Social Welfare Sociological Imagination

Question: Discuss about the Social Welfare for Sociological Imagination. Answer: Introduction: Sociological imagination is a tool that examines society and social phenomenon based on personal and public issues. It also creates link with local environment and social structures. A sociologist tries to understand a social phenomenon based on critical thinking and inquiring about contemporary social life and the way a society works (Dannefer, Kelley-Moore, and Huang, 2016). This essay aims to evaluate the contemporary phenomenon of same sex families and discuss the topic based on key social dimensions. It discusses the key issues faced by these families and find solutions to address their dilemmas in society through social welfare practices. Same-sex families refers to lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people (LGBT) people engaged in raising one or more children as parents. Children in such families are raised by same sex couples and they become parents either by co-parenting, adoption and surrogacy. The report on same-sex parented families in Australia shows that 11% of Australian gay men and 33% of lesbians have children and their children has been raised either by co-parenting gay couples or by single parents (Child Family Community Australia 2017). Many research has tried to investigate the emotional, social and educational outcome in children raised in same sex families and it has mainly proved that children in such families also do well compared to heterosexual families. The study revealed that their issues and advantages were related to socio-economic factors such as income, parental education and family commitment. The sociological imagination regarding the topic of same sex families can be done by factual questions like- How children in same-sex families do? or by comparative questions like What is the difference in psychological outcome in children from same-sex and opposite sex-families. Analysis of the social dimensions of psychosocial outcome in children in such families reveal that children in same sex families often suffer from emotional problems compared to those from opposite-sex parents. The research investigation gave the idea that emotional issues are high in such children due to psychological distress experienced by their parent, presence of family instability and child peer stigmatization. Opposite-sex families provide full attention to their children; however persistence presence of both parents is not possible in same-sex parents (Sullins, 2015). Hence, children in such families are victim of emotional and developmental problems. The social dimension of same-sex families can also be analysed by means of the concept of social stratification. By this means, people in society are categorized according to their income, wealth and social status (Lenski 2013). This difference in social stratification among same-sex families might also be having an effect on their social life and well-being. Many countries like U.S give same-sex couples the right to raise children, while in some countries the concept of same-sex family is highly opposed. In such countries, life of same-sex families is difficult and challenging. The main argument regarding the legal right for allowing same sex couple to raise family arise mainly due to concerns of mental, emotional and social development in such children (Powell et al. 2015). While research have indicated negative aspects of same-sex parenting such as issues in personal development and family relationship, contrasting evidence also points to normal social relationship in these groups (Crouch et al. 2014). These differences might be due to socio-economic status of families. The negative physiological and developmental outcomes in same-sex families might arise due to socio-economic issues and several challenges faced by this group. Same sex couples are susceptible to socioeconomic disadvantage as reports have shown that gay person earn up to 32% less than qualified heterosexual mean (Liu et al., 2013). However on the basis of income in same sex couple in Australia, it has been found that with high level of education, they have greater likelihood of being employed in high-skilled professions. In 2011, 18% of same sex men couple in Australia earned more the $2000 per week compared to men in opposite sex couples. Furthermore proportion of women in same-sex couples who earned $2000 per week was also higher than women in opposite sex relationship (Abs.gov.au. 2017). Even in case of economic advantage, same sex familys struggles in their social life due to experienced of discrimination occurring due to their sexual orientation and gender identification. Report s indicate many employees have been terminated due to their sexual orientation and sexual identity. A majority of them are victim of employment discrimination which make their life difficult and lead to psychological distress in them (Becker 2014). From the sociological well-being perspective, it can be said that same-sex families are also challenged by marginalization in society. Lack of acceptance in society and fear of persecution often