The oedpidal family model and fascismThe model, common in the western societies, of the family triangle, husband-wife-children isolated from the outside, is also called the oedipal model of the family, and it is a form of patriarchal family. Many philosophers and psychiatrists analyzed such a model. One of the most prominent of such studies is Anti-Œdipus by Deleuze and Guattari (1972). Michel Foucault, in its renowned preface, remarked how the primary focus of this study is the fight against contemporary fascism.
And not only historical fascism, the fascism of Hitler and Mussolini […] but also the fascism in us all, in our heads and in our everyday behavior, the fascism that causes us to love power, to desire the very thing that dominates and exploits us.
In the family, they argue, the young develop in a perverse relationship, wherein they learn to love the same person who beats and oppresses them. The family therefore constitutes the first cell of the fascist society, as they will carry this attitude of love for oppressive figures in their adult life. Fathers torment their sons. Deleuze and Guattari, in their analysis of the dynamics at work within a family, “track down all varieties of fascism, from the enormous ones that surround and crush us to the petty ones that constitute the tyrannical bitterness of our everyday lives”.
As it has been explained by Deleuze, Guattari and Foucault, as well as other philosophers and psychiatrists such as Laing and Reich, the patriarchal-family conceived in the West tradition serves the purpose of perpetuating a propertarian and authoritarian society. The child grows according to the oedipal model, which is typical of the structure of capitalist societies, and he becomes in turn owner of submissive children and protector of the woman.
Some argue that the family institution conflicts with human nature and human primitive desires and that one of its core functions is performing a suppression of instincts, a repression of desire commencing with the earliest age of the child. As the young undergoes physical and psychological repression from someone for whom they develop love, they develop a loving attitude towards authority figures. They will bring such attitude in their adult life, when they will desire social repression and will form docile subjects for society. Michel Foucault, in his systematic study of sexuality, argued that rather than being merely repressed, the desires of the individual are efficiently mobilized and used, to control the individual, alter interpersonal relationships and control the masses. Foucault believed organized religion, through moral prohibitions, and economic powers, through advertising, make use of unconscious sex drives. Dominating desire, they dominate individuals. According to the analysis of Michel Foucault, in the west:
the [conjugal] family organization, precisely to the extent that it was insular and heteromorphous with respect to the other power mechanisms, was used to support the great “maneuvers” employed for the Malthusian control of the birthrate, for the populationist incitements, for the medicalization of sex and the psychiatrization of its nongenital forms.
—Michel Foucault, The History of Sexuality vol I, chap. IV, sect. Method, rule 3, p. 99
The post-modern family
Over 30 years ago, C. Wright Mills (1959) described the post-modern period as one in which the economy would shift employment from heavy industry to non-unionized clerical, service, and new industrial sectors. He foresaw the rise of multinational corporations, trouble in the social welfare system, and decline in human freedom and choice. At that time he wondered how the human family would respond to and adjust to this new period in world history.
Post-modernism, by no means simple to define, is characterized by a “close reading” of small units rather than general theorizing about big ideas. The postmodern tends towards elaboration, eclecticism, ornamentation, and inclusiveness; it dismisses the existence of an absolute reality and is deeply suspicious of the concept of human progress (Doherty 1991). If we define the current ongoing effort to remake contemporary family life as the post-modern family, such a definition carries with it overtones from the definition of postmodern art and literature. In these fields the term post-modern signals the end of a familiar pattern of activity and emergence of new areas of endeavour whose activities are unclear and whose meanings and implications are not yet well understood. Thus, the post-modern is characterized by uncertainty, insecurity, and doubt (Stacey 1990).
Full consensus on the definition of the emerging post-modern family structure has not been reached, despite recognition of the need for better understanding of the variety of human families in the post-modern period and insight into how large-scale social patterns affect personal and domestic relationships (Hossfeld 1991).
The post-modern world is shaped by pluralism, democracy, religious freedom, consumerism, mobility, and increasing access to news and entertainment. Residents of this post-modern world are able to see that there are many beliefs, multiple realities, and an exhilarating but daunting profusion of world views – a society that has lost its faith in absolute truth and in which people have to choose what to believe (O’Hare and Anderson 1991).
In the 1970s, Shorter (1975) may have been the first to describe the emerging post-modern family. He noted three important characteristics: adolescent indifference to the family’s identity; instability in the lives of couples, accompanied by rapidly increasing divorce rates; and destruction of the “nest” notion of nuclear family life with the liberation of women. At that time, Shorter noted little change in patterns of child socialization. The dramatic shift from mothers caring for young children in the home to the use of paid providers occurred soon after in the developed world, reflecting mothers’ increasing workplace participation.
While single-parent, surrogate-mother, and gay and lesbian families, and other variants of the post-modern family may be viewed as the negative results of the trends described above, or as breakdown products, they also reflect the following:
1. Disillusionment with the optimistic assumptions of human progress and with the universality and the regularity of the laws of science; hence, lack of faith in the previously established order.
2. The uncoupling of economic forces underlying social conformity, such as the need for women to marry advantageously to survive financially and to transmit their class status to the next generation, or the need to bear children in wedlock for them to inherit family land or other property that would be their source of livelihood.
3. The influence of the electronic media, which both reflect and legitimize family diversity.
In addition to reducing the separations that can be imposed between people by physical distance, physical barriers, and social barriers, electronic communications and other media also foster anonymous intimacy through radio talk shows, advice columns, electronic mail, computer bulletin boards, and commercially provided advisory/counseling and other personal services available in the United States through area code 900. This relatively anonymous and instant intimacy in turn becomes a new basis for anonymous face-to-face social support, in which no names are mentioned, through 12-step programs and similar self-help movements.
On-site day care, personal computers, electronic communications that permit work at home, and the lack of a defined working day for the higher occupational classes progressively blur the boundaries between the workplace and the home. This interpenetration of home, work, and global media coverage creates the permeability of the post-modern family. The media gather the post-modern family around the campfire of the global village, bringing the outside world into the living room and the bedroom.
Gergen (1991) has described the emerging family form as “the saturated family,” whose members feel their lives scattering in intensified busyness. In addition to absorbing exposure to myriad values, attitudes, opinions, lifestyles, and personalities, family members have become embedded in a multiplicity of relationships. The technologies of social saturation (e.g. the car, telephone, television, and jet plane) have created family turmoil and a sense of fragmentation, chaos, and discontinuity.
The home, no longer a refuge of harmony, serenity, and understanding, may become the site of confrontation between people of different ages and genders, who have personal ideologies and social affiliations that are as diversely suspended as exotic species in a tropical rain forest. Human potential organizations, such as Landmark Education, ease this jangling overload by holding workshops in which participants learn to perceive their personal past history to be as mechanical and meaningless as television images. The human potential movements redefine personal identity in terms of the individual’s choice of commitment to future goals.
The post-modern child
Children growing up in the post-modern family have been called post-modern children. Parents in the post-modern family may relinquish their roles as educators (Shorter 1975). For many post-modern children there is dual socialization by family and day-care provider. For example, in the Nordic welfare states, the family has been described as an intimacy sanctuary and a zone of stability while daycare centers develop the child’s capacity to exercise self-control with respect to affective behavior. The post-modern child is required to make continuous flexible adjustments between these spheres (Denick 1989).
With child care shared between family and day care, new problems have arisen. While some children thrive on dual socialization, others languish, unable to adjust to either environment or to the demands of daily transition from one environment to the other. The young child may be unable to form the necessary communication link between the two environments. Responsibilities may not be divided clearly between home and day-care center; as a result, neither may provide some crucial aspects of child-rearing. For example, in the United States, neither the day-care center nor working parents may perceive themselves in charge of helping the child to develop the capacity to exercise self-control nor of teaching the child basic social comportment, such as table manners, greeting rituals, narration of daily events, and interview skills required for social orientation and reconnaissance.
