The Impact of Structural Functionalism, Symbolic Interactionism, and Conflict Theory on Family - Report Example

The Impact of Structural Functionalism, Symbolic Interactionism, and Conflict Theory on Family Sociological theories serve a perfect lens for examining the role and place of various institutions in society. Family is a common object of sociological analysis. This paper attempts to reconsider the nature and functions of family, through the prism of three sociological theories: Structural Functionalism, Symbolic Interactionism, and Conflict Theory. The each theory affects individual views, society views, and social change is discussed. Keywords: family, structural functionalism, symbolic interactionism, conflict theory. The Impact of Structural Functionalism, Symbolic Interactionism, and Conflict Theory on Family Sociological theories serve a good lens for reevaluating traditional institutions. Families and family patterns are so complex that a single theoretical perspective can hardly serve a relevant source of knowledge and learning. Structural Functionalism, Symbolic Interactionism, and Conflict Theory have always been the most relevant perspectives in the study of family and family patterns. The three theories create a foundation for understanding the complexity of family relations and the place of family in contemporary societies. It is through these theories that sociologists can produce concrete interpretations and develop comprehensive generalizations about family behaviors and patterns. Depending on the theoretical perspective, family can serve a functional element of society, exemplify a complex system of power relations and inequalities, or work as a microcosm of subjective meanings which people give to their own behaviors and the realities in which they live. Yet, no matter what theory sociologists choose, family is always an ever-evolving institution, which seeks to achieve stability and equilibrium, whose meaning constantly changes. How Each Theory Applies to Family Structural functionalism is probably one of the most popular instruments of sociological analysis. Morality, standards, functionality, motivation, and readiness to act are all indispensable elements of structural functionalism (Kingsburry & Scanzoni, 1993). The essence of functionalism is in everyone’s “conformity to a set of preexisting standards that promotes the greater good of the larger whole to which everyone belongs” (Kingsburry & Scanzoni, 1993, p.196). Families are no exception: based on the structural functionalism theory, family is a social institution designed to fulfill a set of clearly defined roles and ensure that this society can meet its needs. Like everything else in a functionalist society, families rely on shared values and must meet the established norms and standards (Andersen & Taylor, 2008). Even if families are losing some of their pre-modern functions, they immediately assume new ones (Hill, 2011). Certainly, families must have a well-defined structure: more often than not, gender stratification and strict distribution of roles are distinctive features of functionalist families. In functionalist families, men assume instrumental and breadwinning functions, whereas women are primarily responsible for meeting the socio-emotional needs of family and function in the private arena (Hill, 2011). It is no wonder that structural functionalism treats gender inequality as inevitable and even desirable, as long as it ensures conformity to the society’s gender norms. Symbolic interactionism caused a huge impact on the current understanding of families and family patterns. Unlike structural functionalism, symbolic interactionism treats institutions as microcosms, which rely on subjective meanings and interpretations of the social reality. Symbolic interactionism implies that people constantly interact with other people and the environment and product interpretations and definitions of their own and others’ actions (Goldberg, 2007). Based on symbolic interactionism, communication and language are the foundational ingredients of family functioning (Hill, 2011). Love, companionship, and compatibility are inseparable from families (Hill, 2011). The meaning of each particular family is made up of the meanings and perceptions of family members and the meanings and perceptions that other society members have about this family (Andersen & Taylor, 2005). Finally, conflict theory provides a unique set of assumptions about family. Conflict theory is closely associated with the concept of social inequality and competition (Hill, 2011). Actually, conflict theory is one of the best descriptions of social inequality and its implications for families (Hill, 2011). Like everything else in conflict theory, family is the source of conflicts; the latter are equally inevitable and inescapable. Inequality, including gender inequality, is a critical ingredient of family life. Furthermore, conflict theory breaks the myth of family harmony, which is found in symbolic interactionism and structural functionalism (Hill, 2011). Families are essentially about competition and the fight for power, and all families are fated to exist in the atmosphere of confrontations and disagreements, leading to bargaining and power abuse (Hill, 2011). Sociological Theories and Individual Views on Family Needless to say, sociological theories change individual views on family and family patterns. In structural functionalist families, individuals are inherently motivated to achieve conformity and follow society standards and demands. In