Student number: 18000361
SOCG 2100
To what extent are individuals creative actors who actively control the conditions of their lives?
A case study of the Sociological problem of patriarchy and gender identity in the family sphere.
Introduction
Patriarchy was originally described by social anthropologists as the domination by the father within
the family structure (Fulcher and Scott, 2011, p. 156). However, within the feminist literature there
are different approaches to patriarchy. For example, Marxist feminists emphasise the
interconnectedness between capitalism and patriarchy. This essay will probe the effects of female
identity and subjectivity, in the context of the family. Addressing disciplinary practices through the
lens of the modernisation of patriarchal domination, which transcends historically from the general
pattern described by Foucault. An alternative interpretation of the family is offered by late-
modernist Giddens who argues the patriarchal family is undermined by greater gender equality and
greater individualism.
Functionalism and capitalism theories
From a functionalist approach, Parsons claims that the nuclear family is particularly well suited to
meet the needs of an industrial economy (Fulcher and Scott, 2011, pp. 434-435). Providing gender
specific roles, with the male as the primary ‘breadwinner’ and the woman of the household bringing
up the children (Fulcher and Scott, 2011, pp. 434-435). Making the nuclear family more geo-
graphically mobile, which is considered necessary in a dynamic industrial society with a mobile
workforce. This approach has been greatly criticised, the functionalist theory suggests justification of
a gendered division of labour between the male breadwinner and the female housewife. It
prioritises the fit between the nuclear family and industrial society, but fails to take into account the
observable variations in the structure and composition of families in industrial societies (Fulcher and
Scott, 2011, pp. 434-435). Additionally, the Parsonian perspective treats the family as a harmonious
institution, thus, mis-regarding internal conflicts such as domestic violence. Marxism on the other
hand argue the family provides an outlet for the tensions and frustrations generated by the
alienation work of a capitalist economy (Fulcher and Scott, 2011, pp. 434-435). Workers are exposed
to pressure from their employer to work harder, often carrying out repetitive work in poor
conditions, which they lack control. Therefore, the family provides a temporary escape and a means
of relieving the tensions generated by work, which may be at the expense of the wife and children,
particularly if these tensions are expressed in a violent way. The explosive discontent at work is
, absorbed through the safety valve provided by the family and the ‘emotional labour’ of the wife
(Fulcher and Scott, 2011, pp. 434-435). In spite of the evident differences from the functionalist
approach, Marxism shares the assumption that the nuclear family fits the requirements of the
economy and has a gendered division of labour as the standard form of family, similarly to Parsons.
Marxist feminists such as Beecher (1987), argue capitalism is central to the subordination of women
(Fulcher and Scott, 2011, pp. 434-435).
Foucault
Foucault’s literature addresses the themes of body and sexuality, in turn applying theory to the role
of men and women in the family from the nineteenth century onwards. Foucault argues that fathers
are individuated in the family, unlike other family members (Taylor, 2012, pp. 203-205). This notion
can be seen through Foucault’s rhetorical question, ‘What do we see in the family if not a function of
maximum individualisation on the side of the person who exercises power, that is to say, on the
father’s side?’ (Taylor, 2012, pp. 203-205). More contentiously, the family is described as a
patriarchal institution whereby the father exerts power, whilst both the mother and children are
exiled to the same de-individuated status within the familial sphere (Taylor, 2012, pp. 203-205).
Thus, it can be argued that mothers and children in the family are not creative actors who actively
control the conditions of their lives, consequently, their lives are dominated and controlled by the
father. Foucault considers the transition from traditional to modern societies in the exercise of
power, with a ‘reversal of the political axis of individualisation’ (Bartky, 1997, Pp. 143-148), whereby,
power was largely held by the monarch and royal advocates. In contrast, in more contemporary
society power circulates ‘through progressively finer channels’ (Bartky, 1997, pp. 143-148), such as
the family. However, in various ways it can be viewed that women’s behaviour is less regulated
compared to previously. For example, social mobility is no longer confined to the domestic space of
the house, and no longer serves as a prison for the ‘Angle in The House’ (Kuhl, 2016). Alternative
advancements of women’s liberation include divorce and access to paid work outside the home, in
turn, increasing secularisation which has loosened the expectation of the traditional nuclear family
unit (Bartky, 1997, pp. 143-148). The traditional family is argued to be patriarchal, where husbands
and fathers enforce patriarchal authority in the family. As societal values and morals adapt to
modern society, women become increasingly resistant to patriarchy, and older forms of domination
become eroded, although not completely removed (Bartky, 1997, pp. 143-148).
Foucault – feminist angle
