Keywords

2.1 The Image of the Czech Family

The change of a sociopolitical situation after the year 1990 has brought impacts into not only the economic sphere but also cultural and social sphere which has affected also a family life. Czech society is coming back among modern societies, as it was pulled out from its place for almost a half of a century. But it also returns to the core of capitalism. During its return, where it had already been it finds a different capitalism, not the one that was created as ground plan a half a century ago.

If we are successful, we have perspective and wealth. How does this system support family? The development of the number of new flats is considered to be the most significant for post-revolution history.

The housing crisis was not improved by the new regime, but it even was made more difficult. The fact, that almost more than one-third of the population aged 25–29 years, undoubtedly adults, does not have their own flat, would have seemed unsustainable in an industrially advanced society. Nevertheless, it did not rank among the highest priorities of a social transformation.

There were set certain rules up to 1990 (duty to be employed, parents were responsible for their child to attend school). Suddenly unemployment is rising that affects the family stability and demographic situation and also has indirect impact on family breakdown. There is a gradual diversion from traditions in terms of there are more women who want to become mothers but not to be married, or even not to live with a partner. Establishing a family becomes a dilemma mainly for young women.

The basic issue in the lives of families is “to have time for a family” and ability to utilize it. Family life should be enriching but nowadays is more likely “exhausting”. We talk about so-called sandwich generation. On the one hand, there are worries about children, and on the other hand there are worries about parents.

Traditional social standards of family behaviour create conflict with individual aspirations of young people. This fact may have consequences that cannot be simply assessed as positive or negative. Exemption from these traditional standards allows us to succeed in more demanding conditions of market-oriented, dynamic and open society (and it is obviously perceived that way); however, increasing individualism weakens family bonds and aspiration.

Contemporary family remains monogamous, but it is a kind of serial monogamy, where an individual changes several partners during his/her lifetime. At the same time, the relation has more character of a partnership than a marriage. This is partly due to secularization of the family. The family bond which should have lasted forever has ceased.

In addition to that, another live model, “single”, is being extended. An increasing number of young people perceive family as restriction of personal freedom. One-third of the households in our society consist of the live model “single”. The phenomenon of singles is perceived by us as well as in the world as new, and it disturbs social policy. Single people represent threat, because they bring lack of solidarity and insensitivity towards the concept of sustainable development according to the fact that they do not have children (Tomášek 2006). If we had respected traditional family definition (baptism and marriage), then more and more cohabitation could not have been considered as a family.

The classic family becomes to be just one of the alternatives. This is not just about the economic crisis, but about the fundamental cultural change. At the same time, this process is sometimes adaptive to the way of family life, other times it is destructive and it threatens family values. Family forms and functions are being changed in the changing world because a family is living, constantly evolving social institution. This creates alternative forms of family cohabitation, which are conditioned by their change of society status.

These are the following:

  1. 1.

    Free coexistence (cohabitation);

  2. 2.

    Multiple (series of) relationships (life patterns of successive relationships);

  3. 3.

    Separated families and in divorce proceedings;

  4. 4.

    Single-parent families (death, divorce, birth outside marriage);

  5. 5.

    Binuclear families (divorced, separated couple, where the second biological parent is interested, mutual responsibility for the child even in different households);

  6. 6.

    Repeated marriages;

  7. 7.

    Stepfamilies (at least one parent has a child from a previous relationship);

  8. 8.

    Homosexual, lesbian families (a child from former heterosexual relationship, adopted child) (Kučírek 2014).

What are the characteristic attributes of Czech family in recent years?

There are new aspects of demographic development, such as natural population decline and increasing population ageing. Another significant shift occurred in marriage age. In men, the figure has increased from age 24 to 29, and in women from 21 to 24. There has been a substantial decrease of birth rate. While in the beginning of the 1990s, the coefficient amounted to 1.9, in recent years it has been roughly 1.4.

This has been influenced by economic problems, unemployment and housing situation. Today, a child in a family is very often perceived (by both parents) as a barrier to professional development or an obstacle of self-realization.

However, a child is often also perceived as a certain luxury because of economic reasons. The results of J. Macháčková’s research manifest clearly that in relation to an arrival of a child, the change of both social and economic situations of a family occurs, parents expect greater difficulties in return to employment and overall, and a child’s arrival creates a problem for families. The author states that the conditions that arise when starting a new family are not particularly favourable; the Czech state institutions do not seem to heed this unsatisfactory state (Macháčková 2008). It is not surprising that there is a significant increase in the number of marriages, in which only one child is considered, while some young people do not plan to have a child at all.

Another shift in the nature of family is significant. Because of the decrease of lawfully established families, there is a rising trend of unmarried cohabitation. In the 1970s, 95% of children were born in marriages. In the present, however, the percentage of children born outside of wedlock reaches almost 50% (see the following chart).

One of the phenomena occurring relatively frequently in the present day is divorce of parents. Divorce or break-up of cohabitation is frequently present in views of the youth of today as a “safeguard” of a potential failure. Divorce itself is stressful for parents and, even more so, for children. As Matějček and Dytrych (1997) argue, it is necessary to realize that children are exposed to psychological strain, the consequences of which may often not show immediately afterwards or may not be recognized in time. The consequence of the strain can be manifested, e.g. in behavioural patterns as late as in pubescence or at the beginning of adolescence.

Divorce is frequently perceived as beneficial for relations and atmosphere and as a way to peace. It has been demonstrated, however, that in most marriages, the stressful atmosphere filled with tension and arguments remains. In an overwhelming majority of cases, parents live separately after the divorce. Problems of where and when the child will live appear.

The democratization of family life in recent decades occurred primarily as a result of long-term efforts of women for emancipation in all aspects of life. At the same time, it is related to an increasing level of education and qualification of women and to a certain degree also to transformations of value orientation. Moreover, there are shifts in roles, especially a decline of male and father authority. Some authors even consider this a crisis of fatherhood. That can also be manifested mainly in relation to personality development and upbringing of boys as a problem that contributes to deviant behaviour.

The tendency towards democratization is notable not only between spouses but also in the child–parent relations. It was not so long ago when children addressed their parents in a formally polite way. Overall, relations in the present tend towards a partnership and also to a much more tolerant approach to children. It is again debatable whether this transformation is unambiguously beneficial for personality development of children and whether this “friendship” is not abused by children, which is manifested in a complete lack of recognition of authority, which consequently contributes to elimination of any restraints in behaviour.

The existence of family is essential for economic growth, as it contributes significantly to what has recently been called “human capital”. Family has also functioned (and frequently, continues to do so in the present) as a separate economic unit that takes part in production of social wealth. Under the influence of the aforementioned dangers of today, especially in relation to a continuing differentiation of society, differentiation of families also occurs and their socio-economic situation changes. Overall, since the 1990s, a certain decrease in actual income and a concentration of the majority of households in lower-income classes have become evident.

