sociology family essay

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

15.2 Sociological Perspectives on the Family

Learning objective.

Summarize understandings of the family as presented by functional, conflict, and social interactionist theories.

Sociological views on today’s families generally fall into the functional, conflict, and social interactionist approaches introduced earlier in this book. Let’s review these views, which are summarized in Table 15.1 “Theory Snapshot” .

Table 15.1 Theory Snapshot

Social Functions of the Family

Recall that the functional perspective emphasizes that social institutions perform several important functions to help preserve social stability and otherwise keep a society working. A functional understanding of the family thus stresses the ways in which the family as a social institution helps make society possible. As such, the family performs several important functions.

First, the family is the primary unit for socializing children . As previous chapters indicated, no society is possible without adequate socialization of its young. In most societies, the family is the major unit in which socialization happens. Parents, siblings, and, if the family is extended rather than nuclear, other relatives all help socialize children from the time they are born.

One of the most important functions of the family is the socialization of children. In most societies the family is the major unit through which socialization occurs.

Colleen Kelly – Kids Playing Monopoly Chicago – CC BY 2.0.

Second, the family is ideally a major source of practical and emotional support for its members. It provides them food, clothing, shelter, and other essentials, and it also provides them love, comfort, help in times of emotional distress, and other types of intangible support that we all need.

Third, the family helps regulate sexual activity and sexual reproduction . All societies have norms governing with whom and how often a person should have sex. The family is the major unit for teaching these norms and the major unit through which sexual reproduction occurs. One reason for this is to ensure that infants have adequate emotional and practical care when they are born. The incest taboo that most societies have, which prohibits sex between certain relatives, helps minimize conflict within the family if sex occurred among its members and to establish social ties among different families and thus among society as a whole.

Fourth, the family provides its members with a social identity . Children are born into their parents’ social class, race and ethnicity, religion, and so forth. As we have seen in earlier chapters, social identity is important for our life chances. Some children have advantages throughout life because of the social identity they acquire from their parents, while others face many obstacles because the social class or race/ethnicity into which they are born is at the bottom of the social hierarchy.

Beyond discussing the family’s functions, the functional perspective on the family maintains that sudden or far-reaching changes in conventional family structure and processes threaten the family’s stability and thus that of society. For example, most sociology and marriage-and-family textbooks during the 1950s maintained that the male breadwinner–female homemaker nuclear family was the best arrangement for children, as it provided for a family’s economic and child-rearing needs. Any shift in this arrangement, they warned, would harm children and by extension the family as a social institution and even society itself. Textbooks no longer contain this warning, but many conservative observers continue to worry about the impact on children of working mothers and one-parent families. We return to their concerns shortly.

The Family and Conflict

Conflict theorists agree that the family serves the important functions just listed, but they also point to problems within the family that the functional perspective minimizes or overlooks altogether.

First, the family as a social institution contributes to social inequality in several ways. The social identity it gives to its children does affect their life chances, but it also reinforces a society’s system of stratification. Because families pass along their wealth to their children, and because families differ greatly in the amount of wealth they have, the family helps reinforce existing inequality. As it developed through the centuries, and especially during industrialization, the family also became more and more of a patriarchal unit (see earlier discussion), helping to ensure men’s status at the top of the social hierarchy.

Second, the family can also be a source of conflict for its own members. Although the functional perspective assumes the family provides its members emotional comfort and support, many families do just the opposite and are far from the harmonious, happy groups depicted in the 1950s television shows. Instead, and as the news story that began this chapter tragically illustrated, they argue, shout, and use emotional cruelty and physical violence. We return to family violence later in this chapter.

Families and Social Interaction

Social interactionist perspectives on the family examine how family members and intimate couples interact on a daily basis and arrive at shared understandings of their situations. Studies grounded in social interactionism give us a keen understanding of how and why families operate the way they do.

Some studies, for example, focus on how husbands and wives communicate and the degree to which they communicate successfully (Tannen, 2001). A classic study by Mirra Komarovsky (1964) found that wives in blue-collar marriages liked to talk with their husbands about problems they were having, while husbands tended to be quiet when problems occurred. Such gender differences seem less common in middle-class families, where men are better educated and more emotionally expressive than their working-class counterparts. Another classic study by Lillian Rubin (1976) found that wives in middle-class families say that ideal husbands are ones who communicate well and share their feelings, while wives in working-class families are more apt to say that ideal husbands are ones who do not drink too much and who go to work every day.

Other studies explore the role played by romantic love in courtship and marriage. Romantic love , the feeling of deep emotional and sexual passion for someone, is the basis for many American marriages and dating relationships, but it is actually uncommon in many parts of the contemporary world today and in many of the societies anthropologists and historians have studied. In these societies, marriages are arranged by parents and other kin for economic reasons or to build alliances, and young people are simply expected to marry whoever is chosen for them. This is the situation today in parts of India, Pakistan, and other developing nations and was the norm for much of the Western world until the late 18th and early 19th centuries (Lystra, 1989).

Key Takeaways

The family ideally serves several functions for society. It socializes children, provides practical and emotional support for its members, regulates sexual reproduction, and provides its members with a social identity.
Reflecting conflict theory’s emphases, the family may also produce several problems. In particular, it may contribute for several reasons to social inequality, and it may subject its members to violence, arguments, and other forms of conflict.
Social interactionist understandings of the family emphasize how family members interact on a daily basis. In this regard, several studies find that husbands and wives communicate differently in certain ways that sometimes impede effective communication.

For Your Review

As you think how best to understand the family, do you favor the views and assumptions of functional theory, conflict theory, or social interactionist theory? Explain your answer.
Do you think the family continues to serve the function of regulating sexual behavior and sexual reproduction? Why or why not?

Komarovsky, M. (1964). Blue-collar marriage . New York, NY: Random House.

Lystra, K. (1989). Searching the heart: Women, men, and romantic love in nineteenth-century America . New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Rubin, L. B. (1976). Worlds of pain: Life in the working-class family . New York, NY: Basic Books.

Tannen, D. (2001). You just don’t understand: Women and men in conversation . New York, NY: Quill.

school Campus Bookshelves
menu_book Bookshelves
perm_media Learning Objects
login Login
how_to_reg Request Instructor Account
hub Instructor Commons
Download Page (PDF)
Download Full Book (PDF)
Periodic Table
Physics Constants
Scientific Calculator
Reference & Cite
Tools expand_more
Readability

selected template will load here

This action is not available.

11.3: Sociological Perspectives on the Family

Last updated
Save as PDF
Page ID 2076

Learning Objectives

Summarize understandings of the family as presented by functional, conflict, and social interactionist theories.

Table 11.1 Theory Snapshot

Social Functions of the Family

Figure 11.3

One of the most important functions of the family is the socialization of children. In most societies the family is the major unit through which socialization occurs.

Third, the family helps regulate sexual activity and sexual reproduction . All societies have norms governing with whom and how often a person should have sex. The family is the major unit for teaching these norms and the major unit through which sexual reproduction occurs. One reason for this is to ensure that infants have adequate emotional and practical care when they are born. The incest taboo that most societies have, which prohibits sex between certain relatives, helps to minimize conflict within the family if sex occurred among its members and to establish social ties among different families and thus among society as a whole.

Fourth, the family provides its members with a social identity . Children are born into their parents’ social class, race and ethnicity, religion, and so forth. As we have seen in earlier chapters, social identity is important for our life chances. Some children have advantages throughout life because of the social identity they acquire from their parents, while others face many obstacles because the social class or race and ethnicity into which they are born is at the bottom of the social hierarchy.

The Family and Conflict

Families and Social Interaction

Some studies, for example, focus on how husbands and wives communicate and the degree to which they communicate successfully (Tannen, 2001).Tannen, D. (2001). You just don’t understand: Women and men in conversation . New York, NY: Quill. A classic study by Mirra Komarovsky (1964)Komarovsky, M. (1964). Blue-collar marriage . New York, NY: Random House. found that wives in blue-collar marriages liked to talk with their husbands about problems they were having, while husbands tended to be quiet when problems occurred. Such gender differences seem less common in middle-class families, where men are better educated and more emotionally expressive than their working-class counterparts. Another classic study by Lillian Rubin (1976)Rubin, L. B. (1976). Worlds of pain: Life in the working-class family . New York, NY: Basic Books. found that wives in middle-class families say that ideal husbands are ones who communicate well and share their feelings, while wives in working-class families are more apt to say that ideal husbands are ones who do not drink too much and who go to work every day.

The family ideally serves several functions for society. It socializes children, provides practical and emotional support for its members, regulates sexual reproduction, and provides its members with a social identity.
Reflecting conflict theory’s emphases, the family may also produce several problems. In particular, it may contribute for several reasons to social inequality, and it may subject its members to violence, arguments, and other forms of conflict.
Social interactionist understandings of the family emphasize how family members interact on a daily basis. In this regard, several studies find that husbands and wives communicate differently in certain ways that sometimes impede effective communication.

For Your Review

As you think how best to understand the family, do you favor the views and assumptions of functional theory, conflict theory, or social interactionist theory? Explain your answer.
Do you think the family continues to serve the function of regulating sexual behavior and sexual reproduction? Why or why not?

Theories of the Family and Social Change – AS & A Level Notes

Synopsis: This article provides an overview of the some of the theories of family and social change. It explores the roles of family through different sociological perspectives (Functionalism, Marxism, and Feminism) and explores the changing patterns of family relations and other social institutions such as marriage and divorce.

Theories of Family and Social Change notes

Introduction

In sociology, a family is defined as a social arrangement between “two or more people who consider themselves related by blood, marriage, or adoption” (Henslin, 2017, p. 461). Being one of the core units of society, there has been a lot of exploration and discussion on the topic of family (and marriage), especially in the discipline of Sociology. Family can be examined through various sociological perspectives, each of which provides a new idea on what the roles of family are. Further, as an institution within a constantly changing society, the social unit of family has undergone significant changes. Through family, we can also explore changing patterns of marriage and divorce, as these are essential elements in the study of family in sociology.

Sociological Perspectives on the Role of the Family

Functionalism

From the functionalist perspective, there are certain functions in a society that a family performs – the family is seen as a unit of society required for its effective functioning and well-being. According to functionalists, the universality of a family unit all over human society is due to its fulfillment of certain basic needs – both for an individual’s survival and the for the society as a whole.

The first function of a family is to provide a secure, steady space for satisfaction of the sexual urges of individuals and to provide a legitimate space or foundation to reproduction. In other words, connecting it to family makes the act of procreation a systematized, socially sanctioned practice of ensuring the continuity of the human race. The second most important function of a family is to provide the arena for socialization of children. Socialization forms the very basis of establishment and maintenance of a particular social order, and without socialization of the children, it would not be possible. Passing on society from one generation to another is one of the key ways in which the continuation of human society can be ensured, which is one of the key roles of a family. It is through living with others in a family unit that a child learns and internalizes the appropriate social and cultural roles, values, beliefs, norms, and practices. It is the family that essentially provides individuals with their social identity and social location.

Further, the family also helps individuals meet some of their intrinsic needs, such as food and shelter. Through reproduction, families also provide the economy with human capital and labour power or workforce, therefore playing a key role in the processes of economic production. The economic function of families can also be seen in maintenance of individuals who are not self-sufficient to provide for themselves financially – for example, children, the elderly, and persons with disabilities who might not be able to work. Families also serve as a safety net for individuals. They are often the key sources of support and comfort, both emotionally and socially. Family performs the function of providing safety, stability, love, empathy and fulfilling all other intangible needs of individuals.

The Marxist understanding of family stems from the general Marxist view that all institutions in society help establish, perpetuate, and maintain class inequality and promote Capitalism. Families, therefore, in Marxist terms, help maintain the class interests of the elite bourgeoisie who form a very small part of society as opposed to the proletariat or working class people but who hold more social, economic, and political power than the numerical majority, thereby commanding society at large. Maintenance of bourgeoisie dominance over proletariats and sustaining the Capitalist system is thought to be the key purpose of families.

In his famous work, The Communist Manifesto, Marx posited that the “bourgeoisie has torn away from the family its sentimental veil, and has reduced the family relation into a mere money relation” (Marx & Engels, 1848, p. 16). In other words, for Marx and in Marxist understanding, capitalism has reduced the unit of family in society to nothing but a financial transaction, therefore making the family an exploitative mechanism in itself.

