SOC 204

NETWORKING TO THE MAX!


    possiblities for 1, 3 and part of 4

    Share

    sweetnsalty06

    Posts : 2
    Join date : 2010-03-02

    possiblities for 1, 3 and part of 4

    Post  sweetnsalty06 on Wed Mar 03, 2010 2:19 pm

    1. There are 5 main theories of the origin of the family. The BIBLICAL THEORY is much like its title, very evangelical, the “Adam & Eve” theory. For strong religious believers, this theory could very well be the answer to why and how families were created. However, a weakness this theory possesses is that it’s very black & white in its explanation; God created man, and families were generated through us all originally being brothers & sisters. There’s not much wiggle room in this theory, either people believe it or they simply don’t. The second theory suggests there are no regulations on any sexual relationships. This is called the ORIGINAL PROMISCUITY (MORGAN), which further explains how families were originated by no bonding, permanent, or long term relationships what so ever. This theory defends itself by suggesting it benefits society in a sense that sexual relationships were not for love but for protection, values, and overall social needs. The main flaw this theory captivates is that how can you prove that loose-moraled behavior always existed? We all know that religion and the values that go along with it have been in existence for a long time, so who’s to say that promiscuity existed so abruptly and was the cause and start of families? The MOTHER-CHILD FAMILY THEORY (BRIFAULT) argued against the original promiscuity theory, saying families didn’t just start because people have promiscuous sexual relationships, there was much more to it than just that. This theory stands by the implication that and mother & child’s bond is so powerful, it’s not only stronger than any other family members relationship, it’s completely necessary. This theory suggests families started as just a mother and her child. Despite what this theory states, not all mothers are the same and that’s where this theory falls a little short. Mothers come in all shapes, sizes, and most importantly they come with their own ethical system. Not every woman is fit to be a good mother, therefore this theory cannot bluntly state that families generated from just a mother and her child. SUBJEGATION OF WOMEN (ENGLES) is a theory which by no standards is an acceptable explanation in today’s world. This theory basically shows women playing a subordinate role, and the man controlling all aspects of the family. This theory has the mentality that men could control their woman by “keeping them pregnant and in the kitchen” The fault in this theory is apparently clear, yes women have been subordinate in the past, but to affirm that men had this sense of control from the very beginning is not only sexist, its completely narrow-minded to believe families could originate from such an apprehension. Last but not least the ORIGINAL PAIR THEORY (WESTERNMARK) reveals that from the beginning of time marriages existed, simply because it ultimately benefits both men & women. Both sexes need an emotional and sexual partner, and someone to mother/father their children. The benefits of having a family outweigh the inconvenience of one. In today’s world we know that there is no evidence to seriously support any of these theories, however it is still important to discuss these “ancient theories”. It’s a part of our cultural; it’s a question everyone holds in the back of their mind. How did families originate? We probably will never know the genuine explanation to why families originated in the first place, but it is important to explore and discuss all the options out there.


    3. Kinship is a connection by blood, marriage or adoption to form a family. The structure of kinship is system of relationships which people are bound by one another by complex, interlocking and ramifying ties. A family is the smallest function of society and could consist of a mother, father and child, but the roles which they play determine how the family functions.

    There are many different ways to form a family such as polygamy and monogamy, but it is the way a society chooses to accept the form of family which really matters. There are several ways a family can be influenced. According to William Stephen’s research, there are rules of decent, residence and authority which shape the social structure of family. In RULES OF DECENT, the family is influenced by who’s line of linage you look to determine who is your kin. In 43% of societies that Stephen’s polled, they exhibit PATRALINEAL where they recognize kinship for the boy through the father’s line. On the other extreme, 21% of societies look for kinship for the girls through the mother’s line which is considered to be MATRILINEAL. Another way to determine your kin would be by bilateral descent, where 30% of society traces boys and girls heritage through both mother and father’s line. Lastly, the least practiced with only 7% is the double-strait linear descent by which the boys look to the fathers line, and the girls look to the mothers line, and there are no cross over. Therefore, Stephen’s rules of decent are a primary factor that influences.