In this research (realized in the group of 500 families within the Tradition and modernity in the life-style of the families of the Visegrad countries project), a half of the families stated debts and in almost 60% of cases indicated that price is essential when they are shopping for food (Kraus and Jedličková 2007, p. 279). On the other hand, there are numerous families that live in excessive abundance; in these cases, the so-called monetization of childhood in the form of disproportionately high allowance occurs frequently.

In the present, the lifestyle of many families is determined by their socio-economic situation, which sometimes becomes a direct risk factor for all the members, especially children. Both extremes are dangerous.

For some time now, it has been noticeable that disintegration of family life has grown. In almost all families, time spent together by sharing experiences, joys and worries, and looking for mutual help and cooperation has diminished. On the contrary, there are increasing numbers of families in which their members only meet and exchange messages, or stop communicating entirely. For instance, to a large degree, families do not even meet over meals. In case of dinner, 43% reported meeting daily and 15% at weekends only, while in case of lunch, 45% meet at weekends (Kraus and Jedličková 2007). In a way, family has become a space of passage in which its members live next to each other rather than together.

The matter of communication is absolutely essential for a functioning family. The present surveys also confirm that family ties are strengthened by factors such as mutual communication, shared interests and leisure time spent together. Only then, e.g. eroticism or sexuality follows. In this survey, the most frequent response (88%) to the question about what keeps a family together the most was: “I can rely on someone, I have emotional support” (Kraus and Jedličková 2007, p. 298).

Contemporary family also seems to be more closed off, which leads to certain isolation; the lives of their members are directed inwards. In this way, family is growing smaller not only as far as numbers of members are concerned, but also in terms of the number and intensity of mutual attachments. It is therefore overall more unstable and sensitive to any inner turmoil. Because of non-existing external anchoring to broader social bonds, any conflicts or other problems figuratively throw family off balance, and situations can very quickly develop into conditions that endanger the whole stability and may even lead to a collapse (Kraus 2008). The phenomenon of isolation is also related to the fact there has been a substantial increase in the number of single-person households. This pertains not only to the model of life as a “single”, but also to seniors who live alone and people who were abandoned and did not choose this way of life. According to statistics, out of 4,366,218 households in the Czech Republic almost a third consist of only one person. This trend is growing; therefore, it is assumed that by 2030, single-person households will comprise more than 35% of the total number.

As a consequence of profound changes in the situation both within families and in the society, intergenerational relations also transform, which is accompanied by many issues. Given increasing life expectancy, there is a coexistence of three or even four generations. Currently, there are 80,000 elderly citizens who depend on the support of others (usually within their families); it is expected that in 2030, this number will increase to 150,000. Apparently, for 20% of families who provide care, such situation is very difficult, especially financially. Intergenerational relations are also affected by increased retirement age and job market situation (e.g. there has been a decrease in availability of grandmothers in pre-retirement age).

However, it has been proved that grandparents have an important influence on children and help fulfil socializing and educational functions of family (different values, models, etc.).

In today’s society (especially among the youth), it is often declared “this is no age for old people”. Displays of ageism are becoming more frequent, and the elderly are subjected to domestic violence. Ageism is manifested in the emphasis on a cult of youth and in disparagement of old age. The key factors of ageism are the stereotypes regarding old age which are commonly accepted by the society.

It is typical of Czech families that only a small fraction of the elderly share a household with their children (6%), while most of them live relatively close by, in the same town or even village (Vágnerová 2007).

The present research reached the following conclusions. The way of maintaining contacts between adult children and their parent (grandparents) was following: at least several times a week—phone calls in 30% of cases and visits: roughly 9%; several times a month—phone calls: 11% and personal visits: 24%. Grandparents help especially with childcare (28%), financially (20%), materially (25%) and with various works (10%). Parents help grandparents above all with household maintenance (28%) and by providing care (18%) (Kraus and Jedličková 2007, p. 299).

According to E. Mendelová, contemporary family can be characterized by the following attributes:

Nuclear family is losing its ritualized form. Legalization of cohabitation of partners is currently no longer necessary for family life, and a growing number of families are based on cohabitation of unmarried partners.

Discontinuity of generations and transformation of family structure. There is a decrease not only in the number of children in the family, but also in intergenerational cohabitation, while the number of single-person households grows.

Decrease in stability of family. In the past decades, there has been an increase in divorce rate due to both objective (process of emancipation and growth of atheism) and subjective reasons (marriage is based on emotional basis).

Changes in organization of family cycle. People become parents at an older age, and children are born only after certain duration of marriage or cohabitation of partners. People who become grandparents tend to be older but often still working.

Dual-career marriages. Due to increasing levels of education and qualification, and consequently also of an employment rate of women, the time parents spend with their children and other family members decreases.

Increasing life expectancy means families exist longer after the children leave. Children also live in a shared household with their parents for a longer time.

Greater emphasis on material values. There is an obvious effort to reach a living standard equal to other developed countries and secure greater convenience, privacy and affluence (Mendelová 2014, pp. 13–14).

In conclusion, it is possible to add that despite all manifestations of a certain crisis of family, it has paradoxically in a way become more important as a refuge from the complex public world of the present day and poses, especially within socially weak contexts, as the only space of support for its members, especially children. Following J. Macháčková, it is possible to state that in spite of all changes that family has gone and continues to go through, it remains the best environment for healthy development of children (Macháčková 2008).

2.2 The Image of the German Family

In August 2017, the Minister of Family Affairs, Katharina Barley, presented the German family report 2017 with the following main results: the number of unmarried couples and the number of births (also from academics) increase, but even the number of poor families (also migrants) with minor education and minor chances to develop increases. The percentage of divorces decreases, and there is more acceptance of the diversity of modern families (Bundesministerium für Familie, Senioren, Frauen und Jugend 2017).

In July 2017, a change of the marriage law now offers everybody to get married—independent from sex and sexual orientation.

How do families feel nowadays? Which models (concepts) help to stand the conflict between traditional institution of marriage and individually created way of life—between tradition and change? And what about the children? This chapter takes a look on modern families in Germany, their issues, their specific problems and consequences for children and their education. The data is taken from up-to-date studies: AOK Familienstudie 2014 a research of Sinus Institutes; the Children Media Study 2017; the Family Report of the National Ministry for Family, Seniors, Women and Youth 2017; the 15. Children and Youth Report of German Parliament 2017; the KIGGS Study 2014; and Prognos future report family 2030Footnote 1. During the last decades, family forms changed from the leading traditional concept of “couple with children” to ways of living together without institutional support. In today’s generation, 29% live as couples without children, 26% are singles and 24% live as couples with children. This might be the result of low birth rate, combined with increasing life expectancy and more and more unpopular traditional concept (Bundesinstitut für Bevölkerungsforschung 2017).

However, the number of children in Germany is slowly growing. The birth rate increased from 1.37 children per woman in 2013 to 1.5 in 2015. Nevertheless, it is a low number compared to most European countries (Statistisches Bundesamt 2017). German family becomes an interesting subject for the future: from a prediction 2030–interrogation 2016, we get the information that 76% of participants prefer family as the most important sense of life, more important than friends, jobs and hobbies.

There are 8 out of 10 underage children who grow up with couples as parents, 7 out of 10 couples are married, and the proportion of singles is 20%. The relevance of family as a future issue also is to be seen on trade statistics and selling numbers of children’s under 3 years of equipment (2.5 billion Euros which is a 5% increase compared to the year before). Eighty-five percentage out of 5000 people between 20 and 39 years postulated that it is important to have children (Bundesinstitut für Bevölkerungsforschung 2013). The requirements for modern parenthood in Germany have increased. The child’s well-being and social expectation of perfect equipment also are instruments for self-fulfilment of the parent (helicopter parents) (Henry-Huthmacher 2014).

The most important purpose in life for people in Germany is family and health (Best for Planning 2013). Ninety-three percentage of parents are happy with their family life, but fathers seem to be even more happy than mothers. There is no greater influence of sociodemographic markers on satisfaction than educational background of parents, number and age of children. Couples are more satisfied than singles (45–26%). The nicest family moments are described during common meals or conversations with children.

Families with a lower educational background and singles enjoy the use of modern media with their children, and educated parents enjoy common holidays as an intensive time together. For singles, financial problems play an important role (Forschungsbericht de Sinus-Institutes 2014). In 2014, the part of employed mothers of 2–3-year-old children was 57% (in 2006 it was 41%). The part of fathers who demanded parent’s money to stay with their children increased from 3.5% in 2006 to 34% in 2014 (Statistisches Bundesamt 2014). So equal partnership, ordinary education and flexibility of work-life balance, these are issues of young families in Germany today. In case of separation and divorce, there are special challenges which are shown in male and female perspective by non-profit organizations.

Developing with more working hours of parents, the needed childcare is increasing. For children aged 1–3 years in 2014, it was 33% versus 14% in 2006. Family is the first encounter of learning and teaching for children—a chance of education to work poverty (Bundesministerium für Familie, Senioren, Frauen und Jugend 2017). From the AOK Familienstudie 2014, we know that the time watching TV depends on age of children as well as their educational status. TV by now is the most important medium used in German families, and 25% of all children between 3 and 19 years of age watch TV regularly multiple times a week (Medienpädagogischer Forschungsverband Südwest 2011).

Data from year 2017 including 7.14 Mio children shows that 37% of children aged 6–9 years and 84% of those aged 10–13 years own a smartphone or mobile, although all of them mention to prefer playing with friends in nature or activities with their families. Seventy-two percentage of German children read books or magazines, having more contact to paper books than to YouTube or PlayStation (Bundesinstitut für Bevölkerungsforschung 2017).

In modern times, children have a good life in their families. They are the centre and rarely miss material things. They use modern media—especially TV and smartphones, while they do enjoy time with family and friends more. Common time is rare in working families. Health problems and behavioural disorders are new challenges. The pressure lasting on children to operate efficiently in kindergarten, in school as well as at home is bigger. However, space and time for creative games are rare.

Family models are an important part of social identity. They give orientation in life decisions related to partnership, parenthood and determining the time of starting a family (Bundesinstitut für Bevölkerungsforschung 2017). A Family Models Study in 2012 and 2016 from Meinungsforschungsinstitut included 5000 persons born between years 1973 and 1992 in a telephone survey. They were contacted several times, and in 2016, they were asked the same questions about their idea of family compared to their current family life. The consent named most when being asked for a functioning family model were a fulfilling partnership, a joyful family life including children, equality in gender as well as being able to guarantee a stable upbringing of children. In real life, those ideas change and a more differentiated picture is described. The lived reality of a family model is evolving together with the role distribution among parents when starting a family. The number of mothers continuing to work increases, just as the number of fathers staying home for parental leaves. In the majority of young families after birth of the first child, a traditional family model with a full-time working father and a part-time working mother is realized. The reduced working hours for mothers keep on as long as the children are small.

The wish to have children is a widespread desire among couples. Financial aspects just as creating a life plan affect family planning. A growing number of parents see day childcare positively. In Eastern Germany, the idea finds wider acceptance than in Western Germany. German men feel struggled by working full time and at the same time being fully present in children’s education. To reconcile work with family life is a possible cause of psychosocial distress in those men.

Equal partnership, common education and good possibilities to combine private and professional work, these are themes of young families today in Germany. The social conditions are good at the moment; nevertheless, poverty of children is increasing as well as the pressure on children. Children are in the centre of families and get everything, even more they need. Others are neglected, particularly in migrant families, living in precarious life situations, and get fewer education. To encounter families in problematic situations, there are special projects in early intervention programmes and child welfare. Health prevention and more institutions of childcare are an important challenge for society and current politics as well as more financial support.

Besides best institutional childcare, financial support, optimum of new media products and best education: intensive bonding, the feeling to be loved and welcome in a family spending a lot of time together help children to develop and make their life.

2.3 The Image of the Latvian Family

Family plays a crucial role in the development of welfare, demographical vitality and the lifestyle of the nation in Latvia. Families in Latvia have changed during the past thirty years. The process can be related to rapid economic, political and social changes in Eastern Europe, starting from late 1980. At the same time, it can be related to postmodern changes in family structures in Europe and beyond.

Changing demographic structure of population by age and gender has influence of family structures and family lifestyles. The birth rate started to decrease from 1991 to 1992 and continued for almost two decades. Since 1993, the share of people at retirement age exceeds the share of children and young people, and it means that in future the number of population at working age will be smaller and the level of demographic burden will increase. Although since 2011 the share of children (0–14 years) in the total population has slightly increased due to modest rise in the birth, the proportion of working age population continuously decreases, and the share of population at retirement age increases. At the beginning of 2016, there were 377 persons at retirement age and 248 children aged under 15 per 1000 population at working age (Central Statistical Bureau of Latvia 2016).

Marriage and family formation patterns in Latvia are changing. Before 1990, young people started family rather early—for women, the average age of the first marriage was 22.2 years, and for men 24 years. Nowadays, women and men prefer to establish themselves first in the labour market before starting a family.

There have been essential changes in the dominating attitude and behaviour towards the age of the first marriage. Since 1990, the average age of first marriage has increased to age of 24.4 for women and 26.5 for men in 2000, and further increased to age of 28.7 for women and 30.8 for men in 2015 (see Fig. 2.1).

Fig. 2.1
figure 1

Source Central Statistical Bureau of Latvia, Demography (2016)

Average age of female at marriage and childbirth, 1990–2015.

Full size image

The divorce rates in Latvia are among the highest in Europe. In 1990, the number of divorces was 457 per 1000 marriages. During the following years of rapid economic and social changes, also the number of divorces has reached 666 (on 1000 marriages) in 2000. Relative economic and social stabilization since 2000 has led to decreasing number of divorces, reaching 480 divorces per 1000 marriages (Central Statistical Bureau of Latvia 2016). During the last decades, the average duration of divorced marriage has increased from 8.4 years in 1990 to 11.7 in 2000 and 13.7 in 2015. The divorced marriages had changed the lives of common 3600 underage children in 2015. Among them, the highest proportion of children influenced by their parents’ divorce were in age group 5–9 (36%) and age group 10–14 (25%). With decreasing marriage rates and increasing divorce rates, there are more children growing in single-parent and blended families.

