The Family

1. What is a Family?

① Murdock (1949) — the exclusive definition

Anthropologist George Peter Murdock studied 250 societies ⇒ concluded the family is universal (exists in all societies; no society had an adequate alternative). 4 characteristics:

• Exclusive definition ⇒ separates families from other groups (e.g. schools).
• But flexible: family need not be monogamous (1 man + 1 woman) — can be polygamous: polygyny (1 man, many women) or polyandry (1 woman, many men).
• ✗ Weakness: excludes single-parent & gay/lesbian households that many societies now see as families.

② Giddens (2006) — the inclusive definition

Families = people directly linked by kin connections (blood relations), where adult members take responsibility for childcare.

• ✓ covers a variety of family forms.
• ✗ if too broad it may include groups most people wouldn't call a family.

③ The nuclear family

Nuclear family = parents + their children (two generations). Murdock: it is the universal social unit, at the heart of extended families. In modern industrial societies contact with wider kin (grandparents) is infrequent & remote (phone) ⇒ the isolated nuclear family — a self-contained economic unit whose members support each other socially & psychologically; physically separate from wider kin, economically separate from the rest of society.

2. Functionalism — the Family Benefits Society

① Murdock's 4 functional prerequisites

Function	Meaning
1 Sexual control	couples don't have sex with others ⇒ 'stability through exclusivity'
2 Reproduction	'reproducing society' — new members replace those who die
3 Socialisation	children taught values & norms ⇒ become members of society
4 Economic provision	division of labour (paid work + unpaid domestic work); family looks after members who can't support themselves — young, old, sick/infirm

② Parsons & Bales (1956) — specialisation

Past: family was multi-functional. Modern: loss of functions as 'new' institutions (e.g. education systems) took over. Parsons (1959b): this is family evolution — it frees the family for two irreducible (essential) functions:

③ Fletcher (1973) — core vs peripheral functions

④ Neo-functionalism — Horwitz (2005)

Traditional functionalists: economy needs socialised individuals ⇒ family provides them (broad links). Neo-functionalists focus on the processes linking individual to society. Family = a bridge between the 'micro world' of the individual and the 'macro world' of wider economic society. Children learn directly (instruction) and unspoken (examples) how to behave. Family is the best site because:

• rules taught by people with a deep emotional commitment are more likely to be learnt;
• emotional closeness ⇒ co-operative behaviour (children want to please parents);
• rules can be learnt subconsciously by observing & copying adults.

3. The 'Loss of Functions' Debate & the Fit Thesis

Functionalists: nuclear family is found in all societies, but the exact form depends on the society. Extended families = common in traditional societies (wide range of functions); in modern industrial societies other institutions took over functions ⇒ loss of functions. The idea that industrialisation + urbanisation changed families this way = the 'fit' thesis.

Late 18th–late 19th C: work moved from land-based, family-centred to capital-intensive, urban, factory-centred. Extended families (ideal for subsistence farming) were replaced by nuclear families that allowed people to move to jobs in growing towns & cities.

Parsons (1959b) & Goode (1963): pre-industrial families were…

• Multi-functional — wide network performed economic & social functions.
• Kinship-based — common economic position: working together (subsistence farming, crafts, brewing, baking in/around home).
• Economically productive — only workable means of survival.

…because of 3 factors: 1) labour-intensive farming needed as many people as possible (men, women, children — e.g. harvest) 2) poor communications (no railways/cars) ⇒ couldn't move far 3) elderly/sick relied on kin — no universal welfare system.

✗ Arguments AGAINST Parsons (fit thesis)

Who	Argument
Finch (1989)	Little evidence that pre-industrial family obligations were stronger / family gave more support.
Historical studies	Wide range of household types pre-industrially — no evidence extended families were the norm. Maybe industrialisation began in W. Europe because families were already mainly nuclear ⇒ family structure was a cause of industrialisation.
Life expectancy	Only ~35–40 yrs ⇒ most adults didn't live to be grandparents ⇒ fewer vertically extended families.
Primogeniture (UK)	First-born son inherits everything; younger siblings move out ⇒ wealth in few hands to invest in industry; siblings became city factory workers.
Anderson (1995)	No single structure dominated. Reconstituted & lone-parent families existed pre-industrially (high death rates among poor). In industrialisation the working class developed broadly extended families due to urbanisation (see below).

