In relation to conjugal roles, how do the different sociological perspectives view the family?

Conjugal roles in the family represent the positions taken by cohabiting partners, wife or husband in a relationship. The views expressed by the different sociological perspectives concerning conjugal roles in the family differ. In explaining conjugal roles, all the sociological perspectives and the different sociologists involved approach it differently. Among the sociologists, only a few of them agree that conjugal roles are equal in the family. Two forms of conjugal roles have been expressed in families. There are the separated or segregated roles, where the husband and the wife perform different duties, and the joint roles, where the wife and the husband share the roles, regardless of the nature of the roles. This paper purposes to discuss conjugal roles as portrayed by the different sociological perspectives. To do this, the paper will discuss the conjugal roles in relation to functionalist’s perspective, Marxism’s perspective, feminist’s perspective, as well as, the post-modernism view. The paper applies these key vie points in relation to the contemporary British family and division of labour in the family.

To understand the conjugal role of the family as expressed by the functionalists, it is important to look at the functionalist’s view of the family. Agreement and consensus were aspects in which the functionalists looked at the family (Murdock 1949). They assert that an institution, like a family, cannot exist without a purpose or a function. Murdock, who is a functionalist, outlines some functions that he argues the family exists to fulfil. On the same aspect of the functionalists, Talcott Parsons sees the family also as having some essential functions to perform (Holborn and Haralambos, 2008). The postulation made by Talcott Parsons, a functionalist is that; a family has segregated roles in terms of conjugal roles. He argued that the segregation of conjugal roles in the family being segregated in the family is a natural phenomenon. He reiterated that the roles of women are repressive. On the same, the functionalists express that men and women are entitled to different roles as dictated by nature. The functionalists also express the view that; for a family to run smoothly, these roles have to be segregated, just as nature dictated them.

The postulation by the functionalists, like Talcott Parsons that; the conjugal roles of the family are segregated, lacks empirical evidence (Family life n.d). This formulation appears to be very rigid. Looking at the British contemporary society, the segregation of roles of male and female has ceased to gain ground. According to young and Wilmot, the family has undergone some changes influenced by industrialization, to equalize the conjugal roles between men and women (Family life n.d p 2). In the contemporary society of the British, industrialization has dictated that both male and female will be going to work. Even to a further postulation, the female may be working in an office, while the man may be working at home, and having a good opportunity to take care of the children. This leads to reciprocation, as well as, sharing of roles that were earlier considered to be of a particular gender. Bott (1971) faults the model of the functionalists and argues that families in the contemporary British society are composed of joint conjugal roles. The contradiction of the perspectives of the functionalists and the Bott’s postulation is an indication of the changes that have taken place in the contemporary family in regard to conjugal roles. Further, Bott (1971) predicts to the future, in relation to joint conjugal roles in that; if the interconnections between families will become more diverse rather than closely connected, conjugal roles are likely to even be more shared. In this, Bott postulated that wife and husband are sharing domestic tasks, and that the interests of the husband and the wife are similar.

The Marxists theory is a conflict sociological perspective and it looks at the family and the conjugal roles form a capitalist perspective. They express the view that the conjugal roles of the family are segregated, with the woman inclined towards unpaid domestic labour, and as producer (Zaretsky 1986). Concerning conjugal roles of the family I regard to the future, the Marxists argue that the female will remain domestic workers and providers of unpaid domestic labour. Since they see the family from a capitalistic point of view, the Marxists fault the females for destabilizing capitalism through provision of domestic labour with n pay. Because of the segregated conjugal roles, conflict arises in the family. Marxists-feminists’ approaches to sociology even overlap in the point of viewing the females as providers of free domestic labour. The Marxists view the females as being exploited on this issue. On the same issue, feminists fault the Marxists for disrespecting the women by calling the women slaves of free labour, and also faults capitalism for exploiting women.

However, the view-point of the Marxists is not without fault. They have ignored the social structures that define conjugal roles within the family. They have not indicated the role of religion and ethnicity, for example, in determining conjugal roles. Further, according to Holborn and Haralambos(2008), the Marxists ignored the role of gender in determining conjugal roles. The feminists fault the capitalistic and the family view of the Marxists because of only focusing only on the economic nature of the family, and ignoring the process that creates segregated conjugal roles in the family. The postulation by the Marxists that the family has segregated conjugal roles does not seem to hold water, or apply in the contemporary British society. Bott (1971) brings out clearly the idea of the contemporary British society in relation to conjugal roles and rights. Young and Wilmot further postulated the conjugal roles of families as being equal, and the interests of males and the males being similar. In addition, the assertion by Marxists that the family’s female gender will continue to provide free domestic labour does not hold water in the contemporary British society. The Marxists seem to have ignored the rising numbers of singles. In relation to male parents who are single, it is not the women who perform the role of domestic labour. It has been transferred to males as well. This completely disagrees with the postulation of the Marxists.

