The Sociology Series: Part 2- Family

In a sociology course I am enrolled in, we are discussing the family through a global perspective, which got me thinking about family in the micro-perspective. I set out to answer these questions:

Why is the family so important for people and societies?  What do we learn in families? What forms to families take? What about the alternative family forms, such as same sex marriage? What are the social and political implications for society of legalizing same sex marriages?

 

A family is the smallest unit of society in which we arrange ourselves. We are born into families , we live our lives influenced by the cultural values  we learn from our families, and when we depart, we are mourned by our families.  As human beings, we connect to other humans during  the course of our lives through alliances known as relationships. The first relationships that we build in life however are relationships with our families whom we live  with and interact with every day. It is often found in psychology that our adults lives are immensely affected by both relevant and seemingly irrelevant experiences from our childhood. During our childhood, we learn from and in our families, how we will live our lives 'outside'. Based on the relationships that we create within our families, we seek out either similar or dissimilar  ones with other members of other families  to whom we have something different{from their familial relationships} to offer and vice versa. These families and the relationships between them, be they economic or social band together to form societies. Without our families to serve as the 'base camp' for cultural values and human relationship, integration with other members of society would be difficult, and perhaps even impossible.

Family forms have taken different patterns over time, although all the present  ones have existed before in historic times. The nuclear family is perhaps the most common, and is defined by a mother, father and their children. The nuclear family sometimes is defined by a single parent, and in the modern world, perhaps by two parents of the same sex. While there is resistance to consider a family with same-sex parents a nuclear family, I believe that a nuclear family is structurally characterized by the presence of two parents, regardless of gender. The principal characteristic is that the group is united by parenthood. By default of the definition of two parents, nuclear families are characterized by polygamy, which is the marriage ot only one spouse. The extended family is still common in many traditional societies today, and is defined by a grouping of additional relatives such as  aunts and grandparents with the nuclear family.

Polygamy, the marriage of more than one spouse is a cultural aspect  that has become less socially acceptable in the modern world, especially with the progress made on women's rights. This is because polygamous marriages were often found to be patriarchal and ignorant of the right of a woman to choose. The polygamous family does not easily fall into the category of either nuclear or extended family.

With the creation of new families over times, rules for descent are usually established in families and societies. In  patrilineal descent, inheritance is transferred between father and son. In matrilineal descent, inheritance is transferred from a mother's brother to the children of that brother's sister. According to Dr. Nelson's Sociology in the Global Perspective, both systems of decent have disadvantages to the members of the family .The patrilineal descent risks the end of the line of descent if there are no male heirs, and the matrilineal descent places too much pressure on fathers.

Democratic movements such as gay rights movements and increasing individualism across the world have led to alternative forms of family organization. Those who no longer view marriage as a necessary event to signify their long-standing relationship are  choosing more and more  to cohabitate. Those in homosexual relationships  choose to cohabitate anyway because the law does not allow them to officially pronounce their relationship with a marriage. The increase in divorce rates over the past two decades may also have led some to simply cohabitate, perhaps because it gives them a sense of more personal freedom.

The subject of same-sex marriage is the most popular in today's discussion of family life. The proponents believe that two parents of the same sex can provide the same quality of child-rearing that two heterosexual parents can. Opponents counter that this is untrue, that two parents of different sexes have different and important values to offer to child-rearing. I believe that good parents, regardless of sex will provide the quality child-rearing that the child needs. It is the personality of the parent, not their sex, that determines whether they will provide their child a well-rounded and healthy  childhood. Legalizing same-sex marriage would  reduce the tension and resulting violence against brought about by the same-sex relationships  debates, It is also likely to increase social tolerance of individuals towards those who may not agree with their ideals which can make for more harmonious social relations. This harmony could also translate to the  political area, where once legalized{same-sex marriage} , the focus on same-sex debates could be shifted to issues that are more pertinent to the basic needs of every member of society. The basic needs of a person have been brought under threat by the economic crisis, and it is important that this issue be resolved because the livelihood of many is at stake.

