Family and Kinship in East London by Michael Young; Peter WillmottReview by: Howard RoseboroughThe Canadian Journal of Economics and Political Science / Revue canadienne d'Economique etde Science politique, Vol. 25, No. 3 (Aug., 1959), pp. 369-372Published by: Wiley on behalf of Canadian Economics AssociationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/138917 .

Accessed: 14/06/2014 18:54

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

.

Wiley and Canadian Economics Association are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extendaccess to The Canadian Journal of Economics and Political Science / Revue canadienne d'Economique et deScience politique.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 62.122.72.154 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 18:54:57 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Reviews of Books Reviews of Books

means of reconciling over-all central regulation with liberty. Even federal

systems, where burgeoning central responsibilities are steadily overwhelming the sectors previously left to regional and local governments, may find in devolution a new means of preserving local autonomy.

J. R. MALLORY

McGill University

Family and Kinship in East London. By MICHAEL YOUNG and PETER WILLMOTT. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. 1957. Pp. xx, 232.

IT is of central importance in the study of social structure to distinguish between institutionalized and non-institutionalized patterns of behaviour. Yet it is a distinction which is not made carefully and consistently in much socio-

logical investigation. This book by Young and Willmott has bearing on this

problem because it raises so clearly one issue in the field of family and kinship, namely, the generality of the structural property of isolation of the nuclear

family in the kinship systems of urban, industrial societies. The property of structural isolation has been documented most adequately

for urban families, of middle-class background, living in the North Atlantic section of the United States. Whether it is a general property of kinship in industrial societies, of kinship only in urban areas of those societies, or of

kinship of only one social class in those areas and those societies requires the

collecting of more data. This book is, therefore, a very welcome addition to our

knowledge because it offers evidence about a different set of families, those of manual workers who live in the Bethnal Green section of London, England. Unfortunately, the authors do not distinguish carefully between those relational

patterns which are institutionalized and those which are not and, as a result, they do not settle the issue conclusively.

The term structural isolation is used to refer to the fact that the nuclear family, composed of parents and immature children, is not incorporated into a large unit composed of such extended kin as parent's parents, siblings, siblings' spouses and children; rather, these various nuclear families are structurally separate and distinct from each other. The property can be observed by comparison with other types of kinship systems. Nuclear families are in- corporated into larger kin units by means of the institutionalization of certain family relationships which stress either generational or collateral solidarity, or both, especially those relationships having to do with inheritance, marriage, residence, and authority. Where these kinds of relationships are not institu- tionalized to promote such solidarity, the kinship system has the property of structural isolation. The presence of the property of structural isolation does not mean that the nuclear families are isolated from all meaningful contact with their relatives. It means only that many of the relationships, insti- tutionalized in other types of kinship systems, will remain relatively loose, and may vary from family to family over a wide range from virtually complete absence of contact to frequent and intimate kinds of contact. It is for this reason that specifying precisely which patterns are institutionalized and which are not is so important.

means of reconciling over-all central regulation with liberty. Even federal

systems, where burgeoning central responsibilities are steadily overwhelming the sectors previously left to regional and local governments, may find in devolution a new means of preserving local autonomy.

J. R. MALLORY

McGill University

Family and Kinship in East London. By MICHAEL YOUNG and PETER WILLMOTT. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. 1957. Pp. xx, 232.

IT is of central importance in the study of social structure to distinguish between institutionalized and non-institutionalized patterns of behaviour. Yet it is a distinction which is not made carefully and consistently in much socio-

logical investigation. This book by Young and Willmott has bearing on this

problem because it raises so clearly one issue in the field of family and kinship, namely, the generality of the structural property of isolation of the nuclear

family in the kinship systems of urban, industrial societies. The property of structural isolation has been documented most adequately

for urban families, of middle-class background, living in the North Atlantic section of the United States. Whether it is a general property of kinship in industrial societies, of kinship only in urban areas of those societies, or of

kinship of only one social class in those areas and those societies requires the

collecting of more data. This book is, therefore, a very welcome addition to our

knowledge because it offers evidence about a different set of families, those of manual workers who live in the Bethnal Green section of London, England. Unfortunately, the authors do not distinguish carefully between those relational

patterns which are institutionalized and those which are not and, as a result, they do not settle the issue conclusively.

