From the Institutional Family to Companionship

The system-theoretical approach conceptualises the family and marital relationships as systems which are embedded in larger systems, where roles are differentiated to ensure the functioning of the family as a system through interaction in the system and between the subsystems (Cox &

Paley, 1997). The conjugal relationship in the system-theoretical perspective was seen as a small subsystem of the nuclear family, which is in turn a subsystem of the family, including kinship (Parsons & Bales, 1955). The tasks for the adult members of the nuclear family were basically the socialization of the children and the provisioning of the family. Men internalised the instrumental role as the provider and the woman the expressive role as a source of warmth and emotions. For Parsons (1955), relationships were highly differentiated systems which worked only because of the differentiation of roles and attitudes which were defined through norms which exist in the wider systems, like the society, and which must be implemented into the subsystem. Furthermore, the marital system also defined so-called system goals and a system of value. Through the definition of values, the maximization of gratification and satisfaction in the system was to be achieved. In contrast to roles, values were not differentiated.

Role differentiation was necessary to achieve the system goals with a man or husband as the good provider, and the responsibility to achieve a good position of the family in the external world, while the wife was the responsible person for human relations (ibid). Even though the

4.1.1 From the Institutional Family to Companionship 103

system theory of Parsons and his followers remains known in sociology, today it is regarded as doubtful whether only highly differentiated systems with predefined roles for men and women are able to function. Families and relationships have long been seen as static systems where everyone had a role predefined by sex and age. Nevertheless, families and relationships are now no longer seen as static and roles are not predefined, but rather are viewed as a result of interaction and negotiation. Each couple embodies and displays its own characteristics and a different way to organise daily conjugal life (Kellerhals et al., 2004). Therefore, conjugal relationships must be examined in a more differentiated fashion, avoiding assumptions about predefined structures and roles.

First results on family interaction were investigated and presented by Burgess et al. (1963), describing the ‘Companionship family’ as a new model for families. replacing the institutional family. The institutional family was characterised by its instrumental character, with low mutual affect amongst the family members, and with a high differentiation of roles and tasks in the family. The family was a place of production and reproduction, and these were also the main goals of conjugal relationships. The ‘Companionship family’ as a new family type was characterised by affection, support, and sharing of decision- making (Burgess, Locke, &

Thomes, 1963). Family unity results out of interaction processes in the couple, for example through communication (Kellerhals et al., 2004). The Companionship family is also defined by a consensus of norms and behavioural expectations (Aldous, 1977). Burgess et al. (1963) presented several indicators to measure the degree of family unity. Mutual affection is achieved by expressing and demonstrating affection, which in turn maintains and even reinforces love in a relationship. As a second indicator, emotional interdependence results from intimate communication and through sharing experiences over the common life course. Through sharing of disappointments, sorrows and emotional unity can be established. Sympathetic understanding denotes the ability of partners to understand the feelings and behaviour of the other and to accept them without confronting them with hostility. Temperamental compatibility is achieved during the relationship through adaptation to the temperament of the other. Consensus on values and objectives is an important unifying factor of partners and the consensus will be achieved during the relationship, as each partner brings to bear his/her own attitudes and values. A high consensus is achieved when both partners share the same values and attitudes over time. Family events, celebrations and ceremonies are powerful unifying factors and small quotidian customs, like the common meal, help the family to achieve the feeling of unity. Interdependence of roles

104 Chapter 4. Conjugal Interactions

is also achieved during the common relationship and aims at implementing common objectives by adjusting different activities of the partners. Sexual behaviour was also mentioned as an unifying factor. Agreement in the sexual life of partners is important for strengthening the feeling of unity. The aims of sexual behaviour can be different for couples, oriented principally to reproduction or the other extreme, pleasure for both partners (Burgess et al., 1963). Indeed, a study by Ammar and Widmer (2013) identifies three different dimensions of sexual attitudes.

Recreational attitudes project sexual activity as a pleasure. Traditional sexual attitudes refer to the importance of the link between marriage, religion and sexual relations. Communicative attitudes foreground the importance of sexual communication between the partners. These attitudes towards the sexual life are linked with different styles of conjugal interactions.

Couples with fusional attitudes have more often traditional sexual attitudes, whereas couples with autonomous attitudes display a greater preference for recreational sexual behaviour (Ammar & Widmer, 2013). Couples and families are usually embedded in a wider social context where interaction takes place as well. Therefore, the social environment of couples should also be considered since it can help to strengthen the unity or, on the contrary, pose a menace for it.

With an eye to these eight indicators, a typology of families was constructed, where higher scores for each indicator signal a higher level of family unity. Four types of family unity arise where disorganisation and dispersion mark one extreme, and the highest degree of family unity the other (Burgess et al., 1963). The broken family results from the death of one member or divorce. The relatively disorganised family is characterized by a very low degree of family unity. In these families, consensus has never been achieved and they are at a high risk for their relationship to terminate in separation or divorce. The habit-bound family is characterised by having very fixed rhythms as well as a not necessarily very high degree of communication. In any event, this does not mean that these relationships are at a high risk of divorce or separation.

Verbal communication is not as necessary, since gestures or symbolic actions replace verbal communication. In highly solidified families, the shared community has the highest priority and individuality of single members is not desired. These families live more or less isolated from the external world and due to the high degree of familism, it is difficult for one member to break out of this unity. The dynamically unified family is described by consensus instead of authority and also by the development of personalities and autonomy rather than subordination.

These families are thought to manage crises because of their flexible organisation of family life

4.1.1 From the Institutional Family to Companionship 105

(ibid). The results of Burgess et al. provide evidence that the functioning of families must be redefined and examined in a more differentiated way than before.