Conflicting Perspectives of the Ideal Family Essay

Chief amongst these are that families have two goals: in raising children and establishing solid and stable adult relationships (Parsons and Bales 1955). The way families achieved these goals was by establishing specific roles for each member of the family, specifically the two parents. This structure, with a man in the workforce and woman at home, was very prevalent in the 1950s. In 1960, according to Phillip Cohen (2014), 65 percent of children lived in homes with married parents where only the father was employed. At this point, with a majority of children living in such situations, it seemed valid to define families using these households. However, this household structure quickly fell out of prominence: by 2012, only 22 percent of children lived in such homes. The most common household type — 34 percent — involved married parents where both adults worked. With families now being arranged in such varied ways, it is more difficult to generalize about family structures as you and Bales do, Dr. Parsons (Cohen 2014: 2-3).

These functionalist sociologist views are criticised by the Marxist perspective, they believe that the family benefits the ruling class in a

Stephanie Coontz in “The Way We Weren’t: The Myth and Reality of the Traditional Family” emphasizes that the traditional and ideal nuclear family widespread in media and textbooks are false and far from reality. In fact, it is common to see more similarities to the traditional family consistent of “male breadwinner and nurturing mother” (1) today than in the past.

Talcott Parsons’ (1956, pg. 309) believed that “the nuclear family is a social system” which consists of a straight married couple and around two to five children, “can be distinguished, and does function as a significant group” (1956, pg.308). Parsons believed that the family benefitted society in ways such as the teachings of gender roles and the overall structure of society: the male going to work and being the breadwinner, while the wife stays at home and cooks and nurtures the children. After the Second World War, the nuclear family was the most common type of family making the structure easily “distinguishable”. However, when we look at the postmodern society, we can see that there are many different types of families nowadays such

Both Sociological theories take very different viewpoints on most general societal subjects such as family for instance. At its most basic platform Marxists see the stereotypical nuclear family as a tool for the ruling class. Early on Marx realized the ability to pass down property through generations was a brilliantly useful mechanism for controlling wealth and capital. Marxists see the family as a potential assembly line of workers: the head of the household being the proprietor and ‘CEO’ whilst the children are being prepared to receive their inheritance and maintain their family’s wealth and capital status.

Families are becoming increasingly diverse in the UK because of changing norms and values in society. Postmodernists highlight that people are free to choose the family type that suits them best therefore allowing for harmonious relationships in society. On the other hand Functionalists are against family diversity and argue that a family that does not fit the nuclear model creates instability.

Functionalists believe that the family have specific or traditional functions within the family. One function of the family would be reproduction or having children as this is imperative for the world as they will be the future workforce. For example family businesses will need to pass down the factories/shops to the next generation in the family for the continuing of the ancestors business. Other functions include economic maintenance this is where the family provides necessities for all the family members for example shelter, food and clothing. Another is that the family helps teach children how to socialise with others and also educate them with the correct norms. An

Today, non-traditional families dominate the scene. The “normal” family is now uncommon in our society (Shields 562). Teachers have to be cautious when assuming every child has a mommy or daddy. Social workers must no longer be surprised when their clients are actually grandparents taking care of their grandchildren. Some children may have two daddies, or some only have a mommy. The list goes on. The culprit creating these unusual families is not always divorce and can include the death of a parent, unwed mothers, or single-sex parents (Shields 562). New families are not required to be biologically related. In an article about her non-traditional family, “Why Do We Marry?” Jane Smiley points out that people with numerous marriages or partners extend the definition of family (564). She writes, family dinners consisted of “me, my boyfriend, his daughter and son by his second wife, my daughters by my second husband, and my seven-year-old son by my third husband” (563, 564). Relationships begin to resemble several broken, rerouted, and

Most people argue that the family is in ‘crisis’. They point to the rapidly increasing divorce rate, cohabitation, illegitimacy and number of single parent families.

Another view on how Functionalist views the family, as they believe every institution in society contributes to the smooth running of society. To functionalists the family is at the heart of society. Functionalist view suggests that the nuclear family has become socially isolated from extended kin. More reliant on the Welfare State.

It is my belief that recognizing any family structure or definition is important, as the traditional version may be skewed in so many ways, without knowing or recognizing the “family” that people we run across may come from. We can also learn from other family definitions to build upon our own themes, rules, and beliefs. Adding stigma and prejudice toward families different from our own not only alienate the members, but can add unnecessary stress upon that family system. Stress in any family system can be seen as either an adaptation potential or a negative force. Many effects on the

The definition of the word family was changed completely. Before the industrial revolution family used to work all together. For example, the uncle, cousin, mother, brother, etc. used to work all together as a group so that they could live and because the word family used to have the meaning of working together. Also marriages used to happen not because of love, but because of economic stability. Imagine that there is a woman who is poor and a rich man wants to marry her; she would marry the man because her father would force her. Woman before the industrial revolution would have around six to eight kids because the more kids the more the help they would have while farming. The turning point came after the industrial revolution when the word family meant something very different. Family now was only the nuclear family (mom, dad, brothers). Families have now been more private and became disconnected from the world. Marriages occurred not because of an economic interest, but because there was actually love and those two persons wanted to be together for the rest of their life. An average family would have around two to three kids because now having a kid wasn’t a help, instead it was another mouth to feed and more money to

Marxists view the family in a very disparaging light and regard the family as a tool of capitalism and the bourgeoisie. Marxists believe that the family has many roles which are beneficial to the capitalist society. Zaretsky conducted his study in 1976 and concluded that the family was the key ingredient for capitalism as the family consumes the products of capitalism which enables the bourgeoisie to keep profits up and allows the capitalist system to continue. He argues that the family served interest of capitalism in various ways, namely,

Family has assumed a key part in molding me into the individual I am today. However, as I have matured, I have developed my own standards in view of my comprehension of the world. My family 's qualities are anchored firmly on religion and we attempt to live the values that the Bible lays out. Growing up, my family instilled Christian qualities into me and these qualities are imbued in my memory and I attempt to practice them despite the fact that I don 't generally succeed. As of now, I am driven by aspiration and yearning to be at peace with myself. I have certain objectives I need to accomplish and my qualities and morals have advanced to incorporate them while attempting to keep up those morals I learned when I was young. There since have been occurrences whereby I have gotten in difficulties and I need to settle on what I know to be right and what serves my self-interest. I can 't assert that I generally make the best choices. Yet, I pride myself on being principled. Usually, I adhere to a specific way on the off chance that I feel that it is right with my beliefs. My struggle with is with the whisper in my ear attempting to occupy me from my previously chosen way, however I am persistent, resolute, and take after what I have confidence in to be right to me. I rarely make serious ethical violations but I will not hesitate to own my actions.

How can a definition be given to a phrase that has a different meaning for everyone? When someone thinks of what a perfect family is, chances are it looks like a mother, father, and kids all living together. This ideal scenario is not always the case for everyone. There are many circumstances that people are placed in, which would limit them from being able to fit in this stereotypical connotation. A perfect family is normally defined as a group with two parents and their kids, but for anyone who has grown up missing a parent it is a parent or parents and their kids.