Notes on Social Institutions

SOCIAL INSTITUTIONS
I. Introduction to social institutions
A. Social institutions:
Are normative structures that get the "work" of society done, the central activities of the society. In general these activities center around the family, education, the economy, the polity and religion. In an earlier period of human social development most of these activities were bounded within the family or kinship structure. With the passage of time the structure of the society and the way in which these activities are carried out has meant an increasing separation of these central activities. As we discuss each of the institutional structures separately we will see how the separation has influenced and changed the nature of the institutions themselves. Watch for these 'connections' and 'disconnections' in the following sections.
Are conservative, conserving by very nature. Since these structures pass on the values and expectations as to how to behave in certain arenas, they are by definition conservative and supportive of the past. The institutional arrangements can be seen as very general normative patterns, sets of rules that provide the members of society with guidelines as to how they should behave in the specified context. In our analysis of institutions we will present examples of families, of schools, of religion, of the work place and of polities. In each instance we will begin with some idea of the 'ideal' structure, often this will be an assumed standard or definition of the institution. The ideal is then compared with the reality to help us to understand what is happening in each of these central activities. For example, the news media (magazines, newspapers, radio and television) are full of discussions of how the family is disappearing or failing. Although attractive as headline grabbers such discussions assume the ideal often without stating it or relating that ideal to the social context in which it developed.
SOCIAL INSTITUTIONS:THE FAMILY
I. Family as an institution
A. principal source of social control
B. primary agent of socialization
C. functions:
1. reproduction (child bearing) and initial socializing agent
2. economic support of members:
Family as consumption and production unit. Prior to the industrial revolution, the family produced what it consumed, in the 20th century the unit has increasingly become a consuming unit exclusively, that is, the unit produces virtually nothing of what it consumes.
Ask yourselves what this change from production / consumption unit to mostly consumption means in the way that the family functions, acts in the day-to-day routine. What do these changes mean for the role of the wife in the family, what about the value, use and need for children? One way to begin to present this is to list the things that the family needs in order to maintain itself, to survive. Then imagine each family producing those things that it needs for day to day use for itself -- by production here we mean actually making all of those things.
When the activities and roles in the family change the relationships within the family change as well. The purpose of children changes dramatically, the link between the spouses also changes. Talcott Parsons describes the manner in which the role of women within the family unit has changed from one of wife, mother and homemaker to one of companion, confidant and hostess.
These changes have implications for the divorce rates, how children are treated within the family today compared to the 18th and 19th Centuries. Discuss some of these changes among yourselves.
3. emotional support
Because the family is often 'isolated' much greater pressure is on the individuals in the family unit to find emotional support from the immediate unit in a way that was not characteristics of the past. Earlier family structures had relatives and friends outside the immediate family that were available in time of crisis or passing irritations. These family members and friends could be counted on to help absorb some of the pain that occurred as well as share in the joys. Today's middle class nuclear family is often isolated from immediate family members and when the family have been moved about by work demands, the number of close friends is severely limited. These broad social conditions have tended to turn the family in on itself for these kinds of supports. In many instances the immediate members do not have the skills or experience to deal with the range of problems. When this occurs the problems spill over into the school (child abuse, poor nutrition, absence of supervision), to the work place (absenteeism, inattention) and finally to the welfare system (foster care, child and spouse abuse intervention programs, etc.). Note that the entire welfare system is a response to the fact that many family units no longer have local resources to which they can turn (extended family, friends, churches, community charities).
II. concepts:
A. nuclear family:
parents and own children (natural or adopted). This is the basic human social unit. At one time it consisted always of a father, mother and their children. This nuclear family was very likely located in a larger web of relationships within the community -- other family members (aunts, uncles, grandparents, cousins and so forth), lifelong friends of both sexes and of all ages, significant others in the community: teachers, priests, ministers, politicians, business leaders. With the mobility of the modern family many of these lifelong links have broken down or have been obscured by other more immediate and transient relationships. Among them work associates that come and go, classmates that are here for a few years and then off to another part of the country or world, casual friends met in a bar on the far side of town, peers from a few blocks away whose background may be quite different from your own and so forth. These transients links weaken or obliterate the traditional links within the community.
In addition the nuclear family has taken a distinctly different character with the changing lifestyles of contemporary society. Single parent families are much more common now than in the past (either male or female headed), recombined families are also common (hers, his and ours) and in rare instances same sex couples with children. These variant nuclear family structures contribute to the isolation that I introduced above and to the perception that the family is disappearing from the contemporary scene.