In the United States, concerns have been expressed about children raised in impoverished single-parent households by young mothers who are still children themselves. According to Elkind (1981), there also are problems with post-modern children of middle-class families as permeable families “hurry” their children to take on the physical, social, and psychological trappings of adulthood before they are prepared to deal with them. Permeable families tend to thrust children and teenagers forward to deal with realities of the outside world at ever-earlier ages, perceiving them as competent to deal with the steady diet of overt violence, sexuality, substance abuse, and environmental degradation that they view on television. Such abuses in the United States and Europe often translate into worse abuses in poor neighborhoods of large third world cities, where unsupervised children of all ages are lured, together with adults, into watching sexually explicit “adult videos” for the equivalent of a few pennies (Dr. Tade Akin Aina 1992, personal communication). Countries such as the United States, as well as places in the developing world that have departed most widely from institutional family values, appear to be particularly vulnerable to such abuses in the post-modern era. Both Elkind (1981) and Spock and Rothenberg (1992) deplore the tendency of parents to rush children into adult roles.
Although parents remain very concerned about their children in the postmodern world, perceptions of parenting have changed. In the modern era, parenting was intuitive and child-health professionals guided parents by teaching them the general norms of development. The focus of parent education was development of the whole child. In contrast, parenting in the post-modern world is perceived as a learned technique with specific strategies for dealing with particular issues. The target has shifted from the whole child to developing the child’s positive sense of self-esteem. In the modern era, parents made the effort to fit advice to the particular needs of the child; Elkind (1992) points out that the directive post-modern techniques may be easier for parents but the child may be deprived of customized treatment. Moreover, he strongly believes that the focus on the whole child should not be lost.
Certainly, the nuclear family was not perfect. In its attempts to explain the turbulence of the 1960s, the recent PBS documentary “Making Sense of the Sixties” powerfully indicted the stifling, conventional, and rigid nature of the nuclear family of the 1950s. The revolution that led to post-modern life corrected old imbalances in society through de-differentiation of parental and gender roles. Yet these radical social changes may have created new imbalances by increasing demands on children and adolescents.
Post-modern life appears to reverse, or de-differentiate, many characteristics of the modern family back to pre-modern lifestyles and values, as shown in table 2.1, re-creating at the level of electronic images and on a global scale certain aspects of the undifferentiated life of the pre-modern village. Nevertheless, there remain quantum differences between pre- and post-modern lifestyles (table 2.2).
Table 2.1 Similarities between post-modern and pre-modern families
|Modern||Pre- and post-modern|
|Sharp distinction between home and workplace||Workplace and home are often the same|
|Romantic love||Contractual/consensual love|
|Idealization of mother as only legitimate caretaker||Shared parenting, working mother|
|Protected late-maturing child||Early social maturation in full view of adult activities|
|Child-centered parent focused on the needs of the child||Parent-centered parent looks to child lifestyle goals, social gratification|
|Individual identity uniquely defined by personal narrative and value judgments||Identity fluidly defined by social context|
|Stormy adolescence to establish autonomy and separate identity from parents||More peaceful adolescence with less need to establish separate residence|
Table 2.2 Differences between post-modern and pre-modern families
|Largest and most dependent on kinship ties||Smallest, least dependent on kin|
|Most of life enacted on the immediate physical plane||Most of life enacted on the electronically removed, or symbolic plane|
|As illustrated by:
|Direct social encounters||Electronically mediated or symbolic encounters|
|Physical conflicts||Symbolic conflicts|
|Small number of stable physical and social contexts||Very large number of shifting physical, symbolic and social contexts|
|Low requirements for information storage processing skills||Very high requirements for abstract information storage and abstract processing|
|Compulsory participation in all aspects of communal life, lack of privacy and personal choice||Optional participation in most aspects of communal life, high levels of privacy and choice|
|Functional identity limited to small number of predetermined social roles||Identity shifts with many discontinuous obligatory and optional social roles|
|Authority figures and set rules determining what is right and wrong; literal, fundamental beliefs||Pluralistic, relativistic values, non-literal symbolic interpretations of most claims to truth|
Reach of post-modern influences into the developing world
In this global village, developing country villages, such as in the North-West Frontier Province of Pakistan, are now dotted with satellite dishes bringing in the latest news and lifestyles of the West (Dr. Hank Shumacher 1992, USAID/Peshawar, personal communication). This permeability creates great uniformity in the standards, values, and lifestyles of the middle class throughout the world. Middle-class families in Boston, Lagos, Peshawar, Bangkok, Tokyo, and Tashkent feel obliged to buy Nintendo for their children. With the Super Mario Brothers’ Nintendo game, these children are instantly at home with each other. This permeability also makes it impossible to hide from the poor the extent of their disentitlement.
