![]() ![]() American Sociological Review, 55, 339–345.Ītwater, L. Parsons’ “structure” in American sociology. Berkeley: University of California Press.Īlexander, J. Aldous (Eds.), Social stress and family development (pp. ![]() The linkages between family development and family stress. Divorced families: A multidisciplinary developmental view. Figley (Eds.), Stress and the family: Vol. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Īhrons, C. Talcott Parsons and the conceptual dilemma. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.Īdriaansens, H. These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. To understand why functionalism was once considered important, then fell into disrepute, but continues to be significant for family research, we must first grasp what it was and is trying to say. Nevertheless, this book must address functionalism (1) because of its historic significance for studies of families, and (2) because functinalist assumptions remain central to family sociology and family studies, in spite of arguments to the contrary (Broderick, 1971a Holman & Burr, 1980). But in more recent collections, no one noticed or cared that it was omitted (Burr et al., 1979 Sus-sman & Steinmetz, 1987). Thirty years ago, structural-functionalism (or simply, functionalism) occupied a central place in family anthologies (McIntyre, 1966 Pitts, 1964). The task is unique because unlike the remaining theory chapters, we consider a framework that has become virtually obsolete throughout general sociology (Coleman, 1990). Our task in this chapter is unique and thus extraordinarily challenging. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |