Functionalist and Marxist Perspectives - Essay Example

COMPARE AND CONTRAST FUNCTIONALIST AND MARXIST PERSPECTIVES INCLUDING FEMINIST PERSPECTIVES Introduction The previous century has experienced great social changes, and in contemporary times further changes continue to take place. Three sociological theories which pertain to social change and the family are: the functionalist perspective, the Marxist perspective and the feminist perspective. While functionalism provides a consensus perspective, Marxism and feminism provide a conflict perspective. Each of the perspectives focuses on the family as central to society, and each differently interprets the relationship between social change and the family (Bond, 1994). Thesis Statement: The purpose of this paper is to compare and contrast Functionalist, Marxist and Feminist perspectives. Discussion Interpretive sociology examines the meaning that is given to everyday life by those involved in its construction. The culture in which people live has a profound impact on what is perceived as reality. People act out their social roles, some of which are ascribed or given at birth, and others are achieved or gained through life experiences. The Functionalists and the New Right adopt a consensus perspective and uphold family values based on consensus. On the other hand, Feminism and Marxism are conflict perspectives, “which view family values as part of the problem in relation to power, control, status and inequality” (Squire, 2003: 69). Functionalist Perspective The functionalist perspective of family is comprehensively explained by Parsons (1964), who identifies two major functions of the conjugal family. First, families facilitate the procreation of children and socialize them into adult roles of the kind which are accepted and expected by the social group in which they live. An example is the teaching of adult gender roles by the Western family. This is achieved by “the way in which children are dressed, the games they are allowed to play, how they are spoken to and the different attitudes of parents towards their children’s behaviour” (Bond, 1994: 95). Children are socialized into identifying with a gender role. Secondly, the family undertakes to re-inforce primary and secondary socialisation; and also stabilizes adult behaviour towards the stereotyped roles of husband and wife. Thus, in traditional conjugal families, parents act as role models for their children, besides influencing the way children identify adult gender roles. In industrialized societies, men usually work to earn money to support the family, hence their activities and interests are more focused outside the home than are those of women whose main occupations are domestic and therefore pertain to the home (Bond, 1994). Thus, the functionalist perspective views the relatively independent-functioning conjugal family which believes in free mate selection, and comparatively weak kinship ties, as the family structure most appropriate for modern industrial society. This kind of family structure not only promotes free mobility of labour which is vital for economic growth, but also provides a supportive relationship for men and women which act as an emotional balance to the stresses and tensions of modern life (Parsons, 1964, cited in Bond, 1994: 95). Marxist Perspective Marxist theory also focuses on the importance of the relationship between the family and the functioning of the economy. The emphasis, however, is different from the functionalist perspective. In Marxist theory, the family is the institution within capitalist societies by which capitalism reproduces itself. Additionally, as a unit of consumption the family reinforces capitalism. It also provides workers to operate the system, and the mechanism for the socialization and social control of both men and women. A similar view of gender roles is described for both Marxist and functionalist theories. The feminine role consists of one which “supports the male worker by fulfilling various physical, sexual, social and emotional needs”. The masculine role constitutes the ”disciplining of individuals to sell their labour to the capitalist system” (Bond, 1994: 95). The feminist outlook towards the family influences the Marxist perspective. Feminist Perspective The feminist perspective of family identifies the inherent contradictions within the system. On the one hand, the family unit is meant to serve the function of procreation, and to provide practical and emotional support to male workers. On the other hand, the family is a major source of “emotional tension between men and women” (Bond, 1994: 95). Whereas the Marxist perspective points out the class system in capitalist societies as the reason for the oppression and exploitation of women, the feminist perspective identifies the importance of patriarchy in modern capitalist societies and therefore blames both the class system and the family. A new agenda is developed, leading to the construction of new sets of gender relations through education (Arnot, 2002). “Thatcherism....has not successfully crushed a feminist consciousness which is aware of the oppression of women’s lives as vulnerable and exploited workers and as hopelessly overburdened housewives, mothers and daughters” (Segal, 1983: 124). Comparison of Functionalist, Marxist and Feminist Perspectives Social roles, according to the Functionalist perspective, are culturally determined. Adopting these roles contributes to the smooth running of society. It is important that the various parts of society which are functionally related should integrate and exist harmoniously. Functionalists usually define the family by the needs it fulfils in society. They consider people’s place in society to be delineated by the roles they undertake in society towards ensuring the normal functioning of society (Squire, 2003). Families have an important role in the primary socialization of children, who will conform to the norms and principles of society. The male and female roles are different from one another, with regard to the division of domestic labour. Traditional gender categories segregate the roles required to be carried out by men and women. Functionalists believe in a female expressive role which implies that females are more suited to caring, nurturing, and providing emotional support. The key role of the male is to provide financial support and to function as the breadwinner. The needs of industrial society are best served by a gendered division of labour (Abbott et al, 2005). The Functionalists perspective is echoed by the New