Functionalists state the family interact with other social institutions. One key role is how the family prepare children how to become adult workers, taking on roles in the economy to support themselves and their dependents, creating a positive link as they both rely on each other.
In analysis to the functionalists view on the family, most critics question such an idealised view of happy families meeting the needs of society. Some examples could be families experiencing poverty, as they maybe unable to produce a strong workforce, often relying on government intervention. Marxist fails to see the functionalist perspective as they regard the family as serving the interests of the ruling class. They view the family as a source of cheap labour increasing capitalism and inequalities, as these families then become the main consumers in modern capitalism.
However the changing family within British contemporary society often associates itself with a westernised view, which sometimes fails to consider ethnicity within families. The patterns of family life among ethnic minorities are influenced by their own cultures and add further to the diversity of families in Britain. However, there can be a danger of generalising about typical ethnic families. One sociologist view is that of Roger Ballard (1982) who states in his study of South Asian families, “There are important cultural differences within the Asian community between, for example, Sikh, Muslim and Hindu families. Many South Asian families have preserved aspects of the traditional family patterns of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh. This is particularly evident in the concern for the wider kinship network, an emphasis of loyalty to the family rather than concern for the individual.” In short Roger Ballard notices a variation between ethnic minority families compared to westernized families. Basically the majority of South Asians have migrated to England within the last thirty-years; these families tend to be larger with kin outside of the immediate nuclear family, often living together in a family unit, due to different values beliefs and social policy’s within the South Asian community compared to Westernized culture.
Feminist disagree that the family contributes to a smooth running of society. Like Marxists they recognise the aspect of inequality, not through capitalism, but through gender inequalities, as women within families are serving the interests of men. Some feminist claim they have a double burden within society, as most mothers also have part-time jobs alongside the running of the family home, as opposed to a male concentration on one role, making women the victims of exploitation.
A range of critics also disagree with the functionalist views of the family. Critics identify dysfunctional, unhappy families; prime examples include domestic violence, abuse, and mental illness and divorce statistics.
Marxist theories claim society operates on a conflict theory. They see the capitalist class as also the ruling class, as its economic power allows it to control and manipulate the state. (Through the power of money and it's potential withdrawal.) This power struggle leaves the working class weak and powerless to oppose the ruling class.
Marxist’s view the family as part of a superstructure, an institution which serves the ruling class. Families help maintain the economic system as families have to work to survive, the very hierarchy of human needs. The ruling class know this, which allows them to exploit the working class, widening the gap of class inequalities and social division.
Marxist’s believe the development of the nuclear family was not purely produced because of the process of industrialisation, but because the ruling classes are superior, purposely changing society to conform to their ideologies, which is how the family produce cheap labour.
In analysis of Marxist’s notions, we see that in today’s society some families are not involved in the labour workforce and rely on government intervention, though the question is often debated is the government helping or maintaining class inequality through poverty.
However mobility exists within today’s society as although I come from a working class background, I am able to attend university. However education could be considered as a ruling class dictate which expands expectation and creates obedient workers who comply with the working class.
Marxist’s fail to acknowledge that the family is a refuge from the working environment; it is a positive escapism that provides love, support, unity and primary socialisation.
The family unit is influenced by values as much, if not more than other area’s in sociology. Concepts about what approach the family should conform to be inevitably the start from value judgements about what kind of family is desirable within society. As an example different type of families live and adopt varying Ideas about society, for instance families critical of capitalistic society and the social inequality, tend to generate different notions of how the family is expected to behave, compared to those who believe in a free market society (often those belonging to a middle class background have not had to suffer hardship and deprivation and tend not to be aware or sympathetic of it’s existence). In this sense no perspective of how families should conform can be seen as a definitive form. This is reinforced by all the different variations of families that make up society.
Values are an integral part of social policy theories, which have shaped, and continue to shape, the family. Over time the change in family life has not only been transformed by the industrial revolution, but also within the change of norms, beliefs, values, culture, religion and diversity.
Within society women were always associated with pursuit of a maternal, feminine role, caring for children and home. This dates back to Victorian times as women traditionally occupied domestic roles as in service or maternal roles such as wet nurse or nanny. These roles were occupied until or if the women chose to get married, which meant the continuation of these roles as a housewife.
However, during the world wars, women experienced a dramatic upheaval; most able bodied men were engaged in warfare, so women became bread winners to support their families and also to produce the commodities required by society to function. Women also had a taste of independence and introduced into an environment were they needed to adapt. From that perspective feminist rights began to form and grow, so that by the 1980’s women were achieving in education and work institutions, creating positive legislation that opposed inequality.
