Parson’s structural functionalist approach makes use of an organic analogy in order to provide an explanation of the operation of society and the possibility of social order. Individuals are claimed to be products of the social structures and social influences such as their friends and family, their exposure to the mass media etc. Parson’s approach is macro-sociological, meaning that the social structures/ society are perceived as having control over individuals. The transformation of institutions is argued to control and shape social life while changing it also, resulting in intensely regulated social behaviour (Cheal,1999,pg.57). Parson’s takes a modernist point of view accompanied by the standardization of family role behaviour. The main focus of this essay is to evaluate Parson’s structural functionalist approach to the study of ‘the family’. We can thus see the complications that attempting to study such an ambiguous topic pose and how the results of the attempts to study ‘the family’ could be problematic. He stresses how ‘obvious’ or ‘true’ the idea of ‘the family’ is and this results in those studying family to fail to realise that the adoption of the family model involves adopting a clear value stance which he claims tend to be racist, sexist, heterosexualist and ableist (Bernardes,1997,pg.30). Furthermore, Cheal (1997) makes a very relevant and important claim that they are bound to value judgements. The topic ‘family’ is also embedded in everyday language, emotions, identities, loaded with many interpretations and definitions, making it almost impossible to study. Bernardes (1997) notes that family life is bound to who were believe ourselves to be and how we fit into the social structures and what our beliefs are about others (pg.28-29). There is no universally accepted definition of the term. Trost (1990) makes the conclusion that ‘Evidently no one “Knows” what a family is: our perspectives vary to such a degree that to claim to know what a family is shows lack of knowledge’(ibid:p.442) (Cheal,1999,p.61). There is a desire to study ‘the family’, without knowledge of what it actually is. There is the problem, in sociology and social theory when it comes to the study of ‘family’. Bernardes(1985),Denzin (1987) and Rapoport (1989) state that “.the dominant tendency in the sociology of the family- to seek theoretical integration through one coherent model of a specifically modern type of family – has been severely criticised” (Cheal, 1999, pg.56). It is essential to acknowledge the difficulties posed when theorizing ‘the family’ before continuing. This essay will conclude with the view that an amendment of Parson’s structural functional approach would be more beneficial than disregarding it. There are many weaknesses and criticisms to Parson’s approach, as shall become more apparent however, he has also made contributions which will be explored. To conclude this essay, the contributions that Parsons has made with his structural functionalist approach to the study of the family will be assessed. The assumptions made by Parson’s will be evaluated using both critiques and supporting arguments. I shall then move on to explaining Parson’s structural functionalist approach and its application to ‘the family’. I shall begin by identifying the complexities that surround the study and theorization of ‘the family’. This essay aims to evaluate Parson’s structural functionalist approach to the study of the family.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |