Literature Review on Shifting Fatherhood

Abstract

This study aims to review what extent have the attitudes and practices on fatherhood changed in different countries and how these changes are explained. Firstly, a comprehensive review of fatherhood study is given. Following this, the dynamic changes of fatherhood and its causes in 4 countries, i.e., Sweden, America, Japan and China are elaborated. Lastly, this article is concluded with four main points: a) Both Sweden and America are Western welfare states with strong academics and public calling on gender equality and new fatherhood. However, Sweden is much more father-friendly than America; b) Although China and Japan share an East Asian ‘Confucian’ cultural heritage, they are on different paths in terms of shifting fatherhood; c) Even though these four countries all have experienced periods of industrialization, modernization, urbanization and postmodern globalization, gender equality and new fatherhood ideologies and values have a much more profound influence on fathering in Sweden and American than that in China and Japan; d) These four models reflect four different aspects: Swedish fatherhood - father-friendly model challenges mainstream thinking on Americanization, while American fatherhood - Second-mother model reveals the inherent traditional social expectation that men should give priority to the work; In contrast, Japanese fatherhood - struggling model testifies the fluctuation of transformational fatherhood path, whilst Chinese fatherhood - women-headed model shapes a new egalitarian gender order rather than discourse of conservatism in the family life.

Keywords

• Fatherhood,aile,Isveç,Amerika,Japonya

Değişen Babalık Üzerine Literatür Taraması

Öz

Bu çalışma babalık rol ve davranışlarının farklı ülkelerde ne kapsamda değiştiğini ve bu değişimin nasıl açıklandığını analiz etmeyi amaçlamaktadır. İlk olarak, babalık çalışmalarının kapsamlı bir taraması verilecektir. Bunu takiben, babalığa ilişkin dinamik değişimler ve bunların sonuçları dört farklı ülke, İsveç, Amerika, Japonya ve Çin, çerçevesinde değerlendirilecektir. Çalışma son bölümde dört farklı çıkarımla sonlanacaktır: (a) Isveç ve Amerika’nın her ikisi de akademinin ve kamunun toplumsal cinsiyet eşitliğine ve yeni babalığa güçlü çağrılar yapan Batılı Refah devletleri olarak öne çıkarlar. Ancak, Isveç Amerika’ya görece daha baba dostu bir duruş sergilemektedir; (b) Çin ve Japonya Doğu Asyalı Konfüçyüsçü mirası paylaşan ülkeler olmalarına rağmen, değişen babalık çerçevesinde farklı yollar izlemektedirler; (c) Ülkelerin her biri endüstrileşme, modernleşme, şehirleşme ve post-modern globalleşme deneyimleri ve toplumsal cinsiyet eşitliği ve yeni babalık ideolojilerini benimsemiş olmalarına rağmen, Isveç ve Amerika’da, Çin ve Japonya’ya görece babalığa ilişkin değerlerin önemi daha fazladır; (d) Bu dört model, dört farklı görüşü yansıtır – Isveçli babalık Amerikanlaşmanın ötesine geçerek baba dostu bir yaklaşım sergilerken Amerikalı babalık, gelenekselleşmiş sosyal beklentiyi açığa çıkararak erkeğin işteki rollerine öncelik vermesine vurgu yapar. Bunların aksine, Japon babalık dönüşen babalık ile mücadele eden tartışmacı bir model sunarken, Çinli babalık, aile içi muhafazakarlık söylemlerinin aksine annenin reisliğine dayanan yeni eşitlikçi bir toplumsal cinsiyet düzeni çerçevesinde şekillenir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Babalık,family,Isveç,Amerika,Japonya

References

1. Abbott, D. A., Ming, Z. F., & Meredith, W. H. (1992). An evolving redefinition of the fatherhood role in the People's Republic of China. International Journal of Sociology of the family, 45-54.
2. Baştuğ, S. (2002). Household and family in Turkey: An historical perspective. Autonomy and dependence in the family: Turkey and Sweden in critical perspective, 99-116.
3. Becker, G. S. (2013). The economic approach to human behavior. University of Chicago press.
4. Bernhardt, E., Goldscheider, F., & Turunen, J. (2016). Attitudes to the gender division of labor and the transition to fatherhood Are egalitarian men in Sweden more likely to remain childless?. Acta Sociologica, 59(3), 269–284.
5. Beşpınar, F. U. (2015). Between ideals and enactments: The experience of ‘New Fatherhood’ among middle-class men in Turkey. Gender and Sexuality in Muslim Cultures, Ed. Gül Özyeğin, Ashgate, 95-114.
6. Bianchi, S. M., Milkie, M. A., Sayer, L. C., & Robinson, J. P. (2000). Is anyone doing the housework? Trends in the gender division of household labor. Social forces, 79(1), 191-228.
7. Castles, F.G., Leibfried, S., Lewis, J., Obinger, H. and Pierson, C. (2010) The Oxford Handbook of the Welfare State, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
8. Cheal, D. (2008). Families in today's world: a comparative approach. Routledge.

