History Of Family And Kinship Research Paper

1. Emergence Of The Field

Recent historical research on the family has revised some widely held myths about family life in the past, as well as generalizations about the impact of the grand processes of social change on the family and society. Family history has complex roots in both the historical demography of the early 1960s and the ‘new social history’ of the same period. Particularly in the United States, it has shared with the latter a commitment to reconstructing the family patterns of ordinary people and viewing them as actors in the process of change. Contemporary historians of the family have sought to reintroduce human experience into historical research and to emphasize the complexity of historical change (see Hareven 1971, 2000a, Tilly 1987). Hence, research in the history of the family explores previously neglected dimensions of human experience such as growing up, courting, getting married, bearing and rearing children, living in families, becoming old and dying. The formidable goal has been to understand the family in various contexts of change and at different points in historical time. In short, the historical study of the family represents an effort to understand the interrelationship between ‘individual time,’ ‘family time,’ and ‘historical time’ (Elder 1978).

Before systematic historical research on the family began, various social science disciplines had generated their own myths and grand theories about continuities and changes in family behavior in the past. Sociologists in particular argued that, in preindustrial societies in the west, the dominant household form had contained an extended family, often involving three co-resident generations, and that the ‘modern’ family—characterized by a nuclear household structure, family limitation, the spacing of children, and population mobility—was brought about by industrialization. Associated with these generalizations was also the popular myth that industrialization broke up traditional family patterns and community life. By providing a perspective on change over time, as well as on family behavior within specific social and cultural contexts in discrete time periods, historical research on the family has led to the rejection of these assumptions and to the resulting questioning of the role of industrialization as a major watershed in this field for American and European history (Wrigley 1972, Goode 1963).

Over the three-and-a-half decades of its existence, family history has moved from a limited view of the family as a static unit at one point in time to an examination of the family as a process over the life course of its members; from a study of discrete domestic structures to the investigation of the nuclear family’s relations with the wider kinship group; and from a study of the family as a separate domestic unit to an examination of its interaction with the worlds of religion, work, education, correctional and welfare institutions, and with processes such as migration, industrialization, and urbanization (Vinovskis 1977, Hareven 1982).

As research in this field developed, new findings and approaches have led to the revision and augmentation of the pioneers’ approaches. Efforts to explore decision-making processes within the family have led to an investigation of strategies and choices that individuals and family groups make. The life-course approach has added an important developmental dimension by focusing on age and cohort comparisons in ways that link individual and family development to historical events. Research also expanded chronologically to cover antiquity, and geographically to encompass southern Europe, eastern Europe, the Mediterranean, Japan, China, and Latin America, in addition to Western Europe, North America, and Japan. The cumulative impact of studies in the history of the family has been to revise simplistic views of both social change and family behavior (Reher 1997, Andorka 1994, Plakans and Wetherell 1999, Todorova 1997, Halpern et al. 1996, Hayami and Uchida 1972, Kuroso 1996, Lee and Campbell 1997, Lee and Feng 1999, Borges 1992, Kuznesof 1997).

The emergence of the history of the family as a special area of inquiry received its major impetus from the publication of Philippe Aries’s Centuries of Child-hood (1960 in French and 1962 in an English translation). Aries argued that childhood as we know it originated only in the early modern period and that its discovery was closely linked to the emergence of the ‘modern’ or conjugal family, in which parents’ private relationships with their children were more important ‘than the honor of a line, the integrity of an inheritance, or the age and permanence of a name’ (Aries 1962, p. 393). By linking the ‘discovery’ of childhood to transformations in family and social structures as well as economic and demographic changes, Aries inspired a whole generation of scholars.

Along another line of research, historical demographers in France in the early 1960s provided family historians with a powerful ‘new weapon’ for the analysis of demographic processes. Louis Henry and Pierre Goubert had developed a family reconstitution technique in the 1950s. Using genealogies, and marriage, baptismal, and death records from parish registers, this method enabled demographers to reconstruct aggregate patterns of fertility, nuptiality, and mortality for vast numbers of people and, in some instances, over several generations (Henry 1953).

From the 1960s on, historical demography and family history in France developed into two parallel but interrelated streams. One continued to concentrate on demographic analysis, along the lines of Henry and Goubert; the other, influenced by Aries, anthropology, and the French social history tradition, integrated demographic analyses with patterns of family and sexuality, linking community and social and cultural variables with mentalite, as exemplified in the work of Emmanuel LeRoy Ladurie (1978), Andre Burguiere (1987), Jean-Louis Flandrin (1976), and Martine Segalen (1991), among others. Family reconstitution subsequently became a powerful tool in the hands of the Cambridge Group for the History of Population and Social Structure.

Established in 1964, the Cambridge Group adapted the family reconstitution method to English parish registers, while also pursuing analysis of seventeenthcentury nominal household registers. Wrigley found in the decline in fertility in the seventeenth century and in its recovery in the eighteenth century, evidence that rural births and marriages responded to changing economic conditions. He concluded that the demographic transition involved a change ‘from a system of control through social institution and custom to one in which the private choice of individual couples played a major part in governing the fertility rate’ (Laslett 1977, Wrigley and Schofield 1981).

Such demographic analyses for France and England, and subsequently Sweden, Austria, Germany, and The Netherlands, revealed that, in the preindustrial period, people married later than had been generally assumed, couples practiced some form of family limitation and child spacing as early as the seventeenth century, households were predominantly nuclear rather than extended, and preindustrial populations experienced extensive geographic mobility (Laslett 1965, Goubert 1977). Late marriage served as a method of family limitation. It was also closely related to the expectation that a newlywed couple would establish a separate household and be self-supporting, while continuing to contribute to their families of origin. Linking late age at marriage to the nuclearity of the household, John Hajnal (1965) developed his model of the ‘West European Marriage Pattern,’ which served as the basic model for the analysis of West European families until it came under criticism. Hajnal claimed that marriage patterns in historic Europe could be differentiated with a line drawn approximately from St. Petersburg on the Baltic Sea to the Adriatic Sea. West of this line marriages tended to be relatively late (late 20s) for both sexes, and substantial portions of the population did not marry at all. East of this line, marriage for both sexes was relatively early (late teens) and marriage was nearly universal. He identified the ‘western’ pattern as the ‘European’ pattern and suggested that the ‘eastern’ pattern was shared by many developing countries (in the 1960s).

2. Household Structure

Using nominal census records, Laslett found evidence of continuity in nuclear household structure in England, at least since the sixteenth century. A landmark volume published by Laslett and Wall (1972), containing articles on household structure for various countries, including Japan, concluded that preindustrial households in Western Europe and North America affirmed these findings and dispelled the previously held assumption that industrialization brought about a nuclear family form. Although Laslett’s early work emphasized the persistence of a nuclear ‘family,’ the major unit discussed was the household, not the family. A household is not identical with a family, since the domestic group may include nonrelatives as well. Nor is a ‘family’ restricted to the household, since extended family ties transcended the household unit (Goody 1972, Hareven 1982).

Subsequent studies showed that co-residence with extended kin tended to increase, not decrease, after the ‘industrial revolution,’ because of the need of newly arrived migrants to industrial cities to share housing space (Laslett and Wall 1972, Hayami and Uchida 1972, Anderson 1971). David Herlihy (1987) and Richard Smith (1979), respectively, traced a nuclear household structure in medieval Tuscany back to the twelfth century, as well as in England; and, in the medieval village of Montaillou, LeRoy Ladurie (1978) found a variety of forms of family structures in the domus (household), ranging from ordinary nuclear families to various complex configurations. Household structure varied over the life course of its members, in relation to the economy and migration.

Such early discoveries also led to the formation of new generations and stereotypes: by combining the findings about the nuclearity of the household with the Hajnal thesis on the Western marriage pattern, Laslett developed a typology of the ‘western family,’ which he characterized as having a simple nuclear household; a relatively late child-bearing age; a relatively narrow age gap between husband and wife, with a relatively high proportion of wives older than their husbands; and the presence in the household of ‘life cycle’ servants unrelated to the family with whom they were residing. By contrast, he characterized the South European and Mediterranean family type as having complex household structures and early marriage, in which nuclear households are formed by the breakup of extended ones, rather than through marriage (Laslett 1977). These typologies, along with the Hajnal thesis, later came under criticism. David Kertzer refuted the thesis that links early female marriage to joint household organization as a characteristic of the ‘South European’ family pattern. He showed variability in household structures in Italy, depending on types of landholding and sharecropping. Similarly, Haim Gerber, on the basis of his analysis of urban Turkish households in the seventeenth century, questioned stereotypes of the traditional ‘Middle Eastern family’ (Kertzer and Hogan 1989, Gerber 1989).

