AQA Sociology Families & Households Topic Companion PDF

aqa a level Sociology families & households TOPIC COMPANION www.tutor2u.net/sociology Page 2 AQA A Level Sociology topic companion - FAMILIES & HOUSEHOLDS THE FUNCTIONS OF FAMILIES & HOUSEHOLDS Specification: sociological explanations of the relationship of the family to the social structure and social change, with particular reference to the economy and to state policies WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW Identify, outline, explain, analyse and evaluate the concepts of: § Family § Household Identify, outline, explain, analyse and evaluate: Functionalist views on the functions of families and households Marxist views on the functions of families and households Feminist views on the functions of families and households New Right views on the functions of families and households What is family? There is not one clear single definition of “family”. It tends to be used either in a broad sense (all the descendants of a common ancestor, as in a “family tree”) or in a narrower sense, of parents living together with their children as a “unit”. As a useful sociological concept, we tend to use the narrower definition, only bringing in wider family such as cousins and grandparents when they live together or are involved in everyday family life (such as childcare). However, while definitions often refer to relations “by blood” or marriage (kinship), in practice families require none of these things. A single parent with adopted children is clearly a family, as is an unmarried couple with adopted children. What about couples without children? If they are a family, and therefore families do not require multiple generations, then is a household comprising of unrelated friends a family? If not, what stops it from being one? What is a household? A household is more easily explained: a group of people who live together, regardless of whether there are any kinship ties. Most of these are families, but (depending on your definition of family) many are not: flatmates (such as students), people living on their own, multiple-occupancy homes for migrant workers, etc. Functionalist views on the functions of families and households Functionalists argue that all institutions in society have important roles to play in the smooth and functional running of society, and the family is no different. They argue that the family has important functions both for society and for individuals. The classic functionalist statement on the roles of the family comes from George Murdock (1949) who looked at families across the world and found four functions that were common to all of them. Educational Children are taught the norms and values of society (also known as primary socialisation) Economic The family provides an economic function to all its members by pooling resources and ensuring all have what they need. Reproductive Produces the next generation of the society. Sexual Ensures that adults’ sexual relationships are controlled and stable. www.tutor2u.net/sociology Copyright tutor2u LIMITED AQA A Level Sociology topic companion - FAMILIES & HOUSEHOLDS Page 3 Talcott Parsons (1951) updated Murdock’s theory. He argued that in modern, Western societies, the state provided education and could perform an economic function (through welfare provisions) but that the family still had two irreducible functions: Primary Similar to Murdock’s educational role, Parsons agreed that families taught children socialisation social norms and values. However, he argued that it specifically taught children the norms and values associated with their family and/or community, while other institutions, such as schools, the media, religion, etc. taught children the universal norms and values of wider society. Parsons called this first process primary socialisation and the latter secondary socialisation. Stabilisation Parsons also argued that families helped to prevent adults from behaving in disruptive of adult or dysfunctional ways, instead encouraging them to conform to social norms, especially personalities at times of stress. The family provides emotional support to its members. Parsons famously described this in his warm bath theory. This was the idea that when a man came home from a hard day at work, he could relax into is family like a warm bath and it would take away the stress and refresh him for the next day’s work.. Evaluating functionalist views of the functions of families and households § A standard criticism of functionalist views of the role of the family comes from conflict theorists like Marxists and feminists who argue that this paints too rosy and idealistic a picture of family life. Families are certainly not like that for everyone. Many people have negative experiences of family life, and indeed they can cause stress as well as relieve it. § Conflict theorists also question whether the roles families perform really benefit the whole of society or really just benefit powerful groups within it. In particular, feminists argue that families exist largely for the benefit of men. § The Marxist-feminist Fran Ansley offers a different perspective on Parsons’ warm bath theory when she describes women in the family as takers of shit. By this she means that men coming home from work may have their stress relieved by the family, but only by dumping it on their wives. § Furthermore, these theories are outdated and suggest families are all traditional nuclear families with men going to work and women in domestic roles. We will revisit this part of the discussion in a later section. Marxism The traditional Marxist view on families is that they perform a role not for everyone in society but for capitalism and the ruling class (the bourgeoisie). As is often the case, there are similarities between the functionalist and Marxist case: they both think that families perform important functions for the society as it is currently constituted. The difference is that Marxists disagree with the way society is currently constituted. Instead of seeing a consensual society which works to benefit all its members, they see a society based on class struggle, which works to benefit a rich minority. Engels (1884) Zaretsky (1976) Engels argued that family had a clear economic An interesting variation on Parsons’ warm bath function for capitalism, by ensuring that wealth theory, Zaretsky argued that family life gave remained in the hands of the bourgeoisie. proletarian men something they could control and a space where they could be the “boss”. This Family relations, based on clear legal contracts, provided a clear function for capitalism because it facilitate inheritance and therefore when rich meant that workers would tolerate the people die it is their children who keep hold of powerlessness and frustration of being exploited at their wealth. work because they had this private domain where Copyright tutor2u LIMITED www.tutor2u.net/sociology Page 4 AQA A Level Sociology topic companion - FAMILIES & HOUSEHOLDS they were “king of the castle” and could take out For Engels, then, family is all about blood lines and their stress and frustrations. proof of parentage. This again ties in with Fran Ansley’s Marxist- feminist perspective of women being the “takers of shit”. Marxists see families as essentially a conservative institution that helps to preserve capitalism. They also weaken the position of individual workers in relation to the boss. If you think you are not being paid enough or being treated badly, a single person may well choose to walk away and hope that they can find better employment soon. Or they can join with other workers and go on strike and temporarily do without pay by way of a protest to push for better pay or conditions. But when that worker has to also take dependents into account (e.g. a spouse and children) that becomes a much more difficult decision. This weakness benefits the boss. Evaluating Marxist views on the role of families and households Engels’ theory is certainly not a very romantic take on marriage! Clearly family must be about more than what happens to your money when you die. After all, people who do not have property also choose to live in families (although Engels would argue this is because they are influenced by bourgeois ideology). Functionalists point out that, in the vast majority of societies, humans live in families and that in fact the essential form and function of those families remain quite similar: it is not simply a feature of capitalist society. However, a counter-argument to that is that Parsons himself suggested that the nuclear family evolved to suit an industrial economy (as we’ll consider in the next section) which could be said to back the idea that it is a feature of capitalism rather than all societies. Despite some experiments with communal living and alternative households immediately after the Russian Revolution, people have continued to live in family groups in communist countries too. Zaretsky’s theory is clearly outdated: it assumes the worker is male and that there is only one worker in the family. It also ignores the other benefits that all family members may get from family life: the emotional support, comfort and generally the positive benefits. Feminism Feminists, such as Ann Oakley, agree with Marxists and functionalists that the family is essentially a conservative institution that preserves the social order. They disagree with functionalists and agree with Marxists that in doing so it benefits only a powerful group within society. For feminists, this group is men. They argue that families preserve, support and embed patriarchy. Liberal feminism Liberal feminists focus on striving for legal equality between the sexes. The family has long been a clear source of inequality. Marital rape was not formally recognised as a crime in the UK until 1991 (because of the notion that marriage gave a man “conjugal rights” that could not be withdrawn save through annulment or divorce). Divorce laws have been reformed on many occasions to make them more equal, but it used to be much easier for a man to get a divorce than a woman (see a later section), etc. Liberal feminists argue that most of those battles for legal equality have been won, however there is clearly still inequality between the sexes (for example, in relation to domestic work - see a later section). They put this down to the need to also change cultural values in society. www.tutor2u.net/sociology Copyright tutor2u LIMITED AQA A Level Sociology topic companion - FAMILIES & HOUSEHOLDS Page 5 As such, while families currently play a part in the oppression of women, they do not have to: it is possible to have family life and gender equality. Radical feminism Radical feminists do not believe that changing the law will ever be enough, on its own, to end the oppression and subjugation of women. They argue that men will always oppress women and the family is a vehicle for that