A Functionalist’s perspective in contrast believes in consensus within society. Functionalism is often related with thoughts of Émile Durkheim (1858 – 1917), a French sociologist. He used biological, organic analogies to explain society as a whole. To maintain the whole organism/system (i.e. society) it is vital that all its parts work smoothly together. These maintaining parts can also be named basic societal needs, or according to Haralambaros and Holborn (2000) functional prerequisites. The term functional hence refers to the contribution of each basic societal need to maintain the society’s existence. What are these functional prerequisites? All large-scale units like family, education, religion, sport, etc. For example the family’s contribution to maintain society is to reproduce new members as well as socialising them. The educational system will educate all members. The function of sport within society will be explained separately later on in this essay.
In order of all parts working together smoothly and efficiently the society is based, shaped and maintained by co-operation, agreement as well as common sense and common values (like democracy, equality, opportunities, Christian moral values etc.). All together these form a collective conscience that holds society together. This collective conscience is then transmitted through the above mentioned large-scale units. All individuals in society have shared goals aswell as social connections between the individuals are promoted.
In a Functionalist’s perspective of class, social stratification is formed by meritocracy. The individual’s opportunities are not attached to class, gender, etc. but to its own skills which can be improved by training and education. But for a modern industrial society, it requires different skills and abilities in order to achieve effective performance; role differentiation is necessary too. Motivating the members of the society to perform even less important or menial occupations in order to maintain society is vital and this can be achieved by rewarding.
Within these two sociological perspectives it is fairly obvious that problems occur.
The Marxist’s perspective is dominantly based on economic factors and over emphasises them; money is assumed to be everything within society and social life. This in turn leads to assumptions that those owning the productive and therefore economic resources are given the power and use it to control those without to maintain their hegemony. Further factors that can form and shape society like gender, ethnicity, age, culture etc. are not taken into consideration and neglected. Hence the Marxist perspective focuses on ‘having’ versus ‘not having’, ‘earning’ versus ‘not earning’ and ‘powerful’ versus ‘powerless’.
As the Functionalist’s view of society is based on value consensus, this view implements society being a unified system where every individual and member agrees to the same beliefs, norms and values. It has not taken into consideration that the collective conscience will let some members feel constrained as it is assumed that the needs of the society will meet the needs of each individual. Consequently the
individual has to act robot-like as it is assumed to be beneficial for the maintenance of society. Functionalism hence does not show the possibility of individuality within society, as the individuals behaviour is formed throughout the collective conscience. Functionalism aswell over-emphasises the positive and explains instability within society only insufficiently. Crime and murder rates do show that not all members can go along with the value consensus. The only explanation given for deviant behaviour is that the deviant individual will test out how much the borders of the value consensus can be extended. That in turn would have beneficial aspects for the whole social order as these borders can then be identified and possibly tightened or extended, as much as necessary for a stable social order.
Both perspectives, Marxist and Functionalist do not only have negative aspects but positive and beneficial ones as well, especially when applied to sport.
Marxism tries to identify which sports are accessible to whom. Therefore participation rates will be examined. A recent example: in contemporary British society class differences regarding participation rates in different sports can be found. The higher the social class, the more likely the individual is to be more active and to attend a sports event. The explanation therefore: a lack of resources in finances and availability of those in the working class. Affected sports are walking, jogging, swimming, weight-lifting, snooker, and soccer. (Abercrombie et al, 2000). Even though not listed in that research, those sports traditionally considered to be upper class like polo, golf and equitation should be regarded too, as the equipment and
availability for the working class is again limited due to lack of resources, especially financial resources.
Furthermore a Marxist focuses on the distribution of power in sport: Who has got the power and why? Inequality can again be identified. Sport is determined and shaped by the economic system in the hands of the powerful Bourgeoisie and does yet again promote the interest of those: increasing capital, maintaining power and privileges.
Besides labour, sport is another tool of exploiting the working class as sport is just another form of controlling the society through a form of popular entertainment respectively giving access to certain sports only to certain, volitional members.
Concentration on ongoing commercialisation in and of sport is another key issue within Marxism and sport. Having identified that turning leisure into a marketing product is just another form of financial exploitation. Merchandising, ticket sales, turning clubs into a public limited companies and sponsorship are a further source of making profit. Not the sport or event itself will dominate, in fact media coverage, print and tv media, will have influence, for example the organisation of an event and the broadcasting times will have to coincide to make the most profit. The prices for broadcasting rights and player transfers have explosively increased and show again the influence of money in the sports world.
A very recent example of money and its impact on sport is The England and Wales Cricket Board’s decision to send its players to a World Cup match in Zimbabwe regardless political concerns due to the dictatorship of president Mugabe and the possible propaganda impact the match might have. Fearing a sever £1m penalty, the loss of sponsorship and broadcasting money, the monetary aspect has become too
powerful to decline a match of such political importance; notabene: politics do influence sport nowadays too.
A further example of commercialisation of sport and changing the nature of a sport could be the critical look at horse-racing. Instead of enjoying the ride itself in the nature, horse-racing has become a competitive and very profitable industry for bookmakers as well as for established horse-racing television channels which have increasingly arisen. Making money out of horse-racing, the wealthy have established an upper class sport within the working class, as they are the majority to spend their money on, just to increase their capital yet again, a Marxist would argue.
