Typology of family models

The family is not just a social group, but also a social institution.

According to the definition of sociologists, the "institution" is a set of social roles and statuses, designed to meet a specific social need.

Here it is necessary to clarify the concepts of "role" and "status".

By status is understood the position of a person in a society with certain rights and duties, and the role is the expected behavior associated with a particular status. If a person has a social status of a nobleman, then others expect him to fulfill only his role: loyalty to the sovereign, observance of the code of honor, personal autonomy and responsibility, etc. Roles are appropriated by the person in the course of socialization, under the influence of the nearest social environment to which he imitates,which encourages him for some acts and punishes others.

The result of socialization of the child is determined by the appropriation of social norms and values ​​in the course of interaction with other people. And the decisive role in the socialization of the child is played by the family.

The family as a social institution, in addition to the educational institution, performs a number of other functions, namely: 1) the economic function - in the pre-industrial era and the family was the primary production group; at present, the family distributes income earned outside, and consumption occurs, 2) the transfer functionsocial status-families of different social strata have different social status and transfer it to new family members - children, 3) the function of maintaining the welfare of family members.

Many researchers, in particular T. Parsons, argue that at present the family has lost these functions in connection with the transition of developed countries to the phase of postindustrial society, and the social function of children has remained an essential function of the family.

I believe that the socialization of children has always, at all times and among all peoples, been the only specific function of the family, and other functions have been complementary and have changed over the centuries.

Sociologists distinguish the following basic family forms:

1) The nuclear family - consists of adults and children who depend on them;

2) The extended family includes a nuclear family and relatives( grandmothers, grandfathers, grandchildren, sisters, brothers, etc.).

The family like any other social institution is held together by the power system. There are three types of power structures: the patriarchal family, where the power belongs to the husband, the matriarchal family - the power belongs to the wife, the egalitarian family - the power is evenly distributed between the husband and wife.

I believe that the last variant of the family, typical for the industrial era and resulting from the crisis of the family as a social institution, disguises the disintegration of the family structure and latent conflict: in the industrial countries, the number of divorces is increasing, and in the post-industrial countries reaches its maximum. This allows American sociologists to talk about the collapse of the family and the birth of a new version of human relations that have nothing in common not only with the "traditional family", but also the family as such. In the United States for 30 years( from 1960 to 1990), the divorce rate has increased almost 15 times, it is the highest in the world.

Although the emergence of "alternative" families, the spread of homosexual marriages, life in communes and other variants of relations that replace the family, suggests the progressiveness of abandoning the family as a social institution, the consequences of this failure are catastrophic for the process of socialization of children.

Domination of a working mother in the family leads to the fact that children are less able to absorb the values, norms and morals of society. True, the research of American psychologists has come to the conclusion that juvenile offenders are less likely to leave i from single-parent families, more often from families with conflicting two parents. But the children of single mothers experience great problems in social adaptation, choosing a marriage partner and raising their own children. The thread of social inheritance is torn.

In Russia, the family, despite having similar processes in the US, also retains its most important social functions.

A number of additional important concepts are introduced:

1. The real family is a specific family as a social group, an object of research.

2. A typical family is the most common variant of a family model in a given society.

3. The ideal family - the normative model of the family, which is accepted by society, is reflected in the collective representations and culture of society, primarily - religious.

4. An elementary family is a family consisting of three members: husband, wife and child.

The subject of our consideration will be models of an ideal family in terms of their psychological structure. A composite nuclear family, where several children, should be regarded as a conjunction of several elementary.

So, the family is a social institution, and a specific family is an institutionalized social group whose function is to primary socialization of children.

Like any other institutionalized group, it is held together by a "power-subordination" relationship and mutual responsibility. Family members can love each other, they can hate, satisfy their sexual and other needs in the family or "on the side", have their own children or foster homes, but as long as there is a system of these relations and while the family fulfills the task of raising children, it exists. Since we are not talking about marriage, but about family, we will not operate with the terms "husband" and "wife", but "father" and "mother" are roles determined by the function in socialization and provision of life for the child. They can be performed only by the biological mother and father, not by

, but in incomplete and even complete families - grandparents, other relatives, older brothers and sisters, although with this replacement of performers there are defects in socialization.

