Economic – The family proves a secure environment from which individuals needs are met to the extent they are able to go out into society and contribute to its economic needs. With out the second life itself would cease.
Education – Within the family structure new members are brought up by parents acquiring the knowledge needed to eventually join and participate in the society in a constructive manner. This is the means in which the norms and values of a society are passed from generation to generation safeguarding the societies culture.
The drawbacks to both Parson’s and Murdock’s definitions of the family structure is that it assumes the family works in a harmonious state both within the family structure and the family as a concept with society as a whole. Functionalists do not take into account families which do not fulfil the demands required of them. Murdock fails to place any importance on outside institutions and their contributions to society, which mirror those of the family. And their descriptions of family life do not take into account religious, ethnic, economic differences or more diverse groups. The make up of the family comes in far many more different forms including single parent families, homosexual couples, childless couples, and families which are more destructive to individual members than supportive. With these issues in mind, from a functionalist perspective it would be accurate to deduce that commitment to family life is dying as the parameters to which family life is set is so narrow.
New Right thinkers are in agreement with functionalists in their views that the family is an essential part of a modern thriving society however they put far more emphasis on the traditional nuclear family and the threat which is has been paced under by constant moral developments in society. New right theorists believe that because the traditional nuclear family is in decline society as a whole will suffer immensely and they dismiss the notion that diversity in family groups can benefit a society in new ways. It is believed that grater individual choice, feminisms and the acceptance of single parent families and homosexuality has endangered the nuclear family and society suffers greatly as a result.
New Right theorists look back in history to support their theory that the nuclear family as a norm created a more harmonious and successful society, what is interesting is even as far back as Victorian times, single mothers, adultery and women in the work place existed and the effects have not made a noticeable difference. The danger of the belief that this family is the normal family is dangerous as it is not supported by statistical evidence (only 15% of British families today fit this description) and those who do not are in danger of being victimised or held up as responsible for problems in society. Would a new right thinker agree that commitment to family life is dying? Absolutely. At least their perception of what a family life may be is.
The earliest view of the family from a Marxist perspective is contained in a book written by Friedrich Engel’s in 1884 titles ‘The origins of the family, private property and the state’ Engel’s believes the institution of the family evolved along with industrialised society as a tool to aim production. By organising a system where individuals were bound together they could more efficiently protect the land and possession s they had obtained though capitalism and ensure that those possessions were not lost to the society as a whole. For those who did not own any of the means of production (the proletariat) the family created an institution where they were prepared to work efficiently and create the right environment for ideological conditioning i.e. could pass on the values of the worker, and the workers place in society to the next generation. Thus making it less likely that the individual did not reject this ‘place’ in the future. The capitalist system is also based around the free domestic labour of women freeing up male counter parts to participate in industry. Finally the family unit has been educated and organised in such a way that it is actually consumes the results of the labour it produces resulting in economic gain for capitalists. Another role of the family to absorb the frustrations of the male worker so he can function is his role as an employee to the best of his ability, this is seem as the root of the causes of domestic violence but this shall be discussed further when looking at feminism and it’s views on the family.
One criticism which applies to both Marxist and Functionalist perspectives in relation to their views on the family is that both “presuppose a traditional model of the nuclear family where there is a married couple with children, where the husband is the bread winner and where the wife stays at home to deal with the housework” D. H. J. Morgan. However it could be argued that whatever form the family takes it still provides for the needs of the Capitalist. Also during the time in which Engel’s was writing this traditional nuclear family was widespread. Also the assumption that women are an army of unpaid labour can be challenged as women do participate in the work place at high levels although a Marxist would point out that rates of pay are lower and so when women are not fulfilling their roles in the home they are providing a convenient a cheap form of labour in the work place. Would a Marxist consider the commitment to family life as dying? Possibly not, if new family structures are emerging they are still providing the same functions required to sustain a successful Capitalist society.
“The amount of unpaid labour performed by women is very large and very profitable to those who own the means of production. To pay women for their work, even at minimum wage scales, would involve a massive distribution of wealth” (Margaret Benston 1972). Feminists and Marxist feminists believe the structure of the family is designed to oppress the female sex in order for men to effectively dominate the work place. The feminist movement is a social movement whose aim is to liberate women from this oppression. And uncover the gender division as a cultural not natural division designed by men to further their own power, privilege and dominance. Feminists see the male as the head of the family as a tool to enable them control economically and through discipline, they highlight levels of domestic violence, rape and sexual abuse within a family unit as evidence of exerting this control. Marxism feminists would see these issues as the capitalist society regarding a family as a place where a male can vent his frustrations from the work place in a safe and private environment, while ensuring his dominance over his wife.
