Professional Documents
Culture Documents
By
Department of Sociology,
badrufat@yahoo.com
Abstract
Things have fallen apart and the centre could no longer hold. Chastity, before
marriage and mutual fidelity after, which tend to promote family harmony and
serenity among other cherished family values of Africans, are systematically being
family system is being replaced by nuclear family, which is further atomized and
consequences for the stability of family. These tend to engender adverse impact on
the offspring of such families. What influence has globalization and modernization
the erosion of extant and pristine family values and advocates that we trace our
step and return to glory of rebuilding a united, stable and sound family system in
1
TOWARDS REBUILDING A STABLE FAMILY SYSTEM IN AFRICA
1. Introduction
This paper asserts that a stable family is not elusive and suggests that a number of
the pristine harmonious, desired and desirous families that societies all over the
world are searching for. The paper interrogates factors that promote stable
families in Africa and alludes to variables that have been indicted in the literature
to be responsible for shaking the firm root of this basic institution in different
forms across the globe of Africa and outside the confines of Africa. The forms of
the instability are also catalogued. The paper starts with basic conceptual
The literature is replete with the social fact that separation, divorce and empty-
shell families dot a number of human societies, developed and underdeveloped alike.
Things seem to have fallen apart and the centre could no longer hold (Ekiran, 2003;
Badru, 2004a; Otite, 2004). It is said that African families’ values are
balkanized education (Suda, 1996; Badru, 2004b; Oyewumi, 2006). Many Africans
obtained their advanced formal education with the facilitation and active
definition of situation and shaped the forms and contents of formal education
received. The latter tends to undermine the cherished values of Africa and
stability with the result of atomized families. Badru, (2004b:46-52) had provided a
number of factors such as urbanization forces that have been responsible for
uprooting the stability of family. The empirical referents include increasing rates
of premarital pregnancy, conjugal conflict, poor socialization of young boys and girls
2
and rising levels of crimes, increasing rate of teenage mothers and single parents
supplanted by other agents such as nurse-maids, house helps and motherless babies’
protection and succour for members have been dismantled as husbands and wives
have to work, sometimes in different and far location from each other to earn a
family system is being substituted by nuclear family, which is further atomized and
consequences for the stability of family and its constituents. These tend to
engender adverse impact on the offspring of such families. In the past, chastity
before marriage was preached and deviation was sanctioned. Promiscuity was
proscribed. Mutual fidelity was treasured as a value. These values, among others,
engender family harmony and happiness. Even before marriage is contracted, a lot
of things go into place like background checking to ensure that chances of marital
between two families beyond the spouses contracting the marriage is enhanced.
the erosion of these extant and pristine family values and advocates that we trace
our step and return to glory of rebuilding a united, stable and sound family system
The paper contains three sections in addition to the introduction. The second
section provides the conceptual clarification of families and draws attention to the
various schools of thought on families. While there are many theories that can be
3
used, the paper pitches its tent with functionalist and symbolic interactionistic
schools for heuristic reasons to explain the social fact. The third examines six
stability and some factors that tend to inhibit family strength. It also looks at
empirical manifest and latent impacts of such unstable families. The last section
provides social strategies to achieve stable and happy families with templates
united and stable family in our societies. The section also shelters the concluding
remarks.
2. CONCEPTUAL ISSUES
group of relatives; groups of people who are closely related by birth, marriage or
usually consisting of parents and their children. This is not comprehensive enough.
unit, in its minimal form, consisting of a husband, wife and children. In its widest
including adopted persons. This excludes family members who live in different
locations and yet share the same family origin. Mitchell (1979: 80) quoting Burgess
and Locke, in their book: “The Family” affirms that the ‘family is a group of persons,
interacting and inter-communicating with each other in their respective social roles
of husband and wife, mother and father, brother and sister, creating a common
culture”. This again leaves out multiple household families. In addition, it is silent on
4
single parent families, same-sex families and “empty –shell” families without
offspring, which can be a battle front for some couples. Thus, the cited definitions
are not perfect. However, they are useful for our purpose here.
