Families: Functionalism



Families: FunctionalismFunctionalists argue that all institutions in society have important roles to play in the smooth and functional running of society, and the family is no different. They argue that the family has important functions both for society and for individuals.George Murdock on FamiliesThe classic functionalist statement on the roles of the family comes from George Murdock (1949) who looked at families across the world and found four functions that were common to all of them:Educational: children are taught the norms and values of society (also known as primary socialisation)Economic: the family provides an economic function to all its members by pooling resources and ensuring all have what they need.Reproductive: produces the next generation of the society.Sexual: ensures that adults’ sexual relationships are controlled and stable.Talcott Parsons on FamiliesTalcott Parsons (1951) updated Murdock’s theory. He argued that in modern, Western societies, the state provided education and could perform an economic function (through welfare provisions) but that the family still had two irreducible functions: 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, 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 latter 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 functionalist views of the functions of families and householdsA standard criticism of functionalist views of the role of the family comes from conflict theorists like Marxists and feminists who argue that this paints too rosy and idealistic a 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.Families: Marxism Conflict theorists also question whether the roles families perform really benefit the whole of society or really just benefit powerful groups within it. In particular, feminists argue that families exist largely for the benefit of men.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.Furthermore, these theories are outdated and suggest families are all traditional nuclear families with men going to work and women in domestic roles. We will revisit this part of the discussion in a later section.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).As is often the case, there are similarities between the functionalist and Marxist case: 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 FamilyEngels 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 FamilyAn interesting variation on Parsons’ warm bath theory, Zaretsky argued that family life gave proletarian men something they could control and a space where they could be the “boss”. 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”.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. If you think you are not being paid enough or being treated badly, a single person may well choose to walk away and hope that they can find better employment soon. Or they can join with other workers and go on strike and temporarily do without pay by way of a protest to push for better pay or conditions. But when that worker has to also take dependents into account (e.g. a spouse and children) that becomes a much more difficult decision. This weakness benefits the boss.Evaluating Marxist views on the role of families and households? Engels’ theory is certainly not a very romantic take on marriage! Clearly family must be about more than what happens to your money when you die. After all, people who do not have property also choose to live in families (although Engels would argue this is because they are influenced by bourgeois ideology).? Functionalists point out that, in the vast majority of societies, humans live in families and that in fact the essential form and function of those families remain quite similar: it is not simply a feature of capitalist society. However, a counter-argument to that is that Parsons himself suggested that the nuclear family evolved to suit an industrial economy (as we’ll consider in the next section) which could be said to back the idea that it is a feature of capitalism rather than all societies.? Despite some experiments with communal living and alternative households immediately after the Russian Revolution, people have continued to live in family groups in communist countries too.? Zaretsky’s theory is clearly outdated: it assumes the worker is male and that there is only one worker in the family. It also ignores the other benefits that all family members may get from family life: the emotional support, comfort and generally the positive benefits.Families: Feminism Feminists, such as Ann Oakley, agree with Marxists and functionalists that the family is essentially a conservative institution that preserves the social order. They disagree with functionalists and agree with Marxists that in doing so it benefits only a powerful group within society. For feminists, this group is men. They argue that families preserve, support and embed patriarchy.Liberal feminism and familyLiberal feminists focus on striving for legal equality between the sexes. The family has long been a clear source of inequality. Marital rape was not formally recognised as a crime in the UK until 1991 (because of the notion that marriage gave a man “conjugal rights” that could not be withdrawn save through annulment or divorce). Divorce laws have been reformed on many occasions to make them more equal, but it used to be much easier for a man to get a divorce than a woman (see a later section), etc. Liberal feminists argue that most of those battles for legal equality have been won, however there is clearly still inequality between the sexes (for example, in relation to domestic work - see a later section). They put this down to the need to also change cultural values in society.As such, while families currently play a part in the oppression of women, they do not have to: it is possible to have family life and gender equality.Radical feminism and familyRadical feminists do not believe that changing the law will ever be enough, on its own, to end the oppression and subjugation of women. They argue that men will always oppress women and the family is a vehicle for that oppression. As such women should find alternative ways of living where they are not subject to male oppression. This has led some radical feminists to favour gender separatism. Radical feminists argue that girls are socialised (not least through families) to believe that oppression and inequality are normal and therefore they accept the inequality of family life: indeed they dream of it and work for it.Marxist feminism and familyMarxist feminists argue that families help to preserve both capitalism and patriarchy, and that the two work hand in hand. They point out that the capitalist system gets the benefit of unpaid female work as their workforce (and the next generation) are fed, looked after and kept happy to ensure they keep working hard and making profits for the bosses.Evaluating feminist views on the functions of families and householdsAs with Marxism, feminists may paint too negative and gloomy a picture. While some families may be unequal and male-dominated, there may well be families that are much more equal.Some criticise feminists – especially radical feminists – for presenting women as too passive. Postmodern feminists, for example, would point to how women do not have to accept patriarchy or inequality, and do not have to make a choice between family life and equality: they can take the initiative and resist oppression and assert their own power.Again, some of these ideas are criticised for being out of date: most women work now, and so the nature of family life has inevitably changed in response to this. ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download