The structural-functionalist paradigm’s idea of society is that it is an ordered structure in which all of its components continuously create social balance and stability for the greatest number of people. In this perspective, marriage is a legitimate social structure of the society that is legitimized by law and religion. While the paradigm considers family as an integral part of society, alternative family arrangements such as single parent families and same sex parent families are seen as a deviance. This can be based on the fact that most religions see these types of family arrangements as unacceptable; the paradigm considers religions as one of the elements of society that maintain the social balance and stability. Alternative family arrangements now fall in the category of a minority, and since this paradigm is interested only in the social elements that maintain the status quo and does good for the greater number of people, it ignores minorities. In a nutshell, the structural-functionalist paradigm sees marriage as an integral part of society, while it sees alternative family arrangements as a dysfunction.
The social-conflict paradigm’ perspective is based on inequalities that exist because of race, ethnicity, sex, gender, age, religion, socioeconomic status, and other social differences. It operates on the assumption that society is dictated by one dominant group and all the other groups are coerced into accepting the values and norms of the society as determined by the dominant group. This paradigm sees all forms of social structure – religion, law, education – as mechanisms that work only for the interests of the elite and the therefore perpetuate social inequality. Marriage, in this perspective, is a structure of inequality between men and women and whose existence only continues to magnify these inequalities. Alternative family arrangements, on the other hand, are a deviance to the norm imposed by the dominant group.
The symbolic interactionist paradigm’s perspective is based on the idea that social structure is subjective
and every-changing and that daily social interaction creates and continuously recreates it everyday. In this perspective, marriage is a social structure that is based on negotiated social resources brought by each partner that includes intelligence, education, family values, and other characteristics that develop and evolve as they are shared. Alternative family arrangement, therefore, is based on each individual’s or small group’s idea of a family structure applicable to certain situations that arose out of people interaction and need.
Among the three perspectives, the symbolic interactionist paradigm most accurately reflects my personal feelings about marriage and alternative family arrangements. Everything is not cut and dried, black and white, or can be categorized; once people are involved, there really is no single standard approach of building a social structure. While the greater good might seem like a good idea, it is only a good idea if you are not part of the minority. And while accepting a norm imposed by an elite group may sound orderly and easy, actually being coerced into accepting beliefs not your own may be difficult. Today, more and more people are getting into the alternative family arrangement; divorce, adoption, and same-sex partnerships are the usual causes of a family diverting from the traditional family arrangement. Needless to say, these situations arise from a certain need to adapt to changes in society, changes that are brought about by daily social interaction of many different people and cultures.
