...Assess the marxist view that the main role of the family is to serve the interests of capitalism. In sociology there are many different perspectives on the family and the Marxists view is that the main role of the family is to serve the interests of capitalism. They would argue that they do this through primary socialisation, Althusser says that the family teaches the ideas of capitalism through socialisation as the family is part of the ideological state apparatus, teaching us not to question authority figures and be obedient to them, linking for when the individual work and the bourgeoisie will be the authority that they have to obey. Zaretsky who is also a Marxist had very similar views to Parsons, a functionalist who came up with the warm bath theory about family, but instead Zaretsky says that the family is a safety valve and also an illusion, that you think you’re coming home after a hard day at work to relax with your family but really they’re actually there just to rest you so that you can go straight back out to work again and serve capitalism the next day, all over again. The family also serves the interests of capitalism because families buy the latest consumer goods that are out to be judged on that basis by others, thinking that if they have the new good stuff then they will look better and a higher class of person but these are just seen as false needs and when families are getting tricked into thinking they need to buy these thing they are serving the bourgeoisie...
Words: 405 - Pages: 2
...of the family is to serve the interest of capitalism. Within sociology there are many different perspectives on the family. Each different perspective sees different things as the main role of the family. Marxists view the family in a very critical way. They believe that the main role of the family is to serve the interest of capitalism. They also believe that the family is seen as an institution which serves to maintain the position of the ruling class. Karl Marx's view on the capitalistic approach shows the unequal nature of the economic system. He shows how the middle and upper class take advantage of the working class and their labour; and that the working class are a tool used to create profit and to keep profit margins at acceptable levels. Marx also argues that the monogamous upper class nuclear family is developed to help solve the problem of the inheritance of private property. The men needed to know who their children were in order to pass on their property on. The family was therefore thought to be designed to control women and protect property. It encourages male power and dominance through the inheritance of property. Marxists argue that the families function is to socialise us into the ruling class ideology. They see the family as an institution which serves and maintains the position of the ruling class. As a result of this they see the family class split into two categories, a small powerful ruling class dominated by the middle and upper class families and the...
Words: 971 - Pages: 4
...believe that the middle and upper classes exploit the working class for their labour, and create a false class consciousness that allows the proletariat masses to believe that this is a fair system. This theory also attempts to analyse and explain the family structure, criticising it on the basis that the family is an institution built solely to serve capitalist ideals and the bourgeoisie. There are several factors that support the idea that the family’s main role is to serve capitalism. For example, Marxists believe that the introduction of monogamy to society was caused by the need of men to be sure that their sons are genetically entitled to their assets. This oppression of women was put in place by men who supported capitalism, to allow their children to keep the wealth within their family. Marxists argue that monogamy turned women into ‘a mere instrument to reproduce the next generation’ showing that through the demand of women to create the ideal family, capitalism can thrive on the socialisation of the young into sharing their values and ideals. This shows that the monogamous nuclear family serves as an effective institution to maintain the capitalist values within society. Another factor to support the idea that the family maintains capitalism is the socialisation of young children into agreeing with the values and beliefs of the bourgeoisie. From a very young age, children are separated by their class into certain schools. While this system is less apparent in modern...
Words: 779 - Pages: 4
...Using Material from Item 2b and Elsewhere, Assess the Marxist View That the Main Role of the Family Is to Serve the Interests of Capitalism Marxism is a structural conflict theory, they argue that the main role of the family is to serve the interest of capitalism, but is that how modern sociologist view the family? Each group in society has a different idea on what the main role of the family is. As Item 2B says, “Marxists see all social intuitions as serving the interests of capitalism.” This includes the family, and they say that it serves the interests of capitalism by maintaining and justifying class inequality and exploitation by the Bourgeoisie. Other groups, however, have different opinions, such as Functionalists who think that the family performs essential needs of society. Marxists and Functionalists opinions are completely contrasted, as Marxists think that we live in a Capitalist society based on unequal conflict between the classes, whilst Functionalists see society as based on “value consensus”, where everyone agrees. Much like Functionalist, Marxists over emphasise on the traditional nuclear family being the best. The family is an important audience for the sale of consumer goods because advertisers encourage families to be in competition with each other in an old fashion ‘keeping up with the Joneses’ type of way and to keep feeding into the latest trends. The Bourgeoisie don’t just exploit the proletariats they also target children with their bright and...
