The approach presents the family as a family isolated from wider kinships because of the mobility required by labour markets in industrial societies. The image that functionalists create of the family involves the support for the nuclear family from the wider welfare state. It also suggests that any childcare for the family would be provided by non-family agencies, for example; playgroups. The usefulness of this ‘privatised nuclear family’ is that it gives closure within the family, allowing stability and support. It’s beneficial as there are male and female role models available for the children, and it gives the parents more control of how their children are brought up.
Assess the contribution of functionalism to our understanding of families and households Due to functionalism’s very positive outlook on family life; functionalism can be seen as only ever looking at the harmony of family life and therefore ignoring the possible conflicts and any negative sides of family life. Functionalists argue that families perform vital functions for society and without the stability they claim society would eventually fall apart; functionalists produce a list of the functions performed by family life such as socialisation, identity and reproduction, they claim that without the structure of family this all wouldn’t be able to occur. Functionalists also describe how the family is perpetually changing its structure and functions as society has changed in order to keep up with the new needs of society as they arise. Murdock argues that because families perform such functions as; socialisation, identity, reproduction, it then goes to makes the family a universal institution. As in performing these functions the family links up with other institutions, providing future pupils for education, workers for the economy, and so on.
Considered by most to be the backbone of America, it is how we socially and culturally indoctrinate our offspring so they are able to become a functional member of society. A lack of a full family is often cited as the reason that children end up as criminals or delinquents. The notion of family being the birthplace of problems is not even something most people could find feasible, which is what makes Barbara Ehrenreicht's essay "Are Families Dangerous?" seem a bit out in left field to most readers. But upon closer inspection and reflection into ones own family life, and the lives of those around them, Ehrenreicht's essay begins to make a lot more sense.
Murdock suggested that the family must create a stable satisfaction of the sex drive, Reproduction of the next generation, socialisation of the young and meeting the families’ economic needs. Talcott and Parsons later suggested that Murdock’s suggested roles of society had changed with industrialisation as the workforce had to be socially and geographically mobile for the industries and this is easier with nuclear families rather than extended families. He also argued that the family had lost two of its roles as industrialisation brought along specialised social institutions such as education and hospitals leaving the need for only the socialisation of young and the satisfaction of the sex drive. Within the nuclear families the mother and farther were appointed roles as males have instrumental characteristics making them more fit for work and females have expressive characteristics making them more fit for child care. This may be criticised as the functions may vary
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
Sociologists greatly clash in their respective perspectives on the view of social policies which ultimately makes it hard to understand the true extent of what they do to our society. Therefore, I will be examining just how worthy these views about social policies and their effects of the family are. As item 2B states, feminists argue that social policies assume that the ideal family is a patriarchal one, where they are created in order to continue the trend of a man in control of the family, in a nuclear family which involves a married heterosexual couple as well as children, own or adopted. This is shown in ways such as; giving women custody over children in courts by assuming that they are caregivers and making it harder for women to claim social benefits as they are seen to be dependent on men. One main example of the way in which feminists argue that social policies continue this trend of patriarchy was presented by Lamb.
They hold the belief that power lies with men instead of the economy and the structure of society is so men are able to maintain their power. Along with having these beliefs, feminists also believe women are being suppressed in society. One area feminists hold strong views over is the family. They believe that society is patriarchal. Linda N. (undated) provides a definition as men holding the position of power and the head of the family unit.
Increasingly, we are told that the source of these robust preferences must lie outside society—in prenatal hormonal influences, brain chemistry, genes—and that feminism has reached its natural limits. What else could possibly explain the love of preschool girls for party dresses or the desire of toddler boys own more guns than Mark from Michigan? True, recent studies claim to show small cognitive differences between the sexes: He gets around by orienting himself in space; she does it by remembering landmarks. Time will tell if any deserve the hoopla with which each is invariably greeted, over the protests of the researchers themselves. But even if the results hold up (and the history of such research is not encouraging), we don’t need studies of sex differentiated brain activity in reading, say, to understand why boys and girls still seem so unalike.
What is meant by the "breakdown of the family" is, then, change, which sometimes may be for the better. The family will continue to evolve under the influence of economic pressure, cultural differences, and an increasingly tolerant society. What is considered to be the nuclear family of today, by tomorrow's standards may not be considered a family at all; however, as long as it fulfills the function of bringing up children in a safe, structured, and loving environment and providing emotional support to the adult individuals that make up our society, it will be alive and
Functionalism vs. Marxism The Functionalist theory believes in a family that is perfect for the industrial society in which we live. The family type more often described by modern functionalists is that of a nuclear variety, idealised as white, middle class, male & female, having children and holding typical western values. Functionalists believe that the family has vital functions to carry out; one of the main functions is passing on of traditional values, another main function would be the socialisation of children and, carrying on, the stabilisation of the adult personality. The Functionalist theory relies heavily on the nuclear family, It is of common belief amongst functionalists that the nuclear family with two parents and dependent children living together in a home is a necessity for the industrial society to thrive. Murdock, a functionalist, states that the family has four functions: sexual, economic, reproductive and educational, He argued that the family needs these four factors and he argues that they are the family's purposes.