|
Equal Collaboration on Intended Family Size
by Paul Dennis Spörer
In all phases, husband and wife are given the responsibility by society to be co-designers of the family household. They must make clear to each other their individual conception of the family, they must collaborate on its design, and they must coordinate resources for the implementation of a long-term strategy. If children, as society expects, are inserted into scenes of family life, major accommodations are necessary in other aspects, for the sake of harmonious balance. Thus, the foreground of the 'family concept', so often reserved for children, has far-reaching consequences for the whole work of life demanding a critical appraisal. According to the theory of social capital, all people calculate the net value that children add to social spheres of the individual, family life, community, nation and religion. Based on this calculation, men and women will conceptualise their specific 'fertility intentions' in the general life context; for example, 'I'd like a large, warm family life, with three or four children'; 'Two children makes for the best balance in the household'; 'A single child would get the best of everything'; 'Children would be a major obstacle to our career goals'. However, we should understand that whatever the rationale underlying the fertility intentions, there must be communication between the marriage partners, and even more importantly, there must be consensus. Without communication and consensus on this major issue, husband and wife will feel isolated, and the continuing disagreement will threaten the marital relationship itself.
One must consider two steps in relation to placing children: the formation of fertility intentions, especially the influence of one partner's concepts of fertility upon the fertility intentions of the other, and the conversion of these fertility intentions into fertility-related behaviour.
We can establish a legitimate, logical premiss: because both husband and wife depend totally on each other for the attainment of their ideal family 'portrait', that there must be a substantial level of mutual consideration of the other's opinion. However, the very prevalent expectation that along with marriage come children must arouse a fairly strong independent opinion about the subject of fertility, which adds to, if not interferes with, the individual's overall visualisation. Thus, if our premiss is correct, we would expect to see a balance, between the individual's internal concept, and the jointly derived or consensus intention.
Thus, in order to see if our premiss is correct, we need to survey the existing literature, in answer to the question: Is the husband or wife more influential in making decisions about the couple's reproductive behaviour? Clearly, we should seek out information that records the opinions of husbands and wives on the subject of their planning for children. Accuracy is essential in analysing opinions concerning the sensitive issue of intended number of children. Yet, 'perceptual errors' of what the other spouse believes about the reproductive ideal are found to be common and influenced by a variety of socioeconomic variables. Hence, research attempting to establish a couple's attitudes on fertility intentions and contraceptive effectiveness might be flawed if based only on one spouse's reports. (1) We must therefore be aware that research into this subject might not yield the complete details we would like.
In primary communes, we would expect to see a clearer picture of the opinions of husband and wife, since their culture is simpler, with fewer confounding factors of complexity in education, employment, class, recreation and media and government blandishments.
We might expect in environments where resources are scarce, subsistence living is common, and domination of the strongest the shortest route to consensus, that men would lord themselves over women in all domains. Men would want as many sons as possible, who would become labourers, guards and warriors. Wives would want fewer children, because of the burden and dangers of pregnancy, and the chore of raising numerous children. In such circumstances, people do not have the inclination nor the tools to carefully engrave a sophisticated family model. Couples living in primitive communes might have less homogeneous and consistent ideas. However, the anthropology of the non-Western world reveals little about the influence that husbands and wives have on each other's fertility intentions and the amount of decision making capacity each holds in practise.
The studies that do address the subject provide evidence that rejects the male domination theory. In one area of Africa, no significant differences between those of men and women in the area of fertility preferences; interestingly, in this cultural environment, such preferences are usually low. Men's preference for sons influences desired family size and eventual fertility. (2)
In an East African culture, when it comes to intended number of births, a husband does not have more influence over his wife's plans than she does over his, and both their intentions influence contraceptive use. Men do exert leverage over fertility (births and pregnancies), yet such influence is not uniform. (3)
In West Africa, again we find that husband and wife responses on questions about family planning and achieved fertility were generally similar; however, their responses relating to expected fertility intentions were very different. Fertility intentions in this particular culture operate essentially on an individual and not a family level. Individually derived preferences, within cultural limits, tend to predominate in women, and are often not related to husband's wishes; this holds true whether the woman is in a monogamous or polygynous union (4)
It is apparent from the evidence from some primary subsistence cultures, that our premiss stated at the beginning, about the necessity of mutual consideration and cooperation, is not rejected. There is no clear pattern of male domination, instead there is between husband and wife a consensus based on a moderate level of consideration for each other's opinions on fertility. Yet we also find a certain level of disjunction of opinions. Still, a socially primitive environment does appear to elicit in men a motivation to attempt to control fertility, but only to a certain extent.
