The major objective of this article is to examine the process of the politicization of the family and to provide a sociological interpretation. Major social changes have led to the definition of the family as a social problem. Because old patterns have been disrupted, a “normative reaction to normlessness” has set in providing the motivation for the profamily social movement on both the religious and the political level. New Right familism can be viewed as a reaction to what are actually worldwide changes in family patterns that force a reevaluation of the “old individualism” (centered on male prerogatives) and encourage the acceptance of the “new individualism,” which respects the developing extrafamilial prerogatives of females, the young, and the elderly. Various developments may provide further success or failure for the profamily movement, but the ultimate impact of the movement on society will depend upon the interaction of social organizational and normative dynamics. To the extent that liberal views on family matters prevail, advocates must respond to the need to develop a greater vision for America as a society along with their increased options for personal expression.

This paper attempts to analyze the social, economic, and political sources for the emergence of modern Soviet sociology in the 1950s. While it does not address extensively the characteristics of current Soviet sociology, it is suggested that those characteristics of a methodologically sophisticated and economically oriented sociology are largely the result of a compact between Soviet leaders and sociologists which allowed and required its post-Stalin emergence. Four sets of factors are evaluated in terms of their effect on the emergence of Soviet sociology. These are 1)the Marxist-Leninist vision (that is, the utopian elements of ideology), 2) the Soviet ideology (that is, the elements of ideology oriented toward system maintenance), 3) the diffusion of ideas, and 4) the mandate of Soviet economic development. A brief evaluation of these sets of factors as they affect the emergence of Chinese sociology in the early 1980s is also provided. It is concluded that the future shape of sociology in the USSR and China is dependent upon the evolution of ideology in the two countries, an evolution that is intimately tied to the succession of political leadership.

No abstract

Soviet authorities have recently initiated a demographic policy aimed particularly at reducing the levels of childless and one child families. An examination of available data indicates that the USSR has a level of childlessness equivalent to that of the United States, but a frequency of one child families that is considerably greater. Popular explanations for very low fertility, such as inadequate housing or finances, do not explain the decision to remain childless or to stop childbearing after a single child is born. Furthermore, the effects of education and female labor force participation are mediated by cultural factors. It is these cultural factors that seem to differentiate among zero, one, and two child families. In the Soviet case, the most appropriate policy tool for intervention in such cultural processes is propaganda, but such a value transformation approach is more complex and unpredicatable than a structural approach. Nevertheless, a structural explanation for fertility decline is inadequate for this situation.

No abstract