Sign up to access the complete lesson and track your progress!
Unlock This CourseMarxist sociologists view conjugal roles (the roles of husbands and wives in marriage) through the lens of capitalism and class inequality. Unlike functionalists who see traditional gender roles as beneficial for society, Marxists argue that these roles primarily benefit capitalism rather than families themselves.
Key Definitions:
Marxists argue that the nuclear family with its traditional division of labour (husband as breadwinner, wife as homemaker) directly serves capitalism. This arrangement ensures workers are fed, clothed, emotionally supported and replaced by the next generation - all at no cost to employers.
The family teaches values that benefit capitalism, such as obedience to authority and acceptance of hierarchy. Children learn to accept inequality as natural through their experiences in the family, preparing them to accept workplace inequalities later in life.
Friedrich Engels, Marx's collaborator, provided one of the earliest Marxist analyses of the family in his work "The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State" (1884).
Engels argued that the modern family emerged alongside private property and capitalism. Before capitalism, he claimed that more equal relationships existed between men and women. The development of private property led men to ensure their wealth was passed to their biological children, which required control over women's sexuality and reproduction.
More egalitarian gender relations with shared responsibilities and communal child-rearing.
Men needed to control inheritance, leading to control over women and the emergence of patriarchy.
Reinforces male dominance and unequal conjugal roles to benefit the capitalist system.
A central Marxist concept is that the family is responsible for the "reproduction of labour power" - ensuring that workers are physically and emotionally able to return to work each day and that new workers (children) are produced and socialised.
The family ensures workers are fed, clothed and cared for so they can return to work each day. Women's unpaid domestic labour (cooking, cleaning, emotional support) maintains workers at no cost to employers, increasing profits for capitalists.
The family produces and socialises the next generation of workers. Children learn to accept authority and hierarchy within the family, preparing them for their future roles in the capitalist workforce.
Marxist feminists combine Marxist analysis with feminist concerns about gender inequality. They argue that women's subordination in conjugal relationships is linked to both capitalism and patriarchy.
Marxist feminists like Sylvia Walby argue that women face a "dual burden" under capitalism - exploitation as workers and oppression as women. Traditional conjugal roles that assign domestic work to women benefit both capitalism and men.
Benston argued that women's unpaid domestic labour is essential to capitalism but deliberately made invisible. She calculated that if women were paid for household work at market rates, it would constitute a significant percentage of the GDP. Benston suggested that recognising domestic work as real labour was essential for women's liberation. Her work highlighted how traditional conjugal roles exploit women's labour while presenting it as a "labour of love" rather than real work.
Argued that capitalism created a separation between "public" work and "private" family life. This split reinforced unequal conjugal roles with men in the public sphere and women in the private sphere.
Described women as providing "emotional labour" in the "safety valve" theory. Women absorb men's frustrations from work, preventing rebellion against exploitative working conditions.
Examined how ideology maintains women's position in the family. Media, education and religion naturalise women's domestic role, making unequal conjugal roles seem normal and inevitable.
Modern Marxist sociologists recognise that conjugal roles have changed significantly since the 19th century, with more women in paid employment and some movement toward more equal domestic arrangements. However, they argue that capitalism has simply adapted to these changes rather than being undermined by them.
Women now often work both outside the home for wages and inside the home for free. This "double shift" means capitalism extracts even more value from women's labour while maintaining gender inequality in domestic work.
Modern capitalism benefits from women's part-time and flexible work, which often pays less and offers fewer benefits. Women's caring responsibilities in the family make them more likely to accept these precarious working conditions.
Hochschild's research found that despite women's increased participation in paid work, they still performed significantly more domestic labour than men. She estimated that women worked an extra month of 24-hour days each year compared to their male partners. This research supports the Marxist feminist view that capitalism has adapted to women's workforce participation while maintaining unequal conjugal roles that benefit both capitalism and men.
While Marxist analysis provides valuable insights into how economic systems shape family life, it has several limitations and has been criticised by other sociological perspectives.
Despite changes in family structures and gender roles, Marxist perspectives remain relevant for understanding conjugal relationships. Gender inequality in domestic labour persists, with UK women still performing 60% more unpaid work than men according to the Office for National Statistics. The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted these inequalities, with research showing women took on more additional childcare and housework during lockdowns.
Marxist analysis helps us understand these patterns not as natural or inevitable but as connected to broader economic structures. By recognising how economic systems shape our most intimate relationships, we can better understand both the persistence of traditional conjugal roles and the potential for change.