sociology assignment on marriage

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

Chapter 14. Marriage and Family

Learning objectives, 14.1. what is marriage what is a family.

• Describe society’s current understanding of family
• Recognize changes in marriage and family patterns
• Differentiate between lines of decent and residence

14.2. Variations in Family Life

• Recognize variations in family life
• Understand the prevalence of single parents, cohabitation, same-sex couples, and unmarried individuals
• Discuss the social impact of changing family structures

14.3. Challenges Families Face

• Understand the social and interpersonal impact of divorce
• Describe the social and interpersonal impact of family abuse

Introduction to Marriage and Family

Christina and James met in college and have been dating for more than five years. For the past two years, they have been living together in a condo they purchased jointly. While Christina and James were confident in their decision to enter into a commitment like a 20-year mortgage, they are unsure if they want to enter into marriage . The couple had many discussions about marriage and decided that it just did not seem necessary. Wasn’t it only a piece of paper? And didn’t half of all marriages end in divorce?

Neither Christina nor James had seen much success with marriage while growing up. Christina was raised by a single mother. Her parents never married, and her father has had little contact with the family since she was a toddler. Christina and her mother lived with her maternal grandmother, who often served as a surrogate parent. James grew up in a two-parent household until age seven, when his parents divorced. He lived with his mother for a few years, and then later with his mother and her boyfriend until he left for college. James remained close with his father who remarried and had a baby with his new wife.

Recently, Christina and James have been thinking about having children and the subject of marriage has resurfaced. Christina likes the idea of her children growing up in a traditional family, while James is concerned about possible marital problems down the road and negative consequences for the children should that occur. When they shared these concerns with their parents, James’s mom was adamant that the couple should get married. Despite having been divorced and having a live-in boyfriend of 15 years, she believes that children are better off when their parents are married. Christina’s mom believes that the couple should do whatever they want but adds that it would “be nice” if they wed. Christina and James’s friends told them, married or not married, they would still be a family.

Christina and James’s scenario may be complicated, but it is representative of the lives of many young couples today, particularly those in urban areas (Useem 2007). Statistics Canada (2012) reports that the number of unmarried, common-law couples grew by 35 percent between 2001 and 2011 to make up a total of 16.7 percent of all families in Canada. Cohabitating, but unwed, couples account for 16.7 percent of all families in Canada. Some may never choose to wed (Jayson 2008). With fewer couples marrying, the traditional Canadian family structure is becoming less common. Nevertheless, although the percentage of traditional married couples has declined as a proportion of all families, at 67 percent of all families, it is still by far the predominant family structure.

Marriage and family are key structures in most societies. While the two institutions have historically been closely linked in Canadian culture, their connection is becoming more complex. The relationship between marriage and family is an interesting topic of study to sociologists.

What is marriage? Different people define it in different ways. Not even sociologists are able to agree on a single meaning. For our purposes, we will define marriage as a legally recognized social contract between two people, traditionally based on a sexual relationship and implying a permanence of the union. In creating an inclusive definition, we should also consider variations, such as whether a legal union is required (think of “common- law” marriage and its equivalents), or whether more than two people can be involved (consider polygamy). Other variations on the definition of marriage might include whether spouses are of opposite sexes or the same sex, and how one of the traditional expectations of marriage (to produce children) is understood today.

Sociologists are interested in the relationship between the institution of marriage and the institution of family because, historically, marriages are what create a family, and families are the most basic social unit upon which society is built. Both marriage and family create status roles that are sanctioned by society.

So what is a family? A husband, a wife, and two children—maybe even a pet—served as the model for the traditional Canadian family for most of the 20th century. But what about families that deviate from this model, such as a single-parent household or a homosexual couple without children? Should they be considered families as well?

The question of what constitutes a family is a prime area of debate in family sociology, as well as in politics and religion. Social conservatives tend to define the family in terms of structure with each family member filling a certain role (like father, mother, or child). Sociologists, on the other hand, tend to define family more in terms of the manner in which members relate to one another than on a strict configuration of status roles. Here, we will define family as a socially recognized group (usually joined by blood, marriage, or adoption) that forms an emotional connection and serves as an economic unit of society. Sociologists identify different types of families based on how one enters into them. A family of orientation refers to the family into which a person is born. A family of procreation describes one that is formed through marriage. These distinctions have cultural significance related to issues of lineage.

Drawing on the three sociological paradigms we have been studying in this introduction to sociology, the sociological understanding of what constitutes a family can be explained by symbolic interactionism, critical sociology, and functionalism. Symbolic interactionist theories indicate that families are groups in which participants view themselves as family members and act accordingly. In other words, families are groups in which people come together to form a strong primary group connection, maintaining emotional ties to one another over a long period of time. Such families could potentially include groups of close friends as family. Critical sociology emphasizes that the forms that define the “typical” family unit are not independent of historical changes in the economic structures and relations of power in society. The typical large, extended family of the rural, agriculture-based economy 100 years ago in Canada was much different from the single breadwinner-led “nuclear” family of the Fordist economy following World War II and different again from today’s families who have to respond to economic conditions of precarious employment, fluid modernity, and norms of gender and sexual equality.

In addition, the functionalist perspective views families as groups that perform vital roles for society—both internally (for the family itself) and externally (for society as a whole). Families provide for one another’s physical, emotional, and social well-being. Parents care for and socialize children, a function that prepares new members of society for their future roles. While interactionism helps us to understand the subjective experience of belonging to a “family” and critical sociology focuses on how families configure themselves in response to political-economic pressures and changes, functionalism illuminates the many purposes of families and their role in the maintenance of a balanced society (Parsons and Bales 1956). We will go into more detail about how these theories apply to family in later sections.

Challenges Families Face

North Americans are somewhat divided when it comes to determining what does and what does not constitute a family. In a 2010 survey conducted by Ipsos Reid, participants were asked what they believed constituted a family unit. Eighty percent of respondents agreed that a husband, wife, and children constitute a family. Sixty-six percent stated that a common-law couple with children still constitutes a family. The numbers drop for less traditional structures: a single mother and children (55 percent), a single father and children (54 percent), grandparents raising children (50 percent), common-law or married couples without children (46 percent), gay male couples with children (45 percent) (Postmedia News 2010). This survey revealed that children tend to be the key indicator in establishing “family” status: the percentage of individuals who agreed that unmarried couples constitute a family nearly doubled when children were added.

Another study also revealed that 60 percent of North Americans agreed that if you consider yourself a family, you are a family (a concept that reinforces an interactionist perspective) (Powell et al. 2010). Canadian statistics are based on the more inclusive definition of “census families.” Statistics Canada defines a census family as “composed of a married or common-law couple, with or without children, or of a lone parent living with at least one child in the same dwelling. Couples can be of the opposite sex or of the same sex” (Statistics Canada 2012). Census categories aside, sociologists would argue that the general concept of family is more diverse and less structured than in years past. Society has given more leeway to the design of a family making room for what works for its members (Jayson 2010).

Family is, indeed, a subjective concept, but it is a fairly objective fact that family (whatever one’s concept of it may be) is very important to North Americans. In a 2010 survey by Pew Research Center in Washington, D.C., 76 percent of adults surveyed stated that family is “the most important” element of their life—just 1 percent said it was “not important” (Pew Research Center 2010). It is also very important to society. American President Ronald Reagan notably stated, “The family has always been the cornerstone of American society. Our families nurture, preserve, and pass on to each succeeding generation the values we share and cherish, values that are the foundation of our freedoms” (Lee 2009). The dark side of this importance can also be seen in Reagan’s successful use of “family values” rhetoric to attack welfare mothers. His infamous “welfare queen” story about a black single mother in Chicago, who supposedly defrauded the government of $150,000 in welfare payments, was a complete fabrication that nevertheless “worked” politically because of social anxieties about the decline of the family. While the design of the family may have changed in recent years, the fundamentals of emotional closeness and support are still present. Most responders to the Pew survey stated that their family today is at least as close (45 percent) or closer (40 percent) than the family with which they grew up (Pew Research Center 2010).

Alongside the debate surrounding what constitutes a family is the question of what North Americans believe constitutes a marriage. Many religious and social conservatives believe that marriage can only exist between man and a woman, citing religious scripture and the basics of human reproduction as support. As Prime Minister Stephen Harper put it, “I have no difficulty with the recognition of civil unions for nontraditional relationships but I believe in law we should protect the traditional definition of marriage” ( Globe and Mail 2010). Social liberals and progressives, on the other hand, believe that marriage can exist between two consenting adults—be they a man and a woman, a woman and a woman, or a man and a man —and that it would be discriminatory to deny such a couple the civil, social, and economic benefits of marriage.

Marriage Patterns

With single parenting and cohabitation (when a couple shares a residence but not a marriage) becoming more acceptable in recent years, people may be less motivated to get married. In a recent survey, 39 percent of respondents answered “yes” when asked whether marriage is becoming obsolete (Pew Research Center 2010). The institution of marriage is likely to continue, but some previous patterns of marriage will become outdated as new patterns emerge. In this context, cohabitation contributes to the phenomenon of people getting married for the first time at a later age than was typical in earlier generations (Glezer 1991). Furthermore, marriage will continue to be delayed as more people place education and career ahead of “settling down.”

One Partner or Many?

North Americans typically equate marriage with monogamy , when someone is married to only one person at a time. In many countries and cultures around the world, however, having one spouse is not the only form of marriage. In a majority of cultures (78 percent), polygamy , or being married to more than one person at a time, is accepted (Murdock 1967), with most polygamous societies existing in northern Africa and east Asia (Altman and Ginat 1996). Instances of polygamy are almost exclusively in the form of polygyny. Polygyny refers to a man being married to more than one woman at the same time. The reverse, when a woman is married to more than one man at the same time, is called polyandry . It is far less common and only occurs in about 1 percent of the world’s cultures (Altman and Ginat 1996). The reasons for the overwhelming prevalence of polygamous societies are varied but they often include issues of population growth, religious ideologies, and social status.

While the majority of societies accept polygyny, the majority of people do not practise it. Often fewer than 10 percent (and no more than 25 to 35 percent) of men in polygamous cultures have more than one wife; these husbands are often older, wealthy, high-status men (Altman and Ginat 1996). The average plural marriage involves no more than three wives. Negev Bedouin men in Israel, for example, typically have two wives, although it is acceptable to have up to four (Griver 2008). As urbanization increases in these cultures, polygamy is likely to decrease as a result of greater access to mass media, technology, and education (Altman and Ginat 1996).

In Canada, polygamy is considered by most to be socially unacceptable and it is illegal. The act of entering into marriage while still married to another person is referred to as bigamy and is prohibited by Section 290 of the Criminal Code of Canada (Minister of Justice 2014). Polygamy in Canada is often associated with those of the Mormon faith, although in 1890 the Mormon Church officially renounced polygamy. Fundamentalist Mormons, such as those in the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (FLDS), on the other hand, still hold tightly to the historic Mormon beliefs and practices and allow polygamy in their sect.

The prevalence of polygamy among Mormons is often overestimated due to sensational media stories such as the prosecution of polygamous sect leaders in Bountiful, B.C., theYearning for Zion ranch raid in Texas in 2008, and popular television shows such as HBO’s Big Love and TLC’s Sister Wives . It is estimated that there are about 37,500 fundamentalist Mormons involved in polygamy in the United States, Canada, and Mexico, but that number has shown a steady decrease in the last 100 years (Useem 2007).

North American Muslims, however, are an emerging group with an estimated 20,000 practicing polygamy. Again, polygamy among North American Muslims is uncommon and occurs only in approximately 1 percent of the population (Useem 2007). For now polygamy among North American Muslims has gone fairly unnoticed by mainstream society, but like fundamentalist Mormons whose practices were off the public’s radar for decades, they may someday find themselves at the centre of social debate.

Residency and Lines of Descent

When considering their lineage, most Canadians look to both their father’s and mother’s sides. Both paternal and maternal ancestors are considered part of one’s family. This pattern of tracing kinship is called bilateral descent . Note that kinship , or one’s traceable ancestry, can be based on blood, marriage or adoption. Sixty percent of societies, mostly modernized nations, follow a bilateral descent pattern. Unilateral descent (the tracing of kinship through one parent only) is practised in the other 40 percent of the world’s societies, with high concentration in pastoral cultures (O’Neal 2006).

There are three types of unilateral descent:  patrilineal , which follows the father’s line only;  matrilineal , which follows the mother’s side only; and ambilineal , which follows either the father’s only or the mother’s side only, depending on the situation. In partrilineal societies, such as those in rural China and India, only males carry on the family surname. This gives males the prestige of permanent family membership while females are seen as only temporary members (Harrell 2001). North American society assumes some aspects of partrilineal decent. For instance, most children assume their father’s last name even if the mother retains her birth name.

In matrilineal societies, inheritance and family ties are traced to women. Matrilineal descent is common in Native American societies, notably the Crow and Cherokee tribes. In these societies, children are seen as belonging to the women and, therefore, one’s kinship is traced to one’s mother, grandmother, great grandmother, and so on (Mails 1996). In ambilineal societies, which are most common in Southeast Asian countries, parents may choose to associate their children with the kinship of either the mother or the father. This choice may be based on the desire to follow stronger or more prestigious kinship lines or on cultural customs such as men following their father’s side and women following their mother’s side (Lambert 2009).

Tracing one’s line of descent to one parent rather than the other can be relevant to the issue of residence. In many cultures, newly married couples move in with, or near to, family members. In a patrilocal residence system it is customary for the wife to live with (or near) her husband’s blood relatives (or family or orientation). Patrilocal systems can be traced back thousands of years. In a DNA analysis of 4,600-year-old bones found in Germany, scientists found indicators of patrilocal living arrangements (Haak et al. 2008). Patrilocal residence is thought to be disadvantageous to women because it makes them outsiders in the home and community; it also keeps them disconnected from their own blood relatives. In China, where patrilocal and patrilineal customs are common, the written symbols for maternal grandmother ( wáipá ) are separately translated to mean “outsider” and “women” (Cohen 2011).

Similarly, in matrilocal residence systems, where it is customary for the husband to live with his wife’s blood relatives (or her family of orientation), the husband can feel disconnected and can be labelled as an outsider. The Minangkabau people, a matrilocal society that is indigenous to the highlands of West Sumatra in Indonesia, believe that home is the place of women and they give men little power in issues relating to the home or family (Joseph and Najmabadi 2003). Most societies that use patrilocal and patrilineal systems are patriarchal, but very few societies that use matrilocal and matrilineal systems are matriarchal, as family life is often considered an important part of the culture for women, regardless of their power relative to men.

Stages of Family Life

As we have established, the concept of family has changed greatly in recent decades. Historically, it was often thought that most (certainly many) families evolved through a series of predictable stages. Developmental or “stage” theories used to play a prominent role in family sociology (Strong and DeVault 1992). Today, however, these models have been criticized for their linear and conventional assumptions as well as for their failure to capture the diversity of family forms. While reviewing some of these once-popular theories, it is important to identify their strengths and weaknesses.

The set of predictable steps and patterns families experience over time is referred to as the family life cycle . One of the first designs of the family life cycle was developed by Paul Glick in 1955. In Glick’s original design, he asserted that most people will grow up, establish families, rear and launch their children, experience an “empty nest” period, and come to the end of their lives. This cycle will then continue with each subsequent generation (Glick 1989). Glick’s colleague, Evelyn Duvall, elaborated on the family life cycle by developing these classic stages of family (Strong and DeVault 1992):

Table 14.1. Stage Theory. This table shows one example of how a “stage” theory might categorize the phases a family goes through.

The family life cycle was used to explain the different processes that occur in families over time. Sociologists view each stage as having its own structure with different challenges, achievements, and accomplishments that transition the family from one stage to the next. For example, the problems and challenges that a family experiences in Stage 1 as a married couple with no children are likely much different than those experienced in Stage 5 as a married couple with teenagers. The success of a family can be measured by how well they adapt to these challenges and transition into each stage. While sociologists use the family life cycle to study the dynamics of family over time, consumer and marketing researchers have used it to determine what goods and services families need as they progress through each stage (Murphy and Staples 1979).

As early “stage” theories have been criticized for generalizing family life and not accounting for differences in gender, ethnicity, culture, and lifestyle, less rigid models of the family life cycle have been developed. One example is the family life course , which recognizes the events that occur in the lives of families but views them as parting terms of a fluid course rather than in consecutive stages (Strong and DeVault 1992). This type of model accounts for changes in family development, such as the fact that today, childbearing does not always occur with marriage. It also sheds light on other shifts in the way family life is practised. Society’s modern understanding of family rejects rigid “stage” theories and is more accepting of new, fluid models. In fact contemporary family life has not escaped the phenomenon that Zygmunt Bauman calls fluid  (or liquid ) modernity , a condition of constant mobility and change in relationships (2000).

Making Connections: Sociology in the Real World

The evolution of television families.

Whether you grew up watching the Cleavers, the Waltons, the Huxtables, or the Simpsons, most of the iconic families you saw in television sitcoms included a father, a mother, and children cavorting under the same roof while comedy ensued. The 1960s was the height of the suburban American nuclear family on television with shows such as The Donna Reed Show and Father Knows Best . While some shows of this era portrayed single parents ( My Three Sons and Bonanza , for instance), the single status almost always resulted from being widowed, not divorced or unwed.

