1. Most adults still marry and have children. - Families and Households

  Diversity in Families and Households

Introduction

  Remember that although there are undoubtedly differences between now and the recent past, for example, immigration, values and affluence, that there are also likely to be strong continuities. In addition it is possible that the more unified view of the family we see in sociological literature from the 1950s is a distorted view that ignored, or did not observe real differences in family structure and life course. Much recent research supports the view that diversity is the rule in family arrangements. In Britain. Rapoport,

  

Fogerty and Rapoport (1982) concluded that: "Families in Britain today are in a transition from coping in a

society in which there was a single overriding norm of what family life should be like to a society in which a

plurality of norms are recognised as legitimate and, indeed, desirable".

  As Crowley(1992) argues: "The normative family is a statistical minority".

Explaining diversity There are a number of factors that have contributed to the increasing diversity of family and household forms. Choice

  Do we choose the sort of life we live or are we, at least to some extent, the victims of circumstance? In sociological theory Social Action theorists support the belief that human action is based on choice. This approach emphasizes that people can choose/negotiate alternative lifestyles in the light of their understanding of their situation, and within the limits that their circumstances allow. People’s behaviour is not determined by society. People choose the sorts of family arrangements that they want. However, it could be argued that we now have more freedom to choose. We have more freedom because: q Choice is now written into our social scripts, it’s allowed. We are not slaves to tradition. q We are increasingly socialized into expecting to have to exercise choice. We take responsibility for decisions. Values have changed. People are increasingly likely to view their circumstances in terms of what’s best for them- their rights.

  For example: Giddens, The Transformation of Intimacy (1992) argues that pre-modern couples married for economic reasons, modern couples married for romantic reasons and late modern couples co-habit or marry because they ‘want’ to. The only thing that keeps late modern couples together is the existence of a ‘good deal’. It is judged to be worth it. If it is no longer worth it then leave it.

Chance

  

EACH OF US PRODUCES A ROUTE THROUGH LIFE- A LIFE COURSE. SOME ROUTES WE

CHOOSE, SOME JUST HAPPENS TO US. A CONSEQUENCE OF CHOICE AND THE PURSUIT OF

  Like Giddens, Beck(1995), emphasizes choice, but the choice is exercised on the basis of individuals exercising responsibility for themselves and thinking about what is good for them as individuals. But if we a freed from previous constraints we are also cut loose from previous certainties.

Demography

  Increased lifespan has meant that the population has aged. This is one of the most important reasons for the increase in one person households-old people living alone.

  Discourse

  Much Postmodernist and Structural theory takes a much more determinist approach. Postmodernists tend to see us all as the result of our exposure to differing and contradictory accounts which via history, culture and our social

Time

  One way to study family life is to divide up a family in terms of a number of stages that a 'normal' family would be expected to pass through. This is the Life-cycle approach. Life-course approaches are, by contrast, much more focused on the individual as the unit of analysis, rather than the family unit. The life-cycle approach views family life as essentially predictable. However, it also demonstrates that all families change and that the idea of ‘the’ family can never be more than a snapshot of some families at a particular stage in the family life cycle. The assumption is that the future in most ways resembles the past and that there are regular patterns that can be discerned.

  Technology New reproductive technologies permit new types of family and family relationships (Macionis &Plummer 1997).

  There is now the possibility of surrogate motherhood, and of test tube babies. This is bound to add to the range of possible family diversity.

Immigration/multi culturalism

  Immigration has meant that the cultural life of Britain has been greatly enlarged by the mass immigrations of the 1950s and 60s.

Material factors

  Material factors have lead to greater affluence, greater geographical and social mobility. The greater economic independence of women has also contributed to increased diversity in families and households.

Social Policy

  It has been argued that the existence of welfare secures the survival of many lone parent families. Without state support many such families could not survive economically.

Types of diversity

  The Rapoports(1982) argue that there are five types of diversity in contemporary families. These are:

Organisational diversity

  This refers to different types of family structure, for example single parent and reconstituted families, It also refers to differing kinship patterns and to the domestic division of labour. Diversity of lifestyles also reflects people at different points in their life course. For example many people live alone, but for different reasons and this may or may not be a permanent state.

Cultural(Ethnic )

  Britain is a multi-ethnic society. In the case of South Asian families, both Hindu and Muslim, there is a tendency for the families to be extended, traditional and patriarchal. Afro-Caribbean families, like Asian families, tend to reflect the societies from which they migrated. The stereotypical image of the Afro-Caribbean family in Britain is of a single parent household, but perhaps the key point is that Afro-Caribbean families tend to be mother-centred.

  Modood et al(1997), found the following variations: Whites and Blacks had higher rates of divorce; -

• South Asians were more likely to be married;

  South Asian families were least likely to form lone parent families. - The highest rate for lone parents was among black families. -

R. Oakley(1982) in a study of Cypriot families in Britain, found strong extended family ties. He argued that parents

  retained strong connections with their married children, a pattern native to Cyprus, but little changed by the migration to Britain.

  Class

Life Course

  The life course of individuals within families can vary greatly. This can reflect choice or circumstance. This covers such factors as the number of children, the spacing of the children, divorce, remarriage, widowhood.

Cohort

  A cohort of individuals refers to those born in the same year(or band of years). Such individuals may well have a shared experience of historical events, for example, the introduction of comprehensive schools, the introduction of the birth control pill. To these we can add:

Regional

  

Eversley & Bonnerjea(1982) argue that there are distinct regional variations in household type within Britain. They

  argue that there are distinct patterns of household form in different parts of Britain. For example; they describe the ‘sun belt’ families of the affluent south east as family builders. The south coast towns, where many elderly retired live, are named the ‘geriatric wards’. Inner city areas tend to have more lone parents, and ethnic minority households.

International

  

Boh(1989) analysed the data from a cross cultural study of 14 European countries. She found that the countries

  produced different patterns of family life. For instance, the likelihood of married women working varied considerably, as did marriage rates and co-habitation. However, there were some common trends, a rise in divorce, co-habitation becoming more common and a decline in birth rates. Boh characterizes the diversity she found as being a consequence of the increased choices available to people.

Gay & Lesbian

  

Weeks et al(1999) argue that there are many ore openly gay or lesbian households than there were in the past. These

  area a consequence of the growth in choice and the relaxation of tradition. Such households, argues Weeks, do see themselves as families, and would even include friends as members of ‘chosen families’. For Weeks, such relationships are founded on commitment rather than acknowledgment.

Evidence of Stability

  There is another viewpoint, that the family has not changed much and that the predominant form of family organization continues to be the traditional nuclear family. Signs of stability can be gauged in two ways.

  1. Behaviour

  Robert Chester, "The Rise of the Neo-Conventional family, New Society 9/5/85 argues that: 1. Most adults still marry and have children.

  2. Most children are reared by their natural parents.

  3. Most people live in a household headed by a married couple.

  4. Most marriages continue until parted by death. Chester argues that no great change in family organization has occurred. There is, in general, continuity with the past.

  2. Attitudes

Sheena Ashford, British Social Attitudes 1987, argues that: “in their attitudes towards marriage and other family

  matters, the British emerge as highly and consistently conventional. The family may be dead but the idea of the family survives unchallenged.”

  

Silva & Smart(1999) conclude that there are strong continuities in British family life, but that at the same time there

was drift towards more varied forms of family organization, based they argue on more freedom of ‘personal choice’.

Conclusion

  The shackles of social convention have been loosened. People now have far more freedom to form the sort of family they prefer. A large number of people still seem to prefer relatively conventional/traditional relationships, albeit with modifications in one aspect or another. There is much wider tolerance of difference. Overall there are clear patterns of continuity with the past, but within an overall trend towards increased diversity.

