Redefining the Family - by hkhalek
In an era where the traditional notion of the family is being challenged by same-sex marriages, single-parent households and foster-parent families, to name but a few, it is necessary to redefine the concept of the family. Most would immediately, and possibly unthinkingly, define or describe the family as a legal unit which consists of a female wife, a male husband and, possibly, children. The nuclear family, therefore, is assumed to be composed of a father, mother and their children. This notion of the family, however, is not only being challenged by new social realities but by anthropologists such as Jane Collier, Michelle Z. Rosaldo and Sylvia Yanagisako, who quite persuasively argue that the family is not “a universal human institution” (p. 1). As controversial as this argument sounds, one finds support from it in Diane Ackerman’s A Natural History of Love and Sara Ruddick’s “Thinking About the Father.” Both scientific and anthropological perspectives on the concept of the family invalidate earlier understandings of the concept and establish that the family is not a universal phenomenon and even where and when it exists in its traditional form, reflects the human desire for familiar patterns.
The famed social anthropologists, Bronislaw Malinowski is responsible for the now popular misconception of the family as a universal phenomenon. As Collier, Rosaldo and Yanagisako argue, before Malinowski’s research and writings on the concept of the family, anthropologists believed that it was a culture-specific phenomenon, not a universal one (p. 1). Malinowski’s argument, which was based on his observations of the behaviour of Australian Aborigines, was based on the notion that sexual behavior was a determinant of the presence, or absence, of family. As he noted, insofar as Australian Aborigines only acknowledged one husband for any female and assumed that the husband was also the father, they acknowledged the phenomenon of the family (pp. 2-3). While he acknowledged the presence of sexual promiscuity among primitive groups such as the Aborigines and admitted that they engaged in orgies, he still argued that they recognized family units because, even in orgies, women were only allowed a specific sexual partner – their legally or socially recognized mate/husband (Collier, Rosaldo and Yanagisako, pp. 2-3). According to this argument, therefore, sexual behaviour was controlled in order to preserve the family unit and to ensure its survival. The family unit was preserved and protected by the commitment of its members to one another, by the well-defined roles of father/husband, mother/wife and children and by the society/tribe’s recognition of the individuals within the unit as a family. This, according to Malinowski, in addition to the affection which members of the unit feel towards one another, establishes the universal nature of the family (pp. 2-3).
Malinowski’s definition of the family is not, contrary to popular assumptions, the traditional notion but was the dominant one for a period of time. Collier, Rosaldo and Yanagisako explain that earlier social scientists viewed the female as the primary caregiver and nurturer across all societies and most historical periods but did not believe the family, defined as a unit comprised of a male, female and children with well-defined roles, was universal. The family, as the earlier social scientists contended, emerged from the need to structure social life and to break society down into more manageable and understandable units (pp. 8-9). This is the traditional perspective on the meaning of the family. Malinkowski’s definition of family as universal was dominant for a period and replaced this perspective but is currently being challenged by social reality. The fact that it is being challenged is clearly evident Sara Ruddick’s argument, “Thinking About the Father.” As Ruddick explains, “developing reproductive practices, notably surrogate mothering” has thrown all popular assumptions regarding motherhood, fatherhood and family into question (pp. 176-177). It has thrown them into question because these new reproductive techniques have transformed motherhood into a biological, not emotional, biological and nurturing, function in which the natural mother is nothing other than an incubator. This, and other reproductive developments, has not only put the traditional notion of the family to question but force the reconsideration of the earlier perspectives on family and motherhood.
Even though the popular definition of the family falls apart when it is critically scrutinized, the fact is that it has persisted. This, in itself, is rather perplexing. How and why should a definition which is not supported by social facts and reality still remain popular? The answer to this question is provided by Diane Ackerman in “Patterns in Nature.” As Ackerman explains, human beings are psychologically condition to seek out and establish patterns. As she writes, “we crave patterns. We find it all around us, in sand dunes and in pinecones” and, sometimes, we even imagine patterns and create ones where they do not exist (p. 259). We are, in other words, obsessed with patterns and are constantly engaged in creating, designing and imposing them. The reason for our obsession with patterns is that patterns represent organization and guidelines. We believe that patterns help us define things, help us define ourselves and most importantly, help us structure our lives. Whether or not patterns actually fulfil these functions is not so much the issue as is our belief and conviction that they do so. From this perspective and as Ackerman explains, family units are a type of social pattern which help us define ourselves, our status and our position in society (pp. 275-76). The family pattern gives human beings a social direction and provides a guideline for the nature of our relationship with the opposite sex. Hence, at a certain age we begin to date, we get engaged and finally make the marriage commitment and raise a family and, generation after generation, the pattern is repeated. This, quite simply stated, means that the family is not a universal and natural unit as most popularly assume but a social pattern which human beings devised and designed in order to provide their lives with a social and emotional direction.
The fact that human beings devised the family unit as a strategy for the social and emotional direction needed is because biology, to a large extent, pushed people in that direction. A wide range of body chemicals are stimulated when humans are emotionally aroused. For example, as Ackerman explains in “The Chemistry of Love,” when a mother is cuddling her infant, certain chemicals are released in her body and give her a positive and secure feeling which she communicates to her infant. Similarly, when a father is with his child, certain chemicals are released causing him to act protectively, for example, towards the child (p. 162). The implication here is that biological instincts and physical reactions to certain people led to the formation of units which we call family.
In conclusion to the argument presented in the above, the traditional definition of the family no longer holds true. It is, in these day and age, impossible for one to continue to define the family as a unit which consists of a male and female and their biological children. Certainly, while some family units fit this description there are some which do not. Therefore, it is important to redefine the family as a social pattern which partly defines our social role and provides us with social guidelines but to emphasise that this pattern is not universal and does not need to be composed of male, female and their children. Instead, family units are people who may be connected to each other through blood and legal relations but more importantly, are emotionally and psychologically linked to one another.
EssayBay Stars
BUYERS AREA...
WRITERS AREA...