Although family dynamics in real North American homes were changing, the expectations for families portrayed on television were not. North America’s first reality show, An American Family (which aired on PBS in 1973) chronicled Bill and Pat Loud and their children as a “typical” American family. Cameras documented the typical coming and going of daily family life in true cinéma-vérité style. During the series, the oldest son, Lance, announced to the family that he was gay, and at the series’ conclusion, Bill and Pat decided to divorce. Although the Loud’s union was among the 30 percent of marriages that ended in divorce in 1973, the family was featured on the cover of the March 12 issue of Newsweek with the title “The Broken Family” (Ruoff 2002).

Less traditional family structures in sitcoms gained popularity in the 1980s with shows such as Diff’rent Strokes (a widowed man with two adopted African American sons) and One Day at a Time (a divorced woman with two teenage daughters). Still, traditional families such as those in Family Ties and The Cosby Show dominated the ratings. The late 1980s and the 1990s saw the introduction of the dysfunctional family. Shows such as Roseanne , Married with Children , and The Simpsons portrayed traditional nuclear families, but in a much less flattering light than those from the 1960s did (Museum of Broadcast Communications 2011).

Over the past 10 years, the nontraditional family has become somewhat of a tradition in television. While most situation comedies focus on single men and women without children, those that do portray families often stray from the classic structure: they include unmarried and divorced parents, adopted children, gay couples, and multigenerational households. Even those that do feature traditional family structures may show less traditional characters in supporting roles, such as the brothers in the highly rated shows Everybody Loves Raymond and Two and Half Men . Even wildly popular children’s programs as Disney’s Hannah Montana and The Suite Life of Zack & Cody feature single parents.

In 2009, ABC premiered an intensely nontraditional family with the broadcast of Modern Family . The show follows an extended family that includes a divorced and remarried father with one stepchild, and his biological adult children—one of who is in a traditional two-parent household, and the other who is a gay man in a committed relationship raising an adopted daughter. While this dynamic may be more complicated than the typical “modern” family, its elements may resonate with many of today’s viewers. “The families on the shows aren’t as idealistic, but they remain relatable,” states television critic Maureen Ryan. “The most successful shows, comedies especially, have families that you can look at and see parts of your family in them” (Respers France 2010).

The combination of husband, wife, and children that 80 percent of Canadians believes constitutes a family is not representative of the majority of Canadian families. According to 2011 census data, only 31.9 percent of all census families consisted of a married couple with children, down from 37.4 percent in 2001. Sixty-three percent of children under age 14 live in a household with two married parents. This is a decrease from almost 70 percent in 1981 (Statistics Canada 2012). This two-parent family structure is known as a nuclear family , referring to married parents and children as the nucleus, or core, of the group. Recent years have seen a rise in variations of the nuclear family with the parents not being married. The proportion of children aged 14 and under who live with two unmarried cohabiting parents increased from 12.8 percent in 2001 to 16.3 percent in 2011 (Statistics Canada 2012).

Single Parents

Single-parent households are also on the rise. In 2011, 19.3 percent of children aged 14 and under lived with a single parent only, up slightly from 18 percent in 2001. Of that 19.3 percent, 82 percent live with their mother (Statistics Canada 2012).

Stepparents are an additional family element in two-parent homes. A stepfamily is defined as “a couple family in which at least one child is the biological or adopted child of only one married spouse or common-law partner and whose birth or adoption preceded the current relationship” (Statistics Canada 2012). Among children living in two parent households, 10 percent live with a biological or adoptive parent and a stepparent (Statistics Canada 2012).

In some family structures a parent is not present at all. In 2010, 106,000 children (1.8 percent of all children) lived with a guardian who was neither their biological nor adoptive parent. Of these children, 28 percent lived with grandparents, 44 percent lived with other relatives, and 28 percent lived with non-relatives or foster parents. If we also include families in which both parents and grandparents are present (about 4.8 percent of all census families with children under the age of 14), this family structure is referred to as the extended family , and may include aunts, uncles, and cousins living in the same home. Foster children account for about 0.5 percent of all children in private households.

In the United States, the practice of grandparents acting as parents, whether alone or in combination with the child’s parent, is becoming more common (about 9 percent) among American families (De Toledo and Brown 1995). A grandparent functioning as the primary care provider often results from parental drug abuse, incarceration, or abandonment. Events like these can render the parent incapable of caring for his or her child. However, in Canada, census evidence indicates that the percentage of children in these “skip-generation” families remained more or less unchanged between 2001 and 2011 at 0.5 percent (Statistics Canada 2012).

Changes in the traditional family structure raise questions about how such societal shifts affect children. Research, mostly from American sources, has shown that children living in homes with both parents grow up with more financial and educational advantages than children who are raised in single-parent homes (U.S. Census Bureau 2010). The Canadian data is not so clear. It is true that children growing up in single-parent families experience a lower economic standard of living than families with two parents. In 2008, female lone-parent households earned an average of $42,300 per year, male lone-parent households earned $60,400 per year, and two-parent families earned $100,200 per year (Williams 2010). However, in the lowest 20 percent of families with children aged four to five years old, single parent families made up 48.9 percent of households while intact or blended households made up 51.1 percent (based on 1998/99 data). Single parent families do not make up a larger percentage of low-income families (Human Resources Development Canada 2003). Moreover, both the income (Williams 2010) and the educational attainment (Human Resources Development Canada 2003) of single mothers in Canada has been increasing, which in turn is linked to higher levels of life satisfaction.

In research published from the National Longitudinal Survey of Children and Youth, a long-term study initiated in 1994 that is following the development of a large cohort of children from birth to the age of 25, the evidence is ambiguous as to whether having single or dual parents has a significant effect on child development outcomes. For example, indicators of vocabulary ability of children aged four to five years old did not differ significantly between single- and dual-parent families. However, aggressive behaviour (reported by parents) in both girls and boys aged four to five years old was greater in single-parent families (Human Resources Development Canada 2003). In fact, significant markers of poor developmental attainment were more related to the sex of the child (more pronounced in boys), maternal depression, low maternal education, maternal immigrant status, and low family income (To et al. 2004). We will have to wait for more research to be published from the latest cycle of  the National Longitudinal Survey to see whether there is more conclusive evidence concerning the relative advantages of dual- and single-parent family settings.

Nevertheless, what the data show is that the key factors in children’s quality of life are the educational levels and economic condition of the family, not whether children’s parents are married, common-law, or single. For example, young children in low-income families are more likely to have vocabulary problems, and young children in higher-income families have more opportunities to participate in recreational activities (Human Resources Development Canada 2003). This is a matter related more to public policy decisions concerning the level of financial support and care services (like public child care) provided to families than different family structures per se. In Sweden, where the government provides generous paid parental leave after the birth of a child, free health care, temporary paid parental leave for parents with sick children, high-quality subsidized daycare, and substantial direct child-benefit payments for each child, indicators of child well-being (literacy, levels of child poverty, rates of suicide, etc.) score very high regardless of the difference between single- and dual-parent family structures (Houseknecht and Sastry 1996).

Cohabitation

Living together before or in lieu of marriage is a growing option for many couples. Cohabitation, when a man and woman live together in a sexual relationship without being married, was practised by an estimated 1.6 million people (16.7 percent of all census families) in 2011, which shows an increase of 13.9 percent since 2006 (Statistics Canada 2012). This surge in cohabitation is likely due to the decrease in social stigma pertaining to the practice. In Quebec in particular, researchers have noted that it is common for married couples under the age of 50 to describe themselves in terms used more in cohabiting relationships than marriage: mon conjoint (partner) or mon chum (intimate friend) rather than mon mari (my husband) (Le Bourdais and Juby 2002). In fact, cohabitation or common-law marriage is much more prevalent in Quebec (31.5 percent of census families) and the northern territories (from 25.1 percent in Yukon to 32.7 percent in Nunavut) than in the rest of the country (13 percent in British Columbia, for example) (Statistics Canada 2012).

Cohabitating couples may choose to live together in an effort to spend more time together or to save money on living costs. Many couples view cohabitation as a “trial run” for marriage. Today, approximately 28 percent of men and women cohabitated before their first marriage. By comparison, 18 percent of men and 23 percent of women married without ever cohabitating (U.S. Census Bureau 2010). The vast majority of cohabitating relationships eventually result in marriage; only 15 percent of men and women cohabitate only and do not marry. About one-half of cohabitators transition into marriage within three years (U.S. Census Bureau 2010).

While couples may use this time to “work out the kinks” of a relationship before they wed, the most recent research has found that cohabitation has little effect on the success of a marriage. Those who do not cohabitate before marriage have slightly better rates of remaining married for more than 10 years (Jayson 2010). Cohabitation may contribute to the increase in the number of men and women who delay marriage. The average age of first marriage has been steadily increasing. In 2008, the average age of first marriage was 29.6 for women and 31 for men, compared to 23 for women and 25 for men through most of the 1960s and 1970s (Milan 2013).

Same-Sex Couples

The number of same-sex couples has grown significantly in the past decade. The Civil Marriage Act (Bill C-38) legalized same sex marriage in Canada on July 20, 2005. Some provinces and territories had already adopted legal same-sex marriage, beginning with Ontario in June 2003. In 2011, Statistics Canada reported 64,575 same-sex couple households in Canada, up by 42 percent from 2006. Of these about three in ten were same-sex married couples compared to 16.5 percent in 2006 (Statistics Canada 2012). These increases are a result of more coupling, the change in the marriage laws, growing social acceptance of homosexuality, and a subsequent increase in willingness to report it.

In Canada, same-sex couples make up 0.8 percent of all couples. Unlike in the United States where the distribution of same-sex couples nationwide is very uneven, ranging from as low as 0.29 percent in Wyoming to 4.01 percent in the District of Columbia (U.S. Census Bureau 2011), the distribution of same-sex couples in Canada by province or territory is similar to that of opposite-sex couples. However, same-sex couples are more highly concentrated in big cities. In 2011, 45.6 percent of all same-sex sex couples lived in Vancouver, Toronto, and Montreal, compared to 33.4 percent of opposite-sex couples (Statistics Canada 2012). In terms of demographics, Canadian same-sex couples tended to be younger than opposite-sex couples. Twenty-five percent of individuals in same-sex couples were under the age of 35 compared to 17.5 percent of individuals in opposite-sex couples. There were more male-male couples (54.5 percent) than female-female couples (Milan 2013). Additionally, 9.4 percent of same-sex couples were raising children, 80 percent of whom were female-female couples (Statistics Canada 2012).

While there is some concern from socially conservative groups, especially in the United States, regarding the well-being of children who grow up in same-sex households, research reports that same-sex parents are as effective as opposite-sex parents. In an analysis of 81 parenting studies, sociologists found no quantifiable data to support the notion that opposite-sex parenting is any better than same-sex parenting. Children of lesbian couples, however, were shown to have slightly lower rates of behavioural problems and higher rates of self-esteem (Biblarz and Stacey 2010).

Staying Single

Gay or straight, a new option for many Canadians is simply to stay single. In 2011, about one-fifth of all individuals over the age of 15 did not live in a couple or family (Statistics Canada 2012). Never-married individuals accounted for 73.1 percent of young adults in the 25 to 29 age bracket, up from 26 percent in 1981 (Milan 2013). More young men in this age bracket are single than young women—78.8 percent to 67.4 percent—reflecting the tendency for men to marry at an older age and to marry women younger than themselves (Milan 2013).

Although both single men and single women report social pressure to get married, women are subject to greater scrutiny. Single women are often portrayed as unhappy “spinsters” or “old maids” who cannot find a man to marry them. Single men, on the other hand, are typically portrayed as lifetime bachelors who cannot settle down or simply “have not found the right girl.” Single women report feeling insecure and displaced in their families when their single status is disparaged (Roberts 2007). However, single women older than 35 report feeling secure and happy with their unmarried status, as many women in this category have found success in their education and careers. In general, women feel more independent and more prepared to live a large portion of their adult lives without a spouse or domestic partner than they did in the 1960s (Roberts 2007).

The decision to marry or not to marry can be based a variety of factors including religion and cultural expectations. Asian individuals are the most likely to marry while black North Americans are the least likely to marry (Venugopal 2011). Additionally, individuals who place no value on religion are more likely to be unmarried than those who place a high value on religion. For black women, however, the importance of religion made no difference in marital status (Bakalar 2010). In general, being single is not a rejection of marriage; rather, it is a lifestyle that does not necessarily include marriage. By age 40, according to census figures, 20 percent of women and 14 of men will have never married (U.S. Census Bureau 2011).

Making Connections: Sociological Research

Deceptive divorce rates.

It is often cited that half of all marriages end in divorce. This statistic has made many people cynical when it comes to marriage, but it is misleading. A closer look at the data reveals a different story.

Using Statistics Canada data from 2008 that show a marriage rate of 4.4 (per 1,000 people) and a divorce rate of 2.11, it would appear that slightly less than one-half of all marriages failed (Employment and Social Development Canada 2014a, 2014b). Similar United States data for 2003 showed more or less exactly 50 percent of marriages ending in divorce (Hurley 2005). This reasoning is deceptive, however, because instead of tracing actual marriages to see their longevity (or lack thereof), this compares what are unrelated statistics: that is, the number of marriages in a given year does not have a direct correlation to the divorces occurring that same year. American research published in the New York Times took a different approach—determining how many people had ever been married, and of those, how many later divorced. The result? According to this analysis, American divorce rates have only gone as high as 41 percent (Hurley 2005).

Another way to calculate divorce rates is the total divorce rate , which projects how many new marriages would be expected to fail after 30 years based on the divorce rate by marriage duration observed in a given year. In Canada, the total divorce rate figure reached a high of 50.6 percent in 1987 after the Divorce Act was amended to allow divorces after just one year of separation (rather than the mandatory three years previously). Since then, the total divorce rate has remained steady at between 35 percent and 42 percent. In 2008, 40.7 percent of marriages were projected to end before their 30th anniversary (Employment and Social Development Canada 2014a).

Sociologists can also calculate divorce rates through a cohort study. For instance, we could determine the percentage of marriages that are intact after, say, five or seven years, compared to marriages that have ended in divorce after five or seven years. Sociological researchers must remain aware of research methods and how statistical results are applied. As illustrated, different methodologies and different interpretations can lead to contradictory, and even misleading, results.

Theoretical Perspectives on Marriage and Family

Sociologists study families on both the macro and micro level to determine how families function. Sociologists may use a variety of theoretical perspectives to explain events that occur within and outside of the family. In this Introduction to Sociology , we have been focusing on three perspectives: structural functionalism, critical sociology, and symbolic interactionism.

Functionalism

When considering the role of family in society, functionalists uphold the notion that families are an important social institution and that they play a key role in stabilizing society. They also note that family members take on status roles in a marriage or family. The family—and its members—perform certain functions that facilitate the prosperity and development of society.

Sociologist George Murdock conducted a survey of 250 societies and determined that there are four universal residual functions of the family: sexual, reproductive, educational, and economic (Lee 1985). In each society, although the structure of the family varies, the family performs these four functions. According to Murdock, the family (which for him includes the state of marriage) regulates sexual relations between individuals. He does not deny the existence or impact of premarital or extramarital sex, but states that the family offers a socially legitimate sexual outlet for adults (Lee 1985). This outlet gives way to reproduction, which is a necessary part of ensuring the survival of society.

Once children are produced, the family plays a vital role in training them for adult life. As the primary agent of socialization and enculturation, the family teaches young children the ways of thinking and behaving that follow social and cultural norms, values, beliefs, and attitudes. Parents teach their children manners and civility. A well-mannered child reflects a well-mannered parent.

Parents also teach children gender roles. Gender roles are an important part of the economic function of a family. In each family, there is a division of labour that consists of instrumental and expressive roles. Men tend to assume the instrumental roles in the family, which typically involve work outside of the family that provides financial support and establishes family status. Women tend to assume the expressive roles, which typically involve work inside of the family, which provides emotional support and physical care for children (Crano and Aronoff 1978). According to functionalists, the differentiation of the roles on the basis of sex ensures that families are well balanced and coordinated. Each family member is seen as performing a specific role and function to maintain the functioning of the family as a whole.

When family members move outside of these roles, the family is thrown out of balance and must recalibrate in order to function properly. For example, if the father assumes an expressive role such as providing daytime care for the children, the mother must take on an instrumental role such as gaining paid employment outside of the home in order for the family to maintain balance and function.

Critical Sociology

Critical sociologists are quick to point out that North American families have been defined as private entities, the consequence of which historically has been to see family matters as issues concerning only those within the family. Serious issues including domestic violence and child abuse, inequality between the sexes, the right to dispose of family property equally, and so on, have been historically treated as being outside of state, legal, or police jurisdiction. The feminist slogan of the 1960s and 1970s—“the personal is the political”—indicates how feminists began to draw attention to the broad social or public implications of matters long considered private or inconsequential. As women’s roles had long been relegated to the private sphere, issues of power that affected their lives most directly were largely invisible. Speaking about the lives of middle-class women in mid-century North America, Betty Friedan described this problem as “the problem with no name”:

The problem lay buried, unspoken, for many years in the minds of American women. It was a strange stirring, a sense of dissatisfaction, a yearning that women suffered in the middle of the 20th century in the United States. Each suburban wife struggled with it alone. As she made the beds, shopped for groceries, matched slipcover material, ate peanut butter sandwiches with her children, chauffeured Cub Scouts and Brownies, lay beside her husband at night—she was afraid to ask even of herself the silent question—“Is this all?” (1963, p. 15).

