- RSA. The repressive state apparatuses which maintain the rule of the bourgeoisie by force or threat of it. RSA’s include the police, courts and army. When necessary, they use physical coercion to repress the working class.
- The ideological state apparatuses (ISA), which maintain the rule of the bourgeoisie by controlling people’s ideas, beliefs and values. ISAs include religion, the mass media and the education system.
In his view, he suggests that the family appears to be a private institution, but is really the subject of much state control. Within the family, ideologies are socialised into each generation, making them accept how society is and stop us from questioning it.
However, Zaretsky suggests that the family serves an unequal society by providing emotional support for ordinary people who are exploited in such a society. It is known as a safety valve. It allows comfort and security, making people feel society is fine and permitting their exploitations and powerlessness to continue. In this way, it contributes to “false consciousness” ~ it makes society seem better than it really might be.
Donzelot, like Marxists and Feminists sees policy as a form of state power over families. He uses Michel Foucault’s concept of surveillance. Foucault sees power not just as something held by government or state, but as diffused throughout society and found within relationships. In particular, Foucault sees professionals such as doctors and social workers as exercising power over their clients by using their expert knowledge.
Donzelot applies these ideas to the family. He is interested in how professionals carry out surveillance of families. He argues that social workers, health visitors and doctors use their knowledge to control and change families. He calls this “the policing of families”.
Surveillance is not targeted equally on all social classes. Poor families are more likely to be seen as ‘problem’ families and as the cause of crime and anti-social behaviour. These are the families that professionals target for ‘improvement’. For example, parents of badly behaved or truanting children maybe encouraged to learn the “correct” way to bring their children up.
Donzelot agrees with other conflict theorists that social policy is a form of state control of the family. By focusing on the micro level of how the ‘caring professions’ acts as agents of social control through their surveillance of families, he shows the importance of professional knowledge as a form of power and control. However, Marxists and feminists criticise Donzelot for failing to identify clearly who benefits from policies of surveillance. Marxists argue that social policies generally operate in the interests of the capitalist class.
There is also the Marxist Feminist viewpoint where the family contributes to the maintenance of a society that is structured to the advantage of male capitalism and capitalists. It is heavily linked with Engels and when monogamy was invented, so was patriarchy – the notion that men dominate women in the family and society as a whole. That woman reproduce the labour force, by socialising the next generation of workers by maintaining and servicing the current generation. Woman absorb the anger that would be directed at capitalism, Fan Ansley describes wives as ‘takers of shit’ who soak up the frustration their husbands feel because of alienation and exploitation they feel/suffer at work. Marists feminists see the oppression of woman in the family as linked to the exploitation of the working class. They argue that the family must be abolished at the same time as a socialist revolution replaces capitalism with a classless society.
Nevertheless there are criticisms towards these perspectives.
These are as follows:
- The functionalists view is consensus, organic structured theory so being at the very end of the spectrum in ideologies. Though they do share similar points such as they are both macro theories, they are both interested to look at how and why people follow the rules of society and both believe that there is strong social control and order in society, there theorists think very differently.
Functionalism is based on the view that society is a system of interdependent parts held together by a shared culture or value consensus (an agreement amongst society’s members about what values are important). Functionalist theories assume the different parts of a society each have their own role to play (their own "function"), and work together smoothly in order to form a harmonious whole (macro). The metaphor often used to describe functionalism is that it views society as a body, with the different socialisation agents —government, media, religion, the family, etc., and, of course, education—being like the different organs in a body, each contributing in a different way to keeping the entire body healthy. Functionalism assumes that the various institutions of a society always operate so as to support that society as it is. If they didn’t, the society would perish; therefore, functionalism believes, it’s safe to assume that they do in any society one may encounter, for otherwise the society would no longer be here for us to study. Functionalism is based on value consensus which provides stability and functional prerequisites.
There are many different functionalism theorists that explain what the families function and view is upon the family within society.
These are: Murdock, Parsons, Goode, Fletcher and Young and Wilmott. Each in own following a similar theory but bring different ideas with disagree or explain things the Marxist theory can not.
Feminists would argue that the family is there not exploit the working class or maintain the power of the ruling class, but see it as benefiting men at women’s expense. They also take a conflict theory of society and see it as patriarchal. They argue that all social institutions, including the state and its policies, help maintain the women’s subordinate position and the unequal gender division of labour in the family. In the case of social policy, the way this often works is that policies are based on assumptions about what the ‘normal’ family is like. In turn, the effect of the policies if often to reinforce that type of family at the expense of other types.
For example, if the state assumes that the ‘normal’ families are based on marriage and offers benefits and tax incentives to married couples that are not available to cohabiting couples; these policies may encourage marriage and discourage cohabitation. In effect this creates a “self fulfilling prophecy”, making it more difficult for people to live in other family types than the one that policy makers assume they live in.
Feminists such as Hilary Land argue that social policies often assume that the idea family is the patriarchal nuclear family with a male provider and the female being the home maker, along with their dependant children. This is the family type that Edmund Leach calls the ‘cereal packet norm’ because it’s the kind of family often appears in advertisements for breakfast cereals. This norm of what the family should be like effects the kind of policies governing family life. In turn, these policies reinforce existing patriarchal roles and relationships, for example:
- Tax and benefits policies assume that husbands are the main wage-earners and that wives are their dependants. This can make it virtually impossible for wives to claim social security benefits in their own right, since it is expected that their husbands will provide. This then reinforces women’s dependence on their husbands.
- Courts may assume that woman should have custody of children in divorce cases because they are seen as ‘natural’ carers.
Radical feminists help explain why most domestic violence is committed by men. They argue that violence against woman is part of the patriarchal system that helps maintain the male’s power.
In that defence, faith Robertson rejects the radical feminist’s claim that all men benefit from violence against woman.
Another criticism, one that is fairly obvious is that both Marxists and functionalists ignore individual action and choice. The symbolic Interactionists perspective see us living in a social action society, which emphasises the extent to which people are conscious of their actions and how much individual social behaviour is the result of real choices. The social action approach believes people give meaning to their actions and those of other people and makes our own choices. So therefore, we choose to live in a family. Not capitalism, not the ruling class, but us personally do.
In conclusion, from the evidence put forward I do believe that family is an institution which helps maintain the ruling class’s power. I especially agree with Althusser and the ISA. I truly believe that the working class are victims of the ideological control and have the false consciousness, can not see the truth clearly. This ideological false consciousness justifies the society they live in and stops them questioning it – exploiting them. Unlike the Functionalists theories, Marxist theories towards the family seem more believable and realistic. Functionalists seem to see society as they “wish” it was, when it’s not as perfect as they want to make it out to be. But life isn’t perfect, and at the same time Marxists theories are pessimistic and believe that the working class are all getting exploited when there is a lot more to what determines why they are living in a family and such. Marxists have a better idea but need to take some ideas from Interactionists to get a clearer picture in my belief.