*102489*

Psychology and sociology/13 .

PhD in Sociology, assistant professor A. I. P'yanov

The North-Caucasian state technical university, Russia

CHANGE OF STATUS POSITIONS AND ROLE STRUCTURE OF THE RUSSIAN FAMILY ON BOUNDARY ÕÕ – XXI CENTURIES

The family represents a social generality, the system integrity having simultaneously the institutional and group nature. Being such generality, it possesses own role structure. The social role is «the certain rather steady template of behaviour reproduced by individuals, occupying certain position in structure of social system» [1, p. 5]. With reference to a family, social roles mean following to templates of behaviour of «the father», « the mother», «the husband», «the wife», «the daughter», «the son», «the sister», «the brother», «the nephew», «the niece», «the grandfather», «the grandmother», «the grandson», «the grand daughter», «the aunt», «the uncle etc. These roles inherent in the certain person are called as individual [2, p. 52]. Their occurrence is connected with those steady stereotypes in actions which are developed at this or that member of a family. Social «beginning» is shown in a family through the personal. Social relations act here in psychologically expressed kind as interpersonal relations. Interpersonal relations are attribute of a family as specific socially-psychological generality.

Each of the named types of roles develops in certain kinds of activity and under the influence of the social environment. So, social roles cannot be generated out of corresponding social practice, for lack of the real basis. Interpersonal roles are formed only in concrete dyads and various on number groups of the people connected among themselves on the basis of socially-psychological communications. Individual roles are a product of consciousness of the separate individual and, hence, their display can vary considerably, keeping, nevertheless, certain typical properties.

In connection with the aforesaid there is a question on in what role identification in a family what of the named types of relations is allocated as prepotent in a family of this or that type consists.

As it is known, family well-being is connected not only with that, how much deeply and full the family realises the functions, but also with, whether balance between its self-management and social control over activity of members of a family was established. In this sense considerable value has how each member of a family carries out the social roles. The last can be clear to it to a greater or lesser extent and, either be executed, or not be executed. In this case there is a certain discrepancy between real role behaviour of a member of a family and those role expectations which are inherent in all people surrounding it. In other words, absence of role competence can play a negative role in formation and development of role structure of a family and radically to influence durability of interpersonal relations of its members. The hierarchy of roles which has arisen in individual consciousness, predetermines strategy of matrimonial and parental behaviour as a whole and, finally, the scenario of home life of each married couple.

During the periods of public transformations, a transitive condition of society in role structure of a family there are changes. The set of the roles really executed and wished for the individual, is considerably modified. In stable 70 – 80-th years of the XX-th century interpersonal roles on the value promptly caught up and overtook social, and the separate person took not too important place in role structure of the Soviet family. In followed them 90-th years of mutual relation in a family began to be defined by social roles which were embodied in a family in system of individual roles.

In family structure it is accepted to allocate three basic types of interpersonal relations in a family: matrimonial, parental and children's. However in the given work we will stop, first of all, on interpersonal relations of spouses which for each other act in such role forms, as marriage partners (the husband and the wife) and with-parents (the father and mother).

During the socialist period of the Russian history on the first positions in a family there were relations parental. Force of tradition forces Russians and today to prefer these positions. In particular, in modern public (mass and individual) consciousness it is high the status of the father as heads of the family without dependence from, whether is it in a reality. At the same time, in spite of the fact that roles of parents have the high social status, it does not mean that they are priority in consciousness of marriage partners.

As have shown the researches conducted by us in three cities of Stavropol Territory, respondents take close enough positions on number on degree of priority of roles matrimonial and parental. Nevertheless, matrimonial relations on the first place have put 37,8 % of respondents, parental – 34,6 %. The second place have occupied according to a role of the husband and the wife (37,2 %), the third – mother and the father (32,7 %). As a whole the overwhelming majority of respondents regard as of paramount importance relation home life between the husband and the wife as spouses (75 %), as parents (67,2 %). This fact says that the individualization of mutual relations of the husband and the wife in a family continues to develop. Spouses are more significant for each other as marriage partners, rather than as executors of other roles. Besides, much less them the leadership problem excites – almost half interrogated has put a role of the head of the family on last place from five possible positions (45 %) [3, p. 396].

This circumstance testifies to transition of a patriarchal, authoritative family to a modern family equal in rights. The patriarchal family was based on leadership and submission relations and was strong the individual power of its head – the father and the man. In a modern family equal in rights of the spouse are a little disturbed by that who will be in head to a family – the husband or the wife (the man or the woman). This type of a family gravitates to role balance between floors. The share of modern families equal in rights in the Russian society by end ÕÕ of century «makes about half of all families. In the big, average and small cities these families accordingly make 65 %, 53 % and 50 %, a share of patriarchal families – 5 %, 10 %, 11 % and a share of families of transitive type – 30 %, 37 %, 41 %» [4, p. 20].

