The Family as a Social Institution - Case Study Example

Running head: SOCIAL S The Family as a Social Introduction The family is the basic unit of the society where children learn social traditions, norms, mores, values, roles, and morality. It is considered as a social group, in which individuals learn social traditions and receive social and emotional protection. Members of a family are typically related by ancestry, adoption, or marriage. In the course of time, the traditional parent-children composition of a family was radically changed. A family nowadays is comprised not only of parents and their children, but also of other blood and non-blood related individuals who co-exist for the welfare of the group. No matter how extensive the family membership is, the mutual bonds under a common authority exist among the members of a family. The evolving traits of the family’s structure are best explicated by sociological theories such as functionalist, conflict, and interactionism. Functionalist’s Perspective and Family Functionalists view that every society has interrelated social institutions, including the family, the educational institutions, the religious sects, the government and political system, and the mass media (Giddens & Griffiths, 2006). Each social institution contributes toward the advancement of the society. Since every society operates based on the consensus of its members, it serves the best interest of the general populace. In particular, functionalists emphasized the value of social structures than that of the individuals. Functionalism is a “top-down,” structuralist theory, which gives more importance on the societal structure and stratification, rather than on the individuals (Giddens & Griffiths, 2006). Functionalism views individuals as the product of social influences as they continuously expose themselves to other structures or members of the society, including family members, peers, relatives, and media. Family as a social institution, in the eyes of the functionalists, is beneficial to individuals because they usually experience physical care and emotional support from it. In 1965, Talcott Parsons tackled the origin of “family” and the roots of nuclear family (Giddens & Griffiths, 2006). He suggested that prior to industrial revolution societies were founded on an extensive network of kinship. This network bridges the relationship of the family members to the members of the nuclear family. In such family networks, the role of each member is mainly defined not by any skills or educational background, but through ascription. G.P. Murdock argued that the nuclear family has universally existed because it supported the economic, sexual, educative, and reproductive functions for the continuous existence of the society (Giddens & Griffiths, 2006). According to Parsons, industrial revolution has brought at least three major changes in the society. First, industrialization necessitated an economy with a greater geographical mobility. This geographical mobility forced families to work in other places, away from and less reliant on the social support of their immediate relatives. Another change was a consequence of the large geographical mobile force. Nuclear families became more home centered and dependent to one another. Lastly, specialized agencies, such as schools, health institutions, and factories, were established and took over the functions basically perform by families. When the basic economic function of families in the production and selling of goods was taken by specialized social agencies, families searched works in other places, away from their clan. Although the nuclear family has lost some of its functions, it still remained important in the socialization of children and development of personalities. Regardless of some criticisms on the functionalist’s view on the emergence of the nuclear family, functionalists accentuated that nuclear families were primarily concerned on the socialization of children. Parsons argued further that an individual’s personality is not an inherited trait; rather it is molded by experiences under parental supervision (Giddens & Griffiths, 2006). A child, through social experiences, internalizes and absorbs the values, mores, and traditions of the society and eventually shapes his own personality. Thus, in the functionalist’s view, nuclear families are deemed as “personality factories” that churn out individuals who engaged themselves with the social rules. Meanwhile, Ronald Fletcher, positing on a functionalist’s perspective, analyzed the nature of the family, but denounced the notion that the nuclear family, in the modern era, has lost its basic functions (Giddens & Griffiths, 2006). He contented that the family should not be treated as a unit of production, but rather as a unit of consumption where advertisers offer a number of commercial products to derive profits. In terms of specialized social institutions, like schools, health institutions, and factories, family still plays a crucial role. Parents provide guidance to their children concerning studies, health maintenance, and future profession. In addition, family members still provide care to loved ones with disabilities and elderly relatives. Conflict Theory and Family Conflict theory contends that dissension is inevitable in life. Individuals in a society are frequently divided by conflicts or competing forces. Family, as a social institution, is viewed by conflict theorists as a miniature society, in which each member performs tasks crucial for the family’s existence (Henslin, 2000). By tradition, a husband is regarded as the head and bread winner of the family, while a wife is confined to household chores and childrearing. In this set up, conflict theorists deemed a family as a social structure where some individuals gain more benefits than other members; men often dominate than women. Even though love and affection binds family members, power and conflict arise because of differences in personalities, goals, thoughts, or ideas among members (Henslin, 2000). For instance, parents used to interfere in the decision and social life of their children which triggers conflict. Children, especially adolescents, judge their parents as irrational and harsh in controlling their lives. Most of the time, parents can put family matters under their control because of the power and authority of their position in the family. Nonetheless, conflict theorists view any family discord as integral part of family life. Social conflict theorists suggested that each family member is motivated by and tend to act in fulfilling his own interest. The goals, needs, resources, and values that an individual deemed as advantageous, important, or desirable in dealing with the daily affairs of life, are recurrently pursued (Henslin, 2000). Since every individual has unique personality, a group of individuals can impossibly have identical desires, aspirations, and motivations; thus, an individual tend to act in a manner that would best serve his own interest. Further, conflict theorists proposed two fundamental reasons, within the social context, that could incite individuals into conflict. One reason is that individuals aspire for different things. In every group, then, members have different or contradictory interest, goals, and values. This condition, which is common to a family, induces tension and sets the situation into conflict. Another possible reason is a situation wherein individuals want the same things, but with limited supply. This would lead to chronic struggle among individuals for the achievement of important-but-limited resources things, including money, promotion, power, or attention. The different motivations inherent to conflicts are considered as the product of the “instinctual” attributes of individuals, which are naturally inscribed in human species (Henslin, 2000). In addition, such self-interests can also trace from the social status of an individual in a larger social structure or cultural norms