Assess the Functionalist and Marxist view of society
February 20, 2012 1 Comment
Functionalism has given a useful understanding of society, despite its limitations. Functionalists describe society using an organic analogy; they say society is like a biological organism. Parsons found three similarities between society and an organism. System organisms such as the human body and society are both self regulating and inter-related, independent parts fit together in fixed ways. In the body these are organs; in society they are institutions, such as family and education. Both organisms have system needs for example an organism needs nutrition without which it would die. Social systems have basic needs for example members of society need to be socialised. Both society and organisms function to contribute to meeting the systems needs and thus ensure survival. For example the circulatory systems delivers oxygen to cells, similarly the economy in society helps meet the needs for food and shelter.
Parsons argues the central question sociology tries to answer is how is social order possible? Parsons argues social order is achieved through the existence of a shared value system. A culture is a set of norms, values, beliefs and goals shared by members of society. It provides a framework enabling individuals to cooperate by laying down rules about how to behave and what others expect of them, defining goals they should pursue and so on. Social order is only possible so long as members of society agree on these norms and values. This agreement is called value consensus. Value consensus is the glue that holds society together.
Thus the basic function of value consensus is to make social order possible. It does this by integrating individuals into the social system thus directing them too meet the systems needs. Parsons argues the system has two mechanisms to ensure individuals conform to shared norms and meet the systems needs. One of the mechanisms is socialisation; the social system can ensure its needs are met by teaching individuals to want to do what it requires them to. Through the socialisation process individuals internalise the systems norms and values so that society becomes part of their personality structure. Different agencies of socialisation such as them family, education ect all contribute to this process. Another mechanism is social control where positive sanctions reward conformity while negative ones punish deviance. As individuals are integrated through socialisation and social control into a shared value system, their behaviour is orientated towards pursuing societies shared goals and meeting its needs. The behaviour of each individual will be predictable and stable and allows cooperation. This integration into the shared normative order makes orderly social life possible.
Parsons uses a building block approach to describe the social system. At the bottom are individual actions, each action we perform is governed by norms or rules. These norms are called status roles, for example a teacher. Statuses are positions that exist in the social system. Roles are a set of norms that tell us how the occupant of the status must carry out their duties. Status roles come in clusters, known as institutions, such as the family. Related institutions are grouped together in sub systems such as the economy. These sub systems together make the social system as a whole.
Parsons identifies four basic needs of society. Each need is met by a separate sub system of institutions. One is adaption; the social system meets its members material needs. These needs are met by the economic sub system. Another is goal attainment; society needs to set goals and allocate resources to achieve them. This is the function of the political sub system, through institutions such as parliament. Another is integration; the different part of the system need to be integrated together in order to pursue shared goals. This is performed by sub systems of religion, education and the media. The fourth one is latency; this refers to the process that maintains society over time. The kin-ship sub system provides pattern maintenance and tension management. Parsons describes adaption and goal attainment as instrumental needs, to the means to an end, such as producing food to sustain the population. He describes integration and latency as expressive needs as they involve channelling emotions. By carrying out their respective functions the four sub systems ensure that society’s needs are met and social stability maintained.
Parsons identified two types of society, traditional and modern. Each type has its own typical pattern of norms. Within each type the variables fit together, for example in modern society students are expected to pursue their own self interests, achieved status through efforts in education, attained through deferred gratification. They are all judged by the universal standard of exams. Contrastingly in traditional society an individual’s status is ascribed at birth and they’re expected to put their kinships interest before their own, called collective orientation.
Parsons argues change is a gradual, evolutionary process of increasing complexity and structural differentiation. The organic analogy is relevant here. Organisms have evolved from simple structures to complex organisms with different parts performing its own specialised function. Similarly societies move from simple to complex structures. For example in traditional society a single institution, the kinship system, performs many functions. It organises production and consumption, provides political leadership, socialises members and performs religious functions. However as societies develop the kinship system looses these functions. Parsons calls this structural differentiation, a gradual process in which separate, functionally specialised institutions develop, each meeting a different need. Along with structural differentiation, Parsons sees gradual change occurring through what he calls moving equilibrium. As a change occurs in one part of the system it produces compensatory changes in other parts. For example the rise of industry brings about change in the family from extended to nuclear. In this way society gradually changes from one type to another.
Robert Merton (1968) has provided an internal critique of functionalism. Merton criticises three assumptions of parsons. The first criticism is indispensability. Parsons assumes everything in society is functionally indispensible in its existing form. Merton argues this is an untested assumption and he points to the alternative of functional alternatives. For example parsons assume primary socialisation is best performed by the nuclear family, but it may be that single parent families do just as well. Another criticism is functional unity. Parsons assumes all parts of society are tightly integrated into a unity and each part is functional for all the rest. He assumes change in one part will have a knock on effect in all other parts. However neither of these assumptions is necessarily true. Complex modern societies have many parts, some only distantly related to one another. Instead of functional unity some parts may have functional autonomy from others. It’s hard to see connections for example between banking and netball. A third assumption is universal functionalism. Parsons assumes that everything in society performs a positive function for society as a whole. Yet something’s may be functional for some groups and dysfunctional for others. The idea of dysfunction introduces a neglected note into functionalism by suggesting there may be conflict of interest and some groups may have the power to keep arrangements in place that benefit at the expense of others. Merton’s central criticism is that we cannot assume, as Parsons does, that society is always and necessarily a smooth running well integrated system.
