Since family has played an important role as one of society’s basic structures, it is important to recognize the factors that are responsible for creating this institution. Some people might argue that a family is a unit connected with genetic factors – that it includes parents, children and other relatives. However, to better understand a family, one must understand that the term ‘family’ is constructed in a social way. The value of family has different meanings in different parts of the world depending on a variety of social and cultural conditions. Even on specific aspects like aging, education, or religion, the family structure presents its diversity in many cross-cultural ways.
In Shi Lizhi’s article “Differences Between Chinese and American Family Values in Pushing Hands”, the author reminded us of the definitions of ‘nuclear family’, ‘stem family’, and ‘extended family’. In a nuclear family, children live with both mother and father; a “stem family includes a couple and the couple’s parents, or immediate superiors and underage children” (Shi 50); and an extended family consists of a nuclear family or stem family and other collateral relatives. According to Shi, the Chinese prefer extended families while American families are more likely to be nuclear families. In traditional Chinese culture, people consider an extended family as the ultimate performance of filial piety, embodying the idea of a family-centered society. In contrast, Americans regard privacy as important and, as such, have developed family structures that lay emphasis on individualism. In China, traditionally, it is difficult to come across families that live without a couple’s parents. While this arrangement might not make sense to some in the West, the truth is older Chinese people normally refuse to go to nursing homes as long as they have sons and daughters. “People think it is very natural for parents to live with their grown-up children; even if they have already got married” (Shi 51). This line of thinking developed and was carried forward in China since the older generations believe that it is the duty of their children to look after parents once they have aged. Nonetheless, the concept of extended family is now becoming somewhat of a social problem in China. Older people, who have moved ahead with the times, are compromising on their long-head beliefs and are agreeing to go to nursing homes. At the same time, children of these parents suffer public condemnation as society sees this is a symbol of the breaking of the filial bond. However, “in the western individual-oriented culture, people value personal value and dignity. It is impossible for three generations to live under one roof” (Shi 51). Lizhi Shi insisted that even if living conditions in nursing homes could be the same in China and America, different cultural values in both the countries could still lead people to have widely differing family values.
So what makes the Chinese family pattern so different from the one in America? To answer this question, let’s look at what influences the Chinese family structure. It is widely recognized that remarkable changes in Chinese family structure accompanied changes in the rates of marriage, fertility, and mortality in recent decades. In his article “Changes in Family Structure in China: A Simulation Study”, Zeng Yi stated that tremendous changes in demographic factors have affected the Chinese family structure. The author used a non-technical account of the simulation model in order to see the effects that have resulted from the changing demographic factors on family size and family types in China. Zeng compared data on the substantial variation in average family size in China over the past years. He then came to the conclusion that “housing construction was seriously disrupted during the Cultural Revolution of 1966-76” (Zeng 676). In other words, remarkable changes in family structure easily took place as a result of significant socioeconomic changes. I agree with the idea that socioeconomic activities might lead to different types of families by pushing family members away. Rapid socioeconomic development will gradually reduce the propensity for family. For instance, people might change their attitude toward the desired number of children. More and more couples, especially in urban areas and some economically advanced rural areas, wish to have fewer but better qualified children. The Chinese government issued its ‘one-child policy’ between 1978 and 1980 in order to control the national population. Years later, it issued another policy to support families with more than one child. Beyond these policy changes, however; there are other factors affecting the structure of family in China, but not in a sufficient way. Zeng Yi demonstrated that “fertility cannot affect the proportion of nuclear families immediately, because the number of children per couple mainly influences the proportion of nuclear families by reducing or increasing the children’s chances of leaving the parental home when they grow up” (Zeng 691). Thus, changing fertility would cause a lagged effect on the aspect of controlling family structure in China.
No matter how fertility influences the family structure, parents form the core of a family since they are responsible for bringing their children into the world and are encouraged to be role models throughout their children’s life. In her article “Weaving Individualism into Collectivism: Chinese Adults’ Evolving Relationship and Family Values”, author Ruoxi Chen studied parental influence on Chinese families. Chen used a structural equation model to test the age, gender, education experience, individualistic relationships and family values of 1,752 urban Chinese adults. Through the data collected from her study, Chen demonstrated that “age and education experience had significant direct and indirect effects on participants’ attitudes towards individualistic relationship and family values” (Chen 175). In other words, parents with higher education were more likely to impart positive family values and have better interaction with their children. For instance, it is easier for parents with college degrees to recognize problems within the family and come up with solutions. On the contrary, non-educated parents are more likely to ignore any pending problems within the family or to come up with necessary solutions.
