"Family" is an ever-changing institution, which is highly debated amongst sociologists. With no satisfactory definition or description in place to encapsulate the essence of family, we can argue that the dynamic aspect surrounding family makes it impossible to pinpoint, and then rather than being a mere descriptive concept, can argue must be a form of ideology. I will argue this point by looking at the phenomenon of family over time and how it has changed in relation to other institutions. An ideology is defined as “a dominant set of ideas, comprising thoughts, notions, opinions and meanings that people come to attach to a phenomenon” (Linda McKie, 2012), how we interpret ‘the family’ and the functions we adjoin to it, therefore, is dependent …show more content…
Ideologies change throughout time, and we see this reflected in our conception of what constitutes the family.
In the 1950s, 60s and early 70s, sociology of the family was dominated by the structural functionalist perspective, which treated the family as a universal feature, built around a biological basis surrounding kin relations (McLennan et al, 2010). Dominated by sociologists such as Goode (1963), Parsons and Murdock, this approach saw the nuclear family as the most suitable ideal surrounding family. The nuclear family can be described as “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.’ (Murdock, 1949 in McLennan et al. 2010: 127). The nuclear family was based on a gendered division of labour, with men expected to be the
…show more content…
The nuclear family is very much presented by the media and government policies as “The family” and associated with being the positive goal everyone should hope to achieve, but really this ideal was and to an extent, still is, riddled with inequalities, abuses and tensions, hidden through such institutions. One such inequality is that of the double shift or double burden. This occurs when a woman receives a wage for labour work, and then at home also holds sole responsibility for unpaid domestic labour, which often goes unrecognised. Another is that the traditional notion of family justifies female inferiority in paid work, in the assumption that women’s work is secondary to that of men, and that women are uniquely suited for domestic caregiving jobs, which are lower salary to male counterparts. (Jon Bernardes,
Traditional family in today’s society is rather a fantasy, a fairy tale without the happy ending. Everyone belongs to a family, but the ideology that the family is built around is the tell tale. Family structures have undeniably changed, moving away from the conventional family model. Nowadays more mothers work outside of the home, more fathers are asked to help with housework, and more women are choosing to have children solo. Today there are families that have a mom and a dad living in the same home, there are step-families, and families that have just a mother or just a father. Probably the most scrutinized could be families that consist of two moms or two dads. These are all examples of families and if all members are appropriately happy and healthy then these families are okay and should incontestably be accepted. So why is the fantasy of the traditional family model still so emphasized in our society? This expectation is degrading and misleading. Progressing with times one ought not be criticized or shunned for being true to their beliefs. It is those living falsely, living as society thinks they should that are the problem. Perhaps as a society, if there were more focus and concern for happiness and peace within ones family and fewer worries for the neighbor then there would be less dilemma.
In chronicling how the family structure has changed in America, it is important to understanding how family was actually defined. When referencing Leave it to Beaver (further referred to as LITB) times, family took on a substantive definition, or the idea that family was equivalent to relative, or related by blood or law. While this definition of family served the time period, it failed to evolve with society. For that reason, sociologists set out to determine a “more inclusive functionalist definition,” that focuses on what families do. “A functionalist definition of families focuses on how families provide for the physical, social, and emotional needs of individuals and of society as a whole” (Witt). With that, the functionalist perspective identifies six primary functions, which include reproduction, socialization, protection, regulation of sexual behavior, affection and companionship, and...
There are different perspectives on the foundations of the nuclear family. For example, some argue that this form of the family is ‘natural’ and reflects the ‘normal’ and healthy biological urges of males and females as partners in reproduction. Others argue that the nuclear family does not represent a norm based on biological facts but rather exists alongside many other types of families such as single parent families and same-sex families. From this perspective, the family is socially constructed instead of being biologically determined, and society produces a dive...
One definition is “a significant social group in society typically consisting of one or two parents and their children.” While such definition is a good starting point, some modern family structures are excluded by such definition. In her essay, “Family: Idea, Institution, and Controversy,” Betty Farrell apparently assumes that the traditional family has dramatically changed, and the dynamics of change—altered the definition of a “family.” A family is no longer a picture of a particular image of the mythic past, referring to the golden days of the “1950s.” It is no longer a father, mother and their biological children living together under one roof (and certainly not with the a breadwinner father and a stay-at-home mother). In today 's modern society, it is now common to see women raising their children by themselves without their husbands’ help; unmarried couples living together; and gay and lesbian couples—while far from being universally accepted—adopting and raising children to complete their families. Therefore, despite the children living in one-parent households, or they do not live with their “married-heterosexual-biological-parents” under the same roof—does not necessarily mean they are not families. Farrell states that “a family is defined not so much by a particular set of people as by the quality of relationships that bind them together.” In other words, Farrell believes that a “family” is more than just a collection
THOSE OF US WHO grew up in the 1950s got an image of the American family that was not, shall we say, accurate. We were told, Father Knows Best, Leave It to Beaver, and Ozzie and Harriet were not just the way things were supposed to be—but the way things were
The phrase “Nuclear Family” is a concept whose true complexity seems to have escaped our intellectual grasps until recent decades. Before, this model of familial relations was regarded as the standard or the cultural norm that no one seemed to question because this was the way it had been done, in most societies, since people could remember. Today though, with our ever-evolving cultures and belief systems, the ideology of and behind a nuclear family has come into question. What is or should be the true definition of a nuclear family? Is a nuclear family really the best way to raise children and sustain society? Are there any negative aspects of the nuclear family model that we may have not considered, and if so, what are they? These questions and others have become the center of a worldwide debate regarding family systems and diversity; the interesting part is the subjectivity of this topic and the amount of factors that affect the arguments from both sides, making it difficult to reach any sort of viable conclusion. Our modern world rapidly evolves in both subjects of technology and sociopolitical ideology, causing questions such as these to be subject to many different perspectives and thus causing many different reactions.
Do you know what the American Family is? I don’t. American families have changed dramatically over time. The “Nuclear Family”, which is defined as containing a man, woman and their children,was and is regarded as a basic social unit; the seed of ‘The American Family Tree”. But over time this has evolved and modernized into different meanings concerning how people view the traditional American family. The ways the traditional family has modernized include, Stepfamily, Single Parent Family, Same Gender Family, Childless Family, Divorced Family, and many more. These few different types of family systems show how peoples definition of a family in the past and current years in America have changed. The origins of the continuous branching family
The modern family is a very complex organism. It has become evident that not everyone considers family to be the same thing. As illustrated, there are at least seven different variations of families, and only five of them are recognized as such. Not surprisingly, 99% of people consider a married couple with children as an ideal family (Penn). Some focus solely on their nuclear family, some readily claim their extended family, and some even claim others who are like them, but not necessarily biologically related. Many people gravitate towards the idea of a self-based and centered family, fueled by an independent streak. Others have learned that strangers can be more accepting of them than those who are supposed to be kin to them. However, this is not to say that even others still do not reach out to members of their extended family for support in daily living. In short, the modern family is an ever-changing device. Society is much better off having these sorts of various views of family. It is comforting to know that one will always have someone to turn to in times of need, but it is also nice to know that one can be independent of others and have the determination to stand
Family structures are very different between cultures. That fact is obvious, but how and why is the question. As time progresses, the views of various cultures modernize. During this time the 20th century has seen the greatest change in family structures. Northern Europe and North America have been experiencing a decrease in extended families, and an increase in nuclear families. Over the previous 20 years, there has also been an increase in divorced families, unmarried families, and homosexual families. The point of this paper is to delineate the various types of family structures and why they’ve changed through time. In Cross-Cultural psychology the idea is to explore similitude and dissimilarities in values, norms, history and traditions of different cultures. Hence, I will analyze the family as a social system across various cultures.
According to Taylor et al (2005), the sociology of the family was traditionally governed by functionalist theory which highlights the universal and functional role the family played in society. Furthermore, functionalists take a broad view of society and focus on macro aspect of social life (Ingleby and Oliver 2008). Cunningham and Cunningham (2010:12) use an analogy of the human body to highlight the functionalist approach to society:
This paper will examine sociological theories and how they relate to the social institution of the family. We typically view society as a group of people, but in sociology, society is not a group of people but a social organization. People are molded by society to fit within the accepted societal bounds. Society must be understood using “the meanings that people put on their values and beliefs” (Bartle, 2010). Within sociology there are three major perspectives. These are the Functionalist, Conflict and Interactionist Perspectives. Each perspective views society in different manners, with each being correct and relevant since social institutions are too complex to be defined by any one theory. Each perspective will be used to explain the perspectives’ relevance to the family.
"Families are essentially care institutions that vary across cultures and change over time. Their essential function, historically, has been to contribute to the basic economic survival of family members; thus, the structure of families often adapts to the economy, and cultural ideologies and laws are created to reinforce that adaptation."(The evolution of families and marriages, 2015)
Sociologists look at society from either a macro or micro view and the theories that define their work are based on those perspectives. There are several family theories that we learned about this semester. Briefly, Structural-Functionalism and Conflict Theory are “macro” theories in sociology. Structural-Functionalism sees society as a living machine made up of different parts which work together for the good of society. Individuals, as well as Institutions work together, and the family is the key to the well-functioning machine. Emile Durkheim, considered the Father of Sociology argues social solidarity, where people do the right thing, create harmony and have shared values. According to Durkheim the nuclear family is the only type of institution that can achieve that. Conflict Theory sees society as a pyramid with those at the top having more power and influence than those at the bottom. Males in society have more power than females. There is a power imbalance, which could lead to oppression o...
Everyone is born into some form of family, with the family taking the responsibility of nurturing, teaching the norms or accepted behaviors within the family structure and within society. There are many types of families, which can be described as a set of relationships including parents and children and can include anyone related by blood or adoption. Family is the most important, “for it is within the family that the child is first socialized to serve the needs of the society and not only its own needs” (Goode, 1982).
But every family has its own values and few of them are exactly alike. The