Sociology of the family By Elizabeth O’Callaghan:
The family has and still is regarded as the corner stone of society. In pre-modern and modern societies alike it has been seen as the most basic unit of social organisation and one that carries out vital tasks, such as socialising children. Sociologists examine the family as an institution which plays a huge part of socialisation. Socialisation is identified through various sociological perspectives; with particular regards towards the relationship between industrial capitalism and the effects this had on the family.
Family structures have developed rapidly since the 1900’s, household types in modern society are diverse, such as single parent, reconstituted, unmarried cohabitation, traditional, couple with no children families and blended family households. The reason that diverse family household types are what they are in today’s society, is that delayed marriage, unmarried cohabitation and delayed childbirth are trends for young people in the recent years. In pre-industrial society and in the early days of the industrial revolution, women, men and children all worked together in the home. In their book ‘The symmetrical Family’ sociologists Young and Willmott (1973) state that the men and women roles within the family are becoming more equal, this statement was criticised heavily by feminists. Young and Willmott’s work is very outdated now. Jane Pilcher was a sociologists who in the late nineties conducted qualitative research on women from the south of Wales, She discovered and wrote in her book ‘Women of their time’ (1998) that household chores and labour were divided by gender, but generally when the women of the household were desperate the men would lend a hand and help out. Contemporary men do show reluctance to take on housework tasks but they can and do help out, therefore there’s not been that much of a change in that aspect. One significant change has been the rapid increase in divorce rates. Society saw divorce and sex before marriage as shameful in the early 1900’s, it did happen but not as publically as in today’s society. If you got divorced in the 1900’s you were seen to have very low morals and would be disregarded from society (Haralambos and Holborn 2013). Divorce was recognised by parliament when the Act of parliament to grant divorce (only men would be allowed to apply for a divorce) not only to the rich but to the poor as well, this was introduced in 1940, there was still a stigma attached to getting divorced, so people would stay married or get divorced in secret, that was until a change in legislation in 1969 known as the Divorce Reform Act 1969, now meant it was easier to get married as the woman could now apply for divorce. By 1969 the stigma of getting divorce was slowly dwindling away, which is why divorce rates after the 1970’s increased. Divorce rates in 1960 in Britain were 23,868.00 and by 1972 divorce rates more than quadrupled to a staggering 119,025.00 (Office for National statistics 2012).
Some of the Key structural changes to the family are that; fewer children are born in todays society, the average being 1.9 children per family in 2009, in the 1930’s the figure being 2.4 children per family. Fewer couples are marrying in modern society, it may be down to changes in religious beliefs as the culture in Britain has changed its much more diverse, where as in the early 1900’s religion was a way of life and people would build their communities around churches. The age of which couples are marrying on the other hand is increasing, the average age nowadays for men to marry is twenty-nine and for women it is twenty-seven.
Single person households of all ages is also more common in modern society, this may be because fewer people are marrying are more people are divorcing. In the early 1900’s families were extremely close, a number of generations would reside under one roof, where as in today’s society people are more likely to move away from close relatives and set up home on their own or with a partner.
Society today tend to have children out of wedlock, when this happened in the early 1900’s it would bring shame to you and your family. There are more reconstituted or also known as blended families living in Britain today, this is due to the divorce rates increasing. People may marry on average two to three times in their lives where as in the early 1900’s divorce was seen as a disgrace therefore re-marrying wouldn’t have been an option.
Another reason the family has changed over time is because both parents in today’s society work meaning the children are reared by the grandparents or institutions. This has a massive impact on the family’s solidarity, as children now feel less upset with regards to leaving the family home and their parents (Families and households, pp32).
Marriages in the 1900’s were heterosexual whereas in today’s society same sex marriage is accepted, the reason behind heterosexual marriages in the 1900’s was mainly because it was against the law to be gay, therefore men and women would hide the sexual attractions if it were towards the same sex or it would be done in secret, this was done to prevent imprisonment.
Roles have also changed over the last one hundred years, Men and women in the early 1900’s had very different and distinct roles, men would earn the money to provide for the family and women would stay at home and do all domestic duties. This has changed drastically in comparison to modern society, Women now have equal rights such as being able to vote and equal pay. Men in some societies stay at home and rear the children, this would never have happened in the early 1900’s.
When studying the family there are a few key sociological theories which should be considered, functionalism, Marxism, feminism and internationalism. Functionalists view the family as an institution that is preparing society with the next generation of normal and value honoring citizens. The functionalists perspective see the nuclear family, the family which provides all that is needed to sustain society. Functionalist George Peter Murdock (1949) analysed 250 societies, in his findings he found that the family preform four basic functions; reproductive, sexual, economic and educational. Murdock argued that without the sexual or reproductive function there would be no society. Murdock also argued that without economic functions for example the production of food society would cease to exist. Finally Murdock argued that without the education function there would be no culture and without culture human society could not function (Haralambos and Holborn 2013, pp512).
The Interactionist would criticise the functionalist’s perspective for portraying the nuclear family as the perfect unit to build a balanced society. Interactionalist David Clark (1991) states that the functionalists perspective would overlook or ignore domestic violence, be it by the man or the woman. Internationalists believe that all families are not the same, some families struggle with financial issues or unemployment strains, which causes arguments which then may lead to divorce. Some marriages known as ‘drifting marriages’ by Interactionalist are marriages that show no clear plan for the future, this again may lead to divorce.
In contrast to the functionalist and interactionist perspective the feminist’s perspective of the family is that the family re-produces patriarchy. Feminists see men as oppressors of women, whether it be through domestic violence or gender related domestic duties such as, cleaning, rearing the child or children, cooking and showing warmth and love. (Haralambos and Holborn 2013, pp514-516). There are many types of feminists for instance the radical feminist see the most fundamental and universal form of domination as men who oppress women. The Marxists feminist have similar views to Marxists, they see the need for capitalism but sees the exploitation of women as a key feature of family life.
The Marxists perspective on the family originates from the nineteenth century scholar Friedrich Engle’s evolutionary view of the family, Engle’s argued that as the ownership of production changed from household and families to factories and business men, the family actually became society (Haralambos and Holborn 2013, pp513). Marxists see the family as a pillar in society, there to maintain the reproduction of food to enable society to be sustained, but in doing this builds a hierarchy, when Britain became industrialised skilled workers were put out of jobs by machines and factories. The owners of the machines and factories would then offer the unemployed skilled workers jobs in their factories operating and maintaining production. As time goes on families become more distant as the men are no longer working at home, they’re working long hours in factories away from home. This behaviour is passed down to the next generation, this is what the Marxists would see as a reproduction of societies labors, this then creates conflicts between social groups, since one person gains from another person’s labor.
Therefore the biggest changes in Britain’s families over the last 100 years has been the increase in divorce rates, equality between men and women and the changes in the types of families, from the typical British 2.4 family to a vast range of families from single parent families to blended families.