For example, in homosexual families with a child, one partner can take on the functions of the mother, and the other - the functions of the father.

But people remain people and in their relationships show the whole spectrum of their experiences: in an integrated form, the relationship can be described by another parameter - emotional and psychological affinity, which is related to the motivation of affiliation( affiliation).Between the three kinds of relations that characterize the psychological model of the family, there are certain links. Domination presupposes responsibility for those who submit, and responsibility - power over people, for the realization of responsible tasks.

Psychological affinity usually negatively correlates with the relation of "domination-submission": the more the power of one person over another, the less between them psychological affinity, since power is coercion.

Love for power holders also arises in certain cultures and is brought up.

Let's give a description of the main types of relationships that are realized in the family.

1. Domination-Subordination

The family is primarily a structure in which the power relation is realized: domination-subordination.

The most, in my opinion, capacious definition of domination( power, domination) was made by political scientist R. E. Dal: "My intuitive idea of ​​power looks like this: A has power over B insofar as he can force B to do that, that, left to myself, B would not do it. "

The social rank characterizes even individuals in a group of animals of the same species, living in flocks, flocks, etc., in a particular area. The struggle for domination is conducted by the individual constantly and with varying success.

The relationship of "dominance-subordination" in a group of people undoubtedly has a sociocultural specifics and, of course, does not boil down to the pecking order. There are 5 types of social power that characterize the relationship between the child and adults in the family( French and Raven).

1) The power of compensation - a child can be rewarded for certain behavior. The award follows the socially-approved( expected) act, the punishment is for the socially-blamed.

2) The power of coercion - it is based on strict control over the behavior of the child, every minor misdemeanor is punishable( either verbal - threat or physical).

3) The power of the expert is based on the greater competence of the parents in a particular case( social or professional competence).

4) The power of authority - it is based on respect for the person( one of the parents), who is the model - the bearer of socially approved behavior.

5) The power of the law is the only form of impersonal power, but the bearer and interpreter of the "law" - the rules of behavior - for the child are adults and, in particular, parents.

As a rule, social psychologists associate dominance with the adoption of social responsibility for the actions of the group: the dominant member of the group is responsible for the success of the overall task and, in addition, is responsible for maintaining normal relations between the members of the group.

In addition, the improvisation activity and initiation of action are associated with dominance. It is believed that the most successful leaders are persons prone to bargaining, indifference to interpersonal relationships, able to resist social pressure, striving for achievements, risk and enjoying the manipulation of others.

The task of the dominant personality is to ensure the safety of the group, coordinate the actions of its members to achieve group goals, determine the prospects for life and development of the group and inspire faith in the future.

Domination of one of the spouses is a necessary condition for the stability of the family. Equally important is the satisfaction with marriage, provided that there is a parity of relations and the compatibility of leisure activities.

2. Liability

Responsibility is one of the most complex concepts in the psychology of the individual and social psychology.

Within the framework of the theory of moral consciousness, there are several hypotheses about the nature of responsibility and the stages of development of responsible behavior.

According to K. Helkman, there are three phases of responsibility formation: 1) autonomous subjective responsibility, 2) responsibility as a social responsibility, 3) responsibility based on the principles of morality.

F. Haider's typology is based on the concept of attribution( attribution) of responsibility for actions to oneself or the environment. F. Haider identifies five levels of attribution of responsibility: 1) "association" - the person is responsible for every result that is somehow connected with it, 2) "causality" - the person is responsible even when he could not foresee the result, 3) "foreseeability"- responsibility for any foreseeable consequence of actions, 4)" intention "-responsibility only for what the person intended to do, 5)" justification "- responsibility for the actions of a person shares with others.

Personal responsibility is associated with its manifestation in behavior: "The degree of personal responsibility is the feeling of a certain ability to control the fulfillment of an action and its outcome."

K. Muzdybaev defines social responsibility in the following way: "This is above all a quality that characterizes the social typicality of a person. Therefore, we will talk about social responsibility, referring to the tendency of the individual to adhere to social norms in the society, to fulfill role duties and its willingness to give a report for their actions. Alienation from social norms and inability to find the meaning of life weaken social responsibility.

