Other
Revision Booklet families and households
- Course
- Institution
Revision Booklet families and households - questions, answers, key topics
[Show more]
Seller
Followelanaphillips
Reviews received
Content preview
Year 1 SociologyFamilies and Households
Theories
And
Policies
Mrs Chaimowitz – Yavneh College – Page 1
, Before the lesson: Reading on Theories and Policies
FUNCTIONALISM AND THE FAMILY
The functionalist perspective on the family
Functionalists believe society is based on a value consensus, a set of shared norms and values, enabling
the members to work well together and meet shared goals.
Society is regarded as made up of different sub-systems that are dependent on one another (e.g. family,
economy and education systems). In this way, functionalists see society as a biological organism, alike to
the human body.
Functionalists see the family as an essential part of the sub-system and the family is seen as a basic
building block of society. George Peter Murdock argues the family performs 4 functions necessary for
society:
o (1) Stable satisfaction of the sex drive – with the same partner to prevent social disruption
caused by a sexual “free for all”
o (2) Reproduction of the next generations – without which society could not continue.
o (3) Socialisation of the young - the learning of society’s norms and values.
o (4) Meeting its members’ economic needs – such as food and shelter.
Criticisms of Murdock
Murdock accepts that other institutions can perform these 4 functions but believes that the nuclear
family is the most practical way to meet them.
However, without doubting the importance of the 4 needs some sociologists argue that they could be
performed just as well by other institutions or by non-nuclear family structures.
Marxists and feminists disagree with Murdock’s view as they believe it neglects conflict and exploitation:
feminists see the family as favouring men and oppressing the women, Marxists argue it favours
capitalism and not society as a whole.
A geographically mobile workforce
During pre-industrial society, the majority of people lived in the same village and worked on the same
farm. In modern society, industries are constantly inclining and declining all over the world and this
means many must move to where jobs are.
Parsons has the view that the two generation nuclear family, against the three generation extended
family, are more suited to the modern industry need for a geographically mobile workforce. He argues
this because he suggests that the nuclear family can move more easily around the country in contrast to
the extended family.
A socially mobile workforce
The modern industrial society is constantly evolving in science and technology and so requires a
technically competent workforce. This means it is essential that the talented must win promotions for
the most important jobs.
In modern times, a person’s status is decided by their own efforts and abilities, not ascribed (fixed at
birth) by their social or family background – making social mobility possible.
Parson then argues that the nuclear family is more fitted for industrial society needs as with the
extended family, a son may have a higher status at work than his father and this could lead to conflict.
The solution would be for the son to leave home and start his own nuclear family; this makes the nuclear
family socially as well as geographically mobile.
The result is the mobile nuclear family whom are ‘structurally isolated’ from its extended family and has
no obligations towards them. This is unlike the pre-extended family where the relatives had an
overriding duty to aid them in times of crisis.
The evidence against Parsons (box 30)
(1) Was the extended family dominant in pre-industrial society? – According to Young and Willmott, the
pre-industrial family was nuclear mostly always, not extended as Parsons claims, with parents and
children working together. Also, Peter Laslett found that they were almost always nuclear – a
Mrs Chaimowitz – Yavneh College – Page 2
, combination of late childbearing and short life expectancy meant that many grandparents struggled to
survive long after their first grandchild’s birth.
(2) Did the family become nuclear in early industrial society? – Parsons says that industrialisation
brought the nuclear family but, Young and Willmott counter this and say that the hardships 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 were reliant on each other for financial, practical and
emotional support. Exchange theory – the idea that individuals either break off or maintain family ties
due to the advantages or disadvantages involved. Poverty, sickness, no welfare state and early death
aided the popularity of the extended working class family as having more children made extra income
and were an overall benefit.
(3) Is the extended family no longer important in modern society? – There is partial support for Parson’s
idea that the nuclear family has become the most dominant family type today. Young and Wilmott argue
that from 1900 the nuclear family emerged as a result of social changes that decreased the importance
of the extended family as a source of support. These changes include: higher living standards, married
women working, welfare state and bettered housing. However, the extended family has not disappeared
as it performs important functions.
IS THE FAMILY LOSING ITS FUNCTION?
Loss of functions
The pre-industrial family was a multi-functional unit, meaning it was both a unit of production in which
family members worked together to feed and clothe its members. It was more self-sufficient than the
modern nuclear family in the sense that is provided its own health and welfare for its members and met
most individual and social needs additionally.
However, according to Parsons when society industrialises, the family not only changes its structure
from extended to nuclear but also may lose many of its functions. For example: the family ceases to be a
unit of production as work moves more predominantly into factories and the family becomes just
consumption unit. From Parsons’ view, as a result of the loss of functions the modern nuclear family
comes to perform just two essential ‘irreducible’ fucnctions:
(1) The primary socialisation of children:
o Involves the learning and internalisation of culture such as language, history and society values. He
argues society would fail to exist without the socialisation of accepting society’s basic norms and
values. He believes socialisation of this is so powerful that it contributes to one’s personality. He
therefore argues that families are factories producing human personalities and that only the family
can provide the emotional warmth and security to achieve this.
(2) The stabilisation of human personalities:
o The idea that the family helps to stabilise personalities through the sexual division of labour.
Parsons’ view shows the idea that women have an expressive role: providing warmth, security and
emotional support to their family. The man carries and instrumental role as the family breadwinner
which can lead to anxiety and can threaten to destabilise his personality. However, the wife’s
expressive role relieves this tension through providing love and care – therefore this is stabilisation.
Mrs Chaimowitz – Yavneh College – Page 3
, MARXISM AND THE FAMILY
The Marxist perspective on the family
o Marxists sociologists see capitalist society as based on an unequal conflict between two social classes:
(1) the capitalist class- who own the means of production, (2) the working class – whose labour the
capitalists exploit for profit.
o For the Marxists, the functions of the family are performed purely for the benefit of the capitalist
system:
Inheritance of property
o Marxists argue that the key factor determining the shape of all social institutions, including the family, is
the mode of production – who owns society’s productive forces. In modern society, it is the capitalists
that have this control.
o Marx called the earliest classless society ‘primitive communism’ – there was no private property, instead
shared communal production.
o At this stage, there was no family, just the ‘promiscuous horde’ (Friedrich Engels) or tribe in which there
were no limits on sexual relations.
Private property
o As forces of production began to develop, society’s wealth began to increase and along with this came
the development of private property – as a class of men emerged and secured control of the means of
production. This change eventually brought the monogamous nuclear family.
o In Engel’s view, monogamy became essential because of the inheritance of private property – ensuring
legitimate heirs could inherit.
o Also in his view, the rise of the nuclear family represented a “world historical defeat of the female sex”
this is because it brought women’s sexuality under the control of men and made them a “mere
instrument for the production of children”.
o Marxists argue that only with the abolition of capitalism and private ownership of production will
women achieve liberation from patriarchal control. A classless society would be established in which the
means of production are owned collectively. Patriarchal family is no longer needed.
Ideological functions
o Marxists argue that the family also performs ideology functions for capitalism. One way this is done is by
socialising children into the idea that hierarchy is inevitable. Parental powers accustom children into the
idea that someone must always be in charge and this prepares them to receive orders from capitalist
employers.
o According to Eli Zaretsky, another ideological function is performed by offering an apparent ‘haven’ from
the harsh and exploitative world of capitalism outside, whereby workers have a private life and can be
themselves – Zaretsky argues that this is nothing more than an illusion.
A unit of consumption
o Capitalism exploits the labour of the workers by making profit off of selling products for more than it
costs the workers to make. Family therefore plays an important role in generating capitalist profits: (1)
advertisers urge families to consume latest products, (2) the media target children to persuade their
parents to spend more, (3) children who lack latest clothes and gadgets are mocked.
Criticisms of the Marxist perspective
o Marxists forget to include other family structures in society and see only the nuclear family as dominant
in society.
o Feminists argue that Marxists views disregard the importance of gender inequalities in the family and
focus too much on class and capitalism.
Mrs Chaimowitz – Yavneh College – Page 4
The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:
Guaranteed quality through customer reviews
Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.
Quick and easy check-out
You can quickly pay through credit card or Stuvia-credit for the summaries. There is no membership needed.
Focus on what matters
Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!
Frequently asked questions
What do I get when I buy this document?
You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.
Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?
Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.
Who am I buying these notes from?
Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller elanaphillips. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for $9.75. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
Can Stuvia be trusted?
4.6 stars on Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)
75632 documents were sold in the last 30 days
Founded in 2010, the go-to place to buy study notes for 14 years now