Functionalism and Marxism in Todays World - Assignment Example

Functionalism and Marxism in Today’s World The only difference between Functionalism and Marxism is that functionalists view economic exploitation asan acceptable price to pay for international peace. This is an interesting statement, especially in view of the current discussions about functionalism and neo-functionalism. However, there are arguments from “Functionalism is passé,” to “Functionalism is a natural outgrowth of Marxism.” No consensus on the precise nature of functionalism exists, but it is not going away. Functionalism as a word is interesting and useful. In its various applications, from psychiatry to anthropology, sociology, political science and many others, this simple straightforward term can be massaged into as many shapes as there theorists. In its purest state, functional means something works. In global commerce and international politics, the closest one can come to simple definition is that functionalism is a modification of the Marxist philosophy. Marx expected the ruling class to be replaced by the working class and government to wither, while the functionalist view shows it inextricably intertwined with international trade and business. The functionalist view is that a society will develop and maintain those institutions which allow it to maintain stability. Encarta defines functionalism as, “the view of society as a system made up of interrelated parts, all interacting on the basis of a common value system or consensus about basic values and common goals. Every social custom and institution is seen as having a function in ensuring that society works efficiently…. Functionalists often describe society as an organism with a life of its own, above and beyond the sum of its parts.” (Encarta Encyclopedia 2006) Encyclopedia Britannica cites Radcliff Brown’s position, saying he saw functionalism as, “a relationship between a social institution and the “necessary conditions of existence” of a social system. ….. the set of relationships among social units.” (Britannica on-line 2006) By exploring the writings of these theorists we can see that they agree that social institutions are necessary and that there is an dynamic connection between the social structures and the needs of the society. Sources agree that social institutions are a necessary functional part of modern society and societies will form institutions and norms which contribute to its functional operation. 1Some see the increased needs of modern society, specifically for food, shelter and safety as the reason for the growth of social institutions today. Any society will develop some kind of standards of behavior. When the population size warrants, then people will create institutions within which individuals will act to keep the social system functioning for the health and safety of all members. Anarchy does not work with larger numbers, because of human nature and the simple fact that, in spite of wishes to the contrary, we are not all equal. There are stronger, smarter or more successful, powerful people in every society. In fact such inequality is absolutely necessary to smooth functioning of a society according to some theorists. Wiarda sees it as much more comprehensive than did Wallerstein in his description of a world system. "Regarding the debate over the appropriateness of the functionalist approach, I would suggest merely that functionalism was never a comprehensive and closed theory but rather a loose set of guidelines." (1991, p. 38) Wallerstein, according to his forward of Dunaway’s book, is still working on his study of the world system he sees developing. “We have been seeking to explain the underlying structural developments of the modern world-system that have led to such a systemic crisis in the first half of the 21st century. The events of September 11 have made this kind of analysis more pertinent than ever.” (Dunaway, 2003, p. xiii) Dunaway finds functionalism wanting, due to the slowness with which modern societies react to stimulus. Sociologists who follow Parsons are convinced that structures exist because they are functional. Social systems operate within an equilibrium, to be disturbed, momentarily, by dysfunctional phenomena until the dysfunctional is absorbed into the functional system. Some governing bodies react too slowly (democracies), while others act in haste. If governments manage the global system, we will be constantly playing “catch up” to global commerce. The future of any global system will actually depend upon commerce as a controlling force. The opening statement of this paper is a gross over-simplification of the functionalist view, but is not completely invalid. Functionalism does not preclude the contributions of social institutions which are not part of government nor of business. The definition states that institutions will develop within which individuals will do whatever is necessary for the stability of the society they serve. Serving society does not preclude them from serving their members also, which means they may serve with one hand and exploit with the other. However, there will be checks and balances which will control that exploitation. Exploitation of other societies is not prohibited as long as stability is maintained. Therefore, powerful nations will exploit other nations. As long as the exploited benefit in some material manner to their satisfaction, exploitation will be tolerated. One example is the outsourcing of repetitive tasks to third world countries which need the work. US businesses benefit from lower labor costs and our economy benefits by creating trading partners. However, there is more to functionalism than an expansion upon Marxism. Marx expected social institutions to become less powerful as the working class took over. “Karl Marx emphasized the dialectical unfolding of historical stages, the importance of economic and material forces and class analysis. He predicted that contradictions inherent in each historical epoch eventually lead to the rise of a new dominant class. The era of capitalism, according to Marx, is dominated by the bourgeoisie and will give way to a proletarian, or working class, revolution and an era of socialism in which workers own the means of production and move toward a classless, communist society in which the state, historically a tool of the dominant class, will wither away. A number of contemporary theorists have drawn on Marxian insight…” (Viotti, P. and M. Kauppi, (eds.). 1987.) Rather than withering away, social institutions and government have actually grown in power, though government is not as separated from business as might be thought. Marx really did not foresee that social institutions and the society they serve would evolve naturally under a system designed for peaceful change, such as the constitutional democracies. Business has become a huge part of western government in many ways. Laws are made, modified and repealed partly in response to the pressure from business interests. Business interests help candidates who are favorable to their interests get elected. Special interest groups impact elections too. International relations are also only partly controlled by international governments and the organizations they create, such as the United Nations, the subject of much current debate. Some see it as totally ineffectual, while others see it as a pawn of the US. (Pitt and Weiss 166) Weiss sees the U.N. as needing only a push in the right direction, to make the U.N. a formidable force for future good. (Pitt and Weiss 192) The power of the U.N. will be greatly increased if we can push it in the right direction. It needs to be more universal and global in character and less involved directly in local issues with member nations. "By helping to build effective regional organizations and security communities, however, the United Nations has a better chance of achieving its goals." (Peou 89) It needs to be more objective and concerned with all nations. One excellent example of functionalism is in sharp contrast to Marxist predictions: the rise and fall of trade unions in the United States. During the first years, workers fought hard and sacrificed to help establish trade unions in order to pool the collective strength of the workers in opposition to the strength of the corporations. This was an absolutely necessary development foreseen (and promoted) by Marxists. Trade unions established a more level playing field for the workers. Collective bargaining created fair wage practices, better working conditions and health, retirement, educational and practical benefits for the workers. Corporations could no longer exploit the workers, toss them away and hire more. This was beneficial to society and, therefore, functional. However, after workers gained most of what they needed, the unions priced themselves and their members out of the market. Once the major benefits which were needed were won, unions became superfluous. However unions had to keep improving conditions for the workers to keep the dues flowing to the pockets of officials. Once the cost to businesses rose high enough to become economically painful, corporations began looking for a way out. Where the unions could not be broken, their power was greatly reduced when the corporations began to outsource the labor to other countries. When it cost more for a factory worker in the U.S. than it would to pay a foreign worker plus the shipping of materials and return of finished goods, companies began to outsource everything possible. They closed factories and divisions. It was simply good business. In the functionalist view, this was bound to happen. When the worker was so exploited that health and safety of the workers and their families was impacted then trade unions were necessary. Society created them and this benefited the whole society. However, when trade unions became counter-productive to economic growth the functionalist reaction was union busting, outsourcing, or the virtual destruction of the industry. When the air traffic controllers walked out, the president busted the union, because their demands were excessive and the walk-out damaged society. Many industries now outsource programming and manufacturing to India, China where labor costs are low. Domestic auto makers have lost most of their market share, because they cannot compete with foreign auto makers with lower labor costs. The costs of keeping the workers on the assembly line has benefited foreign imports. The auto workers’ unions are so powerful that this industry is becoming economically depressed and may eventually die. The very social development which Marx saw as inevitable for the workers to achieve economic equality is now destroying the goose which laid all those little eggs on the end of the pay stubs of assembly line workers. This is totally contrary to Marxist theory. The workers and their unions are exploiting the corporations. At the same time, businesses exploit foreign workers. However, the benefits which accrue to those workers make them willing. Sometimes foreign governments keep the cost of living artificially low to compete for western money. The P.R.C. government is keeping certain costs down to promote lower wages and attract foreign investment. The Chinese government is controlling its population growth also, and when, it achieves a zero or negative growth it can attack the social and economic problems caused by overpopulation in a resource poor environment. In addition, Africa needs the technological help that China can provide and China needs African raw materials, so China is actively pursuing African partnerships. This is a functionalist adjustment in foreign policy by a “supposedly” communist state. We can see by these examples that the difference between Marxism and functionalism is considerably more than whether or not exploitation is acceptable. Exploitation and peace are related in the ways mentioned above through outsourcing by business interests and exploitive exchanges made by government bodies. The beginning statement would be true, except for the qualifier that it is the only difference. It is one difference. A more important difference is the failure of Marxist evolution, where it has happened, to eliminate class from society and to make government superfluous. The worker has not overcome the ruling class. Some workers have joined the ruling class. When the change is detrimental, as in the case of the unions becoming too powerful, it vanishes. Unions will not go away entirely as they do still