4.2  Family formation

In examining family formation throughout history, and explaining recent trends in family formation, sociologists highlight the importance of romantic love (Giddens 1997, Swidler 2001). As discussed in Section 2.1.3 Stone (1977) argues that family formation has changed from a partnership resulting from the interests of parents, kin or community, to a definition of family as a group tied by emotional bonds.

Boswell (1994: xxi) writes:

In pre-modern Europe marriage usually began as a property arrangement, was in its middle mostly about raising children, and ended with love. Few couples married ‘for love’, but many grew to love each other in time as they jointly managed their household, reared their offspring, and shared life’s experiences. Nearly all surviving epitaphs to spouses evince profound affection. By contrast, in most of the modern West, marriage begins in love, in its middle is still mostly about raising children (if there are children), and ended—often—about property, by which point love is absent or a distant memory.

Earlier versions of the nuclear family were deeply embedded within the community, and emotional attachment was not associated with family life, with moralists and theologians regarding erotic or romantic love regarded as a sickness. This is a stark contrast to current theories of family formation that describe the role of affective individualism, and the importance of love and personal fulfilment as the foundations of modern marriage (Giddens 1991, 1992, Gillis 1985). Marriages are based on individual selection, guided by sexual attraction or romantic love, and “companionate marriage” becomes prevalent with both men and women both reaching for higher levels of sexual and emotional compatibility within intimate relationships.

4.3  Family structure

While sociology does not offer any predictive theory about the forms the family will take, it does highlight the role of social norms in determining categories of people suitable for forming families with. However, norms of family structure have changed over time, with a number of authors arguing that economics and anthropology no longer adequately explain the variety of family forms. These changes in the structure of the family are sometimes defined in terms of the emergence of the “post-modern” family. For example, Weston (1991: 3) argues that “Familial ties between persons of the same sex that may be erotic but are not grounded in biology or procreation do not fit any tidy division of kinship into relations of blood and marriage”.

Sociologists have focused on the increasing variation in family types, arguing that the male-breadwinner family no longer provides the central experience for the vast majority of children. However, the nuclear family has not been replaced by any new modal category but rather, people move in and out of a variety of family types over the course of their lives (Coontz 1992). Sociologists have studied various types of families in detail, including families headed by a divorced parent, non-married couples raising children, two-earner families, same-sex couples, families with no spouse in the labour force, blended families and empty-nest families (see for example Hochschild and Machung 1989, Stacey 1991, Stack 1974, Wallerstein and Blakeslee 1989, Weston 1991).

Coontz (1992) argues that central to the variation in family structures is the decline of the centrality of marriage and childrearing. She contends that these core family relationships now define less of a person’s social identity, exert less influence on people’s life-course decisions, and are less universal, exclusive and predictable than ever before. Other research has identified changing values as contributing to the diversity of family forms, with Wilkinson and Mulgan (1995) arguing that recent generations have significantly greater freedoms—freedom for women to work and control their own reproduction, freedom of mobility for both sexes, and freedom to define one’s own style of life (Wilkinson and Mulgan, 1995). Wilkinson and Mulgan present the negative side of affective individualism, highlighting that while such freedoms can lead to greater openness, generosity and tolerance, they can also produce a narrow, selfish individualism, and a lack of trust in others.

4.4  Family behaviour

Gender discrimination is a key theme in feminist sociology, explaining the behaviours of men and women within families, as well as behaviour in society more generally. For sociologists, and feminist sociologists in particular, “gender” refers to socially constructed behaviours that are learnt, while “sex” refers to the biological person and their physical characteristics. As such, gender discrimination is a cultural phenomenon based on acquired behaviors, rather than the result of innate differences between men and women. The distinction between sex and gender has relevance for many aspects of family behaviour, not least because, simply put, it attributes differences in behaviour and choices of men and women as influenced by cultural forces rather than innate drives or differences.[5]

Chodorow (1978, 1989) argues that because women, rather than men, tend to care for children, existing gender roles are reproduced. She argues that children become emotionally attached to their mother as she is the dominant influence in early life, but that this attachment has to be broken at some point to allow the child to develop a separate sense of self. How this breaking process occurs is different for boys and girls. Girls remain closer to the mother, imitating what she does, and as such, because there is no sharp break, girls develop a sense of self that is more continuous with other people. Chodorow contends that this produces characteristics of sensitivity and emotional compassion in women. Boys, however, gain a sense of self through a more radical rejection of the mother, and forge their understanding of masculinity from defining what is “not feminine”. Boys learn not to be “sissies” or “mummy’s boys” and, as a result, are relatively unskilled in relating closely to others, repressing the ability to understand their own feelings and emphasizing achievement over feeling.

