text:
Introduction to Sociology/Family

Introduction

Most people have a network of others they consider their family. But what exactly is a family? How do family structures vary from culture to culture or subculture to subculture? Is what we consider the traditional family changing over time? Why do families exist? These are the questions sociologists ask when discussing families.

Defining Families
You may think this is a fairly straightforward question with a simple answer. But think about it for a minute then ask yourself, "Who and what do I include in my family?" You might say your parents, your siblings, and/or your spouse. But what if you have none of these relations? And what about the family pet? What if you were raised by your grandparents and your parents played little to no role in your life or if you grew up in an orphanage or the foster care system? Who, then, do you consider your family? Is family limited to genetically related individuals; those we typically think of as kin, and if so, does this mean some people have never met their own family if they have one at all? Also, if families are limited to genetically related individuals, what do we make of adopted, fostered, or artificially developed people - do they have a family, multiple families, or some combination there in?

Questioning the basic concept of family is a relatively new phenomenon, though variations in what we consider a "family" are not. There are so many variations of "family" today that it is hard to define what, exactly, a family is. Generally, we think of a family as a domestic group of people, or a number of domestic groups linked through descent from: (1) a common ancestor, (2) marriage, (3) adoption, or (4) some other committed (romantic or otherwise) relationship. While many families have some form of kinship, many others possess no such tie.

But society increasingly accepts a number of variations on family forms. Consider each of the following examples:
 * an elderly man and his twelve cats
 * a cohabiting gay, lesbian, or asexual couple with three foster children
 * a mixed group of singles sharing a town home in a large city
 * a close knit fraternity or sorority
 * a small group of soldiers fighting in a foreign country
 * a collection of orphans or runaways sharing a residence

Each of the above groups differs from the dominant form of family in contemporary American society: a man, a woman, and their children. This notion of parents and children as family is called a nuclear family and is a recent invention of the Western World that has (in some cases) been sold as a form of "tradition." It is a social construct that does not necessarily reflect the reality of family life for many people. In fact, with recent developments in the U.S., the nuclear family is no longer the primary form of social life in the U.S. According to recent census data, more adult women now live alone or are raising their children alone than are living with a spouse or raising their children with a spouse. Further, historical research suggests the nuclear family has never been the statistical or numeric norm in the United States. What many people consider a family is not the only family form; families are diverse in both form and function.

Cultural Variations

The structure of families traditionally hinges on relations between parents and children, between spouses, between members of long term relationships (romantic, economic or otherwise) or all of the above. Consequently, there is substantial variation in family forms around the world, varying from culture to culture. The most common form of romantic relationship tied to family structure in the Western World is monogamy, which is the practice of having only one spouse or committed romantic partner at a time. A variety of other family structures exist. One prevalent form is polygamy, which broadly refers to any form of marriage in which a person has more than one spouse. Historically, polygamy has been practiced as polygyny (one man having more than one wife), as polyandry (one woman having more than one husband), or, less commonly, as "polygamy" (having many wives and many husbands at one time). Further, many people practice polyamory, which refers to the acceptance, desire, and experience of more than one intimate relationship at a time with the consent of all involved (note this differs from polygamy, which refers to multiple spouses rather than relationships and which historically, religiously, and culturally does not necessarily require the consent of all parties involved).

Another factor that leads to cultural variations in relationships tied to family forms is attitudes toward endogamy. Endogamy is the practice of marrying, becoming romantically involved, or engaging in sexual relations within a social group. Cultures that practice endogamy require relationships between specified social groups, classes, or ethnicities. Many people tend to develop relationships with members of their own social group, but there are some societies that practice endogamy very strictly and as part of their moral values, traditions, or religious beliefs. An example of a strictly endogamous religious group is the Yazidi in Northern Iraq, who prohibit any inter-clan marrying. Endogamy is a common practice among displaced cultures attempting to make roots in new countries as it encourages group solidarity and ensures greater control over group resources (which may be important to preserve where a group is attempting to establish itself within an alien culture).

Changes Over Time
Family structures of some kind are found in every society. Pairing off into formal or informal relationships (often referred to as marriages) originated in hunter-gatherer groups to forge networks of cooperation beyond the immediate family. Intermarriage between groups, tribes, or clans was often political or strategic and resulted in reciprocal obligations between the two groups represented by the marital partners. Even so, marital dissolution was not a serious problem as the obligations resting on marital longevity were not particularly high.

The development of horticultural or agriculture-based societies fundamentally changed the nature of marriage and family forms built around it. With the advent of sedentary societies, marriage became one of the central institutions for forging economic and political relationships and was no longer viewed, at least among the aristocracy, as a relationship that should be based on love, companionship, or sexual attraction. Among the aristocratic elite, marriage became a means of developing alliances or amassing wealth. For the non-elites, marriage was a pragmatic way of supporting oneself: it was easier to survive if resources (i.e., food, labor power, childcare responsibilities, etc.) were pooled between several people.

You can see a good example of the changing nature of families in the family structure of Ancient Rome. In Ancient Rome the family structure was centered on the father (see paterfamilias). In this structure, fathers held great power (patria potestas) over those living with them: They could force marriage and divorce, sell children into slavery, claim dependents' property as their own, and possibly even claim the right to kill family members. Patria potestas extended over adult sons with their own households: A man was not considered a paterfamilias while his own father lived. A daughter, when she married, usually fell under the authority of the paterfamilias of her husband's household, although this was not always the case, as she could choose to continue recognizing her father's family as her true family. However, as Romans reckoned descent through the male line, any children she had would belong to her husband's family. Groups of related households formed a family. Families were based on blood ties (or adoption), but were also used for political and economic alliances. Ancient Roman marriage was often regarded more as a financial and political alliance than as a romantic association, especially in the upper classes.

Modern forms of family structure and marriage in the West have their roots in Christian philosophy and practice. The nuclear family emerged during the late medieval period and was formalized during the Council of Trent, in which marriage was defined as, "The conjugal union of man and woman, contracted between two qualified persons, which obliges them to live together throughout life." While a variety of family structures continue to exist around the world today, including polygamous and polygynous families in many societies (including the U.S. ), the predominant form is built upon monogamous sexual and emotional relations (though, as noted above, this is no longer the majority form). As described below and shown in the figure below, variations on monogamous relationships are increasingly prevalent (i.e., same-sex marriage), as are alternatives to monogamy (e.g., single-parent households and polyamory).

The Function of Families
The primary function of the procreative families (e.g., families built around the pursuit of parenthood) is to reproduce society, biologically through procreation, socially through socialization, or in both ways. Given these functions, one's experience of one's family shifts over time. From the perspective of children, the family is a family of orientation: the family functions to locate children socially, and plays a major role in their socialization. From the point of view of the parent(s), the family is a family of procreation: the family functions to produce and socialize children. In some cultures marriage imposes upon women the obligation to bear children. In northern Ghana, for example, payment of bridewealth signifies a woman's requirement to bear children, and women using birth control face substantial threats of physical abuse and reprisals.

In other cases, procreative families utilize marital privileges, rights, and laws (if they have access to these opportunities legally) to establish legal parenthood of a child, gain control over sexual services, labor, and / or property, establish a joint fund of property for the benefit of children, and / or establish relations between partner's larger familial networks. No society does all of these; no one of these is universal, and many people different societies lack access to whatever marital and family privileges available in their given social context. In societies with a sexual division of labor, marriage, and the resulting relationship between a marital members, increasing economic opportunities and decreasing tax burdens, which can aid the establishment of financially stable families. In modern societies marriage entails particular rights and privileges - for those allowed to marry - that encourage the formation of new families even when there is no intention of having children.

The primary functions of non-procreative families (e.g., families that are built around pursuits and desires that do not involve parenthood) is to facilitate social, economic, emotional, and interpersonal support networks, combine resources for the pursuit of financial gain and / or stability, formalize long term commitments to one another and to larger familial and social networks, claim some of the rights, benefits and privileges granted to procreative families in many countries, and / or adhere to religious / spiritual beliefs about emotional-sexual commitment, trajectory, and purpose.

The Sociobiology of Families
In almost all societies, marriage between brothers and sisters is forbidden, with Ancient Egyptian, Hawaiian, and Inca royalty being the rare exceptions. In many societies, marriage between some first cousins is preferred, while at the other extreme, the medieval Catholic church prohibited marriage even between distant cousins. The present day Catholic Church still maintains a standard of required distance (in both consanguinity and affinity) for marriage.

