The nuclear family is a universal institution. Explain and asses this view.
Plan:
It’s universal because of the functions it performs. Functionalist perspective. Loss of functions to
critique.
Murdock’s definition vs the cross cultural perspective – Nayar tribes etc.
Family diversity and variations in family structure – existence of gay and lesbian households etc.
The universality of the nuclear family is something which has often been debated, with functionalists
arguing in favour of this whilst postmodernists and advocates of family diversity arguing against this. In
this essay the universality of the family institution will be examined and assessed.
One way to assess the view that the family is universal institution is by examining the significance of
the functions it performs. The Functionalist George Murdock argued that based on his analysis of 250
societies in different cultures that the nuclear family was a universal social institution. This was
because it fulfilled four basic functions for society - sexual, reproductive, economic and
educational (social). For instance, the sexual function of the family refers to the relationship
between husband and wife which provides stable sexual relationships for adults and controls the
sexual desires of its members and thus serves to stabilize society. Similarly, the radical feminists
Delphy and Leonard argue that women in families provide ‘trouble free sex’ for men as ‘men
best unwind post-coitally’.
However, it can be argued that in a postmodern society the nuclear family has lost a number of
functions and is thus no longer a universal institution. Contemporary society is now more
promiscuous and liberal. A decline in traditional family structures and an increase in
secularization has all led to increasing acceptance of sex before marriage and people often raise
kids without getting married as is evident by the increase in lone -parenthood and
cohabitation. Thus, the nuclear family no longer serves a sexual function. Similarly, the
socialization function is in decline due to the increase in the number of children’s centres,
childminders and free nursery education which has meant socialization is no longer
restricted to the family. Other agencies such as the state education system are also
increasingly playing an important role in the socialization of children. This loss in functions that
made the nuclear family universal according to Murdock means that the nuclear family is no longer
a universal social institution.
The universality of the nuclear family can also be examined by looking at the cross-cultural
perspective which suggests that alternatives to the nuclear family do exist or have existed in the
past. For instance, Kathleen Gough has argued that it is impossible to suggest that the family is a
universally held concept because cultures differ from one society to society and therefore families
will also differ. To illustrate this, Gough used the example of the Nayar Tribe in the Southern India.
In this tribe girls were ritually married before puberty but did not have to live with their husband or
have any contacts with him – their only obligation was to mourn his death. Gough claimed that this
tribe disproved the universal family; in terms of Murdock’s definition, no family exited in Nayar
society because those who maintained a ‘sexually approved relationship’ did not live together, nor
did they form an economic unit. Only the women lived with the children and the husbands had no
duty to their wives or children and Nayar society was a matrilineal society. However, it could be that
Murdock’s definition of the family is too narrow. For instance, Gough claimed that marriage, and by
implication the family, existed in Nayar society but in order to do so she had to broaden her
definition of marriage beyond that implied in Murdock’s definition.
Furthermore, the rise in family diversity and variation in family structures in contemporary society
may contradict claims about the universality of the family. Since the 1970s, the nuclear family in the
UK has been in decline whilst other family structures have increased significantly. Some of these
family structures appear to contradict Murdock’s definition of a universal family. For example, gay
and lesbian families have been rising in numbers since the 1980s and consist of two adults of the
same sex whilst Murdock’s definition of the family includes at least one adult of each sex. Thus, gay
and lesbian families would be excluded from Murdock’s definition and can be regarded as an
alternative to the nuclear family. Similarly, as Rapoport and Rapoport argue, lone-parent families
are an important ‘emerging form’ of the family, and represent a legitimate alternative to the
conventional nuclear family. For instance, Mann notes that 45% of Black Caribbean Families
Plan:
It’s universal because of the functions it performs. Functionalist perspective. Loss of functions to
critique.
Murdock’s definition vs the cross cultural perspective – Nayar tribes etc.
Family diversity and variations in family structure – existence of gay and lesbian households etc.
The universality of the nuclear family is something which has often been debated, with functionalists
arguing in favour of this whilst postmodernists and advocates of family diversity arguing against this. In
this essay the universality of the family institution will be examined and assessed.
One way to assess the view that the family is universal institution is by examining the significance of
the functions it performs. The Functionalist George Murdock argued that based on his analysis of 250
societies in different cultures that the nuclear family was a universal social institution. This was
because it fulfilled four basic functions for society - sexual, reproductive, economic and
educational (social). For instance, the sexual function of the family refers to the relationship
between husband and wife which provides stable sexual relationships for adults and controls the
sexual desires of its members and thus serves to stabilize society. Similarly, the radical feminists
Delphy and Leonard argue that women in families provide ‘trouble free sex’ for men as ‘men
best unwind post-coitally’.
However, it can be argued that in a postmodern society the nuclear family has lost a number of
functions and is thus no longer a universal institution. Contemporary society is now more
promiscuous and liberal. A decline in traditional family structures and an increase in
secularization has all led to increasing acceptance of sex before marriage and people often raise
kids without getting married as is evident by the increase in lone -parenthood and
cohabitation. Thus, the nuclear family no longer serves a sexual function. Similarly, the
socialization function is in decline due to the increase in the number of children’s centres,
childminders and free nursery education which has meant socialization is no longer
restricted to the family. Other agencies such as the state education system are also
increasingly playing an important role in the socialization of children. This loss in functions that
made the nuclear family universal according to Murdock means that the nuclear family is no longer
a universal social institution.
The universality of the nuclear family can also be examined by looking at the cross-cultural
perspective which suggests that alternatives to the nuclear family do exist or have existed in the
past. For instance, Kathleen Gough has argued that it is impossible to suggest that the family is a
universally held concept because cultures differ from one society to society and therefore families
will also differ. To illustrate this, Gough used the example of the Nayar Tribe in the Southern India.
In this tribe girls were ritually married before puberty but did not have to live with their husband or
have any contacts with him – their only obligation was to mourn his death. Gough claimed that this
tribe disproved the universal family; in terms of Murdock’s definition, no family exited in Nayar
society because those who maintained a ‘sexually approved relationship’ did not live together, nor
did they form an economic unit. Only the women lived with the children and the husbands had no
duty to their wives or children and Nayar society was a matrilineal society. However, it could be that
Murdock’s definition of the family is too narrow. For instance, Gough claimed that marriage, and by
implication the family, existed in Nayar society but in order to do so she had to broaden her
definition of marriage beyond that implied in Murdock’s definition.
Furthermore, the rise in family diversity and variation in family structures in contemporary society
may contradict claims about the universality of the family. Since the 1970s, the nuclear family in the
UK has been in decline whilst other family structures have increased significantly. Some of these
family structures appear to contradict Murdock’s definition of a universal family. For example, gay
and lesbian families have been rising in numbers since the 1980s and consist of two adults of the
same sex whilst Murdock’s definition of the family includes at least one adult of each sex. Thus, gay
and lesbian families would be excluded from Murdock’s definition and can be regarded as an
alternative to the nuclear family. Similarly, as Rapoport and Rapoport argue, lone-parent families
are an important ‘emerging form’ of the family, and represent a legitimate alternative to the
conventional nuclear family. For instance, Mann notes that 45% of Black Caribbean Families
