Structural Functionalism

In our text book: The Real World: An introduction to sociology (4th ed.) written by K. Ferris and J. Stein. Begins with the history of Sociology and defines the three classical theories. The first of the three theories are Structural Functionalism is a macro-level theory. Functionalist see all social institutions as building blocks that perform specific tasks that benefit the whole system; no matter the cost to the individual. (Ferris & Scott pg.). Functionalists believe that all aspects of society have “Manifest functions”; The intended outcome and “Latent functions”; which are unintended outcomes. (Ferris & Scott pg.). Our text Also defines a folkway as a “Learned behavior, shared by a social group, that provides a traditional mode of conduct.”

(Ferris & Scott pg.)
Our book describes the Conflict theory as another macro level theory and is the “second major school of thought in sociology.” Conflict theorists sees “social conflict as the basis of society and social change.” (Ferris & Scott pg.) The specific conflict is between the majority and the minority. The majority secure their power through ownership of goods and services. The minority evolve to resent the majority due to an inability to own products that they produce. Further compounding the minority’s frustration is the limitation of upward mobility due to low wages and poor living conditions. The central concept of Conflict concerned with the dynamic power play that creates social inequality.
Symbolic Interactionism is the third and final classical theory that focuses on the individual and the individual meanings of interactions that include; body language, slang and written language. Our textbook give reference to a major contributor to this theory. Herbert Blumer’s “symbolic interactionism’s three tenets are 1) that we act toward things based on their meanings, 2) that meanings are negotiated through interaction with others, 3) and that meanings can change through interaction.” (Ferris & Scott pg.) This micro level school of thought focuses on how the individual effects macro level institutions.

The word nigger is the Latin word for the color black. The color black was eventually applied to the darker skinned Spaniards; still as a neutral description of color. Sometime after nigger arrived in America it metamorphized into a racial slur applied to African slaves and sometimes; Sicilian and Irish Immigrants. By the mid twentieth century it was exclusively used as an offensive toward Black people. The word, nigger, carries with it the hatred African Americans. This term is can lead to violence as a sanction on one end of the spectrum. But is also endeared with arts and friendship.
After the civil rights movement and the move away from Jim Crow, artists began to intellectually redefine the word to limit the power that it imposed over black America.

Hip Hop culture turned the word nigger on its head to in be understood as a term of endearment. But due to the need for rhyme and regional Dialect of rap artists; the word took on a new sound and nigga was born.
My attempt at breaking the subcultural norm of nigger versus nigga, was one of context. Black people who use the word have an unwritten rule. Don’t say it in the presence of white people. The belief is that when we say the word in mixed company, it gives license to those who would use it in a malicious manner. All the research subjects involved are educated middle class black people and one white male friend at a social gathering. I would first use the word nigger.
I informed the white participant of what I would be doing and asked him not to react and if he felt uncomfortable to walk away. His time away gave me the opportunity to allow the subjects to speak openly and evaluate a cultural response to my behavior. I also asked him to interact at some point and to use the word nigga. He was VERY reluctant. But he told me he would if a song came on and a rapper used the word in his lyrics. I have heard every one of these participants use the word nigga. The white male would offer his reaction to the research subject

reaction.
Almost as soon as we arrived and settled in the conversation turned to Donald Trump.

The topic was Nancy Devost’s policy toward education. I must have said Nigger forty times and no one responded verbally to it. I noticed uncomfortable body language. A couple of the participants walked away. I secretly asked my white participant to walk away. The hostility I faced after he walked away almost made me stop the experiment. I couldn’t believe it. The same people who use this word daily were all upset that I had used the word so many times. I was accused of trying to fit in with my white friend and disrespecting the black people around

me.
I almost got upset and I wanted to explain the hypocrisy that was being displayed. But I didn’t. We calmed down, but I looked around for my white friend. I wanted to get it over with at this point and I asked him to just come out and say nigga to me as a term of endearment. It took a while for him to do it. But when he did, it got ugly. The two research subjects who we were engaging attributed every time I said nigger to him. They blamed him for disrespecting their home, women and children. The crowd got bigger and news had spread that the white dude had been calling people niggers. Problem was there were know women near us and no children at home. He didn’t even say nigger.
I immediately let them in on our experiment and it triggered a really good conversation about the strength of words and the double standard that exists for others versus ourselves. I wanted to know why I could say it forty times and my white friend couldn’t even use the accepted version once. I also asked why some of the things that I said were attributed to him. The answers I got ranged from; “they’re not allowed to say it.” To “they mean it maliciously no matter how they say it.”
I found that only one person could define the roots of the word nigga. My white friend, (he googled it when he walked away.) After I gave the group the definition of the word and the evolutionary life of the word nigga, it didn’t seem to change their opinions.
But I was shocked that they were also equally offended by the number of times I used it. Only a few people heard me say nigger the others who were present said that they heard me say nigga instead. But I didn’t, not one time. During this process I felt eager, embarrassed and ashamed at different points. I hadn’t experienced the anger of black people directed toward me due to racist slight. My white friend told me that he was more ashamed than afraid when he saw the reaction of the people at the gathering. But he also said that he didn’t know another word that he had ever heard that inspired that much anger. I believed he was really shocked. He really didn’t know.
Functionalists might interpret the manifest function of the original use of this word essential for categorizing a group of people for identification. Functionalist would probably interpret the latent function of the word as a possible means of associating group identity. Thereby insuring mass production by slaves and limiting individualism.
Conflict Theorist’s might interpret my research group’s anger justifiable due to institutional racism enforced by the majority. They would probably further argue a need for the existence of this anger to motivate a coo of the bourgeoisie a redistribution of resources.
Symbolic Interactionists focus on the meaning of those words in the context of the interaction of the individuals involved and recognize the changing meaning of the word. Both negative and positive aspects. For me I was always indifferent about both words until I saw how the words effected people on both sides of the equation. I will probably kill the double standard from now on.