Evaluate the view that the main role of the family is to promote social stability.

The family is often considered the cornerstone of society, a fundamental social institution entrusted with numerous crucial roles. One perspective argues that the family's primary function is to maintain social stability. This essay will delve into this view, examining arguments both in support of and against it, drawing upon sociological perspectives and relevant research.

Arguments in Support

Functionalists, such as Parsons (1955), view the family as a vital organ in the "body" of society, contributing to its overall equilibrium. They highlight the family's role in primary socialisation, where children internalise societal norms and values, becoming functional members of society. This shared value system, they argue, fosters social cohesion and reduces the likelihood of anomie.

Furthermore, the traditional nuclear family structure, with its clear division of labour between the breadwinner husband and the homemaker wife, is seen as promoting stability. Parsons argued that the wife performs the expressive role, providing emotional support and care, creating a "warm bath" environment that allows the husband to fulfill his instrumental role as the breadwinner. This economic stability, in turn, contributes to the smooth functioning of society.

Supporting this view, the New Right emphasizes the importance of the traditional family structure for maintaining social order and moral values. They argue that alternative family forms, such as single-parent families, can lead to social problems and undermine stability.

Arguments Against

However, critics argue that this perspective presents an idealized and outdated view of the family. Marxists, such as Althusser (1971), argue that the family serves the interests of the capitalist class, rather than promoting genuine social stability. They see the family as an ideological state apparatus that reproduces and perpetuates capitalist ideology. By socialising children into accepting hierarchy and inequality, the family helps maintain the existing power structures and prevents social change.

Moreover, Marxist feminists like Ansley (1972) argue that the family benefits capitalism by absorbing male workers' frustration and alienation from their jobs. Women, relegated to the domestic sphere, act as "takers of shit," mitigating potential conflict and maintaining a stable workforce for capitalist exploitation.

Radical feminists further criticize the family as a site of oppression and exploitation, perpetuating gender inequality rather than social stability. They argue that the patriarchal structure of the family benefits men at the expense of women, confining them to domestic roles and limiting their opportunities. This power imbalance, they argue, leads to conflict rather than stability.

Postmodernists, such as Cheal (1996), challenge the very notion of a single, dominant family structure and its role in promoting social stability. They argue that in today's society, characterized by diversity and fluidity, families are diverse and constantly evolving. There is no one-size-fits-all model, and attempts to impose one can be restrictive and harmful.

Conclusion

In conclusion, while the family undoubtedly plays a significant role in society, the claim that its main function is to promote social stability is a matter of debate. While functionalist and New Right perspectives highlight its contribution to social cohesion and order, Marxist, feminist, and postmodern perspectives challenge this view, emphasizing the family's role in perpetuating inequality, oppression, and conflict. Ultimately, the relationship between family and social stability is complex and multifaceted, with the family capable of both reinforcing and undermining social order depending on the specific context and perspective adopted.