The American College Encyclopedic Dictionary defines the adjective “blind” as: 1. lacking the sense of sight; 2. unwilling, or unable to try or understand; 3. not controlled by reason: (blind tenacity); 4. not possessing or proceeding from intelligence; 5. lacking all awareness: ( a blind stupor); 6. drunk – hard to see or understand (blind reasoning); 7. made without knowledge in advance: ( a blind bargain).” (The American College Encyclopedic Dictionary, 1952:54).
What the reader gleans from stories about Oedipus was not that he became blind only in middle age after he had gotten married and had four children. After close reading, many readers tend to believe otherwise. True, Oedipus became physically blind when he gouged out his own eyes upon learning that he had committed the crime of incest; but it is hinted in many versions of the story of Oedipus, that he had only himself to blame for the unfortunate circumstances in his youth because he acted of his own free will. It can be said, therefore, that Oedipus was blind without his knowledge even before he was, physically. This would especially conform to the last definition of the ACD – made without knowledge in advance. This paper will endevour to prove the truth of its title – that Oedipus was blind in more ways than one and that the unfortunate circumstances in which he found himself later in his life could have been avoided had he been more careful and less stubborn and impulsive.
This is the story of Oedipus in a nutshell: It is a Greek legend about the son of Laius and Jocasta. Reared by the King of Corinth, he killed his father involuntarily and solved the riddle of the Sphinx, thereby becoming the King of Thebes and unwittingly winning the hand of his mother in marriage. When the nature of his deeds became apparent, Jocasta hanged herself, and Oedipus tore his eyes out.
The story of Oedipus at length is presented here for purposes of analysis, and to give credence to the statement that Oedipus could have been master of his own fate, had he chosen to be so. King Laius of thebes was third in line from Cadmus. He married a distant cousin, Jocasta. When their reign began, Apollo’s oracle at Delphi began to play an important part in the family’s fortunes.
Apollo was the God of Truth. Whatever the priestess at Delphi predicted would surely come to pass. Any attempt to act in such a way as to prevent the prophecy from taking place would prove to be fruitless. Laius persisted to go on even against fate despite the oracle’s warning that he would die at the hands of his son. When the son was born, he tied his feet together and had it exposed on a lonely mountaintop where it would surely die. His heart now felt no fear. He was confident that he could foretell the future better than Apollo. He never realized his folly. Indeed, he was killed by a man he thought to be a stranger. He never realized that Apollo’s prediction would come true, for he was slain by his own son, Oedipus.
He was away from home when he died and a long time had passed when his baby son had been left on the mountain. What was reported was that a band of robbers had attacked, killing him and his attendants, except one who escaped and reported the matter home. The matter was not carefully investigated because Thebes was in a state of emergency. The city was in the clutches of a monster, The Sphinx. By this time, Oedipus had already become a man. Another report was that Laius was killed in a drunken brawl. Oedipus must have been intoxicated when he killed his father. In this regard, he was blind. According to the ACD, drunkenness is a kind of blindness. Since he did not recognize his father at the time of slaying, he would also have been undergoing a different kind of blindness. This situation could have been avoided if Oedipus grew up away from drinking sprees and getting into brawls.
Going back to the Sphinx, she was a creature who was with a body of a lion, but with the breast and face of a woman. She waited for wayfarers going to the city and whomever she caught, she put a riddle to him. If he answered correctly, she let him go; if not, she would devour him. This went on until the city was in a state of siege. The terrible monster devoured man after man until the seven gates of Thebes remained closed and famine threatened to lay waste the citizens.
It so happened that a young man, with great courage and intelligence came upon her. It was no other than Oedipus himself. He had left home in Corinth where he was the son of its king – Polybus. The reason for his self-exile was purportedly another Delphian oracle – that he was fated to kill his father. Like Laius before him, Oedipus wanted to go against fate and make the prediction fail. Hence, he resolved to leave, never to see Polybus again. He really thought that Polybus was his father.
Surely, Oedipus as he was growing up, had heard whispers going around about his being an adopted son, but he chose not to pay any attention “gossip”, so he became “blind” to the possibility that he was not a bona fide son of Polybus. Had he not blinded himself, he would not have left home at all and most importantly, Oedipus would not have committed the crime of killing his father.
