Examine the view that nuclear family did not exist in Britain before industrialisation
Examine the view that nuclear family did not exist in Britain before industrialisation
Whist Britain was undergoing industrialisation, a lot of societal changes took place. Changes that not only affected population but had an impact on family life and the way it was run. Parsons (1955) believed that families were mainly extended before industrialisation which meant that nuclear families didn’t exist during pre-industrialisation. These extended needed the kinship to be able to be producers as it was mainly an agricultural economy, so they would work together mainly farming as their labour. This was then used to provide clothes, shelter, and food etc. So the family network was a strong one as they played different roles in the household to maintain it. That is why Parsons believed that all this changed when the manufacturing economy came into place, and this caused four major changes to the family.
This new economy was now demanding a workforce which was more geographically mobile, so to take advantage of this opportunity people were more likely to move away from their villages to the towns, therefore the family ties were broken and nuclear family was formed. Parsons also believed that with the state taking over some of the family’s functions like education, wealth and welfare the extended family wasn’t needed and it was easier for them to move away. They could also buy mass produced foods from factories with there new wages. He referred to this process as ‘structural differentiation’. This way families didn’t have to produce anything but became consumers instead. This meant that families could focus on work, and Parson’s view on this was that they could be more effective to the economy. Another point he stated about nuclear families was the specific roles for the parents. He claimed that socially the husband and Wife were each to perform specific roles. So the man of the house would work to bring a source of income into the house, as he was responsible to provide the welfare and protection for his family. Therefore he was the ‘instrumental leader’, and the wife was the ‘expressive leader’. The wife had the role of emotionally supporting the family and the socialisation of children. This was believed to be a natural division of labour because women are known for their maternal instincts and would be best for child upbringing; Parsons found the partner’s relationships were complementary to each other each contributing with their own unique roles.
