Human family evolution (JR02)
Introduction
The family has a
universal and basic role in all societies. Family is defined (for the purposes of this essay) as a socially
recognized group (usually joined by blood, marriage, or adoption) that forms an
emotional connection and serves as an economic unit of society. The functionalist perspective views families
as groups that perform vital roles for society—both internally (for the family
itself) and externally (for society as a whole). Families provide for one
another’s physical, emotional, and social well-being. Parents care for and
socialize children, a function that prepares new members of society for their
future roles. While interactionism helps us to understand the subjective
experience of belonging to a “family” and critical sociology focuses on how
families configure themselves in response to political-economic pressures and
changes, functionalism illuminates the many purposes of families and their role
in the maintenance of a balanced society (Parsons and Bales 1956)
The family ·is widely considered the
"first" institution, the elementary cell of social life. It is here
that mutuality is first experienced and civility is first taught. In other
words, the family is the first educational institution. All other institutions
build on the family’s educational achievements-or must remedy its failures-in
evolving the personal foundation of relating to others (mutuality) and to
community (civility).The family is always
the most elementary mediating structure; its members are the "others"
most likely to rally to one's defense against the state. moreover, the family;
by setting patterns and providing services for its members, reduces the demands
on the state-so long as it is functioning well itself.
Why family developed
Homo erectus learned to walk
upright and had a brain much the same magnitude of the modern man. The
successful had larger brains and increasing brain size necessitated the
widening if the female pelvis to permit the birth of off springs with larger
heads. The other consequence was that it required a longer period of growth
after birth..Human children needed and need maternal care long after birth.
Prolonged infancy and immaturity resulted in prolonged dependency. It was a
longtime before the human child could gather food. All of this created the
institution of the family.
The
evolution of the family in human evolution is a fascinating occurrence.
The
human female underwent two drastic changes to make the institution of family
possible: firstly she, amongst all other mammals, altered herself to be able to
conceive at any point of time in a year, unlike other mammals (loss of oestrus)
who have designated seasons where conception is possible; secondly with
enlarging brains of the human infant the female underwent a broadening of her
hips that allowed the babies to be born with larger brains. The broad hipped
female was not a fast mover or runner which is why their occurred a division in
duties, the fleet man hunted whereas the woman tended to babies. Loss of oestrus
made possible prolonged care of infants because if the female underwent the
violent disruption of their ordinary routines which oestrus imposes, their off
springs would be periodically exposed to a neglect which would have made their
survival impossible. The selection of a strain which avoided oestrus was
therefore essential for the survival of the species.
The loss of
oestrus meant increasing attractiveness of females to men and made individual
choices much more significant in matting. Together with prolonged dependency of
infants and new possibilities of individual selection resulted in a stable and
enduring family unit of father, mother and off springs to develop, this is
unique to human beings .
Development of Human Brain
The human species eventually developed a much
larger brain than that of other primates—typically 1,330 cm3 in modern humans, nearly three times the
size of a chimpanzee or gorilla brain. After a period of stasis with
Australopithecus anamensis and Ardipithecus, species which had
smaller brains as a result of their bipedal locomotion,the pattern of encephalization started
with Homo habilis, whose 600 cm3 brain was slightly larger
than that of chimpanzees. This evolution continued in Homo erectus with
800–1,100 cm3 and reached a maximum in Neanderthals with
1,200–1,900 cm3 larger even than modern Homo sapiens.
This brain increase manifested during postnatal brain growth, far exceeding that of other apes (heterochrony).
It also allowed for extended periods of social learning and language acquisition in juvenile humans, beginning as much as 2 million
years ago. Furthermore, the changes in the structure of human brains may be
even more significant than the increase in size. The temporal lobes, which
contain centers for language processing, have increased disproportionately, as
has the prefrontal cortex, which has been related to complex decision-making
and moderating social behavior. Encephalization has been tied to increased meat
and starches in the diet, and the development of cooking,[and
it has been proposed that intelligence increased as a response to an increased
necessity for solving social
problems as human society became more complex. Changes in skull morphology, such
as smaller mandibles and mandible muscle attachments, allowed more room for the
brain to grow. The increase in volume of the neocortex also
included a rapid increase in size of the cerebellum. Its
function has traditionally been associated with balance and fine motor control,
but more recently with speech and cognition. The
great apes, including hominids, had a more pronounced cerebellum relative to
the neocortex than other primates. It has been suggested that because of its
function of sensory-motor control and learning complex muscular actions, the
cerebellum may have underpinned human technological adaptations, including the
preconditions of speech. The immediate survival
advantage of encephalization is difficult to discern, as the major brain
changes from Homo erectus to Homo heidelbergensis were not
accompanied by major changes in technology. It has been suggested that the
changes were mainly social and behavioral, including increased empathic abilities,
increases in size of social groups, and increased behavioral
plasticity.
When did family originate
The fossil
record suggests that humans developed their own family system a long time ago,
as early hominids, evidenced by the discovery of family groups of Australopithecines for example. One of the earliest defining human traits, bipedalism -- the ability
to walk on two legs -- evolved over 4 million years ago. Other important human
characteristics -- such as a large and complex brain, the ability to make and
use tools, and the capacity for language -- developed more recently. Many
advanced traits -- including complex symbolic expression, art, and elaborate
cultural diversity -- emerged mainly during the past 100,000 years.
