Patriarchal family: pros and cons.

- the primary unit of society, the first circle of people’s contacts: here a person first enters into social relations - family relations between parents and children.

Family is a circle of stable relationships based on marriage between husband and wife and on consanguinity between parents and children, brothers and sisters. Family members are connected by common property and everyday life (living together and running a household), moral responsibility and mutual assistance. Family relationships are thus both natural (biological) and social (social). Human biology is unchanged, but social relationships change, and family forms change with them.

In prehistoric times, the family united only blood relatives: brothers, sisters, and their children. What about husbands? They were not part of a consanguineous family. Two friendly clans (families) entered into a “marriage alliance”: men of one clan entered into marriage relations with women of another clan. Such relationships were fragile, so men feminine were accepted as guests, the children remained in the maternal family. Over time, the marital relations of individual couples became more stable, and the first, still very weak, element of selectivity appeared. However, men are still guests in the family of their marriage partners. They. men belong to another allied clan. A consanguineous family was headed by a woman, and the corresponding historical period is called matriarchy.

Patriarchal family

With the advent of private property and the accumulation of wealth, the question of inheritance arose. It was important for the man to eliminate all doubts regarding the origin of his heirs. Arises patriarchal family, where the power of the head of the family extends to his wife (or several wives), children, domestic slaves and female slaves. The patriarchal family existed not only, say, in slave-owning Rome, but also in the Russian pre-revolutionary village. There were, of course, no slaves here, but there were sons, their wives, their children, unmarried daughters, and elderly and infirm parents. The patriarchal family performed the productive function as the basic unit of agricultural production.

In the Middle Ages, a monogamous (monogamous) family was formed, with a stable connection between husband and wife. In such a family, the man's power becomes less rigid, the woman receives a more honorable and free position. With the development of industry and cities, the family loses its production functions; it is now occupied with raising children, organizing everyday life and consumption.

Nuclear family

The loss of the family’s production function accelerated the process of narrowing the family, its fragmentation, and getting rid of “extra” relatives, who, however, are happy to live with their own family. Today, most families consist of a husband, wife and their children, most often minors. Such a family is called nuclear (from the Latin nucleus - core). Profound changes in family relations in industrial and post-industrial countries occurred during the 20th century due to the greatly changed position and role of women in society. The national economy required female labor, and the woman received her own source of existence, independent of her husband. Her economic dependence on her husband either weakens or is abolished altogether. The woman received the freedom to control her own destiny. Now she is kept in marriage by common children, spiritual and sexual intimacy with her husband, his cordial respectful attitude towards her, and his willingness to take some of the household chores off her shoulders.

In the second half of the 20th century, a radical breakdown of a number of ethical family values ​​took place, and the ethics of family relationships changed. Firstly, the value and even the immutability of an officially registered marriage decreases; There are many families where the husband and wife do not register their marriage, believing that in this way they maintain freedom. Such families can be both fleeting and very lasting. Secondly, the moral principle according to which the wife is given to her husband, and the husband to his wife for life, has been archived. Even the church is forced to abandon this principle. Today Anna Karenina would calmly leave her husband for Vronsky, and no one would condemn her. Thirdly, the attitude towards extramarital affairs has changed sexual relations, they are no longer taboo. At the same time, society looks at women with illegitimate children, and on such children themselves. Single mothers are not condemned, and their children are not disadvantaged in any way in their social position. Do such dramatic changes undermine or strengthen the strength of the family? They both undermine and strengthen. Families are undermined if they are based not on the free choice of spouses, but on some kind of dependence of one spouse on the other. It is difficult for such families to survive in the new conditions. On the contrary, families that arose by the free choice of spouses do not experience any pressure to break up from external circumstances.

The massive breakdown of families today- a worldwide phenomenon. In some countries, the number of divorces is equal to the number of marriages. What are the reasons for this phenomenon? In addition to the reasons already mentioned, I will name the following.

Firstly, in modern conditions, a young man enters an independent life earlier than his parents once did. In Western European countries, children, barely reaching the age of 17-18, leave their parents' home and live an independent life. They enter into hasty marriages, which most often break up after a short time.

Secondly, all kinds of social vices are widespread, in particular drunkenness and drug addiction. Many who suffer from such vices make family life unbearable. Due to the drunkenness of a husband or wife, for example, many families break up.

Thirdly, the main interests of many spouses lie not in the family, but outside it: in the service, in business, in social activities. The family and home become only a “bedroom,” which alienates the spouses from each other.

The crisis of family relations is especially affected in demographic terms: Russia is dying out, that is, the number of people who have died exceeds the number of people born. On average, we have one and a half children per family, and to maintain population balance we need 2.3. The consequences can be catastrophic: a country with a small population will not be able to hold onto vast territories; There may soon be a shortage working population; there will be no one to feed the children and the elderly.

Society and the state are interested in strengthening the family, since the well-being and prosperity of society largely depends on it. The task of protecting and strengthening the family is solved by family legislation.

(Greek pater - father + arche - beginning, power), the first historical form of a monogamous (paired) monogamous family, headed by a man. It arose during the transition from matriarchy to patriarchy as a result of the enslavement of women as a result of the weakening of their economic role and the concentration of wealth in the hands of male owners. Thus, monogamy appeared in history not at all as a union between a man and a woman based on consent, but as the enslavement of one sex by the other, as a proclamation of a contradiction between the sexes unknown before patriarchy. The patriarchal family united several generations of immediate relatives leading a joint household. In its classical form it existed in the first stages of the slaveholding formation, but its various modifications have been preserved among other peoples to the present day. Such a family was strictly monogamous only for the woman. For men, the development of slavery and other forms of dependence and domination opened up new possibilities for polygamy ( cm. Polygyny).
In the countries of the East, polygamy was elevated to the rank of a legal form of marriage, but even the European patriarchal family included both relatives, descendants of the same father with their wives and children, and household slaves, including concubines. Capitalist relations of production destroyed the connection between family life and production (primarily in the city), characteristic of feudalism. For many families, the economic function was limited to organizing their daily life. Under capitalism, the need for large, “undivided” families and their patriarchal structure has disappeared. Most families began to consist only of spouses and their children ( cm. Nuclear family), and family relationships became less hierarchical. Sociological research shows that the vast majority of families organize all their intra-family activities on the basis of equality, where decisions on major issues of family life are made jointly. Democratization of family relations does not exclude the presence in the family of a leader in one or another area of ​​family activity. According to sociological surveys, in Belarus and Russia no more than 15% of families name the husband (father) as the head of the family. In a significant part of these families, the dominance of the man is determined by his authority, and not by the unconditional submission of the wife to her husband.

(Source: Sexological Dictionary)

(large family), a form of family headed by a man. Arose during the transition from matriarchy to patriarchy; consisted of several generations of immediate relatives leading a joint household.

(Source: Dictionary of Sexual Terms)

See what “Patriarchal family” is in other dictionaries:

- (large family) a form of family headed by a man. It arises under patriarchy, consists of several generations of close relatives leading a joint household...

