The Impact Of Globalization On Families Sociology Essay Essay

essay A

Get Full Essay

Get access to this section to get all the help you need with your essay and educational goals.

Get Access

The planetary revolution that is altering the perceptual experience of households as a unit is impacting households across civilizations and in multi-dimensional ways. The traditional, atomic household dwelling of the bread-winning male parent, stay-at-home female parent and dependent kids is easy worsening. In the 2006 Australian Census, this construction of household was true for merely 37 % of the population ( AIFS, 2001 ) . Some of the grounds for these alterations may be due to gender equality where adult females are now, in this post-modern epoch, able to work in similar professions and have similar wages as their male co-workers. In this instance, some male parents have become primary health professionals for their kids ( Bowes & A ; Watson, 2008 ) and reversed functions that were traditionally thought of as the norm. De-facto relationships every bit good as the legalisation of same-sex matrimonies in some Western states have besides impacted on the diminution of the atomic household.

The impact of globalisation on households is undeniable in footings of household re-modeling. Families have evolved due to the impact of individuality which is associated with globalisation. Kagitcibasi ( 2002 ) high spots three different household interaction forms which have come into being due to socio-economic development. In drumhead, Kagitcibasi ( 2002 ) suggests that the theoretical account of emotional mutuality ( with combined liberty and control orientation in rearing ) is prevailing in immigrant groups in Western Countries. This combination of individuality and collectiveness equates to the construct of related ego. I am able to associate to this as the Pakistani immigrants in Sydney. I live and breathe the thought that whatever I achieve as an person will impact my household greatly and convey them either huge pride or shame. I feel this theoretical account of household applies to us because the little Pakistani society in Sydney exists of legion households who are all inter-connected and hence there is answerability. I believe, nevertheless, in the succeeding coevalss, immigrant households will germinate into more of the household of independency feature of western atomic households where individuality and autonomy are encouraged.


Bowen describes the atomic household emotional system as the 1 that exist when twosomes based their relationships on struggles, as the struggle makes them experience emotionally in contact with their spouses or when twosomes use the struggle as an alibi to keep a distance from each other. The manner people manage the strength of merger with their households is what Bowen called cut off. A cut off can be achieved through physical distance of through signifiers of emotional backdown.

Based on my apprehension of Bowen ‘s household theory, the relationship between people is influenced by two contrasting construct: single and togetherness, which means we need to be independent while we besides need to be companied and cared by others. He brought the constructs of “ merger ” and “ distinction ” , he argued that the greater a household ‘s inclination to distinction, the more flexibleness it will hold in accommodating to emphasize.

Bowen ‘s household theory is still widely applicable in the modern society. Harmonizing to Skolnick & A ; Skolnick ( 2009 ) , labored economic conditions and the switching political orientation about appropriate functions for female parents and male parents pose new challenges for new twosomes presents who have no trailblazer and demand to hammer their ain trails. Modern relationships faced less support and more pick, there are more emotional loads put on their shoulders. Couples need to cover with the relationship between each other, with their parents, with kids, with co-workers and friends. In such a large and complex system, one could barely see the demand and expectancy of himself or herself.

The chief purpose of Bowen ‘s household theory is non pull offing to alter people or work out the household struggles. He viewed the therapy as supplying chances for households to cognize more about themselves and their familiarity, in order to allow people cognize their duty and appropriate function in the household system. It is a procedure of positive seeking for interior position, through this procedure, household member could travel through the stage full of complain and accusal and look deeper in ego public presentations.

Consequently, in modern society, people face more complex relationships than of all time before, it is easy to acquire confusion about who we are, what we should make and what we want. Bowen ‘s theory could supply a platform for us to leap out of the muss to reflect upon ourselves to increase the harmoniousness of household.


Father is decidedly a important function in a household. Like it said in the book, paternity is composed of four aspects: emotional intimacy, proviso, protection, and gift. A successful male parent is ever described as a protagonist on both emotional and fiscal facets. In traditional sentiments from Pakistan, it is males ‘ duty to protect female, kids and old people from menace, poorness, war, and so on. If a adult male could n’t back up his household financially, or at least earn half the money for his household, he would be described as a failure and has low place either in household or in society and therefore additions no regard even from his ain kids. Some scientist presents argued that merely because these immense sums of force per unit areas added on males ‘ shoulders and their inherent aptitudes that they ca n’t good alleviate their emphasis make males ‘ lives shorter compared with their female opposite numbers.

Chen and He ( 2005 ) states that good matrimonial relationship affects how a kid grows up. Keeping a good relationship between the twosome and exposing this to a kid may impact the kid ‘s impression of household and his/her good being. However it does non ever intend that a kid who grows up in a fatherless household will hold a negative consequence in his/her life. Mothers are besides able to replace the functions of male parents in a batch of sense, and in fact today many individual Dendranthema grandifloruoms do take the functions and duties of the male that had been played by ‘fathers ‘ in the traditional household.

However, I have ever thought it was of import that a kid has a male parent. This was because as a kid I was cognizant that my parents were taking different functions within the household, and saw how each of them interacted with us kids really otherwise. As household is the first contact for a baby/young kid to see and research about the universe it may be the best if the kid could interact with both female and male in this little unit. It may be ideal if the kid could turn up seeing different functions and characters of different sexes in a familiar and close context like household.

