The Transition to Adulthood and Family Relations

An Intergenerational Approach

Eugenia Scabini, Elena Marta, Margherita Lanz

• Publisher: Psychology Press
• Year: 2007
• ISBN:
  9781135424350
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Psychology
• Subtopic: History & Theory in Psychology
• Index: Psychology

This book explores the development of a new path of transition between adolescence and adulthood in recent generations. Whereas traditionally the transition into adulthood was marked by a clear and irreversible change in condition, we are now seeing a continuance in the role and influence of the family on the young adult. What consequences does this have for our society? Is the persistence of emotional bonds which previously loosened during adolescence, inhibiting young people from developing into full adulthood?

The authors present a clear and in-depth analysis of the theoretical framework surrounding the transition into adulthood both from a generational point of view and a relationship-centred perspective. The findings of international research are presented and compared across generations, gender and geographical location within Europe. The different research methods of 'family related research' and 'family research' are also distinguished and analysed.

This volume offers an original and multi-faceted review of this topic. The family is considered as an organization, and the interdependencies and interconnections between its members, the generations and genders investigated. It offers a unique contribution to the current literature and will appeal to an international audience of researchers, policy makers and educators both in academic and professional spheres.

Part I
The theoretical and methodological background

1
The identity of the family

INTRODUCTION

The family appears to be an easy object to study. Each of us tends to think that his or her experience of the family can be readily understood by others whose own family experiences coincide with our own type of family, which also happens to be the most prevalent type of family in our own historical period. A historical perspective, based on the long view, immediately belies this commonly held misconception. Even a cursory reading of the evidence plainly reveals the difference between the current organization of the so-called nuclear family, clearly demarcated from relatives and geographic community, and the premodern family, whose boundaries are extremely permeable to external influences. In the latter family type, the married couple, under the husband’s authority, was often undifferentiated from relatives and the community. As Laslett and Wall (1972) clearly demonstrated in their studies on European families, over the centuries we have seen the demise and resurgence of many types of family (nuclear, without structure, extended, multiple, complex): the list goes on to include today’s broken families, stepfamilies and immigrant families from various cultures that, thanks to our global society, find themselves living in proximity to each other with increasing frequency.

Faced with such a rich variety of family forms, past and present, it is crucial to answer the following questions: What are the elements that constitute the family’s identity beyond the particular forms it has assumed? What is the perspective that is best able to fathom its nature?

In the light of these preliminary observations, our first task will be to acquaint the reader with the theoretical framework and perspective that direct our efforts to observe and understand the fascinating and complex world of the family.

How can we define the family? An answer that immediately comes to mind is that the family is a group. Lewin (1951) says of the group that it is something different from the sum of its members: it has its own structure, peculiar aims and particular relations with other groups. Its essence is not constituted by the similarity or dissimilarity found between its members, but by their interdependence. It can be defined as a dynamic totality. This means that a change in the condition of any of its parts impacts the state of all the others. This definition is well suited to the structural and functional characteristics of the family. Each member of the family exists in reciprocal relationship with the others, influences them and is influenced by them (Levine & Moreland, 1998). More specifically, in early studies of groups, Cooley (1909) had already pointed out that the family is a particular type of group, a primary group, since it carries out a fundamental role in building both individual identity and society. Indeed, the family is at the origin of the phenomenon of civilization itself in that it guarantees the generative process in biological, psychological, social, and cultural terms (Murdock, 1949). Many authors have tried to discern the distinctive aspects of the family with respect to other types of group. In particular, the comparison was carried out with artificial groups, which attracted, after Lewin, a good deal of the experimental investigation. This perspective has given us the very concise and expressive definition of the family as a group with a history (Olson, 1969). Unfortunately, this dimension of “family history” has not been developed much beyond its initial enunciation and thus the aspects of the “ongoing” intergenerational bond that characterizes families have been left in the background. In later decades, attention was focused on critical aspects of the functioning of the family nucleus, such as cohesion, adaptability, and family competence, giving rise to interesting debates (Beavers & Hampson, 1993; Olson, 1993). Family boundaries (clear versus confused) were analysed within the perimeter of the nuclear family and between the nuclear family and the social context (Walsh, 1993). The exchanges between the family nucleus and the family of origin—that is to say, the history of what came before—were ignored. It is necessary, however, to identify the distinctive aspects of the family starting from the fact that the family is a primary group with a history of preceding bonds and that it, in turn, generates future bonds.