What feminists and Marxist feminists fail to explain is those women in the home who have chosen that life style and find it to be a fulfilling role. They may claim that these women are unaware of their own exploitation after generations of conditioning however opportunities to reject that lifestyle and enter the work force have opened up immensely over the last few decades. Perhaps Marxist feminists would state that the capitalist society has opened up these opportunities to use women as a cheaper form of labour and looking at the discrepancies between salaries of male and females employed in the same careers they may have a valid point! Especially as all the traditional female roles in the home are still a woman’s responsibility on top of her responsibilities in the work place.
Would the feminist movement consider the commitment to family life as dying? They may see the definition of the family as created by men as stepping into decline and would welcome that as a sign of the success of feminism and female enlightenment to their plight but the family supported by outside agencies is still a strong institution with women still being unfairly treated within that institution.
To accurately evaluate the statement ‘commitment to family life is dying’ We have discovered that there are several view points as to exactly what constitutes a family and what the roles within that family are. If we look at the contemporary alternatives to traditional family organisations we can see that the nuclear family could be considered to be in decline. Sociologists now believe there are four main family groupings including the nuclear family. The extended family which usually consists of two or three generations of one family living together or very near each other. These families survive in societies where this organisation is of real benefit to the family members i.e. agricultural societies it was also a popular family group during post war Britain and applies to economic migrants to work in the same industries or businesses. The lone parent family which usually constitutes one adult (usually female) and her offspring. This family structure has grown due to the increasing accessibility to divorce (see fig 2.11). These statistics show that divorce over the last fifty years has increased. The social climate where birth out of wedlock is widely accepted with the numbers of marriages over the last century decreasing. However we can see by an increase in re-marriages that this family group are usually only temporary as individuals remarry and then become part of a reconstituted family, Where two adults come together with their respective offspring to create a new family unit.
Along with these four main family groups there are also increasing numbers of individuals who have been able make decisions about their domestic arrangements which are more permissible in today’s society. Couples declining to have children have increased as has homosexual and heterosexual cohabitation. Women are more evident in the work place now than at any other time and people chose to live alone. Another factor determining the make up of the family in modern Britain which the statistics provided do not represent are ethnic minorities in the UK, whom bring with them an alternative family unit with larger families and decreasing divorce levels. This group makes up 7.9% of the population with Asian or Asian British constituting half of this percentage. (see figure 2.3). attitudes towards divorce vary among different ethnic groups with Asian families accepting divorce in their families the least. These attitudes are evident in data shown in figure 2.4. What is interesting to note in these figures is the very low rates in divorce, cohabitation and occurrence of single mothers in Asian families where as other ethnic groups show levels of divorce much higher, what these figures do not suggest is the explanation for this.
It is possible to say that the traditional nuclear family has suffered but in its place is a new range of alternative lifestyles which still fulfil the roles of societies just in different ways and because individuals now have greater freedom of choice on how they organise their domestic lives it could be said that as a result society as a whole must benefit. It is also possible to argue that the true threat to family life is not the decline of the nuclear family but the increasing rates of poverty which effect a whole section of societies freedom of choice, ability to care for each other and raise their children with self respect and social awareness.
Bibliography:
M. Haralambos & M. Holborn, Sociology themes and perspectives, third edition, Collins
Office of national statistics, National statistics UK 2002, The stationary office, 2001
Stephen Moore, Sociology Alive, Third Edition, Stanley Thornes publishers, 2001
Graham Sergeant, A textbook of Sociology, Second Edition, Macmillan Education, 1979
Fulcher & Scott, Sociology, Oxford University press, 1999.
Anthony Giddens, Sociology, second edition, Blackwell publishers, 1994
P. Taylor, J Richardson, et al, Sociology in focus,Causeway press limited, 2000
www,statistics.gov.uk
Ihttp://www.jrf.org.uk/knowledge/findings/socialpolicy/spr938.asp