It is said that we should be talking about families rather than a family as there are
several variants and structure of families across the globe. Family is thus a multi-
George Peter Murdock, among others that have studied a sample of 250 societies
scholars. (Haralambos and Heald, 2001: 325). Many of the families contracted in
African societies tend to tilt towards extended rather than single parent, same sex
epistemological dominant bias (Suda, 1996; Oyewumi, 2006). In Africa, there are
familiar nuances across the African continent that put serious questions to the
water tight category as the family form is fluid and tends more towards extended/
modified extended family system in Africa. We shall return to this by citing some
normative definitions.
5
2.2.1 Family related views
There has been a dilemma in appropriately defining the word: family. Through her
diversity with which people classify those who could or should be labeled family
members. For some, in her sample, family consisted of only closest family members,
the nuclear family, while for others, family contained various other kin, friends, and
even pets. This study highlights the difficulty in defining who should be included or
excluded as a member of the family. However, the complexity of defining the family
does not end with the determination of family membership. Family definitions may
For instance, Scanzoni, et.al (1989:27), in their effort to enlarge the definition of
the family in the 1980s, saw the traditional family as two parents and a child or
children constituting the prevailing pattern of the family. To them, "all other family
forms or sequencing tend to be labelled as deviant…)". They opposed the view held
by many early writers that the traditional family was the ideal family, the family
type by which the success of other families may be evaluated. This statement
depicts how the conception of family is not only structurally focused but also
Allen (2000:7) illuminates this ideology and process when she states, "Our
assumptions, values, feelings, and histories shape the scholarship we propose, the
findings we generate, and the conclusions we draw. Our insights about family
the lives of those we study, and by what we care about knowing and explaining." It
definition of the family that is driven by theory, history, culture, and situation.
6
Other scholars have contended that the definition of family will fluctuate based on
situational requirements. Most experts in the field have strong views that "there is
no single correct definition of what a family is" (Fine 1993: 235). “Rather, the
approaches that individuals have taken in attempting to define the family have
ranged in meaning from very specific to very broad, from theoretical to practical,
Other scholars have made efforts at defining the family based on constructs that
are bigger than the family. Difficulty and theoretical problems related to defining
family or families have led some to seek broader constructs that transcend the
definition of the family, from their view leading to a higher level of understanding
(Goode 1959; Kelley et al., 1983; Scanzoni et al. 1989). For instance, a close
1983:38). This has been viewed as an encompassing term that would define most
does not apply to all families; for instance, the family where a parent is absent and
does not want to be present. It also includes others who are not part of the family
The family can also been viewed as a kind of social group, a group held together by a
common principle. Although the family is indeed a social group, it is a social group
that is very distinct when compared to other social groups. Scholars have pointed
out dissimilarities between families and other social groups (Day, Gilbert, Settles,
and Burr, 1995). These features include the following: (1) family membership may
be involuntary, and the connection may be more permanent; (2) actions of family
members can be hidden and thus there is a safe environment provided for openness
7
and honesty but also an environment for murky activities such as abuse, addictions,
and neglect; (3) family members may be more intensely bonded through emotional
ties; (4) there is often a shared family model or world view; and (5) there is
The appraisal of these two enriching constructs makes it evident that although
larger constructs are useful in understanding the family, they do not specifically
define family. These broad constructs allow for the inclusion of those not part of
the family and the exclusion of those who are part of the family. To address the
definitions of the family by accounting for any type of family. This takes us to
inclusive definitions.
Inclusive definitions are those that are so broad that no one's perception of family
will be excluded. For example, Holstein and Gubrium (1995) illustrate an inclusive
their kin are. The basic argument is that meanings and interpretations have no
connection to rules, norms, or culture. Thus, the definition of family is based on the
individual's local subculture and is his or her own reality. For instance, Rothberg and
Weinstein (1966:57) illustrate an inclusive definition that can encompass all local
subcultures by stating that: "the constellation of family is limited only by the limits
of participants' creativity".