K. Muzdybaev outlines the following vectors of responsibility development: 1) from the collective to the individual( the vector of individualization by J. Piaget).With the development of society for the act of an individual is not the group to which the person who committed the act belongs, but he himself;2) from external to internal, conscious personal responsibility( the vector of spiritualization of responsibility by J. Piaget), the transition from external to internal control of behavior;3) from a retrospective plan to a perspective one - responsibility not only for the past, but also for the future;The person not only foresees the results of his actions, but also seeks to actively achieve them;

4) responsibility and "statute of limitations" - the possibility of influencing previous relationships between people to their real relationships when they are already different.

ED Dorofeev proposes to complement the vector of responsibility development with one more. This vector can be defined as the development of individual responsibility for an increasing number of people - "from responsibility for oneself to responsibility for all."

You can take responsibility for the relationships in the group, as well as for its activities( goal, outcome and process).Responsibility for group relations is divided into responsibility 1) for group norms( as a result of past interactions), 2) for striving to change norms, traditions, relations( future), 3) for the real state of the group( present).

A person can be responsible for himself, for individual members of the group, for the reference group( part of the group to which he belongs) and for the group as a whole.

Thus ED Dorofeev puts forward a three-dimensional model of group responsibility;1) time( past, present, future), 2) characteristics( activity, relational), 3) subject( for himself, for certain others, for the group).

This model obviously needs to be supplemented with one more parameter: to whom is the individual responsible( before himself, before some others, to the group as a whole, to the society as a whole)?

In our case, a family member can be responsible for other individual family members( for example, a wife or husband, or children) and for the family as a whole. The role of the leader, the head of the family presupposes responsibility for the family as a whole: its present, past, future, activities and behavior of family members, to themselves and the family, to the community( the closest social environment) and that part of the world of people( society).It is always responsible for others, and not just individual close people, but for a social group as a whole.

3. Emotional proximity of

Psychologically it is based on the motivation of affiliation. Murray in 1938 described the motive for the need for affiliation as follows: "Make friendships and experience affection. Enjoy other people and live with them. Cooperate and communicate with them. Be in love. Join the groups. "By affiliation( contact, communication) we meant a certain class of social interactions, which are of a daily and at the same time fundamental nature. Their content consists in communicating with other people( including those with unknown or unfamiliar people) and such maintenance that brings satisfaction, enthralls and enriches both sides.

Affiliation should end with the establishment of friendly, friendly relations, sympathies of partners in communication. People are motivated not only positively( the hope of establishing good relations), but also negatively( fear of rejection).These motivational expectations are formed on the basis of generalization of the experience of human communication with other people.

Affiliation is the opposite of power - love pushes people to do what they want to do, and the fear of power( the motivation for subordination) leads to actions that a person would not commit at will.

Therefore, affiliation motivation almost always acts as a compensator for the motivation of "power-submission": nowhere is much said about love for neighbors as in Orthodox theology, and yet it is in the Orthodox dogma that the "power-submission" attitude is of particular importance.

Muslim dogmatics for the same purposes uses "respect": the younger to the elders, the wife to the husband( the first - i iokneye)."Respect" is a recognition of the importance of another in comparison with yourself, but without love. In "respect", the motivation for subordination is merged with the motivation of self-esteem into a single structure.

Psychological models of an elementary family can be divided on the following grounds:

1. Who is responsible for the family: the father or mother( or the child who has reached the age of legal capacity)?

"Normal" family will be considered a family where the responsibility is borne by the husband( father).

An "abnormal" family is a family whose husband is not responsible for it.

If no one is responsible, it is a "pseudo-family".

2. Who dominates the family?

The patriarchal family is dominated by the father.

The matriarchal family is dominated by the mother.

In the so-called "detocentric" family, the child( his needs or moods) is really( psychologically) dominant.

In an egalitarian family, power functions are distributed, but their distribution is a constant ground for conflict( hence the emergence of "conflict theories" for the description of a modern family), can be called its conflict family.

The hierarchy of domination includes three members of the family, therefore it is important not only to determine who dominates over all, but also the very hierarchy of "power-submission".

At first glance, theoretically, there are only 6 types of hierarchy in the complete elementary nuclear family( in order of dominance): 1) mother-child father, 2) mother-father-father, 3) mother-father-child", 4)" mother-child-father ", 5)" child-father-mother ", 6)" child-mother-father ".

