Читать книгу A Sociology of Family Life - Deborah Chambers - Страница 11

Many early sociological ideas about marriage, the family and kinship in the late nineteenth century were influenced by anthropological studies. During this period, anthropology was preoccupied with biological discourses of relatedness. The institution of marriage was traditionally viewed as biologically determined to address three needs: (1) procreation and the rearing of children; (2) the lengthy period of dependence of children on their parents; and (3) the need for prolonged parental care and training. Through biological relatedness, individuals recognized as kin were divided into those related by blood (consanguines) and those related by marriage (affines). As such, biological blood ties dominated the ordering of social relations in societies where procreation was a defining characteristic of relatedness (Beattie 1964). While contemporary studies of family and kinship now acknowledge that family relatedness is socially constructed (e.g. in adoption, same-sex unions, single-parent households, step-relations, donor-assisted conception), biological relatedness continues to shape ideas about the structuring of kin.

The social significance given to biological ‘blood ties’ as the defining features of ‘family’ can be illustrated in a variety of ways. Examples include DNA testing to prove biological parentage; the attempt made by adopted children to find their biological parents; and the current public fascination with family history. Television programmes and social media that follow adopted individuals who try to trace their ‘real mother’ show that genetic connection remains a paramount element of identity (Black et al. 2016; Stanworth 1987). These practices indicate the allure of discovering the ‘self’ through biological heritage. For example, DNA testing has reunited slave descendants of Afro-Caribbean origin among populations in Africa, and particularly Equatorial Guinea. Such attempts reveal the social, legal, and symbolic significance of blood relations (Taylor 2005). How this family connection through blood operates today in a complex context of new reproductive technologies is considered later in the book (see chapter 8).

Much anthropological work on kinship and marriage in the nineteenth century was concerned not only with biological relatedness but also with classifying kin relationships. Social scientists used these ties in order to validate contemporary western family structures ideologically as universal, to confirm their ‘naturalness’. Anthropologists documented a bewildering variety of marriage types across the world, including monogamy (having only one spouse), polygamy (having more than one wife or husband at a time) and polyandry (having more than one husband at a time); matriarchal (woman as ruler of the family) and patriarchal (man as ruler of the family) unions; households with matrilocal residence (move to the wife’s home) and patrilocal residence (move to the husband’s home). The aim of early sociological studies of the family was to navigate a path through these variations to create hypothetical constructions about ‘original’ or ‘prior’ forms of marriage. The aim was to prove that the acceptable western version of monogamous marriage is the final, correct and highest stage of social evolution.

Early biological and anthropological studies employed analogies with the animal kingdom by referring to the mating behaviour of higher primates. These analogies justified dominant western conceptions of the family in the nineteenth century (Saini 2017). Despite the lack of any representative examples, evolutionary schemes were devised from selected aspects of existing ‘simple societies’ to pinpoint and prove a natural earlier stage of marriage organization. For instance, the nineteenth-century evolutionary anthropologist Lewis Morgan constructed an evolutionary scheme in Systems of Consanguinity and Affinity in the Human Family (1870) in which he interpreted matriliny (descent through the female line) as preceding patriliny (descent through the male line) and monogamy as the final evolutionary stage. Morgan’s position was refuted by Edward Westermarck in his History of Human Marriage (1921), first published in 1891. He contested the hypothesis that primitive societies were promiscuous, believing that humans were originally monogamous.

For proof, Westermarck used a biological discourse influenced by the ideas of Charles Darwin. He relied on selected examples of monogamy both among anthropoid apes and among hunter-gatherer peoples, who were considered by social evolutionists as the most primitive societies. In this way, Westermarck argued that the nuclear family was prefigured among the anthropoids and was therefore the primary and universal unit from which contemporary society evolved. The child’s need for parental protection generates the need for a family as a unit for the continued existence of the species. The male remains with the female and child to protect them, and this is governed by instincts achieved through natural selection. These kinds of anthropological attempts at explaining kinship and marriage were no more than elaborate hypotheses. Yet they were accepted among academic and wider communities because biological determinism supported a particular ideology to identify and reaffirm a ‘proper’ kind of family.

By the early twentieth century, however, it became increasingly clear that bonds of family require social recognition, rather than simply relying on the factor of biological procreation. Anthropologists were finding that, especially in societies beyond the so-called ‘West’, kinship is defined by social as well as blood ties. Societies were being discovered in which the physiological role of the male in reproduction was not recognized. In some non-western societies, little or no significance was attached to the relationship between sexual union and the arrival of a baby nine months later. The husband regarded a child born to his wife as his own simply because she was his wife. In parts of Melanesia, for instance, it was found that the family to which a child belonged was not determined by the physiological act of birth but by the performance of some social act (Malinowski 1932). The social-cultural construction of kinship and meanings of feminine and masculine was further examined by anthropologist Margaret Mead in works such as Sex and Temperament in Three Primitive Societies (1935). Drawing on this pioneering work, contemporary anthropologists have referred to the radically different role of fathers in nurturing and family involvement across two neighbouring tribes in East Tanzania: the Hadza people (hunter-gatherers, where men are highly involved in caring for children) and the Datoga people (skilled farmers, where men are socially expected to be warriors and to be kept outside the domestic sphere) (see Saini 2017).

American sociologists Ernest W. Burgess and Harvey J. Locke defined the modern family as nuclear in The Family: From Institution to Companionship (1945), describing it as a group of people united by marriage, blood or adoption. This family group was defined as a single household whose members interacted with one another in their respective social roles of husband and wife, mother and father, brother and sister, to create a common culture. Importantly, then, Burgess and Locke included not only blood ties but also the social family tie of adoption in their definition of the modern family. This social family tie was normatively underlined by the practical requirement that a man should publicly acknowledge himself to be a child’s ‘father’.