Talcott Parsons (Functionalist, 1950s)
Parsons was a leading Functionalist who argued that the family is central to the smooth running
of modern, industrial societies. He believed the family performs two irreducible functions:
1. Primary socialisation of children – Families teach children the
shared norms, values, and culture of society. This ensures continuity of
culture from one generation to the next.
2. Stabilisation of adult personalities – Through what he called the
“warm bath theory,” Parsons claimed that the family provides
emotional support and relief for adults. Work may be stressful, but the
family acts as a stabilising, comforting environment.
Parsons also argued that the nuclear family is particularly suited to modern industrial society. He
believed that extended families were more common in pre-industrial times because they
supported agricultural work and passed down land. However, with industrialisation, families
became more geographically mobile, and smaller nuclear families became the norm. Within this
structure, Parsons distinguished between the instrumental role (male breadwinner, provider)
and the expressive role (female caregiver, nurturer).
Critics argue that Parsons presented an idealised, middle-class, Western view of the family that
ignores diversity and inequality. Feminists in particular reject his view of gender roles, arguing
that it naturalises patriarchy. Despite this, Parsons remains a foundational figure because he
linked family structure to wider social change and provided a framework for understanding
family functions. His work is essential for understanding why Functionalists defend the nuclear
family as the most beneficial form for society.
Ann Oakley (Feminist, 1970s)
Ann Oakley is one of the most influential feminist sociologists of the family. Her research
challenged Functionalist claims that family life had become more equal in modern societies.
Young and Willmott (1973) argued that there was a rise of the “symmetrical family,” where men
and women shared housework and childcare more equally. Oakley disputed this with her own
research in the 1970s, interviewing women about their domestic roles. She found that very few
men participated in housework or childcare to a significant degree.
Oakley showed that the domestic division of labour remained deeply unequal. Women, even
when employed, still carried the bulk of household work. This led to her famous concepts of the
dual burden (women working both outside the home and inside it) and later linked to
Duncombe and Marsden’s idea of the triple shift (paid work, domestic work, emotional work).
Oakley argued that the family is a major site of patriarchy, where gender roles are reproduced
and inequality maintained.
Her work was groundbreaking because it used empirical evidence (interviews and observations)
to demonstrate how Functionalist claims ignored women’s lived realities. Oakley’s findings
provided a foundation for later feminist research on domestic labour, childcare, and emotional
work. In terms of family diversity, Oakley’s work suggests that traditional nuclear families may
be especially oppressive for women, and that diverse forms (e.g., cohabitation, same-sex
families) may offer more equality. However, she also warned that inequality persists even within
diverse family forms.
Charles Murray (New Right, 1980s–1990s)
Charles Murray is a central figure in the New Right perspective on family. He was particularly
concerned with the rise of lone-parent families, especially those headed by single mothers.
Murray argued that such families undermine social order and stability. He claimed that children
raised without fathers lacked proper discipline and male role models, and were therefore more
likely to engage in crime or antisocial behaviour.
Murray also introduced the concept of the “underclass”, which he described as a group
dependent on welfare benefits, with little interest in work or responsibility. He argued that lone-
parent families, supported by generous welfare systems, perpetuate a culture of dependency,
passing on values of idleness and irresponsibility to children. According to Murray, only the
traditional nuclear family, with two married heterosexual parents, can properly socialise children
and provide stability.
Murray’s ideas have been influential in political debates, particularly in the UK and the US,
where they shaped Conservative policies on welfare reform and family values. However, his
work is widely criticised for blaming the poor and ignoring structural causes of inequality such
as unemployment, low wages, and discrimination. Feminists argue that Murray’s critique
stigmatises single mothers and ignores the possibility of lone parents successfully raising
children. Despite criticism, Murray’s contribution is vital in understanding the ideological
resistance to family diversity and the defence of the nuclear family by New Right thinkers.
Anthony Giddens (Postmodernist, 1992)
Giddens contributed to understanding family diversity in the context of modernity and
postmodernity. He argued that contemporary society has moved away from traditional norms and
is now characterised by individualisation. In this context, relationships are no longer bound by
social duty, economic necessity, or religious norms. Instead, they are based on choice and
personal fulfilment.
His key concept is the “pure relationship.” Giddens defined this as a relationship entered into
purely for emotional satisfaction, love, and intimacy. Unlike traditional marriage, the pure
relationship continues only as long as both partners are happy and fulfilled. This explains the rise
of cohabitation, divorce, and serial monogamy. It also reflects why people increasingly choose
diverse family forms, such as same-sex partnerships and cohabiting households.
