The changing face of society negated many of Murdock's claims and Talcott Parsons has argued that industrialisation brought with it the process of " Stuctural Differentation." and that many of the functions Murdock spoke of are now taken over by specialist Institutions such as Schools and the Health services. According to Parsons the family still has what he called " Two basic irreducible functions." which are " The primary socialisation of the young." and " The stabilisation of adult personalities."2 These functions are essential for the maintenance of society and the nuclear family is the ideal social structure for this task.
The approach taken by Murdock and Parsons has been subject to many criticisms. The criticisms of this approach tend to be the criticisms of Functionalism itself. The theory of concensus and the assumption of a common value system would therefore assume that the nuclear family is a normal family and paints a rosey picture of a happy, harmonious and consensual entity " As with Murdock, Parsons has been accused of idealizing the family with his picture of well-adjusted children and sympathetic spouses caring for each others every need."3 This is quite obviously not everyones experience of the family. There are many people who would consider themselves as part of a family who do not fit into the strict definitions of these functionalist thinkers. " Childless couples, for example, do not undertake the socialisation of the young, but this is no reason why we should not regard them as a family. Also, in one-parent families there is obviously no mutual stabilisation of adult personalities but there is socialisation of the young."4
It is clear that Functionalist thinkers have a very limited view of family life and family types. In an attempt to include family structures that functionalists ommit Peter Worsley, in his book " Introducing Sociology.", redefines a family unit using Marriage, Parenthood and Common residence as the criteria. Any combination of the three would constitute a family. This approach leads to seven different family types and makes a nonsense of the early functionalist views. These Seven possiblities are " Nuclear family, family dispersed, childless couple, unmarried parents, seperated childless, illegitimate child and living together."5
It is estimated that Nuclear families only make up one third of Britains families at present. With changing attitudes to unmarried couples and to single parent families this number may decrease even further. Many people choose to co-habit out of choice and for financial reasons and are not forced into marriage by the fear of being stigmatised. Even though it appears that many who co-habit go on to get married is it wrong to say that they are not a family untill they get the wedding license?. Similarly one parent families have increased to the point at which it is estimated that less than one in ten families fall into this catogorie. The more liberal attitude towards gay people may lead to an upsurge of co-habiting single sex couples. The functionalist assumption that this would not constitute a family would seem very unfair.
The Functionalist perspective as to what constitutes a family, as can be seen , has many critics. The notion of what a families functions are and that these functions are positive is radically challenged by those who adopt the Marxist perspective. The central tennant of Functionalism, consensus, is replaced by conflict so therefore functions acted out for societies good, in functionalist's view, are seen by Marxists to be the result of conflict between the two classes in society. Marxists believe that the nuclear family is a " Bourgeois entity based on private greed and oppression."6
The Marxist perspective on the family is, like Functionalism, greatly influenced by two Sociologists, Fredrich Engels and more recently Eli Zaretsky. Engels believed that in primitive communist society the society its self was the family. All the functions of the family were carried out communally. There was no concept of ownership. As society moved through time and surplus produce was produced class society came into existence and with it the family. The family as a social institution was a useful tool to ensure that wealth and property remained in the hands of a few individuals. Instead of wealth being distributed evenly amongst society a way had to be found to keep it concentrated. Inheritance was the best way of doing this To this end monogamy was enshrined in law and reinforced in religious belief to make sure there was no question about who owned the inheritance.
Zaretsky updated Engels theories. Central to Zaretsky's writings was the theory that modern capitalist society and the factory system destroyed the family as a unit of production thus separating work and family life. Family became necessary to provide a cushion to absorb the stresses and the frustrations of the working environment. Zaretsky however does not believe the family can fulfil this role stating " It simply cannot meet the pressures of being the only refuge in a brutal society."7 He also sees the family as a holing up the capitalist system in a variety of ways. Providing a unit of consumption thus perpetuating the system and exploiting woman as unpaid domestic servants and childrearers.
In general Marxists see the family providing a number of different functions none of which are positive. It produces a supply of labour, absorbs the frustrations of the male workers with the wife giving emotional support, It ensures the male worker is efficient, the womans role being to maintain the house and family. Marxists also view the family as an institution, which reduces the likelihood of revolt because the worker puts family interests before class interests. Children are socialised into the norms and values of the Capitalist system. They learn to conform and not criticise social institutions.
Another perspective, which is critical of the functionalist view, is the feminist perspective. Feminist views tend to vary greatly but most argue against the functionalist claim that marriages are more egalitarian. This notion of a symmetrical family is contested by feminists. They would suggest that evidence that shows a rise in the incidence of this type of family is exaggerated and that the status of women within the family is still subordinate. Feminists, like Marxists are concerned with how the women is exploited within the family. They believe that women occupy domestic and childrearing roles, which are perceived to be low status whereas the male roles of breadwinner, decision-maker and protector are seen to high status. Another key concept of feminism is patriarchy. They see a patriarchal society as encouraging differential gender socialisation. Boys are socialised in masculine roles whereas girls are taught femininity which is subordinate. Feminists differ from Marxists in that they see gender as the cause of conflict where Marxists see class.
Two main assumptions are present in the work of Murdock, Parsons and the Functionalist analysis in general. These are that the family is universal and that it performs positive functions for all aspects of society. If we take Murdock's definition of family i.e. " Social group... common residence... adults of both sexes... two adults in a socially approved sexual relationship... one or more children natural or adopted by these two adults."8 then it is clear that the family is not universal as it excludes single parents, unmarried couples, gay couples and childless couples. Later definitions such as Pter Worsley's or one used by PL Selfe give a much wider scope for inclusion " The family is a social unit made up of people who support each other in one of several ways, for example, socially, economically or psychologically or whose members identify with each other as a supportive unit."9 Using this definition the family is indeed universal as it may include anyone who considers themselves as a family. It could be said that some form of family is universal although not everyone exists within a family at any one time.
Functionalists present a picture of the family, which is over simplified, general and limited in the way that it only sees, the benefits of the family. The family is obviously beneficial and positive for many people but as Marxists, Feminists and other critical perspectives point out different views and experiences exist within society. The family as Murdock saw it again, is not universal but one of many family types each tailored to meet the needs and requirements of individuals and their societies and circumstances.