Inclusive definitions are reasoned and scholarly attempts to deal with the
8
has been replaced by families and has become the embodiment of whatever the
Based on this type of definition, the family becomes whatever the individual wants
very tenuous, thus making research on the family difficult. For this reason, other
among families and thus allow for theoretical as well as applied research (Suda,
definitions that can be linked with specific theories, Smith (1995) was able to
create a different definition of the family for each of about eight theoretical
approaches. The paper will consider in detail one of these: functionalist, in another
For instance, the definition of family for symbolic interaction theory is a unit of
interacting personalities (Smith 1995; Schaefer, 2005). Those defining the family
from a feminist perspective would assume that there are broad differences
including power inequality among married members and families, and these
differences are greater than the similarities (Schaefer, 2005). The traditional
definition of the family would be rejected with emphasis on change and diversity
9
However, most theories are not specifically directed at defining the family. Klein
and White (1996) assert that the family developmental theory is the only theory
where the focus is specifically on the family. Other approaches can be and are used
occupy socially defined positions (e.g., daughter, mother, father, or son) and the
Initially, the stages of change discussed in the literature related directly to the
nuclear family. According to Mattessich and Hill (1987), some of the original
theorists in the area of family life stage hinge their views on changes in family size,
age composition, and the occupational status of the breadwinner(s). The stages of
children, families with teenagers, families with young adults still at home, families
in the middle years, and aging families (see also Haralambos and Heald, 2001;
Schaefer, 2005).
In the 1990s, researchers updated this theory to include families defined in other
ways over the family careers (White 1991; Rodgers and White 1993; Klein and
White, 1996). These authors specify the significance of change that is related to
remarriage, or death. Thus, how one defines one's own family is not static, but
changes with the addition of family members through close relationships, birth,
adoption, and foster relationships or the loss of family members because of death
or departure.
Talcott Parsons discussed the development of the family by using more generic
family definitions that apply to all members of society. He asserts that one is born
10
into the biological family, or one's family of origin. If the individual is raised in this
or the child is given up for adoption, the new family of which the individual is part
cohabitate, for example, the individual becomes part of the family of procreation.
This term is somewhat tenuous in the sense that in several types of relationships
such as childless or gay and lesbian relationships, procreation may not be a part of
With the move from the family of orientation to family of procreation, the
individual's original nuclear family, or their closest family members, become part of
their kinship group or their extended family, while their new partner or child
becomes part of their new family (McGoldrick and Carter 1982). Thus, this
contended that the basic family unit in non-American and non-European countries is
the extended family rather than the nuclear family (Ingoldsby and Smith 1995;
Murdock 1949, Suda, 1996; Schaefer, 2005; Oyewumi, 2006). Oyeronke Oyewumi
(2006) contends that because of the expansion of Europe and the establishment of
families have been coloured and shaped and their values transmitted to the
families. Nuclear/ conjugal family, which was not predominant then, was put on the
front burner. The values changed. Fathers are brain-washed to share in child
rearing and mothers are coerced to work in the formal sector. The children, if any,
11
2.2.5 Situational Definitions
important in practical situations and thus are the working expressions. This
definitions are used for special types of families and are utilized by individuals
from social service agencies to deal with special situations in which family form is
changed, and a new form of family must emerge to protect those within the family,
often children (Hartman 1990; Seligmann 1990; McNeece 1995). For example,
with families where alcohol is abused. The term pedifocal, defined as "all those
household membership (where the child lives) expands the definition of the family
from being only family members to include those working with the family. Thus, the
child's interests are put above other needs to protect the child, despite the change
in family structure and relationships. In this case, others who are not related to
the child may become fictive kin who respond to the child's needs and contributing
Another example could be the Israeli Kibbutz of the past, where children were
(i.e., the metaplot or caretaker). In this setting, although the children still have
biological parents, they also have caretakers who become their parent figures
(Broude 1994, Haralambos and Heald, 2001; Schaefer, 2005). Based on this
definition, family is expanded to those who may be caretakers and thus may only be
12
2.2.6 Normative Definitions
Within the 1990s and into the early twenty-first century, the definition of family
was no longer confined to the traditional family, but also included the normative
Laban, (1994:53) "are agreed upon societal rules and expectations specifying
at least one parent and one child are viewed as a normative definition of the family
in most if not all societies (Reiss 1965; Rothberg and Weinstein 1966; Levin and
Trost 1992; Bibby 1995). The child in these cases is not necessarily biologically
related to those providing care and nurturance. They may, for example, be adopted,
definition of the family. All of these families would be considered examples of the
nuclear family.
Also part of the normative family would be all others who are closest to the
most societies, the definition of a normal family and nuclear families also includes
expectations of a legitimate and thus a normative family union may vary among and
within various cultures, based on formal rules related to law, religious orientation,
associates.
Information on the intricacy and the cultural diversity of the extended family is
discussed in the writings of many scholars (e.g., Murdock 1949; Stanton 1995;
Haralambos and Heald, 2001; Schaefer, 2005). The reasons that families continue
13
to live in an extended family situation vary greatly among cultures and generations.
Some identified in the literature are for mutual assistance both for household work
and income and also the inheritance of property or the perpetuation of kinship
Thus, these norms based on culture, religion, and ethnicity, all influence the
definition of the family. These norms may or may not be adhered to, and what is
Silva and Smith, (1999) have argued that there is ongoing both an epistemological
and a moral debate about what the family is and what the family ought to be.
For some it is easy to define what family should be, namely a heterosexual conjugal
unit based on marriage and co-residence. The main purpose of such a family is often
of state support (Morhan, 1995; Phillips, 1997). In contrast with this ought, the
activities of how families work and organize themselves is often perceived as sadly
wanting. Thus this framing of how family should be, is often contrasted with
For others, it is less easy to articulate what families should be like. There is, for
example, an emphasis on diversity of family practices which need not emphasize the
centrality of the conjugal bond, which may not insist on co-residence, and which may
orientations. In this model, the family is not expected to remain unchanged and
14
unchanging. It is seen as transforming itself in relation to wider social trends and
employed male breadwinner. Lone mothers and gay couples do not, by definition,
constitute strong families in this rhetoric. On the contrary, they are part of the
problem and part of the process of destabilizing the necessary fortitude of the
proper family.
From the analysis of new family practices, it is posited that contrary to those
interpretations that insist that family links are being weakened, families remain a
crucial relational entity playing a fundamental part in the intimate life of and
dynamics between family life and wide structures acknowledges that in the last
composition and in the conditions under which they accomplish domestic labour, in
the labour associated with the emotional growth and sociability of individuals, and in
their forms of intimacy (Silva and Smart, 1999). The fordist model of production
which dominated production throughout most of this century was based on male
labour with earnings high enough to enable the purchase of consumer durables and
equipment for the home, and to allow housewives to stay at home in order to do the
caring activities needed by husband and children (as producers of the future and
couple and on women’s lack of autonomy (Lefaucher, 1995). The 1970s feminist
debate on domestic labour focused on this particular social dynamic and revealed
the hidden disadvantages for women (Gardiner, 1997). This model of labour and the
15
wage system has been gradually superseded, giving rise to new forms of analysis of
According to Silva and Smart, (1999), in the 1990s, the initial core socio-economic
analytical categories like the capitalist and the worker lost their analytical
professionals, flexible and casual labour, have become key categories in a new
context where the physical components of the workforce are been replaced by
need for ‘physical reproduction’ demanded by the fordist model has given place to
the demands for the ‘reproduction’ of intellectual and emotion ‘capital’. It has
upgrade and update one’s labour skills. In this transformed context, the importance
increased. On the other hand, these transformations have reduced the pressure
for the maintenance solely of a legal, conjugal link. In a way, it is not just that the
power of economic structure is to shape family practices has changed, but that the
ways people live and how they make their living (as well as who makes that living)
have also shaped economic and social structures. Thus we have come to transcend
the old sociological presumption that the institution of the family changes only in a
response to primary changes in the economic sphere. Now we are more inclined to
look for the interplay between sections of the labour market or welfare and
In sum, no universal definition of the family exists, but rather many appropriate
Definitions are not only racially and inter-generationally diverse (Bedford and
16
Blieszner 2000), but are also situationally diverse (Haralambos and Heald, 2001;
Schaefer, 2005).
family form and process are extremely prevalent but must also acknowledge the
themes of the 1960s and 1970s to "traditional family," it has been observed that
African Family is a concept with challenging variations. These diversities are caused
3. Functions/Structure of Families
Sociologists have catalogued many functions that the families perform. These have
been put in six jackets. According to (Ogburn and Tibbits, 1934, cited in Schaefer,
2005: 127), the families have six paramount functions. These include reproduction
of new members; protection of new and old members and economic security for all;
socialization through which parents transmit mores, folkways, norms and values
sexual behaviour: whom to marry, whom to have coital activity with and not, incest
warmth and intimacy should ideally rein and lastly where social status is conferred
In many traditional African societies, parents especially mothers had the primary
during socialization. In general, children were taught what was expected of them at
various stages of their lives. They were taught the community’s customs, values and
17
norms that accompany these roles (Muganzi 1987; Kisembo et al. 1977). Among
other traditional ethical values, the youth were taught personal discipline, told to
exercise a great deal of self-control and shown how to grow up into responsible and
productive members of society. They were also made to learn through proverbs and
folktales by older women that as children they are supposed to respect their
parents, elders and themselves, to take their advice and guidance seriously. They
also learnt the adverse consequences of violating such moral rules (Kilbride and
Kilbride 1990; Nasimiyu-Wasike 1992). Many mothers also ensure that their
children are enrolled in good schools and receive quality education. This
responsibility is an important part of parenting and for many poor women is often
undertaken with great personal sacrifices. This role indubitably is being supplanted.
Among the Luo of western Kenya, for example, young girls were taught by their
grandmothers and aunts how to sit down in a proper and decent manner (with their
legs together) to avoid possible temptation on the part of boys. They also receive
advice on how to relate to men (Wachege 1994:83). Their mothers also educated
them about sexuality, including the point that sexual relationships should be
restricted to marriage partners. The Tharaka girls in Kenya were given special
chains by their mothers to wear around their waist for as long as they remained
virgins before marriage. It was a taboo to keep the chain if a girl had lost her
virginity before she got married (Kalule 1986). In Nigeria, a full calabash is carried
by older women around the village if the bride is met intact whereas an empty one
is conveyed if the girl has been deflowered before the wedding. This kind of moral
and ethical education was most effective under a system of strong parental
18
As part of their encounter with domesticity, Mack (1992) reports that Hausa wives
not only regularly involve in adjudicating disputes between their children but were
(1994) shows that in every ethnic community in Kenya, mothers had the primary
girls were advised to uphold sexual morality until they got married and were ready
to raise family. Such advice was based on the moral premise that sexual morality in
general and pre-marital virginity in particular were highly valued, whereas single
motherhood was viewed as immoral and brought disgrace not only on the girl but on
her family and community as a whole. Having a child out of wedlock was stigmatized
and it lowered the dignity not only for the girl, who was perceived to be ‘morally
loose’, but also of the mother, who was blamed for not having taught her daughter
moral uprightness in society and shared the blame with their daughters who had
The main responsibility for instilling such moral conduct fell heavily on the
mother too was answerable. Both were looked upon with contempt. Both were
daughter (1994:91)
In most traditional African societies, such girls have difficulty getting young men
to marry them. They were often married to older men as junior wives. Adherence to
these and other ethical standards, which were part of the society’s value system,
19
accounted for the rarity of pre-marital pregnancies and single motherhood in
traditional Africa.
Today, these moral standards are being swept away or distorted by the
life. Pre-marital pregnancies and divorce are rampant in contemporary Africa and
public perceptions of them have changed drastically. This has also been a
proliferation of single mothers. At the same time, most modern Africa families,
adequate care and support for their members. The result has been premarital
(1990:137) assert that in societies where collective rather than individual moral
altogether.
