Family: Variations and Changes Across Cultures
In order to study psychological phenomena cross-culturally, it is necessary to understand the different types of family in cultures throughout the world and also how family types are related to cultural features of societies. This article discusses: The definitions and the structure and functions of family; the different family types and relationships with kin; the ecocultural determinants of variations of family types, e.g, ecological features, means of subsistence, political and legal system, education and religion; changes in family in different cultures; the influence of modernization and globalization on family change throughout the world. Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 License. This article is available in Online Readings in Psychology and Culture: http://scholarworks.gvsu.edu/orpc/vol6/iss3/3
Health Care Professionals and Family Perspectives of Youth's Trauma: Suggestions for Coaching and Self-Leadership
Family forms the first and most important social institution in every society. Although traumatised families may be the root of much personal and social turmoil, a healthy community and family is the most vital way to deal with social change and challenges. In the light of increasing violence and trauma in South Africa, youths adverse exposures to violence and trauma have been identified as a distressing health care problem globally and for our communities and families at large. This study sought to explore and describe community and family perspectives of youth's trauma in order to propose a holistic support approach. A qualitative approach was followed and participants (health care professionals and parents) were purposefully selected. Data were gathered through interviews, a focus group and field notes. Data were analysed thematically. Health care professionals and parents shared similar experiences and concerns relating to their perceptions of youths' experiences of trauma. Parents however had a more negative regard of the youth and their capabilities to deal with trauma. The trauma experience was seldom contained to the individual but had a traumatising ripple effect on the parents, and community. This often left the entire system feeling helpless and depleted of resources to cope.
The Myth of the Nuclear Family
Before considering a particular concern about Doukas and Berg’s “The Family Covenant and Genetic Testing” (2001), I want to acknowledge the many merits of the piece. The motivations for this piece are ones that it would be wise for those of us concerned with medical practice to consider adopting. In particular, the authors should be applauded for their explicit acknowledgment that a good (both in ethical and practical terms) practice of medicine acknowledges the context of an individual—that an individual is never an island unto himself or herself. In addition, they should be commended for providing a realistic portrayal of the way in which medicine is actually practiced: in a social context rather than in a vacuum that contains only the physician, the patient, and an adequately stocked examination room. Lastly, the underlying message regarding preventive care of relationships is a powerful and positive one: the complicated situations that might arise as a result of genetic testing can often be prevented by explaining what information might become available during testing—for example, nonpaternity or a predisposition to a condition that may be carried by other family members. My concern begins with Doukas and Berg’s claim that “when an individual receives genetic testing, the results may be relevant to many, if not all, family members.” As their article implies, this familial relationship need not be a “direct” genetic relationship; for example, if two nongenetically related persons are biological parents of the same child, their interests in the test results for one of them is the result in part of the joint genetic relationship they have through the child. An underlying assumption of the article is—reasonably—that at least some family members will have a genetic relationship to one another; thus, in creating family covenants, many of the persons who will be affected directly by the genetic information will be included. But is it the case that in fact a family consists of persons who are genetically related? Or, to present the problem in another way, can we assume that the ties of affection and reliance that characterize families necessarily characterize the relationships of those with close genetic relations? I would argue that families are not necessarily persons with genetic relationships, though genetic relations are clearly an important basis of most familial structures. According to the U.S. Census Bureau Economics and Statistics Administration, as of 1998, only 69% of children live in a two-parent family; the rest are nontraditional groupings. The same type of trend can be seen if we look to percentage of families not found in the traditional grouping: the single-mother family makes up 26% of U.S. households, and single-father families make up 5% (Casper and Bryson 1998). The number of persons living in nontraditional households has shown a nearly consistent increase since 1970, and the trend is likely to continue. Moreover, the 1995 U.S. Census notes that even the twoparent families do not necessarily involve biological relation, as they include stepparents and adoptive parents (Casper and Bryson 1998). A signiacant portion of children (approximately 9%) lives with a biological or adoptive parent and a stepparent. In certain populations this is particularly important; for example in African American populations, where 70% of births are to women who are not married (though not all of these households will therefore be single-parent households). If adult males are present in the household, they are often not those with a genetic relationship to the children present. Lastly, it is wise to consider abuse statistics—the National Committee for the Prevention of Child Abuse (1995) reports that over 3 million children were reported to CPS because of child abuse; spousal abuse is also an issue. The result is that even in family structures that are apparently traditional, we cannot guarantee that trust is an appropriate assumption in any and all cases. What I do not mean to argue by these statistics is that Doukas and Berg’s model is therefore inapplicable to a large number of families. This would clearly be fallacious. Moreover, it is not required that families be genetically related in order for the family covenant to work as described. However, the concern that I would like to raise involves the presumed beneat of creating family covenants. Doukas and Berg give two reasons for putting such a model into effect: