A good example of functionalist perspective is Emile Durkheim’s theory about religion. According to Durkheim, religion in not about supernatural beings but rather about beliefs and practices, which are the collective representations of society and groups. Because Durkheim’s main interest was the ways in which society is bound together, he investigated the role and the origin of religion in various communities. He believed that a simpler society has a simpler religion. Durkheim claims that, “a religion as closely connected to a social system surpassing all others in simplicity may well be regarded as the most elementary religion we can possibly know” (Ritzer, 91). For instance Durkheim argues that totemism a religious system in which animal figures are regarded as sacred is among the simplest religious forms in the world. The totemic animal, Durkheim believed, was the original focus of religious activity because it was the emblem for a social group, “the clan” (Ritzer, 91). He thought the model for the relationships between people and the supernatural was similar to the relationship between individuals and the community. For him the function of religion was to make people willing to put the interests of society ahead of their desires. He also believed religion is an important part of society and that the functions of religion are to maintain the equilibrium in the society.
Moreover, Durkheim compares religion to society. He says that society is the cause of the unique sensations of the religious experiences, so called “sui generis” (Ritzer, 84). This concept corresponds to the way in which society considers the things of its own experience. By the mere fact that society exists, there is a whole system of representations by means of which men understand each other. In a way collective representation guarantees objectivity because it is collective. Collective representation has been able to maintain itself because there is sufficient amount of men who accept it. Durkheim says that religious beliefs contain a truth, which must be discovered. This comes in contrast with Marx’s notion that religion is nothing more than an illusion.
In contrast to the functionalist perspective stated above, the conflict perspective in society is a view of society that benefit some people more than it would others, due to their social standings. Karl Marx was a sociologist who embraced the social conflict theory and made his main goal to not just understand society but to reduce social inequality. Through dialectical materialism set by George Hegel, Marx was able to create a theory of a classless society. This society would be achieved through the joint union of the middle class, proletarians, and overthrow of the governing upper class, bourgeois. Marx realized that with the unification of the working class, they would be able to better themselves and their lives, and in doing so, better society on the whole.
The focus of Marx’s philosophical writings about social structure is alienation. He believes that social or psychological alienation arises out of economic or material alienation. In other words, consciousness is determined by material conditions. Concerning alienated labour, Marx said that, “Labour produces itself and the worker as a commodity – and does so in the proportion in which it produces commodities generally” (Lemert, 31). He sees this as the ultimate surrendering of the human spirit to the material alienation of capitalism. Furthermore, Marx sees it as a cycle that can and must be broken in order to allow the worker to express himself.
Marx sees material alienation as the cause of social or psychological alienation. Material alienation he said is caused by the existence of private property. Private property came into existence through the unequal division of labour. Division of labour, therefore, is the central idea in which Marx bases his arguments concerning the outcome of alienated labour. According to Marx, division of labour began with the family, “where wife and children are the slaves of the husband” and therefore became husband’s property (Ritzer, 63). Marx says that this corresponds precisely the definition of unequal division of labour in the modern society. Where an employer degraded a worker until the worker becomes the private property of the industry and therefore no different than a slave. Just as a slave is not free to decide whether or not to work on a given day, neither is the worker. Both must work in order to survive.
Ultimately, many social thinkers in the history of sociology have challenged the topic of social structure in their works.
Social thinkers like Emile Durkheim and Karl Marx have spent their entire lives formulating theories that would explain the status of individuals in societies. From a functionalist perspective sociologist like Emile Durkheim looks at society as a system with various parts that contribute to the maintenance of the whole. On the other hand Karl Marx, a conflict theorist, stresses that society is a complex system characterized by inequality and conflict that generate social change. Both theorists looked at a social system as a set of mutually supporting elements, unlike for Marx, it was hard for Durkheim to explain how change might occur in a society.