For proponents of the Marxist perspective, the nuclearization of families from earlier community-based large families and kinship groups was a result of emergence of capitalism and private ownership of property. By acting as tools of ideological control, nuclear families help maintain and propagate capitalism by normalizing or legitimizing, justifying, and inculcating class inequality and establishing the capitalist system as valid, reasonable, and invariable. Hierarchy is taught since childhood through the patriarchal, age-based family structure where parents have power or authority over children, and even within parents, the father is considered to be ‘superior’ than the mother (in a heterosexual marriage). Further, to maintain the ‘purity’ of family and lineage, caste inequalities are maintained by restricting marriage to endogamy, therefore further creating grounds for discrimination and exploitation.

Feminist Responses to the Functionalist View of Family

The functionalist perspective receives extensive criticism whenever it is examined from the lens of any critical theory, and feminism is no different. Functionalists assume that the social institution of family proves to be conducive or advantageous to all the member-individuals equally, thereby painting the family in a positive light. The feminist viewpoint is critical of this functionalist notion as the family exists within and as an extension of the intrinsically patriarchal human society and also serves to propagate patriarchal ideals and maintain stereotypical gender roles and unequal gender relations.

Power in a family is unequally distributed between the males and the females. For instance, in a family formed through heterosexual marital relations, it is the father who is considered the ‘head’ of the family and who embodies the most power and authority, while the position of the mother is relegated to a secondary position below the father. The family perpetuates stereotypical gender ideals of women by appointing the household as the primary responsibility of the women. Women are seen akin to machines responsible for reproduction, caregiving – both for the children, the elderly, and all other family members, and performing other household chores which essentially keeps the family running smoothly, all without any remuneration because these work are not considered economically productive. For men, such household tasks come at a secondary position after they have effectively managed their careers and jobs, which are considered a secondary priority for the women. Further, feminists argue that through the socialization function of families that functionalists point out as essential, unequal gender roles are inculcated in children – girls are taught to be more docile, caring, nurturing, and ‘feminine’ whereas boys are taught assertion, dominance, even violence, and to be ‘masculine’. For feminists, therefore, the family essentially serves as a restrictive institution for women which establishes and maintains their subordinate position in society.

Feminist Responses to the Marxist View of Family

Marxist perspective on family views the family as an economic institution that serves the interests of capitalism by reproducing the labor force and maintaining the class system. This perspective argues that the family acts as a unit of consumption and a source of labor, and that it helps to preserve and reinforce class relationships. However, feminist criticism of this perspective argues that it overlooks the role of patriarchal power and the oppression of women within the family structure. While Marxists see the family as serving economic interests, feminists argue that the family also serves as a site of patriarchal domination, where women are oppressed and exploited through their domestic and reproductive labor.

One key feminist critique of Marxist perspective on family is that it tends to neglect the gendered nature of class exploitation. Marxists tend to view class exploitation as a unitary phenomenon that affects all members of the working class equally, regardless of gender, race, or other identity factors. However, feminists argue that this approach neglects the ways in which women’s experiences of class exploitation can be different from those of men. For example, women may experience lower wages, limited job opportunities, and greater responsibility for care work within the family. These factors can contribute to women’s experiences of class exploitation that are distinct from those of men.

Another important feminist critique of Marxist perspective on family is that it does not adequately address the intersections of race, gender, and class in the exploitation of women within the family. This perspective tends to view the family as a single, homogeneous unit, when in reality, families are diverse and can be shaped by multiple identities and experiences. For example, women of color may experience additional forms of oppression based on their race, in addition to the patriarchal oppression they experience within the family. To address these shortcomings, feminists call for a more intersectional analysis that recognizes the multiple ways in which women are oppressed within the family and society as a whole. This approach acknowledges that patriarchal, racial, and class-based systems of oppression are interconnected and mutually reinforcing, and that they cannot be fully understood in isolation from one another. By taking an intersectional approach, feminists aim to better understand the complex experiences of women within the family and to work towards ending all forms of oppression and exploitation.

Diversity, Social Change, and Family

Different family and household forms

There is no singular definition of what constitutes a family. Different cultures and societies identify different arrangements as a family. In today’s world, a single individual and a pet dog can also be identified as a family. Further, there also exists the concept of ‘found family’ – a familial bond formed not through blood relation, kinship bonds or biological connections but through choice with the purpose of providing social support.

However, there can be certain specific forms of family on the basis of various factors. Sociologists first identify family of orientation – “the family in which an individual grows up” (Henslin, 2017, p. 461) and family of procreation – the family formed through the birth of children. Further, families can be classified on the basis of size as nuclear families – small families consisting of a parents and their children, and extended or joint families in which along with the elements of the nuclear family other relatives, such as grandparents, uncles and aunts, cousins, etc., live together. Single-parent families and families of partners without children are also forms of families. Therefore, is a huge diversity in what is defined as a family, and the foundation of families might not always be biological or marital.

Causes and consequences of changing patterns of marriage, cohabitation, divorce, and separation

It is difficult to arrive at a universally applicable definition of marriage if we take into account the socio-cultural variations of what can be appropriately called a marriage. Considering such diversities, a marriage can be tentatively defined as “a group’s approved mating arrangements, usually marked by a ritual of some sort (the wedding) to indicate the couple’s new public status” (Henslin, 2017, p. 462). However, since a legal aspect has been introduced as imperative for defining marriage in a particular way, marriage can also be described as “a legally recognized social contract between two people, traditionally based on a sexual relationship and implying a permanence of the union” (Little & McGivern, 2014). As with any cultural aspect, the institution of marriage is also dynamic and has seen changing patterns and meanings. For instance, same sex marriage (or even a relationship) was an unimaginable concept for several cultures and societies of the world even a few decades ago, but it is now legalized in more than 30 countries of the world. Further, marriage rates, regardless of which sexuality they are based on, have seen a decline in the recent decades. While several studies on Western countries (especially America) exist, a recent survey by the Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation, Government of India has found that there has been an increase in the number of unmarried young people (PTI, 2022). There has also been a general decline in the willingness among youth to get marries, and this is not a trend limited to India. A number of reasons can be identified as the cause of such a declining trend in marriages.

If marriages have declined, there must be another institution that has taken over that traditional institution, which cohabitation seems to have achieved. Initially defined as “heterosexual couple whose members are not married to each other and who live in the same household in a close relationship” (Chevan, 1996), definitions of cohabitation have become more inclusive with regards to different kinds of sexuality. In the face of changing attitudes towards marriage and what it entails, cohabitation provides a more flexible, versatile option with more liberties and greater possibilities than marriage allows. It provides a space for fostering of relationships not accepted by society or legalized as legitimate. For instance, cohabitation can be a viable option for people belonging to the LGBTQ+ community in countries where, say, same sex marriages have not been legalized. Further, relationships which are still considered socially unacceptable, such as polyamory, can also be made possible through the arrangement of cohabitation, therefore making it a more popular choice among people. Cohabitation can be one of the main reasons for the declining rate of marriages.

A declining marriage rate can also be explained by changes in attitudes towards divorce. Previously relegated to a position of sacrilege by religious institutions due to being a mechanism that brought the ‘holy’ or ‘sacred’ bond created through marriage to an end, divorce has become more popular in the past few decades. There are several reasons for this changing pattern of legal separation among married couples, the primary being easier access to divorce procedures and a change in the way society views divorce. Changes in expectations of people regarding desirable qualities in their partners and life, elimination of the sanctity previously accorded to a marriage, more acceptance towards same-sex relationships (and other sexualities) along with an increased opportunity among people to explore themselves more, greater focus towards mental health, etc., are a few reasons why divorce is becoming increasingly popular among people. One important reason can also be the rise of the feminist movement and empowerment of women – with greater financial independence and decrease in the social stigma single women face, it has been easier for women to choose a better life for themselves than stay in a marriage which is suitable for them.

The diverse nature of human society and various cultures make it difficult to arrive at a universal definition or description of family. Different sociological perspectives allow us to use a variety of lenses to examine the roles of family in society, either through a positive, functionalist lens or from a more critical perspective. Other aspects of society, such as marriage, divorce, and cohabitation, can be examined in connection with the concept of family to understand how they have changed in the past few decades.

Chevan, A. (1996). As cheaply as one: Cohabitation in the older population. Journal of Marriage and the Family , 58 (3), 656. https://doi.org/10.2307/353726

Henslin, J. M. (2017). Marriage and family. In Sociology: A Down-to-Earth Approach (pp. 460–492). Pearson Education.

Little, W., & McGivern, R. (2014). Chapter 14: Marriage and family. In Introduction to Sociology – 1st Canadian Edition . Pressbooks. https://opentextbc.ca/introductiontosociology/chapter/chapter14-marriage-and-family/

Marx, K., & Engels, F. (1848). Manifesto of the Communist party. In Written: Late Source: Marx/Engels Selected Works: Vol. One (Issue 1). Marxists Internet Archive. https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/pdf/Manifesto.pd f

PTI. (2022, July 15). Proportion of unmarried youth rising, finds govt survey. The Economic Times . https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/india/proportion-of-unmarried-youth-rising-finds-govt-survey/articleshow/92878668.cms?from=mdr

Soumili is currently pursuing her studies in Social Sciences at Tata Institute of Social Sciences, focusing on core subjects such as Sociology, Psychology, and Economics. She possesses a deep passion for exploring various cultures, traditions, and languages, demonstrating a particular fascination with scholarship related to intersectional feminism and environmentalism, gender and sexuality, as well as clinical psychology and counseling. In addition to her academic pursuits, her interests extend to reading, fine arts, and engaging in volunteer work.

Essay about Family: What It Is and How to Nail It

Humans naturally seek belonging within families, finding comfort in knowing someone always cares. Yet, families can also stir up insecurities and mental health struggles.

Family dynamics continue to intrigue researchers across different fields. Every year, new studies explore how these relationships shape our minds and emotions.

In this article, our dissertation service will guide you through writing a family essay. You can also dive into our list of topics for inspiration and explore some standout examples to spark your creativity.

What is Family Essay

A family essay takes a close look at the bonds and experiences within families. It's a common academic assignment, especially in subjects like sociology, psychology, and literature.

So, what's involved exactly? Simply put, it's an exploration of what family signifies to you. You might reflect on cherished family memories or contemplate the portrayal of families in various media.

What sets a family essay apart is its personal touch. It allows you to express your own thoughts and experiences. Moreover, it's versatile – you can analyze family dynamics, reminisce about family customs, or explore other facets of familial life.

If you're feeling uncertain about how to write an essay about family, don't worry; you can explore different perspectives and select topics that resonate with various aspects of family life.

Tips For Writing An Essay On Family Topics

A family essay typically follows a free-form style, unless specified otherwise, and adheres to the classic 5-paragraph structure. As you jot down your thoughts, aim to infuse your essay with inspiration and the essence of creative writing, unless your family essay topics lean towards complexity or science.

Here are some easy-to-follow tips from our essay service experts:

Focus on a Specific Aspect: Instead of a broad overview, delve into a specific angle that piques your interest, such as exploring how birth order influences sibling dynamics or examining the evolving role of grandparents in modern families.
Share Personal Anecdotes: Start your family essay introduction with a personal touch by sharing stories from your own experiences. Whether it's about a favorite tradition, a special trip, or a tough time, these stories make your writing more interesting.
Use Real-life Examples: Illustrate your points with concrete examples or anecdotes. Draw from sources like movies, books, historical events, or personal interviews to bring your ideas to life.
Explore Cultural Diversity: Consider the diverse array of family structures across different cultures. Compare traditional values, extended family systems, or the unique hurdles faced by multicultural families.
Take a Stance: Engage with contentious topics such as homeschooling, reproductive technologies, or governmental policies impacting families. Ensure your arguments are supported by solid evidence.
Delve into Psychology: Explore the psychological underpinnings of family dynamics, touching on concepts like attachment theory, childhood trauma, or patterns of dysfunction within families.
Emphasize Positivity: Share uplifting stories of families overcoming adversity or discuss strategies for nurturing strong, supportive family bonds.
Offer Practical Solutions: Wrap up your essay by proposing actionable solutions to common family challenges, such as fostering better communication, achieving work-life balance, or advocating for family-friendly policies.

Family Essay Topics

When it comes to writing, essay topics about family are often considered easier because we're intimately familiar with our own families. The more you understand about your family dynamics, traditions, and experiences, the clearer your ideas become.

If you're feeling uninspired or unsure of where to start, don't worry! Below, we have compiled a list of good family essay topics to help get your creative juices flowing. Whether you're assigned this type of essay or simply want to explore the topic, these suggestions from our history essay writer are tailored to spark your imagination and prompt meaningful reflection on different aspects of family life.

