essay on universal family

ReviseSociology

A level sociology revision – education, families, research methods, crime and deviance and more!

The Functionalist Perspective on the Family

Functionalists focus on the positive functions of the nuclear family, such as secondary socialisation and the stabilisation of adult personalities.

Table of Contents

Last Updated on October 4, 2023 by Karl Thompson

Functionalists see the family as one of the essential building blocks for stable societies. They tend to to see the nuclear family as the ideal family for industrial societies and argue that it performs positive functions such as as socialising children and providing emotional security for parents.

There are two main Functionalist theorists of the family: George Peter Murdock and Talcott Parsons.

Murdock argued that the nuclear family was universal and that it performed four essential functions: stabilising the sex drive, reproduction, socialisation of the young and economic production. (Obviously this has been widely criticised!)

Parsons developed the Functional Fit Theory: In pre-industrial society families used to be extended, but with industrialisation families became nuclear because they fitted industrial society better.

The Functionalist Perspective on the Family: Overview

This post covers:

• The Functionalist view of society
• George Peter Murdock’s theory of the universal nuclear family
• Talcott Parsons’ Functional Fit Theory
• The possible positive functions of the family today
• Evaluations and criticisms of the Functionalist view of the family from other perspectives.

The Functionalist View of Society

Functionalists regard society as a system made up of different parts which depend on each other. Different institutions perform specific functions within a society to keep society going, in the same way as the different organs of a human body perform different functions in order to maintain the whole.

Functionalists see the family as a particularly important institution because it as the ‘basic building block’ of society which performs the crucial functions of socialising the young and meeting the emotional needs of its members. Stable families underpin social order and economic stability.

Before you go any further you might like to read this more in depth post ‘ Introduction to Functionalism ‘ post which covers the key ideas of Functionalism.

George Peter Murdock – Four essential functions of the nuclear family

George Murdock was an American Anthropologist who looked at 200 different societies and argued that the nuclear family was a universal feature of all human societies. In other words, the nuclear family is in all societies!

Murdock suggested there were ‘four essential functions’ of the nuclear family:

1. Stable satisfaction of the sex drive – within monogamous relationships, which prevents sexual jealousy. 2. The biological reproduction of the next generation – without which society cannot continue. 3. Socialisation of the young – teaching basic norms and values 4. Meeting its members economic needs – producing food and shelter for example.

Criticisms of Murdock

• Feminist Sociologists argue that arguing that the family is essential is ideological because traditional family structures typically disadvantage women.
• It is feasible that other institutions could perform the functions above.
• Anthropological research has shown that there are some cultures which don’t appear to have ‘families’ – the Nayar for example.

Talcott Parsons –  Functional Fit Theory

Parsons has a historical perspective on the evolution of the nuclear family. His functional fit theory is that as society changes, the type of family that ‘fits’ that society, and the functions it performs change. Over the last 200 years, society has moved from pre-industrial to industrial – and the main family type has changed from the extended family to the nuclear family. The nuclear family fits the more complex industrial society better, but it performs a reduced number of functions.

The extended family consisted of parents, children, grandparents and aunts and uncles living under one roof, or in a collection of houses very close to eachother. Such a large family unit ‘fitted’ pre-industrial society as the family was entirely responsible for the education of children, producing food and caring for the sick – basically it did everything for all its members.

In contrast to pre-industrial society, in industrial society (from the 1800s in the UK) the isolated “nuclear family” consisting of only parents and children becomees the norm. This type of family ‘fits’ industrial societies because it required a mobile workforce. The extended family was too difficult to move when families needed to move to find work to meet the requirements of a rapidly changing and growing economy. Furthermore, there was also less need for the extended family as more and more functions, such as health and education, gradually came to be carried out by the state.

I really like this brief explanation of Parson’s Functional Fit Theory:

Two irreducible functions of the family

According to Parsons, although the nuclear family performs reduced functions, it is still the only institution that can perform two core functions in society – Primary Socialisation and the Stabilisation of Adult Personalities.

Primary Socialisation

The nuclear family is still responsible for teaching children the norms and values of society known as Primary Socialisation.

An important part of socialisation according to Functionalists is ‘gender role socialisation. If primary socialisation is done correctly then boys learn to adopt the ‘instrumental role’ (also known as the ‘breadwinner role) – they go on to go out to work and earns money. Girls learn to adopt the ‘expressive role’ – doing all the ‘caring work’, housework and bringing up the children.

The stabilisation of adult personalities

The stabilisation of adult personalities refers to the emotional security which is achieved within a marital relationship between two adults. According to Parsons working life in Industrial society is stressful and the family is a place where the working man can return and be ‘de-stressed’ by his wife, which reduces conflict in society. This is also known as the ‘warm bath theory’.

Criticisms of Functional Fit Theory

• It’s too ‘neat’ – social change doesn’t happen in such an orderly manner:
• Laslett found that church records show only 10% of households contained extended kin before the industrial revolution. This suggests the family was already nuclear before industrialisation.
• Young and Wilmott found that Extended Kin networks were still strong in East London as late as the 1970s.

The Positive Functions of the Family: A summary

Functionalists identify a number of positive functions of the nuclear family, below is a summary of some of these and a few more.

• The reproduction of the next generation – Functionalists see the nuclear family as the ‘fundamental unit of society’ responsible for carrying that society on by biological reproduction
• Related to the above point one of the main functions is primary socialisation – teaching children the basic norms and values of society.
• This kind of overlaps with the above, but even during secondary socialisation, the family is expected to help educated children alongside the school.
• The family provides psychological security and security, especially for men one might say (as with the ‘warm bath theory’.)
• A further positive function is elderly care, with many families still taking on this responsibility.
• Murdock argued that monogamous relationships provide for a stable satisfaction of the sex drive – most people today still see committed sexual relationships as best.

Criticisms of the Functionalist perspective on the family

It is really important to be able to criticise the perspectives. Evaluation is worth around half of the marks in the exam!

Downplaying Conflict

Both Murdock and Parsons paint a very rosy picture of family life, presenting it as a harmonious and integrated institution. However, they downplay conflict in the family, particularly the ‘darker side’ of family life, such as violence against women and child abuse.

Being out of Date

Parson’s view of the instrumental and expressive roles of men and women is very old-fashioned. It may have held some truth in the 1950s but today, with the majority of women in paid work, and the blurring of gender roles, it seems that both partners are more likely to take on both expressive and instrumental roles

Ignoring the exploitation of women

Functionalists tend to ignore the way women suffer from the sexual division of labour in the family. Even today, women still end up being the primary child carers in 90% of families, and suffer the burden of extra work that this responsibility carries compared to their male partners. Gender roles are socially constructed and usually involve the oppression of women. There are no biological reasons for the functionalist’s view of separation of roles into male breadwinner & female homemaker. These roles lead to the disadvantages being experienced by women.

Functionalism is too deterministic

This means it ignores the fact that children actively create their own personalities. An individual’s personality isn’t pre-determined at birth or something they have no control in. Functionalism incorrectly assumes an almost robotic adoption of society’s values via our parents; clearly there are many examples where this isn’t the case.

A Level Sociology Families and Households Revision Bundle

If you like this sort of thing, then you might like my A-Level Sociology Families and Households Revision Bundle :

The bundle contains the following:

• 50 pages of revision notes covering all of the sub-topics within families and households
• mind maps in pdf and png format – 9 in total, covering perspectives on the family
• short answer exam practice questions and exemplar answers – 3 examples of the 10 mark, ‘outline and explain’ question.
•  9 essays/ essay plans spanning all the topics within the families and households topic.

Signposting and Related Posts

The Functionalist perspective on the family is usually the very first topic taught within the the families and households module.

It is usually followed and critiqued by the Marxist perspective on the family and Feminist Perspectives on the family.

References and Sources for Further Reading

Haralambos and Holborn (2013) – Sociology Themes and Perspectives, Eighth Edition, Collins. ISBN-10: 0007597479

Chapman et al (2015) A Level Sociology Student Book One, Including AS Level [Fourth Edition], Collins. ISBN-10: 0007597479

Robb Webb et al (2015) AQA A Level Sociology Book 1, Napier Press. ISBN-10: 0954007913

Share this:

• Share on Tumblr

29 thoughts on “The Functionalist Perspective on the Family”

Thank you. it was very helpful and easy to understand and not boring at all.

Great stuff, much appreciated

I have use this work to get my marks thanks

Hi yes absolutely!

Yes absolutely – it’s a historical perspective!

This may sound like a stupid question but is all of this information up to date for the 2019-2020 exams?

This may sound like a stupid question but is this up to date for 2019-2020 exams?

You’re welcome!

clear information, thank you so much

thank you very much for this informative piece!

Absolutely banging mate!

YOU. ARE. A. LEGEND! Thank you so much, honestly, this is amazing.

You’re welcome, glad you found it useful!

very helpful!thanks!:)

Such an informative article

so useful thank you!!

Hello! So, in the spotlight of this perspective what would functionalists say about single parent families?

Very useful notes.

You are welcome!

Yes they are very good notes for my revision for my gcse and my mocks

GOOD NOTES THEY ARE VERY UNDERSTANDABLE

Very understanding idea

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed .

Discover more from ReviseSociology

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading

Family Is a Universal Social Institution Essay

Introduction.

In order to evaluate the statement that family is a universal social institution, one has to consider that as social systematic assumptions set off, and family systems theory has exclusive developments. Indeed, family systems theory came forward from a vocation that was more strongly connected to the production and natural science than to human associations. Family theories were drawn from general systems theory (GST), which is a notional point of view presented for clarifying how components of a system work collectively to generate the final result from the different inputs they are provided. Bowen in 1978 developed a systems conjecture of the family that presents an abstract structure for distinguishing the impact of interactions among the family unit, within corporations, and in the social order on human ecology and manners. Bowen’s theory can assist make out factors that blow wellbeing and reconstruction and lead the application of knowledge in ways that are definite to the family and to the rapport of control.

The theory of family Universal Social Institution is based on the graphical depiction of relational familiarity. Examiners and philosophers who analyze the family commonly agree that the values, social restrictions, and activities that influence family formations have changed a large amount over the past twenty years. The aptitude of families to live on these changes advocates that families are supple and that their suppleness is supported by how persons in a family interact. The core objective behind this study is to talk about the theory of family Universal Social Institution that erects on the progressions made in the field of the schematic illustration of relational acquaintance in human cognition and that takes the distinctive family interaction background into contemplation. Universal Social Institution is a sociological perception that studies how human beings and groups interrelate, stressing the formation of individual distinctiveness by means of interaction with others. Moreover, even though many roles of the family have been assigned to other social organizations, families are projected to look after one another and offer caregiving. Whether visualized as a process of building facts equally apparent or of fabricating and keeping definitions of authenticity in interactions (Berger & Kellner, 2004), communication serves a vital role in the family.

Several most prominent works in the area were carried out around the time of the Second World War and are still manipulating the way researchers consider families at present. The past two decades have seen more electrifying new enhancements in the division of family Universal Social Institution that are primarily reforming the mode people consider about family communication. Family Theories add in an extensive scope of intellectual work developed by major communal scientists from a range of disciplines embracing, but not constrained to family investigates, sociology, psychology, civilizations, and women researches. These speculations are either straightforwardly functional to families, or infrequently, a theory is formulated concerning families and then applied to other social frameworks (Klein, 2006).

Some of these hypotheses are reasonably widely well defined, applicable to any sort of family affiliation, configuration, or method. On the other hand, other assumptions perhaps more closely focused, proposed to observe dyadic contacts, such as connubial relationships, parent-sibling associations, or children relationships. Gregor (Family Life), incorporated system theory and Universal Social Institution to observe the family as a classification that generally creates its veracity and proposed five fundamental practices of family communication. The most important concern of these theories is what makes families unusual from each other and what builds them differently. The eventual target of family researchers and family conjectures is to give awareness about families with the optimism that this information will help folks and families show the path towards more satisfying and dynamic lives.

It is repeatedly assumed that there are no creatures in this world, only remains of families. These notions reveal the truth that interactions in the people form the track of human’s whole lives and are carried with them everlastingly. The belief that the most idiosyncratic phases of human behavior are a result of the reality that man alone is a symbol-operating animal–that man has built up traditionalized secret codes which have become structured into speech which, in turn, is the medium for the diffusion of traditions and which provides the chief means for persisting social contact (Gregor, Family Life).

The symbolic form of contact makes essential the method by which ideas are given emblematic or representational natures and the reverse process by which secret language are distinguished and took to mean. The easiest angles on this topic are assorted conventional depictions of communication. Symbolic interactions in a family put forward that the initial unit of examination is the dealings of persons. Examiners discover how individuals perform, act in response, produce sense and convince one another in a cluster setting plus for the interlude they communicate face-to-face, how they build individuality, and how they characterize circumstances of co-existence with others. By means of their interactions, folks generate the symbolic configurations that make existence consequential. Actuality does not require the identification and explanations of entities, but rather people should delineate things and compose them evocative so as to construct them valid in a social context. By way of interaction, one can create arrangements that numerous social actors practice and realize in equivalent approaches: this is how “humanity” is fashioned. This theory permits investigators to identify how individuals confer, operate, and modify the structure and veracity to a certain level. Family Universal Social Institution alleges to be exceedingly experimental: it is about actions and things that people can, in reality, perceive happening.

Families are predisposed by social interactions to such an extent that every interface results in a transform in standpoint, anticipations, and restrictions of upcoming interaction. Therefore, change is a dynamic feature of society. Individuals who survive and carry out something shape family; in fact family is for all time in course of being formed. The group foundations so valued by practical sociologists are simply human designs for the symbolic interactionist. An imperative element of the interaction perception is the worth of symbolic communication.

Griffin (2007) deems that the interaction that goes on between affiliates of a family ensue using symbols and the s ymbols are something that can vividly signify something else. Studies summarized three key rules of Universal Social Institution. These were meaning, words and notion. Interaction on a daily basis occupies the self-perception and distinctiveness that is created in a person’s dealings with the kin. As a consequence, a creature forms commanding ideas of authority and governance, age, sexual category, and customs. Every one of these subjects has an effect on a being’s interaction with the remaining folks of family. The Universal Social Institution strategy looks into how people interact and understand theirs and further people’s deeds. Their interactions within a reference faction such as family will define the mores, convictions, and actions of the crowd and thus the consequences of entity actions will be considered in the bigger communal group.

In conclusion, speculations concerning the family are constructive to facilitating experts and social strategy believers. It supplies sufficient information to perk up human services for cliques and kinfolk. As well, family system hypotheses are also exercised to direct and enlighten social procedures. Universal Social Institution does not assert whether individuals’ change and renovate their meanings by energetically looking for concord with others or do they attach in argument to be successful and have their approach. In conclusion, the symbolic family Universal Social Institution is an invigorating and beneficial force.

Berger, P. & Kellner, H. (2004), “Marriage and the construction of reality: An exercise in the micro-sociology of knowledge”, the psychosocial interior of the family (4th Ed), pp. 19-21.

Bowen, M. (1978), Family Therapy in Clinical Practice.

Chaffee, S. H. (1972), The construction of social reality, In J. Tedeschi (Ed.), The social influence process, Chicago, IL: Aldine-Atherton, pp. 50-52.

Fitzpatrick, M. A., & Vangelisti, A. L. (Eds.). (2005), Explaining Family Interactions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Griffin, E. (2007), A First Look at Communication Theory. New York: The McGraw-Hill Companies.

Klein, D. M. (2006), “ Family theories: An introduction”, Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

LaRossa, R. and Steinmetz, S. K., (2003), Sourcebook of family theories and methods: A contextual approach. New York: Plenum Press, pp.565-67.

Gregor MClean, Allanah Ryan & Paul Spoonley, Sociology for New Zealand students (2nd edition) , Chapter 5, family life.

• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2021, October 12). Family Is a Universal Social Institution. https://ivypanda.com/essays/family-is-a-universal-social-institution/

"Family Is a Universal Social Institution." IvyPanda , 12 Oct. 2021, ivypanda.com/essays/family-is-a-universal-social-institution/.

