Both functionalist and Marxists agree that this is how the individual identity is shaped, but as I stated earlier they do not share the same views as to why these socialisation processes take place.
Functionalism is based on consensus theory. This is also known of and thought as common values. Functionalists believe there must be common values placed so that society can function correctly and that people must conform to the “norms”, “values” and “ cultures” as to which is expected of them in society. People who are non-conformists and refuse to be socialised in such a way are known as the deviants of society. This could range from something as simple as dressing differently, or possibly wearing ones hair in an outlandish way. Also people who commit crimes are known as deviants. Emile Durkheim saw crime as normal in terms of its occurrence in that no society could enforce total conformity, he argued deviance is necessary if society is to remain flexible and open to change.” Crime brings together upright consciences and concentrates them.”(4)
The common values of the people underpin the whole complex system of the substructure of society it is vitally important for agreement and conformity for society to function correctly, thus the reason why the socialisation process is of vital importance.
Functionalists also compare all these socialisation processes to the human body. This is known as the organic analogy;
“Society is like the human body because of the need to co-operate and the need for interdependence”(5). All parts of the body link together and depend on each other, as in society all needing to be socialised and conform together, the body fights diseases where as in a similar way society has the police and the legal system. (6)
Functionalists stress the positive elements in the substructure, saying that there is an open and fair system in place, firstly the State, we are allowed to vote, our votes all count and we decide who is elected into power. If we don’t agree with the viewpoints of the people in the positions in power we vote them out. After all they are there to represent the common values of the people. This leads us into education; once again an open and fair education system is put into place. Everyone all having their chance to learn and absorb, this contributes to the well being of society. It selects and grades individuals socialising them giving them the knowledge and skills needed for their career in later life. This is known as meritocratic, getting on by merit alone.
Then on to religion, Talcott Parsons states that religion gives values and norms a sacred quality so that they become powerful moral codes governing behaviour; people conform to religious teachings and beliefs during the socialisation process, the ten commandments, one being “thou shall not kill” being a good example. A lot of religion socialisation begins within the family. (7) Then to the media, this is also open and fair, helping to socialise individuals, exposing members of parliament, and the footballers and popstars that so many “hero-worship”. When they have done something they think we should be aware of this is all shaping the way in which we learn and think, don’t behave as these do etc.. And lastly the family, vitally important in all ways of the socialisation process when young we are made aware “don’t touch, that’s naughty, you’ll be punished”. The family is there to oversee the whole learning and socialisation process just as the common values are put in place to underpin. Parents teach their children to “adapt or die”(8) to the norms/values that are acceptable. The family also helps the socialisation process by re-producing and socialising the next generation of individuals who then gain social integration and solidarity.
Social integration is a sense of belonging which once the culture/religion, and the values/norms, which you have been socialised into believing, lets you know who you belong to. Once people have learned this, social order is the result and your place is then mapped out in society. Social solidarity stems from this; people gain a sense of community, a collective consciousness. This encourages society to work for the good of the masses. (9) Therefore the socialisation process is viewed as a positive one.
However Marxists view the substructure with a fundamental difference, instead of common values underpinning Marx’s theory was that capitalism underpins society, with only a few of the peoples values being represented, conflict theorists. Marx believed there were only two classes of people the bourgeoisie, and the proletariat.
The Bourgeoisie were the few that Marx referred to, these are the rulers the ones who owned the “means of production” they were also the private landlords and property owners. Where as the proletariat who are the many, own nothing but the “division of labour” they only own the ability to work. Marx believed that the bourgeoisie exploit the proletariat by ideology, thus brainwashing the many with their immense power and wealth giving a false-class-consciousness to the poor. This is the socialisation process that Marx believed led to their being such an unfair, closed or caste system with no chance of meritocracy.
Marxism stresses the negative view on the substructure believing that the representatives of the state are put into their positions of power by the bourgeoisie, and that the proletariat do not vote as they have no chance of changing things as they have been brainwashed into accepting their lot. And that through this, are led to believe that this is fair and meritocratic; by working hard you get on. So therefore their values are not represented by the state. They only represent the needs of the rich. The state benefit system was put into place to literally keep people in their place. Keep mums in homes making more “factory fodder”; make sure they are healthy enough to go to work. Socialising them into believing that’s the way it is. (10)
Onto education, so called equal opportunities to learn, schools instil subservience in order to create a docile workforce, which ensures false consciousness and avoids conflict and revolution. Where as the rich have excellent private schools, go on to good jobs- also ideology, knowing their positions in society are deserved. Companies, land and wealth, all prestigious buying power to ensure the best for their offspring. Next religion, Marx argued, was the opiate of the people, stupefying them into believing that the rich have more chance of passing through the eye of a needle than going to heaven. “God didn’t create man, man created god”(11). Religion leads people to believe that no matter what is thrown at them in life their faith will get them through. The next big socialising influence in the substructure is the media, this helps establish false ideology, be good little workers and forget about any fight for a “better world” you have no intrinsic value on life. Copy cat crimes and anorexia can be blamed on the media giving the wrong impression, the bourgeoisie advertising all their great products for the proletariat to buy. The proletariat get poorer and the bourgeoisie richer.
The family influence in the same way, as they too have been socialised by the same institutions already, so these norms/values of being good little workers is passed from generation to generation.
Marx sees society as a whole based upon a “conflict of interest”, and argues that the reason the proletariats do not argue capitalism as those controlling the economy, control lives. People are unaware they are exploited through socialisation and capitalist ideology. Marx says the only way to stop this, is to overthrow the bourgeoisie by revolution to get a communist “classless” society.
Both functionalist and Marxist views support the status quo, functionalist don’t want change where as the Marxist feels the need to overthrow is the only way. Both of these views are macro theories, believing that we are the products of our external stimuli through the socialisation process.
To conclude these theories I personally see both sides and agree with both in different aspects both the positive of the functionalist and the negative of the Marxist.
On the positive side the education system can be seen as open and fair, lots of students on leaving school go on to college and then university gaining themselves very prestigious positions in society therefore this is an open and fair system. But there also are the negative realities that the classrooms are fuller and those who don’t grasp things as quickly are not given the opportunities to catch up and are put into a lower class. To me this is wrong, as lower class seems to be putting one in ones place, lower being the operative word. The media do expose people being the positive side but then when one looks at copycat crimes you can’t help but blame the media. A lot of influence does come in way of the family but this stems back generations and some adapt quicker to change than others. These too have been socialised by their peers and unfortunately can result in these inequalities in society remaining.
However if people did not conform to the norms/values that society thrusts upon them, and there were many deviants, this would surely result in anarchy. But so it is, people do conform, and surely enough society roles on as, as both functionalist and Marxists agree “ society is more important than the individuals within it”(12)
.