  STATISTICS Households More people were living alone in 2004

  Households and families, GB In 2004 there were 7.0 million people living alone in Great Britain, nearly four times as many as in 1961. In 2004 there were 2.6 million more families in Great Britain than in 1961, but there were 7.8 million more households. The growing trend in people living alone accounted for much of the increase in the number of households. As a result the average household size has declined from 3.1 to 2.4 over the same period. The proportion of one-person households more than trebled for working-age people over the last four decades, while people of pension age were twice as likely to be living on their own. The rise in the proportion of one-person households has leveled since 1991. In spite of the growth in the number of one-person households, most people in Great Britain still live in a family household. In 2004, eight out of ten people lived in a family household, compared with nine out of ten in 1961. More than two thirds of the 24.7 million households in the UK in 2004 were family households. The largest proportion of households consisted of just one family. In 2004 just 1 per cent (0.2 million) of households in the UK were families sharing with at least one other family. This is down from 3 per cent in Great Britain in 1961. The decline can be attributed to an increase in the provision of first public, and then private, housing in the 1970s and 1980s. Lone-parent families, who historically were more likely than other families to live in multi-family households, increasingly became one-family households throughout this period.

  The next most common type of household were one-person households, which by definition is not a family. In 2004, 29 per cent of households were people living alone. A small proportion of households consisted of two or more people who either were not related or were related but did not form a family. These multi-person households accounted for 3 per cent of households in the UK in 2004 compared with 5 per cent of households in Great Britain in 1961. In addition, a small proportion of the UK population live in communal establishments. In 2001, 1.0 million people (or 1.8 per cent of the population) in the UK were living in communal establishments. These include for example, students living in halls of residence, people living in residential care homes, hotel staff who live at the hotel, or people staying in hostels (including people sleeping rough). _____________________________________________________________________________________________ Sources: Censuses, Office for National Statistics; General Register Office for Scotland; Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency Household estimates, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister Household estimates, Scottish Executive Labour Force Survey, Office for National Statistics Notes: Household: a person living alone, or a group of people living at the same address who have the address as their only or main residence and either share one main meal a day or share the living accommodation (or both).

  Family: a married/cohabiting couple with or without child(ren), or a lone-parent with child(ren). Dependent children: aged under 16, or aged 16-18 in full-time education and never married. Multi-family households: families sharing a household with at least one other family. In multi-person households two people who are not related may be a same sex couple. State pension age is 60 for women and 65 for men. Communal establishments’ data are from the 2001 Census.

  Families Married couple families still the majority There were 17.0 million families in the UK in 2004 and around 7 in 10 were headed by a married couple. Although married couples were the main family type, the number of married couple families fell by 4 per cent (0.5 million) between 1996 and 2004. This decline occurred despite an overall increase of 3 per cent (0.5 million) in the total number of families. Between 1996 and 2004, the number of cohabiting couple families increased by over 50 per cent to 2.2 million, while the number of lone-mother families increased by 12 per cent to 2.3 million.

  Children in lone-parent families were more likely to live with their mother than with their father. In 2004 nearly nine out of ten lone-parents were lone-mothers. Not all families have dependent children living with them. In 2004, 42 per cent of all families did not have children. Of couple families, 49 per cent of married and 58 per cent of those cohabiting did not have children living with them. For a further 14 per cent of all families, the only offspring living in the family were non-dependent children. Nearly 40 per cent of married couple and cohabiting couple families did have dependent children. Lone-mother families were more likely to have dependent children than lone-father families, 73 per cent compared with 50 %. Comparing the four constituent countries of the UK in 2004, the proportion of families headed by a cohabiting couple in Northern Ireland (6 per cent) was less than half of that of the UK (13 per cent). Equivalent figures for Scotland and Wales were both 12 per cent and England 13 per cent. All countries have seen a marked increase in these figures since 1996. There were more likely to be dependent children in families in Northern Ireland than in the rest of the UK. In 2004, 50 per cent of all families in Northern Ireland had dependent children living with them compared with 43 per cent in England. These patterns reflect the younger population age structure and higher fertility in Northern Ireland. _____________________________________________________________________________________________ Sources: Labour Force Survey, spring 1996 and 2004, Office for National Statistics Notes: Family: a married/cohabiting couple with or without child(ren), or a lone-parent with child(ren). Dependent children: aged under 16, or aged 16-18 in full-time education and never married. Non-dependent children: never married children aged 16 and over who have no children and are living with their parent(s) (excludes children aged 16-18 in full-time education). There is no age limit.

