Talcott Parsons’ main consensus functionalist approach to the family is that the nuclear family is important to perform essential functions in society. He sees the family as trimmed down in modern society, but at the same time realises that the family in industrial society is still as important as it was before, as it has not lost its two main functions.
The functionalist views have been criticised by some for concentrating too much on the positive side of the family. Functionalists see the family as of equal benefit to all, where as Marxists feel that society is shaped by the capitalist economy’s needs. Talcott Parsons does not consider the diversity of family types and the variations in society such as class, ethnicity and religion.
One of the main criticisms of the functionalist approach is that they concentrate too much on the importance of the family for society, and do not look at the importance of the family for the individual.
Overall, the functionalist views show that society benefits a lot from the existence of the family. Although functionalist views are criticised by some, such as Marxists, most people feel that without the family there it would be impractical.
New Right thinkers are like functionalists, they see the family as the cornerstone of society. The nuclear family unit is seen as the ‘normal’ way of family life. New Right feel that the family is important in terms of its stability for the harmony and efficiency of society. In some ways the New Right views are very old fashioned as they see the family as the ‘cereal packet family’.
New Right see the family’s main role as the socialisation of children to the norms and values for men and women. Views that the family is in decline have been different to the functionalist view that argues the family is performing its functions well. Some have suggested that the family unit has been undermined by social changes which have threatened traditional norms of family life. Some changes blamed by New Right include greater sexual permissiveness and a greater tolerance of homosexuality as an alternative to marriage. Higher divorce rates and feminist influence have also been blamed for the family’s decline.
New Right argue for a return to the traditional family values to help against problems of modern society, for example child poverty and educational underachievement.
New Right have been criticised for being too old fashioned and traditional. The New Right views are seen as out-dated by some. However, there are benefits of family life to individuals according to New Right as family members are provided with a stable relationship and environment. The Government also benefit, as they have to spend less on benefits.
New Right are like functionalists in a way. They see society benefiting from the family function of socialising children to accept the norms and values of society.
A conflict approach to the family is that of Marxists. Marxists oppose the consensus views of functionalists and see powerful groups determining the organisation of society. The society is seen as a ‘super-structure’, with the family being one of a number of parts of it that help maintain the economic system. Marxists believe that there is a close link between the family, social class and the economy.
Another view from Marxism is that the economy benefits from the family as the family produces new workers for society.
A Marxist writer, Engels, has two main points to his argument. Firstly, that the family serves the requirements of the capitalist economy and secondly that the family prevents women from achieving equality both inside and outside the home.
Engels felt that women were oppressed by the family. Women were dependant on their husbands economically and were expected to keep faithful to their husband. However it was regarded as legitimate for men to be unfaithful and use prostitutes. In this way, Engels was critical of the family but still wanted the family to exist.
Engels’ main view that women cannot achieve equality because the family prevents it from happening and that the requirements of society are served by the family are seen as central by many critics of the family.
The main Marxist arguments about the family differ from functionalist opinions considerably. Marxists do not see the family as beneficial to everyone, and in particular stress that women are disadvantaged in the family. However, Marxists do feel that society benefits from the existence of the nuclear family as it develops the next generation of workers.
Marxist-feminists use a gender-based analysis of the family and feel that women are oppressed within the family and the wider society. Marxist-feminists, just like Engels, see the family as a stumbling block to female emancipation. They feel that the family is patriarchal. They argue that males dominate family relationships.
Marxist-feminists such as Margaret Benston in 1969 also see the female as important to the needs of the capitalist economy as they carry out domestic labour, allowing the male to go out to work and earn money. They argue that a male is made into a more productive worker by his wife who performs domestic chores such as washing and cooking. This benefits society, as the male has become more productive in his work. They also see women as vital as they produce and rear the workers of the future, children. Housewives play a major part in the reproduction of labour power.
However, Marxist-feminists dismiss the functionalist view that the socialisation in the family is beneficial to society as a whole. Peggy Morton argued that modern capitalism relied less on direct coercion to control workers. She felt that the acceptance of hierarchical social relationships was more relied upon for this function.
