Difference between revisions of "426--Week 1 Questions/Comments--Thursday"
From McClurken Wiki
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
I agree on the second point. While those three would constitute a large part of the changes in family life, I think that there are other factors. Technology is one of them. I think that the decline of religion, particularly the Christian denominations, and the separation of church and state are factors in the change of family structure and responsibility. Had the founding fathers not created that division between law and religion, families may have retained a lot more of that cohesive autonomy that marked the previous centuries. -Lacey | I agree on the second point. While those three would constitute a large part of the changes in family life, I think that there are other factors. Technology is one of them. I think that the decline of religion, particularly the Christian denominations, and the separation of church and state are factors in the change of family structure and responsibility. Had the founding fathers not created that division between law and religion, families may have retained a lot more of that cohesive autonomy that marked the previous centuries. -Lacey | ||
| + | |||
| + | From a personal standpoint, I have to agree with Kellogg and Mintz. My sense of family has never been that "proper" barefoot and pregnant archetype. My mother had been in the military for sixteen years before I was born, she retired when I was four and went back to work less than six months later. Even today she is still the bread-winner in my family, as my dad retired from civil service in 1999. Because of this I think that Kellogg and Mintz are all too right in their idea that the nuclear family is irrevocably altered from the ideal. -Lacey | ||
| + | |||
| + | I definately agree that the idea of family has completely changed since the seventeenth century. Most of this change is for good, and I think that it is caused by new beliefs in gender roles. Technology has played a large part in this change as well. It has definately allowed families to stay more connected under difficult situations. -- Kellye Sorber | ||
| + | |||
| + | The change in the family structure is not all good. Because of the changes in roles and technology it has allowed the family to lose its previous close bond. Many families are not able to have dinner together due to different activities and in a world where text messaging and email are so popular at times that is the only contact family members have. -- Kellye Sorber | ||
| + | |||
| + | We are so used to the modern social and familial norms that we often times forget that the family was a community in itself once upon a time. The institute of the family used to provide child and elderly care, education, and spiritual and economic growth and stability. After reading this introduction, I thought about how the family has changed so drastically, we almost (generally) never provide any of the above. And even though technology has brought us closer to a degree, at the same time we can say that it has also widened the gap. And not only was the family a community in itself, but it was molded, regulated and practically held together by the all seeing "eye" of the wider community in which the family belonged. It seems that families in our culture today rarely concern themselves with what the community at large think. - Celia | ||
| + | |||
| + | After rambling on in the paragraph above, I realized that I was generalizing, as were Mintz and Kellogg in their intro. Though the authors bring up some good points on the pros and cons of the modern family, they only describe many but not all families. MAybe back in the 80's family life was crumbling as the baby-boomers started families of their own, but I know that many contemporary families, including my own, are very firmly rooted in traditional values. The authors also speak of a decrease in personal responsibilty and a rising wave of selfishness in our society, which I believe is true for the most part, but some families, and I am happy to say my own family as well, are given a bad and false rap in the generalizations of the authors.- Celia | ||
| + | |||
| + | Kind of going off of Celia's point about families today still being grounded in tradition, it makes me wonder, are families sort of going full circle in how they act? Now, I'm not saying that we're going to revert back to churning butter in the family room, but the fundamental values within a family - are they really that easy to categorize by decade? Like, are they always evolving? Or have some of the basic family values stayed the same? -Kelly | ||
| + | |||
| + | The opening quote of the book by Bronislaw Malinowski I think best introduces some of the ideas touched upon by Mintz and Kellogg. It reads, “Marriage and the family are undergoing a change, nay, passing through a crisis. To close your eyes to it, to say that all is for the best in the best of matrimonial worlds, would be as shallow and as unscientific as to prophesy the downfall of the family. Some changes are necessary, but these will not affect the essential constitution of the family.” I think Mintz and Kellogg would agree that the families of the 1960s, 1970s, 1980s as well as present-day families and families as far back as the 17th century have suffered a crisis. The family described as the “accepted family” which they establish as their norm is certainly not the “accepted family” of the 21st century. As described by Kellogg and Mintz the family is not a static structure, but a “fragile institution.” Yet, the idea of family still exists and while continuously changing has been and will arguably always be a component of society, particularly American society. – Mary Beth | ||
| + | |||
| + | It appears that one of Mintz and Kellogg’s goals in this work is to find consistent patterns in families over time. Before reading their book and ascertaining what patterns they note, what can we come up with as consistencies about families, and consistent changes in family structures over time? What I mean is that Mintz and Kellogg certainly make it clear that the idea and concept of family had developed and changed, my discussion question is designed for us to hypothesize why and how. Past that, are their things that are the same about families? How do our families resemble those in the 19th century? -Stephen | ||
| + | |||
| + | What exactly is a family? I am looking for a good working definition. Does that definition change across cultures/history? What remains the same? - Stephen | ||
| + | |||
