Theory And Policy Flashcards
Functionalist perspective on family & the pre-industrial society
-Functionalists such as parsons, advocated reinforcing the nuclear family type through social policies, such as tax incentives (reducing the amount of tax they have to pay) for married people
-However, functionalists also suggest limited state involvement in the running of the family- this is not necessary if society is functioning correctly
-Functionalists hold traditional values and this has brought them into opposition with some of the more progressive policies in recent years, such as same-sex marriage.
Functionalists see the family as a particularly important sub-system-a basic building block of society.
Pre-industrial families (before factories) — tended to have large numbers of children. Economies in pre-industrial society were dominated by family-based economies — what Siskind (1978) calls the kinship mode of production.
Typically, all family members worked at productive tasks differentiated by sex and age. The family itself would have consisted of a structure, such as a head of household, their spouse and children, the head’s parents and possibly ancillary relatives.
In the pre-industrial era, marriages were arranged largely for social and economic purposes, rather than for romantic love. Marriage served as a contractual agreement based on a specific division of labor.
Murdock on families
-Murdock studied over 250 different societies and found the family to be a universal feature with a heterosexual couple and dependent children.
There is a clear division of labour between husband and wife - the husband is the breadwinner who earns for the family and the wife is the housewife who does domestic labour and childcare.
He argues that the family performs four essential functions to meet the needs of society and it’s members.
•Stable satisfaction of the sex drive with the same partner, preventing the social
disruption caused by a sexual ‘free-for-all’.
•Reproduction of the next generation. Essential for survival of society and without reproduction, it would cease to exist.
•Socialisation of the young. children are taught the norms and values of society (also known as primary socialisation). These include gendered norms and values and allow children to fit into society and ensure that they are able to contribute to harmonious functioning of society
•Meeting its members’ economic needs. the family provides an economic function to all its members by pooling resources and ensuring they all have what they need. The women provided a more domestic role that met the economic needs- often doing unpaid labour at home which
Criticisms of Murdock
Murdock acceps other institutions are able to fulfil the functions the family performs. However, he thinks the nuclear family is practical to fulfill these needs. Other sociologists agree that these functions are important, but believe other institutions are able to perform the just as well or by non-nuclear families. Feminist argue that the family does not meet the needs of all its members and that it meets the needs of men and oppresses women. Marxits argue that Murdock ignores the influence of capitalism in reproducing the next generation of workers and controlling the ability of workers to challenge the ruling class.
-Interprevists argue that he is value-laden where he fails to acknowledge that families are the ‘product of culture’.
-Feminist criticism suggest that Murdocks ideas fail to acknowledge that the most universal unit is mother and children
-Outdated: it fails to acknowledge changing gender roles in society and greater diversity of family types and gender transitions
Parsons on families
-Parsons view of the nuclear family being universal is similar to that of Murdock although he differs suggesting that the nuclear family is more isolated: ‘privatised nuclear family’
-Domestic division of labour: with males and females taking on specific roles based upon biological characteristics
-Nuclear family has two basic and irreducible functions:
1: Primary socialisation
Similar to Murdock’s educational role, Parsons agreed that families taught children social norms and values. However, he argued that it specifically taught children the norms and values associated with their family and/or community, such as appropriate behaviours in social institutions, core values of society and pro-social behaviours while other institutions, such as schools, the media, religion, etc. taught children the universal norms and values of wider society. Parsons called this first process primary socialisation and the later secondary socialisation.
- Stabilisation of adult personalities
Parsons also argued that families helped to prevent adults from behaving in disruptive or dysfunctional ways, instead encouraging them to conform to social norms, especially at times of stress. The family provides emotional support to its members.
Parsons famously described this in his warm bath theory. This was the idea that when a man came home from a hard day at work, he could relax into is family like a warm bath and it would take away the stress and refresh him for the next day’s work.
Evaluating parsons theory
A standard criticism of functionalist views of the role of the family comes from conflict theorists like Marxists and feminists who argue that this paints an idealistic picture of family life. Families are certainly not like that for everyone. Many people have negative experiences of family life, and indeed they can cause stress as well as relieve it.
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.
Parsons. ‘Functional fit theory’.
He believes the functions the family perform depend on the kind of society it is found in.
He believes there are two types of society, the traditional pre industrial society and modern industrial society. He believes the extended family fit the needs of the pre industrial society and the nuclear family fits the needs of the modern industrial society as people move for work and are rewarded for their efforts with promotions, leading to movement up class system.
Evaluations: feminists criticise parsons for stereotypical views of female role expectations of females towards males
-Outdated view: criticised by a more contemporary research states a decline in the functions of the family
The first essential need industrial society needs according to Parsons:
- A geographically mobile workforce.
