So uh with three days (!!) to go before my Sociology exam, I thought I'd try and create a 'master post', with all the main points from Unit 1 of AS Sociology (AQA). Just to prevent this clogging up the main page, click on if you're interested...
Just a disclaimer- this isn't 100% comprehensive, though it shouldn't be too far off. Views expressed are not my own, and come from the AQA AS Sociology course content. Happy last minute revision!
Couples
Okay! The unit starts with the domestic division of labour. There are main three views on this- the expressive/instrumental roles (Parsons), the joint/segregated conjugal roles (Bott) and the symmetrical (but not actually symmetrical, similar) family (Young and Willmott). The last one is a 'march of progress' view, and is rejected by feminist sociologists, who say that Young and Willmott's findings were exaggerated, with proof of husband involvement in domestic labour just meaning little attempts at 'helping' (Oakley)- research found that few men take a large role in domestic labour, and women still have the main responsibilities (Boulton). They theorise that the 'housewife' role originated in an attempt to keep women out of paid work (Oakley). However, much of this research was based upon couples where women didn't have paid work; sociologists are interested to see whether paid work affects the domestic division of labour. It was found that wives who worked full time did less housework- only 73%. However, wives who worked part time did 82% and women who didn't work at all did 83%. This was (somehow) deduced as showing equality (Gershuny). Other sociologists have accepted these findings, but attributed the cause not to paid work but earning power. As women still, on average, earn less than men, the domestic division of labour remains unequal (Crompton). Some sociologists say that labour has been reduced by the commercialisation of labour- there are now ways (such as fast food, supermarkets, dry cleaning etc.) of reducing domestic labour, and speeding up what's left (Silver and Schor). However, reduction doesn't mean that what's left is shared equally, and poorer women may not be able to access these services. With the rise in paid work for women, sociologists have suggested that women now have a dual burden of paid work and domestic labour (Ferri and Smith). This is likely to be worst for working class women, who can't afford childcare so can only do low paid part time work (Arber and Ginn); this part time work often ends up being housework for better off families (Gregson and Lowe). The dual burden can be furthered even more by including emotion work- looking after the emotional needs of the family, thus creating the tripe shift, of domestic work, paid work and emotion work (Duncombe and Marsden). Overall, there seems to have been little change in division of domestic work despite the huge increase in women's paid work. This may be due to ingrained gender scripts- it's the norm for women to do housework, so this trend continues. A study looking at lesbian couples, who are rather more free from such gender scripts, found that there tends to be a far more equal division of domestic labour (Dunne). It was deduced that same sex relationships in general are free from expectations, norms and traditions, so there can be more negotiation (Weeks). However, domestic labour is not the only inequality in families. There's also the issue of who gets what in terms of economic material. It's believed that men often gain more from women's domestic work than they give back in financial support, and their financial support is often unpredictable (Barrett and McIntosh); it may be that women who leave their husbands, and are on benefits, are actually better off (Graham). There are two main ways in which family income is split- pooling (sharing money) and allowances (the husband giving the wife an allowance) (Pahl and Vogler). Historically, the allowance system was most used, but it seems that pooling is on the rise (Vogler). However, women's lives may still be largely controlled by their husbands, with the husbands often making the most important decisions and women only making the smallest ones (Edgell). Lastly in this topic is domestic violence (financial, physical, psychological and/or sexual). Women are more likely to have experienced domestic violence (Coleman et al), and most incidents against women are committed by men (Mirrlees-Black). A large number of domestic violence goes unreported or uninvestigated- the lack of investigations may link to families being a good things, a private sphere or assumptions about the victim's freedom to leave (Cheal). Many radical feminists see domestic violence as an inevitable feature of the oppressive patriarchal family (Firestone and Millett). However, not all men are aggressive and not all domestic violence comes from men (Robertson Elliot). Lastly, there are several groups who seem at most risk, such as children/youth, those with high consumption of alcohol/drugs and those in rented accommodation (Mirrless-Black). It may be that domestic violence links to stress caused by social inequality (Wilkinson).
