Category: Functionalism

This paper looks upon the structural functional approach in relation to the problems of sex and gender. The theory serves to explain why men and women have unequal roles in the society, the fact that nowadays, with the onset of feminism and equal opportunities, is more and more seen as a problem and an injustice. Structural functional approach presupposes that gender roles are determined by societal expectations that are formed in the process of social interaction within society; therefore, these roles are socially imposed and nurtured.

Parsons and the concept of separation of instrumental and expressive functions in the family played a leading role in American sociology until the early 70s of the XX century. The structural-functional approach to understanding the relations between the sexes was reflected in the joint monograph by Parsons and Bales. This approach has become paradigmatic, being called gender-role. At the center of the gender role theory of socialization is the process of learning and internalization of cultural and normative standards that stabilize society (Parsons and Bales 37-42). Learning involves the assimilation and reproduction of existing norms. The background of this concept is the idea of a person as a relatively passive entity that perceives, assimilates cultural reality, but does not create it itself.

According to this approach, a woman performs an expressive role in the social system, a man  an instrumental one. Expressive role means, in modern terms, the exercise of caring, emotional work, maintaining the psychological balance of the family. This role is the monopoly of the housewife, belongs to the sphere of responsibility of the woman. The instrumental role of a man is to regulate relations between the family and other social systems, this is the role of a breadwinner and protector. Types of role behavior are determined by social status, role stereotypes are assimilated in the process of socialization and internalization of norms, or role expectations. The correct performance of the role is ensured by a system of rewards and punishments, positive and negative reinforcements.

The allotment of an expressive role to a woman and an instrumental one to a man is explained by the attachment of young children to their mother. A strong bond between mother and children is formed that is why the father has the only option of performing an instrumental role, that is to ensure effective interaction of a family with society (Parsons and Bales 67-70). Moreover, primary role of a man is seen in providing for the family. A mans professional activity is extremely important for the family not only because it is the main source of material support for the family, but also because the amount of income and prestige of a mans work determine the social status, standard and lifestyle of the family as a whole.

At the same time, the initial basis of the gender-role approach is the implicit recognition of the biological determinism of roles, referring to the Freudian idea of innate masculine and feminine principles. These principles serve well to explain why the problem of gender roles still exists today. Indeed, seen as an inalienable part of natural development of men and women alike, innate stances may well govern the societal perception of mans and womens roles. Since these principles are viewed as predetermined, they are not changed along the changes that take place in the society and remain intact to this day.

Parsons recognizes that there is a contradiction between the basic values of modern society and the inequality of men and women in the structure of employment. If some women are committed to the core values of equality and the importance of working outside the home, they may be dissatisfied with their subordinate position, and modern feminism is an expression of this dissatisfaction. The solution to gender problem, according to structural functional approach, lies with the fact that women should find occupations that would allow them to gain confidence without undermining the dominant role of men in society. Women may become professional housewives and do charity work to satisfy their craving for social recognition.

Advocates of structural functional approach believe that gender roles are predetermined by societal expectations and, simultaneously, derived from inner principles of men and women. According to the theory, men are seen as providers for the family while women are allotted the roles of mothers and housewives. Nowadays, this theory has largely been reconsidered. However, it may still be instrumental in helping to resolve gender problems through the system of positive and negative reinforcements, when women, for example, get additional monetary rewards for their instrumental role within society and family.

Work Cited

Parsons, Talcott, and Robert Bales. Glencoe. The Free Press, 1955.

Introduction

According to De Souza (2018), Durkheim defined the concept of division of labor as follows: a way of investigating the moral consequences of the growing complexity within modern societies (p. 655). An example of that concept, in this case, is the process of drug manufacturing, distributing, and medical care and information providing. From this perspective, every worker is able to use and master one particular set of skills (Theoretical Perspectives on Society, n.d).

Durkheim explained that mechanical solidarity is the type of social order maintained by the phenomenon of collective cultural consciousness on familiar actions basis, and it unites preindustrial societies (Theoretical Perspectives on Society, n.d). Nevertheless, organic solidarity is the order based on acceptance of economic and social distinguishes and it replaces the previous one in industrial societies. Durkheim defined social anomie as a situation when a community does not have the support of a firm collective consciousness, which leads to chaos (Theoretical Perspectives on Society, n.d). It can be avoided by a set of shared norms redeveloping.