In New England, when interpreted in the context of economic and social institutions (such as landholding, inheritance, religion, community structure, and religion), demographic patterns served as the backbone of complex family and community analyses. In his analysis of household and family structure in colonial Andover, Massachusetts, Philip Greven revealed the power relations between fathers and sons and the limits of the sons’ autonomy based on inheritance. He found that households were primarily restricted to members of the nuclear family and nonrelatives, but a ‘complex web’ of family connections reinforced by proximity of residence, often on the same land, permeated the community (Greven 1970). Demos, in his study of colonial Plymouth, Massachusetts, used family reconstitution, the analysis of nominal census records and a great variety of other sources to reconstruct family and community patterns (1970). He also found a predominance of nuclear households, but these differed considerably from contemporary ones. Families were larger then and included nonrelatives, such as servants, apprentices, and boarders and lodgers in the households. Age configurations were also different; in some families, the oldest child in the household would be an adult while the youngest was still at the breast.

A major critique of early studies of household structure was their reliance on ‘snapshots’ in the household schedules listed in the census at one point in time. On the basis of his reconstruction of peasant households in the villages of Heidenreichstein in northern Austria in 1763, Berkner (1972) provided evidence that household structure changed several times over the course of the family’s life, as it moved through its cycle—from a stem family to a nuclear one, and later to a stem family again, in relation to inheritance. Households were not static. At the same time, Demos’ reconstruction of the stages of the life cycle in Plymouth demonstrated dynamic movements of individuals within and across families and households, in relation to the religious and cultural prescriptions of Puritan society (Demos 1970).

The presence of ‘life cycle’ servants—young men and women in their teens who lived and served in other people’s households in the transitional period between leaving home and marrying—which Laslett found in English villages, as well as the presence of other unrelated individuals in the household, proves the remarkable flexibility of households in the past. Nuclear households included nonrelatives such as servants, apprentices, boarders and lodgers. Similarly, in nineteenth-century American urban households, Modell and Hareven (1973) found a high proportion of boarders and lodgers, who provided important substitutes for children who had left home. Households expanded and contracted over the life course and in accordance with the family’s needs.

3. Developmental Perspectives: The Life Course

The discovery of boarders and lodgers in nineteenth century households and of the overall fluidity of household structure led historians of the family to search for a framework that would allow them to capture the movement of individuals through various household forms over their lives and the changes in the composition of the family and the household under various historical conditions. The family cycle model, which was used originally to identify changes in family structure, became unsatisfactory, because the stages of the family cycle were derived from contemporary American middle-class families, and were a priori. As Glen Elder explained, the family cycle identifies stages of parenthood rather than the more dynamic aspects of individual transitions into and out of various family roles (Elder 1978).

Dissatisfaction with the family cycle model led historians and sociologists to develop the life-course approach, which has introduced a dynamic dimension into the historical study of the family, and has moved analysis from a simplistic examination of stages of the family cycle to individuals’ and families’ timing of life transitions in relation to historical time (Hareven 1978, Elder 1978). According to the life-course paradigm, the pace and definition of the timing of life transitions, such as starting work, leaving home, and getting married, are determined by their social and cultural context. On the familial level, timing involves the synchronization of individual life transitions with collective family ones (Elder 1978). For example, using both demographic evidence and prescriptive literature, Modell, Funstenberg, and Herschberg found a major historical change in American society over the past century, from the ‘erratic’ timing of life transitions governed by collective family needs to more individualized timing in conformity with age norms (Modell et al. 1976).

