home » fashionable dresses » Family and marriage: historical and social analysis. Historical stages of family development Hunger and the concept of family

Family and marriage: historical and social analysis. Historical stages of family development Hunger and the concept of family

Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 21:11:11 -0500
...Feminism has always consisted of two components - a liberating, anti-authoritarian component and a sectarian, complicit component
on bitterness and uterine female chauvinism. A realistic women's movement, undoubtedly, should act not from a position of revenge, but from a position of law, it is quite obvious: some activists demand not so much equality as “preferential conditions”; their claims cannot be satisfied with anything and never: the slightest step back immediately turns out to be on the conscience.” possessors of the phallus." This monster must be presented as menacing and funny, at the same time ferocious, but trembling at the slightest protest, a kind of colossus with feet of clay, dangerous in its strength as well as its weakness...

Sexual transformations and their influence on the destinies of women are also relevant for
our country. Meanwhile, domestic literature on this issue is not
is as rich as in Western countries, and there is very little quality field material. Based on the last remark, I will literally outline in dotted lines the empirical patterns that characterize the eroticism of the Russian population primarily in terms of gender...

Man, 2006 No. 6

MODERN FAMILY: MACISM, FEMINISM, TRIBADISM
Author: S. I. Golod
In the early 60s of the last century, the famous American sociologist W. Goode
I noticed, frankly, a paradoxical fact. Although in the field of family sociology
There have been more studies conducted than in any other significant field, only a few of them contain attempts at theoretical understanding.
Often it all comes down to developing social engineering techniques in order to
help people solve certain practical problems, for example, how to avoid
marital conflicts1. However, we must remember: the effectiveness of recommendations
is directly related to the presence of conceptual developments. In a famous
to the extent possible, develops and complements the stated consideration - especially relevant for
our problematic is another American sociologist P. Berger. From his point
view, experts were so carried away by methodological issues that
have lost all interest in society. “As a result, they cannot find anything significant in any aspect of social life, since in science, as in love, concentration on technology leads to impotence.”2

Researchers in many countries are expressing concern about the crisis state of monogamy, placing this crisis in direct dependence on global social changes.

It is difficult to agree with the negative assessment of the current state of the family not only by philistines, but also by sociologists, demographers and psychologists.
Stereotypes of everyday consciousness have little correspondence with reality. The institution of the family - as evidenced by its centuries-old history - turned out to be the most
stable community.

Let's ask ourselves: what fuels the pessimistic attitude? Throughout the past century, the scientific literature refers to the same social factors lying on the surface: the number of single men and women is increasing, the number of divorces is growing, the birth rate is decreasing, there are more “incomplete” families, sexual relations outside the institution of marriage are intensifying and etc.

Golod Sergey Isaevich - Doctor of Philosophy, Chief Researcher
Sociological Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences, professor at St. Petersburg State University. Regular author of the magazine.

1 Good W. Sociology of the family // Sociology today. Problems and prospects. M.,
1965. P. 194.

2 Berger P. Invitation to Sociology. Humanistic perspective. M., 1996.
P. 20.

It is impossible to doubt the validity of these trends: they are more than in favor
hundred-year statistics3. And yet the quantitative series, no matter how impressive
whatever they were, they record only the given, without explaining the deep social
transformations. Obviously, from here, based on identical indicators, to
for example, fertility or remarriage, some experts interpret
them as a crisis of monogamy4, others - as its transformation towards
emphasizing the personal identity of each member of this union5.

A striking example of the first position is a misunderstanding of immanent laws
evolution of monogamy - round table organized by the editors
"Sociological Research"6. Here gathered, according to the words of the presenter -
Professor of Moscow State University A.I. Antonov - a narrow circle of like-minded people who
declares “the crisis of the family and depopulation as the most pressing problem of our time.” Moreover, according to the same speaker, “the new demographic situation is turning parenthood into the main “profession” of the country.” It must be admitted that in this negativist atmosphere there was one sober voice - V.I. Perevedentsev, who stated: “in pre-war Russia (meaning the Second World War - S.G.) people believed that they live for the sake of children, for the sake of "So that there would be more of them, so that the children would live better than themselves. All this has disappeared. The old patriarchal family, one of the signs of which was having many children, has disappeared. A new one has arisen, one of the main signs of which is having few children."

A different point of view is defended by a number of domestic and foreign sociologists.
"The much despised suburban American family (nuclear - S.G.)
the fifties was in fact the center of moral life, because
that Americans, while unwilling to fight, sacrifice, or endure hardship for the sake of their country or a great international cause, are often willing to do so for the sake of
their children... Many problems of the modern American family - high divorce rates, lack of parental authority, alienation of children, etc. - arise precisely from the fact that the family’s attitude towards its members is built on a strictly liberal basis.”7 Fundamentally the same trends are stated by the German sociologist U. Beck: “...if in the 50s and 60s the question is: "What is your goal in life?" - people clearly and clearly answered in the categories of a “happy” family life: build your own house, buy a car, give your children a good education, then by the beginning of the 90s many spoke in a different language - necessarily vague - about “self-realization”, “search identity", "development of personal abilities""8.

When discussing the presented positions, one cannot ignore the prediction of the English philosopher B. Russell, made by him back in the late 20s of the last century: “patriarchal
3 See for example: Population of Russia, 2001. Ninth annual demographic report / Ed. A. G. Vishnevsky. M., 2002.

4 Antonov A.I., Borisov V.A. Family crisis and ways to overcome it. M., 1990.

5 Evolution of the family and family policy in the USSR/Ed. A. G. Vishnevsky. M., 1992;
Hunger SI. Family and marriage: historical and sociological analysis. St. Petersburg, 1998.

6 Family crisis and depopulation in Russia ("round table") // Sociol. research,
1999. N 11. P. 50 - 57.

7 Fukuyama F. The End of History and the Last Man. M., 2005. S. 484 - 485.

8 Beck U. Risk society: On the way to another modernity / Transl. from German WITH.
Sedelnik and N. Fedorova; afterword A. Filippova. M., 2000. P. 143.

Family is still very important, although it is doubtful that it will remain so
continue for a long time." And another passage, however, complementing the first: "...if
husband and wife want their marriage to remain happy, to be
socially useful, romantic love must disappear in order to give place to a more intimate (emphasis added - S.G.), more tender and more real feeling"9.

All the changes that the patriarchal one has undergone in one way or another (with machismo
bias) the family, thinking researchers associate with moral transformations, caused primarily by broad female
emancipation movement that swept most industrial countries from the end of the 19th century.

Modern feminists find devotion to mother, family and home funny
a relic of history. At the same time, for its time, subordination to culture with
male dominance was right, made women happy; Now
it is unacceptable and represents a form of “false consciousness.” According to
these theorists, all previous history was a conflict of “patriarchal”
societies, in contrast to this society, “matriarchal” supposedly constitute them
life alternative. They are not even embarrassed by the inability to support this
hypothesis with empirical facts, since such societies practically do not exist.

It does not require any detailed evidence that all of the listed (as well as some others) traditions, customs and stereotypes were rethought under the influence of the sexual revolution of the 60s of the 20th century. As is known, the revolution contributed to the demystification of eros, turning it into an autonomous sphere (from matrimonial and procreative behavior). Nowadays, an economically independent, politically equal woman is more free to define and build her ethos, sexual identity and erotic preferences.

The transition from a subordinate position to an equal one initially presupposed obligatory mimicry: it is not enough to defeat men, one must do it on their territory, recognizing the methods they use as the only correct ones.
Because the masculine remains the standard, the criterion of the “human.” We have to
recognize that the laws established by men are still in force today, which means
Complaints about the decline of morals, general corruption, and the collapse of the family are a priori inappropriate.
What has changed over the past few decades?

First of all, an end to women's tolerance for violence, suffering,
boredom, an end to the resignation of wives who stoically endured the beatings of angry
men are finally done with the cult of one-sided fidelity, which forced
a girl to give herself to one and only man all her life. ___

9 Russell B. Marriage and morality. M., 2004/ Per. from English Yu. Dubrovina. pp. 84, 153.

Feminism has always consisted of two components - a liberating, anti-authoritarian component and a sectarian component, implicated in bitterness and uterine female chauvinism. A realistic women's movement, undoubtedly, should act not from a position of revenge, but from a position of law, it is quite obvious: some activists demand not so much equality as “preferential conditions”; their claims cannot be satisfied with anything and never: the slightest step back immediately turns out to be on the conscience.” possessors of the phallus." This monster must be presented as menacing and funny, at the same time ferocious, but trembling at the slightest protest, a kind of colossus with feet of clay, dangerous in its strength as well as its weakness.

To clarify the picture of the indicated changes, I will dwell, as briefly as possible, on the society of the so-called Victorian primogeniture - England.

Due to interest in the publication in the country of the American study "Hite
report"10, by the editors of the magazine "Women's Own", which has 6
million subscribers, it was decided to print a questionnaire consisting of 40 questions.
Respondents returned more than 10,000 questionnaires (many with comments), and 2,289 were randomly selected from this sample.
The purpose of the study is to consider the relationship between variables and identify models
female sexual experience. The readers showed a sufficient degree of
interest in the problem and an active desire to cooperate. According to
compilers of the report, the general tone of the letters was positive, and there were practically no exhibitionist or extremist manifestations.
The letters contained few overt feminist statements, although some
sinned with an implicit tendency (for example, speaking out against “sexual exploitation”). The question of the “normality” of that
or other action. I will illustrate this idea with three quotes from the notes:
by respondents: (1) “Until recently, I had not read anything about
oral sex and thought that only my husband and I practice it, as a result
I felt a sense of shame"; (2) "I am very glad that you raised the issue of
"stimulation" of orgasm. I must admit that I thought I was the only one like this"; (3) "I tried to convince myself that the female orgasm is a "myth"
but I know that many women orgasm frequently. I read about the facts and
numbers in the Hite Report, but still the media in general makes me question my sexuality... (or so I feel)
it seems)"11.

The authors of the survey were well aware that the desire to cooperate does not ensure
reliability of the answers, but it indicates the presence of good will, because the questionnaire
anonymous, and therefore actors are not at least intentionally interested in
incorrect answers. Despite the inevitable restrictions,

10 Hite Shere. The Hit report. A national study of female sexuality.
N.Y., 1976.

11 Chester R. and Walker With Sexual experience and attitudes of Britain
women // Changing patterns in sexual behavior. L, 1979. P. 72 - 73.

Key seems likely that the material obtained is worthy of attention,
especially in an area where little other information is available.

I will dwell only on the main indicators of female sexual practice. IN
in particular, on who the debut partner is and on the frequency of intercourse.

90% of all respondents said that they only have sexual intercourse with
permanent partner and only 7% combine a permanent partner with another.
“Cohabiting” women name their “regular” partner in 94 of the cases
100, among those “not living together” - 80% had a permanent partner; eleven%
- permanent and other; in 7% the contacts were short-term; 3% - exclusively with a “casual” partner.

According to the responses received, the average frequency of intercourse was two to three
once a week. It is not surprising that women who live together are called
higher frequency than those “not living together” with a partner, who often complain about limited opportunities. At the same time, both of them express complaints about external obstacles to more frequent intercourse (the presence of other people, inconvenient working hours, etc.).

Published a decade later, the book by the English writer Helen Fielding, “The Diary of Bridget Johnson,” which appeared at the top of the bestseller list in the UK and the USA, testifies to the undoubted progress of feminism. Bridget can be considered a "typical representative" of her generation.
This independent Londoner and TV pundit begins most of her diary entries by stating her weight - something ubiquitous statistics have established is that three million people around the world do the same, including the Japanese, Slovenians and Finns.

H. Fielding's new novel "Bridget Jones: At the Edge of Consciousness" is dedicated to "everyone
the rest of Bridget," who enthusiastically accepted such an identification. A certain amount of courage was required from English readers: not every modern woman is ready to admit that she, like the heroine of the novel, is a staunch opponent of marriage, does not trust those who are supposedly happy in a family life, secretly pines for Prince William and British Prime Minister Tony Blair - “the first prime minister who can be imagined as a partner for sex without coercion.” The indispensable attributes of the life of Bridget and her followers are bosom friends, a subtle sense of the era and endless optimism.
For example, when the heroine of the book ends up in a Thai prison, she notes in
diary positive aspects of this turn of fate: “Firstly, completely
no need to spend money; secondly, the volume of the hips has finally returned to normal.”

The validity of W. Beck’s position that
In the 90s of the 20th century, family values changed their meaningful meaning:
turned from a purely reproductive phenomenon into a personal-individual
value.

Sexual transformations and their impact on the destinies of women are also relevant for our country. Meanwhile, domestic literature on this issue is not as rich as in Western countries, and there is very little good field material12. Based on the last remark, I will literally outline in dotted lines the empirical patterns that characterize the eroticism of the Russian population primarily in terms of gender.

In the mid-1960s, I identified signs of a departure from the “double”
sexual standard among young people13. Further
liberalization of morality. Later research largely confirmed these
expectations. Moreover, among girls, the number of
persons justifying the practice of engaging in sexual relations that are not associated with marriage or childbirth, and, on the contrary, a decrease in the number of those condemning. More specifically, among the former, the positive assessment increased from 38% to 80%, while the negative assessment decreased from 30% to 3%; The dynamics of indicators for the latter is as follows: 53% versus 72% and 17% versus 4%. Under the influence of the above indices, one got the impression of the triumph of a single standard among younger generations.

I will dwell just as briefly on subjects relating to “mature” sexuality -
marriage and adultery. As for marriage, here in the process of physical
intimacy, spouses manifest themselves along one of two strategic lines: either
domination/subordination, or cooperation. Interpreting the “Dream Book” of Artemidorus, M. Foucault notes: “Copulation, with its several poses and, most importantly, the poles of activity and passivity, turns out to be an instance that imparts a certain quality to the sexual act to a much greater extent than the body with its various parts and pleasure with its qualities and intensities"14. In other words, the depth and quality of sexual experiences of each partner depends on the degree of their activity in sexual intercourse. In patriarchal culture, initiative (including in the choice of posture) was prescribed to a man based on social and family status.
What is the current disposition? According to a survey conducted in St. Petersburg
(1998), more than half of husbands (60%) emphasize traditional activity in
sexual contacts and only 2% openly prefer to stay in the shadows (figuratively speaking, the “lazy pose”). Fundamentally the same situation is confirmed by the statements of wives - 63% versus 4%. At the same time, every fifth woman does not hide her initiative in marital erotica; Moreover, I agree

12 Golod S.I., Kuznetsova L.V. Social problems of sexuality:
Annotated bibliography (90s of the XX century). St. Petersburg, 2002.

13 Hunger S.I. The city is changing moral standards // Science and technology [Riga], 1968.
N 11. pp. 16 - 19.

14 Foucault M. History of sexuality - III: Self-care / Trans. from fr. T.N.
Titova and O.I. Khoma. Under general editorship A. M. Mokrousova. Kyiv, M., 1998. P. 36.

But according to husbands, this figure reaches 30%. "Victorianism" ("respecting
a lady should not move her hips in bed") is demonstrated by only 7% of St. Petersburg women, with which even fewer of their spouses agree - 5%.
An even greater contradiction of opinions can be seen in Tula (1999 survey).
Almost 80% of Tula residents defend their “original” role in the virtual absence
indifferent. Women, although they do not necessarily share this opinion, ultimately
generally agree with the predominance of husbands' activity (70% to 3%). In marital
almost every fifth woman admitted an active position in erotica and only 10
out of 100 still adhere to "Victorian" practices.

Tula residents, for their part, assess the role of women in sexual relations more optimistically: 40% versus 7%. Despite some discrepancies, one can, without fear of being mistaken, say that no radical changes have been noted in marital gender sexual scripts and repertoires. At the same time, some shifts are difficult to ignore: they, in particular, are characterized by the latent displacement of men from seemingly unshakable natural positions.
And this trend will grow, although it is impossible to predict today what its limits are. But one thing is clear - the transformation is irreversible. Here is an illustrative example of changes in the young informant’s gender repertoire.
“The first kiss was with a boy who didn’t know how to kiss at all. But I already had experience, the girls taught me. So I taught the boy how to kiss too”15. The following is not subject to the slightest doubt - since activity is rewarded with erotic pleasure, the latter, in turn, will intensify the competition between spouses for gaining leading positions.

The growing importance in the family of such a factor as marriage (in comparison with consanguinity and generation), i.e. the practice of living together between husband and wife, when the distinction between the attitude towards oneself and the attitude towards another is erased, contributes to the monopolization of “marital” sexuality. From this transformation it is expected that erotic activity will tend to dissolve within the boundaries of marriage, not only and not so much to ensure the well-being of legitimate offspring, but in the name of satisfying the husband and wife’s need for their own pleasure and individual happiness.

The need to be careful and restrained in forecasts was confirmed more
late field materials. According to a survey of all strata and ages of the population of St. Petersburg (1998), 34% of respondents were in alternative relationships, with a ratio of men to women of 2 to 1. According to Tula (1999), the coverage of “parallel” sexual relationships is 27%; men pointed out this circumstance three times more often than women. According to our neighbors - financial

15 Borisov S. B. Latent mechanisms of erotic socialization. Shchadrinsk,
2000. P. 55.

Sky sociologists - "for the last year (preceding the survey, i.e. 1992 -
S.G.) 20% of men and 11% of women in couple relationships supported
and parallel contacts. Such parallel contacts are observed already in the early stages of a married couple’s life together, and often there are several of them at once... For most people, the ideal form of sexual life is
consistently polygamous relationships. Contrary to this ideal, about 3% of actors
(out of a sample of 800 men and the same number of women) were members of “open”
connections (swirming), where it is permissible for both partners to enter into parallel relationships"16.

In May 2006, together with three researchers from various scientific institutions (A. Poleev, Yu. Kovalchuk, M. Butovskaya), I gave an interview to the women's magazine "Glamour" about the sexual revolution in Western countries and its possible reaction in Russia. This publication published some of our thoughts on this matter and cited the results of a survey of 2.5 thousand readers (on the website) aged 18 to 35 years. Despite the frank unrepresentativeness of the empirical material obtained (not in general, but even in relation to the English magazine "Women's Own"), he, nevertheless, clearly stated practical changes in moral views on marriage and eroticism among the mass of young women. Here are just some of the evidence that makes take a fresh look at the problem of the value of marriage and its connection with reproductive practice. In response to the question: “Do you want to get married?
Married?" The following answers were received:
45.6% - “they think that a ring on a finger is not important”;
40% - “prefer a career to a registry office”;
14% - “waiting for the first step from their partner”;
0.4% - “consider marriage the main goal of life.”
Of course, we must not forget about the specifics of Glamor's readership.
And yet, even taking this factor into account, we are faced with the diversity of women
principles, desires and needs: with a choice between the values of “traditional” behavior - the goal of sexual relations is primarily associated with the family world, its needs, with an emphasis on female happiness and love - and, on the other hand, with individual will, implicitly opposed to everything " petty" and "vulgar", with an exclusive concentration on one's individuality. Indeed, only 0.4% consider marriage (read, childbearing) the main goal of life, and another 14% are waiting for the first step from the “master”; whereas 40%, i.e. almost every second woman prefers, at least for the time being, a career to a registry office.

And other questions in general “work” on the same principle - to inspire a woman with her
equality, independence and self-worth. Even sometimes without taking into account (or,
moreover, contrary to) its specificity and individuality, i.e. another.

16 Kontula O., Haavio-Mannila E. Sexual Pleasures Enhancement of Sex Life in
Finland, 1971 - 1992. Dartmouth, 1995. P. 205.

The next question is posed as follows: “Have you cheated on your partner?” In itself, I admit, the question is, at best, incorrect. In what sense did they “change”? Apparently we are talking about adultery? More than half of those surveyed answered negatively, 40% swore that they did it “once,” 5% cited the difficulty of choosing “between two lovers,” and another 4% admitted that they “do it all the time.” The last answer indicates that among modern youth there are no shortage of unprincipled, frankly speaking, immoral people.

For a significant part of the Glamor audience, sex has turned into a game, at best, a search for “friendly” services (in my classification, a recreational relationship). To the frank question: “How long after meeting are you ready to sleep with a man?” - here is a very “poor” response scale:
- the most personable and “intellectual” - 64% - “I act according to the situation”;
the other three are located a few steps away from each other:
- “on the first date” - 15%;
- “in a week” - 19%;
- “in three months” - 2%.
And the only thing that differentiated this audience was the attitude towards participation in “group” sex (swirming):
53% consider it a “dirty activity”;
26% - “participate in it” on occasion;
20% - “tried it, but don’t want to repeat it”;
1% - practice it constantly.
Our intermediate conclusion is this: generalization of our own empirical data and
foreign literary sources show that not everything is so hopeless in
the private world of a woman, as stated by feminist theorists. A woman, undoubtedly, has become freer and more liberated since the second half of the 20th century compared to the recent past, but these are only the first steps: finding the desired face is a complex, contradictory path and, moreover, still not fully clarified.

The sexual emancipation of women, being a multifaceted phenomenon, liberated
its biological potency, contributed to erotic openness and looseness, but was unable to resolve the existential problem of love - the sphere where gender uniqueness is most piercingly highlighted. A woman remains an “Other” for a man - a threat, the embodiment of extreme danger; in fact, one can unite with her only for a moment.
A loving man longs to communicate with a woman, to possess her (or to surrender to her),
but does not identify himself with her, does not dream of becoming like her, mastering her
personal meanings. “Women have always played the role of “others”, shadows, who still perform the “shadow-

I'm working." They were the subject of men's fears and men's desires.
They frightened men in the guise of a witch and a whore; they delighted him in the guise of a mother, a homemaker, and in the guise of a “saint”17. On the other hand: “Many modern women, although they are fighting for their human dignity, perceive erotic life as slavery. That is why it seems humiliating to them to lie under a man, to feel his penis inside them, this makes them frigid. However, if reality was different, then the symbolic meaning of love gestures and poses would be perceived differently.
Thus, a woman who pays her lover, who feels superior to him, may
to be proud of his complete passivity and believe that it enslaves him, since only he has to expend his strength."18 Is it really a dead end? Not at all.
It is clear that breaking the vicious circle, overcoming alienation will become possible when an individual (of any gender) recognizes the “other” as his own otherness and when, on this basis, he/she tries to merge with him/her into a single whole without losing his/her originality.

Payment for sexual relations in various guises plays a primarily compensatory role for a woman and removes her inferiority complex. To substantiate my assumption, I will comment on it with a fragment from the story of the famous Scottish feminist L. Bryan “On a Regular Basis.”
The narration, I note, is told on behalf of a shocked man. So...

He first met the heroine at work - in the library.

“Sorry,” said the voice, “I’m in a hurry. Could you please accept my books...
- I don’t work in a subscription. Now I’ll call Miss Pedi... And then I saw Emily. My gaze slid from her girlish breasts to her face with cold eyes and short, greasy hair. The heart did a somersault, and what was below the belt hardened...
“Hello,” she said. - My name is Emily.
“Stephen,” I answered.
“Stephen,” she repeated. Beautiful name..."19
Not without visible hesitation, Emily made a date with the young man. They met several times, and then Stephen was invited to the girl’s home. And here he is visiting.
"I've been looking at books for a while. All of them are about finance.
- What did you see there, Stephen? - Emily asked. Her thin hand hugged me
shoulders.
“There’s no smell of novels here,” I answered.
“Or books about women’s issues,” Emily laughed. - I am a pragmatist, I
I'm only interested in what makes the world go round.
“Money,” I said.

17 Miltman-Wendel E. And God created man and woman (Feminist theology and human identity) // Issues. Philosopher 1991. N3. P. 96.

18 Beauvoir S. de. Second sex / Transl. from French, total ed. and will enter, article by S.G.
Aivazova. M., St. Petersburg, 1997. pp. 803 - 804.

19 Brian L. On a regular basis // Foreign. lit. 1997. N7. P. 188.

And sex. “She took me by the hand and led me to the object that completed the furnishings of the room - to her bed...”

We agree that the speech manner and style of communication indicate that we are facing
a typical business woman, firmly standing on her feet, an emancipated woman. But still
Let's refrain from hasty conclusions and continue the story.

"Emily sat astride me and, leaning on her hands and leaning back so that
her small breasts sticking out like two pieces of jelly made everything that was about to happen clearer.
“Today it’s free,” she said. - Taking money for the first time is stupid.
You won't come again. Unless you're crazy. And if you're crazy, I don't need you...
“Wait, Emily,” I protested.
She put her finger to my lips and silenced me.
“Don’t argue,” said Emily, “it’s a good deal.” My body was yearning for Emily and
I started seeing her on a regular basis: once a week for twenty pounds."

The extraordinary nature of the relationship began to depress the young man. He tried to clarify
status ratio. And he directly voiced the questions that worried him.

“So, Emily, you’re not a prostitute?” I asked as casually as possible. She was lying on the bed and looked amazing: her breasts were half naked, her legs were covered with a black silk scarf.
“No,” Emily answered in her hoarse voice. - I'm your lover.
- But then why are you taking money from me?
Emily explained. She said that men often insulted her. They accepted
Emily's love and used this feeling against her. And now she
takes money. Money means she is in control and therefore means she is safe..."

Said bluntly, boldly. You can’t help but feel sympathy for this challenge to the “male” world and expect radical, original steps. And then what happened was what should have happened.

"That night (continues Stephen. - S.G.) we had our first real quarrel. From different ends of the bedroom we exchanged insults and reproaches. Emily said that I was a typical chauvinist. I replied that she was a typical whore... Emily wanted , for me to love her for who she is, I wanted free sex."

How did the intrigue end? At first glance, it’s banal. The man at the end
In the end I achieved what I was used to, the relationship became “like the majority.” That's how he is
he talks about it himself.

"...Emily hasn't taken money from me for quite some time now...Emily wears pink
cotton dresses. To prevent your hair from becoming brittle

The fox ties them with a wide silk ribbon. He's talking about selling his business. She wants me to be the breadwinner for the family, and she stays at home. Emily thinks we should get married. She wants children..."

It would seem that the next experiment is completed, the conflict is completely settled,
Based on the traditional division of spheres of activity, a consensus has been reached: for men
- public, for a woman - private. However, peace of mind has not arrived - the “winner” is haunted by doubts.

“I thought,” the young man continues to think, “maybe I should have left everything as it was, not sought changes... I’m in despair...”

Let us ask ourselves: who failed as a result? Having resolved (with the help of collecting “tribute”) the problem of psychological inferiority, becoming sexually active, the woman at the same time fit into the routine of everyday life (if the expectation of a legally formalized marriage can be called that); on the contrary, the man who has once again been entrusted with the “managerial helm” is confused: the fundamental properties of machismo have been lost. Another thing cannot help but surprise: the heroine spent colossal energy to break out from the influence of paternalistic traditions and norms - to become proactive, autonomous, but in reality, otherness did not triumph. And yet, there are no losers.
The effect of a surge of girlish energy (her active position and choice of poses) is not
call it zero: it undermined the myth of rigid “female-male” natural erotic determinism. The demystification of sexuality, moreover, the creativity of women's erotic practice, willingly or unwillingly, forced a man - despite unconscious protest - to doubt the inviolability of the cultural rut established over centuries. On the other hand, the feminist idea about the accidental predominance of patriarchal values in the “body” of civilization has not been confirmed.

There is reason to believe that the erotic emancipation of women contributed to its activation not only in hetero-, but also in homogeneous practices. Lesbianism sometimes even claims to reveal more fully the “mystery” of femininity, female nature. Thus, some psychiatrists of the old school, for example, L. Levenfeld, recognized that “homosexual love in the sense of an emotional state is as normal as heterosexual love”20.

Russian gynecologist I. Tarnovsky made even further progress in revising the established position, relying on the analysis of case studies (individual cases - S.G.) from medical and judicial practice. There are women in the world, he noted, who are quite normal in all respects, but endowed by nature with an extraordinary inclination towards their own sex. Such a perversion of sexual feeling: “incomprehensible,

20 Levenfeld L. Sexual problems. M., 1912. P. 204.

Strange, unnatural for an ordinary person,” for these women themselves it is completely natural and not only not harmful, but even, on the contrary, satisfies their physiological need. Moreover, characterizing “active lesbianism” as a natural anomaly, the doctor - unlike many of his colleagues - did not identify it with degeneration21.

In the opinion of the feminist S. de Beauvoir, in sexual intercourse a man strives to own
woman, "...he enters her like a ploughshare into a furrow; he makes her his, just like
cultivated land"22. According to the memoirs of one of J.-P. Sartre’s mistresses, B.
Lamblen, during one of his trips to France: they “... became physically close to Simone, very timidly at first... The next day, returning by bus to Paris, we tenderly held hands, which seemed to shock some passengers"23.

Kudasheva-Rolland talks about the erotic life of M. Tsvetaeva to her biographer
Veronica Losskaya: “I think when Marina married Seryozha Efron, this
there was ordinary (my discharge. - S.G.) love between a man and a woman and, as
you know, in such cases the woman does not experience anything (i.e. orgasm is unattainable - S.G.). But in love between women it’s different. Women know how to make each other feel everything: “jouire” (French jouire) - enjoyment of life"24.
Referring to the American researcher of lesbianism Teresa de Laurentiis, I. Zherebkina comes to the same conclusion25. One can only wonder
narrow-mindedness, peremptory attitude of Kudasheva, Zherebkina and other analysts.
If you follow their logic, then you cannot but agree with the philosopher and symbolist poet Vl. Solovyov: “He will come to us, probably from Lesbos
The solution to the women's issue."

Was the poet's ironic epigram really prophetic? Is it really that tight?
associated with the formation of female subculture, mythology, religion, philosophy and
etc. with the soil of a famous Greek island? Nothing directly indicates this. The achievements of the women's emancipation movement of the last century were to a greater extent captured in the public sphere (the right to vote, equal opportunities for higher education, equal claims to professional, economic status, etc.) than in the private sphere (the spread of the cohabitation zone and out-of-wedlock births (i.e., the denial of the binary: marriage is not marriage). The future prospects of this movement are as exciting and multifaceted as they are, so explosive and unpredictable. Others will say - too general. But, to be honest, I had no other goal. In my the task was to pose the problem: to outline its contours and indicate the general direction - movement away from the institution, its
needs to the individual with clear and transparent requests.

21 Tarnovsky I. M. Perversion of sexual feelings in women. St. Petersburg, 1895.
P. 27.

22 Beauvoir S. Quoted. op. P. 194.

23 Lamblen B. Memoirs of a confused girl // Foreign literature.
2000. N 4. P. 94.

24 Zhuk O. Russian Amazons. History of the lesbian subculture in Russia: 20th century.
M., 1998. P. 64.

25 Zherebkina I. Passion. The female body and female sexuality in Russia. St. Petersburg, 2001.

EE "BELARUSIAN STATE PEDAGOGICAL UNIVERSITY" NAMED AFTER M. TANK

ABSTRACT

in the course “Psychology of Higher Education”

on topic no.

Golod S.I. "Family and marriage: historical and social analysis"

Master's students of the 1st group

Danube Yulia Andreevna

Scientific adviser:

Doctor of Psychology sciences, prof.

L.A. Kandybovich

Minsk, 2008

Introduction

Chapter 1. Historical types of marriage

Chapter 2. Monogamous family: crisis or evolution?

2.1. Patriarchal family type

2.2. Child-centric family type

2.3. Married family type

Conclusion

Bibliography

INTRODUCTION

In recent years, attention to the problems of marriage and family has increased significantly. Family- the main institution of society. In turn, the institution of family includes many more private institutions, namely the institution of marriage, the institution of kinship, the institution of motherhood and paternity, the institution of property, the institution of social protection of childhood and guardianship, and others.

Marriage- an institution that regulates relations between the sexes. In society, sexual relations are regulated by a set of cultural norms. Of course, sexual relations can occur outside of marriage, and marriage itself can exist without them. However, it is marriage in human society that is considered the only acceptable, socially approved and legally enshrined form of not only permitted, but obligatory sexual relations between spouses.

Getting married, having and raising children, creating a strong family is by no means such a simple matter. Only those who enter into marriage with an awareness of their enormous responsibility can successfully solve this task of great social significance.

Increased public attention to family and marriage is associated with modern demographic development. When talking about the demographic development of society, we do not mean just simple population growth. It is important that it is accompanied by positive qualitative changes, that the general cultural level of the population increases, which in turn favors a high level of child rearing. Among the reasons for increased attention to family problems is the desire of society to eradicate such negative social phenomena as crime, drug addiction, suicide. Since the family plays a role in the development of certain personality traits.

In the course of cultural and historical development, not only the form of family and marital relations changed, but also the very content of these relations, in particular, between husband and wife. With the advent of monogamy, this change was largely of a qualitative nature. Consideration of the reasons for the emergence of certain forms of marriage is of interest for cultural and historical analysis, consideration of the causes of the family crisis at the present time.

CHAPTER 1. HISTORICAL TYPES OF MARRIAGE

In the history of mankind, four systems of marriage relations sometimes existed simultaneously, but in different places:

- group marriage– a marriage union of several men and women (it was widespread in primitive society);

- polygyny– one man and several women (this type is especially characteristic of nomadic pastoralists);

- polyandry– one woman and several men (an extremely rare case that existed among one of the peoples of Indochina);

-monogamy– one man and one woman (the predominant form of marriage among agricultural peoples).

Monogamy comes in two forms: lifelong And allowing divorce, or easily bred. Single-parent families (one parent with children) were extremely rare.

According to the custom of marriage, they are divided into endogamous And exogamous. With endogamy, a person is chosen only from the group to which the person entering into marriage belongs. Exogamy involves choosing a mate from an out-group.

One of the criteria for family typology is the inequality of spouses. An unequal marriage implies that the spouses differ on some significant basis: social status, age, income. So-called status marriage suggests the advantages of choosing marriage partners for those occupying the highest steps in the social hierarchy. This is where the concept of “unequal marriage” comes from. In caste, class and partly class societies, unequal marriages were prohibited in cases where they threatened the stability of the social hierarchy. Essentially, this is a return to the principle of endogamous marriage, which allows entering into unions only within one’s own group - clan, tribe, class, caste.

Another classification criterion is the marriage fee. The institution of purchased marriage arose at the dawn of history simultaneously and within group marriage, when a woman was involved in the exchange process as a commodity. The two groups exchanged “gifts” that the woman could serve. The woman’s relatives “gifted” the man’s future spouse to the man’s relatives in exchange for equal services and assistance, which the latter obliged the former. The early form of purchased marriage can be called gift exchange.

The practice of purchased marriage led to the revival of such customs as the abduction of brides, often purely symbolic, on a white horse, with whooping and whistling. In South America, a kidnapped bride was even wrapped in a carpet or bag, emphasizing her supposed refusal to marry. When kidnapping a bride, different nations practiced different customs. For example, among the ancient Gauls, this was done by women - relatives of the groom. The Bataks from Sumatra always left a sign - clothes or weapons - in the house of the stolen woman, otherwise the marriage was considered illegal. Legalization of marriage after abduction usually came down to the payment of a ransom and a purely symbolic battle for the honor of the kidnapped bride and her parents.

A special type of paid marriage is considered holy matrimony. In his book “The Golden Bough,” James Frazer provides a lot of evidence that the custom of marrying maidens to patron gods was widespread among many ancient peoples. Thus, the Indians of Peru gave a 14-year-old girl in marriage to a stone that was shaped like a person and was revered as a god. The entire tribe took part in the marriage ceremony, which lasted three days. The girl had to preserve her virginity and make sacrifices to the god-husband on behalf of her fellow tribesmen, who showed her the greatest respect. The Kikuyu tribe of Kenya worshiped the river snake, so every few years a young girl was married to the snake god.

Sacred marriage was so widespread that its plot was included in folk tales of almost all peoples of the Earth. These are various tales about how a certain city or settlement was in the power of a many-headed serpent or dragon, and its inhabitants were forced to give him young girls as wives until a hero appeared and freed the girl and the city. In the Maldives, every month, residents cast lots to decide who would give their daughter to the sea genie this time. The purpose of a sacred marriage is to pay off the gods (good and evil), bring about fertility in the vines, bring rain to the earth, get help in a hunt, or save the tribe from some kind of misfortune.

In contrast to the ancient forms of purchased marriage, carried out in the form of an equivalent gift exchange, its later forms, especially in the era of patriarchy, manifested themselves in the form unequal gift exchange. The dominant sex, that is, the man, presented the bride with more expensive gifts than he received from her, according to his privileged position, the amount of wealth and political power. Inequality, in fact, is what makes a purchased marriage in the precise sense of a purchased marriage. Marriage turns into an object of purchase and sale. The establishment of private property turned marriage into a commercial transaction. The size of the husband's rights to own his wife is made directly proportional to the amount of the ransom paid for her. Among the Nubian Arabs, the number of days in a week during which a wife remained faithful to her husband depended on the number of heads of cattle paid for her.

Since then, we can talk about a new form of purchased marriage - buyout marriage. The wedding ceremony has become much more complicated, it has become formalized. A verbal agreement between young people or their parents was no longer enough. IN formalized marriage Witnesses were required, and the wedding ceremony took place in public.

Purchasing marriage has ceased to be a matter only of those getting married, turning into part of tribal events. In the Muslim East, a new form of purchased marriage arose - kalym marriage. Kalym is a bride price, initially paid to the clan, and later to the parents as compensation for the loss of a worker.