These sorts of restrictions are a form of exogamy. One exception to this pattern is in ancient Egypt, where marriage between brothers and sisters was permitted in the royal family — as it was also permitted in Hawaii and among the Inca. This privilege was denied commoners and may have served to concentrate wealth and power in one family. The consequence of the incest-taboo is exogamy, the requirement to marry someone from another group. The incest taboo may serve to promote social solidarity.

Courtship

Courtship is the traditional dating period before engagement and marriage (or long term commitment if marriage is not allowed). It is an alternative to arranged marriages in which the couple or group doesn't meet before the wedding. During a courtship, a couple or group gets to know each other and decides if there will be an engagement. Courting includes activities such as dating where couples or groups go together for some activity (e.g., a meal or movie). Courting can also take place without personal contact, especially with modern technology. Virtual dating, chatting on-line, sending text messages, conversing over the telephone, instant messaging, writing letters, and sending gifts are all modern forms of courting.

Courtship varies both by time period and by region of the world. One way courtship varies is in the duration; courting can take days or years. In the United Kingdom, a poll of 3,000 engaged or married couples suggested an average duration between first meeting and engagement of 2 years and 11 months,

While the date is fairly casual in most European-influenced cultures, in some traditional societies, courtship is a highly structured activity, with very specific formal rules. In some societies, the parents or community propose potential partners, and then allow limited dating to determine whether the parties are suited (in fact, this was common in the U.S. throughout the 1800's). In Japan, some parents hire a matchmaker to provide pictures and résumés of potential mates, and if the couple or group agrees, there will be a formal meeting with the matchmaker and often parents in attendance; this is called Omiai. In more closed societies, courtship is virtually eliminated altogether by the practice of arranged marriages, where partners are chosen for young people, typically by their parents or (in the absence of parents) local authorities. Forbidding experimental and serial courtship and sanctioning only arranged matches is partly a means of guarding the chastity of young people and partly a matter of furthering family interests, which in such cultures may be considered more important than individual romantic preferences. Another variation of courtship is the bundling tradition, which likely originated in Scandinavia and was carried to the U.S. by immigrants. Bundling involved potential mates spending the night together in the same bed, though the couple was not supposed to engage in sexual relations. This practice ceased in the late 19th Century. In earlier centuries, young adults were expected to court with the intention of finding marriage partners, rather than for social reasons. However, by the 1920s, dating for fun was becoming an expectation, and by the 1930s, it was assumed that any popular young person would have lots of dates. This form of dating, though, was usually more chaste than is seen today, since pre-marital sex was not considered the norm even though it was widespread. As a result of social changes spurred by the sexual revolution of the 1960s and 1970s, the taboo of sex during dating began to wane. Couples today are more likely to "hook up" or "hang out" with large groups rather than go on old-fashioned, paired dates. In recent years, a number of college newspapers have featured editorials where students decry the lack of "dating" on their campuses. This may be a result of a highly-publicized 2001 study and campaign sponsored by the conservative American women's group Independent Women's Forum, which promotes "traditional" dating. Also, in recent years dating has evolved and taken on the metamorphic properties necessary to sustain itself in today's world. This can be seen in the rise in internet dating, speed dating or gradual exclusivity dating (a.k.a. slow dating). Some theorize that courtship as it was known to prior generations has seen its last days and the next closest thing is gradual exclusivity, where the partners respect and value each other's individual lives but still maintain the ultimate goal of being together even if time or space does not permit it now.

Courtship is used by a number of theorists to explain gendering processes and sexual identity. Despite occasional studies as early as the 1910's, systematic scientific research into courtship began in the 1980s after which time academic researchers started to generate theories about modern dating practices and norms. Both Moore and Perper argued that, contrary to popular beliefs, courtship is normally triggered and controlled by women, driven mainly by non-verbal behaviors to which men respond. This is generally supported by other theorists who specialize in the study of body language, but ignores the ways females are socialized to "gain status" by learning to appear attractive to and demonstrate desire for males. Feminist scholars, however, continue to regard courtship as a socially constructed (and male-focused) process organised to subjugate women. While some criticize Feminist interpretations of courtship by pointing to women's support of courtship and attraction to magazines about marital and romantic experience, such criticisms generally ignore the emphasis on marital and romantic relationships (in many cases as the sole element of women's value in male-dominated societies) embedded within feminine socialization norms, and the widespread empirical demonstration that (especially heterosexual) courtship patterns almost universally privilege masculine interests and privilege.

Systematic research into courtship processes inside the workplace as well two 10-year studies examining norms in different international settings  continue to support a view that courtship is a social process that socialises all sexes into accepting forms of relationship that maximise the chances of successfully raising children. This may negatively impact women, particularly those seeking independence and equality at work. .

Marriage
Marriage is a governmentally, socially, or religiously recognized interpersonal relationship, usually intimate and sexual, that is often created as a form of contract. The most frequently occurring form of marriage is between a woman and a man, where the feminine term wife and the masculine husband are generally used to describe the parties to the contract. Other forms of marriage also exist. For example, polygamy, in which a person takes more than one spouse, is present in many societies. (See, for instance, the Kaingang, of Brazil, where close to 40% of the marriages were not monogamous but included multiple spousal partners.) Currently, the legal concept of marriage is expanding to include same-sex marriage in some areas.

The ceremony in which a marriage is enacted and announced to the community is called a wedding. The ways in which marriages are enacted have changed over time. In Europe during the Middle Ages, marriage was enacted by the couple promising verbally that they would be married to each other; the presence of a priest or other witnesses was not required. This promise was known as the "verbum". If made in the present tense (e.g. "I marry you"), it was unquestionably binding; if made in the future tense ("I will marry you"), it would, by itself constitute a betrothal. If the couple proceeded to have sexual relations, the union was a marriage. As part of the Reformation, the role of recording marriages and setting the rules for marriage passed to the state; by the 1600s many of the Protestant European countries had heavy state involvement in marriage. As part of the Counter-Reformation, the Catholic Church added a requirement of witnesses to the promise, which under normal circumstances had to include the priest.

The reasons people marry vary widely, but usually include: to publicly and formally declare their love, the formation of a single household unit, legitimizing sexual relations and procreation, social and economic stability, and the education and nurturing of children. A marriage can be declared by a wedding ceremony, which may be performed either by a religious officiator or through a similar government-sanctioned secular process. The act of marriage creates obligations between the individuals involved, and, in some societies, between the parties' extended families. Marriages are perpetual agreements with legal consequences, terminated only by the death of one party or by formal dissolution processes, such as divorce and annulment.

Schwartz and Mare examined trends in marriage over time and found that the old maxim, "opposites attract" is less accurate of marriage than the maxim "birds of a feather flock together." Their research focused on one specific similarity in marital partners: education. They found that the educational levels of American married couples decreased in similarity slightly after World War II but has since increased substantially. As of 2003, one's level of educational attainment was a significant predictor of the educational attainment of one's spouse. People without a high school diploma are unlikely to marry someone with more educational attainment, and people with a college degree are likely to marry people with a similar level of educational attainment. Part of the reason why education is so influential in determining the level of education of one's spouse is because people tend to form groups based on levels of education. First there are the groups formed in the process of becoming educated (many people meet their spouses in school). But jobs after one completes his/her education also tend to be grouped by level of education. As a result, people spend more time with individuals of a similar level of educational attainment. As most people tend to marry or partner with individuals with whom they spend a lot of time, it is not surprising that there is significant educational similarity between spouses.

One well-known attribute of marriage is that it tends to have health benefits. Happily married people tend to be healthier than unmarried people. However, unhappily married couples may not receive the same health benefits and may actually be less healthy than their single peers.

Children
Kids raised in families with only one parent or with step-parents are more likely to have behavior problems than are kids raised with parents that remain connected throughout the child's life course. Previous research has attributed this to the fact that single-parent households tend to be poorer than dual-parent households and poverty is related to behavior problems. A recent study by Marcia Carlson adds a clue as to why children raised in single-parent households or households with step-parents might have more behavior problems. According to Carlson's study of nearly 3,000 teens, children whose fathers are more involved in their lives are less likely to have behavior problems. When the relationship between a child and the father is missing, children in single-parent and step-parent families are more likely to act out in negative ways. One way to reduce behavior problems in teenagers is to encourage a close relationship between them and their fathers. There is also some evidence that the gender of children increases father involvement in the home. Thus, while having an active father helps improve behavior problems, fathers having sons helps improve their dedication and devotion to their families. Expanding on these findings, longitudinal studies of family development have revealed that active parental involvement - regardless of gender (e.g., by fathers, mothers, and / or other designated parental units) - lies at the heart of this relationship, and thus it is most important to provide children with stable, active parental guardians regardless of the origins of these individuals within the life course of the child.