So, take a moment to peruse the list. Choose the essay topics about family that resonate most with you. Then, dive in and start exploring your family's stories, traditions, and connections through your writing.

Supporting Family Through Tough Times
Staying Connected with Relatives
Empathy and Compassion in Family Life
Strengthening Bonds Through Family Gatherings
Quality Time with Family: How Vital Is It?
Navigating Family Relationships Across Generations
Learning Kindness and Generosity in a Large Family
Communication in Healthy Family Dynamics
Forgiveness in Family Conflict Resolution
Building Trust Among Extended Family
Defining Family in Today's World
Understanding Nuclear Family: Various Views and Cultural Differences
Understanding Family Dynamics: Relationships Within the Family Unit
What Defines a Family Member?
Modernizing the Nuclear Family Concept
Exploring Shared Beliefs Among Family Members
Evolution of the Concept of Family Love Over Time
Examining Family Expectations
Modern Standards and the Idea of an Ideal Family
Life Experiences and Perceptions of Family Life
Genetics and Extended Family Connections
Utilizing Family Trees for Ancestral Links
The Role of Younger Siblings in Family Dynamics
Tracing Family History Through Oral Tradition and Genealogy
Tracing Family Values Through Your Family Tree
Exploring Your Elder Sister's Legacy in the Family Tree
Connecting Daily Habits to Family History
Documenting and Preserving Your Family's Legacy
Navigating Online Records and DNA Testing for Family History
Tradition as a Tool for Family Resilience
Involving Family in Daily Life to Maintain Traditions
Creating New Traditions for a Small Family
The Role of Traditions in Family Happiness
Family Recipes and Bonding at House Parties
Quality Time: The Secret Tradition for Family Happiness
The Joy of Cousins Visiting for Christmas
Including Family in Birthday Celebrations
Balancing Traditions and Unconditional Love
Building Family Bonds Through Traditions

Looking for Speedy Assistance With Your College Essays?

Reach out to our skilled writers, and they'll provide you with a top-notch paper that's sure to earn an A+ grade in record time!

Family Essay Example

For a better grasp of the essay on family, our team of skilled writers has crafted a great example. It looks into the subject matter, allowing you to explore and understand the intricacies involved in creating compelling family essays. So, check out our meticulously crafted sample to discover how to craft essays that are not only well-written but also thought-provoking and impactful.

Final Outlook

In wrapping up, let's remember: a family essay gives students a chance to showcase their academic skills and creativity by sharing personal stories. However, it's important to stick to academic standards when writing about these topics. We hope our list of topics sparked your creativity and got you on your way to a reflective journey. And if you hit a rough patch, you can just ask us to ' do my essay for me ' for top-notch results!

Having Trouble with Your Essay on the Family?

Our expert writers are committed to providing you with the best service possible in no time!

FAQs on Writing an Essay about Family

Family essays seem like something school children could be assigned at elementary schools, but family is no less important than climate change for our society today, and therefore it is one of the most central research themes.

Below you will find a list of frequently asked questions on family-related topics. Before you conduct research, scroll through them and find out how to write an essay about your family.

How to Write an Essay About Your Family History?

How to write an essay about a family member, how to write an essay about family and roots, how to write an essay about the importance of family, related articles.

Sociology and the Family Essay

Introduction.

The subject of family in the sociological arena has been studied and researched by several scholars. Explanations of the characteristic features and behavioral patterns of the family have been discussed in many journals and books. One journal in particular has discussed this issue in detailed and its explanations have been so vividly done such that the issue is fully understood.

The journal is entitled, family matters: Even in marriage: Identifying factors linked to marital outcomes for African Americans. The authors are Chalandra M. Bryant, K.A.S. Wickrama, John Bolland, Barlynda M. Bryant, Carolyn E. Cutrona and Christine E. Stanik. It was first published online in August 2010.

The journal mainly focuses on marriage in the African-American society. The authors did a prolific research in trying to find out the characteristic features which are special to these types of families. They also tried to crystallize out the differences between the African-America families to those of the other families.

The researchers developed a broad conceptual framework which involved primary marital concepts of which the concepts emanated from psychological points of view which were shown to vary across the races. As an example the authors explain this hypothesis as if we look at the stressful part, individuals’ and couples’ resources will meditate and moderate the association between the causes of the particular stress and the welfare of the marriage.

Also the authors did an extensive review of available literature such which resulted in their identification of important findings on the rudimentary constituents in this conceptual framework. The methods include focusing on literature which talked about the description of Africa-American families (Bryant et al 7).

Stress and Welfare of the Family

Persistent stressful conditions have harmful effects on the general welfare in the marital situations. Consequence of stressful life in the African-American home includes increasing prevalence of divorce and poor marital quality. Thus the fewer socio-economic opportunities in African-American homes causes them to have a low socio-economic standard in America. Thus due to their low socio-economic status they are more and more exposed to stressful conditions (Bryant et al 8).

Unemployment and Lack of Money

Economic situations do have a direct impact on the behavioral characteristics of interaction activities of couples. According to recent research, marriage in African-Americans decreased because there was an increase in the rate of unemployment among the African-Americans. Poor African-American families have a tendency to reside in inner city regions where there are low quality resources and services. This is less likely with the white communities who are economically disadvantaged (Bryant et al 9).

The researchers used a sample of African-American families to substantiate that economic advantaged families live happily in economically disadvantaged neighborhoods. This is because most of the married couples enjoy relative affluence compared to their neighbors.

Status of the Workplace

Low status jobs such as those jobs which require few skills make people think of themselves as they belong to the lower status. This is also similar to when a person works in poor working conditions, or when a person works in areas that require little self direction. These families have undergone through such humiliation and have been worsened by the fact that most of these families are involved in service rendering jobs (Bryant et al 13).

The Extended Families

Due to their cultural affiliations, the African American society has an obligation to attend to their extended families. Thus there is a high sense of familial duty in these families which have been cemented by the obligations to their relatives beyond the nuclear family. These families have a high likelihood of living with the extended family. The relatives tend to seek financial help from their middle class counterparts thereby creating a set of normative expectations of socio-economic support (Bryant et al 14).

According to past and recent research, marital satisfaction decrease with the birth of children. In the African American society it has been studied that 55% of the couples enter into marriage with at least one child. This is comparative to 22% of the white community who enter into marriage with at least one child. The stress created in this situation can affect the interaction of couples thus creating the relationship between the couples to be hostile or cold. Other status such as racial discrimination does also add to this stress (Bryant et al 15).

Race of the Family

The racial identity of a person is important since individuals identify themselves with particular cultures which are significantly different from others. Mature racial identity is not experienced in all African American families. This is because the racial identity will be different among every person. In couples who exhibit a mature racial identity, there are a decreased number of stressors. Mismatching along racial lines may also incite conflict (Bryant et al 15).

Authors’ Views

The authors propose that several pathways be used both directly and indirectly to come between stressors and the marital outcomes of the African American society. Thus a study in which these factors are investigated can be an eye opener to understanding how the African American society operates. Thus future research should focus at exploring the bridge between outcomes of a marital affair and the health of African Americans since the health issues were not researched upon (Bryant et al 32).

There are several factors which affect the welfare of the African American family. As discussed above, the factors range from racial differences to economic disparity between the African Americans and the whites. Living and working conditions do also have an impact on the socioeconomic status of an individual. Thus if a permanent solution that will fight off these factors is found the African American society will have an equal socioeconomic status with their white counterparts.

Works Cited

Bryant, Chalandra et al. “Race Matters, Even in Marriage: Identifying Factors Linked to Marital Outcomes for African Americans.” John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2010. 3 rd Nov 2010.

Chicago (A-D)
Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2019, August 8). Sociology and the Family. https://ivypanda.com/essays/sociology-and-the-family/

"Sociology and the Family." IvyPanda , 8 Aug. 2019, ivypanda.com/essays/sociology-and-the-family/.

IvyPanda . (2019) 'Sociology and the Family'. 8 August.

IvyPanda . 2019. "Sociology and the Family." August 8, 2019. https://ivypanda.com/essays/sociology-and-the-family/.

1. IvyPanda . "Sociology and the Family." August 8, 2019. https://ivypanda.com/essays/sociology-and-the-family/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Sociology and the Family." August 8, 2019. https://ivypanda.com/essays/sociology-and-the-family/.

Kobe Bryant and His Work Ethic
Kobe Bryant: “Beefsteak” in American Basketball History
Bryant Homes Corporation Information Technology
William Cullen Bryant, an American Romantic Poet
Kobe Bean Bryant: The Outstanding Basketball Player
Ethics in Mass Media: Kobe Bryant's Sexual Assault Articles
Politics of Cheap: Bryant Simon’s The Hamlet Fire
Addressing the Needs of a Suicidal Patient
"A Bronzeville Mother Loiters in Mississippi" by Gwendolyne Brooks
Bhagavata Purana, Krishna, and Lila
The Aging Population
Racism, Colonialism and the Emergence of Third World
The Issues of Identity Among ”mixed-race/ethnic” Persons in the United States
How Racial Discourses Subtend Military Projects
Slavery and Racism: Black Brazilians v. Black Americans

TOP CATEGORIES
AS and A Level
University Degree
International Baccalaureate
Uncategorised
5 Star Essays
Study Tools
Study Guides
Meet the Team
Family & Marriage

Sociology The Family

Family structures and how they have developed over time, as the result of the social changes brought about by industrialisation is of particular interest to those studying the sociology of the family. Three key sociological theories in the study of the family are functionalism, Marxism and feminism. It is the intention of this essay to discuss and evaluate these theories using sociological studies which support these schools of thought.

Functionalism describes the family as having its role or function within society. Functionalists normally assume that if a social institution is evident then it must have a role or function. The family is looked at in terms of its functions being beneficial for society and the individual. When a child is born it must be looked after and cared for by, in most societies, the parents of the child. Therefore the function of the family is to look after the next generation and aid them through childhood. The role the family has effectively allows the child to learn many different things for example, language, society, values and norms. Not only does the family support the individual through childhood but for most of adult life. However it is the first few years of life that are important as sociologists argue that this is when an individual’s personality is developed. Although the family has the role of passing on social skills and knowledge in childhood, specialist social institutions outside the family, such as schools and colleges, provide an individual with the necessary skills to co-ordinate their adult roles.

We can say that the family performs important basic functions. The functionalist theory is supported by studies such as Parson’s “Social Structure of the Family” in which Parson’s describes the family becoming increasingly specialized in industrial societies and concentrating on a few important functions. For example in many small societies, caring for the elderly is undertaken by their family but in industrial societies this is becoming the role of specialized agencies such as care homes and hospitals. According to Parson’s the family has two basic and irreducible functions: the primary socialization of children and the stabilization of adult personalities. Primary socialization looks at the socialization during the early years of childhood which takes place within the family. There are two processes involved with primary socialization. These are the internalization of society’s culture and the structuring of the personality. Parson’s states that unless culture is internalized or absorbed and accepted then society would not exist. As without shared norms and values, social life would not be possible.

“However, culture is not simply learned, it is ‘internalized as part of the personality structure’ ”

Harolambos and Holborn (2004: 469).

This is a preview of the whole essay

A childs personality is shaped and moulded to the point where the values of a particular society become a part of them. Parsons saw the family as being important in creating personality and saw no other social institution that could achieve this. Once the personality has been produced it must then be kept stable. This is the second basic function of the family according to Parsons. By having a source of release from the stresses of everyday life and having emotional security this keeps the personality stable. The relationship of marriage and the opportunity for adults to indulge in childish behaviour with their children helps to prevent overwhelming the individual. ASCHNCSociologyBSK/Family(11.8.07:6)

Strengths and weaknesses exist within the functionalist framework. Functionalist theories seem to look at the positive functions of the family and give little look into negative aspects of family life. Parson’s has been said to idealize the image of the family (Harolambos and Holborn 2004:470). For example, feminists look at the male dominated nature of the traditional family structure and the existence of violence within the private sphere. Functionalists do not tend to consider alternatives to the family. For example an Israeli kibbutz carries out the functions of the family but it does not fit the ‘typical’ or ‘nuclear’ definition of a family. Also there are many varying family types, even in one society, which have differences based on class, religion and ethnicity.