Parsons argues that in the modern industrial society industries constantly decline spring up in different parts of the country, because of this people have to move constantly this is easier for the nuclear family as there is only two generations of the family than the extended family. Parsons argues that the nuclear family is better fitted to the need that modern industry has for a geographically modern workforce.
The second essential need industrial society needs according to Parsons:
- A socially mobile workforce
Modern industrial society is based on constantly evolving science and technology and so it requires a skilled, technically competent workforce. It is therefore essential that talented people are able to win promotion and take on the most jobs, regardless of their background. In modern society an individuals status is achieved by their own efforts and ability, not ascribed by their social and family background so this makes social mobility possible. The son of a labourer can become a doctor or lawyer through hardwork. Because of this, Parsons argues the nuclear family is better equipped to meet the needs of industrial society. Adult sons live at home in their father’s house in the extended family, where the family has a higher ascribed status as head of the household. The son may have a higher status at work (more important job) and this would lead to tensions and conflict if they both lived under the same roof.
Young and Willmott
-Functionalist view
1. Pre-industrial family: family was a unit of production, No separation between work and home, Families lived together or close and worked together.
2. Early industrial family: Work and home separated, Men went to work, women performed domestic roles, Kinship is still important, women would rely on other female relations, While female relatives bonded, men were excluded from the home and spent time in a pub instead.
3. Symmetrical family: Modern Nuclear Family has less gendered segregation, both men and women are in employment and contributing to domestic chores. Family now unit of consumption. Families smaller as remain dependent rather than financial assets. Families become isolated from Kinship. They spend more time together and generally there are joint conjugal roles and segregated conjugal roles.
4. Asymmetrical family: doesn’t really occur. They suggest family would become asymmetrical where partners would spend more time away from the home without their partners. Stratified Diffusion - Cultural changes in higher classes would diffuse down hierarchy and become norm but this didn’t happen.
They argue that the family did not become nuclear in early industrial society and the hardship of the early industrial period gave rise to the ‘mum- centred’ working class extended family based on ties between mothers and their married daughters, who relied on each other for financial, practical and emotional support.
CRITICISM -
What does Feminist sociologist Ann Oakley criticise about the symmetrical family?
Concept of symmetrical family was flawed as men would hardly contribute to the household (that W&Y say they do).
- Argue women are still more likely to carry out domestic tasks as well as be in paid work and experience what they call a dual burden.
- She suggested that increased female employment had not made the family more equal but just women had two jobs.
Marxist perspective on family policy
The traditional Marxist view on families is that they perform a role not for everyone in society but for capitalism and the ruling class (the bourgeoisie). E.g. childcare policies will enable more people to work
-State can effectively police the family’ according to Donzelot, by intervening where they believe that the family is not socialising children correctly. E.g safeguarding allow inter-agency working to build up a picture to see how children are being socialised by the family. Although, some may argue that this is for a child’s protection, Marxists suggest that it is a form of control over the family by the ruling class. Judgements will be based upon ruling class ideologies and those that are not conforming face sanctions, warning, fines or even getting their children taken away.
functionalist and Marxist: similarities and differences in family
They both think that families perform important functions for the society as it is currently constituted. The difference is that Marxists disagree with the way society is currently constituted. Instead of seeing a consensual society which works to benefit all its members, they see a society based on class struggle, which works to benefit a rich minority.
Engels (1884) on Family
Engels argued that family had a clear economic function for capitalism, by ensuring that wealth remained in the hands of the bourgeoisie.
Family relations, based on clear legal contracts, facilitate inheritance and therefore when rich people die it is their children who keep hold of their wealth.
For Engels, then, family is all about blood lines and proof of parentage.
Zaretsky (1976) on Family
-Marxists see families as essentially a conservative institution that helps to preserve capitalism. They also weaken the position of individual workers in relation to the boss.
-Zaretsky argued that work in the modern era is labour intensive and unfulfilling for workers and as a result they suffer alienation from not seeing the results of their labour, particularly in manufacturing.
Zaretsky argued that family life gave proletarian (working-class) men something they could control and a space where they could be the “boss” (cushioning blow). This provided a clear function for capitalism because it meant 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 could take out their stress and frustrations.
This again ties in with Fran Ansley’s Marxist-feminist perspective of women being the “takers of shit”.
The family props up capitalism: unpaid labour of women in the household props up capitalism, allows workers to focus on the task at hand.
-Reproduction in the next generations, socialised into capitalist norms and values
-Family consumes goods, feeding the profits of the bourgeoisie and requiring workers to continue their labour in exchange for wages for these goods
-The responsibility of family life also acts as a control on workers
-They need to provide and the fear of consequences of unemployment mean Bourgeoisie can control wages and working conditions
