Functionalism, Marxism and Interactionism. Complimentary or Contradictory?

by jakemassey (student)

Jake Massey

Sociology is referred to as the study of society. There are two strands of sociology, Theoretical and empirical. Theoretical covers the range of theories that have different views on why society is how it is. Empirical refers to real research what is actually happening or has happened. In this essay I am going to be comparing and contrasting three different sociological perspectives. The theories in sociology can be split up into two main sections which are structural (macro) theories and social action (micro) theories.

The First theory I will be looking at is the structural theory of Functionalism, structural theory means they see the individual as less important than the social structure of society. Functionalism is a consensus theory, which means they see members of society working together to ensure its smooth running, it also means that members of society have a good idea how to behave in most situations and are able to anticipate how others will behave. It is a top-down theory as it looks at society rather than the individuals within it. And believe society is responsible for shaping society. This is due to social institutions such as family, education, work, law, media and religion. Functionalism is an organic analogy, which means that it looks at society like an organism. If you think of it like a human body, each part of the body has a function to keep it alive. This links to society in the sense that every part of society helps to keep society going as a whole. The different parts of society are the social institutions, mentioned above. They believe social institutions are responsible for the patterns of shared and stable behaviour; this is what functionalists refer to as social order, functionalists believe if it didn’t exist confusion, chaos and anarchy would be the result. Functionalists see the major functions of social institutions are to socialise every individual into a system of norms, social expectations that guide behaviour. Positive and negative sanctions are put in place to ensure these are followed, and values are the idea that something is good and worthwhile among the majority members of society; this is what we refer to as socialisation. Talcott Parsons (1902-79) a key functionalist argues socialisation is the key to understanding human behaviour patterns. He sees social institutions ensure the passing on of socially acceptable patterns if behaviour. They do this in a number of ways such as social solidarity (a sense of community) and social solidarity (a sense of belonging). They remind members of society about what counts as normality and deviance. Our behaviour is controlled by the rules of society. Our identity as mothers, fathers etc. Is controlled by value consensus which is another key functionalist idea, that clear expectations of what makes a ‘good’ mother/father, and we have to adopt these if we want to fit into society successfully. Socialisation and social control ensures the majority of us will successfully integrate into society as we will attempt to live up to social and cultural expectations without question.

This is a preview of the whole essay

Another key sociological theory I will be looking at is Marxism, based on the ideas of Karl Marx (1818-83) like functionalism, Marxism is a structural theory as it sees the individual as less important than the social structure of society. Marx believed the economic organisation was most responsible for the behaviour of individuals. But the main difference between the two is that is that unlike functionalism, Marxism is a conflict theory. Marxists believe society is based on unfair treatment of different classes. Marxism sees the system we live in, what he referred to as capitalism, is divided into two basic classes, The ruling class (Bourgeoisie) which are the bosses and own the means of production (machinery, factories, land) are who controlled society, and the working class (Proletariat) who were the workers as they only thing they had to offer was the sale of their work in return for a small wage. To Marx he believed the ruling class benefitted in every way from the operation of society, whilst the working class get far less than deserved. This is what he believed caused the divide in society and conflict. Marxists argue that due to the fact the working class don’t rarely challenge capitalism is due the fact that the ruling class, who control the economy also control the family, media, education etc. And it is argued by Louis Althusser (1971) that the cultural institutions aims are to maintain and legitimise class inequality. They pass off ruling class norms and values as the natural and normal things in society. The ruling class ideas are referred to as ideology. Capitalist society gives the idea society is meritocratic (if you work hard enough you can get on). The working class are convinced capitalism has supplied them with a decent standard of living. Capitalist ideology shapes the culture of society by such things as mass media using advertisements to buy and keep buying, somehow this mill make us happy over the realisation we will never be rich. We are not aware of our identity as exploited workers, we experience false class consciousness. But one day Marxists believe we will eventually rebel against the capitalist system when we learn the truth of our situation. As you can see from reading the text above the sociological ideas of functionalism and Marxism and complimentary in the way they view society as the shaper of the individual but they are completely contradictory in the way they believe individuals react to socialisation, Functionalism is based on consensus whilst Marxism is based on conflict.

The final sociological theory I am going to be looking at is Interactionism; this theory completely differs to the above theories as it rejects the structural assumption that social behaviour is determined, and made predictable by the organisation of society. They believe people have a much more positive and active role in shaping social life, this makes it a bottom up theory as it looks at people first then society. Interactionalists argue that society is a product of people coming together in social groups and trying to make sense of their own and each other’s behaviour. People are able to work out what’s happening because they bring a set of interpretations or meanings to social situations. They believe that socialisation is learning a stock of shared interpretations and meanings for most social interactions. For example; families teach how to interact and interpret the action of others. Whilst education brings us into contact with a greater range of social groups and teaches us how to interpret social action in a border range of social contexts. The result of such socialisation is that children acquire an identity. Social identity refers to personality characteristic and qualities that particular cultures associate with certain groups.

Going back to my title and deciding whether these ideas are complimentary are contradictory; I don’t believe any of the ideas are completely complimentary or contradictory. I have considered the similarities and differences and there are a multiple of each, the ideas are individual with some agreement and disagreement for example Marxism and Functionalism see society as structuralist and society more important than the individual but then disagree when it comes to the fact weather we are all happy with society being like it is or not, whilst interactionism completely differs to this and sees the individual as the most important thing in society. They all agree on socialisation being the key process of society which is why they are not completely contradictory. I believe each theory has its own differences to make it individual but there are also similarities so you can’t say there totally different. Therefore I believe they are neither complimentary nor contradictory as the terms are too strong rather differed views that share some similarities.