The differences and similarities between functionism, marxism, and social action theory.
THE DIFFERENCES & SIMALARITIES BETWEEN FUNCTIONISM, MARXISM AND SOCIAL ACTION THEORY
Sociology is generally made up of three paradigms: Functionalism, Conflict Theory and Symbolic interactionism.
A paradigm is a set of assumptions that shape and underlie explanations of why society is the way it is (Early Stratification Theory, internet 2003).
Functional Theory is often traced from Durkheim, Parsons and Merton.
Functionalists believe in shared norms and values, which are influenced by the Family, Education, church and employment. It sees society as a shaper of people rather than people shaping society. The functionalist says we need social order in which to survive normally.
Roles are also important to the functionalist for example the roles in marriage.
The functionalist believe we as humans look at the roles played around us, for example, our parents and then we copy them. We think the pattern of life that we see is a natural one.
We learn roles from our family thus the son is expected to take the role/job of his father as is the daughter expected to cook and clean akin to her mother. The role of the family is to socialise its new members and teaches them the norms and values essential to the social life, working together to make society work as a whole.
The church's role according to the functionalist, plays a major role in holding society together by endowing it's agreed values and beliefs with sacredness and, through rituals, eter Worsley 1970 pg 475)
Harmony, common consent, unity, unanimity and agreement are common words used by the functionalist. If we all agree to peace and goodwill, have respect for each other and stick together and follow the guidelines set down for us by our ancestors we should all function well. We are what we are because of the social groups to which we belong. Thus, we are socialised in terms of the culture we know. Merton once said "We do not exist for ourselves" on cooperation. In other words we are here for others we reproduce in order to make the world go round.
Social control is one aspect of functionalism; we are kept in line by the mechanisms of social control.
Functionalism views society as a living organism such as the human body, the functioning of the human body depends on the heart, brain, lungs and other vital organs if any of these parts fail it would affect the entire body (society).
Functionalists believe consensus plays a bigger part in society than conflict. We need guidelines; we need social consciousness for each other. We need rules and regulations or we would have anarchy namely, conflict, dispute, quarrelling and feuding. ...
This is a preview of the whole essay
Social control is one aspect of functionalism; we are kept in line by the mechanisms of social control.
Functionalism views society as a living organism such as the human body, the functioning of the human body depends on the heart, brain, lungs and other vital organs if any of these parts fail it would affect the entire body (society).
Functionalists believe consensus plays a bigger part in society than conflict. We need guidelines; we need social consciousness for each other. We need rules and regulations or we would have anarchy namely, conflict, dispute, quarrelling and feuding. Which brings me to Marxism. Like functionalism Marx (1818-1883) sees society as a system, they both regard it as structural, the functionalist recognises the family and education and religion as the basis for the structure and Marxism sees society as a structure divided into two major parts, the economic base or infrastructure and the rest of society i.e. the political, legal and educational systems or superstructure.
Marx claimed that the infrastructure largely shapes the superstructure. As opposed to functionalism, Marxism believes conflict is the character of society and that social order is imposed by the rich and powerful and not on the basis of society.
This does not mean that members of society are constantly at war, but, means that there a basic conflicts of interests within society with some groups gaining at the expense of others, usually as a result of their stronger economic positions whereas Functionalists see society as interdependent and cooperative. Marx once said "The philosophers have already perceived the world in various ways; the point is to change it" from `The eleventh thesis on feuerbach`.
Marx considered human action to be an important feature of social structure and social change, this was more likely in groups rather than individual action, with classes, trade unions, workplace, organizations, political parties and lobby groups providing the setting within which human action took place. (Webber. Sociology 250. Internet). Marxism influence was strong in the working class. Class is understood within Marxism as what we might call a `social process`, as a holist Marx is able to claim that all social processes and institutions are supra individual to the extent that they determine individuals lives rather than vice-versa. (Sociology online 2003) For Marx, classes are social structures. Marxism sees class as an essential element of all societies as an essential aspect of the individuals' life. Class structure has changed only minutely in the last one hundred years!
Marx identified the two classes as the Bourgeoisie and the Proletariat. The bourgeoisie, also known as the owners are those who own the means of production and the Proletariat also known as the workers, are those who work with the means of production.
Marx sees the ruling class as the most dominant as they own the factories in which the working class are employed, thus the capitalist gets the work done and receives all the profits and therefore pay the workforce a wage. Its wealth comes from the exploitation of the workers. Workers produce wealth in the form of goods yet a substantial part is taken in the form of profits by the capitalist class. Marxism represents one version of conflict theory. In addition there are a number of versions of Marxism. Most versions of conflict theory take a structural or social systems approach. As such they have been criticised for being too deterministic, for portraying human behaviour as a product of the social system, for picturing people as largely unable to take initiatives and direct their own actions.
Which leads me to social action theory, which offers an alternative view on social life. Social action is based on free will. Social action focuses on what people do within the social structure, individual actions within small social groups thus the individuals direct their own actions rather than being constrained by the social system as opposed to the functionalist and the capitalist. So it sees society as constructed by the individuals rather than the other way round as opposed to the functionalist theory that sees people being a product of society, shaped by society. The similarity between functionalism and social action theory is that they both adhere to roles, norms and values only the latter uses them as flexible guidelines rather than inflexible directives.
The social action theorist does not conform to rules laid down by the society they live in but make up their own directives. They see the individual as solely in charge of their own actions and deal with their own consequences, but this does not mean that the social action theorist have no values. In any case, it is just about impossible for a human being to exist without any values at all, though, of course, there can be tremendous variations in the values one may hold, The social action theorist will normally have many values as a citizen, a private person, a member of a religious group or as an adherent of some other association of people. (P. Berger p.g15 1963).
From the social action theorist point of view on the roles and structure of Functionalism and Marxism is that they provide a framework for action but does not determine it, that is down to the individual who is in charge of their own destiny.
The interactionalist believes we should be able to use rational thought in order to work out our own concepts and solutions.
CONCLUSION
In my opinion all three sociological perspectives have their advantages and disadvantages. I think as a functionalist when it comes to the shared norms and values. I agree that we learn from what is shown to us in the manner that they are carried out thus imitating our elders. We look at the way our parents have been brought up and compare it with the way we have been brought up thus enabling us to bring our own children up accordingly. I believe we as a society should have respect for each other and conform to the rules laid down for us. I also agree with Marx's concept that we are labouring/creating beings, as we need to gain our fundamental needs i.e. food clothing and shelter without these all other human relations would fail.
We need to be socialized (a process that teaches roles and develops a self image). The economy shapes our culture and personality and teaches us to look out for number one and to work hard etc. (Early Stratification Theory internet 2003).
Freewill and rationalization I think is also very important to me, although I understand we need the basis of structures and economics but we also need to be able to make up our own minds and direct our own actions.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Berger, P. and Kellner, H. (1981) Sociology reinterpreted. U.K. Pelican books.
Class: An Introduction (internet) Available from: http://www.sociologyonline.co.uk/soc essays/class.htm accessed 29.10.03
Early Stratification Theory (internet) Available from: http://www.wise.virginia.edu/p_withen/reviews/ST/STRev/revSTO4earlystratth.html accessed 29.10.03
Weber, M. (1999) (internet) available from: http://uregina.ca/~gingrich/S30f99.htm accessed on 29.10.03
Worsley, P. (ED) (1970) The New Introducing Sociology Penguin books Middlesex impressing them upon society's members and renewing and reinforcing their attachment to them. (P
.
By Lynn Jenkins
