ot be able to operate. Murdock believed that the functions for society are inseparable from its functions for its individual members, being that it serves both at the same time.

Morgan also suggests that Murdock has an idealistic view of the family and in doing so fails to explore any alternatives, nor do they recognize that there may be a dysfunctional side to the family unit. He argues that Murdock sees the family as a harmonious institution and should any conflict occur it would be so insignificant that the benefits of family life out weigh any conflicting negative aspects.

The interactions perspective of the family looks at the smaller-scale interaction between the individual members of the family unit. Unlike functionalists, interactionists are critical in their view of the family. They suggest that the family may be dysfunctional both for society and the individual members. Interactionist sociologists studying industrial families have found that the nuclear family tends to be isolated; this led to fighting amongst the family members and rebellion amongst the children, these points in turn effect society. The entire tension and hostility produced with in the family spill out and find expression throughout other aspects

Definite and usage of main principles and notions is of the most important requirements set for sociological researches. The categories of family and marriage are the most complicated and hardest to define. First of all, traditions of usual conscience and word usage that are not always correspond to those of scientific and theoretical nature; have impact on their understanding and definition. Secondly, both marriage and family are studied not only by sociology but by a range of other sciences which creates many different approaches to them and accordingly more or less specific and abstract definition of these notions.

The statement gives the initial impression that the concept of the family comes instinctively to any person that may come across it. The suggestion that the family is ‘natural’ and a ‘good thing’ instantly encourages one to think of the stereotypical image of a family, being that of a nuclear family, consisting of a female and a male assuming the roles of mother and father with their children as dependants. However the statement can be questioned in several ways. One example of this is what characterises a tendency? In this situation, a tendency can be interpreted as meaning leaning towards the definition of being ‘natural’ and a ‘good thing.’ Also, in what ways can the words ‘natural’ and ‘good thing’ be perceived? Most importantly the question that needs to be asked, what is the family? At this point, sociologists can intervene with the findings they have made in relation to the family.

The definition of the family is perhaps the most difficult aspect of the whole question. There are various interpretations as to the definition of the family; there are also other issues to be discussed, such as the origins of the family, its functions, variations, the sociological perspectives of the family and the future it faces.

This is one interpretation of a possible definition of the family, and although it can be considered to have considered all roles a family can assume, Muncie suggests that perhaps it is possible to differentiate between what can be considered as families and households. He initially describes the household as being,

Whereas, in contrast to this, the family can be considered as being, Muncie maintains that thy two are not mutually exclusive, it is possible to have a family that may form a household. However, the definition can not be considered to be universal as it rules out the possibility of a gay or lesbian family, Muncie does give this issue some recognition. With relation to the way in which the family is perceived, it is often regarded by many sociologists as the cornerstone of society, it is also frequently described as the basic unit of social organisation. Generally, the family is an institution common to every known society and as such performs important functions for its members and for society as a whole. There are different sociological perspectives in relation to the family regarding its structure and what functions it performs for both the individual and society at large. Some sociologists see the family as a positive unit; others would disagree and prefer to highlight the negative aspects of the family, and some try to capture the middle ground, by examining both the positive and negative aspects.

Occasionally, sociologists find reason to question the universality of the family unit; studies have been carried out on the Nayar society of Kerala in southern India prior to British rule. Fox said of these studies from the findings made, sociologists disagree about whether this society consisted of a family unit or not. Based on the descriptions made, the society was believed to be matrilineal. Although both male and female members were united in marriage and children were born, the father played no significant part in the running of the household, the socialisation of the children or in the economic needs of the family members. These factors were regarded the norm in the Najar society, some definitions of the family claim that although this failed to form a traditional family structure, it was indeed a family as a marriage had taken place and children were born as a result.

Despite such conflict as to the possibility of the family unit not universally existing in one form or another, sociologists have formed perspectives based on families. The Functionalist perspective takes the view that the nuclear family is the norm and should be something to aspire to. Functionalist’s focus on the various parts of society, in this case being the family and look for them to relate to each other as so to maintain the stability or order of society as a whole. Murdock is one of the sociologists who has adopted this perspective. Murdock saw the family as the building block to a stable society, he emphasised the positive functions of the family, such as the sexual, reproductive, economic and educational (socialisation) functions, without these, social life would not be able to operate. Murdock believed that the functions for society are inseparable from its functions for its individual members, being that it serves both at the same time.

Morgan also suggests that Murdock has an idealistic view of the family and in doing so fails to explore any alternatives, nor do they recognize that there may be a dysfunctional side to the family unit. He argues that Murdock sees the family as a harmonious institution and should any conflict occur it would be so insignificant that the benefits of family life out weigh any conflicting negative aspects.