Another recent finding related to children is that parents have less influence on their childs' mate selections now than they used to. Rosenfeld and Kim found that a new life stage has developed in the latter half of the 20th century that they call the "independent life stage." This life stage is a period of time in which young adults leave home and live alone (often to go to college). Children used to remain in their parents home until they left to start their own family, but the independent life stage is a period of single-living prior to the formation of one's own family. As a result of this life stage, which also overlaps with the time in most children's' lives when they are beginning to look for life partners, parents are decreasingly involved in the decision-making process. Rosenfeld and Kim attribute the increase in interracial and same-sex marriages to the increasing prevalence of this life stage.

How parents raise children and childhood autonomy have also changed over time. Analyzing back issues of Parents magazine, Markella Rutherford found that parents face a difficult task of trying to balance authority with childhood autonomy. Children have gained more autonomy in private spaces in their homes (e.g., they are allowed to decorate their own rooms) but have lost autonomy in public areas outside the home (e.g., they are not allowed to go to the park alone). Some of the loss of autonomy is the result of a growing fear among parents of child predators, which is generally over-stated. This same factor may help explain the increase in autonomy in the home, as parents are trying to compensate for heightened supervision outside the home by allowing children greater freedom inside the home. It is also now known that most parents regularly lie to their children, though this is typically done in the interest of getting kids to behave in positive ways. Known as "parenting by lying," the practice appears to be widespread and ironic, considering most parents also tell their kids not to lie. Another shift in parenting has been a reduction in the use of corporal punishment. A growing body of research has found that corporal punishment is not an effective technique for modifying children's behavior. For instance, one study found that most kids who were spanked began misbehaving within about 10 minutes of having been spanked, suggesting that the efficacy of corporal punishment for changing behavior is quite limited.

Kids are closely connected to a family's socioeconomic status as well. Kids are expensive to raise, and the more kids a family has, on average, the lower the social class (though this is a complicated relationship as the causal direction goes both ways). One illustration of this is the upward mobility of Catholics in the U.S. over the past few decades. Catholics in the U.S. used to be among the lower-middle sector of the population in terms of income and wealth. But as of the 1990s and 2000s, Catholics in the U.S. rank higher, just above the middle. Part of the reason for this has been a decrease in the size of Catholic families; Catholics are having about the same number of children as are non-Catholics in the U.S. With smaller families, Catholics are able to retain more of their income and turn it into savings, improving their socioeconomic status. Thus, the reduction in the number of kids among Catholics has actually improved their socioeconomic status on average.

Divorce

Numerous studies have tried to determine why close to 50 percent of marriages end in divorce within the first 25 years in the United States. Carrie Yodanis takes a different approach, analyzing marriages that remain intact. Her cross-national study of 22 countries suggests that where there is more tolerance of divorce, there is greater gender equality within marriage. Most researchers think that women are disadvantaged by the ease of divorce. Where divorce is an option, women may feel more insecure and are therefore reluctant to push for change within a marriage. Contradicting these claims, Yodanis shows that the ease of divorce increases women's equality within marriage. Divorce is a negotiating tool for women who seek change in their relationships. In countries with greater acceptance of divorce, there is a more equal division of household work. Men risk losing their wives if they refuse to shape up and help out around the house. Thus, while divorce has helped many women leave unhealthy marriages in which they are at risk of great physical and mental harm, the ability to get a divorce easily may also strengthen marriages.

Another factor that contributes to high divorce rates is the change in laws that made divorce easier in the 1970s in the U.S. The introduction of "No-fault divorce" laws removed the burden of proving that one's spouse had caused irreparable damage to the relationship (through adultery, battery, etc.). Women's rights advocates pushed for this change as it facilitated women's ability to exit unhealthy marriages. Other factors that may have also contributed to the rise in divorces is a cultural mystique that suggests marriage should be blissful and not have any problems. This is a common depiction of marriage in media, but is far from an accurate portrayal. The unrealistic expectations many couples bring to marriage heightens the probability of divorce if things don't align with those expectations.

The increasing participation of women in the workforce has provided women with greater financial security. With financial security comes independence. Thus, women's workforce participation also increases the odds of divorce, though this is similar to Yodanis's argument - it really just empowers women who are in bad marriages to feel like they can leave the marriage and not experience a dramatic decline in quality of life.

Finally, there is a social-psychological component to divorce as well. People have a tendency to unfairly judge other peoples' behavior as being "part of who they are" or part of their identity. However, they do not hold themselves to the same critical judgment; when they do something that is mean, it is situationally determined and doesn't reflect their identity. This is known as the fundamental attribution error and can lead to the dissolution of relationships. This occurs when the parties in the relationship attribute the negative behaviors they dislike to fundamental characteristics of the person rather than to the situation. There is evidence to suggest that specific types of couple therapy can help couples see where they are committing the fundamental attribution error and substantially reduce the odds of divorce.

Divorce and widowhood carry with them the burden of reduced health. Divorced people have 20% more chronic health conditions (e.g., heart disease, diabetes, cancer) than do married people. They also have 23% more mobility limitations (e.g., climbing stairs or walking a block). Divorcees experience declines in health because of two things that accompany divorce: reduced income and stresses over the dissolution of the marriage (e.g., things like negotiating child care). These differences in health remain even after an individual remarries.

Death and Widowing
In most societies, the death of one of the partners terminates the marriage, and in monogamous societies this allows the other partner to remarry. A spouse who outlives the other is referred to as a widow (cis and trans women) or widower (cis and trans men).

Gender
While heterosexual marriage does increase the socioeconomic status of women, men reap many benefits from this type of living arrangement. For instance, while many women manage a household's finances, men generally retain control of the money. As a result, when heterosexual couples divorce, women are much less affluent and a large percentage of divorced, single women fall below poverty lines. Men also obtain greater mental health benefits from heterosexual marriage than do women and report greater marital satisfaction than do women. The greater marital satisfaction heterosexual men report is likely the result of the benefits they receive from marriage - companionship and household labor - while not having to sacrifice occupational success or career advancement. Heterosexual married women, on the other hand, do often have to sacrifice occupational success or career advancement, leading to many highly skilled women leaving the workforce. Many of these women leave because the work environment does not allow for a balance between work and family; the lack of flexible work options for highly skilled women results in many of them "opting out" of the workforce, which is not a problem for heterosexual men. Heterosexual married women also have higher rates of mental illness than do single, widowed, and divorced women. Women who marry at younger ages generally have lower educational attainment (though the causal direction here goes both ways), have more kids, and are also more dependent on their husbands financially. In short, the benefits of heterosexual marriage tend to favor men over women.

One way in which marriage has begun to shift toward a more egalitarian relationship between men and women is in the influence of education. For much of the 20th century, women who had more education than their husbands were at a greater risk of divorce than were women who had less education than their husbands. However, recent research suggests this is no longer the case. Couples married in the 1990s or later in which both individuals have equal levels of education are now less likely to divorce than are couples in which the husbands has more education and women with higher levels of education are no longer at increased risk of divorce either. This suggests a move away from the breadwinner (traditionally male) and homemaker (traditionally female) family model toward a more egalitarian family model.

Race and Ethnicity
Societies have also at times required marriage from within a certain group. Anthropologists refer to these restrictions as endogamy. An example of such restrictions would be a requirement to marry someone from the same tribe. Racist laws adopted by some societies in the past, such as Nazi-era Germany, apartheid-era South Africa and most of the United States in the first half of the 20th century, which prohibited marriage between persons of different races, could also be considered examples of endogamy. In the U.S., these laws were largely repealed between 1940 and 1960. The U.S. Supreme Court declared all such laws unconstitutional in the case of Loving v. Virginia in 1967.

Cultures that practiced slavery might admit that slave marriages formed but grant them no legal status. This was the practice under the Roman empire, so that in the Acts of Perpetua and Felicitas, the freewoman Perpetua could be described as "a married matron" but Felicitas as the "fellow-servant" of Revocatus — even though the Christians regarded, religiously, such marriages as binding. Likewise, slave marriages in the United States were not binding, so that many contrabands escaping slavery during the American Civil War sought official status for their marriages. Among the rights distinguishing serfdom from slavery was the right to enter a legally recognizable heterosexual marriage.

Religion
The participants in a marriage usually seek social recognition for their relationship, and many societies require official approval of a religious or civil body. In the Protestant tradition, Calvin and his colleagues reformulated marriage through enactment of The Marriage Ordinance of Geneva, imposing, "The dual requirements of state registration and church consecration to constitute marriage." In England and Wales, it was Lord Hardwicke's Marriage Act that first required a formal ceremony of marriage, thereby curtailing the practice of Fleet Marriage.

In many jurisdictions, the civil marriage ceremony may take place during the religious marriage ceremony, although they are theoretically distinct. In most American states, the marriage may be officiated by a priest, minister, rabbi or other religious authority, and in such a case the religious authority acts simultaneously as an agent of the state. In some countries, such as France, Spain, Germany, Turkey, Argentina, and Russia, it is necessary to be married by the state before having a religious ceremony.

Conversely, there are people who have religious ceremonies that are not recognized by civil authorities. Examples include widows who stand to lose a pension if they remarry and so undergo a marriage only in the eyes of God and the community; lesbian, gay and bisexual couples with same-sex partners (where same-sex marriage is not legally recognized); some sects which recognize polygamy (see, Mormon fundamentalism), retired couples who would lose pension benefits if legally married, Muslim men who wish to engage in polygamy that is condoned in some situations under Islam, polyamorous couples and groups that seek ceremonial celebration of commitment (where polyamory is not legally recognized), and immigrants who do not wish to alert the immigration authorities that they are married either to a spouse they are leaving behind or because the complexity of immigration laws may make it difficult for spouses to visit on a tourist visa.

In Europe, it has traditionally been the churches' office to make marriages official by registering them. It was a significant step towards a clear separation of church and state and advance toward a secular society when German Chancellor Otto von Bismarck introduced the Zivilehe (civil marriage) in 1875. This law made the declaration of the marriage before an official clerk of the civil administration (spouses affirming their will to marry) the procedure to make a marriage legally valid and effective, and reduced the clerical marriage to a private ceremony.

Most of the world's major religions tell people they should marry before having sexual intercourse. They teach that unmarried people should not have sex, which they refer to as fornication. Fornication is sometimes socially discouraged or even criminalized. Sex with a married person other than one's spouse(s), called adultery, is generally condemned by most religions and has even been criminalized in some countries. Despite this condemnation, it is a widespread practice. About 10-15% of women and 20-25% of men in the U.S. engage in extramarital sex.

For the most part, religious traditions in the world reserve marriage to heterosexual unions but there are exceptions including the Unitarian Universalists and Metropolitan Community Church.

One-Parent Households
One recent trend illustrating the changing nature of families is the rise in prevalence of single-parent or one-parent households. While somewhat more common prior to the 20th century due to the more frequent deaths of spouses, in the late 19th and early 20th century, the nuclear family (husband, wife, and kids) became the societal norm in most Western nations. But what was believed to be the prevailing norm for much of the 20th century is no longer the actual norm, nor is it perceived as such.

In the 1950s, most people believed that single-parent households were "immoral," but by 1978, only 25% of Americans held that belief. Legal reforms in the 1960s and 1970s expanded the rights of nonmarital children and unwed mothers, breaking down the distinction between "legitimate" and "illegitimate". Additionally, the declining purchasing power of male wages in the 1970s along with the increased levels of education among women led to an increasing percentage of married women (with and without kids) to enter the workforce. This change in the economic structure of the U.S. (i.e., the inability to support a nuclear family on a single wage), had significant ramifications on family life. Women and men began delaying the age of first marriage in order to invest in their earning power before marriage by spending more time in school. The increased levels of education among women - women now earn more than 50% of bachelor's degrees - positioned women to survive, economically, without the support of a husband. By 1997, 40% of births to unmarried American women were intentional, and, despite a still prominent gender gap in pay, women are able to survive as single mothers.

However, despite their ability to support their children, single parents often struggle financially to make ends meet. There is some evidence, however, that when single parents move in with their parents (i.e., the child's grandparents), the odds of the single-parent led family falling under the poverty line are reduced by 80%. Thus, three generation households are more financially secure environments for raising children than are two generation households if it is a single parent who is trying to raise children alone.

Cohabitation

Cohabitation is an intimate relationship which includes a common living place and which exists without the benefit of legal, cultural, or religious sanction. It can be seen as an alternative form of marriage, in that, in practice, it is similar to marriage, but it does not receive the same formal recognition by religions, governments, or cultures or the multitude of privileges and governmental benefits granted to officially sanctioned marriages.

The cohabiting population, although inclusive of all ages, is mainly made up of those between the ages of 25 and 34. Several common reasons that lead couples and groups to decide to live together include:
 * wanting to test compatibility or establish financial security before marrying
 * a desire to live as married when same-sex marriages and / or polyamory are not legal
 * living with someone before marriage as a way to avoid divorce
 * a way for polygamists to avoid anti-polygamy laws
 * a way to avoid the higher income taxes paid by some 2-income married couples (in the United States)
 * seeing little difference between the commitment to live together and the commitment of marriage

While cohabitation does address all of the issues above, it does not improve the quality or duration of marriages. Individuals who cohabit before engagement (about 43% of all couples) report slightly lower marital satisfaction, dedication, and confidence as well as more negative communication as compared with individuals who cohabit after engagement (16.4% of all couples in the US) and those who cohabit after marriage (40.5% of couples in the US). Early cohabitors also have a great potential for divorce. The differences are generally small, but are not attributable to demographic differences between the three groups.

Some couples prefer cohabitation because it does not legally commit them for an extended period of time, and because it is easier to establish and dissolve. In some countries (such as Scotland) and some states in the United States, cohabiting is viewed as a legal relationship and is referred to as a common-law marriage after the duration of a specified period or the birth of a child to the couple. In California, such couples are defined as people who "have chosen to share one another's lives in an intimate and committed relationship of mutual caring," including having a "common residence." This recognition led to the creation of a Domestic Partners Registry, which is available to same-sex couples and opposite-sex couples in which at least one of the partners is age 62 or older, granting them limited legal recognition and some rights similar to those of married couples. Today, seven states (North Carolina, Mississippi, Virginia, West Virginia, Florida, Idaho and Michigan) still criminalize cohabitation by opposite-sex couples, although anti-cohabitation laws are generally not enforced.

In most States of the United States, there is no legal registration or definition of cohabitation, so demographers have developed various methods of identifying cohabitation and measuring its prevalence. The most important of these is the Census Bureau, which currently describes an "unmarried partner" as "A person age 15 years and over, who is not related to the householder, who shares living quarters, and who has a close personal relationship with the householder." Before 1995, the Bureau euphemistically identified any "unrelated" opposite-sex couple living with no other adults as POSSLQs, or Persons of Opposite Sex Sharing Living Quarters (these numbers are still reported to show historical trends). Cohabitation often does not have clear start and end dates, as people move in and out of each other's homes and sometimes do not agree on the definition of their living arrangement at a particular moment in time.

In 2005, the U.S. Census Bureau reported 4.85 million cohabiting couples, up more than 1,000 percent from 1960, when there were 439,000 such couples. More than half of couples in the US lived together, at least briefly, before walking down the aisle. In Sweden, Denmark and Norway, cohabitation is very common; roughly 50% of all children are born into families of unmarried couples. In late 2005, 21% of families in Finland consisted of cohabiting couples (all age groups). Of couples with children, 18% were cohabiting. Generally, cohabitation amongst Finns is most common for people under 30. Legal obstacles for cohabitation were removed in 1926 in a reform of the Finnish penal code. In the UK 25% of children are now born to cohabiting parents. In France, 17.5% of couples were cohabiting as of 1999.

Same-Sex Unions

While homosexuality has existed for thousands of years among both humans and other animals, formal marriages between gay / lesbian partners is a relatively recent phenomenon - the earliest recorded examples were referred to as Boston Marriages in 19th century America. As of the summer of 2014, 19 states and the District of Columbia allow same-sex couples to legally marry, but - especially following the dismissal of half of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) by the Supreme Court in 2013 - many states are shifting their legal opinions on this matter at present and cases continually work through the legal system. Further, the dismissal of half of DOMA in 2013 created the possibility for the federal government of the United States to recognize same-sex couples and families, which has facilitated steady opening and benefit extensions to same-sex couples via federal agencies and officials since the ruling (see Same-sex marriage in the United States for regularly updated details of these ongoing changes).

