What Did Parsons Mean By The Instrumental And Expressive Role?
Talcott Parsons argued that nuclear families consist of instrumental and expressive roles.
Instrumental roles provide financial support and establish family status, while expressive roles involve providing emotional support and physical care.
Parsons suggested that children needed to grow up in a family in which the instrumental and expressive roles are performed by the respective parents if the children were to develop “stable adult personalities”.
instrumental (economic) role function within the family
This role is traditionally assigned to the husband or father.
This role involves meeting the family’s economic needs, making important decisions, and providing physical protection for the family.
The implications are that men are less involved in the rearing of children and more concerned with the financial aspects of marriage.
The instrumental role also means that men are more likely to be involved in the public sphere of work.
expressive (social) role function within the family
This role is traditionally assigned to the wife or mother. It is centered on the internal dynamics of the family unit.
The expressive role is the caring, nurturing, supportive role which many functionalists believe women perform “naturally”, as a result of biology.
The expressive role involves work inside the family, specifically running the household (domestic labour), caring for children, managing conflicts, and meeting the emotional needs of family members.
The expressive role is centered on providing emotional support and maintaining morale.
It involves “emotion work,” such as offering reassurance, tenderness, and sympathy.
The expressive role complements the instrumental role of the male breadwinner.
Theoretical Justification
Parsons (1955) posited that a division of labor based on sex is crucial for family stability and social order.
He argued that this sexual division of labor is “natural” because it is rooted in biological differences between men and women.
By specializing, spouses complement each other; the husband connects the family to the wider society through work, while the wife buffers the family from the stresses of the outside world.
Parsons suggested that immersion in family life acts like a “warm bath.”
Just as a warm bath soothes and relaxes the physical body, the family environment soothes and relaxes the mind, relieving the pressures and strains accumulated from everyday life
The family provides a relaxing environment (created by the wife’s expressive work) that relieves the husband’s stress from the competitive workplace.
By acting as a “safety valve” for stress, the family prevents individuals from becoming overwhelmed.
This ensures that adults are emotionally refreshed and capable of returning to the workplace as efficient, productive workers, which ultimately contributes to the stability of the wider society
Critical Evaluation
The strict dichotomy of instrumental and expressive roles has faced significant criticism, particularly from conflict theorists and feminists, who argue that this model justifies gender inequality rather than simply describing a functional division of labor.
Feminist Critique:
Feminists argue that the functionalist view serves as a patriarchal ideology that validates the oppression of women.
By designating the instrumental role as the domain of men, the theory supports men’s control over financial resources and decision-making power, while devaluing the unpaid domestic labor performed by women.
Feminist sociologists highlight that women often perform a “triple shift” or “dual burden”: they engage in paid employment (instrumental), childcare (expressive), and “emotion work” (maintaining family morale), often without equal support from male partners.
Ignoring the “Dark Side”:
The theory paints an idealized, “rosy” picture of family life, ignoring dysfunctions such as domestic violence, child abuse, and internal conflict.
Conflict Perspective:
Conflict theorists view this division not as a source of harmony but as a reflection of unequal power.
They argue that the traditional family structure benefits men (and capitalism) at the expense of women, who are kept in dependent and powerless positions due to their lack of economic control,.
Historical and Cultural Context:
Parsons’ ideas were largely based on the white, middle-class American family of the 1940s and 1950s and failed to account for diverse family structures or the realities of working-class and minority families where women have historically been part of the workforce.
For example, research on African American families has shown that gender socialization often emphasizes autonomy and employment for both sons and daughters, challenging the strict instrumental/expressive divide.
Interactionist Perspective:
Symbolic interactionists argue that gender roles are not fixed biological mandates but are socially constructed and learned through interaction.
They emphasize that individuals “do gender” through their daily actions and that these roles are fluid and subject to negotiation.
Research suggests that rigid adherence to these roles can actually lead to family dysfunction and that both men and women prefer leaders who combine instrumental and expressive qualities.
References
Aronoff, J. and W. D. Crano (1975). A re-examination of the cross-cultural principles of task segregation and sex role differentiation in the family. American Sociological Review, 40,12-20.
Bales, R. F., & Parsons, T. (2014). Family: Socialization and interaction process . Routledge.
Barry, H., III, Bacon, M. K., & Child, I. L. (1967). Definitions, ratings and bibliographic sources for child training practices of 1 I0 cultures. In C. S. Ford (Ed.), Cross-cultural approaches. New Haven: Yale University.
Barry, H;, III, Bacon, M. K., & Child, I. L. (1957). A cross-cultural survey of some sex differences in socialization. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 55, 327-332.
Baxter, J. (2002). Patterns of change and stability in the gender division of household labor in Australia, 1986–1997. Journal of Sociology, 38(4), 399-424.
Bell, N. W. and E. F. Vogel (eds.) (1968). A Modern Introduction to the Family. Glencoe: Free Press.
Bhattacharjee, N. (2021). Through the looking glass: Gender socialisation in a primary school. In Gender and Education in India A Reader (pp. 40-52). Routledge.
Brown, M. E. (1971). An Investigation of Parental Roles Along Parsons” Instrumental and Expressive Dimensions (Doctoral dissertation, University of Tennessee).
Crano, W. D., & Aronoff, J. (1978). A cross-cultural study of expressive and instrumental role complementarity in the family. American Sociological Review, 463-471.
Eichler, M. (1981). Power, dependency, love and the sexual division of labour: A critique of the decision-making approach to family power and an alternative approach with an appendix: On washing my dirty linen in public. Women”s Studies International Quarterly, 4 (2), 201-219.
Hendrix, L., & Johnson, G. D. (1985). Instrumental and expressive socialization: A false dichotomy. Sex roles, 13 (11), 581-595.
Murdock, G. P. (1949). Social Structure . Macmillan.
Parsons, T. (1959). The Social Structure of the Family, in Ruth Anshen (ed.), The Family:Its Functions and Destiny. Harper.
Slater, P. (1961). Parental role differentiation. American Journal of Sociology, 67, 296-311.
Young, M., & Wilmott, P. (1957). Family and kinship in East London. Routledge.
Wilmott, P. and Young, M. (l960). Family and Class in a London Suburb. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Zelditch, M. (1955). Role differentiation in the nuclear family: A comparative study. Family, Socialization and Interaction Process, 307-351.