The interactions perspective of the family looks at the smaller-scale interaction between the individual members of the family unit. Unlike functionalists, interactionists are critical in their view of the family. They suggest that the family may be dysfunctional both for society and the individual members. Interactionist sociologists studying industrial families have found that the nuclear family tends to be isolated; this led to fighting amongst the family members and rebellion amongst the children, these points in turn effect society. The entire tension and hostility produced with in the family spill out and find expression throughout other aspects

ng ‘natural’ and a ‘good thing.’ Also, in what ways can the words ‘natural’ and ‘good thing’ be perceived? Most importantly the question that needs to be asked, what is the family? At this point, sociologists can intervene with the findings they have made in relation to the family.

The definition of the family is perhaps the most difficult aspect of the whole question. There are various interpretations as to the definition of the family; there are also other issues to be discussed, such as the origins of the family, its functions, variations, the sociological perspectives of the family and the future it faces.

This is one interpretation of a possible definition of the family, and although it can be considered to have considered all roles a family can assume, Muncie suggests that perhaps it is possible to differentiate between what can be considered as families and households. He initially describes the household as being,

Whereas, in contrast to this, the family can be considered as being, Muncie maintains that thy two are not mutually exclusive, it is possible to have a family that may form a household. However, the definition can not be considered to be universal as it rules out the possibility of a gay or lesbian family, Muncie does give this issue some recognition. With relation to the way in which the family is perceived, it is often regarded by many sociologists as the cornerstone of society, it is also frequently described as the basic unit of social organisation. Generally, the family is an institution common to every known society and as such performs important functions for its members and for society as a whole. There are different sociological perspectives in relation to the family regarding its structure and what functions it performs for both the individual and society at large. Some sociologists see the family as a positive unit; others would disagree and prefer to highlight the negative aspects of the family, and some try to capture the middle ground, by examining both the positive and negative aspects.

Occasionally, sociologists find reason to question the universality of the family unit; studies have been carried out on the Nayar society of Kerala in southern India prior to British rule. Fox said of these studies from the findings made, sociologists disagree about whether this society consisted of a family unit or not. Based on the descriptions made, the society was believed to be matrilineal. Although both male and female members were united in marriage and children were born, the father played no significant part in the running of the household, the socialisation of the children or in the economic needs of the family members. These factors were regarded the norm in the Najar society, some definitions of the family claim that although this failed to form a traditional family structure, it was indeed a family as a marriage had taken place and children were born as a result.

Despite such conflict as to the possibility of the family unit not universally existing in one form or another, sociologists have formed perspectives based on families. The Functionalist perspective takes the view that the nuclear family is the norm and should be something to aspire to. Functionalist’s focus on the various parts of society, in this case being the family and look for them to relate to each other as so to maintain the stability or order of society as a whole. Murdock is one of the sociologists who has adopted this perspective. Murdock saw the family as the building block to a stable society, he emphasised the positive functions of the family, such as the sexual, reproductive, economic and educational (socialisation) functions, without these, social life would not be able to operate. Murdock believed that the functions for society are inseparable from its functions for its individual members, being that it serves both at the same time.

Morgan also suggests that Murdock has an idealistic view of the family and in doing so fails to explore any alternatives, nor do they recognize that there may be a dysfunctional side to the family unit. He argues that Murdock sees the family as a harmonious institution and should any conflict occur it would be so insignificant that the benefits of family life out weigh any conflicting negative aspects.

The interactions perspective of the family looks at the smaller-scale interaction between the individual members of the family unit. Unlike functionalists, interactionists are critical in their view of the family. They suggest that the family may be dysfunctional both for society and the individual members. Interactionist sociologists studying industrial families have found that the nuclear family tends to be isolated; this led to fighting amongst the family members and rebellion amongst the children, these points in turn effect society. The entire tension and hostility produced with in the family spill out and find expression throughout other aspects

family, Muncie does give this issue some recognition. With relation to the way in which the family is perceived, it is often regarded by many sociologists as the cornerstone of society, it is also frequently described as the basic unit of social organisation. Generally, the family is an institution common to every known society and as such performs important functions for its members and for society as a whole. There are different sociological perspectives in relation to the family regarding its structure and what functions it performs for both the individual and society at large. Some sociologists see the family as a positive unit; others would disagree and prefer to highlight the negative aspects of the family, and some try to capture the middle ground, by examining both the positive and negative aspects.

Occasionally, sociologists find reason to question the universality of the family unit; studies have been carried out on the Nayar society of Kerala in southern India prior to British rule. Fox said of these studies from the findings made, sociologists disagree about whether this society consisted of a family unit or not. Based on the descriptions made, the society was believed to be matrilineal. Although both male and female members were united in marriage and children were born, the father played no significant part in the running of the household, the socialisation of the children or in the economic needs of the family members. These factors were regarded the norm in the Najar society, some definitions of the family claim that although this failed to form a traditional family structure, it was indeed a family as a marriage had taken place and children were born as a result.