Words: 592 - Pages: 3
...the interests of capitalism. Marxists see all social institutions as serving the interests of capitalism - this includes the family, and they say that it serves the interests of capitalism by maintaining and advocating the class inequality and exploitation by the rich through the primary socialisation of children; the family socialises children into accepting this upper class hierarchy and inequality. The parent’s power over their children gets the children used to the idea that someone is always in charge, which prepares them for working, where they will contribute to capitalism by adhering to orders from their employers. If the children continue to socialise with children of the same class, with similar norms and values, the inequality will continue to be thought of as right and they will socialise their children this way too - carrying the inequalities through multiple generations. However, if children are socialising with different classes in secondary socialisation, they may begin to question the inequality and change how they view this, this may therefore lead them to not want to work for the upper class, or in contrast, they may not want to have the lower classes working for their own benefits of profit. The family is also an important market for the sale of consumer goods because advertisers encourage families to be in competition with each other and to keep buying all the latest products and technology. This is one of the ways that Marxists view the family as serving...
Words: 692 - Pages: 3
...Marxists see all social institutions as serving the interests of capitalism. They argue that institutions such as the family help maintain the system of class inequality and exploitation. One way in which the family does this is by socialising children into accepting hierarchy. The family is also an important market for consumer goods. Alternatively the functionalists argue that the family performs vital functions for society. For example, it benefits family members by offering mutual support and emotional satisfaction. Using the material from Item 2B and elsewhere assess the Marxist view that the main role of the family is to serve the interests of capitalism. (24 Marks) Each group in society has a different idea on what the main role of the family is. Marxists do not believe that society is based on value consensus, and rejects the view that it operates for the benefit of all. Instead, they see a basic conflict of interest between a small powerful ruling class and the mass of the population, the subject class. They therefore believe that the family is one of a number of institutions which serves to maintain the position of the ruling class. Similarly to Item 2B, “they argue that institutions such as the family help maintain the system of class inequality and exploitation”. For example, both Functionalists and Marxists see the family as a unit which reproduces and socialises children. However, Marxists also see the family as a means for reproducing ‘labour power’ – reproducing...
Words: 1104 - Pages: 5
...The main role of the family IS to serve the interest of Capitalism NOT everyone The main role of the family is NOT to just serve the interest of Capitalism- it serves everyone Pester Power- children will see things on television/ in the media that will indoctrinate them into thinking they want/ need something- be it sweets, a certain kind of trainers, or a haircut. Functionalists believe that the family serves to ‘give back’ to the economy, keeping the money and economy FLOWING, through shared processes, thereby profiting everyone (eventually). Good for individual (taken care of/ food, water, travel, etc.)- good for society (a unit that buys things- sustains economy) Families maintain the Base- providing the means of production through labour. The family socialises the newest members into ones that show respect, which benefits them by giving SOCIAL SOLIDARITY through SOCIAL NORMS AND VALUES (the new members are not drones, but are members of society that continue it onward) =Harmonious Society = Benefits Everyone Families themselves are UNITS OF CONSUMPTION- they will ‘keep up with the Joneses’ and buy the latest fridge, or car, etc. VALUE CONSENSUS + SPECIALISED DIVISION OF LABOUR = SOCIAL ORDER The breadwinner(s) will not see quitting as a way to stop the status quo- they need to provide for their families, and do not want to endanger that position. The individuals are genuinely happy with their lives- The Functions of a family has been reduced to two. Stabilisation...
