Since the Industrial revelation the nuclear family has been recognised as the norm of British society, but did it exist before within the extended family

Since the Industrial revelation the nuclear family has been recognised as the norm of British society, but did it exist before within the extended family?

The pre- industrial family was said to be an extended family consisting of three generations, the children, parents and the grandparents. The family would all work together in the farms to help provide for the entire families needs, children as young a 5 or 6 would have been found work to do. However this was until the Industrial revolution when factories become the main source of work and development. 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. These roles would hardly ever be rejected and in return for this commitment, the extended network would perform other functions for the members. The family gave its members the skills and the education in which to take their place in the family division of labour. The family functioned to maintain health for its members, as there was no universal health care, they also provided welfare; those in the family who would make it to old age would have been cared for in exchange for childcare services.

Then came the industrial revolution. Parsons believed that the industrial revolution brought about the dramatic change from the extended family to the nuclear and three fundamental changes to society.

Industrialisation brought the geographically mobile workforce and no longer was the ascription of jobs important, instead achievement became the main and most important method once education had been introduced. Parsons believed that the separation of extended families caused nuclear families to be formed in order to take advantage of the new job opportunities that had been brought about. He also argued that the second fundamental change to the family was that they no longer needed to produce their own materials and food as specialised agencies gradually took over and the home and workplace became separate as people became wage earners. The state eventually took over the functions of education, health and welfare and so consequently the nuclear family was able to specialise in child centred functions like socialisation. Thirdly Parson also argued that the new nuclear unit provided the husband and wife with very cleaver social roles. The man was the “instrumental leader”, who was responsible for the economic welfare of the family group, and goes out and earns money, while the female was seen as the “expressive leader”, primarily responsible for the socialisation of the children and the emotional care and support of family members. Parsons concluded that only the nuclear family could effectively provide the achievement-orientation and geographically mobile workforce required by modern societies and that there is a functional fit between the extended family and pre-industrial Britain (having to grow food for family etc.) and the nuclear family in industrial Britain.

This is a preview of the whole essay

However there were many criticisms of Parsons view. Historians suggested Parsons to be far too simplistic in his interpretation of the historic family. They point out evidence that suggests industrialisation may have followed different patterns in different industrial societies. The study of English parish records shows that only 10% of households in pre-industrial Britain contained extended kin, so most families may have been nuclear and not extended as Parsons claimed. Young and Wilmot take issue with Parsons over the speed of change and they believe that the movement towards the nuclear was not as sudden as he had claimed but more gradual in nature and occurred in 3 stages. Stage 1 was the stable pre-industrial stage before 1750 were most families were nuclear and not extended as Parsons suggested. Stage 2 was the early industrial stage from 1750 to 1900. This was the period in which home and work became separate and as factories excluded women, they became dependent on the men’s wage. The 3rd stage is the modern industrial stage from around 1900. The symmetrical nuclear family began to emerge because of social changes, which made the extended family less important as a source of support, and the family became nuclear. They conducted research in 1950, which showed that extended family existed in large numbers even in this late stage of industrialisation and that the extended family began to decline in the 1960’s when the working class communities were re-housed in new towns and on council estates after expensive slum clearance. Young and Wilmot concluded that the nuclear family unlike Parsons only became the universal norm in Britain in the late twentieth century.

Peter Laslett a historian who used parish records to study the make-up of households in England, during pre-industrial Britain found that the pre-industrial societies had an average household size of around 4.75 persons throughout the period. Households were only likely to consist of two generations not three. Laslett concludes that the pre industrial family was almost always nuclear and not extended as once previously believed by Parson and Young and Wilmot. He believed that the only reason industrialisation came about is because the nuclear families encouraged it. So Parson was wrong to see the pre-industrial family as extended. However like Parson, Laslett’s conclusions have also been questioned. He assumes that each household makes up a separate family. However, its possible those two nuclear family households who live close to each other and whose members are related may operate as an extended family, even though they don’t live under the same roof.

In conclusion it seems, although everyone had some theory to how and when the nuclear family came to be, no one could actually be sure. Parsons theories seem to be flawed and as Young and Wilmot suggested the speed at which Parsons suggested the evolution of the nuclear family happened seems almost exaggerated and wrong. All in all industrialisation apart from families no longer having to grow there own crops and provide for themselves really seems to have had little effect on the family until 1960 when the nuclear family appeared in great numbers according to Young and Wilmot. However is this actually true? Laslett seems to suggest that the nuclear family has always existed but worked as an extended family and that industrialisation only occurred because of the nuclear family and not the other way around. So if Laslett is correct then there was no extended family but two nuclear families working as an extended unit, living under separate roofs. This greatly flaws Parsons and Young and Wilmot’s theories of the extended family consisting of three generations. So has the nuclear family always been the norm of British society and has everything that has been developed has only been developed because of it?

‘Examine the effects of industrialisation on the structure of the family’

The Industrial Revolution was from 1750’s – 1850’s, which had four main effects. One was the Economic system becoming industrial from agriculture, the second was Mechanisation meaning production in factories becoming more efficient, the third was Urbanisation and the fourth was population explosion – low mobility rate and higher birth rate.

