CC BY
40
DOI: 10.12731/2218-7405-2013-7-8
FEATURES OF FORMATION OF A YOUNG FAMILY SOCIAL STATUS
UNDER THE ETHNIC INFLUENCE OF PARENTAL FAMILIES
Anafjjanova T.V., Kapitonov V.F., Susloparova R.E.
In the article the structure of the social status of parental and young families was considered. We considered such families as: students' families, families of employee, workers' families, peasants' families, military personnel families, families of businessmen, dependants' families.
We found out that during the formation of young families the structure of parental families had been already created and in both groups of parental families the share of the families having the social status - "a family of the worker" prevailed. In the structure of young families the social status "the family of the worker" prevails considerably among other groups, with a tendency to increase in dynamics.
The obtained data specify that the formation of the social status of a young family according to a standard of parental families in their ethnic cohort becomes apparent among young families of cohorts "the Russians" and "the mixed with Russians", mainly living in an urban area. "Other" young families accept a standard of the social status of parental families for a reference point only to a certain extend. The opposite result is found in the cohorts of the young families such as: "Russian-speaking families", "the Khakasses" and "Others".
Keywords: social status, family, ethnos.
ОСОБЕННОСТИ ФОРМИРОВАНИЯ СОЦИАЛЬНОГО СТАТУСА МОЛОДОЙ СЕМЬИ ПОД ЭТНИЧЕСКИМ ВЛИЯНИЕМ РОДИТЕЛЬСКИХ СЕМЕЙ
Анафьянова Т.В., Капитонов В.Ф., Суслопарова Р.Е.
В статье рассматривалась структура социального статуса родительских и молодых семей в следующих категориях: семья студента, служащего, рабочего, крестьянина, военнослужащего, предпринимателя, иждивенца.
Установлено, что на период образования молодых семей структура родительских семей была уже сформирована и в обеих группах родительских семей преобладает доля семей, имеющих социальный статус - «семья рабочего». В структуре молодых семей социальный статус «семья рабочего» так же значительно преобладает среди других групп, с тенденцией к увеличению в динамике. Полученные данные указывают, что формирование социального статуса молодой семьи в соответствии с эталоном родительских семей в своей этнической когорте выявляется среди молодых семьей когорт «русские» и «смешанные с русскими», преимущественно проживающих в городской территории. Другие молодые семьи лишь в определенной доле принимают для ориентира эталон социального статуса родительских семей. Противоположный результат отмечается в когортах молодых семей «русскоязычные», «хакасы» и «прочие».
Ключевые слова: социальный статус, семья, этнос.
Materials and research methods. 790 parental families were investigated (PF): PH - parents of a husband in a young family (220 in the city and 175 in the rural area) and PW - parents of a wife in a young family (220 in the city and 175 in the rural area). Longitudinal study concerning general changes in attitudes was carried out among 395 young families with children (YF) (220 in the city and 175 in
the rural area) within 10 years during the following periods: 1 year of marriage, 2-4, 5-7 and 8-10 years of marriage (since 2006 up to 2007).
According to ethnic cohorts the families were divided as follows: parental families - the Russians, Russian-speaking families, the Khakasses, others; young families - the Russians, the mixed with Russians, Russian-speaking families, the Khakasses, the mixed with Khakasses, others.
According to the head of the family social status we studied young families' ethnic distinctions among the following groups: students' families, families of employee, workers' families, peasants' families, military personnel families, families of businessmen, dependants' families.
The hypothesis test of dominating influence of a parental family on a young family provided that the parental family is a standard, was carried out by test of fit of consent of two empirical distributions (criterion of consent of Pearson %2), Pearson's (r) linear dependence and rank correlation coefficient (p).
I. INTRODUCTION
"Social status" is a general notion in sociology. It is a social position held by the social individual or social group in a society or in a separate social subsystem of the society and it is determined by signs specific to concrete society such as economic, national, age and other signs [7, p. 54-59]. The social status is a place or a position of the individual, correlated to position of other people [7, p. 54]; it is a place of the individual in hierarchically organized public structure, his or her objective position in it; it is the inexhaustible human resource which gives a person a chance to influence society and to receive certain facilities by means of its exclusive position in the system of the power and distribution of material benefits [7, page 55].
In the social and hygienic researches "social status of a head of a family" is the status reached thanks to the intellectual and physical efforts (a work, a profession, a position, a post). Historically it developed so that the man was the head of the family. The term "status" was introduced into sociology in the mid-thirties of the XIX
century by R. Linton [9]. The theory of the social status was reduced to that, first, a cell of the stratification system is a family; secondly, the social status of a family is defined by the status of the man - the head of the family; and thirdly, the status of the woman is defined by the status of the man to which she "is attached", i.e. the status of her husband or the father (Acker J. 1973) [8]. According to modern conception the man keeps the social domination in a family, the distribution of roles in a family can be changed to a very little degree or very significantly.
Important aspect of distinctions is that initially members of a young family were brought up in the parental families, having distinctions in nature of labor activity, food, rest, psychological and other aspects of the life caused by belonging of a family to a certain ethnic group.
Thus a condition of a young family formation is the created category of the parents' family. It has the greatest influence on the youth and forms the affirmation that the parents' relations represent a norm [1, 2, 3, 5, 6].
II. DISCUSSION
The analysis of the social status in parental families is submitted in figure 1. During the period of young families formation the structure of parental families was already created and represented the following: in both groups of parental families the share of the families having the social status - "a family of the worker" (PH - 75,7% and PW - 61,8%) prevails. The share of families having the social status - "families of employee" averages 19,5% (PH - 15,4% and PW - 23,5%). The insignificant share is occupied by families with the social status "a family of the military serviceman" and "a family of the dependent" (pensioner). In structure of the social status of parental families there is no category "family of the businessman" at all.
% 100
40 20 0
families of workers
country families
families of the military
families of businessmen
families of dependents
□ PW
6,1
2,3
0
0,5
QPH
13,2
0,5
1,0
Fig. 1. Distinctions of category of parental families according to the social status (%)
0
The analysis of structure of the social status of a young family in dynamics during the periods of supervision is submitted in figure 2. The group of families with the social status "a family of the worker" considerably prevails among other groups, with a tendency to increase from 50,4% up to 68,4%. Positive dynamics of growth of a share is noted in groups of families referring to the social status "a family of the employee" and "a family of the peasant". Slightly increased, compared with the initial indicator, a share of "a family of the military serviceman" (from 8,9% up to 9,1%) and a share of "a family of the businessman" (from 3,8% to 4,1%). The young families, having the status "a family of the student", initially occupied 13,9% in structure and at the end of 10 year period of following up were completely cancelled, having affected thereby the change of the status of the category "a family of the employee" and "a family of the worker". A group of the families having the social status "a family of the dependent" (non-working, not pupils) made up 18,9% during the first year of marriage and decreased. This group of the families made up 0,9% at the end of the following up.
И 8-10 year of marriage
student's families
0
families families country of of families
14,4
68,4
3,1
families of the
9,1
families families of of
4,1
0,9
5-7 year of marriage 0,5 S 2-4 year of marriage 7,4 1 year of marriage 13,9
13,2 6,1 3,8
68,6 62,1 50,4
2,3 2,1 0,3
9,1 9,0 8,9
4,4 4,6 3,8
1,9 8,7 18,9
Fig. 2. Structure of a young family social status (in dynamics during the supervision periods, %)
Ethnic distinctions of category of parental and young families are as following:
1. In the cohort of RF "the Russians" the category "a family of the worker" prevails: concerning a family of the husband's parents - 86,1% [(the city - 55,5 and the village - 30,6% respectively; p <0,05) and concerning a family of the wife's parents- 70,1% (the city - 33,3 and the village - 22,3% respectively; p<0,05)]. The Young Families (YF) during 8-10 years of marriage aspire to both parental families in the category "family of the worker" [dependence of average degree with PH and with PW (r = 0,5)]. In territories: in the city connections are high with PH and PW (r = 0,8); in a village - average with PH (rpw= 0,5) and low with PW (rph = 0,4).
2. In a cohort of RF "Russian-speaking families" the category "a family of the employee" prevails: concerning a family of the husband's parents - 50% (the city -45% (%2=0,5); p<0,05) and concerning a family of the wife's parents - 55% [(the city - 35% (x2=8,0) and the village - 20% (%2=22,2) respectively; p <0,05)]. The YF during 8-10 years of marriage have no compliances concerning categories of a social status to aspire to parental families.