oppression. As such women should find alternative ways of living where they are not subject to male oppression. This has led some radical feminists to favour gender separatism. Radical feminists argue that girls are socialised (not least through families) to believe that oppression and inequality are normal and therefore they accept the inequality of family life: indeed they dream of it and work for it. Marxist feminism Marxist feminists argue that families help to preserve both capitalism and patriarchy, and that the two work hand in hand. They point out that the capitalist system gets the benefit of unpaid female work as their workforce (and the next generation) are fed, looked after and kept happy to ensure they keep working hard and making profits for the bosses. Evaluating feminist views on the functions of families and households As with Marxism, feminists may paint too negative and gloomy a picture. While some families may be unequal and male-dominated, there may well be families that are much more equal. Some criticise feminists – especially radical feminists – for presenting women as too passive. Postmodern feminists, for example, would point to how women do not have to accept patriarchy or inequality, and do not have to make a choice between family life and equality: they can take the initiative and resist oppression and assert their own power. Again, some of these ideas are criticised for being out of date: most women work now, and so the nature of family life has inevitably changed in response to this. As we shall see, not all feminists agree that it has necessarily changed for the better. New Right Sociologists from the New Right argue that the nuclear family is the bedrock of society. What is the nuclear family? Two (married, heterosexual) parents with a small number of children. Sometimes described as the cereal packet family because of the way it is presented as ideal and the norm in various areas of society (including advertising). The New Right argue that this family form is essential for the functioning of a good society, but that various government policies and social attitudes have combined to undermine the family. Charles Murray (1998) Murray argues that welfare policies have undermined the nuclear family and given perverse incentives for people to start single-parent families or to end their marriages and form single-parent families. He argues that the welfare state has led to a dependency culture where an underclass of people live off benefits and have no aspiration to work for a living. He argues that teenage girls see pregnancy and single parenthood as a route to financial support and housing. He further argues that, while Murdock suggested that the family had an economic function, for underclass families this function is now carried out by the state. This means that individuals conclude Copyright tutor2u LIMITED www.tutor2u.net/sociology Page 6 AQA A Level Sociology topic companion - FAMILIES & HOUSEHOLDS that they can have children without there being a working parent (because the state will provide) so there is no incentive to work at a relationship and keep a family together (and indeed less sense of responsibility for fathers to stick around and provide for their children). Furthermore, the benefits system means that more children will bring more money, so it pays to have a large single-parent family rather than a small one. MAKE THE LINK This links with the Crime and Deviance topic, because New Right sociologists argue that the underclass is characterised by dysfunctional families (rather than nuclear families) that socialise the next generation with deviant norms and values and this leads to criminality. Exam hint: It’s good to make links with other areas of sociological knowledge but you should always make sure you link back to the question asked, to maintain focus. Following relevant synoptic links is great, but following tangents is not. Evaluating New Right views on the functions of families and households A lot of sociologists strongly disagree with the New Right view. They are accused of “blaming the victim”. It is a theory that tends to blame the poor for their own poverty, rather than seeking other explanations for why people find themselves in need of welfare payments, etc. Some argue that the New Right is not really a sociological perspective but a political position. Marxists would argue that the New Right is merely an ideological justification for capitalist and bourgeois politics. It is a convenient case for cutting public spending on welfare (and therefore either reducing taxes on the wealthy or channeling money into preferred projects). Links to Core Themes § One of the core themes is socialisation and one of the key roles of the family is exactly that. Different sociologists disagree about the nature and outcome of that socialisation. Is it to benefit the whole of society, or just a powerful minority? This then also links with power: both power relations between genders and social-class power. Possible Exam Questions Item C Functionalism is a structuralist, consensus theory that sees the family as an important institution in society that is essential for society to work properly. In a human body analogy, the family is the heart. They argue that the family ensures young people learn the norms and values of society and adults are stable and not overly stressed. 1. Applying material from Item C, analyse two criticisms of functionalist views on the role of the family in contemporary society. (10 marks) Item C Marxists agree with functionalists that the family performs important roles for society, such as the stabilisation of adult personalities, only they see it as performing that role for capitalism and the ruling class rather than to benefit everyone. They also see the family performing an important role in allowing the ruling class to keep its wealth www.tutor2u.net/sociology Copyright tutor2u LIMITED AQA A Level Sociology topic companion - FAMILIES & HOUSEHOLDS Page 7 2. Applying material from Item C, analyse two ways in which the family might benefit capitalism. (10 marks) Exam hint: The trick with these questions is finding the “hooks” in the item and developing them. There are sometimes more than two possible hooks, but usually there are two that best lead the student towards clear answers. The hooks help the student develop an answer, but are not themselves an answer. The functionalism item does not mention criticisms, for instance. The hooks then are features of the functionalist view that can be criticised. Item D Some sociologists argue that, in a male-dominated society, the family primarily exists to control and oppress women. Women are oppressed in terms of the roles they perform in the family and their lack of power. However, many sociologists disagree with this view, arguing that the family has changed significantly and women are more powerful, and also that the family has other, more important roles. 3. Applying material from Item D and your own knowledge, evaluate the view that the main role of the family is to control and oppress women. (30 marks) Exam hint: The item tends to be written in “general” language and can be translated by the student into sociology. “Some sociologists” are clearly feminists, a “male-dominated society” is patriarchy. The next paragraph refers to conjugal roles and decision making and can be linked to various sociological studies. The alternative views could include Wilmott and Young and the symmetrical family, etc. An Item may seem brief and uninformative, but actually there’s often quite a lot in there to be “mined”. Item D Conflict theories take a negative view of the family arguing that it plays an integral part in perpetuating social inequality. Feminist sociologists are highly critical of the family as they claim it reinforces patriarchy by confining women to a subservient role within the home as a housewife and mother which is learnt during primary socialisation and reinforced during marriage. Marxists conversely would argue that the family simply exists to protect private property and prevent the proletariat revolution by creating a false class consciousness. Consensus theories however would point to the advantages of the family as an agent of socialisation which helps maintain social order by teaching norms and values. 4. Applying material from Item D and your own knowledge, evaluate the view that the family is a beneficial institution in society. (20 marks) Copyright tutor2u LIMITED www.tutor2u.net/sociology Page 8 AQA A Level Sociology topic companion - FAMILIES & HOUSEHOLDS FAMILIES & THE ECONOMY Specification: sociological explanations of the relationship of the family to the social structure and social change, with particular reference to the economy and to state policies WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW Outline, explain, analyse and evaluate § Parsons’ view of the impact of industrialisation on the family § Wilmott and Young’s “march of progress” theory § The impact of globalisation on family structure and role Industrialisation and the family The classic sociological theory about the link between families and the economy is the debate about the impact of industrialisation on the family, and particularly Talcott Parsons’ theory that industrialisation led to the development of the nuclear family. While sociologists today are more interested in more contemporary economic change, such as the impact of globalisation, we should look at this classic debate. Talcott Parsons (1951) argued that the process of industrialisation led to huge changes in both the structure and the role of the family and the roles of family members. Industrialisation is the process whereby the economy shifted from being based largely around agriculture to being based on industry and manufacturing. In the UK, this processes happened rapidly, particularly in the 18th and 19th centuries, as the industrial revolution. Alongside industrialisation there was a closely- related process of urbanisation. This is the process where people move from rural communities into towns and cities, resulting in the rapid growth of those towns and cities. Such massive social change inevitably impacts on the family, but Parsons argues that it was transformative: it created the nuclear family. Parsons, as a functionalist, believes that the institutions in society work together like the organs in the human body in order for society to work properly. Therefore, when there is social change, other institutions also have to change to ensure there is a functional fit: that the institutions fit society as it is, rather than as it was. For Parsons, the pre-industrial, agrarian society was populated with extended families. There was a functional fit between the extended family and the rural economy. Where people worked the land, the more family members to lend a hand the better: aunts, uncles, cousins and numerous children were economic