A Family Can Be Defined as a Married Heterosexual Couple and Their Children - Essay Example

The Family Abstract This essay critically examines the conflicting developments and views in regard to the family as a basic social unit in the community. In the light of this, the paper outlines the perceptions and interpretations of various social sciences disciplines with regard to the family. In addressing this, the essay scrutinizes sociology, psychology and economics as social science fields of study. The term family elicits various meaning from a multidisciplinary perspective. Corbett (2004, p. 2) defines a family as a mutual relationship between a man and a woman that mostly culminates in the procreation of children. Such a union is commonly known as a nuclear family. It is the main basic unit of a society. A family is critical and is mostly commenced after marital oaths. However, in recent times, there have evolved other types of families promulgated through certain circumstances. For instance, sexually active youth have etymologized single parenthood families. Sociology is a social science discipline that helps in the clear understanding of a society’s culture dynamics. Importantly it helps in the understanding of the social structure including groups’ interrelations, communities among others. Furthermore, sociology greatly influences the way that the culture dynamics have an effect on the formation of public attitudes. Moreover, sociology attempts to analyze how certain human deeds impact on the society. On the other hand, economics forms another critical discipline associated with social science. The economics discipline dwells much on the production, distribution and subsequent consumption of consumables and services. Psychology is also a social science that mainly focuses on the cognitive ability of individuals. It analyzes their psychological ability to perform tasks. The family as a fundamental social structure varies between cultures. This is because the functions of a family are divergent and not uniform depending on the people’s way of life. However, this definition has received criticism from diverse schools of thought. Sociologists such argue that the family is an umbrella term to connote the kinship relations and household ties among individuals (Turner, Calhoun & Rojek, 2005, p.135). However, the term has metamorphosed due to modern changes in lifestyles. For instance, due to the occurrence of divorces, separations and other relationship misdeeds, the factual definition of the family has been affected. Turner, Calhoun and Rojek (2005, p.135) thus assert that heterosexual and homosexual couples are bound to be regarded as families due to their intimacy. Marxists argue that the family is critical in establishing the social classes. Moreover, sociologists view the family setting in a number of ways. First and foremost, the family is the basic reproduction mechanism for generational growth. It is at the family level that procreation takes place, thus ensuring human progression. For instance, biblically children were viewed as the blessings of love and also in the traditional view; couples without offspring’s are doomed outcasts. According to Turner, Calhoun and Rojek (2005, p. 136), modernity has changed the family settings a great deal. For instance, in traditionalists’ view the family was the ideal structure to amass wealth and power but in recent times, the family has acquired the avenue for sexual fulfillment and poignant company. In the light of this then, the family deviates from a mutual relationship to a sexual fulfillment platform, thus recognizing the sexual union of homosexuals as a family. However, historically the family was the basic unit of society was for procreation and the increment in population. For example, families were bound to be the avenue for generation progression and not or sexual satisfaction per se. Rosenberg (1983, p. 260) asserts that the definition of the family as a union between heterosexual couples is ill thought of. He is of the school of thought that agrees that the establishment and subsequent existence of single parent families deviates from the common hegemonic ideology. For instance, many youths are currently engaging in pre marital sex, giving rise to unwanted pregnancies and finally single parent families. In this regard therefore, the family cannot be viewed necessarily as a union of two heterosexual individuals. On the other hand, economists view the family as a social monopoly. This context highlights the family construction as a considerable ingredient to financial sustainability. Economists, moreover, are adamant to affirm the family as a marriage of heterosexual couples but are keen to emphasize on the divisibility of labor. For instance, the economist view establishes that a family is a comprised of individuals who share responsibilities but has not specified the specific composition (Stark, 2005, p. 23). Economists analyze a family as an economic failure. For instance, the family, instead of cushioning against economic hardships, aggravates the problems. Marriage in clear scrutiny provides economic backing. Instead of love, many women enter marital institutions as an escape route to avert financial constraints. Hence, the definition of a family as the marriage of heterosexual individuals does not hold any water. For example, a woman may reluctantly enter into a marriage treaty with a man - not for love but to satisfy her financial needs. In this regard, children are not seen as a blessing but economic liabilities. Research has shown that financial constraints erupt with the inclusion of a child in a marriage (Grossbard-Shechtman, 2003, p. 258). On the other hand, the family is seen as an economic foundation that involves