y no one in Europe, os, virtual sae ABE: Tore ws even a med i wife with one's aarope marriage usualy epee avant ns pega haut ising ere, and Ended POU or ove’, but many REN in} their used reared thelr nee ie shared life's expertences, cofsprine. or jing epitaphs to spouses i surviving epitap! eae modern West martiage inmow our tve, nats middle s stil met en), and ends often - about seer, by which pont Tove absent or paistant memory’ ns, have become close compa 1d after marriage rather than pefaga necessary precursor tot Ttwas onlyin recat eighteenth century that the concept of we became the basis for marriage. spouses may put this happene romantic 10 ‘as distinct from the compul- Romantic love ~ fon of passionate Tove - involved idealizing jobject. The notion of romantic love more OF Jesscoincided with the emergence of the novel as aliterary form and the spread of romantic novels played a vital part in advancing the idea (Radway 1984). For women in particular, romantic love involved telling stories about how relationships could lead to personal fulflment. Romantic love, therefore, cannot be understood as a natural part of human life; ‘ether, ithas been shaped by broad social and historical influences. Povo people in the developed world, eee unmarried - is at oe ne of what family fife Family forms goa, diverse indeed, as our open- Fang le iustraes. Eton John and David tem eeame el partners shortly after rat legislation was enacted i 05. By Soe within the LGBT (lesbian, aa and transgender) community € a5 tainted by its long history Families and Intimate Relationships ns an clasvey Netroxeral fatten, sie ee hing efleenty, ne thn sald ean legislation t come through fous, and we should celebrate It. We shouldn't just say, "Oh, well we have a civil partnership, We're not going to bother to get married.” We will get married’ (cited in BIC News 2014d), The couple also have two children via surrogacy, and their family life displays m ny of the social changes and shift- ing attitudes that have transformed family and personal life today. In the developed countries a ‘good rela~ tionship’ is thought to be one based on open. emotional communication or other forms of intimacy. The idea of intimacy, like so many other familiar notions we encounter in this book, is a recent one. In the past, marriage was never based on intimacy and emotional communication; while this was often seen as important to a ‘good’ marriage, it was not the foundation of t. Social change is a continuous thread running through all sociology. though there is also much continuity with the past. We live in a turbulent and rapidly changing world today and, whether we like it or not, we must come to terms with the mixture of opportunity and risks it presents. The discussion of roman- tic love shows that nowhere is this observa tion truer than in the domain of personal and family life. In this chapter we start with the familiar idea of ‘the family’ - a social institution which appears to be timeless and universal. As we shall see, sociologists now acknowledge that this notion has often conflated empirical ( reality with a normative conception of family which allows little room for alternatives. We then outline an alternative approach which explores the actual practices - positive and negative — in which people engage and which ‘as being in some way they acknowledge ‘familial, After looking at family diversity today, we explore the transformation of int- te relations and some of the main shifts in ivorce and post-divorce families. 5 with an assessment of the ance of family forms across m: marriage, di ‘The chapter end! possible converge the world. 379VY FAMILIES AND INTIMATE RELATIONSHT ‘The family’ as institution and ideology involved The sociology of the family hi contrasting theoretical perspectives for more than a century. Most of these perspectives concentrated on studying the family as a central social institution that performs impor- tant functions for als, communities, society and the capitalist economic system. However, these conventional approaches seem much less convincing today in the light of trends towards heightened individualism and the diversification of family forms. This divergence is reflected in the increasing use of families’ rather than ‘family’ in the contempo- rary literature. It is also evident in the disjunc- tion between official discourses promoting the nuclear family as the norm and people's lived experience of diverse and changing family forms (Chambers 2012: 5-6). It is valu- able to trace briefly the development of earlier ‘The research problem Why is the family such an enduring feature within human societies? Do families do things that other social institutions cannot? Is the family really necessary for a well-ordered society? These questions have been part of ongoing debates within sociology from the discipline’s earliest days, but the answers are still the subject of heated debate. Parsons’s explanation According to the American functionalist sociologist Talcott Parsons, the family's two ‘main functions are primary socialization and personality stabilization (Parsons and Bales 1956) Prin isthe process by which children learn the cultural nonns of the society into which they are born. Because this happens during the early years of childhood, the family is the most important arena for the development of the human personality. refers to the role that the family plays in assisting adult family 1s: theortes before turning t MOre FeCENE stds offamilics and family Functions of the family ‘the functionalist perspective views sockety as constituted by a set of social institutions thay perform specific functions, ensuring contin tity and value consensus. Thus, the family performs important tasks that Full some of ve basic needs, helping to reproduce order. Sociologists working in the n have seen