Our newsletter is out! You can check it here. Or you can find it in the newsletters’ menu.
In this issue, you can find information on the Call for Papers for the ISA World Congress (2014, Japan), as well as a list of sessions.
Our newsletter is out! You can check it here. Or you can find it in the newsletters’ menu.
In this issue, you can find information on the Call for Papers for the ISA World Congress (2014, Japan), as well as a list of sessions.
With a strong cultural heritage of familism, family studies have been highly valued by academia and by the public in Taiwan. Family sociology was taught in colleges after the World War II, but it was almost three decades after that it became a basic subject of teaching and research. Three important characteristics appear in the development of Taiwanese family sociology since the 1960s (Yi and Chang, 2008):
1. Interdisciplinary approach (anthropology, demography, psychology, geography);
2. A bi-focus of academic research and clinical application;
3. Emphases of empirical evidence and problem-oriented approach.
Up to now, there are several hundred family scholars teaching or doing research in Taiwan. While majority is involved in the clinical area, strong research domains include family structure, intergenerational relations, women’s work and family, conjugal power relations, and foreign brides in the family system. In recent years, mate selection, youth development, family care, divorce, etc. receive more attention as typical responses to the low marriage and low fertility situation in the region. I think it’s fair to say that family sociology maintains its core mission in delineating the structural causes and macro-level influence on the family dynamics in Taiwan.
However, the historical linkage between Taiwanese family sociology and the Committee on Family Research, International Sociological Association, is relatively recent. I’ll use myself as an example. The first ISA experience I had dated back to 1990 in the Madrid Congress when I was a visiting scholar at the University of North Carolina, USA. I learned about ISA from American colleagues and decided to participate in RC06/CFR. There I met Jan Trost (the president), Fumie Kumagai, Stella Quah and many others. I was then persuaded by Jan Trost to sponsor a CFR seminar in Taiwan, and so it begins my long commitment to this extended family which includes 6 ISA congress and 20 CFR seminars from 1990 to 2013. More importantly, I’ve come to know excellent family scholars around the world and have established good friendship which I shall always treasure.
The first CFR/RC06 conference took place in Taiwan was in 1992 and the venue was Academia Sinica. The theme chosen at that time was “Family Formation and Dissolution: Perspectives from East and West”, co-sponsored by RC06, ISA and Sun Yat-Sen Institute for Social Sciences and Philosophy, Academia Sinica, Taiwan. During three days’ program (May 21st to 23rd), Prof. Peter Laslett delivered a keynote speech on “The Family in the Industrializing East and the Industrial West” and proposed that Japanese families may be better suited to industrial societies. There were 25 invited papers which not only covered a wide range of geographical areas, the subjects (marriage patterns, household structures, marriage timing, family support networks, work and family roles, etc.) as well as the intellectual discussion on natures of family systems in the world attracted nearly 200 local scholars to attend. A post-conference tour to visit the coastal eastern Taiwan and to cross the central mountain range was arranged which brought fond memories for the participants. And after the lengthy and rigorous review process, a book with selective conference papers was published in 1995: Yi, Chin-Chun (ed.) “Family Formation and Dissolution: Perspectives from East and West” Monograph series (36), ISSP, Academia Sinica. Taipei, Taiwan, R.O.C..
The second RC06/CFR conference in Taiwan took place in March 12th-14th, 2003 with a conference theme on “Intergenerational Relations in Families’ Life-Course”. Since Institute of Sociology, Academia Sinica was formally established in 2000, this conference was co-sponsored by RC06, ISA (Bernhard Nauck was the president) and IOS. Over 200 local participants joined with 20 foreign scholars in 15 parallel sessions where 37 papers are presented. Prof. Glen Elder delivered a keynote speech on “Generations and the life course: Their interdependence” and Prof. Vern Bengtson spoke on “Intergenerational relations and the life course in changing times” in the plenary session. Quite a few first time newcomers to RC06 attended this conference including Merril Silverstein, Gisela Trommsdorff, Reiko Yamato, Michael Farrell, Esin Kuntay, Min Zhou, Lorne Tepperman etc. Since changing intergenerational relations have brought about serious impact on the family systems globally as well as locally, heated debates and dialogues followed inside and outside the conference rooms. As a formal closure, three special issue in different journals are published: Yi, Chin-Chun and Bernhard Nauck (eds.) 2006 “Gender, Marriage and Family Support in East-Asian Families”, Current Sociology (Vol.54, No.2); Yi, Chin-Chun and Michael Farrell (eds.) 2006 “Globalization and the Intergenerational Relation: Cross-cultural Perspectives on Support, Care and Interaction Patterns”, Journal of Family Issues (Vol.27, No.8); and Nauck, Bernhard and Chin-Chun Yi (eds.) 2007 “Intergenerational Relationships in Cross-Cultural Perspectives: Fertility, Interaction and Support”, Current Sociology (Vol.55, No.4).
