Download 2 Families and households and more Lecture notes Family Sociology in PDF only on Docsity!
1.1 What is the family?
In 1949, the American anthropologist George Peter Murdock provided the following definition of the family. ‘The family is a social group characterised by common residence, economic cooperation and reproduction. It includes adults of both sexes, at least two of whom maintain a socially approved
sexual relationship, and one or more children, own or adopted, of the sexually cohabiting adults.’ Spelling out this definition: ● (^) Families live together – they share the samehousehold. ● (^) They work together and pool their resources – to some extent they share domestic tasks and income. ● (^) They reproduce – they have children. ● (^) They include an adult male and female who have a sexual relationship which is approved by the wider society – for example, they have a marital relationship. ● (^) This heterosexual couple have at least one child – either their biological offspring or an adopted child.
2 Families and households
Picture the family. Does the image on the right come to mind – mum, dad and the kids? This is the usual picture presented by advertisers. But, for more and more of us, it no longer reflects the reality of family life. Families are changing. Married women who devote their lives to childcare and housework are a dwindling minority. Marriage itself is declining in popularity. More and more couples are living together without getting married. And more and more marriages are ending in separation and divorce. Families have become increasingly diverse. What do sociologists make of all this? Some believe that the family is in crisis, and that this threatens the well-being of society as a whole. Others welcome change.They see the diversity of family life as an opportunity for choice. No longer does the old-fashioned idea of the family restrict women to the home, keep unhappy marriages going, and maintain destructive family relationships. This chapter looks at these different views. It investigates changes in family life and examines the causes and effects of these changes.
Unit 1 looks at the problem of defining the family and shows how families vary from society to society. Unit 2 outlines the main sociological theories of the family and considers government policy towards the family. Unit 3 examines the relationship between family life and industrialisation. Unit 4 outlines and explains changing patterns of marriage, cohabitation, childbearing, divorce and separation.
Unit 5 looks at family diversity, focusing on lone-parent families, reconstituted families and gay and lesbian families. Unit 6 examines changes in the division of domestic labour and the distribution of power in the family and asks to what extent they are linked to gender. Unit 7 focuses on children and asks how ideas of childhood have changed. Unit 8 looks at changes in birth rates, death rates and family size in the UK since 1900.
chaptersummary
1 How has the family been defined? 2 What are the problems with definitions of the family?
Unit 1 Defining the family
chaptersummary
keyissues
Introduction
62 Chapter 2
The nuclear family
George Peter Murdock based his definition of the family on a sample of 250 societies ranging from hunting and gathering bands, to small-scale farming societies to large- scale industrial societies. Although he found a variety of family forms within this sample, Murdock claimed that
each contained a basic nucleus consisting of a husband and wife and one or more children, own or adopted. This is thenuclear family. Murdock believed that the nuclear family is ‘a universal social grouping’ – in other words, it is found in all societies.
Item A Lone-parent family Item B Extended family
activity1 defining the family
A single mother and her children An extended family
Item C Nuclear family Item D Gay family
A heterosexual married couple and their children A gay couple and their adopted childen
questions
1 Which of these ‘families’ fit/s Murdock’s definition? Explain your answer. 2 Do you think those that do not fit should be regarded as families? Give reasons for your answer.
questions
64 Chapter 2
partners, families can be extended in a variety of ways. For example, a three-generation extended family may include grandparents within the family unit. Similarly, uncles and aunts (brothers and sisters of the married couple) may form part of the family unit.
1.2 Diversity in family systems
Many sociologists and anthropologists have seen the nuclear family, either in its basic or extended form, as universal, normal and natural. Others have rejected this view. For example, Felicity Edholm (1982), in an article entitled ‘The unnatural family’, argues that there is nothing normal and natural about the nuclear family. She claims that family and kinship relationships aresocially constructed. They are based on culture rather than biology. The links between husband and wife, parent and child, are constructed very differently in different societies. In Edholm’s words, ‘Relatives are not born but made’. Here are some examples Edholm gives to support her argument. They are taken from traditional cultures and may not apply today.
Parent-child relations – genes Ideas about the biological relationship between parents and children vary from society to society. For example, the Lakker of Burma see no blood relationship between mother and child – the mother is simply a container in which the child grows. As a result, sexual relationships between children of the same mother are permitted – because they are seen as non-kin, such relationships are not seen as incest.
