s o c i o l o g y

A Level Sociology

[jwanjournal]

MARXISM OVERVIEW

Marxism is a conflict theory, and describes the history of civilizations in terms of class-conflicts. The perspective is mostly concerned with criticism of capitalism - the dominant economic system that exists today. 

It defines capitalism as the conflict between the proletariat (the working class) and the bourgeoisie (the middle class). Private property, referring to the means of production (factories, farms, etc.) is owned by the bourgeoisie. Marxists view this as exploitative as the proletariat work and create value in society while the middle-classes reap the rewards (surplus-value) despite performing no labour, simply because they own the land, factories, technology to do so.

See Marxist perspectives on the family, and Marxist perspectives on the role of education.

[jwanjournal]

Above: Chinese poster promoting the one-child policy

FAMILY POLICY IN HISTORY

China’s one-child policy: up until recently, the Chinese government provided incentives to families who only raise one child, in an attempt to control rapid population growth. Only-children in China would receive better housing and educational opportunities later in life, couples who didn’t comply are not only barred from higher tax allowances and free child healthcare, but must pay a fine. Women were encouraged to undergo sterilization after their first child.

Communist Romania: conversely to the Communist Chinese government, the Romanian government in the 1980s introduced policy to increase their declining population. Restricting contraception and abolishing abortion, the government also set up infertility treatment centers, reduced the legal age of marriage to 15 and taxed unmarried/child-free couples at a higher rate.

Nazi Germany: The Nazi government encouraged a healthy and “racially superior” generation through policy such as restricting contraception and abortion to those considered physically fit Aryan-European;  they also sterilized 375,000 disabled individuals, deeming them unfit (eugenics) - in the years to follow thousands were executed in concentration camps. Women were also dismissed from the workforce through Nazi social-policy; the Nazi Government adamant a woman’s place was reserved for ‘children, kitchen and church’.

Democratic Societies: Many argue a healthy symptom of democratic societies such as Britain and the United States, is that the government doesn’t play such large role in the family, upholding the values of individual choice. Only in cases of child-abuse and neglect do the government involve themselves. However, many sociologists (such as Donzelot) claim this very act is an attempt made by the state to exert control over and manage families to determine their structure and function.

[jwanjournal]

Above: Eli Zaretsky (1976), Marxist Sociologist

MARXIST PERSPECTIVES ON THE FAMILY

CRITICISMS

Similarly to Functionalism, Marxist sociology is absent on the subject of variety and diversity regarding family structures existing within society; assuming nuclear families to be dominant in capitalist society. (Evaluate: though largely this is still true, with 12.5 million of 18.6 million UK families being of nuclear structure (large majority), however this is in decline (Office of National Statistics, 2014))

Feminists argue the Marxist analysis of society, and in particular the family, misplace an emphasis on class and capitalism - neglecting the importance of gender inequalities.

Functionalists argue Marxists are ignorant to the real benefits the family provides for it’s members.

[jwanjournal]

MARXIST PERSPECTIVES ON THE FAMILY

Continuation of the functions the family serves in capitalist society:

2. IDEOLOGICAL FUNCTIONS

Much like Functionalists, Marxists believe socialization is a central function to the family; however Marxists argue children are socialized into capitalist ideology (the ideology of the ruling class) that seeks to justify and legitimize inequality and the existence of the class system. 

Parental (especially paternal) authority over children plants the idea that there will always be an authority figure in their lives, especially in that of the work-place with an employer.

Eli Zaretsky (1976) details another ideological function the family performs. By offering a ‘haven’ from the exploitation and alienation suffered by working men in their work-lives. The family pacifies the working class and maintains their false consciousness (an inability to perceive the injustice inflicted upon them) staving off any revolution desire. However, this is not an effective place to relieve tension argues Zaretsky, resulting in male-on-female domestic violence.

3. A UNIT ON CONSUMPTION

The family plays a major role in generating profits for capitalists, as they are consumers of large amounts of consumer goods.

Adverts urge families to ‘keep up with the Joneses’, and to consume all the latest products

The media often targets children, who use “pester-power” and encourage their parents to spend more

Children who lack the latest clothes and toys are often stigmatized and bullied by their peers

Next: see criticisms of the Marxist perspective on the family

[jwanjournal]

Above: Friedrich Engels (1820-1895), Marxist sociologist, philosopher, businessman and journalist (co-founder of Marxist theory)

MARXIST PERSPECTIVES ON THE FAMILY

Like all institutions (religion, education system, the media, etc.) in a capitalist society, Marxists see the family as a means to maintain class inequality.

Marxists have identified several key functions the family fulfills for capitalism:

1. INHERITANCE OF PROPERTY

Friedrich Engels describes how in the earliest form of society (which he called “primitive-communism”), the family simply didn’t exist, much like private-property. Instead there existed a ‘promiscuous horde’ or tribe without restrictions to sexual relationships.

However as history unfolded, and production evolved and industrialized leading to capitalism, the monogamous family was born; this allowed private-property (factories, land, etc.) to be passed from father to son. An inheritance of power.

In Engel’s view, the rise of this monogamous, nuclear family structure represented a “world historical defeat of the female sex” as it brought women’s sexuality under the control of men and turned her into “a mere instrument for the production of children”. (Marxist-feminism)

Next: more key functions the family serves capitalism

[jwanjournal]

CONJUGAL ROLES SOCIOLOGY

DECISION MAKING

Edgell (1980) performed interviews on middle class couples and detailed how the organizational-capabilities of each member were not symmetrical. Wives made decisions regarding decorating and domestic spending; whereas husbands dominated decisions concerning large-scale finance (moving house, new cars, etc.).

Hunt noted that despite women having these capabilities, men still often have the final say, with meals and decoration coordinated in his tastes. It is argued that men are socialized to be the decision makers, and that this is affirmed in patriarchal ideology.

CONTROL OF MONEY

Historically, women haven’t felt entitlement to the “family wage” as traditionally it was brought in by the husband and even today the wife’s earning are perceived as a supplement to basic male income. Hunt observed how the earning of the husband were typically spent on essentials and the wife’s on extras.

Pahl (1993) argued there are three key variations of power relationships which governs the distribution of the family wage:

Husband hands over wage packet - wife gives him “pocket money”

Husband keeps wage packet - provides wife with “housekeeping” allowance

Resources are pooled - spending decisions are made collectively

Pahl argues that the husband’s control over the family-finance provides him with considerable power and makes it difficult for the wife to divorce. However he adds women are better off divorced, as they have autonomous control over state provided benefits.

[jwanjournal]

CONJUGAL ROLES SOCIOLOGY

VARIATIONS IN HOUSEWORK

WOMEN’S PAID EMPLOYMENT

Martin & Roberts (Women and Employment, 1984) claim women’s household labour is only marginally reduced if they also performed paid-work. 

Fiona Devine’s 1992 Study of Luton Car workers demonstrated how although male childcare was prevalent out of necessity, they participated far less than their wives in housework.

Family Studies Center 1987 Study - women in paid employment are expected to also perform a majority of domestic work.

MALE UNEMPLOYMENT

Morris (1987) - found that unemployed male contribution to housework varied by social class, alongside their ‘home-centeredness’

McKee & Bell (1986) - unemployed men rarely perform housework as it threatens their masculinity, already damaged by a lack of labour

However, Leighton suggested that often middle class men who were secure with their wives working did perform more housework, whereas men who weren’t comfortable with working wives performed considerably less

SOCIAL NETWORKS

Elizabeth Bott’s study (1957) - 20 London families, she found that friendship patterns influence the domestic housework relations of the household. Those who shared more close-knit friendship groups were more likely to have a segregated relationship (asymmetrical roles, typically working class).

EVALUATION

Many studies into variations of housework are outdated and no longer reflect the lifestyles and relations of contemporary families

What constitutes as domestic housework can vary and the context of the question can affect the results of studies - for instance studies could ask questions about cooking and cleaning or about DIY and car-repair, both would produce very different results

Measuring housework in terms of time, social class, social networks is reliant on the researcher’s and the participant’s own perceptions (subjectivity)

[jwanjournal]

CONJUGAL ROLES SOCIOLOGY

VARIATIONS IN HOUSE WORK

THE WORKING CLASS

Henriques et al. (Coal is Our Life, 1956) performed a studied a working class mining community. The conjugal roles within the community were traditionally segregated; the husband would work and provide a wage for the family and the wife would perform domestic work. However the men would spend their leisure time with their colleagues, usually at the pub. 'Work-mates’ were seen as more important than their wives as the nature of their work in mines depended on one another to a large degree.

Wilmott and Young (W&Y) (1973) argued that working class families have increasingly become privatized and nuclear - alongside the decline of community-living, the increasing attraction to DIY and the price of rent. This concept is supported by Gavron’s (1968) study which found more working class men were home-centered and family-minded.

THE MIDDLE CLASS

W&Y observed how middle class couples typically exhibited joint conjugal roles due to their greater mobility. Greater symmetry was also found in families with dual-careers, the Rapoports added.