Giddens linked these changes to contraceptive technology (which separated sex from
reproduction) and the rise of feminism (which gave women greater independence in
relationships). He saw these changes as positive, giving individuals more autonomy and
freedom. However, he also recognised that pure relationships can be unstable, leading to greater
family diversity but also higher levels of family breakdown.
Critics argue that Giddens overemphasises individual choice, ignoring how class, gender, and
ethnicity still shape family decisions. Nonetheless, his work is essential in explaining why
postmodern societies are characterised by unprecedented levels of family diversity, and how
intimacy has been reshaped by modern values of freedom and self-expression.
Ulrich Beck (Postmodernist, 1992)
Beck argued that we live in a “risk society” where traditional norms and roles have declined,
and individuals must constantly negotiate their own life choices. He introduced the idea of the
“negotiated family,” which is based on agreements between members rather than fixed
traditional roles. For example, men and women may negotiate how to share housework,
childcare, or finances.
This flexibility produces family diversity, as no single model dominates. Families can take many
forms—dual-worker households, cohabiting couples, reconstituted families—depending on the
negotiations individuals make. Beck argued that this represents greater freedom but also greater
insecurity. Because negotiated families depend on ongoing agreements, they are fragile and more
prone to breakdown. This helps explain rising divorce rates, serial relationships, and
reconstituted families.
Beck also pointed out that individuals face new kinds of risks in a risk society, including
financial insecurity, relationship instability, and global uncertainty. Families are one way people
manage these risks, but their fragility makes them less reliable than in the past.
Critics of Beck argue that his theory overstates individual choice and negotiation, since structural
factors (patriarchy, class inequality) still shape what families look like. Nevertheless, his concept
of the negotiated family is important for understanding why modern families are so diverse and
less stable compared to traditional models.
Eli Zaretsky (Marxist, 1976)
Zaretsky examined the role of the family under capitalism. He argued that the family is not
primarily about personal choice or happiness but about serving the economic needs of capitalism.
According to Zaretsky, the family has two key functions in capitalist society.
First, it provides emotional support for workers. Capitalist workplaces can be alienating and
exploitative, but the family acts as a “haven” where workers can relax and feel valued. This helps
sustain the workforce, ensuring workers are able to return to production the next day. Second, the
family acts as a unit of consumption. Families are targeted by advertisers and encouraged to
buy products, which fuels consumer capitalism. Parents also feel pressure to buy goods for their
children, reinforcing demand for commodities.
Zaretsky also argued that the family reproduces capitalist inequality by passing down property
and wealth through inheritance, echoing Engels’ earlier work. From this perspective, family
diversity does not represent freedom or choice but different forms of the same capitalist logic.
Whether nuclear, lone-parent, or reconstituted, families still serve capitalism by socialising
children into consumer culture and maintaining inequality.
Critics argue that Zaretsky underestimates the personal and emotional importance of families,
reducing them to economic units. Nevertheless, his contribution is vital in showing that family
forms cannot be understood in isolation from wider economic structures. His work provides a
structural counterpoint to postmodern ideas of choice and individualisation.
George Murdock (Functionalist, 1949)
Murdock is one of the earliest Functionalist theorists to provide a systematic analysis of the
family. In his 1949 study, he examined 250 societies and concluded that the nuclear family was
universal. He argued that the nuclear family performs four essential functions:
1. Sexual – regulating sexual behaviour and maintaining social order.
2. Reproductive – ensuring the continuation of society through
childbirth.
3. Economic – providing food and shelter.
4. Educational – socialising children into norms and values.
For Murdock, the universality of these functions made the nuclear family indispensable to all
societies. This early work contributed to the idea that other family forms (e.g., lone-parent or
same-sex families) were less effective, and thus functionalists often dismissed family diversity as
deviance from the norm.
Critics argue that Murdock presented an ethnocentric, Western bias, assuming that the nuclear
family is best and ignoring cultural variations such as matrifocal families. Feminists like Oakley
point out that his perspective ignores gender inequality within the nuclear family. Marxists also
criticise him for neglecting the family’s role in supporting capitalism. Despite criticisms,
Murdock’s work remains a cornerstone for understanding Functionalist views of family, as it
shows why traditionalists continue to defend the nuclear model against rising family diversity.
Delphy & Leonard (Radical Feminists, 1992)
Delphy and Leonard are key radical feminist voices who argue that the family is fundamentally a
patriarchal institution that exploits women. In their book Familiar Exploitation, they claim that
while men may appear to “share” domestic life, in reality women perform the majority of unpaid
labour in the home. This includes cooking, cleaning, childcare, and emotional support. Men,
meanwhile, benefit from this arrangement as they control finances and enjoy leisure at the
expense of women’s work.
