Significantly, Murdock argues that the reason why the nuclear family unit is universally present is that it performs four essential functions, without which society could not function, these four functions being as mentioned before, sexual; being the reinforcement of heterosexual norms, reproductive; being the emphasis on the fact that society needs to reproduce in order to survive additionally Murdock felt the family was the most opt place for reproduction to take place. Thirdly another function being economic; that is the idea that if there is cooperation within the family then division of labour is improved and lastly education being the idea that knowledge and skills are passed down through generations. Additionally, it teaches norms and values via the process of socialisation, improving social solidarity. Murdock argued that his analysis provides a conception of the family’s many-sided utility and thus of its inevitability. He concluded that no society has succeeded in finding an adequate substitute for the nuclear family, to which it might transfer these functions. It is highly doubtful whether any society will ever succeed in such an attempt. Lastly, Murdock felt the family is “universal”, since neither the individual nor society could survive without it.
Acknowledging all of Murdock’s perceptions of the family, it can be said the contribution of functionalism is a key to aid our understanding of the family, nevertheless, there are other functionalists we need to take into account and more importantly there was many criticisms of George Peter Murdock. The family is seen as a multi-functional institution that is indispensable to society, it’s many-sided utility accounts for its universality and its inevitability. In his enthusiasm for the family, however, Murdock did not seriously consider whether other social institutions could perform its functions and he does not examine alternatives to the family, for example the Israeli Kibbutz; these are not families but a kibbutz is a settlement where members work together and share property. Additionally while men and women form couples and maybe marry, their children are seen as the responsibility of the kibbutz as a whole, due to the children only seeing their biological parents for a short time each day. As Morgan notes in his criticism, Murdock does not answer to what extent these basic functions are inevitably linked with the institution of the nuclear family. In addition, Murdock’s description of the family is almost too good to be true. As Morgan states in his criticisms, Murdock’s nuclear family is a remarkably harmonious institution, nevertheless there are many other researchers that do not share Murdock’s emphasis on harmony and integration.
Another enthusiast of the functionalist perspective was the sociologist Talcott Parsons. Parsons claimed the family has two basic and irreducible functions and these being primary socialisation of children and stabilisation of the adult personality. Primary socialisation refers to socialisation during the early years of childhood that takes place mainly within the family, in other words the teaching of norms and values to children, usually from parents. Parsons felt there were two basic processes involved in primary socialisation: the internalisation of society’s culture and the structuring of the personality. Firstly, parsons felt that unless culture is internalised, that is absorbed and accepted, society would cease to exist, since without shared norms and values social life would not be possible. However, culture is not simply learned, it is ‘internalised as part of the personality structure’. The child’s personality is moulded in terms of the central values of the culture to the point where they become apart of him or her. Additionally, Parsons argued that families are ‘factories’ that produce human personalities. He believed that they are essential for this purpose since primary socialisation requires a context, which provides warmth, security and mutual support. He could conceive of no institution other than the family that could provide this context. Once produced, the personality must be kept stable. This principle guides us to the second basic function of the family being the stabilisation of adult personalities. The emphasis here is on the marriage and the emotional security the couple provide for each other. This acts as a counterweight to the stresses and strains of everyday life that tend to make the personality unstable. In other words, this emphasises the need for the family to avoid psychological pressures of life that may disturb the adult personality.
Consequently, as with Murdock, there are many criticisms of Parsons. Initially, as with Murdock, Parsons has been accused of idealising the family with his picture of well-adjusted children and sympathetic spouses caring for each other’s every need. It is a typically optimistic, modernistic theory that may have little relationship to reality. Additionally his picture is largely based on the American middle-class family that he treats as representative of American families in general. As Morgan states there are no classes, no regions, no religious, ethnic or status groups, no communities, in Parsons’s analysis of the family. Also like Murdock, Parsons fails to explore functional alternatives to the family. He does not recognise that some functions are not necessarily tied to the family. For instance, he notes that the family’s economic function has largely been taken over by other agencies in modern industrial society. However, his belief that its remaining functions are ‘basic and irreducible’ prevents him from examining alternatives. Significant to his criticism, his view of socialisation can be questioned. He sees it as a one-way process, with the children being pumped full of culture and their personalities being moulded by powerful parents. He tends to ignore the two-way process between parents and children. There is no place in his scheme for children who twist their parents around their little finger and they become the powerful ones. Lastly, Parsons sees the family as a distinct institution that is clearly separated from other aspects of social life. Some contemporary perspectives on the family deny that such clear-cut boundaries can be established. The family as such cannot therefore be seen as performing any particular functions on its own in isolation from other institutions.