In contrast the Marxist theory looks at the interests of powerful groups determining the way society is organized. The family is seen as part of the structure of society and is one of a number of social institutions which help maintain this structure or the economic system. Marxists state that it is the requirements of the capitalist system that have come to shape the family in industrial societies (ASCHNCSociologyBSK/Family 11.8.07:9).The work of Friedrich Engels “The Origin of the Family” provides a basis for the Marxist view of society. Engels had an evolutionary view of society and attempted to trace its origin through time. Engels combined Marxist theory and his evolutionary approach arguing that as the mode of production changed then so did the family. Engels approved of monogamy and argues that the monogamous nuclear family developed with the emergence of private property or private ownership of the means of production. Engels argued that because of the ownership of private property came about, the state needed to initiate laws in which to solve the problem of inheritance of private property (property was owned by men and if the heirs of men were to inherit property then legitimacy of those heirs needed to be secure). Men therefore needed greater control over women so that there would be no doubt of the paternity of their offspring. The monogamous family provided for this purpose. (Harolambos and Holborn 2004:471)

The Marxist approach to the family also has strengths and weaknesses. Unfortunately Engels theory was based upon early unreliable anthropological evidence and his view upon early society no longer seems to stand ground within society today. Although his theory on the origins of sexual equality have led to the Marxist approach of the monogamous family.

The third sociological theory (another conflict theory) is feminism. The feminist perspective focuses on a number of social, cultural and political movements and theories that are concerned with gender inequalities and prejudice against women. Feminism can also be seen to be an ideology based on the equality of both sexes. The feminist approach of the family tends to emphasise the negative effects of the family upon women. Anne Oakley’s studies “The Sociology of Housework” and the “Housewife” depicts the feminist tradition of viewing women in a subordinate social role to men. Anne Oakley looked at conjugal roles within the family and the divide of housework between men and women. Oakley analysed the research of Willmott and Young (1973) in which the researchers asked only one question to a husband, “Do you help with the housework?” If husbands answered ‘yes’ to this question it would include men who do the washing up once a week and men who help on a daily basis. Therefore the results would be unrepresentative of the actual demographics of this population. Anne Oakley’s research was based on in depth interviews with unemployed housewives, giving a difference in the perception of who does the housework between the two sexes. Anne Oakley’s findings brought her to the conclusion that men are not willing to carry out undesirable tasks but are more willing to help in those they enjoy. This had also shown that men were able to easily avoid chores they disliked. For example they would be willing to play with a child but not willing to change a dirty nappy. Oakley suggested that in a society where the women are seen to be the homemaker and these are tasks for her makes it easier for men to opt out of certain tasks within the home.

Conjugal roles are created by views in which people see how they should behave. These are influenced by the media and several agents of socialization and until these views are changed the roles of men and women will still be largely segregated. The running of the household is still separated in to men’s and women’s jobs, although there has been an increase in the willingness of the male to “help” around the home the jobs are still not distributed equally between the sexes which in my opinion is due to the view that men have of what men and women’s roles should be. Also with the increase of women finding better career opportunities, roles are still not divided equally. A woman may work hard and earn a good wage in her career but she still has to carry out the majority of household work. If the male also works he is more likely help but again the housework is not distributed equally. As women still tend to carry out the majority of household tasks this backs up the theories of feminists who see domestic labour as exploitation. (ASCHNCSociology/Oakley HW/SK 13.8.07:4)

There are strengths and weaknesses to the feminist perspective of the family. When the views on the family are analysed we seem to look at the ‘nuclear’ family, a married couple with children, where the husband provides and the wife stays at home to do the housework, as an ideal type of family structure. This type of family is becoming less common within society and therefore using the nuclear family to look at inequalities between males and females may be discrediting to actual differences between them. Aspects like practices of families of different religions and those of lone-parent families are also not often taken into account; because of this feminists may exaggerate the actual effects of the family on women when not taking other factors into account.

By evaluating and comparing these theories it is clear that they have similarities and differences. All three theories are structural (macro) theories as they see family in relation to the wider social context and describe the family as an institution which helps to maintain established social values. All three theories also show similarities in how the family has been developed over time from pre-industrial societies to modern industrial societies. They explain the roles and relationships the family is involved with throughout the sociology. Another similarity is that all three theories look at the family in terms of it being an ideology or in other words a set of ideas in how things should be. (ASCHNCSociologyBSK/Family 11.8.07:20) The theories are different as functionalism emphasises stability, cohesion and consensus. The family is seen as functional and necessary. In comparison Marxism has shown that the interests of powerful groups have come to influence the way in which the family is structured today and argues that the economical needs of society have brought changes which have influenced how the family as a social institution now works. For example the early capitalist textile production of cloth took place in the home and involved all family members. (Harolambos and Holborn 2004:471). Also the Marxist perspective has shown us how the monogamous nuclear family has come to be through the advent of private property. The feminist perspective of the family is different from the functionalist and Marxist views as it specifically highlights the effects of the family upon women and looks at different parts of family, for example housework to examine issues women have within the family as a social institution. It also tells us that feminism is not gender specific and highlights the issues of both sexes. The feminist perspective shows the effects of male dominance within the home in relation to domestic labour. In conclusion the contributions made by the functionalist, Marxist and feminist perspectives to sociology have brought us to an understanding in how the family works as a social institution today. They highlight the importance of several social factors which have come to create specific conditions within the family. For example the effect of the economy on the family. The studies of the family also shows us the family’s role within society and how it has come to effect both sexes. Important figures in sociology such as Talcott Parsons , Friedrich Engels and Anne Oakley have been important in how we understand the family in contemporary society and in pre-industrial society and the contributions to sociology they have

Reference List Haralambos and Holborn (2004) ASCHNCSociologyBSK/Family 11.8.07 ASCHNCSociology/Oakley HW/SK 13.8.07

Document Details

Word Count 2082
Page Count 7
Level AS and A Level
Subject Sociology

Related Essays

The Sociology of Family

Sociology and the Family

Sociology Family Unit - Family Concepts and Definitions

Sociology Family Revision Notes

Sociology of Family Research Paper Topics

Sociology of family is the area devoted to the study of family as an institution central to social life. The basic assumptions of the area include the universality of family, the inevitable variation of family forms, and the necessity of family for integrating individuals into social worlds. Family sociology is generally concerned with the formation, maintenance, growth, and dissolution of kinship ties and is commonly expressed in research on courtship and marriage, childrearing, marital adjustment, and divorce. These areas of research expanded in the twentieth century to encompass an endless diversity of topics related to gender , sexuality, intimacy, affection, and anything that can be considered to be family related.

70 Sociology of Family Research Paper Topics

American families
Child custody and child support
Cohabitation
Conjugal roles and social networks
Couples living apart together
Divisions of household labor
Dual earner couples
Earner-carer model
Families and childhood disabilities
Family and community
Family and household structure
Family and population
Family and religion
Family conflict
Family demography
Family diversity
Family migration
Family planning
Family planning, abortion, and reproductive health
Family policy in Western societies
Family size
Family structure
Family structure and child outcomes
Family theory
Family therapy
Family violence
History of family
Men’s involvement in family
Filial responsibility
Grandparenthood
Immigrant families
Inequalities in marriage
Infidelity and marital affairs
Intermarriage
Intimate union formation and dissolution
Kinship systems and family types
Later life marriage
Lesbian and gay families
Life course and family
Lone parent families
Love and commitment
Marital adjustment
Marital power/resource theory
Marital quality
Marriage and divorce rates
Marriage, sex, and childbirth
Maternalism
Money management in families
Non-resident parents
Parental roles
Same sex marriage/civil unions
Sibling relationships during old age
Sibling ties
Stepfamilies
Stepfathering
Stepmothering
Youth/adolescence

A recognizable, modern sociology of family emerged from several different family studies efforts of the nineteenth century. Early anthropologists speculated that family was a necessary step from savagery to civilization in human evolution. Concentrating on marital regulation of sexual encounters, and debating matriarchy versus patriarchy as the first enduring family forms, these explanations framed family studies in terms of kinship and defined comprehensive categories of family relations. In consideration of endogamy, exogamy, polygamy, polyandry, and monogamy, these efforts also fostered discussion of the best or most evolved family forms, with most commentators settling on patriarchy and monogamy as the high points of family evolution.

Academic Writing, Editing, Proofreading, And Problem Solving Services

Get 10% off with 24start discount code.

Nineteenth century sociologists such as Herbert Spencer and William Sumner adopted evolutionary views of family and made use of anthropological terms, but discussions of best family types gave way to considering the customs, conventions, and traditions of family life. The evolutionary view of family pushed sociology toward the pragmatic vision of the family as adaptable to surrounding social conditions. And sociology’s emphases on populations, societies, and the institutions embedded within them allowed the observation that American and European families were rapidly changing in response to the challenges of modern society.

Family and Household Structure

The family system of the United States is often characterized as consisting of nuclear-family households—that is, households consisting of no more than the parent(s) and dependent children, if any (Lee 1999). This is certainly true of the great majority of family households. In fact, there has never been a point in American history in which extended-family households predominated statistically (Ruggles 1994a; Seward 1978). In 1997 only about 4.1 percent of all families in the United States were ”related subfamilies”—a married couple or single parent with children living with a related householder (U.S. Bureau of the Census 1998, Table 69). However, an analysis of census data from 1970 through 1990 by Glick and colleagues (1997) showed that the percentage of all households containing nonnuclear kin increased from 9.9 percent in 1980 to 12.2 percent in 1990, reversing a nearly century-long pattern of decline. In 1910 about 20 percent of the households of white families and 24 percent of those of black families contained nonnuclear kin (Ruggles 1994b). Apparently we have seen a long-term decline in the prevalence of extended-family households, very slightly counterbalanced by an increase in the 1980s; what happened in the 1990s is not yet known.

Not all of the of the households that do not contain extended families consist of the stereotypical nuclear family of two parents and their dependent children, however. There is great diversity among American families and households, and this diversity is increasing. Even over the relatively brief period from 1960 to 1998, substantial changes are apparent. The average size of both households and families decreased dramatically from 1960 to 1990, although they have both been stable in the 1990s. Many fewer households contain families and married couples in the late 1990s than in 1960, while the proportion of nonfamily households has more than doubled and the proportion of single-person households has nearly doubled. Female householders have increased substantially as a proportion of both all households and all families.

There are many factors responsible for these changes. To understand them, changes in marriage rates and age at marriage, divorce and remarriage rates, rates of nonmarital cohabitation, the departure of children from their parents’ homes, and the predilection of unmarried persons to live alone will be briefly examined. Each of these factors has affected family and household structure.

Marriage rates have declined considerably since 1960. This is not readily apparent from the ”crude” marriage rate (the number of marriages per 1,000 population) because this rate does not take the marital status or age distributions of the population into account. The crude marriage rate was artificially low in 1960 because, as a result of the postwar baby boom, a large proportion of the population consisted of children too young to marry. The rates per 1,000 unmarried women (for both ages 15 and over and ages 15 to 44) show the frequency of occurrence of marriage for persons exposed to the risk of marriage, and here there is clear evidence of decline. Some of this, however, is attributable to increases in the median age at first marriage, which declined throughout the twentieth century until about 1960, but has been increasing rapidly since 1970. As age at marriage increases, more and more people temporarily remain unmarried each year, thus driving the marriage rate down. The best evidence (Oppenheimer et al. 1997) indicates that a major cause of delayed marriage is the deteriorating economic circumstances of young men since the 1970s. Perhaps the improving economy of the later 1990s will eventually produce some change in this trend.

The rising divorce rate has also contributed greatly to the declining proportion of married-couple households and the increases in female householders and single-person households. The crude divorce rate rose from 2.2 per 1,000 in 1960 to 5.2 in 1980 (reaching peaks of 5.3 in both 1979 and 1981) but has declined modestly since then to 4.3 in 1996. The rate of divorce per 1,000 married women 15 and older followed a similar pattern, reaching a high of 22.6 in 1980 and declining to 19.5 in 1996. Some of this decline is illusory, because the large baby boom cohorts are aging out of the most divorce-prone years (Martin and Bumpass 1989). However, although the divorce rate remains high, it has not been increasing since 1980.

Sweeney (1997) notes that, for recent cohorts, about half of all marriages have involved at least one previously married partner. However, rates of remarriage after divorce have been declining steadily. Annual remarriage rates were 204.5 per 1,000 divorced men and 123.3 per 1,000 divorced women in 1970; by 1990 they had decreased to 105.9 for men and 76.2 for women (U.S. Bureau of the Census 1998).

