Class Notes (835,600)
Canada (509,275)
Sociology (3,252)
SOC214H1 (76)
Bonnie Fox (74)
Lecture 3

Lecture 3 Sept 27.docx

10 Pages
59 Views
Unlock Document

Department
Sociology
Course
SOC214H1
Professor
Bonnie Fox
Semester
Fall

Description
Sociology 214H1F Family Patterns Lecture 3 September 27, 2011 Week 3: Is the Nuclear Family Universal? Cross-cultural Patterns and a Description of Foraging Societies - Can we assume it is a natural unit? - Nuclear Family 2 adults and children composition of the unit that tries to address peoples needs anything beyond that is something else, a different kind of family - Definition that focuses on relationships that focuses on carrying for people, dependents, and relationships more than that trying to address needs of adults. This differs from legal and census definitions but we need a different definition for our class daily is not important it just conveys regularity and on-going - It also does not introduce issue of emotions and feelings due to the need to apply to various cultures notice definition as we go along - Nuclear is a particular composition 2 adults and children no indication of organization or relations. IT is a technical term specifying a form of family Historical Materialism or simply Materialism today Fox will illustrate this approach It insists that family is a product of social history, not a product of biology but rather a particular family D. Evolutionary Psychology A Biological-Determinist Argument [last week] The argument: Behaviour that contributed to reproductive success was naturally selected through the generations, over the course of human evolution. Thus, women and men (who faced different adaptive problems in early human societies) now have different innate predispositions for behaviour affecting our sexuality. (This is Darwins model of the evolution of bodies applied to behaviour.) - How biology determines certain behaviour * opposing materialism perspective. Fox believes it is too simplistic, wrong on many levels but it is fairly popular today. - It argues behaviour with respect to sexuality is innate, built into our genetics, brain, etc. it is taking Darwins ideas on bodies and apply to behaviour and social institutions. - Ex: of an argument: Smart females in early human societies had learned they should be picky with who they have sex with because women have consequence of pregnancy. Thus is wise women would find a man to provide for them, thus being reproductively successful, having more children, more children had more characteristics of mothers, behavioural characteristics matched bred into genes and more children have those characteristics - BUT- Social explanations for behaviour however are much more clear and obvious! Thus women are weary of casual sex due to social consequences arguments are more convincing saying over time human culture evolved, wisdom, institutions, people adapted to environment, created customs, marriage allowed them to adapt, taught children traditions that evolved over time David Buss, Psychological Sex Differences through Sexual Selection, for example, argues that: 1) Women needed a man to provide for them during pregnancy and lactation. Those who found one had greater reproductive success. Thus, women are now naturally selective about whom they choose as sexual partners (more than men are) and motivated to form partnerships with men. 1 Comment: There are alternative ways early human communities might have provided support for a mother. 2) There are gender differences in the consequences of having sex (potential pregnancy for women, nothing for men). Men benefited, then, in having many sex partners (and women didnt). Thus, women are naturally selective about their sexual partners; men are more inclined to have casual sex. Comment: There are obvious social causes of these gender differences we see today (e.g., differences in socialization, greater social constraints on womens sexuality, etc.) 3) More men are available for sex than women, at any point in time (given pregnancy). Thus, men are sexually competitive. Comment: same as above. 4) Paternity is uncertain. Thus women did much more child care than men. And they do so today. Comment: There are social reasons why women do more child care than men; there is no need to resort to a biological-determinist explanation. By this logic that behaviour today is the product of evolution -- we could argue that the nuclear, heterosexual family is a natural product of the biology of reproduction. Comment: Arguments that behaviour and institutions are products of evolution assume that behaviour that is (or might be) adaptive in our society was adaptive in societies hundreds of thousands of years ago, as humans evolved. But we are not sure what the adaptive challenges were then, and what kinds of behaviour best equipped people to survive and reproduce successfully. Alternative argument: an evolution of human culture in which wisdom and knowledge acquired over time was passed down from one generation to another, adults teaching children. I. Cross-cultural Evidence on Family Patterns - First look at how people organize themselves to do the basic work they need to do to survive- this comes out of a materialist approach - We do not ask what they believe in or what are dominant beliefs (that would be a cultural approach) A. Our common-sense assumptions about gender and family - Is the nuclear family natural? - Women being primary care givers for children b/c child-bearers? = Seems natural BUT, Sociology is a social science, we should not say things we just believe, we should test our ideas and have evidence for our arguments, and (this is what it means to be a social science) B. The evidence on the range of human societies - reviews evidence F. Edholms summary- looks at diversity of human cultures, shows that there is not really anything universal about family patterns. 1) Conception and sex: understanding the relationship? 2- How it is understood - Every culture if you look at older cultures than ours, they all have reproduction stories, and how it occurred. th - People did not understand the biology until the 19 century so for a long time people did not understand biological reproduction - Thus the facts of biology are irrelevant if people do not understand it, they do not connect sex with reproduction/pregnancy- there were many other understandings 2) The mother-child relationship not always close - Those relationships are not always the same across cultures - In some societies, biological mothers do not raise children - Ex. Child given up for adoption extreme example foraging societies have another pattern - Today- we believe in maternal instinct- mothers naturally know what to do when they have children, there is NO evidence of this though- a myth - The most common reaction of new mothers to babies is confusion, women do not know how to care for babies unless taught - They must learn how to care for babies - In Toronto today, when women get pregnant today
More Less

Related notes for SOC214H1

Log In


OR

Join OneClass

Access over 10 million pages of study
documents for 1.3 million courses.

Sign up

Join to view


OR

By registering, I agree to the Terms and Privacy Policies
Already have an account?
Just a few more details

So we can recommend you notes for your school.

Reset Password

Please enter below the email address you registered with and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Add your courses

Get notes from the top students in your class.


Submit