    A secondary factor which influences the family is Stephen’s rules of residence. A family is heavily influenced by who they live near. In a patralocal society, you live near the grooms family and 67% of societies choose this route. In a matrilocal society, you live near the brides side of the family and 18% of societies choose to find influence this way. The US only accounts for 8% which have a neolocal society where they live near either the bride or the groom, but they are not on their own. Lastly, the matri-patri local societies are influenced by both the bride and grooms family, but at different times. It is thought in this type of society that the brides family should influence during pregnancy and the grooms after the child is born. Through the rules of residence, families are heavily influenced by who they live closer to in society.

    Lastly, families are influenced through Stephen’s roles of authority. The rules of authority determine where power and influence is held in the family. In a patrarchy society, influence on the family reins heavily on the groom’s side of the family, which accounts for 66% of societies. Only 7% of societies exhibits matriarchy which gives authority to the wife’s mother. 12% of societies are equalitarian societies where both the husband and wife have equal authority, excluding the children, they are equal in all spheres. Lastly, with only 15% of societies practicing a divided power where each parent has their own power in their own sphere. For example, dad may have power outside of the home, where mom has all power within the home. Stephen’s rules of authority shape the influence on the family in conjunction with the rules of decent and residence.

    According to Murdock, there are functions which influence the nuclear family, economic cooperation, reproduction, sexuality, education and common residence. These functions are unlike Stephen’s rules, but affect the social structure of the family non the less. In eco cooperation, the nuclear family allows for a division of labor between adults in order to provide the family with the resources needed to flourish. The mother and father work together to make strides for their family. It varies from society to society, but is always present. In nuclear families reproduction is necessary to replenish the family. It also provides a legitimate arena for sex. Sexuality is a function which influences the family. Humans need intimate relations and intimacy helps hold the bond together for mother and father. Therefore, family is the structure which helps humans meet their basic needs. Another function of family is education, because it is necessary in order to pass down traditions and values. How is society to survive with mortality and no education? Lastly, a common residence is a necessary function which influences the nuclear family. Everyone works well together if they live under the same household. They can share in the responsibilities and grow together as a family. Therefore, according to Murdock’s functions of a nuclear family there is a need for eco cooperation, reproduction, sexuality, education and a common residence.

    The sociological significance of Murdock and Stephen’s research is that families function well if they live together, know their lineage and maintain a source of authority. The source of authority could be held by the brides side, groom’s side, or between mother and father. The key is that the central authority figure influences its power to make the family stronger, whoever it may be. It is evident that physical and structural differences between men and women have lead them to fulfill one role better than the other. Men have upper body strength, better suited for task oriented, instrumental work done outside the house; to deal with the external needs of the family. Mean while women

    4. According to Murdock the nuclear family is universal. The nuclear family consists of a husband and wife, living with their children, working eco cooperatively, and maintaining a sexual relationship. However, the nuclear family is not universal due to societies such as the Nayar and the Kibbutz, and single parent households.

    The Nayar, a sub caste of India, are the exception to the nuclear family because the husband and wife did not live together, there is no life long commitment, the children are not necessarily fathered by the husband and the husband has no obligation to provide for them economically. The Nayar are a matrilinear society consisting of passing visitors, visiting husbands and being “ritually married.” In the situation of the passing visitor, a man comes after dinner and leaves before breakfast. The best part, if she’s done with him, she simply throws his tools off the veranda! In the case of a visiting husband, a woman could have as many visiting husbands either simultaneously or serially. If the woman gets pregnant, any man will step forward, not necessarily the biological father, and will claim to be the father. Unfortunately, if no one steps forward then she must have made out of her caste and risks being shunning, beat or even killed. Lastly, the idea of being “ritually married,” when a boy and a girl live together for three days in their adolescence. After, they live separate lives only to be bonded by the expectation that the woman will arrange a funeral for the man when he passes. Therefore, the Nayar are an exception to Murdock’s analysis of the nuclear family being universal because they have no division of labor, no socialization, and no common residence. Another exception to Murdock’s theory is the people of Isreal who live in the Kibbutz (Spiro), accounting for 3.5% of Israeli society. The people of the Kibbutz live in a cooperative communal society, everything is done together and everything is shared. They are an exception to Murdock’s theory of the nuclear family because they have no division of labor, they don’t reproduce, and they have no common residence.