The problem of distribution of intrafamily duties on the housekeeping conducting, sharply enough standing in days of a socialism, during transition to market relations loses the sharpness. More serious difficulties in the organisation of family ability to live have affected. The characteristic fact: roles of the mistress or the owner as paramount in our polls named only 7 % of respondents. More 17 % have taken away it the second place and 34 % – the third of five possible positions [3, p. 398]. In a word, without denying the importance of this position, respondents to a lesser degree would like to be in the given role, and are not too anxious by own contribution and the contribution of the partner to the general result of family ability to live.

On closer examination it appears that played family roles in their interpretation from the individual bear on themselves time press. In days of a socialism the family paled into insignificance before public whereas individually-personal interests and requirements were dissolved in îáùåñåìåéíûõ. Relations between parents and children at times blocked basic for a modern family matrimonial relations, the sexual partnership was removed in depth of reproductive relations, and about feeling of matrimonial love was told exclusively from educational, spiritually-moral positions. Any healthy hedonism as vital philosophy were rejected, being equated either to narrow-mindedness, or to vestiges of bourgeois consciousness.

In a society where dominate a private property, market relations and competitive struggle, interests of the separate person (the individual beginning) dominates over collective interests of a family (the patrimonial beginning), extrafamily interests of the person over the family. Transformation of relations and roles in a family in a direction of increase in value individual at the first approach is worthy a positive estimation. The person is released from pressure of family group that assumes expansion of its individual and social interests. However deeper analysis of an individualization occurring in a society from positions of strengthening of matrimonial relations, allows to see absolutely other picture.

The family as the cumulative subject of social activity and the carrier of collective consciousness, most likely will not take place as a unit and will break up at the first shock if interests of its members contradict each other. Unity of valuable installations of both spouses on a family way of life, ability to endow personal for the sake of family, ability to make a compromise with a view of achievement of the consent and maintenance of stable mutual relations are especially significant for family existence, as specific socially-psychological generality, than interests and requirements of the concrete individual.

Being small social group, the family submits to laws of its functioning, and including – to the law of the group dynamics which essence consists in gradual socially-psychological rapprochement of members of group and definition of the role in the general activity and personal self-realisation in the course of achievement of the group purposes. Differently, from a parity of status and role positions in a family generality with positions which are extrafamily for the individual, connected with process of self-realisation of each person, productivity of functioning of a family as social generality depends. The priority of the first keeps a family as the small social group and formal social institute, a priority of the second – will be disorganised by its effective functioning.

Is here and other side of the problem. As it is known, a role – concept dynamic, whereas the status – more static. The role only fixes such situations of social interaction when it is regular and throughout long time certain stereotypes of behaviour are reproduced. At the same time the status reflects certain positions and the sets of the rights connected with them and duties and is anything to others, as static aspect of a role [5].

The developed realities of a modern family allow to speak about existence of variety of contradictions between roles as standards of behaviour of those or other members of a family generality and statuses of carriers of these roles. For example, the woman plays following key roles in a modern Russian family – mothers, wives, mistresses. Social expectations, directed on it, reflect a gender stereotype existing in public consciousness: the woman bears responsibility for the family centre, it should support in it warmly so to be emotionally mobile, sympathetic, goodhearted, playing thereby a role of the emotional leader. To it conducting housekeeping is made as the main duty and on its care there should be children, and out of communication with its industrial employment. In it, last sense the position of equality is fixed to the woman with the man: it should bring the contribution to the decision of economic problems of a family. Its obligations to a family are treated, thus, rather widely. On the other hand, in other spheres of family ability to live – communicative, relax – the rights of women in comparison with the rights of men are fairly reduced. The share of social recognition of their merits as mothers and housewives is obviously insignificant. Requirements to them exceed limits of their possibilities.

In other words, the quantity of duties at women appears much more the sum of their rights. There is the status and role conflict resolved by each woman in own way. One of them prefer social (professional) self-realisation to the detriment of the family. Others, on the contrary, choose matrimonial and parent activity as paramount. The majority of the Russian women interface simultaneously matrimonial, parent (parental) and professional work. It is a fertile field for occurrence of psychological intensity in a family which removal is possible both on socially-legal, and on socially-psychological levels. As the Russian legislation does not allow the woman to combine optimum equally directed two activity kind, to it does not remain other choice, except search of social support.

