Roles within the Family - Admission/Application Essay Example

?Running Head: Social Issue: Roles within the Family Social Issue: Roles within the Family College Introduction As a social unit, the family is structurally designed in such a way that every individual within it has a set of designated roles. Traditionally, such roles defined each member of the family. Men for instance, were the providers of the daily bread while the women were in charge of domestic roles and supplementing the family income. In the traditional model of the family, there are certain roles that are deemed appropriate for each family member depending on culture, beliefs and traditions as well as specialization and interdependence. Gender-based role designation within the social institution of the family forms the subject of this study. The primary purpose is to evaluate the issue of roles within the family and the evolution of such designated roles from the traditional to the modern society. In an attempt to understand the issue of roles, it is important to establish a theoretical framework to put the social issue into perspective. To begin with, the Marxist approach to the social issue of roles within the family differs significantly with that of Emile Durkheim. Karl Marx believes that social conflict is the basis of domestic and gender role designation. The Marxist school of thought envisages the family as having a high conflict quotient that leads to inequitable division of labor due to perceived masculine superiority through which women remain marginalized. According to Karl Marx, roles are specially designed to facilitate the growth and domination of capitalism by exploiting women by subjecting them to cheap or free domestic labor while men work in the corporate world. The goal is to establish a structural imbalance of power to limit the productivity of the marginalized section of the society. Durkheim, on the other hand, adopts a functionalist view highlighting solidarity and social harmony as the basis for role designation with the family. Unlike Marx, Durkheim believes that role designation within the family are based on mechanical and organic integration such that family members assume roles based on specialization and capacity to deliver. He dismisses Marx’s viewpoint as a conspiracy theory to discredit capitalism and liberalization of the market economy. Family Sociologists consider the family as the basic social unit. As the basic social unit, the family is a key agent of socialization responsible for the emergence of personality traits, allocation of designed social roles and development of behavior through nurturance. In essence, the family comprises a network of individuals related by blood, marriage or connected through adoption either living together under one roof or sharing close personal ties with each other. The convention family i.e. nuclear family comprises parents and their offspring while the extended family widens to include other family members in close kinship ties to a certain degree of consanguinity (Beck, 1992). The family unit is perhaps the most complex and dynamic institutions in the society. As a social unit, the family has undergone significant evolution in terms of meaning, structure, composition and role designation. Sources retrieved from the annals of Stanford University’s Department of Sociology indicate that the rapid structural transformation of the family results from the dynamic nature of the society as well as cultural considerations. The emergence of the contemporary quasi-family model comprising mostly of unconventional non-marital cohabitation for instance, is gradually replacing the conventional nuclear family model (Inglehart and Norris, 2003). Issue of Roles within the Family Family comes with responsibility. People should know that by virtue of being part of a family, every member has a designated role to play depending on one’s ability and position. In most traditional societies, the role of the father is to provide for the family. Providing for the family in this case means securing the wellbeing of all family members by providing shelter, food, education opportunities for the children, basic health and offering financial security (Inglehart and Norris, 2003). However, in the rapidly evolving society, providing for the family may not be the designated role of the father. Many women in the modern world are the breadwinners especially in the non-conventional family settings. Even in the nuclear family settings, there are men who are what is informally referred to as ‘stay at home dads’ denoting men who assume the traditional roles of women (Popenoe, 1988). This may arise due to a number of factors such as unemployment, specialization or interdependence. Likewise, many extended families have children looking after the elderly. In the United States, for instance, college students enroll for internships where they work during their extra time to help their parents foot some household bills such as rent. Elsewhere, women work extra hours to provide for their families especially if they are single parents. The issue of domestic role reversal is a predominant one in the developed nations due to evolution of culture, which has significantly changed the traditional model of the family paving way for a more liberal outlook in designation of roles amongst family members (Inglehart and Norris, 2003). The structural transformation of the family has led to inevitable changes in the issue of role designation. This is to say that the hitherto role description for women, for instance, has changed to accommodate roles that were considered appropriate for men in the traditional society. The rapid liberalization of women amid the rise of feminist ideology in the 20th century was a very influential force behind the current domestic role reversal. The hitherto male dominated society is gradually accepting that women can play an equally significant role within the family and the society in general (Inglehart and Norris, 2003). Theoretical Framework: Understanding Domestic Role Dynamics The issue of domestic roles has been subject of scholarly debate dating back to the inception of the family unit. In an attempt to understand the issue of roles within the family institution, a section of scholars have established a theoretical framework upon which learners can base their reasoning (Beck, 1992). Understanding the complex dynamics of the family requires an analysis of competing ideologies and historical debates on various aspects of the society and culture both in the old times and in the modern era. This helps a learner to acknowledge the driving force behind the structural transformation of the family and the recent changes in domestic and gender-based roles. Karl Marx’s Viewpoint on the Issue of Roles within the Family Karl Marx approaches the issue of family and domestic role designation from a ‘social conflict’ perspective. In order to articulate his argument, he begins by placing the family unit into a societal context. He argues that the society, as we know it, is a conglomeration of numerous agents. Collectively, these agents form what we know as a society (Singer, 1980). The family, according to Marx, is the basic unit of the society comprising members who are related by blood, marriage or linked together through adoption or any other form of sentimental attachment. In his social theory of class conflict, Marx underscores that the very nature of a capitalistic society is exploitative. He believes that conflict and chaos are imminent in virtually every society. According to the Marxist line of thought, there is a vast imbalance of power in the family unit perpetuated through male domination owing to the perception of masculine superiority. It is his belief that women remain a historically marginalized section of the society since their role is not recognized at the family level (Singer, 1980). Marx argues the undue treatment of women in the traditional society as domestic workers whose efforts are not rewarded is an essential characteristic of a capitalistic society. Capitalism thrives through exploitation of free and cheap labor. Likewise, it flourishes through the domination of a minority and the control of various interests that do not reflect the greater good of the society (Singer, 1980). This explains why the traditional society designated women as domestic wage-free workers. There are duties and norms that the society considers appropriate for each sex and inappropriate for the opposite sex. Household chores for instance, are often considered appropriate for mothers and the girl child in lower income settlements of Africa and South East Asia as well as parts of the developed world. Having men do such household chores appears to be an abuse of culture and an unacceptable deviation from the norms. However, according to Karl Marx, domestic role designation is an excuse for capitalistic societies to exploit section of the society that is considered weaker. Marx condemns male for exploiting female by subjecting them to odd chores and not remunerating them equitably (Singer, 1980). The cause of the historical conflict between men as the dominating sex and women as the perceived weaker gender is the vast disparity in domestic role description. The rise of feminism and women empowerment in the 20th century was as a reaction to years of exploitation (Beck, 1992). Karl Marx compares the relationship between men and women in the family context with the relationship between the rich and the poor in the societal context. Looking at his theory of social class as stipulated in his communist manifesto, the status quo that is, the clique of elite politicians and corporate class exploit the poor masses for cheap labor while exploiting raw materials from impoverished countries. In the same way, men as the presumed dominant gender exploits women by subjecting them to domestic roles, unfair representation and inequitable allocation of resources causing a huge disparity in the issue of role description (Beck, 1992). The Marxist line of thought is that the modern disintegration of the traditional family is attributable to these inequities. Due to the exploitative nature of the conventional family; father, mother and children, people have chosen to redefine their roles by changing the structural composition of the family. This explains the emergence of unconventional non-marital cohabitation with a different role designation. In a single mother family setting for instance, the woman becomes the sole breadwinner (Beck, 1992). This implies that the household chores will have to be designated to someone else say the eldest sibling or a hired housekeeper. Karl Marx refers to this scenario as domestic role reversal. He predicted the emergence of domestic role reversal as the effect of the conflict between men and women owing to the oppressive definition of gender roles. The Marxist school of thought further highlights the reasons for the oppressive role definition. The inequitable distribution of roles in the family is a means that the male dominated society uses to limit women’s choices and freedom. Once women are derived of their freedom and choices, they lack a fair avenue to compete with their male counterparts. This also denies them the opportunity to realize their full potential (Inglehart and Norris, 2003). According to Karl Marx, women are more valuable to the capitalist society as domestic/ household workers especially in the underdeveloped nations of Africa, South East Asia and Latin America. In essence, Karl Marx argues that in virtually every family setting, there is an exploitative mode of role designation through which some family members benefit from the efforts of others. He maintains that this is a structural injustice of the capitalistic society that exploits the weaker segment (in this case, women) in order to retain their status quo. The means to retaining the status quo starts by defining a set of roles that the society considers culturally appropriate for a given gender. Men in traditional societies for instance, were the sole breadwinners while women were the domestic workers. Once the society defines the gender roles, the next step is to indoctrinate all families to follow such norms by making them culturally acceptable. This way, anyone who deviates from such norms is considered rebellious and is shunned by the society. As a result, the society can effectively force adherence to a designated set of cultural beliefs and practices and brand them ‘socially accepted gender roles.’ (Popenoe, 1988) Projected Strengths of the Marxist Viewpoint on Family and Social Roles One of the strengths of the Marxist approach to the issue of roles within the family is that it explains the dysfunctional nature of the family unit, as we know it. Karl Marx brands the family as a capitalistic unit and insists on the prevalence of conflict in role designation. Looking at the contemporary American society through Karl Marx’s eyes, it becomes evident that a certain aspect of his theory is true. He insists that women are the marginalized ones in the family setting, his view that the family is a dysfunctional unit characterized by exploitative designation of roles is valid. Millions of American families are disintegrating due to disagreement on role designation. Men and women have amicably parted ways to redefine their roles. The disintegration of the American family has become a worrying trend and as Marx argues, there is a need to redefine the roles in an attempt to restore some order (Inglehart and Norris, 2003). According to Ruth Madison, a professor of sociology at New York University, Karl Marx succeeded in formulating his argument linking the imbalance of power between the male and female gender to the structural evils of capitalism. Speaking at a women empowerment seminar held at NYU campus in Brooklyn last fall, the professor expressed concerns over the gender inequity in the allocation of domestic roles in Brooklyn. The women in the region remain a marginalized section of the New York community owing to perceived male superiority. Similar reports from a research conducted by Amnesty International indicated sharp inequities in the treatment of women and girls in the precincts of New York City. According to the report, the girl child was deprived of opportunities to pursue education in the crime-infested neighborhoods in Brooklyn. Many of the girls between the age of 11 and 17 were subjected to what the report termed ‘domestic enslavement’ while taking care of alcoholic fathers and drug dealing male siblings. Being a young girl in Brooklyn is a nightmare, indicates Amnesty International (Inglehart and Norris, 2003). Weaknesses of the Marxist Theory A section of scholars in the functionalist school of thought has criticized Marx for laying too much emphasis on capitalism in all of his theories. The major critic of the Marxist school of thought is French sociologist, Emile Durkheim. He reckons that what Marx espouses is not entirely correct. Durkheim believes that Marx overlooks the positive side of humanity thus undermining certain human values such as love, compassion and understanding. Families are bound together by blood, marriage or adoption, which has to count for something. Such blood ties cannot be written off in view of the capitalistic nature of the society (Durkheim, 1997). Durkheim’s Functionalist Approach to Roles within the Family In his seminal pamphlet dubbed The Division of Labour in Society, translated from French, Emile Durkheim departs from the conflict theory as envisioned in the Marxist school of thought. Durkheim proposes this theory of solidarity and social integration as the means of understanding the bond of individuals in the family and other social institutions. He criticizes Marx’s thought saying that conflict and chaos in the society are pathological and abnormal. The French sociologist believes that people in a family have a strong bond that links them through shared beliefs, feelings and sentimental attachments. He further states that people in a family are not bound by common interests but a common bond of love, compassion and happiness since they share a common heritage and sentimental attachment (Durkheim, 1997). Durkheim envisages that the issue of role in the family defines this bond as everyone agrees to dedicate their efforts to uplift the wellbeing of the family. In a nuclear family setting, for example, the parents and children may willfully agree on how to share the roles such that every member contributes equitably depending on capacity and opportunity. if the mother is a working person for instance, the father may willfully assume household chores or they may decide to get a housekeeper (Durkheim, 1997). Similarly, the eldest sibling may decide to look after the other children in order to help the parents. Reacting to Marx’s conflict analysis, Durkheim believes that Marx downplayed the ability to love, care and the duty to look after the family. Instead, Marx views family members as players in the international capitalist game, which is an overstatement. In an attempt to underscore his line of thought, Durkheim highlights two forms of social integration that govern the designation of family roles: organic integration and mechanical integration. Mechanical integration is based on shared sentiments, beliefs and practices based on culture, norms and customs (Durkheim, 1997). In most societies, household chores are considered culturally appropriate for women and girls especially in the African traditions. Domestic housekeeping therefore, falls under the designated roles of the female gender. Likewise, many societies consider