1

A. SHEPHERD

Question: How did industrialization impact on the transformation of the family? Discuss.

Name: Aqilah Shepherd

Course: SOC 1100

Semester: One (1)

Undergraduate, University of Guyana

 2
A. SHEPHERD

Today men and women are employed in factories, and other services for existence
and provision of their infinite wants and needs. Technological advancements have aided
by creating a mass production to satisfy all these needs and wants. Families spend more
time outside the home working or spending their leisure time, or gaining knowledge.

What has caused such an event? Many sociologist and historians have attempted
to explain such event which lies with the emergence of industrialization. It affected every
aspect of human life. One may ask how it impacted on the transformation of the family.
In order to fully comprehend this issue we must understand: what is the family,
industrialization, the state of family before industrialization, and the state of the family in
the industrial context. Then we must consider how these affected the family; roles, social
and physical structure, health and socioeconomic status. It is quite apparent that the
industrialization may have impacted the various classes of family i.e. the upper class, the
middle class and the lower class or working class. In fact one must note that the
emergence of the middle class was due to the industrialization. However for the purpose
of this research one must steer our focus on how it impacted the working class family.

According to Giddens (2009) a family is a group of persons directly linked by kin

connections, the adult members of whom assume responsibility of caring for children.

Haralambos, Holborn and Heald (2008), defines industrialization as the mass production
of goods in a factory system which involves some degree of mechanized production
technology. It occurred during the period of 18th to the 19th century where major changes
in agriculture, manufacturing, mining, transport, and technology had a profound effect on
the socioeconomic and cultural conditions starting in the United, then subsequently
spreading throughout Europe, North America, and eventually the world .It was a major
turning point in history; almost every aspect of daily life was eventually influenced in some
way, that included the family. Such occurrence makes us question the state of the family
before industrialization (i.e. the pre-industrial family).
 3
A. SHEPHERD

The pre-industrial family was seen as the ‘classical extended family’, made known
by C.M. Arnsberg and S.T. Kimball in (Haralambos et al., 2008). This family type existed
in a peasant farming society, it was characterized by a patriarchal structure i.e. the male
was seen as the head and also seen as patrilineal structure where the property was
passed down the male line. Together they worked as a production unit; working as a team
for the family’s survival. Their functions were all encompassing.

Eventually with the verge of the industrial period the father had to leave their home
to earn a daily wage. Even the women worked creating an egalitarian structure (decisions
were made by both parents).This meant that power began to split as man was not the
only breadwinner more so the roles had changed. More importantly what this meant for
the women was ‘freedom’.

Parsons and Goode saw a social evolution where the extended family transformed to
the ‘isolated nuclear family’. It is isolated because it does not form an integral part of a
wider system of kinship relationships (Haralambos et al., 2008). Among the reasons for
this social evolution are as follows:

a) The increase need of movement from the rural area to a industrial town, it was
quite impractical for the extended family to have such continuous movement for
one person to have a job opportunity (Doob, 1985).
b) Another reason was that social mobility persisted in the industrial society this
supported the development of the nuclear family, which is relatively small and
flexible and allowed people to confirm to their lifestyles of success without
encountering extensive criticism from kin (Haralambos et al., 2008).
c) Domestic obligations for extended family were time consuming whereas the
isolated nuclear family had fewer obligations therefore that suited the industrial
context (Doob, 1985). .
d) The functions of the family were eroded, and these were being taken over by
external organizations such as schools, businesses and the state. Structural
differentiation and the greater significance of achieved status within the family
 4
A. SHEPHERD

undermined the value of status within the family and in kinship groups, all
accounted for the social evolution (Doob, 1985).

However, many have criticized Parson’s ‘isolated family’. Peter Laslett; a historian,
found that for the period between 1564 and 1821, 10 percent of the households contained
a kin beyond the nuclear family (Haralambos et al., 2008). Michael Anderson, Michael
Young and Peter Willmott argued that due to low wages, wide spread poverty and high
unemployment rate the family needed a mutual aid. Therefore they needed a larger kin
like grandparents to help take care of the children while they were working. In their view
this suited the industrial context. What this meant was that they maintained kinship
relationship if such relationship brought them reward commensurate to their efforts to
maintain them.

In addition, the physical structure was predominately nuclear. According to empirical

evidence shown from the 1851 Preston census 23 percent of the households contained
a kin larger than the nuclear family. This meant that the 77 percent was predominately
nuclear while the 23 percent was other forms of family type more so extended. Even
though Laslett has presented empirical data he also was criticized, the main argument
being that the pre- industrial Europe was characterized by family diversity without any
one type being predominant (Haralambos et al., 2008).

Furthermore, the industrial impact on the family still persists in our current society.
Since we are consumers, and we depend on the institutions and services such as the
school, health care, recreation, police and other protection bodies, these help to provide
protection, and help in the socializing process. For instance, we depend on the school to
further educate our children on sexuality and the church instills many values and
teachings, thus lessening the role and strain of the family.