    Furthermore, 41% of men in the US ,between the ages of 50 and 59 have been divorced. That leaves are large margin for a single parent household. The single parent household is an exception to Murdock’s rule of a nuclear family because there is not always a division of labor, but there may be in the form of child support; there is no longer a common residence or sexual intimate lifestyle, therefore no reproduction. Thus, the single parent household is an exception to Murdock’s social structure theory.

    There is not a universal role structure in the nuclear family. If we looked back on the nostalgic 1950s era, there would be a clear definition of what the gender roles consisted of in the nuclear family. Women were expected to take care of internal affairs of the home, such as cooking, cleaning and taking care of the children. Meanwhile, men took care of external needs of the family by going to work and “bringing home the bacon.” However, times are changing. Women are getting out of the home, getting educated and moving into the work field. Where did this gender role diffraction come from? We could trace it back to the origins of families, and why people decided to get married in the first place. Morgan’s theory of original promiscuity could
    avatar
    Admin
    Admin

    Posts : 35
    Join date : 2010-03-02

    Re: possiblities for 1, 3 and part of 4

    Post  Admin on Wed Mar 03, 2010 7:18 pm

    sweetnsalty06 wrote:1. There are 5 main theories of the origin of the family. The BIBLICAL THEORY is much like its title, very evangelical, the “Adam & Eve” theory. For strong religious believers, this theory could very well be the answer to why and how families were created. However, a weakness this theory possesses is that it’s very black & white in its explanation; God created man, and families were generated through us all originally being brothers & sisters. There’s not much wiggle room in this theory, either people believe it or they simply don’t. The second theory suggests there are no regulations on any sexual relationships. This is called the ORIGINAL PROMISCUITY (MORGAN), which further explains how families were originated by no bonding, permanent, or long term relationships what so ever. This theory defends itself by suggesting it benefits society in a sense that sexual relationships were not for love but for protection, values, and overall social needs. The main flaw this theory captivates is that how can you prove that loose-moraled behavior always existed? We all know that religion and the values that go along with it have been in existence for a long time, so who’s to say that promiscuity existed so abruptly and was the cause and start of families? The MOTHER-CHILD FAMILY THEORY (BRIFAULT) argued against the original promiscuity theory, saying families didn’t just start because people have promiscuous sexual relationships, there was much more to it than just that. This theory stands by the implication that and mother & child’s bond is so powerful, it’s not only stronger than any other family members relationship, it’s completely necessary. This theory suggests families started as just a mother and her child. Despite what this theory states, not all mothers are the same and that’s where this theory falls a little short. Mothers come in all shapes, sizes, and most importantly they come with their own ethical system. Not every woman is fit to be a good mother, therefore this theory cannot bluntly state that families generated from just a mother and her child. SUBJEGATION OF WOMEN (ENGLES) is a theory which by no standards is an acceptable explanation in today’s world. This theory basically shows women playing a subordinate role, and the man controlling all aspects of the family. This theory has the mentality that men could control their woman by “keeping them pregnant and in the kitchen” The fault in this theory is apparently clear, yes women have been subordinate in the past, but to affirm that men had this sense of control from the very beginning is not only sexist, its completely narrow-minded to believe families could originate from such an apprehension. Last but not least the ORIGINAL PAIR THEORY (WESTERNMARK) reveals that from the beginning of time marriages existed, simply because it ultimately benefits both men & women. Both sexes need an emotional and sexual partner, and someone to mother/father their children. The benefits of having a family outweigh the inconvenience of one. In today’s world we know that there is no evidence to seriously support any of these theories, however it is still important to discuss these “ancient theories”. It’s a part of our cultural; it’s a question everyone holds in the back of their mind. How did families originate? We probably will never know the genuine explanation to why families originated in the first place, but it is important to explore and discuss all the options out there.


