This analysis takes Elder's work on the life-course as a starting point. Two proposals are made: (1) That the sociological use of the concept of ‘the family’ should be restricted to indicate only the occurrence of everyday usage; (2) That the notion of the ‘family life-course’ be replaced by the notion of individual life-courses coinciding upon developmental pathways. In this way the idea of a central type of ‘the family’ is made redundant and we are required, instead, to discover when and why participants refer to a particular developmental pathway as being ‘a family’. This approach not only facilitates the conceptualisation ‘family diversity’ but also compels researchers to engage the rich complexity of everyday life.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AbercrombieN.: Dictionary of Sociology, Penguin, Harmondsworth, 1984.
2.
AndersonM.: Approaches to the History of the Western Family 1500–1914, Macmillan, London, 1980.
3.
BallD.W.: ‘The “Family” as a Sociological Problem: Conceptualisation of the taken-for-granted as prologue to social problems analysis’, Social Problems, Vol. 19, No. 3, 1972, pp. 295–307.
4.
BallD.W.: ‘Privacy, Publicity, Deviance and Control’, Pacific Sociological Review, Vol. 18, No. 3, 1975, pp. 259–78.
BarrettM.McIntoshM.: The Anti-Social Family, Verso, London, 1982.
7.
BellC.: ‘Marital Status’ in BarkerP., A Sociological Portrait, Penguin, Harmondsworth, 1972, p. 64–75.
8.
BergerB.BergerP.L.: The War Over The Family, Hutchinson, London, 1983.
9.
BergerB.LuckmannT.: The Social Construction of Reality, Penguin, Harmondsworth, 1972.
10.
BernardesJ.: ‘Diversity Within and Alternatives to “The Family”: The Development of a Alternative Theoretical Approach’, unpublished PhD Thesis, University of Hull, 1981.
11.
BernardesJ.: Do We Really Know What “The Family” Is?’ in CloseP.CollinsR., Family and Economy, Macmillan, London, 1985a, pp. 192–211.
12.
BernardesJ.: ‘“Family Ideology”: Identification and Exploration’, Sociological Review, Vol. 33, No. 2, 1985b, pp. 275–97.
13.
BloodR.O.WolfeD.M.: Husbands and Wives, Free Press, Illinois, 1960.
14.
British Society for Population Studies: The Family, OPCS, 1983.
15.
BullD.: Family Poverty, Duckworth, London, 1971.
16.
ChesterR.PeelJ.: Equalities and Inequalities in Family Life, Academic Press, London, 1977.
17.
CloseP.CollinsR.: Family and Economy, Macmillan, London, 1985.
18.
CollierJ.: ‘Is There A Family? New Anthropological Views’ in ThorneB.YalomM., Rethinking The Family, Longman, New York, 1982, pp. 25–39.
19.
CuberJ.F.: ‘Age-discrepant marriages’ in GrossL., Sexual Issues in Marriage, Spectrum, New York, 1975, pp. 245–58.
20.
DuvallE.: Family Development, Lippincott, Philadelphia, 1971.
21.
ElderG.H.: ‘Family History and the Life Course’ in HarevenT.K., Transitions: The Family and the Life Course in Historical Perspective, Academic Press, New York, 1978, pp. 17–64.
22.
ElderG.H.: ‘History and the Family: The Discovery of Complexity’Journal of Marriage and Family, Vol. 43, No. 3, 1981, pp. 484–519.
23.
EvansR.H.SmithN.R.: ‘A Selected Paradigm of Family Behaviors’, Journal of Marriage and the Family, Vol. 31, No. 3, 1967, pp 512–7.
24.
EversleyD.: ‘The Family and Housing Policy’ in British Society for Population Studies, The Family, OPCS, 1983, pp. 82–95.
25.
FaginL.LittleM.: The Forsaken Families: The effects of unemployment on family life, Penguin, Harmondsworth, 1984.
26.
FieldF.: Unequal Britain, Arrow, London, 1974.
27.
GageM.G.: ‘Economic Roles of Wives and Family Economic Development’Journal of Marriage and the Family, Vol. 37, No. 1, 1975, pp. 121–28.
28.
GordonM.: The Nuclear Family in Crisis, Harper & Row, New York, 1972.
29.
HarevenT.K.: Transitions: The Family and the Life Course in Historical Perspective, Academic Press, New York, 1978.
30.
HarrisC.C.: The Family: An Introduction, Allen and Unwin, London, 1969.
31.
HarrisC.C.: ‘Parenthood: A Theoretical View from the Standpoint of a Sociologist’ in DHSS, Dimensions of Parenthood, 1974, pp. 36–43.
32.
HarrisC.C.: The Family and Industrial Society, Allen and Unwin, London, 1983.