Parent-child relations – adoption Most sociologists consider the tie between mother and child as basic and inevitable. However, in some societies, many children do not live with their biological parents. For example, in Tahiti, in the Pacific Ocean, young women often have one or two children before they are considered ready to settle down into a stable relationship with a man. They usually give these children for adoption to their parents or other close relatives. Children see their adoptive mother and father as ‘real’ parents and their relationship with them as far closer than with their natural parents.
Marriage and residence Some sociologists argue that ‘marriage’ varies so much from society to society that it makes little sense to use the same word for these very different relationships. For example, the basic social group amongst the Nayar of Northern India is made up of men and women descended through the female line from a common ancestor. Brothers and sisters, women and children live together – children are members of their
mother’s group, not their father’s. Nayar girls ‘marry’ a man before puberty and later take as many lovers as they like. Her ‘husband’ may or may not be one of these lovers. Children are raised in their mother’s social group. ‘Husbands’ and fathers do not share the same residence as their ‘wives’ and have little to do with their children. According to Edholm, examples such as these show that the family is socially constructed. Rather than seeing the family as a natural unit created by biological necessities, it makes more sense to see it as a social unit shaped by cultural norms. And as culture varies from society to society, so do families. In view of this diversity, Edholm rejects the claim that the nuclear family is universal.
Family diversity today
Edholm’s research focused on family diversity in non- Western societies. There is evidence that family diversity is steadily increasing in modern Western societies. In Britain, 26% of families with dependent children were headed by lone parents in 2000 (Social Trends, 2002). This was partly due to divorce, partly to never-married mothers, and, to a much smaller extent, to the death of one partner. Reconstituted families – families in which one or both of the adult couple bring children from a previous relationship – are steadily increasing. There has also been a rapid growth incohabitation – unmarried couples living together, often in a long-term relationship. And, in recent years, a small but growing number of lesbian and gay families have appeared.
1 How can polygamous families be seen as extensions of the nuclear family? 2 Judging from Items A and B, what are the advantages and disadvantages of polygyny and polyandry?
questions questions
A Tahitian family
Families and households 65
This diversity in today’s Western societies will be examined in later units.
1.3 Defining the family revisited
Where does this diversity of so-called families leave us? Is it possible to come up with a definition which covers this diversity? David Cheal (1999) summarises some of the responses to this problem.
We don’t know Faced with the diversity of family forms, some sociologists frankly admit that no one really knows what a family is. This is not a useful state of affairs. For example, how can different family forms be compared if a ‘family’ cannot be identified?
Extensions and reductions Following Murdock, some sociologists have seen all families as extensions or reductions of one basic and elementary form – the nuclear
family. So, extended families are extensions, lone-parent families are reductions. Not everybody agrees that the variety of family forms can be seen as extensions or reductions of the nuclear family. For example, if a woman decides to produce a child byin vitro fertilisation and rear the child herself, can this be seen as a ‘reduction’ of the nuclear family? Abandon the idea One solution is to stop using the term family and replace it with a concept such asprimary relationships (Scanzoni et al., 1989). Primary relationships are close, long-lasting and special ties between people. There is no problem placing the wide diversity of ‘families’ under this heading. But, it does away with the whole idea of family – an idea which is vitally important to individuals, to the ‘family group’, and to the wider society. Ask people From this point of view, families are what people say they are. If families are socially constructed,
Item A The Ashanti
The Ashanti of West Africa are a matrilineal society (descent is traced through the mother’s line). While a child’s father is important, he has no legal authority over his children. This rests with the wife’s family, particularly her brother. It is from the mother’s brother that children inherit, though the father is responsible for feeding, clothing and educating them. Many Ashanti men cannot afford to set up a household of their own when they first marry. Since men never live with their wife’s brothers, and children are the property of the wife’s family, couples often live apart. Only about a third of married women actually live with their husbands. Source: Fortes, 1950
activity3 family diversity
An Ashanti puberty ritual at which a girl becomes a woman. She belongs to her mother’s family.
Item B The Trobriand Islanders
Some matrilineal cultures, such as the Trobriand Islanders, think that the father’s role in the conception of a child is minimal. He simply ‘opens the door’ or, at most, shapes the growing embryo through intercourse. Source: Beattie, 1964
Women and children in the Trobriand Islands
question
The family is a social construction shaped by cultural norms and beliefs. Discuss with reference to Items A and B.
question
Families and households 67
Murdock believes that the nuclear family, either alone, or in its extended form, performs these ‘vital functions’. He cannot imagine a substitute. In his words, ‘No society has succeeded in finding an adequate substitute for the nuclear family, to which it might transfer these functions. It is highly doubtful whether any society will ever succeed in such an attempt.’
