I have compiled my notes into PEEL paragraphs to help compile one’s thoughts into an essay-like structure. This is to make it simpler to write in exams. The topics list includes: families and households, the media, crime and deviance, and theories and methods. As a result, I secured a grade B in ...
Marxist Feminist Fran Ansley argued that capitalism was the source of women’s oppression
within the family. This was because Proletariat men would go out into the workplace and be
exploited by capitalist society leading wives to become “takers of shit”. As a result, they
would exert their “power” over women and take their anger out on them, usually in the form
of “domestic violence”. She believed that the solution to this was to abolish the family as an
institution as well as capitalism. However, difference feminists would argue that Ansley fails
to acknowledge other sources of oppression in society, including racism and homophobia.
Moreover, some difference feminists have a more positive view of the family. They see the
family as a source of comfort for our racist society. Therefore, Ansley’s view limits women’s
oppression to capitalism, ignoring many other women’s experiences.
Marxists also believe that “the conventional nuclear family” is harmful but for different
reasons. This is because it provides three basic functions for Capitalism. Zaretsky argued
that the family controls your ideological functions into accepting Capitalism. This is achieved
by giving a ‘haven’ in which you can be yourself and be relaxed from the outside world. This
is similar to Parsons’ warm bath theory but instead of the family being a source of comfort, it
is a source of distraction from the true realities of Capitalism. Once you receive this
distraction, you are prepared to go back into our capitalist society and become an obedient,
docile worker who is complacent in our society. He argues that this then leads to false class
consciousness since you would be distracted from the fact that you have gone back into the
outside world to be a contributing member of our capitalist society. However, one may argue
that Marxists fail to acknowledge the benefits of the nuclear family. Having support from both
parents can be beneficial to a child’s mental and physical well-being. Additionally, Zaretsky’s
theory is from 1976. Since then, the family structure has changed immensely. A lot of
parents raise their children in more unconventional ways. They want their children to
become free and independent thinkers. Therefore, his theory is not applicable towards
modern society.
Functionalists would argue that the family is “essential for society”. Functionalist Murdock
argues that the family provides four main functions to ensure the growth of society. One of
these is that of the reproductive function. Murdock argued that many couples choose to get
married and then eventually plan to have children. This was considered positive because it
helped society to function effectively. It ensures a steady flow of the economy as new
workers are being reproduced, Whilst many married couples still do plan to have children,
this isn’t the societal expectation anymore unlike when it was in 1949. For example, many
couples choose to cohabit and have children before marriage. Alternatively, there has been
a lot of scientific progress in the last 73 years. Nowadays, you don’t even need to have
sexual intercourse to produce a child. Therefore, whilst Murdock’s theory can be relevant to
today’s society, it lacks complete depth as it fails to acknowledge how many more options
exist nowadays.
,Functionalists would argue that the family is “essential for society”. Functionalist Murdock
argues that the family provides four main functions to ensure the growth of society. One of
these is the stabilisation of the sex drive. He argued that married couples choosing to have
sex ensures happy and stable relationships. This then leads to the growth of society as there
would be no discouragement from marital relationships. More couples would want to get
married and start a family of their own. Whilst a married couple satisfying their sex drive is
beneficial for the family, Murdock’s theory is from 1949 and it fails to acknowledge the
change of societal expectations. For example, many unmarried couples choose to cohabit,
have sex and start families of their own. This could still lead to a stable, functional family.
Therefore, whilst this theory has relevance in today’s society, it is also not applicable as it is
not the norm anymore to wait until marriage.
Functionalists would argue that the family is “essential for society”. Functionalist Parsons
that the family provided two main functions. One of that being the stabilisation of the adult
personality. This is also known as the warm bath theory. In this, he argued that the family
was a space of comfort and stability during difficult times in life. He also said that men and
women are to be divided into instrumental and expressive roles. The instrumental role was
for the men who were expected to provide for the family and to be leaders. The expressive
role was for the women who were expected to be the nurturing, a source of comfort and the
homemakers of the family. When the man came back from a hard day’s work, the woman
was expected to comfort him, playing her expressive role. He argued that both of these roles
comfort each other and fit the needs of society. Whilst it is still true that the family can be a
source of comfort from the outside world, Parsons fails to acknowledge that not every family
is comforting. For some people, the family can be the one thing that they need escapism
from due to abuse. Additionally, liberal feminists would criticise this as it enforces gender
without any biological basis. Parsons’ theory is from 1959 and since then, there have been
changes in gender roles. Therefore, whilst Parsons’ theory acknowledges the positive
aspects of the family, it hinders the growth of society by enforcing traditional gender roles.
Somerville argues women can survive without male partners, especially as so many prove
inadequate, and instead get their sense of fulfilment from their children. Unlike Germain
Greer, however, Somerville does not believe that living in a household without an adult male
is the answer – the high figures for remarriage suggest that heterosexual attraction and the
need for intimacy and companionship mean that heterosexual families will not disappear.
The amount of remarriages has increased as a percentage of all marriages from 15% in
1971 to 40% in 2006. These people are committed to the institution of marriage, despite their
previous negative experiences with it. However, it remains the case that the inability of men
to ‘pull their weight’ in relationships means that high rates of relationship breakdowns will
continue to be the norm which will lead to more complex familial relationships as women end
one relationship and attempt to rebuild the next with a new (typically male) partner. One set
of policies which Somerville thinks is particularly important is those aimed at helping working
parents. The working hours and culture associated with many jobs are incompatible with
family life. Many jobs are based on the idea of a male breadwinner who relies on a
non-working wife to take care of the children. Somerville argues that to achieve true equality
within relationships we need increased flexibility in paid employment. Radical Feminists such
as Delphy, Leonard and Greer believe that she fails to deal with the Patriarchal structures
and culture in contemporary family life.