Marxist feminist argues women not only perform a valuable unpaid role as domestic labourers but also according to Irene Bruegal (1979), “they provide a reserve army of labour. They are a source of cheap workers who can be brought into the paid labour force when needed, for example to do part time temporary jobs, but who disappear into the family again when they are no longer required.”
Page 240 Sociology in Focus, Paul Taylor, John Richardson, Alan yeo, Ian Marsh, Keith Trobe and Andrew Pilkington, Causeway press Limited 2000
The equal pay act 1970 (EPA), was legalised to guarantee individuals the right of same contractual pay as a person of the opposite sex, within the same employment, where the man and woman are doing “like work or work rated as equivalent under an analytical job evaluation study; or work that is proved to be of equal value.”
Source taken from Internet;
Another legislation introduced was the sex discrimination act 1975 (S, D, A). The act prohibits sex discrimination against individuals in the area’s of employment, education and the provision of goods, facilities, services and in the disposal or management of premises. It also prohibits discrimination in employment against married people. It is not lawful to discriminate against someone because they are not married.
Source taken from Internet;
Basically women’s rights were achieved through legislation and social evolution, dramatically impacting on family life due to the swing away from the stereotypical woman’s role as housewife towards a bread-winning role. In some cases the traditional male / female roles have been totally reversed whereby the wife goes to work and the husband remains at home caring for the house and children occupying a role of house-husband.
Elizabeth Bott (1957) was one of the first sociologist’s to study the effects of changes on the roles of husbands and wives. “Joint conjugal roles, these are characterised by more sharing of responsibilities, decision making and leisure activities. Husband and wives roles are less sharply differentiated “.
Sociology in Focus, Paul Taylor, John Richardson, Alan yeo, Ian Marsh, Keith Trobe and Andrew Pilkington, Causeway press Limited 2000
The effects of the changing family roles also helped break traditional social policy, which although not laws or regulations, are often viewed as positive policies mainly within institutions. A prime example has been to the inclusion of Fathers into the act of childbirth and their contribution to family life.
Sociologists also hold the notion that the change in family within society is due to secularization, a decline in religious influence. This has contributed to a shift in attitude to morality, marriage and divorce. An example of which, has been the softening stance of society, against couples choosing to co-habitate, and raise their children without the institution of marriage.
Another contribution to the change of family is through divorce. Divorce is the legal dissolution of a lawful marriage. In England divorce could only be secured by the passing of a private act of parliament until 1857, when the matrimonial causes act set up the divorce court and provided limited grounds for divorce. The grounds for divorce were gradually liberalized by further acts of parliament, culminating in the divorce reform act 1969. Under which the sole ground for divorce is the irretrievable breakdown of marriage. This must be demonstrated by showing that the parties have lived apart for at least two years (or five years if one party does not consent to the divorce), or proving adultery, desertion or unreasonable behaviour by one party.
The court places great emphasis on provision for the custody and maintenance of any children. It may also order other financial arrangements including the transfer of property.
The following table 9.3 Divorce age and sex; shows that prior to the 1969 act divorce was limited to 25.4 per 1,000 married couples in 1961, rising to 39.1 per 1,000 marriages in 1966. After the introduction of the 1969 act divorces almost doubled up to 74.4 divorces per 1,000 marriages by 1971. By 1976 the rate of divorce had further increased up to 126.7. The rate has continued to slowly rise so that by 1996 the rate stood at 157.1 divorces per 1,000 marriages.
The ratio of second or later marriages within the statistics has also shown an increasing trend of divorce from 1.9 in 1961, 2.7 in 1996, through to 25.9 per 1,000 marriages in 1986.
The divorce ratio has shown a marked increase since 1969, this maybe due to the ease divorces can be granted through the legal system, or through the emancipation and empowerment which has changed women’s perception of the marital state and their standing in society. Divorce carried a social stigma and it was a woman’s lot to endure behaviour, which now legally is considered suitable grounds for termination of marriage.
The consequence of the higher divorce rate has lead to children being brought up in a single parent environment or with step parents, sometimes with an extended family of step brothers and sisters or even in some cases with same sex couples.
In conclusion there are many factors which have changed family in British contemporary society. Sociological theories attribute relevant explanation and research into the exploration of such changes. Legislation, social policy and research also contribute to family moulding over a time period.
However, the family unit based on whatever definition it has, is viewed as an organic unit that has constantly changed and looks to keep on evolving, just as society, legislation and social policy does.
