Family Ties, por Frank Jacobs (New York Times):
The research considered family types based on two criteria. One, the relationship between parents and children. If children flee the nest at an early age, the family type can be said to be “liberal.” If they stay at home and under the authority of their parents long into adulthood, even after having married themselves, the relationship can be classified as “authoritarian.” Second criterion: the relationship among siblings. If they are treated equally (in inheritance law, for example), the relationship is classified as “equal,” but if one child is favored (the firstborn son, say), the relationship is “unequal.”
Combining the criteria results in five distinct family types:
* The “absolute nuclear” family type is both liberal and unequal. Children are totally emancipated, forming independent families of their own. The inheritance usually goes to one child, often a son.
* The “egalitarian nuclear” family type is both liberal and equal. Children are as emancipated and independent as in the previous type, but equal division of the inheritance encourages stronger parent-children relations before the passing of the parents.
* The “stem” family type is both authoritarian and unequal. Several generations live under one roof, with one child marrying to continue the line. The other children remain unmarried at home, or leave to get married.
* The “incomplete stem” family is as above, but with slightly more equal inheritance rules — an intermediate with the last family type.
* The “communitarian” family is both authoritarian and equal. All sons can marry and bring their wives into the ancestral home. The family inheritance is divided equitably among all children. (...)
Others argue that family type, even if superseded, lives on in the social structure it generates and can thus help explain present disparities in family size, wealth and inequality across Europe. The early independence of “nuclear” children made them more easily recruited for factory work than their “communitarian” counterparts, facilitating industrialization in the former areas and the persistence of agriculture in the latter. Unequal inheritance laws may have powered the drive towards education and training, making those areas better suited for switching between industries when the economic circumstances called for it.
By looking under the hood of Europe’s map, so to speak, this study may have stumbled upon one explanation for “regional disparities in Europe, which have persisted despite the interventions and transfers” of the European Union.
Para falar a verdade, essa teoria e a categorização parece-me muito fraquinha: para começar, nem é muito clara qual a diferença entre a "absolute nuclear family" e a "stem family" (afinal, se na "stem family" os filhos não-promogénitos deixam a casa dos pais se se casarem, isso não acaba por ser praticamente igual à "absolute nuclear familiy"?); e, se a revolução industrial começou numa região de "absolute nuclear family", hoje em dia as regiões mais atrasadas da Europa Ocidental parecem ser as de "egalitarian nuclear family".
Já agora, palpita-me que muito disso não passa de reflexos da estrutura de propriedade da terra - isto é, em sociedades que historicamente tenham sido de "camponeses sem terra" (sobretudo se forem trabalhadores à jorna), é natural que os filhos se tornem independentes dos pais quando começam a trabalhar; pelo contrários, nas regiões de pequena propriedade, é natural que fiquem a ajudar na quinta dos pais (a região do Portugal onde era mais tradicional o trabalho assalariado na agricultura é também aquela em que há mais nomes de família aparentemente derivados de alcunhas - será um sinal de laços intergeracionais pouco fortes, que levaria a que fosse mais comum identificar as pessoas por uma alcunha do que por um apelido vindo do trisavô?).
[O estudo original é "Family Types and the Persistence of Regional Disparities in Europe", por Gilles Duranton, Andrés Rodríguez-Pose e Richard Sandall]
No comments:
Post a Comment