This is an issue of continuing and heated debate. What are your views on these changes and their implications for our social system? Do you think that it is the family by itself that is creating these conditions? Share them in the discussion topic.
B. extended, joint, stem and branch:
Various forms of multi-generation families. Several very general types are found in one form or another in most societies. For a very thorough discussion of these kinds of family structures you should take a course in the anthropology of the family.
The extended family is the most general. The concept does not specify any particular kind of structure or relationship among members other than some kind of link recognized by marriage or blood ties. In America when we speak of large, extended families we usually are talking about several generations often sharing a single household (grandparents, adult children, aunts and uncles, children). In some traditional kinds of sub-cultural groups the members of the extended family need not be in the same house, they are often in the same local community, next door or just down the block. A good many immigrant families (all of us, by the way) were characterized by this kind of extended family in their first few years of residency in the United States (after significant numbers were established in the new communities). They could draw upon the resources of one another in time of need or crisis. Herb Gans describes this sort of life style in The Urban Villagers about the Italians in Boston Massachusetts. Gerald Suttles describes similar life styles in his Social Organization of A Slum, an analysis of the neighborhoods in contemporary Chicago.
Joint is characteristic of the India family, in which cousins, aunts and uncles are included in the immediate extended family household. Stem / branch is an Asian, specifically Japanese, extended family structure that focuses upon the father, his sons (especially first son) and children. The Branch is often started by second and third sons, eventually establishing a new stem family. The branch family maintains some links with the original stem family, but with time becomes increasingly autonomous. In such formal family structure an elder has the decision making power. That elder may be either a man or a woman depending upon the cultural background of the group.
C. family of orientation, of procreation:
These terms relate to the family defined in terms of the "Ego," that is, you. Your family of orientation is the family into which you were born, your parents, and siblings. Your family of procreation is the family that you will create when you marry and have children.
IV. Change in the family
A. The Family Past and Present
The discussion here is derived from the presentation made by Stark comparing the families from the 15th and 16th Centuries with the present. As you read these notes and the presentation by Stark, keep in mind that we have a tendency to believe that the family in the past was ideal, that people were loved and supported by this large, all-encompassing family. As with many ideals it is more myth than reality. The family of today is in many ways similar to those of the past, but notice that there are some very striking differences as well.
1. Demographic characteristics: traditional and contemporary
First note that the ordinary family in the past was small, with most children out of the household by the time that they were 12. Many families consisted of a single parent, the average marriage in the past lasted about 10 years. Life was harsh and people died young, thus the short duration of marriages. Please keep in mind that the ten years is an average -- many marriages did indeed last longer than this. The household often included outsiders, strangers, sometimes other people's children taken in as apprentices. Although there were large numbers of births in a given unit, the actual number of children was often small. Children also tended to have little value and importance other than what they could contribute to the economic survival of the family. In many instance children were seen as a necessary burden.
Today's 'ordinary family' is also small. As we noted above it is most likely to be a nuclear family consisting of a couple and their young children. The number of children present is small -- usually 2. Divorce has replaced death as the principal cause of breakup of the nuclear family. Finally, children are not as important economically. However, the smaller number of children in today's family are probably more highly prized than was the case in the past. Furthermore these children are likely to be present for a far longer period than in the past -- at least 17-18 years compared to 10 or 12.
2. Cultural characteristics: traditional and past
In the early family the relationship between husband and wife was usually one of economic necessity. She needed him to provide the necessary things for survival -- an income or produce from the farm, shelter and so on. He needed her to run the household -- prepare the meals, produce clothing, help in the storage of food and so forth. The key element of the relationship is that of economic survival. This is not to say that emotional ties did not exist and that these were not quite strong, but to emphasize that these were often secondary to the economic purposes. Of course, if the family was to continue into the future, the production and care of children was also of importance. The relationship to these children was often casual. Both husband and wife tended to find the emotional support and confirmation in same sex peer groups. The women in the social groups associated with their religion, as well as their contemporaries in the village. The men found their links with their pals at the local pub. Gossip was exchanged and developed in these same sex peer groupings.
Today men and women marry for 'romantic' reasons, not for economic ones. They fall in love and pledge to support one another till death. The problem is that death comes far later today that it did 2-300 years ago -- the commitment is for 50 or 60 years, not 15 or 20. Although a wife may expect her husband to provide for her and her children economically, this is a minor component. More than likely both men and women expect companionship, intellectual stimulation, conversation and other social exchanges. There is also a greater expectation of shared duties -- inside and outside the household. She may work to help support the family, he may take an increased role in caring for the children. Finally there is an increased expectation of commitment between the spouses and for quality in the relationship. These very expectations and the pressures of the society may doom such expectations to failure or make them difficult to achieve and therefore doom the partnership to divorce!