Life-course research also illuminates the links between behavior and perception. While the actual timing of life transitions can be reconstructed from demographic records, its meaning to the individual and family members undergoing these transitions hinges on the examination of qualitative, subjective sources (Neugarten and Hagestadt 1976, Bourdelais 1993, Hareven and Masaoka 1988, Hareven 2000b). A life-course perspective has also made an important contribution to the study of kinship by directing attention to the changing configurations of kin with whom individuals ‘travel’ together over their lives. Such configurations are formed and re-formed; they change in their composition, in their relationship to the individual and the nuclear family, and in relation to each other over the life course.

4. Kinship

During the second decade of the development in the field of family history, kinship ties outside the household received increasing attention. Rather than being isolated, nuclear households were embedded in extended kinship ties outside their confines. Members of the nuclear family were engaged in various forms of mutual assistance, collaboration, and rituals with extended kin. Even though aging parents did not generally reside in the same household with their married adult children, they lived in the vicinity, often on the same land (Greven 1970, Berkner 1972, Smith 1979, Sabean 1998).

For nineteenth-and twentieth-century urban populations, Anderson (1971) and Hareven (1982), respectively, have documented the central role of family members and more distant kin in organizing migration from rural areas to industrial cities, in facilitating settlement in urban communities, and in helping migrants adapt to new working and living conditions. In her study of late-nineteenth-and-twentieth-century textile workers in Manchester, New Hampshire, Hareven found that kinship networks in communities of origin were reinforced by the back-and-forth migration of individual members, and the transfer of resources. Following ‘chain migration’ routes, villagers who went to work in industrial communities spearheaded migration for other relatives by locating housing and jobs. Those who remained in the communities of origin often took care of aging parents and other relatives who stayed behind (Anderson 1971, Hareven 1982). Hareven found that despite the scale of the modern factory system, workers’ kinship networks cushioned the adaptation of immigrant workers to new industrial working conditions. Kin acted as brokers between the workers and their industrial employers. Rather than disrupting kinship ties, migration often strengthened them and led to the development of new functions for kin in response to changing economic and employment conditions in response to the requirements of the industrial system (Hareven 1982).

5. The Family’s Interaction With The Process Of Industrialization

An examination of the family’s interaction with the process of social and economic change enables us to understand more precisely what occurred internally within the family and how such changes were accomplished on a societal level. It provides new insights into the process of industrialization and urbanization, into how labor markets functioned, and how industrial work processes and labor relations were organized. Historical research on the family has led to the rejection of simplistic models of social change, especially of modernization theory. How the family both initiates change and adapts to it and how it translates the impact of larger structural changes to its own sphere are crucial questions for the understanding of the process of social change.

The important principle underlying these questions is a view of the family as an active agent. The family planned, initiated, or resisted change; it did not just respond passively. Historical research over the past two decades, highlighting the family’s role as an active agent, has led to revising questions such as ‘What was the impact of industrialization on the family?’ to ‘What was the family’s impact on the industrial system?’ (Hareven 1982, c.f. Goode 1963). The question has been further cast into a more complex form: Under what circumstances was the family more able to control its destiny and to affect the larger social processes, and under what circumstances did the family succumb to declining markets, changing modes of production, business cycles, and other external forces?

The family had a central role in charting the transitions to various modes of industrial production by following diverse routes: from a rural economy to a proto-industrial or industrial one, or from a rural economy directly to an industrial one. In all these cases, while following its own priorities, when possible, the family facilitated the advance of industrialization by releasing the labor force needed for the newly developing factories and by organizing migration to industrial centers (Smelser 1959, Tilly and Scott 1978, Quataert 1985). The family’s interaction with the industrial system has received attention from studies of family production systems in artisanal and protoindustrial settings and the study of family and work in the context of large industrial enterprises.

Proto-industrialization was a household-based form of production in the countryside and in some urban areas in England, France, Belgium, Switzerland, and Austria, from the seventeenth to the nineteenth centuries that preceded the ‘industrial revolution.’ It was characterized by the production of goods in local cottages for a capitalist employer who sold the products in external markets. Rudolph Braun (who first identified these patterns in Switzerland) and other historians developed a model of demographic behavior they claimed was typical of ‘proto-industrial’ families. This consisted of earlier age at marriage, higher fertility, and delays in children’s departure from the home, all of which were conducive to maximizing a family labor force. Marriage formed the key to the spread of the cottage industry, because it led to the formation of a new nuclear family unit, which was also a ‘unit of labor’ (Braun 1974, Mendels 1972, Medick 1976).

In the 1980s and 1990s, the demographic model of proto-industrialization has come under criticism. On the one hand, scholars have questioned whether demographic behavior associated with proto-industrialization had been sufficiently widespread to warrant such generalizations. They found that demographic behavior in response to new economic conditions ‘differed according to the environment (i.e., land ownership, social structure, and inheritance) and the exact nature of the economic change which took place’ (Gutmann and Leboutte 1984, p. 589). Regional variation, interaction with the local agricultural structure, as well as the type of cottage industry (whether weaving or spinning), made a difference (Mitterauer 1992).

Like research on the family in proto-industrial regimes, the study of family in the factory system has provided considerable evidence documenting the family’s role as an active agent in its interaction with the process of industrialization. Such research effectively undermined the theory of ‘social breakdown’ that had haunted sociology and social history. Ac- cording to this notion, migration from rural to urban centers had led to the uprooting of people from their traditional kinship networks. The pressures of industrial work and urban life caused a disintegration of the family unit, and adaptation to industrial life stripped migrants of their traditional culture (Parsons 1955, Wirth 1938).

Historians and sociologists alike have challenged the theory of social breakdown, by providing contrary evidence. Neil Smelser, in his pioneer study of the family in the early stages of industrialization in Britain, documented the recruitment of entire family groups as work units in the early textile factories. Fathers contracted for their children, collected their wages, and were responsible for their performance in the factory. Entire families depended on the factory as their employer; the factories, in turn, depended on the recruitment of family groups to maintain a continuous labor supply (Smelser 1959). Anderson documented a continuity of recruitment in family units and in the vital role of kin among workers in the textile industry in Lancashire, England, at least through the middle of the nineteenth century. The practice of family members working together in the factory was carried over into the United States, as the factory system developed there, and was still present among immigrant workers in the twentieth century. The very success of the early industrial system depended on the recruitment of labor along kinship lines (Anderson 1971, Hareven 1982). As mentioned above, Hareven’s study of family and work in the Amoskeag Mills in Manchester, New Hampshire, has documented the active role of the family and the kinship group in relation to the industrial corporation. It showed that the family type most ‘fit’ to interact with the factory system was not an ‘isolated’ nuclear family, but rather one embedded in extended kinship ties (Hareven 1982).

The functions that kin fulfilled in their interaction with the factory system were not merely archaic carryovers from rural society but a selective use of premigration patterns of kin assistance patterns in response to the needs dictated by industrial conditions. The encounter of immigrant workers with the modern factory system led neither to the abandonment of premigration family traditions, nor to a rigid adherence to them. Rather, the workers adapted their customs and social organization to the new conditions they confronted. In doing so, they addressed the factory system on its own terms. The family selected those aspects of its pre-migration culture that were most useful in coping with industrial conditions and adapted them to new needs. These patterns of selectivity called into question the linear view of social change advanced by modernization theory. Family behavior did not modernize at the same pace as workers’ conduct in the factory. The family was both a custodian of tradition and an agent of change (Hareven 1982).

6. Family Strategies

To better understand the family’s role in these processes of social change, it is necessary to examine how families charted their strategies in relation to external opportunities and constraints. Family strategies involved both the decisions individuals or families made and the actual timing of such decisions in relation to opportunities and constraints. Strategies included, at times, calculated trade-offs in order to find employment, achieve solvency, buy a house, facilitate children’s education or their occupational advancement, control or facilitate a child’s marriage, save for the future and provide for times of illness, old age, and death. Strategies were part of a larger life plan. As people encountered new circumstances, they modified and reshaped their plans and strategies in the context of their own culture and traditions (Hareven 1990).

As research on family strategies developed further, the concept also underwent important revisions. Under the influence of feminist historians, the question was raised: ‘Whose strategies are family strategies?’ This question is still part of an important research agenda about the process of decision making within the family, particularly concerning women’s participation. Recent research suggests, though, that there may have been a considerable variation along genderlines and among family members in the forging of strategies.

7. Future Directions

The multidimensional research effort in family history has produced impressive results and identified new lines of investigation. Research still needs to pursue established topics that have not received sufficient attention, including the family’s relationship to social space and a more systematic study of the family’s relationship to religion, the state, and the legal system.