IvyPanda . (2021) 'Family Is a Universal Social Institution'. 12 October.

IvyPanda . 2021. "Family Is a Universal Social Institution." October 12, 2021. https://ivypanda.com/essays/family-is-a-universal-social-institution/.

1. IvyPanda . "Family Is a Universal Social Institution." October 12, 2021. https://ivypanda.com/essays/family-is-a-universal-social-institution/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Family Is a Universal Social Institution." October 12, 2021. https://ivypanda.com/essays/family-is-a-universal-social-institution/.

• Bowen family system theory
• Bowen Family Systems Theory - Psychology
• Fraud Examiners and the Panama Papers
• Ethics in "The Parable of the Sadhu" by Bowen McCoy
• The Role of Sexual Assault Nurse Examiners
• Real-Life Case Analysis Using the Bowen Approach
• The Association of Certified Fraud Examiners
• “The Parable of the Sadhu” by Bowen H. McCoy
• First-Person Narrative in Bowen's ”The Demon Lover,” Updike's ”A&P,” Fitzgerald's ”The Great Gatsby”
• Tracking Criminal Activity: Operating System Forensics
• Sociology. Political Spectrum and Range of Attitudes
• Sociology. Primary and Secondary Groups' Differences
• Objectivity Is Essential for Sociological Research
• Guilt, Alienation, and Sin in The Minister's Black Veil
• State and Its Role Within Society

• school Campus Bookshelves
• menu_book Bookshelves
• perm_media Learning Objects
• login Login
• how_to_reg Request Instructor Account
• hub Instructor Commons
• Download Page (PDF)
• Download Full Book (PDF)
• Periodic Table
• Physics Constants
• Scientific Calculator
• Reference & Cite
• Tools expand_more
• Readability

selected template will load here

This action is not available.

11.3: Sociological Perspectives on the Family

• Last updated
• Save as PDF
• Page ID 2076

Learning Objectives

• Summarize understandings of the family as presented by functional, conflict, and social interactionist theories.

Sociological views on today’s families generally fall into the functional, conflict, and social interactionist approaches introduced earlier in this book. Let’s review these views, which are summarized in Table 11.1.

Table 11.1 Theory Snapshot

Social Functions of the Family

Recall that the functional perspective emphasizes that social institutions perform several important functions to help preserve social stability and otherwise keep a society working. A functional understanding of the family thus stresses the ways in which the family as a social institution helps make society possible. As such, the family performs several important functions.

First, the family is the primary unit for socializing children . As previous chapters indicated, no society is possible without adequate socialization of its young. In most societies, the family is the major unit in which socialization happens. Parents, siblings, and, if the family is extended rather than nuclear, other relatives all help to socialize children from the time they are born.

Figure 11.3

One of the most important functions of the family is the socialization of children. In most societies the family is the major unit through which socialization occurs.

© Thinkstock

Second, the family is ideally a major source of practical and emotional support for its members. It provides them food, clothing, shelter, and other essentials, and it also provides them love, comfort, help in times of emotional distress, and other types of intangible support that we all need.

Third, the family helps regulate sexual activity and sexual reproduction . All societies have norms governing with whom and how often a person should have sex. The family is the major unit for teaching these norms and the major unit through which sexual reproduction occurs. One reason for this is to ensure that infants have adequate emotional and practical care when they are born. The incest taboo that most societies have, which prohibits sex between certain relatives, helps to minimize conflict within the family if sex occurred among its members and to establish social ties among different families and thus among society as a whole.

Fourth, the family provides its members with a social identity . Children are born into their parents’ social class, race and ethnicity, religion, and so forth. As we have seen in earlier chapters, social identity is important for our life chances. Some children have advantages throughout life because of the social identity they acquire from their parents, while others face many obstacles because the social class or race and ethnicity into which they are born is at the bottom of the social hierarchy.

Beyond discussing the family’s functions, the functional perspective on the family maintains that sudden or far-reaching changes in conventional family structure and processes threaten the family’s stability and thus that of society. For example, most sociology and marriage-and-family textbooks during the 1950s maintained that the male breadwinner–female homemaker nuclear family was the best arrangement for children, as it provided for a family’s economic and child-rearing needs. Any shift in this arrangement, they warned, would harm children and by extension the family as a social institution and even society itself. Textbooks no longer contain this warning, but many conservative observers continue to worry about the impact on children of working mothers and one-parent families. We return to their concerns shortly.

The Family and Conflict

Conflict theorists agree that the family serves the important functions just listed, but they also point to problems within the family that the functional perspective minimizes or overlooks altogether.

First, the family as a social institution contributes to social inequality in several ways. The social identity it gives to its children does affect their life chances, but it also reinforces a society’s system of stratification. Because families pass along their wealth to their children, and because families differ greatly in the amount of wealth they have, the family helps reinforce existing inequality. As it developed through the centuries, and especially during industrialization, the family also became more and more of a patriarchal unit (see earlier discussion), helping to ensure men’s status at the top of the social hierarchy.

Second, the family can also be a source of conflict for its own members. Although the functional perspective assumes the family provides its members emotional comfort and support, many families do just the opposite and are far from the harmonious, happy groups depicted in the 1950s television shows. Instead, and as the news story that began this chapter tragically illustrated, they argue, shout, and use emotional cruelty and physical violence. We return to family violence later in this chapter.

Families and Social Interaction

Social interactionist perspectives on the family examine how family members and intimate couples interact on a daily basis and arrive at shared understandings of their situations. Studies grounded in social interactionism give us a keen understanding of how and why families operate the way they do.

Some studies, for example, focus on how husbands and wives communicate and the degree to which they communicate successfully (Tannen, 2001).Tannen, D. (2001). You just don’t understand: Women and men in conversation . New York, NY: Quill. A classic study by Mirra Komarovsky (1964)Komarovsky, M. (1964). Blue-collar marriage . New York, NY: Random House. found that wives in blue-collar marriages liked to talk with their husbands about problems they were having, while husbands tended to be quiet when problems occurred. Such gender differences seem less common in middle-class families, where men are better educated and more emotionally expressive than their working-class counterparts. Another classic study by Lillian Rubin (1976)Rubin, L. B. (1976). Worlds of pain: Life in the working-class family . New York, NY: Basic Books. found that wives in middle-class families say that ideal husbands are ones who communicate well and share their feelings, while wives in working-class families are more apt to say that ideal husbands are ones who do not drink too much and who go to work every day.

Other studies explore the role played by romantic love in courtship and marriage. Romantic love , the feeling of deep emotional and sexual passion for someone, is the basis for many American marriages and dating relationships, but it is actually uncommon in many parts of the contemporary world today and in many of the societies anthropologists and historians have studied. In these societies, marriages are arranged by parents and other kin for economic reasons or to build alliances, and young people are simply expected to marry whoever is chosen for them. This is the situation today in parts of India, Pakistan, and other developing nations and was the norm for much of the Western world until the late 18th and early 19th centuries (Lystra, 1989).Lystra, K. (1989). Searching the heart: Women, men, and romantic love in nineteenth-century America . New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

• The family ideally serves several functions for society. It socializes children, provides practical and emotional support for its members, regulates sexual reproduction, and provides its members with a social identity.
• Reflecting conflict theory’s emphases, the family may also produce several problems. In particular, it may contribute for several reasons to social inequality, and it may subject its members to violence, arguments, and other forms of conflict.
• Social interactionist understandings of the family emphasize how family members interact on a daily basis. In this regard, several studies find that husbands and wives communicate differently in certain ways that sometimes impede effective communication.

For Your Review

• As you think how best to understand the family, do you favor the views and assumptions of functional theory, conflict theory, or social interactionist theory? Explain your answer.
• Do you think the family continues to serve the function of regulating sexual behavior and sexual reproduction? Why or why not?

Self Study for Anthropology

A part of selfstudyhistory.com

I.2.4 Family- universality

The problem of giving the universal definition of the family is very old issue in anthropology. Family and consequently the institution of marriage exists in every society but with varied meaning. For this reason the variation in the family is very wide. There is a diversity of views on the definition on the type of family that constitutes the universal category of family.

Ralph Linton (1936) stated that the consanguinal family is universal, that the nuclear family as such does not exist by itself and that it is only a part of a larger family namely, the consanguinal family. He stressed that the cosanguinal bond is more important than the conjugal bond.

G.P.Murdock (1949) examined a sample of 250 societies and found three distinct forms of the family as he defined it: “some societies had only nuclear families, each consisting of married couple and their offspring; in others, there were also polygamous families containing two or more nuclear units affiliated by plural marriage; and still others contained extended families in which two or more nuclear families are affiliated through an extension of sibling relationship”.

Murdock concluded that the nuclear family exists as “a social group characterized by common residential, economic co-operation and reproduction. It includes adults of both sexes at least two or whom maintain a socially approved- sexual relationship and one or more children, own or adopted of the sexually ephabitming adults’’. a distinct and strongly functional group in every society, and that it is universal because everywhere it performs four functions essential to human life: a sexual function, a reproductive function, an economic function and an educational or enculturating function.

W. N. Stephens identified following shortcomings of Murdock’s propositions about the universality of the family.

• First shortcomings with Murdock’s definition – its requirement that there be common residence for members of the nuclear family. This forces us to exclude several cases like Ashanti, in which husband and wife live separately.

The Ashantis of Ghana had a system of duo-local residence. , where husband and wife will be staying separately. Children eat with their father but stay with their mother. The wife visits her husband occasionally in the night. In the Ashanti system succession is matrilineal. The children inherit property from their mother’s brother who plays a very important role. He is like a sociological father. A woman values her relationship with her brother more than the relationship with her husband, amongst the Ashantis. Therefore, marital lies are of no great consequence either for the wife or for the children. The Nair family of Kerala (Kathlean Gough) can also be quoted as an alternative form of family where the husband -wife relationship either does not exist or is only symbolic. Women alter they undergo a ritual marriage (thaliketu kalyanam) before puberty but after attaining puberty, they were allowed to have sexual liaison or affairs with men from within the Nair caste in the village through whom they could even have children and these children were given legitimate status. The Nair household consisted of the mother, her married and unmarried daughters and sons. The mother’s brother played a very important role in the affairs ofthe Nair family-(Tarawad).

The example of the Ashanti and Nair family systems go to prove that the nuclear family is not universal nor for that matter, common residence is a necessary condition for the definition of family. However, one must keep in mind that the Nair matriarchal system has more or less completely changed and today the Nair family fits into the conventional Indian patrilineal family. Due to social reform movements among the Nair’s the practice of Thalikattu marriages and polyandrous relations have ended. Even Ghana is going through a process of change where Ashantis are shifting to common residence under the impact of urbanization and industrialization. In instances like Nyakyusa, children live apart from their parents.

2. The second shortcoming – its requirements that there be sexual function for the formation of nuclear family. There are societies like Onatoa and Trukes, in which pre-marital sexual license is allowed. In some cases, like Eskimos, sexual relations are employed to reinforce conjugal relations.

3. The third shortcoming – it’s requirement that there be economic co-operation with members of a nuclear family. The economic function is carried out by the large family, and then other responsibilities vest with the nuclear family only.

4. The fourth shortcoming – it’s requirement that there be reproductive socializing function of the nuclear family. Marian J. Levy and L.A, Fallen; proved that there are many agencies, which perform this function. There are no married couples that constitute a legal productive, distributive, residential, socializing or consuming unit. In short, there are functions that Murdock suggests as essential to the nuclear family.

Murdock admitted that there are exceptions to the propositions he has made. There may be societies that defy the existence of nuclear family. Me mentioned about the Nayars. Gough spoke at length about the Nayars and said that Nayars have the marriage and the extended family. In no sense of Murdock’s proposition regarding the structure of the nuclear family, could the Nayars be said to have a typical nuclear family. The matrilinical l tribes of India like the Khasi and Garo also do not have nuclear families in the sense that Murdock has used it.

The presence of matri-focal families in Caribbean societies also disputes the universality hypothesis. Almost 37% of the families in British Guyana, 30% of the families in Guatemala and 40% of the families in Paraguay are main local families (Smith & Hutchinson).

Reasons for matrifocal families

• Poverty and economic inability of the husband to give ritual feast for legitimising marriage. ( W.J. Goode)
• Prevalence of polygyny in Negroes due to their origin in West Africa. Husband cannot live with all his wives at a time. (Herskovits)
• Institution of slavery, where slaves work away from home and masters have sexual access to their wives. (M.G. Smith)

Experiments made with alternative to family in Russia and Israel also support the view that family is universal.

• The Kol-Khoz experiment carried out in Soviet Union after the Russian Revolution did not generate any great enthusiasm and, in fact, was a failure .The Bolsheviks, were not in favour of continuing with the conventional pre-revolutionary family system, which they thought was the greatest supporter of conservatism and inequality. In the Kol-Khoz, men and women were allowed to have children but were not allowed to pass on anything tp them. The children were separated at an early age and were brought up by the Kol-Khoz. But this experiment of collectivization did not succeed much and the authorities had to give up the experiment.
• In Israel, Kibbutzim as an alternative to the family has had a very limited degree of success. Only just about 4% of the population in Israel lives in Kibbutzim. In fact, hardly any middle class families live in Kibbutz. (a) Monogamous marriage and shared residence for husband and wife. (b) Dormitories for the children. (c) Children ere allowed to visit their parents only for an hour or two every day. (d) Parents have little to do with the education of their children. (e) No economic cooperation or sharing of house-hold duties between husband and wife. They work for the Kibbutzim. (f) Common cooking and dining. (g) The economic needs of the members are taken care by the Kibbutzim.
• Some of the communes in the United States also are to be treated as alternative experiments to the family. The Amish, Hutterites and Druckers, Shakers etc. live in communes. But, again, these communes are confined only to a very small and negligible percentage of the population.

Melford Spiro (1959) said that in Kibbutz children are not brought up by parents. So was the case in Chinese communes, Soviet communes and Shaker society. These eases also defy the universal hypothesis. Adams emphasized that conjugal dyad and maternal dyad are of crucial importance in considering the nuclear family. Others say that the problem of definition the family and nuclear family as universal body has by no means been resolved to the satisfaction of all.

Radcliffc Brown stated that rather than arguing about the universal form of family, we should study units of all kinship systems- whether small or large. The mother-child unit forms an independent sub-group even in those societies which have large families or extended families or what others would call domestic groups.

The debate on the universality of the family depends on the definition of the term family. If the term family includes the husband-wife- children unit i.e. . the nuclear family, then there are a number of cross-cultural evidences to show that this form of family is not universal.

Kathleen Gough-  what is universal is mother-child unit and the only universal function of this universal unit is primary socialization. Gough contends that to call family universal we should revisit various definitions of family to include larger and smaller kin groups such as matrifocal families, paternal dyads etc.

Nuclear family is not universal due to many exceptions to it but family is universal although different forms of it may exist for which we should revisit definition of marriage. Hence we can conclude that the family is a universal social group till it is not confined its definition to the conventional wife-husband-children unit.

Share this:

Self study for upsc, related articles.

I.5.7 magico- religious functionaries- Shaman

I.1.5 Primate taxonomy- 2

I.2.5 Kinship terminology (descriptive and classificatory);

Leave a reply cancel reply, discover more from self study for anthropology.

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Type your email…

Continue reading

• TOP CATEGORIES
• AS and A Level
• University Degree
• International Baccalaureate
• Uncategorised
• 5 Star Essays
• Study Tools
• Study Guides
• Meet the Team
• Family & Marriage

Examine the view that the nuclear family is universal. (24)

Georgina McDonald

Examine the view that the nuclear family is universal. 24

The nuclear family is one which is often described as a household, of two parents and their dependent children. This is a view widely accepted by many sociologists, but they also argue that this may or may not be the universal family that all societies base their norms around. George Murdock, claims that this is true and that this type of nuclear family is universal and accepted by all as the ‘right’ type of family, however other sociologists specifically, Kathleen Gough, reject this claim and say that there are societies that are an exception to the rule.

