Article Analysis: Anthony Giddens' The Global Revolution in Family and Personal Life
Marcello Miller
Mr. Flacks
Sociology 10
1 Feb. 2015 The Global Revolution in Family and Personal Life
Author: Anthony Giddens
Reading #2 Anthony Giddens, in this article, professes his idea of a Global Revolution in family and personal life. Giddens compares and contrasts multiple cultures in the aspects of sexuality, personal life, marriage and the family. He essentially has three ultimate goals in his article: (1) encourage a liberal view of politics, family, and personal life; (2) encourage a relationship model based on a model called the “pure relationship;” (3) provoke the thought of an emotional democracy. To accomplish these goals, Giddens introduces a concept of a transition from traditional (fundamental) to modern (cosmopolitan) families and personal lives that has changed and progressed linearly over time. The author points out that the biggest changes are happening in our personal lives: sexuality, emotional life, marriage, and the family. The author discusses controversial topics such as divorce, marriage, sexual equality, and gay marriage. Giddens compares and contrasts the roles of the husband, wife, and child that changed over time. Giddens elaborates on an idea of a Global Revolution in family and marriage by illustrating his idea of a transition from traditionalism to modernity. The traditional and modern perspectives are virtually polar opposites. They are intrinsically similar to the ideas of a right and left wing in the media landscape. Traditionalism would be right wing, and modernity would be left wing. Giddens uses this concept of transition from traditionalism to modernity to effectively execute his concepts of a Global Revolution.
Furthermore, the author discusses sex and the sexual relations between a man and a woman. He stipulates that in Medieval Europe, marriage was not forged on the basis of sexual love. A French historian, Georges Duby says, marriage in the middle ages did not involve frivolity, passion, or fantasy. The idea of sexual love and intimacy being the basis of marriage was virtually unheard of in Europe. In the traditional family, sexuality was dominated by reproduction. Fertility was the main basis and purpose for women. In many of the traditional cultures, including in Western Europe up to the twentieth century, woman might have ten or more pregnancies during the course of her life.
Firstly, traditionalism is an archaic way to perceive the family and personal life. Giddens explains that before the 1950s, people overwhelmingly, adhered to traditionalist beliefs; however, sexual equality was significantly better than a century before this point in time. Traditional social norms were based on an agrarian lifestyle. Having children was interpreted as an economic benefit. Children meant more hands to assist the agricultural production for the family. The family was seen as an economic unit. Furthermore, the wife was seen as part of a man’s chattel (personal property); this indicates the wife was the husband’s property by law. Women and children did not share the same cultural privileges as their male counterparts. And the idea of sexuality was dominated by the idea of reproduction. Sexual promiscuity was acceptable for men, traditionally. Also, homosexuality was interpreted as unnatural. Traditionally, the married couple served as the nucleus of the family and hinged on the marriage. Traditionalism was very influenced by religious and fundamental values. Today standards of behaviors are constantly conflicted with the ideas of traditionalism.
During the 1950s, the amount of women in the workplace was still low, and it was still very difficult for women to obtain divorce without stigma. But sexual equality was considerably better than it had been in previous times. Giddens stipulates that the idea of romantic love as basis for marriage replaced the idea of marriage being based on an economic contract. Both parents lived together with the children of marriage. The woman was the full-time housewife, and the man was the breadwinner. Shortly after the 1950s, only a small group of families held on to the 1950s idea of family. Giddens specifies that in some countries, more than a third of all births happen outside of wedlock, while the proportion of people living alone, has gone up steeply is increasing.
Godden’s specifies that women and children lacked rights in the Europe. In pre-modern days, children were not recognized as individuals. They were only recognized for the economic contribution they could make to the family. In Colonial America, nearly one in four infants died in their first year. Almost 50% did not live to age 10. Essentially, Giddens compares different cultures to accommodate his readers lingering questions about the idea of a Global Revolution in Family and Personal Life. He talks about how China is very different in the way they handle divorce and marriage than western countries. China is actually thinking about making divorce more difficult. Marriage is China is still dominated by traditional social values. The Chinese still often have arranged marriages between to families that are usually organized by the parents.
Logically, society has been has been taking a sharp shift from traditionalism to ideas of modernity. Modernity can be seen highlighted in the realms such as sexuality and love, parenthood, and friendship. Modernity promotes a very liberal view of homosexuality, sexual equality, and divorce. Modernists encourage ideas of democratized families. In modern days, sexual promiscuity is seen in both men and women. Traditionally, women were supposed to hold closely to morals of a virgin. Today, sexuality is seen as something discovered, molded, and altered, rather than based on reproduction. Furthermore, presently, the couple is seen as the main part of the family, rather than the married couple. Presently, no country has eradicated ideas of traditionalism, but modernity is rapidly spreading everyday.
Giddens basically influences a liberal view of politics, family, and personal life. He concludes that divorce should not be frowned upon. Because of the severance of reproduction from sexuality, Giddens reasons that ideas like divorce and homosexuality are logical outcomes and should be acceptable acts, rather than egregious ones.
Furthermore, one of Giddens main goals is encourage ideas of a “pure relationship.” Giddens explains that a pure relationship is based on rewards derived from emotional communication, rather than economic benefit. In a pure relationship, the continuity of the couple depends on active trust; being able to open one’s self to the other. The pure relationship is similar to a public democracy. A pure relationship is a relationship of equals. So, essentially, the two individuals must understand each other’s point of view. Giddens believes the model of a pure relationship is essential for a happier, stronger, future society.
Also, Giddens provokes the idea of an emotional democracy that permeates three areas: the sexual and love relations, parent-child relations, and friendship. The emotional democracy is just like a public democracy. In a public democracy, all in principle are equal, and with equality of rights and responsibilities comes mutual respect. In result, the children must be treated with a reasonable amount of consideration to ensure an emotional democracy among family. Also, in a democracy, authoritarianism is avoided at all costs. This means that healthy relationship must be free from arbitrary power, coercion or violence. Giddens believes the three areas stipulated, should be knitted together with strong democratic ideas. Giddens believes the couple should encourage sexual equality. He reasons that sexual equality is essential for the happiness of a relationship.
Mr. Flacks
Sociology 10
1 Feb. 2015 The Global Revolution in Family and Personal Life
Author: Anthony Giddens
Reading #2 Anthony Giddens, in this article, professes his idea of a Global Revolution in family and personal life. Giddens compares and contrasts multiple cultures in the aspects of sexuality, personal life, marriage and the family. He essentially has three ultimate goals in his article: (1) encourage a liberal view of politics, family, and personal life; (2) encourage a relationship model based on a model called the “pure relationship;” (3) provoke the thought of an emotional democracy. To accomplish these goals, Giddens introduces a concept of a transition from traditional (fundamental) to modern (cosmopolitan) families and personal lives that has changed and progressed linearly over time. The author points out that the biggest changes are happening in our personal lives: sexuality, emotional life, marriage, and the family. The author discusses controversial topics such as divorce, marriage, sexual equality, and gay marriage. Giddens compares and contrasts the roles of the husband, wife, and child that changed over time. Giddens elaborates on an idea of a Global Revolution in family and marriage by illustrating his idea of a transition from traditionalism to modernity. The traditional and modern perspectives are virtually polar opposites. They are intrinsically similar to the ideas of a right and left wing in the media landscape. Traditionalism would be right wing, and modernity would be left wing. Giddens uses this concept of transition from traditionalism to modernity to effectively execute his concepts of a Global Revolution.
Furthermore, the author discusses sex and the sexual relations between a man and a woman. He stipulates that in Medieval Europe, marriage was not forged on the basis of sexual love. A French historian, Georges Duby says, marriage in the middle ages did not involve frivolity, passion, or fantasy. The idea of sexual love and intimacy being the basis of marriage was virtually unheard of in Europe. In the traditional family, sexuality was dominated by reproduction. Fertility was the main basis and purpose for women. In many of the traditional cultures, including in Western Europe up to the twentieth century, woman might have ten or more pregnancies during the course of her life.
