Diversity Within Latino Families: New Lessons for Family Social Science,

Family living arrangements in the US and throughout much of the world are consider ably more various, pluralistic, and fluid than they were merely a few decades agone. We have witnessed profound demographic changes, including longer life expectancy, postponed marriage and childbearing, dramatic increases in both childbearing and childrearing exterior of marriage, and substantial growth of single hood, cohabitation, divorce, and remarriage (Teachman et al. 2000). As a result, there has been a sharp increase in the visibility of diverse family unit forms such equally single parent (mostly single mother) families, stepfamilies, households headed past gays and lesbians, and families living in poverty (Rank 2000). These changes accept stirred considerable contend surrounding the definition of family unit. For example, do two cohabiting adults and their dependent children institute a family? Are they still a family without the presence of children in the household? What if the 2 adults are gay or lesbian?

Get-go in the middle of the twentieth century, a strong value was attached to a ''benchmark'' family type in the United States, or what is ordinarily termed the ''traditional'' nuclear family. Post-obit World War Two, rapid social changes including men returning to the labor force, a post war economic nail, an increasing standard of living, increases in union and nascence rates, and a refuse in the divorce charge per unit supported a set of values and beliefs that privileged the two biological parent, male breadwinner, female homemaker family unit. Although families of the 1950s often are viewed with nostalgia, bear witness shows that many traditional families were characterized by severe inequities, male authorization, men's over interest in work and nether involvement in family activities, wife abuse, and alcoholism (Coontz 1992). Since so, irresolute historical contexts and powerful social movements (e.g., civil rights, women's rights, gay and lesbian liberation, and men'due south movements) have been associated with the establishment of a wide variety of family forms, making the diversity of families more visible and normative, and spur band debates over the future of wedlock and whether in that location is one best blazon of family.

In that location are many issues and complexities inherent in studying and defining families. Our purpose hither is to provide an overview of family unit diverseness by (1) defining the written report of family diversity and its historical context; (ii) defining family unit; (3) discussing the major structural dimensions of variety (e.g., ethnicity, socioeconomic status, sexual orientation); and (4) illustrating the multifariousness characterizing family unit processes.

Defining Family Multifariousness equally a Subject field

Historically, the term family diversity referred to variations from a traditional family. This implied that in that location was one best type of family, and that all other family types were dysfunctional and deviant. In a more contemporary view, family unit multifariousness refers to a broad range of characteristics or dimensions on which families vary, along with a recognition that there are a multitude of different family types that function effectively. Family diversity thus refers to variations along structural or demo graphic dimensions (e.g., race/ethnicity, socio economic status), too as in family unit processes (e.g., communication and parenting behaviors).

We caution readers to be specially mindful of comparisons in which one family is upheld as a ''better'' family than that to which it is compared. In this, we exercise not take a purely relativistic view by assuming that all families function effectively, nor do we believe there is one best type of family. Our view is that families are diverse and at that place are many ways that families tin can function effectively regardless of family type. As stated earlier, historical accounts of family diverseness were concerned with pathological views that perpetuated marginalization of many family types. However, social movements and demographic changes have increased the visibility of diverse families, thus facilitating a shift away from pathological views to a recognition of family strengths and resilience (Walsh 1998). Thus, the study of family diversity is embedded within historical and social contexts, as is the intensifying fence over how to define family unit.

Defining Family unit

Families are characterized past a rich variety of compositions that mix gender, ethnicity, sexuality, and marital history. Families besides vary widely in their dynamics, or how family members interact with and relate to ane another. As a result, family researchers have invested considerable free energy in designing and conducting studies that examine the flexibility and creativity with which individuals create and sustain a sense of family. To exist sure, there are myriad means that individuals feel and ascertain family unit. Yet, there is a need to define family in a style that is useful, meaningful, and inclusive, still not devoid of theoretical or empirical pregnant. It also is of import to recognize the difficulty in establishing an appropriate and inclusive definition of family that is flexible over time, i.e., a definition that reflects historical, demographic, social, and family unit modify. No definition of family applies universally across cultures and historical periods (Coontz 2000).

