|
|
|
|
|
|
|
MANAGEMENT & GENERAL EDUCATION |
|
|
||
|
PDA
Women’s Studies |
|
|
||
Functionalism:
Sex Roles in Parsons Family
|
|
|
|
Introduction
Talcott Parsons wrote
the agenda for almost all the earlier post-war sociologies of the family. It
is hard to find a text book on the family which does not, at some stage, give
an outline of Parsons' ideas concerning the family as useful starting point for
understanding the sociology of the family. You are not expected to
agree with Parsons, but if you disagree make sure you can explain why you
disagree. Parsons argued that: ·
Societies evolve as the result of functional
adaptations to the problems presented by inter-relationships between (and
within) systems that make up the social totality. ·
History is
an evolutionary process of adaptation to problems. ·
Social systems have the characteristics they do
because they are functional for their existence. ·
Their existence is a testament to their necessity. So, Parsons views the
family as a dynamic institution undergoing evolutionary modifications. (Not a
bad idea really - think of contemporary family developments). The
Family is neither outmoded or facing collapse. Parsons argues, that as
societies evolve they become more specialised. For example, the family, once
directly involved in production and education, has lost these functions to
other institutions. There is, however, a
problem with the Parsons family. It is: North
American, white and middle class (Morgan 1975). It is an isolated nuclear
family in which the key reference is the marital relationship of husband and
wife. Some families may fit this description, though many will not. The
basis of sex roles
The most important
function performed by Parsons family is the stabilisation of the adult
personality and the socialisation of children. This takes place
through a four fold role model that constitutes the structure of the
family. Parsons argues that there
are certain universal social prerequisites of ‘normal’ personality
development, particularly those related to the existence of sexuality in
infants and the sexual attributes of parents. Since these are universal and
inescapable, the groups in which personality formation takes place, which is
usually the family, will have to be organised on primarily ascriptive lines
- that is, in terms of ‘natural’ attributes that an individual cannot
control. The two axes derive from 'Bales'
work with small groups in experimental settings who when faced with tasks
responded by differentiating roles along instrumental/expressive lines. The
axes are argued to represent fundamental human group responses to problems. Clearly, socialization is
seen to be intimately connected to sex role differentiation. Thus, the basis
for sex role differentiation is biology. Supporting
research
Parsons ideas on sex
roles within the family derive from three different research traditions: Psychoanalytic theory -
evidence provided by Freud and his followers.Experimental work - Bales (as
above). Cross-cultural survey
data - Zelditch (based on Murdock’s Area File material). Psychoanalysis Parsons recognised how
important psychoanalysis is for sociology, particularly with reference to
socialization, role conformity and gender. However, he does not seem to
question the assumption of orthodox psychoanalysis that there is a universal
process of personality formation that overrides the diversity of
cultures. The implication of
Parsons approach is that since an individuals biological sex is fixed,
certain aspects of mothering and the social integration of male and female
personality will be universal and inevitable (natural). Experimental
research In his study of
leadership roles, Bales claimed to have shown that groups develop two kinds
of leadership (Parsons and Bales 1951).One leader is concerned with
the accomplishment of group tasks, notably those concerned with adaptation to
external, physical and social conditions (obtaining food, shelter,
clothing).These, he termed Instrumental A second, usually less
dominant leader, is concerned with expressive problems. These problems
are internal in nature and concern the maintenance of warmth in-group
relations (emotional concerns). Parsons' use of these
findings depends on the assumption that what happens in experimental groups
is directly transferable to the dynamics of real groups; including the
family. The link to Freudian theory is that the ties of infantile attraction
to the mother clearly belong within the expressive role. The implication is that
it is the female adult in a nuclear family who will become accommodated to
expressive behaviours. The male takes the dominant role of instrumental leader.
(Is it likely that either men or women are just expressive or just
instrumental?) Cross-Cultural In his cross-cultural
study, Zelditch claimed that in 46 out of a final sample of 56
societies differentiation of expressive and instrumental family roles occurs
between the sexes in the ‘expected’ direction. An
idealised family?
While not specifically
stating that the model of the family and of sex roles he constructs accords
to the family in general, there seems to be little doubt that Parsons has
taken an idealised version of the middle class US family and treated it as if
it contained all that is essential to family life throughout the world. Parsons assumes that
living in families does not just socialize children, but also adults. Yet the
majority of adults do not live in this fashion at any given time. What happens to these
adults? It is not clear if
Parsons thinks the instrumental/expressive division is based on equality - he
implies that they are different but equal, but he also recognises that family
responsibilities place severe limitations on women’s career choices. To sum up, for Parsons,
the modern family is seen as perfectly suited to the task of socialisation in
a modern industrial society where individualistic achievement orientations
are required. The small size of the family and the links to the wider
world through the father’s occupation, ensure the propulsion of the child out
of the family of procreation and into its own conjugal family. There are many writers
working within the functionalist tradition, each with their own list of
important functions. You could look at the work of Murdock, Coser, Bell
and Vogel and Goode. Criticisms
1. Where is the
sociology? These types of account
lean heavily on biological explanations. The differentiation of sex roles is
based on biological data - the ownership of particular genitals. Yet there is no logical
reason why particular sex role characteristics should be tied to particular
genital arrangements, or indeed why we should differentiate upon the basis of
genitals at all! Some societies contain
three sexes, some the possibility of moving in and out of a sex role, some
hardly distinguish between the sexes at all and some bring up their children
to be the sex of the parents choosing irrespective of the child’s genital
arrangement (Kessler and McKenna 1978). However, that said, we also
need to be aware of the claims made by sociobiology. 2. The
narrowness of the terms of referenceof the nuclear family to which Parsons
refers. It seems to exclude, even in the USA, working class families, large
families, single parent families, childless families and families with single
sex siblings (Kessler and McKenna 1978). Parsons agreed that the
above, together with upper class families and rural families, are exceptions.
This leaves us with very little left! 3. The four
fold structure of the family: a) Derived
from experimental studies using single sex, same age, temporary groups the
family is none of these things, are the results transferable? b) Is the
sex role empirically valid? Is it not possible the
men/women move in and out of both roles, that they are neither fixed or sex
specific? c) The
placing of man and woman on the same axis of leadership cannot tell us anything
about power relations between couples. 4. There
is little interaction in Parsons account. The child just gets
socialised, there is no hint of conflict or struggle. 5. Slater
(1974) argued that childhood disturbance is far more likely to occur when
the allocation of family tasks among adults is strictly segregated into
expressive/instrumental roles. 6. Brown and Harris
(1978) 7. There
is also reason to question the automatic association of women with
motherhood. The maternal deprivation thesis of Bowlby (1965) suggested
that it is essential for the mental health of an infant and young child to
experience a warm, intimate and continuous relationship with the mother (or
permanent mother substitute). Subsequent work supports
the idea that it is lack of one or more close bonds, rather than maternal
deprivation as such, which is a crucial factor in disturbance. One authoritative review
concludes: "In most families,
the mother has most to do with the young child and as a consequence, she is
usually the person with whom the closest bond is formed. But it should be
appreciated that the chief bond need not be with a biological parent, it need
not be with the chief caretaker and it need not be with a female."
(Rutter 1972). So, it would seem that
human beings are able to adapt to a wide range of family situations. The
implication for Parsons theory is that it cannot be correct. We need to ask,
if it is not ‘natural’ then why do we have the family forms that we do? 8. Cross-cultural
evidence: The problem with such evidence is that it can inform as to variety
or uniformity but does not explain why such patterns exist. It is descriptive rather than explanatory.
Therefore, differing researchers can look at the same evidence and reach
different conclusions to functionalist accounts. This is what some varieties
of feminism have done. |
|
|
|
|