Family Chapter 2

2.
Families and households
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.
Defining the At a guess, I’d say your definition of a family

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
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
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
different to families in terms of their
Family
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
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
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
• 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
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
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
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
Discussion point: We can begin this section by defining social
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
81
the telephone or email. For this reason,
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
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
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
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
landowners) and the Peasantry (largely

landless). Family and
household
Feudal system
changes
King
Preparing the
nd
La
Taxes ground
ction
Nobles
Military In terms of the question just posed, there are
Prote
Church
Knight Knight two basic positions we need to examine.
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
(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)
because pre-industrial family structures
Digging deeper
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
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
• 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
• 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
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
common for the vertically-extended family extended depends, as I have suggested,

to exist among the upper classes. on how you define such things).
• Social changes: Relatively easy access to
Post-industrial society 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
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
family generations’.
Growing it yourself
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.
3.
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
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
Family and groups). Once we’ve done this we can then
examine ‘changing patterns of marriage,
household cohabitation, separation, divorce and child
bearing’.
diversity and WARM UP: DISCUSSING FAMILY DIFFERENCES
change One way of thinking about diversity is to

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
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
• 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
• 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
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
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
• 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
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
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
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
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
Family and (in our society people can marry, divorce
and remarry), which makes simple
household comparisons between past and present
difficult. However, this doesn’t mean
changes marriage statistics tell us nothing of
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
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
do better at school than boys. They go to
may lose its significance, making it less 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
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
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
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
have cohabited.
children or elderly people in a population,
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
Cohabitation 1990s, this had risen to 80% of all women
marrying. According to the General
Household Survey (2004), cohabitation
Preparing the among women aged 18–49 rose from 11%
in 1979 to 32% in 2001.
ground • 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
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
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
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
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

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

102
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
‘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
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
• 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
• pregnancy at an early age.
ground
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
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.
When we think about reasons for changing • Security: 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
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.
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
find Page Three ‘girls’ (not women) in The
mixture of violence and economic
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
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
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

1
10
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
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
behaviour (you could, if you wish, explore
New Families, 1998) observes that in ‘post-
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
negotiated by every couple depending on
gender behaviour, we have far more
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
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!)
Domestic labour and chores; it may also include things like care
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.
grand-
parent)
Cooking
Laundry
Shopping
Playing with
children
Further tasks . . .
113
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
Percentage
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Make Bed
Tidy Room
Cook Meals
Mow Lawn
Other
None
Do Ironing
Wash Dishes
Lay Table
Chore
Source: Phase 2 CensusAtSchool Project www.censusatschool.ntu.ac.uk
Table 2.17
114
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
age 20 (approximately 21⁄2 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.
times as much housework as boys (21⁄2
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
• 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
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
• 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
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
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
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
have previously examined, we can see • The ability to prevent others making
decision making (in its widest sense to decisions 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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-
profile prosecutions for child labour offences
child is, a conception not unlike that which
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,
Safeway, Burger King, Odeon Cinemas,
represents ‘open admission technology’ – it
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-
food sweatshop’.
sexuality and dress, and adults, in our culture
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

Family Chapter 2

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Family Chapter 2

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Family Chapter 2

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

2.

Families and households

• outline different perspectives on family life

Defining the At a guess, I’d say your definition of a family

really different or are they simply suggests families do not have to be

there’s a genetic link between the two) or

Growing it yourself: families or households?

Further advantages and disadvantages?

other words, family members have to

self ’ in favour of one’s children and their

Marriage Marry someone of the Marry someone of same sex

Teenagers (13–16) Paid employment: a limited

Some of the areas we’re going to look at • identifying a selection of government

impact on their life – from birth to • Pregnancy: Working women are

Table 2.1 Infant Mortality rate 2002 (for

parent to work and affects family living

unemployment than the north of National Insurance contributions you

in our society. Medical services are still

circles. Marriage/cohabitation is shown by

variation on this type of family • Single-parent families involve a single

reason, a group of people living together.

to do two things: firstly, establish a live in a postmodern/post-industrial

Pre-modern Modern Post-modern

Time Pre-18th century 18th-late 20th Late-20th century to

Table 2.2 Selected characteristics of types of society in Britain

landowners) and the Peasantry (largely

• Nepotism (favouring your relations over on people’s behaviour. The single-person

• Retirement: Demographic evidence • An inheritance system that

common for the vertically-extended family extended depends, as I have suggested,

Strengths Weaknesses Strengths Weaknesses

2. Based on the strengths and weaknesses

change One way of thinking about diversity is to

Your Division of Rules Parents and Structure

marriage is arranged by the parents or

• Lower rates of mixed partnerships. leisure and friendship networks (which is

• Attachment: For example, families with likely to be found in urban areas,

• Sexuality: Increasing tolerance of rearing and domestic labour than their

work with them, or should we view them as • developing successful interpersonal

Neale summarises the general New Right An alternative interpretation of family

within marriage if they were to inherit • Choice: Just as when we go to the

other) become much weaker. In this Marriage

Introduction Look at ‘Growing it yourself ’, below. From

Growing it yourself: thinking about marriage

since slowly declined. Remarriage, as a

1981 1989 1993 2001 2002

cohorts in a population is also significant. nineteenth centuries as many as one-fifth of

Contingent commitment involved couples Mutual commitment involved the couple

Growing it yourself: marriage and cohabitation

Advantages Disadvantages Advantages Disadvantages

Growing it yourself: reasons for divorce

Year No. of divorces (000s) Average age at divorce

Table 2.8 Divorce in the UK

1961 1981 1999

Table 2.9 Divorce by gender and age per 1000 of population

Year Main Change

Table 2.10 Divorce: selected legal changes in the UK

• War-time marriages, for example, have • Social position: As women have

‘At risk’ relationships Separation