write an essay on the changing family structure

• Changes in Definition of Family Words: 1102
• Changes in the Institution of Family in America Words: 1685
• The Diversity of Family Structures Words: 661
• Necessary Changes in the Family Model Words: 628
• Family Therapy Techniques Words: 974
• Communication in Family: Interview and Analysis Words: 3341
• Family Structure, History, Health Assessment Words: 1662
• Blended Family Structure and Statistics Words: 630
• Family Structure: Nuclear, Extended, and Childless Words: 2276
• “The Family: Diversity, Inequality, and Social Change” by Philip Cohen Words: 568
• Family as a Social Institution in Modern Times Words: 386
• Family Life and Structure in the UK Words: 1790
• Change of Family Standards in the 21st Century Words: 558
• Family Health Assessment Words: 2245

Changes in Family Structure

Introduction, importance in socialization, changes of the american family, differences in marriage and family life, trend towards diverse families, women’s rights in traditional families.

The family is often considered to be the most influential agent of socialization. A family can affect not only its members but also the structure of a society or culture. However, families change under the influence of the world as well. In fact, the developments in the family structure can be explained by a number of factors, including historical events and human progress. The trend towards diverse families, for instance, continues to bring changes to the modern family structure and affect every person in and out of one’s household. Moreover, differences in marriage and family can also be explained by some cultural, racial, and personal differences of individuals.

This paper aims to explore the changing history of the family structure, describe the differences between families according to various aspects, and evaluate the current trend of diversification in households.

The role of the family in one’s socialization cannot be overstated. There are many agents of socialization. However, the family is considered to be the most important one for a number of reasons. First of all, significant progress in one’s ability to socialize happens in childhood, when young people learn the traditions and norms of interaction with other people. During this time, the family can be the only significant structure in a child’s life, which explains the importance of parental guidance. According to Meyer, Raikes, Virmani, Waters, and Thompson (2014), parents can, directly and indirectly, affect their children by expressing their emotions.

Then, children can mimic their ways of expression and use the acquired knowledge later in life. Moreover, early socialization happens when a person does not have enough freedom to make his or her own choices. Therefore, parents and guardians become the main individuals that a young child can interact with throughout the day. Their teachings are then used by children to socialize with their peers or other adults. Thus, the impact of family on one’s socialization is vital to a person.

The changes that occurred in the structure of the American family are not unique to one country. These alterations happened in most developed countries that followed the same pattern of industrialization and technological progress. These states also went through the so-called gender revolution which affected the way people perceive their place in the world in relation to the places of other people.

For instance, according to Goldscheider, Bernhardt, and Lappegård (2015), the traditional household usually included a stable structure of roles, which were assigned to every member of the family. A working husband and a housewife were the two major types of occupations for men and women respectively. Moreover, childbirth was firmly connected to marriage. Currently, both marriage and birth are not inherently correlated with the concept of family as many people choose not to marry or have children nonmaritally (Goldscheider et al., 2015). Furthermore, the roles of parents in the modern household also shift towards the lack of boundaries as both men and women often want to pursue a career.

The changes in family roles can be explained by females participating more actively in labor than they did before. This gender revolution influenced the way people view themselves as women became independent with time. The position of a housewife put the financial responsibility on one part of the family, which significantly affected the relationship dynamic. Now, members of families can be considered equal as both adults can work and contribute to the household financially. Moreover, both parents can look after their children.

While families in most parts of the country follow similar patterns, some differences based on people’s socioeconomic status and demographics. For instance, class difference is one of the factors that may determine the way people view marriages and family life. Social class variation is hard to pinpoint in the continuously changing environment of the country. For example, relationship progression for some partners may differ on the basis of personal preferences more than on other factors.

However, Steinmetz and Sussman (2013) state that child-parent communication, for example, can differ from one class to another. The concept of obedience is more developed in lower-class households, while middle-class parents focus more on such notions as happiness and achievement. Furthermore, cohabitation without marriage is more prevalent among people of the working-class as it is financially advantageous to both partners.

Race can also be a factor affecting one’s perception of family life. Here, economic and cultural traditions create a structure that some people follow historically. Diverse families, for example, may face some issues based on the inequality of partners at work or in social life. According to Bloome (2014), racial inequality is present in many households as African American individuals often have lower incomes than their white partners.

Thus, the problem of equality becomes more critical. Gender creates similar differences in people’s families with female partners earning less money than men on average. Here, gender also affects the reasons people decide to get married. However, currently, many people move away from marriage and choose cohabitation as the most profitable way of living. The shift in traditions does not put the same amount of pressure on partners to get married.

In my opinion, the shift towards diverse families can be viewed as positive. First of all, modern economics and politics do not enforce a strong social class structure that may have influenced different households before. Therefore, the rising number of diverse families creates a more balanced picture of incomes and relations. Moreover, diversity promotes cultural education and tolerance, which in turn reduces various sociocultural tensions.

Politically, diverse families encourage freedom of choice and equality, which may positively affect people’s view of the family life and allow more individuals to create a stable and prosperous household (Steinmetz & Sussman, 2013). The disparities between people regarding such aspects as ones’ status, gender, and race can be lowered by encouraging diversification. Complicated histories and cultures of diverse families can also bring more flexibility and adaptability to the next generation.

The stereotypes of traditional families that one can define about households of the pre-World War II era include a rigid structure of gendered occupations and various limitations for women. After the war, women started to gain more independence and mobility, which significantly affected the family structure. Currently, women’s rights allow them to participate in all spheres of life. The shift to traditional families would repress women’s ability to work. The inequality of traditional households is no longer accepted as standard in modern views on family. Thus, women’s rights would regress considerably because of this change. Moreover, the emphasis on having and raising children without the partner’s help would also put more pressure on women and their independence.

The idea of the family in America continuously changes. Currently, partners in families become more independent, and the relationship itself becomes more informal than before. While households become more diverse than ever, race, class, and gender still affect some aspects of marriage and family life. Women gained more rights in recent years, which also shaped the modern family structure. Although many elements of the family change, it remains the most important agent of socialization for all its members.

Bloome, D. (2014). Racial inequality trends and the intergenerational persistence of income and family structure. American Sociological Review , 79 (6), 1196-1225.

Goldscheider, F., Bernhardt, E., & Lappegård, T. (2015). The gender revolution: A framework for understanding changing family and demographic behavior. Population and Development Review , 41 (2), 207-239.

Meyer, S., Raikes, H. A., Virmani, E. A., Waters, S., & Thompson, R. A. (2014). Parent emotion representations and the socialization of emotion regulation in the family. International Journal of Behavioral Development , 38 (2), 164-173.

Steinmetz, S. K., & Sussman, M. B. (Eds.). (2013). Handbook of marriage and the family . New York, NY: Springer Science & Business Media.

Cite this paper

• Chicago (N-B)
• Chicago (A-D)

StudyCorgi. (2020, December 17). Changes in Family Structure. https://studycorgi.com/changes-in-family-structure/

"Changes in Family Structure." StudyCorgi , 17 Dec. 2020, studycorgi.com/changes-in-family-structure/.

StudyCorgi . (2020) 'Changes in Family Structure'. 17 December.

1. StudyCorgi . "Changes in Family Structure." December 17, 2020. https://studycorgi.com/changes-in-family-structure/.

Bibliography

StudyCorgi . "Changes in Family Structure." December 17, 2020. https://studycorgi.com/changes-in-family-structure/.

StudyCorgi . 2020. "Changes in Family Structure." December 17, 2020. https://studycorgi.com/changes-in-family-structure/.

This paper, “Changes in Family Structure”, was written and voluntary submitted to our free essay database by a straight-A student. Please ensure you properly reference the paper if you're using it to write your assignment.

Before publication, the StudyCorgi editorial team proofread and checked the paper to make sure it meets the highest standards in terms of grammar, punctuation, style, fact accuracy, copyright issues, and inclusive language. Last updated: March 13, 2021 .

If you are the author of this paper and no longer wish to have it published on StudyCorgi, request the removal . Please use the “ Donate your paper ” form to submit an essay.

How Families Have Changed Essay

• To find inspiration for your paper and overcome writer’s block
• As a source of information (ensure proper referencing)
• As a template for you assignment

Introduction

The family set up of society has seen a constant evolution over the past decades. In the beginning, getting married meant eventually having a family and growing old with the nucleus family, that one has created. But due to changing social norms and beliefs, the description of a family has gone from nucleus to step family. Step families are usually the product of divorce and are becoming a more and more common set up in today’s world. The children who find themselves in such a family set up most often en up with a very different view of how a family works when compared to a child who came from a nucleus family. This is because of the two different cultures and social norms that they find themselves immersed in.

In order to fully understand why and how these changes happen in the modern family, one can turn to the movies for a logical explanation. Movies such as “Stepmom” starting Julia Roberts and Susan Sarandon as the mother and stepmother respectively, who vie for the attention and affection of the children. Socially speaking, the change in the family set up was caused by the falling out of the parents. Thus causing the children to live in a shared custody set up with their respective biological parents. Children are then forced to develop a coping mechanism in order to understand why the family set up has drastically changed and what their new life means for them.

The children learn to live within 2 sets of rules and 2 differing parenting styles. Since such a set up is often confusing for children as each parent tries to hone their character in the mold that they have in their minds, the more dominant parenting style usually takes hold upon the children. In the case of the children depicted in the movie, it was the biological mother’s parenting style that influenced the children even when living with their father and his new wife.

Finally, the biggest factor influencing the change in the family set up is usually the death of a parent. As evidenced in the movie, death is something which nobody is prepared for because it changes the lives of those who are left behind. For children, it means the loss of a beloved mother or father whose influence in their lives cannot be measure. For the stepparents, this means adjusting to the new role as the main parental figure of the children. The nucleus family fades away and in its place stands the new step family set up. Usually, this is the final step in the known changes to families of today.

Within the same movie, we can also clearly see that cultural components are taught to the children also in varying styles which, in the end, influence the way they develop their sense of belonging within a given family structure. With their mother, a child is raised in a more traditional manner that has him learning to deal with life in a nucleus family. In this case, the family stands as an institution that carries responsibilities and a high degree of respect for its members. In the step family set up however, step parents tend to be more relaxed in their dealings with the children and thus have a more friendly and open family set up.

Taking these observations into consideration, one can conclude that the changing family set up and parenting styles is mostly influenced by the social evolution of man and will therefore continue to evolve and adjust to the modern family needs.

Barnathan, Michael , & Colombus, Chris. (1998). Stepmom . United States: 1492 Pictures.

Starr, Lisa Ritter. 2004. “Stepmom: A family’s picture” . Geneaology today.

• Adoption Available as a For-Profit Service
• "Family Partnerships" by Jobeth Allen
• The Issue of Mold in Apartments in New Jersey
• Biology. Cell Analogy - Nucleus + Nucleolus
• How Music Affects the Brain?
• Significance of Family in Self-Development
• The American Family: Current Problems
• The Book “The Second Shift” by Arlie Hochschild and Anne Machung
• Universal Concept of Family: Future Perspectives
• Birth Order, Its Effects With Step Siblings
• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2021, December 6). How Families Have Changed. https://ivypanda.com/essays/how-families-have-changed/

"How Families Have Changed." IvyPanda , 6 Dec. 2021, ivypanda.com/essays/how-families-have-changed/.

IvyPanda . (2021) 'How Families Have Changed'. 6 December.

IvyPanda . 2021. "How Families Have Changed." December 6, 2021. https://ivypanda.com/essays/how-families-have-changed/.

1. IvyPanda . "How Families Have Changed." December 6, 2021. https://ivypanda.com/essays/how-families-have-changed/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "How Families Have Changed." December 6, 2021. https://ivypanda.com/essays/how-families-have-changed/.

Changes in Family Structure Essay IELTS

In recent years, the family structure has changed, as well as family roles. What are the changes occurring? Do you think these changes are positive or negative?  OR

In recent years, the structure of a family and the role of its members are gradually changing. What kinds of changes can occur? Do you think these changes are positive and negative? 

Give reasons for your answer and include any relevant examples from your own knowledge or experience. You should write at least 250 words.

Family Structure IELTS Essay – Model Answer 1

Practice with Expert IELTS Tutors Online

Apply Code "IELTSXPRESS20" To Get 20% off on IELTS Mock Test

In the present context, it is obvious that the families are much different in terms of their structure and gender roles in a family unit as opposed to a family a few decades back. Families today are very small in size since single parenting is not uncommon. In addition roles of parents have changed drastically. Moreover, marriages among same-sex are legalized in many countries in the world now. In my opinion, most of these changes have a positive impact on the family itself and society. Relevant factors regarding this topic will be further elaborated in this essay with examples.

To begin with, family is the backbone of society or in other words family is a reflection of society. When it comes to roles among family members, in most families, both parents support the economical stability of the family and they both share the responsibility of the children. If we consider a family a few decades back, the situation was rather different. For instance, women were supposed to look after the children while men were supposed to take care of financial stability. It is needless to say that this has completely changed by today. From my perspective, this is a positive tendency since family and children are well supported by both parents.

In addition, when it comes to the structure of the family today, same-sex marriages, as well as single parenting, can be seen in many parts of the world. From my point of view, this is a positive trend since having different sexual preferences as opposed to conventional opposite-sex marriages is no longer a reason to be discriminated against.

In conclusion, families play an important role in society. Families have been changed a lot over the last few years in various aspects as aforementioned. As per my view, this can be considered as a positive development of the society.

In recent years, the family structure has changed IELTS Essay – Model Answer 2

In recent times, there has been a number of changes within the structure of families, and the roles that family members play. This essay will discuss those changes, and the impacts these trends are having on families.

Firstly, in a lot of countries, many people are now choosing to live in a nuclear family structure, where only parents and children live together, and grandparents live separately. In the past, however, it was quite common in many countries for three, or even four generations of a family to all live under one roof. There has also been a shift in the roles that various family members play. For example, in the past, it was commonplace for men to have to work to provide for their families, and women to stay at home to cook, clean, and raise the children. However, many women nowadays are choosing to work instead, while some fathers stay at home to help out with family and household duties.

These changes can bring about both positive and negative effects. Nuclear family structures allow more freedom to parents who no longer want to live in their hometown, in order to pursue their careers. Many people need to live in large cities these days to find work, however many older, retired people want to remain living in their hometown. Though, one disadvantage of the nuclear family is that grandparents may not be available to help raise and care for grandchildren. In terms of the changing roles, women have greatly benefited from the opportunity to pursue a career, and become the breadwinner of the family, instead of being housewife. One downside of this trend though might be that some people would argue that women are better at domestic duties than stay-at-home dads.

In conclusion, I believe there are both positive and negative effects from these changes, though the impacts on each individual family will be different.

Family Structure and Roles IELTS  Essay – Model Answer 3

The changes in family structure and family roles have become a major topic of concern in modem society. Some of the main changes will be identified, before an evaluation on whether this is a positive or negative trend is made.

A few drastic changes could be observed in families today. The most obvious one is the decreased size of an average family in society. In Vietnam, for example, a majority of extended families of three generations or more living under the same roof have been transformed into nuclear families with only parents and children. In addition, there is also a significant change in terms of the roles of the father and the mother in a family. The responsibility of males as the sole breadwinner of the family has now been shared with their partners, and now women have equal working opportunities compared with their male counterparts. Accordingly, household duties are also shared equally between the two sexes.

I contend that this new family structure is, without a doubt, beneficial for all families. As regards the smaller family size, each family member could benefit from an increased sense of freedom. For instance, parents have more time for themselves now, compared with the situation in the past when they had to bear the responsibility of taking care of both grandparents and children. With respect to the change in family roles, women may reap the benefit of having their own career and thus financial freedom. Men also gain from this change since they have been freed from the financial pressure of being the only source of income in the family.

To conclude, the most apparent changes in today’s families include a decreased family size and a shared financial and household responsibility of men and women. All the existing data has provided a concrete foundation that these changes are beneficial for all members of the family.

Nuclear Family IELTS Writing Task 2 – Model Answer 4

Until a few decades ago, men were the providers and women were the caregivers. Men would go out to work and earn money. Women would stay at home looking after children and cooking food. This arrangement is disappearing and in my opinion, it is a positive trend.

In many families, now both spouses work and earn money. This is particularly true in developed and developing nations. This trend has changed the structure of families and the role of family members. Men are no longer seen as the only breadwinners. In some families, women earn more than men do. They deserve equal treatment.

Working women expect their partners to share the household responsibilities with them. They want their husbands to help them with the kids and housework. Most men are willing to lend a helping hand. Many of them never saw their dads doing the dishes or dusting the furniture, but now they do it happily because their women are also busy with their careers.

As more and more women become financially independent, the role of family members will change. Modern women have carved a niche for themselves in almost every sector. They now work and earn. Naturally, they deserve equal treatment and respect. Men who still have age-old notions of male supremacy may find it difficult to come to terms with the change of roles. However, those who think practically have certainly changed their attitudes and support their women in their careers and at home. To conclude, women’s empowerment is the reason behind this change in the structure of families. Women no longer want to confine themselves to the four walls of their home. As they have started working outside, traditional definitions of husbands and wives have changed. Men are no longer the only breadwinners and women are no longer the only caregivers. In my opinion, this is a positive trend that has the potential to make our world a better place where both men and women command equal respect.

IELTS Writing Task 2 Family – Model Answer 5

Recently, there has been a gradual transformation in the household structure and the way each member makes a contribution to the family. In this essay, I would like to discuss several possible changes and demonstrate that those changes are totally beneficial.

To begin with, the way a family is organized is far different from that in the past. Firstly, men and women are now sharing the role of breadwinners. A few decades ago, fathers were those who earned money to raise the family, while nurturing progeny was the responsibility shouldered by mothers. Today, as a logical effect of gender equality, professional opportunities are available for people of both sexes, leading to the fact that both men and women should exert effort to make ends meet. Secondly, people now have an inclination to form nuclear families. The escalating competitiveness of the job market accompanied by the higher demands of living standards drives people to work overtime and have fewer children.

From my perspective, the aforementioned changes are totally advantageous. The first benefit is that the financial pressure that parents of medium-sized families have to burden is far less significant than that of large families. This allows them to save money for long-term purposes, such as affording a house or sending their children overseas for tertiary education. Another significant advantage is that the children of such busy parents can learn how to live independently and acquire a diverse mixture of qualities at a young age. For example, many youths today have to prepare meals and arrange the study schedules themselves, which helps to sharpen up their self-reliance.

In conclusion, I would like to reaffirm my position that the household structure and the role of each family member are altering in a positive way.

Family IELTS Essay – Model Answer 6

It is true that there have been significant changes in not only the family structure but also family roles. In my opinion, these changes should be regarded as a positive tendency.

To begin with, the structure of a family is relatively different from that of some decades ago. In the past, it was likely that extended families became prevalent among societies when many generations including children, parents and grandparents lived under the same roof. In contrast, these days are witnessing the domination of nuclear families which have only parents and their offspring. Regarding parental roles, in earlier periods, men and women were supposed to be breadwinners and homemakers respectively as fathers tended to earn a living while mothers were supposed to stay at home to fulfill household duties as well as look after children. However, both men and women currently go to work to support the whole family, whereas household tasks are often divided.

I am of the opinion that these changes would have beneficial effects on family life. First of all, if fewer generations reside together, people seem to have more freedom and privacy to do anything they have an interest in without disturbing other members. For instance, in extended families juveniles adoring pop music might have to stop listening to it because their grandparents could find it annoying and noisy. Furthermore, pursuing their own careers can allow women to become financially independent from men and this also provides families with another income to have a higher standard of living. Another benefit when husbands assist their wives with household chores is that women would ease the burden of housework and have more time for themselves which can be spent on recreational activities.

In conclusion, I hold the view that several changes in family pattern and the role of members such as the fact that extended families are gradually replaced by nuclear ones and the fair division of household duties is a positive development.

Family Changes IELTS Essay

It is true that these days the family structure has considerably shifted, and the changing roles of men and women in the family have become increasingly similar. There are several new forms of family composition, and in my opinion, these developments are not always desirable.

In the past, nuclear families where parents and their offspring lived together under one roof used to be prevalent. However, there is now a huge trend towards single-parent families due to more marriages ending in divorce, while the increase in cohabiting couple families and stepfamilies is probably a result of cohabitation and remarriage becoming much more acceptable. In addition, the number of single-mother families has increased as many mothers want to have children without getting married. In terms of changing parental roles in a family, there has been a rise in the number of stay-at-home dads in recent years when it has become normal for women to gain qualifications and pursue their own career paths. This is in sharp contrast to about half a decade ago when men were breadwinners, and women were in charge of household chores in their families.

In my view, the changes described above could have both positive and negative consequences. On the one hand, due to the lack of emotional attachment and legal binding, non-traditional households such as stepfamilies and cohabiting parents are more prone to breaking down. Consequently, children of these families are more likely to be involved in antisocial behaviors while their parents may experience feelings of loneliness and worry. On the other hand, the changes in the roles of members in the family could be seen as progress because women are not put under pressure to sacrifice their own careers to assume childcare and domestic responsibilities.

In conclusion, I believe that the changes in the roles of family members and the family structure are both positive and negative.

Ideas for Family Structure Changes

Check out these articles:

Family Structure Changes

Family Structure Changes in India

Recent Changes in Family

The Future of Families

Also Check:  Increasing the Price of Petrol for Environmental Problems

Oh hi there! It’s nice to meet you.

Sign up to receive awesome content in your inbox, every week.

We promise not to spam you or share your Data. 🙂

Check your inbox or spam folder to confirm your subscription.

Oh Hi there! It’s nice to meet you.

We promise not to Spam or Share your Data. 🙂

Related Posts

Recent IELTS Exam 13 April 2024 India Question Answers

Pacific Navigation and Voyaging IELTS Reading

Recent IELTS Exam 23 March 2024 India Question Answers

Leave a comment cancel reply.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

 Yes, add me to your mailing list

Start typing and press enter to search

Numbers, Facts and Trends Shaping Your World

Read our research on:

Full Topic List

Regions & Countries

• Publications
• Our Methods
• Short Reads
• Tools & Resources

Read Our Research On:

The Modern American Family

 key trends in marriage and family life.

The American family has undergone significant change in recent decades. There is no longer one predominant family form, and Americans are experiencing family life in increasingly diverse ways.

In 1970, 67% of Americans ages 25 to 49 were living with their spouse and one or more children younger than 18.

Over the past five decades, that share has dropped to 37%.

With the drop in the share of adults living with a spouse and children, there has been an increase in other types of family living arrangements, like unmarried adults raising children.

A recent survey finds that the U.S. public is more accepting of some family types than others . And, broadly speaking, Americans are more pessimistic than optimistic about the future of the institution of marriage and the family.

What’s behind the change in family structure?

There are several factors that have contributed to these changes. Americans are marrying later in life, and a rising share have never been married.

% of U.S. adults ages 18 and older who are married or have never been married

Source: Pew Research Center analysis of 1970-2000 decennial census and 2010-2021 American Community Survey (IPUMS).

While the overall share of married adults has declined, certain types of marriages have become more common over time. Since the 1970s, a growing share of Americans are in interracial or interethnic marriages.

% of U.S. married adults ages 18 and older who are intermarried

Note: Intermarried refers to marriages between a Hispanic and a non-Hispanic spouse, or marriages between non-Hispanic spouses who come from different racial groups. Source: Pew Research Center analysis of 1970-2000 decennial census and 2010-2021 American Community Survey (IPUMS).

In 2015, same-sex marriages became legal nationally, and since then there has also been an increase in the proportion of Americans in same-sex marriages. In 2021, there were over 700,000 same-sex married couples in the United States , accounting for approximately 1% of all married couples. 

% of U.S. married adults ages 18 and older in a same-sex marriage

Source: Pew Research Center analysis of 2015-2021 American Community Survey (IPUMS).

Changes in fertility patterns have also had a significant impact on family dynamics. Compared with their counterparts in the 1970s, women today have fewer children.

The relationship between marriage and parenthood has also shifted, as more women are having children without being married .

Taken together, these changes help explain why married couples raising children together is no longer the norm.

Let’s take a closer look at the changes in family life over the past decades to understand how the American family has evolved and what it looks like today:

Differences by education, race and ethnicity

What form a family takes is increasingly shaped by educational attainment and varies significantly across racial and ethnic groups.

Today, individuals with a bachelor’s degree are much more likely to be married than those with less education – a change from the 1970s, when adults with a high school diploma were as likely as college graduates to be married. There are also growing racial and ethnic disparities since that time, with Asian and White adults increasingly more likely to be married than those who are Black or Hispanic.

Explore the data to see how these differences play out in American families. To start, click on a tab to display   data on the share of Americans who are married; the number of children women have, on average; or   the share of children living with two married parents. Then, choose a filter to show differences by education or by race and ethnicity.

901 E St. NW, Suite 300 Washington, DC 20004 USA (+1) 202-419-4300 | Main (+1) 202-857-8562 | Fax (+1) 202-419-4372 |  Media Inquiries

Research Topics

• Email Newsletters

ABOUT PEW RESEARCH CENTER  Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other empirical social science research. Pew Research Center does not take policy positions. It is a subsidiary of  The Pew Charitable Trusts .

© 2024 Pew Research Center

Download Your Free Book (pdf)

In recent years, the family structure has changed, as well as family roles.... (Band 9 Sample Essay)

Updated: Jun 26

You should spend about 40 minutes on this task.

Write about the following topic:

In recent years, the family structure has changed, as well as family roles.

What are the changes occurring?

Do you think these changes are positive or negative?

Give reasons for your answer and include any relevant examples from your own knowledge and experiences.

You should write at least 250 words.

Get your personalised   IELTS Essay Feedback   from a former examiner

Download IELTS eBooks ,   get everything you need to achieve a high band score

Sample Essay 1

In recent decades, significant transformations have taken place in the organizational structure of families and the roles played by each member. These modifications are primarily related to the interrelationships among the different family components. Despite the positive aspects of these changes in terms of material gains, I believe that this drastic shift can exact a significant emotional toll in the long run.

In the current era of rapid modernization and urbanization, the boundaries of families have been dramatically altered, making it increasingly difficult for family members to spend quality time together. A concomitant effect of this has been a decline in the general level of income, which has further exacerbated the situation. As a result, in most households, both parents are now compelled to work full-time to sustain their livelihoods, unlike the past when the sole responsibility of providing for the family rested on the father's shoulders. This shift in dynamics has resulted in increased pressure on parents to balance work and family life, often leading to the neglect of one at the expense of the other. The consequences of this are manifold and long-lasting, affecting not only the individual family but also the broader society.

Furthermore, with recent developments in familial aspects, parents may lose the opportunity to listen to their children or build a strong emotional connection with them. For instance, dinner used to be one of the most important meals in traditional families, as it provided both parents and children with an opportunity to interact closely and convey valuable lessons regarding proper manners or other essential values. However, this valuable chapter is becoming obsolete as, by the time working parents get home, their offspring have already had their meal. Thus, the diminished family time not only deprives children of proper growth but also breeds childhood traumas that can eventually lead to adult mental illnesses.

In conclusion, with the advent of modernization and the resulting financial strain, family structures are continually changing, with both parents becoming heavily involved in their professional aspects. Although this new development might bring financial gains for households, it comes at a severe cost of emotional attachment among family members.

Sample Essay 2

In recent years, the family structure has undergone a tremendous transformation, marked by the shrinking of family units and a consequent reduction in familial responsibilities. This phenomenon can be attributed to the acceleration of urbanization and the growing focus of young people on their careers, which has resulted in increased financial and mental independence. As a result, young people are increasingly opting to live with their friends or by themselves, rather than with their families, and are no longer viewed as the primary source of support for both elders and children.

This shift towards smaller and more independent family units has had numerous advantages for both individuals and society at large. Young people are no longer weighed down by excessive family responsibilities, such as caring for children and elders, and can thus focus more fully on their personal and professional lives. Elders, in turn, can enjoy a more fulfilling social life by living with people their own age who understand their experiences and perspectives. Additionally, the decreasing birth rate resulting from these changes is being compensated for by a surge in demand for nursing home services, which is creating more job opportunities and contributing to overall economic growth.

Despite these benefits, some may argue that this shift towards smaller and more independent family units may have its downsides. For instance, it may lead to a decline in traditional family values and a weakening of familial bonds. However, these concerns can be mitigated by the increasing availability of alternative forms of social support, such as community groups and social networks, which can serve to fill the void left by traditional family structures.

In conclusion, the revolution in the family structure that we are currently witnessing is a natural consequence of urbanization and the growing focus on individualism. While it may have some drawbacks, its advantages are manifold, ranging from reduced family burdens for young people to increased job opportunities and a more fulfilling social life for elders. Ultimately, this shift towards smaller and more independent family units is a positive development that should be embraced and celebrated.

Sample Essay 3

During the last decades, fundamental modifications have involved family organization and the roles of its members. These changes are mainly related to the relationships among the different family components. Though there are some positive aspects in terms of material gains, I believe this drastic change can incur a massive emotional cost on the long run.

Nowadays, the fast-paced environment of people’s lifestyle has been changing the boundary of the families. It has become almost impossible for family members to spend quality time together. These days, the general level of income is lower than that of the earlier period. That is why, to stretch out the earnings all through the months, in most case both parents are required to work full time, whereas previously only the fathers used to shoulder the financial burdens.

In addition, with the recent development in familial aspects, parents would lose the chance to listen to their children or build a strong emotional connection with them. For example, dinner was one of the most important meals in the traditional families, it used to give both parents and children a chance to interact closely and convey messages to the Kids regarding the right manners or other valuable lessons. But this incredible chapter is becoming obsolete because of the time when working parents get home, offspring already have had their meal. This is how, the shrunken family time is not only depriving children from gaining a proper growth, but also it is breeding childhood traumas which can eventually lead to an adult mental illness.

To conclude, with the advent of modernisation and the resulting financial strain, family structures are changing constantly where both parents are getting heavily involved in their professional aspects. Though this new development might bring financial gains for the households, it comes at a serious cost of mental attachment among the members.

Sample Essay 4

A lot of changes in the form and the function of families, namely the decrease in average number of family members and the less dependency on families, have happened recently. In my opinion, this transition of characteristics of families is preferable because it would help people financially and strengthen their relationships with the family members.

The most prominent change in family structure is that the average size of a family has become smaller than ever before. In other words, more and more families are deciding not to live with their grandparents or other relatives, as the number of atomic family is increasing in Japan. Moreover, ordinary family members are becoming dependent on their relatives, and therefore a family is not a safety space for many people anymore.

Furthermore, I strongly believe that this transformation of families is beneficial for most of the people in terms of financial and social aspects. The smaller the family size, the less people have to pay for maintaining their family activities. Unfortunately, the burden of caring their parents is extremely heavy for young adults because they are so busy to nurture their children and to earn the required amount of money for their upbringings. In addition, if people can become more independent from their families, they would be more sociable. Because citizens usually spend much time in schools or offices where their families cannot support them, a good relationship with colleagues or friends would bring a lot of benefits on people while the role of family shrinks.

In conclusion, I am convinced that various changes; the reduction in the figures of family members and the low dependency on families, that have taken place over the last decade is mitigating financial problems of young adults and improving their communication skills.

• Task 2 Essays

Recent Posts

Studying At University or College Is The Best Route to A Successful Career - IELTS Task 2 Band 9 Essay

Newspapers Are The Best Way To Learn about Current Events - IELTS Band 9 Sample Essay

Friendships That Take Place Online Are Not As Meaningful As Real-Life Friendship - IELTS Sample Essay

• Student Opportunities

About Hoover

Located on the campus of Stanford University and in Washington, DC, the Hoover Institution is the nation’s preeminent research center dedicated to generating policy ideas that promote economic prosperity, national security, and democratic governance. 

• The Hoover Story
• Hoover Timeline & History
• Mission Statement
• Vision of the Institution Today
• Key Focus Areas
• About our Fellows
• Research Programs
• Annual Reports
• Hoover in DC
• Fellowship Opportunities
• Visit Hoover
• David and Joan Traitel Building & Rental Information
• Newsletter Subscriptions
• Connect With Us

Hoover scholars form the Institution’s core and create breakthrough ideas aligned with our mission and ideals. What sets Hoover apart from all other policy organizations is its status as a center of scholarly excellence, its locus as a forum of scholarly discussion of public policy, and its ability to bring the conclusions of this scholarship to a public audience.

• Peter Berkowitz
• Ross Levine
• Michael McFaul
• Timothy Garton Ash
• China's Global Sharp Power Project
• Economic Policy Group
• History Working Group
• Hoover Education Success Initiative
• National Security Task Force
• National Security, Technology & Law Working Group
• Middle East and the Islamic World Working Group
• Military History/Contemporary Conflict Working Group
• Renewing Indigenous Economies Project
• State & Local Governance
• Strengthening US-India Relations
• Technology, Economics, and Governance Working Group
• Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region

Books by Hoover Fellows

Economics Working Papers

Hoover Education Success Initiative | The Papers

• Hoover Fellows Program
• National Fellows Program
• Student Fellowship Program
• Veteran Fellowship Program
• Congressional Fellowship Program
• Media Fellowship Program
• Silas Palmer Fellowship
• Economic Fellowship Program

Throughout our over one-hundred-year history, our work has directly led to policies that have produced greater freedom, democracy, and opportunity in the United States and the world.

• Determining America’s Role in the World
• Answering Challenges to Advanced Economies
• Empowering State and Local Governance
• Revitalizing History
• Confronting and Competing with China
• Revitalizing American Institutions
• Reforming K-12 Education
• Understanding Public Opinion
• Understanding the Effects of Technology on Economics and Governance
• Energy & Environment
• Health Care
• Immigration
• International Affairs
• Key Countries / Regions
• Law & Policy
• Politics & Public Opinion
• Science & Technology
• Security & Defense
• State & Local
• Books by Fellows
• Published Works by Fellows
• Working Papers
• Congressional Testimony
• Hoover Press
• PERIODICALS
• The Caravan
• China's Global Sharp Power
• Economic Policy
• History Lab
• Hoover Education
• Global Policy & Strategy
• Middle East and the Islamic World
• Military History & Contemporary Conflict
• Renewing Indigenous Economies
• State and Local Governance
• Technology, Economics, and Governance

Hoover scholars offer analysis of current policy challenges and provide solutions on how America can advance freedom, peace, and prosperity.

• China Global Sharp Power Weekly Alert
• Email newsletters
• Hoover Daily Report
• Subscription to Email Alerts
• Periodicals
• California on Your Mind
• Defining Ideas
• Hoover Digest
• Video Series
• Uncommon Knowledge
• Battlegrounds
• GoodFellows
• Hoover Events
• Capital Conversations
• Hoover Book Club
• AUDIO PODCASTS
• Matters of Policy & Politics
• Economics, Applied
• Free Speech Unmuted
• Secrets of Statecraft
• Capitalism and Freedom in the 21st Century
• Libertarian
• Library & Archives

Support Hoover

Learn more about joining the community of supporters and scholars working together to advance Hoover’s mission and values.

What is MyHoover?

MyHoover delivers a personalized experience at  Hoover.org . In a few easy steps, create an account and receive the most recent analysis from Hoover fellows tailored to your specific policy interests.

Watch this video for an overview of MyHoover.

Log In to MyHoover

Forgot Password

Don't have an account? Sign up

Have questions? Contact us

• Support the Mission of the Hoover Institution
• Subscribe to the Hoover Daily Report
• Follow Hoover on Social Media

Make a Gift

Your gift helps advance ideas that promote a free society.

• About Hoover Institution
• Meet Our Fellows
• Focus Areas
• Research Teams
• Library & Archives

Library & archives

Events, news & press.

The Changing American Family

During the past 20 years, the American family has undergone a profound transformation. By Herbert S. Klein .

For all the changes in fertility and mortality that Americans have experienced from the colonial period until today, there has been surprisingly little change in the structure of the family until the past quarter century. Until that point, the age of marriage changed from time to time, but only a minority of women never married and births outside marriage were traditionally less than 10 percent of all births.

But this fundamental social institution has changed profoundly since 1980. In fact, if one were to define the most original demographic feature in the post-1980 period in the United States, it would be the changes that were occurring in both families and households for all sections of the national population. The traditional American family has been undergoing profound transformations for all ages, all races, and all ethnic groups. Every aspect of the American family is experiencing change. These include the number of adults who marry, the number of households that are formed by married people, the number of children that are conceived, the economic role of mothers, the number of non-family households, and even the importance of marriage in accounting for total births.

The proportion of persons over 15 years of age who had never married reached historic levels in 2000 when a third of the men and a quarter of the women were listed as never having married. The decline in marriage among whites is occurring at a slower pace than among blacks, but both are experiencing rising trends in unmarried adults. By 2000, 22 percent of adult white women and 42 percent of adult black women had never married. This rise in the ratio of persons never married is also reflected in historical changes in the relation between families and households. Non-family households had always existed as a small share of the total households in the United States, usually made up of elderly persons with no families left. But now they are formed by young adults, many of whom never married, or by older persons who no longer reside with children. Also, the proportion of two-parent households, even in family households with children, is on the decline, as single-parent-plus-children households are on the rise. As late as 1960, at the height of the Baby Boom, married families made up almost three-quarters of all households; but by the census of 2000 they accounted for just 53 percent of them, a decline that seems to have continued in the past few years. Non-family households now account for 31 percent of households, and families headed by a single parent with children account for the rest, making up to 27 percent of all such families with children. Black families experienced the fastest decline of dual-parent households; by the end of the century married couples with children accounted for only 4 out of 10 of all black family households with children. But no group was immune to this rising trend of single-parent households.

More older people than ever before are also living alone or without other generations present. Declining mortality and morbidity, the development of Social Security and other retirement benefits, all meant that older persons could financially live alone and were generally healthier and lived longer than in earlier periods. A change in cultural values during the second half of the twentieth century seems to have increased the value of privacy among older adults. In 1910, for example, most widows over 65 years of age lived with their children; only 12 percent lived alone. By 1990, almost 70 percent of such widows were living alone. There was also a major rise in “empty nest” households, with elderly couples no longer having resident children of any age. Extended family arrangements were progressively disappearing for the majority of the population. There were also more couples surviving into old age than ever before, so that by 2000 more than half of the adults over 65 who resided in independent households lived with their spouses. With better health and more income, more elderly persons have the ability and the desire to “buy” their privacy as never before.

Not only have family households been on the decline, as a consequence of the rise of single-person and childless-couple households, but even women giving birth are now having far fewer children, are spacing them further apart, and are ending their fertility at earlier ages than ever before, which has brought fertility levels in the United States to their lowest level in history. In the colonial period the average woman produced more than seven children during the course of her lifetime. Since the 1970s the rate has been under two children for the majority non-Hispanic white population. The national fertility total currently barely reaches its replacement level; fluctuated between 2.0 and 2.1 children per woman over the past quarter century; by 2000 non-Hispanic white women were averaging just 1.8 children. Among all groups it was only the Hispanic women—who are at a total fertility rate of 2.5 children—who are above the replacement level. Even among Hispanic women, it is primarily Mexican-American women, the largest single group, which maintained very high fertility rates. Cuban-American women were close to the non-Hispanic whites, and the Puerto Rican women were closer to the fertility patterns of non-Hispanic black women.

Although the U.S. fertility rate declined to the lowest level in history, single women now make up an increased percentage of those having children. The rapid and very recent rise in births outside marriage means that married women no longer are the exclusive arbiters of fertility. Whereas at mid-century such extramarital births were an insignificant phenomenon, accounting for only 4 percent of all births, by 2000 they accounted for a third of births, and that proportion is rising. Although all groups experienced this change, non-Hispanic whites experienced a slower rise than all other groups. Although some have thought this to be a temporary aberration in historic patterns, the increasing illegitimacy rates in Europe suggest that North America is following modern advanced Western European trends.

In the 1970s, when the issue began to be perceived by the public as one of major concern, it was the teenagers who had the highest rates of births outside marriage, and those births seemed to be rising at the time. But by the end of the century older women’s rates of illegitimacy were highest and rising; those for teenage girls were falling in both relative and absolute numbers. That this increase of births outside marriage was not due to poverty per se can be seen in the fact that the United States was not unique in this new pattern of births and the declining importance of traditional marriage. Other wealthy countries, such as Sweden, have also experienced this trend. Although Sweden in 1950 had fertility patterns comparable to those of the United States, by the end of the century its rate of non-marital births was more than half of all births. Even such Catholic countries as Spain and Portugal had arrived at 16 percent and 22 percent illegitimacy rates, respectively, and France was up to 38 percent by 1996. Thus the belief that this was a temporary or uniquely North American development does not appear to be the case. The factors influencing these trends everywhere in the modern industrial world seem to be the same—late marriages, women increasing their participation in the workforce and thus having higher incomes, and changing beliefs in the importance and necessity of marriage. These changes seem to be affecting all Europe and North America at approximately the same time.

This trend is also reflected in the changing economic role of women even in dual-parent households with children. The traditional family with a single male breadwinner working alone to sustain the family is no longer the norm. By the end of the century, only one in five married couples had just a single male breadwinner working outside the home. Among married couples with children under six years of age, only 36 percent had the mother staying at home with the children and not working, and in families where women had given birth to a child during the previous year, the majority of these mothers at the end of the year were working outside the home—more than half of them in 2000 compared to just under one third in 1967. Not only were more women in the workforce—a ratio that was constantly on the rise through the second half of the century—but the vast majority of married mothers with young children were working outside the home by 2000.

All of these changes are having an impact on U.S. fertility rates. Not only is formal marriage no longer the exclusive arbiter of fertility, but more and more women are reducing the number of children they have. This is not due to women forgoing children. In fact, there has been little change in the number of women going childless, which has remained quite steady for the past 40 years. This decline in fertility is due to the fact that women are deliberately deciding to have fewer children. They are marrying later, thus reducing their marital fertility, they are beginning childbearing at ever later ages, they are spacing their children farther apart, and they are terminating their fertility at earlier ages. Not only did the average age of mothers having their first children rise by 2.7 years from 1960 to 1999, but it rose significantly for every subsequent child being born as well, while the spacing between children also increased. Although the average age of mothers at first birth for the entire population was now 24.9 years, for non-Hispanic white women it was 25.9 years.

Clearly the American family, like all families in the Western industrial countries, is now profoundly different from what it had been in the recorded past. It typically is a household with few children, with both parents working, and with mothers producing their children at ever older ages. At the same time, more adults than ever before are living alone or with unmarried companions and more women than ever before are giving birth out of wedlock. These trends have profoundly changed the American family and are unlikely to be reversed any time soon.

Adapted from chapter 8 of A Population History of the United States, by Herbert S. Klein, published by Cambridge University Press, 2004 (845.353.7500).

View the discussion thread.

Join the Hoover Institution’s community of supporters in ideas advancing freedom.

Pardon Our Interruption

As you were browsing something about your browser made us think you were a bot. There are a few reasons this might happen:

• You've disabled JavaScript in your web browser.
• You're a power user moving through this website with super-human speed.
• You've disabled cookies in your web browser.
• A third-party browser plugin, such as Ghostery or NoScript, is preventing JavaScript from running. Additional information is available in this support article .

To regain access, please make sure that cookies and JavaScript are enabled before reloading the page.

CHANGING FAMILY STRUCTURE IN INDIA | Sociology Optional for UPSC Civil Services Examination | Triumph IAS

Table of Contents

CHANGING FAMILY STRUCTURE IN INDIA

(relevant for sociology syllabus: paper 1 –  systems of kinship:- contemporary trends, family and marriage in india), (relevant for gs syllabus: paper1-  effects of globalization on indian society ).

• Families have both structure and function. Like the skeleton and muscles in a body, the structure is what gives a family it’s size and shape. Also, like organs within the body that perform necessary functions to keep the body working, there are certain necessary functions that keep families healthy. It sees society as a complex system whose parts work together to promote solidarity and stability.
• It asserts that our lives are guided by social structures, which are relatively stable patterns of social behaviour. Social structures give shape to our lives – for example, in families, the community, and through religious organizations and certain rituals, or complex religious ceremonies, give structure to our everyday lives. Each social structure has social functions or consequences for the operation of society as a whole.
• Social structures consist of social relationships, as well as any social institutions within a society. One example of a social structure is a social class (upper-class, middle-class, and poor). Another example of a social structure is the different levels of government. Family, religion, law, economy, and class are all social structures.

