FAMILY DIVERSITY IN THE U.K.

This note is presented as a sequence of small chunks of information on the diverse structure of the family. This allows us to review a wide range of issues and access research from a wide range of sociologists without getting bogged down in too much detail. Occasionally I present a summary comment for you to consider.

Item A

What is ‘family’?

We sometimes use the word 'family' when we are speaking of our 'kin network' – so grandparents, adult siblings, cousins, aunts, uncles etc. are included, along with parents, spouses and dependent children. At other times, we mean a group of closely related people living in a state of mutual dependence, usually under one roof. When using the term in this second way, most people are thinking of a two-generational unit i.e. one or two parents and one or more children; but the Office of National Statistics adopts a broader definition which includes childless couples. And, as Andrew Yip has pointed out, many lesbians, gays and bisexuals now use 'family' to describe their associations.

[Reference: Yip A, 1999, Same Sex Couples, in Sociology Review, vol.8, no.3]

Family values

Over the last 50 years or so, politicians, journalists and other moral arbiters have put a good deal of effort into promoting an 'ideology of familism' i.e. a set of beliefs predicated on the notion that there is a type of family which is both 'normal' and ideal: "a haven in a heartless world." [Shorter E, 1977, The Making of the Modern Family]

Jager and Wright argue that various developments have undermined the traditional family, causing angst among the conservative-minded:

? An increase in domestic partnerships.

? An increase in single parenthood.

? A decline in the popularity of marriage.

? An increase in abortions.

? A rise in divorce.

? A rise in re-marriages (serial monogamy).

? An increase in two-career households.

? An increase in re-formed/step families.

? More joint custody of children following parental separation.

[Source: Jager G and Wright C, 1999, Changing Family Values, Routledge]

Families which fail to conform to type have been held responsible for all sorts of social ills, from rising crime to teenage pregnancies, from a breakdown in school discipline to an increase in mental health problems among the young. Politicians across the political spectrum promote familism: at the Conservative party’s 2000 annual conference, the shadow home secretary, Ann Widdecombe, called the ‘husband and wife plus child(ren)’ type of family the "preferred model" (and said that rejecting that model was akin to "tolerating anti-social behaviour") and, under New Labour’s Learning and Skills Act (2000), teachers are advised to instruct pupils on the importance of marriage to family life.

Guardians of the traditional family

A host of pressure groups, all obsessed with the notion of national moral decline, has sprung up in recent years. They are united in their defence of ‘traditional family values’. Although their combined membership is tiny, like the National Listeners and Viewers Association, founded by the late Mary Whitehouse, they are extremely vocal and have good contacts in the right-wing press, especially the hugely influential Daily Mail. Some of them have names which suggest academic impartiality and their propaganda exercises are run in the media as serious sociological research. Beware. Prominent among these groups are: Civitas, Family and Youth Concern (which has close links with Civitas), The Christian Institute, The Conservative Christian Fellowship, The Evangelical Alliance, Families First and Friends of the Family.

This 'ideology of familism' has been criticised by sociologists for:

Drawing attention away from the dysfunctional aspects of 'normal' family life.*

Stigmatising those who don't belong to 'normal' families (single parents, homosexuals, childless couples . . .).

Diverting attention away from the root causes of social problems – inequality and injustice – by scapegoating non-traditional families.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*The issue of abuse within the family is expertly analysed by Faith Robertson Elliot in Gender, Family and Society (1996)

Promoting patriarchy and the continued subjugation of females by creating the pretence that it is normal for a woman to be dependent on a stronger male:

"Middle class family ideology . . . is based on notions of authority, service, dependence and deference, in short, it is founded on inequality." – Diana Gittens, 1993, The Family in Question: Changing households and family ideologies]

Encouraging people to "expect an unrealistic degree of bliss and contentment from a mythical marriage and family." [Diana Gittens, op.cit.]

"Family sociologists should take the lead in burying the ideology of ‘the family’ and in rebuilding a social environment in which diverse family forms can sustain themselves with dignity and respect." – Stacey J, 1990, Brave New Families: Stories of Domestic Upheaval in Late Twentieth Century America

Summary comment

Despite opinion-makers’ rhetoric of familism, Britain is in practice one of the least family-friendly countries in Europe.