assets. Everyone who was fit and able in the family had to be economically active, and so the presence of older relatives provided essential services in terms of childcare, education and healthcare. Families remained in the same communities and on same land for generations, and so there was no requirement to be geographically mobile to seek work, so a large family was not a burden. However, when people started moving from rural areas into towns and cities, in order to get jobs in factories and mills, this all changed. Work and home were now separated. Families needed to be geographically mobile: they could not take large numbers of dependents and extended family with them into the city. There was paid work for men in the factories and mills, and so a clear gender division of labour emerged, with women staying at home to look after the children and the house. Increasingly the www.tutor2u.net/sociology Copyright tutor2u LIMITED AQA A Level Sociology topic companion - FAMILIES & HOUSEHOLDS Page 9 state took over many of the roles of the family listed by Murdock, leaving the family with the two irreducible functions previously referred to. According to Parsons, this social change precipitated a clear change in the family from extended families with many functions, in the pre-industrials society, to privatised nuclear families with fewer functions in industrial society. Why nuclear families have a functional fit with industrial society Nuclear families allow for: Geographical mobility (families can move to where the work is) Social mobility or meritocracy. Parsons argues that individual status in pre-industrial society was ascribed (you were born into a particular status) whereas in industrial society people could achieve a new status through hard work. In extended families, social mobility can lead to inter- generational conflict, but this is less of a concern when families are “privatised” as small independent units. Both these forms of mobility are facilitated by the isolated nature of the nuclear family. Specialised roles. In nuclear families, in industrial societies, men and women have separate specialised roles (according to Parsons). He writes about men being instrumental leaders and women being expressive leaders and this being the most effective division of labour for industrial society. We will return to this in the section on gender roles. Evaluating Parsons on industrialism and the family The principle difficulty with Parsons theory is that historians do not agree that the changes in the family described by Parsons actually match what really happened. Peter Laslett (1972) conducted research into pre-industrial families in his famous work of social history The World We Have Lost. He found that the most common family form in the pre-industrial communities he studied was not the extended family but the nuclear family. People may well have lived close to extended family and worked together, but in terms of their households, most were made up of parents and children. Furthermore, Michael Anderson (1971) looked at households in Preston in the midst of rapid industrialisation and urbanisation (using the 1851 census) and found a significant increase in the number of households made up of extended families. A rational response to moving from rural areas into the city was to move in with family. This helped economically, but also socially as – unlike the rural communities they had moved from – these were neighbourhoods where people did not know each other and so kinship connections were very valuable. Parsons is criticised, then, for being an armchair theorist. His theory seems quite logical, but had he engaged in extensive empirical research into the question he may well have found evidence that undermined his theory. Indeed, if his data had replicated the findings of Laslett and Anderson, he might have had to turn his theory entirely on its head. Having said that, the common family form when Parsons was writing was certainly the privatised nuclear family and there certainly were more extended families in the past. So family structures and roles had changed and the major social change of the era was industrialisation, so it does not seem unreasonable to make a connection. However, it would seem that Parsons had failed to detect the precise nature of the relationship. In truth, what this array of research and evidence would appear to show is that there has always been rather more family and household diversity than Parsons’ theory would suggest. There are also strong criticisms of the way Parsons presents the nuclear family as ideal (and an ideal which society evolves towards) and also the of Parsons’ explanation of gender roles (which will be discussed in more detail in the appropriate section). Copyright tutor2u LIMITED www.tutor2u.net/sociology Page 10 AQA A Level Sociology topic companion - FAMILIES & HOUSEHOLDS The “March of Progress” An alternative functionalist approach comes from Wilmott and Young (1973). It is one of several “march of progress” theories that come from functionalists that look at how society develops and modernises over time. They established four stages of family development relating to the process of industrialisation. Stage One: The family works as a unit of economic production. There is no separation The pre-industrial family between work and home. Families live with or close to other family members and work together. Stage Two: Families move into towns and cities and home and work are separated as The early industrial men go out to work. Women perform a domestic role. While pre-industrial family extended families have broken up as a result of this, kinship networks remain very important and women especially rely on support from other female relations. Wilmott and Young suggested that while female relatives bonded, men were excluded from the home and spent time in the pub instead. Stage Three: The modern nuclear family has less gender segregation than the early The symmetrical family industrial family with men and women both in employment and both contributing to domestic chores. Also the family has ceased to be a unit of production and has become a unit of consumption. Families tend to be smaller, because children remain dependents rather than becoming financial assets. The family has become more isolated from kinship networks and so families spend more time together and generally there are joint conjugal roles as opposed to segregated conjugal roles. Stage Four: Wilmott & Young suggested that the family would become asymmetrical, The asymmetrical family with men increasingly spending their leisure time outside the home and without their partners (for example spending long periods of time on the golf course). Wilmott & Young conceded that this fourth stage did not really occur. One important factor in family change, for Wilmott and Young, was something they called stratified diffusion. They suggested that the sort of cultural changes in family life described here began initially among those with higher social status, and these practices diffused down the social strata and became the norm. This was why they predicted Stage Four, because they saw evidence of rich families becoming increasingly asymmetrical, with couples spending more time apart and particularly rich businessmen spending their leisure time apart from the family. However, there does not seem to be much evidence to suggest that stratified diffusion as occurred in this case. Evaluating the March of Progress Some sociologists dislike the value judgement inherent in the idea of a march of progress: that the family has got better as it has developed. In rural areas, some families still occupy “stage 1” and some would suggest this is just a different family form rather than a better or worse one. There is lots of feminist research to suggest that the “symmetrical family” is a myth, as we will discuss in the section on gender roles. The modern nuclear family is presented in an idealistic way, which runs counter to many people’s experiences of family life. www.tutor2u.net/sociology Copyright tutor2u LIMITED AQA A Level Sociology topic companion - FAMILIES & HOUSEHOLDS Page 11 Contemporary economic change and families Of course there has been considerable social change since the 1950s, and it is important to acknowledge some of these changes. Nickie Charles (2012) conducted household surveys and participant observation and identified several key social changes since the 1960s, which included: The much greater use of technology The entrance of women into the workplace on a large scale Greater equality of opportunity and equal treatment for different social classes, for women and for minority-ethnic groups However, despite these very significant social changes, Charles concluded that changes to the family had been quite minor in that time. She found that men were more geographically mobile than women (women were more likely to remain living near their extended family); individuals from higher social classes were more geographically mobile than those from lower social classes; minority-ethnic individuals tended to have particularly strong bonds with their extended family. However, those bonds and networks with extended families (for all social groups) were increasingly conducted at long distance and visiting relatives often included significant travel, and communicating with relatives was often down via social media and between countries. Evans and Chandler (2006) further commented that a significant social change since the mid 20th century was much greater disposable income for families and also a much wider array of products available for purchase and particularly those aimed at children. They concluded that this has influenced family relations in that parents have to make decisions about which products to buy for their children and which not, based on a wide range of factors: problems that their parents would not have experienced. Perhaps the most significant social change in the late 20th century was the process of globalisation. Globalisation is the process whereby the world has become increasingly interconnected. It is particularly recognised by postmodernists as a fundamental feature of contemporary society. It can be said to have influenced the family in the following ways: Globalisation has caused significant economic change, including traditional male jobs being exported to developing countries, which in turn has impacted gender roles. One feature of globalisation is immigration and the increasingly multicultural nature of many societies has led to some changes in the structure and role of family and greater family diversity. The globalisation of popular culture through the media has, according to some sociologists, had a major impact on childhood. Children and young people have easy access to a world of information, some of which might have changed the nature of childhood (and contributed to what Sue Palmer calls a toxic childhood). Links to Core Themes § There are links to all the core themes here. A key part of the functionalist case about the nuclear family fitting an industrial society is the role of socialisation, both in terms of gender socialisation into key social roles, but also the difference in primary socialisation in a privatised nuclear family compared with the supposedly more extended families of pre-industrial society. Stratification is a key element of the economy: a meritocratic society requires stratification and a system of unequal rewards so that people find their appropriate place in society. Copyright tutor2u LIMITED www.tutor2u.net/sociology Page 12 AQA A Level Sociology topic companion - FAMILIES & HOUSEHOLDS Possible Exam Questions Item C Globalisation has caused several changes in UK society. Some traditional male occupations have largely gone from the UK. There have been incredible changes in culture and communication and people can travel from country to country more easily. 