One focus of critical sociology therefore is to highlight the political-economic context of the inequalities of power in family life. The family is often not a haven but rather an arena where the effects of societal power struggles are felt. This exercise of power often entails the differentiation and performance of family status roles. Why are women expected to perform the “expressive” roles in the family while the men perform “instrumental” roles, and what are the implications of this division of labour? Critical sociologists therefore study conflicts as simple as the enforcement of rules from parent to child, or more serious issues such as domestic violence (spousal and child), sexual assault, marital rape, and incest, as products of power structures in broader society. Blood and Wolfe’s classic (1960) study of marital power found that the person with the most access to value resources held the most power. As money is one of the most valuable resources, men who worked in paid labour outside of the home held more power than women who worked inside the home. Disputes over the division of household labour tend also to be a common source of marital discord. Household labour offers no wages and, therefore, no power. Studies indicate that when men do more housework, women experience more satisfaction in their marriages, reducing the incidence of conflict (Coltrane 2000).

The political and economic context is also key to understanding changes in the structure of the family over the 20th and 21st centuries. The debate between functionalist and critical sociologists on the rise of non-nuclear family forms is a case in point. Since the 1950s, the functionalist approach to the family has emphasized the importance of the nuclear family—a married man and woman in a socially approved sexual relationship with at least one child—as the basic unit of an orderly and functional society. Although only 39 percent of families conformed to this model in 2006, in functionalist approaches, it often operates as a model of the normal family, with the implication that non-normal family forms lead to a variety of society-wide dysfunctions. On the other hand, critical perspectives emphasize that the diversity of family forms does not indicate the “decline of the family” (i.e., of the ideal of the nuclear family) so much as the diverse response of the family form to the tensions of gender inequality and historical changes in the economy and society. The nuclear family should be thought of less as a normative model for how families should be and more as an historical anomaly that reflected the specific social and economic conditions of the two decades following the World War II.

Symbolic Interactionism

Interactionists view the world in terms of symbols and the meanings assigned to them (LaRossa and Reitzes 1993). The family itself is a symbol. To some, it is a father, mother, and children; to others, it is any union that involves respect and compassion. Interactionists stress that family is not an objective, concrete reality. Like other social phenomena, it is a social construct that is subject to the ebb and flow of social norms and ever-changing meanings.

Consider the meaning of other elements of family: “parent” was a symbol of a biological and emotional connection to a child. With more parent-child relationships developing through adoption, remarriage, or change in guardianship, the word “parent” today is less likely to be associated with a biological connection than with whoever is socially recognized as having the responsibility for a child’s upbringing. Similarly, the terms “mother” and “father” are no longer rigidly associated with the meanings of caregiver and breadwinner. These meanings are more free-flowing through changing family roles.

Interactionists also recognize how the family status roles of each member are socially constructed, playing an important part in how people perceive and interpret social behaviour. Interactionists view the family as a group of role players or “actors” that come together to act out their parts in an effort to construct a family. These roles are up for interpretation. In the late 19th and early 20th century, a “good father,” for example, was one who worked hard to provided financial security for his children. Today, a “good father” is one who takes the time outside of work to promote his children’s emotional well-being, social skills, and intellectual growth—in some ways, a much more daunting task.

Symbolic interactionism therefore draws our attention to how the norms that define what a “normal” family is and how it should operate come into existence. The rules and expectations that coordinate the behaviour of family members are products of social processes and joint agreement, even if the agreements are tacit or implicit. In this perspective, norms and social conventions are not regarded as permanently fixed by functional requirements or unequal power relationships. Rather, new norms and social conventions continually emerge from ongoing social interactions to make family structures intelligible in new situations and to enable them to operate and sustain themselves.

14.3. Challenges Families Face

As the structure of family changes over time, so do the challenges families face. Events like divorce and remarriage present new difficulties for families and individuals. Other long-standing domestic issues such as abuse continue to strain the health and stability of families.

Divorce and Remarriage

Divorce, while fairly common and accepted in modern Canadian society, was once a word that would only be whispered and was accompanied by gestures of disapproval. Prior to the introduction of the Divorce Act in 1968 there was no federal divorce law in Canada. In provincial jurisdictions where there were divorce laws, spouses had to prove adultery or cruelty in court. The 1968 Divorce Act broadened the grounds for divorce to include mental and physical cruelty, desertion, and/or separation for more than three years, and imprisonment. In 1986 the Act was amended again to make “breakdown of marriage” the sole ground for divorce. Couples could divorce after one year’s separation, and there was no longer a requirement to prove “fault” by either spouse.

These legislative changes had immediate consequences on the divorce rate. In 1961, divorce was generally uncommon, affecting only 36 out of every 100,000 married persons. In 1969, the year after the introduction of the Divorce Act, the number of divorces doubled from from 55 divorces per 100,000 population to 124. The divorce rate peaked in 1987 after the 1986 amendment at 362 divorces per 100,000 population. Over the last quarter century, divorce rates have dropped steadily reaching 221 divorces per 100,000 population in 2005 (Kelly 2010). The dramatic increase in divorce rates after the 1960s has been associated with the liberalization of divorce laws (as noted above) and the shift in societal makeup including the increase of women entering the workforce (Michael 1978) and marital breakdowns in the large cohort of baby boomers (Kelly 2010). The decrease in divorce rates can be attributed to two probable factors: an increase in the age at which people get married, and an increased level of education among those who marry—both of which have been found to promote greater marital stability.

So what causes divorce? While more young people are choosing to postpone or opt out of marriage, those who enter into the union do so with the expectation that it will last. A great deal of marital problems can be related to stress, especially financial stress. According to researchers participating in the University of Virginia’s National Marriage Project, couples who enter marriage without a strong asset base (like a home, savings, and a retirement plan) are 70 percent more likely to be divorced after three years than are couples with at least $10,000 in assets. This is connected to factors such as age and education level that correlate with low incomes.

The addition of children to a marriage creates added financial and emotional stress. Research has established that marriages enter their most stressful phase upon the birth of the first child (Popenoe and Whitehead 2001). This is particularly true for couples who have multiples (twins, triplets, and so on). Married couples with twins or triplets are 17 percent more likely to divorce than those with children from single births (McKay 2010). Another contributor to the likelihood of divorce is a general decline in marital satisfaction over time. As people get older, they may find that their values and life goals no longer match up with those of their spouse (Popenoe and Whitehead 2004).

Divorce is thought to have a cyclical pattern. Children of divorced parents are 40 percent more likely to divorce than children of married parents. And when we consider children whose parents divorced and then remarried, the likelihood of their own divorce rises to 91 percent (Wolfinger 2005). This might result from being socialized to a mindset that a broken marriage can be replaced rather than repaired (Wolfinger 2005). That sentiment is also reflected in the finding that when both partners of a married couple have been previously divorced, their marriage is 90 percent more likely to end in divorce (Wolfinger 2005).

Samuel Johnson is quoted as saying that getting married a second time was “the triumph of hope over experience.” In fact, according to the 2001 Statistics Canada General Social Survey, 43 percent of individuals whose first marriage failed married again, while 16 percent married again after the death of their spouse. Another 1 percent of the ever-married population aged 25 and over had been married more than twice (Clark and Crompton 2006). American data show that most men and women remarry within five years of a divorce, with the median length for men (three years) being lower than for women (4.4 years). This length of time has been fairly consistent since the 1950s. The majority of those who remarry are between the ages of 25 and 44 (Kreider 2006).

Marriage the second time around (or third or fourth) can be a very different process than the first. Remarriage lacks many of the classic courtship rituals of a first marriage. In a second marriage, individuals are less likely to deal with issues like parental approval, premarital sex, or desired family size (Elliot 2010). Clark and Crompton suggest that second marriages tend to be more stable than first marriages, largely because the spouses are older and more mature. At the time of the Statistics Canada General Social Survey, 71 percent of the remarried couples surveyed were still together and had been for an average of 13 years. Couples tend to marry a second time more for intimacy-based reasons rather than external reasons and therefore enjoy a greater quality of relationship (Clark and Crompton 2006).

Children of Divorce and Remarriage

Divorce and remarriage can be stressful for partners and children alike. Divorce is often justified by the notion that children are better off in a divorced family than in a family with parents who do not get along. Others argue that parents who divorce sacrifice their children’s well-being to pursue their own happiness. Research suggests that separating out particular factors of the divorce, especially whether or not the divorce is accompanied by parental conflict, is key to determining whether divorce has a significant negative impact on children (Amato and Keith 1991). Certainly while marital conflict does not provide an ideal childrearing environment, going through a divorce can also be damaging. Children are often confused and frightened by the threat to their family security. They may feel responsible for the divorce and attempt to bring their parents back together, often by sacrificing their own well-being (Amato 2000). Only in high-conflict homes do children benefit from divorce and the subsequent decrease in conflict. The majority of divorces come out of lower-conflict homes, and children from those homes are more negatively impacted by the stress of the divorce than the stress of unhappiness in the marriage (Amato 2000). On the other hand, Amato and Keith have argued that the overall the effect of divorce on children’s well-being is relatively weak and has been declining over time (Amato and Keith 1991).

Children’s ability to deal with a divorce may depend on their age. Research has found that divorce may be most difficult for school-aged children, as they are old enough to understand the separation but not old enough to understand the reasoning behind it. Older teenagers are more likely to recognize the conflict that led to the divorce but may still feel fear, loneliness, guilt, and pressure to choose sides. Infants and preschool-age children may suffer the heaviest impact from the loss of routine that the marriage offered (Temke 2006).

Proximity to parents also makes a difference in a child’s well-being after divorce. Boys who live or have joint arrangements with their fathers show less aggression than those who are raised by their mothers only. Similarly, girls who live or have joint arrangements with their mothers tend to be more responsible and mature than those who are raised by their fathers only. Nearly 70 percent of the children of parents who are divorced have their primary residence with their mother, leaving many boys without a father figure residing in the home. Another 15 percent of the children lived with their father and 9 percent moved back and forth between both parents equally (Sinha 2014). Still, researchers suggest that a strong parent-child relationship can greatly improve a child’s adjustment to divorce (Temke 2006).

There is empirical evidence that divorce has not discouraged children in terms of how they view marriage and family. In a survey conducted by researchers from the University of Michigan, about three-quarters of high school students said it was “extremely important” to have a strong marriage and family life. And over half believed it was “very likely” that they would be in a lifelong marriage (Popenoe and Whitehead 2001). These numbers have continued to climb over the last 25 years.

Violence and Abuse

Violence and abuse are among the most disconcerting of the challenges that today’s families face. Abuse can occur between spouses, between parent and child, as well as between other family members. The frequency of violence among families is a difficult to determine because many cases of spousal abuse and child abuse go unreported. In any case, studies have shown that abuse (reported or not) has a major impact on families and society as a whole.

Domestic Violence

Domestic violence is a significant social problem in Canada. One in four victims of violent crime in Canada was victimized by a spouse or family member in 2010 (Sinha 2012). Domestic violence is often characterized as violence between household or family members, specifically spouses. To include unmarried, cohabitating, and same-sex couples, family sociologists have created the term intimate partner violence (IPV) . Women are the primary victims of intimate partner violence. It is estimated that 1 in 4 women has experienced some form of IPV in her lifetime (compared to 1 in 7 men) (Catalano 2007). In 2011, women in Canada had more than double the risk of men of becoming a victim of police-reported family violence (Sinha 2012). IPV may include physical violence, such as punching, kicking, or other methods of inflicting physical pain; sexual violence, such as rape or other forced sexual acts; threats and intimidation that imply either physical or sexual abuse; and emotional abuse, such as harming another’s sense of self-worth through words or controlling another’s behaviour. IPV often starts as emotional abuse and then escalates to other forms or combinations of abuse (Centers for Disease Control 2012).

In 2010, of IPV acts that involved physical actions against women, 71 percent involved physical assault (57 percent were common assault including punching, slapping, and pushing, while another 10 percent were major assaults involving a weapon or causing major bodily injury); 3 percent involved sexual assault; 10 percent involved uttering threats; 5 percent indecent or threatening phone calls; and 9 percent criminal harassment or stalking (Sinha 2012). This is slightly different than IPV abuse patterns for men, which show that 79 percent of acts of IPV take the form of physical violence and less than 1 percent involve sexual assault (Sinha 2012). Interestingly, in 2011, a slightly larger proportion of physical assaults against male intimate partners resulted in injury (55 percent) compared to female intimate partners (51 percent) (Sinha 2013). IPV affects women at greater rates than men because women often take the passive role in relationships and may become emotionally dependent on their partner.  Perpetrators of IPV work to establish and maintain such dependence in order to hold power and control over their victims, making them feel stupid, crazy, or ugly—in some way worthless. Between 2000 and 2010, nearly one-quarter of women murdered by their intimate partners were murdered for reasons of jealousy (compared to 10 percent of male victims) (Sinha 2012).

IPV affects different segments of the population at different rates. The rate of self-reported IPV for aboriginal women is about 2.5 times higher than for non-aboriginal women (Sinha 2013). The severity of intimate partner violence also differed. Nearly 6 in 10 aboriginal women reported injury as a result of IPV compared to 4 in 10 non-aboriginal women. As a result, aboriginal female victims were also much more likely to report that they feared for their lives as a result of IPV (52 percent compared to 31 percent of non-aboriginal women) (Sinha 2013). On the other hand, visible minority and immigrant groups do not have significantly different levels of self-reported spousal violence than the rest of the population (Statistics Canada 2011).

Those who are separated report higher rates of abuse than those with other marital statuses, as conflict is typically higher in those relationships. Similarly, those who are cohabitating or living in a common-law relationship are more likely than those who are married to experience IPV (Statistics Canada 2011). American researchers have found that the rate of IPV doubles for women in low-income disadvantaged areas when compared to IPV experienced by women who reside in more affluent areas (Benson and Fox 2004). In Canada, the statistics do not bear this relationship out. Household income and education levels appear to have little effect on experiencing spousal violence. Regardless of income level, the proportion of reported spousal violence was between 1 and 2 percent. However, rates of IPV were nearly double in rural Canada than in the major metropolitan areas (542 incidents per 100,000 population compared to 294). Overall, women ages 25 to 34 are at the greatest risk of physical or sexual assault by an intimate partner (Statistics Canada 2011).

Accurate statistics on IPV are difficult to determine, as less than one-quarter of victims report incidents to the police (Statistics Canada 2011). It is not until victims choose to report crimes that patterns of abuse are exposed. Two-thirds of victims in Statistics Canada self-reported victimization studies stated that abuse had occurred more than once prior to their first police report. Nearly 3 in 10 stated that they had been abused more than 10 times prior to reporting (Statistics Canada 2011).

According to the Statistics Canada General Social Survey (2009) , victims cite varied reason why they are reluctant to report abuse, as shown in Table 14.3.

IPV has significant long-term effects on individual victims and on society. Studies have shown that IPV damage extends beyond the direct physical or emotional wounds. Extended IPV has been linked to unemployment among victims, as many have difficulty finding or holding employment. Additionally, nearly all women who report serious domestic problems exhibit symptoms of major depression (Goodwin, Chandler, and Meisel 2003). Female victims of IPV are also more likely to abuse alcohol or drugs, suffer from eating disorders, and attempt suicide (Silverman et al. 2001).

IPV is indeed something that impacts more than just intimate partners. In a survey, 34 percent of respondents said they have witnessed IPV, and 59 percent said that they know a victim personally (Roper Starch Worldwide 1995). Many people want to help IPV victims but are hesitant to intervene because they feel that it is a personal matter or they fear retaliation from the abuser—reasons similar to those of victims who do not report IPV.

Child Abuse and Corporal Punishment

Children are among the most helpless victims of abuse. In 2010, more than 18,000 children and youth under the age of 17 were victims of police-reported family violence in Canada, accounting for nearly a quarter of all violent offences against children and youth (Sinha 2012). Child abuse may come in several forms, the most common being neglect, followed by physical abuse, sexual abuse, psychological maltreatment, and medical neglect (Child Help 2011). Whereas the overall rate of violent crime involving children and youth is lower than the rate for the population as a whole, the rate of sexual assault is five times higher (Sinha 2012). Level 1 sexual assault (not involving a weapon or aggravated assault) comprised 75 percent of these offences, while child-specific sexual crimes including sexual interference, invitation to sexual touching, luring a child via a computer, and corrupting children comprised another 22 percent. Girls were 37 percent more likely than boys to be the victim of family violence (and almost twice as likely by the time they reached ages 12 to 17). In large part this is because girls are almost four times as likely to be a victim of sexual assault by a family member than boys are.

Twenty-five percent of all violent crime against children and youth was perpetrated by a family member (parent, sibling, extended family member, or spouse), while another 54 percent involved an accused known to the victim (casual acquaintances, close friends, or dating partners) (Sinha 2012). Fifty-nine percent of family violence against children was committed by parents, 19 percent by siblings, and 22 percent by other family members (Statistics Canada 2011). Understandably, these figures vary with the age of the child. As Sinha (2012) notes, “among youth aged 12 to 17 who had been victimized, about one in five (18%) were violently victimized by someone within their own family network. This compares to 47% of child victims aged 3 to 11 years, and 70% of infant and toddler victims under the age of 3 years” (p. 58).