9. Connell, R. W. (1995). Masculinities. Polity Press.
10. Daly, K. (1993). Reshaping fatherhood: Finding the models. Journal of Family issues, 14(4), 510-530.
11. Datta Gupta, N., Smith, N. & Verner, M. (2006). Child care and parental leave in the Nordic countries: A model to aspire to? Stockholm: Bonnier, 68–86.
12. Doucet, A. (2013). Gender roles and fathering. Handbook of Father Involvement: Multidisciplinary Perspectives, Ed. Natasha J. Cabrera ve Catherine S. Tamis-Lemonda, Routlegde, 297-319.
13. Eggebeen, D. J., & Knoester, C. (2001). Does fatherhood matter for men? Journal of Marriage and Family, 63(2), 381-393. Evertsson, M. (2006). The reproduction of gender: housework and attitudes towards gender equality in the home among Swedish boys and girls1. The British Journal of Sociology, 57(3), 415-436.
14. Ferrarini, T., & Duv, A. Z. (2009). Swedish Family Policy controversial reform of a success story. Friedrich Ebert Stiftung, 3: 1–10.
15. Forsberg, L. (2007). Negotiating involved fatherhood: Household work, childcare and spending time with children. Norma, 2(2), 109-126.
16. Fox, G. L., & Bruce, C. (2001). Conditional fatherhood: Identity theory and parental investment theory as alternative sources of explanation of fathering. Journal of Marriage and Family, 63(2), 394-403.
17. Furstenberg Jr, F. F. (1988). Good dads--bad dads: two faces of fatherhood. The changing American family and public policy. The Urban Institute Press, 193-218.
18. Futoshi, T. (2007, July). The trends of discourse on fatherhood and father’s conflict in Japan’. In 15th biennial conference of Japanese Studies Association of Australia, Canberra.
19. Fuwa, M. (2004). Macro-level gender inequality and the division of household labor in 22 countries. American Sociological Review, 69(6), 751-767.
20. Goldscheider F, Bernhardt E and Lappega ̊rd T (2014) Studies of men’s involvement in the family – Part 1. Introduction. Journal of Family Issues 35(7): 879–890.
21. Hausmann, R., Zahidi, S., Tyson, L., Hausmann, R., Schwab, K., & Tyson, L. D. A. (2009). The global gender gap report 2009. World Economic Forum.
22. Hearn, J., Nordberg, M., Andersson, K., Balkmar, D., Gottzén, L., Klinth, R., ... & Sandberg, L. (2012). Hegemonic masculinity and beyond: 40 years of research in Sweden. Men and masculinities, 1097184X11432113:1–25.
23. Ishii-Kuntz, M. (2013). Work environment and Japanese fathers’ involvement in child care. Journal of Family Issues, 34(2), 250-269.
24. Ishii-Kuntz, M., & Maryanski, A. R. (2003). Conjugal roles and social networks in Japanese families. Journal of Family Issues, 24(3), 352-380.
25. Jayakody, R., & Huy, V. T. (2008). Social change and marriage in Vietnam: From socialist state to market reform. International family change: Ideational perspectives, 199-222.
26. Jayakody, R., & Thornton, A. (2008). International family change: Ideational perspectives. Routledge.
27. Johansson, T. (2011). Fatherhood in transition: Paternity leave and changing masculinities. Journal of family communication, 11(3), 165-180.Karlstad University.
28. Lamb, M. E. (1988). The Father's Role: Cross Cultural Perspectives. American Scientist, 234-236.
29. Lamb, M. E. (2000). The history of research on father involvement: An overview. Marriage & Family Review, 29(2-3), 23-42.
30. Lamb, M. E. (Ed.). (2004). The role of the father in child development. John Wiley & Sons.
31. Lamb, M. E. (2013). The father's role: Cross cultural perspectives. Routledge.
32. LaRossa, R. (1988). Fatherhood and social change. Family relations, 451-457.
33. Lazar, M. M. (2000). Gender, discourse and semiotics: The politics of parenthood representations. Discourse & Society, 11(3), 373-400.
34. Li, X., & Lamb, M. E. (2012). Fathers in Chinese culture. The father’s role: Cross-cultural perspectives, 15.
35. Makoto, A. T. O. H. (2001). Very low fertility in Japan and value change hypotheses. Age, 25, 29.
36. Marsiglio, W., Amato, P., Day, R. D., & Lamb, M. E. (2000). Scholarship on fatherhood in the 1990s and beyond. Journal of marriage and family, 62(4), 1173-1191.
37. Miller, T. (2010). Making sense of fatherhood: Gender, caring and work. Cambridge University Press.
38. Nordenmark, M., Björk Eydal, G., & Rostgaard, T. (2014). Gender regime, attitudes towards childcare and actual involvement in childcare among fathers. Fatherhood in the Nordic Welfare states: Comparing care policies and practice, 163-186.
39. Oláh, L. S., & Bernhardt, E. (2008). Sweden: Combining childbearing and gender equality. Demographic Research, 19(28), 1105-1144.
40. Palkovitz, R. (2002). Involved fathering and child development: Advancing our understanding of good fathering. Handbook of father involvement: Multidisciplinary perspectives, 119-140.
41. Parke, R. D. (1995). Fathers and families. Handbook of. parenting:Status and social conditions of parenting.(Vol. 3) Mahwah.
42. Pleck, J. H. (1998). American fathering in historical perspective. Families in the US: Kinship and domestic politics, 351-361.
43. Pringle, K., Hearn, J., & Šmídová, I. (2013). Men and masculinities in Europe. Whiting & Birch.
44. Reed, R. K. (2005). Birthing fathers: The transformation of men in American rites of birth. Rutgers University Press.
45. Rose, S. O. (2010). What is gender history. Polity.
46. Rotundo, E. A. (1985). American Fatherhood A Historical Perspective. American Behavioral Scientist, 29(1), 7-23.
47. Rush, M. (2011). The two worlds of father politics in the Republic of Ireland: Swedish versus American influences. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 37-57.
48. Rush, M. (2015a). Between Two Worlds of Father Politics: USA Or Sweden? Manchester: Manchester University Press.
49. Rush, M. (2015b). Theorising fatherhood, welfare and the decline of patriarchy in Japan. International Review of Sociology, 25(3), 403-414.
50. Samuel, L.R. (2016). American Fatherhood: A Cultural History. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
51. Senkine C., Watanabe Y., Hayashida M. (2016). 2015 NHK Japanese time use survey. Public Opinion Research Division Broadcasting Culture Research Institute Japan Broadcasting Corporation (NHK). [Online]: Available at: https://www.nhk.or.jp/bunken/english/reports/pdf/report_16071301.pdf
52. Seward, R. R., Yeatts, D. E., & Zottarelli, L. K. (2002). Parental leave and father involvement in child care: Sweden and the United States. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 387-399.
53. Shwalb, D.W., Shwalb, B.J., and Lamb, M.E., eds., 2013. Fathers in cultural context. New York:Routledge Academic
54. Takahashi K., Aramaki H. (2016). “Japanese Value Orientations” in a Forty Year Time-Series Survey: From the Survey on Japanese Value Orientations. Public Opinion Research Division NHK Broadcasting Culture Research Institute. [Online]: Available at: https://www.nhk.or.jp/bunken/english/reports/pdf/report_16070601.pdf
55. Tatsumi, M. (2016, July). Can New Concept of Father Change Gender?| Ikuman and Masculinity in Japan. In Third ISA Forum of Sociology (July 10-14, 2016). Isaconf.
56. Trask, B. (2009). Globalization and families: Accelerated systemic social change. Springer Science & Business Media.
57. Tsai, W. S. (2010). Family man in advertising? A content analysis of male domesticity and fatherhood in Taiwanese commercials. Asian Journal of Communication, 20(4), 423-439.
58. Wahlstrom, H. (2010). New Fathers? Contemporary American Stories of Masculinity, Domesticity and Kinship: Contemporary American Stories of Masculinity, Domesticity and Kinship. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
59. Wall, G., & Arnold, S. (2007). How involved is involved fathering? An exploration of the contemporary culture of fatherhood. Gender & Society, 21(4), 508-527.
60. Wei, D. (2013). Research on the Present Situation Analysis of Father Involvement in Children-parenting and Countermeasures---Taking Three Kindergarten from A District of Shanghai as an Example. Shanghai Normal University Press.
61. Wells, M. B., & Sarkadi, A. (2012). Do father-friendly policies promote father-friendly child-rearing practices? A review of Swedish parental leave and child health centers. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 21(1), 25-31.
62. Wissö, T., & Plantin, L. (2015). Fathers and parental support in everyday family life: informal support in Sweden beyond the auspices of the welfare state. Families, Relationships and Societies, 4(2), 267-280.
63. Yasumoto, S. (2006). The Changing Culture of Fatherhood and Gender Disparities in Japanese Father's Day and Mother's Day Comic Strips: A 55-Year Analysis.