Introduction
The
history of the family
is a branch of social
history that concerns the socio cultural evolution
of kinship
groups from prehistoric to modern times.
The family has a universal and basic
role in all societies. Research on the history of the family crosses
disciplines and cultures, aiming to understand the structure and function of a
family from many viewpoints, for example, sociological, ecological
or economical
perspectives are used t
o view the interrelationships between individuals, their
relatives and the historical time. The study of family history has shown that
family systems are flexible, culturally diverse and adaptive to ecological and
economical conditions. For a recent worldwide overview covering 7000 years see
Maynes and Waltner (2012). There is no right or
wrong answer when it comes to what is the best type of family structure. As
long as a family is filled with love and support for one another, it tends to
be successful and prosper. Family need to do what is best for each other and
themselves that can be achieved in almost in any unit.
Definitions of key terms
Pre-industrial
society refers to specific social attributes and forms of
political and cultural organization that were prevalent before the advent of
the Industrial Revolution,
which occurred from 1750 to 1850. It is followed by the industrial society (Grinin, L. 2007)
Family
(from Latin:
familia)
is a group
of people
affiliated by consanguinity
(by recognized birth), affinity
(by marriage), or co-residence/shared consumption(Schneider, David 1984)
Family
is the group of people consisting of two parents and their children living
together as a unity (Collins, 2003)
Family structure
is the way that the household or family is set up, (http://answers
.ask.com/society/other/whatisfamily).
Fertility the ability to produce offspring;
power of reproduction,(http://dictionary.reference.com/ fertility).
The following the
family structure and fertility of pre-industrial society both in Africa, Europe
and Asian countries on how the families were structured and the trend of
fertility on these societies.
Family members worked together
in agriculture and small house industries. Alongside pre-industrial society grew gradually the
beginnings of an industrial system called the cottage industry.
Agricultural families worked at night in their cottages to spin or weave cloth
with rudimentary machines, such as an old spinning wheel.
Merchants moving about the countryside would provide raw materials (wool or
cotton) to the families, pay the workers for the finished product (such as
woven or spun cloth), take the goods to market, and keep the profit from the
sale, reinvesting in his or her trade. Skilled craftspeople in the towns and
cities were paid more, so the cottage industry allowed the merchant to find
cheap labor in the countryside. For their part, rural families appreciated the
opportunity to earn extra money and the convenience of working out of their
homes, with different family members, such as children, pitching in to help (http://www.jstor.org/stable/679076).
Pre-Industrial Families 1600-1800 had large numbers of
children. Family life in the pre-industrial period was characterized by the dominance of a family-based economy.
All family members worked at productive tasks differentiated by sex and
age. No sharp distinction was made between family and society. In
addition to its economic task of providing employment, the family performed
many functions such as health care, education, welfare etc. The pre-industrial family, was on an organized unit of
production. There was clear division of labor among the family members, that is
father mother and their children. Male members of the family play the central
role of hunting for the provision of food.
Family structure and household composition in this period it
is sometimes known as the classical extended family this consisted of male head of the family, his wife and
children, his aging parents (who will have passed on the farm). Together they
worked as a productive unit producing the things needed to sustain the
family’s survival. The key point is the kin relationship during this period is
one of binding obligations. The obligation of carrying on working on the farm
for the family’s survival.
Wives and Husbands in the early
colonial period,
marriages were arranged based on the social and economic purposes of larger kin
groups. Romantic love was not wholly absent, but marriage was more of a
contractual agreement based upon a specific and sharp gender-based division of
labour. A shortage of women in this period enhanced the status of women,
but despite this, wives were unquestionably subordinate to their husbands.
Children families of the
premodern period
reared large numbers of children, but household size was not very large because
childbearing extended over a long span of years. Children’s religious
training was intensive and discipline severe. Childhood was recognized as
a separate stage of development, and children, like
spouses, were viewed in economic terms. Social class and regional differences, however, are
responsible for some variation in the lives of children.
Home and work were not separated. Daily life in pre-industrial times changed very little for Europeans.