Lessons from the social change literature for family social health
Ability to adapt is a major characteristic of well-functioning families during rapid social change. While flexibility may be an inborn trait, families can be assisted to adapt through social policies and programmes that facilitate change through the provision of resources and education. Equally important is an authoritative reinterpretation of traditional values to meet the needs of emerging lifestyles.
In all industrialized countries the predominant family orientation has changed over the past hundred years from the extended institutional family to the small self-contained modern or post-modern family. Positive socioeconomic development, limitation of the world’s population, and protection of the environment depend on this transition in family type. Emotionally close families that invest heavily in the care and education of their few children are needed to provide skilled labor for industrial and post-industrial technologies and for sustainable agriculture.
The literature describes a single global megatrend in family life tied to the changing child-rearing strategies of the demographic transition (Zeitlin et al. 1982, ch. 2). This trend occurs in response to industrialization and the expansion both of markets for consumer goods and of electronic communications. The majority of developing countries now are engaged, to greater or lesser degrees, in this transition from the agrarian institutional extended family to the small modern or post-modern family.
Negative aspects of the global megatrend sometimes are overwhelming. Major social dysfunction occurs when the supports needed for small families are not yet in place. Urban families in cramped quarters default on their traditional obligations to take in and house many kin. They dissolve from lack of family mediation in times of stress. The need to rely on their own children for old-age care may inhibit these families from limiting births. Over dependency on kin networks for employment leads to “amoral familism” (Banfield 1958). The practice of diverting resources that belong to public and private sector enterprises to serve one’s family, lineage, or ethnic faction is a major source of corruption and mismanagement (Babatunde 1992, 222-240). Deep disillusionment with the failure of family and state values and support systems is at the root of the “each-for himself” mentality that corrodes public life and leadership in many developing countries. Chapter 10 recommends cultural renewal and social adjustments to overcome these problems.
For developing countries, the shortest line between the pre-modern and the socially healthy post-modern family may not run through the modern family. Child-rearing advice that repeats the earlier ideological positions of the modern US family, with its high emphasis on autonomy, personal gratification, and self-expression, is called into question. From infancy onward, certain postmodern child-care routines that influence individuation and altruism may draw upon pre-modern adaptations directly, just as the post-modern pattern of sustained breast-feeding reverts to early pre-modern practices. Some “hurrying” of children also may be needed – not in social roles but in cognitive skills that contribute to life-long learning, using methods appropriate to newly discovered infant learning processes and capacities. The literature points to the need for consumer values inherent in the “good life” of the modern family to shift radically for the protection of the family itself. It calls for new definitions of progress that reverse the negative aspects of the global megatrend.
A post-modern approach to progress
This book is based on faith that a post-modern concept or process of human progress is worth working for, and that a new awareness of the importance of families lies at the heart of new world views that reverse the negative aspects of the global megatrend. For deeply rooted shifts in world views and lifestyles to occur in a sustainable fashion, they must evolve within socially healthy reproductive units, i.e. within families.
Post-modern thinkers reject modern concepts of progress based on rational projections of current economic growth, food production, and technology transfer. This rejection appears to be well founded. According to The State of the World, 1994 (Brown et al. 1994), the future rate of technological advances in global agricultural production will not keep pace with global population growth over the next 40 years. According to King (1992), many developing countries, including Nigeria, already are “trapped” by population growth that will lead to mass starvation or international welfare dependency, caused by insufficiency and environmental destruction of agricultural lands. In the view of Kaplan (1994), the combined effects of population expansion and a shrinking resource base will destabilize and reshape political and social structures at many levels.