3. Economic and social role of the family
Historically, nearly everything that the ordinary family consumed it had to produce. The net result is that the family was both a production and consumption unit within the society. This simply means that if we ate it, we grew it. If we wore it, some one within the family made it. If we lived in it, we built it. With the increase in the size of the modern society and with the increased movement of the population to the city, it has become increasingly difficult to make all of the things that one consumes. The modern factory with its ability to mass produce large quantities of clothing, food, furniture and so forth at very low cost has made it unnecessary to produce these things within the household. Furthermore, these things do cost money and require people to be employed for wages outside the home, so the time was not available to produce them.
The net result is that today very little of what is consumed within the household is produced there. The family has shifted from a production/consumption unit to a consumption unit. These changes extend to children. In the past the child was considered an economic asset, contributing to the well-being of the family. Today the child is another consumption article, an economic liability. Notice that we discuss the child today in terms of how much it is going to cost to raise this child -- how many 10s of thousands will be spent on educating, clothing and feeding him or her. A hundred years ago the child was seen in terms of the dollars he or she would contribute to the family.
Finally, recall the emotional support mentioned above in a number of contexts. This is seen as a right, something that a parent or spouse must provide. Often the nuclear family is somewhat isolated from others, particularly from other kin. If someone cares for me, it is going to have to be someone from this immediate family circle. If one of us is burdened with a demanding job, then that person may not be able to make that kind of commitment or to provide the support. The person needing the support may have to turn to others outside the immediate family unit. Children will find this necessary as well.
How do you think these conditions relate to divorce, remarriage and single parenthood? Do they have any implications for 'teen gangs,' street peer groups? Share your ideas in the discussion topic.
B. Family stability and instability
1. Violence and abuse (a new phenomena?)
The media today make a big deal out of how violent the family has become. We are bombarded by accounts of the battered woman and the beaten child (the O.J. Simpson trial of 1995 is only one example). If we were to draw our conclusions just from the newspapers, TV and magazines we would come to believe that this kind of attack upon members of the family is a recent and dangerous phenomena. Each of us should be asking ourselves if this is indeed the case. What about violence in the past? Did it occur, if so how frequently and to whom? Why is there an apparent increase in the present? How have the changes in the roles and status of men, women and children affected these perceptions and realities? (Search the internet for discussion of spouse and child abuse, see if there is any mention of such occurrences in the past.)
As you think about these conditions and issues remember that until very recently a wife and her children were considered to be the property of the husband and father, to do with as he pleased. It was not appropriate for the community to intervene, although they most assuredly did so in small communities where the abused person could escape to relatives or friends for respite. As you discuss and think about this issue consider what role if any the official community (police, judiciary, social services) has in protecting the individual whether man, woman or child. Should the 'state' be able to take a child away from her parents? Should the 'state' arrest the offending husband or wife and remove her or him from the home? When do we intervene and reduce the integrity of the family?
Finally, we should note that the increase in the reported instances of child and spouse abuse is due as much as anything to our increased awareness of the problem and of our tendency to intervene in severe cases. Abuse of this type often occurred in the past but was simply ignored. Today we make every effort to help people with these problems and to take them out of the most severely abusive situations. Counseling and support groups are available in the community as a way of helping the individual families overcome the problem and to keep the family intact and functioning.
2. Divorce.
Since the end of WW II there has been a steady increase in the number of divorces and in the divorce rate. As we have changed our view of divorce and the circumstances under which a couple may obtain a divorce it has become increasingly easy for marriages to be broken in this manner. The net result is an increasing number of children living in a single parent family (usually the mother) or in a 'mixed' family -- his, hers and theirs. Again the media, many religious groups and politicians decry the demise of the family indicated by these changes and by the divorce statistics. One of particular note is the oft repeated observation that "half of all marriages will end in divorce."
This has become a part of our common knowledge -- but how accurately does it reflect reality? All of us know people who are divorced, we may even come from a family in which divorce has occurred so we do not question the statistics and statements we see in the newspaper and hear on the television.
The facts are quite different from this picture. First, take a look at the proportion of the respondents in the 'Doing Sociology' that are currently married (this is all adults over the age of 18) -- you will find that the statistic is very interesting (54% are currently married -- looks as if the folks may be correct!!, but 11% are widowed and only 15% are divorced, 20% have never married). If you work with these statistics for a bit you will see that the preferred state for adults is that of marriage (65%). Other statistics show similar phenomena -- by the time we reach the age of 35, about 95% of us have been married at least once.