Decreasing marriage and remarriage rates and increasing divorce rates have combined to produce increases in single-person and single-parent households. This trend is mitigated, however, by the increasing prevalence of nonmarital heterosexual cohabitation. Evidence from the National Survey of Families and Households (Bumpass 1994; Waite 1995) shows that, in the early 1990s, nearly one-quarter of all unmarried adults aged 25 to 29 were cohabiting. This percentage declines with age, but still exceeded 20 percent for those in their late thirties. The National Survey of Family Growth found that, in 1995, more than 41 percent of all women aged 15 to 44 had cohabited or were currently cohabiting (National Center for Health Statistics 1997). Of course many of the women who had not cohabited at the time of the survey will do so in the future. The best estimates suggest that more than half of all couples who marry now cohabit prior to marriage; further, about 60 percent of all cohabiting unions eventuate in marriage (Bumpass 1994; Bumpass et al. 1991).

To a considerable extent the increase in cohabitation has offset the decline in marriage. This is particularly the case among blacks, for whom the decrease in marriage rates over the past several decades has been much more precipitous than it has been for whites (Raley 1996; Waite 1995). Although cohabiting unions are less stable than marriages, ignoring cohabitation results in substantial underestimates of the prevalence of heterosexual unions in the United States.

In spite of the increase in cohabitation, changes in marriage and divorce behavior have had substantial effects on household and family structure in the United States over the past four decades. Fewer people are marrying, those who marry are doing so at later ages, more married people are divorcing, and fewer divorced people are remarrying. This means that Americans are living in smaller households than they did in 1960, but there are more of them. The rate of growth in the number of households has substantially exceeded the rate of growth in the number of families. From 1960 to 1998 the number of households increased by more than 94 percent, while the increase in the number of families was only about 57 percent. Over the same time period, the total population of the United States increased by just under 50 percent (U.S. Bureau of the Census 1998). Our population, therefore, is distributed in a larger number of smaller households than was the case in 1960.

One cause of the decline in household size is decreased fertility. The fertility rate (number of births per 1,000 women aged 15 to 44) was 118.0 in 1960; by 1997 it had decreased to 65.0, although most of the decrease occurred prior to 1980 (National Center for Health Statistics 1999). The trend toward smaller households and families is reflective to some extent of decreases in the number of children per family.

A larger cause of the decrease in household size, however, is the proliferation of single-person households. Single-person households consist of three types of persons: the never-married, who are primarily young adults; the divorced and separated without coresident children, who are primarily young and middle-aged; and the widowed who live alone, who are primarily elderly. Each of these types has increased, but for somewhat different reasons. Each must therefore be examined separately.

Average ages at marriage have risen markedly since 1960, and the percentage of young adults who have never married has increased proportionately (Waite 1995). This has been accompanied by a long-term decline (since prior to World War II) in the average age of leaving the parental home (Goldscheider 1997). Prior to 1970 most of this decline was driven by decreasing ages at marriage, but since then it has reflected an increasing gap between leaving the family of orientation and beginning the family of procreation. More young adults are living independently of both parents and spouses. Some of them are cohabiting, of course, but increasing numbers are residing in either single-person or other nonfamily households (Goldscheider 1997; White 1994).

Since about 1970 there has been some increase in the proportion of young adults who live with their parents. This marks the reversal of a long-term decline in age at leaving home (White 1994). This is, in part, a by-product of increasing age at marriage. However, decreases in exits from parental homes to marriage have been largely offset by increases in exits to independent living, so this recent increase in young adults living with parents is actually very small (Goldscheider 1997). On the other hand, there is increasing evidence that the process of launching children has become much more complex than in previous years. Goldscheider (1997) also shows that the proportion of young adults who return to their parents’ homes after an initial exit has more than doubled from the 1930s to the 1990s; increases have been particularly striking since the early 1960s. This is a response, in part, to the rising divorce rate, but also an indication that it has gotten increasingly difficult for young adults, particularly young men, to make a living (Oppenheimer et al. 1997). Nonetheless, the proportion of young adults living independently of both parents and spouses continues to increase, contributing to the prevalence of nonfamily households.

The increase in divorce and decrease in remarriage have contributed to the rise in single-person households, as formerly married persons establish their own residences and, increasingly, maintain them for longer periods of time. They have also contributed to the rise in family households that do not contain married couples. Families headed by females (without husband present) increased from 10 percent of all families in 1960 to nearly 18 percent in 1998. Families headed by males (without wife present) also increased, from 2.8 percent of all families in 1960 to 5.5 percent in 1998. Among families with children under 18 in 1998, 20 percent were headed by women without spouses and 5 percent by men without spouses (U.S. Bureau of the Census 1998, Table 70).

As a consequence of these changes plus the rise in nonmarital childbearing, the proportion of children under 18 living with both parents decreased from 88 percent in 1960 to 68 percent in 1997 (U.S. Bureau of the Census 1998, Table 84). In addition, there is a large race difference in the living arrangements of children. Only 35 percent of black children lived with both parents in 1997, compared to 75 percent of white children. More than half (52 percent) of all black children lived with their mothers only, as did 18 percent of white children. Further, 8 percent of black children and 3 percent of white children lived with neither parent. Some of these children are living with, and being cared for by, their grandparents (Pebley and Rudkin 1999). This raises the issue of the living arrangements of older persons.

A somewhat longer perspective is necessary to observe changes in the living arrangements of older persons. Ruggles (1994a) has shown that, in 1880, nearly 65 percent of all elderly whites and more than 57 percent of all elderly nonwhites lived with a child. Since about 18 percent of all older persons had no living children, Ruggles estimates that about 78 percent of whites and 70 percent of nonwhites who had children lived with a child. By 1980 the percentages living with children had decreased to 16 for whites and 29 for nonwhites. There is little evidence of major changes in the proportion living with children since 1980. Further, Ruggles (1996) found that only 6 percent of all elderly women and 3 percent of elderly men lived alone in 1880. By 1997 the percentages living alone had increased to 41 for women and 17 for men (U.S. Bureau of the Census 1998, Table 50). The growth of single-person households among older people has been particularly rapid since about 1940.

Two sets of factors appear to be primarily responsible for the ”migration” of older people from typically sharing households with their children in the late nineteenth century to living alone (or with their spouses only) in the late twentieth century. First, the family life cycle was quite different in 1900 than today. People married a bit later (and markedly later than in the 1960s and early 1970s), had more children, and had children later in life. Consequently, a significant proportion of people in their sixties had unmarried children who simply had not yet left the parental home. Ruggles (1994a) shows that, in 1880, about 32 percent of all unmarried elders and 57 percent of the married resided with a never-married child. Of course many of these children may have remained home precisely in order to care for their aging parents. Unmarried elders were more likely to live with married children.

Second, economic factors played a major role. Social Security did not exist until 1940. In 1900, 85 percent of all men between the ages of 65 and 69 were in the labor force, as were 49 percent of all men 85 and over (Smith 1979). However, this option was much less available to women; the comparable proportions in the labor force were 12 and 6 percent. Many older persons, particularly women, had no means of support other than their children. Rates of coresidence of aging parents with their adult children have decreased as the prosperity of the elderly has increased; more can now afford to live independently.

However, Ruggles (1994a) found that wealthier older people were more likely to share a household with children than were poorer elders in the nineteenth century, and the majority of multigenerational families lived in households headed by the elderly parent(s). These facts suggest that adult children benefited economically from coresidence and that the possibility of inheriting a farm or business from aging parents may have motivated many adults to coreside with parents. Today coresidence is more common among poorer than wealthier people (Ruggles 1994a, 1996).

As of March 1998, 41 percent of all women aged 65 and older lived alone, as did 17 percent of all older men. These percentages increase to 53 percent and 22 percent for women and men, respectively, for those age 75 and over (U.S. Bureau of the Census Web site). The reason for this large gender difference, of course, is the difference in marital status between men and women. Among men 75 and over, nearly two-thirds are married and less than one-quarter are widowed; among women these figures are almost exactly reversed. According to 1980 census data, the proportion of all elderly persons living alone increases from 22 percent among those 65 to 69 to more than 41 percent in the 85-89 age category, then drops to 33 percent for those 90 and over (Coward et al. 1989), after which the modal category becomes living with children. Older persons who have lost their spouses through death are clearly exhibiting a tendency to live alone as long as possible, which for many of them extends into the latest years of life.

Older persons now constitute nearly 13 percent of the total population of the United States, compared to about 4 percent in 1900. With so many of them maintaining their own residences, either with their spouses or alone following widowhood, their contribution to the proliferation of small and single-person households is substantial.

If so many older persons lived with their children in the late nineteenth century, why were there so few extended-family households? Ruggles (1994a) shows that just under 20 percent of the households of whites contained extended families in both 1880 and 1900; this compares to less than 7 percent in 1980, but it was still very much a minority statistical pattern. There were three primary reasons. First, because of more limited life expectancies and relatively high fertility rates, there were proportionally few older people in the population, so where they lived made less difference to the nation’s household structure. Second, as noted above, many older persons lived with an unmarried child; unless other relatives are present, this arrangement constitutes a nuclear-family household regardless of the age of the parent. Third, while these cohorts of older persons typically had many children (an average of 5.4 per woman in 1880), these children did not live together as adults, so older persons could live with only one; their remaining children lived in nuclear families. Ruggles (1994a) estimates that more than 70 percent of all elders who could have lived with a child actually did so in 1880; the comparable percentage in 1980 was 16. In comparison to the last century, older persons today are much less likely to live with children and much more likely to live alone, contributing to the proliferation of small and single-person households.

To this point, factors that have contributed to long-term decreases in household and family size, and consequent increases in the numbers of households and families, have been elucidated. There is evidence of changes in these directions in all age segments of the population. These trends do not mean, however, that more complex family households are not part of the contemporary American experience.

As noted at the beginning of this entry, the United States has never been characterized by a statistical predominance of extended-family households, although it appears that the preference was for intergenerational coresidence in the form of stem families (families containing an older parent or parents and one of their married children) until the early years of the twentieth century. But extended family households do occur today. At any single point in time, they constitute less than 10 percent of all households (Glick et al. 1997; Ruggles 1994a). However, a dynamic perspective presents a somewhat different picture.

Beck and Beck (1989) analyzed the household compositions of a large sample of middle-aged women who were followed from 1969 to 1984. The presence of nonnuclear kin in their households was noted for specific years and was also calculated for the entire fifteen-year period. In 1984, when these women were between the ages of 47 and 61, only 8 percent of white married women and 20 percent of white unmarried women lived in households containing their parents, grandchildren, or other nonnuclear kin. The proportions were higher for comparable black women: 27 percent of the married and 34 percent of the unmarried. However, over the fifteen years covered by the survey, about one-third of all white women and fully two-thirds of the black women lived in a household containing extended kin at some point.

These and other data (Ruggles 1994a, 1994b) show that today blacks are more likely than whites to live in extended-family households. This was not the case until about 1940. What has happened is that the decrease in intergenerational coresidence since the late nineteenth century has been much steeper for whites than for blacks. This is probably connected to much lower rates of marriage among blacks; living in multigenerational households is much more common for unmarried than for married persons. It may also reflect the shift in the distribution of extended families from the wealthier to the poorer segments of the economic structure. Rather than serving as a means of ensuring inheritance and keeping wealth in the family, extended family living today is more likely to be motivated by a need to share and conserve resources.

The family and household structure of the United States has changed dramatically over the past century, in spite of the fact that our family system has remained nuclear in at least the statistical sense. More and more Americans are living in single-person households before, between, and after marriages. More are living in single-parent households. Collectively Americans are spending smaller proportions of their lives in families of any description than they did in the past (Watkins et al. 1987). However, they are more likely than ever before to live in nonmarital heterosexual unions, and many of them live in households that contain nonnuclear kin at some point in their lives. In fact, there is evidence (Glick et al. 1997) that the proportion of extended-family households increased between 1980 and 1990.

The growth of small and single-person households is in many ways indicative of the fact that more Americans can now afford to remain unmarried, leave unhappy marriages, and maintain their own residences in later life. The proliferation of households represents the proliferation of choices. The consequences of these choices remain to be seen.

