For many, families are a source of love and comfort. For others, such as Marxists, families are the mark of an unequal society.
But why? And why is the ownership of private property important? We can read more about Marxist perspectives on the family below.
- We will start by recapping our knowledge of Marxism generally.
- Next, we will look at several Marxist perspectives, including those of Engels, Zaretsky, Bourdieu and Althusser.
- We will look at the key terms presented by each Marxist.
- Lastly, we will evaluate the Marxist perspectives on the family.
Let's begin!
Marxist perspective: definition
We will look at a definition of a Marxist perspective before we consider Marxist perspectives on the family.
Simply put, a Marxist perspective is one that originates from the theory of Marxism.
An overview of Marxist theory
Marxism is a sociological conflict theory that originates from the work of Karl Marx. Its fundamental argument is that capitalist society is based on inequalities between the 'bourgeoisie' (ruling capitalist class) and 'proletariat' (working class). Due to these inequalities, Marxism sees society as being in constant conflict between these social classes.
Marxism is also a structural theory, which means it believes societal structures shape individuals. Individuals are the product of social structures and socialisation.
Marxist perspectives on family
Now that we have outlined the general thesis of Marxism, let us consider the Marxist perspectives on the family.
Marxists see each institution of society as performing the role of upholding the capitalist superstructure, which ultimately helps to sustain a capitalist society.
In line with this, Marxists state that the function of the family is to maintain the capitalist superstructure of society. According to followers of the theory, capitalism created the system of what we know as the privatised, monogamous nuclear family.
What is a nuclear family?
A nuclear family refers to a traditional family structure consisting of a two-parent family with one or more children. The classic idea of a nuclear family is made up of a monogamous, heterosexual couple.
Fig. 1 - The image above shows a traditional nuclear family.
According to Marxist sociologists, this family structure enables the bourgeoisie (the elite ruling class) to pass down their capital and private property to their children. This reinforces social class inequalities.
The nuclear family serves the interest of the capitalist system in several ways:
The family reproduces the next generation of workers that will be exploited as labour-power by the capitalist systems of production.
It socialises children into accepting capitalist ideologies and authority, which prepares them to accept control and exploitation in the workplace. This makes both the parents and children think the exploitation is 'normal' and creates false class consciousness.
Thus, the nuclear family is only beneficial to capitalism and the ruling class.
Friedrich Engels' views on the family
We'll start by looking at German philosopher Friedrich Engels' views on the family. According to Engels, the nuclear family structure arose during the emergence of capitalism.
He argued that we went from an age of primitive communism to capitalism through the establishment of family norms such as private ownership and inheritance, and this was done through the oppression of women.
Primitive communism
During the time of 'primitive communism', there was no private property and thus no social classes or private family units. Properties and resources were owned collectively. Instead of smaller families, there were large groups of hunters and gatherers working together to survive.
Inheritance of private property
With the emergence of capitalism, the bourgeoisie began owning private property for the purposes of personal profit. In order to keep this property, they had to find a way to prevent it from being shared with everyone else.
Thus started the structure of the monogamous nuclear family - with a definitive way of identifying a legitimate heir, the ruling class could pass down their private property and wealth to their children.
According to Engels, this reproduced and reinforced social class inequality. The bourgeoisie owned all of the wealth and resources and passed it down to the next generation of rich capitalists whilst the proletariat, the working masses, had nothing. The rich remained rich whilst the poor remained poor.
The monogamous, nuclear family structure, therefore, became clearly advantageous to class hierarchy and inequality and therefore capitalism.
Fig. 2 - The nuclear family structure allows for the inheritance of private property, which reproduces social class inequalities.
Marxist perspective on marriage: the status of women
It's important to consider the Marxist perspective on marriage, as it leads to the discussion about the status of women under capitalism. Along with the creation of social class inequalities, Engels claimed that the nuclear family also created gender inequality as men took control of women's sexuality and labour to reproduce and raise the next generations.
If capitalism is overthrown, women could be freed not just from the capitalist society but also the patriarchy. In a communist society, there would be no need for a private family unit as there would be no private property. As a result, women would not be subject to male control for the purposes of reproduction.
Marxist perspective on divorce
So if marriage is harmful for women, what about divorce?
Marxists believe that although the nuclear family is upholds capitalism, divorce is also good for capitalism because the couple will have to spend a lot of money on divorcing. Later, they may also spend a lot of money marrying others and forming new families.
Eli Zaretsky's views on the family
Next, we'll look at American professor Eli Zaretksy's views on the family. Zaretsky believes that the nuclear family has several important functions that benefit the capitalist structure: imparting capitalist ideology, and acting as a unit of consumption.
Ideological control in the family
Zaretsky argues that through the family, proletariat children are socialised to accept and embody norms and values that uphold capitalism.
Children are taught:
that the inequality between social classes is 'normal' and 'natural'.
how to respect and conform to authority; hierarchy is inevitable and there will always be someone 'in charge'.
Within the family, this is usually the father; outside the family, it is teachers and employers.
As a result, children are conditioned to accept imbalances of power and control. This 'prepares' them for adulthood so that they can be docile, obedient workers and retain false class consciousness.
Therefore, the family has an ideological function that upholds the capitalist superstructure.
The family as a unit of consumption
Zaretsky sees the family as a major unit of consumption of goods and services. This means that the family serves not only an ideological function, but also an economic function.
Family competition through consumption
Families are encouraged to constantly purchase the latest products and services to appear 'fashionable' and show off their 'high' status to their relatives, neighbours, and peers. This is also referred to as 'keeping up with the Joneses'.
Consumer goods and services that signify a family's wealth and status include the best cars, designer clothing, expensive toys, and luxurious holidays.
People are influenced to compete with each other through consumption. Mass media and advertising campaigns help to feed this.
Targeted advertising to children
Companies build demand for their products through targeted advertising to children, who request expensive products from their parents. This is called 'pester power'.
Zaretsky claims that this economic function is a bourgeois ideology perpetuated to ensure families spend money and create profits for the bourgeoisie. Thus, there is no material benefit for the family itself, only for the capitalist structure.
Fig. 3 - Zarestsky claims that families are urged to appear trendy by buying the latest products.
Pierre Bourdieu's views on the family
Next, we'll consider French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu's views on the family. Bourdieu claimed that the family reproduces social class inequalities in every generation through its children.
In particular, he focused on the experiences of middle-class and working-class children in education and work, namely through the lenses of economic, cultural, and social capital.
Economic capital
The term 'economic capital' refers to money and resources, often denoting disposable income or material possessions.
Children from wealthy families have the benefit of more economic capital from their parents and can therefore enjoy better educational opportunities. This includes access to private education and tutors, enriching school trips, and computers or laptops.
Due to this, middle-class children are more likely to succeed academically and beyond.
On the other hand, working-class children are unable to achieve similar feats due to a lack of economic capital, even if they are fully capable. They may be forced to leave school early due to poverty and/or the need for extra income.
Bourdieu argued that this lack of economic capital prevents working-class children from accessing the same quality of education as middle-class children. Subsequently, as adults, they can't get well-paid jobs and therefore are unable to 'move up' the social ladder and improve their circumstances.
Cultural capital
Cultural capital refers to the 'right' knowledge, understanding, and attitudes towards culture and cultural history.
Middle-class students are more likely to have positive experiences and higher expectations of education, e.g. aspiring to university education, due to their parents' own positive experiences.
Middle-class children are also likely to know the 'right' ways of behaving, speaking, and dressing that are valued by other middle-class adults, such as teachers.
Conversely, working-class children suffer from a lack of cultural capital as they may not have the same knowledge or attitudes about education or how to behave. As a result, teachers may not value or assess them as highly as middle-class children.
Due to no fault of their own, working-class children miss out on cultural capital as their parents cannot offer them this advantage in the same way as their middle-class counterparts.
Social capital
Social capital refers to the access to important or influential contacts or networks.
Families of middle-class children are more likely to possess social capital and use it to give their children opportunities, such as a respectable work placement or a spot at a top university.
On the other hand, working-class children are less likely to enjoy such benefits and thus may miss out on work and educational opportunities.
Bourdieu argued that all of the above factors mean that working-class children have a 'cultural deficit'. The education system perceives middle-class values, experiences, and knowledge as superior and as a result, working-class children are more likely to drop out of school and miss out on opportunities.
Fig. 4 - Bourdieu states that working-class children don't have adequate economic capital which means they cannot benefit from advantages such as enriching school trips.
Louis Althusser's views on the family
Lastly, we'll look at French philosopher and sociologist Louis Althusser's views on the family. Althusser emphasised the ideological functions of the family.
Similar to the Marxist belief that institutions such as education, religion, and the media teach people how to behave, the nuclear family is an imbalanced structure that teaches its members to accept imbalances of power in wider society. For example:
Husbands are taught to obey their employers and other authorities.
Wives are taught to submit to their husbands, which creates unequal gender relations in society.
Children are taught to obey their parents, especially fathers, to prepare them to submit to authorities e.g. teachers, employers and the state.
According to Althusser, the role of the family is to produce submissive individuals that will benefit the capitalist system.
Advantages and disadvantages of Marxist perspectives on family
We will now consider the advantages and disadvantages of the different Marxist perspectives on the family. We will do this by considering criticisms generally, and criticisms from other structural theories.
Advantages
General criticisms
The Marxist perspective on the family focuses on the nuclear family and ignores other family types that exist in contemporary society.
As a result, the Marxist perspective does not give a full understanding of the role of the family.
The perspective is overly deterministic and views individuals as too passive. Not everyone conforms to or accepts the values of capitalism.
The New Right argues that there are benefits of the nuclear family, such as the support given to children by two parents.
The nuclear family is a common family type found universally, suggesting that it is functional and chosen by families.
There is not much research to suggest that the emergence of capitalism created the nuclear family structure.
Positive feelings and associations with the family aren't necessarily always due to false class consciousness or subjugation; some women, for example, may genuinely feel fulfilled and satisfied with their role in a nuclear family.
Functionalist criticisms
Functionalists argue that Marxists hold an overly negative view of the family. Talcott Parsons claims that the family has positive functions, such as providing a 'safe haven' and place of comfort for its members.
A family is a stable unit and institution that keeps society stable. This benefits society as a whole, not just a particular group.
Feminist criticisms
Feminists argue that Marxists focus too much on social class inequalities whilst disregarding the role of the family in maintaining gender inequalities. The family harms women more than the working class, as there are gender inequalities within the working class too.
Unequal gender relations existed before the emergence of capitalism, contrary to Engels' belief. It is unlikely that overthrowing capitalism will remove patriarchy altogether.
Marxist feminist criticisms
Women are doubly oppressed, both by capitalism and patriarchy. They are exploited for unpaid domestic labour and for their ability to reproduce, which benefits men and capitalism respectively.
Marxist-feminist Fran Ansley argues that men unload their stress and anger towards the capitalist system on women, which leads to domestic violence.
Marxist Perspectives on the Family - Key Takeaways
Marxists see the role and function of the family as upholding the capitalist superstructure. The nuclear family serves the interests of the capitalist system.
Engels claimed that capitalism’s emergence created the nuclear family structure, so the bourgeoisie could pass down private property. This upholds the capitalist system.
Zaretsky believes the family performs both an ideological function and an economic function that benefits the bourgeoisie.
Bourdieu claimed that working-class children suffer from a cultural deficit and thus miss out on opportunities in work and education. This reinforces social class inequalities.
- The Marxist perspective on the family is criticised generally and by other structural theories: functionalism, feminism, and Marxist-feminism.
Explanations 
Exams 
Magazine 