Childhood
The next topic is about childhood. Childhood is a social construct (Wagg), with the most important feature being the separateness (Pilcher). We can tell it's a social construct because it's different in other cultures. For example, there are differing views to a child's ability to work, obedience to adults and children's sexual behaviour (Benedict). In some cultures, work responsibilities are taken on at a much earlier age (Punch); obedience to adults isn't the adults right, but the child's concession (Firth) and sexual behaviour is tolerated or seen as amusing (Malinowski). Some sociologists see childhood in this country alone as having changed dramatically. For example, in the Middle Ages, there may not have been a childhood at all- once they were weaned, children were treated just like adults; but this changed due to education and childrearing handbooks (Aries). Alternately, there may have been a childhood, just a different one (Pollock). The 'march of progress' approach can be applied here- for example, the quote that 'the history of childhood is a nightmare from which we have only recently begun to awaken', with more abuse/neglect etc. (Lloyd de Mause)- childhood today is a lot better than it was. There's more protection from harm/exploitation, and children have more rights. Nutrition, healthcare etc. mean that children are more likely to survive and be healthy; it can even be said that society is 'child-centred', with children valued and prioritised. Not all views are as positive however; the conflict view says that childhood may not be positive for all children, with inequalities among children and between children and adults. There are differences in the way girls are treated (Bonke), ethnic/cultural differences (Bhatti) and class differences (Howard). There's also lots of adult control, which could be seen as oppression, segregating and controlling children (Firestone and Holt)- for example, neglect and abuse, as well as controls over children's time, space and bodies. The idea of age patriarchy has been suggested (Gittins), and supported by many women leaving abusive partners out of fear for their children (Humphreys and Thiara). Behaviours of children 'acting up' or 'acting down' could show their reluctance to be classed as children (Hockey and James). So, what about the future of childhood? One theory links the distinction between childhood and adulthood to the information hierarchy, and the skills/accessibility of adults culture, with childhood now disappearing (Postman). But then again, some research says childhood is still very present (Opie). Not only this, but the western childhood and norms are becoming globalised. Lastly, some sociologists argue that the childhood experienced today is negative, or even toxic (Palmer), with lots of issues such as neglect and bullying. Then again, this may be confined to small groups (Womack), and there are contradictory trends in adult/child similarities. As children become fewer due to falling birth rates, childhood could become more isolated- or it could become more valued (Qvortrup).
Functions of the Family
Third topic!! Functions of the family!! Three viewpoints to consider here. Firstly, the functionalists. They see society as being based on harmony, with each part of society performing functions, like cogs in a machine. One view on the functions of the family is that it does four things- enables stable satisfaction of the sex drive; meets members economic needs; socialises children; and reproduces the next generation (Murdock). However, another view is that society has changed from pre-industrial to industrial- so the family has had to change, too, from the extended family to the nuclear family. This is due to social and geographical mobility; it's dubbed 'functional fit'. As well as the family type changing, the functions have reduced- the family now only socialises children and stabilises adult personalities (Parsons). Criticisms of the functionalist view are that it's too positive- feminists say that the family oppresses women, and Marxists that it reproduces and legitimises class inequality. The functions could also be performed by other institutions. Lastly, there's debate over whether the extended family really was the dominant family in the pre-industrial era- it may have originated for support in the early industrial period (Young & Willmott); late childbearing and early deaths could have made it a virtual impossibility previously (Laslett). The second view on the family is the Marxist perspective. Marxist sociologists are conflict sociologists. They see society as being based on conflict between two social classes- the capitalists and the working class. All society's institutions are geared to benefit the capitalists.In the Marxist view, the family performs three functions- ensure inheritance of property, legitimises and reproduces class inequality and acts as a unit of consumption. However, this view is criticised for assuming that the nuclear family is dominant, not acknowledging the oppression of women (the feminist criticism) and ignoring the positives of family life (the functionalist complaint). Lastly, the feminist perspectives on the family. The feminists are also conflict sociologists, but focus on the conflict between the genders, and the oppression of women. Liberal feminists tend to take a 'march of progress' view, seeing women's position as having improved and attitudes as being better. They are clear that equality has not yet been achieved, but acknowledge progress. The second 'class' of feminist is the Marxist feminists. They see the main oppressor of women as capitalism- women's unpaid domestic labour helps the labour force by looking after the current generation and reproducing the next; they're a 'reserve army' of cheap labour; and they absorb men's anger, which results from capitalism (Ansley). Thirdly, the radical feminists, who see men as very much the enemy, with family and marriage being key parts in female oppression. They say that the family is inevitably patriarchal, and the only way for women to achieve equality is to live in matrilocal households (Greer) or to become political lesbians. Lastly, difference feminists say that it's impossible to dub all families as being negative for women- for example, black women may see the family as a refuge from racism. A general criticism of the feminist perspective is that it focuses on women; in addition, functionalists and the New Right may say that the nuclear family is not oppressive, but biological- so any oppression is natural and meant to happen. Liberal feminists are criticised for believing that changes in the law/attitudes will be enough, and not looking for more of a revolution; whilst radical feminists are criticised for being too radical, and failing to see improvement. In addition, ideas of political lesbianism are unlikely to work (Somerville). Finally finally finally, all of the viewpoints on the family are criticised for assuming that the nuclear family is dominant and seeing the world as highly structured- humans are not puppets.