the nuclear fulfilling certain special- .d Western societies. With functionalist tradit family in particular as ized roles in develope‘ the advent of industrialization and the separa- tion of work and home, the family became less important as a unit of economic production and more focused on reproduction, child-rearing ‘and socialization (see ‘Classic Studies 10.1’) In Parsons’s account, the nuclear family became the dominant type, at least in the oreo ‘Talcott Parsons on the functions of the family members emotionally. Marriage between adit men and women is the arrangement throug which adult personalities are supported ax kept healthy. In industrial society, the role oftt= family in stabilizing adult personalities is sad‘ be critical. This is because the nuclear fami is often distanced from its extended sn and unable to draw on larger Kinship ties as fambes could do before industrialization. Parsons regarded the nuclear family as the unit best equipped to handle the demands cf industrial society. In this ‘conventional family’ one adult can work outside the home, while the second cares for the home and children In practical terms, the specialization of roles within the nuclear family involved the husba! adopting the ‘instrumental’ role as bread and the wife assuming the ‘affective’, emotion? role in domestic settings. Critical points Today Parsons's view of the family comes across as inadequate and outdated, Function’ae amy have come under sof ate am or justifying the domestic pen pour between men and women ane thin ‘natural! and unproblematic, isp entcize fctionalist arguments 0 pasting the roe ofthe family and ere rare that other social msituons, ge Gvemment, media and sehoots, ath aleng children, And Patsons py So say about variations in fly ral that do not correspond to the model tt ejay. amis that did not ot gorm tote white, heterosexual, suburban, confot sass ideal’ could then be seen as sy. Roal the ‘Sask sie’ f family ii ety underplayed in functionalist accounts ag perefore not given the significance geserves: Families and Intimate Relationships fair to say that it must be seen an a en aa partial Sccount of he role of fami vain socitios et it does have historical significance. The immediate postwar years dic see many women ven ning to gendered domestic roles and men feassuming positions as sole breadwinner, Which was closer to Parsons's account, Social Policy in the UK and the USA has also relied on some vatiant of the functionalist theory of the family and its role in tackling social problems. We should remember that a central tenst of functionalism is that, as societies change, social institutions must also change ifthey are to survive. It is possible to see some of the contemporary diversity of family forms as evidence of the adaptation of the family to a rapidly changing social life, Ifo, iaen Parsons's functionalist approach may retain some general relevance. contemporary significance con's funcuonalist theory ofthe family Pndoubledly out offavour today, and itis developed countries, because it was best adapted to the requirements of a mobile and flexible economic system. This approach high- lights a significant problem that has dogged the sociology of the family. While analysing the positive functions of the nuclear family, the latter was also presented as the best family form against which all other families could be measured. In this way analytical detachment slipped into normative endorsement and functionalism tacitly endorsed an ca] version of the family’. This version was not dissimilar to that propounded by some politi- cal and religious groups, who argued that the family was under threat from poor parenting, liberal education policies and general moral decline, As divorce rates and single-parent families increased and same-sex relationships became more widely accepted, functional: ism seemed ill-equipped to understand the increasing diversity of family life. From a critical standpoint, Marxist theories ofthe family also saw the nuclear form as fune- tional, but in ways that enabled capitalists 10 make profits at the expense of workers. In the late nineteenth century, Engels (2010 (1884]) argued thatthe spread of private property rela tions transformed a previously equal domestic division of labour. Managing the household, housework and child-rearing came to be seen as elements of the emerging private sphere of life, while men were needed in workplaces outside the home in the public sphere. The ‘separation of public and private led to a grow ing gender inequality that has only recently been challenged as large numbers of women have moved into paid employment. Even so, thishas not resulted in full equality, as women are still expected to shoulder the double burden of household chores as well as going out to work. The nuclear family enabled the workforce to be reproduced with the costs of doing so falling mainly on women and latterly, the state, rather than eating into capitalist profits. Engels also argues that, under capt talism, monogamous marriage became the ideal way of passing capital and wealth down the class system. generations, susta 3814 J 7 os Aint approache families provide a vital and comfort, love and te ehip. Vet they ean also be a focus cot guration, loneliness nd profound for OF, puting the 19708 and 1980s, femi- gan enormosimpac on sei js te ing the fanetlonalist view of the . rmonious institution, If previ- fais gociolony oF the family had focused structures, feminism succeeded i tion to familial relationships, experiences of women in the oft as a hal Siecing #00" samining ME iesphere. nestic SP - domestic PPresearch and writing empha- Femini vr proad spectrum of topics, but three mes are of particular importance. ored in chapter 7, ‘Work and the (2 of labour: apy tac tasks ae allocated among family she pers. Among feminists there are fering nis about the historical emergence of ore vision. Socialist feminists see it asthe eome of industrial capitalism, while others Qthim that its Tinked to patriarchy and thus pre-dates industialization. As Engels argued, Pqmestic division of labour did exist before industialization, but capitalist social relations throught about a. much sharper distinction penveen (private) domesticity and (public) pork This resulted in the crystallization of ‘male and female spheres’ and the model or ideal of the , though this has been eroded somewhat over recent decades. Feminist studies of the way domestic tasks, such as childcare and housework, are shared investigated sized rain th one - =? between men and women have the validity of claims that gender relationships are becoming more ‘symmetrical’ as the distri- bution of responsibilities is shared equally (Young and Willmott 1973). Feminist research has shown that women continue (o bear the main responsibility for domestic tasks and enjoy less leisure time than men, despite the fact that more women are in paid employment outside the home than ever before (Sullivan 1997; de Vaus 2008: 394-6). Some sociologists Vanities and have examined the contrasting realms of pall HL wvark, focusing, an the women’s unpaid domestic lab makes to the overall economy (Oakley 19740 Damaske 2011), Others have investigated th \way in which resources are distributed among family members, particularly the unequal Patterns of access to and control over house: hold finances (Pahl 1989). Second, feminists have drawn attent to the unequal power relationships that exist within family relations. One topic that has received increased attention asa result of thi isthe phenomenon of domestic violence. Wife battering’, marital rape, incest and the sexual abuse of children have all received more public attention following feminists’ discovery that the violent and abusive sides of family life have long been ignored in academic contexts and legal and policy circles. Feminist soci- ologists sought to understand how the family serves as an arena for the reproduction of male dominance through the oppression of women. ‘The study of caringactivitiesisa third field to which feminists have made important contri- butions. This is a broad area that encompasses variety of processes, from attending a family member who is ill to looking after an elderly relative over a long period of time. Some~ times caring means simply being attuned to someone else's psychological well-being, and some feminist writers have been interested in ‘emotion work’ within relationships. Not only do women tend to shoulder concrete tasks such as cleaning and childcare, but they also invest large amounts of emotional labour in maintaining familial personal relationships (Wharton 2012: 164-5). While caring activi- ties are grounded in love and deep emotion, they are also a form of work which demands an ability to listen, perceive, negotiate and act n creatively Tt would not be an exaggeration to say that ‘the family’ in sociology is not what it was before feminism. Feminist research and theo- rizinghelped to produce a much more realistic ‘and balanced appreciation of the institution of the family and of family life as its lived. And is is the case with much good sociology, theFAMILARS AND INTIMATE R reality of family life turns out to be farremoved from political and normative ideals \The family in decline or the way we never were? Surveying the social changes of the past few decades, some commentators lament what they see as the demise of traditional family duties and obligations. {hey argue that we must recover a moral sense of family life and reinstate ‘the traditional family’, which_was_ more stable and ordered than the tangled _ web of relationships in which we now find ourselves (It, O'Neill 2002). Proponents of an ideal of ‘the traditional family’.are-unbappy- with the increasing diversity of families and intimate relationships, which they see_a undermining marriage and traditional family life. This argument draws on the idea that in lier period there really was a ‘golden \ge" of family life. But when was this? For some, the diseipline_and_stability_of nineteenth-century Victorian family life is held to be the ideal ‘evans a his time also suffered high death rates, the average length of. es waslessthan twelve years, and more “than half ofall children saw the death ofat least corie parent by the time they were twenty-one, ‘The discipline of the Victorian family was also rooted in the(strict authority of parents over ildren, Some mid. ere “more or less confined to the home, as Victorian morality demanded that women should be strietly virtuous, but it was accepted that men would visit prostitutes and brothels. In fact, wives and husbands often had little to do with. each other, communicating only through the children. Domesticity was not even an option for poorer social groups. In factories and work- shops, working-class families worked very Jong hours with little time for a cosy home life, while child labour was commonplace. Coontz (1992) pointed out that, as with all visions of a previous golden age, the rosy light shed on the ‘traditional family’ dissolves when we look at the historical evidence, Another suggesti tim isthat the 1950s was the Of an ideal family lie. This was'a period 384 BLATIONSHIPS when many(women stayed ath, upchildren aid maintain the ya ts were the ‘breadwinners’ respont ie ing a family wage’. Women ety a ey large numbers during the Secon as part of the war effort, whieh gy when men retuned home, Yer ty of women did not want to retreqr ge, domestic role and felt miserable yyy. within it. Husbands were stitt amg. distant from their wives and often strong sexual double standard, see, adventure for themselves but expe, monogamous code for their spouse ‘The American author Beuy Friey (1921-2006) best-selling book, The pene’ Ngstique-(1963), discussed women’s yaa the 19508 and struck a chord with yore” Ghe described the ‘problem with no ame” that is, the oppressive nature of domes ye bound up with childeate, domestic drudge and a husband who only oceasionaly pur. anappearance and with whom litleemotiony communication was possible. Even mors severe than an oppressive home life were tn, alcoholism and violence suffered within man, families during a period when domestic an} intimate violence were seen as private matters Again, the idea ofa 1950s'ideal family’ appear, tobe another nostalgic myth. ) i jo Won’ "Be ump, mal be Te ta MB secu, Ba sticg Ifthe traditional family, as described above, is ‘a myth’, why do so many people still believe in it? What political and personal consequences might | follow from people's belief in and commitment to this mythical family form? As sociologists, we cannot adjudicate between firmly held moral positions, but we can evaluate the proposals put forward. Returning (0 an older, traditional famil not realistic ~ not just because the traditional family wasa mythital entity anyway or because people today consid. it oppressive. It is not Possible because‘the broad social changesjeformed matrlage,famities and ya rss we nol easily reversible, IM Tyo et Fae ers ty oF gation from whieh they ha peste ieate themselves. Sexual part. nC notional communication and pss emoc ern tothe way they used 19 riage nr hn there site doubt tha nat eting sexually, marriage and the ave ane deep ansetes for some atthe eras hey BeneraLe Nev’ possibiligs ne jon an sel-falilment for others) ity careful not to Tet ideas of how pt to be influence our understand. soe ogy based om the evidence, As the in ology ofthe family came to be seen olde Crating what is with what ought to be, as ae clear that alternative approaches u bemeuited. (One of the more influential of ted in the deceptively simple idea that rater than studying the family asa social jon, sociologists should explore what Ee pie actualy do that they reeognizeas being eehiy-like. This prspectiveis oulined nex yo ua ily we must vty 48" were hese 18 1008 Family practices political debates on family policy are bound th ideas of an ideal family form that Should be promoted by governments. Today, there is no such single model of family life that is or could be more or less universal. The tvidence is clear that there are (nany different 3s, SaMe-SCX up wil family forms: heterosexual fa families, ‘blended’ or step-families, extended families, single-parent families, and more. Gittins (1993) argued that this diversity should ‘be acknowledged by speaking of ‘families’ rather than ‘the family’. Ina similar vein, Gillis (1996) distinguished the ‘families we live by’ ~ the ideal family presented in social policy and the mass media - from the ‘families we live with’ ~ the daily family lives we actually create and experience As we will see later, the diversification of family is linked to wider social processes, including an increasing proportion of women in paid employment, more sexual freedom, 2D C Famitios and tatinare Relationships and the th il an the movenient tovsards gender and se UUM So, although wo may dens “the fall by socal into wl fare the varity af forms ths generale overs. Far some, understanding family 48 ICs lived demands a new approach which builds from empirical research rather than theorizing the family’s institutional role. ‘Doing’ family life An alternative way of discussing family life 18 suggested by David Morgan, who argues that itis mote productive to talk of (270! foes = that is all of those activites engaged Tiby people which they perceive to be part of amy ie fee ‘Classie Studies 10.2’). Cham- bers etal. (2009) argue that there are seyeral aitntagesin adopting spective st ithelps researchers to explore the increasingly fluid character of family lives and networks, such as the eris;crossing of biological and step-families (Séegnd, it focuses attention on the relatively teglected ways in which people “do families’ - or how they actually. construct and live their familial relations. Thirdzit rebal- ances existing sociological work on the family as a social institution by looking at the agency ofthe individuals involved, who actively create thet family roles and routines, thereby helping toexplain changing family forms. ) Family practices cover many activities ~ eating together, holding family’ events, organ- izing children's attendance in school, and much more, But studying these kinds of practices may not tell us the whole story of families. Following Finch’s (2007) work, recent studies inthis area have also looked at ~ all of those ways in which people dlemonstrate to others that they are engaged in (appropriate) family practices and family relationships. Finch argues that people do not ‘do family’ in isolation from the rest of sociale) s Dermott and Seymour (2011: 13) note, ‘itis insufficient for practices associated ‘with family life to be merely carried out; they Tnust also be recognised as family practices by others’ These ‘thers’ may be social work- crs and state officials, but more often family 385aisplays are aimed at family members, other families, friends and onlookers. Itis also likely that, as with other social interactions, displays involve multiple audiences. ‘A good example of this is Harman and. Cappellini’s (2015) qualitative esearch into ctice and display of middle-class mepacics and children's school lunch- boxes. Preparing a packed lunch is a routine family practice for their small sample ofeleven, but such a simple object carries numerous meanings and messages. For example, in the wake of a highly charged public debate about what constitutes a healthy diet for children, mothers had to take account of the child's equests but also of television programmes