Karl Marx: Pandemic and Conflict theory

According to Theoretical Perspectives on Society (n.d), Karl Marx defined the concept of conflict theory as follows: society is in a state of perpetual conflict because of competition for resources (Karl Marx and Conflict Theory). An example of that concept, in this case, is the struggle to access necessary material resources to ensure safe existence during the pandemic. In accordance with the theory, capitalism is considered a negative tendency, leading to economic and social inequity. This order is a way of economy organizing resources that belong mostly to individual people and companies than to the government, which is the reason that supports the mentioned claim.

Exploitation is the phenomenon that implies forcing laborers to sell their work powers to capitalists (Theoretical Perspectives on Society, n.d). It leads to a conflict between classes in terms of efficiency, as the labor is purchased for less than the full value of alternatively produced commodities. Karl Marx proposed that the false order should be replaced with class consciousness (Theoretical Perspectives on Society, n.d). Therefore, conflicts result in the overthrow of capitalism with the following establishments of the new order called Communism.

Weber: Pandemic and Bureaucracy

According to Serpa and Ferreira, Max Weber defined the concept of bureaucracy as follows: phenomenon of affirmation of the rationalization of the world (p. 12). An example of that concept, in this case, is managing the pandemic through sets of rules and regulations establishing and reconsidering the most significant specialization of labor. Utilitarian or remunerative organizations are focused on providing financial or other personal benefits (Barkan, 2011). The typical instances of such units are business ones, which participate in resource creation directly. The other examples are educational facilities, which benefit both people working at them and students.

Normative or voluntary organizations enable fulfilling individuals moral necessities (Barkan, 2011). Instances of them are churches and civic and political objectives groups. Coercive organizations are units, participation in which is not voluntary, and their members are people who violated the law or have been approved to be mentally ill (Barkan, 2011). Common instances of them are prisons and psychiatric institutions, which assist in maintaining order within society. Max Weber defines such a situation when people have to act without thinking only according to rules as an iron cage, in which individuals are trapped (Theoretical Perspectives on Society, n.d).

Weber: Pandemic and Types of Authority

Max Weber developed a classification system for authority. The first type, called the rational-legal one, has the power to manage on a legitimate basis in accordance with written rules and regulations (Reading: Types of authority, n.d). The second type is the charismatic one, based on a leaders personal qualities and abilities to inspire and lead. Weber claims that such individuals have power for short durations and have equal chances to be either heroic or tyrannical. The last type of authority is the traditional one, and its legitimacy is based on an entrenched state of affairs. One common instance is the monarchy, in which power is inherited according to the acknowledged centuries ago rules.

References

Barkan, S. (2011). Sociology: Understanding and changing the social world. The University of Minnesota Libraries Publishing.

De Souza, L. G. da C. (2018). Division of labour in Durkheim, Marx and Honneth: Contributions to a political economy of recognition. Civitas  Revista De Ciências Sociais, 18(3), 654668. Web.

Reading: Types of authority. (n.d.) Lumen. Web.

Serpa, S., & Ferreira, C. M. (2019). The concept of bureaucracy by Max Weber. International Journal of Social Science Studies, 7(2), 1218. Web.

Theoretical perspectives on society. (n.d.) Lumen. Web.

Question: Discuss any theory of regionalism/ regional integration

Introduction

What is regionalism?

In politics, regionalism is a political-ideological system that focuses on the national or normative enthusiasm of a specific locale, gathering of districts or another subnational element. These might be depicted by political division, managerial division, social limits, etymological areas, and strict topography, among others. Regionalism targets expanding the political power and impacting access to all or a few inhabitants of an area. Regionalist demand happens in solid structures, for example, sway, nonconformity, severance, and freedom, just as increasingly moderate battles for more noteworthy self-rule (, for example, states’ privileges, decentralization, or devolution).

Regionalists, in the exacting feeling of the term, support confederations over unitary countries and states with solid focal governments. They may be that as it may, uphold additional forms of federalism. Proponents of regionalism ordinarily guarantee that reinforcing the governing bodies and political powers inside a district, at the costs of a focal, national government, will profit nearby populaces by improving territorial or neighborhood economies, as far as better monetary duties, local improvement, allotment of assets, execution of nearby approaches and plans, intensity among areas and at last, the entire nation. For a portion of its adversaries’ regionalism is related to particularism or against universalism, while for other people, it is an opponent type of patriotism.