Given how recent same-sex marriage is in the U.S., there is very little existing data on marital dissolution rates. There is, however, data on marital dissolution rates (i.e., divorce) in other countries where same-sex marriage has been legally allowed for a longer period of time. Andersson et al. examined precisely this issue in Norway and Sweden, where same-sex marriages or civil unions have been legally recognized since the mid-1990s. Andersson et al. found several ways in which lesbian/gay unions differ from heterosexual unions in these countries:

 * the average same-sex couple is older than the average heterosexual couple
 * the average same-sex couple is more educated than the average heterosexual couple
 * while divorce rates are higher for couples that marry younger generally (see discussion of divorce above), the divorce rate is slightly higher for same-sex couples than heterosexual couples
 * female same-sex couples are more likely to divorce than are male same-sex couples

Andersson et al. attribute the higher divorce rate to a combination of factors, including: less support from the community and less encouragement or pressure from family and friends to make the marriage last.

One question often raised about same-sex unions is how it influences any children raised in these households. Are children raised by same-sex parents more likely to be lesbian, gay, or even bisexual or asexual? The answer is surprising to some: No. Children raised in same-sex parented households (or mixed-orientation households - households composed of two or more people of varied sexual identities) are no more or less likely to be homosexual than children raised in heterosexual households. Even so, there are some differences. For instance, children raised in same-sex households have more complex perspectives on sexuality and have well-articulated responses to discrimination. Further, recent findings concerning adolescents raised in planned lesbian families suggests these children do as well or better on all social indicators as children raised in heterosexual and / or mixed-orientation households.

Childfree
Some married couples and groups remain childless by choice or due to infertility, age, or other factors preventing reproduction.

Additional Reading
Some couples have made a concerted effort to balance home and work responsibilities so they literally split everything 50/50. Yet, doing so is difficult. This New York Times Magazine article examines this relatively new trend.

Family sociologist Phillip N. Cohen maintains an ongoing blog sharing and discussing the latest issues in family developments, inequalities, and experiences through the dissemination of published findings and the analyses of existing (and at times newly established) data sets that may be useful for further understanding the complexities of family dynamics in the contemporary world. The blog may be found at the following address: http://familyinequality.wordpress.com/

Further examples

Karraker, Meg Wilkes. 2012. Global Families (Contemporary Family Perspectives) (Paperback) 2nd Edition. Sage Publications. ISBN: 9781412998635 Heath, Melanie. 2012. One Marriage Under God:  The Campaign to Promote Marriage in America. New York University Press. ISBN: 9780814737132.

Padavic, Irene and Jonniann Butterfield. 2011. Mothers, Fathers, and “Mathers”: Negotiating a Lesbian Co-parental Identity. Gender & Society. Vol. 25, No. 2: 176 – 196.

Naples, Nancy A. 2004. Queer Parenting in the New Millennium. Gender & Society 18 (6): 679-684.

Martin, Karin. 2005. William wants a Doll. Can He Have One? Feminists, Child Care Advisors, and Gender-Neutral Child Rearing. Gender & Society 19(4): 456-479.

Dreby, Joanna. 2006. Honor and Virtue: Mexican Parenting in the Transnational Context. Gender & Society 20(1): 32-59.

Blum, Linda. 2007. Mother-Blame in the Prozac Nation: Raising Kids with Invisible Disabilities. Gender & Society 21(2): 202-226.

Miller, Tina. 2007. “Is this what Motherhood is All About?”: Weaving Experiences and Discourse through Transition to First-Time Motherhood. Gender & Society 21(3): 337-358.

McQuillan, Julia, Arthur L. Greil, Karina M. Shreffler, and Veronica Tichenor. 2008. The Importance of Motherhood Among Women in the Contemporary United States. Gender & Society 22(4): 477-496.

Discussion Questions

 * Do families actually exist or are they socially constructed?
 * Do we need families?
 * How do families vary by society and culture?
 * What does "family-friendly" mean?
 * Why are people increasingly choosing not to marry?

title: Introduction to Sociology/Family


text:
Introduction to Sociology/Social Movements

Introduction
Social movements are any broad social alliances of people who are connected through their shared interest in blocking or affecting social change. Social movements do not have to be formally organized. Multiple alliances may work separately for common causes and still be considered a social movement.

A distinction is drawn between social movements and social movement organizations (SMOs). A social movement organization is a formally organized component of a social movement. But an SMO may only make up a part of a particular social movement. For instance, PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) advocates for vegan lifestyles along with its other aims. But PETA is not the only group to advocate for vegan diets and lifestyles; there are numerous other groups actively engaged toward this end (see vegan). Thus, the social movement may be a push toward veganism (an effort with numerous motivations) and PETA is an SMO working within the broader social movement.

Modern social movements became possible through the wider dissemination of literature and increased mobility of labor due to the industrialization of societies. Organised social structures like modern day armies, political societies, and popular movements required freedom of expression, education and relative economic independence.

Giddens has identified four areas in which social movements operate in modern societies:
 * 1) democratic movements that work for political rights
 * 2) labor movements that work for control of the workplace
 * 3) ecological movements that are concerned with the environment
 * 4) peace movements that work toward, well, peace

It is also interesting to note that social movements can spawn counter movements. For instance, the women's movement of the 1960s and 1970s resulted in a number of counter movements that attempted to block the goals of the women's movement, many of which were reform movements within conservative religions.

Types of Social Movements
Aberle described four types of social movements based upon two characteristics: (1) who is the movement attempting to change and (2) how much change is being advocated. Social movements can be aimed at change on an individual level (e.g., AA) or change on a broader, group or even societal level (e.g., anti-globalization). Social movements can also advocate for minor changes (e.g., tougher restrictions on drunk driving; see MADD) or radical changes (e.g., prohibition).

Stages in Social Movements
Blumer, Mauss, and Tilly have described different stages social movements often pass through. Movements emerge for a variety of reasons (see the theories below), coalesce, and generally bureaucratize. At that point, they can take a number of paths, including: finding some form of movement success, failure, co-optation of leaders, repression by larger groups (e.g., government), or even the establishment of the movement within the mainstream.

Whether these paths will result in movement decline or not varies from movement to movement. In fact, one of the difficulties in studying social movements is that movement success is often ill-defined because movement goals can change. For instance, MoveOn.org, a website founded in the late 1990s, was originally developed to encourage national politicians to move past the Clinton impeachment proceedings (see here). Since that time, the group has developed into a major player in national politics in the U.S. and developed into a Political Action Committee or PAC. In this instance, the movement may or may not have attained its original goal - encouraging the censure of Clinton and moving on to more pressing issues - but the goals of the SMO have changed. This makes the actual stages the movement has passed through difficult to discern.

Social Movement Theories
A variety of theories have attempted to explain how social movements develop. Some of the better-known approaches are outlined below.

Deprivation Theory
Deprivation Theory argues that social movements have their foundations among people who feel deprived of some good(s) or resource(s). According to this approach, individuals who are lacking some good, service, or comfort are more likely to organize a social movement to improve (or defend) their conditions.

There are two significant problems with this theory. First, since most people feel deprived at one level or another almost all the time, the theory has a hard time explaining why the groups that form social movements do when other people are also deprived. Second, the reasoning behind this theory is circular - often the only evidence for deprivation is the social movement. If deprivation is claimed to be the cause but the only evidence for such is the movement, the reasoning is circular.

Mass-Society Theory
Mass-Society Theory argues that social movements are made up of individuals in large societies who feel insignificant or socially detached. Social movements, according to this theory, provide a sense of empowerment and belonging that the movement members would otherwise not have.

Very little support has been found for this theory. Aho, in his study of Idaho Christian Patriotism, did not find that members of that movement were more likely to have been socially detached. In fact, the key to joining the movement was having a friend or associate who was a member of the movement.

Structural-Strain Theory
Structural-Strain Theory proposes six factors that encourage social movement development:
 * 1) structural conduciveness - people come to believe their society has problems
 * 2) structural strain - people experience deprivation
 * 3) growth and spread of a solution - a solution to the problems people are experiencing is proposed and spreads
 * 4) precipitating factors - discontent usually requires a catalyst (often a specific event) to turn it into a social movement
 * 5) lack of social control - the entity that is to be changed must be at least somewhat open to the change; if the social movement is quickly and powerfully repressed, it may never materialize
 * 6) mobilization - this is the actual organizing and active component of the movement; people do what needs to be done

This theory is also subject to circular reasoning as it incorporates, at least in part, deprivation theory and relies upon it, and social/structural strain for the underlying motivation of social movement activism. However, social movement activism is, like in the case of deprivation theory, often the only indication that there was strain or deprivation.