Here active impact on change of status positions in a family is a high time to stop on more profound consideration of the socially-psychological factor, making. Among features of interaction of people in society in whole and in a family in particular, norms divided by them and values, ideas and belief, representations about themselves and others, about surrounding social and environment, character and temperament displays, a self-estimation and strong-willed self-control, ability to empathy and many other things are. The personal status in a family above, than above natural and social intelligence of its carrier, the self-estimation is more adequate to those, social installations are more flexible, representation about world around is more diverse, norms and behaviour rules are less conservative. Individually-psychological and socially-psychological features of status distinctions in the Russian family are closely connected with displays of these qualities. To define leader potential of the husband or the wife, the father or mother it is possible only in the event that all will be considered named above the characteristic.

Deformation of role structure of a family as a result of wrong understanding of corresponding roles or unwillingness to execute them leads to such distribution or redistribution of roles in which result they can enter among themselves into the conflict or be limited performed by. Such it is a lot of situations. So, in modern marriages such situation when a family full, but the spouse does not accept participation in domesticities and education of children is rather widespread. Thereby the interrelation of parts of the host and the father, being mutually supplemented, and, as well as in a case with the absent spouse and the parent is broken, functional definiteness of a family suffers. It loses the stability at the expense of increase of level of a conflictness.

The nature of role conflicts is diverse. Their sources can become not only misunderstanding of own roles and roles of partners in dialogue, but also unwillingness them to execute. Probably also contradiction presence between various aspects of a role and then there is such type of the conflict as intrarole. For example, the role of the tutor demands from the man of hardness and sequence and, at the same time, patience and condescension to child. Inherently these approaches are opposite, as the first associates with man's «beginning», and the second – with female. Many men not in a condition to solve this problem. Occurrence of the role conflict probably and in a kind of imposing of roles against each other or their crossings. For example, matrimonial and parental roles can be crossed, as emotional support and participation are necessary both to spouses, and children. At the same time the essence of parent and fatherly love of children is various. The man loves the wife, instead of mother of children whereas the woman, first of all, appreciates in it fatherly qualities, and then the matrimonial in the woman is more often. Parent feelings more expressive, fatherly – are more rational. The father gives to the child base social installations, mother fills with their moral-psychological maintenance. Not casually women and the man differently estimate the parental roles: the women having a family, on the first place have a role of mother whereas family men allocate a role of the head of the family (owner) or the spouse is more often is more often.

Performance of family roles can be connected with such problem, as errors in construction of hierarchy of the purposes. It is easy to present, for example, purposes of the modern woman living in a big city. Presently one of main objectives of emancipated women is professional career and only then a matrimony and motherhood. It is connected by that the woman has had time to feel satisfaction from productive rivalry with the man, self-trust, pride of own achievements in professional sphere – political, commercial, administrative, scientific, cultural, creative, sports has occurred, as psychologists A. Leont'ev, «told motive shift on the purpose in which result the activity acting in a role nonbasic, mediating, has turned to the basic» [6, p. 104]. And it was extrafamily activity. The woman-head, the businessman, successfully competing in these spheres with the man, today so normal phenomenon, as well as the man employed as the woman.

Would be incorrect to deny value of the female emancipation demonstrating the social rights and professional activity of women. But if to consider a family as fundamental socio-forming institute traditional understanding of the maintenance of matrimonial and parental roles in a family are a guarantee of performance by it of the specific functions before a society. And for this purpose an eminence of a role of the woman-mother full of a large family in public consciousness – a unique way to the decision of a demographic problem. «Famlization» of the woman's consciousnesses, increase of appeal of a family way of life and image of mother in her eyes will allow it to make revaluation of habitual social stereotypes in consciousness and behaviour. It is necessary, that the woman entered into roles of mother and the wife, without losing thus neither self-reliance, nor pride of, pleasure from the reached successes in housekeeping and education of children, satisfaction from a family way of life.

It is not necessary to speak about that, the similar metamorphosis in consciousness of emancipated women is however difficult. According to Russian sociologist Lidiya Shinileva, only about one quarter of the Russian women are ready to be engaged in a family, having left work, under condition of its sufficient material maintenance. In a family there is a paradoxical situation: the woman tests «double oppression», carrying out the volume of loadings repeatedly exceeding man's, and thus remains attached to such status. Moreover, she does not approve those representatives of the gender who were released from this «oppression» and have managed to select for itself a family way of life without professional career. It specifies all and in depth of stereotypes in female consciousness which do not allow women to be adequate in cares of the health, the device of own life and the activity organisation [7, p. 66].

It is necessary to notice especially that a problem of actual ignoring of a role of mother for the sake of a role of the working woman more psychological, than social. She demands very careful decision as it was strongly fixed in public consciousness. The woman occupied on work and the house, – the phenomenon habitual for all in our country. The woman-housewife is represented while as an isolated fact which to public consciousness needs to be apprehended, comprehended, estimated anew and to include it as a specific social role of the woman. Therefore, at preservation of the basic cargo of house duties «on shoulders» women, the burden of labour activity should be removed from it in a social production. For the Russian society which is in the deepest demographic crisis, the big blessing will be returning of women from sphere of a social production of life in sphere of its natural manufacture. The state and society problem consists in maintenance of effective possibilities of such transition.

Researches of matrimonial relations in Russia on a boundary XX – XXI centuries spent by the American scientists, have led to their unfavourable conclusion: «it is necessary to look at prospects of the decision of a women's issue pessimistically» [8, p. 41]. They connect the given forecast with fall of the social status of the woman in a reformed society. Women first of all began to force out from industrial sector in connection with growing unemployment, and also from management sphere. In particular, according to the Russian sociologists, already in 90-th years the share of women-heads made not above 9 %, professional politicians – 3 %, and in the government top echelon their presence actually was not felt [7, p. 72]. Women in spite of the fact that they represent more than half of population of the country, do not render due influence on the government and management.

Necessity of change of the socially-psychological maintenance of role installations of women is connected also with that circumstance that men in the smallest degree are engaged in housekeeping and education of children. It professional ambitions, the false feeling of man's advantage generated by traditions of education in the parental family, encouraged with all system of social expectations and relations prevent to concentrate on this process. Scientists notice such phenomena in sphere of man's consciousness and behaviour, as a rearrangement parts of household chores on women, aspiration in a greater degree to professional self-realisation out of a family, conviction that public institutes – the world of men, and a home – destiny of women [9, p. 67]. This type of consciousness is peculiar to the overwhelming majority of the men generated in a bosom of Christian and Muslim civilisations. «The mental matrix of these civilisations has mainly masculine cultural code which makes to the man a duty to keep leader positions in a family, and to the woman to play supporting parts» [10, p. 136].

Our researches have shown the following: only 34,6 % of the interrogated men have supported that the woman carried out only roles of the wife and mother, has devoted itself to housekeeping and education of children, 54,6 % of respondents-men have supported connection of family roles by it with the extrafamily. That is only hardly there is more than third of thousand respondents imagined the woman idle in a social production, at consciousness of the majority there was a proof stereotype of the working-women combining a matrimony and motherhood with professional career without dependence from its desires, possibilities and abilities [3, p. 400]. This data testifies that force of inertia in socially-psychological installations of Russians is so great what to refuse habitual views and actions very difficultly.

The major result of changes of status and role positions in family structure on a boundary of centuries is change of family behaviour, a withdrawal from a family way of life which is characterised by domination of extrafamily orientations of spouses over the family. On the foreground realisation of personal interests of members of a family is put forward. In social transformations each person transfers own requirements to the attention centre, becomes more selfish, than during any other time. In this sense occurrence of new types of a family are historically inevitable.

The family in Russia throughout the XX-th century was exposed to total influence from the state and other social institutes which «intercepted» its functions and reduced a family on position of minor social institute of a society.

Return process – process of finding by a family of the relative autonomy in relation to a society, restoration of its effective functioning by that becomes more difficult, than the period transform processes in the Russian society longer lasts. They cause changes of valuable orientations of spouses for extrafamily roles that in turn, involves change of their role positions in a family. It destroys its integrity as specific socially-psychological generality

References:

1. Kharchev A. G., Matskovsky M. S. A modern family and its problems: socially-demographic research. – Moscow: Statistika, 1978. – 223 pp.

2. Lisova A.V. Family Psychology: the manual. – Vladivostok: Publishing house of Far East state university, 2003. – 220 pp.

3. P'yanov A. I. The sociological analysis of changes in ability to live of the Russian family: the monography; collective of authors / Ed. by O. I. Kirikov. – Voronezh: Publishing house of the Voronezh state university, 2010. – 636 pp.

4. Oshchepkova A. P., Etshtejn M. Z. The Siberian family: features of development and formation of moral culture of the person: the monography. – Tomsk: Vodoley, 1996. – 128 pp.

5. The Sociological encyclopaedia [the Electronic resource]. – URL: www.socenc.ru.

6. Leont'ev A. N. Activity. Consciousness. The person. – Moscow: Politizdat, 1977. – 304 pp.

7. Feminology. Familistika: the manual / Ed. by L. T. Shinileva. – Moscow: Soyuz, 1997. – 220 pp.

8. Kasner F. The historical analysis of change of position of the woman in Russia in the XX-th century: a sight from the West // Problems of women and a family eye of sociologists: The Report on XIII World sociological congress. 1994. Bielefeld / Ed. by E. F. Achildieva. – Moscow: Institute of sociology of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 1997. – P. 41 – 53. (161 pp.).

9. Golod S. I. The future family: what it? Socially-moral aspect. – Moscow: Znanie, 1990. – 320 pp.

10. Lebedeva N. M. Introduction in ethnic and cross-cultural psychology: the manual. – Moscow: Maks Pres, 2011. – 424 pp.