Neofunctionalism

Among the past theories of regional integration, neo-functionalism is perceived both in its multifaceted nature and want and in the proportion of investigation that it has pulled in. The speculation was first characterized in the late 1950s and mid-1960s generally through the works of Ernst Haas and Leon Lindberg in light of the establishment of the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) and the European Economic Community (EEC). The hypothesis was at its prime until the mid-1960s, during which time the development of European coordination appeared to vindicate its suspicions. In a matter of seconds before the distribution of Haas’ fundamental book, The Uniting of Europe, in 1958, collaboration on coal and steel under the ECSC had ‘overflowed’ into the EEC and the European Atomic Energy Community. In the late 1960s and mid-1970s, neofunctionalists made endeavors to reconsider a portion of their speculations and cases, yet in the mid-1970s Haas proclaimed the hypothesis to be ‘old’. With the resurgence of the European combination process in the mid-1980s, be that as it may, neo-functionalism made a significant rebound. Since the 1990s, a few undertakings have been made to recently amend the first approach.

Neofunctionalism discovers its scholarly predecessors at the crossroads between functionalist, federalist, and correspondences speculations, while likewise drawing by implication on the ‘group scholars’ of American legislative issues. Haas and Lindberg, the two most powerful and productive neo-functionalism authors, joined functionalist components with federalist objectives. Like functionalism, neo-functionalism centers around the systems of technocratic essential power, dynamic change, and learning structures. In any case, despite the manner in which the hypothesis has been named neo-functionalism, this is in certain regards a case of ‘worked up character’ (cf. Groom man 1978), since it hauled back all-around from Mitrany’s functionalism (Mitrany 1966, 1975). While functionalists held that structure, expansion, and inspiration driving an affiliation were constrained by the task that it was planned to fulfill, neofunctionalists added significant significance to the free effect of supranational foundations and the creating employment of sorted out interests.

Neofunctionalism offers no single legitimate meaning of combination. Its experts have updated their definitions after some time. Both Haas and Lindberg held incorporation to be a procedure rather than a result or end state. They likewise concurred that integration included the creation and job extension of territorial organizations. Moreover, they both stressed changes in expectations and activities on the part of participating actors. However, Haas defined regional integration as ‘the process whereby political actors in several distinct national settings are persuaded to shift their loyalties, expectations and political activities toward a new center, whose institutions possess or demand jurisdiction over the pre-existing national states. The result of a process of political integration is a new political community, superimposed over the pre-existing ones.

Haas joined functionalism with motivation from Jean Monnet’s even-minded way to deal with European combinations. In spite of the functionalists, Haas and his devotees took a gander at local incorporation, not all-inclusive, and they comprehended the combination procedure as political, not only useful or technocratic. Haas’ unique foundation conditions for regional integration were that the substances ought to have pluralistic social structures, be significant financial and modern created, and there ought to be a typical ideological example among participating units. At the end of the day, Haas’ methodology was restricted to clarifying integration in pluralistic vote-based systems.

In his collaboration with Philippe Schmitter, Haas attempted to extricate the theory’ nearby authoritative to the European incorporation venture and give neo-functionalism general applicability. The outcome was a model with foundation conditions (size of the unit, pace of exchanges, level of pluralism, tip-top complementarity); conditions at the hour of monetary association (administrative reason, powers, and elements of the new organizations), and procedure conditions (style of basic leadership, development pace of exchanges, on-screen characters’ versatility). Hence social contemplations are a piece of the system, particularly in the ideas of ‘pluralism’ and ‘style of basic leadership. Culture likewise has an influence in Haas and Schmitter’s examination of potential outcomes of Latin American solidarity (1964 pages 726, 732, 733), however as a less significant factor.

A focal idea of the investigation was ‘spill-over’, the case that concession to reconciliation in one economic territory would or could after some time cause other financial policy areas to coordinate as well, so as to verify the full advantage of the joining in the first strategy zone. After some time, the coordination would end up political. However, as indicated by Tranholm-Mikkelsen (1991/5), Haas perceived that a political catalyst in the correct way may be essential and that a high position, taking care of the mix undertaking’s regular intrigue – not that of the individual part states – would be required. The thought processes, the main impetuses of the mix would be the quest for the legislators’ advantages.