Environmental advocates (Durning 1992) make a well-documented case that the rate at which consumer lifestyles use global resources is unsustainable for industrialized countries and untransferable to underdeveloped countries. Recent scientific discoveries reveal, for example, that routine use of the chemical fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides, plastics, and detergents that are the technological foundation for middle-class family lifestyles may significantly impair the reproductive ability of both wildlife and humans and may impair neurological integrity through a wide variety of chemicals that replace or amplify pathologically the normal effects of the female hormone, oestrogen (Wiles and Campbell 1993; Ginsberg et al. 1994; Raloff 1994). These writers agree that a major and as yet unclear shift in values – as expressed in titles such as The Great U-Turn (Goldsmith 1988) – may be needed if current destructive trends are to be reversed. Deep pessimism grows from the perception that the changes needed run counter to the rules of economics and human nature as modernist theories understand them (Brown et al. 1994).
Post-modern deconstruction clears the slate for the fundamental regrouping or reconstruction of reality into new underlying constructs and new paradigms. We may apply the word “progress” to reconstruction that is directed towards, and successful in, achieving improvement in various aspects of quality of life, viewed in a global perspective. Such a process of reconstruction produces new lenses through which we view the world, rather than new conclusions based on old premises. We step outside language when we deconstruct it (Anderson 1990). According to contemporary philosopher Richard Rorty (1989),
a talent for speaking differently, rather than for arguing well, is the chief instrument of cultural change … it is the vocabulary itself which must be addressed … The method is to redescribe … things in new ways, until you have created a pattern of linguistic behavior which will tempt the rising generation to adopt it, thereby causing them to look for appropriate new forms of nonlinguistic behavior, for example, the adoption of new scientific equipment or new social institutions. (Rorty 1989)
Post-modern progress requires a continuing, ongoing “stepping out” of old reality constructs to engage in the social construction of reality (Anderson 1990). The type of fine-grained and eclectic attention provided in this piece to the internal and external dynamics of families is, we hope, an example of the postmodern process through which progress is constructed.
Aina, T.A., M.F. Zeitlin, K. Setiloane, and H. Armstrong. 1992. “Phase I Survey Results: Positive Deviance in Nutrition Research Project, Lagos State, Nigeria.” Draft Report to UNICEF.
Anderson, W.T. 1990. Reality Isn’t What it Used to Be. San Francisco: Harper and Row.
Babatunde, E.D. 1992. A Critical Study of Bini and Yoruba Value Systems in Change: Culture, Religion and the Self. Lewiston, NY: The Edwin Mellen Press.
Bane, M.J. 1986. “Household Composition and Poverty.” In: S.H. Danzinger and D.H. Weinberg, eds. Fighting Poverty. Mass.: Harvard University Press, pp. 209231.
Banfield, E. 1958. The Moral Basis of a Backward Society. Glencoe, Ill.: Free Press.
Becker, W.C., and R.S. Krug, 1964. “A Circumplex Model for Social Behavior in Children. “Child Development 35: 391-396.
Bledsoe, C. 1990. “Transformations in Sub-Saharan African Marriage and Fertility. “Annals, AAPSS 510: 115-125.
Boserup, E. 1970. “Women in the Urban Hierarchy.” In: Women’s Role in Economic Development. New York: St. Martin’s Press, pp. 139-156.
Bradford, L.J., and C. Raines. 1992. Twentysomething: Managing and Motivating Today’s New Workforce. New York: Master Media.
Bronfenbrenner, U. 1963. “The Changing American Child: A Speculative Analysis.” In: Smelser, N.J. and W.T. Smelser, eds. Personality and Social System. New York: Wiley.
Brown, L., A. Durning, C. Flavin, H. French, N. Lenssen, M. Lowe, A. Misch, S. Postel, M. Renner, L. Starke, P. Weber, and J. Young. 1994. State of the World 1994; a Worldwatch Institute Report on Progress Toward a Sustainable Society. New York: Norton.
Burgess, E.W., and H.J. Locke. 1953. The Family: From Institution to Companionship. New York: American Book Co.
Buvinic, M. 1992. “Social Variables in Poverty Research: Example from a Case Study on the Intergenerational Transmission of Poverty in Santiago, Chile.” Paper prepared for presentation at IFPRI-World Bank Conference on Intrahousehold Resource Allocation: Policies and Research Methods, 12-14 February 1992, IFPRI, Washington, DC.
Caldwell, J.C., and P. Caldwell. 1977. “The Economic Rationale of High Fertility: An Investigation Illustrated with Nigerian Survey Data.” Population Study 31: 5 – 27.