  FAMILIES AND HOUSEHOLDS What is happening to ‘the family’? There is a lot of debate about the social change said to be transforming family out how family life there has altered in the past 40 years and how such change varies between different social and ethnic groups. Key findings• Fewer people marry or cohabit now compared with 1960, fewer have children and more remain unpartnered. As a result, the proportion of their lives spent by people in nuclear family households has declined.• The classic extended family consisting of three generations living under the same roof, already rare in 1960, is now all but extinct. Almost the only group where such households remain is amongst the ethnic minority population, particularly Bengalis, the largest ethnic minority in the city. • As in 1960, the extended family continues to exist in a dispersed form. Contact between households and generations remains high with contact between mothers and daughters being the highest. This relationship remains crucial for the functioning of family groups despite the fact that women’s employment has increased and the time available for domestic tasks has decreased. • In the case of brothers and sisters, however, there has been a marked decline both in living nearby and in contact. This, of course, affects potential extended family groupings and weakens the sense of people in an area being ‘kith and kin’. • Support and contact are key to who is counted as ‘family’. Kin can lose the status of family members if they do not provide support and there is little contact. Bythe same token, friends can become ‘family’ and distant relatives become ‘close’ if they are seen often and help each other out. • And heterosexual partnerships are no longer necessarily based on a male breadwinner - in 30 per cent of cases, women’s work status is higher than their partners’. Variation in family forms • In the relatively affluent, middle-class area, families were usually a heterosexual couple where the man was the main provider and the woman the main carer.

• In the inner-city area, amongst Bangladeshis, men were central to the family, as providers and heads of extended family households. In some cases sons and their partners formed separate households in the same streets as their parents. • In the deprived, working-class area, men were notable by their absence from family groups and paid work. Women and their mothers and children, by contrast, were at the heart of family groups and relationships between the generations and households. Social Change, Family Formation & Kin Relationship'. For the full research report go to ESRC Society Today ( www.esrcsocietytoday.ac.uk ). Despite changes in family life, personal ties are still important There are two dominant views of present-day personal relations, each reflecting a particular ideological stance. Both are based on the premise that social and economic transformation has profoundly influenced the way people relate to one another. However, some commonly made claims about changes to family life are not supported by actual research, according to Val Gillies. A senior research fellow at South Bank University, she conducted a review of existing written works on the subject. Key Findings • Those who regard traditional family values as crucial to social and economic stability speak of the cultural shift in negative terms, emphasising family breakdown and moral decline. • Liberal theorists favour a more positive version – talking about the benefits for people in less conventional personal relationships, and stressing their potential for more equal treatment. • Another perspective - that there has in fact been little substantial change in the way people relate to one another – is rarely heard. This is despite research evidence suggesting that people continue to place great importance on personal ties and obligations.
• Evidence points to a largely enduring status quo, particularly in terms of gender and class. Statistics drawn on to show an increased diversity of arrangements, such as divorcees, lone parents and step-families, can also be used to demonstrate that traditional ties continue, with the majority of families still centred on a heterosexual couple. The ethics of friendship • In the past, intimacy was seen very much as part and parcel of the obligations and functions of family and kinship. Today, the strong focus is on the ethics of friendship, talking through issues and compromising, and being open and honest with each other. The paper - Family and Intimate Relationships: a review of the sociological research - was produced as part of the Families and Social Capital ESRC Research Group. For more go to: (www.lsbu.ac.uk/families) Divorce and step- families The very familiarity of divorce today suggests far reaching changes in how people conduct personal relationships. Step-families are the most rapidly growing type of family unit. It has been estimated that just under 20 per cent of dads aged 34 are step-fathers - nearly double the number among men born just 12 years before them. Most step-families are made up of a step-father who has partnered and formed a household with a biological mother and her resident children. But they can also be particularly complex set-ups, in which the adults may combine biological and step-parenting, and the children can be from both previous and current relationships. Research led by Dr Bren Neale and Dr. Jennifer Flowerdew, at the Centre for Research on Family, Kinship and Childhood, University of Leeds, examined in depth the changing lives of young people whose parents have divorced or

  separated. It tracked the lives and experiences of young people over three or four years. Key findings• It is wrong to assume that multiple changes in a child’s life after divorce are necessarily detrimental. Rather, it is the nature of after divorce but were not necessarily a consequence of it.• Relationships between young people and their parents are played out in a complex variety of ways. For example, the success or otherwise of living with a parent can depend on whether it is based on a flexible and supportive arrangement with the young person having a large measure of control. A rigid regime can become a real trial for youngsters. Divorce must not be centre of the equation

