Explanation of The Functionalist or Conflict Theory - Essay Example

Is the functionalist or conflict theory explanation of social stratification more convincing? Introduction Social stratification is a concept that refers to the manner in which the society is classified into groups of people, depending on the social-economic characteristics of such groups (Davis & Moore, 1945:242). Thus, social stratification forms a society that has different classifications, depending on the political, ideological, economic and the social characteristics of groups in the society, where some of the groups have more power and privileges than the others. In this respect, social stratification establishes a class system in the society, where the members of a certain class are characterized by the distinct social-economic attributes from the other classes, and where the upper class of the society has more power, prestige and political influence, compared to the lower class of the social stratification (Akers, 1991:202). In this respect therefore, social stratifications becomes a permanent characteristic of the society where every member of the society must belong to only one of the social classes, as opposed to a mere differentiation of individual characteristics. Due to the permanency of social stratification, it is then transmitted from one generation to the other, and it does not only entail inequality, but also belief systems as well (Doob, 2012:27). Thus, the predominant social stratification structure categorizes the society into the upper, the middle and lower classes, but there can be sub-classes within the three major established classes of the society, which are then mainly based on occupational differences. Therefore, the basis of social stratification can vary, ranging from material wealth and incomes, to honor, prestige and religious affiliations (Bourdieu, 1985:739). Functionalist explanation and its limitation The functionalist theory of social stratification postulates that all parts of the society, including the members of such parts of the society works together in perpetuating the existing social stratification and relations (Davis & Moore, 1945:242). Thus, it is the different parts and classifications of the society that works together in unison, to establish the smooth running of the society and enhance its stability. Therefore, the functionalist theory view of social stratification is that, social stratification is normal and inevitable in the society, and lack of it will create an unstable society full of conflicts (Crompton, 1993:72). The theory holds that different classifications of the society are interdependent, and each classification influences the other, the classification of the society into different stratifications is essential because each stratified classification of the society has an important role to play, in relation to the other classes of the society (Giddens, 1973:44). In this respect, social stratification serves as the basis of enhancing the self-regulation mechanism of the society, considering that the society operates in a self-regulating manner, towards achieving harmony and equilibrium. Thus different classifications of the society must be present for the self-regulation mechanism to hold, and thus social inequality is inevitable, since it fulfills vital system needs (Davis, and Moore, 1945:247). Since no society exists without being un-stratified, then, inequality is universal, and thus different positions within the society exists due to different requirements in abilities and talents, and the same is compensated with different rewards. Functionalist theory limitations The Functionalist theory is criticized for its limited view of the inequality within the society, more especially for assuming that inequality within the society is natural and thus inevitable (Davis, and Moore, 1945:366). In this respect, one of the major limitation of this theory is that it projects the scarcity of rewards that creates a difference in the incomes and wealth of different occupations as a natural occurrence, while the truth is that the scarcity of such rewards is an artificial occurrence created by men pursuing selfish interests at the expense of the others (Schlee, 2004:137). Secondly, the theory does not cover the concept of inequality in wealth, honor and privilege comprehensively, because it does not explain how the inheritance of wealth that gives the inheritor power and prestige is related to talent, ability and qualification for rewards (Sampson & Graves, 1989:779). Further, the Functionalist theory is characterized by another limitation in that; it is not universally applicable in all societies as the theory had claimed, considering that for example, in feudalism societies wealth and power are not passed from generation to the other based on a competitive and merit-based system, but by birth (Evans, 1999:24). Here, the theory failed to address the natural setting of the society while opportunities for achievement are not distributed equally and there are obstacles that hinder social mobility from one class to the other, such as the control of education and training for some privileged occupations by powerful and privileged groups, which in turn serves to create the scarcity of talent, and thus perpetuate social inequality in material wealth, privilege and power (Doob, 2012:36). Conflict Theory Explanation The Conflict Theory defines society as an entity that is constantly in the process of change, owing to the competitive nature of different parts of the society for the ever scarce resources (Crompton, 1993:81). Therefore, social life is a component of the competition in the society, where distribution of material wealth, power and prestige effectively results to inequality within the society. In this respect, the society is divided into major classes, namely the owners of the sources of production and the working class, where the working class depends on the resources owned by the owners of factors of production for their survival (Eyal, Szelenyi & Townsley, 1998:59). Therefore, conflict and change are the inevitable components of the society, since human interactions result in conflict, due to the competition for the scarce resources within the society. It is competition rather than consensus that characterizes human relationships, considering that if there was no scarcity of resources in the society, there could not survive any conflict within the society (Evans, 1999:25). The society is structured into different classes based on the material wealth, prestige and power, and different social classes compete for the control of economic, political and social resources, resulting to the non-ending conflict that is characteristic of all societies. The inequality existing within the society has varied degree, which eventually structures the society into a hierarchal