In this assignment i was asked to critically evaluate the changes thought out the 50 years in family life.To fully do that and be able accurately evaluate the United Kingdom’s family like i have decided to split my research into primary and secondary.My primary research I have decided to use mainly using trusted official articles, journals, case studies and quotes from theorists. As my secondary research goes it will mostly consist of newspaper articles, webpages, government websites, blogs. To fully understand the changes that went throughout the years i have decided to sometimes compare my main research and quotes from theorists to some other examples from all around the world which could show the way that some countries are still behind the process of development within family life. I also wanted to distinguish the values that a family has and bring an understanding and distinguish the essential analysis of a family change patterns. If i want to critically evaluate and study the family life and their changes i will be taking an approach that does not involve my personal experiences , that way my results bias , i will be viewing family as a product of historically specific social conditions / forces. The definition of a family is what is referred to as a group of Individuals/ people who are related to each other e.g. mother and a father with their children.I would consider a family to be a sort of a basic unit in society. All societies have families and over the years have developed their own meanings of it nonetheless considering the families and the form varies greatly.With that family looking historically is changing its form which resolves in interchanging economical and social conditions. Since the 1950s families have been rapidly changing and the question of what families are and why have the definition of a family became so controversial have been asked more frequently that’s why in a result there is no surprise that the study of families is becoming a subject of quite heated debates.With the research conducted and the understanding obtained it is clear that a family as a social institution but can be challenged in that aspect for several reasons. Individuals are all connected to some type of family life in some way or another which in result encourages a belief in our expertise without wider knowledge. What I have also noticed and taken under consideration that personal experiences can extremely encourage emotional changes and views when it comes to family life. Family life is seeked as a desire for human happiness that’s why throughout the years individuals and social groups searched to find the perfect form of a ” family “. Historically family life has been changing constantly this results from all the shifting within the social groups and their conditions. To go in detail and fully evaluate this chosen topic i thought is important to define some key terms for family structures. Kinship which refers to a concept of a certain family connection (between people) which can either be obtained my blood marriage or adoption. It could also refer to relatives that could be obtained in different circumstances e.g. whether close or distant , in contact frequently or infrequent or maybe non existent.Household refers to any individual/individuals who live in the same house/ under same roof which could be family members but in some instances can be unrelated in any way.Nuclear family in basic meaning is a family type what all people experience in the majority in all countries in europe. In its simplest form it usually contains two generations which consists of an adult hetrosexual married couple e.g. husband wife and their children living in the same household. Also extended families which represent and take from the basic form of a nuclear family but enlarged from it to be able to include social group and other individuals like uncles , grandparents, cousins it would also include anyone who lives either in the same household or close by e.g. same neighbourhood. As John Eekelaa explains/ argues that all social institutions e.g. families and even the educational system , are very beneficial and function very well in daily societies because they’re able to perform key functions for people and the societies that they are in / involved in. To back up these claims George Peter Murdock conducted a study entitled ” Social Structure” in 1949, this study of 250 societies of various types taken under consideration George Peter Murdock provided and outlined a definition of the family and a theory suggesting that the nuclear family was a universal social unit which from then onwards was a topic discussed by many theorists as it was very controversial within his field of sociology. Murdock argued also that “the nuclear family is a universal social grouping. Either as the sole prevailing form of the family or as the basic unit from which more complex forms are compounded, it exists as a unique and strongly functional group in every known society”. What he’s trying to underline here is that the simplest understanding of a family is considered to be an universal group which could be more complex from the basic meaning but in whichever form it exists in , it is always beneficial in the end overall functioning very well in every knows society.Functionalist sociologists explain in detail the existence of social institutions and its meaning by the fact that they fulfil functions that are essential for the continued harmonious existence of society.That’s why e.g. factories and banks exist because they fulfil economic and financial functions in past and present societies, schools fulfil their educational functions and the hospitals safeguard our health and it goes so on.In Functionalist terminology all of these institutions that i have listed above are said to be functional for societies as they contribute to the continuing social stability and harmony of societies in the past and in present. George Peter Murdock argues that family could be classes as a social institution as it functions in the way all other social institutions work it is assumed without any question or arguments