Micro sociological study of family relationships: heuristic potential theoretical principles


  • O. P. Zolotnyik T. Shevchenko national university of Kyiv
Keywords: microsociology, family, marriage, exchange theory, symbolic interaktsionizm, dramatic approach, etnometodology approach, family systems theory

Abstract

This article is devoted to demonstrate the heuristic potential of theoretical principles by microsoсiological analysis of one of the indicators of family – family relations. Theoretical analysis of the interaction experience is quite large, but there is the question about it’s possibility to describe the specifics of that relationship that arise in family interaction. The study of family relationships requires an integrated approach to the comprehension of many related components: system of spouses value orientations, family life cycle, socio­economic living conditions of couple. However, the accentuation exactly on action­behavioral aspect allows to make assumptions about correlations between: success of family interaction and microclimate in the family; satisfaction level of interpersonal interaction and overall satisfaction with marriage, familiarity of family interaction and density of childbearing, and so on. The presentation of microsoсiological theoretical achievements will be carried out of sociological schools, orientations and their members that are the most popular references in this area. this paper will presents the theory of exchange, supporters of symbolic interactionism, dramatic and etnometodological approach and family systems theory. 

References

1. Antonyuk E. V. Predstavleniya suprugov o raspredelenii roley i stanovlenie rolevoy strukturyi molodoy semi: avtoref. diss. kand.psihol.nauk. 19.00.05( Representations of spouses about roles and role structure formation young family: abstract. dissertation of the candidate of psychological sciences) M., 1992, 24 p.
2. Aleshina Yu. E., Volovich A. S. Problemyi usvoeniya roley muzhchinyi i zhenschinyi(problems of mastering roles of men and women) // Voprosyi psihologii. 1991, no 4, pp. 74­82.
3. Blumer G. Obschestvo kak simvolicheskaya interaktsiya (Society as a symbolic Interaction)// Sovremennaya zarubezhnaya sotsialnaya psihologiya. M.: Izdatelstvo Moskovskogo universiteta, 1984, рp. 173­179.
4.Vitek K. Problemyi supruzheskogo blagopoluchiya (Problems marital well­being). – M.: Progress, 2008,138 р.
5. Volkova A.N. Rolevaya adekvatnost kak faktor supruzheskoy sovmestimosti(Role adequacy as a factor in marital compatibility)// Voprosyi psihologii obscheniya i poznaniya lyudmi drug druga. ­ Krasnodar, 1979, рp.62­69.
6.Garfinkel, G. Issledovanie privyichnyih osnovaniy povsednevnyih deystviy (Study of habitual bases of everyday activities)// Sotsiologicheskoe obozrenie. ­ 2002. Vol. 2. no. 1, рp. 42­70.
7.Gofman I.Analiz freymov: Esse ob organizatsii povsednevnogo opyita (Frame Analysis: An Essay on the organization of everyday experience) ­M.: Institut sotsiologii RAN, 2003, 752 р.
8.Enikeeva D. Neschastlivyiy brak(unhappy marriage)M.:«RIPOL KLASSIK», 2008, 224p.
9.Kelli G., Tibo Dzh. Mezhlichnostnyie otnosheniya. Teoriya vzaimozavisimosti(Interpersonal relationships. The theory of interdependence) // Sovremennaya zarubezhnaya sotsialnaya psihologiya. M.: Izdatelstvo Moskovskogo universiteta, 1984, pp. 61­81
10.Kuli Ch. Sotsialnaya samost.( social selfness) V kn.: Amerikanskaya Sotsiologicheskaya myisl: Teksty M.: MGU, 1994, рр. 320­321
11.Kun M, Makpartlend T;(modifikatsiya T.V.Rumyantsevoy) / Rumyantseva T.V. Psihologicheskoe konsultirovanie: diagnostika otnosheniy v pare(Counselling: diagnosis in the couple) SPb., 2006. pp.82­103
12.Obozov N. N. Psihologiya mezhlichnostnogo vzaimodeystviya: aftoref.dis.doktora psihologicheskih nauk: 19.00.01 (Psychology of interpersonal interaction: Dissertations aftoreferat of Doctor of Psychology)/N.N.Obozov. L.,1979, 35 p.
13. TeorIya obmInu (Dzh. Homans) (The theory of exchange) Regime to access: http://www.soc­education.com/lekcz­z­zagalno­soczolog/224­teoriya­obminu­dzh­xomans.html
14.Teoriya semeynyih sistem Myurreya Bouena: Osnovnyie ponyatiya, metodyi i klinicheskaya praktika (The theory of Murray Bowen Family Systems: Concepts, Methods and Clinical Practice) M.: «Kogito­Tsentr», 2005.496 p.
15.Teoriya semeynyih sistem Myurreya Bouena (family systems theory of Murray Bowen) Varga A.Ya. / Hamitova I.Yu. // Zhurnal prakticheskoy psihologii i psihoanaliza 2005, no 4, M.: Institut prakticheskoy psihologii i psihoanaliza. 2005, 242 p.
16.Homans Dzh. Sotsialnoe povedenie kak obmen (Social behavior as exchange) // Sovremennaya zarubezhnaya sotsialnaya psihologiya. ­M.: Izdatelstvo Moskovskogo universiteta, 1984, pp. 82­91
17.Blumer H. Sociological Implications of the Thought of George Herbert Mead. // «American Journal of Sociology», 1966, v.71, no 5, P.535­536.
18.Cooley, Charles H. Human Nature and the Social Order// New York : Scribner’s, 1902. Confer pp. 183­184
19. Hickman C. A., Kuhn M. Individuals and Economic Behavior // Revue Economique, 1957, vol. 8, issue 2, pр. 325­325. Regime to access: http://www.econbiz.de/Record/hickman­c­a­kuhn­m­h­individuals­groups­and­economic­behavior­henri­guitton/10008622653
20.Homans G. C., Social behavior: Its elementary forms //, Orlando (USA): Harcourt Brace, 1961 Regime to access http://infed.org/mobi/george­c­homans­the­human­group­and­elementary­social­behaviour/
21.Kelley H. H., Thibaut J. W. The Social Psychology of Groups. //N. Y., 1959 Regime to access http://www.archive.org/details/socialpsychology00thib
22.Mead G.H. Mind, Self, Society.//Chicago, 1934. Regime to access: http://www.cardiff.ac.uk/socsi/undergraduate/introsoc/social4.html
23. Mead G. H. The Philosophy of the Present. // LaSalle, Illinois: Open Court Publishing, 1959., P. 184­185.
24.Meltzer B. N, Petras J. W. The Chicago and Jowa Schools of Symbolic Interactionism//Manis J. G., Meltzer B. N. (eds.). Symbolic Interaction. Boston, 1972., P.49­50.
Published
2015-03-06
How to Cite
Zolotnyik, O. (2015). Micro sociological study of family relationships: heuristic potential theoretical principles. Grani, 18(4), 47-53. https://doi.org/10.15421/1715078
Section
Статті