Right, regarding men’s role as head of the family and economic provider. The woman is responsible for running of the home and child care. However, today traditional marital roles are not adhered to among several couples. Since the 1970s conservative administrations have supported the stable, patriarchal nuclear family with a dependent female and a dominant male, “in order to revive fundamental Christian values” (Squire, 2003: 70). Moral decline and family breakdown are considered to be the reasons for economic and military decline in the United Kingdom. Conservative members of parliament have blamed several social ills, in public speeches, referring to delinquency, vandalism, juvenile crime and a deterioration in educational standards as the causes of parents’ weakened position of authority in the family. Poor, single-parent families are considered to be the breeding ground for most of the problems in society (Jones & Millar, 1996). Feminists believe that functionalists support patriarchy by claiming that men and women are biologically suited to different roles in the family, and hence their ideologies do not align in the same direction. “Feminist sociologists argue that the family is the main means by which women are oppressed in modern Britain, and they have looked primarily at gender roles within families” (Squire, 2003: 70). The unequal division of gender roles and the heavy burden of childcare and house work leads to the captivity of women in traditional gender roles. The stereotypical view of the family has assisted the subordination and exploitation of women and promotes the continued domination of men. Feminism has also emphasized the heavy emotional and financial price that is paid by women in families with traditional gender roles, “without autonomy or emotional support, and responsible for most domestic labour” (Finch & Groves, 1983: 160). The majority of men undertake only a minor share of child care and household work, but contrastingly, may work overtime or long hours at their workplace. Because of their familial role and responsibilities, women are unable to compete on equal terms with men, in the labour market, thus their occupational choices become limited. Most married employed women take employment where the hours permit them to juggle domestic and childcare responsibilities with work, since housework is an essential part of the feminine role (ONS, 2001: 91). Women are disproportionately represented in part-time, low paid jobs and in the lower categories of social class, “living in poverty with dependent children” (ONS, 2001 cited in Squire, 2003: 71). Marxist feminism emerges from Marx’s theory based on the material side of life, rather than on the social aspect. Marxism is useful in interpreting the functions of economic growth. It is constructed on the concept of divisions of labour, which are clearly seen in the capitalist system. Marxist feminists are concerned with moral right and wrong, in relation to the corruption of wage labour, which in itself denotes class segregations. Workers are believed to be enslaved under a system of production where they are reduced to nothing, because of not being given access to knowledge or skill. Wage earning itself becomes a form of oppression. Based on this principle. Marxists oppose any social or political system that promotes the enslavement and oppression of individuals who form part of the work force (Sim, 2000). The early Marxist concepts on feminism were: the absorption of women into the labour force under capitalism was destructive of the previously existing gender-based division of labour. Contemporary Marxists of the everyday life school treated women as an integral part of the capitalist system; workers similar to men, uniformly substitutable, and subject to the same cultural pressures. Marxist-feminists concentrated on housework’s relation to capital, “often treating it as a hidden form of work, serving the interests of capital” (Sim, 2000: 126). In Marxist-feminism, women are perceived only in relation to capital, with their relation to men being a secondary issue. The inferior social position of women is traced back to the institution of private property; and where private property did not exist as in the proletarian class, there would be no oppression. Proletarian women also had the benefit of being drawn into the work force which abolished gender differences, undermining the existing system of patriarchal relations. The everyday life approach focuses on how capital has shaped sexism, of the kind we experience in the modern world, by excluding women from paid work. “Housework was unpaid work on behalf of capitalism, which divided our public life from our private, such that we regarded each as spheres associated with a different gender” (Sim, 2000: 126). In the Feminists’ perspective, domestic labour is real and physically demanding work, and as such should be paid. On the other hand, housework is unrecognized and underrated. Radical feminists believe that men benefit from women’s unpaid work, due to which they are interested in maintaining the status quo. Marxist Feminists on the other hand, emphasize that women’s exploitation in the family serves the interests of capitalism. Marxist perspective focuses on the way in which families promote and reproduce hierarchical and unequal relationships. They maintain the status quo by providing tomorrow’s labour force, and by offering a secure place for relaxation and rest. Through socialization and everyday relationships, rebelliousness is quelled. Therefore the family is seen as detrimental to the development of both the woman as well as society. Marxists and Feminists both agree that the family oppresses women. Capitalism also oppresses women by excluding them or by not facilitating their participation in the public sphere of waged labour, and by exploiting their labour in the domestic sphere. However, women’s oppression has prevailed much before capitalism emerged. The patriarchal social system with all of its structural constraints is believed to be the reason for women’s oppression (Squire, 2003). The debate between feminists and Marxists gives rise to the term Marxist functionalism. This refers to a trend of Marxist thinking, towards a self-regulating system, which allows little scope for human agency; and a tendency to see individuals or movements at the receiving end of the functioning of such a system., together with an unwillingness to explore further the patterns of functioning (Morgan, 1985). Functionalists tend to ignore the harmful effects of family life and the