References:

Beck, Rubye W., and Scott H. Beck 1989 ‘‘The Incidence of Extended Households Among Middle-Aged Black and White Women: Estimates from a 15-Year Panel Study.’’ Journal of Family Issues 10:147–168.
Bumpass, Larry L. 1994. ‘‘The Declining Significance of Marriage: Changing Family Life in the United States.’’ Paper presented at the Potsdam International Conference, ‘‘Changing Families and Childhood.’’
Bumpass, Larry L., James A. Sweet, and Andrew J. Cherlin 1991 ‘‘The Role of Cohabitation in Declining Rates of Marriage.’’ Journal of Marriage and the Family 53:913–927.
Coward, Raymond T., Stephen Cutler, and Frederick Schmidt 1989 ‘‘Differences in the Household Composition of Elders by Age, Gender, and Area of Residence.’’ The Gerontologist 29:814–821.
Glick, Jennifer E., Frank D. Bean, and Jennifer V. W. Van Hook 1997 ‘‘Immigration and Changing Patterns of Extended Family Household Structure in the United States: 1970–1990.’’ Journal of Marriage and the Family 59:177–191.
Goldscheider, Frances 1997 ‘‘Recent Changes in U.S. Young Adult Living Arrangements in Comparative Perspective.’’ Journal of Family Issues 18:708–724.
Lee, Gary R. 1999 ‘‘Comparative Perspectives.’’ In Marvin B. Sussman, Suzanne K. Steinmetz, and Gary W. Peterson, eds., Handbook of Marriage and the Family, 2nd ed. New York: Plenum.
Martin, Teresa Castro, and Larry L. Bumpass 1989 ‘‘Recent Trends in Marital Disruption.’’ Demography 26:37–51.
National Center for Health Statistics 1997 ‘‘Fertility, Family Planning, and Women’s Health: New Data from the 1995 National Survey of Family Growth.’’ Vital and Health Statistics, Series 23, No. 19. Hyattsville, Md.: Public Health Service.
National Center for Health Statistics 1999 ‘‘Births: Final Data for 1997.’’ National Vital Statistics Reports, series 47, no. 18. Hyattsville, Md.: National Center for Health Statistics.
Oppenheimer, Valerie K., Matthijs Kalmijn, and Nelson Lim 1997 ‘‘Men’s Career Development and Marriage Timing During a Period of Rising Inequality.’’ Demography 34:311–330.
Pebley, Anne R., and Laura L. Rudkin 1999 ‘‘Grandparents Caring for Grandchildren: What Do We Know?’’ Journal of Family Issues 20:218–242.
Raley, R. Kelly 1996 ‘‘A Shortage of Marriageable Men? A Note on the Role of Cohabitation in Black–White Differences in Marriage Rates.’’ American Sociological Review 61:973–983.
Ruggles, Steven 1994a ‘‘The Transformation of American Family Structure.’’ American Historical Review 99:103–128.
Ruggles, Steven 1994b ‘‘The Origins of African American Family Structure.’’ American Sociological Review 59:136–151.
Ruggles, Steven 1996 ‘‘Living Arrangements of the Elderly in the United States.’’ In Tamara K. Hareven, ed., Aging and Intergenerational Relations: Historical and Cross-Cultural Perspectives. Berlin, Germany: de Gruyter.
Seward, Rudy R. 1978 The American Family: A Demographic History. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage.
Smith, Daniel Scott 1979 ‘‘Life Course, Norms, and the Family System of Older Americans in 1900.’’ Journal of Family History 4:285–298.
Sweeney, Megan M. 1997 ‘‘Remarriage of Women and Men After Divorce.’’ Journal of Family Issues 18:479–502.
S. Bureau of the Census 1998 Statistical Abstract of the United States, 118th ed. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.
S. Bureau of the Census 1998 ‘‘Marital Status and Living Arrangements: March 1998.’’ https://www.census.gov/prod/99pubs/p20-514.pdf
Waite, Linda J. 1995 ‘‘Does Marriage Matter?’’ Demography 32:483–507.
Watkins, Susan Cotts, Jane A. Menken, and Jon Bongaarts 1987 ‘‘Demographic Foundations of Family Change.’’ American Sociological Review 52:346–358.
White, Lynn 1994 ‘‘Coresidence and Leaving Home: Young Adults and Their Parents.’’ Annual Review of Sociology 20:81–102.

Browse other Sociology Research Paper Topics .

ORDER HIGH QUALITY CUSTOM PAPER

Essay Plans

Marked essays.

Data which is presented as statistical data or numerical is described as being a Quantitative method . Sociologist, among others will contend that quantitative method , like questionnaire and others would better be suited to undergo the rigours of sociological research. This is so because of the advantages that they hold. However, in contrast sociologist would disagree with this statement. Quantitative methods , such as questionnaires, structured interviews and official statistics has advantages that would prove to be more efficient. In sociology, for a research to be valid r carried out effectively, the data collected must be objective. This view is supported by the positivist, Emile Durkheim and auguste Comte. Quantitative methods collect empirical data which further means that data being collected is objective. Empirical data is statistical, anything dealing with numbers and if the data being collected is numerical it suggest that the method used was unbiased. Also quantitative methods are nothing cognitive, as cognitive information cannot be measured or understood. Also cognitive data would be studying the perception and not exactly what is happening. It is argued that in quantitative methods , the researcher is detached from the study and is not influenced by his personal belief. Therefore the information would not be flawed, because the researcher would just say what’s happening and would not have his personal views. This would have resulted from the empirical data collected. For example, a researcher who is doing a research on: why are students in Jane brown High school prone to violence. The research her would practice observable phenomena and report what she sees and not what she thinks the individual is thinking. Furthermore, quantitative research methods are easily replicable. This means that the data/information collected will always be the same years after the research was conducted. However, new information or knowledge can be added to what is already there because it is accumulative. No matter how long the research was conducted it will always remain the same because numbers cannot change, but an explanation can. This makes quantitative methods one of the preferred methods . In coherence, quantitative research methods facilitates theory formulation, this is so as a large amount of data is collected that the researcher is used to formulate theories that seek to explain social phenomena. Other reasons why quantitative methods would be better suited is that it saves the researcher time and money, which means that the researcher would not have to spend a lot of time on the research as it will directly get to the point. Nevertheless, some sociologist would disagree with the fact that quantitative methods would be best suited because no method in sociology, they say can be objective. One disadvantage of using quantitative method is that there is no indication about the respondents’ personal state of mind, for example, mood, attitude or feelings. Weber in his theory contend that in sociology, any research being conducted the researcher must practice verstehen. Verstehen is subjective, this, there is no objectivity in sociology researchers. This would therefore mean that quantitative methods are not best suited for sociological research. Weber contends that a researcher must be attached to the research such that verstehen is practiced; this would involve the placing of oneself in the respondents’ shoes. He further states that through thus process, the researcher will be able to understand the actions and the meaning behind them. Additionally, Atkinson and Cicourel believe that other methods such as qualitative research methods would have a better advantage over quantitative methods . This is so because they also believe like Weber that there is no objectivity in any sociological research. Atkinson and Cicourel posit this view because even with the statistical data collected through the quantitative method the information gathered id subjective. The statistical data is influence by the perception of the person collating and analyzing the data. Qualitative methods would be best suited for sociological researches because they provide explanation and look beyond the numbers. The interpretive theorist believe that the study of humans is complex, because humans have consciousness and consciousness fluctuates and will not always remain in the same manner to external stimuli, and the is no universal law of human behaviour. Analyzing the statement from both views, quantitative methods would be best suited to undergo the rigours of sociological research to an extent and then there is the other view that qualitative methods would be better because of its subjectivity which is best for sociological researches.

Sociology is a discipline that has been the subject of debate within the social sciences about whether it can be considered a science or not. While some scholars argue that sociology is a science due to its use of empirical evidence and scientific methods to study social phenomena, others argue that it is not a science because social phenomena are inherently complex and difficult to measure. This essay will evaluate the major positions in this debate, providing a more detailed definition of science, exploring the limitations and challenges of using scientific methods in sociology, and using a wider range of academic sources to support the arguments.

One of the main arguments for sociology as a science is its use of empirical evidence and scientific methods. The positivist perspective, which sees sociology as a hard science like physics or chemistry, argues that sociology should use the same methods as natural sciences, such as experiments and quantitative surveys, to generate reliable and valid data. For example, Durkheim's study of suicide used statistical methods to demonstrate the relationship between social factors and suicide rates. However, critics argue that such methods are limited in their ability to capture the complexity of social phenomena, and may be subject to issues of reliability, validity, and generalizability.

Another argument for sociology as a science is its ability to generate testable hypotheses and theories. According to the falsificationist perspective, sociology should generate hypotheses that can be tested through empirical evidence, with theories that have been falsified by data being discarded. For example, Merton's strain theory of deviance was based on the hypothesis that individuals who experience strain are more likely to engage in deviant behavior. However, critics argue that such an approach neglects the role of interpretation and subjectivity in social research, and may overlook important aspects of social life that cannot be easily quantified.

On the other hand, some scholars argue that sociology is not a science because social phenomena are inherently complex and difficult to measure. The interpretive perspective, for example, argues that sociology should use qualitative methods such as participant observation and interviews to understand the meanings that individuals attach to their experiences. For example, Bourdieu's study of cultural capital demonstrated how social class and cultural background can influence an individual's taste in art and culture. However, critics argue that such methods may lack objectivity and reliability, and may be subject to the researcher's biases and interpretations.

Despite these debates, it is important to recognize that both quantitative and qualitative methods have their strengths and weaknesses. For example, Hochschild's study of emotion management in airline flight attendants used a mixed-methods approach to explore the complex and often contradictory emotions that attendants experienced on the job. By using both quantitative surveys and qualitative interviews, Hochschild was able to capture both the objective and subjective aspects of the attendants' experiences. This demonstrates that a mixed-methods approach can provide a more comprehensive understanding of the social world.

In conclusion, while the debate surrounding sociology as a science is ongoing, it is clear that there are both strengths and limitations to using scientific methods in sociology. While sociology may not be a hard science like physics or chemistry, it is still a valuable tool for understanding society and making informed decisions about social policies. Therefore, it is important to continue the debate surrounding the nature of sociology and to develop new research methods that can address the complexities of the social world. By doing so, we can continue to advance our understanding of society and contribute to the development of more effective social policies.

Discuss the similarities and differences between Conflict/Marxist theories and Functionalist theories in sociology. [25 marks] 2004

Introduction

Sociology is a field of study that attempts to understand human society and social behavior. It is a broad discipline with several theoretical perspectives, two of which are Conflict/Marxist theories and Functionalist theories. These two theories attempt to explain social phenomena, but they differ in their assumptions and explanations. This essay discusses the similarities and differences between Conflict/Marxist theories and Functionalist theories in sociology.

Similarities between Conflict/Marxist theories and Functionalist theories

Both Conflict/Marxist theories and Functionalist theories recognize the importance of social structures in shaping society. They acknowledge that institutions, such as the family, government, education, and the economy, play a crucial role in creating and maintaining social order. Additionally, both theories attempt to explain the dynamics of social order and change. They are concerned with how societies maintain stability and the factors that lead to social change.

Differences between Conflict/Marxist theories and Functionalist theories

Conflict/Marxist theories focus on social inequality and the struggle for power and resources. They argue that society is divided into classes, and the struggle for power and resources between these classes is the primary cause of social change. Functionalist theories, on the other hand, emphasize social harmony and the maintenance of social order. They argue that society is like a biological organism, with different parts working together to maintain stability and equilibrium.

Conflict/Marxist theories view society as inherently unstable and in constant conflict, while Functionalist theories view society as stable and well-functioning. Conflict/Marxist theories are critical of the status quo and focus on the ways in which society is unequal and oppressive. Functionalist theories, however, are more accepting of the status quo and view social inequality as a necessary component of society.

Examples of Conflict/Marxist and Functionalist theories in action

An example of Conflict/Marxist theory in action is the struggle for workers' rights. Conflict/Marxist theorists argue that workers are oppressed by capitalists who control the means of production and exploit their labor. The workers' struggle for better wages and working conditions is a response to this oppression. An example of Functionalist theory in action is the importance of social norms in maintaining order. Functionalist theorists argue that social norms, such as laws and customs, are necessary for social order and that individuals who violate these norms are punished to maintain social stability.

Criticisms of Conflict/Marxist and Functionalist theories

Critics of Conflict/Marxist theories argue that they oversimplify complex social phenomena and do not pay enough attention to individual agency. Critics of Functionalist theories argue that they fail to account for social inequality and the inability to explain social change adequately.

In conclusion, Conflict/Marxist theories and Functionalist theories are two different theoretical perspectives in sociology. Although they share some similarities, they differ in their assumptions and explanations. Conflict/Marxist theories focus on social inequality and the struggle for power and resources, while Functionalist theories emphasize social harmony and the maintenance of social order. These theories provide a framework for understanding society and social behavior, but they also have their limitations and criticisms. Nonetheless, they remain relevant and continue to shape sociological research and thinking.