Resource-Mobilization Theory
Resource-Mobilization Theory emphasizes the importance of resources in social movement development and success. Resources are understood here to include: knowledge, money, media, labor, solidarity, legitimacy, and internal and external support from power elite. The theory argues that social movements develop when individuals with grievances are able to mobilize sufficient resources to take action. The emphasis on resources offers an explanation why some discontented/deprived individuals are able to organize while others are not.

Some of the assumptions of the theory include:
 * there will always be grounds for protest in modern, politically pluralistic societies because there is constant discontent (i.e., grievances or deprivation); this de-emphasizes the importance of these factors as it makes them ubiquitous
 * actors are rational; they weigh the costs and benefits from movement participation
 * members are recruited through networks; commitment is maintained by building a collective identity and continuing to nurture interpersonal relationships
 * movement organization is contingent upon the aggregation of resources
 * social movement organizations require resources and continuity of leadership
 * social movement entrepreneurs and protest organizations are the catalysts which transform collective discontent into social movements; social movement organizations form the backbone of social movements
 * the form of the resources shapes the activities of the movement (e.g., access to a TV station will result in the extensive use TV media)
 * movements develop in contingent opportunity structures that influence their efforts to mobilize; as each movement's response to the opportunity structures depends on the movement's organization and resources, there is no clear pattern of movement development nor are specific movement techniques or methods universal

Critics of this theory argue that there is too much of an emphasize on resources, especially financial resources. Some movements are effective without an influx of money and are more dependent upon the movement members for time and labor (e.g., the civil rights movement in the U.S.).

Political Process Theory
The way that Political Process Theory is similar to resource mobilization in many regards, but tends to emphasize a different component of social structure that is important for social movement development: political opportunities. Political process theory argues that there are three vital components for movement formation: insurgent consciousness, organizational strength, and political opportunities.

Insurgent consciousness refers back to the ideas of deprivation and grievances. The idea is that certain members of society feel like they are being mistreated or that somehow the system is unjust. The insurgent consciousness is the collective sense of injustice that movement members (or potential movement members) feel and serves as the motivation for movement organization.

Organizational strength falls inline with resource-mobilization theory, arguing that in order for a social movement to organize it must have strong leadership and sufficient resources.

Political opportunity refers to the receptivity or vulnerability of the existing political system to challenge. This vulnerability can be the result of any of the following (or a combination thereof):
 * growth of political pluralism
 * decline in effectiveness of repression
 * elite disunity; the leading factions are internally fragmented
 * a broadening of access to institutional participation in political processes
 * support of organized opposition by elites

One of the advantages of the political process theory is that it addresses the issue of timing or emergence of social movements. Some groups may have the insurgent consciousness and resources to mobilize, but because political opportunities are closed, they will not have any success. The theory, then, argues that all three of these components are important.

Critics of the political process theory and resource-mobilization theory point out that neither theory discusses movement culture to any great degree. This has presented culture theorists an opportunity to expound on the importance of culture.

One advance on the political process theory is the political mediation model, which outlines the way in which the political context facing movement actors intersects with the strategic choices that movements make. An additional strength of this model is that it can look at the outcomes of social movements not only in terms of success or failure but also in terms of consequences (whether intentional or unintentional, positive or negative) and in terms of collective benefits.

Culture Theory
Culture theory builds upon both the political process and resource-mobilization theories but extends them in two ways. First, it emphasizes the importance of movement culture. Second, it attempts to address the free-rider problem.

Both resource-mobilization theory and political process theory include a sense of injustice in their approaches. Culture theory brings this sense of injustice to the forefront of movement creation by arguing that, in order for social movements to successfully mobilize individuals, they must develop an injustice frame. An injustice frame is a collection of ideas and symbols that illustrate both how significant the problem is as well as what the movement can do to alleviate it,

 * "Like a picture frame, an issue frame marks off some part of the world. Like a building frame, it holds things together.  It provides coherence to an array of symbols, images, and arguments, linking them through an underlying organizing idea that suggests what is essential - what consequences and values are at stake. We do not see the frame directly, but infer its presence by its characteristic expressions and language.  Each frame gives the advantage to certain ways of talking and thinking, while it places others out of the picture." (p. 14)

A few things we know about injustice frames: In emphasizing the injustice frame, culture theory also addresses the free-rider problem. The free-rider problem refers to the idea that people will not be motivated to participate in a social movement that will use up their personal resources (e.g., time, money, etc.) if they can still receive the benefits without participating. In other words, if person X knows that movement Y is working to improve environmental conditions in his neighborhood, he is presented with a choice: join or not join the movement. If he believes the movement will succeed without him, he can avoid participation in the movement, save his resources, and still reap the benefits - this is free-riding. A significant problem for social movement theory has been to explain why people join movements if they believe the movement can/will succeed without their contribution. Culture theory argues that, in conjunction with social networks being an important contact tool, the injustice frame will provide the motivation for people to contribute to the movement.
 * Facts take on their meaning by being embedded in frames, which render them relevant and significant or irrelevant and trivial.
 * People carry around multiple frames in their heads.
 * Successful reframing involves the ability to enter into the worldview of our adversaries.
 * All frames contain implicit or explicit appeals to moral principles.

Framing processes includes three separate components:
 * Diagnostic frame: the movement organization frames what is the problem or what they are critiquing
 * Prognostic frame: the movement organization frames what is the desirable solution to the problem
 * Motivational frame: the movement organization frames a "call to arms" by suggesting and encouraging that people take action to solve the problem

New Social Movement theories
See Wikipedia's page on NSM theories.

Examples of Social Movements

 * civil rights movement in the United States
 * environmental movement
 * green movement
 * gay rights movement
 * labor movement
 * anti-globalization movement
 * vegetarian movement
 * feminist movement
 * pro-life movement
 * anti-nuclear movement
 * peace movement
 * Black Lives Matter movement

Additional Reading
Schrock, Douglas, Daphne Holden, and Lori Reid. 2004. “Creating Emotional Resonance: Interpersonal Emotion Work and Motivational Framing in a Transgender Community.” Social Problems 51: 61-81.

Benford, Robert and David Snow. 2000. “Framing Processes and Social Movements: An Overview and Assessment.” Annual Review of Sociology 26:611-639. Benford, Robert. 1993. "Frame Disputes within the Nuclear Disarmament Movement." Social Forces 71:677-701. Croteau, David, and Lindsi Hicks. 2003. "Coalition Framing and the Challenge of a Consonant Frame Pyramid: The Case of a Collaborative Response to Homelessness." Social Problems 50:251-272. McAdam, Doug, John McCarthy, and Mayer Zald. 1996. Comparative Perspectives on Social Movements: Political Opportunities, Mobilizing Structures, and Cultural Framings. New York: Cambridge University Press. Cunningham, David. 2004. There's Something Happening Here: The New Left, The Klan, and	FBI CounterIntelligence. Los Angeles: University of California Press. Earl, Jennifer. 2003. "Tanks, Tear Gas and Taxes: Toward a Theory of Movement Repression." Sociological Theory 21:44-68.

Armstrong, Elzabeth and Suzanna Crage. 2006. "Movements and Memory: The Making of the Stonewall Myth." American Sociological Review 71:724-751.

Polletta, Francesca, and James Jasper. 2001. "Collective Identity and Social Movements." Annual Review of Sociology 27:283-305. Polletta, Francesca. 1998. “‘It Was Like a Fever….’ Narrative and Identity in Social Protest.” Social Problems 45: 137-159. Taylor, Verta. 1996. Rock-A-By Baby. New York: Routledge. Rohlinger, Deana. 2006. "Friends and Foes: Media, Politics, and Tactics in the Abortion War."Social Problems 53:537-561. Roscigno, Vincent, and William Danaher. 2001. "Media and Mobilization: The Case of Radio and Southern Textile Worker Insurgency, 1929-1934." American Sociological Review		66:21-48. Earl, Jennifer, and Alan Schussman. 2006. "The New Site of Activism: On-Line Organizations Movement Entrepreuneurs, and the Changing Locations of Social Movement Decision	Making." Research in Social Movements, Conflicts and Change 24:155-187.

Discussion Questions

 * Are you part of a social movement?
 * Are you a free-rider taking advantage of the social movement activities of others?
 * What is required to build a social movement?
 * What does it mean for a social movement to succeed?

