Social
Perspectives and Family
Family is a social structure within
our world in which everyone is in some way a part of. It can be close relatives that we communicate
with on a regular basis, distant relatives that are only thought of on
holidays, or even makeshift families that are connected within the same
household. This particular social institution,
family, can be viewed from a sociological perspective in multiple ways, three
of which are through the perspectives of functionalism, conflict theory, and
interactionism. Through understanding
each individual perspective, one can better comprehend how each can provide a
varied view on how individual’s views within their family units are affected,
how social change is brought about within these units, and how the views of
society are changed.
Functionalism
The understanding of these three
perspectives can begin with a look at functionalism. The Cambridge Dictionary of Sociology (2006)
describes the functionalist perspective as one that argues that each system is
made up of smaller parts that work together as a whole in order to maintain its
function. This particular perspective
“…came to prominence as a school of sociology in the United States in the
1950s” (Cambridge Dictionary of Sociology, 2006). Through the perspective of this theory,
family can be seen as a unit made up of parts, or members, that work together
and function as a whole in order to maintain their system. Each unit has its role within the overall
system, or family, which contributes to the success of the family as a whole.
Conflict Theory
Unlike the harmony that seems to be
emphasized in the functionalism perspective, the conflict theory emphasizes
exactly what is in its name, conflict. Conflict
can be seen as a basic function of human life.
It occurs, generally, on a daily basis in one form or another. A simple disagreement between what is for
dinner or an all-out war over custody can both be seen as example of conflicts
that occur within the family structure.
The conflict theory sees this function as essential to maintaining any
structure. The dictionary of Human
Geography (2009) cites that this theory “…emphasizes struggles over resources
and the formation of groups and social cleavages that may lead to organized
conflict. Coercion, resistance,
revolt…are dynamic processes in which escalation, violence, conflict resolution
and peace-making are all vitally important.”
However, unlike functionalists,
conflict theorists see family as a smaller unit within a larger unit which is
society. Schaeffer (2009) states that
“conflict theorists view the family not as a contributor to social stability,
but as a reflection of the inequality in wealth and power that is found within
the larger society” (pp. 292).
Interactionism
In addition to the two above
perspectives, there is the interactionist perspective. This particular perspective “…focuses on the
concrete details of what goes on among individuals in everyday life, as
distinct from the larger focus on social systems found in the conflict and
functionalist perspectives” (The Blackwell Dictionary of Sociology, 2000). Unlike the perspectives that have already
been addressed, interactionists are concerned with the interactions of the
individual units within a structure.
Schaeffer (2009) states that “interactionists focus on the micro level
of family…” (pp.292).
Social Change
Now, with the varying ideas of how
family maintains itself or society there will be varying views on how social
change will come about. Though all three
perspectives deal with human behavior, they will all argue that the behavior
impacts society differently. Through the
mindset of the different perspectives, differences can be found in the views of
social change and how it can occur.
Functionalism
First, through taking a look at the
functionalist perspective, we understand that the belief of functionalists is
that smaller groups work together so that the group as a whole strives. So, change would have to come about in a
similar fashion. The change would have
to be one that incorporated the smaller parts of the family structure in order
to improve upon the family as a whole.
The change would continue the unity that the individual pieces create
for the whole.
An example of a change could be that
of sexual behavior. Schaeffer (2009)
writes that “sexual norms are subject to change both over time…and across
cultures. However, whatever time period
or cultural values of a society, standards of sexual behavior are most clearly
defined within the family circle” (pp. 292).
So, changes of sexual behavior, though bound to change inevitably, are
determined within the family structure by ideas of what is proper and improper
based on the function of that particular family. Essentially, each part will function to help
develop the entire group. If one person
within the family structure is homosexual, this could be viewed as a function
of change within the family to help develop understanding toward a
characteristic that is not norm. So,
every part of the family does something that is beneficial to sustaining the
whole.
Conflict Theory
In
contrast, conflict theorists view family as a part of a larger whole rather
than viewing it as the larger unit functioning by way of smaller units. So, change within the family structure has to
come about as some form of conflict with a part of society. Schaeffer (2009) writes that family has
generally been a structure that establishes and helps to maintain male
dominance (pp. 292). That trend is
slowly changing as men are now staying at home with children as
stay-at-home-dads and taking a more active role in their children’s lives. This change can be viewed as a conflict to
the societal norm. The change is coming
about because, again, conflict theorists believe that society functions through
conflict.
Interactionism
Going further and exploring how
change might come about within the perspective of the interactionist, the fact
that interactionists focus on the interactions of individuals must be
considered. With this emphasis on
interaction, change must come about through the interaction of the different
members within the family structure.
Schaeffer (2009) makes note of a study done involving fathers and their
interaction with their children. The
children that received more interaction from their fathers were better behaved,
more socially adjusted, and found to be more responsible (pp. 292-293).
Views of Society
Functionalism
A look at functionalism as it
relates to how the units within the family view society will have to take into
account the need of the units to keep the family functioning as a whole. Schaeffer (2009) writes that “ideally, the
family provides members with warm and intimate relationships, helping them to
feel satisfied and secure” (pp. 292).
Individuals would feel the need to see how their companionship with
other members of society helps to maintain the function of society as a
whole. So, their view would have to
incorporate the manner in which companionship was handled within their family,
and how that particular function helps to maintain society when it is put
outward to those outside of the family structure.
Conflict Theory
Within the conflict theory,
regarding one’s social class within society as a whole, the views of the
individuals within the family are considered a reflection of their
socioeconomic status (Schaffer, 2009, pp. 292).
Being that conflict theorists believe “…that the family helps to
maintain inequality” (Schaeffer, 2009, pp. 292), they believe that life
chances, or lack thereof, are determined by the family unit. With this considered then, it can be
understood that aspects of one’s lives such as poverty or wealth, education or
ignorance, and protection or lack of it are passed down through generation.
So, having come into a wealthy and
socially admired family would create a much different view of society than
having been born into a family in poverty that is at the bottom of the social
totem pole. The view of the person born
into wealth where the things that they want can be bought will generally be one
that is more positive as they will not struggle, at least not financially. However, the view of the person born into
poverty will be built by their struggle to rise from the negative position that
they were born into as a result of the family that they are a part of.
Interactionism
Lastly, the interactionist
perspective will focus on the interaction between the individuals within the
family. The interaction between mother
and father, father and child, or mother and child will impact the way in which
each individual views society. As stated
above, children that have more interaction from their fathers were shown to
have fewer issues with behavior. Through
their positive interaction with their father, they responded positively toward
members outside of their family unit. This
shows that the individual interactions can impact how one views society as a
whole and inevitably how they decide to respond to those views.
Conclusion
In conclusion, family and its
function and reason for function can be viewed on many different levels. The three perspectives mentioned about were
just a few of the different viewpoints that do exist. Understanding these perspectives can assist
in the comprehension of how each perspective brings about change and creates
viewpoints of society within the family unit.
References
Conflict.
(2009). In The Dictionary of Human Geography. Retrieved August 15,
2010, from
http://www.credoreference.com/entry/bkhumgeo/conflict
Functionalism.
(2006). In Cambridge Dictionary of Sociology. Retrieved August 15, 2010, from http://www.credoreference.com/entry/cupsoc/functionalism
Interactionist
perspective. (2000). In The Blackwell
Dictionary of Sociology. Retrieved
August 10, 2010, from http://www.credoreference.com/entry/bksoc/interactionist_perspective
Schaefer, R. (2009). Sociology:
A Brief Introduction, 8th edition. McGraw Hill: New York
No comments:
Post a Comment