"Assess Sociological Explanations for the Relationship between the Family and Industrialisation"

Fletcher believes that family became a unit of consumption instead of production. Marxists agree with this stand, and also add that the idea of consumption is the way post-industrial/modern society motivates it’s workers, by making them by frivolous items with their wages, earnt at dissatisfying and irrelevant occupations.

Willmott and Young believe in the privatisation and promotion of the nuclear family. A new institution, much smaller and self contained, mainly with the individuals expressing themselves within this unit. They agree with Parsons Idea of specialisation of the isolated nuclear family, yet they also produced their own theory: The Three Historical stages of the family. (Pre-Industrial, early industrial, and symmetrical stages).

Authors such as Parsons, Willmott, Young, and Fletcher have all suggested that it was the process of industrialisation that brought the later symmetrical stages, which contrasted to their prequel stages. They believe that the along side the isolated nuclear family, there emerged the modified extended family (in which through the use of technology such as the phone, there can be maintenance of contact and support across great distances). Anderson did research based on the historical research carried out by Preston, intent on showing the rise of the Modified Extended Nuclear Family that came about due to hardship in early industrial times. Parsons argues the dominance of these two family groups in modern society has come about due to the particularly forms being well adapted to meeting demands of industrial civilisation as well as private individuals on a personal level.

In contrast, Marxists would argue that the private nuclear family is a symbol of the workers isolation, as the Bourgeoisie class uses their Proletariat employees in demeaning work that has been made possible by the process of industrialisation. The family is a tool of the controlling class to get their employees back on their feet, and also to tie them down. The men must work as they have a commitment to single-handedly providing for their nuclear family.

In conclusion, it seems that there are plenty of points that sociologists overlap on. Sometimes in agreement, sometimes in strong criticism to each other. I believe that the industrial revolution brought about a massive change in the structure of society, and that the fact that the family has changed is agreed by all. Functionalists believe that family adapted smoothly so as to fulfil the demands of the industrial society while surviving. To do this it needed to modify the extended family, and become more dependant internally for support. Marxists believe that the revolution preyed upon the working classes by locking them into dull, alienating roles of work. The integration of unfair employment terms and the new machines, allowed capitalism to rise and dominate in modern society.

Whether either is right, it is true that the nuclear family is common today. The working class has not revolted in most industrialised countries, and the fact that society continues to function without visible friction, suggests that a state of harmony has been achieved. Marxists would suggest this harmony is a mere illusion, but I believe the functionalist approach of adaptation and indefinite stability is the most relevant, and well backed up here.