Then where do the critics get this notion that half of the marriages end in divorce? Well, for starters the current statistics do show that the marriage rate is about 10 per thousand population and the divorce rate is 5 per thousand population. AHA!! A divorce rate of 5 is half of the marriage rate -- but hold on a minute: who is eligible to marry and how many are there? Does that affect the 'crude marriage rate?' Who is eligible to divorce and how many are there? Does that affect the 'crude divorce rate?' (A crude rate is the number of occurrences of an event divided by the total population, a refined or specific rate is the number of occurrences divided by the population exposed to the risk of occurrence.) How would you adjust these figures? What would you do to make the rates specific to the relevant populations?
The Scientific American magazine has a summary article and map showing the proportions of people divorced in each county of the the United States. Read the accompanying article to see soem of the controversy about divorce in the U.S.
The questions posed here can be answered by going to the Statistical Abstract of the United States, Vital Statistics (see in particular Table 145, p. 35) where refined rates are presented.
In conclusion -- Americans are more likely to marry and to marry early (although this latter is changing). These rates are far higher than in virtually any other developed country of the world. This can be interpreted to mean that many people enter into marriages who should never have been married in the first place. It also means that until recently many individuals were entering marriage before they were financially or emotionally ready for the responsibilities marriage entails. As the age at first marriage has gone up (people are waiting longer to marry) and the proportion who actually do marry has decreased, the divorce rate has stabilized (it has been at about 5/1000 population for the past 15 years or so). So the future does not look so bleak when we consider these trends.
D. The future of the family
1. Trends in the 80s and 90s
Keep in mind that the divorce rates that rose so rapidly in the 50s, 60s and 70s have begun to stabilize. Although divorce does occur, many remarry and are successful in these new marriages. Keep in mind the emphasis on mediation and counseling, fixing up the abusive partner (getting counseling to stop the abuse). Child abuse intervention and counseling and child care laws, parenting ( term unheard of in the 50s and 60s) have come into being to help parents deal with their children.
These changes suggest an increase in the quality of the families that remain intact, an actual increase in good families. The point can be and often is made that the 'divorced' unit is a better quality unit, if poorer, than the fighting, conflict ridden, forced to stay together unit.
2. Death of the nuclear family?
Recent census and other sources of statistics show that the household size has been declining greatly since the growth years of the late 40s and the 50s. In part the decline is due to the fact that people live longer now and so are more likely to live as a couple without children or in the very late years as a widow or widower. However, a good part of the change can be attributed to the increase in single parent families. Some of the increase in single parent families is artificial -- that is, it begins from a very small base so that small increases in numbers result in enormous percentage increases. The percentage increase are what tend to be reported in the media and in the discussions while the actual numbers are ignored. The percentage increases are jazzier!
In addition to the rise in single parent families there is also a significant increase in the POSSLQs (persons of opposite sex sharing living quarters, a term dreamed up by the census). Such an increase in 'living in sin' is taken as an indicator of a reluctance to engage in marriage and to create the typical family unit.
Much of the concern for the disappearance of the family can be traced to these kinds of changes in household living arrangements that have given rise to the sharp decrease in reported household size. These are almost always statistical artifacts, they can be understood when we examine the processes that are creating the statistics: as we mentioned there is an increase in single parent families and in POSSLQs, but there is also an increase in the number of 'empty nests' created when young people move out of their parent's household and set up their own, individual household. As we (the population) grow older, there is an increase in the number of elderly households (mostly widows). The empty nest comes at an earlier time since there are fewer children born over a shorter period of time.
In conclusion, the decreasing household size in the past two decades does not necessarily mean the demise of the family. Review of the process creating the decreased household size will clearly show this to be the case.
3. Alternatives.
There is no question that the family is changing. However, we must also keep in mind that it is in the family that we have all received much of our early and primary socialization. This suggests to the sociologists that some form of the family will persist into the foreseeable future. However, the form of that family may be quite different from what I experienced (mother, father, a brother and a sister, lots of aunts, uncles and cousins living relatively close by). There will be more freedom and flexibility in the family unit - it may consist of a couple and their children or it may just consist of the couple. It may also be a couple of the same sex with their adopted children. Or it may be a group of similarly aged people and their children. Whatever the exact form the family is likely to continue to exist so long as human beings maintain communities. There must be some way to efficiently socialize the children, to care for and nurture them into functioning adults in the community of the future.