Words: 300 - Pages: 2
...Using material from item 2b and elsewhere assess the Marxist view that the main role of the family is to serve the interests of capitalism. Marxism is a conflict theory which sees all society’s institutions, such as the education system, the media, religion and the state, as helping to main class inequality and capitalism. For Marxists, therefore, the functions of the family are performed solely for the benefit of the capitalist system. This view contrasts sharply with the functionalist view that the family benefits both society as a whole and the individual members of the family. First of all one reason in which the family does serve capitalism, is through the origin of the family. Engels argued that the need for the family arose when society started to value private property. With the rise of private property an organised system of inheritance became necessary. This serves capitalism, because if land and fortunes are inherited, inequality will be reproduced, in that middle class families can pass on more property to their family. Whilst the working class have little if anything to pass down to their family. This goes against everything to do with communism as they believe that property and earning should be shared. Therefore, this shows that the family serves capitalism. Engels also argued that monogamy arose. This was so that the farther knew who their offspring was, so that they could pass their property down to them....
Words: 317 - Pages: 2
...Using material from item 2b and elsewhere assess the Marxist view that the main role of the family is to serve the interests of capitalism. Marxism is a conflict theory which sees all society’s institutions, such as the education system, the media, religion and the state, as helping to main class inequality and capitalism. For Marxists, therefore, the functions of the family are performed solely for the benefit of the capitalist system. This view contrasts sharply with the functionalist view that the family benefits both society as a whole and the individual members of the family. First of all one reason in which the family does serve capitalism, is through the origin of the family. Engels argued that the need for the family arose when society started to value private property. With the rise of private property an organised system of inheritance became necessary. This serves capitalism, because if land and fortunes are inherited, inequality will be reproduced, in that middle class families can pass on more property to their family. Whilst the working class have little if anything to pass down to their family. This goes against everything to do with communism as they believe that property and earning should be shared. Therefore, this shows that the family serves capitalism. Engels also argued that monogamy arose. This was so that the farther knew who their offspring was, so that they could pass their property down to them. This...
Words: 814 - Pages: 4
...Center for Children and Families is a multicultural nonprofit partnership among parents, youth, and community, dedicated to supporting, and strengthening children’s life through quality child, youth, and family development programs. The Center serves Northern Idaho families and facilitates community advocacy on child and family issues. Our mission is to provide a safe place for children and families to come to get help so they spread their wings and fly. Safe Wings Center is a humanitarian organization dedicated to working with children, families, and their communities in Northern Idaho to reach their full potential by tackling the causes of domestic violence and family loss. (Creating a Mission Statement, 2013) We work in nearly 100 counties, serving all people, regardless of religion, race, ethnicity, or gender. We provide emergency assistance to children and families affected by domestic violence and family loss, work with communities to develop long-term solutions to home stability, and advocate for justice on behalf of the families. Motivated by our faith that every family deserves to be stable, we serve alongside the poor and oppressed as a demonstration of unconditional love for all people. Safe Wings is a place that people should feel safe, a place that anyone can come to get help. We provide many serves however if there is a serves that we do not provide our staff is dedicated to helping you find the right place to go. Safe wings will help families and child of domestic...
Words: 2120 - Pages: 9
...assess the Marxist view that the main role of the family is to serve the interests of capitalism Marxists see all society’s institutions, such as the education system, the media, religion and the state, alone with the family as helping to maintain class inequality and capitalism. Capitalism, also known as Marxism, is a perspective based on the ideas of Karl Marx. It sees society as divided into two opposed classes, capitalist class, who own means of production and the working class, whose labour the capitalists exploit for profit. In a capitalist society, goods and businesses are owned privately for the purpose of profit. For Marxists, the functions of the family are performed purely for the benefit of the capitalist system. This view contrasts sharply with the functionalist view that the family benefits both society as a whole and all the individual members of the family. But however for Marxists, the functions of the family do not meet the needs of society as a whole but meet the needs of capitalism. Marxists have identified several functions that they see in the family fulfilling for capitalism, one of the functions is inheritance of property. Marxists argue that the key factor determining the shape of all social institutions, including the family, is the mode of production. In modern society, it is capitalist class that owns and controls these means of production. As the mode of production evolves, so does the family. Engels view which was promiscuous horde or tribe...
Words: 557 - Pages: 3
...After reading Berle-Dodd debate, I feel it goes both ways it helps the Public Service entity that exists to serve the public and the shareholder interests as well but it really helps the Public Service entity more than anything else. In the debate surrounding question involves two competing versions of the corporation one in which said, “the corporation is viewed as the property of the individuals who purchased its shares—the stockholders or owners” (Should Corporations Serve Shareholders or Society?). So that means that the corporation’s purpose is to predominantly increase their wealth and advance the financial interests of the owners. For example, both Kerr-McGee and Anadarko are oil and gas-based companies that only serves shareholders. The reason why is that the shareholders puts money in to that company to make them the best of the best and keep them up, running and increase their wealth. (Should Companies Serve Only Their Shareholders or Their Stakeholders More Broadly?)...
Words: 463 - Pages: 2
...16-150 states that no appointing authority shall fill or request to fill any vacant position in the classified service under the appointing authority's jurisdiction through any of the methods for filling vacant positions, with a member of the appointing authority's family. What prompted this opinion? The State has a policy of hiring substitute librarians when someone is on annual leave and there is a current opening at a Maryland State Library. There are currently more than 100 employees in this library system, but this position does not report directly to the Assistant Director. The...
Words: 1399 - Pages: 6
...Recently, there have been numerous reports on “honour killings” the papers, with coverage of stories not only from Canada but from countries all over the world. Honour killings are the killing of women by her husband or family members when she has, or is suspected of, having dishonoured the family by adultery or other acts deemed inappropriate by the cultural values of the family. While the practice of honour killing has been in practice for some time, it has lately become more visible as cases that deal with honour killings have been appearing in Canadian courts. The Vancouver Sun reports that honour killings have been on the rise in Canada, or at least brought to the forefront of legal courtrooms and the media, as “first generation Muslims struggle to balance strict, old world ways of their parents with a desire to fit into a more liberal society (Cohen).” Problems arise when people charged for murder plead for leniency on account that the killing was done to defend their family’s honour (Massinon). For many “honour killers,” the act of killing in defence of family honour allow for a “full or partial defence against criminal ruling” in their countries of origin (Cohen). If honour killing is indeed considered a moral and ethical behaviour in one’s culture, to the extent that such actions are supported by a country’s law, could such an action then be considered moral? Using the approaches of utilitarianism, deontology and virtue ethics, this paper attempts to determine the morality...
Words: 1282 - Pages: 6
...Prior to returning to college, I worked as a paralegal in various areas of law. The majority of my paralegal career was focused on family and criminal law. My views have changed and evolved over time in how I see individuals that get caught in the legal system. The longer I worked in the field the more I saw how punishing people for issues in their lives, that they had no more control over than their eye color, is cruel and unproductive. Eventually, the unproductive legal circle became exhausting and I found myself burnt out, but I still wanted to help the clients I worked with. Consequently, when I considered going back to school, I knew that I wanted to make changes in how our legal system works, especially with juveniles. I believe there is a gap in how clinical therapists and the courts view the best interest of a child. The therapeutic view and the legal description of “best interest of a child” are often very different and often that interest seems to not be served in legal proceedings. I would like to help bridge that gap with my previous legal field experience and as a social worker, because I do understand both views of the best interests of a child. I also want to serve my community by advocating for social justice issues that help strengthen and educate the members of our community about prevention and rehabilitation with regard to mental illness, self-medicating and...
Words: 577 - Pages: 3
