CONTRIBUTION OF SRETEN VUKOSAVLJEVIĆ TO THE SOCIOLOGICAL RESEARCH ON FAMILY IN SERBIAN SOCIETY

Abstract

Sreten Vukosavljević was one of the most vivid authors of Serbian interwar sociology. He was a teacher, member of national parliament, minister of agrarian reform and colonization. His scientific work was mostly influenced by Cvijićʼs anthropogeography and Bogišićʼs research on legal customs. Vukosavljević is considered to be the  founder of Serbian rural sociology, although he also contributed to the sociological analysis of work, housing, culture, law and family. However, his effort in researching peasant family was often underappreciated.

Vukosavljević based his research on peasant family on a postulate that sociology describes and analyses social institutions. Like Durkheim, he was interested in researching institutions’ characteristics and continuity. Family is one of the crucial social institutions. Vukosavljević described the differences between family and other types of peasants’ collectives (e.g. tribe, fraternity). He distinguished two major types of peasant families – individual family (inokoština) and joint family (porodična zadruga). The yype of family was determined by the type of production. The author was more focused on description and analysis of joint family (porodična zadruga) – traditional family based on blood kinship, mutual production, consumption and housing. Joint family was characterised by distinctive solidarity based on complementary economic roles of family members. Vukosavljević described key elements of joint family’s organisation and functioning – head of family (porodični starešina), housewife (planinka), family gathering (zadružni zbor), discipline, and family economy (zadružna privreda). He also wrote about  specific characteristics of patriarchal order in joint family. Vukosavljević’s work on joint family was specific, as he stated that joint family was not a homogenous entity – additionally, he criticized the romantic view on joint family, arguing that conflicts are integral part of family life.

Vukosavljević also made a qualitative breakthrough in researching traditional family by identifying and analysing factors of its transformation. He argued that the characteristics of production were the most significant factor, but he did not forget the impact of cultural patterns (religion), market economy, inner conflicts, demographics and poverty. The author stated that women had a significant part in the transformation of joint family, but they were not to be blamed for families’ dissolution. Unlike his previous colleagues, Vukosavljević paid more attention on researching rural women’s roles and position within peasant family and rural community. He wrote about rural women’s contributions to economic and biological reproduction of rurality, referring to the factors of their change. Vukosavljević did not put much effort in researching childhood in peasant society – he described children’s instrumental role, but also acknowledged that reduced birth rates correlated with the changes in parent-children relations.

Although Vukosavljević did not have formal sociological education, he wrote about family and peasant society in a sociological manner. Even though the author himself did not provide detailed information on his researching methods, it is obvious that he continued the researching practice of his previous colleagues, using observation, interview and secondary data analysis. Such approach enabled him to collect rich data. The major downside of Vukosavljević’s work was the lack of a more thorough analysis of family functioning and nuclear/small families. Also, Vukosavljević did not pay much attention to researching urban families, as he focused on peasant society and its early modernization.