Talcott Parsons
The American sociologist Talcott Parsons focuses on the nuclear family in modern industrial society. He argues that the family has become increasingly specialised. Functions for which families were responsible in pre-industrial societies, for example, looking after the elderly or educating children, have been taken over in industrial societies by specialised institutions such as social services and schools (Parsons & Bales, 1955).
However, Parsons claims that the family retains two
‘basic and irreducible’ functions. These are: 1 theprimary socialisation of children 2 thestabilisation of adult personalities.
Primary socialisation This is the first and most important part of the socialisation process. Parsons argues that every individual must learn the shared norms and values of society. Without this there would be no consensus, and without consensus, social life would not be possible. For the socialisation process to be really effective, shared norms and values must be ‘internalised as part of the personality structure’. Children’s personalities are moulded in terms of society’s culture to the point where it becomes a part of them.
The stabilisation of adult personalities This is the second essential function of the family. Unstable personalities can threaten the stability and smooth-running of society. According to Parsons, families help to stabilise adult
Item A Family shopping Item B The ‘warm bath theory’
activity4 functionalism and the family
The drunken husband – a 19th century view of domestic violence
Item C ‘The bottle’
1 Functionalists often argue that the family’s economic function as a unit of production has been replaced by its function as a unit of consumption. Explain with some reference to Item A. 2 Look at Items B and C. a) Parsons’ theory is sometimes known as the ‘warm bath theory’. Why? b) Critically evaluate this theory. Refer to Item C in your answer.
questions questions
personalities in two ways. First, marital partners provide each other with emotional support. Second, as parents, they are able to indulge the ‘childish’ side of their personalities – for example, by playing with their children. Family life provides adults with release from the strains and stresses of everyday life. It provides them with emotional security and support. This helps to stabilise their personality and, in turn, the wider society. Conclusion Although the functions of the family have become fewer and more specialised, Parsons believes they are no less important. He cannot imagine an institution other than the family performing these ‘basic and irreducible’ functions.
Criticisms of funtionalism
The following criticisms have been made of functionalist views of the family. ● (^) Functionalists assume that on balance families perform useful and often essential functions both for their members and for society as a whole. Married couples are pictured as living in harmony, as good in bed, and as effective socialisers of the next generation. Critics argue that this does not reflect the realities of family life. ● (^) As a result of this picture of happy families, functionalists tend to ignore the ‘dark side’ of family life
- conflict between husband and wife, male dominance, child abuse, and so on. They give insufficient attention to thedysfunctions of the family – the harmful effects it may have on the wider society. ● (^) Functionalists tend to ignore the diversity of family life in industrial society. For example, there is little reference to lone-parent families, cohabiting families and reconstituted families. Nor do they pay much attention to variations in family life based on class, ethnicity, religion and locality. ● (^) Parsons’ view of the family has been criticised as sexist since he sees the wife/mother as having the main responsibility for providing warmth and emotional support, and for de-stressing her hardworking husband.
2.2 New Right perspectives
Like functionalists, New Right thinkers see the family as a cornerstone of society. They also see a ‘normal’ family as the nuclear family unit. For example, John Redwood, a Conservative MP, stated in 1993 that ‘the natural state should be the two-adult family caring for their children’. And for him, the two adults are a male and a female. In recent years there has been growing concern about the state of the family. It is ‘in decline’, ‘under threat’, ‘fragmenting’, ‘breaking down’. This view of the family was put forward by New Right thinkers from the 1980s onwards. Evidence They point to the following evidence to support their claims. There has been an increase in: ● (^) Lone-parent families ● (^) Fatherless families ● (^) Divorce rates ● (^) Cohabitation ● (^) Gay and lesbian couples. As a result of these changes, the two-parent nuclear family headed by a married couple consisting of an adult male and female is steadily decreasing as a proportion of all families. Causes The following have been seen as causing these changes. ● (^) A breakdown of ‘traditional family values’. ● (^) Over-generous welfare benefits to single mothers which allow fathers to opt out of their responsibilities for raising and providing for their children. ● (^) The influence of feminism which has devalued marriage, domesticity and childrearing, and encouraged women to seek fulfilment outside the home. ● (^) Increased sexual permissiveness. ● (^) Greater tolerance of gay and lesbian relationships as alternatives to heterosexual marriage. Consequences According to the New Right, these changes have serious consequences. The ‘fragmented family’ is no longer performing its functions effectively. In particular, it is failing to provide adequate socialisation. This can result in children and young people underachieving at school and behaving in anti-social ways ranging from rudeness to crime. Over-generous welfare benefits can lead to welfare dependency. Lone mothers become dependent on state benefits and, in effect, are ‘married to the state’. Solutions For the New Right, there are two main solutions to these problems. First, a return to traditional family values – life-long marriage and a recognition of the duties and responsibilities of parenthood. Second, a change in government policy – redirecting welfare benefits and social service provision to support and maintain two- parent families and penalising those who fail to live up to this ideal. Sociology and the New Right New Right thinkers have tended to be journalists and politicians rather than sociologists. However, a few sociologists have developed
68 Chapter 2
Functionalism A theory which sees society as made up of various parts, each of which tends to contribute to the maintenance and well-being of society as a whole. Consensus theories Functionalist theories based on the idea that societies need consensus or agreement about norms and values. Function The contribution a part of society makes to the well-being of society as a whole. Dysfunction The harmful effects that a part of society has on society as a whole. Primary socialisation The first and most important part of the socialisation process whereby young people learn the norms and values of society.
