We propose you a correction in the form of a question Does the family have a future? .
We had seen right in our training subjects, with a particularly close question: The mutations of the family in the 21st century. It is this evolution of the family that we will discuss here.
Introduction
As a hook, you could evoke many subjects. Many people will have thought of the protest for all, but you could be more original by introducing the question with a statistic or a quote.
Definitions
Family: See the definitions on family. Be careful, this step is particularly important, it is what will guide the whole assignment! What is the family today, isn’t the conception we had of it disappearing or being transformed? It was necessary to specify that the question of the definition of the family was the very issue that would be the object of the development of the essay.
Future: It is a question of future events in a basic way, but also of those who will live later, the future generations (social dimension).
Problematic
The question that pinpoints the problem is clear and limpid, there is no trap here. What will the family be in the future? We must understand by this not predictions, free speculations, but it is necessary to explain why the question arises. Why a reflection on the future of the family is necessary. It is not therefore with hypotheses that it will be necessary to devote itself in this dissertation, it is not an exercise of divination, but it is an existential question of our current society which is posed. The family seems to be in crisis. It is this aspect that must be noted and underlined in your question that pinpoints the problem, it is what must appear: the symptoms of this crisis, and it is on purpose that we use the word symptom, the crisis coming etymologically from the medical field. Finally, it is a question of introducing a temporality into your question that pinpoints the problem, of showing that there is evolution, and not a fixed situation.
To what extent does the crisis of the family in contemporary times reflect, through its symptoms, the ongoing transformation of what the family is?
Development
Many outlines were possible, here is the one we propose.
I. The family roots
By playing on the word root, we can evoke both what the family is in that it is anchored in a conception of a historical nature, but also in that it is itself a search for the links that unite us to other people, to our past.
A. The roots of the family
The etymology and history of the word family, which originally meant servant.
The family would be a natural, ancient and indisputable form: “The oldest of all societies, and the only natural one, is that of the family” Jean-Jacques Rousseau, The Social Contract, Book I, Chapter II, 1762.
B. The uprooting of the family
Society seems to want to take over from the family. The family is the object of hatred:
- ” Families I hate you! Closed homes, closed doors, jealous possessions of happiness,” André Gide, Les Nourritures terrestres, 1897
- “. Where can one be better than in a family? Anywhere else!” Hervé Bazin, Viper in the Fist, 1948
And the family is also the one that produces hatred, rejection: Family rejection (Metamorphosis – Kafka)
II. Family uprooting as a future?
A. Dissolution or transformation of the family?
The family model seems to be challenged today:
- In French households, the traditional family is gradually being replaced by
- Denuclearization of the family
- The share of births outside marriage is increasing in France (1994–2013)
Is it just a matter of the family disappearing, of the boundaries of the family disappearing, or rather of a transformation: it would be the very essence of the family that would change?
B. When society plays on ideological influences on the family
In 1792, the law of September 20 established civil marriage and authorized divorce in France. Marriage was institutionalized, the family was institutionalized.
The intervention of the State in the family, in the home, is not unprecedented, but the question arises as to its role as the author of the transformation of the family: this is what we will develop and discuss here, in the light of a few dates that illustrate State interventionism in the family.
But it is rather in the struggle of influences between social mores, religions, and States, interdependent one of the others, that we must read the future of the family. The respective weights of these authorities seem to predict the evolution that the family will follow, which depends on them.
The conclusion could also include an opening on a limitation of the essay that has just been written and that is nevertheless fundamental: the ethnocentrism at work when it comes to defining the concept of family. It would be good to see to what extent the family remains linked to human groups, to their conceptions, and how it can be defined accordingly.
→ Correction of the question Globalization and contestations
→ Family rejection (The Metamorphosis – Kafka)
→ General Knowledge: the Family
Good morning! For my part I did not approach the question with an outline built in this way and follows me rather inspired by the method of philosophy, what do you think? I / The family model seems in danger for many in this part I expose this point of view, speaking of the very frequent divorces, of homosexual marriage, of the tendency to the so-called Anglo-Saxon family model, where blood ties are not predominant on emotional ties (unlike the Hispanic model, which is a very close-knit family model regardless of the emotional ties between the members) etc…, and I point out that it is ultimately not the family that is threatened, but the traditional model (which I quickly defined as being a family made up of two married heterosexual parents and their children) II/ The traditional model is not the only model that exists or has existed this part serves as my transition in order to lead to my third part. my arguments/examples: the origins of the term family, which basically had another meaning, the example of African or Native American tribes where the family does not exist as we understand it, and the tribe represents the family (almost no distinction between his child and that of others, for example), and the example of boarding schools and nannies (in the time of the nobility, for example). In short, this part allows me to question the universality/timelessness of the traditional family that the first thesis could defend. III/ The family absolutely does not tend to disappear, but to evolve. I think the title speaks for itself there, without going into details. I also proposed the idea of an evolution which would tend more and more towards an emotional family and not of blood. conclusion: certainly the traditional model tends to become less and less minority, but in no case the family is doomed to disappear. I hope I’m not too confused, thank you for your correction!
Hello, is an outline of the following type coherent? I) The family as it is traditionally conceived (individuals united by ties of marriage and blood) is in crisis and its future seems compromised II) It nevertheless remains an important value that both the State and individuals wish to preserve and preserve (place of socialization, education, protection against totalitarianism, the family is at the foundation of society III) Also, the new forms of family (combined, homoparental) do not compromise the future of the family, but on the contrary they are what allows it to remain a fundamental institution by adapting to a society in perpetual change (faced with the rise of individualism, the desire to free oneself from the constraints of marriage = creation of the PACS. ..) Thank you in advance and thank you for your correction!