and media commentary, political debate, School rules and supermarket advertising. The authors argue that mothers used Hupehboxes ‘0 display their competence as 1hi hers not only to other children, school staffand canteen Supervisors but also to themselves. However, the key audience seemed to be the school staff, and most of the mothers adhered to school guidance in their preparation: This small-scale study of justéleven moth- ers from a highly specific class grouping is not generalizable to the wider population, but we can seein itsome links to the wider society. ti clear that gendered assumptions were opera- tive, as preparing the lunchbox was clearly perceived as the mother's responsibility not the father's, even though all the mothers had paid employment too, Although the mothers described their lunchbox choices as individu- ally tailored to their chi, the study found that they were essentially similar. This suggests the continuing influence of widespread cultural norms governing what constitutes the basic structure of a ‘balanced’ and ‘healthy’ mealFAMILIES AND INTIMATE RE As members of white, middle-class families, these mothers felt anxious about belng Om display in the public setting of the school, Which potentially opened them up (0 monitor- ing and erit “The family practices approach has proved to be an effective one which continues (0 develop. Yet there are good reasons {0 think that we should not be too eager to dispense ‘with older athucsural perapecives trae t= Ac Edwards and her colleagues (2012) arB0% much valuable statistical research rema iS committed to some concept of families as households, while tracking shifts in family quires an awareness of faraily structure(s) and the way these change: Itis difficult to see how significant macroso- iological questions ~ such as whether family structures are converging globally or whether economic systems lead to specific family forms - could be addressed unless some notion of ‘family’ as a social institution (as well ‘asa set of practices) is retained. Inthe nexttwo sections we draw on research into family practices and statistical survey evidence on houseworkand gender inequality snd intimate violence to illustrate the more comprehensive picture that emerges from combining micro and macro approaches. life over time also re’ /galancing work and care Family practices are not simply those that people enjoy or choose to engage in. As Morgan (1996) made clear, there are numer~ vople feel under us family practices which pe pressure to perform or which have negative Penvequences for then. Gendered expecta tons put pressure on men to work full-time nd women to priottize domestic responsibil ities, while the abuse of children, older people and women within family settings is such nore common than was once thought. These npects must be considered family practices ton, as they are actions which involve people perceived tobe family membersand take place Ji family setaings jhe next gvo sections Look in more detall at some of the inequalities and ative practices associated with families LATIONSHIPS: ‘The simple school lunchbox is an example of displaying ‘family’ to several audiences. Gender inequalities vary across the world’s societies. The World Economic Forum found that women had madd most progress towards ‘equal participation in Sweden, with Nouay.. Finland and Iceland also in the top four. Yemen came in last, and Chad, Pakistan ani Nepal completed the bottom sf (World Economic Forum 2007: 7). [In addi tion, the average wage of employed*women is below that of men, although the difference has narrowed over the past thirty years oF so. In the countries of the European Union the gender pay gap (the difference between average gross hourly pay of men and women) in 2010 was still, on average, 17.5 per cent 10: 303-4). One of the major yercep (Eurostat factors affecting women's careers are P+ tions that, for women, work comes second (°having children and that taoking isa natural and biologically determined ro such beliefs directly impact on the york boalance for men and women degpite mnt 2008). See chapter 18, ‘Gender ‘ . ‘Gender and Sexy. ality’, for much more on i eae on issues of after them (any: women find themselves strugal; i with fo contradictory forces, They 7 need economicindependence, butat the same time they want to be ‘good’ mothers to their children. A major question is how the earing ‘work’, previously carried out by women in the domestic sphere without payment, will be performed now that more women have moved into paid employment. Crompton (2006: 17) suggests that this can be achieved only if the previous gendered division of labour is ‘deconstructed’ and men become rather more like women, combining employment and care-giving in their everyday lives. An increas- ing flexibility in employment and working life may be one part of the solution, but much more difficult is likely to be shifting the tradi- tional attitudes of men. Housework Although there have been major changes in women's status in recent decades, including the(entry of women into male-dominated proféSsions, one area of work has lagged far behind: ‘As more married women entered the workforce, some prestimed that men.vould begin to make a larger contribu- tion to housework. On the whole, this has not-béen-the case, Although men do more housework than in the 1970s and 1980s and women do slightly less (see table 10.1), the balance is highly unequal and varies widely across societies. In Greece, Turkey and Malta the female-male difference in time spent on housework is more than 70 per cent, but in Sweden and Denmarkit falls toless than 30 per centThe European average gender difference is around 53 per cent, which indicates that, in ilies and Intimate Relationships {hearea housework, gender equality stil has Along way to go. Several UK surveys have found