The pre-industrial societies were largely based on extended kinship networks; land and other resources were commonly owned by a range of relatives that extended well beyond the unit of the nuclear family. It was very common for families to work alongside their cousins and even live with them. This extended family was
responsible for the production of the shelter, food and clothing for the family. Roles in the family were usually ascribed to the offspring rather than being achieved. Talcott Parson distinguished between two types of society, industrial and pre-industrial. He argued that each of those societies contains a corresponding type of family structure that fits its needs. In pre-industrial society the “best fit” was the extended families, because they had very little geographical and social mobility and they were multi-functional (e.g. welfare, protection etc)
The historian Peter Laslett believed that families in pre-industrial society were nuclear, because households were likely to include only two generations, not three like Parson’s claimed. A combination of late childbearing and short life expectancy made meant that grandparents were unlikely to be alive for very long after the birth of their first grandchild.
After the 1750s Parson’s believed that in industrial society, the dominant structure is the two-generation nuclear family of parents and their dependent children. Because of structural differentiation some social institutions took over the functions, such as education (school), looking after the elderly and ill (welfare) and protection (police). Parsons also states how the family has ceased to be an economic unit of production, more suited to need so for modern society, and in Marxist perspective, suited to needs of capitalism. The media portrays a 'cereal packet' family which many families feel inclined to achieve - buy kids latest toys, clothes etc. This shows how the family has
changed from producing to consuming. Talcott Parson’s also believed that structurally isolated nuclear families were the “best fit” for society, because they had social and geographical mobility.
Michael Anderson (1980) argued that during the early stages of industrialization, working-class people formed an extended family networks. At that time the working conditions in the factories were dangerous and unhealthy, people didn’t get paid a lot. They were getting diseases and disabilities, early deaths weren’t unusual. In these harsh conditions, it was very difficult to live as a nuclear family, that’s why they all just stayed together.
Willmott and Young looked specifically at the history of the family in Britain. They believed that family structure has evolved through three stages from pre-industrial times to present day. In the 1750s-1900s there was a period of disruption caused by industrialization, in which home and work have become separated. From now on, women and children weren’t exploited in the factories, there was a phase of the “mum-centered” working-class extended family, based on mutual aid ties between a mother and her married daughters.
