Parsons sees the family in quite a romantic light, where the members are all very supportive and loving. This is a very ‘rose-tinted’ view that is based on the typical middle class American family, during times of economic prosperity. He also thinks that the family has been stripped of some of its functions by various institutions.
However, a British sociologist, Ronald Fletcher (1966), puts forward that the family has gained importance regarding its roles. He states that rather than replacing functions, institutions such as educational and health, have improved them. In the case of schools; parents are expected to be instrumental, in a supportive way, helping the child through these years, with a view to them later developing careers and, ultimately, functionality. Health is also an area that has received additional support. Whereas in pre-industrial times, kinship, mainly female, played a large part in the physical well-being of family members, institutions, such as hospitals, now positively contribute towards the health of the family. Fletcher, whilst aware that the family has less of a productive role, due the mechanical take over of many manual tasks, concedes that the family still has economic importance as a consumerist unit. This arises as the family becomes more home-centred, almost pre-occupied with the latest in home entertainment, decoration, mobile phones and the family car, as we can see everyday in advertisements on television, in papers and magazines.
The family being a unit of consumption, with an economic role to play in society, is a view held by some Marxist theorists. In particular, Zaretsky (1976), is an integral part of the capitalist economy, whereby the labour of women is directed towards the reproduction of subsequent generations of workers, to produce more of the goods that the family now ‘needs’. This is supported by Benston (1972) who states that “As an economic unit, the nuclear family is a valuable stabilizing force in capitalist society… (Haralambos and Holborn page 514)
The view that the family is of benefit to society on whole is argued also by Peggy Morton(1980) who sees the structure of the family as a tool to mould the children of parents into conformists, accepting their authoritarian surroundings; starting with their fathers and culminating, ultimately, with the capitalist state.
With a less sinister view, according to Murdock (1949),
“The family is a social group characterized by common residence, economic cooperation and reproduction. It includes adults of both sexes, at least two of whom maintain a socially approved sexual relationship, and one or more children, own, or adopted, of the sexually cohabitating adults.” (Taylor et. al. 1995 page 233)
He has the opinion that the family is a ‘social group’; nuclear in formation, with four basic functions. The first being sexual; to regulate sexual relationships, providing gratification and satisfaction, at the same time creating strong bonds. Secondly, it reproduces the next generation of societal members. Thirdly, members perform of the family perform roles as an economic, or productive, unit, and fourthly; that the family educates the young. This education takes the form of socializing children with the norms and values of the society born into.
However, as with other functionalist theories, there are criticisms, one being that they fail to look no further than the traditional family: mother, father and their child or children. In society there are family types that do not fit in with this archetypal image and yet exist.
One type is the reconstituted family. This can take the form that one or more of the adults have been previously married, and also that either individual may have children of their own. These children may be brought to the new family and reside with step-brothers or sisters. According to Taylor et. al. (1995), this type of family is becoming more common in society, with an estimated six million people living this way. Further data released by National Census (2001), has put this figure at around 8% of the population of England and Wales. This would indicate that although people are experiencing break-ups they do attempt to recreate a semi-conventional family set-up; mother, father and children.
Another type of family that has been the subject of sociological research is the lone parent family. This consists of one parent, usually female and child or children. There are defined reasons why this family originates. Haralambos (2000), states these to be; in the instance of a married couple, that they may have legally divorced, separated or that one of the parents had died. In the case of unmarried couples; both parents may have lived together at the time of birth of their child and stopped cohabitating sometime after or indeed that they may have not lived together at all.
Official figures, according to governmental statistics (National Statistics 2001), show that lone parent families accounted for approximately 7% of the population of Great Britain in 1971. This figure had increased to around 22% by 2001, and of those families with dependent children, 90.5% had a woman as the head of the house. It is also possible to determine the marital background of women by referring to figures collected by the Guardian Education (1994 page 11), which shows that from all female lone parents; 33.9% were single, 19% separated, and 33.4% were divorced.
So how has this come about? One explanation according to Morgan (1994) is that the lone parent family carries fewer stigmas than it did in the past. This can be seen in the day-to-day language used for this type of family decreasing in offence. This is highlighted by Haralambos (2000), and can be taken further; for example, the literal translation of the word bastard, according to the Oxford English dictionary, means person born of parents not married to each other. This over the years has been rephrased to being born out of wedlock, illegitimate, and more appropriately as well as being politically correct, child of a lone parent. This would indicate a greater social acceptance of this family structure as even the words over the years have become softer in sound, implying less negative or deviant in nature.
Morgan (1994) also suggests that ‘ the expectations that women and men have of marriage and the growing opportunities for women to develop a life for themselves outside marriage or long term cohabitations’ ( Haralambos and Holborn page 543), are contributory factors. These opportunities have come about by the ability for women to achieve independence from unsuitable partners or relationships, due to increased equality in society, job opportunities and state benefits. These alleviate the financial dependency on men that was more apparent after industrialisation, where the trend seems to have been that women stayed at home and looked after the children assuming a life of domesticity. This can be illustrated by research carried out by Nicky Hart (1976) who studied the increasing amount of women working and found that ‘the growth of female employment may have increased the strain on wives by creating a conflict between women’s new roles and traditional role obligations of domestic work and childcare.’
Morgan also refers to the expectations that women have towards marriage. With the means not to, have to, endure a relationship in which they may be the victim of abuse or violence, or indeed a loveless arrangement that may only be in place for the sake of children, women have the increased ability to leave their partner in the case of cohabitating couples, or in the instance of a married couple, to divorce.
Divorce is not a new concept, but what has changed is the gradual removal of barriers by law changes appertaining to marriage and divorce. Prior to 1857, a divorce was only available by Private Act of Parliament, which was extremely expensive, reserved for a privileged few. The Matrimonial Causes Act, 1857, made divorce a more accessible part of law by enabling a person to divorce if they could prove that the other party had wronged them. In the case of men, they could cite their adulterous wife, but in contrast, the woman had to prove that they had been treated cruelly or had been deserted.
Although the cost had come down by this time, it was not until the introduction of the Legal Aid and Advice Act, 1949 that divorce became more financially accessible. This enabled those who could not afford representation or professional advice to access this part of the legal system. Further changes were made by the Divorce Reform Act, 1969 passed as law in 1971, which redefined reasons for separation to ‘irretrievable breakdown’ of the marriage, removing the need for blame and simplifying the process. This resulted in couples being able to mutually agree to divorce after a period of two years. In 1985 the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act became law, one aspect being that partners could file for divorce after a year of marriage.
These gradual moves in law, indicative of societal trends and requirements enable individuals to change the course of their lives, and where children are involved, the structure of a family. Whereas the traditional family consist of biological mother, father and children, we can see the emergence of different family types, two of which have been described earlier.
There is the reconstituted family where adults come from past relationships or families, maybe bringing their children with them. They could be viewed as recreating their own version of the traditional family in which to find personal satisfaction and an environment in which to rear their own or collective children. They may hold the view that this is the best place to do this: a secure, loving habitat.
This can be illustrated in the theories put forward by Parsons and Murdock’s terminology which conjures up the image of what families should consist of and do; the ideal familial set-up.
But we can also see that not everybody is prepared to endure a less than favourable relationship in pursuit of these ideals. This is apparent in the increasing amount of lone parent families which, as stated, are in the majority of cases, headed by women. The ability to branch out independently from unsuitable partners has come about through a change in social attitudes towards this type of family, and more importantly changes in law surrounding equality, marriage and divorce. If an individual finds that their marriage does not meet their expectations, or fulfil their family ideal, laws are in place to allow people to reconsider their family structure and role.