According to Marx (Haralambos & Holborn, op cit, xvi) the economic base of society or infrastructure is what shapes the non-economic aspects of society or superstructure, additionally the superstructure validates and legitimises the infrastructure. To Marx the economic base consisted of factories, land and raw materials. These were owned by the ruling class and were used to exploit the labour force of the proletariat. The relationship was seen as hostile and produced an unequal divide between the classes. Even though they are equally dependent on each other; the ruling class for the labour and the working class for the wage, the dependency was both unequal and unbalanced. The relationship (www.sociologyonline.co.uk) is exploitative as the working class have little control over how and where they work. The capitalist employers are able to generate huge profits from the working class.
Marx believed however that the conflict between the classes would, in time, erupt and the proletariat would recognise they were being exploited and rise against the bourgeoisie. Following the revolution a new era for society would emerge in which there would be no class system and the economy would be communal and fair.
In a functionalist society it is not conflict that forms the fundamental basis of society but consensus and harmony. One of the founding fathers of sociology, Emile Durkheim (Giddens, op cit, 8) saw society as a system akin to that of a human body. The major institutions within society such as the family, education system, religion and political systems were likened to the major organs of a body. These interdependent institutions work together and are seen primarily in terms of their relationship to the whole of society. Functionalists (Haralambos & Holborn, op cit, 938) argue that “the understanding of any organ in the body, such as the heart or lungs, involves an understanding of its relationship to other organs and, in particular, its contributions towards the maintenance of the organism”.
Talcott Parsons refined Durkheim’s theory further and argued (Haralambos & Holborn, op cit, 940) that society could be analysed in terms of four basic functional needs that society had to meet in order for it to function. These were known as functional prerequisites:-
Adaptation (Lawson & Garrod, 2003, 3) – how societies adapt to and shape their environment to meet their own needs for example, food and shelter has to be provided in order to meet the physical needs of its members.
Goal Attainment (Lawson & Garrod, op cit, 114) – this is the need for all societies to set goals in order to direct social activity. The institution of the government sets goals and allocates resources for their achievement.
Integration (Lawson & Garrod, op cit, 138) – This is the adjustment made in the social system for conflict. The legal system is the institution assigned to meet this need and the law standardises relationships between individuals to reduce the potential for conflict. Should conflict arise the courts will deal with it.
Pattern Maintenance (Lawson & Garrod, op cit, 150) – this is the maintenance of the basic pattern of values within society. Society works hard to ensure that these values are adhered to and controls those who challenge their existence. The institutions of family, religion and education perform this function.
Davis & Moore agreed that societies share certain functional prerequisites, one of which is role allocation. They argued (Haralambos & Holborn, op cit, 4) that all roles within a society must be filled by the right people and performed efficiently. The mechanism for role allocation is social stratification. People are rewarded for the roles they perform. The higher the functional importance of the role, the higher the reward will be.
From a functionalist perspective social stratification is inevitable and vital for the maintenance of the social system. Society is seen as a whole and the foundations are built around moral value consensus. The various institutions within society are seen to be working together in order to maintain order and stability for the benefit of everyone.
Although these theories start from the same place they go off in very different tangents when we look more closely at the major institutions that make up society.
When we look at the social institution of the family we can see from a functionalist perspective (Giddens, op cit, 175) that the family is viewed as offering “primary socialisation” and stability and is central to the maintenance of society. Marx, however, rejects this idea and sees the family as maintaining the imbalance of power. It produces unequal relationships and sustains the dominant ideology of the capitalist ruling class.
Functionalists see education as maintaining the social structure through “secondary socialisation”. Children are taught set values and norms and Durkheim (Haralambos & Holborn, op cit 692) viewed the educational system as a miniature society preparing children for the adult world. Marx, (Class Notes, 2005) again, rejected this idea and argued that education creates conflict and children are taught how to conform to the ways of a capitalist society.
Technology is viewed quite differently from each of these perspectives. Functionalists see it as advantageous and beneficial to society; Marx argues that it again maintains the imbalance of power between those who own the means of production and those who sell their labour.
Even religion is seen in a different way from these two perspectives. Durkheim studied religion at length throughout his career and principally saw it as a positive influence on society; Marx saw it as a “haven from the harshness of daily reality” and thought that in its traditional form would disappear from society. He argued (Giddens, op cit 537) that it teaches “the resigned acceptance of existing conditions in this life”
In conclusion the variations between the two theories are not as contradictory as one would first assume. They are both structural theories in that society is seen as a whole and there is no focus on the individual. They see human activity as a product of social structure and both place great emphasis on society being an external structure containing the individual. Although Marxist theory is one of class conflict within a capitalist society, it to be replaced by a more equal communist society and we can see that in this respect it is not that far removed from the functionalist approach of harmony and resolution.
Whilst it can be seen that there is indeed a divide between the perspectives in relation to the separate institutions within society, it is fair to say that all societies throughout history have a degree of consensus over values and at some point have had their fair share of conflict. Whether they are relevant to today’s society as separate perspectives remains to be seen and they are indeed best applied depending on the standpoint of the individual, in that elements of them are relevant whilst others are not. In the words of Anthony Giddens “societies can no longer be understood through the application of general theories”. If society is to be studied then it should be from a wide range of theories and approaches rather than just from the structuralist point of view.
REFERENCES
GIDDENS, A, 2001, Sociology. 4th Edition. Cambridge: Polity Press in assoc. with Blackwell Publishing Ltd
HARALAMBOS, M and HOLBORN, M. 2004. Sociology; Themes & Perspectives. 6th Edition. London: Harper Collins Publishers Ltd
FITZGERALD, A. 2005. Introduction to Durkheim. [online]. http://www.sociologyonline.co.uk/ soc_essays/DurkIntro.htm [Accessed 23 November 2005]
LAWSON, A and GARROD, J. 2003. Complete A – Z Sociology Handbook. 3rd Edition. London: Hodder Arnold.
