Changes in family patterns have led sociologists to focus on new things in their research into relationships. The sociology of personal life places the individual at the centre of its research.
- We will study the personal life perspective in sociology.
- We will look at how this new approach differs from functionalist ideas and theories of postmodernism.
- We'll then look at the most important sociologists of the personal life perspective.
- We will mention the types of relationships that the sociology of personal life proposes as alternatives to family bonds.
- Finally, we will consider the evaluation of the personal life perspective.
The personal life perspective in sociology
What is the personal life perspective in sociology? The sociology of personal life is a theory that considers all meaningful relationships in an individual’s personal life, not only the ones you would associate with the traditional family. It argues that individual choices that are influenced by social context stand behind the growing family diversity in society.
Aspects of the sociology of personal life
The sociology of personal life is strongly influenced by interactionism; it may also be argued that it is essentially an interactionist perspective. Due to this, the sociology of personal life criticizes modern structural theories, such as the functionalist and Marxist approaches to the family.
As a reminder, structural theories view society as 'top down'; meaning that they consider how social structures and hierarchies shape and influence the individual.
However, the sociology of personal life acknowledges that individuals' choices cannot be free of external influences altogether. Therefore, it also criticizes aspects of postmodernism.
The main thinkers of the sociology of personal life are Carol Smart and Vanessa May, although the research of Jeffrey Weeks on sexuality is an important addition to the approach.
The personal life perspective's evaluation of functionalism and Marxism
The sociology of personal life criticises aspects of structural theories from the modernist era (or modern structural theories) such as functionalism and Marxism. They are criticised for focusing on the traditional nuclear family unit while analysing families in sociology. This is because:
- Research into this area is ethnocentric, as there is an overwhelming focus on white middle-class families.
- It is assumed that the nuclear family is the dominant family type. Diverse family types are largely overlooked by structural theories.
- Structural theories portray families as passive and solely influenced by external societal factors.
- Broader social trends and meaningful non-familial relationships are ignored.
The personal life perspective aims to research individual choices and the influences behind them when it comes to family formation and general life experience.
In contrast to 'top down' structural theories, the sociology of personal life can be said to have a 'bottom up' approach, as it focuses on individuals and the meanings they attach to the family.
Postmodernism and the sociology of personal life
Theorists of postmodernism such as Anthony Giddens, Ulrich Beck and Zygmunt Bauman argued that due to individualisation, people can make their own choices about their lives and relationships, free from societal pressure and influence.
The personal life perspective claims that this is an idealistic view. In many cases, the individual is influenced by complex societal pressures and by their previous experiences of relationships. Their choices can rarely be independent and free from social context.
Due to this, it has been argued that the sociology of personal life falls between structural and postmodern approaches to the family.
The connectedness thesis in sociology
Carol Smart is the most important sociologist of the personal life perspective. She came up with the ‘connectedness thesis’ in her book Personal Life: New Directions in Sociological Thinking (2007). This means that people can form meaningful connections with friends, colleagues, and pets. She argues that sometimes these bonds are stronger than family relations because they are based on the parties' shared experiences rather than only on bloodlines.
According to Smart, people are free to construct their own individual network of ‘family’. However, the choices they make in terms of relationships are influenced by their family history, social class, ethnicity, previous personal experiences, and societal trends and expectations.
This idea of a complex family formation, determined both by personal choice and social context, places the sociology of personal life somewhere between the modern functionalist approach and the postmodern approach.
Smart pointed out that although sociologists of the past tended to present the family as an ever-harmonious unit, in reality, many families are sources of conflict, violence, and oppression. As a result, people often seek refuge in networks outside the family.
Research methodology of the personal life perspective
In terms of methodology, Smart’s research was small-scale, aiming to dissect the personal life of the individual. She focused on elements of relationships that sociologists ignored before, such as the perception of the relationship by the individuals involved, or the memories and emotions formed within it.
Carol Smart's five key concepts on personal relationships
Carol Smart found five key concepts that are important for individuals and their relationships with others.
Memory's role in relationship formation
Bonds can be formed on the basis of shared memories. The memories of certain life events can be painful or joyful, depending on their context and the people around the individual. People form different relationships with individuals with whom they share different memories.
Biography's role in relationship formation
Each relationship has its individual history, and aspects which can determine the formation and importance of that relationship. Shared history in education, work, travel, or living together can often create stronger connections than blood relations.
Former housemates, university classmates, and the people met whilst travelling are good examples of individuals with whom we can have a shared history.
Fig. 1 - Shared history in travel can create stronger bonds than blood relations
Embeddedness's role in relationship formation
The strength of a relationship depends highly on social arrangements and on the amount of time spent together. People are often closer to a friend that they see every day than to a family member that they may only see occasionally.
Relationality's role in relationship formation
The relationship’s nature and health are important aspects. In general, people like to avoid conflict in their lives, so they search for like-minded individuals to surround themselves with. Individuals may experience constant conflict within their families (such as child abuse, domestic violence or religious differences), and might seek refuge among friends or colleagues.
Perception's role in relationship formation
The perception of a relationship by the parties is a very subjective concept, yet Smart attempted to research it. She was interested in how the individual thought about the importance and the future of certain relationships in their life.
The personal life perspective of the family
There are three further significant theorists of the personal life perspective who focused on the family and personal relationships in their research. Let us consider them and their views one by one.
Vanessa May and the sociology of personal life
According to Vanessa May (2011), the increasing number of single-person households and changes in society results in people seeking both physical and emotional support from outside their families, thus creating their own personal network.
This new type of ‘family’ may include actual family members, friends, colleagues, pets, or even important figures of the person’s religion.
Jeffrey Weeks and the sociology of personal life
The work of Jeffrey Weeks is important when it comes to the consideration of same-sex couples and family diversity. Weeks claims that the construction of homosexuality as abnormal, and the establishment of gender roles, led to the nuclear family led by a heterosexual couple being considered the only legitimate family form for a long time.
In his 2001 book, Same-Sex Intimacies: Families of Choice and Other Life Experiments, he interviews non-heterosexual people about their relationship experiences and discusses how meaningful, non-familial relationships have changed how we think about family formation in society at large.
Judith Stacey and the sociology of personal life
Judith Stacey focused on women in her research and showed many non-traditional ways in which they have been forming relationships. She argued that more and more women are able to choose to leave their families and establish new ones to suit their needs and happiness.
In particular, Stacey identified a new type of non-familial relationship called the 'divorce-extended family', where women stay in touch with their ex-partner's family after a divorce.
Meaningful ‘alternatives’ to familial bonds
Friends: friends from school, travel, or previous living arrangements can be as meaningful as siblings to many people.
Fictive kin: close friends can sometimes appear as relatives to some people. An older lady friend could be a mother or grandmother figure, for example.
‘Chosen families’ of queer and transgender individuals: sometimes the blood family is not as supportive toward a gay, lesbian, bisexual, or trans individual as a tight network of friends and ex-partners can be.
Dead relatives: memories of loved ones can influence the actions and identity-formation of an individual.
God and other religious figures: for some people, the relationship with the God of their religion might be as strong or even stronger than a family connection.
Pets: Becky Tipper (2011) studied children’s evaluation of family relationships and found that kids often regarded their pets as part of the family.
Fig. 2 - Most people regard their pets as part of their family
Strengths and criticisms of the personal life perspective
The sociology of personal life has been evaluated on many grounds by sociologists of different perspectives. We will first look at its positive evaluations, followed by its criticisms.
Positives of the personal life perspective
The sociology of personal life takes a positive approach to the research of family life. It denies that there has been a 'decline of family life' altogether, that postmodernist individualists have previously argued is the case.
The sociology of personal life was praised for showing the independent ways in which people establish and define their 'family' relationships, abandoning traditional societal norms and definitions. It emphasises individual choice against the structuralist idea of society's dominance in family formation.
Functionalist theories presented family relations as exclusively positive, but the personal life perspective recognizes that family relationships can often be negative and have serious consequences for the future relationships of an individual.
Negatives of the personal life perspective
Some sociologists criticise the personal life perspective as descriptive rather than analytical.
Critics argue that by looking at such a wide range of relationships, the sociology of personal life ignores the characteristics that make marriage and blood relationships unique.
Explanations 
Exams 
Magazine 