1. Applying material from Item C, analyse two ways in which globalisation has affected the family (10 marks) Exam hint: That’s right, the item does not mention families at all! And yet there are more than two hooks there. You have to develop the globalisation point into an effect on the family. Item C Since the 1970s far more women are going to work, and many married women with children remain at work, just taking the parental leave they are due but otherwise continuing with their careers. Indeed, many women pursue very successful careers and focus on that rather than home life, not considering other priorities until they have broken through the glass ceiling. 2. Applying material from Item C, analyse two ways the change in women’s role in the job market have affected the family in contemporary UK. Exam hint: The Item says very little about the family in contemporary UK, so the way the hooks in the item can be developed is by directly applying them to the family. Item D Some sociologists argue that the type of family most common in society develops in order to fit with the way society and the economy works and therefore the nuclear family developed because it was best suited to an industrial society. Other sociologists question this on the basis of historical fact and also from a theoretical perspective. 3. Applying material from Item D and your own knowledge, evaluate the view that the nuclear family was created by industrialisation. (20 marks) www.tutor2u.net/sociology Copyright tutor2u LIMITED AQA A Level Sociology topic companion - FAMILIES & HOUSEHOLDS Page 13 SOCIAL POLICY & FAMILIES Specification: sociological explanations of the relationship of the family to the social structure and social change, with particular reference to the economy and to state policies WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW Outline, explain, analyse and evaluate the impact of social policies on families introduced by Conservative governments, 1979-1997 New Labour government, 1997-2010 The coalition government, 2010-2015 Current policy There are various ways in which governments can impact on family life through their policies. Policies have determined who can get married, at what age, who can have children, what rights those children have, etc. In the past, policies have had very dramatic impacts on family life, such as the Divorce Reform Act of 1969, and in other countries, such as China’s infamous one child policy. Conservative governments, 1979-1997 The Conservative governments of Margaret Thatcher and John Major, from 1979-1997, were greatly influenced by the New Right perspective. This influenced their policies in a range of areas, but in terms of their thinking on families it meant: Preference for traditional nuclear families Encouraging individual and parental responsibility (especially paternal responsibility) and also responsibility for elderly relatives, etc. Encouraging mothers to stay at home Concern that the welfare system might encourage non-traditional family forms and irresponsible behaviour. Margaret Thatcher (1988) described the family as “a nursery, a school, a hospital, a leisure place, a place of refuge and a place of rest” as well as “the building block of society”. This is a very traditional and, some would argue, idealistic view of the family, which echoes much functionalist and New Right thought. This approach led to a number of interesting policy developments including: The Children Act 1989 – a piece of legislation that clearly outlined the rights of children The Child Support Agency, 1993 – established to ensure absent fathers paid maintenance for the upbringing of their children (this included chasing down fathers where there was no longer contact, etc.) This also meant that, where possible, money to support lone parent families came from absent parents as opposed to the government. Married Men’s Tax Allowance – A long-term feature of the UK tax system had been a higher tax- free allowance for married men than single men. Until later in the Thatcher/Major era, married women’s tax affairs were dealt with along with their husband’s, rather than independently, even if they worked full time. There was a change towards individual taxation, to reflect the changed workplace, but the New Right governments tried to maintain a tax allowance for men whose wives did not work, in order to encourage traditional family structures. This was eventually removed under a Labour government (replaced with working-family tax credits for families with children) but has been reintroduced (although today either gender could theoretically receive the allowance providing the other is not earning enough to pay tax). It is ironic that a government led by the Copyright tutor2u LIMITED www.tutor2u.net/sociology Page 14 AQA A Level Sociology topic companion - FAMILIES & HOUSEHOLDS country’s foremost working mum should have sought to deter mothers from working, through the tax system. Proposed changes to divorce rules – there was a wish on the part of the Thatcher government to make divorce more difficult. There was a moral panic in the 1980s that too many British marriages were ending in divorce. The plan was to have an enforced “cooling off” period of a year between separation and divorce, however the plans were never actually put into practice, partly because of opposition to the idea, and partly because of the impracticality of actually enforcing it. Section 28 – The government introduce a rule, in 1988, that prevented local government from “promoting” homosexuality and included the provision that schools could not teach “the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship.” Here the government went beyond promoting the ideal of the traditional nuclear family to directly attacking and indeed denying an alternative family structure. Back to Basics – As prime minister, John Major urged a “back to basics” approach, which he put forward as traditional family values. It was, at the time, associated with rhetorical attacks on lone- parents by some Conservative ministers with a clear New Right perspective (such as John Redwood and Peter Lilley) with some making connections between even the murder of Jamie Bulger and the lone-parent family backgrounds of his killers. The “campaign” did not translate into clear policies, however, and is mostly remembered now because of the large number of “sex scandals” that came to light which were used to paint ministers as hypocrites for preaching traditional morality for others but not practising it themselves. Evaluating conservative governments, 1979-1997 Considering how important family and traditional family values was said to be by New Right politicians in the 1980s and 1990s, there was actually not a huge amount of ground-breaking new policy in this area. Marxists argue that the New Right is really an ideology to justify policies that benefit the ruling class and capitalism. They would point to something like the Child Support Agency and say that while the goal appeared to be encouraging parental responsibility, really it was all about cutting state expenditure and therefore cutting taxes for the rich (or saving public money to spend on things that benefited the rich). If the absent parent could be tracked down and made to pay maintenance, this reduced the amount of money that the government may have to find in order to support the families in question. In many ways the governments of this era were swimming against the tide: their ideology was to protect the traditional family, but this was the period when there was the largest growth in family diversity, the largest increase in divorces, the largest reduction in marriages, important changes in attitudes to sexual orientation, etc. While it would be future governments that legislated to recognise family diversity (for example introducing civil partnerships and later gay marriage), family diversity became a feature of UK society under these governments. In that sense, if their aim was to defend the traditional nuclear family, with a male breadwinner and female housewife, then they failed in this area. Some would ask whether trying to encourage a particular family form through tax and benefit changes is a good idea in any case. A little more or less money seems a particularly bad reason to get married or for a couple to stay together. New Labour governments, 1997-2010 When prime minister Tony Blair came into power in 1997, there was an expectation that there would be a wholesale change in focus for social policy. Blair was strongly influenced by the late modernist Anthony Giddens and so, when it came to families, one might have expected a focus on acknowledging and facilitating family diversity. That clearly did form part of those governments’ social agenda, but other parts appeared more like a continuation of the New Right approach, especially: www.tutor2u.net/sociology Copyright tutor2u LIMITED AQA A Level Sociology topic companion - FAMILIES & HOUSEHOLDS Page 15 Cuts to lone parent benefits. In the first year of the Blair government, they made some severe cuts to the benefits paid to lone parents. The rationale was that that single parents should go to work while the government would ensure there was more cheap or free childcare. An irony with the New Right’s position on single mothers was that they simultaneously thought that they should not receive benefits or go to work (and the idea of absent fathers paying their way when possible was their solution to that problem). However, the New Labour government was positive about female work and wanted to promote mothers doing more work and children receiving more professional childcare in order to facilitate this. However other policies were focused on helping families as they existed rather than trying to shape an ideal family. For example: Working family tax credits. This replaced the married man’s tax allowance so both aspects of this policy are worth considering here. First it removed a tax incentive for couples to get married and to stay married. Second it provided a tax allowance for families with children – regardless of whether they were married – to help pay for childcare. It also was designed to encourage both partners (where there were two partners) to work rather than to incentivise one to stay at home. These were later followed with child tax credits which further developed this. Paid paternity leave From 2003, men were able to get two weeks of paid parental leave. Civil Partnership Act (2005) allowed same-sex relationships to be legally recognised on the same terms as marriage (these were effectively marriage in all but name). Adoption and Children’s Act (2002) allowed same-sex couples to adopt children (as well as allowing unmarried heterosexual couples and single people to adopt too). There were other major advances in gay rights, such as an equal age of consent in 2001 and the repeal of Section 28 in 2003. Evaluating New Labour governments, 1997 - 2010 While the New Labour governments did legislate to acknowledge family diversity, they did not create it and their official position was still that marriage (and at that time marriage could only be between a man and a woman) was the best basis for family life. This was expressed in a 1998 policy document called Supporting Families. In that sense, while they were more realistic and pragmatic than the New Right, their concept of an ideal family had not really moved on from the nuclear. While they often presented their desire for work to replace welfare in terms of equality and encouraging women to work (and therefore supporting the concept of a symmetrical family, etc.) critics would suggest that it was simply an approach for cutting public spending on welfare. Some would now criticise the New Labour governments for not going further. The Civil Partnership Act, for instance, missed the opportunity to bring about true equality and introduce gay marriage (introduced by the coalition government 9 years later). At the time it was felt that it would be too divisive, with strong opposition from religious groups. Having said that, the government did bring in a number of reforms to improve gay rights. The Coalition government, 2010-2015 The coalition government came to power in 2010 when David Cameron’s Conservatives were the biggest party in parliament but failed to get a majority, therefore forming a coalition with the liberal democrats in order to be able to get their legislation through. The conservatives had a mixture of maintaining the New Right approach of the 1979-1997 governments with more modern attitudes, whereas the Liberal Democrats tended to have a more liberal approach, accepting alternative family types. They pursued some policies designed to promote the nuclear family, eg: Copyright tutor2u LIMITED www.tutor2u.net/sociology Page 16 AQA A Level Sociology topic companion - FAMILIES & HOUSEHOLDS Removing the so-called couples’ penalty was an approach to ensuring that the benefits system did not include a perverse incentive for couples to break up in order to receive more benefits. However, they also introduced policies that acknowledged and facilitated more modern notions of family life, for example: Shared parental leave. Both parties in the coalition were keen for parental leave to be able to be shared equally between men and women, rather than it being assumed that women would take an extended period off work while men would only be entitled to two weeks. Equal marriage. 9 years after the Civil Partnerships Act, the coalition government brought in same- sex marriage. There was clear support for the move from both parties in the coalition, although there was a lot of opposition from traditionalists on the Conservative backbenches and also in religious organisations. The Church of England established a special exception, and it is illegal to conduct a same-sex marriage in a Church of England church. While it is theoretically possible for any other religious organisation to host a same-sex marriage, it was also written into the legislation that religious organisations could choose not to, without being in breach of the Human Rights Act or the Equality Act. Evaluating the coalition government, 2010 -2015 There does not appear to be a consistent thread of social policy relating to families during the period of this government. While the main focus of the government was on reducing public spending (to cut the deficit) there clearly were some high-profile pieces of social policy. The introduction of same-sex marriages while leaving the option of civil partnerships on the table has created a new, rather unusual inequality in UK law: same-sex couples can choose a civil partnership or a marriage, but the former is not available to heterosexual couples. While civil partnerships were introduced to be marriages in all but name, there are those now who campaign for the option to choose them, seeing them as a useful legal arrangement without the historical and cultural baggage of marriage. Surprisingly few fathers are taking advantage of additional parental leave beyond the two weeks they were already entitled to. Only 2% of couples share parental leave and even before the option was introduced, only 40% of fathers used the 2 weeks they were entitled to. This does raise a range of questions attitudes to family and parenthood in the UK today. Social policy today In 2015 the Conservative Party was re-elected with a small majority. They lost that majority in 2017 but continue to govern as a minority government, with the support of the Northern Irish party the DUP. The government is mainly focused on the issue of the UK leaving the European Union, but there has been some social policy relating to families. For example: Married couple’s tax allowance. The government has brought back a tax allowance for married couples with only one member who pays tax. While on the face of it, this is an old-fashioned return to social policy promoting the traditional nuclear family, it is does not quite fit that bill. First, the married couple’s tax allowance applies to all married couples (regardless of gender and sexual orientation) and civil partnerships. Second, it does not matter which member of the family is the “breadwinner” and which performs a more domestic role, so it would benefit families with a househusband, for example. Finally, because the tax-free personal allowance for all workers is now £11,500, someone could be working substantial part-time hours and still not pay income tax, and therefore their partner would still be eligible for the marred couple’s tax allowance, so it no longer assumes a traditional housewife role. www.tutor2u.net/sociology Copyright tutor2u LIMITED AQA A Level Sociology topic companion - FAMILIES & HOUSEHOLDS Page 17 Child tax credits restricted to two children. Child tax credits are only available for two children (and the equivalent for those on universal credit). Some ministers have specifically suggested this is designed to change behaviour and discourage people on low incomes from having too many children, although it is also clearly a cost-saving measure. Both the coalition and the Conservative governments have made a number of changes to the benefits system that embeds the idea that children are the responsibility of their parents until they reach their mid 20s, which is quite a significant shift. Links to core themes Social policy inevitably links with power as only those with power are able to get their policy made into law. As such, the nature of policy and who is likely to benefit from it tells us something about who holds power and what they choose to do with it. That, in turn, links with theoretical perspectives, as Marxists and feminists would expect to see power wielded in the interests of the groups they identify as powerful, while postmodernists would expect to see a more complex picture. Possible exam questions Exam Hint: Item C Social policies can directly influence family life, such as determining when people can get married, and to whom, but it also can have an indirect influence through welfare and tax policies that might influence people’s life choices. Applying material from Item I analyse two ways in which social policy has changed family life in the UK (10 marks) Exam hint: there are some quite clear hooks in this item, but they need further development and to be analysed with plenty of good sociology. Item D Some sociologists argue that social policy has had a significant (and sometimes very negative) influence on family life. However, while some direct legislation clearly impacts families, some question the extent to which policies to do with taxes or benefits really impact people’s choices in terms of starting and maintaining a family. Applying material from Item D and your own knowledge, evaluate the view that recent social policy has had little impact on the contemporary family in the UK (20 marks) Exam hint: There is a lot in the item – go item mining! Which sociologists are being referred to? What sort of direct legislation clearly impacts families? Which tax and benefit changes are claimed to impact families? Use the item! Watch out for “recent” and “contemporary”: they are not looking for policies from the 1960s and 70s. Copyright tutor2u LIMITED www.tutor2u.net/sociology Page 18 AQA A Level Sociology topic companion - FAMILIES & HOUSEHOLDS CHANGING PATTERNS OF MARRIAGE, COHABITATION, SEPARATION, DIVORCE, CHILDBEARING AND THE LIFE COURSE Specification: Sociological explanations of changing patterns of marriage, cohabitation, separation, divorce, childbearing and the life course WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW Outline, explain, analyse and evaluate sociological explanations for: Changing patterns of marriage Changing patterns of cohabitation Changing patterns of separation and divorce Changing patterns of childbearing Marriage Marriage became much less popular in the second half of the 20th century, with the number of first marriages in the UK declining in the 1970s, despite the population continuing to increase. While there have been more dramatic fluctuations in the numbers of marriages (such as during the second world war, there was a dramatic peak in 1940 and then a dramatic slump during the rest of the war) most of the period since the early 1970s has experienced a steady decline. At times in the 1980s and 1990s it was a more rapid decline. However, since then there has been rather more fluctuation with some years seeing more marriages (partly fed by civil partnerships and same-sex marriages and partly by changing trends, with celebrity and royal weddings). 