“Whatever the formal rules of kinship involved, all societies’ child-producing and child-rearing arrangements will resemble nuclear family units. Often the argument is couched in functionalist terms” (Bilton, Bonnett, Jones, Stanworth, Sheard & Webster, 1987b).
The almost “perfect” view of the role of the nuclear family doesn’t seem to accommodate possible issues within this type of family such as child abuse or domestic violence.
Covering a wider spectrum of family type comes Conflict perspectives, these seem to offer a more open-minded outlook on the family, as it recognises the changes of family type in society over recent years, and works along side them. The recognition of gay, lone and foster/adoptive parents in society along with domestic violence and abuse is an indication of this. Feminists for instance point out that gender isn’t just about what role a person plays in the family, but also recognises inequality of power between men and women, mainly resulting in the oppression of women by men. “Such oppression can take the form of domestic violence…” (Norman, 1993).
This perspective doesn’t seem to class any family type as being “the norm” or in fact that the family always benefits society. However some argue that the conflict perspective understates the importance of the nuclear family, suggesting that the conflict perspective is too negative about the family and overlooks positive functions of the family. Perhaps the conflict perspective is simply just more realistic?
Social Action theorists look at internal relationships within the family on an individual level, and acknowledge the different types of family that exist today, similar to the conflict perspective, but rather than seeing the family as being a product of society like the other perspectives, social action theorists focus on the relationships within the family, again recognising domestic violence, child abuse and divorce as real issues that occur within some families.
With all views having a valid point to make, it seems that there is no real category in which the family can be placed, however what can be said is that in some way or another each family type can relate to something within these three views.
“Some may say that the family is collapsing, “No” reply their critics, in fact, it is diversifying. We should actively encourage a variety of family forms of sexual life, rather than supposing that everyone has to be compressed into the same mould” (Giddens, 1997c).
Changes in the family have evolved over many years. Before the industrial revolution employment was found on the land in agriculture. Families where somewhat larger as mortality rates amongst children were higher, children were also expected to work at young ages to boost and add security to income. Sociologists once thought that the main type of family in these times was the extended family type, although research has shown that this wasn’t the case, it was the nuclear family. “The average family size was 4.75 persons, the current average is 3.04 persons” (Giddens 1997d). The difference in family size hasn’t changed all that much.
With the introduction of steam power, canals and flourishing overall industrial industry, families left rural life for new futures and opportunities in towns and developing cities. Low paid jobs with poor conditions were readily available to men, women and children, although people’s health suffered immensely due to lack of sanitation and healthcare. In the Victorian era, families could not afford medical treatment or even, time away from work to care for children or older relatives. Everyone had to help each other in the best way possible, as the welfare state didn’t exist.
The early half of the 1900’s played host to such radical changes to family functions and certainly to the rights of women. Women had won the right to vote in 1919 and in 1923 a new Government Act allowed women to petition for divorce based on adultery, this gave women a certain sense of freedom and confidence to change their lifestyles, and even their men!
Both the First and Second World Wars had an impact on society. The Second World War was the most influential of the two when talking of women’s rights and roles. Women were expected to carryout jobs that only men would have done in the past, as all the men went away to fight the war. Women received so much recognition for this as it was found that generally speaking, women did a better job than what the men did.
1948 saw the introduction of the welfare state and the birth of the National Health Service, the gaps between rich and poor narrowed as health improved and lifespan increased. Poverty was addressed by the state using public money, this allowed women to claim benefits, and for many meant that for the first time they were in control of there own finances. This gave women a surge of independence so that they didn’t have to be financially reliant on men.
In the 1980’s many industrial industries closed, and many men lost their jobs. The years ahead saw the development of the service sector, this included call centres were women and men could work side by side doing the same role, although it was women who dominated the service sector as they were seen to have better interpersonal skills such as communication.
Other major changes since the industrial revolution included the introduction of contraception for both men and women. Family sizes could be controlled.
Men and women didn’t, and still don’t have to marry and raise biological children just to fit into society and feel “normal”, they can now foster or adopt and still respect their own identity whether they are homosexual or just want to be single.