the production and subsequent utilization of the resources. For example, the running of a family involves expenditure in terms of settling financial obligations such as school fees, rental bills and so forth. Besides, anthropologists have argued that the family is a fundamental economic determinant in the economic cycle. Agriculture, for instance, forms the essential economic booster. In view of this, the family is ideal for the development of the economy through initiatives such as farming (Stark, 2005, p. 30) Families have lost meaning in regard to the traditional view. Whereas in the traditional view the family formed the basic ingredient for prosperity, economists assert that due to literacy levels and modern assimilation of western values, the family has lost count on its economic effectiveness. For instance, with the increase in literacy levels, women now substantiate their living with minimal attention being given to the male species. Rosenberg (1983, p. 138) argues that the family has evolved from an economically dependent unit to a more independent cycle. For example women, unlike in the past when they relied heavily on the men for financial assistance, are now being employed and assuming leadership and managerial roles in the society - translating to good income and sustainability. Such situations have led to the proliferation of single parenthood in the society. In a more conclusive example, the family institution has been dynamic and is not a critical measurement tool for success. Feminists argue that the basic ingredient in a family is not only the mutual heterosexual relationship between couples but also the peace that transcends love. For instance, feminists claim that many women in marriages experience domestic violence from their male counterparts. This has precipitated the rise of single families, thus contravening the basic definition of a family. In such situations therefore, the critical roles of the males are cut off. Due to the alienation of men’s responsibilities, the men turn to other social misdeeds thus increasing crime and drug vulnerability in the society (Moore, 2006, p. 172). Coincidentally, feminists argue that the family forms the basic avenue for the reinforcement of male hegemony. For instance, children are taught lessons about the society. They are taught about wrong and right with the installation of moral values. Alternatively, psychologists have argued that the family is not only a marriage between heterosexual couples but also looks deeper into the ideal characteristics of a marriage (Sternberg and Weis, 2006, p. 305). The authors assert that for a family to be worth its salt there must be a compatibility of interests between the lovers. For instance, the woman must inhibit characteristics that are congruent to the man’s taste and vice versa. This decreases the emergence of violence in the family setting and fosters peaceful coexistence. Many marriages fail due to incongruence of interests. Psychologists further argue that for a successive build up to a marriage and subsequent formation of a family, the presence of love is critical. Love in this case is the pillar of the marriage because in its absence a marriage is illogical. For instance, for individuals to walk down the aisle and formalize their marriage vows, love must prevail. Besides, a psychological collectivism situation must be ubiquitous. This is whereby the family ties must be tightened through appreciation of love with the concerned parties assuming a belongingness attitude. Such techniques as psychological collectivism enhance sentimental bonds for the parties. In the light of this, the heterosexual couples instill love, passion and perseverance for a unified social fabric. By so doing, the ultimate goal is to transform the society wholesomely. For instance, as a pillar of society, the actions of a certain family setting define the collective nature of the whole society. Conclusion The ability of the family to advance primarily lies on the clear jurisdiction of roles. For instance, every family member should see to it that they perform their roles for economic prosperity. The family as the social teacher should also ensure that only the morally accepted norms are passed to the heirs and the obscene practices avoided for a successful unilateral society. For instance, the common male hegemony in many societies should be avoided and the need for social equality encouraged. In conclusion, the resulting reorganization of family responsibilities should be appreciated while adequately instilling virtues to the population. The roles of the society should be applied effectively through the spread of morally upright information. Male hegemony should not be used to affect the smooth running of the society. For realization of a stable society the various disciplines should be adequately put into consideration. Finally, although the functions of society vary between cultures a more harnessed approach to the family should be well thought-out. References Corbett, A. (2004) What is a family? And why it matters: achieving a workable definition, Tasmanian Family, Tasmania, Australia: Grossbard-Shechtman, S. (2003) Marriage and the Economy: Theory and Evidence from Advanced Industrial Societies, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Moore, C. (2006) The Development Of Commonsense Psychology, Lawrence Erlbaum, New Jersey. Rosenberg, M. (1983) Introduction to Sociology, Methuen Publications, New York. Stark, W. (2001) The Sociology of Knowledge, (2nd edition), Routeledge, London. Sternberg, R. J., & Weis, K. (2006) The New Psychology of Love, Yale University, New Haven. Turner, B. S., Calhoun, C. J. & Rojek, C. (2005) The Sage handbook of sociology, Sage Publications, London. Read More