However, the dominance relationship is not transitive, i.e. if the father dominates the child, and the father dominates the mother, the mother may well dominate the father, so the number of options with regard to nontransitivity is 2 more.

In an incomplete nuclear family, of course, only four options are possible.

In the extended nuclear family, there is a hierarchy of relationships among children, as well as the inclusion of individual children in hierarchical relations with mother and father, etc. The diversity of life with a simple theoretical scheme can not be described, but some of the problems the scheme still helps to clarify.

Emotional closeness-remoteness also characterizes the relationship in the triple "father-mother-child": the child can be "closer" to the mother than to the father and vice versa, the parents can be closer to each other than to the child, everyone can be equally closeeach other, etc.

In a particular culture, the relationship of "power-subordination", emotional affinity, responsibility can be given a different meaning. This is manifested in the different "weight" of certain relationships in the structure of the family.

It is possible to describe mathematically the possible models of a complete elementary nuclear family by a system of three parameters with weight coefficients defined on them;The place of each member of the family in the feature space will be determined. Two parameters( responsibility and dominance) characterize one member of the family, the third dimension( emotional intimacy) characterizes each of the three pairs( "father-mother", "father-child", "child-mother").The dominance relation is vector, the others are scalar.

It should be noted that in reality, personal experience of psychological intimacy is a vector relationship, since affiliation motivation determines the direction of behavior: a child can aspire to the mother, and the mother can be alienated from it.

Psychological emotional intimacy is the "resulting" orientation of two family members, but behind this result there may be a much more complex emotional relationship hidden.

More often the subject of domination and responsibility coincide in one person.

A family variant dominated by one family member, and responsibility is borne by another, is called an "exploiting" family( a typical case of the "Holy Family" in the Virgin Mary, Jesus Christ and responsible for them, but lower in the hierarchy of Joseph the Betrothed).

We can assume that the most stable is the family, in which the subject of responsibility and power is one and the same person, and family members are psychologically closer to him than to each other. As will be seen from further analysis, the "ideal" Catholic family is closest to this type, which, of course, does not make it ideal in the emotionally valued sense of the word.

Once again it is worth mentioning that so far it is only a matter of theoretical construction and nothing more.

Table Family models taking into account the dominance-subordination relationship

"Normal" family

Family and marriage emerged at a rather late stage of society development. The earliest form of marriage and family relations was group marriage. The form of the hostel was the clan commune. It consisted of men's and women's groups and provided not only biological reproduction, but also feeding and nurturing children. In addition to the male and female groups in the commune, a children's group was distinguished, which was more closely associated with the women's group.

Between the childhood and the maturity lay the initiation rite: the teenager passed the test( mental and physical) and passed into a male or female group. Sometimes a young man was given a new name. In one form or another, the initiation rite has survived to this day: it is not just a question of the "registration" of a young criminal in a prison cell or the transfer of conscripted soldiers from "young" to "boilers".The classical initiation procedure is, for example, the defense of a dissertation: the applicant is preparing for the procedure for a long time, he has a mentor( tutor) - a scientific adviser or consultant, he is subjected to a series of emotional( fortunately - not physical) tests more "adults", and, finally,he is enrolled in the senior group and receives a new "name" of the candidate or doctor of sciences with all the accompanying rights and duties.

In a primitive society, the transition of young men to a male group was psychologically more complicated and more painful than the transition of girls to a group of adult women, if we take into account the structure of the psychological proximity of men's, women's and children's groups. This manifested itself in the fact that a person all his life belonged to the collective in which he was born, to which his mother belonged. This does not mean that the person's belonging to the genus was determined by the mother. Man belonged to this family not because his mother belonged to him, but because he was a member of this collective from birth and could not enter any other group. Relations were not yet personified: there were relations not "personality-personality", but "group-group".

The fate of man was a derivative of the dynamics of intergroup relations. And only when the family ceased to coincide with the labor collective, the kinship began to be determined: by the father or by the mother. The characteristics of the relationship were related to the type of culture.

Is there anything in common within a normal family that does not depend on time, culture, ethnicity?

