According to Wilmott and Young (1962) two sociologists who identify joint conjugal roles, there has been a long-term trend towards the symmetrical nuclear family in Britain since the early 1900’s with more and more families conforming to this trend. In their study Wilmott and Young found that there was a pattern of segregated conjugal roles in traditional working class
The working class are called the Proletariats; the people who work for the institutions and big chains, and buy from, or use the institutions. Marxists believe that the Bourgeoisie are exploiting the Proletariats in a big superstructure that keeps society together and functioning. Marxism is a conflict theory. They believe that we’re in a Capitalist society and we are in a massive superstructure which is controlled by the Bourgeoisie. They all also believe that the family gained its structure due to this Capitalist divide, and before Capitalism there was no family structure because everyone shared the labour and owned all means of production.
Many functionalists believe that industrialisation led to an increase in the nuclear family type. The nuclear family is a type of family that consists of just two generations; this is parents and their children. An American sociologist Talcott Parsons studied the impact of urbanisation on family structure in American and British history. Parsons thought that the dominant family structure changed from extended to nuclear because it was more useful for industrial society. A few of the key ideas he discovered were that lots of functions that the family would take care for in a pre-industrial society were now taken care of by the state in industrial society such as health care or education.
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.
| Role Reversal of the American Family? | Mom becomes the new breadwinner while stay at home dads does the house work and raises the kids. Is this the new norm? Will or can an upturn in the economy restore traditional family roles? | | A look in to the changing American Family | | Wendell Moore (Coach) | 11/27/2013 | | Before We Became Civilized Long before we were civilized, men and women have worked together to sustain the family structure.
The way Sanders gives his own personal experience and how he describes the position of men and women in ‘80s allows us to compare their lives to ours today. Sanders and his friend Aneeke compared the lives of their fathers. Sanders gives an illustration of the hard working men where he was brought up. He came from a poor back round, where boys left high school to work in the mills as women went on to further their education. Where Aneeke grew up was a lot wealthier and her father wasn’t the man who gets up before dawn and works all day.
Blended Families: Making it work in the 21st Century When God spoke the world into existence, traditional family systems (father, mother, and children) were on His mind; however, because of different citumstances blended families are more common and with them come many challenges and strengths. However, with challenges comes solutions to help the blended family become a functional happy and healthy one. By definition a blended family is “separate families united through marriage or families in which one parent is not the biological parent of at least one child,” (Shaylee & Brownlee, (2007), 18). Because “step” refers to only the “parent-child relationship”, blended is used to describe and focus on the family as a new unit. Statistics show “2,100 mew blended families are formed EVERY DAY in America,” (Blended family research, (2013).
Murdock also sees the family as functional not only for society at large but also for its individual members. The family, in Murdock’s view, is universal since neither the individual nor society of could survive without it. Talcott Parsons ‘Functional Fit’ Theory claims that industrial societies as becoming increasingly specialised, with a wider range of institutions carrying out more and more specialised functions. Parsons claims that there are two basic and irreducible functions within the family, claiming that no matter how many functions the family loses, there will always be these two: Primary socialisation of children - teaching children basic skills and society’s values, enabling them to co-operate with others and integrating them with society. Stabilisation of adult personalities - relief of stress, emotional security, allows members to return to work refreshed and emotional
Marxist perspective of families and households (24 marks) Marxists view society as being based on inequality between the working class and the capitalist ruling class. They believe that all of society’s institutions, including the family are set up to serve the needs of capitalism, by maintaining the status quo of class inequality thus keeping the ruling class in control, and the working class oppressed by the capitalist elite. Marxists argue that the traditional family performs a range of functions which benefit capitalism, and that working class family members are tricked into believing actually benefit them. The first function that Marxists argue that the family performs for capitalism is the inheritance of property. In a classless society, there would be no private property, as the means of production would be owned communally.
Asses the Marxist view that the main role of the family is to serve the interests of capitalism. The Marxist view is just one of many perspectives of the main role of the family. They believe that the family serves the interests of capitalism and the Bourgeoisie, and helps to maintain class equality. They also belie that the family model allows for the main provider (the man) to go out to work where the middle class take advantage of their labour. This idea is at odds with the functionalists view that the family benefits society and the family members.