IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jscscx/v10y2021i6p191-d561938.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Human Family—Its Evolutionary Context and Diversity

Author

Listed:
  • Karen L. Kramer

    (Department of Anthropology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT 84112, USA)

Abstract

The family defines many aspects of our daily lives, and expresses a wide array of forms across individuals, cultures, ecologies and time. While the nuclear family is the norm today in developed economies, it is the exception in most other historic and cultural contexts. Yet, many aspects of how humans form the economic and reproductive groups that we recognize as families are distinct to our species. This review pursues three goals: to overview the evolutionary context in which the human family developed, to expand the conventional view of the nuclear family as the ‘traditional family’, and to provide an alternative to patrifocal explanations for family formation. To do so, first those traits that distinguish the human family are reviewed with an emphasis on the key contributions that behavioral ecology has made toward understanding dynamics within and between families, including life history, kin selection, reciprocity and conflict theoretical frameworks. An overview is then given of several seminal debates about how the family took shape, with an eye toward a more nuanced view of male parental care as the basis for family formation, and what cooperative breeding has to offer as an alternative perspective.

Suggested Citation

  • Karen L. Kramer, 2021. "The Human Family—Its Evolutionary Context and Diversity," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-17, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jscscx:v:10:y:2021:i:6:p:191-:d:561938
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2076-0760/10/6/191/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2076-0760/10/6/191/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Michael Gurven & Hillard Kaplan, 2007. "Longevity Among Hunter‐ Gatherers: A Cross‐Cultural Examination," Population and Development Review, The Population Council, Inc., vol. 33(2), pages 321-365, June.
    2. Herbert Gintis, 2000. "Strong Reciprocity and Human Sociality," UMASS Amherst Economics Working Papers 2000-02, University of Massachusetts Amherst, Department of Economics.
    3. Ronald D. Lee & Karen L. Kramer, 2002. "Children's Economic Roles in the Maya Family Life Cycle: Cain, Caldwell, and Chayanov Revisited," Population and Development Review, The Population Council, Inc., vol. 28(3), pages 475-499, September.
    4. Robert S Walker & Kim R Hill & Mark V Flinn & Ryan M Ellsworth, 2011. "Evolutionary History of Hunter-Gatherer Marriage Practices," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(4), pages 1-6, April.
    5. Mirkka Lahdenperä & Virpi Lummaa & Samuli Helle & Marc Tremblay & Andrew F. Russell, 2004. "Fitness benefits of prolonged post-reproductive lifespan in women," Nature, Nature, vol. 428(6979), pages 178-181, March.
    6. Gary S. Becker, 1981. "A Treatise on the Family," NBER Books, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc, number beck81-1, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Dwight Read, 2020. "From Pan to Homo sapiens: evolution from individual based to group based forms of social cognition," Mind & Society: Cognitive Studies in Economics and Social Sciences, Springer;Fondazione Rosselli, vol. 19(1), pages 121-161, June.
    2. Guillaume Allègre & Thomas Melonio & Xavier Timbeau, 2012. "Dépenses publiques d'éducation et inégalités. Une perspective de cycle de vie," Revue économique, Presses de Sciences-Po, vol. 63(6), pages 1055-1079.
    3. Alessandro Cigno, 2007. "A Theoretical Analysis of the Effects of Legislation on Marriage, Fertility, Domestic Division of Labour, and the Education of Children," CESifo Working Paper Series 2143, CESifo.
    4. Maristella Botticini & Aloysius Siow, 2003. "Why Dowries?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 93(4), pages 1385-1398, September.
    5. Lamia Kandil & Hélène Perivier, 2017. "La division sexuée du travail dans les couples selon le statut marital en France - une étude à partir des enquêtes emploi du temps de 1985-1986, 1998-1999, et 2009-2010," Documents de Travail de l'OFCE 2017-03, Observatoire Francais des Conjonctures Economiques (OFCE).
    6. Robert Kaestner, 1995. "The Effects of Cocaine and Marijuana Use on Marriage and Marital Stability," NBER Working Papers 5038, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    7. Yan Yu, 2015. "The Male Breadwinner/Female Homemaker Model and Perceived Marital Stability: A Comparison of Chinese Wives in the United States and Urban China," Journal of Family and Economic Issues, Springer, vol. 36(1), pages 34-47, March.
    8. Kota Ogasawara & Mizuki Komura, 2022. "Consequences of war: Japan’s demographic transition and the marriage market," Journal of Population Economics, Springer;European Society for Population Economics, vol. 35(3), pages 1037-1069, July.
    9. Allan Puur & Leen Rahnu & Liili Abuladze & Luule Sakkeus & Sergei Zakharov, 2017. "Childbearing among first- and second-generation Russians in Estonia against the background of the sending and host countries," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 36(41), pages 1209-1254.
    10. Sunnee Billingsley, 2010. "The Post-Communist Fertility Puzzle," Population Research and Policy Review, Springer;Southern Demographic Association (SDA), vol. 29(2), pages 193-231, April.
    11. Marcén, Miriam & Molina, José Alberto & Morales, Marina, 2018. "The effect of culture on the fertility decisions of immigrant women in the United States," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 15-28.
    12. Peggy Barlett & Linda Lobao & Katherine Meyer, 1999. "Diversity in attitudes toward farming and patterns of work among farm women: A regional comparison," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 16(4), pages 343-354, December.
    13. Michael E. Martell & Peyton Nash, 2020. "For Love and Money? Earnings and Marriage Among Same-Sex Couples," Journal of Labor Research, Springer, vol. 41(3), pages 260-294, September.
    14. William S. Schulze & Michael H. Lubatkin & Richard N. Dino, 2002. "Altruism, agency, and the competitiveness of family firms," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 23(4-5), pages 247-259.
    15. Luis Garicano & Thomas N. Hubbard, 2016. "The Returns to Knowledge Hierarchies," The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 32(4), pages 653-684.
    16. Jeffrey T. Macher & John W. Mayo & Olga Ukhaneva & Glenn A. Woroch, 2017. "From universal service to universal connectivity," Journal of Regulatory Economics, Springer, vol. 52(1), pages 77-104, August.
    17. Ravi Prakash & Abhishek Singh, 2014. "Who Marries Whom? Changing Mate Selection Preferences in Urban India and Emerging Implications on Social Institutions," Population Research and Policy Review, Springer;Southern Demographic Association (SDA), vol. 33(2), pages 205-227, April.
    18. Christine Clavien & Colby J Tanner & Fabrice Clément & Michel Chapuisat, 2012. "Choosy Moral Punishers," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(6), pages 1-6, June.
    19. Jennifer Roberts & Karl Taylor, 2017. "Intra-household commuting choices and local labour markets," Oxford Economic Papers, Oxford University Press, vol. 69(3), pages 734-757.
    20. Delia Furtado, 2012. "Human Capital And Interethnic Marriage Decisions," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 50(1), pages 82-93, January.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jscscx:v:10:y:2021:i:6:p:191-:d:561938. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.