THE NATURE 0E THE FAMILYPRQIECTEDV. . 3 5 . BY THE HOME Ecouemzcs PROFESSION " ' AS EVIDENCED THROUGH EXAMINATION Ff OF THE AMERICAN HOME ECONOMICS. ASSOCIATION LITERATURE ' Thesis for the Degree of Ph. DI MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY TITAN IRENE QUILLING l 9 7,0 IIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII NW 346 8561 LIBRARY "* * Michigan Stab ' ‘ Univmity ,_~" This is to certify that the thesis entitled THE NATURE OF THE FAMILY PROJECTED BY THE HOME ECONOMICS PROFESSION AS EVIDENCED THROUGH EXAMINATION OF THE AMERICAN HOME ECONOMICS ASSOCIATION LITERATURE presented by Joan Irene Quilling has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph. D. degree in Education Date June 8 . 1970 0-169 IINDING BY . HUIG & SDNS' . ”w pmnW “In ABSTRACT THE NATURE OF THE FAMILY PROJECTED BY THE HOME ECONOMICS PROFESSION AS EVIDENCED THROUGH EXAMINATION OF THE AMERICAN HOME ECONOMICS ASSOCIATION LITERATURE BY Joan Irene Quilling Philosophy builds bridges from the unknown to the known. It produces an awareness of what we are about, moves a field or discipline from incoherence to coherence or from subjectivity to objectivity. For these reasons, philosophy is coincidental to any area of study. Home eco- nomics' philosophy has evolved from a knowledge system which is composed of many subsystems or conceptual schemes. They are directed toward one all encompassing concept--the family: home economics attempts to educate individuals to live effective family lives. To be proficient, teachers of home economics knowledge and skills must understand the nature of their field. Failure in this respect prevents the educator from sorting out the important from the triv- ial or designing learning experiences which help students understand the nature of the subject matter. To overcome the field's present philosophical deficits, the professional a.‘ Joan Irene Quilling needs to be concerned with the meaning, use or functional- ism of his expressions--home economics requires language awareness. An appreciation of verbal expression reveals the knowledge c0mmunicated through language and the struc- ture ofsuch conceptual knowledge. Explicit conceptual schemes become comprehensible and/or coherent. Home eco- nomics' conceptual usage determines the limits of its edu- cational development. The family is one of the concepts around which the field has built a structure of knowledge and theory. It provided the focal point for this study because: (1) the educational sector of the field attempts to work with and through individuals to strengthen fami-. lies; (2)-the concept is central to the field's activities; and (3) a gap is apparent in the literature relative to a critical examination of the field's focus. Home economics draws its knowledge and theory, for the most part, from the surrounding disciplines. Three recognized as possible contributors from the field's in- ception were anthropology, sociology and psychology. By examining the discipline's use of the concept "family," the field's influencers are revealed and its directional tendencies made evident. Consistently raised questions concerning families were singled out and studied for the disciplines' and home economics' responses. The study revealed how each area has used the term in its research and literature. By responding to questions of general Joan Irene Quilling concern, home economics builds a systematic set of answers to basic philosophical questions--thus developing its own philosophy. Books labeled by the disciplines as of concern to families and written between the years 1958 and 1969 were used for the study. Since home economics' most recent tentative statement of philosophy and objectives reached completion in 1958, that year was selected as the starting point for the analysis. Also, the study was concerned with present as opposed to historical statements. The field's responses to the general questions were examined through the American Home Economics Association's journals and literature. Since the Association is the official voice for the profession, represents the total field and provides continuity of thought through its journals, it was the most applicable source for recent thought. After each of the disciplines and home economics responded to the questions, the field's replies were sub- mitted to a critical analysis using theories from ordinary language philosophy and conceptual analysis. This approach is based on the theory that if conceptual usage is clari- fied, arguments relative to philosophical direction can be explained and expunged. To facilitate the analysis, a framework was designed based on the tenets of the philo- sophy of language. Home economics' statements were then subjected to an examination using the framework. The analysis clarified: (l) the field's use of the concept .I. .'1 bu Joan Irene Quilling "family" between the years 1958 and 1969; (2) the profes- sion's status with regard to the term; (3) the gaps and areas of depth relative to its use; and (4) the directions for further study. The American Home Economics ASSOCiation's use of the term family revealed the following characteristics: -The Association's use of the term is largely influenced by sociology's knowledge and theory. Although home eco- nomics claims to draw its materials from a variety of disciplines, the bulk came from sociology. -The Association's use of the concept "family" is based in sociology's institutional approach. Other conceptual schemes have beensuggested but the former predominates in the literature and guides much of the field's research in combination with the developmental approach. -The Association suggests that home economics can strengthen families by moving them from a life style characterized as independent, self contained, and self sufficient to one which is interdependent, more open to cultural influence and socially supported. -The Association maintains that home economics attempts to train individuals who will build families that have the following characteristic life style: They are primarily middle class, stable, unified, responsible to society, healthy, normal, their needs relative to food, clothing and shelter are adequately met, they strive to improve up! Joan Irene Quilling their life style, and they promote the culture's political ideology. -The Association's use of the term is enclosed within specified boundaries and based on distinct values which guide and limit the comprehensiveness of home economics' conceptual frameworks. Implications drawn from the study suggest that: (l) conceptual analysis can clarify home economic's philo- sophical statements; (2) conceptual analysis is a necessity if the field is to achieve a penetrating, comprehensive, and flexible philosophy; and (3) home economics has skele- ton conceptual frameworks which could be amplified and made relevant for the field. THE NATURE OF THE FAMILY PROJECTED BY THE HOME ECONOMICS PROFESSION AS EVIDENCED THROUGH EXAMINATION OF THE AMERICAN HOME ECONOMICS ASSOCIATION LITERATURE BY Joan Irene Quilling A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Secondary Education and Curriculum 1970 G.— @5976) / - c.30- 7/ ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The writer would like to express sincere appreci- ation to Dr. Twyla Shear who provided the opportunity for her student to study home economics' philOSOphy, Dr. Marjorie Brown for lending assistance in clarifying philo- sophical problems, Drs. Dale Alam, Mary Gephart, and Norma Bobbitt for their helpful criticisms and constructive com— ments during the course of the study, and Dr. Marvin Grandstaff, guidance committee chairman and thesis director, who willingly helped a neophyte philosopher explore ideas, crystallize her thoughts, and without whose patience and support this dissertation could not have been completed. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter Page H I 0 INTRODUCTION 0 O O O C C C O O O 0 Background and Problem for Study. . . . 1 Significance of the Problem . . . . . 3 The Concept "Family"--A Focus for Study . 5 Approach to be Used . . . . . . . . 6 Selection of the Major Sources . . . 8 Model for Inquiry Into the Disciplines.‘ . ll Objectives of the Analysis. . . . . . 16 Limitations of the Study . . . . . . 17 II. ANTHROPOLOGY'S REPLIES TO QUESTIONS DEALING WITH THE CONCEPT "FAMILY". . . . . . . 20 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . 20 Is the Family Viewed as an Appropriate Area of Study for the Field? . . . 21 What Goals Are to be Achieved by the Field in Working With and Through the Family? . . . . . . . . . 24 How Relevant is the Family to the Social Order as Viewed by the Field? What is the Family's Relation to the Social Order? . . . . . . . . 26 How Relevant is the Family to the Social Order as Viewed by the Field? Is the Family Still a Strong Part of SOCietY? O O I O O I O O O I 3 0 The Family--A Weak Link in Society. . 30 The Family-~A Strong Societal Link. . 31 What Does the Field Conceive as Desir- able in the Family? . . . . 34 What Questions Have Been Raised by the Field Relative to the Family? . . 41 iii Chapter How Does the Field Differ in Its Con- ception of the Family From That Concept of the Family Held by Other Disciplines From Which It Draws Its Knowledge? . . . . . . . . What Does the Field Predict for the Family's Future? . . . . . What Is the Definition of the Family As Presented in the Literature of the FiGld? o o o o o o o 9 c o 0 III. SOCIOLOGY'S REPLIES TO QUESTIONS DEALING WITH THE CONCEPT "FAMILY" . . . . . . . Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . Is the Family Viewed as an Appropriate Area of Study for the Field? . . . . What Goals Are to be Achieved by the Field in Working With and Through the Family? . . . . . . . . . . How Relevant is the Family to the Social Order as Viewed by the Field? What is the Family's Relation to the Social Order? . . . . . . . . . . . How Relevant is the Family to the Social Order as Viewed by the Field? Is the Family Still a Strong Part of Society? The Family--A Strong Part of Society. . . . . . . . The Family--A Weak Part of Society . What Does the Field Conceive as Desirable in the Family? . . . . . . . . What Questions Have Been Raised by the Field Relative to the Family?. . . . How Does the Field Differ in its Con- ception of the Family from that Concept of the Family Held by Other Disciplines from Which it Draws its Knowledge? . . What Does the Field Predict for the Family' 8 Future? . . . . . . What is the Definition of the Family as Presented in the Literature of the Field? . . . . . . . \. . . . iv Page 43 46 49 53 53 S3 56 61 64 65 68 7O 79 81 84 93 Chapter IV. PSYCHOLOGY'S REPLIES TO QUESTIONS DEALING WITH THE CONCEPT "FAMILY" . . . . . . . Introduction. . . . . . . . ‘. . . Is the Family Viewed as an Appropriate Area of Study for the Field? . . . . What Goals Are to be Achieved by the Field in Working With and Through the Family? . . . . . . . . . . How Relevant is the Family to the Social Order as Viewed by the Field? What is the Family's Relation to the Social Order? . . . . . . . . . . . How Relevant is the Family to the Social Order as Viewed by the Field? Is the Family Still a Strong Part of Society?. What Does the Field Conceive as Desirable in the Family?. . . . . . . . . What Questions Have Been Raised by the Field Relative to the Family?. . . . How Does the Field Differ in its Con- ception of the Family from that Concept of the Family Held by Other Disciplines from Which it Draws Its Knowledge? . . What Does the Field Predict for the Family' 3 Future? . . . . . . . What is the Definition of the Family as Presented in the Literature of the Field? . . . . . . . . . . . ‘V. HOME ECONOMICS' REPLIES TO QUESTIONS DEALING WITH THE CONCEPT "FAMILY" . . . . . . . Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . Is the Family Viewed as an Appropriate Area of Study for the Field? . . . . What Goals Are to be Achieved by the Field in Working With and Through the Family? . . . . . . . . . . . How Relevant is the Family to the Social Order as Viewed by the Field? What is the Family's Relation to the Social Order? . . . . . . . . . . How Relevant is the Family to the Social Order as Viewed by the Field? Is the Family Still a Strong Part of Society?. What Does the Field Conceive as Desirable in the Family?. . . . . . . . . Page 101 101 102 105 109 112 116 124 127 130 133 137 137 138 141 150 153 156 Chapter What Questions Have Been Raised by the Field Relative to the Family? . . . How Does the Field Differ in its Con- ception of the Family from that Con- cept of the Family Held by Other Disciplines from Which it Draws its Knowledge? . . . . . . . . . What Does the Field Predict for the Family's Future? . . . . . . . What is the Definition of the Family as Presented in the Literature of the Field? . . . . . . . . . \K[. A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF THE ASSOCIATION'S CONCEPTUALIZATION OF THE "FAMILY" AND THE IMPLICATIONS FROM THE CONCEPTUALIZATION. . Introduction . . . . . . . . . . Is the Family Viewed as an Appropriate Area of Study for the Field? . . . Philosophical Implication(s) . . . What Goals Are to be Achieved by the Field in Working With and Through the Family? . . . . . . . . . Philosophical Implication(s) . . . How Relevant is the Family to the Social Order as Viewed by the Field? What is the Family's Relation to the Social Order? . . . . . . . . Philosophical Implication(s) . . . How Relevant is the Family to the Social Order as Viewed by the Field? Is the Family Still a Strong Part of Society? . . . . . . . . . . Philosophical Implication(s) . . . vi Page 165 171 176 181 186 186 188 194 195 203 203 209 209 216 Chapter What Does the Field Conceive as Desirable in the Family? Philosophical Implication(s) . . . . What Questions Have Been Raised by the Field Relative to the Family?. . . . PhilOSOphical Implication(s) . . . . What Does the Field Predict for the Family's Future? . Philosophical Implication(s) . . . . What is the Definition of the Family as Presented in the Literature of the Field? Philosophical Implication(s) . . . . Overall Implications Drawn from the VII. Summary Context. Reality. Adaptability Alternatives Educational Implicatio SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS n S Field's Conceptualization Directions for Further Study BIBLIOGRAPHY. APPENDICES Appendix A. QWWUOU‘J vii of the Family Page 217 227 227 234 235 242 242 252 252 254 254 258 258 260 262 263 265 268 286 287 289 292 296 299 303 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Background and Problem for Study The field of home economics views as its purpose: ". . . service primarily concerned with strengthening family life. . . . "1 During June, 1958, the most recent tentative statement of home economics philosophy and ob- jectives was prepared for review by the American Home Economics Association Committee on Philosophy and Objec- tives. The Committee's purpose was to determine "whether home economics is yet making the potential contribution envisioned for it by its founders."2 The tentative state- ment resulted in the final booklet: Home Economics New Directions published by the Association in June, 1959.3 1American Home Economics Association Committee on Philosophy and Objectives of Home Economics, New Directions (Washington: American Home Economics Association, 1959), p.4n 2American Home Economics Association Committee on NHJOSOphy and Objectives of Home Economics, "Tentative Statement of the PhiloSOphy and Objectives of Home Eco- mmucs" (Washington: American Home Economics Association, 1353), p. 1. (Mimeographed.) 3New Directions, Op. cit., pp. 4-14. As a field, home economics works through a variety of agencies such as schools, business concerns, social welfare programs, et al., to achieve its goals. In sum, education provides the field with one port of entry to individuals in families. The Association4 firmly supports the belief that education can strengthen and improve family life. But, as Smith points out: It has long been recognized, at least theoretically, that it is important for the teacher to understand the structure of the discipline he teaches. Without such an understanding, how can he judge what is im- portant as against what is trivial? Without such understanding, how can he judge what sort of pre- paratory exercises are necessary for students to grasp what he is trying to teach?5 The advent of the seventies brings an urgency to determine the fundamental concepts upon which the field of home economics is based. Neglecting such examinations can only breed vague and ill-defined theoretical foundations which in turn lead to incoherence among the field's practicing professionals. Both Brown and Chadderdon have noted that home economics is lacking critical analysis and formulation of theoretical bases leading to a firm foundation for growth 4The term Association is used in the remainder of the study and refers to the American Home Economics Associ— ation. 5Philip G. Smith, PhiloSOphy of Education (New York: Harper and Row, 1965), p.4145. towards identifiable objectives.6 A firm foundation, then, cannot be built on a continuing lack of research into con- cepts undergirding home economics. Examination of the field's concepts presents a wide variety to choose from; to examine all would be an impossible task for one study. Since the field's goals center around strengthening family life, the concept "family" has been selected as the start— ing point leading to a critical analysis and search for its use by the field. Significance of the Problem Examination of a conceptual block forming the base for a field of action (home economics in this case) falls within the realm of philOSOphical analysis. Such scrutiny, Randall suggests, examines "the nature, methods, procedures and foundations of all human reflection--the latter con- sisting in the institutions of art, science, religion, and 7 ordinary social communication." It concerns clarification, criticism, and definitions.8 Smith adds that a philosophy 6Marjorie Brown, "The Need for Philosophical Study of Home Economics" (East Lansing: Michigan State Univer- sity, 1967), p. l. (Mimeographed.); Hester Chadderdon and Alyce M. Fanslow, Review and Synthesis of Research in Home Economics EducationIICqumbus: The Center for Résearch ana Development In Vocational and Technical Education, The Ohio State University, August, 1966), p. 1. 7To this series, the writer would add the family. 8John Herman Randall, Jr., and Justus Buchler, Philosophy: An Introduction (New York: Barnes and Noble, Inc., 1966), p. 41. nu ..., n ni- la- n.. ugh ‘- A" of this nature involves prOposals for action which, if lacking, develOp a scheme wherein understanding and order- ing are absent. The field is forced to remain at its most simplistic level along with its practicing professionals. Only through a "systematic conceptual scheme" can one subject "conflicting prOposals . . . to orderly inquiry and adjudication."9 These thoughts form the foundation for this thesis which strives to develop an orderly model for analyzing the conceptualization of families held by four distinct areas of study concerned with this societal phe- nomenon. Such a scheme was aptly supported by Smith when he explained that philosophical analysis provides a compre- hensiveness of thought furnishing an arrangement for our beliefs forming some coherent whole. Further, philOSOphical thinking provides three characteristic advantages for an analytical study: (1) comprehensiveness of outlook: the press of the immediate and particular is resisted; (2) penetration: a feature helping to alleviate vague doubts and assisting in the formulation of specific questions revealing what is fundamental in a situation; and (3) flexibility of thinking: flexibility provides a wide degree of procedural and behavioral tools leading to effective or successful living.10 98mith' OE. Cit. ' pp. 64-650 loIbid., pp. 4, 10-12. Home economics cannot achieve clarity of thought or direction nor comprehensiveness of outlook, penetration, or flexibility until it begins to critically analyze the conceptualizations it holds--one of which is the family. The Concept "Family"--A Focus For Study Home economics along with such other disciplines as sociology, history, and psychology has singled out the family as an object of study. This concept provides a point towards which disciplines direct thought and action, achieve objectives concerning the concept, and consolidate viewpoints contributing to a distinct body of theory. Underlying this study is the assumption that the family has been a consistent area of focus for the field. Re- cently a number of educators from home economics, vo- cational education, and higher education have restated the 11 importance of the family for the field. Blind adherence to the view that the family is important, however, does not achieve the goal of strengthening family life. Brown emphasized this fact by stating: . . . the presuppositions or beliefs upon which a field rests must be made explicit since they comprise the premises leading to the conclusion that intensive study with the focus identified is justifiable. Not only must the presuppositions be made explicit but they must be examined for their defensibility and for the validity of the argument presented.12 11Refer to Appendix A. 12Brown, op. cit., p. 4. Thus, the concept "family" as a major focus for study was selected for three reasons: (1) the educational sector of the field attempts to work with and through individuals to strengthen family life; (2) "family" is one of the central concepts upon which the field is based; and (3) a gap exists in the literature relative to the critical exami— nation of the field's focus. Approach to be Used Home economics is compelled to find the use it assigns to the concept "family." This term alone forms the foundation for the thesis. How it was used in each of the four areas (anthr0pology, sociology, psychology, and home economics) was the study's central concern; profes— sional home economists lacking such an assessment will be steering a rudderless ship. The course of the field's future is grounded in the suppositions of the present. Philosophical analysis can help home economics determine its direction and actions; the question is how? PhilosoPhy, like home economics, is an emerging field of inquiry. Randall notes that each age has organized experiences in different ways and it must be redone for each age.13 That it is not a separate entity unto itself in this instance is clear, for it serves as the base from which any field or discipline determines its direction. Barnett summarized l3Randall, 0p. cit., p. 25. the contribution philoSOphy could make to any field of inqury when he said: Traditionally, philosophy has sought to define the nature of the good life. Today, the quest for wisdom has in large part been superseded by the quest for clarity.1 Thus, the task of the philOSOpher is not to develop a body of prepositions but to clarify propositions.14 The search for clarity confronts the philosopher with language, one means of communication among men. As Henle says, "Our linguistic utterances, then, . . . reveal us, not only to others, but to ourselves; they are stages on the way to self knowledge."ls Caton suggests further: "If I know the meaning of a word or phrase I know something like a body of unwritten rules, or something like an un— 16 written code or general recipe." Wilson, in two of his references reinforces the importance of language as a source for clarifying thought: Words enable us to achieve this [understanding] pur- pose for one all important reason. They 3gp 33 signs. A sign is something which conveys meaning and can be interpreted. l4George Barnett, ed., Philosophy and Educational Egyelopment (Boston: Houghton MIfflin Company, 1966), P. xiii. ‘Footnote entry (1) appears in the original text and refers to the author's comment: "Or if philOSOphy is Still the love of wisdom, it is wisdom of another kind, to be found in a different place, through the use of different Imethods." lsPaul Henle, ed., Langpage Thou ht Culture (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 19 6), p. I64. 16Charles E. Caton, ed., Philosophy and Ordinary Lari ua e (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1963), P0 . It is our agreement about its use, not the sign itself which enables us to communicate. The significance of any sign, therefore, depends on the context in which it is used. Elaborating additionally, Wilson stresses that questions of concept must be isolated and given priority in order to understand and contribute to decisions pertinent to the concept.18 Selection of the Major Sources Home economics draws a portion of its knowledge from existing disciplines. Massey suggested that "soci- ology, economics, art, psychology, history, philosophy, literature, anthrOpology, chemistry, physics, bacteriology . . . " represent a few of the contributors to the field.19 Dressel added to this thought by stating: A vocational field may develop its own concepts, principles, and values, but to a large extent these are dependent upon, emergent from, and adaptations of those arising in the basic fields of knowledge upon which the profession depends. 17John Wilson, Language and the Pursuit of Truth (Cambridge: The Univers1ty Press, I967), pp. I3, 14, 16. 18John Wilson, Thinking with Concepts (Cambridge: The University Press, 1967), p. 24. 19Lelia Massey, "Home Economics Faces Change," Illinois Teacher, XI (Winter, 1967-1968), 207. 20Paul L. Dressel, "The Role of Concepts in Planning the Home Economics Curriculum," Home Economics Seminar (French Lick, Indiana, July 24-28, 196T), p. 16. Drawing the concept "family" from other disciplines requires an examination of the conceptual framework that a discipline gives to the term. To borrow a term wholesale from another discipline without thorough examination could easily lead to its ambiguous use in the field's publi- cations and research, in turn contributing to a blurring of directional focus. Yet, examination of all the contri- butors to the field is beyond the sc0pe of one thesis; therefore, a selection was made based on previous historical analysis in the field. A study done in 1957 by Budewig examined the field's origin and growth attempting to determine its purpose and function. From this study, three disciplines were identi- fied as contributing to the home economics movement. Originally, because of the field's sociological impli- cations, home economics received the Dewey Decimal classi- 21 Further, at the ninth Lake Placid fication of 339. Conference, psychological and anthrOpological influences were identified and discussed. Neither psychology nor anthrOpology were as yet designated as formal disciplines 21Caroline F. Budewig, "Origin and Development of the Home Economics Idea" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, The University of Minnesota, St. Paul, August, 1957), Po 210, citing Lake Placid Conference on Home Economics, PrOceedin s of the First, Second and Third Conferences (New YorE: LaEe Placid Conferences, September 19-23, 1899 to June 28-July 5, 1901), p. 7. 10 since they were too new and emerging.22 These three disciplines have grown to a considerable extent since 1907 along with their contributions to home economics. Home economics, too, has develOped a considerable body of liter- ature since that time. The three disciplines (anthropology, sociology, and psychology) plus home economics provided the four areas examined for their use of the concept "family." Since the American Home Economics Association Committee on PhilOSOphy and Objectives reviewed the past fifty years of home eco- nomics in 1958 and found that the "basic tenets of the founders still apply . . . ," 1958 was selected as the starting point for the analysis.23 Examination was con— fined to books24 in three disciplines dealing with the family, published between the years 1958 and 1969, and available for examination in the library at Michigan State University. The study's purpose was not to exhaust the literature in these areas. Instead, the brief summari- zations of prevalent positions were used to determine the n.— 22Ibid., p. 232, citing Lake Placid Conference on Ikme Economics, Proceedings of the Ninth Con erence (New Ybrk: Lake Placid Conference, 1907), ppiilS -S3. 23New Directions, op. cit., p. 3. 24Books rather than periodicals were selected for review because they presented a more concise summary of relevant points on the family. Also, the books were selected on the basis that they labeled themselves as being concerned with sociology, psychology or anthropology 0f the family. 11 general direction of the disciplines' influence on the field of home economics, not to specifically analyze each area's use of the concept "family." How home economics has used its own as well as the additional materials from the disciplines received the major emphasis. Model for Inquiry Into the Disciplines In beginning an analysis of the concept "family," one is faced with a generally vague term needing an organi- zational scheme. In addition, the three disciplines (anthropology, sociology, and psychology) present a unique problem because volumes of material are available; yet, no apparent order exists except that given by each writer within his own particular work. Analysis of these materials requires developing a plan for traversing the disciplines' mazes unhampered by endless points of view selected be- cause of their relevance to families. The analysis began with the compilation of materials to be included in the study. On further inspection, topics appeared to fall into categories of interest (see Appen- dices C, D, and E); these in turn were examined to deter- mine the underlying purposes necessitating the selection 0i topics. In other words, what was the discipline gener— ally attempting to accomplish by collecting data pertinent to a particular tOpic. The proposed accomplishments were summarized and phrased as questions of direct concern to allthe disciplines included in the study. A question 12 such as—-How has Freud directly influenced the field?-- would have psychology as its major source; however, not all of the disciplines dealt with this theme. Conse- quently, it was not used as a specific question guiding the study. The framework, then, was based on the premises that all the areas were concerned with these t0pics, that these appear to be problems to which answers are sought by each discipline and for which facts and theories have been forwarded. Seeking answers to these questions will ulti- mately contribute to theory building in the field of home economics because the field borrows from these disciplines; what is of concern to them is of concern to the field. Smith advocated a similar action when he suggested that to develop a systematic set of answers to basic philoSOphical 25 questions is to develOp a philosophy. The review culmi- nated in the following list which served as a guide for the literature review:26 1. Is the family viewed as an apprOpriate area of study for the field?27 25Smith, 0p. cit., p. 16. 26This list can by no means be construed as com- Plete. Further analysis will undoubtedly reveal even more que8tions than those included here, for phi1030phical examination is an endless process of questioning. 27Substitute anthr0pology, sociology, psychology, or home economics for the word field. l3 2. What goals are to be achieved by the field in working with and through the family? 3. How relevant is the family to the social order as viewed by the field? a. What is the family's relation to the social order? b. Is the family still a strong part of society? 4. What does the field conceive as desirable in the family? 5. What questions have been raised by the field relative to the family? 6. How does the field differ in its conception of the family from that concept of the family held by other disciplines from which it draws its knowledge? 7. What does the field predict for the family's future? 8. What is the definition of the family as pre— sented in the literature of the field? The Journal of Home Economics is officially desig- nated as the organ of the American Home Economics Associ— ation and as such provides a body of literature pertinent to the profession. The Association's journal provides a ready and significant source for examination of the use and application of the concept "family" because: (a) The 14 Association is viewed as providing continuity of thought through individual leadership; (b) the Association has been actively designated as the official voice for the profession of home economics; and (c) the Association represents the field rather than a particular segment. Home economics' journals and additional publi- cations furnished by the Association produced between January, 1958 and June, 1969 were reviewed. Articles selected and included in the study were based on the following criteria: the term family appeared in the title, the article was contributed by the family life or family economics department of a university, only articles as opposed to abstracts or reviews were selected,28 the article could represent a talk given before a family life oriented conference, or the preface to the article stated that its purpose involved families. At least one of these cmiteria was present in selecting the materials. Addi- tional publications from the Association were selected on the basis that the term family appeared in the title, and they'were published within the same time span as the jour- nals. To summarize: anthr0pology, sociology, psychology, and home economics provided the four areas analyzed to determine the use of the concept "family" (within the framework of questions) by each. \ 28This was necessary because short reviews could onlY‘give a general tendency as Opposed to a fuller ex- PLenetion of why statements were made in the body of an article. 15 In addition to answering the questions within the context of the four areas, home economics received further analysis using the following framework: The context within which the points about families were made: -Who said them -When were they said -Why were they said -What was the contextual source (home economics, sociology, anthrOpology, or psychology) The direction given to the material (type of statements made): -Exhorting to action -Presentation of theory -Collection of data for interpretation by the field -Presentation of imperatives or attitudes The continuity of the material: -Comprehensiveness of the areas dealt with rela- tive to the family -Variety of viewpoints held in a particular area of examination -Consistency, agreement, and disagreement of the material dealing with the family 16 Finally, the three disciplines and home economics were compared in order to: (a) point out similarities and differences; (b) identify gaps in the literature; and (c) determine consistencies and inconsistencies and where they exist.29 The examination helped to clarify to what extent the three disciplines have contributed to the field, the kinds of contributions they have made, and how home eco- nomics has used the information. Objectives of the Analysis The responses received to the questions in each cfi'the four areas, as well as the critical analysis of home emonomics literature, contribute to home economics edu- cmtiOn through: identification of the field's use of the cxmcept "family," determination of the present status of the profession regarding its position on the family, identification of gaps or areas of depth pertinent to the cxmcept "family," and direction for further study discerned through such an examination. Ultimately the latter four Contributions lend clarity, meaning, substance, and con— tribute to the body of theory in the field which will, in 29This framework was develOped and adapted by the writer for the study from the following references: Charles E. Caton, ed., Philoso h and Ordinary Lan ua e qubana: University of IIIino1s Press, 1963); PauI Henle, e§1.' Language Thou ht Cglture (Ann Arbor: University of ilchiganPress, 19 ; John Wilson, Language and the Pur- shlit.of Truth (Cambridge: The University Press, 1967?; JC’ n Wilson, Thinkin with Concepts (Cambridge: The Uni- versity Press, I967) . 17 turn, be put into action by the professional practitioners in home economics education. Limitations of the Study The study presents one attempt to clarify how the field of home economics has used the concept "family" for which it advocates support. Limitations in phiIOSOphical analysis are unavoidable due to the paucity of these kinds of materials in the field at this time. So little philo- SOphical research has been done that home economists have little to draw upon as a starting point. Additional limit— ing factors include: -The emphasis in the study was on the ideal30 of the concept "family" as opposed to the real or actual. -The selection of specific resources (according to the criteria develOped for the thesis)31 limits the range of the material used. a. Emphasis on recent materials pertinent to the family as opposed to historical developments presented a more specific, narrow framework. b. Articles, due to limited space in publi- cation, are more restricted in presenting 30What has been written does not always agree with what is practiced. 31Refer to pp. 10, 13-14. 18 topics in depth; books, on the other hand, provide a medium for elaborating with greater comprehensiveness. To compare the two may place articles at a distinct disadvantage in the last analysis, because publication limi- tations could necessitate omitting pertinent points or elaborations. —Other concepts may be equally as important to the field; this study, however, was concerned only with the concept "family." -The use of specific questions limited the scope of analysis. -No attempt was made to define the four areas. Materials were selected on the basis that they labeled themselves as belonging to a specific area of study.32 -The disciplines used have numerous interdependent links but the study attempted to examine each as though it were a separate and distinct entity. -No attempt to deve10p a philosophy for the field was made. The primary purpose of the study was to define a base from which further work could be done. 32Refer to Appendix B. 19 -No attempt at seeking right answers to the questions was made, rather, presentation of what was in the literature received primary focus. -The framework of analysis was limited and pre- sents only one approach of the number possible that could be used for analysis. -The framework developed for the study is subject to revaluation with the advent of new knowledge or development and revision of theories. Its purpose here was to provide for an orderly analysis which, in turn, could vary with the vieWpoint taken. CHAPTER II ANTHROPOLOGY'S REPLIES TO QUESTIONS DEALING WITH THE CONCEPT "FAMILY" Introduction Anthropology's replies to those questions con- sistently recurring in the literature of the three disci- plines (anthropology, sociology, and psychology) were the major concern of this section. A general examination of the selected materials concerning the concept "family" re- vealed a large body of research related to small isolated cultures. In the main, these studies contributed little towards the development of a global conception of the family, for emphasis was placed on a descriptive presen- tation of cultural status. These materials were deleted from the study for they made no application to Western or American families (a fuller explanation of this restriction appears in Appendix B). Instead, volumes indicating a relationship between cultures and presenting generalizations Pertinent to a wide variety of cultural situations were used for this portion of the thesis. The writer sought responses to each question through Eireview of the literature and selected from the wide 20 21 variety of materials presented on the family those state- ments which directly related to the questions. The re- sponses to the questions were distinctive for each area of study; replies were limited by degree of emphasis and the number of writers dealing with the questions. A brief summarization of the replies received follows. As the literature in the field was not totally exhausted, the sum- marizations are in no way complete. They do, however, pre- sent general tendencies for the discipline. Is the family viewed as an appropriate area of study for the field? Anthropology approaches the question via two routes: the needs of society and the needs of man. The former approach indicates that society's endorsement of families illustrates their worth. Schrecker upheld this approach when he said: An association established by the laws of nature--and an institution that supports, and to some degree is supported by, any civilization, sanctioned by religion, protected by the law, approved by knowledge and wisdom, in its best instances exalted by literature and art, invested with definite functions by any form of economy --the family is unquestionably an intrinsic element in human life. 1Paul Schrecker, "The Family: Conveyance of Tra- dition," in The Family: Its Function and Destiny, ed. by Ruth Nanda Anshen (New York: Harper and Brothers, Pub- lishers, 1959), p. 488, hereafter referred to as Family Function and Destiny. 22 Further, Anshen suggests that families provide for a good life because they are the hub of ethics and morality and transmit society's concept of the good.2 The family is important to society because it per- forms needed functions enabling cultural continuation. Elaborating on this point Nimkoff says: It has two essential functions which either cannot be transferred to, or are not performed so well by, other institutions or agencies. These functions are re ro- duction and socialization of very young children. Blisten, Mead, and Horkheimer suggest several more family functions which include: (1) sexual satisfaction; (2) psychological and physical security for all members; (3) protection and provision for adults while they work in other areas; (4) provision for a common heritage consist- ing of a common language; (5) social organization; (6) religion and political ideology; (7) and finally, the family prevents men from relapsing into barbarism as well as help- ing to develop individuals capable of responsibly managing O O O O O 4 complex affa1rs 1n democrat1c soc1et1es. 2Ruth Nanda Anshen, ed., "The Family in Tran- sition," in Family Function and Destiny, p. 4. 3M. F. Nimkoff, Comparative Family Systems (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1965), p. 362. 4Dorothy R. Blisten, The World of the Family (New York: Random House, 1963), p. 257; Margaret Mead and Ken Heyman, Family (New York: The MacMillan Company, 1965), p. 11; Max Horkheimer, "Authoritarianism and the Family," in Family Function and Destiny, p. 398. 23 In sum, the family is essential to society because: (a) if society supports the family, it must be important to it; (b) the family leads men to the good life by transmit- ting the desired morals and ethics of the culture; (c) the family performs essential functions for the society which are: reproduction, socialization of the young, sexual satisfaction, psychological and physical security; they ensure continuity of the social order, reduce man's bar- baric tendencies, fit individuals into highly complex social organizations, and transmit the political ideology of the regime. A second reason for supporting the family identi- fied by the discipline centers around the fact that socie- ties are made up of individual men; therefore, families will persist, according to Blisten, because they provide a specialized and distinct arrangement "best suited to meet some of the basic needs of mankind." Then too, family life appears to be a phenomenon of all human societies suggest- ing that "there are some universal human conditions that give rise to family organization, and that all families 5 provide for some universal human needs." Both Blisten and Linton feel that man's psychological needs are for affection, security, emotional response and expression, self esteem through regular access to people, provision for stability and predictability, and promise of a more 5Blisten, op. cit., pp. 277, X. nb‘. “v-1 ...,‘ ID'LQ u.. -A. u.,. 4 _ '9'. /,'.,~ 24 intimate relationship than can be achieved in the surround- ing society.6 These can best be supplied by the family. Society and man are the basic components which provide anthropology reason enough for supporting the concept "family" which acts as an intermediary between culture and man. The literature gives every indication that the family will continue to be a viable segment of any culture and as long as the family continues, the discipline will maintain interest in it. What goals are to be achieved by the field in work- ing with and through the family? The family's cultural materiality is of central concern to anthropologists be- cause, says Anshen, "The wish to strengthen the family is almost universal. . . . "7 This goal overarches the ways and means the discipline chooses to accomplish its task. Several procedures have been used and identified in the literature. One pointed out by Liebman included the exami- nation of the family's formation and development. Investi- gations in this realm illustrate historical continuity and forward proposals as to the origin of various family life styles.8 The research lends support to the hypothesis of 6Ibid., p. 13; Ralph Linton, "The Natural History of the Family," in Family Function and Destiny, p. 49. 7Anshen, Family Function and Destiny, p. 513. 'BSamual Liebman, ed., Emotional Forces 19 the Family (Philadelphia: J. B. LIppencott, Co., 1959): p. 1, hereafter referred to as Emotional Forces. 25 the general universal need for families. Another procedure for examining the family centered on the socialization pro- cess which clearly links individual family members to society. The family, in the act of carrying out society's ideals, subsequently provides the discipline with a small enough system to make intensive investigations, for Lewis says: Whole family studies bridge the gap between the con- ceptual extremes of the culture at one pole and of the individual at the other, making possible observation of both culture and personality as they are inter- related in real life.9 In the process of socializing individuals, the family feeds them into society which feeds them into familial relations through its support, thus creating a never ending cycle of cultural perpetuation. Anthropological research also assists in strengthen- ing the family through the comparative examination of other cultures. Studies of this type, according to Tomasson, Leslie, and Kenkel, help us to understand our own culture better, create an awareness of the widest range of solutions to human problems, and develop an appreciation of inter- cultural variability, objectivity, awareness, consequently lO enlarging general hypotheses. Through theory building 9Oscar Lewis, "Poverty as a Source of Lower-Class Subculture," in Comparative Perspectives on Marriage and the Family, ed. by H. Kent Geiger (Boston: Little Brown and Company, 1968), p. 215, hereafter referred to as Egg: parative Perspectives. 10Richard F. Tomasson, "Why Has American Fertility Been So High?," in Kinship and Family Organization, ed. by 9’- ~1- Us. I.- -n. I... .._ 'N ‘5. 26 the discipline broadens perspectives on the family. No longer is it a local isolated phenomenon; rather, the family becomes a universal general cultural arrangement in which all men in all societies prefer to live. Summarizing, the discipline ultimately seeks to strengthen families and does so by examining them histori~ cally, postulating theories of family development contri- buting to an understanding of how the American or Western family systems evolved, determining the relations between individuals and the society which are linked by the family, comparing family systems to determine the universal charac- teristics of all families, and developing a body of theory contributing to a better understanding of why man lives in families. How relevant is the family to the social order as viewed by the field? (What is the family's relation to the social order?) According to the anthropological litera- ture, the family relates to the social order in three ways: (a) it mirrors the society; (b) it is shaped by the society, for the most part; and (c) it socializes the individual to society. That which society upholds as important for its maintenance is mirrored in the family life style. Bernard Farber (New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1966), p. 335, hereafter referred to as Kinship; Gerald R. Leslie, The Family_in Social Context (New York: Oxford University Press, 1967), p. 4; William F. Kenkel, The Family in Per- spective (New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1966), p. 6. 27 Continuity of the society results when individuals raised in families can take a responsible place in the wider cul- ture. Societies, then, seek to shape families in order to preserve and maintain their structure. Linton and Zimmer- man point out that each family type is the result of a particular local evolution meeting the defined needs of that society and although the family is an imperishable institution, it incurs considerable modification by the societal structure.11 The family in our society is distinctively charac- terized by free choice and nonauthoritarian characteristics because, Benedict says, "It has become consistent with major emphases in our national life."12 The family pic- tured in an integral relationship to the society's economic structure receives the discipline's primary interest. The type of family as well as the relationship between couples is promoted through the economic interdependence with society. Nimkoff suggests that an industrial nation stresses the independent family system proliferating this particular type because: "A free economy grows in part by 13 proliferation of individual wants." Also, an industrial 11Linton, Family Function and Destiny, p. 33; Carle C. Zimmerman and Merle Frampton, "Theories of Frederic LePlay," in Kinship, p. 15. 12Ruth Benedict, "The Family: Genus Americanum," in Family Function and Destiny, p. 61. 13Nimkoff, op. cit., p. 63. «a. vv' ~10 I. ‘U u.- x '6. I _'_‘. ‘np 28 society promotes equality of the paired relations for, speculates Goode, the economy needs all possible skilled hands in order to meet the wants of individuals.14 A democratic society molds the familial system to its needs gradually; conversely, a dictatorship can, Nimkoff says, "undertake radical transformations in family policy in part because it has monopolistic control over the instru- ments of mass communication and mass socialization."15 Perpetuation of the society begins with the family for, Blisten says: Family experiences and the associations it engenders, lay the groundwork for the perpetuation of the status quo. They predispose individuals to remain attached to the social arrangement and beliefs to which they were introduced when young. That the family is solely dependent for its structure on the society is open to question. Nimkoff, for one, says: The family in a complex system is both an object and a source of change but a review of the literature shows that social scientists have paid considerably more attention to the family as the dependent than as the independent variable in social change. There are many books on the economic changes affecting the family but only a few dealing with the affects of the family 0 0 I 17 I on econom1c organizat1ons. Some d1sagreement as to 14William J. Goode, World Revolution and Family Patterns (New York: The Free Press, 1963). p. 20, here- after referred to as World Revolution. 