Functions: lost or just modified?

Evaluation of functionalism

4. Marxist Views — the Family Serves Capitalism

Marxism = systems approach but emphasises conflict, not agreement. The family supports capitalism in 3 ways:

Role	Explanation
① Ideological control	Althusser (1970): family = ideological state apparatus (ISA) — children learn norms & values supporting the economic/political set-up. Zaretsky (1976): socialisation passes on ruling-class ideology ⇒ unquestioning acceptance of capitalism via beliefs about competition, work ethic, obeying authority.
② Economic	Produces future workers (reproduction of the labour force) and, more importantly, bears the costs of replacing workers too old/sick. Consumption (Althusser): once a unit of production, now buys most needs ⇒ members must find paid work. Zaretsky: families = targets for advertisers ⇒ a major source of profit.
③ Political	Family is a stabilising force: members must work to support each other & children. Zaretsky: privatised nuclear family ⇒ people focus on private problems, not social inequality. Family = release for adult frustration: men powerless at work but have power at home ⇒ frustration directed at family members, not real causes.

Neo-Marxism — cultural dimension: 3 types of family capital

• Cultural capital (Bourdieu 1986): non-economic resources that can be 'spent' to give advantage. Parents differ in ability to invest. Silva & Edwards (2005): middle/upper-class parents better equip children for the transition to work. Gives a 'head start' in education (attitudes & knowledge to succeed).
• Social capital: connections in a social network and their value — Putnam (2000): 'norms of reciprocity'. Cohen & Prusak (2001): trust, mutual understanding, shared values & behaviours tie wealthy families into networks. Middle/upper-class families have better access to networks (schools, workplace) ⇒ economic advantage.
• Symbolic capital: traits upper-class children develop — authority (directing others, expecting obedience) & charisma (personal charm to manipulate others).

5. Feminist Responses to Functionalism & Marxism

Feminists focus on conflict within the family — women are exploited through traditional gender roles that benefit men. Family = oppressive structure locking women into service roles (domestic labour, childcare). Link to economy is indirect: men exercise economic power through 'free' family services paid for by women's domestic labour. Feminism is an umbrella term — 5 strands:

Strand	Key ideas
Liberal	Improve women's situation by new laws or individuals/families changing (e.g. men doing more housework). Common 1960s–early 70s. UK laws: Equal Pay Act, Sex Discrimination Act. ✗ Criticised: ignores how deeply patriarchy is embedded — equality can't come by law alone.
Radical	Patriarchy = domination of women & children by men — in society and the nuclear family (also religion, politics). Family suits men, exploits women ⇒ women better off without it. Needs far-reaching radical change, not liberal tinkering. Men blamed for wars, environmental problems. Some argue women should live separately (women-only communities).
Marxist	Feminism + Marxism; focus on work. Men work long hours (profit for bourgeoisie) because women do domestic work ⇒ women make capitalism possible (unvalued). Men can't easily strike — must support families (suits bourgeoisie). Dual burden / double shift: exploited in public sphere (paid work → ruling-class profit) and private sphere (unpaid → benefits men). Duncombe & Marsden (1993): triple shift — 3rd = emotional work for family wellbeing. Bruegel (1979): 'reserve army of labour' — called in when male labour is short, pushed back home when surplus; marginalised, low-pay/low-status, discrimination.
Black	USA, African-American women who felt little in common with white feminists. Black men also exploited ⇒ tackle shared problems together (not all men 'the enemy'). Black women's situation differs from white women's. Focus on employment & discrimination outside the family; see family as a haven from racism (not a source of oppression).
Difference	Stress differences between men & women, and between groups of women. Disagree with liberal feminists that men & women can be equal.

6. Marriage, Cohabitation, Divorce & Separation

(Evidence mainly UK; similar patterns in other industrial societies.)

① Marriage

• Fewer marriages & lower marriage rate — people marry later, more never marry. Steady decline in first marriages, partly balanced by remarriages (peaked 1980s; % of all marriages doubled in 50 yrs, peak ~turn of 21st C, slowly declining).
• Serial monogamy = several partners over a lifetime but one at a time (once due to death, now mainly divorce).

