(Cited in Haralambos & Holburn, 2004).
From this Laslett formed the opinion that the family was originally nuclear even in pre industrial times due to low life expectancy and it was this form of the family which in part actually aided industrialization. This opinion is also carried by Willmott and Young who agree that it was the extended family that was born out of the industrial revolution in terms of strong matriarchal bonds because of female isolation.
The nuclear family has been viewed as more isolated than the extended family whereby the husband became the sole instrumental leader responsible for the economic welfare of the family and the wife became the sole expressive leader responsible primarily for socialising children and providing emotional support for family members.
It is this isolation that instigates criticism of the Functionalist theory of the family from many sociologists and psychiatrists. Functionalists appear to be of the opinion that the nuclear family is strong due to the one on one relationships. However, Edmund Leach, an anthropologist, suggests that this isolation or one on one relationship where the “… family looks inward upon itself [creates] an intensification of emotional stress between husband and wife…The strain is greater than most of us can bear.”
(Cited in Haralambos & Holborn, 2004).
Leach concludes that because the nuclear family is isolated and completely dependant on its own resources it “…becomes like an overloaded electrical circuit [as] the demands made upon it are too great and fuses blow.” (Haralambos & Holborn, 2004).
Leach’s conclusions portrays the family not in a positive light but as a site of conflict that has a detrimental affect on the rest of society as barriers and insecurities are born out of the “prison of the nuclear family” (Cited in Haralambos & Holborn, 2004).
Marxist sociologists also view the family in a negative manner and strongly criticise the Functionalist theory. Marxist criticisms tend to originate from their central belief that institutions are present in order to benefit capitalism and their functions are therefore not to benefit society but are beneficial to the regime, in other words the family ensure the ideological conditioning of the future workforce into a capitalist workforce. It is worth noting that Marxism is a conflict theory that concentrates on the exploitation of the proletariats against the minority of the bourgeoisie, thus illustrating continuous conflict between the bourgeoisie, the oppressor, and the proletariat, the oppressed.
Marxists view the family as an institution created and used by the bourgeoisie to retain their wealth. According to Marxists, the capitalists regime encourages the proletariats (or working class) to value family life above all else in order to divert the attention away from the unjust regime. This opinion is the central point to Marxists other criticisms of the family stem from the unjust capitalist regime, for example, Marxist feminists criticise the nuclear family as it apparently benefits the bourgeoisie at the expense of the working class. This concept is derived from the view that we socialise our children to be subordinate to us as parents then to be subordinate to the education system in order to prepare them to be exploited by the bourgeoisie in the workplace. The capitalist workplace is also incredibly unjust as according to Margaret Benson (1972) the wages paid to the workers are not the true economic value for the work that has been done as they pay one small wage for the labour of two people (wife’s domestic labour), linked to this there is also the issue of the wife’s role as the expressive leader, sexual services and unpaid domestic labour that maintains a healthy workforce for the bourgeoisie. According to Marxist feminists these often forgotten roles of the wife in the family unit are exploited and used by capitalism to ensure that the proletariat remain oppressed.
It is evident that the family as an institution is an extremely contentious issue. The debate regarding its benefits has raged for years both amongst historians, psychiatrists and sociologists. However, what has arisen over the last few decades is the possibility of huge family diversity, for example, gay families and the changing conjugal roles within the family. The family as an institution has always been a site of conflict between many and this is unlikely to change, however, since 1975 people have been looking at how the institution is changing if at all and how such changes are affecting traditional conjugal roles.
In 1975 Willmott and Young published their findings regarding the changing relationships between partners, it was a collection of both historical evidence and research findings with which they drew comparisons.
Historically they looked at the family and their roles in three stages. Initially the pre industrial family here they concluded that the family was a means of production whereby the husband, wife and unmarried children worked as a team in agriculture or textiles. It appeared that both husband and wife were more or less equal in their dealings with one another and in terms of the economic welfare of the family. Willmott and Young concluded that this type of family evolved into the industrial family although they noted that it is still represented as a minority family in some communities today.
The next stage was the industrial family, whereby the family ceased to be a unit of production as individuals were employed by the bourgeoisie (in factories etc) and were paid an individual wage. Due to this, women withdrew from the workplace, this was instigated by Victorian laws and beliefs, therefore the housewife and mother role became the norm (expressive leader) whereas the men became the breadwinners (instrumental leader). According to Willmott and Young it is the industrial revolution that instigated powerful bonds between working class mothers and daughters as the women within the family looked to their peers for support due to isolation from their husbands because of long working hours etc… The industrial family began to decline in the early twentieth century, however, Willmott and Young did note that this type of family is still found in many low incomes, long established working class areas, such as Bethnal Green where family is very close knit similar in some respects to an extended family, close but not necessarily cohabiting generations.
The final stage is the symmetrical family which Willmott and Young describe as “the separation of the … nuclear family from the extended family.” (Cited in Haralambos & Holborn, 2004). The symmetrical family is where conjugal roles are becoming more joint Willmott and Young noted this between the 1930’s and the 1950’s although it is far more evident today as industry has declined and with that and new working hours legislation the husband appears to have returned to his family. Although the wife has remained responsible for the home and socialisation of children there has been a slow move towards equality with joint decision making and shared leisure activities.
Willmott and Young concluded that this pattern shows that over time families are becoming more equal in terms of responsibilities and roles based mainly on history. However, this view is heavily criticised and the controversy rages on today generally by feminist sociologists who still view conjugal roles as the oppressor of women.
