P. Ya. Tsitkilov. Transformations of the Family Institution in the Perception of Student Youth in the South of Russia

UDК 316.356.2-057.87(470+571)

doi: 10.15507/2413-1407.126.032.202401.163-181

Abstract

Introduction. The family, being one of the most important social institutions, is subject to significant changes that occur in society and in its social organization. However, the direction of family transformations does not immediately become obvious, which actualizes their scientific understanding on the basis of sociological measurements. The purpose of the article is to identify the attitude of student youth in the South of Russia to the nature of the transformations taking place in the modern institution of the family and, on their basis, to formulate generalizing conclusions and recommendations. The importance of such research is determined by the special role of the student social group in ensuring the sustainability of society and in shaping its future appearance.

Materials and Methods. The object of the study was student youth of the South of Russia. The empirical basis of the study was the results of a survey of full-time students at 13 universities and university branches in the South of Russia (Rostov Region, Krasnodar and Stavropol Territories) based on a representative sample (n = 639). The questionnaire survey method made it possible to identify some of the students’ attitudes and aspirations regarding the institutional state of the family. The conceptual basis of the study was the constructivist approach, which considers the most important theoretical meanings and trajectories of the process of family transformation (crisis and modernist) as social constructs that influence students’ perception of the direction of development of the family institution.

Results. Analysis of the collected empirical material shows a certain duality in the position of student youth in the South of Russia in determining priority trajectories for the development of the family institution. This is evidenced by students’ perception of the crisis and modernist constructs of family transformation through the analysis of their main indicators (the state of attractiveness of a family-child lifestyle; attitude to the dominance of having few children and having one child; perception of childfreeness; attitude to divorce and cohabitation, etc.). The survey also revealed a certain predominance among students of negative assessments of the influence of individualistic value sentiments on the institutional stability of the family.

Discussion and Conclusion. Using the example of the southern region of Russia, the conclusion was confirmed that the worldview, socio-economic and information-cognitive state of society influences the priority of perception of various trajectories of transformation of the family institution (crisis and modernization). The attitude of students to semantic indicators of their perception is ambiguous. This is largely due to the heterogeneity of value orientations in our society. The practical significance of the study lies in the fact that it made it possible to identify the opinion of student youth about their attitude to the current state of the family institution and the prospects for its development. The results obtained may be useful to scientists studying this issue, as well as practitioners forming and implementing youth policy.

Keywords: transformation of the family institution, transformation indicators, crisis and modernist constructs, specifics of perception of constructs by students in the South of Russia

Conflict of interests. The author declares no conflict of interest.

For citation: Tsitkilov P.Ya. Transformations of the Family Institution in the Perception of Student Youth in the South of Russia. Russian Journal of Regional Studies. 2024;32(1):163–181. https://doi.org/10.15507/2413-1407.126.032.202401.163-181

REFERENCES

1. Vishnevsky A.I. The Depopulated Superpower. Russia in Global Affairs. 2003;1(3):54‒72. Available at: https://globalaffairs.ru/articles/velikaya-malonaselennaya-derzhava/ (accessed 13.11.2023). (In Russ., abstract in Eng.)

2. Van de Kaa D.J. Anchored Narratives: The Story and Findings of Half a Century of Research into the Determinants of Fertility. Population Studies. 1996;50(3):389‒432. https://doi.org/10.1080/0032472031000149546

3. Klinenberg E. Going Solo: The Extraordinary Rise and Surprising Appeal of Living Alone. New York: The Penguin Press; 2012. Available at: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/11797459-going-solo (accessed 13.11.2023).

4. Sinelnikov A.B. Family and Marriage: Crisis or Modernization? Sociological Journal. 2018;24(1):95‒113. (In Russ., abstract in Eng.) https://doi.org/10.19181/socjour.2018.24.1.5715

5. Sinelnikov A.B. Separation of Generations in Families as a Factor for Reducing Birth Rate. Sociological Studies. 2022;(5):36‒48. (In Russ., abstract in Eng.) https://doi.org/10.31857/S013216250020195-7

6. Carlson A.C., Mero P.T. The Natural Family: A Manifesto. Dallas: Spence Publishing Company; 2007. Available at: https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/mono/10.4324/9781315133294-1/natural-family-manifesto-allan-carlson-paul-mero (accessed 13.11.2023).