,Changing Family Patterns
Chester (1985) argued that society was not becoming more postmodernist. He believed that
family patterns were not changing significantly. The only difference was the rise of
dual-earner households, in which women were not as discouraged from entering the
workforce. Whilst he believed that family patterns were changing, he did not regard this in a
negative light, unlike New Right sociologists. Apart from this, Chester does not see any other
major changes to family types in society. He argues that people are choosing not to live in
alternatives to the nuclear family on a long-term basis and that the nuclear family remains
ideal to which most people still aspire. Chester also commented that family statistics are a
snapshot of a person’s lifecycle and are thus misleading. They are merely a depiction of a
time in someone’s life and don't represent how they have spent the majority of their family
life. For example, widows may have spent their whole life in a nuclear family and are only
now being regarded as lone parents. Chester argues that these statistics therefore don’t
show us the fact that most people will spend a major part of their lives in a nuclear family.
Thus, he believes that the extent of family diversity has been exaggerated. However,
feminist sociologists such as Anne Oakley would criticise this as it allows women to be
placed with a dual burden. This is because women had now been expected to play both the
instrumental and expressive roles whilst men still only had to play the instrumental role.
Moreover, it is troubling that this theory is from 1985 and is one of our most accurate
representations of family life.
Giddens and Beck argued the individualisation thesis. This means that traditional social
structures such as class, gender and ethnicity are less important and roles in society are
much less fixed. This means individuals are freed, or ‘disembedded’ from traditional roles,
and have the freedom to choose and shape their own lives. In particular, Giddens argued
that family relationships were moving towards pure relationships. This is where the
relationship solely exists to satisfy one another’s needs. If the individuals no longer liked
each other, then they were free to leave. Giddens does note that with more choice comes
less stability, so this does mean relationships are more likely to break down compared to in
the past. Giddens also believes same-sex couples have been pioneers in family diversity
because they are less restrained by traditional gender norms, meaning they can actively
choose and shape their relationships through their decisions. However, this theory is too
deterministic as it argues that leaving an unhappy relationship is quite simplistic. For
example, Feminist Sociologist Stacey argues that women live in a state of divorce extended
family. This means that despite having ended the marriage, the relationship has not quite
finished. For example, if his mother wants to see her grandchildren, she may contact her,
leaving her to still be tied to her divorce extended family. Therefore, this theory represents a
rose-tinted view of relationships as it assumes that the relationship ends after the separation.
, Giddens and Beck argued the individualisation thesis. This means that traditional social
structures such as class, gender and ethnicity are less important and roles in society are
much less fixed. This means individuals are freed, or ‘disembedded’ from traditional roles,
and have the freedom to choose and shape their own lives. In particular, Beck argues that
the family lives in a negotiated family. This family type does not conform to the norms of the
traditional family (e.g. gender roles) but instead varies depending on the wishes and
expectations of their members, who decide what is best for themselves by negotiation. For
example, if a couple decides that one partner is better at cooking while the other is better at
cleaning, they can divide those tasks according to their own needs and the relationship can
end if those needs are no longer met. However, this can be criticised by Finch and Mason
who did a study of extended families and found that although individuals can negotiate to
some extent, they are also embedded within family connections and obligations.
However,Postmodernists view sociological theories as metanarratives -big stories that are
no longer able to explain the diversity of personal relationships. So, it can be argued that our
network of relationships is interwoven and that after the termination of relationships, there is
still a connection between them. For example, a couple may still be tied by kids or mutual
friends, so relationships cannot simply end as Giddens and Beck suggest.
Though the extended family has declined, it does not appear to have disappeared
altogether. Wilmott (1988) argues it has been replaced by a ‘dispersed extended family’ –
where family members are geographically dispersed but emotionally close and connected
through technology. The extended family can be seen as important because children provide
support and perform functions for all members. Many sociologists have found family
members still feel an obligation to provide for and support the extended family, and that this
support was often by women. Traditionally, Asian families place the highest importance on
extended families. Roger Ballard (1982) found that the extended family was important for
supporting Asian immigrants. Therefore, the extended family is still important in today’s
society, but in a different manner.
Functionalist sociologists would disagree with the New Right perspective and argue that the
availability of divorce is beneficial for society. Drawing upon Parsons’ functions of the family,
Fletcher would argue that divorce shows that people have higher expectations of marriage.
Couples are less willing to tolerate an unhappy marriage. Moreover, post-modernist
Giddens (1994) argues that competition, choice and individualism in modern society mean
that people are more likely to look for personal satisfaction. Marriage is treated like a product
and disregarded if it doesn’t satisfy people’s wants. Once again, this results in a rise in
divorce rates as people are getting increasingly quick to give up on their marriage. However,
a British Attitudes Survey of 2007 revealed that although people did attach a lot of
significance to marriage, it did not suggest that their expectations of marriage had increased.
Therefore, this theory does not apply to our understanding of the changing patterns in
divorce rates as it recognises a correlation rather than a causation.
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 leenagarti1. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for $21.36. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