The The states Demography Bureau defines a family as two or more than individuals related by birth, marriage, or adoption. While practical, this definition excludes many groups who consider themselves to be families, such as couples who cohabit (with or without children), foster parents residing with their children, and gay and lesbian couples. Further complicating this fence and its implications for families is the disparity in family unit policies and laws across local, state, and federal levels. For example, the state of Massachusetts at present recognizes aforementioned sexual activity marriages, but such marriages are not recognized by other states or by federal constabulary. A second case is a woman who adopts a child and lives with her lesbian partner. According to the United states Demography Bureau definition, the lesbian partner is considered a member of the household, but not a member of the family.

For our purposes, family unit is divers more broadly and involves consideration of both family structure and family process. Structurally, a family is defined as ii or more persons related by nascence, wedlock, adoption, or choice (Allen et al. 2000). Calculation the chemical element of choice recognizes that individuals have human bureau, or the ability to choose those whom they consider family, such as individuals who might be close friends. An inclusive definition of family besides recognizes that family members practice non need to exist physically nowadays or live in the aforementioned household. To illustrate, non-residential fathers are family unit members even though they typically live autonomously from their children much of the year. Similarly, individuals may consider a deceased parent or other relative to be part of their family.

Typically, families too provide emotional and fiscal support, recreational opportunities, nurturance, subject field, and affection (Allen et al. 2000). As such, family also needs to be divers by procedure. Again, we do not take a purely relativistic view and assume all families function adequately, merely we do believe that we need to be explicit almost the definitions we utilize. Taken together, incorporating choice and process allows for a broader, more inclusive, and more than meaningful definition of family.

Dimensions of Family Variety

Race/Ethnicity

In the early on twenty first century, racial/ethnic families represent a growing proportion of society, including substantial numbers of interracial couples and transnational families. Agreement the diversity of intersecting cultures and the influence of diversity on guild and family life is of import, particularly when developing public policy. Given that the pro portion of Hispanic families is growing faster than any other family groups, we are witnessing an increased research emphasis on Hispanic family unit life, including examination of the effects of immigration and acculturation (see Zinn & Wells 2000). According to the most recent Electric current Population Survey (Fields 2004), 71 percent of all family groups in the US are white, with 12 percent blackness, iv per centum Asian, and 13 percent Hispanic. (Information technology is worth noting that many of those categorized as Hispanic may have reported as being both white and Hispanic.)

Socioeconomic Status

Socioeconomic status (SES) is defined in terms of a family'southward combined index of income, didactics, occupational prestige, and the number of related adults and dependent children in the household (Rank 2000). Research consistently shows that economical hardship and stress adversely affect individual and family unit wellbeing (White & Rogers 2000). Unemployment, underemployment, and depression family income are associated with poor mental and physical wellness, lower marital quality, diminished parenting effectiveness, and child maladjustment (Fox & Bartholomae 2000). Currently in the US, 12.4 pct of the total population lives below the poverty level, and ten.8 pct of all people living in families and 16.1 percent of families with children under age 18 live below the poverty level. A asymmetric number of black (24.9 percent) and Hispanic (22.vi percent) families live in poverty compared with white (9.1 percent) and Asian (12.8 percent) families. Interestingly, 15.8 percent of single fathers live beneath the poverty level compared to 32.2 percent of single mothers. Equally troubling as these statistics are, they do not include millions of children and adults in the US who live in astringent economic hardship only have family income that falls just above the official poverty threshold (Rank 2000).

Gender

Gender refers to social meanings regarding masculinity and femininity that are produced through social processes and interactions (West & Zimmerman 1987), whereas sex refers to biological distinctions between a homo and a adult female. Each individual, whether male person or female, is the production of complex configurations of both masculine and feminine characteristics that influence daily interactions (Thompson & Walker 1995). As a dimension of family unit diversity, gender is an ever present and powerful forcefulness in family relationships. For example, ane family might divide labor on the basis of traditional gender beliefs and values such that the woman ''stays home'' to treat children and the man is the sole or master earner. In this instance, gender is related to power in families because the man makes all or nigh of the family's income and controls the family's financial decision making. With each choice families make, such as how mothers and fathers parent, how they divide household labor, and how they provide intendance for crumbling parents, they are doing gender (West & Zimmerman 1987). Patterns unfold with enormous implications for family life and futurity generations because families exert a primary influence on gender socialization. Gender is thus a critical axis of both social stratification and family diversity.