    3. Kinship is a connection by blood, marriage or adoption to form a family. The structure of kinship is system of relationships which people are bound by one another by complex, interlocking and ramifying ties. A family is the smallest function of society and could consist of a mother, father and child, but the roles which they play determine how the family functions.

    There are many different ways to form a family such as polygamy and monogamy, but it is the way a society chooses to accept the form of family which really matters. There are several ways a family can be influenced. According to William Stephen’s research, there are rules of decent, residence and authority which shape the social structure of family. In RULES OF DECENT, the family is influenced by who’s line of linage you look to determine who is your kin. In 43% of societies that Stephen’s polled, they exhibit PATRALINEAL where they recognize kinship for the boy through the father’s line. On the other extreme, 21% of societies look for kinship for the girls through the mother’s line which is considered to be MATRILINEAL. Another way to determine your kin would be by bilateral descent, where 30% of society traces boys and girls heritage through both mother and father’s line. Lastly, the least practiced with only 7% is the double-strait linear descent by which the boys look to the fathers line, and the girls look to the mothers line, and there are no cross over. Therefore, Stephen’s rules of decent are a primary factor that influences.

    A secondary factor which influences the family is Stephen’s rules of residence. A family is heavily influenced by who they live near. In a patralocal society, you live near the grooms family and 67% of societies choose this route. In a matrilocal society, you live near the brides side of the family and 18% of societies choose to find influence this way. The US only accounts for 8% which have a neolocal society where they live near either the bride or the groom, but they are not on their own. Lastly, the matri-patri local societies are influenced by both the bride and grooms family, but at different times. It is thought in this type of society that the brides family should influence during pregnancy and the grooms after the child is born. Through the rules of residence, families are heavily influenced by who they live closer to in society.

    Lastly, families are influenced through Stephen’s roles of authority. The rules of authority determine where power and influence is held in the family. In a patrarchy society, influence on the family reins heavily on the groom’s side of the family, which accounts for 66% of societies. Only 7% of societies exhibits matriarchy which gives authority to the wife’s mother. 12% of societies are equalitarian societies where both the husband and wife have equal authority, excluding the children, they are equal in all spheres. Lastly, with only 15% of societies practicing a divided power where each parent has their own power in their own sphere. For example, dad may have power outside of the home, where mom has all power within the home. Stephen’s rules of authority shape the influence on the family in conjunction with the rules of decent and residence.

    According to Murdock, there are functions which influence the nuclear family, economic cooperation, reproduction, sexuality, education and common residence. These functions are unlike Stephen’s rules, but affect the social structure of the family non the less. In eco cooperation, the nuclear family allows for a division of labor between adults in order to provide the family with the resources needed to flourish. The mother and father work together to make strides for their family. It varies from society to society, but is always present. In nuclear families reproduction is necessary to replenish the family. It also provides a legitimate arena for sex. Sexuality is a function which influences the family. Humans need intimate relations and intimacy helps hold the bond together for mother and father. Therefore, family is the structure which helps humans meet their basic needs. Another function of family is education, because it is necessary in order to pass down traditions and values. How is society to survive with mortality and no education? Lastly, a common residence is a necessary function which influences the nuclear family. Everyone works well together if they live under the same household. They can share in the responsibilities and grow together as a family. Therefore, according to Murdock’s functions of a nuclear family there is a need for eco cooperation, reproduction, sexuality, education and a common residence.

    The sociological significance of Murdock and Stephen’s research is that families function well if they live together, know their lineage and maintain a source of authority. The source of authority could be held by the brides side, groom’s side, or between mother and father. The key is that the central authority figure influences its power to make the family stronger, whoever it may be. It is evident that physical and structural differences between men and women have lead them to fulfill one role better than the other. Men have upper body strength, better suited for task oriented, instrumental work done outside the house; to deal with the external needs of the family. Mean while women

    4. According to Murdock the nuclear family is universal. The nuclear family consists of a husband and wife, living with their children, working eco cooperatively, and maintaining a sexual relationship. However, the nuclear family is not universal due to societies such as the Nayar and the Kibbutz, and single parent households.