Studies find in Western culture a 'responsiveness to spouse', which varies across the life course. This supports the premiss we made about cooperation between spouses on the issue of fertility. Yet, the change in opinions in husband and wife is complex. Patterns of disagreement about fertility desires and intentions vary by sex, parity, and time. (5) Thus, husband and wife engage in clear independent thinking, constructing a model and modifying it after more information and experiences are gathered.
Some research shows a gap between traditional women and traditional men in the area of fertility intentions. Yet, there is also a gap between men and women with modern ideas. Women with egalitarian attitudes (who have flexible sex role concepts) are less likely to intend to or to actually have a child than traditional women. Unlike women, egalitarian men are more likely to intend to have a child and less likely to divorce than traditional men. (6) Further, educated men might be motivated to marry less educated women, in order for their views on children to coincide. Where both the husband and wife had modern, egalitarian views of sex roles, there would likely create tension, since women would want fewer children, and men would want more. It should be stated that he gap in opinions does not appear to be serious enough to cause divorce. Possibly, women would want to be more involved in external work and education, whereas men would see the flexibility in sex roles at home as providing greater capacity for 'parenting' and so a larger number of children could be accommodated.
An egalitarian attitude often arises from more extensive education. In certain cultures outside the Western world, although a wife's education has no relationship to number of births, the husband's education is negatively associated (greater education, less desire for children). Women with more educated husbands were also more motivated to reduce fertility; older women also had the same reductionist tendency. (7) Thus, when there is higher education for the man, there is a lower chance of birth for the woman. Also, women married to educated husbands seem to come into agreement with their spouses after awhile. Is this due to successful persuasion, or to coercion?
Despite these facts, it is often perceived that it is the husband's preference for children or for childlessness controls the situation more often than the wife's. This possibility cannot be totally rejected, as the man's ability to 'govern fertility intentions' may have been insufficiently examined or confounded by such variables as the woman's education, social class, religion, or labour market participation. (8)
Thus, there is evidence for mutual consideration in Western cultures, with gaps present, but also with no evidence of fractious conflict if there is a disagreement on fertility intentions. Having children in the family is an area where both husband and wife must work closely together on the canvas, as part of the function of 'drawing in' in other people into the scene, since the position of such persons affects all other aspects of the great work of the family. If children are not workable, then it is better to leave them out, and not force them in. However, there are significant potential hazards in considering this area of 'non-fertility'. A clash in attitudes about fertility could have serious consequences on the relationship between husband and wife. If at first, it was only the husband's decision to have a family without children, and not wife wanted children, then she is likely to come into agreement with him. But, if it was the wife at first who wants to remain childless, and the husband wants a family with children, then only very rarely would the husband acquiesce. There is a good chance that if this disparity was not reconciled, that major damage would occur to their relationship, and the result would be divorce. 'In an era when "fatherhood is fashionable," speculations are made as to why these men resist fatherhood, and why the male-dominant pattern in the childfree marriages examined, prevails'. (9)
Hence, we do not find evidence that the man or woman necessarily 'controls' fertility intentions, the opinion about how many children the couple should have. There are often errors that husbands and wives make about each others opinions on the subject, and there is some conflict in the research about the effects of education (and by implication, an expanded knowledge on the subject of fertility). We also note that since poorly educated people living in unsophisticated cultures can arrive at mutual consideration of opinions on fertility, then it should be expected that in all cultures, there would be such consideration. Thus, the enlightened person, living in a Western culture, should have no difficulty establishing the groundwork upon which to build a marital consensus. We should also make clear, that even if there is a disagreement about fertility intentions, this gap can be closed through discussion, if both husband and wife are reasonable people who seek and accept the truth. To some people, although not likely including Christians, the difference in opinion between partners might seem too great, and so the marriage might be rejected or there might be a divorce if already married. Then there might be some people, who might deliberately make as a major consideration for marriage, the similar attitude on having children. We should emphasise, that as a general rule, only when there is disagreement about remaining childless, is there is the potential for serious damage.
