Foundation of Social Sciences II
1
INTERNAL ASSESMENT
SUBMITTED TO:
Prof. Peerzada Raouf Ahmad
Foundation of Social Sciences II
SUBMITTED BY:
Shriya Tandon
21011557
BCOM LLB 2021
Section B
1st Year, 2nd Semester
Prepare for your exams
Study with the several resources on Docsity
Earn points to download
Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan
Guidelines and tips
Prepare for your exams
Study with the several resources on Docsity
Earn points to download
Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan
Community
Ask the community
Ask the community for help and clear up your study doubts
University Rankings
Discover the best universities in your country according to Docsity users
Free resources
Our save-the-student-ebooks!
Download our free guides on studying techniques, anxiety management strategies, and thesis advice from Docsity tutors
The Ideology of the Family in Capitalism, Summaries of Social Theory
This document analyzes the impact of capitalism on the structure of families. It discusses the contradictions and paradoxes that exist within the family and between the family and the social order. The document also explores the economic and ideological roles of the family in a capitalist society. It highlights the patriarchal nature of the family and its contribution to socioeconomic inequality. The document cites various sources to support its arguments.
Typology: Summaries
2020/2021
1 / 7
This page cannot be seen from the preview
Don't miss anything!
Related documents
Partial preview of the text
Download The Ideology of the Family in Capitalism and more Summaries Social Theory in PDF only on Docsity!
INTERNAL ASSESMENT
SUBMITTED TO:
Prof. Peerzada Raouf Ahmad Foundation of Social Sciences II
SUBMITTED BY:
Shriya Tandon 21011557 BCOM LLB 2021 Section B 1 st^ Year, 2nd^ Semester
THE IDEOLOGY OF THE FAMILY
In her work, “the Ideology of the Family”, Mitchell talks about how capitalism not only revolutionized the market economy but also impacted the structure of families. This paper presents an analysis of several points Mitchell made. With the advancement of economic methods of production, which have always needed larger and more intricate social formations to follow them, the family as the initial form of social organization has clearly experienced numerous modifications. Mitchell quotes Peggy Morton's piece titled "A Woman's Work is Never Done." She agrees with Morton on the point that whether it's in early capitalism or advanced capitalism, the way a family evolves, generates an increased number of paradoxes for the woman within it. One contradiction, as expected, lives within the sector of sexuality. Female sexuality, other than for the reasons of reproduction, was a taboo subject from the 19th century to the early feminist movements of the 1930s. Overactive female libido was considered a mental or moral disorder, and sexual desire had to be tamed. Despite the 1960s sexual revolution and the ensuing openness to sex and sexuality, these have remained touchy subjects for numerous generations of women. Guilt and shame often accompany these women throughout their sexual lives, as they were raised with limiting attitudes toward sexuality enforced by traditions in the 19th and early 20th centuries (Socialist Alternative, 2020 ). There is another critical contradiction not just within the family, but also between it and the social order that surrounds it. The family serves various important societal functions. It socializes children, offers emotional and practical assistance to its members, aids in the regulation of sexual activity and reproduction, and gives its members a sense of belonging. However, in numerous ways, the family as a social institution contributes to socioeconomic inequality. The social identity it gives its offspring has an impact on their life prospects, but it also perpetuates a society's stratification system. Because families pass on their wealth to their children, and because family wealth varies widely, the family contributes to the perpetuation of existing inequality. As it evolved throughout the centuries, particularly with industrialization, the family became increasingly patriarchal as well (Creative Commons license, 2010 ). Therefore, despite all of its changes, the family remains not only an idealistic concept, but also an important ideological and economic unit with certain rigor and autonomy. Capitalism emerged with the arrival of industry. Capitalism is defined as a method of the industry whereby business owners (capitalists) create goods for the market in order to get a profit and not for private consumption. In capitalism, capitalists have the job including the tools
To defeat the previous ruling class in any revolution, the new ruling class must appear to represent the large majority of the people in the society. Capitalist natural law must be observed in a capitalist polity if its laws are to remain capitalist and the society itself wishes to realize as much of its capitalist potential as is possible or desirable for it. If people living in, say, a capitalist society believes that their social formation has a lot to suggest and very little to be disapproved of in it, and if they want it to survive or be improved, they must pay heed to capitalist natural law when they work out their positive laws. The objective, independent character of natural law becomes quite significant when one considers the situation of a ruling class under capitalism. 'Ideas' play such a crucial role in projecting this limited 'class' interest as the general, universal interest. In order to face and overcome feudal society, emerging capitalist society must appear to supply what the majority wants, which naturally takes the shape of an idealization of what the previous socio-economic system offered as its foundation in an inherently un-ideal manner. All people's beliefs and goals are shaped by what they have: they just want more and better. To put it another way, feudal society's peasant masses possessed individual private property; their objective was simply more of it. Because it emphasized the concept of individual private property in a new setting, capitalism appeared to offer more. Individualism was thus given new tools for greater realization, such as freedom and equality—virtues that were noticeably absent from feudalism. The only place where this ideal could appear to have a firm foundation was in the upkeep of an old institution: the family. Feudalism is the cultural system revolving around land ownership, aristocracy, and military responsibility. Though not the formal means of ruling, feudalism relates to the way in which sharp, hierarchal parts separate noble classes, clergy, and peasantry. Opportunities for change between these hierarchies are mostly unrealistic. In the method, peasants typically offered work and military assistance I exchange for occupancy of land and shelter from outside forces under the authority of the noble God. In exchange, Lordships, or fiefdoms, frequently employed one another politically, economically, and militarily. As we know, a capitalist society is based on the legal right to private property and the ability to pass on wealth to future generations. Capitalists argue that a capitalist society is fair because you gain rewards for your hard work. But often people are rich, simply because they inherit wealth or are born into a privileged class. Therefore, capitalist society not only fails to create equality of outcome but also fails to provide equality of opportunity. A capitalist society argues it is good if people can earn more leading to income and wealth inequality. Nevertheless, that ignores the diminishing marginal utility of wealth. Example: a millionaire who gets an extra million sees little increase
in economic welfare, but that million spent on health care would provide a much bigger increase in social welfare. Thus, during feudalism, the family was the economic foundation of individual private property; under capitalism, the family became the focal point of the idea of individual private property. A family’s role in a capitalist society is both economic and ideological. The economic role is to provide a specific type of productive labor force as well as a large-scale consuming arena. The two roles interact to generate the missing ideals of peasant, feudal society that emphasizes on the freedom and equality to enjoy individual private property. This backwards-looking worldview of the family is vital for the present: without it, people may yearn for a 'golden period' in the past; if Utopianism of any kind emerges, it is likely to look forwards, endangering the status quo. As a result, the family represents the most conservative ideas: it rigidifies old values and portrays them as current pleasures. The capitalist economy could benefit from a healthier and better educated working class, but the capitalists intended to do so at the lowest possible cost to themselves. Individual working-class families were better suited to take on this responsibility, feeding, clothing, and caring for all 'fruitless' members of family (like children, disabled, elderly, etc.) whose labor power could not be exploited in the workplace without recourse to the state. Other than this, a workforce that was disciplined, obedient, and respectful to authority was also demanded by the capitalists. The patriarchal family, in which men exerted control over women and children, including via physical violence, was an effective institution for imparting these ideas and promoting gender norms. Working-class males were also disciplined through their families since it was a huge obligation for men to accept financial responsibility for all dependent family members. So, the capitalists took advantage of this duty whenever they could (2001, p. 161). Lastly, there exists another paradox in the ideological concept of family. It's the clash between the family and the prevailing capitalist production system. Because of varied vocations and workplace environments, the social aspect of employment under capitalism fractures family unity. Because of shifting social conditions, what had previously been a cohesive unit within the wider diverse social structure became a split one. Though they are united by a familial interest, the separation of their location and working conditions fractures that unity. As a result, the social nature of employment under capitalism fractures the unitary family, reinforcing the family's social nature. It is this contradiction between a family's essential social nature and an ideology of seclusion and individuation that capitalism has brought into play through its social structure of work. Each family member wishes to be unique, but the family as a whole is
WORKS CITED
Socialist Alternative. (2020). The Family Under Capitalism. Retrieved May 17, 2022, from https://www.socialistalternative.org/it-doesnt-have-to-be-like-this/the-family-under- capitalism/. Creative Commons license. (2010). Sociology: Understanding and Changing the Social World. Retrieved May 17, 2022, from https://open.lib.umn.edu/sociology/chapter/15- 2 - sociological-perspectives-on-the-family/. Sarkadi, Anna, and Urban Rosenqvist. (2001). Contradictions in the medical encounter: female sexual dysfunction in primary care contacts. Family Practice , 18 (2), 161–166. https://academic.oup.com/fampra/article/18/2/161/492383.