Back to the SyllabusFrom "The Kinship System of the Contemporary United States,"Essays in Sociological Theory. New York: Free Press, 1954, pp.189-194.
Much psychological research has suggested the very greatimportance to the individual of his affective ties, established inearly childhood, to other members of his family of orientation. Whenstrong affective ties have been formed, it seems reasonable tobelieve that situational pressures which force their drasticmodification will impose important strains upon the individual.
Since all known kinship systems impose an incest tabu, thetransition from asexual intrafamilial relationships to the sexualrelation of marriage--generally to a previously relatively unknownperson--is general. But with us this transition is accompanied by aprocess of "emancipation" from the ties both to parents and tosiblings which is considerably more drastic than in most kinshipsystems, especially in that it applies to both sexes about equally,and includes emancipation from solidarity with all members ofthe family of orientation about equally, so that there is relativelylittle continuity with any kinship ties established by birthfor anyone.
The effect of these factors is reinforced by two others. Since theeffective kinship unit is normally the small conjugal family, thechild's emotional attachments to kin are confined to relatively fewpersons instead of being distributed more widely. Especiallyimportant, perhaps, is the fact that no other adult woman has a roleremotely similar to that of the mother. Hence the average intensityof affective involvement in family relations is likely to be high.Secondly, the child's relations outside the family are only to asmall extent ascribed. Both in the play group and in the school hemust to a large extent "find his own level" in competition withothers. Hence the psychological significance of his security withinthe family is heightened.
We have then a situation where at the same time the inevitableimportance of family ties is intensified and a necessity to becomeemancipated from them is imposed. This situation would seem to have agood deal to do with the fact that with us adolescence-- andbeyond--is, as has been frequently noted, a "difficult" period in thelife cycle. In particular, associated with this situation is theprominence in our society of what has been called a ''youth culture,"a distinctive pattern of values and attitudes of the age groupsbetween childhood and the assumption of full adult responsibilities.This youth culture, with its irresponsibility, its pleasure-seeking,its "rating and dating," and its intensification of the romantic lovepattern, is not a simple matter of "apprenticeship" in adult valuesand responsibilities. It bears many of the marks of reaction toemotional tension and insecurity, and in all probability has amongits functions that of easing the difficult process of adjustment fromchildhood emotional dependency to full "maturity." In it we findstill a third element underlying the prominence of the romantic lovecomplex in American society.
The emphasis which has here been placed on the multilinealsymmetry of our kinship structure might be taken to imply that oursociety was characterized by a correspondingly striking assimilationof the roles of the sexes to each other. It is true that Americansociety manifests a high level of the "emancipation" of women, whichin important respects involves relative assimilation to masculineroles, in accessibility to occupational opportunity, in legal rightsrelative to property holding, and in various other respects.Undoubtedly the kinship system constitutes one of the important setsof factors underlying this emancipation since it does not, as do somany kinship systems, place a structural premium on the role ofeither sex in the maintenance of the continuity of kinship relations.
But the elements of sex-role assimilation in our society areconspicuously combined with elements of segregation which in manyrespects are even more striking than in other societies, as forinstance in the matter of the much greater attention given by womento style and refinement of taste in dress and personal appearance.This and other aspects of segregation are connected with thestructure of kinship, but not so much by itself as in itsinterrelations with the occupational system.
The members of the conjugal family in our urban society normallyshare a common basis of economic support in the form of money income,but this income is not derived from the co-operative efforts of thefamily as a unit--its principal source lies in the remuneration ofoccupational roles performed by individual members of the family.Status in an occupational role is generally, however, specificallysegregated from kinship status -- person holds a "job" as anindividual, not by virtue of his status in a family
Among the occupational statuses of members of a family, if thereis more than one, much the most important is that of the husband andfather, not only because it is usually the primary source of familyincome, but also because it is the most important single basis of thestatus of the family in the community at large. To be the main"breadwinner" of his family is a primary role of the normal adult manin our society. The corollary of this role is his far smallerparticipation than that of his wife in the internal affairs of thehousehold. Consequently, "housekeeping" and the care of children isstill the primary functional content of the adult feminine role inthe ''utilitarian" division of labor. Even if the married woman has ajob, it is, at least in the middle classes, in the great majority ofcases not one which in status or remuneration competes closely withthose held by men of her own class. Hence there is a typicallyasymmetrical relation of the marriage pair to the occupationalstructure.
This asymmetrical relation apparently both has exceedinglyimportant positive functional significance and is at the same time animportant source of strain in relation to the patterning of sexroles.
On the positive functional side, a high incidence of certain typesof patterns is essential to our occupational system and to theinstitutional complex in such fields as property and exchange whichmore immediately surround this system. In relatively commonsenseterms it requires scope for the valuation of personal achievement,for equality of opportunity, for mobility in response to technicalrequirements, for devotion to occupational goals and interestsrelatively unhampered by "personal" consideration. In more technicalterms it requires a high incidence of technical competence, ofrationality, of universalistic norms, and of functional specificity.All these are drastically different from the patterns which aredominant in the area of kinship relations, where ascription of statusby birth play a prominent part, and where roles are defined primarilyin particularistic and functionally diffuse terms.