Oedipus heard what was happening in Thebes there. A man, homeless and friendless and to whom life meant so little. He decided to find the Sphinx and attempt to solve the riddle. This instance can be another one where Oedipus showed his blindness. He should not have valued his life more since life is too wonderful as to lose sight of its worth. Had he not left home, the hideous crime would not have happened since it was committed far from Corinth.
The Sphinx asked Oedipus, “What creature goes on four feet in the morning; on two in the noon; on three in the evening?” Oedipus answered, “Man. In childhood, he walks on all fours; in manhood, he walks erect; in old age, he helps himself with a cane.” His answer was correct and the Sphinx killed himself, thus saving the Thebans (Sophocles: n.p.).
Oedipus gained a great deal by using his intelligence. The grateful citizens crowned him King. He sought the hand in marriage of Jocasta and married her. Perhaps he was so affected by his success as a hero that he never bothered to look into the past of Jocasta. He was blinded by his victory, otherwise he would have not married her and spared himself the catastrophe that was waiting to happen.
For many years, the royal family lived happily and it seemed that Apollo’s words amounted to nothing. But when their two sons attained maturity, Thebes was visited by a terrible plague. Those spared from disease faced death by famine. He sent Jocasta’s brother Creon to Delphi to implore Apollo’s help. Creon arrived home with the news that Apollo declared his intention to stop the plague on one condition – that the murderer of King Lairus must be punished. At first, Oedipus was relieved. Surely, the guilty ones could still be found even after all these years.
Oedipus sent for Teirisias, the old, blind prophet and asked him who the guilty ones were. At first the seer refused to answer. But when Oedipus went so far as to accuse him of keeping silence because he himself had taken part in the murder, the prophet was angered and the words fell heavily from his lips – “You are yourself the murderer you seek.” (Sophocles: n.p)
Jocasta, too, treated this assertion with scorn. “Neither prophets nor oracles have any sure knowledge”, she said. She told Oedipus how the priestess at Delphi had prophesied that Lairus should die at the hands of his son and how she and Laius had seen to it that this should not happen by having the child killed. She concluded that Laius was killed by robbers. Where three roads meet on the way to Delphi. When Oedipus asked her when it happened, she replied, “Just before you came to Thebes.” (Sophocles; n.p.)
He told Jocasta the following,
“I went to Delphi just before I came here because a man had flung it in my face that I was not the son of Polybus. I went to ask the god Apollo. He did not answer me but told me horrible things – that I should kill my father and marry my mother… I never went back to Corinth. On my way from Delphi, at a place where three roads met, I came upon a man with four attendants. He tried to force me from the path; he struck me with his stick. Angered, I fell upon them and killed them. Could it be the leader was Laius? The one man left alive brought back a tale of robbers. Jocasta said, “Laius was killed by robbers, not by his son 0 the poor innocent who died upon the mountain.” (Hamilton, 1942:259-260)
As they talked further, a messenger came from Corinth to announce to Oedipus the death of Polybus. Jocasta cried,
“O oracle of the god, where are you now?.. The man died but not by his son’s hand. The messenger smiled, “Did the fear of killing your father drive you from Corinth? Ah, King, you were in error. You never had reason to fear – for you were not the son of Polybus. He raised you as his own son but he took you from my hands.” :Where did you get me?” Oedipus asked. “A wandering shepherd gave you to me.” was the answer (Sophocles in Kennedy & Gioia, 2007: n.p.).
A look of horror was on Jocasta’s face. She broke away and rushed into the palace. At that moment, an old man entered.
“The very man, O King, the shepherd who gave you to me. The messenger told the old man, “You must remember. You gave me once a little child you had found – and the king here is that child. The shepherd muttered, “Curse you. Hold your tongue.” The king said, “There are ways to make you speak!” The old man wailed, “Oh do not hurt me. I did give him the child, but ask me no further.” “If I have to ask him a second time where you got him, you are lost”, the king said, “Ask your lady”, the old man said. “She can tell you best.” “She gave him to you?” asked Oedipus. “Oh yes. I was to kill the child.” (Sophocles in Kennedy & Gioia, 2007:1313)
“Within the palace Oedipus wildly sought for his wife that was his mother. He found her in her chamber. She was dead. When the truth broke upon her, she had killed herself. Standing beside her, he too turned his hand against himself, but not to end his life. He changed his light to darkness. He put out his eyes. The black world of blindness was a refuge; better to be there than to see with strange shamed eyes the old world that had been so bright.” (Sophocles in Kennedy & Gioia, 2007:1316)
In 468 B.C., Sophocles, not yet thirty, submitted a tragedy that triumphed over the play submitted by Aeschylus, an older playwright favored to win. Sophocles’ victory was attributed in part to his willingness to take risks and to break old conventions.
“The story of Oedipus is handled in two great plays by Sophocles, Oedipus, the King deals with Oedipus’ discovery, after he has become King of the fact that he has killed his father and married his mother. Aristotle considered it the masterpiece of Greek tragedy. Oedipus at Colonus deals with the later years of his life after he has found refuge on Attic soil, accompanied by his faithful daughter, Antigone.
“Most unhappy much of his life, he was happy at the end. The oracle which once had spoken horrible words to him comforted him when he was dying. Apollo promised that he, the disgraced, the homeless wanderer; would bring to the place where his grave should be, a mysterious blessing from the gods. Theseus, the King of Athens, received him with all honor, and the old man died rejoicing that he was no longer hateful to men, but welcomed as a benefactor to the land that harbored him.” (Grolier Society of Canada, 1961:115)
References
Grolier Society of Canada, Ltd., Vol. 15. New York: Grolier Inc.,1961, p.115.
Hamilton, E., Mythology. 1942.
Sophocles. “Oedipus the king.” Literature An Introduction to Fiction, Poetry, Drama, and Writing.” Tenth Edition. ed. J. Kennedy and Dana Gioia.
New York: Pearson/Longman, 2007: 1285-1322.
The American College Encyclopedic Dictionary, Vol. I Spencer Press, Inc., 1952.
Concept, History And Classification Of Black Tourism
Introduction and methodology
Tourism mostly involves traveling to an environment that is outside and distinct from one’s common habitation and for various reasons and aims. These range between leisure, recreation and to engage in commercial activities. From the humble beginnings of the early 1800s where only the wealth could afford rare trips to exotic destinations, the concept has grown into a worldwide industry with an estimated earnings of US$944 million in 2008 (WTO, 2009). Indeed, tourism has seen a much wider acceptance than most other consumer activities, evidenced by the over 900 million international tourist arrivals for the same period; this does not factor in the sheer number of local tourists carrying out the activities inside their own countries.
Currently, tourism continues to form a vital part of the economies of many countries in the world; with some, such as the United Arab Emirates and Thailand (among others), having large parts of the national economies based on one form or the other class of tourism.
Synthesis
The large part of tourism is based on the conventional concepts of the destination and/or the activity which the tourist engages in on arrival to the destination; however, there has been a rise in alternative forms of tourism one of them being dark tourism. Each year, many tourists visit the ever-increasing number of dark tourism sites scattered around the world; and get to experience the environment in which death or disaster took place. Such sites many be the actual sites where such events took place, such as the Auschwitz-Birkenau Memorial and Museum opened in 2000 at the site of the camp where 1.5 million people died at the height of the Second World War at the hands of the Nazi Germans and the Culloden battlefield in Scotland where the Battle of Culloden took place in 16th April 1746. Alternatively, such maybe a location away from where the incident took place but connected to it and/or housing artifacts recovered from the site of the incident; in this case, a holocaust museum would be a good example.
Dark tourism is becoming increasingly popular with old and new sites reporting increased numbers of visitors every year. The concept is, however, yet to receive universal acceptance and classification; and may be seen by some quarters as an aberration of human curiosity. However, the fascination with death is not a preserve of the minority in the society; large number of people continues to visit sites which a strict classification would identify them as being dark; such would include historical battle fields and war memorials.
