Perspectives on the role of the family — practice questions

Functionalist case: Murdock — universal functions; Parsons — fit thesis (family matches industrial society); warm bath theory — relieves workplace stress; primary socialisation of children.

Criticisms: Marxist — family serves capitalism (Zaretsky — private haven masks exploitation); feminist — Parsons ignores gender division and domestic violence; historical — nuclear family not universal (extended, matrifocal); diversity — same-sex, lone-parent families function well.

Evaluation: Functionalism identifies important functions but rose-tinted — assumes harmony, neglects conflict and power.

Conclusion: Partially useful as starting point but outdated for contemporary diverse families.

This question requires both calculation and sociological application.

Part 1: Calculation

• Step 1: Calculate the woman's total weekly unpaid hours. 16 hours (housework) + 25 hours (childcare) = 41 hours per week.

• Step 2: Calculate the weekly economic value of her labour. 41 hours/week * £11.44/hour = £469.04 per week.

• Step 3: Calculate the annual economic contribution. There are 52 weeks in a year. £469.04/week * 52 weeks/year = £24,390.08 per year.

Final Calculated Answer: The estimated annual economic contribution of the woman's unpaid labour is £24,390.08.

Part 2: Sociological Interpretation (Marxist Feminist)

• Link to Theory: A Marxist Feminist, such as Fran Ansley, would argue this calculation demonstrates how capitalism benefits from the exploitation of women within the family.
• Reproduction of Labour Power: This £24,390.08 represents a massive subsidy to the capitalist system. The family, and specifically the woman, reproduces the next generation of workers (through childcare) and services the current male worker (through housework and emotional support), all at no direct cost to the employer or the state. If the capitalist had to pay for these services, they would need to pay male workers a much higher wage, thus reducing their profits.
• Absorbing Anger: Ansley's concept of women as 'takers of shit' is relevant. The family provides a space where the male worker's frustrations from exploitation at work are absorbed, preventing him from directing that anger towards the capitalist system. The unpaid labour of women helps create this 'haven'.
• Conclusion: The calculation quantifies the economic exploitation that is hidden within the private sphere of the family. It shows that the family is not a haven but a site where the woman's labour is used to prop up the capitalist economy, benefiting both the husband (who has a serviced home) and the bourgeoisie (who get a cheap and compliant workforce).