George Murdock in 1949 stated that the nuclear family was universal, this was based on his sample of 250 societies, ranging from small hunting and gathering bands to large-scale industrial societies. Murdock’s definition of the family is that it is “a social group characterised by common residence, economic, cooperation and reproduction. It includes adults of both sexes, at least two of whom maintain a socially approved sexual relationship, and one or more children, own or adopted of the sexually cohabitating adults”, this Murdock claimed was the nuclear family that existed in every society, and this family had four main functions. Murdock says that this family performs four functions essential to the continued existence of society; the first function according to Murdock was the reproductive function where society requires new members to ensure its survival, this is seen in procreation, which occurs within a martial and family context. The second function is a sexual function, which serves both society and the individual. Unregulated sexual behaviour has the potential to be socially disruptive, according to Murdock. However, marital sex, as said by Murdock, creates a powerful emotional bond between couple, encourages fidelity and therefore commits the individual to family life. Sex within marriage contributes to social order and stability because marital fidelity sets the moral for general sexual behaviour which is the view maintained by Murdock. The third function is the educational function, as indicated by Murdock, who says that culture needs to be transmitted to the next generation, so children need to be effectively socialized into the dominant values, norms, customs, rituals etc, of a society. This for Murdock is the main function of the family. The fourth function of the family is the economic function where the adult family members show their commitment to the care, protection and maintenance of their dependents by becoming productive workers and bringing home an income. For Murdock this underpins the family standard of living with regard to shelter or housing, food and quality of care. It also benefits society because it is assumed without question that family members should take their place in the economy and the division of labour as specialized wage-earners, thereby contributing to the smooth running of the economy and society. From his research, Murdock concluded that “the nuclear family is a universal human social grouping. Either as a sole prevailing form of the family or as the basic unit from which more complex forms are compounded, it exists as a distinct and strongly functional group in every known society. Interpretivists sociologists however argue that Murdock fails to acknowledge that families are the product of culture rather than biology, and that, consequently, family relationships and roles will take different forms even within the same society, for example, a range of different attitudes towards bringing up children can be seen in the UK which have their roots in different religious beliefs, access to economic opportunity and belief in particular child psychology approaches.  Murdock’s definition of the family and its functions is also quiet conservative in that it deprives certain members of society of family status; it implies that certain types of parenting – single, foster, homosexual and surrogate. This is the main criticism of Murdock, that his views are based on political views, that there are ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ ways to organise families.

This is a preview of the whole essay

Kathleen Gough’s study of the Nayar Family is an exception to Murdock’s view that the nuclear family is universal. The ritual of marriage within the Nayar community was one that required no obligation on the part of the two involved. Before puberty, a Nayar girl was promised to a tail husband, although the husband and wife did not live together and did not even have to see each other after the ritual, although the wife would have to mourn the death of her tail husband on his death, which was the only obligation in the marriage. After puberty, the Nayar girl began taking visiting husbands, often warriors who spent long period of time away from their villages acting as mercenaries. During their time in the village they were allowed to visit any number of Nayar women who had undergone the tail rite and were members of the same caste or lower. The Nayar women could have a total of 12 men visiting them. In terms of Murdock’s view, no family existed in Nayar society, since those who maintained ‘a sexually approved adult relationship’ did not live together and cooperate economically. There are three main ways the Nayar community are unlike the traditional nuclear family that Murdock claims is universal. One way is that the marriage was not a lifelong union: either party could terminate the relationship at any time. Also the visiting husbands had no duty towards the offspring of their wives. When a woman became pregnant, it was essential according to Nayar custom that a man of appropriate caste declared himself to be the father of the child by paying a fee of cloth and vegetables to the midwife who attended the birth. However it mattered little whether he was the biological parent or not, as long as someone claimed to be the father, because he did not help to maintain or socialise the child. The final way this type of family rejects the claim that the nuclear family is universal is that the husbands and wives did not form an economic unit. Although husbands might give wives token gifts, they were not expected to maintain them, it was even frowned upon if they attempted to. Instead, the economic unit consisted of a number of brother and sisters, sister’s children and their daughter’s children. The eldest male was the leader of each group of kin. Gough claimed marriage and the family existed in the Nayar society. In order to make this claim, the definition of a family would have to be broadened and would reject the claim of Murdock, that there is one nuclear traditional family that is universal. Gough defined marriage as a relationship between a woman and one or more persons in which a child born to the woman ‘is given full birth-status rights’ common to normal members of society.

Murdock’s definition of the family includes at least one adult of each sex. However, both today and in the past, some children have been realised in households that do not contain adults of both sexes, where the household is usually headed by women, in matrifocal families. This is usually seen in a proportion of families in the islands of the West Indies and parts of Central America such as Guyana and the USA do not include males. The ‘family unit’ often consists of a woman and her dependent children, with the addition sometimes of a grandmother. This shows that Murdock’s claim of a universal nuclear family is not true and that there may not be a definite definition of a family, which is universal. Supporters of Murdock however would argue that the matrifocal family usually makes up a minority of families and is not regarded as the norm in any of the societies in the USA or Guyana. In addition matrifocal families could be seen as the result of nuclear families breaking down rather than being an alternative family form which is valued and which people aspire to. However, even if matrifocal families are in the minority, this does not necessarily mean that they cannot be recognized as an alternative family structure. In many societies that practise polygyny, polynous marriages are in the minority, yet sociologists accept them as a form of extended family. Members of matrifocal families regard the unit as a family and, from her West Indian data; Gonzáles (1970) argues that the female-headed family is a well-organised social group which represents a positive adaptation to the circumstances of poverty. By not tying herself to a husband, the mother is able to maintain casual relationships with a number of men who can provide her with financial support. She retains strong links with her relatives who give her both economic and emotional support. This argument suggests that matrifocal families can be regarded as a form of family structure in its own right. If this argument is accepted, it is possible to see the matrifocal family as the basic, minimum family unit and other family structures as additions to this unit. This view is supported by Ynina Sheeran. She argues the female-carer core is the most basic family unit. “The female-carer unit is the foundation of the single-mother family, the two-parent family, and the extended family in its many forms. Thus it is certainly the basis of family household life in Britain today and is a ubiquitous phenomenon, since even in South Pacific longhouses, pore-industrial farmsteads communed and kibbutzim, we know that female carers per-dominate” (Sheeran 1993). In Britain, for example Sheeran maintains that children usually have one woman who is primarily responsible for their care. These primary carers are often but not always the biological mother; they may occassionally be a grandmother, elder sister, aunt, adoptive mother or other female. However she admits herself that in Britain a small minority of lone-parent households are headed by a man. Thus it is possible to argue that the female-Carer core is not the basis of every individual family, even if it is the basis of most families in all societies.

Another type of household that may contradict Murdock’s claims about the universality of the family as defined by him is the gay or lesbian household. By definition, such households will not contain adults of both sexes; at least two of whom maintain a ‘socially approved sexual relationship’ (Murdock 1949). Such households may, however, include children who are cared for by two adult females or two adult males. The children may be been adopted, be the result of a previous heterosexual relationship, or they may have been produced using new reproductive technologies involving sperm donation or surrogate motherhood. A lesbian may have sex with a man in order to conceive a child to be raised by her and her female partner. Most children of gay couples result from a previous heterosexual relationship. Lesbian mothers are rather more common than gay fathers, due to the difficulties gay men are likely to have in being granted custody or adopting children. However, Mukti, Jain Campion quotes a study which claims that one in 1,000 children were born to gay or lesbian couples in San Francisco between 1985 and 1990, and that there were many more people living with gay partners who has conceived children in heterosexual relationships. Thus, while households consisting of gay partners and one or more children may not be very common, they do exist. This raises the question of whether such households should be regarded as families. Rather like lone-parent families, households with gay parentage are seen as not being ‘proper’ families, especially by those who believe in New Right. In most western societies, the gay couples will not be able to marry and any children will have a genetic connection with only one of the parents. However, Sidney Callahan (1997) argues such households should still be seen as families. He claims that, if marriage was available, which it is now with the civil partnership Act of 2004, many gay and lesbian couples would marry. Callahan therefore claims gay and lesbian households with children should be regarded as a type of family, at least where the gay or lesbian relationships is intended to be permanent. He concludes “I would argue that gay or lesbian households that consist of intimate communities of mutual support and that display permanent shared commitments to intergrational nurturing share the kinship bonding we observe and name as family”

In conclusion whether the family is regarded as universal ultimately depends on the definition of the family. This is seen through the vast majority of variation within families in society and domestic arrangements that are accepted within societies. Diana Gittins (1993) says “Relationships are universal, so is some form of co-residence, of intimacy, sexuality and emotional bonds. But the forms these can take are infinitely variable and can be changes and challenged as well as embraced”. From this we can take the view that it may be pointless to define such a diverse institution as the family, as any relationship can reasonably be called a family.

Document Details

• Word Count 2171
• Page Count 4
• Level AS and A Level
• Subject Sociology

Related Essays

Evaluate Murdocks view that the nuclear family is universal

Examine the View that the Family is a Universal Institution

Using item A and other sources of information, examine the suggestion that...

Outline and discuss the view that the nuclear family is the ideal family

Psychology Discussion

Essay on family: definition, function, social systems and changes | psychology.

ADVERTISEMENTS:

Essay on ‘Family’ for class 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12. Find paragraphs, long and short essays on ‘Family’ especially written for school and college students.

Essay on Family

Essay # 1. definition of family:.

It is a well-known fact that family is found everywhere and it is concomitant with group life. Society and State derive from a circle of intermarrying families banded together to satisfy their basic needs. Sociologically and historically, the family may be viewed as a group consisting of two or more parents and their children.

Such a view suggests itself because there have been great variations in the number of parties entering into the marriage union. Although the family is universal, no particular form of it is primary or inevitable. Like all other institutions, it is a social product subject to change and modification.

In response to varying conditions, different forms of the family have appeared from time to time. But in the present day world Patriarchal family organised under the system of monogamy is most prevalent institution. In such a kill-group that it is both an association and institution and very essential to the life of society.

Essay # 2. Function of Family:

It is an open secret that family plays an important role in the life of society. There is no other human group that dominates the life of the individuals, more than family. It is in the light of this hard fact that, Maciver says, “Of all the organizations, large or small, which society unfolds, none transcends the family in the intensity of its sociological significance. It influences the whole life of society in innumerable ways, and its changes, reverberate through the whole social structure. It is capable of endless variation and yet reveals a remarkable continuity und persistence through change.”

The family occupies a vital place in the working of social order and it is so because it performs certain characteristically significant functions. Davis has characterized the main social functions of the family in four divisions. These are reproduction, maintenance, placement and socialization of the young. It also performs individual functions but these are the corollary of its social functions.

However, Davis has said, “From a sociological point of view we are mainly concerned with the social functions and consequently we stress the four functions mentioned here as being the core functions with which the family is always and everywhere concerned. There may be great variation from one society to another in the precise manner and degree of fulfilment of the functions, but the four mentioned above seem to be the ones which universally require a family organization.”

Lundberg has also mentioned a number of basic functions of the family. In them he has included the regulation of sexual behaviour and reproduction, care and training of children, co-operation and division of labour and primary group satisfactions. Besides, there are many auxiliary functions as well.

Maciver divides the functions of the family into two categories. They are the essential and non-essential functions of the family. Under the essential he includes three functions- (i) Stable satisfaction of sex need, (ii) Production and rearing of children, and (iii) Provision of a home. Under the non­essential functions he mentions religious, educational, economic, health and recreation, which he says have now been transferred to specialized agencies in society.

In short, the various functions of the family can be mentioned in the following way:

1. Essential Functions of Family:

The essential functions of the family are those functions, which it has to perform exclusively. They can neither be shared with any other group nor can they be delegated to any other association. They are the functions, which in every age and in any form the family must perform and there can be no deviation from them.

Some of them are:

(i) Satisfaction of sex need

(ii) Provision of a home

(iii) Production and rearing of children.

They are in a way the primary functions of the family, for the doing of which some sort of family group has ever to remain in existence.

This fact is aptly testified by Reuben Hill in these words, “Family life is probably more than a social habit. The family may be viewed as a device for solving certain fundamental problem, which must be faced by any group of people who live and work together in a society. As a problem-solving device it has simplified the social life of many of its members. Through it sex partners are sorted out and their sex drives are harnessed and linked with the love sentiments to weld together conjugal units into which children can be born, cared for and reared to adulthood. Within it all the basic elemental needs are met and kept from becoming individual problems, which if left unsolved might demand collective action. It simplifies life to live in a family and that is true for adults as well as for children. Certain basic needs of affection, intimate response, recognition, personality, expression, growth and security are met through the family which are not met satisfactorily elsewhere.”

In view of these facts the important essential functions of the family can be explained in some detail in the following manner:

(i) Satisfaction of Sex Need:

This is the first essential function, which the family performs. Satisfaction of sex instinct brings the desire for life-long partnership among male and female. The satisfaction of sex instinct makes for normal personality. If sex instinct is suppressed, it may produce personality maladjustments and disrupt social relations.

The modern family can satisfy this instinct in greater degree and in a better way than the traditional family. In the old family the sexual act was combined with reproduction and the fear of pregnancy as a result of intercourse prevented the couple to satisfy their sex urge. But in modern family the task of sexual satisfaction has been eased by the invention of contraceptives and other methods of birth-control.

It has now become a primary function of the modern family. According to Reed, “The fundamental function of the family is to regulate and gratify sexual needs. Manu accepts sexual satisfaction besides production as the aim of family. Vatsyayan also regards sexual satisfaction as the primary objective of the family.

(ii) Provision of Home:

The desire for a home is a powerful incentive for men as well as women after marriage. Man after the hard toil of the day returns home where in the midst of his wife and children he sheds off his fatigue.

Though, in modern times there are hotels and clubs which also provide recreation to the man but the joy that a man feels within the congenial circle of women, parents and children stands far above the momentary pleasure, which is provided by club and hotel. In spite of these re-creative agencies the home is still the heaven and sanctuary where its members find comfort and affection.

(iii) Production and Rearing of Children:

The inevitable result of sexual satisfaction is procreation. The task on race perpetuation has always been an important function of the family. It is an institution par excellence for the production and rearing of children. The function of child-rearing is better performed today than in the past because now more skill and knowledge are devoted to the care of the unborn and new-born children.

The infant death rate has shown a market declare. In the achievement of this result specialized agencies like nursing child welfare centres have come to the aid of the family. A close study of the available statistical data reveals that the number of illegitimate children is falling down, the practice of prostitution is vanishing away and the number of marriages is increasing rapidly.

It is a pointer to the fact that the function of procreation of race is only performed through family. In most human societies of the world the child is believed to be the nucleus of the family. Procreation perpetuates the family. It increases the population of the country.

(iv) Protection and Care of the Young:

It is another essential function of the family and it may be said to be a corollary of its sexual and procreative functions. According to Groves the protection and care of children is one necessary function of the family. The human child is the most helpless and weak being. A family is needed in order to maintain its existence and to ensure its coordinated and balanced development.

Its balanced development is achieved with difficulty and that too with the care of the parents and other family members. It is right that in the modern age this function of the family is losing much of its past significance and it is being handed over to the subsidiary agencies. But all the same it still continues to be one of the essential functions of the family and the Indian families are particularly known for this function.

(v) Provision of Psychological Satisfaction and Security :

Another fundamental and universal function of the family is to meet the psychological needs of its members. Ogburn has included affectional functions in the necessary or vital functions of the family. According to Groves it is the functions of the family to provide opportunities for the establishment of intimate relations.

Burgess and Lock have written, “Mutual affection is becoming the essential basis of marriage and family:” The individual receives affection, sympathy, love and psychological security in the family. The relations between man and woman in the family are not exclusively physical. Profound conjugal affection for each other is generated in husband and wife by working together in the family and by sharing each other’s joys and sorrows.

An all-around development of individual is not possible in the absence of family love. The family has an important part to play especially in the development of the child’s personality. Ralph Linton has written that merely the satisfaction of bodily needs is not sufficient for the proper development of the infant.

