Parsons’ list of functions is much shorter than Murdock’s; he argues that the family has to provide for the primary socialization of children by transmitting to them the acceptable rules and patterns of behaviour to ensure the stabilisation of society; and the stabilisation of adult personality i.e. responsibility for the children gives emotional stability and acts as a haven from any difficulties by allowing adults to let go within the confines of their own home. Parsons analysis seeks to show that as society evolves so the family adapts and his analysis showed how the family’s functions adapt to a modern society such as the USA or Britain with less emphasis on the need for the family to fulfil the economic maintenance with outside agencies taking on some of the roles of the family.
Another Functionalist Sociologist is Fletcher. Fletcher believed that a distinction could be made between the essential and non-essential functions of the family. He thought that as society has developed, some of the nuclear family’s functions had become the responsibility of other institutions, but that the nuclear family still provides three main functions; namely, it provides for stable satisfaction of sexual needs, provides for the production and rearing of children and for the provision of a home. All three of these Functionalists are basically in agreement over the essential functions of the nuclear family and how they interact with the other institutions of society.
These functions can be summarised as socialization of children including the transmission of acceptable means of behaviour and gender roles, stabilization of adult personalities, social control, protection and welfare, economic consumption and recreation.
Other Sociologists have criticised this view of family life, believing it to be an idealised view and stressing the restrictive, repressive and exploitative nature of the nuclear family, which can be seen as a reason for rising divorce rates, gender inequality and the growing diversity of family types.
Marxists argue that the concentration on harmony and the passing on of universal values through socialisation means that Functionalists fail to recognise that many problems in society are the result of families or that often problems exist within families. Instead, Marxists believe that society is based on conflict between the working class and the ruling class and that the nuclear family serves the capitalist system with its primary function being to provide obedient workers for the future. Marxists argue that the monogamous bourgeois family is patriarchal and that its function as the primary socialiser of children reinforces this traditional hierarchy and is designed to guarantee and perpetuate male power. This, they argue, has made women economically dependent upon men as they are used as unpaid labour to raise children and run the household. Moreover, they believe that its functions of reproduction and socialisation produce both a new labour force and an acceptance of Capitalism which they believe is wrong and that the road to happiness does not lie with consumerism and material gain. Furthermore, Marxists believe that the family also helps to maintain the class structure by perpetuating the ascribed status and gulf between the classes since the rich have access to better education and job opportunities. Marxists believe that part of the socialisation function of the family is to reinforce the notion that it is fair that the classes are unequal as this belief is essential to the smooth working of the capitalist system.
From a Marxist perspective, it can be argued that the nuclear family does not function to benefit all its members and that society as a whole doesn’t benefit either. Rather from this perspective the Capitalist economy and the ruling classes are seen as the main beneficiaries with men of whatever class, faring better than women.
Whilst Marxists see the nuclear family as a prop to capitalism and bourgeois patriarchy, feminists look at the gender aspect of oppression and argue that the nuclear family preserves patriarchal ideology with a domestic division of labour, unequal power relationships within many families and the manner in which this contributes to the oppression of women whilst benefiting men. Hence the Feminist view questions the Functionalist perspective that the nuclear family is based on consensus, common interests and mutual support. Within the feminist ideology there are differing sub-groups who view the nuclear family from differing perspectives with some believing this is as a result of Capitalism and others that it existed before industrialisation and is based upon a patriarchal ideology.
Marxist Feminists believe that Capitalism emphasises the role of women as mothers and encourages women to have children and rear them to provide the next work force. In this way, capitalism exploits women by utilising them as free labour and as a result men benefit. Marxist Feminists argue that the socialisation of children within the nuclear family perpetuates male domination and female subordination both through the toys that children play with and the copying of their parents’ gender roles. Men therefore continue as the main bread winners and women continue to have primary responsibility for child rearing whilst at the same time forming part of a reserve army of labour which can be hired and fired easily as required. According to this perspective, it is the capitalist class that is the primary beneficiary of the nuclear family, but that men also benefit as women cannot compete on a level playing field for jobs and other opportunities because of their child rearing priorities.
On the other hand, Radical Feminists believe that the nuclear family exists primarily to benefit men because the nuclear family socialises children into gender roles with both sexes adopting a set of values and norms which confirms the power of men and their superiority by reinforcing the idea that the patriarchal ideology is natural. According to this view, this ideology also encourages the idea that the sexual division of labour is also natural and unchangeable which results in the exploitation of women who are seen as sex objects when unmarried and house-keepers and mothers when married.
The New Right present yet another view of the nuclear family. Unlike the Marxists and Feminists, they concur with the Functionalist view that it beneficial to society as a whole and to individual family members. They argue that children from nuclear families do better at school, obtain better jobs and are less likely to turn to crime.
It’s quite clear therefore, that there is no universal agreement as to whether the nuclear family exists to benefit all its members and society as a whole or not. This is the view of the Functionalist and New Right Perspectives, but there are weaknesses in their arguments. The Functionalists seem to take for granted that the nuclear family is a natural institution, but sociological research suggests that it is culturally specific. Even within societies where the nuclear family is common there is evidence to suggest that in many cases the nuclear family is far from harmonious and beneficial to its members as can be evidenced by domestic abuse and divorce. The Functionalist view point also fails to take account of any other influences that determine the role of families and their constituent members such as family income, religion and cultural background and as such some of their assumptions as to gender roles may be insecure and social and cultural changes mean that many of the nuclear family’s functions no longer exist.
However, the other perspectives of the nuclear family and who it benefits also have their weaknesses. The recent social changes which have seen the feminization of the workforce, divorce and the rejection of house-work and child rearing by some women suggest that women do not passively accept a patriarchal society in the twenty-first century. Moreover, not all nuclear family relationships are based on unequal power; many are based upon love, mutual respect and shared responsibilities. Despite this all the perspectives I have studied agree that the nuclear family is determined by the needs of society and benefits society. They all seem to ignore the diversity of family types and they all seem to apply stereotypical reactions to family members rather than accepting that individuals within families will have differing views as to whether its structure is beneficial to them or not. Overall, despite the weaknesses that are apparent in its arguments, I feel that the Functionalist view that the nuclear family exists to benefit all its members and society as a whole is a fairly strong argument, as the diversity of family types today show that differing family types can co-exist so that society and individuals both benefit.