The term structural isolation is used to refer to the fact that the nuclear family, composed of parents and immature children, is not incorporated into a large unit composed of such extended kin as parent's parents, siblings, siblings' spouses and children; rather, these various nuclear families are structurally separate and distinct from each other. The property can be observed by comparison with other types of kinship systems. Nuclear families are in- corporated into larger kin units by means of the institutionalization of certain family relationships which stress either generational or collateral solidarity, or both, especially those relationships having to do with inheritance, marriage, residence, and authority. Where these kinds of relationships are not institu- tionalized to promote such solidarity, the kinship system has the property of structural isolation. The presence of the property of structural isolation does not mean that the nuclear families are isolated from all meaningful contact with their relatives. It means only that many of the relationships, insti- tutionalized in other types of kinship systems, will remain relatively loose, and may vary from family to family over a wide range from virtually complete absence of contact to frequent and intimate kinds of contact. It is for this reason that specifying precisely which patterns are institutionalized and which are not is so important.

369 369

This content downloaded from 62.122.72.154 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 18:54:57 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Canadian Journal of Economics and Political Science

Young and Willmott devote the greater part of their attention to the nature and extent of the contacts which the Bethnal Green families have with their various kinds of relatives. Using a random sample of 933 adults who live in Bethnal Green and a sub-sample of 45 married couples, with two or more children under the age of 15 years, and subjecting these couples to more intensive interviewing, they show that relationships with members of the extended kin group play a large part in the lives of the people, that the

relationship of mother and married daughter is particularly important, that 'mum" and her home remain the centre of the extended kin group, and that relatives are also friends; in fact, the most important friends that these people have. Non-kin are friends in the sense that one meets them in the streets, the stores, and the pubs, but only relatives are invited into one's home. And it is

primarily to relatives, especially "mum," that one goes for help, advice, and talk.

The first part of the book presents the material about persons living in Bethnal Green. The authors use both statistical and illustrative data to support the above statements as well as many others of a similar kind. Their use of their material provides the reader with more than a dreary enumeration of facts; one begins to "feel" a sense of the neighbourhood. The second part of the book is concerned primarily with some families who live in Greenleigh, a public housing development in Essex, on the outskirts of London, about twenty miles from Bethnal Green. Greenleigh is a development into which some of the people of Bethnal Green have moved and the authors' interests are centred on what has happened to their contacts with relatives because of their move. They use a sample of 47 families containing parents who have moved from Bethnal Green, with two or more children under the age of 15 years, and they interview these parents at two periods of time, two years apart. Despite the short distance and despite the fact that the "tube" connects Green-

leigh with London, these families, or more accurately, the wives and children, do not see their relatives in Bethnal Green frequently. Perhaps the most

striking finding is that the wives see no one else either. Presumably if one is

brought up to believe that one's friends are also one's relatives, a redefinition of who can be one's friends is difficult if not impossible to make. Wives and husbands regard their neighbours who are not kin critically and with sus-

picion. They have little contact with them, except of an invidiously comparative kind. The members of the nuclear family, especially the wives, and husbands when they are at home, do in fact become isolated, turning in upon them- selves and viewing the world through their television screen. We are not told about the contacts which the children make. . The frequency of contact between kin and the kinds of contact described

here might lead one to conclude that kinship structure in Bethnal Green differs considerably from that in cities in the North Atlantic area of the United States; the nuclear family is not structurally isolated from the wider kinship network in Bethnal Green. But the evidence is conflicting because the authors do not distinguish carefully between behaviour patterns which are insti- tutionalized and patterns which are not. One cannot be certain about which