-, and -. 1990. “High Fertility in Sub-Saharan Africa.” Scientific American (May): 118-125.
Danzinger, K. 1960a. “Independence Training and Social Class in Java, Indonesia.” Journal of Social Psychology 51: 65-74.
-. 1960b. “Parental Demands and Social Class in Java, Indonesia.” Journal of Social Psychology 51: 75-86.
Deng, F.M. 1972. The Dinka of the Sudan. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
Denick, L. 1989. “Growing Up in the Post-Modern Age: On the Child’s Situation in the Modern Family, and on the Position of the Family in the Modern Welfare State.” Acta Sociologica 32: 155-180.
Dertouzos, M.L. 1989. Made in America: Regaining the Productive Edge. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
DHSL/lnstitute of Population Studies. 1992. Demographic and Health Surveys of Pakistan, 1990-91, Columbia, Md.: IRD/Macro Systems.
Dizard, J.E., and H. Gadlin, 1990. The Minimal Family. Amherst, Mass.: University of Amherst Press.
Doherty, W.J. 1991. “Family Therapy Goes Postmodern.” Networker, September/ October.
-. 1992. “Private Lives, Public Values.” Psychology Today, May/June 32-37. Durning, A.T. 1992. How Much is Enough? The Consumer Society and the Future of the Earth. World Watch Environmental Alert Series. New York: Norton.
Elkind, D. 1981. The Hurried Child. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley.
-. 1992. The Post-modern Family, A New Imbalance. New York: Knopf.
Gergen, K.J. 1991. “The Saturated Family.” Networker, September/October.
Ginsberg, J. and others. 1994. “Letter to the Editor, Residence in the London Area and Sperm Density,” Lancet 343(1191): 230.
Goldsmith, E. 1988. The Great U-Turn; Deindustrializing Society. New York: Bootstrap Press.
Grindal, B. 1972. Growing Up in Two Worlds: Education and Transition Among the Sisala of Northern Ghana. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
Gussler, J.D. 1975. “Adaptive Strategies and Social Networks of Women in St. Kitts.” In: B. Bourguigno, ed. A World of Women. New York: Praeger, pp. 185209.
Guyer, J.I. 1990. Changing Nuptuality in a Nigerian Community: Observations from the Field, Working Papers in African Studies, No. 146. Boston, Mass.: African Studies Center.
Hareven, T.K. 1987. “Historical Analysis of the Family.” In: M.B. Sussman and S.K. Steinmetz, eds. Handbook of Marriage and the Family. New York: Plenum Press, pp. 37-55.
Hirsch, F.1976. Social Limits to Growth. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
Holtzman, W.H., R. Diaz-Guerrerro, and J.D. Swartz. 1975. Personality Development in Two Cultures: A Cross-cultural Longitudinal Study of School Children in Mexico and the United States. Austin, Tex.: University of Texas Press.
Hossfeld, K.J. 1991. “Pondering the Post-modern Family.” Socialist Review 3-4: 187-194.
Kaplan, R.D. 1994. “The Coming Anarchy.” Atlantic Monthly (Feb. 1994), 44-76.
King, M. 1992. “Human Entrapment in India.” National Medical Journal of India 4: 196-201.
Langman, L. 1987. “Social Stratification.” In: M.G. Sussman and S.K. Steinmetz, eds. Handbook of Marriage and the Family. New York: Plenum Press, pp. 211-246.
Lasch, C. 1977. Haven in a Heartless World. New York: Basic Books.
LeVine, R.A. 1974. “Parental Goals: A Crosscultural View.” Teachers College Records 76:2.
-, N.H. Klein, and C.H. Fries. 1967. “Father-Child Relationships and Changing Lifestyles in Ibadan.” In: H. Miner, ed. The City in Modern Africa. New York: Praeger, pp. 215-255.
-, P.M. Miller, and M.M. West, eds. 1988. Parental Behavior in Diverse Societies. New Directions for Child Development, Number 40. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
-, S.E. LeVine, R. Richman, F.M. Tapia Uribe, C. Sunderland Correa, and P.M. Miller. 1991. “Women’s Schooling and Child Care in the Demographic Transition: A Mexican Case Study.” Population and Development Review 17: 459496.
