Family life from a sociological perspective Abstract
During the Victorian era the family unit was one that alwaysconsisted of a mother, father and numerous children. There was no societalacceptance of divorce and while many women tolerated abuse and theoccasional philandering from their husbands, they were raised to live in asubservient role, and accepted their lot in life. There are many peoplethat consider "feminism' as the cause of a number of social illsexperienced in today's society. Others consider the rise of homosexualityas an acceptable lifestyle another reason we have many problems in society. The rise in divorce figures and the number of children born out ofwedlock, both social phenomena's that are reasonably acceptable in mostsocial groups in urban America at least, have contributed to a markedchange in what can be considered the family unit. Same-sex parenting,homosexuality, and single parenting, are now taking their turn at pushingwhat was once considered fairly rigid social boundaries, and sociologistsare now in a position of wondering if some of the theories that have formedthe basis of the science in past years, are now applicable when used inconjunction with the 'new' family unit. In this paper we will look at two
Surprisingly enough even today these concepts and roles for male andfemales in a household are still considered 'traditional today' (Parsons1935). An example of this is physical abuse by onemember of the family on another. Conclusion Sociological perspective is important because it helps us viewvarious groups of people and how these different groups interact to formthe basis if society as we know it. Anythingthat does not 'fit' into the characteristics and job descriptions of theseroles was considered 'dysfunctional', because it jeopardized the smoothfunctioning of the group. Feminists point to the diversity of the idea of family and suggest that itshould be expanded to include families from different cultures, and racialgroups including those header by a single parent, lesbian and gay families,stepfamilies and even grandparent-grandchild households. Parson's felt the role of the father wasone of providing food and shelter for the family, and at leasttheoretically were hard working, tough and competitive people. Onecriticism of structural functionalism suggested that the perspective wasviewed from a 'white male, middle-class lens (Anderson 1993) and wastherefore not a lot of use in assessing other ethnic or socio-economicfamily situations. Despite these criticisms structural functionalism stillgoverns major assumptions and debates in family sociology The Feminist Perspective There is a common misconception that feminism is a recentperspective. Feminists have alsoquestioned why it is that employed women in a household also still do mostof the housework and the child-care for the family unit. During the 1970's and 1980's there were many challenges to thefunctionalist perspective. Today's census figures tell that this figureis still the norm, as such, but that there is a rise in figures pertainingto single parents, step or blended families, and same-sex parenting. Inmost urban areas it is commonplace for children to go to school with otherchildren of divorced parents, children who don't know who their father is,or where they might be, and children who no longer have any contact withgrandparents, aunts, uncles or other extended family members. Feminist theory has had a significant impact of our understanding offamily life.
Common topics in this essay:
Talcott Parsons,
Rouse Woods,
Parson's Structural-Functional,
,
Conclusion Sociological,
Feminine Mystique,
family unit,
Taylor Mill,
Mary Wollstonecraft,
Charlotte Forten,
Judith Butler,
functionalist perspective,
family life,
feminist perspective,
structural functionalism,
family unit sociologists,
rouse woods,
crawford rouse,
unit sociologists,
woods 1990,
domestic violence,
rouse woods 1990,
crawford rouse woods,
|
Acceptance Essays
