and

9 downloads 0 Views 121KB Size Report
structure, it is important to describe the family's concept/definition I am going to use in this context. ... In sociology a social institution is assimilated to a living organism, composed by ... This structural-functional approach is not free from criticism. On the one hand it has .... Book review: Anthony Giddens, Runaway world: How.
Some few observations on the use of the family/ and household definition applied in a study on the human mobility in Namibia   By  Bruno  Venditto    

Being the focus of the research the impact of migration on the Namibian family structure, it is important to describe the family’s concept/definition I am going to use in this context. As, in fact indicated by Amoateng and Richter (2007) the terms family and household are in many cases, used as interchangeable, particularly in “societies where the nuclear family system predominates and the domestic group is coterminous with the dwelling unit” (Amoateng and Richter 2007 p 12). Roger and White (1993) defined the family as a particular social group characterised by the institution of marriage; White specifically proposed that: “A family is an intergenerational social group organised and governed by social norms regarding descent and affinity reproduction and the nurturant socialisation of the young” (White 1991, p 7). In sociology a social institution is assimilated to a living organism, composed by different parts each working together for the existence of the organism; White’s definition of family is hence useful, since it associates the term family with a social institution with a concrete dimension and precise norms, (Amoateng and Richter 2007); however it is still somehow elusive since it does not consider the empirical evidence of the diversity of the domestic structure. It is furthermore also a ‘conservative’ definition, where, for example, a family is not only formed by a “legally married couple” and other form of relationship should not be considered as a deviation from the norm, (Berger and Berger 1983). Parson (1951) frames this vision of the family into the sociological theoretical framework of the structurefunctionalism sociological theory, in which actors do not exist in isolation but interact with other social system. As society evolve, the family structure, which interacts with

it also evolve, this determined the transformation of the extended family structure into the nuclear family as society industrialise and urbanise. Burch (1967) indicates that extended family is a characteristic of rural societies, echoed by Goode (1970) who suggests that this type of family structure is common in underdeveloped rather than developed economies. This structural-functional approach is not free from criticism. On the one hand it has in fact been noted that it tends to idealize the western view of family based on a husband, a wife and their dependent children, defining all other type of family as ‘dysfunctional’ (Amoateng 2007); on the other hand several family scholars, on the bases of empirical studies on parish census, have criticized the assumption that the nuclear family has been the prevailing form of family in the western industrialised societies1. In other world the vision that before industrialization existed an extended family (i.e. a large family structure with several relatives), and that as society evolved and industrialized the extend family gave away to the nuclear family, was a myth. Laslett and Wall (1972) and Laslett (1983) with their studies indicated, in fact, that the nuclear family existed in most of West Europe well before the start of the industrialization. Sjoberg (1960) on the other hand also observed that in pre-industrial societies the extended family was more common in urban than in rural areas, adding additional arguments against the structural functionalism view of family. However, beside this theoretical debate on the definition of the family structure, what is important from the perspective of this thesis is the fact that, among family scholars there is a broader consensus on the fact that the family is a social group which is characterized by close emotional relationships among its component

                                                                                                                          1  Accordingly

to the functionalists the extended family was the typical family form in preindustrialized societies, Giddens (1987).   2 In Namibia a household is associated to a person or group of persons, related or unrelated, who live together in the same homestead/compound, but not necessarily in the same dwelling unit. They have a

based on blood, marriage, adoption; these relationships are continuous overtime and are not linked to a physical residence, (Goode 1964, Edgar 1992). The household is instead a concept different from that of the family although, particularly from a socio-anthropological point of view, it is often closely related to it, since the household is analyzed from the prism of marriage and kinship and the relations that are determined inside. From this angle the household is hence similar to the family, a unitary model where the resources are pooled together in a cooperative way (Mattila –Wiro 1999). This approach is also very similar to the vision economists have of the household, which is considered as the unit of production and consumption. Goody (1996) challenged this approach based on the observation that the process of industrialization, and often of labour migration, has ‘de facto’ forced people to find work away from home, determining a separation of the physical unity of the household from the family. Many scholars who have addressed the family – household debate from an African perspective, share this view; in this case it is in fact difficult to associate family with co-residence2, (Russell 2002, Turner, 2002). As indicated by Giddens (2000) when co-residence is not a characteristic of the family it is difficult to accept the view that family and household are the same concept. Greiner (2012), looking at the Namibian context tries to synthesize the apparent conflict between the family and the household definition. Citing van de Walle (2006) he indicates that the household is “the most practical system for organizing the pattern of residence of a population accessible to interviewers to execute a complete and non redundant count of the population”. In other word the household definition is important for data collection and time and space comparisons, being a basic structure                                                                                                                           2

In Namibia a household is associated to a person or group of persons, related or unrelated, who live together in the same homestead/compound, but not necessarily in the same dwelling unit. They have a common catering arrangement and are answerable to the same head. Namibian Statistic Agency (2012)

in the organization of the everyday life, Townsend at al. (2006). However, based on the researches done on migration movement in Namibia, and particularly the existence of linked rural and urban household, Greiner coins the definition of ‘multilocal households’ which well represent the African situation determined by the human mobility of a ‘family with two households’.