Sexual Orientation

I of the influential social movements of the twentieth century was the gay and lesbian liberation movement, which continues to draw attention to issues of ceremonious and family unit rights. Sexual orientation refers to an individual's behavior, attractions, and behaviors toward members of the opposite and same sexual practice. From a family diversity perspective, families do not have a sexual orientation, only are comprised of individuals with varying sexual orientations. Consider, for case, a family in which one parent identifies as heterosexual, the other as gay, an aunt every bit bisexual, and a kid as trans sexual. These variations are of increasing importance as more families are faced with how to take, or whether to have, a family unit member whose sexual orientation differs. Due to the difficulties involved in collecting sensitive information regarding sexual orientation, available statistical prove regarding the pre valence and types of gay and lesbian headed households is likely to be conservative. Using information from the 2000 Census, Gates and Ost (2004) suggested that approximately 5 percent of the Us population over historic period xviii are gay or lesbian. Of those who were identified as gay or lesbian and in couple relationships, 27.5 percent had children present in the household. Other estimates suggest anywhere between nine and 11 meg children are existence reared past a gay or lesbian parent (Patterson 2000). Studies of sexual orientation often compare the aligning of children who live with gay or lesbian parents with that of children who live with heterosexual parents (Patterson 2000). This area of enquiry is of swell business organisation given current policy debates concerning same sexual practice matrimony, adoption, and foster care. Collectively, research in this area suggests no negative differences in kid outcomes based on parental sexual orientation (Patterson 2000). Studies also suggest that relationship quality and relationship outcomes are similar for families of gays and lesbians compared with families of heterosexuals (Kurdek 2004). Unfortunately, we know petty nigh the of import topics of bisexuality, transgenderism, transexualism, and family life.

Family Structure

Recent demographic changes, notably including high rates of not-marital childbearing, divorce, and remarriage, have changed the face of American families. Less than half of American children at present live in traditional nuclear families, divers as families consisting of ii biological parents married to each other, full siblings simply, and no other household members (Brandon & Bumpass 2001). Variations in family unit structure and the consequences for individual wellbeing accept been widely studied. Most of the enquiry has focused on the impact of different family forms (e.g., offset married families, divorced families, and remarried families) on children'due south development and wellbeing. In full general, when compared with children in get-go married families, children in single parent families and remarried families are slightly disadvantaged on measures of academic performance, psychological adjustment, comport, social competence, and concrete wellness (Amato 2000; Demo et al. 2004). However, for most children the effects of family disruption are temporary. Studies suggest that 80 percent of children who have experienced parental divorce function within normal ranges of adjustment within one to ii years of the divorce (Hairdresser & Demo 2006). Similarly, divorced adults report more negative life events, more difficulties in parenting, and lower psychological wellbeing during the separation process, merely nearly are resilient and function normally within a couple of years mail service-divorce. Although family limerick and family unit transitions are important to sympathize, the evidence suggests that family processes exert stronger effects on the wellbeing of family members.

Family Process

Family process refers to the interpersonal dynamics (e.chiliad., support, advice, decision making, disharmonize resolution, violence) between family members (eastward.grand., parent–child, married man–married woman, partner interactions). Given societal concerns related to couples who divorce or dissolve their relationships, examination of family procedure is particularly important and has the potential to provide valuable insight. For example, once a disharmonize between partners starts, the discussion that follows and the rate at which the disharmonize escalates is related to the prediction of divorce/dissolution. Gottman et al. (2003) examined communication amidst heterosexual, gay, and lesbian couples and plant that gay and lesbian couples used sense of humor more effectively during initial stages of conflict discussions, leading to lower escalation rates compared to heterosexual couples. Attention to the diversity of family process provides a improve agreement of family unit dynamics and has potential to guide prevention and intervention efforts for practitioners.

Conclusion

Contemporary families are remarkably diverse both in construction and procedure, and the social and demographic changes propelling family unit diversity are likely to advance (Stacey 2000). Unfortunately, much of the extant research relies on samples of predominantly white, eye class, heterosexual families and their children, limiting our power to generalize to increasingly pluralistic family unit forms. Students, scholars, practitioners, and policymakers need to be more inclusive and explicit with their definitions of families and attend more fully to the rich, fluid, and multidimensional diverseness of family experiences.

