THE FAMILY

Universal Character and Function

Theoretical perspectives
Introduction
• The Family is regarded as a cornerstone of society.
• It Forms the basic unit of social organisation.
• The composition of families vary from place to place but they are seen
as a universal social institution and is considered inevitable part of
human society.
Universality of the family
Is Family Universal? Do you find them in all societies ?
George Peter Murdock : Study on Universality of Family
• Murdock undertook a study titled Social Structure, wherein he examined
the institution of family in a wide range of societies.
• He took a sample of 250 societies ranging from small hunting and gathering
bands to large-scale industrial societies. He claimed that some sort of
family was present in every society and concluded as per the evidence that
family is universal.
• Definition of Family as per Murdock: ‘the family is a social group
characterised by common residence, economic cooperation and
reproduction. It includes adults of both sexes, at least Two of whom
maintain a socially approved sexual relationship, and one or more children,
own or adopted, of the sexually co-habiting adults.’
• Norms of a family vary from society to society - In a family at least two of
the adulting members conduct a sexual relationship according to the norms
of their particular society, which vary from society to society.
• For example, among the Banaro of New Guinea, the husband does not have
sexual relations with his wife until she has borne a child by a friend of his
father. This is something very different and alien to the norms of most Indian
societies.
• Structure of the family also varies from society to society – There are
different kinds of families in a society, the smallest unit is called nuclear
family, units larger than that are called extended families.
• Conclusion of Murdock’s study – ‘The nuclear family is a universal human
social grouping. Either as the sole prevailing form of the family or as the
basic unit from which more complex forms are compounded, in exists as a
distinct and strongly functional group in every known society’
The New World Black Family – an exception to the rule?

• As per Murdock’s definition of family, there has to be an adult male,

but in a significant proportion of black families in the islands of West
Indies, parts of Central America such as Guyana and the USA families
do not include adult males. They only consider mother and their
dependent children as families
• This would not fall under the category of family as per Murdock
• So, either Family is not universal or there is a need to redefine the
family and the minimal unit may consist of women and her
dependent children.
 The New World Matriarchal Black Families
• Matriarchal families or matrifocal families are very common in low – income Black Communities,
the reasons for the same are discussed below.
1. Firstly, Melville J Herskovits argues that the West African origin of New World Blacks influenced
their family structure. In the traditional West Africa, system of Polygyny (form of extended family
with one husband and two or more wives) along with considerable female economic
independence led to husband playing a relatively marginal role in the families. As per Herskovits,
this pattern has been continuously influencing Black Family Life.
2. The second view says that plantation slavery is one of the major factors accounting for
Matrifocal societies. MG Smith is one of the supporters of this view and he notes that under
slavery, often the families were divided because of the sale of one or more persons, but
dependent children and mothers were usually kept together. This formed the basic family unit in
their society. The authority of male as a family head was eroded because he was subject to the
authority of the plantation owners or their white employees.
3. The Third argument sees economic position of the Blacks in the New world as the basic cause of
matrifocal families. Elliot Liebow says that such families are a result of desertion by the husband
because he had insufficient funds to play the role of father and breadwinner. This argument says
that poverty is the cause of Matrifocal families.
Matrifocal Families v. Murdock’s concept of family

Arguments in support of Murdock: Arguments for recognition of matrifocal

families as family:
• Statistically, female-headed family is not a • Does not mean it cannot be recognised as an
norm. alternative family structure. (E.g. – polygamous
families are also minority)
• Matrifocal family is a nuclear family that
• In low-income Black communities matrifocal
has been broken families are to some extent expected and
• Mainstream model of nuclear family is accepted.
valued and regarded as ideal by the Black • The members of matrifocal families regard
Community itself. themselves as a family unit.
• Female- led families are regarded as a • It is not a broken family, instead they are well
Family gone-wrong as a product of social organised social groups.
disorganisation. (has been accused of • The supposed harmful effects of the matrifocal
producing maladjusted children or families are not proven,
juvenile delinquents and hence, not a
proper family.
The Kibbutz – the abolition of the family?

• Family in Israeli Kibbutz is another possible exception to Murdock’s concept of family.

• The family in Kibbutz are influenced by a number of ideological and economic factors.
Their ideology emphasises on sexual equality and they have rejected the western pattern
of parental roles especially the mother role.
• In their society – marriage is monogamous, the husband and wife share a common
residence. But this common residence is not extended to their children. The children live
in the communal dormitories, where they are raised by child care taker or educators. All
children are considered as children of Kibbutz. There is a common and collective
childrearing.
• Economically, there is no economic cooperation between the couple because neither
works for the family, they all work for the Kibbutz as a whole.
• They even eat in communal dinning rooms, food is cooked in common kitchens and is
provided to Kibbutz as a whole.
The Kibbutz v. Murdock’s concept of family

• As per Murdock’s definition family does not exist in Kibbutz. Firstly because the
families does not share a common residence and there is no economic
cooperation in the family.
• Melford E Spiro analysed The Kibbutz as per Murdock’s definition and concluded
that as per Murdock’s definition a family does not exist, but from a functional and
psychological viewpoint Kibbutz can be regarded as ‘a large extended family’.
• After few years, Spiro reconsidered his position and said that Murdock’s definition
is ‘unduly specific’ and it is possible to argue that family exists in The Kibbutz.
Functionalist Perspective of the family
The Family – a Functionalist Perspective
• From a Functionalist perspective, answering the following questions
are necessary for the analysis:
1. What are the functions of the family?
2. What are the functional relationships between the family and the
other parts of the social system?
3. What are the functions performed by the family for its individual
members?
Murdock – and the Universal functions of the Family
• He argues that a family has four basic functions – sexual,
reproductive, economic and educational.
• The family’s functions for society are inseparable from its functions
for its individual members. It serves both at the same time and in
same way.
• Sexual Functions – Within the family it strengthens the bond and desires of
the couple, and also protects the society from disruption of social order which
would result from free sexual desires. The Family, thus. provides both control
and expression of sexual desires.
• Economic Functions – There is division of labour within the family, husband
specialises in certain skills and the wife in other. Thereby leading to
maximisation of productivity both at individual and society level.
Talcott Parsons – the basic and irreducible functions of the
family
• Parsons argues that the American family retains two basic and irreducible
functions which are common to the families of all the societies:
1. Primary socialisation of children – Involves two basic processes: the
internalisation of society’s culture, which is necessary for having shared
norms and values and structuring of the personality
2. Stabilization of the personalities of the population of the society –
The stabilisation of adult personalities is necessary for marriage
relationships and emotional security. This is especially important in
western societies where families are isolated from kin. Since, their kin
are not around them the couple looks at each other for emotional
support, and therefore a stable personality becomes necessary and
helps them to act out ‘childish’ elements.
Criticism to Parsons
1. He is said to be idealising the family with a picture of well adjusted
children and caring spouses.
2. His idea is based on American Middle-class society, and have no
consideration of class, religion or region.
3. He fails to explore functional alternatives to the family
4. He tends to ignore the two way interaction process between the
parents and the children.
Critical Views of the family
Ezra F. Vogel and Normal W. Bell – functions and dysfunctions
of the family
• When examining the functional aspect of the family, they ask two questions –
‘for whom?’ and ‘ for what?’
• Their study is based on a small number of American families with emotionally
disturbed child. Where they noted that many parents use their children as
‘escape goats’. This is dysfunctional to the child and makes them emotionally
disturbed.
• But this is functional for the parents, the family unit and the society as a
whole. The parents release their tension on the child, thereby reducing the
conflicts between them.
• The cost to the child is relatively low in comparison to the functional gains of
the whole family. Scapegoating serves as a personality stabilizing process for
the parents, and thereby allowing them to effectively perform their roles in
the society.
Edmund Leach – A Runaway World?

• Leach has a pessimistic view towards family, he has spent many years studying small-scale
pre industrial societies, where the families often form a part of the wider kinship unit.
• He says that earlier the kinsfolk and neighbours used to provide moral support, but today the
domestic household is isolated. Because of which the family looks more inwards towards
themselves, because of which there is intensification of emotional stress among the family
members.
• ‘The parents and children are huddled together in their loneliness take too much out of each
other. The parents fight; the children rebel.’
• These tensions find expression throughout the society and it incubates hate which is
expressed during conflicts in the wider society.
• This privatised family breeds suspicion and fear of the outside world, it divides the society
into inside (family) and outside.
• Such practices are creating barriers between people like us and people not like us.
 R.D. Laing – The politics of the family
• R.D. Laing presents a radical alternative to the functionalist picture of the ‘happy family’
• Laing has studied those families which had one member as schizophrenic and has tried to explain the
‘not so normal’ or ‘abnormal’ families
• He views family in terms of sets of interactions. ‘Individuals forms alliances, adopt various strategies
and play one or more individuals against others in a complex tactical game’
• He refers to family group as a ‘nexus’, where the highest concern is reciprocal concern. Each partner is
concerned about what the other thinks. And there is a unremitting demand of mutual concern and
attention. As a result there is considerable potential for harm; and it puts the family members in an
extremely vulnerable place. (E.g. – the value of parental opinions in a child’s life because of the nexus)
• He argues that this nexus leads to reciprocal interiorisation where the family members internalise the
family.
• This also leads to creation of barriers between the family and the outside, which leads to family
members especially children to see the world in terms of “us and them”, which further leads to
harmful and destructive distinctions. (E.g. – the caste system in the Indian context)
• Laing also argues that children are taught to obey their parents and regards this as a primary link in
the dangerous chain. These patterns of obedience laid down in the early childhood make the basis
for obedience to authority in the later life.
David Cooper – The death of the Family

• He also sees the family as a stultifying institution, an institution that stunts the self and largely denies people the
freedom to develop their individuality

• Since the family in interiorize, the self of the children is unable to be free and is made up of other family members.

• He argues that family works as an ‘ideological conditioning device in an exploitive society – slave society, feudal
society, capitalist society’.

• Because of the social controls of family, the child is taught not how to survive but instead how to submit to the
society.

• Social controls implanted by the family are particularly effective because of the elaborate systems of taboos. The
association of guilt from breaking of social taboos provides basis for conformity and submission to the laws and
the requirements of the powerful.

• He also argues that the family specialises in formation of roles of its members rather than laying out conditions for
free assumption of identity
 Engels, Origin of Family,
Private Property and State
• Applied the Marxian paradigm to the study of Family.
• He argued that in the stage of primitive communism, there was no
Family and there were no rules regarding sexual relationships.
• Monogamous nuclear family developed with the emergence of
private property.
• Women are exploited in such a system as there is a complete
dominance in the family regarding property relations.
Feminist Perspective

• Kathleen Gough has also supported Engels views.

• Family provides cheap labour, women in such a system are unpaid
labourers as she was not paid for producing and rearing children.
• Margret Besnston says, ‘The amount of unpaid labour performed by
women is very large and very profitable to those who own the means
of production’.
• To pay women for the work, even at minimum wage scales, would
involve a massive redistribution of wealth.
• At present, the support of the family is a hidden tax on the wage
earner as his wage buys the labour of two persons.