Classification of tourism
The world tourism organization defines a tourist as a person who leaves his/her normal environment for another destination in which he/she will stay for a period exceeding 24hrs but that does not exceed a period of one consecutive year; and in which activities carried out do not attract any remuneration. Currently the WTO classifies tourism as; Leisure and recreation [recreation, cultural events, health, active sports (non professional), other leisure and holiday purposes]; Business and professional (meetings, mission, incentive travel, business, other); and other tourism purposes (studies, health treatment, transit, various). The basis for this classification is the type of activity carried out by the tourist in the destination.
Many alternatives to the contemporary classification of tourism have arisen to challenge the universally accepted norms. Some of the new developments in tourism, commonly referred to as adjectival tourisms include; agri-tourism; culinary; cultural; ecotourism; heritage; medical; nautical; religious; space; war: and wildlife tourism. These have developed to serve niche markets specialize into one form or the other. The market size for these types are however not very large. Indeed, this is not an exhaustive list of the possibilities of niche-targeted tourism products; and new adjectival tourisms continue to arise every day.
Dark tourism
Dark tourism as a distinct form has seen a steady increase in both the number of tourists visiting dark sites; and the amount of income circulating in this sub sector (Foley and Lennon, 1997). However, the sub-sector represents a small division within the scope of tourism in the world; additionally, a clear distinction between dark and conventional tourism has not been made. As such, some visitors may combine aspects of both classifications during their travels, thus making it harder to decide where to classify such visitors. Death tourism refers to the situation whereby visitors specifically tour areas associated with human death or disaster. A clear distinction has to be made in regards to all the visits to dark site; and to what constitutes dark tourism. As such, a family visiting the site whereby one or several of their members died does not constitute dark tourism.
Thanatourism is a more specific form of dark tourism involving the visitation of site associated with violent death; the word is coined from the mythological Greek personification of death, Thanatos. Thanatourism is motivated mainly by the desire to experience the environment in which a specific person (or people) died; and is mostly seen in cases where such deaths occurred in a particularly violent or gruesome manner. This form of dark tourism is driven mainly by the desires of the traveler rather than the allure of the destination as is seen with other forms of tourism. As such, while such a destination may remain the same over long period, the arousal of such interests in potential visitors continues to attract visits; and such site have little pressure to refresh themselves. On the other hand, such sites have to go the extra mile to ensure that such experiences are as authentic as possible.
Thanatourism sites can be classified into five categories; travel to places where death has occurred, for example in Nazi death camps; travel to site where death will occur, for example public executions; travels to sites where artifacts of death are stored and/or displayed, for example to holocaust museums; travel to gravesite, burial grounds and memorial parks; travel to reenactment festivals, for example war reenactment.
Dark tourism has earned its place as a significant sub-sector of the tourism industry; and it is only prudent to pay proper attention to it. This significance can be shown by the large number of people visiting sites that are easily classified as dark every year; a good example is the Auschwitz-Birkenau Memorial and Museum. As many other sites are opening up or being created by world events, this sector may offer the much-needed expansion of the industry.
Analysis of dark tourism
Tourist motivations
Studies into the motivations of tourists (to any destinations) have not been conclusive; and many gaps still exist in the literature exploring what drives an individual to leave his/her comfort zone and try to experience life in a different environment albeit for a brief period. Among the aspects that have come up during these explorations is the identification of push and pull factors that have been generally accepted as the factors that result in the practice of tourism. On one hand, push factors are identified after the study of the tourist; and are the occurrence or circumstances that predispose the tourist to travel. On the other hand, pull factors are motivators which attract a potential traveler to the destination; and are therefore parameters of it thereof (Dann, 1977: 186).
