Audio Scripts - Track 21 to 26
Track 21
Jenny: My family isn’t very big. There’s just my son and me. I’m a single parent.
For the last ten years I’ve been concentrating on looking after my son James, who
is now fourteen. But now I’ve met someone special and we’ve just got engaged!
My fiance has four kids of his own and we’re going to get married in July. James
is really excited about it; he’s looking forward to having brothers and sisters in his
new step-family!
Sheila: We live as one big extended family. There are seven of us in our
household. Besides my husband and me and our children, there’s my aunt and two
of my cousins. I stay at home and care for my mother because she’s quite old and
can’t look after herself. Obviously, we suffer from a lack of space in the house, but
we all get on well.
Track 22
1. Firstly, I am going to talk about the role of the parent. Secondly, I’ll discuss the
role of the child, and lastly, we’ll look at the family unit as a whole.
2. Parenting is a difficult job because no two children are ever the same.
3. Families are important because they form the basis for socialisation.
Additionally, they educate and protect the next generation.
4. The family structure has varied greatly over time. That is, different times have
had different views of what a traditional family structure is.
5. Many argue that less traditional structures are not as effective. However, there is
little evidence to support this.
6. Many people are having families later in life. Consequently, the rise in the
number of single people may only be temporary.
7. Families in other parts of the world differ from the western norm. For instance,
in some cultures having multiple husbands or wives is the norm.
8. Although there are many arguments for trying to keep the traditional family
structure strong, I feel the key issue is the economic necessity of having a ‘normal’
family structure.
Track 23
Lecturer: As we have seen, changes in the structure of the family are constantly
occurring; extended to nuclear, patrifocal to a more equal footing between the
sexes, and dual parenting to single parenting. However, a recent phenomenon in
the UK which is changing the traditional family is the increasing number of adults
who continue to live with their parents until their thirties or sometimes even their
forties. The UK has traditionally been a society where offspring leave the family
home in their late teens or early twenties to set up their own home and families.
But in the last twenty-five years this has decreased. Official statistics released by
the Office of National Statistics show that today ten per cent of men in their early
thirties still live with their parents; this compares with five per cent of women in
this age range.
The reasons for this are complex and varied. It cannot be denied that some people
are choosing to stay at home. Living with parents can be an easy option; food is
provided, heating and electricity are paid for, and rent, if any, is minimal.
However, a third of those surveyed claimed they are living with their parents
because it is too difficult to get on the property ladder. House prices in the last few
decades have risen dramatically; property is now six times the average annual
salary, whereas it was only three times the average annual wage in the 1980s. This
fact, coupled with high unemployment amongst young people, makes it virtually
impossible for single persons to buy a home or even rent.
The number of students going on to higher education has also been steadily
increasing. Many of these students return home after finishing their studies as a
result of the student debt they have accumulated. It can take many years to pay this
off, and if the burden of rent or a mortgage is added to that, it can be just too much
for a young adult’s pocket.
However, help is now at hand. The government is tackling some of the problems
that cause people to remain with their parents with a new scheme: the Affordable
Housing Scheme. This aims to help people part buy a house or flat by making
housing more affordable for first-time buyers, and possibly taking the strain away
from elderly parents.
Track 24
Lecturer:
The family is a topic which we will look at in great detail this term. For
sociologists, the family is often seen as the beginning of socialisation. Indeed, it is
the seed of society itself. In recent decades, many old people have no longer been
able to rely on their offspring for support, which was common fifty years ago.
Many children are brought up by only one parent, something virtually unheard of
before the 1960s.
We can certainly say that during the last half century we have seen an
enormous change in traditional family structures.
The extended family lasted well into the early 1900s, and this kind of strong
family unit was essential due to property ownership. Housing often was scarce
and it was necessary for people to live with parents and take over the property
when their parents died. Of course, people still benefit from their family line. Still
today, people generally inherit any money that their mother or father might
have.
In the UK, the last fifty years has also seen a decrease in the number of
offspring parents have. Whereas in the 1950s only ten per cent of offspring were
only children, this number has risen. Nowadays, this is the case for just over a
third of children.
Track 25
Lecturer:
In Victorian times, the upper classes made up less than three per cent of the entire
population of Britain, yet this class held more than ninety per cent of the country’s
wealth. This shows the massive gap there was between rich and poor, a gap which
has shrunk considerably in the last century. Today we’re going to look at the wide
differences in family life between rich and poor in Victorian times. Let’s begin
with the upper classes.
The upper classes of the Victorian period were generally the nobility or the clergy.
Most of their servants were very poorly paid, but were always accommodated
within the homes of upper-class Victorian families, so they didn’t have to pay
for accommodation, food and often clothing.
The money which they did earn, they normally sent home to their families.
Many Victorian servants came from the countryside, where the effects of the
industrial revolution had resulted in job losses. Amongst these servants were
cooks, housemaids, stable hands, and butlers. The family would also employ a
nanny, who although employed by the family, was not traditionally seen as a
servant. A nanny’s primary role was to care for the children. She was responsible
for teaching the children how to behave, looking after them when they were ill,
and instilling discipline into them. Nannies did not, however, educate the children.
Generally, children from wealthy families did not attend school outside the
family home. Tutors would come to the house to school them, and although
on occasion mothers taught their children to read and fathers gave their
children some instruction in Latin, this was not a common occurrence.
Now, the Victorian upper classes have the reputation of being quite cruel; but this
wasn’t always the case. They were also quite charitable. Ragged schools were
set up with funding from the upper classes so that poor children could have
some form of education.
Additionally, most Victorian parents were very proud of their children, who were
often the family’s prized possessions. This goes against the common idea that
parents were very hard on their children. In fact, the opposite was generally
the rule.
However, the situation for lower class families was very different. In the lower
classes child labour was rife. Children as young as eight earned a living as
chimney sweeps for wealthy houses.
Track 26
Lecturer:
We are all familiar with the nuclear family, which has been the dominant family
structure in the UK for the last sixty years at least. However, recent changes
show that our idea of the traditional nuclear family as the cornerstone of
British family life is changing.
There have been emerging patterns which are eroding this structure: namely, the
rise of step-families, cohabitation, lone-parenting, and the rapid increase in those
living alone. We are going to explore these areas in turn, and look at their effect in
terms of the family.
Firstly, step-families are becoming more and more common. Step-families are
created when one or both partners have a child or children from a previous
relationship.
In 1980 the percentage of children under thirteen who were living with one parent
and their new partner was just four per cent. In 2008, this figure had increased to
ten per cent. The USA has seen an even greater rise; new statistics show that
almost half of under-13s were living in a step-family.
Co-habitation, when partners do not marry yet live together as a family, has also
increased. In 2006, of the 17.5 million families in Britain, nearly three million of
these comprised unmarried couples.
What does this mean to the nuclear family? Firstly, the traditional view of a
nuclear family requires married parents, so we can’t put these types of family
under this umbrella.
Statistics show that even if cohabiting couples have children, they are more
likely to separate than their married equivalents.
Lastly, we need to look at the rise of the DINKS, which stands for Dual Income
No Kids. As Clarke and Henwood outline, many cohabiting couples are choosing
a life without children, putting consumer spending first.
Lone-parenting is a relatively recent family structure which has rapidly grown in
the last half century. In 1972 only one in fourteen children lived in a lone-
parent family. When we compare this with today’s figure of one in four, we
can see that this is a rapid increase.
In the past, lone-parenthood was overwhelmingly the result of death of a parent.
Nowadays however, it is increasingly a choice. Some sociologists argue that
this increase is due to the outlook of women. Where women once were willing
to accept an unhappy or abusive marriage, now many will choose lone-parenthood.
Often this can be just a transitory phase before they find a new partner.
Some figures show that the largest group of lone parents are mothers who
have never married.
One difficulty for single parents is that they are a special group who are much
more likely to suffer from poverty and hardship. They are more likely to live in
rented accommodation and have childcare issues.
Lastly, an increasing number of people are choosing to live alone. The number
of people living alone in Britain has more than doubled in the last twenty years. In
1990 just over four million people lived alone. Now this figure has reached 8.5
million, an incredibly rapid growth which has had enormous effects on the
traditional nuclear family.
This rise of people living alone either by choice or necessity is outside the
traditional family unit. Some think that these changes may not help the
community.
In fact, there are many arguments that this rise in alternative household
structures will create a more isolationalist and less community-based society,
where close bonds which are usually formed within the family have no place.
Leaving aside whether or not the housing crisis exists for this boom, an important
factor which must be looked at is the disproportionate expense for those
living on their own.
By this I mean that the full cost of all costs is shouldered by one wage instead of
two, and of course one person is using the energy that could be shared between a
group, having a greater impact on the environment too.
