One or two pathways to modernity? A systematic comparison of Kağıtçıbaşı's Model of Family Change and the Model of the Second Demographic Transition

doi:10.1017/CBO9780511720437.016

13 - One or two pathways to modernity? A systematic comparison of Kağıtçıbaşı's Model of Family Change and the Model of the Second Demographic Transition

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 04 August 2010

Bernhard Nauck

Edited by

Sevda Bekman and

Ayhan Aksu-Koç

Foreword by

M. Brewster Smith

Show author details

Sevda Bekman: Affiliation:
Bogaziçi University, Istanbul
Ayhan Aksu-Koç: Affiliation:
Bogaziçi University, Istanbul

Book contents

Get access

Summary

I got to know Çiğdem Kağıtçıbaşı on my first visit to Turkey in 1985, when trying to validate my empirical research on Turkish immigrant families in Germany in discussions with Turkish social scientists. This visit introduced me to the concept value of children, which thereafter became most influential to my academic work, both at the theoretical level, as it fitted well into modern sociological action theory and multi-level approaches, and in empirical research, as Çiğdem Kağıtçıbaşı's analyses were always at the interface of psychology and social sciences. During several encounters thereafter on various occasions, I felt much encouraged to take the initiative for a replication of the Value of Children (VOC) studies twenty five years later, which was the baseline for the following thoughts. I will always admire Çiğdem Kağıtçıbaşı for her ability to combine sharp analytical thinking with a humanitarian engagement for a civic society.

Introduction

Theorizing about the interrelationship between macro-social change and family structure has been a major feature of the various disciplines of the social sciences from their very beginning. In many cases, “family” was seen as the social group where the impact of social change could be understood in its greatest depth (Thornton 2005). Accordingly, the history of social sciences is full of examples of sequential models of social change and its consequences on family and kinship.

Type: Chapter
Information: Perspectives on Human Development, Family, and Culture , pp. 209 - 226

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511720437.016 [Opens in a new window]

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication year: 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Atoh, M., “The relevance of ideational changes to family transformation in postwar Japan,” in Thornton, A., Jayakody, R., and Axinn, W. (eds.), International Family Change: Ideational Perspectives (Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 2008), pp. 223–50.Google Scholar

Caldwell, J. C., The Theory of Fertility Decline (London/New York: Academic Press, 1982).Google Scholar

Durkheim, E., “The conjugal family,” in Traugott, M. (ed.), Emile Durkheim on Institutional Analysis (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1892/1978), pp. 229–39.Google Scholar

Georgas, J., Vijver, F. J. R., Berry, J. W., Poortinga, Y. H., and Kağıtçıbaşı, Ç., “Methodology of the study,” in Georgas, J., Berry, J. W., Vijver, F. J. R, Kağıtçıbaşı, Ç., and Poortinga, Y. H. (eds.), Families across Cultures. A 30-nation Psychological Study (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006), pp. 111–25.CrossRef Google Scholar

Goode, W. J., World Revolution and Family Patterns (New York: Free Press, 1963).Google Scholar

Goode, W. J., World Changes in Divorce Patterns (New Haven/London: Yale University Press, 1993).Google Scholar

Goody, J., The Oriental, the Ancient and the Primitive. Systems of Marriage and the Family in the Pre-industrial Societies of Eurasia (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990).CrossRef Google Scholar

Hajnal, J., “European marriage patterns in perspective,” in Glass, D. V. and Eversley, D. E. C. (eds.), Population in History (Chicago: Aldine, 1965), pp. 101–43.Google Scholar

Hofstede, G., Culture's Consequences (Beverly Hills/London: Sage, 1980).Google Scholar

Inglehart, R., The Silent Revolution: Changing Values and Political Styles among Western Publics (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1977).Google Scholar

Inglehart, R., Modernization and Postmodernization. Cultural, Economic, and Political Change in 43 Societies (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1997).Google Scholar

Kağıtçıbaşı, Ç., The Changing Value of Children in Turkey (Honolulu, HI: East-West Center, 1982).Google Scholar

Kağıtçıbaşı, Ç., “Intra-family interaction and a model of family change,” in Erder, T. (ed.), Family in Turkish Society (Ankara, Turkey: MAYA, 1985), pp. 149–65.Google Scholar

Kağıtçıbaşı, Ç., “Family and socialization in cross-cultural perspective: A model of change,” in Berman, J. (ed.), Cross-cultural Perspectives: Nebraska Symposium on Motivation 1989 (Lincoln: Nebraska University Press, 1990), pp. 135–200.Google Scholar

Kağıtçıbaşı, Ç., Family and Human Development across Cultures: A View from the Other Side (Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1996).Google Scholar

