The Marxists Perspective On The Family: The Conflict View of Society

Marxists Perspective on the Family 2022/12/8, 8:51 AM
The Marxists
Perspective on the
Family
By Charlotte Nickerson, published April 03, 2022 |
Fact Checked by Saul Mcleod, PhD
Do not sell my personal information
Key Points
Marxists believe that the family is a tool of
capitalism and its main function is to
maintain capitalism and reinforce social
inequalities.
Marxism is a conflict perspective in the
family that argues that the working-class,
the proletariat, is exploited by the capitalist
class, who profit off of their labor.
Marx and Engels believed that the
monogamous nuclear family emerged from,
and benefits, capitalism. According to
Engels, the nuclear family promotes
inheritance and consequently
intergenerational inequality.
The Conflict View of

Society
Marxism is a structural conflict perspective in
https://simplysociology.com/functions-of-the-family-marxism.html Page 1 of 12
sociology. This means that Marxists see society as

being structured along class lines.
Institutions generally work in the interests of the

small, elite bourgeoisie class who have economic
power or those of the much larger working class, or
proletariat.
In Marxism, the bourgeoisie gain their wealth through

exploiting the labor of the proletariat. For this reason,
there is an inherent conflict of interest between the
bourgeoisie and the proletariat.
Marxist Functions of The

Nuclear Family
Inheritance of Wealth Cushioning Effect
Unit of Consumption Socialization
Engels: Inheritance of Wealth
An isolated nuclear family means that

men can confirm whether a child
belongs to them and ensure that wealth
remains in the family through private
inheritance. It helped preserve capitalism
by depositing wealth in a private family
instead of passing it on to the
community.
In Engels view, the monogamous nuclear family

emerged with capitalism. Before capitalism,
traditional and tribal societies were classless
and did not have private property. Instead,
property was collectively owned, and this was

reflected in family structures.
Rather than the modern nuclear family, family

tribal groups existed in groups where there were
no restrictions on sexual relationships. This
means that Engels believed that anyone could
have sexual relations with anyone else in the
tribal group, and multiple partners (Stern,
1948).
However, the emergence of capitalism, a system

of private ownership, in the 18th century
changed society and the family. The
bourgeoisie, or capitalist class, used their
personal wealth to invest in businesses in order
to make a profit which they did not invest for the
benefit of everyone else.
Eventually, the bourgeois started to look for

ways of creating intergenerational wealth, rather
than having it distributed among the masses of
society. The monogamous nuclear family
guaranteed that people could pass on their
property to their own kin, as monogamy made
clear whose children were whom (Stern, 1948).
Ultimately, however, this arrangement served to

reproduce inequality. As the children of the rich
grew into wealth, the children of the poor
remained poor. Thus, the nuclear family served
to benefit the bourgeois more than the
proletariat.
Subscribe to Simply Sociology!

Get updates on the latest posts and more
from Simply Sociology straight to your inbox.
Your Email...
SUBSCRIBE
I consent to receiving emails and personalized ads.
Zaretsky’s Cushioning Effect
The cushioning effect is similar to

Parson's theory of the Warm Bath, in
that the family acts as a relief from social
stress and tension. However, Zaretsky
believed that the family allowed the
breadwinner man to feel in control and
strong, which they did not feel at work
due to the oppression of the bourgeoisie
capitalist class. Therefore the family
maintains capitalism because it prevents
the proletariat from acknowledging its
oppression and starting a revolution.
In Zaretsky's view, the family works in the

interests of capitalism. Writing from the Marxist
perspective, the sociologist Zaretsky developed
the view that modern capitalist society created
an illusion that the "private life" of the family is
separate from the economy.
Zaretsky was interested in psychology, and

specifically the idea that the family can perform
a psychological function. People can be
nurtured, supported, and have their individual

needs met by the family. This is in parallel to the
Functionalist Talcott Parsons warm bath theory
(Tilly, 1978).
However, fundamentally, Zaretsky did not

believe that the family is able to provide for the
psychological and social needs of the individual.
While cushioning the effects of capitalism, the
family perpetuates the system and cannot
compensate for the alienation between the rich
and poor created by capitalist society.
Zaretsky believed that the family is a prop to the

capitalist economy. For example, the capitalist
system depends on the unpaid labor of mothers
who reproduce, feed, and clothe future
generations of workers.
Workers who have families are also less likely to

rebel against their bosses, such as by going on
strike, because the loss of earnings could affect
not only them, but also their dependents.
For Zaretsky, the family could only serve as a

way of providing psychological support for its
members when there is an end to capitalism
(Tilly, 1978).;
The Family as a Unit of