 Sociology in Global Perspective, Lynn Nelson ISBN: 0-9663792-0-9

The Clash of Civilizations

My review of pages 1-15 of the article :

The Clash of Civilizations
by Samuel P. Huntington
later aggregated to this book

For one and a half centuries after the Peace of Westphalia created the modern international system, wars and conflicts were engaged by monarchs, emperors, and other such heads of state. These leaders were motivated by personal or familial desires such as continuity of ruling and expansion of territory. As nation-states developed, conflicts were engaged in my peoples, rather than individual leaders. WWI emphasized the varying ideologies in the world's nation-states, and as such, once again the battle lines shifted to reflect ideological differences, culminating in WWII and continuing on to the Cold War. Post-Cold War, the international political arena began to include the over-looked non-Western nations, and in 1993, Samuel Huntington hypothesized that the basis of conflict in the all-inclusive world would now be culture. Nation-states will continue to be the guiding structures, as compared to a reversal to conflicts between national leaders; but varying civilizations will cause global conflict.

Huntington defines a civilization as a cultural entity which generally has similarities with other cultures within a relatively defined geographical form, such as a nation, but yet differing from relatively foreign culture . For example, he points out the minor differences, but great commonalities between Northern Italian and Southern Italian cultures versus Italians and Germans. Short of identifying ourselves as members of certain species, the broadest cultural entities to which we belong, are our civilizations. These civilizations are of varying sizes and just as their members, will be dynamic, as individuals redefine themselves.

Huntington states that the reason civilizations will clash will be the interaction between the seven or eight major civilizations, namely Western, Confucian, Japanese, Islamic, Hindu, Slavic-Orthodox, Latin American and possibly African civilizations. To explain why the differences among civilizations will take center stage, Huntington first explains that these differences are real and basic. By this, he means that members of each civilization can relate to each elemental difference, and can define themselves at least somewhat, based on that element. These elements could be religion, culture, language and others , all tied by the fact that they took years to develop, and thus are unlikely to be abandoned soon. Although differences may not necessarily translate into conflict, they often do, and according to the article, civilizational differences have resulted in the most prolonged and violent wars of time.

The second reason why civilizations will become more prominent is that people from different civilizations are coming into ever closer contact and this more intimate contact will bring into focus the inherent differences. While Huntington does not explicitly state it, I believe globalization is the force responsible for the more intimate contact between civilizations. This view could present a new perspective of discussing globalization , since current discussion tends to focus on either the diversifying or homogenizing effects of globalization.

The third propeller of the clash of civilizations is what is referred to as "economic modernization" and the ongoing social change in various parts of the world, both of which Huntington expects to weaken the nation-state as a basis of identity. In place of nation-stated, people will are themselves by religion, an element that is far more transcendental to most people than nation-state identity.

The fourth propeller is essentially the clash between the Western and non-Western nations. At the time of writing this article, Huntington believed the West was at the peak of its power, and simultaneously, there were 'grass roots' movements in various civilizations across the world. The combination of one civilization being at its peak, with the increasing fervor of other civilizations to affect the world in new ways, would lead to a momentous crossroad in the power to affect.

The fifth propeller of the clash harks back to the first one, which is based on the high personal regard and commitment that lends itself to cultural identity , versus economic status or political ideology. The last propeller is the rise of economic regionalism evident over a decade ago, and more evident today in the European Union and American Union.

Huntington predicts that the clash of civilizations will occur at two levels; the macro and micro levels. At the micro level, specific groups along civilization fault lines will conflict about exactly where the lines are drawn, while at the macro level, the dominant nation-states in different civilizations will battle for the international spotlight. Thus far, there have been conflicts along fault lines such as ; the West vs. Islam, Protestant vs. Catholic Europeans Christianity vs. Islam. In Africa, the fault lines lie between Christianity vs Islam vs Animism. One important distinction made between the contact within civilizations is the violence that abounds historically. Ethnic cleansing in Eurasia is a large source of cultural violence and continues to be so today.

In the article, Muslim Indian author M. J. Akbar predicts that the next the clash of civilizations and battle for a new world order will be instigated by Islamic confrontation of the West. Considering esoteric knowledge, I am not convinced that the Islamic world is the instigator, but rather the vehicle of confrontation ,which already began with the attacks of 9/11.

Find the article here