Outline and assess functionalist and new right views on the family This essay aims to explore the views of the functionalist and new rights approach on the family. Functionalists argue that the family is the most important institution in society as it benefits both the individual and society. They have the most positive view on the family, and state that it performs vital functions for the maintenance of society. Their main emphasis is on the nuclear family which is the stereotypical family of married, heterosexual parents with children - they tend to ignore any other family types. The approach presents the family as a family isolated from wider kinships because of the mobility required by labour markets in industrial societies.
There has been a decrease in the number of nuclear families in the UK and an increase in various other families such as single parent families. But the raise in single parent households has to do with the increase in divorce across the UK which means that more people are left having to support their children on their own unless they become a reconstituted family. Functionalists are classed as modernists when it comes to their opinions on family diversity in post-modern UK. But they also see modern society as clear-cut, fixed and predictable. They think that the best and strongest family type is the nuclear family.
The second poem “Shine, Perishing Republic” by Robinson Jeffers mostly resembles my attitude towards America right now. I do believe that the government is trying to do anything possible to gain more power even if it means ruining or destroying the environment and society. I feel like the government pretends to actually care about our well-being but we're brainwashed to actually think that. I really don't understand how people can actually do whatever it is they want to do even if it isn't right just to make themselves happy and to have a good time. This era is actually really messed up, it seems like there isn't any structure with our society that everyone is just going with the flow of what's “in”.
Yet others would argue that even the media still supports nuclear families and is socializing the next generation into thinking that it is right for example ‘The Simpsons’, so despite the increase in divorce and feminism the nuclear family will remain popular in British society. The third argument as to why the nuclear family is no longer the norm is that many religions support the nuclear family and do not agree with other types such as lone-parent. However secularization is causing less and less religious people so
Rather they are basing their facts on controversial issues. Granted this might be the reasons families have changed, but Fox and Fumia should have conducted their own research on this subject matter to make their article more reliable. Interviewing several families, does not proof why the constructions of families have differed from the traditional family. Further, none of the families interviewed by Fox and Fumia held the government liable for their new way of life. They simply choose this way of life, because it suited them the best.
1) In both Huxley’s Brave New World and Orwell’s 1984 humanity is endangered by an all-powerful state, however I believe that Orwell’s 1984 endangers humanity more effectively. Humanity is being able to ignore the natural first instinct and care for others before you. It is being able to feel pain, sympathy, compassion, and mercy. It is to love others and enjoy company and accepting others for who they are. In Brave New World humans are created in assembly lines and are only created when the government needs a certain type of “human”.
This relates back to the experiment, because the participants obeyed even though they knew it was not right to shock the learners, and King probably would have encouraged the participants to stop. Moreover, King strongly disagrees that the government should have the authority to guide people when there are many wrongdoings in the governmental system. His ideal social relations are far from dependent on obedience because he believes everyone to be equal. Also, he knows that total obedience often lead to tragedies like the segregation and racism that African-American are suffering from. Milgram’s conclusion really advocates King’s belief, because the surprising conclusion of obedience to authority is what King does not believe to be the way of social relations.
The world should not be created to have technology run it solely; humans should be more involved with processes that are in their control. A complete dependency on technology can lead future generations into the direction of lacking life skills. An excellent movie, Surrogates (2009), supports how an extreme dependency on technology can affect social interactions and health decline for lack of physical movement because there is technology that will do everything for you. The polypotency of technology, if used properly, can truly help the world evolve for the better. The lack of extreme dependency can open the door for communities to work together to resolve
These arguments, although they do not specifically state to physically riot against authority, become enabling factors by which the population should rebel. To begin with, Paine argues that the population of each individual colony would be subjected to better living should they be responsible for their own governing laws. Rather than follow the set rules of the British monarchy, Paine suggests the citizens should “establish a common interest with every part of the community, [and] they will mutually and naturally support each other.” (Paine, 49) Next, he argues that the British monarchy is very complex, contradictory, and unfair to its citizens. For instance, Paine notes that the monarchy “first excludes a man from the means of information, yet empowers him to act in cases where the highest judgment is required.” (Paine, 50) The contradictory case does not just end here, it is also witnessed in the fact that the monarchy continues through the act of hereditary succession – whereby the King’s descendent automatically becomes heir to the throne. He
Americans today tend to believe that same sex couples are a bad influence on a child’s natural growth. David Hogberg, a senior fellow at the National Center for Public Policy Research, voices his opinion on why he disagrees with same sex adoption by stating that“…families will again expand beyond the traditional structure in which a family is headed by a man and a woman, to now include families being headed by two men or two women.” By this, Hogberg is implying that changes in tradition are bad. I think Hogberg is mistaken, because if that were the case, we’d have nearly none of the innovations we flourish from today. What he, and every other anti-gay-adoption antagonist fail to realize is that homosexuals are not malicious people: they have morals and ideals that can influence children in the best ways possible. Children thrive on love, attention, positivity.