I will examine and discuss the effect of individualization on families and personal relationships. The nuclear family will be discussed in term of its viability in the modern individualized world. It will look at how the new family forms exist and the constraints that are put upon these individuals who chose their path in life. This discussion will also look at cohabitation and the many forms including relationships, friendships, and even just a single parent with a child. Marriage is no longer the ‘be all and end all’ of relationships, but in some cultures this is not true. I will attempt to investigate the Muslim view on arranged marriage and the constraints on individual choice. Homosexuality is frowned upon is some cultures, but in an individualized society, homosexuals are accepted. Whether they are just cohabiting or if they chose to arrange a civil marriage and/or even adopt or foster children. Homosexuals are given the same rights in these cases as a ‘normal’ married couple would. This essay will also explain the idea of the ‘family of choice’ that homosexuals have so clearly defined in their quest for acceptance.
Beck and
Beck-Gernshiem’s theory of individualization (Beck and Beck-Gernshiem , 2002)
is the idea that an individual does not have to conform to the previously
predominant gender roles that have been so closely tied in with the nuclear family
form, of a married mother and father and their children. The father would go
out to work to provide for his family, whereas the woman would stay at home
cook, clean and look after the children. ‘’The presumptions that
people are making easy, selfish choices and abandoning the hard work of
commitment and care are in fact being challenged by a growing body of new
research.’’ (Smart and Shipman, 2004, pg 493). The diversity of the family form in today’s society opens up more
choice for people in the way they choose to live varying from individual to
individual. Allan and Crow recount Becks statement that
It is no longer typical for women to be committed to ‘compulsory
housework and support by a husband’ (1992, p 104). Because of the education and
labour market opportunities which have opened up for them. The male breadwinner
of family organization is now merely one of several possibilities.
(Allan and
Crow, 2001, pg 9-10)
The
rising amount of single person households indicates this process of
individualization. The nuclear family form is no longer the only form, women
now being individuals and independent of men, working and raising children simultaneously,
without a man to support or provide for them. ‘’Whatever we consider – god,
nature, truth, science, technology, morality, love, marriage – modern life is
turning them all into ‘’precarious freedoms’’.’’ (Beck and Beck-Gernshiem,
2002, pg 2) these freedoms are seen as tainted to those who are from a
religious background, who still believe that the woman’s place is in the home,
to look after the children and keep up the household. Women are now being able
to go to school, college and university to be educated and to pursue careers
and support themselves as well as a family. Co-habiting divorce and new
marriages involving stepfamilies also play a role in the process of
individualization. ‘’Modernity and individualization are depicted
marching inexorably forward together. One can, it seems, begin to predict the
growth of societies where kinship networks cease to exist, where few couples
will commit to each other beyond a few years’’. (Smart and Shipman, 2004, pg
493)
Beck’s theory of individualization places the individual’s choice as the
priority rather than the conventional roles being the priority. The individual
becomes central to his or her individual choices involving beliefs, work and
education, family, friendships and relationships. Allan and Crow note that
Hochschild (1990, 1996, 1997) argues that women involved in the workplace are
dissatisfied with being only a housewife and find great satisfaction and a
feeling of pride and value in working in a ‘’man's world’’. Co-habitation has
become a popular starting point for future plans involving marriage and children,
and in some case there would be no assumption of the relationship leading to
either marriage or children, as the commitment of co-habitation would be
enough. The increasing acceptance of homosexual relationships also help
contribute to the growing numbers of cohabitant’s also it is found that groups
of friends may also co-habit in order to save money on rent and bills.
Contraception and fertility control
has play a role in ‘’liberalizing sexual relations and making co-habitation acceptable’’
(Allan and Crow, 2001, pg 81). Also stated by Allan and Crow is that marriage
is no longer about social order or maternal welfare but it is about the
individuals own personal happiness and achievements. Crow and Maclean inform
that Beck explains his argument that individualization ‘’undermines people’s
attachments to others’’ (Crow and Maclean, 2007, pg 80) he states how this will
produce a society in which individuals are free from marriage and family
relationships. Phillipson and Allan state that
Put simply, emerging economic, technological, and social developments
have fostered a process of individualization and an emphasis on rights of
citizenship. These have had a particularly profound impact on women’s lives,
resulting in their having a good deal more freedom and choice than previous
cohorts had. As a result, women are less dependent on men and are more able to
challenge patriarchal forms of family and domestic control. Against this
background, traditional modes of family living based around the close
association of sex, marriage and childbearing have lost their dominance, with
previously standard practices now becoming matters of lifestyle choice rather
than moral imperative.
(Phillipson and Allan, 2007, pg 129)
An
individual no longer needs to conform to society’s rules and moral suggestions.
Yet individualization can cause significant problems for some people of certain
‘’class, ethnicity, religion, sexuality and gender, and these have a
significant bearing on their ability to negotiate how their family lives are
constructed (Smart and Neale, 1999)’’ (Allan and Crow, 2001, pg 11) due to
certain beliefs and/or family restrictions.
Individuals from Muslim families
could be said to be ‘’’Europeanizing’ through
individualization’’ (Peter, 2006, pg 105). Picking and choosing the rules
of their religion in order to fit into western society. Peter states that ‘’it
is an Islam where the believer decides autonomously which elements of Islam
(s)he considers to be binding or not, the principal limits this ‘free’
decision-making being, according to Cesari, the constraints of endogamy and
circumcision.’’ (Peter, 2006, pg 106) circumcision and endogamy, or marriage,
within your own ethnic group puts limits on decision making, but now
individuals from mixed ethnic groups do convert to Islam in order to be able to
marry a Muslim man or woman. The idea of sex before marriage is relaxed in the
western world, but is still frowned upon in certain religious communities.
Within the Islamic community homosexuality is still highly unaccepted by the Muslim
culture and being ‘’shunned’’ by their family and community is the result of
this choice. Co-habiting is allowed in the Muslim community of the western
world, but it is not accepted by all, so in order for an individual to be able
to make these choices they must cut all ties with the Islamic community. Alison
Shaw explains that
Sometimes, a daughter whose behavior is regarded as threatening to her
family’s reputation and damaging to her marriage prospects may be coerced into
marriage in order to prevent the family being shamed. […] These incidents have
generated debates over individual and civil rights in relation to minority
cultural values and it is in relation to such issues as ‘’forced marriage’’
that the government has recently recommended ‘’citizenship lessons’’ for new
immigrants(Guardian, October 26, 2001).’’
(Shaw, 2007, pg 281)
These
instances make individualization hard for Muslims due to shaming and beliefs.
Muslims whom are British born seem to be more westernized and they become
individual from their community. They can chose how they want to pursue their
future, whereas those families that are more traditional and strict allow no
form of western influence, taint the reputation and marriage prospects of the
individual. Turner states that ‘’the recent history of women, the family and
reproduction in Islamic society is typically seen as a struggle between
fundamentalism and modernism over the status of women.’’ (Turner, 2007, pg 301)
Women tend to be more sheltered from the ideas of individualization in western
societies, so cutting all ties with kinship may be the only way to make
‘’free’’ choices. Smart and Shipman show us how diverse religion can be in
terms of arranged marriages. One girl stated that if she had a child who would
like to marry someone they had already met, than this would be ‘’ok’’ with her but
only if that person was within their faith and religion, showing partial
acceptance to the new individualized Britain. Homosexuality is extremely
frowned upon in the Muslim society and the individual would become completely
cut off and shunned from the community and including their family.
In terms of individualization, homosexual families have flourished, now
adopting and performing civil marriages, creating their ‘’families of choice’’
(Weeks et al, 2007, pg 340). Homosexual individuals who had before been
excluded from the conventional family forms are now creating their own families
through fostering, adoption or surrogacy. This caused a lot of concern and is
now slowly being accepted. Weeks states that
The traditional family is indeed changing. But many of the values the
family is supposed to represent are not necessarily in crisis. On the contrary
they are being reinvented in a variety of ‘’experiments in living’’ through
which new patterns of commitment are being enacted in everyday life.’’
(Weeks
et al, 2007, pg 341)
Homosexual
families and other families that do not conform to traditional conventions are
creating new ways of ‘’living’’ that law and religion had previously (and in
some cases still do) not accepted. ‘’Families of choice’’ show new patterns
emerging in an individual’s life, showing the changes in western society of
which the discourse was previously negative. Haywood and Ghaill inform us about
how the homosexual community, have the same desire for a family as
heterosexuals do, they state
As Castell’s (1997:219) writing of San Francisco’s gay community points
out: ‘The yearning for same-sex families became one of the most powerful
cultural trends among gays and, even more so, among lesbians… Furthermore, the
legalization of same-sex marriages became a major demand of the movement,
taking conservatives at their word promoting family values, and extending the
value of the family to non-traditional, non-heterosexual forms of love, sharing
and child rearing. What started as a movement for sexual liberation came full
circle to haunt the patriarchal family by attacking its heterosexual roots, and
subverting its exclusive appropriation of family values.’’
(Haywood and Ghaill,
2003, pg 57)
With
this change homosexual communities are producing this idea of the ‘’new
family’’ in which a child has either two mothers or two fathers. This
individualization of parenthood has created new boundaries for setting up a
family home. The problems with this is in previous discourse, gay men are
represented as having little masculinity, also as promiscuous men who are
perverse and have been accused of being ‘’corrupters of young boys’’ (Haywood
and Ghaill, 2003, pg 58) whereas lesbian relationships are said to have too
much masculinity and also with the father or mother absent, it is seen as a
crisis in the traditional family form. Whether the homosexual is gay, lesbian
or even bisexual, the non-heterosexual relationships are based on the individual’s
choice and so ‘they can
escape the rigid assumptions which continue to confine heterosexual relationships.’
(Weeks, Heaphy and Donovan, 2001: 47)
Homosexuals
both lesbian and gay men can become parents and this is another aspect of
individualization, not thinking about people’s views or reactions that
homosexuals should not be parents. There are many routes to becoming a
homosexual parent. One way is if the homosexual individual had been in a
heterosexual relationship before ‘coming out as a homosexual’, and had, had
children with that previous partner. Fostering and possibly adoption is another
route to becoming a parent when the individual is homosexual, or a woman may be
willing to donate her eggs for artificial insemination and become a surrogate
mother for a homosexual couple. Two more ways of becoming a parent is to
partner with someone who already has children or in some situations being a
godparent gives the individual parental responsibility if anything was to
happen to the biological parents.
I have examined the many forms of a family and
relationships. Families are starting to become individualized. Men and women
now both working to provide for their family and home, is showing us how even
heterosexual families are individualized to their own needs, rather than
conforming to the preset nuclear family. Marriage, divorce and new relationship
can also show aspects of individualization involving cohabiting with
stepfamilies. I have shown the difficulties in different cultures
such as Islam. The Muslim communities have strict rules on marriage and
marriage outside of their religion, also homosexuality is completely denied and
the individual would be completely cut off and shunned from the whole of the
muslin community also including their family, homosexuality has become
increasingly accepted in the western world. Now laws have been granted to allow
homosexual couples to marry which is called a civil marriage. Now possibilities
of adoption and fostering have been introduced to allow the homosexual
community individual rights to be a parent. Homosexual parenting has been slated
and yet is now becoming accepted. These ‘families of choice’ have given the
world another choice, there are no laws stating that the nuclear family is the
only way and individualization has occurred in the western world.
Individualization does affect families in different ways. Sometimes the
individualization process can help the individual find out who they are as an
individual and allows them to follow their path without being shunned and
ridiculed.
Bibliography
Allan, G., and Crow, G.,
(2001), ‘Ch. 1: Changing Families, Households and Society', Families, Households and Society,
Basingstoke : Palgrave, pg.1-18.
Allan, G., and Crow, G.,
(2001), ‘Ch. 4: Love, Cohabitation and Early Marriage', Families, Households and Society, Basingstoke : Palgrave. Pg56-82
Beck, U., Beck-Gernsheim,
E., (2002) ‘Ch. 1: Losing the Traditional: Individualization and ‘precarious
freedoms’’, Individualization,
London: Sage. Pg 22-41
Crow, G.,
and Maclean, C., (2007) ’Ch. 5 Families and Local Communities’, In The Blackwell Companion to the Sociology of
Families, Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. Pg 69-83
Haywood, C., and Ghaill,
M., (2003), 'Ch. 2: Men in the family way: remaking fatherhood',
In Men and Masculinities: Theory, Research and Social Practice,
Buckingham: Open University Press, pg.42-61
Peter, F.,(2006)
'Individualization and religious authority in Western European Islam', Islam and Christian-Muslim Relations,
17: 1, pg 105 — 118
Phillipson,
C., and Allan. G., (2007) ’Ch. 8: Aging and the Life Course’ In The Blackwell Companion to the Sociology of
Families, Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. Pg 126-141
Shaw, A.,
(2007) ’Ch. 16: Immigrant Families in the UK’ In The Blackwell Companion to the Sociology of Families, Oxford:
Blackwell Publishing. Pg. 270-285
Smart, C., and Shipman, B., (2004) ‘Visions in
monochrome: families, marriage and the
individualization thesis’ The British Journal of Sociology, 55: 4, pg 491-509
Turner, B.
S., (2007) ’Ch. 17: Religion, Romantic Love, and the Family’ In The Blackwell Companion to the Sociology of
Families, Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. Pg 289-305
Weeks, J.,
Heaphy, B., and Donovam, C., (2007) ’Ch. 20: The Lesbian and Gay Family’ In The Blackwell Companion to the Sociology of
Families, Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. Pg 340- 355
Weeks, J., Heaphy, B., and
Donovan, C., (2001) Same Sex Intimacies: Families of Choice and Other Life Experiments,
London: Routledge. Pg 43-57
By Lea Weller BA
No comments:
Post a Comment