Using material from Item 2B and elsewhere assess the view that, in today’s society the family is losing its functions.
Many sociologists argue that since the Industrial revolution, after the pre – modern society that the family has lost many of its functions and some argue they haven’t. Parson and Dennis, functionalist sociologists argue that the functions that would have usually been performed by the family have now, in the modern society been removed from the family. They believe that these functions have now been transferred to other specialised institutions such as the NHS and the education and welfare system. Parson calls this structural differentiation (this means that new institutions emerge together and take over the functions of the family).
According to Parson this means that in modern society the family only has two functions to perform. The first function is that of primary socialisation of children, the family teaching the children the basic skills and norms and values of society to help them integrate into society. The second one is the stabilisation of the adult personality, this is where within the family where the adults can relax and have some personal time and become refreshed before returning to work. This is good for the demands of the economy.
Alternatively other sociologists disagree with the functionalist sociologist’s views on family losing many of its functions. Sociologists like Fletcher and Shorter deny that the family has lost any of its functions in the modern society. They argue that in the pre – industrial society families were living in poverty, meaning they were poor, therefore functions such as recreation and the education and welfare system were not carried out properly as families could not afford it. Fletcher therefore emphasises that families in the modern society have not lost any of its function; rather they have more functions to carry out. For example now alongside institutions like the NHS, the family also carries out the welfare function, they carry out this function when someone is ill, they give medicine to the ill and then if the person has not recovered they would ring up the NHS for advice. Also they carry out the function of their child’s education. They do this by socialising their children in their early ages and teaching them the basic skills like the alphabet and numbers before they enter them into the education system.
The Essay on Working Cass Families and Modern Education Systems Redefined under Neo-Liberalism Policies
Connell’s (2003) article focuses on the problematic relationship between working-class families, and modern education systems, which is being redefined under neo-liberalism policies. Connell explores this issue in relation to an Australian reform, which was created with an intention to make upper secondary education more inclusive, in particular ¬– through more extensive vocational education ...
In addition the feminist writers also disagree with the functionalist’s view that the family has lost its functions. They believe that from carrying out the function of being a unit of production, the family is now carrying out the function of becoming a unit of consumption. They argue that this function is not recognised as it is a function that is carried out at home which means it is unpaid work usually carried out by women. Therefore they argue that the economic contribution made my by the women is underestimated and not taken into account. Christine Delphine and Dianna Leonard, radical feminists argue that some functions of production have been lost however others have been performed at a much higher standard than in the past. An example of this is tuition of pre-school children.
Before Industrialisation and the growth of factory production in Britain, the family was a unit of production. This meant that the family would work together and work together to provide food and shelter. Children would follow in their parent’s footsteps by learning the life skills needed. However now, since the 19th century, families do not work together to provide food and shelter, rather they work outside of the home to places like offices to earn a wage with which they are able to run the household with. Now life skills are no longer thought within the families, they are taught via social institutions such as the education system.
The Essay on Children raised with Wealthy Families versus Children raised in Poor Families
Children who are brought up in families that do not have large amounts of money are better prepared to deal with the problems of adult life than children brought up by wealthy parents. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this opinion? Families have different financial levels and some people think that this variety of the family budgets have an impact on children skills. I believe that ...
Moreover the ‘traditional family’ played an important role in caring for children however before the twentieth century the family was not able to do so as they could not afford it. Whereas now the modern family looks after their children themselves and with the extra help from institutions like the NHS system and the education and welfare system.
The family used to socialise kids through primary and secondary socialisation, due to which children from working class families had high illiteracy levels. In contrast yes the family still plays a part in the socialisation of their children however social institutions are playing a big part in children’s lives by socialising them through the education and welfare system.
The weight of the evidence appears to suggest that the family has lost some of its functions however the ones that they are still maintaining they are doing a better job of fulfilling the functions. Graham Allan and Graham Crow argue that attempts to identify the functions of the family can be criticised because of the functionalist ‘one size fits all approach.’ Postmodernists and difference feminists certainly reject the view that there is ones single family type which always performs certain functions.