Delphy and Leonard extend this critique to family diversity. Even in non-traditional families,
such as cohabiting couples or dual-worker households, they argue that women are still
disadvantaged and exploited. For example, women in same-sex relationships may avoid
patriarchal structures, but in most heterosexual families, gender inequality persists. Their work
shows that family diversity does not automatically lead to equality.
A strength of their analysis is that it highlights power relations within the family, drawing
attention to how patriarchy is reproduced across generations. However, critics argue that their
perspective is too negative, ignoring women’s agency and the emotional satisfaction some may
gain from family life. Postmodernists also suggest that their focus on patriarchy overlooks the
increasing fluidity and diversity of modern families. Nevertheless, Delphy and Leonard’s
contribution is crucial in understanding how family structures sustain gender inequality,
regardless of diversity.
Friedrich Engels (Marxist, 1884)
Engels, a collaborator of Karl Marx, provided one of the earliest Marxist analyses of the family
in his work The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State. Engels argued that the
nuclear family developed alongside the rise of private property and capitalism. In pre-class
societies, he claimed, sexual relationships were relatively free and communal. However, with the
development of agriculture and private property, men wanted to ensure their property was passed
to their biological heirs. This, according to Engels, led to the establishment of the monogamous
nuclear family, which allowed men to control women’s sexuality and guarantee legitimate heirs.
Engels saw the family as an institution that served the interests of capitalism and patriarchy by
securing inheritance and maintaining class inequality. In this sense, family diversity is not truly
about freedom or choice, but about adaptations of the same capitalist logic. Different family
forms may exist, but they all serve the fundamental purpose of property transmission and
sustaining economic inequality.
Critics argue that Engels’ historical account is speculative and lacks empirical evidence.
Feminists, however, agree with his point that families are central to women’s oppression.
Postmodernists argue that his theory cannot explain contemporary family diversity, such as
same-sex partnerships, which do not revolve around inheritance. Nonetheless, Engels’ work is
foundational for understanding the Marxist critique of the nuclear family and its ties to
capitalism.
Judith Stacey (Postmodernist, 1998)
Judith Stacey is a leading postmodernist who celebrated the rise of family diversity as a positive
development. She conducted research in Silicon Valley, California, and found that women in
particular were using their independence to create new family structures. She coined the concept
of the “divorce-extended family”, where households are connected not through marriage, but
through divorce and remarriage. For example, ex-wives, step-siblings, and in-laws may all play
ongoing roles in family life.
Stacey argued that family diversity reflects greater choice and agency, especially for women,
who are no longer confined to the housewife role. Families are now more fluid, flexible, and
adapted to individual needs. This perspective challenges Functionalist and New Right views that
diversity is harmful. Instead, Stacey presents diversity as evidence of progress and freedom in
modern societies.
Critics, particularly Feminists, argue that Stacey may overstate women’s freedom, since many
still face structural barriers such as the gender pay gap and childcare burdens. Marxists also note
that family diversity does not remove the family’s role in supporting capitalism. However,
Stacey’s work remains highly influential because it demonstrates how real families on the
ground adapt to social change, and because it highlights women’s active role in shaping family
diversity, not just men.
Robert & Rhona Rapoport (Pluralists, 1982)
The Rapoports made a major contribution to the study of family diversity by arguing that there is
no single dominant family type in Britain. In their influential 1982 study, they identified five
types of family diversity:
1. Organisational diversity – differences in how families are structured
(e.g., nuclear, lone-parent, dual-career).
2. Cultural diversity – family practices vary by ethnicity, religion, and
cultural traditions.
3. Class diversity – middle-class and working-class families may
organise roles differently.
4. Life-course diversity – family structures change over time (e.g.,
young couples, families with children, empty nesters).
5. Cohort diversity – historical period matters; families differ by
generation (e.g., Baby Boomers vs. Millennials).
The Rapoports argued that diversity is a normal and inevitable feature of modern societies.
This pluralist approach contrasts sharply with the New Right, who see diversity as a threat.
Instead, the Rapoports celebrated diversity as a reflection of choice and social change.
Critics suggest they are too descriptive and do not explain why diversity exists or whether it
benefits everyone equally. Feminists also argue that they underplay persistent gender inequalities
within diverse families. Still, the Rapoports’ work is essential for understanding family pluralism
and remains a foundation for later postmodernist theories of family diversity.
