Murdock, a functionalist suggests that the nuclear family is an important social institution, playing vital functions in maintaining society. He believes it to be a universal institution, although there are established arrangements for the rearing and socialisation of children in most societies in the world, all of which do not rest on the family or biological parents. Therefore, from a functionalist viewpoint, it could be argued that the nuclear family is not the sole institution and as such, does not constitute an ideal living arrangement for individuals or society, as there are many existing families that do not fit under the title of a nuclear family, as indicated in item B, which states that ‘failure to question the idea [of the family] has allowed mistaken ideas of it to persist.’
Early Marxists believed that the monogamous nuclear family was developed as a means of passing on private property to heirs, and this was an ideal mechanism as it provided proof of paternity. Women’s position in the family was no more than that of a “prostitute” as stated in item A, as ‘the goal of a woman [was] to have children’- providing heirs in return for economic security. It is assumed that in order for capitalism to survive, the working class must submit to the ruling class or bourgeoisie. Marxists believe that the family, along with education systems and mass media pass on the ideology of the ruling class. Socialisation of this ideology of the ruling class therefore attempts to maintain false class consciousness by winning the hearts and minds of the working class- the expectation of ‘good parents’ means hat parents must work in order to provide material comforts and good life chances for their children, therefore, they were willing to work boring, unsatisfying and unrewarding jobs. This stopped them from taking action that might dispute the system.
However, due to the industrialisation of society, these functions of the nuclear family can be disputed- there is a decline of marriage and growth of cohabitation- indicating that the nuclear family is not an ideal living arrangement for all individuals, and the fact that there are more births outside of marriage indicates hat it is not ideal for society either. Rising divorce rates, leading to re-marriage and the growth of the constituted family has lead to a decline in family size and the growth in ‘single hood.’ This could be seen as a weakening of extended kinship links and therefore, in modern day society, the functions of the nuclear family could be questioned. Although there may be some families and aspects of society that the nuclear family would seem ideal in their living arrangements to, the above facts indicate that this is not true of all families.
Feminist sociologists on the other hand, appear to provide a healthy “antidote” to functionalist accounts in their approach to the family. They emphasise the ‘functional’ aspects to the family and downplay the negative side of family life. For Feminists, the family and marriage are major sources of patriarchy- female oppression and gender inequalities in society- whether we examine housework, childcare, power and authority or women’s employment outside the home. This indicates that the nuclear family has never really constituted an ideal living arrangement for women and in effect, society either, as they do not get to experience so much of womens talents in the world of work.
Yet as a result of the industrialisation of society, women have seen an expansion in the world of work, leading to the deprivation of the nuclear family, as women have new priorities in life alongside having children, which was considered an ‘orderly means of production’ in item C. Although I may still ‘socialise the child into the essential ideas, values and traditions’ of life as stated in item C, not al families now have children, as they may not be able to or women may take their careers seriously, as this often leads to it taking preference over family and marriage. In this respect, the nuclear family would not be an ideal living arrangement for anyone, as it would cease to exist. However, in the event that the woman did go o wok, it could be seen as an un-ideal living arrangement for society, as it could be considered that these women cannot be put in hih positions, as they may leave to start a family at ome point in their career.
Overall, the family is seen by al as a functional necessity, seeing the family as performing a vital role for the capitalist economy. However, criticisms of Murdock and Parsons come from the fact that they idealised the nuclear family. Both Murdock and Parsons portrayed the image of the family as having well adjusted children and sympathetic spouses who care or each other’s needs. Whereas functionalists say the family meets the needs of society by socialising children into shared norms and values leading to social harmony and stability, Marxists would say the family reproduces capitalism and meets the needs of capitalism by the ruling class norms and values, leading to a submissive and obedient workforce, giving stability for capitalism. For one reason or another, aspects of all these sociologists viewpoints of the nuclear family can be faulted and seen as both realistic an untrue in modern day society.
In conclusion, although some aspects of a nuclear family remain today, an increase in the number of families such as single parent, foster children and the constituted family means that although there may be some families who feel that the nuclear family constitutes an ideal living arrangement for individuals and society, there are a large number of families who it would not be ideal for, whether it be because the male is not the breadwinner, as indicated in item b, because of a divorce in the family, or a birth outside of marriage leading to a “nuclear family” never being achieved, or being achieved and then lost. Therefore, the nuclear family can be constituted as an ideal living arrangement for individuals and society, but not for every member of society.