INDIA AND ITS FAMILY STRUCTURE

• India has a rich family structure with a patrilineal background, which help the family members to sustain a life with kinship groupings. Earlier, mostly joint families were found where family members live together under one roof. They all mutually work, eat, worship and co-operate each other in one or the other way.
• This also helps the family to get strong mentally, physically and economically, the children also get to know about the values and traditions of the society from their grandparents and elders. The family system has given a lot of importance in India and has worked more often to make the bonding among families stronger.
• The family system has given a lot of importance in India and has worked more often to make the bonding among families stronger . Meanwhile, urbanization and westernization had its influence on the basic structure of the Indian family structure. The division of the joint family into smaller units is not the symbol of people rejecting this traditional structure. The circumstances and conditions also made the need for people to split the family.
• The family as a social institution has been undergoing change. Both in its structure and functions changes have taken place. In India, as in many traditional societies, the family has been not only the centre of social and economic life but also the primary source of support for the family members.
• The increasing commercialization of the economy and the development of the infrastructure of the modern state have introduced a significant change in the family structure in India in the 20th century. Especially, the last few decades have witnessed important alterations in family life.
• India’s fertility rate has fallen, and couples have begun to bear children at a later age. At the same time, life expectancy has increased, resulting in more elderly people who need care. All of these changes are taking place in the context of increased urbanization, which is separating children from elders and contributing disintegration of family-based support systems.

FACTORS AFFECTING FAMILY STRUCTURES

• Change in Fertility: An inevitable outcome of declining fertility rates and increasing age at first birth in most of the countries in the world, including India, is a reduction in family size. Fertility declined due to the combined effect of substantial socio-economic development achieved during the last two decades and the effective implementation of family planning programmes.
• Hence, it has become irrational for many people to have large families as the cost of children is increasing. In traditional societies, where human labour was a source of strength to the family, more children were preferred to fewer. But as the economic contribution from the children in a family decreased, because of a move away from agriculture, the need for large numbers of children decreased.
• Improvements in health care and child survival also contributed. The emphasis was on the quality of life rather than the number of children, a new concept added to the family.
• CHANGE IN AGE OF MARRIAGE: In many countries in the world where significant declines infertility are being experienced, reductions in the proportion of people never married have often coincided with or preceded declines in marital fertility. A substantial increase in the proportions never married, among both males and females, at young ages, has been noted in many countries. A consequence of the increase in the proportion of never-married young adults is the gradual upward trend of the average age at marriage. Postponement of marriage among females resulted in the postponement of childbearing with a reduction in family size.
• CHANGE IN MORTALITY : Mortality declines, particularly infant mortality, everywhere preceded the decline of fertility. Improved survival rates of children mean that when women reached the age of 30 they increasingly had achieved the completed family size they desired. Earlier, much larger numbers of births were required to achieve the desired completed family size.
• In the last three decades, infant mortality has declined significantly in every country and this trend undoubtedly influenced the fertility decline. Mortality decline, followed by fertility decline, altered the age structure of the population and also the structure within individual families.
• MARRIAGE DISSOLUTION : It is no longer the case that all marital unions, whether formal or informal reach final dissolution through death. A considerable proportion of unions are disrupted suddenly for reasons such as desertion, separation or divorce. An obvious failure in a family relationship is where husband and wife cease to live together.
• Those women who are divorced at latter ages mostly remain single for the rest of their lives and live with their dependents. The idea that when a couple has children it will be less likely to divorce is widely accepted in most societies. However, it is believed that in the last couple of years even in most of the Asian cultures, including India, a growing proportion of divorces involve couples with young children (Goode 1993).
• PARTICIPATION OF WOMEN IN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT: The commercialization process which opened markets in many developing countries has succeeded in replacing the traditional co-operation in the economic relationship, with that of competition.
• In this process, the social institutions in these countries found themselves in conflict with the key aspects of the new economic systems. The economics of the family and the sexual division of labour within the family is very much determined by opportunities in the labour market. The developing economies of system India have facilitated the freeing of women from household chores and their entrance to the labour market.
• The declining ability of men to earn a ‘family wage’ along with the growing need for cash for family maintenance has resulted in an increasing number of female members (particularly the wife) in the family engaging in economic activities (Lloyed and Duffy 1995).
• Talcott Parsons, theoretical insights on the family have attracted widest attention and deliberation. Parsons (1954, 1956) argues that modern industrial society has led to the growth of what he calls “isolated nuclear family”. This family is structurally isolated as it does not form an integral part of the wider kinship group.

To master these intricacies and fare well in the  Sociology Optional Syllabus,  aspiring sociologists might benefit from guidance by the  Best Sociology Optional Teacher  and participation in the  Best Sociology Optional Coaching.  These avenues provide comprehensive assistance, ensuring a solid understanding of sociology’s diverse methodologies and techniques.

changing family structure changing family structure, age of marriage, contemporary trends contemporary trends, family and marriage in India family and marriage in India, family planning family planning, family support system family support system, fertility rate fertility rate, globalization globalization, India India, joint family joint family, kinship kinship, marriage dissolution marriage dissolution, mortality mortality, Sociology Sociology, urbanization urbanization, westernization westernization

Why Vikash Ranjan’s Classes for Sociology?

Proper guidance and assistance are required to learn the skill of interlinking current happenings with the conventional topics.  VIKASH RANJAN SIR  at  TRIUMPH IAS  guides students according to the Recent Trends of UPSC, making him the  Best Sociology Teacher  for  Sociology Optional UPSC.

At Triumph IAS, the  Best Sociology Optional Coaching  platform, we not only provide the best study material and applied classes for  Sociology for IAS  but also conduct regular assignments and class tests to assess candidates’ writing skills and understanding of the subject.

Choose  T he Best Sociology Optional Teacher  for IAS Preparation?

At the beginning of the journey for  Civil Services Examination  preparation, many students face a pivotal decision – selecting their optional subject. Questions such as “ which optional subject is the best? ” and “ which optional subject is the most scoring? ” frequently come to mind. Choosing the right optional subject, like choosing the  best sociology optional teacher , is a subjective yet vital step that requires a thoughtful decision based on facts. A misstep in this crucial decision can indeed prove disastrous.

Ever since the exam pattern was revamped in 2013, the UPSC has eliminated the need for a second optional subject. Now, candidates have to choose only one  optional subject for the UPSC Mains , which has two papers of 250 marks each. One of the compelling choices for many has been the sociology optional. However, it’s strongly advised to decide on your optional subject for mains well ahead of time to get sufficient time to complete the syllabus. After all, most students score similarly in General Studies Papers; it’s the score in the optional subject & essay that contributes significantly to the final selection.

“A sound strategy does not rely solely on the popular Opinion of toppers or famous YouTubers cum teachers.”

It requires understanding one’s ability, interest, and the relevance of the subject, not just for the exam but also for life in general. Hence, when selecting the best sociology teacher, one must consider the usefulness of  sociology optional coaching  in  General Studies, Essay, and Personality Test.

The choice of the optional subject should be based on objective criteria, such as the nature, scope, and size of the syllabus, uniformity and stability in the question pattern, relevance of the syllabic content in daily life in society, and the availability of study material and guidance. For example, choosing the  best sociology optional coaching  can ensure access to top-quality study materials and experienced teachers. Always remember, the approach of the UPSC optional subject differs from your academic studies of subjects. Therefore, before settling for  sociology optional , you need to analyze the syllabus, previous years’ pattern, subject requirements (be it ideal, visionary, numerical, conceptual theoretical), and your comfort level with the subject.

This decision marks a critical point in your  UPSC – CSE journey , potentially determining your success in a career in IAS/Civil Services. Therefore, it’s crucial to choose wisely, whether it’s the optional subject or the  best sociology optional teacher . Always base your decision on accurate facts, and never let your emotional biases guide your choices. After all, the search for the  best sociology optional coaching  is about finding the perfect fit for your unique academic needs and aspirations.

Follow us :

🔎 https://www.instagram.com/triumphias

🔎 www.triumphias.com

🔎https://www.youtube.com/c/TriumphIAS

🔎 https://t.me/VikashRanjanSociology

Find More Blogs

194 comments

• Pingback: Children Helping Parents in Selling Articles Not Child Labour | TriumphIAS
• Pingback: SCOPE OF SOCIOLOGY- Sociology the Discipline: Relevant for Sociology Paper-1 | TriumphIAS
• Pingback: DIFFERENCES BETWEEN STATE & SOCIETY-Relevant for Sociology Paper-I : Politics & Society - TriumphIAS
• Pingback: Fundamentalism :Relevant for Sociology Paper-I -Religion and Society - TriumphIAS
• Pingback: PAROCHIALISATION AND UNIVERSALISATION - TriumphIAS
• Pingback: Dr. B.R. AMBEDKAR - TriumphIAS
• Pingback: FOLKWAYS, MORES, CUSTOMS, SANCTIONS- Sociology as Science: Relevant for Sociology Paper-1 - TriumphIAS
• Pingback: International Women's Day
• Pingback: Sociology Fundamental Concepts: SOCIETY, CULTURE, ETC.
• Pingback: Understanding Gender Sociology
• Pingback: Gender Bias in American Society
• Pingback: Liberal Feminism: Understanding the Concept and Its Key Principles
• Pingback: Socialist Feminism - Empowering Women through Intersectional Analysis of Gender and Class in Socialist Feminism | A Comprehensive Guide for UPSC Sociology Optional Students
• Pingback: Postmodern Feminism: Challenging Fixed Gender Categories and Embracing Diversity
• Pingback: Feminism: Recognizing Intersectionality and Building Solidarity
• Pingback: Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage and Sociological Perspectives on Divorce in India
• Pingback: Hunger in India: Causes, Impacts and Ways to Address the Problem
• Pingback: Bhutan Relationship: Present Status, Challenges, and Importance for India
• Pingback: Understanding the Landscape of Work & Economy in India: Industrial Development to Organizational Structures
• Pingback: Understanding the Role and Challenges of Cooperative Societies in India
• Pingback: Data Governance: Navigating the Landscape of Data Governance
• Pingback: Karl Marx and the Dialectics of Historical Materialism
• Pingback: Understanding Military Ethics: Just War Theory and Beyond
• Pingback: Contribution and Criticism of Historical Materialism to Sociological Theory
• Pingback: Ethics in Public Relations: Guiding Principles and Unethical Practices
• Pingback: Addressing Malnutrition in India: Enhancing Integrated Child Development Services (ICDS)
• Pingback: Understanding Self-Concept through Symbolic Interactionism
• Pingback: Harnessing the Potential of India's Electronics Manufacturing Industry
• Pingback: Distinguishing Leaders, Administrators, and Reformers: Impact on Human Values
• Pingback: Understanding Talcott Parsons' Pattern Variables in Role Theory
• Pingback: Harnessing India's Demographic Dividend: Opportunities, Challenges, and Strategic Reforms.
• Pingback: Role of Parents and Teachers in Child Development. Roles of a Good Parent
• Pingback: Managers vs Leaders: Unraveling the Contrast for Organizational Success | #1 Best Sociology Optional Coaching
• Pingback: Father's Role in Child's Development: An Integral Role in Shaping a Child's Future | #1 Best Sociology Optional Coaching
• Pingback: Economic Data: Its Pivotal Role and Challenges in Policy Making and the Impact of ESG Considerations | #1 Best Sociology Optional Coaching
• Pingback: Essential Values for Civil Service: Foundation for Effective Public Service | #1 Best Sociology Optional Coaching
• Pingback: Intellectual Property Rights: Promoting Innovation and Empowering Women in IP | #1 Best Sociology Optional Coaching
• Pingback: Understanding Attitude: An In-depth Study of its Cognitive, Affective, and Behavioural Components | #1 Best Sociology Optional Coaching
• Pingback: Attitudes and Behavior: Unraveling Social Influence and Public Service Values | #1 Best Sociology Optional Coaching
• Pingback: Defence Diplomacy : A Deep Dive into India's Growing Defence Strategy | #1 Best Sociology Optional Coaching
• Pingback: Bridging the Gap of Public Administration: Enhancing the Relationship between the Public and Administration in India | #1 Best Sociology Optional Coaching
• Pingback: E-Waste Management in India: Challenges, Practices and the Road to Sustainability | #1 Best Sociology Optional Coaching
• Pingback: Understanding the Definition of the Situation: Role in Social Order and Symbolic Interaction | #1 Best Sociology Optional Coaching
• Pingback: Cooperative Based Economic Development: Empowering the Cooperative Movement | #1 Best Sociology Optional Coaching
• Pingback: Exploring Deprivation: Unveiling Social Inequality and the Path towards Inclusivity | #1 Best Sociology Optional Coaching
• Pingback: Unpacking Freebie Politics: Implications for Economy and Sustainable Development | #1 Best Sociology Optional Coaching
• Pingback: Methodology in Sociology | Sociology Optional for UPSC Civil Services Examination | Triumph IAS #1 Best Sociology Optional Coaching
• Pingback: Women's Health in India: Priorities, Challenges, and Initiatives | #1 Best Sociology Optional Coaching
• Pingback: Unraveling the Depth of Interpretive and Qualitative Approaches in Sociology | #1 Best Sociology Optional Coaching
• Pingback: Bureau of Police Research and Development: Its Role in National Security | #1 Best Sociology Optional Coaching
• Pingback: Striving for Enhanced Road Safety: Global Goals, Indian Measures and the Way Forward | #1 Best Sociology Optional Coaching
• Pingback: Symbolic Interactionism Sociology: Understanding Human Behavior through Meaningful Symbols and Social Interaction | #1 Best Sociology Optional Coaching
• Pingback: Life quality should be Great Rather than long | #1 Best Sociology Optional Coaching
• Pingback: Phenomenology: The Art of Understanding Social Reality through Personal Perception. | Sociology Optional for UPSC Civil Services Examination | Triumph IAS #1 Best Sociology Optional Coaching
• Pingback: Casteism, Communalism, Regionalism: Understanding the Challenges to India's Development: Understanding the Challenges to India's Development | #1 Best Sociology Optional Coaching
• Pingback: Ethnomethodology: Understanding Social Order, Indexicality, and the Documentary Method | #1 Best Sociology Optional Coaching
• Pingback: Simplicity is the Ultimate Sophistication: A Deep Dive into the Art of Simplicity | #1 Best Sociology Optional Coaching
• Pingback: The Shadow of Internet Shutdowns: Causes, Impacts, and Arguments in India | #1 Best Sociology Optional Coaching
• Pingback: Feminist Methodology: Approaches, Criticisms, and Transformations in Sociological Research | #1 Best Sociology Optional Coaching
• Pingback: Infrastructure Development: The Cornerstone of Economic Growth | #1 Best Sociology Optional Coaching
• Pingback: Ethical Research Principles and Related Concerns: A Comprehensive Overview | #1 Best Sociology Optional Coaching
• Pingback: Becoming a Woman: Exploring Gender Beyond Biology | #1 Best Sociology Optional Coaching
• Pingback: Reliability and Validity in Research: A Comparative Analysis of Quantitative and Qualitative Methods | #1 Best Sociology Optional Coaching
• Pingback: The Imperative of Gender-Responsive Urban Planning in India | #1 Best Sociology Optional Coaching
• Pingback: Insights into Case Studies and Life Histories in Sociological Research | #1 Best Sociology Optional Coaching
• Pingback: Understanding Sampling Methods in Sociological Research | #1 Best Sociology Optional Coaching
• Pingback: Unity in Diversity: The Essence of India's Composite Culture | #1 Best Sociology Optional Coaching
• Pingback: Understanding Social Surveys: Types, Methods, and Importance | #1 Best Sociology Optional Coaching
• Pingback: Blue Revolution: Enhancing India's Fisheries Sector for Economic Growth | #1 Best Sociology Optional Coaching
• Pingback: Joy is The Simplest Form of Gratitude | Keval N Mehta Copy UPSC CSE 2022 RANK 206
• Pingback: Swati Sharma Sociology Test Copy UPSC CSE 2022 RANK 15
• Pingback: Historical Sources: Understanding Their Significance and Types in Sociology | #1 Best Sociology Optional Coaching
• Pingback: Balancing Privileges and Principles: The Key to Ethical Living | #1 Best Sociology Optional Coaching
• Pingback: Gunjita Agarwal Sociology Test Copy UPSC CSE 2022 RANK 26
• Pingback: Inclusive Growth Economics: Elements, Challenges, and Its Significance in India | #1 Best Sociology Optional Coaching
• Pingback: Maniya Verma Sociology Test Copy UPSC CSE 2022 RANK 258
• Pingback: Understanding El Niño and La Niña: Effects on Global Climate and Indian Monsoon | #1 Best Sociology Optional Coaching
• Pingback: Navigating Economic Challenges for India's Future Growth | #1 Best Sociology Optional Coaching
• Pingback: Communalism & Casteism: Challenges to the national integration. | Kritika Goyal Copy UPSC CSE 2022 RANK 14
• Pingback: Methodology, Values, and Objectivity in Sociological Research | #1 Best Sociology Optional Coaching
• Pingback: Combining Methods and Triangulation in Sociological Research | #1 Best Sociology Optional Coaching
• Pingback: Climate Change: Challenges for Women Farmers in Agriculture | #1 Best Sociology Optional Coaching
• Pingback: The Tug of War Between Individual Rationality and Collective Insanity | #1 Best Sociology Optional Coaching
• Pingback: Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP): Insights and Significance | #1 Best Sociology Optional Coaching
• Pingback: The Internet is becoming the town square for the global village of tomorrow | Yash Kumar Sharma Copy UPSC CSE 2022 RANK 196
• Pingback: Understanding Growth and Development: Concepts and Challenges | #1 Best Sociology Optional Coaching
• Pingback: Himanshu Bhaskar Sociology Test Copy UPSC CSE 2022 Rank 308
• Pingback: Globalizing Indian society Myth or reality | Jarad Partik Anil Copy UPSC CSE 2022 RANK 112
• Pingback: Understanding Poverty in India: Causes, Estimation, and Challenges | #1 Best Sociology Optional Coaching
• Pingback: Mauryan Art and Architecture: A Remarkable Legacy of Ancient India | #1 Best Sociology Optional Coaching
• Pingback: Addressing Crime Against Minors: Causes, Impact, and Solutions | #1 Best Sociology Optional Coaching
• Pingback: Sufism in India: A Historical Overview of Major Sufi Orders and Their Influence | #1 Best Sociology Optional Coaching
• Pingback: Various Forms of Environmental Movement | #1 Best Sociology Optional Coaching
• Pingback: The lack of money is the root of all evil | Anirudha Pandey Copy UPSC CSE 2022 RANK 64
• Pingback: Immanuel Kant and Deontological Ethics: Understanding the Categorical Imperative and Moral Philosophy | #1 Best Sociology Optional Coaching
• Pingback: Sanskriti Somani UPSC | An eye for an eye only ends up making the whole world blind | Sanskriti Somani UPSC CSE 2022 RANK 49
• Pingback: Maniya Verma UPSC Sociology Test Copy UPSC CSE 2022 RANK 258
• Pingback: The Golden Age of Gupta Empire: Artistic Legacy and Cultural Impact | #1 Best Sociology Optional Coaching
• Pingback: Tackling Food Inflation in India: Supply Chain Challenges and Solutions | #1 Best Sociology Optional Coaching
• Pingback: Urban Heat Island Effect: Causes, Consequences, and Solutions | #1 Best Sociology Optional Coaching
• Pingback: Urban Planning in the Indus Valley Civilization: Its Modern Relevance | #1 Best Sociology Optional Coaching
• Pingback: Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) in India | #1 Best Sociology Optional Coaching
• Pingback: Dynamics of Attitude Change: Affective, Behavioral, and Cognitive Components | #1 Best Sociology Optional Coaching
• Pingback: Positive Attitude in Civil Servants: Why It Matters and How to Cultivate It | #1 Best Sociology Optional Coaching
• Pingback: Caste Census in India: A Comprehensive Guide to its History, Importance, and Challenges Sociology Optional UPSC | #1 Best Sociology Optional Coaching
• Pingback: Green Gold: Forests as Blueprints for Economic Brilliance | #1 Best Sociology Optional Coaching
• Pingback: Financial Inclusion in India: Challenges and Pathways to a More Inclusive Economy | #1 Best Sociology Optional Coaching
• Pingback: Black Carbon: The Unseen Threat to Glaciers and Climate in the Himalayas | #1 Best Sociology Optional Coaching
• Pingback: Exploring Cultural Relativism: A Balanced View on Ethics, Morality, and Social Norms | #1 Best Sociology Optional Coaching
• Pingback: India-Africa Relations: Navigating Challenges and Opportunities in a Time of Turmoil | #1 Best Sociology Optional Coaching
• Pingback: Explain Leela Dube Concept of Seed and Earth: Gender Construction in Hindu Society? | #1 Best Sociology Optional Coaching
• Pingback: Clash of Perspectives: Science's Triumphs over Romanticism in History | #1 Best Sociology Optional Coaching
• Pingback: Exploring Conscience: A Deep Dive into Joseph Butler's Perspective and Its Critiques | #1 Best Sociology Optional Coaching
• Pingback: Unlocking Earth's Secrets: The Role of Seismic Waves in Understanding Earth's Interior Layers | #1 Best Sociology Optional Coaching
• Pingback: Role of Ecology and Environment in Sustained Economic Development | Keval N Mehta Copy UPSC CSE 2022 RANK 206 | Keval N Mehta Copy UPSC CSE 2022 RANK 206
• Pingback: Hidden Blunders: The Environmental and Cultural Crisis Ravaging the Himalayas | #1 Best Sociology Optional Coaching
• Pingback: Leveraging Public-Private Partnerships for Infrastructure Development in India | #1 Best Sociology Optional Coaching
• Pingback: Central Information Commission: The Guardian of Right to Information in India| #1 Best Sociology Optional Coaching
• Pingback: Beyond Comfort Zones: Embracing Life's True Voyage | #1 Best Sociology Optional Coaching
• Pingback: The Pillars of Social Ethics: A Guide to Navigating Complex Societal Dynamics | #1 Best Sociology Optional Coaching
• Pingback: In the context of changing Indian society, how do you view Andre Beteille’s conceptions of harmonic and disharmonic social structures? | #1 Best Sociology Optional Coaching
• Pingback: Abhinav Siwach Sociology Test Copy UPSC CSE 2022 RANK 12
• Pingback: Sociological Analysis of Freebies as a Political Tool in UPSC Sociology Optional Paper | #1 Best Sociology Optional Coaching
• Pingback: Swati Sharma Air 15 UPSC Sociology Test Copy UPSC CSE 2022 Rank 15 | Copy 12
• Pingback: Navigating the Complex Terrain of Integrity Pact in India's Public Procurement | #1 Best Sociology Optional Coaching
• Pingback: Unlocking the Potential of Organic Fertilizers in India's Agricultural Sector | #1 Best Sociology Optional Coaching
• Pingback: The Treaty of Versailles: A Comprehensive Look at Its Lasting Impacts on Global History | #1 Best Sociology Optional Coaching
• Pingback: Sociological Analysis Demand of Scheduled Castes Status BY MUSLIMS AND CHRISTIANS UPSC Sociology | #1 Best Sociology Optional Coaching
• Pingback: Ranjit Guha’s Approach to Subaltern Studies: Significance and Criticisms | #1 Best Sociology Optional Coaching
• Pingback: PM-PRANAM Scheme: A Turning Point for India's Fertilizer Subsidies and Sustainable Agriculture? | #1 Best Sociology Optional Coaching
• Pingback: Sanskriti Somani Copy | No Culture can live if it attempts to be exclusive | UPSC CSE 2022 RANK 49
• Pingback: Green Chemistry and Its Role in Transforming Agrarian India | #1 Best Sociology Optional Coaching
• Pingback: Sociological Analysis of Artificial Intelligence: Benefits, Concerns, and Future Implications | #1 Best Sociology Optional Coaching
• Pingback: The Moderate Phase of Indian Nationalism: Goals, Leaders, and Legacy | #1 Best Sociology Optional Coaching
• Pingback: The Significance of Emotional Intelligence in Administration | #1 Best Sociology Optional Coaching
• Pingback: Gunjita Agarwal UPSC Sociology Test Copy UPSC CSE 2022 RANK 26 | Copy 14
• Pingback: The Sociology of Gotra and Its Complex Relationship with the Caste System in India - TriumphIAS
• Pingback: Climate Change: A Sociological Analysis of Causes, Impacts, and Solutions | #1 Best Sociology Optional Coaching
• Pingback: Food Processing Sector in India: Challenges, Opportunities, and Impact on Farmers | #1 Best Sociology Optional Coaching
• Pingback: Same-Sex Marriage in India: Legal Challenges, Societal Impact, and Government's Stand | #1 Best Sociology Optional Coaching
• Pingback: Post-1857 Revolt: Transformations in Indian Governance and British Colonial Strategy | #1 Best Sociology Optional Coaching
• Pingback: The Role and Influence of Pressure Groups in Modern Governance | #1 Best Sociology Optional Coaching
• Pingback: Manan Bhat Sociology Copy | No Culture can live if it attempts to be exclusive | UPSC CSE 2022
• Pingback: Earthquake Swarms: Characteristics, Foreshocks, and Aftershocks | #1 Best Sociology Optional Coaching
• Pingback: Evolution of Indian Bronze Sculpture: The Golden Age of Chola Artistry | #1 Best Sociology Optional Coaching
• Pingback: Tackling the Crisis of Malnutrition in India: Causes, Effects, and Solutions | #1 Best Sociology Optional Coaching
• Pingback: S.V Siva Prakash IRS UPSC Soicology | March of the Science and Erosion of Human Values | UPSC CSE 2022
• Pingback: Dikshita Joshi UPSC Sociology Test Copy UPSC CSE 2022 RANK 58 | Copy 16
• Pingback: New Education Policy 2020: Sociological Significance of Vocationalization and Skill Development in Indian Education | #1 Best Sociology Optional Coaching
• Pingback: Current affairs 12 Sep 2023 Important News | for GS | #1 Best Sociology Optional Coaching
• Pingback: The Indian Caste System: A Challenge and Opportunity for Sociology in India | #1 Best Sociology Optional Coaching
• Pingback: Rajat Yadav | Infrastructure investment, in science is an investment in jobs, in health, in economic growth, and developmental solutions | Copy UPSC CSE 2022 RANK 111
• Pingback: S.C. Dube's Contributions and Criticisms in the Study of Indian Villages | #1 Best Sociology Optional Coaching
• Pingback: Navigating the Challenges and Impacts of the Digital India Program on the Indian Economy | #1 Best Sociology Optional Coaching
• Pingback: Louis Dumont's Ideological Focus in Understanding Indian Society through HOMO HIERARCHICUS | #1 Best Sociology Optional Coaching
• Pingback: Inclusion of the African Union in the G20: Implications and Prospects Under India’s Presidency | #1 Best Sociology Optional Coaching
• Pingback: Current affairs 14 Sep 2023 Important News | for GS | #1 Best Sociology Optional Coaching
• Pingback: Comparing M.N. Srinivas and S.C. Dube: Diverse Perspectives on Indian Village Life UPSC Sociology | #1 Best Sociology Optional Coaching
• Pingback: The Role of Indian Saints in Social Reforms and Awareness: An Exploration Based on G.S. Ghurye’s Indian Sadhus| #1 Best Sociology Optional Coaching
• Pingback: Download Essay Paper 2023 UPSC Mains Essay Question Paper | Triumph IAS
• Pingback: Communalism in India: A Detailed Sociological Analysis and the Role of Media | #1 Best Sociology Optional Coaching
• Pingback: Synthetic Human Embryos: Navigating the Ethical and Regulatory Labyrinth of Biotechnology’s Newest Frontier | #1 Best Sociology Optional Coaching
• Pingback: Interlinking of Rivers in India: Boon or Bane for Indian Agriculture | #1 Best Sociology Optional Coaching
• Pingback: Download GS 1 Paper 2023 UPSC Mains GS 1 Question Paper | Triumph IAS
• Pingback: Current affairs 16 Sep 2023 Important News | for GS | #1 Best Sociology Optional Coaching
• Pingback: Carbon Markets: A Comprehensive Guide to Emission Trading and India's Strategy | #1 Best Sociology Optional Coaching
• Pingback: Current affairs 18 Sep 2023 Important News | for GS | #1 Best Sociology Optional Coaching
• Pingback: Ethical Dimensions and Reform Strategies for Addressing Police Misconduct and Brutality | #1 Best Sociology Optional Coaching
• Pingback: Current affairs 19 Sep 2023 Important News | for GS | #1 Best Sociology Optional Coaching
• Pingback: Download Sociology Paper 1 2023 | Triumph IAS - TriumphIAS
• Pingback: Current affairs 20 Sep 2023 Important News | for GS | #1 Best Sociology Optional Coaching
• Pingback: Gender Disparity in Science: A Deep Dive into India’s Shanti Swarup Bhatnagar Prize | #1 Best Sociology Optional Coaching
• Pingback: Ethical Challenges and Best Practices in Digital Privacy and Data Security for the Public Sector | #1 Best Sociology Optional Coaching
• Pingback: Air Pollution in India: A Looming Crisis Impacting Health and Life Expectancy | #1 Best Sociology Optional Coaching
• Pingback: Swati Sharma UPSC Sociology Test Copy UPSC CSE 2022 Rank 15
• Pingback: Himanshu Bhaskar UPSC | Sociology Test Copy UPSC CSE 2022 Rank 308
• Pingback: Download Sociology Paper 1 2023 | Triumph IAS [Paper-1 : SOCIOLOGY OPTIONAL ] : UPSC MAINS CIVIL SERVICES IAS EXAM 2023 QUESTION PAPER
• Pingback: Download Sociology Paper 2 2023 | Triumph IAS [Paper-2 : SOCIOLOGY OPTIONAL ] : UPSC MAINS CIVIL SERVICES IAS EXAM 2023 QUESTION PAPER
• Pingback: Sociology Paper 1 2023 | 24 SEP 2023 | Triumph IAS UPSC MAINS CIVIL SERVICES IAS EXAM 2023 QUESTION PAPER
• Pingback: Download Sociology Paper 2023 | Triumph IAS [Paper-2 : SOCIOLOGY OPTIONAL ] : UPSC MAINS CIVIL SERVICES IAS EXAM 2023 QUESTION PAPER
• Pingback: Empowering Urban Poor: BSUP and IHSD Programs in India | #1 Best Sociology Optional Coaching
• Pingback: Ethical Standards in Public Service: Challenges and Solutions | #1 Best Sociology Optional Coaching
• Pingback: Current affairs 26 Sep 2023 Important News | for GS | #1 Best Sociology Optional Coaching
• Pingback: Current Affairs 27 Sep 2023 Important News | GS | #1 Best Sociology Optional Coaching
• Pingback: Strengthening India-France Ties: A Look at the 25-Year Strategic Partnership | #1 Best Sociology Optional Coaching
• Pingback: Distinctiveness of the Feminist Method in Social Research: Features and Contributions | #1 Best Sociology Optional Coaching
• Pingback: UPSC CSE 2023 ESSAY TOPICS
• Pingback: Current Affairs 28 Sep 2023 Important News | GS | #1 Best Sociology Optional Coaching
• Pingback: Mediation Act 2023: Hope for Judicial Reform in India | #1 Best Sociology Optional Coaching
• Pingback: Current Affairs 29 Sep 2023 Important News | GS | #1 Best Sociology Optional Coaching
• Pingback: Understanding Durkheim's Four Types of Suicide: Egoistic, Altruistic, Anomic, and Fatalistic
• Pingback: Ethics of Space Exploration and Commercialization: Balancing Challenges and Opportunities | #1 Best Sociology Optional Coaching
• Pingback: Sociology Paper 2 2023 | 24 SEP 2023 | Triumph IAS [Paper-2 : SOCIOLOGY OPTIONAL ] : UPSC MAINS CIVIL SERVICES IAS EXAM 2023 QUESTION PAPER
• Pingback: MARRIAGE IN INDIA - TriumphIAS