Fertility rates have been persistently low in Latvia since 1990s, which leads to smaller families. At the same time, in 2015, both the crude birth rate in Latvia (11.1) was higher than in the European Union (10.0) and higher than in the Czech Republic (10.5) and also the total fertility rate in Latvia (1.65) was higher than in EU (1.58) and higher than in the Czech Republic (1.53) (Central Statistical Bureau of Latvia 2016). Low birth rates and increasing life expectancy lead to fewer children and more grandparents than before. The number of children born within marriage in the 1990 was almost 85% and decreased to 59% in 2016. At least 16.2% of all children in Latvia are raised by cohabiting partners. However, married couples more often than single or cohabiting partners have the second and the third child. The average age of mother at birth of the first child has risen from 22.7 in 1990 to 23.9 in 2000 and to 27 in 2015. Higher age of mother at the birth of the first child can increase the probability of having fewer children than previous generations.

The share of extramarital birth reached 44% from the total birth (2014). This indicator is higher than in the EU (40%) and somehow lower than in the Czech Republic (46.7%). The number of abortions in Latvia has decreased essentially—from 60 abortions per 1000 women aged 15–49 in 1991 to 11 abortions in 2015. This data indicates high literacy and use of contraception.

Issue of the family institution is rather topical in Latvia. The traditional family has changed, cohabitation family relations have increased in numbers and prevalence, and a term used for those relationships—“steady non-cohabiting relationships” (McGinnis 2003)—is receiving higher prevalence. However, in Latvian normative regulations, term “registered partnerships” is not used and no rights are granted to unregistered and the same-sex couples. The term “partnership” is not regulated by the Latvian legislation, although cohabiting partnerships are not new for Latvia and they exist side by side with marital relationships as a peculiar alternative to marriage. Partnerships are usually referred to the widely used term of “civil marriage”. The issue of partnerships is relevant in Latvia because partnerships form a significant share of unions existing outside marriage and the number of children born in nonregistered partnerships is increasing. The topicality of partnerships in Latvia is indirectly highlighted by statistics on children born outside marriage. Survey data (2015) confirms that 72% consider it acceptable for partners to cohabit without registering a marriage.

Nuclear family consisting of two parents and children is the dominating family form in Latvia. It is seen by society as being the typical family form, which is ideal to raise children because children in nuclear families receive stability from two-parent structure and have better lifestyle opportunities because they have two parents. However, around 54% of children live in a nuclear family unit. The average size of the household is 2.4 persons. At present, the extended family—family with two or more adults, related by blood or marriage, living in the same household or home—is a rather rare phenomenon in Latvia.

Single-parent family is a type of family relations, which is rather widespread in Latvia and consists of one parent raising one or more children on her/his own. Prevalent single-parent family is a mother with her children (with 30.5% child raised by mother and 4.4% child raised by a father) (Central Statistical Bureau of Latvia 2017). There is only one earner, which limits income, access and opportunities to enjoy the lifestyle family members would love to. According to the EU-SILC data, at risk of poverty are about 37% of single-parent families.

During the recent decades, there is another subtype of family developing, mainly in the East European countries. The development of this is family type is related to the long-term economical migration of one or both parents who leave their children behind. This type of family-like relationships can be called geographically dispersed or transnational family. This type of family got its increase since the economic crises in Latvia (2008–2009), when many parents left the country due to long-term economical migration, leaving their children behind. According to statistics, about 259 thousand people have started economical migration. Some of them have migrated together with their children; however, more than 8 thousand children were left behind. Research on dispersed families and children left behind (Trapenciere 2011) shows that one or both parents living abroad and leaving their children behind is a risk factor to ensure the family functions (economical, socialization, education, emotional support, etc.). According to research, children left behind have been left with relatives, friends, grandparents or by children themselves. Thus, a new type of family-like relations appears, which are not defined as any type of family. The closest family type to the dispersed families is a grandparent family—is a family, which has taken the duty of raising their grandchildren, and the parents are not present in the child’s life. For the family lifestyle description in the case of Latvia, we would like to discuss lifestyle perspectives of children left behind either in grandparent family, blended family, foster family or when left by themselves. Children left behind or “Euro-orphans” is a term, which in Latvia first was discussed in 2010, when a term Euro-orphan was introduced (Trapenciere 2011)—a child, who is left behind due to his/her parent’s long-term economical migration.

The exact number of dispersed (transnational) family arrangements in Latvia or in Europe is unknown because of a scarcity of data. Reports by NGOs and UNICEF indicate that approximately 25% of children in selected migrant-sending countries have at least one parent abroad.

Family institute in Latvia had faced many changes since regaining independence in 1990: nuclear family is losing its dominating place, and cohabiting is increasing. Economical migration has developed a new model of relations between parents and their children. It can have a long-term negative effect on children. Although parental economical migration provides positive income effect in majority of cases, a negative effect is present among children due to insufficient emotional interaction, missing non-verbal communications, increased feelings of sadness/loneliness and deficiency of schoolwork support. The main problems for teenagers and adolescents occur through increased stress and social isolation. The literature reports that regardless of parental migration status, most children experience increased stress, need to take additional household responsibilities (those who are left by themselves) and faced increasing social isolation with grandparents. This situation is concerning because there can be a causal relationship between substantial stress and developing addictions, abuse or depression during adolescence.

2.4 The Image of the Polish Family

The family in its various forms, structures and functions is the universal principle of culture (Gough 1971). Observing the directions of changes in contemporary culture, we can see that the family is subject to significant changes and begins to lose its privileged position in the structures of the social world, which can be described as a family crisis as an institution and a primary group.

-The equally serious feature of our civilization is the already mentioned strong and still weakening of social ties, the decomposition of traditional communities in which man is involved and in which he finds support. This is not just about the family, but even more about the village community, neighbourhood communities, various cooperatives and associations. The individual is increasingly left to himself, isolated from others and from the community. Family and family lifestyles no longer have to refer in their forms and manifestations to tradition and upbringing, drawing from axiological cultural resources aimed at promoting individualism, subjectivity and dynamism captured as the endogenous tendency that has been growing since the mid-twentieth century, which is becoming a source of increasingly growing level of stress for the individual. As a consequence, hybrid forms of family life are also conceived.

Both statistical data and in-depth sociological research indicate significant and persisting tendencies in the transformations of lifestyles in Polish society, which is expressed both in attitudes towards marriage and family, and in the practices of family life.

