The Relationship of the Family to Social Structure

The family as a universal social institution

George Murdock advanced the thesis in Social Structure that the family was a universal social institution found in all societies. His claim was based on his study of 250 societies of all kinds — from small hunting communities to industrial societies.

He definition of a family indicates that it is a social group that lives together, shares resources, works as a unit and rears children. In a family there are at least two adult members that conduct a sexual relationship that is tolerated by the norms of the society they live in.

The smallest family unit is known as the nuclear family — and consists of a husband and wife and their children. If other individuals are included in the family, then the family is called an extended family. Extensions to the nuclear family can take the form of (a) vertical extensions — including other generations, such as the parents of the spouses; or (b) horizontal extensions — including members of the same generation as the spouses — such as the wife's brother.

There have been challenges to the thesis that the family is universal. For example, Kathleen Gough studied the Nayar of Kerala in Southern India prior to the establishment of the British Raj in 1792. In this society marriage took the form of a ritual connecting a girl to another Nayar man, but partners of such a marriage did not cohabit, and the wife had only one duty, which was to attend the funeral of her husband and mourn his death. This unusual marriage rite is connected to the fact that Nayar men were professional mercenaries and were often absent from their villages. On return to their village they were allowed to have sexual relations with any of the women in the village, provided they were of lower or equal caste than themselves. Such relations were known as sandbanham wives. A man could have an unlimited number of such relations, but a woman was expected to limit the number to twelve visiting husbands.

It is argued that this shows that the family is not universal, since men have no duties to their sandbanham wives and do not cohabit with them. Such relationships do not form an economic unit. The economic unit was based on brothers and sisters, and the eldest male was the leader of each such kin.

However, it could be argued that families do exist in this society — based on the brother/sister relationship, and that Murdock's definition of the family is too narrow.

Another possible exception to the universal existence of the family concerns black families in the West Indies, the USA and elsewhere. The 'family' unit in black societies is often made up of a woman and her dependent children. Such families are matriarchal families. Sometimes the term matrifocal is used to describe them.

However, such families tend to be concentrated in low-income black communities. There are several explanations for this. (a) Melville Herskovits argues that the traditional family in West Africa was based on polygamy, and that this tends to give the father a marginal role in the first instance. (b) M.G. Smith argues that slavery fostered the matriarchal family since under slavery the man was often split from the wife, but the mother was rarely split from her children. (c) Elliot Liebow argues that poverty is a cause of the matriarchal family in the USA since a black man may desert his family because he has insufficient funds to support it and play the role of father successfully. (d) Oscar Lewis's concept of a culture of poverty may be indicate that a “vicious circle” principle is involved: since matriarchal families are so common, they become the norm, and hence self-perpetuating.

Functionalist perspectives

George Murdock in his study of 250 societies also identifies four basic functions of the family (a) sexual; (b) reproductive; (c) economic and (d) educational.

Regarding the sexual function, marriage legitimates sexual relations between a man and a woman, and limits the extent to which sexual relations can take place outside the bond. He argues that the sexual function serves to stabilize society by containing sexual impulses to legitimate relationships.

Murdock claims that the economic function is “most readily and satisfactorily achieved by persons living together”. He is very much in favour of the continuing existence of the family, claiming that “No society has succeeded in finding an adequate substitute for the nuclear family, to which it might transfer these functions. It is highly doubtful whether any society will ever succeed in such an attempt.”

In reply to Murdock it could be said that (a) he has not seriously considered whether some other form of social unit could act as an alternative to the family; (b) he idealises the family and glosses over its defects presenting it as a harmonious institution.

Talcott Parsons is another functionalist. According to his analysis the two basic functions of the family are (a) “the primary socialization of children” and (b) the “stablilization of adult personalities of the population of society”.

Primary socialization is the process taking place during the early years of childhood when children are taught norms and social roles within the family; secondary socialization occurs subsequently when the child is influenced by other agencies such as school and peer groups. Primary socialization involves (a) the internalization of society's culture and (b) the structuring of the personality. According to Parsons only the family can effectively carry out these two functions.

However, Parsons is also criticized for creating an idealized picture of the family which papers over the signs of maladjustment. His interpretation of the family is based on observations of American middle-class families, and he also does not consider alternatives to the family.

Nonetheless, his views are supported by other sociologists. Brigitte and Peter Berger in The War Over the Family argue that, whilst the family is not ideal, only the “bourgeois family” can effectively meet the demands of a modern society.

They trace the origin of the bourgeois family to the middle-classes of the nineteenth century Europe, especially those of Germany and Britain. At this time the family became child-centred, developed strong moral codes, placed an emphasis on economic success and became religious. As mortality rates fell the child-centred character of the family increased.

The benefits of the bourgeois family are (a) children learn to respect their parents; (b) yet they also develop as individuals.

However, a bourgeois family can only develop where private property also develops. They argue that “Only if the child has a sense of what is properly his can he share that property with others; in the absence of private property of any sort, there can be no deliberate acts of sharing.”

They try to demonstrate that alternatives to the family do not perform these functions. In a kibbutz collective child-rearing results in people who lack individualism and are excessively conformist and easily dominated by society. The bourgeois family creates individuals that can take an independent stand against society even though they respect the basic values of society.

Critical Views

Not everyone agrees that the family is a good thing. For example, Edmund Leach in A Runaway World is concerned about the destruction of the extended family brought about by industrialization. He writes, “In the past kinsfolk and neighbours gave the individual continuous moral support throughout his life. Today the domestic household is isolated. The family looks inward upon itself; there is an intensification of emotional stress between husband and wife and parents and children. The strain is greater than most of us can bear.” He paints of picture of nuclear families huddled together hiding behind barriers between themselves and other families and society as a whole. He concludes, “Far from being the basis of the good society, the family, with its narrow privacy and tawdry secrets, is the source of all our discontents.”

R.D. Laing offers a critique of the family from the perspective of psychiatry. In The Politics of the Family he disputes the use of the term 'schizophrenic' to describe the behaviour of certain individuals, arguing that schizophrenic behaviour makes “sense” within the context of certain family interactions. He seeks to demonstrate the destructive potential in the family. He calls a family group a nexus and states that in such a nexus, “Each partner is concerned about what the other thinks, feels, does.” This makes individuals within the family vulnerable. For example, if a son is criticized by his father he is damaged by it, even if he seeks and obtains the protection of his mother. Laing concludes, “A family can act as gangsters, offering each other mutual protection against each other's violence.” In addition to this, each member of the family internalizes the interactions of the family — this is damaging in that it prevents the development of the self. So the problems within the family create problems in society.

Marxist perspectives

Engels put forward a Marxist interpretation of the family in his The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State, published in 1884. In this work he describes the evolution of the family. He maintains that at some early stage of human evolution the means of production were owned communually and there was a period of primitive communism. Sexual relations were promiscuous. Naturally, this interpretation of man's primitive past is questioned, but Kathleen Gough claims that it is basically valid. She compares men to chimpanzees, who live in promiscuous communal groups, and argues that this may have been the pattern for early humans.

According to Engles, following the period of primitive communism marriage evolved through several stages that include polygny and finally took the form of the monogamous nuclear family. The monogamous nuclear family emerged as a result of the development of private property. He writes, “It is based on the supremacy of man, the express purpose being to produce children of undisputed paternity; such paternity is demanded because these children are later to come into their father's property as his natural heir.”

Engles based his work on the work of the nineteenth century anthropologist Lewis Henry Morgan in his work Ancient Society. This work has been criticized, and Engles work may be flawed as a result. Yet Gough continues to maintain that “the general trend of Engel's argument still appears sound”.

Eli Zaretsky analyses the relationship between the family and economic life. He maintains that it is because work is so alienating that the family is extolled. The family seems to provide a source of satisfaction that cannot be found in society as a whole. On the other hand, he claims that the family cannot fulfill these aspirations; “it simply cannot meet the pressures of being the only refuge in a brutal society”. However, he acknowledges that the family serves to support capitalism, which in his view is based on the domestic labour of housewives and their role as mothers producing the workers of the next generation.

Feminist perspectives

Feminists are also critical of the family. There are two types of feminists (a) Marxist feminists and (b) radical feminists.

Marxist feminists accept the Marxist premise that the relations between men and women within marriage are conditioned by economic forces outside it. A male dominated society is known as a patriarchy. The Marxist feminists sees patriarchy as arising out of capitalism.

Such feminists see the production of labour power as the way in which capitalism exploits women. According to Margaret Benston “The amount of unpaid labour performed by women is very large and very profitable to those who own the means of production.” The existence of the family also acts against the development of revolutionary consciousness: “As an economic unit, the nuclear family is a valuable stabilizing force in capitalist society. Since the production which is done in the home is paid for by the husband-father's earnings, his ability to withhold labour from the market is much reduced.” The family produces and maintains the labour force, and at minimal cost to the employer. Wives also supply emotional support to their husbands, helping them to unwind from the frustration created by their exploitation in the work-place. Kathy McAfee and Myrna Wood argue that “The petty dictatorship which most men exercise over their wives and families enables them to vent their anger and frustration in a way which poses no challenge to the system.” David Cooper calls the family “an ideological conditioning device in an exploitive society.” Children learn inside families to submit to authority, thus making them into obedient and submissive workers as adults. Diane Feeley claims that the family socializes young people into accepting their place within a class-stratified society.

Barrett and McIntosh are feminists who attack the idealized image portrayed by functionalists of the family. The draw attention to the fact that many violent and sexual crimes take place within the family. 25% of all reported violent crimes are assaults by husbands on their wives. There is also the problem of marital rape.

Radical feminists argue that patriarchy is not the product of capitalism but is a more fundamental principle of social organization. They claim that the oppression of women is the most fundamental and universal form of domination. Delphy and Leonard represent this view in that they regard men and not capitalism as the primary beneficiary of the exploitation of women's labour. The source of the oppression of women is not in the way in which their roles are created by social forces, but the way in which their work within the family is expropriated by men. They base their argument on (a) statistics that show that only 1 in 25 familes have a woman as a head of the household where there are other adults included; (b) the male head of house is the one who “decides what needs doing in a given situation”; (c) the family work for this male head unpaid; (d) female relatives have to do unpaid domestic work. Wives have “sexual and reproductive work” in addition to domestic work; (e) payments within the family are not related to the amount of work done; (f) contracts within the family are based on informal methods of negotiation that disadvantage women; (g) when women are employed outside the house they still have to carry out domestic tasks.

According to Delphy and Leonard, “the amount of time women spend on domestic work has not declined this century and they still do twice as much each day as men in all western and eastern bloc countries even when they have paid employment.” Husbands do not share housework fairly. Wives also have to listen to their husband's problems and pander to their egos. Their claims are based on the following sources: (a) Goldthorpe and Lockwood's 1962 study of affluent workers; (b) a 1970 study of 500 workers and their wives at a Bristol packing company that showed that husbands did not want their wives to have paid employment; (c) A 1980s study of redundant steel workers in Port Talbot in Wales that showed that even unemployed men did not want to do housework; (d) Delphy's study of French farming families that showed how important women's labour was to the success of French farms. They conclude that the family is a patriarchal structure that serves to dominate and exploit women.

The Changing Functions of the Family

According to Talcott Parsons the family is losing many of its traditional functions. “It [the family] does not itself, except here and there, engage in much economic production; it is not a significant unit in the political power system; it is not a major direct agency of integration of the larger society.” However, Parsons maintains that the family is still very important. Its role is becoming more specialized. Its main contemporary function is the structuring of the personalities of young people and their stabilization as adults: “the family is more specialized than before, but not in any general sense less important, because society is dependent more exclusively on it for the performance of certain of its vital functions.”

According to Dennis families are also essential to people's inner needs: “marriage has become the only institution in which the individual can expect esteem and love. Adults have no-one on whom they have the right to lean for this sort of support at all comparable with their right to lean on their spouse.” Young and Willmott have a similar conclusion: “as the disadvantages of the new industrial and impersonal society have become more pronounced, so the family has become more prized for its power to counteract them.”

This constitutes the thesis that the family is losing most of its functions and specializing in those it retains. However, not everyone agrees. Fletcher in The Family and Marriage in Britain argues that the functions of the family have 'increased in detail and importance'. (a) He agrees that the family's role in socializing the young has been retained. State education has increased the importance of this role rather than diminished it. (b) Likewise, the existence of state health services has increased rather than decreased the role of the family in providing care for its members. (c) Although the family does not function as a unit of production, it does function as a unit of consumption, so its economic role is not diminished overall. Most purchases are made for and on behalf of the family.

Young and Willmott concur when they comment that workers are motivated to work by their desire for consumption goods.