In terms of child abuse reported to provincial and territorial child welfare authorities, infants (children less than 1 year old) were the most victimized population with an incident rate of 52 investigations per 1,000 children (compared to 43 per 1,000 for 1 to 3 year olds, the next highest category) (Public Health Agency of Canada 2010). Infants younger than 1 year are also the most vulnerable to family homicide, 98 percent of which were committed by parents (27 per million between 2000 and 2010, compared to 9 per million for 1 to 3 year olds, the next highest category) (Sinha 2012). This age group is particularly vulnerable to neglect because they are entirely dependent on parents for care. Some parents do not purposely neglect their children; factors such as cultural values, standard of care in a community, and poverty can lead to hazardous level of neglect. If information or assistance from public or private services are available and a parent fails to use those services, child welfare services may intervene (Public Health Agency of Canada 2010).

Infants are also often victims of physical abuse, particularly in the form of violent shaking. This type of physical abuse is referred to as shaken-baby syndrome , which describes a group of medical symptoms such as brain swelling and retinal hemorrhage resulting from forcefully shaking or causing impact to an infant’s head. A baby’s cry is the number one trigger for shaking. Parents may find themselves unable to soothe a baby’s concerns and may take their frustration out on the child by shaking him or her violently. Other stress factors such as a poor economy, unemployment, and general dissatisfaction with parental life may contribute to this type of abuse. Shaken-baby syndrome was attributed as the cause of nearly one-third (31 percent) of family-related homicides of infants less than 1 year between 2000 and 2010 (Sinha 2012).

Making Connections: Social Policy and Debate

Corporal punishment.

News reports in June 2013 broke the sensational story of dozens of children being apprehended by Child and Family Services from a small Old Order Mennonite community in southern Manitoba. Several members of the community were charged by police with assault when they received reports that children had been disciplined using a leather strap, whip, and cattle prod (Hitchen 2013). At one point, all the children except for one 17 year old had be apprehended by authorities (CBC News 2013). The 1892 law that permits the use of corporal punishment for children in Canada was upheld by a Supreme Court ruling in 2004 within certain restrictions, but corporal punishment remains a controversial issue in Canada (CBC News 2004).

Physical  abuse of children may come in the form of beating, kicking, throwing, choking, hitting with objects, burning, or other methods. Injury inflicted by such behaviour is considered abuse even if the parent or caregiver did not intend to harm the child. Other types of physical contact that are characterized as discipline (spanking, for example) are not considered abuse as long as no injury results. The Supreme Court ruling stated that teachers and parents can use reasonable corrective force against children between the ages of 2 and 12 years old as long as the force is “minor” and of “a transitory and trifling nature” (CBC News 2004). The court ruled that it was unacceptable to strike a child with an object, like a strap or whip, and striking a child in the head was also unacceptable.

This issue is rather controversial among modern-day Canadians. While some parents feel that physical discipline, or corporal punishment, is an effective way to respond to bad behaviour, others feel that it is a form of abuse. According to a 2005 study of mothers with preschoolers in Manitoba and Ontario, 70 percent of respondents reported using corporal punishment. One-third of them used it at least once a week. A poll conducted by the Globe and Mail in 2007 found that 78 percent of Canadian parents with children under 18 believed that parents do not discipline their children enough and another 42 percent believed spanking benefited child development (Pearce 2012).

However, studies have shown that spanking is not an effective form of punishment and may lead to aggression by the victim, particularly in those who are spanked at a young age (Berlin 2009). A meta-analysis of research conducted over two decades published in the Canadian Medical Association Journal found that spanking was no better than other parenting methods at eliciting compliance in children and was in fact linked not only to increased levels of childhood aggression but also to long-term effects such as depression, emotional and behavioural problems, and drug and alcohol use in adulthood (Durrant and Ensom 2012). This research led the editor-in-chief of the journal to call for the repeal of the spanking law from the Criminal Code. “It is time for Canada to remove this anachronistic excuse for poor parenting from the statute book” (Fletcher 2012, p. 1339).

ambilineal a type of unilateral descent that follows either the father’s or the mother’s side exclusively

bigamy the act of entering into marriage while still married to another person

bilateral descent the tracing of kinship through both parents’ ancestral lines

cohabitation when a couple shares a residence but is not married

extended family a household that includes at least one parent and child as well as other relatives like grandparents, aunts, uncles, and cousins

family socially recognized groups of individuals who may be joined by blood, marriage, or adoption and who form an emotional connection and an economic unit of society

family life course a sociological model of family that sees the progression of events as fluid rather than as occurring in strict stages

family life cycle a set of predictable steps and patterns families experience over time

family of orientation the family into which one is born

family of procreation a family that is formed through marriage

fluid modernity a condition of constant mobility and change in relationships within contemporary society

intimate partner violence (IPV) violence that occurs between individuals who maintain a romantic or sexual relationship; includes unmarried, cohabiting, and same-sex couples as well as heterosexual married couples

kinship a person’s traceable ancestry (by blood, marriage, and/or adoption)

liquid modernity see fluid modernity

marriage a legally recognized contract between two or more people in a sexual relationship who have an expectation of permanence about their relationship

matrilineal descent a type of unilateral descent that follows the mother’s side only

matrilocal residence a system in which it is customary for a husband to live with his wife’s family

monogamy when someone is married to only one person at a time

nuclear family two parents (traditionally a married husband and wife) and children living in the same household

patrilineal descent a type of unilateral descent that follows the father’s line only

patrilocal residence a system in which it is customary for the a wife to live with (or near) her husband’s family

polyandry a form of marriage in which one woman is married to more than one man at one time

polygamy the state of being committed or married to more than one person at a time

polygyny a form of marriage in which one man is married to more than one woman at one time

shaken-baby syndrome a group of medical symptoms such as brain swelling and retinal hemorrhage resulting from forcefully shaking or impacting an infant’s head

total divorce rate projects how many new marriages would be expected to fail after 30 years based on the divorce rate by marriage duration observed in a given year

unilateral descent the tracing of kinship through one parent only.

Section Summary

14.1. What Is Marriage? What Is a Family? Sociologists view marriage and families as societal institutions that help create the basic unit of social structure. Both marriage and a family may be defined differently—and practised differently—in cultures across the world. Families and marriages, like other institutions, adapt to social change.

14.2. Variations in Family Life Canadians’ concepts of marriage and family are changing. Increases in cohabitation, same-sex partners, and singlehood are altering of our ideas of marriage. Similarly, single parents, same-sex parents, cohabitating parents, and unwed parents are changing our notion of what it means to be a family. While many children still live in opposite-sex, two-parent, married households, these are no longer viewed as the only type of nuclear family.

14.3. Challenges Families Face Families face a variety of challenges, including divorce, domestic violence, and child abuse. While divorce rates have decreased in the last 25 years, many family members, especially children, still experience the negative effects of divorce. Children are also negatively impacted by violence and abuse within the home, with 18,000 children victimized by family violence each year.

Section Quiz

14.1. What Is Marriage? What Is a Family? 1. Sociologists tend to define family in terms of

• How a given society sanctions the relationships of people who are connected through blood, marriage, or adoption
• The connection of bloodlines
• The status roles that exist in a family structure
• How closely members adhere to social norms

2. Research suggests that people generally feel that their current family is _______ than the family they grew up with.

• At least as close
• None of the above

3. A woman being married to two men would be an example of:

• cohabitation

4. A child who associates his line of descent with his father’s side only is part of a _____ society.

• Matrilineal
• Patrilineal

5. Which of the following is a criticism of the family life cycle model?

• It is too broad and accounts for too many aspects of family.
• It is too narrowly focused on a sequence of stages.
• It does not serve a practical purpose for studying family behaviour.
• It is not based on comprehensive research.

14.2. Variations in Family Life 6. The majority of Canadian children live in ______.

• Two-parent households
• One-parent households
• No-parent households
• Multigenerational households

7. According to the study cited from Statistics Canada, children who live with ______ grow up with more advantages than children who live with ______.

• One unwed parent; one divorced parent
• One divorced parent; two married parents
• One grandparent; two married parents
• One divorced parent; one unwed parent

8. Couples who cohabitate before marriage are ______ couples who did not cohabitate before marriage to be married at least 10 years.

• Far more likely than
• Far less likely than
• Slightly less likely than
• Equally as likely as

9. Same-sex couple households account for _____ percent of Canadian households.

10. The median age of first marriage has ______ in the last 50 years.

• Increased for men but not women
• Decreased for men but not women
• Increased for both men and women
• Decreased for both men and women

14.3. Challenges Families Face 11. Current divorce rates are _______.

• At an all-time high
• At an all-time low
• Steadily increasing
• Steadily declining

12. Children of divorced parents are _______ to divorce in their own marriage than children of parents who stayed married.

• More likely
• Less likely
• Equally likely

13. In general, children in ______ households benefit from divorce.

• Multigenerational
• High-conflict
• Low-conflict

14. Which of the following is true of intimate partner violence (IPV)?

• IPV victims are more frequently men than women.
• One in 10 women is a victim of IPV.
• Aboriginal women are nearly 2.5 times more likely to be a victim of IPV than non-aboriginal women.
• Rape is the most common form of IPV.

15. Which type of child abuse is most prevalent in Canada?

• Physical abuse
• Shaken-baby syndrome
• Internet stalking

Short Answer

14.1. What Is Marriage? What Is a Family?

• According to research, what are Canadians’ general thoughts on family? How do they view nontraditional family structures? How do you think these views might change in 20 years?
• Explain the difference between bilateral and unilateral descent. Using your own association with kinship, explain which type of descent applies to you.

14.2. Variations in Family Life

• Explain the different variations of the nuclear family and the trends that occur in each.
• Why are some couples choosing to cohabit before marriage? What effect does cohabitation have on marriage?
• Explain how financial status impacts marital stability. What other factors are associated with a couple’s financial status?
• Explain why more than half of intimate partner violence goes unreported? Why are those who are abused unlikely to report the abuse?

Further Research

14.1. What Is Marriage? What Is a Family? For more information on family development and lines of descent, visit the Library and Archives Canada “Genealogy and Family History” website to find out how to research family genealogies in Canada. http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/022/index-e.html

For more statistics on marriage and family, see the Statistics Canada report based on the 2011 census:   Portrait of Families and Living Arrangements in Canada: Families, households and marital status, 2011 Census of Population . http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2011/as-sa/98-312-x/98-312-x2011001-eng.pdf

To find more information on child abuse, visit the Canadian Child Welfare Research portal at http://cwrp.ca/child-abuse-neglect

14.. Introduction to Marriage and Family Jayson, Sharon. 2008. “Census Reports More Unmarried Couples Living Together.” USA Today , July 28. Retrieved February 12, 20212 ( http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/census/2008-07-28-cohabitation-census_N.htm ).

Statistics Canada. 2012. Portrait of Families and Living Arrangements in Canada: Families, households and marital status, 2011 Census of Population . Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 98-312-X2011001. Retrieved July 2, 2014, from http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2011/as-sa/98-312-x/98-312-x2011001-eng.pdf

Useem, Andrea. 2007. “What to Expect When You’re Expecting a Co-Wife.” Slate , July 24. Retrieved January 16, 2012 ( http://www.slate.com/articles/life/faithbased/2007/07/what_to_expect_when_youre_expecting_a_cowife.html ).

14.1. What Is Marriage? What Is a Family? Altman, Irwin and Joseph Ginat. 1996. Polygamous Families in Contemporary Society . New York: Cambridge University Press.

Bauman, Zymunt. 2000. Liquid Modernity . Cambridge, UK: Polity Press. Retrieved Sept 2014 from  http://english.360elib.com/datu/J/EM353297.pdf

Cohen, Philip. 2011. “Chinese: Maternal Grandmothers, Outside Women.” FamilyInequality.com , Retrieved February 13, 2012 ( http://familyinequality.wordpress.com/2011/11/16/chinese-maternal-grandmothers-outside-women/ ).

Glezer, Helen. 1991. “Cohabitation.” Family Matters 30:24–27.

Glick, Paul. 1989. “The Family Life Cycle and Social Change.” Family Relations 38(2):123–129.

Globe and Mail . 2010. “The quotable Stephen Harper: Not exactly Churchill, but not bad either.” The Toronto Globe and Mail. October 8. Retrieved July 2, 2014, from http://www.theglobeandmail.com/arts/books-and-media/the-quotable-stephen-harper-not-exactly-churchill-but-not-bad-either/article1214563/

Griver, Simon. 2008. “One Wife Isn’t Enough … So They Take Two or Three.” The Jewish Chronicle Online , April 24. Retrieved February 13, 2012 ( http://www.thejc.com/lifestyle/lifestyle-features/one-wife-isn’t-enough-so-they-take-two-or-three ).

Haak, Wolfgang et al. 2008. “Ancient DNA Reveals Male Diffusion through the Neolithic Mediterranean Route.” Proceedings of the National Association of Sciences , November 17. Retrieved February 13, 2012 ( http://www.pnas.org/content/105/47/18226 ).

Harrell, Stevan. 2001. “Mountain Patterns: The Survival of Nuosu Culture in China.” Journal of American Folklore 114:451.

Jayson, Sharon. 2010. “What Does a ‘Family’ Look Like Nowadays?” USA Today , November 25. Retrieved February 13, 2012 ( http://www.usatoday.com/yourlife/sex-relationships/marriage/2010-11-18-pew18_ST_N.htm ).

Joseph, Suad and Afsaneh Najmabadi. 2003. “Kinship and State: Southeast Asia, East Asia, Australia and the Pacific.” Pp. 351–355 in Encyclopedia of Women and Islamic Cultures: Family, Law, and Politics . Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill Academic Publishers.

Lambert, Bernd. 2009. “Ambilineal Descent Groups in the Northern Gilbert Islands.” American Anthropologist 68(3):641–664.

Lee, Richard. 2009. The American Patriot’s Bible: The Word of God and the Shaping of America . Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson.

Mails, Thomas E. 1996. The Cherokee People: The Story of the Cherokees from Earliest Origins to Contemporary Times . New York: Marlowe & Co.

Minister of Justice. 2014. Criminal Code R.S., c. C-34, s. 1. Minister of Justice. July 11. Retrieved September 23, 2014, from http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/PDF/C-46.pdf

Murdock, George P. 1967. Ethnographic Atlas: A Summary . Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.

Murphy, Patrick and William Staples. 1979. “A Modernized Family Life Cycle.” Journal of Consumer Research 6(1):12–22.

Museum of Broadcast Communications. 2010. “Family on Television.” Retrieved January 16, 2012.

O’Neal, Dennis. 2006. “Nature of Kinship.” Palomar College. Retrieved January 16, 2012 ( http://anthro.palomar.edu/kinship/kinship_2.htm ).

Parsons, Talcott and Robert Bales. 1955. Family Socialization and Interaction Process . London: Routledge.

Pew Research Center. 2010. “The Decline of Marriage and Rise of New Families.” November 18. Retrieved February 13, 2012 ( http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1802/decline-marriage-rise-new-families ).

Postmedia News. 2010. “Poll: How Canadians see the family.” Canada.com. October 5. Retrieved July 2, 2014, from http://www.canada.com/life/Poll+Canadians+family/3604119/story.html

Powell, Brian, Catherine Bolzendahl, Claudia Geist, and Lala Carr Steelman. 2010. Counted Out: Same-Sex Relations and Americans’ Definitions of Family . New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Respers France, Lisa. 2010. “The Evolution of the TV Family.” CNN , September 1. Retrieved February 13, 2012 ( http://www.cnn.com/2010/SHOWBIZ/TV/09/01/families.on.tv/index.html ).

Ruoff, Jeffrey. 2002. An American Family: A Televised Life . Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Strong, B. and C. DeVault. 1992. The Marriage and Family Experience . 5th ed. St. Paul, MN: West Publishing Company.

14.2. Variations in Family Life Bakalar, Nicholas. 2010. “Education, Faith, and a Likelihood to Wed.” New York Times , March 22. Retrieved February 14, 2012 ( http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/23/health/23stat.html ).

Biblarz, Tim. J. and Judith Stacey. 2010. “How Does the Gender of Parents Matter?” Journal of Marriage and Family 72:3–22.

Blood, Robert Jr. and Donald Wolfe. 1960. Husbands and Wives: The Dynamics of Married Living . Glencoe, IL: The Free Press.

Coltrane, Scott. 2000. “Research on Household Labor: Modeling and Measuring the Social Embeddedness of Routine Family Work.” Journal of Marriage and the Family 62:1209–1233.

Crano, William and Joel Aronoff. 1978. “A Cross-Cultural Study of Expressive and Instrumental Role Complementarity in the Family.” American Sociological Review 43:463–471.

De Toledo, Sylvie and Deborah Edler Brown. 1995. Grandparents as Parents: A Survival Guide for Raising a Second Family . New York: Guilford Press.

Employment and Social Development Canada. 2014a. “Indicators of Well-Being in Canada: Family Life – Divorce.” Employment and Social Development Canada. Retrieved July 5, 2014, from http://www4.hrsdc.gc.ca/[email protected]?iid=76

Employment and Social Development Canada. 2014b. “Indicators of Well-Being in Canada: Family Life – Marriage.” Employment and Social Development Canada. Retrieved July 5, 2014, from http://www4.hrsdc.gc.ca/[email protected]?iid=78

Friedan, Betty. 1963. The Feminine Mystique. (NY: W.W. Norton & Company)

Houseknecht, Sharon and Jaya Sastry. 1996. “Family ‘Decline’ and Child Well-Being.” Journal of Marriage and the Family. 58: 726-739.

