Discuss the view that the modern family is becoming more diverse

This essay will discuss the role of the family within society and individually, the nature and
structure of the family and discuss the changing roles and relationships within the family. It will
also consider theories from Functionalists, the New Right, Marxists and Feminists when
demonstrating how the family has become more varied.

The family is one of the oldest institutions in society and one of the first subjects that
sociologists studied. The archetypal view of the family is Mum, Dad and children, known as the
nuclear family. Although that was more common in the 1950’s, as our society has changed and
adapted due to divorce, recognition of gay civil marriages and more freedom of choice, the
family now has a variety of forms such as single parents, gay couples, extended families and
reconstituted families.

George Murdock, a Functionalist, conducted a survey in 1949 called Social Structure to

ascertain whether a form of family existed universally. He compared 250 societies and found
that although they varied greatly, there were types of family found in each society and
concluded that the family was universal. Murdock defined the family as ‘a social group
characterised by common residence, economic co-operation 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’ (1949). Murdock saw the
nuclear family as the core with other modes of family branching from that, for example, the
extended family where grandparents or other close relatives live in the same household or
nearby.

However, Kathleen Gough(1959) documented that in the Nayar society, girls before puberty
were ritually married to a suitable Nayar man in the tali rite, and however once after the
marriage the tali husband is under no obligation to live with his wife or to have any contact with
her. The only duty that the tali wife has is to attend her husband’s funeral to mourn his death.
Then once the girl reached puberty, she could take visiting husbands with the visiting husband
leaving his weapons outside the building to show other husbands that he was there. This
highlighted that Murdock’s definition and functions of the family did not apply and was therefore
either too narrow or that the family is not universal.

Murdock also saw the family as having four functions, sexual, reproductive, economic and
educational. He believed that if sex was within a marriage it can strengthen the family unit as
the emotions that accompany this unite husband and wife. As Western society is monogamous
this then stabilises society and prevents promiscuity. He also maintained that children should be
born within the marriage and then children could be taught to be a good member of society. It
also meant that the family was financially responsible for themselves.

Talcott Parsons (1959) argued that there are two functions within the family emphasised more
on children. They are ‘primary socialisation’, the family is where children first learn what is
normal in their own culture and how to develop their own personality, and ‘stabilisation of adult
roles’ where married partners can provide the emotional support which helps to counteract the
stresses of everyday life. This also allows the adults to indulge in childish behaviour with their
children which also help stress relief. Parsons called this the ‘warm bath theory’ where the
mother is at the helm and the family provide a warm, comfortable and secure environment.
Parsons viewed the family as the best solution to coping with industrial society. In the nuclear
family, the husband can go out to work, taking on the role as breadwinner, whilst the mother
assumes the role of the carer, staying at home to look after children and carry out household
duties. Therefore functionalists believe the family provides important functions not only
individually but for the family as an institution and for society as a whole.

Functionalists see the nuclear family positively and hold the view that society is a set of social
institutions working together to perform specific functions. However, Marxists disagreed with this
notion; Engels (1884) believed that the nuclear family evolved through various stages bringing
with it the beginning of ownership of private property, particularly the ability to own private
means of production and the emergence of the state and laws to enforce monogamous
marriage and protect the system of private property. This allowed the capitalists to ensure the
paternity of their offspring making them natural heirs (Engles 1884). However, like functionalists,
Marxists believe that the family reproduces and socialises children but for differing reasons. Eli
Zaretsky (1976) claimed that the modern capitalist society created the illusion that the family is
able to provide warmth and support, whereas in reality he felt that it was not equipped well
enough to cope with the psychological and personal needs of individuals. Marxists also argue
that the capitalist system is based on the domestic labour of housewives who reproduce future
generations of workers and teach children to not aspire to greater things. The family also
consumes the fruits of capitalism therefore allowing the ruling class to profit. Marxists and
Functionalists neglect to take into account that families can be a dangerous place to be for
children and women, the darker side of the family, such as violence and abuse and that there
are possible variations to families such as social classes, ethnicity, lone parent families and gay
or lesbian families.

Many Feminists questioned the idea that the family is a group with common support and shared
interests and have instead suggested that there is an unequal balance within the family which
means that men benefit more than women. Feminists also believe that the family is patriarchal
and that women are suppressed and exploited. After the Second World War, in an attempt to
get women out of the workforce, the ideal family image was promoted, also known as the ‘cereal
packet’ image by Edmund Leach (1967). However, as society has changed over the last
decade, more women are taking on the ‘dual burden’ doing the housework and working in paid
employment outside the home (Gershuny et al. 1994; Hochschild 1989; Sullivan 1997).
Feminists feel that domestic labour is unpaid and that women are still being fooled by the
societal image of the ideal family. Studies show that women within the family are the primary
carer, for example, if a child is unwell it will be the woman who takes time off work to care for
the child. Also, women tend to put their family first in terms of spending money whereas men will
buy items for themselves. Delphy and Leonard (1992) believe that women make a much bigger
contribution to family life yet receive fewer of the material benefits.