• It is important to see the lives of young people in a broad context rather than purely through their parents’ divorce. Many involved in the Leeds study faced a range of personal or family-related challenges that followed their parents’ separation, but were not necessarily due to it. These included issues around sexuality, schooling, economic hardship and redundancy, higher education, friendships, long term limiting illness, terminal illness and death. Changing relationships with parents • Relationships between young people and their parents are played out in a complex variety of ways over time, and the nature and quality of these relationships are not necessarily reflected in or determined by particular contact or living arrangements. Shared parenting, for example, is an attentive and supportive style of relationship between a parent and child, which can be enjoyed by young people in a variety of living arrangements, including those who may spend relatively little time with their non-resident parent. It should not, therefore, be confused with shared residence. • Whether shared residence – or sharing a home with both parents
• – actually works, depends on how the parents and child go about it. A flexible and supportive arrangement, in which young people themselves have a large measure of control, is a positive experience for them. On the other hand, a rigid regime can become a real trial for the young person. In any case, the task of sustaining this way of life over many years is a particular challenge for young people and, over time, the disadvantages may begin to outweigh the benefits. ‘In’ or ‘out’ of kinship This study also provides insights into the bases on which someone is counted ‘in’ or ‘out’ in terms of kinship, and to what extent the experience of their parents’ divorce may playa role in this. Children’s reflections A book for children – ‘Looking back at our Parents’ Divorce: The changing lives of young people’ by Dr Jennifer Flowerdew and Dr Bren Neale, is published by Young Voice (www.young-voice.org.). An anthology of young people’s reflections on their lives, it covers some of the key themes to have emerged from this study. Two homes not necessarily better than one The Fathers 4 Justice movement is among those calling for family law to adopt a principle of pure equality between parents. Its members, with support from organisations such as the Equal Parenting Council, demand that on divorce or separation, children should be shared equally. But the Leeds research shows that children who spend an equal amount of time in two homes are not necessarily better off than those with one. The principle of parental equality fails to take into account how young people experience these arrangements. Where shared residence is built on rivalry or, even worse, ‘war’ between the parents, then children can be considerably worse off than those living in one place. Enduring Families? Children's long term reflections on post divorce family life. For the full research report go to ESRC Society Today (www.esrcsocietytoday.ac.uk) Brother and sister relationships are not just about blood ‘Brother and sister’ relationships are now about far more than blood ties and living in the same home. As 21stCentury children and young people create their own, complex understandings of who and what is a sibling, the important social implications need to be taken on board, says a paper from a team led by Professor Rosalind Edwards of the London South Bank University. Key findings• For many, the definition of brothers and sisters has less to do with biology and living arrangements than with their own circumstances and experiences. • Rising rates of divorce and separation, re-partnering and step-families, mean that children may now have full siblings (sharing both biological parents), half siblings (sharing one) and step-siblings (who are not related by blood, but each has a biological parent in a relationship). • This diversity is, however, rarely picked up when official statistics are collected on children and families. Figures collected by official bodies, notably government, about the number of children living in families, are overwhelmingly gathered from the point of view of the family as a household unit. But separated parents and re-partnering can mean that children do not necessarily live in the same household as their full biological siblings. They may also have half or step-siblings living in the per - Who is a sister and a brother? Biological and social ties - was produced as part of the Families and Social Capital ESRC Research Group’s core program of work. For more go to: (www.lsbu.ac.uk/families) Step-families at Christmas Dilemmas and tensions in step families are brought into sharp

