Examine the contribution of functionalist explanations towards an understanding of the family

    Another functionalist perspective of the family is that of Talcott Parsons (1955). Parsons saw the family as having 2 functions – Socialisation and Stabilisation of Adult personalities. By Socialisation Parsons meant socialising children into society’s norms and values, so they can become member of that society that they were born into. He sees the stabilization of adult personalities – where responsibility for children gives emotional security and the family acts as a haven from the difficulties of the world outside.

Parsons views the family as being economically adaptable – being small making it a geographically and socially mobile unit which is suited to the economy. He see the family as being on its own and independent of wider kin therefore able to respond to the ever changing demands of the labour market. Parsons argues that the family doesn’t have the same range of functions as it used to have – Specialisation in terms of function.            

     He argues that social evolution has led to a change in the function of the family – basically that the family changed as a result of industrial revolution. Parsons believes that there should be a complementary role in the family. This includes two roles, the female expressive role and the male instrumental role. He believes this because it is seen as beneficial to society and economy as the male works (breadwinner) whilst the female gives emotional support and cares for the husband and children. Parsons view of the family is illustrated in what he describes as the ‘warm bath theory’ which he uses to represent the home and family. In this theory the husband worries about competition, money, job insecurity etc and takes these strains home. The husband’s home and family act as a ‘warm bath’ washing away his troubles so that he is refreshed and ready for the next day at work, where he is able to contribute to society.

      Whilst Fletcher (1966) agrees Murdock and Parsons that the nuclear family is the normal family, he disagrees with Parsons that the social functions in the family have decreased over time – he argues that they have increased. He sees the family as having 9 functions – 3 essential and 6 non-essential. The 3 Essential functions were – Stable satisfaction of sexual needs, Production and rearing of children (the family structure provides a platform for the bearing and raising of children) and Provision of a home (provides physical shelter/serves as the main point of family existence). By regulation of sexual needs Fletcher is stating the family is a primary institution for the provision of love, care and emotional support for both adults/children and provides a sense of belonging and serves to clearly-define role relationships between men and women. The 6 non-essential functions were – Government (voting for government, strong views from senior family members) Economic (families working, paying taxes, consumption/shopping etc)  Education, (encouraging family members to get educated, teaching right and wrong), Health, (both physical and mental)Religious (first exposure to religion and its ideas) and Recreation (meaning sport/games, fun activities). Fletcher sees these non-essential functions as providing a link with the wider social world.

     Young and Willmott are functionalists who after conducting studies suggested the family had gone through 4 stages of evolution. The Families at each stage were; The Pre-Industrial family, The Early Industrial Family, The Symmetrical Family and The Ay-Symmetrical family. In The Pre-Industrial family members worked together and unlike today home and work were not separated. This family ceased to exist as a result of the Industrial Revolution, but continued well into the nineteenth century. With The Early Industrial Family, men were drawn into industrial work as women did domestic duties. The Symmetrical Family was also known as the privatised family, where the home itself was centred and privitised and there was more equality in the roles of husband and wife. The Ay-Symmetrical Family sees the upper-class setting the trends for family life.

     Critics have accused the functionalists of having an ideological view of the family, of painting a rosy picture of the nuclear family. They criticise functionalists for giving a 1 sided ‘happy families’ picture of family life.  The Marxist theory is more critical of the family for its views and perspectives. Marxism is the political philosophy and practice derived from the work of Karl Marx and Friedich Engels. Whilst functionalists see children as learning to survive in society, Marxists take the view that children are taught to submit to society. Marxists see the nuclear family as a product of capitalism because it produces children who in turn become the work force and those children are to be obedient to their capitalist employers (‘Marxists’, 2008). Marxists see women as victims of oppression, offering cheap childcare and only being encouraged to work when the economy demands it. The core of the Marxist theory is exploitation – the belief that a women becoming a mans property by giving sex in return for security. They criticise Murdock’s idea that the family is universal and have cited the ‘Israeli Cipubz’ as one exception of this. Functionalists however, would argue that the Cipubz operate as an extended family.

        Feminists are a group highly critical of functionalist idea of the family. They see the family as being more ‘functional’ for men than for women. Feminists believe women are exploited by men (Patriarchy) – as they do housework without pay and look after the children. Feminists reject Young and Millmotts theory’s because they feel that women are still exploited by men (as they still do housework) thus there being no equality. Haralambos (2000, p531) acknowledges this criticism by stating ‘Many feminists have attacked the concept of the symmetrical family, arguing that there is little progress towards equality between husband and wide. Feminists also believe that Parsons complementary role is very stereotypical and that it is not true in all families. Feminists have argued that the family can product misery and unhappiness for some members of the family (especially women) and accuse functionalists of ignoring negative aspects of family life such as domestic violence, unequal relationships and child abuse in order to paint their own positive image of the family.  

Another reason why functionalists are criticised is because they all ignore any other types of family that may be beneficial to society; it is always the nuclear family that is stated as the "normal" family. Fletcher (1988) states that one parent families are not a good influence on society since not many single parents can both earn a living and give children the love and care they need, thus leaving society to support them. The fact functionalists believe in the family being the main institution of society, whilst painting a rosy picture of the nuclear family, allows Marxists and Feminists to attack their ideas.

     It could be concluded that even though there is some strength in their views, functionalists tend to ignore the other diversities of family. Obviously one strength is the benefits to society. The raising of children into society's norms and values creates a healthy and sustained society, of that there is no doubt. Murdock and Parsons have very good studies of the family from the 1950’s and 60’s. However the failure to point out negative aspects – the fact that families have minor conflicts and break ups and acknowledge other types of families and their contribution to society makes functionalist ideas one-sided. Critics claim they create a picture that is possibly too harmonious for a nuclear family whilst ignoring family diversity – e.g. cohabited couples or single parents. Family diversity is not mentioned by functionalists as they see the nuclear family as the only family that contributes to society. What has emerged over time helping to highlight family diversity is social change – rather than having one type of family we now find there are families and households from all different backgrounds – same sex marriages, lone parent families, mixed marriages (different race/religion/culture,etc). Households now vary considerably – today we have groups of singletons, student digs, households where extended family live (step brothers/sisters/parents etc) and normal rented households with people choosing to live with flat mates (people even move in with strangers) from completely different backgrounds. With more human and civil rights, people today have much more freedom to make their own decisions, whereas in years gone by people felt a considerable amount of (In some cultures enormous) pressure to conform to their particular religion/culture or that of their families. Although in some cultures (e.g., Indian families) the pressure of following tradition still exists, this new found freedom has contributed to help making diverse families more acceptable and the norm.

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Abercrombie, N., Hill, S., and Turner, B. (2006) Dictionary of Sociology.  5th edn. London: Penguin Books.

Fletcher R, (1988) The Shaking of the Foundations: Family and Society. London: Routledge

Giddens A, (1989) Sociology. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Haralambos M., (2000) Themes and Perspectives.  5th edn. London: Harper Collins.

Taylor, P., Richardson, J., Yeo, A., Marsh, I., Trobe, K. and Pilkington, A. (2000) Sociology in Focus.  London: Causeway Press.

‘Marxists’ (2008) Wikipedia.

Available at