Family as a Social Unit - Coursework Example

Call it a clan, call it a network, call it a tribe, call it a family. Whatever you call it, whoever you are, you need one.” Jane Howard Families (1995) Introduction The family is a social unit of two or more people who cohabit, may be related through marriage, blood ties or choice, and share in socialisation processes of children whether they are biological or adopted (Macionis & Plummer, 2002). In 1949 George Murdock defined a family as a group of people that includes two of both sexes, at least two of who have a legally sanctioned relationship, and one or more children. Over time the variety of families in industrialised societies has increased dramatically, hence its definition has been modified. In 21st globalised society numerous forms of family structure exist: the nuclear family remains, with two parents and children, although the term has been extended to include same sex couples who may not be married; the reconstituted family that combines two one-parent families; single-parent families; and the extended family. Many theories contend that the family is an institution which provides a sanctuary and safe haven for its members (consensus theory). However, in opposition to this view is the conflict theory that contends that the family functions to serve the overarching state, and so is a place of potential risk for its members. This paper aims to support the argument that the family has become a place of instability and ‘violence’ for its members in 21st century society. Firstly, sociological perspectives will be presented in regards to the family being a ‘haven’ or a ‘violent place’. Secondly, the implications for children and families in contemporary times will be presented. Finally, a conclusion will synthesise the main points raised in this paper, and provide recommendations for future research. Sociological Theories Traditionally in sociology the family has been a core institution. The traditional consensus view is dominated by the concept of the nuclear family as the ideal. This concept considered the family as a place where members ‘looked after their own” (??, p. 33), providing a sanctuary for members from others that existed externally to the group. It was considered to provide a stable structure for peoples’ lives, every person within the family knew their role and status, and there purpose as a family member. Macionis and Plummer (2002) define a family as a social institution that can be found to exist in all societies. The function of the institution being to unite people into a cooperative group, to enable survival and raising of children, socialization of children and a regulation of the sexual activity of the people within the group. The family unit being a social group of two or more people who may be related through blood or marriage, or through adoption or by virtue of cohabitation or family by choice, and so share in the economic and social responsibilities (Macionis & Plummer, 2002). A functionalist approach to the family sees this group of people as necessary to meet the wider needs of society, functioning to create a stable and harmonious climate that enables the wider community to function effectively and efficiently (??). In this way, the family is considered also a haven for its members, as the positive influences this institution has on its members is able to extend outward to the external society. 20th century interactionist theory, which seeks to investigate family relations at a micro-level, echoes this focus on the family unit’s ability to protect and buffer its members form external social sphere. Parsons ( ) describes the benefits of the family as being the socialisation of children into social norms and community values; and for the stabilisation of adult psyches that hold positions of power in Western society (??). The family’s stabilising influence, according to Parson’s, is due to the division of labour within the family that enables there to be a primary wage-earner and a primary home-maker that function to reduce conflict and competition that may span into wider society (???). Hence, the activities and purpose of each family member serves to support and motivate the activities and purpose of other family members. Parson maintained that the changes to family structure in modern times have served as an advantage to the family, as it provides the family with a form that is ideally suited to the industrial age and its diverse differentiation of industry. For example, with there no longer being the need for both parents to be working, or for other relations to live as an extended unit, there was less tension within the family regarding issues such as childcare and employment, as less people to discuss with meant a more rapid decision could be made. However, it has been argued that Parsons ignored essential facts, such as conflicts within the family. Some post-modern functionalist arguments have contended that the family has become ‘evil’ for example in the form of single working parents, especially mothers, divorce, teenage parents and inadequate parenting. It is due to the various forms that a family can take in contemporary society that a post-modern functionalist approach contends that the family is no longer a ‘safe haven’, as they perceive the changes to the basic family structure as having negative effects not only on familial inter-relations, but on family member’s interactions with the wider society (Marcia, 2006). Changing family structures reflect the negative beliefs and values that are prominent in non-nuclear (i.e., traditional/ideal) families; and the violence of this is that the negative attitudes fostered within the family negate its