The third RC06/CFR conference in Taiwan again was co-sponsored by RC06, ISA and IOS, and was held in the new social science building in Academia Sinica. A local organizing committee composed of senior and junior sociologists in IOS was formed one year ahead of time. In order to accommodate diverse research interests of potential participants as well as to attract a broad range of family scholars to join RC06, “Demographic and Institutional Change in Global Families” was proposed as the conference theme. RC06 board members soon approved the theme and the timetable of March 28th to 30th, 2013. Few weeks later, the LOC began to work on the logistics of the conference after funding support from the Institute of Sociology was certain. Since RC06 will offer the 2nd junior paper award in the conference, a sub-committee headed by the vice-president Rudy Seward with Bernhard Nauck and a local representative Wen-San Yang was formed to process the paper reviews. In the meantime, upon the suggestion of LOC members, Frank Furstenberg, Philip Morgan and Stephanie Coontz agreed to give keynote speeches on changing global families from family, demography, and history perspectives respectively.
By November, 2012, there were 99 abstract submitted for consideration. But due to visa problems, financial situation and last minutes’ withdrawals, the final program is constituted by 3 keynote speeches, 68 papers and 7 poster papers. From the following charts, it can be seen the pool includes presenters of various ranks and from 23 countries. An official website was established with detailed information updated.
The 3rd family conference in Taiwan was once again warmly received by more than 100 local colleagues. The program was expanded to 18 parallel sessions. In addition to classical topics such as family structure, marriage patterns, aging families or family values, emerging subjects like migrant families and youth transitions are incorporated. From the photos available here, it is shown that participants had many opportunities (lunch, tea breaks, half-day tour, etc.) to engage in intellectual dialogue and to facilitate potential further collaboration.
The opening ceremony was chaired by Rudolf Richter (President of RC06) and Michael Hsiao (Director of Institute of Sociology). A memorable moment appeared during the closing ceremony when Rudy Seward (vice-president of RC), before offering young scholar’s award to the winner Hsin-Chieh Chang (UCLA Ph.D. candidate), asked previous attendees at the Taiwan conference to stand up. Hiroshi Kojima and Fumie Kumagai enthusiastically responded as the 1992 representatives and the other 10 participants gladly raised their hands for the 2003 conference. The conference ended with a farewell dinner of ten Chinese tables and Ria Smit (secretary of RC06) gave an eloquent speech on the conference as well as on the collaboration between two institutions. In addition to the beautiful flute performance by Fumie Kumagai and Pipa (the Chinese flutee) by Pin-Huei Huang, several book draws resulted from the book display during the conference were taken place which certainly became the event of the night!
While I am writing the report of the above three RC06/CFR family conference in Taiwan which took place over the last two decades, a thought quietly emerges: Time flies, but in the academic community, scholarship matures and friendship lasts!
The last note: As the organizer of 2013 RC06/CFR conference on “Demographic and Institutional Change in Global Families”, I would like to thank my home institute—Institute of Sociology, Academia Sinica, Taiwan—for providing all supports throughout the process. Special thanks need to be mentioned to the local organizing committee (Ying-Hwa Chang, Chyi-In Wu, Alice Cheng and Michael Hsiao) for their timely and constructive suggestions, and to the group of research assistants led by Robert Chang (Chia-You Hsieh, Derek Huang, Pei-Wen Chiang, Emily Chang, Hsin-Yi Wang) who laboriously worked on various logistic programs, visa application, lodging and meal arrangements, on-site facilities, etc. Their hard work was clearly reflected in the success of the conference flow and from dozens of appreciative mails received. I myself am particularly grateful for the team spirit expressed before, during and after the conference from this group of younger generation which will surely bring fond memories in my heart.
Yi, Chin-Chun and Ying-Hwa Chang 2008 “The Continuity and Change of Patrilineal Families: Family Sociological Research in Taiwan, 1960-2000.” In G. S. Hsieh, (ed.). Blooming Disciplines: The History of Sociological Development in Taiwan. Taipei: Socio Publishing Co., Ltd. Pp.23-73. (in Chinese)
Many years ago, during the 1970s, I was an expert to a Governmental Committee designed to suggest changes of the matrimonial laws in Sweden. When, at the end of the 1970s, I presented my studies on non-marital cohabitation to the Governmental minister of law, I very clearly, according to my own opinion, told him that those who were the first ones some years ago to start cohabitation were choosing away marriage, they were against marriage and marrying. And I also told him that, now after some years, those who started to cohabit did not choose not to marry. They just did what almost everyone else did: they started living together. Later they might marry.
The minister listened and said that he fully understood what I meant. When he later the same day met mass media he said that nowadays, according to studies at Uppsala University, it is clear that lots of couples choose away marriage, choose not to marry, and start to cohabit! Evidently what I said went into one ear and out through the other ear.
The other day I re-read Hjalmar Söderberg’s book Den allvarsamma leken (The serious play) published in 1912. There I found exactly what I meant and which the minister did not understand. Söderberg wrote (in my translation from Swedish):
We do not choose our destiny. And we do not choose
our wife or our lover or our children
we get them, and we have them, and it happens that
we lose them. But we do not choose!
Still lay people and colleagues go on saying that couples choose not to marry. They did so when it was a new movement but not now when all do so. And this is not only a Swedish phenomenon.
Another phenomenon connected to this issue is the dominance of the word, the term, marriage. It has a defining power in our verbal behavior. We easily speak of non-marital cohabitation which indicates that they live together without being married, and thus against the old norms, meaning marriage. We also differentiate between children born by married mothers from those born by not-married mothers. At the same time we, at least we family sociologists, know that in the Western world almost all start living together without marrying and many have children when cohabiting. And they do not choose away marriage, they just start living together. Some marry later, some separate and some die.
A variety of Ogburn’s cultural lag from 1922? My answer would be yes, but then we have to change the idea from material changes coming first and social changes later. Here one social cultural change is followed by a cultural lag in the form of lagging language adaptation, meaning that another social cultural change does not coinside; it is lagging.
Migration and Inequality (July 8-12, 2013)
Migration is a key challenge in contemporary societies. The magnitude of people who live and work abroad has never been as large as today, with migrants making crucial contributions to economic, social, cultural and political transformation in modern societies. This situation is a momentous challenge for the social sciences: The issues to be addressed include the causes, progress and consequences of migration; the relevance of (familial) net- works as well as cultural, symbolic and economic capital for migrational processes; migrants’ living conditions; and the manifold and partially conflictual relationships between natives and immigrants. Moreover, spatial structures and processes of delimitation are paramount to international migration and are to be explored in terms of divergent political frameworks. Attending to the subjects of migration and inequality, the Marie Jahoda Summer School of Sociology is pleased to invite dedicated PhD students to send in their applications. The work will focus on five core themes supervised by a high-ranking international faculty.
Applicants are asked to submit their CV (max. 2 pages) and a description of their PhD project (max. 2 pages) to firstname.lastname@example.org
Application deadline: April 25, 2013 Students will receive 6 ECTS credits.
The Summer School fee is EUR 140.-, including social dinner. Students are expected to pay for their own travel and accommodation.
Prof. Roland Verwiebe
Theresa Fibich, BA BEd
MMag. Raimund Haindorfer
Laura Wiesböck, MA
Department of Sociology
Rooseveltplatz 2, Vienna A-1090
We invite your proposals for topics and session organizers for CFR program at the 2014 World Congress. Please submit as soon as possible but no later than 1 February 2013 24:00 GMT. You are welcome to submit a possible topic, recommend an organizer or volunteer to be one, and/or suggest a format. For a complete list of possible formats and responsibilities for session organizers here.