33.
JacobsohnP.MathneyA.P.: ‘Mate Selection in Open Marriage Systems’, International Journal of Comparative Sociology, Vol. 3, No. 1, 1962, pp. 279–88.
34.
JonesG.R.: ‘Life History Methodology’ in MorganG., Beyond Method, Sage, Beverly Hills, 1983, pp. 147–59.
35.
Lenero-OteroL.: Beyond the Nuclear Family Model, Sage, London, 1977.
36.
LibbyR.W.WhitehurstR.N.: Marriage and Alternatives, Scott Foresman and Co, Illinois, 1977.
37.
MacklinE.D.: ‘Non-traditional Family Forms: A Decade of Research’, Journal of Marriage and Family, Vol. 42, No 4, 1980, pp. 905–22.
38.
MayerJ.E.: ‘People's Imagery of Other Families’Family Process, Vol. 6, No. 1, 1967a, pp. 27–36.
39.
MayerJ.E.: ‘The Invisibility of Married Life’New Society, Vol. 9, No. 230, 1967b, pp. 272–3.
40.
MitchellJ.: What is to be done about Illness and Health?Penguin, Hardmondsworth, 1984.
41.
MorganD.H.J.: ‘“Bloomsbury” and the Definition of the Family: An exploration’, unpublished Paper, University of Manchester, 1974.
42.
MorganD.H.J.: Social Theory and the Family, Routledge & Kegan Paul, London, 1975.
43.
MorganD.H.J.: ‘Alternatives to the Family’ in ChesterR.PeelJ., Equalities and Inequalities in Family Life, Academic Press, London, 1977, pp. 177–91.
44.
MorganD.H.J.: ‘New Directions in Family Research and Theory’ in HarrisC.C., The Sociology of the Family: New Directions for Britain, Sociological Review Monograph, University of Keele, 1979, pp. 3–18.
45.
MorganG.: Beyond Method: Strategies for Social Research, Sage, Beverly Hills, 1983.
46.
MossP.FondaN.: Work and the Family, Temple Smith, London, 1980.
47.
MountF.: The Subversive Family, Cape, London, 1982.
48.
MurphyM.: ‘The Life Course of Individuals in the Family: Describing static and dynamic aspects of the contemporary family’ in British Society for Population Studies, The Family, OPCS, London, 1983, pp. 50–70.
49.
OakleyA.: ‘Conventional Families’ in RapoportR., Families in Britain, Routledge & Kegan Paul, London, 1982, pp. 123–37.
50.
OttoH.A.: The Family in Search of a Future, Appleton-Century-Crofts, New York, 1970.
51.
ParsonsT.: ‘The American Family: Its relation to personality and to social structure’ in ParsonsT.BalesR. F., Family: Socialisation and Interaction Process, Routledge & Kegan Paul, London, 1956, pp. 3–34.
52.
PeckE.SenderowitzJ.: Pronatalism: The Myth of Mom and Apple Pie, Crowell, New York, 1974.
RapoportR.: Families in Britain, Routledge & Kegan Paul, London, 1982.
55.
RapoportR.RapoportR.N.: ‘The Impact of Work on the Family’ in MossP.FondaN., Work and the Family, Temple Smith, London, 1980, pp. 158–85.
56.
ScanzoniJ.: ‘Occupation and Family Differentiation’ in HaddenJ.K.BorgattaM.L., Marriage and the Family, Peacock, Illinois, 1969, pp. 302–13.
57.
SegalL.: What is to be done about the family?Penguin, Harmondsworth, 1983.
58.
Study Commission on the Family: Happy Families: A discussion paper on families in Britain, Study Commission on the Family, London, 1980.
59.
Study Commission on the Family: Families in the Future, Study Commission on the Family, London, 1983.
60.
SussmanM.: Changing Families in a Changing Society, Government Printing Office, Washington, 1970.
61.
SussmanM.CogswellB.: ‘The Meaning of Variant and Experimental Marriage Styles and Family Forms in the 1970s’ in SussmanM., Non-traditional Family Forms in the 1970s, NCFR, Minneapolis, 1973, pp. 7–13.
62.
TreblicottJ.: Mothering: Essays in Feminist Theory, Totowa N.J., Rowan and Allanheld, 1983.
63.
VeeversJ.E.: ‘The Moral Careers of Voluntary Childless Wives: Notes on the Defence of a Variant World View’, Family Co-ordinator, Vol. 24, No. 1, 1975, pp. 473–87.
64.
ZimmermanD.H.PollnerM.: ‘The Everyday World as Phenomenon’ in DouglasJ., Understanding Everyday Life, Routledge & Kegan Paul, London, 1974.
