Introduction
The dynamic nature of elements surrounding family and intimacy has come to elicit curiosity among researchers (Chamberlain, 1999). There has been a hurried change in how families define themselves. In fact, the name family no longer holds the meaning that it held previously (Roseneil, 2004). New forms of families such as gay families have emerged. This has consequently led to a revolution in how children interact with their parents as well as an emergence of new parenting styles (Wajcman, 2008). The issue of intimacy is another one that has undergone significant change. New ways of being intimate have sprung up and (Roseneil, 2004). The scope of friendship has also massively evolved and the term itself has an entirely different meaning. The changes observed in the concept of intimacy and family social structure has attracted a lot of interest from sociologists who have conducted various studies on the subject (Strong, 2013). This paper aims to explore these changes by performing a conclusive analysis of various publications that have explored the issue.
Roseneil and Budegeon (2004) are two of the authors who have written about changes in intimacy and family structure. Notably, most of their opinions go in line with those brought forth by Popenoe.D (1988). The authors’ arguments are based on the idea that, if the current state of the intimacy and care is to be fully understood, then there is a need for sociologists to decanter the concept of the ‘family” and the heterosexual couples when it comes to people’s intellectuals imaginaries (Roseneil, 2004). The authors contend that the name family retains an unparalleled ability to move individuals, both politically and intimacy. However, a lot of the issues that matter to people when it comes to care intimacy increasing occur out of the family, mostly between partners who are do not live together as a family and also within friends’ networks ( Barraket, 2008). Increased individualism has been one of the primary contributors to this emerging trend. Reseneil and Budegeon (2014) argue that individuals that are practicing individualized existences are increasingly choosing to center their personal lives on friendship and decanter sexual relationships. This is obviously a challenge to the hetero-relational social order.
According to Huang et al. (2011), cohabitation has in recent years become the model path to marriages. Couples who hope to get married are increasingly cohabitating before getting into the actual marriage. The idea of cohabitation has further been explored by Srong.B (2013). These two articles explore the motivations that drive people to cohabitate and the meanings that are attached to this. Some of the primary motives towards cohabitation include sharing of expenses, spending of time together as well as evaluation of compatibility (Huang, 2011). Different genders have varying views about cohabitation with some men viewing it as a loss of freedom while some women view it as a delay of marriage (Strong, 2013). However, cohabitation leads to the formation of unmarried "families". This trend exhibits the change that is taking place in the society in terms of family and intimacy.
A great link has been found between friendship and intimacy (Katherine, 2011). She explores what friendship means in a contemporary Western society. The author suggests that the distinction between friends and family is not very clear. In non-heterosexual relationships, for example, friendship sometimes replaces the role of kin or family because it is a voluntary relationship. In addition, friendship has culturally been heralded as relational form that is idealized because it is based on a personal choice and not on nature, which is the case with a family. The article Sociological Perspectives on Relationship and Families introduces the idea of friendship being a key ingredient in any relationship, including a family setting.
The dynamic nature of family structure, in relation to intimacy, has been seen to have taken a downward trend, more so among the younger generation (McCarry, 2010). In the same line, Baker et al. (2012) in his exploration of marriages today reveal that violence among intimate couples is as real as the day. He further states that violence in these relationships has often been disregarded when it comes to same-sex marriages. Deeper exploration into the issue licenses sociologists to assess the ideological structures of partner violence and results confirm that close partner fury is primarily a function of compound interactions such as social structures, culture, interpersonal dynamics or social status (McCarry, 2010).
A mother figure is one of the components of the family. Traditionally, a good mother was one who took care of her kids and raised them well. However, Goodwin and Huppatz (2010) contend that a good mother comes across differently in different settings. Representations of good mothers are not, usually, uniform or stable. One common discourse that is often used to access the quality of parenthood is that mothers are essentially supposed to "act responsibly" and generally present themselves in culturally recognizable and acceptable ways (Goodwin and Huppatz, 2010).
Hewitt and Baxter (2012) explore the changes in marriage pattern that have taken place in Australia. The authors answer the question of the social and economic characteristics that affect the transition into marriage. It is found that financial expectations are some of the primary factors whereby people delay marriage until some financial security has been obtained (Davies, 2011). Both Davies (2011) and Hewitt (2012) explore the basic forces behind the transition from courtship, into a marriage. They list financial expectations, including home ownership as having significant influence during the transition. At this spot, it is pointed out that couples tend to feel comfortable, and hence ready to get into marriage once they comfortably own a home (Hewitt and Baxter 2012).
Melanie McCarry (2010) explore interpersonal violence and the role that it plays in intimate heterosexual relationships. According to McCarry (2010), research conducted on young people reveals that there is a significance tolerance and acceptance of interpersonal violence when it is perpetrated by men in an intimate heterosexual relationship. It is therefore explicit that when it comes to connections, there are some actions that are deemed to be acceptable when perpetrated by a member of a certain gender but when a person of another gender commits the action; it might not be accepted so easily.
Barraket and Waring (2008) looks at another aspect that has hugely influenced and has been a part of modern intimacy, and that is online dating. It is shown that online dating has transformed the nature of intimacy. Barraket and Waring (2008) suggest that the increased trend of online dating activities has produced new norms and opportunities for interaction and has at the same time reinforced some of the traditional networks and norm in which intimacy takes place.
