Functionalism, And the Education in Society - Research Paper Example

Functionalism, And the Education in Society Introduction Inequality in the society is a phenomenon that exists universally. Social inequality can exist in form of a pyramid of clusters or even individuals.This inequality could also exist withouta hierarchy. It is termed as social hierarchy if it exists as explained in the former. If it exists in the latter way it is called social differentiation since men as well as women receive unequal treatment. In cases where social inequality exists in form of a hierarchy that involves ranking of clusters or groups, then it is called social stratification, therefore social stratification is actually a case of inequality: There’s little doubt that education, as a social institution, has an important role to play in our society. Whether you view that role positively or negatively, we need to examine a range of perspectives (Structuralist, Interactionist, Postmodern and New Right) that explore the role and purpose of the formal education system in contemporary society (Chris. Livesey and Lawson 1) The term, theory, is interpreted differently by many people. Some people may define it as anabstractoutlinethat is designed with the idea of explaining observable consistencies between variables. Theories providerationalclarificationas to the reason why things take place in a certain way. Sociology of Education From a broader perspective sociology is about the influence that society has on education and that which education has on society. There exists a mutual relationship which exhibits complexity. Upon analyzing this complexity, Sarajevo observes that: The first aspect of this complexity brings usto a conclusion that the sociology of education has two subjects of studying:society and education. According to its generality, the notion society isbroader than the notion education. On the other hand, education as a socialphenomenon, determines largely the development and movements in asociety. Without education a society could not survive; its essentialconstituents were developed by learning in social conditions, i.e. education.As the science of society, sociology studies, social phenomena and relationships use descriptive and scientific methods to observe, generalize,and to notice regular development and structures. (7) There are various reasons as to why Sociology is interested in exploring education being a social spectacle: (Sarajevo 4) notes that the development of a particular society is far and wide determined by education. He further notes that: If we start with a hypothesis, that education can be broadly defined as conscious and useful learning and teaching in social conditions, we canconclude that the first foundations of civilization and its further developmentare permanently tied to education. Communities and countries which weremore efficient in transferring new technological inventions and in training forlife in a community, were more developed civilization and historically more superior in relation to others (Sarajevo 7). Human beings do influence each other by way of establishing general relationships which are social in nature as well as those with an economic and political as well as religious and cultural dimension. As this influence advanced in organization, it became useful overtime until today it has developed to a critically important educational element. Today,education has become an integral part of the social structure. Sarajevo argues that “Sociology studies social structure and social phenomena andeducation is a part of that structure and social phenomenon” (7) Education represents the origin, the function and the development of social structure as well as that of social phenomena.There are a number of partial tactics that have been used when comparing this subject. These approaches are not wrong by principal. They all contribute to the subject of sociology of education but each is biased in its own way. Sociology presents different opinion about education. In this paper we will look at functionalism as one of the theories that attempts to explain the subject of education and the society. Functionalism One of the basic of dimensions of sociology, as a subject is the functionalism theory. “Functionalism is the oldest and still the most dominant,theoretical perspective in sociology and many other social sciences such aseducation” (Ololube 23). Functionalists argue that in the society, everything, no matter its strangeness, misplacement, its nature, everything serves a particular purpose. Functionalism theory looks at the society as being a system that is self-regulating and that has interrelatingportions with organized relationships and observable uniformity. (Magill 786) observes that functionalismis among the theories which attempt to analyze theinteractions thatbring about functionalityin the society. According to Magill, functionalism looks at the society as being a system of consistentbranches or organs which must function with a common interest. According to this theory argues that social stratification forms the system by which a society realizes its goals. Social stratification, which will be looked at further in this paper, forms the instrument that determines the efficiency by which achievement of societal goals comes.It dictates the roles that individuals are to take up within the society. What is Functionalism? Functionalism has been offered as one of the main proposals that have been provided as a solution to the problem of the mind and the body. This solution attempts to answer the questions: What is the final nature of the mental? Generally, what constitutes a mental state? What makes an idea an idea? Cartesian Dualism argues that theeventualstate of the mental had to be created in a distinct mental constituent. Behaviorism associatedmental nature with behavioral outlooks. According to Physicalism,mental states are identified with brain states. Functionalism says that mental states are created by their underlying relations to each another as well