Besides the influence of parents’ education experience on their children, gender also plays an important role in a family. Through her study, Ruoxi Chen also concluded that “male and female participants’ endorsement of relationship and family values also varied” (Chen 178). I completely understand Chen’s point that gender plays an important role in determining the level of participation in a family. When I was young, my mother would always give me lessons on how to behave myself and improve on it. Since my father was working all the time, I could not see him on a daily basis. While he was busy trying to support his family, he directed less attention on me compared my mother. Based on my own experience, which is not very different from the examples given in Chen’s article, I can undoubtedly say that female participants are more receptive to parental influence than male participants.
Speaking of gender perspective, there is a phenomenon in China regarding family hierarchy. In his article “Differences Between Chinese and American Family Values in Pushing Hands”, Lizhi Shi stated that Chinese fathers are more likely to control their children while American “fathers can be friends with their kids” (Shi 51). With this, Lizhi not only hinted at why Chinese children sometimes cannot accept the way their fathers ‘love’ them, but he also pointed out that the role of a father in the traditional Chinese family structure differs widely from the one in America.
In his article “Family Structure and Multiple Domains of Child Well-being in the United States: A Cross-Sectional Study”, author Patrick M Krueger studied the relationships between family structure and children on aspects of their healthcare and school education. In order to arrive at an accurate conclusion, the author studied 17 outcomes from nine family structures that included married couple, cohabiting couple, single mother, and single father families. Some of the samples even came from families with and without grandparents, and skipped-generation families that only have children and grandparents. At the end of the study, it was hardly surprising to see disparities in children’s behaviors among these various family structures. “All non-married couple family structures are associated with some adverse outcomes among children, but the degree of disadvantage varies across family structures” (Patrick 1). Even though the degree of adverse effects fluctuates among different types of family, one must know that the wellbeing of a child is associated closely with family circumstances. Based my own experience as a child from a broken family, I agree with Patrick’s suggestion that “parents need to better understand the associations between children’s behavior and their family contexts.” This method explains the commonality between Chinese and American families; that is, the way parents treat their marriage definitely plays a critical role in the stability of a family. Parents could indirectly influence their sons and daughters’ behaviors by a divorce that forces children to get away either from their mothers or fathers.
In general, the traditional Chinese family structure is quite special from its American counterpart. The family values in extended Chinese families decide that they have more family members under one roof than in American families. That might saddle Chinese children under greater financial and economic pressures. Meanwhile, the extended family structure embodies the hierarchy of the father-son relationship in China to emphasize the central role of the father in the family. In contrast, American fathers play with their sons and have a more friendly relationship with them, which, in a way, reflects the values of people born into freedom and equality. The reasons for these different values can be attributed to two countries with varied histories, governments, and policy decisions. Even though cultural reasons lead to different family structures, both American and Chinese families agree that the more educated that parents are, the more beneficial that education could be to their children. Traditional Chinese family structures are trying to move on to a new page since the youth’s views are becoming increasingly globalized. At the same time, the American family system has its own advantages as it does not ignore the potentiality of family problems which could be amplified to social issues. What remains interesting, though, is the fact that both countries maintain an active interest in each other’s family cultures.
Work Cited
Jing, Hsu. "The Chinese Family: Relations, Problems, and Therapy,." Chinese Culture and Mental Health. Ed. Wen-Shing Tseng and David Y. H. Wu. Orlando: Academic, 1985. Print.
Krueger, Patrick M., Douglas P. Jutte, Luisa Franzini, Irma Elo, and Mark D. Hayward. " Family Structure and Multiple Domains of Child Well-being in the United States: A Cross-sectional Study." Health Metrics Population Health Metrics 13.1 (2015): 6. Web.
Chen, Ruoxi. "Weaving Individualism Into Collectivism: Chinese Adults' Evolving Relationship And Family Values." Journal Of Comparative Family Studies 46.2 (2015): 167-179. Academic Search Premier. Web. 30 Mar. 2016.
Eccles, Jacquelynne S. "Influences of Parents’ Education on Their Children’s Educational Attainments: The Role of Parent and Child Perceptions." London Review of Education 3.3 (2005): 191-204. Web.
Shi, Lizhi. "Differences Between Chinese and American Family Values in Pushing Hands." Differences Between Chinese and American Family Values in Pushing Hands.” Cross-Cultural Communication, 5 Nov. 2015. Web. 01 May 2016.
Zeng, Yi. "Changes in Family Structure in China: A Simulation Study." Population and Development Review 12.4 (1986): 675. Web.
