Download Using material form ITEM B and elsewhere, asses the usefulness of

Using material form ITEM B and elsewhere, asses the
usefulness of functionalism for an understanding of the
family.
Functionalism is a structuralist theory. This means it sees the individual as less
important as the social structure of society. It is a ‘top down’ theory. The family
can be defined as an intimate domestic group composed of people related to
each other by blood, sexual relations and legal ties. When assessing how useful
functionalism is when looking at the family, other views/perspectives need to be
taken into account before making an overall conclusion. Views from Talcott
Parsons, George Murdock, Ann Oakley, Edmund Leach, R.D Laing, David Cooper
and Friedrich Engels will be taken into account as well as perspectives from
Marxism, feminism, family diversity and radical psychiatrists. This will help draw
the final conclusion. Functionalist sociologists suggest that the nuclear family is
the norm in modern day industrial societies.
George Peter Murdock (1949) supports the idea of functionalism. After
analysing 250 societies, Murdock argues that the family performs four basic
functions; sexual, reproductive, economic and educational. These are the
essentials for social life, since without sexual and reproductive functions there
would be no members of society, without economic functions life would cease,
and without education there would be no culture. Human society without
culture could not function. Clearly, the family cannot perform these functions
exclusively. However, it makes important contributions to them all and no
other institution has yet been devised to match its efficiency in this respect. A
weakness of Murdock’s view is that some sociologists may find his description
of the family almost too good to be true. Some of his views on harmony and
integration are not shared be other researchers. He also does not examine
alternatives to the family, not considering whether its functions could be
carried out by other social institutions. Murdock is criticised for being Eurocentric, as he is only concerned about the Western families. However, he is
supported by anthropologists; Morris (1968) said the family was a result of
biology and culture over generations (socio-biology). This could be strength as
it shows some researchers have the same view.
Talcott Parsons bases his ideas on the family in modern American society.
However, despite this his ideas have more general application since he claims
the American family has two ‘basic and irreducible’ functions which are
common to the family in all societies, unlike Murdock who argued there were
four. These were, the primary socialization of children, where culture is learned
and accepted by children so they know the norms and values that allow society
to exist. Secondly the stabilization of adult personalities, which is where a
marriage relationship and emotional security a couple provide for each other
keeps a personality stable, and acts as a counterweight to everyday stresses and
strains that can make a personality unstable. This process is otherwise known
as the ‘warm bath’ theory, where the family provide a relaxing environment for
the male worker to immerse himself in after a hard day at work. A criticism of
Parsons View would be that he idealises the family, much like Murdock, with
his view of well adjusted children and sympathetic spouses caring for each
other’s every need, when in reality not all families are like this. Also Parsons
fails to explore the differences between working/middle class families, as his
ideas are generally based on the American middle class family. Parsons
perspective supports that of functionalism, that the nuclear family is the norm
in society.
Ann Oakley has described the typical or ‘conventional’ family. She says
conventional families are nuclear families composed of legally married couples,
voluntarily choosing the parenthood of one or more children. This shows
support for functionalism. Leach (1967) has called this the ‘cereal packet image
of the family’. This image of a happily married couple with two children is
prominent in advertising and the ‘family sized’ packets of cereal and other
products are aimed at this group.
The family is functional for both its members and society as a whole.
Increasingly this picture of the family is coming under strong criticism. Some
observers are suggesting that on balance, the family may well be dysfunctional
both for society and its individual members. This criticism has mainly been
directed at the family in Western industrial society.
The Marxist view on the family opposes that of the functionalists. It is seen to
challenge the idea that the family is universal or natural, but instead that it is
human creation; a social invention that has served a specific economic purpose.
The Marxist theory on the family emerged from the work of Friedrich Engels. It
is argued by Marxists that the working-class extended family has been
deliberately discouraged by the capitalist ruling class, because its emphasis on a
mutual support system and collective action encourages its members to be
aware of their social class position. It is believed that the nuclear family under
capitalist law in an ‘anti-social’ family. It labels all other forms of family life as
inferior and abnormal. However, a weakness of the Marxist view is that there is
a tendency to talk about ‘the family’ in capitalist society without regard to
possible variations in family life between social classes.
Family diversity supports the fact that the ‘conventional family’ no longer
makes up the majority of households or families. For example, women no
longer aspire exclusively to romantic love, marriage and children. There are
now acceptable alternative life styles some people prefer, such as pre-marital
sex, serial monogamy, cohabitation, single-sex relationships, childlessness etc.
Men’s roles too are no longer clear in a postmodern society, and the resulting
‘crisis of masculinity’ has lead to man redefining both their sexuality and family
commitments. Others disagree with this view. They argue that family diversity
is exaggerated, and that the basic features of family life have remained largely
unchanged for the majority of the population. Nuclear families are still very
common – but alternate types of family are steadily increasing.
When looking at a critical view of the family, radical psychiatry mat be taken
into account. Edmund Leach supported the idea in the family there is too much
emotional pressure on each individual to live up to expectations. R.D Laing
associated schizophrenia with the emotional pressure and anxiety of the
nuclear family. David Cooper suggested the personality of the individual is
controlled by the family, forcing them to conform to the rules of both the
family, forcing them to conform to the rules of both the family and wider
society. These three radical researchers all agree that the family is a dangerous
place and mental illness could be the result of pressures laid down to the
individual. From this angle it can be seen that the family has a negative, this
view does not agree with the view of functionalism.
Friedrich Engels acknowledges that the position of women within the family is an
important aspect of what the Marxists see as its harmful effects. However, he
emphasizes the relationship between family and capitalism, and is less
concerned with its effects on women. Feminism has broken itself down into
different perspectives, Marxist feminists, liberal feminists and radical feminists.
Friedrich Engels speaks for the Marxist feminist view. Liberal feminists believe
that both sexes contribute to domestic chores in an atmosphere of mutual
support and hegemony, and there is an equal division of labour. Radical feminist
beliefs are that the nuclear family is based upon male power and serves to
support that. Male power is often expressed in the home as domestic violence.
It is seen that patriarchy is transhistorical; it is ever present in all societies and
cultures. A weakness is that feminists often do not take into account the possible
differences in family life, for example, social classes, ethnic groups, heterosexual
and gay families etc. They just seem to assume every family is a nuclear family,
so may exaggerate the effect of families to women. They therefore ignore the
possibility of women fighting back against exploitation and do not see the
positive side to the family.
Now that perspectives and ideas criticising and supporting functionalism have
been illustrated. A conclusion can be made. If looking at Murdock and Parsons
it can be seen that theyboth tend to only take into account Western societies,
and tend to generalise. Apart from that they both have strong, similar ideas on
what the family is. Oakley and Leach support their ideas on the nuclear family
being the majority of society. However, although the argument supporting
functionalism is sound, other views need to be taken into perspective. For
example Marxism, questioning the idea of a universal/natural family. Family
diversity offering different options to how people choose to live, feminists
saying the family exploits women and radical psychiatry claiming the family is a
dangerous place and causes mental illness.