Talcott Parsons was heavily influenced by Durkheim, synthesising much of his work into his theory. Parsons’ wanted to develop a grand theory of society, but he began by examining the individual and their actions. He stated that “the social system is made up of the actions of individuals.” His starting point was the interaction between two individuals. Those individuals were faced with a variety of choices about how they might act. However, those choices are influenced willis and constrained by a number of physical and social factors. Parsons determined that each individual has expectations of the other’s action and reaction to their own behaviour, and that these expectations are derived from the accepted norms and values of the society which they inhabit . These social norms are generally accepted and agreed upon. As the behaviours are repeated in more interactions and these expectations are entrenched or institutionalized a role is created. Parsons defines a role as the “normatively regulated, participating of a person in a concrete process of social interaction with specific, concrete role-partners” Although any individual (theoretically) can fulfill any role, they are expected to conform to the norms governing the nature of the role they fulfill. Furthermore, one person fulfills many different roles at the same time. In one sense an individual can be seen to be a “composition” of the roles in which they inhabit. Certainly today, when asked to describe themselves most people would answer with reference to their roles in society.
Parsons then developed the idea of roles into collectivities of roles that complemented each other in fulfilling functions for society [Parsons, 1961:41]. Some of the roles are bound up in institutions and social structures, such as economic, educational, legal, and even gender structures. These structures are functional in the sense they assist society to operate and fulfill its functional needs so that the society runs smoothly. A society where there is no conflict, where everyone knows what is expected of them, and where these expectations are constantly being met, is in a perfect state of equilibrium. The key processes for Parsons in attaining this equilibrium are socialization and social control. Socialization is important because it is the mechanism for transferring the accepted norms and values of a society to the individuals within the system. Perfect socialisation occurs when these norms and values are completely internalized, that is they become part of the individual’s personality. Parsons states, “this point, it should be made clear, is independent of the sense in which individual is concretely autonomous or creative rather than ’passive’ or ‘conforming’, for individuality and creativity, are to a considerable extent, phenomena of the institutionalization of expectations”, that is they are culturally constructed characteristics. Socialization is supported by the positive and negative sanctioning of role behaviours which do or do not meet these expectations A punishment could be informal, such as a snigger or gossip, or more formalized through institutions such as prisons and mental institutions. If these two processes were perfect then society would become static and unchanging, and in reality this is unlikely to occur for long.
Parsons recognizes this, stating that he treats “the structure of the system as problematic and subject to change” and that his concept of the tendency towards equilibrium “does not imply the empirical dominance of stability over change”. He does however believe that these changes occur in a relatively smooth way. Individuals in interaction with changing situations adapt through a process of “role bargaining”. Once the roles are established, they create norms that guide further action and are thus institutionalized, creating stability across social interactions. Where the adaptation process cannot adjust, due to sharp shocks or immediate radical change, structural dissolution occurs and either new structures (and therefore a new system) are formed, or the society dies. This model of social change has been described as a “moving equilibrium” and does emphasize a desire for social order therefore Parsons is saying that the indidvidual makes society not society makes the individual therefore parsons is saying that the education system does not reinforce social solidarity the students do but the aim of the education system is to reinforce social solidarity.
However there are groups that disagree with the fuctionalist theses groups include the Feminists, the new right and the Marxists. The feminists believe that they are not treated equal within the educaton system they argue that the male students get priority over the classrooms and the feminists have also found that the education system constructs gender identity. Anne Oakley identifies two of these processes, she identifies manipulation and canalisation. Manipulation is the way in which parents encourage or discourage behaviour on the basis of appropriateness for the childs sex for example telling a daughter off for fighting or telling a son off for crying. Another gender construction is canalisation this is the way in which parents channel the children’s intrests into toys and activities that are seen as ‘normal’ for that sex for example buying a female doll for a female child, or taking a male child go-karting. Oakley believes that by the age of five, most children have a clear gender identity they know what gender they belong to and they have a clear idea about what constitiutes appropriate behaviour for that gender. For feminists the education system continues this socialisation process of constructing gender identity, they also argue that the education system socialises girls to accpet patriachy and reproduces gender sterotypes.
There are also Marxists that disagree with the above statement, Marxists such as Bowles and Gintis argue that Durkhiem assumes that the norms and values transmitted by the education systema are those of society as a whole rather then those of the ruling elite or ruling class. They also argue that the ‘correspondence principle’ explains how the internal organisation of schools corresponds to the internal organisation of the capitalist workforce in its structures, norms and values. For example, the hierarchy system in schools reflects the structure of the labour market, with the head teacher as the managing director, pupils fall lower down in the hierarchy. Wearing uniforms, and discipline is promoted as it would be in the workplace. Education provides knowledge of how to interact in the workplace and gives direct preparation for entry into the labour market.
In conclusion functionalist face tough opposition about what they believe about the social structure of the education system and althogh the Marxists and feminists and all the other opponets argue againts what the functionalists say there is no right or wrong way to look at this no matter whether you look at this from a marxists view a feminist view or a functionalist view you will still find someone who disagrees with your view therefore overall there is some truth in what all the sociologist believe but so far there is not proof what so ever that one set of sociologist are right and the others are wrong.
