Functionalists also assume that the family is a positive and beneficial institution in which family members receive nurturing, care and unconditional love. This, of course, is not always true when it comes to domestic violence, divorce and child abuse. Stanko (2000) completed a survey on domestic violence and it was found that one incident is reported by a woman to the police every minute. All those couples and families who were nuclear families or had potential to be were being ruined each day, proving that the functionalist view of a beneficial family was much overestimated. Divorce can also break up families and make them an unhappy time. When couples do not love each other anymore, they often live in empty-shell marriages where they stay together because of religion or for the sake of their children. These marriages are often unhappy for the whole family and cause arguments, which eventually end in divorce or separation. Child abuse; in recent years NSPCC research shows that a significant minority of children suffer serious abuse or neglect: Latest available figures show that there are 32,700 children on child protection registers in the UK as at 31 March 2003. This causes harm and stress to the family and can lead to unhappy marriages, high stress levels and divorce of what should be happy nuclear families.
Talcott Parsons (1965) was a functionalist sociologist who attempted to trace the historical development of the family and explain why the nuclear family had become so dominant. Parsons argued that before the industrial revolution societies were largely based on extended kinship networks. These networks are relationships between family members outside of the nuclear family such as grandparents and cousins. Roles in these family networks were generally on the basis of ascription rather than any educational achievement or skills. Parsons said that the industrial revolution brought on 3 fundamental changes. Firstly industrialization meant that the economy needed a more geographically mobile workforce Geographical mobility led to people and families being isolated from their relatives and being less reliant on their kin for social supports. This made the nuclear family more dependent on each other and more home centered. The third change was when specialist agencies developed and took over the functions of a family. Originally a family would be together to produce something that could be sold so when agencies took over this extended kin families broke up and moved away to find other work. But Historians argue that Parsons was far too simplistic in his interpretation. Laslett (1972) recorded a study of types of family before the industrial revolution showing that only 10% of households were actually extended kin. This criticised Parsons View of their being, no nuclear families before the revolution.
Despite doubts about the universality of the nuclear family at the time, functionalist sociologists focused their attention to the functions of the family. Nuclear families specialised in the primary socialisation of children. Parsons (1966) believed that personalities were “made not born” and that a child could only become a social adult by internalising the norms and values of their society. Therefore he saw nuclear families as “personality factories” churning out citizens who commit to the rules. This, by some people, could be interpreted as: if you are not a nuclear family but a single parent family or homosexual couple, that you cannot socialise your children properly and that they will not conform to social order or do well in their lives. This of course is not true as many single parent families bring up their children well and then they go on to better things. The raising of children into society's norms and values creates a healthy and sustained society. The functionalist nuclear family have the strongest household income. Homosexual partners also have some good household incomes. The lone-parent families however do not have a very good income. This is not enough to support children and socialise them into society. Therefore a nuclear family is financial best.
A functionalist view is that education prepares children for their role in society. The view suggests that the education system is meritocratic with each pupil having an equal opportunity to succeed, and students who are the most hardworking will achieve the best grades. Functionalists suggest there are three main objectives of the education system. One function is to provide secondary socialisation in addition to the family’s role of primary socialisation. Through a formal and hidden curriculum pupils are taught societies norms and values. A second objective of the education system is to teach skills which are necessary for success in the workplace in modern society. These skills range from basic requirements such as reading and writing to skills which are needed to be able to perform specific jobs. The third role is to offer qualifications through assessments and examinations which enable a student to get a job in line with their individual talents. There are criticisms of the functionalist perspective. This approach could be classed as too deterministic. It makes an assumption that the values taught in school will automatically be embraced by students. In reality some students will and some won’t. Also the values taught are ethnocentric and pupils from different cultures often reject and rebel against this. A functionalist view could also be criticised by suggesting all pupils are not offered an equal chance to succeed, and therefore education is not meritocratic. Functionalism is too simplistic in its approach. It suggests the higher a pupil’s level of achievement academically, there will follow a greater reward in the workplace with a better paid job. However there are other factors involved in determining a person’s level of reward, especially gender and ethnicity.
Each of the social institutions contributes important functions for society: family provides a context for reproducing, nurturing and socializing children; education offers a way to transmit a society’s skills, knowledge and culture to its youth; politics provide a means of governing members of society; economics provides for the production, distribution and consumption of goods and services; and religion provides moral guidance and an outlet for worship of a higher power.
Each aspect of society is interdependent and contributes to society's functioning as a whole. The government provides education for the children of the family, which in turn pays taxes on which the state depends to keep itself running. That is, the family is dependent upon the school to help children grow up to have good jobs so that they can raise and support their own families. In the process, the children become law-abiding, taxpaying citizens, who in turn support the state. If all goes well, the parts of society produce order, stability, and productivity. If all does not go well, the parts of society then must adapt to recapture a new order, stability, and productivity. For example, during a financial recession with its high rates of unemployment and inflation, social programs are trimmed or cut. Schools offer fewer programs. Families tighten their budgets. And a new social order, stability, and productivity occur.
Personally, I think that the nuclear family may possibly be the best suited family for a healthy society but I do believe that there are many more diverse family institutions that benefit society. I also believe that lone-parents are still capable of socialising children into society no matter what the household income. In conclusion, there are some aspects of the functionalist family which are acceptable but I think we should take into account the criticisms as some of them are also acceptable. ... I have to admit that I didn't think academics had such a blinkered view of reality... their ideology cannot be translated into reality unless they accept that quite simply the 'normal' family as they describe is at best common and never always going to be true in all people's cases. Family structures break down, sexual partners often don't even get together for a relationship, and in case they hadn't noticed, people do die before their time so to speak... single parents families, homosexual marriages, break ups, mental illness, domestic violence.. Any political ideology that seeks to be installed needs to accommodate what will occur... never mind what could. The skeleton of functionalist ideology is sensible... the idea that family structures and social institutions uphold the very essence of society is designed to bring a general order and productivity to society I would think. But defining roles for people based on sex or the like not only will be unpopular with feminists, it would be highly contrary to the productivity factor of society... in simple terms it would deny many skill usages to where they are needed or are appropriate. I tend to think beyond the functionalists... I don't think society should be based on the institution of nuclear families with marriage, but of institutions that facilitate everyone in society to be productive for the society... letting people define their own circumstances and roles and having the whole social system in place to support and protect that, its pitfalls and benefits.