The method of designing of images which has applied Н, G.Markovskaja, opens new possibilities of studying of family and extra family valuable orientations. The associative perception and expression interrogated various aspects of home life, professional and any other activity helps the researcher to receive the bright, sated images of the given phenomena, precisely to define, how, negatively or positively, they influence the concrete person. A lack of a method of designing of images is the certain probability of inclusion in consciousness of respondents of protective mechanisms and attempts to be limited to the statement of socially approved opinions about the interesting sociologist objects. Also use of the given method assumes presence at interrogated well developed associative thinking which potential respondents possess not all.
Thus, the analysis of the basic sociological methods of measurement of family and extra family valuable orientations has shown that at research carrying out on the given subjects it is necessary to combine some various methods as it considerably will raise probability of neutralisation of action various mechanisms and, hence, will give possibility to scientists to consider all aspects of valuable orientations of the respondent, to reveal an orientation of the person, to find out factors under which influence its system of values is formed, and also to receive the fullest, exact information on preference the individual of family or extra family valuable orientations.
Marriage as a family basis underwent various changes, developing together with a society in legal, moral and social aspects. Today the marriage institute - set social (legal, cultural) norms, duties and the rights regulating the relations of spouses - in system of modern social institutes faces realities of new time and is characterised by new tendencies, thereby involving the increasing interest of researchers of sociologists. The complex of theoretic-methodological approaches and sociological methods allows to come nearer to intrinsic understanding of the arisen problem which is shown both on individual levels of human life.
One of the basic tendencies characterising the majority of the countries of the world including to Russia, level decrease family which is in many respects caused by following social facts is: mass unemployment, and as consequence, - mixture of traditional cast; development of market relations, rationalisation of all spheres of a society, and as consequence, - increase in a role of money in a society; exit of the woman from a family on a labour market, easing of economic dependence on men, growth of claims to the future spouse, so, complication of search of the partner; change of the relation to professional employment of women, etc. Such social preconditions which have objectively arisen at the given stage of development of a society, allow to ascertain that it is much easier to modern person to live in a modern industrial society of the western type without a family. In such conditions the probability of distribution of different forms of co-habitation, including civil increases, i.e. Not registered, marriage.
In Russia these tendencies not so wide, and traditional representations about family way are strong enough. According to the sociological interrogation spent by Fund of public opinion in 2003. The patriarchal model while remains enough attractive in public consciousness, 55 % of respondents consider that the family should have a chapter, and third is assured that it should be the man. Indifference to the one who will be the leader of a family the man or the woman have expressed only 15 % interrogated. In public opinion still norm is the traditional family, but at individual level the behaviour can show. For the first time the answer to a question on a marriage condition included in forms of census of 2002 as a variant - I consist in not registered marriage
Analyzing existing tendencies, it is possible to ascertain that the civil marriage becomes a social phenomenon, probably, for the present not on the scale of all Russia. In the Russian Federation among women the most intensively not registered marriage unions are formed at the youngest age: 16-20 years. By 26 years the indicator essentially decreases also the least value has in an interval between 30-33 years. The basic carrier of a phenomenon of a civil marriage is the youth, including students.
The majority of researchers notice that change in sphere of brachno-family relations is traced not only on instrument level, but also at level of transformation of system of values. A direction of this transformation - from patriarchal (traditional) model of a family to a variety of family forms, from domination of the external social control - to mainly interfamily, individual ways of the decision of problems. Co-habitation arises not because people ignore official marriage, it, more likely, - a consequence of transition from traditional, patriarchal relations to modern, based on equality of the rights and partnership of floors, convergence interfamily, and in general social roles of men and women. Easing, shaking of patriarchal foundations, strengthening of individualist values not necessarily conduct to decline of institutes of marriage and a family. But these institutes vary, and at the heart of changes values of the XX-th century lie: Expansion of a freedom in choosing for the man and for the woman both in family, and in social area, equality of spouses-partners, the big possibilities for contacts between generations and for self-realisation.
Specificity of a problem of a civil marriage of a society consists in its display at individual level. According to the theory of a social exchange (J. Khomans, P.Blau, D.Tibo, G.Kelli) the social behaviour is considered as personal contact between two individuals in which compensation or loss define their behaviour. That is, as the person entering the relations of an exchange with other person, will expect that incomes of each of them will be proportional to expenses - the more incomes, the it is more expenses. One of starting positions of the theory of a social exchange is that diverse kinds of compensations are necessary for people, receive which they can, only co-operating with other people. Social approval, respect, the status, and also the practical help can be compensation in the course of social interaction.