15Nimkoff, op. cit., p. 55. 16Blisten, op. cit., p. 18. 17Nimkoff, op. cit., p. 34. 29 whether the family is an independent as well as dependent social institution exists among anthropologists and has not as yet been resolved due to the lack of research by the discipline in the former area. Finally, the family socializes its individual mem- bers to the cultural order. Although it cannot provide the fullest range of socialization experiences, it does fit the child into societal groupings and disciplines the child, Merton points out, "in terms of the cultural goals and mores characteristic of this narrow range of groups."18 Thus, the family provides a mirror for society in that it transmits those societal characteristics viewed as worthy of preservation; secondly, the family is shaped by the society for the most part, although some disagreement among anthropologists does exist. The family may strongly in- fluence the economic organization of the society but to date, this has been inadequately studied by the discipline. Society shapes the family type as well as family relation- ships; thus, it comes to amplify the political order and maintain society by postulating its ideals and inculcating individuals with them. Third, the family socializes each individual not alone but with society's assistance so that man has a diversity of social relationships consequently achieving social maturity. _ 18Robert K. Merton, "Social Structure and Anomie: Revisions and Extensions," in Family Function and Destiny, p. 309. 30 How relevant is the family to the social order as viewed by the field? (Is the family still a strong part of society?) A dichotomous reply was presented in the literature pertinent to this question: According to one view--the family is hopelessly weak; according to the other, it is performing much needed tasks and therefore will con- tinue ad infinitum. The family--a weak link in society. The family, although supported by the discipline, is sharply criticized by some anthropologists for its weakness and vulnerability. Proponents of this view assert that the family is totally dependent on society. Not only is it shaped by society's demands, according to Blisten, but its smallness in size reduces "the extent of control by families on the resources of a society and thus of individuals. . . . "19 Although the family is failing, it is needed by the society to perpetuate cultural ideals; hence, state and local govern- ments have had to assume responsibility by providing a variety of resources and services to prevent its extinction. Dfimkoff and Blisten pointed out this recent develOpment when they said: With the loss of cohesion in industrial society, and the growth of resources within government, the state takes over and elaborates services to the family. Since autonomous nuclear families have little con- trol over the society and material resources necessary to their maintenance, their efficiency in the 19Blisten, op. cit., p. 13. so. 4 ‘4. ‘1 [II p . 31 performance of family functions is far more dependent upon assistance from non-family sources than is that of corporate or extended families. Provision of family services is under suspicion by some anthropologists as further evidence of disruption rather than assistance, for kinship unity and aid is minimized or ignored. Not only is the family weak, totally dependent on society, and goaless, emphasizes Anshen, but it is also nihilistic and suffering from a lack of group cohesion.21 Further, the family will disintegrate completely as evi- denced by its continuing loss of functions, speculates Torres-Rioseco.22 The family--a strong societal link. In the main, the greater number of writers in anthropology present more material directed towards family strengths than weaknesses. Both Llewellyn and Mead agree that the family is a going concern in all cultures. The family is the oldest, most firmly grounded human institution. However great the changes may be in the proportion of the population that is married, in the age of marriage, or in the number of years people live within the family, whatever the size of the family may be, however much or little time members of the family may spend together, and whatever else they may zoNimkoff, op. cit., p. 57; Blisten, op. cit., p. 254. ZlAnshen, Family Function and Destiny, p. xvii. 22Arturo Torres-Rioseco, "The Family in Latin America," in Family Function and Destiny, p. 103. 32 do individually, apart from the others, still the family survives. The family is not weak nor totally dependent on the society. Queen stresses that one cannot truthfully say the family is disintegrating, rather that it "is no longer the social group which performs most of the functions necessary for 24 man's survival." Greenfield saw the family as a strong influence on society when he said: The prior existence of the small nuclear family as the basic kinship unit of the people who industrialized Great Britian and the United States may have been responsible for the very form of social organization that developed along with the machines.25 Men existing in any social arrangement exhibit the need for families. Attempts to eliminate it from the social order have not succeeded for long because, Mead says: Again and again, in spite of proposals for change and actual experiments, human societies have reaffirmed their dependence on the family as the basic unit of human living--the family of father, mother, and children. Although a society attempts to find ways of making the bond between mother and child more flexible, it has found no 26 substitute for the mothering relationship. Each family 23Karl N. Llewellyn, "Education and the Family," in Family Function and Destiny, p. 328; Mead, op. cit., p. 80. 24Stuart A. Queen, Robert W. Hubenstein, and John B. Adams, The Family in Various Cultures (Chicago: J. B. Lippencott Company, 1961), p. 490. 25Sidney M. Greenfield, "Industrialization and the Family in Sociological Theory," in Kinship, p. 417. 26Mead, op. cit., pp. 78, 18. 33 places the child in the society giving individuals the means for distinguishing between one another. This fea- ture is the principle of legitimacy (the child receives the parent's surname) and no culture exists that does not adhere to this principle. Also, families provide the foundation for building socially mature individuals and "no other arrangement," says Blisten, "has been found to work so well."27 The reduced size of the family, which has been viewed by some as an inherent weakness, is seen by Dennis and Blisten as increasing solidarity between partners. Not only is the small family best suited to the needs of its members and society, but through its smallness, it wields great power. [The family] exerts its influence on the abilities of its members to cooperate with their fellows; on their evaluations of the ethnic, religious and racial traits of the people they meet; on their potential preferences; on their tastes and goals. In addition, the family also controls and imposes limits on the biological needs of individuals thereby bringing order to society, and acts as society's agent in maintaining public health and hygiene.28 27Blisten, op. cit., p. 12. 28Norman Dennis, "Modern Society and the Popu- 1arity of Marriage," in Comparative Perspectives, p. 7; Blisten, op. cit., pp. 266, 8, 16. 34 A summarization of the replies received to the question of family strength presents two views: either the family is weak and will eventually disintegrate, or it is a vital, going concern of the society. The latter view has received the discipline's major emphasis. Points for maintaining that families are weak links in society in- clude: (1) they are wholly dependent on the society and must adapt to it; (2) families exert little power in modern societies; and (3) the proliferation of societal agencies developed to support families indicates their weakness. Conversely, the family has proponents indicating that it is still a strong part of society because: (1) it orders relations among individuals; (2) it provides for man's psychological needs; (3) it builds a socially mature individual; (4) it affects as well as is affected by the society; (5) it may have formed the base for our present social organization; and (6) the family is in tune with and performs functions for society. What does the field conceive as desirable in the family? The terms, "desirable in the family," appearing above refer to the discipline's conception of the ideal. This feature has received extensive study and several elements are identifiable: first, anthropologists agree that the custom of marriage, no matter what form the ceremony, establishes the family. Societies assume, according to Goode and Blisten, that almost all persons 35 should and do get married, and that marriage is valued as an end in itself giving each couple the opportunity to establish an autonomous family unit.29 A socially sanctioned ceremony, then, proclaims the founding of a new family to all of the society's members, and only this pro- cedure gives the family legality in society's eyes. Secondly, the societal configuration exerts in- fluence on the way marriages may be contracted: rules of mate selection may be tacit or verbalized and upheld by laws. Farber emphasized this when he said: Rules regarding mate selectiOn in a society are of crucial importance in determining the extent to which family culture will be preserved. Since the bride and groom must come from different domestic groups, marriage seems to be the point at which new norms and values can most readily enter into family culture.30 Anthropological research has delved into the characteristics of mate selection and developed several theories in con- junction with sociology. Boalt presented three which were: (1) the theory of homogamy: Husbands and wives select each other on the basis of similarity in background and inter- ests. Possible mates are found among current contacts, friends, working relationships, ethnic groups, and one's social position; (b) theory of heterogamy: Mates are 29William J. Goode, Jr., "Steady Dating, Imminent Marriage, and Remarriage," in Kinship, p. 202; Blisten, op. cit., pp. 46-47. 3oBernard Farber, "Family and Kinship," in Source- book in Marriage and the Family, ed. by Marvin B. Sussman IBoston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1968), p. 13, here- after referred to as Sourcebook. 36 selected from those exhibiting traits which one lacks. Couples differ markedly from one another and attraction may be sexual rather than social; and (3) theory of sum- mation: Partners select each other on the basis that the weakness in one partner is balanced by a strength in the other. This theory appears to hold good for homogenous groups.31 The validity of these theories has yet to be firmly established although they have received some experi- mental testing. Homogany, however, appears to be the most widely accepted concept governing mate selection leading. to greater stability in marital relations. Third, the ideal in marriage and family relation- ships has been comprehensively dealt with by the disci- pline. Western or American marital relationships are ex- pected to express a certain style to be viewed as success- ful. The style applies, however, primarily to the Western or American white, Protestant, urban middle class for it sets the tone for the whole of society. Characteristics include the increasing democratization of the martial relationship. Elder, in a cross cultural study, found that of the four cultures studied, Great Britain and the United States had the most democratic family life styles, while the families of Italy and Mexico exhibited fewer of 31Gunnar Boalt, Family and Marriage (New York: David McKay Company, Inc., 1965), pp. 27-28, 30. 37 these ideals.32 A "good" marriage will, according to Blisten, bring happiness to the individuals because the partner was selected on the basis of personal choice, the marriage is founded on love, sexual satisfaction is most rewarding in marriage, and family life is maintained for the personal satisfaction of its members.33 Other successful features commended by a number of authors include: (1) fidelity; (2) mutual purpose; (3) an exchange of mutual rewards; (4) the right to dissolve the marriage if personal satisfaction and happiness can no longer be achieved; (5) love and esteem; and (6) companion- ship. Ideals, however, are often difficult to achieve as well as being ill-defined. For example, the companionship and romantic characteristics so idolized in American cul- ture are, De Rougemont, Lowrie and Dennis suggest, features which can lead to fragile and even pathological disruption 34 Achieving the ideal appears to be of the relationship. difficult and its rewards open only to a selected group-- primarily the middle class. 32Glen H. Elder, Jr., "Role Relations, Sociocultural Environments, and Autocratic Family Ideology," in Kinship, p. 291. 33Blisten, op. cit., pp. 35-37. 34Denis DeRougemont, "The Crisis of the Modern Couple," in Family Function and Destiny, p. 462; Samuel H. Lowrie, "Early and Late Dating: Some Conditions Associated with Them," in Kinship, p. 198; Dennis, Comparative Per- spectives, pp. 8-9. 38 Fourth, marriage heralds the founding of a family and society, according to Mead and Thomasson, expects that children will be born to the new couple for they are neces- 35 Married adult individuals are sary to the good life. expected to perform as parents who will provide for the newborn that which the society views as the right of every individual. Mead feels that the parental goal in child rearing is to provide the setting where "serene happy children, . . . do not need to spend their lives making up for defects in their upbringing, . . . ."36 Benedek elaborated further when she said: "Actually, the parents' goal is achieved if the children become able to make in- dependent decisions and are free from conflict with them- "37 The goals of child rearing: selves and with society. then, work towards developing children who are happy, free from conflict, and secure in their ability to make deci- sions. One child is not enough because, Mead and Farber suggest, brothers and sisters help to shape a child's world. They are to be treated as equals in American society. From such treatment, equalitarian and companion- ate ideals are fostered and these characteristics are in 35Mead, op. cit., p. 78; Tomasson, Kinship, p. 332. 36Mead, op. cit., p. 83. . 37Therese Benedek, "The Emotional Structure of the Family," in Family Function and Destiny, p. 378. 39 turn the prominent goals in modern marriages.38 The treat- ment and setting the child receives and grows in influences the individual's future desire to repeat the family cycle lending continuity to societies. The fifth desired familial characteristic revolves around kinship relations. In our society, such relations are centered in small interlocking family units. Each individual marries, leaves his parents, and forms a family of his own. Although family generations are separated spatially, they are not totally divorced from communication with one another. Today's highly technical society pro- vides individuals with many means of contacting kin and maintaining family ties. Sussman and Farber stress that the kinship network today is supportive of the small con- jugal unit. The equality of kinship relations of both spouses is a positive feature, for studies have reported that children socialized to both parents' relatives fare better in society as a whole.39 Sussman and Mead posit that kin also perform the additional functions of assisting families in times of crisis, and helping young children 38Bernard Farber, "Kinship Laterality and the Emotionally Disturbed Child," in Kinship, p. 70. 39Marvin B. Sussman and Lee G. Burchinal, "Kin Family Network: Unheralded Structure in Current Con- ceptualizations of Family Functioning," in Sourcebook, p. 73; Farber, Kinship, p. 69. 40 cope with change.40 Finally, all societies, notes Blisten, 41 In no case are they provide for the elderly in some way. left to totally fend for themselves although the manner of care may vary greatly between cultures. The sixth and final desired characteristic42 of the family stressed by anthropologists, focuses on the need for adequate living arrangements. In Western socie- ties, a home for each family is accepted as the best way to live. Abrams theorizes that having a home has particular meaning for Americans in that it: (a) reflects the ego; (b) provides for expression of personal tastes; (c) pro- vides privacy; (d) provides a place of security and bol- stering emotions; and (e) serves as a center for family activities; to date, however, research in this area has been minimal. The formation of new families, then, is a primary cultural goal. PeOple are expected and should marry, relations between sexes are so ordered that each indi- vidual is encouraged to marry one most compatible with himself, individuals are to function as parents and pro- duce additional societal members who receive the benefit 4oMarvin B. Sussman and Lee G. Bruchinal, "Parental Aid to Married Children: Implications for Family Function- ing," in Kinship, p. 250; Mead, op. cit., p. 124. 41Blisten, op. cit., p. 8. 42The limits are only set by the literature and many more may be identified by the discipline in other materials. 41 of adequate nurturance and finally, families are to have living space separate from others: this feature heightens each member's individuality and contributes to the goals of individualism so desired in a democratic society. What questions have been raised by the field rela- tive to the family? Examination of the discipline's liter- ature indicates that questions have been raised within seven43 primary areas pertinent to the family. One question overarching all others deals with anthropology's purpose. Development of the discipline is a relatively recent phe- nomenon. At the time of the ninth Lake Placid Conference (1907) anthropology had yet to be identified as a formal 44 Since it is so new, anthropology's aims and discipline. goals remain only partially clarified; too, as new knowl- edge and theory develop, the goals of the discipline may undergo a transition. Basically, anthropology's purpose is to build a system for the comparative analysis of cultures determining global universals applicable to the family. To do so, the discipline has abstracted those elements in the society which seem to occur in all cultures and have 43Any numbering in this fashion is arbitrary and limited to the literature reviewed. The classification is the writer's own and open to examination and review. Its purpose was to provide an overview of those areas appearing in the literature. A list of the classifications appears in Appendix C. 44Budewig, op. cit., p. 232. 42 been institutionalized.45 Although families in cultures differ; yet, many features are the same. The latter assumption serves as the base for a wide number of general speculations concerning worldwide family development. The discipline has used historical methodology to examine family transition as well as postulate theories of origination. Such research provides a theoretical basis for family continuity and persistence over time in turn leading to its examination in a variety of cultures. Too, anthropology has approached the study of the family from a number of viewpoints and examined its structure, func- tions, interrelationships, patterns and so forth. These approaches are shared by sociology and psychology. A blending of the latter two with anthropology helps the discipline frame its universal conception of the family. In review, anthropology has been concerned with the following areas regarding the family: (1) the discipline's purpose in focusing on the family; (2) theories of family origin; (3) family universals; (4) families in varying cultures; (5) the family as an institution; (6) social and emotional influences on and within the family, and (7) ways and means of approaching family studies. Questions arising in these areas have to date been answered sketchily but - 45According to Leslie, op. cit., p. 5, the family is an institution of social norms which are rules of con- duct forming patterns and the character of the institution. 43 recognition of the gaps is becoming increasingly apparent in the literature. How does the field differ in its conception of the family from that concept of the family held by other disciplines from which it draws its knowledge? An exami- nation Of the replies received to those questions designed for the study exposed elements distinguishing one disci- pline from another. Divergence revealed a more composite picture of each discipline's conception of the family. Following the Model for Inquiry into the Disciplines,46 the first question asks whether anthropology views the family as an appropriate area for study. The discipline unconditionally endorses the family's worth for any cul- tural order. Its support is based on the premise that all men in all cultures have some universal human needs; the family fulfills these needs. For this reason, every cul- ture fosters families to ensure that its members willingly preserve and perpetuate the social order. Each culture shapes the family to its own particular needs. By meeting society's specific needs, the family contributes to the achievement of cultural goals. Achievement of cultural goals leads to the good as defined by the particular society. Thus, family studies expose cultural goals and reveal man's universal needs. 46Refer to page 11. 44 Anthropology's goal in studying the family is similar to that of sociology and psychology--namely, to strengthen the family. Through a comparative research of cultures, the discipline examines and discloses why fami- lies have existed over time. This type of research builds a foundation supporting the general universal need for families hypothesis. Building a case supporting the family's need, strengthens it. Sociology also uses the comparative approach but not to the degree and purpose that anthropology has. Its goal: discovering cultural universals concerning the family, sets anthropology apart from sociology and psychology. The discipline's concern with the family's relation to social orders is divided at present into two theoretical camps. The first argues that families are fused with society through their elasticity in submitting to change. If society alters, the family accepts the alteration and adapts as best it can to meet whatever demands are placed on it. The second viewpoint maintains that those anthro- pologists touting the family's dependency have had tunnel vision. Instead, the family is really an effecter as well as an affected part of society. Today's family life style may have caused the present modern or Western social order to develop in response to family needs. Neither of these views has received extensive verification, but rather, they have been used as self-evident premises by most anthro- pologists. 45 Since anthropology is a relatively new discipline and seeks directional foci, the question of purpose over- arches its interest in families. Cultures consist of various institutionalized elements. If these are studied and compared cross-culturally, a pattern of supporting evidence clarifying human behavior and man's universal needs emerges. The discipline's areas of interest vary little between sociology and psychology. However, its purpose is placed in the context of a larger world order rather than an intensive study of one or many similar cul- tures. Anthropology's view of families theorizes that they are a universal cultural phenomenon. At the present time, the nuclear concept of the family (consisting of father, mother, and children) predominates the discipline's re- search. Some effort has been directed toward establishing a more versatile definition replacing or supplementing the nuclear concept. To date, few of the discipline's resources have been directed toward this end. So, the nuclear con- cept prevails in the bulk of the literature and is applied internationally in cross-cultural family studies. Although some anthropologists doom the family to extinction, the majority agree that it will either continue to function in its present form or could in the future assume additional functions. Its power will lessen as cultures become increasingly atomized causing the family to specialize in a few selected cultural services. 46 Kinship bonds will continue to weaken. And, although the rapid changes affecting today's families are often thought to be detrimental, in reality a new core of family indi- vidualism is emerging that will be more capable of meeting man's universal needs. According to anthropology's use of the concept "family," two identifying features distinguish it from other social institutions. Together, these features con- tribute to a broad general configuration of modern or Western families. First, since the family has existed throughout history, its tenacity suggests that man is in- capable of managing without it. Secondly, the presently existing family life style (the nuclear family) is a pro- duct of social need. The family is molded to meet the social and human ends of a particular culture. The family as an institution characterized by longevity and adapta- bility over time distinguishes anthropology's use of the concept from sociology and psychology. What does the field predict for the family's future? Predictions about the family appear to only a limited degree in the literature of the discipline. Future projections were based on the continuing stability of Western or American societies and the family's present status. Because the family and society are inevitably intertwined, it will continue to provide specified functions contributing to the social order's maintenance. Blisten 47 feels that as Western ideals come to permeate the globe, fewer societies will exist where the family wields primary control.47 Society and families share a number of func- tions as well as each having its own sphere of activity. Nimkoff believes that as the family transfers its functions one by one to the social order, it assumes new ones. For example, socialization of the child will increasingly be appropriated by other institutions in the society; con- versely, families will assume greater responsibility for family planning, income management, marketing, and use of leisure time.48 In general, societal changes foster family transition; thus, families come to assume society's new features while its older functions are gradually displaced and assumed by other agencies. The marriage relationship, adds Nimkoff, will shift its emphasis from economic unity for survival to psycho- logical and sentimental considerations.49 Further trends suggested by Goode include: (1) increasingly permissive sexual behavior; (2) continued reduction in kinship in- fluences due to their lessening importance in inheritance transfers; (3) greater family mobility; (4) both partners increasingly contributing economically to the family as well as finding individual expression through an occupation 47Blisten, op. cit., p. 278. 48 49 Nimkoff, op. cit., p. 363. Ibid., p. 347. 48 outside the family; and (5) divorce becoming widely accepted as a means of dissolving a no longer satisfactory relation- ship.50 Children, though continuing to maintain an impor- tant place in the family, will receive their rewards more immediately through education, maintenance, and love. Finally, these new emerging family patterns, stresses Goode, offer a potentially greater fulfillment for indi- viduals even though few incorporate them into their per- sonal family patterns.51 Although few anthropologists have concerned them- selves with the family's future, those who do, hold an optimistic view. Increasingly the family will transfer its present functions to the wider society yet continue to assume new facets of responsibility; the marriage relationship will tend toward ever greater personal satis- faction with terminations of unsatisfactory relationships becoming the rule. Children will have their needs grati- fied more immediately in families. Each adult partner will have greater numbers of activities outside the family, and finally, these patterns will offer future couples the opportunity for greater satisfaction in family life for heightened individualism lies at their core. soGoode, World Revolution, pp. 37, 39, 53, 86. SlIbid., p. 380. 49 What is the definition of the family as presented in the literature of the field? Anthropology's definition of the family is composed of three elements: two are linked with the family's functions and structure; the third concerns the family's ideal continuity. Blisten and Hork- heimer see the overall functions of the family centering on man's biological orientation and society's economic structure.52 In each culture, families exhibit a structure peculiar to the society. Leslie summarizes three theories of family structure to explain how particular family life styles arise. First, the cyclical theory postulates that family life style changes recurr. As societies develop, families move from the trustee53a 53b 53c style, through the domes- tic, to become atomistic. The final type leads to the family's and society's decay; hence, the trustee family is again reinstituted to strengthen the social order. The second theory is progressivist viewing the family as a passive adjusting entity to social change. The reduction of family functions occurring in modern Western cultures places affectional and personality development foremost as family goals. 52Blisten, op. cit., p. 63; Horkheimer, Family Function and Destiny, p. 385. 53aLeslie, op. cit., pp. 248-48. Trustee family: individuals are subordinated to the needs of the family; bdomestic family: familiasm and individualism are in the balance; catomistic family: individualism is stressed above all else in the family. 50 Third, the structure-function theory assumes that the family is most closely integrated with the occupational system. It becomes the primary affecter for young men, in particular, leave their families at the point at which they enter an occupation, marriage and not kinship forms the keystone of the system, and the relationship is based on love. The latter two characteristics weaken the family's structure.54 Horkheimer, too, agrees that concomitant with modern family development and its loss of functions is the stress on the relationship which is now of primary concern: marriage has become synonomous with the family.55 Each of these theories has weaknesses as well as strengths and remains to be verified. Based on examination of Western cultures, anthro- pologists have conceptualized the family within a variety of social arrangements. Leslie, Nimkoff, Boalt, and Blisten discussed those concepts of family existent in present societies. They see the family as basically nuclear (a relatively modern life style), consisting of two adults and their respective children, found in highly industrialized societies, and meeting the needs of these 56 societies. Networks of kin are inconspicuous. S4Leslie, loc. cit. 55Horkheimer, Family Function and Destiny, p. 385. S6Leslie, op. cit., p. 13; Nimkoff, op. cit., p. 15; Boalt, op. cit., p. 14; Blisten, op. c1t., p. 254. 51 Deviations from the prevalent nuclear life style exist also, according to Leslie, for if aid (financial or affectional) is furnished to children by parents or vice versa (after separation from one another), a link between generations results and the nuclear family becomes a modi- fied extended family.57 Some disagreement exists between anthropologists relative to the nuclear family concept. Levy presented one study which attempted to alter the presently accepted definition. He saw the family as a "small kinship- structured unit which carries out relevant functions rather than a single social unit in society."58 Not only would such a definition assist anthropologists in cross-cultural work, but the socialization process would be placed in a more highly differentiated frame for clearer analysis. The family life cycle theory is the third element conceptualizing the family and concerns its progressive order. A number of anthropologists have used this theory in their work and one was selected as a typical example to illustrate the theory's components. In many Western cul- tures but primarily in the United States, Leslie points out, the following cycle is typical for the family: (1) premarital interaction: may involve dating, mate selection, 57Leslie, op. cit., p. 332. 58Marion J. Levy and Lloyd A. Fallers,p "The Family: Some Comparative Considerations,” in Kinship, p. 12. 52 courtship and engagement; (2) marriage: adjustment of the partners to each other; (3) child bearing and rearing: the child is socialized to the family and society; (4) marriage in the middle years: child rearing comes to an end as children leave home and partners become reacquainted; (5) post-parental phase: parents come to be on the receiv- ing end of aid from children; (6) widowhood: most often the man dies first leaving women to cope with being alone. Disruptions of the cycle may occur due to divorce or re- marriage, the latter receiving little study at this time.59 Usually if the order is interrupted, individuals will seek to remarry and reintroduce themselves into the cycle at the point they find most suitable for their relationship. 59Leslie, op. cit., pp. 365-671. CHAPTER III SOCIOLOGY'S REPLIES TO QUESTIONS DEALING WITH THE CONCEPT "FAMILY" Introduction Of the three disciplines examined for their use of the concept "family," sOciology has the greatest volume of materials. It has conducted extensive research focusing on the family as one component of social orders comprised of many elements. Home economics from its inception, clearly recognized sociology as a discipline that provided a major contribution to the field. Although many materials are available, the extensiveness of the replies to those questions designed for the study was highly variable. Clearly, sociology's analysis is the most complete to date and could therefore be expected to make the greatest contri- bution to home economics. Is the family viewed as an appropriate area of study for the field? Sociology gave five basic reasons for supporting and maintaining its interest in the family. They were: (1) the degree of interest for the family exhibited by society; (2) the family's reproductive function 53 54 in society; (3) the control and continuity it provides the society; (4) its ability to meet the needs of man; and (5) the support society gives to the family. The degree of interest exhibited by society for the family emanates from a wide variety of sources providing sociology with one reason for studying the family. One source of interest mentioned by Burgess was the large number of dissertations found to concern the family.1 Since interest is expressed, it behooves sociology to examine a social agency eliciting such interest. A second reason the discipline supports the family concerns its major purpose in society--namely repro- duction. The children produced provide the family with its most indispensible feature. Its existence and solidarity furnishes, suggest Parsons, Farber and Havighurst, the most functional socialization for young children, fosters their mental and moral growth and to date, no other invented means of child rearing has proved better than the family.2 These three features contribute to the discipline's central con- cern--socialization. 1Ernest W. Burgess, and Harvey Locke, The Family: From Instipution to 99mpanionship (New York: American Book Company, 1960): p. 681, hereafter referred to as Institution to Companionship. 2Talcott Parsons, "The Normal American Family," in Sourcebook, p. 36; Seymour Farber, Piero Mustacchi, and Roger H. L. Wilson, eds., TngFamily's Search for Survival (New York: McGraw-Hill, 19657, p. viii, hereafter referred to as Family Survival; Robert J. Havighurst, "The School and the Fam1ly--From the Viewpoint of the Educator," in ~ Helping the Family in Urban Society, ed. by Fred Delliquadri 55 Third, Bell posits that the family has survived many centuries indicating its durability and capacity to control social behavior.3 The social order's continuity, according to Kirkpatrick, is preserved because of this unique contribution.4 Without the family societies would be chaotic; consequently, its preservation becomes essen- tial. Fourth, the family meets some essential needs of man. Burgess and Winch point out that families provide affection, personality development and intimate relation- ships "in which to share hopes and fears, triumphs and anxieties."5 Parsons places one restriction on the family's ability to meet man's needs in the American society, par- ticularly, for it is basically the young child's needs that are met for the most part.6 Apparently adult be- havior must fall into predictable patterns if the child's wants are to be satisfied. (New York: Columbia University Press, 1963), p. 23, hereafter referred to as Urban Society. 3Robert Bell, Mgrriage and Family Interaction (Homewood: The Dorsey Press, Inc., 1963), p. 215. 4Clifford Kirkpatrick, The Family as Process and Institution (New York: The Ronald Press, 1965), p. 4, hereafter referred to as Process and Institution. 5Burgess, op. cit., p. 685; Robert Winch, The Mgdern Family (New Yor : Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1963), p. 23. 6Parsons, Sourcebook, p. 40. 56 Finally, the social structure supports the family through welfare plans and proposals. These plans are based, Laurie suggests, on two major assumptions: (1) that the family has intrinsic worth; and (2) that it should be buffered by the government against disease and depri- vation-~both socially and economically.7 Sociology finds the family an appropriate area of study because people are interested in it; hence, such interest invites inquiry; families furnish the best means for socializing the young child, they provide solidarity and continuity for the society, they meet certain of man's needs, they are intrinsically valuable, and they need en- dorsement so that young children are socialized to strive for cultural ideals. What goals are to be achieved by the field in work- ing with and through the family? Underlying sociology's selection of the family as a focus for study are three basic purposes: (1) to develop a systematic research structure culminating in the determination and clarifi- cation of the family's present reality; (2) to examine the socialization process occurring within.a specific boundary limit; and (3) to inspect family problems and attempt to seek solutions for them. To achieve the first purpose a research structure has been built from an examination of 7Norman V. Laurie, "Public Welfare Services and Family Life," in Urban Society, p. 45. 57 various family life styles. Bell, Rodman and Kohn comment that the examination has progressed from determining the ideal family by inspection of the middle class primarily, to the realization that many family variations exist and need to be accounted for if a total picture is to develop.8 This realization has led to the inclusion and documentation of a number of family life styles.9 Burgess and Bell submit that an examination of the various family types has served to provide an orderly framework for discussing relationships, to guide and give direction to future research, to provide logical consis- tency, and to clarify and synthesize family research.10 The result of this examination has served to define the present structure of families in modern societies. A total picture of all family types is still not available and per- haps never will be for as society changes the family also changes. 8Bell, 0 . cit., p. 9; Hyman Rodman, "On Understand- ing Lower-Class BehaV1or," in Sourcebook, p. 176; Melvin L. Kohn, "Social Class and Parent-Child Relationships: An Interpretation," in Marriage, Family and Societ , ed. by Hyman Rodman (New York: Random House, 1965), p. 243, here- after referred to as Marriage and Society. 9Sister Frances Jerome Woods, The American Family System (New York: Harper 5 Brothers Publishers, 1959), pp. 53-225, documented ten different family types, each of which was similar to yet different from others. These were the: ' rural family, urgan family, suburban or fringe family, ethnic family, e.g., Chinese, Mexican, Jewish, Negro, and lower, middle, and upper class life styles. loBurgess, op. cit., p. 183; Bell, op. cit., p. 319. 58 The use of a systematic research structure remains unclarified by the discipline. At present two opposing views are evident. Burgess, expressing one point of view, holds that all research evidence is to be analyzed only, not to be evaluated.11 Such a course of action presents only what exists but makes no decisions as to the worth of that existence. Bell and Nye, however, see a different course open to the discipline. All the amassing of facts and information should perform some service: to guide in decision making or provide an "armory of ideas."12 In other words, members of the discipline struggle towards an end other than the documentation of present reality. Sociology, along with other areas of study, is faced with a vast accumulation of material brought about by burgeon- ing knowledge. Systematization has barely begun for the discipline and until developed, the question of purpose will remain ill-defined. Understanding the socialization process is the second reason for sociology's interest in the family. Theories of socialization remain unclear and indistinct. Burgess posits that sociology's theories are based on the belief that man is born without a personality. "Human 11Burgess, op. cit., p. 539. 12Bell, op. cit., p. 183; F. Ivan Nye and Felix M. Bernardo, Emerging Conceptual Frameworks in Family Analysis (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1967), p. 4, hereafter referred to as Family Analysis. 59 association in the first months and years of life seems to be essential for the transformation of an infant into a fully functioning human being."13 Understanding the socialization process will reveal new knowledge about human behavior. According to Kohn and Sewell, a fuller under- standing of the process can help to differentiate between social structure and behavior effects as well as furnish a point upon which psychologists, anthropologists and sociologists can converge and pool information of benefit to the three disciplines.14 Ultimately, Havighurst and Laurie suggest, the elaboration of the theory can help society as a whole "effectively and efficiently supplement the family," in turn assisting families to solve their present problems and prevent new ones.15 Seemingly, soci- ologists feel that society does not exert enough control over families, for if it did, families would present fewer problems for the culture. Evidently they are troublesome elements, and need to be assisted towards a more uniform behavior subsequently eliminating the problems they are now causing, e.g., broken homes, ill cared for children and general instability. Only further intervention into l3Burgess, op. cit., p. 187. 14Kohn, Marriage and Society, p. 243; William H. Sewell, "Some Recent Developments in Socialization Theory and Research," in Sourcebook, p. 321. 15Havighurst and Laurie, both in Urban Society, pp. 31 and 52 respectively. 60 the family setting by society can strengthen it. Hence, sociologists work unceasingly towards loosening the family's internal cohesion to be replaced by the external bonds of society. Finally, family problems need to be solved, study- ing them can assist in the process. The family, according 16 Collect- to Schur and Suckow, is a vulnerable grouping. ing data pertinent to families can assist in knowing what problems exist as well as how to best ease them. For example, many marriages are unhappy as evidenced by high divorce rates. Examination of effective relationships can lead to predictions for marital success. In turn, if the couple is aware of possible problems, they can seek to circumvent them or not marry at all; in the IaSt analysis, they are at least prepared. The family furnishes sociology with a small, definable, semi-closed group having systematic relation- ships. As a result, it provides an ideal setting in which to examine and postulate theoretical frameworks leading to a definition of present status; in addition, problems and processes can be illuminated, studied and defined or eased. Finally, family studies can assist man in gaining a fuller 16Edwin M. Schur, ed., The Family andrthe Sexual Revolution (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1964), pp. ll-l4, hereafter referred to as Sexual Revolution; Miriam P. Suckow and Florence E. Cuttrell, Fgmilies in New YOrk City (New York: Community Council of Greater New York, May, 1966), p. l. 61 understanding of himself. Such knowledge helps to reveal the purpose and plan of cultures, and order is derived from what was once thought of as incomprehensible or believed to be foreordained. How relevant is the family to the social order as viewed by the field? (What is the family's relation to the social order?) Sociologists for the most part empha- size the family's responsibility to the social order. It exists to ensure continuity through the functions it per- forms for the community. To assure that these functions are carried out over time, society places restrictions on the family. Wood emphasized this when she said: "What- ever the gOverning unit, prescriptions and prohibitions regulate the family from its establishment at mating through the full cycle of family life."17 Marriage, which founds the family, is regulated by requiring individuals to marry outside their own decent groups. This obligation, Goode suggests, subordinates the family to the society, keeps it from becoming more powerful than society, and subordinates erotic interests to societal interests. The ritual itself pulls the couples relationship apart in the following ways: (a) the ceremony involves deciding issues 17WOods, Op. cit., p. 26. 62 external to the relationship; and (b) the ceremony empha- sizes the partners dependence on other collectivities.18 The social order surrounding the family dominates it. Reproduction of the species is of primary importance but, says Slater: Left to themselves, human beings would mate entirely in response to instinctual demands and psychological affinity. The establishment of socially defined aesthetic norms brings sexual choice under social control. . . . Indiscriminate mating would loosen the social order's bonds; hence, tight reign in the form of laws and sanctions needs to be enforced to ensure stability. The degree to which a society controls the family is relative. Burgess and Vincent agree that time, place and societal need serve to fashion prevalent family life styles. The highly in- dustrialized and rapidly changing social order, existing in modern societies, "necessitates a family system that both structurally and functionally is highly adaptive to the demands of other social institutions externally and the "20 needs of its own members internally. Because families exist in societies and reproduce their membership, they 18William J. Goode, "The Theoretical Importance of Love,” in The Family: Its Structure and Functiong, ed. by Rose Laub Coser (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1964), pp. 55, 219, 235, hereafter referred to as Structure and Functions. 19Philip Slater, "Social Limitation on Libidinal Withdrawal," in Structure and Functions, p. 242. 20Burgess, o . cit., p. 490; Clark E. Vincent, "Mental Health and tHe Family," in Sourcebook, p. 470. 63 must share their members with the larger group, suggests Winch, to ensure the cyclical replacement of trained societal members, distribution of goods and services and the melding of individual goals with those of society.21 Children are placed in the social order by the family. In modern societies, Winch points out, status is usually conferred by the husband's position in the occu- pational system.22 Davis and Winch concurred by suggest- ing that "each individual is created in the family and placed in the class system whether he wills it or not." Along with a position in the system, the family also furnishes connecting links to others in society and pro- vides a name for purposes of recognition.23 No child is left in any society, stresses Kenkel, to be socialized by the family alone.24 Because the family is subordinate to yet necessary for the social order, its functions are interwoven into the social fabric so tightly that neither society nor the family can exist apart, for its members must fit into established social groups. Without the family legitimate reproduction could not take place; hence, 21Winch, op. cit., p. 14. 22Ibid., pp. 274-75. 23Kingsley Davis, "The Sociology of Parent-Youth Conflict," in Sourcebook, p. 385; Winch, op. cit., p. 23. 24Kenkel, op. cit., p. 266. 64 each (the family and society) needs the other. Ultimately, individuals owe their first allegiance to the social order and can exhibit such allegiance, feels Malinowski, through responsibly assuming "the duties and burdens as well as the privileges connected with the process of reproduction."25 To summarize, the family is related to the social order through its responsibility to it, its adaptability, its socialization function, and its allegiance to the order preserving continuity. How relevant is the family to the social order as viewed by the field?‘ (Is the family still a strong part of society?) The sociological literature is subdivided into three schools of thought: (1) the family is balanced with society; (2) the family is a forceful institution; and (3) the family is abysmally weak and deteriorating progressively. Since the family performs specified socie- tal functions, Winch and Parsons hold that it is in a state of equilibrium with society. "Basic societal functions have individual-serving as well as society serving func- tions." The style of institution which presently exists in modern societies seems to be the best agency for helping today's citizen balance a wide variety of "complex contexts of obligations and expectations, to be ready to enter into 25Bronislaw Malinowski, "Marriage: Past and Present,” in Sexual Revolution, p. 313. 65 many, but not arbitrarily to sacrifice the interests of 26 Farber notes that the law and economy some to others." form a base helping the family maintain balance with the society; the law by building a foundation equalizing family relationShips and the economy by supporting families through the occupational structure. In turn, families provide society with secure individuals able to cope with modern complexities.27 All these factors serve to keep the insti- tution balanced with the society; thus, it is neither weak nor strong. The familyr-a strong part of society. Pessimists have for too long been crying "wolf" believing the family to be failing and that it will eventually cease to exist. They base their suppositions on the continuing loss of family functions prevalent in today's society. According to Vincent, the pessimists "equated a loss of functions with a decline of the family." It was not until the 1940's that this view changed and optimism appears to be on the in- crease.28 Modern societies are subject to rapid change and a high degree of specialization. Burgess, Parsons and WOods point out that this is molding a new family unity. The family has become specialized in its functioning as 26Winch, op. cit., p. 20; Parsons, Sourcebook, p. 43. 27Farber, Family Survival, p. 12. 28Vincent, Sourcebook, p. 472. 66 has the society; so, the transfer of a number of its former functions to other segments of the community is logical.29 Frankel and Parsons stress family gain over loss. Society has elevated and idealized the family as the de- sired way of life for all. Further, although divorce rates in modern societies are rising, they do not indicate a decline in the family's importance but exactly the reverse. "Divorce is an index of the severity of the burden placed on the marriage relationship in modern society, and back of that, of the importance of its functions."30 Too many sociologists, Kirkpatrick feels, have not fully analyzed the said loss of family functions. In reality the family may not have lost functions at all, they may only be re- 31 directed. An example pointed out by Winch noted that educational functions, so important today, have shifted from providing education in the family, to providing the opportunity for education.32 29Ernest W. Burgess, Harvey Locke, and Mary Thomas, "The Companionship Family," Marriage and Society, p. 259; Parsons, Sourcebook, p. 37; WOods, op. cit., p. 44. 30Charles Frankel, "The Family in Context," Urban Society, p. 21; Parsons, Sourcebook, p. 44. 31Kirkpatrick, op. cit., p. 5. 32Winch, op. cit., p. 122. 67 Conversely, Rodman holds that families are losing some former functions, but those that remain are now more 33 These vital functions include, accord- vital than before. ing to Moore, Frankel, Ellis, Winch, and WOods, personaliz- ing a mass society, developing a feeling of individual uniqueness, providing for the child's nurturance through emotional security, and socializing the child to fit into the larger community.34 Peterson summarized by saying: The American family may be struggling for survival, but it is a vigorous struggle, and is being waged on many fronts. It may very well turn out that our definition of the struggle may be in error--that what we are really about is the birth struggle of a new and vigorous family system.35 Sociologists appear to disagree about the family's strength. Is it strong because of what it does for the society or is it strong because of its adaptability to changing social orders ultimately developing a new form? To date the literature fails to resolve the problem and gives no indication of doing so in the near future. 33Hyman Rodman, "Talcott Parson's View of the Changing American Family," in Marriage and Society, p. 268. 34Wilbert E. Moore, "The Family," in Sourcebook, p. 48; Frankel, Urban Society, pp. 16-18; Albert Ellis, "The Folklore of Sex, in Sexual Revolution, p. 39; Winch, op. cit., pp. 290, 294; Woods, op. cit.,.p. 44. 35James A. Peterson, "Catastrophes in Partnership: Separation, Divorce and Widowhood," in Family Survival, p. 79. 68 The family--a weak part of society. Many soci- ologists hold that the family is weak and in need of social support. More appear to stress this position than uphold the family's strength even though Vincent, see page 65, maintained their number was declining. Burgess, Frankel and Winch feel that features in modern societies such as urbanization, industrialization and technology have placed inordinate pressure on families causing their structure to weaken.36 Frankel goes on to suggest that the family is so weak it can do nothing to change its steadily declining course.37 From a once strong institution the family, through its progressive loss of functions is, according to Vincent and the Rapoports, the least organized and least able to set its own standards.38 The family's adaptability which some sociologists tout as its strength is, in reality, its greatest weakness. According to several sociologists, further evidence is found in the loss of social and sacred roles, rapid social mobility vertically and horitontally weakening family ties and the family's smallness which 36Burgess, Institutipn to Companionship, p. 575; Frankel, Urban Society, p. 5; Winch, op. cit., p. 118. 37Frankel, Urban Society, p. 4. 38Vincent; Robert Rapoport and Rhona Rapoport, "Work and Family in Contemporary Society," both in Source- book, pp. 475 and 58 respectively. 69 breeds a high degree of anxiety in children dependent upon its structure.39 If the family were strong, Sorokin and Ploscow speculate, adult criminality, juvenile delinquency, mental disease, insecurity, and frustration would be practically non-existant; yet, the opposite is true. Divorce, too, further indicates the family's loss of strength: If husbands and wives were required to choose their mates more carefully, if the law made certain that the choice of a husband or wife was a free one, made after mature reflection, there would be less likelihood of incompatible matrimonial alliances and less need for the dissolution of marriages through annulment and divorce. In our opinion, divorces should only e granted to husbands and wives after a thorough-going attempt had been made by a panel of experts to adjust the differ- ences between them. The high number of "fluid marriages" is producing "a super- abundance of the physically, morally, mentally defective 40 Society needs to take children, or no children at all." a hand, then, in preventing marital dissolution by serving as the expert in deciding whether a marriage should or should not be dissolved. A review of the literature in sociology reveals three views of family strength. The first, having the 39Woods, 0 . cit., p. 104; Burgess, op. cit., p. 490; Winch, op. c1t., p. 497; Davis, Structure and Functions, p. 468. 4oPiterim Sorokin, "The American Sex Revolution;" Morris Ploscow, "Sex and the Law," both in Sexual Revolu- tion, pp. 154-55 and 187, 191, respectively. 70 fewest adherents, holds that families are balanced and functioning well in present day societies. Secondly, the family is strong, third, it is weak. Some of the same points are used by the latter two but a different inter- pretation is placed on the statistics by each. The family's strengths center on its adaptability to the society, its growing importance for society and its performance of needed functions. On the other hand, the family is weak because society is required to support it economically, it is gradually losing its purpose in societies and the high number of divorces illustrates family instability. Helping the family, according to sociologists, generally indicates supporting societal intervention in order to strengthen and secure it in the social order. What does the field conceive as desirable in the family? Sociology's concept of the desirable in families pivots on its capacity to reflect society's and man's needs. Only through a system of orderly relationships can such a task be accomplished; hence, orderliness provides the fulcrum on which rests all that the family is and can be. Orderly relations are prescribed by societies for kinship situations, for married partners, for parents and for children; the prescriptions can change and alter over time but are essential for meeting the goals of culture and man. Societal law orders kinship relations in the form of an incest taboo. Heterosexual intercourse between specific 71 kins according to WOOds, is closely circumscribed.41 Rodman suggests that the taboo reduces jealousy and rivalry in nuclear family and kin groupings, forces family members to take an interest in other families around them and promotes contact of families with society so that ideas and tech- niques can be exchanged.42 The partners in a family relationship take prece- dence in American or Western cultures. Komarovsky points out that to be excessively dependent on kin outside the husband-wife relationship is viewed with suspicion in our culture.43 But, partners are not completely divorced from ties to relatives. For if the partners withdrew unto them- selves and functioned only for their own benefit, society could not find individuals willing to give time and effort towards promoting social ends. To prevent this, children are taught to seek many desires outside the family. They gain their independence in order to meet individual, socially developed and directed needs. Continuity between the generations, submits Woods and Streib, is maintained usually by establishing a network of mutual aid, e.g., love, affection and financial assistance. "Parents play 41Woods, op. cit., p. 27. 42Hyman Rodman, ”Mate Selection: Incest Taboos, Homogamy, and Mixed Marriages,“ in Marriage and Society, p. 50. - 43Mirra Komarovsky, "Functional Analysis of Sex Roles," in Sourcebook, p. 260. 72 active roles in assuring successful economic stability and «44 occupational placement of their children. Kinship is so ordered, then, that it binds yet releases individuals: It binds them to one another by providing security yet releases them to assuage their desires and perform needed tasks for the general welfare of the total society. Essentially the relationship functions efficiently when it is maintained in balance. Between married partners the desired orderly relationship reflects unity or oneness. Parsons and Bur- gess suggest that such a state can be achieved through an enduring relationship, mutual affection, emotional inter- dependence, sympathetic understanding, consensus, family rituals, interdependence of roles, and equality in sexual behavior. Those persons best prepared for such a relation- ship are sociable and conventional, to be otherwise is to 45 If conflict should invite dissent between.partners. ensue and become detrimental for the couple, societies pro- vide an orderly system of divorce. Sociologists continue 'to volley pro and con arguments about the positive or negative effects of divorce in modern societies. That it does exist and seems here to stay is lauded by its 44WOods, o . cit., p. 361; Gordon F. Streib, "Family Patterns in Ret1rement," in Sourcebook, p. 405. 45Talcott-Parsons, "The Incest Taboo in Relation to Social Structure," in Structure and Functions, p. 52; Burgess, op. cit., pp. 366, 3IO, 434. 73 proponents and grudgingly admitted to by its opponents. Bell summed up the controversy when he said: "To be against divorce may be emotionally satisfying but is often not socially realistic."46 Married partners, continues Bell, usually become parents because, in general, societies believe that chil- dren are a function of the family.47 Having them in un- limited numbers is not approved behavior, however. Control of procreation is desirable because, posits Guttmacher, the partners have time before conceiving and rearing children to become firmly established as contributing societal members, the health and happiness of all family members is assured due to limited child bearing and financial re- sources are in direct relation to the number of children born. In no case should quality be sacrificed to quantity. Partners are to responsibly assume parenthood with prior reasoning and planning for additional members, for if children are poorly cared for they drain rather than con- tribute to society. Parental behavior is ordered or prescribed. Winch, supporting this.point said: To know how to nurture and to control a child in the manner approved by one's society—-if there is consensus 46 47 Bell, op. cit., p. 418. Ibid., p. 325. ' 48Alan F. Guttmacher, "Rx for Birth Control," in Sexual Revolution, pp. 320, 323. 48 74 on the topic--is to know the crux of the parental roles as defined in that society.49 Parental roles are exemplified by the culture and regarded as achievable goals having many rewards, and open to all if social codes are upheld, e.g., having a legal ceremony as a preface to family life, bearing and providing for children, gtygl, Motherhood, comments Schur and Coser, is highly lauded while fatherhood is upheld legally for he gives the child a status position in society.50 To- gether the father-mother role complex melds to form the family setting from which a child comes to know and under- stand the world around him. Parents form an indispensible ‘unit which, continues Coser and Bell, helps the child to iknOW'reality (the parental view of reality), to understand a variety of social roles in the present and future and to 51 These functions are in- comprehend sex role models. dispensible and are presented to individuals in a cultural totality (a "family") as having great worth and high desirability. Finally, children contribute to a family's ordered relationships. They must conform to some specific pre- scriptions--for the child too, Farber stresses, is a person 49Robert F. Winch, "Rearing by the Book," in Source- book, p. 334. SOEdWin M. Schur, "Abortion and the Social System," .in Sexual Revolution, p. 379; Coser, Structure and Functions , p. xvi1. Slim-9 I p. XXIV; Bell] OE. Cit. I p. 3410 '9 .94 RE 'r‘l ’3. 75 in his own right having obligations and freedoms within society.52 Schorr suggests that the relationship between parent and child is typically reciprocal, for parents pro- vide the child with support and education while the child 53 How can the child, a relative returns love and esteem. neophyte, reciprocate to any degree? Typically he does so, points out Burgess, by reflecting the expected behavior communicated to him by the family members around him. If ‘the parents have done an adequate job, ultimately the child will exhibit an integrated personality showing "little or no conflict between the roles he plays in relation to other members of the family."54 To summarize, the family's primary purpose is to provide an orderly set of relations between members free- .ing individuals to move forward toward meeting society's and man's needs. Society's needs receive the first priority of the discipline. Sirjamaki submits that the family is a "social system through which fundamental life- "55 purposes can be achieved. It is, Van Den Haag and Woods insist, a way of life and if not chosen, labels individuals 52Farber, Family Survival, p. 10. 53Alvin L. Schorr, "Filial Responsibility and the .Aging,” in Marriage and Society, p. 190. 54Burgess, op. cit., p. 194. 55John Sirjamaki, "Culture Configurations in the American Family," in Sourcebook, p. 7].. 76 as abnormal.56 So pervasive is the desirability of marri- age and family, suggests Kenkel and Parsons, that it is often difficult to recognize the points of agreement for what they are--unanimous uniformity of cultural thought. In short, " . . . in a society that in most respects has undergone a process of very extensive structural differ- entiation, there has emerged a remarkably uniform, basic type of family."57 Such an ideal, as Frankel sees it, could be con— strued as misleading and is often an unrealistic standard.58 Not all families achieve the ideal nor perhaps, do they want to. The ideal is, however, so all pervasive that even those not living according to the desired life style have in mind the ideal and are aware of not having achieved it. The social order supports readily that version of the family which mirrors society's values most closely. Vari- ations from the societal ideal are prodded, through social welfare legislation, to achieve the desired configuration. 56Ernest Van Den Haag, "Love or Marriage," in Structure and Functions, p. 194; Woods, op. cit., p. 495. 57Kenkel, o . cit., p. 224; Parsons, Sourcebook, P. 40. F. Ivan Nye, "Child Adjustment in Broken and Un- happy Unbroken Homes," in Sourcebook, p. 434, elaborated and summarized the American or Western basic family type when he said: "The family of mother and father living together with their Offspring is construed to be ideal for the happiness of every member and to increase the PrObability of developing characters and appropriate per- sonality characteristics in children." 58Frankel, Urban Society, p. 14. 77 Woods, Burgess and Goode clarify those values society fosters and desires families to reflect. They include: The bearing of new cultural members, provision for the child until of adult status, the release of the child from the bonds of his present family to found his own family, and the promotion of the society's political ideology. In a democratic society this includes features such as equality among partners, and democratic decision making including the children.59 In addition, Hill says that successful families "share the resources of good marital adjustment, family adaptability, and to a lesser degree, family integration."60 Woods and Kirkendall add to this list the provision of a self supporting and self reliant base from which members can Operate in the wider society and the provision of an arena of solidarity emcompassing trustworthiness, confi- 61 dence, integrity, and self respect in relationships. Such a socio-psychological setting prepares the promotes 59Woods, op. cit., p. 275; Burgess, op. cit., p. 651; Goode, Structure and Functions, p. 205, developed this point further when he said that the adolescent and peer emphasis in today's culture frees youth to fall in love and motivates individuals to conform to proper mari- tal behavior. . GOReUben Hill. "Social Stresses on the Family," 14‘ §gurcebook. p. 450. " 61Woods, o . cit., p. 275; Lester A. Kirkendall, ,Sex Education, and Fam11y Stability," in Family Sur- MI PO 126. 78 individuals capable of reflecting the desired values of society within the familial framework. Sociologists postulate that the family can serve two masters: society and man; yet, in examining the literature available, society has the stronger position by for little research is in evidence relative to default , Either sociologists be- the family-man's needs cluster. lieve the question of how families meet man's needs beyond their frame of inquiry, have little interest in such in- CJuli-13y or they believe it to be a self evident fact needing little verification. The literature predominates in the latter viewpoint. Fitzpatrick, Winch and Burgess bore this out by generalizing that the family provides for personal happiness and fulfillment, promotes individual welfare and has the "opportunity and a responsibility to develop a tYpe of family according to its own aspirations and ob- 3ectives."62 At present the aspirations and objectives appear to be purely of social origin and have no quality of uniqueness or difference. Much further clarification as to the source and meaning of happiness, fulfillment, welfare and individual aspirations and objectives is neces- sary before the answer to how man's needs are met through 1: he family will be evident. To date, such an examination is lacking in the discipline's literature. 15 . 62Joseph P. Fitzpatrick, "Values, Ethics, and Family e o" in Urban Society, p. 70; Winch, The Modern Family, Li 651; Burgess, op. cit., p. 673. D- 79 To sum up, sociologists conceive of the desirable family as one which provides and confines cultural members to a socially defined arena of interrelationships. These relationships are ordered for the purposes of developing future functioning societal members and providing a secure framework insulating individuals from larger cultural activities. The family, with its ordered relationships, frees men to accomplish their own and society's needs; however, society's needs appear to be the primary goals of falnilies while man's desires are only incidental to it. To date, the literature presents a one-sided view exemplify- ing those families which achieve the ends of society. What questions have been raised by the field rela— EQ’e to the family? Nine areas 3 concerning the family haVe received scrutiny by sociologists; they include: the family as a universal; (2) family forms; (3) the family (1) and the surrounding society; (4) family stability and dis- ruPtion; (5) mate selection; (6) sex education and the family; (7) psycho-social factors and the family; (8) selected family members; and (9) family research. The questioning pattern which appears to be at work within the d' . 18c.].pline consists of the following premises and assump- tj-On . . n . n . . . 8. What is called fam1ly exists 1n all societ1es. Th e family is one of many elements needing study to \ 63For a fuller listing of the elements in each a a refer to Appendix D. 80 determine an overall picture of the social order, its organization and purposes. To gain the broadest picture of this phenomenon, investigation of all its many forms is necessary. Social orders incase families and exert orderly and disorderly influences upon them. Therefore, identification Of the general features of family formation (mate selection), relationships between the individuals (sexual relationships) and the roles that individual members assume (psycho-social factors and selected family members) can help present a fuller picture of what the family is and does. From this information theoretical constructs can be postulated help- ing to define the use and meaning of the concept "family." Sociology has expended considerable effort to document a wide variety of family forms, postulating theo- retical frameworks for family study and determining the f"=‘1"1:i-2|.y's relationship to the larger society. Interest in s“Ingle family members has occurred in more recent studies but as yet research remains limited. The combination of psycho-social factors affecting the family is beginning to appear also in the literature indicating that sociology real:i.zes it cannot exist exclusively with group research while neglecting to account for the elements making up the group. Apparently the discipline recognizes that group exal“ination has reached its maximum usefulness and the he}: t logical step is to focus in on the individual com- Po hen,“ determining how they meld to form the group. . 1.36 N " ta. (1’ P ‘01 1.“- .. III 1" 81 0f the three disciplines examined, sociology has the most complete frameworks for family study perhaps be- cause it achieved the status of a discipline before anthro- POlogy or psychology. It was the first of the three disci- plines to develop a taxonomic ordering of family con- structs, for with its materials accumulating to such mas- sive proportions, any alternatives to ordering would have led to muddled thinking or inconclusive results 1n its research. How does the field differ in its conception of the Emily from that concept of the family held by other disCi lines from which it draws its knowled e? Sociologists have, for some time concentrated their interest and support on the family. Three reasons in particular distinguish so(Biology's prolonged interest from anthropology and psYchology: First, the efforts of the discipline are dlrected toward understanding the structure of 5001a1 The family--one part of any order--contributes ordears Cultures consistently support towards this understanding. the family; by clarifying the reasons for their support, t he family's purpose is revealed. Two additional reasons f or sociology's support of the family center around 1ts d ua’l function of replacement and the socializat1on of new c ultUral members. The family's ability to provide for and in d“let new members into the intricacies of the social order he 8 been carefully scrutinized. Sociologists conclude 82 that cultures cannot function efficiently without the family's services. Understanding and clarifying present reality governs the discipline's aims in family research. But, two opposing arguments are waging between sociologists regarding the use of knowledge. One view holds that sociology's knowledge should be analyzed only; the other Suggests that analysis should serve as a guide to decision Since research has revealed a family oppressed by maki ng. Solutions PrOblems, the latter view is taking precedence. '90 family problems are occupying a greater portion of sociology's research. Increasing society's control seem- ingly offers an efficient route toward alleviating family Problems. Thus, defining reality, forwarding solutions to Problems and increasing society's control over the family are the discipline's distinctive goals. The family, a small group exerting pressure on 1ndividuals, relates to society through its socialization activities. An individual learns to achieve his personal desires via socially approved means. When he leaves the family, his desires (if the family has accomplished its ocially defined tasks) are in direct agreement with social goals and further cultural continuity. Each person is a Part of his family and of the larger culture. Families b . I‘:'~<3ge the gap between the two elements. An individual's f o lrst‘ allegiance lies with society. The family's 83 responsibility is fulfilled by freeing its members to enter into larger cultural activities. To meet society's and man's needs, sociology con- ceptualized the desirable in families as a set of orderly relationships guiding individuals through the socialization Process. Orderliness is achieved through those norms, mores and laws developed in each culture to govern indi- vidual behavior. Relatives, parents and children, to name a few socially defined roles, assimilate these directives into their personalities. Their relations are then pre- scribed and consistent. Each knows the expectations of Others and responds to them secure in the knowledge that they have committed a right action. The family inculcates individuals with these necessary behaviors so that they resPond to society in approved ways and function free of d01-1131: about their relations with others. Unconditionally, sociologists view the family as a It is a small semi-closed group charac- working whole. Individual teJi‘ized as a system or arena of relationships. needs are sublimated or redirected toward group ends. The f - . . . . amlily oversees ind1v1dual behav1or, prov1des orderly c ha‘1‘lnels for the expression of desires, and directs indi- v. 1(i‘ilals toward larger group goals. Society's ends are t he family's ends. The use and meaning sociology ascribes to the family he. ve been conceptualized in theoretical frameworks governing 84 its research. Five frames based on a distinguishing fea- ture include the : -Interactionist approach -Structure function approach -Situational approach -Institutional approach -Developmental approach64 An additional set of frameworks derived from the literature by the writer was based on family form or organization and included the nuclear and kinship centered families. Other frames based on cultural background, social class and occupation, to name a few, could be eventual possibilities The discipline's research is Elabor- for conceptual frameworks. 9°Verned by the underlying conceptual premises. ation and differentiation of these postulates awaits further reSearch and analysis. What does the field predict for the family's "Family sociologists” have given considerable W? thought to the family's future. Their predictions were baged on present trends occurring generally in society and refer particularly to the middle class on the assumption t . . hat this group will continue to be the most pervaSive in m odeJrn societies. The literature identified seven family f . ea“tures which could be affected by change in the future. \ app 64Further elaboration of these conceptual frames eears on pages 93-100. 85 Presumably any features not identified would continue functioning as they do in the present. Those identified centered around trends taking place in: (1) mate selection and marriage; (2) kinship relations; (3) parenthood; (4) family dependents; (5) family disruption; (6) family ser- vices; and (7) family research. Individuals are gaining a greater voice in deciding whether to marry and establish a family .or to remain single. Personal satisfaction and gratification, points out Kirk- Patrick and Reisman, are the principle features of mate 65 Burgess, Frankel and Fitzpatrick suggest that selection. a gradual transition has taken place here. Formerly, mate selection was based on a prospective mate's economic, edu- l1bt exists as to its reality; yet, it is a widely held and used conception. The kinship based family was recognized by Suckow who noted its use by the Bureau of Census which defines a "family" as: "Two or more persons living in the same household who are related to each other by blood, marriage, or adoption."101 Further, the Rapoports argue that kinship based families are the prominent style in American and WeStern cultures because "longevity has tended to retain or restore a kind of 'timeless' (or at least long-time) orilentation to the family as an enduring organization."102 Thus, family composition and kinship relationships serVe as two additional forms for family analysis. Their ft‘l-J- significance has yet to be evaluated. The latter are CHJJLEI sketchily developed and much further work in analysis of the elements, affects of time and value systems under- lYing them have yet to be clarified, defined and evaluated. These are not the only variations in form that exist for Bu3'39ess and Winch point out that families could be defined \ 100Sussman and Burchinal, Sourcebook, p. 74. 101Suckow, op. cit., p. 3. 102Rapoport and Rapoport, Sourcebook, p. 53. 100 according to cultural backgrounds, occupational variation, 103 social class, and so forth. Such differences could go on in an endless array. Frankel, however, summed up the issue when he said: One of the greatest problems affecting the future wel- fare of what we choose to call 'the family' is the persistence of the notion that there is one proper model for the family, and that all efforts to repair the condition of the family should be guided by this single conception of what it is to be a proper family.104 Hill and Hansen's generalization that a family is defined according to the approach used seems to govern any definition of the family. Two overall conceptual frames were presented here: One based on a specific distinction or feature, the other on the family's form or organization. Many more conceptualizations are possible. The task of arranging the voluminous material available into some con- ceivable order began during the last decade. Perhaps no single definition of the family can or will be agreed upon. Whether this is an asset or detriment remains to be veri- fied. However, the groundwork in identification of frame- works is laid and perhaps once fully clarified, if such is Possible, will lead to concepts widely applicable for al- lnost all situations. Conversely, the family's conceptual :reality may never be quantified. 103 p. 2590 Burgess, op. cit., pp. 19-21; Winch, op. cit., 104Frankel, Urban Society, p. 15. CHAPTER IV PSYCHOLOGY'S REPLIES TO QUESTIONS DEALING WITH THE CONCEPT "FAMILY" Introduction The family was not one of psychology's central concerns until shortly before the 1960's. Ackerman's Tpg Psychodynamics of Familerife, published in 1958, repre- sents one of the early works concerned with family psy- chology. He emphasized the dynamics of the total family structure.1 Few psychologists have used this framework, preferring to maintain the discipline's traditional stance --that of the individual's development apart from group influence. Both anthropology and sociology stress the relation- ship of whole to part (group priority above individual priority). Conversely, psychology begins by examining the relation of the part to the whole (individual influence on 'the group). As Moore posits, "The relation of part to . lNathan W. Ackerman, The Psychgdynamics of Family LJufe (New York: Basic Books, Inc., 1958), hereafter re- erred to as Psychodynamics. 101 102 whole is not the same as that of whole to part. . . . "2 Psychology, then, has traditionally differed from anthro- pology and sociology in its approach. As a discipline, it seemingly ignored the whole to part relationship. Acker- men's work recognized the importance of uniting both points of view by noting that togetherness is the focal point for the develOpment of humaness.3 Anthropology, sociology and psychology generally seek to define reality through an examination of specific elements (anthropology and sociology focus on groups, Psychology focuses on individuals). Today, however, the disciplines appear to be converging on certain points, each contributing its own reality to the total concept "family." To date, psychology's frameworks remain limited and un- clarified. Is the family viewed as an appropriate area of §de for the field? Although psychology retains the individual as its most important element for study, the literature clearly recognizes the family's significance as a small human organization having three features without Which individual survival would be at best, precarious. First, the family is an integral part of any operating Social order, secondly it has man and societal serving ‘ 2G. E. Moore, Princi ia Ethica (Cambridge: The University Press, 1959 , p. 33. 3Ackerman, op. cit., p. 18. 103 purposes, and third, it is the bulwark of human personality. Families are a part of the cultural whole providing one setting for the study of individuals. Since society in- fluences individuals indirectly through families, indi- viduals in families are increasingly occupying greater proportions of psychology's research. Psychology repeats sociology's claim that the family has functions that serve both individuals and society. Its societal functions, according to Ackerman, Lidz and Meerloo include providing for: (1) individual survival; (2) intergenerational linkages; (3) role and status positions; and (4) educating the child to fit into ilarger social orders. Those functions concerning the indi- ‘Kidual include the development of man's essential humanness, arnd personality direction.4 It is a primary social group Seatting individual direction by personalizing society. Man is a social being. His survival depends on the group; his needs are channeled by it. Ultimately, families make man human and help each one identify with all others. SLillenger suggests that to date, no other social Ana 4Ibid., p. 50; Theodore Lidz, The Family and Human 35.1?13tation (New York: International Universities Press, Fnc: , 3), p. 45; Joost Meerloo, "The Development of the Family in the Technical Age," in Emotional Forces in the 'Ei§55511, ed. by Samual Liebman (Philadelphia: J. B. Lippin- t‘-t.Com.pany, 1959), p- 7, hereafter referred to as ‘Esflsfléional Forces. 104 organization has been found to do these tasks better or more efficiently.5 The family's individual-serving functions are focused on personality development. Ackerman stresses that the family is the "psychic agency of society, the cradle of personality." Healthy families produce healthy individuals.6 If environmental conditions are unfavorable, Spitz points out, the child progressively deteriorates both mentally and physically.7 Families start the child on the road to becoming a distinct personality, different from all others yet having commonalities that make communication ‘with others possible. Because the family has an exclusive Inold on the child (at least for the first few years of Jaife), its importance in individual development is clear. Spitz postulates that these first few years of exclusive r'esidence in the family set the course for the whole of ‘tlie individual's development in later years. The family will continue to be important for, and suPported by, the discipline because it is the prevalent h . 5Thomas Earl Sullenger, Neglected Areas in Family ififi;§%%_(Boston: The Christopher Publishing House, 1960), 6Ackerman, loc. cit. F‘ 7Rene A. Spitz, "Hospitalism," in Structure and ul'lctions, p. 424. 8Ibid., p. 418. 105 system for fostering individual growth (and perhaps the best system), although it needs strengthening to ensure the utmost in human potential. What goals are to be achieved by the field in work- ing with and through the family? Psychology's interest in the family is a recent phenomenon. Originally it focused attention primarily on the individual; only within the last decade has it begun studying family dynamics and influence on individuals. Although families purportedly change and adapt to newly imposed social conditions, psychologists be- lieve that its adaptation has been less than successful, its structure has weakened and it performs societal ser- Vices poorly. Family studies help psychologists discover What adaptive behavior can be incorporated into the struc- ture enabling individuals to face society's vicissitudes. Such behavior, insists Ackerman and Lidz, will contribute to the individual's optimum mental health.9 Four concerns Presently govern the discipline's decision to turn attention to‘urards families. The concerns include: (1) the need to strengthen the family; (2) integrate its socio-psychological features; (3) understand human behavior; and (4) foster the child's individuality, self worth and growth. Since the family is presently nurturing individual deficiencies and suffering from feelings of inadequacy, \ p. 9Ackerman, op. cit., pp. 127, 344; Lidz, op. cit., 106 Sullenger posits that psychology's task is to restore "to the family . . . feelings of adequacy and the enabling of individual members to build individual and family compe- tency."lo Further, Handel suggests that research be con- centrated on the "kinds of integration [that] lead to har- mony and feelings of well-being among the members and which does not."11 The quality of the relationship involves adaptive behavior. If the partners use their potential in destructive rather than nurturant ways, the individual's concept of self and the identity of the total relationship is blighted causing the family structure to weaken. Psy- <3hology can accomplish the goal of increasing family strength by restoring feelings of adequacy through the destermination of effective adaptive behavior. In addition Ackerman and Bee suggest the extension of therapy suited tC) present family problems, development of criteria for Successful marriages and counseling services aiding family Imeunbers to adjust to the totality of the relationship.12 Psychology's conversion from a strictly individual t!) :family emphasis was brought about through the reali- zation that social-psychological forces in combination \ loSullenger, op. cit., p. 203. F' . 11Gerald Handel. "Psychological Study of Whole aLInlilies," in Sourcebook, p. 519. £> . 12Ackerman, op. cit., p. 127; Bee, op. cit., p - 190, 317. 107 greatly affect individuals. Those forces acting upon an organism have equal if not greater influence than inborn characteristics. Both Meerloo and Lidz concur on the latter point. The original concern with the individual's well-being is gradually being combined with the "newer emphasis on the individual among all his interpersonal relationships, especially with the persons significant to him--the members of his family." The gap between the biological and social is slowly being closed. From this combination of features, "a unification essential for a comprehensive understanding of human organization, moti- 13 The major core of the vation and behavior" is derived. conceptual scheme still remains uniquely focused on the individual. But, instead of the social group's importance, as maintained by anthropology and sociology, it is the interaction of personalities, according to Parsons, which 14 Because this scheme is accounts for the social system. virtually so new, it remains largely unexplored. Elabor- ation awaits more comprehensive inter-disciplinary research. An additional need in family study concerns the effects of human behavior on individuals in family and marital relationships. Here psychology and psychoanalysis have, posits Sewell, combined their efforts increasingly, e l3Meerloo, Emotional Forces, p. 1; Lidz, op. cit., E). 8. 14Parsons, Structure and Functions, p. 436. 108 pooling their information on social learning, behavior theory and psychology of the develOping child.15 Psy- chology attempts to find the meanings behind individual acts occurring in marriage and the family. By understand- ing interpersonal relationships, Bee suggests, one is freed from the more primitive forces of human nature and can deal more realistically and effectively with family members.16 By not accepting behavior at face value, a new level of understanding is built into family relationships helping one to understand himself and others to a greater degree. Ackerman maintains that a fuller understanding of the social and psychological factors learned and influencing individuals, provides workable patterns for analysis and presentation of a composite picture of the family.17 Finally, many family identities are warped to some degree. They produce disturbed children increasing society's burden. If psychology helps children achieve freedom from the disturbed family relationship, points out Ackerman and Blenkner, the child will be emancipated, better able to see his family problems in perspective, help his parents gain new insights into their problems and break the cycle of 15Sewell, Sourcebook, p. 321. 16Bee, op. cit., p. 393. 17Ackerman, 0p. cit., p. 138. 109 18 Children perpetuate the poorly functioning families. family and society. Assisting them to establish more functional family relationships liberates individuals to live in an atmosphere free from anxiety and tension, en- ables them to carry this freedom into the wider society and allows them to function at a more efficient level. Psychology, in combination with psychoanalysis, seeks to build a frame for analyzing human behavior and accounting for the biological, social and mental dis- turbances affecting the organism. If psychology meets the family's felt needs and relieves its tensions, the discipline will have succeeded in building a new found- ation for family adequacy. How relevant is the family to the social order as viewed by the field? (What is the family's relation to the social order?) The family relates to society through its affect on individuals. Ackerman acknowledged that social elements impress themselves on families and mold 19 Individuals re- them to society's greatest usefulness. flect the social mold when they communicate with others. Communication has its affective as well as structural 18Ibid., p. 190; Margaret Blenkner, "Social Work and Family Relationships in Later Life with Some Thoughts on Filial Maturity," in Social Structure and the Famil , ed. by Ethel Shanas and Gordon F. Streib (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1965), p. 50, hereafter referred to as Social Structure. 19Ackerman, op. cit., p. 335. 110 components. Parsons, for example, theorized that all individuals value love highly. The value is learned in the family when the child internalizes those expressive symbols which help him to reach toward others and they toward him with understanding.20 The economic structure, too, impresses itself on the family. Each individual takes his place and supports himself within the structure. Schaffner says, "The attitudes learned in relation to authority, expectations, work and satisfaction will be carried over directly into the future work situation. . . . "21 The family comes to reflect a social order's ideals while its atmosphere is shaped by the surrounding society's structures. The coming of a mass society has caused families to take on more general societal characteristics than formerly. Previously, families existed in smaller, more idiosyncratic communities. As the move to the cities be- gan to show its effects, the family lost its individuality. Today, Marmor says: Peoples"personalities bear less and less of the stamp of the relatively individualized community subculture but instead become more and more res on- sive to the influences of the culture at large. 20Talcott Parsons, "The Superego and the Theory of Social Systems," in Structure and Functions, p. 443. 21Bertram Schaffner, "The Individual, The Family, and the Boss," in Emotional Fo ce , p. 131. 22Judd Marmor, "The Individual, the Family, and the Community,” in Emotional Forces, p. 107. 111 Man now becomes more "other-directed" than "inner- directed." As a unit, suggests Ackerman, the family is a highly flexible and adaptive mechanism, with external and internal elements: externally "it must adapt to prevalent customs and mores, and must make wide and workable con- nections with racial, religious, social and economic forces," internally it "must . . . come to terms with the basic biological bonds of man and woman and of mother and child."23 Families wield their greatest influence on the individual during his formative years. Since modern fami- lies are essentially weak and unable to effectively direct personal development, they are adversely influencing the individual's functioning apart from the family. Thus, society seeks to reinforce families through welfare and support measures thereby strengthening the culture as a whole. Families relate and are bound to the social order through their flexibility and effect on the individuals they return to society. Flexible families have the ability to internalize and reflect cultural values through their use of the services society extends to strengthen and maintain them, and the family provides a long term, socially acceptable means of caring for individuals. The family's effect on individuals is reflected in the problems 23Ackerman, op. cit., p. 118. 112 it has created (tense, anxious, emotionally disturbed people) which society must somehow alleviate for its own and the individual's preservation. How relevant is the family to the social order as viewed by the field? (Is the family still a strong part of society?) Families exist and are integral parts of any social order having functioned historically for an indeter- minable length of time. Psychology accepts the above as a self evident premise. Ackerman, one adherent, says: "There is nothing fixed or immutable about the family ex- 24 The family's existence cept that it is always with us." demands study for it is a primary affecter of human be- havior. The literature revealed two approaches to the question of family strength: The first theorized that though weak, it still meets necessary conditions for human survival. The second found a weak diseased social unit needing treatment if it is to be saved at all. The first approach considering family strength suggests that individuals need protection from the surround- ing society until prepared to face larger world orders as adults. Families serve in this capacity. They are weak yet still provide the most efficient system preparing individuals for life. Weakness in the family, suggests Sullenger, is due to the delay in adapting family life to 24Ibid., p. 15. 113 modern industrial living.25 Complicated societies require families with a full awareness of the complexities lying outside their margins. Today's families lack such an aware- ness. Still, they do provide for certain necessities in any society. According to Berman and Ackerman, these in- clude: (1) providing for reproduction and introduction of new members to society; (2) serving as a buffer between individuals and society; (3) molding individuals to serve family ends; (4) helping to develop distinct personalities; (5) providing for sexual responsiveness; and (6) adapting individuals to society in an orderly manner through pat- terned relationships.26 Though weak, the family is neces- sary; it still retains the ability to perform some essen- tial services for modern cultures. A second, and widely supported, approach to family strength finds that the general social structure is unsafe and detrimental to individual growth and development. The anxiety of the wider world places "an extra psychic load on the family," argues Ackerman, "for which it is not well equipped. It is hampered by insecurity in and outside of 27 its confines." Society's negative influence causes families to produce individuals who, posits Kubie, are bred 25Sullenger, op. cit., p. 348. 26Sidney Berman, "The Role of Children in the Family," in Emotional Forces, p. 53; Ackerman, op. cit., pp. 59, 19, 21. 271bid., p. 112. 114 for competitiveness and possessiveness. Behavior of this type stems from families "threatened by a deep and malignant illness, . . . ."28 Further, Ackerman suggests that present day families are also breeding amoral, fickle and destruc- 29 Society is a lonely, hostile tive human relationships. place; the family attempts to provide a refuge from the wider world. Since it reflects the social order, however, it succeeds only in developing individuals who contribute. further to society's destructive features. "The family," says Ackerman, "seeks compensatory stability in a static pattern but this is maladaptive and predisposes to episodes of unreal, impulsive behavior."30 Although families are idealized by modern societies as providing a haven for individuals, in reality they do no such thing, but instead, the reverse. Not only do they have insecurity and strife within, but they cause the strife and insecurity to be carried into the wider culture thereby promoting a con- tinuous cycle of insecure, overly aggressive or dependently passive individuals. Two cultural features bear particularly on the family's ability to successfully foster human development and welfare: the reduction of its functions and the forces 28Lawrence S. Kubie, "The Disintegrating Impact of 'Modern' Life on the Family in America," in Emotional Forces, pp. 145, 148. 29 30 Ackerman, op. cit., p. 335. Ibid., p. 118. 115 of technological development. Family life presents ele- ments of uncertainty and insecurity to the wider social order. To alleviate these elements, society “began with all good intent," says Sullenger, "to usurp roles of the family in almost every area of life. How-to kits were developed by various disciplines with a view to turning 31 Usurping traditional out a happy or idealized family." family functions has had unexpected consequences. Besides being inexpedient, it has served to promote greater family anxiety rather than relieve it. Sullenger argues that in the past few decades, the family has been overwhelmed by feelings of inadequacy.32 Removal of functions reduces family worth, individuals are taught that families are un- able to assist in personal growth. The effects of such constant depreciation serve to create overly anxious family members and to promote what society attempts to alleviate --namely uncertainty and insecurity. The second social feature having great affect on families is technological development. Technology was designed to serve yet today seeks to destroy a once viable organization--the family. Machines, gadgets and knobs have depersonalized society and limited communication between family members (e.g., the entertainment industry via tele- vision, film and other media has replaced the personalized recreation of family groups with depersonalized others, who 31 32 Sullenger, op. cit., p. 202. Ibid. 116 serve to fill the leisure time of separate family members). Meerloo and Ackerman suggest that these developments do not serve to release mutual tensions and force members to find security outside the family group.33 Society becomes atomized causing the break down of family structure; the home becomes a sphere of aggravated tensions. Under such pressures, members are forced to find satisfaction of their needs elsewhere. By far, most psychologists conceptualize the family as existing in a cold impersonal society. It is diseased and divorced from reality. Society imposes on the family by assuming its functions causing feelings of inadequacy to develop. Individuals flee from it to find security in other social organizations. A few psychologists find the family weak yet still the best structure for serving socio- cultural ends such as reproduction, nurturance and per- sonality development. Both approaches decry the family's inability to support individuals. What does the field conceive as desirable in the family? Psychology offers many suggestions for attaining the ideal or desired family. Of these, unity and health are the two overall conditions necessary for a successful family life. Unity suggests oneness, yet this is not the 33Meerloo and Nathan W. Ackerman, "Emotional Impact of_In-Laws and Relatives," both in Emotional Forces, pp. 4 and 84 respectively. 