Outline and assess the differences and similarities between the Functionalist and Marxist views on how society works.

Like Functionalism, Marxism places emphasis on society as an external structure and portrays the individual as contained by that structure – but whereas from the functionalist perspective social structure can be seen as a cohesive benevolent influence, from the Marxist perspective it is seen as a divisive and malevolent influence.  If the starting point of the two approaches is the same, the way in which the ideas of each are explored and expressed is diametrically opposed.

For example functionalism views the social institution of the family, which offers the twin ideologies of primary socialization and personality stabilization, as central to the maintenance of society, as the heart within the body.  The Marxist perspective rejects this idea unequivocally, seeing the family as a continuation of the wider imbalance of power by producing unequal relationships and suppressing the individual as well as perpetuating the dominant ideology of the ruling class.  Functionalism views education, which becomes linked with the family, as maintaining social cohesion through what has been called ‘secondary socialization’ of children into the desirable set of values, norms and customs – i.e. a state of value consensus.  Durkheim himself wrote extensively about education, calling the school environment a ‘society in miniature’ which introduces children to and prepares them for the adult world.  On the other hand a Marxist perspective would take the view that this discounts the vast amount of conflict inherent within society, and that it is not a value consensus which is being reached, but a state of oppression and once again the perpetuation of the dominant ideology, where children learn their obedience to capitalism.

Whereas Functionalism (structural consensus) is based on consensus, Marxism (structural conflict) is based on the notion of conflict.  Marx defined conflict as ‘the motor of history’ and is quoted as saying ‘All human history thus far is the history of class struggles.’  Marx believed that what ultimately shaped society and in turn controlled the individual, was economic power, and that all other social institutions were influenced by it.  Although Marx was discussing history in  general (as we can see from his theory of the ‘four stages’) he referred particularly to modern times and the rise of industrial capitalism.  The Industrial Revolution had generated massive and radical social change, and also the capacity for a great new economic power.  Marx made the distinction between the small economically powerful ‘have’ class of the bourgeoisie, and the large economically powerless ‘have not’ class of the proletariat who possessed limited life chances. (The society as viewed from a Functionalist perspective would offer equal life chances).  

Marx identified what he saw as a fundamental and unjust imbalance of power between the two.  The Industrial Revolution and the advance of technology, which in the Functionalist approach might be considered an advantage,  had in Marx’s eyes led to an imbalance of power between those who owned the means of production, and the masses of workers who migrated towards those sources of work to sell their labour.  This can be seen reflected in some of the literature of the period – notably North and South by Elizabeth Gaskell, or Hard Times by Charles Dickens.  Rather than work generating benefits for the whole of society, because owners paid only low wages the ‘surplus value’ or profit being generated was benefitting only the bourgeoisie.  To Marx, society as a structure was not a harmonious whole, as in the Functionalist approach of Durkheim, but a tool of oppression with the dominant ideology of the bourgeoisie perpetuating the false consciousness of the proletariat.  Whereas a Functionalist approach might view religion as a positive influence on society, benefitting and supporting the other parts of society in turn, Marx dismissed it as ‘the opium of the people’.  Indeed, when the revolution that Marx had predicted actually occurred in the Russia of 1917, religious observances were positively discouraged, and made punishable by heavy penalties in the Soviet Union.

Marx predicted that this state of affairs would in its historical turn be overthrown, that conflict would be removed and replaced by communism.  Although Marx’s ‘current’ view of society is a poor one, it is interesting to note that the goal of marxism as a sociological perspective is in a way the same as that of the functionalist approach – ultimate harmony and resolution.  If we refer back to Marx’s definition of conflict as ‘the motor of history’ then it becomes hard to reconcile the Marxist perspective;  if as Marx had hoped the source of conflict would be removed and true class consciousness reached, then surely that would remove the impetus for vital social change?  It is interesting, with the benefit of historical hindsight, to examine what happened to the new communism advocated by Marx – which was ostensibly achieved in the Russian Revolution of 1917.  Here the Marxist ideas on which the new regime was based failed to provide any such solutions, and the imbalance of power remained.  Status symbols of western capitalism – such as Levi jeans for example, became increasingly sought after and would sell illegally at hugely inflated prices, which were beyond the economic reach of ordinary people.  There was no true class consciousness or shared power – citizens were governed by paternalistic politicians, spied on by the KGB in Russia or the Stasi in East Germany.  Any form of social deviance was punishable by the severest penalties.  In many ways the new regime was equally as oppressive as the one it had ousted.

The ostensible differences between the Marxist and Functionalist perspectives are not as irreconcilable as it would at first appear. Browne’s comments that ‘sociological perspectives centre on how much freedom…the individual has to control society’ then the similarities emerge.  Both the Functionalist and the Marxist perspectives place emphasis on society as something which influences an individual, as opposed to the interpretivist or social action perspective put forward by Max Weber (who himself was influenced by many of Marx’s ideas even though he disagreed with them).  It is a different view yet again from the symbolic interpretivist one, or from the post-modernist perspective which argues that society is fragmented and unstructured.  

The most important factor to bear in mind when examining similarities and differences between Functionalism and Marxism – or for that matter any set of social perspectives, is that similarities and differences will always naturally occur.  Sociological perspectives can ‘borrow’ from each other or react against each other – for example, much of feminist sociology can be linked to marxism.  Difference in opinion is inextricably linked to the human capacity for social change, and the need to explore and explain.  What was applicable to the society which Marx was discussing might not necessarily be applicable to another type of society.  Each different society should be examined objectively and from a basis of ‘value freedom’.  As Giddens writes, ‘Societies can no longer be understood through the application of general theories.’  A subject as diverse as sociology demands to be viewed from a whole range of perspectives, and should not be limited to the relatively narrow margins of the structuralist approach.