Structural Functionalism - Conflict Theory - Symbolic Interaction

Kaushik Pilar

04/09/17

Professor Polak

Research Paper

Structural Functionalism → Conflict Theory → Symbolic Interaction

        In this paper, I will discuss three different points of thought that, while they may seem to explain the inner workings of society, by themselves they fail to satisfy completely. For each theory, I will discuss the basics and cover the main tenants of each. Then, I will discuss the inadequacies, ambiguities, and irrelevance to reality based on our current understanding of modern society.

In the Functionalist School of Thought, society is seen as being an intricate structure of inter related parts, analogous to a living being, with many different organs contributing to the daily processing and health of the entire living organism. From evolving societies still going through the processes of differentiation of social classes, or to complex societies that have reached near perfect homogeneity, these social systems play a comparative role in the super-organism known as society, as kidneys and lungs play in a simple organism such as a mouse. For example, in the human body, the defense against invaders and interceptors of “criminal” cells is the immune system. In society, the analogue to this would be the military and police. They serve the same function, defense from the hostile outside world, and the policing of errant things inside the social organism.

        So what are these structures? According to a good majority of functionalist’s theorists, these structures are social institutions such as schools, economy, and governments. Each of these sole institutions are critical to the functions of society, no matter how far removed the processes of one were from the other. If one fails, the rest will feel repercussions that will eventually lead to a stacking effect that would inevitably have enormous effects on society as a whole. Whether it’s the whole crashing of an economy, or a school closing. The analog of a biological functionalism popularized by Herbert Spencer achieves its goal of explaining how societies rely on interdependence of different social institutions to achieve social structure and order.

        Functionalism is not perfect; however, it relies greatly on analogous biological systems to explain the differentiation, evolution, success, and failure of social systems. Although this idea succeeds in describing the basic functioning and evolution of a society from its infancy to modern times, that is all it accomplishes. Firstly, functionalism is unable to account for social change/structural conflict that has been seen in the development and histories of modern day societies. Along with this, this theory completely ignores many inequalities that cause conflict and tension seen in all modern societies, including gender, race, class, and age. Due to these shortcomings, the main claim made by this theory is that society is based on a still, structured, and orderly platform is inaccurate.

        A stronger view on functionalism is that it is illogical from the basis of a epistemic model of reasoning. From this view, functionalism is redundant. Other social theories try to pinpoint the causes of certain societal behaviors. According to Robert Merton functionalism states that “functional analysis does not seek to explain why the action happened in the first instance, but why it continues or is reproduces” (Crother 24). Functionalism is stuck in a continuous feedback loop of trying to figure out why something keeps occurring, when the answer is generally where the issue first began.

When studying functionalism, the major drawbacks it has are in the way it simply ignores the existence of social inequality or conflict. There has to be some sort of social stratification and conflict to progress the foundations of society and further its evolution. If we are to see society as a super-organism, then we have to accept that conflict is a vital part of any organisms’ future development and evolution. Humans were not put on this Earth as perfect organism’s, through biological struggle and disease, we have evolved into the humans we see today. While still not perfect, evolution is still occurring. The same is true for societies. No one society was born perfect, society has evolved from the same analogous process of trial and error. While not all conflict is productive, it is necessary to the evolution of society.

        Where the positivist theory of Structural Functionalism focuses on the rigidity and stability of society, conflict theories focus on the chaotic, negative and unequal aspects. This view is constructed from the many hypothesis of Karl Marx, who saw society as broken, and constantly in a state of disarray with social groups competing for a capped amount of social capitol and economic resources. According to Marx, society has two classes of people. The two types of class are the ruling class and the subject class. The ones in the ruling class have a disproportionately large control over all resources, and use this upper hand to subjugate the lower classes. This makes it so the ruling class never gives up power, due to the fact the lower classes have to struggle to obtain even remote comfort. People are not bound to society by social norms per say, but are bound by coercion from the powers that be. According to Marx, this causes a power struggle between the two classes that ultimately will end in a revolution. However, this leads to another endless feedback loop, after the oppressed become the oppressors, the cycle of disproportionally begins again. This theory focuses on social control, rather than positivists theories that stress conformity and consensus.

        The biggest issue with Conflict Theory is that, while it does take into account the need of social conflict and change, it solely focuses on the negative aspect. Where positivist theorists tend to stay away from change and defend the here and now, conflict theorists challenge the status quo, an encourage change, even if it means total revolution. While it doesn’t sound bad at all take into account this example: A city government is trying to pass a levy to create better roads and water systems in the country where the city water is practically non-existent, and roads are mainly gravel. To a positivist theorist, this would be an effort to better the well-being of others, while to a conflict theorists this would be an attempt to coerce those in the lower classes to not rebel and accept their social status while bettering the status of the uppers. Conflict theory views even the most altruistic efforts as a way to gain control over society.