The Family as a Unit in Industrial Society
| Author | Charles W. Coulter |
| Published date | 01 March 1938 |
| Date | 01 March 1938 |
| DOI | 10.1177/000271623819600105 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
20
The
Family
as
a
Unit
in
Industrial
Society
By
CHARLES
W.
COULTER
’( J‘ T HEN
we
speak
of
the
American
family
we
use
the
term
loosely
to
designate
a
consumption
unit,
earn-
ing
a
common
income,
living
together
and
eating
together
under
a
single
roof:
in
a
word,
not
a
family
but
a
house-
hold.
Likewise,
an
industrial
society
is
one
generally,
though
not
exclusively,
dependent
upon
manufacturing
as
a
means
of
livelihood.
According
to
an
estimate
made
by
the
Brookings
Institution
and
based
upon
the
1930
census,
there
were
in
this
country
in
1929,
27,474,000
fam-
ilies.
Of
these,
10,330,728
were
sup-
ported
by
industrial
wage
earners
who,
with
their
dependents,
would
approx-
imate
43,000,000,
or
approximately
33%
per
cent
of
the
nation’s
popula-
tion.
The
percentage
would
be
much
higher
if
we
should
include
the
4,025,-
324
persons
employed
in
industrial
offices,
the
3,253,884
in
professional
occupations
and
more
or
less
directly
dependent
on
industry,
and
the
2,732,-
972
employed
in
the
extractive
pursuits
of
mining,
farming,
and
processing,
who
supply
both
raw
materials
and
food
to
the
industrial
workers.
A
so-
ciety
mainly
urban,
mainly dependent
on
industry,
is
not
only
industrialized
in
its
occupations
but
is
industrialized
in
its
attitudes,
relationships,
and
think-
ing
patterns.
Human
nature
itself
is
industrialized.
A
society’s
organization
for
life
maintenance
determines,
within
limits,
every
formal
relationship
and
process
within
the
group.
No
social
form
es-
capes
whether
it
be
a
court,
a
game,
the
church,
the
government,
or
an
educa-
tional
institution.
If
industrial
changes
are
rapid,
as
they
are
in
Japan
today,
there
may
be
temporary
confusion
and
some
lag;
but
all
secondary
processes
and
institutions
in
human
society
tend
to
harmonize
gradually
with
the
pri-
mary
economic
activities.
In
no
field
is
that
fact
more
obvious
than
in
the
family.
THE
CHANGING
FAMILY
Before
the
Industrial
Revolution
the
family
was
a
unit.
It
produced
together-men,
women
and
children
working
side
by
side
in
the
fields,
on
the
loom,
or
in
the
household
shop.
It
had
a
common
income.
It
was
closely
knit
by
the
ties
of
kinship
and
definitely
organized
under
the
father’s
authority.
Its
religious,
social,
and
political
repre-
sentative
was
the
father.
He
de-
termined
the
fitness
of
others
to
marry
within
his
family,
the
occupation
of
his
sons,
and
the
service
of
his
daugh-
ters.
Within
his
domain
he
was
judge,
priest,
treasurer,
and
comp-
troller
of
the
family
budget.
From
his
decisions,
in
all
but
extreme
cases,
there
was
no
appeal.
Increasingly
after
the
Industrial
Revolution
the
father,
particularly
in
the
cities,
worked
for
wages
in
a
fac-
tory
belonging
to
someone
else.
His
sons,
wife,
and
daughters,
and
some-
times
other
dependent
kinsfolk,
also
toiled
for
wages.
The
pooled
family
income
disappeared
and
was
replaced
by
individual
incomes
spent
on
an
individual
basis.
The
family
unit
thus
gradually
passed
from
a
primary
pa-
ternal
jurisdiction
into
the
sphere
of
secondary
community
control.
The
fiction
of
paternal
control
continued;
but
as
the
economic
independence
of
the
worker
rose,
the
actual
authority
of
the
father
fell.
Social
legislation
reached
down
into
at SAGE PUBLICATIONS on November 29, 2012ann.sagepub.comDownloaded from
To continue reading
Request your trial