The Personal Life Perspective of the Family (AQA A Level Sociology): Revision Note

Critique of structural theories of the family

• The personal life perspective challenges traditional structural approaches such as functionalism, Marxism, and feminism, which often adopt a top-down and overly generalised view of family life

• Instead, this perspective emphasises the subjective meanings individuals attach to relationships, focusing on how people personally define what ‘family’ means to them

Limitations of structural theories

• Assumption of the nuclear family as the norm

  • Structural perspectives often present the nuclear family as the most ‘ideal’ or functional family form

  • This ignores the diversity of modern family arrangements, such as lone-parent households, stepfamilies, same-sex families, and chosen families

• Overly deterministic

  • Functionalist, Marxist, and feminist theories portray individuals as passively shaped by wider social structures, such as capitalism or patriarchy

  • They overlook how individuals actively negotiate and shape their own family experiences

• Neglect of personal meanings

  • Traditional theories focus on the roles and functions families perform (e.g., socialisation, economic support)

  • They fail to consider how people interpret their relationships and the emotional significance they attach to them

The importance of 'personal life'

• Smart (2007) suggests replacing the term ‘family’ with ‘personal life’, as 'family' often carries assumptions about what is ‘ideal’ or ‘normal’

• The concept of personal life is neutral, flexible, and inclusive, extending beyond marriage and biological kinship to encompass a variety of meaningful relationships

Reframing what counts as family

• The personal life perspective adopts a bottom-up approach, focusing on the meanings, experiences, and emotions individuals attach to their relationships by

  • focusing on experience and emotion:

    • Family can be defined by closeness, care, and emotional bonds, not just by legal or biological ties

  • being inclusive of diverse relationships:

    • Recognises a wide range of intimate connections as family, including stepfamilies, cohabiting partners, and close friends

Families beyond blood or law

• Chosen families

  • People often create meaningful bonds outside traditional definitions, e.g.,

    • Friends who feel like siblings

    • Fictive kin (e.g., calling a parent’s friend 'auntie')

    • Pets treated as family members (Tipper, 2011)

• Child perspectives

  • Mason and Tipper (2008) found children define family by who cares for and supports them, rather than genetics

• Donor-conceived families

  • Nordqvist and Smart (2014) observed that emotional investment is valued over biological links

    • A non-genetic mother can be seen as the ‘real’ mum if she actively nurtures and loves the child

Evaluation of the personal life perspective

Strengths

• Reflects modern family diversity

  • Provides a realistic, flexible view of family life in a varied and changing society

  • Allan and Crow (2001) note that life paths are now less linear, with individuals experiencing multiple relationship stages

• Focus on emotion and belonging

  • Highlights how close relationships shape identity, security, and a sense of belonging

  • Argues that social and emotional bonds can be as important—or more so—than biological ones

• Not naively positive

  • Recognises that close relationships can also be harmful, e.g., in abusive households

Criticisms

• Too inclusive

  • Defining family too broadly risks losing its distinct meaning and overlooks the uniqueness of biological or legal relationships

• Overlooks power structures

  • Fails to fully address how patriarchy, capitalism, or racism shape family choices and experiences

• Overlooks cultural differences

  • May (2013) argues that late modernists like Giddens and Beck focus too much on white, middle-class couples

  • Many families face economic or cultural constraints, meaning individual choice is not as free as suggested