In the late and early 19th century, a detailed study conducted among the Baganda in
Uganda, found that, “Polygyny, the type of marriage in which the husband has plural
wives, is not the only preferred but the dominant form of marriage for the
Baganda”. Commoners had two or three, chiefs had dozens, and the Kings had
Although among the Baganda, the nuclear family of the mother, father, and their
children constitutes the smallest unit of Baganda kinship system, the traditional
family consists of ….. several nuclear units held in association by a common father. “
Because the Baganda people are patrilineal, the household family also includes other
20
parents, and children of the father’s clan sent to be brought up by him. Include in
this same bigger household will be servants, female slaves, and their children. The
The Baganda are also patrilocal. Therefore, the new families tend to generally live
common to virtually all the Bantu peoples of Central and Southern Africa. Similar
systems of kinship terminology can be found, for example, among the Ndebele of
Zimbabwe, the Zulu of South Africa, the Ngoni and Tumbuka of Eastern Zambia.
In this system, all brothers of the father are called “father”; all sisters of the
mother are called “mother”; all their children “brother and sister”. In male-speaking
terms, father’s sister’s daughters (cross-cousins) are called cousins. But they are
The Baganda have a very important kinship entity. The clan is linked by four
factors. First, two animal totems from one of which the clan derives its name.
The existence of patriarchy and the patrilineal system among the Baganda might
suggest that individual men have the most dominant social status. But quite to the
contrary, the clan seems to have a more supreme influence. For example, when a
man dies among the Baganda, his power over the property ends. The clan chooses
21
their heir. “The clan assumes control of inheritance; the wishes of the dead person
may or may not be honoured. …… The eldest son cannot inherit”. The Baganda
practice the levirate custom. The man who is the heir to the widow has the
the deceased person children, calling them his and making no distinction between
According to Kilbride and Kilbride, (1990), among the Bemba people of Northern
Zambia, marriage is matrilocal. This may mean a man going to live in his wife’s village
for the first year in married life. This is also true of marriage among other
Zambians ethnic groups such as the Bisa, Lala, Lamba, Kaonde, and many others.
Among the Chewa of Eastern Zambia, the custom of man living with his wife’s
During the period earlier than 1940s, marriages remained completely matrilocal
during the couple’s entire life. But however, after a few years of contact with white
civilization and subsequent social change, the custom has gradually changed. The
husband could take his wife home if the marriage was thought stable especially
The basic family unit among the Bemba was not the nuclear family. But rather the
matrilocal extended family comprised of a man and his wife, their married
daughter, son-in-laws, and their children. “The basic kinship unit of Bemba society
is not the individual family, but a matrilocal extended family composed of a man and
his wife, their married daughters, and the latter’s husbands and children”.
22
A young Bemba lives in the same hut with a child of pre-weaning age whom they may
have. But this is not an independent nuclear family unit. The man or bridegroom “….
builds himself a house at his wife’s village and becomes a member of her extended
family group”. The wife cooks at her mother’s house with other female relatives
who are mainly unmarried and married sisters. Polygyny, which is a distinguishing
societies, is uncommon among the matrilineal Bemba. Whereas chiefs have a number
of wives, it is very rare to find ordinary men who have more than one wife. Because
of this, extended families among the Bemba are not really as large as those found,
among other Zambian ethnic groups such as the Bisa, Lamba, Lala, Chewa, Koande,
Luba, and others. A man’s legal entitlements and rights of inheritance are on his
mother’s side. He has no right on his paternal clan. “A Bemba belongs to his
mother’s clan (umukoa), a group of relatives more or less distantly connected, who
reckon descent from real or fictitious common ancestries, use a common totem
name, and a series of praise titles, recite a common legend of origin and accept
and functions and processes at least in a functionalist sense for instance that
23
stimulation, family cohesion where the care and sharing of love are consistent,
constant and commitment can be discerned, and where cohesive and supportive bond
to each to each other can be demonstrated. Family ties are important sources of
existential meaning which provide life satisfaction and happiness. The quality of
linkage between relationship quality and individual outcomes. What parents do with
and for their children, the material they provide, the warmth they display, the
discipline they instill, the attention they give or fail to give and the investment in
terms of energy and time they made in the children are reflected in better
outcomes on children. It has been said that when occupational and economic
disappointment, turmoil and anxiety which may engender family instability. Research
has found that family stability can have positive impacts on a child’s health
development and emotional functioning (Tinsley and Lees, 1995; Hickson and
between spouses exert a powerful emotional toll on both spouses and children and
subsequent relationships. Badru (2004a)’s study has found out some socio-economic
determinants and patterns of spousal abuse in his doctoral work. He asserted that
spousal abuse and specifically wife battering is more likely in the early period of
marriage when adjustment problems tend to be prominent. Those people who live
discharge of war missile are more likely to engage in marital conflict. He found out
that abuse was more common in the high density, low-income areas where poverty
24
and unemployment stare virtually everybody in the face; it is also not unusual for
the highly educated to thrash their wife for patriarchal and cultural reasons.
