Theories of the Family:
Functionalist view of the Family:
• Functionalists view society as a big machine made up of many parts, if the machine represents society then
the parts represent the key social institutions e.g. religion, education, family.
• Like any machine should any of these parts ‘stop working’, then the whole machine (society) will break
down.
• Each part has a functional relationship with the other, and all are crucial to the smooth running, balance
and harmony of the machine.
• Functionalists believe in Value Consensus (the broad agreement and sharing of values) — Value Consensus
is like the social glue that bonds us all together.
• Without common values society itself will cease to exist, the breakdown of Value Consensus would lead to
a form of social anarchy called a ‘state of normlessness’ that functionalists call Anomie.
• Without Value Consensus we would be little more than a collection of random individuals, doing whatever
we wanted whenever we wanted (kissing boys, eating apples).
• Anomie is therefore dangerous and harmful to all, and the maintenance of Value Consensus is crucial for
maintaining social cohesion, solidarity, culture, and society itself.
• All functionalists view the family positively because they all recognise its role in maintaining Value
Consensus. For this reason alone it is often seen as the most important of all social institutions.
• However, beyond this there is significant disagreement over the precise number and nature of other
functions the family is said to preform.
G P Murdock:
Murdock studied 250 different societies, and found evidence of the family in each one. He concluded that the
family was universal. That it transcended time and space, it had always existed, it existed everywhere and for
as long as there are humans it would always continue to exist.
The family, according to Murdock was an innate part of the human condition, and all social life and human
existence would be impossible without it.
Murdock argued that the family everywhere preformed the same four crucial functions:
- reproduction — society would not exist without individual members
- sexual — maintaining and limiting sex — family creates the rules for sex — what is and isn't socially
acceptable — by keeping sex within a socially approved relationship i.e. the family — it prevents
sexual jealousy from spilling into wider society and gives the rest of the family a sense of self and
identity and heritage, knowledge of ‘where they come from’
- economic — human beings have basic economic needs — they require food, warmth, shelter, and the
family meets these needs
- education — by education Murdock means socialisation (the process by which we internalise societies
culture) — the family teachers us to walk, talk etc and in doing so maintains Value Consensus and
prevents Anomie
Parson’s ‘fit’ Thesis:
Parsons sees a functional relationship between the economy and the family, any change to the economy will
result in a corresponding change to the family. The family will always ‘fit’ the needs of the economy.
1 of 23
,• Before the industrial revolution, people lived in large, classically extended, geographically fixed, families
because this was the best fit for that type of society.
• The family was geographically fixed, people lived where they worked.
• Children were economic assets, an extra pair of hands.
• Extended relatives provided extra financial and motivational support, these families were multi-functional
units, they preformed a vast array of functions.
• If you needed to learn something your family taught it to you, if you were sick your family cared for you
etc.
Then the industrial revolution happened:
- When production moved from the home to the factory the needs of the economy changed and so the
family had to change too. The small, isolated nuclear family of today provided much needed
geographic mobility as workers were required to migrate towards new cities and urban environments
and move around in search of work or promotion.
- The streamlined nuclear family was ideal for this purpose.
• The functions of the family also changed as part of a process called functional differentiation new social
institutions began to emerge, focusing on specialised functions.
• An industrial economy requires an educated workforce, and so compulsory schooling was introduced.
• This new education system effectively ‘stole’ the education function from the family.
• Similarly, as our knowledge of science and medicine grew a health service replaced the family in fulfilling
the health function. Eventually care homes and old age pensions took care of the elderly etc.
• In the end the family was left with “two basic and irreducible functions”.
1. The primary socialisation of children — essentially the same as Murdock’s education function,
Parsons is arguing that in the first 5 years of life the family preforms a crucial role in passing on
values and culture to children, without this process Value Consensus could not be maintained and
society would collapse (Anomie).
2. The stabilisation of adult personalities (SOAP) — sometimes called the ‘warm bath theory’, the
family is like a warm bath that we sink into at the end of a long day. It helps to relieve stress and
frustration, it provides a constant source of warmth, support and unconditional love.
It is important to underline that Parson is not saying the family is becoming less important, as a
functionalist he views it as the most important aspect of society — Value Consensus — he's simply
saying it has less fewer functions to fulfil. But these two functions are incredibly important.
• This change in the family was also partly fuelled by social mobility. Unlike agrarian society an individual
status in industrial society is based on their achievements (not ascribed to them at birth).
• However their status within the family is still based on the particularistic standards of the family, this
would cause conflict if we still lived in extended families (father + son arguing e.g. politics).
Agrarian Economy ➙ Industrial Economy
Large extended family Small isolated nuclear family
Geographically fixed Geographically mobile
2 of 23
, Multi-functional unit “2 basic + irreducible functions”
- primary socialisation of children
- the stabilisation of adult personalities
Ascribed status Achieved status
Ronald Fletcher:
Fletcher disagrees with Parsons, he does not believe that there has been a reduction in the functions of the
family. He argues that the industrial revolution and the emergence of new institutions, such as the education
system and health service, actually created more functions for the family. Fletcher argues that children
received little to no education in Agrarian society but the existence of an education system today requires
parents to drop kids off at school/pick them up, help with homework, attend parents evenings, find tutors etc.
Similarly, it is precisely because we have a national heath service that parents today understand the
importance of nutrition, diet and physical exercise. They are on the frontline of health provision, taking
temperatures, giving medicine, checking injuries.
Summary:
All functionalists view the family positively, they all appear to recognise the importance of the family,
through maintaining Value Consensus and preventing Anomie. But they disagree over the number of
functions that the family preforms and precisely what these functions are.
• Murdock = 4 functions, these are universal the family has always and will always carry out the same
functions
• Parsons = before the industrial revolution the daily reformed many functions, but after it the family was
left with only 2. Industrial revolution reduced the functions of the family.
• Fletcher = argues that the industrial revolution increased the functions of the family.
Criticisms of the functionalist view of the family:
1. Functionalists hold an overly idealised romantic view of family life, critics point out that the family is
often the centre of stress and conflict in peoples lives. The family is more like a cold shower than a warm
bath.
2. Radical psychiatrists have linked the nuclear family to sever mental illness, such as schizophrenia.
3. Functionalists fail to recognise a much darker side of family life, e.g. child abuse and domestic and
sexual violence.
4. Murdock was wrong, the family is not universal, structural alternatives to the family do exist such as the
kibbutzim of Israel.
5. Parson’s fit thesis has been challenged, for being historically inaccurate. Cambridge historians Peter
Laslett and Michael Anderson found that the extended family simply did not exist in pre-industrial
society and the number of extended families increased after the industrial revolution (complete opposite
to Parson’s fit theory).
6. Marxist’s would argue that functionalists fail to recognise the role of the family in maintaining a ruthless
system of inequality where a tiny minority exploit the vast majority to enrich and empower themselves.
7. Feminist’s see the functionalist view of the family as little more than a theoretical justification of
patriarchy - functionalists fail to see that the family is a prison for women — it is the prime site and main
cause of the exploitation of women in society.
3 of 23
Functionalist view of the Family:
• Functionalists view society as a big machine made up of many parts, if the machine represents society then
the parts represent the key social institutions e.g. religion, education, family.
• Like any machine should any of these parts ‘stop working’, then the whole machine (society) will break
down.
• Each part has a functional relationship with the other, and all are crucial to the smooth running, balance
and harmony of the machine.
• Functionalists believe in Value Consensus (the broad agreement and sharing of values) — Value Consensus
is like the social glue that bonds us all together.
• Without common values society itself will cease to exist, the breakdown of Value Consensus would lead to
a form of social anarchy called a ‘state of normlessness’ that functionalists call Anomie.
• Without Value Consensus we would be little more than a collection of random individuals, doing whatever
we wanted whenever we wanted (kissing boys, eating apples).
• Anomie is therefore dangerous and harmful to all, and the maintenance of Value Consensus is crucial for
maintaining social cohesion, solidarity, culture, and society itself.
• All functionalists view the family positively because they all recognise its role in maintaining Value
Consensus. For this reason alone it is often seen as the most important of all social institutions.
• However, beyond this there is significant disagreement over the precise number and nature of other
functions the family is said to preform.
G P Murdock:
Murdock studied 250 different societies, and found evidence of the family in each one. He concluded that the
family was universal. That it transcended time and space, it had always existed, it existed everywhere and for
as long as there are humans it would always continue to exist.
The family, according to Murdock was an innate part of the human condition, and all social life and human
existence would be impossible without it.
Murdock argued that the family everywhere preformed the same four crucial functions:
- reproduction — society would not exist without individual members
- sexual — maintaining and limiting sex — family creates the rules for sex — what is and isn't socially
acceptable — by keeping sex within a socially approved relationship i.e. the family — it prevents
sexual jealousy from spilling into wider society and gives the rest of the family a sense of self and
identity and heritage, knowledge of ‘where they come from’
- economic — human beings have basic economic needs — they require food, warmth, shelter, and the
family meets these needs
- education — by education Murdock means socialisation (the process by which we internalise societies
culture) — the family teachers us to walk, talk etc and in doing so maintains Value Consensus and
prevents Anomie
Parson’s ‘fit’ Thesis:
Parsons sees a functional relationship between the economy and the family, any change to the economy will
result in a corresponding change to the family. The family will always ‘fit’ the needs of the economy.