On the other hand, sociologist Ann Oakley (1974) agrees with the postulation of the Marxists that women will continue to provide free labour to the capitalist system, and giving men more political power, because women will continue to be dependent on men. Oakley argues that even in the contemporary society, women would wish to continue to perform household chores in the family, because this gives them autonomy. Further, failure by women to perform these roles comes with some consequences. These are seen in the capitalist society, and they come in the form of the ill health of the children, as well as, the wrath of the capitalistic man. This sociologist explains that in the contemporary world, women perceive that in the home they have the advantage of being their own masters. This gives them the motivation to continue supplying domestic labour, even without pay, rather than being employed with no autonomy. By acting this way, they prove the prediction of the Marxists true, that future women will continue providing free domestic labour.

Feminists like Oakley (1974) see the conjugal role of the family as being segregated. They agree with the capitalists in some degree. According to Oakley, housework is predominantly female role. It is isolated, and regarded as non-work. Its consequence is to make women appear dependent on men. Feminists argue that all the domestic work in the home is done by women. On the same, they lament that men are the greatest beneficiaries of the work that is performed by women (Holborn and Haralambos 2008). They describe women as a workforce that is not paid. Feminists Delphy and Leonard, and Margaret Benston (Holborn and Haralambos 2008), looks at women as being an army that is always ready to take directions and implement them as they are. They argue that this greatly benefits the capitalist society. they tend to agree with the Marxists –postulation about women remaining to be future free laborers, since they argue that; women teach future generation to provide domestic work without complaining. In this regard, they see women as captives claiming that the capitalist society has not given the women the freedom they expected in society. According to the feminists, decisions in the family regarding food, cleaning and children, are made by women. This equals to segregated conjugal roles. The men are left to make decisions that are regarded as serious, including housing and cars.

The feminist’s perspective is faulted by functionalists (Bott 1971). For example, according to Wilmot and Young, housework has migrated from segregated and has become joint. They argue that in the contemporary society, husband and wives tend to share leisure activities, as well as, household chores. They viewed the family as being symmetrical. According to their postulation, the man is tending towards performing duties that they have not performed before. This perspective, therefore, does not agree with the view expressed by the Marxists, which women will continue in the future to be domestic slaves. Considering the British contemporary society, man and woman are being viewed as equal beings, and with equal rights. In regard to this, the viewpoint expressed by the Marxists, as well as, the feminists, and some functionalists does not hold water.

However, the gradual rise in the feminist movement has greatly contributed to the changes in conjugal roles that are being witnessed in the contemporary British society and the family. Further, with industrialization, many women have joined the working class, and have left the domestic work (Holborn and Haralambos 2008). In addition, the improvement in the status of women in society is a contributing factor to conjugal roles becoming more shared than segregated. On the same note, the rights of women have improved. Finally, the employed woman has broughtsome direct income to the family. This is viewed positively, thus encouraging more women to join the working class. The effect of this is to change the roles more from being segregated to shared, in the contemporary society.

In consideration of post-modern times, some changes have been effected due to women activism, but the change is in the manner in which the roles are shared. As functionalists argued that the division of labour as per gender has a natural orientation (Murdock 1949), some roles have been reluctant to change. According to Holborn and Haralambos (2008), many women that have experienced the changes and can enjoy the freedom of evading household chores, are not married. This translates to the postulation that the big changes that have occurred, are structural, rather than sociological. In this case, the tradition role tasked to women by the Marxists and the functionalists still exist. For example, a child cannot understand that they need to spend more time with the father in order to enable the males accomplish their part in the sharing of household chores. In the real sense, and in the contemporary British society, a child will spend more time with the mother for emotional touch, as well as, for breastfeeding. This appears natural as argued out by the functionalists.

The change of the family from extended to more nuclear has had implications on conjugal roles. There exists a family of single women who can exercise all the freedom they want, and live like men, without subjugation. However, married women still have to balance between work and family (Holborn and Haralambos 2008). The increase in the opportunities of work for women has very little effects on conjugal roles. This is due to the fact that the household roles still remain a men-women issue, and that women still carry the dilemma of work and family. Even though men are being pressured to do more household chores, they usually do little and regard it a lot. The rest is left to women. Further, the emotional appeal of women is advanced than that of the men. Due to this fact, the children will incline themselves to the mother, forcing the mother to spend more time with them than the father. Although women have been accommodated in the working class, they are still not comfortable with some types of work like mining. Women of people who work in such places are left to carry out domestic chores. In reality, the contemporary British society blames anything wrong in the house on women. For this reason, women have to rectify it, thus remaining to perform domestic chores.

In conclusion, this essay has looked at the different sociological perspectives on conjugal roles. The functionalists, Marxists, and the feminists agree to some degree that women are viewed as domestic workers without pay. However, functionalists Young and Wilton view conjugal roles as being equal. The activism by the feminists has brought some freedom for the woman. Nevertheless, the contemporary society still expects the married woman to take the place of the traditional woman in ensuring that all is taken care of in the house.

REFERENCES

Bott, E. 1971. Family and social networks: roles, norms and external relationships in ordinary urban families. New York, NY: Free Press.

Holborn, M., & Haralambos, M. 2008. Sociology: themes and perspectives (7^th ed). London: HarperCollins Publishers

Murdock, P.G. 1949. Social structure. New York, NY: Macmillan Publishers

Oakley, A. 1974. The sociology of housework. New York, NY: Pantheon Books.

Zaretsky, E. 1986. Capitalism: the family and social life. London: Perennial Library.

Need assistance with this?

CLICK BUTTON TO ORDER NOW