Parsons' Sex Roles Essay: Functionalism vs. Conflict Theory

Introduction: Parsons and the Kinship Framework

Talcott Parsons' essay "Sex Roles in the American Kinship System" analyzes the American social structure of the 1940s from several different perspectives. Specifically, the author examines societal structure from a familial, or "kinship" (Parsons 1943: 300), perspective, an occupational perspective, and finally from a perspective concerning relations between the two sexes. The primary focus of his argument is that the family unit is the basic foundation of society, but that the effects of romantic relationships and occupational perceptions ultimately contribute to a "tension" (Parsons 1943: 303) 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 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" (Parsons 1943: 300) from one's family of origin and the opportunity to begin a new one. Parsons (1943: 300) believes that one of the most vital components of adolescence is the "intensification of the romantic love pattern." The establishment of a new family results in the typical gender roles of men as the proverbial breadwinner and women — even if they do hold some form of employment — as a kind of domestic administrator. The truly interesting part of this essay, however, is Parsons' (1943: 301) view of this split in roles assigned to each sex, which he widely regards as functional yet 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."

Functionalism and Occupational Sex Roles

The chief strength of this essay is that the author roots the majority of his arguments in functionalist theory, of which Talcott's view was considered "extreme" (McClelland 2000). 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 "occupational systems" (Parsons 1943: 302) as a vital means of supporting 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 makes 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" (Parsons 1943: 302) and keeps the domains of men and women completely separated from one another.

Parsons' functionalist view of what is, by contemporary standards, essentially sexism in the workplace helps to provide a theoretical framework for what amounts to institutionalized chauvinism — and on a very basic level, it helps to underpin such a stance rather than challenge it.

Honesty and Contradiction in Parsons' Argument

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 assigning occupational worth according to sex. To Parsons' credit, he acknowledges these contradictions in a way that suggests he is offering an objective view of the sociological system of the sexes. The most glaring contradiction about the subordinate status automatically assigned to women — 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" (Parsons 1943: 303).

Still, it is worth noting that the arbitrary role assigned to women regarding their dependency upon men is due in large part to the way society regards their occupational worth. 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 (1943: 303) explains quite honestly by observing that "occupational status has tremendous weight in the scale of prestige values." He goes on to address this point by closing his article with a synopsis of the knowledge of the "humanities" (Parsons 1943: 303) that women have mastered, offered as a way to account for their devaluation in society both in the workplace and in the home. In neither sphere are they regarded as equals to men.

References

Hardman. 2013. "On the 50th Anniversary of the Publication of The Feminine Mystique by Betty Friedan." Women & Language 36(1): 57–61.

MacDonald, Kevin. 2009. "Evolution, Psychology, and a Conflict Theory of Culture." Evolutionary Psychology 7(2): 208–233.

McClelland, Kent. 2000. "Functionalism." Grinnell College. See also: Structural Functionalism (Wikipedia).

Parsons, Talcott. 1943. "Sex Roles in the American Kinship System."