effective functioning, and in turn impacts on wider society’s functioning (Henderson, Tickmyer, & Tadlock, 2005). Further, these changes in family structure have been advocated as evidence of the state becoming overly involved in family issues, and subsequently creating dependencies of its members on state interventions (Levy, Widmer, & Kellerhals, 2002). On this note the argument can turn to a Marxist approach, which considers the family to be the dominant reason that social inequalities exist, and so it is not a safe haven for its members. They are dependant on the capitalist system as it is the primary form of production in the West. Hence, the beliefs and values of the elite in wider society impact on the functioning and structure of the family itself. Marriages that were now stressing monogamy and a move away from the extended family promoted a set of values that embraced the concept of private ownership. Males within the family were perceived to be motivated to protect their inheritance for that of their successors (i.e., their sons), and women took on the role of a prostitute, as they traded sexual relations and reproduction for security and material items. As such, the family is an institution of exploitation of its members. A feminist perspective takes this approach a step further, attributing exploitation as the reason that the family can be an institution of violence and instability, with regard to domestic rape and/or violence, child physical and sexual abuse, and the continuing emphasis of gender specific labour within the home, in terms of childcare, housework and employment outside of the home. The feminist approach rejects the functional thesis that the home is a haven for members with similar interests and a unified goal. Rather, feminists point to the family being a conglomeration of members with often diversified interests, which more often than not conflict with each other. And importantly, the family is an institution with an unequal distribution of power, responsibilities and resources (??). Specifically, the family unit is considered to be the dominant factor in the oppression of women and their children. Implications Family values have become constrained and impacted on the family identity leading to a weakening of intra-familial ties, and enhancing diversified interests, power struggles and the cultivation of negative beefs and values; this in turn has severely impacted on wider social harmony (e.g., increased crime rates, less concern for the well-being of others). As such, the interests of the “self” have replaced responsibilities and obligation towards family and the wider community (Gillies, 2003). With an emphasis on individualism in post-modern industrialized society, the family institution is not able to effectively foster an environment of cooperation, acceptance, stability and harmony, as the concept impacts on the traditional roles of “mother” or “father” when society values “self-determination, autonomy and personal freedom”. As the functionalists contend, such changes indicate a negative orientation for society as a whole as family values maintain an emphasis towards atomism and amoral values. With regard to children the family as a place of ‘violence’ socialises them to construct realities and personal identities that are based on objective material gains and losses, and to learn that social relationships are based on competition and ‘survival of the fittest.’ As children are socialised into gender specific roles, the status quo of unequal power relations within the family, and wider society is facilitated (??). Importantly, the relationships between children and their parents have become distanced, as individualism negates the value of time together, and the seeking of collaborative goals. As a place of ‘violence’ the family functions to disempower children, as they are in competition with their parents for resources and to have their individual needs met (??). In conclusion, it is evident that sociological discourse as to how to define a family remains contentious, as does the concept of whether the family is a ‘haven’ or a ‘place of violence’. This paper has taken the stance that the family is a place of instability and violence in 21st century industrial life. With an emphasis on individualism that is cultivated by capitalist ideology, family members are motivated to compete with each other to see that their diversified interests are served. In turn, children and women particularly are disempowered by unequal power structures, and children are socialized into negative beliefs and values about the importance of relationships with others, such as through the adoption of gender-specific roles, and the de-emphasis of the value of others needs and expectations. References Gillies, V. (2003) Family and intimate relationships: A review of the sociological research. Families & Social Capital ESRC Research Group. Retrieved March 18th, 2006 from http://www.lsbu.ac.uk/families/workingpapers/familieswp2.pdf Henderson, D. A., Tickamyer, A. R., & Tadlock, B. L. (2005) The impact of welfare reform on the parenting role of women in rural communities. Journal of Children and Poverty, 11(2): 131-147. Levy, R., Widmer, E., & Kellerhals, J. (2002) Modern family or modernized family traditionalism?: Master status and the gender order in Switzerland. Electronic Journal of Sociology. Retrieved March 18th, 2006 from http://www.sociology.org/content/vol006.004/lwk.html Macionis, J. & Plummer, K (2002). Sociology: A Global Introduction. 2nd ed. Pearson Education. Essex. Marcia, C. (2006). Family structure, father involvement, and adolescent behavioral outcomes. Journal of Marriage and Family, 68(1): 137-154. ??. Read More