If you were asked, "why do we have a family?" you may be able to answer this after some thought. However, if you were asked, "what is the function of a family?", would you respond differently? If so, why?
Many aspects of society are designed to perform a specific function. But when we think of the family, we don't naturally think that it's there to serve a function. What does it mean to say this?
We will be looking at functionalist perspectives on the family to answer this. Specifically:
- We will start by recapping functionalism as a theory.
- We will consider the perspectives of George Murdock and Talcott Parsons and look at some key terms for both sociologists.
- Thirdly, we will briefly look at the functionalist perspective on divorce.
- Lastly, we will evaluate the functionalist perspective on family.
Let's begin!
What is functionalism?
Before we consider these perspectives, it may be helpful to have a reminder of functionalism generally.
Functionalism is a sociological consensus theory that places importance on our shared norms and values upon which society functions. The functionalist perspective argues that:
- Society is inherently harmonious as long as all individuals perform their roles and keep society running smoothly.
- Societal structures shape individuals, who are the product of social structures and socialisation.
Now that we have outlined the general theory of functionalism, let us consider how functionalists view the family.
Functionalist perspectives on family: key terms
Functionalist theorists see each institution of society as performing a certain role that helps to keep society harmonious and in solidarity. Out of all institutions, the family is of particular importance to functionalists as it is within that unit that children experience primary socialisation.
If the family performs basic functions for its members, including meeting their emotional needs, then it is stable and can therefore contribute to an efficient and functioning society.
We'll now look at some key terms within the functionalist perspective on family, beginning with socialisation.
Functionalist perspective on socialisation
According to functionalists, the first point of our exposure to social norms and values is known as primary socialisation. This is a key functionalist term. Primary socialisation is where children are taught which behaviours are acceptable and which aren't.
As a child, being scolded or punished for lying is a lesson that lying is 'wrong'. This helps the child understand society's norms and values, which will help them keep society harmonious.
Functionalist thinkers believe primary socialisation is an essential function of the family, which is why the family structure must be able to execute it. They claim that the ideal structure to do so is the nuclear family.
The role of the nuclear family in functionalism
A nuclear family refers to a traditional family unit consisting of two parents with one or more children. The conventional idea of a nuclear family consists of a monogamous, heterosexual couple.
Proponents of functionalism claim that this family structure performs positive functions, both on an individual level, i.e. for the members of the family, and for wider society.
Fig. 1 - The above photo shows an example of a traditional nuclear family.
To explore the nuclear family, and other family types further, check out our 'Family Diversity' article!
Émile Durkheim's functionalist perspective
Durkheim, a well-known functionalist, stated that the family is a key institution responsible for several important functions for the well-being of society. All institutions need to be harmonious and stable for society to be the same.
Despite this, Durkheim's work on the family is not as well-known in comparison to his work on other areas of sociology.
Let's move on to consider some other functionalists' perspectives on the family.
Functionalist perspective examples: George Murdock
A well-known example of a functionalist perspective on family is that of ethnologist George Murdock. Murdock (1949) studied over 200 societies and found that the nuclear family was a universal family structure because it performed four major, crucial functions for wider society.
Murdock's four functions of the family
These include the educational, economic, reproductive, and sexual functions.
Educational functions of the family
The nuclear family is a key institution through which children experience primary socialisation. Children are introduced to basic social values, beliefs, and practices and taught to differentiate between 'right' and 'wrong'. This process is also referred to as the socialisation of the young.
Economic functions of the family
Families which follow the traditional nuclear structure meet the material needs of their members by providing food, shelter, and basic necessities.
Reproductive functions of the family
Nuclear families enable procreation and the continuation of future generations, as they are comprised of married heterosexual couples who have children. Society cannot keep going without this function.
Sexual functions of the family
The nuclear family maintains the stability of the adults' sexual relationships, as monogamy prevents 'sexual jealousy' and adultery.
Functionalist perspective examples: Talcott Parsons
Another example of a functionalist perspective on family is that of Talcott Parsons.
Building on Murdock's work, Parsons (1951) stressed the importance of the nuclear family with his functional fit theory. Unlike Murdock, Parsons believed that family structures change along with society and that each type of family is created to 'fit' society at the time.
As a result, the functions performed by the family do not stay the same, but change over time as society progresses.
In pre-industrial society, extended families were common because they performed various functions e.g. providing more labour for work, caring for sick family members, and educating and taking care of children. In industrial society, however, the nuclear family structure is a better 'fit' as it helps to perform different functions in a complex new world.
How do you think family structure may change in the future? Why?
Parsons argued that the transition from an extended family to a nuclear family happened due to several reasons.
The state took over some functions such as healthcare and education, which decreased the need for an extended family.
Industrialisation required geographical mobility as the economy continued to grow and change, and an extended family was difficult to move around. Nuclear families, therefore, became independent units.
Nuclear families allowed for specialised roles. In industrial society, a division of labour developed between men and women to ensure all needs and functions were met. The most common result was that the man assumed the (instrumental) breadwinner role and the woman the (expressive) domestic role.
According to Parsons, the nuclear family performs fewer functions than the extended family, but these functions are fundamental. These are:
We have already covered the function of primary socialisation above, so now we will look at the stabilisation of adult personalities.
Stabilisation of adult personalities in the nuclear family
According to Parsons, this is the second function of the family after primary socialisation.
Along with meeting the needs of children, Parsons argued that the nuclear family performs the function of stabilising adult personalities.
The nuclear family prevents dysfunction and instability in the adults' lives because they support each other and meet each other's emotional needs, especially during stressful times. This prevents dysfunctional and disruptive behaviour such as adultery.
Parsons' Warm Bath theory suggests that when a man comes home from a busy day of work, his family provides him with stress relief and relaxation; just as a warm bath would. This ensures the emotional needs of the breadwinner are met.
The role of secondary socialisation according to Parsons
Parsons agreed with Murdock about the importance of the family providing primary socialisation for children. He built on this idea and distinguished between primary and secondary socialisation.
Secondary socialisation refers to the influence and teachings of societal institutions on children to socialise them into broader society. Societal institutions are institutions outside of the family, such as schools, religious organisations, the media, and eventually, the world of employment. Parsons argued that whilst primary socialisation teaches children the family's values, secondary socialisation teaches children society's norms and values.
Secondary socialisation comes from sources such as peers, education, work, religion, and media. StudySmarter Originals, Shikha Shah
Functionalist perspective on divorce
Functionalists generally see divorce as a negative thing, as the family is a key institution in society. If it is threatened or unstable due to divorce, children will not receive adequate primary socialisation.
Divorce also represents a decrease in the social order. If familial and/or cultural ties are broken down, it can lead to anomie for adults as well as children. Functionalists claim that it is hard to replace the family unit and the functions it carries out.
Evaluation of functionalist perspectives of the family
Let's look at some evaluations of functionalist perspectives of the family. These will include general points, as well as points specific to each theory.
General criticisms of functionalist perspectives on family
Research conducted by historians and anthropologists has found that Murdock's and Parsons' statements about society and family structures are inaccurate.
In his work The World We Have Lost, Peter Laslett (1972) studied pre-industrial families and found that the most common type of family in pre-industrial communities was the nuclear family, not the extended family. Therefore, Parsons' claim that industrialisation led to the advent of the nuclear family is not true - it may have actually been the other way around.
Michael Anderson (1971) found that due to geographical mobility and high urban costs in industrial times, nuclear families would move in with their extended families to save costs and strengthen social ties. Extended families provided support that was not yet given by the state, e.g. grandparents looked after children, which enabled parents to work. In return, the parents took care of the elderly or sick. His research was based on the 1851 Consensus of Preston.
Other general criticisms include:
- Functionalism has been condemned for presenting an overly harmonious picture of families. Functionalist sociologists ignore the darker side of the family.
- The theory is criticised for being outdated; in recent times, gender roles have declined and women are more likely to be financially independent.
- The functionalist perspective is too deterministic; just because children are socialised to accept social norms and values doesn't mean they'll always adopt them. It undermines the control individuals have over their personalities and behaviours.
Marxist criticisms of functionalist perspectives on family
Marxist theorists argue that:
Functionalism focuses too much on the positive aspects of the family. It ignores conflicts between different groups in society such as the working class and the bourgeoisie.
Reproduction is seen as a key function of the family; however, Marxists view it as the reproduction of the next generation of workers who will be exploited by the bourgeoisie.
Family socialises children into accepting capitalist ideology as dominant and the 'natural' way of thinking so that they do not question authority in school (and later, in the workplace). Primary socialisation is an early form of ideological control.
The family unit helps private companies sell products and increase profits. Therefore, it does not serve everyone's interests, but only those of the bourgeoisie.
Emotional support and encouragement from the family relieves the stress of selling one's labour, which makes it more likely that workers will continue to accept their working conditions without revolting.
Feminist criticisms of functionalist perspectives on family
The functionalist perspective on the family is criticised by feminists as well.
The traditional allocation of gender roles in the family, namely, Parsons' distinction between instrumental (male) and expressive (female) roles, is patriarchal because it creates unequal power dynamics at the expense of women.
Women do not have a say in familial decisions due to the aforementioned gender roles.
Divorce is stigmatised because couples are encouraged to stay together no matter what. Women in 'eggshell', dysfunctional, or abusive marriages cannot leave.
The family socialises children into accepting patriarchal society; this is the function of primary socialisation.
Functionalists ignore the non-harmonious side of the family, namely the physical, financial, emotional, and sexual abuse of women by men.
Even if women undertake paid employment, they are expected to continue being solely responsible for housework and childcare; this is known as the 'triple shift'. Men aren't expected to take on their fair share of duties, so the division of labour is wholly unequal.
Marxist feminist criticisms of functionalist perspectives on family
Sociologists who operate from both a Marxist and feminist lens have their own particular criticisms of the functionalist perspective.
- Just as men are exploited by the bourgeoisie for labour, women are exploited by men for domestic and emotional labour due to the gender roles imposed by capitalist, patriarchal society.
- Confining women to the home and family means that men have to work. Gender roles, therefore, help to uphold the capitalist structure.
- Marxist feminist Fran Ansley argues that Parsons' Warm Bath theory is simply a rosy representation of the fact that men unload their stress and anger on women, leading to issues such as domestic violence.
Functionalist Perspectives on the Family - Key takeaways
Explanations 
Exams 
Magazine 