In various studies on the axiological orientations of Polish society, the attachment to the institution of marriage and the family as a value is very strong. “More than half of Poles (54%) declare such attitudes, the same number is in favour of formalizing consensual unions, and 15% are of the opinion that people living together without marriage should necessarily get married. Poland has the lowest in the European Union (next to Greece and Malta) percentage of people (around 2%) “aged 20 plus” who live in consensual unions, while the average proportion of such unions in the European Union amounts up to around 9%. It is the highest in Sweden, namely over 18%, and in the Czech Republic it approaches the level of 6%” (Główny Urząd Statystyczny 2016a, b).

The value of the family is higher for people who have already established their own families and feel responsible for them (Wadowski 1998). Similarly, as in other European countries also in Poland the number of marriages decreases, and the so-called balance of marriages entered into and dissolved in Poland has shown a negative trend since 2000, which has its consequences also in the decline in the number of births, because more than half of the babies born each year are born during the first three years of the parents’ marriage.

The number of single-parent families is also systematically increasing. In recent decades, the percentage of new marriages has decreased in the vast majority of European countries. Thus, on a European scale, apart from exceptions and also in Poland, demographers define the “tendency to enter into marriage” as a signature of lifestyles of young people, and those who make such decisions get married at the age of about 30. Despite the fact that young people consider the family to be one of the most important values, starting it is postponed for later because earlier they strive to strengthen their professional position and property status. The trends observed for several decades in the developed Western countries are explained by the increasingly late achievement of professional career readiness, as well as by the discipline of work in corporations requiring employees’ availability and mobility. Similar lines of professional development of both sexes are also noteworthy, which results in a stronger competition between them. Keeping the status of “singles” is becoming more and more common. In sociological literature, there functions the concept of basement dwellers that refers to categories of older adolescents staying in the family home who do not become independent and are afraid of responsibility for their own decisions, and even more of the responsibility arising from entering into marriage, especially since it would be “forever”. Poland is in the top ten European countries where adult children do not leave their home for a long time; for women it is about 28.5, and for men about 30 years of age. Over half of the population aged 18–34 has the status of basement dwellers. The percentage of basement dwellers (2008) in Poland was about 58%. In Slovakia, this percentage was the highest and amounted up to nearly 70%. The lowest percentage of basement dwellers was recorded in Denmark (about 14%), and on average in the European Union their number amounts up to around 46%. In the Czech Republic, this percentage was just over 50% (Choroszewicz and Wolff 2010).

Nationwide surveys show that almost 2/3 of Poles accept the postponement of decisions about marriage by young people, which is also associated with the approval of cohabitation.

In the perspective of sociological analyses referring to the role of language and its legitimizing functions, the conclusions of nationwide research stressing the wider social understanding (definitions) of the family are significant. In recent years, there are more and more respondents who define family as a couple living in a cohabitation and raising their child/children (from 71 to 78%) or having no children (from 26 to 33%); the number of respondents who consider gay or lesbian couples as a family who raise a child or children together (from 9 to 23%), as well as those who define family as an informal relationship of two people of the same sex who have no children (from 6 to 14%) has also significantly increased.Footnote 2

It is symptomatic that more women distance themselves from the role of the mother (15%) than men from the role of the father (12%). This information is complemented by the conclusions from EVS research regarding the relationship between having children and satisfaction with life. The author of these analyses states, among others: “Poles’ attitudes are similar to the attitudes of Eastern Europeans in the sense that having children decreases, and does not increase their level of life satisfaction, moreover, children do not compensate for the lack of a partner for either women or men. In the case of people living in relationships, the negative impact of children on the level of satisfaction is felt weaker by women than men, which is a result characteristic of Poland” (Konieczna-Sałamatin 2013).

In the light of changes in value orientation, the CBOS survey is interesting, which stresses that almost two-fifths of respondents (37%) believe that if people love and trust each other, their marital status is of little importance. Few respondents are against the legalization of relationships (5%) or have no opinion on the subject (4%). However, we also see that in many cases cohabitation takes on the status of permanent relationships. Cohabiting couples are more often formed by persons with a relatively lower level of education, lower wages or the ones who are unemployed. Many couples bring up children by taking advantage of disability and social benefits, rent houses more often in poor technical and civilization conditions, and earn a livelihood by working in the grey zone or migrating abroad. Less than half of the respondents (49%) reject the model of life “without a stable partner”, and more than two-fifths (44%) accept it. Most Poles (61%) also deny that the life of a single person is more attractive than that of a person in a stable relationship.

An important feature of the Polish families’ lifestyles is the inclusion of religious weddings in marriage designs. This is connected with universally declared religiousness and relatively high rates of religious practices. Nevertheless, the number of religious weddings shows a declining tendency. For example, if in the year 2000 the percentage of church weddings was 72%, in 2016, it amounted up to 63% (Główny Urząd Statystyczny 2016a, b). CBOS research shows that more than a quarter of respondents (28%) recognize the primacy of a concordat wedding, i.e. an ecclesiastical celebration with legal effects, and a similar proportion (27%) admit that although civil marriage is sufficient, spouses should also have a church wedding. About 9% of respondents think that a religious marriage is not important, while every third respondent (33%) does not attach much importance to these matters. In some cities, for example, in Warsaw and Wałbrzych, only civil marriages (in civil registries) are entered into more often than religious ones. Religious (concordat)Footnote 3 marriages are an important expression not only of religious attitudes but also of acceptance of cultural traditions. The declining rates of religious marriages point to the scale of the secularization of the lifestyle of young people. The declining marriage rate correlates with the increasing percentage of extramarital births and the phenomenon of cohabitation of couples in matrimonial and reproductive age. Countries with low marriage rates have high rates of extramarital births. Since the mid-1980s, the number of children that come into the world beyond the traditionally perceived family has been on a systematic increase. The percentage of extramarital births increased from around 5% in the first half of the 1980s to nearly 16% in 2004, over 21% in 2012 and over 25% in 2016: the percentage is higher in cities (over 27%) and lower in rural areas (around 22%). The growing fertility rate results from the increase in cohabitation and the growth of incomplete families (mainly single mothers). In some large cities (e.g. Łódź), it exceeds 30%, and in poviats (e.g. Gryfice) it reaches half of all births. The highest percentages of extramarital births in Poland occur in West Pomerania, in the voivodeship of Lubuskie, in the border area of Lower Silesia and the north-western part of Warmia and Mazury. Children brought to the world by teenagers, whose percentage, for example, in 2002 was 14.5% and in 2010 amounted up to 9.8%, have its share in this phenomenon (Brzozowska 2011).

Fast-growing birth rates in Poland can be treated as socially relevant indicators of changes in lifestyles and value orientation showing the scale of the redefinition of the cultural significance of marriage and the family. Low rates of birth are of similar importance. Since 1989, Poland has experienced the period of birth rate decrease (Główny Urząd Statystyczny 2016a, b), and long-term forecasts (2060) show a dramatic social situation in which there will be 670 pensioners per 1.000 people in the working age. Against the background of the European Union, Poland is one of the countries with the lowest intensity of births. According to Eurostat data, in 2015 the lower fertility rate than in Poland (1.32) was recorded only in Portugal (1.31). The highest fertility rate is currently recorded in the countries of Western and Northern Europe; the highest was in France (1.96) and Ireland (1.92). In the Czech Republic, the birth rate was 1.57. “It should be noted that all of these coefficients remain below the value referred to as simple generational replacement, which is 2.13–2.15” (Główny Urząd Statystyczny 2016a, b).

