This essay examines Talcott Parsons' sociological analysis of sex roles in American kinship structures during the 1940s. The paper evaluates Parsons' functionalist argument that family, occupation, and romantic relationships form the foundation of social structure, while simultaneously creating inherent tension between the sexes. Through critical analysis, the essay identifies the strengths of Parsons' theoretical framework—particularly his candid acknowledgment of contradictions in gender hierarchies—while exploring how conflict theory offers an alternative interpretation of the same phenomena. The paper demonstrates how Parsons' observations, though rooted in mid-century gender assumptions, inadvertently laid theoretical groundwork for understanding the women's liberation movements and gender relations that followed in subsequent decades.
In his essay "Sex Roles in the American Kinship System," Talcott Parsons analyzes the American social structure of the 1940s from several different perspectives. Specifically, the author examines societal structure from a familial or "kinship" perspective, an occupational perspective, and finally from a perspective between the two sexes. The primary focus of his argument is that the family unit is the basic foundation of society, but the effects of romantic relationships and occupational perceptions ultimately contribute to a "tension" that is inherently manifested between the sexes. He largely bolsters this viewpoint with a functionalist perspective that was far from unique at the time, and which would have readily supplied a conflict theorist with the means to likely overturn his conclusions—which partly explains later trends in gender relations.
The principal point of departure in this essay is that, after growing up with strong kinship ties to their nuclear families, individuals inevitably venture out on their own to begin romantic relationships that form the basis of new families. In this regard, marriage provides a means of "emancipation" from one's own family and the opportunity to begin a new one. Parsons believes that one of the most vital components of adolescence is to provide an "intensification of the romantic love pattern." The establishment of a new family results in the typical gender roles of men as the breadwinner and women, even if they hold some sort of job, as a domestic administrator. The truly interesting aspect of this essay, however, is the regard that Parsons sees for this vital split in roles assigned to each sex, which he widely views as functional and concedes has "exceedingly important positive functional significance and is at the same time an important source of strain in relation to the patterning of sex roles."
The chief strength of this essay is the fact that the author has rooted the majority of his postulations on functionalist theory, of which Talcott Parsons' view was considered particularly rigorous. For instance, he sees marriage as providing a critical foundation for the stability of individuals who are starting their own family and therefore replacing the nuclear family in which they grew up. Additionally, he views the "occupational systems" as a vital means of assisting with marriages and their solidarity. At the time of his writing, these occupational systems deferred to the male as the head of the household and rewarded him with the most financially advantageous positions. The author provides an incisive point about the functional nature of this aspect of the job market, which "eliminates any competitive status, especially as between husband and wife" and keeps the domains of the man and woman completely separated from one another.
Parsons' functionalist view of what essentially is sexism in the workplace—particularly by contemporary standards—helps to provide a theoretical approach to what essentially amounts to chauvinism, which on a basic level helps to underpin such a stance. By framing occupational inequality as functional rather than merely oppressive, Parsons argues that the system serves a purpose: maintaining marital stability by preventing direct economic competition between spouses.
Another strength of this article is the author's sheer honesty. There are a number of contradictions inherent in distinguishing between men and women and their occupational worth according to sex; to Parsons' credit, he is able to acknowledge these contradictions in a way that suggests he is providing an objective view of the sociological system of the sexes. The most glaring contradiction about the subordinate status automatically assigned to women because of their sex—both from an occupational perspective and a general social one—is the fact that, for the married man, what "makes his relation to the woman he loves" the most important single thing in a man's life is incompatible with the view that she is an inferior creature, fit only for dependency on him.
Still, it is worth noting that the arbitrary role assigned to women (particularly to married women) regarding their dependency upon men is due in large part to the way that society regards their occupational prowess. The general devaluation of women in the workplace relates to the lack of parity between them and men in the family structure, a fact that Parsons explains quite honestly by observing that "occupational status has tremendous weight in the scale of prestige values." He goes on to elaborate on this passage by finishing his article with a synopsis of the knowledge of the purported finer things in life—"the humanities"—that women have mastered as a way to account for their devaluation in society in both the workplace and in the home. In neither sphere are they regarded as equals to men.
Whereas Parsons ascribes a great deal of functionality to the inequitable treatment and esteem for men and women both in the workplace and in their marriage, the strength of his functional perspective is lessened somewhat by his acknowledgment that this inequity can actually produce strain in a marriage. While he should be lauded for admitting this limitation of the functionality of society's regard for sex roles, this point does not actually buttress his functionalist perspective and in fact weakens it—which is one of the drawbacks of the article.
However, what is interesting about this assessment of Parsons is the way that a conflict theorist would interpret these same phenomena and explain sex roles in the 1940s. The conflict theorist would find fertile grounds for the fact that conflict is oftentimes a constructive point for change by readily agreeing with Parsons about the lack of parity between men and women due to their occupational regard, and the fact that this valuation naturally extends itself into the sphere of family life. However, the conflict theorist would argue that there is nothing negative about these facts; instead, they are vital points for effecting change in the roles of the sexes at the time.
In fact, someone who believes in conflict theory would take the inverse opinion of Parsons and his functionalist theory for most of the latter's salient points. Parsons propounded the fact that occupational perceptions of men and women—in which men were the breadwinners and women, regardless of whether they had a job, were simply the head of the household—as a positive fact because there is less "competition for status, especially as between husband and wife, which might be disruptive of the solidarity of marriage." Conflict theory, however, would propose the idea that conflict is desirable since it promotes change and can result in a stasis that is difficult to achieve without it. This idea is referred to as an "evolutionary theory of conflict over the construction of culture." The conflict theorist would believe that occupational regard for women and men is a prime source of conflict, because it relegates women to positions that—although they are different from those of men in that the former is domestic and the latter is professional—are considered lesser than that of their male counterparts. Therefore, what Parsons believes is good about this point the conflict theorist would believe is not good, and would likely posit the viewpoint that the differences in the occupations of a husband and wife represent an inherent source of conflict that requires resolution.
More compelling still is the way in which Parsons' theoretical ideas help to explain later trends in gender relations. Those trends, of course, involve the full emancipation of the woman to a status that not only includes her as one who can "hold property, make contracts, or sue in her own right" but as one who is ultimately bereft of the sort of "dependency" that Parsons has ascribed to her. One can argue that much like the way the conflict theorist would view Parsons' ideas, the author's ideas provided the impetus for a much closer degree of parity between the sexes in the years leading up to the twenty-first century.
Gender relations in contemporary times include women in all sorts of places of employment—including in management and supervisory positions. Whereas during Parsons' time period women did not have careers even if they did have jobs, women can regularly have careers today. Some even choose to do so to the exclusion of their role as domestic administrators. One can trace all of these developments to Parsons' ideas that, sociologically as evidenced in the spheres of occupations and families, there was an integral dichotomy between men and women. Women have taken great strides to ensure that they are no longer dependent on men. By the 1960s, when Betty Friedan published The Feminine Mystique, the notion of female independence was gaining credence. Perhaps the most dramatic example of this fact is the rise of women choosing non-traditional family structures and economic independence. However, they had to actively pursue measures to ensure that there is more equality between them and men in the family and in the workplace. The origination of those measures is found in the ideas of Parsons, which merely mimicked the ideas of many across America and the world prior to the conclusion of World War II.
In summary, Parsons sufficiently demonstrates the fact that the family is the basic nucleus of American society. However, the author also proves that because of occupational perceptions and the effects of romantic relationships—which engender new families and people in roles as husbands and fathers—there is conflict between the sexes. That conflict greatly contributed to the independence of women today.
You’re 98% through this paper. Sign up to read the full paper.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.