Parsons argued the pre-industrial family was extended. This was because; agriculture was the dominant form of production and at this time without machinery it was labour intensive, and so needed as many people as possible. Because at the time Britain was feudal the peasantry were tied by feudal bonds to feudal lords meant they could not have had geographical mobility even if they had wanted to.
This is showing how functionalists would see the relationship between economic change and changes of structure of the family, as two institutions in harmony to fulfil certain mutual needs and purposes. For example, Parsons is a great believer of the ‘Fit thesis’. That the family as an institution has changed to fit in with a changing economy.
Another functionalist, Goode, believes that a production based on agriculture, to one based around factories broke the extended kin ship ties.
However, Marxists see this as the economic system dominating all other institutions in society. For example, the structure of the family having to change and adapt all because economy is changing.
Wilmott and Young believed that the family went through stages and did not just change from one structure to another. The first part of their research was held at Bethnal Green, they believed at this time you did not have to live under the same roof to have an extended family, as long as members were still in constant contact they were still a support network. In the second part of there research, they studied families that had lived in Bethnal Green but had been moved to Greenleigh. No the family had changed to being privatised, a home centerd nuclear family. Because they now lived further away from their extended families, this shows how geographical mobility requires a nuclear family. However, this is a sample from only one area, this was survey was taken in 1957, perhaps the typical family structure has changed again, also, we are not told how many families were asked, or how old they are, as perhaps the younger couples would be different to the elder.
In disagreement to these points that before industrialisation was the extended family, are sociologists such as Laslett. Laslett examined parish records, which records the names of people living in the same household. He found only 10% of households in England from 1564 to 1821 included kin beyond the nuclear family.
The figure for Great Britain in 1981 was similar, 9%. Laslett claims this shows that nuclear families were the norm in pre-industrial England. He then found similar results in Western Europe. However, the first figure was England (10%), where as the other was of Great Britain (9%), this is then not very accurate. Also, perhaps some families were missed off of the Parish Records; this shows relying on other data means they can never be sure their results are 100% correct.
Also, his research was based on households, but people do not have to live together to be an extended family. Extended families may have been important even though relatives lived in neighbouring households.
One of Laslett’s arguments against theories of sociologists such as Parsons, who believe that the pre-industrial family was extended, is in pre-industrial times the mortality rate was so high that very few people would have lived long enough to assume the role of grandparent, especially in the lower classes.
Laslett says that the higher classes had extended households. Having wider kin and servants. This is because older members were richer and could afford good healthcare and servants. Where as the lower classes had such high mortality rates families were mainly nuclear, but if it did have older generations they tended to live together due to over crowding. He backed this up using secondary sources. Such as, parish registers, wills, church records and secular court records.
Support for Laslett’s idea of extended households, comes from Michael Gordon. He argues that the definition of extended and nuclear needs to be used in the right context. As the term nuclear means two parents and offspring if any of the parents have for example a widowed mother that live with them they then come under the title of an extended family. Which means if this is the definition of the extended family this structure is then common in either pre-industrial or industrial times. Therefore, Gordon suggests for family structure changes to be defined correctly, the different structures must also be defined correctly, and noted by sociologists who comment.
Also, Gordon questions the theories that there was no geographical mobility before industrialisation. As now status and money was still inherited any sons who were not facing this luxury to take any opportunity in which they had the chance for lands and so were prepared for this. This was the same for people who were born in places with little land they had to be prepared to go somewhere there was land.
Michael Anderson suggests early industrialisation may have actually encouraged the extended family. He took a 10% sample of households from Preston, Lancashire, using data from the 1851 census; he found that 23% of households contained kin beyond the nuclear family. This time was a time of widespread poverty, high birth rates and high death rates. Without a welfare state, people would rely on a wide network of kin for care and support. This study shows that the working class extended family created a mutual support organisation. At the time of industrialisation towns and cities became very over crowded this meant that people moved in with their relatives, creating extended families.
Anderson believes that family structure was influenced by changes in society from feudalism to capitalism as the new mode of production. He believes that the connection between industrialisation and family structure varied with different situations and experiences.
Much of the argument for the relationship between industrialisation and the development of the nuclear family is the idea that the nuclear family is better suited to modern life. This is a typical functionalist view.
Goode agrees with this because extended kin are less important to move around from job to job, and that kinship ties no longer affect employers finding the best people for the job.
Parsons backs this up with loss of functions, so extended family no longer needed, for example education. Also, that now relationships are formed because of what the person will do for us, except in primary socialisation, this has down graded kinship ties as they do not have the best rewards.
However, people like Parsons make over generalisations of the differences between extended and nuclear family structure. For example, the idea that now we have privatised, isolated nuclear family is contrasted to the fictional idea of the extended family as a unit of production.
Also, writers such as Rosser and Harris demonstrate contacts between kin are ‘emotionally closer’ than writers such as Parsons have suggested, by studies in Wales.
Even amongst middle class families, the one most would expect to have a small nuclear family as they are less tied to a location because of poverty or wealth is still shown through empirical evidence that a modified nuclear arrangement is still and has been very popular as a family structure.
In conclusion the connection between the nuclear family and industrialisation is not a valid argument, as many of the points supporting this, from sociologists such as Parsons have been proved mainly wrong.
However, not all functionalists can be judged by this as some have different opinions. As writes such as Goode have questioned whether the nuclear family is even the best structure suited to modern societies shows how he does not fit into the typical functionalist view.
Also, the functionalist Litwak describes how nothing is truly nuclear or truly extended. Taking into consideration new ideas of family structure, such as the modified nuclear family, meeting somewhere in between.
Overall it is a mistake to say that families before industrialisation was extended, just as it is a mistake to say after it was nuclear.
Other things had to be taken into account when considering change in family structure, such as, capitalism or social relationships.
Finally, we cannot assume that all people whatever class they were in had the same experiences, as different classes experienced the industrialisation process differently.
