Basic Theories of the Family

While anthropologists and sociologists have paid much attention to the comparison of family structures in different societies, most of the work in the field of family sociology is devoted to the analysis of the family in the countries of the West: its nature, place in society and the changes that occur in it over time. This topic, like other sections of sociology, is considered mainly on the basis of functionalism and the theory of conflict.

Functionalism

Supporters of functionalism usually analyze society from the point of view of the influence of its parts on the functioning of a single whole. The family or one part of society was considered in terms of its functions or social needs, which it satisfies. Supporters of functionalism attach special importance to changing the functions of the family in the last two centuries;most of them argue that during this period the Western family lost its inherent functions( Ogborn, Nimkoff, 1955).Consider the following examples.

Economic functions

In any society, the family plays a major economic role. In peasant farming and handicraft production, the family is a joint cooperative labor association. Duties are distributed according to the age and gender of family members. Among the huge changes caused by the emergence of industrial production, there was the destruction of this cooperative production system. Workers began to work outside the home, and the economic role of the family was reduced only to spending money earned by the breadwinner of the family. Although his wife sometimes worked, her main bond was to raise children.

Transfer of

status In an industrial society, there were various customs and laws that more or less automatically fixed the status occupied by families from different sectors of society.

Hereditary monarchy is a vivid example of this custom. Aristocrats who owned land and titles could transfer their high status to children. Among the representatives of the lower class, there were guild systems and training in crafts;thus the professions could be transferred from one generation to the next.

The revolutions that took place in the 19th and 20th centuries were carried out with the aim of destroying the privileges of certain groups. Among these privileges was the right to transfer title, status and wealth to the next generation. In some countries, including the US, the inheritance of aristocratic titles is outlawed. Progressive taxes, as well as taxes on insurance and in case of death, also limit the possibility of preserving wealth and transferring it by inheritance. However, rich high-ranking families still have advantages when the issue of transferring wealth and status to children arises. But this is done rather not on the basis of inheritance, but in the form of preparing children for such education and work that ensures high status. Members of the upper class have the opportunity to pay for elite education and support "dating", contributing to high status. But these advantages have largely lost their significance, becoming less stable and reliable than before.

Socialization

The family is the main agent of socialization in all societies. It is in it that children learn the basic knowledge necessary to fulfill the roles of adults. But industrialization and the social changes associated with it to some extent deprived the family of this function. The most important trend was the introduction of the system of mass secondary education. Already at the age of 4 or 5 years, children were brought up not only at home, a profound influence on them was provided by the teacher. The development of a system of preschool institutions and voluntary associations for children( for example, scouting units and summer camps) increased the number of socialization agents performing this function along with the family.

Social welfare

In traditional peasant and handicraft societies, the family performs many functions to maintain the "welfare" of people, for example, caring for the sick and elderly members of the family. But these functions radically changed during the emergence and development of industrial society and the welfare state. Doctors and medical institutions almost completely replaced the family with regard to health care, although family members still decide whether there is a need to seek medical help. Life insurance, unemployment benefits and social security funds eliminated the need for the family to fully assume assistance to its members during periods of economic difficulties. Similarly, social benefits, hospitals and homes for pensioners made it easier for the family to take care of the elderly.

Most supporters of functionalism agree that these changes have occurred over two centuries, but their significance is a matter of controversy. Some, such as Og-Born and Nimkoff( 1955), believe that this kind of change contributes to the destruction of the family. They talk about many social ills, for example, the increase in youth crime, the increase in the number of divorces, the weakening of the power of parents, which indicates the disintegration of the family as a social force. Other researchers, in particular Parsons and Beils( 1955), argue that a family that has partially lost its inherent functions and has become a more specialized institution that mainly socializes children in early childhood and provides for their emotional satisfaction plays a more effective role than before,in the preparation of children for the future role of adults in the modern industrial society.

Theory of Conflict

The functionalist concept of the family dominated American sociology in the 50s and 60s. However, since then, for many reasons, it has been questioned, and the theory of conflict has gradually assumed a dominant position. Functionalism is criticized mainly for the fact that for him, parts of society are elements of a well-functioning mechanism, constantly adapting to each other. Hart-mann( 1981) dared to make other criticisms. She argues that, from the point of view of functionalism, the family is a "social force" along with an economic change, a social class, and so on. As a consequence, "it is assumed that there is a unity of interests among family members;emphasizes the role of the family as a whole and usually does not take into account differences in interests or conflicts between family members. "

The theory of conflict approaches the explanation of the family structure at various levels. Some researchers emphasize the analysis of the distribution of power within the family, attaching special importance to the decision-making mechanism. As a rule, family members, who are more likely to own material means, acquire greater power in the family. Safilios-Rothschild( 1976) argues that love influences the distribution of power between spouses. In his opinion, a more loving spouse has less power, because he is in a greater psychological dependence. Spouses, equally loving each other, usually have the same power in the family. According to Safilios-Rothschild, since a wife usually displays more love towards her husband, marriage can be seen as a kind of exchange: the wife gives love for access to the social and economic benefits that her husband has more.

According to another point of view, more focused on the conflict, the family is seen as a microcosm of conflict in a "big" society. In the past, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels expressed this idea. They argued that the industrial revolution contributed to the transformation of the family into a combination of monetary relations. For example, as a result of the use of child labor, children in working-class families have become commodities and tools. In middle-class families, women were treated like domestic slaves. Women from the working class were forced to work outside the home to earn the money they needed to survive the family. But as they received a salary, their position was more closely approximated to the status of men,.than the position of middle-class women.

A modern version of the conflict theory concerning the family is proposed by Hartmann( 1981).She calls it "mark-sist-feminist".In her opinion, a true understanding of the essence of the family is not related to the analysis of emotional or related relations between its members;family - "place of struggle".The family carries out economic production and the redistribution of material wealth, while the interests of each of its members come into conflict with the interests of other members and society as a whole.

What are these conflicts? Examples are presented in Table.2. These include disputes over who should earn money, do homework, what part of the family income should be paid to the state, etc. Hartmann believes that the development of the capitalist patriarchal system led to the concentration of economic resources in the hands of capitalists and men. To ensure the survival of the lower classes( ie, workers and women), mechanisms for the redistribution of material resources must be created. Labor for money is a way of redistributing some share of the wealth of the capitalists in favor of workers, and in the family, the redistribution of the wealth of men is carried out, as a result, some part of this wealth is received by women. According to this point of view, among other things, the family becomes a battlefield where there are conflicts over the redistribution of funds,