The ever changing structure of the family during the 2nd half of the 20th century led to a change in definition of what most members of society regarded the family unit as. This newer definition is as follows:
“Social group of two or more people, related by blood marriage
or adoption, who usually live together.”
(Macionis, j.j. & Plummer, k. (2002), page 436).
This seems to me a more realistic definition of what a family is now within
British society.
Functionalists viewed the traditional nuclear family as the ideal family:
‘As its fits the needs of society so well’
(Blundell, J. (2003) page 139).
As its more self sufficient; as the man is the ‘breadwinner’ responsible for providing what the family needed to survive and prosper, while the woman is responsible for the home and family (although these days she may do some paid work as well). We tend to accept that the nuclear type of family is both a natural and normal arrangement for society. It is the yardstick against which ‘abnormal’ or ‘alternative’ types of family (such as one-parent families) are measured. However, only 37 percent of people live in such a family (Labour Forces Survey, Office for National Statistics 2003).
Society sees the nuclear family as the social norm were children learn from their parent’s traditional values and beliefs which will enable them to function within society. However, even though it’s a traditional British belief that politicians should not interfere in the family, state policies often do. Feminists see the government as biased they have argued that they tend to favour the traditional nuclear family. Allan (1985) argues that:
“Much state provision is based upon an implicit ideology
of the ‘normal’ family which through its incorporation into
standard practice discourages alternative forms of domestic
organization from developing.”
(Haralambos, M. & Holborn, (1995) page 573)
This seems to be reflected in a recent government report ‘Supporting Families,’ where Jack Straw asserts:
"The evidence is that children are best brought up where you have two natural parents and it is more likely to be a stable family If they are married", “It plainly makes sense for the government to do what it can to strengthen the institution of marriage". http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/socialistwomen/
As well as support from the government the traditional nuclear family is also favoured by the church who believe the best way to raise children is within a stable married environment. They use some strong theological reasons to defend and support the bonded mother-father team in its various forms. For example the words of Genesis 2:24 state that
"a man leaves his father and his mother and cleaves to his wife and they become one flesh"
www.religion-online.org/showarticle
The church also advises that support for the nuclear family recurs throughout the Hebrew and Christian Scriptures. They are found on the lips of Jesus in Matthew and Mark, in the letter of Paul to the Corinthians and in the pseudoPauline letter to the Ephesians.
Whether or not you believe that the nuclear family is the best for society most people believe that bringing up a child within this type of environment is better for the Childs development. Most of today’s society also believes that the nuclear family can usually provide a child with a safe stable environment, full of love and affection. They also believe that the nuclear family can provide their children with a better lifestyle because they are more likely to have a better income than a lone parent family. Therefore they will be able to provide for their children better housing, a more nutritious and healthy diet and more materialistic possessions than that of a lone parent family.
Research has also shown that children brought up within the nuclear family do better academically and have a better chance of finding employment than those brought up within other types of family structures., This could be do with social class rather than the different family structure, because the higher the class system you are in the better academically you do, and in this case most nuclear families are perceived as a higher class than lone parent families.
Being brought up within a nuclear family is not always the best environment as a lot of families stay together just for the children and this could involve constant bickering and fighting which could affect their children’s emotional well being. Also, behind the idealised version of marriage may hide a number of other realities. Research has indicated that one in four women in a relationship are or have been victims of domestic violence. Domestic violence accounts for 25% of all reported crime and in most cases a woman will have been assaulted on average 35 times before reporting it to the police.
(www.natfhe.org.uk/down/HumnotFamValues.pdf
Therefore I feel that the nuclear family is not always the right environment to bring up a child, its only right if it’s a happy, warm and loving environment which in my opinion can be done just as well by a lone-parent.
In Britain there have always been lone-parent families. In the past both fathers and mothers were often left to raise children alone because of the death of their partner. As happens today, many remarried. However, the difference today is that most lone-parent families are the result of separation and divorce rather than death. Some are also the result of a conscious decision to raise children alone.
Loan parent families and particularly lone never-married mothers have been portrayed by some of the media and conservative politicians as promiscuous parasites blamed for everything from rising juvenile crime to housing shortages, rising drug abuse, educational failure of children, and the general breakdown of society.
Over the years there has always been some sort of stigma attached to being a lone parent, especially if the child was born out of wedlock. In the 60s young girls were sent to Magdalene Asylums, institutions for "fallen" girls, to repent and their babies were taken from them. However today the stigma is not as evident and a few celebrities who are role models to our children and us are also choosing to become lone parents, for example Angelina Jolie and Sharon Stone.
However, most lone parents families don’t have the money that these wealthy celebrities have and live in poverty dependent on the welfare state. Lone parent families are much less likely to have access to comfort or luxury items like personal computers or holidays and will have to economise to varying degrees on basic items like clothes, shoes and utilities, in the very toughest circumstances core essentials like doctors visits or glasses start to be postponed or even gone without. For children, this economising is likely to impact on buying school books, missing school outings and cultural and sports activities.
These factors can all adversely affect a child’s development, and education. And poor health, education, and social outcomes in the present lay the foundation for poor outcomes in the future.
Which David Popenoe suggests in his book ‘ Life without a Father where he suggests that children brought up by their mother in a one parent family are two to three times more likely to be a juvenile delinquent and drop out of school, (.www.pbs.org/newshour/gergen/popenoe).
In conclusion, I feel being a lone parent my self that it doesn’t really matter what type of family a child is brought up in as long as it’s a loving, warm environment where the parent has plenty of time to spend with their child is of paramount importance to their well being and development.