Demography
Moving onto topic number four, we come to demography. Firstly, births. A key concept here is that of the birth rate- the number of live births per 1000 of the population per year. There's been a decline in this since 1900, albeit with 'baby booms' following both world wars and in the 1980s. There are four main sociological reasons for the birth rate decline. Firstly, changes in the position of women- such as legal equality and changes in attitudes- mean that women are no longer compelled to marry and have children; they can instead pursue careers etc. Secondly, it's believed that the decline in the infant mortality rate (number of infants who die before the age of one, per 1000 live births, per year) has reduced the birth rate. It's fallen for a number of reasons, such as improved sanitation and better nutrition. However, others refute claims that the birth rate and infant mortality rate are linked (Brass and Kabir). Thirdly, children have switched from being economic assets (being able to work) to being economic liabilities, due to laws banning child labour and norms meaning that children expect a lot. Lastly, society has become more child centred- it's no longer about 'quantity' but 'quality'. Increase in immigration (mothers from other countries tend to have higher fertility rates) has increased the birth rate a little, but it's predicted to be fairly constant. Meanwhile, total fertility rate is the average number of children a woman will have in their childbearing year (15-44). Whilst the UK's total fertility rate has risen recently, it remains lower than in the past, showing that more women are remaining childless, and many women are having children later in life. As a result, families are smaller, making dual earner couples more likely; the dependency ratio is reducing, but will increase when the babies grow up; and public services/policies may change, to cater less for children. The next chunk of this topic is deaths. Though the number of deaths in the UK has remained constant (with fluctuations during the world wars and influenza epidemic), the death rate- the number of deaths per 1000 of the population per year- has decreased. One reason for this may be a decrease in deaths from infectious diseases (Tranter), maybe due to natural resistance. However, other factors were probably more powerful, such as improved nutrition (McKeown) (though this is debateable); medical improvements and the NHS; public health measurements and environmental improvements and social changes such as dangerous occupation decline, smaller families, higher incomes and greater knowledge on health. The next concept is the life expectancy- how long, on average, someone born in a given year can expect to live. This has increased a lot over the last 100 or so years. However, there are class, gender and regional differences- women tend to live longer than men, the middle class longer than the working class and those in the South longer than the North/Scotland. As a result of fewer births, a decreased death rate and a longer life expectancy, the average age of the UK is rising. This has a number of effects, such as needing more public services to cater to the elderly; more one person pensioner households; and an increased dependency ratio- though 'old' does not necessarily mean 'dependent', and this is offset by fewer dependent children. Old age, like childhood, is a social construct, and it's one that is surrounded by a lot of negative attitudes, seeing old people as vulnerable, incompetent and a burden. This partly results from the social construct of old age as a period of dependency (Townsend). To accomodate the ageing population, there will need to be a number of changes, both in attitudes and in areas such as retirement age/taxes and housing (Hirsch). Finaaaaally, migration. Three terms- immigration, which is the movement into an area/society; emigration, the movement out of an area/society; and net migration, which is the difference in the numbers of people emigrating and immigrating within an area/society. Until the 1980s, the number of people immigrating into the UK was lower than the number emigrating, so population growth was due to natural increase. There are a number of reasons for migration- 'push' factors such as unemployment and escaping conflict, and 'pull' factors like higher wages or better work/study opportunities. Recently, there's been an increase in immigration and emigration. Immigrants and emigrants are generally young, and more likely to be male. Main migration reasons are study and/or work. However, many emigrants are also older, often emigrating to retire in hotter countries. Migrants are generally of working age, so reduce the dependency ratio- but may take a while to be able to work (visas etc.) so initially raise the dependency ratio. However, many immigrant women have higher fertility rates, so after the dependency ratio has risen then decreased, more babies makes it rise again; and then, when those children reach working age, they help lower the dependency ratio once more. There's also been plenty of internal migration in the UK, largely due to industrialisation.
Changing Family Patterns
Topic five in the syllabus is changing family patterns. This begins with divorce, a major source of changing family patterns and family diversity. There's been a huge increase in divorce since the 1960s- around 40% of all marriages will now end in divorce, with most petitions coming from women. There are five main explanations for the increase in divorce. The first is changes in the law, such as gender equality in the grounds for divorce and the widening of divorce grounds. There are other solutions to unhappy marriages (including desertion, legal separation and 'empty shell' marriages), but divorce has become the most popular. Another reason for the increase in divorces is the declining stigma and changing attitudes (Mitchell and Goody)- divorce is seen as more normal and less shameful. This links to the third reason, secularisation- the churches opposition has less effect. Fourthly, expectations of marriage are rising (Fletcher), so that people believe marriage should be based on love and personal satisfaction, and believe that not feeling this means the marriage should be over (Allan and Crow). Lastly, the position of women has changed, with women more able to support themselves financially and less forced to enter marriage and have children. Some theorists say that women's position is far better at work than it is at home, leading to home tensions; and dual earner couples have little time for emotion work (Hochschild). Views on divorce rate are varied; functionalists say that high divorce rate doesn't link to marriage being negative, simply higher expectations- most people remarry, so there's still faith in the institution. Feminist take a differing view, arguing that the growing divorce rate (and most petitions coming from women) shows a conscious rejection of the patriarchy (Bernard), whilst the postmodernists believe that divorce gives individuals freedom to make their own choices. The New Right take a negative view, seeing divorce as undermining the nuclear family and creating welfare-dependent lone females. Lastly, interactionists say that it is impossible to generalise- everyone will have a different response to divorce (Morgan). Moving on, we come to partnerships, the first of which is marriage. As with most of the topics covered, patterns here have also changed a lot. Fewer people are marrying, and marriage is happening later and later. There are a number of reasons for this, including changes in stigma/attitudes, secularisation, declining stigma to marriage alternatives (such as cohabitation), changes in women's position and fear of divorce. However, the rise in divorces has lead to an increase in re-marriages (and potential serial monogamy) and less marriages occur in churches, due to secularisation and churches refusing to marry divorcees. Meanwhile, cohabitation (unmarried partners living together in a sexual relationship) is increasing rapidly. This reflects decrease in stigma (particularly to sex.children outside of marriage); increased career opportunities meaning women have less need for financial security; and secularisation. Cohabitation is increasing whilst marriage is decreasing, but there's not a direct link between the two- for most people, cohabitation is part of the journey to marriage (Chester) and most cohabiting couples intend to marry (Coast). Alternately, cohabitation may be a permanent alternative to marriage, and provide a way to negotiate relationships that aren't based on tradition and patriarchy (Beijin). Cohabitation refers to a range of relationships, with a complex and variable relationship to marriage (Macklin). Another part of partnerships is same sex relationships- between 5% and 7% of the UK's population are believed to be in one of these (Stonewall)- though whether this is an increase or not is hard to judge due to stigma and illegality. It's also likely that the true valid is higher than this. Social policy and general attitudes have become a lot more positive towards same sex relationships, which may have resulted in cohabitation and stable relationship trends that aren't dissimilar to heterosexual relationships, with 'chosen families' where friendship counts as kinship (Weeks). Same-sex cohabitation may also count as 'quasi-marriage' (Weston). Alternately, same-sex relationships may have been less stable and more flexible as they lacked a legal framework, though this is not necessarily the case any longer (Allan and Crow). This flexibility may be a positive, causing some people in same-sex relationships to be against legal recognition (Cheal). Next! One person households! There's been a rise in these- reasons include the increase in separation and divorce; decline in marriage; marrying later; choosing to live alone. Around half of one-person households are people of pension age, resulting from men dying earlier than women (leaving the women alone) and there being too few potential partners in the age group. It's important to remember that not all people who live alone are without a