Kağıtçıbaşı, Ç., “Cross-cultural perspectives on family change,” in Liljeström, R. and Özdalga, E. (eds.), Autonomy and Dependence in the Family: Turkey and Sweden in Critical Perspective (Istanbul: Swedish Research Institute, 2002), pp. 19–38.Google Scholar

Kağıtçıbaşı, Ç., “Autonomy and relatedness in cultural context: Implications for self and family,”Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 36 (2005), 403–22.CrossRef Google Scholar

Kim, U., Triandis, H. C., Ç. Kağıtçıbaşı, Choi, S. C., and Yoon, G. (eds.), Individualism and Collectivism: Theory, Method, and Applications (Thousand Oaks/London: Sage, 1994).Google Scholar

Lerner, D., The Passing of Traditional Society: Modernizing in the Middle East (Glencoe, IL: Free Press, 1958).Google Scholar

Lesthaeghe, R., “A century of demographic and cultural change in western Europe: An exploration of underlying dimensions,”Population and Development Review, 9 (1983), 411–35.CrossRef Google Scholar

Lesthaeghe, R. and Neels, K., “From the first to the second demographic transition: An interpretation of the spatial continuity of demographic innovation in France, Belgium and Switzerland,”European Journal of Population, 18 (2002), 325–60.CrossRef Google Scholar

Lesthaeghe, R. and Surkyn, J., “Cultural dynamics and economic theories of fertility change,”Population and Development Review, 14 (1988), 1–45.CrossRef Google Scholar

Lesthaeghe, R. and Surkyn, J., “When history moves on: The foundations and diffusion of a second demographic transition,” in Thornton, A., Jayakody, R., and Axinn, W. (eds.), International Family Change: Ideational Perspectives (Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 2008), pp. 81–117.Google Scholar

Lesthaeghe, R. and Willems, P., “Is low fertility a temporary phenomenon in the European Union?,”Population and Development Review, 25 (1999), 211–28.CrossRef Google Scholar

Lesthaeghe, R., Neidert, L., and Surkyn, J., Household Formation and the “Second Demographic Transition” in Europe and the US: Insights from Middle Range Models (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, 2008).

Maslow, A., Motivation and Personality (New York: Harper & Row, 1954).Google Scholar

Nauck, B., “Familiensystem und Kultur [Family system and culture],” in Trommsdorff, G. and Kornadt, H. J. (eds.), Kulturvergleichende Psychologie. Volume 1. Theorien und Methoden in der kulturvergleichenden und kulturpsychologischen Forschung [Cross-cultural Comparative Psychology. Volume 1. Theories and Methods in Cross-cultural and Culture-psychological Research] (Göttingen: Hogrefe, 2007), pp. 405–84.Google Scholar

Nauck, B. and Klaus, D., “Family change in Turkey: Peasant society, Islam, and the revolution ‘from above,’” in Thornton, A., Jayakody, R., and Axinn, W. (eds.), International Family Change: Ideational Perspectives (Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 2008, pp. 281–312.Google Scholar

Notestein, F. W., “Population – the long view,” in Schultz, T. W. (ed.), Food for the World (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1945), pp. 37–57.Google Scholar

Olson, E. A., “Duofocal family structure and an alternative model of husband–wife relationship,” in Kağıtçıbaşı, Ç. (ed.), Sex Roles, Family, and Community in Turkey (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1982), pp. 33–72.Google Scholar

Parsons, T., “The kinship system of the contemporary United States,”American Anthropologist, 45 (1943), 22–38.CrossRef Google Scholar

Parsons, T., The Social System (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1951).Google Scholar

Surkyn, J. and Lesthaeghe, R., “Value orientations and the second demographic transition (SDT) in Northern, Western and Southern Europe: An update,”Demographic Research, 3 (2004), 45–86.CrossRef Google Scholar

Tanaka, K. and Johnson, N. E. “Childlessness, only children, and the second demographic transition in Japan,” paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Sociological Association, 2005.

Thornton, A., Reading History Sideways: The Fallacy and Enduring Impact of the Developmental Paradigm on Family Life (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2005).Google Scholar

Kaa, D. J., “Europe's second demographic transition,” in Population Bulletin, Volume 42 (Washington: Population Reference Bureau, 1987).Google Scholar

Kaa, D. J., “Demographic transition, second,”International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences, 5 (2001), 3486–88.Google Scholar

Kaa, D. J., “The idea of a second demographic transition in industrialized countries,”Journal of Population and Social Security, 1 (2003).Google Scholar

Kaa, D. J., “Is the second demographic transition a useful research concept? Questions and answers,” in Vienna Yearbook of Population Research 2004 (Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2004), pp. 4–10.Google Scholar