Theoretical Perspectives of the Family

Personally, I agree with the tied theories of life course stages and family development.  On an individual level, various religions and cultures worldwide have recognized the passage of life stages with different rites and rituals, although different definitions and names have been used across time and place.  Overlapping these personal life transitions with the “movement” of the family unit as a whole sheds light on their importance to create social cohesion and to reduce personal and familial strain.  Although the perspective does not allow much room for variance, it presents a conclusive argument for the underlying causes of familial turmoil surrounding major life events.

However, I was particularly drawn to the article discussing the biosocial perspective, not because I agree with some of the conclusions, but rather because its biological determinist slant contrasts heavily with the social determinist views of the other articles.  One study I found particularly interesting was the immunological differences between humans as the root of mate selection.  Although I have heard that olfactory cues influence mate selection (and even have a friend who only baths with a salt ball so as to leave his natural “eau du man”), the discussion on the role of the contraceptive pill enticed me.  The authors highlight a study that said use of the pill “may affect the stability of courtship relationships…. [users have] higher rates of union dissolution” (Booth, Carver, Granger, 1028).  I am interested in knowing what covariates were, in fact, controlled for because I see this as more of a social factor established by the normative female type using the contraceptive pill – new age, independent, self-controlling – in relation to her marital role within a social and familial context.

Finally, I found Ben-Porath’s overview of Becker’s Treatise quite funny.  To directly apply microeconomic theory to the family only works, as with most microeconomic theory, with “the assumptions of maximizing behavior, stable preferences, and equilibrium in implicit or explicit markets,” a fact that Becker acknowledges in his preface (Ben-Porath, 61).  To fulfill these assumptions within a family unit would be impossible, or at least difficult.  Understanding that Becker wrote his Treatise in a different societal context, an examination of the changing roles and division of labor within the family are necessary, as Ben-Porath’s points out, to see if the new home economics theory has any applicability to today other than as a source of a humor.

Q1: With respect to the life course perspective, how would you respond to the issue of those who identify as queer who may not necessarily want, or be legally allowed, to pass into the “family” stage?  Can the same theory apply or should a different framework be established for those who don’t fit within the “traditional” family type?

Q2: With respect to the biosocial perspective, is it right to “blame” (in a loose sense of the word) humans’ physiological makeup as a factor in unstable family relations, divorce, parental control, etc.?  Does this establish reasonable biological evidence or does it allow scapegoating?

Q3: As society sees increases in rates of divorce and separation, there has also been an increase in reality TV shows, such as “American Idol” and “Survivor,”  featuring adults undertaking tasks traditionally associated with adolescence such as eating worms, building rafts, participating in talent shows, etc.  Although Parsons wrote his essay several decades ago, do you think this correlation is a modern day form of “the idealization of the youth culture by adults [as] an expression of elements of strain and insecurity?” (Parson, 614)