Australian cultural identity shaping family patterns Essay

A family is generally defined as â€Å"a group of persons directly linked by kin connections, the adult members of which assume responsibility for caring for children† (Giddens, 2006:206). One may be strike by the academic formality as well as the appropriateness of the definition. However it is noteworthy that such definition is by no means strict or obligatory in research. There are individuals or groups who have different perceptions of what constitutes a family (or what is a family). The definition is a departure from the traditional definition of a family. The development of family patterns is henceforth congruent with the development of family definitions (Giddens, 2006:211). According to its old definition, a family is â€Å"composed of mother, father, and children. † Giddens et al (2003) defended the modified definition by pointing out that, generally, family structures in most societies are composed of adult members and children (not necessary the earlier conception of father and mother). Hence, operationalization of the definition of family in applied research becomes possible (ideal type definitions). They also noted that the definition of family is highly dependent on prevalent family patterns and structures; that is, defined by culture and time. Hence, Giddens et al (2003) defined family patterns and structures as â€Å"institutions or routines† and â€Å"reproduce familiar forms of social life† (p. 131). These â€Å"institutions or routines† of family life can be generally explained by his theory of structuration. Structuration means studying patterns and ways in which societies are produced and replicated in smaller social units like the family. Once the society determined the â€Å"plausible† ways of achieving a particular societal goal, it becomes reinforced in other institutions, including the family. Hence, societal values and its adherence to singular or multiplicity of ethnic identity gives form and structure to other institutions in the society. It is noteworthy that an independent variable of structuration is time. One may juxtapose that different societal institutions existed in different time frames. What can be considered a normal family in one point in time may significantly differ from past perceptions. This proves that structuration is highly dependent on the prevailing cultural values and goals, as well as the so-called â€Å"cultural identity† (ethnicity). In our case, it can be proven that the adherence of Australian culture to a multiplicity of identity and values can greatly affect family patterns and activities. Australian Multiculturalism Identity What does it mean to be an Australian? This is a highly complex question that needs an equally sophisticated answer. It can be said that Australian cultural identity is a mixture of different cultures and worldviews. For one, Aborigines in Australia were able to establish permanent homes in the continent centuries before the coming of the British. When the British came, they transformed Australia into a penal colony, and then into a state fashioned after Great Britain. The aborigines were casted away by the new â€Å"owners. † The British introduced a series of assimilation laws that called for granting of Australian citizenship to Europeans (who were living in Australia for at least 10 years and of British descent) – the aborigines were ignored initially. Many of these â€Å"citizens regarded themselves as Australians. They also considered Australia as their natural homeland. Hence, what we call today as Australian culture and identity were initially derived from British culture – songs, literature, poetry, and architecture (language perhaps is the most clear indicator). However, the adherence of Australian identity to British ways changed as European migration to the country increased at the latter half of the 19th century. Almost a third of the population of Australia at that time was non-British European descent. This created a problem for the Commonwealth of Australia. The problem lies in the redefinition of Australian culture and identity. However, because of the First World War and the preoccupation of the Australian government in addressing its trade deficits, the problem had been totally ignored. Until recently, social scientists found out that Australia is a â€Å"hotspot† of different cultures; a kind of melting spot. The general sense of this geo-cultural definition of Australia is: Australian culture and identity is a multiplicity of different cultures, bringing forth an increasing diversity of institutional patterns, under the guidance of an open society (Holton, 1997). Three things can be derived from this definition. First Australian culture and identity is the result of cultural interaction of different ethnic groups. Second, this cultural multiplicity brings forth different institutional patterns. Lastly, â€Å"openness† is the operative word of Australian society. Hence, â€Å"it has sometimes been claimed that Australia’s national identity is not as strong as the national identity of countries that have experienced the trauma of invasion and civil war. While it is true that events of this kind have often been major reference points in the consolidation of a sense of national identity, they are not by any means the only processes by which identity emerge† (Holton, 1997: URL cited). This can be explained from a survey conducted by the National Social Science study entitled â€Å"National Identity: What Does It Take To Be â€Å"Truly Australian. † About 72% of the respondents said that feeling Australian was a very important factor in being an Australian (as against 23% who said that it was fairly important). Another 67% said that having an Australian citizenship was a very important factor in being an Australian (as against 23 % who said that it was fairly important). The heading above connotes that though most people in Australia regard themselves as Australian, they engaged themselves in pattern of livings (including family patterns and structures) based on their ethnicities (ethnic origin). Hence, there is therefore the need to find the commonalities of these cultures so as to enumerate the characteristics of Australian culture and to determine whether ethnicity, class distinction, or sexual preferences determines Australian family patterns. Herein are the characteristics of Australian culture: 1) open (that is, permeable to immigrants), 2) permits assimilation and at times amalgamation (the difference between the two will not be discussed), 3) adherence to the Western principle and value of liberalism, and 4) highly adaptive. When one says that a society is open, it generally means that such society is highly permeable to migrants as well as to innovation. It is wholly the opposite of a conservative society. When one says that a society permits assimilation, it generally means that the society is willing to incorporate individual cultural tastes and preferences into its own system. Liberalism is a Western invention. Adherence to liberalism means that individual rights and freedoms are protected by the state. The individual is left open in its own development. Being highly adaptive is generally the result of being open. Because innovation is the operative word of an open society, any changes in its system would correspond to a major shift on its means procurement (AGIL framework of Talcott Parsons), that is, the means of achieving societal goals.