Functionalists like Parsons believe too little crime or deviance is seen as a threat to social order as this indicates that the values and norms are so strong, they prevent the change necessary for a healthy society. However Marx believes crime is rational and it does make sense in a ‘dog eat dog’ society (Horalambus and Holborn, 1990. P629), where competition is the order of the day and individuals must fend for themselves in order to survive.
Marxists think that all individuals are defined as social failures that are responsible for their own criminal activities. Blame and condemnation are directed at the individual rather than the institutions of capitalism. Functionalists believe that if a person breaks significant rules they will be publically condemned, this is thought to reaffirm norms and values but it also helps people unite against the criminals.
Functionalist sociologists such as Parsons sometimes imply that criminal and deviant behaviour are the result of forces beyond the individuals control, i.e. people at the bottom of the class system are forced to turn to crime. Marx believe however, pressures to break the law will affect people across the social class from wealthy business people to the poverty stricken unemployed.
Marxists and Functionalists both have different views on crime and deviance. They share very little in common, however they do agree that society shapes the individual, not the individual that shapes society. What is meant by this is that we are all products of our upbringings. Individuals learn through socialisation at home with the family and continuing onto school and then work.
Marxism and functionalism both have very different views where the family is concerned although they do both agree on the nuclear family. Functionalist's sees the family as very positive for society where as Marxists sees the family is negative because the rich can afford to give their children a better start in life more than the poor.
According to Murdock, a functionalist family is universal because it fulfils four essential functions for society, sexual, reproductive, economic and educational; this is also the same for individuals. Engels rejects this as “Marxists see the family as part of the superstructure of society and is thus one of a number of institutions which serve the needs of and help to maintain the infrastructure or economic system” (Taylor, Richardson, Yeo, Marsh, Trobe and Pilkington, 1998. P238).
A functionalist’s theory on family within a society is based on the assumption that society operates on the basis of consensus and that there is a tendency towards equilibrium (balance) between the various parts of society. Marxists however reject the functionalist’s view that society is based on value consensus and therefore operates for the benefit of all.
Marx argues that it is the scientific requirements of the capitalist mode of production which has shaped the development of the family rather than industrialisation. Whereas Durkheim argued that the family prepares children to become adult workers and take on roles in the economy to support themselves and dependants. This is done through two classes of socialisation, primary and secondary. Primary socialisation is dealt with by the family during childhood learning them norms and values also moulding their personalities. Secondary socialisation is done by schooling and peer groups when the family become less involved.
Marxism and functionalism both have agreement and differences when it comes to education. A functionalist’s view on education focuses on the positive contributions made by education to the maintenance of the social system whereas a Marxists claims that education is free to develop in its own way, and that it is influenced by many social groups but is still determined by the economy.
A functionalist’s view on education tends to focus on the positive contributions made by education to the maintenance of the social system, but Marxists claims that education is free to develop in its own way and is influenced by many social groups; they believe education is still determined by the economy.
Emile Durkheim has stated that “by respecting the school rules, the child learns to respect rules in general, that he develops the habit of self control and restraint simply because he should control and restrain himself” (Horalambus and Holborn, 1990. P230). Like functionalists, Marxist also believes this as well. They say that it is vital to teach of rules and good behaviour as this helps with the reproduction process (accessed 09/12/09).
Functionalism and Marxism also see eye to eye in that education teaches individuals specific skills necessary for future occupations. Talcott Parsons sees the educational system as an important tool for the selection of individuals for their future role in society. Marxist also believes this and says that education prepares children to accept their future exploitation and gives them qualifications to match their adult work roles.
Functionalists believe that individuals must learn to cooperate with people who are neither their kin nor their friend. This experience prepares that person for interaction with members of society as a whole in terms of societies rules where as a conflict perspective on education, in contrast, are based upon the view that groups within existing societies have fundamentally different interests.
‘Stratification’ or ‘class’ as it is otherwise known, is a big aspect of what Marxism is all about and is central to the Marxist theory. Functionalists however, say little about social strata as their members have shared interests. Marxism also provides a radical alternative to the functionalist’s view of the nature of social stratification.
Functionalists assume that society has certain basic needs which must be met if it is to survive. They look at social stratification to see how far it meets the functional prerequisites. Whereas from Marxist perspective, the system of social stratification derives from the relationships of social groups to the means of production.
Parsons sees social stratification as both inevitable and functional. Inevitable because it derives from shared values which are a necessary part of all social systems and functional because it serves to integrate various groups in society. Marx however sees class as a social group whose members share the same relationship to the means of production. Marxists also focus on social strata rather than social inequality.
Functionalists have found that inequalities of power and prestige benefit all members of society because they serve to further collective goals which are based on shared values. On the other hand though, the functionalists views of stratification has been heavily criticised e.g. Tumin 1967.
When functionalists attempt to explain systems of social stratification, they set explanations in the framework of larger theories which seek to explain the operation of society as a whole. Functionalist also assume that the parts of society form an integral whole and so examine the ways in which the social stratification system is integrated with other parts of society. Marxists on the other hand, regard stratification as a diverse rather than an integrated structure. They see it as a mechaninsm where bye some exploit others rather than a means of furthering collective goals.
In the capitalist era, there were two main classes, the bourgeoisie and the proleteriat. The bourgeoisie class owned the means of production whereas the proleteriat class owned the labour, which they hired out to the bourbeoisie class in return for wages. Functionalists however like Talcott Parsons indicate that stratification exists solely to satisfy the functional prerequisites necessary for functional proficiency in any society.
Marx also believed that western society had developed throught four main epochs (periods of time) which were primitive communism, ancient society, feudal society and capitalist society. Within these four epochs were again two classes. In ancient society there was masters and slaves, in feudal society there was lords and surfs, in capitalist society there was capitalist and wage labourers, lastly in primitive communism classes didnt exist. Marx believed that aspects of capitalist society would eventually lead to the proleteriat developing into a class for itself. However the functionalist Saunders suspects that the abolition of unequal rewards would act as a disincentive to the entrepreneureship and innovation.
To conclude Marxism and functionalism are two very different theories as you would expect with them being conflict and none conflict although they do have a few similarities. These two theories, like many others, are constantly being looked at and trying to be proven to be fact as they are still only ideas. In a way this still might not happen for hundreds of years because time is constantly changing and evolving as every second passes. Both theories have very good arguments but also have some bad ones. No doubt in time, these theories will be dominant again.
The way in which Functionalists collect their data and do their research is completely different compared to that of marxists. Functionalist use the qualititive and quantative methods whereas marxists try to stick with the way Karl Marx collected his data which is called the dialetical method. To summarise, functionalism generally views society as a stable system and looks for the mechanisms that give it harmony always seeking to reduce conflict. Marxism however, views society as one of being class dominant with competition being the order of the day.
Compare and Contrast any TWO sociological theories and briefly evaluate them.
By Mark Cannan.
Bibliography
Reference Books,
-
Horalambus, M. and Holborn, M., (1990). Sociology – Themes and Perspectives, 3rd Edition. Unwin Hayman Ltd.
-
Taylor, P., Richardson, J., Yeo, A., Marsh, I., Trobe, K., Pilkington, A., (1998). Sociology in Focus. Causeway Press Ltd.
Electronic Sources,
-
(Accesses 09/12/09).
- Word Count 2,048 words.