These functions or system requirements are often called functional prerequisites. This is based on the idea that society has basic survival needs. For example a means of producing food and shelter or a system for socialising new members of society may be regarded as prerequisites, as without food and shelter members of society would not survive. Similarly without socialisation, whereby new members learn the culture, language and values of their society, social life would become impossible. Therefore it is argued that the economic system is functional in that it provides food and shelter, while one of the major functions of the family is primary socialisation. [Haralambos & Holborn 6th ed.] This is supported by both Talcott Parsons and George Peter Murdock in their independent studies; Family Socialisation and Interaction process (1955) and Social Structures (1949), respectively.
As previously mentioned functionalists view compatibility or integration between the institutions as a functional prerequisite. They would argue that this is achieved through value consensus, whereby a general agreement about values is made between the members of society. This implies that if the important values of society are prominent within the various institutions, these institutions will be integrated. For example it is argued that materialism, as a value in Western society, integrates many institutions into the social system. [Haralambos & Holborn 6th ed.] The economy views productivity as its main goal, while the political system often legislates in favour of productivity and often concerns itself with improving material living standards and finally institutions, mainly the family and educational system, produce and teach the skills required to increase productivity and efficiency while, at the same time, consuming products of the economy and increasing the rate of demand. Thus they are all integrated on the basis of materialism.
Ideas of materialism and production are explored further and in more depth by weberian theorists and more significantly in Marxist based theories.
Marxism takes its name from its founder, a German-born philosopher, economist and sociologist by the name of Karl Marx (1818-83). This theory enjoyed most favour during the 1970’s and since his death has spawned several Marxist based theories. The writings of Karl Marx were also particularly influential upon the Bolsheviks, Lenin and the Russian revolution in the early 1900’s.
Marxism, like functionalism, can be regarded as a macro theory. Interested in structure based on inequality and oppression, therefore this approach is often described as a structural conflict theory. [Structural Conflict Theory, October 3, 2006]
It begins on the basis that humans must produce food and material goods in order to survive. To do so they enter into social relationships which correspond to the forces of production, that is the raw materials and technology employed in the production process, and the means of production which consists of the forces of production that can be legally owned, that includes the raw materials, machinery and land but not technical knowledge. [Haralambos & Holborn 6th ed.]
Taken together, the forces and relationships of production form the economic basis or what Marxists refer to as the infrastructure. Other aspects of society such as the family, political, educational and legal systems make up the superstructure which is largely shaped by the infrastructure. Therefore a change in the economy will result in a corresponding change in the superstructure. [Haralambos & Holborn 6th ed.]
Throughout his argument, Marx maintained that a basic conflict and contradiction, in the form of exploitation of one social group by another, has existed in a continuously evolving form in all historical societies. [Haralambos & Holborn 6th ed.] For example, in feudal societies lords exploited their serfs and similarly in capitalist societies today employers exploit their employees.
However, Marx believed that the major contradictions in society exist between the forces of production and the relationships of production. [Haralambos & Holborn 6th ed.] This is best illustrated in terms of the infrastructure of capitalist industrial society. Marx argued that wealth in capitalist societies is produced by the labour power of the workers. However the bulk of this wealth is appropriated in the form of profits by the capitalists who own the means of production. The wages which are paid by the capitalists in return for labour fall well below the value of wealth they produce.
Similarly Marx identifies a contradiction between the organisation of labour and the nature of ownership. For example in a capitalist society, the forces of production include the production of goods collectively by large numbers of workers, yet the means of production are privately owned and profits are collected by individuals. Thus the contradiction between forces and relations of production lies in the collective nature of production and the private nature of ownership. Marx believed this and other conflicts and contradictions within society would lead to the eventual downfall of the capitalist system as a resolution would remain unattainable within a capitalist economy. [Haralambos & Holborn 6th ed.]
Marx divided social history into different epochs each characterised by a particular mode of production. Therefore major changes in history are as a result of new forces of production. For example feudalism fell to the forces of production of industrial society, where the traditional ties of lord and vassal were no longer applicable. Eventually the new forces will create new relations of production, like waged labour in industrial society.
However in the full realisation of his theory, Marx saw the ‘final epoch of history’, [Haralambos & Holborn 6 th ed. Pxvi; Contradiction & Change.] that is the communist or socialist society that would eventually and inevitably replace capitalism, as developing from a resolution of the contradictions contained within the capitalist system, rather than developing from a new force of production.