However, it is somewhat quite difficult to relate everything presented and

generalize it since many of these studies presented are based on the Western societies.
It has failed to identify how industrialization has affected family life in labour intensive poor
 5
A. SHEPHERD

countries. The sheer diversity of experiences makes it impossible to make blanket

statements about how industrialization affects family life (Ferrante, 1995).

Essentially, the transfer of the family’s function may also be seen as a danger to
family members of the early industrial society and to us today since it meant dependence
on institutions such as schools and other social services. There was a rise in delinquents;
therefore extra capital must be spent to provide adequate social services to deal with
deviant behaviors.

Other negative impacts on the industrial family were: high rates of infant mortality
and death from childbirth. As alluded to Accampo (1989), women worked in factories until
they delivered babies and then immediately resumed work. Between 1861 and 1870,
Mulhouse averaged 33 infant deaths per 100 legitimate births, this meant the family
became relatively smaller.

It ventured child rearing difficulties; according to Aronson (2009), the movement from
extended to nuclear was not always beneficial, since husbands and wives had to reinvent
childrearing techniques with no relatives it was a seemingly hard task. This also
contributed to infant mortality since in France especially, the practice of sending children
out to wet-nurses continued to be widespread, and hygiene reports blamed infant
mortality on women who did not breastfeed their own children (Industrialization Changed
The Family, para.1). This not only contribute to infant mortality but also deviant behaviors
of the child or children since in most cases both parents had to work.

The power and authority of fathers over their sons was destroyed. According to
Accampo (1989), factory organization encouraged insubordination toward the father, for
the son did not work under his direction. Working for the same employer placed father
and son in a position of equality and sometimes even put the latter in a superior position
.This meant that the father’s power figure dwindled and his authority is seen as equal to
the son’s or even less.

The removal of productive labour itself disorganized the family and reduced the home
to a mere shelter for eating and sleeping. Parents and children returned from the factories
 6
A. SHEPHERD

too exhausted for conversation or education (Accampo, 1989). According to Haralambos

and Holborn (2008) the women made close relations with their family alienating the man.
Thus showing disjointed relations between husband and wife. This created broken bonds
and social ties. No social ties meant; no shared sacraments, no recreation within the
home and so one must seek for excitement outside the home.

However, some sociologist found that it does not necessarily disrupt kinship relations
because family members can keep in touch by telephone and mail. They saw that despite
the distance separation can even enhance relationships; since it teaches members not to
take one another for granted but to enjoy and appreciate the limited time available for
interaction (Ferrante, 1995).

Another issue was that the concentration of workers into industrial urban slums made
them more visible. There was not sufficient living space therefore there was over crowded
housing, and no proper sanitation. What did it mean for the families’ health and more so
education? It meant poor health conditions and contracting disease such as typhoid,
cholera and so on, therefore contributing to high mortality rates.

For working class people’s education may not be an option since due to the harsh
situation of high unemployment rate and low wages everyone needed to contribute
economically thus children had to work to assist the family. Conditions such as slums
allowed crime to permeate. Crime and poverty made it apparent that workers' home lives
had become a source of moral degeneracy (Accampo, 1989).Therefore their values may
have changed as some accepted and adopted deviant behaviors.

Conclusion

The pre-industrial Working classes Family were completely transformed due to the
harsh conditions of industrialization. The transformation affected the members of the
family; roles, structure, health and socioeconomic status. These changes decreased the
 7
A. SHEPHERD

family’s functions in the socialization of the child and it became the responsibility of
institutions such as the school thereby enhancing the possibilities of delinquency.

The employment of mother and father created a detachment from the parent and
child and even between themselves (mother and father). It allowed the emergence of
egalitarianism among the mother and father and even the child or children that were
working. Their living conditions and working conditions severely affected their health since
it was the major cause of the high mortality rate and contraction of infections and
diseases. This impact has affected us in present day.
 8
A. SHEPHERD

References

Books:

 Aronson, A. (2009). Sociology Now the Essentials. New York: Pearson Publishers.
 Doob, C. (1985). Sociology An introduction. New York: Rinehart & Winston Inc.
 Ferranter, J. (1995). Sociology: A Global Perspective. New York. Wadsworth
Publishing Company.
 Giddens, A. (2009).Sociology (6th ed.). Malden, United States of America: Polity
Press.
 Haralambos, M., Holborn, M. & Heald, R. (2008) Sociology Themes and
Perspectives (7th ed.). London: Harper Collins Publishers Ltd.

Electronic sources:

 Accampo, Elinor. Industrialization, Family Life, and Class Relations: Saint

Chamond, 1815-1914. Berkeley: University of California Press, c1989
1989.Retrieved from:http://ark.cdlib.org/ark:/13030/ft8f59p261/

 Industrialization Changed The Family. (n.d).Retrieved from: http://family.jrank.org