2017 saw the lowest number of heterosexual weddings since records began, in the UK. There are a number of possible explanations for the overall decline in the popularity of marriage in this period: Secularisation. The declining significance of religion in UK society could have contributed to the declining popularity of marriage. For many, marriage is no longer a religious ceremony, and there is no social stigma associated with cohabitation (couples living together without being married) which was once thought of as “living in sin”. This is further evidenced by the fact that, while there has been some fluctuation in numbers of marriages, the number of religious ceremonies has continued to steadily decline. Divorce rates. As we shall see, there has been a dramatic increase in the number of divorces. This could have had the effect of putting people off getting married, as so many end in divorce. Expense. Apparently the average wedding in the UK costs over £27,000. The pure relationship. Anthony Giddens (1995) has written about the quest today for the perfect relationship which again could put some off getting married if they’re always imagining a better relationship is around the corner. The role of marriage has changed, certainly, as it is all about the perfect relationship rather than the financial security that particularly women used to use the institution for in earlier periods. Another significant trend in marriage in the second half of the 20th century has been to delay it: the average age that people get married has continually risen since the 1970s. In 2014, the average age for a man getting married was 37 compared with 34.6 for women. The difference there has been quite consistent (reflecting that men tend to marry women who are a bit younger than them). This has increased from 29 and 26 (respectively) in 1974, a big change in behaviour in 40 years. There are a number of possible explanations for the trend towards delaying marriage: www.tutor2u.net/sociology Copyright tutor2u LIMITED AQA A Level Sociology topic companion - FAMILIES & HOUSEHOLDS Page 19 Secularisation. Again, because there is less stigma attached to cohabitation, increasingly people may “try before you buy” and marry after a successful period of cohabitation. Women’s careers. While women in particular may have seen marriage as a necessary rite of passage from being dependent on one’s father to having the security of a husband, this is no longer a relevant concept in modern Britain. Today women expect to have careers and independent financial security and can therefore afford to delay marriage and settling down. Living longer. People are living longer and therefore later marriages are not shorter marriages (unless they end in divorce). Evaluating sociological explanations of trends in marriage Only 30% of weddings in the UK today are religious ceremonies. As such, it is not clear that secularisation would have much impact on the total number of weddings as clearly most do not consider it a religious activity in any case. Giddens’ argument is generally used to explain why couples may be less concerned about divorce and remarriage than previous generations, rather than an explanation for not getting married in the first place. Cohabitation The number of couples cohabiting, as opposed to getting married, has undoubtedly increased in second half the 20th century. Indeed, in 2015, research showed that the vast majority of marriages (80%) were between couples who had previously cohabited. As such, the increase in cohabitation is not necessarily linked to a decline in marriage although may well be deeply linked with the delay in marriage. Of course while cohabitation is often a precursor to marriage, this is not always the case. Approximately 3% of families in the UK are cohabiting couples, so while they are more numerous than lone-parent families and have more than doubled since the mid 1990s, they are still massively outnumbered by married couples. Separation and divorce It is much easier to find out information about divorce than it is separation. Divorce greatly increased after the 1969 Divorce Reform Act. This legislation made getting a divorce much easier and took away the need to prove that someone was at fault. It also made it equally easy for a woman to obtain a divorce as a man. Possible reasons for the rapid increase in divorce rates include: Legislative changes. The 1969 act is one of a number of reforms that have made divorce easier over the years and have seen a subsequent increase in divorces. Secularisation. While people have taken vows such as “what God has brought together let no man put asunder” divorce is a very big deal. But it might seem less so when it is viewed more as a legal contract that can be legally terminated. Also there is less religious or social stigma attached to being a divorcee than there used to be. Female emancipation. In the past women would fear divorce because of the financial risk of losing their husband. Today however women are much more likely to have independent finances and be able to manage on their own. Child support. Furthermore, women know that men will be expected to pay maintenance to their children. The pure relationship. Again Giddens’ concept of the pure relationship and people using relationships as part of their self-identity and experiencing serial monogamy is highly relevant here. People do not necessarily expect their marriages to last forever but rather seek perfection. Copyright tutor2u LIMITED www.tutor2u.net/sociology Page 20 AQA A Level Sociology topic companion - FAMILIES & HOUSEHOLDS Evaluating sociological explanations of rising divorce rates It is certainly true that changes to the law that increased the accessibility of divorce greatly increase the divorce rate. What is less clear is whether it greatly increased the rate at which marriages broke down. If people could not get a divorce, then clearly that was not an option, but people still separated, or indeed lived separate lives in the same home. It is harder to find any statistical support for this and would require careful analysis of census returns to find evidence of separation, and there really is no way of accessing historical separation under the same roof. Similarly, there are plenty of recorded cases of bigamous marriages from before the Divorce Reform Act, where people separated and remarried as if they had divorced (and clearly many of these will not be recorded, especially if the second relationship did not involve a registered wedding). As such, we cannot be sure whether the other factors mentioned really have had a big impact on marital breakdown as we cannot quantify with any certainty how much marital breakdown has increased, only that there have been a lot more divorces. Childbearing By childbearing we mean the act of having children, while childrearing is how they are brought up (which is more relevant to other sections). Many of the changes in childbearing and childrearing over this period come as direct result of the other trends. For example: Women are having children later (this links with women getting married later and having careers) Women are having fewer children (as above) A higher proportion of women are choosing not to have children (approximately a quarter of women today will not have children) More than 40% of children are born outside marriage (this links with increasing numbers of couples choosing to cohabit rather than get married) Currently it would appear that these trends will continue for the foreseeable future. While they mostly link to changes in marriage, they also relate to broad social change, such as: Secularisation Changing role of women in society Life course All of this relates to the idea of a life course: the social phases we progress through, throughout our lives. Traditionally, these were seen as quite fixed, especially for women (who would be expected to be dependent on their parents until being married, at which point they would be dependent on their husbands and bear and rear children). However, the personal life perspective, suggested by Carol Smart among others, suggests that increasingly individuals are able to make choices about their life course: to try and plan it and make choices for it. They are not completely individual actors, unaffected by social forces; gender, social class and other factors will influence their life course, but it will not determine it. By thinking about the life course in terms of personal life rather than simply family, we can see how diverse that life course can be. Many young people spend a significant time outside a traditional family-based household, either living with friends, flatmates or alone. The work of both Judith Stacey and Jeffrey Weeks support Smart’s position with Stacey looking at the way women in particular have been able to change families and choose structures that suit their needs, and Weeks focusing on choice and people being open- minded. Stacey wrote about how people would form relationships with people who were not kin, for www.tutor2u.net/sociology Copyright tutor2u LIMITED AQA A Level Sociology topic companion - FAMILIES & HOUSEHOLDS Page 21 example divorced women maintaining relationships with their ex-husband’s extended family. However, Weeks also supports Chester’s conclusion that, despite all these trends, most people still live in apparently traditional family structures (couples with children) as shall be discussed in the next section. The way people’s personal life changes through their life course is a key element of family diversity too, as most people live in several family forms and household structures through their lives. Links to Core Themes § This does link with socialisation because many of these trends and patterns are a response to changing values. Children are brought up with certain expectations about marriage and life course and these are changing. However, people are still socialised to want to get married and to find their one true love (for example through Disney movies and fairy tales) but it is all about romance and true love rather than necessity. Possible Exam Questions Item C The second half of the 20th century saw some important changes in attitudes and values in relation to marriage and families that had a major impact on people’s behaviour. These changes were also reflected in legislative change. Applying material from Item C, analyse two reasons for the rise in divorce rates since the 1960s (10 marks) Exam hint: Find the hooks and develop them, the answers are not directly revealed in the item (although “legislative change” is a pretty useful hook for one of your paragraphs…) Item D In 2017, there was lowest number of heterosexual weddings of any year on record. Increasingly people do not feel the need to get married, either to meet their own needs, not to raise children. However, other sociologists argue that most people still want to get married, and that its role in society has changed rather than disappeared. Applying material from Item D and elsewhere, evaluate the view that getting married is no longer the norm in the UK today. (20 marks) Exam hint: this is a tricky question. You need to think about which sociological