Functionalism is a structuralist theory. This implies it sees the average person as less important as the interpersonal structure of culture. It is a 'top down' theory. The family can be defined as an intimate local group composed of individuals related to each other by blood, intimate relationships and legal ties. When assessing how useful functionalism is when looking at the family, other views/perspectives need to be taken into account before making a standard final result. Views from Talcott Parsons, George Murdock, Ann Oakley, Edmund Leach, R. D Laing, David Cooper and Friedrich Engels will be studied into account as well as perspectives from Marxism, feminism, family diversity and radical psychiatrists. This will help draw the final conclusion.
Functionalist sociologists claim that the nuclear family is the norm in modern day industrial societies.
George Peter Murdock (1949) facilitates the thought of functionalism. After analysing 250 societies, Murdock argues that the family works four basic functions; erotic, reproductive, monetary and educational. They are the essentials for public life, since without erotic and reproductive functions there would be no people of contemporary society, without financial functions life would cease, and without education there would be no culture. Real human culture without culture could not function. Plainly, the family cannot perform these functions entirely. However, it makes important contributions to them all and no other institution has yet been devised to complement its efficiency in this esteem. A weakness of Murdock's view is the fact some sociologists could find his explanation of the family almost too good to be true. A few of his views on harmony and integration are not shared be other analysts. He also will not take a look at alternatives to the family, not considering whether its functions could be carried out by other interpersonal establishments. Murdock is criticised to be Euro-centric, as he is only concerned about the Western households. However, he is backed by anthropologists; Morris (1968) said the family was a result of biology and culture over years (socio-biology). This could be a durability as it shows some researchers have the same view.
Talcott Parsons bases his ideas on the family in modern American modern culture. However, not surprisingly his ideas have more general software since he boasts the American family has two 'basic and irreducible' functions which are common to the family in every societies, unlike Murdock who argued there have been four. We were holding, the primary socialization of children, where culture is discovered and accepted by children so they know the norms and prices that allow contemporary society to exist. Second the stabilization of adult personalities, which is in which a marriage romance and mental security several provide for the other person helps to keep a personality stable, and functions as a counterweight to every day strains and strains that can make a personality unpredictable. This process is otherwise known as the 'warm bathroom' theory, where in fact the family give a comforting environment for the male worker to immerse himself in after a difficult day at work. A criticism of Parsons view would be that he idealises the family, much like Murdock, with his view of well tweaked children and sympathetic spouses caring for every others every need, when in reality not all family members are such as this. Also Parsons fails to explore the distinctions between working/middle school young families, as his ideas are generally based on the American middle class family. Parsons point of view facilitates that of functionalism, that the nuclear family is typical in population.
Ann Oakley has explained the typical or 'typical' family. She says regular young families are nuclear individuals composed of legally maried people, voluntarily choosing the parenthood of one or even more children. This shows support for functionalism. Leach (1967) has called this the 'cereal packet image of the family'. This image of a happily married few with two children is visible in advertising and the 'family size' packets of cereal and other products are targeted at this group.
The family is practical for both its customers and society all together. Progressively this picture of the family is approaching under strong criticism. Some observers are recommending that on balance, the family may well be dysfunctional both for modern culture and its specific users. This criticism has mainly been directed at the family in Western industrial world.
The Marxist take on the family opposes that of the functionalists. It is seen to challenge the theory that the family is general or natural, but instead that it is individuals creation; a cultural technology that has offered a specific economic goal. The Marxist theory on the family emerged from the work of Friedrich Engels. It is argued by Marxists that the working-class prolonged family has been intentionally discouraged by the capitalist ruling class, because its focus on a mutual support system and collective action promotes its members to be aware of their social course position. It really is assumed that the nuclear family under capitalist legislation within an 'anti-social' family. It brands all other forms of family life as poor and unnatural. However, a weakness of the Marxist view is that there surely is a propensity to speak about 'the family' in capitalist population without regard to possible versions in family life between sociable classes.
Family diversity facilitates the fact that the 'classic family' no more makes up nearly all households or young families. For instance, women no longer aspire specifically to loving love, relationship and children. Nowadays there are acceptable alternative life-style some people choose, such as pre-marital making love, serial monogamy, cohabitation, single-sex human relationships, childlessness etc. Men's assignments too are no longer clear in a postmodern world, and the producing 'problems of masculinity' has lead to man redefining both their sexuality and family commitments. Others disagree with this view. They dispute that family variety is exaggerated, which the basic features of family life have continued to be largely unchanged in most of the populace. Nuclear families remain very common - but alternative types of family are steadily increasing.
When looking at a critical view of the family, radical psychiatry mat be taken into consideration. Edmund Leach reinforced the theory in the family you can find too much psychological pressure on each individual to surpass objectives. R. D Laing associated schizophrenia with the emotional pressure and anxiety of the nuclear family. David Cooper suggested the personality of the average person is controlled by the family, forcing these to conform to the rules of both the family, forcing these to conform to the guidelines of both the family and wider population. These three radical experts all agree that the family is a dangerous place and mental disorder could be the result of stresses laid right down to the individual. From this angle it can be seen that the family has a poor, this view does not buy into the view of functionalism.
Friedrich Engels acknowledges that the position of women within the family is an important aspect of the actual Marxists see as its damaging results. However, he stresses the relationship between family and capitalism, and is less worried about its results on women. Feminism has broken itself into different perspectives, Marxist feminists, liberal feminists and radical feminists. Friedrich Engels talks for the Marxist feminist view. Liberal feminists believe that both sexes contribute to domestic chores in an atmosphere of common support and hegemony, and there can be an equal division of labour. Radical feminist beliefs are that the nuclear family is based upon male vitality and serves to aid that. Male vitality is often indicated in the home as domestic assault. It really is seen that patriarchy is transhistorical; it is ever before within all societies and ethnicities. A weakness is the fact feminists often do not look at the possible dissimilarities in family life, for example, cultural classes, ethnic groups, heterosexual and gay families etc. They just seem to assume every family is a nuclear family, so may exaggerate the effect of households to women. They therefore ignore the opportunity of women struggling with back against exploitation and don't start to see the positive side to the family.
Now that perspectives and ideas criticising and encouraging functionalism have been illustrated. A summary can be made. If looking at Murdock and Parsons it can be seen that they both have a tendency to only take into account Traditional western societies, and have a tendency to generalise. Apart from that they both have strong, similar ideas on what the family is. Oakley and Leach support their ideas on the nuclear family being nearly all society. However, although argument encouraging functionalism is sound, other views have to be taken into perspective. For example Marxism, questioning the thought of a universal/natural family. Family variety offering different alternatives to how people choose to reside, feminists expressing the family exploits women and radical psychiatry proclaiming the family is an unhealthy place and causes mental illness
