210 – Analytical language 2: rhetorical strategies
To the Marxist the internal structure of the family as an
economic unit reflects the division of labour and the domination of
labour by capital to be found in the economy as a whole. And, like the
worker in a factory, the family unit is exploited by the requirements of
capitalistic production. The family also serves to perpetuate the class
divisions of society through the inheritance of property. The
functionalist, by contrast, sees the division of labour and economic
power as a necessary adjustment to economic reality and social stability,
and argues that the distribution of economic power in both the family
itself and the society as a whole is much more fluid than the Marxist
admits. Because the notions of inequality and exploitation are found in
both theories, they do not clearly distinguish them. For the functionalist,
inequality and the exploitation of the family by capital is not complete,
and is offset by other economic benefits which began to accrue when
production moved out of the home. The Marxist emphasises the way in
which the multiplication of small family units offers an enormous captive
market for the products of capitalist manufacturing.
The family is, however, more than an economic unit of society.
Similar differences between Marxists and functionalists can be seen in
other facets of the family institution: the socialisation of children, the
gender and other distributions of political power, and the reproduction
of social and cultural values. As we examine each in turn, we shall see
how the differences between Marxists and functionalists on inequality
and exploitation are really differences of degree. Their perspectives on
conflict and consensus and on change and stability in the family are, by
contrast, quite different in kind.
You will see that this piece of writing is organised on the basis of
the defining criteria (inequality, exploitation, conflict, etc.) and the
characteristics of the family itself. Doing it this way means that one
is continually moving back and forth between what the two perspectives have to say with respect to these things. This movement is
signalled by such words and phrases as ‘by contrast’, ‘on the other
hand’ and ‘more . . . than’.
Now, this is not the only way to organise a comparative piece.
It is certainly possible to set up the essay as a whole in this fashion:
To the Marxist the internal structure of the family as an
economic unit reflects the division of labour and the domination of
labour by capital to be found in the economy as a whole. And, like the
worker in a factory, the family unit is exploited by the requirements of
capitalistic production. The family also serves to perpetuate the class
divisions of society through the inheritance of property. The
functionalist, by contrast, sees the division of labour and economic
power as a necessary adjustment to economic reality and social stability,
and argues that the distribution of economic power in both the family
itself and the society as a whole is much more fluid than the Marxist
admits. Because the notions of inequality and exploitation are found in
both theories, they do not clearly distinguish them. For the functionalist,
inequality and the exploitation of the family by capital is not complete,
and is offset by other economic benefits which began to accrue when
production moved out of the home. The Marxist emphasises the way in
which the multiplication of small family units offers an enormous captive
market for the products of capitalist manufacturing.
The family is, however, more than an economic unit of society.
Similar differences between Marxists and functionalists can be seen in
other facets of the family institution: the socialisation of children, the
gender and other distributions of political power, and the reproduction
of social and cultural values. As we examine each in turn, we shall see
how the differences between Marxists and functionalists on inequality
and exploitation are really differences of degree. Their perspectives on
conflict and consensus and on change and stability in the family are, by
contrast, quite different in kind.
You will see that this piece of writing is organised on the basis of
the defining criteria (inequality, exploitation, conflict, etc.) and the
characteristics of the family itself. Doing it this way means that one
is continually moving back and forth between what the two perspectives have to say with respect to these things. This movement is
signalled by such words and phrases as ‘by contrast’, ‘on the other
hand’ and ‘more . . . than’.
Now, this is not the only way to organise a comparative piece.
It is certainly possible to set up the essay as a whole in this fashion: