here is my esay anyone plzzz help me wid the conclusion..?Introduction:
My essay is based on the studies of the following sociologists:
TALCOTT PARSON, PETER LASLETT, MICHEAL ANDERSON, MICHEAL YOUNG AND PETER WILMOTT,
According to some of the above sociologist INDUSTRIALIZATION has affected extended family to nuclear family where as other think there is no effect of industrialization on families. The question is what is industrialization? when was it started and how far is that true that industrialization has effected the family.
Industrialization is a process of social and economic change whereby a human society is transformed from a pre-industrial to an industrial state. This social and economic change is closely related with technological innovation, particularly the development of large-scale energy production and metallurgy. Industrial revolution took place in Britain during the 18th and 19th centuries.
According to Talcott Parsons (1951), theory industrialization resulted in a shift from the extended family to the isolated nuclear family. Talcott Parsons argued that industrialization has led to the isolated nuclear family and he thinks the main reason for this isolation is a loss of function performed by the family. For example, the typical modern family is no longer a production unit, its adult members are now individual wage earners. Parsons defined the pre-industrial family as a large-scale kinship unit, which performed religious, political, educational and economic functions. The unit could consist of the male head, his wife and children, his aging parents and any unmarried brothers or sisters. Parsons argues that the nuclear family is better suited to industrial society because the family is a small group of people with one breadwinner and occupational conflicts are avoided. According to Parson extended families are not 'firmly structured units of the social system'. Parsons says that the nuclear family has become structurally isolated because it does not form an integral part of a wider system of kinship relationships.
According to Peter Laslett (1965, 1977), research from 1564 to 1821 only 10% of households prior to industrialisation could be described as extended family. His research was bases on household, but people do not have to live under the same roof to form extended families. Laslett鈥檚 primary belief was that the modern nuclear family was not born out of industrialization, and that in England and other nations, the nuclear family was the dominate form for several centuries prior to industrialization. In Laslett's survey, the nuclear family has always command and the evidence of extended families in the past is so little. Theories claiming a shift to a nuclear pattern in modern times cannot be accurate. Laslett鈥檚 evidence suggests geographical mobility was common place and because of high mortality rates few children were likely to have grandparents still alive. Laslett found that in parts of Western Europe that the typical family was also nuclear. These findings suggest that family patterns in pre-industrial England are closer to present day dorms than once thought and contradict Parsons account of a pre-industrial extended family.
However Michael Anderson has pointed out some contradictory evidence in Laslett鈥檚 research. Although it shows average household size
to be under five people it revealed 53% of the population lived in households consisting of six or more people. Anderson鈥檚 1971 study of the family and household structure in Preston in the 1850s found that as the town
developed as a cotton manufacturing center there was an increase in co-residence and family size. This was because income could be increased
if both parents were available for work(childcare was performed by grandparents living in the same household). This evidence suggests that rather than industrialization causing the breakup of the extended family,
as argued by Parsons, it instead encouraged extended families. He
suggests that the early stages of industrialization may have encouraged
the development of extended families. According to his study the working class extended family operated as a mutual aid organization, providing support in times of hardship and crisis.
There is evidence that the working-class extended family continued well into the 20th century. And this evidence was given by Michael
young and Peter Willmott. Young and Willmott have found evidence to show that the extended family was alive and well in Bethnal Green in the 1950s. Young and Willmott especially highlight the mother-daughter bond, even when daughters are married they still relied on their mothers and had everyday contact. Young and Willmott suggest that as conditions improved working class families went their separate ways and with the expansion of housing extended family break up leading to alone life focused on nuclear family. Not only the expansion of housing was the factor of isolated lives but also change in leisure patterns and increase of damage homes played a part. In the second part of their research, young and Willmott studied families from Bethnal green who had been moved in Greenleigh, a new council estate. Living 30 miles from Bethnal Green, wives lost regular contact with their mothers and become more dependants on husband鈥檚 .husbands were cutoff from social contact in Bethnal Green e.g. visiting the pub with workmates. Gardening, watching television and other leisure activities largely replaced the extended family. Although Young and Willmott argue most families in Britain do have some contact with larger family. Peter Willmott argues that it is the dispersed extended family which is dominant today. This consists of two or more related families who co-operate with each other although they live some distance apart.
They argued that the family in Britain has developed through three stages.
(1)The Pre-industrial family. At this stage the family is the unit of production; husband, wife and children work as a unit in the production of agricultural items or textiles.
(2)The early industrial family. Members of the family are now employed as wage earners. This kind of family predominated in the C19th when wages were low and there was the threat of unemployment. There was a central relationship between a mother and her married daughter; by contrast the husband-wife relationship was weak.
(3)The symmetrical family. The nuclear family has become separated from the extended family and the 'trade union' of women has been disbanded. The husband is important once again within the family.
Conclusion: Really, you should draw your own conclusions from this essay. What do YOU think? No way!...after you writing gud?
for Good!!!! |
