Perspectives of the family Flashcards
Functionalist perspective
Functionalists believe that society is based on a value consensus (set of shared norms and values) in which society socialises its members, which enables them to cooperate effectively to meet society’s needs and achieve shared goals.
Functionalists regard society as a system made up of different parts or sub-systems that depend on each other, such as the family, the education system and the economy.
Functionalists often compare society to a biological organism such as the human body. The body needs the heart and lungs to perform vital functions – the family meets society’s essential needs such as socialising their children.
Important sub-system of society
Murdock (1949)
Argues the family performs four essential functions to meet the needs of society and its members
Stable satisfaction of the sex drive
Reproduction of the next generation
Socialisation of the young (into society’s shared norms and values)
Meeting its members’ economic needs (food and shelter)
Criticisms of Murdock
Murdock accepts that other institutions could perform these functions. However, he argues that the sheer practicality of the nuclear family as a way of meeting these four needs explains why it is universal (found in all human societies without exception)
Other sociologists argue the four essential functions could be performed equally well by other institutions, or by non-nuclear family structures
Marxists and feminists reject Murdock’s ‘rose-tinted’ harmonious consensus view that the family meets the needs of both wider society and all the different members of the family.
Feminists argue that functionalists neglect conflict and exploitation as they see the family as serving the needs of men and oppressing women
Marxists argue this same point as they argue that it meets the needs of capitalism, not those of family members or society as a whole
Parsons’ ‘functional fit’ theory
Talcott Parsons (1955) views the functions that the family performs will depend on the kind of society in which it is found.
The functions that the family has to perform will affect its ‘shape’ or structure
Parsons distinguishes between two types of family structure
The nuclear family of just parents and their dependent children
The extended family of three-generations living under one roof
He argues the particular structure and functions of a given type of family will ‘fit’ the needs of society in which it is found
Parsons says there are two basic types of society – modern industrial society and traditional pre-industrial society
He argues the nuclear family fits the needs of industrial society and is dominant in that society
He argues the extended family fits the pre-industrial society
In Parsons’ view when Britain went through the Industrial revolution in the 18th century and onwards, the nuclear family became dominant over the extended family, due to the emerging industrial society and its difference in needs with those of the pre-industrial society, and the families which had to adapt to this society.
Parsons sees the industrial society as having two essential needs – a geographically mobile workforce and a socially mobile workforce
A geographically mobile workforce
In modern society, industries constantly rise and decline in different parts of the country and even different parts of the world, which requires people to move to where jobs are
Parsons argues it is easier for the nuclear family to move, than the extended family.
The nuclear family is better fitted to the need that modern industry has for a geographically mobile workforce
A socially mobile workforce
Modern industrial society is based on constantly evolving science and technology and so it requires a skilled, technically competent workforce.
Essential for talented people to be able to win promotion and take on the most important jobs, regardless of their background.
In modern society, individual’s status is achieved through their efforts and ability not through their social and family background – making social mobility possible
Parsons argues the nuclear family is better equipped to meet the needs of industrial society, as in the extended family adult sons live at home with their father’s, who has a higher ascribed status (head of the household). Where the son may have a higher achieved status at work, more so than his father, this gives rise to tensions and conflict under the same roof. The only solution in this circumstance is for the son to leave home and form his own nuclear family.
The result is a mobile nuclear family, which is structurally isolated from its extended kin
Loss of functions
The pre-industrial family was a multi-functional unit, therefore it was a more self-sufficient unit than the modern nuclear family, providing for its members’ health and welfare and meeting most individual and social needs
Parsons argues when society industrializes, the family changes its structure, turns into a nuclear family, and loses many of its functions
As a result of this loss of function, Parsons argues that this leads to the specialisation of the nuclear family in two functions
The primary socialisation of children – equip them with basic skills and society’s values, to enable them to cooperate with others and begin to integrate them into society
The stabilisation of adult personalities – the family is a place where adults can relax and release tensions, enabling them to return to the workplace refreshed and ready to meet its demands. This is also functional for the efficiency of the economy
Marxist perspective of family
Marxists disagree with how the functionalists see the family (value consensus)
Marxist sociologists see capitalist society as based on an unequal conflict between the capitalist class (who own the means of production) and the working class (whose labour capitalists exploit)
Marxists see all society’s institutions as helping to maintain class inequality and capitalism
Thus, Marxists believe functions of the family are performed for the benefit of capitalism.
This view contrasts sharply with the functionalist view that the family benefits both society as a whole and the individuals of the family
Marxists have identified three functions of the family fulfilling capitalism
Inheritance of property
Marxists argue that the key factor determining the shape of all social institutions is who owns and controls society’s productive forces
In modern society, the capitalist class owns and controls these means of productions
Communism: classless society where there was no private property, all members of society owned the means of production – at these stages there was no family, instead there was a ‘promiscuous horde’
Private property
Forces of production developed causing an increase in wealth and private property
This change eventually bought about the patriarchal monogamous nuclear family
In Engels’ view monogamy became essential because of inheritance of private property – men had to be certain of the paternity of their children to ensure their legitimate heirs inherited them
Engels’ said the rise of the monogamous nuclear family represented a “world historical defeat of the female sex” as it brought women’s sexuality under male control and turned her into a “mere instrument for the production of children”
Marxists argue women liberation from patriarchal control is the only way to defeat capitalism and private ownership which would establish a classless society where there is no need for a patriarchal family as there will be no means of transmitting private property down the generations.
Ideological functions
By ideology, Marxists mean a set of ideas or beliefs that justify inequality and maintain the capitalist system by persuading people to accept it as fair, natural or unchangeable
The family socialises their children into the idea that hierarchy and inequality are inevitable
Parental power accustoms them to the idea that there always has to be someone in charge (usually a man) and this prepares them for a working life which they will accept orders from their capitalist employers
Eli Zaretsky (1976) says the family also performs ideological functions by offering an apparent ‘haven’ from the harsh and exploitive world of capitalism outside, in which workers can be themselves and have a private life. However, he argues this is an illusion – the family cannot meet its member’s needs (based on domestic servitude of women).
A unit of consumption
Capitalism exploits labour workers, making a profit selling products of their labour for more than it pays them to produce these commodities
The family generates profits for capitalists, since it is an important market for the sale of consumer goods
Advertisers urge families to ‘keep up with the Joneses’ by consuming all the latest products
The media target children, who use ‘pester power’ to persuade parents to spend more
Children who lack the latest clothes or ‘must have’ the latest gadgets are mocked and stigmatised by their peers
Criticisms of the Marxist perspective
Marxists tend to assume that the nuclear family is dominant in capitalist society. This ignores the wide variety of family structures found in society today
Feminists argue that the Marxists emphasis on class and capitalism underestimates the importance of gender inequalities within the family. In the feminist view, these are more fundamental than class inequalities and the family primarily serves the interests of men, not capitalism
Functionalists argue that Marxists ignore the very real benefits the family provides for its members
Feminist perspective
Critical view of the family like Marxists
They argue that the family oppresses women
They do not regard gender inequality as natural or inevitable, but something which has been created by society
Different types of feminist approach the family in a different way and offer different solutions to gender inequality
Liberal feminist
They argue women’s oppression is being gradually overcome through changing people’s attitudes and through changes in law such as the Sex Discrimination Act (1975)
They believe we are moving towards greater equality, but that full equality will depend on further reforms and changes in the attitudes and socialisation patterns of both sexes
They hold a similar view to that of ‘march of progress’ theorists such as Willmott and Young
Some studies suggest men are doing more domestic labour, while the way parents socialise their children is more equal than in the past and both sexes hold similar aspirations
Other feminists criticise liberal feminists for failing to challenge causes of inequality and oppression for believing changes in law and attitudes will be enough for equality.