117 whole of the matter for separateness is essential for an individual identity to emerge. Each member must function with and apart from the unit. In the wider society, a per- son works at and achieves various tasks--he returns to the family, however, for psychic support. Each person has two identities--his own and his family's. Where the individual interacts with the group, patterns of connectedness emerge. These patterns have unifying purposes, become solidified and personify family identity. Ackerman says, "The psycho- logical identity of the pair as well as the developing identity of each of the partners is the core of the ex- panding identity of the new family."34 Health, the second general condition to be achieved by all families is implied in psychology's emphasis on adjustment. Realistic appraisal of the relationship and open communication are essential for adjustment. On the realistic level, Bee argues, one becomes aware of the partners attributes and liabilities and learns to live with them.35 Communication, the second factor contributing to adjustment, can be a help or hindrance. For example, if sexual communication serves only to release physical ten- sion rather than express what a couple means to each other, an avenue to adjustment and mental and physical health is 34Ackerman, Psychodynamics, p. 23. 35Bee, op. cit., p. 282. 118 closed. The family becomes a disunity of inadequately functioning individuals. The assets of adjustment, sug- gests Ackerman and Sullenger, include fulfillment between members, internal integration, resiliency, effective resolution of conflict, security, and maturity.36 Con- versely, poorly adjusted families are subject to breakdown because, Goldfarb says: When a family is held together by social pressures, by individual needs for gratification, and by impera- tive needs for assistance . . . then the family will be vulnerable to dissolution.37 Unified, healthy families are the product of satisfactorily patterned family relations centering on rational mate selection, incorporation of culturally pat- terned ideals, responsible parenthood and secure children, limited interference of relatives, and provision for sta- bility and crisis. Marriage establishes the family. It is a momentous undertaking, involves a high degree of emotional involvement and psychic reward, and requires a great deal of thought on the individual's part. The found- ation for a strong marriage begins with the right amalgam of individuals. One is ready for marriage, Sullenger feels, when he has a clear understanding of what it entails.38 36Ackerman, op. cit., p. 328; Sullenger, op. cit., p. 281. 37A1vin I. Goldfarb, "Psychodynamics of the Three- Generation Family," in Social Structure, p. 40. 38Sullenger, op. cit., p. 429. 119 Understanding comes with age and maturity. In our society, this usually occurs after high school. Although many may marry at younger ages, their marriages are viewed as pre- mature and divorce-prone. Statistics appear to bear out this assumption.39 Maturity, points out Bee, serves to clarify individual judgment which evaluates a mate's poten- tial economically, socially, aesthetically, and intel- lectually.4o The individual's age, understanding and maturity combine to help him select his mate autonomously. Psychologists postulate that two theoretical frame- works govern mate selection: both are shared with sociology. First, the theory of endogamy submits that individuals seek others like themselves. Mates of like tastes and background are assured of having greater unity in their relationship. In addition, Sullenger feels that endogamy ensures the social accessibility of kin and greater marital success.41 A second theory governing mate selection, used by psycholo- gists, holds that mates are selected on the basis of com- plementary needs. If a choice is based on a personally felt lack or gap, the individual consciously or uncon- sciously seeks to fulfill himself through the prospective mate. Kenkel says: 39Refer to J. Joel Moss, "Teenage Marriage: Cross National Trends and Sociological Factors in the Decision of When to Marry," in Sourcebook, p. 145, for further elaboration of the statistics. 40Bee, op. cit., p. 231. 41Sullenger, op. cit., p. 433. 120 A person is attracted to another who embodies the self that he can never be and he is attracted also to some- one who by virtue of his own personality, allows or even helps him to be the person that he can be.42 Neither theory has been verified extensively. However, endogamy appears to be widely accepted and fostered by most psychologists as a positive force governing mate selection. Those marriages effectively incorporating cul- turally patterned ideals are deemed most successful by individuals and society. Each culture has devised differ- ent criteria for success in marital relations. Sullenger and Bee suggest that families most closely achieving the ideal produce individuals who are tension free, secure and liberated to operate efficiently in the wider society. In modern or Western cultures, democratic ideals predominate. Essentially they include the qualities of equalitarianism, 43 Such relationships are more purpose- altruism and unity. ful, secure, companionable, unified, and adaptable. Fami- lies lacking such characteristics, disappoint their indi- vidual members and society as well. Parenthood promotes family unity and health. Our 44 culture, Bee points out, is "parent affirming." Children are desired for their own sake. Parents are expected to 42Kenkel, op. cit., p. 378. 43Sullenger, op. cit., pp. 383-84; Bee, op. cit., p. 139. 44Ibid., p. 325. 121 perform within certain patterned social roles. Parenthood, stresses Lidz, demands that partners form a coalition main- taining "appropriate sex-linked roles, and be capable of transmitting instrumentally useful ways of adaptation suited 45 Role mainte- to the society in which the family exists." nance is most important during the child's developing years. Both partners function, Ness maintains, to provide an emotionally supportive atmosphere for the developing chi1d.46 Children are the family's most important assets. Families have the greatest responsibility for developing individuality. To fulfill this responsibility, Sullenger suggests that each child should be assisted to progress from infancy to adult life so smoothly that he has little difficulty in making the transition.47 Only stable paren- tal relationships can, argues Ness, foster individuals desiring to imitate and reproduce the family life which initially fostered them.48 Relatives can serve functionally in promoting family health and unity. They are, suggests Ackerman, extensions of the family serving as identity bridges to 45Lidz, op. cit., p. 75. 46Claire M. Ness, "The Role of the Father in the Family," in Emotional Forces, p. 41. 47Sullenger, op. cit., p. 274. 48Ness, op. cit., p. 43. 122 49 However, today's modern families, the wider world. living in small isolated clusters, require independence from relatives to develop the maximum interpersonal re- lationships within the small self-sustaining unit. Sullen- ger argues that interference from relatives in the small family is deplored, for successful marriages are not de- rived from financial handouts nor from living with par- ents.50 Relatives function most effectively when they remain in the background and lend affective support, but do not directly involve themselves in the affairs of the young family. Couples and their children appear to fare better with only minimal contact between the generations. Family unity and health is promoted in a stable environment; however, if instability predominates, pro- vision must be made to handle crisis. Psychology's con- ception of a stable family environment is best illustrated in its use of the family life cycle theory. Each indi- vidual must pass through various family and life cycle stages over the course of time. The optimum is achieved at each stage if the person is able to successfully com- plete demands placed on him at that particular stage. Poor task achievement results in disturbed, dissatisfied individuals unable to offer the maximum to themselves and 49Ackerman, Emotional Forces, p. 81. 50Sullenger, op. cit., p. 343. 123 others, nor can they progress through subsequent stages effectively. Failure compounds failure until finally the individual succumbs to mental breakdown or fosters mal- adaptive behavior in others through the establishment of ineffectually functioning families. If families are disturbed greatly and individual members rendered incompetent because of mentally or physi- cally damaging personal relationships, provision for Separation of the unit's members must be provided for. Divorce, one channel of separation, performs, Bee feels, a constructive function by ending mutually self defeating relationships.51 Individual dignity and worth must be preserved at the cost of the relationship should it prove detrimental to those concerned. Other crises such as death or children leaving home, if turned into constructive channels, can help individuals gain new and wider under- standings fostering personal dignity and self worth. It is up to the individual's remaining family members and/or friends to help him find those channels best suited to his needs. Each man lives in a social environment and even crisis does not permit the individual to withdraw solely unto himself; to do so is psychologically harmful. Unity and health contribute to psychology's con- ception of the desirable family. Both are achieved by fostering conditions that lead to rational mate selection, 51Bee, op. cit., p. 466. 124 the incorporation of cultural ideals in families, adherence to parental roles, provision for the child's security, relations with relatives limited to the affective level, and provision for stability and crisis. Unity of purpose, mental and physical health are the outcomes of success- fully patterned interpersonal relationships. What questions have been raised by the field rela- tive to the family? Psychology's literature offers eight distinctive areas52 of inquiry pertinent to the family. These include: (1) family history; (2) human potential and the family; (3) mate selection and marriage; (4) rela- tives; (5) parenthood; (6) family crises; (7) family ser- vices; and (8) family research. The family's origins, pur- poses and existence over time concerns psychology as it has anthropology and sociology. Families are the first social grouping to which the majority of individuals are introduced. How it began, has changed over time and in what form it exists at present serves to identify those qualities necessary for man's survival. Until recently, the family has been given only a cursory examination by the discipline. Individuals were its mainstay. It was to this end that the discipline sought knowledge. Within the last decade, however, psychologists realized that a :more comprehensive viewpoint was possible concerning e 52For a fuller listing of the elements in each area, refer to Appendix E. 125 individual development: That the unique combination of family member personalities fostered individualism. The family made man human. It personified the individual. It furnished each societal member with those qualities which differentiated yet identified each with another. The family's necessity over time and its ability to humanize man became the guiding suppositions for the discipline's present interest in and study of the family. The stages prior to family inception including mate selection and marriage have received a large portion of the discipline's interest. Questions concerning who should marry, criteria for marital happiness, reasons for regu- lating sexual behavior, and the need for accommodation of one partner to another are major concerns for which answers have been sought. If marriages are established on a satis- factory basis, families exhibit less frustration and ten- sion; the whole relationship is more free. Mate selection and marriage are the core of all that the family can be in the future. Intergenerational connectedness and parenthood are the logical results of marriage. Two families are joined at this point. Parents can be supportive or detrimental to the newly formed relationship. Modern societies foster small family individuality and freedom from relatives. Separation of the generations is of benefit to both (the new family learns independence while the parental gener- ation can now meet its own needs more fully). When 126 children are born to a new family, however, grandparents and other relatives may become actively involved with the child's family. They can serve as generational links and furnish expertise as to conduct in the wider society. In- volvement with the children of a young family does not include taking a major part in the child's upbringing. But, affective support is highly desirable. Parenthood is welcomed and supported in most modern societies; its major contribution entails the provision of a satisfactory environment for child rearing. Psychology, then, seeks to determine what generational linkages sustain the present family life style and that family environment which best supports the child. Examination of modern societies points up the fact that families are in a state of crisis. Present social orders are exerting disintegrating influences causing disturbed, inadequately functioning families, in- capable of carrying out socially assigned tasks let alone meeting the biological and emotional needs of man. Utiliz- ing this fact, psychology attempts to seek out family problems and determine where its services can be best used. Social welfare, counseling and therapeutic services have been instituted and evaluated to determine adequacy. Psychology seeks further ways of serving and strengthening families now and in the future. 127 Finally, family research has been instituted by the discipline seeking avenues for family assistance. Areas of concentration include family member roles, per- sonality development, the family life cycle, and more recently, "whole-family" studies. A number of the ap- proaches used have been borrowed from sociology. Psy- chology's most fruitful approach in the future appears to lie with "whole-family" studies. With its background in personality development, the discipline can make a unique contribution to understanding influence and interaction on individual personality development. Psychology's questions in relation to the family center on its development, its humanizing qualities, its initial foundation through mate selection and marriage, the influence of relatives and the outcomes of parenthood, family services, and family research. Each of these areas is in a developing and expanding stage due to the disci- pline's belated interest in the family. Psychology's adherents feel it has a unique contribution to make to family study along with other disciplines. How does the field differ in its conception of the family from that concept of the family held by other disciplines from which it draws its knowledge? As newly emerging disciplines, both anthropology and sociology saw that families were of crucial importance for individual and social development, while psychology lagged behind 128 them in this realization. For this reason, the two disci- plines have a research structure of greater breadth and depth than psychology. Because the research of anthropology and sociology was at a more sophisticated level, psychology has borrowed a number of their constructs. Only recently has the discipline begun to reflect viewpoints differenti- ating it from anthropology and sociology. Psychology has reaped the benefits of family research in a relatively short time, for by using the relevant materials from other disciplines, it has been able to progress at a rapid rate. Its research might now be placed on par with that of anthropology and sociology. Although psychology, sociology and anthropology agree that the family is an appropriate area to study, psychology's interest is characterized by its particular focus on the family's ability to guide and nurture each individual's personality, protecting him from the rigors of the wider society. Its capacity for providing security and promoting individuality demands that all available re- sources be mustered to ensure the family's survival now and in the future. Since psychology has borrowed a large portion of its materials from anthropology and sociology, its questions differ little in content from those of its contributors. The discipline does, however, focus its research results on solutions that contribute toward improving individual 129 and family unity, health and functioning. Until psychology organizes its materials into conceptual frameworks, how- ever, it will continue presenting a conglomeration of in- formation on various topics felt to be of concern to indi- viduals and families. Psychologists have expended little effort toward delineating the family's future. The bulk of what is available was borrowed from sociology. Although sociology's interpretations of various family phenomena have altered over time, many of psychology's conclusions remain un- changed. The discipline continues to postulate theories based on demographic data that are no longer relevant. For example, psychologists assert that nuclear families fare better without the help of extended kinship relations. Sociology, however, has revealed through research that relatives interact more extensively with families than was once thought. Now with the lengthening life span, these interactions are spread over greater time periods. Yet, psychology still maintains that relatives interfere with nuclear families and should interact infrequently with them. Those predictions that distinguish the discipline's position from others were deduced from its present goals. Psychology is operating on the assumption that its research will eventually reveal some optimum level for individuals functioning in modern or Western societies. Once this Optimum level is clarified, family unity and health will 130 be more readily secured. The family will be strengthened through a rebuilding program in which its members incor- porate the knowledge of optimum functioning. Future fami- lies will therefore be built by better adjusted persons free of present tensions and anxiety. What does the field predict for the family's future? A clear statement of the family's future course is absent in psychology's literature. The discipline has acknowledged its necessity to society and man focusing on the developing personality in particular; its resources are therefore committed to strengthening families. Some of the demographic trends used by sociology have received recognition by various psychologists. For example, Bee recognized that early marriage brings about greater inter- action of the generations over longer periods and that families are moving from institutionalism to personalism.S3 The predictions, however, have little bearing upon how the discipline approaches families. It continues to use the institutional approach for the most part in its literature and recommends that relatives should have only limited involvement with small nuclear family groups. If insti- tutionalism is fading and more relatives are living and interacting with small family units, what will the long 53Ibid., p. 493; Bee feels that young people are today creating families concerned with meeting their own individual, idiosyncratic needs and goals rather than tra- ditionally oriented towards societies norms, mores and laws. 131 term effects be and how does the change affect the ap- proaches used? Changes in the social order have to date had little influence on the assumptions underlying the discipline. The individual's existence in a sphere of inter- acting personalities has recently received some interest. Theories on the importance of interacting personalities have been forwarded (e.g., social orders are not based on the interaction of groups but on the interaction of per- sonalities), and the influence of others on individuals has received increasing recognition. However, research is lacking to date; consequently, the framework remains un- specified. Because sociology has completed and supplied extensive studies on the family to other disciplines, psychology feels the need for interdisciplinary research. Research of this type probably will occupy more of the discipline's efforts in the future. Additional predictions will, in any event, have to be made in light of psychology's goals since it fails to delineate the family's future course. Tomorrow's families will be as weak as today's for the discipline's aims are based on family frailty, poor mental health and need for extensive services. Human individuality is cradled in the family. It is an interactive arena foster- ing the unique in man. To preserve the family, preserve the individual. Whole family studies may serve as one 132 means for lending additional information about the effects of individuals on one another and the shaping forces that result. Ackerman paved the way for this kind of research in 1958. Psychology has yet to undertake such studies in force. So, how the discipline will strengthen families to foster individual worth remains ambiguous. Some optimum level for individuals functioning in social orders will continue to be sought by psychologists. Such a possibility was brought out by Ackerman who suggested the goal of de- fining, clarifying and forwarding those optimum mental health characteristics towards which societies should strive.54 Presumably, if and when these characteristics are made explicit, families would promote them. Adapta- bility and achievement of cultural ends would be attained at progressively higher levels. As a result, individuals would be fostered in safer, secure environments and fami- lies would be increasingly composed of those capable of meeting their own and cultural ends. Weak, ineffective families would become a thing of the past. Having a clear definition of optimum mental health characteristics would permit psychologists to extend thera- peutic and counseling services to families. Individuals would thereby be adapted into the cultural order minus the tension and anxiety so evident at present. Today's families 54Ackerman, Psychodynamics, p. 344. 133 are not strong enough by themselves; thus, proliferation of services is the logical course for the future. In summary, psychology predicts that interdisci- plinary research will develop guidelines for optimum indi- vidual development, ultimately strengthening the family. The family is weak and has poor mental health. But, indi- viduals are first exposed to social environments through families. These negative environmental factors will con- tinue for some time to come. Through the proliferation of services to families, its strength will be restored and stronger more capable individuals will result. Future predictions for the family are unclear; those few given here were based on the discipline's present course of action. A clear statement of policy direction remains to be activated and does not appear to be forthcoming for some time. What is the definition of the family as presented in the literature of the field? Psychology has conceptu- alized the family using three distinctive approaches: (1) its institutional character; (2) role relations net- work; or (3) internal affective responses. None of the three is governed by a highly developed research framework. The institutional approach acknowledges family necessity to society and man--the essential components of cultures. Families serve as mediators between society and man's needs 134 preventing total intrusion of one on the other. Man's biological and psychological qualities require direction for the maintenance of social orders. Families furnish the socially approved nucleus absorbing the otherwise dis- ruptive pressures of both qualities. Further, a social system has demands to be met. By directing influence to— wards the family, its ideals are incorporated and accounted for. Lidz used this approach when he suggested: [The family is] a biologically required social insti- tution that mediates between the biological and cul- tural directives of personality formation, and a social system in which the child assimilates the basic instrumentalities, institutions, and role attributors that are essential to his adaptation and integration.55 The family exists to serve dual ends; without it society and man suffers. It absorbs the shocks of society for individuals while returning to society those who are, at its best, strong and capable of succeeding, or at its weakest, failures. The family is what society makes it. The family's network of role relationships governs a second approach used by psychology. It differs from the first which maintained that the family is a passive ad- justing entity, primarily serving social ends, and absorb- ing and directing man's biological and psychological quali- ties into socially useful channels. Role process, however, finds the family more than a passive adjusting entity. Berman defines it as a "dynamic, semi-closed system of 55Lidz, op. cit., p. 75. 135 56 The approach focuses on interacting personalities." family dynamism--its active characteristics. Individual uniqueness creates an internal role process wherein the values of society are reflected in the family system. Families actively adjust, participate in and provide a unique sphere socializing the child. They remain in tune with societal ends. Each family member learns prescribed social patterns. Knowing and assuming socially desired roles helps individuals to meet the expectations of others and relieves the pressures of disappointment and anxiety. For example, a man's traditional social role is to support the mother and child; a woman's social role is to mother the child and family. Should these roles be less clearly defined by society over time, confused, anxious and tense family members are the consequence. Role performance gives members a sense of accomplishment, worth and presents the family as a desired life style to and for the majority. The family is what society and its own actions make it. The affective responses between individuals in families (a third approach to the concept “family") con- trols its continuation or demise. Families exist for individuals and their forms are as numerous as the variety of individuals in a society. The combined personalities Of the family group provide a distinctive arena of inter- aCtion wherein individuals respond to one another. Each 56Berman, Emotional Forces, p. 51. 136 family forms a unique subsystem which ideally functions in harmony with all other family subsystems in the society. The family has its own identity and psychologists using this approach are confronted with the whole family not its distinct individual parts. Should a family appear to be detrimental to society and individuals, the social order attempts to redirect its destructive elements or dissolve the relationship through divorce. Families exist to foster not destroy individuals psychically or physically. Thus, the family is what its members make of it. CHAPTER V HOME ECONOMICS' REPLIES TO QUESTIONS DEALING WITH THE CONCEPT "FAMILY" Introduction Home economics, along with anthropology, sociology, and psychology, has sustained interest in the family. As a field, home economics draws from a variety of sources those materials that are relevant to families and that contribute to the field's goals. Three sources of knowl- edge (anthropology, sociology and psychology) have been examined and summarized. Since the purpose of the study was to determine home economics' conceptualization of the family, its replies to the questions will receive addi- tional analysis. This section is concerned with the field's use and interpretations of the borrowed materials as well as its contributions to family study. The time has come for home economics to examine its position, reply to ques- tions of concern raised by the disciplines and reveal its posture in response to these questions. The replies serve as a foundation for the future taxonomic ordering of those constructs used by the field, present a more concise pic- ture of its growth and directional tendencies and clarify 137 138 needed present and future research foci. Clarification of the field's constructs builds a philosophical position based on logic and sound reasoning. Armchair philoso- phizing can serve the field no longer, instead, a percep- tive analysis of the use and meaning it ascribes to the construct "family" must be undertaken if home economics is to set a well defined future course. Is the family viewed as an appropriate area of study for the field? Home economics definitely feels the family needs to be studied. The field has, in selecting this cultural phenomenon as its focus, made a preferred value judgment. Recognizing this Klemer said: £3 this era pf contraception, cafeterias, and collective child care, when most adults could live equallypp efficiently without marriage partners, the continued exiStence pg marriage and the famil 3§_!e_have known them $2.2 value judgment i3 itsel . Behind this value judgment lies the ability of the family to foster human-societal values, socialize the child, pro- mote individual development, and perform additional ser- vices for society. These abilities comprise the family's purpose in society. Families are concerned with and pro- mote human values. These values are housed within and correspond to the social order's direction. Families must channel their efforts into this highest of aims for family 1Richard H. Klemer, "The Empathic Approach to Teach- ing Family Relations," Journal of Home Economics, 57:620, OCtober, 1965, hereafter referred to as the Journal. Italics were included in the original article. 139 life is, suggests Efferson, so all encompassing that "it might well be described as the crowning social objective in life in a democratic society."2 Each man is humanized by these common family sociocultural goals. These quali- ties unite man with his particular cultural system. Socialization of the child provides another impetus for the field's decision to concentrate on fami- lies. The child is so important that he alone could serve as the sole reason for the field's family focus. Klemer and Rutledge reiterated the child's importance for man and society when they stated: The only really creative thing that mankind does is childbearing; its only purpose for living made evi- dent to us is child nurturing; the only immortality that is granted to us to understand comes from the children we have nourished, clothed, and guided. The family is the nursery in which individuals learn to live within the greater family of mankind. 3 Then too, families shape individuals by establishing man's preliminary direction and course for the future. Without them, each individual would be lost in a social menagerie. Families place societies in perspective and order them for new cultural arrivals. Nichols noted that the social sciences have made this particular family ability apparent 2Norman J. Efferson, “An International Perspective for Family Economics," Issues in Family Economics, Report to the Family Economics Conference, June 21- -23, 1967 (Washing- ton: American Home Economics Association, 1967): p. 68. 3Klemer, op. cit., p. 625; Aaron L. Rutledge, "Counseling for Competence in Family Living," Journal, 50:15, January, 1958. 140 to the field of home economics by emphasizing its importance "in developing fully functioning individuals who can lead significant lives in a rapidly changing society."4 Also, the social order presents problems to individuals. How will they contribute, where do they fit in the wider society, to what ends were they born? Lucky submits that in order to have individuals capable of coping with these problems, the field must be concerned with the families that produce them.5 Thus, families foster individual competence and the ability to cope with social problems. Additionally, families furnish supplemental social'services. These include, says Dixon: Reproduction of the species, . . . economic support of individuals, . . . protection of the biologically dependent in both first and second childhood, and . . . education up to the age of five or six.6 So, the family's ability to foster human values, socialize the child, produce fully functioning individuals, and perform other necessary social services merits society's support. Similarly, according to Buchanan and Hawkes, these reasons support home economics' interest in families and justify the accumulation of knowledge and construction 4Addreen Nichols, "Organizational Processes Elicit- ing Help," Journal, 58:726, November, 1966. 5Eleanore Braun Luckey, "Education for Family Liv- ing in the Twentieth Century," Journal, 57:686, November, 1965. 6James P. Dixon, "Our Changing Society: Impact on Families," Journal, 55:496, September, 1963. 141 of an organized field of study concerned with its func- tions.7 Because family functions serve to perpetuate the social order, families cannot be left to provide their ser- vices by chance. Walters particularly feels that the wel- fare of families is too important to be left to informal training.8 Families must be supplemented in every way possible. Home economics can, by valuing the family, foster individuals capable of serving society's ends and preserving its values. What goals are to be achieved by the field in work- ing with and through the family? Home economics has chosen the family as its reason for being. Around it the field has built a framework of theories, content and goals stimulat- ing and furnishing meaning, purpose and directional gui- dance to its practitioners who strive to strengthen fami- lies. The field has consolidated its efforts around ser- vice to families. Its services are offered in five identi- fiable areas which include: (1) the economic progress of all families, (2) restoration of feelings of adequacy to individual and family members; (3) education for improved interpersonal relationships; (4) improvement of the family's 7Helen E. Buchanan, "Teaching Family Relationships," Journal, 56:305, May, 1964; Glenn R. Hawkes, "In Family Relationships and Child Development," Journal, 51:573, September, 1959. 8James Walters and Nick Stinnett, "Should Family Life Education be Required," Journal, 60:643, October, 1968. 142 environment; and (5) betterment of family life through the facilities of research. In promoting the family's economic progress gener- ally, home economics submits that it frees the family to accomplish other desired individual and social goals. Un- til all have an opportunity for an adequate life style economically, the other advantages of family life (happiness, personal satisfaction and creativity) will be neglected. Economic progress is the route to a more satisfactory life for all families the world over. Since the United States has such a wealth of material goods, it behooves the field to work toward making these goods available to all, not just a select few. That which betters the family's life or eases an inadequate condition is held to be good for all families; consequently, the good becomes a standard or goal for the field. Home economists direct their efforts toward accomplishing the goal through social welfare, edu- cation and research--all of which serve families. Stewart says: The home economist can play a major role in the develop- ment of assistance standards [particularly], because of the wealth of technical knowledge in all areas of home and family life which she can contribute.9 By helping to erase poverty or indebtedness, Morse and Goldberg feel that family'life'is strengthened and 9Alice M. Stewart, "The Home Economist in Public Welfare," Journal, 56:390, June, 1964. 143 10 Morse adds that by focus- the child's welfare protected. ing on the child, assisting in disseminating birth control information, providing educational opportunities, working for functional support programs, and setting standards for a minimum level of living, families in need throughout the world can eventually achieve an adequate standard of living 11 Until now these as defined by the culture and the field. standards have been set for some areas but not for others, i.e., budgets and food needs have received widespread con- sideration; standards in interpersonal relationships and life style remain unclear. Yet, the field has not been fully cognizant of the ramifications of those standards it has set. Williams and Sen both leveled criticism at standard setting when they noted that although home economists are "missionaries at heart" they may, in wanting to improve the ways of those with whom they work, set standards impossible to follow. These may be construed as arbitrary, held up as exemplary and imposed on families who have little understanding, need or desire to know the meaning of such standards.12 10Richard L. D. Morse, "Haves and the Have-Nots," Journal, 59:640, October, 1967; Faith S. Goldberg, "Problem Users of Consumer Credit as Seen by a Caseworker," Consumer Credit, Report to a Financial Management Conference, October 9-12, 1967 (Washington: American Home Economics Association, 1967), p. 92. llMorse, loc. cit. 12Dorothy G. Williams, "The Value of Studies of Family Expenditures in Setting up Budgets for Use by Social 144 Conversely, by setting standards the field can illuminate or reveal its commitment to service in strengthening fami- lies, ensure feelings of adequacy among family members and redirect dysfunctional family activities into socially use- ful channels. Economic well-being can restore feelings of indi- vidual and family adequacy, but it is not the sole element; other factors can also assist in restoring competency. At present Koch, Walters and Fulcomer verify that the field has been deeply concerned with those families that have not produced "contributing, belonging citizens" or are dis- rupted by the effects of early marriage and the lack of family life education.13 Yet, the Association and Keenan feel that if home economics wants to achieve its goal of restoring feelings of adequacy to individual and family members, it must attempt to work with all families since they all need assistance for living creatively in a rapidly 14 changing environment. If families are to live creatively, Agencies," Journal, 50:765, December, 1958; B. R. Sen, "Rural Families and FAQ," Journal, 50:508, September, 1958. 13William H. Koch, Jr., "The North Carolina Fund," Working with Low Income Families, Proceedings of the AHEA Workshop, March 15-19, 1965 (Washington: American Home Economics Association, 1965), p. 127; Walters, o . cit., p. 644; David M. Fulcomer, "What are Today's FamiIies Like?," Journal, 55:698, November, 1963. 14American Home Economics Association, "Work with Low-Income Families," Journal, 57:782, December, 1965; Dorothy Keenan, "Exploring Value Patterns," Journal, 59: 776, December, 1967. 145 what life style will best achieve this end? Families, Chilman and Morgan stress, are important for preserving the American way of life. The family life style best expressing the American way of life is found in the middle class. Since the middle-class way of life in our society carries with it so many rewards, it seems likely that the very poor would benefit from child-rearing and family life patterns that are more like those of the middle-class and less like the ones that a number now use.15 If all families express the life style of the middle class, including the poor, the family and individuals will have feelings of adequacy restored to them, they will strengthen the society and live more purposeful lives. The life style held to be most creative by the field is distinctly Ameri- can, will come to permeate the globe and offers the most beneficent way of life for all. Each new societal member must be taught to function adequately with others, for man is a social being. Because sociability is a basic human need, the field has developed a large body of materials drawn from many sources and aimed at educating the individual for improved interpersonal relationships. Lacot feels that home economics "can help 15Catherine S. Chilman, "Value Orientations of a Culture of Poverty: The Southern Appalachian Case,“ Work- ing with Low Income Families, p. 53; Mildred 1. Morgan, The Contributions and Needs of Home Economics Research in the Area of Family Relations," Journal, 51:361, May, 1959. 146 people learn to live with others.“16 By more fully under- standing human development and needs, Hurt feels that indi- viduals are maximized.17 But, man's individuality must exist within an environment of men. Adequacy in inter- personal relationships helps each live with those about him, reduces friction between men and fosters feelings of personal well-being. Children will benefit from an edu- cation in interpersonal living. If they learn to live in many different situations, according to Chittenden, Somer- ville and De Vivo, they can gain greater self understanding, sensitivity to others needs and goals and more clearly com- prehend and live with the inconsistencies of family mem- bers.18 The forces of society acting upon families place many demands on the individual family member often causing him to react inconsistently. If the young are taught early to live with these demands, understand them and handle them efficiently, they will be better able as adults to compe- tently exist in a social environment made more secure through their personal efforts. 16Muria Socorro Lacot, "The Contribution of Home Economics to the Social and Economic Life of the Family," Journal, 50:635, October, 1958. 17Mary Lee Hurt and Ruth J. Dales, "For Effective Teaching of Family Living," Journal, 51:350, May, 1959. 18Gertrude Chittendon and Flo Gould, "A Challenge to Child Development and Family Relationships," Journal, 51: 98, February, 1959; Rose M. Somerville, "Imaginative Literature in Family Life Education," ournal, 55:409, June, 1963; Anita De Vivo, ”Family Life: The Common De- nominator,” Journal, 55:259, April, 1963. 147 On the whole, Morgan and Chittendon point out, the field, although advocating the goal of improved inter- personal relationships in families, has done little research in the area. Using materials from other sources, however, may prove to be to the field's advantage for it promotes an interdisciplinary approach. Such an approach uses a wide number of resources which could eventually assist home economics in contributing to healthier, more rounded per- 19 The field may provide a more realistic view sonalities. of family relationships than if it stayed exclusively within its own research. Improving the family's environment provides another outlet for accomplishing home economics' general goal of service to families. In the affluent society surrounding modern families, home economics, Gross submits, can balance the interrelationship of things with people.20 Never are people to be subordinated to technological developments. By creating a home and community environment in accordance with those values held by individuals, Downer and Smith suggest that family needs at various life cycle stages can 21 be met. Society could overpower and force the family to 19Morgan, op. cit., p. 358; Chittendon, op. cit., p. 99. 20Irma H. Gross, "Impact of Certain Basic Disci- plines on Home Management in Family Living," Journal, 58: 448, June, 1966. 21Donna Beth Downer, Ruth Smith, and Mildred T. Lynch, "Values and Housing--A New Dimension," Journal, 148 submit to its desires, for it is more powerful than the family. However, if the field works as a balancing mechan- ism, both the culture and the family are able to achieve their goals with reduced friction between the two. Every family, Hodge stresses, is entitled to a decent home.22 Home economics can endeavor to see that all families have this provision met, for in a satisfactory environment (satisfactory to the family) the ideals of man, family and society can be accomplished. Finally, family life research can, by concentrating on "perceptions, attitudes, interests, values, family ad- justment, family life patterns, home management and family economics, aging and methodology," suggests Morgan, deter- 23 mine the field's direction in service to families. The field's research, posits Tate, can "contribute directly to the provision of good homes, the maintenance of family members' physical and mental health and the constructive «24 development of "pleasant human relationships. And, by studying family development and concentrating a large 60:176, March, 1968; Ruth H. Smith, "Job Analysis as a Basis for House Arrangement," Journal, 54:458, June, 1962. 22Madeline Hodge, "Serving the Needs of Families in Public Housing Developments," Journal, 55:627, October, 1963. 23Morgan, loc. cit. V 24Mildred Thurow Tate, "Family Life Research," Journal, 51:210. March, 1959. 149 portion of the field's efforts on child growth and develop- ment, Morgan and Bezant maintain that human behavior and family development are better understood.25 The field's research, Dawe posits, can serve to 26 If home economics has "offer constructive advice." resolutions for better living, it is obligated to dissemi- nate the information to those desiring and needing it. Successful living at all stages of the life cycle is a possibility toward which the field directs its research. In this way, feels Christopherson, the individual (women in particular) and society will be afforded the greatest 27 Home economics, along with other measure of fulfillment. areas interested in the family can assist, point out Burk, Le Baron, Morgan and Hettler, in clarifying family reality, synthesize and develop new theories for family research and foster general principles applicable to world-wide efforts toward peace and understanding among all peoples.28 25Morgan, op. cit., p. 361; Rozelle K. Bezant, "Marriage and Family Living in the Homemaking Curriculum," Journal, 57:14, January, 1965. 26Helen C. Dawe, "Teaching Child Development--Runs, Hits, and Errors," Journal, 50:83, February, 1958. 27Victor A. Christopherson, "Women in Modern Society," Journal, 57:102, February, 1965. 28Margurite C. Burk, "Consumer Behavior," Journal, 59:156, March, 1967; Helen R. Le Baron, "Professional Inter- action," Journal, 59:500, September, 1967; Morgan, op. cit., ‘p. 359; Frances M. Hettler, et al., "Learning About Families Through Professional Travel Experiences," Journal, 60:260, April, 1968. 150 Family research will define the standards, set the course, develop a framework of principles, and foster a better life for individuals and families. Finally, the field's major concern centers on ser- vice to strengthen families. It offers its services by promoting the family's economic progress, restoring feel- ings of adequacy to it, providing education for improved interpersonal relationships which promotes individual security, esteem and uniqueness, improving the family's living conditions and promoting research which seeks to better family life. These five channels serve families-— securing them in society and strengthening them. How relevant is the family to the social order as viewed by the field? (What is the family's relation to the social order?) Home economics' conception of the family's relation to the social order encompasses three elements. These include: (1) its position as a social institution; (2) its adaptability; and (3) its problems which warrant society's concern. Families are approved social insti- tutions having designated cultural tasks. The Association (American Home Economics Association) is, submits Marshall, concerned with the family as a social institution and with 29 the forces having impact on it. Families have social aims and goals. They are organized and impressed with the 29William H. Marshall, "Home Economists and Legis- lation Affecting Families," Journal, 59:642. October, 1967. 151 need to achieve culturally defined ends. "Families must choose values and aims,‘ says Knoll, "that are economically, socially, and psychologically justifiable and acceptable to "30 Additional desires which might be unique to a society. particular family are of secondary importance and to be achieved in the wake of socially defined ends. The family's course is delineated by society; by following the defined course, individuals can achieve satisfactory family lives for themselves. Families are also related to society through their adaptability. Modern cultures are rapidly changing due to vast technological advancements. By submitting to social change, the family best serves society's ends. Mockmore and Reid have suggested some family changes resulting from concomitant social change. These include: (1) a trend towards fewer children—-society demands that children be nurtured over an extended period, a costly process in modern societies; (2) a reduction in family functions--society has become increasingly specialized prodding the family toward a similar direction; (3) both adult family members provide economic support for the family--society has reduced family functions so that individuals are freer to participate in the social order apart from the protective family.31 30Marjorie Knoll, "Toward a Conceptual Framework in Home Management," Journal, 55:336, May, 1963. 31Buena Maris Mockmore, "Lasting Values in a Chang- ing World," Journal, 50:752, November, 1958; Margaret Reid, 152 Society's influence causes families to yield to its desires. Finally, the family is enmeshed with society be- cause many of society's changes have created family and social problems. Smith, for example, says: "Residential mobility of the population is a factor which may be causa— tive of and related to many socioeconomic problems of "32 Since social change families, communities, and society. has created a number of problems, it behooves society to seek remedies for these problems in order to achieve its ends. Stewart and Reagan make one suggestion: It is the responsibility of public welfare agencies to work toward making possible a standard of living for all people adequate to preserve health and family life, and sufficiently adequate to promote participation in community activities. By increasing family resources, government programs contri- bute to the national goal of a rising standard of living and assist in upward mobility of the population in general.33 If society wants active, participating members capable of achieving socially valued goals, it must support the family. Economic support appears to be the most efficient mode for "Families in a Changing Economy," Journal, 51:569, June, 1959. 32Ruth H. Smith, "Housing Choices as Evidenced by Residential Mobility," Journal, 57:39, January, 1965. 33Stewart, op. cit., p. 389; Barbara B. Reagan, "The Effect of Government Agricultural Programs on Family Living," Journal, 52:441, June, 1960. 