FAMILY as an INSTITUTION

Submitted by:

Cerianne Hyacil P. Cogtas

INTRODUCTION

What is man? Although sociology alone can t answer this inquiry, it is nearer truth to reaffirm what Auguste Comte proclaimed that: sociology alone must comprehend man in all his shapes and forms. It must conceive of him as an economic man, biological man, political man, and historical man, for social man is all of these and more: he is pre-eminently a group animal, a norm-abiding creature-an institutional being. Without institutions as what Arnold Gehlen calls the regulatory agencies which channel human actions in much as the same way as instincts channel animal behavior- humans will be normless, and a normless society is a contradiction in terms. Social man and social organization are inseparable. Thus, then, the fundamental concern with the institutions- familial, economic, political, religious, and educational- which in the words of Peter Berger provide procedures through which human conduct is patterned, compelled to go, in grooves deemed desirable by society. Man is both conformist and non-conformist, social and unique. He is the, institution-abiding and institution-creating. He abides in institutional norms which encase him from infancy on, but he simultaneously tampers with his institutional matrix, remolding and changing it. They are universal and ancient beyond measures precisely because they are simultaneously durable and yet pliable: durable enough to resist the disintegrative impact of sudden or violent change and pliable enough to allow growth and viability. Some form of the family , some sort of economic system, some manner of political, educational or religious organization is characteristic of the remotest tribe and the most complex urban society- just as each of these institutions has apparently characterized all human societies in all times. What then is an institution? An institution is simply an organized, patterned and traditional way of doing something- a set of interwoven folkways, mores and laws built around on one or more functions. In other words, institutions shape and structure the activity of people in a manner that helps individuals to realize the values they have taken over from their culture. At the same time, institutions enable the society to meet its most fundamental needs: it needs to maintain social order, to fulfill basic subsistence requirements, to reproduce and care for offspring, to inculcate societal norms and values, and to carry out ritualized activities which periodically reaffirmed the ultimate value system. Thus the universality of the political, economical, familial, educational, and religious institutions. Institutions are, then, functionally necessary. They are the cement, firm yet pliant which allows the society to cohere, change, and endure.

The family as an institution, Gerald Hansen remarks, is at once a significant source of individuality and the most expression of the most binding ties in social life. It is thereby doubly -and conflictually imperative to its members . The most permanent and most pervasive of all institutions, and most permanent of all primary groups, and the first and most enduring locus of the socialization process, the family is everywhere in the indisputable of human social life. What is more, another sociologist adds, because family is the society s basic institutions, the sociological study of the family must be a study of society . The structure and form of the family vary from society to society. If the familiar nuclear family (husband, wife, and offspring) prevails in some societies, in some society nuclear families are often combined to form larger kin groups. These may be one of two types: polygamous or extended. Polygamous families in turn maybe polygynous (one husband and two or more wives) or polyandrous (one wife and two or more husbands). The extended family is one that is expanded generationally to form several combined nuclear units. Research suggests that each form trend to be related to more or less distinctive types of socioeconomic structure or value system. The variability of family groupings goes deeper still: descent groupings may, for instance, be matrilineal or patrilineal; authority dominance grouping maybe matriarchal, patriarchal, or egalitarian; residential groupings may be matrilocal, patrilocal or neolocal; and choice of partner groupings may be endogamous or exogamous. The major function of kinship rules is to pattern kin behavior so that social life remains regularized and predictable. Most rules are confines to shaping mutual rights and responsibilities and to designate proper comportment or manners. Deference customs amount to ritual expressions of social inequality (child-parent subordination-superordination, for instance); avoidance rituals (whom one may kiss for example) usually apply to cross-sex relationships and are meant to curtail dangerous intimacy. The incest taboo- the prohibition of sexual intercourse between persons of kin relationshipcharacterizes every known human society (what exceptions have existed have sanctioned sexual relations or marriages among only stipulated minority of kin). The most persuasive explanation of the universality of this taboo is the functional thesis which holds that incest prohibitions within the nuclear family prevent disruptive sexual rivalries which might endanger authority patterns between children and parents. The American family has undergone a profound permutation during the past century as industrialization and urbanization have caused a shift in the family structure from the long traditional extended kin group system in the direction of the detached nuclear or conjugal family. This is due to the number of corollaries of industrialization and urbanization, among then an increasing emphasis on social and geographic mobility, the importance of achievement rather than birth, and a weakening of functions which has previously been the major task of the family, such as production and education. Some theorists have interpreted these massive changes in family structure as an indication of a drift toward the family disorganization. But most sociologist are inclined to agree with the thesis, advanced by Burgess and Locke, that the basic drift has been in the direction of a healthier democraticcompanionship family.

Homogamy is the tendency of people to marry those with characteristics which are similar to their own, such as religion, social class, etc. There is evidence that homogamous marriages are gradually declining in industrial societies. Winch s theory of complementary needs holds that the notion that opposites attract applies to the physiological aspects of a marriage, while homogamy persist in the social and cultural spheres. Increasing divorce rates are a corollary of industrialization, urbanization, and changing attitudes regarding the nature of marriage. Industrialization caused the once-sacred institution of marriage to be viewed less a duty than as a mean of fulfilling individual needs. In this latter phase, divorce is seen as an honorable option, and thus is exercised more often than before. In analyzing the Afro-American family, Frazier is delineated the conventional middle-class family and the less-conventional, more spontaneous lower-class family. A study by Bernard hints at the possible origin of this cleavage. The unconventional family may trace its genesis to a field slave tradition, which arose from a life separate from the plantation-owning white, while the house-slaves , exposed to the norms of the white community, were the probable progenitors of the black middle-class traditions.

BIBLIOGRAPHY Holges, Harold M., Conflict and Consensus: An Introduction to Sociology.