In his article Parsons purports to analyze the up-to-date organizational structure of the American family. This work is informative enough and may be used as the valuable source for carrying out further research concerning the topic. At the same time the authors point of view is presented in rather complex way. That is why it is important to review the main ideas articulated by the author specifically. For this end we shall refer to the work «The anti-social family» written by Barrent and Macintosh. This work considers the similar topic, but the ideas expressed by the authors are slightly different comparing to Parsons thoughts.
It is evident that Parsons seek to disprove the notion that the family is experiencing disorganization. He affirms that the changes have been going on. Some of the modifications for sure involved disorganization of the serious character. Parsons considers the process of disorganization to be evident part of the structural changes of the social systems. He proves the fact that the changes are impossible without a kind of temporary organization and the families are not exceptions from this rule. Parsons states that some facts proving the disorganization should be thoroughly analyzed. According to Parsons it is too early to make conclusion concerning the long-term trends on the basis of statistics of previous periods. The author views divorce to be invoked by the personal preferences of people and not the evidence of the family disorganization. The same idea is expressed by Barrent and Macintosh. They mentioned that the family structure reflects the general structure of the society that is why the changes in the family refer mainly to the new role of women etc. That is why these changes are not the disorganization in its pure form.
Parsons states that the family became more specialized agency than before. He explains that by providing the line of connection between the nuclear family and the whole society. The particular functions of the nuclear family have been transferred to other structures of society. Parsons admits that some features of the family as the single mechanism were lost, but it is not the decline of the family. The society is dependent on the specific vital functions fulfilled by the nuclear family. Barrent and Macintosh mentioned one of these special functions such as adjustment of children to the rules of the particular society.
The nuclear family is isolated organism according to Parsons. Such isolation is described as the economic independence of the household. The particular members of the family who lived in the same place form isolated structures of society. Nuclear family – is "isolated" family of one generation, consisting of parents and their minor (dependent) children. One of the main characteristics of such a family - "isolation" - is reflected in the fact that family members usually have separate from other family housing and family usually leads an independent economic existence, which is provided primarily by the income of the husband-father. These revenues are most often the result of his professional activities.
Parsons defines the functions of the nuclear family to be subject to the psychological disputes. He mentions that there were several attempts to formulate the basic functions of the family but these functions are usually different for particular society. At the same time the specific functions of the family is procreation and treatment of child. Parsons stated that the basic functions of the nuclear family were lost or dramatically changed. "Loss of function" of the nuclear family in comparison with the generation also means that at the "macro level" such an isolated family becomes almost completely non-functional. It is in most cases not involved in economic production and is not an important political cell. The nuclear family directly promotes the integration into society. Therefore, the functions of the family in the highly differentiated society are not seen as socially significant. But these functions are really important for the individual. If the basic traits of human personality were determined biologically without association with the involvement in the social system, there would be no need in nuclear family due to the fact that for simple biological reproduction it is not needed. At the same time, we cannot expect that the human personality will be stable in relationships, vital for social functioning, if deprived of the "mechanisms of stabilization", is inherent in the process of socialization. Thus, Talcott Parsons distinguishes two main functions of the nuclear family: (1) the primary socialization of children so they can become members of the society in which they were born and (2) the stabilization of the adult members of society. Stabilization occurs at the expense of isolation and "working" through the institution of marriage. The result of the isolation is the clear distinction between members and non-family members, spouses are connected to each other, while other family ties (e.g., parents) are weakened. The couple is "tied" to each other within the nuclear family; the vehicles of the stabilization are derived from the genus.
The main role of the husband in the nuclear family is providing other members with the financial and material recourses received as the result of his active social life. (Working for other members of society or conduction of his own business). At the same time the distribution of the roles within the family has changed dramatically. A woman can perform the function of a man when she earns money. The problem of the working woman was also described by Barrent and Macintosh. Nevertheless the traditional role of the husband remains the same.
The role of woman or wife within the nuclear family according to Parsons remains traditional. Thus, the role of adult women continues to consist primarily in carrying out her family responsibilities as wives, mothers and housewives. Such distribution of responsibilities in the family and in the professional sphere defines the nuclear family as the most acceptable form of organization by members of society. The reproduction of such forms of the family, in turn, ensures the reproduction of the existing ideology of male superiority and allows keeping of status quo within the capitalist society.
The role of the child within the nuclear family can be defined as further reproducing of the structure of the nuclear entity and forming the similar family structures in their adulthood. Parsons hints that their role may be described as approbation of the traditional principles of the family. Barrent and Macintosh define children to be the basic subjects of keeping the social structures.
I agree with the Parsons views concerning the nuclear family. The nuclear family is the reflection of the processes of individualization and liberalization taking place in our society. It also destroys and state traditions. The nuclear family gives people the opportunity to form the private home space without regard to existing regulations. But statistics inevitably show lesser strength of this cell of society. The number of divorces is growing with each decade. Moreover, many people who live together do not register their relationship. Public opinion becomes secondary; the main thing is personal comfort. Sacrifice and humility are increasingly rare in relationships between spouses, relatives and distant relatives. For modern people it is easier to send grandparents into a nursing home than to take care of them. The modern children are brought up in kindergartens, and not by the older generation.
Most psychologists and sociologists agree that the way back of the patriarchal, traditional family is impossible. The nuclear family would dominate in the modern society. This is due to the unwillingness of young generation to accept traditional. The residence of families in the same housing results in escalating of conflicts, quarrels and even criminal offenses may happen. The society of individualists supports in its members a desire for independence.
References
Bernardes, J., n.d. We Must Not Define 'The Family.. Marriage and Family Review , p. 28.
Chester, R., 1986. The Myth of the Disappearing Nuclear Family.. Family Portraits.
Gottlieb, B., 1993. The Family in the Western World.
Macintosh, B. a., n.d. The anti-social family. 6 October.
Parsons, T., 1951. The Isolated Nuclear family.
Parsons, T., 1955. The American Family: Its Relations to Personality and the Social Structure. In Family Socialization and Interaction Process.
Stacey, J., 1996. In the Name of the Family. Boston: MA: Beacon Press..
Stone, L., 1997. The Family, Sex, and Marriage in England. New York: Harper & Row.
Uzoka, A., 1979. The Myth of the Nuclear Family: Historical Background and Clinical Implications. American Psychologist.
Vogt, E. Z., 1969. Zinacantan: A Maya Community in the Highlands of Chiapas.