Nevertheless, Feminists ignore the fact that women may actively choose to stay at home and
bring up children, seeing it as a rewarding vocation and that this may have been a decision
between husband and wife due to financial restrictions as it is still not possible for a man to have
paid paternity leave. Also, Feminists do not seem to recognise that there has been change, for
example, more men are helping out with the housework and that children are also being
encouraged to help. They have also promoted equal rights for women in society, beginning with
Suffragettes and the right to vote, which may have influenced how a family looks today.

Diversity within the family is more prevalent today as family units such as lone parents, same
sex families and reconstituted families become more acceptable. Gittins (1993) suggested that
just because a family looks different from the traditional nuclear family, this does not mean that
it is abnormal. It has been suggested that increasing divorce rates and co-habitation have
contributed to diversity within the family structure (Boh, 1989). It was extremely difficult to
divorce up until the Divorce Reform Act was introduced in 1969 and came into effect in 1971,
this then heralded a change of attitude with no attribution to blame. Functionalists argue that
marriage breakdown occurs as people have higher expectations of marriage, seeing it in terms
of ‘love’ rather than a domestic arrangement to rear children. Barlow et al (2001) conducted a
British Social Attitudes Survey which highlighted that people still have a high regard for marriage
itself but may have found aspects of the marriage more unacceptable now than they may have
done in the past. Feminists have welcomed the choice for women to leave an unhappy marriage
and suggest that women are disillusioned with the traditional marriage as most divorce petitions
are filed by women. In the past women were trapped in unhappy marriages with very few
options. With the introduction of state benefits, fairer divorce settlements and greater
opportunities for women at work, they now have greater independence.

However, Feminists do not take into account the effect that divorce and lone parent families can
have on children. Studies show that there is a negative effect on children who grow up in a lone
parent family. Rodgers and Pryor (1998) conducted a study of 200 children and found that they
have a tendency to suffer from behavioural and/or emotional problems. However, E.E.
Cashmore (1985) argued that it is better for children to live in a family with one caring parent
rather than two parents who are unhappy in a marriage. Cashmore who believed that single
parenthood can have its attractions, particularly for mothers since as Feminists suggest, family
life may benefit men more than women. Crow and Hardy (1992) highlighted that although lone
parent families only have one parent living with children, the other parent may still have
influence and financial support for the family, and therefore, they preferred to call it a lone
parent household instead. Studies also show that the average time spent as a lone parent
family is 5 years, making it a transitory stage and that very few women actually choose to
become a lone parent (Berthoud 1999).

With the option of easier divorce comes the increase of lone parent families. Unlike Feminists,
the New Right maintain that high divorce rates and the increase in lone parent families are a
threat to social stability indicating a direct link between the rising crime amongst young men who
do not have a father figure to provide discipline and authority. They also believe that laws
should be stricter with regards to divorce and that the traditional nuclear family should be
promoted within government policies. To support this, the Financial Secretary stated ‘I will
propose suitable measures in this Budget to help build a harmonious, family-based society’
(February 27, 2008).

So, as divorce rates have increased, a new type of family has become more popular due to
remarriages, the reconstituted family, also known as step-families. Haskey (1994) described this
as ‘a married or cohabiting couple with dependant children, at least one of whom is not the
biological offspring of both partners’. The advantages to the reconstituted family are an
extended family whereby both parents contribute towards the children. Also, there is more
support for example; a step daughter may find it easier to converse with a step mother rather
than her own mother. Step siblings could also provide good role models. But, certain difficulties
will also arise; a biological parent who still has an influential involvement with the children may
make life more difficult within the new family. The parents may have differing ideas on how to
raise their children, thereby causing marital conflict. Step siblings may feel pushed out or
jealous of each other. There is little research into the reconstituted family as it is still fairly
recent; however, statistics show that this type of family will outnumber the nuclear family by
2010, thus making it the ‘norm’.

Similarly, there has been an increase in the amount of gay and lesbian families due to a wider
acceptance and a change in law and the introduction of civil partnerships. Weeks, Heaphy and
Donovan (1999) commented that there is more equality between partners because they do not
have the same social and cultural assumptions that a heterosexual family has. For example, the
division of labour and emotional support are shared unlike the nuclear family where women do
the majority of the housework. Also, Fitzgerald (1999) showed that children raised in a gay or
lesbian family were not affected; all that mattered was the relationship between the parents and
the children.

To conclude, some theorists such as Functionalists and the New Right feel that the family is
collapsing with modern liberal thinking and a more open attitude towards gay and lesbian
relationships, co-habitation and lone parent families. They suggest that the traditional family
should be reinstated; however, Feminists see the change in the family as a welcome advance
enabling freedom of choice for women as they can decide whether to live alone with children or
cohabit with their partner before or ever entering into marriage. Ultimately, theorists generally
believe that whether diversity within the family is desirable or not, changes within the family are
a reflection on society today.