Suchergebnisse

David Morgan's contributions to family sociology started from a direct engagement with theoretical perspectives, but his 1996 publication, Family Connections, took his family sociology in a new, somewhat 'fuzzy' direction. Two key motifs for his later work are the emphasis on 'family' as an adjective, and its fruitfulness when conjoined with the doing of 'practices'. Yet his 1996 text also identified key theoretical themes he considered important for family sociology to retain. I trace some of the theoretical concerns that he carried forward in his later work, while drawing attention to some aspects that invite further development, including the significance of everyday family meanings, the challenge of considering 'family practices' beyond affluent Minority worlds, and the need to critique the 'individual' along with the 'family'. I offer this discussion on the basis that family sociology is a central issue for sociology in general as a theoretical enterprise.

This article explores paradigm shifts in family sociology from the 1960s to the 1990s using a thematic content analysis of 7 multiple-edition texts. Two competing views on theoretical developments are examined. David Cheal claims that challenges posed to structural functionalist hegemony resulted in theoretical pluralism and an end to this hegemony. Dorothy Smith argues that Parson's theoretical assumptions are so deeply embedded in the discourse of family sociology that they continue to govern major issues and debates. As late as the 1990s, we found that structural functionalism continued to frame many topics and debates in the majority of texts even when new concepts and more critical literature were added. Notable exceptions were textbook treatments of African American families and gender issues. This suggests that the relative success of social movements in institutionalizing their goals may be an important factor in determining paradigm shifts.

'In diesen einleitenden Bemerkungen nimmt der Moderator der Familienwissenschaftlichen Konferenz Stellung zum Verhältnis zwischen Familienpsychologie und Familiensoziologie, zum wachsenden Einfluss der Rational-Choice-Theorie auf letztere, sowie während der Tagung recht lebhaften Debatte über Stabilität und Wandel des Familienleitbildes im 20. Jahrhundert. Abschließend plädiert er für eine Dekomposition des so stark einheitsbetonten Familienbegriff.' (Autorenreferat)

It is advanced that: (1) the proposition that the field of marriage & the fam is a sci is open to serious question, & (2) the acceptance of this proposition, plus the field's contention that sci can save the fam, entail certain logical contradictions that the field has not fully considered & which it is obligated to consider before continuing on its current sci'fic crusade. The 1st point is treated briefly, since it has been previously examined by others, eg, Kingsley Davis & William Kolb. The 2nd point is examined at length & the focus of attention is summarized in the following statement: if the fam is a primary soc group, & if such a group is characterized by subjectivistic, particularistic types of soc relationships as sociol'ts have long declared, is there not the possibility that such subjectivism & particularism, which constitute the very essence of a primary relationship, may be undermined by a sci'fic investigation whose nature is rationalistic & universalistic in orientation? It is this question which the field of marriage & the fam must entertain. It is felt that its answer must be clearly in the negative, else the field may well undermine its traditionally central goal of fam welfare which it has seemed so anxious to preserve. AA.