The movement from traditional family norms to modern ones: a comparison of Russia and France

The article presents the comparison results of the statements about matrimony and parenthood and their determinants in Russia and France. There’s a need for analysis of the normative apprehension of modern Russians of these essential components of the institution of the family to research the processes of modernization of family, its nucleation, changing its functions, individualizing of people’s way of life in connection with new behavior stereotypes and new social norms. Cross-country comparisons allow to reveal and show the tendency of future evolution of the institution of the family in our country. In a majority of views of the Russians and the French, traditional and modern (innovative) positions are in contradiction. That way, both Russians and French, on the whole, do not consider that marriage is an outdated kind of relationships, but nevertheless, consider as normal that an unmarried couple live together, even if they do not plan to marry. The shift towards new norms of matrimony and parenthood came about in the minds of Russians later than in France, since the cultural revolution took place in the country about twenty years later. The consciousness of the majority of French generations bears the imprint of the cultural shift of the 1960s, the 1968 revolution. At the time of the survey, they were less than sixty years old. In Russia, such shift occurred in the second half of the 1980s and early 1990s. Accordingly, it touched upon generations of Russians who at the time of the survey were less than forty years old. In France, education makes the norms that a person follows, modern and liberal. In Russia, the influence of education is weaker. However, in Russia more observable is the influence of the level of education on generational sub-arrays. Thus, in the age groups of 40–49 years and 50–59 years, the effect of education is statistically significant. At the same time, as the level of education increases, traditionalism strengthens and the innovativeness of the norms of matrimony and parenthood, which Russians follow, weakens. This phenomenon is all in all consistent with the characterization of Soviet education as replicating rigidly disciplining patterns of behavior that make up the meaning of traditionalism in the sphere we contemplate.

social norms, family, parenting, socialization, cultural effects, education

1. Vishnevskiy A. G., Zakharov S. V., Ivanova E. I. Obnovleniye sem’i i braka [Renewal of family and marriage]. Demograficheskaya modernizatsiya v Rossii, 1900–2000. Ed. by. A. G. Vishnevskii. Moscow, Novoye izdatel’stvo, 2005 (in Russ.).

2. Zakharov S. V., Maleva T. M., Sinyavskaya O. V. Programma «Pokoleniya i gender» v Rossii: voprosy metodologii [The Generations and Gender Program in Russia: Methodological Issues]. Roditeli i deti, muzhchiny i zhenshchiny v sem’ye i obshchestve. Release 1. Moscow, Nezavisimyy institut sotsial’noy politiki, 2007 (in Russ.).

3. Magun V. S. Normativnyye vzglyady na sem’yu u rossiyan i frantsuzov: traditsionnoye i sovremennoye [Normative views on the family of Russians and French: traditional and modern]. Roditeli i deti, muzhchiny i zhenshchiny v sem’ye i obshchestve. Vyp. 2. Ed. by T. M. Maleva and O. V. Sinyavskaya. Moscow, Nezavisimyy institut sotsial’noy politiki, 2009 (in Russ.).

4. Thornton A.; Young-DeMarco L. Four Decades of Trends in Attitudes toward Family Issues in the United States: The 1960s through the 1990s. Journal of Marriage and Family, vol. 63, November 2001, pp. 1009–1037.

5. Vishnevskiy A. G. Vvedeniye [Introduction]. Demograficheskaya modernizatsiya v Rossii, 1900–2000. Ed. by A. G. Vishnevskii. Moscow, Novoye izdatel’stvo, 2005 (in Russ.).

6. Vovk E. «Muzh-dobytchik» i «zhena-khozyayka»: traditsionnyye semeynyye roli v normakh i praktikakh ["Husband-getter" and "wife-mistress": traditional family roles in norms and practices]. Sotsial’naya real’nost’, 2007, no 5 (in Russ.).

7. Inglehart R. Modernization and Postmodernization. Cultural, Economic and Political Change in 43 societies. Princeton, Princeton University Press, 1997.