Explanation set	Causes of marital change
① Demographic (population) changes — not behaviour	Baby boom after WWII ⇒ marriage peaked just after WWII & in the 1970s as the boom generation grew up; family completion time only ~10 yrs by 1950s. Cohorts: some age groups more likely to marry ('peak periods'); ageing population ⇒ look at the marriageable population ⇒ only a small decline in marriage rates over 30 yrs.
② Wider influences on behaviour	Less stigma on children outside marriage · less social pressure to marry · women: more career opportunities ⇒ financial independence ⇒ marriage = 'lifestyle choice' · Self & Zealey: people delay marriage · secularisation (religion less influential) ⇒ marriage less significant · Beck (1992): postmodern people assess risk — divorce's emotional/economic costs ⇒ avoid marrying.

② Cohabitation

Gillis (1985): common-law marriage ('as if married') was widely practised in the past; but not legally recorded ⇒ stats unreliable. Hughes & Church (2010): cohabiting couples rose 10% (1986) → 25% (2006); ~25% of 25–29s cohabit (vs ~18% mid-1990s); cohabiting-couple families 9% → 15% of all families in 10 years.

③ Divorce & separation

• Empty-shell marriage = couple stay together though the marriage is effectively over (e.g. can't afford to live apart).
• Early–mid 20th C: few divorces. Last 50 yrs ↑, peak 1990s; recently general decline BUT 're-divorces' doubled since 1981. Divorcees getting older (later marriage). Use divorce rates (not numbers) — numbers depend on number of marriages; rate peaked at turn of 21st C, since gradually declined.

Cause of divorce	Explanation
Legal change	Each time divorce is easier/cheaper ⇒ ↑ divorces. 1969 Divorce Reform Act: only requirement = 'irretrievable breakdown' (before: must 'find fault', e.g. adultery). Reliability problem — can't know how many would have divorced pre-1969.
Secularisation	Marriage no longer 'sacred'; fewer stigmas on divorce.
Life expectancy	↑ ⇒ marriage must last longer ⇒ more strain.
Romantic individualism	Romantic love = unconditional, but if one 'falls out of love' nothing holds marriage together. Confluent love = conditional, given in return for something (e.g. status); if it fails ⇒ nothing keeps couple together. Marriage = search for personal happiness not moral commitment ⇒ explains remarriage: divorcees unhappy with the person, not marriage; unrealistic romantic ideas ⇒ divorce.

7. Different Family & Household Forms

Household = one or more people living in a particular dwelling.

Roseneil (2006): extra couple category — Living Apart Together (LAT) = stable relationship, lots of time together, no shared home (demanding careers/different routines, or wanting independence).

Family types

• Nuclear — parents + children (2 generations); widely seen as most common in modern industrial societies. (Fig 3.4: why 'isolated'?)
• Reconstituted / step-family — break-up of one family (death/divorce) reassembled via marriage or cohabitation; may include children from old & new families.
• Same-sex (gay/lesbian) couples — UK: can marry since 2014; some in civil partnerships (some of same legal rights as married heterosexual couples).
• Lone-/single-parent — mother or father raising children without partner (married or not). Once seen negatively as 'broken'/'fatherless'. Arises from death, separation, divorce — or a decision to have children without marrying/cohabiting.
• Extended — 2 forms: vertically extended (3+ generations in/near same household) · horizontally extended (branches within generations: aunts, uncles living with/near). Matrifocal = female-focused vertical extension (grandmother–mother–children, little male support); patrifocal = focused on men.
• Modified extended (Gordon 1972) — now the most common type: wider kin keep in touch physically (visits, help & services) and emotionally (phone/email) without frequent personal contact.
• Families of choice — close relationships chosen rather than blood/marriage. Weston (1991): gay, lesbian & bisexual people using 'family' for their social networks.

8. Dimensions of Family Diversity

DeVault (1994): 'the family is a falsely monolithic concept'. Not a single homogeneous group ⇒ understand family diversity across categories.

① Organisational diversity

Different ways roles & responsibilities are distributed (work within/outside home; changing marriage & divorce patterns; conjugal roles differ by class).

