Parsons believes this is a good thing allowing the family to maintain two ‘basic and irreducible functions’, which he claims, are common to families in all societies. The primary socialisation of children, the first of the basic functions, is the idea that families shape their children’s personalities as children will absorb the norms and values of society to the point where they become apart of the system in society alike there parents, for example will stay in the same social hierarchy. The second function Parson argues the family gives to society is the stabilization of adult personalities. This is the idea that adults keep stability within the family by firstly the marital relationship; the gender roles are clearly defined in the marital relationship. This reduces conflict and the roles are complementary. The male takes on an instrumental role (‘bread winner’/provider) and the female takes on an expressive role (to look after husband and children), which is a more emotional and supportive role as a carer and nurturer. Secondly parenting roles is when parents can indulge in childish behaviour and forget about their adult worries. They can play the ‘fool’ and enjoy being immature with their children stress free, experiencing cathartic behaviour after there stressful day at work.
There are many weaknesses towards the functionalist view. Firstly, they ignore that in some families there is only one adult and that parent can give emotional and economic support being both an instrumental and expressive role. Likewise, men and women don’t always stick to the same role, since both are capable of performing both roles; many don’t live traditionally believing this view to be sexist and out-dated. Furthermore, functionalist use too positive a view on society assuming that there is harmony and peace when the reality is that many places is in conflict and unhappiness. They don’t look at the dark sides of families where there is abuse and neglect. Moreover, functionalists’ disregards stable adults who aren’t parents who are stable. Many could say that being a parent can sometimes be the cause of stress and doesn’t look at the negatives of parenting. In addition to this, they have a ‘rosy view’ of marriage, as not all couples are stable in marriage. There are many single people who are stable. Cohabitation could be a person’s stability. Lastly, functionalists over exaggerate parental influence, whilst some children may turn to crime, not all kids go to crime because their parents have done so.
Marxists believe that the way the family functions serves to reserve and continue the important unsatisfying and un-liberating patterns of capitalism. Marxists believes that the family props up capitalism in two ways. Firstly he argues that families encourage and reproduce hierarchical in-egalitarian relationships. This is the idea that children are socialised in the family to accept patterns of authority and power. In this way they become well practised in subordinations and become obedient. He also argues that children observe and accept hierarchy. The family is based on unequal relationships between adults and children and between males and females and sometimes between older and younger siblings. Therefore Marxists argue that as a consequence of these, the family functions to sustain unequal structures outside of the family. Secondly, Marxists suggests that families act as a safety valve dampening down discontentment. Zaretsky insinuates that the more work becomes hard and an unhappy place; the closer the family become as the adults will come home to a supporting and appreciative environment allowing him/her to feel refreshed and able to go back to work. He doesn’t like the idea that people are putting up with their unhappy jobs, as they are satisfied at home.
Marxists also argue that the family props up capitalism by firstly; the reproduction of labour power. This is when future generations of workers are socialised to work as their parents have. Also when workers come home to a relaxed atmosphere so that they are able to go back to work refreshed. Another way in that Marxists believes the family props up capitalism is by unit of consumption. This is the idea that before capitalism, families were self-sufficient whereas now they are dependent on capitalism to earn money and buy things thus reinvesting money into the capitalism economy.
The strengths of Marxists view is that they make a valid observation that children are brought up and are aware of hierarchy and are expected to be obedient. Thus giving correct manners that children need in order to succeed in life. Another strength is the acceptable observation made by Marxists that adults do expect comfort, support and appreciation at home as it makes work bearable.
There are many weaknesses of the Marxist view on family. Firstly, Marxists assumes that families are a paradise of bliss, support and relaxation however many are not a safety valve because many families have abuse and arguments therefore do no operate like this. Furthermore Marxists assume that parents do not protest at home about work as many do so children will pick up on this and possibly challenge the system e.g. unions. Marxists also assumes that children always obey and adjust to hierarchy. This is not the case as many rebel and become opposites of their parents. Some children become higher in power than their parents because of manipulation and influence. Another weakness is the assumption that children of the proletariat will follow and become proletariat, however it ignores social mobility and advancement allowing future generations to become apart of the bourgeoisie. Additionally, some families aren’t materialistic and are still self-sufficient or material possessions may be a necessity for a job or an asset gained from work. Oppositely, Marxists ignores the fact that people need to buy consumer goods; the economy would collapse causing huge suffering.
Marxists-feminists focus on the idea that women’s domestic labour within the family contributes to society. The key aspect of their theory is that the defeat of capitalism and the formation of a socialist society will result in a changed family structure with increased public involvement in the providing of childcare; this they believe will result in greater equality for women alongside men in the workplace. Marxists-feminists believe that the position of women in the family is the downfall in their hierarchy in the workplace and is a major problem to their freedom.
Juliet Mitchell believes that gender equality will occur in the workplace when women are freed from their domestic duties. This could be seen as a weakness as some women may feel that their power within the household comes from being the sole one to clean and complete chores allowing their children to see that the mother is doing most work whilst the male will relax and or continue work at home. Margaret Benston argues that women could be more independently financial if they were paid for their domestic labour. “His wage buys the labour power of two people” this suggests that “his” wage has to cover the lifestyle of two people, as the wife doesn’t get paid for her labour at home. However if women did get paid for work in the home, this would cause problems for the upper class, as the money in society would become increasingly spread equally.
by
16amymurray (student)
