Download To what extent do sociologists argue that the family is beneficial to

To what extent do sociologists argue that the
family is beneficial to society?
Families are crucially important to society without doubt. Most British
people are born into families and then raised by a family. Most of these
very same people grow up to form families of their own and take the
responsibility of being a parent. Many people see the family as the
normal way of life and watch television programs which revolve around
family life. For many the nuclear family has always been viewed as the
proper way to bring up children and to live life. However, the subject of
families is much deeper than many think. But is the family beneficial to
society?
Different groups have different views on how beneficial the family is to
society. Functionalists, who traditionally dominated the sociology of the
family, feel that the family is necessary for the running and continuation
of an integrated society. It is assumed by functionalists that if there is
the existence of a social institution, then it must have a purpose or a
function. Functionalists therefore see the family as beneficial for society.
To functionalists, society is an `organism' that contains different segments
which come together to keep society running smoothly. They argue that
the family interrelates to other social institutions. An example of this
would be the family's preparation of children to become supportive of
themselves and take on economic roles. This shows that there is a link
between the family and the economic system.
Functionalists argue that the family has four specific functions that
benefit society. These are sexual, reproductive, economic and
educational. Each one is important to society in the eyes of functionalists.
Talcott Parsons claimed from a functionalist perspective that the family
carried out two essential functions that are beneficial to society. They
are the primary socialisation of children and the stabilisation of adult
personalities. Parsons claims this because society benefits from a child
learning how to take on roles in society and what the norms and values
are in society. The stabilisation of adult personalities performed by the
family is argued by Parsons to take away the threat against the society's
stability. Adults can relieve stress and gain emotional support from the
family and so are not overwhelmed and stress can be prevented. This
makes sure that society is kept stable as adults are in a much better
frame of mind with their family at home.
In l955, Parsons saw industrial societies as becoming more and more
specialised. By this Parsons meant that social institutions and their
functions had become more specialised and could concentrate on
a smaller number of essential functions. This included the family,
who carried out the two essential functions mentioned. Parsons sees
the family as crucial to the moulding of a child's personality intended to
fit the needs of society.
Talcott Parsons' main consensus functionalist approach to the family is
that the nuclear family is important to perform essential functions in
society. He sees the family as trimmed down in modern society, but at
the same time realises that the family in industrial society is still as
important as it was before, as it has not lost its two main functions.
The functionalist views have been criticised by some for concentrating
too much on the positive side of the family. Functionalists see the
family as of equal benefit to all, where as Marxists feel that society is
shaped by the capitalist economy's needs. Talcott Parsons does not
consider the diversity of family types and the variations in society such
as class, ethnicity and religion.
One of the main criticisms of the functionalist approach is that they
concentrate too much on the importance of the family for society, and
do not look at the importance of the family for the individual.
Overall, the functionalist views show that society benefits a lot from the
existence of the family. Although functionalist views are criticised by
some, such as Marxists, most people feel that without the family there it
would be impractical.
New Right thinkers are like functionalists, they see the family as the
cornerstone of society. The nuclear family unit is seen as the `normal'
way of family life. New Right feel that the family is important in terms of
its stability for the harmony and efficiency of society. In some ways the
New Right views are very old fashioned as they see the family as the
`cereal packet family'.
New Right see the family's main role as the socialisation of children to
the norms and values for men and women. Views that the family is in
decline have been different to the functionalist view that argues the
family is performing its functions well. Some have suggested that the
family unit has been undermined by social changes which have
threatened traditional norms of family life.
Some changes blamed by New Right include greater sexual
permissiveness and a greater tolerance of homosexuality as an
alternative to marriage. Higher divorce rates and feminist influence have
also been blamed for the family's decline.
New Right argue for a return to the traditional family values to help
against problems of modern society, for example child poverty and
educational underachievement.
New Right have been criticised for being too old fashioned and
traditional. The New Right views are seen as out-dated by some.
However, there are benefits of family life to individuals according to
New Right as family members are provided with a stable relationship
and environment. The Government also benefit, as they have to spend
less on benefits.
New Right are like functionalists in a way. They see society benefiting
from the family function of socialising children to accept the norms and
values of society.
A conflict approach to the family is that of Marxists. Marxists oppose the
consensus views of functionalists and see powerful groups determining
the organisation of society. The society is seen as a `super-structure',
with the family being one of a number of parts of it that help maintain
the economic system. Marxists believe that there is a close link between
the family, social class and the economy.
Another view from Marxism is that the economy benefits from the
family as the family produces new workers for society. A Marxist
writer, Engels, has two main points to his argument.
Firstly, that the family serves the requirements of the capitalist
economy and secondly that the family prevents women from achieving
equality both inside and outside the home.
Engels felt that women were oppressed by the family. Women were
dependant on their husbands economically and were expected to keep
faithful to their husband. However it was regarded as legitimate for
men to be unfaithful and use prostitutes. In this way, Engels was critical
of the family but still wanted the family to exist.
Engels' main view that women cannot achieve equality because the
family prevents it from happening and that the requirements of society
are served by the family are seen as central by many critics of the family.
