THE SCHOOL OF HUMAN AND SOCIAL SCIENCES

Department of Social Work

SURNAME: NETSIANDA

NAME(S): EDWIN PHUMUDZO

STUDENT NUMBER: 18008175

MODULE CODE: SCW 4741

ASSIGNMENT NUMBER: 2

DUE DATE: 25 APRIL 2023

2.1. Critically discuss the costs and benefits of cohabitation.

2.2. Critically analyse the diversity of families in South Africa

 1. Introduction

Cohabitation and family diversity are two related but different concepts in the context
of family and relationship. Cohabitation refers to the act of living together as a couple
without being married or in a civil partnership. It has become a more common
alternative to marriage in recent decades, particularly among young generations.
Family diversity, on the other hand, refers to the existence of a wide range of family
structures beyond the traditional nuclear family (married heterosexual coupe with
children). South Africa is a country with diverse cultures, religions, ethnicities and
races. This diversity influence the emerging of various family structures and forms.
This document will critically analyse some of the family structures particularly in
South Africa. This will include nuclear families, single parent families, foster families,
same sex families and polygamous families. The reader will learn more about the
advantages and disadvantages of cohabitation and critical analysis of the family
diversities in South Africa (Chimere-Dan, 2015).

2.1. Costs and benefits of cohabitation

Costs:

Cohabitation does not provide the same legal protections as marriage. For example
cohabiting partners do not enjoy the same tax benefits, inheritance rights, or access
to medical decisions as married couples. Cohabitation may still be stigmatized in
some cultures and communities. For example cohabiting partners in South Africa are
still facing discrimination or judgement from peers, family members or authorities.
Sharing finances can be challenging, particularly if one of the partner has reckless
spending habits. When it comes to things like sharing bills, managing debt and
saving for shared goals can all create tensions and conflicts. Living together can
bring up new challenges and insecurities. Cohabiting partners may struggle to
balance independence with interdependence, navigate different communication
styles or conflict resolution strategies or adjust to shared living spaces (Posel &
Rudwick, 2013).

Many submissions indicated that most men living in South Africa are unaware that if
their cohabiting partners die, all funeral arrangements ought to be held at their
biological family and if man for example wishes to bury his partner as marriage
partners does, he is required to first pay for damages and marry her even if she is
dead then from there he will be allowed to choose to do burial ceremony in his own
way and wishes. Many submissions also highlighted that most women choose to
cohabit as a result of poverty. The efforts of government in trying to eradicate
unemployment and poverty through provision of Social Relief grant and other
supportive measures seems not to be enough as most young girls view cohabitation
as their solution in terms of financial hardships. This can impose the danger of being
financially abused. In situations where there is an imbalance financial contribution in
settling family expenses, a partner who has more money than the other will most
likely to take a role of supporting this cohabitation relationship. This involves, making
sure that everyone in the family including children if any, have eaten, bathed and
dressed and this also applies marriages. It is advisable for cohabiting partners to
have an agreement contract which will indicate amount of money each partner has
contributed to purchase any particular item for example a new house or a car. In
addition, agreement contract between cohabiting partners will also has to stipulate
how the property will be shared after break up or death of one partner (Posel & et al,
2013).

Benefits:

Cohabiting partners have more freedom to decide their relationship terms and living
arrangements. They may be less constrained by traditional gender roles or
expectations and can negotiate their shared responsibilities and routines.
Cohabitation can be cost effective, as partners can share living expenses such as
rent, utilities, groceries and transportation. This may help them save money or
pursue other shared goals such as travel or education. Living together can deepen
emotional intimacy in a relationship, as partners learn more about each other’s
habits and preferences. They may also benefit from more frequent physical touch,
emotional support and shared experiences. Cohabiting can help involved partners to
test their compatibility and readiness for marriage or other long term commitments.
By living together, partners can learn more about each other’s values,
communication styles and life goals and decide whether they want to pursue a more
permanent arrangement (Posel & et al, 2013).