as to sensory inputs plussocial outputs. (Borchert 756) observes that “Functionalism is one of the major theoretical developments of Twentieth Century analytic philosophy, and provides the conceptual underpinnings of much work in cognitive science” Structural Functionalism is a broad perspective in sociology and anthropology whichinterprets society as structure with interrelated parts. Functionalism addresses thesociety as a whole in terms of function of its constituent elements such as norms, customs, traditions, institutions etc. Social structures are stressed and placed at the center of analysis and social functions are deduced from these structures. Functionalism is the oldest and dominant conceptual perspective in society. (Subedi 1) George Ritzer and Douglas J. Goodmannote that: Although popular, even dominant, after World War II, structural functionalism is today generally of only historical interest. Emerging as an offshoot of organicism, structural functionalists were mainly societal functionalists who were interested in large-scale social structures and institutions within society, how they interrelate, and their constraining effects on actors (E6) Key Arguments of Functionalism This section looks at various key arguments that concern functionalism as a theory. Whole part and Systemic interrelationship According to (Subedi 2), systems theory forms a structure of investigating objects that work in unity to yield some outcome. This could mean a particular entity, an organization or a society. A system entails groups of activities that interact. It is a dynamic and a balance prototype. Often, properties existing in a whole may not exist in those of the elements. In some cases the manner in which the parts behave may not be used to explain the way the whole behaves. i.e. Propertiesexhibited by the elementsif considered together could mean something that does not exist in the elements by themselves. The pattern of incorporation and interrelation of particular parts may determine the behavior ofthe whole system. All phenomena could be seen as a network of affiliations among system. A system can be seen as an element. An individual can be seen as a system, that is, an amalgamation of organs and at the same time it can be looked at as part of a group of elements or society. Consensus Viewpoint This perspective looks at sees equilibrium within the society when there is no conflict only. It is the extensive and general arrangement existing among the members of that specific society that brings forth steadiness. The viewpoint emphasizesconservation and continuation of order within society. (Interpretive Sociology and structuralfunctionalism) Following are the way in which structuralism proposes reading of Marxism (macro viewpoint of society): - Societyis made up of a pyramid of structures which are distinct from each other. - Conflictexists naturally withinthe society. People form the outcome ofstructuralconflict. - It is because of incompatibility of interactions that conflicts come up and hence changeforms. - A society, just as the internal organs within of a common biological organism, keeps its firmness , its organization as well asgrowth only when the social organs, the structure and institutions work together (are in balance) and not when they are infight with one another. - Society will never function at any particular time based on force. It is joined together by the agreement among its own members. Conflict viewpoint This point of viewunderscores conflict within the society. It deals specifically with incompatibilities within the society, in other words, radical humanism and structuralism. - Change comes as a resulting factor of conflicts among human beings with their society. - Human beings contain the ability to reason and take action against conditions that do not favor their being. - Change can emerge out of conflicts among classes of people within the society. Functional Prerequisites/Imperatives In order to survive, the society needs to observe a number of things: The following are the factors that undermine the survival of the society. It is therefore imperative that the society avoids them. Extinction of population Highly indifferent populace Conflicts within and against all According to (Subedi 3) the following are the thing a society needs to uphold in order to survive; Sufficient ways of dealing with coexistence of ecology and the social system. Reasonable reproduction (a couple should have more than 2 children) Sufficiency in diversity of concern and expertise Must have adequate diversity of roles and people performing them-social stratification). Sufficient systems of communication. Common pattern of value pattern at individual as well as group level Sharing of expressivepackage of goals Some strategies to regulate means of achieving these goals. Society must regulate unnecessary emotions and reinforce the necessary one like; love and fidelity) Functional control over disorderly behavior One of the earliest and better known applications of structural functionalism was the functional theory of stratification. This theory argued that stratification was universal and necessary for society, and that it was therefore functional. Stratification here refers to positions rather than individuals and to the way that individuals are placed in the appropriate position. Since some positions are more important, more pleasant, and require different skills, a system of stratification is necessary to make sure all roles are fulfilled. Much like other versions of structural functionalism, this theory is criticized as conservative and lacking in empirical support (Gritzer and Goodman E6) Talcott Parsons view on Functionalism According to (Gritzer and Goodman E6) “The single greatest contributor, and practitioner, of structural functionalism was Talcott Parsons (1902-1979)” Parsons builds his theory upon the four functional prerequisiteswhich are also termed as AGIL system: Adaptive function- in this function, systems adapts to the environment they are in. Goal-attainment function- addresses the manner in which systemsoutline and achieves their goals. The integrative function/ regulating components of a system. Latency which is also known as pattern maintenance function which addresses how to stimulate enthusiasm and the dimensions of a culture which creates and sustains motivation. There are four action systems that complement these. Each of these systems serves a functional importance: “The behavioral organism performs the adaptive function; the personality system performs goal attainment; the social system performs the integrative function; and the cultural system performs pattern maintenance” (Gritzer and Goodman E6) According to Parsons, these action systems do not act at the same level of analysis. They start with behavioral organism and progress to cultural system. He looked at these levels from a hierarchical point of view. The lower levels providestimulus for higher levels. On the other hand the higher levels control the lower ones. The primary concern that Parson had was to create a social order. In this pursuit, he carried out investigations, using his theory on a number of assumptions: that systems are inter-reliant; they move towards balance/equilibrium; they could be stationary part of a change; that systems need allocation and integration in any specific point of equilibrium; and those systemsdo maintaining them-selves. Parson tended to focus most on order and to overlook the concept of change. According to Parson, the basic unit of social system is the status role complex. (Trevine 42) borrows from (Parson 61) that “The basic unit of all social systems that links the actor as a “psychological” entity to the wider social structure is the role” Actors are viewed as anassembly of positions and roles which existlacking thought. Parsonswas most interested in large-scale constituents of the social systems, such as customs, and morals. Parsons also was for the idea that systems had several functional imperatives, for example; compatibility with other structures, satisfying the actors’ needs, inter-systems support, injectingsufficient levels of contribution from components, having control on deviance, conflict as well as language. Parsons specific interest was in the role played by norms and morals. His focus was mainly on the process of socialization or interaction. In this specific interest, the society implantsin individuals an attitudethat gives them room tochase after their own self-interest and at the same time servethe larger system’s interests. Parson’s way of knowing whether or not actors had adopted the norm of society was throughsocialization. Application of coercive systems of controlling individuals was not regarded as a primary line of justification: The cultural system is at the very pinnacle of action systems. For instance, Parsons believed that culture had the capability of becoming a part of other systems, such as norms and values in the social system. Culture is defined as a patterned, ordered system of symbols that are objects of orientation to actors, internalized aspects of the personality system, and institutionalized patterns. The symbolic nature of culture allows it to control other action systems (Gritzer and Goodman E6) With the intention of dealing deal with change, Parsons adopted a kind of an evolutionary theory. He focused his attention on variation as well as adaptive upgrading. Parson came up with three stages of evolution: the primitive, the intermediate, and the modern stage. The problem with this point of view is that it looks majorly at change as being positive in general. It does not address the process through which change comes about. The writer observes: One way that Parsons does inject a real sense of dynamism into his theory is with the concept of the generalized media of interchange. Although this concept is somewhat ambiguous, it can be thought of as resources, particularly symbolic resources, for which there is a universal desire (e.g., money, influence, or political power). The suggestion that individuals might act to influence the social distribution of such resources (as media entrepreneurs) adds dynamism to what is often seen as a static theory (Gritzer and Goodman E6) Robert Merton In his attempt to correct some flaws within structural functionalism, Robert Merton(1910-2003) challenged the fundamentalnotions of functionalism. He added complexity to the manner in which structural functionalism looked at the interaction between a structure and a function. He argued that in a system, all parts can function, have a high level of integration, and indispensable.Merton formed a system of ideas that dealt with the interaction of the structures with the whole. In their analysis, (Gritzer and Goodman E6) note “For instance, he suggested that some social facts might be dysfunctional, meaning they may have negative consequences for other social facts” Merton saw the possibility of having the concept of the balance of a structure by taking considering dysfunctions, non-functions and functions. He also argued that this analysis could be performed at various stages of functional analysis. He supported this argument by his idea that "functions" may be a question of perspective. He gives an example of slavery, while it proved to be functional for some, to others it was dysfunctional. Another of Merton’s concern was the purposed and un-purposed functions of structures and their unexpectedsignificances. He argued that dysfunctional structures can as well exist within systems. This would depend on their association to other systems. This leads to the conclusion that not all structures are indispensible and at the same time not all are positive. Merton also adopted Emile Durkheim's (1857-1917) idea of anomie. He observes that deviant behavioris produced when individuals cannot behaveaccording with normal society values or when they cannot achieve normalized goals as a result of the social structures creating obstacles. (Schumaker, Delehanty, Kiel, Heilke 138) observes that “Liberal societies produce an alienated individual, a self that has no place, no companion, and no purpose” Criticisms to Functionalism A number of critics exist concerning structural functionalism. Some critics argue that this theory fails to deal conclusively with the concept of change and that of conflict in the society. Others claim that it is conventional in nature. It is looked at as being indefinite. Structural functionalism impedes some forms of evaluations, like comparative analysis. Ritzer and Goodman note: Structural functionalism has also been described as both illegitimately teleological and tautological. The former implies that structural functionalists rely too heavily on the notion that social structures have purposes or goals. This notion is posited to justify the existence of particular structures without adequate theoretical reasons or empirical backing. Tautology suggests that the conclusion of a theory makes explicit what is implicit in the premise of the theory. Thus, structural functionalism defines the whole in terms of the parts and the parts in terms of the whole (E6) Conflict Theory and Functionalism According to Tischler, “Conflict theory is rooted in the works of Marx and other social critics of the nineteenth century. Conflict theory proposes that each individual or group struggles to attain maximum benefit. This causes the society to change constantly in response to social inequality and social conflict” (19) Conflict theory mainly comes as a critic towards structural functionalism. It majorly brings out the opposite or contrast of structural functionalism. Where structural functionalism sees a near harmony of purpose from norms and values, conflict theory sees coercion, domination, and power. Dahrendorf notes: As long as we orient our analysis toward the question as to how the elements of a society are combined into a co-ordinated functioning whole, then the representation of society as a social system is the last point of reference. We are therefore faced with the task of determining certain associations, institutions, or processes within this balanced whole, that is in Merton's definition-of determining the intentional or unintentional consequences of these associations for the functioning and the preservation of the system. In this way, we come to contentions such as "the educational system functions as a mechanism of assigning social positions," or "religion functions as an agent of integrating dominant values (173) Dahrendorf observes further that most sociological examinations in recent times incline towards this form of evaluation. However, he notes that this approach brings about difficulties, when a different question of, “What was the function of the English trade unions in the General Strike of 1926? What was the function of the construction worker in Stalin Allee on June 17, 1953?” (Dahrendorf 173) Definitely, someone could argue that those militant trade unions and opposition political clusters as well participatein the functioning of the system. But even this notwithstanding, it would not be easy to raise an argument. This conclusion would not say much concerning the part played by the group in this query. Dahrendorf notes further that “Moreover, it is clear that the intentional, as well as the unintentional, effects of such oppositional groups are in the contribution toward an abolition or destruction of the existing system” (173) For Dahrendorf the manner in which authority was distributed was important in understanding the concept of social conflict. He argues that authority is not located within individuals but within their positions. It is formed when there are some expectations that certain positions would be associated with certain actions. This involves some being insubordinate to others and vise-versa. Merton talked of latent as well as manifest functions. On the otherhand, Dahrendorf identified conscious and unconscious interests. How these two connected formed a major problem for the conflict theory. Dahrendorf brought about the possibility of: the quasi groups, the interest groups, and the conflict groups. He argued that under perfectconditions, conflict can be explained without referring to other variables. Both of these perspectives are accused of being unable to explain conclusively the dynamics of social life. Functionalism model The image below tries to symbolize the whole idea behind functionality of different organs as parts of one single system. All parts of the tree operate or function towards one goal which is to enrich the growth of the tree as a whole. (Adapted from treeworld.info) Works Cited 1. Borchert, Donald M. Determinables - Fuzzy Logic. Detroit [u.a.: Macmillan Reference USA [u.a., 2006. Print. 2. Dahrendorf R. “Toward a Theory of Social Conflict. Washington, D.C: American Sociological Association, 1973. Print. 3. George Ritzer and Douglas J.Goodman. Sociological Theory, 6/e: University of Maryland-College Park, 2004. 4. Lawson, Tony, and Chris Livesey. A2 Sociology for Aqa. London: Hodder Arnold, 2006. Print. 5. Ololube, Nwachukwu P. Teacher Education, School Effectiveness and Improvement: A Study of Academic and Professional Qualification on Teacher's Job Effectiveness in Nigerian Secondary Schools. Helsinki: Dep. of Teacher Education, Univ. of Helsinki, 2006. Print. 6. Ritzer, George. Sociological Theory. New York [u.a.: McGraw-Hill, 2000. Print. 7. Schumaker, Paul, Will Delehanty, Dwight C. Kiel, and Thomas W. Heilke. From Ideologies to Public Philosophies: An Introduction to Political Theory. Malden, MA: Blackwell Pub, 2008. Print. 8. Trevin?e, A. J. Talcott Parsons Today: His Theory and Legacy in Contemporary Sociology. Lanham [u.a.: Rowman& Littlefield Publ, 2001. Print. 9. Tischler, Henry L. Introduction to Sociology. Australia: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning, 2011. Print. 10. Dahrendorf Ralf. Toward a Theory of Social Conflict. The Journal of Conflict Resolution 2.2 (2011):170-183. Web 27 April 2012. http://petermarina.com/DOCUMENTS/sociologyofconflict/mail2/Toward%20a%20Theory%20of%20Social%20Conflict.pdf Read More