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
Introduction to Sociology/Sexuality

UNDER CONSTRUCTION

Human sexuality is how people experience the erotic and express themselves as sexual beings. Human sexuality has many aspects. Biologically, sexuality refers to the reproductive mechanism as well as the basic biological drive that exists in all species and can encompass sexual intercourse and sexual contact in all its forms. There are also emotional or physical aspect of sexuality, which refers to the bond that exists between individuals, which may be expressed through profound feelings or emotions, and which may be manifested in physical or medical concerns about the physiological or even psychological aspects of sexual behaviour. Sociologically it can cover the cultural, political, and legal aspects; and philosophically, it can span the moral, ethical, theological, spiritual or religious aspects.

Recent studies on human sexuality have highlighted that sexual aspects are of major importance in building up personal identity and to social evolution of individuals: "“Human sexuality is not simply imposed by instinct or stereotypical conducts, as it happens in animals, but it is influenced both by superior mental activity and by social, cultural, educational and normative characteristics of those places where the subjects grow up and their personality develops. Consequently, the analysis of sexual sphere must be based on the convergence of several lines of development such as affectivity, emotions and relations”."

In many historical eras, recovered art and artefacts help to portray human sexuality of the time period.

Factors Influencing Human Sexuality
Human sexuality can be influenced by hormonal changes in the development of the fetus during pregnancy. Some claim its manner of expression is largely due to genetic predisposition. Others say it is due to one's own personal experimentation in early life, and thus the establishment of preferences. A less divisive approach recognizes that both factors may have a mutual role to play. A primary criticism of the idea that homosexuality is at least in part genetically determined is the fact that homosexual men are less likely to procreate, which means any genes that contribute to their sexual identity will not be passed on to offspring, suggesting the genes that contribute to their homosexual identity will die with them. However, recent research has found that homosexuality may follow a "kin selection" evolutionary model. The basic idea of kin selection is that some individuals may not procreate, but they will work to facilitate the procreation of their relatives and the survival of their relatives' offspring. By facilitating the success of their siblings' offspring, they are, indirectly, insuring the reproduction of their genes. In one study examining this idea, the fa'afafine of Samoa, gay men who are considered a distinct gender category apart from either men or women, were found to in fact be more involved in the lives of their nieces and nephews than were heterosexual aunts and uncles. This research supports the kin selection model of sexual identity and helps explain why there is a genetic component to homosexuality even though homosexual individuals are less likely than heterosexual individuals to procreate.

Human sexuality can also be understood as part of the social life of humans, governed by implied rules of behavior and the status quo. Thus, it is claimed, sexuality influences social norms and society in turn influences the manner in which sexuality can be expressed. Since the invention of the mass media, sexuality has further molded the environments in which we live; it comes to be distilled (often into stereotypes) and then repeatedly expressed in commercialized forms such as print, audio and film.

Human sexuality is distinguished from gender identity. Gender identity is a more expansive set of roles than sexual identity. Gender can be molded by the social environment to which one is exposed as a child, such as an authority figure giving a little boy a toy truck to play with, and a girl a doll. Human physiology and gender molding thus make certain forms of sexual expression possible or even likely, but it does not predict that future sexual behavior will be regarded as 'gender appropriate.'

Human sexual choices are usually made using current cultural norms. For example, some may choose to abstain from sex before marriage because their religion forbids such actions. In some cultures it may be acceptable for a man to have many wives, while in others bigamy or polygamy is frowned upon. Those who wish to express a dissident sexuality often form sub-cultures within the main culture.

Sociobiology
One study supporting sociobiological understandings of human sexuality found evidence for this in the responses of heterosexual men to "cheating" by their female partners. If their female partners cheated with a man, they were less likely to continue dating her than if she cheated with a woman. This suggests that the bigger issue with cheating - for men - is not the sexual or emotional intimacy but the threat to paternity; men do not want to be cuckolded into raising another man's child.

Adolescence
Recent research has found that there is a genetic predisposition in 20 to 30 percent of Caucasian women for premenstrual dysphoric disorder (PMDD; commonly referred to as PMS). While the research was conducted on mice, mice and humans share the same gene. Basically, mice with this particular gene are more irritable and insecure during certain phases of their estrous cycle (the equivalent of the human menstrual cycle). Their memory is also impaired. These findings suggest that this may be part of the cause of PMDD in women with this gene variant.

Some groups have expressed concern over the effect of vaccinating young women against the Human papillomavirus, believing that it may increase their sexual activity as they may not be worried about contracting HPV. Recent research suggests vaccinating young women against HPV did not effect sexual activity. Adolescent females who had been vaccinated against HPV were no more or less likely to engage in sexual activity than were young women who were not vaccinated.

Adulthood
New parents (i.e., coparents of a newborn child) tend to experience a decline in sexual activity. While for some women, pain following childbirth may reduce sexual interest, for many people, the decline in sexual activity as new parents is primarily due to the stresses associated with caring for a newborn, including lack of sleep and the many other tasks that must be addressed with childcare.

Differences in Sexuality Between Men and Women
One notable difference between men and women when it comes to sexuality is men's greater interest in casual sex. Men are far more interested in casual sex than are women. Along with their greater interest in casual sex, men are less discriminating in their sexual partners than are women. Women are more likely to engage in casual sex when their potential male partner is extremely attractive, but substantially less so when their partner is even moderately attractive.

As is the case with many other aspects of social life, women are also mistreated when it comes to sex. One study found that young women and teenage girls often face efforts by male partners to sabotage birth control (including damaging condoms). This is referred to as "reproductive coercion" and is often associated with physical or sexual violence. Approximately 1 in 5 young women have experienced reproductive coercion and over 50% of women have experienced physical or sexual violence from an intimate partner. The motivation of such violence and coercion is typically power and control.

Another difference that exists between men and women is an advantage some men gain by combining three traits (a.k.a. "the dark triad"): narcisissism, thrill-seeking, and deceit. While the men who exhibit these traits are not particularly prevalent in society, those men who do exhibit these traits do, in fact, have more success in short-term mating than do men who do not exhibit these traits. In other words, it is at least somewhat true that "bad guys do get the most girls."

Cultural Variations in Sexuality
Recent research has found that most parents in the US have a hard time believing that their children are interested in sex. However, they do believe that most other kids are interested in sex. Of course, most parents are wrong, but this leads them to believe that their children are innocent and that their entrance into sexual activity is the result of persuasion by others and not because their children want to engage in sex.

American parents also depict sex among teenagers as something to be feared and they often forbid it. However, Dutch parents take a completely different approach, talking to their kids about sex and even encouraging them to have sex when they are ready. Dutch parents go so far as to encourage their children to have sex in their home when they are ready to ensure it is a safe and pleasant experience. In fact, nine out of ten Dutch parents are okay with their teenage children having sex in their home, while nine out of ten parents in the US are opposed to it. These differences in sexual attitudes result in much lower rates of birth control use in the US (26%) than in Holland (63%) and much higher rates of regret (63% of boys and 69% of girls in the US wish they had waited while just 5% and 20% of boys and girls in the Netherlands wish they had). Another consequence of the attitudes about sexuality in the US is three times higher teenage pregnancy rates than in Holland.

Having Sex
Having sex is associated with better health and people who are in better health have more sex. In one study, 38.9% of men and 16.8% of women between 75 and 85 were sexually active, and this was closely tied to health, with healthier individuals reporting greater interest in and greater frequency of sex. In that same study the authors found that the sexually active life expectancy of 30 year-olds also varied by sex, for men it was 34.7 years and for women it was 30.7 years. Men also express greater interest in sex and have more sex than do women. Individuals who have sex more frequently also receive a work benefit from their active sex lives, as they tend to be more focused and happier at work the day after they have had sex.

Research published in 2017 suggests that Americans are having less sex than they did in the early 2000s and in the 1990s. While the precise reasons for declining frequency of sex is not known, one contributing factor is less consistent sexual partners. Another factor is differences in sexual activity by age, with 65 year-olds having sex roughly 20 times per year while people in their 20s were having sex more than 80 times per year.

Some forms of contraceptive have been shown to reduce sexual pleasure. Women who use both condoms and hormonal birth control measures report the highest levels of sexual satisfaction while women who use condoms alone reported the lowest levels of sexual enjoyment. While there are side effects to various forms of contraception, one side effect that is oft-repeated - weight gain associated with the birth control pill - has recently been shown to be unlikely. In fact, the opposite may be true - using the birth control pill appears to increase the basal metabolic rate (in monkeys), which can lead to weight loss.

