Compare and Contrast the Functionalist and Marxist views on the Family

The Functionalist theory emphasizes the contributions (functions) that all parts of society (e.g., social institutions) make within society. This theory has contributed to sociology by providing a view “which emphasizes the way in which the parts of a society are structured to maintain stability.” (Schafer 2013, pg13)

As Lyndon Baines Johnson says, “The family is the corner stone of our society. More than any other force it shapes the attitude, the hopes, the ambitions, and the values of the child. And when the family collapses it is the children that are usually damaged. When it happens on a massive scale the community itself is crippled. So, unless we work to strengthen the family, to create conditions under which most parents will stay together, all the rest — schools, playgrounds, and public assistance, and private concern — will never be enough” (Danes). He believed that family is the base of the society. The way that family is set up affects children in all ways. Family structure is very important and that no matter what we do,

In order to understand the entirety of a society, we must first understand each part and how it contributes to the stability of the society. According to the functionalist

Moreover, Societies are held together by both consensus with values and coercion. The functionalist view is that the balance of harmony among the society is held up by societal institutions. For example, schools, church and family are seen as the most significant foundation for an adequately functional society.

There were also needs for industrial society and from there, change/ structure of the family type evolved to meet societies needs to survive such as loss of functions in extended family, where industrial society took over some functions a family would perform for its members such as healthcare (NHS). And another was geographically mobile workforce; where the family had to move to places for jobs demanding their skills. But with extended families, they couldn’t take the whole family, just maybe the wife and kids etc. However, linking with the question, the functionalists view of the family was that nuclear families were the most dominant, but they change their views during industrialisation, believing that extended was the more dominant at the time for survival of the family to fit into society, but in today’s society, functionalists have changed their view once more, which resorted back to their first view of nuclear family being more dominant.

Both Sociological theories take very different viewpoints on most general societal subjects such as family for instance. At its most basic platform Marxists see the stereotypical nuclear family as a tool for the ruling class. Early on Marx realized the ability to pass down property through generations was a brilliantly useful mechanism for controlling wealth and capital. Marxists see the family as a potential assembly line of workers: the head of the household being the proprietor and ‘CEO’ whilst the children are being prepared to receive their inheritance and maintain their family’s wealth and capital status.

to of have ignored that in a number of families (this tends to be a

Functionalism views society as the stability and assimilation of a range of forces that function within it. While society is a separate entity with a life of its own, there are individual elements contributing to that stability. Functionalism as a sociological theory emphasizes assimilation rather than the dissociation of society. Therefore, the society is seen as a whole that is compromised of parts which give one another their identity and their function. The part, whether that is education, such as a school, or sports, such as a football team, operates in relation to the other parts, and cannot be entirely understood in isolation from the other parts. All the parts are interrelated, and when there is a disturbance in any one of the

"Functionalist Perspectives” also known as "Structural-Functional Paradigm”- “The sociological approach that views society as a stable, orderly system. According to this perspective, a society is composed of interrelated parts, each of which serves a function and (ideally) contributes to the overall stability of the society. Societies develop social structures, or institutions that persist because they play a part in helping society survive. These institutions include the family, education, government, religion, and the economy. If anything adverse happens to one of these institutions or parts, all

Functionalism looks at society in aspects of how it contributes to the steadiness/cohesion of the whole society (Anderson, Taylor, & Logio, P. 18). There are many institutions that are looked at that include the economic system, government, education, religion, health care, and family. All of which have different roles and perform different functions to ensure that society operates in a well-ordered manner. An example of this would be how family reproduces, takes care of children, exposes children to culture and heritage, supports other family members, and shares life experiences. Shared values and social stability are keys to this perspective. When this system breaks down it is because people’s needs are not being covered and shared values are deteriorating. When this occurs, it affects all parts of functionalism and the society must achieve

Murdock (1949) studied 250 different societies, he concluded that society could not survive without the family as it was so functional. He argued there were four essential functions, without these society would not survive: sexual, reproductive, economic and education. Without sex and reproduction there would be no new members, without economic and education, the family providing for its members, the young socialised to norms and values, cultures would not exist. In the absence of this human society would cease (Haralambos and Holborn, 2008). 83

Since the nineteenth century, in the western societies, family patterns changed under the forces of industrialisation and urbanisation. Another factor which has been involved in those changes is the growing intervention of the state, by legislative action, in the domestic affairs of the family. As a result of these trends, the modern “nuclear” family has been substituted for the traditional extended family. The increase of values such as individualism and egalitarism has influenced the patterns of

Functionalism is a consensus perspective, whereby society is based on shared values and norms into which members are socialised. For functionalists, society is seen as a system of social institutions such as the economy, religion and the family all of which perform socialisation functions.

For most of us, the family is considered as a well-known and comfortable institution. The perfect model of the ‘ideal’ family is still mostly considered to be consisted from two different sexes’ parents, and one or more children. Until quite recently, the sociology of the family was mostly functionalist and just in the last few decades has been challenged from various directions.

Structural Functionalism is “A major sociological perspective that views society as an interdependent system of parts (structures) and purposes (functions) that work together to make a society operate (Larkin, 2015)”. In order for a society to work all parts of the same society must work together. In structural functionalism society nearly depends on one another to stay afloat. If Something changes it can causes a disruption in society and begins to make things become unbalanced. Functionalism focuses on many groups that make up society, for example Government, Judiciary, and religion are some of the key groups that benefits in society strengthening their social relationships and the very world humans live in.