title: Problems and changes in the contemporary family type: Contribution language: English published: 18 Dec 2010 updated: 14 Jan 2018 category: Sociálna práca author: PaedDr. Martina Kravárová source: https://www.prohuman.sk/socialna-praca/problemy-a-zmeny-v-sucasnej-rodine
Problems and changes in family Socio-economic, political, natural, and human-made changes have affected society and therefore family life as well. The family is undergoing a transformation from the traditional family, through the modern family, to the postmodern family.
Globalization (Hrechová, 2005) strengthens the linking of nations, cultures, and religions, but in globalization the modern person remains isolated, and that loneliness affects their personal moral decisions. A characteristic of this society is increasing work performance, which results in the pursuit of profit, with ecological crises and the transformation of culture into a consumer culture as consequences.
In relation to modernization and industrialization, Sopóci (2001) states that family functions have changed, with many of them partially taken over by the state. Matoušek (1997) also holds that the modern era freed people from ties to the extended family, the community, and subordination to the church, but the price of this freedom is the fragmentation of human life into spheres managed by the bureaucratic apparatuses of the modern state, which are not sufficiently aligned and interconnected. In this way, the competencies of the contemporary family are weakened. Therefore, the contemporary family can be assigned these features (De Singly, 1999, p. 10): 1. greater dependence on the state, 2. greater independence from the circle of relatives, 3. greater independence of spouses from the family.
From traditional family to modern family (Možný, 2008)
1950s
This is called the retrospective period, that is, an attempt to restore the central position of the family in society (happy families, functionally differentiated and mutually complementary roles of man and woman, usually with three children). Since the late 1950s, women have left the household and devoted themselves to a professional career. The content and nature of roles in the family are changing, i.e., the male and female role.
1960s
These decades are typical of the beginning of decreasing numbers of children and increasing numbers of divorces.
1970s
The number of children born outside marriage is increasing. The family as a monopoly on legitimate sex has declined, and love is based on sexual attractiveness. The family also lost its monopoly on childbearing due to new technology (e.g., hormonal contraception).
Guráň, Filadelfiová, Ritomský (1997) describe structural changes in the family: 1. democratization of family relationships, characterized by the gradual transformation of traditional, patriarchal family relations (dominant male authority, children’s subordination to parents) into modern relationships based on partnership and equality. 2. individualization of family relationships, that is, the shift from relations primarily determined by a person’s origin to relations chosen by free will and based on mutual discussion. 3. dynamization of the family is shown in the family becoming more open, more accessible, and more flexible in responding to changes brought by social development and the development of family members. 4. pluralization of family structures means that in addition to the traditional family form, other forms are added with specific structures of relationships within the family.
In the contemporary family, unlike the traditional family, members achieve greater individuality. In the past, kinship ties were also based on passing on economic inheritance; today the “spirit of family” is formed by relationships between man and woman and between parents and children.
Gender equality is among the basic priorities of the European Union. Traditional division of family roles by gender is no longer valid. Women are able to establish themselves on the labour market, become financially independent from men, and receive the same education as men.
With the development of modern society, the arrangement of roles in families is changing. Jankovský (2003) says that marriage is the most vulnerable link in the family because it is a process that evolves throughout our lives. The quality of marriage is connected to the quality of the personalities of the man and woman who enter into marriage.
The purpose of marriage is reciprocity, sharing of personal and intimate relations. The roles of mother, father, and children in the family are changing. In the past, a child represented an economic benefit to the family, i.e., auxiliary labour power. Today, a child is also referred to as an economic burden (Šrajer, Musil, 2008), with the consequence of declining fertility; families with only one child are increasing, so natural reproduction is not fully covered.
Parents are unable to respond sufficiently to the needs of their own children, because they do not know how to and have not learned how to respond to children sensitively and with understanding. Škoviera (2010) in this context speaks of “parental helplessness” or reduced parental competencies.
Giddens (1992, In Hašková, 2009) argues that in modern society the principles of forming intimate relationships are changing. The procreative role of intimate relationships is shifting to reflexivity embodied in sexual attraction, shared intimacy, and emotional communication. In a relationship, it is no longer about finding the first, only partner for life, but about an emotional bond. It lasts as long as the partners in the relationship find satisfaction.
Marriages today are taking place at older ages. Contributing to this are the spread of contraception, family planning, preference for career, and for many young people, the lack of their own housing. On the one hand this is positive, because children are born into a more mature family environment and more mature relations between partners, and the family is materially prepared for a child. On the other hand, couples decide for only one child.
Single-parent families most often arise due to divorce; other causes are widowhood, or the birth of a child outside marriage. Some citizens live in informal unions without interest in entering marriage. One consequence is an increased number of children born outside marriage.