1 of 23
,• Before the industrial revolution, people lived in large, classically extended, geographically fixed, families
because this was the best fit for that type of society.
• The family was geographically fixed, people lived where they worked.
• Children were economic assets, an extra pair of hands.
• Extended relatives provided extra financial and motivational support, these families were multi-functional
units, they preformed a vast array of functions.
• If you needed to learn something your family taught it to you, if you were sick your family cared for you
etc.
Then the industrial revolution happened:
- When production moved from the home to the factory the needs of the economy changed and so the
family had to change too. The small, isolated nuclear family of today provided much needed
geographic mobility as workers were required to migrate towards new cities and urban environments
and move around in search of work or promotion.
- The streamlined nuclear family was ideal for this purpose.
• The functions of the family also changed as part of a process called functional differentiation new social
institutions began to emerge, focusing on specialised functions.
• An industrial economy requires an educated workforce, and so compulsory schooling was introduced.
• This new education system effectively ‘stole’ the education function from the family.
• Similarly, as our knowledge of science and medicine grew a health service replaced the family in fulfilling
the health function. Eventually care homes and old age pensions took care of the elderly etc.
• In the end the family was left with “two basic and irreducible functions”.
1. The primary socialisation of children — essentially the same as Murdock’s education function,
Parsons is arguing that in the first 5 years of life the family preforms a crucial role in passing on
values and culture to children, without this process Value Consensus could not be maintained and
society would collapse (Anomie).
2. The stabilisation of adult personalities (SOAP) — sometimes called the ‘warm bath theory’, the
family is like a warm bath that we sink into at the end of a long day. It helps to relieve stress and
frustration, it provides a constant source of warmth, support and unconditional love.
It is important to underline that Parson is not saying the family is becoming less important, as a
functionalist he views it as the most important aspect of society — Value Consensus — he's simply
saying it has less fewer functions to fulfil. But these two functions are incredibly important.
• This change in the family was also partly fuelled by social mobility. Unlike agrarian society an individual
status in industrial society is based on their achievements (not ascribed to them at birth).
• However their status within the family is still based on the particularistic standards of the family, this
would cause conflict if we still lived in extended families (father + son arguing e.g. politics).
Agrarian Economy ➙ Industrial Economy
Large extended family Small isolated nuclear family
Geographically fixed Geographically mobile
2 of 23
, Multi-functional unit “2 basic + irreducible functions”
- primary socialisation of children
- the stabilisation of adult personalities
Ascribed status Achieved status
Ronald Fletcher:
Fletcher disagrees with Parsons, he does not believe that there has been a reduction in the functions of the
family. He argues that the industrial revolution and the emergence of new institutions, such as the education
system and health service, actually created more functions for the family. Fletcher argues that children
received little to no education in Agrarian society but the existence of an education system today requires
parents to drop kids off at school/pick them up, help with homework, attend parents evenings, find tutors etc.
Similarly, it is precisely because we have a national heath service that parents today understand the
importance of nutrition, diet and physical exercise. They are on the frontline of health provision, taking
temperatures, giving medicine, checking injuries.
Summary:
All functionalists view the family positively, they all appear to recognise the importance of the family,
through maintaining Value Consensus and preventing Anomie. But they disagree over the number of
functions that the family preforms and precisely what these functions are.
• Murdock = 4 functions, these are universal the family has always and will always carry out the same
functions
• Parsons = before the industrial revolution the daily reformed many functions, but after it the family was
left with only 2. Industrial revolution reduced the functions of the family.
• Fletcher = argues that the industrial revolution increased the functions of the family.
Criticisms of the functionalist view of the family:
1. Functionalists hold an overly idealised romantic view of family life, critics point out that the family is
often the centre of stress and conflict in peoples lives. The family is more like a cold shower than a warm
bath.
2. Radical psychiatrists have linked the nuclear family to sever mental illness, such as schizophrenia.
3. Functionalists fail to recognise a much darker side of family life, e.g. child abuse and domestic and
sexual violence.
4. Murdock was wrong, the family is not universal, structural alternatives to the family do exist such as the
kibbutzim of Israel.
5. Parson’s fit thesis has been challenged, for being historically inaccurate. Cambridge historians Peter
Laslett and Michael Anderson found that the extended family simply did not exist in pre-industrial
society and the number of extended families increased after the industrial revolution (complete opposite
to Parson’s fit theory).
6. Marxist’s would argue that functionalists fail to recognise the role of the family in maintaining a ruthless
system of inequality where a tiny minority exploit the vast majority to enrich and empower themselves.
7. Feminist’s see the functionalist view of the family as little more than a theoretical justification of
patriarchy - functionalists fail to see that the family is a prison for women — it is the prime site and main
cause of the exploitation of women in society.
3 of 23
