CC BY
70
УДК 316.356+352.2
LAN KANG,
Assistant Research Professor, Institute of Sociology, SASS
DIFFERENCES AND SAMENESS BETWEEN GENERATIONS: the emergence OF NEO-FAMILISM1
By offering an analysis of the differences and sameness seen in various levels of familism identification between two generations, this paper arrives at a conclusion that the current younger generation is selective in its familism identification. The selection of familism identification can be counted as the origin of "neo-familism", marked by the dual characteristics of the solidification of family values and the rise of individual consciousness. Young people, in contrast to an elder generation that cherishes the traditional familism in which the interests of the family rank higher than that of the individual attach more importance to the balance between family and individual interest. The emergence of neo-familism values comes as forceful evidence of the proceeding of individualization in Chinese society.
Keywords: neo-familism, intergenerational differences, value change.
РАЗЛИЧИЯ И сходства МЕЖДУ ПОКОЛЕНИЯМИ: ВОЗНИКНОВЕНИЕ НЕОФАМИЛИЗМА
Осуществляя анализ различий и сходств, прослеживаемых на разных уровнях идентификации фамилизма между двумя поколениями, автор статьи приходит к выводу, что нынешнее молодое поколение избирательно в идентификации семейственности. Выбор идентификации семейственности может быть расценен как происхождение «неофамилизма», характеризующегося закреплением семейных ценностей и ростом индивидуального сознания. Молодежь, в отличие от старшего поколения, дорожащего традиционной семейственностью и ставящего интересы семьи выше, чем индивидуальные, придает большее значение балансу между семьей и личными интересами. Появление ценностей неофамилизма является убедительным доказательством индивидуализации китайского общества.
Ключевые слова: неофамилизм, межпоколенческие различия, изменение ценностей.
1. Introduction: Raising the Question
The distinction between familism and individualism, being an important issue of value identification of contemporary young people and the focus of researches on the transition of generation value of contemporary families, is deemed as the watershed of traditional and modern family values. On one hand, the proceeding of modernization is universally recognized; on the other hand, the defense and restoration of the tradition is distinct as well. The contradiction in the social issue is mirrored especially prominently in the youth. Whether or not there has been a "change" in the younger generation has become a topic from which controversy keeps arising.
1 This paper in Chinese was originally published on Youth Studies, May 2012.
Some surveys suggest that "a happy family" remains as the most cherished value of life in the young [1; 2]; that the young people in general agree with the notion that family should be superior to individual [3], they boast a strong sense of family obligation and identify themselves as being responsible for the happiness of their family members [4; 3]; and that the young generation turns out to be even more traditional and idealized in supporting their parents [5].
But there are other findings in studies: young people in a changing society are in the period of transition from being "family-oriented" to "individual-oriented" [6]; there is an increasingly obvious distinction in value outlook when it comes to filial piety between the two generations. The incessant pursuit of individual rights, desire and freedom among the younger generation, as a result of marketization, has shaped a self-centered orientation which is extremely utilitarian and which has led to the decadence of filial piety and a fading sense of family responsibility [7; 8]. Young people are avoiding their family obligations in their pursuit of personal pleasure and are lack of spirit of sacrifice and tolerance [9]. As for the "generation" in cultural sense, more research findings support the conclusion that the young generations do have "changed". According to studies, the personal value of the younger generation is developing towards an orientation which is characterized by the emphasis on individualism, post-materialism, modern rationality, secularism and a pursuit of freedom and equality, individual self-fulfillment, comfort and happiness. In a word, modern value orientation is taking the place of the traditional one [10; 11; 5; 12].
The article argues that it naturally makes a difference to decide whether the "change" does exist based on different research perspectives. The article therefore on the premise of putting aside for the time being the research methods which might generate various conclusions (although influence of research methods on the result is inevitable) is more concentrated on the topic: what are the criteria for the discussions of whether the young people have "changed"?