- (large family), a form of family in which power rests undivided with the eldest man. It often has an extended composition, that is, it includes several generations of relatives. * * * PATRIARCHAL FAMILY PATRIARCHAL FAMILY (large family), form... ... encyclopedic Dictionary

Patriarchal family- (gr. – father, beginning, power) – a family built on the traditions of an old obsolete society, similar to a clan community. This is a family based on the complete and unlimited power of the father, the masculine principle. Tribal community as a form of family community... ... Fundamentals of spiritual culture (teacher's encyclopedic dictionary)

See Art. Family … Great Soviet Encyclopedia

Patriarchal family (extended family)- a family consisting of several generations of immediate relatives leading a joint household, with the absolute power of the man as the head of the family... Sociology: dictionary

AND; families, families, families; and. 1. A group of people consisting of husband, wife, children and other close relatives living together. Wealthy, low-income village. Large village Intelligent, friendly, big village. Rabochaya, peasant village. Live your life... ... encyclopedic Dictionary

family- family, a minimal social association based on ties by marriage, consanguinity or some other relationship (for example, informal sexual relations) and existing in all human societies. The family is characterized by obligatory... ... Encyclopedia "Peoples and Religions of the World"

FAMILY- FAMILY, an association of people based on marriage or consanguinity, connected by a common life and mutual responsibility. Being necessary component social structure of any society and performing many. social functions, S. plays an important role in ... Demographic Encyclopedic Dictionary

Based on marriage or consanguinity small group, whose members are connected by a common life, mutual assistance, moral and legal responsibility. How a stable association arises with the decomposition of the tribal system. The first historical form... ... Big Encyclopedic Dictionary

I. Family and clan in general. II. Evolution of the family: a) Zoological family; b) Prehistoric family; c) Foundations of maternal law and patriarchal law; d) Patriarchal family; e) Individual, or monogamous, family. III. Family and clan among the ancients... ... Encyclopedic Dictionary F.A. Brockhaus and I.A. Efron

Books

• The world of the Russian woman. Family, profession, home life. XVIII - early XX century, Ponomareva Varvara Vitalievna, Khoroshilova Lyubov Borisovna. Since the second half of the 19th century, more and more Russian women support themselves - they enter the public service, seek recognition in pedagogy, medicine, journalism, even in such purely...
• The world of a Russian woman: family, profession, home life. XVIII - early XX centuries, Ponomareva V., Khoroshilova L.. Since the second half of the 19th century, more and more Russian women support themselves - they enter the public service, achieve recognition in pedagogy, medicine, journalism, even in such purely ...

The most archaic type is patriarchal: the leading relationship is consanguineous, the wife is clearly dependent on her husband, and children on their parents. The dominance of the husband is exercised through the concentration of economic resources in his hands and the adoption of major decisions, and therefore the roles are strictly consolidated.

Let us remember that in two classical works- L. Morgan and F. Engels (see works 1 and 2, Chapter I) - the patriarchal family is identified as a transitional institution of the paired-monogamous model. Its heyday is considered to be the border between barbarism and civilization. Both researchers considered the ancient Roman family as a model, in which the dominance of paternal power over a certain number of free and unfree people, united by the purpose of cultivating the land and protecting domestic herds, was consolidated. Form of marriage -

polygamy or monogamy - did not have any significant significance.

F. Le Play put a fundamentally similar meaning into the concept of “patriarchal family” (see work 3, chapter I). The sociologist observed such relationships among the Bashkirs, Russians living in the Urals, and the southern Slavs, however, already in the 19th century. Although among the named peoples the family consisted exclusively of relatives and in-laws, the household remained, as in the past, undivided, and the power of the father was unlimited.

As for the southern Slavs, in particular, their traditional principles remained until the middle of the 20th century. Let's present them in general terms.

The most common type of family among these peoples was a complex multi-linear family. While maintaining the main features that characterize the zadru (collective ownership of land and property, collective consumption), this form of family also had local differences. For example, in Macedonia, old people enjoyed great authority, regardless of gender; whereas in Dalmatia the power of the father, the head of the zadru, is celebrated.

The Yugoslav family is patrilocal. Sons, married and unmarried, in the vast majority of cases remained in the parental home, and daughters lived in it until they married, after which they moved to the husband's community. In extraordinary cases this order was violated. For example, a widowed daughter could return to her parents’ house with her children, or a stranger could become a member of a friend, having worked for a long time.

who worked there for hire, and then married one of the daughters.

The number of family clans was not regulated. In the first half of the 19th century. Families numbering fifty or more people were often encountered; Along with them, there were also small associations. Large communities were more common among Christian than among Muslim populations.

Collective ownership of all movable and immovable property of the zadruga was a prerequisite for its existence. This property, or at least the bulk of it, was not subject to sale. The actual owners were males, since girls, when married, were, in principle, deprived of the right to inherit. The tradition of inheritance was not the same in all Yugoslav regions: in some, only males acted as heirs, in others, formally, persons of both sexes, but in practice women renounced their share in favor of men - this was dictated by common law.

The head of the zadruga, as a rule, was the eldest male grandfather, father or first son, only occasionally, however, the tradition of seniority was not respected and the most energetic and authoritative person became the head. The range of his responsibilities was very diverse. He represented his friend to the outside world, participated in solving village affairs, paid taxes and debts, and was responsible to society for the moral actions of all family members. He decided, and sometimes participated in the direct execution of economic affairs, supervising

shaft and directed them, concentrated the family treasury in his hands. He also headed religious worship, family and calendar holidays, participated in weddings, christenings, funerals.

A strict hierarchy reigned in this community. The word of the head of the group was law for each of its members; any orders were carried out unquestioningly. The authority of other family members was directly dependent on their gender and age. In a patriarchal family, the most respected were the elderly, whose opinions were taken into account by everyone. The custom of standing up when an older person enters the house, not smoking in the presence of the father, and showing other signs of attention to elders, for example, kissing their hand (in areas of Eastern influence), calling them “you” (in areas with Western influence), has become established everywhere. It is worth emphasizing: predominantly honor was given to men, they had greater rights than women, and were, in comparison with men, on a higher rung of the hierarchical ladder. Women, with rare exceptions, were deprived of rights and "were in a subordinate position. One of the answers received in Bosnia, during a questionnaire survey conducted before the First World War, exceptionally accurately characterizes the attitude towards women. This entry read: "A man five years older than a woman of fifty." Until the middle of the 20th century, women ate second, after men had finished eating.

pezu. The position of younger daughters-in-law was particularly deprived of rights. Dedo_vl"Mg-that" there was a hierarchy among women, headed by the grandmother, mother, and older daughters-in-law. All of them, regardless of status and age, could not publicly, in the presence of other members of the team, express their feelings, be happy or sad.

Labor activity was also regulated by age and gender. For example, caring for poultry and sometimes pigs was entrusted to children. The elderly and sick did the lightest work. The main thing, however, was the sexual division of labor. Men usually performed the most difficult work: cultivating the land, caring for livestock, collecting firewood, and repairing buildings and tools. It happened that during the period of decline in agricultural work they were engaged in waste trade or traded agricultural and livestock products.

