The nuclear family is one of
the many family types in contemporary Britain according to sociologists Allan
and Crow (2001). The term ‘nuclear family’ in sociological prospective means a
family who has two generations, parents and children.
This
family type was dominant in the past because it was geographically mobile
meaning it could move around to find work. It was also an important family type
because in the past the main source of income was agriculture and if you had a
nuclear family everybody could contribute meaning you would get more work done.
As we became more and more industrialised, the nuclear family decreased because
our norms and values changed. One reason why it decreased is that cohabitation
became accepted in society due to the decline in the stigma ‘living in sin’ if
you were living together but were not married. In this essay I will try to
establish whether the nuclear family is still important to individuals and
society although it is in
decline.
Firstly, the nuclear family
is essential for individuals and society because we need the four functions it
provides. According to the functionalist and sociologist Murdock (1949), the
family provides four important functions which are economic, educational, sexual
and reproductive. The nuclear family is important for society because it is a
unit of consumption meaning it buys goods and this is very beneficial to the
economy. The final reason why it is important to society because partners
reproduce and care for their children, providing them with education and love.
This is beneficial to the economy because it is estimated a family spends
£180,000 to bring up their offspring to the age of 21. Having children is also
helping the economy because you are providing the workforce of the future.
Patricia Morgan (1993) is a New Right supporter and also agrees with the view
that society needs the nuclear family. She states that society is dependent on
the nuclear family as it is a strong family type which provides, a male
breadwinner and a female who does domestic labour. Another sociologist, Graham
Allan (1985) suggests that the government alongside with politics, encourages
nuclear families because they need them. One example of promoting the nuclear
family was demonstrated by the Prime Minister (David Cameron) in 2010 when he
said he wanted tax breaks to help married couples and their
children.
On the other hand, some
sociologists say that the nuclear family is not beneficial to individuals and
society. They argue that the
nuclear family has an adverse effect on the economy as the government has to
provide child benefit and that money can be spent on other things e.g. helping
small businesses with finances. This is evident that money should be spent on
small businesses rather than families because a lot of businesses have closed in
the past five years even major ones. Two famous businesses closed down in
Walsall in the past few years and they are WoolWorths and Gamestation. Recently
JJB joined them. Many sociologists say that the nuclear family will cause even
more trouble for Britain in the future as the industry here is suffering and
doesn’t need more workforce due to suppliers relying on industry from other
countries e.g. China. We now know the British industry doesn’t need more
workforce but the population is rising and that means more people dependent on
the ‘job seekers allowance’.
Secondly, the nuclear family
is beneficial to society and individuals because it helps capitalism. According
to Ann Oakley (1982), the media encourages nuclear families and suggests that it
is the dominant family type. She says that marketing and advertising are mainly
trying to sell products to the nuclear family as they see it as the typical
family. We often see cereal advertisements on TV that highlight two adults of
the opposite sex and two children, so in 1967 Edmund Leach called the nuclear
family ‘cereal packet image’. The nuclear family is also important to the
economy because Parsons stated that is a ‘hot bath tub’as it helps the males
relax and forget about the stress from work. Some stresses they have are
travelling to work every day, finances, thinking about the entire family, and
the salary they are getting. The wife caring for her husband is beneficial to
the economy because she is providing stable workforce for
free.
However, many sociologists
say that the nuclear family is not important for individuals and society because
there are lots of other successful family types such as extended families and
cohabitating couples. Due to the rising divorce rate that increased from 12,000
per year in 1981 to 14,000 per year in 2003, the nuclear family has become bad
for society. This family type has become bad for society because when the
partners get a divorce only one parent looks after the children. BBC statistics
show that children who live with one parent tend to do worse in academic studies
than children who live with both of their parents. This is affecting the economy
because children who live with one parent will get low income
jobs.
After looking at one side of
the argument that suggests the nuclear family is beneficial for individuals and
society, then looking at the other side of the argument who states it isn’t,
made it easier for me to decide whether the nuclear family is still important in
contemporary Britain. One side said it isn’t important because there are other
successful family types such as cohabitating couples and that the economy
doesn’t need nuclear families anymore. The other side said nuclear family is
important because it helps society run smoothly as it looks after the current
workforce and also provides the workforce of the future. I agree with the side
who states that the nuclear family is important because I feel it provides a
deep meaningful relationship for individuals.
the many family types in contemporary Britain according to sociologists Allan
and Crow (2001). The term ‘nuclear family’ in sociological prospective means a
family who has two generations, parents and children.
This
family type was dominant in the past because it was geographically mobile
meaning it could move around to find work. It was also an important family type
because in the past the main source of income was agriculture and if you had a
nuclear family everybody could contribute meaning you would get more work done.
As we became more and more industrialised, the nuclear family decreased because
our norms and values changed. One reason why it decreased is that cohabitation
became accepted in society due to the decline in the stigma ‘living in sin’ if
you were living together but were not married. In this essay I will try to
establish whether the nuclear family is still important to individuals and
society although it is in
decline.
Firstly, the nuclear family
is essential for individuals and society because we need the four functions it
provides. According to the functionalist and sociologist Murdock (1949), the
family provides four important functions which are economic, educational, sexual
and reproductive. The nuclear family is important for society because it is a
unit of consumption meaning it buys goods and this is very beneficial to the
economy. The final reason why it is important to society because partners
reproduce and care for their children, providing them with education and love.
This is beneficial to the economy because it is estimated a family spends
£180,000 to bring up their offspring to the age of 21. Having children is also
helping the economy because you are providing the workforce of the future.
Patricia Morgan (1993) is a New Right supporter and also agrees with the view
that society needs the nuclear family. She states that society is dependent on
the nuclear family as it is a strong family type which provides, a male
breadwinner and a female who does domestic labour. Another sociologist, Graham
Allan (1985) suggests that the government alongside with politics, encourages
nuclear families because they need them. One example of promoting the nuclear
family was demonstrated by the Prime Minister (David Cameron) in 2010 when he
said he wanted tax breaks to help married couples and their
children.
On the other hand, some
sociologists say that the nuclear family is not beneficial to individuals and
society. They argue that the
nuclear family has an adverse effect on the economy as the government has to
provide child benefit and that money can be spent on other things e.g. helping
small businesses with finances. This is evident that money should be spent on
small businesses rather than families because a lot of businesses have closed in
the past five years even major ones. Two famous businesses closed down in
Walsall in the past few years and they are WoolWorths and Gamestation. Recently
JJB joined them. Many sociologists say that the nuclear family will cause even
more trouble for Britain in the future as the industry here is suffering and
doesn’t need more workforce due to suppliers relying on industry from other
countries e.g. China. We now know the British industry doesn’t need more
workforce but the population is rising and that means more people dependent on
the ‘job seekers allowance’.
Secondly, the nuclear family
is beneficial to society and individuals because it helps capitalism. According
to Ann Oakley (1982), the media encourages nuclear families and suggests that it
is the dominant family type. She says that marketing and advertising are mainly
trying to sell products to the nuclear family as they see it as the typical
family. We often see cereal advertisements on TV that highlight two adults of
the opposite sex and two children, so in 1967 Edmund Leach called the nuclear
family ‘cereal packet image’. The nuclear family is also important to the
economy because Parsons stated that is a ‘hot bath tub’as it helps the males
relax and forget about the stress from work. Some stresses they have are
travelling to work every day, finances, thinking about the entire family, and
the salary they are getting. The wife caring for her husband is beneficial to
the economy because she is providing stable workforce for
free.
However, many sociologists
say that the nuclear family is not important for individuals and society because
there are lots of other successful family types such as extended families and
cohabitating couples. Due to the rising divorce rate that increased from 12,000
per year in 1981 to 14,000 per year in 2003, the nuclear family has become bad
for society. This family type has become bad for society because when the
partners get a divorce only one parent looks after the children. BBC statistics
show that children who live with one parent tend to do worse in academic studies
than children who live with both of their parents. This is affecting the economy
because children who live with one parent will get low income
jobs.
After looking at one side of
the argument that suggests the nuclear family is beneficial for individuals and
society, then looking at the other side of the argument who states it isn’t,
made it easier for me to decide whether the nuclear family is still important in
contemporary Britain. One side said it isn’t important because there are other
successful family types such as cohabitating couples and that the economy
doesn’t need nuclear families anymore. The other side said nuclear family is
important because it helps society run smoothly as it looks after the current
workforce and also provides the workforce of the future. I agree with the side
who states that the nuclear family is important because I feel it provides a
deep meaningful relationship for individuals.