Not Natural But Reflects The Society

Published Date: 02 Nov 2017

When confronted with the term "the family" it can be argued that the majority of individuals will instinctively relate this term with the idea of two parents living with their children in the same household, also known as the stereotypical form of the family that is the "Nuclear Family" (Marriam-Webster, 1947). However, when looking at contemporary society it is clear that there is no one single type or form of the family. The structure of the family has changed and is continuing to change. Social change is constantly surrounding us and along with this comes a change in social behaviour. In this essay I will be discussing how historical changes such as industrialisation and urbanisation and the change in labour (economic production) have been and continue to be important factors in the promotion of household and family change along with the potential sociological implications that these changes may have.

Between the late 17th century and the late 19th century the industrialisation and urbanisation radically changed the nature of economic production and work with Britain moving from an agricultural to an industrial factory-based society. This change from land-based rural, family-centred organisation of the industrial society produced drastic household and family changes. In 1750 agriculture employed around 65% of all English people (Tilly and Scott, 1978). The division of labour in agriculture did vary however men tended to be more involved with the fieldwork as their primary job whilst women were responsible for the poultry, dairy and buying and selling at the market along with the brewing, baking and cooking. Harvesting was a time of year that involved the entire family along with arguably the entire of the community. The size of the farm dictated the number of people needed for labour needed as well as the number of people it would also support. Having large families and the reproduction of labour was obviously a significant way to increase the potential labour. This, however, made many families dependant on female relatives to care for the young who were not yet old enough to be used for this labour. Pre-industrialisation it can be argued that the majority of families were extended families (Talcott Parsons). Peter Laslett noted in The World We Have Lost, 1965 that many upper-class households commonly included both extended kin and servants, potentially because they had the room for to live within their home. Lower-class households on the other hand although the majority were nuclear because of reasons such as mortality rates being low among the elderly had "lodgers" living within the family group temporarily. These were likely to have been family.

However although there is the view that in Pre-Industrial society the majority of families were of the extended type, there is also the argument that most households were nuclear (Carlin). However it was noticed that the extended family type did exist but due to a number of factors this was hugely common. One reason for this is the average life expectancy which in pre-industrial society was very low at around 35 to 40 years. Consequently this meant that parents did not always live to be grandparents and created the social problem of widowhood being a common experience for the greater majority of the population.

In Post-Industrial society between the late twentieth century and the early twenty-first century family structures became arguable far more complex with the introduction of new family structures such as reconstituted, single-parent, homosexual and extended all co-existing in the same society. Over the past 50 years legal changes have made access to divorce far easier which has led to the increase in numbers of reconstituted and single-parent and single-person households The Office for National Statistics (2000) as an example showed data that recorded that 26% of all families with dependent children were part of a single-parent household. The United Kingdom has the second highest divorce rate in all of Europe with 12.3 per 1000 marriages. Along with this it is increasingly clear that lifestyle factors and social attitudes are changing with greater acceptance of single-parent and homosexual family structures which unarguably has played part in creating the diversity in family structures.

In comparison to the low life expectancy in pre-industrial society, life expectancy in post-industrial society has increased considerably resulting to more active lifestyles and changes to the welfare system which arguably can be said to have encouraged the de-institutionalisation of the elderly members of society. As a result of this the concept of "grandparenting" has come to rise with grandparents playing a far greater role in the care of their grandchildren. This has led to the new concept of what Julia Brannen calls ("The age of beanpole families" 2003) beanpole families which are different generations of families in a vertically-extended family structure with few people of the same generation such as brothers and sisters.

There is no question of whether families are changing as there is clear evidence that they are continuing to change structurally with different values and more acceptance of different forms. As society developed from pre to post-industrial society, life changed for the members of societies leading to changes in family structures to suit this new "way of life". As a result of this there is a rise in sociological implications such as single-parent families, divorce and single-person households. However on the other side of the argument the family can still be seen as "natural". However although there is the argument that the family is changing along with the society of which it is part, there is still the argument that the family is natural.

George Murdock (1949) studied 250 different societies varying from hunters and gatherers to agrarian or industrialized. From this study Murdock concluded that in each of these different societies there are certain "natural" forms of the family that allow the family to UNDERTAKE a number of joint activities and to contribute with resources necessary to life. Murdock had the opinion that the definition of the family is in fact restrictive in relation to the increasing diversity of life situations as mentioned above.

The popular stereotype of the family (the nuclear family) can be argued to be rooted in the general understandings of biology. The sexes are considerably different within their roles in biological reproduction with women conceiving and suckling the newborns whilst the men unable to do this but providing for the family. Following from this it is simple and almost instinctive to create a picture of a "biological family" which consists of life long monogamy between male and female where the female is mainly responsible for upbringing the children and the male is primarily responsible for providing for the wife and his children as he is unable to suckle a new born. This image not only matches the stereotypes of the family but also the sociological ideal types which makes the argument more convincing and reinforcing.

Following on from this argument is the moral side. If "the family" is natural then this leads to the belief that it must be universal as it is determined by nature. This argument then becomes mutually reinforcing. This argument has enabled many groups such as the makers of religious texts to claim that one sort of "the family" is natural and that other forms are in some way "unnatural". George Murdock studied evidence from 250 societies all over the world and declared that "The nuclear family is a universal social grouping. Either as the sole prevailing form of the family or as the basic unit from which more complex familial forms are compounded, it exists as a distinct and strongly functional group in every known society" (Murdock, 1965). In response to this, Reiss (1965) pointed out it seemed that Murdock actually in fact observed the "universality" of sexual reproduction as he argues that the nuclear family may be the "basic unit of which more complex familial forms are made up". For example it can be argued that Murdock sees the variations in family structures such as single-parenthood as basic examples of "the family".

Ronald Fletcher in his book The Family and Marriage in Britain which was first publish in 1962 argued that the has always been and is one of the most important and intimate of human groups. Fletcher then goes on to argue that the family is centred around the biological inclinations and requirements which are mating, wanting of children and also the upbringing of children, linking biological reproduction with a the stereotyped "nuclear family" structure of the family as the only form.

In conclusion it is clear that there is the question of the family being a social construct leading to a number of sociological implications varying from widowhood in pre-industrial society to single-parent families in post-industrial/contemporary society. However there is still the view that the family is biologically natural. Many sociologists such as Murdock and Reis argue that although there are examples of the family, there was one natural biological family form. However, although there is this underlying idea of the basis of the family, it is also obvious that the society, in which the family is a part, plays an impact in the structure of the family. For example in pre-industrial society families of the lower classes who lived on farms had more children as they could be used as cheap labour. This compared to post-industrial society where an increase changed values and an introduction of new acceptances allow more varied family structures, more choice, less stigma for single-parent families and the greater tolerance of homosexual relationships. There will always be the biological reason for families, this being in order to reproduce leading to specific gender roles. Although this may be the case, the continuing changes being made to society along with the changing norms, values and roles will undoubtedly change the format of many families and the roles the members of the families play in the running of everyday life. Therefore the underlying idea of the family is biological and seen as natural to many, the fact that the structures and the continuous changes being made around the family unit will undoubtedly play a part in the format of each individual family.