Women's work was concentrated mainly around serving the members of the zaruga - taking care of food and clothing, cleaning the house and yard. Work was signed between the women of the family and was carried out by the same persons constantly or for some time. long time. They, of course, also took part in agricultural work - weeding, reaping, harvesting, cultivating gardens. Together with men, women went to summer pastures, where they lived during the entire period of raising livestock and prepared dairy products. They also had primacy in household crafts - spinning, weaving, knitting and embroidery (4, pp. 84-103).

Available whole line significant evidence definitely suggests that the patriarchal family is not a purely European phenomenon. At least in Asia, it has been equally widespread throughout many countries for thousands of years.

Moreover, despite certain nuances caused mainly by the religious caste system, the basic lines of the traditional family of the West and the East are consonant.

According to T. F. Sivertseva’s report, in the so-called developing countries (Jordan, Iraq, Iran, Turkey, India, Ceylon, etc.), until recently, the dominant place was occupied by a complex (undivided) family, which is characterized by the dominance of male power and the prevalence of clan interests over the individual, reverence for elders, minimal use of birth control, low level divorces, the spread, along with monogamy, and polygamy (5, pp. 29, 30). In short, we have before us a portrait of a classic patriarchal family.

Another source testifies: relatively recently, the basis of the social structure of Japanese society was large clan houses - “ie”. A distinctive feature of “ie” as a form of family organization was the following - the eldest sons, as continuers of the family, remained after marriage in the house of their parents. The head of the house enjoyed unquestioned authority and power. In accordance with tradition, he disposed of all property. The fate of all members depended on his will

family, for example, marriage of children and grandchildren. The dominance of men over women was secured not only by customs, but also by law. In "ie" individuals sacrificed their personal needs in favor of common interests.

Since the second half of the current century, there has been a gradual decline in the share of such “houses”. This trend is indirectly confirmed by the steady decrease in average family size and the rapid increase in the total number of families. If in 1955 the average size of a Japanese family was approximately 5 people, then 20 years later it was about 3.5 people; from 1970 to 1975, the total number of families increased by 15.9% (6, pp. 6-8). Despite the significant weakening of the power of customs over the past decades, they nevertheless make themselves felt at the end of the century. The spiritual and social traditions of a clan family often manifest themselves in such everyday situations as weddings and funerals, inheritance and contacts with neighbors.

30 A brilliant illustration of the thought expressed can be found in an excerpt from a letter from Nobel Prize laureate Kenzaburo Oe. “Recently I went for a walk along the central streets of Tokyo,” he says, “... and noticed on a telegraph pole a leaflet of some patriotic union, faded from the rain. Its authors, referring to the immutable commandments of the hierarchical system with its vertical rod “overlord - subject," they accused me of refusing to accept the order of merit in the field of culture last year. Reading the sentence handed down to me, I... with all my guts "felt" how the sting of ethics, which filled me with trepidation in childhood, was absorbed into the fabric of our entire present existence" (7, p. 231).

A few sketches, I believe, will make it possible to identify the coinciding principles of a complex (patriarchal) family both within the Asian and in comparison with the European continent.

Young people in most developing countries could not (and partly still cannot) meet without parental permission. Marriage is most often concluded as a transaction based on property and social equality.

Arranged marriages predominated in pre-war Japan. Main actors In preparation for such marriages, it was not so much the bride and groom, but their parents, as well as matchmakers and matchmakers. After the wedding, wives mostly moved to their husbands' parental home and became dependent members of his family clan, headed by either the grandfather or the husband's father. The marriage of children was considered by the parents of both the bride and groom as an important common matter, associated primarily with economic and material calculations. I will say more, and in the post-war period for a number of years, after the introduction of new laws, the old practice of arranged marriages continued to prevail not only in villages and provincial areas, but also among the petty-bourgeois population of Tokyo and other large cities of the country.

In complex families of the Arab East, Pakistan and India, the care and upbringing of children is traditionally carried out not only by parents, but also by relatives and close neighbors. Children are kept by the community and are required to participate in

lecture economic activity. This activity, by the way, is never perceived as coercion on their part.

We find the same order among the Japanese. Their desire to preserve their families primarily explains the high birth rate that was observed in the country both in the pre-war and early post-war years. Typical of that period were families with a large number of children, whose upbringing, along with their parents, was carried out by grandparents, older brothers, sisters and other close relatives living together in a common “house” (“ie”) 31 .

The Japanese, guided by Confucian precepts, showed maximum care and respect to their elderly parents and grandparents, and showed them all kinds of honors. They considered caring for and maintaining the oldest members, even at the expense of their own needs, as an imperative moral duty, as a matter of honor for the entire family. They saw the fulfillment of this duty as a natural expression of their gratitude to their parents. Today, various anniversary celebrations organized by children in honor of their elderly parents remind us of the traditional Japanese veneration of the oldest members of the family. In the past, the first old man's anniversary was celebrated at 40 years old. The next holiday, often organized by the sons -

31 Even in the early 1990s, there were 35.2% of three-generation families in Japan, compared to South Korea- 19.3%, in the USA - 6.1% (8, p. 19).

for my parents and daughters, is “honke gaeri” - the day when they turn 61 years old. From this moment, according to ancient belief, the return of older people to the period of second childhood begins. Sometimes such dates of life of elderly parents are celebrated as the seventieth birthday (koki no iwai) and the seventy-seventh birthday (ki no iwashi). Holidays are one thing, routine life is another. Right, and here we can talk about great cohesion between generations. Yes, polls public opinion show that the majority (70%) of young Japanese and the same number of older ones are in favor of cohabitation.

And in other parts of Asia, such as India, older people receive more support in single families compared to nuclear ones. Surveys conducted in rural areas of this country showed that the proportion of sons who help their fathers as much as possible is 67% in “complex” families and only 9% in “simple” families.

And another cardinal characteristic of a patriarchal family is the relationship between husband and wife.

In pre-war Japan, the omnipotence of the husband and the subordinate position of the wife in the family were affirmed by customs, morality, and laws. Husbands were assigned the undivided right of ownership of property; the will of the spouse determined the position of wives in families, their work activities, and their leisure time. We can safely say that in the second half of the 20th century. the relationship between the spouses is permeated with the spirit of the husband’s supremacy and the wife’s subordination, despite passed laws, equalizing the rights of spouses. IN special work"Japanese Family", published by

In 1980, the Office of Economic Planning made a note characteristic of a traditional society: “With regard to the role of spouses in the family, the general opinion is that the husband’s job is to earn money for a living, and the wife’s role is to teach children, raise them, take care of parents, manage family budgetary affairs, etc." (6, p. 46) 32.

