Search

In recent years, there has been a resurgence of sociological work exploring the importance and meaning of kinship. Much of this work has criticized the 'individualization' thesis according to which changes in family structures over time have been interpreted as reflecting a fundamental decline in family values. Highlighting continuities as well as change in family life, this work has also suggested ways to move beyond the individualization debate and to develop alternative frameworks for the study of contemporary families and personal life, notably through the analysis of related practices. For various reasons, this recent work has focused primarily on the experience and practices of adults in 'ordinary' rather than more difficult family circumstances. This article aims to complement this work by focusing on the difficult family experiences of young people affected by parental substance use. It is argued that it is important not to lose sight of such experiences in order that sociological thinking reflect the diversity of family practices and the resources available to support them, including at younger ages. In addition, the importance of developing concepts or a language facilitating the exploration and communication of the emotional and symbolic significance of these practices is emphasized. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this paper, the theoretical approach to the concept of lone motherhood is adopted from ‘new’ family sociology where families are understood to be dynamic processes constituted by webs of relationships. I analyse life stories written by lone mothers in order to examine the meanings that they give to their lone motherhood in relation to their larger family context. This approach reveals that, along with the concept ‘family’, the category ‘lone motherhood’ can be questioned. The life stories show that as with all families, the representations of ‘the lone mother family’ vary. Lone motherhood emerges less as a distinct family form and more as an experience coloured by the lone mother's position in a web of family relationships, as well as her place in her broader personal, social and historical context. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Social capital has become a key concept in Government policy-making and academic circles. Particular forms of social capital theorising have become dominant and influential, invoking certain conceptions of the nature of family life. Inherently, ideas about ‘the family’ not only draw on gender divisions in fundamental ways, but also on particular forms of intergenerational relationships and power relations. This paper explores the place, and understandings, of family in social capital theorising from a feminist perspective, including the way that debates in the social capital field interlock with those in the family field. These encompass: posing both ‘the family’ and social capital as fundamental and strong bases for social cohesion, but also as easily eroded and in need of protection and encouragement; the relationship between ‘the private’ and ‘the social’; notions of bonding and bridging, and horizontal and vertical, forms of social capital as these relate to ideas about contemporary diversity in family forms and the nature of intimate relationships; and analytic approaches to understanding both the natures of social capital and family life in terms of an economic or moral rationality. It argues for greater reflexivity in the use of social capital as a concept, revealing rather than replicating troubling presences and absences around gender and generation as fundamental axes of family life. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In recent years there has been a proliferation of writing on the meaning of home within the disciplines of sociology, anthropology, psychology, human geography, history, architecture and philosophy. Although many researchers now understand home as a multidimensional concept and acknowledge the presence of and need for multidisciplinary research in the field, there has been little sustained reflection and critique of the multidisciplinary field of home research and the diverse, even contradictory meanings of this term. This paper brings together and examines the dominant and recurring ideas about home represented in the relevant theoretical and empirical literature. It raises the question whether or not home is (a) place(s), (a) space(s), feeling(s), practices, and/or an active state of state of being in the world? Home is variously described in the literature as conflated with or related to house, family, haven, self, gender, and journeying. Many authors also consider notions of being-at-home, creating or making home and the ideal home. In an effort to facilitate interdisciplinary conversations about the meaning and experience of home each of these themes are briefly considered in this critical literature review. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In recent years there has been increased interest in couples Living Apart Together (LAT) within the sociology of the family in Europe. One of the main questions concerns understanding their evolution over time. Given the lack of longitudinal data, the present study focuses as a proxy to study the perception LATs hold of their future and the influencing factors. Based on data from the Generations and Gender Survey (GGS), a sample of 5253 people in LAT relationships was taken from seven European countries. The results show that the future intentions of these couples are conditioned by the understanding of the family in different European countries, the age of its members and, above all, the social pressure exerted by family and friends to live together and/or marry. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article critically explores sociological arguments for greater biosocial synthesis, centring contemporary developments in public policy to demonstrate how such a reframing of humanity tends to reinforce existing political orders and socially patterned normativities. The case for further amalgamation of the social and life sciences is examined to suggest that production of somatic markers of truth from relational encounters largely relies upon an anaemic and politically contained version of the social as acquired in early childhood. More specifically, the gendered, classed and culturally specific practice of parenting children has come to occupy a new significance in accounts of social brains and environmentally reactive genomes. This is highlighted through a discussion of 'early intervention' as a heavily biologized policy rationale framing opportunities for biosocial collaboration. It is argued that late capitalist objectives of personal investment and optimization are driving this assimilation of the social and life sciences, pursuing an agenda that traces and re-scores long-standing social divisions in the name of progress. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article examines the notion of 'family' to consider how it may be understood in people's everyday lives. Certain recurrent and powerful motifs are apparent, notably themes of togetherness and belonging, in the context of a unit that the person can be 'part of'. At the same time, there may be important variations in the meanings given to individuality and family, evoking differing understandings of the self and personhood. I consider these ideas further through globally relevant but variable cultural themes of autonomy and relationality, suggesting the term 'social person' as a heuristic device to distinguish the sense of 'close-knit selves' that may be involved in some understandings of personhood. I argue that this version of personhood may be powerfully expressed through 'family' meanings, with a significance which can be at least provisionally mapped along lines of inequality and disadvantage within and between societies around the world. These forms of connectedness may be hard to grasp through those theoretical and methodological frameworks which emphasize the (relational) individual. I argue that, in affluent English speaking societies,1 there may be little alternative to the language of 'family' for expressing such forms of relationality and connection. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Based on data gathered in settings where the family side of personal troubles is a regular concern, it is argued that the family enters into social relations as a collective representation. Adapting Durkheim's usage to everyday life, the family is analyzed as a 'public' project of those whose domestic affairs are challenged for consideration of family order. Three features of the family project are considered: (1) the awareness of the social form, (2) family conduct in the large, (3) family usage. As an object of experience, the family presents itself in a category separate and distinct from its members, while at the same time being a practical, discursive construct built out of, as well as reflecting concrete domestic affairs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In examining 'family policy', previous work on 'family ideology' is developed to demonstrate that 'traditional family sociology' has been 'doing things with words'. In this area sociology, far from being innocuous, has had real impact upon society and may well have been oppressive and deeply reactionary.
Sociological interest in 'family life'[1] and 'family policy' seems to be a growth area in the UK.[2] Many, however, seem to regard 'family policy' debates as somehow neutral, even a technical issue (e.g., Family Impact Statements as discussed by Ory and Leik, 1983 or the Study Commission on the Family, 1983, 46--9). The central argument here is that 'family policy' debates, especially those in which sociology has taken part, are very much 'political', have substantive results and are in fact both dangerous and repressive.[3]. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This analysis takes Elder's work on the life-course as a starting point. Two proposals are made: (1) That the sociological use of the concept of 'the family' should be restricted to indicate only the occurrence of everyday usage; (2) That the notion of the 'family life-course' be replaced by the notion of individual life-courses coinciding upon developmental pathways. In this way the idea of a central type of 'the family' is made redundant and we are required, instead, to discover when and why participants refer to a particular developmental pathway as being 'a family'. This approach not only facilitates the conceptualisation 'family diversity' but also compels researchers to engage the rich complexity of everyday life. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]