I have decided to compare these two quotes as they both have different perceptions of the family. Unlike the first source these sources are extremely biased in being for or against the family, as they are personal opinions. The quote by the Archbishop of Canterbury promotes the family. He as believes that there is no excuse ands that a family should stay together no matter what. In my introduction I said the in the Christian faith marriage is a sacrament; this is the underlined theme in the quote. “If I have a right to have children…
” is taken from the passage this shows that in his opinion children should be looked after by their parents as they have conceived them and therefore are responsible to bringing them in to the world and bringing “them up as good citizens. ” This view is completely opposite to that of the kibbutz, which completely abolishes this idea of family. He also outlines the importance of parents’ roles in their children lives and what they must do to fulfil “their responsibilities. ” He also believes that they should be educated in religion and that it is the parents’ duty to do so, so they can “grow up to know and love God.
” But some families whose parents are “fulfilling their responsibilities” may not be religious and still bring up their children well. But in the eyes of the Archbishop of Canterbury this is not just. Showing that this source promotes the family agreeing with the hypothesis but is also extremely biased. He also says “real families are committed to each other” I think that just because a child may not have two parents doesn’t mean that they are any less provided for. There may be a number of reasons for not having two parents for example death and divorce.
If the situation were divorce would it not be better for the child to live with one parent than to live with both and have to cope with emotional turmoil. The second quote completely contradicts the views of the Archbishop of Canterbury. Robin Skynner who is a Psychiatrist believes that “the priority has to be on individual welfare and development” so the family does not necessarily have to stay together. He doesn’t believe that good family values means that people should stay married “no matter what. ” He believes that the children’s welfare and security is very important but so to is the relationship of the parents.
If you compare this with the first quote from the Archbishop of Canterbury “Real families are committed to each other” we have two different arguments cause by to different perceptions. He believes that if a family stay together for the sake of the children i. e. the Archbishop of Canterbury’s view than this is wrong as he thinks children need to know “that there are things that are much more important than they are. ” In relation to the hypothesis the archbishop of Canterbury believes that everyone should stay in a family therefore having two married parents.
This agrees with the hypothesis, but we know that it is incorrect as source one shows an increase in single parents with dependant children. Whilst the second quote from Robin Skynner shows that a family can still be a family even if parents are separated and the welfare of the individual is far more important than that of the family as a whole, disagreeing with the hypothesis. Source 3. Source three shows a graph that portrays marriage and divorce rates in Great Britain between 1971 and 1991. There is a direct correlation between marriage and divorce rates shown on the graph.
As the marriage rate slowly declines the divorce rate increases, which one would expect as you, need to be married to get a divorce. The graph shows rates in thousands. But there has not been a substantial increase or decrease it has happened steadily over time. This could be due to changes in laws and people’ perceptions. In 1969 the liberalisation of divorce laws made it easier to file for a divorce on a whole, this also meant that the mother was more likely to be granted custody of the children. Also nowadays it is perfectly normal for the wife to obtain a full time job whilst still up holding the maintenance and care of house and family.
With much attention led to trying and creating economical stability a lot of stress can be applied to the relationship as both partners do not have enough time to spend with each other. This is just two reasons why divorce rates may have increased. If you look on the graph after 1971 there was a surge in divorce rates but also there was a surge in marriages. This shows that marriage is still popular but people may have expectations of this perfect marital life, which in reality may be difficult causing a strain on relationships and in turn leading to divorce.
In 1971 the marriage rate in Britain was around 400 thousand and by 1991 it was about 350. With divorce in 1971 over 50 thousand, which is about 300-350 thousand difference compared to marriage of the same year. But by 1991 the divorce rate was just under 200 thousand showing around about 150 thousand increase in divorce over 20 years and only around about 150 thousand difference between marriage and divorce in 1991. This shows an exceptional decline in the difference between divorce and marriage rates. In association to the hypothesis this source shows that the overall marriage rate is declining and divorce rate is increasing.
However the marriage rate is still by 1991 150 thousand more than the divorce rate, which is a considerable amount. So I would say that this source would support the hypothesis as marriage is still popular and a nuclear family is based on a married couple with children. We know from source one that married couples have the overall majority of dependant children. Source 4. Source four is a photograph of my family. It consists of two parents and two children of opposite sex, which complies with the stereotype of 2:4 ratio involved with a nuclear family.
In my family both parents’ work but still the father is the breadwinner and the mother upholds the role of looking after the house. The fathers role within the family is to be the head of the family as he earns the most and pays the bills however there is no overall dominance as everyone has a say. You could say that the mother holds the stereotypical role of the housewife who does most of the chores mainly including the cleaning and cooking, but as she too works, chores are shared in the household.
For example each member of the family will take it in turn to cook the evening meal when it is a time for the whole family to sit together and talk about the days events. Generally though the father or son will mow the lawn, everyone is responsible to wash and iron their own clothes as after all they are for personal use. Occasionally though when need do the family members will do the others washing and ironing. With recreational activities and leisure the whole family will play together, this may involve tennis or badminton.
The children go to school and there is one family car and we live in a four-bedroom house. Even though we are a typical nuclear family we do visit many relatives frequently and keep in close contact with them. So you could say that my family is a network a tight-knit nuclear families. I think that if we were to live nearer the majority of our relatives then the pattern of our family life would change considerably and become an extended family of some sort. But due to where we live, the number of people in the household and where the children go to school and parents to work, we are a typical nuclear family.
This shows me that my family agrees with the hypothesis as we live in a nuclear family. This is portrayed on the photo of the Dad, Mum, Daughter and Son sitting together on one sofa dressed for a special occasion that is to be spent together. Even though I can be extremely biased when interpreting this primary source of my own family I think that it is safe to say that it is typical to a nuclear family with 2:4 ratio. As I am using one photo to prove the hypothesis relating to the hypothesis correct or incorrect I will compare my family to that of 10 other friends.