In the mid-third of the twentieth century, anthropologists and sociologists spent much time and energy debating the universality of the family, specifying its functions and undertaking comparative analysis of different family systems. At the end of the century, such concerns with the naturalness and consequent inevitability of the family seem somewhat barren, though moral arguments about which forms of family life are legitimate and which pathological remain politically contentious. While all societies are necessarily concerned with matters of biological and social reproduction, the social and economic organization of this reproduction is inherently bound with the wider social and economic formation in which it occurs.
Indeed the concept of the family can be recognized as a construction which developed its potency with modernity, if not industrialization. This was implicit in sociological debates about the impact of industrialization on the dominant family system, often simplistically expressed as a shift from an extended form to a nuclear one. That is, under the conditions of late nineteenth and early twentieth-century industrialization, the family seemed to be developing in an increasingly uniform and predictable fashion, marked by a gendered division of responsibility and a higher commitment to spouses and dependent children than to other kin (Harris 1983). Under these conditions the family came to take on particular meanings, though not ones which necessarily resonated very strongly in other types of society where social reproduction was organized in a different fashion. Inherent here too is the notion of family as itself complex and variable, with the term being used in both academic discourse and everyday talk in a variety of different ways depending on context.
Two broad strands of meaning are evident in much routine discussion of the family. First, there is the sense of family as a subset of an individual’s kinship universe. That is, by family we refer to those who are linked by blood and marriage to us, though the linkages which are included in any particular instance is an open matter. Second, the term family is often used as a virtual synonym of household. Here kinship linkage remains important, but in addition there is implicit reference to a shared housekeeping and a common domestic economy. A main distinction behind the variable uses of the term family concerns the boundaries that are constructed delineating those who are family from those who are not. The closer the genealogical link, the more likely an individual is to be referred to as family, though genealogy itself is not the only factor. What also comes into play is the relative strength of the consequent social relationships and the nature of the obligations which have developed.
Family life has become rather more complex in the latter part of the twentieth century than it had been in the earlier part. Whereas for much of the century it was appropriate, albeit with a degree of caution, to conceive of a broad uniformity and standard order in family relationships, this is now a rather less convincing characterization. Within most western societies at least, the latter part of the twentieth century has seen significant shifts in the demography of family life, with consequences for the permeability of family boundaries and the nature of some family obligations. Thus whereas social scientists once talked of the ‘family cycle’, meaning a common route through a structured series of family phases involving different responsibilities and opportunities, this has given way to the idea of ‘family course’, implying the existence of phases which make differential demands on the individuals involved, but which do not necessary entail a tidy progression. For example, the increase in rates of divorce, cohabitation, births to unmarried mothers, and reconstituted families throughout the western world have resulted in more diverse family pathways emerging than in the recent past.
Equally, the same changes have led to networks of family relationships becoming more complex, with greater variation and less clarity about who can appropriately be regarded as family and how such relationships should properly be framed. In particular, the increased incidence of divorce and remarriage has meant that many more people have ex-spouses, absent parents, step-parents, step-siblings, half-siblings, and the like. The specific family circumstances of these relationships are themselves highly variable, for instance, in terms of whether step-parents or half-siblings are co-residential, and whether ex-spouses continue to parent children in an active way. Moreover the relationships have not been socially institutionalized, in the sense that there is little societal guidance as to how they are most appropriately patterned. Furthermore, marital separation and divorce often have ramifications for other family ties, affecting for example the form and content of grandparent, aunt/uncle and cousin relationships.
If in this sense the boundaries constructed around the family are more permeable than they once were, there is still a strong element within western cultures of the family being an essentially private institution. Indeed theories about the growing privatization of the family with industrialization are common, though not without their difficulties (Pahl and Wallace 1988). This covers more than ideas of a shift from extended to nuclear family forms; it also implies that families, predominantly in the sense of households, have managed to construct physical and symbolic bound aries around themselves which ensure that what goes: on in the domestic arena is outside the gaze or control of others. Although privacy has long been sought by families in all classes, general improvements in the material conditions of home life have encouraged the self-containment of aspects of family life, with reduced involvement between those who happen to be neighbours (Allan 1985). At the same time though, the state through its various welfare measures has become more concerned with defining and monitoring appropriate standards of family behaviour. This applied particularly with regard to children where a range of welfare professionals—health visitors, social workers teachers, doctors—play a part in regulating families especially those seen as pathological or potentially so (Donzelot 1979).
Some of the most interesting research on families has focused on the issue of reproduction, in social and economic senses more than the biological The division of household labour, the changes and continuities there have been in this, and its impact on gender inequalities, have been much analysed Increased recognition has been given to the unpaid economic, as well as emotional and supportive, work which family life entails (Morris 1990; Pahl 1984). Thus the production of a particular standard of living for a household and the transformation of wages into well-being warrant analysis just as much as other forms of work. The social and economic relationships that this work involves have often been depicted as somehow natural because of their family basis, but in reality they contain issues about the social distribution of power and inequality as much as any other system of exchange does (Delphy and Leonard 1992).
In addition, families play a significant role in material and cultural reproduction across the generations. In particular, despite changes there have been in patterns of social mobility, the inheritance of private property and the transmission of ‘cultural capital’ (Bourdieu 1973) within families remains important in the maintenance of advantage and disadvantage. Equally numerous studies have demonstrated the continued link between health and educational success and the material conditions of home and family life (Graham 1993). Put simply, family environment, itself shaped by structural parameters whose roots lie elsewhere, has significant impact on the perpetuation of social and economic inequality.
For this and other reasons, the well-being of the family remains a highly charged political and moral issue throughout the western world. Matters like domestic violence and child abuse, the impact of unemployment and poverty on families, the problems facing lone-parent households, especially those headed by young, economically disadvantaged women, and the increase in cohabitation and step-families, have all led to a heightened consciousness of the ways in which the family is changing. Within this context, it becomes even more important to recognize the socially constructed character of the family. Family life has never been static; the forms it takes have always been influenced by the socioeconomic structures within which it develops. The significant changes occurring in family patterns in the late twentieth century need interpreting in this light rather than in a socially disconnected fashion.
Graham Allan
University of Southampton
References
Allan, G.A. (1985) Family Life, Oxford.
Bourdieu, P. (1973) ‘Cultural reproduction and social reproduction’, in R.Brown (ed.) Knowledge, Education and Cultural Change, London.
Delphy, C. and Leonard, D. (1992) Familiar Exploitation, Cambridge, UK.
Donzelot, J. (1979) The Policing of Families, London.
Graham, H. (1993) Hardship and Health in Women’s Lives, Hemel Hempstead.
Harris, C.C. (1983) The Family in Industrial Society, London.
Morris, L. (1990) The Workings of the Household, Cambridge, UK.
Pahl, R.E. (1984) Divisions of Labour, Oxford.
Pahl, R.E. and Wallace, C. (1988) ‘Neither angels in marble nor rebels in red’, in D.Rose (ed.) Social Stratification and Economic Change, London.