    The Nayar, a sub caste of India, are the exception to the nuclear family because the husband and wife did not live together, there is no life long commitment, the children are not necessarily fathered by the husband and the husband has no obligation to provide for them economically. The Nayar are a matrilinear society consisting of passing visitors, visiting husbands and being “ritually married.” In the situation of the passing visitor, a man comes after dinner and leaves before breakfast. The best part, if she’s done with him, she simply throws his tools off the veranda! In the case of a visiting husband, a woman could have as many visiting husbands either simultaneously or serially. If the woman gets pregnant, any man will step forward, not necessarily the biological father, and will claim to be the father. Unfortunately, if no one steps forward then she must have made out of her caste and risks being shunning, beat or even killed. Lastly, the idea of being “ritually married,” when a boy and a girl live together for three days in their adolescence. After, they live separate lives only to be bonded by the expectation that the woman will arrange a funeral for the man when he passes. Therefore, the Nayar are an exception to Murdock’s analysis of the nuclear family being universal because they have no division of labor, no socialization, and no common residence. Another exception to Murdock’s theory is the people of Isreal who live in the Kibbutz (Spiro), accounting for 3.5% of Israeli society. The people of the Kibbutz live in a cooperative communal society, everything is done together and everything is shared. They are an exception to Murdock’s theory of the nuclear family because they have no division of labor, they don’t reproduce, and they have no common residence.

    Furthermore, 41% of men in the US ,between the ages of 50 and 59 have been divorced. That leaves are large margin for a single parent household. The single parent household is an exception to Murdock’s rule of a nuclear family because there is not always a division of labor, but there may be in the form of child support; there is no longer a common residence or sexual intimate lifestyle, therefore no reproduction. Thus, the single parent household is an exception to Murdock’s social structure theory.

    There is not a universal role structure in the nuclear family. If we looked back on the nostalgic 1950s era, there would be a clear definition of what the gender roles consisted of in the nuclear family. Women were expected to take care of internal affairs of the home, such as cooking, cleaning and taking care of the children. Meanwhile, men took care of external needs of the family by going to work and “bringing home the bacon.” However, times are changing. Women are getting out of the home, getting educated and moving into the work field. Where did this gender role diffraction come from? We could trace it back to the origins of families, and why people decided to get married in the first place. Morgan’s theory of original promiscuity could

    THANKS FOR YOUR INPUT!!

    for future reference please be sure to add a thread to each of the topics per Question!. Just to keep it organized! Thanks AGAIN!!!
    avatar
    Admin
    Admin

    Posts : 35
    Join date : 2010-03-02

    Re: possiblities for 1, 3 and part of 4

    Post  Admin on Thu Mar 04, 2010 7:31 am

    quote] of the children. Meanwhile, men took care of external needs of the family by going to work and “bringing home the bacon.” However, times are changing. Women are getting out of the home, getting educated and moving into the work field. Where did this gender role diffraction come from? We could trace it back to the origins of families, and why people decided to get married in the first place. Morgan’s theory of original promiscuity could[/quote]

    Not sure if it ended on could...?

    either way.. I really enjoyed your response on 4. However I think you could've expanded more on the Kibbutz a little bit...

    Kubbutism..is a collective community in Israel that was traditionally based on agriculture. Today, farming has been partly supplanted by other economic branches, including industrial plants and high-tech enterprises.[1] Kibbutzim began as utopian communities, a combination of socialism and Zionism. In recent decades, many kibbutzim have been privatized and changes have been made in the communal lifestyle. A member of a kibbutz is called a kibbutznik...


    alsoo

    The principle of equality was taken extremely seriously up until the 1970s. Kibbutzniks did not individually own tools, or even clothing. Gifts and income received from outside were turned over to the common treasury. If a member received a gift in services—like a visit to a relative who was a dentist or a trip abroad paid for by a parent—there could be arguments at members' meetings about the propriety of accepting such a gift.

    Sponsored content

    Re: possiblities for 1, 3 and part of 4

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Mon Jul 16, 2018 4:04 am