② Social-class diversity

• O'Neill (2002): single (never-married) parents more likely working-class, lower income, in poverty.
• Beanpole structures less common in middle class; working-class mothers have first child much younger ⇒ 4–5 generation families more likely.
• Willmott & Young (1973): middle-class adult relationships more symmetrical (joint conjugal roles, less gender inequality in paid & unpaid work). Working-class more segregated conjugal roles (female = home & children, male = paid work) ⇒ men more power & control; patriarchal — from threat/reality of violence to decision-making dominance. But: Pahl & Vogler (1994) — in middle-class families men make the important financial decisions, women everyday spending (food, clothing).
• Lareau (2003): middle-class = 'deliberate' parenting ('actively fosters children's individual talents, opinions and skills') ⇒ children gain 'emerging sense of entitlement'; working-class = 'natural growth' (love & limits, but children negotiate school life on own). Both child-centred, but middle/upper class invest wider resources. Reay et al. (2004): middle-class women monitor school progress & question teachers.

③ Cultural & ethnic diversity

• Secularisation among some ethnic groups ⇒ ↑ cohabitation · ↓ significance of marriage · ↑ divorce · remarriage available. Other groups: religion stresses marriage, may forbid divorce.
• Ethnic differences in family size, arranged vs chosen marriage, division of labour (patriarchal / matriarchal / symmetrical).
• Dale et al. (2004): Black (African, Caribbean, British) women most likely to work full time while raising family; Indian women usually part-time once partnered; Pakistani & Bangladeshi women more likely to stop work on marriage/children.

Berthoud (2000)	Features
Afro-Caribbean (UK)	low marriage rates · high single parenthood · traced to West Indies, stronger in 2nd generation ⇒ 'modern individualism' (choice & quality over formal recognition) · more children without father at home · fathers often 'visiting partners' with financial/paternal duties; mother raises, often helped by maternal grandmother
South Asian (Indian, Pakistani, Bangladeshi)	higher % adults married · lower divorce · lower cohabitation · more three-generation households

9. The Diversity Debate: New Right vs Postmodernism

Family structures today are arguably more complex, broken up & diverse than ever — BUT the extent of change can be exaggerated: many live in nuclear families; others aim to (hope to find a partner, marry, have children); media still assume the nuclear family is the main kind; in many parts of the world cohabitation & same-sex couples remain rare (strong disapproval, e.g. religious).

Beanpole family (Brannen 2003) — arises in developed societies with low/declining birth rates + ↑ life expectancy: few children ⇒ weak horizontal extension; long lives ⇒ strong vertical links (grandparents–parents–children–grandchildren).

Rise of lone-person households

Beaumont (2011): 29% of British households = one person (2nd most common after two-person at 35%); up ~2.5× in 50 yrs from 12% in 1961. Reasons: more older people alone after partner's death · middle-aged (usually men) leaving home after divorce · more choose & can afford to live alone (women: acceptable to stay single) · more university education (leave home, don't return). May slow if cheap housing is short.

① The New Right

The 'traditional nuclear family' = 2 heterosexual, married adults, clearly defined gender roles ⇒ the institution best equipped to be the base for all other social relationships. Diversity = family breakdown with serious consequences. Stable nuclear relationships give emotional & psychological benefits ⇒ benefit society (each partner shows personal sacrifice & commitment to others). So 'all family types equal' is wrong — it undermines moral commitment/social responsibility. Policies should encourage 'beneficial' structures and discourage e.g. single parenthood.

• Diversity is undesirable & dysfunctional ⇒ 'moral chaos' (e.g. abortion ignoring 'rights of the unborn'). Counter = 'family uniformity'.
• Traditional heterosexual nuclear family = stability, continuity, successful primary socialisation; 'traditional values' = barrier against selfishness. Horwitz (2005): moral values learnt there are carried into wider society. Moral core: caring · responsibility for own & children's behaviour · unconditional economic co-operation · stable interpersonal relationships.

② Postmodernism — 'postmodern optimism'

'A family is whatever people want it to be.' Rejects 'the family'; people construct relationships as they see fit; families = structures where individuals play out personal life narratives. Emphasis on choice. Stacey (2002): 'Every family is an alternative family.'

Why? Constant exposure to new ideas (globalisation) ⇒ tradition/custom less influential ⇒ freedom to make choices once not allowed (divorce, same-sex families). Old & new co-exist (marriage & children with childfree or LAT). What was exotic becomes acceptable. Groups accept/reject change to different degrees:

10. The State & Social Policy

Family life is surrounded by legal norms (marriage, divorce) and moral values (what a family is/should do) = family ideology: the family is both a public institution supported by government and a private institution where members should be left alone.