Human Resources Development Canada. 2003. A New Generation of Canadian Families Raising Young Children: A New Look at Data from National Surveys. Human Resources Development Canada: Applied Research Branch. September. Retrieved July 4, 2014, from http://www.gov.mb.ca/healthychild/ecd/raising_young_children.pdf

Hurley, Dan. 2005. “Divorce Rate: It’s Not as High as You Think.” New York Times , April 19 . Retrieved February 14, 2012 ( http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/19/health/19divo.html ).

Jayson, Sharon. 2010. “Report: Cohabiting Has Little Effect on Marriage Success.” USA Today, October 14. Retrieved February 14, 2012 ( http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2010-03-02-cohabiting02_N.htm ).

LaRossa, Ralph and Donald Reitzes. 1993. “Symbolic Interactionism and Family Studies.” Sourcebook of Family Theories and Methods: A Contextual Approach . New York: Plenum Press.

Le Bourdais, Celine and Heather Juby. 2002. “The Impact of Cohabitation on the Family Life Course in Contemporary North America: Insights from across the Border.” Pp. 107-118 in Booth, Alan and Ann Crouter (ed.s). Just Living Together: Implications of Cohabitation for Children, Family and Social Policy. (NY: Psychology Press).

Lee, Gary. 1982. Family Structure and Interaction: A Comparative Analysis . Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.

Milan, Anne. 2013. Marital Status: Overview, 2011. Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 91-209-X. July. Retrieved July 4, 2014, from http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/91-209-x/2013001/article/11788-eng.pdf

Roberts, Sam. 2007. “51% of Women Are Now Living Without a Spouse.” New York Times , January 16. Retrieved from February 14, 2012 ( http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/16/us/16census.html?pagewanted=all0 ).

To, Teresa, Astrid Guttmann, Paul Dick, Jay Rosenfield, Patricia Parkin, Marjan Tassoudji, Tatiana Vydykhan, Hongmei Cao, Jennifer K. Harris. 2004. “Risk Markers for Poor Developmental Attainment in Young Children: Results from a Longitudinal National Survey.” Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine. 158(7):643-649.

U.S. Census Bureau. 2010. “Current Population Survey (CPS).” Retrieved January 16, 2012 ( http://www.census.gov/population/www/cps/cpsdef.html ).

U.S. Census Bureau. 2011. “America’s Children: Key National Indicators of Well-Being. Forum on Child and Family Statistics. Retrieved January 16, 2012 ( http://www.childstats.gov/americaschildren/famsoc1.asp ).

Venugopal, Arun. 2011. “New York Leads in Never-Married Women.” WNYC , December 10. Retrieved February 14, 2012 ( http://www.wnyc.org/blogs/wnyc-news-blog/2011/sep/22/new-york-never-married-women/ ).

Williams, Cara. 2010. “Economic Well-Being” Women in Canada: A Gender –based Statistical Report. Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 89-503-X. December. Retrieved July 4, 2014, from http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/89-503-x/2010001/article/11388-eng.pdf

14.3. Challenges Families Face Amato, Paul. 2000. “What Children Learn From Divorce.” Journal of Family Issues 21(8):1061–1086.

Amato, Paul and Bruce Keith. 1991. “Parental Divorce and the Well-Being of Children: A Meta-Analysis.” Psychological Bulletin. 110: 26-46.

Benson, Michael and Greer Fox. 2004. When Violence Hits Home: How Economics and Neighborhood Play a Role . Washington, DC: National Institutes of Justice.

Berlin, Lisa. 2009. “Correlates and Consequences of Spanking and Verbal Punishment for Low-Income White, African American, and Mexican American Toddlers.” Child Development 80(5):1403–1420.

Catalano, S. 2007. Intimate Partner Violence in the United States . Washington, DC: US Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics. Retrieved April 30, 2012 ( http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/ipvus.pdf ).

CBC News. 2004. “Supreme Court upholds spanking law.” CBC News. January 30. Retrieved July 6, 2014, from http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/supreme-court-upholds-spanking-law-1.496454

CBC News. 2013. “Dozens of children seized from Manitoba Mennonite community: RCMP lay multiple assault charges against 3 men and a woman.” CBC News. June 19. Retrieved July 6, 2014, from http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/dozens-of-children-seized-from-manitoba-mennonite-community-1.1323892

Centers for Disease Control. 2012. “Understanding Intimate Partner Violence.” Retrieved January 16, 2012 ( http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/ipv_factsheet-a.pdf ).

Clark, Warren and Susan Crompton. 2006. “Till death do us part? The risk of first and second marriage dissolution.” Canadian Social Trends. Statistics Canada — Catalogue No. 11-008. Summer. Retrieved July 5, 2014, from http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/11-008-x/2006001/pdf/9198-eng.pdf

Durrant, Joan and Ron Ensom. 2012. “Physical Punishment of Children: Lessons from 20 Years of Research.” Canadian Medical Association Journal. 184(12): 1373–1377. Retrieved July 6, 2014, from http://www.cheo.on.ca/uploads/Durrant%20EnsomCMAJ2012.pdf

Elliot, Diana. 2010. “Embracing the Institution of Marriage: The Characteristics of Remarried Americans.” U.S. Census Bureau.

Fletcher, John. 2012. “Positive parenting, not physical punishment.” Canadian Medical Association Journal. 184(12): 1339.

Goodwin, S.N., S. Chandler, and J. Meisel. 2003. “Violence Against Women: The Role of Welfare Reform.” Final Report to the National Institute of Justice.

Hitchen, Ian. 2013. “Community’s children apprehended by province: Four Old Order Mennonite members accused of assaulting youths.” Winnipeg Free Press. June 6. Retrieved July 6, 2014, from http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/local/communitys-children-apprehended-by-province-212106141.html

Kelly, Mary Bess. 2010. “The processing of divorce cases through civil court in seven provinces and territories.” Statistics Canada Juristat Article. 30 (1): Spring. Retrieved July 5, 2014, from http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-002-x/2010001/article/11158-eng.pdf

Kreider, Rose. 2006. “Remarriage in the United States.” U.S. Census Bureau.

McKay, Stephen. 2010. “The Effects of Twins and Multiple Births on Families and Their Living Standards.” University of Birmingham. Retrieved February 24, 2012 ( http://www.tamba.org.uk/document.doc?id=268 ).

Michael, Robert. 1978. “The Rise in Divorce Rates, 1960–1974: Age-Specific Components.” Demography 15(2):177–182.

Pearce, Tralee. 2012. “Spanking your kid: Does it help or hurt?” The Toronto Globe and Mail. Sept. 6. Retrieved July 6, 2014, from http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/parenting/spanking-your-kid-does-it-help-or-hurt/article543483/

Popenoe, David and Barbara D. Whitehead. 2001. “Top Ten Myths of Divorce University of Virginia/National Marriage Project/The State of Our Unions.” Retrieved January 16, 2012.

Popenoe, David and Barbara D. Whitehead. 2004. “Ten Important Research Findings on Marriage and Choosing a Marriage Partner.” University of Virginia/National Marriage Project/The State of Our Unions. Retrieved January 16, 2012.

Public Health Agency of Canada. 2010. Canadian Incidence Study of Reported Child Abuse and Neglect – 2008: Major Findings. (Ottawa: Public Health Agency of Canada).

Roper Starch Worldwide. 1995. Domestic Violence: Views on Campus Survey . New York: Liz Claiborne.

Silverman, J.G., A. Raj, L. A. Mucci, and J. E. Hathaway. 2001. “Dating Violence Against Adolescent Girls and Associated Substance Abuse, Unhealthy Weight Control, Sexual Risk Behavior, Pregnancy and Suicide.” Journal of the American Medical Association 286:572–579.

Sinha, Maire. 2012. “Family violence in Canada: A statistical profile, 2010 .” Statistics Canada Juristat Article. Catalogue no. 85-002-X. May 22. Retrieved July 5, 2014, from http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-002-x/2012001/article/11643-eng.pdf

Sinha, Maire (ed.). 2013. “Measuring violence against women: Statistical trends.” Statistics Canada . Catalogue no. 85-224-X. February 25. Retrieved July 5, 2014, from http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-002-x/2013001/article/11766-eng.pdf 

Sinha, Maire. 2014. “Parenting and Child Support after Separation or Divorce.” Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 89‑652‑X–No. 001. February. Retrieved July 5, 2014, from http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/89-652-x/89-652-x2014001-eng.pdf

Statistics Canada. 2011. “Family Violence in Canada: A Statistical Profile.” Statistics Canada Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics. Catalogue no. 85-224-X. January. Retrieved July 5, 2014, from http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-224-x/85-224-x2010000-eng.pdf

Temke, Mary W. 2006. “The Effects of Divorce on Children.” Durham: University of New Hampshire. Retrieved January 16, 2012.

Wolfinger, Nicholas. 2005. Understanding the Divorce Cycle . New York: Cambridge University Press.

Solutions to Section Quiz

1. A  |  2. C  |  3. C  |  4. D  |  5. B  |  6. A  |  7. D  |  8. C  |  9. A  |  10. C  |  11. D  |  12. A  |  13. C  |  14. C  |  15. B

Image Attribution

Figure 14.9.  This CT scan is an example of Subdural haemorrhage caused by trauma by Glitzy queen00 ( http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ficheiro:Trauma_subdural_arrow.jpg ) is in the public domain ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_domain )

Introduction to Sociology - 1st Canadian Edition Copyright © 2014 by William Little and Ron McGivern is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

Theoretical Perspectives on Marriage and Family

Learning outcomes.

• Differentiate between theoretical perspectives on marriage and family

Sociologists study families on both the macro and micro level to examine this important and universal social institution. Sociologists may use a variety of theoretical perspectives to explain events that occur within and outside of the family.

Functionalism

When considering the role of family in society, functionalists begin with the importance of families as formative social institutions that play a key role in stabilizing society. They also examine the statuses and roles that family members take on in marriages and/or families. The family—and its members—perform certain systemic functions that facilitate the prosperity and development of society.

Sociologist George Murdock conducted a survey of 250 societies and determined that there are four universal residual functions of the family: sexual, reproductive, educational, and economic (Lee 1985). According to Murdock, the family included adults of both sexes at least two of whom maintain a socially approved sexual relationship and one or more more children (including any adopted children), which is the traditional definition of a nuclear family.  Here is an overview of these functions: 

• Sexual: families regulate sexual relations between individuals and offer a socially legitimate sexual outlet for adults.
• Reproductive: the sexual outlet within a family gives way to reproduction, which is a necessary part of ensuring the survival of society.
• Educational: the family plays a vital role in training children for adult life and as the primary agent of socialization and enculturation, the family teaches young children the ways of thinking and behaving that follow social and cultural norms, values, beliefs, and attitudes. The educational component includes gender roles.
• Economic: economic roles within the (nuclear) family are related to physical and psychological differences between males and females, with females being better suited to domestic work.

Functionalists examine the division of labor within a family by distinguishing between  instrumental and expressive roles . Instrumental roles typically involve work outside of the family that provides financial support and establishes family status. Expressive roles typically involve work inside of the family which provides emotional support and physical care for children (Crano and Aronoff 1978). In many societies, males assume the instrumental role and females assume the expressive role; however, as the structure of the family has changed over time, along with changing values and norms related to gender identity, these roles are not so easily categorized by gender.

According to functionalists, the traditional differentiation of the roles on the basis of sex, as in Murdock’s heterosexual nuclear family, ensures that families are well balanced and coordinated. When family members move outside of these roles, the family is thrown out of balance and must recalibrate in order to function properly. For example, if the father assumes an expressive role such as providing daytime care for the children, the mother must take on an instrumental role such as gaining paid employment outside of the home in order for the family to maintain balance and function.

Critiques of this theory are that it does not adequately address today’s family structure. In single parent homes, same-sex couples, and in grandfamilies, these roles are not neatly divided by gender; however, the family is not dysfunctional and there are many ways to fulfill the four universal functions of the family in these variations.

Conflict Theory

Just as functionalists are examining the ways in which a particular social institution operates and fulfills important tasks–or functions–for societies, conflict theorists are looking at the mechanisms through which these same social institutions reproduce systems of inequality at a macrosociological level. Within families, conflict theorists highlight the role of power in family life and contend that the family is often not a haven, but rather an arena where power struggles occur. This exercise of power often entails the gender role performances described above. Conflict theorists may study conflicts as simple as the enforcement of rules from parent to child, which in turn perpetuate gender inequalities. For example, boys may be negatively sanctioned for crying while girls are positively sanctioned for the same act. Conflict theorists, particularly feminist theorists, examine domestic violence (spousal and child), sexual assault, marital rape, and incest and theorize how these disproportionate, violent acts against women and girls provide a  home  for sexism and violence that we see in society.

The first study of marital power was undertaken in 1960. Researchers found that the person with the most access to value resources held the most power. As money is one of the most valuable resources, men who worked in paid labor outside of the home held more power than women who worked inside the home (Blood and Wolfe 1960). Conflict theorists find disputes over the division of household labor to be a common source of marital discord. Household labor offers no wages and, therefore, no power. Studies indicate that when men do more housework, women experience more satisfaction in their marriages, reducing the incidence of conflict (Coltrane 2000). In general, conflict theorists tend to study areas of marriage and life that involve inequalities or discrepancies in power and authority, as they are reflective of the larger social structure. Arlie Hochschild’s research on couples led her to publish  The Second Shift  (1989), which described a  second shift , or the labor performed at home in addition to labor in the traditional, external work sectors. Basically, she found that in couples where both men and women work outside the home, women came home and started an additional shift that included cooking, cleaning, caring for children, and a variety of other domestic tasks. In contrast, male partners completed their first shift and typically came home and did not do much additional work. This type of imbalanced division of labor helped sociologists to explain the shifting dynamics in a home where both adults work outside the home and the ways in which gender roles norms are contested.

Symbolic Interactionism

Interactionists view the world in terms of symbols and the meanings assigned to them (LaRossa and Reitzes 1993). The family itself is a symbol. To some, it is a father, mother, and children; to others, it is any union that involves respect and compassion. Interactionists stress that family is not an objective, concrete reality. Like other social phenomena, it is a social construct that is subject to the ebb and flow of social norms and ever-changing meanings.

Consider the meaning of other elements of family: “parent” is a symbol of a biological and emotional connection to a child. However, with more parent-child relationships developing through adoption, remarriage, or a change in guardianship, the word “parent” today is less likely to be associated with a biological connection than with whoever is socially recognized as having the responsibility for a child’s upbringing. Similarly, the terms “mother” and “father” are no longer rigidly associated with the meanings of caregiver and breadwinner. These meanings are more free-flowing, and reflect changing family roles.

Interactionists also recognize how the family status roles of each member are socially constructed, playing an important part in how people perceive and interpret social behavior. Interactionists view the family as a group of role players or “actors” that come together to act out their parts in an effort to construct a family. These roles are open to interpretation. In the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, a “good father,” for example, was one who worked hard to provide financial security for his children. Today, a “good father” is one who takes time outside of work to promote his children’s emotional well-being, social skills, and intellectual growth—in some ways, a much more daunting task.

Watch the selected clip from this video to review how each of the schools of thought think about family and marriage.

[glossary-page] [glossary-term]expressive roles:[/glossary-term] [glossary-definition]roles that typically involve work inside of the family which provide emotional support and physical care for children[/glossary-definition]

[glossary-term] instrumental roles :[/glossary-term] [glossary-definition]roles that typically involve work outside of the family that provide financial support and establish family status[/glossary-definition]

[glossary-term] second shift: [/glossary-term] [glossary-definition]labor performed at home in additional to labor in the traditional work sectors[/glossary-definition]

[/glossary-page]

<a style="margin-left: 16px;" href="https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vy-T6DtTF-BbMfpVEI7VP_R7w2A4anzYZLXR8Pk4Fu4" target="_blank"

Introduction to Sociology Lumen/OpenStax Copyright © 2021 by Lumen Learning & OpenStax is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

• Skip to main content
• Skip to primary sidebar

IResearchNet

Academic Writing Services

Dictionary definitions of marriage usually begin with something like ”the legal union of a man and a woman in order to live together and often to have children.” Even in such a simple and limited definition, some key elements and some potential complexities are highlighted. First, we are dealing with a definition referring to legal criteria. However, since legal definitions differ, we can reasonably expect practices and under standings of marriage to differ. This dictionary definition is consequently a highly ethnocentric one, shaped by the cultural and historical conditions under which it is produced. Next, marriage is a way of identifying some particular kinds of ties between two, or sometimes more, people such that marriage is always something more than the characteristics of the individuals who compose it. There is also a suggestion of functionality; marriage exists in order to achieve something else.

Marriage is important to the individuals concerned, the others to whom they are connected, and to the society within which the marriage is recognized. Marriage will not necessarily be important in the same way across different societies or to the different individuals within these societies. Recognizing this qualification, the list here outlines some of the key ways in which sociologists have described the importance of marriage:

• Marriage is seen as a key element within a wider set of family relationships. It establishes links between different families and over different generations.
• Marriage is seen as a key element in the life course. It is seen as an important transition in the lives of individuals and of those to whom they are connected.
• Marriage is seen as a key element in the social ordering of gender and sexuality. This is the most widespread understanding of marriage (one man, one woman) and reaffirms distinctions between men and women and the dominant importance of heterosexuality.
• Marriage is seen as a key element in the wider social structure. This is because the parties involved in a marriage are not just gendered and sexualized individuals but have class, ethnic, religious, and other differently based identities.
• Marriage is important as an element in the mobilization of patterns of care and social support.
• Marriage is important in the formation of personal and social identity.