a structural-functionalist society, conformity implies the presence of strict functional divisions: every member of the functionalist family plays a role given to him by the society. Women operate in a private arena and are responsible for meeting families’ social and emotional needs (Hill, 2011). In simpler terms, women cook, clean, nurture children, and fulfill other, home-related functions. Women perceive themselves as carers, whereas men are breadwinners and position themselves as family providers (Hill, 2011). Individuals in functionalist families do not care about love, companionship, or devotion; rather, the family is an isolated element of the larger social structure, wherein each member contributes to the greater good of the entire society (Kingsbury & Scanzoni, 1993). Individuals in these families view themselves as part of mutually beneficial exchange: women provide men with sexual, emotional, and household support, in exchange for status, financial security, and physical protection (Andersen & Taylor, 2005). Family members realize that this is the model of family that best serves the needs of the entire community and promotes the principles of solidarity and democracy (Hill, 2011). Everything is different with symbolic interactionism. Language and communication, love, companionship, and dedication – all these matter in family interactions and family life. Language and communication are crucial to the way couples build their relations (Hill, 2011). Consequentially, individuals greatly rely on the interpretations and meanings they give to particular events. They also apply to bargaining and negotiation, to resolve marital conflicts and preserve family stability (Hill, 2011). Most probably, individuals in families influenced by symbolic interactionism do not care about the social forces outside of their family. Rather, they treat their family as a microcosm of ideas and patterns; therefore, they have enough flexibility and freedom to choose the best methods of stability and continuity in family relations. In conflict families, all individuals are driven by self-interest (Hill, 2011). Men dominate women, and marriage/ family has nothing to do with love in symbolic interactionism and stability in structural functionalism. Members of conflict families realize that all resources are limited, and they need to compete in order to win a greater share of benefits. The place and nature of family relationship, depends on the race, class, and gender of all family members (Andersen & Taylor, 2005). Gender, class, and race affect individuals within families and families, in general. “Within families, personalities are shaped by adapting to the needs of a capitalist system. Thus, families socialize children to become obedient, subordinate to authority, and good consumers” (Andersen & Taylor, 2005, p.399). Currently there is no need to have certain underpinnings to apply for shared residence. Positive relationship between parents is not of primary concern; parents should live next to one another with distance no longer a bar; if parents live in different countries, then the children will spend equal time in each country. 50/50 time spending isn’t a necessity; time ratio can be chosen by parents themselves. Actually, modern concern about shared residence is supported by the Courts because children benefit due to emphasis on equality of both parents and their homes in the lives of the children. In order to make an assessment of children’s interests after shared residence adoption, it is relevant to appeal to an empirical study conducted in 20021. Children involved in shared residence arrangements claimed that shared residence wasn’t a perfect remedy for them. Difficulties and problems were not eliminated. Shared residence solves current problems of parents, but the future of children can be full of difficulties. From another point of view, children perceived shared residence as positive outcome, because their interests were of primary concern. Individuals must also realize the complexity of social tensions and be prepared to overcome them. Individuals must learn these skills and traits, so that they can benefit their society. Traditional family values have been undermined by popular culture, sexual revolution of 1960th, generation gap etc. It is considered that divorce rate increases, because notion of “family values” has become more liberal. State intervention also weakens marriage institution. Modern family model is shaped by currently dominating social/psychological tendencies, life style, popular culture, mass media. Parents should try to find common language or deal with the procedure peacefully, because it negatively influences their kids. Justin Martin Claims that they should try to avoid divorce to prevent psychological traumas and sufferings. In this case, assistance of psychologists and marriage counselors is of primary importance. Many scientists distinguish classification of father’s role in the family such being married or divorced. The results of the research show that 72% of the divorced fathers tried to keep constant touch with their children do not live further than in 30 miles from them. Divorce records contain biographical data, dates and reasons of the divorces. Online database simplifies search of the required information and allows official perform a quick cross checking. According to the author, such system allows identifying main reasons of divorce and average prolongation of marriages in the USA. Psychologists can use it for making statistics and analysis. Family and the