Neo-Marxist Feminism and Functionalism in Understanding of Societies - Essay Example

?Marxist/Neo-Marxist Feminism and Functionalism in Historical and Contemporary Understanding of Societies Introduction As people strive to achieve social order, they formulate rules of conduct to guide their societies, as well as control individual behaviors. The common preferences of the people influence these rules of conduct in the same way that those, in turn, influence the behavior of the people. Social structures govern social life. Although it is not visible, its influence is noticeable in the traditions, behavior, and cultures of the society (Jones, 2003, p.7). Following this line of thinking, it can be said that people and their governing rules influence each other and contribute to the overall culture and tradition of the society. To illustrate this idea in a more specific example, this paper focuses on family rules and values in relation to two theoretical traditions pertaining to society: Marxist/Neo-Marxist Feminism and Functionalism. These sets of social theories explain the relevance of social structures in attaining social order, especially in the family. Along with the discussion of concepts and arguments of the two social theories, this paper will also discuss the differences and similarities of those two theories. Marxism/Neo-Marxist Feminism Theoretical Foundations The concept of Marxism originates from the philosophical works of Karl Marx, a German philosopher in the 1950s. The bulk of his work is influenced by the social, political, and economic traditions of Germany and other European countries during the 1950s (Hughes, Sharrock, & Martin, 2003, p.22). As Marx was immersed in European cultures such as in Paris and Brussels, he realized that the plight of workers, especially women and children, were unfavorable as they have to work at longer hours with lesser pay. The situation of the workers influenced the philosophies of Marx in the context of social structure and economic differences. In his stay in Paris and Brussels, Marx became associated in workers’ movements, which enabled him to investigate questions on social issues, especially those pertaining to the economy and hierarchy in the social structure. As mentioned by Morrison (2006, pp.36-38), the rise of industrialised societies during Marx’s time influenced his views on social structure in a way that he separated from the idealistic social perspective of his friend, Hegel. Seeing the adverse economic and employment situation of workers, he proposed that social structure is influenced by the differences in social classes, which are determined by economic status. Key Concepts on Society The main concepts of Karl Marx’s social theory are Capitalism and its oppressive effects on the people’s lives. Capitalism creates political and economic hierarchy in the sense that capitalists freely exploit the resources of the workers (Allan, 2011, pp.47-49). Additionally, the value of workers would, in the long run, decrease as capitalists strive to increase their profits either by increasing the workers’ work hours or maintaining the length of work hours while increasing the productivity. Thus, the growing capitalism and industrialisation created the increasing gap between the capitalists and workers. Marx is also interested in the unexpected effects of capitalism, economic bipolarisation. Historical and Contemporary Concepts on Society and Family Economic bipolarisation, as a Marxist concept, is significant both in the historical and contemporary perspectives on society and family in the sense that it determines the roles of individuals. In capitalism, bipolarisation refers to the division of society according to two extremes in economic status, the bourgeoisie (owners) and proletariat (workers) (Allan, 2011, p.54). Feudalism is the concrete example of this concept. In feudalism, land ownership follows a hierarchy: the king being the ultimate land owner and the serfs, the tenants. The workers were the ones who tended the land, but it is the owners that acquired the fruits of their labors. For Marx, as class struggles characterise human history, the antagonism of the classes against each other creates barriers, which caused political, social, and economic conflicts. In Marxism, Capitalism also contributes to the changing of roles in the family (Allan, 2011, p.54). Before the concept of capitalism, family is a social concern, and issues on paternity and maternity were uncommon. As capitalism grew, ownerships shift from being communal (individually owned) to capitalistic (capitalist-owned). In capitalism, fathers (being of stronger physique) were hired are workers, thus, giving them the chance to be earner of the family. As the father became the family’s provider, he is seen as the boss making the mother assume a secondary role in the family. Additionally, the father, being the worker, can prescribe the consumption of the family including the childbirth of the wife; hence, the birth of patriarchal societies. In this context, capitalism gave birth to bipolarisation in the family in the sense that roles are now defined and must be individually conformed. Additionally, there is now the concept of the male gender superiority. In this sense, it can also be said that Capitalism worsens the social struggles between classes, bringing it to a new level of struggle between husbands and wives. Michelle Barrett and Marxist Feminism As Marx suggests that gender roles change along with the adaption of Capitalism in societies, Marxist Feminism suggests that the social role of females is caused by the highly patriarchal and capitalistic social construct. For the reason that Capitalism is characterised by male preference in the workplace, women are considered as unproductive and fit only to take household tasks. However, as Capitalism is a social structure, Marxist Feminists view the female gender roles as socially rooted, rather than caused by the biological build-up of women. Hence, if women are given equal social rights, there is a possibility that they can achieve the same level of productivity, even in the light of Capitalism. Michelle Barrett, one of the popular feminists in 1980, advocates the liberation of women from the patriarchal social structure caused by capitalism. She believed that education plays a crucial role in neutralizing the female and male gender roles. Education should cater the needs of the people, regardless of gender. According to Michelle Barrett (1980 cited in Abbot & Wallace, 1997, p.105), the school tend to prescribe the roles of women in the capitalist society as it prepares them for specific professions, hence, roles in the labor market. Schools, to empower women, should not prescribe, nor prepare both genders for a particular occupation (Bandarage, 1984, p.496). In this way, both genders will exercise full control of their lives, regardless of the social constructs imposed on them. In this case, it can be said that abolishing sex-segregated roles would alleviate the oppressive situation of women in the workplace as well as neutralize the roles of parents in the family. Functionalism Theoretical Foundations The foundation of Functionalism is attributable to the works of Durkheim, a French philosopher in 1880s. This theory suggests that social constructs are based on mechanical and organic structures, that is, the biological differences of human beings. As the human body is comprised of different organs, society is composed of parts that contribute to the overall operation of the entire social system (Jones, 2003, p.38). Thus, in functionalism, social elements have components in the micro and macro level. For instance, the welfare of the society depends on its members in the same way that the health of the body depends on its organs. In this sense, it can be said that social elements, like the organs in the body, are interdependent, therefore, co-existential. Additionally, as Durkheim viewed religion as the source of traditions, beliefs, and values, he thought that it influences social constructs to the extent that humanity can have a universal set of values. However, as industrialization continued to grow during his time, the idea of cultural diversity poses a threat to the integration of societies. Key Concepts The major concepts in Functionalism are integration, social solidarity, and religion as the foundation of society. In the context of religion, social constructs share a common element, spirituality. Spirituality is the source of social constructs as it determines the set of values and behaviors that are socially acceptable (Allan, 2011, pp.112-114). As Durkheim’s Functionalist theory is deeply-rooted in religion, social concepts are seen as sacred as they are based on religious traditions. However, as people became more concerned on material things, the focus of Functionalism not only includes religious traditions, but also educational, political, and economic arrangements, as well. This concept of social structure also brought about the stereotyping of roles in the sense that individuals can only perform the functions that are allocated for them. Historical and Contemporary Concepts on Family and Society In the context of society, the Functionalist theory suggests that each individual in the society is expected to follow a socially prescribed set of standards as well as the roles imposed on them by the society. Accordingly, those standards would guide the people in their daily activities as well as for the rest of their lives. Functionalist societies, while acknowledging the significance of the sacred, promote social integration in a way that people are made to follow a specific rule of conduct and way of living. In this sense, it can be said that elements in Functionalist societies have well defined roles in the micro and macro level. For instance, workers live their whole lives as workers as they deemed it a way of conforming to religious and social constructs. In the context of family, parents have well defined roles in relation to their own households as well as to their clan. The individual households may represent the micro level of social integration, while the clan (larger group) signifies the macro level (Allan, 2011, p.117). As parents divide household works accordingly between them, the concept of gender-based roles emerged. Relatively, children would adapt the tradition and continue the practice of sex-segregating social, political, and economic roles. In the macro level, the concept of the clan and kinship prevails in Functionalist societies in a way that individual households exist in relation to the larger group. Each household has different roles to play in the community. Talcott Parsons on Welfare and Benefits of Family Roles Talcott Parsons, an American sociologist who gained prominence after the World War II in 1950s, developed the concept of Structural Functionalism as an extension of Durkheim’s Functionalist theory of sociology. As one of the Functionalist theories in modern times, Talcott Parsons supports Durkheim’s idea of social integration and solidarity. Parsons’ most significant contribution to the field of sociology is the Structural Functionalism, which suggests that societies are composed of four systems: physiological, social, cultural, and personality (Layder, 2006, p.18). In the physiological system, the human body is considered as the basic foundation of other systemic operations. The personality system is closely related to the physiological system in a way that the body functions according to the disposition of the person. For instance, the fitness to work and the person’s attitudes toward his/her work determine the productivity of the person. Furthermore, the social system involves the process of human interaction within the society. Lastly, the cultural system refers to the literatures, knowledge, and norms shared in the society. Applying Parsons’ theory of Structural Functionalism in the context of family life, the theory may suggest that family members have their own predefined roles that guide their actions toward their family members