Parsons identifies three fundamental changes caused by the industrial revolution. The first was the economy’s need for a more geographically mobile workforce, due to the division made between the home and paid labour, (work was now carried out in factories). Moreover, these factories were also placed in various cities and countries. This divide resulted in the isolation and decreased dependence of individuals and families on their relatives making the nuclear family unit stronger and more self sufficient. At this point any ties made with the wider family were out of choice not obligation. Furthermore, a majority of the functions performed by the family in pre-industrial society were taken over by developed specialised agencies, these include schools for education, banks for loans, childminders for children and also the ‘rational scientific management’ of ‘women’s chores’ with the introduction of fridge freezers, washing machines and dishwashers (Cheal,1999,p.58). This resulted in a decreased dependence on extended family members.
The two functions that the family performs, according to Parsons are; the socialisation of children into the norms and values of society and the personality stabilisation in adults. Parson’s also proposes a model of the ‘nuclear family’. The criteria is as follows; it would consist of a marriage between monogamous adult partners, the conjugal bond would be superior to other social commitments, the marriage bond would be fulfilled through raising legitimate children, the employment of one or more of the adults outside the home, (usually the husband), the wife would remain at home to take care of the emotional needs of the family members. Parsons argues that a clear division of sex roles is necessary for the stability of a marriage and that resources should be unrestrictedly shared between the adult members and each nuclear family is an isolated and independent household(Silva and Smart,1999; Cheal,1999,pg.59).
I have provided a basic explanation of the structural functionalist approach and its focus on the power that society has over individuals and I have also gone on to explain Parson’s structural functionalist approach to the family in terms of its emergence and dominance in post-industrial society . The model of the nuclear family proposed by Parson’s has also been stated. I shall build upon these basic explanations when discussing the various claims made by Parson’s and the criticisms that these have been subjected to.
I shall begin with the nuclear family model, as it has been subject to much criticism. Morgan(1975) argues that “Parsons drew upon popular stereotypes of ‘the family’ rather than properly collected evidence to create an extremely and relatively simple ‘explanation’ of society” (Bernardes, 1997,p.38). Parsons assumes that those who do not fit the criteria of the ‘nuclear family’ are not regarded as families. This poses major problems, due to the multiplicity of definitions given to the term ‘family’. If someone was to claim that they have a family, despite their deviance from the nuclear family model, structural functionalism is not in any position to refute this. Furthermore, Parsons’ proposition of the nuclear family model does not fit in with the complexities and diversities of family life in contemporary society in terms of the rise of divorce rates, single parenthood, cohabitation before or instead of marriage, pregnancy out of wedlock and also the variations of ethnicities.
However, despite the criticisms that have been made about Parsons’ model of the ‘nuclear family’, if we were to accept the view that all relations one believes to be their family, is family, this would cause it to become vague and ungraspable. Due to this, Bernardes (1985) acknowledges that there would be the belief that all families are ‘normal’ and people would as a result not feel the need to explore ‘family living’ (Bernardes,1997,pg.38). Thus, Parsons Model of the nuclear family does contribute by allowing us to analyse, be critical and ask questions about family life which when answered allow us to build on our knowledge of ‘the family’.
One of the essential functions that the family has to perform, according to Parsons, is the socialisation of the children into the norms and values of society. If one’s family does not fit the criteria of the nuclear family, then this suggests that their children will not be socialised into the norms and values of society properly and will therefore not contributes positively to society. This is however incorrect, there are numerous individuals that have been brought up in families that are not nuclear and have become successful and beneficial contributions to society an example would be Steve jobs, not only was he not brought up by his biological parents, and from a poor background which according to Parson’s is a cause of ‘disorganization’, he also dropped out of college, which is the opposition to the norm. He turned out to be the inventor of the iphone.
Moreover , it is not necessarily the case that children that have been brought up in nuclear families always contribute positively to society either, or that all of the parents in a nuclear family are socialised themselves into the norms and values of society to be able to socialise their children.
