Beyond the Isolated Nuclear Family

Beyond the Isolated Nuclear Family

Name:

Institution:

Beyond the Isolated Nuclear Family

In the chapter ‘Structural Functionalism Theory of Family’, Smith and Hamon (2012) analyze the theory when it was in preeminence. Structural functionalism was the premier paradigm on family in the 1950s. The leading proponents of the theory during its prominence were Talcott Parsons and his students. To them, the social evolution of the institution of family was consistent with society’s transition from an agricultural to industrial society. Similarly, the post World II family had metamorphosed from an extended to isolated nuclear. This entailed cutting off kinship ties subsequently waning the influence of blood ties on the family matters. The emphasis of privacy was the primary differentiation from its previous form (Smith & Hamon, 2012). However, the key members of this new family model maintained the fundamental aspects of its previous form. The husband was the task leader and provider of the home whereas the wife functioned as the homemaker and nurturer for the former and their children. The pursuit of career achievement by the wife was against the norm. Having accomplished her designated roles, she could engage in community development. The man was the ultimate authority in the household. The model thrived owing to the economic prosperity of the era. The family had alternative sources of livelihood that gave them financial freedom. They did not require harnessing the utility of relatives akin to the agricultural period. The nuclear family was virtually self-sufficient. The overlying principle of structural functionalism was the adherence to the existing norms.

The key tenets of this theory had multiple shortcomings. Parsons assumed that society has reached the peak of industrialization hence the family was correspondingly at its zenith of evolution. He did not contemplate the possibility of the family structure advancing beyond its current state. The change in family structure was uniform across the cultural paradigm. This meant that nations with extended families would strive towards the United States’ exalted ideals and values. Another deficiency of the theory was it diminished the capability of human agency. It posited that political, economic, and demographic factors defined the cultural dictates. An individual had no alternative but to conform (Smith & Hamon, 2012). It did not consider the problem solving potential of people in response to unique circumstances. Hence, when changes emerged in the family structure owing to empowerment of individuals to make decisions pertaining to sexuality, marriage, divorce, and abortion, SF termed them as deviations.  It could offer no better explanation. This marked the begining of the decline of Parson’s structural differentiation. The family evolved following the trajectory of independence from kinship ties but with multiple combinations outside the isolated nuclear model.

The SF theory had been officially discarded in favor of alternative theories that could better explain the aforementioned changes. Despite conservatives’ efforts to increase the longevity of the paradigm, it remained terminal. They posited that conformity is the basis of social order and deviance would lead to social pathology (Smith & Hamon, 2012).The new sociological questions arose to answer the innovative actions by individuals. In contemporary society there is a recent transition back to the tenets of SF. Theorists attempt to explain the behavior that contravenes the norms in a branch called dysfunctional deviance. For instance, children from broken families are prone to be deviants. Though almost no theorists proclaim association with theory, the above testifies of its enduring impact. In retrospect Parson’s main fallibility was underestimating the concept of human agency, a mistake that contemporary theorist s aspire to evade. The theory has nonetheless tried to adapt to recent developments.

Reference

Smith, S. R. & Hamon, R. R. (2012). Exploring family theories. Oxford University Press, USA.

Beyond the Isolated Nuclear Family

Name:

Institution:

Beyond the Isolated Nuclear Family

In the chapter ‘Structural Functionalism Theory of Family’, Smith and Hamon (2012) analyze the theory when it was in preeminence. Structural functionalism was the premier paradigm on family in the 1950s. The leading proponents of the theory during its prominence were Talcott Parsons and his students. To them, the social evolution of the institution of family was consistent with society’s transition from an agricultural to industrial society. Similarly, the post World II family had metamorphosed from an extended to isolated nuclear. This entailed cutting off kinship ties subsequently waning the influence of blood ties on the family matters. The emphasis of privacy was the primary differentiation from its previous form (Smith & Hamon, 2012). However, the key members of this new family model maintained the fundamental aspects of its previous form. The husband was the task leader and provider of the home whereas the wife functioned as the homemaker and nurturer for the former and their children. The pursuit of career achievement by the wife was against the norm. Having accomplished her designated roles, she could engage in community development. The man was the ultimate authority in the household. The model thrived owing to the economic prosperity of the era. The family had alternative sources of livelihood that gave them financial freedom. They did not require harnessing the utility of relatives akin to the agricultural period. The nuclear family was virtually self-sufficient. The overlying principle of structural functionalism was the adherence to the existing norms.

The key tenets of this theory had multiple shortcomings. Parsons assumed that society has reached the peak of industrialization hence the family was correspondingly at its zenith of evolution. He did not contemplate the possibility of the family structure advancing beyond its current state. The change in family structure was uniform across the cultural paradigm. This meant that nations with extended families would strive towards the United States’ exalted ideals and values. Another deficiency of the theory was it diminished the capability of human agency. It posited that political, economic, and demographic factors defined the cultural dictates. An individual had no alternative but to conform (Smith & Hamon, 2012). It did not consider the problem solving potential of people in response to unique circumstances. Hence, when changes emerged in the family structure owing to empowerment of individuals to make decisions pertaining to sexuality, marriage, divorce, and abortion, SF termed them as deviations.  It could offer no better explanation. This marked the begining of the decline of Parson’s structural differentiation. The family evolved following the trajectory of independence from kinship ties but with multiple combinations outside the isolated nuclear model.

The SF theory had been officially discarded in favor of alternative theories that could better explain the aforementioned changes. Despite conservatives’ efforts to increase the longevity of the paradigm, it remained terminal. They posited that conformity is the basis of social order and deviance would lead to social pathology (Smith & Hamon, 2012).The new sociological questions arose to answer the innovative actions by individuals. In contemporary society there is a recent transition back to the tenets of SF. Theorists attempt to explain the behavior that contravenes the norms in a branch called dysfunctional deviance. For instance, children from broken families are prone to be deviants. Though almost no theorists proclaim association with theory, the above testifies of its enduring impact. In retrospect Parson’s main fallibility was underestimating the concept of human agency, a mistake that contemporary theorist s aspire to evade. The theory has nonetheless tried to adapt to recent developments.

Reference

Smith, S. R. & Hamon, R. R. (2012). Exploring family theories. Oxford University Press, USA.