Sociological research shows a large “fertility potential”, which is expressed by declarations regarding the desire to have children. CBOS research shows that there are “only 4%” of people who do not want to have children at all, and 10% of people who want to have one child. The remaining part, namely over 80%, would like to have two or three children (a total of almost 75%). According to data published in 2017 by the Polish Association of Large Families “Trzy Plus” (“Three Plus”), 627 thousand mothers bring up three or more children. The most numerous group are mothers with three children, namely 74%, four children are raised by 14% of mothers, 7% of mothers have five children, and 5% even more. The data shows that 68% of mothers with many children are professionally active, and most of them work full time. According to the “Trzy Plus” Association, in large families there is a partnership division between everyday duties; both women and men do housework such as washing, cleaning and cooking. In large families, 84% of mothers chose a formalized union, 64% of women got married in church, 20% had a civil ceremony, and only 10% live in a free relationship. Most mothers who have large families live in villages and small towns, and their number is the smallest in the largest cities.

One may recall a lot of statistical data, more or less describing in detail the styles of modern family life. Statistics only indicate numbers, but behind the numbers there are deep transformations in culture and in social mentality taking place.

Numerous sociological studies conducted in Poland stress a relatively stable triad of basic axiological orientations which are built on the pillars of the value of family, friends and children. It also includes health aspects (Świątkiewicz 2013). The future of marriage and family, familiarness as a way of life, will depend on the ability to defend the privileged status of a natural family and to renew its attractiveness as an emotional community that legitimizes the identity of the cultural code of Polish society.

2.5 The Image of the Slovakian Family

This paper was also published in Slovak (Ondrejkovič 2018).

A nation’s character, its peculiarity and uniqueness are directly related to its traditions and its culture, which usually stems from the traditions. The ideal of a Slovak family is highly disparate. It is variously based on very different religious (where there are differences even among Christians), traditionalist, the so-called postmodern, “rainbow” or even partisan ideas. A generally accepted notion of future families may only emerge on the basis of an examination of intergenerational relations, i.e. a specific, interdisciplinary field, which has so far absented in the creation of family policy.

The notion of the future of families can only arise out of a real understanding of contemporary family life and the factors that influence it. What, then, is Slovak family like?

Singly’s observation is also valid in case of Slovak families. According to it:

  1. 1.

    There is a greater dependence of families on state.

  2. 2.

    There is a greater independence on relatives.

  3. 3.

    There is a greater independence of spouses on family (Singly 1999).

These statements are considered an initial hypothesis also in case of family life in Slovakia.

In comparison with the lifestyle of other families in the Central Europe, in Slovakia, significant differences (certain peculiarities) appear between lives of urban and rural families. More importantly, family lives are differed by their economic situation. According to Anton Michálek (2010, 14), in Slovakia: “… income, salaries and poverty are highly differentiated regionally, meaning that their values and the level of inequality are also determined geographically… there is a type of research, in which space function as the dominant dimension… Unfortunately, in Slovak as well as Czech literature, studies of geographical aspects of income, salaries and poverty (of families)… are largely absent”. Michálek provides an accurate analysis of low-income communities and their numbers in individual Slovak district, and of the distribution of employees according to industry, including the index of poverty. The provided characteristics that have not undergone an empirical research so far also include the fact that a third of Slovak families are financially supported by their members from abroad. The financial support of families in Slovakia is provided by workers from the Czech Republic, Great Britain and Northern Ireland as well as by people employed in Austria, Germany, Italy, Switzerland, Ireland, Netherlands and France, which finalizes the top ten countries (available at https://ekonomika.sme.sk/c/20135851/tretine-ludom-na-slovensku-pomaha-financne-rodina-zo-zahranicia.html#ixzz4q5QADD3X, 18.8.2017).

Importantly, Slovak family and, consequently, the course of Slovak society are characterized by demographic development. According to demographic studies (Vaňo et al. 2009), over the last two decades, the structure of Slovak family has been changing. According to the aforementioned authors, the development of population after the year 2000 has been characterized by a gradual stabilization of trends that have followed a period of important changes at the end of the previous century. This stabilization is oriented towards a new model of reproductive and family behaviour, which should fully assert itself once the period of transformation ends. The years 2005 and 2006 brought a few surprises, especially regarding the development of birth and marriage rate, while in years 2007 and 2008, the expected trends were confirmed virtually to their full extent. Marriage and birth rate increased, the divorce rate continued to grow, but it was apparent it was nearing its ceiling, abortion rate grew slightly smaller, mortality continued to decrease and net migration rate increased. The increases in birth rate and net migration rate were crucial here. The influence of demographic development on increase in population and age distribution also corresponded to the expectations—the drop of natural increase has (temporarily) stopped, and population ageing has continued at an increased rate.

Vaňo et al. (2009) also mention that according to the chart of marriage rate among single people, the greatest decrease of marriage rate occurred in males below 25 years of age, while there has also been a drop in the group of 25–29-year-olds. The greatest change, however, occurred in the group of 20–24-year-olds, in which the probability of a single person entering marriage dropped by more than 60%, while at age 20–23, it was almost 75%. In the female population, the decrease in marriage rate between 1996 and 2008 was the most significant at age 17–21, where it decreased by more than 60%.

The development of marriage rate seemed the least stable, as it was impossible to eliminate various courses or an unsteady progress. In the present, in fact, we are unable to estimate reliably how the population, especially the current young generation, is going to react to cohabitation, i.e. whether it will continue to consider it a temporary relationship of partners that is going to be followed by marriage, or whether cohabitation will become recognized as a permanent form of partnership to a larger degree.

It should be noted that many initial hypotheses assume that the trend of unmarried partner relationships, which appears in growing numbers in many developed democratic countries in Europe, will also impact Slovakia. A poll examining family behaviour of university graduates in Slovakia showed that more than a half of respondents (56.5%) considered unmarried cohabitation a convenient test prior to marriage. As much as 16.8% of respondents even perceived cohabitation as a better form of partner relationship than formal marriage (Mládek and Širočková 2004). According to these authors, in 1991, there were 20,864 cohabitations in Slovakia, with a ratio of 100 married people to 1.65 people living in a cohabitation. By 2001, this value increased to 30,466 cohabitations (2.68 people in cohabitation to 100 married individuals). The present study assumes that by 2017, this number doubled and that it will continue to grow in future. The studies of changes in the composition of cohabitating individual in Slovakia (Džambazovič and Šprocha 2017) advanced closer to the actual situation, when they started to look for causes of the growing number of cohabitations primarily in the changes of values and preferences related to the increasing individualism, secularization and equality within families, followed by the changes in objective conditions, including the overall increase in uncertainty and changes in the job market. According to the census of inhabitants, houses and flats in Slovakia in 2011, the greatest tendency to cohabitation appeared among individuals who attained the lowest education, declared Roma nationality and lived in urban environments.