  relief at Christmas, as parents and step-parents aim to do what is best for the children. Decisions about where, with whom and for how long youngsters will spend their time, and the giving and receiving of gifts for children within and between households, take on an increased significance and symbolism, says a study led by Professor Rosalind Edwards of London Southbank University. Parenting and Step-Parenting after Divorce/Separation: issues and negotiations. For more go to ESRC Society Today (www.esrcsocietytoday.ac.uk ) on Micro-Social Change – www.iser.essex.ac.uk/misoc• Families and Social Capital Group – www.lsbu.ac.uk/families• Identities and Social Action Group – www.identities.org.uk• For the full list of research in the area of Life course, Lifestyles and Health see- www.esrcsocietytoday.ac.uk/ESRCInfoCentre/research/LifecourseLifestylesHealth/ESRC The Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) funds research into the big social and economic questions facing us today. We also develop and train the UK’s future social scientists. We are an independent organisation, but receive most of our funding through the Government’s Office of Science and Technology. Our research shapes public policies and helps to make businesses, voluntary bodies and other organisations more effective. ESRC research is rigorous and respected because we support independent, high quality but also relevant social science. If you are looking for high quality social science research and if you would like to find out more about ESRC and our research why not take a look at ESRC Society Today the ESRC's new website. On the site you can: • search the ESRC database of research reports, along with plain English summaries and overview facts sheets• find new research, topical features and latest news• track down researchers in particular areas of expertise • Cross search full texts and original datasets.

  www.esrcsocietytoday.ac.uk The Family and Historical change

  Historical study of the institution of the family involves:

   Broad descriptive attempts to chart the emergence of the ‘modern’ family. Examples include the work of Aries, Shorter and Stone.  Specific case studies of how families both in the past and currently have adapted to economic and social change. For example, Anderson.

  The study of the family is a good example of the necessary relationship between sociology and history. Only knowledge of the past can instruct us to changes that occur, patterns that emerge and provide clues as to causation (why change happens). It was historians, rather than sociologists, who exposed the previously widely held functionalist account of the evolution of the western isolated nuclear family as a necessary adaptation to industrial society as seriously flawed, and essentially a theoretical rather than empirically grounded account. Be aware that the family and household are not the same thing. A family does not always live in the same household and most households are not comprised of families.

  The Functionalist account

  The basic argument of functionalism is that:  Prior to industrialisation the most common family form in western Europe was the extended family.

   As a result of industrialisation the extended family form gave way to the nuclear family.

   The nuclear family represents an adaptation to industrial society.

  Some Key Texts.

  What follows is mainly a criticism of the functionalist position. The functionalist position is, for the most part, clearly untenable, it is theory divorced from close scrutiny of available information-it is armchair theorising.

  Peter Laslett

  A Cambridge historian, Laslett studied family size and composition in pre-industrial England. From 1564-1821, he found that only about 10% of households contained kin beyond the nuclear family. This is the same percentage as for England in 1966. Evidence from the USA presents a similar picture. Laslett found no evidence to support the formerly accepted view that the classic extended family was widespread in pre-industrial England. He stated :

  

"There is no sign of the large extended co-residential family group of the traditional peasant world giving

way to the small, nuclear conjugal household of modern industrial society."

  It is a distinct possibility that it was not industrialisation that produced the nuclear family, but, the reverse. The nuclear family may have been one of the factors encouraging the development of industrial revolution in England. As the predominant form of family structure perhaps it was pre-adapted to the requirements of industrial society. The industrial revolution is seen as the 'great divide' the 'before and after' division of family forms (Morgan). A question here of what was cause and what effect.

  Michael Anderson

  Anderson provides evidence that rather weakening kinship ties industrialisation may have strengthened them. He used data from the 1851 census in Preston. He found that 23% of households contained kin other than the nuclear family. The bulk of co-residence occurred among the poor. He states: "If we are to understand variations and

  

changes in patterns of kinship relationships, the only worthwhile approach is consciously and explicitly to

investigate the manifold advantages and disadvantages that any actor can obtain from maintaining one

relational pattern rather than another.