Perspective	Family–state relationship
Functionalism	Family = essential functions for individuals & society ⇒ crucial to the system; relationship with political institutions is ambivalent — state has progressively removed functions (education, welfare).
New Right	Eichner (2010) 'supportive state' (USA): institutions support families in caretaking & human-development functions. State should encourage 'good' structures (Neale 2000: stable, married, heterosexual, dual-parent nuclear). Benefits: emotional/psychological · responsibilities · clear moral guidance ⇒ less deviance. Single parenthood survives only on state support ⇒ dependency culture; seen as 'wrong & unproductive' — poorly socialised children, adulthood on benefits/crime.
Marxism	Family benefits powerful groups ('free family services' — bearing costs of raising future employees); reproduces inequality by presenting it as 'normal' & 'natural' in socialisation. State (political & ideological superstructure) promotes the family as a stabilising force; financial/moral responsibilities lock people into capitalist relationships; Althusser: ISA; work-ethic values. Critics: welfare state (free universal education & health) brought lasting benefits to working-class families.
Feminism	Family = patriarchal & oppressive. Liberal feminism looks to state/law to redress imbalances (equal pay, political representation); law = protection & enforcing equal rights; state recognises women's dual roles (carer + paid worker) ⇒ nursery schooling & childcare.

11. Gender Equality, Power & Experiences of Family Life

① Feminist views on equality & power (all favour equality)

Type	View
Liberal	Equality of opportunity: men & women free to choose roles & how performed. Practical, realistic ways to balance gender in family — some women choose domestic/child-rearing, some careers, some combine. Men & women can compete equally in private & public areas. (Others: patriarchy gives men advantage at home & work.)
Marxist	Apply Marxist ideas of economic equality to conjugal roles. Women = 'unpaid servants' (service role) — sometimes willingly, more often because partner unable/unwilling. Women in paid work are doubly exploited: patriarchal (unpaid domestic labour benefiting men) + capitalist (paid labour creating ruling-class profit). Capitalism = 'real cause of female oppression' (domination, subordination); exploitation continues while capitalism exists.
Radical	Patriarchy = primary source of male domination. Firestone (1970): biology is the root difference — pregnancy forces dependence on men ⇒ sex discrimination; if technology frees women (children born outside women) ⇒ male powers of discrimination vanish. 2nd argument: women should use 'values of femininity' (community, family, empathy, sharing) vs patriarchal values (aggression, selfishness, greed). Friedan (1963), Millett (1969): patriarchal family structures = source of oppression ⇒ abandon patriarchal family or develop matriarchal structures excluding men (e.g. lesbian relationships).

② Conjugal roles — past & present

③ Housework & childcare — the evidence (UK)

Domestic labour = maintenance of home & family (cooking, cleaning, childcare).

Study	Finding
Gershuny et al. (2006)	Women of all ages, ethnicities, classes do more domestic labour. Women = routine tasks; men = repairs & gardening. Reflects traditional beliefs and men's longer paid work.
Kan (2001)	Women's housework slightly ↓ by paid work; retirement/unemployment ↑ female housework & ↓ partner's.
Ramos (2003)	Domestic labour more equally shared when male unemployed & partner works full time.
Willmott (2000)	Less dependence on traditional roles; labour 'negotiated by every couple' — key factors = time & preference, not gender.
Pilcher (1988)	Older people think of gender roles/responsibilities in traditional ways (not 'equality') — due to their socialisation.
Sullivan et al. (2008)	'Quiet revolution' in conjugal roles — acceptance of equality: men do greater share of housework, women less · men do more childcare · family more home-centred. Media's 'New Man' — masculine yet shares domestic work, 'good' involved father.

Still: women do the majority of work in the home, esp. with dependent children — women do the 'boring' parts of childcare (feeding, clothing), men the 'pleasing' (playing).

④ Functionalist view of conjugal roles

Evolutionary: separate roles (early industrial) → symmetrical families with joint conjugal roles in late/post-industrial society via 'stratified diffusion' (Willmott & Young 1973): upper class → middle class → working class (by mid-20th C).

