THEORIES OF FAMILY Flashcards
FUNCTIONALIST
FUCTIONALISTS see that SOCIETY IS BASED ON VALUE CONSENSUS. The family is compared to the organic analogy, idea that like organs sub-systems like the family depend on each other for the smooth running of society. Functionalists see the family as the basic building block for society.
MURDOCK argues the FAMILY performs 4 ESSENTIAL FUNCTIONS: STABLE SATISFCATION OF SEX DRIVE, REPRODUCE THE NEXT GEN, SOCIALISATION, MEETING ITS MEMBERS NEEDS. MARXISTS and FEMINISTS reject MURDOCK’S ‘rose-tinted’ view that the FAMILY meets the needs of WIDER SOCIETY and MEMBERS OF THE FAMILY. They see that FUNCTIONALISM IGNORES EXPOLITATION: FEMINISTS see that the FAMILY SERVES THE NEEDS OF MEN and OPPRESSES WOMEN. Whilst MARXITS see that the FAMILY MEETS THE NEEDS OF CAPITALISM, FAMILY MEMBERS OR SOCIETY.
PARSON sees the FUNCTION of the FAMILY depends on the SOCIETY IT WAS FOUND. He distinguishes TWO FAMILY STRUCTURES: NUCLEAR (parents+ DEPENDENT children) and EXTENDED FAMILY (3 generations). PARSON sees that the STRUCTURE of a FAMILY will FIT the needs of society. For e.g., the NUCLEAR FAMILY (dominant family type) fits the needs of INDUSTRIAL SOCIETY, and the EXTENDED FAMILY fits the needs of PRE-INDUSTRIAL SOCIETY. When BRITIAN began to INDUSTRIALISE, the family had to ADAPT to meet its needs: GEOGRAPHICALLY MOBILE WORKFORCE and a SOCIALLY MOBILE WORKFORCE. The NUCLEAR FAMILY is better FITTED to the needs the MODERN INDUSTRY has for a GEOGRAPHICALLY MOBILE WORKFORCE and ENCOURAGES SOCIAL MOBILITY. The PRE-INDUSTRIAL FAMILY was UNIT OF PRODUCTION and CONSUMPTION. PARSONS argues when society INDUSTRIALISES it not only CHANGES STRUCTURE BUT it also LOSES ITS FUNCTIONS. It is now solely a UNIT OF CONSUMPTION. Due its loss of functions the MODERN NUCLEAR FAMILY SPECIALISES in PERFORMING 2 ESSENTIAL FUNCTIONS: PRIMARY SOCIALISATION OF CHILDREN and THE STABILISATION OF ADULT PERSONALITIES.
MARXIST
MARXISTS see all institutions EDUCATION SYSTEM, MEDIA and the FAMILY as helping to maintain CLASS INEQUALITY and CAPITALISM. MARXISTS see the FUNCTION of the FAMILY is purely to BENEFIT the CAPITALIST SYSTEM. This CONTRASTS with the FUNCTIONALIST view that the FAMILY BENEFITS both WIDER SOCIETY and MEMBER of the FAMILY. MARXISTS SEE SEVERAL FUNCTIONS OF THE FAMILY THAT FULFILS CAPITALISM.
MARXISTS argue a KEY FACTOR that determines the shape of the FAMILY is the MODE OF PRODUCTION. In MODERN SOCIETY, the CAPITALIST CLASS RUNS THE MEANS OF PRODUCTION, as it evolves so does the family. MARX called CLASSLESS SOCIETY ‘PRIMITIVE COMMUNISM’, as there was NO PRIVATE PROPERTY, and the MEANS OF PRODUCTIONS was OWNED COMMUNALLY. There was NO FAMILY, ENGELS called this the ‘PROMISCUOUS HORDE’, as there was NO RESTRICTIONS TO SEXUAL RELATIONSHIPS. However, as society began to become rich, the development of PRIVATE PROPERTY came about which SIMULTANEOUSLY brought about the PATRIARCHAL MONOGAMOUS NUCLEAR FAMILY. ENGEL saw MONOGAMY as essential for the INHERITANCE OF PROPERTY- men had to be sure of the PATERNITY of their children so they had a LEGITIMATE HEIR to inherit their wealth. MARXISTS also argue the FAMILY PERFORMS IDEOLOGICAL FUNCTIONS FOR CAPITALISM. This is done through SOCIALISING children into the idea that INEQUALITY is INEVITABLE. PARENTS’ POWER OVER CHILDREN accustoms them into the idea that there WILL ALWAYS BE SOMEONE IN CHARGE; this prepares them for CAPITALIST SOCIETY, accepting ORDERS from employers. ZARETSKY argues the FAMILY PERFROMS the CUSHIONING EFFECT: providing a ‘SAFE HAVEN’ from the EXPLOITATION of CAPITALISM. HOWEVER, ZARETSKY sees this as an ILLUSION- the FAMILY CANNOT MEET ITS MEMBER’S NEEDS, it is BASED ON THE DOMESTIC SERVITUDE OF WOMEN. THIRDLY, the FAMILY as a UNIT OF CONSUMPTION plays a key role in GENERATING PROFITS for CAPITALIST SOCIETY: the MEDIA TARGETS CHILDREN, who use ‘PESTER POWER’ to encourage their PARENTS TO SPEND MORE.
FEMINIST
FEMINISTS: Take a critical view of the family, see that it oppresses women through the unequal division of labour and domestic violence. FEMINISTS see that GENDER INEQUALITY is created by society and not natural. The different types of feminism view the family differently and offer solutions to gender inequality differently.
LIBERAL FEMINISTS: campaign against SEX DISCRIMINATION and for EQUAL RIGHTS. They see that WOMEN’S OPPRESSION is slowly being overcome by SOCIETY’S CHANGING ATTITUDE and CHANGES TO THE LAW. Eg, SEX DISCRIMINATION ACT, outlaws discrimination in employment. LIBERAL FEMINISTS further see we are MOVING TO GREATER EQUALITY that DEPENDS on more REFORMS and CHANGES OF ATTITUDE AND SOCILAISATION OF BOTH SEXES. In terms of the family, they hold a SIMILAR VIEW to the MARCH OF PROGRESS theorists YOUNG and WILLMOTT. Other feminists criticise LIBERAL FEMINISTS for FAILING to CHALLENGE the CAUSES OF WOMEN’S OPPRESSION and for BELIEVING CHNAGES IN THE LAW will be ENOUGH TO BRING EQUALITY.
MARXIST FEMINISTS: argue the cause of WOMEN’S OPPRESSION in the family is CAPITALISM. Their oppression performs three functions: REPRODUCING THE LABOUR FORCE, ABSORBING ANGER – ANSLEY sees that women are ‘TAKERS OF SHIT’ and ABSORB MEN’S FRUSTRATION FROM WORK; Marxists argue this explains males domestic violence against women. FINALLY, as the RESERVE ARMY FOR CHEAP LABOUR. MARXIST FEMINISTS see the OPPRESSION WOMEN IS LINKED TO THE EXPLOITATION OF THE WORKING CLASS.
RADICAL FEMINISTS: see that ALL SOCIETIES are FOUDED on the PATRIARCHY. The key DIVISION in society is between MEN and WOMEN: MEN are the ENEMY (SOURCE of WOMEN’S OPPRESSION) , additionally the FAMILY and MARRIAGE are INSTITUTIONS of PATRIARCHY. RADICAL FEMINISTS see the FAMILY MUST BE ABOLISHED through SEPARARTISM- women live INDEPENTLY from MEN. Other RADICAL FEMINISTS encourage ‘POLITICAL LESBIANISM’ – heterosexual relationships are oppressive as it involves ‘SLEEPING WITH THE ENEMY’, GREER sees the creation of ‘MATRILOCAL’ HOUSEHOLDS is an ALTERNATIVE FOR HETROSEXUAL FAMILY. LIBERAL FEMINISTS like SOMMERVILLE argue that RADICAL FEMINISTS FAIL TO ACKNOWLEDGE HOW THE POSITION OF WOMEN HAS IMPROVED: BETTER ACCESS TO DIVORCE and JOBS etc.
DIFFERNCE FEMINISM argue we CANNOT GENERALISE women’s experiences. BLACK and WHITE WOMEN, GAY and STRAIGHT WOMEN all have DIFFERENT EXPERIENCES OF THE FAMILY. EG, by seeing the FAMILY NEGATIVELY, WHITE FEMINISM ignores WOC’s experience of RACIAL OPPRESSION, in which WOC’s FAMILIES are a SOURCE OF SUPPORT AGAINST RACISM. DIFFERENCE FEMINISM is CRITICISED for NOT ACKNOWLEDGING the UBIQUITOUS EXPERINCE of WOMANHOOD. Eg, WOMEN all risk EXPERIENCING DOMESTIC VIOLENCE and SEXUAL ASSAULT.
PERSONAL LIFE
PERSONAL LIFE PERSPECTIVE: argues to UNDERSTAND FAMILY we MUST FOCUS on the MEANINGS members give to relationships, rather than on FAMILY’S IMPOSED FUNCTIONS. The PERSONAL LIFE PERSPECTIVE takes a BOTTOM- UP APPROACH to relationships and SEES BEYOND BLOOD and MARRIAGE TIES. Attention is drawn to PEOPLE THAT ARE NOT CONVENTIONALLY FAMILY to INDIVIDUALS but are JUST AS SIGNIFICANT. For e.g., FICTIVE KIN: close friends that are treated like a relative and RELATIONSHIPS WITH PETS: TIPPER found that children saw their PETS as ‘PART OF THE FAMILY’. SMART found that BLOOD and GENES raised a range of feelings. Some PARENTS emphasised the IMPORTANCE of SOCIAL RELATIONSHIPS over GENETIC in forming FAMILIAL BONDS. FOR EGG- DONOR CONCEIVED CHILDREN, being a MUM is defined as the time and effort put into raising a child not BIOLOGY. This perspective is praised for ACKNOWLEDGING that BLOOD RELATION is not always POSITIVE. E.g., people suffer from abuse. HOWEVER, it is criticised for being TOO BROAD, INCLUDING DIFFERENT KINDS of relationships IGNORED WHAT IS SPECIAL ABOUT RELATIONSHIPS BASED ON BLOOD and MARRIAGE.