"Obedience, compulsion, tyranny and repression are family words as much as love, compassion and mutual trust. It rather depends on the family." – Stephen Fry

Diana Gittens, who is highly critical of familism, says that although the detail of family ideology has changed, its essential character remains much the same:

Item B

Love and marriage

According to Diana Gittens, some of the specific content of family ideology has changed since Victorian times. Women "are now expected to enjoy (hetero)sexual relationships" and "men are encouraged to 'help' in the home and take an active interest in their children" who are "allowed more freedom of expression." More married women are taking paid employment and this practice "is not seen as so serious a threat." Everyone expects more from marriage and there is a greater emphasis on romance and compassion. Marriage is increasingly seen "as a loving relationship between two equal partners whose aim is to create domestic harmony through co-operation, mutual sexual gratification, and the careful and loving rearing of two or three children." However, despite these changes, family ideology "remains based on notions of gender, age and authority that are by definition unequal."

[Source: Gittens D, 1993, The Family in Question: Changing households and family ideologies]

a typical family?

In 1998, there were 23.6m households in Britain and only 23% contained a 'cornflake packet family' (two parents and their dependent child/children).

This was down from 38% in 1961. [Source: Household and Family Composition, 1994, OPCS, and Social Trends 30, 2000, ONS] (See the file on households for a breakdown of households by type.)

However, seven in every 10 dependent children still live in families with two parents, 90% of them married to each other. So it’s too early to talk, as some postmodernists do, of the death of the traditional family. But it is undeniable that alternatives to the traditional family type are flourishing in late-modern Britain.

"Despite enormous real world variation and diversity, a common and popular image of ‘the nuclear family’ portrays a young, similarly aged, white married heterosexual couple with a small number of healthy children living in an adequate home. There is a clear division of responsibilities in which the male is primarily the full-time breadwinner and the female primarily the caregiver and perhaps a part time or occasional income earner."

Jon Bernades, 1997, Family Studies: An Introduction

According to researchers at the Institute for Social and Economic Research (ISER), a ‘cultural shift’ towards gender equality in all spheres of life (educational, domestic and employment) means that the traditional family structure – based on marriage, procreation and male-only paid employment – is gradually becoming a thing of the past. The ISER points out that, in 1973, more than two-thirds of all British women were married with children before their thirtieth birthdays; by 1996, the proportion was down to less than a third. Caribbeans are to the front of the trend and south Asians (Bangladeshis and Pakistanis more so than Indians) are behind it. But "all groups studied are moving in the same direction." [Source: Richard Berthoud et al, 2000, Family Formation in Multicultural Britain: Three Patterns of Diversity, ISER/University of Essex]

Item C

Asians maintain family tradition

Analysis of data from the fourth national survey of ethnic minorities and the Labour Force survey by Professor Richard Berthoud shows that the ‘traditional’ British family is most likely to be found in south Asian communities. The ISER researchers concentrated on three ethnic groups: Whites, African-Caribbeans and south Asians (Indians, Bangladeshis and Pakistanis). Around three-quarters of south-Asian women are married by the age of 25, compared with only about a half of White women. And virtually all south Asians with a partner are in formal marriages. "A clear majority of Bangladeshi and Pakistani women report their primary activity to be looking after the house and family."

[Source: Professor Richard Berthoud et al, 2000, Family Formation in Multicultural Britain: Three Patterns of Diversity, ISER, Essex University]

Diverse forms
(1) mixed-race partnerships

A major development in Britain in recent years has been the spread of ethnically-mixed partnerships:

Item D

Mixed-background partners

Answers to a British Social Attitudes Survey question in 1995 indicated that three-quarters of Britons were hostile to inter-ethnic marriages. However, one of the fastest-growing types of family in Britain is that based on a mixed-race partnership. A half of married or cohabiting British-born African-Caribbean men, and a third of women, are living with White partners. This high rate of mixed partnerships, combined with the low rate of partnership in the first place, means that few African-Caribbean men and women are married to each other and that only one in four British children with an African-Caribbean mother and/or father lives with two African-Caribbean parents. Mixed-race partnerships are not confined to Whites and African-Caribbeans – 20% of British-born Indians, for example, live with White partners. However, very few Bangladeshis or Pakistanis have partners from other ethnic groups.

[Source: Berthoud R et al, 2000, Family Formation in Multicultural Britain: Three Patterns of Diversity, ISER]

(The 2001 census recognised mixed ethnicity: under the question 'What is your ethnic group?' possible answers included 'White and Black Caribbean', 'White and Black African', 'White and Asian' and a catch-all 'any other mixed background', with space to elaborate.)