According to tradition, the bride price is considered a sign of respect for the bride and her relatives. But it is also perceived as an integral part of the market economy and thus forms a new phenomenon - the marriage market. One of the predecessors of the marriage market should be considered a custom that existed in ancient Babylon, called in modern language a marriage auction. Unlike the dowry, here there was a redistribution of money received for beauties in favor of girls deprived of attractiveness. In this way they all turned out to be married.

Marriage of convenience originated at the dawn of mankind, when people entered into marriages to secure alliances between tribes or for other beneficial purposes. Subsequently, the rulers of ancient countries gave their daughters and relatives as wives to the rulers of other countries in order to receive political or diplomatic benefits, strengthen the interstate union, increase their status, etc. Over time, the motives for marriage changed, but its essence remained the same. It lacked an emotional component, a feeling of mutual love. An arranged marriage is the opposite of a love marriage.

In pre-revolutionary Russia, the high marriage rate among the bulk of the population, the peasantry, was largely explained in economic terms. The peasant boy was not taken seriously in the village before he got married; he had no voice in the family, at the peasant gathering; he was not allowed to leave the village even for a short time. Only after the wedding did he become a full member of the family and the “world” - the rural community, the holder of the rights and responsibilities of a full member of peasant society. The situation of unmarried peasant girls was similar. Thus, the impossibility of a farmer’s single life is explained by material necessity.

Economic, moral and ethical necessity forced peasants to marry at the first opportunity, making celibacy almost impossible. This is what led many researchers of peasant life to conclude that such a marriage is an economic transaction, and not a mutual inclination.

Another reason for arranged marriage is the desire to avoid military service.

CHAPTER 2. MONOGAMIC FAMILY: CRISIS OR EVOLUTION?

The panicky conversations of domestic demographers and sociologists about the family crisis cannot but cause surprise. What fuels such pessimism? As a rule, over the last century, the same factors have been cited: the number of single men and women is increasing, the number of divorces is growing, the birth rate is decreasing, there are more “single-parent” families, extramarital affairs are intensifying, etc.

Rising number of divorces, according to S.I. Golod, is not least predetermined by the transition from “matchmaking” as a method of marriage to individual selectivity, or, more broadly, to a fundamentally different type of family relationships. The freedom to choose a partner implicitly implies the freedom to dissolve the marriage if it does not go well.

The fact of a decline in childbearing, therefore, is certain. How can this be explained? The vast majority of researchers associate the fall in the birth rate with a sharp deterioration in the socio-economic situation in the country. And there is some truth in this.

However, the processes listed above, according to S.I. Golod, are predominantly determined by the historical type of family.

Back in the early 80s, he put forward a hypothesis about the existence of three ideal historical types of monogamy (see: Golod S.I. Family stability: sociological and demographic aspects. Leningrad, 1984). In the 90s A few demographers and sociologists began to develop the concept of diversity of family types. Golod S.I. writes: “The main thing is the recognition of the plurality of ideal types of family and the actual diversity of their forms.”

Analysis of the family, like any system, has two vectors: one is aimed at revealing the internal mechanism of its functioning and the interaction of elements; the other - into the world surrounding the family, interaction with which constitutes its external functioning.

Shifting the research focus to one’s own patterns posed the task of an unconventional definition of the concept of “family.”

Family is a collection of individuals who are in at least one of three types of relationships: consanguinity (brother - brother, brother - sister, etc.), generation (parents - children), property (husband - wife). The nature of these relationships (roughly speaking, authoritarian-egalitarian) can, according to S.I. Golod, serve as a criterion determining the stage of development of monogamy. Following this logic, one can construct three ideal historical family types: patriarchal(or traditional) child-centric(or modern) and married(or post-modern).

However, history also knows era of matriarchy, when in ancient society the dominant position was occupied by a woman, and there were special reasons for this. When a strict taboo was imposed on incest, a clan was formed as a new form of family, which was based on the principle of maternal kinship. Due to the fact that husbands and wives were common, it was virtually impossible to trace the paternal line, and therefore only the mother and her children, who remained with her and constituted her maternal clan, could be recognized as truly blood relatives.

During the period of matriarchy, inheritance always went through the female line, and in marriage agreements the groom's property was often transferred to the possession of the bride. Many pharaohs married their sisters and even daughters in this regard, as this helped preserve the throne, dynasty and inheritance.

So Cleopatra (69 - 30 BC) was first the wife of her older brother, then after his death, the wife of her younger brother. Each marriage gave them the right to own Egypt.

Let us quote the words of F. Engels: “The overthrow of maternal right was a world-historical defeat for the female sex. The husband seized the reins of power in the house, and the wife was deprived of her honorable position, enslaved, turned into a slave of his desires, into a simple instrument of childbearing.”

With the advent of private property, a woman becomes a powerless domestic servant with numerous household responsibilities; she cannot even dispose of personal property without the permission of her husband, and in the event of his death, power in the house passed to his son.

According to historians, a woman could share a bed with her husband, but not a meal. In Ancient Greece, a beautiful woman was worth several head of cattle.

2.1. PATRIARCHAL TYPE OF FAMILY

The most archaic type of family is patriarchal. It relies on the dependence of the wife on her husband and the children on their parents. This type arose as a result of the overthrow of maternal law. One illustration of the transition from maternal to paternal kinship account can be the custom of “couvade” (from the French cuvade - hatching eggs), discovered among the primitive tribes of Africa. After delivery of the pregnancy, the woman immediately begins her daily activities, while the man is put to bed. It simulates contractions and postpartum weakness and is carefully looked after. The father thus demonstrates his decisive role in the reproduction of his offspring.

The dominance of the husband, in particular, is manifested in the fact that economic resources and major decisions are concentrated in his hands. In accordance with this, there was a rigid consolidation of intrafamily roles.

It would be a great simplification to believe that the elimination of the economic and moral priorities of the head of the family and accompanying customs occurs with ease. The traces of the classical form of the traditional family appear most clearly in the Central Asian region. Ancient customs are found among the indigenous population. For example, the ritual of publicly displaying a sheet after the first wedding night is still in use (mostly, however, in rural areas).

In Russia, patriarchal principles, although not in such an overt form, are also tenacious. Let me remind you of two patrilineal traditions: the daughter-in-law changes her family surname to her husband’s surname; When naming a newborn, the family name registry is used.

Another central axis of the family: the parent-child relationship. For many years, the traditional family was dominated by absolute parental power and an authoritarian system of education.

There are, no doubt, fewer rituals left in procreative relationships than in marital relationships. And, nevertheless, one of the customs is quite stable - “matchmaking”. Among peoples who profess Islam, in most cases, marriage contracts are still concluded between parents; young people become actors only after this. According to Muslim norms, the will of parents is law for children, even if it is directed against their interests. One can only be surprised at the naivety of local demographers and ethnographers who, hiding behind the dubious ideal of family stability, tend to defend all patriarchal prescriptions without exception. Here is a typical passage: “... directing the spearhead of ideological and educational work against the purchase and sale of a bride (kalym), one cannot ignore the connection of this custom with elements of the tradition of respectfully subordinate attitude of children towards elders and especially towards their parents, with the principles of a peculiar strengthening of family and marital relations relations and the institution of family as a whole.”

So, the meaning of patriarchal monogamy can be simplified to two principles: strict gender and age subordination and lack of individual selectivity at all stages of the family cycle. These principles have been revised in different national regions with varying degrees of intensity in the current century. And when today are stressed crisis phenomena, then, we must understand, we are talking primarily about the traditional type of family. In fact, the emancipation of women and all the accompanying socio-economic changes undermined (but did not eliminate) the foundations of authoritarianism, and as a result - an increase in the number of divorces, a decrease in the birth rate, a revaluation of the concept of “virginity”, etc. Many researchers saw in these trends a threat to the family in general and they began to actively call for the restoration of patriarchy. Make no mistake about this: attempts to revive it as a mass form are doomed to failure.

2.2 CHILDREN-CENTRIC FAMILY TYPE

From the second half XIX century in Europe is formedchild-centricfamily type. It is characterized by an elevation of the role of private life, the sensual side of marriage and intimacy. More or less equal relations between husband and wife led to the emergence of a stable dependence of expressive satisfaction on marriage, on the one hand, and on the other, to the realization that sexuality practiced within the confines of marriage is not reducible to childbearing. All this leads spouses to think about the need to plan the time of birth of children and their number. Because of this, the reproductive period is limited to a short time (within 5-10 years) and the birth of one or two children. The desired child turns into an object of parental love and lasting affection. Thus, the custom of having many children sank into oblivion.

The decision on the number of children is made primarily by the spouses themselves. The possibilities of external pressure, as practice shows, even carefully developed measures of demographic policy (for example, such as the French one after the Second World War) are extremely small. It should be emphasized that a child-centric family by nature has few children.

In Russia, parental behavior motivated by intimate and emotional attachment to children has become widespread. spread from the second half of the 20th century. Even in a village family, where in the recent past little attention was paid to children, since the 60s many parents, including those who themselves only completed primary school, dream of giving their children the best possible education. Children, judging by the statements of the majority of rural residents surveyed, are the main meaning of the family. Changes in this direction have also been noticed in the Central Asian region. According to the observation of a local ethnographer, in a Kyrgyz family, no matter how modest its budget, funds are sought to buy clothes for children, attend the cinema, etc. Many parents strive to give them an education and a profession.

Increasing material and spiritual care for children is a positive phenomenon. However, the hypertrophy of duty, complemented by a departure from the ascetic tradition, sometimes leads to the opposite results. Excessive tenderness can also be harmful. This can be observed in the study of neurotic children. According to clinical studies, mothers of children suffering from neuroses, unlike mothers of the control group, are less likely to communicate with their child on an equal basis. They impose their opinion on him, not allowing the child to show independence.

Golod S.I. believes that the child-centric type of family is a significant step in the evolution of monogamy. The best proof of this, according to S.I. Golod. - a detailed consideration of the nature of marital relations, and then relations of generation.

The emergence of selectivity in the premarital period predetermined a new family strategy. Living together between a husband and wife in the absence of ritualized expectations and clearly defined roles requires the adaptation of their individual plans and behavioral stereotypes in relation to each other. In other words, a series of closely interconnected adaptive relationships must arise, each of which, to a greater or lesser extent (but certainly to a significant degree), affects the stability of the individual family. Based on the empirical materials of Golod S.I. (survey 1978,1981 and 1989), there is seven adaptation niches: spiritual, psychological, sexual, informational, relational, cultural and everyday. These niches have a flexible hierarchical structure, shifts in it are predetermined by the stage of development of the individual family. For example, in the initial stage, that is, in the interval between marriage and the birth of a child, the hierarchy is as follows: spiritual, psychological, sexual and cultural. At the next stage, “cultural” is replaced by “everyday”.

Between adaptation niches there is close connection. In a word, if there is no psychological, everyday or spiritual compatibility, then it is difficult to expect, say, sexual harmony.

A deeper layer of family relationships - intimacy(intim - internal), which represents a qualitatively different intimacy than adaptation. In instrumental language, intimacy is mutual sympathy, affection, appreciation and erotic affection between husband and wife, parents and children.

It would seem that if intimacy, in fact, contributes to marital satisfaction, then it, in all likelihood, should be combined with the entire adaptation fan. And indeed it is. Survey data indicate a correlation between the “intimacy” parameter and at least four components of the syndrome: psychological, spiritual, sexual and informational. Therefore, the values of adaptation and intimacy not only coexist, but constitute a single structure that unites husband and wife both along the external behavioral perimeter and through intrapersonal channels, thereby forming private lifestyle.

From all of the above, the image of a child-centered family seems more attractive. However, ultimately, in this family, the manifestation of personal potential is constrained and limited, which is most clearly evident along the parent-child line. At the same time, we must not forget the following. The ideal type is presented here, but in real practice its forms are varied.

2.3. MARRIED FAMILY TYPE

In recent decades, there has been the emergence of another type of monogamy, which Golod S.I. conditionally named matrimonial. In this kind of family, the strategic relationship is determined not by kinship (as in a patriarchal one) and not by parenthood (as in a child-centric one), but by property. You can understand it this way. The norm of family life is changing: parents in such a family refuse to completely subordinate their own interests to the interests of their children. Fixed movement is regarded by some researchers as one of the fundamental ones that determine the face of modern civilization.

Married family- historically the least stereotyped education. If we keep in mind its mature stage, then here unique opportunities open up for moving away from the dominance of dependent relationships and revealing an active palette across all structural components: husband - wife, parents - children, spouses - relatives, children - grandparents. In other words, within the boundaries of one family type, diverse and rich relationships arise between the sexes and between generations, and opportunities for individual self-realization for everyone. This general idea, in order to be adequately perceived, requires clarification.

First. Why are special hopes placed on marriage? Didn’t it exist in the past? Yes, it wasn't. It goes without saying that spouses, i.e. husband and wife, at least in European civilized society, constituted the fundamental basis of the family. But we are not talking about spouses, but about marriage.

Marriage- this is the personal interaction between husband and wife, regulated by moral principles and supported by inherent values. This is based on the non-institutional nature of the relationship and the symmetry of the rights and responsibilities of both spouses. This, by the way, indicates the historically recent origin of this phenomenon. In fact, the principles underlying marriage could be practically realized only as a result of social changes, accompanied by the individualization of men (expanded selectivity, internal responsibility, increased self-control) and the spread of these qualities to women, which would have been impossible without their economic and civil emancipation .

The second clarification is related to the decoding of the values of the post-modern family. Apparently, there is no particular need to prove the commonality of the “roots” of the child-centric and marital types. They are based on the same thing - the institution of courtship. Hence the coincidence of two basic values - adaptation syndrome and intimacy - is not surprising. At the same time There is also a significant difference between modern and post-modern family types. For example, after about ten to fifteen years of marriage, the wife (husband) is just about to open her mouth, and the husband (wife) can say with great certainty what will be discussed. This point is dangerous: marriage partners are well adapted, and therefore easily predict the reaction of the other, which opens the way to alienation. In a child-centric family, routine often contributes either to a shift in emphasis to the relationship of generation, or to the involvement of one of the spouses (sometimes in parallel) in drunkenness, drug addiction, and sexual debauchery. All this, of course, is fraught with conflicts and divorces.

In a post-modern family, an anti-routine mechanism is developed - autonomy.

It is important not to forget the common truth: a socialized person is, to some extent, autonomous; in the technogenic world there is always room for variations and independent decisions. The higher the level of civilizational and cultural development of a society, the more clearly a member of such a society recognizes himself as an individual, the more urgent his need for isolation. A similar trend can be seen in the family. Here, in particular, autonomy is expressed in the fact that the interests of each spouse are broader than family ones, and the circle of meaningful communication for each of them goes beyond the scope of marriage. Their emotional aspirations are regulated not so much by customs, traditions and external regulations, but by individual ideas, aesthetic ideals and moral values.

Concluding the consideration of the immanent basis of the post-modern family type, we can note the interdependence and complementarity of the mechanisms of stability (adaptation, intimacy) and development (autonomy). Indeed, the empirical data of Golod S.I. found a strong positive relationship between intimacy and autonomy. Thus, the vast majority of men who achieved a high level of intimacy reported that their wives actively encourage their originality, only one in ten emphasized the opposite. The mirror image was obtained at low intimacy. Fundamentally the same trends were found in women: in the first version - 50% versus 20, in the second - 4% versus 80.

CONCLUSION

At this time, the topic of family has not been fully studied and cannot be fully studied, since family relationships, problems, and family functions change with the change in the social situation in the country, with changes in the main goals facing society. But the main conclusion with which sociologists of any period of time agree is that the family is the main fundamental institution of society, giving it stability and the ability to replenish the population in each subsequent generation. The role of the family is not limited to the reproduction of the population; the family contributes to the development of society and its progress.

EE "BELARUSIAN STATE PEDAGOGICAL UNIVERSITY" NAMED AFTER M. TANK

in the course “Psychology of Higher Education”

on topic no.

Golod S.I. "Family and marriage: historical and social analysis"

Master's students of the 1st group

Danube Yulia Andreevna

Scientific adviser:

Doctor of Psychology sciences, prof.

L.A. Kandybovich

Minsk, 2008

Introduction

Chapter 1. Historical types of marriage

Chapter 2. Monogamous family: crisis or evolution?

2.1. Patriarchal family type

2.2. Child-centric family type

2.3. Married family type

Conclusion

Bibliography

INTRODUCTION

In recent years, attention to the problems of marriage and family has increased significantly. The family is the main institution of society. In turn, the institution of family includes many more private institutions, namely the institution of marriage, the institution of kinship, the institution of motherhood and paternity, the institution of property, the institution of social protection of childhood and guardianship, and others.

Marriage is an institution that regulates relations between the sexes. In society, sexual relations are regulated by a set of cultural norms. Of course, sexual relations can occur outside of marriage, and marriage itself can exist without them. However, it is marriage in human society that is considered the only acceptable, socially approved and legally enshrined form of not only permitted, but obligatory sexual relations between spouses.

In the history of mankind, four systems of marriage relations sometimes existed simultaneously, but in different places:

Group marriage - a marriage between several men and women (it was widespread in primitive society);

Polygyny - one man and several women (this type is especially characteristic of nomadic pastoralists);

Polyandry - one woman and several men (an extremely rare case that existed among one of the peoples of Indochina);

Monogamy - one man and one woman (the predominant form of marriage among agricultural peoples).

Monogamy comes in two forms: lifelong and divorceable, or easily divorced. Single-parent families (one parent with children) were extremely rare.

According to the custom of marriage, they are divided into endogamous and exogamous. With endogamy, a person is chosen only from the group to which the person entering into marriage belongs. Exogamy involves choosing a mate from an out-group.

One of the criteria for family typology is the inequality of spouses. An unequal marriage implies that the spouses differ on some significant basis: social status, age, income. The so-called status marriage presupposes the advantages of choosing marriage partners for those occupying the highest steps in the social hierarchy. This is where the concept of “unequal marriage” comes from. In caste, class and partly class societies, unequal marriages were prohibited in cases where they threatened the stability of the social hierarchy. Essentially, this is a return to the principle of endogamous marriage, which allows entering into unions only within one’s own group - clan, tribe, class, caste.

A special type of paid marriage is considered a sacred marriage. In his book “The Golden Bough,” James Frazer provides a lot of evidence that the custom of marrying maidens to patron gods was widespread among many ancient peoples. Thus, the Indians of Peru gave a 14-year-old girl in marriage to a stone that was shaped like a person and was revered as a god. The entire tribe took part in the marriage ceremony, which lasted three days. The girl had to preserve her virginity and make sacrifices to the god-husband on behalf of her fellow tribesmen, who showed her the greatest respect. The Kikuyu tribe of Kenya worshiped the river snake, so every few years a young girl was married to the snake god.

In contrast to the ancient forms of purchased marriage, which took place in the form of equivalent gift exchange, its later forms, especially in the era of patriarchy, manifested themselves in the form of unequal gift exchange. The dominant sex, that is, the man, presented the bride with more expensive gifts than he received from her, according to his privileged position, the amount of wealth and political power. Inequality, in fact, is what makes a purchased marriage in the precise sense of a purchased marriage. Marriage turns into an object of purchase and sale. The establishment of private property turned marriage into a commercial transaction. The size of the husband's rights to own his wife is made directly proportional to the amount of the ransom paid for her. Among the Nubian Arabs, the number of days in a week during which a wife remained faithful to her husband depended on the number of heads of cattle paid for her.

Since then, we can talk about a new form of purchased marriage - a purchased marriage. The wedding ceremony has become much more complicated, it has become formalized. A verbal agreement between young people or their parents was no longer enough. In a formalized marriage, witnesses were required and the marriage ceremony took place in public.

Purchasing marriage has ceased to be a matter only of those getting married, turning into part of tribal events. In the Muslim East, a new form of purchased marriage arose - dowry marriage. Kalym is a bride price, initially paid to the clan, and later to the parents as compensation for the loss of a worker.

Arranged marriage dates back to the dawn of humanity, when people entered into marriages to secure alliances between tribes or for other beneficial purposes. Subsequently, the rulers of ancient countries gave their daughters and relatives as wives to the rulers of other countries in order to receive political or diplomatic benefits, strengthen the interstate union, increase their status, etc. Over time, the motives for marriage changed, but its essence remained the same. It lacked an emotional component, a feeling of mutual love. An arranged marriage is the opposite of a love marriage.

Another reason for arranged marriage is the desire to avoid military service.

CHAPTER 2. MONOGAMIC FAMILY: CRISIS OR EVOLUTION?

The increase in the number of divorces, according to S.I. Golod, is not least predetermined by the transition from “matchmaking” as a way of marriage to individual selectivity, or, more broadly, to a fundamentally different type of family relationships. The freedom to choose a partner implicitly implies the freedom to dissolve the marriage if it does not go well.

The fact of a decline in childbearing is thus beyond doubt. How can this be explained? The vast majority of researchers associate the fall in the birth rate with a sharp deterioration in the socio-economic situation in the country. And there is some truth in this.

However, the processes listed above, according to S.I. Golod, are predominantly determined by the historical type of family.

Shifting the research focus to one’s own patterns posed the task of an unconventional definition of the concept of “family.”

A family is a collection of individuals who are in at least one of three types of relationships: consanguinity (brother - brother, brother - sister, etc.), generation (parents - children), property (husband - wife). The nature of these relationships (roughly speaking, authoritarian-egalitarian) can, according to S.I. Golod, serve as a criterion determining the stage of development of monogamy. Following this logic, it is possible to construct three ideal historical types of family: patriarchal (or traditional), child-centered (or modern) and married (or post-modern).

However, history also knows the era of matriarchy, when in ancient society the dominant position was occupied by a woman, and there were special reasons for this. When a strict taboo was imposed on incest, a clan was formed as a new form of family, which was based on the principle of maternal kinship. Due to the fact that husbands and wives were common, it was virtually impossible to trace the paternal line, and therefore only the mother and her children, who remained with her and constituted her maternal clan, could be recognized as truly blood relatives.

So Cleopatra (69 - 30 BC) was first the wife of her older brother, then after his death, the wife of her younger brother. Each marriage gave them the right to own Egypt.

In modern Russia there are options for both family well-being and trouble in general. 1. Families with external (obvious, open) family troubles A distinctive feature of this type of family is that the forms of family troubles have a pronounced character, manifesting themselves simultaneously in several spheres of family life (for example, at the social and material level). IN...

... is the total number of births at the end of the reproductive period of life. The average number of children in a family as an indicator of the intensity of childbearing allows us to assess the birth rate in the country. The reproductive behavior of the individual and family is influenced by current living conditions and conditions of past years. Living conditions directly influence everyday family situations, which become conditions...

SOCIOLOGY OF THE FAMILY

S.I. Hunger

FAMILY: PROCREATION, HEDONISM, HOMOSEXUALISM

The article talks about the evolution of the family. We pointed out three family

types: “traditional”, “child-centric” and “marital”. First

existed from the Roman centuries until the 17th century, namely, until such philosophers as J. Locke and Rene Descartes, and from the 18th century. he was replaced by

as F. Aries said, “the age of child-centrism,” which lasted for almost two centuries. And only in the 20th century. it was replaced by the “conjugal” type (or, in other words, modernism), or, as the German sociologist W. Beck said, by the age of “risk.” The latter is associated with the widespread use of contraceptives, which led to a new position for women - they became sufficiently emancipated.

Key words: modern family, homosexuality, traditional family, child-centric family, married (modernist) family, transformation of intimacy.

Key words: modern family, homosexuality, traditional family, childcentered family, conjugal (modernist) family, transformation of intimacy.

Since the 1960s. researchers in many countries express concern about the “crisis” state of monogamy, placing this phenomenon in direct dependence on a number of global social changes.

It is difficult to agree with the negative assessment of the modern status of the family not only by philistines, but also by specialists (demographers, anthropologists, sociologists, psychologists). For the institution of the family - as evidenced by its centuries-old history (confirmed by research from L. Morgan, B. Malinovsky, F. Engels and F. Le Play to W. Hood, R. Hill, L. Roussel and A. Kharchev) - turned out to be the most stable community.

Golod S.I. Family: procreation, hedonism, homosexuality. For example, in one of the domestic studies of the late 19th century.

we read: “The purpose of marriage is the Christian birth and upbringing of children, the sexual instinct is recognized as wicked, its satisfaction for the sake of pleasure alone is a mortal sin; therefore, the goal of marriage is the birth and education of good Christians, sanctifying the carnal and in itself sinful union with the grace of the sacrament” (Shishkov 1898: vol. 1, 141).

Throughout the entire era of the existence of the designated family model (patriarchal), the emphasis was placed on the exclusive initiative of the husband. According to Plutarch, a married woman should not shy away from physical intimacy with her husband in her everyday life, but she, in turn, should not ask for such intimacy (Plutarch 1983: 351).

Indeed, sexual relations before marriage, the birth of a child out of wedlock, and the intrinsic value of erotic communication between husband and wife were considered violations of sociocultural norms. Sanctions of varying severity were applied to violators of customs. According to N.L. Pushkareva, who conducted a comparative analysis of the principles of family and sexual ethics in Orthodoxy and Catholicism, in the first, punishments for failure to preserve virginity before marriage, various sensual manifestations of sexuality in marriage, and adultery were not as severe as in the second. Punishments in the Orthodox tradition were primarily limited to a certain number of fasts (from several days to two years), numerous bows, sincere repentance and repentance. Yet, despite the relative gentleness, of course, Orthodoxy also demanded from parishioners marital fidelity, moderation of passions, reasonable restrictions in sexual life, and the inadmissibility of adultery (Pushkareva 1995: 55–59).

Of course, we will not sin against the truth if we hypothesize that normative sociocultural requirements and real practices in European pre-capitalist society depended on the specific conditions of place and time and, to one degree or another, did not coincide with each other. During the entire period of existence of this type of family, everything was reduced to procreation and no one thought about the other side of sexuality, i.e. about receiving emotional pleasure from the very fact of hedonistic intimacy between men and women. This fact began to emerge at the beginning of the 18th century.

through various manipulations directly with the body using, first of all, masturbation and other procedures (say, cunnilingus).

The ancient Greek legislator Solon (IV century BC) discovered the first docterions in Europe. The possibility of married men visiting them was not excluded at all because the latter had the function of extraterritoriality. This is where "double" apparently originated

Sociology of family morality (see about this: Hunger 1996: 188). The emergence of heterism as one of the varieties of expressive communication outside the institution of the family dates back to approximately the same period. Evidence of the presence of another type of extramarital affair, often ending in the birth of an “illegitimate” child, was concubinage. And although neither the first nor the second seemed to be widespread, they were at the same time subject to legal, moral, and subsequently, with the birth of Christianity, religious sanctions, and as patriarchy strengthened, these measures became more stringent.

Despite this circumstance, norms were violated by both sexes, especially by the aristocracy. This idea was exquisitely articulated by the French (Romantics). In our society, they said, possessing a woman outside of marriage is a great honor that a man can be proud of, but, on the other hand, giving himself to a man outside of marriage is the worst disgrace for a woman. Really, in this matter the “stronger” sex showed outright naivety. In real circumstances, the Frenchwoman, at least since the Middle Ages, was not stopped by any danger; Moreover, it made her behavior more piquant and reckless. Thus, according to Simone de Beauvoir, a freedom-loving woman, although far from original: “... getting married is like an obligation, but having a lover is luxury, chic... A lover has... an advantage, his prestige is not lost in everyday life, full of various frictions... He is not nearby, he is not at all the same as the one next to him, he is different (my italics - S.G.). And when a woman meets him, she gets the impression that she is going beyond her limits, gaining access to new values” (Beauvoir 1997: 623–624).

The existence of individual unconventional actions did not exclude, at the same time, support in the public consciousness of the idea of marriage and marital birth rate as a social norm. And indeed, if we keep in mind Russia, then here until the end of the 19th century. marriages were, in fact, universal: by the age of 45–49 years, only 4% of men and 5% of women remained unmarried and unmarried, respectively (see about this: Volkov 1986: 108). Therefore, it can be said with high probability that from the time of the Roman Empire until the end of the 19th century. the institution of marriage had a monopoly on the regulation of sexual relations and the reproduction of children*. Hence the person “traditionally” The same can be said about Germany: “the probability that a German or a German woman at the end of the 20th century. will get married at least once in their life was 60% compared to 90% forty years ago” (see: Schmidt 2002: 56).

Golod S.I. Family: procreation, hedonism, homosexuality of the tional era, those who were not married or had no children felt inferior.

Scientifically, it is becoming increasingly clear that phenomena in the marital, sexual (erotic) and procreation spheres, discovered in the second half of the 20th century, can no longer be interpreted unambiguously as deviations from the norm, but should rather be considered as a sign of significant and irreversible transformational shifts in the very institution of the family. These are the trends towards a decrease in the birth rate, small children and deliberate childlessness, an increase in remarriages (the American sociologist P. Landis designated this phenomenon as a “consistently polygamous union”), characteristic of most industrialized countries (see: Adams 1986: 347), including , of course, Russia is included.

In principle, we agree with the point of view of the English sociologist Z. Bauman, who expressed the opinion that “the competence of sociology ends where the future begins. … By claiming knowledge, she compromises her professional integrity.

Sociology developed as retrospective wisdom, not as a modern version of insight” (Bauman 2006: 115). Neglect of this seemingly transparent provision opens up scope for tendentiousness and ideological distortions.

Here, for example, are just a few typical mythologies. Domestic sociologist in the late 70s.

The last century predicts: “strengthening emotional ties with relatives, reducing the number of childless and single-parent families” (Kharchev 1979: 347, 453, 357). However, to date (i.e. in the first decade of the 21st century) there has been no reduction in the number of single-parent and childless families; Moreover, their share is increasing year by year. The Russian futurologist spoke in a similar vein. With reference to the study of a certain “global demographic situation,” the average person is told that beyond the first decades of the 21st century. “there will be no single people, no one-child families, no divorces” (Bestuzhev-Lada 1986: 183).

The time has come to evaluate the attempts at “pathetic” rhetoric of our contemporaries. We are forced to acknowledge the incompetence of such soothsayers and the strained nature of attempts to predict the future in a specific area of sociological knowledge. At the same time, we fully share the successful attempts at a general theoretical analysis of certain social institutions. For example, such an analyst as the famous American specialist in the field of family research R. Hill, who noted the following changes due to the fundamental transformation of this institution: “With the loss of the family’s function as a production unit and the inclusion of young people in a complex non-family professional structure, a young couple receives not only housing and professional autonomy, but also autonomy in its decisions in the sphere of reproduction. Both vertical and horizontal connections with relatives are voluntary and optional, allowing an extensive exchange of things and services without violating the axis of devotion and love, which has now shifted from intergenerational consanguineous ties towards marital relations (my italics - S.G.)" ( Hill 1977: 203–204).

Detailing this idea, the English sociologist E. Giddens writes:

“...now that conception is not only controlled, but carried out artificially, sexuality has finally become completely autonomous. Liberated eroticism became a property of the individual and his relationships with other persons” (Giddens 1992: 25–26).

Russian demographers also came to essentially the same conclusion, but from different positions. When studying the modern type of procreative behavior, researchers encountered a paradoxical fact. Today, one married woman could give birth to ten to twelve children throughout her entire reproductive period (the boundaries of which, it is no secret, have expanded to 35 years) (this value was obtained as a result of observing the population with the highest birth rate). In reality, a European woman today gives birth to an average of one or two children. What's the matter? It turns out that behind the sharp decline in the birth rate there are huge changes in the structure of demographic behavior. Mass reproductive behavior became isolated from sexual behavior and became autonomous (Vishnevsky 1976: 138).

Secondly, sexuality expands the boundaries of its distribution. Going beyond marriage, it acquires equally significant (hedonic) significance for both men and women. There is an active reorientation towards the possibility of such relationships outside the institution of marriage. All of these changes contributed to the emergence of a new system of values and ideals. It seems that the changes that have occurred can be called revolutionary in their nature, depth and significance. In this regard, the problem of finding a criterion that allows one to evaluate a person’s practice in the private sphere from a moral perspective has become urgent.

No less significant changes characterize the birth process. In particular, over the past decades, both sample data from different regions of the former Union and all-Russian statistics record a fairly stable increase in pre- and out-of-wedlock conceptions. Thus, my own analysis of the archival material of the Leningrad Palace “MaGolod S.I. Family: procreation, hedonism, Lütka homosexuality” showed: of 287 married couples who solemnly registered the birth of their first child in December 1963, 63 (or 24%) conceived a child on average three months before the legal registration of the marriage; in December 1968, out of 852 couples, there were 196 (or 23%), in December 1973, out of 851 couples, 240 couples (or 28%) conceived a child before registering their marriage, and, finally, in December 1978, out of 643 couples - 243 pairs (or 38%). A similar trend is confirmed when considering registration acts for the same period in the Moskovsky district of Leningrad.

Moreover, out-of-wedlock births have also become a real fact.

According to all-Russian data, since the 1970s. The share of out-of-wedlock births in the total number of births began to increase. The number of births outside of a registered (illegitimate) marriage increased over the period from 2000–2004. by 31.8%, maintaining the trend of changes that have existed since 1994. As a result, the share of out-of-wedlock births continues to grow and has already reached almost 30% of the total number of births. The share of out-of-wedlock births in 2003 was 28.6% in cities and 32.6% among the rural population.

At the same time, one important circumstance prevents an unambiguous interpretation of the absolute and relative increase in out-of-wedlock births as an increase in the birth rate among single mothers: the number of births registered on the basis of an application from both parents is increasing even faster than the total number of births outside of a registered marriage. Compared to 1999, this category of births increased by 37.1%. The rate of increase in births registered on the basis of a single mother's declaration has been declining in recent years. The share of illegitimate newborn children recognized by their fathers (which in practice most often occurs with the full consent of the child’s mother) is close to half - 48.4% in 2003. In the urban population, the share of births registered on the basis of a joint statement of parents, in the total number out-of-wedlock births have increased continuously since at least the late 1980s. In 1980, this share was 36.6%, and in 2003, for the first time in history, it exceeded half of all out-of-wedlock births - 50.5% (see: Population of Russia 2006: 257). Isn't this evidence of a fairly strong relationship between the parents, who for some reason do not register this relationship as a marriage?

Current statistics make it possible to track three sets of births: 1) registered by parents who are legally married; 2) registered at the joint request of parents who are not formally spouses (including those children in respect of whom paternity was established in court); 3) registered at the request of only the mother or at the request of obstetric services, orphanages, if the mother abandoned the child immediately after his birth, as well as “foundlings” and others for whom maternity was not established at the time of registration.

This practice of recording births does not allow us to judge with due grounds the prevalence of births within or outside of marriage.

But it can still be assumed that the registration of a newborn at the joint request of the parents indicates more or less stable ties between them and that these ties in many cases constitute an actual marriage.

The question logically arises: are all mothers who give birth to “illegitimate” children really “lonely”? Without relevant information about the relationship between partners, it is difficult to answer this question, and we clearly do not have enough such information. But we still have some information at our disposal that allows us to judge trends in out-of-wedlock births. It seems that the proportion of births registered on the basis of a joint statement of parents is rapidly growing among the urban population (which is three quarters of the Russian population). From 1988 to 2001 it increased from 36.6% to 48.9%. It is tempting to attribute the acceleration in the growth of out-of-wedlock births to the 1990s. with severe socio-economic transformations.

Moreover, one cannot help but see that we are not talking here at all about a purely Russian or post-Soviet phenomenon. The increase in out-of-wedlock births in the last decades of the 20th century. - a universal trend that has emerged in most industrial urban societies. By the end of the century, among economically developed countries, Russia occupies a middle position both in terms of the level of “out-of-wedlock” fertility indicators and in the rate of their change (see Table 1).

One cannot ignore the age-related characteristics of out-of-wedlock births. Not so long ago, the birth of an illegitimate child was typical for very young mothers (under 20 years old) and for mothers over 30 years old (see: Golod 1984: 6). By the end of the century, it could be argued that out-of-wedlock birth rate is now characteristic of all ages equally - the share of births outside a registered marriage grew most rapidly at the ages of maximum marriage, reaching 25–27% at the ages of 20 to 35 years (Ivanova, Mikheeva 1999: 72–76). And, what is important to emphasize: the increase in the share of out-of-wedlock births among the youngest mothers (under 20 years of age) from 20.2% in 1990 to 41% in 2000 was not accompanied by an increase in the number of abortions.

Golod S.I. Family: procreation, hedonism, homosexuality

– – –

There has been not only a change in the orientations of young people towards the possibility of preliminary sexual practice before the official registration of a marriage, but also a rethinking of the morality of erotic contacts (adultery) “parallel” to marriage.

I interviewed intellectuals in Leningrad (St. Petersburg) three times with an interval of 20 years (1969, 1989 and 2009). Men and women were asked to rank eight indicators (which included the “sexuality” factor), based on the importance of each of them for the conflict-free course of “marriage relations”. For men in all subsamples, “physical intimacy” was located between the second and third steps of the scale, and its share remained practically unchanged during the period of time under consideration. A different situation was observed in women. During the first two decades, the role of sexuality in marriage increased by almost 10%, the factor “physical intimacy” moved to second place on the “priority” scale. Moreover, it turned out that about 40% of husbands (in all subsamples) experienced erotic pleasure (orgasm), among wives in 1969 there were less than 30%, while in 2009 this figure reached almost 45%. Over the same period, the number of “indifferent”

and those “dissatisfied” with marital sexuality decreased, in the subi.e. people with higher education who continue their postgraduate studies at relevant universities and academic institutions; each time 250 respondents married from 24 to 45 years old.

Sociology of the family in samples of men almost doubled, in women - 2.5 times. Along with quantitative transformations, qualitative changes were also noted. Wives, as a rule, did not just wait for the effect of sensual pleasure (unlike Plutarch’s Spartan woman, whose behavior was involuntarily associated with the “patriarchal” stage in the development of the family), but took active actions, implementing the principle of “giving and taking.” There was reason to state: within the framework of a marriage, women began to more intensively assimilate the values of the “material-bodily bottom” than men (M. Bakhtin). Based on the traditional feminine stereotype (perceiving women as the “weaker” sex), it would be logical to expect that the growing importance of marital eroticism for them will toughen the attitude towards adultery. Is the hypothesis correct? We will focus exclusively on the first two samples (due to their greater development).

At the end of the 60s of the last century, 35% of intellectuals justified the possibility of “parallel” sexual practices, 38% were ambivalent about this, and 27% condemned them. Twenty years later (i.e., in the 1980s), basically similar ratios of orientations were recorded: 36%, 33% and 31%. An uncritical perception of the presented digital material can create the impression of a lack of correlation between the intensification of marital erotic pleasure and the range of verbal preferences. Let's think about these indicators: among wives who enjoy carnal intimacy with their husbands, the number of those who “justify” adultery (over the period of time under discussion) remained unchanged, while the number of those who “condemn” increased by 12 points. Things are different for those married women who are indifferent to this kind of relationship - here the number of people “justifying” “parallel” relationships has increased by a third.

It is also important to note another thing: if in the first survey a third of women indicated the reality of sexual contacts other than their husbands, then in the second - almost every second. A discrepancy was established between attitudes and actual behavior: in 1969, among the married women who “justified” adultery, half practiced it; by 1989, there were more than 70% of them. Thus, the dynamics among those who “condemn” are as follows: in the first case, about 6% were in “parallel” sexual contacts, in the second - 25%.

Minor fluctuations in the shares of attitudes were accompanied by much more radical changes in actual behavior. Thus, if in 1969 less than 50% of respondents indicated the presence of “parallel” sexual practices, then in 1989 - more than 75%. It is noteworthy that the intensification of such practices was recorded as among those “justifying”

Golod S.I. Family: procreation, hedonism, homosexuality (62% versus 94%), and among those who “condemn” them (12% versus 25%). Note that if the quantitative indicators of women's illegitimate erotica are still quite different from the indicators of men's, then the growth rate is undoubtedly close. It goes without saying that this does not mean that we are predicting a “leveling off” of these practices somewhere on the horizon. We in no way risk predicting this, firstly, keeping in mind the retrospective nature of sociological knowledge noted above; secondly, understanding the low predictability of a woman’s emotional reaction and the plurality of its potential.

The incentives for illegitimate practices are for the most part consistent with the type of partner. Namely: if intimacy is based on a feeling of love, then the partner/partner is designated as “beloved”, if on hedonism it is called “girlfriend/friend”, if the contact is casual, then the partner is designated “unfamiliar/acquaintance” or simply - “prostitute/hasler.”

The increase in out-of-wedlock births, in our opinion, is without a doubt associated with a transformation of moral consciousness. Here is a very striking case to illustrate. During a survey of 323 young unmarried workers of the Minsk worsted factory, they were asked the following question: “Do you think that it is shameful for a girl to have an illegitimate child?” Taking into account the form of the question (“frontal”) and the semantic significance of the prompt: “shameful - not shameful” (terminology that has an openly negative connotation), as well as the specifics of the sample population (migrant women living in a hostel, with a low level of education, i.e. i.e. the group with the greatest moral inertia), one would expect a clear negative reaction (especially since the survey was conducted at the end of the “severe”

1970s). In fact, 13.6% answered: “not shameful” and about 20% did not support any of the extreme positions, which means they already doubted the absolute validity of the traditional stereotype.

But even those who condemned out-of-wedlock births were asked in a projective, indirect form: “What would you do if your brother decided to marry a girl who had a child out of wedlock?” - showed significant flexibility. More than 60% of respondents answered: “I wouldn’t do anything. A child is not a hindrance,” and only 20% responded that they would try to prevent such a marriage (Yakovleva 1979: 7). Moral permissiveness is obvious. The most unexpected discovery is that a certain number of women do not perceive childbearing as an exclusively marital attribute.

And this is recorded not only in Belarus: for example, data for Siberia also speaks about this (see: Ivanova, Mikheeva 1999: 142).

Sociology of the family Somewhat earlier, demographers from Latvia recorded the same phenomenon: “Some answers,” note S. Shlindman and P. Zvidrins, “indicate that some women are satisfied with the absence of children in the family and consider a childless family even ideal.”

(Shlindman, Zvidrins 1973: 57). Judging by our survey data (Leningrad, 1981), out of 250 families, approximately every third married couple - who actually had no children - considered the birth of a child even an obstacle to a harmonious marriage (more women than men: 35.6% vs. 28.9%), at least at the initial stage of the functioning of this institution. And finally, according to a sample survey of young families conducted by the State Statistics Committee of the Russian Federation at the end of 1992, 2% do not want to have children at all (Family in the Russian Federation 1994: 125).

The above dynamics of indicators, without a doubt, highlighted a fundamental process, the essence of which is the autonomization of matrimonial, sexual and procreative behavior, which was previously noted by Hill and Giddens. This situation can be schematically represented as follows (see Fig. 1).

What follows from the principle of autonomy? From a sociological point of view, the ambiguity, unobtrusiveness, and flexibility of the normative system are revealed. Indeed, it is preferable, but not obligatory, to get married; it is desirable to have children, but childlessness does not currently seem abnormal. Although, as you know, 30–40 years ago, even some specialists (demographers and sociologists) perceived childlessness as a violation of the norm.

I will probably not evaluate these positions from a modern point of view - I will just reproduce them literally. According to Moscow demographer L.E. Darsky: “One can argue about the best number of children in a family, but a childless family is a pathological phenomenon from any point of view” (Darsky 1972: 129). But here is the position of the Leningrad sociologist V. Golofast: “After some time [after marriage - S.G.], if all permissible possibilities of explanation have been exhausted (study, lack of home, etc.), childlessness becomes the subject of a close assessment attention of the spouses themselves, and relatives, and surrounding strangers.

There comes a moment (first of all, apparently, for the spouses themselves) when this situation is qualified as abnormal” (Golofast 1972: 65).

Today, children born outside of a legally registered marriage are not perceived as marginalized. We can, therefore, conclude that modern normativity, being a social regulator of S.I. Hunger. Family: procreation, hedonism, homosexuality “Traditional” “Modern”

condition condition

– – –

rum, takes into account the individual uniqueness of a person to a greater extent than traditional (rigid) normativity.

Complaints about the weakness of the “modern” family are by no means naive. We encountered this in connection with the formation of a new institution - the Sociological Institute within the framework of the “Big” Institute of the Academy of Sciences.

Here we immediately organized the group “Sociology of the Family, Gender and Sexuality Research” - by the way, the first in the Soviet Union.

Even before this time, during my defense of my doctoral dissertation on the topic “Family Stability: Sociological and Demographic Aspects,” when the idea of the concept of “marriage” was put forward as a new phenomenon in the family, a doubt arose: why is such a phenomenon needed? Why is it needed? Doctor of Philosophy I.S. was also perplexed. Kona. The fact is that the transition to marriage not by convenience, but by independent choice of a partner, has led us to a new understanding of the entire construction of marriage relationships, which today are based on psychological principles.

And this is what made the marriage less stable:

let's say, the unequal duration of a love feeling, a decrease in family size - living together for fifty years without boring each other is much more difficult than living for 15–20 years in a large family group. We must not forget about the countless temptations to which the electronic network exposes modern man: in comparison with the ideal examples of our predecessors, the chosen ones often look insufficiently attractive. But in the last three generations they have become so ingrained that sociologists today are talking about a real “family” revolution, which is changing society even more than the “sexual” revolution of the 1960s and 70s. In a cohort study of the last three generations of men and women, it turned out that younger people get married less often and later than previously, and in the last cohorts marriages break up more noticeably. Marriage is losing its monopoly on justifying sexuality and legitimizing partnerships and family relationships. Today as a couple

in fact, any union is recognized where two people say that they form a single entity, regardless of their marital status and gender of the partner, and a “family” is considered to be any couple with children, regardless of whether their relationship is registered and whether they are raising children in the same or two households. (This once again confirms the idea of multifunctionality of the modern family).

As the first all-Russian demographic study showed, similar trends exist in Russia. Since the mid-1990s.

The average age of a groom has increased by more than two years, and that of a bride by almost two years. At the same time, there was a decrease not only in the age of sexual debut, but also in the age at which the first partnership was established. Today, according to one of the modern demographers, at least 25% of women and at least 45% of men have not registered a relationship with their partner by the age of 25 (Zakharov 2007: 126).

According to I.S. Kona, this is causing panic in clerical circles, but calls to stop the further spread of “illegitimate”

cohabitation does not find sympathy among modern youth. Consensual or, as they are now called, civil marriages, are no longer considered deviant and have become a familiar variant of the norm. The main shift in marriage and family relations is a change in evaluation criteria: formal quantitative and objective indicators are replaced by qualitative ones.

Recognizing the plurality of the erotic landscape does not mean unconditionally accepting all its forms. I mean in particular the so-called homosexual family. Even its supporters, for example, V.V. Solodnikov, state “that the attitude towards homosexuality to this day, even among professionals, remains ambiguous... On the one hand, there are various psychotherapeutic approaches... aimed at changing the sexual orientation of homosexuals.

Golod S.I. Family: procreation, hedonism, homosexuality Their followers usually consider homosexuality incompatible with a happy life. On the other hand, in the USA and a number of European countries special journals are published and research is conducted based on directly opposite postulates... Russian public opinion polls on attitudes towards sexual minorities indicate that an increasing number of Russians are beginning to express concern about this matter” (Solodnikov 2007: 202–203).

In this work he traces the decriminalization of homosexuality in Western Europe since the Napoleonic Code (1810). I won’t look that far into history and will begin my summary narrative from the turn of the 19th–20th centuries. and will address the V International Congress of Criminal Anthropologists (Amsterdam, 1901). Before giving the floor to the speaker, the chairman emphasized that the convention bureau asks representatives of the press, in order to avoid disseminating information about this sensitive issue to the “large public,” not to publish information about upcoming speeches in newspapers. Dr. Alentrino gave a report on the state of affairs with urnings in Italy. According to the doctor, Urnings are not degenerates and therefore should not be counted among the abnormal people. Wondering why perversion inspires disgust in many people, the speaker suggested that one of the reasons, most likely, lies in the common but false belief that procreation is the only purpose of sexual relations between persons of different sexes. In his opinion, such a view is erroneous and does not correspond to practice. Based on this hypothesis, the speaker addressed the scientific community with a proposal to recognize the Urnings’ right to exist, along with other “normal” people. According to the testimony of Mrs. P. Tarnovskaya, who participated in the congress meeting, this speech was met with silent bewilderment. In general, the objections of the delegates boiled down to the fact that Urnings are people with an abnormal, perverted sexual feeling, which is considered one of the signs of degeneration, and in all balanced people they can only evoke a feeling of disgust and disgust.

So, we can safely state that the overwhelming majority of specialists from among criminal anthropologists of Western Europe by the beginning of the 20th century. were not ready to perceive the autonomy of sexuality from procreation (Tarnovskaya 1901).

Sociology of the family Relatively high tolerance towards homosexuality was noted in pre-revolutionary Russia. Thus, the famous lawyer V.D. Nabokov openly outlined his position with the following words: “From a legal point of view, not only in principle, but also in practice, the question of the punishability of voluntary sodomy between adults must be resolved negatively” (Nabokov 1904).

Based on the analysis of a case study from medical and judicial practice, the Russian gynecologist I. Tarnovsky noted: “there are women in the world who are completely normal in all respects, but endowed by nature with an extraordinary inclination towards their own sex... (lesbians). Such a perversion of “sexual feeling” is quite natural for these women themselves and is not only harmful, but even, on the contrary, satisfies their physiological need.” Moreover, characterizing “active lesbianism as a natural anomaly,” the doctor, unlike many of his colleagues, did not identify it as a disease (Tarnovsky 1895).

In subsequent years (until the beginning of the 30s of the 20th century), a fairly liberal view of all types of homosexuality was widespread in the medical and psychopathological literature. Here it is appropriate to name I. Gelman (Gelman 1925), M. Rubinshtein (Rubinshtein 1928), P. Gannushkin (Gannushkin 1964).

And only in the third decade of the last century there came a dark period of “pressure” from the ruling elites, who perceived the incompatibility of homosexuality with procreative activity, which ultimately explains the introduction of repressive legislation. Moreover, this point of view was perceived as guiding by a considerable number of modern psychiatrists (for example, Blumin 1969: 32–34;

Zhukov 1969: 47-48; Goland 1972: 473–487; Derevinskaya 1965), to which, according to the same I.S. Kona, new modern ideas arrived slowly. These thinkers not only had no doubt that homosexuality was a disease, but even undertook to carry out restructuring of their body (Kon 2003: 2–12).

The time has come to formulate the essence of my disagreement with the position of Prof. I.S. Kohn and some of his followers. The fact is that all the work of I.S. Kona is framed in terms of sexology. Simply put, it convincingly shows that homosexuality is not a degeneration and therefore Urnings (including lesbians) are normal people.

The uncertainty and understatement that reigns in this issue is repeatedly covered in the ethical and sociological literature. I agree with the opinion expressed by the American sociologist N. Smelser:

“In San Francisco, where there has long been a tolerant attitude towards non-Hunger S.I. Family: procreation, hedonism, homosexuality, traditional patterns of behavior, there are many homosexuals living, there are approximately 100 thousand of them... cohabitation of homosexuals cannot be considered a normal family life, regardless of whether they live together or separately” (Smelser 1994). In fact, for a long time some sociologists believed that the world of gays and lesbians existed exclusively outside the sphere of the family. It was believed that homosexuals were characterized by “promiscuity,” and therefore their erotic activity was completely faceless. Thus, according to the testimony of the Russian author L.S. Klein, “in 1981, half of homosexual students changed at least five partners in a year, while among heterosexuals only 5% changed partners with such frequency.” For comparison, in the United States the average number of lifetime partners for homosexuals is fifty, while for heterosexuals the average number of partners is four (Klein 2000:

78). A recent study conducted in the United States showed that the majority of lesbians maintain stable relationships. At the same time, many men also maintain regular relationships, even if some of them have sexual contacts with others outside the main relationship (Maddock 1995: 100).

So, we are faced with conflicting opinions about the essence of homosexual relationships. On the one hand, this phenomenon is likened to “promiscuity,” on the other hand, it is still associated with “monogamy,” that is, living with one partner throughout one’s life. So what is the essence of these practices? Expressing one’s attitude towards a particular phenomenon (institution) requires the researcher to clearly define the subject of analysis.

What is meant in sociology by the institution of “family”? I adhere to the following definition:

“family” is a collection of individuals consisting of at least one of three types of relationships: consanguinity, descent and property. The dominance of one of these relationships and its nature (from the extreme form of gender and age dependence to the corresponding autonomy) can serve as a criterion that determines the historical stage of the transformation of monogamy. Based on this logic, I constructed the following ideal (according to Weber) types of families:

“patriarchal” (or traditional), child-centric (or modern) and conjugal (or post-modern). Homosexual relationships, of course, are not based on “blood relationship” or “generation”, as for “property”, the presence of the latter is doubtful, although with a strong desire one can conditionally “invent” “intimacy”

in relationships between partners.

Let's define another institution - “marriage”. Marriage is a historically diverse mechanism of social regulation (taboos, customs, traditions, religions, law and morality) of sexual relations between the sexes, aimed at maintaining the continuity of life. Most experts recognize two provisions: the social regulation of sexual relations between a man and a woman and the focus of this activity on the reproduction of children. Hence, marriage is a social institution that regulates childbirth, and sexuality is the expression of the will of two individuals (private), which at best comes down to “companionship.”

As we found out in a private email conversation with our former researcher, now living in Germany, in 2004.

The Court of Appeal in South Africa has taken upon itself the “divine” function of clarifying the definition of marriage. Instead of a sexual union between a man and a woman, a new thesis was approved - “a union between two people” (the so-called sex “X”). In European countries there is a more modest definition. Thus, in France, since 1999, homosexual relationships have been defined as “marriage with fewer rights”; in Denmark (since 1989), in Norway (since 1993), in Sweden (since 1995), in the Netherlands (since 1998) these relationships are designated as “registered partnerships”.

What can be said about the interest in the problem of homosexuality in Russia? Among the younger generation, in particular among students, interest in this problem has increased, especially in recent years. This is confirmed in two surveys given in the book by V.V. Solodnikov (Solodnikov 2007: 201–217), this was also noticeable to me when reading the course “Sociology of Sexuality” in the 5th year of St. Petersburg State University.

Accepting the historical expansion of the range of understanding of the family, we in no way perceive its expansion to the level of “family-like” unions. This reminds me of the controversial radio slogan: “All ages are submissive to love,” for which they advise taking the stimulant “impaza.” Sexuality, which increases its potency through the use of stimulants, can in no way be equated with love, because it is identified with the animal world, and love is a purely personal characteristic (i.e., inherent only to humans).

Literature Bauman 3. Freedom. M.: New publishing house, 2006.

Bestuzhev-Lada I. The future of the family and the family of the future in the problems of social forecasting // Childhood of the family: yesterday, today and tomorrow. M.: Finance and Statistics, 1986.

Blyumin I. About some functional signs of homosexuality // Questions of sexopathology. M.: Moscow Research Institute of Psychiatry, 1969.

Golod S.I. Family: procreation, hedonism, homosexuality Beauvoir S. de The Second Sex / Transl. from French, total ed. and will enter. article by S.G. Aivazova. M: Progress, 1997.

Vishnevsky A.G. Demographic revolution. M.: Statistics, 1976.

Volkov A.G. The family is an object of demography. M.: Mysl, 1986.

Gannushkin P. Voluptuousness, cruelty and religion // Izbr. works. M.: Medicine, 1964.

Gelman I. Sexual life of modern youth: experience of socio-biological research. M.; Pg.: State. from-in, 1925.

Goland Ya. On the stepwise construction of psychotherapy for male homosexuality // Questions of sexopathology. M.: Moscow Research Institute of Psychiatry, 1972.

Golod S.I. Family stability: sociological and demographic aspect. L.: Nauka, 1984.

Golod S.I. 20th century and trends in sexual relations in Russia. SPb.:

Aletheia, 1996.

Golofast V. On the relationship of approaches to the study of family // Sociological problems of family and youth. L.: Nauka, 1972.

Darsky L.E. Formation of a family. M.: Statistics, 1972.

Demographic modernization of Russia: 1900–2000 / Ed. A.G. Vishnevsky. M.: New publishing house, 2006.

Derevinskaya E.M. Materials for the clinic, pathogenesis, therapy of female homosexuality. Abstract of thesis. Ph.D. Karaganda, 1965.

Zhukov Yu. On the issue of homosexuality in patients with alcoholism // Questions of sexopathology. M.: Moscow Research Institute of Psychiatry, 1969.

Zakharov S.V. Transformation of marriage and partnership relations in Russia:

Is the “golden age” of traditional marriage coming to an end? // Parents and children, men and women in the family and society. Based on one study.

Sat. analyte articles. Vol. 1 / ed. T.M. Malevoy, O.V. Sinyavskaya. M.: NISP, 2007.

Ivanova E., Mikheeva A. Illegitimate motherhood in Russia // Sociological studies. 1999. No. 6. pp. 72–76.

Klein L. Another love. Human nature and homosexuality. SPb.:

Folio Press, 2000.

Kon I.S. On the normalization of homosexuality // Sociology and Sexopathology. 2003. No. 2.

Kon I.S. Three in one: sexual, gender and family revolutions // Journal of Sociology and Social Anthropology. 2011. T. XIV. No. 1. pp. 51–65.

Meddock J. W. Family life and sexuality // Family on the threshold of the third millennium. M.: IS RAS and Center for Universal Human Values, 1995.

Nabokov V.D. Carnal crimes according to the draft criminal code // Collection of articles on criminal law. St. Petersburg: Printing house of the Public Benefit Partnership, 1904.

Population of Russia 2003–2004. M., 2006.

Plutarch. Works / Trans. from ancient Greek, composition. S.S. Averintsev; will enter.

article by A. Losev. M.: Khud. literature, 1983.

Pushkareva N.L. Family, woman, sexual ethics in Orthodoxy and Catholicism // Ethnographic Review. 1995. No. 3.

Rubinstein M. Youth. M., 1928.

Family in the Russian Federation. M.: Goskomstat of Russia, 1994.

Smelser N. Sociology. M.: Phoenix, 1994.

Sociology of the family

Solodnikov V.V. Sociology of a socially maladjusted family. SPb.:

Direct, 2007.

Tarnovskaya P. Vth International Congress of Criminal Anthropologists (Amsterdam, September 9–14, 1901) // Review of psychiatry, neurology and experimental psychology. 1901. No. 11–12.

Tarnovsky Ip. Perversion of sexual feelings in women. SPb.: Type. Khudyakova, 1895.

Kharchev A.G. Marriage and family in the USSR. M.: Mysl, 1979.

Hill R. Family decisions and social policy; sociological aspect // Changing the position of women and family. M.: Nauka, 1977.

Shishkov S.S. Historical fates of women, infanticide and prostitution.

Shlindman S., Zvidrinsh P. Study of fertility. M.: Statistics, 1973.

Yakovleva G.V. Protection of the rights of an unmarried mother. Minsk: BSU Publishing House, 1979.

Adams B. The Family: A Sociological Interpretation. Orlando: Harcourt Brace, 1986.

Giddens A. The Transformation of Intimacy: Sexuality, Love and Eroticism in Modern Societies. Stanford: Stanford Univ. Press, 1992.

Schmidt A. Lassen sich aus dem kulturellen Wandel von Sexualität und Familie...

C. Lombroso's biological concept of the innate criminal type and the evolution of his ideas

Lombroso's views, set out in the first edition of The Criminal Man, were distinguished by a certain one-sidedness, which is quite understandable, given his extraordinary passion for anthropological ideas...

The origin and evolution of the psyche

History of psychology as a science

It, like all known sciences, occurred through a change of paradigms - generally accepted patterns of scientific practice, a set of the only possible ideas in a specific historical period (T. Kuhn). In the history of psychology, paradigms are known...

Causal and etiological signs of risk seeking in adults

Ancient civilizations used different techniques to deal with problems of uncertainty than modern ones, and therefore did not need a word for what is understood today as risk. Of course...

Manipulation in negotiations

The term "manipulation" or "manipulation" comes from the Latin word "manipulare". Its original meaning has a very positive meaning: “to manage”, “to manage competently”, “to provide assistance”, etc. For example, in medicine it is an examination...

The premarital courtship period and its impact on the stability of the modern family

Monogamy - (from mono... and Greek gamos - marriage.) (monogamy), a form of marriage that allows you to have only one spouse. Having emerged in primitive society, monogamy later became the dominant marriage norm...

Subject and evolution of psychology

In different eras and periods of development of psychology, views on its subject have changed. Psychology originated in the depths of philosophy, and the first ideas about its subject were associated with the concept of “soul”...

The subject of psychology: from antiquity to the present day

Problems of a young family

Before moving on to discussing the concept of “young family”, it is necessary to analyze the existing theoretical approaches to two other related concepts - “family” and “marriage”...

The process of evolution of the psyche in phylogenesis

Phylogenesis (Greek phyle - genus, tribe, species; genos - origin) is the process of development of all living things (from plants to animals, and from them to humans). Lukovtseva A.K. Psychology and pedagogy. Course of lectures / A.K. Lukovtseva. - M.: KDU, 2008. - 192 pp...

Psychological adaptation of divorced women

Marriage and family are social forms of regulating relations between people who are related, but despite the closeness of these concepts, they are not identical. Marriage is a special social institution, historically determined...

Psychology of Personality

In order to better understand the role and place of the social institution of education in modern industrial society, the specifics of the functions it performs, we should briefly consider the evolution of the education system. In primitive...

Psychotronic weapon

Consciously or not, perfumers chose a change in a person’s emotional state as a quality criterion. The vast majority of information sources advise choosing perfumes based on the “like it or don’t like it” principle...

Social and psychological aspect of the formation of gender stereotypes

The formation of gender stereotypes occurs under the influence of ideological trends that dominate in society. In turn, the development of science has a huge influence on the formation of ideological trends...

The doctrine of temperament (psychological properties)

a) Galen and Hippocrates The most important discoveries of these doctors, who improved the technique of studying the body, including the brain, include the establishment of differences between sensory and motor nerves. The discovery was forgotten...

Views