3. In a cohort of RF "the Khakasses" the category "a family of the employee" prevails: concerning a family of the husband's parents - 38,3% [(the city - 19,1% and the village - 19,1% respectively; p <0,05), and concerning a family of the wife's parents "a family of the peasant" - 42,6% (the city - 2,1% and the village - 40,6% respectively; p <0,05)]. The YF during 8-10 years of marriage have no compliances concerning the categories of a social status to aspire to parental families.
4. In a cohort of RF "others" the category "a family of the employee" prevails: concerning a family of the husband's parents - 66,7% [the city - 40,8% (%2=10,1) and the village - 25,9% (%2=24,9) respectively; p<0,05)] and concerning a family of the wife's parents - 63% [(the city - 33,3% (%2=14) and the village - 29,7% %2=17,6) respectively; p<0,05)]. During 8-10 years of marriage the YF have no compliance concerning categories of a social status to aspire to parental families.
5. In a cohort of RF "mixed with Russians" the category "family of the worker" prevails: according to a family of the husband's parents - 80,9% [the city - 88% (%2=0,6) and the village - 72% (%2=0,9) respectively; p<0,05)] and concerning a family of the wife's parents - 69,7% [(the city - 72% (%2=0,1) and the village -66,7% x2=0,1) respectively; p<0,05)].
The YF during 8-10 years of marriage aspire to both parental families (to PH -parents of the husband and PW - parents of the wife) in the category "family of the worker" [communication average with PH (rpw= 0,45) and high with PW (rph = 0,7)]. In the territories: the city - communication average with RH and PW (r = 0,43); the village - communication high with PH (rpw= 0,9) and average with PW (rph = 0,5).
In a cohort of RF "the mixed Khakasses" 2 categories of families "a family of the employee" and "a family of the worker" prevail: concerning PH family - the category "a family of the employee" makes 34,8% [the city - 88% (%2=32,2) and the village - 20,7% (%2=5,7) respectively; p <0,05)] and "a family of the worker" -34,8% [the city - 100% (%2=42,5) and the village - 62,1% (%2=12) respectively; p <0,05)]. Concerning PW families - the category "a family of the employee" makes up 39,1% [(the city - 42,9% (%2=0,3) and the village - 3,4% (%2=32,5) respectively; p
<0,05] and "a family of the worker" - 52,2% [the city - 28,6% (%2=10,6) and the village - 17,2% (%2=23,4) respectively; p<0,05)].
The YF during 8-10 years of marriage aspire to both parental families in the category "a family of the worker" [communication strong with PH (rpw= 0,63) and low with PW (rph = 0,5)]. In the territories: in the city the communication dependence is strong with PH and PW (r = 0,9); in the village the communication is strong with PH (rpw= 0,9) and average with PW (rph = 0,5).
The obtained data specify that formation of the social status of a young family according to a standard of parental families in the ethnic cohort is found out among young families of cohorts "the Russians" and "the mixed Russians", mainly living in an urban area. "Other" young families only in a certain share accept a standard of the social status of parental families for a reference point. The opposite result is found out in cohorts of young families "Russian-speaking families", "the Khakasses" and "Others".
III. CONCLUSION
Thus, it is possible to draw a conclusion that the social status concerning the head of the family considerably changes after 10 years of marriage. The main share of families was made up by families of workers in all ethnic groups. Families of the military personnel prevail in the Russian and other families. Families of indigenous people (the Khakasses) actively compose the families of workers, employees and peasants.
Reference
1. Andreeva T.V. Psikhologiya sovremennoy sem'i [Psychology of a modern family]. Monography. SPb.: Speech, 2005. 436 p.
2. Barsukova C.B., Radaev V.V. Legenda o tendere. Printsipy raspredeleniya truda mezhdu suprugami v sovremennoy gorodskoy sem'e [Legend about the tender.
The principles of distribution of work between spouses in modern city family]. Mir Rossii [World of Russia], no. 4 (2000): 65-102.
3. Barsukova S.Yu. Sushchnost' i funktsii domashney ekonomiki, sposoby izmereniya domashnego truda [Essence and functions of house economy, ways of measurement of house work]. Sotsis, no. 12 (2003): 21-31.
4. Meyn G.S. Drevniy zakon i obychay: Issledovaniya po istorii drevnego prava [Ancient law and custom: Researches on history of the ancient right]. The lane with English. KRASAND, 2011.
5. Ryvkina R.V. Obraz zhizni naseleniya Rossii: sotsial'nye posledstviya reform 90-kh godov [Way of life of the population of Russia: social consequences of reforms of the 90th years]. Sotsis, no. 4 (2001), 32-39.
6. Tumusov F.S. Sem'ya i postindustrial'naya tsivilizatsiya [Family and postindustrial civilization]. Voprosy filosofii [Philosophy Questions], no. 12 (2001): 153164.
7. Shkaratan O.I. Sotsiologiya neravenstva. Teoriya i real'nost' [Inequality sociology. Theory and reality]. Moscow: Publishing house of the Higher school of economy, 2012. p. 54.
8. Bertalanffy L. General System Theory - A Critical Review. General Systems VII (1962): 1-20.
9. MacNeill W. Folyethnicity and national unity in world history. Toronto, 1986. VII, 85 p.
Список литературы
1. Андреева Т.В. Психология современной семьи: Монография. СПб.: Речь, 2005. 436 с.
2. Барсукова C.B., Радаев В.В. Легенда о тендере. Принципы распределения труда между супругами в современной городской семье // Мир России. 2000. №4. С. 65-102.
3. Барсукова С.Ю. Сущность и функции домашней экономики, способы измерения домашнего труда // Социс. 2003. №12. С. 21-31.
4. Мэйн Г.С. Древний закон и обычай: Исследования по истории древнего права. Пер. с англ.; 2011, КРАСАНД.
5. Рывкина Р.В. Образ жизни населения России: социальные последствия реформ 90-х годов // Социс. 2001. № 4. С. 32-39.
6. Тумусов Ф.С. Семья и постиндустриальная цивилизация // Вопросы философии. 2001. № 12. С. 153-164.
7. Шкаратан О.И. Социология неравенства. Теория и реальность / Нац. исслед. ун-т "Высшая школа экономики". М.: Изд. дом Высшей школы экономики, 2012. С. 54.
8. Bertalanffy L. General System Theory - A Critical Review. General Systems VII (1962): 1-20.
9. MacNeill W. Folyethnicity and national unity in world history. Toronto, 1986. VII, 85 p.
DATA ABOUT THE AUTHORS
Anafianova Tatiana Vladimirovna, Professor RAE, Candidate of Medical Science, doctor-organizer of public health
Ophthalmologic clinical hospital named after N.M. Odezhkin 27, Lenin Avenue, 655012, Abakan, Republic of Khakassia, Russia e-mail: Anafianova@mail. ru
Kapitonov Vladimir Fedorovich, Professor, Doctor of Medical Science, Department of Healthcare Management, Institute of Post-Diploma Education
Krasnoyarsk State Medical University named after Prof. V.F. Voyno-Yasenetsky 1, Partizana Zheleznyaka str., 660022, Krasnoyarsk, Russia e-mail: [email protected]
Susloparova Rimma Yevgenyevna, Associate Professor of the Department of Latin and Foreign Languages
Krasnoyarsk State Medical University named after Prof. V.F. Voyno-Yasenetsky 1, Partizana Zheleznyaka str., 660022, Krasnoyarsk, Russia e-mail: [email protected]
ДАННЫЕ ОБ АВТОРАХ
Анафьянова Татьяна Владимировна, профессор РАЕ, канд. мед. наук, врач-организатор здравоохранения, заместитель главного врача
Офтальмологическая клиническая больница имени Н.М. Одежкина Пр. Ленина 27, г. Абакан, 655012 Республика Хакасия, Россия e-mail: Anafianova@mail. ru
Капитонов Владимир Федорович, профессор кафедры экономики и управления здравоохранения института последипломного образования, доктор медицинских наук
Красноярский государственный медицинский университет имени профессора В.Ф. Войно-Ясенецкого
ул. Партизана Железняка, д. 1, г. Красноярск, 660022, Россия e-mail: vkapit5@yandex. ru
Суслопарова Римма Евгеньевна, доцент кафедры латинского и иностранных языков
Красноярский государственный медицинский университет имени профессора В.Ф. Войно-Ясенецкого
ул. Партизана Железняка, д. 1, г. Красноярск, 660022, Россия e-mail: [email protected]