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

The relationship of the family to the social structure and social change

Table of Contents

Last Updated on April 7, 2022 by Karl Thompson

The pre-release information for the 2022 A-level sociology exam from the AQA selected the relationship of the family to the social structure and social change as the topic area that WILL come up for the 20 mark essay.

NB we are talking here about the Paper 2 exam: topics in sociology the families and households option, and this post is just a reminder of the core content that comes within this sub-topic!

What is the social structure?

Recent social changes you might consider…..

The social changes associated with the shift from modernity to postmodernity are what you could address, such as:

The relationship of the family to the social structure

The ‘classic’ approach to this topic is to address it through the main sociological perspectives, and if you know what the different perspectives think about the family and social structure, you SHOULD automatically be addressing social change at the same time, as the two are fundamentally related.

The rest of this post offers a brief summary of what the main sociological perspectives have to say on this topic.

The Functionalist view on the family and social structure

He argued that the nuclear family better fitted the needs of an industrial society because it was smaller and more mobile, and the changes with industrialisation meant that families needed to be able to move around more easily.

Find out more here: The Functionalist view of the family .

The Marxist view of the family and social structure

Later Marxists suggest the nuclear family continues to perform functions for Capitalism by becoming a unit of consumption, for example.

The Radical Feminist view on the Nuclear Family

The traditional nuclear family and the ideology of the housewife role for women keeps women in the domestic sphere and out of the work place, preventing them from developing financial independence and limiting them to a caring role and a life of dull-drudgery.

Find out more: The Radical Feminist View of the Family .

Post and Late Modernism

Late Modernists suggest it is not as simple as family life being all about choice – rather social life today makes holding down a relationship and having a stable family life more difficult – people still want these things, but busy working lives and constant distractions make family life much more difficult.

Find out More

Also, remember that the specific question you get asked could be either broad or very narrow, AND the 10 mark questions will probably be from other areas of the module!

Share this:

Leave a reply cancel reply.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed .

Discover more from ReviseSociology

YOUR FINAL GRADE - GUARANTEED UK Essay Experts

Disclaimer: This is an example of a student written essay. Click here for sample essays written by our professional writers.

View full disclaimer

Any opinions, findings, conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of UKEssays.com.

The Changing Of The Family Structure Sociology Essay

Reference this

If you need assistance with writing your essay, our professional essay writing service is here to help!

Our academic experts are ready and waiting to assist with any writing project you may have. From simple essay plans, through to full dissertations, you can guarantee we have a service perfectly matched to your needs.

Cite This Work

To export a reference to this article please select a referencing stye below:

Related Services

Essay Writing Service

• Dissertation Writing Service

• Assignment Writing Service

DMCA / Removal Request

If you are the original writer of this essay and no longer wish to have your work published on UKEssays.com then please:

Our academic writing and marking services can help you!

• Find out more about our Essay Writing Service
• Undergraduate 2:2
• 7 day delivery
• Marking Service
• Samples of our Service
• Full Service Portfolio

Humanity University

Dedicated to your worth and value as a human being!

Related Lectures

Study for free with our range of university lectures!

• All Available Lectures

Freelance Writing Jobs

Looking for a flexible role? Do you have a 2:1 degree or higher?

Study Resources

Free resources to assist you with your university studies!

• Dissertation Resources at UKDiss.com
• How to Write an Essay
• Essay Buyers Guide
• Referencing Tools
• Essay Writing Guides
• Masters Writing Guides

Change Region / Country

Here you can choose which regional hub you wish to view, providing you with the most relevant information we have for your specific region. If your specific country is not listed, please select the UK version of the site, as this is best suited to international visitors.

United Kingdom

United States

United Arab Emirates

Saudi Arabia

• Environment
• Information Science
• Social Issues
• Argumentative
• Cause and Effect
• Classification
• Compare and Contrast
• Descriptive
• Exemplification
• Informative
• Controversial
• Exploratory
• What Is an Essay
• Length of an Essay
• Generate Ideas
• Types of Essays
• Structuring an Essay
• Outline For Essay
• Essay Introduction
• Thesis Statement
• Body of an Essay
• Writing a Conclusion
• Essay Writing Tips
• Drafting an Essay
• Revision Process
• Fix a Broken Essay
• Format of an Essay
• Essay Examples
• Essay Checklist
• Essay Writing Service
• Pay for Research Paper
• Write My Research Paper
• Write My Essay
• Custom Essay Writing Service
• Admission Essay Writing Service
• Pay for Essay
• Academic Ghostwriting
• Write My Book Report
• Case Study Writing Service
• Dissertation Writing Service
• Coursework Writing Service
• Lab Report Writing Service
• Do My Assignment
• Buy College Papers
• Capstone Project Writing Service
• Buy Research Paper
• Custom Essays for Sale

Can’t find a perfect paper?

• Free Essay Samples

Family structure changes

Updated 14 April 2021

Subject Emotions

Downloads 119

Category Family ,  Life

Topic Family Values ,  Need ,  Society

The term 'family' changed over the course of social growth according to the overwhelming needs and values of society, and its concepts and meanings. No single description for "family" is yet available. For instance, it is defined as "a group comprising of two parents and their children as one unit" and, at the same time, the dictionary defines a group of people who live under a single roof, typically under one head, as the family. Oxford's Living Dictionary The forms or shapes of the family differ in equal measure with the description. Now, there is no practical or meaningful type of family. Stephanie Coontz's (2005) research on the history of marriage reveals that the family forms we see today in the United States are actually the result of an evolution of the family that began with an important shift in the culture of marriage in the mid-18th Century. Those changes took place due to “the notion of free choice and marriage as a cultural idea” and the way of becoming an optional institution. Classical form of family was considered to look like this: 3 generations living under the same roof 1st generation – the elderly, 2nd – young and 3rd – children. While living with the elderly (grandparents) young parents transferred the main part of educating and caring for the children to the elderly. In the meantime, the young were to take care of all the household duties. This type of family changed dramatically with the industrialization, as new workplaces were produced, the husbandry took the second place and the young, who used to live with their own parents took chances and the opportunities to move around and settle closer to working places than to their parental homes. Such demographic and social activities lead to the decrease in the value of blood ties and the core principal of family changed. Educational role was delegated to universities and schools more than to the elderly. Basic principals of life changed from “watch me and learn” to “this is the right thing to do” principles.Different views on familyComparison of most spread viewsFunctionalists regard society as a system made up of different parts which depend on each other. In functionalist thought, the family is a particularly important institution as this it the ‘basic building block’ of society which performs the crucial functions of socialising the young and meeting the emotional needs of its members. Stable families underpin social order and economic stability/According to Talcott Parson, one of the functionalists greatest thinkers, the family performs reduced functions, if to compare with the agricultural times, but it still is the only institution that can perform two core functions in society. Primary Socialisation(family is still responsible for teaching children the norms and values of society known as Primary Socialisation) and the Stabilisation of Adult Personalities (The stabilisation of adult personalities refers to the emotional security which is achieved within a marital relationship between two adults. According to Parsons working life in Industrial society is stressful and the family is a place where the working man can return and be ‘de-stressed’ by his wife, which reduces conflict in society. This is also known as the ‘warm bath theory’)Marxists argue that the nuclear family performs ideological functions for Capitalism – the family acts as a unit of consumption and teaches passive acceptance of hierarchy. It is also the institution through which the wealthy pass down their private property to their children, thus reproducing class inequality.In short, Feminists advocate for the abolition of the traditional, patriarchal (as they see it) nuclear family and the establishment of alternative family structures and sexual relations. The various alternatives suggested by Radical Feminists include separatism – women only communes, and Matrifocal households. Some also practice political Lesbianism and political celibacy as they view heterosexual relationships as “sleeping with the enemy.” Changes in family rolesIn the literature addressing reconciliation of work and family life, “blurring boundaries” is a frequently applied concept (Gottschall & Voß, 2003). It is closely linked to de-traditionalizing gender relations, that is, the changing meaning of paid work and its spilling over to private life. This in turn challenges traditional distributions of power and money in Family relationshipsFeminist views resultsFeminists were struggling for equality in marriage and got it, in most cases. Both husband and wife have the same amount of opportunities to study, develop and make decisions. They consider it inappropriate for a woman to depend on her husband. And by winning the right to vote they got the opportunity to work and earn money by themselves. The increased number of employed and working women created the gender division in childcare as even the most vicious feminist is a mother.Marxists views resultsMarxist vies resulted in the division among the household income and work duties. The higher the post he or she has, the higher his/her part of the family budget the higher and the more powerful his/her place in family is. The genera idea of “consuming” unit remains unchanged. The more you earn the more you spend, the more your family can afford. Society still puts high standards for the children’s education and fulfillment of needs demands. Gender or role does not play as much as the amount of money you bring into family.Functionalists views resultsFunctionalists views on family are too ideal. They do not pay attention to what also happens behind closed doors. Family still breads children, still gives them education. Siblings help each other as the spouses do. But the conflicts due to “you are to do” or “it is your duty” still remain if a person does not want to recognize the structural changes in family due to his/her basic knowledge and view on family.Changes in family patternsMarriageWhile it was a clear thing to marry when you wanted to in previous times, now it is inappropriate if you are not wealthy and protected enough to support your family. This statement shows us both men’s and women’s thoughts and views. The age pattern which shows people getting married for the first time is increasing. Most people now get 1st marriage at 25 at least. The idea of marriage being synonymous to family has faded DivorceDivorce is no longer the question of church or religious beliefs in most of its cases. People easily get married or divorced. Only 40% of couples married at the age of 25-27 live more than 3 years before the get their divorce. The only thing that can stop from cancelling marriage is a child, but it also does not work very well as a leverage.SeparationSeparation is a well spread practice of solving family problems. They say, “while away from each other you get to know how much you miss your spouse”. Separation is also used by the couples, who did not get or did not want to get divorced and they have a child. They remain family in front of the government, but they do not exist as a socially meant family.Child rearingChild rearing is the only core function remained unchanged in the family structure and goals. The ways of educating and teaching changed. Parents are on work 24/7 to get their child everything it needs, but for their presence and love. Agricultural times type of family covered this problem by using other bloodline family members, living together with a child to teach them on a close example of a social personality.

Deadline is approaching?

Wait no more. Let us write you an essay from scratch

Related Essays

Related topics.

Find Out the Cost of Your Paper

Type your email

By clicking “Submit”, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy policy. Sometimes you will receive account related emails.

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• HHS Author Manuscripts

The Increasing Diversity and Complexity of Family Structures for Adolescents

Lisa d. pearce.

University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

George M. Hayward

Laurie chassin.

Arizona State University

Patrick J. Curran

The structure of adolescents’ families, and thus parental forms, in the United States, have become more heterogeneous and fluid over the past several decades. These changes are due to increases in never-married, single parents, divorce, cohabitation, same-sex parenting, multi-partnered fertility, and co-residence with grandparents. We document current diversity and complexity in adolescents’ families as important context for rethinking future parenting theory and research. We also discuss how understandings of adolescents’ families are somewhat limited by current methods used to measure characteristics of families. We recommend social network and profile-based methods as alternatives to capturing key dimensions of family structure and processes. Understanding the diversity of households and families in which adolescents are raised can improve theory and research on parenting.

Even though a universal feature of adolescence is the growing autonomy that youth gain from parental oversight, parents, and the family context in general, continue to play a vital role in adolescents’ lives. The ways that adolescents are “parented,” including the provision of material and psychosocial resources, the quality of parent-child interactions and relationships, and levels of parental monitoring and scaffolding of youth have been consistently shown to matter for adolescents’ academic outcomes, subjective well-being, sexual behavior, substance use, delinquency, and other outcomes ( DiClemente et al. 2001 ; Simons and Conger 2007 ; Steinberg 2001 ). Thus, social scientists, policy-makers, and practitioners continue to investigate and attempt to promote successful models for parenting adolescents.

For better or worse, many current investigations of the features and types of parenting that seem most beneficial for adolescents are based on theories of parenting and adolescence developed decades ago when family structures and their distribution in the population looked very different than they do today. Two cornerstones of contemporary theory, warmth and control, are concepts developed primarily between the 1930s and 1960s ( Baldwin 1955 ; Baumrind 1967 ; Becker 1964 ; Sears, Maccoby, and Levin 1957 ; Symonds 1939 ) —a period in which about 90 percent of children under the age of 18 lived with two parents ( Ruggles and Brower 2003 ). Studies of parenting have been increasingly recognizing how styles of parenting and their impact vary across cultures, socioeconomic strata, and family structures (e.g., Lareau 2003 ; Newman 2012 ; Sorkhabi and Mandara 2013 ; see also from this issue Jones, Loiselle, and Highlander; Lansford et al.; Murry; Stein et al.). Thus, to more accurately theorize, measure, and interpret findings regarding the parenting of adolescents, we must be clear about how families and households have changed over time, especially their increasingly dynamic and complex natures.

