rel="nofollow" href="#ua17e4b08-3a93-5b90-a4e5-c2a9c96985fc">chapters 6 to 8). These sections focus on family migration and the transnational nature of intimate relations (chapter 6); the impact of population policies on fertility patterns and family life (chapter 7); and the use of new reproductive technologies to create the ‘perfect’ or ‘proper’ family (chapter 8). Global issues are approached with a particular emphasis on family structures and family relations in developing and under-developed countries.2 They cast light on the ways in which personal and family life is influenced by transnational labour dynamics, state policies and changing cultural values in relation to issues such as fertility, arranged marriages, transnational caregiving and marriage migration.
The range of case-study examples drawn on from non-western societies are chosen according to whether reliable research data are available. The aim is to consider those family structures, customs and patterns of social change that contrast with western experiences or challenge western ways of thinking about ‘the family’. Reflecting the availability and relevance of research from these regions, a focus on India and China is a consistent thread. This is particularly the case in the chapters that deal with transnational family processes at a macro-sociological level by assessing how individuals and families negotiate wider and large-scale social systems, including the link between globalization and marriage strategies, the regulation of families through state policies on population and fertility control, and transnational comparisons of the management and uses of reproductive technologies. All these topics draw attention to the ways in which state policies, religious and cultural customs, and patriarchal structures are shaped by, and regulate, families – particularly women’s and children’s lives.
Themes and issues
In addition to foregrounding the diversity and global aspects of intimacy and family life, this book is arranged around a sequence of interrelated issues. The following series of questions highlight the issues:
Is there sufficient research evidence to support the influential idea of a ‘democratization’ of family and intimate relationships, or do gender inequalities persist in this context?
Is the growing search for self-fulfilment in intimate relationships leading to a crisis of commitment and care in western societies?
Is research on LGBTQ+ intimacies forcing a reconsideration of the concept of ‘family’?
Do sociological debates about family life remain ethnocentric and western-centric?
These questions are introduced in turn, below, and form key threads which are woven through the following chapters. They represent some of the major challenges associated with discrepancies between abstract social theories and empirical research evidence about family life.
Regarding the first question, the study of family life has recently been influenced by a refocus on the concept of ‘intimacy’, prompted by the work of Anthony Giddens, exemplified by his book The Transformation of Intimacy (1992). Provoking extensive sociological debate about changes in intimacy and family relationships in late twentieth-century western societies, for Giddens, these shifts in intimacy and family relationships characterize a democratization of interpersonal relationships. This trend of more egalitarian intimate relations between couples is explained as part of a liberalization of attitudes in western societies. It corresponds with a stronger emphasis on individual self-fulfilment in personal relationships, which, in turn, forms part of a process of individualization. Giddens argues that sex has been separated from reproduction, in late modernity. This broad sociological perspective is also shared by the work of Ulrich Beck and Elizabeth Beck-Gernsheim (1995) (see chapter 2).
Trends in western societies indicate that couples no longer feel bound by duty to marry before they have sex. They can decide these steps between themselves, as active agents, if and when they agree to. Giddens claims that this frees up the opportunity for a ‘pure relationship’ between the couple, a relationship in which men and women become equals. Individuals now expect more from intimate relationships and are much more prepared to divorce or move on to the next relationship if either party feels trapped or no longer feels fulfilled. This trend corresponds with a detraditionalization of intimacy. The claim, then, is that, today, intimate relationships are more likely to be egalitarian and fluid, more temporary and short-lived, and yet also more intense. Giddens argues that expectations of a lifelong conjugal relationship, with wife as homemaker and husband as breadwinner, have disappeared.
Individualization and detraditionalization were advanced in the 1990s within ‘late modern’ social theory and remain influential concepts within explanations of contemporary changes in social and personal relationships. This current period of ‘late modernity’ is distinguished from an earlier period of ‘modernity’, up to around the mid twentieth century. Late modernity is viewed as a later phase of modernity, rather than a break from it, in the sense of ‘post-modern society’. Claims of transformation in intimacy are important because they describe the changing condition of western societies in late capitalism characterized by the erosion of tradition and social hierarchy. Extended kinship ties and tight communities are overshadowed by looser and more fragmented social ties. These broader social changes are said to have had dramatic effects on personal and family life. However, the concepts of individualization and detraditionalization are ethnocentric. They do not reflect or account for family life experiences among minority ethnic groups or reflect trends in non-western contexts, as the following chapters show.
Subsequent ways of approaching intimacy and sexuality in present-day family relationships were advanced by authors such as Lynn Jamieson (1998) and Neil Gross (2005). These authors represent a group of British and American academics who have engaged critically with the idea of individualization. Jamieson and Gross questioned the emphasis of the pure relationship in self-obsessed individualism. It disregards the importance of caregiving and the mutual exchange of care and support in families. The idea of the pure relationship undermines the significance of the everyday commitments and caring roles involved in family life, especially in parent–child relationships. A recurring theme of research findings outlined in the following chapters is the strength and durability of family and intimate ties. While personal relationships are clearly changing and adjusting to rising expectations of equality and intimacy in relationships, a compelling body of evidence indicates that commitment and reciprocity remain remarkably buoyant in terms of care for children and older relatives.
The second question is framed by assumptions that today’s intimate relationships are more equal than they were in the past. These assumptions have been interrogated by scholars. Discussions about ‘parenting’ and caring for elderly relatives often obscure the highly gendered nature of caring. Most of the caring work that occurs in families is still placed on women’s shoulders. This issue has been accented by feminist approaches to family forms and meanings, as explored in depth in chapter 3 on parenting. Intimate relationships between men and women, and children and parents, tend to be asymmetrical, structured by gender and generational relations of power. Thus, while addressing contemporary changes in intimacy and family relations, authors such as Jamieson have drawn attention to inequalities of gender and age that continue to structure family relationships. A further important theme that characterizes this book, then, is the continuing reproduction of unequal gendered power relations that shape families, which challenges assertions of a ‘democratization’ of intimacy. Changes in parenting values and practices have coincided with women’s rising educational levels and employment, control of fertility, divorce, changing