7. Blankenhorn D. Fatherless America: Confronting Our Most Urgent Social Problem. New York: BasicBooks; 1995. Available at: https://fatherhood.gov/research-and-resources/fatherless-america-confronting-our-most-urgent-social-problem (accessed 13.11.2023).

8. Townsend N.W. The Package Deal: Marriage, Work and Fatherhood in Men’s Lives. Philadelphia: Temple University Press; 2002. Available at: https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt14bt2mz (accessed 13.11.2023).

9. Baskerville S. Is There Really a Fatherhood Crisis? The Independent Review. 2004;VIII(4):485‒508. Available at: https://www.independent.org/pdf/tir/tir_08_4_1_baskerville.pdf (accessed 13.11.2023).

10. Popenoe D. War over the Family. London: Routlege; 2008. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351299725

11. Zohar D., Marshal I. The Quantum Society. London: Bloomsbury; 1993. Available at: https://www.kirkusreviews.com/book-reviews/danah-zohar/the-quantum-society/ (accessed 13.11.2023).

12. Geist C., Ruppanner L. Mission Impossible? New Housework Theories for Changing Families: Housework Theories for Changing Families. Journal of Family Theory & Review. 2018;10(1):242‒262. https://doi.org/10.1111/jftr.12245

13. Zubok Yu.A., Chuprov V.I., Sorokin O.V. Meanings in Self-Regulation of Young People’s Life: Gender Differences in the Labor Sphere. Woman in Russian Society. 2021;(Special issue):38‒59. (In Russ., abstract in Eng.) https://doi.org/10.21064/WinRS.2021.0.3

14. Vishnevsky Yu.R., Yachmeneva M.V. The Attitude of Student Youth to Family Values (Case Study of the Sverdlovsk Region). The Education and Science Journal. 2018;20(5):125‒141. (In Russ., abstract in Eng.) https://doi.org/10.17853/1994-5639-2018-5-125-141

15. Romanovich N.A. Problems of the Family Institution in the Youth Environment. Science. Culture. Society. 2023;29(1):90‒102. (In Russ., abstract in Eng.) https://doi.org/10.19181/nko.2023.29.1.7

16. Brown S.L., Manning W.D., Stykes J.B. Family Structure and Child Well-Being: Integrating Family Complexity. Journal of Marriage and Family. 2015;77(1):177‒190. https://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.12145

17. Eriksson C., Larsson M., Skoog Svanberg A., Tydén T. Reflections on Fertility and Postponed Parenthood ‒ Interviews with Highly Educated Women and Men without Children in Sweden. Upsala Journal of Medical Sciences. 2013;118(2):122‒129. https://doi.org/10.3109/03009734.2012.762074

18. Klupt M.A. Problems of the Family and Fertility in the Value Conflicts of the 2010s. Sociological Studies. 2021;(5):36‒46. (In Russ., abstract in Eng.) https://doi.org/10.31857/S013216250014119-3

19. Pushkareva G.V., Kuznetsov I.I., Batovrina E.V. Specifics of Russian Students Inclusion into the Social Solidarity Relationships. Sociological Studies. 2021;(10):125‒131. (In Russ., abstract in Eng.) https://doi.org/10.31857/S013216250012813-7

ubmitted 19.06.2023; revised 13.10.2023; accepted 24.10.2023.

About the author:

Petr Ya. Tsitkilov, Dr.Sci. (History), Professor, Chair of Social Technologies, Southern Federal University (105/42 Bolshaya Sadovaya St., Rostov-on-Don 344006, Russian Federation), ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7540-0231, Scopus ID: 57195678958, petrcitkilov@yandex.ru

The author read and approved the final version of the manuscript.