There is a need for more systematic studies of the ‘edges’ of family life, such as solitary individuals, orphans and foundlings, and the process of family breakdown through divorce or death and of family reconstitution through remarriage. A second direction is the forging of more systematic linkages between demographic behavior and household structure with internal family dynamics; a closer integration of the study of the household with nonresident kin; a more careful linkage of kinship and household patterns with various processes such as work and migration; and the relationship between demographic and family patterns with cultural dimensions.

In addition to this specific agenda, the larger questions of historical changes in the family over time still need to be explored systematically in several directions: First, if industrialization did not cause the emergence of ‘modern’ family behavior in Western Europe and the United States, what did cause it? One plausible explanation that has been advanced is the commercial revolution of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. This does not explain, however, the existence of nuclear household patterns in the Middle Ages. While Stone (1977), like Aries, dated the emergence of the ‘modern family’ in the late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries, Shorter placed it in the late eighteenth, and early nineteenth centuries. Carl Degler (1980) dated the emergence of the American modern family in the late eighteenth or early nineteenth centuries as well. Following in Aries’s footsteps, Stone, Shorter (1976) and Degler have focused on the rise of ‘affective individualism’ as the major criterion of ‘modern’ family life. They generally agreed that the ‘modern family’ is privatized, nuclear, domestic, and based on emotional bonding between husband and wife, and between parents and children. The correlates of its emergence were the weakening influence of extended kin, friends, and neighbors on family ties and an isolation of the family from interaction with the community. There is some disagreement and, at times, lack of clarity about which class initiated these changes. Aries, Stone, and, more implicitly, Degler viewed the bourgeoisie and the gentry as the vanguard, while Shorter assigned a crucial role to peasants and workers.

Related to the emergence of the family as a private, intimate entity is the widely accepted interpretation that this transformation was based on the family’s surrender of earlier-held functions of production, welfare, education, and social control to other institutions and its withdrawal into domestic privacy has become one of the standard cliches of family history and sociology. We need to understand the process by which these functions were transferred to other institutions. A systematic exploration of the family’s relationship to public agencies and institutions— specifically institutions of education, welfare, and social control, after the transfer of its functions—will help historians escape the trap of viewing the family as an isolated domestic entity.

Historical studies in Europe in the 1990s have emphasized an integrated view of the family both as a private entity and an object of the state. The History of Pri ate Life, under the general editorship of Philippe Aries and Georges Duby, which focuses primarily on French society, deserves particular attention. The fourth volume, From the Fires of Revolution to the Great War, edited by Michelle Perrot, presents the experiential history of the family in relation to public life. The authors view the family’s private life and sexuality as inseparable from the state (Perrot 1990).

As further research continues to emerge, it becomes necessary to develop a comprehensive model of change in family behavior that does justice to its complexity. The most important dimension still absent from studies of long-term changes in the family involves more systematic distinctions by social classes, rather than generalizing for the entire society on the basis of the middle class. We need a more detailed understanding of the historical process by which other classes adopted middle-class family behavior, if indeed that was the case, and of what class differences have survived such a process. How did patterns of family behavior that first emerged in the middle class transfer to other classes in society and by what processes? Equally important, at the end of that process, had rural and working-class families really adopted middle-class family forms, or did differences persist underneath apparent similarities?

The question about when and how change takes place needs to be raised again. Various strands of change in family history still need to be traced individually to the point of their culmination as visible transformations. The process is rendered more difficult by the fact that not all the strands undergo change at the same pace. Since the family is not a monolith, different members within it may initiate change or accept change at different points. For example, women were agents of change in certain areas of family life, such as in the practice of family limitation, while men were innovators in others. Even children were innovators in certain areas. They may have brought literacy into the family, new perceptions of behavior they learned in school or new work habits and new technologies. Thus, when we examine the family’s role in the process of social change, we need to differentiate among the respective roles of members within the family, in interacting with these processes. This is an important task for future decades.