key terms key terms
70 Chapter 2
Criticisms of New Right views
Blaming the victims Critics argue that the New Right tends to ‘blame the victims’ for problems that are not of their own making. Many of these problems may result from low wages, inadequate state benefits, lack of jobs and other factors beyond the control of lone parents.
Value judgements The New Right sees the nuclear family consisting of husband, wife and children as the ideal. Other family arrangements are considered inferior. Critics argue that this reflects the values of the New Right rather than a balanced judgement of the worth of family diversity in today’s society. Who is to say that families without fathers are necessarily inferior? Why should everybody be forced into the nuclear family mould?
An idealised view of the past New Right thinkers may be harking back to a golden age of the family which never existed. Even in Victorian times – supposedlythe era of traditional family values – lone parenthood, cohabitation and sexual relationships outside marriage were by no means uncommon.
2.3 Marxist theories
Marxists reject the view that society is based on value consensus and operates for the benefit of all. Instead, they see a basic conflict of interest between a small powerful ruling class and the mass of the population, the subject class. The family is seen as one of a number of institutions which serves to maintain the position of the ruling class.
Modern industrial societies have a capitalist economic system. Capitalism is based on the private ownership of economic institutions, for example, banks and factories.
In capitalist economies, investors finance the production of goods and services with the aim of producing profits. These investors form a ruling class. The subject class – the workers – produce goods and services and are paid wages for their labour. The ruling class are seen to exploit the subject class – they gain at the workers’ expense since their profits come from the workers’ labour. Marxists argue that the economy largely shapes the rest of society. Thus, a capitalist economic system will produce a certain type of society. Institutions such as the family, the education system and the political system are shaped by the requirements of capitalism and serve to support and maintain it.
Inheritance and private property InThe Origin of the Family,Private Property and the State, first published in 1884, Friedrich Engels argued that the modern nuclear family developed in capitalist society. Private property is at the heart of capitalism and it was largely owned by men. Before 1882 in Britain, married women could not own property – it passed to their husband on marriage. A key concern of the capitalist was to ensure that his property passed directly to his legitimate heirs – those he had fathered. According to Engels, the monogamous nuclear family provided the answer. It gave men greater control over women – until the late 19th century wives were seen as chattels, as their husband’s property. With only one husband and one wife, doubts about the paternity of children are unlikely. And with only one wife, there are no disputes about which wife’s children should inherit. Within the nuclear family, a man could be fairly sure that he had legitimate children with a clear right to inherit his wealth.
activity6 the next generation
question
Give a Marxist interpretation of the role of the family illustrated in this cartoon.
question
Families and households 71
Maintaining capitalism In some respects, Marxist views of the family are similar to those of functionalists. For example, both see the family as a unit which reproduces and socialises children. In other respects, their views are very different.
Marxists see the family as a means for:
● (^) Reproducing ‘labour power’ – reproducing future generations of workers ● (^) Consuming the products of capitalism ● (^) Providing emotional support for workers, so helping them to cope with the harsh realities of capitalism ● (^) Socialising children to accept the inequalities of capitalist society. From a Marxist viewpoint, the family helps to maintain an unjust and exploitative system.