2. Theoretical Framework: Individuals in a Family
To put it briefly, familism and individualism are two idealized types of identification of the unit of interest body. Familism, by taking the whole family as a rational unit of measurement, argues that family interest should be put in a position above all and that individuals are only parts of the family, who at any time should put the exist of the whole family as the premise and the development of the family in a superior position, and whose own interest ought to be subject to the interest of the family [13], and also whose value is realized through the group value. Familism is therefore the value identification with family interest as the standard. By contrast, individualism maintains that every family member makes one interest unit who enjoys the right and capability of free choice and at the same time is held responsible for his/her own life [13] and whose value ought to transcend the group value. Hence individualism is the value identification with individual as the standard. The essential difference between the two lies in the "consciousness of standard". The so-called "standard" implicates the origin, the foothold and the core. At the phenomenon level, young people are likely to sway and mix up in their identification of the two. However, the central logic behind the contradictory phenomenon is what this article attempts to reach.
According to the classical theory on modernization, the process of family modernization is bound to be one characterized with the transition from the family interest-oriented "familism" to the individual interest-oriented individualism in which the rise of individuals is necessarily bound up with the decline of family. Nevertheless, an increasing number of studies have challenged the presumption put forward by the theory of linear evolution [14; 15; 3]. The article argues that the problem in its essence is about whether there is only one relation between family and individual -outright conflict and clash. It can be concluded from above that the units of analysis for the two issues are different. As is shown in fig. 1, the identification unit for familism is "family" whereas the one for individualism is "individual".
_ Otes
Fig. 1. Diagram of the Analysis Units in "Familism" and "Individualism"
When individual is incorporated in a family, there can be two possible relations between the two parts: one is zero-sum and the other is win-win. The potential for change can be found in the double roles of "individual in a family". Take "family members" as an example. When we classify "family members" into the category of "other than individual", the relation between family and individual goes into zero-sum; but when we treat "family members" as people within a "family", there is a possible win-win relation. An insight into the matter of one's relation with his/her family members, i. e. the relation between family and individual, will help us answer the question as to whether to the contemporary youth the relation between family and individual should be conflicting or favorable for both sides, or in other words, whether family turns out to be a constraint or a source of support for an individual.
3. New Research perspectives on Familism Identification: Individual perspectives
To answer the question, it is necessary to make clear of the various levels within the concept of "familism" first.
Familism as the major principle for social orientation in China, although having received continued attention from researchers for long, has not yet reached consensus. YANG Guoshu (2004) in his article "Familism of the Chinese: Concept Analysis and Case Assessment" put forward a fairly complete and exploratory concept
framework for family/familism. YANG first pointed out in a conceptive way that familism of the Chinese people is closely correlative with the agricultural economic pattern of the traditional Chinese society where family, being the core of farming life, was considered of significant importance for its protection, harmony, togetherness and continuation. Such was the base from which derived the family-oriented familism of the Chinese people. Then YANG illustrated the connotation of familism from the three levels of identification, emotion and will, namely: (1) identification: where importance is attached to the continuation, harmony, togetherness, affluence, and reputation of the family; (2) emotion: the senses of integration, belonging, care, honor and disgrace, responsibility, and safety; (3) will: extending of the family line, mutual dependence, self-restraint, humility and obedience, fighting for the family, generation disparity, and clear familial bounds. Thus we could roughly summarize two major aspects of "familism".
3.1. Family as "Responsibilities"
Family as "responsibilities" treats family as a social organ and focuses on the obligations and responsibilities of family members. For example the importance of family continuation, togetherness and reputation in identification level, senses of honor and disgrace, responsibility in emotion level, and extending of the family line, self-restraint, humility and obedience, fighting for the family, and generation disparity in will level. It can be seen that this aspect of familismstands opposite to "individual" by emphasizing individual's loyalty, obedience and responsibilities toward family and limiting of individual freedom, rights and desire. The emphasis is on individual's group value which is close to the concept of "collectivism".
Responsibilities, by covering the majority of the 3 levels and 12 connotations set by YANG Guoshu, can be considered as the most momentous and essential part in the structuring of "familism" concept.