Important indicator Japanese family way of life - separate pastime of spouses during leisure hours. Thus, a survey conducted by the Ministry of Labor in 1965 revealed that only 12.3% of married couples “often” relax and have fun together, “sometimes” - 41.1%, and “almost never” - 3.7% (6, p. 57). According to a number of local sociologists, the reason for the disunity in the rest of most spouses lies in national traditions, according to which, for a long time in the country, husbands and wives spent their time separately, based on the premise that men have one interest and entertainment, and women have another.

Despite the significant contribution of women in a number of developing countries of the East to the national economy, their status. determined mainly by the economic status of the father, husband or son. In other words, it is not professional activity, but the system

32 According to the mentioned comparative study, for example, the wife is responsible for spending everyday funds: in Japan - 82.7%, in South Korea - 79.3%, while in the USA - 40.9%, the opposite distribution of responsibility is men (respectively) - 3.6, 6.7 and 31.3% (8, p. 87).

kinship is a leading indicator of the “sociality” of women. Women’s activities were (and in many cases remain to this day) primarily focused on family circle responsibilities: giving birth and raising children, housekeeping, caring for the elderly.

The number of children (especially in Islamic countries) also affects the prestige of a wife: the more children, the higher her price. Professional activity in mainland Asia not only does not increase, but in a number of countries even reduces the social status of women, since it means that the father or husband is not able to provide for her. The same principle is evidenced by the fact that of the two girls - one who works and one who is raised at home - preference in the “marriage market” is still given to the second. Moreover, in Muslim regions, say Pakistan, limiting women's work to the home is a matter of family prestige.

I am sure that even a quick analysis in this paragraph is enough to state the following: despite the pronounced ethnopsychic specificity of peoples, and sometimes their conscious isolation from the outside world, the classical patriarchal family has been widespread for many centuries. A convincing demonstration of the above considerations can be the parallel existence of the Yugoslav “zadruga” and the Japanese “ie” house, which did not directly influence each other, but were nevertheless consonant in the main characteristics.

§ 2. Variety of models

traditional family in the area

former Soviet Union

The Soviet Union - and this is known to many - was a historically formed multinational conglomerate. Each nationality and ethnic group, of course, has specific customs, traditions, beliefs and a mechanism of social regulation. It is not at all necessary to be a specialist in order to understand the fundamental difference, for example, between a Russian family and a Turkmen one, a Ukrainian one from a Tajik one, and an Estonian one from a Georgian one. You can extend this series further. At the same time, it is difficult to imagine such social and cultural conditions under which a Lithuanian’s family would become a literal copy of a Russian one, an Azerbaijani’s - a Belarusian one, etc. The noted differences, it is easy to understand, are far from formal. On the other hand, the family of the indigenous population of the Central Asian and Transcaucasian regions, according to some basic indicators (fertility level, divorce rate, dependent position of women, etc.) is largely reminiscent of the state of the Russian family at the beginning of the 20th century. Hence, I believe, there is an opportunity within the framework of a once united country, albeit in retrospect, to highlight a vast set of traditional family models, determined by ethnic diversity. Ras-

I will explain this idea by resorting to statistics and survey data.

To begin, let us turn to the indicators of generations living together and the level of children. The share of married couples living with one or both parents of the spouses ranges from 20% in Russia to 32% in Tajikistan. In the years between the 1970 and 1979 censuses, the proportion of married couples living with their parents in the Central Asian and Transcaucasian regions increased, mainly due to an increase in rural areas, and in other republics it decreased. As for the number of children, the picture is as follows. Of the total number of families (according to the 1979 census) have children (under 18 years of age), say, in Latvia, 34% have one, 18.7% have two and 4.4% have three or more, 42.9% have no children. A significantly different distribution characterizes, for example, a family in Tajikistan. The corresponding indicators look like this: 18.1; 17.0; 49.6; 15.3%. Thus, the differences in the size and forms (two- and multi-generation) families are undeniable: for the indigenous population of Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Kyrgyzstan and Azerbaijan, it is typical, firstly, to preserve the traditions of undivided families, in which married sons more often live with their parents, -secondly, a larger number of children per married couple (9, pp. 51-59, 87-114).

Focusing on the ethnic specifics of the family, of course, does not mean denying the general direction of its historical development. One thing is clear: recognition of the progressive nature of the evolution of civilization as a whole entails recognition of the same pattern for individual societies.

al institutions. A specific analysis of the transformation - say, of Uzbek and Russian families - indicates the identity of a number of empirical patterns.

Let me clarify this idea. Some experts, who do not take into account the peculiarities and historical sequence of the stages of monogamy, pair its strength once and for all with the effect of having many children. Demographer O. Ata-Mirzaev, in a survey of 1,363 families in five regions of Uzbekistan, found that 92.5% women with many children were married, both in the first and, with rare exceptions, in the second. Widows accounted for 6.6%, and divorcees only 0.9%. From here he comes to the conclusion: for Central Asian peoples, a small number of divorces is directly related to having many children (10, p. 33). It is difficult to say what is more in this judgment: naivety or uncritical national “pride”. How can one explain the large number of children and the relatively small number of divorces in the Uzbek family? It is no secret to anyone that the tenets of the Muslim religion have a profound influence on indigenous people, especially those living in rural areas. Islamic customary law, as is known, sanctioned the despotism of the husband: God created, it is written in the Koran, for you from among yourselves wives, and her very appearance was caused by the need of men (11, p. 191). The main task of women, according to the same source, is to give birth to children, raise them and lead household. According to another Uzbek-

33 How not to remember the stereotypical phrase: “The East is the East,” and add: “both the Neighbor and the Middle.”

th researcher - N.M. Aliakberova, and today in everyday life there are very strong ideas about the inadmissibility and sinfulness of celibacy, childlessness and birth control (12, p. 24).

The picture changes significantly if we turn to an urban and, especially, a metropolitan family. Along the way, I will note one important circumstance - there are more married women involved in professional activities, the latter in itself being an economic support in opposition to patriarchal principles. So, in cities there are fewer undivided families: if in rural areas every third, then in urbanized settlements there are four. Further, the birth rate is lower. According to N.M. Aliakberova, the birth rate in rural areas relative to urban ones in 1950 was 111.6%, in 1970 - 140.4 and in 1977 - 151.3%. The same ratio is evidenced by the answers of women (in Uzbekistan as a whole) to the question about the expected number of children (in%): 0.4 - not to have, 5.6 - to have one, 32.7 - two, 15.0 - three, 46.3 - four or more, and in Tashkent: 0.5 - 11.2 - 46.9 - 19.0 - 22.4% (12). Finally, higher rates of marriage dissolution were found. Let me first focus on the dynamics of the average number of divorces per 1000 married couples. For the country as a whole, it is as follows: 1958-1959. -

34 According to feminist theory, patriarchy is “...a social system in which men dominate, suppress and oppress women.” The concept emphasizes "connection different options the exercise of power by men over women,” including “reproduction, violence, sexuality, work, culture and the state” (13, p. 449).