Some women (research is lacking on men) suffer from what is called "postcoital dysphoria," or negative feelings following what is otherwise satisfactory intercourse. The reasons why some women experience postcoital dysphoria are not entirely clear, but in one study it was about 10% of women who reported this feeling some or most of the time after sex (about 1/3 reported it at least occasionally).

Sex Work
There are many forms of sex work, ranging from the adult film industry to prostitution.

A popular perception of prostitution is that it is an "unqualified evil" and is oppressive to women. While that perception is true for some prostitutes, it is not true for the majority of prostitutes and is not at all descriptive of prostitutes in locations where prostitution is legal. Those who believe the "oppressive model" of prostitution is true, generally believe that most prostitutes were sexually abused as children, they were forced into prostitution, usually as young adolescents, they are controlled by pimps, they are drug addicts, they are treated violently, their working conditions are awful, and that legalization would make the situation worse. Seen from another perspective, those sex workers who did experience sexual trauma in childhood may view transactional sex as a way in which they can regain a sense of power, because they ultimately are the ones who have the right to refuse a transaction if it does not meet their standards. Much of the "oppressive model" perceptions are based on sensational media portrayals of extreme instances and the attention is almost exclusively given to street prostitution, which differs dramatically from indoor prostitution solicited through channels other than by walking on the street. Street prostitutes are engaged in a dangerous profession: 27% have been assaulted, 37% have been robbed, and 22% have been raped. However, very few were forced into this by a pimp, and rarely did they start in early adolescence (less than 20% started prior to age 16). Some are addicted to drugs and use prostitution to support their habit; those who are using intravenous drugs are more likely to have HIV/AIDS, but those who are not are unlikely to be HIV positive. Also, there is very little evidence to suggest street prostitutes were more likely to have been sexually assaulted as children. But only 20% of prostitutes in the U.S. are street prostitutes, the rest performing transactions with clients in private and meeting through online or magazine/newspaper classifieds or through escort services.

What are the working conditions like for the remaining 80% of prostitutes? Indoor prostitutes are working in a much safer profession: 1% have been assaulted, 2% raped, and 10% robbed. In terms of physical health, indoor prostitutes are just as healthy in terms of physical health, self-esteem, mental health, and the quality of their social networks as are non-prostitute women. In fact, some prostitutes feel empowered by their occupation. And where prostitution is legal, prostitutes are even healthier, safer, and more satisfied with their work.

Interestingly, almost 50% of Americans favor legalizing prostitution. It is clear that in localities that legalize or decriminalize prostitution, sex workers become willing participants in investigations of witnessed crimes, something they are unlikely to do when fearing they might be prosecuted themselves. While likely understating the actual number, about 17% of men in the U.S. have paid a prostitute for some form of sexual activity at least once.

Sexual Orientation or Identity
Sexual orientation is a pattern of emotional, romantic, and/or sexual attractions to men, women, both genders, neither gender, or another gender. According to the American Psychological Association sexual orientation also refers to a person’s sense of "personal and social identity based on those attractions, behaviors expressing them, and membership in a community of others who share them." Sexual orientation is usually classified according to the sex or gender of the people who are found sexually attractive. Though people may use other labels, or none at all, sexual orientation is usually discussed in terms of three categories: heterosexual, homosexual, and bisexual. These orientations exist along a heterosexual-homosexual continuum that ranges from exclusive heterosexual to exclusive homosexual, including various forms of bisexuality in-between. The continuum between heterosexual and homosexual does not suit everyone, however, as some people identify as asexual. Many sexologists see this linear scale as an oversimplification of a more nuanced notion of sexual identity.

Most definitions of sexual orientation include a psychological component, such as the direction of an individual's erotic desire, or a behavioral component, which focuses on the sex of the individual's sexual partner/s. Some definitions include both components. Some people prefer simply to follow an individual's self-definition or identity.

Some scholars of sexology, anthropology, and history have argued that social categories such as heterosexual and homosexual are not universal. Different societies may consider other criteria to be more significant than sex, including the age disparity in sexual relationships of the partners, whether partners assume an active or a passive sexual role, and their social status.

Sexual identity and sexual behavior are closely related to sexual orientation, but they are distinguished, with identity referring to an individual's conception of themselves, behavior referring to actual sexual acts performed by the individual, and orientation referring to "fantasies, attachments and longings." Individuals may or may not express their sexual orientation in their behaviors. People who have a homosexual sexual orientation that does not align with their sexual identity are sometimes referred to as closeted.

Sexual identity may also be used to describe a person's perception of his or her own sex, rather than sexual orientation. The term sexual preference has a similar meaning to sexual orientation, but is more commonly used outside of scientific circles by people who believe that sexual orientation is, in whole or part, a matter of choice.

Sexual orientation is a concept that evolved in the industrialized West and there is a controversy as to the universality of its application in other societies/cultures. As Michel Foucault put it, "'Sexuality' is an invention of the modern state, the industrial revolution, and capitalism."

Sexual minorities (i.e., homosexual, bisexual, and asexual individuals) are about twice as likely as heterosexuals to seek mental health help or substance abuse treatment. In one study, 48.5% of lesbian/gay/bisexual individuals reported receiving treatment in the past year as compared to 22.5% of heterosexual individuals. In another study of LGBT youth, 30% met the criteria for a mental health disorder, but 70% did not. Nearly 10% met the criteria for post-traumatic stress disorder, and 15% met the criteria for major depression. Additionally, 1/3 had attempted suicide at some point in their life. While these rates are higher than for youths in national samples, they are comparable to youths in urban, racial, and ethnic minority samples. The primary reason why it's believed sexual minorities are more likely to suffer mental health disorders and seek help at greater rates is due to the greater levels of stress they face resulting from discrimination they experience as a result of their sexual orientation. Acceptance of homosexuality has increased among Americans over the last 40 years to the point that the majority of Americans want some form of marital or civil union rights for homosexuals.

Close to 25% of lesbian and gay teens and about 15% of bisexual teens are homeless, compared with just 3% of heterosexual teens. Additionally, homeless LGB teens are more likely than heterosexual teens to be on their own rather than with a parent or guardian.

In California, partnership rates for lesbians are nearly the same as those for heterosexual women, but lower among gay men than among heterosexual men. Homosexuals who are partnered tend to be older, are more likely to be white, and are better educated than are non-partnered gay men and lesbians.

There is no evidence to date that attempts to change someone's sexual orientation are successful. What's more, there is some evidence to suggest that attempting to change sexual orientation can actually be quite harmful, increasing the risks for depression, anxiety, and self-destructive behavior.

Sexual Abuse
One form of sexual abuse, rape, is far more pervasive than many people realize. A report prepared by researchers working for the United Nations looking at rape in Asia and the Pacific found that rape rates varied by country. In Papua New Guinea, just under 60% of men had forced a woman to have sex, while just under 10% of men had done the same in Cambodia. Overall, close to 1 in 4 men had forced a woman to have sex against her will. Globally, 1 in 10 girls under the age of 20 are raped or sexually assaulted.

Research in the US indicates that, while sexual abuse does occur with disturbing frequency on college campuses, young people who do not attend college are at higher risk for sexual abuse. Women who have attended little or no college are at 2.5 times greater risk of experiencing sexual abuse or forced intercourse and men who have attended little or no college are about 4 times more likely to have experienced sexual abuse or forced intercourse.

A factor shown to contribute to sexual abuse is the sexual objectification of individuals, which is when people are perceived primarily in a sexual fashion rather than as an individual. Recent research has found that it is very common for women to be sexually objectified. At least on college campuses it is true that women often experience others looking at their breasts rather than looking them in the eyes. This is even more likely for women with larger breasts. However, there is a surprising twist to this research: while men were likely to gaze at women's breasts, so, too, were women, though probably for different reasons. Men were likely thinking about the women in a sexual fashion while women were probably making comparisons to themselves, which suggests that women can contribute, albeit indirectly, to their own sexual objectification by thinking of themselves as sexual objects.

One of the factors that increases the risk of sexual abuse in men is having experienced childhood physical or sexual abuse. Men who have experienced childhood physical or sexual abuse are 4 1/2 times more likely to engage in sexually coercive behavior than are men who were not abused as children. However, more than half of the men who engage in coercive sexual behavior have no history of childhood sexual abuse.

title: Introduction to Sociology/Sexuality