Despite this, Jan Pahl (Money and Marriage, 1989) discussed the fact that men with managerial-orientated/professional jobs (managing director, jobs of high maintenance, etc) dictated the way in which their wive’s lives would be accommodated, many spending their day at home performing domestic chores in exchange for the high quality of living her husband’s career affords.

[jwanjournal]

CONJUGAL ROLES SOCIOLOGY

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE

Dobash & Dobash argue violence against women serves to maintain male authority and the subordination of women within the patriarchal family and wider society. Their study noted that ‘violence was an extension of the husband’s control over his wife’. They also discovered the police were less likely to report domestic violence than GBH. However they are criticized for over emphasizing the prevalence and affect of domestic violence in families.

Pahl’s study provided evidence to suggest unsurprisingly alcohol fueled wife-beating. Rape within marriage was only criminalized in 1991, and only as recently as 2015 in India.

Feminists argue that the act and result of domestic violence dehumanizes and devalues the victim, allowing greater power to be exercised over them.

The New Right, however, argue that domestic violence in households is a result of declining moral values and standards. Criticism: domestic violence has always existed, religious ‘morals’ often advocate female submission and the right to ‘put them in their place’.

Marxists argue that the abuse of women is a symptom of alienation and the suffering of workers under capitalism. Working men, antagonized by the class-system misdirect their anger at their wives. This also serves the function of relieving tension and pacifying people’s anger that could otherwise be directed at the economic system.

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AGAINST MEN

Another dimension to the issue of domestic violence often neglected by feminist sociology; 1 in 6 men will experience domestic violence in their lifetimes - men between the ages of 20 and 24 are just as likely as women to experience this violence.

Reports of female-on-male domestic violence have increased significantly, here are two suggestions as to why:

It’s always been around, however today men are less afraid to speak out as society is more likely to take it seriously

It’s a new phenomena that’s resulted from increasingly symmetrical family structures where women are more equal to men

[jwanjournal]

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE STATS

GENERAL

2 women are killed each week by a current or former partner (Homicide Statistics, 1998)

1 women in 9 are beaten by her male partner each year (Stanko et al, 1998)

Every minute police in the UK receive a domestic assistance call, yet only 35% of domestic violence incidents are reported to the police (Stanko 2000 & Home Office 2002)

1 in 4 women experience domestic violence over their lifetimes (Council of Europe, 2002)

CHILDREN

In 90% of domestic violence incidents, children were in the same or next room (Hughes, 1992)

In over 50% of known domestic violence cases, children were also directly abused (NSPCC, 1997)

HEALTH

30% of domestic violence incidents either starts or will intensify during pregnancy (Dept of Health report October 2004)

Fetal morbidity from violence is more prevalent than gestational diabetes or pre-eclampsia (Friend, 1998)

COST TO SOCIETY

Estimated that the total cost of domestic violence (criminal justice, health-care, social services, housing, ect) amounts to £3.1 billion every year, with a loss to the economy at £2.7 billion - overall amounting to a £5.7 bilion per year (Sylvia Walby, University of Leeds, 2004)

[jwanjournal]

CONJUGAL ROLES SOCIOLOGY

DISTRIBUTION OF EMOTIONAL WORK IN THE FAMILY

DeVault’s study: Feeding the Family, 1991

In-dept study, sample of 30 women and 3 men from a variety of ethnic and class backgrounds. Discovered vast amounts of invisible work in the home.

Women find it difficult to relax during meal-time, they have to make sure the process goes smoothly and that family members don’t conflict

Women are also stressed because they need to ensure people are communicating rather than sitting in silence 

MORE STUDIES

Mansfield and Collard’s study 1989 (sample of 60 newly-wed couples) found a number of things:

Men and women have different emotional needs within a marriage

Women are disappointed by men’s failure to response to emotion

Wives wanted closer intimacy based on emotional openness and disclosure but husbands resisted this except in the context of sex

After participating in the emotional experience of childbirth, husbands spent less time at home with children and thus performed less emotional work

Marsden and Duncombe’s study 1993 (sample of 40 whites couples who’d been married for 15 years) found:

Women make the emotional running, whilst men are ‘cagey’ about romance and devalue it

Men prioritize work and fail to take emotional responsibility

Men wanted “the picture of marriage and domesticity” but didn’t want to put in the emotional effort and involvement 

EVALUATION 

Many of these studies are 10 - 20 years old and outdated, therefore they do not reflect contemporary married couples

Decision-making and control of money may strongly vary by social class, especially with middle-class women typically having their own professional careers and income

These studies assume women are passive however they may well exercise power in subtle ways

[jwanjournal]