In our case as an example of such compensation it is possible to result care, liking display, sexual relations etc. Thus on the foreground leaves the argument stated in favour of a civil marriage, consisting that at short-reception of compensations, increase in expenses and reduction of incomes, co-habitation stops, without bearing behind itself any consequences from the legal point of view. The importance of this or that compensation or loss depends on its value for the concrete individual.
The people entering meaning in a civil marriage, receive more benefits from such form of mutual relations, than from the registered marriage. And these benefits are valuable to them in their system of values. One of problems of the given research is opening of the reasons of why people enter a civil marriage. What those significant values for the individual which it can and gets thus making the family.
"De facto marriage" has entered into our life promptly and has taken roots so naturally as if it is a question of any technical novelty, and at all about the phenomenon mentioning the major public institute – a family. The concept "de facto marriage" has appeared in Russia in XIX century among a part of the advanced intelligency as alternative to church marriage which in consciousness of the majority of the population was is unique the lawful. After branch of church from the state unique legitimate marriage in Russia becomes official, state, i.e. de facto marriage. However the population part still began to name de facto marriage informal marriage relations. There was a phenomenon of Russian "de facto marriage". In essence "de facto marriage" in Russia is a co-habitation of the people, doing not wish to connect itself the matrimonial both parental rights and duties.
Now in a modern society "de facto marriage" has got the certain legitimacy, with the given relations already to surprise nobody, moreover, many justify its existence. Nevertheless, disputes concerning civil marriages do not cease also the relation to them far not the unequivocal.
1. А. И. Антонов. Изучение репродуктивных установок как одна из важнейших задач социально-психологического исследования семьи //Динамика изменения положения женщины и семья. Материалы ХИ Международного семинара по исследованию семьи. Вып. 1.М., 1972.С 13-24:
2. Антонов А.И. Социология рождаемости. М., 1980
3. Антонов. А. И. Микросоциология семьи (методология исследования структур и процессов). М., 1998. 360 с.
4. Артюхов А. В. Государственная семейная политика и ее особенности в России // СОЦИС. 2007. № 7. С. 108–110.
5. Байков Н. М. Молодая семья в условиях рынка (итоги социологического исследования) / под ред. Н. М. Байкова., Т. И. Захаровой, С. В. Задорожного. Хабаровск, 2006. 114 с
6. Борисов В. А. Демография и социальная психология. Доклад на VII социологическом конгрессе. М„ 1970
7. Борисов В. А. Перспективы рождаемости. М., 1976.
8. Вебер М. Избранные произведения. М., 1990. 804 с.
9. Дюркгейм Э. Социология. Ее предмет, метод, предназначение. М., 1995. 352 с.
10. Дюркгейм Э. О разделении общественного труда // О разделении общественного труда. Метод социологии. М., 1991. С. 3–390
11. Гидденс Э. Трансформация интимности. Сексуальность, любовь и эротизм в современных обществах. СПб., 2004
12. Голод С. И. Семья и брак: историко-социологический анализ. СПб., 1998. 272 с.
13. Гурко Т. А. Вариативность представлений в сфере родительства // СОЦИС. 2000. № 11. С. 90–97
14. Гуд У. Социология семьи // Социология сегодня: Проблемы и перспективы. М., 1965
15. Гуд. У. Развитие теории семьи // Социология сегодня. Проблемы и перспективы. М., 1969
16. Карцева Л.В. Модель семьи в условиях трансформации российского общества. Социс, 2003, №7
17. Ковалевский М. М. Очерк происхождения и развития семьи и собственности. М., 1939. 185 с
18. Михеева А. Р. Брак, семья, родительство: социологические и демографические аспекты. Новосибирск, 2007. 74 с.
19. Михеева А. Р. От сожительства к семье (взгляд на трансформацию института брака сквозь призму женских историй) // Общество и экономика: социальные проблемы трансформации. Новосибирск, 1998. С. 169–184
20. Михеева А. Р. Сожительства и внебрачная рождаемость: признаки кризиса или стабильности социального ин-ститута семьи? // Семья в новых социально-экономических условиях : материалы междунар. науч.-практ. конф. (Н. Новгород, 2–10 окт. 1997 г.) / под ред. проф. З. М. Саралиевой. Н. Новгород, 1998. T. I. С. 126–129.
21. Морган Л. Г. Древнее общество или исследование линий человеческого прогресса от дикости через варварство к цивилизации. Л., 1934. С. 216–305.
22. Спенсер Г. Основания социологии // Сочинения. СПб., 1898. Т. 2 707 с.
23. Dorien М. Dynamics in marriage and cohabitation. Amsterdam, 2006
24. Jamieson L., Anderson M. Сohabitation and commitment: partnership plans og young men and women. The Sociological Review, aug, 2004
25. Solot D., Miller M. Unmarried to each other. 2003