Why is it that some career women find it difficult to establish or maintain a home
rather than a house (empty shell family)? What propel some men to decline in
dating or marrying nurses who do night shift? What impel some career women to
marry younger men? Do they use money to entice the latter? Who is the bread
winner; who is the ‘bread eater’ here? Who should be the head of the family? Is
the family equalitarian or skewed to one partner? Has it not been said that he/she
who pays the piper dictates the tune? Can the women in such relationship submit to
the man, who is younger and somehow dependent financially on the wife? Can this
not bring its strain and conflict? Are female bankers not too engrossed in their
career at the expense of the family? Is the courtship long enough to know each
increase in broken homes? Where both spouses work from morning till night, how do
they care for their kids? Do we share quality time with our family members? When
last did I or you take your partners out for lunch? Do we not carry stress from
work home? Who plays the expressive role: comfort? Are our friends outside or at
home? The answers to these puzzles throw several varying weights on relationships
and stability within families, workplace and society. What have these got to do with
increasing divorce rates, juvenile delinquency, area boys and girls phenomena in our
society?
Statistics tell us that first marriages today stand a 45 percent chance of breaking
up and second marriages a 60 percent chance. But those numbers just confirm what
we already knew: Divorce has increased not only in frequency but also in acceptance.
And even if we don’t focus on figures per se, we know that today far more
25
marriages end in divorce than a couple of decades ago across the continents of the
world.
This represents a massive social change. It has taken place in the relatively short
space of time and is reshaping the basic building block of society. Divorce is
altering the institution of marriage and family stabilty in ways not yet fully
that increased tolerance of divorce has produced profound changes in our attitudes
But regardless of what the institution used to represent, it is well documented that
the traditional roles of men and women changed greatly with industrialization and
urbanization in the 20th century. Additionally, World War II drew women into the
workplace to replace the men who had gone to the war front; new birth control
methods gave women control over fertility; and in general, women gained greater
decision-making ability in family matters as they worked outside the home. The
themselves that the children would be happier if the parents were happier. They
also argued that divorce is a temporary crisis, with most of the harm being done
around the time of the initial separation, and that with time children would adjust
Both assumptions, however, are being seriously disputed today. Scholars believe
that “cumulative stress as new parents move in and out of a child’s life seems to be
26
Adulthood—with the decision to marry or not and have children or not—is
different. Whether the final outcome is good or bad, the whole trajectory of an
4. Concluding Remarks
It is high time stable families were rebuilt in our continent. All the barriers must
be consciously removed and resocialisation should take place where we promote our
cultural heritage that is not inimical to our social development. Granted that
societal changes brought freedoms that previous generations did not have, the
alteration should not be allowed to swallow us and make us lose our sense of
way to an attitude of moving on if the marriage was in difficulty. Where there are
families to nip any untold problem in the bud. But wait a minute, listen to divine
admonition: In Malachi 2:16, we are told that God hates divorce. A natural question
witness to the agreement: “Because the Lord has been witness between you and the
wife of your youth, with whom you have dealt treacherously; yet she is your
intended to remain into old age. This passage also says that the wife is not inferior
but is a companion in whom the husband should take delight. (see also: Genesis
nothing that hurts more than the wound that is meted out by the most important
people in our childhood, our mother and father, because it violates the promise,
implicit to life itself, to provide continuous safety and care. It is argued that most
human beings unconsciously believe that a mother and father, when they create a
27
life, enter into a tacit agreement to continue the family as a unit and to be present
to guide the children until they can claim the world as adults. When parents do this
. . . it nourishes trust and allows the children to build a healthy foundation for all of
life’s tasks.” It is the contention of this paper that families in Africa has cushion to
facilitate this and avoid or reduce to the barest minimum factors that may inhibit
I fully share the sentiment of Brian Orhard who asserts that “the fracturing and
destabilizing of our society will continue as the “culture of divorce” exacts its toll.
Divorce is changing the basic nature of marriage, and unless the trend is stopped
and our hearts are turned to each other and to our children, this “new kind of
society” is in danger.
What we must do is to reverse the trend family by family. Divorce has to become a
rarity. It is imperative that all hands should be put on desk to live a good live by
having healthy relationships that foster happiness, comfort and tranquility at home;
that can engender harmonious relationships at work and bring about piece and order
28
References
Badru, F.A (2004b): “Urbanisation, Family and Social Changes in Nigeria, 1950-
1999” in Adejugbe, M.O. A (ed.) Industrialization, Urbanizations and
Development in Nigeria, 1950-1999 (Lagos: Concept Publications Ltd)
Badru, F.A (2008): “Relationship and its interface with Family, Workplace and
Society” A paper presented in a symposium organized by Society of Public
Sector Accountants, University of Lagos Branch within the theme: “Living a
Good Life” April 19, 2008.
(Toronto: Stoddart).
29
Cheal, D. (1993). "Unity and Difference in Postmodern Families." Journal of Family
Issues 14(1):5–19.
Day, D.; Gilbert, K. R.; Settles, B. H.; and Burr, W. R. (1995). Research and
Theory in Family Science. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole Publishing.
Doherty, W. J.; Boss, P.G.; LaRossa, R.; Schumm, W.R.; and Steinmetz, S. K. (1993).
"Family Theories and Methods: A Contextual Approach." In Sourcebook of
Family Theories and Methods: A Contextual Approach, ed. P. G. Boss, G. W.
Doherty, R. LaRossa, W. R. Schumm, and S. K. Steinmetz. New York: Plenum
Press.
Engels, F (1977): The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State
(Moscow: Progress Publishers)
Hanson, M. J., and Lynch, E. W. (1992). "Family Diversity: Implications for Policy
and Practice." Topics in Early Childhood Special Education 12(3):283–306.
30
Haralambos, M and Heald, R.M (2001): Sociology: Themes and Perspectives
(New Delhi: Oxford University Press)
Kilbride, L.P. and Kilbride, J.C. (1990): Changing Family Life in East Africa: Women
and Children at Risk University Park and London: The Pensylvania State
University Press.
Mair, L.P (1953): “African Marriage and Social Change” in Phillips, A (Ed.) Survey of
African Marriage and Family Life (London: Oxford University Press)
Mattessich, P., and Hill, R. (1987). "Life Cycle and Family Development," In
Handbook of Marriage and the Family, ed. M. G. Sussman, and Suzanne K.
Steinmetz. New York: Plenum.
McGoldrick, M., and Carter, E. (1982). "The Family Life Cycle." In Normal Family
Processes, ed. F. Walsh. New York: Guilford Press.
31
Mitchell, G.D (ed.) (1979): A New Dictionary of Sociology
32
G. Boss, W. G. Doherty, R. LaRossa, W. R. Schumm, and S. K. Steinmetz. (New
York: Plenum).
Rothberg, B., and Weinstein, D. L. (1966). "A Primer on Lesbian and Gay Families."
Journal of Gay and Lesbian Social Services 4(2):55–68.
Scanzoni, J.; Polonko, K.; Teachman, J.; and Thompson, L. (1989). The Sexual Bond:
Rethinking Families and Close Relationships. (Newbury Park, CA: Sage).
Schaefer, R.T (2005): Sociology 9th ed. (New York: The McGraw Hill Companies)
Silva, E.B and Smart, C (1999): the new family? (London: Sage Publications)
Thompson, L., and Walker, A. J. (1995). "The Lace of Feminism in Family Studies."
Journal of Marriage and the Family 57(4):847–865.
Trost, J. (1990). "Do We Mean the Same Thing by the Concept of the Family?"
Communication Research 17(4):431.
33
34