Lloyd, B.B. 1966. “Education in Family Life in the Development of Class Identification Among the Yoruba.” In: P.C. Lloyd, ed. New Elites of Tropical Africa. London: Oxford University Press, pp. 163-183.
-. 1970. “Yoruba Mothers’ Reports of Child-rearing, Some Theoretical and Methodological Considerations.” In: P. Mayer, ed. Socialization, the Approach from Social Anthropology. New York: Tavistock, pp. 75-108.
Maccoby, E.E. 1966. The Development of Sex Differences. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press.
Mills, C.W. 1959. The Sociological Imagination. New York: Grove Press.
O’Hara, M., and W.T. Anderson. 1991. “Welcome to the Postmodern World.” Networker, September/October.
Pitkin, D.S. 1986. The House that Giacomo Built. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Prothro, E.T. 1962. Child Rearing in Lebanon. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
Quale, G.R. 1988. A History of Marriage Systems. Contributions in Family Studies, Number 13. New York: Greenwood.
Raloff, J. 1994. “The Gender Benders: Are Environmental ‘Hormones’ Emasculating Wildlife?” Science News 8 January, 148: 24-27.
Rao, V., and M.E. Green. 1991. “Marital Instability, Inter-spouse Bargaining and their Implication for Fertility in Brazil.” Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Population Association of America, 1991, Washington, DC.
Rorty, R. 1989. Contingency, Irony, and Solidarity. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Schneider, D.M., and K. Gough, eds. 1961. Matrilineal Kinship. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Schultz, T.P. 1989. Women and Development: Objectives, Frameworks, and Policy Interventions. World Bank PPR/WID Working Papers WPS#200. Washington, DC: World Bank.
Sennett, R. 1970. Families Against the City. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
Shorter, E. 1975. The Making of the Modern Family. New York: Basic Books.
Spock, B., and M.B. Rothenberg. 1992. Dr. Spock’s Baby and Child Care, 6th revised edn. New York: Dutton.
Stacey, J. 1990. Brave New Families. New York: Basic Books.
Stone, L. 1977. The Family, Sex and Marriage in England, 1500-1800. New York: Harper and Row.
Sweet, L.E., ed. 1970. Peoples and Cultures of the Middle East: Vol 1, Depth and Diversity; Vol 2, Life in the Cities, Towns and Countryside. Garden City, NY: Natural History Press.
Thomas, M., and W. Surachmad. 1962. “Social Class Differences in Mothers’ Expectations for Children in Indonesia.” Journal of Social Psychology 57: 303-307.
Thurow, L.C. 1992. Head to Head: The Coming Economic Battle among Japan, Europe, and America. New York: William Morrow.
UNICEF. 1992. The State of the World’s Children, 1992. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Vogel, E.F. 1992. The Four Little Dragons: The Spread of Industrialization in East Asia. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
Wenke, R.J. 1984. Patterns in Prehistory: Humankind’s First Three Million Years. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Werner, E.E. 1979. Cross-Cultural Child Development: A View from the Planet Earth. Monterey, Calif.: Brooks Cole.
Whiting, B.B., and J.W.M. Whiting. 1975. Children of Six Cultures: A Psycho-cultural Analysis. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
Wiles, R., and C. Campbell. 1993. “U.S. Congress. Testimony Before the Subcommittee on Health and the Environment House Committee on Energy and Commerce.” Environmental Working Group, 21 October 1993.
Zeitlin, M.F. 1977. “Report of Nutrition Survey Conducted in Abyei District S. Kordofan Province, Sudan, by the Nutrition Division of the Ministry of Health, Government of the Sudan and by Harvard Institute for International Development, November and December.”
-, and Satoto. 1990. “Indonesian Positive Deviance in Nutrition Research Project, Phase I and Phase II Reports.” Submitted by Tufts University School of Nutrition to UNICEF and the Italian Government.
-, J.D. Wray, J.B. Stanbury, N.P. Schlossman, J.J. Meurer, and P.J. Weinthal. 1982. Nutrition and Population Growth: The Delicate Balance. Cambridge, Mass.: Oelgeschlager, Gunn , and Hain .