The Concept of Functionalism - Essay Example

?Introduction The concept of functionalism is used to describe the way in which societies function and change over time, specifically with the development of social and cultural institutions. The concept of functionalism is important in creating an understanding not only of the basic elements of society for belief systems or survival. More important, there is a complete understanding of the social order through the use of functionalism. The attributes within society, such as purposes of groups and overall trends within a society can be explained with the theory of functionalism. However, there is also the understanding that, while it tries to explain the complete social order, it is also based on the majority population, as opposed to looking at the marginalized individuals in society and the different degrees which they function in relation to the overall ideals. From this perspective, functionalism describes the social order from a majority viewpoint, as opposed to looking at the fulfillment of every individual within a society. This paper will define the extent to which functionalism explains the main social order within society. Functionalism as Social Order The main attribute of functionalism is based on the attribute of showing what a large group of individuals did within a given culture and how this helped with the overall function within the culture. This is further described by different levels of functions, specifically which are divided by a variety of theorists. For instance, Merton (Harrington, 2005) states that functions can be divided into latent functions and manifest functions. The latent group is based on the social orders which were unintentional and didn’t depict the overall needs or functions within society. The manifest functions are the ones which describe more of the social order because of the institutional relationship to the function. The institution is able to show that it is planned, intentional and can be used to manifest specific actions within society. The manifest functions are able to depict the order of society and are used to describe institutional measures over the actions of groups of individuals (Harrington, 2005). Defining Social Action The concept of action as the manifestation of social order then leads into the understanding of what the manifestations include and how they define or are disregarded in understanding structure and functionalism. The concept of social action is one which has to be defined as an act which takes place and which is verified by others who have seen the same social action. More important, the fact has to be something that is done within society. If it is to define order, then it has to show how this particular fact, item or action is done by the majority of society or is something which is repetitive and practiced within the society. Without this, it doesn’t become a function that is within society and isn’t a part of the social order (Parsons, 1949). An example of this is with politics. If the United States has a bill of rights protecting freedom of speech, then this becomes a fact because it is defined by the political institution and the expectation for society to follow this bill. More important, those in society state that they practice freedom of speech through the press or other means. The freedom of speech defines the social order more by the actions which result and relate to this, all which manifest more of the approach taken for this political action and the functionalism which is attributed to the fact. The manifestation and the continuous social actions seen in newspapers, media and other sources show this is a part of the social order. The concept of social action within society is furthered by defining how this relates to different groups in society, some which may not link to the institutions. There are two ideals which begin to form with social action and the contemporary attributes. When looking at social order from a historical perspective, it is easier to define functionalism, specifically because history only defines the institutional actions and overall reactions from society. Expressions of the culture, artifact remains and understandings of the different methods for survival are the actions which remain relevant. However, this may not describe the other marginalized contributions from society, rejection of the institutions and conflicts which arose outside of the institutions. The societal systems then become limited by what is recorded in the institutional functions and expectations. This doesn’t lead to accurate accounts of what functionalism means and how it may relate to other sub-groups within society (Parsons, 1971). Divisions in Sociology When looking at the current debates, it can be seen that functionalism is a way of describing major events from institutions. However, this doesn’t match with the contemporary facts and the ways in which sociology has developed. From this perspective, functionalism is limited only to basic facts carried by larger institutions. The first transition noted is from the expansion into a global society. Instead of social actions being the dominant manifestation, ideals and philosophies are transforming various groups. Functionalism isn’t able to create an understanding of social order specifically because it comes from limited information, as opposed to the individual responses, sub – groups and marginalized beliefs that have other actions outside of this. For functionalism to work, there has to be complete conformity into a specific ideal or action. The actions; however, usually are based on institutions and those who have conformed to political or religious leaderships. The idea of social order is then limited by only describing the majority population and the institutions which surround the idea of action, leaving out massive amounts of the population that are outside of the major groups or recorded actions (Gouldner, 1971). Another problem that is created with functionalism is based on divisions in society which come from different actions or types of practices. For instance, symbolic interactionism is one of the components which move outside of functionalism. Even though there are actions, this may not be representative of the belief system, religion or other rationality behind a group and why they take part in the function. More important, this may not be practiced by everyone within the group, but may be representative as a symbol for an entire group (Scott, 1971). An example of this is the practice of yoga. The Indian tradition would depict that all living in India practice yoga as a social order. This is because of the concept that yoga is practiced in India, specifically which has led to affiliations with the country and how it functions. However, when looking into the reality of this, the action is only practiced by a few. More important, the action is one which is representative of an exercise because of the body movements. This particular viewpoint is one which is defined by institutions interested in the practice. More important, this