Although functionalist views on the family are no longer particularly influential in sociology, similar views are still prominent in society. New Right perspectives on the family have a remarkable similarity to those of functionalists. Both approaches see the nuclear family as the perfect, neither believes that there are possible options to living in families, neither examines the ways in which families can harm individuals, and both see families as vital to producing social stability.
However, they do differ in the extent to which they see the family as under threat. For example, Fletcher (1988) saw the rising divorce rate as evidence that people value family life, and happy families split up only to be reformed as even happier families. Members of the New Right, on the other hand, see divorce as just one symptom of a grave moral decline. As the family breaks down and single parenthood becomes more common, they see a danger of the young being insufficiently socialised and becoming an even greater problem for society.
Functionalists and the New Right can both be accused of having a very idealised picture of life in nuclear families. For the most part, they have made little effort to actually research family life, simply assuming that it is all kindness and cheerful. This secure image has been shattered by sociologists and psychiatrists who have studied some of the less savoury aspects of life in families. In R.D. Laing’s studies of schizophrenia (Laing, 1976, Laing and Esterson, 1970), feminist studies of domestic violence, and Marxist and feminist research on labour and power within households, an contrary image to the family has been presented. From this point of view the family is, or at least can be, exploitative, violent and psychologically damaging.
George Peter Murdock’s view of the universal functions of the family are also criticised as Murdock argued that his analysis provides a “conception of the family’s many-sided utility and thus of its inevitability”. He concluded, “no society has succeeded in finding an adequate substitute for the nuclear family, to which it might transfer these functions. It is highly doubtful whether any society will ever succeed in such an attempt.”
Murdock’s picture of the family is a multifunctional institute, which is essential to society. Its “many sided utility” accounts for its universality and its inevitability. However, in his eagerness for the family Murdock did not seriously contemplate whether other social institutes could accomplish its functions and he does not examine alternatives to the family. D.H.J. Morgan notes that Murdock does not answer “to what extent these basic functions are inevitably linked with the institution of the nuclear family” (Morgan 1975). Also Murdock’s portrait of the family is almost too good to be true. Morgan states “Murdock’s nuclear family is a remarkably harmonious institution. Husband and wife have an integrated division of labour and have a good time in bed!”
Talcott Parsons view of the “basic and irreducible” functions of the family also came under scrutiny by other sociologists. The actual theory is based on the two functions that he believes the family carries out.
- Primary socialisation of children.
- Stabilisation of the adult personalities of the population of the society.
Parsons has been accused of idealising the family with his picture of well-adjusted children and sympathetic spouses caring for each other’s every need. It is a typical optimist, modernist theory that may have little relationship to reality. His picture is based largely on the middle class American family that he treats as a representative of American families in general. As D.H.J. Morgan (1975) states, “there are no classes, no regions, no religious, ethnic or status groups, no communities”, in Parsons analysis of the family e.g. Parsons neglects to investigate possible differences between middle and working class families, or different family structures in ethnic minority communities.
Like Murdock, Parsons largely fails to explore functional alternatives to the family. He does identify that some functions are not necessarily tied to the family. For instance, he notes that the family’s economic function has largely been taken over by other agencies in modern industrial society. However, his conclusion that its remaining functions are “basic and irreducible” averts him from examining alternatives to the family.
Parsons view of the socialisation process can be criticised. He sees it as a one way process, with the children being pumped full of culture and their personalities being forged by forceful parents. He tends to ignore the two-way communication process between parents and children. There is no place in his scheme for the children who twist their parents around their little finger.
Parsons sees the family as a special institution, which is distinctly separated from other aspects of the social life. Some contemporary perspectives on the family reject that such clear-cut boundaries can be established. The family as such cannot therefore be seen as performing any particular functions on its own in isolation from other institutions.
They fail to realise that the family may well be dysfunctional both for society and individual members. That the demands made upon the family are too great and fuses blow. Another point they fail to acknowledge is that in their isolation, family members expect and demand too much from each other. All of these things can result is conflict. The tensions and hostility produced within the family find expression throughout society. The family creates barriers between them and the wider society. All of these are some of the disadvantages of the family that the functionalists fail to acknowledge.