Criticisms of Marxism
Marxist views of the family follow logically from Marxist theory. If, for example, the family provides emotional support for workers, then this helps them to accept the injustices of the capitalist system. This makes sense if capitalism is seen as essentially unjust. However, many sociologists reject this view of capitalism and, as a result, Marxist views of the family.
Sociologists generally agree that the economic system has some influence on the family. However, most would disagree with the view that the family is shaped by the needs of that system.
2.4 Feminist theories
Feminists start from the view that most societies are based on patriarchy or male domination.Radical feminists see patriarchy as built into the structure of society.Marxist feminists see it as resulting from class inequalities in capitalist society. Both see the family as one of the main sites in which women are oppressed by men.
Domestic labour Within the family most of the unpaid work – housework and childcare – is done by women. This applies even when women are working full time outside the home. Women make the main contribution to family life, men receive the main benefits (Delphy & Leonard, 1992).
Marxist feminists argue that the wife’s unpaid domestic labour is invaluable to capitalism. She produces and rears future workers at no cost to the capitalist. And she keeps
an adult worker – her husband – in good running order by feeding and caring for him (Benston, 1972). Emotional labour The inequalities of domestic labour also apply to ‘emotional labour’. Radical feminists claim that it’s wives rather than husbands who provide emotional support for their partners. Wives are more likely to listen, to agree, to sympathise, to understand, to excuse and to flatter (Delphy & Leonard, 1992). Marxist feminists take a similar view, seeing the emotional support provided by wives as soaking up the frustrations produced by working for capitalism. Economic dependency Married women are often economically dependent on their husbands. In most couples, it is the wife who gives up work to care for the children. Mothers often return to part-time rather than full- time employment in order to meet their childcare and domestic responsibilities. Male domination Feminists see the family as male dominated. As noted above, wives are usually economically dependent. Men often control key areas of decision-making such as moving house and important financial decisions. And they sometimes use force to maintain control. Domestic violence is widespread and the majority of those on the receiving end are women. Around 570,000 cases are reported each year in the UK and probably a far larger number go unreported (Hopkins, 2000).
Criticisms of feminism
Ignores positive aspects of family life Critics argue that feminists are preoccupied with the negative side of family life. They ignore the possibility that many women enjoy running a home and raising children. Ignores trend to gender equality There is evidence of a trend towards greater equality between partners (see Section 6.2). Critics argue that rather than celebrating this trend, feminists remain focused on the remaining inequalities.
Marxism A theory which sees a basic conflict of interest between those who own the economic institutions and those who are employed by them. Capitalism A system of production in which the economic institutions, eg banks and factories, are privately owned.
key termskey terms
Feminism A view which challenges the power of men over women. Patriarchy A social system based on male domination. Radical feminists Feminists who see patriarchy as the main form of inequality in society. Marxist feminists Feminists who see patriarchy as resulting from class inequalities. Domestic labour Unpaid work such as housework and childcare, within the home and family.
key termskey terms
Families and households 73
attempt to impose one type of family and force everybody into the same mould. Instead, they should recognise that families are diverse and the trend is towards increasing diversity. Government policy should therefore supportall families (Bernardes, 1997).
It is not the job of government to force couples to stay together by making divorce more difficult. Nor should rights and privileges be denied to those who cohabit simply because they aren’t married. Governments should not make judgements about which form of family is best and base policy on such judgements. They should accept the decisions people have made abouttheir form of family life and develop policies to support all families.
Family policy in the UK
Conservative policy This section looks at family policy from 1990. The Conservative Party under John Major was in government from 1990 to 1997. It showed a clear preference for the married, two-parent nuclear family. Lone parents were denounced in what one writer described as ‘an orgy of lone-parent bashing’ (Lister, 1996). John Major himself heralded the virtues of ‘traditional family values’ in his Back to Basics campaign. However, this campaign was quietly brushed under the carpet, not least because many Cabinet members were divorced – hardly a reflection of traditional family values.
Talk rather than action characterised the Major years. There were only two significant pieces of legislation directed at the family. In 1991, The Child Support Act was passed which led to the formation of the Child Support Agency. The main aim was to force absent fathers to pay maintenance for their children in the hope of reducing welfare payments to lone mothers. Although the government claimed this would help lone mothers, any money received from the fathers was deducted from the mothers’ benefits.
The Family Law Act of 1996 introduced a one year waiting period before a couple could divorce. The intention of the act was to support the institution of marriage. Couples were encouraged to take every possible step to save their marriage. However, the act was never implemented as judges saw it as unworkable.
Labour policy The tone of Labour’s words on family policy was milder than those of the Conservatives. There was an attempt to steer a middle course between supporting both marriage and the nuclear family and providing help for other forms of family. There was no ‘back to basics’ but no ‘anything goes’ either. Labour has been careful not to condemn alternatives to the nuclear family (Lewis, 2001).
This can be seen fromSupporting Families (1998) – a discussion document which suggested ways of providing ‘better services and support for parents’. The emphasis is onall families. The government doesn’t want to ‘interfere’ in family life, to ‘pressure people’ into a preferred family form, or to ‘force’ married couples to stay together. It accepts that many lone parents and unmarried couples
raise children successfully. But, at the end of the day, ‘marriage is still the surest foundation for raising children’. This is what Labour said. What have they done? Labour’s family policy has formed part of its welfare policy. Summed up in Tony Blair’s statement, ‘Work for those that can, security for those that can’t’, this policy seeks to move those who can work from welfare into work and to improve benefits for those who can’t. Labour’s New Deal schemes are designed to help people find paid employment. One of these schemes is aimed at lone parents, most of whom are lone mothers. Since April 2001, all lone parents are required to attend an annual interview about job opportunities. The Working Families Tax Credit tops up the wages of parents moving from benefits to low paid jobs. Various childcare schemes have been introduced. For example, the Sure Start programme provides health and support services for low-income families with young children. One of Labour’s stated aims is to take all children out of poverty. Various benefits have been increased with this in mind. For example, Child Benefit has been increased by 26% in real terms from 1997 to 2001 (Page, 2002). According to the Children’s Secretary Ed Balls, Labour has ‘lifted 600,000 children out of poverty’. However, the number of children living in poor families rose for the first time in six years in 2005-06 by 200,000 to 3.8 million (Guardian, 30.10.2007). Labour’s policies focus on money and work – children need money, parents have a responsibility to work (Lewis, 2001).
Recent developments Political parties are increasingly recognising the realities of family life – that family diversity is here to stay. Politicians are realising that the clock can’t be turned back, that they have a responsibility to support all families. Alternative family forms are no longer condemned. This can be seen clearly from David Willetts’ speech at the Conservative (Tory) Party Conference in October 2002. He announced, ‘Let me make it absolutely clear: the Tory war on lone parents is over’. He admitted that families come in all shapes and sizes, and that the state had a duty to support them all. Talking about lone parents, he said, ‘We’ll support them and value them and, above all, we’ll back them’. Yet, despite this, Willetts’ claimed that the evidence was ‘overwhelming’ that it was better for children to be brought up by two parents in a stable marriage. The Conservative leader David Cameron echoes these views. His argument runs as follows. ● (^) ‘Families matter because almost every social problem comes down to family stability.’ ● (^) Children need a stable family background. ● (^) The evidence shows that a ‘married family’ is more likely than other forms to provide this stability. For example, married couples are less likely to break up than cohabiting couples.
74 Chapter 2
● (^) It therefore makes sense for the state to support the ‘married family’. ● (^) One option is to support marriage by using the tax and benefit system to give favourable treatment to married couples. Although he recognises that governments should support all types of family, David Cameron clearly favours the ‘married family’ (www.conservatives.com). It is noticeable that the proposed tax allowances for married couples with children do not extend to cohabiting couples with children. The Conservatives have tended to focus on marriage seeing it as the best social context for raising children. Labour have tended to focus on children, whatever the social context in which they are raised. They have been reluctant to single out marriage for support, arguing that it would discriminate against lone parents and cohabiting couples. Gordon Brown made the following statement at the 2007 Labour Party Conference. ‘I say to the children of two parent families, one parent families, foster parent families; to the widow bringing up children: I stand for a Britain that supports as first class citizens not just some children and some families but supports all children and all families.’