is only provided by definitions from observations of what yoga may mean within the given society according to one’s interest. However, the symbolic interactionism is one which is based on a meditation form that is used by mystics. The functionalism which is perceived by specific institutions from other regions of the world is then not parallel to the reality of the practice by a different group. This example is one that shows how the functionalism is not able to define the social group or the symbols that are behind the practice, making the functionalism inapplicable and unable to define the way in which society looks at different actions. Social Order and Social Structure When looking at social order and functionalism, it can be seen that the definitions and expectations lead to the ideal that the social order of functionalism gives an overview while the other perspectives of the order are not seen. The social structure is one which is based on political structures, institutions, economics and the main beliefs that are within society and practiced by a majority group. This functionalism is one which can be seen as true but is limited to the overview of social structure. When moving beyond this, there is a conflict to the social order because of the relationship to experiences that is often not defined as well as the conflicts which come from the marginalized groups which don’t make up the social order, also which would be perceived as a dysfunction to functionalism. These two constraints to functionalism then lead to only providing basic insights into the sociology that exists as a part of historical relations as well as the way in which this distributes information about how society functioned (Merton, 1967). The division which is associated with the social order leads to the need to describe functions and dysfunctions not only from the basic understanding of how society works and what can define specific systems. Instead, there is the need to expand on this in terms of types of functions, relationships to dysfunctions and other perspectives and angles which may change or influence the overall relationship which one has to society. If the social order is able to expand into understanding the angles behind the function, then it is able to describe the social order. The most common example used from this perspective is the Hopi rain dance (Merton, 1957), which is observed as a basic dance recognized only by the actions and people involved. However, when understanding this function, it moves into rituals, explanations and need for the rain dance, as well as inherited beliefs that are within society. Social behavior can then be distinguished by the types of customs that are held and the way in which beliefs are integrated into this. This is then divided by institutions which have basic functions that are associated with this. This is combined with branches of thoughts, sub-groups and individuals which may change actions according to personal belief; however, these don’t conflict with the social order but instead create a set of dysfunctions or other consequences associated with the social order. The social order can then be disrupted by the definitions of functionalism and those who believe differently or disagree with the main order and act upon this, while marginalized groups that don’t express this simply don’t become a part of the function of the social order (Merton, 1957). The current social order of moving into globalization presents new conflicts with the definition of functionalism. This first creates problems because of the several groups, cultures and sub-cultures that are under an institution of globalization. In a globalized world are institutions that are based on the movements within economics to open territories and create free exchange between territories. This is furthered by the technology which is providing connections to those that are interested in connecting across the globe and living in a place which doesn’t have boundaries. The social order which takes place is further developed by institutions, such as the UN and WTO which are responsible for creating guidelines and restrictions for those that are a part of the global world (Ferrante, 2008). Even though there are these concepts related to globalization in functionalism, it is limited to the institutional reference of being global. The concept of globalization is a definition and perspective of institutions that are working to change specific components of society. For instance, the UN and WTO are working to show that the world is global and each individual has defined actions as a result. The actions consist of using technology, free exchange and economic consistency across borders. However, groups still remain divided according to a lack of having these definitions. They are further eliminated from globalization because it is not connected to the different regions of the globe, but only to institutions, corporations and politicians that are looking to expand globally. The social groups are then not aligned with the institutions which are making the general claims on globalization, showing limits in the concepts of stating this as a movement. Instead of being consistent with a social order, it works as an institutional guideline to benefit economically and politically while opening territories. At the same time, it doesn’t look into the social order of individuals around the world and their relationship to globalization (Ferrante, 2008). Conclusion The theory of functionalism is one which can be used to describe the social order, specifically from the perspective of its relationship to institutions and the basic attributes within a given society. However, this is limited to the actions and basic components that create a society and allow for the main functions to take place. In contrast, there isn’t an association with the belief systems, symbolic interactions and other concepts that make up different groups within society. While functionalism can describe basic components, there isn’t the ability to explore the several dimensions of sociology and the different formations of social orders that take place outside of the institutional norms. References Ferrante, J. (2008). Sociology: A Global Perspective. New York: Cengage Learning. Gouldner, A.W. (1971) The Coming Crisis of Western Sociology, edn. London: Heinemann. Holmwood, J. (2005). “Functionalism and It’s Critics.” Modern Social Theory: An Introduction. Harrington, Austin (ed). London: Oxford University Press. Merton, R. (1967). On Theoretical Sociology: five Essays, Old and New. New York: Macmillian. Merton, R. (1957). Social Theory and Social Structure. New York: Free Press of Glencoe. Parsons, T. (1937a) The Structure of Social Action. Volume I: Marshall, Pareto, Durkheim, edn. London: The Free Press. Parsons, T. (1951) The Social System, edn. Glencoe, IL: The Free Press. Parsons, T. (1971) The System of Modern Societies, edn. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Scott, J. (1995) Sociological Theory: Contemporary Debates, edn. Cheltenham, Glos: Edward Elgar. Read More