Almost all people lived and worked in the country. From 1300 to 1750, for the
average peasant, people’s work and social life mixed, as families lived on
small plots of land, growing crops mostly for home consumption. Children
learned to milk cows, churn butter, and tend to farm animals. Generation after
generation, rural families relied on tools that had changed little over the
centuries, such as wooden plows dependent on beasts of burden to pull them. For
centuries, the English diet consisted mostly of dark rye bread and porridge,
with very little meat. As a rule, Europeans ate few fruits or vegetables,
believing they could cause disease, depression, and flatulence. Most people
were illiterate and rarely bathed. Their idea of healthcare was that physical suffering
from an illness was God’s divine way of purifying the soul. Ignorant of
microbiology and the germ theory, medieval and early modern physicians relied
more on astrology and bloodletting than science. This traditional agrarian
lifestyle and outlook held true for generations.
Demographers
distinguish fertility
(actual reproduction) from fecundity (the capacity for reproduction). The
distinction is important, because in all societies actual reproduction is less,
often much less, than the potential maximum. The rather wide variations in
actual fertility among societies have no known general relation to differences
in fecundity. In specific instances, low fertility may be explained by such
biological factors as venereal disease. However, it is likely that group
fertility levels vary generally in relation to social factors that affect
either the social norms about the proper number of children or a limited number
of means of fertility control. These means are intermediate between the social organization or
social norms, on the one hand, and actual fertility, on the other hand, (Davis
and Blake, 1956).
Another clear trend in
pre-industrial society saw the population not growing
very much from generation to generation, Poverty, war, plague, and poor
hygiene resulted in high death rates, especially among young people. Even in
the 1600s, approximately 25% of newborn children died before their first
birthday and another 25% died before their tenth. Death was so common amongst
the young, epidemics of influenza, typhoid fever, typhus, dysentery, and plague
were frighteningly common. In the extreme, the infamous Black Death killed 25
million Europeans from 1348 to 1351 out of a total population of 80 million
(131). This means that in just 3 years, almost 1/3 of the population of Europe
died.
Pre-industrial
population did not increase substantially in Europe for hundreds of years, for example, the area of Europe now
known as Germany had an estimated population of 12 million in the year 1300.
Over the course of 400 years, the population only increased to 15 million, a
20% increase over four centuries (4). To put that in perspective, the U.S.
population in the 100 years between 1900 and 2000 increased from 76 million to
281 million, a 400% increased in just a century.
Wealth in
pre-industrial European society was concentrated in the hands of the few, while poverty was common. In
Florence, Italy, in 1427, 10% of the populations were merchants, landowners,
nobility controlled 68% of wealth. And in England in 1700, one contemporary
estimated that of a total population of 5.3 million people, nearly 25% were
living in poverty
Most people in pre-industrial
England lived on a subsistence level with little or
no savings. If they
were cursed with a stroke of bad luck that caused economic hardship, they could
not rely on social safety nets to save them from resorting to begging. Most
peasants struggled simply to meet the basic needs of their families. In England
between the 15th and 18th centuries, 70 to 80% of household income went to
buying food. And yet, society typically depended on peasants for food and taxes
(a percentage of personal income paid to the nobles or the government). Though
they controlled a majority of the wealth in Europe in the form of land, the
clergy and the nobility were usually not taxed, putting a further burden on
peasants and craftsmen.
Conclusion
Despite
a lack of relevant empirical evidence, the proposition that the extended family
encourages and facilitates high fertility has become widely accepted. Out of
this traditional and apparently unchanging pre-industrial life grew,
surprisingly the seeds of modern industry and society, although most people
lived in the country, cities flourished as early as the 13th century in
Northern Italy and later in Holland, Belgium, and England. Pre-Industrial cities like Florence
became the centers of learning, craft production, mechanical repairing, and
brave new engineering, this incremental innovation paved the way for the later
frenzy of inventions that occurred during the productive Industrial Revolution.
References
Thomas,
K. and Murray, G. (1970), Journal of Marriage and Family, Auburn House
Publishing Co. Boston.
International
Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences | 1968 |
Grinin, L. 2007. Periodization of History: A theoretic-mathematical
analysis
Schneider, David. (1984), A
Critique of the Study of Kinship. Ann Arbor: University of
Michigan Press
http://www.jstor.org/stable/679076
Written By AUSI CHIWAMBO (2014)-Teofilo Kisanji University
No comments:
Post a Comment