In an international conference on social and legal protection of children and social guardian ship, Špániková (2015) noted in relation to contemporary family that until recently, Slovak family was a comparatively stable unit, while in the present, it is more open, i.e. less formally bound by marriage, contracts or legal verdicts. “Family no longer possesses formal attributes; rather, it is based on more or less voluntary principles and emotional closeness. This also causes conflicts, because if the partners lack an emotional understanding, it gives rise to tensions and break-ups. However, when family relations used to be linked to a formal agreement (wedding), this agreement was binding and kept the family together in some way”. This suggests Slovak families are currently governed by emotions. “However, when emotions are exhausted and worries and troubles arise, where there is no longer a good atmosphere in the family, partners split and families break up”. Consequently, according to Špániková, new partnerships emerge in the form of stepfamilies. “In the past, families were closed units and partners attempted to resolve hardships and troubles that appeared in the marriage. In the present, however, partners frequently quit the relationship, while their children frequently remain lacking both financial and social securities. This mostly puts a strain on the mother, who has to provide for children in terms of finances, social aspects and upbringing”.

Džambazovič (2016, 2017) provides a very different depiction of contemporary Slovak family. In his view, both administrative surveys and sociological research point at an apparent transformation of behaviour in the Slovak family over the last 25 years. It pertains to both quantitative and qualitative aspects of reproductive and partnership behaviour. The changes were very intense, and over a relatively short period, the family behaviour that stabilized in the “golden age of family” in 1970s and 1980s was “overwritten”. The unified progression of family life was disrupted, and a clear and cohesive timing of life events was abandoned. Gradually, several flexible models of reproductive and family behaviour emerged. This resulted in a huge diversity in the progression of family and personal life of Slovak citizens as well as in the notions about the course of life and the timing of specific transitions.

The Slovak specifics also include a similarity to the type of family structure prevalent in Southern European countries, which, however, raises some doubts. Džambazovič also considers the Southern European model to be the most appropriate one for the Slovak situation regarding the passage into adulthood. In this model, it is typical that children stay longer with their parents, while their moving out is mostly prevented by economic factors. He compares the process of gaining independence on parents to Poland (46% in 2008), Hungary (51.2% in 2008) and the Czech Republic (52.5% in 2008), where there is not possible, however, to prove the “Southern European model”. The specificity of the Slovak situation is also apparent in the high share of extended households as well as in their structure and in gaining one’s own housing. Frequently, leaving parents is only connected to a wedding or to a foundation of family.

On the basis of empirical researches performed by the VEGA agency, the contemporary, “modern” Slovak family appeared lacking in cohesion, consistency, stability and even sustainability; when dealing with more profound obstacles and problems, relations within the family become chaotic as their structure changes frequently, which often induces feelings of helplessness. The function of social control provided by family disappears or is reduced. Features of contemporary family life can also be characterized by aspects of anomie. In this regard, it is necessary to take note of specific functional and dysfunctional effects of deviations of family life, life satisfaction in a given family, attainment of social capital and affiliation to religions and churches. The present findings are based on an interpretation of data collected via a survey that was primarily focused on examining intergenerational relations. These changes, designated here as elements of anomie in the family, are accompanied by other social phenomena, including:

  • Increase in family violence;

  • Frequent syndrome of neglected and abused childFootnote 4;

  • Changes in roles within family;

  • Changes in male and female social status;

  • The sometimes almost schizoid role of a mother who decides between professional career and motherhood;

  • Excessive strain on all family members, especially women.

The present study proposes a hypothesis that it is due to the aforementioned phenomena that there is a frequent (and growing) unwillingness to bring children into the world.

In conclusion, it is possible to note that the development of Slovak family has in the past decade been characterized by a combination of historical continuity and important changes. Among young families (young generation), a combination of traditional and postmodern values and ways of life is also prevalent. The present study proposes an ideological hypothesis that Slovak family life is situated between a continuity and a change, i.e. a quality that should be empirically described in terms of its aspects and attributes, and further examined; subsequently, however, it should also be evaluated, so that we do not merely observe this development idly. It is considered inevitable to attempt to positively influence this development on the basis of the results of the evaluation on a macro-scale (especially in terms of creating an adequate and goal-oriented family policy free of a vulgar economism), but also on a microscale, via social pedagogy, social work, counselling, regional, education and communal family policy, activizing all concerned parties, including science and research.

2.6 The Image of the Ukrainian Family

All the time, family was based on the Ukraine society and its essential part, makes influence on all aspects of social life. As integral part of society, family accomplishes important social, ethnocultural functions, which connect it with all spheres of human life. Accordingly, it is attraction of different sciences (sociology, demography, economy, psychology, pedagogics, medicine). Each of discipline has a body of knowledge in various family research approaches and its aspects. Pedagogues and psychologists focus especially on topics related to family upbringing, forming family values or development of family super substantiality as a reflexion of society.

As a social phenomenon, the Ukraine family went through many hardships. Archaeological researches and written sources of Kyiv Rus age, in particular “Rusjka Pravda” of Yaroslav the Wise, show existence of monogamy family (one husband has one wife) from territory from time of its settlement. Such a type of family is most typical today. Sociologists divide monogamy family into “traditional” and “extended”. Another type of traditional and extended family is “a family community”, which consists of one married couple with children and other relatives (wife’s or husband’s father, their sisters or brothers.) This type of family has been exciting for a long time.

Archaeologists approve the existence in the Ukraine’s territory from Late Stone Age (35–40) different types of families: traditional, extended, communities. From time to time, they have been transformed: traditional families transferred to extended or communities, or extended family changed in one-parented family. Otherwise it was typical for the Ukrainians to live separately. This is explained by particular psychological features and individuality of national mentality: Ukrainian people consider liberty, private property, households on smallest part of ground as the best of their value.

Generalization of sociological researches gives opportunity to distinguish such specialities of modern Ukrainian family.

  • Transformation of parents and children values. Modern young people changed their minds about charity, now deceived. In value system of modern young family tendency to becoming wealth, upbringing pragmatic, rational, willed, successful children prevail. Kindness, skills to commiserate and help another people often are underestimated.

  • Separation of young from extended family. In modern times it is an objective process, which is determined by social-economic development of society. Young families tend to self-appraisal, do not take into consideration adult experience, do not develop family traditions and keep everyday difficulties and professional problems. These all factors have negative effects on children’s upbringing process in family.

  • Reduction processes in family. Decrease in birth is caused by rivalry increasing of job hunting, marriage processes, increasing of money spending on upbringing, bad household conditions and selfish tendency of parents “to live for themselves”. Reducing of one-child family causes detachment from children because they do not have an example of care and honour to other people.