3.2. Family as "Rights"
Family as "rights" treats family as a social resource and focuses on family's protection and support for individuals. In this regard, there are, for example, the senses of integration, safety, belonging, care of the emotion connotation and mutual dependence and clear familial bounds which belong to the will connotation. It could be seen familism inthis aspect of does not stand opposite to "individual" but provides protection and support for individual interests. But on the other hand it is not fully equal to the concept of "western individualism" because while the protection of individual interests is emphasized here, there is no acknowledgement of the equal importance of individual interests inside and outside a family, as a result the element of "public value" contained in "western individualism" is absent. What we are talking about is actually much more of "egoism" or "narrow individualism".
After introduction of the perspective of individual (i. e. the relation between family and individuals), we are well equipped to clarify the two aspects of Chinese "familism", i. e.: For one thing, family imposes rigid restraints (i. e.: family over individual) on individuals; for another, family provides individuals with elastic support (i. e.: there can be, to some extent, overlapped interests between family and individuals).
Recently there have been more and more researches fixed on the rise of individuals in Chinese families. These researches by some coincidence have found that the so-called rise of "individual" in Chinese families is much more of the shaking off of the restraint of the "generation disparity". The nature of family as a resource which provides individual with elastic support, especially in China today when securities from work exit, market risks increase and social securities are still immature, tends to grow instead of fading away [7; 16]. That seems to explain why YAN Yunxiang's researches finally came to the conclusion that the logical outcome of the younger generation when out of their lineage shelter, was quite contrary to his anticipation of an individual rise characterized by true self-dependence, but was actually a self-centered orientation characterized by extreme utilitarianism with which they ask more for personal rights while rejecting to fulfill obligations [7].
The paper maintains that to study the value transition, instead of focusing on the differentiation of tradition and modernity and the question whether the younger generation has "changed" (in a framework with one single aspect, change is bound to exist), should rather observe what they accept and what they reject in their inheritance and choice of culture (i. e.: where the change happens before we can answer if there has been a change at the essence level) and the correlation between the choice and tradition, and between the choice and the current situation.
The research goals of the paper are: first exploration of the differences and sameness in various aspects of familism identification between two generations of a family (the author argues that differences and sameness between generations are of equal importance), and then, on the basis of the foregoing, discussion about the transition characteristics of familism identification.
4. Research Methods: Hypothesis, Index and Data
4.1. Research Hypothesis
The article puts forward the following research hypotheses: (1) Generation differences are mostly reflected in familism identification in the "responsibility", for which the identification degree of the younger generation is lower than that of the elder one; (2) Generation sameness is mostly mirrored in familism identification in the "right", for which there are no prominent clashes between the two generations; (3) The transition feature of familism identification is that the younger generation turns to be selective in their identification of familism (there is among the youth an obvious dip of identification of the element of restraint imposed on them by the family as their consciousness of right increases rapidly. But at the same time for the "supportive" nature of family, the youth still hold a fairly high identification of family values) and the feature, has contributed to the emergence, within the younger generation, of the "neo-familism" with the dual characterizes of the solidification of family values and the rise of individual consciousness.
4.2. Measurement Indexes and Operational Parameters
For proving the above hypothesis, the positive analysis in the paper is mainly made up of three aspects (with the first two primarily about the verification of "familism" identification and the third for "individual consciousness"). They are consisted of the following indexes in respective. See table 1 for details.
