Geographical mobility led to people becoming more isolated and independent. Nuclear family members became more focused on one another, thereby becoming more home centred.
During industrialisation, specialised agencies took over many of the functions that the family used to perform. For example, before industrialisation, the family was responsible for educating children. After industrialisation however, this function was taken over by the education system which came into place. Parsons referred to this as structural differentiation, which resulted in the workplace and home life becoming separated. This only left the family with two functions to specialise in; primary socialisation and stabilisation. Primary socialisation is the act of teaching kids the norms and values of society. By stabilisation, parsons refer to the family as being a warm bath, which helps stabilise adult personalities.
Parsons claimed that the nuclear family provides males and females with clear social roles. The male takes on an instrumental role as the bread winner. It is seen as the males job to go out to work and earn money for his family. The female, on the other hand, takes on an expressive role as carer and nurturer of the family. Parsons, along with other functionalists, favoured these family roles as they provide children with both male and female role models to look up to.
Parsons concluded that industrialisation brought about the nuclear family which did not exist before then. The nuclear family is seen as best fit as it benefits the industrial society better than the extended family.
Some social historians, such as Peter Laslett, disregarded Parsons claim and stated that the nuclear family existed before industrialisation and was not a product of it. Laslett studied the Parish registers, which suggested that only 10% of families, before industrialisation, were extended. It could also be stated that industrialisation took off so quickly as the nuclear family already existed. Laslett’s study can be criticised as parish registers are not reliable.
Michael Anderson, another social historian, used census data from 1851 of the town of Preston in his studies. His findings also contradicted Parsons view that the nuclear family was replaced by the extended family after industrialisation. From the census data, Anderson found that a large number of households still shared extended kin.
Robert Chester, social historian, suggests that the neo conventional family, or nuclear family, is the most typical family form. Robert Chester found that only 23% of family forms were neo conventional, which could suggest that the nuclear family is not as common as it may be believed to be.
Young and Wilmott argued that the extended family was well suited to the pre-industrial domestic system. Young and Wilmott have argued that family in Britain has undergone three major stages of development.
Pre-Industrial Family was typically seen as extended family. Links to wider kin helps produce an economic unit where goods were produced. The farther was seen as the head of the household, exercising economic control over his family.
Asymmetrical Family was then brought about. The family home and work place became separated. Many males went off to work while females carried out domestic responsibilities.
Symmetrical Family was brought about in the twentieth century. This family was quite different from the first two in many respects. Symmetric families are more child-centred and involve greater equality between males and females based upon joint conjugal roles.
In conclusion, there is much evidence to suggest that the nuclear family was brought about due to industrialisation. As Parsons suggested, extended family shifted towards nuclear family as the industrial society demanded a workforce which could only be obtained through the nuclear family. There is also evidence to suggest that industrialisation did not completely wipe out the extended family as it still exists in many societies.
