Editor’s Introduction

Q3 Arts and Humanities
M. Balzer
{"title":"Editor’s Introduction","authors":"M. Balzer","doi":"10.1080/10611959.2016.1309924","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"How optimistic are people about bringing children into the world? How have families been changing? In this time of interconnected uncertainty in the Americas, Europe, and Eurasia, highlighted by difficulties of discerning accurate public opinion, it is sometimes appropriate to turn to basic sociological clues. People tend to “vote with their feet” (and other body parts) when it comes to having children. Historically, poor people in preindustrial societies and in rural areas had large families because children were insurance policies for kin-group survival. In contrast, urban and elite families historically and in recent times in Europe, the United States, and Russia were optimistic enough that their children would survive that they did not need to have many children. With urbanization and industrialization, birth rates and associated indicators of “natality began inexorable declines, in many places to below replacement level. What has been considered “progress” by some, including feminists, became alarming according to nationalistic leaders, often men, advocating “family values” and worried about population fertility. In Russia, the calculus behind some attitudes toward having children began to shift in the 1960s and especially after the Soviet Union’s collapse. In the 1990s, a general decline in birth rates and a horrific mass contemplation of economic strife, marked by downward mobility trends and a zigzagging middle class, meant that families on average in Russia had far fewer children. This was particularly true of Russian Anthropology & Archeology of Eurasia, vol. 55, no. 2, 2016, pp. 107–112. © 2016 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC ISSN: 1061-1959 (print)/ISSN 1558-092X (online) DOI: 10.1080/10611959.2016.1309924","PeriodicalId":35495,"journal":{"name":"Anthropology and Archeology of Eurasia","volume":"55 1","pages":"107 - 112"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-04-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/10611959.2016.1309924","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Anthropology and Archeology of Eurasia","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10611959.2016.1309924","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

How optimistic are people about bringing children into the world? How have families been changing? In this time of interconnected uncertainty in the Americas, Europe, and Eurasia, highlighted by difficulties of discerning accurate public opinion, it is sometimes appropriate to turn to basic sociological clues. People tend to “vote with their feet” (and other body parts) when it comes to having children. Historically, poor people in preindustrial societies and in rural areas had large families because children were insurance policies for kin-group survival. In contrast, urban and elite families historically and in recent times in Europe, the United States, and Russia were optimistic enough that their children would survive that they did not need to have many children. With urbanization and industrialization, birth rates and associated indicators of “natality began inexorable declines, in many places to below replacement level. What has been considered “progress” by some, including feminists, became alarming according to nationalistic leaders, often men, advocating “family values” and worried about population fertility. In Russia, the calculus behind some attitudes toward having children began to shift in the 1960s and especially after the Soviet Union’s collapse. In the 1990s, a general decline in birth rates and a horrific mass contemplation of economic strife, marked by downward mobility trends and a zigzagging middle class, meant that families on average in Russia had far fewer children. This was particularly true of Russian Anthropology & Archeology of Eurasia, vol. 55, no. 2, 2016, pp. 107–112. © 2016 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC ISSN: 1061-1959 (print)/ISSN 1558-092X (online) DOI: 10.1080/10611959.2016.1309924
编辑器的介绍
人们对把孩子带到这个世界上有多乐观?家庭是如何变化的?在这个美洲、欧洲和欧亚大陆相互关联的不确定时期,辨别准确的公众舆论的困难突出了这一点,有时转向基本的社会学线索是合适的。当谈到要孩子时,人们倾向于“用脚投票”(和其他身体部位)。从历史上看,工业化前社会和农村地区的穷人都有大家庭,因为孩子是亲属群体生存的保障。相比之下,欧洲、美国和俄罗斯的城市和精英家庭在历史上和最近的时期都非常乐观,认为他们的孩子会活下来,他们不需要生很多孩子。随着城市化和工业化,出生率和相关的“出生”指标开始不可阻挡地下降,在许多地方低于更替水平。包括女权主义者在内的一些人认为的“进步”,在民族主义领导人(通常是男性)看来,变得令人担忧,他们倡导“家庭价值观”,担心人口生育率。在俄罗斯,一些人对生孩子的态度在上世纪60年代开始发生转变,尤其是在苏联解体后。在20世纪90年代,出生率普遍下降,人们开始对经济冲突进行可怕的大规模思考,其特征是向下流动的趋势和曲折的中产阶级,这意味着俄罗斯家庭平均生育的孩子要少得多。《俄罗斯的欧亚人类学与考古学》,第55卷,第2期。2, 2016, pp. 107-112。©2016 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC ISSN: 1061-1959(印刷)/ISSN 1558-092X(在线)DOI: 10.1080/10611959.2016.1309924
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Anthropology and Archeology of Eurasia
Anthropology and Archeology of Eurasia Arts and Humanities-History
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: Anthropology and Archeology of Eurasia presents scholarship from Russia, Siberia, the Caucasus, and Central Asia, the vast region that stretches from the Baltic to the Black Sea and from Lake Baikal to the Bering Strait. Each thematic issue, with a substantive introduction to the topic by the editor, features expertly translated and annotated manuscripts, articles, and book excerpts reporting fieldwork from every part of the region and theoretical studies on topics of special interest.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信