Sociology of education

Sociology

The Cereal packet family is the embodiment of the nuclear family, a happy couple sharing a bowl of cereal with their children as typically seen on a cereal packet, is the cereal packet family an accurate picture of the ‘typical’ modern family?

For different reasons both Functionalists and Marxists have been accused of adding to the assumption has a more instrumental role, while his wife stays at home and has a more expressive role.

Statistical evidence accumulated of the past 30 years begs to differ. The nuclear family has been in decline since its peak during the 70s.

In 1971 52% of children lived in a nuclear family; in 2004 38% did.

In 1971 only 8% of children lived in a lone-parent household; 27% in 2002.

(Data extracted from Office for National Statistics, 2006a)

An historical view of the family shows dramatic changes to the structure of the family and the different roles of marital spouses that have occurred through the ages.

Young and Willmotts study on the 4 stages of the family showed the family has undergone three significant changes and how the division of labour within the family had changed. The first stage was the Pre-Industrial Family in which the husband was the head of the household and had economic control over family, and the latest stage was a symmetrical family where conjugal roles which had been separated, (husbands had played no part in the raising of the children or domestic chores) where now joint. Segregated conjugal roles were uncommon among middle class families but were a prominent in the working class; this is where the concept of the housewife was created .Ann Oakley’s research differed from this definition; in her study she found that there was a greater equality amongst the middle classes, in terms of domestic conjugal roles. In families where segregated conjugal roles were present the husband made all the vital decisions regarding the family. e.g. where they lived the responsibilities of the wife in this relationship were solely focused on the children and domestic chores. They also spent their leisure time apart; it was not uncommon for either to know the company the other kept.

Functionalists believe that the industrialization of Britain has led to greater social mobility and the rise of classless marriages. This has been said is the reason behind the decline in segregated conjugal roles within the relationship. In the ‘Symmetrical Family (Young and Willmott)’ joint conjugal roles within the marriage no are no longer a rarity, although the imprint of past mentalities on segregated conjugal roles still remained (e.g. the husband was still primary the breadwinner and the wife still has primary responsibilities are domesticated and child rearing) husbands became more involved in domestic chores. ‘Young and Willmott found that ...

This is a preview of the whole essay

(Sociology themes and perspectives, Haralambos and Holborn, 05)

Martial spouses also shared the responsibility when it came to making decisions on behalf of the family; they discuss matters such as finances, which wasn’t the case during the early industrial family. General consensus is that a marriage where the roles are joint is more stable.

Modernization and diversity of family from the 1970s onward has led to the decline of the nuclear family. The nuclear family structure has been replaced by a variety of family configurations, whose values differ to the past nuclear families. Those include single parent, reconstituded, co habiting couples with children and single sex families.

Functionalism believes only the nuclear family is valuable to society. They see the nuclear family through the fit thesis, where families should be measured upon their performance roles that are vital for the society on a whole. These are the functions of socialisation of the young (teaching children the norms and values of society and the stabilisation of the adult personality (providing reassuring and safe environment for adult’s member of the family as well as children). Sociologist Talbot Parsons also believed that there should be a harmonizing responsibility within the family. The two responsibilities in he suggested were those of a mother performing a more expressive role and the father a more instrumental role. He believed this because it is seen as valuable to the social order and economy. The father works whilst the mother provides emotional support and also cares for the family although feminists will see this as sexiest but in most nuclear families, these harmonizing roles where applied.

The UK has one of the highest percentages of single parent families in Europe with a quarter of children now living with a single parent.

“Between 1972 and 2002 the percentage of children living in single-parent families increased from 7% to 21%”

(Sociology themes and perspectives, Haralambos and Holborn, 05)

Single parenthood can happen for a number of different reasons e.g. divorce, separation or death of partner

There are generalization and misconceptions about single parents, one of which is that all single parents are teenage girls who are after a council flat and the security of the welfare state, but in no uncertain terms, this is not the case. Most single parents would be happy to bring a child up in the nuclear family, but couldn’t due the various circumstances. Adults (particularly women) have become ‘single parents by choice meaning they have decided to have or adopt a child, knowing they would be the sole parent. People who are opposed to single parent families state that the rise in single parent families will have massive implications on society for instance children growing up without a mother lack the love and nurture provided by a mother, and subsequently have difficulties in trusting women, have deep self loathing and have problem participating in society. According to commentators that support single parenthood, single parents devote on average more time and energy on their children. Also children who live with only one parent tend to develop independence faster, if the parent has a job, the children may have to learn to do things for themselves such as preparing a simple meal or household chores. Reconstituted families can the add structure, stability, closeness, and sanctuary to children if it was lost through separation or death. They tend to usually have more two adult influences meaning they have the chance to learn from a wider pool of knowledge and more have siblings to socialize with.

The family dynamics hasn’t only changed through time but across different cultures. The beauty of living in a mutli-cultural society, such as London is that we can witness first hand the functions performed by families from different ethnicities

South Asian families (Punjab, Gujarat and Bengal) exist in multigenerational households, and like the past nuclear family are traditionally based around the premise that the man is the figurehead. Preferably the family as a whole would contribute to domestic and waged work, although men and women did different jobs.

In Afro Caribbean families there is a strong emphasis on the extended family being more involved in the raising of children as well as a strong mother who assumes the role of primary bread winner and nurturer.

Although these families all do carry out functions needed by societies, Functionalism is likely to reject them because unlike nuclear families, there functions do not fit ‘the Functionalist fit thesis’. Functionalism believes that children from single parent and reconstituted and Afro Caribbean families lack the stability and structure needed in functionalism (due to the lack of parent or the fact there’s just too many parents or adult influences). There is the possibility that the child might not receive the necessary attention needed to prevent the children having social imbalances and the inability to socialize to the norms and values of a functionalism. The nurtured, structure and stability of the nuclear family tends to develop their children a better idea of what is acceptable behaviour in functionalism.

The structure of a family from South Asia would fit the functionalistic view, but the stability of the family because both husband and wife tend work share conjugal roles and the roles of the parents have are do not as they are more focused on the success of the family.

Feminists believe that the “function fit thesis” (the nuclear family) doesn’t benefit anybody else but the man, the believe that a functionalist society is male dominated and that women are being exploited due to the separate conjugal roles (learnt through socialisation as a child) which they believe are holding women back; so they are not capable of becoming independent.

Marxist sees the nuclear family as only benefiting the Bourgeoisie (ruling class).

Research by Friedrich Engels (The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State 1884) show that Marxists believed that the nuclear was designed to keep male’s dominaint through the inheritance of land and private property. And also the nuclear family socialized there children into accepting capitalism ultimaty reproducing the capitalist labour force. Critics of Marxist view of the family say the it doesn’t take into account the diversity of they family.

According to Post modernists it is ok to have diversity among families they believe that no particular type of family dominates in society. Judith Stacey for example suggests that a ‘single individual will experience a variety of family structures throughout their life span’. Movement across classes and the proximity between the numbers of diverse cultures and attitudes, support the postmodernist ideology

There are functions performed by a variety of families. Marxism and Feminism only rejects the idea of the ‘functionalist fit thesis’ because of exploitation it promotes within the family and society. Postmodernism re-interprets the traditional concept of the ‘Functionalist fit’ as they believe that variety and choice has led to the widening of the ‘functionalist fit thesis’ which is no longer just limited to the nuclear family.