Just like married couples, cohabiting partners have the right to choose each other to
become beneficiaries of retirement plans. Pension Fund Act is known to regulate the
distribution of pension fund benefits to those who are eligible more especially in
situations where there is a death or break up. Social workers, lawyers and other
professionals who work with marriage issues, are guided by this law in determining
the people who were financially covered by cohabiting partner who died so that
pension fund benefits can be distributed fairly. These people may include children
from previous relationship, parents of cohabiting partners or siblings. According to
Children Act of 2005 under Section 21, parents have the rights and responsibilities,
regardless of their marital status, to make sure that the best interest of children is
served. In other words cohabiting partners, who have biological or adopted children
have the responsibility to take good care for the children and contribute to their
financial support just the way it’s done by married couples (Posel & et al, 2013).

2.2. Family diversities in South Africa

a. Nuclear families

Nuclear family is one of the common family structure among various ethnic groups in
South Africa. This structure comprises a married couples and their biological
children. However, this structure is becoming less common due to factors such as
urbanization, migration and changes in gender roles. Nuclear families offer stability
and security to children. They grow up in a structured environment that provides
them with a sense of security. Since nuclear families are small, the relationships and
bond among family members can be stronger than in larger families. This can lead
to better communication and mutual understanding among family members.
However nuclear families can create a lot of pressure on parents as they are the only
ones responsible for all the parenting duties. Over time this can lead to parental
burnout and difficult in making time with children. Many submissions argued that
nuclear families can reinforce gender roles and expectations. This is because
traditional gender roles often dictate that the man is the breadwinner and the women
is responsible for the household and children duties. This can limit the potential for
both men and women to pursue their passions and career goals outside the home
(Charles, 2013).

b. Single parent families

According to many submissions, single parent families are becoming more common
in today’s society due to various reasons such as divorce, death and choice. One of
the advantages of single parent families is that they promote independence and self
reliance among children. The children are forced to assume roles and responsibilities
beyond their age, which helps them to develop crucial life skills such as decision
making, problem solving and time management. Moreover, these children tend to
exhibit higher academic achievement as they receive more attention and support
from their single parent, who can better focus on their individual needs. However,
single parent families can pose challenges to both parents and children. Single
parents struggle to balance their work and life responsibilities particularly if they have
to provide for their children alone. This in turn, can result in physical exhaustion or
burnout, leading to lower job performance and reduced income. Other submissions
also outlined that, children who are likely to be brought up in single parent families,
experience issues related to poverty, lower living standards and more behavioural
problems when compared to other types of families more especially ones with two
parents (Department of Social Development, 2012).

c. Foster family

Foster families are families that provide temporary care to children who need a safe
and stable environment while their parents or legal guardians are unable to care for
them. While foster families play important role in providing homes and support to
children in need, there are different issues that need to be critically analysed. Firstly,
the system of foster care has been criticised for being inconsistent, with many
children experiencing multiple placements, separation from siblings and inadequate
support systems (Amoateng & Heaton, 2007). The placement of children with foster
families is often based on availability rather than suitability, resulting in children being
placed in homes that may not be a good fit for them. This can lead to disruptions in
the child’s sense of stability and belonging, which may also have a negative impact
on their emotional and psychological well-being. Secondly, foster parents may lack
adequate training and support to provide proper care to children who have
neglected, abused or traumatized. These children may have complex needs and
challenging behaviours that require specialised knowledge and skills, but foster
parents may lack the resources to meet these needs. In some cases, foster parents
may also have personal issues that interfere with their ability to make sure that
children are being brought up in a secure and supportive environment. With
adequate support and resources, foster parents can provide nurturing and stable
environments for children who require placement outside of their home (Makiwane &
Berry, 2013).