The main Marxist arguments about the family differ from functionalist
opinions considerably. Marxists do not see the family as beneficial to
everyone, and in particular stress that women are disadvantaged in the
family. However, Marxists do feel that society benefits from the
existence of the nuclear family as it develops the next generation of
workers.
Marxist-feminists use a gender-based analysis of the family and feel that
women are oppressed within the family and the wider society. Marxistfeminists, just like Engels, see the family as a stumbling block to female
emancipation. They feel that the family is patriarchal. They argue that
males dominate family relationships.
Marxist-feminists such as Margaret Benston in 1969 also see the female
as important to the needs of the capitalist economy as they carry out
domestic labour, allowing the male to go out to work and earn money.
They argue that a male is made into a more productive worker by his
wife who performs domestic chores such as washing and cooking. This
benefits society, as the male has become more productive in his work.
They also see women as vital as they produce and rear the workers of the
future, children. Housewives play a major part in the reproduction of
labour power.
However, Marxist-feminists dismiss the functionalist view that the
socialisation in the family is beneficial to society as a whole. Peggy
Morton argued that modern capitalism relied less on direct coercion to
control workers. She felt that the acceptance of hierarchical social
relationships was more relied upon for this function.
It is strongly argued by Marxist-feminists that women suffer
disadvantages in employment due to their childcare and domestic chore
responsibilities. However, they feel that this is built in to the capitalist
system.
Irene Bruegel felt that women not only performed a valuable unpaid role as
domestic workers, but also provided a `reserve army of labour'. Juliet
Mitchell in 1971 agreed with Engels' argument that women should be freed
from domestic responsibilities by the passing on of the functions of the
family to other agencies.
Marxist-feminists generally believe that the society does not benefit much
from the family, although in some ways it does. They argue that the
economy does benefit from the unpaid domestic labour carried out by
women which allows men to fill working roles outside of the home in
society. In conclusion, Marxist-feminists believe that the family is beneficial
to males as they have greater freedom but women are oppressed.
Radical feminists views are alike to Marxist-feminist views on the family,
but they emphasise the patriarchal aspect. They see the family as an
institution that allows males to totally dominate women, exploit and
oppress them. Therefore the family does not benefit a small group, the
capitalist class, it benefits men.
Kate Millett argues that men are able to dominate women due to the
way society is organised. Russell and Rebecca Dobash found in a study
on violence in the family that for many women and children the threat
of violence from the male is real.
Radical feminists differ from Marxist-feminists as they feel that women
should come together and build up an alternative society challenging
patriarchy. But in recent years many feminists have started to believe
that changes in the family are needed instead of replacing the family.
They feel that men should involve themselves more in family life to
relieve stress of many women.
Feminists are criticised, as they tend to generalise a lot in their views.
They generally think that all females are oppressed. They focus on the
negative aspects of family life and ignore the satisfaction some get from
the family. Helen Carby criticised white feminists for not including the
racism factor alongside patriarchy in their views.
To conclude, feminists look at society in a way where males are the
dominant gender. They feel that women do not benefit from the family
but men have a number of advantages in the family.
Critical theories of the family state that family life can harm individual
development. R.D. Laing studied family interaction and found out that
the family is capable of damaging the development of individuals by
providing a limiting environment. Family relationships could cause anger,
jealousy and guilt. Laing found that members of a family almost become
a `part of each other' and find it hard to create their own identity. This
hinders self- development.
Laing is criticised for his `dark side' view of the family and the way he
bases his information on clinical studies rather than detailed fieldwork.
D.Cooper has similar ideas to Laing. He feels that the family destroys the
inner life of people and that relationships in the family form a love trap
preventing self-realisation. As children, we are taught to develop
dependencies rather than thinking for ourselves. Like Laing, Cooper sees
the family as a possible cause of emotions such as stress, guilt and even
violence.
Cooper didn't carry out detailed fieldwork to use for his information. He
makes no mention of the structure of class and how it affects family
life. Western families were the only families looked at by Cooper and
Laing, and the two writers worked only from a specialised psychological
perspective.
E.Leach supports `radical psychology'. He attacked the `cereal packet
norm family' and in his study in 1967 he claims that there is an intensity
between spouses. Family members expect too much from each other in
his view.
Leach is criticised, as he has not carried out detailed fieldwork to
support his claims. His view could be labelled as extreme and
unbalanced according to critics.
It is clear that there are contrasting opinions on whether or not the
family is beneficial to society. Functionalists strongly believe that the
family is beneficial to the running of society and New Right agree that
the family's main function of raising and socialising children is of some
benefit. Other views such as Marxists and Feminists have other ideas.
Marxists stress that not everyone in society benefits from the family,
especially women who are at a disadvantage behind males. Then there
are the more extreme views from feminists who strongly believe that
women are oppressed in society and the only people who benefit are
men.
Critical theories argue that the family has harming effects on individual
development. The family lifestyle is seen as damaging to a child's up
bringing and can cause problems for the child in later life. These theories
explain how individuals find it hard to develop themselves as a person in
the family because other family members influence them and family
relationships can lead to unnecessary emotions coming out.
Certain sociologists agree on the subject of the family being beneficial to
society, others do not, and the contrasting views lead to fascinating
arguments over the true meaning of family life in society.