2. Non-Essential Functions of the Family :

The non-essential functions of the family are those functions which it performed in the traditional society but which it is giving up one by one in the modern times. These functions are being either delegated to the subsidiary agencies or they can be shared with other groups.

They are no longer the exclusive function of the family but still in some societies the family is associated with them in some form or the other. The Indian society is one such example where the family despite so many modifications and being placed under limits has been laying its claims on the so-called non-essential functions along with the essential functions.

Some of the non­essential functions of the family can be enumerated in the following order:

i. An Economic Unit:

A very important non-essential function of the family is that it serves as an economic unit. In the traditional family most of the goods for consumption were made at home. The members of the family were all engaged in the family occupation. The ancient Hindu joint family served as a sort of mutual insurance society. It was a unit of production and the centre of economic activities.

However, in the present time the importance of family as an economic unit has been lessened because most of its economic activities have been taken over by some outside agencies. The members of the modern family do not work together as they did in the old family.

They are engaged in different activities outside the come. Moreover the family has not even remained the unit of production as most the goods for consumption including even the food are purchased ready-made from the market.

But with all these shifts in the family as an economic unit, it has not been reduced to a passive body. This is to say that the old pattern has not been destroyed, it has been merely changed. In the family one or the other profession is still carried on though of a different sort and in a different atmosphere. In the West the family might have lost much of its role as an economic unit but in India it still to a certain extent continues to perform this traditional function.

ii. Centre of Religious Activities:

Another non-essential function, which the family performs is of a religious character. It is a centre for the religious training of the children who learn from their parents various religious virtues. In the old family, different religious practices like idol worship, yagya, religious discourses and sermons by pandits were carried on which made the outlook of the children religious in India. The modern family, however, does not observe religious practices and has become secular in outlook.

iii. Centre of Education:

One more function performed in the family is the education of children. The family is an important education agency. The child learns the first letters under the guidance of parents though today he learns them in a nursery-school. The traditional family was the centre of vocational education because the children from the early childhood were associated with the family task.

The modern family has delegated the task of vocational education to technical institutes and colleges. But despite all this the role of the family as a center of education has not vanished completely and in a somewhat modified form it still continues to perform some of the educational functions.

For instance, it is even now in and through family that the people learn their social habits and moral virtues. It is in no way an in significant function for which the Indian families are conspicuously known and popular.

iv. Guardian of Culture:

The family keeps the culture of society, alive. It moulds its members according to the social culture. The children are educated in the various aspects of culture from their infancy. The family creates such an environment for them that they learn to live and behave in acccordance with their culture.

The elderly members of the family impart training in matters of conduct, thinking religion and ethics etc. to the children. The family is aptly described as the maker and guardian of Culture.

v. Centre of Recreation:

The old family provided recreation to its members. They used to sing and dance together and visit the family relations. In modern times family relationship is individual rather than collective. The present forms of recreation such as bridge tennis carrom and movies, provide for only individual or couple participation.

Moreover, recreation is now had in club or hotel rather than in home. In this way> there has also occurred a shift in the recreational functions of-the family. However, it needs be said that in countries like India having close ties of ancient culture the family is still acting as a centre of recreation at least in the rural areas.

It is clear from the foregoing facts that there has come about a great change in the functions of the family whereas about a hundred years back the family was more of a community, it has become today more of an association. The very importance of the family has been loosened. It is no longer a home for recreation of its members, a school of education for children or a centre for their religious training.

Many family duties, which were performed formerly by the parents have now been transferred to external agencies. The functions of a modern family are very much limited both in their number and extent. Even the task of procreation has suffered a setback. Of course the task of satisfaction of sex need is better performed, by modern family.

In short, the family has lost some of its former functions. It is to be, however, remembered that though there is a loss of functions the family is not going to perish. There are certain functions for this performance of which no human society can do without family. Thus it may be said in the end that despite its structural and functional changes, the family still plays a significant role in social strength and social solidarity.

Essay # 3. Family as a Social System:

It is customary to regard family as a social system. In fact there are many kinds of social systems and these are composed of variety of elements. So far as family is concerned, it fulfils many of the conditions, which go to make it a social system. It is for this reason that family is characterised as being a perfect social system and this notion fully holds good at least in the case of joint family.

Defining social system Talcott Parsons writes, “The social system is composed of the patterned interaction of members. It consists of interaction of a plurality of individual actors, whose relations to each other are mutually oriented through the definition and mediation of a pattern of structured and shared symbols and expectations.”

Similarly C.P. Loomis is also of the opinion, “Sociologists frame of reference is inter action, characterised by patterned social relation that display in their uniformities social elements articulated by social processes, the dynamics of which account for the emergence, maintenance and change of social system.”

When these observations are applied on family, it becomes clear that the family is contained in a number of elements, which are found in every social system. These are some of those elements of which most family groups consist and on the basis of which family is entitled to be called a social system.

Every family consists of a number of persons and all of them have a certain status. This status of the members of a family is normally determined on the basis of age and sex. But sometimes learning and occupation also have some effect in this matter. The status of parents is always higher than that of the children.

Similarly in a family sons enjoy better status than daughters. Status helps in making gradation in the position of the different members of their family and their social relations are determined in accordance with their position.

Since father’s status in the family is the highest of all, he is authorised to perform all the family responsibilities. The eldest son being next in importance to his father automatically obtains the same position after his father’s death.

All the members of the family perform a certain role and it is by this means that the working of the family is made possible. The roles that the different persons perform are determined and conditioned by the status that they hold in the family. In fact every status has a correspondent role attached to it.

Role is the outward manifestation of the status and, thus both of them go together. Every member of the family while performing his role keeps in view his status in the family and does the things accordingly.

The role maintains the balance of status system and thereby keeps intact the structure of the family. Since, there are a variety of status differing from person to person, so there are a number of roles varying from person to person according to his status.

For Instance, the role of parents in the family is quite different from that of the children but it needs be said that the functioning of the family can go well only if all of its members perform their respective roles properly.

3. Privilege:

In a social system every unit is gifted with a certain kind of privileges. These privileges also go with the roles that they perform and the status that they hold in a social structure. It is through the enjoyment of privileges that a unit is enabled to do its responsibilities nicely under all circumstance. It is this element that gives stability and continuity to a social system. The same thing can be said in the case of family as well. The members of the family are always in the enjoyment of certain privileges according to their status. It is by the exercise of these privileges enjoyed by the members that structure and functioning of the family remain intact.

4. Necessities and Aims:

Every social system consists of the needs, aims and ends of the people. They are related to the level of cultural and economic progress of the society. Sometimes they are also concerned with the social development of the people. Men have some basic needs and the fulfilment of them is the chief aim of a social system. For realization of these aims a social system has to set before it its certain ideals and ends.

In this way needs and alms play a vital role in the efficient working of any social system. Family as a social system is concerned with fulfilling some-physical and social needs of the people. There are some basic needs like sex impulse, procreation of race and the provision of home, which cannot be met elsewhere except in the family.

These needs aim at ensuring good life to the people. It is right that in the modern times many of the functions of the family have been taken over by some other associations, but all the same there are some primary functions which must be performed in the family in all civilized societies.

5. Sanctions:

The sanctions determined by the social values and Ideals play in important part in the field of human conduct. The social sanctions make a distinction between what is right and what is wrong in the activities and behaviour of the individuals. Society permits its members to do certain things and forbids them to do others and thereby lays down a standard for the general conduct of its members.

The members are allowed to do only those things, which are beneficial for the life and stability of the social order. In this way sanctions also help a lot in the strengthening of a social system. They maintain discipline and orderly conditions in it. This element is found in abundance in the working of the family as well. There are some set rules and codes of behaviour which are binding on the members and which they cannot ignore easily.

Thus the family as a social system depends largely for its life and sound working on a set of rules, which operate in the form of social sanctions. The more active and forceful are these social sanctions, the more solid and the longer lasting will be the structure of the family. This is why in the past families were more integrated and well-disciplined because there was more force behind the social sanctions.

In every social system there exists a supreme power which acts as a controlling figure in it. It, on the one hand, resolves the conflicts of different units and on the other, keeps intact the unity of that social system. The family as a social system vests its supreme power in the father or husband who supervises and controls the activities of other members.

There can be no challenge or disobedience to the command of the head of the family. Only such families last long in which there is unity of command and a well-knit controlling power.

7. Ideal Principles:

The family, as a social system, derives its life out of the inter-relations and inter-actions of its members. Every member of the family has a special function to do and a particular role to play for its well-being. There is great need of making. It certain that all the members of the family do their part well. For this purpose there exists some ideal principles. These principles maintain solidarity and balance in the family. These principles are in the form on unwritten maxim and are based on common consent. They are so vital to the social life that they cannot be set aside easily and in their absence a good family life cannot be made possible.

8. Sentiments:

Sentiments occupy an important place in a social system. The sentiments especially influence collective life. It is under their influence that an individual gives preference to collective interest over his own individual gain. They develop general working patterns of different groups, which afford stability and uniformity to a social system.

Family as a social system gives expression to a number of sentiments. The chief among these are a sentiment of love, the sentiment of co-operation, sentiment of sympathy and the sentiment of respect. These sentiments form the be all and end all of family life.

Thus it is clear from the above facts that family is truly a social system because it contains most of the basic elements of a social system. It is right that in the modern times family is undergoing great changes. As a result of this fact it is feared that family may not lose in course of time, its character of being a social system.

But such doubts appear to be unfounded because there are so many elements of social system, which cannot vanish from family. Thus in the end it can be said that family is definitely a social system with this much exception that it has been more apparent in a joint family.

Essay # 4. Changes in the Modern Family:

It is a well-known fact that change is the Law of Nature. There is no human organisation on social institution which has remained uniform and static at all times and under all circumstances. It has to move and change with the changing conditions, or it is apt to become obsolete and go out of existence. This rule is fully applicable on the age-old institution of family as well. The family as it is now is much different from what it was a few generations ago.

Several changes have taken place in its nature and structure with the result that it has undergone an overall transformation. Whereas about a century back the family was more of a community, it has become today more of an association.

According to Ogburn and Nimcoff, “The family has changed a good deal in the past and has assumed many different forms and functions. The family has proved to be a very resilient and flexible institution. Despite radical changes in form and function, the family has continued to exist in every society known to us.”

It points to the fact that in the recent times many changes have occurred in the family and some of them may briefly be mentioned here.

Referring to some of the changes occurred in the modern family and the forces bringing about them Davis writes, “Modern civilization characterized by an elaborate industrial technology, a high degree of urbanization, and a great amount of geographical and social ability, has sheered away the extended kingship bonds. The role effective kinship group is now the immediate family and even this unit has lost in size and function. True, the immediate family has gamed in importance by being freed from the control of extended kindred, but it has declined in importance in other ways.”

It is clear from this statement that in the modern time a large number of changes have occurred in the organization and working have the family and several factors has been operating to bring about these changes.

Some of the more important changes in family life need be mentioned here in order to reveal its present position:

(i) To begin with, the joint family system is declining and in its place single-family system is coming into prominence. Unlike the large family of traditional society the modern families are small in size. They consist of the husband, wife and their minor children. This is of course the first and the fundamental change that has occurred in the structure of family.

(ii) In the modern time there has occurred a change in the mutual relation of parents and children. The control of parents over their children has lessened a great deal and now the family discipline is not as tight as it was in the ancient families. The children have become less obedient to their parents and they are very particular about their freedoms and rights.

(iii) There has taken place a change in the mutual relation of husband and wife in the family. Unlike old times women have become independent and self-reliant in many ways. Now that the women have gamed equal fights with men, their mutual relationship has undergone much change. Mowrer has correctly written of modern woman that ‘she is no longer the drudge and slave of other days.’

(iv) The modern family is no longer a permanent association. It is precarious and can be rendered void at any time. Marriage has been reduced to a mere social contract, which it is not difficult to break in the event of even the slightest friction. According to Maciver, “The Modern family in comparison with the ancient and medieval families is very weak and unstable.”

(v) There has come about a good deal of change in the extent of family functions. Many of the functions which family performed previously are no longer under its care. They have been transferred to several external agencies. The family has ceased to be an economic as well as social unit. When compared with the family of medieval times, the functions of the modern family are few. All but gone are its economic educational, religious and protective functions. They have been transferred to the State, the church, the school, and industry.

(vi) The modern family is under less religious control. It has been replaced by legal control. With the decline of the Influence of religion the family morals have also become comparatively loose. The modern family has become secular in outlook and it has given up many of its religious activities.

(vii) The rigidity traditionally associated with marital and sexual relationships no longer characterizes the modern family. The use of contraceptive and means of birth control has rendered the size of the family very small. There is not much affinity among the blood relations of the family. In this way the relations in the family have become more formal and mechanical in Nature.

(viii) The family seems to be coming on the verge of disorganization. The number of divorces is on the increase. The control, which the family exercises over the individual is being lessened rapidly. Thus the family has undergone a good deal of transformation in the present century.

Factors Responsible for Changes in the Family :

It is clear from the foregoing facts that a large number of changes have occurred in the structure of family. This process has not completed yet and is liable to continue till indefinitely even in the unknown future. There is not one but many factors which are working at the root of all these changes.

Referring to some of these factors Jay Rumney and Joseph Maier write, “The modern family which is still essentially patriarchal in character has been shorn of much of its power. The State is tending to become a super-parent, having arrogated to itself much of the patriarch’s authority. Profound economic changes since the Industrial Revolution have deprived the family of its economic functions as a unit of production. It is now mainly a unit of consumption. The new economy, requiring the use of womanpower opened up new occupations to women, they became economically in dependent of their husbands. The political and economic emancipation of woman as well as periods of prolonged unemployment undermined the authority of the father, especially if his earnings were surpassed by those of his wife and children. A new morality emerged in conflict with the traditional moral standards. Large families became rare. Urbanization led to a wide dissemination of contraceptive knowledge. The small independent if it, consisting of parents and one or two offspring became the rule.”

Thus, lit short, some of the causes and factors of family changes may be explained in the following order:

1. Impact of Industrialization:

The first important factor bringing about changes in the structure of family has been the force of industrialization. The Industrial Revolution substituted the power machine for the manual tool. As new techniques of production advanced they shelved the old family of its economic functions. New factories with heavy machines have been set up which have taken both the work and the workers out of the family.

Now cloth is produced not on the family handloom but in the textile mill. Thousands of workers who are drawn out of home are required to work in the factory. Not only males but females also have begun to go to the factory for work. The work of women has become specialized like that of men. They instead of being busy with the multifarious tasks of the family have started going to workshops and factories for work.

As a result of it women have become as good the earning members of the family as men. This earning power of the women has made them free from dependence on men. In this way industrialization has greatly affected the character of modern family. As Maciver says, ” The family has changed from a production to consumption unit.”

2. Decline of Religious Control:

The modern family has become secular in its outlook because of the decline of the force of religions. Marriage has become a civil contract rather than a religious sacrament. It can be broken at any time. The authority of religion over the conditions of marriage and divorce has suffered a great decline.

Divorce is a frequent occurrence in modern family while in traditional family it was a rare phenomenon. Religion has been a great uniting and solidifying factor in the, family. And with the loss of its force the family is bound to undergo disintegration.

3. Effect of Urbanism:

An inevitable result of industrialization has been the, growth of urbanism. Urbanism has materially affected not merely the size of the home but also the essentials of the family life. It has substituted legal controls for informal controls and has brought the family into competition with specialized agencies. The result is that many of the family functions have been taken over by the external agencies.

For example, the educational, health and recreational functions of the family are now performed by schools, hospitals and recreational centres respectively. Under the joint force of industrialization and urbanization the family has ceased to be a social as well as economic unit. The joint family system is vanishing and in its place the single-family system is becoming the order of the day. It has even affected the mutual relations of the different members of the family.

To quote Davis,” It has forced individuals to co-operate with countless person who are not kinsmen. It has also encouraged them to join special interest groups thus drawing them out of the unspecialized and heterogeneous family with its wide sex and age differences.” In this way urbanism and industrialization have caused considerable modifications in the structure of family.

