‘a Family Can Be Defined as a Married Heterosexual Couple and Their Children’. How Have Social Scientists Challenged This Kind of Conventional Definition of the Uk Family?

‘A family can be defined as a married heterosexual couple and their children’. How have social scientists challenged this kind of conventional definition of the UK family?
Since there are lots of different perceptions or even conflicts on family life, the sociologist is challenging greatly of the family (Cheal, D. 1991:1). The changes in family living and household composition are mainly concerned as a contemporary core. (Jagger, G. and Wright, C. 1999:1). According to Sherratt and Hughes, although families are fluid and diverse, the divisions’ persistence and family’s inequalities still exist (Fergusson, R. and Hughes, G. 2004:75). This essay will argue the functional approach to family is more crucial than the structure approach for social scientists to challenge the conventional definition of family in the United Kingdom. Also, the diversity structures of family and the changes of power in family such as feminism will be explained in this essay respectively.

It is suggested that the structure approach to family is less important than the functional approach to family. Cheal defined the structure of family as grouping of system’s parts, such as the family roles of mother, father and child (Cheal, D. 2002:162). For the approach of structure of family, the kind of family members, the relationships, positions or roles, are consisted within the family and the members of family are interacted but the activities of the family or the consequences of their activities are not included. For instance, it included the main roles of the parents in family might be transited values to child, to let child get ready to go to school and provided food for them. Still, it tends to be insignificant for social scientists to challenge. Therefore, they emphasis on family functions more (Cheal, D. 2002:7).

The functional approach to family focus on the activities when people being together and the methods to support between them. The family are responsible for certain functions such

References: Allan, G. and Crow, G. (2001). Families, Households and Society. New York: Palgrave BBC NEWS(April 29th 2004) Berthoud, R. (2000). Introduction: the dynamics of social change. In Berthoud, R. and Gershuny, J. (Ed.), Seven years in the lives of British families. (pp 1-20). Bristol: The Policy Press. Cheal, D. (1991). Family and The State of Theory. Hertfordshire: Harvester Wheatsheaf. Cheal, D. (2002). Sociology of Family Life. UK: Palgrave Macmillan. Crow, G Directgov(2 July 2010). How things have changed: 1970s to now: Directgov – Newsroom. Retrieved November 12th, 2011 From: http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Nl1/Newsroom/DG_189061 Ermisch, J. and Francesconi, M. (2000).Patterns of household and family formation. In Berthoud, R. and Gershuny, J. (Ed.), Seven years in the lives of British families. (pp 1-20). Bristol: The Policy Press. Jagger, G. and Wright, C.(1999). Changing Family Values. New York: Routledge . Littlewood, B McRae, S. (1999). Cohabitation or Marriage? - Cohabitation. In Allan, G. (Ed.), The sociology of the family. (pp 172-190). UK: Blackwell Publishers Ltd. Nazroo, J. (1999). Uncovering Gender differences in the use of Marital violence: The effect of Methodology. In Allan, G. (Ed.), The sociology of the family. (pp 149-168). UK: Blackwell Publishers Ltd. O’Donnell, K. (1999). Lesbian and gay families: legal perspectives. In Jagger, G. and Wright, C. (Ed.), Changing family values. (pp.77-97). London: Routledge. Sherratt, N. and Hughes, G.(2004). Family: from tradition to diversity. In Fergusson, R. and Hughes, G. (Ed.), Ordering lives. (pp 45-81). New York: Routledge.