men to be the breadwinners. It is important to note that due to the evolution of culture in the modern world, domestic role reversal is imminent even in the traditional family setting. It is normal to find women who are the breadwinners especially in the non-conventional families. The second mode of social integration within the family is organic integration (Inglehart and Norris, 2003). Organic integration results from considerations of interdependence and specialization. Consider the following scenario: in the modern family setting. The father and mother may both be employees or entrepreneurs so that their occupations are equally demanding. It may happen that one of the them, say, the father, has a more flexible job, which may allow him to have ample time to do some of the household chores without much inconvenience. Similarly, the father’s line of job may fall under the category of jobs traditionally considered appropriate for women such housekeeping. Due to specialization and interdependence, it is more convenient for him to assume some household chores. Strengths While formulating his theory, Durkheim considers the positive side of humanity such as love, compassion and kindness. His argument on specialization and interdependence is quite coherent and logically consistent since it is very human for families to strive through the hard times by complementing each other’s effort. Durkheim’s thought on social integration appreciates the changes in the modern world that may require domestic role reversal (Beck, 1992). Weaknesses of Durkheim’s Theory As Durkheim indicates, the issue of domestic roles is an issue of human values such as love compassion and appreciation. He humanizes the family institution in bid to explain his theory. Durkheim emphasizes the precedence of ‘family’ over ‘individualism’ in domestic roles (Singer, 1980). When he dismisses Karl Marx argument, Durkheim fails to explain the disintegration of families in the modern era. Studies retrieved from the annals of world history indicate that American families are disintegrating at a very high rate in recent times than in any other society. Due to the emergence of a superficial celebrity culture, some marriages do not even make it to three months before spouses file for divorce. His failure to explain the rise in the rate of family disintegrations only adds weight to Marx’s conception of the family as money-minded entity where individuals come together for purposes of advancing their selfish interests to exploit the status of the others. Likewise, Durkheim does not explain the prevalence of domestic violence arising from inequitable designated of gender roles especially in African families (Inglehart and Norris, 2003). News of disintegrating families due to domestic role reversal in the underdeveloped world dominates the headlines yet Durkheim only concentrates on mechanical and organic integration. Conclusion In light of the preceding discussion, it has been established that the family is the basic social unit. As the basic social unit, the family is a key agent of socialization responsible for the emergence of personality traits, allocation of designed social roles and development of behavior through nurturance. Emergence of personality traits occurs through indoctrination of norms, cultural beliefs and practices that are deemed suitable depending on the gender of the person in question. Family comes with responsibility and hence by virtue of being part of a family, every member has a designated role to play depending on one’s ability and position. Designation of roles within the family remains a controversial issue in sociology today as it was in the dawn of feminism in the 20th century. In the traditional model of the family, there are certain roles that are deemed appropriate for each family member depending on culture, beliefs and traditions as well as specialization and interdependence. Traditionally, such roles defined each member of the family. The structural transformation of the family has led to inevitable changes in the issue of role designation. The hitherto male dominated society is gradually accepting that women can play an equally significant role within the family and the society in general. Theoretically, the Marxist approach to the social issue of roles within the family differs significantly with that of Emile Durkheim. The Marxist school of thought envisages the family as having a high conflict quotient that leads to inequitable division of labor due to perceived masculine superiority through which women remain marginalized. According to Karl Marx, roles are specially designed to facilitate the growth and domination of capitalism by exploiting women by subjecting them to cheap or free domestic labor while men work in the corporate world. The goal is to establish a structural imbalance of power to limit the productivity of the marginalized section of the society. Durkheim, on the other hand, adopts a functionalist view highlighting solidarity and social harmony as the basis for role designation with the family. Unlike Marx, Durkheim believes that role designation within the family are based on mechanical and organic integration such that family members assume roles based on specialization and capacity to deliver. He dismisses Marx’s viewpoint as a conspiracy theory to discredit capitalism and liberalization of the market economy. References Beck, U. (1992). The Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity London: Sage Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Durkheim, E. (1997). The Division of Labor in Society New York: Free Press, pp. 39, 60, 108 Ingelhart, R. and Norris, P. (2003). Rising Tide: Gender Equality and Cultural Change, Popenoe, D. (1988). Disturbing the Nest: Family Change and Decline in Modern Societies. New York: Aldine de Gruyter Singer, P. (1980). Marx. Oxford: Oxford University Press Read More