Above: A pre-industrial, extended family

CONJUGAL ROLES SOCIOLOGY

SEGREGATED AND JOINT HOUSEWORK

First distinguished by Elizabeth Bott (1957), two variations of conjugal roles are defined:

Segregated conjugal roles, both members of couple perform different roles; for instance a male breadwinner and a female home-maker/carer - leisure activities also usually separate (e.g men go to the pub)

Joint conjugal roles, the couple share tasks between them (symmetrical, men and women both look after children, clean house, cook food etc) and share leisure time

Wilmott and Young [W&Y] ("The Symmetrical Family”, 1973) adopted a ‘march of progress’ view and argued over time there has been a progression towards a more joint (symmetrical) role structure; as regards housework, childcare, decision making and control/ownership of money - resulting in greater equality and power-share. W&Y provided the fact that 72% of husbands performed housework besides from washing up (1973) as evidence of this progress.

W&Y believe the more symmetrical family emerged with the privatized, isolated nuclear family and the decline of community-living - they devised the 4 stages of the family:

Pre-industrial family, the family is an organized unit of production, often with children participating in labour - family members are co-workers (home and work are not separate)

Early-industrial family, large scale industry devised family into segregated roles - men working in factory labour, women performing housework/childcare, extended family disintegrates into nuclear 

Symmetrical-nuclear family, originated in middle classes but spread to working - home centered with joint conjugal roles in a privatized family

Asymmetrical-nuclear family, (a prediction made by W&Y, has not happened yet) secularized, man is now primary worker again and women is re-confined to domestic household labour

Other explanations as to the increase in symmetrical families:

More working wives - they have less time at home to perform domestic chores, therefore they must be shared

Changes in the status of women - feminist academia has influenced legislation dramatically in the late-20th century, women have more equal opportunities in the public-sphere today, this translated through to the private-sphere (family)

Breakdown of kin-based groups - women don’t form the same friendship-support groups, the nuclear family performs this function instead

However, Ann Oakley (Feminist, 1974) identifies how, although the increase of women working appears equal, women are often still expected to perform a majority of household labour, resulting in a dual burden (paid-work + domestic). This is made even worse if emotional care work is also considered (triple shift).

CRITICISMS

Oakley found that housewives spent on average 77 hours per week on domestic labour. Criticizing W&Y’s evidence surrounding male domestic work (’77% of husbands’) which was limited as it was only based on one ambiguous question on domestic work that could vaguely be applied to minimal housework. Oakley also found that 76% of employed and 93% of unemployed women were housewives (however Oakley’s study is limited to 40 mothers in London - unrepresentative, culturally biased and is 30 years out of date - cannot reflect housework today).

Social Trends, 1986 (1984 national survey) - majority of people believed housework was women’s responsibility (88% for washing/ironing, 72% for house-cleaning).

[jwanjournal]

CONJUGAL ROLES SOCIOLOGY

INTRODUCTION

Conjugal Roles are functions within the family performed by men and women in a relationship; they can be joint or separate and often concern the division of domestic labour (housework).

Parsons (Functionalist, 1955) believed women were best at home, and that they should perform expressive roles: create comfort and perform emotional domestic work. The husband performs an instrumental role: providing financial support for the family.

However, Ann Oakley (Feminist, 1974) argues that the ‘housewife’ role was socially constructed as a result of the industrialization as women were excluded from factory labour. She describes housework as non-work; unpaid, isolated and results in female economic dependence on men. Oakley continues and argues housewives suffer greater alienation, social isolation and pressure than the assembly line/factory worker.

However, Bernice Martin defends the role of the housewife, claiming it provides women with the opportunity to exercise power within the household.

[jwanjournal]

Above: Talcott Parsons (1902-1979), Functionalist sociologist

FUNCTIONALIST PERSPECTIVES ON THE FAMILY

FUNCTIONAL FIT THEORY

Building on Murdock’s work, Talcott Parsons (1955) claimed that the functions a family performs depends on the socio- economic structure of the society that accommodates it. He described the key differences between the extended family as three or more generations under one roof and the nuclear family as parents and their kids in one household. 

Before industrialization, families typically existed in it’s extended form and only towards the end of the 18th century and on-wards, Parson’s argued, the functions of the family changed, adopting the smaller, nuclear-family form we see commonly today. The new, smaller form performed two essential needs:

A geographically mobile workforce, smaller, compact families could move easily and settle where work opportunities were provided by new industrial developments

A socially mobile workforce, with fewer ties to the older generations, nuclear families were better suited to a meritocratic society, that allowed individuals to compete. The industrial economy needs a range of skilled, technologically competent workers, and ascribed statuses (fixed a birth) were harmful to progress.

LOSS OF FUNCTIONS

The extended, pre-industrial family was a multi-functional unit. It served as a unit of production and consumption. A family working on a farm would produce it’s own clothing, food and (relative) healthcare; it was largely self-sufficient. However, with industrialization, families discarded these functions as many were adopted by external institutions; production now took place in factories, education in (often state-run) schools and health-care in hospitals. Some of these functions are private, whilst others are performed by the state (public).

According to Parson’s, only two ‘irreducible functions’ remain (of Murdock’s four):

The primary socialization of children, parents impart a moral education and cultural norms to their children. This produces the value-consensus that functionalists believe holds society together. 

Stabilization of adult personalities, the family serves as a space for adults to relax and relieve tension, enabling them to return to the workplace refreshed and efficient for the economy

[jwanjournal]

FUNCTIONALIST PERSPECTIVES ON THE FAMILY

The functionalist analogy of society as a human body is useful in understanding how they view the family; as different organs are different institutions (such as the education system and religion), the family is the heart - the fundamental core of socialization into cultural norms and values.

MURDOCK

Murdock’s (1949) four essential functions that the family performs are:

Stabilization of adult personalities (often via sexual gratification): two people meet their sexual needs in a monogamous relationship, instead of a sexual “free-for-all” involving numerous partners (that Engles might have described in primitive-communism - see the Family and Marxism)

Socialization: children are brought up and learn societies norms and values

Economic support: a household provides food and shelter are for the family's members

Reproduction: households provide environments in which people can reproduce and raise their offspring

CRITICISMS OF MURDOCK

Other sociologists argue that the functions Murdock proposes can be easily fulfilled by other institutions, however he argues that the nuclear family is the most practical and efficient in doing so.

Marxists and feminists reject Murdock’s overly romantic and harmonious view of the family, claiming Functionalism is ignorant to the exploitation and conflict within many families (see domestic abuse).

[jwanjournal]

FEMINIST PERSPECTIVES ON THE FAMILY

Similarly to Marxist sociologists, Feminists view the family as an institution of oppression and hold a critical stance of it’s current function and form; some going further and advocating it’s abolition in totality. Feminists claim society is patriarchal - that men dominate and control. They view this is artificial and socially-constructed, meaning it can be changed.

LIBERAL FEMINISTS (see more)

Liberal feminists believe female inequality in the family, much like in wider society, is slowly being overcome (”march of progress” - a reoccurring theme in sociology). While accepting that issues still do exist in the family, they point to the many which have been solved; such as the decline of rigid gender-role socialization of children and studies that show increasing male participation in domestic chores (see conjugal roles sociology et al.)

MARXIST FEMINISM (see more)

Marxist feminists argue women’s oppression serves several functions in capitalism:

Reproduction of the working class (as a labour force): producing and socializing the next generation of workers into capitalist ideology whilst servicing the current one through unpaid domestic labour.

‘Reserve Army’ of cheap labour: when demand for labour is high (such as industrial armament production in the Second World War) capitalists can tap into a ‘reserve army’ of working women, who have fewer rights and can be ‘let go’ when they’re no longer needed.

Alleviation of anger and tension: the alienation experienced by the working man under capitalism and the class antagonisms are absorbed by women in the family, serving to pacify any revolutionary potential. Fran Ansley (1972) describes wives as “takers of shit”, and links with the high rates of domestic violence.

RADICAL FEMINISTS (see more)

To Radical feminists, the family is at the root of women’s oppression, and it’s abolition is essential to emancipation; advocating separatism alongside political-lesbianism as a sexual boycott instead. 

DIFFERENCE FEMINISM (see more)

Unlike the others, Difference feminists argue that the family isn’t always a source of inequality for women; exemplifying how black women drew support from their families whilst struggling against racial oppression as well as gender subjugation, a fact that many white, middle class feminists are ignorant of.

[jwanjournal]

DIFFERENCE FEMINISM

Difference feminism isn’t so much a movement in of itself but more of a criticism of other splinter-feminist divisions; arguing that you can’t generalize the condition and experiences of all women and their struggle against patriarchal culture and state. In this sense, it could be considered to be ‘post-modern feminism’.

Black, white, homosexual, heterosexual, middle and working class - Women from all sections of society experience oppression and gain relief in different ways. 

However, Difference feminism is criticized for ignoring the universal inequalities that affect all women together; such as low pay, domestic violence and sexual assault.

(perspective on the family)

[Difference feminism also refers to another movement: in which the biological and psychological differences between men and women are embraced, as opposed to the popular feminist drive for gender androgyny.]