the basic are irreducible functions of the family- Parsons

Parsons concentrated his analysis on the nuclear family. He argued that as society has progressed, the family has evolved to meet the changing needs of society, seeing it as a functional fit for modern society. He found the family has retained two ‘basic and irreducible functions’ which are common in all societies.

The family has lost its’ wider functions due to geographical mobility as they move to new towns and cities for work and due to structural differentiation, where new institutions take over the roles of the extended family, such as the welfare state and businesses. This is known as a march of progress.

These two basic & irreducible functions are:

· The ‘primary socialisation of children’.

For Parsons, a child could only become a social adult by internalising the shared norms and values of the society to which they belonged. For example, parents teach children manners and the value of hard work in support of societies goals. He therefore saw nuclear families as ‘personality factories’, in which parents teach children societies value consensus in a positive way.

· The ‘stabilisation of the adult personality’.

This second major function of the family focuses mainly on the marriage relationship and the emotional security the couple provides for each other. According to Parsons, this serves to relieve the stresses of modern day living for its adult members, and is often called the ‘warm bath’ theory. The emotional support and security offered by the family releases stress and anxiety, promoting a positive well-being for individuals allowing parents to fulfil their adult roles.

Functionalist Parsons see the family as extremely functional arguing the family is a functional fit for modern society. It’s existence is both beneficial and necessary for the smooth running of society and the personal development of individuals. Before the emergence of the nuclear family, Parsons argued the extended family was dominate and multifunctional.

Evaluation:

1. Radical Psychiatrist Laing would criticise Parsons idea of primary socialisation. He argues we need to look at the darker side of the family and recognises that power relations within families lead to parents terrorising their children and the process of socialisation is not always positive. This shows that although socialisation takes place, it is not always positive and can damage mental health.

2. Marxist Zaretsky would argue against Parsons view of the family being a warm bath which benefits the individuals. Instead he states the family acts as a safety valve, which is a release from oppression at work benefiting capitalism not the individual, therefore allowing oppression to continue. This shows that the family is set up to promote capitalism not individual wellbeing.