1. Functionalists argue that the family is a universal institution. It performs functions which are essential for the maintenance and well-being of society. 2. Parsons argues that the family performs two ‘basic and irreducible’ functions in modern industrial society – primary socialisation and the stabilisation of adult personalities. 3. The New Right sees the nuclear family as the ideal family form. They believe the nuclear family is under threat. Alternative family forms, particularly lone mother families, fail to provide adequate socialisation. 4. Marxists argue that the modern family has been shaped to fit the needs of capitalism. It helps to maintain an economic system based on exploitation. 5. Feminists see the family as patriarchal – it is dominated by men and serves the needs of men. 6. According to the New Right, government policy should favour marriage and the nuclear family. 7. Others argue that governments should recognise family diversity and support all family forms. 8. The main political parties now agree that family diversity is a reality and that governments have a duty to support all types of family. However, Conservatives tend to see the ‘married family’ as the best social arrangement for raising children. Labour tend to focus on supporting children, whatever types of family they are raised in.
summary summary
3.1 The family in pre-industrial society
Farming families
Before the industrial revolution, most people lived on the land. Family members worked together to produce goods and services – the family unit was aproduction unit. Activity 8 Item A shows people working together in Medieval England. The people working together are probably from the same family. In many developing countries today, the farming family continues as a production unit. This can be seen from Activity 8 Item B which describes a farming family in Manupur, a village in India.
Cottage industry
Before the industrial revolution, many goods were produced by craftsmen and women in their homes and in small workshops. This type of production is sometimes known ascottage industry as goods were often produced in cottages. As with farming, the family was the main unit of production in cottage industry. Activity 9 provides a description of families producing cloth in Halifax in West Yorkshire.
Kinship-based societies
Many small-scale, non-Western societies are organised on the basis of kinship. People’s roles and the institutions of society are largely based on kinship relationships – relationships of ‘blood’ and marriage. Families are embedded in a wider network of kin, they are closely linked to people they are related to. Societies like this are sometimes known askinship-based societies. For example, many African societies were traditionally organised on the basis oflineages – groups descended from a common ancestor. Lineages often owned land and formed
1 What is the relationship of the family to industrialisation and urbanisation? 2 Has there been a trend towards nuclear families?
Unit 3 The family and social change
keyissues
76 Chapter 2
There is evidence that the family wasmultifunctional – that it performed a number of functions. For example, as a production unit it had an economic function, as part of a wider kinship group it sometimes performed political functions, and by socialising children and providing them with job training, it had an important educational function.
A person’s status or position in society was often ascribed
- fixed at birth – by their family membership. Daughters tended to take on the status of their mothers, sons the status of their fathers.
3.2 Industrialisation, urbanisation and
families
The industrial revolution began in Britain around 1750. It brought a number of important changes in society. ● (^) A large part of the workforce moved from agriculture and small cottage industries to industrial work, producing manufactured goods in factories. ● (^) Manufacturing industry was mechanised – machinery was used to mass produce goods. Small home-based
activity9 cottage industry
question
What evidence does this activity provide which suggests that the family is a unit of production?
question
Spinning in a cottage in the early 1700s
Around 1720, Daniel Defoe (author of Robinson Crusoe) journeyed to Halifax in West Yorkshire. This is what he saw.
‘People made cloth in practically every house in Halifax. They keep a cow or two and sow corn to feed their chickens. The houses were full of lusty fellows, some at the dye-vat; some at the loom, others dressing the cloths; the women and children carding, or spinning; all employed from the youngest to the oldest. The finished cloth was taken to the market to be sold.’ Source: “A Tour through the Whole Island of Great Britain” (1724–1727) by Daniel Defoe
activity10 the economics of marriage
question
Why is marriage in traditional Inuit society essential for both husband and wife?
question
Inuit women beating fish skin to make into ‘fish leather’
In many pre-industrial societies, marriage is essential for economic reasons. In traditional Inuit (Eskimo) society, men build igloos and hunt. Women gather edible plants and catch fish. Their skill in sewing animal skins into clothes is indispensable in the Arctic climate. Sewing is a skill that men are never taught, and many of the skills of hunting are kept secret from women. Source: from Douglas, 1964
Families and households 77
family businesses could not compete with this.
● (^) Towns and cities grew in size and the majority of the population was concentrated in large urban areas rather than small villages. This process is known as urbanisation. This section examines the impact of these changes on the family.
Talcott Parsons – the isolated nuclear family
The American functionalist sociologist, Talcott Parsons (1951) argued that industrialisation has led to theisolated nuclear family. He sees this as the typical family form in modern industrial society. Compared to pre-industrial times, the nuclear family – the married couple and their children – are isolated from the wider kinship network. Although there are usually relationships with relatives
outside the nuclear family, these are now a matter of choice rather than necessity or obligation and duty. Loss of functions According to Parsons, the main reason for this isolation is a loss of functions performed by the family. For example, the typical modern family is no longer a production unit – its adult members are now individual wage earners. In addition, local and national government has taken over, or reduced the importance of, many of the functions of the family. Schools, hospitals, welfare benefits and the police force have reduced the need for a wide network of kin (see Activity 11).
Achieved status In modern industrial society, status is achieved rather than ascribed. In other words, a person’s position in society is achieved on the basis of merit – ability and effort – rather than ascribed on the basis of family membership. Children are unlikely to follow their parents’
Item A Factory production Item B National Health Service
Item C Home for the elderly
activity11 loss of functions
question
How can these pictures be used to argue that many of the functions of the family have been reduced or lost in modern industrial society?
question
Families and households 79
Peter Laslett – the family in pre-industrial England
Historical research has questioned the view that most people in pre-industrial societies lived in extended families. The historian Peter Laslett (1965, 1977) examined parish records which record the names of people living together in households – ‘under the same roof’. He found that only about 10% of households in England from 1564 to 1821 included kin beyond the nuclear family. The figure for Great Britain in 1981 was similar – around 9% – but by 2001 it had dropped to under 5% (Social Trends, 2002).
Laslett claims that his research shows that nuclear families were the norm in pre-industrial England. He found a similar pattern in parts of Western Europe. His research was based onhouseholds, but people do not have to live under the same roof to form extended families. It is not possible from Laslett’s data to discover how much cooperation occurred between kin who lived in different households. Extended families may have been important even though relatives lived in neighbouring households. This can be seen from Activity 12.
Michael Anderson – the working-class extended
family
Historical research by Michael Anderson (1971) suggests that the early stages of industrialisation may have encouraged the development of extended families. Anderson took a 10% sample of households from Preston in Lancashire, using data from the 1851 census. He found that 23% of households contained kin beyond the nuclear family. Most of these households were working class. This was a time of widespread poverty, high birth rates and high death rates. Without a welfare state, people tended to rely on a wide network of kin for care and support. Anderson’s study suggests that the working-class extended family operated as a mutual aid organisation, providing support in times of hardship and crisis. The mid-19th century was a period of rapid urbanisation as people moved from rural areas to work in factories – for example, in the cotton mills of Preston. Overcrowding was common due to a shortage of housing and a desire to save on rent. As a result, people often moved in with their relatives.
Suggest ways in which members of the working- class extended family might help each other during the 19th century.
question question
Gustav Doré’s engraving of Wentworth Street, Whitechapel, London in the 1870s
activity13 mutual support
80 Chapter 2
3.3 Industrialisation, women and
families
Ann Oakley (1974) argues that industrialisation had the following effects on women and family life.
During the early years of industrialisation (1750-1841) the factory steadily replaced the family as the unit of production. Women were employed in factories where they often continued their traditional work in textiles. However, a series of factory acts, beginning in 1819, gradually restricted child labour. Someone now had to care for and supervise children, a role which fell to women. The restriction of women to the home had begun.
Women were seen by many men as a threat to their employment. As early as 1841, committees of male workers called for ‘the gradual withdrawal of all female labour from the factory’. In 1842, the Mines Act banned the employment of women as miners. Women were excluded from trade unions, men made contracts with their employers to prevent them from hiring women and laws were passed restricting female employment in a number of industries. Tied down by dependent children and increasingly barred from the workplace the restriction of women to the home continued.
Slowly but surely women were being locked into the mother-housewife role and confined to the home. In 1851, one in four married women were employed, by 1911, this figure was reduced to one in ten. From 1914 to 1950 the employment of married women grew slowly but the mother-housewife role remained their primary responsibility. Even by 1970, when about half of all married women were employed, most saw their occupational role as secondary to their duties as a wife and mother and their responsibility for the home. Oakley concludes that industrialisation had the following effects on the role of women. First, the ‘separation of men from the daily routines of domestic life’. Second, the ‘economic dependence of women and children on men’. Third, the ‘isolation of housework and childcare from other work’. The result is that the mother-housewife role became ‘the primary role for all women’. Recent evidence indicates that the position of married women is changing. By 2000, 75% of married or cohabiting women of working age (16-59) in the UK were economically active (ie, either in work or seeking work). There has been a steady decline in full-time mothers and housewives. In 1991, 17% of women of working age gave their occupation as ‘looking after family/home’. By 2001, this had declined to 13% (Social Trends, 2002).
question question
How does this magazine cover from 1957 reflect Oakley’s picture of the mother-housewife role in the 1950s?
activity14 the mother–housewife role