5.3, 1968-1970 - 11.5 and 1978-1979. - 15.2 (9, p. 38), for Uzbekistan for the same years - 1.4 - 5.9 - 8.1. The share of divorces in Uzbekistan, therefore, is clearly lower than in the country as a whole, but at the same time one cannot help but notice the fact that the increase in the intensity of family breakdown in the republic exceeded its rate in the Union. More - divorces in Tashkent are noticeably higher than in the entire Union: 3.7 versus 2.6 per 1000 population.

The convergence of these family indicators with the all-Union indicators, however, does not exclude the existence of echoes of ancient rituals and customs of the classical period of patriarchy among peoples professing Islam. Here are just two such “relics”. The ritual of announcing the result of the first wedding night by showing the sheet is still in use (again, mainly in rural areas). Woe to the bride if the matter turns out to be pure. This is exactly the kind of drama that Uzbek Moira Okilova experienced, for example. Her husband, without hesitation, abandoned her, sending her in disgrace to her parents’ house. (I quote from: 14, pp. 139-140).

Another example is the spread of polygamy. In the Andijan region alone in 1975, 58 teachers, 45 students and more than 20 doctors were married in parallel on the basis of Sharia and Soviet legislation. Numerous facts of marriage according to Sharia by representatives of the intelligentsia were established by a scientific student expedition in the villages of Dagestan and Checheno-Ingushetia (11, p. 129). By the way, this phenomenon is confirmed by judicial statistics from the Supreme Court of the USSR. For Azerbaijan the figures are

in particular, the following: in 1961, 40 people were convicted, in 1962. -50, 1963 -42, in 1964 -38 and 1965 - 39, respectively for Uzbekistan: 32 - 66 - 39 - 41 -30 and 59 people (11, p. 136).

The depth of inertia of traditional thinking comes into sharp relief when comparing two Christian peoples living in the same country, but in different geographical regions. Sociologists from Estonia compared the answers of students from Tartu and Tbilisi universities regarding their marriage attitudes; in particular, young people were asked: do they think premarital marriage is possible? sexual relations for men and for women? Students from Tbilisi answered - only for men; the majority of Estonian students did not see a difference between men and women in this regard. The second question was formulated as follows: if a conflict arises between spouses, how should it be resolved? From the point of view of Georgian students, the last word always behind the man. According to their colleagues from the University of Tartu, spouses should first discuss the reasons for the conflict and then make an agreed decision. And finally, the attitude of young people regarding divorce was clarified. Every third Tartu student regarded divorce as a completely natural phenomenon. In Tbilisi, only 2% of students expressed this opinion. A third of Georgians answered that they had never thought about divorce, while among Estonians there were no such people at all (15, pp. 27-30). The orientations of Georgian and Estonian students fully reflect the different

family principles: the former emphasize patriarchal privileges, while the latter emphasize values modern models. There is no doubt that the traditional type of family in the territory of the former Soviet Union (with some exceptions) is a modernized version 3, however, it is also heterogeneous, the features of individual models look quite convincing. The best way it (this specificity) appears during analysis the most important parameters patriarchy - patrilocality, patrilineality and the primacy of the husband.

The first question that, in fact, should confront the newlyweds is where to start their life together? In the type of family under consideration, the choice of place of residence is almost predetermined. A woman got married, and therefore had to follow her husband, that is, settle in his father’s family. The departure of men to live with their wives - which took place in exceptional cases - was regarded by the community (patronymy) as clearly an insult to the paternal family. And he was branded with the word “primak” for life. Can we today talk about the widespread elimination of this custom? Let us turn again to the materials of Central Asian researchers. We read: for Uzbekistan, “it is not typical for male sons-in-law to live in the family of his wife’s parents, and the survey revealed only a few such factors” (17, p. 63).

35 “The Tajiks and Pamir peoples retain (partly modernizing in accordance with the transformations of society) many traditional features, rooted in extreme antiquity"(16, p. 221).

A Kyrgyz ethnographer speaks in the same vein: “If in the past a husband never settled in the house of his wife’s parents, now this sometimes happens” (18, p. 82). Is it necessary to specifically prove that for a Russian family (especially an urban one) the described custom is, in principle, lost.

Another core of the traditional family is patrilineality, that is, the calculation of kinship along the male line. This system involves the transfer of material and family values ​​to the heirs of the male line. The father was the owner of almost all the family property; it depended entirely on his will whether to reward his sons or expel them from the house, marry or divorce.

One relatively recent study found that the factor “importance of continuing the family name” has a direct relationship with the number of births of children and with the preference for boys. Namely: 73.7% of respondents wanted to have boys and only 21% wanted girls (19, p. 32).

Judging by my observations, young men, even in Russia to this day, prefer - at least as a first child - a boy. It would seem, for what? To pass on material values ​​- this is how the vast majority of fathers have them, by and large they do not have them; spiritual and moral values ​​- so they are undoubtedly equally important for both male and female heirs. Apparently, here we are faced with the unconscious “pressure” of centuries-old traditions that occupy a solid niche in the body of culture.

The headship of the husband in the family, figuratively speaking, closes the circle of the dependent position of the wife. Which, as already noted, is manifested in the concentration of economic resources in his hands. One should not think that the elimination of the economic and moral priorities of the head of the family occurs everywhere at the same rhythm. “By tradition, the husband,” notes Uzbek ethnographer S. M. Mirkhasimov, “is still considered the head of the family and his word in many cases is decisive. Thus, 43.7% of respondents answered that critical issues the husband decides in the family" (20, p. 38). Demographers seem to echo him: "Respect for elders, the dominant position in the husband's family can be considered a characteristic feature rural family" (21).

Much in common with Central Asian stereotypes is observed in the families of the indigenous population of Transcaucasia and the North Caucasus. According to Ya. S. Smirnova, in pre-revolutionary times, families retained the authoritarian power of men, sanctified by adat, Sharia and, to a certain extent, the laws of the Russian Empire (22). Field ethnographic observations and special sociological surveys conducted in the same region in the 70s showed that, due to tradition, the husband is still considered the formal head of the family in the overwhelming majority of cases. In the family as a whole, the gender and age division of labor is firmly preserved. The ideology of gender equality, which is shared by the majority of young and middle-aged spouses, has not yet turned into the reality of their everyday life for many (23, pp. 53-57).

In the Volga region, among the Tatars and other peoples, male dominance prevails, as in the past. A woman (not a widow or a divorcee) is less likely to head a family than among Russians, Ukrainians, Belarusians and the Baltic peoples. According to Moscow sociologist M. G. Pankratova, in the Mari family the concept of “head of the family” (indicated by 4/5 of those surveyed in the 70s) is unshakable and is still considered to be a man. Traditional etiquette is maintained. The husband's wife and mother try to emphasize the prestige of the man - the head of the family. The wife speaks respectfully of her husband, at least in front of guests and strangers, and pays special attention to her father-in-law. In home life, more than 90% of families maintain the inherited division of work by gender (14, p. 137). In Siberia, among the Buryats, Altaians, Tuvinians and Yakuts, with rare exceptions, the eldest man is considered the head of the family. The head of a Tuvan family - "og eezi" - is the owner of the yurt. At the same time, the name of the woman - “hereezhok”, i.e. “unclean”, emphasized her isolation and humiliation not only in the family, but also in society (24, p. 15).

