For many centuries in the West, marriage was regarded as indissoluble. Divorces were granted only in very limited cases, such as non consummation of marriage. One or two industrial countries still do not recognise divorce. For a divorce to be granted, one spouse has to bring charges (for example, cruelty, desertion or adultery) against the other. The first “no fault divorce” laws were introduced in some countries in the mid 1960s. In the UK, the Divorce Reform Act, which made it easier for couples to obtain a divorce and contained “no fault” provisions, was passed in 1969 and came into effect in 1971. The “no fault” principle was further consolidated in a new bill passed in 1996.
People expect and demand more from marriage and consequently are more likely to end a relationship, which may have been acceptable in the past. Thus, Ronald Fletcher argues that a relatively high divorce rate may be indicative not of a lower but of higher standard of marriage in society. The high rate of remarriage apparently lends support to Parsons and Fletcher’s arguments. Paradoxically, the higher value placed on marriage may result in the increased marital breakdown. Hart argues that the second sets if factors that must be considered when looking at marital breakdown are those, which affect the degree of conflict between the spouses. It is arguable from a functionalist perspective that the adaptation of the family to the requirements of the economic system has placed a strain on the marital relationship. It has led to the relative isolation of the nuclear family from the wider kinship network. William J Goode argues that, as a result, the family carries a heavier emotional burden when it exists independently that when it is a small unit within a larger kin fabric. As a consequence this unit is relatively fragile (Goode 1971). Edmund Leach (1969) makes a similar point. He suggests that the nuclear family suffers from an emotional overload, which increases the level of conflict between its members. In industrial society the family specialises in fewer functions. It can be argued, that as a result, there are fewer bonds to unite its members. N. Dennis suggests that the specialisation of function that characterises the modern family will lead to increased marital breakdown.
In 2007 the provisional divorce rate in England and Wales fell to 11.9 divorcing people per 1,000 married population compared with the 2006 figure of 12.2. The divorce rates is at its lowest level since 1981 (www.divorce-online.co.uk). For the fifth consecutive year, both men and women in their late twenties had the highest divorce rates of all five-year age groups. In 2007 there were 26.6 divorces per 1,000 married men aged 25-29 and 26.9 divorces per 1,000 married women aged 25-29. Since 1997 (www.divorce-online.co.uk). Since 1997 the average age at divorce in England and Wales has risen from 40.2 to 43.7 years for men and from 37.7 to 41.2 years for women, partly reflecting the rise in age at marriage. One in five men and women divorcing in 2007 had a previous marriage ending in divorce. This proportion has doubled in 27 years (www.divorce-online.co.uk).
In Willmott and Young’s (1957) study of family life they argued that the extended family (supposedly superseded by the nuclear family in an era of advanced industrialisation) remained an important part of peoples lives. Kinship ties provided a strong network of assistance across a range of areas such as childcare, finance and emotional support. This can be closely related to modern day Britain due to the fact that society is experiencing an economic downturn and as a result families are relying on the extended family for support with childcare etc in order to make financial savings. This is an example of how family forms have changed and then changed back to mimic the once ‘nuclear family’.
It is becoming more and more common for families to leave their families and live in different cities or even countries in order to pursue careers etc. It is also becoming ever more regular that women are choosing careers over child bearing, a somewhat opposite from the previous housewife type role that would have. Fathers are now becoming “housewives” taking responsibility for the children. Despite all of this studies show that women are still doing the majority of the household chores as well as having a full time career and children. Heidi Hartmann (1981) researched if men are pulling their weight. Her research concluded that women who had jobs outside of the home still remained responsible for the majority of the housework. She conceded that the growth of women participation in the labour market has conferred on women a degree of independence. However due to the low wages that women are paid the male still remains dominant at home and in the workplace.
McKee and Bell’s (1986) study on what happens when men don’t work explored the effects of male unemployment on families. Men in the study did not feel obliged to undertake any housework and women reinforced this attitude for the fear that the husband would lose his “masculine identity”. This results on women undertaking a triple shift whereby she goes to work, looks after the children and does all of the household chores.
The Functionalists perspective sees society as a set of social institutions that perform specific functions to ensure continuity and consensus. According to this perspective the family performs important tasks that contribute to society’s basic needs and helps perpetuate social order. Sociologists working in the functionalists tradition have regarded the nuclear family as fulfilling certain specialised roles in modern societies. With the advent of industrialisation, the family became less important as a unit of economic production and more focused on reproduction, child rearing and socialisation.
Parsons regarded the nuclear family as the unit best equipped to handle the demands of industrial society. In the “conventional family” one adult can work outside the home while the second adult cares for the home and children.
Today, Parsons’ view on the family comes across as inadequate and outdated. Functionalists’ theories of the family have come under heavy criticism for justifying the domestic division of labour between men and women as something natural and unproblematic.
We can criticise Functionalist’s views of the family on other grounds. In emphasising the importance of the family in performing certain functions both theorists neglect the role that other social institutions such as government, media and schools play in socialising children. The theories also neglect variations in family forms that do not correspond to the model of the nuclear family. Families that did not conform to the white, suburban, middle class “ideal” were seen as deviants.
1970s and 1980s feminist perspectives dominated debates and research on the family. Feminism succeeded in directing attention inside families to examine the experiences of women in the domestic sphere. Marxist-feminist Eli Zaretsky argued that the family evolved as a result of the development of private property and capitalism (class handout: January 2009). Eli Zaretsky also made the point that as the family consumes the products of the workers this creates an economy and this ensures that capitalism continues. Marxist-Feminist Margret Benson (1972) stated that “the amount of unpaid labour performed by women is very large and very profitable to those who own the means of the production. To pay women for (house) would involve massive wage scales, would involve a massive re-distribution of wealth. At present, the support of the mainly is a hidden tax on the wage earner - his wage buys the labour power of two people”. Feminists have sought to show the presence of unequal power relationships within the family means that certain members tend to benefit more than others.
Feminist Sociologists have undertaken studies on the way the domestic tasks, such as child care and housework, are shared between men and women. They have investigated the validity of the claims such as that of the “symmetrical family” (Young and Wilmot 1973) the belief that over time, families are becoming more egalitarian in the distribution of roles and responsibilities.
In summary family forms have changed a great deal in Britain with marriage no longer being the basis for union between two people. Divorce and single parent families are becoming more and more normal. As we have seen, as a result of the economic downturn, families are reverting back to their families for support and this is an example of how family forms are constantly undergoing change.