Table 1. Content and Basic Descriptions of Measurement Indexes
Measurement Indexes Operational Parameters Point Scope Average Standard Deviation Agreement
Family as "Responsibilities" Family harmony weighs heavier than individual interests (to measure: humility and obedience) 1-5 4.477 0.680 92,7 %
Individual gets fulfilled when family is fulfilled (family loyalty) 1-5 4.519 0.711 91,8 %
Parents suffer from a sense of loss when their children lead an unhappy life (responsibilities and obligations) 1-5 3.329 1.173 52,8 %
Family as "Rights" Family makes me feel secure and relieved (sense of safety) 1-5 4.596 0.597 96,7 %
People are family-bound (sense of belonging) 1-5 4.525 0.618 94,7 %
I need familial affection and love from my family (sense of care) 1-5 4.633 0.544 97,7 %
Parents and children complement and supplement each other in all aspects (sense of integration) 1-5 4.596 0.555 97,0 %
Parents get best rewarded to see the children get well with their work and family (sense of integration) 1-5 4.475 0.709 92,6 %
Individual Freedom And Desire Family doesn't make the entire of my life. I want my own social Circle (self-fulfillment) 1-5 3.559 0.993 65,7 %
I live for pleasure (principle of happiness) 1-5 3.761 0.996 68,9 %
Material makes a crucial element for personal pleasure (Desire for material) 1-5 3.687 1.024 67,9 %
Note 1: Points from 1 to 5 respectively stand for: disagree, slightly disagree, not clear, slightly agree, agree.
Note 2: In light of the target and object for research in this article, the family mentioned here refers to the concept of a stem family including the parents.
4.3. Data Source and Sample Features
These data for research come from the household questionnaire survey conducted in 2009 in downtown Shanghai. The respondents were permanent residents in Shanghai, among whom the samples of children varied from 25 to 40 in age and the samples of parents were collected from those with children aged from 25 to 40. A method of proportionate stratified sampling was applied. 146 effective parent samples and 163 children samples were collected finally, totaling 309 altogether. Before the questionnaire survey was launched, an in-depth interview was conducted with 26 families which produced abundant raw materials and made the measurement indexes of the questionnaire easy to operate.
The population features of the children samples are: (1) gender: male accounts for 51,3 % and female 48,7 %; (2) age: 25-29 accounts for 33 %, 30-34 31,1 % and
35-40 35,9 %; (3) educational background: junior high school degree and below accounts for 3,8 %, senior high school and technical secondary school degree 37,7 %, junior college degree 28,7 %, bachelor's degree and above 29,8 %; (4) marital status: single people account for 15,8 %, married but without children 23,7 %, married with children under 7 years old 28,4 %, married with children above 7 years old 32,1 %; (5) the family's only child or not: only child accounts for 53,8 %, otherwise 46,2 %.
5. Research Findings and Analysis
5.1. Familism Identification in the "Responsibility" Aspect
Data of table 2 show that there are evident differences between the two generations in all the three measurement sentences for familism identification in the "responsibility" aspect. Although there is a substantial proportion in the children samples who agree that family weighs heavier than individual, it is still easy to see that when it comes to the matter of family-individual relation, an obvious larger majority of the parent samples tend to favor family over individual. In attitude to the sentence "Individual gets fulfilled when family is fulfilled", in particular, up to 98,5 % of the parents voice their agreement - while the figure of the children is 86,3 % - and this suggests that in general parents agree more for interest consistency of family and individual.
As for the obligations of roles of family members, the sentence "Parents suffer from a sense of loss when their children lead an unhappy life", is applied to test the role as parents. Data suggest that prominent differences between the two generations still exist in that children who do not agree with it are 21 percentage points higher than parents.
Table 2. Familism Identification in the "Responsibility" Aspect (%)
Measurement Sentence Sample Type Agree Slightly Agree Not Clear Slightly Disagree Disagree
Family harmony weighs heavier than individual interests Parents 69 28,2 2,1 0,7 X = 18.800 Df = 3
Children 46 42,9 8,6 2,5 P < 0.000
Individual gets fulfilled when family is fulfilled Parents 73,9 24,6 1,5 0 X = 20.726 Df = 3
Children 52,8 33,5 9,9 3,7 P < 0.000
Parents suffer from a sense of loss when their children lead an unhappy life Parents 23,6 40,7 11,4 23,6 0,7 X2 = 18.803 Df = 4
Children 11,9 30,2 12,6 40,9 4,4 P < 0.001
Note: *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01, ***P < 0.001, the same below.