The tourism industry is dominated by activities and destinations whereby the pull factors are greatly emphasized over the push factors; this is based on the assumption that a tourist visits a certain destination in order to do or see things (Crompton, 1979: 421). This would mean that the major or sole factor attracting a tourist to a certain destination is the environment and/or attributes which the site offers and advertise. Push factors are, however, equally or more important than pull factors for any given destination; as such a traveler chooses a destination not-only for what that destination offers, but also how that destination satisfies a specific psychological need (Uzzell, 1984: 80: Poria et al, 2001: 1047). In dark tourism, the pull factors play a major role in influencing a visitor to leave his/her home and go to a site associated with death and/or disaster. For example, the need to commemorate and pay respect may influence some to pay a visit for instance to a war memorial. This, however, does not remove the need or motivation of the destination to provide some pull factors that will finally push the visitor over the line. For example, a war memorial may include special guide tours or commemoration festivals as part of the package of the visit; as such while a visitor will fulfill his/her push factors in visiting the site, s/he will also benefit from education and better insight of the incident(s) that made the site what it is in the first place. Such tours are commonly seen in holocaust museums where they not only aim at commemorating the events, but also educating current and future generations.
However, most of the visitors who visit dark site do it manly for personal reasons; these range from commemoration of experience underwent either by themselves, family members or friends; affirmation of individuals cultural identity; as an act to appease a guilty conscience; and out of simple curiosity. Whatever the reason for such a visit to a dark site, the motivation to expose oneself to the environment of death and disaster can be influenced by one or a combination of the following.
Heritage
Potential visitors often feel that they have a cultural connection with the dark site; and have a personal need to visit such sites to define or reinforce their cultural identity. For example, descendants of a war veteran may feel compelled to visit a site connected to the respective conflict; so as to perceive their connection with such a veteran despite not having met (them) personally. In this case, it is easy to classify the travelers between those who have a high probability of making repeat visits to the site and those who do not. A passage of a large amount of time and space usually result in disconnect between the heritage of an individual as represented by the site; and the need to fulfill a psychological need; such people demonstrate a low probability of returning to the site. On the other hand, close association in time and space almost always ensures repeat and even regular visits to a dark site.
History
Some of the visitors to dark site are drawn to them due to their historical significance; for such site, the visit usually forms part of the itinerary involving visits to friends, relatives or general vacation; and not as the primary destination for the traveler. Such visitors do not exhibit particular attachment to the site or the events that took place therein; but rather visit the sites due to their reputation as worthwhile stops during the stay in the particular city or region.
On the other hand, there is smaller groups of historical dark tourist; these visit the site on “official’ capacity; either as part of an activity of a study; shooting of a film or documentary; or as an educational tour. History, as a push factor for dark tourism is not particularly strong; and most visits are incidental rather than planned; and are rarely repeated.
Survivors’ guilt
Among war veterans who survived a certain war or battle, there is common need to go back to a particular battlefield or memorial cemetery. While the purpose to visit such a site would range from the need to commemorate, remember or mourn their fallen comrades, an aspect of guilt is very likely to be present in some of them. This is also seen in victims seeking to revisit the site of a disaster (later after they recover).
The sentiments of such survivors’ guilt are also, however, affected by the ‘tone” of the site; for example, does the commentary during the tour seek to place particular blame on one party of the conflict or not; or does it accuse some parties of neglecting responsibilities that would have averted a disaster. In this case, potential visitors who may be part of the groups carrying the blame will easily be discouraged from ever paying a visit to the site.
Survivors’ guilt as a push factor for dark tourism is greatly affected by the passage of time; since it can only exist so long as either the survivors are alive, or the context of the event is still relevant in the concerned society. Lack of these two factors result in the fading of a site since it was dependent on guilt as its main motivation.
Curiosity
Some dark site attract visitors whose major motivation is curiosity or novelty; as much as these sites may have a profound meaning for a good section of the visitor, for others, the fascination is only with the circumstance of the events that made the site dark in the first place. The factors which drive curiosity as a motivation for travel include interruption of the (travelers’) routine, escape from the ‘normal’ environment, the search for thrill and adventure; and escape from boredom. In some instances, some parties may be offended by what at times results in the desecration of sites supposed to be somber or sacred by curious visitors. On the other hand, some of the dark destinations are specifically targeted to elicit curiosity from potential visitor; thus acting as a pull factor for tourism.
Insight into the phenomenon of death
Death and dying elicits different responses in different individuals; for some, a need to understand the phenomenon of dying may lead them to visit sites associated with death of individuals or groups of people. Some of the people who would be more inclined to visit areas which would offer a better comprehension of the phenomenon include medical professional, terminal patient and their relatives; and religious leaders. A small number of visitors can attribute their visit to dark site to an uncanny fascination with death and related subjects. The ability to confront and understand death can be aided by pictures; films and narratives describing or portraying actual death or reenactments of it; or artifacts associated with death including murder weapons, execution toll; or human bodies preserved whole or in parts.
The pull factor of curiosity in death does not form a major factor in determining visitation of dark sites; this however varies from one site to the other; and from one event to the other. However, it is an aspect of dark tourism that cannot be completely ignored.
Nostalgia
The need to reconnect or remember a past event in the life plays an important part of the push factors aiding dark tourism. As with survivors guilt, nostalgia is only possible if the persons who experienced a certain event are still alive and able to visit the given place; thus is eroded by passage of time and/or space.
Education
As mentioned before, some of the dark sites have profound historical significance to distinct groups of people or whole country. Indeed, many scholars spend significant amount of time carrying out studies of documents, site and artifacts related to a tragic or deadly event. Among the major motivations for the study is to understand how, for example, people can result to such cruel practices such as genocide, mass murder, terrorism and war. Secondly, there is almost a universal sentiment to allow measures to ensure that events like that do not happen again in the future.
One the other hand, dark sites offer fertile grounds for research into very specific disciplines such as military strategy, engineering, anthropology et-cetera.
Remembrance and commemorations
Among the most powerful tool of motivations to dark tourism is remembrance or commemoration of a certain event and its victims. It is however prudent to mention that what is remembered is often manipulated by the prevailing powers and authorities, cultural values & practice and historical framing. As such, whole segments of protagonists and/or events may be omitted or ignored so as to set an appropriate tone for the prevailing social situation.
Conclusion
Dark tourism offers a very interesting insight into the way the human psyche respond to the question of death, disaster and grief. Such responses range from macabre curiosity to grief and regret. Additionally, it offers an excellent example in the potential to develop tourism outside the limits of what is conventionally accepted.
Research limitations
Dark tourism is an emerging field; as such there is limited number of studies aimed specifically at the sub-sector as a unique and distinct form of tourism. Additionally, due to its relatively new distinction, there are no precedents to which the various parameters can be compared to, and any new information can only be used as a basis for future more comprehensive studies.
Reference list
- Crompton, J.L. 1979 Motivations for Pleasure Vacation. Annals of Tourism Research 6: 408-424.
- Dann, G. 1977 Anomie, Ego-enhancement and Tourism. Annals of Tourism Research 4: 184-194.
- Foley, M., and J.J. Lennon 1997 Dark Tourism – An Ethical Dilemma. In Strategic Issues for the Hospitality, Tourism and Leisure Industries, M. Foley, J.J. Lennon, and G. Maxwell, eds., pp. 153-164. London: Cassell.
- Poria, Y., R. Butler, and D. Airey 2001 Clarifying Heritage Tourism. Annals of Tourism Research 28: 1047-1049.
- Quick overview of key trends. UNWTO World Tourism Barometer (World Tourism Organization) 7 (2). 2009.
- Uzzel, D.L. 1984 The Alternate Structuralist Approach to the Psychology of Tourism Marketing. Annals of Tourism Research 11: 79-99.
Family Is The Basic Unit Of Society Essay
The family is considered the basic unit of the society. It is where a person acquires his/her basic characteristics and habits. They say that the personality of an individual is very much affected by the family background. One classical definition is that a family “is a social group characterized by common residence, economic cooperation and reproduction; it includes adults of both sexes, at least two of whom maintain a socially approved sexual relationship, and one or more children, owned or adopted, of the sexually cohabiting adults” (Murdock, 1949). However, this definition is restricted to some degree since it does not include the diverse ways families are constituted today such as single parenthood, cohabiting arrangements, domestic partnerships of homosexuals, families constituted by second marriages, also known as stepfamilies or blended families, and married couples without children either because of decision to delay or the option not to have any.