against it that a family is in a way a very positive institution and is beneficial to all family members which receive unconditional love care and nurturing. The existence of the basic nuclear family is beneficial for all members of it as it provides for a more stable/less permanent heterosexual relationships between individual couples. If people were involved in many fairly temporary/ unstable sexual relationships would resolve them being relatively emotionally shallow and wouldn’t function as well in past and modern societies.The nuclear family provides a more stable environment for all the members inside of a family which resolve in the increasing of the likelihood that there will be strong emotional bonds between parents and their children.This means that the socialisation of the children is more likely to be effective within a nuclear family.Economic roles within the nuclear family are important to be allocated quickly effectively as having regard to the different psychological and physical characteristics of males and females respectively within the family is important for it to function properly.Through all of Murdock research and findings he always stated to be a supporter of the traditional gender division of labour within nuclear families. The universal existence of nuclear families and their role within social groups is also seen by George Peter Murdock in what he describes/believes to be the basic characteristics of human nature.George Peter Murdock believed that all people naturally or usually desire the permanent heterosexual relationships which would lead for them to produce their own natural offspring/children.Adults gain a sense of fulfilment both from these heterosexual relationships that i have mentioned before and as a result of the strong emotional bonds that they have been created with their children it concludes that this is sustained most easily in the nuclear family.These strong bonds are emotional for everyone in the nuclear family and as a result they are a good conducive to the efficient way of socialisation of the children within such families.Adult roles within the nuclear family can be distinguished in accordance with natural gender differences in some instances more than the other and also in physical and psychological characteristics in their family relations not only in adults but in children roles also. Gill Jagger argues and criticizes George Peter Murdock on the way that he defined family and the family life in the very unbiased way. Also his research was taken place in 1940-1950 in the United States where the economy was booming and some of his views he was basing his data from were from Europe. With this he didn’t take under consideration that the culture that US was producing then was a lot different from the culture in Europe where at the time US was producing one of the best cultural institutions which then resulted in the US families that he was looking at were more inferior to the others ones that he has mentioned. Other sociologists like Mark Hutter also stated that the way that George Peter Murdock continuously fails to acknowledge that all families are the product of a long lasting culture and never mentioned biology that has a big part in all of the process of a family becoming a family. Taking this under consideration with the way that George Peter Murdock has displayed/ portrayed families / family relations and their roles will take a different form even within the same society because of it. George Peter Murdock’s model of family life is valuable but outdated as it clearly states the right and the wrong ways on how to conduct/organise family life.The way that the model fails to take into account modern social progress such as e.g. increased availability of career choices for women and the ongoing decline of male employment and their opportunities of getting proper education.With the 1970s there was more reasons that the very dated model that Murdock has produced failed to take account of any modern social processes such as contraceptive pills, the ability to group in social and religious circles and from then onwards it was clear that family life does not always benefit all of the individuals within a family. Talcott Parsons an American sociologist suggested that the modern nuclear family that we know today evolved to meet and adapt to the changes mostly regarding and referring to economic needs of industrial society. He has argued that most commonly known family type in the past before the time where it had to adapt to the changes was the extended family and in his opinion this unit of a family was multifunctional. Extended family was responsible for many functions within the nuclear family e.g. such as the economic production , producing their own clothing food housing and education. Parsons has argued that with the industrial change or called so revolution mainly brought about three fundamental changes to the family life and their structure also changed some of its functions. With that the industrial demand was to have a geographically mobile workforce to be able to work in locations / factories which would have resulted in re location of a member of a family or the whole relocation of a family to a completely new social group and location. The key points that i have noticed that Parson was trying to outline is that the modern family is left with some basic functions.One of them is focus on the socialisation of their children , he has referred to children as “personality factories” , by stating this he is trying to explain that in his view children will be citizens that follow the rules and beliefs that would make social order possible that’s why families are so important to play the role of a teacher for their children whether is blood related or adopted. The second this that he has mentioned a lot was the way that stability for married couples in a family is important meaning that a married couple should be able to provide each other emotional support to be able to deal with any type of problems a family might encounter or stress in everyday life. Regarding the stress Parsons is sometimes mentioning