Despite such conflict as to the possibility of the family unit not universally existing in one form or another, sociologists have formed perspectives based on families. The Functionalist perspective takes the view that the nuclear family is the norm and should be something to aspire to. Functionalist’s focus on the various parts of society, in this case being the family and look for them to relate to each other as so to maintain the stability or order of society as a whole. Murdock is one of the sociologists who has adopted this perspective. Murdock saw the family as the building block to a stable society, he emphasised the positive functions of the family, such as the sexual, reproductive, economic and educational (socialisation) functions, without these, social life would not be able to operate. Murdock believed that the functions for society are inseparable from its functions for its individual members, being that it serves both at the same time.

Morgan also suggests that Murdock has an idealistic view of the family and in doing so fails to explore any alternatives, nor do they recognize that there may be a dysfunctional side to the family unit. He argues that Murdock sees the family as a harmonious institution and should any conflict occur it would be so insignificant that the benefits of family life out weigh any conflicting negative aspects.

The interactions perspective of the family looks at the smaller-scale interaction between the individual members of the family unit. Unlike functionalists, interactionists are critical in their view of the family. They suggest that the family may be dysfunctional both for society and the individual members. Interactionist sociologists studying industrial families have found that the nuclear family tends to be isolated; this led to fighting amongst the family members and rebellion amongst the children, these points in turn effect society. The entire tension and hostility produced with in the family spill out and find expression throughout other aspects

e members were united in marriage and children were born, the father played no significant part in the running of the household, the socialisation of the children or in the economic needs of the family members. These factors were regarded the norm in the Najar society, some definitions of the family claim that although this failed to form a traditional family structure, it was indeed a family as a marriage had taken place and children were born as a result.

Despite such conflict as to the possibility of the family unit not universally existing in one form or another, sociologists have formed perspectives based on families. The Functionalist perspective takes the view that the nuclear family is the norm and should be something to aspire to. Functionalist’s focus on the various parts of society, in this case being the family and look for them to relate to each other as so to maintain the stability or order of society as a whole. Murdock is one of the sociologists who has adopted this perspective. Murdock saw the family as the building block to a stable society, he emphasised the positive functions of the family, such as the sexual, reproductive, economic and educational (socialisation) functions, without these, social life would not be able to operate. Murdock believed that the functions for society are inseparable from its functions for its individual members, being that it serves both at the same time.

Morgan also suggests that Murdock has an idealistic view of the family and in doing so fails to explore any alternatives, nor do they recognize that there may be a dysfunctional side to the family unit. He argues that Murdock sees the family as a harmonious institution and should any conflict occur it would be so insignificant that the benefits of family life out weigh any conflicting negative aspects.

The interactions perspective of the family looks at the smaller-scale interaction between the individual members of the family unit. Unlike functionalists, interactionists are critical in their view of the family. They suggest that the family may be dysfunctional both for society and the individual members. Interactionist sociologists studying industrial families have found that the nuclear family tends to be isolated; this led to fighting amongst the family members and rebellion amongst the children, these points in turn effect society. The entire tension and hostility produced with in the family spill out and find expression throughout other aspects

ot be able to operate. Murdock believed that the functions for society are inseparable from its functions for its individual members, being that it serves both at the same time.

Morgan also suggests that Murdock has an idealistic view of the family and in doing so fails to explore any alternatives, nor do they recognize that there may be a dysfunctional side to the family unit. He argues that Murdock sees the family as a harmonious institution and should any conflict occur it would be so insignificant that the benefits of family life out weigh any conflicting negative aspects.

The interactions perspective of the family looks at the smaller-scale interaction between the individual members of the family unit. Unlike functionalists, interactionists are critical in their view of the family. They suggest that the family may be dysfunctional both for society and the individual members. Interactionist sociologists studying industrial families have found that the nuclear family tends to be isolated; this led to fighting amongst the family members and rebellion amongst the children, these points in turn effect society. The entire tension and hostility produced with in the family spill out and find expression throughout other aspects of society. Leach, an interactionist, is clearly negative in his views. To conclude, some functionalists would agree that the family is ‘natural’ and a ‘good thing,’ however, there are those that would disagree. Feminist perspectives in relation to the family are also quite critical, as they tend to emphasise the harmful effects of family life upon women. The main point made by feminists is that the family is an institution involving power relationships and hierarchies. They tend to highlight that some family members, in particular men, obtain greater benefits from families than others, in that a housewife’s role is comparable to that of an employee but it comes at no cost to the employer. Furthermore it is suggested that construction of the family came about as a result of the inability to express sexuality.

In terms of the historical origins of the family, it is suggested that, although the family structure can be considered to have existed pre-1890’s. At this particular time, a heterosexual bourgeois family was deemed to be healthy, in which the needs of the women and children were met through dependency on the male. This form of family was considered to be above all moral health whilst structuring gender roles.