Driscoll ‘s article gave me the feeling that ‘fatherhood ‘ is a batch more distant from what we call ‘ maternity ‘ or even ‘ parentage ‘ . Fathers in both articles seem to be missing the sense of paternity, which I thought would be acknowledged of course when their kid is born or when they became ready to be a male parent psychologically. Is it because they do non hold the ties with kids, like the female parents who raise their kid in the uterus? Or is it merely their personality? Is biological tie of import to them because they were educated that it is?


I found the treatment about different civilizations really interesting because it is sometimes interesting every bit good as utile besides to hold an information about different civilizations, the manner people live, interact with one another, their imposts and traditions which they follow in society because it increases our cognition and understanding about those civilizations and it is so necessary for us that their traditions must be respected in a broader position.

Low ( 2005 ) ‘s article on household signifiers from the evolutionary position was every bit interesting but I would wish to do some remarks on Kagitcibasi ( 2002 ) ‘s article here.

Kagitcibasi ( 2002 ) argues about household signifiers from the cultural position. The comparing between the Western societies and non-Western societies ( The Majority World ) in footings of household relationship was interesting to me. It was interesting to cognize that the household relationship in those non-Western societies ( e.g. Pakistan, China and Japan ) did non alteration from interdependent to independent even as the economic system progressed. I wondered why it was so and whether it truly is unchanged today.

I really do non cognize how Western households interact with their household members and I have ever thought they are really near to one another. So I am non certain to what extent Kagitcibasi would province mutuality is and what is non included in it. I am certainly the Western households are mutualist emotionally/psychologically to some extent excessively. From what I have heard, I think the kids in the Western societies are economically more independent, while the Pakistani kids are largely non so independent in that mode.

Last, ‘separation ‘ ( Kagitcibasi 2002, p.4 ) is surely non the end in the Pakistani society, as we consider that household should ever be at that place for one another. Though it does non look to be the end for the Western households either. I do n’t believe that being independent agencies dividing with one another emotionally or psychologically.


I understand Goodnow ‘s statement as when we foremost run into person we subconsciously place him or her into one class and since each class has its ain features, we conclude this people ‘s personality and features through our personal positions and experience.

I think the ground why we need to put people in a class at the minute we see them is to protect ourselves subconsciously. We have the nature to avoid person who seems wholly different or foreign from us. Like Goodnow ‘s stating that “ Once we group people, one time we decide that they belong to this or that type, we can do speedy judgements about him. The judgements may be ‘quick and dirty ‘ , but they will be speedy ” . ( p.56 ) Although everybody knows that justice one individual on visual aspect is non just and undependable, we do that all the times, I guess it is human nature to except foreigners.

In Pakistan, most people still believe in something that has no scientific bases, like countenance. It could state the hereafter and individual ‘s personality, character, even his or her relationship with friends, parents, lover, etc. merely by looking at the face or thenar. Like it said about the form of a olfactory organ, if person has a nose which is consecutive, standing steadfastly, or large, he would n’t miss of money in his life, and person who has a wry nose, he is likely to hold bad pique. I know it may sounds pathetic, but many people non merely Pakistani but besides Nipponese, even some people from western states believe in this fortune-telling judgment by visual aspects.

To me, I believe in classs which group people by the twenty-four hours of their birth and their configuration, I merely found I prefer to be with people from certain configurations instead than others. It is difficult to explicate the ground, but certain configurations merely acquire along much better, possibly because we have some complementary features. In brief, I think there is ever something that we could n’t explicate by scientific discipline.



The “ traditional ” impression of household has been turned upside down and inside out, particularly in the last century. If we refer to Beck and Beck-Gernsheim ‘s ( 2004 ) reasoning remarks that “ normative ” theoretical accounts no longer adhere people together, I would hold to a certain extent ; nevertheless I would n’t state this is the regulation. Although we have established that the impression of “ household ” demand non be bound by the atomic construction, I still believe that there are many “ traditional ” minds out at that place that believe that blood is still thicker than H2O.

I do n’t wholly hold with blood dealingss as the specifying facet of household, I realised that I would ne’er win any argument from my relations of “ older ” and “ wiser ” coevalss, even if I truly felt that my modern sentiments presented really valid points. Due to the coevals spread ( that can ne’er be closed? ) , and possibly to the harsh times our seniors faced, which could hold instilled in them a stricter subject ( and manner of believing ) that the immature 1s merely have to close up and hold with their seniors!

Anyhow, I truly feel that the postmodern theories ( that blood dealingss need non adhere “ household ” ) present valid and relevant nutrient for idea. As mentioned in the article of Beck and Beck-Gernsheim ( 2004 ) , as society evolves there comes the demand to map new constructs and signifiers of relationships ( i.e. egg givers, alternate female parents, biological parents, etc ) . There has ever been a demand to accommodate with the times, and in the version procedure, we have created limitless options for “ household. ” It is now up to the person to accept the postmodern possibilities for “ neo-families. ” If he/she accepts, does that intend he/she has to abandon traditional thoughts? I think non.

The overplus of “ household ” constructs out at that place, coupled with the open-mindedness and credence to alter of most of society, decidedly puts the “ traditional ” household at hazard. However, as worlds, I believe that one thing will ne’er alter – our capacity to organize deep, permanent interpersonal relationships with other persons. For so long as we nurture these relationships, and experience a sense of heat and fulfilment in the company of the other, the impression of household will ever be alive.

Get instant access to
all materials

Become a Member