In “Variations of Family Life”, Baker (2010) shows that many aspects of the traditional family life has changed significantly. One of this change is in regards to intimate relationships that now involve more personal choices about sexual behaviors, partners as well as living arrangements. Baker argues that intimate relations are in the modern day becoming increasingly influenced by personal choices and preferences. However, these personal choices or influences are shaped by various factors such as family circumstances, behaviors and attitudes of friends, events taking place in the modern society, economy downturns changes in the labor market, media representations amongst many others (Baker 2010). These factors have led to noticeable changes in family life patterns that include formalization and acceptance of gay marriages, rising cohabitation rates, fewer births with many occurring outside the marriage institution, higher separation and re-partnering rates and increase in the number of stepfamilies (Baker 2010).
Mary Chamberlain (1999) explores the changing family structures by looking at some of the dominant family patterns in the Caribbean. It is shown that Caribbean families have very deep bonds that extend beyond the nuclear family. It is shown that siblings and collaterals can claim simultaneous membership of different families. This is where the concepts of brothers and sisters emerge where siblings from different households equate themselves to one another due to the huge social bond that exist between them (Chamberlain 1999).
In “Sociological Perspectives on Relationships and Families”, different theoretical perspectives used by sociologist in understanding families and relationships. Structural functionalism is one of the theories that is explored and according to the author; this theory dominated the field of politics and sociology in the 1940’s to the 1960’s. However, since the 1990’s, it is the concept of individualization that has found increased use. The authors also mention that feminist theories are still sparingly used in family studies as well as in debates about domestic violence, domestic labor, sexual assault, reproductive technology.
Baxter (2002) explores another element of the changing family patterns and roles. Baxter contends that recent times have seen the convergence of women's and men's time on domestic labor activities. There are some significant changes in the equivalent duties among men and women in the household whereby men are increasingly being involved in traditional indoor activities. However, another trend observed is that both women and men are spending less time on housework. The main conclusion made by Baxter is that the heightened involvement of females in the labor force in combination with new styles and pattern of consumptions has led to some significant changes in the gender-based division of household labor.
Wajcman (2008) further explore the idea of trends that have changed within the family setting. He his thorough in his analysis of the effects of technology and the way families function today. Emerging social technologies have allowed for families to work as a unit, in spite of geographical distribution (Popenoe, 1988). In line with Wajcman (2008), he further recognizes the fact that technology has come to greatly contribute towards changing the way families relate today.
Baxter et al. (2005) also looks at another trend of family structure and intimacy in Australia. This is the trend of marriage breakdown. There has been increased cases of marriage breakdowns in Australia. Baxter focus is however not on the rates of marriage breakdown but rather on the factors that lead to increased cases of marriage breakdowns. Baxter at al. (2005) establishes several social factors that directly or indirectly contributes to marriage breakdowns. One of these factors is cohabitation. The other social factor that is associated with marriage breakdown according to Baxter et al. (2005) is the young age during marriage as well as premarital births. However, Baxter contends that the impact of these factors is likely to diminish in the future due to the recent trend in Australia where later marriages and later births are becoming the norm. The other factor is education where those with high education have less likelihood to experience marriage breakdowns.
Conclusion
It cannot be denied that modern times have witnessed significant changes in the definition, structures, roles and functions of families and intimacy in Australia, inclusive of other parts around the world. Perhaps the most pronounced changes that have been witnessed when it comes to families and intimacy is the increase in the role that personal choices and preferences play in defining and interpreting concepts relate to family and intimacy. Traditionally, the family was a formally defined social institution that for an institution to qualify to be called so, it had to fulfil certain stipulations. This is not the case however in modern times as new forms of families have emerged, for instance, same-sex families. The scope of intimacy has also become significantly wider, there has been a significant change into the marriage institutions and once again, the formalization of same-sex unions springs to mind. The implication of this is that when approaching or discussing the concept of family or even intimacy, one needs to have an open mind as there is currently no single definition or explanation that applies to all societies. For example, what is considered as “good motherhood: in one area may not be deemed the same in another.
References
Baker, N. L., Buick, J. D., Kim, S. R., Moniz, S., & Nava, K. L 2013. Lessons from examining same-sex intimate partner violence, Sex roles, vol 69, no. 3-4, pp. 182-192.
Baker, M 2010. Choices and constraints in family life, Oxford University Press.
Barraket, J., & Henry-Waring, M. S 2008. Getting it on (line) Sociological perspectives on e-dating, Journal of Sociology, vol 44, no. 2, pp. 149-165.
Baxter, J., Hewitt, B., & Western, M 2005. Marriage breakdown in Australia: the social correlates of separation and divorce, Journal of Sociology, vol 41, no. 2, pp.163
Davies, K. 2011. Friendship and Personal Life‟ in May, V. (ed.) Sociology of Personal LifeBasingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Goodwin, S., & Huppatz, K. (Eds.) 2010. The good mother: Contemporary motherhoods in Australia, Sydney University Press.
Hewitt, B., &Baxter, J 2012. Who gets married in Australia? The characteristics associated with a transition into first marriage 2001–6, Journal of Sociology, vol. 48. no.1, pp. 43-61.
Huang, P. M., Smock, P. J., Manning, W. D., & Bergstrom-Lynch, C. A. 2011. He says, she says: Gender and cohabitation.Journal of family issues, vol 32, no. 7, pp. 876-905.
McCarry, M 2010. Becoming a ‘proper man’: Young people’s attitudes about interpersonal violence and perceptions of gender, Gender and Education, vol 22, no .1, pp.17-30.
Roseneil, S., & Budgeon, S 2004. Cultures of intimacy and care beyond ‘the family’: personal life and social change in the early 21st century, Current Sociology, vol 52, no.2, pp.135-159.
Wajcman, J., Bittman, M., &Brown, J. E 2008. Families without borders: Mobile phones,
