Apart from the function identified by Murdock, the family may meet other vital needs too, for example, it may perform welfare, military, political or regions functions. In 1959 Talcott Parsons (functionalist) also focussed on modern American society, looking at its functions in industrial and pre-industrial society. In contrast to Murdock, Parsons argued that the family retains two basic functions which are common to family in all societies. The first of these is the primary socialisation of children, which take place in the early years of their childhood, this is essential, as the family moulds the child’s personality to fit the needs to society. Moreover, specialist institution such as schools may take on the responsibility of ‘secondary socialisation’ preparation for adult roles, this is vital because if this does not happen, socialisation cannot work effectively The second function that Parson’s claims the nuclear family still fulfils is the stabilisation of adult personalities, this is means the family is a place where adults can relax and release tensions (warm bath theory), enabling them to return to the workplace refreshed and ready to meets its demands. This is functional for the efficiency if the economy. To conclude parson believes, the nuclear family is the ideal institution to perform these essential functions, he suggests even-though the family has becomes more specialised and lost many of its functions, the family will never lose the two ‘basic and irreducible’ functions, which is essential to children and adults. However, critics have shown that, Parson and Murdock believe that the family is very optimistic and ignores the reality behind the family relationships. Similarly Parsons would agree to Murdock ideas on the functions of the family because they are similar to his two basic and irreducible functions, Although Murdock's studies focused more on the "practicality" of the family. Parsons’ study was largely based on American middle class family; therefore he neglects to explore possible differences between middle and working class families. D.H.J. Morgan (1975) states ‘there are no classes, no regions, no religious, ethnic, or status group, no communities’ in Parson’s analysis of the family. Moreover, Parsons View of the socialization process can be criticized. He sees it as one-way process, with the children being pumped full of culture and their personalities being moulded by powerful parents however, he ignores the two-way interaction process between parents and children, where the children could be twisting their parents around their little finger. Finally Parson’s see the family as a distinct institution which is clearly separated from other aspects of social life, nevertheless this is incorrect as nuclear family does need help from other social events as they can’t do everything itself.
According to Parsons, there are two vital types of society- modern industrial society and traditional pre-industrial society. Parson argues that the usefulness of the society is that the nuclear family fits the needs of the industrial society while, the extended family fits the needs of pre-industrial society. Parson sees the industrial society as having two essential needs. First of all ‘A geographically mobile workforce’ which is vital in modern industrial society as Parson argues that it is easier for the compact two generation nuclear family, with just dependent children to move to where the jobs are, than to move with three-generation extended family. Therefore nuclear family is better fitted to the need that modern industry; however in tradition pre-industrial society, people often spent their whole lives living in the same village, working on the same farm whereas in modern society is much more geographically mobile means easier to move around in different part of the world. Secondly ‘A socially mobile workforce’ is based on constantly evolving sciences and technology and so it requires a skilled technically competent workforce. It is therefore essential that talented people are able to win promotion and take on the most important jobs in the modern society, well as individuals status is achieved by their own effort and ability and not ascribed by their social and family background. For this reason, Parson argues that nuclear family is better equipped than the extended family to meet the needs of industrial society. In the extended family, there would be rising tensions and conflict if the father and son both lived under the same roof, due to the son may have a higher achieved status than his father at work. Therefore the nuclear family encourages social mobility as well as geographical mobility. However evidences against parson suggested by young and Wilmot argue that the nuclear family emerged as a result of social changed that made the extended family less important as a source of support, these changes included geographical mobility, higher living standards, married women working, the welfare state and better housing. Nevertheless the extended family has not disappeared. Studies show that it continues to exist because it performs vital function for example providing financial help, childcare and emotional support.
New right has a very similar view of the family as the functionalist, seeing the family as the vital cornerstone of society rather than a tool of oppression and exploitation. New Right thinkers are very strict and strongly believe that this is the only correct or normal family type, the traditional or conventional patriarchal nuclear family consisting of a married couple and their dependent children with a clear cut division between the breadwinner-husband and homemaker-wife. The New Right says that the family is in decline, because of the increase family diversity. It uses the rise in gay and lesbian headed families, lone parent families, fatherless families, divorce rates and cohabitation rather than marriage, as evidence that the nuclear family is declining in Britain therefore they argue for a return to traditional family values as a remedy for many of the problem of modern society, such as juvenile, delinquency, education underachievement and child poverty. In addition new right suggests that family values no longer exist as part of our society’s foundations in the same way as they used to. Furthermore, cohabitation and divorce are creating family instability by making it easier for adults to avoid commitment and responsibility, which is no longer essential for creating stable environment in which to bring up children. They also place blame on government policies, such as welfare benefits particularly supporting lone parents. Rather than help these nuclear families, who are often under privileged, the New Right says they should be penalised for failing to reach the nuclear family ideal he claims that these high levels of taxation and benefits’ acts as perverse incentives’ that is, they punish responsible behaviour and reward irresponsible behaviour, as they undermine the traditional family by discouraging men from working to support their families on the other hand encourages a ‘dependency culture’ of living off welfare benefits’ therefore the new right favour cutting welfare benefits’ or even abolishing the entirely to reduce the dependency culture and encourage the conventional family. However, the new right view has been criticised by Ann Oakley 1997 (feminist) who argues that the new right wrongly assure that husband and wives roles are fixed by biology, cross cultural studies show great variation in the roles men and women perform within the family. Oakley believes that new right is based on the patriarchal oppression of women and is a fundamental cause of gender inequality therefore new rights view of the family is negative reaction feminist reaction campaign for women equality. Moreover The New Right can be criticised for ignoring the many reconstituted families, gay and lesbian headed families, and lone parents families which very successfully raise children and function as adequately if not more adequately than many nuclear families.
Overall, functionalist theories tend to concentrate on the positive aspects/ functions of the family and give little attention to the negative aspects, there almost too good to be true. Critics such as feminists highlight the male dominated nature of the traditional family relations. They assume that the family is of equal benefits to everyone, whereas Marxist shows us that the society is actually under capitalist economy, which benefits most from the way families are organised rather than society as a whole. Moreover functionalist such as Parson does not consider the diversity of family type for example there are variations based on class, religions, ethnicity, and gender etc. to sum up interpretive sociologist argue that functionalist concentrate too much on the importance of the family to society and ignore the meaning the family has for individuals.
The family is an important part of society and it fulfils certain functions. Despite all the theories have disadvantage which do make some function irrelevant to some people; it shows that the family does have many different functions. Family is a unique institution within society, and has a combination of different roles to play, including reproduction and socialisation of children, and consuming products to help the economy. Some views, such as those of functionalists, believe it is the only institution able to do these functions, and the New Right view goes as far as to say only the nuclear family can adequately meet the requirements. Most sociologists believe the family is a benefit to society in the functions it performs, whereas feminists and Marxists see it as helping to maintain injustice in society. However, without the functions that the family perform, the society we know today wouldn’t exist as it wouldn’t be running as smoothly. What the family teaches us through its set of functions is vital to enable children of future generations to be successful adults and continue the smooth running of everyday society.
Raihan Latif Sociology Essay - Functionalism