(2) lone-parent families

Although two-parent families are still very much the norm in Britain, the growth in the number of lone-parent families was one of the most important social developments in the final quarter of the C20. One in four families was headed by a lone parent in 2000 (23% by lone mothers and 3% by lone fathers), compared with just one in 13 in 1971 (7% by lone mothers and 1% by lone fathers). There are now over one and a half million lone parents looking after nearly three million dependent children. [Source: Labour Force Survey, Office for National Statistics] However, most estranged parents are in contact with their children and nearly half see them at least once a week.

Item E

Lone-parent families (GB)

Millions

1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 2000

Families headed by lone parents, EU, 1995 (% of all families)

Austria 19 Italy 16

Belgium 21 Luxembourg 19

Denmark 18 Netherlands 16

Eire 18 Portugal 13

Finland 19 Spain 13 France 16 Sweden 18

Germany 19 UK 22

Greece 11 [Source: Eurostat]

*

Item F

Lone-fathers

The overwhelming majority if single parents are women, but there has been a steady growth in the number of lone fathers, an increasing proportion of whom are bachelors. Gingerbread, estimates that there are 179,000 lone-fathers in Britain.

Research conducted for Gingerbread, a self-support group for lone-parent families, suggests that many of Britain’s lone-fathers experience the same sort of discrimination in employment as lone-mothers. Nearly a quarter of them had to give up their jobs after becoming sole parents and a quarter of those who stayed in work experienced damage to their careers. Lone fathers find it harder than mothers to access family-friendly employment because most firms expect their male employees to be available for a full working week. Furthermore, lone fathers lack the social-support networks available to mothers.

[Source: Gingerbread, 2001]

Single parenthood is far more common in some ethnic groups than others:

Item G

% distribution of families with dependent children

between ‘couple’ and ‘lone-parent’ types, by ethnicity (Autumn 2001)

Asian/Asian British

Chinese

White

Mixed

Black/Black British

Other

[Source: Labour Force Survey, Office for National Statistics]

There is a strong tradition of women living independently of their children’s fathers in the Caribbean, and this practice is even more common among British women of African-Caribbean origin. Only about one in four (39%) of British African-Caribbean adults under the age of 60 is in a formal marriage, compared with 60% of Whites.

Lone-parent families are more common in the UK than in any other major European country:

Item H

Lone-parent families as a proportion of all families

UK 23% (of all families)

France 15%

Germany 13%

Spain 8%

Greece 8%

EU average 14%

[Source: Eurostat, September 1998]

The fastest growing type of family in Britain is headed by a 'never married mother':

Item I

More 'never married mothers'

In 1984, 76% of single-parent families in Britain were the result of death, divorce or separation. By 1997, 42% of lone mothers had never been married and about 10% of all families (and a third of Black families) were headed by never-married women. Not only is the proportion of children in single-parent homes higher in Britain than elsewhere in Europe, but Britain is also the only EU country where the proportion of first births to lone women is rising significantly. At the end of the C20, about 15% of UK women were having their first babies when they were single, twice the figure of the late 1980s. In contrast, other countries, which have fewer single mums in the first place, are experiencing steady or falling rates of such births.

Summary comment

There is no obvious explanation of this phenomenon. It certainly isn't that single parents in the UK are particularly well rewarded by the benefits system: a higher proportion of UK single parent families live in poverty than in most EU countries (see below). It might simply be that young people in Britain have less access to good sex education and contraception

Item J

% of all children in various types of lone-parent families . 1971 1981 1991

unm.f. = never married female div.f. = divorced female sep.f. = separated female

wid.f. = widowed female lone m. = lone male

[Source: Census returns / Social Trends]

Summary comment

50% of women who have a child whilst not living with a man find a partner within 4 years [Social Trends 28, 1998]. So there's a relatively small group of never married mothers for whom lone parenting is a permanent condition. And single mothers in the UK form partnerships more quickly after having children than elsewhere in Europe. This is perhaps because a high proportion of UK women who have a child when they are unattached are teenagers, whereas the typical unattached mum in European is in her twenties.

About half of all UK lone-parent families (and 90% of those headed by teenage mothers) are living in poverty because mothers are either unemployed

or have only a few hours of low-paid work a week. In December

2000, about 910,000 lone-parent families were in receipt of state benefits. In Europe as a whole, lone-parent families seem to fare better – only about a third live below the poverty line. A major cause of unemployment among UK lone parents is the lack of affordable childcare. However, according to Alex Bryson et al, mothers' poor qualifications and lack of work experience are just as important as problems over childcare in preventing lone parents from escaping poverty.