Care for the child/children, family upbringing
Even today, the family is irreplaceable in many respects; in its existence it depends on society and is therefore much more vulnerable. In the family, the child is socialized (incorporated into a network of social relations), where parents are important models for identification. A functional family creates in the child a sense of safety, certainty, trust, and a sense of home, where the main purpose of family is child rearing. The importance of the family also lies in influencing the quality of life of its individual members. The family fulfils its mission through reproductive, economic, emotional, socialization-educational, recreational, and restorative functions.
Family upbringing should be shaped as a liberating function aimed at autonomy and responsibility. The family problem (Di Fellice, 1999) becomes visible when one parent remains in deep infantilism and cannot establish a proper relationship with their own child/children (for example, when family members are focused on their own self-realization, it is then difficult to focus on common problems). A good and responsible family develops trust through cooperation, supports and strengthens, which is good for every child and develops their associative and solidarizing dimension. A responsible family places in the center the meaning of community, in which each individual subject has value. Mutual respect, conversation, and cooperation appear to be the right path for rebuilding ethical sensitivity.
In the contemporary family, child-rearing is not a given, and the educational function of the family is not sufficiently valued either. There are individuals who, at some stage of their lives, were brought up insufficiently, or were not brought up at all. A common trend is that parents are shifting their role to educational institutions such as modern nurseries, kindergartens, and primary schools. De Singly (2000) also points out the other side of the term “the child’s interest.” In some cases, this term serves as a good justification for state intervention in the family through increased state control of the private life of the family, which guarantees certain conditions for its good functioning through social workers, social assistants, marriage counselors, family mediators, and the list keeps expanding.
A group of sociologists (Di Fellice, 1999) also points out the fact that in society there are parents who cannot flexibly adapt to new obligations brought by social and technological changes.
An unfavorable educational environment frustrates children and is ground for pathological personality development. Likewise, inconsistency in parents’ educational approach can create an inner conflict in a child. Therefore, there is no substitute for a calm educational atmosphere full of a loving relationship between parent and child.
In contemporary society and in families, children and youth are growing up with behavioral problems. Delinquent behavior is appearing more and more among children of younger age. The mass media influence people’s ideas, opinions, attitudes, and consumer needs. A consequence of the unfavorable influence of the media is the weakening of communication and relationships in the family. Research shows that young people spend more time in front of television and computers than would be acceptable. Shared family activities and rituals have weakened, and in many families individual members do not live “together” but “beside each other.” Research by Sejčová and Mišinská (2005) shows that up to 40% of children spend their free time watching television or playing on computers. The influence of media and computer games affects children’s behavior; they imitate, “fight” enemies, and become heroes.
Divorce as a feature of modernity
In 1563 the Council of Trent declared marriage a sacrament and monogamy an obligation. The 1960s are identified as the second divorce revolution. In the past, spouses married in the belief that they would remain in marriage until death. Society also had means that made divorce impossible, such as public opinion. Marriage was maintained at all costs, but in some cases it traumatized children or one of the partners, which led society to adopt divorce as a humane means (in cases of an unsolvable problem, abuse, and exploitation). Today, the influence of public opinion has weakened to such an extent that divorce has become the legitimate end of marriage (Levická, 2004).
According to statistics from the Statistical Office of the Slovak Republic, in 2007 there were 13 048 marriages ended by divorce proceedings (In Zborník príspevkov z vedeckej konferencie, 2009). Among the main causes of divorce we include: Men - 1. differences of temperament, opinions, and interests, 2. infidelity, and 3. alcoholism. Women – 1. differences of temperament, opinions, and interests, 2. court did not establish fault, 3. other causes.
The number of adults and children on whom divorce leaves consequences is rising. Children mostly remain in the care of the mother and become part of an incomplete family. An incomplete family can be, under current socio-economic conditions, a source of frustration for all members (insufficient financial means for living). Repeated marriages are more prone to divorce. De Singly (2000) points to the fact that there are children who move within a “parental network” formed by the biological parent, each parent’s new partner, and possibly the former partner of one’s step-parents.
The problem of responsibility and the formation of a value system
Responsibility belongs to the freedom of the concrete, unique person, who is accountable for their own behavior. Human nature does not authorize us to pass it on to a collective or fellowship. A person can transfer only a part of their own freedom and responsibility, and even that only for themselves alone. If a fellowship that has accepted responsibility misuses it, in the final analysis the individual bears the consequences, because the individual bears an individual part of responsibility for this failure (Diatka, 2001).
The development of a person’s value system is linked to social environment and their view of themselves. It arises from feelings of identity and self-image, which are formed in the educational environment and are determined by personality traits involved in upbringing (Turček, 2003). Insufficient value systems of an individual are a result of upbringing in a low-stimulus environment, but also of insufficient stimulation toward developmentally higher values. If an individual is not accepted by society, rejection of the value hierarchy recognized by macro-society occurs and undesirable behavioral expressions develop.