Marriage
The best
available evidence suggests that the institution of marriage is about 4,350 years old. For thousands of years before that, most
anthropologists believe, families consisted of loosely organized groups of as
many as 30 people, with several male leaders, multiple
women shared by them, and children. As hunter-gatherers settled down into
agrarian civilizations, society had a need for more stable arrangements. The
first recorded evidence of marriage ceremonies uniting one woman and one man
dates from about 2350 B.C., in Mesopotamia. Over the next several hundred
years, marriage evolved into a widespread institution embraced by the ancient
Hebrews, Greeks, and Romans. Marriages primary purpose was to
bind women to men, and thus guarantee that a man’s children were truly his biological heirs.
Marriage is a truly
ancient institution that predates recorded history. But early marriage was seen
as a strategic alliance between families, with the youngsters often having no
say in the matter. In some cultures, parents even married one child to the
spirit of a deceased child in order to strengthen familial bonds,
Development of society over time
The
Hunter-Gatherer Family: Hunter-Gatherer families were the first form of
societal families formed. Hunter-Gatherer families were established by informal
marriages in which family members were dependant on one another for food and
survival. Females and children collected herbs, nuts, fruits, vegetables, and
any other necessities that could be found through means of gathering. Men were
required to spend their time hunting and bring meat home to their families.
The Agricultural Family Agricultural
families: began to form when
hunter-gatherers found fertile land and many animals in one area. Food was
grown on the farm, and animals were domesticated thus eliminating the need for
hunting and gathering. Couples began to have more children in order to create a
work force and successfully sustain the farmland. Arranged marriages and
polygamy became popular due to the fact that the result was more children to
work on the farm. Most children stayed at home after marriage in order to
continue helping on the family farm, eventually, this lead to, a very large
extended families living together.
The
Pre-Industrial Family: Many people moved from farms to villages and
towns and setup home businesses. Economy was struggling during this time.
Marriage became an economic necessity, due to the fact that it was near
impossible for single women to get jobs in the workforce. Most couples now were
monogamous and had fewer children because they were no longer needed for labor,
housing was much smaller, and the economy was very poor. However, children were
still a necessity because less than 50% reached adulthood.
The
Urban Industrial Family: Many men started working outside the home now due to
the production of factories in cities and towns. Wage based labor force was
established. Men went out to work in the workforce, while women stayed at home
to take care of the home and children. Women were financially dependent on their
husband's salaries. Children were no longer required to work and had to attend
school until the minimum age of 16 .When young people married, they moved away
from their families because they were now able to sustain themselves. The
family we are most familiar with today, began to take shape during this
era
The
Contemporary Western Family: During the early 1960's women began to work outside
the home alongside men. This lead to many new family types such as the dual
income family, and the DINK family. The birth rate of children began to
steadily decline to an average of 1.5 children per Canadian household and also
elsewhere in the Western world and Japan. Women were granted more rights such
as maternity leave which allows the mother to temporarily leave the workforce
in order to raise her children.
The
Family of the Future: Family of the future will live in much larger
cities than we do today and therefore in much closer proximity with each other.
Major cities will be carefully constructed in order to successfully sustain
extremely large populations. Due to great advancements in technology, most
humans will work from home unless employed by the government or military.
Families will no longer have the right of reproducing. Children will be created
by the government through scientific processes such as cloning and artificial
reproduction, thus allowing for the government to control the population.
Average birth rate will decline because less humans will be needed for jobs,
since they will be replaced by technology. Created children will be evenly
dispersed to families in order to be raised. Dominant family form will be
"NOBO" where children are not related by blood. Family’s goal will be
to raise their child to be a progressive and effective member of society. Women
and men will be 100% equal in the eyes of the society. Women and men will spend
equal time away from and at work except when they are raising a child. In such
a case, they will spend equal time at home. When a child is given to a family,
both parents will receive time off work in order to help with child
rearing
How Have Families Changed over Time
only in the mid- to late-18th Century in Western
Europe and North America "did the notion of free choice and marriage for
love triumph as a cultural ideal opening the way for it to become an optional
and fragile [institution]" thus influencing the structure of the family at
that time and into the future Earlier
in history, during the Stone and Middle Ages, marriage was not based on love
and men and women had very little choice about whom they married. In the Stone
Age men and women married in order to improve the economic situation of their
respective clans, then in the Middle Ages and into the 18th Century
marriage served the economic and political needs of a particular extended
family group
As marriage evolved in the mid- to late-18th Century
into a union based on love, other economic, cultural, and political shifts in
the U.S. and in other nations were happening that would further influence the
structure of the family. In the 19th Century an ideal of the husband
as breadwinner and the wife as homemaker became popular, but the majority of
families could not achieve this ideal, as few jobs paid wages high enough to
support a single-earner family. This changed as World War II ended and the U.S.