% lone mothers in work, 2000

UK USA France

c.50 c.70 c.80

Workless households, 2001

All households 16.3%

Headed by a lone-parent

with dependent children 45.0%

[Source: Labour Force Survey]

Researchers at King’s College, London, who interviewed 450 children in the west of England, found that those living with single mothers enjoyed just as warm relationships with them as children in two-parent families. Single-parent children tended to share more activities with mothers, but had fewer friends than average. [Source: Judy Dunn and Kirby Deater-Deckard, 2001, Children’s views of their changing families, JRF]

Employment in lone-parent households was already increasing at an annual rate of 1.3% between 1996 and 1999 as a result of general economic expansion. With the introduction of WFTC in 1999, the annual rate went up to 3%.

[Source: Dickens R, Gregg P and Wadsworth J, 2001, The State of Working Britain, Centre for Economic Performance, LSE]

The new system of Tax Credits should help more lone parents into work. So should improvements in childcare provision and funding. The Government hopes to increase the proportion of lone parents in employment to 80%, the proportion found in France. Between May, 1997, and December, 2000, the number of unemployed lone parents in the UK fell by about 100,000, taking the proportion out of work down from 50% to 44%.

Item K

Many single mothers are poorly qualified

A study carried out for the Joseph Rowntree Foundation followed 700 lone mothers from 1991 to 1995. It found that more than half had no qualifications and only one in ten had a higher educational qualification. The minority with good qualifications were much more likely to get sufficiently well paid work to 'float off' benefits. Those with poor or no qualifications found it harder to get work, and when they did, it rarely paid enough to give them financially independence.

[Source: Bryson A et all, 1997, Making Work Pay: Lone Mothers, Employment and Well-being, 1997, JRF]

(3) step families

There has been an increase in reconstituted or 'step families', largely because of a higher rate of separation and re-marriage: over 40% of re-marriages result in step children because one or both of the new partners is caring for a child or children from a previous relationship. A recent report shows that, in certain ways, parents discriminate between their birth and step-children:

Item L

Stepchildren becoming the norm

In 1971, three-quarters of a million children lived in step families; by the end of the C20, the number had risen to 2.5 million. By the year 2010, on current trend, step-children will outnumber children living with both natural parents.

[Source: National Stepfamily Association, 2000]

Item M

Some parents favour 'natural' over 'step' children

Research by Graham Allan, Graham Crow and Sheila Hawker of Southampton University, based on in-depth interviews with 80 people, has shown a complex pattern of interactions within step families.

Adults' relationships with step-children are conditional on their relationships with their partners: if the relationship between the adults comes to an end, then that between the 'non-natural' parent and his/her step child/ren is also likely to terminate. Parents also treat their 'blood' children differently from their step-children. They try to be even-handed over matters such as discipline, rules and presents, but they are more likely to 'love' their own children and 'feel a commitment' towards their partner's children. Nor do many step-parents think of themselves as replacements for non-residential natural parents.

Grandparents tend to be more discriminatory than parents: for example, they will give 'token' presents to step-grandchildren, while giving more substantial gifts to their natural grandchildren.

A summary of this research is posted at http://www.esrc.ac.uk

A study of step-fathers has revealed notable class differences in the way they see their relationships with their step-children:

Item N

Class differences among step-fathers

Working class step-fathers in Britain are less likely than their middle class counterparts to think that close emotional relationships with children depend on biological connections: they regard step-children as needing the stability of belonging to clear-cut family units, with themselves integrated as fathers and financial providers within those units; and they feel that the natural emotional process of relating to their step-children – treating them as their own, being involved in their discipline, carefully nurturing relationships over time – can mirror or outweigh the relationships of biological fathers with their children.

In contrast, middle class step-fathers are more concerned about the link between fatherhood and biology. Many think that blood ties between parents and children result in more intense and enduring emotional relationships. This is especially apparent in their everyday disciplining of step-children: they tend to be unsure of their authority over them (some feel that they had none) and many see their roles as supplementary to, and supportive of, the children’s mothers. Nevertheless, middle class step-fathers also feel that children need to live in clear-cut families and that they should play active roles in their step-children’s lives by exercising care, responsibility and some authority. This left them in the awkward position of struggling with two competing understandings of how to be a 'good' step-father.

[Source: Rosalind Edwards, Margareta Bäck-Wiklund, Maren Bak and Jane Ribben McCarthy, 31 May 2002, Step-Fathering: Comparing Policy and Everyday Experience in Britain and Sweden, Sociological Research Online, vol.7, no.1]

Full report available at http://www.socresonline.org.uk/7/1/edwards.html