Abstract
Mainstream approaches to globalization primarily focus on its economic and political manifestations. However, it is within families that globalization is realized. Ideological and material changes in the national and transnational arena intersect with personal decisions that are arrived at in family contexts. As globalization accelerates, so do the choices, dilemmas, opportunities, and outcomes that are accompanied by this dynamic process. Given the volatility of markets, the speed of communication, and the intersection of labor force demands with transnational forces, it is becoming increasingly difficult to predict familial responses to fluctuating economies and policies, as well new representations of alternative lifestyles and roles. The traditional blueprints, that so many individuals rely on in their societies, are increasingly challenged, negotiated, and revised.
Specific phases of the life course, crossgenerational and intergenerational relationships, and accepted forms of private living arrangements are in the process of transformation. As women and men negotiate breadwinning and domestic labor, and as children, youth, and the elderly increasingly occupy new ideological and productive roles, family arrangements are modified and reconceptualized. These transformations, however, are not happening in an equivalent or sequential manner. In the West, differences exist between and within countries in attitudes toward varied lifestyles such as single parenthood, same sex couples, and cohabitation. However, more stark are the differences between the West and the developing world. While representations, ideologies, and even practices, pertaining to different family forms and lifestyles are spreading globally, in some areas, they have been met with nationalistic and fundamentalist responses. This has resulted in a worldwide focus on the intimate arrangements of individuals in the family arena.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsNotes
- 1.
Nowhere is this more evident than in the U.S. where opposing movements juxtapose “traditional family values” against “new” family forms such as same-sex couples.
- 2.
In a symbolic gesture, that acknowledges the multiplicity of family types, the flagship journal on the study of families changed its name from The Journal of Marriage and the Family to The Journal of Marriage and Family in 2001.
- 3.
See Smith (1993) for a pivotal article on SNAF – the Standard North American Family and its ubiquitous presence in school and benefits policies.
- 4.
In the field of anthropology the study of family has continued to be tied to “kinship” studies and social organization. See Parkin et al. (2004) for a detailed overview of kinship and family studies from the nineteenth century onwards. Thus, there is little intersection today between the fields even though both could benefit from much more cross fertilization.
- 5.
I first became aware of this fact in graduate school. I was very interested in pursuing the study of non-Western families but was discouraged by conversations with scholars from various parts of the world who told me that “there was no new knowledge to gained from pursuing this topic.”
- 6.
In fact there is a growing hegemony of thought stemming from the U.S. This will be seen later on in the chapter on children and childhood.
- 7.
On a personal note, this body of scholarship provided the impetus for all of my future research on non-Western, and consequently Western families.
- 8.
There are many reasons for this issue including the inability of most English speakers to read other languages and the domination of journals published in the English language. Even when books and articles on family issues are published in other countries, they are rarely included in bibliographies, book reviews and the like.
- 9.
There is a great deal of debate about the usage of terms like Millennials or Generation X’ers. The question centers around stereotyping of generalizing about large groups of individuals who are characterized by differences of social class, race, religion, education and other variables. Nevertheless, a life course perspective suggests that individuals born in the same cohort do experience and internalize certain world events such as wars, technological change and other such phenomena with a somewhat similar effect. See Elder (1999), for example.
- 10.
When using the term “kin relationships” I am not implying just blood lines. I include all types of relationships including adoption, foster children, and other bonded units.
- 11.
Anthropology is replete with examples of marriage and families that differ quite radically from contemporary family forms, such as ghost marriage among the Nuer (Evans-Pritchard 1940) and a specific culturally sanctioned type of adult-child marriage among a northern Russian tribe (Levi-Strauss 1956). Most anthropological readers have many such fascinating examples, indicating the cultural nature of relationship formation.
- 12.
A significant issue in many countries in Europe and in the US, Canada, and Australia is the infusion of immigrants from societies with very different notions of who is and who is not “family.” This issue promises to grow in the future with continued mass migrations.
- 13.
The popularity of free Internet services such as Skype allow individuals to video conference with one another creating new linkages to far away places.
- 14.
In Chap. 8 we examine the link between women’s fertility, employment and nation-state policies more closely.
- 15.
In fact, a recent New York Times article detailed how a growing number of American women are choosing to have two children on their own, through new reproductive techniques, in the quest for the “perfect” family.
- 16.
This phenomenon will be described in greater detail in Chap. 3.
References
Ambert, A. (1994). An international perspective on parenting: Social change and social constructs. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 56, 529–543.
Baca Zinn, M. (2000). Feminism and family studies for a new century. Annals of the American Academy of Political Science Society, 571, 42–56.
Bianchi, S., Robinson, J., & Mikie, M. (2007). Changing rhythms of American family life. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Bogenschneider, K., & Corbett, T. (2004). Building enduring family policies in the 21st century: The past as prologue? In M. Coleman & L. Ganong (Eds.), Handbook of contemporary families: Considering the past, contemplating the future (pp. 41–468). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Boss, P. G., Dougherty, W. J., LaRossa, R., Schumm, W. R., & Steinmetz, S. K. (1993). Family theories and methods: A contextual approach. In P. G. Boss, W. J. Dougherty, R. LaRossa, W. R. Schumm & S. K. Steinmetz (Eds.), Sourcebook of family theories and methods: A contextual approach (pp. 3–30). New York: Plenum Press.
Bulato, R. A. (2001). Introduction. In R. A. Bulato & J. B. Casterline (Eds.), Global fertility transition (pp. 1–14). New York: Population Council.
Carrington, V. (2001). Globalization, family and nation-state: Reframing ‘family’ in new times. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 22, 185–196.
Collier, J., Rosaldo, M., & Yanagisako, S. (1992). Is there a family? New anthropological views. In B. Thorne & M. Yalom (Eds.), Rethinking the family: Some feminist questions (pp. 25–39). New York: Longman.