Conclusion
In conclusion, we are left to reflect on the family and ask what is causing its decline. Vella (1999) points to three causes that produce this fact. The first is individualism, which has replaced the family. Society is an aggregation of individualists who assert their right to autonomy, personal fulfillment, sexual satisfaction, and all of this stands above the family. Autonomy and rights have replaced ethics and morality. The second major consequence is the relationship between “interdependence” and “independence.” As the third cause, the author sees that we are becoming non-evaluative and moral assessment of behavior is becoming taboo. The right to judge has been given only to the media and front pages of newspapers. Therefore, we are left to remember the sentence: “What people do and what is right are two different things.”
Author: PaedDr. Martina Kravárová Fakulta zdravotníctva a sociálnej práce Trnavskej univerzity v Trnave
List of bibliographic references
[1] DE SINGLY, Francois. 1999. Sociológie současné rodiny. Bratislava : Univerzita Komenského, 1999. 196 s. ISBN 80-223-1375-0. [2] DIATKA, Cyril. 2001. Etika a súčasnosť. Nitra : UKF, 2001. 154 s. ISBN 80-8050-493-8. [3] DI FELICE, Francesco. 1999. Rodina a etika. In: ĎURKOVIČ, Vladimír. Rodina na prelome tisícročí – subjekt kultúry, kresťanských a všeľudských hodnôt, 1999. Trnava : Univerzita sv. Cyrila a Metoda. s. 15 – 21. ISBN 80-968191-3-5. [4] HAŠKOVÁ, Hana. Fenomén bezdetnosti. 2009. Praha : SLON, 2009. 264 s. ISBN 978-80-7419-020-9. [5] HRECHOVÁ, Helena. Etika – sociálne vzťahy – spoločnosť. Bratislava : Veda, 2005. 337 s. ISBN 80-224-0849-2. [6] GURÁŇ, Peter, - FILADELFIOVÁ, Jarmila, - RITOMSKÝ, Alojz. 1997. Tradičné verzus moderné: zmeny a život súčasných rodín. In: Sociológia. ISSN 0049-1225, 1997, roč. 29, č. 1, s. 5-20. [7] LEVICKÁ, Jana. Sociálna práca s rodinou I. 2004. Trnava : Mosty, 2004. 177 s. ISBN 80- 89074-93-6. [8] MATOUŠEK, Oldřich. Rodina jako instituce a vztahová síť. 1997. Praha : Sociologické nakladatelství, 1997. 144 s. ISBN 80-85850-24-9. [9] MOŽNÝ, Ivo. Rodina a společnosť. 2008. Praha: SLON, 2008. 323 s. ISBN 80-86429-58-X [10] SEJČOVÁ, Ľuboslava - MIŠINSKÁ, Eva. 2005. Náčrt charakteristiky dieťaťa s výchovne problémovým správaním. In: Vychovávateľ. ISSN 0139-6919, 2005, roč. LI, č. 6, s. 7-12. [11] SOPÓCI, Ján. 2000. Sociálne inštitúcie a sociálna zmena. Bratislava : Univerzita Komenského, 2000. 210 s. ISBN 80-223-1473-0. [12] ŠKOVIERA, Albín. 2010. Posilňovanie rodičovských kompetencií a zodpovednosti v procese (pre)výchovy dieťaťa. In: HUDEČKOVÁ, Viera, BRYNDZÁK, Pavel. Križovatky, Bratislava : Maclix, 2010. s. 87 – 92. ISBN 978-80-969253-1-5. [13] ŠRAJER, Jindřich - MUSIL, Libor (eds.) 2008. Etické kontexty sociální práce s rodinou. Brno : Albert, 2008. 150 s. ISBN 978-80-7326-145-0. [14] TURČEK, Karol. 2003. Psychopatologické a sociálno-patologické prejavy detí a mládeže. Bratislava : IRIS, 2003. 168 s. ISBN 80-88778-99-9. [15] VELLA, G. Charles. 1999. A family strategy for the new millenium. In: ĎURKOVIČ, Vladimír. Rodina na prelome tisícročí – subjekt kultúry, kresťanských a všeľudských hodnôt, 1999. Trnava : Univerzita sv. Cyrila a Metoda. s. 22 – 29. ISBN 80-968191-3-5. [16] Zborník príspevkov z vedeckej konferencie s medzinárodnou účasťou: Dni sociálnej práce. Sociálna sféra Slovenskej republiky a sociálna práca (Európa, právo a prax). 12.-13. november 2008. Nitra: UKF, 2009. 270 s. ISBN 978-80-8094-454-4.
The lecture was delivered at the international scientific conference Aplikovaná etika v sociálnej práci a ďalších pomáhajúcich profesiách, which took place on 20. – 21. October 2010 in Piešťany and was published in the proceedings from this conference: MÁTEL, A. – SCHAVEL, M. – MÜHLPACHR, P. – ROMAN, T. 2010. Aplikovaná etika v sociálne práci a ďalších pomáhajúcich profesiách. Zborník z medzinárodnej vedeckej konferencie. Bratislava : VŠZaSP sv. Alžbety. 413 s. ISBN 978-80-89271-89-4.