Theoretical perspectives on the family vary almost as much as our own experiences and expectations of family life. What draws this week's readings together most is their effort to provide some explanatory weight to persistence and change in empirical patterns (though either implicitly or explicitly often drawing upon and/or advocating normative expectations). While only Parsons is here associated with the field of functionalism within sociology (even though he eschewed such a label for his theories personally), all of the articles are built on the foundations of sociological inquiry concerned with explaining why and how families act within a (presumably) functioning North American society. More simply, they paint a picture of the world as it is and, within that landscape, provide differing perspectives on why the family looks and acts the way it does in North America. More often than not, they are concerned with the "norm", or the largest and/or most significant pattern or group. Explanations range from the utility maximizing Becker with an emphasis on micro-level decision-making to Parsons' broad brush strokes of a macro-level "system" within society.
A few comments of note:
1. Parsons discusses the functions of the "sex roles" as they vary throughout the life course in terms of patterns within upper and middle-class white families in 1942. From this article and this work, he developed a model of the 'nuclear family' based upon complementary roles of the instrumental (attached to the work world and head of household) husband and the expressive (attached to the family and community) wife. In this, he argued that the family was an important agent of socialization in society, first for the children who needed guidance in understanding their roles in society and second for the adult partners, who needed the institution as an anchor for stabilizing their roles in the occupational and kinship structures. If we perhaps think of Popenoe in his question about whether kids want to live in a "post-modern" family (and thus implying "what kid doesn't want to fit in?), Parsons presumes that what both children and adults need most is to fit in. As such, sex roles "stabilize" their adult personalities. Even though men and women may experience strain as a result of these roles, they ultimately serve important functions for society at large as well as for the health and welfare of the individuals in the family. It is perhaps no surprise, then, that he argued that strain could best be reduced by "socializing" men and women into their roles better.
2. Becker's treatise on the family, which charted a new field within family studies under the banner of new home economics, is largely credited with breaking open the "black box" of the family to understand the role of material resources and individual decision-making, from women's decision to have children (and how many to have) to the breakdown of family roles and tasks that follow. For fun, pay attention to the "Rotten Kid Theorem" and his treatment of altruism.
3. Family development and life course perspectives place the family within the broader sweep of historical change as well as individual life course and stages within families. In this regard, preference for a temporal perspective potentially locates sex roles as well utility decision-making within a historical context and addresses the impact that changes in family arrangements over time have on both parents and children.
4. Finally, biosocial perspectives, encompassing both studies of hormone levels of men and women as well as the impact of evolutionary psychology, proffer explanatory mechanisms for social patterns through the interaction of the social with our genetic and physical make-up. Perhaps the most well-known and controversial arguments predicated on evolutionary psychology and biology is that of Steven Pinker (author of well-known book the Blank Slate). Check out a talk he gave for TED:
http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/steven_pinker_chalks_it_up_to_the_blank_slate.html
Whether as a result of the provision of social roles, human capital, life course, or biology, families are most commonly associated with and judged with reference to the "traditional family". We will complicate some of the assumptions of these arguments next week and, in particular, ask whether and how they address the issue of power as well as societal change. Please label your post "Theoretical Perspectives on the family"
No comments:
Post a Comment