Singly and Cichelli also argue that the European family has reconciled the individual with the "inegalitarian social order" perpetuated by the family in a general sense. The authors suggests that a study of social reproduction and personal fulfillment leads to an understanding of "the transformations that are under way in contemporary families.
The article divides the transformation of the family into different categories that shed light on the development of European families. One such category is that of education in contrast to social status as an asset in relationships. The contemporary family now allows the degree of the individual to determine their value in a relationship rather than the social rank of their parents. In a sense, the contemporary couple "trades" valuable degrees rather than social rank in the formation of a long term relationship. Interestingly enough a significant portion of the authors' evidence comes from novels and literature from the late nineteenth century to more contemporary literature.
The more compelling evidence however, comes from statistics gathered from surveys taken by different countries, especially France and Italy. With their evidence and arguments combined Singley and Cicchelli make the valid point that the European family of today is greatly based on the individual's development--including that of the child. While parents are responsible for creating opportunities for their child in competition with other families, the parent also assumes a more unattached role. Children are allowed to seek their personal identity, in fact, the parent is expected to help reach that latent personality.
An insightful conclusion is made by the authors. They recognized the great changes that have take place even in the last thirty to forty years and then pose the question of whether the current form of family life will actually last--what will be the next "contemporary family"?
6 comments:
I agree with you argument, I also think that De Singly and Cicchelli argue that self-fulfillment can come only being in couple. In modern society there is assumption that family can only be in couple. Authors also argue that education is “dowry” and educational shift has changed gender roles.
I agree that one of the ways, Singly and Cicchelli discuss families is through the educational. Instead of a woman bringing a dowry to the table in terms on monetary value she now brings her level of education to the table. So now people are not as concerned with social rank. However, the issue is more complex. That statics presented show that while men and women are now having more equal educational opportunities. However, with this women still do a majority of the housework and are more likely to stay at home with their child. This idea taps into what we were previously discussing with Hartman. Hartman shows that as men and women’s education and upbringing begin to parallel each other that males and females then have define other than biologically what is different about their roles. In Singly and Chicchelli’s, argument we see here how males and females have had parallel upbringings (education)and then they define their gender based on their role in the family. Women are to care for the house and men to be the providers a precedent sent early on.
I thought that it was interesting to look at education as a "dowry." When I first read this, I thought that it was impossible that we did this, but then I took a look at the people that I know. In my personal life, the people I know marry people with similar educational goals or levels. I find it interesting that our self-fulfillment has become paramount, but I'm also not surprised by this fact.
It was interesting that when I read the article through to blog about it I didn't really latch onto the argument about the couple being paramount to self-fulfillment. I think in a sense this has a trend throughout history even if it isn't put in the same vocabulary. Early in the semester we discussed how when early modern europeans did not marry that later in life they would not live alone. They would live together to help offset the cost of living. I'm sure this was also to create an identity within a group, the main evolution we see then is that rather than a brother or sister being a legitimate "roommate" a romantic partner has become the necessity.
It would be interesting to learn if men's and women's perspectives differ concerning the "education is dowry" idea. Are men more likely to marry "down" in terms of education because of the male breadwinner and female homemaker ideal? The fact that many wives quit school in order to raise kids or support their husband's education might support this idea.
As others have mentioned both in the post and comments, Singly and Cicchelli's article stress the importance of individual fullfillment. The article states, "In today's family...the main questions confronting men and women, adults and children, is how to reconcile each individuals self-fullfillment with the functioning of life in the family group" (329). In class discussion we talked about that there is a tension that exists between the needs of the individual versus the needs of the family, and that this tension still has not been resolved today. So the question persists, "How to resolve the tension?".
The article also talks about the idea of education and the equal opportunities available for both men and women. The idea of your education as your "dowry" is also presented. Dr. Harris stated that although men's and women's oppportunities educationally have been equalized the home is still gender differentiated, with women doing the majority of the work in the home. As Danielle stated, this parallels with Hartman's idea of men and women's lives paralleling. I agree with Danielle's statement that both men and women have to "define their gender based on their role in the family".
Post a Comment