View of Society Society made up by individuals. Therefore, if sociological theories affect individual views in families, they also change the views of society on family. Structural functionalist societies treat families as an important functional unit, whose main goal is to serve the society’s needs (Andersen & Taylor, 2005). Like other institutions, structural functionalist families are based on shared values and must follow these values (Andersen & Taylor, 2005). The main functions of family include procreation and regulation of the sexual activity, socialization of the young, provide physical and emotional care to family members, ensure physiological and emotional security, and assign identity to individuals (Andersen & Taylor, 2005). These societies treat families as a rational union of individuals, whose functions and roles are clearly defined; the society also expects that families will bring up their children in ways that benefit the entire society and teach them the values and standards of behavior and performance. The situation with symbolic interactionism is different: here, society views family as a relationship, which has definite meaning (Andersen & Taylor, 2005). The identity of family members and their status change, as soon as they get married. Society realizes that individuals who become a family need time to adjust to their new roles, but the quality and image of each family is always socially constructed (Andersen & Taylor, 2005). Everything depends upon the meaning which the society gives to each family; for example, some families are considered as examples of stability and commitment, whereas others are perceived as rational and designed to pursue a clear goal, e.g. material wellbeing, business expansion, etc. Societies affected by symbolic interactionism do not impose any standards or norms on family; the latter has freedom and flexibility to define their behaviors and adjust to social change (Andersen & Taylor, 2005). In this sense, families in symbolic interactionism bear resemblance to conflict theory, where societies view family as an instrument of reproducing structural inequalities and conflicts between classes, races, genders, etc. Family is what gives privileges and allows individuals to acquire property and social status (Andersen & Taylor, 2005). For conflict societies, family is critical for preserving structural inequalities (Andersen & Taylor, 2005). Sociological Theories and Social Change Different sociological theories interpret social change in different ways. Structural functionalism is the theory of order and stability; therefore, structural functionalist societies normally function in the state of equilibrium and peace (Knapp, 1994). However, at times of change family institutions become highly disorganized, and the social consensus on which they build weakens (Andersen & Taylor, 2005). Simultaneously, functionalism implies that societies and families have enough resources and capabilities to adjust themselves to new conditions of life; for example, divorces and reduced fertility in the developed world are the ways in which families adjust to economic freedom and the need to earn more money. Likewise, in conflict theories, structural changes originate from the need to settle down the conflict. These conflicts can be violent or unregulated, whereas change can lead to stability, defeat, or a total/ partial restructuring of the system; change in conflict societies is inevitable and continuous, as long as there is always someone trying to replace someone else in the social structure (Andersen & Taylor, 2005). Thus, structure is the source of social change in both theories, which makes them completely different from symbolic interactionism. The latter implies that social change always comes before structure. In symbolic societies, change is valuable by itself and is a starting point of everything, whereas structure and stability are both by-products of social change (Andersen & Taylor, 2005). All these have far-reaching implications for family functioning, and the pace and direction of social change will depend on how families interpret its meaning. Conclusion Sociological theories greatly affect the institution of family. Family can be viewed as a highly structured, functional institution, whose members have their roles and obligations clearly defined. Family can also exist in conflict, as members of the family hierarchy compete for limited resources. Finally, families can build on language, communication, negotiation, and agreement. These sociological perspectives imply that family is too complex to explain in one word. Different sociological theories highlight the most important aspects of family functioning in society. It is through the use of multiple sociological perspectives that professionals can create a multifaceted picture of family institutions and their place in social change. References Andersen, M.L. & Taylor, H.F. (2005). Sociology: Understanding a diverse society. Boston: Cengage Learning. Goldberg, A.E. (2007). Talking about family: Disclosure practices of adults raised by lesbian, gay, and bisexual parents. Journal of Family Issues, 28, 100-131. Hill, S.A. (2011). Families: A social class perspective. Pine Forge Press. Kingsbury, N. & Scanzoni, J. (1993). Structural functionalism. In P.G. Boss, W.J. Doherty, R. LaRossa and S.K. Steinmetz, Sourcebook of family theories and methods: A contextual approach, NY: Plenum Press, 195-217. Knapp, P. (1994). One world – many worlds: Contemporary sociological theory. NY: Harper-Collins. Read More