⑤ Marxist view — power & Morgan's 3 'family economies' (2001)

Economy	Meaning
① Political	How money is received, controlled, managed. Husband usually controls the most valued resources ⇒ greatest power; makes important financial decisions; in 2-income families, whose job takes priority (family moves for man's job more often).
② Moral	Values/norms about conjugal roles & responsibilities. Woman can have high power by organising family resources & behaviour even if partner is sole breadwinner.
③ Emotional	Interpersonal relationships — Dallos et al. (1997) 'affective power': being loved gives power. Pahl: can shift — the partner who 'loves least' can exert power over the one who 'loves more'.

12. The Dark Side — Domestic Violence & Child Abuse

Domestic violence = range of physical & emotional behaviours aimed at aggressively controlling another family member — extreme exercise of power. Extent hard to estimate (many victims don't report). Women & children most at risk (often repeated); men can be victims — less common & even less reported. Neglect: responsible adult doesn't care for child/others.

WHO (2002): ~70% of female murder victims killed by a male partner; ~25% of women worldwide 'experience sexual violence by an intimate partner' — wide variation by country (see chart).

Child abuse has strong links to domestic violence — men violent to partners are often abusive to children in their care. UK National Commission of Inquiry into the Prevention of Child Abuse (1996): most likely abuser = someone known to the child, particularly a male parent or step-parent.

Is family life positive or negative? — consensus vs conflict

13. Age & Family Life — Childhood as a Social Construction

Archard (2004): every society has a concept of childhood but definitions differ ⇒ childhood is socially constructed, not biologically determined (if biological, all societies would see it similarly).

Cross-cultural evidence

• Malinowski (1922), Trobriand Islanders: pre-industrial tribal societies differ — ① children given more responsibility & rights ② adult–child relationships closer, less strict, more supportive ③ children encouraged to explore sexuality (less guilt about 'sex play').
• Hecht (1998), Brazilian street children: 'unconventional childhood' — live/work on streets from young age yet keep links with family, helping provide (begging, selling bottles/cans/cardboard).

The 'disappearance of childhood'?

Who	Argument
Postman	'Open admission technologies' (e.g. internet) expose children to adult images (sex, violence, news) ⇒ blurred line between childhood & adulthood.
Sue Palmer	Childhood has become 'toxic' — less learning through play · kept indoors (parents' safety fears) · too much school testing · violent computer games, alcohol & drugs.
Robertson (2001)	Children encouraged as consumers of adult goods (mobile phones); sophisticated advertising to 'children's markets' ⇒ consumption culture ⇒ childhood more like adulthood.
Postmodernists	Children are consumers but also shape products — not passive receivers; develop sophisticated childhood cultures; wider, richer experiences than a generation ago (still different from adult world).

Social construction applies to other ages too. Being a teenager in industrial societies = stress/tension blamed on biochemical changes, but cross-cultural comparison shows it is cultural — a long transition from child to adult. Where a clear rite of passage exists, the idea of 'teenager' doesn't arise.

14. Grandparents, Life Expectancy & Old Age

• Life expectancy ↑ while birth rate (births per 1000) ↓ ⇒ ageing population (more older people in numbers & proportion) ⇒ ↑ dependency ratio (retired, economically inactive older people relying on economically active taxpayers). Several generations alive at once.
• Older people may rely on adult children; burden of caring for own & husband's parents often falls on women. Adults caring for children and parents = pivot / sandwich generation.
• Grandparents = valuable childcare: ~30% of UK families depend on grandparents for childcare; ~50% of lone-parent families (Wellard 2011).
• Smallwood & Wilson (2007): few classic extended families but modified extended networks including grandparents more important. Reasons: more women working · long & unsociable hours · high cost of childcare · longer active life expectancy.
• Grandparents also give financial support, sociability, emotional support; not one-way — longer life ⇒ more adult children return home to care for parents. Roles are negotiated — grandparents may resist being taken for granted as childminders.

Old age is socially constructed — cross-cultural comparisons

Different societies interpret the start, meaning, significance and status of old age differently (e.g. compulsory retirement in industrial societies). Differences between traditional & modern societies, and within modern ones (UK vs USA).