For details on CFR deadlines and guidelines see here.
For each topic propose a short title and a detailed description of the focus, objectives, and dimensions to be covered (up to 300 words) plus preferred format and language (English, French or Spanish).
For each organizer or co-organizer provide full name, highest university degree held, current position including institutional affiliation with complete mailing address, a phone number, and email address.
Especially needed are organizers and suggestions for joint sessions with other RCs. We have until 7 April 2013 24:00 GMT to finalize these.
Proposals for Integrative Sessions, which must involve at least 3 RC/WG/TG, 3 National Associations or a combination of any three units, must be received at the ISA Secretariat by 15 January 2013 24:00 GMT. Guidelines for applying for integrative sessions are available here.
The program coordinator (PC) will facilitate integrating similar sessions and adjusting topics to best complete a well-rounded and comprehensive program.
A final list of sessions and their descriptions and the language in which they will be held is due to the ISA Secretariat at email@example.com for posting on the ISA Congress website as Call for Papers by 7 April 2013 24:00 GMT.
Send your proposals to:
Rudy Ray Seward, Programme Coordinator and Vice President of CFR
Professor of Sociology, Department of Sociology, University of North Texas
11155 Union Circle #311157, Denton, Texas 76203-1157
Special assistance and backup provided by:
Ria Smit, Secretary and Treasurer of CFR
Professor of Sociology, Department of Sociology, University of Johannesburg
Email: firstname.lastname@example.org ;
Bárbara Barbosa Neves, Board Member at large of CFR
Assistant Professor of Sociology, ISCSP, Technical University of Lisbon
Rua Professor Almerindo Lessa, 1300-663 Lisboa, Portugal
Our last newsletter of 2012 is out! You can check it here. Or you can find it in the newsletters’ menu.
Please take a special look at the call for nominations for the CFR elections, on pages 4-5.
For those who could not attend the Leuven seminar in September, here is an interesting analytic and historical account of two CFR seminars in Leuven (1981 and 2012). Enjoy and leave your comments below!
The XIXth international CFR-Seminar on “Divorce and Remarriage” was organized at the KU Leuven, September 1981. The same group FaPOS (Family and Population Studies) hosted at the same location, same season, September 2012, the 47th CFR-Seminar under the style of “New Family Forms following Family Dissolution: consequences in/on Postmodern Society”.
As stated by the organizer, Prof. dr. Koen Matthijs, the aim was “to look backwards and examine what has happened in society, but also in our field of family sociology” during the time span of three decades. Evaluating the latter seminar we remember what Prof. Reuben Hill, a founding father of CFR, said while recalling the developments between the 50’s and the 80’s (also three decades): “We have come a long way”. And indeed, in terms of theory (e.g. from an institutional to an interactional/systemic approach), in terms of methods and techniques (e.g. from descriptive to analytical frames of reference) as well as to the building of research papers (e.g. from single to multiple authorship) we are living in a new area.
Yet some old issues remain, as is reflected by semantics. Only two examples:
a) the term “family dissolution”; b) the term “stepchild/father/mother”.
In some instances the adequacy of the term “family dissolution” as referring to “divorce” can be put into question on two accounts: theoretical and empirical.
a) from a systematic perspective
If one focusses on the family as a system constituted of three sub-systems (1) the partner subsystem; (2) the parental subsystem; (3) the sibling subsystem, a divorce results in the dissolution of one subsystem only, the two other subsystems are not dissolved.
b) from a living arrangement/(household) perspective
If one looks at a post-divorce rotating living-arrangements (as described in the latter seminar) in which children stay with one parent during one time-period (e.g. a week), with the other parent the subsequent time-period (e.g. a week), then the parent-child (sub)system certainly is not dissolved. The living arrangements are changed in order to maintain the parent-child relationship.
Even in less clear-cut post-divorce living arrangements, legal provisions as well as actual practice are characterized by a tendency of being increasingly geared at and instrumental in maintaining and furthering the parental as well as the sibling bonds.
Conclusion: in some Western societies one can observe two tendencies: (a) a growing autonomy of the subsystems in the family; (b) the weakness of the marital subsystem (turnover of partners), is accompanied by a simultaneous strengthening of the parent-child subsystem. Or in more general terms: a strengthening of the kinship structure.
The term “step” is confusing since it refers to replacement. The most popular term “stepmother” as featured in fairy tales refers to the situation after death, not after divorce. Rather than a term referring to replacement, we need a term adequately representing additional positions in the family and/or household.
In the post-divorce situation, after the dissolution of the marital/partnership relation, the child still has both his/her father and his/her mother as parents. As stated above, the child (he/she) increasingly has the opportunity to maintain these relationships. Simultaneously the child can be confronted with a new position: the partner of his father/mother (or the new partners i.e. a new partner of his mother and a new partner of his father). The new partner(s) of the father/mother do not represent a replacement but constitute an additional position.
In case of turnover of partners in the marital subsystem, an additional subsystem can be identified within the family: the relationship between the child and the new partner of the mother/father. If both parents have new partners, then the new subsystem will encompass two new relationships: one with the new partner of the mother, one with the new partner of the father. Each conveying the continuity of the relationship father-child/mother-child. In more general terms: it clearly marks the separation between family and household.
Deadline for abstracts: 15th of December, 2012
Check the call for papers, here.
Updates from the Taipei conference organizers:
“Early Stage Family Scholar Award”
We are happy to announce that the Committee on Family Research (CFR), RC06, of the International Sociological Association will sponsor the 2nd competition on “Young Scholars Award”. The purpose is to select the best paper from young scholars to the upcoming conference on “Demographic and Institutional Change in Global Families” to be held in Taipei, Taiwan from March 28th to 30th, 2013.
Eligibility: PhD candidate or recent PhD in Sociology or in related disciplines. Recent Ph.D who received or will receive the degree after March, 2010 are encouraged to apply.
Deadline: Full paper to be received by December 31st, 2012
Announcement: March, 2013
Award: US$1000 for travel and conference expenses
Please send the full paper to Mr. Robert Chang: email@example.com
The conference website is already running.
Irena Juozeliūnienė (Lithuania) & Jan Trost (Sweden)
Laura Kanapienienė (firstname.lastname@example.org) (contact person)
Call for papers
Identification of an individual and family with a fixed locality and nation state is not evident any more. Multi-local identities bridge the space and are analyzed at the level of individuals, ethnic communities, family lives and lifestyles. Families are no more seen as given facts, rather as imagined communities, displaying and doing family lives in a globalized space.
Families were always affected by migration however contemporary globalized world creates new modes of sociological analysis of families and migration. New concepts came up to emphasize the extended networks and boundaries of newly emerging family variations and seek to define their lived realities. These concepts reveal the opportunities for families as well as mark the new sources of social stigma.
The emphasis of the CFR Seminar is on how families are shaped by mobility, separation, reunion. How families are affected by multiple national residences and transnational identities. Which way families under migration are articulated on the levels of civil society, the state and are represented in social media. Whether belonging to de-located families is in contradiction with feelings of belonging to nation state. Is it the case that the word “migrant” tends to carry class, ethnic connotations and takes the shape of “the other”? How come that transnational elites are perceived as “mobiles” and avoid the connotations, attributed to the “migrants”?
Participants are challenged to take the perspective of country of origin and country of destination. The seminar would cover several levels of analysis:
1) Rethinking the concepts we use and names we give to the emerging family forms. The discussion about representation of families and migration in official documents, social media, and everyday life situations is suggested. A special attention is to the way these representations are mediated by family ideology.
2) The way of knowing, the language of doing research on families and migration. The participants are encouraged to suggest theories and methods to study newly emerging family forms. Quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods approaches are welcome.
3) Lived realities of families under migration, as “thick descriptions” of cultural, institutional, interactional practices.
The number of participants is limited to 30.
Deadline for abstract submission: December 15th, 2012.
Decision on accepted abstracts: January 7th, 2013.
Registration will open on January 7th, 2013.
Deadline for early bird registration: April 1st, 2013.
Deadline for regular registration: June 1st, 2013.
Deadline to submit full manuscript: June 15th, 2013.
- Abstracts should be written in English.
- Maximum 3000 characters (including spaces and excluding title and contact
information on authors).
- References and credits are not to be included in the abstract text, nor subheadings or contact details.