Sex Roles in Parsons Family

1361 Words3 Pages

Sex Roles in Parsons Family

Introduction

Talcott Parsons wrote the agenda for almost all the earlier post-war

sociologies of the family. It is hard to find a text book on the

family which does not, at some stage, give a list of the functions of

the family. Consequently, an outline of Parsons' ideas concerning the

family is a useful starting point for understanding the sociology of

the family.

You are not expected to agree with Parsons, but if you disagree make

sure you can explain why you disagree.

Parsons argued that:

- Societies evolve as the result of functional adaptations to the

problems presented by inter-relationships between (and within) systems

that make up the social totality. (Functional adaptations sounds very

similar to Max's idea of the dialectic - that there is something in a

society that 'causes' change).

- History is an evolutionary process of adaptation to problems.

(Again, Marx's approach is evolutionary in character).

- Social systems have the characteristics they do because they are

functional for their existence.

- Their existence is a testament to their necessity.

So, Parsons views the family as a dynamic institution undergoing

evolutionary modifications. (Not a bad idea really - think of

contemporary family developments). The Family is neither outmoded or

facing collapse. Parsons argues, that as societies evolve they become

more specialised. For example, the family, once directly involved in

production and education, has lost these functions to other

institutions.

There is, however, a problem with the Parsons family. It is: North

American, white and middle class (Morgan 197...

... middle of paper ...

... the closest bond

is formed. But it should be appreciated that the chief bond need not

be with a biological parent, it need not be with the chief caretaker

and it need not be with a female." (Rutter 1972).

So, it would seem that human beings are able to adapt to a wide range

of family situations. The implication for Parsons theory is that it

cannot be correct. We need to ask, if it is not ‘natural’ then why do

we have the family forms that we do?

8. Cross-cultural evidence: The problem with such evidence is that it

can inform as to variety or uniformity but does not explain why such

patterns exist. It is descriptive rather than explanatory. Therefore,

differing researchers can look at the same evidence and reach

different conclusions to functionalist accounts. This is what some

varieties of feminism have done.

More about Sex Roles in Parsons Family

Open Document