5.2. Familism Identification in the "Right" Aspect
For familism identification in the "right" aspect, there are five measurement sentences in all among which the first three are designed mainly to test to which extent family can satisfy individual needs, including the senses of safety, belonging and
care. Data of table 3 show no prominent differences in the two generations' judgment of family's ability to satisfy individual needs.
The last two sentences in table 3 are mainly for measuring of mutual dependence, support amongst family members and of the sense of integration and relation maintenance between parents and children. Figures implicate that no prominent differences are seen in the attitude towards the issue between the two generations.
Table 3. Familism Identification in the "Right" Aspect (%)
Measurement Sentence Sample Type Agree Slightly Agree Not Clear Slightly Disagree Disagree
Family makes me feel secure and relieved Parents 70,5 26,6 2,2 0,7 X2 = 5.376
Df = 3
Children 58,4 37,9 1,9 1,9 P > 0.1
People are family-bound Parents 64,7 29,5 5 0,7 X2 = 4.970
Df = 3
Children 52,8 41,7 4,9 0,6 P > 0.1
I need familial affection and love from my family Parents 68,5 31,5 X2 = 6.394
Df = 3
Children 64,2 31,5 3,7 0,6 P > 0.05
Parents and children complement and supplement each other in all aspects Parents 64,1 35,2 0,7 0 0 X2 = 4.727
Df = 3
Children 61,7 33,3 4,9 0 0 P > 0.1
Parents get best rewarded to see the children get well with their work and family Parents 64,3 30,7 4,3 0,7 0 X2 = 7.206
Df = 3
Children 51,9 38,8 5 4,4 0 P > 0.05
5.3. Attitude towards Individual Freedom and Desire
Data of table 4 show that in the pursuit of individual desire based on the happiness principle and material pleasure, differentiation is prominent the two generations. A noticeably larger proportion of the children support that "material makes a crucial element in personal pleasure".
Table 4. Attitudes towards Individual Freedom and Desire (%)
Measurement Sentence Sample Type Agree Slightly Agree Not Clear Slightly Disagree Disagree
Family doesn't make the entire of my life. I want my own social circle Parents 6,8 46,6 15 27,8 3,8 X2 = 23.769
Df = 4
Children 17,5 58,1 13,1 10,6 0,6 P < 0.000
I live for pleasure Parents 17,4 54,5 10,6 16,7 0,8 X2 = 13.664
Df = 4
Children 29 37,7 19,1 14,2 P < 0.01
Material makes a crucial element in personal pleasure Parents 15,9 42 13 26,8 2,2 X2 = 21.430
Df = 4
Children 24,1 52,5 14,8 8 0,6 P < 0.000
The most noticeable differentiation between the two generations is found in their attitudes toward the argument "Family doesn't make the entire of my life. I want my own social circle", for which the supportive ratio among the children samples is 22 percent points higher than that among the parent samples. Such figure serves as a potent revelation of the different reactions toward individual self-fulfillment outside family between the generations; and it, to some degree, reflects the inclination to individualism of the young people.
