In the history of anthropology and sociology, there have been many different social theories. Often these theories are influential for a period of time and then lose popularity once a new, more seductive theory is established. Marxism and functionalism are two examples of social theories that made a grand impact on the anthropological and sociological fields, but have since faded from the forefront. Marxism was established by Karl Marx in the mid-1800s and was later adopted by other theorists, such as Marvin Harris. Marxism was built upon the idea that there has been an ongoing class struggle in human history and it is this conflict between classes that will lead to social change and eventually to the birth of Communism. Functionalism was introduced during the mid-1900s and was adopted by Émile Durkheim, E.E. Evans-Pritchard, Bronislaw Malinowski, Alfred Radcliffe-Brown, and many other ethnographers. The basic notion of functionalism is that society consists of many different, but interrelated parts, each of which have a specific function and work together to maintain a society. The ethnographer often saw it as their job to uncover the social order and structure present within the society (Baert 1998). Although Marxism and functionalism were developed in close temporal proximity and similarities can be established between the two theories, at their core they are fundamentally in opposition to each other.
The major difference between the two theories is that from the Marxist perspective society is viewed as constantly changing, whereas from a functionalist mode of thought society is seen to be relatively stable. Marx viewed society as dynamic, or “continually evolving,” because of the recurrent replacement of the ruling cl...
... middle of paper ...
...the strengths and weaknesses of the theories compliment each other. Marxism is useful in explaining change, however it lacks the ability to account for stability. On the other hand, functionalism is favorable for explaining stability, but it is incapable of justifying change. Although the two theories are distinct from each other, they balance one another. This suggests that when research is being conducted within the field of anthropology and sociology, it would be beneficial for the researcher to incorporate both frameworks into his research in order to gain the richest, most relevant information. In conclusion, rather than forgetting about one theoretical framework, when the next more alluring framework is developed, it may be advantageous for the anthropologist or sociologist to incorporate the strong aspects of the previous theory into their new approach.
Functionalism views society as the stability and assimilation of a range of forces that function within it. While society is a separate entity with a life of its own, there are individual elements contributing to that stability. Functionalism as a sociological theory emphasizes assimilation rather than the dissociation of society. Therefore, the society is seen as a whole that is compromised of parts which give one another their identity and their function. The part, whether that is education, such as a school, or sports, such as a football team, operates in relation to the other parts, and cannot be entirely understood in isolation from the other parts. All the parts are interrelated, and when there is a disturbance in any one of the parts, is when you can see the interdependence. But what is important about this theory is that “there will always be some reorganization and tendency to restore equilibrium” (Wallace and Wolf 17). Functionalist do not believe it’s crucial that the people involved in the society to be aware of this interconnectedness anymore than the brain and heart consciously realize that they work together as an organism.
Functionalism perspective will be the first sociological theory reviewed. Functiolism is one of the earliest sociological perspectives Emile Durkheim (1858-1917) who was German developed ideas for the first time relating to functionalism.
Functionalism is a theory in which various social institutions and processes in society serve a significant function in order for society to continue
sociologists, political scientists, historians and more, including Randall Collins and Jürgen Habermas. Through Collins and Habermas, it is clear to see how studying Marxism can lead to two different interpretations of society. Collins promotes conflict theory, which is very similar to Marxism in that it can be very one-dimensional. On the other hand, Habermas’ theories are always changing while simultaneously trying to reinvent Marxism and in the end; this allows him to explain society on a larger scale
The functionalist paradigm focuses on the integration of society, and how society how its own groups which has their own functions to help improve the peoples lives. Functionalist paradigm fits in the category of macro-sociology, because it focuses on the patterns that shape an entire society. Functionalists believe that society is maintained through the thought of trust and consensus on moral values for ideal behavior. Working together will result in a stable social environment that will create equality. Conflicts or dysfunctions will be view as a disease in the social system. Social conflict paradigm believes that society is divided into many groups that have their own goals, and that certain parts of the world have the luck of benefiting economic dominan...
Society is flawed. There are critical imbalances in it that cause much of humanity to suffer. In, the most interesting work from this past half-semester, The Communist Manifesto, Karl Marx is reacting to this fact by describing his vision of a perfectly balanced society, a communist society. Simply put, a communist society is one where all property is held in common. No one person has more than the other, but rather everyone shares in the fruits of their labors. Marx is writing of this society because, he believes it to be the best form of society possible. He states that communism creates the correct balance between the needs of the individual and the needs of society. And furthermore thinks that sometimes violence is necessary to reach the state of communism. This paper will reflect upon these two topics: the relationship of the individual and society, and the issue of violence, as each is portrayed in the manifesto.
Marxism derived from German philosophers Karl Marx (also a political economist/ sociologist) and Friedrich Engels in the middle of the 1800s. ‘Marxism is based on the idea that society is defined by the conflict between the ruling class (Bourgeoisie) and the working class (Proletariat) and these beings the two main classes’ (Hart, 2013). It states that those who have money and power in essence control society, and those without ways and means do not; and are at the mercy of the powerful and wealthy. In addition, Marxism considers the working class inferior to the ruling class as they get paid the lowest kind of pay and are removed from their work and is and exploited by their bosses (e.g. owners of the factory). Marxism also looks at/examines the social structure (structurally) and says that capitalism will ultimately fail (most likely through revolution such as what was seen in France among 1789 and 1799 and in Russia in 1917). In reference to the study of crime, to Marx the law is not something that upholds the interests of everyone but only the ruling class for instance white-collar crime would be encouraged to be ignored. Contrastingly, Functionalism which was first introduced by Emile Durkheim in 1894 and gained momentum in the mid-1900s, and believed that unlike Marxism which is dependent on that of the ruling class in society, e...
"The functionalist perspective is a sociological approach which emphasizes the way that parts of a society are structure to maintain its stability,"(Schaefer & Lamm, 1998). This perspective looks at a society in a positive manner and sees it as stable, with all the parts working together. Under the functionalist view every social aspect of a society contributes to the society's survival, and if not, the aspect is not passed to the next generation.
Functionalism is the oldest and most commonly used theoretical approach used to understand social issues. Functionalism is a macrosociological perspective that presents the idea that society consists of different components working together to help a society function as one. Sociolog...
.... Functionalism is much too conservative, and does not have a way to explain major changes in society. The conflict theory does not explain some of the more orderly and stable parts of society. They both make good points, and both have good arguments. I however, cannot endorse one over the other for the simple reason that they are both essentially wrong and right at the same time. A conflict theorist is correct in saying that money and power do give you special considerations, and conflicts are at the base of most social change, however, they are wrong in assuming that all social institutions are unstable. A functionalist is correct in saying that the society is made up of interdependent and interacting parts, but wrong in their conservative assumptions. A blend of the two would probably provide the greatest base for an argument and would probably be the most real.
Functionalism is a materialist stance in the philosophy of mind that argues that mental states are purely functional, and thus categorized by their input and output associations and causes, rather than by the physical makeup that constitutes its parts. In this manner, functionalism argues that as long as something operates as a conscious entity, then it is conscious. Block describes functionalism, discusses its inherent dilemmas, and then discusses a more scientifically-driven counter solution called psychofunctionalism and its failings as well. Although Block’s assertions are cogent and well-presented, the psychofunctionalist is able to provide counterarguments to support his viewpoint against Block’s criticisms. I shall argue that though both concepts are not without issue, functionalism appears to satisfy a more acceptable description that philosophers can admit over psychofunctionalism’s chauvinistic disposition that attempts to limit consciousness only to the human race.
Ø In particular with Durkheim’s work, it is too optimistic and maintains the idea of social solidarity as the main theme, and simply believes pathologies can be solved through simple social reform, ignoring any problems or conflict and the affects. Ø Marxists argue that the modern family is organised to support and benefit the ruling class and the capitalist economy, rather than benefiting all of society. In particular, they accuse functionalists for ignoring the fact that power is not equally distributed in society. Some groups have more wealth and power than others and may be able to impose their norms and values as less powerful groups.
Sociologists view functionalism as both a macro and a micro perspective. From a macro perspective, functionalism promotes the ideal that everyone and everything has a particular place within society, which in turn influences the structure of society. A macro example of Functionalism is seen by sociologists through the interactions of a national school system. Primary school prepares children for the possibility of a higher education that will prepare them for a job, instilling the order and ideals of society within youths so that they understand its expectations. Afterward, they head off to secondary school to apply what they have learned and choose a profession that will best benefit them and society. This promotes the large-scale organization
Karl Marx's Theory of Capitalism Marxism like functionalism is concerned with the overall picture of
Emile Durkheim’s Functionalist Theory is predicated on the ideologies that society is composed of components that are dependent on each other. Auguste Comte developed functionalism; Durkheim compared society to the human body. The body consists of different, interrelated organs that support it to survive; society consists of different workings that enable it to survive. There is a state of stability within society and if any component of that society alters it will reorganize itself to maintain stability. Functionalism will interpret the components of society in terms of contributions to the stability of the whole society. Social accord, direction and integration are paramount views of functionalism; society will endure and grow due to the shared norms and values; all individuals have a goal and vested interest to conformity and thus conflict is minimized (Pope, 1975).