  Harris questions an assumption that functionalists assert, that the family ‘fits’ society. He considers that the problem can be looked at the other way round. He argues that sociologists have seen the family as the dependent variable, whereas, in contrast, economic historians see the family as the independent variable. Harris is arguing that the family can change society. In order to gauge the influence of the family on industrialization Harris outlines what he considers to be necessary for industrialization to start. He lists:

   A surplus of capital The extent to which capital is available, Harris argues, is dependent upon the system of inheritance that exists in a particular society. The system of inheritance determines the extent to which is dispersed or concentrated. Where the inheritance is divided equally the wealth of parents is divided. Where only one child inherits the wealth is concentrated. Thus the effect of a single(one person) inheritance system can be important in making large sums of capital available for investment. The family as a socialising agency will have a vital role to play in influencing the beliefs, attitudes and behaviour of individuals. This will determine their propensity to save and invest, and a willingness to innovate and take risks. The family as a reproductive agency will affect the size of the population and hence the size of the labour surplus which can be used in non-agricultural production. The family has an important role to play in determining the reaction to the new systems of production involved in industrialisation, and in their legitimation. Harris argues that single inheritance systems will tend to make those children who do not inherit more willing to travel. If there is also population growth this will produce a landless labour force. Given population growth therefore, a single system will produce both a labour force and prevent the dispersion of property. Habbakuk points to an association between single inheritance systems and early industrialisation(England and Germany); and equal inheritance systems and late industrialisation(France and Russia). In order to understand the impact of socialisation within a family we need to understand the importance of the differing systems of inheritance. Where a child grows up knowing that s/he will inherit, all they have to do is sit back and wait. But where a child knows that they will not inherit, both they and more importantly their parents, will want to prepare them for this. The emphasis will shift to the value of personal achievement. Hence it would appear that the single inheritance system not only provides a mobile labour force and keeps capital in large lumps, but also it provides this labour force with the values of achievement necessary for entrepreneurial activity. Unlike functionalists, Harris also argues that occupational and geographic mobility were not required by early industrialisation. He argues that much of the supposed transfer of population from rural to urban areas was, in fact, the result of differential growth rates, rather than migration. Harris also argued that since the level of skill required in the first stage of industrialisation was low that there was no need for occupational mobility.. Given this viewpoint Harris believes that it is impossible to argue that the extended family was a prerequisite of inndustrialisation.

  Very important, Anderson alerts us to the fact that humans are intelligant. Given our predisposition to maximise our advantages we will adapt our behaviour to our cicumstances and adopt the family form that gives us, as individuals and families, gives us the best outcome in terms of wellbeing. Dependent variable-acted upon, independent variable acting on-back to cause and effect! The adult population of cities were young and thus produced more children than the older adults in rural areas.

  J. Flandrin

  Flandrin(1979) argues that it is misleading to link one family type with a particular period. He argues that a variety of types exist in any given period. Additionally, any one family will go through various different types over time. Families are constantly changing.

  A pause for thought

  If the functionalist account were accurate what could we expect research to show?  Before industrialisation the vast majority of families were extended in structure.

   After industrialisation extended families would disappear. The first of these claims is clearly inaccurate. There is extensive evidence that nuclear families were extremely common , indeed numerically the most common family form, in pre-industrial England. The second claim, that industrialisation destroyed extended family structures, is also unsustainable. There is research that clearly demonstrates the existence of extended family structures in industrial societies. In the UK the research of Willmott and Young in Bethnal Green, and Bell in Swansea both indicate the vitality of the extended family in Britain during the mid part of this century. More recently, Peter Willmott has written about the importance of extended families to all of us currently living in the UK. His work is a reminder that families cannot be reduced to

  

members who do not live with you? Do you maintain contact with family members beyond the sibling parent

link? We all have extended families but most of us do not live under the same roof as them. So have there been any changes?

  The changes suggested by functionalism seem mistaken but its impossible for institutions to remain unaffected by time. Humans are creative and adaptable and institutions are their creations, nobody keeps on tolerating conditions that they are capable of changing and advances in knowledge will further hasten changes in social organisation and belief.

  In "The Family in Question(1985) Gittings suggests some historical changes in families. The first of these is mortality.

  Mortality _th Life expectancy has increased dramatically. In England in the late 17 century average life expectancy was 32 years.