And here it is appropriate to give the floor to the psychologist and anthropologist Margaret Meade: "We can face in some communities with very lazy men or, conversely, women who are abnormally free from any responsibilities, like in a childless city house in America. But the principle is preserved everywhere. A man - heir of traditions, should provide women and children. We have no reason to believe that a man who has remained an animal and who has not gone through a school of social education could do something like that. "The social structure of the society determines what kind of women and what kind of children the man will provide, although the main rule here presumably suggests that he provide the woman with whom he is in sexual relations. From her point of view, it is not so important whose children, whether a man is a biological father or not: children can be adopted, chosen, may be orphans, etc. However, the whole world has an idea of ​​the debt and family for which the man is responsible. The husband brings food to the house, his wife prepares, the husband provides the family, but the wife brings up the children. M. Mead believes that special social efforts are required for the man to fulfill the obligation to feed the family and children, since this social duty does not have a biological mechanism, while the mother's attachment to the child is natural. The Russian poet Mikhail Lvov( though on another occasion) wrote: "To become a man - they will not be born enough. To become iron - it's not enough to be ore. .. ".

Therefore, every generation of young men should learn about the parental behavior in the family: their biological role is complemented by a social, learned, parental role. In the Christian religion, the image of the father-breadwinner is embodied in Joseph the Betrothed - the earthly husband of the Virgin Mary. It is no accident that the Christian religion attaches great importance to the socialization of men.

The family collapses when a man either does not acquire, or loses responsibility for the family as a whole, or can not perform his duties due to circumstances. Under slavery, under serfdom, during proletarianization, during revolutions, epidemics, wars, the "connection of times" is torn-a fine thread connecting generations. Binding - always a man."At a time when the biological cell of the mother and child becomes the primary cell in caring for children, the man loses clarity of orientation, and those special conditions through which a person maintains the continuity of his social traditions are violated and distorted."

A man can dominate the family, may occupy a subordinate position, he may be psychologically close to his wife or child, may be emotionally distant from them, may or may not love his wife and, accordingly, be loved or not loved. But he should always be responsible for the family. If a man is responsible for himself and his family, its present and future, the family can be considered "normal".If a man voluntarily, or for external reasons, loses the burden of responsibility, there are different versions of the abnormal family.

M. Mead is an optimist. And her bright glance at the past and future of mankind allows her to say: "Until now, all known human societies have always restored temporarily lost forms. The Negro slave in the United States was kept as a tribal stallion, and his children were sold to the side, so the lack of paternal responsibility is still felt among black Americans belonging to the working class. In this environment, the mother and grandmother, the mother of the mother, are the primary care unit for children, and the man joins this cell, without even making any economic contribution to it.

But with the acquisition of education and economic security this disorganized way of life is discarded and the American negro-father of the middle class is perhaps almost excessively fond of children and is responsible. "

The story, however, teems with negative examples of the consequences of the collapse of the family. E. Erikson believed that the main reason for Hitler's rise to power in Germany was the loss of authority of the fathers in the eyes of his sons. Hitler acted as an "ideal" substitute for his father.

In my opinion, the domination of the father in the German family has replaced responsibility - caring.

Erickson describes the German family of the late XIX - early XX century as an extremely conflict group. The denial of his father's authority in the 10th years resulted in youthful extremist movements, gangs, adherence to the mystical and romantic cults of Genius, Race, Nature, Culture, etc. The boys believed that the mother openly or secretly stands on their children's side, and the father was seen as an enemy. An even worse option is the type of "domineering mother" that borrowed the ideal "I" from a father or grandfather and seeks absolute power over children. The consequence of this is the loss of authority in children. Their children leave the family, wander, etc.

But the most striking manifestation of the collapse of a normal family is the "family" in the former USSR.The Soviet family can be called a post-Orthodox atheist( we will return to its description).Depriving men of social and economic opportunities to provide for the family and bear responsibility for it, as well as to raise children, led to the collapse of the family as a social institution. The totalitarian state assumed the whole burden of responsibility and replaced the father with itself.