force them to leave home and settle in transitional home. About 20-40% of them experience homelessness and majority of children in these families have negative family relationship due to homelessness. The lack of social support and education minimize the chance of better livelihood in the children and make them vulnerable to stress and depression (Bruce et al. 2014). This explains the challenges faced by same-sex families and the increase in physical and psychological issues in this group. Moving further with the argument, it can be said that different types of social stratification affects people in different groups. Same sex families are discriminated because they are not regarded to have the same culture as that of opposite-sex families. This discrimination increases the struggles in their life and they face difficulty in accessing power, resource and privilege to lead a good life (Rostosky and Riggle 2017). However, their position has improved for the better with the social change in society and increase in support for this group of people. Over the past decades, many Australian states and territories have given legal recognition to same-sex couples and their parenting relationship. With new development in social activism and increase in social acceptance of same-sex relationship, positive outcome is now being reported in this group (Hughes 2016). Although recent report suggest positive psychosocial outcome in children in same-sex families, however still there are many questions regarding the impact of stigma on such families. Investigation into this aspect revealed that children in same-sex families has high score in general behaviour, health and family cohesion compared to general population. It also indicated that emotional symptoms are associated with increased stigma and mental problem. The study gave the implication that health policy against stigma can help to improve child health outcome in same sex families (Crouch et al. 2014). The rise in same-sex families in Australia has also become possible due to extension of donor insemination in reproductive medicine clinic across Australia. The legislation of Australia also provides legal recognition to same-sex couples and their children. Another example of legislation in favour of this community includes the Federal Family Law Amendment Act 2008 which provides same-sex couples legal protection in relation to children and property concerns (Durham et al., 2014). Psychologists have also brought attention to the ethical considerations for the well-being of children in these families and they argue that same-sex couples cannot provide a supportive family environment compared to opposite sex parents. Many strengthen this argument with the fact that gay men are not interested in parenting activities (Lavner et al. 2014). However, with better parenting skills and greater acceptance of family diversity in society, their life has become easier and it is gradually leading t o holistic well-being in these groups too. In the future, development of more policies supportive of this group in education, child protection and employment will make them thrive and prosper in life (Perrin et al. 2013). Considering the reasons for legal recognition of the rights of same sex couple in the country, it can be said that the egalitarian society has helped in providing equal opportunities to all groups irrespective of gender, age, ethnicity and socioeconomic well-being. It has allowed people from different cultural groups and sex identity to thrive and live a healthy life in Australia (Kasser 2011). Social gradient, stress, illness, social support, food security, and employment security plays an important role in social determinants of health. All these factors need to be balanced to facilitate well-being of all social class. LGBT couples experience multiple level of disadvantage which led to poor health outcome. Example of some worse health outcome includes depression, suicidal attempts, diabetes and other chronic disease, teenage pregnancy and substance abuse (Bostwick et al. 2015). A welfare organization is needed that can consistently look after the issues of same-sex families and provide them the support to lead a good life. The analysis of the social activity under Bust a Move Dance (BAMD) will give idea about the effective social welfare practice for the reform of the society. The main purpose of BAMD is to make people of all abilities feel equal and powerful in the world. They held inclusive classes for children of all age group to develop their fitness and gross motor skills. They tried to empower the participants by eliminating their disadvantage and making them recognize their true ability. Hence, the activities of BAMD are a reflection of organized attempts to promote social well-being of vulnerable groups in society (Hill 2016). Therefore, to plan welfare activities for same-sex families, social service group needs to understand the social issues and limitations of this group and address all forms of social injustice present in their life. The welfare plan can be developed for this group based on utilizing the key concept of humanistic existential theory