Murdock argued that the nuclear family was a universal social institution and has four important parts to play in keeping society functioning: reproductive, economic, sexual and education function. Functionalists criticise lone parent families, extended, gay/lesbian families and refer to them as dysfunctional families. According to Functionalism, the lack of a father figure is the main concern in this theory and leads to many negative effects on
Another functionalist, Parsons, had two functions. These are stabilisation of adult personalities (warm bath theory) and primary socialisation. They both believe primary socialisation is necessary as they say that this equips children with basic skills and values of society which helps them to co-operate with others. This shows the nuclear family is the ideal family as these functions can only work and be taught within the nuclear family. The new right ideas are from a conservative political perspective.
Murdoch (1949) argues that the family performs four essential functions to meet the needs of society and its members. These functions are; economic help, reproduction, primary socialisation and satisfaction of the sex drive. He believes that those needs can only be achieved within a nuclear family. However, some sociologists would argue that these needs can be met in other ways than within the family. For example, other needs such as reproduction and sex can also be met by sperm donors, and ‘escorts’.
We are facing a big problem in society about marriages and their stances on civil unions. The movement of same sex marriage has been in the forefront of our society for a couple of years now. On the more Conservative side, politicians are grounded with the idea that marriage should be between a man and a woman. “I view marriage as a gender-based institution that attaches mothers and fathers to each other and to their children” (Morse, 82). According to Proposition 8: The California Marriage Protection Act was a ballot proposition to help conserve the value of marriage and changing same sex marriage to be illegal.
If you look at the teleological argument in the way that God created mankind because of their intricacy, you would view people sort of like machines. The theory of evolution proves that humans evolved from an ancestor species. Things evolve by mutation, the reason that people’s bodies are the way that they are is because over thousands of years; peoples bodies have adapted to their environment in order to survive. There are many things in a human body that are not perfect. If the teleological argument is correct in saying that God created humans like a machine, then you would expect humans to be perfect creations, but we are not.
Functionalists, believes that society works like the human body. The human body has vital organs in order to work, whereas society has vital institutions, such as the family. Functionalists believe that the family works independently with others in society and that the nuclear family meets some of society's functional rules. Above all the family contributes to social solidarity, the need to function as a collective, it does this by promoting the collective conscience, the realization that there is something bigger and more worthwhile than the individual and that individuals must sacrifice their selfish desires for the good of the collective, and the value consensus, an agreement on shared norms and values. 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.
Those who see personality traits as strictly hereditary and those who believe traits are learned from birth on, through experiences (McLeod, S.A. 2007). Those who believe heredity is the only cause of all personality traits and qualities a person possesses are considered to be nativists. It is believed by nativists that an individual person’s unique personality traits are because of their personalized genetic code. They believe that if someone does not possess a certain trait at birth but it appears later in life it is the cause of maturation in which a biological clock can turn on and off traits at certain times in life. They do not believe that the way someone is raised effects their personality traits and that it must be preprogramed in order to appear at all (McLeod, S.A. 2007).
The modernists see the nuclear family as being the best as it performs certain essential functions. Talcott Parsons saw that the nuclear family as uniquely suited to meet the needs of modern society for a geographical and socially mobile work force. Also Parsons saw that the family performed two ‘irreducible functions’- the primary socialisation of the young and the stabilisation of adult personalities. These functions contribute to the overall stability and effectiveness of society. The New Right has an anti-feminist and conservative view on the family; they are firmly opposed to diversity within family life.
Examine the view that family diversity is harmful both to individuals and to society (24marks) In our society today many things that were ‘stigmatised’ is now highly accepted due to a growth in our society. One of those things was family diversity which is the idea that there is a range of different family types which are extended, lone parent, singleton, reconstituted, empty nest, cohabiting and lastly the nuclear family. The New Right perspective argue that family diversity is damaging society as they see the nuclear family as the ideal family as it has parents who are fulfilling their traditional roles therefore giving stability to their children and in the household. Also, see the nuclear family as the best fit for society because the husband provides for them financially ensuring economic provision executing his role as the ‘breadwinner’. As well as the women as the housewife and present for the children caring for them with emotional help.
The Fairy Tale In his essay, “The End of Courtship,” Leon R. Kass claims that “people on both the left and right have come to regard the breakup of marriage as a leading cause of neglect, indeed, of the psychic and moral maiming, of America’s children”(224). The high divorce rates in our society are staggering and recognizable; yet we can point out the problem but can’t seem to provide a solution. There are several “deal breakers” in a marriage with many being obvious and some not so obvious; however the relationship problems people face today are no different then what couples faced in the past when divorce was rare and vows of lifetime commitments and family values were worth fighting for. The question we must ask ourselves is