153 accomplishing these ends. Families, therefore, relate to society through their institutional status (with supportive mores, norms and laws), adaptability and problems warranting social services. How relevant is the family to the social order as viewed by the field? (Is the family still a strong part of society?) The field's replies to the question of family strength are encased in three frameworks. Each maintains that it represents the family's actual condition at this time. The frames argue that either the family is in need of help, is balanced with the society or is changing. Those home economists maintaining the first position base their assumption on certain family characteristics indicative of weakness. Rutledge and Fulcomer point out that today's families are overwhelmed by feelings of inadequacy. They want to feel they are a valued and necessary part of the culture. "There is considerable evidence that a search for identity and significance in family relationships is "34 Fami- an outstanding characteristic of families today. lies are weakened externally and internally. Externally they seek a significant place in the social structure. Internally, Klemer suggests, they are experiencing a loss of determination among married partners to stay together. Individuals enter marriage having fanciful and/or confused 34 p. 697. Rutledge, op. cit., p. 15; Fulcomer, op. cit., 154 expectations brought on by a society and families who have perpetuated a cycle of unrealistic family life goals.35 Their members grope toward meaningful relations among them- selves. So that each family is strengthened internally and externally, educated individuals are needed who can live with themselves, their families and members of the wider society; moreover, Lacot feels that families must be helped to "shoulder the responsibility of developing the type of men and women who will build strong nations."36 Finally, today's families are deeply conservative-- lacking a toleration for diversity. They ignore the ex- tremes demanded by the concentration on idealistic goals needed, Ingersoll submits, "for the creation of a richer life for mankind."37 Feelings of inadequacy, internal and external structural weaknesses, the need for reeducation for family life, and the lack of unique objectives centered on mankind's betterment characterize the weak, character- less families of today. Another perspective on family strength asserted by home economics concluded that families are far from weak. In reality, Le Baron suggests that they are interdependent 35Klemer, op. cit., p. 621. 36Lacot, op. cit., p. 635. ~ 37Hazel L. Ingersoll, "Family Values in a Consumer Age," Journal, 53:544, September, 1961. 155 with society.38 Society cannot function without families nor families without society. Supporters of this view base their postulates primarily on the influence that families exert on society excluding the reciprocity of the relation- ship. Each family unit is highly variable, Schvarreveldt 39 Its influence posits, affecting society in diverse ways. is registered primarily through society's economy. Families are consuming and producing agents. Their highly variable desires stimulate product production which creates jobs for individuals. So, Murell submits, "the distance between what a family has and what it would like to have can stimu- late production or lead to social unrest according to its magnitude." In selecting from the consumer market to satisfy the desires of its memberships, the family becomes a producer. The housing, furnishings, food and other 40 Families, materials selected gratify individual needs. then, are maintained in balance with the social order via economic support which in turn releases each individual to found his own family knowing that society will support and maintain it in order to perpetuate social goals. 38Le Baron, op. cit., p. 501. 39Jay D. Schvarreveldt, "Reference Groups and Family Functioning in the Community," Journal, 60:717, November, 1968. 40Jose Marull, "The Family as an Economic Unit," .Journal, 58:256-257, April, 1966. 156 A third position concerning family strength is based on its quality of changeableness. Adherents of this position suggest that in reality families are neither weak nor strong--a11 that can be said is that they are altering. Morgan, Schorr and Dixon uphold this position.41 Culture and man adapt to one another through the family ultimately affecting both. Social change causes family change in a self perpetuating cycle. Families serve to ease the forces of change with their accompanying effects on individuals. Were man to exist apart from family support, the effects of change would debilitate and reduce his functioning in the wider society. Thus, no conclusion as to family strength or weakness can be determined--all that can be said is that families are perpetually changing. Any other conclusion is erroneous or unjustifiable at present. Fami- lies, then, can be conceptualized within three positions. Either they are weak and in need of help, are balanced or interdependent with society or they are neither, but in- stead are changing towards no readily determinable direction. What does the field conceive as desirable in the family? The desirable in families, as identified by home economists, includes the following qualities: (1) economic 41Winona Morgan, "Implications of the White House ,Conference for Home Economists," Journal, 52:507, September, 1960; Alvin L. Schorr, "Filial Responsibility and the Aging," Journal, 54:272, April, 1962; Dixon, op. cit., p. 500. 157 security; (2) stability and unity; (3) a complementary environment; (4) altruism and maturity; (5) creativity; and (6) physical and mental health, among others. Premising these qualities is the field's commitment to the fact that a successful family life can be enjoyed and achieved. Walters, Samenfink and Moore's opinions converge here: Successful family life is ill-defined by society but worthy of achievement. It is a joyful responsibility that can be realized only through the concerted efforts of its member- 42 Families are worthwhile social units. Placing ship. group goals above personal goals, Samenfink adds, can help families achieve their social ends; achieving social ends 43 The leads to a successful and enjoyable family life. family working as a complete unit, then, can pave the way for attaining those qualities desired in the family life of modern or Western cultures. The qualities, except for economic security, appear in no particular order of im— portance. Indications present in the literature infer that without economic security the other attributes are un- achievable. The field has yet to define a hierarchical ordering or priority of any one quality exclusive of eco- nomic security. 42Walters, op. cit., p. 644; F. Anthony Samenfink and Ruth Kranzler, 'Goals and Techniques of a Family- Centered Laboratory Nursery School, Journal, 52:265, April, 1960; Floride Moore, "A Look Ahead," Journal, 52:521, (September, 1960. 43Samenfink, op. cit., p. 264. 158 Until a family achieves economic security, it can- not provide for those additional qualities identified as desirable by the field. Staab, Bonde and Goldberg assert that economic security is the family's foundation or sus- taining structure. Moreover, individuals who enter family life should have a sound background of economic principles enabling them to function in an economic environment. "A California judge has said that money troubles produce more family breakups than any other single cause. . . . No family or individual who cannot control finances is se- cure."44 Economic security is also essential for mental health. Eisendrath and Bonde said: The success of a family-oriented society depends on a healthy, free functioning family unit, and good mental health cannot exist for children and parents in a family that is always living on the brink of financial disaster. [To have] a balanced, rational system of money management which shows clearly the interrelationship of earning, spending, borrowing, and saving is essen- tial if families are to escape being trapped in an illusion of affluence without purpose. Mental health, normal growth and development and a sense of purpose in family life are the products of competent manage- ment within an economic environment. Lacking this sub- structure, all other desirable qualities in family life 44Josephine Staab, et al., "Improving Economic Literacy Through Family Economics," Journal, 54:90, February, 1963; Ruth L. Bonde, "Means and Ends,'' Consumer Credit, p. 145; Goldberg, op. cit., p. 90. 45Jack N. Eisendrath, "The Primrose Path from Easy Credit to Bankruptcy," Consumer Credit, p. 97; Bonde, op. cit., p. 148. 159 are unattainable or realized at a level far below what society deems adequate. Family stability and unity are the precursors of successful generational continuity and the social order's perpetuation. It is important that youth understand the components of these qualities and learn their significance, feels Walters, so that mankind can progress.46 Increas- ingly, Baker and Klemer point out, family stability depends on personal interaction. Not the interaction of stereo- typed roles of mother, father, child but the individuality of each person's commitment to and effect on others. In fact, the individual's happiness may have replaced sta- 47 Stability, however, bility as the highest marital value. is imperative if people are to live well balanced lives. Jewson says: People prepared for living reasonably well-adjusted lives in adequately organized and stable families have a better chance for survival when they face crisis, especially since most people have to rely on their own inner resources as they face problems.48 Individuals from organized environments are instilled with the capacity to cope with problems of personal and social import. 46Walters, op. cit., p. 641. 47Luther G. Baker, Jr., "The Enigma of Men in Home Economics," Journal, 61:371, May, 1969; Klemer, op. cit., p. 621. . 48Ruth H. Jewson, "Relation of Handicapping Condi- tions to Family Relationships," Journal, 55:624, October, 1963. 160 Responsibility, another facet of stability and unity, is imperative, agree Rutledge and Nichols, if adults are to assume their social commitments and further social goals. Responsibility must be instilled at an early age. Children endowed with a sense of responsibility value family values and can contribute meaningfully to their primary 49 If children are held accountable for their social group. actions while young, they are better able to function in an adult society based on the responsible actions of indi- viduals. Finally, family rituals provide a sense of oneness which, says Hall, "contribute[s] to the stability and unity of families."50 Not only do rituals emphasize the impor- tance of family life, but they endow man with a sense of purpose and meaning. Through individuals imbued with the goals of effective interaction, a sense of responsibility to the family and society and commitment to family unity through rituals, families can furnish an arena of stability and unity which contributes to the child's welfare--the family's ultimate achievement. Stability and unity, submit Dawe and Durrett, ensure the child's security, elevate his self concept and reduce his anxiety and fear of the larger 49 p. 726. Rutledge, 0p. cit., p. 16; Nichols, op. cit., 50Ruth C. Hall, Family Holidays Around the World '(Washington: American Home Economics Association, 1964), p. 3. 161 world order.51 Without these two elements, children are faced with a hostile environment with which they are unable to cope at their immature life-stage. A family's life style and behavior is positively affected by a complimentary surrounding environment. Downer and Vars maintain: As the locus of family life, the house provides the physical setting for man's introduction to sociali- zation. The house, as well as being a physical structure, seemingly has emotional, social, and psychological implications. The house, his [the individual's] home, influences his activities, his social relationships, and often- times the satisfactions in family living.52 The encircling environment encasing families reflects the ideals of the social order. Inadequate environments hinder the individual's proqress and can reduce his capacity for becoming a socially responsible person. Altruism and maturity enhance family life for each member has his personal as well as shared sphere of activity in the group. Marriage and the family involves close inter- personal relationships. Positive relations enhancing the group have the following characteristics, says Carter: 51Dawe, op. cit., p. 82; Mary Ellen Durrett, "Re- lation Between Anxiety and Self Concept Among Marathi- Speaking Indian Children," Journal, 57:717, 719, November, 1965. 52Donna Beth Downer, "The House and Adult Social 'Activity," Journal, 61:21, January, 1969; Freda Teitzel Vars, "Factors Related to Housing Satisfaction," Journal, 61:164, March, 1969. 162 Warmth, love, closeness, involvement and commitment to each other, while at the same time preserving those qualities of self which enable us individually, to be and remain a person, each in his own unique way. The goal of such a relationship, suggests Lucky, is a mature individual "able to feel genuinely concerned for the welfare of others, eager and capable of establishing an intimate and permanent relationship with others, is desirous of creating and rearing children."54 Each person, then, must reconcile the conflict between his own and his group's goals. He must maintain his own integrity and self worth while accomplishing socially assigned tasks. He must be able to give yet retain a part of himself. His giving builds maturity, fosters altruism and enhances per- sonal integrity and self worth. Thus, by furthering the group, certain individual needs are met. The family is not dedicated solely to the achieve- ment of social ends. If it was, creativity, another de- sired family quality, would be stifled. Lucky and Liston feel that one of the family's principle tasks is to repro- duce and nurture individual development--individuals capable of dealing with social problems. They must be alternative minded and "able to choose from the relevant alternatives in a problem situation that one which gives 53Don Carter, "Love and Integrity in Marriage," Journal, 59:427, June, 1967. 54Eleanore Braun Luckey, "Sex Education," Journal, 61:31, January, 1969. 163 promise of being most productive in yielding the outcome sought."55 This kind of person is not fostered in families whose life style reflects only an inflexible adherence to social goals. Hurd says: "In short, creativity seems to thrive in a challenging atmosphere, far removed from the 'dead hand of the past' and 'smother-love' and 'father- brother.”56 It is a phenomenon resulting from the indi- vidual's interpretation of socially defined role positions. These change and alter with the needs of the time and re- flect a constantly fluctuating analysis of the family's purpose. Creativity can be stifled not only by a strict adherence to societal goals, but by a commitment to a singleness of purpose so pervasive as to cause the ab- sorption of one partner by another. Individuals adhering to such a purpose, Carter suggests, intend to seek an intimacy so excessive that one or both partners loses identity; this is not maturity--each must recognize the other's uniqueness.57 Each family and family member must set aside arenas of activity in which to foster the 55Lucky, in Journal, 57:687; Margaret I. Liston, "Management in the Fam11y as Social Process," Conceptual Frameworks: Process of Home Management, Proceedings of a Home Management Conference, June 17-20, 1964 (East Lansing: Michigan State University, 1964), p. 66. 56Helen G. Hurd, "The Square Tomato, Or a Look to the Future," Consumer Credit, p. 156. 57Carter, op. cit., p. 426. 164 individual and unique goals of its members and the group as a whole. Although the field has been concerned that creativ- ity be an integral quality of each member's family life, its proposals for action have particularly concerned women and youth. Its attempts, according to Rutledge, have been directed toward educating youth to become capable of think- ing and deciding for themselves, and educating women to foster individualism by promoting self sufficiency and self determination in their own children.58 White adds that with the increasing equalization of women's opportunities in society, wives and mothers are now better able to offer their families a creative atmosphere within which to foster individual development and personal inventiveness.59 The physical and mental health of families is another desired quality. Families, Apgar feels, want healthy, normal children who are able to function in 60 This goal is achievable, according to Dixon, society. Schaik and Hunter, through adequate shelter and security, nutrition which meets both the social and psychological as well as physical needs and the adequate management of 58Rutledge, op. cit., p. 15. 59Ruth Bennett White, "The Turkish Woman and Her Family," Journal, 55:241, April, 1963. 60Virginia Apgar, M.D., "Birth Defects: A National Concern," Journal, 56:21, January, 1964. 165 resources. Then individual abilities are maximized and channeled from mere survival to contribution and personal 61 Dependents must satisfaction and peace of mind result. be adequately cared for by the family. By ensuring the physical and mental health of all its members, from the youngest to the oldest, the family frees individuals to accomplish their own as well as social ends. Finally, according to Marshall and Ingersoll, the democratic ideals of the culture and the individual capabilities of intelli- gence (using technology's knowledge and skills to enrich family life), conscience (hindering exploitation) and reverence (worshipping the trancendent above the material) serve to set the direction for a family life style serving both society and man.62 What guestions have been raised by the field rela- tive to the family? Questions concerning families have 63 been raised in ten interest areas by the field. Techni- cally all areas of study included under the title--home economics--might be construed as indirectly affecting, 61Dixon, op. cit., p. 499; Theodora Schaik, F.S.M., "Food and Nutrition Relative to Family Life," Journal, 56: 228, April, 1964; Stanley M. Hunter, "Homemakers Name Their Home Problems," Journal, 53:427, June, 1961. 62Helen R. Marshall, at al., "Modification of Stu- dent Attitudes on Guidance-of—Children Scales Through Class- room Teaching," Journal, 52:185, March, 1960; Ingersoll, op. cit., pp. 543, 546. 63Refer to Appendix F. 166 assisting and contributing to the field's body of theory pertinent to families. But, since the study dealt only with those topics which were labeled by the profession as directly concerning families, all others were omitted. Topics within which questions were raised included: (1) families in society; (2) family economics; (3) family health, welfare and services; (4) family environment; (5) family values, (6) child development, (7) family life edu- cation; (8) interpersonal relationships; (9) the profession of home economics; and (10) family research. Several of these concerns appear to be directly related and integral parts of one another. The first three, for example, re- sult from the fact that families exist in a social environ- ment. Their relationship to society poses questions and problems for the field to study. Families exist in social environments and are modi- fied by them. Their purpose is service and adaptability to societal change. As more and more cultures become techno- logically sophisticated, the need for adaptable families will be ever present. Change is cumulative and increas- ingly rapid. Families with a high degree of flexibility will be a cultural prerequisite. The field attempts,through international and national understanding of the family's present reality, to determine how families can best in- corporate and adapt to change. This question has led to -the development of a body of materials concerned with 167 creativity and resourcefulness in decision making, manage- ment and the setting of goals commensurate with man's and society's needs. For Liston says: Whether they are aware of it or not, the ways and kinds of decisions made by families have impact for better or worse on their functioning in society--on the degree to which they carry out their responsi- bilities for reproduction and physical protection, for affection and status, for economic tasks . . . , and socialization.64 The pressures of social modification could disintegrate the family. To prevent such an occurrence, society furn- ishes economic support and expresses concern for the family's health and welfare. If families have society's assistance in terms of their economic and protective re- quirements, they will be better able to socialize indi- viduals to contribute constructively to the surrounding environment. The outlook for families will considerably brighten once they are freed from performing those func- tions concerned solely with physical survival. How society can best sustain families, then, is a question meriting the field's study. Directly related to home economics' concern that society adequately maintain and secure the family's posi- tion, is the question of what is the most conducive environ- ment for that family life style desired by the culture? From the question a body of theory has evolved related to housing and home management. The arrangement of living __i 64Liston, op. cit., pp. 65-66. 168 space vdlfll regard to the needs of the family and each of its members, along with the effective use of resources within a planned environment have received the field's considered efforts. Family environments can be devised on the basis of sound reasoning and research to suit the needs of each unit. Adequate planning will reduce the insecur- ity, tensions and/or frustrations accompanying the effects of poor housing (crowded conditions, lack of privacy, poor location of equipment, or few safety precautions) and create an atmosphere conducive to the well-being of all families. Another cluster of concerns within which questions have been raised includes family values, child development, family life education, and interpersonal relationships. These four areas are seemingly governed by the following questioning pattern and premises: Families preserve social orders by promoting cultural values. What values do modern or Western cultures advance? How can these best be pro- moted in families? What avenues for promoting these values are available besides the family? Two outlets appear to be education and social service: these outlets can train and assist families and their children to function in a social environment. The field is concerned for the social order's preservation through adequate individual function- ing. It seeks to define those values supported by the total culture which preserve its desired way of life. 169 Through the channels of education and social service, home economics strives towards incorporating them within all families. From these efforts, cultural unity is promoted and continuity enhanced. Changing values are also of con- cern to home economics. Should a value no longer merit societal support or be replaced by a more relevant value, the field readjusts its body of knowledge to assume and promote the new ideal: Similarly, the field adjusts to society as does the family. Family life can be improved, but only if families will promote societal values and indi- viduals will strive to foster those interpersonal relation- ships that are conducive to the mental and physical growth and development of each member and the family as a unit. Interpersonal relationships have social and psycho- logical qualities. Awareness of the results of interaction by family members can help each person guide his relation- ships into the most successful channels in turn ensuring personal security and feelings of adequacy. How to secure those family relations which cultivate happy well adjusted family members and the unit itself has occupied the field's interest. Functional socialization can provide the best means for assisting the individual's satisfactory operation in the small social system called family and in the larger social environment. Education and service, then, overarch all the field's attempts to answer those questions con- 'cerning the clarification of cultural values, the functional 170 socialization of the child and the promotion of adequate interpersonal relationships within and outside the family. The efforts of the field's professionals, in prac- tice as well as in research, are of special interest to home economics for they sustain the field. The education of the professional for teaching and social service along with the body of theory needed to accomplish the field's goals has been a locus of concern. Since home economics' professionals are small in number and primarily women, home economics has attempted to open its doors to growing numbers of persons who can assist in accomplishing the field's tasks. The use of para-professionals, trained but inactive home economists and men interested in furthering family life are three possibilities tendered that could afford the field a wider sphere of influence. Along with the need for growing numbers of home economists, the field has come to the realization that continuing to draw family research primarily from other disciplines provides a less than adequate base for accomplishing its goals. A definite need exists for professional interaction with the disci- plines ensuring home economics' contribution as well as its assumption of materials. Home economics must take a more active part in contributing to the body of theory and con- tent concerning family life. Research priorities need to 1x3 set and researchers trained if the field is to take an nactive part in the ever growing sectors of education, 171 service and research related to families. Thus, questions have been raised concerning how best to expand and accom- plish the field's goals, recruit and train its profession- als and para-professionals, improve its research, and set priorities. The replies received through research have defined the modes of operation used strengthening families. In sum, the field's questions have developed from a series of concerns related to families. Those areas in which they were raised include the position of the family in society, the economic support structure, health, wel- fare, services and environment needed by families to main- tain that life style promoted by the culture; the need for understanding the child's development and family behavior, offering family life education, improving interpersonal relationships and promoting family values that will improve the desired life style in the future. And finally, how can home economics increase the number of professionals capable of using an ever enlarging body of theory concern- ing all families and employed to sustain and improve family life? How does the field differ in its conception of the fandly'from that concept of the family held by other disci— jplines from which it draws its knowledge? In reply to the cplestion, home economics reveals its position concerning 'therconcept "family." The field borrows many materials frtnn the respective disciplines; thus, differentiation can 172 determine its singularity. For home economics to slavishly borrow the research of other disciplines would negate its service and ability to strengthen families. But, distin- guishing it from other selected disciplines illuminates the field's interpretations of its own and those outside sources having relevance for the field. Families need to be examined. In choosing to study, serve and strengthen the family, the field admits to making a definite value judgment. Although home economics agrees, along with anthropology, sociology and psychology, that the family has worth because it performs necessary social ser- vices, i.e., socialization of the child and preservation of the social structure; it varies from the disciplines by placing stress on the family's ability to help individuals cope with social problems. Families exist in and are pres- sured by society. They serve as buffers which protect and train individuals--releasing them to function apart from the family when they are capable of productively handling and solving socially derived problems. Anthropology, sociology in particular, and psy- chology have all postulated that families relate to society through their adaptability to the structure. All three of the disciplines present pro and con arguments on this point. .Adaptability can have positive and/or negative effects on the family's internal and external functioning. Home eco- ‘nomics, however, has recognized only the positive elements 173 of family adaptability. If families were not adaptable, their purpose in society would vanish, according to the field, for the societal serving purposes are imperative and take precedence over man's needs. With regard to the family's strength, again home economics' conceptions are highly similar to those of the disciplines. Anthropology holds that families are either weak or strong, sociology maintains that they are balanced with society, weak or strong and psychology posits that families are either weak but functioning or weak and producing mentally disturbed individuals. Home economics, similarly, finds that fami— lies are weak or balanced with society. But, it differs from the disciplines by asserting a third view--that fami- lies are neither balanced nor weak--a11 that can be said is: they are changing in a nondeterminable direction at present. Home economics' particular view of the family re- mains unclear, to date. It has borrowed, for the most part, from sociology's institutional and developmental approaches. However, its consistent use of the latter approach in research and theory building sets it apart from others for it has contributed to this framework with long term regularity. Its efforts have been concentrated on decision making, management, the effects of change, and the use of resources to meet present and future family 'needs. Individual ability in these areas restores feel- ings of adequacy, security and competence to families. 174 Those qualities desired for the family and stressed particularly by the field include two prerequisites: (1) economic support; and (2) an environment fostering the family's ability to accomplish social tasks and promote the well-being of its members. In order for society to have families that produce fully functioning individuals, it must support them economically and environmentally. Only then can the family be freed to concentrate on instilling individuals with additionally desired qualities which are the outcome of an adequately supported family life: the creation of a unique family environment fostering individual security, competent decision making in a democratic society and creativity. Individual maturity is impossible without societal support. These three elements and the priority given to them (economic security and a satisfactory environ- ment fostering individual development) sets the field apart from the disciplines. Variation in the field's goals from those of the disciplines is incorporated within one area. Although the disciplines seek to strengthen families, home economics has chosen a channel which sets it apart: the field strives to develop subsistence standards and see that all families are provided with at least these minimum levels. Families below the levels are elevated, if possible, while those at the minimum level are encouraged to achieve beyond it. Home economics is future oriented. The decisions made by 175 families in the past affect their future position ulti- mately determining their ability to maintain and improve the quality of family life. Families are to strive ever upward. Individuals feel more secure and capable and can reap the benefits of family life if they are able to participate in and improve the life style promoted by the culture. So, the field assists all families to achieve the approved style which is: (1) distinctly of modern or Western cultural origin; (2) nuclear; (3) primarily middle class; (4) highly mobile; and (5) based on individuality, warm interpersonal relationships, companionship, and demo- cratic ideals. Home economics' questions have primarily concerned the family's existence in a social environment, since it must function in and serve the environment. Society cannot ride roughshod over the family if it wishes to preserve cultural continuity through individual integrity. There- fore, questions of interest to home economics include the following: (1) how to secure the most conducive environ- ment ensuring the preservation of the desired cultural life style; and (2) what values does the culture promote ensur- ing this life style: To achieve these ends, additional questions have considered ways and means of enlarging and improving the profession and its research. If families are to solve problems brought on by social pressures, the field's efforts must be directed toward discovering how families can make the most competent decisions in light of 176 man's and society's needs. At present, all areas of family life require assistance in decision making for the most ade- quate use of resources promoting individual and family health and well-being. The field's questions, then, are directed within the areas of environmental control, the preservation and promotion of cultural values, problem solving, and management. What does the field pgedict for the family's future? The family's future is assured, according to home econo- mists. Its viability and vitality as a social institution guarantees its eminent position in all future cultures. Future families will not only be an intrinsic part of the culture, characterized similarly throughout the world, but, Dixon and Moore predict, they will be highly durable, chang- ing in character, nuclear in life style (contact years be- tween members of more than one generation will decrease) and they will continue to preserve the fundamental values 65 Since families have capably reproduced of the culture. societal replacements and provided a setting for the child's growth to adulthood, they will in the future continue to perform these vital functions. In this way their position will be assured and exemplified. Social change greatly influences the family causing it to adapt to each new force that develops. Several social 65Dixon, op. cit., p. 497; Moore, op. cit., p. 628. 177 forces holding import for future families in modern or Western cultures were tendered by Moore. The predicted changes affecting the family were based on the absence of any economic or catastrophic reversals in the years to come. These include: (1) greater wealth for families due to increased economic activity; (2) greater urbani- zation of families due to the continued movement of the population into urban areas; (3) less time spent in the family by its members due to more women working and society's greater responsibility for socializing the child; (4) a greater number of old and young family mem- bers due to the rapid population growth and lengthening life span; and (5) family problems falling within the areas of management, relationships, use of resources, and the 66 The latter are due rearing and education of the child. to the increasing number of decisions having to be made regarding the best use of the products of affluence in meeting individual and family needs. Also, there is a growing need to prepare a child for a society radically different from that into which he was born. Not only will the forces of social change affect the total family, but the roles of its individual members will be in ferment--particularly those of women and youth. They will gain increasing independence from the family: more women will combine the positions of homemaker-bread 66Moore, op. cit., p. 519. 178 winner while youth will be increasingly socialized outside the family. Consequently, both, through these role changes, will be able to live freer, more creative lives within and apart from the family. Updegraff found that since women have a longer lifespan, their influence as grandmothers on their children's families will be extensive.67 The role positions of youth and women hold the possibility of active change in the future. Families ensure social continuity by inculcating the young with the cultural ideals and providing orderly relationships between individuals securing the new arrivals' position in society. Because of these services, Reid and Morgan submit that the family is deemed a social neces- sity.68 Society and families have a reciprocal relation- ship--both need each other. At present some families are less adequate than others. To bring these up to a minimum level, alined with what is defined as an adequate standard of living, society will in the future ensure the family's security by providing an economically stable base or guaran- teed annual income. Consequently, any family can achieve the culture's minimum desired family life style. And, since society will in the future play an increasing role in socializing the young, in turn freeing family members to 67Sue Garner Updegraff, "Changing Roles of the Grandmother," Journal, 60:177, March, 1968. 68Reid, op. cit., p. 569; Morgan, op. cit., p. 507. 179 perform more societal services, it also will of necessity have to assume responsibility for the handicapped and the aged. All family members are to contribute to society; a demand by one member upon other members for care will subsequently be reduced. Adequate socialization of youth ensures a fully functioning, contributing adult. Since some families have difficulty facilitating the child's transition from home to community (evidenced by an inability to function in socially acceptable ways), Miller submits that it will be necessary for society to intervene increasingly in family life--loosening its internal bonds. New devices should be attempted such as "nursery schools for the children of working mothers and public boarding schools for children from slum areas." It is reasonable to expect that the community of the future will assume many of the roles traditionally assigned to the family. In fact, to advocate other- wise is to speak for an agrarian ideal that is entirely unsuitable in a corporate, interdependent society.69 Society can socialize youth more efficiently in some cases. Each person is assured a more equal opportunity than if he were to remain in an environment that stifled personal growth. Not just the less adequate but all families will, in the future, realize the heightened advantages furnished by socialization of the child outside the family. Future 69Paul A. Miller, "Poverty Amidst Affluence: An Overall View of Poverty in Contemporary Society," Working with Low Income Families, p. 18. 180 social welfare legislation and education will increasingly include greater benefits for all children so that a common bond between cultural members is assured. Finally, Hurd suggests that families of the future will be permeated by a new ideology--"one of independence 70 Instead of copying family activities and creativity." and life styles of others (e.g., bearing and rearing chil- dren, owning a home, moving to the suburbs, conspicuously consuming), future families will set their own pace. Indi- viduals will have greater opportunity in the family to create an environment fostering the unique in human develop- ment. The greater control through socialization and the provision of an adequate economic environment by society can release the family to establish its own unique goals and purposes in the cybernetic culture of tomorrow. Thus families of the future will remain enduring institutions shaped by social pressures forcing adaptation. Family member roles, particularly those of women and youth, will be modified affording greater independence and oppor- tunity for individualism. Families will, through greater societal support and control, be released increasingly from the present burdens of economic support and the sociali- zation of youth--tasks which at present occupy the largest portion of their time and efforts. 7OHurd, op. cit., p. 156. 181 What is the definition of the family as presented in the literature of the field? The field's attempts to define the concept "family," have met with difficulty. The term has been used in several ways, none of which has re- sulted in a consensus of thought characterizing a total commitment. From 1927 to 1959, according to Staab, the field ostensibly used the concept "family" as defined by the Bureau of Census: a group "related by blood . . . who live together as one household, usually sharing the same "71 Dixon and Schaik modified the definition for table. their research. One held it to be a "group of two or more persons residing together, who are related by blood, marri- age or adoption"; the other used it as "a group of rela- tives who live together and belong to one household."72 Although the Census definition has received continued use up to the present, Staab recognized that it would not prove to be sufficient for the field's work because of its limited scope. She preferred to define the family by the "customary "73 usage of the term. . . . Customs illuminate the con- cept "family," in the latter analysis. The manner in which 71Josephine H. Staab, "Research in Family Eco- nomics," Journal, 51:257, April, 1959, citing D. Monroe, "The Family in Chicago, A Study of Selected Census Data," Journal, 19:617, November, 1927. 72Dixon, op. cit., p. 496; Schaik, op. cit., p. 225. 73Staab, loc. cit. 182 societies' members commonly use the term becomes the defi- nition of the family. How modern or Western societies define the term family is the next point of order. Those commonalities among all families provide one framework for the field's research. De Vivo, a proponent of this view said: "The players in a family drama are the same in every country, and though the ways in which scenes are played out differ, the experiencing of family roles is the same."74 The com- mon usage of the term, then, is widely applicable cross culturally, more quickly identifies the family in cultures, serves as a bridge between the disciplines and assists in the more realistic use of the concept. That customary usage of the concept "family" which has gained ascendancy in modern or Western cultures and become institutionalized is, suggests Smith, called the nuclear family or new lo- cation family.75 This concept of the family is representa— tive because, maintain Staab, Moore, Hawkes, and Updegraff, it works well in a highly specialized, technological society, is highly mobile, involves only the immediate parents and their offspring, and is divorced from kinship . . . . . . . . 76 support m1n1mlzing lntergeneratlonal lnteractlon. 74De Vivo, op. cit., p. 260. 75Ramona Smith, and Victor A. Christopherson, "Migration and Family Adjustment," Journal, 58:670, October, 1966. 76 Milburn Moore, "Interaction Among Generations, Staab, in Journal, 54:91, February, 1963; Bernice Journal, 183 Although the institutionalized family has received acceptance by a large sector of the field, it is not recog- nized as the most applicable definition by all home econo- mists. Buchanan and Brown counter that it cannot possibly apply to all families because no two families are alike. Besides: In the United States, as in England, the family has the care of far more old people than all hospitals and homes for the aged put together. Yet, we have almost persuaded ourselves that our norm is the two- generation family.77 The nuclear concept, so widely held by large sectors con- cerned with family studies, is probably only partially applicable if it exists at all. Family study investigators have, submits Fulcomer and Magrabi, settled on the conception which employs the family as an institution characterized as "a relatively closed, boundary-maintaining system, whose recurring structural features are position, role, norm, role cluster "78 and role complex. The family which functions under the auspices of society, whose members perform Specific duties 59:623, October, 1967; Hawkes, op. cit., p. 573; Updegraff, op. cit., p. 177. 77Buchanan, op. cit., p. 305; Muriel Brown, "The Growth of Values in Childhood and Old Age," Journal, 52: 412, June, 1960. 78Fulcomer, op. cit., p. 693; Frances Magrabi, Beatrice Paolucci, and Marjorie E. Heifner, "Framework for Studying Family Activity Patterns," Journal, 59:714, NOvember, 1967. 184 and whose structure receives the approval of its member- ship and the community as a whole characterizes the most useful definition of the term family. The conception com- bines several sociological approaches including the insti- tutional, structure-function and interactionist approaches, among others. Those postulating family types other than the popu- lar nuclear and developmental conceptions include the following: --Hanson theorized that two types of families exist in present day societies. These are: (l) the subsistance family which is "dramatically below any norm of adequacy in nutrition, housing, and cultural advantage . . . ;" and (2) the culturally apt family which is "well fed, well edu- cated, and conspicuously consuming."79 --Brown and Martin used the socio-psychological approach (encompassing Hanson's definition within this frame) in their conception of the family. One defined it as "a dynamic system of personalities interacting in a social setting. . . . " But, even more than this, Martin felt that family interaction results in a distinct family personality or identity from the combined group's inter- action. The family's individuality is defined and expressed through the goals it attempts to achieve, for says Martin: "We cannot comprehend the meaning of these [family member] 79Doris E. Hanson, "Which Family? Where Shall the Focus Be?," Journal, 58:777, December, 1966. 185 roles and their impact on the development of individual family members except in the context of the family life style."80 In sum, the concept "family," as used by the field, was governed by the Bureau of Census definition for a num- ber of years. In 1959 awareness that this definition could no longer effectively govern the field's research was evi- dent, although its use has continued. Instead, the family defined as a societal institution exhibiting a nuclear life style appeared to offer greater applicability. Some critics of home economics took opposition with this definition, however, for the large number of families involved in ex- tended kinship relations and living within a wide variation of economic capabilities brought out the realization that no two families are alike. They vary in the goals they choose, the interactional sphere they create over time and they may develop distinct family personalities. To date, these concepts have been forwarded only, little discussion of their meaning has occurred among the field's profession- als. Thus, home economics defines the family according to several approaches (which have been drawn from the disci— plines) and although devising frameworks for conceptualizing families appears as a problem, few research efforts have been channeled in this direction. 80Brown, op. cit., p. 409; William E. Martin, "Interpersonal Relations in Family Life," Journal, 52:657, October, 1960. CHAPTER VI A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF THE ASSOCIATION'S CONCEPTUALIZATION OF THE "FAMILY" AND THE IMPLICATIONS FROM THE CONCEPTUALIZATION Introduction A consistent lack of philosophical analysis is apparent in the American Home Economics Association's literature published between the years 1958 to 1969 and was evident prior to this time period.1 The limited number of studies identifying significant foundational prerequi- sites lending support to the field has hobbled and limited home economics to cloudy or ill-defined suppositions. Clear statements of meaning, direction and purpose accom- panied by proposals for action are lacking. In fact, the field might be accused of resorting to ritualism or word magic in what it puts forward as "philosophical statements." If home economics is to define a clear, progressive course delineating patterns of action, a critical investi- gation of its foundations is imperative. Since the field's lChadderdon, op. cit., p. 1, made this clear when she said: "Relatively few studies of this [philosophical] nature have been carried on previous to or since 1960." 186 187 existence rests upon the concept "family,' it was chosen as the initiating point for the study. Hopefully conceptual analysis can serve as a point from which richer, more profitable analyses of home eco- nomics' foundations will be derived. Thus the field can finally determine the relevance of its suppositions for today and tomorrow. Further, philosophical examination must be stimulated for the field: without it, home eco- nomics will progressively weaken for philosophy gives meaning to action. One restriction must be kept in mind when conducting an analysis of concepts. In any analysis there is, Wilson suggests, no 'complete answer,’ but only a number of logical sketches of greater or less merit."2 Studies of conceptual meaning do not seek right answers. Their merit lies in the realm of clarity and analysis serving to characterize the field's distinctive thoughts, meanings, goals, actions, and their significance. A lack of clarification and analysis mires the field's efforts in ineffectual verbal pomposity leading to stagnation instead of purposive action. To critically analyze home economics' use of the concept "family,' an analytical framework was devised3 facilitating and ordering the investigation. Further 2Wilson, Thinking with Concepts, p. 48. 3Refer to page 15. 188 elaboration of the framework appears in Appendix G. It outlines the direction followed for each question except one: the difference between the field's conception of the family as opposed to that concept held by the disciplines from which home economics draws its knowledge.4 This question selected out and listed the points of difference found between home economics and the disciplines in the remaining questions and simply summarizes those differences. Those points noted can, then, be found within each of the other questions; therefore, the reader is asked to refer to each question specifically mentioned in Chapters V and VI for the detailed analysis and criticism of the selected differences. Is the family viewed as an appropriate area of study for the field? Few outside resource personnel furnished home economics with replies to this question. Respondents not classified as home economists represent educational and governmental establishments. Questions regarding the need to study families were raised in the late 1950's and reappear in the mid and late 1960's. Con- cerns of the late fifties centered around the psychological characteristics of the family. Queries were directed into four areas of interest: (1) the field recognized a lack of family theory lending support towards understanding 4Refer to pages 13 and 171. 189 man's essential nature; (2) some home economists felt that the family was not uniting the total field; (3) modern societies present a definite need for individuals who are self sufficient and self determinative. The field was particularly interested in furthering individuals exhibit- ing such characteristics; and (4) families need feelings of adequacy restored to them. In the mid to late sixties social change, the need for a realistic conception of the family in society, the desire to live adequately and happily in families, the need to value family values and contribute to the family group, the desire to improve the family's economic position nationally and internationally, and promote wise, happily married individuals who stay together, perform parental roles lovingly and work toward achieving a successful family life, even though the goal is nebulous, were addi- tional areas of concern identified by the Association. Do these more recently identified areas conflict with the previous emphasis on individualistic families? Apparently they do, for sociological theory dominates the literature of the sixties. Families with restored feelings of ade- quacy and which function capably take precedence over indi- vidualistic family goals and achievements. Adequate, capable families achieve socioculturally defined ends. A number of reasons may be forwarded to justify the field's neglect of psychological theories to attain its ends. Perhaps the gaps identified in the late fifties were too 190 nebulous, the field's professionals lacked the resources to eliminate them, they were erased by sufficient research and no longer presented a problem, they became less im- portant, or could even have been forgotten. The latter assumption seems highly unlikely for if the professionals voiced these needs to the Association, one assumes that they were general and significantly obvious problems warranting an increased interest. The first two views in combination (the gaps were too nebulous to eliminate with- out intensive research) appear as the more likely reasons for a shift in emphasis. Individual determinism and par- ticularistic families are difficult to identify because the commonalities are not evident. So, sociology's views of group unity and purpose were assumed by the field since they presented more con- crete evidence defining the capable family. Sociology verified family worth by suggesting that it performs neces- sary social functions (socialization of the child, pro- vision of economic support and an acceptable means for ensuring the responsible reproduction of individuals). If all who enter family life would remain together for ex— tended time periods so that everyone is confined within stable, enduring family environments and would perform parental roles lovingly, they will have strengthened the family. Thus, although individualistic families are de- sirable, the field illustrates its points with sociology's 191 emphasis on similarity within and between families as re- flected in their parallel actions, values and goals within the culture. Alternatives to the socially desired pattern are lacking: One way alone appears open for families to be adequate. Society needs individuals capable of coping with socially derived problems. Today no family is strong enough to progress through the culture without social assistance. Capable families result from capable indi- viduals who can function because they have been trained proficiently. Clearly home economics feels it can offer such training. Trained individuals will foster and pre- serve social ends and values. Society's definition of effective functioning is the path most productive for all individuals. The field's conception of the family's worth is founded on the socialization process performed by families for the culture and the values, goals and services they uphold and provide. Home economics justifies its inter- est in and accumulation of knowledge pertinent to families on these two features. Socialization and service within one particular culture takes precedence over individual serving family functions and cross cultural theories. Yet, in the late fifties the need to clarify the components of man's essential humanness was the field's primary con- cern. Even though psychology and anthropology have lagged behind in presenting significant family studies, it seems 192 that home economics clings to sociology's tenents as though they represented the final truth. From its inception home economics was closely allied with sociology and it main— tains this closeness even though sixty-two years of burgeon- ing knowledge have intervened. In choosing the family to focus upon, home eco- nomics has made a value judgment. Like sociology, it agrees that families have intrinsic worth. Individuals achieve the highest of cultural goals when they marry; families achieve the highest of cultural aims when they support socially defined values. They are most creative when they produce children.5 The act of marriage, cul- tural value achievement and reproduction all maintain society and assure its continuity over time. These three acts are the crux of individual achievement and assured success in society and the family. But, what if men failed to perform any one or all three of these acts? Would they have achieved less and/or be judged as less capable individuals; would society accord them less merit; do the acts constitute the family; do they present a real- istic picture of the family? Until home economics is pre— pared to answer these questions, its adherence to and pro- motion of these actions will be a blind directive for the field. 5See Efferson, Klemer and Rutledge, page 139. 193 Sociology's theories for supporting families domi- nate the Association's literature. Individuals can over- come social problems if they support the ends clarified by the field in the mid and late 1960's. If men are aware of social ends and taught to function and achieve them, they will live more satisfied, adequate lives alone and in families. Families unable to cope with social problems are failures. Man adapts to society not society to man. Man is nothing apart from society which frees his potential. Home economics agrees with anthropology, sociology and psychology that families have worth because of their man and societal serving ends based on the functions they perform, the support society renders to the family, the transmission of the morals and ethics of the culture, its provision for continuity and order, and its ability to meet individual needs. The latter point has been neglected by home economics. This is true of the disciplines as well since studying the individual in his primary group (the family) has only recently concerned psychologists. There- fore, until psychology develops more relevant materials, anthropology, sociology and home economics will have limited theories supporting the individual serving ends of families. Sociology's and anthropology's views are highly similar. These two in combination appear to be the primary in- fluencers of home economics' thought concerning its desire to study the family. Also, sociology's theories provide the support and strength to guide home economics' actions 194 in restoring feelings of adequacy to families. Social con- cerns identified in the mid to late 1960's took precedence over those gaps identified earlier relevant to individual functioning. In sum, the family's worth is characterized in: --Its intrinsic worth for society --Its socio-cultural committedness --Its ability to function as a positive societal force --Its accomplishment of socially defined values (achieved by family members who stay together and who perform parental roles lovingly) --Its reproduction of individuals who marry, support cultural values and bear children --Its capacity to cope with socially derived problems PhilosoPhical Implication(s) Societal support and concern for families justi- fies home economics' concern. Families merit support be- cause they are subscribed to by all men. Thus, individuals submit to small group ends which in turn submit to ever enlarging groups. It is the group which defines worth, not the elements apart from the group. So, mass consensus reveals family worth. 195 What goals are to be achieved by the field in working with and through the family? Besides home econo- mists, nutrition and community development experts along with social science analysts have donated resources serv- ing to clarify the field's goals concerning families. Ob- jectives never seem to be far from the thoughts of home economists. Throughout the decade the question of goals received consistent mention in the literature falling within three selected areas which include: (1) seeking the professional resources to strengthen family life; (2) strengthening families as groups; and (3) strengthening individuals to contribute to families. The profession seeks to strengthen family life by: --Assuring that all families have an economic base sufficient to preserve health, family life and promote community participation --Defining the reasons for poverty, easing the discomforts of daily life, expanding resources to improve daily life, and rehabilitating fami- lies in poverty to function adequately and independently --Serving all families --Balancing things with people (creating an environment which meets human needs) --Promoting interdisciplinary research for family problems which cross many areas 196 --Conducting research that will contribute towards providing good homes, maintain family member's physical and mental health and promote pleasant, constructive human relationships --Offering constructive advice and planning for all stages of the life cycle --Assisting in the creation of more stable marri- ages --Understanding families in other cultures in order to build a general base of theory concerning family life The profession promotes families who together can: --Create a happy marriage consisting of individuals who stay together, perform parental roles lovingly and work toward achieving a successful family life --Develop men and women who will build strong nations, preserve family life in our time and adjust to scientific civilizations The profession promotes individuals who: --Are aware of their own feelings, behavior, ideals, and attitudes as a family member --Understand their own values, learn to live in many different situations and develop the ability to live creatively with rapid change 197 --Develop ways of approaching, clarifying and solving problems --Make an impact educationally and politically The resources of economics, education and law supplied additional information clarifying conceptual frameworks concerning the field's objectives. Home economics seeks direction for providing family services. Its research could supply the direction but to date remains uncoordinated, limited and scattered over many areas. Yet, a lack of firm theoretical found- ations has not deterred the field from providing services to families. The literature of the disciplines reveals a family in need--thus justifying home economics' efforts in community service, education and international agencies. All families need the field's services to live creatively in changing environments. A creative life preserves the American way of life. The majority of families success- fully accomplishing this goal are found in the middle class. It supplies a standard objective for home economics--the strongest families are those achieving the standard. Since the field supports a particular life style, it is prompted to clarify middle class characteristics. Families need to know what the standard is and how to achieve it. So, home economics has constructed a body of materials that interpret the desired model. It attempts to develop standards of and/or for living which can support families sufficiently. 198 Those standards that are developed apply cross-culturally, elevate all families to an equal plane and protect the child's welfare. Home economics submits that it can define the standard family life suitable for all. Its efforts are directed toward helping families achieve this end. The field's research is believed to contribute directly toward good homes, promoting the family's physi— cal and mental health, improving personal relationships, understanding behavior throughout the life cycle, and assisting in the child's socialization to his environment through self-other understanding. Its research outcomes have been used with individuals and families attempting to bring them to the desired standard. Criticism has been leveled at home economics suggesting that its efforts to unify families around a defined standard may be a task beyond accomplishment--forced on people who do not desire it. If this is so, then the field needs to re-examine its position and determine whether the standards it attempts to define are inflexible. Is one standard for all in opposi- tion to its desire that all families live creatively? Not at this time: according to home economics' present defi- nition of the creative family, it is one which achieves the standard. Creativity implies conformity to one desired goal. If the standard is applicable to all, why is it? Is the standard subject to change; if not, why not; if so, in what direction? Are there any families who might not benefit from assuming the standard--can there be exceptions 199 to the rule? Can the field justifiably support the direction its efforts have taken? Families are a part of the culture: they belong to it--they serve its ends. If they fail to produce socially contributing individuals, then they become the focus of efforts to bring about a change in their life style. The field has been particularly concerned with problem families who lack the ability to produce competent members for the larger social order. Since a greater por- tion of home economics' efforts are concentrated here, has it neglected other family types? Is the concentration on problems the only approach suitable for home economics? If all families need assistance to live creatively, is it important to meet some family's needs before assisting others? The majority of modern families are surrounded by an affluent society requiring the field's efforts to balance things with people (man must not be overpowered by the de- sire to place material resources above human resources). To date, however, home economics has accented families in need (particularly economic need). Yet, the field main- tains that it can serve all families most of whom are affluent. Do the needs of the affluent differ from those of the needy? The field's goals fail to distinguish any difference between the groups for they are applied generally to both. Will the minority family continue to receive home economics' major efforts in the 1970's and beyond? 200 Home economics, like the disciplines, places empha- sis on bringing all families under the umbrella of one de- sired norm--the middle class. While standards regarding the family's material qualities (adequate food, shelter and sufficient resources) have been fairly well documented, standard family interrelationships are more difficult to define. For the most part, the field has stressed the calm—-the serene. Friction between members is debilitat- ing. Individuals require tranquil family relationships freeing them to creatively handle society's problems. Individual variability which could upset the balance is to be reduced to the minimum. How to get along with others becomes the watchword for family relationships. Home eco- nomics seemingly suggests that calm interrelationships will breed creative individuals who are able to handle social problems effectively. Yet, individuality appears to be born out of difference, variety, nonconformity. These features need not be negative-~they can supply each man with distinct characteristics helping him achieve in particularistic situations. Anthropology points out that family forms are based on cultural needs and vary between the cultures. Sociology suggests that a wide variety of family types exist within cultures. How then can home economics suggest that uniformity builds creativity? Criticisms leveled at the field concern its desire to set standards and a lack of research. To alleviate the latter, home economics searches beyond its boundaries to 201 supplement its existing meager research. The former criticism has received some notice in the literature, but has instituted little response from the field or effort directed towards relieving the situation. Home economics continues to promote a standard. The field's view of ser- vice to families is consolidated around preserving and ensuring that all approach a desired standard. According to the literature, opposition to the chosen course is mini- mal and accepted by the profession generally. Like the disciplines, home economics wishes to strengthen families. It does so by exemplifying the middle class and all that the term entails. AnthrOpology has motivated the field to seek an understanding of the family cross-culturally. Sociology's influence is found in the field's efforts to redirect dysfunctional family activities into socially useful channels; psychology's emphasis on the adaptability of individuals in and outside their families has had some effect on the field. Deviation from the disciplines is noted particularly in home economics' de- sire to set subsistence standards for all families. Special emphasis is placed on economic security and the family's environment (home) as it meets the needs of the individual and group. The accent in the literature is placed on what needs to be accomplished and what actions should be taken. Although home economics attempts to build strong families, little evidence is presented to the reader indicating what prOpositions support and verify the field's 202 direction. Stress is placed at the initiating stages seldom going beyond them. If assessment is ignored, how can the field determine its accomplishments as well as needs? Direction for the future is based on the past, the present and the hoped for future. Home economics professes that once it has defined the standard family life it will apply cross-culturally, whereas anthropology posits that what occurs in one cul- ture cannot be applied to another without adjustment--it is relative to the particular culture. Also, home eco- nomics fails to recognize, as does sociology, that wide variations in family life styles occur within a culture and unlike psychology, stresses the interaction of the family with the wider environment rather than its internal re- lationships. The field has used the theories of the disci- plines to meet its particularistic ends (seeking profes- sional resources to strengthen family life, strengthening families as groups and strengthening individuals to contri- bute to families). Home economics' goals concerning the family: --Fa11 within three areas: (1) seeking the pro- fessional means to strengthen families; (2) strengthening families as a group; and (3) strengthening families through individual action --Have been derived from interdisciplinary research 203 --Center around one standard--the middle class which is in the constant process of definition --Have received minimal criticism by the pro- fession --Have focused on families in need --Have been fairly concrete regarding material qualities but nebulous concerning the family's internal structure --Stress initiating services to families rather than evaluating the field's achievements Philosophical Implication(s) Home economics, through individuals and families, attempts to help all families reach a socially desired life style (the middle class). It envisions then, a class- less society consisting of family groups wedded to society's dreams via similarity in life style, goals, values, and actions. How relevant is the family to the social order as viewed by the field? (What is the family's relation to the social order?) For the most part, the Association sought replies to the question among its membership. Re- sponses occurred throughout the whole of the decade possi- bly indicating that either the question needed to be substantiated regularly, the field sought justification for its sustained interest in the family, the question was answered inadequately throughout the decade, or it recurred 204 in other areas of society concerned with the family and home economics reflected the concern of those interested sectors. Home economics asked the question because: (1) it wanted to clarify values giving meaning and direction to life; (2) assist families to live in changing environ- ments; (3) understand the purposes of governmental pro- grams directed toward families; (4) strengthen families by influencing legislation on their behalf; (5) promote inter- disciplinary research to gain knowledge in helping families cope with their environment; (6) assure that all families have an adequate economic base preserving health, family life, and promoting community participation; and (7) it wanted to learn how society affects families. Comprehending society reveals its values, reasons for family support and defines actions which lead to accomplishing socially desired ends. If home economics can reveal what societal directives families need to meet, the knowledge will contribute towards strengthening fami- lies. Since the questions concerned the family's relation to society, the field turned to sociology--using its re- sponses to supply knowledge and theory verifying the question's replies. Those psychological materials and theories used by the field reflect sociology's influence or repeat its theories concerning individual functioning in the family and social group. The field does not expect to undertake the task of strengthening the family alone. 205 Its intentions are directed toward contribution to pro- grams of assistance and influencing legislation on behalf of families. The bulk of the work will be done via public welfare agencies, additional governmental programs and other social institutions or large collectivities. Ulti- mately, these cultural agencies will strengthen the family through economic support, provide for an adequate living standard, ensure family health, and promote upward mobility. Fundamentally, if economic security is provided to all families, the other qualities (health and upward mobility) will follow. Marshall posits6 that the Association is concerned with the family as a social institution and with the forces having impact on it. The institutional approach, as delineated by sociology, the field's source for the theory, is primarily concerned with individual and cultural values. The latter, however, has received the most intensive study by sociologists to date. Whether the approach is accepted by the field, in toto, remains unclear. Seemingly few questions have been asked with regard to the conceptuali- zation among home economics' professionals. Either it is a tacitly accepted assumption meriting little attention, is verbally accepted or is verbally accepted but has illicited no reaction. Verbal acceptance of the assumption is 6Refer to page 150. 206 apparent. Presently the institutional approach acts as one of the guiding forces influencing home economics' literature. Family aims and goals must be justifiable and acceptable to society economically, sociologically and psychologically because families exist in social environ- ments. Economically they ensure the survival of new arri- vals. Socially--they exist for societal ends, psychologi- cally--individuals have the greatest feelings of self worth when they perform, accept and achieve socially de- fined activities, values and goals. Society defines the economic, psychological and social requisites for families. Are individual needs the same as socially defined needs, however? At present home economics equates the two. The field along with the disciplines needs to separate man from the societal serving ends of the family, recognize that they could conceivably be different or present research to the contrary. Sociology strives to understand, illuminate and explain societies. Its institutional approach influences home economics' efforts to discover family reality. The field's picture of families may be described as one that depicts: (1) that the family's course is socially defined; (2) that it must submit to society's dictates; and (3) that it is society which must find answers to family prOblems as they arise since society creates what problems families have. Families exist solely through their 207 relationship to the social order. Ultimately it will be society's collectivities that restore strength of them; individuals can do little to reinforce the family's posi- tion except live and cope with societal inconsistencies. Home economics uses anthropology's theory that family types result from the cultural needs of the time, sociology's premise that families exist to preserve society and order it for individuals and psychology's theory that families live in negative, problematic societies. Adapta- bility, according to the field, is imperative for the family's survival. While the disciplines present positive and negative arguments7 in relation to family adaptability, home economics view is exclusively positive. Any failure on the part of the family to adapt to society reduces its effectiveness and cultural importance. Further, the field gives little recognition to conceptualizations of the family other than the predominant institutional approach, nor does it furnish evidence that families are more than cultural groupings forming unified wholes. The field's view is group oriented with the cultural group predominating 7Anthropology: Disagreement exists between anthro- pologists as to whether the family has an independent as well as dependent character within a social framework. Sociology: The degree of social control exerted on families is relative and dependent upon time, place and societal need. Psychology: Families characteristically are de- scribed as highly flexible and adaptive mechanisms; yet, today's families are producing unstable, unhappy, in- effectively functioning individuals indicating a basic defect in their professed pliancy and submissiveness to society. 0V 1 St 01 l: 208 over the small family group. And, the larger the group the stronger its influence and more important its goals and objectives. Home economics' conception of the family in re- lation to society: --Is founded primarily upon sociology's theoretical constructs --Finds that families exert little influence upon their culture --Asserts that the family's main task is to submit to society's demands although the demands may be structurally or functionally damaging --Finds that the weak families in modern or West- ern cultures must have their problems solved by the society which caused them --Suggests that family aims and goals must be sociologically, economically and psychologically justifiable and accepted by society because families exist and must survive in social environments --Finds that families exist in problematic environ- ments --Posits that the Association is concerned with the family as a social institution (interested pri- marily in individual and cultural values) 209 Philosophical Implication(s) Families are meshed with society; their only re- course for survival is to ensure society's survival. Even if families were to perish while attempting to maintain society, they could accomplish no more worthwhile end than cultural perpetuation. How relevant is the family to the social order as viewed by the field? (Is the family still a strong part of society?) Home economics along with representatives from national and international organizations contributed replies to the Association's question concerning family strength. Statements occurred in the late fifties and throughout the 1960's with the latest entry recorded in 1968. Circumstances which required the repeated verifi- cation of the question were contained in the following categories: The profession's desire to restore feelings of adequacy to the family; procedures for action included: --Helping families live in scientific civilizations --Helping families provide an atmosphere promoting the individual's normal growth and development --Making modern families aware of social change so that all can participate and adapt to it --Providing services to those families who need help or whose overall needs are not being met 210 --Helping women function efficiently in the modern world by training them to save time and increase the comfort of their homes for their families --Helping children realize their full potential by assuring that all families will have their health, safety, housing, nutritional, and economic needs adequately met --Establishing a foundation of interdisciplinary research to accomplish and support these tasks The desire to preserve family life in the present; pro- cedures for action included: --Helping families make a greater social impact politically and educationally --Assisting in the development of men and women who can and will build strong nations --Helping young people understand the fundamental values of the United States --Determining relevant values for the future based on man's needs --Accepting certain societal changes and their effects on families as inevitable while striving to make change where change can be made --Promoting behaviors that do not weaken the family These two categories illuminate home economics' approach to questions concerning the family's strength. 211 One defines the routes the field will use to exert in- fluence on the family (education, public welfare, social service agencies, and research) and the other--how it will preserve families and afford them a position of continued strength in society. Besides the resources of the disci- plines, the field's professionals sought additional back- ground information and theory from the health professions and economics to support their replies. Three theories of family strength were apparent in the literature: The family was either socially weak, interdependent and balanced or existed under changing conditions. The first position was based primarily on psychology's tenets. The second position stressed the man and societal serving functions of families as do the three disciplines (necessitating a coordinated effort between society and the family in order to maintain the social structure). And the third position stressed that families exist in, exert pressure on and are pressured in return by societies. Thus they are changing due to internal and ex- ternal pressures. Proponents of each position postulated that their theory obligated home economics to accomplish its "desired" ends (restore feelings of adequacy to the family and preserve family life in the present). If fami- lies are weak, then the field's "desires" appear logical since its procedures for action are designed to accomplish specific ends. If families are balanced with society, again the field's actions are warranted because seemingly 212 any balance can be easily upset under changing social conditions. But, if the family is only changing in no readily determinable direction, then home economics' "desires" are unfounded and its designs for action--ground- less. For if no direction can be determined, why has home economics designed procedures for action? A closer in- spection as to when the theories were postulated reveals that the weak family guided home economics' thinking be- tween the years 1958-1965; the changing family was postu- lated between l960-l963; and the balanced family was sug- gested between 1967-1968. The conclusion drawn from the examination is, then, that at the present time the bal- anced family guides home economics' thinking and is re- garded as having greater relevance for today than either of the two previously postulated theories. In addition, the arguments presented in support of the weak family no longer appear to be readily applicable. Those supporting the position based their postulates on the family's existing societal status which suggested the following characteristics: (1) partners no longer ex- hibited a desire to stay together; (2) society was breeding unsuccessful families based on unrealistic family life goals; and (3) families were deeply conservative, lacked a toleration for diversity and were not dedicated to the necessary idealistic goals leading to mankind's betterment. SOciology has suggested that the increasing frequency of divorce can be viewed in two contexts (positively and 213 negatively). The manner in which the home economics data are phrased exhibits a distinct tendency for the reader to assume that if partners do not stay together, families are weakened. Home economics recognized no beneficial effects from divorce. Then too, the family's lack of diversity and failure to assume some idealistic goal is suggested as further evidence of weakness. Since families are insti- tutions, can institutions be highly diverse when they are based on norms? If families are concerned with values that serve as directional foci (as home economics' assumption of the position and sociology's use of the term implies) the answer is no for what is institutionalized is held as a cultural standard. Does the field actually strive toward achieving family diversity? No, for if it seeks to preserve family life in the present, it is striving to define the common values applicable to all families and which all individuals can subscribe too. Further, if families must develop men and women who can build strong nations, does this suggest diversity and a lack of conservatism? This is highly un- likely. What values are common to all have been established over a long term period and are not considered to be radi- cal or demand idealistic support, nor to be diverse or significantly different. If home economics' upholds the family as an institution, it is supporting an organized “pattern of behavior that is well accepted. The support negates diversity or the need to couch values in terms of 214 idealistic achievement. The ideal is actually a cultural norm.' Thus the weak family and the changing family are supported by arguments that are in direct opposition to the field's actions. Home economics suggests only three positions of family strength while more are apparent in the disciplines. Either the field ignores the fact that others exist, finds that no other views are as acceptable to it as the three presented or that the positions selected present the most pertinent representations of family reality in modern or Western societies. Two of the positions (the weak family and the balanced family) fail to recognize that other views exist or that the Association has presented more than one concept defining the family's strength. The third position (the changing family) recognizes that other outlooks are possible but stresses that its position is the only tenable one. Supporters of each position suggest no counter argu- ments that would establish a firm base justifying their stance. Each argument by itself appears to present a logical whole. In revealing that three positions do exist in the literature, however, the foundations of each argu- ment then seem to contradict one another. The disciplines and home economics hold that fami- lies exhibit varying degrees of strength. Anthropology finds the family to be either weak or strong; sociology 'suggests that the family is weak, strong or balanced with society; psychology finds that either the family is weak 215 but still capable of performing necessary societal func- tions or weak and affecting the individual negatively. Home economics selects psychology's conception of the weak but still capable family and sociology's balanced family. The third view (the changing family) lacks sufficient elaboration in the materials reviewed to indicate the source of the theory. Presumably, since sociology has been concerned with the effects of social change on institutions, it is the most likely source. Conversely, the theory could belong uniquely to home economics. Positions other than the three mentioned previously receive no recognition in the Association's literature during the time the review was conducted. The field does not believe that families will eventually disintegrate nor does it give recognition to the possibility that the present family life style could have caused the existing modern or Western cultural organi- zation to develop (source--anthropology). It fails to verbalize that families are the least organized and able to set their own standards (source--sociology) although the field's actions indicate that it operates on the suggested premise. What strength the family has is entailed in its functions and services. Other areas of strength remain unidentified. Dissension exists between the three ap- proaches; each alone leads the reader to believe that it has the true representation of family strength. 216 Home economics' position concerning family strength: --Evolved from the field's desire to restore feelings of adequacy to families and preserve family life in the present --Is characterized within three positions--the weak family, the balanced family, and the chang- ing family --Suggests that arguments supporting the weak and changing family types contradict home economics' desires and actions --Suggests that each position fails to clarify the others existence in the disciplines and within the Association's literature --Suggests that the balanced family is the pre- dominant position guiding the field at the present time --Suggests that two positions (the changing family and the balanced family) are drawn from socio- logical and anthropological materials; arguments for the weak family are based on the tenets of psychology Philosophical Implication(s) The family's strength has been subjected to several interpretations. Home economics has not specifi- cally evaluated the merits of any one position. Thus its 217 interpretations remain confused and nonspecific. Until its position is clarified, the field will be unable to ob- tain a concise picture of the family's reality in modern or Western cultures. What does the field conceive as desirable in the family? Assistance contributing toward a response field defining the desirable in families was offered to home eco— nomics from sociologists, lawyers, the health professions, and governmental agencies. Professional home economists also contributed an imposing amount of material. Relevant statements recurred throughout the decade appearing in the literature almost every year since 1958. The responses fell into three distinct categories which have directed the field's efforts: (1) defining the successful family; (2) devising guidelines for professional action; and (3) clarifying individual action strengthening family life. Elements comprising each of the areas included the follow- ing: The successful family: --A successful family is one which is: (1) healthy mentally and physically; (2) challenging and creative in its environment; (3) competent; (4) values its role in society; (5) evolves as society evolves; and (6) expresses democratic ideals. 218 Guidelines directing the field's actions included: --Composing a realistic picture of the family --Developing adequate conceptual frameworks organi- zing, defining and directing the field's goals --Taking cognizance of families throughout the world --Serving as a balancing mechanism between the family and society --Preserving values significant for home life --Determining values relevant for the present and future functioning of families based on man's needs --Considering actions of the whole family not just women and youth --Promoting behaviors that do not weaken the family --Providing education for family living Individuals who strengthen family life: --Are educated, wise, happily married, have a stable relationship, perform parental roles lovingly, and work towards achieving a success- ful family life --Meet the developmental needs of their children, view their children positively and use scientific methods of child rearing --Understand economic principles and can function within an economic environment 219 --Use available resources to achieve optimum family welfare --Have a value system that will sustain and direct long term and daily goals --Function adequately and independently --Understand social change and can adjust to or modify trends that occur --Are able to psychologically cope with handi- capping conditions --Are self determinative and self sufficient --Are mature (concerned with the welfare of others, capable of establishing intimate and permanent relationships with others and unite to create and rear children) --Are realistic in the appraisal of their family life (do not over-romanticize family life) The field constructed its frameworks from the resources of the three disciplines plus information from literature, mental health and economics. Society, submits home economics, needs stable, unified and responsible families. Stable families have partners who remain together over the life cycle (from marriage until death) promoting generational continuity and societal progression. Unified families place group _ends above individual ends. Families react as units in a concerted effort to maintain a firm position in society 220 and reap the benefits therefrom. Responsible families are intermeshed with society via the contributing individuals they produce. Individuals function alone and in conjunction with their families as economic units. Home economics up- holds those families who conform to this suggested norm. If they comply with the described model, society will then consist of units, each directed towards a single goal, cul- tural progression. If families further societal progress, is the progress in a forward direction and is the forward direction solely positive? Home economics' literature sug- gests that it is. But, if progress is solely positive, then empires would cease to fall since families advance society ever upward. Do families serve to repress a cul- ture? Can the‘ideals they maintain weaken as well as ad- vance societies? Are the concepts of stability, unity and responsibility to take priority over others? Examining the family's history and contributions in other cultures could supply answers to some of these ques- tions. The traditional Chinese aristocratic family, one example, presents the overall picture of a group oriented to upholding custom, venerating the aged and adhering to the old and tried. This family life style prevented people from assuming the advances of technology. When the tra- ditional government was overthrown, the large family's importance was reduced: peasant families wedded to the new and desiring to assume technological innovation, if possible, became the norm. The traditional family upheld 221 a cultural way of life that would be stifling to modern or Western cultures with their emphasis on progress and change. Yet, home economics suggests that the family life style it presently promotes is the most desirable. Continuing to uphold this view has drawbacks. It limits home economics' flexibility when changes surge over the culture bringing trends that could oppose what it now professes to be the most desirable. The field asks that individuals be alter- native minded--able to see where their choices take them-- yet does not take its own advice. Should a new family life style take precedence in the culture, will the field do an about face and drop many of its former directives? An awareness of alternative directional foci could help the field present a more objective view of its professed norm. Families produce healthy, normal individuals if their needs relative to adequate shelter and nutrition are met and they can effectively manage their resources assur- ing the greatest benefit to all members. Firm family foundations promoting stability, organization and unity are built from these satisfied needs. If the family's foundations are secure, the individual is free to face his environment creatively: he can begin satisfying his personal needs, he can look outward and need not cling to the group for survival, he can stand alone and solve the problems society presents to him. And he can branch out into new arenas of activity allowing the expression of his distinct personality. Home economics strives to secure 222 the foundation for all families. Some families may have had this need met. For example, personal happiness now appears to be taking precedence over the need to sustain a strong foundation; then too, some families are surrounded by affluence without purpose--for them the foundation exists but to what end? Neither of these trends has re- ceived extensive thought. Home economics interests are directed predominantly toward sustaining the foundation and fail to account for the possibility of variation. The environment creates unpredictable pressures and problems which weigh in on family members. If all men are the product of a healthy, normal family life and are trained to think and decide apart from the group, strong families will result. Individuals in modern or Western societies are required to manage independently within a socially defined structure. Society, via families, trains its membership to manage with a certain degree of inde- pendence. Individuals are allowed to sustain their own particular family units provided they serve society (return individuals to it that are capable of coping with social alternatives). The field, while looking at the environment generally, has focused in on the small unit encasing families--the home. Efforts have been concentrated on helping women and youth succeed in understanding and manipulating their surroundings. With an adequate found- ation provided for families (involving health and normalcy) 223 and the individual's ability to make competent decisions, families need be less concerned with survival. The field's efforts are directed toward clarifying an environment that can never be known since it is always changing. It looks to women and youth in the homes of today to strengthen the homes to tomorrow by providing a socioculturally desired life style. Thus all families are assured an equal base from which to select alternative routes leading towards social mastery. Home economics neglects the male's role to the degree that he is practi- cally nonexistent. However, this circumstance may be ex- plained by the fact that most families in modern societies are connected to it through the husbands efforts in the economy. Thus, men are absent from the home for a greater part of the day leaving its maintenance to women and youth. Since home economics works to strengthen families who exist in units tied to yet set apart from society, it is faced with absentee males.8 Understanding the affective factors prevalent in society gives impetus to the field's research efforts. A clear conception of all factors remains unknown and only further study will reveal an ever enlarging number of environmental characteristics maximizing or influencing families. 8Also the fact that the field has been accused of female predominance is duly noted as an additional factor for excluding males from the fields's programs for action. 224 Families reflect the political ideology of the sur- rounding culture. Home economics idealizes those families that express such ideals as the following: (1) equality in the partner's relationship; (2) empathy; (3) a committed partnership; and (4) the assumption of parental roles which frees the child to transfer successfully from his family to the wider society. Individuals from democratically oriented families are intelligent (can survive in technologically skilled environments and manipulate them for the family's benefit), they do not misuse the resources of the culture and they live for more than the accumulation of material objects. What society promotes as the standard norm, home economics elevates to a trancendent state. What all men do is held out as the highest of goals for all men. Can the real be equated with the ideal? Knowledge and theory from a variety of sources have helped home economics construct a reply to the question of the desirable in families. The field has done little be- yond recognizing that alternatives to its conceptions exist. Exacting research helping to clarify these deviations and their relevance to the field is absent, e.g., personal happiness transcending the "desired" stability, or the accumulation of things taking precedence over the socially defined "desired" family norms. These qualities may exist, but they do not preclude the field's existing emphasis on providing the family's foundation. They may have import but not enough to warrant a change in emphasis. What has 225 served the field in the past stands to serve it in the future. Certainly what it has accomplished within its presently defined areas of emphasis cannot be negated. But, if new foundational guidelines already exist, can the field fail to ignore them? Will it close off new emphases in order to maintain the old, the known and the secure? Will it fail to discard what may no longer be serviceable? Conceptions of the desirable vary little between the disciplines and home economics. All suggest that fami- lies have man and societal serving functions and that the ideal family, though worth striving for, is nebulous and difficult to define. Variations arise in the field's use of the materials borrowed from the disciplines. Particular emphasis has been placed on assuring that all families are supplied with a firm foundation of sufficient resources, shelter, health, and normalcy. But, the disciplines are concerned with clarifying universals, defining the social environment and understanding the internal environment of families. The field's activities have been directed mainly toward women and youth and have stressed social functioning above individual functioning in groups. The style of family life delineated in the literature is held applicable to all. Its distinctiveness to modern or Western cultures receives no recognition. Stability and unity are stressed --divorce is negative. Yet, the disciplines present both positive and negative views concerning the subject. 226 A unified whole characterizes home economics' con- ception of the desirable in families--few conflicting points appear in the literature; those that do, receive only brief mention. The field's use of the material drawn from the disciplines falls within a consistent framework charac- terized by a distinct concern with decision making, manage- ment of resources and the necessity that all families be supplied with an adequate economic base. Home economics' conception of the desirable in families suggests that: --Desirable families are stable, unified and responsible to society --Stability promotes societal progression --Unified families reap social benefits by plac- ing group goals above individual goals --Responsible families produce capably function- ing individuals for the social order --Desirable families are similar in all cultures --Few alternatives to the desirable exist --Desirable families produce healthy, normal indi- viduals if their needs relative to adequate shelter, nutrition and resources are met --If the foundation is supplied to all families, then individuals are freed to satisfy their needs 227 --Individuals who are products of healthy normal families are trained to be self sufficient and self determinative --By clarifying the effects of the environment on individuals and families, the field can train individuals to live within or alter their environments for the family's benefit --The field looks primarily to the women and youth of today to strengthen the homes of tomorrow --The field idealizes those families reflecting democratic ideals, equality in the marital part- nership, child rearing patterns that free the child to transfer successfully from the family to the wider society, and who produce individuals able to function in technological environments and use and amass resources prudently. Philosophical Implication(s) Home economics' conception of the desirable in families is particularly applicable to modern or Western cultures although it has applied its tenets cross-culturally. Its theories are relatively concise and directive. They set a clear course of action for the field at this time. What questions have been raised by the field rela- tive to the family? Home economics exists because families exist: the field has dedicated a program of action to them. Modern and Western cultures need families and the 228 field's services directed at strengthening them. Maintain- ing society now and in the future depends on family mainte- nance. Thus, three lines of activity occupying the field's efforts to bridge the gap between theory and reality in- clude: (l) broadening home economics' influence in order to reach ever increasing numbers of families. Emphasis rests on enlarging the professional ranks, furthering the field's objectives and focusing on interdisciplinary re- search as a means of supplying more extensive materials for the field's use; (2) sustaining societal support for families--particularly isolating that environment most con- ducive to family life physically, socially and psychologi- cally; and (3) promoting family adaptability to social change. Families provide the canvas for society's struc- tural artisans. They are built upon cultural values-- sustaining them through their interpersonal relationships. Values counter to society's retard family growth physically and mentally and may even disband the unit. The family's course is predetermined socially. Cultural values pro- vide life's meaning. Revealing what they are becomes a clear directive for the field. For now, home economics advances the following: (1) family life is valuable, it fosters individual competence and the ability to cope with social problems; (2) families exist to achieve socially defined ends; (3) that family life style upheld in modern or Western cultures will serve as a cross-cultural standard; 229 (4) family life can be planned for and made purposeful and significant; (5) families require adequate economic support freeing them to seek other qualities such as creativity, security and democratic decision making. These are only a few that have been revealed in the literature of the Associ- ation. Whether all these values are promoted with equal emphasis or one has priority over another remains undeter- mined. Then too, do they receive similar emphasis through- out modern or Western cultures or do they vary from prac- titioner to practitioner--does the field function in its task of promoting societal values as a unit or a group of individuals each dedicated to a particular cause? What consociation exists between home economics' values and social factuality--is there a discrepancy be- tween the two? Is the field a leader or follower of social values? In reference to the latter question, undoubtedly it is a follower. Home economics looks to society to con- firm the values it promotes. Consequently there is a time lag between what is socially desired and the field's ad- vancement of those desires. Home economics is less likely to promote emerging values as opposed to those which are firmly entrenched and verbalized as cultural guides. The field is called upon to help families become more adaptable since society is ever changing. Modern or Western societies are becoming more technologically com- plex. Society needs members who are trained for this 230 complexity. To accomplish such a task, home economics examines and reveals what social changes have taken place and are occurring at the present time. Families aware of social tendencies are more adaptable. Uniformed families become confused and less responsive to the culture. Re— vealing social direction helps them change. They are better able to function and manipulate social resources and are stronger than the untrained. Today's families cannot be self sufficient--they are too interconnected with society to stand apart from their surroundings; they are in and part of the social order; they cannot hold back the rising tide of technology; they must equip their mem- bers with an increasingly complex social awareness. Indi- viduals must be oriented to others. Ultimately only the adaptable will survive. Although some proponents of family strength stress that they may be effecters as well as affected cultural elements--home economics emphasizes the latter giving questions of change priority in the literature. Are other alternatives open to families beyond the one? Is flexi- bility the only route to future survival? Could the family exert its influence conceivably changing social direction? Clearly, at this point in time, the possibility has occurred to only a handful of the field's contributors. For the majority of home economists, the only recourse for 'strengthening families is to reduce their internal cohesion while increasing their susceptability to social modification. 231 Repeatedly throughout the decade the field has been called upon to participate in interdisciplinary re- search projects. Whether home economics has increasingly shared in such efforts remains unclear. From the field's literature, I would conclude that no significant inroads were made in this direction nor will they be in the near future. What factors have detained home economics' en- trance into an area of need? Has this need been ignored to the extent that the literature indicates? The field operates on the assumption that it has much to contribute to this kind of research. But, generalities characterize the contributions it would make if given the opportunity (e.g., contribute to more stable marriages, plan for the family life cycle and promote happy, well-adjusted fami- lies). Clear directives outlining home economics' unique contributions remain to be developed. The field lacks family theory that would assist in building frameworks identifying research outcomes. Home economics life blood is research. It reveals what is sought by the field--cultural standards giving direction for assisting families, decision making options sustaining families throughout the life cycle, environ- ment(s) conducive to family life, and the reduction of the family's concern for survival freeing them to concentrate on developing forceful individuals. Presently home eco- nomics' efforts have been overwhelmingly directed toward providing for the material welfare of families and 232 fostering interrelationships that stress functional sociali- zation--how to secure tension free family relationships. Families can be improved: --If they become more flexible --If they adapt to cultural change Culturally defined roles direct family adaptability: --They guide actions in and outside of the family --They assure the adequate functioning of man and society intermeshing the two --They endow individuals with greater social and psychological security --They give meaning to life The above framework dominates home economics' actions. Al- though points opposing the framework exist (families are influencers as well as influenced by society, the field's interpretation of cultural standards may be incapable of achievement); yet, adaptability and values attain first rank in the Association's literature. The frames, accord- ing to home economics, define the family's factual condi- tion in society. Weak families rasp at social tissue and must be cauterized. Family disparity countering social goals re- quires amendment. Left to themselves, families could ‘divert the culture into small, partial units established to satisfy diverse ends. Difference implies disunity. 233 Strengthening families for home economists, then, denotes unifying families with socio-cultural goals. Social ends receive home economics' unanimous approval. Points to the contrary are lacking. Anthropological and psychological points are directed toward socially defined family ends which are broad and encompass cultures universally. Indi- viduals remain submerged within the group--directed towards satisfying group ends. Home economics' literature gives precedence to social purposes thus reflecting a shortcoming of the disci- plines. None of the areas studied has made significant inroads revealing human (individual) needs in other than ambiguous terms. Whereas the disciplines stress the wider society, home economics seeks to build a secure home which serves family ends. Anthropology has done similar research in this area but it has been minimal. Not only does home economics lack a comparative analysis of the family cross- culturally, but it has not postulated nor used theories of family history or origin to any degree within the last decade. Families are accepted as cultural givens--cultures could not exist without them. Historical and cross- cultural analysis could furnish a more concrete base for the field's support of families. Like sociology, home economics seeks to loosen the family's internal cohesion in favor of general culturally identified priorities. The disciplines actions have been taken for the field's own and used in the bulk of its 234 research and writings. Its questions concern the follow- ing: What: --Values must families promote in order to accom— plish culturally defined ends --Social directives help families adapt to cul- tural change --Social order exists helping families function effectively within modern or Western cultures --Is the family's actual situation in society How: --To broaden the field's influence in order to reach ever increasing numbers of families --To sustain societal support for families --To conduct interdisciplinary research contri- buting to the field's body of family theory in decision making, standard setting, environmental improvement, and economic support --To adapt families to societal influences Philosophical Implication(s) Home economics' questions seek to clarify the family's environmental reality in order to plan procedures for action. Its concerns might be characterized within psychology's stimulus-response structure. What society presents to individuals and groups can be successfully 235 reacted to thus preserving individual and group security and integrity. What does the field predict for the family's future? References to the family's future are infrequent in the Association's literature. Along with a small number of home economists, representatives from two social insti- tutions (government and education) reacted to the question. The responses were meagerly spread throughout the decade while predictions were based solely upon social change: its effects on individuals and families and the benefits de- rived from more socially adaptable families. The fate of individuals and their families is governed by continued economic stability. A stable economy is the family's in- surance policy for the future. Based on this prerequisite, home economics predicts that social change will particularly affect individual role functioning in and outside of the family--it can add to or detract from the individual's pre- sent mode of operation, e.g., medical advances lengthen the life span and contribute to longer intergenerational link- ages, thus, individuals can influence their family for ex- tended time periods. Secondly, future families will need to be more adaptable to social change. Facilitating their adaptability will be the rapid incorporation of techno- logical developments and the family's ability to build _wider bridges of communication between the group and society, thus increasing its cultural interdependence. As 236 a result, families will be more in tune with social modu— lations. In addition to the respondents selected expertise, home economics drew materials from education, mental and physical health resources, history, and economics. To ensure the family's future position in society, home economics has been called upon to help it transfer from an independent, self contained and self sufficient life style to an interdependent, semi-closed, socially supported way of life. This life style will sustain society's best interests while ensuring the future lon- gevity of the family. Which of these positions home eco- nomics is actually advancing or if it is advancing either remains undisclosed; the literature suggests that the latter represents home economics' desired goal. Also whether home economics accepts one life style with all its accompanying ramifications is unclear. Conceivably it could presently be postulating bits and pieces of each framework, since today's families appear to be in a transi— tional phase. Then too, it is difficult to discard the familiar to accept the new without fully clarifying each component's meaning and application in the environment. Future families will retain a residue or core of functions ensuring social maintenance and continuity. These include: (1) inculcating the young with cultural ideals; (2) ordering society for new arrivals; and (3) securing the individual's position in relation to others 237 in society. Families will retain these functions because society finds that they perform them better than any substitute. Their economic base will be assured but they will be called upon to make increasingly complex decisions for a complex environment. So, although families will lose some of their former functions, others will be retained and any gaps will be filled by newly emerging cultural needs in turn affecting the individual's role. Apparently home economics is more concerned with the family's external rather than its internal changes; nor does it suggest that a more complex examination of the latter is necessary. The field wants to improve the life style of families yet the internal relations and reactions which could erect the de- sired form remain unidentified. Does home economics prefer to remain apart from rather than take part in the family's transition? That life style which would promote family conti- nuity has the following features: It is nuclear (has re- duced kinship relationships), durable and fosters funda- mental cultural values. These characteristics will become an international norm for family life. This unified, uni- versal family type will be freer to seek outlets for creative expression and independence. The latter quali- ties will characterize the family's newly formed ideology. If families assure society that they will promote family norms, then society will free them to be more creative and 238 independent--better able to satisfy individual needs. The field fails to clarify, however, just how unity and uni- versality breed creativity and independence. For example, in reference to the family's ability to foster cultural values, future families will have greater choice between child rearing and remaining childless. Yet, the bearing and rearing of children in families is a fundamental value of modern or Western cultures. If future families decide not to have children--will they counteract a fundamental cultural value, replace it with another value or will the value change along with the behavior? How will society ensure cultural replacements? Evidently creativity and independence will encompass particularistic areas (the roles of women and youth) not the total system of family action. How can two counteracting forces (creativity and inde- pendence versus unity and universality) exist in harmony-- will one give way to the other, neutralize it or can they exist peacefully under one system; will home economics favor one force above another? The family's future, as seen by home economists, is founded on: (1) similarity in life style (primarily nuclear); (2) extended kinship linkages furthering cultural continuity; (3) the performance of necessary social func- tions; (4) its ability to adapt to change; (5) a reduced concern with functional socialization; and (6) creativity and independence particularly in reference to the roles of 239 women and youth. As presented, all these changes suggest a brighter future for families; none are thought to reduce its ability to function. Moreover, the field gives little credit to the sources from which it has drawn the previous predictions while having conducted little research support- ing their use. Clarification of this point could reveal the comprehensiveness of its suggestions and serve as a foundational tool for future actions. And, home economics fails to account for changes which could conflict with one another, i.e., how can future families be nuclear (an ap- proach based on reduced kinship linkages) when extended kinship relationships will be the norm due to greater lon- gevity? The field does not account fully for the conse- quences of its predictions. Instead, it gathers them from here and there while failing to concern itself with how they fit together as a workable whole guiding home eco- nomics' operations. Future families, as typified by the three disci- plines and home economics, will be assured of sound eco- nomic support, will perform necessary social functions, retain as well as lose some traditional ones, and assume new duties as society deems necessary. They will be less concerned with functional socialization, will have greater independence and creativity particularly in reference to the roles of women and youth, will maintain men in their traditional family role (they will continue to furnish 240 legitimacy and confer a status position upon the indi- vidual), will exhibit strengthened kinship bonds, and will be progressively more susceptible to social change. Vari- ation from the disciplines is concentrated on the field's desire to help families c0pe with increasingly complex de- cisions, manage their resources, control their internal relationships, and deal with problems occurring in child rearing and education. The field fails to specify the social grouping to which it refers in making its pre- dictions. Sociology is the only one of the three disci- plines which qualified its forecasts clearly specifying that they applied to the middle class. Home economics' predictions would appear to apply to this subgrouping as well; yet, they fall short in identifying the reference point. Also, both sociology and psychology predict that the family's position in the near future is likely to worsen before it improves. Sociology stresses that mari- tal dissolution and general dissatisfaction will be apparent, while psychology suggests that families will be weakened for a long time to come. Only anthropology's views are as optimistic as home economics'. Seemingly the field has not fully considered the family's future in light of its limited predictions. According to home eco- nomics, if future families are supplied with economic security, they will be able to conquer their remaining 241 problems and incorporate challenging new dimensions within their structure. The field does not, however, account for the source of its predictions, the consequences several of them could have for individuals and society as well and develops no functional system serving as a guide for future activities. All the predictions will be accomplished, according to home economics, but how they will be attained and why their accomplishment is desirable exists in ambi- guity. In reference to the family's future: --The field has not been greatly concerned with this question --Home economics' predictions are based on assured economic support —-The field has stressed the external effects of social change which could alter the family's life style --The field is attempting to assist families in transferring from a life style stressing inde- pendence, self containment and self sufficiency to one which fosters interdependence, is semi- closed and socially supported --Families will retain a core of functions, lose some of their traditional services and assume new tasks based on cultural need 242 --Families nationally and internationally will exhibit similar characteristics (they will be nuclear, durable, foster cultural values, and be more creative and independent) --Those changes predicted for the family will foster the welfare of individuals, families and society Philosophical Implication(s) Home economics' predictions concerning families are directed toward its future social functioning. Thus the field will attempt to achieve a family life style which it suggests has future merit. Its activities will be guided by these predictions and the resulting actions will produce unknown consequences. What is the definition of the family as presented in the literature of the field? The majority of responses to the question come from home economists with the excep- tion of one governmental representative. Moreover, few home economists have concerned themselves with questions of conceptual use throughout the decade. But, those who have responded were clearly influenced by theories drawn from the three disciplines. First, the field has been provoked to action by the following identifiable needs: --The need for a more applicable definition of the family to facilitate determining its economic characteristics 243 --The need to clarify variant family types creat- ing a more realistic picture of families, thus decreasing the possibility of fostering a non- existent life style --The need for family theory revealing man's essential nature (the social-psychological in- fluences involved in a familial relationship) --The need to integrate the family within the field's total program of action since home eco- nomics exists to serve families --The need to change what can be changed while accepting other social innovations as inevitable Secondly, cultural, environmental and behavioral theories have pervaded the field contributing to a general con- ceptual framework which has served as a guide during the sixties; they are: Cultural (anthropological) theories: --Awareness of other families cross-culturally contributes to a broader understanding of modern or Western families --Continuity between generations ensures cultural transmission 244 Environmental (sociological) theories: --Awareness of social change and the distribution of technological benefits throughout the culture can assist the population in evolving and living within changing societies --Environments exert pressures on families which they must live and cope with --People trained in utilizing economic principles are better able to function in an economic en- vironment --Environments suited to family needs strengthen families --Cultural values exert influence and play an important part in the lives of individuals throughout the life cycle --Social change affects the role behavior of individuals --Time alters individual and family activities Behavioral (psychological) theories: --Awareness of personality differences within families contributes towards understanding family interaction --Relationships in families develop within identifiable patterns 245 --Individuals trained to make capable decisions will enhance both the individual's and his family's development Along with the expertise of home economists and govern- mental representatives, the field has drawn information from economics, mental health, history, and education. Expediency in the years prior to 1959 served as the motivating force behind home economics' use of the concept "family." The Bureau of Census definition9 appears to have been selected by the field because it was an al- ready accepted and respected definition. It was easily assumed for research purposes since its use required little justification. After 1959, however, the preferred defi- nition seemed to lose some of its relevance for home eco- nomics' research purposes. A substitute was sought and a selection made. The definition advanced was based on the "customary usage of the term" family. "Customary usage" implies the cultural acceptance of a specific, visible norm. The norm may be desired but nonexistent. Although all in the culture strive to achieve it, attainment may never be complete. The norm may be ever changing as society changes. There could be a noticeable lag between the cultural usage of the term and existence of the norm in society. "Customary usage" would also indicate that within the culture there is an accepted family form. Will 9Refer to page 181. 246 the form be valid when applied cross-culturally, however? The field wants to understand families in other cultures-- does "customary usage" serve to identify families in other contexts? At present home economics' research indicates that it will apply cross-culturally. Yet, anthropology evinces a struggle to find more universally applicable definitions of the term. The discipline suggests that "customary usage" implies a limited application, for the term derived is based on selected rather than many in- stances. Consequently, "customary usage" would prevent the field from developing research based on other than modern or Western cultures. It sets up distinct boundaries limiting theoretical development. Thus, in replacing the Bureau of Census definition with "customary usage of the term," home economics has replaced one narrow definition with another--problems of inapplicability prevail affect- ing future research efforts. Home economics posits that the term family, as 10 used by the field varies little between cultures. Find- ing the family in other cultures is facilitated because all contain the small subgroups of parents and their off- spring. Separating out these subgroups reveals families in all cultures and facilitates their study. Family member roles are similar in all cultures, i.e., parents are _— _ 10Referring to the nuclear concept implying "cus- tomary usage" of the term as applied to modern or Western Cultures. ' 247 expected to exhibit a certain uniformity of behavior which serves as a constant in and between cultures. Home eco- nomics ignores deviation from the norm. Operations are conducted on the basis of one world standard. Yet, the field has qualified its own use of the term noting that it works best in a particular (highly specialized, techno- logical) cultural configuration. Home economics seems to be solving two (cultural and cross-cultural) problems via one unvarying route. In 1960 and again in 1966, Hanson, Brown and Martin11 recognized and expressed the fact that a variety of families exist within cultures. If families vary within cultures, it stands to reason that they vary between cultures. Since that time, however, the field has failed to recognize that family variation could distinctly influence future action. It adheres to definitions based on expediency, custom or habit as opposed to applicability or defensibility. Four definitions of the concept "family" guide home economics' actions at the present time. First, the term's use in government related research directed the field's efforts for a number of years. The Bureau of Census definition has received continued use up to 196412 although found to be inapplicable for some situations. Secondly, a 11Refer to pages 184-85. 12Its use may have continued beyond the time period specified but this fact is unreported in the literature. 248 suggested replacement for the Census definition was based on "customary usage,’ refers to modern or Western cultures, is nuclear in life style and institutionalized as the cul- tural norm. Third, the developmental approach has charac- terized the field's research and melds a number of theories within one framework. Fourth, additional definitions for- warded but receiving little emphasis in the literature in- cluded the "interaction" approach and the family life style approach. The two in combination have engaged the field's interest to a minimal degree. Conceptual use has concerned only a few home economics professionals. Instead, emphasis is marshalled at the point of outcomes rather than input-- what is desired as opposed to clarifying theoretical found- ations. Presently home economics applies a set of data claimed to represent reality and subject to little vari- ation. Home economics' frameworks could conceivably be based on false assumptions or half truths. The field's research centers on similar, insti- tutionalized nuclear families--a norm which has received some criticism. Opponents of the definition based on "customary usage" conclude that home economics could be postulating a nonexistent, unverified tenet leading to false assumptions and inapplicable responses. But, home economists for the most part accept the definition and operate under its restrictions. The choice presents (problems just as the Bureau of Census definition has, for the latter guided the field's research quite a number of 249 years. Seemingly the nuclear conception is doing the same. Home economics' research efforts may be confined within too narrow a set of boundaries resulting in conclusions which are inappropriate for the time period in which they are made. The field's selected approaches have stemmed directly from sociology with emphasis on its institutional, developmental and interactionist approaches (the latter is contained within the developmental approach). Psychology's influence is felt particularly in the last approach. How- ever, group effects are stressed above individual effects. Home economists have offered other theoretical frameworks but failed to incorporate them within an identifiable re- search structure. The field's sociological foundations run deep nurtured by long association; familiarity with its proposals fosters security. The resources of anthro— pology and psychology have not been tapped extensively. Perhaps the former disciplines will never gain the pre- dominance accorded sociology by home economics. The field's outlook is biased in a particular direction at this point giving little evidence that its course will change in the future. Sociology's institutional and developmental ap- proaches (the latter encompasses the institutional, structure-function and interactionist approaches) dominate rhome economics' literature with some recognition given to family variation. Although sociology has distinguished a 250 large number of family types, home economics stresses two: the culturally apt family and the subsistence family. Others are suspected but remain unspecified. The influence of anthropology and psychology are evident in the theories professed by the field; but, their use has been slight in its research. Home economics offers little justification for its frameworks and concepts. It furnishes scant evi- dence indicating that its selection of conceptual approaches actually coincides with the goals it attempts to achieve or that discriminate thought has accompanied the selections. It continues to function within frameworks that were de- fined in the past and have been traditionally used. And the field has done little to determine whether the frame- works will be relevant for its future research. Home economics' use of the concept "family" encom- passes the following generalizations: -—Theories of the three disciplines have been in- cluded in the field's literature concerning the concept "family" --The definition of the term family as used by the field establishes boundaries and sets limits on its research directions --Home economics applies its definitions of the family cross-culturally giving little recognition to family deviation between and within cultures 251 --Several definitions of the term have been sug- gested for the field's examination and use but the developmental and institutional approaches are dominant --To date, four uses of the concept "family" guide the field: --The Bureau of Census definition (recognized as inapplicable for all the field's research purposes though still in use) --"Customary usage of the term" (refers to modern or Western cultures, is nuclear in life style and institutionalized as a cultural norm) --The developmental approach (dominates the field's research) --The "interaction" and family life style ap- proach (the former is based on role interaction and is beginning to encompass a theory of family identity; the latter is based on two existing family types: the culturally apt and the subsistence family, neither of which has received extensive verification) --Sociology's research has served as the principle contributor for the conceptual frameworks used by the field 252 Philosophical Implication(s) Home economics has used the concept "family" within four identifiable frameworks. Its approaches have not accounted for the consequences which accompany their use. The field therefore is functioning with a vaguely defined concept which sets limits and remains unverified at the present time. Overall implications drawn from the field's con- ceptualization of the family. --Conceptual analysis opens new avenues for clarifying home economics' philosophical state- ments in turn leading to consensus among its professionals --By responding to questions of concept, home economics can clarify its own philosophical position based on logic and sound reasoning. Then it can set about building philOSOphical frameworks based on conceptual agreement --Home economics' theoretical foundations will remain incomplete until meaning is given priority by the field. Until then, its phi- losophy will remain couched in ambiguities 253 --Home economics has skeleton conceptual frameworks. These could be amplified if the field would examine its theoretical foundations and deter- mine their development, components, deficiencies, value premises, and relevance for the field CHAPTER VII SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS Summary Home economics' philosophy has been limited from the field's establishment as an organized profession in 1909. Guidance comes from statements developed during the Lake Placid Conferences, a few scattered theses concerning influences on home economics' thought,1 the publication of New Directions in 1959, selected universities concerned with training the professional (Cornell, Michigan State Uni- versity and Pennsylvania State University, among others). Guidance has also come from the periodic re-examination of theoretical foundations by a small number of concerned professionals.2 These few voices calling for consistent 1Two examples are: Caroline F. Budewig's "Origin and Development of the Home Economics Idea" (previously cited in Chapter I, p. 9), and Helen L. McConnell's "A Critical Analysis of the Implications of Selected Philoso- phies of Education for Home Economics Education" (unpub- lished Doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, East Lansing, 1965). 2Marjorie M. Brown, "Values in Home Economics," Journal, 59:769-775, December, 1967. Her article considered the problem of goals for the field which would serve as directional guides for establishing a coherent home eco- ‘nomics' philosophy. Anna M. Creekmore, "The Concept Basic 254 255 philosophical development are cries in the wilderness fall- ing upon ears geared to present priorities (the needy family, the disrupted family). Home economics has been so busy "doing," it has not found time to reflect fully upon its accomplishments. Its philosophy has been one of action rather than contemplation. Its statements have been broad and encompassing rather than specific or directive. Broad statements are subject to a large number of interpretations. Observations made in the past cannot be evaluated for their relevance in the present unless their use is accounted for. The family is one of home economics' fundamental concepts. It furnishes a nucleus for the field's orbiting services; consequently, the term provided a starting point for con- ducting a conceptual analysis to determine its present status. As used in 1909, the concept "family" may have been incased in a completely different theoretical struc- ture, for the general term may be used in a variety of contexts. Because home economics today is in need of relevant philosophical statements, it was the purpose of the study to examine recent rather than historical litera- ture. Conceptual analysis illuminates philosophical found- ations clarifying their use, value and directional tendencies. to Home Economics," Journal, 60:93-99, February, 1968. The author was concerned with differentiating between the definition and purposes of the field, its purpose in edu- cating for the profession, and its relevance to society. 256 Home economics draws its concepts from a variety of disciplines. Three which were recognized as major contri- butors to the field from its inception were anthropology, sociology and psychology. By examining the disciplines' use of the construct family, the field's influencers are revealed and the directional tendencies of home economics' thought made evident. Questions concerning families raised consistently by the disciplines were singled out and studied for their responses. Then home economics' replies to the general questions were examined. The study clari- fied how the field has used the term family in its writings and research. By answering questions of concern to the disciplines, home economics can build its own systematic set of answers to basic philosophical questions. The questions' replies become the field's philosophy. A con- crete set of responses signifying agreement between pro- fessionals moves home economics from vague or unclear sup- positions to concrete postulates which guide instead of confuse. Investigations of this kind can build "an in- ventory of research propositions" for home economics-- which Hill and Hanson posit as the purpose of conceptual analysis.3 Books labeled by the three disciplines as of con- cern to families and written between the years 1958 and 1969 were examined and summarized for their responses to the 3Hill and Hanson, Sourcebook, p. 497. 257 general questions. Books were used since they presented a more concise summary of the disciplines' status relative to the construct "family." Then home economics' responses were studied through an examination of the American Home Economics Association's journal and literature. Since the Association is the official voice for the home economics profession, represents the total field and provides conti- nuity of thought through its journal, it was the most applicable source for recent home economics' thought. Then too, home economics professionals look to the Association for direction, ideas, theories, research summaries and the field's general status. After summarizing how home eco- nomics has responded to general questions of concern to the disciplines, the responses were subjected to a critical analysis. An analytical framework was devised which at- tempted to clarify: (l) the field's use of the concept "family"; (2) the status of the profession with regard to the term's use; (3) the identification of gaps and areas of depth concerning the concept; and (4) directions for further study. All serve to lend clarity, meaning, sub- stance, contribute to the field's body of theory, and reveal home economics present status concerning families. The meaning and/or use the field ascribes to funda- mental constructs reveals whether its philosophy is rele- vant for the present or only an emotional call to arms. A Its statements are made explicit rather than implicit. By identifying use, the gaps, consistencies, values, and 258 development inherent in its foundations are clarified. Then home economics can inform instead of sermonize, postu- late instead of admonish and reason instead of idealize. As the field enters the 1970's, it can reveal concrete directional tendencies and needs for the time, chart a course of action that is grounded in realism, based on logic and founded upon principles that can serve as practi- cal guides. Thus the field's outlook becomes more flexible, comprehensive and perceptive. An examination of the concept "family" as used by home economics revealed these general characteristics: Context: Home economics' present use of the con- struct "family" has had the greatest impetus from sociology, although the resources of a variety of disciplines were in- volved in developing conceptual frameworks. An alliance which began from the field's onset has continued up to the present. Psychology and anthropology, to a limited degree, have provided additional contributions. Although home eco- nomics claims to incorporate resources from all three disci— plines, it is governed principally by sociological con- structs. Reality: Home economics maintains that its view of families is realistic. But, if its conceptions are drawn primarily from sociological materials, they are then verified via one means rather than a system of means. The .field appears to be unaware that its conceptions limit action placing them within specified boundaries. The 259 Association implies that all of home economics holds simi- lar conceptions of the family. The literature has raised few questions of disagreement between professionals. Conse- quently, although home economics maintains that it draws knowledge and theory from a variety of resources, in actuality what it has drawn is limited to selected in- stances which are narrow instead of comprehensive, restric- tive instead of all-inclusive. Its selections may have excluded conceptions of family reality which could prove to be highly relevant for research and theory building. Home economics is particularly concerned that all families be provided with a strong foundation of health, normalcy and human and material resources. For example, the field along with a number of governmental organizations strives to secure a guaranteed annual income for needy families so that none are deprived of their necessary eco- nomic foundation. Yet, once all families have an assured base of economic resources, what will the field's next point of interest be? True the need to effectively manage re- sources will always be with us but will it continue to be a dominant concern? Home economics was founded to strengthen families by improving and easing man's life. Today millions of families have a life style which is more convenient or less burdensome than in the past--what has the field to offer them? Has its use of the concept been consonant with the present status of the culture? Stevens 260 summed up the condition of modern societies in which home economics must function when he said: In Spite of our affluence there is general discontent-- youths are disillusioned, the poor are dissatisfied; the wealthy are bored; the blacks are angry; the middle class is frustrated and bewildered by rapidly changing values and mores, and ever increasing violence occurs. It seems obvious that we must develop a new approach to life. 0 I O 4 Is home economics serving the families of all these groups or the family--a nonexistent entity? Are its ap- proaches to the concept realistic-~are they operative in a changing world? Are they serviceable in today's frenetic culture fraught with rapid transition and dysjunction? Is home economics going to center on man--the receiver, manipu- lator, user or is it going to center on man--the interactor, reciprocator, contributor? Home economics along with psy- chology can build a humanistic foundation for family analy- sis and with anthropology--a realistic concept of the family cross-culturally. The field has much to accomplish if it is to align its encompassing philosophy with cultural actions. To date its perceptiveness, flexibility and com- prehensiveness are circumscribed. Adaptability: One of home economics' goals re- volves around helping families move from a life style characterized as independent, self contained and self sufficient to one which is interdependent, more open to cultural influence and socially supported. These latter 4Roger L. Stevens, "America's Stake in the Arts," Saturday Review, LIII (February 29, 1970), p. 18. 261 families can best serve society now. The field seeks total awareness of all social influences, studies them and those that can strengthen family life are adapted and incorporated into families. Both families and home eco- nomics must be aware of and prepare for social change. Presently the field attempts to strengthen them by strength- ening and/or training individuals for family life. There are definite ways of behaving which can lead to individual success in both society and the family. The field's method has involved intervention rather than explication. If all families act in these ways, all will be successful. So, home economics has stressed health (physical and mental), normalcy, the use of resources (both human and economic) and a life style susceptible to cultural need. Why certain behaviors are more successful, the type of success the field is promoting and the degree of variation that is tolerable are all questions which have not been fully answered. For now, its conception is weighted heavily toward the family as a group--subject to society and justi- fied as a social organization so long as it serves society. Influence goes from the largest to the smallest unit. Indi- vidual serving functions are secondary. This deficiency may result from psychology's paucity of materials concern— ing the individual's relationship to his primary group (the family). The picture families present to society is ' of more concern to home economics than its internal 262 functioning. Can the field continue to support the directional emphasis its philosophy has taken? Alternatives: Home economics endeavors to main- tain families which have the following characteristics: They are middle class, stable, unified, and responsible to society, they are healthy and normal, their needs rela- tive to food, clothing and shelter are adequately met, and they promote the culture's political ideology. New charac- teristics may be emerging to replace those mentioned, but their relevance for home economics' thought and action has received notice from only a few of the field's critics. Limited alternatives have been offered for the field's conception. Home economics may be promoting a concept that is unrealistic for the culture. It could even be harmful to the individual dependent upon the field's interpretation and actions taken in attempting to gener- ally apply the conception. The Association is a strong influencer of home economics' thought--the university setting is another. The former emphasizes the institutionalized family with little variation. Presumably the university, with its advanced degree programs, emphasizes research centered on families and uses the developmental approach which is broader and more encompassing than the Association's materials. Are these two large organizations working at ' cross purposes or together toward a generally defined end? Is the philosophy of the Association coincidental with 263 various university philosophies which train the profes- sional? The field's unifying focus is the family. Its efforts have been directed toward this social agency and its relation to the culture and the individual. Is the Association's philosophy concerning families the one which all of home economics wants to subscribe to or are other views applicable for the present and the future? Where is the Association's focus leading? How relevant is home economics' philosophy concerning families? Can the field reach an agreement on conceptual meaning that will build a united theoretical structure. More questions have been raised than answered in this study. The findings are particularly concerned with the Association's philosophical status in reference to the concept "family." Home economics philosophy has reached an evolutionary point where it must consolidate knowledge and theory for the sake of clarity. The statements made in 1958 cannot serve for perpetuity. Educational Implications: Home economics is a field in service to families. Education is one route chosen by the field for providing its services. So, home eco- nomics has a vested interest in the educational process-- it strives to educate individuals for family living. Philosophy can be the guiding force behind home economics' contribution to educational development. A critical exami- nation of its theoretical resources can vivify and unravel 'the interrelationships and contributions of the disciplines. 264 Home economics' broad and encompassing nature cries for organization that will provide a systematic approach to the concept "family." It must clarify directional focus and differentiate its contributions from those of the disciplines, for to repeat their purposes results in duplication not service. In continuing to function with undefined concepts and neglecting to penetratingly examine its foundations, the field may contribute to its own self destruction. Home economics must be aware of its expres- sions; they can determine future contributions to edu- cational development, for as Aiken says: If all meaning either is or involves expression, and if the meaning of all expressions and all modes of expression must somehow be learned, then, plainly what learning, and hence educational development covers is everything that essentially involves the use and application of expressions or what I sometimes call 'meaning carriers.‘ This means that the limits of educational development are set only by the limits of our powers of learning in regard to the use of expres- sions or meaning carriers. The absence of critical analysis is all too evident in home economics' thought and ideas. Favoring action over reflection can be self defeating. Knowledge must be co- herent if it is to be useful; theory must be examined for the actions it produces and evaluated, for only evaluation can reveal worth. Action which neglects meaning may be likened to a pantomime, a great deal of activity is ap- parent, but its direction stands mute. Home economics 5Henry David Aiken, "Analytical Philosophy and Educational Development," Philosophy and Educational Development, p. 20. 265 needs continuing philosophical discourse concerned with meaning, use or functionalism. If meaning is neglected, action becomes accidental. As Shakespeare said: Refrain tonight, And that shall lend a kind of easiness To the next abstinence: the next more easy For use almost can change the Stamp of nature -Hamlet-III.iv. Directions for Further Study --Further study and research are needed to build more com- prehensive, wholistic frameworks supporting home eco- nomics' concern for families. The development of addi- tional questions is indicated. --Further study and research are needed to determine the influences and contributions which other disciplines (economics, art, history, et al.) have made to home economics' conception of the family. --Further study and research are needed to determine addi— tional contributions anthropology and psychology could make to home economics. For now, the field stresses sociological constructs primarily. Yet, home economics maintains that it draws resources from all three disci- plines. --Further study and research are needed to reveal what conceptual approaches have relevance for the field. The Association's literature suggested that three that are in use at this time. Are others relevant? 266 --Further study and research are needed to determine if home economics as a field presents a unified approach to the concept family or if a variety of diverse view- points exist. Since the study concerned only the Associ- ation's outlook, research may need to examine other sources of home economics' thought. --Further study and research are needed to determine alternatives to the field's conception of families. For the present, home economics' use of the concept is narrow and restrictive. The field needs to assess the applicability of its present conceptions. --Further study and research are needed to determine what home economics means when it endeavors to strengthen all families. Present findings would indicate that the field's emphasis has been placed on families in need. Are there other families that can be served? --Further study and research are needed to determine the family's reaction to its environment. At present home economics stresses society's affect on the family. There is a need, then, to examine the family's affect on society. --Further study and research are needed to construct a framework of predictions concerning families that can serve as a systematic scheme for planning home economics future actions. 267 --Further study and research are needed in examining questions of concept. This study dealt with one-—the family; do others have relevance for the field? BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY Books and Booklets American Home Economics Association Committee on Philosophy and Objectives of Home Economics. "Tentative State- ment of the Philosophy and Objectives of Home Eco- nomics," Washington, 1958. (Mimeographed.) . New Directions. Washington: American Home Economics Association, 1959. Ackerman, Nathan W. The Psychodynamics of Family Life. New York: Basic Books, Inc., 1958. . "Emotional Impact of In-Laws and Relatives." Emotional Forces in the Family. Edited by Samual Liebman. Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott Company, 1959. Aiken, Henry David. "Analytical Philosophy and Educational Development." Philosophy and Educational Develop- ment. Edited by George Barnett. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1966. Anshen, Ruth Nanda, ed. The Family: Its Function and Destiny. New York: Harper and Brothers, Publish- ers, 1959. . "The Conservation of Family Values." The Family: Its Function and Destiny. New York: Harper and Brothers, Publishers, 1959. Austin, J.L. "The Meaning of a Word." Philosophy and Ordinapy Language. Edited by Charles E. Caton. Urbana: Univeristy of Michigan Press, 1966. Barnett, George, ed. Philosophy and Educational Develop: ment. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1966. Bee, Laurence S. Marriage and Family Relations. New York: Harper and Brothers, Publishers, 1959. Bell, Robert. Marriage and Family Interaction. Homewood: . The Dorsey Press, Inc., 1963. 268 269 Benedek, Therese. "The Emotional Structure of the Family." The Family: Its Function and Destiny, Edited by Ruth Nanda Anshen. New York: Harper and Brothers, Publishers, 1959. Benedict, Ruth. "The Family: Genus Americanum." The Family: Its Function and Destiny. Edited by Ruth Nanda Anshen. New York: Harper and Brothers, Publishers, 1959. Berman, Sidney. "The Role of Children in the Family." Emotional Forces in the Family. Edited by Samual Liebman. Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott Company, 1959. Black, Max. The Labyrinth of Language. New York: Frederick A. Praeger, Publishers, 1968. Blenkner, Margaret. "Social Work and Family Relationships in Later Life with Some Thoughts on Filial Matur- ity." Social Structure and the Family. Edited by Ethel Shanas and Gardon F. Streib. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice—Hall, Inc., 1965. Blisten, Dorothy R. The World of the Family. New York: Random House, 1963. Boalt, Gunnar. Family and Marriage. New York: David McKay Company, Inc., 1965. Brown, Marjorie. "The Need for Philosophical Study of Home Economics," East Lansing: Michigan State Univer- sity, 1967. (Mimeographed.) Budewig, Caroline F. "Origin and Development of the Home Economics Idea." Unpublished Doctoral disserta- tion, University of Minnesota, 1957. Burgess, Ernest W. and Locke, Harvey. The Family: From Institution to Companionship. New York: American Book Company, 1960. , Harvey Locke, and Mary Thomas. "The Companion- ship Family." Marriage, Family and Society. Edited by Hyman Rodman. New York: Random House, 1965. Caton, Charles E., ed. Philosophy and Ordinary Language. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1963. Jul-‘7‘! 270 Chadderdon, Hester and Fanslow, Alyce M. Review and Synthesis of Research in Home Economics Education. Columbus: The Center for Research and Development in Vocational and Technical Education. The Ohio State University, August, 1966. Cogswell, Betty. "Socialization into the Family: An Essay on Some Structural Properties of Roles." Source- book in Marriage and the Family. Edited by Marvin B. Sussman. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1968. Cottrell, Leonard 8., Jr. "New Directions for the American Family." Sourcebook in Marriage and the Family. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1968. Davis, Kingsley. "The Sociology of Parent-Youth Conflict." Sourcebook in Marriage and the Family. Edited by Marvin B. Sussman. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1968. Dennis, Norman. "Modern Society and the Popularity of Marriage." Comparative Perspectives on Marriage and the Family. Edited by H. Kent Geiger. Boston: Little Brown and Company, 1968. De Rougemont, Denis. "The Crisis of the Modern Couple." The Family: Its Function and Destipy. Edited by Ruth Nanda Anshen. New York: Harper and Brothers, Publishers, 1959. Dressel, Paul L. "The Role of Concepts in Planning the Home Economics Curriculum." Home Economics Seminar. French Lick, Indiana, July 24-28, 1961. Elder, Glen H., Jr. "Role Relations, Sociocultural En- vironments, and Autocratic Family Ideology." Kin- ship and Family Organization. Edited by Bernard Farber. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1966. Ellis, Albert. "The Folklore of Sex." The Family and the Sexual Revolution. Edited by Edwin M. Schur. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1964. Farber, Bernard, ed. "Kinship Laterality and the Emotion- ally Disturbed Child." Kinship and Family Organ— ization. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1966. ' . "Family and Kinship." Sourcebook in Marriage and the Family. Edited by Marvin B. Sussman. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1968. 271 Farber, Seymour, Piero Mustacchi, and Roger H.L. Wilson, eds. The Family's Search for Survival. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1965. Fitzpatrick, Joseph P. "Values, Ethics, and Family Life." Helpipg the Family in Urban Society. Edited by Fred Delliquadri. New York: Columbia University Press, 1963. ' Frankel, Charles. "The Family in Context." Helplng the Family in Urban Society. Edited by Fred Delliquadri. New York: Columbia University Press, 1963. Goldfarb, Alvin I. "Psychodynamics of the Three-Generation Family." Social Structure and the Family. Edited by Ethel Shanas and Gordon F. Streib. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1965. Goode, William J. World Revolution and Family Patterns. New York: The Free Press, 1963. . "The Theoretical Importance of Love." The Family: Its Structure and Functions. Edited by Rose Laub Coser. New York: St. Martin's Press, 1964. "Steady Dating, Imminent Marriage and Remar- riage." Kinship and Family Organization. Edited by Bernard Farber, New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1966. Goodman, Paul. "Growing up Absurd." The Family and the Sexual Revolution. Edited by Edwin M. Schur. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1964. Greenfield, Sidney M. "Industrialization and the Family in Sociological Theory." Kinship and Family Organiza- tion. Edited by Bernard Farber. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1966. Guttmacher, Alan F. "Rx for Birth Control." The Family and Ehe Sexual Revolution. Edited by Edwin M. Schur. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1964. Handel, Gerald. "Psychological Study of Whole Families." Sourcebook in Marriage and the Family. Edited by Marvin B. Sussman. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1968. 272 Hansen, Donald A. "Personal and Positional Influence in Formal Groups: Propositions and Theory for Research on Family Vulnerability to Stress." Sourcebook in Marriage and the Family. Edited by Marvin B. Sussman. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1968. Havighurst, Robert J. "The School and the Family-~From the Viewpoint of the Educator." Helping the Familyoin Urban Society. Edited by Fred Delliquadri. New York: Columbia University Press, 1963. Heer, David M. "Negro-White Marriage in the United States." Sourcebook in Marriage and the Family. Edited by Marvin B. Sussman. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1968. Henle, Paul, ed. Language Thought Culture. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1966. Hill, Reuban and Walter, Willard. "Habit Systems in Married Life." Marriage, Family and Society. Edited by Hyman Rodman. New York: Random House, 1965. "Social Stresses on the Family." Sourcebook in Marriage and the Family. Edited by Marvin B. Sussman. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1968. , Hansen, Donald A. "The Identification of Concep- tual Frameworks Utilized in Family Study." Source- book in Marriage and the Family. Edited by Marvin B. Sussman. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1968. Horkheimer, Max. "Authoritarianism and the Family." The Family: Its Function and Destiny. Edited by Ruth Nanda Anshen. New York: Harper and Brothers, Pub- lishers, 1959. 'Kenkel, William F. The Family in Perspective. New York: Appleton-Century—Crofts, 1966. Kirkendall, Lester A. "Sex Education, and Family Stability.I The Family's Search for Survival. Edited by Seymour Farber, Piero Mustacchi, and Roger H.L. Wilson. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1965. Kirkpatrick, Clifford. The Family as Process and Institu— tion. New York: The Ronald Press, 1963. "A Statistical Investigation of the Psychoana- lytic Theory of Mate Selection." Sourcebook in Mar- riage and the Family. Edited by MarVIn B. Sussman. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1968. 273 Kohn, Melvin L. "Social Class and Parent-Child Relation- ships: An Interpretation." Marriage, Family and Society. Edited by Hyman Rodman. New York: Random House, 1965. Komarovsky, Mirra. "Functional Analysis of Sex Roles." Sourcebook in Marriage and the Family. Edited by Marvin B. Sussman. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1968. Kubie, Lawrence S. "The Disintegrating Impact of 'Modern' Life on the Family in America." Emotional Forces in the Family. Edited by Samual Liebman. Phila- delphia: J.B. Lippincott Company, 1959. Laurie, Norman V. "Public Welfare Services and Family Life." Helping the Family in Urban Society. Edited by Fred Delliquadri. New York: Columbia University Press, 1963. Lawrie, Samuel H. "Early and Late Dating: Some Conditions Associated with Them." Kinship and Family Organiza- tion. Edited by Bernard Farber. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1966. Leslie, Gerald R. The Family in Social Context. New York: Oxford University Press, 1967. Levy, Marion J. and Fallers, Lloyd A. "The Family: Some Comparative Considerations." Sourcebook in Mar- riage and the Family. Edited by Marvin B. Sussman. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1968. Lewis, Oscar. "Poverty as a Source of Lower-Class Sub- culture." Comparative Perspectives on Marriage and the Family. Edited by H. Kent Geiger. Boston: Little Brown and Company, 1968. Lidz, Theodore. The Family and Human Adaptation. New York: International Universities Press, Inc., 1963. Liebman, Samual, ed. Emotional Forces in the Family. Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott, Company, 1959. Linton, Ralph. "The Natural History of the Family." The Family: Its Function and Destiny. Edited by Ruth Nanda Anshen. New York: Harper and Brothers, Publishers, 1959. 274 Llewellyn, Karl N. "Education and the Family." Th9 Family: Its Function and Destiny. Edited by Ruth Nanda Anshen. New York: Harper and Brothers, Pub- 1ishers, 1959. Lundberg, Ferdinand and Farnham, Marynia. "Women: The Lost Sex." The Familyland the Sexual Revolution. Edited by Edwin M. Schur. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1964. Malinowski, Bronislaw. Sex, Culture, and Myth. New York: Harcourt, Brace, and World, Incorporated, 1962. . "Marriage: Past and Present." The Family and the Sexual Revolution. Edited by Edwin M. Schur. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1964. Marmor, Judd. "The Individual, the Family, and the Com— munity." Emotional Forces in the Family. Edited by Samual Liebman. Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott Company, 1959. McConnel, Helen L. "A Critical Analysis of the Implications of Selected Philosophies of Education for Home Economics Education." Unpublished Ph.D. disserta- tion, Michigan State University, 1965. McGrath, Earl J. and Johnson, Jack T. The Changing_Mission of Home Economics. Columbia University: Teachers College Press, 1968. Mead, Margaret and Heyman, Ken. Family. New York: The MacMillan Company, 1965. Meerloo, Joost. "The Development of the Family in the Tech- nical Age." Emotional Forcgs in the Family. Edited by Samual Liebman. Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott Company, 1959. Moore, G.E. Principia Ethica. Cambridge: The University Press, 1959. Moore, Wilbert E. "The Family." Sourcebook in Marriage and the Family. Edited by Marvin B. Sussman. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1968. Moss, J. Joel. "Teenage Marriage: Cross National Trends and Sociological Factors in the Decision of When to Marry." Sourcebook in Marriage and the Family. Edited by Marvin B. Sussman. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1968. 275 Naess, Arne. Communication and Argument. London: Allen and Univin Ltd., 1966. Ness, Claire M. "The Role of the Father in the Family." Emotional Forces in the Family. Edited by Samual Liebman. Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott Company, 1959. Nimkoff, M.F. Comparative Family Systems. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1965. Nye, F. Ivan. "Child Adjustment in Broken and Unhappy Un- broken Homes." Sourcebook in Marriage and the Family. Edited by Marvin B. Sussman. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1963. , Bernardo, Felix M. Emerging Conceptual Frame- works in Family Analysis. New York: The MacMillan Company, 1967. Parke, Robert, Jr. and Glick, Paul C. "Prospective Changes in Marriage and the Family." Sourcebook in Marriage and the Family. Edited by Marvin B. Sussman. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1968. Parsons, Talcott. "The Superego and the Theory of Social Systems." The Family: Its Structure and Functions. Edited by Rose Laub Coser. New York: St. Martin's Press, 1964. . "The Incest Taboo in Relation to Social Struc- ture." The Family: Its Structure and Functions. Edited by Rose Laub Coser. New York: St. Martin's Press, 1964. . "The Normal American Family." Sourcebook in Marriage and the Family. Edited by Marvin B. Sussman. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1968. Peterson, James A. "Catastrophes in Partnership: Separa- tion, Divorce and Widowhood." The Familyls Search for Survival. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1965. Pollak, Otto. "The Outlook for the American Family." Sourcebook in Marriage and the Family. Edited by Marvin B. Sussman. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1968. Population Bulletin. "'Boom Babies' Come of Age: The American Family at the Crossroads." Sourcebook in Marriage and the Famil . Edited by Marvin B. Sussman. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1968. 276 Pribram, Karl H. "Committment to Dreams." The Family's Search for Survival. Edited by Seymour Farber, Piero Mustacchi, and Roger H.L. Wilson. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1965. Queen, Stuart A., Robert W. Hubenstein, John B. Adams. The Family in Various Cultures. Chicago: J.B. Lippin- cott Company, 1961. Randall, John Herman and Buchler, Justus. Philosophy: An Introduction. New York: Barnes and Noble, Inc., 1966. Rapoport, Robert and Rapoport, Rhona. "Work and Family in Contemporary Society." Sourcebook in Marriage and the Family. Edited by MarVin B. Sussman. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1968. Rodman, Hyman, ed. "Talcott Parson's View of the Changing American Family." Marriage, Family and Society. New York: Random House, 1965. . "Mate Selection: Incest Taboos, Homogamy, and Mixed Marriages." Marriage, Family and Society. New York: Random House, 1965. . "On Understanding Lower-Class Behavior." Sourcebook in Marriage and the Family. Edited by Marvin B. Sussman. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1968. Ryle, Gilbert. "The Theory of Meaning." Philosophy and Ordinary Language. Edited by Charles E. Caton. Urbana: University of Michigan Press, 1966. Schaffner, Bertram. "The Individual, the Family and the Boss." Emotional Forces in the Family. Edited by Samual Liebman. Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott Company, 1959. Schorr, Alvin L. "Filial Responsibility and the Aging." Marriage, Family and Society. New York: Random House, 1965. Schrecker, Paul. "The Family: Conveyance of Tradition." The Family: Its Function and Destiny. Edited by Ruth Nanda Anshen. New York: Harper and Brothers, Publishers, 1959. Schur, Edwin M., ed. The Family and the Sexual Revolution. ’ Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1964. 277 . "Abortion and the Social System." The Family and the Sexual Revolution. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1964. Sewell, William H. "Some Recent Developments in Social- ization Theory and Research." Sourcebook in Mar- riage and the Family. Edited by Marvin B. Sussman. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1968. Sirjamaki, John. "Cultural Configurations in the American Family." Sourcebook in Marriage and the Family. Edited by Marvin B. Sussman. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1968. Slater, Philip. "Social Limitations on Libidinal With- drawal." The Family: Its Structure and Functions. Edited by Rose Laub Coser. New York: St. Martin's Press, 1964. Smith, Philip G. Philosophylof Education. New York: Harper and Row, 1965. Sorokin, Piterim. "The American Sex Revolution." The Family and the Sexual Revolution. Edited by Edwin M. Schur. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1964. Spitz, Rene A. "Hospitalism." The Family: Its Structure and Functions. Edited by Rose Laub Coser. New York: St. Martin's Press, 1964. Stokes, Walter R. "Our Changing Sex Ethics." The Family and the Sexual Revolution. Edited by Edwin M. Schur. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1964. Streib, Gordon F. "Family Patterns in Retirement." Source- book in Marriage and the Family. Edited by Marvin B. Sussman. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1968. Suckow, Miriam P. and Cuttrell, Florence E. Families in New York City. New York: Community Council of Greater New York, May, 1966. Sullenger, Thomas Earl. Neglected Areas in Family Living. Boston: The Christopher Publishing House, 1960. Sussman, Marvin B. and Burchinal, Lee. "Kin Family Network: Unheralded Structure in Current Conceptualizations of Family Functioning." Sourcebook in Marriage and the Family. Edited by Marvin B. Sussman. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1968. 278 . "Parental Aid to Married Children: Implications for Family Functioning." Kinship and Family Organ- ization. Edited by Bernard Farber. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1966. Tomasson, Richard F. "Why Has American Fertility Been so High?" Kinship and Family Organization. Edited by Bernard Farber. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1966. Torres-Rioseco, Arturo. "The Family in Latin America." The Family: Its Function and Destiny. Edited by Ruth Nanda Anshen. New York: Harper and Brothers, Publishers, 1959. Van Den Haag, Ernest. "Love or Marriage." The Family: Its Structure and Functions. Edited by Rose Laub Coser. New York: St. Martin's Press, 1964. Vincent, Clark E. "Mental Health and the Family." Source- book in Marriage and the Family. Edited by Marvin B. Sussman. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1968. Waismann, Friedrich. "The Creative Capacities of Language." Value and Man. Edited by Louis Z. Hammer. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1966. Walsh, John Patrick and Selden, William. "Vocational Educa- tion in the Curriculum of the Common School." Vocational Education. Edited by Herman G. Richey. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1965. Wilson, John. Language and the Pursuit of Truth. Cambridge: The University Press, 1967. . Thinking with Concepts. Cambridge: The Univer- sity Press, 1967. Winch, Robert F. The Modern Family. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1963. . "Rearing by the Book." Sourcebook in Marriage and the Family. Edited by Marvin B. Sussman. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1968. Woods, Sister Frances Jerome. The American Family System. New York: Harper and Brothers Publishers, 1959. Zimmerman, Carle C. and Frampton, Merle. "Theories of Frederic LePlay." Kinship and Family Organization. Edited by Bernard Farber. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1966. 279 Periodicals American Home Economics Association. "Work with Low-Income Families." Journal of Home Economics, 57:782-783, December, 1965. Apgar, Virginia. "Birth Defects: A National Concern." Journal of Home Economics, 56:18-21, January, 1964. Baker, Luther G., Jr. "The Enigma of Men in Home Economics." Journal of Home Economics, 61:371-373, May, 1969. Bezant, Rozelle K. "Marriage and Family Living in the Homemaking Curriculum." Journal of Home Economics, 57:11-16, January, 1965. Bonde, Ruth L. "Means and Ends." Consumer Credit. Report to a Financial Management Conference, October 9-12, 1967. Washington: American Home Economics Associa- tion, 1967. Brown, Marjorie M. "Values in Home Economics." Journal of Home Economics, 59:769-775, December, 1967. Brown, Muriel. "The Growth of Values in Childhood and Old Age." Journal of Home Economics, 52:407-413, June, 1960. Buchanan, Helen E. "Teaching Family Relationships." Journal of Home Economics, 56:305-308, May, 1964. Burk, Margurite C. "Consumer Behavior." Journal of Home Economics, 59:155-162, March, 1967. Carter, Don. "Love and Integrity in Marriage." Journal of Home Economics, 59:425-427, June, 1967. Chilman, Catherine S. "Value Orientations of a Culture of Poverty: The Southern Appalachian Case." Working with Low Income Families. Proceedings of the AHEA WOrkshop, March 15-19, 1965. Washington: American Home Economics Association, 1965. Chittendon, Gertrude and Gould, Flo. "A Challenge to Child Development and Family Relationships." Journal of Home Economics, 51:97-99, February, 1959. Christopherson, Victor A. "Women in Modern Society." Journal of Home Economics, 57:99-102, February, 1965. 280 Dawe, Helen C. "Teaching Child Development-Runs, Hits, and Errors." Journal of Home Economics, 50:81-86, February, 1965. De Vivo, Anita. "Family Life: The Common Denominator." Journal of Home Economics, 55:258-260, April, 1963. Dixon, James P. "Our Changing Society: Impact on Fami- lies." Journal of Home Economics, 55:495-550, September, 1963. Downer, Donna Beth. "The House and Adult Social Activity." Journal of Home Economics, 61:17-21, January, 1969. , Ruth Smith, and Mildred T. Lynch. "Values and Housing--A New Dimension." Journal of Home Eco- nomics, 60:173-176, March, 1968. Durrett, Mary Ellen. "Relation Between Anxiety and Self Concept Among Marathi-Speaking Indian Children." Journal of Home Economics, 57:717-719, November, 1965. Efferson, Norman J. "An International Perspective for Family Economics." Issues in Family Economics. Report to the Family Economics Conference, June 21-23, 1967. Washington: American Home Economics Association, 1967. Eisendrath, Jack N. "The Primrose Path from Easy Credit to Bankruptcy." Consumer Credit. Report to a Finan- cial Management Conference, October 9-12, 1967. Washington: American Home Economics Association, 1967. Fulcomer, David M. "What are Today's Families Like?" Journal of Home Economics, 55:693-698, November, 1963. Goldberg, Faith S. "Problem Users of Consumer Credit as Seen by a Caseworker." Consumer Credit. Report to a Financial Management Conference, October 9-12, 1967. Washington: American Home Economics Asso- ciation, 1967. Gross, Irma H. "Impact of Certain Basic Disciplines on Home Management in Family Living." Journal of Home Economics, 58:448-452, June, 1966. Hall, Ruth C. Family Holidays Around the World. Washing- ‘ ton: American Home Economics Association, 1964. 281 Hanson, Doris E. "Which Family? Where Shall the Focus Be?" Journal of Home Economics, 58:777-779, December, 1966. Hawkes, Glenn R. "In Family Relationships and Child De- velopment." Journal of Home Economics, 51:573-576, September, 1959. Hettler, Frances M., et al. "Learning about Families Through Professional Travel Experiences." Journal of Home Economics, 60:257-260, April, 1968. Hodge, Madeline. "Serving the Needs of Families in Public Housing." Journal of Home Economics, 55:627-628, October, 1963. Hunter, Stanley M. "Homemakers Name their Home Problems." Journal of Home Economics, 53:425-427, June, 1961. Hurd, Helen G. "The Square Tomato, or a Look to the Future." Consumer Credit. Report to a Financial Management Conference, October 9-12, 1967. Wash- ington: American Home Economics Association, 1967. Hurt, Mary Lee and Dales, Ruth J. "For Effective Teaching of Family Living." Journal of Home Economics, 51: 349-351, May, 1959. Ingersoll, Hazel L. "Family Values in a Consumer Age." Journal of Home Economics, 53:543-546, September, 1961. Jewson, Ruth H. "Relation of Handicapping Conditions to Family Relationships." Journal of Home Economics, 55:620—624, October, 1963. Keenan, Dorothy. "Exploring Value Patterns." Journal of Home Economics, 59:776-778, December, 1967. Klemer, Richard H. "The Empathic Approach to Teaching Family Relations." Journal of Home Economics, 57: 619-625, October, 1965. Knoll, Marjorie. "Toward a Conceptual Framework in Home Management." Journal of Home Economics, 55:335-339, May, 1963. Koch, William H., Jr. "The North Carolina Fund." Working With Low Income Families. Proceedings of the AHEA Workshop, March 15-19, 1965. Washington: American Home Economics Association, 1965. 282 Lacot, Muria Socorro. "The Contribution of Home Economics to the Social and Economic Life of the Family." Journal of Home Economics, 50:635-636, October, 1958. LeBaron, Helen R. "Professional Interaction." Journal of Home Economics, 59:499-502, September, 1967. Liston, Margaret I. "Management in the Family as a Social Process." Conceptual Frameworks: Process of Home Management. Proceedings of a Home Management Con- ference, June 17-20, 1964. East Lansing: Michigan State University, 1964. Luckey, Eleanore Braun. "Education for Family Living in the Twentieth Century." Journal of Home Economics, 57:685-690, November, 1965. . "Sex Education." Journal of Home Economics, 61:31-34, January, 1969. Magrabi, Frances, Beatrice Paolucci, and Marjorie Hiefner. "Framework for Studying Family Activity Patterns." Journal of Home Economics, 59:714-719, November, 1967. Marshall, Helen R., et a1. "Modification of Student Atti- tudes on Guidance-of-Children Scales Through Class- room Teaching." Journal of Home Economics, 52:185- 190, March, 1960. Marshall, William H. "Home Economists and Legislation Affecting Families.“ Journal of Home Economics, 59:641-643, October, 1967. Martin, William E. "Interpersonal Relations in Family Life." Journal of Home Economics, 52:655-658, October, 1960. Marull, Jose. "The Family as an Economic Unit." Journal of Home Economics, 58:256-259, April, 1966. Massey, Lelia. "Home Economics Faces Change." Illinois Teacher, XI (Winter 1967-68), 201-237. Miller, Paul A. "Poverty Amidst Affluence: An Overall View of Poverty in Contemporary American Society." Working with Low Income Families. Proceedings of the AHEA Workshop, March 15-19, 1965. Washington: American Home Economics Association, 1965. 283 Mockmore, Buena Maria. "Lasting Values in a Changing World." Journal of Home Economics, 50:751-754, November, 1958. Moore, Bernice Milburn. "Interaction Among Generations." Journal of Home Economics, 59:621-628, October, 1967. Moore, Floride. "A Look Ahead." Journal of Home Economics, 52:518-522, September, 1960. Morgan, Mildred I. "The Contributions and Needs of Home Economics Research in the Area of Family Relations." Journal of Home Economics, 51:358-361, May, 1959. Morgan, Winona. "Implications of the White House Conference for Home Economists." Journal of Home Economics, 52:504-507, September, 1960. Morse, Richard L.D. "Haves and the Have-Nots." Journal of Home Economics, 59:636-640, October, 1967. Nichols, Addreen. "Organizational Processes Eliciting Help." Journal of Home Economics, 58:726-728, November, 1966. Reagan, Barbara B. "The Effect of Government Agricultural Programs on Family Living." Journal of Home Eco- nomics, 52:441-442, June, 1960. Reid, Margaret. "Families in a Changing Economy." Journal of Home Economics, 51:569-572, June, 1959. Rutledge, Aaron L. "Counseling for Competence in Family Living." Journal of Home Economics, 50:15-18, January, 1958. Samenfink, Anthony and Kranzler, Ruth. "Goals and Tech- niques of a Family-Centered Laboratory Nursery School." Journal of Home Economics, 52:263-266, April, 1960. Sen, B.R. "Rural Families and FAQ." Journal of Home Eco- nomics, 50:507-508, September, 1958. Schaik, Theodora F.S.M. "Food and Nutrition Relative to Family Life." Journal of Home Economics, 56:225- 231, April, 1964. Schorr, Alvin L. "Filial Responsibility and the Aging." - Journal of Home Economics, 54:271-276, April, 1962. 284 Schvarreveldt, Jay D. "Reference Groups and Family Functioning in the Community." Journal of Home Eco- nomics, 60:717-720, November, 1968. Simpson, Elizabeth J. "Curriculum Development Challenges in Home Economics." The Education Digest, XXXIV (April 1969), 49-51. Smith, Ramona and Christopherson, Victor A. "Migration and Family Adjustment." Journal of Home Economics, 58:670-671, October, 1966. Smith, Ruth H. "Job Analysis as a Basis for House Ar— rangement." Journal of Home Economics, 54:450-459, June, 1962. . "Housing Choices as Evidenced by Residential Mobility." Journal of Home Economics, 57:39-41, January, 1965. Somerville, Rose M. "Imaginative Literature in Family Life Education." Journal of Home Economics, 55:409-412, June, 1963. Staab, Josephine H. "Research in Family Economics." Journal of Home Economics, 51:257-260, April, 1959. , et a1. "Improving Economic Literacy through Family Economics." Journal of Home Economics, 54:90~93, February, 1963. Stevens, Roger L. "America's Stake in the Arts." Saturday Review, LIII (February 29, 1970), 18—21. Stewart, Alice M. "The Home Economist in Public Welfare." Journal of Home Economics, 56:389-391, June, 1964. Tate, Mildred Thurow. "Family Life Research." Journal of Home Economics, 51:210-211, March, 1959. Updegraff, Sue Garner. "Changing Roles of the Grandmother.‘ Journal of Home Economics, 60:177-180, March, 1968. Vars, Freda Teitzel. "Factors Related to Housing Satis- faction." Journal of Home Economics, 61:164-166, March, 1969. Walter, James and Stinnett, Nick. "Should Family Life Education be Required." Journal of Home Economics, 60:641-644, October, 1968. 285 White, Ruth Bennett. "The Turkish Woman and Her Family." Journal of Home Economics, 56:241-246, April, 1963. Williams, Dorothy G. "The Value of Studies of Family Ex- penditures in Setting up Budgets for Use by Social Agencies." Journal of Home Economics, 50:765-766, December, 1958. APPENDICES APPENDIX A APPENDIX A Lelia Massey, "Home Economics Faces Change," Illinois Teacher,AXI (Winter 1967-68), 208: Although home economics makes no claim to being the only school subject concerned with family living, it is the only field that has as its primary objective strengthening family life. Earl J. McGrath and Jack T. Johnson, The Changing Mission of Home Economics (Columbia University: Teachers College Press, 1968), p. 84: From its beginnings, the preoccupation of the field has centered in the family as the milieu in which indi- viduals grow and gain their basic learning in prepar- ation for a productive, rewarding, and satisfying life. Elizabeth J. Simpson, "Curriculum Development Challenges in Home Economics," The Education Digest, April, 1969, p. 50: Home economics as a field of study draws its content from most, or perhaps all of the disciplines. [Knowl- edge from these disciplines is applied to] the con- duct of family life. John Patrick Walsh and William Selden, "Vocational Education in the Curriculum of the Common School," in Vocational Education, ed. Herman G. Richey (Chicago: Uni- versity of Chicago Press, 1965), p. 97: Basic to all that is taught in home economics is belief in the importance of family life. 286 I {1 ‘1' It ,Inl' lull APPENDIX B ‘lll:ll|l|.illt! all ‘II 1 (1| I'll I ill I Ill [I I! I‘ll. ll Iv APPENDIX B Since the idea of home economics was born in the United States at the opening of the twentieth century, its particular focus has been uniquely American. This study, then, was concerned with the Western or American family and how home economics interpreted such a concept. Of the three disciplines viewed as contributing knowledge about the family, anthropology presents the most global or world- wide approach in that many studies have been done relative to small, closed social systems. In these latter studies, little contribution to cultural universals was evidenced. Hence, Malinowski's theoretical framework was more appli- cable to the study's purpose than the general term anthro- pology. Malinowski developed the concepts "comparative anthropology, functional anthropology or social anthro- pology." These terms point out that the purpose of anthro- pology is to illustrate selected elements that vary in societies yet sort out the fundamentals that are universal and stable; it studies facts with empirical and socio- logical interest. Functional anthropology attempts to lay 287 288 the foundations of sociology. In the last analysis, anthropology is to be a comparative science of cultures.1 Thus, those anthropological references using the terms postulated by Malinowski were selected on the basis that the term(s) appeared in the stated purpose of the reference. The general term anthropology continues to be used in the study but the reader needs to be aware of its boundaries. A 1Bronislaw Malinowski, Sex, Culture, and Myth (New York: Harcourt, Brace, and World, Incorporated, 1962), pp. 44, 167, 187. I. [III i f I, I'll". l APPENDIX C APPENDIX C TOPICS DISCUSSED IN THE ANTHROPOLOGICAL LITERATUREl The Purposes of Anthropology Comparative studies of cultures Determining cultural universals Documentation of cultural variability Family origins and purposes in cultures Theories of Family Origin The origin of American families Former family types A natural history of the family Historical development of Western Marriage Parent and child in primitive mythology Family Universals Comparative considerations of the family World theories of the family Comparative research studies Cross-cultural family perspectives 1The organization is the writer's own. The sub- titles were paraphrased from the various author's works. Topics are grouped under the headings in no particular order of importance. The list does not include all titles found in the literature for similar topics were grouped and appear as one title in the listing. This also applies to Appendices D, E and F. 289 290 Families in Varying Cultures The family in China Permissive dependency in Japan Cross-national variations in marital eagerness Patterns of divorce in Australia Latin American families American Indian cultures American families American fertility Family trends Conjugal family types Divorce Children in the family Family members Social Structure and the Family Society's concern for the family Modern societies and marriage popularity The family and the community Industrialization and the family in sociological theory Social structure and deviancy Social structure and the family Social change Societal influences on the family Societal conditions for family functioning Social groupings and the family The contributions of the family to the social order Religion and the family Education and the family The family's purpose Social and Emotional Features in the Family The father-son relationship Family housing Kinship relations Group structure and interpersonal creativity Cultural and personal dilemmas in family experiences Variations in child rearing Equalitarianism, society and the family Friends Theories of marital selection Social class affects on the family Leading crowds Family trends The transfer of family functions Sexual life and interpersonal intimacy The family as an independent variable (The emotional structure and the family 291 Approaches to the Family Universal family functions The structural approach The interactional approach Role relations in the family Family patterns The nature of family organization Family types Family terminology The family life cycle approach APPENDIX D APPENDIX D TOPICS DISCUSSED IN THE SOCIOLOGICAL LITERATURE The Family as a Universal History of the family Purpose of the family Need for the family Cultural universals Characteristics of the family Family unity The ideal family Family Forms American family types American attitudes Composition of American families The normal United States' family Work and the family in contemporary society The cultural configuration of the American family Outlook for the United States' family Families in other countries (Soviet, French, Chinese, and Israeli families) Marital forms (polygny, polyandry) Family types The companionship family Extended family groups Rules of residence Family customs Types of lineage Family traditions Filial responsibility and aging Social participation of the aged in other cultures Naming children in the middle class Kinship networks The isolated nuclear family Family patterns and retirement 292 293 The Family and the Surrounding Society The effects of other social systems on the family (economic, scientific, legal, religious, educational, community, industrial, age, sex) Social class structure affects on the family Child bearing and rearing in social classes Conjugal role relations and social class Class differences and family stability Social class variations in marriage and the family Social class and premarital sexual permissiveness Recreation and family needs Values, ethics and family life Social class and fertility Social stress and the family Familnytability and Disruption Family catastrophes (separation, dovorce, widowhood) Tension in Marriage Parent-child conflict Types of family crisis Family disruption The social nature of divorce Remarriage Changing sex ethics War and the family Emotional disturbance and the family The child's adjustment to broken and unhappy unbroken homes Parenthood as crisis Weakening of the family Helping the family Natural planning, nutrition and health Family counseling Public welfare and the family Mobility and the family Demographic trends The family in transition Changing family functions Accommodating conflict Marital cohesion and dissolution Positions in formal groups Functions of the home (housing design, and plan for family life) Care of dependents Fusing the adolescent to parental functions Family personalization of society 294 Mate Selection Mating variations Love and courtship Mate selection Romantic love Theories of mate selection Cultural factors in selecting marriageable mates Incest taboos and social structure Criteria for marital success Predicting success Marital adjustment Kinds of relationships Sex Education and the Family Premarital sexual behavior Sexual and marital practices The principle of legitimacy Sex role analysis Sex expression Sexual aspects of marriage Cultural contradictions and sex roles The United States' sexual revolution Birth control Abortion and the social system Psycho-social Factors and the Family Theories of inner motivation Psychological factors in love Folklore Theories Processes Cultural influences Selected Family Members Wife of the working man Employed mothers in the U.S.S.R. Learning the feminine role Women: the lost sex Women: the second sex The child's presence in the family Isolated children Collective child rearing Infancy and childhood Adolescence and the launching years Affects of working mothers on the child The child's occupational role 295 Family Research Needed research New directions in family research Approaches to the family The family as a social system The family and social interaction The family as an institution Family expectations and roles Family authority and structural patterns Symbolic interaction and the family Conceptual frames for analyzing the family Theories of family development The family life cycle Social theory and research development APPENDIX E APPENDIX E TOPICS DISCUSSED IN THE PSYCHOLOGICAL LITERATURE History of the Family Archeological findings on families The family in myths and legends Families in existing non-literate societies Origins of marriage and the family The family throughout history Hebrew families Roman families Russian families New England families The Family and Human Potential Family and man's needs Family functions The child bearing function The socialization function Functions of family members The ethical and moral development of the individual Achieving security and maturity Homeostatic behavior Stability and breakdown Mate Selection and Marriage Mate selection practices The regulation of sexual behavior Coming of age in the United States Dating, courtship, engagement Adolescence, mate selection and marriage Criteria for marital happiness Why we marry as we do Prescriptions for a happy marriage Role conflicts related to marital happiness 296 297 Mate Selection and Marriage (continued) Men who marry older women School age marriages When to marry Problems of early marriage Faulty and productive marital patterns Personality and marriage The theory of basic personality Psycho-sexual development of the personality Sex and personality Sexual orientations in the United States Emotional maturity The meaning of love Growing together in marriage Relatives and the Family The emotional impact of relatives and in-laws The psychodynamics of a three generation family Motivation of intergenerational behavior through norms and law Parenthood Pets as substitutes for children The emotional problems of pregnancy Child development in the family Parents Shared responsibility for child rearing Children and death Family Crises Family disorganization and reconstruction Causes of present family problems Modern life and its disintegrating influence on United States' families Behavioral disturbances of contemporary families Parental disturbances Childhood disturbances Adolescent disturbances Conflict and family relations Changes affecting the family Family,Services Social welfare and implications for family living 298 Approaches to Family Research The family developmental approach The developmental tasks of childrearing The family life cycle Decision making and the family life cycle Nuclear and extended family relationships The family as an institution Role relations of the individual family member (mother, father, child) Social role and personality Family role relations Psychology of whole families Psychopathic conduct and family disturbance The psychological identity of the family Healthy family characteristics Principles of family psycho-dynamics Diagnosing the family Reactions in family crisis Growth in familiasm The Freudian psychoanalytic view of the family Counseling for family competence The individual, family, and community The boss, individual and family The interaction of family personalities Family experiences and psycho-social development Individual identity and the family Interdependency of individuals Family rituals APPENDIX E APPENDIX E TOPICS DISCUSSED IN THE HOME ECONOMICS' LITERATURE Families in Society The Homemakers food, family, and world Family configurations Family mobility Migrant families The impact of change on families Problems of the home in Puerto Rico and the United States Turkish and American women Family life abroad Oriental family life in transition Interracial understanding Predictions for the family's future Which family to focus on FamilytEconomics Appliance ownership in families Economics of family life and worldwide social progress Changing expenditures of urban and rural families Financial practices of young families Families in a changing economy Socioeconomic values and family welfare Cultural variations in family economics The aged and family economics Improving family economic literacy Perceptions of financial security Employed and unemployed wives' financial management Family finances in the middle years The family as an economic unit Family economic behavior Teenage consuming and expenditures Consumer behavior and credit 299 300 Family Health, Welfare and Services Family marketing practices Food habits in the Virgin Islands Urban family dessert choice Explications versus intervention in the family Low income families Working with low income families A minimum adequate level of living Parent-peer orientation in low income families Decision making and the disadvantaged Publications for families of limited reading ability Inner city experiences Low income Negro mothers Factors in job performance in low income families Reaching low income families Home economics and public welfare Legislation affecting families Effect of government programs on family living Rural families and the FAQ The Family's Environment Job analysis and housing arrangement Needs of families in public housing Mobility and housing choice Aesthetic housing values and sensitivity Family activity patterns Housing values The home and social activities Housing satisfaction factors Environmental temperature control Living space and patterned relationships Housekeeping standards Housing and foreign families Family_Values Art and home economics College student values Lasting values in a changing world Values in childhood and old age Family, community, and individual values and attitudes Changing attitudes Value patterns Child Development Personality and the ability to judge the child's social acceptance Family relations and child development Goals and techniques of a family centered nursery school Maternal acceptance of childhood competition 301 Child Development (continued) Birth defects Physical status and non-continuous mothering Acceptance of handicapped and nonhandicapped children Day care centers Parents' life goals for children Rural mother's child rearing techniques Family Life Education Student needs and teacher perceptions Curriculum in home economics Curriculum workshops Financing home economics programs College family life programs Interest in family life education Family life education literature Family life education teaching methods The concept approach to teaching family relations Requiring family life education Concepts in teaching family finance The family focus in college foods courses Home economics education in Africa The foreign study of families Teaching parents to teach children Education for low income families A conceptual framework for home management Sex education Affect and effect of the dropout on families Interpersonal Relationships Attitudes of college students toward families Mental health experiences of home economics students Motivation in girls Women in modern society Student attitudes and dating Love and integrity in marriage Communication in marriage Meeting family needs Handicapping conditions in family relations Interaction among generations The changing role of grandmothers Socio-psychological factors in high school marriage Characteristics of young families The empathic approach to family relations Counseling for family competence The handicapped and homemaking Marital satisfaction measures 302 The Profession of Home Economics Pre-school teacher certification Married home economists Undergraduate professional home economics education Professional interaction Homemaker aides Men in home economics Family Research Family economic research Case histories of interaction and research Impact of some basic disciplines on home economics Family research in Indonesia Research in cooperation with other countries Research methods in home management APPENDIX G APPENDIX G CLARIFICATION AND ELABORATION OF THE ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK DESIGNED FOR STUDYING SELECTED HOME ECONOMICS' MATERIALS 1 The context within which the points about families were made: The social circumstances which gave impetus to the statements -Who said them: —When were they said: -Why were they said: -What was the con- textual source (home economics, sociology, anthropology, or psychology): What were the authors' speciali- zations which served to qualify them to speak about the family, e.g., were they home economists, sociologists, psychologists, others? The time span within which arti- cles were published. The reasons, purposes, or motives which gave impetus to the state- ments made about families The primary influercers of the authors' statements or the bibli- ography references used, if given. Either one or both serve to indi- cate the motivators behind the statements. 1In some cases, portions of the framework may be inapplicable, e.g., a question may be answered without resorting to statements exhorting to action, or the state- ments made may not be classifiable within the framework. These were excluded from the analysis. 303 304 The direction given to the material (type of statements made): The use or intention of the authors' statements-- what are they trying to do to and/or with their audience -Exhorting to action: -Presentation of theory: -Collection of data for interpretation by the field: -Presentation of imperatives or attitudes: Expression of the speakers' feel- ings or desires accompanied by a plan of action indicating what should be done. Statements or conclusions were derived from facts which aid in predicting about reality and/or life's activities. Statements of fact were unaccom- panied by the authors' evalu- ations Presents what the speakers' de- sire to have done but giving no plan of action supporting the statements. The continuity of the material: The durability of the ideas presented by the field reflecting uniformity and constancy of thought -Comprehensiveness of the areas dealt with relative to the family: -Variety of viewpoints held in a particular area of examination: -Consistency, agree- ment and disagreement of the material deal- ing with the family: Were the materials supported by a wide variety of thoughts as opposed to presenting a one-sided view, i.e., use of the literature or theory of one discipline to the exclusion of others. The authors present points and counterpoints relevant to a dis- cussion of the family. The statements made by the various authors present a logical whole both within and/or between the articles or each author presents his view as the only correct one. 305 Similarities and differences: --Home economics draws views from the disciplines with little variation or presents its own dis- tinctive interpretations. Gaps in the literature: --Home economics takes full cognizance of the ideas drawn from the disciplines or excludes ideas which would have significance for the field. Consistency and inconsistencies and where they exist: --The ideas home economics has drawn from the disciplines present a coherent whole and/or are not haphazardly used in inapplicable situations. "IWillllllllllllllf