Module #5 Spotlight on Sociology and supplemental topics

This section in each model is a way to emphasize key ideas (often sociologically-related) that enrich and expand the material in the textbook and the Chapter Notes. The instructor will expand the topics occasionally to include specific contemporary and relevant information and insights.

Chapter 4 (pages 82-95) in the textbook discusses material related to cultural, sociological, and psychological factors in relationship development and a few other related topics.

This Spotlight draws attention to the following topics of variation of family types such as traditional/agrarian families and industrialization and the transition of family forms.

Why Farmers Often Have Large Families

By Tim Kinnard

Have you ever noticed some of the big differences between urban & rural communities? I’ll tell you, I’ve noticed a few.

For example, all you need to do is look at a political map during an election cycle to see that, by and large, it’s the cities and your more metropolitan areas that tend to lean liberal, while it’s those in more agricultural places that tend to lean conservative. Or, the fact that city life is typically known for its more “fast-paced,” “on-the-go” approach, while life in the country is known for its “slower-paced” and “its-a-good-thing-to-put-down-roots” perspective.

There are several trends that differentiate city and country life. Some time, I may circle back and explore further some of those interesting aspects, but one of the things I thought I’d address in this post is the trend of varying family sizes between urban and rural groups.

It may be less the case today than it’s been in the past, at least in the U.S. (here I’m writing this while we’re all still waiting for the results to come back from our latest 2020 census; so I’m not 100% sure what the numbers show currently), but, traditionally speaking, farmers and those in the rural community have had more members per household than those in the city, on average.

Obviously, this point is based on statistics and doesn’t reflect every family situation. Not everyone in the country has a large family, just as it’s true that not everyone who lives in the city has a small family. But, proportionally and historically, the stereotype has been true.

There was a report put out several years ago by the United Nations that was tracking these numbers, not just in the United States, but around the world. The report stated:

“Agrarian societies have typically been characterized by high fertility…Broadly speaking, urban residence is associated with [lower fertility] and smaller [household sizes]… A recent United Nations report lists more than 100 countries and territories for which distributions of households by size were available…A recent summary of [the] data shows that for the developing countries, most of which have not reached high levels of urbanization, average household size is approximately 5.2 persons, compared with an over-all average of 3.5 persons for the more developed countries, most of which are highly urban. Broadly speaking, then, average household size in the less urbanized countries tends to be approximately 50 per cent greater than in the more urbanized countries.”

“Patterns of Urban and Rural Population Growth”
United Nations Report, 1980

It’s important to clarify, which the report does, that what constitutes a “family” obviously differs from culture to culture, and that “household size” doesn’t necessarily reflect “family size.” But, “broadly speaking,” it’s evident agrarian societies have larger families.

The reasons why that trend rings true is somewhat complicated. The report I looked at was around 185 pages long and touched on a lot of different factors. I won’t bore you trying to unpack all of them. Suffice it to say, a full explanation to the trends can’t be boiled down to a convenient formula.

But, for the sake of this post, I will give you three factors I think are worth mentioning:

The Rate of Reproduction in Rural Communities

The first, and maybe most obvious, reason why rural families tend to be larger than urban families is because rural couples evidently spend more time in the bedroom making babies.

That may sound like an oversimplified reason, but, hey, if Occam’s Razor is true, and if the simplest explanation is likely the correct one, where there are more babies being born, perhaps, there is more reproduction happening. But if you just think about the day-to-day logistics and patterns of farmers v. corporate executives, for example, which do you think spends more time at home with their wives? Whether it’s net hours at home during the day or net hours during certain seasons out of the year, while both are hardworking, the nature of the farmer’s work gives him more flexible opportunities at home than the executive has, who is stuck at his desk at the office for more hours, weeks, and months out of the year than he’s able to spend with his own wife.

I saw an article by Fox Business that reported that farmers do in fact stay a lot “busier” on the farm and at the farmhouse than those in other professions, according to a British survey.

Out of the pool of 2,000 men and women surveyed, farmers reported having the most active marriages, followed by architects, followed by hairdressers. Take that for what it’s worth. I won’t read too much into the runners-up on the list, except to wonder how many of those architects and hairdressers ran their studios out of their home. To quote the article:

“The lifestyle factors of our jobs such as flexibility of working hours and the environment…have an impact on all our lives [including] our sex lives.”

Stephanie Pagones, Oct. 9, 2019
“People working in this profession have the most sex”
Fox Business

The point I’m trying to make is, there is a likely correlation between having time to make babies and babies being born. Those in the rural community—farmers especially—are afforded such time.

The Benefit of Children in Rural Communities

A second reason why rural families tend to be larger than urban families, historically speaking, is because of the practical benefit children provide to those rural families.

My wife sometimes gets stopped at the grocery store as she has our 5 kids in tow, and people often say, “I just don’t know how you do it. We stopped at 2 kids, because 2 were enough to drive us crazy. How do you manage 5?!”

We know families with 7 or 8 kids, so to us 5 doesn’t even seem like a lot, but the questions still come. Obviously, the produce isle at the Grocery Store isn’t the best place to explain the logistics of how large families work, so my wife usually just smiles and places the bananas in her cart. But, if she had the time to sit down with the frantic mother of 2 who is ready to pull her hair out, what my wife would say to her is, “You know what, I don’t know how you do it without the helping hand of older siblings keeping an eye and an extra set of hands on the little ones freeing you to focus on what’s on the shopping list!”

The truth of the matter is, in many ways, larger families are easier to manage than smaller families, especially smaller families that still have young children, because of the help older siblings provide in larger families, not just keeping an eye on the younger children but in all aspects of family life.

Whether it’s mowing the yard, taking out the trash, or building that shed, a capable young man helping dad (or a few capable brothers tag teaming to help dad) makes all the difference. Or having a capable young woman helping mom (or a few capable sisters tag teaming to help mom) prepare dinner, dusting the shelves, or lending a hand at the grocery store, again, makes all the difference.

So has it been for generation after generation on the farm. If you can imagine the benefit older siblings can offer while grocery shopping, just imagine the benefit they provide in managing the garden, or the barn, or the market. In many ways, farm life is easier with a larger family. On a farm, an extra child isn’t just another mouth to feed. He or she is another set of hands to help mom and dad produce an even greater bounty for the family to enjoy.

I admit, in less productive contexts, when an impoverished family has more kids than they’re able to take care of (requiring the taxpayer and the welfare state to fit the bill), yes, children can sometimes be viewed as a drain. But, in productive contexts, the opposite is true. Rather than being a drain, children become an asset. Rather than being consumers depleting society’s resources, children become contributors helping to supply them.

It also used to be true on farms, when households were multi-generational (you know, when grandma and grandpa lived on the property?), that the more kids you had the more stable your retirement. Why? Because there were more hands on deck to share the task of caring for grandma and grandpa. It didn’t fall on the shoulders of one or two children, but care taking could be spread out over what eventually becomes multiple branches of extended families.

So, having more kids provided a practical benefit, both short term and long term, to the families that had them.

The Conservative Values of the Rural Community

A third and final reason I’ll share for why rural families tend to be larger than urban families is because of the old-fashioned values that were, and I think still are, held by so many in the rural community.

When I look at the census data for urban v. rural households, there are a few interesting things that jump out to me:

One is the increasing median age of those getting married in the city. That is to say, those in urban areas are putting off marriage much later than those in the country do. And, naturally, what happens as a result is the the window of time and fertility for women to have children is shortened, resulting in less children being born. That makes sense.

Closely related to that, I think, is the increasing number of women in the workforce now splitting their attention between work and home. More and more families in the city are choosing not to have children so as to not allow children to interfere with their work. Granted, the number of stay-at-home moms is close to the same in both the city and the country, except for that prime childbearing age of 20 to 35. In other words, during that natural window of fertility, there are less women participating in the work force in rural areas. No doubt, that affects the number of children being born.

Therefore, while we can all learn a lot by the number of red and blue ballots cast on election day between cities and the country, you know what? We can also learn a lot by the number of red (or pink) and blue sippy cups that are sitting at a family’s dinner table.

Again, to be clear, I’m just speaking in generalities. Not all conservatives live in the country and not all liberals live in the city. In the same way, not all conservatives have large families and not all liberals discourage having large families. In fact, I know many God-fearing conservative evangelicals who don’t have any children, either because of circumstance or choice. I also know many liberal feminist atheists out there who absolutely adore kids and who have more place settings at their table with kids eating at them than I have at my own. So we have to be careful we don’t overgeneralize. But, the census data does tell a story, just as the red and blue political map tells a story.

https://www.thekinnardhomestead.com/why-farmers-often-have-large-families/

The Evolution of American Family Structure

JULY 10, 2020

America’s mainstream culture evolves to reflect the predominant values of the day, including social systems such as the family. Instead of being one unit, the family institution has been in a constant state of evolution, according to California Cryobank. Today, there really is no consistent definition of the American family. With single-parent households, varying family structures, and fewer children, the modern family defies categorization. But these most recent changes have brought with them a nostalgia-based myth: that divorce, domestic violence, and single parenthood are recent phenomena. When the history of the American family was surveyed in-depth by Insider, it became apparent that this is not the case. Constant change and adaptation are the only themes that remain consistent for families throughout America’s history. In fact, recent changes in family life are only the latest in a series of transformations in family roles, functions, and dynamics that have occurred over time.

A Brief History of the Pre-20th Century Family

When America was founded, a family was defined as a husband, wife, biological children and extended family (unfortunately, slaves were not considered part of any family). This meant that most people who could legally marry did, and then stayed married until death. According to Insider, in the 19th and early 20th centuries people often married to gain property rights or to move social class. All of that changed in the 1800s, with the ideas of love and romance becoming the main reason to wed. Divorce was rare; History Collection reports that, “the process of getting a divorce was very expensive, and a judge would never allow it, unless it was the last resort .. If two people were unhappy in a marriage, they sometimes decided to quietly separate in a mature, responsible way, but they were legally still married, and could never remarry someone else, unless their first husband or wife died.” Because this structure was so dominant, it played a crucial role in the creation and replication of cultural roles for men and women. The role of wives was to assist their husbands within the home, both keeping house and raising children.

Wives had no legal identity under a condition called coverture; ThoughtCo explains that “legally, upon marriage, the husband and wife were treated as one entity. In essence, the wife’s separate legal existence disappeared as far as property rights and certain other rights were concerned.” Husbands, in contrast, were managers and providers in the family. They controlled finances and had ultimate authority in the eyes of both society and the law. This meant that “a husband could not grant to his wife anything such as property, and could not make legal agreements with her after marriage because it would be like gifting something to one’s self or making a contract with one’s self.”

It was generally against the law to live together or have children outside of marriage. However, by the 19th century, coverture was less of an issue and these rigid legal boundaries were relaxed, with common-law marriage widely recognized as an acceptable union.

Government and the Family

The 19th century brought about a number of important changes to the family, according to Shirley A. Hill’s Families: A Social Class Perspective. In the first half of the century, married women began to have property rights through the Married Women’s Property Acts, which began to be enacted in 1839. By the early 20th century, most states permitted married women to “own property, sue and be sued, enter into contracts and control the disposition of property upon her death.” However, during this time a woman’s role in the family was still defined by her husband.

Another important development was government regulation of some aspects of childhood, such as child labor and schooling. To improve the well-being of children, “reformers pressed for compulsory school attendance laws, child labor restrictions, playgrounds … and widow’s pensions to permit poor children to remain with their mothers.” Despite these legal changes, the family became an even more important source of happiness and satisfaction. The “companionate family was envisioned as a more isolated, and more important unit — the primary focus of emotional life.” New ideas about marriage emerged, based on choice, companionship, and romantic love. This in turn caused a surge in the divorce rate, which tripled between 1860 and 1910.

Depression and War

The stability of families was tested by the Great Depression, as unemployment and lower wages forced Americans to delay marriage and having children. The divorce rate fell during this time because it was expensive and few could afford it. However, by 1940 almost 2 million married couples lived apart. Some families adjusted to the economic downturn by “returning to a cooperative family economy. Many children took part-time jobs and many wives supplemented the family income.”

When the Depression ended and World War II began, families coped with new issues: a shortage of housing, lack of schools and prolonged separation. Women ran households and raised children alone, and some went to work in war industries. The results of the war-stricken state of society were that “thousands of young people became latchkey children and rates of juvenile delinquency, unwed pregnancy, and truancy all rose.”

Family Structures in the Postwar World

In reaction to the tumult both at home and abroad during the 1940s, the 1950s marked a swift shift to a new type of domesticity. Insider reports that “the idea of the nuclear, All-American Family was created in the 1950s, and put an emphasis on the family unit and marriage.” This time period saw younger marriages, more kids, and fewer divorces. The average age for women to marry was 20, divorce rates stabilized, and the birth rate doubled. However, the perfect images of family life that appeared on television do not tell the whole story: “Only 60 percent of children spent their childhood in a male-breadwinner, female-homemaker household.”

This “democratization of family ideals” reflected a singular society and economy, one that was driven by a reaction against depression and war and compounded by rising incomes and lower prices. The economic boom that followed World War II led to significant economic growth, particularly in manufacturing and consumer goods; around 13 million new homes were built in the 1950s. Families moved to the suburbs because they could afford to, and the family became a “haven in a heartless world,” as well as “an alternative world of satisfaction and intimacy” for adults and children that had experienced the ravages of wartime. In fact, this is where the concept of close-knit families as we know it originates. Domestic containment as a way of life was reinforced by American youth, who wanted to have long-lasting and stronger relationships than their parents had. Soldiers and servicemen who returned from war were looking to get married and raise children.

The Idyllic ’50s

The standard structure of the family in postwar America consisted of a breadwinner male, his wife who did household chores and looked after the children, and the children themselves. Families ate meals and went on outings together, and lived in sociable neighborhoods. Parents paid close attention to disciplining their children and live-in relationships were unheard of — in fact, girls stayed in their parents’ home until marriage and did not commonly attend college. Children became emotional rather than economic assets for the first time, close with their parents and the center of the family. Because of this, parents studied child development and worked to socialize their children so that they would become successful adults. Childhood became a distinct period of life. However, young girls were supposed to be housewives instead of educated professionals.

All in all, family structure in the ’50s was based around one central necessity: a secure life. The economic and global instability of the early 20th century gave rise to the need for closely defined family units. This led to an ideology that lauded economic advancement and social order, the results of which were younger marriages that lasted longer, more children, fewer divorces, and more nuclear families.

The Modern Family Unit

The nuclear family of the ’50s epitomized the economically stable family unit. The idea of the middle-class, patriarchal, child-centered families were short-lived. This is why the modern family, in most cases, bears little resemblance to this “ideal” unit. Many of the changes that were part of this transition are a direct result of the expanding role of women in society, both in terms of the workplace and education. The rise of the post-industrial economy, based in information and services, led to more married women entering the workplace. As early as 1960, around a third of middle class women were working either part-time or full-time jobs. Since the ’60s, families have also become smaller, less stable, and more diverse. More adults, whether young or elderly, live outside of the family as well. Today, the male-breadwinner, female-housewife family represents only a small percentage of American households. A considerable majority of Americans (62 percent) view the idea of marriage as “one in which husband and wife both work and share child care and household duties.” Two-earner families are much more common as well. In 2008, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that women made up almost 50 percent of the paid labor force, putting them on equal footing with men when it comes to working outside the home. In addition, single-parent families headed by mothers, families formed through remarriage, and empty-nest families have all become part of the norm.

Along with these shifts have come declining marriage and birth rates and a rising divorce rate. The American birth rate is half of what it was in 1960, and hit its lowest point ever in 2012. In addition, the number of cohabiting couples increased from less than half a million in 1960 to 4.9 million in the 2000 census. According to the 2005 American Community Survey, more than 50 percent of households in America were headed by an unmarried person during that year. And by 2007, almost 40 percent of children were born to unmarried, adult mothers. One reason for these developments is that marriage has been repositioned as a “cornerstone to capstone, from a foundational act of early adulthood to a crowning event of later adulthood.” It is viewed as an event that should happen after finishing college and establishing a career.

Further Change in the Marital Family

A number of historical factors contributed to shifts in how Americans perceive and participate in family structure. According to the American Bar Association, in 1965, the Supreme Court extended constitutional protections for “various forms of reproductive freedom” through its ruling in Griswold v. Connecticut. There were also medical advances in contraception, including the invention of the birth control pill in 1960. As a result, the way children were brought into families became more varied than ever before. Divorce changed during the ’60s as well. In 1969, California became the first state to adopt no-fault divorce, permitting parties to end their marriage simply upon showing irreconcilable differences. Within 16 years, every other state had followed suit.

Included in these trends is the expansion of rights granted to same-sex couples. With the decline of barriers to lesbian and gay unions and the increase in legal protections, more LGBTQ populations are living openly. Gay marriage was legalized in 2015; However, for some legal purposes these relationships are still not treated like marriages. Still, in general, families are more racially, ethnically, religiously, and stylistically diverse. However, all of this change does not mean that the family is a dying institution. About 90 percent of Americans still marry and have children, and those who divorce usually remarry.

https://online.csp.edu/resources/article/the-evolution-of-american-family-structure/

Impact of Industrialization on Family

LAST UPDATED:MAY 26, 2023

Industrialization, the engine of economic and social change, has been a pivotal force in shaping societies around the world. The transformative wave of industrialization, initiated during the 18th century, has since reached every corner of the globe, influencing and altering virtually every aspect of life.

In addressing this topic, we are confronted with a multitude of complexities and variations across societies. The following discussion will, therefore, provide a comprehensive, detailed analysis of the ways industrialization has molded family structure, dynamics, and roles, with an aim to shed light on the ongoing and future implications of these changes.

Historical Perspective and Evolution

Pre-Industrial Family Structure

Before the advent of industrialization, families predominantly lived in rural areas and participated in agricultural work. The family was a unit of production; all members contributed to the family’s livelihood. This fostered interdependence and unity within the family.

Table 1: Characteristics of Pre-Industrial Family

Characteristic	Description
Family Structure	Extended family
Work and Family Life	Integrated
Interdependence	High
Primary role	Unit of Production

Impact of Industrialization

Industrialization brought about significant shifts in the economic, social, and cultural realms. The subsequent sections will delve into these aspects.

Economic Impact

The Shift from Extended to Nuclear Family

Industrialization led to a shift from rural to urban living, necessitating changes in family structure. The compact, nuclear family became more common, replacing the extended family as the primary social unit (Sassler, 2010). The reasons were multifaceted.

Space Constraints: The physical limitations of urban dwellings made accommodating extended families impractical.
Job Opportunities: The promise of better jobs in urban factories led many to migrate, often leaving their extended families behind.
Change in Economic Dependence: Industrial jobs offered individual wages, making people financially independent, and diminishing the need for collective family labor.

Table 2: Comparison of Pre-Industrial and Industrial Family Structures

Characteristic	Pre-Industrial Family	Industrial Family
Structure	Extended family	Nuclear family
Work-Life Integration	High	Low
Interdependence	High	Reduced
Primary Role	Unit of Production	Unit of Consumption

Social Impact

Changing Gender Roles and Family Dynamics

With the advent of industrialization, the public-private dichotomy emerged, leading to distinct gender roles within the family. Men were associated with the ‘public’ realm of paid work, while women were confined to the ‘private’ realm of the household (Cott, 1977).

However, as industrialization progressed, women began participating in the workforce, leading to a shift in power dynamics within the family (Goldscheider, Bernhardt, & Lappegård, 2015). This not only gave women financial independence but also raised questions about traditional gender roles and norms.

Rise in Single-Parent Families

The dynamics of industrialization contributed to the rise of single-parent families. Factors such as increased divorce rates, the normalization of out-of-wedlock childbirth, and the empowerment of women to raise children independently all played a role in this shift (McLanahan, 2004).

Cultural Impact

Changes in Child-Rearing Practices

Industrialization affected child-rearing practices significantly. With the nuclear family becoming dominant, parents started investing more resources and attention in fewer children, promoting a child-centered family culture (Zelizer, 1985).

The advent of compulsory education, a product of industrialization, also altered the role of families in children’s socialization. Previously the family was the primary institution responsible for children’s social and vocational education; now schools assumed this role.

Consumerism and the Family

The consumer culture born out of industrialization impacted family dynamics. The family evolved from a production unit into a consumption unit (Mintz, 1985). This shift affected family roles, with parents, particularly mothers, taking on the responsibility of consumer decision-making for the family.

Conclusion

In tracing the trajectory of industrialization’s impact on the family, it is clear that its effects are complex and multifaceted. From altering family structures and economic functions to revolutionizing gender roles, child-rearing practices, and family dynamics, industrialization has deeply impacted the familial fabric of societies.

As we move further into the era of post-industrialization, these changes are continuing to evolve, posing new challenges and opportunities for families. Recognizing and understanding these impacts is critical in formulating policies and initiatives that support families and promote societal welfare.

https://anthroholic.com/impact-of-industrialization-on-family