THE IMPACT OF LIFESTYLE OF URBAN FAMILIES FOR ITS STABILITY
https://doi.org/10.24290/1029-3736-2016-22-3-81-83
Abstract
The paper presents an attempt to study the way a family depends on the nature and intensity of demographic processes, to identify relationship between reproduction and family behavior, its way of life (including reproductive behavior) and stability. A specific status of a family as a social unit and a social institution in the population reproduction process is determined. Family functioning is considered in terms of overall reproduction process with its social meaning being as lifestyle reproduction and specific way of activities and behavior of different families in certain social conditions. There is analysis of changes in the nature of marriage and family relations as well as revealed factors that influence urban family life and marriage and divorce level. The article calls attention to the problem of stabilization and destabilization of urban families and the ways to regulate family relations. We offer a thesis on necessary measures to influence social opinion in order to make it healthier as well as public and social institutions to pay more attention at family issues and population reproduction. The paper is based on the results of the target sociological survey of two-parent families conducted by the author.
About the Author
F. A. Igebaeva
Bashkir State Agrarian University
Russian Federation
candidate of philosophical sciences, associate professor the chair of social, economic subjects and humanities
Russian Federation
candidate of philosophical sciences, associate professor the chair of social, economic subjects and humanities
References
1. Aitov N.A., Govako B.I., Igebaeva F.A. Gorod. Naselenie. Trudovye resursy. Ufa, 1982.
2. Antonov A.I., Medkov V.M., Arhangel’skij V.N. Demograficheskie processy v Rossii v XXI veke. M., 2002.
3. Beach S. Transformative processes in marriage: an analysis of emerging trends // Journal of Marriage and the Family. 2007. May. N 69.
4. Blossfeld and Hofmeister. 2005. Life courses in the globalization process. Final report. Bamberg, 2005.
5. Braki i razvody glazami sociologa. URL: http//demoscope.ru /weekly/ 2011/ 0475 //rossia01/php#5 (data obrashhenija: 26.06.2011).
6. Burhanova F.B. Brak i sem’ja u bashkir // Sociologicheskie issledovanija. 2015. N 8. S. 66–74.
7. Buhalova N.A. Povtornye braki u pozhilyh ljudej // Sociologicheskie issledovanija. 2012. N 3. S. 65–71.
8. Darskij A.E. Demografo-statisticheskoe issledovanie. M., 1999.
9. Demograficheskie processy v Respublike Bashkortostan. Stat. sb. Ufa, 2012.
10. Eljutina M.Je., Isaeva S.A. Prichiny razvoda v tret’em vozraste // Sociologicheskie issledovanija. 2012. N 9. S. 91–98.
11. Forsberg L. Managing time and childcare in dual-earner families: unforeseen consequences of household strategies // Acta sociologica. 2009. Jun. Vol. 52.
12. Gurko T.A. Alimenty: faktor kachestvennogo i kolichestvennogo vosproizvodstva naselenija // Sociologicheskie issledovanija. 2008. N 9. S. 110–120.
13. Harchev A.G. Issledovanie sem’i: na poroge novogo jetapa // Sociologicheskie issledovanija. 2004. N 3. S. 67–72.
14. Igebaeva F.A. Vlijanie migracionnyh processov na reproduktivnye ustanovki gorozhan // Nauka, obrazovanie, obshhestvo: problemy i perspektivy razvitija. Sb. nauch. trudov po materialam mezhdunar. nauch.-prakt. konferencii: V 10 chastjah. Ufa, 2013. S. 52–53.
15. Igebaeva F.A. Osobennosti demograficheskogo razvitija goroda i stabil’nosti sem’i // Social’no-politicheskie nauki. Mezhdunarodnyj mezhvuzovskij nauchnyj recenziruemyj zhurnal. 2013. N 2. S. 79–81.
16. Igebaeva F.A. Demograficheskoe razvitie goroda kak social’nyj process // European Social Science Journal. 2014. Vol. 2. N 7. S. 418–422.
17. McDonald 2006. Low fertiliti and the state: the efficacy of policy // Population and Development Reiw. 2006. N 32 (3).
18. Novosjolova E.N. Odnopolyj “brak” — tupikovaja vetv’ jevoljucii sem’i i ob-shhestva // Vestn. Mosk. un-ta. Serija 18. Sociologija i politologija. 2013. N 4. S. 85–103.
19. Novosjolova E.N. Tradicionnaja sem’ja v bol’shom gorode: social’nyj atavizm i neobhodimaja cennost’ // Vest. Mosk. un-ta. Ser. 18. Sociologija i politologija. 2014. N 4. S. 166–188.
20. Pronevskaja I.V., Nurov A.S. Jetnicheskie osobennosti razlichnyh tipov semejnogo povedenija // Vestn. Mosk. un-ta. Ser. 18. Sociologija i politologija. 2012. N 2. S. 163–181.
21. Pasovec Ju.M. Demograficheskij potencial sovremennoj Rossii v regional’nom razreze // Sociologicheskie issledovanija. 2011. N 12. S. 64–69.
22. Rzhanicina L.S. Uluchshenie polozhenija detej v razvedennyh sem’jah // Sociologicheskie issledovanija. 2015. N 3. S. 65–69.
23. Shevchenko I.O. Situacija posle razvoda: otcy i deti // Sociologicheskie issledovanija. 2015. N 3. S. 70–77.
24. Tamara K. Haraven. Family time and industrial time. Cambridge, 1982.
25. Toshhenko Zh.T. Sociologija: Uch. M., 2007.
26. Vasil’eva Je.K. Sem’ja i ee funkcii. Demografo-statisticheskij analiz. M., 2001.
27. Zaharov S.V. Rasprostranennost’ razvodov “s det’mi” // Kuda dvizhutsja suprugi v Rossii? DemoskopWeekly. 2013. 4–15 marta. N 545–546. URL: http: // demoscope.ru /weekly /20130545 // tema 04.php (data obrashhenija: 13.08.2014).
Review
For citations:
Igebaeva F.A. THE IMPACT OF LIFESTYLE OF URBAN FAMILIES FOR ITS STABILITY. Moscow State University Bulletin. Series 18. Sociology and Political Science. 2016;22(3):127-141. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.24290/1029-3736-2016-22-3-81-83
Views:
4373
Email this article 