We must clearly understand that traditional relations in the last third of the 20th century are inherent in Russia not only to the Volga or Siberian regions. In the cities of Central Russia, these principles, although not in such a pronounced form, are also tenacious. Let's name some of them: matchmaking, decisions regarding the most important problems of family life are made by the man, the calculation of kinship is patrilineal, the bridegroom changes her surname to

the husband's surname; when naming a newborn, the registry of family names is used.

The second central axis of the family, by definition, is the parent-child relationship. For many centuries, the patriarchal family was dominated by absolute parental power and an authoritarian system of education. The slightest violation of these principles led to inevitable sanctions. For example, according to the Code of 1649, a son and daughter equally, regardless of age, were punished with a whip if they spoke rudely to their parents, especially when trying to sue them. “...Children in the Middle Ages were often equated with the insane, with inferior, marginal elements of society” (25, p. 316); caring for them was not in the customs of the peasant family. Thus, the writer-commoner D.V. Grigorovich noted: “... the most tender father, the most caring mother with inexpressible carelessness present their brainchild to the will of fate, without even thinking about physical development child" (26, p. 87). Reflecting on the village system of life, the famous Russian ethnographer of the early 20th century R. Ya. Vnukov came to the opinion that there is no

36 The patriarchal family is not typical for Western countries in the second half of this century, but in some specific aspects of behavior the man still plays a dominant role today. Thus, surveys conducted in England suggest that in families of the lower strata, the husband manages to retain control of the money. In a Dutch sample, respondents pointed to the father's sole decision-making regarding financial expenses, and especially regarding the purchase of expensive things (25, pp. 396-398).

in the villager’s worldview, the concept of parents’ responsibility to their children, but, on the contrary, the idea of ​​children’s responsibility to their parents existed in an exaggerated form. Hence the peasants’ special respect for the fifth commandment: “Honor your father and your mother.”

Such relationships in miniature reflected the prevailing hierarchy in society. According to the French historian F. Aries, “the idea of ​​childhood was associated with the idea of ​​dependence: the words “son”, “jack”, “garcon” also belong to the dictionary of feudal relations, expressing dependence on the lord. Childhood did not end until this addiction ended. That is why in ordinary spoken language the word “child” was used to describe a person of low social status... These were lackeys, companions, soldiers, etc.” (28, p. 231).

The dependent position of the young peasant in the Russian village even at the beginning of the 20th century. continued until he got married. And in fact, before marriage, the guy, even if he was over 20 years old, was not taken seriously by anyone. He is "small". Already in the very name of the position of an unmarried man, the infringement of his rights and social inferiority are hidden. However, it was also impossible to transition to the status of an adult, that is, married (or married), without the will of the parents 3 .

And today, the peoples of the Caucasus and Central Asia are distinguished by their strong commitment to following traditional principles in the relationship between parents and children. It has been noticed that among Azerbaijanis, if a child

37 See work 2, ch. II.

©2015-2019 site
All rights belong to their authors. This site does not claim authorship, but provides free use.
Page creation date: 2016-02-13

Of particular importance is the typology of families, which contains information about The structure of power in the family, about the preferential family functions men and women, about the specifics of intrafamily leadership. In accordance with these criteria, the following types of families are distinguished: Traditional patriarchal, traditional matriarchal, neo-patriarchal, neo-matriarchal AND Egalitarian. The first four types of family can be called asymmetrical, the last type - symmetrical.

IN Traditional patriarchal In a family, the husband is its undisputed head; the wife’s dependence on her husband, and the children’s dependence on their parents, is clearly expressed.

The man is assigned the role of “master”, “breadwinner”, “breadwinner”. Male authority is recognized without question or accepted under pressure. The dominance of paternal power is unlimited. The authority of other family members depends on their gender and age: older people are most revered, men have more rights than women. Clan interests prevail over individual ones. That's why such a family is called Authoritarian-patriarchal.

A man makes a fundamental contribution to the material support of the family, manages its financial and economic resources, determines its status and social circle, and makes responsible decisions on the most important issues. He sorts out internal family disputes and represents the family outside. Male sexuality is given an active role, this attitude is concentrated in the concept of “potency”. The spouse is exempt from performing household duties. The wife is either a housewife or earns very little. The organization of normal life and consumption falls on her shoulders, and she is required to run the household in an exemplary manner and create a cozy and comfortable environment in the house. Her responsibilities also include looking after and raising children.

In his classic version The patriarchal family is briefly characterized as follows: the husband is the sole head and patron of the family, female obedience is the natural duty of the wife. Marriage was perceived as a state established by God, in which a man and a woman live together, in mutual understanding, giving birth to offspring and thereby avoiding fornication. Thanks to the consecration by the church, marriage in the eyes of society acquired the features of constancy and durability. The vitality of marriage was determined by pragmatic goals: it made it possible to strengthen the financial position of the husband's family.

Famous patriarchal image- a virtuous wife. Social activity women were limited to household chores and daily care for the spiritual and physical needs of children. Children had to be raised in obedience and piety. The best qualities of a woman were recognition of her dependent position and service to her husband in marriage. It is appropriate here to recall the native Russian words “get married”, “married”. The meaning of female sexuality was seen in childbirth. The spouse is a representative of the superior sex, possessing natural physical and intellectual strength.

This cultural stereotype was reinforced by religious and legitimate formulas of male dominance, which localized women’s social space.

Distinctive features of a patriarchal family - Patrilocality AND Patrilineality. Patrilocality It consists in the fact that a woman follows her husband, that is, she settles in his father’s house. Sons, married and unmarried, live in the parental home; his daughters leave him only when they get married. This shows respect for the paternal family. In modern Russian families, the issue of the newlyweds’ place of residence is decided much more freely. Patrilineality Means the calculation of kinship through the male line. Consequently, material assets are transferred to the heirs of the male line, and the father has the right to decide whether to reward his sons or not. Fathers of families are still interested in the birth of boys, “continuers of the family name,” at least as the first child. This position of young Russian men is subject to the unconscious “pressure” of centuries-old traditions.

In science, there are conflicting views on the problem of relationships between the patriarchal family, society and the state. Outstanding psychoanalyst Wilhelm Reich In his work “Mass Psychology and Fascism” he unambiguously expressed his point of view: “... an authoritarian society reproduces itself in individual structures the masses with the help of the authoritarian family... In the person of the father, the authoritarian state has its representative in every family, and therefore the family turns into the most important instrument of its power.” For sons, deep identification with the father serves as the basis for emotional identification with any form of authority. In an authoritarian family, there is not only competition between adults and children, but also competition among children in their relationships with their parents, which can have more serious consequences.

According to another point of view, the patriarchal family protected individual rights from attacks on them by the state. Primary in it were the relations of spontaneous cooperation in the process of family production, thanks to which individual egoism was overcome. Views Elton Mayo One of the creators of the famous theory human relations, can be attributed to the so-called neopaternalism.