These are in addition to the key function which links marriage and parenthood and which sees marriage in terms of the production, legitimizing, and social placement of children.

Research into marriage may be classified under two headings: the comparative and historical, and the study of its internal dynamics. The first considers how marriage differs between different societies or different historical periods and how it has changed over time. Earlier comparative research into marriage explored different marriage systems and the ways in which these were linked to wider aspects of social structure such as the division of societies into classes or castes, or the distribution of property. The emphasis was often a strongly functional one considering the part that a particular marriage system (polygyny, polyandry, arranged, and so on) played within the wider social structure. Comparative research might also be linked to a wider theory of social evolution, speculating on the ways in which marriage patterns and the wider social order together change over time.

More recently, interests have become more theoretically focused. Goode’s now classic study explored the ways in which, and the extent to which, family patterns throughout the world were converging into a single ”conjugal” family model, one which focused on the unit created through marriage. This account, although influential at the time, suffered from being too closely tied to a functional mode of analysis and from smoothing over complexities and divergences. Other analyses have explored differences between premodern, modern, and postmodern patterns of marriage and family living, as well as the long term decline of ”patriarchalism” within family relationships (Cheal 1991; Castells 1997). These more recent accounts have been aware of differences in the pace of change between different parts of the globe and, increasingly, the possibilities of resistance to the forces of globalization. Thus, the reassertion of what might be described as ”traditional” patterns of marriage might be seen as important in the construction of religious, ethnic, or national identities in the face of globalization and westernization.

More narrowly, attempts have been made to analyze changes in marriage in Britain, the United States, and other anglophone societies together with much of Western and Northern Europe. Sometimes this might be expressed simply as a ”decline” of marriage, as increasing numbers of people do not go through a formal marriage ceremony, have children outside wed lock, or divorce. Further, with the partial recognition of cohabiting and non heterosexual partnerships, the privileged status of heterosexual marriage seems to be less secure.

Notions of the decline of marriage may be countered by showing that marriage continues to be an important, if frequently delayed, transition in the life course and pointing to the increasing demands for the recognition of gay and lesbian marriages. The issue here is one of change rather than decline, with researchers often accounting for these changes in terms of a broad historical process of ”individualization.” The emphasis here is on the ways in which individuals are increasingly called upon to shape their own relational biographies with little reference to the expectations of others or previously established patterns of behavior. This may sometimes be seen as the extension of democratic ideals into intimate relationships.

Yet another formulation is in terms of a long term shift in marriage from institution to relationship. Marriage may be seen as moving from a social context where it was clearly embedded in a wider network of familial and kinship ties and obligations and where it constituted the major legitimate adult identity. As marriage becomes more of a relationship, there is greater emphasis on individual choice and the needs and satisfactions of the participants. Choice here includes the possibility of choosing not to get married.

There are difficulties with this formulation which, as with other accounts, glosses over diversities in experiences and trends over time. A wholly ”relationship marriage” would seem to be an oxymoron and it is probably better to think of different ”mixes” of relational and institutional elements at different points of time and between individual marriages. Thus it can be argued that the very idea of ”relationship” has itself developed some institutional features in that marital partners may be expected to share intimacies, enjoy sex, and monitor and evaluate the development of their marriages and, indeed, other less formally recognized relationships.

Turning to the more ”internal” aspects of marriage, we can look at gender divisions and questions of identity. It is widely believed that marriages have become more equal in terms of gender; the very idea of a relationship suggests some degree of mutuality and equality between the partners. At the same time, there has been a considerable body of research exploring gendered inequalities and differences within marriage. These include unequal participation in household and parental tasks; differences in the management of money within the home; and differences in patterns of paid employment and leisure activities outside the home. The sources of these persisting differences include men’s and women’s differential labor market participation and earning power; the persistence of deeply held assumptions about the nature of men and women; and inequalities in power within the household, including physical power and the potential for violence. Some have argued that we should consider the different balances between ”love” and ”power” within marriage. There is a strong expectation that modern marriage should be based on love, but this expectation coexists with these continuing inequalities within this relationship (Dallos & Dallos 1997).

Evidence of change is uneven although generally pointing toward a greater degree of sharing. There has been an increasing acceptance of the idea of equality in marriage on the part of both men and women. Actual practices may fall behind ideals, although there is evidence of greater sharing, especially in childcare. Men and women still tend to do different kinds of tasks within the household and women are still more likely to take overall responsibility for parental or domestic planning. There is considerable variation, however, depending on factors such as patterns of paid employment, education, ethnicity, and social class. Despite some clear shifts, gender remains an important division within the institutionalized relationship of marriage.

In terms of identity, it is still the case that marriage represents an important life course transition and remains a significant adult relationship. Partly for this reason, marriage can still provide an important source of stability and security in an individual’s life. Further, it can be a basis for identity and a key element in the development of a relational self. However, this self also exists in a world shaped by the changing labor market, globalization, individualization, and changes in the gender order. Sometimes, therefore, there may be a tension between the apparent stability provided by marriage and the possibilities within a marriage for shaping identity and personal development, especially where different gendered expectations develop within marriage.

Sociological research continues to find marriage an important social institution and a major area where the gender order, and changes within it, are manifested. While it has been affected by forces such as globalization and individualization, it has not been overwhelmed by these processes. Nevertheless, within western societies at least, it is increasingly clear that the boundaries between marriage and other adult   intimate   relationships   have become blurred. The exclusively heterosexual character of marriage is being challenged and the distinction between marriage and cohabitation has become more blurred in terms of law and actual practices.

It is likely that future research will explore the whole spectrum of intimate relationships and the position of marriage within it. It may serve as a reminder of the limits of individualization through exploring the multiple inter dependences that can develop over a life course. With an aging population, the significance of these relationships in later life will receive increasing attention. It is also hoped that there will be more systematic comparative research in order to provide a more rigorous exploration of the notions of globalization and individualization.

References:

• Beck, U. & Beck-Gernsheim, E. (1995) The Normal Chaos of Love. Polity Press, Cambridge.
• Castells, M. (1997) The Power of Identity. 2 of The Information Age: Economy, Society, and Culture. Blackwell, Oxford.
• Cheal, D. (1991) Family and the State of Theory. Harvester Wheatsheaf, London.
• Dallos, S. & Dallos, R. (1997) Couples, Sex, and Power: The Politics of Desire. Open University Press, Buckingham.
• Goode, W. J. (1970) World Revolution and Family Patterns. Free Press, New York.
• Jamieson, L. (1998) Polity Press, Cam­bridge.
• Therborn, G. (2004) Between Sex and Power: Family in the World, 1900 2000. Routledge, London.

• school Campus Bookshelves
• menu_book Bookshelves
• perm_media Learning Objects
• login Login
• how_to_reg Request Instructor Account
• hub Instructor Commons
• Download Page (PDF)
• Download Full Book (PDF)
• Periodic Table
• Physics Constants
• Scientific Calculator
• Reference & Cite
• Tools expand_more
• Readability

selected template will load here

This action is not available.

13: Module 10- Marriage and Family

• Last updated
• Save as PDF
• Page ID 60061
• Lumen Learning
• 13.1: Why It Matters- Marriage and Family
• 13.2: Introduction to Marriage and Family
• 13.3: Defining Family
• 13.4: Marriage and Courtship Patterns
• 13.5: Lines of Descent and Family Stages
• 13.6: Introduction to Family Life
• 13.7: Variations in Family Life
• 13.8: Theoretical Perspectives on Marriage and Family
• 13.9: Introduction to Challenges Families Face
• 13.10: Divorce and Remarriage
• 13.11: Violence and Abuse
• 13.12: Putting It Together- Marriage and Family
• 13.13: Discussion- Marriage and Family
• 13.14: Assignment- Families in Media

Faculty Resources

Assignments and discussions.

Assignment prompts are provided with this course for instructors to use at their discretion. Since they are openly licensed, instructors may use them as is or to adapt to better fit the class’s focus, time frame and learning outcomes.

Assignments may be delivered pre-populated in your LMS assignment tool in your LMS course shell, where you may modify or delete them as you wish. The recommended expectation for the discussion assignments is that students should do their initial post first before seeing replies from other students (This is generally an option faculty need to select once inside the LMS and looks like “Participants must create a thread in order to view other threads in this forum.” or “Users must post before seeing replies”).

We do NOT recommend assigning every discussion and assignment , as some are large and time-consuming or may not fit well with your course schedule. Some marked as “larger assignments” could be introduced in earlier modules or split into several parts.

If you would like to include your own assignments or have recommendations for additions or modifications, you are invited to contribute! If you would like to share your materials with other faculty and have them included in our list of options, please send them with an explanatory message to  [email protected] . Be sure to mention which course and learning outcome(s) they align with when you send a message.

Contribute!

Improve this page Learn More

• Assignments and Discussions. Provided by : Lumen Learning. License : CC BY: Attribution
• pencil cup. Authored by : IconfactoryTeam. Provided by : The Noun Project. Located at : https://thenounproject.com/term/pencil-cup/628840/ . License : CC BY: Attribution

Marriage and Types: Sociology Notes

Marriage is a social institution that is a lot related to the family. It has been defined by different people in different ways. Some believe it is just for making children and taking care of them. Some others believe it is a socially acceptable phenomenon wherein individuals start their own families. A few others believe it is an everlasting bond between two people.

As the institution of marriage has been evolving over the ages, there are many types of marriages present in the world and are classified based on various basis. Let us know more about them.

Based on the number of spouses:

Monogamy is the type of marriage wherein one man marries only one woman at a time. It is widely followed all across the world today. It is of two types: Serial monogamy is when a person can get remarried in case of divorce or death of the spouse and Non-serial monogamy is when a person is supposed to have a single spouse all throughout one’s life.

Polygamy is the type of marriage in which one can have multiple spouses. It is of three types:

Polygyny refers to the marriage in which a man marries multiple women at a time. Each of the wives lives in a separate household and the man keeps visiting each of them. It is further divided into: Sorroral polygyny wherein a man gets married to his wife’s sisters, either all at a time or after his wife’s death and Non-sorroral polygyny wherein a man marries multiple women who are not sisters, which is the opposite of sorroral polygyny.

Polyandry is the type of marriage in which a woman gets married to multiple men at a time. It is further divided into Fraternal polyandry wherein brothers share the same wife (Ex: Toda and Khasi tribes) and Non-fraternal polyandry which is just the opposite of fraternal polyandry.

Endogamy, also referred to as Group marriage, is a type of marriage in while some men marry some women and every one of the women is the wife of every man. This is practiced by tribes in Africa and New Guinea.

Based on choosing of mate:

Endogamy is the kind of marriage in which one marries within one’s own group (caste, sub-caste, varna or tribe). It is further classified as:

Caste endogamy : In this marriage, one marries within one’s own caste. This is a typical feature of a caste-based society.

Sub-caste endogamy: Castes are divided into sub-castes and in this marriage, one marries within one’s own sub-caste.

Varna endogamy: In Indian society, varna is a very characteristic feature. And in this kind of marriage, one marries within one’s own varna (i.e., Brahmins, Kshatriyas, Vaishyas or Shudras).

Tribal endogamy: In this kind of marriage, one marries within one’s own tribe.

Exogamy is the kind of marriage in which one marries outside one’s Gotra (clan), Village, Pravara or Sapinda (lineage).

Gotra exogamy: It is believed that two individuals with the same gotra are blood relations and hence, one must marry outside one’s gotra.

Village exogamy: In this kind of marriage, one marries outside one’s village since it is believed that everyone in the village is like one’s siblings.

Pravara exogamy: The term Pravara refers to siblings (those originating from the same saint are believed to be of the same pravara). In this type of marriage, one marries outside one’s pravara.

Sapinda exogamy: Sapindas are the people from five generations from the father’s side and three or seven generations from the mother’s side. In this marriage, one is to marry outside one’s pinda.

Most ancient forms of marriage:

Anuloma marriage: In this type of marriage, a man from a higher caste (or varna) marries a woman from a lower caste. It is also called Hypergamy marriage.

Pratiloma marriage: In this type of marriage, a man of lower caste (or varna) gets married to a woman from a higher caste. It is also called Hypogamy . This kind of marriage is not approved by Hinduism.

Marriage is a universal institution but while some societies believe marriage to be a contract, others believe it is a religious ritual. It has various implications in various societies and it has been classified by sociologists accordingly.

Uma Sathwika

An undergraduate student of Arts, Uma Sathwika is studying in the University of Delhi. She is ardent about writing things- things that truly matter with great intricacy

Marriage – Types, Rules and Changes

MARRIAGE – TYPES, RULES AND CHANGES

Marriage is customary in nearly every known society. The fact that it exists nearly everywhere does not mean marriage takes the same form or is recognized in similar ways. Marriage is a socially legitimate sexual union, begun with a public announcement and undertaken with some idea of permanence; it is assumed with a more or less explicit marriage contract which spells out reciprocal rights and obligations between spouses, and between the spouses and their future children.

Marriage is a socially approved sexual union in that the couple’s sexual relationship is implicitly understood and legitimated. Societies have had a variety of marriage practices. As George Peter Murdock noted, “Sexual relations can occur without economic cooperation, and there can be a division of labour between men and women without sex. But marriage unites the economic and the sexual.”

1. Marriage has been defined as ‘a union between man and a woman such that children born to the woman are recognized legitimate offspring of both parents.’

2. According to Malinowski says that marriage is a “contract for the production and maintenance of children.”

3. According to Robert H. Lowie , “Marriage is a relatively permanent bond between permissible mates.”

TYPES OR FORMS OF MARRIAGE:

As a universal social institution marriage is found to exist in all societies and at all stages of development. Types or forms of marriage vary from society to society but the institution of marriage is very much the same. In some societies, marriage is a religious sacrament whereas in others it is a social contract. However, there are several types of marriage that are classified on a different basis. This can be classified into three types as Monogamy, Polygamy and group marriage .

1. Monogamy: 

Monogamy is an ideal, widespread and rational type of marriage. It is found in all civilized societies. Monogamy refers to a marriage in which one man marries one woman. Monogamy is of two types such as serial Monogamy and non-serial Monogamy .

i. Serial Monogamy: 

In serial Monogamous marriage, the possibility of remarriage exists in case of divorce or death. Inspite of his remarriage, he remains to be monogamous.

ii. Non-serial Monogamy: 

In the case of non-serial monogamy, the question of remarriage does not arise by either of the couples. Here a spouse has the same single-spouse throughout his life.

2. Polygamy: 

Polygamy is a type of marriage in which there is a plurality of partners. It allows a man to marry more than one woman or a woman to marry more than one man at a time. Polygamy is of two types such as polygamy and polyandry .

a. Polygyny: 

Polygyny is a type of marriage in which a man marries more than one wife at a time. It was practiced in most of the ancient civilizations. It prevailed among the ancient Hebrews, Assyrians, Babylonians, Indian and others. At present, it is widespread among primitive tribes but it is often simply confined to the wealthier classes. It is practiced among the Eskimo tribes, Crow Indians, African Negroes, the Naga, Gonds and Baigas of India . However, it is also permitted in Muslim Community . Polygyny is of two types:

i. Sororal Polygyny: 

Sororal polygyny is often called a surrogate. The term surrogate comes from the Latin word ‘sorer’ which means sister. Accordingly, it refers to a marriage practice in which a man marries the sisters of his wife at a time or after the death of his wife.

ii. Non-Sororal Polygyny: 

It is just opposite of the sororal polygyny, when a man marries several women at a time who are not necessarily sister to each other it is known as non-sororal polygyny.

b. Polyandry: 

Polyandry is a very rare type of marriage in the present day. In this type of marriage, a woman marries several men at a time. In the words of K.M. Kapadia , “Polyandry is a form of union in which a woman has more than one husband at a time or in which brothers share a wife or wives in common”. It is practiced among the Tibetans, Marquesas Islanders of Polynesia, the Bahamas of Africa, the tribals of Samoa and others. In India, the tribes such as Tiyan , the Toda , the Kota , the Khasa and Ladakhi Bota also practice polyandry. The Nairs of Kerala were polyandrous previously. Polyandry is divided into two types:

i. Fraternal Polyandry: 

When several brothers share a common wife it is called fraternal or adelphic polyandry . Draupadi’s marriage to Pandavas is a fine example of fraternal polyandry. The determination of the father is associated with some rituals. It is prevalent among the Todas .

ii. Non-fraternal Polyandry:

It is just the opposite of fraternal polyandry. In this type of marriage husbands of a woman is not necessarily brother to each other. This type of marriage is found among the Nairs of Kerala, Wife goes to spend some time with each of her husbands. So long as a woman lives with one of her husbands, the others have no claim on her. This mainly happens due to the scarcity of women.

3. Cenogamy or Group Marriage: 

Group marriage means the marriage of two or more women with two or more men. Every woman is the wife of every man belonging to a particular group. Sociologists, like Dr. Rivers call it a kind of sexual communism. This type of marriage is found among some tribals in Australia, India, Tibet and Ceylon are believed to have practiced group marriage.

RULES OF MARRIAGE RESTRICTIONS

Marriage is not a mere license to live as spouses. It provides the basis of social structure and involves social, mutual and individual obligations. Marriage bonds are, therefore, in every society strictly disciplined by exogamous and endogamous restrictions. Marriage is made possible under the conditions that society deems fit. The restrictions differ from society to society; so also differ from time to time. The conditions have been laid and changed also in the interest of harmony and betterment. Endogamy and exogamy are the two main rules of marriage that condition marital choice.

