Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
THEORIES OF THE FAMILY - Coggle Diagram
THEORIES OF THE FAMILY
feminism
marxists feminists
- use marxists ideology - their ideas are based upon class conflict and the role that women play in society, not about male dominated societies
- women reproduce the workforce
- women have a triple-shift - the symmetrical family is a myth (young and willmott)
- ansley - 'women are the takers of shit'
- its a womens job to comfort the hard working man - women ensure that the workers are able to go to work fit and healthy - to the benefit of a capitalist system - it means the workforce is happy and continue to feed into the capitalist system
- women are a reverse army of labour - women can provide a cheap and effective workforce when required - still a gender pay gap that supports this
radical feminists
- greer - society is patriarchal therefore all institutions are
- the family - chance for men to exert their dominance and power over women - may be reinforced by domestic violence
- heterosexual relationships are 'sleeping with the enemy' and the only way to stop the patriarchal society is to live independently
- nuclear family - encouraging women to live in the patriarchal society, supports it because men are seen as the head of the household
- the family benefits men through; free domestic labout, emotional work and sex
- women are controlled in the family through the 'darkside of the family'
- paid work is not liberating women, instead they are facing a 'dual burden' of paid work and unpaid housework
- some go further talking about the triple shift - including the emitional work of the family
- women are much more likely than men to experience domestic violence
- millett - patriarchy chief institution of the family
liberal feminists
- believe that feminism can be reached through gradual reform, not revolutionary change. they believe that feminism had made some progress in society, for example, the gender pay gap, whilst it still exists, is getting smaller and effecting less women in jobs
- they view the family as a form of gender role socialisation, children learn and are influenced by their parents and other adults around them about that is acceptable in society for their gender. therefore it is important for women to be strong, financially independent role models for their children, showing them that women are capable and have the same opportunities as men
- women's oppression is being gradually overcome through campaigning - sex discrimination act - it is not illegal to discriminate against someone in terms of gender
- march of progress - graugual progress towards equality, domestic labour studies - young and willmott - symmetrical family
- gender role socialization reinforces gender inequality - this needs to change for true equality to be achieved. steps are being taken with children but generational change needs to be seen
difference feminist - argue that we cannot generalise about womens experiences.
- working class women are more likely to have a triple shift that middle class women
- radical feminists argue that the family is a negative institution for women but black feminists argue that family is supportive and resistance from racism
- fails to recognize the similarities that women face
criticisms of feminist theories
- women's roles are not the same in all families
- women do have a choice. some enjoy being housewives or pursuing a career
- 70% of divorces are initiated by women, showing that they can leave 'oppressive' relationships and do hold some power in the family - not passive
- somerville - women's position in society has greatly improved
functionalism
murdocks 4 functions of the family:
- reproductive - procreation
- sexual - regulated sex, emotional bonds, social order
- educational - primary, norms and values
- economic - productive workers in society
evaluation of murdock
- a range of different attitudes towards bringing up children exist in the uk
- different religious beliefs, ethnic backgrounds...
- interpretivists - educational functions of the family will differ - product of culture not biology
- interpretive sociologists argue that murdock fails to recognise that families are the produce of culture rather than biology and that consequently family roles will be different even within the same society
- murdock's definition is also quite conservative:
- lack of family status for all
- other families = inadequate
- definition is political
parsons - functional fit theory - families play different functions depending on the society in which they are in
functions of the family
- primary socialisation
- parsons believed that the newly evolved nuclear family specialized in socializing children
- in this sense the family acts as a bridge between children and the wider society
- he said that a child could only become a sociable adult by internalising the norms and values of the society
- he therefore saw the nuclear family as 'personality factories'
- family socialisation
- primary
- expressive vs instrumental
- maintains order in society with new members
- very powerful - people's identities are based on society's values
- families are factories producing human personalities and are able to do this with the love and security it provides
- parsons warm bath theory
- family life stabilises adult personalities
- at the same time the socialisation and supervision of children gives parents a sense of stability and responsibility
- parsons viewed the family as a positive and beneficial place for all its members
- steel and kidd not the family does this by providing a loving and stable environment in the home
- gender role socialisation
- children learn the cultural patterns of behaviour expected of their gender from an early age - people are trained by their parents child rearing practices to conform to social expectations of how men and women should behave
- in this sense gender differences are not biological or natural but are socially constructed by society
- chapman argues that through play children learn their gender identity - social construct
- social control
- the family serves as an important agent of social control and alongside religion, cjs and the media, policies our behaviour in order to maintain a value consensus and social order
- murdock points out that family is generally regarded as the moral centre of society and sets the rules with regard to how we should behave
- setting the boundaries of correct behavior is an important consequence of socialisation of children through the family. effective child rearing leads to the development of a moral conscience that rains children to know the difference between right the wrong - this is backed up through the use of positive and negative parenting sanctions
- social status
- being born into a family results in the acquisition of a number of ascribed statuses. there is some evidence that the socio-economic status of our family provides us with a sense of family identity. it also has a profound influence over the qualities of opportunity that we experience as we grow up
- some families are able to offer continued economic support well after children have flown the nest
- inequalities in economic childhood maintenance encourages unequal adult relationships
- recreation and leisure
- during the 20th century the family became an important centre for recreation and leisure. this was especially true in the 1990s when parents started to interpret the world as a much riskier place for children and began to spend more time at home
- evans and chandler note that new homes and childrens bedrooms are often now furnished with media and technology
- protective and welfare
- the human body when born is generally helpless and requires adult physical support and protection for a prolonged period of time. this welfare support depends on the socio-economic status of the family, which depends on income and occupation
- welfare also involved family members looking after one other, disabled, ill, elderly. the family therefore makes an important contribution to the health and welfare of the more vulnerable individuals in society
- economic consumption
- families being able to economically provide for themselves including the consumption of goods and services. this is achieved through men being the instrumental leader
could other institutions not perform these functions?
- communes and other institutions can provide economic security
- women can use sperm donors for reproduction
- prostitutes can eb sued for sex
marxism
marxism and capitalism
- pre-industrial - extended family was the most common
- everyone shared the labour communally
- all members - 'means of production' - classless society
- post-industrial society - everything designed to benefit capitalism, nuclear family
- wc were exploited for their labour by the RC they earn the bear minimum
- means of production owned by rc - only benefitted them - class explotation
marxism and the family - marxists have identified several functions that they see the nuclear family performing to benefit capitalism:
- inheritance of property
- ideological functions
- consumption
monogamous nuclear family - marx and engels
- believed that the monogamous nuclear family was developed as a way to pass on private property to heirs. money stayed within the same family - proof of paternity, only through monogamous relationships can the family ensure that their home, capital etc is passed on to the correct heirs
- argued that a women's role in the family was similar to a prostitutes - she provided sex in return for financial protection
althusser - proletariat must submit to the bourgeoisie
- via ISA
- leads to false class consciousness
the family as an ISA
- zaretsky - ideological function, 'haven', males have control
- this release helps them deal with their daily oppression
- the modern nuclear family functions to promote values that ensure a reproduction and maintenance of capitalism. the family is described as an ideological apparatus - this means it socialises people to think in a way that justifies inequality and encourages people to accept the capitalist system as fair, natural and unchangeable
- one way in which this happens is that there is a hierarchy in most families which teaches children to accept there will always be someone in 'authority' who they must obey, which then mirrors the hierarchy of boss-worker in paid employment in later life.
marxism and socialisation - the nuclear family supports the capitalist system
- when children are socialized they are taught to accept their position in society
- they are taught that it is vital to work
- they are taught the hierarchy of the system
a unit of consumption - family plays a major role in generating profits - consumer
- advertisers encourage lastest consumption
- adverts target children 'pester power' - they pester their parents for something until they cave and buy it
- those who don't have the latest things can be mocked
thus the family is also a source of profit for capitalism
criticisms
- what about men who marry for love - and not to pass down property, it is naive to think that families are made solely for property rights
- many women work - don't need to marry for protection, genderquake
- ignores the 'functions' that a family can play, with support, emotional security - too focused on wealth and property
- too deterministic - assumes people passively accept family life, plenty of families that reject consumerism and bring children up to be independent thinkers
- focus on the nuclear family - ignores the wide variety of families in society, disregards family diversity and ignores other benefits of the nuclear family
- feminism - too much importance on class and not enough on patriarchy
-
personal life
personal life sociologists argued that functionalism, marxism and feminism all suffer from two weaknesses
- they assume that the traditional nuclear family is dominant
- they are all structural theories
may
- personal relationships are not confined to the family and should not be exclusively studied
- she does not question that family relationships are essential to personal life but she argues that personal life also involves relationships with other people as well outside of the family unit
- it is an interactionist 'bottom up' approach to explaining the sociology of 'family' units
the sociology of personal life
- strong ties with interactionist ideas (mead)
- bottom up principle
- individuals interpretations of relationships
- relationships can take many forms
- dna does not determine a family
- social relationships are more important that genetic ones
smart
- argues that gradually the sociology of the family has shifted but still puts most emphasis on those who are connected by blood/marriage
- argues that people no longer see their personal life as being organised this way - eg technological developments make it easier for people to have long distance relationships
- argues that the 'personal' is different from the 'individual'
- people's ability to choose how to act is constrained by their relationships with other people - personal life allowed for the idea of families of choice - this might not be people who you are related to via dna
relationships that indivuals see as significant, give us a sense of idenity and belonging. this could include
- relationships with friends
- fictive kin
- gay and lesbian chosen families
- relationships with dead relatives
- relationships with pets