that women SUil do mast of the housework and childcare, 1m the 2013 British Social Attitudes-Sarvey, Women reported spending an average of 13 hours per week on housework and 23 hours cating for family members. Men reported Spending, on average, 8 hours on housework and 19 hours on caring activities (Park et al. 2013: 115), Some sociologists have argued that, ‘where women are already working in the paid Sector, this extra work amounts to a ‘second shift’ (Shelton 1992), leading Hochschild to call the state of relations between women and men a ‘stalled revolution’. But why does housework remain largely ‘women's work’? ‘his question has been the focus of a good deal of research over recent year we Sopvaton tat fis be esult of gendered economic forces: female ousehold work is exchanged for male economic support. Because women eam, on average, less than men, they tend to remain economically dependent on their husbands and thus perform the bulk of the housework. Hence, until the earnings gap is narrowed, women are likely to remain in a depend- ent position, Hochschild (1989) argued that ‘women are thus doubly oppressed by men: once during the ‘first shift’ and then again ducing the ‘second shift’. But, while it contrib- utes (0 our understanding of the gendered. aspects of housework, this exchange model breaks down in situations where the wife earns more than the husband) Miller (2011) argues that(when heterosex- ual couples have children, the tendency is that they ‘fall back into gender’, That is, although men may use the language of a ‘new father- hood’, which emphasizes fathers’ increased involvement and bonding with children, their practices contimueto rflectan older discourse of family breadwinner. In Hochschild’s study, even husbands who eared less than their wives did not do an equal share of housework. Mothers are also far more likely to take a career break after the birth of a child than fathers, and traditional gendered expectations continue 3cesprcted to be providers while women are arnt 0 ton C0 tHe Family ever taney vryeatiners! oS Well as Mothers the ae gree of SUCH Rene assump ernetates 18S DOW deeply embeded ro pansstentyteprodced they are, even are face of ate rae hits Ih ede nal opportunity, employment and personal tio! golationsbIDS ist all of the reasons you can think of ‘gs to why Men are Not as involved in youtine housework as women. What connections are there between these yeasons and stereotypes associated with men and women? How might such gendered stereotypes be challenged? sions at Families can be sites of violence and tensions the dark side of families has led to a more realistic, if disturbing. Families and intimate Relationships Intimate violonce Shee family: and ki en relat eIVONC's existence, eee enema “a nh un mote sens) my cane ne on any bry a conta he tt otic enone de ep ses th ath The side oan oes test Violence, elder abuse and the abuse of chil- sien being he os age of aon emphasized in TV adverts and the popular meta} “ The abuse of children One section of the UK's Children Act 1989 speaks of ‘significant harm’ being caused t0 children by alack of reasonable care, but what is ‘significant’ is left quite vague. The National jon and support. Acknowledging is affect in a assessment of family life. |PAMILIES AND INTIMATE RELATIONSHIPS, Society for the Protection of Cruelty to Chil- dren (NSPC ssofabuse: neglect, physical ral{use, emotional abuse and sexual abuse, S2.ual abuse is defined as “sexual contact between a child and adult for the purpose of the adult's sexual grat tion’ (Lyon and de Cruz 1993). The full extent of child sexual abuse is difficult (o calculate accurately because of the many forms it can assume, but one recent ‘informed estimate’ suggests that some 10 to 20 per cent of chil- dren in Europe will be sexually assaulted. In ‘one 1999 survey, only 1 per cent of Europeans had never heard of child sexual abuse within the family, while 97 per cent thought that child sexual ab form-of-violence (May- Chalvatand Herczog 2003: 3-4). The 1989 UN Convention on the Rights of the Child helped toraise awareness of child sexual abuse, butno fully agreed definitions of either child abuse or child sexual abuse have been arrived at, either by researchers or in the courts, which.makes cross-national comparisons unreliable. Jnces! refers to sexual relations between closekin, butnotallincestischildsexualabuse. For example, sexual intercourse between brother and sisters incestuous but does not fit the definition of abuse. In child sextal abuse, an adult is essentially exploiting an infant or child for sexual purposes, Nevertheless, the Most common form of incest is one that is also child sexual abuse ~ incestuous relations between fathers and young daughters, Incest, and child sexual abuse more gener= ally, is a phenomenon that has been ‘dliscav- ered’ only in the past few decades. OF course it has long been known that such sexual acts occur, but it was assumed by most that the strong social taboos against this behaviour ‘meant that it must be very rare. This assump- tion has been shown to be false. Child sexual abuse has proved t be much more wide- spread than was thought. Research by the World Health Organization (WHO 2006a) into factors associated with a higher risk of child maltreatment include poverty and high levels of unemployment, though we need to be cautious about drawing such conclusions. It may be that, with a range of charities and 392 welfare services targeting povery ale, ato more abuse among poorer faites ign asa result, Rather than there being et causal relationship between soeiy: ee and domestic violence, diferent! ig surveillance and reporting may beter ace for this findin} (Hearn and McKie 2099) (Child sex abuse exists ata tees op the social hierarchy as well as in insta setings sch as residential care, education esiablshments aid churches. The recea discovery ofthe extent of il abuse can out by priests, nuns and monks inthe Romey Catholic Church, along with atemptstocme this up, shows that no social institution ie immune tothe abuse of power by adulte ma the children in their care {Jenkins 2001) Grorce or the threat of violence is involved in many cases of incest. Children ate sexual beings and quite often engage in mild sexual play or exploration with one another. But children subjected to sexual contact: ‘with adult family members report finding the experience repugnant, shameful and distressing. Some studies point to correlations between child physical or sexual-abuse and drug addiction, non-suicidal self-injury and_other_harm, ful_behaviours. However, again, we must remember that correlation is not causation Demonstrating that people in these categories have been sesually abused as children docs ‘not show that the abuse was a causal influence ‘over their later behaviour. More research is needed to establish what consequences follow I Clase tional from childhood maltreatment. Doniestic violence We may define domestic violence as physical abuse directed by one member of the family against another or seve The main targets of physical abuse are children, espe- remar. riages in rm spel an increasing Proportion of remagyi arty involve divorced people. In 1979, 4, tent of UK marriages were remartigges (gt crleast one partner): by 1996 that figure 2" fo per cent, and, though 2007 data shows fall to 36 per cent, the long-term trend je 4. eynarriages to make UP More than one.they eral marriages (a8 figure 10.4 shows). Theeg statistics do not provide a full picture of pay divorce partnerships, however, as they do no, fake into account evels of cohabitation foloy, ing divorce. People who have been married ang divorced are more likely to marry again than Remarriages” 1945 «1965-1985 2007 Wales, by previous mantal statusin comparable age groups for the first time. AL all age wavprceat men are move Wey to ce er avorced womens three in every en marcel women, but five in every sig gout Hyon, temarty. Odd though it might ior jest way to maximize the chances tiavsied, for Both sexes, fs to have mere before! However, in stats pee MONT emarriages are less successful ae yges. Rates of divorce from ges are higher than those secon ¢ martiages: Ths does not shou that mn Fist riages are doomed to fail. People seca been divorced may have higher ° ions of Marriage than those who caret. Hence they aye more realy to rant a ne maeiage Wt quite possible damn second marriages which endure iment be more satisfying, on average, than «people many second 141 first marriages. died families ‘he term ‘step-family’ refers to a family in ‘ehich at least one of the adults has children from a previous marriage or relationship, Sociologists more often refer to such family groupsasreconstt arniliesor ses, There are clearly joys and benefits associated with blended families and the growth of the expanded families which result. But certain difficulties can arise. First, there js usually a biological parent living elsewhere whose influence over the child or children is likely to remain powerful Second, cooperative relations between divorced people are often strained when one or both remarry. Take the case of a woman with two children who marries a man who also has two children and they all live together. If the non-resident parents insist that children visit them at the same times as before the marriage, the tensions involved in melding, such a newly established household together can be exacerbated. For example, it may Prove impossible ever to get all the members together at weekends, leading to resentment and arguments. ‘Third, blended families involve children Famittes miles and Intimate Relationships from ditfere varying, Drackpromnids, wh ils, who may have a tee ctatoms of what coms aeree mit eho within dhe farnity. net he children ‘elon to two Hou as the keto that there wll be clashes fn habits and outlaok i hgh, Here i Peanother describing her experience after the problems sh lems she faced with her step-child led to separation: — There's alot of guilt. You cannot do what you Would normally do with your awn child, 80 you feel guilty, but ifyou do have anormal reaction and get angry, you fel guity aout that too. Yu are alaysso afraid you will e unfair. Her [step-daughter's father and T did not agree and he would say I nagged if disciplined her. The more he did nothing to structure her, the more I seemed to nag, wanted to provide something for her, to be an element of her life which was missing, but pethaps Lam not flexible enough. (Quoted in Smith 1990) ‘There are few established norms which define the relationship between step-parent and step-child. Should a child call a new step parent by name, or is ‘Dad’ or ‘Mum’ more appropriate? Should the step-parent disci- pline the children? How should a step-parent treat the new spouse of his or her previous partner when collecting the children? These and many other matters have to be resolved in practice through suggestion and negotiation. ‘This is one area which is particularly suited to research rooted in Morgan's family practices approach, which could help us to understand how blended families manage their relation- ships. Blended families are also developing new types of kinship connection and creating new difficulties and possibilities through remar- riage after divorce. Members of these families are developing their own ways of adjusting to the relatively uncharted circumstances in which they find themselves. Some authors today speak of ©) . mean: ing that the two housel ice still comprise one single family group fon account of the shared responsibility for raising children, holds which form afterPAMILINS AND INTIMATE RELATIONSHIPS tn the face of such rich and often confits: WHR familial vansformations, perhaps the MOST appropriate conclusion to be drawn bs 4 simple one: although mattinges are broken UD by divorce, family relationships continue, Especially where children are involved, many fies persist despite the reconstructed family connections brought into being through remarriage. From your own experience, are blended families accepted as ‘normal’ in modern societies? What new Problems, issues and opportunities might arise for children growing up in these families? Cohabitation ‘on = when two people live together inasexualrelationshipwithout beingmarried~ has become increasingly widespread in the developed countries. Rather than focusing on marriage, today it may be more appropriate to speak of coupling and uncoupling, as we do when discussing the experience of divorce. A growing number of couples in committed long-term relationships choose not to marry but to reside together and raise children. It is also the case that many older people choose to cohabit following a divorce rather than orin advance of remarrying, Across Europe, cohabitation was previ- ously regarded as somewhat scandalous and attracted a social stigma. Until 1979, the UK General Household Survey - the main source of data on British households - did not even include a question on cohabitation. But, among young people in Britain and wider Europe, attitudes to cohabitation are changing quite rapidly. Presented with the statement that ‘It is alright for a couple to live together without intending to get married’, 88 per cent of British people aged between eighteen and ‘twenty-four in 2004 agreed, while only 40 per cent of respondents aged sixty-five and over did so (ONS 2004b). In recent decades, the numbey enand women shating a fig Hed a Notsepae risen sharply. Only 4 per cent ou hag born in the 19208 cohabited ang yg "ey, of those botn in the 1940s did go, jy ey women born in the 19608 the prong almost half, By 2001-2, the Proper is cohabiting unmarried women and mgt of the age of sixty was 28 per cent and yen respectively (ONS 200%b). The preyghet cohabitation was highest for womer between twenty-five and twenty-nine Se for men aged between thirty and thny Although cohabitation has become popular, analysis ofresearch datastuggesi marriage tends to be more enduring Ua ried couples who live together are three yy times more likely t0 split up than those: are married. 7 1.2001, of younger adults aged wen, sng to thiry-four, 39 per cent in Sweden yet unmarried and cohabiting, 32 per cen Denmark, 31 per cent in France and 39 per cent in Finland. Sizeable numbers had as, cohabited previously. Young adults often fing themselves living together because they dei into cohabitation rather than making ¢ calculated plan to do so. Two people who are already having a sexual relationship spend more time together and eventually give up one of theit homes. Young people living together tend to anticipate getting martied at some point, but not necessarily to thei current partner. Only a minority of such couples pool their finances while cohabit. ing, Cohabitation in most countries seems to be primarily an experimental stage before marriage, although the length of cohabita tion prior to marriage is increasing and more couples are choosing it as an alternative to mattiage. In this respect we may expect more young people to experience cohabitation in the future compared with their parents generation. More suetying singl Ssdying single _Seving sing! Recent trends in European household compo- sition raise the question as to whether we are becoming a community of single people. Thesa pnneren (2008) arenes that the UK has f yosa Manage ofthe bean pole family. mer goats that the fanny heusnotd is tof anetwork: of an relahons that | pe or naly consists of several generations | inom lagely because people ate tivng longer ‘ee Eg tha, athe age of My, tee fits of Sm ux population have a least one parent el eo and st over a third are grandparents, share is also aise in the number of four- veration families ~ families that include great- + grandchildren. Tie the ‘vertical’ links between family © generations are extended by increasing life ancy, s0 the ‘horizontal’ links within erations are weakening, as divorce rates eee fertlty rates fall and people have fewer Guldren, Brannen therefore characterizes Sontemporary families as long and thin 'bean- je structures’ (see figure 105) ‘rannen found that grandparents are mncreasinaly providing intergenerational services, particularly informal childcare for their grandchuldren, Demand for intergenerational wet one Pl The family tree Davi marries Jill June marries Philip Colin, marries Sally Lucy Matthew Families nel tattiate etutianships Support to particularly high amoney sinale parent famtins, where of ‘leo Provide emotional support nt inwes of need such ar during adivotce In num, the prvot generation sandwiched betworn older one Youncer generations, will often become carers for thet parents (as they become elderly), theit children and perhaps even ther grandchildren. Bengtson's (2001) recearch in the USA found that more people are becoming volved in extended relationships as grandchildren oF grandparents, while qreat-qrandparenthood is also becoming more widely experienced As older social structures of class, religion and marriage become weaker and less constraining on individuals, one consequence seems to be, paradoxically, the strengthening of multigenerational family bonds. As ‘multigenerational 'co-surnvorship’ increases and people spend more years in effective relationships with parents and grandparents, so family stability and continuity is actually enhanced. Bengtson also counters the stereotype that older people are a drain lor qioneraion¢ ‘The family bean-pole Stephanie Figure 10.5 ‘The family tree and the family bean-pole Source; Brannen (2003), 47