Tallcott Parsons (1950’s) believed that the extended family in pre Industrial Britain was the most beneficial as they were a unit of production and they were able to maintain a subsistence level of existence with very little reliance on non-family members. Parsons believed that post industrialisation, the nuclear family became the new dominant family structure for reasons such as geographical mobility. Parsons suggested that the extended family had disadvantages in the industrial society such as the nuclear family containing basic roles i.e. carrying out the families essential functions and the functions of the wider kinship was taken over for example by the welfare state (1948)

Michael Anderson carried out a study (Preston – North West England) based on a sample of 10% census records (1851). His results showed that 23% of households in Preston were mostly extended families as they included kin beyond the nuclear family. He suggests that the process of industrialisation may have strengthened the need for reliance of the extended family being as they were the dominant in industrial families. Anderson’s main concern was with the working class families for whom kin may have been a mutual support in times of need, due to the poor living conditions in early industrial period and as there was no welfare state (1948).

Peter Laslett researched the patterns of the family life in England Industrial Revolution; he conducted his research from parish records. As a result of his research he provides evidence that the large extended family households were relatively uncommon in the Pre Industrial society. He concluded that 10% of households in England (1564 – 1821) include kin beyond the nuclear family. He claims hoe the nuclear family households may have been a characteristic of much of North West Europe and Laslett argues that this may have been important factor encouraging the process of industrialisation. An important aspect of the industrial revolution was the prior existence of the nuclear family facilitating the movement of workers to urban areas. Although Laslett’s Research was seen to be thorough its not possible to discover from his data how much cooperation occurred between kin who were members of different households, so the extended families may have therefore been important while remaining residentially dispersed among several neighbouring households.

Young and Willmott (Y&W) believed that there were four stages of the family and from those four, three main stages. They studied family life in London (1950’s – 1970’s)( using historical research and social surveys. They essentially ignore middle class and concentrate on the working class families. Young and Willmott say that stage one was represented by the pre industrial family. They believe that in stage one the family work together as a team for example in agriculture. They say that this family was as a result of the industrial revolution, but it continued into the nineteenth century and is still represented in the minority of families today. Stage two of their studies researched its peak in early twentieth century. The family ceased to be a unit of production due to industrial members being employed as wage earners. In early nineteenth century working class poverty was widespread, Y&W agree with Anderson in the fact that the family responded to the high unemployment by extending its network to include relatives beyond the nuclear family. The extension of the nuclear family was built by women in defence of themselves and their children. Women formed a trade union which excluded men. Y&W claim husbands were pushed out of the female circle and took to the pub as their own defence. Stage two families were mainly headed by the women. In the early 70’s Y&W conducted a large scale survey from which they argued that stage two families had largely dispersed for all social classes especially the working class. The family is characterised by the separation of the disbanded and husbands return to the family circle. This was due to home developments over the years for example central heating, video players, which is why the lifestyle in stage three is largely home centred. The conjugal bond is strong and relationships between husband and wife are more companionate in the home, they share the household duties therefore the nuclear family became largely self contained as Y&W describe as symmetrical meaning equal, although conjugal roles are not the same - -but the wives still have the responsibilities of childrearing with the husbands contribution, the share many chores and decisions, yet there is men’s work and women’s work.

Goode supports Parsons theory that the family became nuclear as a result of industrialisation was that the high rate of geographical mobility in industrial societies decreases, also if the relatively high level of social mobility tends to weaken kinship ties then it tends to cut them off from their working class kinship, also the functions once performed by the family have been taken over by outside agencies such as schools, reducing the dependency on family kin and the importance of achieved status in industrial society means the family kinship group have less to offer their members. Goode argued that the ideology of the nuclear family encourages its growth because its prestige of western ideas and lifestyle, since the nuclear family is found in areas where the rate of industrialisation is slight. He applies the concept of ‘role bargaining’ to his study of the family meaning individuals attempt to obtain the best possible bargain in their relationships with others, which affects the family structure as they will maintain relationships with kin and submit to their control if they feel they are getting a good return on their investment of tome, energy and emotion.

David cheal criticises Goode’s theories as being closely related to the modernist view of progress. He particularly attacks Parsons saying faith in progress expressed by writers like parsons ignored contradictions within modernity.

From a Marxist perspective the nuclear family benefited capitalism as it can be used as an ideological apparatus to promote the capitalist values rather than benefiting the whole of society, this is because consumer advertising is directed at the nuclear family nuclear for example adverts for cereals, it encourages them to pursue capitalist goals by stressing the importance of materialism.

Although Radical feminists believe the nuclear family benefits the needs of men rather than all of society. This is because radicals believe that men and women are socialised into a set of ideas that largely confirms male power and superiority, it transmits patriarchal ideology encouraging the nation that the sexual division of labour is natural.

It would appear that we are moving more into a nuclear family structure but it is unlikely for the movement to be as fast as Parsons suggests