content can be included as what you want to avoid is a common-sense, non-sociological response. So it needs Personal Life perspective, feminism, reasons for reduction in marriages, reasons for delays in marriages, etc. There’s lots that could go in there: take the time do a small brainstorm/plan before making a start. Copyright tutor2u LIMITED www.tutor2u.net/sociology Page 22 AQA A Level Sociology topic companion - FAMILIES & HOUSEHOLDS FAMILY DIVERSITY Specification: WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW Outline, explain, analyse and evaluate sociological explanations for: The wide range of different family forms in the UK today Different types of family diversity The impact of family diversity on society Outline, explain, analyse and evaluate whether there is family diversity in the UK today. Some sociologists argue that there is no “normal” family, but instead a broad diversity of family and household forms in the UK today. There are a number of reasons for this increased diversity, including: Secularisation (as religion has become less central to UK society, so people are more likely to consider alternatives to marriage and also there is a reduced stigma to divorce.) Legal changes (the legal changes mentioned in the previous section has made divorce easier, therefore leading to more family types) Late modernist Anthony Giddens (1992) argues that greater gender equality has led to significant changes in the nature of family life. Relationships are now categorised by freedom – people are free to enter into relationships on their own terms rather than bound by tradition or family expectations. A consequence of this is that people seek a pure relationship: if a relationship is not meeting their expectations then they are also at liberty to end it and seek one that is more fulfilling. Furthermore, relationships have become increasingly about the self: people’s self-identity is explored through relationships. All of this combines to suggest that people are less likely to get married young and stay together for their whole lives and instead are likely to experience serial monogamy. That is, be part of several partnerships throughout their life course, rather than just one. While in previous eras it was not unusual for people to marry their “childhood sweetheart” it is now very unusual for people in a relationship at 18 to remain in the same relationship for life. While this represents greater choice and freedom, it is also characterised by instability. Sociologists recognise a large number of diverse family forms in contemporary society. Let’s start with some examples: Traditional nuclear This is the traditional family as described functionalists like Talcott Parsons family and the New Right: a married couple with their own children (2 or 3 of them) where the husband goes out to work and the wife looks after most of the domestic duties, with clear segregated roles. Symmetrical family This family form was described by Wilmott & Young who argued that in the later 20th century, families were becoming more symmetrical, with more joint roles. Women were increasingly going out to work and men were doing more of the housework. Nuclear family with Another family form that exists, especially in a postmodern society, is one house husband or “new where the female adult in the family is the “breadwinner” and the husband man” does most of the domestic work. Extended family Extended family refers to those family members who are outside the “nucleus”: aunts, uncles, cousins and grandparents, etc. Extended family households can be either: www.tutor2u.net/sociology Copyright tutor2u LIMITED AQA A Level Sociology topic companion - FAMILIES & HOUSEHOLDS Page 23 Vertical. Multiple generations living together (e.g. grandparents and great grandparents. The vertical description relates to how it would appear on a family tree. Horizontal. A household made up of aunts, uncles and cousins: the family extended horizontally across the same generation rather than vertically. These household forms were uncommon in the 20th century, but had arguably been a feature of pre-industrial and early industrial households. However, life expectancy would suggest that at the time it would have been more likely to be horizontal extended families, whereas today – with an ageing population – the likelihood of vertical extended families has increased. Beanpole family Again, looking at how a family looks on a family tree can present us with a beanpole family: a vertical extended family with no (or few) “branches”. This is a multi-generational extended family, or vertical extended family, but is characterised by each generation having few siblings. Again, as the fertility rate has reduced, this becomes a more common family form. In earlier generations, grandparents and great grandparents might be expected to have several siblings, as large families was the norm. Matrifocal lone parent The most common lone-parent family is the matrifocal one: that is one where family the lone parent is the mother of the child/children. There are several reasons for this, such as women giving birth (and therefore being the present parent if they are not in a relationship) and courts tending to prefer mothers in child custody cases, following divorces. New Right sociologists, such as Charles Murray criticise lone parent families suggesting that the lack of a male role model can cause deviant behaviour and socialise children with deviant values, leading to the creation of an underclass. Patrifocal lone parent A less common variation on the lone-parent family is the patrifocal one: a family family headed by a single father. Reconstituted family A reconstituted family is where two nuclear families that have split up merge (or blend) to form a new family (i.e. with step-parents and step-brothers or sisters). Because of both increased divorce and the decrease in marriage, there are many more reconstituted or blended families in the UK today than there were 100 years ago. Same sex couples Of course, there are really a number of different same-sex family structures, not just one. Same-sex couple implies a couple living without children (coupling describes this household structure for both heterosexual and homosexual couples) but there are also same-sex families where there are children (either naturally the children of one or other parent or adopted). Living apart together A living apart together family is where a couple choose not to cohabitate (or are not currently cohabitating). This accounts for approximately 10% of UK adults. Grandparenting This is a term for when children are brought up by their grandparents rather than their parents. There are a number of reasons why this situation might arise. It refers to a more formal, permanent or semi-permanent arrangement than just grandparents assisting with childcare. Singledom This term refers to people living on their own. Again this is quite a common household type in contemporary Britain. Copyright tutor2u LIMITED www.tutor2u.net/sociology Page 24 AQA A Level Sociology topic companion - FAMILIES & HOUSEHOLDS Flatmates/housemates Some households are multiple occupancy. This might be in the form of flatmates or housemates such as university students, or it might be people who do not know each other prior to taking up residence (e.g. some migrant workers). Empty nest family This term refers to a household where there is a couple who had children but they have now left the family home. Because people are living longer, there are more empty nest households and they remain that way for longer. Boomerang family However, a growing trend has been for boomerang families where children who have left the family home have come back again! For example, this might occur with people graduating from university and then returning to the family home. The cost and scarcity of housing has made this more common. Polygamy Polygamy in the strict sense is illegal in the UK: you cannot be married to more than one person under UK law. However, there are people who live with more than one partner (not married) and also some people have other spouses in other countries (not recognised by UK law). In some cultures polygamy is seen as a better option than infidelity and is therefore encouraged. Of course individuals can live in several of these family forms through their course of their lives. Rappoport and Rappoport (1983) suggest five ways in which the modern family is now diverse. Organisational diversity Families are organised in a range of ways, in terms of the performance of roles. While some are traditional with segregated roles, others are symmetrical with joint roles and others perform roles in other ways (such as roles being segregated in a non-traditional way). Cultural diversity As a result of the UK being a culturally diverse society, so there is a diversity of family structures as a result. For example: - African Caribbean families are more likely to be matrifocal - Some Asian households are more likely to include extended family members Social class diversity Family structure and child-rearing practices are also influenced by social class. There are statistics that show that divorce is more common among those on lower incomes for example and there are a range of possible explanations for that. Life stage diversity As previously mentioned, people find themselves in different types of families at different points in their lives. For example, one individual might experience, in one life: - nuclear family - lone-parent family - reconstituted family - singledom - housemates - boomerang family - living apart together - coupling - nuclear family - lone-parent family - reconstituted family www.tutor2u.net/sociology Copyright tutor2u LIMITED AQA A Level Sociology topic companion - FAMILIES & HOUSEHOLDS Page 25 - empty-nest family, etc. Generational diversity Furthermore, different generations have different attitudes to family life. When the Rappoports were writing, older generations tended to be more traditional, preferring the classic nuclear family while younger generations had different attitudes. 