Using Material from Item 2b and Elsewhere, Assess the Marxist View That the Main Role of the Family Is to Serve the Interests of Capitalism

Karl Marx devoted much of his time to the study of morality, better known as ethics. Karl Marx was a firm believer in Communism and he authored the Communist Manifesto, along with Frederick Engels. Family ethics is an issue dealt with by Karl Marx in his teachings and writings. According to Marx and his co-author, Engels, morality is the slave of interest. Moral codes and ethics are believed to be dependent on the person and relative to the social setting.[1] Ethics are discussed on a philosophical level and also in everyday controversial topic discussions or debates.

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

‘The family performs important tasks that contribute to society’s basic needs and helps perpetuate social order.’ (Anthony Giddens 2006 - Page 238) Functionalists believe a family’s paramount purpose is to raise and support their children within society.

She also targets “everybody else”, as in the nuclear families with their disapproving assumptions. She believes that as a community we should accept, respect and support each other’s families. Kingsolver puts forth her argument that, “During the Depression and up to the end of World War II, many millions of U.S. households were more multigenerational than nuclear.”(307), explaining that nuclear families are rather new standards of ideal in our community. While, men were deployed to war and women filled job positions left vacant, these multigenerational families were the way they raise their children and built a support system around themselves for any potential bad news. These families have stronger bonds and can withstand stronger storms than the nuclear families with 4 or so members. She also talks about how non traditional families are much like these multigenerational families “...his mother, her friends, his brother, his father and stepmother, a stepbrother and a stepsister, and a grandparent.”(302). She argues that these “children of divorce” have twice the amount of

Today's nuclear family with mom, dad, 2.3 kids, and dog only came into being just after the Industrial Revolution (Swerdolow 15). This leads to the idea that perhaps the desengration of the nuclear family isn't necessarily a negative things, but more of a retirement of a one way of life in favor of a new one. Even if this is true, the current period of decline still spurns numerous problems and attempted solutions.

In her book Marriage a History Stephanie Coontz explains the male breadwinner family model and its dominance in family life during the 40’s, 50’s, and early 60’s. An illustration of the male breadwinner model is composed of a father, mother, and two children; typically a boy and girl close in age. Funded by their father’s well paying middle class salary, the wife and children live a comfortable life in suburbia and participate regularly in consumer trends. Perceived as the head of the household, the father was the sole financial provider. On the other hand the mother was the head of domestic life and was responsible for the children. The popular 1950’s TV show The Adventures of Ozzie and Harriet exemplified this family model. With regard to the male breadwinner family model, imagine having eight other brothers and sisters. Imagine growing up without a mother, and with a father who worked constantly. Then consider living this life alongside your peers who come from the “normal” male breadwinner families Coontz describes… How would your family differ from your peers? What would be your thoughts and feelings towards family life? More importantly, how would these unique circumstances change your perception of the nuclear family?

The article Family and Social Memory: Why History Matters mentioned the concept of the nuclear family. The ideal white-picket fenced family, with a mother, father and children who happily live together in privacy. It was during the postwar era when technological discoveries were rapid and mind-blowing, an era where hope was renewed and the ideal family was remodeled. It involved a father being the head of the house, and the mother being the primary caretaker. It was this notion that reigned as the ideal family for a long period of time. However, I find this stereotype to be rather poisonous because, as the article also mentioned, soon the media uncovered the dark realities behind the nuclear family. During the post-war era, abuse and sexism

The way in which the ‘family’ unit is perceived has changed immensely since the last quarter of the twentieth century. Over time, many factors have contributed to these changes including, and not limited to, the industrial revolution, the feminist movement, the period of modernity and technological advancements. As a result, these factors have influenced significant changes to the ‘family’, these include; the increasing rates of female occupation, mean age at marriage, divorce, unmarried couples, single parents, mean age at birth of first child, and a decline in marriage rates. Moreover, this essay will examine how the family has changed over time through discussing the factors that have contributed to these changes. It is for these reasons and observations made by sociologists that it could be inferred that the way the family unit is perceived has changed greatly over time.

Times have changed; the nuclear family is no longer the American ideal because family needs have changed since the 1950's. This American convention of a mother and father and their two children, were a template of films and early television as a depiction of the American family life. Now seen as archaic and cliché by today’s standards, but the idea is common throughout many of the first world nations in the world. This ideal was a vast departure from the past agrarian and pre industrial families, and was modeled and structured as the ‘American dream’ father working, mother maintaining the household and children molded to be simulacra of the parents. This portrayal was not the standard; many communities throughout America had a different

A brief view of the 4 decades within the periods of 1950 to 1990 would show us a significant shift from the conventional nuclear family to the non-conventional modern family. Starting from the 1950s, the families were nuclear, where members worked together, understood their roles, and did what was expected of them; by the 1960s, there were a few sitcoms that began to undermine the television parent’s authority by privileging the independence of nearly adult or adult children; by the 1970s, the authoritative father began to disappear as they were no longer

In this paper, I will use the sociological imagination to connect my personal experiences of growing up in a nuclear family to comparison of growing up in a divorced family. I’m from a nuclear family and my best friend is from a divorced family. “Some people still think the average American family consists of a husband who works in paid employment and a wife who looks after the home, living together with their children” according to Giddens, Anthony pg. 447. That’s not the case in many households. There are many differences, from values, financial issues, and how having one parent opposed to, two parents growing up. Growing up in a nuclear family household has given me the opportunity to have both parents supporting me and always being there, having both parents at special events, giving me the guidance from both perspectives man, and women, love, and financial aid. My best friends parents have been divorced for over 19 years, her living style is much different. She has to make certain days available to visit her father, and her mother has financial difficulties.

There were also needs for industrial society and from there, change/ structure of the family type evolved to meet societies needs to survive such as loss of functions in extended family, where industrial society took over some functions a family would perform for its members such as healthcare (NHS). And another was geographically mobile workforce; where the family had to move to places for jobs demanding their skills. But with extended families, they couldn’t take the whole family, just maybe the wife and kids etc. However, linking with the question, the functionalists view of the family was that nuclear families were the most dominant, but they change their views during industrialisation, believing that extended was the more dominant at the time for survival of the family to fit into society, but in today’s society, functionalists have changed their view once more, which resorted back to their first view of nuclear family being more dominant.

Ronald Fletcher also analyses the family from a Functionalist perspective but he denies that the modern nuclear family has lost functions to the extent suggested By Talcott Parsons. Thus Fletcher argues that even if the family is no longer a unit of production, it is a unit of consumption which can be appealed to by advertisers keen to sell a wide range of household appliances so as to maintain profits for the bourgeoisie.

Social institutions are the organized, usual, or standard ways that a society meets its basic needs (P. 104). Moreover, functionalists identify five functional requisites that each society must meet to insure their survival (Pp. 104-106). With this in mind, Family and the Economy are the most influential social institutions in industrial society. Henslin stated in Chapter 3 that “Our experiences in the family and other groups during childhood lay down the basic orientations to life” (p. 94). Families offer guidance as well as protection from the larger, and sometimes hurtful, society. Furthermore, loving families provide socialization, identity, and comfort, all of which have an essential role in the development of the self (Pp. 104-106). The economy is the second most influential social institution in industrial societies. To fulfill basic needs, societies rely on a strong economy to produce and distribute goods and services. Additionally, strong and stable economies provide employment and job security to