The idea of ​​paternalism suggests that relationships in an enterprise or a company should be built on the basis of patriarchal, family ties, when the manager performs the function of a “father.”

Until the middle of the 20th century. traditional values ​​retained their influence in both Europe and Asia. But the process of transforming the family into a “moderately patriarchal” one was steadily gaining momentum. In the 50s in post-war Europe, there was a weakening of the dominant positions of fathers in almost all social strata.

Acceptance/rejection of the patriarchal model by contemporaries It is largely determined by the decrease in the social and economic dependence of the wife on her husband. At the same time, working women perform the vast majority of household chores and provide psychological relief for their husbands and children. German historian R. Zider He writes that the wife’s relationship with her husband is still of a service nature: “As before, satisfying the objective and subjective needs of the “main breadwinner” has absolute priority over the needs of the wife and children. Patriarchy has not yet been overcome at all. In any case, however, the patriarchal basic relations of family members, essentially socio-economic and determined by cultural tradition, are overlapped by increasingly partner-like forms of address.”

IN Traditional matriarchal In the family, personal leadership belongs to the woman. Matriarchy, like patriarchy, did not exist among all peoples. But many peoples had maternal ancestry, For the mother's credibility is objective. At all times, the mother played an exceptional role in maintaining family ties. A woman’s ability to regulate interpersonal relationships and use indirect methods of influencing others helps to win the struggle for power. In some families with formal leadership of men IN In reality, the dominant position is occupied by a woman.

If we talk about Russian family, Then the feminine, maternal principle is more strongly expressed in her. I. S. Kon It reminds us that Russian wives and mothers, even in the pre-revolutionary era, were often strong, dominant, self-confident individuals. This is reflected in Russian classical literature: “He will stop a galloping horse and enter a burning hut.”

Under Soviet rule, the “strong woman syndrome” persisted and even intensified. Women bear the main responsibility for the family budget and solving primary issues of home life. Typical of Soviet times is the image of a peasant with a ruble or three rubles in his pocket, given out daily by his compassionate but powerful wife. This is not the fault, but the misfortune of a woman whose husband brought home a salary, the size of which he could little influence. The wife had to contrive and “stretch” this amount until the next salary. She had to take the reins into her own hands. This was the price for the stability of the existence of a socialist family.

The Russian woman's claims to leadership in the family can be understood based on the general trend in the history of Soviet society - the tendency towards the demasculinization of men. The most authoritative specialist in the field of gender psychology and sociology, I. S. Kon He says that neither in professional activity nor in socio-political life the average Soviet man could demonstrate traditionally masculine traits. The stereotypical image of a man includes such qualities as energy, initiative, courage, independence, and self-government. Social and sexual unfreedom was aggravated by the feminization of all institutions and personified in dominant female images: mothers, teachers, etc. In such conditions, the strategy of transferring family responsibility to the wife was psychologically justified. A woman hardly gained anything from the deformation of a man’s character. Where a husband rebelled against his wife's authority, she either endured rudeness and humiliation, or sacrificed her abilities and professional achievements. In a family where the husband accepted his subordinate position, the wife was deprived of the necessary support.

More harsh in his judgments V. N. Druzhinin:“...the dominant role of the Russian woman was imposed by the Soviet government and communist ideology, depriving the father of the main paternal functions.” Family relationships in a totalitarian society become psychobiological, rather than socio-psychological. A man is deprived of social and economic opportunities to provide for his family and raise children, his role as the main agent of socialization is reduced to nothing. The totalitarian state takes on the entire burden of responsibility and replaces the father.

At the same time, the importance of the natural psychobiological connection between the child and mother increases. Violation of this connection leads the family to disaster. Then the state and society are again forced to turn to the problems of motherhood. A “vicious circle” arises imaginary reasons and real consequences": "...in modern Russian family a woman wants (and is forced by force of circumstances) to rule undividedly and completely. A man is not able to provide for his family, bear responsibility for it and, accordingly, be a role model.” A way out of the current situation V. N. Druzhinin Sees in creation social conditions for the manifestation of male activity outside the family.

The division of family power is also realized in modern married couples. In order to prevent destructive conflicts, it is necessary that such a division suits both spouses and facilitates the family’s fulfillment of its functions. The traditional family model can be quite acceptable if the spouses' positions regarding the power structure are consistent. In relation to the family, the famous question of power is The Question of Family Leadership Or, more precisely, Headship. The head of the family combines both a leader and a manager.

IN Neo-patriarchal Family The strategic and business (instrumental) leader is the husband, A Tactical and emotional (expressive) leader- Wife. The spouse determines the long-term direction of the family's development, sets priority goals for its existence, chooses ways and means to achieve these goals, and formulates appropriate instructions and instructions for family members. He knows the current state of affairs well and foresees the possible consequences of decisions made. It is the spouse who plays the role of the authorized representative of the family in society; the position of the family in the outside world depends on his actions. The husband's (father's) extra-family activity - professional, social, political, etc. - is encouraged by the household. The man himself has high aspirations in this area, is distinguished by his business orientation, pragmatism, and cares about the material well-being and social status of his loved ones. A man’s worldview and life strategy serve as a guide for all family members. It sets the style of family life and ensures its implementation. The younger generation sees in their father an example of strong-willed qualities and organizational abilities.

The father is impressed by the children’s desire to express their opinions, realistically assess people and events, and successfully master the skills of independent activity. The wife finds support in her husband, and his work achievements become a source of pride for the whole family.

If The spouse is responsible for long-term planning of family affairs, while the spouse develops short-term plans, Which easily and quickly correlate with specific actions of adults and children. A woman’s prerogative is to build daily contacts between family members. It develops relationships of mutual assistance and cooperation. Being interested in increasing the cohesion of family members, she organizes joint events, the range of which can be extremely wide, from spring cleaning and Sunday lunches to anniversary celebrations. Her competence in the intricacies of home life is admirable. She is also in charge of the sphere of family leisure. She is endowed with sensitivity to the needs and emotions of all family members. The spouse adjusts the psychological climate in the family, creates an atmosphere of emotional and moral support, and develops her own leadership style and “support style.” The wife (mother) ensures the functioning of the family as an environment for emotional release. In a neopatriarchal family, the father acts as an expert for the children in business and production matters, and the mother in intimate and personal relationships.

IN Neomatriarchal For families, the situation is the opposite. A common feature of the considered family options is Joint leadership between husband and wife while dividing their spheres of influence. Conflict in a marital dyad can arise due to an unclear distribution of spheres of influence or the claims of one of the spouses to a different role.

Egalitarian The family assumes Complete and genuine equality of husband and wife in all matters of family life without exception. In the current Constitution Russian Federation And Family Code The Russian Federation has declared the principle of equality of men and women, which is the legal basis for the development of an egalitarian family.

The husband and wife make a (proportional) contribution to the material well-being of the family union, jointly run the household, jointly make all the most important decisions and are equally involved in caring for and raising children.

