2: theories on the role of the family Flashcards
murdock
Murdock - Family has four functions: SEER
Sexual: married heterosexual couples enjoy a healthy sex life which prevents them from having affairs and children are brought up by their natural parents.
Economic: providing food and shelter, segregated conjugal roles.
Educational: primary socialisation of children.
Reproductive: bearing children, maintains the society.
Criticisms: Murdock is too optimistic and positive in his views of the family; he ignores the negative aspects/darker side of family life such as domestic abuse.
parsons
Parsons - Family now has two functions:
Primary socialisation: passing society’s norms and values onto new generations.
Stabilising adult personalities: the family is a warm, friendly place where the working man can return and be ‘de-stressed’ by his wife, which reduces conflict in society This theory is also known as the ‘warm bath’ theory as having a family is like having a warm bath – it’s a place where all the stresses of everyday life are soaked away.
criticism of parsons
Criticism: The Marxist-feminist Fran Ansley offers a different perspective on Parsons’ warm bath theory when she describes women in the family as takers of shit. By this she means that men coming home from work may have their stress relieved by the family, but only by dumping it on their wives.
new right
agree with functionalists but claim the ideal nuclear family is in crisis and under threat because of the increasing divorce rates, too generous welfare benefits and the influence of feminism
Murray says because of these there are now two groups in society:
Underclass: unemployed, single mothers who are dependent on benefits and therefore a threat to society as they can not socialise their children properly
New Victorians: respectable middle class who work, pay taxes, marry and socialise their children properly.
To solve the problems family diversity is causing, New Right sociologists recommend that all parents must be married, mothers should stay at home and families must not receive benefits.
Criticisms: New Right sociologists ignore the fact that many nuclear families fail to socialise their children properly.
Cutting benefits for lone parents would make innocent children suffer.
marxism unit of consumption
Marcuse argues that the family is a unit of consumption and a source of profit for the ruling class as they create the demand for goods. This is done is two ways:
Families feel like they must keep up with the material goods/services acquired by their neighbours and peers e.g. family holidays, cars and this is referred to as “Keeping up with the Joneses”
The media targets childrens in their advertising who then persuade their parents through pester power to buy more expensive items.
Criticisms: assumes that the family is the most significant unit of consumption as young adults not in families are also capable of buying stuff they do not not need and it’s debatable whether relative expenditure on ‘false need’ type items are higher when individuals have families.
inheritance of private property
engels argues the nuclear family only emerged because of capitalism as before traditional tribal societies were classless and people existed in ‘promiscuous horde’ in which there were no restrictions on sexual relationships.
The role of the family is to control women’s relationships with men to guarantee paternity and provide legitmate heirs for them to pass on their private property to.
criticism: Feminists argue that the Marxist focus on class ignores the inequalities between men and women, which is the real source of female oppression
ideological state apparatus
althusser Children are socialised into the idea that inequality and hierarchy is inevitable as the family passes on the ruling class ideology (a set of ideas that justify inequality and present it as inevitable) to future generations who then accept the system as fair. This prepares them for a working life where they will accept the orders of the capitalist employer. This maintains false class consciousness. Deterministic theory as it assumes everyone passively accepts the ruling class ideology
False haven
Zaretsky argues that the family also spreads the ruling class ideology by offering an apparent (false) haven (sanctuary - safe place) from the harsh and exploitative world of capitalism/workplace however this haven is an illusion as the family does not meet it’s members’ needs instead it just helps them de-stress so they can go back to work the next day to face another day of exploitation. Therefore, the love we receive in the family is false as it ultimately only serves the ruling class who benefit from our work.
critcism by ansley womens are ‘takers of shit’ as they absorb men’s anger (at their exploitation at work) by performing sexual and emotional services which maintain emotionally healthy men because they take out the frustrations of work on women through abuse which prevents them from taking out their anger out on capitalism.
liberal feminists
Liberal Feminists claim that gender inequality will end with the introduction of legal changes such as the Sex Discrimination Act, Equal Pay Act, etc as these legal changes will lead to a change in social attitudes and socialisation of boys and girls will become less gender specific.
Therefore, they believe in a “March of Progress” view of the family because they believe that the progress towards gender equality is gradual, but is happening, e.g. within the family, men have already started to do more household chores and are spending more time with the children.
Somerville argues women’s role within the family has improved significantly, they now have better access to divorce, control over their own fertility, less social pressure to marry and better job opportunities as mothers. Nonetheless, Somerville does recognise the need for further reforms if women are to achieve full equality.
Criticisms: Liberal Feminists are too optimistic in thinking that legal changes are enough to lead to a change in social attitudes, e.g. the Equal Pay Act was introduced in 1970, but women still earn 18% less than men.
radical feminists
Society is patriarchal therefore, men are the enemy (the source of women’s oppression and exploitation).
It is within the family that men dominate women through sexual abuse or the threat of it because they benefit from women’s free domestic labour and sexual services.
According to Greer the solution to exploitation and oppression of women is separatism or political lesbianism (women and men living separately) and women forming all-female ‘matrilocal’ households.
Criticisms: Radical Feminists ignore the positive aspects of family life and that the position of women in society has improved considerably, e.g. access to divorce, better job opportunities, control over their fertility, etc.
Too unrealistic - due to heterosexual attraction separatism is unlikely.
Ignore domestic/emotional abuse suffered by men who often don’t report it
marxist feminists
the family exploites and oppresses women because they perform unpaid domestic work such as reproducing the future workforce (women bear children and socialise them to accept an unfair society) and according to Ansley act as ‘takers of shit’ as they absorb men’s anger (at their exploitation at work) by performing sexual and emotional services which maintain emotionally healthy men because they take out the frustrations of work on women through abuse which prevents them from taking out their anger out on capitalism.
Women are also a ‘reserve army of labour’ as they can be employed when needed by the capitalists (e.g. WWI and WWII when women worked in factories) and let go to return to their primary role in the home when no longer required.
The solution is the overthrow of capitalism through a revolution.
postmodernist theory
all the other theories are outdated because:
they all assume the nuclear family is the dominant type when, in fact, there is family diversity today and they all argue that people have no choice when it comes to creating their relationships and family types.
supported by research conducted by Nordqvist and Smart who researched families in which children were conceived using a donor egg/sperm. In such families, the children are legally the children of the people who are raising them, but are actually biologically/genetically related to strangers. parents of donor-conceived children emphasised the social bonds over genetic links in determining family. For example, raising a child makes you a family rather than genetics.
criticsms: Nordqvist and Smart’s research shows the importance of the meanings individuals attach to their relationships. However, they can be criticised for ignoring the special aspects of relationships based on blood and marriage.
