Many sociologists argue that the family has lost a number of its functions in modern industrial society. Institutions such as business, political parties, schools, and welfare organizations now specialize in functions formerly performed by the family.
Talcott Parsons argues that the family has become 'on the "macroscopic" levels, almost completely functionless. It does not itself, except here and there, engage in much economic production; it is not a significant unit in the political power system; it is not a major direct agency of integration of the larger society.
Its individual members participate in all these functions, but they do so as "individuals", not in their roles as family members'. However, this does not mean that the family is declining in importance. It has simply become more specialized. Parsons maintains that its role is still vital.
By structuring the personalities of the young and stabilizing the personalities of adults, the family provides its members with the psychological training and support necessary to meet the requirements of the social system.
This view is supported by N. Dennis who argues that impersonal bureaucratic agencies have taken over many of the family's functions. As a result the warmth and close supportive relationships which existed when the family performed a large range of functions have largely disappeared.
Dennis argues that in the impersonal setting of modern industrial society, the family provides the only opportunity 'to participate in a relationship where people are perceived and valued as whole persons'. Outside the family, individual's must often interact with strangers in terms of a number of roles.
Adopting roles such as employee, customer, teacher and student, they are unable to express many aspects of themselves or develop deep and supportive relationships. Young and Willmott make a similar point arguing that