The role and importance of each spouse in shaping the psychological climate of the family is equal; the status of the family is determined by the spouse who has a higher position. The social circle is formed by both spouses. This marital union is called Biarchate, Or Cooperatively symmetrical marriage. Being spouses means “running in the same team.” Apparently it’s more convenient to do it this way?!

In an egalitarian family, the principle of consistency in the positions of spouses takes on special significance. It is necessary to come to an agreement on a very flexible division of spheres of influence, on a high degree of interchangeability. Everyone should be ready to become a leader, business manager or educator. Disagreements that arise must be resolved through mutual agreements, compromises or mutually beneficial exchanges.

Children are full members of the family and, to the extent possible, participate in the discussion and implementation of decisions made. In their upbringing, humane methods are used, based on trust in the child’s personality and recognition of his rights. The child’s initiative and independence are encouraged, his needs for autonomy, individuality development, and creativity are respected. Children coming from such families may tend to use a similar pattern of relationships in their marriage.

The ideal model of an egalitarian family is presented in the concept of an open marriage, according to which it is believed that in marriage each of the spouses can remain themselves, reveal their abilities, and preserve their individuality. Spouses should not be “one body and one soul.” Marriage is built on mutual attraction and trust; spouses do not seek to manipulate each other’s behavior or subjugate their partner.

Principles of open marriage:

· You need to live in the present, based on realistic desires.

· Your partner's privacy should be respected.

· Communication should be open and based on the consideration: “say what you see and feel, but do not criticize.”

· Family roles must be mobile.

· The partnership must be open: everyone’s right to own interests and hobbies.

· Equality is affirmed as fair division responsibility and benefits.

· One should give another the opportunity to live according to his ideas; know your worth and maintain your dignity.

· You should trust each other and respect non-family interests.

Creating an egalitarian union is complex because it requires, firstly, a careful and scrupulous description of the rights and responsibilities of the spouses; secondly, a very high culture of communication, respect for the other person, mutual information and trust in relationships.

Some scientists speak of an egalitarian family as a conflict family: power functions are distributed, but their distribution is a constant basis for conflict. The egalitarian model in Russia is given the role of transition. Its appearance is due to the growing economic independence of the family from the totalitarian state, the increasing economic, social and political role of men. For our country, a family is considered preferable in which, along with equal rights, the father will take responsibility for the upbringing and maintenance of children while preserving other family responsibilities for the mother and children.

In Russia, younger and better educated men are more egalitarian and take on more household responsibilities, including fatherhood, than was previously the case.

The happiness of a family largely depends on the principle by which you build it. Psychologists observe four types of families in our country (in this case we mean complete families living separately from their parents). But even each of them has its own internal variations.

Patriarchal family type

The man is in charge. The man makes all the decisions; nothing is done in the house without his knowledge. A man is a breadwinner, or at least tries to be one. In a patriarchal type of family, it is the husband who manages the finances, regardless of his and his wife’s income. The woman in this family is the classic keeper of the hearth.

Patriarchal family type: husband-breadwinner

The man is wealthy, earns much more than his wife, but at the same time they have common interests and common topics of conversation. They spend evenings and weekends together, watch the same movies, prefer the same brand of wine. Such a married couple, if the wife does not have great ambitions (psychotype - Altruist), is guaranteed a long and happy family life.

Patriarchal family type: golden cage

The man is wealthy, earns much more than his wife, but has very few common interests with her (in particularly advanced cases, none at all). Their lives practically do not intersect. They go out together only when etiquette requires that husbands come to the party with their wives. The rest of the time, the wife goes to beauty salons or with girlfriends, the husband goes to saunas, clubs, and presentations. They meet in the evening in the kitchen or at night in bed. This type of family will suit those women who do not expect anything from marriage other than purely commercial gain (psychotype - Daughter; it will be difficult for an Altruist to get along in a “golden cage”).

Patriarchal family type: loser husband

The husband earns no more than his wife, or even less, but still considers himself the boss in everything! A woman, as a rule, is not satisfied with this situation (unless she is an inveterate Altruist). Such a patriarchal family is doomed to conflicts. A woman does not like that her husband cannot provide for her, but at the same time constantly commands her. The man begins to develop inferiority complexes due to the inability to fulfill the responsibilities of a breadwinner. The result is either divorce or daily quarrels and scandals.

Matriarchal family type

The situation is the opposite of the previous one. The woman is in charge. A woman provides for the family, manages all issues in the house, including managing finances. In a matriarchal family type, the function of breadwinner is performed by the wife, not the husband.

Matriarchal family type: keeper of the wallet

The wife earns more than her husband, or they earn the same, but the woman still manages the finances. The husband gives his wife his salary, the wife sets out the family budget for the month in advance. The wife decides to renovate the apartment, the husband begins to move furniture. An ideal union for an Activist and an Altruist, or a Mother and an Altruist.

Matriarchal family type: husband-householder

The wife earns very well and fully provides for the family. The husband does not work, takes care of the housework, children and other everyday life. Such a marriage is possible only with the union of the Mother and the Altruist. It is very important that a man is absolutely satisfied with this state of affairs (refusing the role of breadwinner). Otherwise - again, an inferiority complex with all the ensuing consequences.

Matriarchal family type: gigolo husband or alcoholic

The husband either does not work at all, or works, but spends everything he earns exclusively on himself. At the same time, he is not a housewife, he lives for himself and for his own pleasure! Wife in this type the family may earn a little, but the role of breadwinner still falls on her. As, indeed, is the role of the keeper of the hearth. In this type of family, only Mother and Son can get along more or less comfortably; for them this is an option.

Partner family type

Perhaps the most acceptable option for most modern people, allowing them to regulate. Both husband and wife work. Some may earn more, some less - for this type of family this is not significant. Relationships are built on complete equality and mutual trust. Conversation in the style of “pounding your fist on the table and shouting: I’m right!” doesn't work here. Only a constructive dialogue in which both interlocutors are able to listen and understand each other to the end. The family budget is drawn up through joint efforts, and household responsibilities are also divided in half. Only two Activists can build a partnership family.

Unfortunately, psychologists and sociologists note that this type of family is still rare in our country. No, we have enough Activists, but family stereotypes, ingrained in our heads already at the genetic level, are very disturbing. Banal ignorance of the principles of modern gender psychology - too. Yes, yes, times change and family values ​​and principles change along with them. You just don't need to be afraid of these changes.

Competitive family type

In this type of family there is also no main and subordinate. And it also doesn’t matter how much the husband and wife earn. No matter how much they earn, there will still be a constant struggle for power. Family wars are waged every day over the TV remote control, over whose turn it is to take out the trash or walk the dog today, over the opportunity to buy a new dress or a new computer monitor, over the right to visit friends. Competitive families are built on adrenaline, but not because of an excess of it (although this option is not excluded), but because of the usual inability and (what is much worse) unwillingness to negotiate and hear each other.

Self-centered psychotypes - Son and Daughter - are doomed to a competitive type of family. But, in principle, absolutely any family can slide down to it. The reasons are the same - the inability to negotiate and make mutual compromises.