This is the role of the father in the upbringing of Soviet children according to sociological research: fathers are 1.5 times less likely than mothers to supervise the schooling of children, 1.5 to 4 times less often than mothers, discuss with students the educational matters, books, relations with comrades, fashion, telecasts, plans for the future, the choice of profession, the characteristics of the nature of children, etc. Accordingly, to the question: "Who is your greatest authority for you?" - only 5-9% of schoolchildren in grades 8-10 of Vilnius, Moscow andBaku answered that - the father, and 17-19% - called the mother. With the mother are more frank than with the father, both boys and girls. She often becomes a role model.28% of Vilnius, 26.5% of Moscow and 19.4% of Baku schoolchildren want to be like 28.6%, and 10.6%, 8.8%, and 8.9%, respectively, of their fathers.

The consequences of this state of affairs are very deplorable.

The point of view of M. Meade finds confirmation in clinical studies. Moreover, the father is of paramount importance for development from the very moment of the birth of the child: it is the first external object for the child and plays the role of the model in the early identification. Fathers encourage the process of separation of the child from the mother, thus accelerating the process of socialization, the absence of the father in the family or failure to fulfill his duties leads to the development of the child's psychopathology.

The father in the process of paternity is also subject to psychological crises, and if the father himself does not solve the problems of child attachment to his father and mother, he has a risk of psychopathological disorders.

If the father is incapacitated( can not be responsible for the family and perform the role of leader), then he finds himself in a very difficult situation. After all, in order to ensure the material well-being of the family, authority and independence at work, to gain public recognition and status, it must make its efforts outside the family. And if he failed in the outside world, he begins to struggle for power in the family.

If society obstructs a man, interferes with his activity in providing a family, this inevitably leads to the collapse of her as a social institution.

The problem of paternity is the most acute for the post-Soviet society. Our state declared equality of both parents in relation to the child( the Code of Laws on Marriage and Family of the Russian Federation).In reality, current legislation and practice alienate the father from the family.

Not only that public education was considered basic, and responsibility for the fate of children was transferred to the "state" and teachers. But the system of benefits in connection with the birth of a child, the care of children, their upbringing is given only to mothers, and to fathers only in connection with the death of the mother, her long departure or illness. In case of divorce, the child remains with the mother.

Therefore, a man knows that from his cares and personal qualities, his fate as a father does not depend, and the child is primarily a woman's problem.

Generally, relations in a family under a totalitarian society become psychobiological, rather than socio-psychological: the role of the father as the main agent of socialization is reduced to nothing, the significance of the natural psychobiological connection between the child and the mother increases. Therefore, the collapse of this last support of the family through the fault of the mother is a catastrophe. This phenomenon again forces the authorities and society to address the problems of mothers and motherhood and generates a vicious circle of imaginary causes and real consequences.

If, in some ways, the ideas of early and late utopian communists were realized, it is in the fate of the family. For all utopias and anti-utopias( utopias-warnings) it is characteristic that the state assumes all the functions of a normal family from social to biological( artificial breeding of children).In the end, a person as a social, psychological, biological being is completely unnecessary for "progress."In all utopias and anti-utopias, a child is not generally regarded as an independent member of the family. The attention of the authors of the projects of the "bright communist future" focuses on the sexual relations: "husband-wife", "husband-other women", "wife-other men".The views of the Utopians on the family deny the family as the subject of raising children. For them, the child is the object of state education or the artificial breeding of the breed( as in T. Campanella).

M. Zamyatin in the novel "We" does not even have a concept of family. "The state takes care of all the worries about the extension of the human race. In O. Huxley's novel The Beautiful New World, the words "father" and "mother" in a totalitarian society become abusive. The state takes upon itself the process of procreation: fertilizes the egg and affects the process of ripening of the fetus. Thus, a totalitarian state becomes a father, mother and teacher-educator in one person. Similarly, A. Platonov: children are alienated from the family. But the authorities do not care about children, they grow up without any care and die at an early age.

The ultimate solution to family, marital and sexual problems is V.Voynovich's "Moscow 2042": the division of various enterprises into male and female still exists only in hostile rings, and here full equality, and the difference between a man and a woman is practically erased.

It can not be said that the "Soviet" family is not a family as such, it is rather an abnormal family in which the responsibility is borne by the mother, she also often dominates.

The return to civilization for it will begin with the revival of the "normal family"( in the scientific meaning of this term) and not before.

Neither democracy, nor private property, nor the general Christianization of the population of Russia by themselves will solve anything: they are only external prerequisites for spiritual work.