In this article, we review and summarize a wide body of literature showing how family forms and their prevalence have changed over the last several decades. After defining what we mean by “family” and “adolescence,” we describe the family households of adolescents, or the family members with whom they tend to live. We then discuss how family members might also be spread across other households, near and far. We then examine current practices in measuring the family contexts of adolescents and recommend innovations such as family network and profile methods. It is our goal to provide as detailed a picture as we can as to the range and distribution of adolescents’ family contexts in addition to suggesting methods for further enhancing our understanding of parenting contexts during adolescence.

Definitions

Family has always been a relatively elusive concept – definitions of family have changed over time, families themselves change over time, and members of families change (i.e., development and aging) ( Harris 2008 ; Powell et al. 2010 ). For our purposes, we focus on all parents, siblings, and extended family members who play a role in adolescents’ lives. Family members may be related by blood, marriage, or other lasting bonds (e.g., cohabitation, guardianships, or adoption). Some family members reside in the same household as a given adolescent and some do not. Sometimes adolescents move between households following custody arrangements or other special circumstances. Thus, we start by describing change in the family households of adolescents and then broaden our focus to consider non-residential family members and their connections to adolescents over time.

Adolescence is a phase of life whose exact age bounds vary by expert or study, but are generally considered to encompass the second decade of life. This is roughly the time period from the onset of puberty to the beginning of adult roles ( Steinberg 2016 ). We cite studies using a variety of age or grade ranges, including 12–17, 18–24, or grades 7–12, primarily due to the ages of participants. Further, many studies of family structure or stability aggregate data for all minors (ages 0–17). Thus, some of the data that we present apply to all youth, not just adolescents. Where we are able, we comment on the extent to which adolescents’ family forms are different than those of younger children.

The Households in Which Adolescents Live

As of 2016, 15 percent of all American households, and 23 percent of family households, contained at least one 12–17 year old ( U.S. Census Bureau 2017a ). Below we describe the changing prevalence of other family members in the households of adolescents. We discuss the parents, siblings, and grandparents with whom adolescents often live as well as homeless adolescents and adolescents who head their own households.

Parental Structure

The nuclear family (a mother and father—usually married—and their biological child/ren) has long been assumed to be the Standard North American Family (SNAF) ( Smith 1993 ) and continues to generally be the standard form to which all others are compared ( Powell et al. 2010 ). As seen in Figure 1 , as recently as 1960, about 88 percent of children (ages 0–17) lived with two parents (biological/adoptive, step, or cohabiting parents), eight percent lived with their mothers only, one percent lived with their fathers only, and three percent lived with other relatives or non-relatives. As of 2016, the percentage of children living with two parents is 69 percent -- a 22 percent decrease in 56 years. The shift was mostly due to single mother and single father families: now, 23 percent of children live with their mother only and four percent live with their fathers only. These numbers represent a 192 percent increase in mother-only families and 259 percent increase in father-only families ( U.S. Census Bureau 2017e ). Although father-only families have increased in number faster than mother-only families, mother-only families are still nearly six times more common.

Living Arrangments of Children Under 18 Years Old, 1960–2016

Source: U.S. Census Bureau (2017e)

Notes. The Census report does not have statistics for 1961–1967; for graphical purposes, a linear trend in each category is used between the data points for 1960 and 1968.

The increase in single parent households over time is primarily the result of two trends. First, divorce has been on the rise in the United States since the end of the Civil War, with a brief plateauing during the early 1980s ( Kennedy and Ruggles 2014 ). Second, there has been a rise in the percentage of all births occurring to unmarried women, from four percent in 1940 to 41 percent in 2013 ( Curtin, Ventura, and Martinez 2014 ). However, just over half (55 percent) of the births to single mothers, as of 2016, are to cohabiting parents ( U.S. Census Bureau 2017d ), and this has been increasing over time ( Kennedy and Bumpass 2008 ). Thus, increasingly, one biological parent is not residing in the household, and if there are two parents, they may be cohabiting partners rather than marital ones. Because of racial and ethnic variation in rates of nonmarital births, cohabitation, and divorce ( Barber, Yarger, and Gatny 2015 ; Curtin et al. 2014 ; Ruggles 1997 ; Smith, Morgan, and Koropeckyj-Cox 1996 ; Tucker and Mitchell-Kernan 1995 ), the increase in mother-only households and children living with other relatives has been particularly dramatic for Black and Hispanic youth, as illustrated in Figure 2 .

Living Arrangments of Children Under 18 Years Old, by Race/Ethnicity, 1960–2016

Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2017g

Notes. The Census report does not have statistics for 1961–1967; for graphical purposes, a linear trend in each category is used between the data points for 1960 and 1968. Data for Hispanics begin in 1980 since they were not available before then for the subcategories shown here.

The way data were collected for many years, one can identify whether there are two adults living in a household and whether at least one of the adults is biologically or adoptively related to children in the household. However, further specification of the marital or even romantic status of the two adults or how both adults are related to each child is often impossible in data collected from before the mid-1990s. More contemporary data has the specificity that allows us to further distinguish households by the complexity of family relationships. For example, we create Table 1 below by adapting U.S. Census Bureau data based on the Current Population Survey in 2016 ( U.S. Census Bureau 2017b ). This table builds upon Figure 1 and allows us to hone in on three groups of adolescents: 9–11 year-olds, 12–14 year-olds, and 15–17 year-olds.

Living Arrangements of Children and Adolescents in the United States in 2016 (Numbers in Thousands)

Source. U.S. Census Bureau (2017b) .

Note: Calculations of significant differences were made following the source documentation instructions.

Overall, 9–17 year-olds have very similar living arrangements to 0–17 year-olds. About 68 percent of 9–14 year-olds and 64 percent of 15–17 year-olds live with two parents as compared to 69 percent of all 0–17 year-olds. Twenty-eight percent of 9–14 year-olds and 30 percent of 15–17 year-olds live with one parent, compared to 27 percent of 0–18 year-olds. And, four and five percent, respectively, do not reside with a parent compared to four percent of those aged 0–17. Not surprisingly, the older adolescents (whose parents have had more time to change living situations or family structure) are slightly more likely than the younger children to live in single parent, other relative, or nonrelative homes.

For the 64–68 percent of adolescents living with two parents, the vast majority of them (about 96–98 percent) live with married biological or adoptive parents. For the 28–30 percent of adolescents who live with one parent, the vast majority of them live with their mothers; specifically, 85 percent of 9–11 year-olds, 84 percent of 12–14 year-olds, and 82 percent of 15–17 year-olds who live with a single parent live with their mother. Conversely, between 15 and 18 percent of adolescents in a single-parent home live with their single father. For all single parent categories, the largest groups, by far, are never married mothers and divorced mothers. Living with a separated mother is the third most common single parent living arrangement, which describes 11–13 percent of adolescents. Lastly, for the 4 to 5 percent of adolescents who do not live with either parent, the most common arrangement is to live with a grandparent, though this likelihood decreases with age: 65 percent of 9–11 year-olds, 58 percent of 12–14 year-olds, and 46 percent of 15–17 year-olds living without parents are living with a grandparent. The next most common arrangements for those living without either parent are living with another relative (25 to 33 percent), living with a nonrelative (7 to 18 percent), and living in foster care (4 to 6 percent).

Given the family change and diversity we have documented, theory and research about the parenting of adolescents must take into account that both parents and children are increasingly experiencing transitions in who lives with them that may induce emotional and financial stress or raise real or perceived stigma ( Cherlin 2010 ; McLanahan and Sandefur 1994 ; Pryor 2004 ). This changes resources for parenting as well as the kinds of issues for which adolescents need support. Further, parents are increasingly spread across different households, which raises issues of how parenting is shared (or not) inside and outside an adolescent’s primary residence.

Same-Sex Parents

There have also been changes over time in the percentage of children living with two parents of the same sex. Vespa, Lewis, and Kreider (2013) find that about 16 percent of same-sex cohabiting or married couples in the United States have biological, adoptive, or stepchildren under age 18 living with them as of 2012 (11 percent of male couples and 22 percent of female couples). This is higher than the 1990 rate of 13 percent, but is lower than estimates between 2000 and 2008, which fluctuated between 17 and 19 percent ( Gates 2012 ). With current estimates of same-sex couples from the American Community Survey at about 860,000 for 2015 ( U.S. Census Bureau 2017c ), if 15–20 percent of them have one child, then between 129,000–172,000 youth are currently living with co-resident same-sex parents.

One noteworthy trend among same-sex couples is the proportional increases in adoptive children compared to biological children, which may be due to LGBT individuals coming out earlier in life and thus becoming less likely to have children while in relationships with opposite sex partners ( Gates 2012 ). The global increase in assisted reproductive techniques (ART)( Dyer et al. 2016 ), in tandem with medical advances and fertility clinics welcoming same-sex couples, is also increasing the ability for same-sex individuals (whether coupled or not) to become parents ( Greenfeld and Seli 2016 ; Grover et al. 2013 ). With the number of same-sex couples growing each year between 2008–2015 ( U.S. Census Bureau 2017c ), the proportion of adolescents living with same-sex parents has grown.

Theory and research on parenting often consider mothers’ and fathers’ roles in providing warmth and control, and sometimes claim unique and essential roles of both, but evidence suggests the gender composition of parents has minimal influence on children’s psychological and social outcomes ( Biblarz and Stacey 2010 ). However, parents’ gender is correlated with how parents and children get along, parents’ emphasis on gender conformity, and parenting skills, so theory and research on parenting should continue to examine the gender composition of parents as a factor shaping parenting and its outcomes ( Bos, van Balen, and van den Boom 2007 ; Golombok, Tasker, and Murray 1997 ).

Although social acceptance of same-sex couples marrying and having children is growing, there is still potential for parents and children in these families to experience stigma and discrimination ( Gates 2015 ). As Jones et al. (this volume), Mills-Koonce, Rehder, and McCurdy (this volume), Murry (this volume), and Stein et al. (this volume) all point out, in families facing real and perceived stigma, parents face the challenge of building a positive sense of oneself and one’s family in addition to helping children understand and persevere in these social dynamics.

Foster and Adoptive Parents

In September of 2015, about 172,000 adolescents ages 10–20 were living in foster care; during the same year, 92,000 adolescents entered foster care and 99,000 exited foster care ( Children’s Bureau 2016 ). Among youth ages 0–20 who exited, 51 percent were reunified with their parents or primary caretakers and 22 percent were adopted ( Children’s Bureau 2016 ). In published statistics, adopted children are typically included with those who are biologically related to parents. However, Child Trends (2012) uses more detailed survey data on adoption from 2007 to show that two percent of all children (ages 0–17) live with at least one adoptive parent and no biological parents. Of those, 37 percent were in foster care at some point, 38 percent were adopted through private domestic adoption, and 25 percent were adopted internationally. One more recent estimate suggests that approximately seven percent of children ages 0–17 in the United States live with at least one adoptive parent, but this includes those adopted by a step-parent, unlike the prior estimate ( Kreider and Lofquist 2014 ).

Fostering and adopting children raises all kinds of unique parenting issues. Adolescent foster or adoptive children have often experienced prior neglect, abuse, or abandonment, making them less trusting of parent figures in general ( Pryor 2004 ). Adoptive parents and children sometimes differ notably in culture or appearance, posing potential issues for how they or others view their relationships ( Pryor 2004 ). Foster parents may be managing uncertainty about how long a child/ren will be in their home and what kinds of bonds to forge ( Pryor 2004 ). Birth parents may still be in contact and involved with their children, raising issues of how to manage co-parenting with foster parents. In other words, there are additional factors at play in foster or adoptive parenting, highlighting key roles of parents and how those are modified across family structure.

Another important feature of family or household context, when it comes to parenting, is how many and what types of siblings live with adolescents on average. Using data from 2009, Kreider and Ellis (2011) find that about 58 million children live with siblings (78 percent). Of these children, the majority (82 percent) live with only full siblings, 14 percent live with a halfsibling, 2 percent live with a stepsibling, and 2 percent live with an adopted sibling. About 22 percent of all youth have no siblings, 38 percent have one sibling, 24 percent have two siblings, 11 percent have three siblings, and 5 percent have four or more siblings.

Siblings function as both sources of intimacy and conflict for adolescents ( Lempers and Clark-Lempers 1992 ), which is largely a continuation of their sibling relationships from childhood ( Dunn, Slomkowski, and Beardsall 1994 ). Intimacy remains stable among same-sex sibling dyads throughout adolescence, but increases for mixed-sex dyads, while conflict appears to taper off during middle to late adolescence ( Kim et al. 2006 ). Theory and research on parenting often focuses on one dyad despite there often being other children in the family. The number of siblings has implications for how resources (material and emotional) are shared which is directly related to parenting ( Blake 1981 ). This takes on even more complexity in blended families with a combination of sibling types.

Grandparents

Table 1 , discussed earlier, shows that about two percent of all children live without parents but with a grandparent. Figure 3 , below, adds to this statistic by showing trends over time in children living with grandparents, in any combination with or without parents ( U.S. Census Bureau 2017f ). The figure shows a doubling in the percent of children who live with a grandparent between 1980 and 2014, from 3.2 percent to 6.6 percent. Notably, about two-thirds of children living with a grandparent are also living with one of their parents (typically the mother). These are called multigenerational households, or households containing three or more generations, and have been shown elsewhere to also vary by race – with Hispanics and blacks having the highest rates (8 percent of households), followed by Asians (6 percent) and whites (4 percent)( Vespa et al. 2013 ). Theories and research on grandparents as parents should factor in how the middle generation (biological parents) fit into the family and parenting, as well as how life course stages and developmental compatibility between family members affect grandparents’ parenting styles ( Burton, Dilworth-Anderson, and Merriwether-deVries 1995 ; Kemp 2007 ).

Children Under 18 Living with Grandparents as Percentage of All Children Under 18

Source: U.S. Census Bureau (2017f)

Homeless adolescents

Although rare, another important family form to address for adolescents is homelessness. About seven percent of the homeless population are unaccompanied children (under 18 years old) and youth (18–24), and about 37,000 children and youth were experiencing homelessness during a point-in-time estimate in 2015 ( National Alliance to End Homelessness 2016 ). However, this is likely an underestimate, since enumeration techniques are not as effective for youth, and youth often do not congregate in the same areas as those in older age groups. Indeed, survey estimates of youth who experience at least one night of homelessness in a given year range from about 1 million to 1.7 million ( Fernandes-Alcantara 2013 ). Homelessness is surely a taxing and stigmatizing experience for adolescents and their parents, further what parents can or cannot provide adolescents.

Adolescents as parents

Births to adolescents are declining and reached an all-time low in 2015 ( Martin et al. 2017 ), predominately due to improved contraceptive usage ( Lindberg, Santelli, and Desai 2016 ), though many adolescents do become parents – usually unintentionally. Finer and Zolna (2014) show that, as of 2008, 91 percent of pregnancies among 15–17 year-olds and 77 percent of pregnancies among 18–19 year-olds are unintended. Nevertheless, in 2015, adolescent females ages 15–19 had about 230,000 births, with about one percent of 15–17 year-old girls giving birth and four percent of 18–19 year-old girls ( Martin et al. 2017 ). Adolescent parents and their children face a number of obstacles and are at an increased risk for a host of negative outcomes, yet intervention programs have the potential to mitigate these (see Pinzon et al. (2012 ) for a comprehensive review on both outcomes of adolescent parenting and interventions). The renegotiation of parenting when one’s own adolescent becomes a parent, and may need new kinds of support and/or more independence, likely presents unique challenges.

Household Transitions Experience by Adolescents

What we have presented to this point are snapshots of what the households of children or adolescents look like across the population in certain years. Another way of understanding variance in the family contexts of youth is to consider how stable these contexts are over time. Several studies have conceptualized family instability as the number of transitions households experience ( Cavanagh 2008 ; Fomby, Mollborn, and Sennott 2010 ), and increasingly studies are comparing particular types of transitions or the timing of those transitions and their associations with child well-being ( Lee and McLanahan 2015 ). When households lose or gain parents or siblings, it is likely to affect parenting resources and styles ( Pryor 2004 ).

Parental Transitions

Brown (2006) uses data from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent to Adult Health (Add Health), a nationally representative sample of youth in grades 7–11 during the 1994–95 school year to report the frequency of family transitions within one year of adolescence. Ninety-three percent of these youth experienced no household transitions in that year; specifically, 62 percent of adolescents in this sample lived with two-biological parents throughout the year (married or cohabiting), 12 percent remained in a previously formed stepfamily, and 19 percent remained with a single mother. Seven percent of adolescents experienced a household or family transition during that year: four percent moved from a two-parent family to a single-mother family, three percent went from a single-mother household to a two-parent household (either cohabiting or married), and one percent experienced a transition from one two-parent household type to another (usually from a cohabiting stepfamily to a married stepfamily). Laughlin (2014) shows that 12 percent of children ages 12 to 17 years old in 2011 had experienced a change in the number of residential parents or parent’s partners in the home in the past four years.

Considering the trajectories of household structure throughout all of childhood and adolescence, Mitchell (2013) uses data from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth 1979 Mother’s and Children sample to estimate latent classes of children’s long-term living arrangements for youth who were 14–19 years old in 2006. She finds five general pathways: 1) consistently living with two biological parents from birth (55 percent), long-term living with a single mother (18 percent), living with married biological parents who divorce (12 percent), gaining a stepfather through marriage (11 percent), and being born to cohabiting parents who later married or broke up (4 percent). Although these five pathways do not encompass the experiences of all adolescents, they give a good sense of the most common experiences over time.

Custody and Living Arrangements

Using data from the 2009 American Community Survey, Elliot and Simmons (2011) show that about 18 percent of men and 44 percent of women with a divorce in the past year were living with children under 18. This equates to over a million children experiencing a divorce in the past year, with the median age of these children around 9.8 – about the onset of adolescence. Following many of these divorces will be custody arrangements that inevitably change the living situation of the adolescents involved. Custody arrangements have changed tremendously over the past few centuries (see DiFonzo (2014) for a review), but the most recent trend (from the mid-1980s to present) has been a substantial decline in sole custody awards to mothers coupled with a dramatic increase in shared custody awards ( Cancian et al. 2014 ). Estimates of custody awards from 2008, based on a very large sample of court records in Wisconsin, suggest that about 42 percent of awards are now for sole mother custody, 45 percent are for shared custody, nine percent are sole father custody, and the rest are split custody ( Cancian et al. 2014 ).

Other Residential Transitions

The period between late adolescence and early adulthood, often called “emerging adulthood” ( Arnett 2004) , is marked by numerous transitions and identity exploration. For example, about 69 percent of high school graduates begin college immediately following their high school completion ( McFarland et al. 2017 ). This is often accompanied by a residential move, as about half of college students live apart from their parents, which is split about evenly between those with and without roommates ( Sallie Mae 2017 ). Thus, late adolescence is a period of home-leaving for many but not necessarily independent living for most. For adolescents who do not go on to college, many of them begin some sort of paid work, establish their own household, or start families ( DeLuca, Clampet-Lundquist, and Edin 2016 ; Mitchell and Syed 2015 ), often with difficulties in the labor market due to having no more than a high school degree ( Rosenbaum 2001 ). Especially among disadvantaged youth, the typical explorations of emerging adulthood may not be possible ( Côté 2014 ); these youth often face an expedited path to adulthood that involves forgoing postsecondary education and becoming independent as quickly as possible ( DeLuca et al. 2016 ).

Interestingly, the percentage of older adolescents and young adults who return to their parents’ home after leaving, who are sometimes referred to as “boomerang kids,” has been increasing over time in the United States ( Goldscheider and Goldscheider 1999 ). In fact, recent estimates show that living with parents is the most common living situation for 18 to 34 year-olds, at 32 percent ( Fry 2016 ). The reaction of parents to this phenomenon varies, but there is an expectation among parents in the United States that their live-in adult children are working toward independence ( Newman 2012 ).

In general, the increasing fluidity and change in the households and family structures of adolescents signals a growing need for theories and research on the parenting of adolescents to not just expand to consider different family forms, but to also recognize family instability as its own context for parenting ( Pryor 2004 ). As the life course perspective recognizes ( Elder 1998 ), young people (and their parents) carry forward their early life experiences, and so a divorced and single mother might not just be parenting with reduced time and resources in the present, but she and her child/ren are also living with the experiences of the past, such as how well was the divorce handled by all. Due to distress and disruption, parenting is often temporarily compromised during and immediately following a transition in family structure ( Capaldi and Patterson 1991 ; DeGarmo and Forgatch 1999 ).

Nonresidential Family Members of Adolescents

Nonresident fathers.

Due to rising rates of births to single mothers and divorce, as well as the fragility of cohabiting unions, many children have nonresident fathers for some or all of adolescence. In Figure 1 , we show that about 27 percent of youth live away from their father, with the majority of them (23 percent of youth) living with a single mother. Rates of single motherhood also vary substantially by race, with 18 percent of white children, 52 percent of black children, and 25 percent of Hispanic children living with a single mother as of 2016 ( U.S. Census Bureau 2017g ). Nonresident fathers, as a group, substantially increased involvement in their children’s lives between 1976 and 2002, with more fathers seeing their children weekly and fewer fathers reporting no contact at all ( Amato, Meyers, and Emery 2009 ). Cheadle, Amato, and King (2010) add nuance to this finding and identify four latent classes of nonresident father involvement: 38 percent of fathers have high and stable involvement over time, 32 percent have low and stable involvement, 23 percent have high involvement initially but decrease it over time, and 8 percent have low involvement initially but increase it over time.