It is strongly argued by Marxist-feminists that women suffer disadvantages in employment due to their childcare and domestic chore responsibilities. However, they feel that this is built in to the capitalist system.
Irene Bruegel felt that women not only performed a valuable unpaid role as domestic workers, but also provided a ‘reserve army of labour’.
Juliet Mitchell in 1971 agreed with Engels’ argument that women should be freed from domestic responsibilities by the passing on of the functions of the family to other agencies.
Marxist-feminists generally believe that the society does not benefit much from the family, although in some ways it does. They argue that the economy does benefit from the unpaid domestic labour carried out by women which allows men to fill working roles outside of the home in society. In conclusion, Marxist-feminists believe that the family is beneficial to males as they have greater freedom but women are oppressed.
Radical feminists views are alike to Marxist-feminist views on the family, but they emphasise the patriarchal aspect. They see the family as an institution that allows males to totally dominate women, exploit and oppress them. Therefore the family does not benefit a small group, the capitalist class, it benefits men.
Kate Millett argues that men are able to dominate women due to the way society is organised. Russell and Rebecca Dobash found in a study on violence in the family that for many women and children the threat of violence from the male is real.
Radical feminists differ from Marxist-feminists as they feel that women should come together and build up an alternative society challenging patriarchy. But in recent years many feminists have started to believe that changes in the family are needed instead of replacing the family. They feel that men should involve themselves more in family life to relieve stress of many women.
Feminists are criticised, as they tend to generalise a lot in their views. They generally think that all females are oppressed. They focus on the negative aspects of family life and ignore the satisfaction some get from the family. Helen Carby criticised white feminists for not including the racism factor alongside patriarchy in their views.
To conclude, feminists look at society in a way where males are the dominant gender. They feel that women do not benefit from the family but men have a number of advantages in the family.
Critical theories of the family state that family life can harm individual development. R.D. Laing studied family interaction and found out that the family is capable of damaging the development of individuals by providing a limiting environment. Family relationships could cause anger, jealousy and guilt. Laing found that members of a family almost become a ‘part of each other’ and find it hard to create their own identity. This hinders self-development.
Laing is criticised for his ‘dark side’ view of the family and the way he bases his information on clinical studies rather than detailed fieldwork.
D.Cooper has similar ideas to Laing. He feels that the family destroys the inner life of people and that relationships in the family form a love trap preventing self-realisation. As children, we are taught to develop dependencies rather than thinking for ourselves. Like Laing, Cooper sees the family as a possible cause of emotions such as stress, guilt and even violence.
Cooper didn’t carry out detailed fieldwork to use for his information. He makes no mention of the structure of class and how it affects family life. Western families were the only families looked at by Cooper and Laing, and the two writers worked only from a specialised psychological perspective.
E.Leach supports ‘radical psychology’. He attacked the ‘cereal packet norm family’ and in his study in 1967 he claims that there is an intensity between spouses. Family members expect too much from each other in his view.
Leach is criticised, as he has not carried out detailed fieldwork to support his claims. His view could be labelled as extreme and unbalanced according to critics.
It is clear that there are contrasting opinions on whether or not the family is beneficial to society. Functionalists strongly believe that the family is beneficial to the running of society and New Right agree that the family’s main function of raising and socialising children is of some benefit. Other views such as Marxists and Feminists have other ideas. Marxists stress that not everyone in society benefits from the family, especially women who are at a disadvantage behind males. Then there are the more extreme views from feminists who strongly believe that women are oppressed in society and the only people who benefit are men.
Critical theories argue that the family has harming effects on individual development. The family lifestyle is seen as damaging to a child’s up bringing and can cause problems for the child in later life. These theories explain how individuals find it hard to develop themselves as a person in the family because other family members influence them and family relationships can lead to unnecessary emotions coming out.
Certain sociologists agree on the subject of the family being beneficial to society, others do not, and the contrasting views lead to fascinating arguments over the true meaning of family life in society.
