Sign up to access the complete lesson and track your progress!
Unlock This CourseYoung and Willmott's Symmetrical Family Theory suggests that modern families have become more equal, with partners sharing household tasks, childcare and decision-making. However, this theory has faced significant criticism from various sociological perspectives. Understanding these criticisms helps us evaluate whether families have truly become more symmetrical or if inequalities persist beneath the surface.
Key Definitions:
Young and Willmott (1973) argued that families had evolved through stages to reach the "symmetrical family" where:
Critics argue that the symmetrical family theory:
Feminist sociologists have provided some of the most powerful criticisms of the symmetrical family theory, arguing that it masks continuing gender inequalities in family life.
Feminist sociologists like Ann Oakley argue that the idea of the symmetrical family creates a "myth of equality" that doesn't match reality. Her research in the 1970s found that women still performed the vast majority of housework, even when they worked full-time.
Women often face a "dual burden" or "second shift" - working outside the home and then coming home to do most household chores and childcare.
Women typically perform more "emotional labour" - managing family relationships, remembering birthdays, organising social events and supporting family members emotionally.
Duncombe and Marsden suggest women perform a "triple shift" - paid work, housework and emotional work - making families far from symmetrical.
The UK Time Use Survey (2015) showed that women still do an average of 26 hours of unpaid work per week (including childcare, housework and cooking), compared to 16 hours for men. Even when both partners work full-time, women still do 60% more unpaid work than men. This empirical evidence challenges the idea that families have become truly symmetrical.
Critics argue that the symmetrical family theory fails to address continuing power imbalances within families.
Jan Pahl's research on money management in families found that even when women contribute financially, men often maintain control over major financial decisions. This creates what she calls "hidden power" in relationships that appear equal on the surface.
Men typically earn more than women (the gender pay gap in the UK remains around 15%), giving them greater economic power in relationships. This economic inequality undermines the concept of symmetry.
Research by Brannen and Moss found that male careers are often prioritised when couples make decisions about childcare, relocation, or working hours - another indication that power remains unequal.
Marxist sociologists criticise the symmetrical family theory for ignoring class differences and the role of capitalism in shaping family structures.
Marxists argue that the symmetrical family concept primarily applies to middle-class families. Working-class families often face different pressures and may organise domestic labour differently based on economic necessity rather than choice.
According to Marxist feminists like Michele Barrett, the appearance of increasing symmetry masks how capitalism benefits from women's unpaid domestic labour. Women's unpaid work in the home:
In "The Second Shift" (1989), Hochschild documented how working mothers in America spent an extra month of 24-hour days each year on housework and childcare compared to their husbands. She found that even when couples believed they shared housework equally, time-use diaries revealed women did significantly more. This demonstrates how perceptions of symmetry can differ from reality.
Some critics focus on methodological problems with Young and Willmott's research and conclusions.
Critics highlight several methodological issues with the original research:
Recent research suggests that while some progress has been made toward more symmetrical families, many of these criticisms remain valid today.
The COVID-19 pandemic revealed continuing inequalities in domestic labour. UK research by the Institute for Fiscal Studies found that mothers were more likely than fathers to have quit or lost their jobs, or been furloughed, during the pandemic. Mothers also spent more time on childcare and home schooling, even when both parents worked from home.
The symmetrical family theory doesn't adequately address the diversity of modern family forms, including single-parent families, same-sex couples and reconstituted families. Research suggests that same-sex couples often have more equal divisions of labour than heterosexual couples, challenging traditional gender-based explanations.
While these criticisms highlight important limitations of the symmetrical family theory, it's also important to recognise that some progress has occurred since Young and Willmott's original research.
Recent time-use surveys show that men are doing more housework and childcare than in previous generations, even if equality hasn't been achieved. The gap is narrowing, particularly among younger couples and those with higher education levels.
Some sociologists suggest we should view family symmetry as a spectrum rather than a binary state. Families may be more symmetrical in some aspects (like childcare) than others (like household management).
When discussing criticisms of the symmetrical family in your exam, remember to present a balanced view. Acknowledge both the continuing inequalities highlighted by critics AND the evidence of progress toward more equal family relationships. Use specific studies and statistics to support your points and consider how factors like social class, ethnicity and age might influence the extent to which families are symmetrical.
The criticisms of the symmetrical family theory highlight that while family roles have become less rigidly divided than in the past, significant inequalities persist. Feminist, Marxist and empirical critiques all suggest that Young and Willmott's theory may have overstated the extent of change and overlooked continuing power imbalances between men and women in families.
These criticisms remind us to look beyond appearances and examine the actual distribution of work, power and resources within families. They also highlight the importance of considering how factors like social class, ethnicity and changing economic conditions shape family life. By understanding these criticisms, we can develop a more nuanced view of contemporary family dynamics.