Assess the different sociological approaches to suicide

Durkheim argues our behaviour is caused by social facts; social forces found in the structure of society. Steven Lukes (1992) argues social facts have three features; they’re external to individuals, they constrain individuals shaping their behaviour and they’re greater than individuals, they exist on a different level from the individual. Durkheim argues the suicide rate is a social fact. Using quantitative data from official statistics Durkheim analysed the suicide rate from various European countries. He noted four regular patterns. The suicide rate for any given society remained more or less constant over time. When the rates did change they coincided with other changes. For example rates fell during wartime, but rose during economic depression or prosperity. Different societies had different rates. Within a society the rates varies considerably between social groups. For example Catholics had lower rates than Protestants. For Durkheim these patterns were evidence that suicide rates couldn’t simply be the result of the motives of individuals. For example the population of the army constantly changes but the suicide rate remains the same. Instead of giving a psychological explanation Durkheim explains the suicide rate as the effect of social facts acting on the individual. In different societies these forces act with different degrees of intensity resulting in different suicide rates.

Durkheim identifies two social facts that determine the rate of suicide. Social integration refers to the extent an individual feels a sense of belonging to a group and obligation to its members. In highly integrated groups and societies individuals feel a strong bond with and sense of duty towards others. Moral regulation refers to the extent to which individual’s actions and desires are kept in check by norms and values. Durkheim argues without regulation by socially defined goals and rules individuals desires become infinite and incapable of satisfaction.

Durkheim argues suicide results from either too much or too little social integration. He creates a typology of suicide. Egoistic suicide is caused by too little social integration. Durkheim argues this is the most common type of suicide in modern society, caused by excessive individualism and lack of social ties and obligations to others. This explains the lower rate among Catholics than among Protestants. Both religions condemn suicide but Protestants have more individual freedom in what to believe and how to express their faith whereas Catholics are more tightly integrated by shared beliefs and collective rituals. Egoistic suicide is less common in times of war or political upheaval, since these create a stronger sense of belonging and common purpose.

Altruistic suicide is the opposite of egoistic suicide and is caused by too much social integration. Altruism is the opposite of selfishness or egoism and involves putting others before one’s self. Altruistic suicide occurs where the individual has little value and where the group’s interests override those of the individual. Suicide here is obligatory self sacrifice for the good of the group rather then something freely chosen since the individual feels it their duty to die. For example Hindu widows were expected to throw themselves on their husband’s funeral pyre so as not to burden their family.

Anomic suicide is caused by too little moral regulation. Anomie means normlessness and anomic suicide occurs where society’s values are made obsolete with rapid social change, creating uncertainty in individuals as to what society expects of them. For example the depression of the 1930s produced anomic suicides as well as times of economic boom. Durkheim attributes this to the fact that booms lead to expectations and desires rising more quickly than the means of fulfilling them.

Fatalistic suicide is the opposite of anomic suicide and is caused by too much moral regulation. Fatalism means a belief on the part of the individual that they can do nothing to affect their situation. Fatalistic suicide occurs where society regulates the individual completely. Slaves and prisoners most commonly commit fatalistic suicide.

Durkheim argues modern and traditional society differs in levels of integration and regulation, and this means that we tend to find different types of suicide in each type of society. Modern industrial societies have lower levels of integration. Individual’s rights and freedoms become more important than obligations to the group. This weakens social bonds and gives rise to egoistic suicides. Similarly modern societies are less effective in regulating individuals because they undergo rapid social change which undermines accepted norms and produces anomic suicides. Traditional preindustrial societies have higher levels of integration. The group is more important than the individual and this gives rise to altruistic suicides. Similarly these societies strictly regulate their member’s lives and impose rigidly ascribed statuses that limit individual’s opportunities and this produces fatalistic suicides.

Other positivists since Durkheim have built on his work. Maurice Halbwachs (1930) accepted his positivist approach but added to his theory. Halbwachs argued differences between urban and rural residence were the main reasons for variations in suicide rates. Higher rates among protestants, people living alone ect were more a function of their urban location; these groups were more likely to be found in towns where people live more isolated lives. Sainsbury (1955) found suicide in London boroughs were highest where the levels of social disorganisation were highest.

Jack Gibbs and Walter Martin (1964) wish to make law like cause and effect generalisations and predictions like Durkheim. However they argue Durkheim doesn’t operationalise his concept of integration; he doesn’t define it in a way that can be measured. Gibbs and Martin go on to define integration as a situation where there are stable and lasting relationships. They argue these tend to occur when and individual has status integration; compatible statuses that don’t conflict with one another, such as when their educational and occupational statuses are similar. They predict in societies where there is little status integration the suicide rate will be higher. Other aspects of Durkheim’s study have also been criticised. For example it’s argued the statistics he used were unreliable and incomplete; in the 19^th century medical knowledge was limited. Similarly many countries lacked the means needed to collect and compile reliable statistics on a national basis. However these criticisms do not challenge the basic aim of Durkheim’s study, to achieve a scientific explanation of suicide.

Jack Douglas (1967) takes a largely Interactionist approach to suicide. He is interested in the meaning suicide has for the deceased and in the way coroners label deaths as suicides. He criticises Durkheim’s study of suicide on two main grounds.

The decision to classify a death as a suicide is taken by a coroner and influenced by other social actors and this may produce bias in the verdicts reached. Douglas argues this may explain the patterns Durkheim found. For example the finding that a high level of integration leads to low suicide rates can be explained by the fact well integrated individuals may have friends or relatives who deny the death was suicide out of their own feelings of guilt, or even cover up the suicide by destroying a suicide note. Contrastingly socially isolated individuals have no one to oppose a suicide verdict on their behalf. Thus although it might seem as if integration prevents suicide, in fact integration merely affects the likelihood of a death being labelled and recorded as a suicide rather than it actually being a suicide. For Douglas suicide verdicts and the statistics based on them are the product of interactions and negotiations between those involved; relatives, doctors, coroners ECT and factors such as integration influencing these negotiations.

Douglas criticises Durkheim for ignoring the meanings of the act for those who kill themselves and for assuming that suicide has a fixed or constant meaning. Douglas notes that the meanings of suicide can vary between cultures. For example a Japanese samurai and western businessmen may attach different meanings to suicide. These motives and meanings must be understood within their own social and cultural context and this means Durkheim’s attempts to compare rates across cultures are faced with problems. Douglas also rejects Durkheim’s aim to categorise suicide in terms of their social causes. Instead we must classify each death according to its actual meaning for the deceased. To do so we must use qualitative methods and sources to produce case studies based on the analysis of suicide notes and diaries and in depth interviews with the victims friends and relatives. From these we can build up a typology of suicide meanings. Although Douglas did not carry out any case studies himself he suggests that in western societies the social meanings of suicide include escape, repentance, search for sympathy ect. However he points out suicides may have different meanings in other cultures, for example religious ones such as getting into heaven. For Douglas using qualitative data overcomes the problems of using official statistics. Analysis of suicide notes would allow us to get behind the labels that coroners attach to cases and discover the real meaning of the death for the person involved. From this we can get a better idea of the real rate of suicide than the socially constructed one that appears in statistics.

Douglas produces a classification of suicide based on the supposed meanings for the actors. However there is no reason to believe sociologists are any better than coroners at interpreting dead person’s meanings. Sainsbury and Barraclough (1968) found that the rank order of suicide for immigrant groups to the USA correlated closely with the suicide rates of their country of origin despite the fact a different set of labellers were involved. This suggests statistics reflect real differences between groups rather than coroners labelling. Douglas is inconsistent, sometimes suggesting that official statistics are merely the product of coroner’s opinions. At other times he claims we can really discover the causes of suicide; yet how can we if we can never know whether a death was a suicide and all we have is the coroner’s opinions.

J. Maxwell Atkinson (1978) takes a different Interpretivist approach from Douglas, that of ethno methodology. Ethno methodology argues that social reality is simply a construct of its members. We create reality using a stock of taken for granted commonsense knowledge. The sociologist’s job is to uncover what this knowledge is and how we use it to make sense of the world. From this perspective Atkinson reviews Douglas’ contribution. Douglas argues official statistics are constructs of coroners and using qualitative data allows us to get behind meanings of suicide for the deceased. Atkinson accepts Douglas’ first point but rejects his second. Atkinson argues we can never know the real rate of suicide since we would have to know for sure what meanings the dead gave to their deaths, which is impossible. Thus it’s pointless trying to discover the real rate. All we can study is how people make sense of their world. With suicide this means studying how the living comes to classify the death as a suicide. The statistics are neither right nor wrong; they’re merely interpretations made by certain officials and so all we can study is how they are constructed. Atkinson thus focuses on how coroners categorise deaths. He uses qualitative methods. From this research he concludes coroners have common sense knowledge about the typical suicide. This includes what kind of person commits suicide, for what reasons, a typical place of death ect. If a particular case fits their common sense theory coroners are more likely to categorise the death as suicide.

Atkinson argues that coroner’s commonsense theories lead them to see the following types of evidence as relevant; a suicide note or suicide threats prior to death. The mode of death for example hanging is seen as a typical suicide, a road death an accident while drowning is less clear. Location and circumstances, death by shooting is more likely to be labelled suicide if it’s in a deserted lay by rather than a hunting party. Life history; a disturbed childhood or bankruptcies are seen as likely cause of suicide. Coroners regard information such as this as clues to whether the deceased intended to take their own life. For example Atkinson (1971) quotes one coroner saying that in the case of drowning he looked to whether clothes where neatly folded on the beach; if they were it usually points to suicide. Atkinson concludes that coroners are engaged in analysing cases using taken for granted assumptions about what constitutes as a typical suicide. A verdict of a suicide is simply an interpretation of a death based on these taken for granted assumptions. If correct this poses serious problems for theories such as Durkheim’s that treats statistics as facts as all they do is spell out coroners theories of suicide. For example if coroners believe that typical suicides are socially isolated people then more of these people will end up in statistics. The sociologist who then takes the statistics at face value and produces a theory such as lack of integration causes suicide is merely echoing the coroners commonsense theory; not discovering the real cause of suicide.

Structuralist Barry Hindess (1973) criticise ethno methodologists’ approach as self defeating. Atkinson’s view that the only thing we can study about suicide is the coroners’ interpretation can be turned back on him. If all we can have is interpretations of the social world, rather than objective truth about it then ethno methodologist’s accounts are themselves no more than interpretations. If so there is no good reason why we should accept them. However most ethno methodologists accept that their accounts are merely interpretations. Unlike positivists who claim to produce objective, scientific accounts they do not claim that their interpretations are superior to those of the people they study.

Steve Taylor (1982) takes a different approach to both positivists and interpretivists. He argues suicide statistics cannot be taken as valid. For example in a study half of people hit by a train were classed as suicide even though there was no conclusive evidence of suicidal intent. Taylor found that coroners saw factors such as a history of mental illness as indications of suicidal intent and this increased the likelihood of a suicide verdict. However like the positivists Taylor still believes we can explain suicide. He believes we can discover real patterns and causes, though unlike positivists he doesn’t base his explanation on suicide statistics. Instead he adopts a realist approach. This aims to reveal underlying structures and causes, which though not directly observable can explain the observable evidence. He uses case studies to discover the underlying of meaning that cause suicide.

Many theories on suicide focus on acts where the individual was intent on dying and that resulted in death. For example Durkheim’s study is about causes of death resulting directly or indirectly from a positive or negative act by the victim himself, which he knows will produce this result. However Taylor notes that in many cases those who attempt suicide are not certain their actions will kill them. Nor are all who attempt suicide are aiming to die; some are communicating with others. Thus we should look at both successful and unsuccessful attempts and adopt a broader definition of suicide as any deliberate act of self damage or potential self damage where the individual cannot be sure of survival.

Taylor suggests that a situation where the person is most likely to attempt suicide is those where there is complete certainty or uncertainty either about themselves or about others. This gives him four possible types of suicide. The first two types are inner or self directed suicides which Taylor calls ectopic, where the individual is psychologically detached from others. Because of this the suicide attempt is a private, self contained act. There are two types of ectopic suicide. Submissive suicides; where the person is certain about themselves. For example they may know they have no reason to go on, for example a terminal illness. Their suicide attempt is deadly serious, because they know they want to die. Thanatation suicides; where they are uncertain about themselves. For example they may be uncertain about what others think of them. Their suicide attempt involves risk taking, they may or may not survive it, chance will decide for example playing Russian roulette.

The other two types are other directed or symphysic suicides where the individual has an overwhelming attachment to some other person. For example they feel that the other gives them a reason for living. These suicides are not self contained but a way of communicating with others. There are two types. Sacrifice suicides; where they are certain about suicides and know they have to kill themselves. Like submissive suicides their attempt is deadly serious. Usually either they or the person has done something that makes it impossible for the person to go on living, for example betrayal through an affair. This suicide is a form of communication in which they may seek to blame the other for their death, usually so they will suffer guilt. Appeal suicides; where the person is uncertain about others. They have doubts about their importance to the other and attempt suicide to resolve the uncertainty. The attempt is a form of communication that seeks to change the others behaviour. Like Thanatation suicides they involve risk taking and uncertainty about the outcome. They are acts of despair and hope, combining the wish to die and things to change things for the better.

Taylor’s theory is based on his interpretations of the actors’ meanings and there is no way of knowing if these are correct, especially in the case of those who succeeded. Also individual cases may involve a combination of motives and may be difficult to categorise. Taylor’s small sample as case studies while useful in giving insight into motives is unlikely to be representative of suicides in general. Unlike Durkheim, Taylor has not connected the four types to wider social structures. However there are similarities between the two. Taylor’s ideas of certainty and uncertainty parallel Durkheim’s notions of fatalism and anomie respectively. Nevertheless his theory is original and useful in explaining some of the observed patterns of suicide such as why attempts differ in seriousness and why only some leave notes. It also deals with both failed and successful attempts.

The Civil Rights Movement – The Role of Trade Unions

Whenever we think of the civil rights movement we instantly remind ourselves of individuals such as Martin Luther king, Malcolm X and Rosa Parks, and events such as the infamous “I have a dream speech” and the Montgomery bus boycott, along with other protests such as sit-ins and freedom rides.

However, these protests movements didn’t just come out of the blue, and black people didn’t suddenly just decide they had had enough and decided to protest. The civil rights movement had been developing decades before the famous events in the 1960s, and the role of the trade unions did fantastic jobs in organising and educating workers, allowing the platform that individuals such as king had to propel the movement forward.

Black workers in the old confederacy or “the south” were terribly oppressed back in the 1920s and 30s. It had been 60 years since black slaves were freed as a result of the civil war, yet they were at the bottom of society. They were always given the lowest paid jobs, their labour was exploited, and working conditions were horrendous. Many black workers in the south worked as sharecroppers on the farmland, where white employers provided land, seed and tool and black workers the labour. White landlords would then take most of the crop to sell, and black people would be left with barely enough to live on. Because of the rural nature of the south, it was difficult for black workers to organise, and it was easy for white supremacists to intimidate them, keeping them oppressed. Lynching also took place during this time, so it was almost impossible for black workers to revolt. As well as this, the south was operating under Jim Crow laws, which brought de jure segregation; this is where by law black and white people were segregated. This ensured that black people had the worst education, limiting economic opportunities. It made sure black workers were paid less than white workers, facilities such as water fountains were segregated and black people received the worst services. Police and law courts also discriminated against black people; there were no black police and jurors in courts were always white.

Circumstances in the north for black workers were better, however far from ideal. Although segregation wasn’t enshrined in the law like in the south, black northerners suffered from de facto segregation, where job discrimination took place, for example blacks were the last to be hired and first to be fired. Black workers were given the lowest paid jobs and had limited opportunities to better themselves; there were hardly any black higher education institutions.

Trade unions played a vital role in raising black awareness of potential black political and economic power. Under pressure from the economic depression, trade union memberships rocketed. New unions were set up such as the Food, Tobacco, agricultural and allied workers union. These unions were grassroots unions, and played a role in promoting mass meetings that discussed voter registration and citizenship. These discussions were fundamental; blacks in the north did have the vote, however because of apathy many blacks didn’t use their vote to try and better themselves. In the south, federal pressure forced the states to allow blacks to vote, however they didn’t stop states having literacy tests that determined whether people could vote. Black peoples poor education meant they inevitably failed these tests so couldn’t register to vote. For whites who failed the tests, there were grandfather clauses where if they could prove someone in their ancestry had voted before, then they could register. At this time, only 3% of black people could vote in the south.