Another assumption that Parsons makes is that ‘the family’ is a functional, positive and beneficial institution. Bernardes (1997) also argues that these traditional models of the family, including Parson’s structural functionalist approach, ‘omit reference to stress, strain and abuse as part of everyday family lives’ (Bernardes,1997,pg.29). He acknowledges that those family lives which do not fit the criteria of a nuclear family are seen as ‘problems’ when in some cases, divorce and single-parenthood could actually be a solution to an unbearable state of affairs(Bernardes,1997,pg.29). Bernardes (1997) allows us to see that the nuclear family model is problematic due to inflexibility and inability to encompass other family forms and also that not all nuclear families are functional as perceived and that the dysfunctional aspects of nuclear families are hidden away from public view, this ‘false idol’ of the nuclear family puts a strain on relations. Parsons does not take into account crucial issues such as child abuse, domestic violence and empty-shell marriages. “In 40 - 70% of cases where women are being abused, the children are also being directly abused themselves” (Stark and Flitcraft,1996; Bowker et al., 1998.). Furthmoremore according to the NSPCC (2011) “Approximately 46,700 children in the UK are known to be at risk of abuse right now”.We can see from these statistics that the reality of family life can be quite the opposite of what Parsons claims is functional, harmonious and beneficial. The grim realities of domestic violence and child abuse are not acknowledged. Furthermore, empty-shell marriages, where a couple only stay together for the sake of their children or due to religion can be a contributing factor or determinant of ongoing child abuse and domestic violence. Moreover, Bernardes (1997) actually argues that such abuse, violence and diversity of family forms, things that we believe to be ‘new problems’ have possibly existed for longer than centuries (p.28). This poses serious questions for Parsons structural functionalist approach.
Another factor being a cause of such abuse violence and unhappy marriages could also be due to individuals striving to foster the ‘perfect/ideal family’. Bernardes (1985b) claims that more attention is given to the idol of ‘the family’ as objective rather than everyday lives’ complex realities and that this ‘false idol’ causes lived realities to be masked. There is a ‘family ideology’ which has been reinforced significantly through the mass media (Bernardes,1997,pg.29). Gittins (1945) explains what makes Parson’s structural functional approach so problematic, it is that the “Ideals of family relationships have become enshrined in our legal, social, religious and economic systems which, in turn reinforce the ideology and penalise or ostracise those who transgress it” (pg.71-72).There are real pressures about living according to accepted norms. Although Parson’s theory was in the 1980’s disregarded, it still has a profound impact on the ways in which the Family is seen today. Examples include; images on products in supermarkets which suggest that women do the domestic labour in the home and Hollywood movies consisting of the nuclear family as the norm. This shows that despite the various changes that contemporary society has experienced, there is still the presence of the ‘ideal nuclear family’ that haunts and pressurizes us. Barret(1980) states that ‘ideology is not just a set of abstract ideas but is expressed in everyday actions’ (Bernardes,1997,p.30) This is crucial to the understanding of the reproduction, reinforcement of ideology. By reinforcing a certain image and understanding of family, issues have been kept hidden such as child abuse, domestic violence and empty-shell marriages. This is evident in the critiques of Parson’s model of ‘the family’ and his failure to address these issues.
Another assumption that Parson’s makes is that “systems, social and organic, seek to maintain their equilibrium or balance”. This means that if there was to be any disruption to society then the societal structures would work to restore harmony and to bring society back to equilibrium. This assumption has been criticised due to family life, from this perspective being seen as a stationary. This assumption does not allow the structural functionalist approach to account for social change. In fact, it was due to its inability to explain or account for the new social movements and developments and numerous features such as poverty and social change which occurred in American society, that structural functionalism was actually discredited in the late 1960’s. If we relate this back to the organic analogy used by the structural functionalist approach to describe the way in which society functions, despite the similarities there is much difference between an organism and society. If a major organ such as the heart was to stop working, the body would fail to function. In a family however, if the mother was to start engaging in paid labour outside of the home, this would not result in the collapse of the entire family (Gelles,1995,pg.43).
The more recent critiques of the structural functional approach to the study of the family come from feminist approaches. Parson’s and Bales (1955) make a distinction, based on gender of the instrumental and expressive roles within a family. The wife/mother is proposed to perform the expressive role (looking out for emotional well being of husband and family and doing unpaid domestic labour in the home) and the husband/father is to perform the instrumental roles (breadwinner, provide financially for family) in a typical family. Feminists argue that Parson’s traditional gendered allocation of the expressive and instrumental roles exploits the women and benefits the men (Gelles,1995,p.43). Marxists also acknowledge this; however they see this traditional allocation of roles to benefit the capitalist system. Furthermore, feminists claim that household chores are not ‘expressive’ and that if women were to partake in employment, they would be burdened with the ‘triple shift’ which means that they would have to return to the home after work and carry out all the domestic labour as well. Moreover, Gittins(1985) also argues that despite the only only biological different of men only impregnating and women conceiving and lactating, “none of them are great enough to be adequate grounds for allocating one kind of work to women and another to men”(pg.69). Gittins (1985) argues strongly for the allocation of tasks based on age instead. Parsons’ claims of the family as a harmonious and functional institution for all are challenged, as feminists argue that it is not functional or advantageous for women. The structural functional approach to the study of the family is perceived by feminists to be reinforcing male dominance and power. It is argued to over-estimate the harmony and consensus present in the nuclear family (Gelles,1995,p.43).
In contemporary society, there is a focus on “..the values of individualism and emancipation from social limitations..”(Cheal,1999,pg.75). ‘Postmodernism’ is commonly what the current condition of society is called. Society is seen by this approach to be constantly producing instability rather than striving for equilibrium as Parson’s structural functionalist approach suggests. Supporters of postmodernism argue for the end of modernism and thus the end of the traditional nuclear family. (Bernardes, 1997, pg.37-38). Parsons however, argues that the functions of the family as an institution have merely become specialised. The limitations in Parson’s theory lie, unfortunately, in its inability to address issues such as change and plurality, which postmodern theory addresses.
I shall now briefly explore the contributions that Parson’s structural functionalist approach has made. The theorization of the topic ‘family’, as mentioned before, is almost impossible due to its multiplicity of meanings and definitions. Parson’s, despite the complexities, proposed the model of the ‘nuclear family’ which has been influential in many areas of society and was also the dominant sociological model of ‘the family’ for some time. It has already been mentioned that without the nuclear family model, if everything was to constitute a family, all families would be perceived as normal, thus leaving no reason to study family lives (Bernardes,1997,pg.38). This is a huge contribution that Parson’s structural functionalist approach has had to the study of family. Furthermore, Parson’s attempt to group and categorise in his structural functionalist approach, according to Bernardes(1997) is also still a popular approach to theorising(pg.38). There are specific reasons for the criticisms received by Parsons and these have much to do with his approach’s limitation to the time period and inflexibility. It was due to its inability to explain social change that it was eventually disregarded. However, If Parson’s structural functionalist approach was to be modified to encompass the diverse and complex family forms of contemporary society, it could be very beneficial. Moreover, Carrington (2002) argues that “Family is represented as both the source of all social problems and their solutions” (pg.4). This can be related to the ways in which ‘the family’ is discussed in the political sphere today about societal breakdown being directly linked to single parenthood, divorce and teenage pregnancy being viewed as destructive and problematic. A revert back to the traditional nuclear family form is the solution that seems to be subtly proposed. Parson’s contributes by providing a logical and objective outlook to an extremely subjective and complex topic. With modifications to fit changes in contemporary society, the knowledge obtained through this approach could be invaluable.
To conclude this essay I would like to re-iterate the difficulty in studying ‘the family’ from any theoretical angle. Parson’s made a bold move, by creating a ‘model’ of ‘the family’. Despite the weaknesses, this model is still used today as a standard against which other family forms are measured. However, overall, Parson’s structural functionalist approach was subject to much criticism due to its limitations in explaining social change and diversity in contemporary society. Parsons approach was limited to the early post-industrial period, with no scope for future changes in family forms. Due to its contributions to the sociological study of ‘the family’, however, it would be advantageous for the structural functional approach to be modified, encompassing diversity in its model of ‘the family’ and also accounting for change, in order to be applied to contemporary society.
References
Bernardes,J.,1997.Family Studies : An Introduction. London: Routledge.
Cheal, D. (1999) 'The One and the Many: Modernity and Postmodernity', in. G. Allan (ed.) The Sociology of the Family, pp. 56–85. London: Blackwell. Denzin and Lincoln.
Carrington, V. (2002) New Times: New Families. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academi
Gelles,R.,1995.Contemporary Familes : A Sociological view.California:SAGE Publications,Inc.
Gittins,G.,1985.The Family in Question: Changing Households & Familiar ideologies.London: Macmillan publishers LTD.
Womens aid, 1998.Topic:children.[online]available at:<>[Accessed 28th November 2011].
NSPCC, 2011. Prevalence and incidence of child abuse and neglect.[online] available at: < 28th November 2011].