The couple creates a workable model of the family, the husband and wife both making sure the other visualises it accurately, with no pressure to conform to a predetermined view; good and bad points of having children are objectively evaluated, in reference to personal goals, strengths and limitation. There is give and take, over time, to reach a consensus. Curiously, there is more detailed research in primitive cultures than in Western ones, although even in many 'traditional' cultures, women hold a great deal of power in determining their fertility preferences. Although the evidence strongly points in the direction of there being worldwide and trans-cultural implicit understanding between spouses that fertility intentions must be jointly determined, more research and greater inference is required in this area, before final judgements can be made.
------------------------------------
1. Seiver, Daniel A; Cymrot, Donald J. Misperceptions of Reproductive Ideals among American Husbands and Wives. Lifestyles, 1988, 91, spring, 21-32. Data from 291 US married couple who participated in the Michigan Time Use Survey are used to document the extent of misperceptions of reproductive ideals among couples.
2. Campbell, Eugene K; Campbell, Puni G. Family Size and Sex Preferences and Eventual Fertility in Botswana. J of Biosocial Science, 1997, 292, Apr, 191-204. In Botswana, one of the sub-Saharan countries where actual fertility has declined, the fertility preferences of men and women were examined in 1992 via a survey of 2,501 respondents in five localities.
3. Reynar, Angela Ruth. Fertility Decision-Making by Couples amongst the Luo of Kenya. Dissertation Abstracts International, 2000, 613, Sept, 1177-A-1178-A. The data used come from a survey conducted amongst Luos living in South Nyanza District, Kenya. The study benefits particularly from the nature of its data, which are longitudinal and couple based. Logistic regression and structural equation modeling methodologies are used to investigate the research question. This dissertation addresses the question of relative reproductive control between couples in a rural East African setting.
4. Mott, Frank L; Mott, Susan H. Household Fertility Decisions in West Africa: A Comparison of Male and Female Survey Results. Studies in Family Planning, 1985, 162, Mar-Apr, 88-99. A comparison of the interview responses of matched husbands and wives in 107 monogamous and 23 polygynous unions in the Yoruba village of Bolorunduro in Ondo State, Nigeria, with respect to a variety of family planning and fertility-related attitudes and behaviors.
5. Miller, Warren B; Pasta, David J. Couple Disagreement: Effects on the Formation and Implementation of Fertility Decisions. Personal Relationships, 1996, 33, Sept, 307-336. Interview data from 201 married couples with no children and 200 married couples with one child in CA collected at four times over a 3.5-year interval are drawn on to explore how couple disagreement affects the translation of fertility desires into fertility intentions, and the implementation of fertility intentions through the initiation of proceptive behavior. The effect on fertility intentions of couple disagreement in fertility desires was modeled with regression analysis after disaggregating individuals in positive disagreement with their spouses (having stronger desires) from those in negative disagreement (having weaker desires).
6. Kaufman, Gayle. Do Gender Role Attitudes Matter? Family Formation and Dissolution among Traditional and Egalitarian Men and Women. J of Family Issues, 2000, 211, Jan, 128-144. Data from the 1987/88 and 1992-1994 waves of the National Survey of Families and Households (total N = 2,621 childless women and men in their childbearing years) are drawn on to investigate the effect of gender-role attitudes on family formation and dissolution. Note that single men with egalitarian attitudes are more likely to cohabit than their traditional counterparts.
7. Cochrane, Susan H; Guilkey, David K. The Effects of Fertility Intentions and Access to Services on Contraceptive Use in Tunisia. Economic Development and Cultural Change, 1995, 434, July, 779-804. The impact of access to social services, family factors, and fertility intentions on fertility and use of contraception was examined through analysis of survey data on approximately 3,175 ever-married Tunisian women ages 15-49.
8. Marciano, Teresa Donati., Male Influences on Fertility: Needs for Research. Family Coordinator, 1979.
9. Marciano, Teresa Donati. Male Pressure in the Decision to Remain Childfree. American Sociological Association, 1977. While M influence upon the emotional character of a marriage has been studied, as well as M knowledge of, and willingness to, practice contraception, the specific influence of M's upon the decision to remain childfree warrants study. Preliminary findings are presented, based upon a sample of married couples drawn from the membership lists of the National Organization for Non-Parents (NON).
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of the copyright holder.
|