References:

1. Allen, K. R., Fine, M. A., & Demo, D. H. (2000) An Overview of Family unit Diversity: Controversies, Questions, and Values. In: Demo, D. H., Allen,
2. One thousand. R., & Fine, One thousand. A. (Eds.), Handbook of Family Variety. Oxford University Press, New York, pp. 1 14.
3. Amato, P. R. (2000) The Consequences of Divorce for Adults and Children. Journal of Spousal relationship and the Family 62: 1269 87.
4. Barber, B. & Demo, D. H. (2006) The Kids are Alright (At To the lowest degree, Near of Them): Links betwixt Divorce and Dissolution and Child Well-Being. In: Fine, Thou. A. & Harvey, J. (Eds.), Handbook of Divorce and Relationship Dissolution. Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ.
5. Brandon, P. D. & Bumpass, L. L. (2001) Children's Living Arrangements, Coresidence of Unmarried Fathers, and Welfare Receipt. Periodical of Family unit Issues 22: 3 26.
6. Coontz, S. (1992) The Way Nosotros Never Were: American Families and the Nostalgia Trap. Basic Books, New York.
7. Coontz, S. (2000) Historical Perspectives on Family Diversity. In: Demo, D. H., Allen, K. R., & Fine, K. A. (Eds.), Handbook of Family unit Diversity. Oxford University Printing, New York, pp. 15 31.
8. Demo, D. H., Aquilino, W. S., & Fine, M. A. (2004) Family Composition and Family unit Transitions. In: Bengtson, V. L., Acock, A. C., Allen, K. R., Dilworth-Anderson, P., & Klein, D. M. (Eds.), Sourcebook of Family Theory and Research. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 119 34.
9. Fields, J. (2004) America'south Families and Living Arrangements: 2003. Current Populations Reports, P20 553. U.s.a. Demography Agency, Washington, DC.
10. Flim-flam, J. J. & Bartholomae, Due south. (2000) Economical Stress and Families. In: McKenry, P. C. & Price, S. J. (Eds.), Families and Change. Sage, K Oaks, CA, pp. 250 78.
11. Gates, G. & Ost, J. (2004) The Gay and Lesbian Atlas. Urban Plant Press, Washington, DC. Gottman, J., Levenson, R., Swanson, C., Swanson,
12. K., Tyson, R., & Yoshimoto, D. (2003) Observing Gay, Lesbian, and Heterosexual Couples' Relationships: Mathematical Modeling of Conflict Interaction. Journal of Homosexuality 45: 65 92.
13. Kurdek, 50. A. (2004) Are Gay and Lesbian Cohabiting Couples Really Dissimilar from Heterosexual Married Couples? Periodical of Marriage and Family 66: 880 900.
14. Patterson, C. J. (2000) Family Relationships of Lesbians and Gay Men. Journal of Marriage and the Family 62: 1052 69.
15. Rank, M. (2000) Poverty and Economic Hardship in Families. In: Demo, D. H., Allen, G. R., & Fine, M. A. (Eds.), Handbook of Family Variety. Oxford Academy Printing, New York, pp. 293 315.
16. Stacey, J. (2000) The Handbook's Tail: Toward Revels or a Requiem for Family Diversity? In: Demo, D. H., Allen, M. R., & Fine, M. A. (Eds.), Handbook of Family Diversity. Oxford University Printing, New York, pp. 424 39.
17. Teachman, J., Tedrow, L. M., & Crowder, Thousand. D. (2000) The Changing Demography of America'southward Families. Journal of Wedlock and Family 62: 1234 46.
18. Thompson, L. & Walker, A. (1995) The Identify of Gender in Family unit Studies. Journal of Union and the Family 57: 847 66.
19. Walsh, F. (1998) Strengthening Family unit Resilience. Guilford Press, New York.
20. West, C. & Zimmerman, D. H. (1987) Doing Gen- der. Gender and Social club 1: 124 51.
21. White, L. & Rogers, S. (2000) Economical Circum- stances and Family Outcomes: A Review of the 1990s. Periodical of Matrimony and Family unit 62: 1035 52.
22. Zinn, K. & Wells, B. (2000) Diversity inside Latino Families: New Lessons for Family Social Science. In: Demo, D. H., Allen, K. R., & Fine, One thousand. A. (Eds.), Handbook of Family Multifariousness. Oxford University Printing, New York, pp. 252 73.

vinsonafror1997.blogspot.com

Source: http://sociology.iresearchnet.com/sociology-of-family/family-diversity/

Share this post