¨Would Parsons’ definition include any more families than Murdock’s?
¨Can you think of any historical examples to support Parsons?
¨What has happened to those “functions” no longer fulfilled by the family? Has the need gone away?
¨Can you think of any objections/counter-examples?
Parsons' (1955) would include more families than Murdock (1949) as their few is not as narrow minded as Murdock's. For example, Murdock mentions the ability to reproduce which automatically eliminates same sex marriages although they might do an excellent job at proving primary socialisation. Therefore, as Parsons' definition is broader, more family types fit in this definition.
ReplyDeleteDoes that make it better? Does it include families we are not happy to define as such?
ReplyDeleteThe functions no longer filled by the family haven't gone away, but are now fulfilled by other institutions. Parsons believed that this shift happens when a society industrialises. The family will no longer provide all of its members needs, and so other institutions fulfil these functions (for example schools to educate as apposed to parents).
ReplyDelete