inequalities of domestic life, while feminists question common sense and conventional sociological assumptions of the family. According to Thorne (1982), feminists argue against the view that any specific family form is natural. Family forms are socially constructed around assumptions about people’s roles and there is no biological reason for the gendered division of labour. Families have power relationships that result in conflict, violence and the inequitable distribution of work and resources. Family crime, which refers to abuse and violence in domestic life, is considered as less serious than real crime, even though domestic violence accounts for a quarter of all violent crime (Saraga & Muncie, 2001). The posmodern concept is inclusive, acknowledging that there are multiple realities. Now there are more diverse forms of family, purpose and functions of family. The postmodern family values autonomy, is parent-centred, taking into account the needs and aspirations of both parents. Shared parenting replaces the universal belief of mother as sole carer of the child. These trends are often seen as breakdown of the family. Roles and relationships within the family are not becoming more democratic, and equality remains a remote illusion to aim for. The proportion of women in employment increased during the latter half of the twentieth century, while the proportion of men has declined (ONS, 2001). The family is still essentially patriarchal. In the United Kingdom, the average male spends more time in leisure activities and does less than a quarter of household routine work, even though he may be less likely to be the only or even the main breadwinner. However, men spend more time in renovation and maintenance activities, and “on average they work longer hours than women in waged labour” (ONS, 2001 cited in Squire, 2003: 74). Some Weaknesses of Functionalist, Marxist and Feminist Perspectives The three theoretical approaches differ in their basic concepts. Functionalism emphasizes the needs of industrial society, Marxism emphasizes the needs of capitalism, and feminism stresses the power of men. From a functionalist perspective, the relationship between the family and the economy is one of mutual benefit and reciprocity. On the other hand, from both the Marxist and the feminist perspectives, it is a relationship in which the economy is the main partner. Further, the functionalist perspective advances a fairly stable equilibrium within the social system, while the Marxist perspective endorses conflict between two antagonistic social classes which will lead to social change. The feminist perspective also foresees change taking place, through women’s struggles to overcome oppression by men, and works towards emancipation as a goal (Bond, 1994). These theoretical traditions have not been endorsed through the collection of empirical data or research evidence. No generally recognizable family unit other than the conjugal family is common to the theories, and the variations in the basic structure may be numerous. The emergence of the dual career family, or the single parent family is not explained. Similarly, the changes in the relationship between the family unit and other sectors of society especially the economy, is not explained. For example, the theories do not include the increasing involvement of women, particularly those who have children, in the labour market. The theories are important for the understanding of modern society. Specifically, they are important to our understanding of the family in a changing society with the continued debate over gender roles (Bond, 1994). Conclusion This paper has highlighted, compared and contrasted Functionalist, Marxist and Feminist perspectives in relation to gender roles, family and the changing society. From a functionalist perspective, families are responsible for the primary socialization of children, to help them conform to the norms of society. Both Marxist and functionalist theories believe in traditional gender division of labour as also about the relationship between the family and the economy. On the other hand, the feminists oppose the unequal division of gender roles in families along with the subordination and exploitation of women. Marxiism is against the enslavement and oppression of workers, and is constructed on the concept of capitalist divisions of labour. Marxists and Feminists both agree that the family oppresses women. Whereas the Marxist perspective believes the class system in capitalist societies to be the reason for the oppression and exploitation of women, the feminist perspective blames both class system and the family in modern capitalist societies, with patriarchy as the root cause. Marxist Feminists emphasize that women’s exploitation in the family serves the interests of capitalism. Thus, it is concluded that though all three perspectives emphasize different concepts based on the needs of industrial society, capitalism and the power of men respectively, they are inter-related in several ways. References Abbott, P. Wallace, C. & Tyler, M. (2005). An introduction to Sociology: feminist perspectives. London: Routledge. Arnot, M. (2002). Reproducing gender? Essays on educational theory and feminist politics. London: Routledge. Bond, S. (1994). Sociology and health care: An introduction for nurses and other health care professionals. London: Elsevier Health Sciences. Finch, J. & Groves, D. (1983). A labour of love: women, work and caring. London: Routledge. Jones, H. & Millar, J. (Eds.) (1996). The politics of the family. The United Kingdom: Avebury Publications. Morgan, D.H.J. (1985). The family, politics and social theory. London: Routledge. ONS (Office for National Statistics). (2001). Social Trends. London: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office. Retrieved on 22nd March, 2009 from: http://www.statistics.gov.uk/downloads/theme_social/social_trends31/ST31(final).pdf Parsons, T. (1964). Social structure and personality. New York: Free Press. Saraga, E. & Muncie, J. (2001). Family crime. In E. McLaughlin & J. Muncie (Eds.). The Sage dictionary of criminology. London: Sage Publications. pp.163-164. Segal, L. (Ed.). (1983). What is to be done about the family? Harmondsworth: Penguin. Sim, S. (2000). Post-Marxism: An intellectual history. London: Routledge. Squire, C. (2003). The social context of birth. The United Kingdom: Radcliffe Medical Press Limited. Thorne, B. (1982). Feminist rethinking of the family: an overview. In B. Thorne & M. Yalom (Eds.). Rethinking the family. London: Longman. pp.1-24. Read More