Functionalism and Weberianism in the Sociology of Health and Illness - Essay Example

Major Sociological Theoretical Perspectives on Health and Illness: Functionalism and Weberianism Name Institution Professor Course Date Introduction The idea of putting together a learner on the sociology of health and illness surfaced in the recent years. Although medical sociology has developed and became dynamic for the last three decades, it has not often been a portion of the sociological mainstream. Initially, the mindset towards health and illness as substantive topics was always tepid. However, in the modern times, this attitude has changed dramatically with critical perspectives during the 20th century claiming that health is a social construction. Health and illness have become a crucial social issue. This is because scores of illness causes are directly influenced by social factors. There are sociological theoretical perspectives that explain the origin of illness and health. The focus of this paper is on Functionalism and Weberianism as the major theoretical sociological perspectives on health and illness. The essay compares and contrasts Weberianism and functionalism and discusses how the two theories contribute to the knowledge of health practitioners. According to Collyer (2009), sociology entails the study of people as well as how they interact with other individuals and institutions. The sociology of health and illness centres on societal blueprints concerning causes and effects of human health. It centres on social determinants of health, effects of illness on society, social understandings of the disease, body and health and social associations among health care practitioners and patients. Talcott Parsons viewed the health of people as a crucial condition for an ordered and stable society. He viewed illness as a form of deviance given that it jeopardises performance of social roles. Health Sociology evaluates the social blueprints of illnesses and health instead of psychological or biological perspectives (Harrison, 2002). The social perspectives of health evaluate the disparities on health conditions based on age, gender, education, socioeconomics, ethnicity, culture and geographical locations. Major theoretical perspectives have been established and supported by sociologists. Among these theoretical foundations of sociology are; Functionalism and Weberianism. Functionalism focuses on the way social structures operate to uphold social stability and order. Functionalists centre on how social order is attained and maintained in society, and it is not concerned with social change and conflict. According to functionalists, the foundation of an orderly society is the subsistence of a general value system that binds all members together (Radley & Billig, 1996). Functionalists believe that societies hold particular fundamental requirements that must be available for society to survive. Functionalists compare society to the human body where every part of the body depends on different organs to function properly. The society operates like human body because it depends on diverse institutions such as government, school and family (Collyer, 2009). Apparently, functionalism helps in defining the basic operations of the health care systems where each unit or function contributes to the success of the entire health care system (Bury & Gabe, 2013). However, even if functionalism is useful in defining the fundamental operation of the system of health, it fails to consider the influence of economic and political interests as well as power struggles that make the health systems a challenged environment. Max Weber, a German sociologist, coined weberianism. Weber defines sociology as a science that tries to elaborate the interpretive comprehension of social action to reach to a causal explanation of it causes and effects. Weberianism introduced the idea of social closure that was an account of social inequality and power via the notions of status, party and class. According to Covington (2008), the Weberian perspective was typified by Eliot Freidson (1970) work who argued that doctors have established a system of social closure that works to benefit the medical profession instead of the society. Weber maintained that the medical professionals are akin to other groups in society often ensuring that their power is recognised as legitimate compared to other akin privileged groups. According to Weber, doctors have established an atmosphere of professionalism that allows them attain high status compared to other healthcare professionals. Weber claimed that social action must be founded on comprehending the subjective purpose and meaning that people link to their actions. Social actions hold easily objective and identifiable means. With respect to Weberianism, social closure in health, illness and healthcare is noticeable in the way doctors preserve their prestige (Larkin, 2011). Similar to functionalism, weberianism consider society as an external organisation and that people are held by this organisation. However, Weberianism focuses more on status, privilege and social action over structural considerations. On the contrary, functionalism considers social structure as a cohesive compassionate influence. Unlike Weberianism, functionalism put emphasis on the crucial stability and cooperation in society. Weberianism maintains that struggles amid status groups are essential society motor (Churton & Brown, 2007). This theoretical perspective underscores how social closure upholds class limits. On the contrary, within a functionalist perspective, health is a precondition for a smooth working society. Sickness is, therefore, an uninspired deviance and the control of sickness takes place via the sick role system and the linked social control responsibilities of doctors and health care providers. With respect to functionalist, illness is a social concept and a type of experiences (Netleton, 2006). However, according to Weberianism, health and other lifestyle options