Nonresident Mothers

Although uncommon, some children spend years not living with their biological or adoptive mothers. In Figure 1 we show that about 8 percent of youth live away from their mother, with about half of these youth (4 percent) residing with single fathers. Table 1 further shows that this percentage is about the same for 9–11 year-olds, 12–14 year-olds, and 15–17 year-olds. The economic situation of nonresident mothers tends to be worse, on average, than that of nonresident fathers, as they earn less money and are less likely to be working ( Sousa and Sorensen 2006 ). However, nonresident mothers tend to spend more time with their children than nonresident fathers ( Gunnoe 1993 ). Because of the historical norm that mothers are more likely to get custody, women who lose or have less custody than fathers probably face stigma that will affect their parenting and create a need for children to also be parented in ways that helps them prepare for potential discrimination. Being a nonresident parent, father or mother, introduces challenges to spending time with one’s children to parent, and may remove one from involvement in important decisions or parenting tasks ( Pryor 2004 ).

Multi-Partner Fertility

Adults have become increasingly like to have children with more than one partner, often called multi-partner fertility (MPF). Recent estimates suggest about 10 percent of adults have MPF ( Monte 2017 ). This means many adolescents have siblings (with full, partial, or no biological ties) with whom they may be maintaining relationships, potentially across residences. Once again, because surveys usually only collect information on household members, we know little about how many adolescents have siblings of any kind residing in other households, nor the quality, benefits, or consequences of those relationships. It is likely that the presence of siblings across other households stretches resources such that adolescents in these situations may get, on average, less time and support from their parents ( Meyer and Cancian 2012 ; Tach, Mincy, and Edin 2010 ). There may also be tension between different parent figures or parents and children that interferes with or complicates the parenting of adolescents ( Pryor 2004 ).

Extended Family

Adolescents are often close to and exchange support with extended family members, including grandparents, aunts and uncles, or cousins ( Sterrett et al. 2011 ). Increasing gains in longevity translate to a higher likelihood that adolescents know their grandparents longer than in previous generations ( Kemp 2007 ). The closer grandparents live to their grandchildren, the more emotionally close they are, but grandparents who live far away often use electronic forms of communication, and studies show that frequent phone or email conversations build closeness ( Harwood 2000 ). Kinds of support that grandparents provide include emotional support, peace-keeping, “straight talking,” and sharing family history ( Soliz 2008 ).

Although research is increasingly incorporating the roles of nonresidential family members, and especially parental figures, in the lives of adolescents ( Jones et al. 2007 ), more could be done to examine forms of support (or conflict) provided to adolescents and residential parent figures. Past theories and methods have relied heavily on the household context and often assumed two biological parents are involved, but now the socialization and raising of adolescents falls to a larger network of adults. The better we understand the forms family configurations and exchanges take, the better we can tailor theory, research, and practice or interventions to fit families as they are.

Measuring Family Contexts for the Parenting of Adolescents

In addition to data on families collected through the U.S. Census, there are a number of high quality, nationally representative sample surveys, many of which are used in the research reported above, that make the description of adolescent family contexts possible. What we know about the family contexts in which adolescents live depends on how we collect data and “measure” family life. Although we learn a great deal from existing data, in some ways, the designs of these studies limit our ability to fully understand certain aspects of adolescents’ families.

Most existing surveys mainly collect information about family members who reside together in households. For some surveys, like the Current Population Survey or the American Community Survey, households are a sampling unit, and one member of the household reports on all others. The quality of those data for understanding family structures within households depends heavily on a well-designed household roster or matrix that lists all members of a household and carefully notes the relationships between all members. When data do not include complete information about the relations between each household member and all other household members, we are restricted from knowing important family characteristics, like whether a married or cohabiting couple in a household are biological, adoptive, or step-parents to the child/ren in the household ( Manning, Brown, and Stykes 2014 ; O’Hara, Shattuck, and Goerge 2017 ). Further, data often lack the detail necessary to determine whether co-resident children are full, half, or unrelated siblings ( McHale, Updegraff, and Whiteman 2012 ).

For many years, household surveys such as U.S. Census forms (up until 1980) required the “household head” to be the household respondent. This was typically a man. In 1980, the Census changed procedure, allowing any “householder” to be the respondent, and this would include men or women who jointly own or rent the home. The proportion of reporting householders who are women has increased over time ( Ruggles and Brower 2003 ). On the other hand, in many more recently established survey studies, such as the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent to Adult Health, the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth 1979 Children and Young Adults, or the National Study of Youth and Religion, mothers are the primary reporting parent and source of information on other members of the household. Household- or child-focused studies are often designed to have mothers (whenever possible) as reporters because of long-standing assumptions about their chief importance in and knowledge of children’s development and family processes ( Schaeffer, Seltzer, and Dykema 1998 ). It has also proved easier and less costly, historically, to locate and recruit women or mothers for survey research ( Braver and Bay 1992 ; Schaeffer et al. 1998 ). Despite the benefits of relying on mothers for family information, only having reports from one parent limits the information we have about adolescents and their families.

Regardless of how residential family members and their relationships to each other are documented, household-based surveys are also limited by the extent to which they can shed light on family members who reside outside the focal household ( Manning et al. 2014 ). This includes nonresidential parents, siblings, grandparents, aunts and uncles, cousins, or even adults who are not blood relatives but play a central role in parenting adolescents. Some studies, like the National Study of Families and Households, involve interviews with multiple parents, including follow ups with parents who leave the household. Very few nationally representative studies of youth or families collect data from nonresidential parents from the start. One exception is the Fragile Families Study ( Reichman et al. 2001 ), in which fathers are interviewed at all the same time points as mothers, even if they live apart. It is undoubtedly expensive to fully delineate and measure adolescents’ families, especially from the perspective of multiple family members, but the value in doing so justifies consideration of how we might more creatively approach the collection of data on adolescents’ family contexts.

A handful of other previously identified factors may also bias our understandings of adolescents or young adults’ living arrangements when young people themselves are the sampling units. For example, when youth are sampled from schools, youth who are not in school either because of dropping out or being homeschooled may be missing from the sampling frame ( Johnston and O’Malley 1985 ). Thus, the types of families or households those youth tend to have could be underrepresented in the data. Further, some studies restrict residents of institutions from being in the sampling frame, meaning that when focusing on youth, those who live on a college campus or are incarcerated (and their family situations) are underrepresented. And, some studies restrict their samples to college students, making findings less generalizable to the whole population of late adolescents or young adults. ( Côté 2014 ; Mitchell and Syed 2015 ).

Future Directions

Family networks.

One alternative that could address limitations inherent in the household-centric design of surveys is the application of social network approaches and methods to the collection of data on family members ( Bernardi 2011 ; Widmer 2010 ). These methods have been primarily used for adults’ social networks to date, and to collect information on the most influential people in their lives. Widmer (2010) argues families are best defined as configurations created out of the interdependencies between family members. Using a social network approach to conceptualize families allows researchers to put adolescents at the center of a network of family members, considering the social, psychological, biological, and geographic distances of those in the web of family. It also makes it possible to assess the type and quality of ties between members of an adolescent’s family network, including the social capital available ( Widmer 2010 ). Further, one could consider the support networks (family or wider) of multiple family members and the extent to which they overlap or leave certain family members isolated ( Bernardi 2011 ).

The conceptualization of adolescents’ families as social networks suggests new forms of data collection as well ( Bernardi 2011 ; Widmer 2010 ). In survey studies designed to understand the role of family and family members in the lives of adolescents, rather than a standard household roster,, adolescents might be asked to complete a sociogram or network diagram that systematically elicits reports of the important family members in an adolescent’s life ( Widmer, Aeby, and Sapin 2013 ). “Important” could be defined according to key theories or research questions. For example, studies might focus on listing and describing family ties based on levels of closeness, social support, financial support, or time spent together. Further, adolescents could report perceptions of how close each of these family members is to every other family member, so that standard network measures, such as density or centrality, could be applied to understanding family characteristics. Other family members could also become participants in the study and provide their own assessment of adolescents’ family networks and the ties involved.

In longitudinal studies, the repeated mapping of adolescents’ family networks could provide rich data for shifts over time in influential family members, family relationships, and family living arrangements. This dynamic approach allows for assessing levels of stability or instability in family networks as well as various trajectories in network change. Widmer (2010) demonstrates how change in family configurations in the short and long term are related to psychological well-being.

Using a social network approach in measuring the family structures, ties, and interactions of adolescents could address several issues raised earlier in the paper. For one, this measurement strategy could do a better job of documenting family relations across households, not limiting researchers to the context of one household. Second, depending on how data about family networks are collected, this approach could do a better job of characterizing types and features of family relationships ( Widmer 2010 ). With a variety of studies indicating that levels of warmth and control provided by parents are more predictive of youth well-being than the family structure/s in which they have lived ( Arnold et al. 2017 ; Demo and Acock 1996 ; Lansford et al. 2001 ; Phillips 2012 ), it is important that we understand how family configurations improve or challenge the ability of parents to provide high quality parenting ( Pryor 2004 ; Murry this issue).

Family Profiles

Another alternative for measuring the family contexts in which adolescents live is to use cluster analysis or latent class methods to suggest “types” or “profiles” of families. Common types of families would be identified by a set of indicators of family structure such as number and type of parent figures, sibling types and living arrangements, different residential custody arrangements, multigenerational living, and more. Family configurations could represent families at one moment in time or a set of experiences across time.

Research on the implications of family structure for children and adolescents often focuses on one part of family structure at a time, like whether there are one or two parents in the home, or the impact of a remarriage on adolescents. However, the relationship status or transitions experienced by parents might be different based on whether an adolescent has siblings or not and how many. Manning et al. (2014) and others describe the multifaceted nature of families as “complexity,” and they recommend an approach that documents types of parent figures as well as siblings. Methods such as latent class analysis could achieve this.

Indicators of dynamic living arrangements such as shared residential custody could be included in analyses. One could represent family transitions over time such as having ever lived with a single parent, a step-parent (married or cohabiting), having had a biological-, half-, or step-sibling, having ever lived with a grandparent, having experienced a parental dissolution, having moved from home, or ever having returned to home.

The use of social network or configurational methods has the potential to transform the study of adolescents’ family contexts and parenting by providing better coverage of family members and processes. Rather than having to rely on certain segments of what adolescents might define as their family, or only consider one aspect of family structure at a time, these methods allow the complexity of families to be more fully captured. Moreover, with network or family profile methods, measures of the quality or content of family interactions could be included. This might include family experiences, such as death, severe or chronic health issues, incarceration, or deportation of a family member as factors that define a family and present new issues for parenting adolescents.

Conclusions

Understanding forms of family in which adolescents come of age and their impact is challenging on a number of fronts. There are many dynamics at play. The definition of family has been changing over time, families experience changes of members across time, and parents and adolescents themselves are developing through time. Further, there are key measurement challenges, including the extent to which we focus on household members as family, who we ask to report on family structure and dynamics, and how to best capture changes in these very complex processes over time.

Despite these challenges, we do have a sense of the range and prevalence of family forms and how these have changed over time. Adolescents increasingly live in single-parent, step-parent, and no-biological-parent homes. Having step-siblings or half-siblings in the home or in other homes is more common. Grandparents are increasingly present in adolescents’ homes and lives. Older adolescents or young adults are more likely to return to their parents’ homes for a period of time. Further, the number of changes in living arrangements families experience has increased. Because so much about adolescents’ families has changed since the middle of the 20 th century when foundational theories of parenting were developed, it is important we consider how newer contexts for parenting might alter or expand theory or research on parenting adolescents.

The many aspects of family change experienced in the United States over the past few decades share a common set of implications for parenting adolescents. Different forms and increasing change within families involves relationship transitions for both parents and children, can be stigmatizing for parents and children, might increase the number of parent figures needing to coordinate support and guidance for an adolescent, and can be a source of difference or distance between parents and children.

Relationship transitions, such as separation or divorce, are associated with more parental stress and harsher parenting in mothers ( Beck et al. 2010 ; Cooper et al. 2009 ). Amato (2004 :32) contends that while there are many risk factors associated with divorce, “disruptions in parent-child relationships have the greatest potential to affect children negatively.” Families with “boomerang” adolescents, who have moved out and then return, may have challenges negotiating appropriate autonomy-granting and independence-building ( Newman 2012 ). Thus, the transitions involved in creating increasingly new and different family forms raise challenges to parenting adolescents. Classic theories highlighting the importance of warmth and control (e.g., Baldwin 1955 ; Baumrind 1967 ; Becker 1964 ; Sears et al. 1957 ; Symonds 1939 ) can be enhanced in thinking about ways parents can adequately provide support to adolescents during times of transition and in new family forms.

These considerations all point to an increased need for cooperation, negotiation, and understanding among parents, partners, and children ( Amato 2004 ). Theory and research should continue to address the extent to which relationship transitions limit parents’ abilities to provide optimal support and monitoring, and whether, at the same time, adolescents in these situations might need more support and monitoring. Parents themselves should and often do acknowledge the need to process these transitions in as healthy a manner as possible to protect their and their adolescents’ well-being. For example, authoritative parenting, in which parents are warm, involved, and supportive of their adolescent’s autonomy and decision-making, yet are clear and firm about their boundaries and expectations, can be successful across multiple family types and cultures ( Baumrind 1971 ; Sorkhabi and Mandara 2013 ; Steinberg 2001 ). Other parents and family members who are not be dealing with family transitions might consider how they can best support those parents who are, in the interest of helping families emerge from transitions.

When family forms are changing so fast, and society holds strong to nostalgia for the idealize family of the past ( Coontz 1992 ), there is great potential for suspicion and condemnation of non-nuclear families, same-sex parent families, or foster/adoptive families that stem from a failure or inadequacy on the part of biological parents. Thus, parents and adolescents in these family forms, with these experiences and identities, face personal challenges that arise from marginalization, and they worry about and attend to each other’s harm from such discrimination. These processes are also discussed by Murry (this issue) and are a potential context in which to consider what optimal parenting of adolescents involves.

Parents in these often-judged families can benefit from being aware and educated about the risk of experiencing real and perceived stigma. If parents are presented with data to show the relative normality of their experiences today and the questionable reasoning in assuming a golden age of families in the past ( Coontz 1992 ), they may gain confidence as parents, allowing them to provide the support and monitoring that seems more essential to adolescents than family structure in and of itself. Likewise, adolescents who face potential stigma because of their family experiences can be taught how to understand and cope with it. Finally, parents and adolescents who have consistently been a part of a nuclear, biological, heterosexual parent family should also recognize that different family forms are not necessarily inferior family forms. They should connect with different kinds of families to learn how their lives are more similar than they know. As everyone recognizes the dangers in assuming that family structure equates to family quality, the risk of stigma for parents and children in new family forms will decline.

Complex families with multiple parent figures, including grandparents, other relatives, non-residential parents, and foster parents, have increased potential for conflicts about parenting and greater challenges negotiating a unified and beneficial parenting approach ( Pryor 2004 ). As a greater number of parent figures become involved in adolescents’ lives, parenting behaviors become responsive to the desires and circumstances of a range of parent types, new children, and others. These complex family networks will affect access to, and relationships with, all of a parent’s children ( Meyer and Cancian 2012 ; Tach et al. 2010 ).

Finally, with greater heterogeneity and change over time in the number of parent figures involved in an adolescents lives comes the potential for greater distance between parents and adolescent along a number of lines. Step-parents, foster or adoptive parents, or even parents who had children via ART, and their adolescent children, often have issues surrounding the lack of biological connection between them and/or negotiating how to establish strong bonds and encourage their connection with their biological parents (if they are still involved) ( Pryor 2004 ). Grandparents who parent may share biological ties with adolescents, but their age difference may pose challenges to parenting. Non-resident mothers or fathers may be or feel less involved in key decisions or socialization processes due to their limits on time together ( Pryor 2004 ).

We have covered a variety of aspects of family structure and their implications for the contemporary study of parenting adolescents. Yet, there remain other ways that families differ that might impact parenting and should also be studied further. We focused on permanent relationship and living arrangement change in our survey of the literature, but families can become separated in temporary (but often long-term) ways that hold many of the same implications for how parenting might unfold. For example, military families deal with frequent moves as well as deployment of at least one parent ( Arnold et al. 2017 ). There has been a massive increase in the likelihood an adolescent will be separated from a parent who is incarcerated, presenting its own unique challenges ( Johnson and Easterling 2012 ; Murphey and Cooper 2015 ). Deportation is increasingly an issue for immigrant families in the United States, and refuges may have family members left in their country of origin. There are also family experiences that do not change the structure of family, but shift the balance of resources or parenting. This could include parent or child physical or mental health issues, unemployment, or death of a family member. In general, the better we are at considering the range of family forms and experiences in our measures and models, the more advice can be tailored to specific parenting contexts for adolescents.

In addition to incorporating new family forms and their implications into our theorizing and research on parenting adolescents, we must also advance our methods of measuring families. Because of the challenges in grasping all complexities of adolescents’ families, research should continue to pursue and implement new ways to conceptualize and measure family forms and processes. Social network methods bring a flexibility and comprehensiveness to the measurement of significant family ties, as well as allowing the study of multiple family members’ perspectives. Profile or clustering methods permit studying unique configurations of certain aspects of family structure and the quality of interactions.

In the absence of these alternate forms of data on families, we recommend that studies focused on or controlling for the role of family structure in parenting theorize the appropriate dimensions of family context to a given topic, and include as many of those as possible. This would include measures of number and type of parents, siblings, and extended family members and involvement of non-residential parent figures in an adolescent’s life. We also recommend modeling interactions between parenting styles and family structure, so we can better evaluate the extent to which the importance of key constructs like emotional support or behavioral monitoring varies by family context.

More fully recognizing the contemporary range of family structures and the unique issues involved with each greatly improves the odds that we are more accurately theorizing, measuring, and analyzing best practices for parenting adolescents. In turn, the public can also be better informed about the growing normality of non-nuclear, impermanent family structures, possibly lowering stigma of certain families and raising parents’ and adolescents’ confidence in maintaining strong bonds and successfully preparing for the transition to adulthood.

Acknowledgments

This research received support from the Population Research Training grant (T32 HD007168) and the Population Research Infrastructure Program (P2C HD050924) awarded to the Carolina Population Center at The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.

Contributor Information

Lisa D. Pearce, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

George M. Hayward, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

Laurie Chassin, Arizona State University.

Patrick J. Curran, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

• Amato Paul R. Parenting Through Family Transitions. Social Policy Journal of New Zealand. 2004;(23):31–44. [ Google Scholar ]
• Amato Paul R, Meyers Catherine E, Emery Robert E. Changes in Nonresident Father-Child Contact from 1976 to 2002. Family Relations. 2009; 58 (1):41–53. [ Google Scholar ]
• Arnett Jeffrey. Emerging Adulthood: The Winding Road from the Late Teens Through the Twenties. New York: Oxford University Press; 2004. [ Google Scholar ]
• Arnold Amy L, Lucier-Greer Mallory, Mancini Jay A, Ford James L, Wickrama KAS. How Family Structures and Processes Interrelate: The Case of Adolescent Mental Health and Academic Success in Military Families. Journal of Family Issues. 2017; 38 (6):858–79. [ Google Scholar ]
• Baldwin Alfred L. Behavior and Development in Childhood. New York: Dryden Press; 1955. [ Google Scholar ]
• Barber Jennifer S, Yarger Jennifer E, Gatny Heather H. Black-White Differences in Attitudes Related to Pregnancy among Young Women. Demography. 2015; 52 (3):751–86. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Baumrind Diana. Child Care Practices Anteceding Three Patterns of Preschool Behavior. Genetic Psychology Monographs. 1967; 75 (1):43–88. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Baumrind Diana. Current Patterns of Parental Authority. Developmental Psychology. 1971; 4 (1 Pt 2):1–103. [ Google Scholar ]
• Beck Audrey N, Cooper Carey E, Mclanahan Sara, Brooks-Gunn Jeanne. Partnership Transitions and Maternal Parenting. Journal of Marriage and Family. 2010; 72 (2):219–33. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Becker Wesley C. Consequences of Different Kinds of Parental Discipline. In: Hoffman ML, Hoffman LW, editors. Review of Child Development Research. Vol. 1. New York: Russell Sage Foundation; 1964. pp. 169–208. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bernardi Laura. A Mixed-Methods Social Networks Study Design for Research on Transnational Families. Journal of Marriage and Family. 2011; 73 (4):788–803. [ Google Scholar ]
• Biblarz Timothy J, Stacey Judith. How Does the Gender of Parents Matter? Journal of Marriage and Family. 2010; 72 (1):3–22. [ Google Scholar ]
• Blake Judith. Family Size and the Quality of Children. Demography. 1981; 18 (4):421–42. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bos Henny MW, van Balen Frank, van den Boom Dymphna C. Child Adjustment and Parenting in Planned Lesbian-Parent Families. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry. 2007; 77 (1):38–48. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Braver Sanford L, Curtis Bay R. Assessing and Compensating for Self-Selection Bias (Non-Representativeness) of the Family Research Sample. Journal of Marriage and Family. 1992; 54 (4):925–39. [ Google Scholar ]
• Brown Susan L. Family Structure Transitions and Adolescent Well-Being. Demography. 2006; 43 (3):447–61. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Burton Linda M, Dilworth-Anderson Peggye, Merriwether-deVries Cynthia. Context and Surrogate Parenting among Contemporary Grandparents. Marriage and Family Review. 1995; 20 (3–4):349–66. [ Google Scholar ]
• Cancian Maria, Meyer Daniel R, Brown Patricia R, Cook Steven T. Who Gets Custody Now? Dramatic Changes in Children’s Living Arrangements After Divorce. Demography. 2014; 51 (4):1381–96. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Capaldi DM, Patterson GR. Relation of Parental Transitions to Boys’ Adjustment Problems: I. A Linear Hypothesis. II. Mothers at Risk for Transitions and Unskilled Parenting. Developmental Psychology. 1991; 27 (3):489–504. [ Google Scholar ]
• Cavanagh Shannon E. Family Structure History and Adolescent Adjustment. Journal of Family Issues. 2008; 29 (7):944–80. [ Google Scholar ]
• Cheadle Jacob E, Amato Paul R, King Valarie. Patterns of Nonresident Father Contact. Demography. 2010; 47 (1):205–25. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cherlin Andrew J. The Marriage-Go-Round: The State of Marriage and the Family in America Today. New York: Vintage Books; 2010. [ Google Scholar ]
• Child Trends. Adopted Children. Bethesda, MD: Child Trends; 2012. [ Google Scholar ]
• Children’s Bureau. The AFCARS Report. Washington, D.C: Administration for Children & Families, U.S. Department of Health & Human Resources; 2016. [ Google Scholar ]
• Coontz Stephanie. The Way We Never Were: American Families and the Nostalgia Trap. New York, NY: Basic Books; 1992. [ Google Scholar ]
• Cooper Carey E, McLanahan Sara S, Meadows Sarah O, Brooks-Gunn Jeanne, Johnson David. Family Structure Transitions and Maternal Parenting Stress. Journal of Marriage and Family. 2009; 71 (3):558–74. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Côté James E. The Dangerous Myth of Emerging Adulthood: An Evidence-Based Critique of a Flawed Developmental Theory. Applied Developmental Science. 2014; 18 (4):177–88. [ Google Scholar ]
• Curtin Sally C, Ventura Stephanie J, Martinez Gladys M. Recent Declines in Nonmarital Childbearing in the United States. Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics; 2014. Retrieved February 28, 2018 ( http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db162.htm ) [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• DeGarmo David S, Forgatch Marion S. Contexts as Predictors of Changing Maternal Practices in Diverse Family Structures. In: Hetherington EM, editor. Coping With Divorce, Single Parenting, and Remarriage: A Risk and Resiliency Perspective. Mahwah, N.J: Psychology Press; 1999. [ Google Scholar ]
• DeLuca Stefanie, Clampet-Lundquist Susan, Edin Kathryn. Coming of Age in the Other America. New York: Russell Sage Foundation; 2016. [ Google Scholar ]
• Demo David H, Acock Alan C. Family Structure, Family Process, and Adolescent Well-Being. Journal of Research on Adolescence. 1996; 6 (4):457–488. [ Google Scholar ]
• DiClemente Ralph J, et al. Parental Monitoring: Association With Adolescents’ Risk Behaviors. Pediatrics. 2001; 107 (6):1363–68. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• DiFonzo J Herbie. From the Rule of One to Shared Parenting: Custody Presumptions in Law and Policy. Family Court Review. 2014; 52 (2):213–39. [ Google Scholar ]
• Dunn Judy, Slomkowski Cheryl, Beardsall Lynn. Sibling Relationships from the Preschool Period through Middle Childhood and Early Adolescence. Developmental Psychology. 1994; 30 (3):315–24. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dyer S, et al. International Committee for Monitoring Assisted Reproductive Technologies World Report: Assisted Reproductive Technology 2008, 2009 and 2010. Human Reproduction. 2016; 31 (7):1588–1609. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Elder Glen H. The Life Course as Developmental Theory. Child Development. 1998; 69 (1):1–12. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Elliott Diana B, Simmons Tavia. Marital Events of Americans: 2009. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Census Bureau; 2011. Retrieved February 28, 2018 ( http://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2011/acs/acs-13.pdf ) [ Google Scholar ]
• Fernandes-Alcantara Adrienne L. Runaway and Homeless Youth: Demographics and Programs. Washington, D.C: Congressional Research Service; 2013. [ Google Scholar ]
• Finer Lawrence B, Zolna Mia R. Shifts in Intended and Unintended Pregnancies in the United States, 2001–2008. American Journal of Public Health. 2014; 104 :S43–48. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fomby Paula, Mollborn Stefanie, Sennott Christie A. Race/Ethnic Differences in Effects of Family Instability on Adolescents’ Risk Behavior. Journal of Marriage and Family. 2010; 72 (2):234–53. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fry Richard. For First Time in Modern Era, Living With Parents Edges Out Other Living Arrangements for 18- to 34-Year-Olds. Washington, D.C: Pew Research Center; 2016. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gates Gary. Family Formation and Raising Children Among Same-Sex Couples. National Council of Family Relations. 2012; 51 (1) Retrieved February 28, 2018 ( http://escholarship.org/uc/item/5pq1q8d7 ) [ Google Scholar ]
• Gates Gary J. Marriage and Family: LGBT Individuals and Same-Sex Couples. The Future of Children. 2015; 25 (2):67–87. [ Google Scholar ]
• Goldscheider Frances, Goldscheider Calvin. The Changing Transition to Adulthood: Leaving and Returning Home. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications; 1999. [ Google Scholar ]
• Golombok Susan, Tasker Fiona, Murray Clare. Children Raised in Fatherless Families from Infancy: Family Relationships and the Socioemotional Development of Children of Lesbian and Single Heterosexual Mothers. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry. 1997; 38 (7):783–91. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Greenfeld Dorothy A, Seli Emre. Same-Sex Reproduction: Medical Treatment Options and Psychosocial Considerations. Current Opinion in Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2016; 28 (3):202–5. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Grover Stephanie A, Shmorgun Ziva, Moskovtsev Sergey I, Baratz Ari, Librach Clifford L. Assisted Reproduction in a Cohort of Same-Sex Male Couples and Single Men. Reproductive BioMedicine Online. 2013; 27 (2):217–21. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gunnoe Marjorie L. Doctoral Dissertation. University of Virginia; Charlottesville, Virginia: 1993. Noncustodial Mothers’ and Fathers’ Contributions to the Adjustment of Adolescent Stepchildren. [ Google Scholar ]
• Harris Scott R. What Is Family Diversity? Objective and Interpretive Approaches. Journal of Family Issues. 2008; 29 (11):1407–25. [ Google Scholar ]
• Harwood Jake. Communication Media Use in the Grandparent-Grandchild Relationship. Journal of Communication. 2000; 50 (4):56–78. [ Google Scholar ]
• Johnson Elizabeth I, Easterling Beth. Understanding Unique Effects of Parental Incarceration on Children: Challenges, Progress, and Recommendations. Journal of Marriage and Family. 2012; 74 (2):342–56. [ Google Scholar ]
• Johnston Lloyd D, O’Malley Patrick M. Issues of Validity and Population Coverage in Student Surveys of Drug Use. In: Rouse BA, Kozel NJ, Richards LG, editors. Self-Report Methods of Estimating Drug Use: Meeting Current Challenges to Validity. Washington, D.C: National Institute on Drug Abuse, Department of Health and Human Services; 1985. pp. 31–54. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Jones Deborah J, Zalot Alecia A, Foster Sarah E, Sterrett Emma, Chester Charlene. A Review of Childrearing in African American Single Mother Families: The Relevance of a Coparenting Framework. Journal of Child and Family Studies. 2007; 16 (5):671–83. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kemp Candace L. Grandparent—Grandchild Ties: Reflections on Continuity and Change Across Three Generations. Journal of Family Issues. 2007; 28 (7):855–81. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kennedy Sheela, Bumpass Larry. Cohabitation and Children’s Living Arrangements: New Estimates from the United States. Demographic Research. 2008; 19 :1663–92. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kennedy Sheela, Ruggles Steven. Breaking Up Is Hard to Count: The Rise of Divorce in the United States, 1980–2010. Demography. 2014; 51 (2):587–98. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kim Ji-Yeon, McHale Susan M, Wayne Osgood D, Crouter Ann C. Longitudinal Course and Family Correlates of Sibling Relationships from Childhood through Adolescence. Child Development. 2006; 77 (6):1746–61. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kreider Rose M, Ellis Renee. Living Arrangements of Children: 2009. Washington, D.C: U.S. Census Bureau; 2011. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kreider Rose M, Lofquist Daphne A. Adopted Children and Stepchildren: 2010. Washington, D.C: U.S. Census Bureau; 2014. Retrieved February 28, 2018 ( https://www.census.gov/prod/2014pubs/p20-572.pdf ) [ Google Scholar ]
• Lansford Jennifer E, Ceballo Rosario, Abbey Antonia, Stewart Abigail J. Does Family Structure Matter? A Comparison of Adoptive, Two-Parent Biological, Single-Mother, Stepfather, and Stepmother Households. Journal of Marriage and Family. 2001; 63 (3):840–51. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lareau Annette. Unequal Childhoods: Class, Race, and Family Life. Berkeley: University of California Press; 2003. [ Google Scholar ]
• Laughlin Lynda. A Child’s Day: Living Arrangements, Nativity, and Family Transitions: 2011 (Selected Indicators of Child Well-Being) Washington, D.C: U.S. Census Bureau; 2014. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lee Dohoon, McLanahan Sara. Family Structure Transitions and Child Development: Instability, Selection, and Population Heterogeneity. American Sociological Review. 2015; 80 (4):738–63. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lempers Jacques D, Clark-Lempers Dania S. Young, Middle, and Late Adolescents’ Comparisons of the Functional Importance of Five Significant Relationships. Journal of Youth and Adolescence. 1992; 21 (1):53–96. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lindberg Laura, Santelli John, Desai Sheila. Understanding the Decline in Adolescent Fertility in the United States, 2007–2012. Journal of Adolescent Health. 2016; 59 (5):577–83. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Manning Wendy D, Brown Susan L, Bart Stykes J. Family Complexity among Children in the United States. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science. 2014; 654 (1):48–65. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Martin Joyce A, Hamilton Brady E, Osterman Michelle JK, Driscoll Anne K, Matthews TJ. Births: Final Data for 2015. Hyattsville, MD: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; 2017. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• McFarland Joel, et al. The Condition of Education 2017. Washington, D.C: National Center for Education Statistics; 2017. [ Google Scholar ]
• McHale Susan M, Updegraff Kimberly A, Whiteman Shawn D. Sibling Relationships and Influences in Childhood and Adolescence. Journal of Marriage and Family. 2012; 74 (5):913–30. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• McLanahan Sara, Sandefur Gary. Growing Up With a Single Parent: What Hurts, What Helps. Cambridge: Harvard University Press; 1994. [ Google Scholar ]
• Meyer Daniel R, Cancian Maria. ‘I’m Not Supporting His Kids’: Nonresident Fathers’ Contributions Given Mothers’ New Fertility. Journal of Marriage and Family. 2012; 74 (1):132–51. [ Google Scholar ]
• Mitchell Katherine S. Pathways of Children’s Long-Term Living Arrangements: A Latent Class Analysis. Social Science Research. 2013; 42 (5):1284–96. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mitchell Lauren L, Syed Moin. Does College Matter for Emerging Adulthood? Comparing Developmental Trajectories of Educational Groups. Journal of Youth and Adolescence. 2015; 44 (11):2012–27. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Monte Lindsay M. Multiple Partner Fertility Research Brief. Washington, D.C: U.S. Census Bureau; 2017. [ Google Scholar ]
• Murphey David, Mae Cooper P. Parents Behind Bars: What Happens to Their Children? Bethesda, MD: Child Trends; 2015. Retrieved February 28, 2018 ( http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/BTB_23_4K_6.pdf ) [ Google Scholar ]
• National Alliance to End Homelessness. The State of Homelessness in America. Washington, D.C: National Alliance to End Homelessness; 2016. [ Google Scholar ]
• Newman Katherine S. The Accordion Family: Boomerang Kids, Anxious Parents, and the Private Toll of Global Competition. Boston: Beacon Press; 2012. [ Google Scholar ]
• O’Hara Amy, Shattuck Rachel M, Goerge Robert M. Linking Federal Surveys with Administrative Data to Improve Research on Families. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science. 2017; 669 (1):63–74. [ Google Scholar ]
• Phillips Tommy M. The Influence of Family Structure Vs. Family Climate on Adolescent Well-Being. Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal. 2012; 29 (2):103–10. [ Google Scholar ]
• Pinzon Jorge L, Jones Veronnie F Committee on Adolescence, and Committee on Early Childhood. Care of Adolescent Parents and Their Children. Pediatrics. 2012; 130 (6):e1743–56. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Powell Brian, Bolzendahl Catherine, Geist Claudia, Steelman Lala C. Counted Out: Same-Sex Relations and Americans’ Definitions of Family. New York: Russell Sage Foundation; 2010. [ Google Scholar ]
• Pryor Jan. Parenting in Reconstituted and Surrogate Families. In: Hoghughi M, Long N, editors. Handbook of Parenting: Theory and Research for Practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications; 2004. pp. 110–29. [ Google Scholar ]
• Reichman Nancy E, Teitler Julien O, Garfinkel Irwin, McLanahan Sara S. Fragile Families: Sample and Design. Children and Youth Services Review. 2001; 23 (4/5):303–26. [ Google Scholar ]
• Rosenbaum James E. Beyond College For All: Career Paths for the Forgotten Half. New York: Russell Sage Foundation; 2001. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ruggles Steven. The Rise of Divorce and Separation in the United States, 1880–1990. Demography. 1997; 34 (4):455–66. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ruggles Steven, Brower Susan. Measurement of Household and Family Composition in the United States, 1850–2000. Population and Development Review. 2003; 29 (1):73–101. [ Google Scholar ]
• Mae Sallie. How America Pays for College. Newark, DE: Sallie Mae; 2017. [ Google Scholar ]
• Schaeffer Nora C, Seltzer Judith A, Dykema Jennifer. Methodological and Theoretical Issues in Studying Nonresident Fathers: A Selective Review. 1998 Retrieved February 28, 2018 ( https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED456162 )
• Sears Robert R, Maccoby Eleanor E, Levin Harry. Patterns of Child Rearing. Oxford, England: Row, Peterson; 1957. [ Google Scholar ]
• Simons Leslie G, Conger Rand D. Linking Mother–Father Differences in Parenting to a Typology of Family Parenting Styles and Adolescent Outcomes. Journal of Family Issues. 2007; 28 (2):212–41. [ Google Scholar ]
• Smith Dorothy E. The Standard North American Family: SNAF as an Ideological Code. Journal of Family Issues. 1993; 14 (1):50–65. [ Google Scholar ]
• Smith Herbert L, Philip Morgan S, Koropeckyj-Cox Tanya. A Decomposition of Trends in the Nonmarital Fertility Ratios of Blacks and Whites in the United States, 1960–1992. Demography. 1996; 33 (2):141–51. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Soliz Jordan. Intergenerational Support and the Role of Grandparents in Post-Divorce Families: Retrospective Accounts of Young Adult Grandchildren. Qualitative Research Reports in Communication. 2008; 9 (1):72–80. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sorkhabi Nadia, Mandara Jelani. Are the Effects of Baumrind’s Parenting Styles Culturally Specific or Culturally Equivalent. In: Larzelere RE, Morris AS, Harrist AW, editors. Authoritative Parenting: Synthesizing Nurturance and Discipline for Optimal Child Development. Washington, D.C: American Psychological Association; 2013. pp. 113–35. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sousa Liliana, Sorensen Elaine J. The Economic Reality of Nonresident Mothers and Their Children. Washington, D.C: Urban Institute; 2006. Retrieved February 28, 2018 ( http://webarchive.urban.org/UploadedPDF/311342_B-69.pdf ) [ Google Scholar ]
• Steinberg Laurence. Adolescence. 11. New York: McGraw-Hill Education; 2016. [ Google Scholar ]
• Steinberg Laurence. We Know Some Things: Parent–Adolescent Relationships in Retrospect and Prospect. Journal of Research on Adolescence. 2001; 11 (1):1–19. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sterrett Emma M, Jones Deborah J, McKee Laura G, Kincaid Carlye. Supportive Non-Parental Adults and Adolescent Psychosocial Functioning: Using Social Support as a Theoretical Framework. American Journal of Community Psychology. 2011; 48 (3–4):284–95. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Symonds Percival M. The Psychology of Parent-Child Relationships. New York: Appleton-Century; 1939. [ Google Scholar ]
• Tach Laura, Mincy Ronald, Edin Kathryn. Parenting as a ‘Package Deal’: Relationships, Fertility, and Nonresident Father Involvement Among Unmarried Parents. Demography. 2010; 47 (1):181–204. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Tucker M Belinda, Mitchell-Kernan Claudia., editors. The Decline in Marriage among African Americans: Causes, Consequences, and Policy Implications. New York: Russell Sage Foundation; 1995. [ Google Scholar ]
• U.S. Census Bureau. America’s Families and Living Arrangements: 2016 [Table H2] 2017a Retrieved February 28, 2018 ( https://www.census.gov/data/tables/2016/demo/families/cps-2016.html )
• U.S. Census Bureau. America’s Families and Living Arrangements: 2016 [Tables C2 and C3] 2017b Retrieved February 28, 2018 ( https://www.census.gov/data/tables/2016/demo/families/cps-2016.html )
• U.S. Census Bureau. Characteristics of Same-Sex Couple Households: 2005 to Present. 2017c Retrieved February 28, 2018 ( https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/demo/same-sex-couples/ssc-house-characteristics.html )
• U.S. Census Bureau. Fertility of Women in the United States: 2016 [Table 4] 2017d Retrieved February 28, 2018 ( https://www.census.gov/data/tables/2016/demo/fertility/women-fertility.html )
• U.S. Census Bureau. Historical Living Arrangements of Children [Table CH-1] 2017e Retrieved February 28, 2018 ( https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/demo/families/children.html )
• U.S. Census Bureau. Historical Living Arrangements of Children [Table CH-7] 2017f Retrieved February 28, 2018 ( https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/demo/families/children.html )
• U.S. Census Bureau. Historical Living Arrangements of Children [Tables CH-2, CH-3, CH-4] 2017g Retrieved February 28, 2018 ( https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/demo/families/children.html )
• Vespa Jonathan, Lewis Jamie M, Kreider Rose M. America’s Families and Living Arrangements: 2012. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Census Bureau; 2013. Retrieved July 13, 2017 ( https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/1010985/americas-families-and-living-arrangements-2012.pdf ) [ Google Scholar ]
• Widmer Eric D. Family Configurations: A Structural Approach to Family Diversity. Burlington, VT: Ashgate Publishing Company; 2010. [ Google Scholar ]
• Widmer Eric D, Aeby Gaëlle, Sapin Marlène. Collecting Family Network Data. International Review of Sociology. 2013; 23 (1):27–46. [ Google Scholar ]

Your Article Library

Changing pattern of family in india: structural change and interactional change.

ADVERTISEMENTS:

Is joint family structure being nuclearised? Our contention is that “jointness of family in India is not disappearing and that stage can never be envisaged when the joint family will be lost in the mental horizon of the people; only the ‘cutting off point of jointness is changing. Instead of large joint families, we will have only locally functioning effective small joint families of two generations or so.

At the same time, a nuclear fis­sioned family (of husband, wife and unmarried children) will not be totally independent but will be functionally dependent on (i.e., remain joint with) some primary kin like father or brother, etc. This is evident from various empirical studies conducted by various scholars in different parts of the country. We will analyse change in jointness at two levels: structural and interactional.

Structural Changes:

We cite six empirical studies conducted in last four decades by scholars like LP. Desai, K.M. Kapadia, Aileen Ross, M.S. Gore, A.M. Shah and Sachchidananda.

Desai studied urban families (in Mahuwa in Gujarat) in 1955 and found that:

(i) Nuclearity is increasing and jointness is decreas­ing;

(ii) Spirit of individualism is not growing, as about half of the households are joint with other households; and

(iii) The radius of kinship relations within the circle of jointness is becoming smaller. The joint relations are mostly confined to parents-children, siblings, and uncles-nephews, i.e., lineal relationship is found between father, son and grand­son, and the collateral relationship is found between a man and his brothers and uncles.

Kapadia studied rural and urban families (18% urban and 82% rural) in Gujarat (Navasari town and its 15 surrounding villages) in 1955. His main conclusions were:

(1) In the rural community, the propor­tion of joint families is almost the same as that of the nuclear families.

(2) Viewed in terms of castes, in villages, higher castes have predominantly joint family while lower castes show a greater incidence of nuclear family.

(3) In the urban community, there are more joint families than nuclear families.

(4) In the ‘impact’ villages (i.e., villages within the radius of 7 to 8 km from a town), the family pattern closely resembles the rural pattern and has no correspondence with the urban pattern.

(5) Taking all areas (rural, urban and impact) together, it may be held that joint family struc­ture is not being nuclearised.

(6) The difference in the rural and the urban family patterns is the result of modification of the caste pattern by eco­nomic factors.

Ross studied only Hindu families in an urban setting (Ban­galore in Karnataka state) in 1957, She found that:

(1) The trend of family form is towards a breakaway from the traditional joint family form into nuclear family units.

(2) The small joint family is now the most typical form of family life.

(3) A growing number of people now spend at least part of their lives in single family units.

(4) Living in several types of fam­ily during life-time seems so widespread that we can talk of a cycle of family types as being the normal sequence for city-dwellers.

(5) Distant relatives are less important to the present generation than they were to their parents and grand-parents.

(6) City-dweller son has become more spatially separated from all relatives.

Shah studied families in one village in Gujarat between 1955 and 1958. Classifying families as simple (consisting of whole or part of the pa­rental family) and complex (consisting of two or more parental families), he found that one-third families were complex and two-third were simple, indicating the breakdown of joint family system in rural India.

Gore studied families in an urban (Delhi), rural, and fringe areas (of Rohtak and Hissar districts in Haryana) in 1960 and found that two types of families: one, husband, wife and unmarried children, and two, hus­band, wife, unmarried and married sons-dominated over all others.

Sachchidananda (1977) studied families in 30 villages in one district (Shahabad) in Bihar and found that:

(1) One-fourth families were nuclear and three-fourth were joint, indicating predominance of traditional fami­lies.

(2) There were more nuclear families in upper castes than in middle and lower castes.

(3) Nuclearity tends to rise with the level of education.

Kolenda (1968) used data from 26 studies conducted between the 1950s and 1970s and found that:

(1) Majority of the families are nuclear.

(2) There are regional differences in the proportions of joint families. There are higher proportions of joint families in Gangetic plain than in Central India or Eastern India (including West Bengal).

(3) The joint fam­ily is more characteristic of upper and landowning castes than of lower and landless castes.

(4) Caste is more closely related to the size and the proportion of joint families.

Ram Ahuja studied families in 1976 in an urban area and in 1988 in rural areas during his two research projects (on ‘Drug Abuse among Col­lege Students’ and ‘Rights of Women’) in Rajasthan. Both studies pointed out that though the number of nuclear families is growing yet it does not indicate the disappearance of joint family system.

Ramakrishna Mukherjee studied family in West Bengal in 1960-61. He found that:

(1) Size is not an indicator of nuclear or joint structure of family. His own survey of 4,120 family units gave 4.50 and 4.83 as the average size of a nuclear and a joint family respectively.

(2) Size of joint family is not large because the ‘root couple’ does not remain alive beyond 75 years or so. The husband and wife become ‘parents’ for the first time when the man is in the age group of 25-29 and the woman in that of 20-24. They become ‘grandparents’ for the first time when the man is in the age group of 45-49 and his wife in that of 40-44.

They be­come ‘great grandparents’ for the first time when man in the ‘root couple’ is in the age group of 75-79 and his wife in that of 70-74, and their first son in the age group of 25-29 becomes a ‘parent’ for the first time with his wife in the age group of 20-24. The expansion of collateral relationship in a family is between two ‘distant’ cousins. Subsequently, the joint families expand within a limited generational extension.

(3) In his analysis of stud­ies on families (44,657) made in 30 villages and towns in 15 states in India by 18 scholars (like S.C. Dube, M.S.A. Rao, Kolenda, I.P. Desai, Kapadia, Irawati Karve, Kulkarni, T.N. Madan, Driver, Sovani, Mukherjee, Bose, Srivastava, etc.) Mukherjee found that the percentage of nuclear to total families ranged from 35 to 63. This points out the central ten­dency in Indian society to pursue the joint family organisation.

(4) The joint family is successively shaking off the collateral relations be­yond grandparents’ generation.

Taking all studies on structural changes in family together, we con­clude:

(1) The number of fissioned families is increasing but even living sepa­rately, they fulfill their traditional obligations towards their parental families.

(2) There is more jointess in traditional (rural) communities and more nuclearity in communities exposed to forces of industrialisation, ur­banisation and westernisation.

(3) The size of the (traditional) joint family has become smaller.

(4) So long the old cultural values persist among people, the functional type of joint family will be sustained in our society.

(5) Changes from ‘traditional’ to ‘transitional’ family include trends to­ward new-local residence, functional jointness, equality of individuals, equal status for women, increasing opportunity to indi­vidual members to achieve their aspirations and the weakening of family norms. What are the set of values which nurtured, stabilised and sustained the joint family organisation and the values which are now breaking the joint family in India?

The important values which sustained joint family structure are:

(1) Filial devotion of sons.

(2) Lack of economic viability of some brothers, i.e., their inability to support their children economically.

(3) Lack of a stage-organised system of social security for the old-age men and women.

(4) A material incentive for organising the size of labour unit since it constituted the major share of the capital required for production of goods and services and people had to depend on family labour.

The factors which are now breaking the joint family are:

(1) Differen­tial earnings of brothers generating tensions in the family, as unit of production and service today is predominantly an individual. Up to a point, the values the members inculcate may enable them to subside ten­sion by mutual adjustment and compromise but brothers separate when they focus on the conjugal units.

(2) The death of the ‘root couple’ who holds economic power, and inability, incompetence and self-interest of sons and their wives to take up the role of ‘parental couple’.

(3) Incentive of depending on family labour is disappearing with the emergence of a cash nexus.

(4) System of social security, savings and extended earning op­portunities of the people are leading to nuclearisation of joint family structures.

Interactional Changes:

The changes in intra-family relations may be examined at three levels: Husband-wife relations, parental-filial relations, and relations between daughter-in-law and parents-in-law. The relations between husband and wife in Indian family have been reviewed by Goode (1963), Kapadia (1966), Gore (1968) and Murray Straus (1969). These studies indicate change in (a) power allocation in decision-making, (b) emancipation of wife, and (c) closeness.

In traditional family, wife had no voice in family decision-making. But in contemporary family, in budgeting the family expenditure, in dis­ciplining the children, in purchasing goods and giving gifts, the wife now credits herself as equal in power role.

Though husband continues to play the instrumental role and wife the expressive role, yet both often talk things over and consult each other in the process of arriving at a decision. This also does not mean that husband-dominant family is changing into wife-dominant or equalitarian family. The assumption of economic role and the education of wife have made wives potential equals.

The source of power has shifted from ‘culture’ to ‘resource’, where ‘resource’ is ‘any­thing that one partner may make available to the other helping the latter satisfy his/her needs or attain his/her goals’. As such, the balance of power will be on the side of that partner who contributes greater re­sources to the marriage. Murray Straus’ study (1975:141) on ‘husband to wife power score’ also supported the hypothesis based on ‘resource the­ory’ rather than the ‘cultural values theory’. He found that the middle-class husbands have a higher ‘effective power’ (+) score than the working class husbands. It indicated that compared to middle-class fami­lies, working class families are more role-segregated or ‘autonomic’, i.e., working class families have less joint husband-wife activity of all types.

It also means that in middle-class families, both husband and wife take more active part than do working class families in attempting to direct the be­haviour of the family group toward solution of the problem. Straus’s study thus indicated that both nuclearity and low socio-economic status are associated with reduction in the husband’s power.

Emphasising ‘resources’ factor does not mean that ‘culture’ (what Max Weber has called ‘traditional authority’) has lost its importance. In fact, both factors are important today in ‘conjugal bonds’. It may thus be averred that though an average Indian family is husband-dominant yet the ideological source of power of women is giving place to a pragmatic one.

The change in conjugal bonds is also evident from the increasing emancipation of wife. In urban areas, wife going with husband for social visits, taking food with husband or even before he does, going together to restaurants and movies, etc.—indicate increasing ‘companion’ role of wife. Husband no longer regards his wife as inferior to him or devoid of reasoning but consults her and trusts her with serious matters. As regards closeness of man to his wife and mother, man, particularly the educated one, is now equally close to both.

The relations between parents and children may be assessed in terms of holding authority, freedom of discussing problems, opposition of par­ents by children, and modes of imposing penalty. In traditional family, while power and authority was totally vested in the patriarch and he was virtually all powerful who decided everything about education, occupa­tion, marriage and the career of children in the family, in contempo­rary family—not only in nuclear but also in joint family—the grandfather has lost his authority.

The authority has shifted from patri­arch to parents who consult their children on all important issues before taking any decisions about them. Ross also maintains that grand-parents are no longer as influential as they were earlier. Gore also found that it is now parents who take decisions about schooling, occupation and marriage of their children. Children have also started discussing their problems with parents. They even oppose their parents. Kapadia and Margaret Cormack (1969) also found that children today enjoy more freedom. Some legislative measures have also given powers to children to demand their rights. Perhaps, it is because of all this that parents do not use old methods of punishing their children.

They use economic and psychological methods (denying money, scolding, restricting freedom, reasoning) more than the physical methods (beating). In spite of these changes in relations between parents and chil­dren, the children do not think only of their rights and privileges but also of the welfare of parents and siblings. They respect and fear their elders.

The relations between daughter-in-law and parents-in-law have also undergone change. However, this change is not so significant in daughter- in-law and mother-in-law (DIL-MIL) relations as in daughter-in-law and father-in-law (DIL-FIL) relations. The educated DIL does not observe dah from her FIL and discusses not only the family problems but also the social and even the political issues.

Taking all three types of relations (husband-wife, parents-children, and DIL-PIL) together, it may be said:

(1) Younger generation now claims more individuality.

(2) Consanguineous relationship does not have pri­macy over conjugal relationship.

(3) Along with ‘culture’ and ‘ideological’ factor, the ‘resource’ factor also affects relations.

Related Articles:

• Recent Changes in the Family System in India
• Joint Family: Essay on Changes in Joint Family System in India

No comments yet.

Leave a reply click here to cancel reply..

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Family Structure Essay

Understand Family Structure

Structure, “something arranged in a definite pattern of organization” (Merriam-Webster, 2016) Most people are exposed to structure from the beginning. The child's first example of structure is understanding family structure. Your mother is usually the first tier supervisor; she sets the rules on meal times, play times, and rest times. What is more, If you don’t follow the instructions given; you may receive some type of discipline. If the child / employee does not respond to the first line supervisor;

Family Structure And Structure Of The British Family

Introduction. Family is the fundamental unit of society. The concept and structure of the British family has seen a change over the last 50 years. These changes have culminated in the decay of marriage and therefore the rise of cohabitation, new forms of family composition and the delay of parenthood, thus, making traditional nuclear family less stable than in previous generations (Jenkins et al. 2009). The aim of this essay is of great importance as it will look at important decades since the

Family Structures And The Family Structure Essay

It is commonly accepted in contemporary society that family structures are defined as being either a nuclear family, or one that strays away from that. According to Dalton Conley in the fourth edition of You May Ask Yourself, the nuclear family is defined as a familial form consisting of a father, a mother, and their children (453). By definition and contemporary societal norms, my family would be categorized as abnormal or different. Having been raised in an apartment in the Bronx, New York with

Family Structures And Family Structure Essay

argues that today, family pathways are more important than family structure. In this context, family structure refers to the organization of a family, and the way that it has been changing as a result of the gender revolution. For example, some nontraditional family structures that are explored in the book include double parent families with both parents earning, single parent families (mostly single mothers), and families with same-sex parents. Gerson argues that while family structures are not negligible

Structural Family Therapy : Family Structure

Structural Family Therapy considers family as a unit which grows and evolves with the passage of time and goes on to form culture and community (“What Is Structural Family Therapy and How It Works | New Health Advisor,” n.d.). Structural Family Therapy is based on three main principles. The first is family structure, the interactions among different families vary depending on inherent family rules. Each family member adjusts their behavior in accordance to the rules to make sure that the family system

The, Family, And Family Structure

The most fundamental of a family is interaction. The interconnectedness among family members helps to maintain a family structure. According to McGoldrick (2006), family patterns repeat from one generation to the next generation. These triangular patterns are impacting functioning, relationships, and family structure. Looking at the current and historical context of the family, the genogram illustrated some repetitive patterns in Michelle’s family. There were many intergenerational losses and

Family Structure Of The Family

Family is defined as a group of people related to each other or lives together under the same roof and a place to foster and develop both physical and mental. Family structure can be varied by each family. The family is the fundamental unit and micro-structure of society. The level of development of the family reflects the state of social existence both physical and cultural and based on trust and shared experiences that define how individual members interact and relate to each other and the world

The Family Structure Of The Family

A family is a basic unit in society that consists of blood related persons living together. However, this definition is not totally applicable in today’s complementary society due to variations in family relations (Henslin, 2010). Historically, the family structure types were nuclear and extended. The nuclear family consisted of two parents and children. The extended family incorporated grandparents, cousins, auntie uncle and other blood relative. Today, these family types have evolved to include

The Family Structure Of Family

The family structure determines where you derive from and provides a sense of who you are. The typical family structure is perceived as a father and a mother, two children, one boy and one girl, and a pet. The typical family description described above is still promoted and expected to be the “dream family.” Author Meyerhoff, “While the nuclear family with Dad, Mom, and offspring happily coexisting beneath one roof-remains the ideal, variations in family structure are plentiful and often successful”

The And Structure Of Family

definition and structure of family has significantly developed throughout the years, with liberal perspectives suggesting alternative family arrangements. In 1973, Michael Young and Peter Willmott conducted studies of family life within the London area and concluded that the development and changes within the structure of family life can be sorted into three categories of time. (Van Krieken et al. 2017, p. 107). The pre-industrial family (up until the early 19th century), the early industrial family (Industrial

Popular Topics

• Family Therapy Essay
• Family Tradition Essay
• Family Values Essay
• Famine Essay
• Famous All Over Town Essay
• Famous Speech Essay
• Far From the Madding Crowd Essay
• Essays on Fascism
• Fascist State Essay
• Fashion Essay Topics

In recent years the family structures have changed as well as the family roles. What are the changes that are occouring. What do you think can be done to mend it?

Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Writing9 with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

Fully explain your ideas

To get an excellent score in the IELTS Task 2 writing section, one of the easiest and most effective tips is structuring your writing in the most solid format. A great argument essay structure may be divided to four paragraphs, in which comprises of four sentences (excluding the conclusion paragraph, which comprises of three sentences).

For we to consider an essay structure a great one, it should be looking like this:

• Paragraph 1 - Introduction
• Sentence 1 - Background statement
• Sentence 2 - Detailed background statement
• Sentence 3 - Thesis
• Sentence 4 - Outline sentence
• Paragraph 2 - First supporting paragraph
• Sentence 1 - Topic sentence
• Sentence 2 - Example
• Sentence 3 - Discussion
• Sentence 4 - Conclusion
• Paragraph 3 - Second supporting paragraph
• Paragraph 4 - Conclusion
• Sentence 1 - Summary
• Sentence 2 - Restatement of thesis
• Sentence 3 - Prediction or recommendation

Our recommended essay structure above comprises of fifteen (15) sentences, which will make your essay approximately 250 to 275 words.

Discover more tips in The Ultimate Guide to Get a Target Band Score of 7+ » — a book that's free for 🚀 Premium users.

• Check your IELTS essay »
• Find essays with the same topic
• View collections of IELTS Writing Samples
• Show IELTS Writing Task 2 Topics

Television dominates the free-time of too many people. It can make people lazy and prevent them from socialising with others. Do you agree or disagree?

The most important consideration when choosing any career or job ishaving a high income. to what extend do you agree or disagree, you and your family are planning to spend a weekend at a seaside hotel. write a letter to the hotel, making the arrangements. in your letter tell them when you will be arriving and leaving explain what type of rooms you would like, and ask how much the weekend will cost ask about activities and places of interest near the hotel, global warming is one of the most serious issues that the world is facing today what are the causes of global warming and what measures can governments and individuals take to tackle the issue, write about the following topic: unhealthy eating has a negative effect on both individuals and the society in which they live. some people think that the government should tax unhealthy foods while others believe that a ‘fat tax’ is unfair and unnecessary. discuss both these views and give your own opinion..

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

Changing Family Structure in India Impact and Implications

Family is traditionally considered in all societies as the primary social unit of human existence and hence, the basis for expressing and moulding the basic tenets of social behavior and relationship in society. It has been a subject of interest and of serious study at various levels down the centuries, and has always attracted the attention of the social scientists, for long. In India, for most part, the traditional system had survived for centuries without any major institutional alterations or dislocations. However, with the advent of the British, and later with the processes of industrialisation, modernisation, and the recent trends of globalisation, the structural features and the functional implications of family have started changing. The present paper attempts to understand and assess the dynamics of family, focusing mainly on the variations in the structural and functional aspects of family with multiple implications for the emerging social realities and their possible impact and implications for the future of the Indian Society.

Related Papers

International Journal of Social Sciences

G Karunanithi

The predominant type of living arrangement in pre-independence India was joint family system. It was based on the notion of collectivism and charity. It was a serving place for not only nurturing and preserving social values, but also passing them down through generations. After the advent of industrialization and subsequent emergence of urbanization and modernization, the joint families started disintegrating into nuclear families. The modern nuclear family is perpetually promoting the principle of individualism or independence in contrast to the value of collectivism deep-rooted in joint family. It is, therefore, a value shift in family from collectivism to individualism. It is followed by a loyalty shift in family from lineal ties to conjugal ties. Consequently, nuclear family has become an indispensible social unit in contemporary Indian society. However, its sustainability may perhaps be uncertain in a distant future because of the inclination of present younger generation to complete independence in life. Probably this may result in the emergent of a new type of living arrangement to satisfy the needs of generations of people in a remote future. Highlights m Views of Indian as well as foreign scholars on transition of Joint Family. m Nuclear family as an inevitable alternate social unit in contemporary Indian society. m Probability of uncertainties of nuclear family in distant future and the likelihood of emerging a new type of living arrangement suitable to future generations.

Athar Pirzada

Rana P.B. SINGH

Like in other cultures, the Hindu family also represents a social institution that developed in passage of time and has always been practiced as a core element in the development and maintenance of the value and ethics systems and lifeways for an individual as well as for the close clan and castes and altogether in making the societal world that further influence the state and nation. That is how the changes in family structure and its values are given much attention for understanding social scenario and state of development. In fact, the development of an individual, society, and state very much depends on the family and related lifeways and inherent life philosophy. The structure and function of the family is not any more traditional product of cultural history but it also indicates changing and shifting relation to wider niches of social and economic developments. Of course, the family is the foundational institution in societies ― an institution which is a frame or gaze of identity, emotion, cultural expression, care, despair, reproductive labour, systemic and systematic violence, repression, and domination in ways that other institutions are not. Moreover, it is foundational where constantly run contestations over life and culture. In India the position of family, especially of Hindus, has been central and critical. The family performs important task which contribute to society’s basic needs and helps to perpetuate social order. Family is also described as “a group of persons directly linked by kin connections, the adult members of assume responsibility for caring for children”.

South Asia, journal of South Asian Studies, Taylor and Francis

The Indian Family (भारतीय परिवार) edited by Kalyan Kumar Chakravarty

Kalyan Kumar Chakravarty

In this preface of the edited volume on family and an article on the family, a unique Indian conception of the family is unfolded. It is shown how the rites of passage, the philosophical formulations, the environmental concepts, the pantheistic perceptions of the vast body of oral traditions in India, are in sync with the metaphysical tradition in Western poetry and the scientific theory of patterns pervading the universe. It discusses the many dimensional concept of Indian family as a way out of the breakdown of the family all over the world and out of the consequent anomie and collapse of values and sanity among human beings. The article provides a conspectus for human survival.

Sanjai Bhatt

Indian Economic & Social History Review

Thomas Trautmann

Swastika Chakravorty

Family has always been an important unit of analysis in an effort to improve and understand human development. Studying the changes in the institution of family and households keeping in view the demographic, social, and economic transitions also becomes imperative. So far, in our knowledge, there are very few studies based in India have investigated the household size and family formation patterns, while a few of them have looked into its possible causes or associations and demographic, economic, and social repercussions. In particular, as per our knowledge, there is no evidence on who is losing and who is gaining among family members due to the unprecedented transition in family forms in India. This paper serves a twofold purpose as first it seeks to explore and enrich the field of family demography in India by studying the existing evidence in the field as well as allied fields to understand how family serves as the nuclei directing individuals and communities toward certain beha...

Aparajita Chowdhury

Family is the basic unit of society because of the role it plays in generation of human capital resources and the power that is vested in it to influence individual and society in general. Within the family, gender and age strongly influences the everyday life experiences and relationships in different stages of life. The developmental processes of family " s emphasis on gender and generational relations are important reference points of understanding family life in terms of: gender system prevailing within family; processes of transition to adulthood; gender, parenthood and work; intergenerational family relations, obligations and care relations; and the role of grandparents. This paper critically analyse the issue of gender, generations and family violence within the Indian socio-cultural context for better understanding and preparing the families for challenges of the modern day society.

Jharkhand Journal of Development and Management Studies

Anant Kumar

This commentary is an attempt to understand the changing family dynamics, its structure, values, rising individualism, and its impact leading to abuse and neglect of parents in India. It discusses the adjustment challenges faced by the parents and other family members. It also highlights and analyses the transition taking place within families from the social and psychological perspectives and their consequences on individuals and society. The paper argues for a comprehensive State Policy for the parents and their wellbeing.

Loading Preview

Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.

RELATED PAPERS

tanya chugh

Parul Bhandari , Fritzi-Marie Titzmann

RAHUL KUMAR SINGH

prashant vaidande

Contemporary South Asia

Sunil Khanna

Studia Orientalia

Minna Säävälä

Parul Bhandari

Eleanor Newbigin

isara solutions

International Research Journal Commerce arts science

IOSR Journals

Journal of emerging technologies and innovative research

Manash P R O T I M Neog

Karthick K K

Shalini Grover

Ashenii Khumai

Contributions To Indian Sociology

penny vera-sanso

Gokul Varma

Family Relations

Frank Furstenberg

Independent Journal of Management & Production

History Compass

Leigh Denault

Rajni Palriwala

pooja prashar

Recent Trends in Law and Policy Making

Vidhya Prasanth , Chinnasami S , Dr. Ramachandran Manickam

Journal of Marriage and Family

ann cottrell

Pooja Kumra

RELATED TOPICS

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

Guest Essay

Thailand’s Royal Spell Has Been Broken

By Pavin Chachavalpongpun

Mr. Chachavalpongpun is a professor of Thai politics.

On the surface, Thailand appears to be stuck in a never-ending cycle.

Elections are held in which voters voice increasingly clear demands for change, only for those to be denied by the royalist old guard that has dominated my country for generations. Each of the past several elections, going back to 2005, has resulted in the winning party being denied its right to form a government or overthrown in a military coup or otherwise removed from office.

So when Thailand’s Constitutional Court last week ordered the dissolution of the country’s most popular political party — the pro-reform Move Forward Party, which won last year’s national election on a platform of curbing royal prerogatives — it seemed like the latest chapter in a normalized process of political stagnation.

But in reality what we are seeing is the beginning of the end for the Thai royalty’s once-commanding hold over its subjects, which could mean great change ahead for a traditional kingdom at the center of Southeast Asia.

The court decision is not a sign of the strength of the conservative establishment but of its weakness, a last-gasp attempt by the old guard to cling to an outdated status quo despite demands for change by millions of politically literate young Thais.

The Move Forward Party called for several reforms in the run-up to last year’s vote, including a reduction in the entrenched political power of the Thai military, the ruling establishment’s frequent enabler, which has ousted elected governments in several coups over the years. But the party’s main objective was the reform of Thailand’s lèse-majesté laws. Enshrined as Article 112 of the country’s criminal code, they make it a crime to defame certain members of the royal family and are intended to protect the throne’s prerogatives. Many Thais have come to view them as an anachronistic impediment to Thailand’s development as a modern, democratic nation — and a major factor behind its persistent political instability.

Move Forward won the most seats of any party in the May 2023 elections, posing a dire threat to the crown. The conservative establishment, which is centered on the throne and the army, maneuvered to form a government that froze Move Forward out of power. Last week’s court decision was the final blow: The party, which had been accused of violating the Constitution with its call for lèse-majesté reform, was dissolved, and key members, including its leader, Pita Limjaroenrat, were barred from politics for 10 years. Thailand is essentially back where it started in 2020, when the same court dissolved Move Forward’s predecessor, the Future Forward Party , after it also achieved a strong election showing on reform demands. Thousands of Thais took to the streets of Bangkok to protest that decision.

We are having trouble retrieving the article content.

Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and  log into  your Times account, or  subscribe  for all of The Times.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access.

Already a subscriber?  Log in .

Want all of The Times?  Subscribe .