4. Effect of Changing Mores:

The mores concerning family life are constantly changing and this factor has. Also greatly affected the organization of family. Now the mutual relations of different members of the family have undergone remarkable change and it is all the result of changing mores. According to Maciver and Page “The basis of husband wife relationship in the family is no longer domination but co­operation”.

Previously everywhere, the wife was dominated by the husband and so the family stability survived because of the unity of command. But with the removal of this dominance the family organization has been exposed to powerful perils. Thus as a result of all these factors the family organization is not stable and it is undergoing quick modifications. But notwithstanding all these facts the family still continues to be a strategic social Institution.

5. Social Mobility:

The critics are of the opinion that social mobility has cut still deeper into the family organization. In so far as individuals improve their class status by virtue of their own achievement rather than by birth, an intrinsic function of the family is lost to it.

In this connection Davis writes, “In a completely open society where all vertical positions were filled purely by individual accomplishment, there could scarcely be a family organization; each family member would tend to find himself in a different. Social stratum, from the others, and the invidious sentiments thus brought into the family circle would prove incompatible with family sentiment.”

The organizations of the family can remain intact only if its members feel dependent on it for their personal advance in life. If this requirement is fulfilled by some external factors, it adversely affects the family organization. This is exactly what is happening in the present society, people do not feel themselves so much. Attached to family because so many external factors are on their disposal to help them in their individual development.

Essay # 5. Sociology Significance of the Family:

The family is by far the most important primary group in society. Historically it has been transformed from a more or less self-contained unity into a definite and limited organization of minimum size, consisting primarily of the original contracting parties: On the other hand it continues to serve as a total community for the lives born within it, gradually relinquishing this character as they grow toward adulthood. The family more profoundly than any other organization, exists only as a process.

Referring to the sociological of the family Maciver and Page opine, “Of all the organizations, large or small, which society unfolds, none transcends the family in the intensity of its sociological significance. It influences the whole life of society in innumerable ways, and its changes reverberate through the whole social structure. It is capable of endless variation and yet reveals a remarkable continuity and persistence through change”.

Thus, in short, family is the first and foremost organ of society and this fact can be proved by the following arguments:

1. Universal in Character:

The family is the most nearly universal of all social forms. It is found in all societies, at all stages of social development, and exists far below the human level, among a myriad species of animals. Almost every human being is or has been a member of some family. There is no other social group that can equal family in this matter.

2. Formative Influence:

Family is also significant because it exerts the profoundest formative influence on the life of the individuals. It is the earliest social environment of man’s life and plays a vital role in moulding it. No other organization can compete with family in this respect. According to Maciver, “In particular it moulds the character of the individual by the impression both of organic and of mental habits”.

Its influence in infancy determines the personality structure of the individual. It is largely from his parents that the child receives his physical inheritance and mental training, on the basis of which he leads the whole of his life. It is well-said by a critic, “To be well-born is to possess the greatest of all gifts. To be ill-born there is nothing which this world can afford that will be adequate compensation for the lack of good heredity.” Thus family has come to surpass all other social organizations in the matter of formative influence on human personality.

3. Nuclear Position in the Social Structure:

Family is the nucleus of all the social organizations. Frequently in the simpler societies, as well as in the more advanced types of patriarchal society the whole social structure is built of family units. Only in the higher complex civilizations does the family cease to fulfill this function, but even in them the local community, as well as its divisions of social classes tends to remain unions of families. One of the first definitions ever given of a community made it “a union of families” and for the local community the definition, with some qualification, still holds today.

4. Performance of Basic Functions:

The significance of the family as a social institution may be measured by the number of basic functions it performs. Compared with the family of medieval times, the functions of the modern family are few. All but gone are its economic, educational, religious and protective functions. They have been transferred to the State, the church, the school and industry. Notwithstanding the loss of functions, the family remains a strategic social institution. It is our parents that first cure us of our natural wildness, and break in us the spirit of independency we are all born with.

It is to them that we owe the first rudiments of our submission and to the honour and deference which children pay to parents all societies are obliged for the principle of human obedience, writes Mandeville.

In addition to performing this all-important function of socializing the individual, the family regulates sexual relationships, provides for the affectional needs of its members, makes possible the prolonged care, which children require and transmits the values of the culture.

It remains a powerful agent of social and political control and economic differentiation. Children generally stay in the social class to which their parents belonged. They inherit both the property and the cultural advantages, which its possession offers.

5. Proper Organization of Society Dependent upon Family:

Proper social organization largely depends upon sound organization of families. If in a particular society families disintegrate, that society can never be safe and sooner or later it is found to meet its doom. This is why at all times one major cause of social disorganization has been family disorganization.

Families develop the characters of the members of the society. In the opinion of ADLER, a man’s role in the family determines his role in society. There is no exaggeration in calling family a cornerstone of society.

6. An Important Agency of Social Control:

Family is an important agency of social control. Family controls sex passions in society. A strict control over sex relationships is necessary for maintaining the order otherwise society will disintegrate. In all cultures, family exercises some degree of control over the unmarried members from falling into bad habits.

No parents would like their children to adopt the career of crime. The children under the influence of their parents drop bad habits and learn good habits. In the making of great men families have always played a major role. In this way the making of a good citizen in society depends upon the parents.

7. Family is the Conveyer of Culture:

The family not only moulds character and personality of the individuals, but it also imparts its culture to them. It is while living in the family that the child acquires knowledge about the culture of society. It is an efficient vehicle for the transmission of culture from one generation to another. It is a very good socializing agency that makes the people social and cultured beings.

According to Deway and Tufts, “The family is a social agency for the education and protection of the race.” It is through family that the individuals come to know the customs, traditions, social values and cultural background of their community. Family provides them knowledge and understanding of the past or d thereby prepares them to live well in the future. Thus in all these ways family plays a vital role in the field of preservation and transmission of social culture.

8. Family is Vital to the Process of Socialization :

Another point of significance of family is that it plays a vital role in the process of socialization of the individuals. Merrill is of the opinion that family is an enduring association of parent and offspring whose primary functions are the socialization of the child and the satisfaction of the members.

It is in the family that child learns all good and human qualities like sincerity, sympathy, self-submission, conscious­ness of responsibility and so forth. It is the character developed in the family, which helps the child in becoming an important and responsible member of society.

F. J. Wright was quite correct in saying that in every family, the child gets an opportunity for free expression of thoughts and developing his entire personality. It has been conclusively proved that the proper development of the child is impossible without a good environment in the family. The tendencies and habits, which he acquires in the family remain with him for the whole of his life.

It is in view of this fact that Freud says, “The view-point of a child towards the senior in the family determines his attitude and viewpoint towards the elders in society.” Thus it is obvious that ‘family is the cradle of social virtues and no other social group contributes more than family in the process of socializing the individuals. Confucius remarked quite correctly that if you want to improve society, improve its families. Society will improve automatically when the families improve.”

It is clear from the above account that family is the most important social institution. No other human organization can overshadow it in the matter of sociological significance. This fact is true not only from the structural view-point, but also from the functional stand-point.

There are some functions of the family, which no other group can undertake successfully. There are some clear uses of the family, which no one can derive from any other group. Without family the process of socialization would remain incomplete, the task of preserving and transmitting culture to posterity would be half done and there would be no organization to safeguard their social and cultural values. Its significance also lies in the fact of its being the oldest and universal human organization.

It is even the parent of society whose structure is raised on the foundations of family. If family were to vanish, it would expose the whole human race to the horrors of complete decay. The present changes in the family need not be taken to mean the signal of its possible downfall in the future; it is rather a process of its adjustment to the current needs and the changing times. Family in the past has remained an indispensable social system and it is sure to continue as such in the future as well.

Thus on account of its strategic position the family more than any other group exerts persistent, intimate and far reaching influence on the habits, attitudes and social experiences of the people. It plays the foremost role in the formation of personality. It occupies a key place in social organization.

Related Articles:

• Difference between Modern Family and Traditional Family | Psychology
• Social Development in Children: 6 Factors | Psychology
• Group: Definition, Types and Dynamics | Social Psychology
• Dependence Process of a Child | Essay | Child | Social Psychology

Essay , Psychology , Family , Essay on Family

Essay on Importance of Family for Students and Children

500 words essay on importance of family.

In today’s world when everything is losing its meaning, we need to realize the importance of family more than ever. While the world is becoming more modern and advanced, the meaning of family and what stands for remains the same.

A family is a group of people who are related by blood or heritage. These people are linked not only by blood but also by compassion, love, and support. A person’s character and personality are shaped by his or her family. There are various forms of families in today’s society. It is further subdivided into a tight and extended family (nuclear family, single parent, step-family, grandparent, cousins, etc.)

Family – A synonym for trust, comfort, love, care, happiness and belonging. Family is the relationship that we share from the moment we are born into this world. People that take care of us and help us grow are what we call family, and they become lifelines for us to live. Family members have an important role in deciding an individual’s success or failure in life since they provide a support system and source of encouragement.

It does not matter what kind of family one belongs to. It is all equal as long as there are caring and acceptance. You may be from a joint family, same-sex partner family, nuclear family, it is all the same. The relationships we have with our members make our family strong. We all have unique relations with each family member. In addition to other things, a family is the strongest unit in one’s life.

Things That Strengthens The Family

A family is made strong through a number of factors. The most important one is of course love. You instantly think of unconditional love when you think of family. It is the first source of love you receive in your life It teaches you the meaning of love which you carry on forever in your heart.

Secondly, we see that loyalty strengthens a family. When you have a family, you are devoted to them. You stick by them through the hard times and celebrate in their happy times. A family always supports and backs each other. They stand up for each other in front of a third party trying to harm them proving their loyalty.

Most importantly, the things one learns from their family brings them closer. For instance, we learn how to deal with the world through our family first. They are our first school and this teaching strengthens the bond. It gives us reason to stand by each other as we share the same values.

No matter what the situation arises, your family will never leave you alone. They will always stand alongside you to overcome the hardships in life. If anyone is dealing with any kind of trouble, even a small talk about it to the family will make ones’ mind lighter and will give them a sense of hope, an inner sense of strength to fight those problems.

Get the huge list of more than 500 Essay Topics and Ideas

Importance of Family

One cannot emphasize enough on the importance of family. They play a great role in our lives and make us better human beings. The one lucky enough to have a family often do not realize the value of a family.

However, those who do not have families know their worth. A family is our source of strength. It teaches us what relationships mean. They help us create meaningful relationships in the outside world. The love we inherit from our families, we pass on to our independent relationships.

Moreover, families teach us better communication . When we spend time with our families and love each other and communicate openly, we create a better future for ourselves. When we stay connected with our families, we learn to connect better with the world.

Similarly, families teach us patience. It gets tough sometimes to be patient with our family members. Yet we remain so out of love and respect. Thus, it teaches us patience to deal better with the world. Families boost our confidence and make us feel loved. They are the pillars of our strength who never fall instead keep us strong so we become better people.

We learn the values of love, respect, faith, hope, caring, cultures, ethics, traditions, and everything else that concerns us through our families. Being raised in a loving household provides a solid foundation for anyone.

People develop a value system inside their family structure in addition to life lessons. They learn what their family considers to be proper and wrong, as well as what the community considers to be significant.

Families are the epicentres of tradition. Many families keep on traditions by sharing stories from the past over the years. This allows you to reconnect with family relatives who are no longer alive. A child raised in this type of household feels as if they are a part of something bigger than themselves. They’ll be proud to be a part of a community that has had ups and downs. Communities thrive when families are strong. This, in turn, contributes to a robust society.

Q.1 What strengthens a family?

A.1 A family’s strength is made up of many factors. It is made of love that teaches us to love others unconditionally. Loyalty strengthens a family which makes the members be loyal to other people as well. Most importantly, acceptance and understanding strengthen a family.

Q.2 Why is family important?

A.2 Families are very important components of society and people’s lives. They teach us a lot about life and relationships. They love us and treat us valuably. They boost our self-confidence and make us feel valued. In addition, they teach us patience to deal with others in a graceful and accepting manner.

Customize your course in 30 seconds

Which class are you in.

• Travelling Essay
• Picnic Essay
• Our Country Essay
• My Parents Essay
• Essay on Favourite Personality
• Essay on Memorable Day of My Life
• Essay on Knowledge is Power
• Essay on Gurpurab
• Essay on My Favourite Season
• Essay on Types of Sports

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Download the App

• Human Editing
• Free AI Essay Writer
• AI Outline Generator
• AI Paragraph Generator
• Paragraph Expander
• Essay Expander
• Literature Review Generator
• Research Paper Generator
• Thesis Generator
• Paraphrasing tool
• AI Rewording Tool
• AI Sentence Rewriter
• AI Rephraser
• AI Paragraph Rewriter
• Summarizing Tool
• AI Content Shortener
• Plagiarism Checker
• AI Detector
• AI Essay Checker
• Citation Generator
• Reference Finder
• Book Citation Generator
• Legal Citation Generator
• Journal Citation Generator
• Reference Citation Generator
• Scientific Citation Generator
• Source Citation Generator
• Website Citation Generator
• URL Citation Generator
• Proofreading Service
• Editing Service
• AI Writing Guides
• AI Detection Guides
• Citation Guides
• Grammar Guides
• Paraphrasing Guides
• Plagiarism Guides
• Summary Writing Guides
• STEM Guides
• Humanities Guides
• Language Learning Guides
• Coding Guides
• Top Lists and Recommendations
• AI Detectors
• AI Writing Services
• Coding Homework Help
• Citation Generators
• Editing Websites
• Essay Writing Websites
• Language Learning Websites
• Math Solvers
• Paraphrasers
• Plagiarism Checkers
• Reference Finders
• Spell Checkers
• Summarizers
• Tutoring Websites

Most Popular

10 days ago

Typely Review

11 days ago

Have You Fallen in the Trap of Compromised AI Learning?

Clark county schools introduce cell phone pouches to enhance learning focus, science.gov review.

12 days ago

Synopsis VS Summary

What is family definition essay samples.

freepik.com

The given prompt: Beyond blood relations, how has the concept of family evolved in contemporary culture?

In traditional terms, a family often conjured images of a group connected by the intricate web of blood relations: parents, siblings, and extended kin. However, as the hands of time have ticked forward, the idea of family has undergone a significant evolution, particularly in contemporary culture.

In today’s world, the essence of family is not restricted solely to genetic ties. Instead, it blossoms in the spaces of shared experiences, mutual care, love, and most importantly, genuine connection. The idea that “blood is thicker than water” has been both challenged and redefined as people create familial bonds with those they aren’t biologically related to.

With the rise in diverse living situations, it’s common to find families where members aren’t linked by DNA. Adoptive families are a testament to the idea that the foundations of family go beyond genes. Here, connections are forged with love, understanding, and a mutual commitment to each other’s well-being. Similarly, stepfamilies and blended families break the mold of the traditional family unit, proving that genuine relationships can flourish in spaces beyond blood ties.

Moreover, the concept of “chosen families” has gained prominence, especially within communities that value deep-rooted friendships and bonds. In many instances, individuals, due to various reasons, may become estranged from their biological families. In the void that this creates, they often find solace, support, and a sense of belonging with friends or mentors, essentially building a family by choice, not by birth.

Another dimension of the evolving family concept is the recognition and acceptance of families with same-sex parents. As societies grow more inclusive, the narrative around family has expanded to honor and celebrate diverse family structures. In these families, just as in any other, love, care, and shared responsibilities define the bond.

Cultural exchanges, travel, and global communication have also played a role in reshaping the family’s notion. In an interconnected world, individuals from different corners of the globe meet, bond, and form families, blending cultures, traditions, and values. These intercultural families are beautiful tapestries of shared stories and united dreams.

However, with this expanded understanding of family, contemporary culture also brings challenges. The acceptance of diverse family structures isn’t universal, and many face societal judgment. It underscores the importance of broadening perspectives and understanding that at the core of every family, irrespective of its structure, lie the universal values of love, support, and commitment.