experienced a time of dramatic economic growth. The economic prosperity of the
time combined with the popular cultural ideal gave rise to family trends in the
1950s and early 1960s that had never been seen before. "Ozzie and
Harriet" families that married young, remained married, and had many
children were the major family form at this
. The realization of the Ozzie and Harriet ideal did not last long,
however. In the late 1960s and 1970s divorce rates rose, births to unmarried
women increased, and the average age of first marriage also rose. The reasons
for these changes in the '60s and '70s were many: real wages for women rose
while those for men fell, the economy weakened, wives joined the workforce due
to the downturn in the economy, and women gained access to legal rights,
education, birth control, and paid work
This historical examination of the evolution of the family and marriage
shows that the family has constantly been under pressure to evolve and shift
with changes in the economy, our values, and even politics. The evolution of
marriage into an institution of love along with changes in the economy, our
culture, and the political scene since the 1950s has meant that American men and
women have been able to realize their ideals of the male breadwinner and
marriage for the sake of love and personal freedom as time changes.
These influences and trends in marriage, divorce, and
non-marital fertility did not escape rural America. Comparing urban and rural
parts of the country between 1950 and 1970 reveals, however, that rural divorce
rates were lower, fewer women age 20-24 were unmarried, and the number of
children per 1,000 ever married women age 35-44 was slightly higher in rural America
The changes in marriage, divorce, and fertility we observe during the 20th
Century in all parts of the U.S. demonstrate that the structure of families are
changing and becoming more diverse. While there are now many forms available to
people, the family itself is not disappearing.
Why
Do Families Matter?
Children who grow up with only one of their parents or come from
troubled marriages are more likely to
drop out of high school, to become teenage and single mothers, and to have
trouble finding and keeping a steady job in young adulthood, even after
adjusting for differences in parents' socioeconomic background about half of the disadvantages associated
with single parenthood are due to lower incomes [of single parents]. Most of
the rest are due to too little parental involvement and supervision and too
much residential mobility. The psychological, health, and economic benefits of
marriage for families are due to a number of factors like: the effect of
selection (people who are already healthier, more psychologically stable, and
better able to manage finances tend to marry more than those who are not).
Kids forced to endure
loveless marriages and to tolerate emotional tension day after day bear
the full brunt of their parents' dysfunctional relationship. They intuitively
feel their parents’ unhappiness, and sense their coldness and lack of intimacy.
In many cases, children blame themselves, feeling their parents' combative
relationship is somehow their fault. In such cases, staying together “for the
kids” is a cruel joke. The impacts on children, of troubled and failed
marriages are : Our parents’
relationship leaves an emotional imprint on us that never fades. A natural part
of children’s development is internalizing both their parents. When parents are
consistently at odds, their kids internalize those conflicts. Rather than
feeling soothed or comforted when they are with both parents, they feel tense.
Such ongoing tension can produce serious emotional, social, and physical
ailments in children, such as depression,
hopelessness, or chronic fatigue;the war between parents does take root inside
children’s minds. The strain eats away at their security and leaves them with
little internal peace, putting them at odds with their own impulses. For
example, they long to be loved, but reject closeness; they yearn for friends,
but choose isolation; they will have great intellectual or creative abilities,
yet sabotage their own efforts. The external conflict between their parents
eventually becomes an internal battle with themselves that complicates their
life and hinders their emotional development. Children raised by battling
parents have great difficulty getting close to others. Intimacy triggers the traumas
they suffered when witnessing their parents’ dysfunction, so they avoid
closeness to steer clear of getting hurt. If they manage to establish an
intimate relationship, they remain cautious or guarded. When conflict arises,
they’re most likely to flee or to reenact their parents’ conflicts with their
own partner. Warring parents produce children who struggle with serious mood
problems, such as dysthymia. These problems, if left untreated, may fuel personality disorders
or substance abuse.
At the root of these problems is a profound lack of hope. They learn at an
early age to abandon optimism and expect the worst. Sadly, bad marriages cause kids
to mature too quickly and lose out on their childhood.
Society evolution
Human
societal existence commenced with the basic building block, the family, and
from then on graduated to more complex structures .Human beings have progressed
to what they are today, primarily, due this societal structure. This structure
is not static and is still in the process of evolution .Religion, or at least
one religion, suggests that this will eventually lead to the formation of a
universal brotherhood, all humans will be included in the fold of a universal
society. Technological change is one primary cause of this trend. Technology
has managed to bridge the gap of distance. Internet , social networks,
communications innovation have connected people as never before .One can follow
the lives of loved or dear ones even as the life unfolds even though the person
being connected to lives and resides many thousands of miles away .Either
technology is the cause of this or collective human consciousness has sought
such technology ..This evolution is also evident in main one God religions. The
concept of God has evolved from many to One God, and from one who was partial
to a particular ethic group to one who was partial to the followers of a
particular prophet and finally to one who was oblivious to the cast or creed or
color of the followers and good deeds, that strengthened society, were to be rewarded.
No wonder that there is evidence that fairness is an evolving concept, although
it should be said that fairness as such is perhaps not an evolving concept but
the encompass of fairness is widening with time and larger and larger humans
groups are being included into this reach of fairness and eventually all humans
will be included in the reach of fairness.
