Transcript Diapositiva 1

CHANGES OF THE FAMILY
IN THE THIRD MILLENIUM

What we can see in every social structure is a lot of different forms
of family. These are connected with their symbolic sub-culture but
also to the social class

Any historical and social period is characterized by the presence, at
the same time, of different forms of family, some of them could be
more numerous and so more incisive than others

Today it’s better to speak in the plural: families in spite of family
“assuming a pluralist perspective that has its focus on the
multitude of family specificity.” (Fruggeri, 1998)

In western world the idea of family is tied to the idea of
nuclearity: as a consequence there are no words to describe
the members of a family that comes from a second marriage
union or a fostering.

As what concerns the structure of the family we can find
these forms:
a)
One-person family: this is an improper form of family
because it is formed by a person, who lives alone
b)
Couple family: this kind of family includes old and young
couples without children and the couples who haven’t got
married.
c)
Nuclear family: This is a big “container” of families formed
by parents and its children. This structure can present very
interesting forms of family (long nuclear family, family on-fact,
one-parent family, built up nuclear family)
d). Complex family: this kind of family has fallen but it is still
present. It represents the survival of a distant past and also a
general strategy for the organization and re-organization of
the everyday life. This could be both in multiple or extended
form

On addition to the above typologies, the presence of different
ethnics groups is a factor which should be taken into account,
expecially in the actual context featured by the presence of
raising immigration.

In the passage from the traditional to the contemporary
society, family relationships have slowly assumed affection
and expressive features as a component that characterises
both parents-children relationship and relationship between
partners .It could be interesting to outline some of the main
predominant typologies emphasized by the above
analysis:
a. Traditional Parsons’ family in which there is a clear
distinction of tasks among partners’ role that are really
distinguished even regarding power variable
b. Symmetrical family, in which partners’ role are
interchangeable, for both family group inner tasks and
outer relations
c. Double career family, in which partners relationship is
balanced and family is democratic regarding children, and in
which both parents have professional activities outside family
d. Family of-fact, not based on the marriage and strongly
stressing on individual self-realisation and equal trend in
partners relationship
Situation in Italy
(source istat)

To identify the different kinds of families it has been necessary to
find the average of the number of families in 2000-2001 – in Italy
there were about 21 millions and 800 thousand families with the
average dimension of about 2,6 components each.

Number of single is increasing: almost a quarter of italian families
(23,9%) consists of single people, as a total of about 5 millions and
210 thousand people. It’s an increasing feature

There is a gradual and continous decreasing in families with
5 and more components – they were 8,4% in 1994-1995 and
7,1% in 2000-2001 (a bit more than 1 million and 500
thousand families).

There are altogether 16 millions 454 thousand family groups,
formed by couples or single parents .They are especially
couples with children that, despite the progressive decrease,
continue representing main family typology in the country
Couples with just one kid are increasing (from 43,4% in
1994-1995 to 45,8% in 2000-2001)


We can observe a little increase in new kinds of families:
free unions, cohabitations and built up familes represent 3,1%
of couples (1,8% in 1994-1995)

Since 1993 there has been an increase in children from
18 to 34 years old percentage staying home in original
family
ECONOMIC SITUATION

From 1993 to 2001 the percentage of families that think
their economic situation got worse is very decreased 38% in 1993 to 20,3% in 2001. however this decrease
happened in a non-linear way for economic combination
connected reasons.

Also families that consider their economic resources
as excellent or appropriate are raising: from 60,1%
in 1993 to 72% in 2001.

It’s still pretty much strong territorial difference in the
evaluation of one’s own economic situation

If we consider the period of time 1997-2001, the first relevant
note it’s the families’ growth rate higher than the population
and at the same time the reduction of the average of family
components.
Fig. 4. 2. trend of the proportion between one-person families and couples (nuclear
families) with and without children, married or not married in the 90’s.
Some troublesome knots

In the contemporary society some new family structures are
emerging – they are the result of continuous moving of borders in
what is considered “public” or “private”, both in couple relationsihp
and in parents-children relationship.

Couple relationship become more important than the one with
relatives or the community and the research of personal pleasure
and partners satisfaction become the main reason of the union .

“Expressive” pokings, linked to own-self’s realisation even inside
family borders, gain meaning

The family is becoming more and more collective interest
subject and object of public increasing worries

Today family’s crisis expresses itself through the outcoming
of tensions in gender relationships (for example with
renegotiation of sexual roles) and intergenerational
relationships (redefinition of parental relations becoming
more democratic) that lead into unbalance and
reorganisation of family nets

New legal or welfare devices can help and support
families, but the organisation of new neighborhood nets, of
‘banks of time’ and families association - that create
solidarity nets – are becoming very important.