Consumption
In Zaretsky's view, the family also serves as a
vital unit of consumption. Not only do capitalists
and business owners want to keep workers'
wages low in order to make a profit, but they
also must be able to sell the worker's goods. In
order to sell the workers' goods, however, they

must create demands for their products. The
family structure builds demand for goods in
several ways.
Key to understanding this theory of the family as

a "unit of consumption" is the idea of "false
needs." Marxist theory considers false needs to
be perceived needs created by the capitalist
system, rather than by people's real needs
(Zaretsky, 2010).
Real needs, for example, are basic material

things such as food, shelter, clothing,
transportation, health, education, and general
welfare.
False needs, meanwhile, arise due to the

demands of the capitalist system rather than the
real needs of individuals. These can include
things that make life in a capitalist system
bearable, such as things that fulfill a need for
distraction.
Additionally, false needs can encompass

anything people may buy to give a sense of
social status, or something that people buy or
do to give themselves or their children an
advantage in an artificially unequal world.
False needs can also include many of the

products that people buy out of fear, or in order
to make themselves safe, especially if that fear
is engineered by the capitalist system in order to
keep the population under control (Zaretsky,
2010).
These false need purchases could

include, in a family (Zaretsky, 2010):
Purchases parents make to quit their

children and give them time to manage their
lives in situations where parents do not
have enough time at home due to their
obligation to work in the capitalist system.
This could include toys, tablets, and
subscriptions to entertainment.
Purchases parents make too advantageous

for their children educationally. Marxism
contends that education reproduces class
inequality because the middle classes can
buy their children a better education. For
example, tutoring or preparatory schools
could widen inequality.
Purchases parents make to give their family

a sense of status to outsiders. This could be
for the whole family — sick as a new car —
or parents giving their children high-status
clothes or electronics.
Products bought to keep children "Safe,"
Further exacerbating these purchases

motivated by "false needs" is the built in
obsolescence of many products.
For example, the latest phone will become

obsolete, or even nonfunctional, a few years
after it is purchased and clothing tends to go
frequently in and out of fashion.
There are two additional main factors

that drive the family as a unit of
consumption in the view of
contemporary Marxists (Delphy, 1980):
1. Families must keep up with the material
goods and services acquired by neighbors

and peers.
2. Media and companies target children

through advertising. These children can
then persuade their parents to buy more
expensive items.
Althusser: The Family as a

Socializer
Althusser argues that the family, as part of the
superstructure of capitalist society, socializes
children into norms and values that are useful to
the capitalist ruling class. That is to say, the
family is an ideological agent, a puppet, of the
ruling class.
For example, children learn obedience and

respect for those in authority within the family.
This means that the capitalist class can later
exploit these children because, when these
children become adults, they are more likely to
view the power and authority of the capitalist
class as natural.
By socializing children into ruling-class values,

the family ensures that children will become
uncritical and conformist adults and passive
workers who accept exploitation with little
complaint.
Marxist vs. Functionalist

Views of the Family
Marxism and Functionalism are both macro or

structural theories. This means that they are both
interested in how the family contributes to the
running of society, rather than how individuals
experience family life on a daily basis.
However, whereas functionalists tend to see the

family as good for both society and the individual,
Marxists suggest that the family, particularly the
nuclear family, is used by the capitalist class to
ensure that extreme inequalities in wealth and
income produced by capitalism are never challenged
by the proletariat.
Criticisms
Marxists have been criticized for overemphasizing
how the family is shaped by the needs of capitalism.
Indeed, Marxists have done little research to
investigate whether members of families actually do
have this relationship with capitalism. Interactionists,
meanwhile, are critical of Marxism because they
believe that Marxists ignore the meanings families
have for individuals (Brown, 2012).
Scholars have also argued that Marxism presents

people with an oversocialized view of humans,
seeing socialization as a one-way process where
children are imbued with capitalist culture. This does
not consider the possibility that proletariat parents
and children may actively resist this process
(Thompson, 2014).
Additionally, the Marxist view of the family has been

criticized for its over-focus on the negative aspects
of the family while ignoring the satisfaction it gives
people. For example, the positive experience of
being a housewife and mother are dismissed as
capitalist ideology and false consciousness
regardless of how real these feelings are for the

individuals involved.
While Marxists focus on the nuclear family by way of

showing how it meets the needs of capitalism,
Marxists ignore recent economic and educational
changes which seem to have resulted in a radical
change in how women think of their careers.
Resultantly, a small percentage of women are

housewives. The last hundred years has also
ushered in a diversity of family forms such as dual-
career families, single-person households, same-sex
couples, polyamorous groups, and so on.
These alternative conceptions of the family are

outside of Marxist analysis of the nuclear family
(Thompson, 2014).
Read More
Functionalist Perspective on the Family
About the Author
Charlotte Nickerson is a member of the Class of

2024 at Harvard University. Coming from a
research background in biology and
archaeology, Charlotte currently studies how
digital and physical space shapes human
beliefs, norms, and behaviors and how this can
be used to create businesses with greater social
impact.
Fact Checking
Content is rigorously reviewed by a team of

qualified and experienced fact checkers. Fact
checkers review articles for factual accuracy,
relevance, and timeliness. We rely on the most
current and reputable sources, which are cited
in the text and listed at the bottom of each
article. Content is fact checked after it has been
edited and before publication.
This article has been fact checked by Saul

Mcleod, a qualified psychology teacher with
over 17 years' experience of working in further
and higher education. He has been published in
psychology journals including Clinical
Psychology, Social and Personal Relationships,
and Social Psychology.
Cite this Article (APA Style)
Nickerson, C. (2022, April 04). Functions of the

family: Marxism . Simply Sociology.
https://simplysociology.com/functions-of-the-family-
marxism.html
References
Althusser, L. (1969). For Marx (B. Brewster, Trans.).
London: Penguin Press. (Original work published 1965)
Althusser, L. (1971). Lenin and philosophy and other essays

(B. Brewster, Trans.). London: New Left. (Original work
published 1970)
Althusser, L., & Balibar, E. (1970). Reading Capital (B.

Brewster, Trans.). London: New Left. (Original work
published 1968) Brown, H. (2012). Marx on gender and the
family: A critical study (Vol. 39). Brill.
Delphy, C. (1980). Sharing the same table: consumption

and the family. The Sociological Review, 28(1_suppl), 214-
231.
Johnson, D. P. (2008). Contemporary sociological theory.

An Integrated Multi-Level Approach. Texas: Springer.
Stern, B. J. (1948). Engels on the Family. Science & Society,

42-64.
Tilly, L. A. (1978). The family and change.
Thompson, K. (2014). The Marxist Perspective on The

Family.
Zaretsky, N. (2010). No direction home: The American

family and the fear of national decline, 1968-1980. Univ of
North Carolina Press.

The Marxists Perspective On The Family: The Conflict View of Society

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Marxists Perspective On The Family: The Conflict View of Society

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Marxists Perspective On The Family: The Conflict View of Society

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Marxists Perspective on the Family 2022/12/8, 8:51 AM

The Conflict View of

sociology. This means that Marxists see society as

Institutions generally work in the interests of the

In Marxism, the bourgeoisie gain their wealth through

Marxist Functions of The

Unit of Consumption Socialization

Engels: Inheritance of Wealth

An isolated nuclear family means that

In Engels view, the monogamous nuclear family

property was collectively owned, and this was

Rather than the modern nuclear family, family

However, the emergence of capitalism, a system

Eventually, the bourgeois started to look for

Ultimately, however, this arrangement served to

Subscribe to Simply Sociology!

from Simply Sociology straight to your inbox.

I consent to receiving emails and personalized ads.

Zaretsky’s Cushioning Effect

The cushioning effect is similar to

In Zaretsky's view, the family works in the

Zaretsky was interested in psychology, and

nurtured, supported, and have their individual

However, fundamentally, Zaretsky did not

Zaretsky believed that the family is a prop to the

Workers who have families are also less likely to

For Zaretsky, the family could only serve as a

The Family as a Unit of

order to sell the workers' goods, however, they

Key to understanding this theory of the family as

Real needs, for example, are basic material

False needs, meanwhile, arise due to the

Additionally, false needs can encompass

False needs can also include many of the

These false need purchases could

Purchases parents make to quit their

Purchases parents make too advantageous

Purchases parents make to give their family

Products bought to keep children "Safe,"

Further exacerbating these purchases

For example, the latest phone will become

There are two additional main factors

1. Families must keep up with the material

goods and services acquired by neighbors

2. Media and companies target children

Althusser: The Family as a

For example, children learn obedience and

By socializing children into ruling-class values,

Marxist vs. Functionalist

Marxism and Functionalism are both macro or

However, whereas functionalists tend to see the

Scholars have also argued that Marxism presents

Additionally, the Marxist view of the family has been

regardless of how real these feelings are for the

While Marxists focus on the nuclear family by way of

Resultantly, a small percentage of women are

These alternative conceptions of the family are

About the Author

Charlotte Nickerson is a member of the Class of