Bibliogrphy:

1. Anderson M S 1971 Family Structure in Nineteenth-century Lancashire. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK
2. Andorka R 1994 The historical demography of a proper Hungarian village: At any in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Journal of Family History 19: 311–31
3. Aries P 1962 Centuries of Childhood: A Social History of Family Life. Baldick R (trans.). Knopf, New York
4. Berkner L K 1972 The stem family and the developmental cycle of the peasant household: An eighteenth century Austrian example. American Historical Review 77: 398–418
5. Borges D E 1992 The Family in Bahia, Brazil, 1870–1945. Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA
6. Bourdelais P 1993 La Nouvelle Age de la vieillesse: Histoire du vieillessment de la Population. O. Jacob, Paris
7. Braun R 1974 Early industrialization and demographic change in the Canton of Zurich. In: Tilly C (ed.) Historical Studies of Changing Fertility: Quantitative Studies in History. Princeton University Press, Princeton, IN
8. Burguiere A 1987 The formation of the couple. Journal of Family History 12: 39–56
9. Degler C N 1980 At Odds: Women and the Family in America from the Revolution to the Present. Oxford University Press, New York
10. Demos J 1970 A Little Commonwealth: Family Life in Plymouth Colony. Oxford University Press, New York
11. Elder G H Jr 1978 Family history and the life course. In: Hareven T K (ed.) Transitions: The Family and the Life Course in Historical Perspective. Academic Press, New York
12. Flandrin J-L 1976 Families in Former Times: Kinship, Household, and Sexuality. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK
13. Gerber H 1989 Anthropology and family history: The Ottoman and Turkish families. Journal of Family History 14: 409–21
14. Goode W 1963 World Revolution and Family Patterns. Free Press, New York
15. Goody J 1972 Evolution of the family. In: Laslett P, Wall R (eds.) Household and Family in Past Time. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK
16. Goubert P 1977 Family and province: A contribution to the knowledge of family structures in early modern France. Journal of Family History 2: 223–36
17. Greven P 1970 Four Generations: Population, Land, and Family in Colonial Ando er, Massachusetts. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY
18. Gutmann M, Leboutte R 1984 Rethinking protoindustrialization and family. Journal of Interdisciplinary History 14: 587–607
19. Hajnal J 1965 European marriage patterns in perspective. In: Glass D V, Eversley D E C (eds.) Population in History. E Arnold, London
20. Halpern J M, Kaser K, Wagner R A 1996 Patriarchy in the Balkans: Temporal and cross-cultural approaches. History of the Family: An International Quarterly 1: 425–43
21. Hareven T K 1971 The history of the family as an interdisciplinary field. Journal of Interdisciplinary History 2: 273–99
22. Hareven T K (ed.) 1978 Transitions: The Family and the Life Course in Historical Perspective. Academic Press, New York
23. Hareven T K 1982 Family Time and Industrial Time: The Relationship Between the Family and Work in a New England Industrial Community. Cambridge University Press, New York
24. Hareven T K 1990 A complex relationship: Family strategies and the process of economic and social change. In: Friedland R, Robertson A F (eds.) Beyond the Marketplace: Rethinking Economy and Society. Aldine de Gruyter, New York
25. Hareven T K 2000a Families, History, and Social Change: Life-Course & Cross-Cultural Perspectives. Westview, Press, Boulder, CO
26. Hareven T K 2000b Formal timing and subjective timing: Historical changes and the cultural construction of the life course. In: Bideau A, Bourdelais P, Brunet G (eds.) Structures Par Aˆge et Aˆges de la Vie: Deux Visions du Monde? Cahier de Annales de Demographie Historique, Paris
27. Hareven T K, Masaoka K 1988 Turning points and transitions: Perceptions of the life course. Journal of Family History 13: 271–89
28. Hayami A, Uchida N 1972 Size of household in a Japanese country throughout the Tokugawa era. In: Laslett P, Wall R (eds.) Household and Family in Past Time. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK
29. Henry L 1953 Une richesse demographique en fiche: Les registres paroissiaux. Population 8: 281–90
30. Herlihy D 1987 The family and religious ideologies in medieval Europe. Journal of Family History 12: 3–18
31. Kertzer D I, Hogan D 1989 Family, Political Economy, and Demographic Change: The Transformation of Life in Casalecchi, Italy, 1961–1921. Life Course Studies. University of Wisconsin Press, Madison, WI
32. Kurosu S 1996 Leaving home in a stem family system: Departures of heir and non-heirs in pre-industrial Japan. History of the Family 1: 329–52
33. Kuznesof E A 1997 Who were the families of ‘natural’ children in nineteenth-century Rio de Janeiro, Brazil? A comparison of baptismal and census records. The History of the Family: An International Quarterly 2: 171–82
34. Laslett P 1965 The World We Have Lost. Methuen, London
35. Laslett P (ed.) 1977 Family Life and Illicit Love in Earlier Generations: Essays in Historical Sociology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK
36. Laslett P, Wall R (eds.) 1972 Household and Family in Past Time. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK
37. Lee J, Campbell C 1997 Fate and Fortune in Rural China: Social Organization and Population Behavior in Lioning 1774–1873. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK
38. Lee J, Feng W 1999 One Quarter of Humanity: Malthusian Mythology and Chinese Realities, 1700–2000. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA
39. LeRoy Ladurie E 1978 Montaillou: The Promised Land of Error. Bray B (trans.). Braziller, New York
40. Medick H 1976 The proto-industrial family economy. Social History 3: 291–315
41. Mendels F 1972 Proto-industrialization: The first phase of the industrialization process. Journal of Economic History 32: 241–61
42. Mitterauer M 1992 Peasant and non-peasant family forms in relation to the physical environment and the local economy. Journal of Family History 17: 139–59
43. Modell J, Furstenberg F, Hershberg T 1976 Social change and transitions to adulthood in historical perspective. Journal of Family History 1(1): 7–32
44. Modell J, Hareven T K 1973 Urbanization and the malleable household: Boarding and lodging in American families. Journal of Marriage and the Family 35: 467–79
45. Neugarten B, Hagestadt G 1976 Age and the life course. In: Binstock R, Shanas E (eds.) Handbook of Aging and the Social Sciences. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York
46. Parsons T 1955 The American family: Its relation to personality and to the social structure. In: Parsons R, Bales R (eds.) Family, Socialization, and Interaction Process. Free Press, Glencoe, IL
47. Perrot M (ed.) 1990 A History of Private Lives. Vol. 4, From the Fires of Revolution to the Great War. Goldhammer A (trans.). Beklnap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge, London
48. Plakans A, Wetherell C 1999 Fertility and cultural diversity: An exploratory essay concerning the borderlands problem in the nineteenth century Baltic area. Continuity and Change 1: 33–56
49. Quataert J 1985 Combining agrarian and industrial livelihood: Rural households in the Saxon Oberlausitz in the nineteenth century. Journal of Family History 10: 145–62
50. Reher D S 1997 Perspectives on the Family in Spain, Past and Present. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK
51. Rogers J 1993 Nordic family history: Themes and issues, old and new. Journal of Family History 18: 291–314
52. Sabean D W 1998 Kinship in Neckarhausen, 1700–1870. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK
53. Segalen M 1991 Fifteen Generations of Bretons: Kinship and Society in Lower Brittany, 1720–1980. Cambridge University Press, New York
54. Shorter E 1976 The Making of the Modern Family. Basic Books, New York
55. Smelser N 1959 Social Change in the Industrial Revolution: An Application of Theory to the British Cotton Industry. University of Chicago Press, Chicago
56. Smith R 1979 Kin and neighbors in a thirteenth-century Suffolk community. Journal of Family History 4: 219–56
57. Stone L 1977 The Family, Sex, and Marriage in England, 500–1800. Harper and Row, New York
58. Tilly C 1987 Family history, social history, and social change. Journal of Family History 12: 319–30
59. Tilly L, Scott J 1978 Women, Work, and Family. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York
60. Todorova M 1997 Imagining the Balkans. Oxford University Press, New York
61. Vinovskis M 1977 From household size to the life course: Some observations on recent trends in family history. American Behavioral Scientist 21: 263–87
62. Wirth L 1938 Urbanism as a way of life. American Journal of Sociology 44: 1–24
63. Wrigley E 1972 The process of modernization and the industrial revolution in England. Journal of Interdisciplinary History 3: 225–60
64. Wrigley E, Schofield R S 1981 The Population History of England, 1541–1871. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA