To What Extent Do Functionalist Writings Accurately Reflect the Role of the Family in Modern Societies?
Functionalist writings go into much depth in regard to the state and roles of the family in modern, post industrial revolution, society. How accurately the interpretation and observations that are made by the Functionalist view represent the state of the family is, however, a contentious point.
Functionalists see the family as the key place where primary socialisation of the young, next generation of society, takes place. The functionalist view of the family is that the family is the corner stone of the whole of society; indeed, the writings of key functionalists, such as Murdock and Parsons describe the family as having four basic functions – sexual, reproductive, economic and educational.
All of these functions can be seen in the model modern family – it is, in effect, somewhat of an idealistic view of the way in which family within society behaves. This is one way in which the functionalist perspective is challenged. When looking at modern society and the role family has within it, the functionalist perspective fails to identify that, in some cases, this family model does not exist. Both Murdock and Parsons observations of the family have failed to identify with any other form or institution that may be in place to emulate, and that can take the role of, the family. Indeed, as Morgan notes in his criticism of Murdock’s view on the family, Murdock does not answer ‘to what extent these basic functions are inevitably linked with the institution of the nuclear family’ (Morgan, 1975). By doing this, both Murdock and Parsons fail to depict the form that alternatives to the family may take, and thus cannot reflect the modern role of the family in society today accurately.
Another criticism of the functionalist representation of the family is that it does not take into account the effect that different social classes and religious views have on the form of the modern family. Clearly, modern society has a multi-religious, multi-class organisation, and this
Functionalists see the family as the key place where primary socialisation of the young, next generation of society, takes place. The functionalist view of the family is that the family is the corner stone of the whole of society; indeed, the writings of key functionalists, such as Murdock and Parsons describe the family as having four basic functions – sexual, reproductive, economic and educational.
All of these functions can be seen in the model modern family – it is, in effect, somewhat of an idealistic view of the way in which family within society behaves. This is one way in which the functionalist perspective is challenged. When looking at modern society and the role family has within it, the functionalist perspective fails to identify that, in some cases, this family model does not exist. Both Murdock and Parsons observations of the family have failed to identify with any other form or institution that may be in place to emulate, and that can take the role of, the family. Indeed, as Morgan notes in his criticism of Murdock’s view on the family, Murdock does not answer ‘to what extent these basic functions are inevitably linked with the institution of the nuclear family’ (Morgan, 1975). By doing this, both Murdock and Parsons fail to depict the form that alternatives to the family may take, and thus cannot reflect the modern role of the family in society today accurately.
Another criticism of the functionalist representation of the family is that it does not take into account the effect that different social classes and religious views have on the form of the modern family. Clearly, modern society has a multi-religious, multi-class organisation, and this