Family in the eyes of sociology

In the world today, families are a regular melting pot. With so many children in the foster care system or living with grandparents, stating that a nuclear family image is traditional and therefore "normal," can cause these children to feel as if they are different and not loved like those in traditional families. When the nuclear family image is used as a benchmark, many children in non-traditional families feel left out, different and unwanted, which can cause dissention at school and within whatever "home" they occupy. A child that grows up in a one-parent home that is told he should be raised by a mother and a father, with a sister, a cat and a dog is left feeling inadequate (Lehr 95). Children should not have to endure these feelings.

The one-parent family has become very popular and, with many forms of conception now available for the person wanting to become a single parent, it has become simplified. These new forms of conception also allow same sex partners the ability to start a family. Still, one-parent and same sex households are thought of as an unhealthy, unstable atmosphere for any child involved. The stereotype still seems to hold true, only one mother and one father can make up a normal household. Any society which adopts that model [of the nuclear family] as the basic building block for its culture will, without even realizing it, effectively lock out of the circle of legitimacy, non-married cohabitating couples, homosexual variations, and even polygamous combinations (Vitagliano).

There is a proliferation of divorce, unwed teens, and an abundant number of unwanted children in our society, each of these growing each and everyday. There have been profound shifts in sexual behavior, with the consequence that it has become socially acceptable to construct one's own preferred domestic arrangement, ranging from single-parent households, blended families, same-sex couples and cohabitation to arrangements so fleeting that they defy description (Berger). With these varying domestic arrangements making their way into today's society, the thought of one aspiring to the idea of a nuclear family almost seems ridiculous. Instead of aspiring to the nuclear family image, one should aspire to be a healthy and happy family, living up to one's own expectations. We cannot judge a family based on whether or not they heed to certain a stereotype and a family should aspire to be whatever they want to be, loving, happy and together. The nuclear family has been the building block of society and its ideals have survived decades. It is that of the idyllic home; man at the head with women and children subservient. Society believes that without this structure the family structure cannot survive and is therefore doomed. [But], contrary to postmodern and conservative myths, modern individuals haven't lost their capacity for love, trust, and commitment or abandoned the family that stood at the cradle of our civilization (Berger). When families can provide love and support, they are a fundamental source of happiness for their members, and of value for all of society

The Functionalist perspective takes the view that the cereal packet family is the norm and should be something to aspire to. Functionalist's have a macro outlook as they focus on the various parts of society (in this case the family) relate to each other as so to maintain the stability or order of society as a whole. George Peter Murdock (Social structure) is one of the sociologists who have adopted this perspective. He divines the family as "a social group characterized by common residence, economic co-operation and reproduction. It includes adults of both sexes, at least two of whom maintain a socially approved sexual relationship and one or more children, own or adopted, of the sexually cohabiting adults." Further in his study, Murtagh claimed that the nuclear family was present in every society in his sample, this led him to conclude, "The Nuclear Family is a universal human social grouping, either as the sole prevailing form of the family or as the basic unit, from which more complex forms are compounded, it exists as a distinct and strongly functional group in every known society." Murdock sees the family as the building block to a stable society. Great emphasis is placed on the positive functions of the family, termed the sexual, reproductive, economic and educational (socialization) functions, without these functions social life would not function. Murdock believes that the functions for society are inseparable from its functions for its individual members, being that it serves both at one and the same time and in much the same way. Murdock concludes his study stating "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." Fellow functionalist Talcott Parsons (functions of the Family) would largely agree with Murdock's theories.

Firstly Murdock's conclusion on both the structure and universality of the family has reason to be questioned, based on Kathleen Gough's study (The Nayar). Gough analyzed the Nayar society of Kerala in southern India prior to British rule (1972). From her conclusions sociologists disagree about whether this society had a family unit or not. Based on Gough's detailed description, the Najar society was matrilineal. Although both male and female members united in marriage and children were born, the father played no significant part in the running of the household, the socialization of the children or in the economic needs of the members. These factors were regarded the norm in the Najar society, but by Murdocks definition, no family excisted in the Najar society. Geough claimed the family unit did exist, because of the fact a marriage took place and children were born. She had to broaden her definition of marriage beyond that of Murdocks. Geough defined marriage as a relationship between a woman and one or more persons in which a child is born to the women "is given full birth status rights common to normal members of society." Some sociologists would say that perhaps Murdock's definition of the family is too narrow, or else the family is not universal, given that individuals of matrifocal families consider themselves as members of a family unit and also matrifocal families are now socially accepted and expected in most societies. Although the matrifocal family is not considered the norm in statistical terms, it is in New World black families within the West Indies, in Central America, the USA and in more recent time the UK. If these facts are accepted, then perhaps the matrifocal family can be seen as an adequate substitute to the nuclear family, and can be seen as the basic, minimum family unit and all other family structures can be seen as additions to this unit. Many sociologists believe that it depends on how the family is defined, this definition in turn further decides if there is an alternative to the nuclear family and also if the family is universal.