  • Reduction of positive effect of social environment to family development. Urbanization of society, pragmatism of life, lack of family communication; so, moral example on base of state human policy transforms system of life priorities and family values.

  • Misunderstanding by parents’ system of forming human relationships with children, limitation of relations within household. Sometimes, parents depreciate moral and psychological relations in family, mutual respect, care. Harmony of family upbringing depends on sincereness and honesty of love to children. Children cannot develop within advance feeling, and they want to be loved now and such as individuals.

  • Expansion of non-traditional marriage relations—unregistered marriage. Economic difficulties, problems in job hunting, and uncertainty in future disrupted the civil marriage. Some of people living in unregistred marriages consider civil marriage as preparedness to family life, display of self –liberty or source of serving romantic relations. Other people consider that such type of family causes distrust and instability.

Such features of Ukraine family we consider as critical, which cause development of dysfunctions, are: increasing of dynamic of divorces, decreasing of birth rate, birth children of unwed parents, increasing of family conflicts, frustration; decline of material and spiritual prosperity.

As Khyzhna and Kondratyeva (2016) consider, there is an urgent need to reform educational system according to the current trends of society to protect children from negative influence. Solution of this problem requires such vulnerable children as homeless, neglected children, “street children”, social orphans, and 93.4% from them are temporary migrants.

According to material of Justice Ministry (https://usr.minjust.gov.ua/ua/freesearch), previous year there were rare marriage and more divorces. In 2016, 229.45 thousand of new families were registered, and it was 69.6 of thousand less than in 2015. Number divorce on previous year became more than 1.2 thousand (35.46 thousand in 2016 according 34.2 thousand in 2015). Experts are assured that such statistic is a result of unbalanced social–economical and moral orientations in Ukraine.

Researches presented by Ukrainian sociologists, demographics and psychologists allow to appreciate contemporary state functioning of critical Ukraine family. Results of scientific researches provide emphasizing of tendentious of functioning Ukrainian family:

  • More popular are becoming incomplete, non-marital families.

  • Most men and women consciously do not get married, but for satisfaction connect with sexual partner but not for family building.

  • Material and rational motives of family building dominate.

  • Young marriages have tendency to have only one child.

  • Young marriages have inadequate demands to partner and family, which cause family rejection and actualization in professional activity.

  • More marriage couples are not able to cooperate and find ways of normalizing relations, and they are not skilled in solving problems. All these factors create divorce as an instrument of deciding family conflicts.

  • Most young people are oriented to encore wedding and extramarital relations in case of unhappy alliance.

Supplied tendencies confirm positive aspects of old family model are not functioned, and new norms are not prepared. Situation of breaking family, inability to adapt to life changes and increasing of personal isolation demands help and create immediate actions from state government, deputes, scientists, pedagogues and people who consider family as social value. Whereas social and people relations became severe and pragmatic, family must be a symbol of inward and economic revival of the Ukrainian state. Revival of tradition, high status of Ukrainian family, its authority, which is based on fidelity, sincere love to children and their upbringing, honour to parents and mutual understanding in family—formula to success of recovery and improvement of Ukrainian nation.

Basic vector of recovery for Ukrainian family should be a confirmation of the system of human values in kindness, wisdom, love, which goes along with a spiritual development. To inwardness of these values (according researches of V. Andrushenko, I. Beh, I. Zazyun, S. Honcharenko, A. Maslow) it is important to develop a positive perception of world, meaning and goal of life, recognition of specific family values.

Psychological, pedagogical researches of phenomena of “inwardness” consider in the context of substantial human characteristics, matter of being, moral measurement of well-being, necessity for self-improvement. Term “inwardness”, as Rudnitska (2005) defines, is expressed by treasure of eternal human world, development of emotional, intellectual features, engaging to cultural value. Shevchenko (2006) considers “human inwardness” as acquirement of sense-human values and goals as permanent top of personal values and their realization in practice. As M. Berdiaev considers, “inwardness” is the best human achievement, goal and result of life. Inwardness is based on human and society eternal world, family. In time of social crisis, problem of inward development becomes national important. History approves that perish of all civilizations began from degradation of people inwardness. So, today is important to guide young family on inward values on base of kindness, respectability, honour, evil opposition for avoiding separate society, saving and development of Ukrainian family traditions as a part of society. Future of Ukraine depends on inward ideals and culture demand; interesting will be fulfilled life of each family.

Principle tradition in Ukrainian family was labour, where each member has to work, even the child. He takes part in household duties. Distribution of household duties among family members, contributes to a forming of conscientious, mutual help and respect in family. Children which grow in family where labour is respected become successful and good professional in future.

Great importance for child upbringing and development inwardness in family are aesthetical traditions, which unite all family members to save comfort and create beauty and quietness at home and outdoors.

Aesthetical traditions of forming family inwardness actualize necessity in communication with art. Art is initiation of universal inward values. Moreover as a complicated form of world inquiring, art creates, saves and transfers; accumulates the inward experience of generations in art images and influences by them human consciousness. Visiting theatre, concert halls and art exhibitions with all family members determine communication, creative thinking, feelings interchange, so is forming inward human and family sphere.

The world of art is huge and different. Music, choreography, poems and literature, art and graphic, architecture and sculpture were formed by characteristic features of art images and methods of reality description. But the main idea is creating word values, which were formed during several centuries. Realness, beauty and all values are expressed in art literature. Communication with art is forming of these values of all family members.

Nevertheless, in each family there are priorities in communication with art, dominating one of these varieties. Scientific works of Rudnitska (2005) or Khyzhna (2015) argued comprehensive apprehension of art regulates by necessity of recipient in communication with art images, which actualized problem of human relation to art–aesthetical values, conscious of self-emotional feelings of art, individual appreciation of art images.

These actualize importance of considering value criticized in art communication, which is connected with their varieties (music, art, choreography, literature and theatre), definite genders and style directions. Value criticism is provided by art orientations as awarded attitude of person to art images, their feelings. Art orientations are linked with elements of psychological direction (interests, tastes, necessities, directions) and reflect definite art experience, which approved by different levels of aesthetical relations and dominations in art sphere. Art takes important role in forming of inward family ideals. Communication with art images, taking part in artistic activity, improves human and family mental world.

So, forming of contemporary inward Ukrainian family depends on social and psychological factors. As a result, the concept of family is formed by parents’ influences on features of young family relation. So, it is necessary to save and care about family traditions of future generations.

Indicative for Ukrainian family are human features and functions: ethnos reconstruction—birth and upbringing children; economical–productive function connected with household; intimate–psychological function—care of special relations with relatives, parents, children; and cultural–genial: transfers of labour skills, features of cultural household traditions of nation, aesthetical necessity, capability for self-creation.

Finally, inwardness of Ukrainian family and best traditions of family upbringing can contribute to a success of future generations. For the Ukraine, it means independence, economic and political stability and high international authority. Ukrainian family must be a base and symbol inward and economic reconstruction, and goal of human activity of the Ukrainian state.