This concept of spatially

fragmented family is described as: “..a group of people related by economic emotional, moral, etc. ties, connecting them” Greiner (2012, p 205). The definition of spatially fragmented family, which is different from the UN statistical definitions of household and family (see Appendix 1) seems to me well appropriate to describe the transformations that migration determine on the physical family structure in Africa and particularly in Namibia.

Relevant Bibliography -

Amoateng A. Y. and Richter L.M. (2007). Social and economic context of families and households in South Africa. In Amoateng A.Y. and Heaton F.B. (eds.) Families and households in post apartheid South Africa. Socio demographic perspectives. HSCR Press Cape Town.

-

Amoateng A. Y. (2007). Toward a conceptual framework for families and households. In Amoateng A.Y. and Heaton F.B. (eds.) Families and households in post apartheid South Africa. Socio demographic perspectives. HSCR Press Cape Town.

-

Berger B. and Berger P. (1983).

The war over the family. London

Hotchinson. -

Edgar D. (1992). Conceptualising family life and family policies. Family Matters 32: 28–37.

-

Gainer C. (2012). Can household be multilocal? Conceptual and methodological consideration based on a Namibian case study. Die Erde 143 3 pp-212.

-

Giddens A. (2000). Runaway world: How globalization is shaping our lives. New York: Routledge.

-

Laslett P. (1983). Family and household as work group and kin group: Areas of traditional Europe compared. In R. Wall, J. Robin and P. Laslett (Eds) Family forms in historic Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

-

Laslett P. and Wall R. (Eds) (1972). Household and family in past time. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

-

Mattila –Wiro P. (1999). Economic theory of the household. A critical review. Tokyo. The United Nation University Press.

-

Parson T. (1937). The structure of the social action. New York, The Free Press.

-

Burch T.K. (1967). The size and structure of the family. A comparative analysis of census data. American Journal of Sociology. 32 (3) 347-363.

-

Goode W.J. (1964). The family. Harlow Essex Prentice Hall.

-

Goody J. (1996). Comparing family system in Europe and Asia. Are there different sets of rules? Population and Development Review 22 (1) 1-20.

-

Parson T. (1951). The social system. New York, Free Press.

-

Rodgers R.H. and White J.M. (1993). Family development theory. In P.G. Boss, W.J. Doherty, R. LaRossa, W.R. Schumm and S.K. Steinmetz (Eds) Sourcebook of family theories and methods: A contextual approach. New York and London: Plenum Press.

-

Sjoberg G. (1960) The preindustrial city: Past and present. Glencoe, Illinois: The Free Press.

-

Townsend, N. S. Madhavan, M. Collinson and M. Garenne (2006). Collecting Data on Intra-Household Relationships in the Agincourt Health and Population Survey: Benefits and Limitations. – In: van de Walle, E. (ed.): African Households: Censuses and Surveys. – Armonk: 35-57.

-

Turner L. (2002). Book review: Anthony Giddens, Runaway world: How globalization is reshaping our lives. Transcultural Psychiatry 39: 394–415.

-

White J.M. (1991). Dynamics of family development: The theory of family development. New York: Guildford.

-

van de Walle, E. (2006). Introduction. – In: van de Walle, E. (ed.): African Households: Censuses and Surveys. – Armonk: xxi-xxxix.

 

Appendix 1 UN Household / family definition The distinction household–family is quite relevant for census purposes. To this regard the definition used by the United Nations Statistics Division responsible at an international level for collecting data on families and households has been extremely consistent over time. A household is classified as either: (a) A one-person household, defined as an arrangement in which one person makes provision for his or her own food or other essentials for living without combining with any other person to form part of a multi-person household or (b) A multi-person household, defined as a group of two or more persons living together who make common provision for food or other essentials for living. The persons in the group may pool their incomes and have a common budget to a greater or lesser extent; they may be related or unrelated persons or a combination of persons both related and unrelated. This arrangement exemplifies the housekeeping concept.

The

household is considered as a dwelling unit where person shares resources, and this is an alternative definition used in many countries (household-dwelling concept). The family, within the household, is defined as those members of the household who are related, to a specified degree, through blood, adoption or marriage. The degree of relationship used in determining the limits of the family in this sense is dependent upon the uses to which the data are to be put and so cannot be established for worldwide use From the definitions of "household" and "family" used by the UN it is clear that household and family are different concepts that cannot be used interchangeably in the same census. The difference between the household and the family is (a) that a household may consist of only one person but a family must contain at least two members and (b) that the members of a multi-person household need not be related to each other, while the members of a family must be related. Moreover, a family cannot comprise more than one household; a household, however, can contain more than one family, or one or more families together with one or more non-related persons, or it can consist entirely of non-related persons. Source:  UN  http://unstats.un.org/unsd/demographic/sconcerns/fam/default.htm