and mores to which an individual was exposed to in his socialization experiences. Hence, interests and social interactions are of prime importance in deciphering the nature and roots of conflicts. Conflict theorists generally agree that the difficulties in avoiding or completely suppressing family conflict would eventually result to persistent problems in the family systems (Henslin, 2000). Due to the perspective differences between family members, intrafamily conflicts can hardly be avoided. It is important then for every family system to acknowledge the nature of and develop means to properly address intrafamily conflicts. Although conflict among the family members are hardly be avoided, conflict theorists believe that it can properly manage to keep a sustainable family existence. In sum, the application of conflict theory to the study of the structure and distinctive features of family systems showed that intrafamily conflicts are inevitable to the family’s social existence. Conflict theorists regarded intrafamily conflicts as completely consistent with the nature of human social life, individuals, and family structure. They suggested that intrafamily conflicts, to some extent, are evident in family units under any specific conflict behaviors, intrapsychic characteristics, and emotional states (Henslin, 2000). Moreover, any forms of conflict arise and sustain in a family through constraint, coercion, or force and resolve by means of compromise, negotiation, or bargaining among the family members. Lastly, conflict theorists emphasized the various discrepancies that may possibly exist between our assumptions, beliefs, or ideologies concerning families and the attributes of family systems in real life. Symbolic Interactionism and Family Ernest Burgess pioneered the application of symbolic interactionism to family research. He regarded the family as a “unity of interacting personalities,” in which each member’s role and personality, as well as communications among members, directly affects its stability and existence (White & Klein, 2003). On the other hand, Willard Waller utilized qualitative approach in family studies, particularly in family dynamics, conflicts, and conflict resolution. Symbolic interactionism argued that individuals attach meanings and interpretation to symbols. It gives importance of such symbols and social process on role learning and acquisition, including role identity and negotiation within the family (White & Klein, 2003). Verbal communications, for instance, are possible through cultural and cognitive symbolism. Words, primarily composed of cultural symbolism, are sent by an individual and cognitively interpreted by another individual. A successful communication denotes that the message in the words from the sender has been accurately decoded and interpreted by the receiver. Symbolic interactionists posit on actions of individuals and how individuals express symbols and thoughts in their actions and how they interpret the words and actions of others. Symbolic interactionism holds that individuals learn above themselves through their interactions with other individuals (White & Klein, 2003). As such, children learn cultural traits and behavioral responses from their immediate caregiver, which is their family. Thus, symbolic interactionism assumed that children’s personality and perception of myriad of things reflect parents’ belief and cultural traits. Through social interaction, the individual absorbs and internalizes social symbolism, such as norms and mores, from his immediate environment. Then, the individual regulates his instincts motives and urges. In addition, life conditions and traumatic events such as accidents, physical and sexual abuse, and mental stress have negative effects on individuals. Those situations cause fear, emotional distress, mental scars which eventually induce mental and personality disorders. Individuals also acquire the cultural stereotypes from his family like gender role, values, and beliefs in conformity with the societal expectations (White & Klein, 2003). Furthermore, symbolic interactionists argued that the development of one’s identity is highly dependent on his internalizations. Social influences, to which an individual was exposed to, impart only minor influences on him. The manner on which the individual reacts to the symbolic processes substantially makes impacts on his identity. While interactionism supports the proposition that ones identity is a product of interactions between his hereditary traits and social dimensions, every individual then actively absorbs parental influences. Although an individual conforms to the expectations of his family, sociologists contend that specific traits have certain dimensions. The integration of these traits creates the holistic social identity profile of an individual (White & Klein, 2003). Overall, symbolic interactionism holds that behavior is both shaped by the situation and active involvement of an individual. As individuals direct situations, the situations influence individuals that create behavioral patterns. Further, interactionism maintains the important role of personality in predicting the kind of situations one enters into. For instance, an introverted individual may choose jobs which do not necessitate frequent contact to other individuals. Since every individual actively participates in the complex process of changing, selecting, and interpreting situations, it follows then that every individual can mold situations suited into their personality. In particular, to make work situation cozier, individuals are capable of changing task assignments, methods, and procedures. Analysis and Conclusion Functionalism focuses on a multifaceted nature of social living. Functionalists regarded the society as a set of variables that are related to one another, in a consistent manner, within a period of time. They emphasized the various components of the society and determined the attributes and functions of such. Accordingly, social institutions are treated as the society’s structural components which perform crucial tasks toward the sustainable existence of the society as a whole. It follows then that the family, as a social institution, performs important functions to contribute for the existence of the society, while family members work hand-in-hand for survival. On the other hand, conflict theorists view the society in an incessant conflict between social classes. Since a family is composed of individuals with different interest and personality, conflict naturally arises among family members. Individuals in a family consistently strive for power and freedom, but the family is sustained by a common authority, shared values, and cultural traditions. Still, symbolic interactionism posits on the learning and absorption of meanings of individuals. These meanings, although inherent to individuals, are instigated by appropriate social interactions. With regard to the family, children primarily learn verbal communication and cultural traditions from their parents or immediate caregiver. Individuals not merely respond to words or sounds, but rather on the meanings they associated with those words or sounds. In sum, the sociological theories discussed above signify that the family as a social institution is the society’s basic unit where individuals receive care, love, and affection, learn values and cultural traditions, acquire knowledge and linguistic skills, and learn to conform to rules for a harmonious existence. The three theories emphasized the role of a common authority among the family members to sustain a benevolent existence. References Giddens, A., & Griffiths, S. (2006). Sociology. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press. Henslin, J. M. (2000). Essentials of sociology: A down-to-earth approach. Boston, London: Allyn and Bacon. White, J. M., & Klein, D. M. (2003). Family theories: Understanding families, 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, Calif: Sage. Read More