Willmott and Young’s conclusion that conjugal roles are becoming more symmetrical have been heavily criticised by many such as Ann Oakley (1974). Oakley stated that Willmott and Young’s figures are misleading as they stated that 72 percent of men were contributing to the domestic chore of housework. However, Oakley points out those men who were only doing minimal chores such as bathing the children once a week were included in Willmott and Young’s 72 percent, thus providing the illusion that conjugal roles were becoming more symmetrical. Recent studies by Ferri and Smith in 1991 show that it was still rare for fathers to take primary responsibility for childcare regardless of the families’ economic situation i.e. which partner was the main breadwinner. Ferri and Smith discovered that even when the woman was the sole earner it was still more common for them to have the dual burden of childcare and paid employment. According to Ferri and Smith it suggests that the changing times where women are embarking on careers and paid employment outside the home has made very little impact on the male contributions to domestic roles. Ferri and Smith conclude their study by noting that “…two-thirds of working full time mothers said they were responsible for cooking and cleaning…”
(Cited in Haralambos & Holborn, 2004).
Ann Oakley, Elsa Ferri and Kate Smith all portray the fact that conjugal roles are not becoming as symmetrical as Willmott and Young discovered and predicted. The emphasis for their opinions appears to be that instead of men taking on more domestic roles women are indeed taking on another role and are therefore carrying a dual burden that of paid employment and domestic family chores.
This view is the basis of Jonathon Gershuny’s studies. Oakley states that women have maintained responsibility for household tasks whilst also being expected to have paid employment thus being more oppressed. Gershuny states that this could in fact
“lead to increased inequality between husbands and wives.”
(Cited in Kirby et al, 1999).
Gershuny looked at various data from 1974, 1975 and 1997 in order to discover how the share of work had changed. He found that in 1997 women continued to do in excess of 60 percent of domestic chores even when both husband and wife were working full time, however the figures collected do show a gradual shift towards husbands doing more domestic work, but it is gradual. In another of research project in 1989 Gershuny and Laurie discovered once again that husbands were starting to take on more domestic chores more so when women were embarking on paid employment. Gershuny and Laurie concluded that “growth in wives employment outside the home does lead to a reduction in gender inequality within the home.” (Cited in Haralambos & Holborn, 2004).
It is generally accepted that in today’s modern families where many mothers work many more men than 50 years ago do contribute in some area of the domestic running of the family in varying quantities. (Kirby et al, 1999). When Willmott and Young stated that roles were becoming more symmetrical debate arose as their statement appeared misunderstood and many people interpreted it as if they were implying that inequality between husbands and wives no longer existed. Willmott and Young never intended people to see the symmetrical family as equal conjugal roles just that roles were changing and shifting towards more equality between husbands and wives.
Many critics of Willmott and Young’s theory regarding the symmetrical family concentrate on how women are oppressed by the effects of primary socialisation within their marriages. Gershuny referred to this concept in terms of paid employment and marriage as a dual burden. Jean Duncombe and Dennis Marsden extended this concept and elaborated on it in terms of the role of the wife as the expressive leader (Parsons warm bath sponge theory). They looked at an invisible element of women’s domestic work, emotional work. They took the opinion of N. James (1989) that girls were socialised to recognise and empathize with the moods of others. Duncombe and Marsden surveyed married couples separately and together and asked them how their marriage had survived. The results concluded that many women were dissatisfied with their partner’s lack of emotional input and lack of expression of love. The majority of men were unaware that emotional work was needed. Duncombe and Marsden concluded that it was the women that were holding the relationships together by doing the vital emotional work and maintain the “illusion of a happy family [thus placing] considerable emotional strain on the woman”. (Haralambos & Holborn, 2004).
Duncombe and Marsden conclude in a similar way to Gershuny (who stated that women carry a dual burden), however they take the dual burden a step further and state that women actually are carrying a triple burden by having paid employment, domestic labour and the majority of the emotional work to do within their relationships. It is evident that this triple burden increases strain for the women in their relationships and therefore can only create more gender inequality.
In conclusion it is evident that within modern societies family diversity exists in that families and their structures have changed as society has developed centrally through the industrial period although controversy exists as to exactly how. It appears that conjugal roles are slowly changing and that men are becoming more involved in family life, for example, more men are spending leisure time at home with their families (Willmott & Young’s symmetrical family-Haralambos & Holborn, 2004). However, there is overwhelming evidence that considers many other aspects such as women’s domestic labour, paid employment, invisible work (planning and preparation of meals etc) and emotional work. This evidence proves that although husbands may well be helping around the home and with certain areas of childcare true role equality is a long way off. Feminists would say that women are more oppressed than ever due to the extra burdens mainly taking on paid employment without releasing a previous role or burden to their husbands. It is therefore evident that conjugal roles have gradually become a little more equal but are by no means symmetrical; inequality does still exist within conjugal roles and within the majority of marriages. A desirable future as Duncombe and Marsden concluded would be “…a deep transformation in the nature of heterosexual masculinity.” (Cited in Haralambos & Holborn, 2004). However this can only be achieved through socialisation of children into their specific gender roles therefore the change of attitude must originate in adults who are already socialised into the traditional masculine and feminine roles we see today.
List of References
1. Haralambos, M & Holborn, M, 2004, Sociology Themes and Perspectives. London, Harper Collins.
2. Kirby et al, 1999, Sociology in Perspective. Oxford, Heinemann Educational Publishers.