In essence, the definition of family in today’s world is fluid, reflecting the cultural, societal, and individual shifts of our times. While blood relations will always hold significance, the boundaries of family have extended, warmly embracing all forms of genuine connection and mutual care.

As we navigate the complexities of modern life, these evolved family structures offer comfort, reminding us that family is less about who we share our genes with and more about who we share our lives with. In the heartbeats of these diverse families, we find the timeless rhythms of love, care, and belonging.

Follow us on Reddit for more insights and updates.

Comments (0)

Welcome to A*Help comments!

We’re all about debate and discussion at A*Help.

We value the diverse opinions of users, so you may find points of view that you don’t agree with. And that’s cool. However, there are certain things we’re not OK with: attempts to manipulate our data in any way, for example, or the posting of discriminative, offensive, hateful, or disparaging material.

Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

More from Definition Essay Examples and Samples

Oct 25 2023

What Is Identity? Definition Essay Sample

Oct 23 2023

What Is Respect? Definition Essay Example

Oct 20 2023

What Is a Home? Essay Definition Examples

Remember Me

What is your profession ? Student Teacher Writer Other

Forgotten Password?

Username or Email

Module 3: Culture

Cultural universals, learning outcomes.

• Discuss and give examples of cultural universalism

Often, a comparison of one culture to another will reveal obvious differences. But all cultures also share common elements.  Cultural universals   are patterns or traits that are globally common to all societies. One example of a cultural universal is the family unit: every human society recognizes a family structure that regulates sexual reproduction and the care of children. Even so, how that family unit is defined and how it functions varies. In many Asian cultures, for example, family members from all generations commonly live together in one household. In these cultures, young adults continue to live in the extended household family structure until they marry and join their spouse’s household, or they may remain and raise their own nuclear family within the extended family’s homestead. In the United States, by contrast, individuals are expected to leave home and live independently for a period before forming a family unit that consists of parents and their offspring. Other cultural universals include customs like funeral rites, weddings, and celebrations of births. However, each culture may view and enact these rituals and ceremonies quite differently.

Anthropologist George Murdock first recognized the existence of cultural universals while studying systems of kinship around the world. Murdock found that cultural universals often revolve around basic human survival, such as finding food, clothing, and shelter, or around shared human experiences, such as birth and death or illness and healing. Through his research, Murdock identified other universals including language, the concept of personal names, and, interestingly, jokes. Humor seems to be a universal way to release tensions and create a sense of unity among people (Murdock 1949). Sociologists consider humor necessary to human interaction because it helps individuals navigate otherwise tense situations.

Is Music a Cultural Universal?

Imagine that you are sitting in a theater, watching a film. The movie opens with the heroine sitting on a park bench with a grim expression on her face. Cue the music. The first slow and mournful notes play in a minor key. As the melody continues, the heroine turns her head and sees a man walking toward her. The music slowly gets louder, and the dissonance of the chords sends a prickle of fear running down your spine. You sense that the heroine is in danger.

Now imagine that you are watching the same movie, but with a different soundtrack. As the scene opens, the music is soft and soothing, with a hint of sadness. You see the heroine sitting on the park bench and sense her loneliness. Suddenly, the music swells. The woman looks up and sees a man walking toward her. The music grows fuller, and the pace picks up. You feel your heart rise in your chest. This is a happy moment.

Music has the ability to evoke emotional responses. In television shows, movies, even commercials, music elicits laughter, sadness, or fear. Are these types of musical cues cultural universals?

In 2009, a team of psychologists, led by Thomas Fritz of the Max Planck Institute for Human Cognitive and Brain Sciences in Leipzig, Germany, studied people’s reactions to music that they’d never heard (Fritz et al. 2009). The research team traveled to Cameroon, Africa, and asked Mafa tribal members to listen to Western music. The tribe, isolated from Western culture, had never been exposed to Western culture and had no context or experience within which to interpret its music. Even so, as the tribal members listened to a Western piano piece, they were able to recognize three basic emotions: happiness, sadness, and fear. Music, it turns out, is a sort of universal language.

Researchers also found that music can foster a sense of wholeness within a group. In fact, scientists who study the evolution of language have concluded that originally language (an established component of group identity) and music were one (Darwin 1871). Additionally, since music is largely nonverbal, the sounds of music can cross societal boundaries more easily than words. Music allows people from different cultures to easily make connections, whereas overcoming language barriers might be more difficult. As Fritz and his team found, music and the emotions it conveys can be cultural universals.

Think It Over

• Examine the difference between material and nonmaterial culture in your world. Identify ten objects that are part of your regular cultural experience. For each, then identify what aspects of nonmaterial culture (values and beliefs) that these objects represent. What has this exercise revealed to you about your culture?

Contribute!

Improve this page Learn More

• What is Culture?. Authored by : OpenStax CNX. Located at : https://cnx.org/contents/[email protected]:-HOYsFU6@8/3-1-What-Is-Culture . License : CC BY: Attribution . License Terms : Download for free at http://cnx.org/contents/[email protected]

Family is a universal institution Essay Example

• Pages: 3 (618 words)
• Published: July 22, 2016
• Type: Essay

The answer to this question will be dependent on your own definition of ‘the family’. The functionalist George Peter Murdock believes the family is universal and that the ideal family is the nuclear family, however, many other sociologists e.g. Gough, Gonzalez, Callahan and Sheeran disagree and believe that there is more than one way to class the family.

The functionalist George Peter Murdock examined the institution of the family in a wide range of 250 societies in 1949. He concluded that some sort of family existed in every society; therefore indicating that the family is universal. Murdock defined the family as: “a social group characterized by common residence, economic co-operation and reproduction.” With this evidence he believed that the nuclear family is a universal human social grouping; it exists as a distinct and strongly functional group i

n every known society.

In 1959 the anthropologist Kathleen Gough provided information on the Nagar society. Her opinion differs from Murdock’s as she believes every family is different due to their background and the society they live in. In terms of Murdock’s definition, no family existed in the Nagar society because those who maintained a sexually approved adult relationship did not live together and cooperate economically. Gough found that the Nagar society was matrifocal; most groupings were based on female biological relatives, as marriage had no significant role in the Nagar society; therefore showing that Gough has a different opinion to what the definition of a universal family is as the Nagar society is an exception to Murdock’s classification.

Nancie Gonzalez concluded from her studies that 45% of black Caribbean families had female heads

therefore supporting the idea that matrifocal families can be regarded as a form of family structure in its own right. Murdock’s definition supports the idea of having “at least one adult of each gender” whereas Gonzalez found that matrifocal families are very common in Central American and West Indies as they are commonly low-income. Her studies of many black communities contradict Murdock’s theory; she disagrees with the definition of what a universal family is.

As a feminist, Yanina Sheeran (1993) believes children usually have one woman who is primarily responsible for their care. These primary carers range from biological mother, grandmother, aunt, older sister etc. The General Household Survey found that 13% of British households consisted of lone mothers and 2% were lone fathers. Sheeran believes that a female carer core is a more basic family than Murdock identifies, since in some societies families without an adult male are quite common. Sheeran has found that matrifocal families are becoming more common; therefore disagreeing with Murdock’s definition that the nuclear family is the only universal institution.

The post modernist Sidney Callahan found another type of family contradicted Murdock’s theory: gay and lesbian families. Similar to lone-parent families, households with gay parents are seen by some to not be ‘proper families’. Callahan found that 1,000 children were born into gay and lesbian couples in San Francisco between 1985-1990 therefore showing that even though the statistics are reasonably low they do exist. He argues that gay or lesbian families (with children) should be regarded as a type of family at least where the relationship of the parents is intended to be permanent. This therefore opposes Murdock’s

theory, as Callahan believes that the family does not have to be nuclear to be universal.

For a family to be categorised as universal entirely depends on how ‘the family’ is defined. Domestic arrangements differ from that of the ‘conventional’ family. As there are so many types of household it is difficult to create a single definition of ‘the family’ therefore it makes it harder to define what is meant by a ‘universal family’.

• Exile in the Road Essay Example
• Mr Siyasamkela Essay Example
• Working Mothers Essay Example
• My Grandmother and In Mrs Tilcher's Class Essay Example
• How The Different Aspects Of Essay Example
• How Heaney Use's Language And Essay Example
• Social and Cultural Continuity and Change Essay Example
• During The Nineteenth Century Sociology Essay Example
• Go Ask Alice Argumentative Essay Example
• Gran Torino Essay Example
• Diversity in Modern Family Life Essay Example
• Who is to blame for crime: the individual or society Essay Example
• Amusing the Million - Paper Essay Example
• Conjugal Visits Essay Example
• Technology Brings Us Too Much Convenience Essay Example
• Home essays
• Adoption essays
• Babies essays
• Children essays
• Love essays
• Parenting Teens essays
• Wedding essays
• Wife essays
• Aunt essays
• Daughter essays
• Parents essays
• Sister essays
• Foster Care essays
• Sibling essays
• Father essays
• Grandparent essays
• Mother essays
• Caring essays
• Dysfunctional Family essays
• Bedroom essays
• Room essays
• Relationship essays
• Jealousy essays
• Friends essays
• Online Dating essays
• Divorce essays
• Husband essays
• Marriage essays
• Hometown essays
• Parenting essays
• Family Tradition essays
• Family Values essays
• Baby Clothes essays
• Child essays
• Childcare essays
• Child labor essays
• Doll essays
• Walls essays
• Appreciation essays
• Single Parent essays
• Single Parenting essays
• Culture essays
• Social Control essays
• Citizenship essays
• Social Justice essays
• Caste System essays
• Social Responsibility essays
• Socialization essays
• Deviance essays

Haven't found what you were looking for?

Search for samples, answers to your questions and flashcards.

• Enter your topic/question
• Receive an explanation
• Ask one question at a time
• Enter a specific assignment topic
• Aim at least 500 characters
• a topic sentence that states the main or controlling idea
• supporting sentences to explain and develop the point you’re making
• evidence from your reading or an example from the subject area that supports your point
• analysis of the implication/significance/impact of the evidence finished off with a critical conclusion you have drawn from the evidence.

Unfortunately copying the content is not possible

Tell us your email address and we’ll send this sample there..

By continuing, you agree to our Terms and Conditions .

20 Engaging Essays About Family You Can Easily Write

Discover 20 essays about family for your next essay writing project.

From defining the family to exploring problems within modern families, this personal topic lends itself well to essay writing. If you are preparing a personal essay or were assigned to write one on this topic, good news. You can easily draw on a wealth of sub-topics and themes about the family, as you develop your piece. But if you have trouble getting started, here are 20 ideas for essays about the family.

For help with your essays, check out our round-up of the best essay checkers .

1. Why Siblings Should Be Your Best Friends

2. what is a family, 3. how family culture is established by a nuclear family, 4. the importance of family in child rearing, 5. how my family made me a better person, 6. why i love my family, 7. why my mom/dad/grandparent is my role model, 8. the effect of dysfunctional families on teenagers, 9. a sociological approach to defining family, 10. the influence of extended family on a child’s life experiences, 11. how popular culture portrays the happy family, 12. how my dysfunctional family defined my character, 13. how family has changed in american society, 14. is family changing or facing a state of decline, 15. the role family holds in everyday life, 16. comparing the family dynamics between two different cultures, 17. how my multi-cultural family gave me the best of both worlds, 18. unique challenges faced in single-parent families, 19. my most vivid family memory, 20. the challenges of being the youngest or oldest in the family.

A loving family is a beautiful gift, and with it often comes the gift of siblings. You could develop an essay on why siblings should be an individual’s best friends. When the relationship between them is loving and supportive, siblings are always around and able to help individuals through challenging life experiences.

This stands in stark contrast to the friends made in high school and even college. While some people will walk away with lifelong friends, life’s circumstances often pull friends apart. Family is forever, and people should work to develop those relationships. Looking for more? See these essays about brothers .

The dictionary defines a family as “a social group made up of parents and their children” or “a group of people who come from the same ancestor.” Yet this is a very narrow definition of family. Could you define it in another way? Are there people who you consider “family” who are not actually related to you by blood?

This essay idea gives you quite a bit of room for interpretation. Decide how you will define family, and then use the essay to support your choice. Then, discuss different ways family can look in society.

If you need some inspiration, check out our guide to the best parenting books .

The nuclear family is the most basic family structure: parents and their children. This family system is critical to developing a family culture and passing it down to the next generation. Do you find that you highly value having a family night on Fridays? It is likely because that is something your parents showed you in your own family when you were growing up.

Your essay can define family culture and show how family life helps establish that and pass it down to children. This family essay can discuss the nuclear family’s role in teaching children about cultural and religious values. Finally, the essay can establish why family culture and passing it along to children is so important.

For more help with this topic, read our guide explaining what is persuasive writing ?

Can children grow into reasonable and ethical grown-ups without a family? While it is possible, the reality is the most stable adults typically come from loving and supportive families. One of the primary roles of the family is the development and rearing of children.

The family is the child’s primary social group . Through the family, they develop socially, emotionally, physically, and intellectually. In some ways, the family is the first school that teaches them the most important principles of life for young children. In your essay, establish the fact that family is the foundation for strong adults because of its role in child-rearing and child development.

If you need to write a personal essay, you can look at your family’s role in making you who you are. Your family played a vital role in your upbringing, from teaching you your core values to supporting you as you developed into the adult you are today.

Remember that you don’t have to have a happy family to write this essay. Even if your family circumstances were challenging, you can find ways that your family of origin helped you improve yourself and become a better person.

This is another personal essay topic. On the surface, it seems easy, but if you are going to write a quality essay, you need to dig deep. What makes your family unique and special, and why do you love that?

Keep in mind that all families have quirks and even problems. Yet you love your family in spite of these and sometimes even because of them. Don’t be afraid to include these in your essay.

Think of your family and the leaders in it. Is there one that stands out for a particular reason? Have you modeled some of your own life on how that person lived theirs?

Whether you choose a parent or a grandparent or even an extended family member, look more closely at what makes that individual so important in your life. Then, in your essay, you can outline how you are trying to emulate what they did in their life to make you more successful in yours.

When families go through difficult times, the effect is not limited to those struggling the most. The whole family will suffer when parents are fighting or financial problems arise. Teenagers are particularly vulnerable to dysfunctional family dynamics. They may act out, experience depression, or feel pressured to lead the family when their parents are facing conflict.

This essay explores the effect of family problems on teenagers and their emotional or social development. Consider providing solutions that can help teens manage their challenging emotions even while dealing with the unique challenge of a dysfunctional family.

The definition of family is constantly evolving, but what does sociology say about it? This question could lead to an exciting and engaging essay as you dig into sociology to find your family definition. Based on most sociological definitions , a family is a group of related individuals connected by blood, marriage, or adoption. It may also mean people who live under the same roof.

Based on this definition, the word family has a distinct boundary. While close friends might be something you consider as family personally, sociologists will not define family in this way. Looking at the way sociologists, specifically, define family will give you quite a bit for your essay.

Much has been written about the nuclear family and its impact on the child’s development, but the whole family can have a role to play. Grandparents, aunts, uncles, and other extended family members can contribute to the life experiences of a child, and you can turn this into an interesting essay topic.

Use your essay to explore what happens when the extended family lives close by and what happens when they do not. You can look at how much of an influence the extended family has on a child’s development, and what increases or decreases that influence.

What does the happy nuclear family look like in television shows and movies? Is it usually a mother, father, and child, or are same-sex couples shown regularly? Do single-parent households get equal representation, or not?

This topic could be a fascinating one to explore in your essay. Once you establish the facts, you can discuss if this portrayal reflects real life or not. Finally, you can talk about whether or not the cultural portrayal of the family represents the type of family values the average family embraces.

Not everyone grows up in a happy, stable family, but sometimes bad times can improve someone’s character and give them the drive to be better. If you grew up in a dysfunctional family, you could show how that helped define your character.

In this essay, work to make a positive spin on your difficult situation. This topic can work well for a personal essay for college entrance or employment purposes.

Is the definition of family changing in American society? Some would argue that it is. While the mother, father, and children style family is still common, many other families exist now.

For example, we have an increasing number of grandparents who are raising their grandchildren . Single-parent families are also on the rise, as are families with a single parent who was never married to the other parent to begin with. Families with same-sex parents are becoming more common as well. Take your essay and define this change and how the nuclear family may look in the future.

Another take on the idea of the changing family dynamic s discussing whether or not families are changing, or if the state of the family is in decline. This essay topic will require some research, but you can explore whether families are breaking down or if they are simply changing.

If you decide that the family is breaking down, you can explore the reasons for this breakdown and its impact on society.

From bringing in the income that the family members need to live on to giving direction for the growth and development of children, the family holds a significant role in everyday life. You can explore this role in your essay and talk about the different components of life that the family controls.

For people who grow up in a stable environment, the family provides emotional support and improves overall well-being. It is also the source for moral development, cultural development, and work ethic development. It also provides for the physical safety and needs of the children. All of these lend themselves well to an essay topic.

While the main definition of family is nearly universal, the nuances of family dynamics change significantly from one culture to the next. For example, some cultures are highly patriarchal in nature, while others focus on maternal leadership. Pick a very different culture from your own, and then compare and contrast them in your essay.

For this essay, make sure that you look at differences as well as similarities. Do not disparage either culture, either, but rather focus on their differences positively. This essay works well if you have contact or knowledge of both cultures so that it can be a great choice for someone growing up in a multi-cultural family.

This essay topic is a twist on the previous one. In addition to comparing and contrasting the family dynamic of the two cultures, you can look at how that directly impacted you. What did you gain from each of the two cultures that merged in your home?

The personal nature of this essay topic makes it easier to write, but be willing to do some research, too. Learn why your parents acted the way they did and how it tied into their cultures. Consider ways the cultures clashed and how your family worked through those problems.

Single-parent families can be loving and supportive families, and children can grow well in them, but they face some challenges. Your essay can expound on these challenges and help you show how they are overcome within the family dynamic.

As you develop this family essay, remember to shed some positive light on the tenacity of single parents. There are challenges in this family structure, but most single parents meet them head-on and grow happy, well-balanced children. Remember to discuss both single fathers and single mothers, as single-parent families have both.

You can use this personal essay topic when writing essays about the family. Think back to your childhood and your most vivid family memory. Maybe it is something positive, like an epic family vacation, or maybe it is something negative, like the time when your parents split up.

Write about how that family memory changed you as a child and even in your adult years. Discuss what you remember about it and what you know about it now, after the fact. Show how that memory helped develop you into who you are today.

Are you the family’s baby or the oldest child? What challenges did you face in this role? Discuss those as you develop your family essay topic.

Even if you were the middle child, you can use your observations of your family to discuss the challenges of the bookend children. Do you feel that the baby or the eldest has the easier path? Develop this into a well-thought-out essay.

If you are interested in learning more, check out our essay writing tips !

Nicole Harms has been writing professionally since 2006. She specializes in education content and real estate writing but enjoys a wide gamut of topics. Her goal is to connect with the reader in an engaging, but informative way. Her work has been featured on USA Today, and she ghostwrites for many high-profile companies. As a former teacher, she is passionate about both research and grammar, giving her clients the quality they demand in today's online marketing world.

View all posts

• Free Essays
• Citation Generator

"The family is universal." Evaluate this claim.

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

Definition essay: defining family.

"The concept of 'family' seems simple to many people, but its abounding in subtleties of meaning that involve concepts that are related to but not the same, including the definition of marriage, the meaning of family life, gender roles, relationships, households, sexuality, children, and dependents. That is a lot of human life for one concept to encompass." from Work and Family Encyclopedia. Webster's Dictionary defines "family" as a group of individuals living under one roof usually under one head, also the basic unit in society usually consisting of two parents rearing their children: any of various social units differing from but regarded as equivalent to the traditional…

Definition of a Family

My definition of a family is similar to the definitions given by the Vanier institute and the Social Science institute. I believe a family is a group of individuals who want to be together and who trust each other and love one another (either as a romance or as a friendship or kinship). I do not believe that one has to be married or has to have children to be considered a family. In today’s times Burgess et al, as well as Murdock’s definition of a family would not match many of the families in our community. Our society is able to view different ways of living to still be called a family, for example today we would call a single mother with two children a family. This is because they care for each other unconditionally, and support each other’s needs. Jane Howard once said, “Call it a clan, call it a network, call it a tribe, call it a family: Whatever you call it, whoever you are, you need one.” I believe this is true, there is no set definition on a family because each family…

Family Social Norm

The Oxford English Dictionary defines a family as the servants of a house, or the household or everyone who lives in a house or under one head and finally as a "group of persons consisting of the parents and their children, whether actually living together or not".…

The Definition Of Family

The Definition of Family Many things have changed in the traditional American family. Years ago, the word family was easily defined as a mother, a father, and children. Today, things are so much different than they used to be. To be considered a family, there does not even have to be two parents. Single parent homes are a common thing these days. It is also common for a home to consist of two parents of the same sex. Though different from traditional ways, these households still make up families. A family is what a person makes of it.…

Business Ethics Essay

A family is a group of loved ones, bound by time and common experience, and sometimes, it is a legal and biological construct, meant to draw the line between our "official" and "unofficial" relationships. Most of have our own definition of what a family is, even though it is usually based on the same principles. In some ways,…

Family Unit Essay

When I think of the word “Family”, I take in everything from my life to think of an answer. My definition of family is anyone who will be there for you through the rough times. They don’t necessarily have to be blood related, though this is the common thought when thinking about family, but they just have to be there for you. The official definition of family is the most basic unit of civilization in organized life. Experts define family in two ways. The first way is nuclear family; those included in this group are mothers, fathers, sisters and/or brothers. The second way is extended family. These people are like grandparents, aunts, and uncles. Like I mentioned above this is how experts define family, not common people.…

Functions Of The Family 4

Murdock’s definition of the family… “a social group characterised by common residence, economic, cooperation and reproduction. It includes adults of both sexes, at least two of whom maintain a socially approved sexual relationship, and one or more children, own or adopted of the sexually cohabitating adults”…

Life of Tasalipa Kafunda: Personal Achievements, Family, and Future Prospects

A family may be defined as a set of people who are related by blood, marriage or adoption who snare the primary responsibility for reproduction and caring for members of society. The family is as old as a man himself, family is also the strongest bond of all.…

the nuclear family as universal

sociologist George Murdock expresses that he feels strongly that the nuclear family is certainly universal as…

FAMILY AND KINSHIP CHILDREN AND MATING

2. When people hear the word “family”, many different things come to mind depending on what culture you were brought up in. Family is defined as a basic social unit consisting of parents and their children, considered as a group, whether dwelling together or not. 1 Family and kinship are how we inherit our values, spiritual, and emotional qualities. As we grow, we get our character from surroundings and our upbringing. Inheritance is also a major part of families. It allows us to honor our ancestors and to make their legacy apart of us. But, due to societies forces, mating practices and inheritance have taken the biggest hit and this has dealt huge blows to the American traditional family. Transformations in US families have proceeded steadily for more than two centuries as economic, social, cultural, and political forces shape the contours of daily family life.2…

sociology famaliy

George Peter Murdock was an American sociologist who studied over two hundred and fifty different societies worldwide. By researching into these societies, Murdock was able to compile the following definition for family:…

Human Resource Planning & Forecasting

❖ The family is a group defined by a sex relationship sufficiently precise and enduring to provide for the procreation and upbringing of children. (“Society: Its Structure and change”-MacIver & Page)…

Family, Where Water Can Be Just As Thick As Blood

When most people think of the word family, mother, father, children, and relatives immediately come to mind. While all this can be true of a family, it is not the only correct way that family can be defined. Family is more accurately described as a group of people who might not be related by blood or marriage but who sincerely care and love each other. Family is there every step of the way and provides support that cannot be found anywhere else.…

Social Institutions

The family which has often been regarded as the cornerstone of society is one of the oldest social institutions. George P. Murdock defines the family as ‘a social group characterized by common residence, economic co-operation and reproduction’ (Mustapha 2007). Murdock believed the family performed four basic needs and categorized them as: sexual,…

Joint families in juxtaposition to Soci

Family In human context, a family is a group of people affiliated by consanguinity (by recognized birth), affinity (by marriage), or co-residence/shared consumption (see Nurture kinship). Members of the immediate family may include a spouse, parent, brother and sister, and son and daughter. Members of the extended family may include grandparent, aunt, uncle, cousin, nephew and niece, or sibling-in-law. In most societies the family is the principal institution for the socialization of children. As the basic unit for raising children, anthropologists most generally classify family organization as matrifocal (a mother and her children); conjugal (a husband, his wife, and children; also callednuclear family); avuncular (for example, a grandparent, a brother, his sister, and her children); or extended family in which parents and children co-reside with other members of one parent's family.Families are the foundation of society,in that world we nurtured and given tools to go out in to the world,make capable and healthy- or we aren't[1]. As a unit of socialization, the family is the object of analysis for anthropologists and sociologists of the family. Sexual relations among the members are regulated by rules concerningincest such as the incest taboo. Family also spend time together to know each other.…

Related Topics

Is the Nuclear Family Universal

Is the nuclear family universal? This essay will explore whether the nuclear family is in fact a universal sociological institution. The term 'universal' means applicable to all cases, so, for this to be correct the nuclear family must be found in all families in every society. Nuclear family consist a husband and wife and one or more children, own or adopted, it is defined by Murdock and according to him, he believed that the nuclear family is 'a universal social grouping. ' Functionalist George Murdock suggested an idea of universality of the family as family is the basic and vital institution in all societies.

He looked at 250 societies and found four the most significant functions of the family: sexual, economic, reproduction and socialization. These functions are essential and meet needs in all societies and institution who best fits in performing them is family. Murdock defined the family as social group characterized by common residence, consisting of adults of both sexes and dependant children. There are statistics that suggest the diversity of families is developing, such as cohabiting, single-parent and reconstituted homosexual families. All evidences seem to prove that nuclear family is not the dominant type of family.

However, living in a nuclear family is a phase that most people, as children and adults, go through in the course of their life. The Government seems to be more preferable to nuclear family, as the nuclear family can be a nurturing environment in which to raise children as long as there is love, time spent with children, emotional support, low stress, and a stable economic environment. So, although there is an increasing diversity of family, nuclear family is still universal. The nuclear family is promoted by politicians and media. For example, Labour policy Supporting Families (1998) suggested different ways of all types of families.

Order custom essay Is the Nuclear Family Universal with free plagiarism report

However Labours also pointed out that preferred type will be nuclear. Media created ‘cereal packet image’ of the family where it was promoting ideal nuclear family. People being influenced by media and politicians start seeing other types of households undesirable or abnormal. However there is an opposing view to Murdock’s theory that goes against the idea of the nuclear family being universal. In 1959, Kathleen Gough provided a detailed insight of the Nayar society. This culture was mainly centred on the woman and known as a matrifocal family. In this society, when the woman reaches puberty, she is married to her Tali husband.

This is a sacred and traditional marriage but although they are married by law the husband and wife have no obligations to each other, the woman is then allowed to take on up to 12 visiting Sandbanhan husbands who must come after tea and the stay the night and leave before breakfast the next morning. Husbands and wives didn’t form an economic unit. Also, husbands were not expected to maintain the wives and it was frowned upon to do so. Moreover, he didn’t bond, look after or socialize with the children. Another opposing view of the universal nuclear family is the IK culture.

This tribe lives in Africa were each member shows now emotional connection with one another. Family, to them, means very little and each member of that society fends for themselves, showing no maternal instincts. If a new baby shows signs of weakness and disability, it will be disowned into the wilderness. The same happens to an elderly member who has no ‘purpose’ in the society. The experience and lifestyle of the IK suggests that family life across the world is characterised by diversity. However, in the UK definitions are dominated by the nuclear family.

However, there is a lot of support for Murdock’s theory of the universal nuclear family. One argument is that statistically, the female-headed family is not the norm either within black communities or in the societies in which they are set. Also, some sociologists believe that the mainstream model of the nuclear family is valued by blacks and regarded as the ideal. However, there are many opposing views to his theory. The supposed harmful effects on the children of the matrifocal family are far from proven, and, we know that children from a nuclear family are sometimes abused or neglected.

Looking closely at all the evidence I have explored in this essay, I conclude to find that the nuclear family is not universal. Families are simply groupings of people brought together by blood, marriage or some kind of connection. By looking at groups such as the Nayar society and the IK culture, it shows that the nuclear family is not applicable in all circumstances. Finally, in British culture the times are changing and there is a more diverse range of families in our society today.

Related Questions

on Is the Nuclear Family Universal

Cite this Page

Is the Nuclear Family Universal. (2018, Aug 16). Retrieved from https://phdessay.com/is-the-nuclear-family-universal/

Run a free check or have your essay done for you

More related essays

Yesterday, 22:02 in: Essay samples The question is to outline and critically evaluate the functionalist view that the typical family unit is nuclear. The other part of the question is to critically.

Assess the view that the nuclear family functions for the benefit of the individual and society. A nuclear family is universal and consists of two generations of families: a father,.

Introduction The nuclear family has been described as an artificial construct of the nuclear age by some people. These people give more credit to the more traditional extended family. (Uzoka, 1979).

Today sociologists in Britain would not agree that nuclear families are the norm. This is because families aren’t like what they used to be. In the nuclear families today, the.

Examine the view that the nuclear family is universal /25 Sociologists are fascinated by how society is changing, they believe to some extent the family enables them to see how.

I, Janice A. Sandoval, 22 years old, a graduate from the University of the Philippines under the degree of BS Food Technology, am applying to become a part of the.

The main purpose of this paper is to describe and elaborate more on the need to communal or health care for all in America. America is the only developed state.

America is full of social and economic problems that need to be addressed. The one problem that affects all citizens of the country is access and affordability of health care..

We use cookies to give you the best experience possible. By continuing we’ll assume you’re on board with our cookie policy

Save time and let our verified experts help you.

Essays & Writing Guides for Students

Worried about plagiarism? Read this.

Help Login | Sign Up

• Area & Country Studies Essays (1, 896)
• Art Essays (8, 424)
• Businesss Research Papers (20, 108)
• Humanities Essays (12, 746)
• Literature Research Papers (33, 994)
• History Term Papers (14, 712)
• Law & Government Essays (6, 190)
• Science Essays (10, 735)
• Social Science Essays (18, 383)
• How to write a book report
• How to write a research paper
• How to write an essay
• Book Guides
• Social Science Essays (18,383) ›
• Sociology (1,356)

"The family is universal." Evaluate this claim.

Essay by Muse ,  October 2005

download word file , 3 pages download word file , 3 pages 4.8 9 votes 1 reviews

A family is defined in the dictionary as "a social unit consisting of people who are related by blood or law." There are many different definitions of family, some more specific then others; sociologists tend to use a more specific definition, which can vary according to the sociologist. There are different types of family; there are the more commonly-known ones, such as nuclear and extended, but there are also names for a mother-and-child family (matrifocal) and a father-and-child family (consanguineal). "Universal" means that it is found in all societies around the world; the "universal family" means a certain type of family that is found all over the world. Since the definition of family can mean different things to different people, it is hard to tell if family really is universal, but some sociologists try to answer this question by studying the ideals of family and making very specific classifications for it.

George Peter Murdock defined a family "a social group characterized by common residence, economic cooperation, and reproduction." He added that the family "includes adults of both sexes, at least two of whom maintain a socially approved sexual relationship, and one or more children". He stated that, to be a family, the unit must fulfil the four essential functions: socialisation, economic, sexual gratification, and reproduction. If they do not fulfil these functions, then they are not defined as a family, according to Murdock. These roles are important for the family to carry out because if they do not, they will not be able to produce children who are successful members of society, and if no family fulfilled these functions, society would cease to exist. Therefore, a "universal family" is needed to carry society on as it is now, otherwise it could just fall apart and society...

