Evaluate the view that families no longer have a domestic division of labour.
OCR
A Level
2020
👑Complete Model Essay
Free Essay Plan
Evaluating the View that Families no Longer Have a Domestic Division of Labour
This essay will evaluate the view that families no longer have a domestic division of labour. It will consider various sociological perspectives, including functionalism, liberal feminism, and Marxist feminist perspectives. The essay will also examine relevant studies and concepts, such as the “march of progress” theory, the dual burden, and the commercialisation of housework.
Introduction
The domestic division of labour refers to the distribution of tasks and responsibilities within a household. Historically, this division has been heavily gendered, with women primarily responsible for domestic work and childcare, while men focus on paid employment. However, the assertion that families no longer have a domestic division of labour is debatable. While significant changes in gender roles have occurred in recent decades, evidence suggests that a gendered division of labour persists, albeit in more nuanced forms.
Functionalist Perspective
Functionalists argue that a clear domestic division of labour is beneficial for the smooth functioning of society. Talcott Parsons, a prominent functionalist, suggested that the husband fulfills the instrumental role as breadwinner, while the wife takes on the expressive role of homemaker and caregiver. This division allows for specialised roles and contributes to social order and stability. This view, however, has been critiqued for its traditionalist stance and its failure to acknowledge the potential for inequality and exploitation within this division.
Liberal Feminist Perspective
Liberal feminists argue that the domestic division of labour is a product of social conditioning and cultural norms. They believe that, through education and legal reforms, women can achieve greater equality in the workplace and in domestic life. This perspective highlights the importance of individual agency and choice in shaping domestic arrangements. However, they are criticised for not fully addressing the underlying power structures that sustain gendered inequalities.
Marxist Feminist Perspective
Marxist feminists argue that the domestic division of labour is a result of capitalist exploitation. They contend that women’s unpaid domestic work supports the capitalist system by reproducing the workforce at no cost to employers. This perspective highlights the economic dimension of gender inequality and the unequal distribution of resources within families. A key argument in this perspective is that the family acts as a unit of consumption, supporting capitalism by purchasing goods and services.
The “March of Progress” Theory
Wilmott and Young’s “march of progress” theory suggests a gradual shift towards greater equality in the domestic division of labour. They argue that changes in employment patterns, rising living standards, and the decline of the traditional extended family have led to a move towards a more symmetrical family, where both partners share domestic responsibilities. This theory is supported by studies showing an increase in men’s participation in housework.
Evidence for Continued Domestic Division
Despite the evidence of changes, there are strong arguments that a gendered division of labour persists.
- Dual burden: Many women continue to shoulder the “dual burden” of paid work and domestic responsibilities, resulting in a “triple shift” when including emotional work.
- Commercialisation of housework: While Silver and Schor argue that the rise of consumerism has led to an increase in housework, this benefit is mainly seen within middle-class families and does not address the continued inequality in domestic labour.
- Emotion work: Arlie Hochschild’s work on emotion work highlights the invisible and often undervalued labour of women in managing relationships and maintaining emotional wellbeing within the family.
- Time budget studies: Studies using time-budget data consistently show that women still dedicate significantly more time to domestic work than men.
Evaluation
While some studies may suggest that a more equal division of labour is emerging, the arguments for a continued gendered division are compelling. The evidence suggests that women still bear a disproportionate share of domestic responsibilities, even if men’s contributions have increased.
Conclusion
The notion that families no longer have a domestic division of labour is overly simplistic. While there have been significant changes in gender roles and a greater acceptance of men’s involvement in domestic work, a gendered division of labour persists. This is influenced by societal expectations, economic factors, and the ongoing struggle for true gender equality. The future of the domestic division of labour, therefore, remains complex and uncertain, requiring continued efforts to address the underlying causes of gender inequality in all spheres of life.
**References**Please note: This outline does not include specific references to academic sources. You need to provide your own references from relevant academic texts and research findings to support your arguments.
Essay: Evaluate the View that Families No Longer Have a Domestic Division of Labour
The domestic division of labour, referring to the allocation of household tasks between partners, has long been a focal point in sociological debates about family life. While traditional family structures often saw a clear divide between the breadwinner husband and the homemaker wife, the assertion that families no longer experience this division requires careful examination. This essay will explore various sociological perspectives, empirical evidence, and critiques to evaluate the claim that the domestic division of labour is a relic of the past.
The Shifting Landscape: Arguments for Reduced Division
Several sociological theories and studies propose a decline in the domestic division of labour. Liberal feminists, for instance, point to the increasing economic independence of women as a key driver of change. As women entered the workforce in greater numbers, traditional gender roles were challenged, paving the way for more egalitarian partnerships. This aligns with Wilmott and Young's "march of progress" thesis, suggesting a gradual shift towards symmetrical families where both partners contribute equally to paid and unpaid work.
Further support for a reduced division comes from research highlighting trends towards greater equality. Sullivan, for example, found an increase in the amount of housework performed by men, indicating a move towards a more even distribution of labour. Similarly, Gershuny's concept of "lagged adaptation" argues that while women still shoulder a larger share of housework, men are gradually catching up as societal norms evolve.
Another significant factor is the rise of the "commercialisation of housework." As argued by Silver and Schor, the availability of goods and services that reduce the time and effort required for housework, such as takeaway meals and cleaning services, has eased the burden on women, particularly those from middle-class backgrounds. This, coupled with the changing nature of work and increased flexibility for some, has led some, like Hakim, to argue that most men now do their fair share.
The Persistence of Inequality: Critiques and Challenges
Despite these arguments, significant evidence suggests that the domestic division of labour remains deeply ingrained in many families. The concept of the "dual burden" or "triple shift," coined by feminist sociologists, highlights the ongoing pressure on women to manage both paid work and a disproportionate amount of domestic responsibilities, including childcare and emotional labour.
Furthermore, the benefits of the commercialisation of housework are not enjoyed equally. While middle-class families may have the resources to outsource domestic tasks, working-class families often lack such options. This perpetuates existing inequalities, leaving many women struggling to balance paid work, childcare, and housework.
Hochschild's work on "emotion work" further complicates the picture. She argues that women often bear the responsibility of managing emotional well-being within the family, a demanding and often invisible form of labour. This emotional burden, coupled with the practical demands of housework and childcare, contributes to a persistent gendered division of labour within families.
Empirical evidence from time budget studies and surveys consistently shows that women continue to spend more time on housework and childcare than men, even when both partners are employed full-time. This enduring inequality suggests that while progress has been made, traditional gender norms and expectations continue to shape the division of labour within families.
The Role of Ideology and Capitalism
To fully understand the persistence of the division of labour, it's crucial to consider the influence of ideology and the role of capitalism. The idea of women as naturally suited for domesticity while men are the breadwinners, although challenged, persists in various forms. This ideology, often perpetuated through media and social norms, can lead to false consciousness where individuals, both men and women, accept the unequal division of labour as natural or inevitable.
Capitalism itself benefits from the traditional family structure. By relegating women to unpaid domestic work, capitalism ensures a readily available workforce to care for the current and future generations of workers, effectively lowering the cost of social reproduction. This economic system thrives on the unpaid labour often carried out by women within the home.
Conclusion: A More Nuanced Reality
In conclusion, while there's evidence to suggest a gradual shift towards more egalitarian partnerships, the view that families no longer have a domestic division of labour is overly simplistic. While some progress has been made in terms of men contributing more to housework, significant inequalities persist. Women continue to shoulder a disproportionate share of domestic labour, particularly when considering the often-invisible burdens of emotional labour and childcare.
Factors like ideology, the enduring influence of traditional gender roles, and the economic structures of capitalism contribute to the persistence of this division. While the "march of progress" may be underway, true equality within families requires not only individual attitudinal shifts but also broader societal changes that challenge entrenched gender norms and support a more equitable division of labour within and beyond the household.
Free Mark Scheme Extracts
Theories and Studies of Gender Roles and Family Life
This section explores various theories and studies that examine gender roles and their relationship to family life, particularly within the context of capitalism.
Ideology
Ideology plays a crucial role in shaping our understanding of gender roles and family life. The dominant ideology in many societies perpetuates the belief that women are naturally suited for domestic work and childcare, while men are destined for paid employment. This ideology contributes to the **false consciousness** of many individuals, where they accept these roles as natural and inevitable, even though they may be detrimental to women's equality and economic empowerment.
Family as a Unit of Consumption
Capitalism views the family as a unit of consumption, encouraging the purchase of goods and services to fulfill perceived needs and desires. This fosters a cycle of consumption, often fueled by advertising and marketing campaigns that target the family unit.
Theoretical Perspectives
Liberal Feminism
Liberal feminism argues that gender inequality stems from discriminatory laws and social practices. It advocates for equal opportunities and rights for women, including access to education, employment, and political participation. This perspective emphasizes individual choice and agency, arguing that women can achieve equality through individual efforts and legal reforms.
Functionalism
Functionalism views society as a system of interconnected parts, each fulfilling a specific function. It argues that the traditional division of labor in families, with women taking on domestic roles and men assuming breadwinning responsibilities, contributes to the stability of society. Critics argue that this perspective ignores the power imbalances inherent in these roles and perpetuates the oppression of women.
Key Studies and Concepts
Gershuny - Lagged Adaptation
Gershuny's theory of lagged adaptation suggests that changes in women's employment patterns lead to a gradual shift in men's participation in domestic work. However, this adaptation lags behind, resulting in a continued imbalance in domestic labor.
Sullivan - Greater Trend Towards Equality
Sullivan's research suggests a greater trend towards equality in domestic labor, with men increasingly sharing household tasks. However, women still bear the primary responsibility for childcare and housework.
Wilmott and Young - March of Progress
Wilmott and Young's "march of progress" theory posits a gradual shift towards more egalitarian family structures, with increasing shared responsibilities and a decline in traditional gender roles. However, critics argue that this view overlooks the persistence of gender inequality and the continued burden on women.
Silver and Schor - Commercialisation of Housework
Silver and Schor highlight the "commercialization of housework", where tasks previously performed by women have been replaced by paid services and consumer goods. This shift, while seemingly liberating for women, can contribute to increased spending and reliance on market forces. Furthermore, it may primarily benefit middle-class women and families who can afford these services.
Hakim - Most Men Do Their Fair Share
Hakim's research suggests that most men do their fair share of housework, challenging the common perception of men as contributing little to domestic tasks. However, her findings do not necessarily imply true equality, as women may still be disproportionately responsible for certain tasks, such as childcare and emotional labor.
Critical Evaluation
Dual Burden and Triple Shift
Feminist scholars emphasize the "dual burden" and "triple shift" faced by women, where they continue to be responsible for domestic labor and childcare alongside paid employment. The "triple shift" also includes the emotional labor and unpaid work involved in maintaining familial relationships and emotional wellbeing.
Commercialisation of Housework - Inequality and Middle-Class Bias
While the commercialization of housework can create more leisure time for some women, it primarily benefits middle-class women who have the financial resources to afford these services. This reinforces existing socioeconomic inequalities and may exacerbate the burden on working-class women who lack these resources.
Emotion Work (Hochschild)
Hochschild's work on "emotion work" highlights the emotional labor that women often perform in families, managing and regulating the emotions of family members. This labor is often invisible and undervalued, contributing to the continued exploitation of women's time and energy.
Research Evidence and Continued Inequality
Despite the trends towards greater gender equality, survey research and time budget studies consistently show continued inequalities in domestic labor. Women still spend significantly more time on housework and childcare than men, even when they are employed full-time.