serve a deterrent function. However, their power will fade to a lower functional maintenance level. Unions will lose enough power to stop the corporate blood-letting, and the U.S. auto industry may survive, and unions will remain as a deterrent to corporate backsliding. While Marxism began as a functionalist theory, the over development of specifics dated it when the functionalist nature of human social structures modified the distribution of power between government and business. Since business competition will always create an environment where economics control social development, governments will consider economic implications and impact on their people. Global peace depends more on economic stability than ideology. Therefore, the development of good business practices is what really matters. If governments could be trusted to make economically beneficial decisions then this mix of government, social and business institutions would not exist. Democratic, and even some socialist governments, are notoriously bad at making business decisions. Democratic rule is not efficient. Since those people living under democratic rule have come to value their relative freedom, some other method of functionality is needed. This is where business steps in and helps to steer international relations in directions which will benefit their home countries. Technology is largely responsible for this. While transportation of goods and services was slow, and global communication was unreliable, business interests had less importance in international politics. With the ability to move knowledge or meet virtually face-to-face over light-speed networks, and transfer funds internationally instantaneously, international business increased its impact on the world. “Social science has thrown itself wholeheartedly at an attempt to apply the Newtonian paradigm of the physical sciences to scientifically verify and predict social reality. As positivistic statistical procedures of the social sciences become more complicated and advanced, the physical sciences have once again leaped ahead of most social scientists in their efforts to understand reality. “ (Prew 203) Marxist theory is too defined, too closed and limited in its scope. Since Marx probably did not foresee this technological explosion, he could hardly have known the impact business would have on the world. Contrarily, the functionalist view that social institutions and societal norms will develop in response to the needs of the society fits very well. The integration of business with politics is very functional for a society needing economic stability. That exploitation of the disadvantaged must be kept below a certain very visible level in any successful free society is why business ethics are developing. Their need for safety requires people to believe that business development and economic growth are less than pure evil in more democratic societies.. Just as trade unions will not vanish, neither will ethical business practices. In addition to the psychological needs of the society, there is the additional problem of environmental stability to maintain. Businesses without ethics ignore environmental issues, to their own detriment and become a danger to themselves, their constituents and their progeny. Society needs to feel safe from environmental disaster, making business ethics necessary. In this current adjustment period functionalist modifications to social groups and institutions are modifying international political relations, while pure Marxists have become the equivalent of the tail attempting to wag the dog. Works Cited (1991). New Directions in Comparative Politics (H. J. Wiarda, Ed.) (Revised ed.). Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Retrieved November 8, 2006, from Questia database: http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=43156971 Calhoun, Craig. "functionalism ", Dictionary of the Social Sciences, January 1, 2002.© Dictionary of the Social Sciences 2002, originally published by Oxford University Press 2002. This document provided by HighBeam Research at http://www.highbeam.com Dunaway, W. A. (Ed.). (2003). Emerging Issues in the 21st Century World-System : New Theoretical Directions for the 21st Century World-System /. Westport, CT: Praeger. Retrieved November 8, 2006, from Questia database: http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=102150678 functionalism. (2006). In Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved November  8,  2006, from Encyclopædia Britannica Online: http://search.eb.com.ezproxy.ae.talonline.ca/eb/article-9035658 "Functionalism (social sciences)," Microsoft® Encarta® Online Encyclopedia 2006 http://encarta.msn.com © 1997-2006 Microsoft Corporation. All Rights Reserved. © 1993-2006 Microsoft Corporation. All Rights Reserved. McLEAN, Iain and McMILLAN, Alistair. "functionalism ", The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics, January 1, 2003.© The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics 2003, originally published by Oxford University Press 2003.This document provided by HighBeam Research at http://www.highbeam.com Pitt, David, and Thomas G. Weiss, eds. The Nature of United Nations Bureaucracies. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1986. Questia. 15 Oct. 2006 . Peou, Sorpong. "3 Security-Community Building for Better Global Governance." Global Governance and the United Nations System /. Ed. Volker Rittberger. New York: United Nations University Press, 2001. 88-121. Questia. 15 Oct. 2006 . Prew, P. (2003). Chapter 12 The 21st Century World-Ecosystem; Dissipation, Chaos, or Transition?. In Emerging Issues in the 21st Century World-System : New Theoretical Directions for the 21st Century World-System /, Dunaway, W. A. (Ed.) (pp. 203-217). Westport, CT: Praeger. Retrieved November 8, 2006, from Questia database: http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=102150865 The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition, August 15, 2006. The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition. Copyright 2006 Columbia University Press This document provided by HighBeam Research at http://www.highbeam.com Viotti, P. and M. Kauppi, (eds.). 1987. International Relations Theory. Macmillan Publishing Company, New York Read More