Talcott Parsons And Bales: Leader Of The 1950s-Nuclear Family

Family structure and stability have constantly evolved and been researched in aspects of sociology. Following World War II, the family ideology in the 1950’s was brought to the attention of Talcott Parsons and Robert Bales (1955) whom demonstrated how transitioning from an agricultural society to that of an industrialization one played an important role in altering family life and structure. Parsons and Bales further expressed how gender role specialization was vital in the continuous of family solidarity. The “instrumental” male father role as the leader of the family responsible for providing the income and support as the “expressive” role which is that of the female mother delivers her contribution to the family through house work and nurture

of the children. Parsons and Bales further expressed how gender role specialization was vital in the continuous of family solidarity. While Parsons and Bales explored the benefits of gender role specialization and believed that the male-breadwinning family would ultimately lead to family bliss, this ideal has over-time proven otherwise.
Parsons and Bales provided insight on how socio-economic aspect of family life contributed to family structure. The rise of industrialization reformed not only social aspects but also the family due to physicality between locations of the home and work. It was necessary that the family adapted to an industrialized society even though Parsons and Bales expressed how the social structures of industrialization were more complex due to the “specialized” responsibilities that each family had to perform that contributed to society as a whole. However, in contrast, agricultural societies were viewed as simplistic because the extended family (“traditional family of the past”) was able to collaborate on different tasks. Industrialization allowed for the nuclear “bread-winning” family to be seen as the most functional family unit of modernity. The nuclear family consisted of a husband, wife, and children who were reliant on their parents. This family archetype separated gender roles in socio-economic division. The male bread-winner was focused primary on their work and was able to therefore gain more opportunities without distraction. Whereas the women were domesticated and their primary focus was to make sure the family was taken care of inside the household. Thus, allowing families to be more independent in terms of financial opportunities, geographic features which further led to more jobs, and emotional ties where each person in the family has devoted their time and energy to each other. Parsons and Bales proved how the nuclear bread-winning family type was the result of a positive change due to industrialization.
Parsons and Bales proved how gender role specialization was the absolute best way of family organization. As a result to the nuclear family form, social roles changed as well as the bringing up of children. The nuclear family allowed for the parents to devote their energy into raising their children and getting them ready for adulthood. Thus, preparing them for the future or technology and advancement. Their primary goal was to socialize their children and stabilize adult relationships. It was important to stabilize adult relationships due to the emotional intensity within a nuclear family, which was necessary in order for the family to prosper. Furthermore, the nuclear family surrounded by the idea of gender roles implied that these roles would lead to marital stability due to each spouse’s independence. Parsons and Bales eventually concluded how the family “should and would become the emotional centerpiece of adult life”.
While Parsons and Bales viewed how the concept of the nuclear bread-winning family was a success in social and occupational features, evolution is in a constant state of change. The nuclear family was seen as a way of life, but they did not consider the possibilities of other family forms which could have and would arise because of economic or societal adjustments. Stephanie Coontz took Parsons and Bales ideologies about the family in terms of roles and structure and further put it to a new perspective. Moreover, Arlie Hochschild uses her own case studies in order to examine how some families still recognize and hold the nuclear family as the most prevalent way to live. This paper will prove how the nuclear family is in a constant state of flux through social conditions and gender role specialization, which ultimately questions if the bread-winning family archetype is a consequence or benefit to society.
Parsons and Bales determined that the 1950s-nuclear family was the direct result of industrialization and advances made in society.

However, Stephanie Coontz (1997) wanted to take their finding into her own perspectives and research what made it possible to have such a family like that of a nuclear one. While Parsons and Bales completely ignored policies like the FHA and GI Bill and believed modern families would and should be well-off and self-supporting, Coontz found out that it was not only industrialization that was influential to family life but the result of family stability was due to the social factors and economic policies. The Great Depression was an era where the economy plummeted and left people in a financial struggle. However, following the Great Depression and World War II, the economy became stabilized and allowed for families to go back to the values surrounding the nuclear ideal. There policies put into place that made it easier for families to adhere to the nuclear family organization. The first policy was the Federal Housing Act which made it possible for families to buy homes and mainly “restructures home mortgages” (Kelsey, lect. 01/25/17). Moreover, the GI Bill helped approximately 40% of men further their higher education and acquire a college degree due to the fact that the economy needed men in the professional field who had been educated. Coontz (1997) showed how with the arise of social and political policies, men were able to make a good income

and was therefore able to provide for the entire family.
After the war, people were seen as homeward bound; marriages and birth rates spiked and divorce rates plummeted.

However, social conditions made it less feasible for families to live this way. As the 1960s approached and consumption was in high demand, women were yet again, forced to join the work force; but only a quarter of the women joined the workforce, whereas in the 1990s about “two-thirds of women who had children were in the work force (Coontz 55). Coontz (1997) explains how by 1973, “real wages were falling for young families, and by the late 1970s, government effectiveness had decreased (Coontz 54). It was because of economic factors that the nuclear bread-winning family could only be a lifestyle a few can afford. Nonetheless, women joining the workforce created a new understanding of women-hood, changed women’s status in society, and created conflict within the household. Women did not have the time to complete all the household tasks which contributed to the increased divorce rates, but left women happier due to the fact that they had that ultimate

choice.
In addition, in the 1980s, Arlie Hochschild demonstrated how it was an absolute necessity for both women and men in a family unit to provide, as well as concluded how women sought out gender equality as they attended higher education. She further notes on certain consequences that attribute to gender role specialization that showed inequalities between genders that contribute to family life. Women who are in the workforce not only work a typical work day but finds herself working about fifteen hours a day of second shift (“refers to the average 15 hours of housework/childcare performed by wives each week over and above the hours contributed by their husbands”) work (Kelsey lect. 01/30/17). Hochschild believes that this is a problem because women have to adjust to this change and it affects them internally. Hochschild shows this in her case study of Nancy and Even Holt. Nancy is determined to share the second shift work with Even, however, Evan feels as though he would be “dominated” (Hochschild 41). Hochschild explains how Evan believed that sharing second shift work would “upset a certain balance of power that felt culturally right” (Hochschild 42). Evan holds transitionalist qualities, and believes Nancy’s primary work should be inside the household. As a consequence, their son Joey holds a strain on their sex life, which demonstrates how gender ideologies can negatively change the family dynamics.
In conclusion, all prestige sociologists have proven how the evolution of social conditions has made an impact on the structure and life of the family. However, while each sociologist reflects on the previous one, Parsons and Bales mainly used gender roles as their primary source for how the family should and has worked. As society (external factors) changed, so did the functions of the family as Stephanie Coontz and Arlie Hochschild have shown. In present day society, the bread-winning family is existent but not likely. Economic factors are a major reason as to how a family is structured. Sociologist need to take into consideration that times are constantly changing and external factors will always influence internal ones. While the nuclear family might have been ideal, it is not likely.