1. ENDOGAMY OR ENDOGAMOUS MARRIAGE:

Endogamy is the form of marriage in which one must marry within one’s own caste or other group. This rule does not permit marriage of close kin. These endogamous groups specifically refer to tribe, caste, sub-caste, and varna endogamy .

i. Tribal or Divisional Endogamy:   

This is the endogamy in which no individual can marry outside his own tribe or division. Like caste, a tribe is also an endogamous unit.

ii. Caste Endogamy:  

This form of caste endogamy, prohibits the members of a caste to marry outside their own caste.

iii. Sub-caste endogamy: 

This is the type of endogamy in which choice for marriage is restricted to the sub-caste.

iv. Varna Endogamy: 

Varna endogamy prescribes marriages between the members of the same Varna. Marriage between the members of the same varan was regarded as proper and ideal.

2. EXOGAMY OR EXOGAMOUS MARRIAGE:

Exogamy refers to the rule that a man must marry someone outside his own group. It prohibits marrying within groups such as gotra, pravara, sapinda and village .

i. Gotra Exogamy:  

Gotra refers to the clan. Members of a particular gotra or clan are supposed to have close blood relations among themselves. Hence the Hindu practice of one marrying outside one’s own ‘ gotra’ is gotra exogamy.

ii. Pravara Exogamy: 

Pravara means siblings. People originating from a common saint are said to belong to a particular Pravara. According to Pravara exogamy, one has to marry outside one’s own pravara. Marriage within pravara is forbidden.

iii. Sapinda Exogamy:  

Sapinda means-lineage. People belonging to five generations from the father side and three or seven generations from the mother side are known as sapindas . They believed to belong to a particular pinda. Hence according to sapinda exogamy marriage within one’s own sapinda is forbidden. They are supposed to marry outside one’s own sapinda.

iv. Village Exogamy:  

According to this principle marriage within one’s own village is forbidden each and every society prescribes certain rules relating to marriage. Some societies put several restrictions on marriage among kins whereas some other societies allow marriage between a limited number of kins.

There is a greater trend towards exogamous marriage. Since endogamy is said to be conservative, it is widely criticized. Exogamy is appreciated as progressive and more scientific. It also brought peoples of various castes, races, religious groups and tribals together. It can effectively reduce social distance among people and encourage and support social solidarity and communal unity.

CHANGING PATTERNS OR TRENDS IN INDIAN MARRIAGE SOCIETY

Indian society is undergoing a drastic change due to economic prosperity and the Internet revolution that has exposed people to social trends prevalent across the world. Marriage has turned out to be the most revolutionized institution of our conservative Indian society. The way people perceive marriage, organize ceremonies, take vows, and build relationships are changing in tandem leading to a new face of Indian society.

Traditionally, parents found the match for their children and the marriage was formalized strictly as per the rituals. The ceremonies were very formal and the objective was to please the boy’s family as much as possible. Today, many children are choosing their own partners and prefer opting for court marriages to avoid arguments over rituals between the families. In other cases, parents accept their children’s choice and take charge of solemnizing the relationship with utmost pomp and show.

Earlier, the boy and the girl were not allowed to meet before the marriage. They saw each other only on the day of marriage. Eventually, it gave way to phone chats and then a few meetings in the presence of a family member before the marriage. But today in the 21 st century, both the partners try to spend maximum time together. They even buy their marriage trousseau together and spend long hours chatting on phone.

Unlike yesterday, many girls are working before marriage and they put forward their condition to continue working after marriage. As a result, girls are managing both their personal and professional lives smoothly. This, in turn, has dissolved the demarcation between gender roles. Today, boys are equally involved in household chores as girls. On the other hand, girls are also providing financial support in time of need.

As the joint family system is being replaced by nuclear families, the closeness and the level of comfort between the partners is increasing. They have ample space to talk and strengthen their relationships. In a joint system, the partners spent very few hours together because of a lack of space due to a large number of members in the family. This acted as a bottleneck in removing the communication gap between the couple.

An increase in the women employment ratio and the number of women-centric laws has led to the empowerment of women financially and mentally. Now, it is not easy to subject her to any sort of harassment because she is equipped with all the means to live an independent life. Let us put forth some of the changing occurrences in our traditional marriage system in Indian society.

CHANGES OCCURRING IN THE MARRIAGE PATTERNS

1. Changes in the Forms of Marriage: 

Though in the traditional Hindu society, monogamy was the prime form of marriage yet polyandry, polygamy, bigamy and marriage by exchange were quite popular. Now over time polygamy, polyandry and exchange marriages have severely declined and monogamy is being followed by most people of Indian society.

2. Change in the Aim and Purpose of marriage: 

The traditional Hindu marriage considers “dharma” as for the performance of religious duties. Earlier the marriages were to perform the sacred duties and functions. The prime function was to become kins and protectors of the family. With the advent of a variety of factors like mass media, consumerism, globalization the sacred types of relations are turning fade. The aims and purposes have changed their meaning from respect, faithfulness, sincerity to less respect, greed and unfaithfulness etc.

3. Change in Process of Mate Selection: 

In olden times, parents usually selected the spouse and there was hardly any say of the girl. There are numerous stories and stocks which support that parents used to marry their daughters according to their own will. Now due to various factors like increasing education among girls, urbanization, economic independence etc., children are consulted in marriage matters and even girls and boys talk and try to know the views of each other before executing marriage ceremonies. The Indian system therefore crumbled when forced by changing reality in the form of extended education of girls, the effect of this on raising ages at marriages and making the choice of spouse themselves (Cadwell, 1992). The marriages which were earlier held by middlemen are now replaced with matchmaking agencies and the advertisement by newspapers and various social networking sites (Jones, 2010).

4. Change in the Age at Marriage:  

When one goes to age at marriage in India, it comes out that children used to get married at an early age and it was more in case of girls. In some specific cases like Rajasthan, girls were married at a very early age i.e. age of 3-4 years even when they did not know the meaning of marriage. The marriage system was heavily dependent on arranged marriage at an early age in the traditional societies of India. The sexuality of women needs to be carefully controlled to uphold the honour of the family husbands and wives should not be too emotionally attached, as this could threaten the unity of the patriarchal family (Jones, 2010). Early marriage helps to protect young women’s chastity, marks a clear break from their natal families, makes them more likely to accept the structure of authority in their new family and weakens the husband-wife bond (Reddy, 1982). Now due to the arrival of various factors like technology and awareness among girls, there is a big change. Legally, the age for a girl’s marriage is 18 years and boys 21 years. Further due to the arrival of professional education, children are busy in studies for a longer time and hence marriages get delayed in 25-30 years. The trend towards late marriage is associated with the socio-economic changes that enhance the status of women by increasing educational and employment opportunities (Puri,1999). It has played a major role in determining the growth rate of the population through its linkage to marital fertility. The delayed marriage makes a considerable difference in lowering fertility rates. The fertility rate in India in 1970 was 5.6 which has reduced to 2.8 in 2008. (World Bank Report, 2008).

5. Change in the stability of Marriage (Increase in Divorce Rates):  

In the olden times, an institution of marriage was quite stable and hardly any divorce was noted. Fear of kinship system, strong social codes, never allowed married couples to break up marriages even if they want to live together or not. In the past divorce carried a considerable stigma and the pressure for the sake of the children and also for the sake of appearances and family honour, was very strong (Goody, 1973). Now due to legislative, education, technology advancement and more awareness has changed stability in the institution of marriage. Divorce is increasing in society across the globe. In the agro-based states like Punjab and Haryana, there is an increase of 150% since last decade and in Kerala known as most literate state there is an increase of 350% divorce rates since last decade. Love, personal commitment and intrinsic satisfaction are now seen as the cornerstone of marriage (Allen and Grow, 2001).

6. Change in the field of selection (Increasing number of Inter-caste Marriage): 

Until sometime back, marrying a person belonging to some other caste or religion was not permitted by the families. Kapadia (1982) conducted a study on inter-caste marriages in India and the data revealed that more than fifty percent of parents expressed their willingness to allow their children to marry outside their own caste. Only one third were against this departure from custom.

Afzal (2009) found that religion plays important role in inter-caste marriage. Women belonging to Muslim and other religious groups were less likely to have inter-caste marriages than Hindus. Also, working women were more likely to have inter-caste marriages than non-working women in Punjab.

7. Change in Economic Aspects of Marriages: 

Marriage is often held in cities as a social or a civil ceremony than a religious ceremony. The concept of Indian weddings has seen drastic changes, over the last few years. In the past, the ceremony was a family affair, confined to an economic budget, even though the guest list was long. On the contrary, in the present time, the occasion is generally celebrated in an elaborated way, with a number of rituals that are conducted before, during and after it. A long guest list, colourful and extravagant venue, lavish feast and a series of rituals are the key ingredients of the 'big fat Indian wedding' that we see today. In many cases, the wife's family is expected and obliged to provide a substantial dowry at the time of marriage and thereafter to continue to make presentations to the husband's family.  (Miher, 1988). Huge amount is spent on the ceremony to make it a ‘grand gala’. Money is spent lavishly for decorating marriage mantaps, arranging grand dinner, take-home sweets, music orchestra, video-shooting, photography, marriage processions etc.

FACTORS RESPONSIBLE FOR CHANGING MARRIAGE PATTERNS

1. Economic factors: 

Changes in marriage institutions are clearly related to the remarkable development in education, increasing urbanization and involvement of women in economic activities outside the household. People have started “going out of the family” for work and women also have joined men in process of finding out jobs and earning money. This has boosted the self-respect and self-confidence of women. These developments have affected the institution of marriage (Kapadia, 1982). Another factor is affluence materialism. Through technological improvements, the living standards and real purchasing power of individuals have been enhanced. The primary effect of this increased affluence of marriage breakdown is that people can better afford the expenses of divorce which include not only legal fees but also the cost of maintaining a second home and added cost of recreation for the children (Afzal, 2009). This all is an indication of changes occurring in the institution of marriage.

2. Social factors: 

In the past, there were joint families in which there was the interdependence of family members and there was a closely interacting community. In the transition, today’s highly urban and affluent society, work patterns have become more differentiated reducing the necessity to interact with the community. This pattern has given rise to individualism (Sonawat, 2008). There is a sense of ‘Systemness’ this is the concept of functional theory which describes how society becomes increasingly complex through structural differentiation and specialization. Now, society is characterized by high degree of specialization in terms of employment, education, health care, transportation. Prior to this specialization, the family served the economic, educational, recreational, health care, procreative, protection and affection roles for its members. Gradually, through industrialization, these responsibilities have been taken from family and institutionalized outside the home ( Sinha,1984). The institution of marriage has gone a tremendous change as there is a great change in living conditions, values, norms and traditions in the patriarchal society girls had no say in the family matters especially in marriage affairs. Earlier they could not interfere or raise any question even if their own marriages were fixed. In the past, divorce was seen as ‘Stigma’ but now the time has changed. Girls are openly coming forward with the views starting from the selection of a mate and have full rights for divorce if the marriage is not successful. Other things such as changes in public perception are often referred to in the vernacular as ‘changing times.’ People have now become more self-centred and a sense of individualization is pulling them away from traditional norms of marriage and forming households without legal marriage (Herzberger,1993).

3. Psychological factors : 

In the past, for women the greatest personal achievement and source of reward was to be married, raise children and ensure an optimal home and family life. No other life content could provide the same sense of personal worth. For men self-fulfillment lay in maintaining good employment, marrying the woman of their dreams and providing financial support to their family. Men and women have clear cut ideas of their respective roles. However, increasing urbanization, institutionalization of family roles, technological improvements in home care products and increased affluence reduced the potential of home life to provide stimulation and feelings of worth from satisfactory personal achievements. (Hines,1997). In addition, the ethos of individualism encouraged both men and women to realize their own potentials. The growing economic independence of women led to demands for more egalitarian family norms in the areas of child-rearing, decision making, finances and household tasks. These changes in family norms and role expectations brought increased friction into homes due to the departure of established patterns. Women grapple with the desire to have both careers and children so there is conflict in marital relations and disturbed domestic life.

4. Technological factors: 

The arrival of new technology has also been emerging as a new factor for generating changes in the institution of marriage. Earlier there used to be joint families in which grandparents and other senior members had control over the juniors but now there are nuclear families in which both the parents are working and children are ignored to a great extent. They do not have any surveillance on them and they become isolated and take support of mass media and other technologies such as computers, mobiles, television etc. They make use of networking sites which take them away from family members but closer to outer world (Kolenda, 1987).

5. Legislative factors: 

The legislative measures taken by the government in the last 50 years or more has helped to change the nature of institution of marriage as now legal safeguards are provided in marriage which was not part of traditional Hindu society. Many of the beliefs, values, ideals and rules of marriage laid down by the Hindu S hastrakaras have lost their original meaning and importance and purpose now. During the British rule and also after independence legislations were passed in order to bring about desirable changes in the Hindu Marriage system. The laws were related to (i) age at marriage (ii) field of mate selection (iii) number of spouses in marriage (iv) breakage of marriage (v)dowry to be taken and given (vi)remarriage. Various inhuman practices associated with marriage such as the practice of sati has been removed by law. Legislations have not only abolished child marriages but also fixed the minimum marriageable age for boys and girls as for girls is 18 years and boys 21 years. The legislations have also made clear the selection in a marriage that is, who should marry whom. They have also legalized inter-caste and inter-religious marriages and have made provisions for registered marriages. Legislations have made provisions for divorce. Equal rights are conferred on men and women in this regard. (Rao, 2004) Legislations have also specified the conditions of divorce. Legislations have also been undertaken to give special protection to women preventing the exploitation of their helplessness and weaknesses by others. In order to loosen the tight grip of the patriarchal values over the joint family’s legislations have also been undertaken to provide equal opportunities, privileges, rights and facilities even to women.

EMERGING NEW INSTITUTIONS

Besides Shift in Age, education, caste, dowry and divorces there are some structural changes in the marriage pattern which have a great impact on society. Though limited in number but in metropolitan cities and urban areas there are occurring some other serious problems which are as follows:

Gay relationships/ Lesbians

Though it seems like a shock to Indian society gay/lesbians are emerging in India at a fast rate. According to a report by NGO, there are thousands of gay/ lesbians in metropolitan cities of Indian society. It is a kind of relationship where the same-sex persons marry each other. In 2004, the Civil Partnership Act has given same-sex couples similar legal rights to married couples in respect of pensions, inheritance, tenancies and property. Though this kind of emerging institution is not conducive for the smooth working of the society and thus marriages follow a different pattern than in traditional societies.

Cohabitation

Young people may find marriage less important because premarital sex is becoming increasingly acceptable. Cohabitation is when the couple moves from dating to living together which may or may not lead to marriage (Manning, 2007). Today, it is more socially acceptable for couples to begin a sexual relationship, set up a home and have children outside formal marriage. Since 2002, cohabiting couples have had the same right to adopt as married couples.

One-Person Households

When one person establishes his family is the one-person household. People are now more self-centred. Men, as well as women, want to establish their own identities by independently establishing households. There are almost three in ten households (6.8 million people) who are one person held houses (World Bank Report, 2008).

Living apart together

It is commonly seen in the western countries where the people though being married are living far from each other. As people are getting more isolated and have greater egoistic attitudes, they don’t want their privacy to have interfered so they adopt the path of Living apart together. In 2008, according to a survey by British Social Attitudes it was noted that every 1 in 10 adults is ‘living apart together’ or ‘LATs’.

DINK (Double Income No Kids) Syndrome 

The term was coined in the 1980s at the height of “yuppie" culture. The post-2000 economic crisis has solidified this social trend as more couples wait longer to have kids, with one in five choosing not to have them at all. People don’t want to take responsibility for the kids and want to enjoy their life without any tension. They find the kids as the additional responsibility.

Changes are bound to occur and institution of marriage is also experiencing many changes. Technological, economical, new educational patterns and changes in lifestyles, are major factors playing profound role in this change. With the passage of time the age at marriage, process of mate selection aims and the purposes of marriage, trends of divorce rates and the economic aspects of marriage have undergone a tremendous change. There are definitely serious consequences of the changing marriage patterns as the increasing age at marriage makes a considerable difference in lowering the fertility rates. Various factors such as the social, economic, psychological, technological and legislative play a great role in the change of marriage institutions. As people are becoming more independent in the wake of liberalization, consumerism and its generation of unreal aspirations have increased the gap between desires and their fulfillment. Further, the new values made acceptably, or even desirable by such consumerism are “getting rich quick in any way possible”. In such a setting the existing unequal power relations within the family become a channel for acquiring wealth quickly at any cost. Conflicts in this institution are also emerging due to the interaction of tradition with modernity. New patterns in the marriage like Gay, Cohabitation etc. are also emerging in some places which may have more effects in the coming time. Though these new trends are observed today the importance of marriage has not diminished. It is still universally practiced. Though its sanctity is affected a little, it is not reduced to the level of a mere civil contract. Hindu men and women are still emotionally involved in their marriages.

Post a Comment

Contact form.

Introduction to Marriage and Family

Chapter outline.

Rebecca and John were having a large church wedding attended by family and friends. They had been living together their entire senior year of college and planned on getting married right after graduation.

