Functionalism from Sociological Perspective - Essay Example

? FUNCTIONALISM Introduction Different theories of sociological perspective such as functionalism, conflict theory, interactionalism and feminism offer different perspectives concerning how society is structured and why particular social problems exist. Conflict theory is the negative opposite of functionalism. It views society as a constant struggle by the underprivileged against the privileged segments such as Marx’s depiction of the conflict of the proletariat against the bourgeois class. Interactionists claim people collectively ascribe meaning to symbols and structure their society accordingly Feminists view society in terms of the struggle by women to gain equal rights with men. Finally functionalism looks at society in terms of institutions and values which must adapt to their social environment in order to function well. Main Factors (Kent 2000) states that functionalism is the oldest but still the dominant theoretical perspective in Sociology. It marks the application of the scientific method to the objective social world. It applies the Darwinian theory of biology of survival of the fittest to the study of society. In other words, unconsciously certain social values and structure evolve because they are best suited to the survival and growth of the society in the social environment in which it finds itself. Therefore these values and structures will differ from society to society depending on its’ particular environment. For example, a society such as the Taliban which feels culturally threatened by what it perceives as a corrupt West adopts a strict single religion with homogeneous values and rigid social structure. It is a “we” (Taliban) versus “they” (the corrupt West) mentality. In contrast a western democracy such as the United States, more confident in its’ cultural survival, can allow greater freedom of religion and values and more divers social stryctures as long as the rights of fellow citizens are respected. The application of the scientific method means that one can study society objectively through such techniques as surveys and interviews without assigning any value judgment to the findings. Sociologists under functionalism view society as an organism or social system with each component being essential to the functioning of society as a whole. For example, some may argue religion must be considered essential to a society’s survival. However religion plays a very different role in a theocracy such as Iran than in the US. In the former the single religion permitted, Islam, functions as a unifier against the Western World. In contrast in the US the freedom of religion allows any religion or no religion to be practiced as long as the rights of others are not violated. Here the function of this diversity is to encourage different religions to coexist peacefully. Functionalists also argue that society’s survival requires in the long run a state of equilibrium so that there is a consensus regarding values. For example, Americans in general favor differential occupational rewards to encourage people to enter fields that require more education and/or are inherently riskier. However, if the differential becomes too great social unrest can result as the protests of the “99%” suggest Robert Merton developed a strain theory to explain deviant behavior by people unable to comply with the American Dream ideology of making money as a measure of success manifested by conspicuous consumption. For example they could reject the goal and withdraw from mainstream society and become drug addicts or turn to religions in which materialism is rejected, or they could acknowledge the goal and try to acquire wealth by illegal deviant means such as fraud, theft, burglary or drug trafficking. The equilibrium can be maintained by sanctions such as incarceration for extreme dissenters or feedback by those adversely affected to encourage adjustment of norms regarded as too harsh. Functionalism prescribes individual behavior. For example, corporate executives were once expected to make decisions solely on the basis of the economic interest of the shareholders, but now this has changed with tight government budgets and escalating corporate profits, they are expected to be more proactive in supporting social causes. Institutions and actions can have manifest, latent or dysfunctional functions as Robert Merton theorized. For example, a public university’s manifest function is educating the young, but if it admits only students from the upper socioeconomic class, it may have a latent function of preserving class inequality, and it may be dysfunctional in terms of democratic values of diversity and inclusion. Merton further theorized under his strain theory that such undemocratic access to education causes a disconnect with the pursuit of the American dream of wealth when those unable to access the required education become disillusioned and are more susceptible to criminal behavior. Functional Sociologists Emile Durkheim was a French sociologist whose writings formed the basis of the functionalist theory.(McClelland 2000) He was also one of the first sociologists to make use of scientific and statistical techniques in sociological research in 1951. Talcott Parsons, the best known American sociologist of the 1950s and 60s conceptualized society as a collection of systems within systems, the personality system within the small group system within the community system within society. He even viewed the whole world as a system of societies. In 1968 Robert Merton proposed a number of important distinctions to avoid potential weaknesses and clarify ambiguities in the base perspective. He distinguished between manifest and latent functions, respectively those which are recognized and intended by actors in the social system and hence may represent motives for their actions and those which are unrecognized and thus unintended by the actors. Secondly he distinguished between consequences which are positively functional for a society and those which are dysfunctional for the society and those which are neither. Third he distinguished between levels of society, that is, the specific social units for which recognized patterns of behavior are functional or dysfunctional. Finally he conceded that the particular social structures which satisfy needs of society are not indispensable but that structural alternatives may exist which can also satisfy the same structural needs. Strengths and Weaknesses as Mode of Explanation A strong point of functionalism is that it emphasizes the relationship between values and institutions in fostering stable societies.(McClelland 2000) It shows how power and control are legitimatized. For example, in primitive societies and theocracies today they are legitimatized by religion. In other words, if for example and individual in a primitive society showed exceptional bravery and skill in defeating rival tribes people assumed that these attributes were somehow bestowed by the gods and that therefore he and his successors should lead the tribe. In modern democracies power is legitimatized by elections. It is assumed that the person who gets the most votes represents the will of the people. (McClelland 2000) states that functional theories have fallen out of favor. Critics have argued that they are teleological reversing the usual order of cause and effect by explaining things by what happened afterward, not by what went before. Fore example, a strict functionalist might argue that a society’s religious practices contributed to its’ survival but these religious practices were established long before a society’s destiny was known. I would argue that this position is not valid because while there may be some time before an ultimate societal breakdown there are usually signs of disintegration beforehand such as increased crime, social protests and the emergence of hate groups. In the absence of a marked increase in such phenomenon and environmental or economic calamities I think one could anticipate a society’s long term stability. Functionalism does not necessarily mean that everyone is satisfied with their lot. It simply means that the more privileged rationalize their position and access to greater rewards which is generally accepted by others. Foe example, Marx’s bourgeois might argue that because they must have greater knowledge and take greater risks and/or are chosen by God they are entitled to more rewards than the proletariat. To the extent such arguments are accepted by the proletariat the bourgeois can maintain their privileges. Therefore, although critics may argue that the social system is not functioning for the proletariat it is functioning in terms of social order as long as they accept lower social and economic status as legitimate. Some critics argue that functionalism ignores other explanations concerning why societies operate the way they do, such as conflict theory symbolic interaction and feminism, I would argue that all these theories offer valid perspectives on society and the acceptance of one does not preclude the others. For example, while there was definite conflict between the interests of the bourgeois and the proletariat concerning the legitimacy of the status of the former became increasingly questioned by the latter, violent revolution did not occur as Marx predicted. Instead because of the industrial revolution and the consequent need for highly trained and skilled workers, they commanded greater rewards and status. Thus the need for violent revolution was blunted and a new functional social order was established. Finally, some critics have argued that functionalism with it’s emphasis on social stability promotes the status quo. I would disagree. Functionalists accept that in changing circumstances social structures must also adjust to establish a new equilibrium preferably without violent revolution or social implosion. While homogeneous societies legitimatize their social structures through religion and tradition, modern pluralistic societies function on the basis of an ideology of tolerance, patriotism and the validation of cultural diversity. Application in a Particular Study The (Porth) study details the application of functionalism to anthropology since the early 20th century, primarily by Malinowski and Radcliffe-Brown in reaction to the excesses of evolutionary and historical theories. Malinowski argued that individuals have physiological (reproduction, food, shelter), culturally derived and 4 instrumental needs (economic, social control, education and political organization) that must be satisfied by institutional devices. In contrast Radcliffe-Brown focuses more on social structures with a formal institutionalized system of relationships along the lines discussed earlier in this essay. Functionalism was a reaction to reliance on speculative historical data and the evolutionary concept which viewed society not in terms of what it war at the time of observation but in terms of what it must stand for in reference what had formerly been the case. The authors then document the key figures in the field along with their principal works. They state that Malinowski theorized that the culture system was formed by the collective motivation of individuals to satisfy both rationally (scientifically validated and non rationally (ritual, magical or religious) their needs. On the other hand Radcliffe-Brown was influenced by Emile Durkheim and argued that social structure was derived from other social phenomenon independent of physiological needs. Both sociologists used the methodology of extensive participant observation fieldwork to formulate and test their hypothesis. Although functionalism has recently fallen out of favor the in depth studies of primitive societies shows that their structures were not chaotic as Europeans first thought, but had meaning in terms of how that particular society worked. I would argue that Malimowski’s analysis is more appropriate for small, primitive, homogeneous societies whose primary concern was survival in a hostile physical environment whereas the Radcliffe-Brown analysis is more relevant to our complex, global, intercultural societies where the primary concerns of people tend to be how to flourish in their social rather than ecological environments. Conclusion I submit that each of the above theories of functionalism, conflict, interactionalism and feminism offer strong arguments as valid theories explaining the structure and operation of society, but not at the exclusion of the other theories. Rather each offers a different lens or perspective on the matter. Works Cited. 1) McClelland, Kent “Functionalism” (Feb. 24, 2000) retrieved from http://web.grinnell.edu/courses/soc/sOO/soc111-01/InruTheories/Functionalis.html/. 2). Porth, Eric and Neutzling, Kimberley and Edwards, Jessica “Functionalism Anthropological Theories” The University of Alabama Department of Anthropology retrieved from http://www.anthropology.ua.edu/cultures/cultures.php?culture=Functionalism. 3) “Robert Merton Anomie Theory (sometimes also termed strain theory)” retrieved from http://www.d.umn.edu/-bmunk/2306/Theories/BAManomie.htm. Read More