Comacchio, C. (2003). Family History in International Encyclopedia of Marriage and Family (pp. 555–559). New York: Thompson Gale.
Coontz, S. (1992). The way we never were: American families and the nostalgia trap. New York: Basic Books.
Coontz, S. (1997). The way we really are: Coming to terms with America’s changing families. New York: Basic Books.
Coontz, S. (2000). Historical perspectives on family studies. Journal of Marriage and Family, 62, 283–297.
Daly, K. (2003). Family theory versus the theories families live by. Journal of Marriage and Family, 65, 771–784.
Easterlin, R. (2000). The globalization of human development. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 570, 32–48.
Edgar, D. (2004). Globalization and Western bias in family sociology. In J. Scott, J. Treas & M. Richards (Eds.), The Blackwell companion to the sociology of families (pp. 3–16). Malden, MA: Oxford University Press.
Evans-Pritchard, E. E. (1940). Some aspects of marriage and the family among the Nuer. Rhodes-Livingstone Institute: Papers. 11.
Goody, J. (1972). Evolution of the family. In P. Laslett & R. Wall (Eds.), Household and family in past time: Comparative studies in the size and structure of the domestic group over the last three centuries in England, France, Serbia, Japan, and colonial North America (pp. 103–124). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hareven, T. (1974). The family as process: The historical study of the family cycle. Journal of Social History, 7, 322–329.
Hareven, T. (2000). The history of the family and the complexity of social change. In T. Hareven (Ed.), Families, history, and social change: Life-course and cross-cultural perspectives (pp. 3–30). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Hartmann, H. (1981). The family as the locus of gender, class and political struggle: The example of housework. Signs, 6, 366–394.
Heymann, J. (2006). Forgotten families: Ending the growing crisis confronting children and working parents in the global economy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Jayakody, R., Thornton, A., & Axinn, W. (2008). Perspectives on international family change. In R. Jayakody, A. Thornton & W. Axinn (Eds.), International family change: Ideational perspectives (pp. 1–18). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Publishers.
Lamanna, M. A. (2002). Emile Durkheim on the family. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Levi-Strauss, C. (1956). The family. In H. Shapiro (Ed.), Man, culture and society. New York: Oxford University Press.
Masnick, G., & Bane, M. J. (1980). The nation’s families. Boston: Auburn House.
Mattingly, D. (2001). The home and the world: Domestic service and international networks of caring labor. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 91, 370–386.
McGraw, L., & Walker, A. (2004). Gendered family relations: The more things change, the more they stay the same. In M. Coleman & L. Ganong (Eds.), Handbook of contemporary families: Considering the past, contemplating the future (pp. 174–191). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Mintz, S., & Kellogg, S. (1988). Domestic revolutions: A social history of American family life. New York: Free Press.
Moen, P., & Schorr, A. L. (1987). Families and social policy. In M. B. Sussman & S. K. Steinmetz (Eds.), Handbook of marriage and the family (pp. 795–813). New York: Plenum.
Osmond, M. W., & Thorne, B. (1993). Feminist theories: The social construction of gender in families and society. In P. G. Boss, W. J. Doherty, R. LaRossa, W. R. Schumm & S. K. Steinmetz (Eds.), Sourcebook of family theories and methods: A contextual approach (pp. 591–622). New York: Plenum Press.
Oswald, L. (2003). Branding the American family: A strategic study of the culture, composition, and consumer behavior of families in the new millennium. The Journal of Popular Culture, 37, 309–335.
Parkin, R., Parkin, R., & Stone, L. (2004). General introduction. In R. Parkin & L. Stone (Eds.), Kinship and family. An anthropological reader (pp. 1–24). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Parsons, T. (1943). The contemporary kinship system of the United States. American Anthropologist, 45, 22–38.
Parsons, T. (1949). The social structure of the family. In R. Anshen (Ed.), The family: Its function and destiny (pp. 173–201). New York: Harper.
Popenoe, D. (1993). American family decline, 1960–1990: A review and appraisal. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 55, 527–555.
Segalen, M. (1986). Historical anthropology of the family. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Seward, E. (1978). The American family: A demographic history. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Sherif-Trask, B. (2006). Families in the Islamic Middle East. In B. Ingoldsby & S. Smith (Eds.), Families in global and multi-cultural perspective (pp. 231–246). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publishers.
Sherif Trask, B. (forthcoming). Girls have a right to an equal start. Because I am a girl. London: Plan UK.
Smith, D. E. (1993). The standard North American family: SNAF as an ideological code. Journal of Family Issues, 14, 50–65.
Talbot, M. (2000). The New Counter Culture: Fundamentalist Christians.” New York Times Magazine, 27, 16.
Thomas, G. S. (1998). The United States of suburbia. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Press.
Thomas, W. I., & Znaniecki, F. (1918–1920). The polish peasant in Europe and America, vols. 1–2. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
Thorne, B. (1982). Feminist rethinking of the family: An overview. In B. Thorne & M. Yalom (Eds.), Rethinking the family: Some feminist questions (pp. 1–24). New York: Longman.
Nations, U. (2000). Female labor force participation. New York: Department of Economic and Social Affairs.
United Nations Programme on the Family. (2003). Families in the process of development: Major trends affecting families world-wide. New York: Department of Economic and Social Affairs.
Murdock, G. 1949. Social structure. New York: Macmillan
Elder, G. (1999). Children of the great depression: Social change in life experiences. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2010 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Trask, B.S. (2010). Approaches to Understanding Families. In: Globalization and Families. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-88285-7_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-88285-7_2
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY
Print ISBN: 978-0-387-88284-0
Online ISBN: 978-0-387-88285-7
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawSocial Sciences (R0)