Society / factor	Status of older people
Some traditional societies	↑ status as patriarchs/matriarchs — valued for knowledge & experience.
Western industrial	Often diminished identity, loss of status; stigma — seen as less useful/powerful; ageing = decline, helplessness, withdrawal, loneliness.
Victor (1987): social organisation	Nomadic societies: elderly a problem when can't keep up. Settled: skills & knowledge valued.
Kagan (1980), Colombian village	Elderly remained socially & economically active; not a gerontocracy (rule by elders) but valued & respected.
Control of resources	Status higher where knowledge/skills valued — e.g. Native American older males (leadership, tales, ceremony). Europe/America: older people controlling economic resources ⇒ higher status. Key = control over valued social & economic resources.
Afterlife beliefs	Older = closer to death/spiritual afterlife ⇒ more respect. Sherbro (Sierra Leone): status ↑ when harder to understand — believed to talk with ancestors. Where life = preparation for next world, status ↑ with age.

15. Class, Gender & Ethnicity — Children's Experiences

① Social class

• Hecht (1998): 'nurtured' child (wealthy — looked after by parents, teachers, servants; draws on family capital) vs 'nurturing' child (poor — looks after others; contributes to family capital).
• Subtler elsewhere but always linked to inequality. Upper-class boarding schools — fees can nearly equal average full-time yearly earnings; Bourdieu: gives cultural advantages via social capital (networks & their adult-life value).
• Middle/upper-class families historically more child-centred; cultural capital (knowledge, skills, motivation) ⇒ success in education. Working-class childhood often 'here and now' — immediate rewards (leave school early for work); middle class = deferred gratification (stay in education for professional careers).

② Gender — differential gender socialisation

• Will et al. (1976): mothers shown baby 'Beth' offered a doll & said 'sweet'; same baby as 'Adam' offered a train, fewer smiles — same child, different clothes!
• Toys reinforce gender: girls → dolls/domestic (future caring role); boys → active, mechanical, scientific. Girls expected to do more domestic chores; girls' behaviour outside home more controlled.
• Martin & Ruble (2004): children are 'gender detectives' — seek clues from primary sources (parents, peers) & secondary (media). Peers reinforce via gendered games & shared interests (cars, football, rap → boys; fashion, cosmetics, shopping → girls). Crossing boundaries ⇒ negative sanctions: bullying → exclusion.

③ Ethnicity

• Groups' history, tradition & custom shape how childhood is constructed — e.g. when it ends. Compulsory education extended childhood ⇒ new categories ('teenager'). Different poverty/affluence ⇒ restrictions/opportunities; ideas on dress, speaking to adults, who to mix with.
• Brannen & Oakley (1994): Asian parents in UK place more restrictions on freedom of movement/association — esp. daughters — than British counterparts.
• Song (1999): 'family as workplace' — esp. Chinese (also Italian, Asian) children co-opted into family business; e.g. Chinese restaurants — helping out = part of being a family member.

16. Changing Motherhood & Fatherhood

① Motherhood

Expected to devote self to children; assumed 'mothering instinct' — but motherhood is a social construction: society decides what a mother should be & stigmatises those who don't conform. Elsewhere grandparents/kin may raise a young unmarried mother's children.

• UK changes: birth rate ~30 → ~10 per 1000 (1900 → 2010) · family size over last 50 yrs 3 → 1.6 children · ↑ age at first child · births outside marriage ≈ nearly half of all births ⇒ more child-centred society ⇒ more pressure to be a 'good' mother.
• Working mothers stray from the 'good mother' stereotype — do paid work (often demanding) and the expressive role ⇒ conflicting demands. Debate: should mothers (esp. of pre-school children) work? Childcare options (expensive): relative/childminder · nanny · nurseries & nursery schools. Britain: less provision than most of Europe; few workplace nurseries. Benefit of nursery: sociable, confident, easier transition to school.

② Fatherhood

• Late 1980s media 'New Man' — anti-sexist, gentle, sensitive, fully involved. Many approve but find it hard to put into practice; some men critical of own fathers. More fathers in emotional side & spending time — but child-rearing is expensive ⇒ long working hours limit time. Fathers expected to be involved and main provider ⇒ dual burden for men too.

17. Exam Practice — How to Answer

Set	Q1 [4]	Q4 / Q5 [26] evaluate
1	2 ways fatherhood changed	more types of family now than past · nuclear family fulfils essential functions
2	2 ways childhood socially constructed	nuclear family main type today · increased diversity ⇒ social problems
3	2 ways secularisation affected family	nuclear family universal · family serves interests of capitalism
4	2 types of non-family household	family always patriarchal · rising divorce due to declining religion

★ Full Chapter Cheat-Sheet