and their relatives (Layder, 2006, p.25). In Structural Functionalism, societies benefit from the division of labor as the work load may be distributed accordingly among the members of the society. Aside from making the work easier, the process of dividing workloads enables people to internalize their roles, thereby, giving them the chance to attain self-esteem and social significance. However, the overemphasis of roles may encourage passivity as people would not learn other works except those that are given to them. In this sense, while it can be said that Parsons’ theory promotes social integration and solidarity, it also exaggerates the value of determinism making human beings puppets of the society. Differences and Similarities In the context theoretical foundations, the concepts of Marxism and Functionalism stand on opposite sides as those two theories have opposing views on social structures. For instance, Marxist perspectives are grounded on human nature (tendencies toward survival and profitability), while Functionalism is based on religious orientations. Additionally, Functionalists, who propose that societies are comprised of interdependent parts and causal loops, suggest that having a set of socially determined roles allows people to concentrate and excel in a specific area in the society. While Marxists suggest that Capitalism causes social disintegration (such as class divisions and bipolarisation) (Burris, n.d, p.76), Functionalists suggest that Capitalism promotes interdependence (social solidarity and integration) (Noble, 2000, p.172). In this case, it can be said that Capitalism can have both positive and adverse effects on society. While Marxism and Functionalism have different theoretical foundations, the two theories have a similar focus. Functionalism and Marxism both focus on social structures as the outcome of the growing Capitalistic society. In the two theories, the social system is the most essential aspect of human civilisation as it develops communication and other forms of interaction within the community (Giddens, 1979, p. 237). In reading the two theories, it can be said that Capitalism is the turning point of the society as it brings out both positive and negative effects on the social system. Additionally, Marxist and Functionalist perspectives help explain family roles in relation to the social constructs. David Cameron on “Troubled Families” David Cameron, a contemporary British Conservative Party leader, in his speech On Troubled Families, suggests that social problems are caused by the dysfunctional roles of families and loopholes in the previous leadership, which contribute to the increase in Britain’s troubled families. By troubled families, Cameron means out-of-school youth, jobless parents, and criminals (Cameron, 2011). In his speech, he proposes that the government should take a more active role in family guidance as it is one of the ways in solving the problems in UK today. Specifically, Cameron gears the government to conduct house-to-house family guidance to assist families in starting a more productive life. Cameron, as a political leader, does not believe that families are pre-programmed to fail; instead, he believes that they deserve a second chance for a better way of living. As Cameron’s advocacy on Compassionate Conservatism focuses on the homeless, unemployed, and disabled, his action plans on troubled families would promote better economic, health, and political welfare (Dorey, 2007, p.146). Should “troubled families” decide to change their lives, Cameron assures that they will receive the government’s full support. Conclusion As no theory fits in all situations in the society, Marxism and Functionalism have different forms of social applicability. For the reason that the two theories have different views on society, those theories can also offer different explanations on social constructs, especially in understanding both historical and contemporary societies. Accordingly, this paper provides the theoretical foundations, proponents, and concepts of the two theories to provide enough information on theories related to social structures. As this paper discusses the theoretical views of Marxism and Functionalism in the context of family, this paper studies family roles and relationships as results of social change caused by Capitalism. Lastly, social structures had evolved along with the development of societies toward modernization. Societies change as people strive to understand the causes and effects of the changes in their lives and societies. References Abbot, P. & Wallace, C., 1997. An introduction to sociology: Feminist perspectives. London: Routledge. Allan, K., 2011. The social lens: an invitation to social and sociological theory. 2nd. ed. California: Pine Forge Press. Bandarage, A., 1984. Women in development: Liberalism, Marxism and Marxism-Feminism. Development and Change, 15 (4), pp.495-515. Burris, V., n.d. The Neo-Marxist synthesis of Marx and Weber on class. In: N. Wiley, ed. 1987. The Marx-Weber Debate. California: Sage. Ch.3. Cameron, D., 2011. David Cameron’s speech on troubled families. Huffington Post UK, [internet] 15 December. Available at: http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2011/12/15/david-camerons-speech-on-families-full-text_n_1150416.html [Accessed 26 December 2011]. Dorey, P., 2007. A new direction of false dawn?: David Cameron and the crisis of British Conservatism. British Politics, 2, pp.137-166. Giddens, A., 1979. Central problems in social theory: action, structure, and contradiction in social analysis. Berkeley: University of California Press. Hughes, J. A., Sharrock, W. W., & Martin, P., 2003. Understanding classical sociology. 2nd. ed. London: Sage. Jones, P., 2003. Introducing social theory. Cambridge, UK: Blackwell. Layder, D., 2006. Understanding social theory. 2nd ed. London: Sage. Morrison, K., 2006. Marx, Durkheim, Weber: formations of modern social thought. 2nd. ed. London: Sage. Noble, T., 2000. Social theory and social change. New York: Palgrave. Read More