  This short life expectancy had clear repercussions. First, if parents wanted children to survive they needed to produce a relatively large number of children(some would die). Second, marriages and families were frequently broken by death. Widowhood like orphanhood were a common experience. So the belief that families in the past were more stable and solidaristic than today cannot be borne out. Many children would experience the surviving parents remarriage and live with step siblings and half siblings. _th According to Houston and Smith(1982), perhaps as many as 30% of all those marrying in the late 16 century were widows and widowers. High mortality meant it was rare for children to know their grandparents for long, if at all. Given this the extended family could never have been widespread, or long lived.

  Fertility _th

  In pre-industrial society there was always a high fertility rate. Until the late 19 century society was a very young _th society. In the 20 century Britain has become an increasingly old society. Age has an important affect on family resources. The elderly require time and attention but cannot contribute much(materially!) in return. Additionally it is women who are seen as responsible for caring for many of the elderly. The amount of time spent on child-rearing is also increasing. Men and women in pre0-industrial society married quite late(about 25 yrs old). Caring for young dependents was a common feature of women’s lives throughout their childbearing years. In contemporary society couples tend to have one or two children. Most women have stopped having children by their early 30’s and thus have the prospect of a further 40 years without childbearing. However, it must also be considered that although less time is spent actually having children, more time is spent rearing them.

  Work

  Apart from the very wealthy, everybody in medieval and early modern society was expected to work, economic survival depended on it. If working for wages, a family needed more than one to survive , there was no such thing as a ‘family wage’. A common form of work for children was as servants. Over 50% of the young people in pre- industrial England would have experienced a period of living in someone else’s household. It was an important transition in their life cycle, they would be sent away at the age of seven or eight. Such servants were defined as part of the family for whom they worked. Many households were extended but not by kin but by servants. The existence of such extensive use of servants disproves the notion that pre-industrial society was static. Service encouraged both geographic and social mobility, and regulated household size. Because the wages of women were low most women needed(materially) to reside with a man. Industrialsation increased the dependency of women on marriage. Alongside this the trade unions developed the concept of the family wage with the husband/father as sole breadwinner which was a powerful factor in the development of modern notions of masculinity. This development coincided with the new middle class ideology of women and children as dependents of the husband/father. This bourgeois ideology developed between 1780-1850. It was not just a family ideology but a gender ideology, a careful and deliberate attempt to reorganise relations between the sexes, according to middle class values.

  

There is no end to this, nor a lack of people who want to argue their corner. Whatever, some things are clear:

 The functionalist account is untenable-there is no basis in the available data for their argument.

   There have been changes to family life because of societal changes such as advances in sanitation and

  communications leading to changes such as increasing life expectancy, the lowering of infant mortality rates and the aging of the population.

  

Family: As defined by the Census, family is a group of two or more people who reside together and who are related

by birth, marriage, or adoption.

Family Household: A family includes a householder and one or more people living in the same household who are

  related to the householder by birth, marriage, or adoption. All people in a household who are related to the householder are regarded as members of his or her family. A family household may contain people not related to the householder, but those people are not included as part of the householder's family in census tabulations. Thus, the number of family households is equal to the number of families, but family households may include more members than do families. A household can contain only one family for purposes of census tabulations. Not all households contain families since a household may comprise a group of unrelated people or one person living alone.

  Household: A household includes all the people who occupy a housing unit as their usual place of residence.

Householder: The householder is a person, or one of the people, in whose name the home is owned, being bought,

  or rented. If there is no such person present, any household member 15 years old and over can serve as the householder for the purposes of the census. Two types of householders are distinguished: a family householder and a nonfamily householder. A family householder is a householder living with one or more people related to him or her by birth, marriage, or adoption. The householder and all people in the household related to him are family members. A nonfamily householder is a householder living alone or with non-relatives only.

  Dependent Children 1 in 4 in lone-parent families

  In 2004 there were 7.4 million families with 13.1 million dependent children living in them in the UK. Most of these children (66 per cent) lived in a married couple family. One in four dependent children lived in a lone-parent family in 2004. This was an increase from 1 in 14 in 1972. The average number of children in a family declined from 2.0 in 1971 to 1.8 in 2004. Married couple families were generally larger than other family types, with an average 1.8 children in 2004, compared with 1.7 in cohabiting couple and lone-mother families.