Theoretical Perspectives Explaining Marriage and Family - Case Study Example

Theoretical Perspectives Explaining Marriage and Family Department Theoretical Perspectives Explaining Marriage and Family Defining a family has been a challenge to sociologists for a long time. Traditionally and in legal terms, a family is defined as more than two people who trace their relationship to marriage, birth, adoption and live in the same household. On the other hand, marriage has been defines as a union between a man and a woman for a long time. However, this has changed over time to just a union between two people especially with the advent of the same sex marriage. Family definition can take a functional, a relational, or an ideological dimension (Allen 2000). As a result, family definition is based on theory, history, culture, and situation. This paper discusses the theories that define marriage and family. The paper also addresses the research that has been done to support these theories and critically analyzes the available literature. The paper concludes by summarizing the lessons learnt and the efficacy of the theories and by posing an unanswered question for further research. THEORETICAL DEFINITIONS OF A FAMILY Symbolic Interaction Perspective Smith (1995) defines a family in symbolic interaction perspective as a unit composed of interacting personalities. This theory views human life as being symbolic. It focuses on people’s interaction through symbols such as gestures, words, rules, and responsibilities of people. According to the theory, verbal communication is the dominant symbol. The theory is based on how human derive meaning from interaction with symbols within their immediate environment. These interactions are interpreted on one side through existing symbols. Therefore, understanding these symbols helps in understanding human behavior. In different societies and cultures, different symbols represent a marriage. For example, a white bridal dress, a wedding band, a church ceremony, vows and flowers symbolize marriage in the American society. Functionalist Theory The functional dimension focuses on the functional significance of the family i.e. the role of the family in the society. This perspective looks into the family as a societal institution. Functionalists argue that a family is composed of a father who is the family’s breadwinner, a mother who takes care of the family and children. They view this as the most sensible way of living that ensures stability in the society. According to this definition, a family is both universal and functional. Murdock (1949) argued that all societies are based on the structure of the family and hence the family is universal. The family is considered universal because it serves various functions for its member and society. These functions are majorly reproduction and nurturing of the resultant children, sex, economic provision, and education. Conflict Theory This theory evaluates the conflict between different groups. It examines disagreements between people, competition for scarce resources and struggle for power. In a family perspective, the theory examines how families deal with change, differences, and conflicts. The theory is opposed to the idea that families are harmonious. It states that family conflicts are normal and family dynamics are only understood by singling out the origin of the conflict and the power source. It further states that solutions are only found through proper communication, readiness to change and proper understanding and empathy (Hughes and Kroehler 2005). Feminist Perspective This theory mainly focuses on gender issues. Males are perceived as dominant over women. This is seen as being oppressive to women both in the family and the society. The theory was brought forward to fight oppression and insubordination against women based on ethnicity, social class, sexual orientation and age. The theory has led to political actions to address social discriminations against women and children. This perspective advocates for recognition of women as equal beings and involvement of men in chores that were traditionally perceived as belonging to women only. Family Developmental Theory This theory states that members of the family occupy certain positions in the family hierarchy i.e. father, mother, son or daughter. It states that family definition changes over the family career. The stages of change relates to the nuclear family. Some early theorist in this area suggested that the stages in the family life changes based on changes in the family size, occupational status of the main source of income, and age composition. According to this theory, the family develops from stage to stage i.e. couples without children, childbearing families, families with young children, teenagers, young adults still living with parents, and middle aged and aging families. Due to family transitions such as divorce, separations, cohabitation, and remarriages, the theory has been broadened to accommodate other definitions of the family (Klein and White 1996). Klein and White (1996) noted that the definition of a family is not static as the family composition changes over time. Structural-functional theory Parsons (1943) brought this theory forward. He viewed the family in terms of orientation and procreation. He argued that the family in which an individual grows in is the family of orientation whiles the family in which an individual bears children becomes the family of procreation. He argued that the orientation family is the family in which an individual was born in or a family that adopts an individual. When an individual leaves the family of orientation because of marriage or cohabitation, he or she joins the family of procreation. Therefore, the original nuclear family becomes part of the extended family or the kinship while the new family of procreation becomes the nuclear family. Hence, the procreation family is composed of the new partner or child. The emergence of other forms of relationships such as lesbianism, gayism, and childless couples has rendered the term family of procreation somewhat meaningless. Social constructionism theory This theory depicts a family as being dynamic and not static. It argues that there is no correct definition to the term family. Social constructionism theory argues that the term family means differently to the society at different historical times. This implies that families will have different forms at different times. However, these family forms have received little recognition from the society simply because of the notion that family is based on marriage (Ishwaran 1992). The historical-cultural perspective adopted by this theory suggests that the family has multiple meanings that exist within the society at any one time. Family systems theory The theory looks into the family as a system that cannot function properly without all of its parts, which comprise the members of the family. The theory argues that when one of the family member changes, pressure mounts on him or her to revert to his normal behavior within the family system. In such, the theory compares a family to a system i.e. if an external or internal change occurs to a system; the system will work to restore the equilibrium in which it operates. Therefore, the theory argues that, for a change to occur, the entire family system must change. The theory focuses on how the family system deals with problems, information, and how it responds to crises. It does not consider social structures. It assumes that families are the same everywhere in the world. RESEARCH For a long time, sociologists have struggled to define a family. Trost (1990) observed that family researchers and the general population encounter the problem of defining a family. In her study, she noted that to some people, family included only the nuclear family composed only of the father, mother, and children. In other instances, a family is as a composed of the nuclear family, friends, other kin members, and even the pets. As a result, different theories have been brought forward to define a family. In her research, Smith (1995) defined a family in eight different conceptual approaches. She defined symbolic interaction theory as a unit comprised of interacting personalities. She also observed that, in feminist theory, there are more differences than similarities among families and marriages. CRITICAL ANALYSIS Each theory explaining the family has its own strengths and weaknesses. For Example, the functionalist theory has come under criticism for idealizing the family. The theory does not consider the abuses, conflicts, and gender inequalities within the family. It ignores the divorce rate that is on the rise and the diversity of the family. On the other hand, symbolic interaction theory describes the behaviors of an individual very well i.e. microanalysis. However, it does not describe the behavior of the entire family group. In addition, it is not easy to predict the behavior of an individual. This is because one cannot know how the individual will perceive certain behavior or a symbol. The theory focuses on individuals while disregarding the society. Therefore, the theory cannot be used cross culturally. Conflict theory portrays everything in the society as wrong. It views everything in the society as a means by some family member to dominate others. The theory draws so much from politics, which is characterized by competition and self-interest. It does not take into consideration the power of love that is a major binding factor in the family. The theory argues that differences result to conflict. However, differences may lead to cooperation as they may be tolerated, appreciated, and accepted. In addition, family conflict is not measureable, and women are not sexual properties who exchange their bodies for wealth as the theory purports. Feminist theory focuses only on the insubordination of women in society. The theory does not consider the social ills and injustices that face the male member of the society. However, the theory has laid a firm foundation for uplifting women in the society who have been oppressed for a long time. Family developmental theory focuses on the family while disregarding the larger community. Though the theory best defines the family as it changes from stage to stage, it does not consider the impact of the society on the family. On the other hand, structural-functional theory does not give room for change in the society. The theory is unable to trace the source of societal changes. Therefore, the theory has been rendered meaningless by the emergence of other relationships such as gayism and lesbianism. Social constructionism theory allows for definition of the family based on time, location, and culture. However, the theory disregards the influence of biology on behavior and culture. This is in spite of the widely accepted belief that behavior results from interaction between cultural and biological influences. Family systems theory attempts to understand the behavior of the behaviors of individuals and families. As the theory proposes, members of the family are interrelated just as different parts of a system. For better understanding of the family, it must be viewed from the perspective of the entire system. However, the theory is too general hence sometimes cumbersome to understand and individual. CONCLUSION Universal definition of a family is nonexistent. Different cultures and societies define a family differently. Even in the same society, the definition of family changes over time. Some theoretical definitions of the family allow for flexibility in defining the family. For example, social constructionism agrees that there is no correct definition to the term family. Family development theory also defines a family depending on its developmental stage. However, these theories fall short in one way or another. For instance, social constructionism theory disregards the influence of biology on culture and behavior. Likewise, family developmental theory focuses more on the family while disregarding the society. As a result, this article poses a question; how do the changes in the society influence the definition of the family? Is marriage the basis of defining a family? References Allen, Katherine R. 2000. "Becoming More Inclusive of Diversity in Family Studies." Journal of Marriage and the Family 62(1): 4–12. Hughes, Michael., & Kroehler, Carolyn J. ed. 2005. Sociology: the Core. 7th Ed. New York: McGraw Hill. Ishwaran, Karigoudar. 1992. Family and marriage: Cross cultural perspectives. Toronto, ON: Thompson. Klein, David M. and White, James M. 1996. Family theories: An introduction. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Murdock, George P. 1949. Social Structure. New York: Free Press. Parsons, Talcott 1943. "The Kinship System of the Contemporary United States." American Anthropologist 45:22–28. Smith, Sussane. (1995). "Family Theory and Multicultural Family Studies." In Families in Multicultural Perspective, ed. B. B. Ingoldsby, and S. Smith. New York: Guildford Press. Trost, Jan. (1990). "Do We Mean the Same Thing by the Concept of the Family?" Communication Research 17(4):431. Read More