Firstly, traditionalism is an archaic way to perceive the family and personal life. Giddens explains that before the 1950s, people overwhelmingly, adhered to traditionalist beliefs; however, sexual equality was significantly better than a century before this point in time. Traditional social norms were based on an agrarian lifestyle. Having children was interpreted as an economic benefit. Children meant more hands to assist the agricultural production for the family. The family was seen as an economic unit. Furthermore, the wife was seen as part of a man’s chattel (personal property); this indicates the wife was the husband’s property by law. Women and children did not share the same cultural privileges as their male counterparts. And the idea of sexuality was dominated by the idea of reproduction. Sexual promiscuity was acceptable for men, traditionally. Also, homosexuality was interpreted as unnatural. Traditionally, the married couple served as the nucleus of the family and hinged on the marriage. Traditionalism was very influenced by religious and fundamental values. Today standards of behaviors are constantly conflicted with the ideas of traditionalism.
During the 1950s, the amount of women in the workplace was still low, and it was still very difficult for women to obtain divorce without stigma. But sexual equality was considerably better than it had been in previous times. Giddens stipulates that the idea of romantic love as basis for marriage replaced the idea of marriage being based on an economic contract. Both parents lived together with the children of marriage. The woman was the full-time housewife, and the man was the breadwinner. Shortly after the 1950s, only a small group of families held on to the 1950s idea of family. Giddens specifies that in some countries, more than a third of all births happen outside of wedlock, while the proportion of people living alone, has gone up steeply is increasing.
Godden’s specifies that women and children lacked rights in the Europe. In pre-modern days, children were not recognized as individuals. They were only recognized for the economic contribution they could make to the family. In Colonial America, nearly one in four infants died in their first year. Almost 50% did not live to age 10. Essentially, Giddens compares different cultures to accommodate his readers lingering questions about the idea of a Global Revolution in Family and Personal Life. He talks about how China is very different in the way they handle divorce and marriage than western countries. China is actually thinking about making divorce more difficult. Marriage is China is still dominated by traditional social values. The Chinese still often have arranged marriages between to families that are usually organized by the parents.
Logically, society has been has been taking a sharp shift from traditionalism to ideas of modernity. Modernity can be seen highlighted in the realms such as sexuality and love, parenthood, and friendship. Modernity promotes a very liberal view of homosexuality, sexual equality, and divorce. Modernists encourage ideas of democratized families. In modern days, sexual promiscuity is seen in both men and women. Traditionally, women were supposed to hold closely to morals of a virgin. Today, sexuality is seen as something discovered, molded, and altered, rather than based on reproduction. Furthermore, presently, the couple is seen as the main part of the family, rather than the married couple. Presently, no country has eradicated ideas of traditionalism, but modernity is rapidly spreading everyday.
Giddens basically influences a liberal view of politics, family, and personal life. He concludes that divorce should not be frowned upon. Because of the severance of reproduction from sexuality, Giddens reasons that ideas like divorce and homosexuality are logical outcomes and should be acceptable acts, rather than egregious ones.
Furthermore, one of Giddens main goals is encourage ideas of a “pure relationship.” Giddens explains that a pure relationship is based on rewards derived from emotional communication, rather than economic benefit. In a pure relationship, the continuity of the couple depends on active trust; being able to open one’s self to the other. The pure relationship is similar to a public democracy. A pure relationship is a relationship of equals. So, essentially, the two individuals must understand each other’s point of view. Giddens believes the model of a pure relationship is essential for a happier, stronger, future society.
Also, Giddens provokes the idea of an emotional democracy that permeates three areas: the sexual and love relations, parent-child relations, and friendship. The emotional democracy is just like a public democracy. In a public democracy, all in principle are equal, and with equality of rights and responsibilities comes mutual respect. In result, the children must be treated with a reasonable amount of consideration to ensure an emotional democracy among family. Also, in a democracy, authoritarianism is avoided at all costs. This means that healthy relationship must be free from arbitrary power, coercion or violence. Giddens believes the three areas stipulated, should be knitted together with strong democratic ideas. Giddens believes the couple should encourage sexual equality. He reasons that sexual equality is essential for the happiness of a relationship.