Functionalists look at the order, predictability, and stability in social life and explain this as being the result of learned rather than innate behaviour. Most people seem to follow a set of rules governing the way they speak, dress and act. Functionalists emphasise the importance of socialisation as the process by which society moulds the behaviour of its members and teaches them these unwritten rules. Children must learn the norms and values of their society in order for them to fit in. These norms and values are then internalised so they become second nature. Durkheim believed that in order for individuals to live contentedly and productively together it is important to create a society that is both well organised and ordered, he believed that consensus was essential in order for a society to flourish. Socialisation is a process by which the individual learns to constrain his innate behaviour and replaces it with that expected by society. Durkheim believed that without this, ‘humans develop insatiable appetites, limitless desires and general feelings of irritation and dissatisfaction.’ (Bilton.1993.P58).
Socialisation is also seen as preparing children for their adult roles. For example a functionalist would believe that a female child is socialised to see the role of a woman in the nuclear family as that of caregiver and nurturer. She would then accept that the role of mother meant that she must take the primary part in the everyday care of her children. Her behaviour is, at least in part, controlled by the role that she plays. If she deviates from the expected norms of that role, perhaps by becoming the principle wage earner while the father takes care of the children, society may view her as odd or unusual, perhaps even as unnatural. The need that most people feel to ‘fit in’ ensures that they do not stray too far outside society’s expectations. The role of mother becomes a part in the puppet theatre that is society.
Marxist sociologists also view the individual’s role as determined by society. They view socialisation as equally important in ensuring this as functionalists, but see it in a rather more negative way. Socialisation is an imposed moulding process ensuring that the individual fits into his social class within society. For the Marxist, this process is not based on consensus but on the values imposed by capitalism. Within a capitalist society it is vital that the individual learns the attitudes and values of that society to ensure the efficiency, profitability and stability of capitalism. It is therefore necessary that the vast majority accept that their position in society is to be a member of the proletariat, working to ensure profits for the Bourgeoisie. This means accepting large inequalities between the social classes. As the dominant class controls the agencies of socialisation, in particular education and the mass media, people are socialised to accept roles, norms and values that are in the interests of the Bourgeoisie. In order to avoid revolution it is necessary for the individual ‘to accept capitalism as inevitable and natural, and its alternatives as radical and threatening.’ (Atkins. 1996. P78). Conformity is essential to the success of capitalism. Marxists see the individual’s behaviour as entirely determined, not merely constrained, by the structures of society.
In a Marxist view a working class child would be socialised via the media and the hidden curriculum to accept that he will never be anything other than a menial worker. He will not strive to further his education and will accept his role as a passive factory worker, working in order for his employer to make the largest possible profit. This is an oversimplified view disputed by Paul Willis. Willis carried out a study in 1977 to investigate ‘how working-class kids get working-class jobs.’ (Willis in Giddens.2001.P513) Willis did not agree that the education system was wholly successful in educating working-class boys to accept the exploitation of their later employment, however, the ‘counter-school culture’ (Giddens.2001.P513) that they created during their education, paradoxically, prepared them for the blue-collar work that they would do.
Structural theories focus on large-scale social structures and institutions such as the education system. These theories can be criticised for their over-emphasis on the importance of order and the socialisation process for society as a whole. They do not take into account the individual. In contrast social action theories such as interactionism focus more closely on people’s behaviour in small group. Relationships within an individual classroom, or between a child and its mother are more likely to be the focus of interactionist sociologists. Rather than seeing the individual as being constrained and determined by society, they believe that people behave as they do because they are influenced by the behaviour of others towards them. They believe that we choose our behaviour based on how we interpret situations that we find ourselves in. Instead of being a puppet of society, a person is free from structural constraints and is at liberty to behave as he chooses based on the meaning that he attaches to a given situation.
Philip Jones gives an interactionist perspective,
Nearly all human behaviour is voluntary. It is the product of a conscious decision to act, a result of thought. … We choose between courses of action because, as humans, we are able to aim at an end or a goal and take action to achieve this. (Jones.1985.P16)
Jones suggests that there is always an element of choice involved in our decisions and that the choice we make is based on our intended goal rather than by our society’s norms and values. It is not the influence of society that is the most important element in an individual’s choices. Interactionist sociologists believe it is the behaviour of other individuals towards a person that is paramount. For these sociologists, ‘societies are the end result of human interaction, not it’s cause.’ (Jones.1985.P16)
There are valid points on both sides of the structure / action debate. It is evident that social institutions exert constraint over us. For example we have no choice in the monetary system that we must use to pay our debts. Yet as individuals we make our own choices as to how our money is spent. Although we are all influenced by the norms and values of the society in which we live, our behaviour is not completely determined by that society; there is always an element of freewill. Our actions, in turn, have influence over the social structures of our society. It is a, ‘two-way process by which we shape our social world through our individual actions and are ourselves reshaped by that society.’ (Giddens. 2001.P700) Giddens calls this process structuration. He sees this as a way of bridging the gap between the structure and action approaches to sociological argument. To understand this notion it is necessary to accept that the individual contributes to the making and remaking of social structure. Structuration presumes that social action accepts the existence of structure and vice versa. Giddens calls this ‘the duality of structure.’ (Giddens. 2001.P700)
People make choices and act on their interpretations of the social world, but their choices are constrained by the structure of the society they live in. Despite their desire to feel free there is a question as to how much freedom humans actually want, for more freedom means greater risk of failure. Humans are to a large extent the puppets of society, but that society and the structures within it is created by humans who are in turn creating the theatre in which the puppet show is presented.
Bibliography
Atkins, P. 1996. The ABC of Sociology. Newark, NJ. Cheshunt Books.
Bauman, Z. & May, T. 2001. Thinking Sociologically. Oxford. Blackwell Pub.Ltd.
Bilton, T et.al. 2002. Introductory Sociology. Basingstoke. Palgrave Macmillan Ltd.
Giddens, A. 2001. Sociology. Oxford. Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
Jones, P. 1985. Theory & Method in Sociology. A Guide for Beginners. Cambridge University Press.