Rebecca's parents were very traditional in their life and family. They had married after college at which time Rebecca's mother was a stay-at-home mother and Rebecca's father was a Vice President at a large accounting firm. The marriage was viewed as very strong by outsiders.

John's parents had divorced when John was five. He and his younger sister lived with his financially struggling mother. The mother had a live-in boyfriend that she married when John was in high school. The Asian step father was helpful in getting John summer jobs and encouraged John to attend the local community college before moving to the four-year university.

Rebecca's maid of honor, Susie, attended college with Rebecca but had dropped out when finding out she was pregnant. She chose not to marry the father and was currently raising the child as a single parent. Working and taking care of the child made college a remote possibility.

The best man, Brad, was in and out of relationships. He was currently seeing a woman with several children of different parentage. The gossip had this relationship lasting about the same amount of time as all the previous encounters.

Rebecca and John had a gay couple as ushers. Steve and Roger had been in a monogamous relationship for almost ten years, had adopted a minority daughter and were starting a web-based business together. It was obvious they both adored their child, and they planned on being married at a Washington destination ceremony later in the year.

This scenario may be complicated, but it is representative of the many types of families in today's society.

Between 2006 and 2010, nearly half of heterosexual women (48 percent) ages fifteen to forty-four said they were not married to their spouse or partner when they first lived with them, the report says. That's up from 43 percent in 2002, and 34 percent in 1995 (Rettner 2013). The U.S. Census Bureau reports that the number of unmarried couples has grown from fewer than one million in the 1970s to 8.1 million in 2011. Cohabitating, but unwed, couples account for 10 percent of all opposite-sex couples in the United States (U.S. Census Bureau 2008). Some may never choose to wed (Gardner 2013). With fewer couples marrying, the traditional U.S. family structure is becoming less common.

As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

This book may not be used in the training of large language models or otherwise be ingested into large language models or generative AI offerings without OpenStax's permission.

Want to cite, share, or modify this book? This book uses the Creative Commons Attribution License and you must attribute OpenStax.

Access for free at https://openstax.org/books/introduction-sociology-2e/pages/1-introduction-to-sociology

• Authors: Heather Griffiths, Nathan Keirns
• Publisher/website: OpenStax
• Book title: Introduction to Sociology 2e
• Publication date: Apr 24, 2015
• Location: Houston, Texas
• Book URL: https://openstax.org/books/introduction-sociology-2e/pages/1-introduction-to-sociology
• Section URL: https://openstax.org/books/introduction-sociology-2e/pages/14-introduction-to-marriage-and-family

© Feb 9, 2022 OpenStax. Textbook content produced by OpenStax is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License . The OpenStax name, OpenStax logo, OpenStax book covers, OpenStax CNX name, and OpenStax CNX logo are not subject to the Creative Commons license and may not be reproduced without the prior and express written consent of Rice University.

Marriage Why do people get married? Couples get married for a variety of reasons. Some do so because they are "in love," desire companionship and sex. want to have children. feel social pressure. are attempting to escape from a bad situation in their parents' home. or believe that they will have more money or other resources if they get married. These factors notwithstanding. the selection of a marital partner is actually fairly predictable. As previously discussed. most people in the United States tend to choose marriage partners who are similar to themselves. As previously discussed. homo gamy refers to the pattern of individuals marrying those who have similar characteristics. such as race ethnicity. religious background. age. education. or social class. However. homogamy provides only the general framework within which people select  their partners; people are also influenced by other factors. For example. some researchers claim that people want partners whose personalities match their own in Significant ways. Thus. people who are outgoing and friendly may be attracted to other people with those same traits. However. other researchers claim that people look for partners whose personality traits differ (rom but complement their own. Regardless of the individual traits of marriage partners. research indicates that communication and emotional support are crucial to the success of marriages. Common marital problems include a lack of emotional intimacy, poor councilwomen. and lack of companionship. One study concluded that for many middle- and upper-income couples. women's paid work is critical to the success of their marriages. People. who have a strong commitment to their work have two distinct sources of pleasure-work and family. For members of the working class. however. work may not be a source or pleasure. For all women and men. balancing work and family life is a challenge.

Related Sociology Assignments

What this handout is about

This handout introduces you to the wonderful world of writing sociology. Before you can write a clear and coherent sociology paper, you need a firm understanding of the assumptions and expectations of the discipline. You need to know your audience, the way they view the world and how they order and evaluate information. So, without further ado, let’s figure out just what sociology is, and how one goes about writing it.

What is sociology, and what do sociologists write about?

Unlike many of the other subjects here at UNC, such as history or English, sociology is a new subject for many students. Therefore, it may be helpful to give a quick introduction to what sociologists do. Sociologists are interested in all sorts of topics. For example, some sociologists focus on the family, addressing issues such as marriage, divorce, child-rearing, and domestic abuse, the ways these things are defined in different cultures and times, and their effect on both individuals and institutions. Others examine larger social organizations such as businesses and governments, looking at their structure and hierarchies. Still others focus on social movements and political protest, such as the American civil rights movement. Finally, sociologists may look at divisions and inequality within society, examining phenomena such as race, gender, and class, and their effect on people’s choices and opportunities. As you can see, sociologists study just about everything. Thus, it is not the subject matter that makes a paper sociological, but rather the perspective used in writing it.

So, just what is a sociological perspective? At its most basic, sociology is an attempt to understand and explain the way that individuals and groups interact within a society. How exactly does one approach this goal? C. Wright Mills, in his book The Sociological Imagination (1959), writes that “neither the life of an individual nor the history of a society can be understood without understanding both.” Why? Well, as Karl Marx observes at the beginning of The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte (1852), humans “make their own history, but they do not make it just as they please; they do not make it under circumstances chosen by themselves, but under circumstances directly encountered, given and transmitted from the past.” Thus, a good sociological argument needs to balance both individual agency and structural constraints. That is certainly a tall order, but it is the basis of all effective sociological writing. Keep it in mind as you think about your own writing.

Key assumptions and characteristics of sociological writing

What are the most important things to keep in mind as you write in sociology? Pay special attention to the following issues.

The first thing to remember in writing a sociological argument is to be as clear as possible in stating your thesis. Of course, that is true in all papers, but there are a couple of pitfalls common to sociology that you should be aware of and avoid at all cost. As previously defined, sociology is the study of the interaction between individuals and larger social forces. Different traditions within sociology tend to favor one side of the equation over the other, with some focusing on the agency of individual actors and others on structural factors. The danger is that you may go too far in either of these directions and thus lose the complexity of sociological thinking. Although this mistake can manifest itself in any number of ways, three types of flawed arguments are particularly common: 

• The “ individual argument ” generally takes this form: “The individual is free to make choices, and any outcomes can be explained exclusively through the study of their ideas and decisions.” While it is of course true that we all make our own choices, we must also keep in mind that, to paraphrase Marx, we make these choices under circumstances given to us by the structures of society. Therefore, it is important to investigate what conditions made these choices possible in the first place, as well as what allows some individuals to successfully act on their choices while others cannot.
• The “ human nature argument ” seeks to explain social behavior through a quasi-biological argument about humans, and often takes a form such as: “Humans are by nature X, therefore it is not surprising that Y.” While sociologists disagree over whether a universal human nature even exists, they all agree that it is not an acceptable basis of explanation. Instead, sociology demands that you question why we call some behavior natural, and to look into the social factors which have constructed this “natural” state.
• The “ society argument ” often arises in response to critiques of the above styles of argumentation, and tends to appear in a form such as: “Society made me do it.” Students often think that this is a good sociological argument, since it uses society as the basis for explanation. However, the problem is that the use of the broad concept “society” masks the real workings of the situation, making it next to impossible to build a strong case. This is an example of reification, which is when we turn processes into things. Society is really a process, made up of ongoing interactions at multiple levels of size and complexity, and to turn it into a monolithic thing is to lose all that complexity. People make decisions and choices. Some groups and individuals benefit, while others do not. Identifying these intermediate levels is the basis of sociological analysis.

Although each of these three arguments seems quite different, they all share one common feature: they assume exactly what they need to be explaining. They are excellent starting points, but lousy conclusions.

Once you have developed a working argument, you will next need to find evidence to support your claim. What counts as evidence in a sociology paper? First and foremost, sociology is an empirical discipline. Empiricism in sociology means basing your conclusions on evidence that is documented and collected with as much rigor as possible. This evidence usually draws upon observed patterns and information from collected cases and experiences, not just from isolated, anecdotal reports. Just because your second cousin was able to climb the ladder from poverty to the executive boardroom does not prove that the American class system is open. You will need more systematic evidence to make your claim convincing. Above all else, remember that your opinion alone is not sufficient support for a sociological argument. Even if you are making a theoretical argument, you must be able to point to documented instances of social phenomena that fit your argument. Logic is necessary for making the argument, but is not sufficient support by itself.

Sociological evidence falls into two main groups: 

• Quantitative data are based on surveys, censuses, and statistics. These provide large numbers of data points, which is particularly useful for studying large-scale social processes, such as income inequality, population changes, changes in social attitudes, etc.
• Qualitative data, on the other hand, comes from participant observation, in-depth interviews, data and texts, as well as from the researcher’s own impressions and reactions. Qualitative research gives insight into the way people actively construct and find meaning in their world.

Quantitative data produces a measurement of subjects’ characteristics and behavior, while qualitative research generates information on their meanings and practices. Thus, the methods you choose will reflect the type of evidence most appropriate to the questions you ask. If you wanted to look at the importance of race in an organization, a quantitative study might use information on the percentage of different races in the organization, what positions they hold, as well as survey results on people’s attitudes on race. This would measure the distribution of race and racial beliefs in the organization. A qualitative study would go about this differently, perhaps hanging around the office studying people’s interactions, or doing in-depth interviews with some of the subjects. The qualitative researcher would see how people act out their beliefs, and how these beliefs interact with the beliefs of others as well as the constraints of the organization.

Some sociologists favor qualitative over quantitative data, or vice versa, and it is perfectly reasonable to rely on only one method in your own work. However, since each method has its own strengths and weaknesses, combining methods can be a particularly effective way to bolster your argument. But these distinctions are not just important if you have to collect your own data for your paper. You also need to be aware of them even when you are relying on secondary sources for your research. In order to critically evaluate the research and data you are reading, you should have a good understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of the different methods.

Units of analysis

Given that social life is so complex, you need to have a point of entry into studying this world. In sociological jargon, you need a unit of analysis. The unit of analysis is exactly that: it is the unit that you have chosen to analyze in your study. Again, this is only a question of emphasis and focus, and not of precedence and importance. You will find a variety of units of analysis in sociological writing, ranging from the individual up to groups or organizations. You should choose yours based on the interests and theoretical assumptions driving your research. The unit of analysis will determine much of what will qualify as relevant evidence in your work. Thus you must not only clearly identify that unit, but also consistently use it throughout your paper.

Let’s look at an example to see just how changing the units of analysis will change the face of research. What if you wanted to study globalization? That’s a big topic, so you will need to focus your attention. Where would you start?

You might focus on individual human actors, studying the way that people are affected by the globalizing world. This approach could possibly include a study of Asian sweatshop workers’ experiences, or perhaps how consumers’ decisions shape the overall system.

Or you might choose to focus on social structures or organizations. This approach might involve looking at the decisions being made at the national or international level, such as the free-trade agreements that change the relationships between governments and corporations. Or you might look into the organizational structures of corporations and measure how they are changing under globalization. Another structural approach would be to focus on the social networks linking subjects together. That could lead you to look at how migrants rely on social contacts to make their way to other countries, as well as to help them find work upon their arrival.

Finally, you might want to focus on cultural objects or social artifacts as your unit of analysis. One fine example would be to look at the production of those tennis shoes the kids seem to like so much. You could look at either the material production of the shoe (tracing it from its sweatshop origins to its arrival on the showroom floor of malls across America) or its cultural production (attempting to understand how advertising and celebrities have turned such shoes into necessities and cultural icons).

Whichever unit of analysis you choose, be careful not to commit the dreaded ecological fallacy. An ecological fallacy is when you assume that something that you learned about the group level of analysis also applies to the individuals that make up that group. So, to continue the globalization example, if you were to compare its effects on the poorest 20% and the richest 20% of countries, you would need to be careful not to apply your results to the poorest and richest individuals.

These are just general examples of how sociological study of a single topic can vary. Because you can approach a subject from several different perspectives, it is important to decide early how you plan to focus your analysis and then stick with that perspective throughout your paper. Avoid mixing units of analysis without strong justification. Different units of analysis generally demand different kinds of evidence for building your argument. You can reconcile the varying levels of analysis, but doing so may require a complex, sophisticated theory, no small feat within the confines of a short paper. Check with your instructor if you are concerned about this happening in your paper.

Typical writing assignments in sociology

So how does all of this apply to an actual writing assignment? Undergraduate writing assignments in sociology may take a number of forms, but they typically involve reviewing sociological literature on a subject; applying or testing a particular concept, theory, or perspective; or producing a small-scale research report, which usually involves a synthesis of both the literature review and application.

The critical review

The review involves investigating the research that has been done on a particular topic and then summarizing and evaluating what you have found. The important task in this kind of assignment is to organize your material clearly and synthesize it for your reader. A good review does not just summarize the literature, but looks for patterns and connections in the literature and discusses the strengths and weaknesses of what others have written on your topic. You want to help your reader see how the information you have gathered fits together, what information can be most trusted (and why), what implications you can derive from it, and what further research may need to be done to fill in gaps. Doing so requires considerable thought and organization on your part, as well as thinking of yourself as an expert on the topic. You need to assume that, even though you are new to the material, you can judge the merits of the arguments you have read and offer an informed opinion of which evidence is strongest and why.

Application or testing of a theory or concept

The application assignment asks you to apply a concept or theoretical perspective to a specific example. In other words, it tests your practical understanding of theories and ideas by asking you to explain how well they apply to actual social phenomena. In order to successfully apply a theory to a new case, you must include the following steps:

• First you need to have a very clear understanding of the theory itself: not only what the theorist argues, but also why they argue that point, and how they justify it. That is, you have to understand how the world works according to this theory and how one thing leads to another.
• Next you should choose an appropriate case study. This is a crucial step, one that can make or break your paper. If you choose a case that is too similar to the one used in constructing the theory in the first place, then your paper will be uninteresting as an application, since it will not give you the opportunity to show off your theoretical brilliance. On the other hand, do not choose a case that is so far out in left field that the applicability is only superficial and trivial. In some ways theory application is like making an analogy. The last thing you want is a weak analogy, or one that is so obvious that it does not give any added insight. Instead, you will want to choose a happy medium, one that is not obvious but that allows you to give a developed analysis of the case using the theory you chose.
• This leads to the last point, which is the analysis. A strong analysis will go beyond the surface and explore the processes at work, both in the theory and in the case you have chosen. Just like making an analogy, you are arguing that these two things (the theory and the example) are similar. Be specific and detailed in telling the reader how they are similar. In the course of looking for similarities, however, you are likely to find points at which the theory does not seem to be a good fit. Do not sweep this discovery under the rug, since the differences can be just as important as the similarities, supplying insight into both the applicability of the theory and the uniqueness of the case you are using.

You may also be asked to test a theory. Whereas the application paper assumes that the theory you are using is true, the testing paper does not makes this assumption, but rather asks you to try out the theory to determine whether it works. Here you need to think about what initial conditions inform the theory and what sort of hypothesis or prediction the theory would make based on those conditions. This is another way of saying that you need to determine which cases the theory could be applied to (see above) and what sort of evidence would be needed to either confirm or disconfirm the theory’s hypothesis. In many ways, this is similar to the application paper, with added emphasis on the veracity of the theory being used.

The research paper

Finally, we reach the mighty research paper. Although the thought of doing a research paper can be intimidating, it is actually little more than the combination of many of the parts of the papers we have already discussed. You will begin with a critical review of the literature and use this review as a basis for forming your research question. The question will often take the form of an application (“These ideas will help us to explain Z.”) or of hypothesis testing (“If these ideas are correct, we should find X when we investigate Y.”). The skills you have already used in writing the other types of papers will help you immensely as you write your research papers.

And so we reach the end of this all-too-brief glimpse into the world of sociological writing. Sociologists can be an idiosyncratic bunch, so paper guidelines and expectations will no doubt vary from class to class, from instructor to instructor. However, these basic guidelines will help you get started.

Works consulted

We consulted these works while writing this handout. This is not a comprehensive list of resources on the handout’s topic, and we encourage you to do your own research to find additional publications. Please do not use this list as a model for the format of your own reference list, as it may not match the citation style you are using. For guidance on formatting citations, please see the UNC Libraries citation tutorial . We revise these tips periodically and welcome feedback.

Anson, Chris M., and Robert A. Schwegler. 2010. The Longman Handbook for Writers and Readers , 6th ed. New York: Longman.

Cuba, Lee. 2002. A Short Guide to Writing About Social Science , 4th ed. New York: Longman.

Lunsford, Andrea A. 2015. The St. Martin’s Handbook , 8th ed. Boston: Bedford/St Martin’s.

Rosen, Leonard J., and Laurence Behrens. 2003. The Allyn & Bacon Handbook , 5th ed. New York: Longman.

Ruszkiewicz, John J., Christy Friend, Daniel Seward, and Maxine Hairston. 2010. The Scott, Foresman Handbook for Writers , 9th ed. Boston: Pearson Education.

You may reproduce it for non-commercial use if you use the entire handout and attribute the source: The Writing Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

Make a Gift