A contradicting approach to the family is the Marxist perspective, and they feel that the family benefits the ruling class in a capitalist society; consequently Marxists reject the functionalists’ view that society is based on value consensus and thus operates for the benefit of all. Marxists put the family into the context of the evolution of capitalism and Friedrich Engels advocated this idea by arguing that the monogamous nuclear family developed to solve the problem of the inheritance of private property. Some Marxists feel the functions of the family can be performed by alternative institutions, therefore the family is not significant. Engels felt in a capitalist society, within a family, women are exploited and prevented from achieving equality. Another sociologist, Eli Zaretsky saw the family as promoting the capitalist system, he felt the capitalist system is based on the domestic labour of housewives who reproduce future generations of workers and the family uses the products of the capitalists, thus enabling the bourgeoisie to keep making profits.
Although Engels was critical of the family he did not wish to see it abolished. Finally, Engels felt that the nuclear family evolves overtime, from primitive communism, where there was little regulation of sexual behaviour, through to capitalism. Where marriage is based on monogamy.
As with all other theoretical approaches, Marxist features many condemnations. Firstly they tend to focus on the negative aspects of the family life and ignore the real satisfaction it glues to many individuals; additionally their views don’t apply to all societies because they concentrate on capitalism only, blaming the capitalist society as the cause of all troubles. Lastly, they see the nature of the family as determined by the needs of the economic system. Therefore, they see the family as performing predetermined functions.
Another approach similar to Marxist is the Feminists approach. Feminist theories that overlap and extend other theories highlight the exploitation of women in capitalist societies. They feel the family is a patriarchal institution, where women are exploited. Feminists disagree with the notion that a wife’s primary purpose is to care for their children and husband, in the family. Additionally they feel women’s subordinate position in the family as wives/mothers is partly due to the economic dependency and the nature of the family denies women the opportunity to participate in the wider society and achieve equality with men. Feminists challenge functionalist’s views that women are sensitive, patient and kind by nature, with their expressive role involving them looking after men, children and the home. Marxist-Feminists attempt to relate to the unequal position of women in society to the roles they occupy within the capitalist system, an important part of this being women’s place in the family. Like Engels they feel the family is a major obstacle to female freedom. Their main views being that the family is patriarchal meaning it is male dominated and the notion of symmetrical conjugal roles is seen as a myth. Additionally the family has an ideological role, here they argue and reject functionalists view that socialisation in the family is beneficial for society, and instead Peggy Morton argues the acceptance of hierarchy in the family benefits the capitalist economy. Lastly we have Radical Feminists who feel that the family is a patriarchal institution that enables men to dominate and exploit women, therefore the family does not only benefit the bourgeoisie, but men, in general. Radical feminists feel an elucidation would be to independently build an alternative society that can challenge patriarchy.
Generally there are various criticisms of the different feminist approaches. Firstly, they neglect the positive side of the family, additionally they assume all women are equally exploited and lastly Black Feminist, such as Carby have criticised white feminists for failing to consider the significance of racism alongside patriarchy as a form of domination.
In conclusion, the contribution of functionalist to our understanding of the family can be questioned, although they are supported by views of the New Right who are not a sociological perspective, but a political perspective that see the family as a cornerstone of society. Additionally they share the functionalist’s view that the stability of the family is important to maintain the equilibrium of society. Nevertheless their views are considered more political than sociological and they fail to consider the disadvantages of the nuclear family and disagree with alternatives such as homosexuality. With other theoretical approaches suggesting functionalist only looks at the good side of the family I feel its contribution is vital especially as Leach and Laing provided a balance to the functionalist view that has dominated sociological thinking if the family for many years. Leach was an anthropologist who studied small pre-industrial societies felt that their were pressures between husband and wife due to stress and that they are performing all of the tasks within the family unit and this could lead to members rebelling and fighting. Laing was a phenomenological psychiatrist ad he was concerned with the interaction within the family and the meanings that developed in that context.
Overall, Laing in particular has given important insights into the interaction patterns within the family, and in doing so he may have come closer to family life as it is actually experienced than do many of the more orthodox presentations. Therefore it can be assumed that functionalism is a key aid to our understanding but with the criticisms it gains I feel it is obligatory that we look at other perspectives to give us a deeper insight to the meaning of family.
