Marxists argue that it meets the needs of Capitalism and not the needs of family members or society as a whole. Another example of a functionalist point of view is from Talcott Parsons (1955) who says there are two basic irreducible functions of the family which are: The primary socialisation of children, to equip them with basic skills and societies norms and
However, Marxists would disagree and say that this policy as it supports the working class mostly therefore encourages people to work at the benefit of capitalism. This is also shown through child benefit, which on the one hand Functionalists say supports the family in raising the new generation and helps it to function properly. But on the other hand it encourages people to work as both parents should work in order to get benefits. Furthermore, Feminists claim that child benefit also reinforces strict gender roles because the benefit goes to the mother implying that the mother is the one who will perform the expressive role of raising the child. This shows that although some state policies and laws can have a good impact on family life, they can also be seen as having negative implications.
(2013) Feminism Feministic views of the family are split into 3 groups, similar to that of the key perspectives. Liberal feminists believe that both the male and the females have equal roles within the family when it comes to the household chores and childcare. Marxist feminists view the women as the producer of future workers and women’s oppression stems from capitalism and not the family. Radical feminist’s view of the family structure is one of patriarchal and that men are seen as the enemy. This type of family within society is also seen by feminists as the key institution in its contribution to maintaining social control.
He argues that without social solidarity, social life would be impossible as everyone would pursue their own selfish desires and not work together to get what they want out of life. The education system helps to create this social solidarity by transmitting society's ideas from one generation to the next. For example, Durkheim argues that teaching of a countries history instil a sense of a shared heritage and commitment to the wider social group. However Marxists argue this social solidarity is just brainwashing students into thinking that everyone in society today is equal and that we are all part of society, while we are really just getting exploited by the bourgeoisie. People are just being led into a sense of false class consciousness and are being persuaded into thinking they have the same values of everyone else when they actually haven't.
The New Right perspective emphasizes the idea that lone-parent families are a burden upon society. Should the government look after them by taxing other people? The New Right argues that lone mothers who are reliant upon the government for financial aid bear a strong responsibility for helping to undermine the values of society. In particular, they argue that children are harmed because there is no father to provide financial support and to help socialise the child into the normal values of society. However, many people are firm believers in lone parenting as it can result in advantages for children who are raised by single parents and therefore support the idea that the government should look after them by taxing other people.
Marxists believe that the ideological function of the family is wrong. The family helps capitalism by socialising children by getting them ready to be a worker for the Bourgeoisie. For example the man, usually the dad, would be in charge and the child would learn to respect and take orders from him. The child would see that there is a clear distinction of roles and authority. Zaretsky says that the family, also known as the nuclear family, cannot meet all the needs of a family and that it is just an illusion.
Alternatively, there are Marxists, such as Karl Marx, that believe that institutions are creating by the ruling class in order to control the working class. Marxists believe that the functions of the family are performed purely for the benefit of the ruling class. This view contrasts sharply with the functionalist view that the family benefits both society as a whole and the individual members of the family. Some Functionalists, such as Murdock, argue that there are 4 functions of the family that only the nuclear family can teach. Teaching of sexuality and gender roles, Murdock says that the nuclear family teaches people to express sexuality in a socially approved context, it teaches that heterosexuality is the norm and that other types of relationships are 'abnormal' eg.
They say that family is vital for 4 things in society: the regulation of sexual activity, reproducing and raising children, educating or socialising society’s way of life to the younger members and being an economic unit with clear divisions of labour between genders. With the decline in the nuclear family, they will believe that these four functions will diminish and society will not function in an adequate way. Where liberal feminists would not be happy about the decline in nuclear families as they believe that increasing equality exists between men and women, radical and Marxist feminists would think that it is a good thing. Radical feminists argue that men benefit much greater than women within the family environment. They say that gender roles which are allocated within a family are accepted by the women, which then goes on to disadvantage them in later life when it comes to things such as employment.
Initially, functionalists like Parsons (1955), viewed a biological division of labour roles which he said benefited to the family and then the bigger society. Parsons saw the gender roles as expressive and instrumental, meaning that gender roles were unequal so the husband had to perform the instrumental function of being the ‘breadwinner’ by providing financial stability to the family and the wife had to follow the expressive role by socialising the children, looking out for the emotional welfare of the family and filling a housewife role. Parsons says these different roles were ‘natural’ to benefitted whole family. Elizabeth Bott (1957) put these divisions into ‘joint and segregated conjugal roles’, meaning that within the family roles were shared or divided. This idea has been criticised as being too traditional by theorists who suggest that equality within the family has happened and that the ‘norm’ of gender roles is diminishing.
Instead, functionalism sees active social change as unwanted because of the countless parts of the society will compensate obviously for any problems that may arise. According to the functionalist perspective of sociology, each feature of society is interdependent and contributes to society's stability and functioning as a whole. For example, the government provides education for the children of the family, which in turn pays taxes on which the state depends to keep itself running. The family is dependent upon the school to help children grow up to have good jobs so that they can raise and support their own families. In the process,