It is quite clear that the type of occupational structure which isso essential to our society requires a far-reaching structuralsegregation of occupational roles from the kinship roles of thesame individuals. They must, in the occupational system, betreated primarily as individuals. This is a situation drasticallydifferent from that found in practically all non-literate societiesand in many that are literate.
At the same time, it cannot be doubted that a solidary kinshipunit has functional significance of the highest order, especially inrelation to the socialization of individuals and to the deeperaspects of their psychological security. What would appear to havehappened is a process of' mutual accommodation between these twofundamental aspects of our social structure. On the one hand ourkinship system is of a structural type which, broadly speaking,interferes least with the functional needs of the occupationalsystem, above all in that it exerts relatively little pressure forthe ascription of an individual's social status--through classaffiliation, property, and of course particular "jobs"--by virtue ofhis kinship status. The conjugal unit can be mobile in statusindependently of the other kinship ties of its members, that is,those of the spouses to the members of their families of orientation
But at the same time this small conjugal unit can be a stronglysolidary unit. This is facilitated by the prevalence of the patternthat normally only one of its members has an occupational rolewhich is of determinate significance for the status of the family asa whole. Minor children, that is, as a rule do not "work," and whenthey do, it is already a major step in the process of emancipationfrom the family of orientation. The wife and mother is eitherexclusively a "housewife" or at most has a "job" rather than a"career."
There are perhaps two primary functional aspects of thissituation. In the first place, by confining the number ofstatus-giving occupational roles of the members of the effectiveconjugal unit to one, it eliminates any competition for status,especially as between husband and wife, which might be disruptive ofthe solidarity of marriage. So long as lines of achievement aresegregated and not directly comparable, there is less opportunity forjealousy, a sense of inferiority, etc, to develop. Secondly, it aidsin clarity of definition of the situation by making the status of thefamily in the community relatively definite and unequivocal. There ismuch evidence that this relative definiteness of status is animportant fact of in psychological security.
The same structural arrangements which have this positivefunctional significance also give rise to important strains. What hasbeen said above about the pressure for thoroughgoing emancipationfrom the family of orientation is a case in point. But in connectionwith the sex-role problem there is another important source ofstrain.
Historically, in Western culture, it may perhaps be fairly saidthat there has been a strong tendency to define the feminine rolepsychologically as one strongly marked by elements of dependency. Oneof the best symbols perhaps was the fact that until rather recentlythe married woman was not sui juris, could not hold property,make contracts, or sue in her own right. But in the modern Americankinship system, to say nothing of other aspects of the culture andsocial structure, there are at least two pressures which tend tocounteract this dependency and have undoubtedly played a part in themovement for feminine emancipation.
The first, already much discussed, is the multilineal symmetry ofthe kinship system which gives no basis of sex discrimination, andwhich in kinship terms favors equal rights and responsibilities forboth parties to a marriage. The second is the character of themarriage relationship. Resting as it does primarily on affectiveattachment for the other person as a concrete human individual, a"personality," rather than on more objective considerations ofstatus, it puts a premium on a certain kind of mutuality andequality. There is no clearly structured superordination-subordination pattern. Each is a fully responsible "partner" with aclaim to a voice in decisions, to a certain human dignity, to be"taken seriously." Surely the pattern or romantic love which makeshis relation to the "woman he loves" the most important single thingin a man's life, is incompatible with the view that she is aninferior creature, fit only for dependency on him.
In our society, however, occupational status has tremendous weightin the scale of prestige values. The fact that the normal marriedwoman is debarred from testing or demonstrating her fundamentalequality with her husband in competitive occupational achievement,creates a demand for a functional equivalent. At least in the middleclasses, however, this cannot be found in the utilitarian functionsof the role of housewife since these are treated as relatively menialfunctions. To be, for instance, an excellent cook, does not give ahired maid a moral claim to a higher status than that of domesticservant.
This situation helps perhaps to account for a conspicuous tendencyfor the feminine role to emphasize broadly humanistic rather thantechnically specialized achievement values. One of the key patternsis that of "good taste," in personal appearance, house furnishings,cultural things like literature and music. To a large and perhapsincreasing extent the more humanistic cultural traditions andamenities of life are carried on by women. Since these things are ofhigh intrinsic importance in the scale of values of our culture, andsince by virtue of the system of occupational specialization evenmany highly superior men are greatly handicapped in respect to them,there is some genuine redressing of the balance between the sexes.
There is also, however, a good deal of direct evidence of tensionin the feminine role. In the "glamor girl" pattern, use ofspecifically feminine devices as an instrument of compulsive searchfor power and exclusive attention are conspicuous. Many women succumbto their dependency cravings through such channels as neuroticillness or compulsive domesticity and thereby abdicate both theirresponsibilities and their opportunities for genuine independence.Many of the attempts to excel in approved channels of achievement aremarred by garishness of taste, by instability in response to fad andfashion, by a seriousness in community or club activities which isout of proportion to the intrinsic importance of the task. In all ofthese and other fields there are conspicuous signs of insecurity andambivalence. Hence it may be concluded that the feminine role is aconspicuous focus of the strains inherent in our social structure,and not the least of the sources of these strains is to be found inthe functional difficulties in the integration of our kinship systemwith the rest of the social structure.