The Impact On The Society Of Functionalism And Marxism

To assess how Functionalism contributes to society’s view on families and households, I will compare the Functionalist perspective to the Marxist perspective as both have extremely strong influences on sociology’s understanding and allows us, as a society to pick and choose what aspects we agree with and to then apply those factors to our understanding. I will be using the theories of Murdock and Parsons as Functionalists, and Marx and Engels as Marxists to study how functionalism affects sociology’s views and understandings of families and households.

Functionalists have very strong views on how society is like the human body, and how the family needs to operate within this perspective by performing certain functions in specific ways to benefit the individuals within the structure. George Murdock states that there are four main functions of the family, these include; stable satisfaction of the sex drive, reproduction of the next generation, socialisation of the young and meeting economic needs. These four functions are believed to only be performed ably if the family fits the criteria of a ‘Nuclear Family’- meaning that the family must be of the traditional two-parent type, insinuating an Expressive role (women) – geared towards childcare and domestic work, and an Instrumental role (men) – geared towards earning money and achieving success.

Get quality help now

Writer Lyla

Verified writer

Proficient in: Marxism

5 (876)

“ Have been using her for a while and please believe when I tell you, she never fail. Thanks Writer Lyla you are indeed awesome ”

+84 relevant experts are online

Hire writer

‘‘I do not believe that a single parent family can ever perform the functions needed from a family’’

How does the idea of a Nuclear Family contribute to society’s understanding? Well, without their view of a two parents family being the only able and competent type, today’s society would not have the belief of a traditional two parent family being normal and most widely accepted, therefore shaping our opinions on single parent families in addition to today’s norms and values.

The functional fit theory (Parsons) states that the needed functions of the family change depending on the environmental and societal situations. For example, the use of extended family for childcare and help was very common and widely accepted during the pre-industrial society, however, this changed when society transformed into an industrial state, and this meant that the Nuclear Family fit with the environmental demands, meaning that the help of extended family was no longer needed as the government took their place as being able to help in the same ways, therefore incurring a loss of function for the preindustrial society family, therefore Parsons viewed that the family – of the Nuclear kind – now had only two irreducible functions: primary socialisation of children and stabilisation of adult personalities.

However Karl Marx believed in the polar opposite to a Functionalist’s view. He openly stated that all of society’s institutions – including the family – helped to maintain class inequality and the rising problem of capitalism. Engles, a famous Marxist, said that “Monogamy is essential due to the potential inheritance”. In saying this, she believed that the family had turned patriarchal and monogamous, resulting in men being allowed to emerge as able to secure the means on production, as they could inherit property/wealth leading to authority over women as they had property and possessions of their own. Engels then went on to say that women were now merely the instruments of child production and that men were the breadwinners.

In this argument, Elizabeth Bott, a feminist, is also seen to be against the Functionalist view. She believes that there are two types of conjugal roles, segregated – where the husband and wife have different responsibilities, (homemaker and breadwinner), and that their leisure time is spent away from each other, and joint – where domestic and money earning responsibilities are shared and leisure time is spent together. Delving into Bott’s theory deeper, and making it more precise, are Young and Wilmot, March of Progress theorists. Young and Wilmot conducted research in Bethnal Green into how husbands and wives spent their time and how responsibilities were shared. Their findings suggested evidence of a more Symmetrical Family, where roles were not identical but now more similar, meaning that women could go to work as men started to help with domestic issues. Therefore, society’s and sociologist’s views on the family and households are now swayed by the counterarguments of Marxists, Feminists and March of Progress’. How do we know this?

In today’s society, it is seen as normal and right for women to go to work and to be helped with domestic work from partners and husbands. In fact, it is now seen as unacceptable for women to be denied the right to work and to earn their own source of income. Both arguments reveal to sociologists that today’s society is extremely influential based on what is seen as acceptable and normal. However, there are also many criticisms of the Marxist theory which leads to the acceptance of the Functionalist perspective. Because Marxists assume that the Nuclear Family solely dominates a capitalist society, they ignore a wide and increasing variety of family structures that are emerging, this also links to the

Functionalist criticism of Marxism, that Marxists ignore the actual feelings and benefits that a family as a unit, provide for its members. Therefore, Functionalism has a very strong impact on our understanding of families and households as their concepts have influenced our beliefs and what is seen to be normal – two parent families that can provide for us economically and emotionally. But on the other hand, today’s norms and values regarding families now accept that there are diversities within the variety of family structures – meaning that most of our understandings are because of the strong Functionalist views, but Marxism also influences certain aspects of our opinions.