Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
theories of the family - Coggle Diagram
theories of the family
FUNCTIONALIST
murdock BIG 4 : economic benefit to the economy, reproduction of future gens, socialisation of the young and stabilisation of the adult sex drive
family is self-sufficient and meets the needs of its members (providing essentials) rather than being dependent on the welfare state for finances
reproduction - biological production of future generations ensuring society continues
sexual stabilisation - stable monogamous hetero relationships, healthy outlet for 2 adults to exercise sexuality without promisuity (risks unclear heir 4 inheritance so is bad)
Marxists argue that the stab. of sex drive's purpose is to maintain the inheritance of wealth stays within the rich , Feminists may argue that the stab. of adult sex drive may lead women to lose autonomy over their bodies in order to fulfill the male sex drive
structuralist, top-down theory, sees nuclear as universal
criticised by the Personal Life Perspective who believe that we sociologists should focus on individual experiences in order to explain big questions
Parsons : family performs the role of primary socialisation and stabilisation of adult personalities
criticism of primary socialisation: although primary, family socialisation is arguably not the most important, think of structural differentiation - other structures such as education and even recently social media are socialising children more and more. According to the toxic childhood Palmer(2006) kids are spending less time playing in natural surroundings and more time online
criticism of stabilisation of adult personalities: ignores the dark side of the family and the 'cushioning effect' Zaretsky, Ansley 'women as the takers of shit' and high domestic violence all shows that this function is being poorly performed
parsons and murdock family performs the function of primary socialisation - adequately socialising children into the necessary values and behaviours e.g. manners - allowing them to make valuable contributions . Similarly they're socialised into their assigned gender roles and behaviours as a result of have dual gender role models
Marxists- family socialising children into gender roles keeps producing male workers who are pressured to perform their assigned role as a 'breadwinner' rather than fighting against the unfair capitalist system
Althusser - family as an ISA socialising kids into capitalist values and ideals
Feminists argue that these roles are oppressive forcing girls into subordination and socialising them to accept dominance by men and reproducing patriarchal ideas
main evaluations of the functionalist theory: 1. pretends family life is all nice an rosy and ignores DV, oppression of women & other negatives. 2. too deterministic 3. out of date (does gender socialisation still exist) , Parsons for is example doesnt account for changes in women's role, women cannot be fully expressive if they're also a part of the workforce
MARXIST
zaretsky - unit consumption as we are a consumer society the family serves the function of consuming the products capitalism pushes - thus keeping capitalism alive, this consumer identity distracts workers from their oppression maintaining false class conciousness
capitalism creates false needs forcing us to consume products we don't really need : kids use pester power + adult are pressured into Keeping up with the joneses, thus the pressure of keeping up with others keeps the capitalist system thriving, parents may buy toys to keep their kids busy as they dont have time to watch them as they're working
althusser : family institution acts as an ISA, socialising children into the accetance of caitalist ideology passivity & and submitting to hierarchy prepares them for subordination in the workplace , family only benefits the MC as when they enter the workforce they do not question the dominance of those who are exploiting them
zaretsky - cushioning effect argues that the family acts as a haven from the stresses and strains of capitalism allowing men to feel in control and powerful which they don't feel in the workplace due to bourgeoisie oppression - further individuals take out their frustrations on their families rather than their employers - the true oppressors
FEMINIST
MARXFEMS: family as a tool of capitalism to oppress women CAPITALISM not men oppresses women
capitalism benefits from women's unpaid labour - cooking, cleaning, childcare etc.according to a study by Oxfam the value of this shadow labour is a staggering 10.9 trillion (the largest difference in the distribution of unpaid work in India where women average 6 hrs of unpaid work vs 52 minutes 3 ways family supports cap. oppressing women
- reproducing the workforce and socialising them into the hierarchy
- women as the "takers of shit" who absorb the anger of their alienated, frustrated husbands
- women as a reserve army of cheap labour when needed e.g. wartime
exaggerates the rate to which capitalism is responsible for the oppression of women - domestic violence ?
libfems - women are no longer a reserve labour force, equal rights at work
LIBFEMS don't believe equality has been fully achieved in the family but it's well underway , through changes in law (divorce act, abortion act) and changing social attitudes (less gendered socialisation and changing views of the role of women)
overstates the progress - women are now dually oppressed if not more - triple shift . hyperfocuses on the western female experience , changes in law and attitudes are not the same everywhere (child marriage still legal in places)
rad and marx fems argue that lib fems fail to point out the fundamental (not just legal) changes required e.g. women are perceived as equal in work under the law however this ignores less opportunities for women etc.
RADFEMS : men are the enemy ! marriage and the family allow the patriarchy to exist, family as it exists must be abolished in order for equality to be achieved. Greer advocates for matrilocal households- all female households w shared responsibilities as an alt to patriarchal households. political lesbianism as heterosexual relationships are oppressive by nature
assumes all women feel oppressed in the household - increase in dual role households w equally distributed work
separatism may be unrealistic due to heterosexual attractions
from an intersectional feminist view, the family may act as a safe haven for ethnic women who face racism / classism outside of the home
INTERSECTFEMS : focus on the experience of nuclear famiy women , not all women experience the same family life
-
POSTMODERN
giddens and beck individualisation thesis
traditional structures have lost their influence over ppl, people's class, religion , gender greatly impacted what family they chose now these traditional roles are less important we pick our own family types based on our needs e.g. if a marriage doesn't work for us we now leave
they argue structural perpesctives are problematic :
assuming the nuclear family is dominant
assuming family memebers are passive
diversity and fragmentation as well as rapid social change has lead to a less predictable and stable family - no dominant family type as we have freedom over family choice BUT this freedom can lead to instability e.g. more divorces
while there has been an increase in family diversity , the postmodernists overstate this change : Chester's neo conventional family : reconstituted , cohabitating , same-sex parents all mirror the traditional family
PLP
criticises the structural perspectives for their over generalisations about families : focusing on the nuclear family ignores the diversity of modern family life rather PLP sociologists would suggests we should use interactionist methods to research individual choices
look to pets, fictive kin , dead relatives, adopted family, donor conceived children etc. as just as important as biologically related family
May argues that rather than a privatised nuclear family suggested by the structural perspectives , we now look outside the family for relationships e.g. lone-parent households may turn to fictive kin, ppl consrtuct their own networks
however the PLP definition of family is arguably too broad and difficult to research if we take everyone's personal definitions