Read Full Essay Now

Citation styles:

"The family is universal." Evaluate this claim.. (2005, October 17). In WriteWork.com. Retrieved 10:43, March 31, 2024, from https://www.writework.com/essay/family-universal-evaluate-claim

WriteWork contributors. ""The family is universal." Evaluate this claim." WriteWork.com. WriteWork.com, 17 October, 2005. Web. 31 Mar. 2024.

WriteWork contributors, ""The family is universal." Evaluate this claim.," WriteWork.com, https://www.writework.com/essay/family-universal-evaluate-claim (accessed March 31, 2024)

Reviews of: ""The family is universal." Evaluate this claim." :

Good essay..

Good grammer and punctuation.

1 out of 1 people found this comment useful.

More Sociology essays:

Write a short piece about your own social identity. drawing on this, answer the following question: 'critically evaluate the claim that 'collective social identities are both inclusive and exclusive'..

... , run on the margins of profitability, rely heavily on family support to maintain survivability and find it difficult ... 'London's my city, Jamaica's my country, Africa's my history... I know who I am, ... and the contacts between what Hall (1992a) describes The West and the Rest where you will find my ...

17 pages 239 Oct/2005 4.8

In Socialisation How Conscious Are We of the 'Deals' We Make?

... the teeth, of which is constantly enforced on behalf of the family. The family is also significant in that its ideas initially cannot be contrasted or ... development of people can be understood in a context which begins with the family and extends to the society in which the person exists. The ...

5 pages 84 May/2003 5.0

Assess the usefulness of sociological explanations for patterns of educational achievement.

... cultural obstacles to educational success, from the prevalence of "mother-centered families", to "lack of parental interest", from "low self esteem" to the ... Bruce Carrington points out in "Sport as a side track", many West Indians were encouraged to devote more time to "ethnically specific" cultural ...

11 pages 282 Nov/2003 4.3

Urban Sociology in the 21st Century

... Borderless Borders. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press. Boyd, M. "Family and Personal Networks in International ... , and Stanley Please. 1989. Sub-Saharan Africa: From Crisis to Sustainable Growth. ... . 2004. World Cities beyond the West. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Hagedorn ...

50 pages 127 Jun/2010 0.0

it is about Social Inequality and Social Stratification

... the continuation of non-compulsory studies. In general, this implies that people change residence in order to study, something only families with a comfortable income can afford. The recent extension of universities, university centers and departments across the country outside the ...

8 pages 1014 1 May/2002 4.5

Students & Profs. say about us:

"Good news: you can turn to other's writing help. WriteWork has over 100,000 sample papers"

Prof. Jacob Leland, Phd

"I turned what i thought was a C+ paper into an A-"

Dawn S., college student Newport, RI

View this document View this document

We've been mentioned in:

• EveningTimes
• Independent
• The Boston Globe
• The Virginian Pilot

Where our 375,000 members study:

• Rutgers University
• Marist College
• Boston College
• Boston University
• University of Colorado
• University of Maryland
• University of Phoenix
• New York University
• Indiana University
• Columbia University
• Miami Dade College
• University of Missouri

Popular essays:

Downward mobility as a societal issue.

... of success can ultimately lead to bad decisions. Karl Marx would argue "capitalism ...

2 pages 10 Feb/2008 0.0

Revolt And Revenge

... Of the Coming of John," W.E.B. Du Bois presents a story of a young black man and white man ...

5 pages 11 Feb/2008 0.0

A Critique of "For Gay Marriage," by Andrew Sullivan

... important point for Sullivan concerns child-rearing. He asserts ...

2 pages 30 Feb/2009 3.0

Dave Barry And Cynthia Rylant

... different point of views the ... same topic. The first paragraph it explained the comparisons of each of ...

1 pages 6 Feb/2008 0.0

This essay is on Blau's exchange theory

... social exchange take place. External Validity: This theory does have real-world ...

6 pages 3 May/2012 0.0

• CA Privacy Policy
• Terms of Use
• Browse Essays
• Top 10 Lists
• Book Reports
• Compare & Contrast Essays
• Essay Examples
• Persuasive Essays
• Term Papers
• Research Paper Topics

WRITING GUIDES

© WriteWork.com

First look: How Universal is bringing ‘How to Train Your Dragon’ to life at Epic Universe

This is Berk – and next year, you’ll be able to visit.

On Thursday, Universal Orlando Resort revealed its first look at How to Train Your Dragon - Isle of Berk. The mythical land from the beloved “How to Train Your Dragon” franchise is one of five immersive worlds coming to life at the Florida resort’s highly anticipated Universal Epic Universe theme park in 2025.

“Guests visiting Berk will encounter one of the most breathtaking environments Universal has ever created – complete with immense architecture featuring hand-carved details, lush landscaping, and extraordinary heights of rolling hills surrounding vibrant dragon houses and local establishments,” Universal shared in a press release. 

Here’s what you can expect from How to Train Your Dragon - Isle of Berk at Epic Universe.

You can visit Berk

It may sound obvious, but for many fans, Berk has only lived on pages, screens and imaginations, like other famous franchises Universal has materialized in its parks, including The Wizarding World of Harry Potter . Universal Creative is developing this world with DreamWorks Animation and Universal Pictures filmmakers.

“Guests’ first sight of Berk will be reminiscent of the iconic sweeping vista straight from the films – featuring a vast sparkling lagoon that boasts two 40-foot-tall Viking statues set against an energetic village perched above churning seas,” Universal said.

Vikings and dragons live together on Berk, so you can expect to see “endless activity – from active dragons in their natural habitats and sheep attempting to disguise themselves as Terrible Terror dragons to sporadic bouts of fire,” according to Universal.

You can soar like a dragon

Hiccup’s Wing Gliders is one of four attractions coming to How to Train Your Dragon - Isle of Berk, three of which are rides. The family coaster will give you a taste of what it’s like to soar like Hiccup Haddock and his fellow Dragon Riders, Astrid, Snotlout, Ruffnut, Tuffnut and Fishlegs. 

“Hiccup invites brave new Vikings to take a ride in his latest glider contraption – a winged flying machine that launches aspiring Dragon Riders into the sky for a dragon’s eye view of Berk,” according to Universal. 

Family coasters tend to have lower height requirements than traditional roller coasters, so they can be enjoyed across broader age ranges without sacrificing thrills. Hiccups Wing Gliders will hit up to 45 miles per hour.

Dragon Racer’s Rally will give you a feel for the high-flying skills needed to be a Dragon Rider.

“Berk’s new Vikings racers can practice aerobatic maneuvers and high-speed barrel rolls on two Viking-made dragon-riding trainers that reach heights of up to 67 feet in the air,” according to Universal, which notes guests will be able to control how “mild” or “wild” they want the ride.

Fyre Drill is what you’d expect from mischief-making twins Ruffnut and Tuffnut. 

“Guests will board a colorful dragon-headed boat and blast water cannons at flame-like targets to practice putting out fires – a crucial skill to master when living with dragons,” Universal said. 

But you won’t just be competing for scores. Viking teams can also try to “out-soak each other on this wet-and-wild boat battle.”

Viking Training Camp will be an expansive, interactive play area for Junior Vikings, “featuring a Viking agility course, a Toothless-themed teeter-totter, baby Gronckle dragon climbers and so much more,” according to Universal.

Universal Islands of Adventure and Universal Volcano Bay water park also have dedicated play areas for kids to stretch their legs and explore. Universal Studios Florida’s new Kung Fu Panda-themed play area is opening within its new DreamWorks Land this summer.

You can see Dragon Riders in action

The Untrainable Dragon will be a live show inspired by the popular “Untrainable” show at Universal Beijing Resort .

“This dragon-filled live spectacular takes guests on an unforgettable journey with beloved characters Hiccup, Toothless, Gobber, and Astrid as they work together to solve the mystery of The Untrainable Dragon,” according to Universal. 

Fans love its sister show’s stunning visuals, swelling music and soaring night fury, Toothless. There will be some differences in Orlando's version, but it's sure to be a must-see at the new park.

Behind the scenes: What you don’t see at Universal Orlando’s Mardi Gras

You can meet Toothless

Hiccup may be the main character of the “How to Train Your Dragon” franchise, but his faithful companion Toothless is its heart.

You can meet both Hiccup and Toothless at the Haddock Paddock in How to Train Your Dragon - Isle of Berk. 

“Throughout the day, guests may also encounter other familiar Vikings and dragons while exploring Berk,” according to Universal.

You can get a taste of Berk

The main gathering and dining hall in How to Train Your Dragon - Isle of Berk will be a fast casual eatery called Mead Hall . In addition to mead and cider, it will serve savory dishes like fish and sandwiches. There will also be two quick-service dining venues, Spit Fyre Grill and Hooligan’s Grog & Gruel.

Guests who want to bring a bit of Berk back home can find themed merchandise at Viking Traders , How to Treat Your Dragon , Hiccup’s Work Shop , and Toothless’ Treasures. 

Beyond Berk, Epic Universe guests will be able to visit The Wizard World of Harry Potter - Ministry of Magic, Super Nintendo World, a Universal monsters world called Dark Universe, and Celestial Park , which Universal describes as a celestial world between worlds.

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

Guest Essay

It’s Not Easy to Tell People You Have Cancer. As a Doctor, I See It All the Time.

By Daniela J. Lamas

Dr. Lamas, a contributing Opinion writer, is a pulmonary and critical-care physician at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston.

There is a moment for patients after we deliver the news of a frightening diagnosis, after they have taken in the realities we have laid before them, when they realize that there is one more tremendous hurdle ahead: to share that news with others. Sometimes that feels like the hardest part. How much do they have to disclose? Do they speak in euphemisms or share the harsh realities? It is as though saying a diagnosis aloud finally makes it real.

I found myself thinking about this on Friday, when Catherine, Princess of Wales, made her cancer diagnosis public in a video. She did not share the type of cancer she had or the nature of the abdominal surgery she underwent in January after which the cancer was diagnosed. She spoke broadly of cancer, of the chemotherapy she was now being treated with and of her family. Which was enough for the internet to go wild with rampant speculation — just as it did for so many weeks prior, when people were grasping to explain her disappearance from the public light.

I, too, was curious. There are many medical questions here, some of which we can answer and many of which we cannot. But there is also a bigger question surrounding why we even want to know what kind of cancer Catherine has or how she’s being treated, especially when that lunge for information conflicts with a parent’s desire for privacy and space to tell her children on her own timetable. What is the nature of this very human desire to know these details? And is there a way to turn this instinct for intrigue into something useful?

Catherine is young — 42 years old, the same age as me — and the fact that she has cancer of any kind is terrifying, whatever that cancer might be. Maybe that is one reason I found myself wanting to learn more, even if the medical questions can’t be answered right now. In the hospital, when I care for someone around my age who has been diagnosed with something catastrophic, I often dig into the chart to understand how the story began. Maybe there is a part of me that believes that by knowing these details, I can reassure myself that my patient and I are not so similar after all, that I am not vulnerable. We find ourselves drawn to the realities that we fear.

What we do know is that the Princess of Wales is not alone: Rates of cancer diagnoses in those under 50 are increasing . She is receiving what she referred to as “preventative” chemotherapy, generally termed adjuvant chemotherapy — which means chemo to treat the microscopic metastases that might be present after a curative surgery and to prevent the cancer from recurring .

It is hard enough for patients to share this type of information with anyone outside of friends and family. I don’t think a public figure like Catherine has any duty to share her health status on a world stage, much less owes us any greater degree of specificity or precision in her language. This is her diagnosis. She can frame it however she sees fit.

Maybe there isn’t a responsibility here but instead an opportunity. By making their diagnoses public, celebrities have the ability to destigmatize disease, to raise funds and to make terrifying realities less frightening for the rest of us. I never met my grandmother because she died of breast cancer long before I was born, after a struggle with the disease that was characterized by secrecy and shame. She did not even tell her children until she was close to death. I have to wonder what, if anything, would have been different had she been diagnosed just a few years later, after Betty Ford, the wife of President Gerald Ford, made her breast cancer diagnosis public .

A few years ago, I cared for a patient who had breast cancer and had not told her adolescent sons of her diagnosis, even as she lost her hair and went into the hospital for surgery. She collapsed at a rehab hospital and was brought to our intensive care unit, where she would never wake up again. Her sons sat at her bedside and asked us what had happened. What was wrong with their mother? At first, her husband tried to uphold her wishes, to protect her sons from the knowledge. But it soon became clear that what started as an instinct to protect them was only doing harm.

We told the sons that she had cancer. They had known all along, of course. And now they had been deprived of the chance to tell her that they loved her and that she didn’t need to keep the truth from them. That they would be there with her.

It is not that a public figure announcing her cancer would have shifted my patient’s decision; her instinct toward secrecy was too entrenched. And of course, it is not the responsibility of Catherine or any other public figure to offer health information she is not ready to share, no matter how hungry an insatiable internet might be for information. Perhaps Catherine will tell us more and will become an advocate for cancer research, and maybe that will change minds and increase screening and decrease stigma. Or maybe she will not. Maybe she will try to keep this one thing private, in a life in which so few things are. That would be her right.

Daniela Lamas is a contributing Opinion writer and a pulmonary and critical-care physician at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston.

The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips . And here’s our email: [email protected] .

Follow the New York Times Opinion section on Facebook , Instagram , TikTok , WhatsApp , X and Threads .

Former Sen. Joe Lieberman has died at 82

Former Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman has died, his family announced in a statement Wednesday. He was 82.

Lieberman died Wednesday afternoon in New York with his wife, Hadassah, and other loved ones at his side after he suffered complications from a fall, his family said in the statement.

"Senator Lieberman’s love of God, his family, and America endured throughout his life of service in the public interest," his family said.

Lieberman was the Democratic vice presidential nominee who ran with former Vice President Al Gore in the 2000 presidential election.

In a statement on X Wednesday night, Gore called Lieberman a man of integrity whose "strong will made him a force to be reckoned with."

"It was an honor to stand side-by-side with him on the campaign trail," Gore said.

The pair were defeated by former President George W. Bush and former Vice President Dick Cheney.

In his own statement, Bush said he was “saddened” by the loss of Lieberman, referring to him as “one of the most decent people I met during my time in Washington.”

“As Laura and I pray for Hadassah and the Lieberman family, we also pray that Joe’s example of decency guides our Nation’s leaders now and into the future,” Bush said.

In his later years, Lieberman was co-chairman of No Labels and was heading up the  committee  to vet its potential unity ticket candidates. A hefty share of the group’s leadership and key staff members had left over the last year. Lieberman was effectively the group’s top spokesperson through its effort this past year to field a third-party ticket.

In a statement, No Labels, which encourages cooperation across the aisle, referred to Lieberman as the “moral center” of its movement and called his death “a profound loss for all of us.”

And Republicans praised him Wednesday. Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa,  on X  commended Lieberman’s commitment to working with “anyone regardless of political stripe.”

Lieberman’s passing was also mourned by lawmakers in his state, including Democratic Gov. Ned Lamont, who in a statement Wednesday cited “political differences” with Lieberman but referred to him as “a man of integrity and conviction.”

In 2006, Lamont launched a challenge against Lieberman in the state's Democratic primary, narrowly defeating him for the party's Senate nomination. After he conceded the primary, Lieberman vowed to run as an independent and ultimately won his fourth and final term.

Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., said the state was “shocked” by Lieberman’s sudden death.

“In an era of political carbon copies, Joe Lieberman was a singularity. One of one," Murphy wrote on X.

Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., also expressed his condolences in a statement on X, referring to Lieberman as a longtime friend of more than 50 years, "a man of deep conscience [and] conviction, [and] a courageous leader who sought to bridge gaps and bring people together."

International leaders have also weighed in, with Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu calling Lieberman, who was Jewish, "an exemplary public servant, an American patriot and a matchless champion of the Jewish people and the Jewish state."

The Republican Jewish Coalition's national chairman, former Sen. Norm Coleman of Minnesota, called him "a true mensch and a great American."

Lieberman’s funeral will be Friday at Congregation Agudath Sholom in his hometown, Stamford, Connecticut, his family said. A second memorial service is expected to be announced later.

Zoë Richards is the evening politics reporter for NBC News.