system (Sampson & Graves, 1989:796). The change that characterizes the society is revolutionary, emanating from the competing interests of individuals both within a social class and between individuals of different social classes. Limitation of Conflict Theory The major limitation associated with the Conflict Theory is that it overlooks the concept of stability within the society, by overemphasizing the concept of change in the society (Schlee, 2004:148). This is because, while change is a constant characteristic of the society, most of the change is minor, while most of the aspects of the society remain stable over time. In this respect, the theory has ignored the merit arising from the structural-functional relationship of the social structure, which enhances the harmony and stability of the society (Akers, 1991:207). Analysis Both the Functionalist and the Conflict Theory applies in the concept of social stratification, considering the fact that they help to explain the existence of social stratification in different societies. Nevertheless, their approach to the explanation is completely different, with the conflict theory mainly focusing on change within the society, while the functionalist theory focuses on stability and harmony within the society (Davis & Moore, 1945:247). Therefore, the major conflict in relation to the two theories is that, while one theory perceives the society in terms of stable transition from the ancient time, the other theory focuses on the stability and smooth transition that the society has endured since its ancient history. The influence of religiosity is fundamental to both theories, which is explained differently. According to the functionalist theory, the history of religiosity entailed the society sharing same values and principles, and the concept of religiosity has been transmitted to the modern society, where religiosity is still characterized by sharing common values (Doob, 2012:18). On the other hand, the conflict theory perceives the role of religiosity in the society from the historical perspective as consistently declining, where for example in the United Kingdom, religious attendance has significantly declined over time, yet it was a highly attended aspect in the history of Britain. This serves to show that even the common values shared by the community have changed over time. Therefore, while the functionalist theory has argued for stability, it has not been able to defend the change such as the historical religiosity perspective transformation (Giddens, 1973:95). The other point of departure between the two theories is in relation to the application of the theories in different countries. The functionalist theory is applicable in the feudalism and communist countries such as China and Russia, where the scarce resources within the society are not shared on the basis of competition or merit, but based on the established social values that seeks to stabilize the society through a social system of equitable distribution of the scarce resources (Bourdieu, 1985:742). On the other hand, conflict theory is most applicable in capitalist countries like the USA, where merit and competition is the basis of individuals within the society attaining material wealth and power (Eyal, Szelenyi & Townsley, 1998:33). Therefore, while the conflict theory has been arguing for the change being inevitable within the society, it has not been able to explain why capitalist countries like the USA which are based on the competition and merit system have adopted social welfare programs, to assist in the distribution of scarce resources within the society and thus help in reducing the inequality in material wealth and prestige that exists between the upper class and the lower class of the society (Crompton, 1993:77). Another aspect associated by the two theories is that, the theories base their arguments on the economic and political concepts, while negating the cultural aspects of the society, which have transformed over time within some societies, while the other societies have managed to keep their cultural values still intact (Bourdieu, 1985:732). Both the functionalist and the conflict theories are built on the principle of scarce resources within the society as the major basis for social stratification (Davis & Moore, 1945:261). Considering that the principle of resource scarcity and their distribution is an economic principle which also affects the political power and privilege, the two theories have not been able to address the cultural and the social concepts as the basis for social stratification comprehensively. Conclusion In conclusion, both the functionalist and the conflict theory are rival theories in relation to their approach to the concept of social stratification. While the functionalist theory is focused on stability and harmony within the society as the basis of social stratification, the conflict theory is highly focused on change and competition as the basis of social stratification. Therefore each theory focuses on a single aspect of the society and thus is unable to address the other aspect, with the conflict theory unable to address the aspect of harmony and stability in the society, while the functionalist theory is unable to address the issue of competition and change within the society fully. In this respect, there is no theory that is better than the other, and thus the combination of both theories to address the issue of social stratification would be more comprehensive, than the application of either of the theories alone. References Akers, R. L. (1991) “Self-control as a General Theory of Crime.” Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 201–11. Bourdieu, P. (1985) ‘The Social Space and the Genesis of Groups’, Theory and Society 14, 6, 723-744 Collins, R., (1974). "Conflict Sociology" New York: Academic Press. Crompton, R. (1993) Class and Stratification. An Introduction to Current Debates. Cambridge: Polity Press Davis, K. and Moore, W.E. (1945) ‘Some Principles of Stratification’, American Sociological Re- view 10, 242-367. Doob, C. (2012). Social Inequality and Social Stratification in US Society (1st ed.). Pearson Education. Evans, G. (1999) ‘Are there classes in post-communist societies? A new approach to identifying class structure’, Sociology 33, 1, 23-46. Eyal, G., Szelenyi, K. and Townsley, E.R. (1998) Making Capitalism without Capitalists: Class formation and elite struggles in post-communist Central Europe. Verso: London Giddens, A. (1973) The Class Structure of Advanced Societies. London: Sampson, Robert J. and W. Byron Graves. 1989. “Community Structure and Crimes: Testing Social-Disorganization Theory.” American Journal of Sociology 94:774-802. Schlee, G. (2004). "Taking Sides and Constructing Identities: Reflections on Conflict Theory." Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, 10(1), 135-156. Read More