Family Economics Personal Bankruptcy

Family Personal Bankruptcy

Traditional sociological models of normative conformity suggest that those who most comply with presumed cultural expectations would be least likely to turn to practices that suggest a failure of their standing. Being in the midst of a normative storm, however, changes the very nature of the environment and even the conditions of those who are living through the commotion. Theoretical models, including social systems theories, can be particularly susceptible to these issues since they are based on the idea that the parts and interactions between those parts are vital for understanding what is happening and what might happen. What this means for people and their finances is not yet clear though they are often tied to business expectations in general (Granovetter, 2005: 34).

Nevertheless, it can still be safely assumed that if the particularly players (be they individuals, families acting as one, businesses, corporations or even nation-states) were effectively being forced into doing something they did not want to do, all would opt to find a way to undertake a "fresh start" in one way or another (Biza-Khupe, 2008). The methods and means behind the various types of bankruptcy protections, after all, foresee this, and were designed and have evolved (legally and politically) for the exact purposes of trying to determine how such a recovery could best come about. Good people (or entities of a social nature) want to continue to being good, particularly if they feel at all connected to passing that sense of cultural accomplishment on to their offspring.

The dramatic economic thunderstorm has clearly smudged the boundaries of these nebulous distinctions, however. There is no long such apparent direct links any longer between what people seem to be doing and why they are doing what they are doing. It simply could be the case that people (as individuals or inside a corporation) no longer see bankruptcy itself in the same light as they used to, which has brought about a shift in the stigma associated with that action (Efrat, 2006). And which also means they could no longer see it as a desirable option even if they have to turn toward it, or they may simply have begun to disconnect it from any basic form or moral legitimacy at all. The potency of the norms of enforcement as Efrat (2006:482) says are not as strong as they used to be. Or perhaps it could be the case that the norms are changing in several different ways and thus effectively removing the theoretical grounding from across the elements. It might well be the case that it will no longer be as safe as it used to be to claim that personal and business bankruptcy considerations share the same network of support.