patterns the majority of people feel ought to be followed and for which

370

This content downloaded from 62.122.72.154 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 18:54:57 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

various sanctions are present for compliance and non-compliance. The men of Bethnal Green have manual occupations for the most part. There is some evidence of father-son succession in occupations although the data are in- adequate and the authors point out that this kind of "inheritance" is not as prevalent now as it has been in the past. Residence tends to be matrilocal with "mum" putting in a good word with the housing agents for her married daughters. Yet little evidence is offered about how people feel when mothers do not do this or when children choose to live where they themselves decide. Some sons-in-law fit easily and without protest into their wives' families of orientation; others resent the influence which "mum" has and feel that their wives ought not to rely on her so fully or spend so much time with her, which suggests that their image of what a family ought to be like involves less of relatives. Those families who have moved to Greenleigh explain the move as one which is "better for the kiddies," although some have moved to remain near relatives while others have moved to get away from relatives. There is some evidence that the husband-wife relationship is more important now than it has been in the past: for example, the growing presence of house- hold-help patterns. There is some evidence that the parent-immature child relationship takes precedence over the more general parent-child relationship. The evidence on marriage rules and patterns of authority is scanty so that we cannot be certain of the extent of the influence which kin have on a child's choice of mate, in marital fights and potential break-ups, or on decisions with respect to family size. We are told of daughters who fight permanently with their families of orientation and have nothing to do with them even though living near them; yet we are not told whether this is considered deviant behaviour. We are told of children who have moved not only out of Bethnal Green but upwards socially and of how some reject and are rejected by their less successful relatives, while others have "mum" move away with them and she too sees little of the relatives left behind. We are told of daughters who are prevented by their parents from taking advantage of more advanced education because the parents feel that this is not right for Bethnal Green people yet we are also told of children who are encouraged by their parents to continue in school. The evidence, in other words, is inconclusive. Whether structural isolation is a property of the kinship system of only one social class in one kind of urban industrial society or a property of the kinship system of other social classes in other urban communities cannot be decided with the material presented here.

Another criticism, related to this, has to do with the treatment the authors give to the idea of space. As has been said, the authors show that a movement of families to Greenleigh means a large reduction in their frequency of con- tact with relatives remaining in Bethnal Green. In a small and, as the authors themselves point out, inadequate study of married women, born in Bethnal Green but more highly educated than is usual in that community and living in higher-class communities outside of Bethnal Green, they find that contact with relatives in Bethnal Green has the same order of frequency as is true for the women of Greenleigh. They conclude that distance is a main determi- nant of contact. But space as such is not sociologically important. It is the

Reviews of Books 371

This content downloaded from 62.122.72.154 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 18:54:57 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Canadian Journal of Economics and Political Science Canadian Journal of Economics and Political Science

meaning given to space and the social obligations involved in space that are

significant. So, as the authors describe, a distance requiring a five-minute walk can be viewed as sufficient to avoid one's rejected wife; the distance from the East end to the West end of London can be regarded as so great that some residents of Bethnal Green seldom travel it. The distance from Greenleigh to Bethnal Green is travelled daily by husbands whose family obligations on the one hand and whose occupational obligations on the other require their presence in both places. The same distance is infrequently travelled by their wives whose obligations are presumably concentrated more completely on kin and who complain of the size of the fare. It would be interesting to know whether, if given the fare, these women would travel the distance more

frequently or whether the fare price would be diverted to goods and services which fulfil other and perhaps more important obligations. A distance of

twenty miles may in fact provide an excellent excuse for not fulfilling obli-

gations which one does not wish to fulfil or which one does not need to fulfil. Since the authors focus their attention on space itself, we are given little information about the differences in meaning that space has for the Greenleigh women and for the women who have moved up from as well as out of Bethnal Green. Perhaps a solution to the structural isolation problem could have been advanced if we had been.