Marxist and radical feminists believe far-reaching changes to deep-rooted social structures are need for equality
Marxist feminist
They argue the main cause of women’s oppression in the family is capitalism as women perform important functions for capitalists
Women reproduce the labour force through their unpaid domestic labour, by socialising the next generation of workers and maintaining and servicing the current one
Women absorb anger that would otherwise be directed at capitalism – Fran Ansley (1972) describes wives as ‘takers of shit’ who soak up their husband’s frustration due to alienation and exploitation from work, which to Marxists explains male domestic violence
Women are a reserve army of cheap labour that can be taken on when extra workers are needed. When no longer needed, employers can ‘let them go’ to return to their role of unpaid domestic labour
They see oppression of women as strongly influenced by the exploitation of the working class
They argue the family must be abolished at the same time as a socialist revolution replaces capitalism with a classless society
Radical feminst
Argue society is founded upon a patriarchy
Men are the enemy as they are the source of women’s oppression and exploitation
The family and marriage are the key institutions in patriarchal society. Men benefit from women’s unpaid domestic labour and their sexual services, and they dominate women through domestic and sexual violence or the threat of it
The patriarchal society needs to be overturned
They believe the family is the root cause of oppression and that is should be abolished – achieved through separatism where women must organise themselves to live independently of men
Many argue for political lesbianism as heterosexual relationships, to them, are oppressive as they involve ‘sleeping with the enemy’
Germaine Greer (2000) argues for the creation of all female or ‘matrilocal’ households as alternative to heterosexual family
Jenny Somerville (2000) says radical feminists fail to recognise that women’s position has improved considerably – better access to divorce, better job opportunities, control over their own fertility, and ability to choose whether to marry or cohabit
Somerville also argues heterosexual attraction would make it hard for separatism to work
Somerville does recognise that women have yet to achieve full equality and argues there is a need for ‘family friendly’ policies like more flexible working, to promote greater equality between partners
Difference feminist
They argue that lesbian and heterosexual women, white and black women, middle-class and working-class women, have very different experiences of the family
Black feminists view the family positively as a source of support and resistance against racism
Other feminists argue that difference feminists neglects the fact that all women share many of the same experiences such as the risk of domestic violence and sexual assault and issue of lower salaries
Personal life perspective
Argues functionalist, feminist and Marxist views on the family all have the same weakness
They tend to assume that the traditional nuclear family is the dominant family type
They are all structural theories – assume families and its members are passive puppets manipulated by the structure of society to perform certain functions
Sociologists influenced by interactionist and postmodernist perspectives argue that structural theories ignore that we have some choice in creating our family relationships. The argue to understand modern families we must focus on the meaning its members give to their relationships and situations, rather than the family’s functions
The sociology of personal life
This new perspective on families is strongly influenced by interactionist ideas and argues to understand families, we must start from the point of view of the individuals concerned and the meanings they give to relationships, which contrasts with other perspectives.
Beyond ties of blood and marriage
By focusing on people’s meanings, the personal life perspective emphasises a range of other personal or intimate relationships that are important to people even though they may not be defined as family.
Relationships with friends
Fictive kin – close friends who are treated as relatives
Gay and Lesbian chosen families
Relationships with dead relatives – who live on in people’s memories and continue to shape their identities and affect their actions
Relationships with pets
Petra Nordqvist and Carol Smart’s (2014) research on donor-conceived children explores “what counts as family when your child shares a genetic link with a ‘relative stranger’ but not with your partner?”
Donor-conceived children
Petra Nordqvist and Carol Smart found that the issue of blood and genes raised a range of feelings.
Some parents emphasised the importance of social relationships over genetic ones in forming family bonds
Some people are fine with this process and define a mother as someone who puts in effort and time to raise the child
Difficult feelings could arise for a non-genetic parent if somebody remarked that the child looked like them.
Differences in appearance led to parents to question the donor’s identity and whether donor siblings counted as family for their child
Where couples knew their donor, they had to resolve other questions about who counted as family
Lesbian couples were concerned about equality between the genetic and non-genetic mothers and that the donor might be treated as the ‘real’ second parent
Evaluation of personal life perspective
Nordqvist and Smart’s study help us to understand how people themselves construct and define their relationships as ‘family’, rather than imposing traditional sociological definitions of the family from the outside
Critics argue that including a wide range of different kinds of personal relationships, we ignore what is special about relationships that are based on blood or marriage
The personal life perspective rejects views such as functionalism (top down view)
Nevertheless, it does see intimate relationships as performing the important function of providing us with a sense of belonging and relatedness
Unlike functionalism, the personal life perspective recognises relatedness is not always positive (people trapped in unhealthy relationships)
Topic summary
Functionalists take a consensus view of the family. They see it as a universal institution that performs essential functions for society as a whole and for all its members
Parsons sees a functional fit between the nuclear family and modern society’s need for a mobile labour force
Marxists see the family as serving the economic and ideological needs of capitalism, such as transmission of private property from one generation of capitalists to the next
Feminists see the family as perpetuating patriarchy. Liberal, radical and Marxist feminists differ over the cause of women’s oppression and the solution
Functionalist, Marxist and feminist theories have all been criticised for neglecting family diversity and individuals’ capacity to choose their family arrangements
The personal life perspective argues that we must focus on the meanings people give to relationships and on how they define what counts as family