From our record of case interviews, many similar expressions can be found in the younger generation, like:
I believe people of each age group should have their own life, like the things you love to do, or your friends. People of my parents' generation seem not to be as open-minded as we are in that they give family the top priority and their own life second to that. Our generation, I mean, people of my age, put us in the center of our life, just like my friends and colleagues do. But they (parents) basically don't have their own life. Their life circle is far much smaller... it seems that I would not like my life to be that way. (take care of the juniors like my mother does) because it would waste my own time off. My mom does not have a life of her own at all. She gets busy with us every day. I am not willing to be like that. (CF302)
The greatest difference between the two generations is our attitudes toward life. I live for pleasure and happiness; but they just live with responsibilities and pressure. Of course this might have something to do with the fact that they have children. But even if I have my own child, I will live for my own sake, or at least so to a large extent. They live for the family or for others. This is what makes the difference. (MM309)
They (parents) just focus on their children. For my part, though, I hope they care more about themselves. Wouldn't it be worry-free for them if I don't need them to prepare the dinner? Wouldn't it be bliss for them if I asked for less? Right? They could have led their own life, but they just give it up for the sake of the children. On the contrary, they are always fussing around. They should care more about themselves. I have always been looking for a state of life, that is, when I need their help, they come along; other than that, everything's up to them. I will make it to the least to require things from them. But for the baby, as we have our baby now, I would ask as little as possible from them. I am not good at cooking, or at housework, but I think we can fix it on our own. They might think it unacceptable to always eat outside and make unnecessary spending, but I believe they should have their own space and life circle. (CF307)
5.4. The Transition Features of Familism Identification It is noticeable with the figures shown in table 2 and table 4 that the generation difference is mainly reflected in familism identification in the "responsibility" aspect and in the attitude towards individual freedom and desire. It is implicated in this finding that the individual consciousness within the youth has already been in the rise and the rapidly growing individual consciousness of right has taken them far away from the attitude of their parent generation towards the issue whether fami-
ly should weigh more than individual. Compared with their parent generation, the young people hold a generally lower degree of identification of family's superiority over individual. But as the statistics shown in table 1 to table 4, overall young people's identification of familism stays at a high level in that the agreement rate of the majority of measurement sentences for family (including parental responsibilities) is found to be over 85 %; on the other hand, among them, the agreement rate of measurement sentences for individual freedom and desire is generally above 75 %, which indicates that amongst the younger generation, family is put in a position higher than individual after all and family values is stable.
In the meanwhile, however, what should not be neglected comes precisely from the findings about the "sameness between generations" which is mainly reflected in the familism identification in the "right" aspect. Thus we could arrive at ratiocination with reason that the high identification of family value from young people who are self-focused mainly attributes to the protection of individual interest from the family. There included two major implications: for one thing, family satisfies individual needs including such basic human psychological needs as the senses of safety, belonging and care. It is also popular among the society of individualism, which in turn cannot be counted as the evidence of the youth's identification of traditional Chinese familism (though it makes an integral part in the concept of "familism"). For another, features of the Chinese society are manifested which is the identification of relation orientation, mainly referring to the protection of individual interests ("the sense of integration between parents and children" is applied as the measurement index here in this article) from intergeneration support and mutual dependence among family members. In this matter, the agreement rate among the youth is above 90 %. The absence of differentiation in relation identification between the two generations suggests that young people approve there is consistency between family and individual interests.
Hence the paper argues the transition of familism identification lies in: while the two generations reach a consensus in the matter of family significance, they do follow different logic. The parent generation agrees more of the consistency of interests between family and individual (which can be verified from figures in table 2); but the children hold an obviously lower identification of traditional familism characterized by family's superiority over individual and the way to realize individual values through family values. They are more sensitive about the clashes between family and individual interests and have built up the awareness of individual pursuit outside the confines of family. Therefore family might well be resources and means in their efforts to satisfy individual needs and achieve self-fulfillment instead of being their ultimate goal. Interviews recorded of the samples of the younger generation could be helpful for a better understanding of the points above.
I can't make it clear which is more important between individual and family, although I will put family on the top of my list - because when my family is all right, I will be happy. If everything is taken into account, I will generally attach more importance to family. (MM309)
I put family before personal pursuit for it is more essential to me - it's not because I will be happier with it, but because I would get nowhere without it. Family makes me feel warm and safe. I value the sense of safety the most. (CF310)
What you get from work is a sense of achievement and what you get from your family is a sense of safety. Everyone will ultimately. I mean, you can't feel truly relieved, heart and soul, if you have only the sense of achievement in the absence of the sense of safety. to feel safe is really important. at least I have my sense of safety assured. When you fight for the success in your career without that sense of safety, you will end up in feeling lonely. (CF402)
6. Conclusion and Discussion
The result of analysis with real cases generally testifies the hypothesis of the article. As the change has taken shape, will the result of the change be "individualism-oriented"? In light of the above discussion about the features of the change, the answer is "No". Despite the rise of individual consciousness in young people, the focus on individual interests has not challenged the position of family interests in them. Therefore the article contends that the transition ultimately brings forth the "Neo-familism" with the dual characteristics of solid family values and the rise of individual consciousness. Distinct from the traditional familism which invariably emphasizes family's superiority over individual and individual's unconditional sacrifice and contribution for the sake of family, neo-familism with the unique combination of individual rights and familial obligations, attempts to seek balance between family and the individual.
In transition from "familism" to "neo-familism", the following points are worth summing up and discussing.
Firstly, up to now, the intergeneration inheritance of familism identification, which can be interpreted as the consensus that the two generations have on the protection of individual interests from families with "clear familial bounds", is as clear as it is powerful. It is precisely on this point that the young people have based their identification of familism, i. e., family is an abundant resource for self-fulfillment. The only difference is that compared to the parent generation who gives more attention to the individual interest within and outside the family, while the younger generation incorporates the demarcation of individual and family, apart from the demarcation of the individual interests within and outside the family, as shown in fig. 2.
No matter what the stance is, familial bounds come first when it comes to the attitude toward individual interests. Within a family, children cherish the domestic harmony as their parents do. When family interest clashes with individual interest, the younger ones tend to strike a balance between the two based on the specific situation and individual needs. If the balance fails to be achieved, they are likely to give up personal interests for the sake of family interests. Scholars have pointed out that the most evident distinction between the familism principle and the public principle (author's note: equal to the individualism principle) in their treatment of clashes is that the clashes within a family is considered an inharmonious and
Fig. 2. The Difference between the Generations in the Stance of Familism Identification
abnormal phenomenon because familism presumes family members have consistent interests while a pluralistic society is incapable of making such presumptions [17]. This attitude toward conflict disposition precisely mirrors the perceivable track of familism identification within the contemporary youth. Moreover it indicates the Chinese youth, who are born and bred in the intensified Chinese culture, have still a long way off the realization of a complete "individualism" transition. Instead what is possible to grow within them is none but the "neo-familism".
Secondly, as the individualization process in Chinese families has already started, young people are selective in their identification of family and their stance for selection is based on their own needs. Scholars when studying the topic of "family identification" proposed such concepts as "multiple family member identities" and "individual family" to illustrate the uncertainty and extensibility of family bounds from the perspective of individual. They also emphasized that family relations under such elastic family bounds fully reflect the consistency between economic interests and individual emotion [18; 14]. Such elastic principle of family identification can be seen, to some extent, as the evidence of the argumentation that young people derive their attention on family values from "individual". To the contemporary youth in China, personal happiness and self-fulfillment have undoubtedly become the ultimate goals of life, to achieve which, judging from the current situation. Family is one of the most important resources. Family has become irreplaceable for relieving personal pressure, leveling up the senses of safety and happiness with the exit of workplace security, increase of market risks, and inadequacy of social securities. Therefore what comes along with the rise of individual is the returning of family values instead of the fading away of such values. However, family with the return of such values has changed essentially. Just as YAN Yunxiang pointed out, family is gradually turning into the center of personal life and the haven for individual. The expression "personal life" boasts a double meaning of family and individual [7]. "Neo-familism" might well be a response to such personal life with "double meaning".
Thirdly, the introduction of "neo-familism" has inspired us with a dual-dimension research framework of family and individual. In the studies of family transition, family and individual are likely to be independent variables instead of being two ex-
Family (interests)
^^Fatml i stl^ Strong X---\
---- f Neo- \
Weak V_/ Strong
f Individualism \
C Weak D
Individual (interests)
Fig. 3. A Diagram of "Neo-Familism"
tremes with complete and plain opposite relations. In a dual dimension framework, as shown in fig. 3, although "familism" and "individualism" are positioned in two quadrants (Quadrant B and Quadrant D) of the diagonal, in the context of today's China, the Chinese youth, who give more and more attention to "individual interests", might sacrifice a small part of family interests for their individual interests when facing clashes between the two. However with the important support from family for individual interests, the significance of family interests is still prominent, and as a result, the outcome of the transition may well fall to Quadrant A, indicating the youth will work hard to strike a balance between the two.
