARING Nearly half of all children are now born outside marriage;Women are having children later;Women are having fewer children than in the 20th century, though the number increased slightly in the early 21st century;More women are remaining childless: it is predicted that a quarter of those born in 1973 will be childless when they reach the age of 45.REASONS FOR THE CHANGESReasons for the increase in births outside marriage include a decline in stigma and increase in cohabitation. The later age at which women are having children, smaller family sizes and the fact that more women are remaining childless, all reflect the fact that women now have more options than just motherhood. Many are seeking to establish themselves in a career before starting a family, or instead of having children at all.LONE-PARENT FAMILIESThey make up 22% of all families with children. 1 child in 4 lives in a lone-parent family.Over 90% of these families are headed by lone mothers;Until the early 1990s, divorced women were the biggest group of lone mothers. From the early 1990s, single women became the biggest group of lone mothers;A child living with a lone parent is twice as likely to be in poverty as a child living with 2 parents.REASONS FOR THE PATTERNSHas risen due to the increase in divorce and separation and more recently, due to the increase in the number of never-married women having children. They tend to be female-headed:The widespread belief that women are by nature suited to an ‘expressive role;The fact that divorce courts usually give custody of children to mothers;The fact that men may be less willing than women to give up work to care for children.Single by choice: mothers are single by choice, they may not wish to cohabit or marry and they may wish to limit the father’s involvement with the child. LONE PARENTHOOD, THE WELFARE STATE AND POVERTYNew Right thinker Charles Murray sees the growth of lone-parent families as resulting from an over-generous welfare state providing benefits for unmarried mothers and their children. Murray argues that this has created a ‘perverse incentive’ - it rewards irresponsible behaviour, such as having children without being able to provide for them. The welfare state will support them and their children.For Murray, the solution is to abolish welfare benefits. This would reduce the dependency culture that encourages births outside marriage.However, critics of New Right views argue that welfare benefits are far from generous and lone-parent families are much more likely to be in poverty. Reasons for this include:Lack of affordable childcare prevents lone parents from working: 60% of them are unemployed;Inadequate welfare benefits;Most lone parents are women, who generally earn less than men.STEPFAMILIES (RE-CONSTITUTED FAMILIES)Account for over 10% of all families with dependent children in Britain;Stepfamilies are at greater risk of poverty;Stepfamilies may face particular problems of divided loyalties and issues such as contact with the non-resident parent can cause tensions.REASONS FOR THE PATTERNS They are formed when lone parents form new partnerships. Thus the factors causing an increase in the number of lone parents, e.g. divorce, are also responsible for the creation of stepfamilies;Stepparents are at greater risk of poverty because there are often more children and because the stepfather may also have to support children from a previous relationship;Some of the tensions faced by stepfamilies may be the result of a lack of clear social norms about how individuals should behave in such familiesETHNIC DIFFERENCES IN FAMILY PATTERNSImmigration into Britain since the 1950s has helped to create greater ethnic diversity. 14% of the UK population belong to an ethnic minority, the main groups were Asian and Asian British, Black and Black British and Mixed. BLACK FAMILIESCaribbean and African people have a higher proportion of lone-parent households. The high rate of female-headed, lone-parent black families has sometimes been seen as evidence of family disorganisation that can be traced back to slavery or, more recently, to high rates of unemployment among black males. Male unemployment and poverty have meant that black men are less able to provide for their family, resulting in higher rates of desertion or marital breakdown.But, Mirza (1997) argues that the higher rate of lone-parent families among blacks is not the result of disorganisation, but rather reflects the high value that black women place on independence. ASIAN FAMILIESBangladeshi, Pakistani and Indian households tend to be larger than those of other ethnic groups. Such households sometimes contain 3 generations, but most are in fact nuclear rather than extended. Larger household sizes are partly a result of the younger age profile of British Asians, since a higher proportion are in the childbearing age groups compared with the population as a whole.Ballard (1982) found that extended family ties provided an important source of support among Asian migrants during the 1950s and 1960s.In this early period of migration, houses were often shared by extended families. Later, although most Asian households were now nuclear, relatives often lived nearby. THE EXTENDED FAMILY TODAYAccording to Parsons, the extended family is the dominant family type in pre-industrial society, but in modern industrial society it is replaced by the nuclear family. E.g. Charles’ study of Swansea found, that the significant exception of 3-generation family was among the city’s Bangladeshi community.It has not entirely disappeared but has become a ‘dispersed extended family’ - where relatives are geographically separated but maintain frequent contact through visits and phone calls.The extended family survives because it performs important functions for its members. E.g. Bell’s (1968) earlier research in Swansea found that both W/C and M/C families had emotional bonds with kin and relied on them for support:Among the M/C, there was more financial help from father to son;W/C families had frequent contact and there was more domestic help from mothers to daughters.THE ‘BEANPOLE’ FAMILYBell’s findings suggest the importance of the so-called beanpole family. It is a particular type of extended family, which is described as ‘long and thin’:It is extended vertically: through 3 or more generations: grandparents, parents and children;It not extended horizontally: does not involve aunts, uncles, cousins etc.Beanpole families may partly be the result of 2 demographic changes:Increased life expectancy: means more surviving grandparents and great-grandparents;Smaller family sizes: mean people have fewer siblings and thus fewer horizontal ties.Overall, the extended family continues to play an important role for many people today, providing both practical and emotional support when called upon.But, it is very different to the classic extended family, whose members lived and worked together, and who were bound by strong mutual obligations. Nevertheless, some sense of obligation does remain, at least to some kin and as a last resort in times of crisis. ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download