35 years later, Rappoports younger generations would be today’s older ones. While postmodernists and late modernists largely regard family diversity as a positive feature of contemporary society (while acknowledging that it can also lead to instability) New Right thinkers, like Charles Murray and Melanie Phillips take a much more negative view of the phenomenon. They argue that state policies, and particularly state welfare policies, and liberal attitudes have led to a collapse of traditional families, resulting in many social problems. Murray suggests that benefits paid to lone parents provides a perverse incentive to young women to get pregnant when single. The benefit system provides a similar incentive (they argue) to young men not to work and provide for their children. Planning, responsibility and commitment are all positively discouraged. Melanie Phillips (2011) suggested that the mass rioting that took place across London and other parts of the UK in the summer of 2011 was a result of matrifocal lone-parent families: children (especially boys) growing up without fathers. She put the blame for this on a “social experiment” by the “liberal intelligentsia” and the Labour Party. She argued that politicians had ceased to see the value of traditional families and had indeed encouraged diversity as being preferable to tradition. She suggested that state welfare policies encouraged girls to get pregnant (to access benefits and a council home). She further argued that children born into these families lack the discipline provided by a father; boys lack a positive male role model and they are not taught to take responsibility or to respect authority, but instead to take what they can get away with and to blame others. A lot of sociologists strongly disagree with the New Right position. While some of the 2011 rioters were from lone-parent families and from workless homes, many were not. While the numbers with single parents may have been disproportionate, correlation does not mean causation. That is, just because children from lone parent families rioted does not mean that it was their family form that caused the behaviour. Others point out that a couple staying together does not necessarily guarantee a positive male role model, as there may be a bad father and a bad relationship. Furthermore, there may be other family members or friends providing that positive adult male role model (e.g. a grandfather or uncle). MAKE THE LINK: Crime and Deviance Of course this debate about the possible impact of lone parent families and the lack of a male role model also features in the Crime and Deviance topic. It is one of the New Right explanations for criminal behaviour and for the social-class distribution of crime. However, there are many counter-arguments to suggest that alternative explanations for why those from low-income households are more likely to commit crime might also explain the correlation with lone-parent families. Lone-parent families are, on average, more likely to be low-income families and there are a range of theoretical explanations as to why those from low-income households are more likely to commit crime than others, not necessarily anything to do with an absent father. Copyright tutor2u LIMITED www.tutor2u.net/sociology Page 26 AQA A Level Sociology topic companion - FAMILIES & HOUSEHOLDS Evaluating the view that there is now family diversity The functionalist sociologist Robert Chester (1985), while acknowledging that family life had changed, argued that by most families were effectively nuclear families, even if they were not traditional nuclear families. He coined the term neo-conventional family to describe families where there were two adults with children in a household but where it was not necessarily the case that the children were the biological offspring of both adults, that the adults were married, that they had not been married before, that a male was a breadwinner and a female an “expressive leader”. On this reckoning, traditional nuclear families, symmetrical families, reconstituted families, same- sex families, etc. were all effectively nuclear in structure. While lone-parent families had increased in number, they were very much a minority and most aspire to be in a nuclear family Statistics from 2017 bear this out, revealing that by the far the most common family type was the “married of civil partner couple” and the fastest-growing type was the cohabiting couple, both of which would come under Chester’s definition of a neo-conventional family. The cohabiting couple family has overtaken the lone-parent family in the UK today. Links to Core Themes § This topic links particularly with identity: family has always been an important part of people’s identities, but postmodernists would argue that increasingly people can choose their family as part of their identity, rather than be determined by it. § However, this also links to stratification and social differentiation as certain family-types are much more common among some social groups than others. There are correlations between ethnic groups and family forms; lone-parent families are much more likely to be headed by a woman than a man; lone-parent families are more common among those with lower incomes than those with higher incomes, etc. Possible Exam Questions Item C Some sociologists suggest that we do not really have family diversity in the UK today. Most families are still nuclear in form, despite various changes, and where people do live in different household structures, they mostly still want to live in a nuclear family eventually: they will not stay in the same family form for their whole lives. Applying material from Item C, analyse two ways in which families in the UK today are diverse (10 marks) Item D Some sociologists point to the very wide range of different family forms in the UK today as being proof of diversity. However, others point out that while many differ from the sort of traditional nuclear family favoured by functionalists and the New Right, most have quite a traditional structure with two parents and a small number of children in the household. Applying material from Item D and your own knowledge, evaluate the view that the UK today is characterised by family diversity (20 marks) www.tutor2u.net/sociology Copyright tutor2u LIMITED AQA A Level Sociology topic companion - FAMILIES & HOUSEHOLDS Page 27 GENDER ROLES IN THE CONTEMPORARY FAMILY Specification: WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW Outline, explain, analyse and evaluate sociological explanations for: § Segregated and joint conjugal roles § Changes in gender roles in contemporary families § Decision-making § Domestic violence The term conjugal roles is used to describe the roles of husband and wife in a household. In contemporary society the term would extent to other forms of partnership too. A number of sociologists have suggested that men and women have different roles within the family. The classic expression of this came from Talcott Parsons when he talked of men being the instrumental leaders and women being the expressive leaders. Instrumental role The “breadwinner”; the head of the household; in charge of discipline. Expressive role Taking the lead in emotional support; nurturing; caring; domestic duties (childcare and housework). Parsons argued that this was the situation in nuclear families, following industrialisation, but he also thought that men and women were naturally suited to these roles. Ann Oakley agreed with Parsons that this gender division of labour was a product of the Industrial Revolution (men going to work in factories and women being barred from industrial work) but she believed that the idea that women were biologically programmed to be housewives was the product of deeply-embedded cultural values, or patriarchal ideology, built up through the social construction of the housewife role. Elizabeth Bott (1957) looked at two different approaches to conjugal roles among families: Segregated roles This is very much the Parsons’ model, where men and women have distinct roles and responsibilities within the household. When Bott was writing, this was particularly that men would go out to work and do some practical tasks around the house (i.e. DIY) while women would do the housework and the childcare and generally perform a supportive role. Joint roles Here there is less clear segregation of roles: men and women will make decisions about the family and about spending money jointly. They spend some leisure time together and in some cases the man might do some housework and the woman some paid work, although in 1957 this was not the norm. The Symmetrical Family In an earlier section we met Wilmott and Young and their idea about a “march of progress” where familie evolved as the economy changed. Their third stage was the symmetrical family and was based on the idea that joint roles would become the norm and families would be equal. They argued that families changed thanks to stratified diffusion and that symmetry had become the norm among higher-class families and that this was diffusing to the rest of society at the time they were writing in 1973. Copyright tutor2u LIMITED www.tutor2u.net/sociology Page 28 AQA A Level Sociology topic companion - FAMILIES & HOUSEHOLDS Evaluating the symmetrical family Ann Oakley destroyed Wilmott and Young’s methodological basis for the symmetrical family in 1974, when she pointed out that, from their perspective, a man “helping” with a few housework chores counted as joint conjugal roles. No allowance was made for the time taken over household work, and so a household could be deemed symmetrical if a man did the washing up once in a while and his wife did all the rest of the housework. Housework One major change in gender roles in the family, after Bott was writing and happening much more dramatically even after Wilmott and Young, was the extent to which women entered the workplace and households became dual-earner households. A number of sociologists have joined Oakley in pointing out that women going to work has not led to symmetry in the rest of family life. Oakley Ann Oakley (1974) concluded that working women suffered a dual burden. By this she meant that as well as paid work, they also completed the bulk of housework too. Her research revealed that most working mothers performed the vast majority of domestic chores and also the bulk of childcare. She found that, while some men might “help” with some chores, very few did significant amounts of housework at all. Dunscombe and These feminist sociologists suggest (1995) that women not only have a dual Marsden burden but in fact work a triple shift as they do a full day’s paid work, all the housework and childcare but also all the emotional work too – providing the emotional support for the whole family. This relates to what Diane Bell (1990) described as the “economy of emotion” (managing the family’s emotions just as you might manage the household budget), which was a part of family life that remained the responsibility of women. Edgell In 1980, Edgell sought to test Wilmott and Young’s idea of a symmetrical family and found that none of the families in his sample had shared conjugal roles. He did, however, find that parents were sharing childcare more than families had previously. Dunne In 1999, Gillian Dunne looked at the domestic division of labour in households headed by a lesbian couple. She found that these families did tend to be symmetrical with quite an equal distribution of household tasks and shared childcare Pahl Jan Pahl (1989) found that unemployed men did more domestic work than employed men but wives of

AQA Sociology Families & Households Topic Companion PDF

Document Details

Tags

Related

Summary

Full Transcript