Family with shared resources and responsibilities
Since family members need not be bound my legal marriage or by blood or adoption (Lamanna and Riedman, 1994), a new definition erupted. The family consists of “two or more persons who share resources, share responsibility for decisions, share values and goals and have a commitment to each other over time. The functions attributed to families are economic consumption, socialization of the young and affective dimensions” (Davidson and Moore, 1992). This definition can include a variety of family forms, with emphasis on sharing, commitment and affection without any mention of sexual relations.
Family is a unique social institution
In sociological terms, the family is unique among social institutions. Institution is an established pattern of norms and values that organizes social life to fulfill social functions (Broom et.al., 1990). The family is the first to provide life-giving support, to bind the individual to a social group, and to socialize the person for participation outside the primary group. It is the setting for growing up, marriage, child rearing and the individual’s most intense attachments and conflicts.
The interactions within and between the different environments of a family constitute the ecology of the family and are major elements of an ecological point of view. The environment of the family’s ecology comprises the family itself, the family’s informal social network, community professionals and/or organizations and the society as a whole.
An environment may be very helpful and supportive in the development of families or lacking and threatening to development. An example is when a child is about to go out into the world, his/her decisions are affected by his/her peers. Strong associations with other community members and organizations could also help in proper and successful family functioning. The family would be more at ease in their immediate community. However, a community may or may not provide the needs of a family.
The family stands at the center of the social life, linking the individual to school, church, the economy and the nation. It conveys basic norms and values. Therefore, the family was coined as the major building block of the society. Because the family stands at the center of social life, innovations and social change that alter families arouse strong reactions. Many people fear that the family will be unable to adapt to change and that traditional values will break down in the face of the challenges for which the family is not prepared.
Family and the environment
Though the family has its own internal structure, it still exists within a network of relationships with other subsystems and with society as a whole. Families are interdependent on their neighborhood, social environment and physical environment. The changes and developments of a family are influenced by the changes in the community it resides in and its environment. The changes occurring in the family and the changes occurring in the outside environment has major impacts to each other. Therefore, the interaction of the family to the surroundings is a very important factor in continuity of the family. The family has its own needs, for survival, valued and management. These needs could only be attained if there is an interaction with the family’s environment. Environments, however, do not determine human behavior but pose limitations and constraints as well as possibilities and opportunities for families.
References
Bellah, R.N. (1970). Beyond Belief. New York: Harper & Row.
Berger, P.L. (1963). Invitation to Sociology: A Humanistic Perspective. New York: Doubleday.
Berk, S.F. (1985). The Gender Factory. New York: Plenum.
Broom, D.H., Broom, L. and Bonjean, C.M. (1990). Sociology: A Core Text with adapted readings. Belmont, California:Wadsworth Publishing Company.
Brym And Lie. Sociology. 3rd Edition. Thomson Publishing.
Burgess, E.W. and Locke, H.J. (1960). The Family from Institution to Companionship. 2nd Ed. New York: American Book Company.
Davidson, J.K. and Moore, N.B. (1992). Marriage and Family. Iowa: Wm C. Brown Publishers.
Eshleman, J.R. (1997). The Family: An Introduction.8th Ed. Boston, Massachussetts: Allyn and Bacon, Inc.
Gelles, R.J. (1995). Contemporary Families, A Sociological View. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications, Inc.
Lamanna, M.A. and Riedmann, A. (1994). Marriages and Families: Making Choices and Facing Change. 5th Ed. Belmont, California:Wadsworth Publishing Company.
Lindsey, L.L. (1997). Gender Roles, A Sociological Perspective. 3rd Ed. New Jersey: Prentice Hall, Inc.
Murdock, G.P. (1949). Social Structure. New York: The McMillan Co.
Saxton, L. (1996). The Individual, Marriage, and the Family. 9th Ed. Belmont California: Wadsworth Publishing Company
Skolnick, A.S. (1992) The Intimate Environment, Exploring Marriage and the Family. 5th Ed. New York: Harper Collins Publishers.
The World Book Encyclopedia. (1992). The World Book Encyclopedia (International). USA: World Book Inc.
Zimmerman, S.L. (1995). Understanding Family Policy: Theories and Applications. 2nd Ed. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications, Inc.
Essay Voice-over