Asa Phillip Randolph was an important figure in the black trade union movement. In his youth he had set up grassroots trade unions, such as the union of elevator operators and the National Brotherhood of Workers of America, a union which organised amongst African-American shipyard and dock workers in the Tidewater region of Virginia. The union dissolved in 1921, under pressure from the American Federation of Labour, to which white employers had complained to.

He then went on to set up the first all black labour unions, the brotherhood of sleeping car porters in 1925. At the unions peak in the 1940s the union had 15,000 members. Its head quarters in New York were described as “the political headquarters of black America, where young black leaders met.” The unionisation of black workers contributed to assertiveness, it boosted their morale and gave them a class consciousness. The brotherhood of sleeping car porters broke down barriers to worker exploitation where because of high union memberships and change to federal law the Pullman Company finally began to negotiate with the Brotherhood in 1935, and agreed to a contract with them in 1937. This gained employees $2,000,000 in pay increases, a shorter workweek, and overtime pay.

As a trade unionist A Phillip Randolph applied pressure to federal government to force through change for more equal opportunities for black workers. He threatened that if the then president Roosevelt that he would organise a march on Washington in protest. Because of the might of the union threat Randolph represented and Roosevelt’s failure to dissuade Randolph, Roosevelt set up The Fair Employment Practices Committee. This was an organisation that ensured fair job opportunities for federal employment. This shows how trade union membership can help achieve a better deal for workers.

Randolph also organised bus boycotts, and although they failed, they went on to inspire the famous Montgomery bus boycott in Alabama, which many people see as the start of the civil rights movement. The confronting but non violent actions of trade unions went on to inspire black leaders such as Martin Luther King.

Unfortunately, in the 1930s most black workers were not unionised. Reasons for this include the rural nature of the south meant isolated black communities didn’t have a broad large scale union to join. The violent actions of the white supremacists and hostility of the white population intimidated blacks into accomodationism, where black people just conformed and didn’t do anything to try and better themselves such as join of union because they feared a hostile reaction. The low economic and educational status of black people was low, so unions were poorly funded and leaders struggled to make their voices heard. I believe that if the majority of black workers were unionised, then because of high organisation solidarity a lot of the barriers that were broken down during the 60s would have been broken down quicker and more effectively.

In summary, the trade union movement helped to increase solidarity, which was vital during the struggles in the 60s where workers faced many hardships. Trade unions increased activism and encouraged protest actions, which contributed to the mass movements in the 60s. Trade unions also raised black awareness of potential black political and economic power. For example unions organised economic boycotts, where black people would boycott buying from shops that refused to employ black workers. They promoted meetings to discuss equality where workers were educated on how to successfully and effectively initiate protests.

Overall, trade union movements gave the platform for the civil rights movement, and we can learn lessons from it today in our fight against the inequalities of capitalism.

Assess the Functionalist and Marxist view of society

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.

Cuts in further education colleges

The cuts outlined by the condem coalition will be a savage attack on further education colleges, particularly in the adult education region.  £200 million will be cut in adult education, which will result in many courses being discontinued because of a lack of funding.  For adult colleges, an average of 16% of spending cuts will be implemented. This will be devastating for colleges; they will be unable to update their materials and resources, leading to a degrading educational experience and reducing the quality of education. The cuts will mean more applicants will be turned away. Already inadequate apprentiships will be compromised so that more students will be clogged in doing donkey work for businesses and not really learning anything of value to help them in the working world. They are more likely to learn how to deal with alienation at work, accepting orders without question and will be convinced that their low positions are their own making, rather then blaming the capitalist system, which has implemented these cuts and punishing the majority rather than the minority who caused the recession.

These cuts will see job losses of staff in colleges and bigger class sizes. This is inefficient and the quality of education is unfairly reduced. The already inadequate EMA grant will be reduced, and this will force young people into unskilled and low paid work, because it is too costly for them to be in full time education. With these cuts in education, the economy can’t move forward because of an inadequate number of skilled people, yet there will be a scrap heap of unskilled people, willing to accept low paid work or face poverty, which is a delight for the capitalists who exploit their cheap labour.

We demand that these cuts should be halted as they do not serve in the interest of the majority.  We demand that EMA should be increased, and an end to cruel means testing making EMA available to everyone. Free education from infancy to university should be implemented along with a living allowance grant while studying. We demand that all aprrentaships should have a guarantee at the job at the end, and to offer union rates of pay. Millions of jobs can be created by creating environmentally friendly public services. Only a working class movement can achieve this of workers and students as the needs of the majority will topple the needs of the minority.

Reform or Revolution?

After the biggest capitalist crisis in generations and the onslaught of cuts faced by working people, imposed by the ultra rich con-dem government, its nessecery to ask the question, how can working and young people change society into a more equal and fairer society? Do we go about pressuring for social reforms, or do we need a revolution to overhaul the capitalist system?

Well as Rosa Luxemburg said; “The struggle for reforms is its means, the social revolution is its aim”.

To argue for reform is to say that capitalism has reached a stage where it’s no longer nessecery to call for a revolution, but that enough reforms could be put into place, such as more democratic rights, more social welfare programs so that socialism would evolve over time. However, through revolution and overhaul of the capitalist system to be replaced by democratic socialism, the power would be effectively and ultimately be moved from the super rich to the working classes.

In times of economic prosperity and when workers are winning reforms, reformists argue that capitalism has created new tools, such as trade unions, electoral and legal reforms – that can allow the evolution of society towards socialism possible. However, we are not in a time of prosperity, we are in a time of austerity. The anti trade union laws implemented by Thatcher, were not repealed by labour. It’s likely that Osborne will fulfil Thatcher’s dream of crushing unions further. This is why we need to fight back, because this is an attack on our democratic rights. If we were to fight back making small gains, then the capitalists will fight back to take those gains away. This is why we need a revolutionary movement, so that the balance of power is shifted to the mass working classes. As Rosa Luxemburg said; that reform proposed changing the sea of capitalist bitterness into a sea of socialist sweetness, by progressively pouring in bottles of social reformist lemonade”

To say that capitalism has developed so that revolution is unessecery is inaccurate. The role of trade unions, elections and the winning of reforms are still relevant to their roles 100 years go. The trade union is a still a body where workers can come together, and through trade unions they will come to their own conclusions that they are part of a class. Through struggle for reforms, they realize their class power. However, they also realize and learn the limitations of reform, and the need for actual conquest of power, or in other words, revolutionary change. Luxemburg associated union struggles to the “labor of Sisyphus”, a character who was con-demed to push a stone up a hill over and over again. She argued that the same applies to reforms won through the ballot box.

By proposing that trade unions or electoral reforms are enough to achieve a kind of socialism, reformists missed the importance of struggle in achieving reforms. They saw unions as the means of suppressing the contradictions in capitalism between the workers and bosses. Revolutionaries, on the other hand, see unions as one means by which these contradictions can be pushed into the open and organized around. The truth is that struggles for reform, by their very nature, can launch an offensive against the attacks of the profit system, but not the profit system itself.

Reforms don’t provide a “more realistic” way to socialism, but had thrown out the prospect of socialism. Just look at the labour party, traditionally it was the working man’s party with a crusade of reforms towards social democracy, however today the labour party operates in the interests of the banks and big business. As Luxemburg said those preferring reform over social revolution do not choose a calmer road to the goal of socialism, but a different goal all together. While reformists fight make gains in the wage labour system, revolutionaries fight to abolish exploitation. While reformists fight to suppress the abuses of capitalism, revolutionaries fight to suppress capitalism itself.

But we shouldn’t simply write off the importance in struggles for reforms. These struggles are central in rallying people to the goal of socialism. In struggles today if we avoid movements for social reform, then we put ourselves at the sidelines of movements and we will have little influence over anyone today. But when we do put ourselves into struggles, we should always be thinking what the next step of the struggle is. Let’s take the student protests for example, while it was a single issue, it’s important to link up the student protests with trade union protest, because it’s not an overall victory if you win the arguments for free education, but when you come out of university there are no jobs because trade unions couldn’t prevent job losses?

In conclusion without thinking about the next step in a reforming movement and we view the future as a succession of reforms, then we run the risk of never convincing anyone of the need to get rid of capitalism. A conclusion that Luxemburg arrived to is that a key part of gaining socialism is the role of a revolutionary socialist organisation in convincing others that they should join the fight for a socialist world.