Question: Assess the extent to which a longitudinal approach is useful for the study of either HIV/AIDS or teenage pregnancy in the Caribbean. Unit & Module: Unit 1 Module 1 - Sociology, Culture & Identity Year: 2009 Essay: A longitudinal design is the study of one group over a period of time noting change and continuity. In this essay, the writer shall discuss the practicality of the longitudinal design in studying HIV/AIDS in the Caribbean. Longitudinal designs or approaches aim to study a particular group and monitor it over a specific period of time. The goal is to notice and document any changes, developments or actions which continuously occur. This approach would be appropriate for studying HIV/AIDS in the Caribbean. The target group in this study would be persons who have either virus, paying attention to how the virus progresses and affects them and their bodies. HIV/AIDS are viruses who attack the human body. Persons who contract these viruses usually start off with a cold/flu virus which eventually transforms into more than that. After that stage, the virus then attacks the immune system of the host. These viruses are initially mild and further progress into a life-threatening illness. Therefore, because of the nature of a longitudinal design, it would be the perfect approach in carrying out a study like this. In using this design, the researcher should monitor the hosts of the viruses as they go through each stage. Longitudinal designs also aim to give information on cause and effect relationships. So, this approach could pay much attention to the effects on the body caused by the virus, for example, deterioration in the condition and of the body itself. Overall, this approach is the most appropriate to investigate such a study. A longitudinal design is not the only data collection method that can be utilized but can arguably be the best one. This study could be conducted with the use of a questionnaire distributed to persons who have contracted the viruses but it could be more time consuming and less cost-effective to do such. The study could also be conducted using interviews but if conducted using that method, it could take extremely long. A longitudinal design unlike a questionnaire or an interview can study the entire target group at one time thus making the research process less tedious. In conclusion, a longitudinal approach can be seen as the most useful data collection method to carry out a study on HIV/AIDS in the Caribbean due to its characteristics and process. It is more cost-effective and less time consuming than a questionnaire or interviews would be in this study.

Question: It is becoming evidently clear that the family is no longer in the main agent of socialization in society. Discuss. Unit & Module: Unit 1 Module 1 - Sociology, Culture & Identity Year: N/A Essay: Socialization is the process of learning the culture of one’s society. Giddens stated that it is through the process of socialization that people become members of society, thereby learning acceptable behaviors and becoming skilled in the ways of their culture. Durkheim believes that socialization is important as it lets individuals know what is expected of them and it also constrains behaviour. Maconis (2007) states that socialization is an important ingredient for personality development. This can be seen in Davis’ case with Anna and Isabelle, who were isolated from the rest of society, from birth to age six. Upon being found, they were unable to speak, unresponsive and incapable of functioning properly. Socialization thus aids in forming our personalities and also avoids punishment in society. Socialization first begins with the family. This is referred to as primary socialization. This essay will discuss the role of the family in socialization, highlighting the reasons why family is no longer the main agent of socialization and identifying other agents of socialization. To begin, the family was essentially the main agent of socialization. They contribute to primary socialization, which takes place from birth, teaching individuals the culture of society. In our early life, the family is very important in shaping our ideas, beliefs, and behaviour. According to Murdock, the family plays important roles in society. These roles include, socializing children into the culture of society, reproducing the next generation, providing the basic needs and aiding in companionship and gratification. In addition, functionalism sees that the family is a universal social institution in society that takes care of the needs of society. Hubert Spencer suggests that society is just like an organism. The organism consists of different parts, which contribute to equilibrium and the wellbeing of this organism. Similarly, the family is the “different parts” in society, that maintain order in society. Each part function to meet Parson’s functional prerequisites. The integration of the various parts, that is, the different roles in the family, provides consensus and patterned relationships. Additionally, although the family is seen as “the cornerstone in society” and provides the means of primary socialization, there are various factors contributing to its decline as the main agent. Through primary socialization, individuals have developed negative attitudes. This is evident as social issues are usually traced back to the family as the source. This is because family is portrayed as the “building blocks” of society. The family has also broken down due to job opportunities. This has led to mothers, whose traditional role was to socialize the children, now working and staying longer periods, away from the home. Due to the lack of the family as the agent of primary socialization, individuals now utilize other agents as they interact with new groups, thus promoting, secondary socialization. Furthermore, solutions for the decline of the family as the main agent includes; the use of new agents, anticipatory socialization and resocialization. Other agents of socialization include school, religious institutions, peers, the media and the community. These agents contribute to secondary socialization, as the individuals interact with other groups, apart from the family. These agents also aid in the resocialization of individuals, where they reinforce the values and beliefs of society. These agents may also play a role in anticipatory socialization, where individuals deliberately seek help to socialize them into the expected behaviour. Religious intuitions are an example of an agent who contributes to anticipatory socialization. However, it must be noted that just like the family, all agents are flawed. For example, religious institutions portray certain activities like adultery in a negative manner to “boost family values”. Therefore, various agents which are not flawless, aid in secondary and anticipatory socialization, as well as resocialization of individuals. To conclude, the family was considered the main agent of socialization. According to functionalism, the family played numerous roles to ensure the transmission of values, norms, and beliefs in society, in an attempt to maintain consensus and stability in society. However, due to numerous factors such as interactions with new groups, the creation of alternatives and job opportunities, the family is no longer the main agent, and there are now other agents who contribute to secondary socialization. These agents include school, religious institutions, peers, the media and the community. These agents although they have flaws, also play an important role in the socialization of individuals.

Question: Within the social sciences, there is a debate about whether sociology is a science or not. Evaluate the major positions in this debate.

A popular debate in sociology concerns whether sociology should be studied as a science or not. Science is defined as the use of systematic methods of research and investigation and the logical analysis of arguments in order to develop an understanding of a particular subject matter. The sociologists that claim it is a science are known as positivists. Those that dispute their viewpoint are known as interpretivists, who suggest that society cannot be measured and oversimplified into a mere thing to be studied. Within this essay, the major arguments made for each viewpoint will be discussed as well as an evaluation of each position on this debate. Positivism is a sociological tradition stating that human behaviour within society can be studied using the same procedures and methods employed in studying natural sciences. Those methods include observation and multivariate analysis as noted by Nasser Mustapha 2009. This tradition was founded by French sociologist Auguste Comte. Comte advanced his theory of positivism by furthering his belief that human behaviour was controlled in the same way that matter was constricted. Positivists adhere to their claim that sociology possesses certain features that allows it to be identified as a science. They make the claim that sociology is theoretical, meaning that data is obtained by research and utilized in formulating theories. This can be seen as sociologists may employ different approaches in order to study the same phenomena and can be related to scientists also utilizing various approaches in order to study the same matter. Sociology can be said to have both a cumulative and a value free nature. Sociology’s cumulative nature means that sociologists are able to develop and refine the older theories established by their predecessors. For example, Emile Durkheim expanded on Herbert Spencer’s idea that society can be viewed as an organism. This concept is similar to that of scientific studies which over time has disputed and modified theories as time has developed. Positivists also hold the view that similar to studying natural sciences; sociology is value-free, meaning it is merely reported without any of the researcher’s moral conclusions on social life. Due to their beliefs, positivists utilize quantitative methods in acquiring information. Quantitative research methods involve statistics and numerical data which ensure that it is easy to quantify and is a reliable source of data. Max Weber, a German sociologist, opposed Comte’s theory that sociology should and can be studied as a natural science. This perspective is known as Interpretivism and is the other tradition of the study of sociology as noted by Mustapha. Interpretivists mainly oppose positivism as it simplifies society to be studied as a single thing. They view human behaviour as something that cannot be measured because it is based on emotions and feelings. Human behaviour also will differ depending on who they are interacting with. Interpretivists are also critical of their view that human behaviour is controlled and contained by the laws and norms of society. Due to this view, they adopt humanistic and subjective research methods referred to as qualitative methods in order to obtain data. Not all sociologists have agreed that sociology is a science and have made very strong cases to support their claims. Their main argument is that human behaviour changes based on several factors which include who exactly they are interacting with. Due to human behaviour being rather subjective (personal) makes it very difficult to study it as a being objective (detached). Alternatively, positivists have made a very strong argument for studying sociology as a natural science. They have linked many of its characteristics which make it very suitable to be considered a science.

Essay submitted by user shanique hayden General Comments on Essay:

1. The writer demonstrated a very good understanding to the subject matter - quatitative research methods vs qualitative research methods.

2. Good use of language and expression.

3. The writer did not cite sociologists, in the discussion/analysis phase of the essay, although their arguments/points of views on the strenghts of the quantitative research method was stated.

Mark out of 25

Knowledge & Understanding 6

Interpretation & Analysis 7

Synthesis and Evaluation 7

Total 20/25 Quantitative methods are better suited to undergo the rigours of sociological research. Discuss. Quantitative research methods can be described as those methods employing the use of more scientific and numerical data. Quantitative research methods are predominantly used in the positivist approach to research and it was the method adopted by Emile Durkheim in his study on suicide. This research method is also deemed as reliable and practical. Emile Durkheim did his study on suicide in nineteenth century. In conducting his study, he used the positivist approach which warrants the use of social facts, statistical data, correlations, causation, multivariate analysis and laws of human behaviour. Durkheim's research methodology was therefore quantitative. His quantitative method allowed him to make very good use of the statistical data available to him which helped to propel his theory. He used this statistical data to explain why the suicide rates among Roman Catholics and Protestants were either higher or lower than those of other groups. This data also enabled him to make a correlation between the suicide rates and the group with which it is associated. After making his correlations, he used multivariate analysis, which involves trying to isolate the effects of a particular independent variable upon the dependent variables, to isolate the most important variables and also to determine if there was a genuine causal relationship between these factors and suicide. The quantitative method proves to be better suite d in this situation as it would be difficult to obtain the information for the study using other means such as the qualitative method of research. This is due to the fact that the persons under study are d e ad and so would not be able to provide the information needed for the research. Therefore due to the method used it was easy for conclusions to be drawn about the situation based on data such as statistics that were available. Quantitative research methods are deemed to be reliable. Reliability means that the study done can be replicated and the same results will be produced. Quantitative methods usually produce standardized data in a statistical form which makes it easy for the results to be repeated and checked. On the other hand qualitative methods are seen as failing to meet the standards of reliability because the procedures used to collect data are often unsystematic, the results are hardly ever quantified and so there is no way that a qualitative study can be replicated and the reliability of the findings checked. Practicality alludes to efficiency of the time and effort associated with the study. Quantitative methods are generally less time consuming and require less personal commitment when compared to the qualitative method. It is also possible to study larger and more representative samples which could provide a better understanding of the population under study. Qualitative methods however are less practical as they require a lot of time and most times the study has to be confined to a small group thus at times making the sample non-representative of the population under study and so accurate generalizations cannot be made. To conclude qualitative method of research provides the research with the use of statistical data thus making it easier to study phenomenon where the direct individuals under study are not available for interviews, for example suicide victims. This research method is also reliable and so other persons in the field of study can improve on the study or use the study to assist in another. The research method is also very practical which becomes useful when there is not a lot of time or resources and when the population size is quite large, thus requiring a large representative sample. However it must be noted that while quantitative methods are better suited for conducting some research in sociology, it is not suited for all and so the writer would like to conclude that quantitative methods are better suited to undergo some rigours of sociological research but not all.

Scholar Essays

Capesociology.org.

Note to Parents
Submit Essay for marking
Frequently Asked Questions

Connect with Us

Empirical Evidence
Multiple Choice
Question Bank
Revision Exercises
Visual Summaries

Live revision! Join us for our free exam revision livestreams Watch now →

Reference Library

Collections

See what's new
All Resources
Student Resources
Assessment Resources
Teaching Resources
CPD Courses
Livestreams

Study notes, videos, interactive activities and more!

Sociology news, insights and enrichment

Currated collections of free resources

Browse resources by topic

All Sociology Resources

Resource Selections

Currated lists of resources

Families & Households: AQA A Level Sociology Topic Essays

in Worked Answers

A set of 10 exemplar Topic Essays for Families & Households.

Available for immediate download after checkout

Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter
Share by Email

Take a look inside!

Download a free sample of this resource.

Description
Delivery & returns

This set of 10 essays demonstrates how to write a top mark band response to a range of questions for the Families & Households topic, covering the entire specification.