Finally the paper reaches a conclusion that the identification transition among the young people from "familism" to "neo-familism" is the transition of orientation consciousness. The noticeable rise of subject value of individual within the youth is forceful evidence of the individualization process of Chinese society and it makes the cornerstone of value transition of the contemporary society.
References
1. Zhou Yi. A Sociology Research of the Generation Gap / Zhou Yi // Sociol. Studies. - 1994. -
N 4.
2. Zhou Yi. Tradition and Generation Gap - Duality of "Filial Piety" and "Mean" in Intergeneration Relations / Zhou Yi // Social Science Front. - 1995. - N 2.
3. Liu Wenrong. The Transition and Extension of Family Values / Liu Wenrong // J. of Social Sciences. - 2011. - N 10.
4. WangMeiping. A Research of Teenagers' Sense of Family Obligation / Wang Meiping, Zhang Kun, Zhang Wenxin // Psychological Development and Education. - 2001. - N 3.
5. Liu Wenrong. The Transition and Trend of Chinese Family Value Outlook - an Experience Research with People Born after 1980s as the Reference / Liu Wenrong // The Collection of the 6th Annual Academic Conference of Shanghai Social Science Community, 2008.
6. Li Yinhe. Fertility and Village Culture - Grandchildren of the Same Grandfather / Li Yinhe. -Culture and Art Publishing House, 2003.
7. Yan Yunxiang. Change in Private Life: Love, Family and Intimate Relationships in a Chinese Village, 1949-1999 / Yan Yunxiang. - California : Stanford Univ. Press, 2003. - 290 p.
8. Guo Yuhua. The Logic of Fairness in Intergeneration Relations and its Transition - an Analysis of the Elderly Supporting Issue in Villages of Hebei Province / Guo Yuhua // China Academics. -2001. - N 4.
9. Meng Xianfan. Family: Three Impacts in a Century and our Choice / Meng Xianfan // J. of Tsinghua Univ. (Philosophy and Social Science). - 2008. - N 3.
10. Wen Ping. A Diachronic Research of the Changing Features of the Value Outlook of Chinese Teenagers at Different Periods / Wen Ping, Li Hong, Ma Kuanbin // Youth Studies. - 2005. - N 12.
11. Qiu Ke. A Probe into the Value Outlook of Contemporary Chinese College Students / Qiu Ke, Bian Hongguang // Chinese Youth Study. - 2005. - N 8.
12. Liu Wenrong. The Current Situation and Contributory Factors of Premarital Sex and Cohabitation Perception - Empirical Verification of the Modern Sex Explanation Framework / Liu Wenrong // Youth Studies. - 2010. - N 2.
13. Li Guimei. Contemplation on the Spiritual Construction of Modern Family Ethics - a Probe into Freedom and Responsibility / Li Guimei // Morality and Civilization. - 2004. - N 2.
14. Shen Yifei. Reconstruction of the Relation between Individualization and Family Structure -Take Shanghai as the Example / Shen Yifei. - Doctoral Thesis of Fudan Univ., 2010.
15. Ma Chunhua. The Transition Trend and New Findings of China's Urban Families / Ma Chun-hua [et al.] // Sociol. Studies. - 2011. - N 2.
16. Kang Lan. The Transition of the Response Mode - a Research on the Urban Intergeneration Relations in the Perspective of Generation Gap / Kang Lan. - Doctoral Thesis of Shanghai Univ., 2009.
17. Zhang Jingji. Commonality and Familism — Basic Principle Differentiation of Social Construction / Zhang Jingji // J. of Beijing Univ. of Technology (Social Science). - 2011. - N 3.
18. Chen Jieming. China's Elderly Supporting Pattern: Traditional Culture, Familial Bounds and Intergeneration Relations / Chen Jieming // J. of Xi'an Jiaotong Univ. (Social Science). - 2010. - N 6.
Date accepted 18.10.2015.