Sociological perspectives may vary, however sociologists all use the concept of socialisation. Socialisation can be described as the influences that people have on others and how values and ways of life can be inherited. Socialisation occurs throughout life although mainly in early childhood when a person develops initial values and social norms from the people around them.
“No human individuals are immune from the reactions of others around them which influence and modify their behaviour at all phases of the life cycle” (Giddens, 1997e).
Functionalist would say that we fit into pre determined roles which give society stability, and that we are shaped to just accept these roles in life as being the norm, rather like puppets or products of society.
Conflict theorists would disagree with this, as they say it doesn’t allow people to question what they are doing or make changes. They see the functionalist view on socialisation as a “shut up and put up” attitude, as functionalist see inequality as being natural.
Social action theorists see positives and negatives of the functionalist view. They say that we have a choice as individuals to question and to change our way of life, some choose not to, therefore would be happy with the functionalist view, but would disagree that roles shouldn’t just be undertaken to satisfy social structure, and that people should be able to become co-creators of society.
Health professionals may be seen to have an upper hand in society as they have been socialised into specialised areas of knowledge in which they work, and although they have fallen into this category of society it is important to understand all elements of society to be able to provide an all round service which respects needs of individuals by looking at circumstance and power balance.
Culture, gender and class all need to be taken into consideration along with interpersonal skills such as a non-judgemental attitude and the ability to treat people differently according to these factors, without stereotypically assuming or labelling a person before the needs of an individual have been established.
Communication is the key to delivering an effective service. By allowing an individual to express their views and opinions and taking them on board is a giant step towards delivering a service, which satisfies the needs of everyone.
“Enabling people to communicate, and treating what they say with respect, is enabling them to participate in care” (Cribb, 1993).
There are many different types of family which all have a place in society today, and there are many different opinions on the existence of each.
There is no single perspective, which will suit everyone’s circumstances, values or opinion, but there is something to be taken from each that will be of benefit in some way shape or form.
Functionalists seem to look at the family as a harmonious unit, which fails to recognise dysfunctional elements such as child abuse and violence within the family. Conflict theorists seem to lace certain aspects of the nuclear family with negativity and tend to exaggerate its decline.
Families have indeed changed since the industrial revolution although the framework of the family still remains; it has just been lined with new social circumstances.
Health professional-patient relationships in healthcare have to vary so that different cultures, values and an individuals social norms are respected and identified, so that the health professional can bridge any power gaps and find out how the patient feels, how the patient makes sense of what treatment they are having and what their hopes and fears are This will enable them to have an active role in the delivery of their care.
References
Bilton, T. et al (Second Edition) (1987a) Introductory Sociology, London, Macmillan, 7:1, p253
Bilton, T. et al (Second Edition) (1987b) Introductory Sociology, London, Macmillan, 7:1, p256
Cribb, A. (Second Edition) (1993) Nursing Practice & Health Care, Bury St. Edmunds, Edward Arnold, 1, p8.
Giddens, A. (Third Edition) (1997a) Sociology, Cambridge, Polity Press, p593.
Giddens, A. (Third Edition) (1997b) Sociology, Cambridge, Polity Press, p143
Giddens, A. (Third Edition) (1997c) Sociology, Cambridge, Polity Press, p140.
Giddens, A. (Third Edition) (1997d) Sociology, Cambridge, Polity Press, p141.
Giddens, A. (Third Edition) (1997e) Sociology, Cambridge, Polity Press, p585.
Watt, P. (Second Edition) (1993a) Nursing Practice & Health Care, Bury St. Edmunds, Edward Arnold, 2:1, p18
Watt, P. (Second Edition) (1993b) Nursing Practice & Health Care, Bury St. Edmunds, Edward Arnold, 2:4, p19
Bibliography
Bilton, T. et al (Second Edition) (1987) Introductory Sociology, London, Macmillan.
Giddens, A. (Third Edition) (1997) Sociology, Cambridge, Polity Press.
Hinchcliff, S. M. (Second Edition) (1993) Nursing Practice & Health Care, Bury St. Edmunds, Edward Arnold.
Matthew Pickering, Sociology (The Family) -