Each essay has been written and checked by our experienced team of examiners and detailed examiner commentary has been provided on every essay.

Digital Resources

If your purchase is available as an 'Instant Download' and you choose this format, your resources will be available for download immediately after checkout within your mytutor2u account. If you do not already have an account, you will create one as part of the checkout process.

Printed Resources

If your purchase is available as a 'Printed Resource', tutor2u uses DPD to deliver your resources.

In most cases, it will arrive the following day (if ordered before 3pm), but at busy times can take up to 3 working days. You will receive tracking information usually via email to track your parcel(s).

The office is open Monday to Friday, so any orders placed after 3pm on a Friday or at the weekend, will not be shipped until the following Monday.

Returns Policy

Due to the nature of our digital resources, we do not normally offer any refunds for materials purchased from us. Our materials are not sold with digital rights protection - you are able to use them straightaway without password protection.

Each of our learning resources has a sample, extract, preview or detailed description supplied which clearly describes the content and purpose of each item. This gives you - the customer - a clear understanding of what you are purchasing.

Due to immediate access of digital resources, no refunds will be offered.

If you are unhappy with the content of your tutor2u resources, please let us know why and we will do all that is reasonable to meet your requirements.

If you have received damaged merchandise then we will ship another free of charge.

We will endeavour to arrange the appropriate refund or return within 7 working days of the matter being notified to our office.

To contact the tutor2u office about your transaction, please email [email protected] or call the office on 01937 848885.

This returns policy does not affect your statutory rights.

School network license

This licence permits you to make the resource available to all student and staff in the subscribing institution, either in digital and/or print form (including photocopying).

The resource may be distributed via a secure virtual learning environment, however it must not be made available on any public or insecure website or other platform.

The resource may not be distributed to other institutions that are members of the same academy chain or similar organisation; each individual institution must have a separate school network licence.

Worked Answers

Our subjects

› Criminology
› Economics
› Geography
› Health & Social Care
› Psychology
› Sociology
› Teaching & learning resources
› Student revision workshops
› Online student courses
› CPD for teachers
› Livestreams
› Teaching jobs

Boston House, 214 High Street, Boston Spa, West Yorkshire, LS23 6AD Tel: 01937 848885

› Contact us
› Terms of use
› Privacy & cookies

ReviseSociology

A level sociology revision – education, families, research methods, crime and deviance and more!

Evaluate the view that the growth of family diversity has led to a decline in the nuclear family (20)

An example of a top band answer (17/20) to a possible question on the AQA’s 7192/2 topics in sociology paper (families option, section A)

Last Updated on June 11, 2018 by Karl Thompson

This is an example of a 17/20 top band answer to the above question, as marked by the AQA.

In the pictures below, I’ve highlighted all of the candidate’s evaluations in red to show you the balance of knowledge and evaluation required to get into the top mark band!

This is also a good example of a borderline Band 4-Band 5 answer… it just wants a little more evaluation to go up even higher.

The mark scheme (top two bands)

Student’s Response (concepts highlighted in blue, evaluation in burnt orange)

NB It’s the same response all the way through, I’ve just repeated the title on the two pages!

KT’s commentary

This is a bit of a bizarre essay, but this is a good example of how to answer it.

Without the final paragraph it would be floundering down in the middle mark band!

AQA specimen material 2016

Discover more from ReviseSociology

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

IMAGES

AQA A Level Sociology 20 mark essay Marxism families
Sociology and the Family Essay Example
(PDF) Sociology of the Family
Family in the Social Structure Argumentative Essay on Samploon.com
AQA AS Sociology- Families & Households: Family Diversity Essay
GCSE SOCIOLOGY KEY TERMS COVER SHEET THE FAMILY

VIDEO

Family Patterns
Education Lecture no 14- A2 Sociology Session 2023-24
Specialisation || Kinship || Paternal Maternal Relations || #jkssb Female Supervisor
Indian sociology- family
JKSSB
LECTURE 5 : MARRIAGE, FAMILY,KINSHIP~SUPERVISOR EXAM JKSSB

COMMENTS

15.2 Sociological Perspectives on the Family
Summarize understandings of the family as presented by functional, conflict, and social interactionist theories. Sociological views on today's families generally fall into the functional, conflict, and social interactionist approaches introduced earlier in this book. Let's review these views, which are summarized in Table 15.1 "Theory ...
Families and Households
A Level Sociology Families and Households Revision Bundle. If you like this sort of thing, then you might like my A Level Sociology Families and Households Revision Bundle which contains the following: 50 pages of revision notes covering all of the sub-topics within families and households. mind maps in pdf and png format - 9 in total ...
Sociology Of The Family Sociology Essay
Sociology Of The Family Sociology Essay. The family has always been regarded as the cornerstone of society. In pre-modern and modern societies it has been seen as the most basic unit of social organization and one which carries out important functions, such as socializing children. The functionalist view the family as a positive institution ...
11.3: Sociological Perspectives on the Family
In most societies, the family is the major unit in which socialization happens. Parents, siblings, and, if the family is extended rather than nuclear, other relatives all help to socialize children from the time they are born. Figure 11.3. One of the most important functions of the family is the socialization of children.
Theories of the Family and Social Change
In sociology, a family is defined as a social arrangement between "two or more people who consider themselves related by blood, marriage, or adoption" (Henslin, 2017, p. 461). Being one of the core units of society, there has been a lot of exploration and discussion on the topic of family (and marriage), especially in the discipline of ...
Essay about Family: Definition, Topics & Sample
What is Family Essay. A family essay takes a close look at the bonds and experiences within families. It's a common academic assignment, especially in subjects like sociology, psychology, and literature. So, what's involved exactly? Simply put, it's an exploration of what family signifies to you.
Sociological Perspectives on the Family
Perspectives on the family: a summary. Below is a brief summary of the seven main perspectives, click the links for further details! Functionalism - focus on the positive functions of the nuclear family, includes Murdock's theory that the nuclear family is universal and Parsons' Functional Fit Theory. Marxism - Engel's theory that the ...
Sociology Essay Topics on Family
Sociology Essay Topics on Family. Instructor Joanne Abramson. Joanne has taught middle school and high school science for more than ten years and has a master's degree in education. This lesson ...
A Level Sociology Essays
This post offers some advice on how you might plan and write essays in the A level sociology exams. Essays will either be 20 or 30 marks depending on the paper but the general advice for answering them remains the same: Use the PEEC method for the main paragraphs: POINT - EXPLAIN - EXPAND - CRITICISE. Use the overall structure below ...
Sociology and the Family
The journal is entitled, family matters: Even in marriage: Identifying factors linked to marital outcomes for African Americans. The authors are Chalandra M. Bryant, K.A.S. Wickrama, John Bolland, Barlynda M. Bryant, Carolyn E. Cutrona and Christine E. Stanik. It was first published online in August 2010.
Sociology The Family
Three key sociological theories in the study of the family are functionalism, Marxism and feminism. It is the intention of this essay to discuss and evaluate these theories using sociological studies which support these schools of thought. Functionalism describes the family as having its role or function within society.
PDF Sociology 111AC: Sociology of the Family
Instructor: Mary E. Kelsey, Ph.D. Office hours: Tues 2:30 - 4:00 p.m. 454 Social Sciences Building. Use Zoom links on B-course home page to join lectures or office hours from Jan 18 - 27. You may find course materials under the Course Modules tab on B-course.
70 Sociology of Family Research Paper Topics
Family sociology is generally concerned with the formation, maintenance, growth, and dissolution of kinship ties and is commonly expressed in research on courtship and marriage, childrearing, marital adjustment, and divorce. These areas of research expanded in the twentieth century to encompass an endless diversity of topics related to gender ...
3 Families and Households Essays
A Level Sociology Families and Households Essays For AQA Paper 2 (7192/2) Families and Households with Topics in Sociology. A pared down general mark scheme for 20 mark essays. Marks Descriptor 17 -20 Sound, conceptually detailed knowledge of a range of relevant materia, good sophisticated understanding of the question and of the presented ...
Example Answers for AQA GCSE Sociology Paper 1
Here are some example answers to the written questions on Family in AQA GCSE Sociology Paper 1 (2019). Q3. According to Functionalists, such as Parsons one function of the family would be act as an agent of primary socialisation, so the children understand the social norms and values. This could include teaching their children manners so they ...
Essays
This essay will discuss the major determinants of three family forms found in the Caribbean, namely nuclear family, extended family, and female-headed households. By using empirical data from various Caribbean countries, as well as sociological theories, this essay will evaluate the impact these family forms have on socio-economic and political ...
AQA A-Level Sociology Paper 2: Families and Households Section
A-Level Sociology Paper 2. A quick guide to the entire AQA A-Level Sociology: Topics in Sociology Exam: Paper 2 is a 2 hour paper, out of a total of 80 marks. You get a booklet of questions, split into two sections (A and B), you write your answers into a separate answer booklet. You have 1.5 minutes per mark.
Families & Households: AQA A Level Sociology Topic Essays
License. This set of 10 essays demonstrates how to write a top mark band response to a range of questions for the Families & Households topic, covering the entire specification. Each essay has been written and checked by our experienced team of examiners and detailed examiner commentary has been provided on every essay. If your purchase is ...
Sociological perspectives of family and household
Feministic views of the family are split into 3 groups, similar to that of the key perspectives. Liberal feminists believe that both the male and the females have equal roles within the family when it comes to the household chores and childcare. Marxist feminists view the women as the producer of future workers and women's oppression stems ...
Feminist Perspectives on the Family
The bundle contains the following: 50 pages of revision notes covering all of the sub-topics within families and households. mind maps in pdf and png format - 9 in total, covering perspectives on the family. short answer exam practice questions and exemplar answers - 3 examples of the 10 mark, 'outline and explain' question.
Sociology
Sociology - Family Essay. Decent Essays. 640 Words. 3 Pages. Open Document. In this essay I will examine the reasons for the changes in the birth rate and family size since 1900. Since the 1900 there have been changes in the state polices, changes in attitudes and changes in our living standards which have led to unbalanced changes in birth ...
The Marxist Perspective on The Family
Engels believed the nuclear family emerged with capitalism and private property, contemporary Marxists argue the family performs ideological functions. ... and is normally the second of five perspectives on the family within the families and households module in A-level sociology. Essay plan on the Marxist perspective on the family.
Evaluate the view that the growth of family diversity has led to a
An example of a top band answer (17/20) to a possible question on the AQA's 7192/2 topics in sociology paper (families option, section A) ... Evaluate the view that the growth of family diversity has led to a decline in the nuclear family (20) ... practice, A-levels, Exams and revision advice, Families and Households Tags 20 mark questions ...

15.2 Sociological Perspectives on the Family

Social Functions of the Family

The Family and Conflict

Families and Social Interaction

Key Takeaways

For Your Review

11.3: Sociological Perspectives on the Family

Learning Objectives

Social Functions of the Family

The Family and Conflict

Families and Social Interaction

For Your Review

Theories of the Family and Social Change – AS & A Level Notes

Sociological Perspectives on the Role of the Family

Diversity, Social Change, and Family

Essay about Family: What It Is and How to Nail It

What is Family Essay

Tips For Writing An Essay On Family Topics

Family Essay Topics

Looking for Speedy Assistance With Your College Essays?

Family Essay Example

Final Outlook

Having Trouble with Your Essay on the Family?

FAQs on Writing an Essay about Family

How to Write an Essay About Your Family History?

Sociology and the Family Essay

Stress and Welfare of the Family

Unemployment and Lack of Money

Status of the Workplace

The Extended Families

Race of the Family

Authors’ Views

Works Cited

Sociology The Family

This is a preview of the whole essay

Document Details

Related Essays

The Sociology of Family

Sociology and the Family

Sociology Family Unit - Family Concepts and Definitions

Sociology Family Revision Notes

Sociology of Family Research Paper Topics

70 Sociology of Family Research Paper Topics

Academic Writing, Editing, Proofreading, And Problem Solving Services

Family and Household Structure

References:

ORDER HIGH QUALITY CUSTOM PAPER

Essay Plans

Scholar Essays

Connect with Us

Families & Households: AQA A Level Sociology Topic Essays

Take a look inside!

Digital Resources

Printed Resources

Returns Policy

School network license

Our subjects

Evaluate the view that the growth of family diversity has led to a decline in the nuclear family (20)

The mark scheme (top two bands)

Student’s Response (concepts highlighted in blue, evaluation in burnt orange)

Share this:

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Discover more from ReviseSociology

IMAGES

VIDEO

COMMENTS