It has been possible to be critical of this book by Young and Willmott

precisely because it is such a very good book and because it raises so clearly these kinds of theoretical issues. As a case study of a particular community it is a valuable addition to the descriptive literature of sociology. It is made more valuable by the inclusion of ten appendices in which the methods, questionnaires, and other techniques of the authors are described in detail. The field of sociology needs many more studies of this kind.

HOWARD ROSEBOROUGH McGill University

Etudes sur le Canada franfais. By PHILIPPE GARIGUE. Montreal: Faculte des

Sciences Sociales, ltconomiques et Politiques, Universite de Montreal. 1958. Pp. 111.

THIS collection of essays represents a twofold contribution to the sociology of French Canada. In the first place it presents the results of most valuable an-

thropological field work carried out by the author in various parts of Quebec- Montreal, the parish of St Justin, and the northern mining town of Schefferville -in addition to more general essays on the problem of the elite, the French- Canadian family, and the history of continuity and change in rural French Canada. The conclusion of the last-mentioned essay is "that rural French Canadians held beliefs they shared with urban French Canadians, and that the

pattern of social institutions had prevented the rise of a specific rural culture. It has been suggested that the urbanization of rural Quebec took place without

giving rise to important frictions and tensions because of the over-all similarity in ways of life. Furthermore, it has also been suggested that French Canadian culture already had incorporated within itself all the elements necessary for

meaning given to space and the social obligations involved in space that are

significant. So, as the authors describe, a distance requiring a five-minute walk can be viewed as sufficient to avoid one's rejected wife; the distance from the East end to the West end of London can be regarded as so great that some residents of Bethnal Green seldom travel it. The distance from Greenleigh to Bethnal Green is travelled daily by husbands whose family obligations on the one hand and whose occupational obligations on the other require their presence in both places. The same distance is infrequently travelled by their wives whose obligations are presumably concentrated more completely on kin and who complain of the size of the fare. It would be interesting to know whether, if given the fare, these women would travel the distance more

frequently or whether the fare price would be diverted to goods and services which fulfil other and perhaps more important obligations. A distance of

twenty miles may in fact provide an excellent excuse for not fulfilling obli-

gations which one does not wish to fulfil or which one does not need to fulfil. Since the authors focus their attention on space itself, we are given little information about the differences in meaning that space has for the Greenleigh women and for the women who have moved up from as well as out of Bethnal Green. Perhaps a solution to the structural isolation problem could have been advanced if we had been.

It has been possible to be critical of this book by Young and Willmott

precisely because it is such a very good book and because it raises so clearly these kinds of theoretical issues. As a case study of a particular community it is a valuable addition to the descriptive literature of sociology. It is made more valuable by the inclusion of ten appendices in which the methods, questionnaires, and other techniques of the authors are described in detail. The field of sociology needs many more studies of this kind.

HOWARD ROSEBOROUGH McGill University

Etudes sur le Canada franfais. By PHILIPPE GARIGUE. Montreal: Faculte des

Sciences Sociales, ltconomiques et Politiques, Universite de Montreal. 1958. Pp. 111.

THIS collection of essays represents a twofold contribution to the sociology of French Canada. In the first place it presents the results of most valuable an-

thropological field work carried out by the author in various parts of Quebec- Montreal, the parish of St Justin, and the northern mining town of Schefferville -in addition to more general essays on the problem of the elite, the French- Canadian family, and the history of continuity and change in rural French Canada. The conclusion of the last-mentioned essay is "that rural French Canadians held beliefs they shared with urban French Canadians, and that the

pattern of social institutions had prevented the rise of a specific rural culture. It has been suggested that the urbanization of rural Quebec took place without

giving rise to important frictions and tensions because of the over-all similarity in ways of life. Furthermore, it has also been suggested that French Canadian culture already had incorporated within itself all the elements necessary for

372 372

This content downloaded from 62.122.72.154 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 18:54:57 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions