Marxists argue that the nuclear family performs ideological functions for Capitalism – the family acts as a unit of consumption and teaches passive acceptance of hierarchy. It is also the institution through which the wealthy pass down their private property to their children, thus reproducing class inequality. This post is primarily designed to help students revise for the A level sociology 7192 exam, paper 2, families and households option.
Before reading this post, you might like to look at this summary of the key ideas of Marxism
Overview of the Marxist Perspective
Marxism is a ‘structural conflict’ perspective. They see society as structured along class lines with institutions generally working in the interests of the small elite class who have economic power (the ‘Bourgeoisie’) and the much larger working class (the ‘Proletariat’). The Bourgeoise gain their wealth from exploiting the proletariat. There is thus a conflict of interests between the Bourgeoise and the Proletariat.
However, this conflict of interests rarely boils over into revolution because institutions such as the family perform the function of ‘ideological control’, or convincing the masses that the present unequal system is inevitable, natural and good.
Something else Marxists suggest about the family (like the Functional Fit theory) is that the family type generally changes with society – more specifically, the nuclear family emerges not because of the needs of industrialisation, but because of the needs of the capitalist system.
Explaining the emergence of the nuclear family – Engels
According to Engels, the monogamous nuclear family only emerged with Capitalism. Before Capitalism, traditional, tribal societies were classless and they practised a form of ‘primitive communism’ in which there was no private property. In such societies, property was collectively owned, and the family structure reflected this – there were no families as such, but tribal groups existed in a kind of ‘promiscuous horde’ in which there were no restrictions on sexual relationships.
Hunter-gatherer societies – promiscuous hordes?
However, with the emergence of Capitalism in the 18th Century, society and the family changed. Capitalism is based on a system of private ownership – The bourgeois use their own personal wealth to personally invest in businesses in order to make a profit, they don’t invest for the benefit of everyone else.
Eventually the Bourgeois started to look for ways to pass on their wealth to the next generation, rather than having it shared out amongst the masses, and this is where the monogamous nuclear family comes from. It is the best way of guaranteeing that you are passing on your property to your son, because in a monogamous relationship you have a clear idea of who your own children are.
Ultimately what this arrangement does is to reproduce inequality – The children of the rich grow up into wealth, while the children of the poor remain poor. Thus the nuclear family benefits the Bourgeois more than the proletariat.
Criticisms of Engels
Gender inequality clearly preceded Capitalism….. The vast majority of tribes in Africa and Asia are patriarchal, with women being barred from owning property, having no political power, and having to do most of the child care and hard physical labour.
Wealthy Capitalist economies such as the UK and USA have seen the fastest improvements in gender equality over the last 100 years. Capitalism, increasing wealth and gender equality within a nation seem to be correlated.
Contemporary Marxism – The family as an Ideological Apparatus
The modern nuclear family functions to promote values that ensure the reproduction and maintenance of capitalism. The family is described as an ideological apparatus – this means it socialises people to think in a way that justifies inequality and encourages people to accept the capitalist system as fair, natural and unchangeable. One way in which this happens is that there is a hierarchy in most families which teaches children to accept there will always be someone in “authority” who they must obey, which then mirrors the hierarchy of boss-worker in paid employment in later life.
Contemporary Marxism – The Family as a Unit of Consumption
Capitalists/business owners want to keep workers’ wages down so they can make a profit, but to do so they must also be able to sell the workers goods i.e. they must create demand for their products. The family builds demand for goods in a number of ways
1) Families must keep up with the material goods/services acquired by their neighbours and peers e.g. family holidays, cars – this is known “Keeping up with the Joneses”. There are significant amounts of advertising and TV programmes influencing parents in this way.
2) The media and companies target children in their advertising who then persuade their parents through pester power to buy more expensive items. This is particularly bad in the UK where there few legal restrictions on adverts aimed at children; in Sweden advertising aimed at children under 12 is illegal.
Overall Criticisms of Marxism
- Too deterministic – it assumes people passively accept socialisation and family life, and that the future is pre-determined.
- Ignores family diversity in capitalist society, and that many women now work full time as well
- Feminists argue that the Marxist focus on class ignores the inequalities between men and women, which is the real source of female oppression.
- Marxism ignore the benefits of nuclear family e.g. both parents support the children
A Level Sociology Families and Households Revision Bundle
If you like this sort of thing, then you might like my AS Sociology Families and Households Revision Bundle which contains the following:
- 50 pages of revision notes covering all of the sub-topics within families and households
- mind maps in pdf and png format – 9 in total, covering perspectives on the family
- short answer exam practice questions and exemplar answers – 3 examples of the 10 mark, ‘outline and explain’ question.
- 9 essays/ essay plans spanning all the topics within the families and households topic.
If you’re not quite as flush, how about this… just the 50 pages of accessible, user friendly, exam-focused notes for only £0.99* – from iTunes, Barnes and Noble and Kobo.
*Price will vary with dollar exchange rate
Essay plan on the Marxist perspective on the family
Marxist Feminist Perspectives on the Family
Feminist Perspectives on the Family
The Marxist Perspective on Crime
If you like this sort of thing you might also like these revision videos on YouTube
Aside| This entry was posted in Families and Households, Marxism and tagged Families and Households, marxism, Revise, Sociology. Bookmark the permalink.
The Family: Marxist and Functionalist Views
Fahin Syeda: BSc (Hons) Sociology
This essay examines changes in family life, using two differing theoretical perspectives: Functionalism and Marxism. It summarises the key structure of the family and how it has changed over generations. It also explores recent trends in family life to establish theories in understanding family life, whilst critically evaluating both perspectives.
Functionalism is a consensus theory where “norms and values are the basic elements of social life… that envisage society as a complex system whose parts work together to promote solidarity and stability” (Craib, 1984:60; Macionis and Plummer, 2008:29). Giddens (2009) describe the family as an established institution since they are expected to act upon important responsibilities to preserve social structure, society and its desires.
George Murdock (1965) defined the nuclear family as a “social group characterised by common residence, economic cooperation and reproduction…adults of both sexes, at least two of whom maintains a socially approved sexual relationship, and one or more children”. The definition demonstrates that a typical family has four basic functions; socialisation, regulation of sexual activity, material and emotional security (Macionis and Plummer, 2008).
Reproduction is an important function of society, considering that it generates future members of the society as well as the labour workforce with the purpose to preserve the humankind by producing and raising children (Arias, n.d.). Seidman (2013) believed that each individual is born into a kin group that assigns specific social roles because of ascribed status, which is “involuntary, something we cannot choose” (Schoepflin, 2010) and socialisation. Society “will not survive” (Skolnick and Skolnick, 2011:23) if their needs are not being met, reinforcing the need to socialise children into accepting norms and values of society to keep it going (Thompson, 2008). It is expected that children will be taught to think, act and behave virtuously (Sharp, 2015). Parents also socialise their children into learning the values of routines of labour force; long hours, punctuality, conscientiousness and competitive quality (Sharp, 2015) in preparation for the future employment.
Another main function of a family is the fulfilment of material and emotional needs, Fulcher and Scott (2007) believed that love and companionship were also seen as essential, so marriage becomes a “legitimate site for sexual expression” (Morgan, 1996:76). However, it was the wives’ duty to manage their husbands’ urges, and their task was to perform to maintain the stability of the marriage (Arber, Davidson and Ginn, 2003). The material needs, known as economic cooperation, are established through the harmony of the family as it has the responsibility to please the needs of its members (Anastasiu, 2012), which comprise of food, household, health and luxury.
On the contrary, Talcott Parsons understood that the functions of family have changed due to industrialisation, which is known as development of machine production, based on the use of non-living technology (Giddens, 2009). In pre-industrial society, subsistence and production process was based on the domestic economy of small-scale producers that leads to the existence of family as a ‘unit of production’ (Kriedte, Medick and Schlumbohm, 1981) emerged. Nevertheless, when industrialisation developed, so did innovations, for example tractors but they were often too expensive to be used for the agriculture. Fulcher and Scott (2007) described that entrepreneurs who are technical experts of the new technology had to “provide them and the direct producers became wage labourers who did not own the means of production” (Kriedte, Medick and Schlumbohm, 1981:113) anymore, and this meant the end of the family as the primary site of economic production (Macionis and Plummer, 2008). Fulcher and Scott (2007) discovered that the family now became a unit of consumption, rather than production as they earned wages elsewhere to buy goods.
The function of marriage declined due to secularisation and, the approval of sexual relations outside of marriage which leads to modern family types, including relationships that involve partners having their own home (OECD, 2011). OECD (2011) revealed that marriage per 1,000 of the population has declined, from 8.1 in 1970 to 5.0 in 2009 with a long-term increase of birth outside of marriage with “47.7% of all babies born outside marriage or civil partnership in 2015” (McLaren, 2016:5). There are different opinions between generations “with older people often disapproving of cohabitation, but younger people overwhelmingly in favour of it” (Summerfield and Babb, 2004:33). Despite the decline in marriage, Walsh (2012) discovered that cohabiting couples believe that their living arrangements is a next step toward marriage. Although, the typical age of first marriages increases (OECD, 2011).
Parsons recognised two key functions of the family; “primary socialisation and the stabilisation of adult personalities” (Haralambos and Holborn, 2000:509). Primary socialisation is the practice of “teaching children the cultural norms and values of the society and its social skill, social knowledge, and sense of self” (Chambers, 2012; Fulcher and Scott, 2007). Giddens (2009), indicates that it leads to the development of human personalities where the core values of society become moulded in a child’s personality. The stabilisation of adult personalities is provided through “physical protection and emotional support to handle the demands of industrial society” (Macionis and Plummer, 2008:583; Giddens, 2009:370). Walsh (2012) discovered that men and women communicate and behave differently. Similarly, Parsons and Bales (1956) would agree that a man would act as a ‘breadwinner’ to provide the income for his family and, women are more nurturing and caring so the house-work and children is seen as their work so they tend to feel responsible for the well-being of the family as well as the condition of relationships (Cornwall, 1984; Walsh, 2012). Dallos and McLaughlin (1993) identified that women were responsible to provide a virtuous home, for their husbands to be satisfied and happy by being emotionally present to relieve the burden carried by men from the workplace (Walsh, 2012).
Commonly known as conflict theory, Marxism is a critical analysis into social reality as well as the economic system. From the Marxist’s perspective, it is believed that capitalism exploits families into taking responsibility to reproduce future workers whilst offering a ‘haven’ from the burdens of workplace (McKie and Callan, 2012).
In primitive society, there was no real wealth between communities as “property is owned by the community as whole” (Fulcher and Scott, 2007:30). However, private property ownership emerged as the mode of production, which was developed by industrialisation, shifting the production of goods from the household to factories (Thomas, 2010). During industrialisation, Marx (1945) discovered that there was a conflict between proletariats and capitalists, who own the mode of production since the male workers had to sell their labour to receive wage (Macionis and Plummer, 2008) for their families. This meant the expectations of the family were shifting as well, from a ‘unit of production to unit of consumption’ as they had to buy goods rather than “working together to produce their own resources” (Yuill, Crinson and Duncan, 2010:45).
It is argued that capitalism needs exploitation to function well, “demanding new discipline and long hours from workers” (Giddens, 2009:75), which creates solidarity in society. Hatch (2016) explained that the workers are aware that they are being exploited, yet feel powerless to do anything so they accept it. However, Zaretsky (1982) shows that the family becomes a ‘haven’ for the workers as compensation for the exploitation and hostilities of capitalism. This is seen in the expectations of the women to simultaneously provide a ‘haven’, and to satisfy their husbands domestically and sexually (Jeffreys, 1991).
Engels and Morgan’s (1902) research revealed that rules of marriage were made for women to become an instrument for procreation of children, for them to inherit their fathers’ wealth and properties. This highlights the patriarchy within the family, so the properties do not get passed through the communities like they would in a primitive society. Capitalism needs a future generation of workforce, requiring women to socialise their children into identifying with the institutions and authority in a benign and trustful manner (Cummings and Taebel, 1978) and accepting the exploitation all at once.
Family structures have changed notably over generations. Peplar (2002), noticed that there were changes in the patterns of family life since the 1960s, due to the rise in divorce rate, lone motherhood, cohabitation as well as two parents’ involvement in the workforce.
McLaren’s (2015) report revealed the divorce trends increased between the 1930s and 1990s, because of dissolving stigma as well as increased participation in the labour force for women. This meant that women were no longer financially dependent on their husbands. The Divorce Reform Act 1969 was put in place as a single ground of irretrievable breakdown (Jenkins and Pereira, 2009), making it easier for the couple to separate. Functionalists see this form of family type as a “lack of moral responsibility that is often blamed on the permissiveness of sexual revolution” (Fulcher and Scott, 2007:471). However, Marxists see this as a form of liberation for women, which moves them away from the ideal patriarchal nuclear family and the stereotypical expressive role.
McGregor’s (2012) census report reveals that the average household size declined from 4.3 in 1911 to 2.4 in 2011, which displays the changes in family structure. The ONS (2012) report proves, in which 39% of males and 50% of females aged 20-34 are cohabiting with their partner, not with their parents. The “average earnings of young people increase during their twenties” (ONS, 2012:4), so living with their partners is more affordable as they have disposable income and a partner to share the cost to rent or buy a house. Functionalists reject this as the “female participation in the labour force has increased significantly with increased access to further and higher education” (Social Issues Research Centre, 2008:23). This moves them away from the expressive role. This means that gender roles are becoming symmetrical, as Fulcher and Scott (2007) mentioned that the proportion of housework done by men has been increasing, and is almost equal to women. So, children have the opportunity to be socialised in an altered household and learn different model of gender roles.
Despite the passage of the Civil Partnerships Act 2005, same-sex couples did not have the same rights as heterosexual couples. For example, adoption. It was not until the passage of the Marriage (Same Sex) Couple Act 2013, which gave same-sex couples the same legal rights as heterosexual married couples in matters such as property, inheritance, pensions and benefits (Macionis and Plummer, 2008).
Radical feminists argue that the origins of husband-wife conflicts are not based on capitalism, but rather patriarchal (Anon, 2005). Thus men, as ‘breadwinners’, are exploiting the labour of women through marriage (Fulcher and Scott, 2007) to satisfy their emotional and sexual needs to “uphold the dominance of men in patriarchal societies” (Giddens, 2009:349). However, Marxists ignored the dark side of husbands’ and wives’ roles because they believed that it was unlikely that working-class men were the ‘oppressors’ in their own homes (Gamble, Marsh and Tant, 1999). If the wife failed to satisfy the husband’s needs, she “deserved the beatings she received” (Dallos and McLaughlin, 1993:8) to symbolise her failure as a woman and wife. Featherstone (2004) discovered that the economic position of men appears to have declined over time, which reinforces the masculinity crisis, allowing violence and abuse in the household. So, the nuclear family is seen as a “site of unpaid labour and of violence and abuse” (Featherstone, 2004:81). Engels was overly pessimistic about the purpose of marriage, which was to pass on wealth and properties to the next generation when families “carry out various societal functions that are not easily accomplished” (Macionis and Plummer, 2008:585) and get married for romantic love. Eagleton (2011) is noted to have said that Marxism is outdated as it is “time to return Marx to the 19th century where he belongs” (Gamble, Marsh and Tant, 1999:1).
Functionalists were heavily criticised for validating the domestic division of labour between husband and wives to ensure that the domesticated role performed by women is satisfied (Farrelly, 2010) and maintain the stability of capitalism. The role of family in primary socialisation was over-emphasised, “neglecting the role that other social institution, such as government, media and schools, play in socialising children” (Giddens, 2009:370) which meant that children create their own personalities through secondary socialisation.
Marxist and Functionalist theorists ignore the changing structure of family life as they only focus on nuclear family, the perfect model of family while ignoring “their internal conflicts and consequences” (Fulcher and Scott, 2007:450). Post modernism theorists argue that the society is highly diverse (Giddens, 2009), as people have a choice of their lifestyle such as giving birth outside marriage, or cohabiting with their same sex partner.
The Functionalist perspective would be the most useful to explain the changes in family life because it explains the key functions of the family which were described by Murdock. However, it also explained the changes in functions of the family as well as the development of two new functions explained by Parsons. Although, the Functionalist perspective ignores the potential negative aspects of the family as well as the development of a diverse range of family types. On the other hand, Marxism is an economically determinist theory, which focuses solely on links between social institutions, such as the family and the economy. However, Functionalism focuses on a variety of functions and how they benefit society, for example reproduction and socialisation promoting shared values and the solidarity of society.
Anastasiu, I. (2012). The social functions of the family. [online] Euromentor Journal, p.5. Available at: http://euromentor.ucdc.ro/2012/vol3n22012/en/12_the-social-functions-of-the-family.pdf [Accessed 17 Dec. 2016].
Anon, (2005). Marxism: Some General Points of Criticism. [online] Available at: http://www.sociology.org.uk/as4i4c2.pdf [Accessed 20 Dec. 2016].
Anthony, D. (2016). To Have, to Hold, and to Vanquish: Property and Inheritance in the History of Marriage and Surnames. British Journal of American Legal Studies, [online] 5(1), p.233. Available at: http://www.heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/bjamles5&div=10 [Accessed 17 Dec. 2016].
Arber, S., Davidson, K. and Ginn, J. (2003). Gender and ageing. 1st ed. Maidenhead: Open University Press.
Arias, J. (n.d.). On the Primary Purpose of Marriage. [online] Our Catholic Faith. Available at: http://www.ourcatholicfaith.org/articles/Matrimony%20-%20On%20the%20Primary%20Purpose%20of%20Marriage.html [Accessed 17 Dec. 2016].
Chambers, D. (2012). A Sociology of Family Life. 1st ed. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Cornwell, J. (1984). Hard-earned lives. 1st ed. London: Tavistock Publications.
Craib, I. (1984). Modern social theory. 1st ed. New York: St. Martin’s Press.
Cummings, S. and Taebel, D. (1978). The Economic Socialization of Children: A Neo-Marxist Analysis. Social Problems, [online] 26(2), pp.198-210. Available at: http://www.jstor.org/stable/800282 [Accessed 19 Dec. 2016].
Dallos, R. and McLaughlin, E. (1993). Social problems and the family. 1st ed. London: Sage Publications.
Eagleton, T. (2011). Why Marx was right. 1st ed. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Engels, F. and Morgan, L. (1902). The origin of the family, private property, and the state, in the light of the researches of Lewis H. Morgan. 1st ed. Chicago: Charles H. Kerr & Co.
Farrelly, C. (2010). Patriarchy and Historical Materialism. Hypatia, [online] 26(1), p.14. Available at: http://eds.a.ebscohost.com/eds/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=d164720e-88da-428c-b3b0-f82a05111c47%40sessionmgr4006&vid=2&hid=4105 [Accessed 20 Dec. 2016].
Featherstone, B. (2004). Family life and family support. 1st ed. Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan, p.27.
Fulcher, J. and Scott, J. (2007). Sociology. 4th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press/
Gamble, A., Marsh, D. and Tant, T. (1999). Marxism and social science. 1st ed. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
Giddens, A. (2009). Sociology. 6th ed. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Haralambos, M. and Holborn, M. (2000). Sociology: Themes and Perspectives. 5th ed. London: Collins, p.509.
Hatch, P. (2016). Knowing they’re being exploited, young workers feel powerless to speak up. The Sydney Morning Herald, [online] p.1. Available at: http://www.smh.com.au/business/workplace-relations/knowing-theyre-being-exploited-young-workers-feel-powerless-to-speak-up-20161209-gt7r9m.html [Accessed 19 Dec. 2016].
Jeffreys, S. (1991). Anticlimax: A Feminist Perspective on the Sexual Revolution. 1st ed. New York: NYU Press.
Jenkins, S. and Pereira, I. (2009). Families in Britain: The impact of changing family structures and what the public think. [online] Cambridge: Polity, p.15. Available at: https://www.ipsos-mori.com/Assets/Docs/Publications/sri_families_in_britain_2008.pdf [Accessed 20 Dec. 2016].
Kriedte, P., Medick, H. and Schlumbohm, J. (1981). Industrialization before industrialization. 1st ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Macionis, J. and Plummer, K. (2008). Sociology: A Global Introduction. 4th ed. Harlow: Pearson Education Limited.
Marx, K. (1976). Capital Volume 1: The Process of Production of Capital. Middlesex: Penguin Books Ltd.
McGregor, D. (2012). 2011 Census: Population and Household Estimates for England and Wales, March 2011. Newport: Office for National Statistics.
McKie, L. and Callan, S. (2012). Understanding Families: A Global Introduction. 1st ed. London: SAGE.
McLaren, E. (2015). Divorces in England and Wales: 2013. [online] Newport: Office for National Statistics, pp.3-4. Available at: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/divorce/bulletins/divorcesinenglandandwales/2013#divorce-rates [Accessed 20 Dec. 2016].
McLaren, E. (2016). Births in England and Wales: 2015. Newport: Office for National Statistics.
Morgan, D. (1996). Family connections. 1st ed. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Murdock, G. (1965). Social structure. 1st ed. New York: Macmillan.
OECD, (2011). Doing Better for Families. [online] Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, p.23. Available at: http://www.oecd.org/els/soc/doingbetterforfamilies.htm [Accessed 17 Dec. 2016].
ONS, (2012). Young Adults Living With Parents in the UK, 2011. Newport: Office for National Statistics.
Parsons, T. and Bales, R. (1956). Family, socialization and interaction process. 1st ed. London: Routledge.
Peplar, M. (2002). Family Matters: A History of Ideas about Family since 1945. 1st ed. London: Longman.
Schoepflin, T. (2010). Ascribed Status vs. Achieved Status: The Case of Homelessness. [Blog] Everyday Sociology Blog. Available at: http://www.everydaysociologyblog.com/2010/05/ascribed-status-vs-achieved-status-the-case-of-homelessness.html [Accessed 17 Dec. 2016].
Seidman, S. (2013). Contested knowledge. 5th ed. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
Sharp, M. (2015). What is Socialization?. [online] The Soc Journal. Available at: http://www.sociology.org/what-is-socialization/ [Accessed 17 Dec. 2016].
Skolnick, A. and Skolnick, J. (2011). Family in transition. 16th ed. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Social Issues Research Centre, (2008). Childhood and family life: Socio-demographic changes. [online] Oxford: Social Issues Research Centre, p.23. Available at: http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20130401151715/http://www.education.gov.uk/publications/eOrderingDownload/Appendix-G_SIRC-report.pdf [Accessed 20 Dec. 2016].
Summerfield, C. and Babb, P. (2004). Social Trends. Newport: Office for National Statistics.
Thomas, C. (2010). The Family Under Capitalism. [online] Socialist Alternative. Available at: https://www.socialistalternative.org/it-doesnt-have-to-be-like-this/the-family-under-capitalism/ [Accessed 19 Dec. 2016].
Thompson, C. (2008). Functions of the family. [online] Sociologytwynham. Available at: https://sociologytwynham.com/2008/06/10/functions-of-the-family/ [Accessed 17 Dec. 2016].
Walsh, F. (2012). Normal family processes: growing diversity and complexity. 4th ed. New York: Guilford Press.
Yuill, C., Crinson, I. and Duncan, E. (2010). Key concepts in health studies. 1st ed. London: Sage Publications.
Zaretsky, E. (1982). The place of the family in the origin of the welfare state. In Thorne, B. and Yalom, M (eds), Rethinking the Family: Some Feminist Questions. New York: Longman.