In Marx’s own opinion the collective nature of production would remain in this new society but ownership of the means of production will also become collective and all members of society will share the wealth that their labour produces. [Haralambos & Holborn 6th ed.], creating an infrastructure containing no conflict or contradictions, in other words an egalitarian society.
Despite the contradictions highlighted by the Marxist theory, capitalism has remained strong in the West for over 200 years. According to Marxism this is largely due to the influence of the infrastructure over the superstructure. In particular the various institutions, beliefs and values found in the superstructure that reflect and reproduce the relationships of domination and subordination found in the infrastructure. Therefore, the ruling class, that is the owners of the means of production, will benefit from strong political support and laws ensuring their interests [Haralambos & Holborn 6th ed.]
Similarly, beliefs and values will reflect and reinforce the relations of production as members of the ruling class produce the dominant ideas in society. This is often referred to as the ruling class ideology. This is used to justify their power and privilege, creating a false picture of society that conceals exploitation and oppression as a basis of power. In other words creating a false class consciousness whereby members of society accept their situation as natural.
Thus under capitalism ideas of equality and freedom disguise the exploitation and oppression. The relationship between the bourgeoisie (the capitalist) and the proletariat (the worker) is seen to be one of equal exchange as the capitalist buys the labour power that the worker offers for hire therefore the worker is regarded as a free agent. However according to Marxism equality and freedom within the employer-employee relationship is an illusion since workers are forced to work for the capitalist in order to survive. Therefore workers are not free as they can merely exchange one form of ‘wage slavery’ for another. [Haralambos & Holborn 6th ed.]
Although extremely critical of capitalism, Marx saw it as an essential and inevitable stepping stone towards communism by developing the technology to free people from material need and providing enough goods to feed and clothe the population. He also believed, like functionalists that human societies can and will improve through rational and scientific thinking. [Haralambos & Holborn 6th ed.]
Marxism and functionalism share a number of broad ideas, for example they are both interested in explaining and interpreting social life. They do so under the broad umbrella of the structural perspective, meaning they are macro theories, interested in trends, social forces and in particular social structures. They view society as being more than the sum of its parts, shaping the individual rather than individuals shaping society and when analysing social systems both theories look at specific social institutions, social structures and social groups. This provides a historical perspective as they are analysing external forces, which allows for the employment of quantitative research methods such as official statistics, in support of their theories.
However, there are a large number of differences between the two theories. For example functionalists explain everything in terms of the function it performs in society, particularly the way in which it keeps the social system as a whole in good order. Marxist theorists are more interested in explaining society in terms of causes and development, for this reason Marxism is seen to be more dynamic.
Functionalism also argues that there is a value consensus which holds institutions and society together, in other words they believe a general agreement exists in society about which things are important and how things should be done. Marxists disagree with this analysis and argue that values are often imposed by powerful groups in society.
In terms of social life, functionalists believe norms and values to be the basic elements and suggest a dependence on commitments and solidarity for the maintenance of social life. Marxists would argue that interests are the basic elements of social life, which involves inducements and coercion and generates opposition, exclusion and hostility.
Finally, functionalism tends to view social systems as persistent and regard the class system and capitalism to be vital whereas Marxism as a more dynamic theory can see the potential for change as well as being highly critical of both the class stratification system and capitalism.
In conclusion there are a number of theories interested in explaining and interpreting social life, Marxism and functionalism are just two of these theories. Others include feminism, the new right, new left realism, weberian theory, and symbolic interactionism, to name but a few. Each theory is individual in its own right however there are a number of similarities, for example between functionalism and the new right.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
HARALAMBOS, Michael. HOLBORN, Martin & HEALD, Robin. (2004). Sociology Themes and Perspectives. 6th edition. London. Collins educational
Imagining The Social at, [September 12, 2006]
Introduction To Sociology at, CHRIS.LIVESY: [October 10, 2006]
INVERNESS COLLEGE. Scottish Further Education Unit;
Introduction to Sociological Theory. [September 19, 2006]
INVERNESS COLLEGE. Class Supplement; Structural Conflict Theory. [October 3, 2006]
INVERNESS COLLEGE. Class Supplement; The Consensus Perspective. [October 3, 2006]
MURDOCK, George. Rupert. (1949). Social structures.
PARSONS, Talcott. (1955). Family Socialistion and Interaction Process.
Theory & Methods; Functionalism at, CHRIS.LIVESY: [October 17, 2006]