D.H.J Morgan (The family) criticizes Murdock for not stating clear enough "to what extent these basic functions are inevitably linked with the institution of the nuclear family". It is also pointed out that Both Murdock and Parsons idealize the family and in doing so neither fail to explore any functional alternatives to the family, nor do they recognize that there may be a desfuctional side to the family unit. Parsons is strongly criticized by Morgan. Morgan states "in Parsons analysis of the family there are no classes, no regions, no religious, ethnic or status groups and no communities." Both see the family as a harmonious institution and should any conflict occur it would be so insignificant that the benefits of family life out weigh any conflicting negative aspects.

The interactionist perspective offered by sociologists such as Edward Leach (A Runaway World), R.D Laing (The Politics of the Family) looks at the small-scale interaction between individual members of the family unit. (Micro in outlook.) Unlike functionalists, interactionists would be critical in their view of the family. They suggest that the family may be dysfunctional both for society and the individual members. Leach offers a pessimistic view of the family in industrial society. Leach, an anthropologist has in the past studied small-scale pre-industrial societies. His study is based on comparisons, of the pre-industrial society and the modern industrial society. He found that the nuclear family was isolated and the emotional strain was so great, that he described the family as an overloaded electrical circuit. He believed that the nuclear family led to fighting amongst the parents and rebellion amongst the children, these points in turn effect society. The entire tension and hostility produced with in the family spill out and find expression through out society. Leach is clearly negative in his views; he concludes his study with the following statement "Far from being the basis of the good society, the family, with its narrow privacy and tawdry secrets, is the source of all our discontents." Laing in his analyze of the family, is concerned with interaction within the family and the meanings which develop in that context. His work is largely based on families, in which one member has been defined as schizophrenic. He highlights the potential effect that the family unit has upon children, he believes that if children receive bad parenting, this can lead to the child being restricted both emotionally and interlectionally, thus emotionally and psychologically damaged. Just like Leach, Laing believes that individuals do not have the capacity to develop their abilities (i.e. to make judgements or decisions).

The Marxist perspective (which is macro in outlook) focuses on social processes of tension, competition and change. It assumes that conflict of all kinds occurs amongst all groups within a society, and indeed amongst all societies. Sociologist Friedrich Engels (The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State) has adopted this perspective and combined it with an evolutionary approach, arguing that as the mode of production changed so did the family. Engels examined the early stages of human evolution in his study, from this he believed that the means of production were communally owned and that the family did not exist, this era of primitive communism was characterized by promiscuity and only with the emergence of private property did the monogamous nuclear family develop. He speculated that the family evolved through a series of stages which included, promiscuous hordes, polygyny and then to its present stage monogamy. In Engels theory he suggested, that the main reason that the family developed was to solve the problem of inheritance, also that the family was the most efficient device for insuring legitimacy of the proposed heirs. He said, " It is based on the supremacy of the man, the express purpose to produce children of undisputed paternity, such paternity is demanded because these children are later to come into their father's property as his natural heirs. Sociologist Eli Zaretsky (Personal life and capitalism) has analyzed more recent developments in the family, also from a Marxist perspective. Zaretsky looks at the change in the family from a unit of production to a unit of consumption. Based on his studies, Zaretsky believes that the inequalities in family life first emerged with industrialization, because the family became removed from the economic function. With the growing of capitalized society, families became unable to support their members neither psychologically nor emotionally. Zaretsky sees the family as a major prom to the capitalist society, infact vital to the capitalist society in order for it to survive. From this perspective, it is shown that there are winners and losers in social life, social order is maintained not by popular agreement, (as the functionalist would believe) but by the direct and indirect power by some over others.