and other empowerment theories. The humanistic existential approach focuses on clients subjective experience as well as thinking about positive growth in vulnerable group. Therefore, to practice according to this approach, genuineness and empathy is required by the social volunteers. With this attitude, they might help same-sex couples to confront different life issues and move ahead in life (Schneider 2015). Social welfare groups can also help in building relationship of same-sex families and support them to achieve the best in life. An emergency management and recovery plan was made in Australia to determine the needs of LGBT couples and fulfil them. The review of this program showed that needs of this group were inadequately addressed and hence inclusive response and recovery plan is needed to engage in effective welfare practice for this group (Dominey-Howes et al. 2016). From the analysis of all the social dimensions of same-sex families, it can be concluded that the same-sex couples experience challenging situation in life and their children suffer due to poor psychological and developmental outcomes. However, with the social changes in society, this group is getting legal recognition and social acceptance. Even if negative events are reported, they are due to difference in socio-economic status and practice of discrimination in different countries. The analysis gave the recommendation that an inclusive welfare plan is needed to understand all the limitation of this group and facilitate policy change to make them successful in life. Reference Abs.gov.au. (2017).4102.0 - Australian Social Trends, July 2013. [online] Available at: https://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/Lookup/4102.0Main+Features10July+2013#income [Accessed 23 Jan. 2017]. Becker, A.B., 2014. Employment discrimination, local school boards, and LGBT civil rights: Reviewing 25 years of public opinion data.International Journal of Public Opinion Research, p.edu003. Bostwick, W.B., Hughes, T.L. and Everett, B., 2015. Health behavior, status, and outcomes among a community-based sample of lesbian and bisexual women.LGBT health,2(2), pp.121-126. Bruce, D., Stall, R., Fata, A. and Campbell, R.T., 2014. Modeling minority stress effects on homelessness and health disparities among young men who have sex with men.Journal of Urban Health,91(3), pp.568-580. Child Family Community Australia., 2017.Same-sex parented families in Australia. [online] Available at: https://aifs.gov.au/cfca/publications/same-sex-parented-families-australia [Accessed 23 Jan. 2017]. Crouch, S.R., Waters, E., McNair, R., Power, J. and Davis, E., 2014. Parent-reported measures of child health and wellbeing in same-sex parent families: A cross-sectional survey.BMC public health,14(1), p.635. Crouch, S.R., Waters, E., McNair, R., Power, J. and Davis, E., 2014. Parent-reported measures of child health and wellbeing in same-sex parent families: A cross-sectional survey.BMC public health,14(1), p.635. Dannefer, D., Kelley-Moore, J. and Huang, W., 2016. Opening the social: sociological imagination in life course studies. InHandbook of the life course(pp. 87-110). Springer International Publishing. Dominey-Howes, D., Gorman-Murray, A. and McKinnon, S., 2016. Emergency management response and recovery plans in relation to sexual and gender minorities in NEW South Wales, Australia.International journal of disaster risk reduction,16, pp.1-11. Durham, W.C., Smith, R.T. and Duncan, W.C., 2014. A Comparative Analysis of Laws Pertaining to Same-Sex Unions. Hill, R., 2016. SOY10105 Introduction to Social Welfare Study Guide, East Lismore: Southern Cross University. Hughes, M., 2016. Loneliness and social support among lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex people aged 50 and over.Ageing and Society, pp.1-21. Kasser, T., 2011. Cultural values and the well-being of future generations: A cross-national study.Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology,42(2), pp.206-215. Lavner, J.A., Waterman, J. and Peplau, L.A., 2014. Parent adjustment over time in gay, lesbian, and heterosexual parent families adopting from foster care.American Journal of Orthopsychiatry,84(1), p.46. Lenski, G.E., 2013.Power and privilege: A theory of social stratification. UNC Press Books. Liu, H., Reczek, C. and Brown, D., 2013. Same-sex cohabitors and health the role of race-ethnicity, gender, and socioeconomic status.Journal of Health and Social Behavior,54(1), pp.25-45. Perrin, E.C., Siegel, B.S. and Committee on Psychosocial Aspects of Child and Family Health, 2013. Promoting the well-being of children whose parents are gay or lesbian.Pediatrics,131(4), pp.e1374-e1383. Powell, B., Quadlin, N.Y. and Pizmony-Levy, O., 2015. Public opinion, the courts, and same-sex marriage: Four lessons learned.Social Currents,2(1), pp.3-12 Rostosky, S.S. and Riggle, E.D., 2017. Same-sex relationships and minority stress.Current Opinion in Psychology,13, pp.29-38. Schneider, K.J., 2015. ExistentialHumanistic Psychotherapy.The Professional Counselor's Desk Reference, p.201. Sullins, D.P., 2015. Emotional problems among children with same-sex parents: Difference by definition.