the “warm bath” is a theory that if a family is provided and in a environment that is warm and stress free is would relax the people / individuals within a family and prevents any type of stress of the outside world overwhelming any or its members. How ever Pat Thomas 1977 argues that Parson’s claims are way over exaggerated and that family life did not change to such degree as he claimed to be. Thomas outlines that the family and family life is still very involved in functions such as; health , welfare and education.Altho he admits that family has now taken over some functions that they wouldn’t have done so before and a prime example would be the economic side which plays a major role in the family life. The prime example of this playing a major part would be that any type of consumer goods advertisement is aimed at families and is acting as persuasion to spend their income so that the economy is being normalised/ stimulated. Jane Lewis had carried out number of studies explaining the changes in family life and effect this has on children since the 1960 and from her research she came to a conclusion that regarding marriage is that is currently drastically decreasing since the 1971 as people are thinking more economically as the cost of a marriage can have a big impact on a family, the shift in attitude and train of thought in societies that influence families if the members of a family should get married and their stance on marriage over all.Other major difference now is that contraception is much more effective than it was a long time ago and with that as a result most of the world’s population wait longer to become parents and instead of becoming parents the member in a family rather focus on their profession.Divorce is another reason and a big change in families over the years there has been an increase where in 2010 33% of marriages resulted in divorce, most of the research that Jane as conducted indicated that people are mostly divorcing and not being scared of the consequences because of how cheap divorce is in modern society and how fast the process is to do so. As adoption laws go since the Adoption and children act 2002 came out which allowed a single parent or a couple which included same sex marriages to apply for adoption which has made it much easier to form families, with this many people had doubts regarding the stability of a relationship outside of marriage and what effect would it have on the children that are being adopted long and short term.Another major difference that is impacting the way that families function in day to day societies is religious values that families had, research displayed that since the 1980 church attendance has steadily decreased and the decline is widening. Looking at the past three decades that i have research i have noticed that literature towards the topic on the impact and changes within families in the uk / europe have significantly developed, more towards the 2000s have more focused on the wellbeing of families and the children well being within the families. During my research i have looked at the long term and short term impact throughout the years on changes in family. Since the early 1950s the family like that we know today is much different then it was before. Families in Britain are a lot more privileged today then families in Britain did years ago.In these changing families and their values in societies children can cope with any stress related problems then they could have done before.Families /couples have a lot more control over their life regarding their careers. First big change that i have noticed while doing my research is when contraceptives were put into use and became more available to the public which resulted in families taking control on when they wanted to reproduce. Then the reduced rate that couples were getting married and they way they have received marriage , the way that divorce become available to in all families. When we look at today’s advancements in technology is the only major social difference that families are going through as it impacts the families communication on daily basis they way that parents communicate with their children ect.In conclusion there has been many changes in family life mainly due to everything that people /society has made available to us which resulted in the shift of family life.Website title:Dera.ioe.ac.ukURL:http://dera.ioe.ac.uk/7413/12/Appendix-G_SIRC-report.pdfWebsite title:As.nyu.eduURL:https://as.nyu.edu/content/dam/nyu-as/faculty/documents/Gerson-Torres_ChangingFamilyPatternsandFamilyLife.pdfWebsite title:Leeds.ac.ukURL:https://www.leeds.ac.uk/cava/papers/wsp7b.pdfArticle title:Families: the end or simply different? – Understanding SocietyWebsite title:Understandingsociety.ac.ukURL:https://www.understandingsociety.ac.uk/case-studies/families-the-end-or-simply-differentArticle title:The Family & Social Structure | Revision WorldWebsite title:Revisionworld.comURL:https://revisionworld.com/a2-level-level-revision/sociology-level-revision/family/family-social-structure-0Article title:The Impact of Family Structure and Family change on Child Outcomes: A Personal Reading of the Research Literature – Ministry of Social DevelopmentWebsite title:Msd.govt.nzURL:https://www.msd.govt.nz/about-msd-and-our-work/publications-resources/journals-and-magazines/social-policy-journal/spj24/24-impact-of-family-structure-and-family-change-on-child-outcome-p111-133.htmlLevi -Strauss, Claude. 1957 1964. “Reciprocity, the Essence of Social Life.” Pp. 3-14 in The Family: Its Structure and Functions edited by Rose Laub Coser. New York: St. Martins Press.Stone, Pamela. 2007. Opting Out? Why Women Really Quit Careers and Head Home. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press. Sullivan, Oriel, and Scott Coltrane. 2008. “Men’s Changing Cherlin, Andrew J. 2009. The Marriage-Go -Round: The State of Marriage and the Family in America Today. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.Rubin, Gayle S. 1975 2011. “The Traffic in Women: Notes on the ‘Political Economy’ of Sex.” Pp. 33-64 in Deviations: A Gayle Rubin Reader. Durham: Duke University Press.