FAMILY - Marxism Flashcards
What are the similarities between Functionalism and Marxism?
They both think that families perform important functions for the society as it is currently constituted (set up, established and made up).
What are the differences between Functionalism and Marxism?
Marxists disagree with the way that society is currently set up and established. Instead of seeing society as consensual society, which works to benefit all members, they personally see society as something based and built upon a class struggle, which works to benefit a rich minority (the bourgeoisie) that exploits the poorer majority (the proletariat).
What does Engles (1884) say about the family? HINT: Blood ties and inheritance!
Engles argued that family had a clear economic function for capitalism, by ensuring that wealth remained in the hands of the rich, upper class (the bourgeoisie). Family relations (which are based on clear legal contracts, such as marriage) facilitate inheritance and therefore, when rich people die, it is their children who then hold and inherit their wealth.
For Engels = Family is about blood lines and proof of percentage.
What does Zaretsky (1976) say about the family in regards to Parsons’ ‘Warm Bath Theory’? HINT: Men being the ‘boss’ in the home vs At Work
Zaretsky argued that the family life gave proletarian men something they could control and a space where they could be the ‘boss’ as they are not the boss in their workplace - This, therefore, provided a clear function for capitalism, because it means that workers would tolerate the powerlessness and frustration of being exploited at work, because they had this private domain where they were ‘king of the castle’ and they could take out their stress and frustrations on their family = This links to Parsons’ ‘Warm Bath Theory’.
This again ties in with Fran Ansley’s Marxist-feminist perspective of women being the “takers of shit”.
What is the Marxist view on families? HINT: False-class consciousness and job security!
Marxists see families as essentially a ‘conservative’ and ‘private’ institution that helps to preserve capitalism. They also weaken the position of individual workers in relation to the boss. If you think you are not being paid enough or being treated badly, a single person may well choose to walk away and hope that they can find better employment soon. Or they can join with other workers and go on strike and temporarily do without pay by way of a protest to push for better pay or conditions. But when that worker has to also take dependants into account (e.g. a spouse and children) that becomes a much more difficult decision. This weakness benefits the boss = This ties in to the working-class and proletariat’s false-class consciousness.
What is one evaluation of Marxist views on the role of families and households? HINT: Not a romantic view + people were influenced by the upper class to live in families!
Engels’ theory is certainly not a very romantic take on marriage! Clearly family must be about more than what happens to your money when you die.
After all, people who do not have property also choose to live in families (although Engels would argue this is because they are influenced by bourgeois ideology).
What is another evaluation of Marxist views on the role of families and households? HINT: Women in jobs + other family benefits other than money (support)
Zaretsky’s theory is outdated: it assumes the worker is male and that there is only one worker in the family. It also ignores the other benefits that all family members may get from family life: the emotional support, comfort and generally the positive benefits. However, as we know, as the role of women has changed in society, women have been in work and education for a lot longer, and they are a powerful part of the workforce.
What are two more examples of the evaluation of Marxist views on the role of families and households? HINT: Families are not just a capitalist creation!
- Functionalists point out that, in the vast majority of societies, humans live in families and that in fact the essential form and function of those families remain quite similar: it is not simply a feature of capitalist society. However, a counter-argument to that is that Parsons himself suggested that the nuclear family evolved to suit an industrial economy, which could be said to back the idea that it is a feature of capitalism rather than all societies.
- Despite some experiments with communal living and alternative households immediately after the Russian Revolution, people have continued to live in family groups in communist countries too.
