Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
120222415461
culture, family has no concrete meaning, because it is all a conceptual beliefs rather than a legal
recognition. The family permits the opportunity for the expression of emotional needs not legitimately
expressed elsewhere. For some reason, even though some people have already have that kind of beliefs,
the regulation of a country that still dictate their citizen to make their family acknowledgeable by their
law. Beside the government, religions are also having a big role in determine the idea of a family. Yet,
religions is failed to give their followers the liberty to decide the meaning of family, because they tend to
make the family as a small organization that can be the media to spread their teaching. I am not saying
that religion is some kind of an institution that controlling, but what I am saying is that religion has its
own view of family that sometimes is unsuitable to be used in modern society. In the Supernatural
series, there are some situations when the two brothers feel even when they were bond by blood, they still
sometimes do not feel like their family. From that example, it is clear that the show is trying to show us
that the ideology itself can be questioned.
Moreover, most of the time the ideology assumes the status of 'common sense' or what is 'natural'.
Like when there are two men having a marriage relationship (or a gay marriage for the popular term), the
ideology sees them as not a common sense or not natural. But if we look at that kind of family, they
sometimes have the quality that most of the common or normal family have. And yet, for some reason,
they still are not considered as common or normal family. In some country, they have allowed the gay
marriage in their jurisdiction. Yet most of the country in the world still does allow it because they still
bound to their old belief that makes them cannot accept such behavior. For many traditionalists, the
family is often viewed as an institution that is naturally given, and thus is automatically viewed as
socially and morally desirable, and something that you mess with at your peril. The realms of the natural
and the social are fused. The family, and the gender roles within it, is seen as a biological unit rather than
as a social arrangement. With the institution of the family, the link to nature is invoked because the family
is so closely allied to the undeniably natural process of biological reproduction. Yet eating is natural, but
we would not consider restaurants or groceries as natural. Appeals to nature are often made in resistance
to social change. But if a gay marriage, they cannot act as that kind of institution.
This is kind of perception is actually more hidden meaning that the ideology itself carry it out
throughout the century. The concept of the family dominant at the present time is a relatively recent
creation; it arose during the late 18th century, and then, as now, the ideology describes what 'ought' to be
the case and not necessarily what 'is' the case. The ideology is patriarchal, justified by reference to what is
seen as 'natural' and in part to scriptural authority. The ideology was devised by and served to mark the
middle class off from the decadence of the upper class and the immorality of the working class. With the
rise to political power of the middle class it became held up as an ideal to which all, no matter from what
class, should aspire, and indeed it became enshrined in state policies. Although this ideology has a clear
middle class pedigree it is presented as universal. It is clearly founded on authority, deference and
dependence, which are by their very nature unequal. Since it is a conservative ideology, radical
movements are seen as both a threat to the family and to have been a consequence of the crisis in the
family. But now, it is transparent that the political 'right' seeks to maintain what are argued to be both
traditional and 'right' values as regards the family. Indeed, there has been a harking back to earlier
apparent 'golden ages' of family life.
Yet, the series Supernatural itself challenge that kind of conceptual. The series tried to give that
the conceptual of family that the people can choose their own family without bounded to any
governmental or religious institution regulation. At this point, I have one question that came up in my
mind. Is there a concrete definition of what a family is? That is why I think that every culture in the world
have their own definition of how a family is, despite the fact that sometimes they have many similarities
to one another. Yet, family ideology has been a vital means of holding together and legitimating the
existing social, economic, political and gender systems. Challenging the ideology thus means challenging
the whole social system. So fears about a crisis in the family are really fears about challenges to the
system.
Refferences:
http://www.s-cool.co.uk/a-level/sociology/family-ideology/revise-it/introduction
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-954X.1985.tb00806.x/abstract
http://www.heritage.org/research/lecture/ideology-politics-and-the-american-family-setting-the-agendafor-the-1990s
http://www.wwu.edu/culture/kagitcibasi.htm