Family Analysis 6 ✓ Solved

FAMILY ANALYSIS Family Analysis 6 Family Analysis Family Analysi

It is common for people, across the world, to associate endogenously based on cultural and social characteristics. While some of this can be explained by geographical propinquity and demographic factors, it has been established that group norms and values have a tendency of promoting homogamy and discouraging heterogamy. A fundamental assumption for the encouragement of marital homogamy is the perception that people sharing similar norms, beliefs, values and social statuses cope more easily with one another. In simple terms, sociocultural homogamy encourages harmonious relationships while heterogamy raises the probability of unhappiness and discord.

Socio-physiological and sociological theories of mate selection and love are generally in tandem with the homogamy proposition (Reiss, 1980). However, there have been many outliers who choose to favor marital unions with people of dissimilar socio-cultural characteristics. Nonetheless, they all end up returning to the pulling of similarities that comprise homogamy. A close look at my family genealogy establishes that cultural and social similarities have helped foster valuable consensus between family members on the fundamental life priorities and reduced instances of divorce that result from disharmony in worldviews and tastes (Janssen, 2005).

Homogamy Analysis

According to my family genealogy, most marriages have been between people of similar religious backgrounds. The choice of marriage partners has been based on religious faiths. The small number that has married outside of their religious denominations have experienced constant frictions in their relationships, which has ultimately led to separation and divorce. However, increased levels of commitment and satisfaction have been seen with associations that are formed on the basis of religious similarities.

Research has established that associations tend to be formed based on socioeconomic statuses. In line with these findings, my family members have been marrying people of either similar class or those close to their classes. Male partners who have married female partners of a slightly similar class have been stable over time. Unhappiness and divorce have been characteristic of marriages that were based on dissimilar socioeconomic class.

Interethnic marriages are an increasing percentage of associations (Fu and Heaton 2008), a move driven by high levels of racial-ethnic diversity, immigration, and changing attitudes in many countries (Powell et al. 2010). Contrastingly, earlier marriages from my grandparents were done within racial and ethnic groups. This ethnic homogamy brought about strong social identities, sodality within the marriages and maintenance of culture. However, my grandparents have set the pace for diverging into marrying people of different ethnic backgrounds.

Conclusion

Across the three generation family genealogy, a majority of people chose to marry people with similar social characteristics to that of their own. They shared the same views and opinions about life issues and had access to similar living standards. Instances of family frictions and divorce were fewer in marriages between similar characters as harmony and happiness were fostered by the similar features of ethnicity, class, and religion. This goes a long way in supporting the proposition that homogamy increases marital success and that ethnicity, class and religious norms, values and beliefs are significant to a majority of people.

References

• Brubaker, R. (2009). Ethnicity, Race, and Nationalism. Annual Review of Sociology, 35, 21-42.
• Cherlin, A. J. (2004). The Deinstitutionalization of American Marriage. Journal of Marriage and Family, 66.
• Fu, X. & Heaton, T. B. (2008). Racial and Educational Homogamy: 1980 to 2000. Sociological Perspectives, 51.
• Janssen, J.P.G. (2002). Do Opposites Attract Divorce? Dimensions of Mixed Marriage and the Risk of Divorce in the Netherlands. Nijmegen: ICS-dissertation.
• Powell, B., Bolzendahl, C., Geist, C. & Steelman, L. (2010). Counted Out: Same-Sex Relations and Americans' Definitions of Family. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
• Reiss, I. (1980). Family Systems in America, 3rd Ed. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.