The Family from a Conflict/Marxist Perspective.

For the conflict theorist, families are associated with exploitation, oppression and domination. Nuclear families in particular are seen as products of capitalism where labour has to move where employment is located leaving behind the extended family. Conflict theorists also argue that the values attributed to nuclear family units are a result of the values imposed by the rich and powerful in the society. The nuclear family form also fits into the capitalist plans in that there is a sexual division of labour where the man works outside, and the woman stays at home and carries out the roles of wife, mother and homemaker. Conflict theorists believe that the assigning of roles in a family has contributed to family oppression, abuse and violence. This is because what results is an unequal distribution of power that jeopardizes gender relations and even produces generational conflict. Even children are affected by this assignment of roles as they are expected to be obedient and subservient and many of them are powerless because their voices are silenced. Summary and Analysis Early sociologists mainly from North America and Europe tended to promote the nuclear family as a universal family type because this family type was dominant in their world. Today this family type and the values associated with it is still a dominant aspiration amongst Caribbean people even in the midst of cultural and ethnic diversities. If we are to see the Caribbean as one melting pot of cultures then one family type cannot dominate all others. Amongst Afro and Indo-Caribbean families the extended family type is still a dominant feature. Functionalists who ascribe to the nuclear family unit and the roles which each individual play within such a unit fail to understand, or choose to largely ignore certain socio-historic factors which prevent this family type from being achieved within many units. They argue for example that disorder occurs when children are born out of wedlock and men in particular fail to fulfill their roles as fathers. Yet ironically our European ancestors who tried during slavery to perpetuate the nuclear family form as

the acceptable unit to aspire to were the ones who were separating slave families from each other. On many slave plantations marriages were not allowed or encouraged by slave masters as it would result in a sense of stability and comfort amongst slaves. Besides, stable unions would serve to encourage reproduction which would be additional expenses for plantation owners. Thus it was common especially during difficult financial time for slaves to be sold to other plantations separating them from other family members. Dr. Maureen Rowe has sought to attribute the general lack of responsibility shown amongst Caribbean fathers to their families to what happened during slavery. She argues that as a result of male slaves being sent away to other plantations as soon as a family was formed, Caribbean men especially in the English-speaking territories never learnt to take responsibility for their own actions. The double-standards are even more revealing when we consider the growing mulatto class which emerged during the period of slavery consisting of children born largely out of wedlock to European slave masters who, for the public image sought to portray a perfect nuclear family form. Essentially the debate on family types and values also lends itself to the question as to whether family type, structure or composition has any bearing on the kinds of persons produced by that family. The answer is no. Good and bad persons seemed to have emerged from all manner of circumstances. Yet there still exists a strong body of opinion that values families consisting of two wedded parents and children. In summary the Conflict perspective gives us an alternative view to that of the dominant view of the social institution of family. Both describe the impact of the family on Caribbean people however functionalism contributes some of the dominant ideas that help to shape the common view whereas our history and conflict theory show us how diverse we are in interpreting family