It was interesting reading about the different theories behind the formation of the family. I agree with earlier posts that Parsons’ article falls short in providing a conclusive view on the separate roles of men and women. I strongly disagree with his argument that the characterization of male youth culture involves a strong emphasis on “having fun” and on achievement/competition while the female youth culture seemed to only involve an emphasis on qualities of attractiveness. I believe that Parsons’ “swell guy”/”glamour girl” pattern highly stigmatizes female roles while upholding their male counterparts role. I also cannot clearly understand his statement claiming that these sexually polarized roles are “complementary, both emphasizing certain features of a total personality in terms of the direct expression of certain values rather than of instrumental significance” (Parsons, 607). Parsons claim that a woman’s fundamental status and function is of the “domestic” pattern—a supporting figure for her husband and children—is of a highly restrictive nature. If Parson were to update his article, how stunned he would be to see how different the world turned out to be today!
The neoclassical micro-economic analysis of the family was very interesting and I agree with Ben-Porath in that Becker’s cumulative work is very important. This economic approach holds true even more so in modern days. The allocation of time, human capital, and wages does play an important part in the formation of the family.
The family development and life course perspectives seem to explain the transformation in the traditional to the modern family, unlike the other perspectives, by looking at the family structures according to the different life stages. It seems to be a more comprehensive and historical outlook on the family. Booth, Carver, and Granger’s article on the biosocial perspectives on the family was also interesting—the linking of science and social aspects was very new.
Individually, these theories are, in some ways, incomplete. However, if we look at these theories as one, they will be to complement each other perhaps provide a comprehensive outlook on the family.
1) Parson argues that since the father plays the instrumental role in the family, he is seldom at home with his family. This in turn results in many of the masculine functions to be abstract and of intangible character, unable to provide a meaningful role model for boys. Do you agree with this statement? If so, can this statement explain why this may lead to the alleged instabilities related with dysfunctional families/children?
2) What are your opinions on the treatment of altruism? How does the distributional conflict within the family affect the family utility function?
3) Why is it important to look at the transformation from the traditional to the modern family in the historical context? Would it not suffice to look at the theories that can be best applied to the modern context to explain some of the social problems happening in the family setting? Of what use is it to look at the different life stages?
No comments:
Post a Comment