Marriage involves the union of two individuals who decide to live in an intimate relationship for the major portion of their life. It is said to be one of the deepest and most complex froms of human relationships. Landis (1954) observes, "Marriage and family are Not optional; they are necessary, even in today's world as it solidifies a healthy working relationship; just as any good business or company. They meet humanity's deepest needs" It provides for the reliable satisfaction of certain vital personal needs." It provides for the reliable satisfaction of certain vital needs both physical and psychological. But a good marriage does not simply happen, not even when choice of marriage partner is most carefully made. It has to be worked out jointly (Kumar,1986). The process of changing two single Lives into one shared life requires a great deal of mutual commitment and accommodation (Locke & Williamson,1958). One is required to develop a proper attitude, skill and temperament to be successful in marriage. Ruch (1970) rightly says that being the right person is more a matter of becoming the right person. The ease in becoming the right person to a great extent depends on the attitude one holds towards marriage (Srivastav,1974).
The new familism has emerged in postindustrial and services societies, which tend basically to satisfy the needs of personal realization. Many authors have labeled this new culture as hedonistic and narcissistic; some authors consider it a radical individualism (Seoane 1993).
The development in the 1970s of new forms of marriage, different from the traditional civil and religious forms, the rise of the divorce rates, and the decline in birth rates are clear examples of this new culture. Paternal authority, strict family morality, obligations to family members, and the sexual division of the domestic work were replaced by the principle of equality, the relaxation of traditional moral values, and the family opening to the new, opportunistic, outside-the-box world.
At the beginning of the 1980s, a turn to family values is evident (Inglehart 1998). However, this new familism is full of ambiguities. On the one hand, it means the resurgence of the family as an important force. At the same time, it supports an individualistic and narcissistic conception of the family relationships. The current importance given to the family is related to a defense of its affective and emotional functions and its help for personal development. From this new familism, the family group is used as a resource to satisfy the psychological needs of its members (Demo et a1. 2000).
The new familism moves away from the political and social context from which it originated. It can be considered as a psychologized familism, because it answers the concrete needs of personal and individual realization. This familism moves away from the traditional cultural pattern, in which the family was more important than the goals and aspirations of its members, and from the traditional definition of familism.
From the point of view of psychological needs, the ambiguity of the new familism allows very different family politics. Although some approaches defend alternative ways of families, other writers turn to the new familism to stop the advance of a radical individualism, or even to compensate the setback of the state of families' well-being (Popenoe 1988; Garzón 1998, 2000).
Information from :
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/relationships/the-new-marriage-attitude-i-will-eventually/article4102164/
http://family.jrank.org/pages/483/Familism-New-Familism.html
The development in the 1970s of new forms of marriage, different from the traditional civil and religious forms, the rise of the divorce rates, and the decline in birth rates are clear examples of this new culture. Paternal authority, strict family morality, obligations to family members, and the sexual division of the domestic work were replaced by the principle of equality, the relaxation of traditional moral values, and the family opening to the new, opportunistic, outside-the-box world.
At the beginning of the 1980s, a turn to family values is evident (Inglehart 1998). However, this new familism is full of ambiguities. On the one hand, it means the resurgence of the family as an important force. At the same time, it supports an individualistic and narcissistic conception of the family relationships. The current importance given to the family is related to a defense of its affective and emotional functions and its help for personal development. From this new familism, the family group is used as a resource to satisfy the psychological needs of its members (Demo et a1. 2000).
The new familism moves away from the political and social context from which it originated. It can be considered as a psychologized familism, because it answers the concrete needs of personal and individual realization. This familism moves away from the traditional cultural pattern, in which the family was more important than the goals and aspirations of its members, and from the traditional definition of familism.
From the point of view of psychological needs, the ambiguity of the new familism allows very different family politics. Although some approaches defend alternative ways of families, other writers turn to the new familism to stop the advance of a radical individualism, or even to compensate the setback of the state of families' well-being (Popenoe 1988; Garzón 1998, 2000).
Information from :
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/relationships/the-new-marriage-attitude-i-will-eventually/article4102164/
http://family.jrank.org/pages/483/Familism-New-Familism.html
RSS Feed