Michael Anderson’s research, however, directly opposes this view. He says that on average the size of a pre-industrial family was above six, and he concluded that “The pre-industrial family in Europe was characterized by diversity without any type of family predominant.” From the census figures, he found that ¼ of all households contained some form of extended kin, a direct contrast to Laslett’s view that extended kinship in families was almost non-existent. Lack of grandparents did not necessarily mean that family types were all nuclear however, as kinship networks could also consist of cousins and other relatives. This is a possible explanation to the differences within Anderson and Laslett findings.
According to Functionalists, the family evolves to meet the needs of the economy. For example, it required a more geographically mobile workforce the nuclear families moved away from their extended kin, a process which Talcott Parsons named structural differentiation.
Industrialisation meant that many of the traditional family functions could be carried out by institutions other than the family: families became consumers instead of producers. Financial support could be provided by the state instead of wider kin, and clothes and food would be purchased as the family earned a wage. This resulted in separation between the home and work place, and roles were achieved rather than ascribed as the system was more meritocratic. This also meant that the family became less reliant on kin for economic and social support and more focused on the nuclear family members. This resulted into the nuclear family being described as ‘isolated’. Interestingly, the average age for a woman to marry decreased from 26 in1700 to 23 in 1800, and the proportion of women who did not marry more than halved.
Conjugal bonds were strong, and the husband and wife’s social roles also evolved. The husband became the instrumental leader (breadwinner and protector) and the wife the expressive leader, responsible for caring for the family, particularly children. The sexual distribution of labour was equal in effort yet different in contribution, and these roles complimented each other.
The way in which the structure of the family has evolved due to the Industrial Revolution is uncertain. According to Wilmott and Young, the pre-industrial family was nuclear and the early industrial family relied heavily on extended kin, largely due to widespread poverty. Conjugal bonds were weak as women focused on other female family members instead of their spouses. Roberts claimed that the help the females gave each other was not based on self-interest as they did not expect anything in return, but Finch suggested that the idea of reciprocity is still apparent as the favour is likely to be returned. Conversely, other studies dispute the idea that families were nuclear then became extended, and that either the change was gradual or did not take place. Furthermore, the idea that families moved away from their wider kin in order to seek employment is more likely to be true of the working classes than the middle or upper, as they would not be working in factories.
However the structure of the family was affected, it is clear that industrialisation had a significant impact upon the main functions of the family, particularly economic and educational as the state became responsible for health, education and welfare. This resulted in the family being responsible mainly for primary socialization and the stabilisation of adult personalities.
To conclude, industrialisation has affected the family in numerous ways, both in structure and function. The family evolved to meet the demands of industrialisation, such as by being geographically mobile, and industrialisation meant that the needs of the family were met, such as the introduction of the benefits system. Conjugal bonds and roles have also developed: the husband and wife of the symmetrical family are far closer than that of the early industrial family and the sexual distribution of labour is more equal.