partner- around 10% of the population are 'living apart together' (Thomson et al). Such relationships are affected by choice and constraint (Duncan and Phillips). Attitudes towards LATs are positive, but they don't show a rejection of traditional relationships. That's it for partnerships; the next chunk is parents and children, beginning with childbearing. The main changes here are that women are having children later, fewer children are being had and more women aren't having children at all- reflecting women having far more choice. In addition, nearly half of children are born outside of marriage, showing a decrease in stigma and an increase in both cohabitation and secularisation. Another part of this section is lone parent families, which make up an increasing part of society- over a quarter of children lives in a lone-parent family, with most of these being headed by a woman. Obviously, this increase is largely due to the increase in divorce and separation, as well as the change in stigma and secularisation; there's also been an increase in never-married women being single mothers. The tendency to be female-headed comes from the belief that women are suited to the expressive role, and that it's natural that the mother should be the main caregiver. Consequently, divorce courts are more likely to give custody to mothers. Women may also be more likely to give up work for childcare. In addition, mothers may choose to be single, either so as not to marry/cohabit (which may relate to feminist ideas and/or career opportunities) or to limit the father's involvement. Professional women are often able to support the child without other involvement (Renvoize) and some mothers may opt for benefits so as to escape their partner (Cashmore). The New right strongly oppose lone-parenthood, seeing it as harmful to society. Welfare benefits are blamed for this as offering a 'perverse incentive' (Murray). Contrariwise, lone parent families are more likely to be in poverty, and welfare benefits are often inadequate. Lastly, stepfamilies (or reconstituted families) make up around 10% of the UK's families. They're formed when lone parents form new partnerships, so reasons for them are the same as the reasons for the increase in lone-parent families (such as increase in divorce and separation). Children in reconstituted families are most likely to be from the women's previous relationship as children are more likely to stay with the mother following break-up. Stepfamilies may be very similar to first families (Ferri and Smith); or they may face issues such as divided loyalties and tensions (Allan and Crow). They often experience poverty (Ferri and Smith), maybe due to having more children or the husband needing to support children from other relationships. Tensions may occur due to there being a lack of social norms on how to behave and/or what's expected. As with any other family, to talk about 'the stepfamily' may be wrong- there's diversity between every family, so 'stepfamilies' (plural) may be far more appropriate (Ribbens McCarthy et al). There are also ethnic differences in family patterns, with immigration increasing family diversity. With regards to black families, there's a greater proportion of lone-parent families, mostly female-headed. Some sociologists link this to family disorganisation and slavery or high unemployment. Conversely, it may be due to the value placed on independence by black women (Safia Mirza); and, again, parents who live alone may be in stable, supportive relationships (Reynolds). Moving on to Asian families, Bangladeshi, Pakistani and Indian households are often larger that other ethnic groups. They may contain three generations, but for the most part remain nuclear- the larger families are due to more British Asians being in childbearing age groups compared to other ethnic groups. This may also reflect the importance of extended families and their support in Asian cultures (Ballard). This brings us to the final part of this topic, the extended family today. Functionalists say that the nuclear family is dominant today, and the extended family was dominant in the pre-industrial society (Parsons), whilst other sociologists disagree (Young and Willmott). More recent studies have found that the extended family is almost non-existent in today's society, save for the Bangladeshi community (Charles), whilst other theorists argue that it's still present, but in a 'dispersed extended' form (Willmott), with 'multiple nuclear families' providing support and assistance (Chamberlain). The extended family remains improtant for providing financial help in the middle class, and domestic help in the working class (Bell). Whilst parental/offspring contact may remain high, there's been a decrease in sibling support/contact, and an increase in non-kin definitions of family (Bell). More is expected of female relatives in terms of support, and despite changes, the majority of people have supported their extended family, with feelings of balance important (Finch and Mason).
Family Diversity and the Life Course
Next, we come to family diversity and the life course, beginning with the modernist view. Modernist perspectives include sociologists such as the functionalists and New Right, who see society as being fixed, clear-cut and structured, with ideal family types that everyone aspire to. In the functionalist viewpoint, this is because the ideal family type (the nuclear family) performs necessary functions- other family types are abnormal and/or deviant as they don't perform these functions. The New Right also see the nuclear family as being best, and disagree with any other form of family, or family diversity in general. The nuclear family, for them, is natural and biologically best, providing a strong basis on which to build society. According to the New Right, lone parents are especially harmful, and lead to delinquency and social stability; in addition, mothers shouldn't work as their first priority should be the family. Lastly, marriage provides the best atmosphere in which to bring up children, with both parents having commitment and responsibility. Any other family type, such as cohabitation, is seen as unstable, with higher family breakdown in cohabiting couples, and especially in couples 'closely involved' (Benson). Children in families that experience breakdown suffer negative effects, such as poverty and health problems (Amato). Therefore, the New Right feel that a return to traditional values is needed, and that welfare benefits is not conducive to this, acting as a perverse incentive (Murray). The New Right view is criticised on a number of points. Firstly, it may not be marriage that prevents family breakdown, but the level of commitment. In addition, cross-cultural research shows that roles within the family are not biologically fixed (Oakley), and the New Right view is wholly based upon patriarchal oppression of women. Lastly, lone parents are not necessarily dependent, and research on the harmful effects of lone parent families may not be valid. Another view of the family is the neo-conventional theory, that the nuclear family isn't disappearing, just entering a neo-conventional form, in which both partners are earners (Chester). Aside from this, there is no difference to the past, with the majority of people living in a household headed by a married couple, and most people marrying and having children. Whilst there are divorces and cohabitation, most people marry/re-marry, and the neo-conventional family is the ideal to which people aspire (Chester). A bridge between modernists and post-modernists is provided by the theory of types of family diversity (Rapoport and Rapoport). This isn't quite a modernist theory, as it looks at diversity and lack of structure; but, equally, attempts to class the diversity and give it an element of structure, meaning that it also doesn't constitute a post-modernist view. The five types of diversity are organisational (eg, conjugal roles), cultural, social class, life-stage and generational (Rapoport and Rapoport). Thus, we move on to postmodernity and the life course. Postmodernists reject the idea that there's an ideal family type, and say instead that individuals make their own choices, with increased family diversity. One postmodern approach is life course analysis, which looks at the idea of there being flexibility and variation in lives, with the timing and sequence of events/choices being important. It focuses on the meanings people give to their life events and choices. Positives are that it focuses on what individuals see as important, not what the sociologist decides is important, and is useful in today's diverse society. Another postmodernist way of looking at the family is through 'family practices'- the routine actions that create the sense of being in a family, influenced by beliefs about rights and obligations (Morgan). Conflict in families may result from different people having different views on rights and obligations. Such a viewpoint is based on families not being structures, but just what we do- whilst remembering that families do exist in the wider contexts/structures of other parts of society. It highlights how different postmodernism is from functionalists, by seeing society as far less clear cut (Morgan)- for example, 'chosen families' and 'friendship as kinship' show that distinctions are less clear (Weeks). Postmodernists also believe that it's impossible to talk about 'the family', and that the plural 'families' must instead be used, as family life has become too diverse to be fully classified (Cheal). This is positive, as people have more freedom and choice; but comes with an increase in risk and instability. Some sociologists see relationships as having been greatly changed by increased choice and equality, linking to changes in women's position and contraception (Giddens). Therefore, relationships are now 'pure relationships'- they exist to meet needs and link to love and happiness. However, again, this means less stability. A similar view is that of the 'risk society'- tradition has far less influence, meaning that people can choose their own relationships; but this means weighing up risks, a contrast to the traditional roles which were stable and predictable- such traditional roles have been challenged by gender equality and individualism (Beck). Therefore, there now exists a 'negotiated family', which is where the family varies according to individual wishes and expectations; again, it's more equal and based on choice, but may be less stable (Beck and Beck-Gernsheim). Penultimately, we come to the divorce-extended family- a signifier of diversity and the improved position of women, where people are connected by divorce (Stacey). This shows that family types are diverse, and based upon individuals wants and needs, not tradition or the following of norms. Lastly, a postmodernist argument is that there is growing acceptance of sexual and familial diversity, with attitudes becoming more favourable (Weeks). Whilst family patterns remain traditional, diversity is growing in an unstoppable manner. To conclude, there are two main views of family diversity- one that attempts to stop it, seeing it as negative and a threat; and another, that rejects the notion of 'ideals' and instead sees diversity as inevitable, and a positive sign of freedom and choice.