Although the Marxists perspective is aware of inequalities resulting from money in sport, it fails to recognise that sport can have for individuals other possibilities such as creativeness and provision of challenging experiences.
In contrast to a Marxist’s view of sport, Functionalists outline different meanings to sport. In general, sport is one part of the Functionalists view in maintaining a society as a whole, it attempts to strengthen a ‘social togetherness’ regardless of social borders. Therefore a Functionalist will look at the contribution of sport towards an individual’s personal development.
Firstly, sport has a socio-emotional function for members of the society. They will be able to build up friendship and comradeship. Individuals can release energy and manage their tensions and tempers in a societal acceptable way as sport does underline traditional values like competition, success, etc.
Secondly sport has an integrative function. It brings people with similar interests together, creates a feeling of allegiance through regular meetings and training sessions and leads them to become a contributive member towards society.
Thirdly sport will contribute to the individuals socialisation. It prepares to cope with challenges, teaches basic values, norms and beliefs, positive ones like teamwork and support of weaker members. Societal acceptable goals and how to reach them will be taught aswell.
Fourthly and as a result of the socio-emotional, integrative and socialising functions, sport will empower the individual to improve its own social mobility through its own skills and abilities which can be improved.
Furthermore, sport has a sanitary function to society as it beneficially contributes towards members health.
In conclusion of all these aspects, the number of organised sport events and programmes has intensively increased, especially for younger people who can be, due to their age, be well influenced in becoming a healthy and functional member of the society.
Besides all these positive aspect a Functionalist attaches to sport, the perspective does not take account of negative factors or aspects.
Over-emphasising the positive it is assumed that through sport only positive and societal acceptable norms and values are transmitted. Unfortunately deviant behaviour occurs in sport too, through cheating and illegal performance-enhancing drugs. Those using these devices will be punished and regarded as anti-social. A good example is Ben Johnson, the Canadian sprinter who won a gold medal in the
1988 summer Olympic games in Seoul in a new world record time, but was shortly afterwards positively tested on doping. He had to face a sever fine besides the moral punishment and humiliation and is still regarded as a very impressive example of deviant behaviour in sport, especially after he was tested positive again in 1993.
Frustration created through defeat is also unacceptable within Functionalism.
The commercialisation of sport within this perspective is unfortunately totally neglected.
It is assumed aswell that personal needs go along with the societal needs. Conflict created through inequalities in terms of lack of finances, no participation possibilities , is not taken into account aswell as neglecting further influencing factors like gender, age and ethnicity. Sport can furthermore be seen as a social construction, created to define one’s own respectively a certain group’s interests.
As conclusion about both perspectives it can be said: Marxism ‘stresses the lack of fit between the different societal parts’, e.g. sport, and therefore focuses on conflict caused primarily by money. Functionalism in contrast ‘stresses the extent to which the different parts fit together harmoniously’’ (Haralambos and Holborn, 2000
p.1032). Marxism seems to be a social utopia as a society without exploitation is not realistic whereas Functionalism is a too positive way to describe society, neglecting individual’s needs and further influencing factors. Sport can obviously not only be seen through a Marxist’s or Functionalist’s view but it will benefit if both views are put
together to solve the negative aspects of each perspective, this could then form a theory to describe the society today.
Reference list:
GIDDENS, A. (2001) Sociology 4th ed. Cambridge. Polity Press.
HARALAMBOS, M. and HOLBORN, M. (2000) Sociology Themes and Perspectives 5th ed. London. HarperCollins Publishers Limited.
MARSHALL, G. (1998) Oxford Dictionary of Sociology 2nd ed. pp. 378-379 Oxford. Oxford University Press.
ABERCROMBIE, N. et al (2000) The Penguin Dictionary of Sociology 4th ed. London. Penguin Books.
ABERCROMBIE, N. et al (2000) Contemporary British Society 3rd ed. pp. 359-362 Cambridge. Polity Press.
COAKLEY, J J. (1994) Sport in society-Issues and Controversies 5th ed. pp.27-51 Madison, Brown and Benchmark.
KELSO, P. and HOPPS, D. (2003). January 11. England set to play in Zimbabwe The Guardian-Sport. P.14
SociologyOnline [online]. Available at:
<URL: http://www.sociologyonline.co.uk> [Accessed 12 January 2003]
Sociological Theories [online]. Available at:
<URL: http://www.coe.unt.edu/kweiller/sociological_theories.htm>
[Accessed 12 January 2003]
<URL:http://www.longroad.ac.uk/accreditation_project/subject_sociology/booklets/class_identity.pdf > [Accessed 12 January 2003]
Map of Sociological Theory [online]. Available at:
<URL: http://www.hewett.norfolk.sch.uk/curric/soc/Theory.htm>
[Accessed 12 January 2003]
Ben Johnson [online]. Available at:
<URL: http://www.infoplease.com/ipsa/A0109318.html>
[Accessed 12 January 2003]