Even in the USA we May Be Socially Backward

by Russell Watson

The first of my ancestors who came to North America, in the 17^th century, were Dutch. They settled in a colony called New Amsterdam. Then the English took over. New Amsterdam became New York and New Jersey, and my ancestors had to put aside their Dutchness.

Today, even Americans who live in old New Amsterdam no longer consider the Netherlands a mother country. When we think of the Dutch, we picture a small, oddball nation that permits many of the things we still regard as unlawful: prostitution, marijuana, same-sex marriages.

Yet, without knowing it, Americans are becoming a little more Dutch all the time – a society embroiled in rapid change, breaking down old structures and trying out best ways to live. The latest US Census shows that the presumed bedrock of our society, the nuclear family – Mom, Dad and 2.4 kids – is breaking down fast. Fewer than 25 percent of all US households now consist of married couples raising children, according to Census figures. In part, that’s a consequence of societal aging: a growing portion of the US population is now beyond the child-rearing stage. But it also reflects a steep decline in the popularity of marriage, even for people who want to have children.

About a third of all babies are now born to unmarried women, compared with only 3.8 percent in 1950. The number of families headed by single women has risen 25 percent since 1990, to more than 7.5 million households. (The number of fathers raising kids on their own has increased at an even faster rate, to just over 2 million families). Demographers predict that more than half of the American children born in the 1990s will spend at least part of their childhood in a single-parent home.

Today’s single mothers don’t fit the old stereotype of dark-skinned teenagers on welfare. Though many are employed, they are still likely to be financially insecure, but they could be any age and any race. The median age for unmarried mothers is the late 20s, and white women make up the fastest-growing element of the group.

Instead of getting married – or staying married – many people are just living together. Unmarried cohabitation, involving both same-sex and opposite-sex couples, rose from 72 percent between 1990 and 2000, to 5.5 million households. Thanks to artificial insemination and adoption, a man in residence is no longer needed to produce a baby.

It’s easy to understand why adult Americans are acting this way. With so many marriages ending in divorce, formal commitment strikes many people as a bad idea. And with so many women in the work force, fewer of them feel compelled to economic pressure to settle for Mr. Almost Right. It isn’t clear whether all this unmarried parenthood is good for the children involved.

Single parents generally have less time to spend with their children than two parents. Cohabiting relationships are less stable than marriages, which means that children living in such families are more likely to grow up with a revolving set of adults in their lives. And the offspring of single parents are more likely to reject marriage for themselves, perpetuating the pattern of their childhoods. For better or worse, Americans are reinventing the family. If the children of single-parent or cohabiting households end up receiving less guidance and support from their elders, family life will become a new form of Dutch treat. You’re on your own, kids.

(“NEWSWEEK” 2001)

 

2. Answer the following questions:

1. What are demographers worried about?

2. Why do young people prefer live together instead of getting married?

3. Why is sometimes a man no longer needed to produce a baby?

4. Are cohabiting relations a good model for the offspring?

5. What expects Americans?

 

Write a short summary of the text.

Text 7.

Read and translate the text

Networks

The term social network designates social ties that link people without the intensity of social interaction and common identity of a social group.

A social network resembles a social group in that it joins people in social relationships; it differs from a social group because it is not the basis for consistent social interaction and generates little sense of common identity or belonging. Social networks also have no clear boundaries, but expand outward from the individual like a vast web.

Social ties within some networks may be relatively primary, as among people who attended college together and have since maintained their friendships by mail and telephone. More commonly, network ties are extremely secondary relationships that involve little personal knowledge. A social network may also contain people we know of or who know of us- but with whom we interact infrequently, if at all. As one woman with a reputation as a community organizer explains, << I get calls at home, someone says, Are you Rosenn Navarro? Somebody told to call you. I have this problem…>>. For this reason, Mark Granovetter has described social networks as clusters of weak ties.

Even though social ties within networks may not be strong, these relationships represent a valuable resource that can be used to personal advantage. Perhaps the most common example of the power of networks involves finding a job. Albert Einstein, for example, sought employment for a year after completing his schooling, and only succeeded when the father of one of his classmates put him in touch with the director of an office who was able to provide a job. Thus, even in the case of a person with extraordinary ability, who you know may still be just as important as you know.

Nan Lin and her associates produced evidence of the extent of such network- based opportunities. Conducting a survey of 399 men in an urban area of the United States, Lin found that almost 60 percent had used social networks in finding a job; this approach was much more common that any other. But although social networks may be widespread, Lin found that they do not provide equal advantages to everyone. In her study networks afforded the greatest advantages to men whose fathers held important occupational positions. This reflects the fact that networks tend to contain people with similar social characteristics and social rank, thereby helping to perpetuate patterns of social inequality.

 

2. Answer the questions:

1. What does the term <<social network>> designate?

2. What are the differences and similarities between a social network and a social group?

3. Are social ties within networks strong or weak?