d. Same sex families

Same sex families are emerging in South Africa, although they are still facing
discrimination and legal challenges. These families comprise a same sex couple who
may have biological or adopted children. Same sex families face challenges such as
social stigma, discrimination and legal barriers and including adoption and marriage
rights. Some researchers argued that same sex families are equally capable of
providing a safe and loving environment for children. Studies show that children
raised in same sex families have no differences in terms of their psychological well-
being, cognitive functioning or gender development compared to those raised in
opposite sex households (Charles, 2013). This means that, same sex families can
also provide an environment for a child to grow up in with the same amount of love,
care and nurturing as any other family types. Children raised in same sex families
can learn to appreciate diversity and respect individuals who differ from them.
However, some argue that same sex families can have negative impacts on
children’s development, based on the idea that children need both a mother and a
father in their lives to develop in desired manner. However, this notion has been
side-lined since there is no empirical evidence to support this claim. Hence same sex
families should be treated equally to opposite sex families, with respect to the rights
and wellbeing of the children. Ultimately what matters most is the quality of care that
children receive in a family environment and not their parent’s sexual orientation
(Lubbe-De Beer & Marnell, 2013).

e. Polygamous family

Polygamy is still common practice in South Africa, especially in rural areas where
traditional cultural values are deeply recognised. The practice is legally recognised in
the country and is mainly associated with African culture. One key advantage of
polygamous families is the support of a large extended family. Each wife raises the
children and they live together, which means that there is always someone to
provide care for children. This setup can also be beneficial for the wives who have a
built-in support system and share the household chores. Polygamy can also provide
for extended family welfare, with the sharing of resources making it easier for
everyone to manage. On the other hand, there are several drawbacks to polygamy,
particularly for women (Amoateng & et al, 2007). Polygamy can limit women’s
economic empowerment as they cannot work outside the home or pursue their
careers, which leads to continued dependency on their husbands. This can make
women vulnerable to violence and have less control over their reproductive health.
Moreover, polygamy has been linked to the spread of HIV/AIDS, as infected men
can transmit the disease to all their wives and subsequent families while still having
sex with other women outside the polygamous relationships (Mokomane, 2013).

3. Conclusions

In conclusion, family diversities in South Africa are influenced by cultural, social and
economic factors. While some family structures are becoming less common, others
are emerging, reflecting the changing nature of society. Whatever the structure of the
family, it plays a vital role in providing emotional, physical and social support to its
members and it should be respected and valued. Both cohabitation and family
diversity reflect changing social norms and values as well as legal and policy
changes aimed at recognising and protecting different types of families. However,
they also raise questions and challenges related to issues as parenting, legal rights
and benefits and social stigma and discrimination. In nutshell, the concepts of
cohabitation and family diversity highlight the diversity and complexity of family life in
contemporary society and call for a more inclusive and respectful approach to family
relationships and arrangements. It is then important for student and qualified social
workers to familiarise themselves with current trends of different family structures
including cohabitation in order to advocate for their legal acknowledgment and to
choose relevant intervention approach to address social challenges that these
families are facing (Lubbe-De Beer & et al, 2013).
4. References

a. Amoateng, A.Y and Heaton, T.B. (eds.). 2007. Families and

households in post-apartheid South Africa: Socio-demographic
perspectives. Cape Town: HSRC.
b. Charles T. 2013. ‘Marriage Above All Else’: The Push for Heterosexual,
Nuclear Families in the Making of South Africa’s White Paper on
Families. Institute of Development Studies. Evidence Report No 41.
c. Chimere-Dan, D.O.D. 2015. What is happening to the family in South
Africa? Resilience and change in the context of social transformation.
Pretoria: HSRC Seminar Series.
d. Department of Social Development, Republic of South Africa. 2012.
White Paper on Families in South Africa. Pretoria.
e. Makiwane, M. and Berry, L. 2013. Towards the development of a family
policy in South Africa. Policy in Brief. Pretoria: HSRC.
f. Lubbe-De Beer, C. and Marnell, J. 2013. Home Affairs: Rethinking
lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender families in contemporary South
Africa. Johannesburg: Fanele and GALA.
g. Mokomane, Z. 2013. Social protection as a mechanism for family
protection in sub-Saharan Africa. International Journal of Social
Welfare, 22: 248–259.
h. Posel, D. and Rudwick, S. 2013. Changing patterns of marriage and
cohabitation in South Africa. Acta Juridica: Marriage, land and custom.
169–180.