| + | Mintz & Kellogg note that families rely on mutual interest. Is this always the case? Are there not examples of family ties and relations not based on interest, for example the Civil War? -Stephen | ||
| + | |||
| + | To me it's weird to realize how much the family has changed since the 17th century ideal. Even today people consider the home to be some sort of a refuge or escape, just like "it always has been" when in actuality things have changed a great deal about how families interact amongst themselves and function in society. -Kelly | ||
| + | |||
| + | While I agree with Mintz and Kellogg that the economy, demography, and women's roles have all impacted the nature of American families, as well as Ashley's point concerning technology, I also believe that women's increased access to education has had a large impact on the nature of families. While Mintz and Kellogg frequently refer to an increase in the number of career women, they do not mention the advancements in education over the past 300 years. I believe that as women were permitted to seek higher education they become more self-sufficient and less reliant on their male counterparts. As a senior in college, I can appreciate the advancements that have been made in women's education and do not view it as having had a negative impact on the family. --Sarah Gardner | ||
| + | |||
| + | When I read the list of "norms" in the introduction, I immediately thought of 1950's TV sitcoms. Although these ideals may not have been the norm, they were portrayed in the media as such. Those same ideals portrayed in the 50's were the same ones practiced in the 17th century. It is amazing how those ideals which lasted so long, could change so dramatically in such little time. - Kari | ||
| + | |||
| + | I agree with Mintz and Kellogg that the need and want for independence was one of the leading causes for the change in the family unit. People wanted to advance themselves personally in society and because of that, public institutions were created. These institutions took away power from the family unit and I feel is one of the main reasons for it's decline from the typical "norms". - Kari | ||
| + | |||
| + | Mintz and Kellogg also discuss how many functions of the family have been taken over by government and other public entities, such as insurance and childcare. While it is true that the family has become less of a self-sustaining unit, these changes have led to a a society that is much more interdependent and connected. I disagree that these changes have left the family responsible only for "the socialization of children and the provision of emotional support and affection." I believe and have seen in many families that parents still seek to educate their children and care for their parents inside the home. Many families view these public entities as a means of additional support and not as a replacement for family functions. I also find it hard to believe that every family was historically self-sufficient. From the time of the Puritans, families had to rely on their neighbors for religious worship, protection, and medical care and advice among other things. Perhaps such institutions as "banks, public charities...and schools" are merely a more visible manifestation of the interdependence of families on one another and the greater community. -- Sarah Gardner | ||
| + | |||
| + | I'm glad that we've identified technology (Ashley) and women's access to education (Sarah) as other reasons families have changed. In the Pop Culture class I took two years ago we studied families through television. I couldn't help but think of this when I was reading the intro. Ozzie& Harriet was the first example, symbolizing the family that Mintz and Kellogg seem to revere. The next was the Cosby Show from the 80s. Here is one of the first examples of a working mother and non-traditional family. The final show we covered was Gilmore Girls, with the divorced, now-single, young mother raising her daughter and sharing with her all the details of her personal life. This transition in a roughly 50 year period epitomizes what could be viewed as the "deterioration" of the family. What I wonder is how much has the media contributed to the divorce rate? How much is society affected by what they watch on tv and what is the correlation of real families to the stamp of approval given by the media to the divorced and non-nuclear families we see in every tv show today? I believe the trends Mintz and Kellogg identified are correct, but their reasons are lacking. -Amanda | ||
| + | |||
| + | I disagree with Mintz and Kellogg that today the United States "is a society without a clear unitary set of family ideals and values." While I agree that many aspects of family life have changed over the decades, some of the most inherent aspects of family have remained. Most especially, the idea of love and loyalty to ones family members. To be a family, is to have a group of people to rely on and care about, especially in rough times. Thus while the nature of families has changed to include single parents and step-parents, all families value love and loyalty. -- Sarah Gardner | ||
| + | |||
| + | I also agree with the first comment made that Mintz and Kellogg seem to have a pessimistic view of a modern family structure. I don't agree with them and think change is not necessarily a bad thing, and in this context families have conformed to the ever-changing society, government, religion, etc. Mintz and Kellogg mentioned that today's society is "permissive" in accepting responsibility for societal problems, but I disagree. Yes, the programs like No Child Left Behind, Welfare, and Planned Parenthood aren't perfect but they are answers and attempts at fixing those problems. Also, I believe the authors missed the mark on a simple explanation of why society can't agree on successful social programs and that is because each has different stakeholders. The single father raising two children will have a different opinion and stake in what a "family" is compared to the "typical" nuclear family. -Joyce Metzler | ||
| + | |||
| + | I agree with Sarah. I think the statement that America "is a society without a clear unitary set of family ideals and values" was used by Mintz and Kellogg as a way to lend more relevancy to their work. -- Rebecca | ||
| + | |||
| + | <p>On page xiii Mintz and Kellogg say that the expectation that "sex should be confined to marriage" used to be one of the givens for proper family life.</p> | ||
| + | |||
| + | <p>I wonder if they are claiming that the expectation has changed over the course of American history. Do people today really look differently on matters of extra-marital sex than people did hundreds of years ago? </p> | ||
