Structural Functionalism vs. Conflict Theory - Coursework Example

Module Structural Functionalism vs. Conflict Theory Theories are formulated by sociologists to explain why things happen the way they do. Theories give a link that offers a relationship between phenomena. In addition, they give an overview on how and why some societal structures grow strong with time and others disintegrate. For instance, recent years have been characterized by a drop in levels of involvement in civic activities by people. Two leading theories in use include theory of structural functionalism and the conflict theory. The theory of structural functionalism describes the society as one system made up of various separate but interrelated and interdependent structural and functional components. This theory stipulates that, for stability, each of these components of society must function optimally. They should also operate in harmony while considering that a drop in the functionality of any of them compromises the stability of the whole community. On the other hand, the conflict theory postulates that society is made up of components that are always pulling or pushing against each other, and a society survives if there is a balance between these two opposing forces. However, a shift in direction compromises the stability of the social set up. The paper will thus compare and contrast two theoretical perspectives i.e. structural functionalism, conflict theory while offering insight on their scope. Structural Functionalism. The constituent elements of a fully functional society include norms, customs, traditions, and institutions. These components function as organs for the societal body, and all must function efficiently and interdependently for the good of the whole community. This theory assumes that these components’ activities are the ones that total up to give the society its characteristics. Though the theory assumes that society is in equilibrium, it does not necessarily mean that the theory is static; all it emphasizes on is the equilibrium, and not static equilibrium. This means that the theory considers change, dealing with it in the form of dynamic equilibrium (Baird & Kaufmann 256). The Conflict Theory. This theory stipulates that the balance seen in the society results from pull and push forces between opposite factions of the society. For instance, sellers and buyers are always in conflict with each other and that balance can be found if both reach a compromise, peacefully or otherwise. In addition, society consists of two classes of people, the ruling elite and the subjects. The ruling elite are always forcing their will on subjects while subjects do all they can to resist rule. In summary, this theory states that society is defined not by inequality that brings harmony but one that causes conflicts between people from different social groups i.e. the rich versus the poor, haves versus have-nots and capitalists versus communists (Baird & Kaufmann 356). COMPARISON OF THE TWO THEORIES Financially. If society functions according to the structural functionalism theory, then society becomes more stable as each of its components specializes in its task. Specialization results in innovation and efficiency of each faction of the society. Profits are maximized at each stage due to increase in production which results in economies of scale. This, therefore, benefits all those involved in the specific component of society. On the other hand, the conflict theory promotes economic segregation as the rich are pitted against the poor and the former increase their riches at the expense of the latter. This widens the gap between the rich and the poor, with a positive feedback mechanism of increasing the conflict and the cycle continues until society becomes unstable. In this scenario, the rich have resources to increase their wealth but the poor do not have any to utilize. The conflict of interest that existed at the beginning escalates, and unless something is done about it, terrorism, revolutions, and civil wars result (Holmwood 72). Socially. In structural functionalism, each component is considered as a whole without segregating the various components of society based on social status, peace, cohesion and togetherness. On the contrary, in conflict theory, conflicts between opposing groups result in polarization as people from one group do not interact with those from the opposing group. No civilized society can survive this environment where all the right tidings in society, including wealth, are vested in the pockets of a few. Politically. The conflict theory creates a world where if one belongs to one class, there is no likelihood of moving from that class to a better one. For instance, if one was brought up in the subjects’ class, it is almost impossible to move and join the ruling elite due to unavailability of opportunity. In this man-eat-man society, one accumulates what they can without concern about the effects of their actions on others in the society. Capitalism is born of this society of contrasts, with few rich individuals in a community while majority live in abject poverty. Crime and drug use are common phenomena in this society. Structural functionality, on the other hand, encourages communal responsibility for all. This means that as long as the dynamic equilibrium of the society is maintained and all components are at optimal functioning rate, everyone gains equally. In short, the type of community born of structural functionalism is a communist society (Freud 1567). Religion. Both theories have a world religion that they favor. The structural fundamentalism is favorable to the Islamic world where communism is considered an acceptable way of life and everyone supports everyone else. However, that is changing these days due to widespread corruption and misuse of public funds culminating in revolutions that are bound to change the Middle East. The conflict theory, is favorable in the Christian world where one cares and caters for themselves and those who concern them without bothering what happens to those around them (Durkheim 564). SUMMARY People need a clear definition on the society they live in and that is why theories attempting to explain human nature have been postulated. These theories attempt to explain phenomena in quantifiable words such that the survival of a certain way of living can be predicted and necessary adjustment to the current system proposed and implemented to protect the ones co-existing in an environment. Adjustments include promoting phenomena that produce favorable effects on individuals and society. CONCLUSION While structural functionalism theoretically promotes unity and benefits to all, the conflict theory results in segregation that polarizes society resulting in disunity. An intriguing fact emerges on closer analysis, both theories seem true, and each cannot explain the phenomena explained by the other. For instance, structural functionality cannot explain why people, in even the most socialist of environments, have significant differences based on wealth i.e. rich and poor. The conflict theory cannot also explain why, even in the most capitalist of environments, there is some degree of equality among people of the same social, cultural and wealth-range groups. The conflict theory best explains the world because of the existence of some conflicts that have never been resolved and their solutions are not in sight. Though conflict theories like feminism, postmodern, and world systems may be solved eventually, history informs that new conflicts will emerge because conflicts sustain the continuation of the human race. However, one theory cannot fully explain all phenomena, at least for now, and therefore, various theories must be used as complements to one another until a novel universal law has been formulated, tested and proved. Works Cited Baird, Forrest E., and Kaufmann, Walter. From Plato to Derrida. Upper Saddle River New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall, 2008. Print. Durkheim, Emile. The Elementary Forms of Religious Life. USA: Oxford University Press, 2008. Print. Freud, Sigmund. The Future of an Illusion. CreateSpace. 2009. Web. 14 Nov. 2011 Holmwood, J. Functionalism and Parsons. Sociology 250 Subject Notes. University of Regina. 2005. Web. 14 Nov. 2011. Read More