Families and Social Policy
Last section of Unit One!! Families and social policy! Government actions/policies can have a big effect on family lives- for example, Russia tried to abolish the family, China has implemented a one-child policy and Nazi Germany tried to breed a 'racially pure master race'. Thankfully, nothing so drastic is common in the UK; however, social policies do govern a huge amount of our daily lives, and there are a number of views on them. The functionalists take a very positive view, seeing government policy as helping the family to perform their functions, with housing and health policies creating a supportive welfare state (Fletcher). However, they're criticised for taking an overly positive view, assuming that everyone benefits equally from social policies and taking a complete 'march of progress' view. In contrast, the New Right say that social policies shouldn't undermine the natural self-reliant nuclear family; they completely oppose the welfare state for creating 'perverse incentives' and encouraging anti-social behaviour (Murray). They think that benefits should be tightened and policies should support the nuclear family; the less the state has to do with family life, the better. This is criticised by feminists, who say the New Right are attempting to justify the patriarchal oppressive family, and that it's wrong to say that the nuclear family is natural. In addition, benefits are already minimal, and cutting these may just increase poverty. Another sociological viewpoint is the New Labour, who favour strengthening the nuclear family and marriage. However, they think that some state intervention is good; their influence changed laws on adoption to include same-sex couples and introduced some welfare benefits, though these are largely means-tested. Next is the view of the feminists, who see social policies as being negative- they feel that policies help to maintain patriarchal oppression, and make assumptions about what the natural/ideal family should be. This is almost always the patriarchal nuclear family (Land)- the 'cereal packet' family (Leach). Ergo, policies reinforce assumptions and patriarchy, for example with benefits policies assuming that husbands are the main earners, making it difficult for wives to access benefits. Even seemingly supportive policies can be reinforcing negative stereotypes, such as maternity policies, which assume the mother is the main carer (Leonard). The feminist view is criticised by those who see policies as reinforcing roles that are best and natural anyway, and with arguments of policies such as sex discrimination acts, that do aid women. The feminist viewpoint can be furthered to look at gender regimes- whether social policies encourage or discourage gender equality (Drew). These can be familistic, which are traditional and based on assumptions (such as in Greece, where there's little public funded healthcare) or individualistic, which are based around diversity and equality (as in Sweden, where policies treat husbands and wives equally). Lastly, the Marxist view is that social policies don't benefit all members of society, but help to reinforce and serve capitalism, such as maintaining workers at the lowest possible cost with benefits. In addition, improvements are only concessions, and are easily lost; policies that seem equal, such as enabling women to work during World War Two with childcare, are only to benefit capitalism, and are lost again when it's no longer in capitalism's interests- the childcare was dismantled when the men returned from war. Lastly, some believe that state policies, and institutions such as social workers, are there merely to police the family (Donzelot), with this being targeted on 'problem' (such as working class) families. This view is criticised for failing to identify who is targeted most.