Family Structures in Australia and Swaziland Compared

Introduction

Throughout the world the family is in the process of change and metamorphosis. Some pundits even predict the demise of the family as an institution in modern societies. Various social and economic factors — including the significance of globalization — have influenced the shape of family structures and functions in most countries and regions of the world. However, while the family is subject to universal pressures, each country and region has different traditional and cultural histories with regard to the family, and this means that they respond to the challenges of the modern era differently.

Another factor is that not all countries in the world are at the same level of development. This means that in relation to social and economic factors — such as relative affluence — various cultures have different needs and are affected differently by global economic and political forces.

Developed vs. Developing Countries and the Family

Before comparing two countries with regard to their family structure and functions, it is necessary to clearly define the concepts that influence this comparison: first, the concept of the family itself, and second, the general differences between developed and developing countries.

In essence, the family is a partner support system of cooperation aimed at reproducing society by breeding, feeding, housing, and educating the next generation. However, this system of cooperation is complex, and elements such as gender and class inequalities influence the structure and shape of the family in any particular country. This also relates to the challenges and changes facing the modern family. As Edgar (1997) observes, "because the family partnership is changing, so too must change the work-family partnership and the nature of community links to both family and the workplace" (p. 149).

Developed countries are contrasted with developing countries in terms of wealth and relative advances in technology and socioeconomic influence. In less developed countries, lower levels of economic affluence often lead to an emphasis on family size and number of children as an indicator of social status. Families in many developing countries therefore tend to be much larger and more complex than those in developed countries. Developed countries like the United States tend to have much smaller families and much lower birth rates — as seen in Japan, where the birth rate is declining or even negative. This means that developing countries like Swaziland face very different challenges in terms of family structure compared to developed nations.

It is also significant that in geographical terms, more than three-quarters of people on earth live in developing countries (Kintu). It is a generally accepted fact that "almost all the developing countries possess high population growth potential characterised by high birth rate and high but declining death rate," and that "death rates in developing countries have fallen, compared to the past, due to improved health conditions and control of major infectious diseases" (Kintu). The differences in health issues between developed and developing countries will be a focus of the following comparison, which examines the family in Swaziland and Australia in relation to their respective development status.

The Australian Family: Gender Roles and Structural Change

The family structure and characteristics in Australia are modeled after the norms of contemporary Western and European society. This refers to the nuclear family and the decrease in extended family ties and dependencies that has occurred over the last century. This family structure differs considerably when compared to the extended family structures found in African countries such as Swaziland.

Another characteristic of Australian society, similar to most other developed countries, is the so-called "disintegration" of the family — the loss of family coherence and importance in many respects. As Smith (2009) notes, "the countries in these parts of the world experience disintegration of a family as soon as the kids complete their education and start earning." This tendency toward the decline of the family structure contrasts with many developing countries, where strong family ties persist and where much of social class and societal structure remain intimately linked to extended family norms.

The historical development of Australia and other developed Western countries is an important causative factor in the present structure of the family. As Edgar (1997) explains:

Western societies have undergone profound changes in family structures and processes over the past two decades. From a post-war rush to almost universal marriage and child-bearing, which consolidated the ideal of the breadwinner-housewife model, we moved toward a much more diverse and complex array of family formation and reformation (p. 147).

This presents a set of challenges for the Australian family that differ considerably from those faced by families in less developed countries. Gender issues — and the roles of male and female in marriage and family structure — are a central area of contention. This refers to the changing relationship between the family, gender roles, and the workplace, and to how this issue will be resolved in the future. It stands in direct contrast to the more traditional view of gender roles still prevalent in countries such as Swaziland, where the male is the breadwinner and the female the homemaker. As Edgar (1997) states of Australian society, "neither work policies nor family policies can be based any longer on this so-called traditional concept of men as the sole breadwinners and women as the sole caretakers of the children" (p. 147).

There is a movement in the Australian family toward a more balanced and equal sharing of roles and responsibilities between males and females. Another characteristic typical of most developed countries is that "people marry later, have fewer children later, so the childbearing period is shorter and less of a restriction on opportunities" (Edgar, 1997, p. 148).

These changes in family structure present additional challenges. In more traditional cultures, the family bears responsibility for looking after the elderly — an arrangement that functions well within the extended family model. This is still the case in countries like Swaziland. In Australia, however, the extended family is no longer viable within a modern democratic economy, and the care of the elderly has shifted to the state and its institutions. As Edgar (1997) summarizes, "what this adds up to is, in my view, a significant shift in the balance of work and family life. Roles are changing, the nature of care is changing, and the stress related to juggling the balance is increasing" (p. 149).

Several statistics help outline the nature of family structure in a developed economy like Australia. In terms of workforce participation: "86% for fathers and 56% for mothers in two-parent families, and 65% for male and 43% for female sole parents" (Edgar, 1997, p. 151). This is indicative of a shift in the role of the female as solely a homemaker. "In 1993, 53% of couples with dependent children were both employed" (Edgar, 1997, p. 151). Imbalances and disparities therefore persist within the family structure, representing an ongoing challenge for the family as a continuing societal institution.

Conclusion: Common Pressures, Different Challenges

The central differences between Australia and Swaziland are characteristic of the broader differences between developed and developing countries. The family structure in Australia is in the process of meeting the challenges of the emerging globalized economy and the democratic ideal of gender equality. The traditional family structure of Swaziland, on the other hand, is emerging from a formal and deeply rooted traditional order and must meet not only the demands of globalization and democratic ideals of equality, but also the very serious challenges posed by health crises such as HIV/AIDS.