Merton distinguishes between manifest and latent functions. He cites the example of Hopi Indians who in times of drought perform a rain dance with the aim of magically producing rain. This is its manifest or intended functions. From a scientific viewpoint this is unlikely to achieve its goals. However the ritual may have unintended or latent functions such as promoting sense of solidarity during times of hardship when individuals might be inclined to look after themselves at the expense of others. Merton’s distinction is thus useful in helping reveal hidden connections between social phenomena which the actors may not be aware of.
There have also been external critiques of functionalism. One type is logical criticism. Teleology is the idea that things exist because of their function. For example functionalist’s claim the family exists because children need to be socialised is teleological; it explains the existence of the family in terms of its effect. However critics argue that a real explanation of something is one that identifies its cause, and logically a cause must come before its effect. Contrastingly functionalism explains the existence of one thing in terms of something else that can only be its effect, since socialisation can only come after we have families. Functionalism is also criticised for being unscientific. For many a theory is only scientific if in principle it’s falsifiable by testing. Yet this is not true for functionalism. For example functionalists see deviance as dysfunctional and functional. If deviance is both functional and dysfunctional then the theory cannot be disproved and is unscientific.
Conflict theorists such as Marxists criticise functionalism for its inability to explain conflict and change. This inability arises partly out of the organic analogy; organisms are relatively stable and harmonious systems in which all the parts work together for common good. Marxists argue society is not a harmonious whole; it’s based on exploitation and divided into classes with conflicting interests and unequal power. Stability is the result of the dominant class being able to prevent change by using coercion or ideological manipulation. Shared values are merely a cloak concealing the interests of the dominant class. Conflict theorists see functionalism as a conservative ideology legitimating the status quo. Its focus on harmony and stability rather than conflict and change, along with the assumptions of universal functionalism and indispensability, all help to justify the exiting social order as inevitable and desirable. Critics argue this approach legitimates the privileged position of powerful groups who would have the most to lose from any fundamental changes in society.
From an action perspective, Dennis Wrong (1961) criticises functionalisms deterministic view of the individual. He describes the functionalist view as follows; the social system uses socialisation to shape people’s behaviour so that they will meet the systems needs by performing their prescribed roles. Individuals have no free will or choice; they’re merely puppets whose strings are pulled by the social system. From an action perspective this is fundamentally mistaken. While functionalism sees human beings as shaped by society the action approach takes the opposite view, that individuals create society by their interactions. A related criticism is that functionalism reifies society; it treats it as a distinct thing over and above individuals with its own needs. Contrastingly action perspectives argue society is not a thing out there with its own independent existence. The only social reality is one that individuals construct by giving meaning to their worlds.
Postmodernists argue that functionalism assumes that society is stable and orderly. As such it cannot account for the diversity and instability that exist in today’s post modern society. In the postmodernist view functionalism is an example of a meta-narrative that attempts to create a model of the workings of society as a whole. However postmodernists argue such an overall theory is no longer possible because today’s society is increasingly fragmented.
Functionalism seeks to answer the fundamental question of how social order is possible even if its answers neglect conflict and are too deterministic. It can also be said that Merton’s move away from Parsons grand theory, his notions of dysfunctions and his distinction between manifest and latent functions all provide useful starting points for research. Also many functionalisms critics end up borrowing its basic notion that society is a system of interdependent parts. As Ian Craib (1992) notes parsons theory has its faults, but at least it is a theory of society as a whole.
Marxism is also a useful perspective in understanding society. Like Durkheim Marx (1818) saw the harm caused by modern industrial society and the promise of progress to a better world that it held. Like Durkheim, Marx thought it was possible to understand society scientifically and this knowledge would point to a better society. He described his theory as a scientific socialism. Marxism is a continuation of the enlightenment project. However unlike functionalists Marx didn’t see progress as gradual evolution. He saw historical change as a contradictory process in which capitalism would increase human misery before giving way to communist society. Marx was a revolutionary socialist. The classless society would need to be brought about by the conscious actions of human beings.
Materialism is the view that humans are beings with material needs, such as food and shelter, and must thus work to meet them. To do so they use the forces of production. In early human history these were unaided human labour, but as tools developed they assisted production. In working to meet needs humans cooperated with each other, they entered into social relations of production; ways of organising production. Overtime as the forces of production developed the social relation of production changed. The division of labour developed giving rise to two classes; a class that owned the means of production and a class of labourers. From then production is directed to the class of owners to meet their own needs. Marx refers to the forces and relations of production together as the mode of production. For example we live in a society with a capitalist mode of production. The mode of production forms the economic base of society; this economic base shapes all other features of society – the superstructure of institutions, beliefs ect arise from this base.
In the earliest stages of humanity there were no classes, no private ownership and no exploitation; everyone worked, everything was shared. Marx called this society primitive communism. But as the forces of production grow different types of class society arrive. In class society one class owns the meaning of production. It enables them to exploit the labour of others for their own benefit. They can control society’s surplus product; the difference between what labourers produce and what is needed to keep them alive. Marx identifies three different class societies each with its own exploitation. In ancient society it was based on exploitation of slaves legally tied to their owners. In feudal society it was based on exploitation of serfs legally tied to the land and finally capitalist society which is based on the exploitation of free wage labourers.
Like previous class societies capitalism is based on a division between a class of owners and class of labourers. However capitalism has three unique features. Firstly unlike slaves and serfs the workers are legally free and separated from means of production. As they don’t own any means of production they have to sell their labour to the capitalists to get a wage to survive. However this is not an equal exchange. The workers don’t see the value of goods their labour produces but only the cost of subsistence. The difference between the two is the surplus value, the profit the capitalists make by selling commodities the workers have produced. Secondly through competition between capitalists, ownership of the means of production becomes concentrated into fewer hands. This competition drives small independent producers into the workers until the vast majority become workers. Competition forces the capitalists to pay the smallest wages possible causing immiseration of the workers. Thirdly capitalism continually expands forces of production in pursuit of profit. Production becomes concentrated into larger units while technological advances deskill the workers. Concentration of ownership and deskilling of workers produces class polarisation. Society divides into a minority capitalist class and a majority working class that oppose each other.
Marx argues capitalism sows the seeds of its own destruction, for example polarisation bringing workers together in larger numbers creating conditions for workers to develop class consciousness. Thus the workers move from being a class in itself to become a class for itself whose members are class conscious.
Marx argues the class who owns the means of production also owns and controls means of mental production; the production of ideas. The dominant ideas in society are thus the ideas of the dominant class. The institutions that produce and spread ideas such as the media all serve the dominant class by producing ideologies that justify the existing social order. Ideology fosters a false consciousness in the subordinate classes and helps sustain class inequality. However as capitalism impoverishes the workers they develop class consciousness. They see through capitalist ideology and become conscious of their position as wage slaves.
Marx believes our true nature is based on our capacity to make things to meet our needs. Alienation is the result of our loss of control over our labour and our products and thus our separation from our true nature. Alienation exists in all class societies as the owners control the production process for their own needs. However under capitalism alienation peaks for two reasons. Workers are completely separated from and have no control over the forces of production. The division of labour is most intense and detailed; the worker is reduced to an unskilled labourer mindlessly repeating the same meaningless task. Marx also sees religion as originating in the alienation of human labour.
Marx defines the state as armed bodies of men, the police, army, courts ect. The state exists to protect the interests of the class of owners who control it. Thus they form the ruling class. They use the state as a weapon in the class struggle to protect property, suppress opposition and prevent revolution. Any class wishing to lead a revolution and become the economically dominant class must overthrow the existing ruling class. Previous revolutions have always been a minority class overthrowing another though Marx argues the proletarian revolution that overthrows capitalism will be the first revolution of the majority against the minority. It will abolish the state and create a classless communist society, abolish exploitation, replace private ownership with social ownership, and replace production for profit with production to satisfy human need. It will end alienation as humans regain control of their labour and its products. Marx predicted the ultimate victory of the proletarian revolution and establishment of communist society on a world scale. He expects the revolution to occur first in the most advanced capitalist societies, however he wrote little about how this revolution would occur, leading a debate among Marxists since.
However Marx’s theory of society has been criticised. Marx has a simplistic one sided view of inequality; he sees class as the only important division. Weber argues status and power differences can also be important sources of inequality, independent of class. For example a power elite can rule without controlling means of production. Feminists argue gender inequality is a more fundamental source of inequality then class. Marx’s two class model is also simplistic. Weber divides the classes into skilled and unskilled classes and includes white collar middle classes and petty bourgeoisie. Class polarisation hasn’t occurred; instead of the middle class swallowed up by the expanding proletariat it has grown. While the industrial class has shrunk in western society it’s grown in third world e.g. India due to globalisation.
Marx’s base superstructure model is criticised for economic determinism; the view that economic factors are the sole cause of everything in society, including social change. Critics argue it fails to recognise humans have free will and can bring change through conscious actions. The base superstructure ignores the role of ideas. For example Weber argues it was the set of new ideas from Calvinism that brought modern capitalism into being. Another criticism is that Marx’s prediction of revolution has not come through. Marx predicted the revolution would happen first in the most advanced capitalist countries however only economically backward countries such as Russia have had revolutions. However in defence of Marx while there are examples of economic determinism in his work there are instances where he argues men make their own history and the working class can only free themselves through their own conscious efforts indicating he gave role to human action as well as economic forces.
In conclusion both functionalists and Marxists provide useful analysis of society, however while both arguments have strengths they also both contain limitations.
It’s actually a cool and useful piece of info. I’m glad that you shared this helpful information with us. Please keep us up to date like this. Thanks for sharing.