He sees the family as integral to society and ideal for producing capable adults.
Its ‘many sided utility’ makes it indispensable for society and accounts for its universitility and inevitabilty.
Parsons stated that there were two basic and irreducible functions of the family:
Primary socialisation of children,
Stabilisation of adult personalities.
Primary socialisation is when the child of a family is taught the specific norms and values of the particular society and his/her role in society.
Parsons’ states that unless the child is taught the specific norms and values, the societies’cultre will not exist and so the society will not exist.
Parsons argues that the family is a ‘factory’ which produces human personalities.
He cannot conceive of any other social structure which could take over this function.
The second basic function, the Stabilisation of adult personalities originates from the premise that, once produced the human personality has to be maintained and kept stable.
This function is more important in western society where the family is largely isolated from kin.
It is when the adults of the family get to act out the childish elements of their personality which cannot be expressed in an adult society.
According to parsons, therefore, the family provides a context in which husband and wife can express their childish whims and escape from society.
Both in Parsons and Murdocks study of the family, they both fail to explore alternatives to the family . Their view is idealistic and does not take into account the criticisms of the family.
Parsons study only observed the American middle class family and failed to look at the wider society (i.e.: working class)
Brigette and Peter Berger attempted to find a middle ground between the family perspectives of the conflict and consensus theorists, however they ended up siding with the consensus functionalists, by stressing the beneficial aspects of the family, rather the looking at the criticisms of the family.
Marxists agree that the family Is a social institution, and serves some purpose in society . However they believe that the family has mainly exploitative aspects and serves to exploit and oppress.
A leading Marxist, Fredriech Engels, believes in the evoloution of the family- that in the early stages of human development, the means of production was communally owned and the modern day family did not exist- This era of primitive communism was characterised by promiscuity. There were no rules limiting sexual relationships.
Although Engels has been criticised for this view of human society, anthropologist Kathleen Gough argues that this may be quite close to the truth.
She says that the nearest relation to man, the chimpanzee, live in promiscuous hordes and this may have been the pattern for early man.
Engels says that the nuclear family developed as human people put more restrictions on property and partners.
Thus, the monogamous relationship developed with the emergence of private property.
Engels theory was largely based on an erroneous interpretation of the family by the nineteenth century anthropologist Lewis Henry Morgan .
Modern research tells us that many of his details were incorrect. This casts a shadow of doubt over Engels theory of the evolution of the family.
Essentially, in Marxist terms, the family is a means by which the rich, or the bougesiose, maintain oppression of the poor, or the proletariat, the family also functions to produce a workforce for the bougesiose.
There area variety of different- and frequently opposed - feminist perspectives.
Although it is evident that, in general terms, feminist perspectives on the family have tended to stress the following ideas:
Men oppress women within the family, just as they do in every other social structure.
Feminist writers have tended to dismiss notions of gender difference between males and females due to biological or genetic differences between males and females as ‘rationalising myths’ that serve to legitimise male domination over women.
Women have a service role forced upon them by men within the family (i.e. the role of the mother and housewife).
Mary Macintosh ‘the state oppression of women’ has argues that the low status of women in the workforce is related to their position in a form of ‘reserve army of labour’ women are called into the workforce when there is a shortage of male workers, and then shunned back into the home when there is a surplus of male workers.
Within feminism and Marxism, there is a tendency to talk about ‘the family’ within a capitalist society without considering variations . They both presuppose the traditional nuclear family unit.
Everyone has their own idea of what a family consists of. These preconceived ideas are mostly to do with our own backgrounds, culture and family life experiences.
A generation ago the most popular belief of the typical family was one made up of a mother, father and children. This ‘traditional’ family had a mother who stayed at home to nurture the children while the husband was the main breadwinner. In out society ‘formal marriage' lost its importance and has seen an increase in differing family life styles and compositions.
“ families in Britain have changed fundamentally in the past 25 years, in more than 70% Of two parent families with dependant children, both parents work”
Judd.j Independent on Sunday 25th of November 1997
This quote would deem Murdocks' view of the family as invalid and parsons view of the family as outdated. However collins English dictionary defines the family as:
“ a primary social institution comprising of two parents and children”
Harper/collins English dictionary 1998 edition
The quote would validate Murdocks perception of the traditional nuclear family.
The many groups within sociology which have differing opinions on family structure use evidence which supports their cause.
Feminists choose statistics which best show that women are oppressed within the family, Marxists choose data which best shows exploitation. All the different groups may have a valid viewpoint, but they fail to respond to the claims made by the other groups and ignore the wider spectrum of society as a whole.
The Marxists have provided a view of a grossly exploited society, the feminists have provided the same view although they replaced class exploitation for male domination and the functionalists have provided an idealistic view. These are all useful, as they describe a certain section of society or show us someone's view of the family but ambiguity is also nessacery, as we need to remember that some evidence is often biased.
All in all, the different and often conflicting sides in sociology have shaped the way we perceive and define the family. Marxism has shown that sometimes, the family can be a tool for oppression and exploitation and the functionalists have given an idealistic view of the family, one that has been our societies norm for years. They have all contributed to the study of the family and as societies culture changes, so will our definition of the family unit.
