Zaretsky (1976), another Marxist, argues that the role of the family is to help capitalism as men have no power at work but have power over their family. So, for example, if a man is ill-treated at work by his boss, he can go home and his wife can act as a ‘safety valve’- she can relieve his frustration, meaning that he can then go back to work the next day feeling happy. This therefore benefits the ruling class as the man would continue working effectively meaning that the ruling class would be able to earn more money.
However, Zaretsky’s view of the family is also considered outdated. For example, there are some families, today, who do not work because they receive benefits from the government. This challenges Zaretsky’s view of the family because the ruling class are losing money as they are having to financially take care of these types of families who require benefits. So, this just goes to show us that the role of the family is not always to benefit capitalism.
Anstey, a Marxist feminist, argues that women play their traditional role of ‘shit takers’. This means that if, for example, a man is not happy at work, he can go home and abuse his wife if he wants or have sex with her because he knows that his wife will not challenge him. So, essentially a man can take anger out on his family instead of taking it out on his boss and this allows him to go back to work and carry on working as usual. This benefits the ruling class as they would still have an effective workforce which can earn them more money and help them to stay rich.
However, some sociologists challenge Anstey’s view of the family. They argue that families are becoming more symmetrical, so the role of the family, according to these sociologists, is to produce equality rather than to promote capitalism.
Other Marxists believe that families are made to believe, by the capitalist society, that they need certain products (like microwaves) when they do not need them. This is done through advertisements. So even if a family earns money from working, they are then forced to buy these products meaning that the money that they have earned would be going back to the ruling class as the ruling class would own those products. So it seems that though the role of the family, according to Marxists, is to promote capitalism as the rich stay rich and the poor stay poor.
Meanwhile, other functionalists say the role of the family is to help the society and also to help the family members. For example, children are taught norms and values of the society by their family. This benefits the society as they would be able to integrate and communicate well with others in the society. This also benefit the family because if, for example, a child share the same norms and values of the society, they are can get jobs later on in life and earn money which they can use to buy food and shelter and other necessities. So, functionalist challenges the Marxist view of the family as they believe that the role of the family is create value consensus instead of creating class divisions.
Radical Feminists, on the other hand, say the role of the family is to oppress women. They argue that patriarchy (male domination) is the main cause of women’s oppression. For example, men dominate through violence or the threat of it. Men also benefit from women’s unpaid work and sexual services. So these feminists challenge the Marxists’ view of the family as they believe the main role of the family is to reproduce gender inequality instead of promoting capitalism.
Although Marxists only see the negative things about the family, their views of the family are true to an extent. For example, those who are part of the royal family will remain rich, so it is true that in some families the rich stay rich and the poor stay poor. However, having said that, Marxists fail to acknowledge that there are other types of families other than nuclear families. For example, there are families where there are same sex partners. Also, other sociologists, such as feminists and functionalists have different view of the family.
So, in conclusion, it is important to note that that the Marxists’ view of the family should not be generalised.