Giddens (1997) notes that Chodorow reverses Freud’s emphasis to define masculinity, rather than femininity, as a loss—a loss of the close attachment with the mother. Male identity is formed through separation; thus, men later in life unconsciously feel that their identity is threatened if they become involved in close emotional relationships with others. By contrast, women feel that the absence of such a relationship threatens their identity. Chodorow argues that these patterns are passed between generations because of the primary role women play in the early care and socialisation of children.

4.5  Family dissolution and reformation

Divorce rates in New Zealand and in other Western countries have increased in the past 40 years, as discussed in Section 2, but disciplines differ as to their explanations of this phenomenon. Sociologists agree with economic arguments for the growth in divorce, noting that marriage no longer has much connection with the desire to perpetuate property and status between generations, and that marriage is less of an economic necessity as women become more economically independent.

Sociology includes a consideration of the meaning of marriage and the stigma associated with divorce that originates in part from the moral blame that was necessarily attributed to one party in order to obtain a divorce. Giddens (1997) notes that the rising rates of divorce are due in part to the drop in this stigma resulted, in part, from changing social norms and the rise of no-fault divorce laws. However, he argues more strongly that, in line with the rise in affective individualism, the growing tendency to evaluate marriage in terms of the levels of personal satisfaction it offers is key. Rising rates of divorce reflect escalating attention to personal fulfillment and an increased determination to engage in rewarding and satisfying relationships.

Rubin (1995) identified class differences in the reactions to rising divorce rates, with working-class households holding more traditional views. However, researchers in the US, Britain and other European countries have agreed that the changing values, particularly of women, towards “a desire for autonomy and self-fulfillment” cut across class (Giddens 1997, Rubin 1995, Wilkinson and Mulgan 1995).

There is a considerable body of sociological research on the effects of divorce on families, particularly on women and children. Wallerstein and Blakeslee (1989) argue that the impact of divorce on children lasts significantly beyond the immediate period of parental separation, and affects the intimate relationships of the children as adults. While Wallerstein contends that nearly half of her sample group entered adulthood as “worried, underachieving, self-deprecating, and sometimes angry young men and women,” she identifies a number of factors that reduce this legacy, among them the importance of a continued relationship with the non-custodial parent (usually the father).

Weitzman (1985) studied the impact of the no-fault divorce law, examining its unintended contribution to the poverty rates among female-headed households and argued that while the no-fault divorce law aimed to abolish sexist, gender-based rules that failed to treat wives as equals in the marital partnership, laws that required the equal division of property failed to consider the fact that most women had, and continued to have, responsibility for the care of children. As a result, dividing property equally between husbands and wives typically meant that half the family assets were awarded to one person, the husband, while the remaining half was awarded to an average of three people, the wife and two children. Similarly, the equal property division failed to examine earning power, which left men with half the family assets and continued occupational success while women, who often had been out of the workforce raising children, struggled to obtain work that would sustain their, and their children’s, former living standards. Weitzman’s work highlighted the importance of including occupational investments in assets split through divorce, and illustrated how a law, which was implemented on the grounds of equality, acted to discriminate against women.

Sociologists have examined the reformation of families after divorce, focusing not only on the risk of reformed family failure, but also on the benefits of “composite” families. Some studies note that new family forms can actually increase broader social solidarities, and that divorce, instead of producing more singles, can yield ever-larger family unities. He argues that because of the rise of no-fault divorce—where one is to remain friends with the ex-, or at least be cordial—and with the growth of joint custody of children, relations are extended beyond both nuclear and blended families. Increasing divorce thus leads to ever-wider webs of familial relations.