# data[].attributes.body
Middle class has a nuclear family structures meaning that families with a two parents and one or more children. The reason for this is because of the importance of education and cost of good schooling. However, this meant that middle class families were smaller than those of working classes. Furthermore, the managers that does the the employment in new industries usually employs people from middle class, as working class family were seen as weak

Gomm argues that upper class family structure is a mixture of nuclear and extended types as seen in history. There was enough room for extended kin such as elderly relatives within the family household, and some evidence suggest that it was quite common for some upper class family may have extended. For this reason is because some family wants to keep building their wealth, to takeover wealth once they pass away, leverage financial and social resources for career advancement and business

# data[].attributes.body
the lack of government help for the sick or unemployed meant that the working class families relied on a strong KINSHIP NETWORK for their care and survival

most people could barely read or write, so Kinship networks helped secure jobs for families members by recommending them to employers

if both parents worked, relatives played a vital part in childcare

deathrates were high but children without parents (orphans) could be absorbed into the extended family structure

children worked from quite a young age so young relatives were used to add to family income

education is now handled by a school system

Health and social care has now been handed over to a range of professionals, from doctors and nurses to social workers

recreation and leisure once focused on the family, has become either more individualized or something that is done outside the home

many parents especially in the middle-classes are actively involved in their children's education

families play and important care role -non-critical illnesses are largely treated within the family and families may carry out long term care for the elderly

many families especially those with young children share leisure and recreation, although this may be largely consumed outside of home as part of the leisure industry

# data[].attributes.headline
Points Against Parson's 'fit thesis' Feminist Arguments

# data[].attributes.subject
Points Against Parson's 'fit thesis' Feminist Arguments

# data[].attributes.body
Patriarchal society is not functional

Women experience dual burden/triple shift

30% of women have experienced domestic violence in the UK (Office of National Statistics)

Parsons beautifies the Nuclear Family. Even when it is often the agent of abuse and inequality.

# data[].attributes.body
Working class family

According to Anderson suggestions, the working class family develop a broadly extended family structure, mainly the consequences of urbanization. As towns develop around factories, there is pressure for the working class family for living space in extended families.

Evidence such as lack of government support to help for sickness or unemployed meant which makes working class family rely on kinship network for their survival. Most people has lack of education and could barely read or write, so kinship network helped secure jobs for family members. If both parents worked, relatives played a role in childcare. Children worked from quite a young age, so young relatives were used to supplement family income.

# data[].attributes.headline
Points Against Parson's 'fit thesis' Post Modernist Arguments

# data[].attributes.subject
Points Against Parson's 'fit thesis' Post Modernist Arguments

# data[].attributes.body
1. Neglects family diversity

Parsons assumes the nuclear family is the only type that fits modern society.

In reality, there are many family forms today: lone-parent, same-sex, reconstituted, LAT (living apart together), “chosen families.”

These all function just as well in society, so it’s wrong to claim only the nuclear family fits.

2. Nuclear family is not the ‘best fit’

Parsons claimed nuclear families are the most functional for industrial society.

Postmodernists argue this is outdated. Society now runs on many different family structures, not just one “best” model.

3. Pick-and-mix (individualisation)

People today have more choice in how they form families.

Family life is flexible and fluid. People may move between cohabitation, marriage, divorce, LAT, or same-sex partnerships over their lifetime.

This means families aren’t simply “adapting to society’s needs” (as Parsons argued), but are shaped by personal choices.

# data[].attributes.body
In a post industrial situation and moving into a more modern setting, Parsons theories states that families have 2 functions:

1. Teaching values and norms for being part of the society.

2. S.O.A.P (Stabalisation Of Adult Personality) where the family is always there to protect members from dangers and stressors.

Functionalists fail to take in account inequalities within the families - domestic violence, ethnic, gender, class, age

Parson's theories are outdated - People have children outside of marriage, gender roles within families are obsolete (women and men are both allowed to work) and both are joint-role in being caregivers with no main 'provider'.

My definition of 'provider' - One designated expressive or instrumental per person in family.

Micheal Anderson 1971 - A look into households in Preston, Lancashire in the midst of rapid urbanisation using the 1891 census found an increase of extended families, a rational response to moving into urban areas. Not only did this help economically but also socially as these households contained people that did not previously know each other there fore kinship would be very valuable

Peter Laslett 1972 - conducted research into pre-industrial communities and figured that most families during that era were not mainly comprised of extended but nuclear families - people may have lived close to extended families but most households were comprised of parents and children.

# data[].attributes.headline
Roberts Anderson 1995 against historical evidence 2

# data[].attributes.subject
Roberts Anderson 1995 against historical evidence 2

# data[].attributes.body
Anderson argued that no single family or household structure was dominant during the industrialization process. Both reconstituted and lone-parent families existed in pre-industrial societies mainly because of high death rates among the poor.

During the process of industrialization, the working class developed a broadly extended family structure mainly as a consequence of urbanization. As towns developed around factories pressure on living space resulted in extended families that satisfied a number of purposes

# data[].attributes.headline
Roberts Historical evidence 1 finch 1989 

# data[].attributes.subject
Roberts Historical evidence 1 finch 1989 

# data[].attributes.body
Finch examined the idea that before the industrial revolution family obligations were much stronger and family members provided greater support for each other than in the industrial and post industrial eras.

one alternative suggestion he had was that the industrialization and urbanization first occurred in parts of western Europe because pre-industrial family structures were already mainly nuclear rather than extended

# data[].attributes.headline
Points Against Parson's 'fit thesis' Over Generalisation

# data[].attributes.subject
Points Against Parson's 'fit thesis' Over Generalisation

# data[].attributes.body
Parsons assumes all societies follow 'universal evolution'. Moving from extended families to nuclear families to fit the current post-industrial society.

But...

Nuclear families aren't the dominant family type everywhere! Therefore, this assumption is generalised.

EG: Afghanistan = Extended Patriarchy.

Sudan = Extended.

We can conclude Parson's fit thesis statement that Nuclear Families best fit today's society isn't true for everywhere.