are voluntary and they represent class position. For instance, in the 21st century there are major changes in the blueprint of mortality and morbidity with a decline in infectious diseases such as TB and a rise in degenerative and chronic conditions such as heart disease and cancer. These illnesses are associated with lifestyles of people with regard to stress, substance abuse, physical exercise, poor environment and diet. Weberianism also links lifestyles with status groups indicating that they are primarily collective social phenomena (Cockerham, 2007). While functionalism maintains that collective representations contribute to the maintenance of social order, Weberianism uphold that class stratification and power leads to social order. Both Functionalism and Weberianism contribute to the knowledge of health practitioners. With respect to functionalism, health care practitioners understand that sickness is a potential threat to social order and too much sickness is social deviance. For an individual to be considered sick according to the functionalists, she/he must conform to the sick role. Too muck illness implies that scores of people are not fulfilling their responsibilities in society. In this regard, for social stability and order to be attained, the society needs health care practitioners. Based on functionalist views, health care practitioners understand that when people are sick, they must be relieved some duties to assist in their recovery. For people to obtain the sick role, they must view sickness as undesirable and desire to get better. Sick people are not expected to take care of themselves and must be under the care of medical professionals (Berkman & Kaachi, 2000).The role of medical practitioners is to promote the sick role and ensure that illnesses do not become deviant. Therefore, doctors and other health care provider must protect society from sicknesses. To fulfil their roles, medical professionals hold the right to examine patients hold power over the patient, puts the patients need before their needs and focus on restoring health. As a result, health care providers should hold high rewards and status because their role in society is important. As regards, Weberianism, health care providers do little more than serve their interests. According to Weberians, health care providers enjoy a high status, powerful positions in society (Bury, 2013). As a result, medical professional have established a sector where only a few people can enter. These professionals obtain social closure through dominance and power. The social closure is obtained via theoretical knowledge, specialised education, professional codes of conduct, formal examinations, regulatory bodies and the desire to serve the public good. Health care providers uphold their privilege via holding a monopoly of truth and maintenance of social distance with the patient. Doctors remain at the top of their profession via occupational dominance. Occupational dominance is attained by making other healthcare providers such as midwives and nurses subordinate doctors as well as compelling other professional to restrain their professional activities on a single part of the body such a dentists (Saks, 2010). Occupational dominance is also attained through occupational autonomy. Occupational autonomy allows doctors fight to ensure that their presence is viewed as essential in many aspects of health care. According to Weberian perspective, occupational groups utilise strategies to augment their amount of power and status. As a result, based on weberianism, health care providers understand that bureaucracies are essential in the modern health service. The functionalist approach helps health professionals to regulate their own practices and practitioners. This approach to the sociology of professionals helps health professionals to demonstrate special knowledge. Conclusion Functionalism and Weberianism are major perspectives in the sociology of health and illness. Functionalism stresses that societal organisations and structures function towards an organic model of development and growth where all parts serve the greater requirements of the whole. Weberianism maintains that health should be rationalised and regulated via bureaucratisation with each professional role becoming more specialised and defined. According to Weberianism, doctors have established an impression professionalism that allows them attain high status. The professionals mystify the medical knowledge and restrict the social background of doctors. Health holds an impact on society with health care institutions becoming increasingly complex. Diverse educational backgrounds may model the links amid healthcare practitioners and institutional managers while the relationships among health care practitioners are sensitive to issues of status and power. References Berkman, L., & Kaachi, I.(2000). Social epidemiology. USA: Oxford University Press. Bury, M., & Gabe, J.(2013). The sociology pf health and illness: A reader. UK: Routledge. Churton, M., & Brown, A.(2007). Theory and method. Palgrave Macmillan. Cockerham, W.(2007). Social causes of health and disease. USA: Polity. Collyer, F. M. (2009). The rise and fall of theoretical paradigms in health and medical sociology: 1960-2009. S. Lockie; D. Bissell; A. Greig; M. Hynes Covington, P.(2008). Success in sociology: AS student book AQA. USA: Folens Limited. Harrison, B. (2002). Seeing health and illness worlds–using visual methodologies in a sociology of health and illness: a methodological review. Sociology of Health & Illness, 24(6), 856-872. Larkin, M.(2011). Social aspects of Health, illness and healthcare. UK: McGraw-Hill Education. Netleton, S.(2006). The sociology of health and illness. UK: Polity Radley, A., & Billig, M. (1996). Accounts of health and illness: Dilemmas and representations. Sociology of Health & Illness, 18(2), 220-240. Saks, M. (2010). Analyzing the professions: The case for the neo-Weberian approach. Comparative Sociology, 9(6), 887-915. Read More