Family crisis manifests itself even in changes at an
intergenerational relationships level, as strongly
connected feature of demographic emerging events

Generational roles are extending and this produce confusion
and conflicts. Adult son and daughters and over 18 continue
living with their original family, with some difficulties in
defining roles borders link to ages .

The family is essentially social relationship that emerges as
result of interaction between intersubjective dimensions and
structural relationships that found family as a social
institution

In that relation are included and stranded both sense
dimension’s aspects and mutual link aspects

Even if it’s a hard task, family has to
revise these relations all together
because its functioning is based on inner
and outer communication
CHILDREN, YOUTH PEOPLE AND
FAMILIES IN EUROPEAN CONTEXT

This volume is the second in a series about social work in Europe

This volume seeks to go a step further by engaging with the specific
topics of social work with children, young people and families.

The book comprises three section: section A looks at contextual
issues; section B considers forms of practice with individuals,
families and communites; section C concerns itself with professional
issues such as demarcations and definitions
CHILDREN

Even though the numbers are dropping not increasing across
Europe as populations generally become older, the children of
Europe constitute a formidable force.

Estimated at approximately 70 milion under 18 year –old in the
Union prior to May 2004, children as a category have been a major
focus of legislation and research emanating from the Union since its
inception.

However before examining the “European child” in more detail, it
might be worth noting from the outset the impossibility of discussing
“Children” as a coherent group.

Health, then, is a determinig feature of children’s life
trajectories and the level of support welfare State services
may need to offer.

Factors such as financial support to families, day care
services and social and health services form part of protective
environment for children’s health in the face of family
pressures such as poverty and adverse circumstance such as
isolation and harmful enviroment

Poverty is higlighted as one of the determining factors for
poor health and mental health problems in Europe’s children.

Since the 1990s levels of child poverty have increased
generally though there is wide variation across Europe

Poverty, physical ill health and mental ill health are some of
the primary concerns that sociale work must engage with in
relation to children across Europe.

Sexual abuse of children is another important area.

As well as sexual abuse within the family, a concern that
has been identified and is worked across European social
work in various ways since 1970s, sexual exploitation
includin trafficking of children, has also now become a
major concern.

Children’s voices should and must be heard

Children should be active partecipants in their lives and
changes within them

Social work in many parts of Europe has begun to address
the notion of service user inclusion.

These principles also need to be fore – grounded when the
service user is a child.
YOUNG PEOPLE

Turning to young people in Europe, it’s apparent that some
European legislation is specifically targeted of them

From a European perspective, taking into consideration the
principle of subsidiarity, child welfare and youth policy are
first of all the task and the responsability of each memberState.

The European Commission(http://europa.eu.int/comm/youth)
also higlighted the big 5 challenges for the future in relation
to youth as:
a. demographic development
b. changing conditionsfor the live world of young people
c. involvement of young people in pubblic life
d. European integration
e. globalization

Young people in Europe constitute an important part of the
population.

They may be alienated from extended families or cultural
traditions, and /or from the rural or urban communities to
which they belong

Within most societies there is some expectation that social
services for young people will have a significant role to
support, to assist and to empower young people.

In the future it will be important to introduce issues into the
social work curriculum which show the consequences of the
European integration process for the life of young people

FAMILIES

Whether as an insitution, a social network, or a system, the
family has played a fundamental role as provider of support
and well – being, mainly in the education and care of children
and elderly members.

The demographic changes in Europe have accentuated
discussions on the very concept of family, its form, size and
newfound connection to socio – economic struggles.

The list of problems facing family life today is long and grows
in pace with the demands for economic development and
global competition

To tackle these trends social work professionals are
exploring new patners of social welfare provision and
intervention:
a. family group conferencing and home trainign programmes
b. shift in youth care provisions from semi residential care to
home
c. intensive aid for single parents
d. family preservation services
e. national family policies

The importance of the family life across Europe is not really
questioned, but its multidimensional character and
embeddedness in various areas af welfare, makes it less
likely to be addressed on its own merit.

The family question may be nothing else but the quest for
ways to encourage members of society to contribute to the
quality of life in Europe more fully.

The family becomes not only an additional client for
social workers, but also a potential partner for tackling
structural inadequacies and that require new ways to
entervene