| + | |||
| + | <p>I would guess that attitudes about pre-marital sex have not changed very much. (ie: everyone knows it happens a lot, parents are not happy about it, and the behavior is officially frowned upon). </p> | ||
| + | |||
| + | <p>I think attitudes about adultery have not changed very much either. (ie: everyone knows it happens a lot, people don't like being cheated on, and there is some legal recourse to punish an unfaithful spouse.)</p> | ||
| + | |||
| + | <p>The only real change that I can think of now is that there might be more laws in place concerning parental rights and responsibilities for children who were born outside of marriage. </p> -- Rebecca | ||
| + | |||
| + | Another thing that jumped out at me was this line from page xx: | ||
| + | |||
| + | "Shorn of traditional educational and productive functions, the stability of today's families rests on the tenuous basis of affection, compatibility, and mutual interest." | ||
| + | |||
| + | This made me laugh because I totally take for granted that affection, compatibility, and mutual interest form a GREAT basis for a family unit. Certainly more so than being completely trapped in a marriage because you have a bunch of young children and no way to care for them without your spouse's help. I think that on this last page Mintz and Kellogg are assuming that stable=happy and unstable=unhappy. -- Rebecca | ||
| + | |||
| + | I’m just adding to the comments left by Ashley and Joyce. The authors do seem to highlight the negatives of transition. They touch on a ‘give and take’ relationship between progression and deterioration. On page xx the authors cite a decline in premature death, but a rise in divorce rates. Is every positive balanced by a negative? --Andrew | ||
| + | |||
| + | I respectfully disagree with Rebecca. I think that views on sex have changed. Of course parents frown upon premarital sex, but the media embraces it. It is part of our culture. Sex is everywhere. On T.V., in movies, books, and even on the radio (listen to any popular rap song). Sex is also in schools. Children are exposed to it in ‘sex ed.’ More people are o.k. with the notion of underage sex today than they were 300 years ago, or even 50 years ago. --Andrew | ||
| + | |||
| + | Andrew, I'd be willing to go as recent as ten or fifteen years ago. -Cash Nelson | ||
| + | |||
| + | Does anyone else think that maybe we are not shying away from so-called "traditional values," but merely letting these values evolve with the events and crises that arise with a changing society? As is explained on page xv, Alexis de Tocqueville viewed American family life as much different in 1831-1832 than that of the colonial family life. You have to figure that between the time the colonists hit America and the early 1830s, there had been major lifestyle changes. Quite simply, isn't it possible to evolve these societal norms into something more appropriate for the times? -Cash Nelson | ||
| + | |||
| + | Also, if these ideas have been abandoned, not to say that there is anyone or anything to blame, but I think we can point to the publicizing of family as a main reason why. With reality shows, sitcoms and Dateline specials all focusing on the family (let's ignore the fact that I just used the phrase Focus On The Family, please), there is really no such thing as a private family life anymore. Sure, we can keep our deep family secrets, but let's face it, there's an awful lot that gets put into the open as well. -Cash Nelson | ||
| + | |||
| + | I feel that the point Mintz and Kellogg are trying to make in Domestic Revolutions is that the American family unit has slowly decayed and the identification of individual family members' independence has become more significant. The evolvement of the American family from the 17th century onward is due in part by the economic, social and technological changes over the years. If the role of the individual family member is more important, then is the 'proper family' of the 21st century one whose child is financially dependent once he/she graduates college? --Joe Cirenza | ||
| + | |||
| + | I feel that a combination of Mintz and Kellogg's characterization of the 17th century and 1950's family best describes my family. The Catholic tradition of my family has devoted "an increased shelter from the temptations and corruptions of the outside world" in the early years of my life. After becoming a teenager and into my early adult life, I feel that the connection between my family is more companionate, and that there has been a gradual increase in liberties. The role of individual importance as Mintz and Kellogg argue in the 20th and into the 21st century affects my family, in which I choose my own career path and live on my own. Yet despite the separating factors of the growth of the role of the individual, I think that the role of a member within my family still maintains the affection and close-knit connection of families from centuries past. Is then the role of religion the major factor that keeps families from evolving into the 20th century categorization of family by Mintz and Kellogg? --Joe Cirenza | ||
| + | |||
| + | Mintz and Kellogg describe contemporary society as grappling for a revised model of the ideal family since the traditional, highly collectivized form has deteriorated. As society becomes increasingly more individualistic through the advancement of capitalism, placing emphasis on the achievement and self-efficiency of the individual, the importance of self-reliance surfaces in the form of shifting notions of the ideal family. Individuals no longer feel empowered by expressing their identities as mere reflections of their larger family unit. Today, what once existed as the basis of personal strength and value has changed tremendously even throughout the past few decades; the chapter explains the modification of the ideal familial roles as a result of social, political, and economic change in the broader scope of society. In the past hierarchical family systems, one's duty to his or her family was crucial and the successful fulfillment of traditional gender roles established one's sense of self-worth. However, since the obligation of educating children and caring for one's elders has fallen upon society's larger institutions and the competitive and individualistic nature of our culture has become more pronounced, individuals no longer consider dependence on one's family as an expression of strength, but one of weakness and incompetence. -- Augusta | ||