Thus, we define the family as an organization of primary relationships founded upon the difference of gender and the difference between generations and lineages. Its purpose and intrinsic project is generativity (Scabini, 1995). Some clarification of this definition is in order. The term organization used by Sroufe and Fleeson (1988) refers to a group and to a system. In fact, as already noted by Buckley (1976), who adopted a sociological perspective, and Haley (1973), from the viewpoint of psychology, the family has an organized structure and an internal hierarchy that permeates the parent-child relationship and, in the past—and even to this day in many cultures—characterizes the marital relationship as well. If the family organizes relationships, these are not generic (or just any) relationships but primary relationships that connect and bind the crucial differences of human nature: the differences between genders and generations. These, in turn, give rise to a relational asset—new generations and their upbringing—that are essential to the human community. It is important to be specific about how family bonds are primary. In the family, individuals are bound to each other as human beings over and above the roles they fulfil. The connection of relationship to role is inclusive. Specifically, there are two relational axes within the family: the marital and the parent-child, with the related sibling axis.

The marital relationship is based on gender difference. The term “gender” refers to the sociocultural identity of the male and female sexes. Every culture translates sex as a biological fact into a feminine and masculine identity, with roles and functions as well as social and cultural characteristics. The dynamic of connectedness and separateness that distinguishes the life of every group finds in the family its original basis. In the human species, unlike other animals, there is a great variability in the characteristics considered typical of the female and male genders. The family, unlike other groups, is characterized by a specific way of living and constructing gender differences by means of a process that is surely biological, but also relational and social (Crespi, 2004). The family “is” the social and symbolic place in which difference, in particular sexual difference, is believed to be fundamental and, at the same time, constructed (Saraceno, 1988). In particular, gender characterization reflects the individualities of the parents in the family. The family is, therefore, a “gender relationship”. The fact that in different cultures expectations and behaviours connected to gender can vary is not in itself problematical for the construction of an individual’s identity. What might be considered as risk factors, however, are the extreme differentiation between roles, common in the past (rigid identity), or the excessive similarity of roles, as might happen today (confused identity).

The parent-child relationship implies difference in generations and the ensuing responsibility of the older generation towards the next one. The term “parental” includes both one’s own parents as well as the network of relatives constituted by relationships with each spouse’s family of origin. In other words, it involves both the difference between parents and offspring and the difference between family and lineage, a difference that is lost over time. We can assert, therefore, that the “psychic field” of the family is much vaster than the dual space created by the relationship between parents and offspring or between partners: it is at least trigenerational. The spouses’ parents are also the “offspring” of the preceding generations and their identity has to do with both the parental and the filial relationship. The purpose and the intrinsic project of the family are summed up in the verb to generate. The family does not reproduce individuals: instead, it generates persons, it humanizes that which derives from itself and that within itself is bound together. In human beings, biological heritage is from the beginning embedded in and influenced by the cultural dimension: the goal of procreation is not only the continuation of the species but, by means of biological generation, is also the psychic generation of persons who will carry on and innovate the family and social history. Moreover, the act of generation gives a specific quality to the relationship between the sexes: through their child, a mother and father come to be bound inextricably together and can never again “leave” the parental relationship (one cannot become an ex-parent or an ex-grandparent). The families of origin are also bound together through the child; a difference of generations is produced together with a bond between lineages that is lost over time. Uniqueness and belonging also characterize the newborn: he or she is able to develop psychically thanks to being “acknowledged” within a relationship of a specific lineage. Each child thus carries in his or her surname the sign of belonging to the family history and in his or her name a sign of uniqueness. The generative bond should be understood in its intergenerational sense, that is, in its double meaning of generating and being generated. It is for this reason that, in order to capture the object “family”, one must go beyond a dualistic perspective limited to the examination of the parent-child interaction or, more frequently, the mother-child interaction, and take into consideration multiple generations. Looking at generativity from a relational point of view also means not conceiving of it as a characteristic exclusive to adults: it is something that is received and given, something that others have passed on to us and that we, in turn, will pass on, after having given it our own imprint. Kotre (Kotre, 1984; Kotre & Kotre, 1998) and Snarey (1998) have identified different types of generativity:

• Biological generativity includes producing a child and providing the care necessary to his/her physical survival and the development of basic trust. Its opposite is the experience of infertility, which indirectly threatens the other forms of generativity as well, because it weakens their premises.
• Parental generativity manifests itself in those care-related activities that promote the child’s development of its potential in achieving a balance between autonomy, initiative, industriousness, and identity. Parental generativity also consists in passing on to a child the family’s values and traditions. It becomes a factor in moral development because the virtue of caring for a child overcomes the inevitable hesitation one experiences when faced with an irreversible commitment, such as the one parents accept with respect to their children.
• Social generativity, expressed in the acceptance of responsibility for young people, contributes to the strengthening and continuity of the generations by providing guidance and direction for the growth and wellbeing not only of one’s own children but also of other young people who belong to the same generation.

The family has been studied from the perspective of several different approaches: the Family Development Theory, the Family Stress and Coping Theory, the Symbolic- Interactionist Theory, Systems Framework and the Ecological Framework (Box 1.1, for an overview, see Doherty, Boss, LaRossa, Schumm, & Steinmetz, 1993; Klein & White, 1996). In this work, however, we rely upon the relational-intergenerational perspective (Cigoli & Scabini, forthcoming), in which various aspects of the approaches just mentioned are incorporated and reinterpreted.

Box 1.1 Theories about families

The Family Development Theory: historically, this represents the first systematic attempt to explain the principal predictable changes in the family. This theory was developed in three phases. The first conceptualization of the theory dates to Rowntree (1903) and is characterized by the rise of the idea of the family life cycle. The next phase, worked out by Hill and Duvall (Duvall, 1977; Hill, 1949a, 1949b), is characterized by the theory’s systematization. The third and most recent phase reveals an interest in the concept of the life cycle and research instruments (White, 1991) and theorizes family as an enterprise that can be followed across stages of development. It revolves around the idea that families change form and function over the course of their life cycle in an ordered sequence of developmental stages. Every stage of the family life cycle is characterized by the presence of specific developmental tasks related to components of the family either entering or leaving it (for example, marriage, birth…). Modern developments of the theory, from the work of McGoldrick, Heiman, and Carter (1993a, 1993b), besides emphasizing the intergenerational implications of the life cycle, have effected a reconnection between the family and the social environment in which it lives.

The Family Stress and Coping Theory: initially developed as an attempt to study the effects produced by unforeseen changes within the family (for example, the premature death of a member) or outside it (for example, economic crises), over time, it approached—and was integrated into—developmental theory. In the theoretical discussion of Hill (1949a, 1949b) and later, Burr (1973), McCubbin and Patterson (1981), the family is understood as a system continually subjected to demands that take the form of stressors or strains, which the family counters with its own capacities in terms of resources and coping or adaptive behaviours. According to these authors, every family passes, over the course of time, through repeated cycles characterized by phases of functioning and adaptation interspersed with family crises.

The Symbolic-Interactionist Theory: this theory is rooted in the thought of Charles Pierce, William James, John Dewey and, above all, George Herbert Mead, who argued that human actions can be understood only in relation to language, society, and culture and that, by sharing common symbols, humans can adapt to and survive in their environment. The general focus of symbolic interactionism can be summarized as the acquisition and generation of meaning assigned by persons to actions and to the context in which they live. One of the concepts at the basis of this theory is that of role, with respect to which the dimension of the expectations that both actor and others have about the performance of the role, role strain and role conflict have been studied with particular emphasis. The theory has been used to understand diverse aspects of family functioning: the family domain contains a sense of shared history and future and a sense of biography. The enhancement theory and the concept of role overload (Marks, 1977) have their roots in this theoretical framework.

The Systems Framework: this interdisciplinary perspective was born in the 1940s and has antireductionist and antisectoral intentions. It takes into consideration the complexity of living organisms (von Bertalanffy & Rapoport, 1960), shedding light on the significant relationships between their parts and functions and between the organisms themselves and their surrounding environments (supersystems). This theory’s presupposition is that the family is a system and in a system all the parts are interconnected; thus, understanding is only possible by viewing the whole. Boundaries, rules of transformation, feedback, subsystems, variety and equilibrium are considered in each system. The application of the systemic principles to therapeutic practice conceives of the individual’s symptom as a difficulty of the entire family system, even if today therapeutic practice is no longer anchored to intervention vis-à-vis the family as whole.

The Ecological Framework: the most basic notion in the ecological framework is adaptation: for example, a family can adapt to changing social and economic conditions. Having originated within the field of biology, this framework has been applied to various environments—one of which is the family—with the idea that individuals and groups are both biological and social in nature. In this ...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Series preface
• Introduction
• Acknowledgement
• Part I: The theoretical and methodological background
• Part II: An analysis of family relationships by gender and generation