Schmitter summarizes Haas’ methodology on neo-functionalism. He states that with the assistance of a functioning and clever secretariat and help from the sorted out premiums influenced by such externalities, national governments may learn and consent to change their unique positions. According to this technique, coordination is an inalienably sporadic and conflictual process, regardless, one in which, under conditions of democratic framework and pluralistic depiction, national governments will twist up logically trapped in regional weight and wind up settling their disputes by giving up a progressively broad degree and developing more position situation to the regional affiliations they have made. At last, their inhabitants will begin moving progressively a greater amount of their wants to the area, and satisfying them will improve the likelihood that money-related social joining will ‘spill over’ into political coordination.

According to Schmitter spill-over may occur if changes such as the expanded relationship between part states, an emergency of a specific size, advancement of a ground-breaking local organization, and improvement of autonomous, territorial intrigue associations equipped for acting in the locale (Schmitter: 2005/258).

Reference

1. Haas, Ernst B., and Philippe Schmitter: Economics and Differential Patterns of Political Integration, in International Organization, Vol. 18, No. 4
2. Schmitter, Philippe: Ernst B. Haas and the legacy of neo-functionalism, Journal of European Public Policy 2005
3. Tranholm-Mikkelsen, J.: Neofunctionalism: Obstinate or Obsolete? Millennium-Journal of International Studies, vol. 20, no. 1, 1991
4. What is REGIONALISM? What does REGIONALISM mean? REGIONALISM meaning, definition & explanation. (2019). Retrieved 13 October 2019, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Or57sNgPsLc

Introduction

Functionalism is: “the principle that the most important thing about an object such as a building is its use rather than what it looks like” from the Cambridge Advanced Learner’s Dictionary & Thesaurus © Cambridge University Press.

Functionalism is a psychological approach concerned with the mind and the way the mind function and the way it adapts an organism to its environment. This approach was established by James, an American scholar, in the 19th century with inspiration from Darwin’s theory of evolution. This approach came as a reaction of structuralism.

How it was inspired be Darwin’s theory? how it opposes structuralism? what is its relation to affordance? how it differs from other theories? and how it was criticised?

Many scholars prepared the world to Darwin’s theory and thus to functionalism; starting with Aristotle who recognized the similarities among different species; a human hand was analogous to the wing of a bird. Also, John Baptiste Lamarck, who is a French naturalist, started the ‘behavioural theory of evolution; in order to an animal to adapt to its environment, his body could be exposed to some modifications which were inherited by succeeding generations. Claiming that a giraffe didn’t use to have a long neck, but it was developed over the generations due to the need of reaching higher, for leaves. (Schultz & Schultz,2008)

Darwin’s theory of evolution:

In the 1850s, Darwin wrote a book called ‘On the Origin of Species, based in his observations after travelling around the world, when he noticed odd patterns in the distribution and features of organisms and each animal species was well-suited for its environment and role; such as the finch species and its beaks in the Galápagos Islands; the ones that ate large seeds had large, tough beaks, but those that ate insects had thin, sharp beaks. Darwin explained the pattern of similar but nonidentical finches, that they gradually adapted to their conditions over a long period of time, which led to the formation of new species. (Schultz & Schultz,2008)

So, he proposed that species is subjected to ‘descent with modification’ or simply evolve to became better suited to their surrounding environment; resulting that all species share a common ancestor (similar) with a set of a unique set of genetic differences between them ( non-identical).

Darwin’s central idea in this theory of biological evolution was natural selection; that the feature of an organism that helps it to survive and produce are more likely than other features to become common in a population over time, including their behaviour, in brief species change and evolve over time according to the conditions of the environment such as the predators and food sources present; some individuals will have inherited traits that help them survive and reproduce because it has been naturally selected.

in this theory, Darwin changed the focus of psychology from the structure of consciousness to the function of consciousness in adapting people to their environment; which made the basis of functionalism; as, functionalists believed that humans evolved in the same manner as other animals and that psychologists should study the adaptive significance of the mind rather than studying the structure of the mind. (Schultz & Schultz,2008)

In the 19th century interest in evolution was strong in the United States, the application of evolutionary theory to human knowledge was first introduced by Herbert Spencer in his synthetic philosophy – Social Darwinism- when he coined the phrase ‘survival of the fittest, arguing that all aspects of the universe were evolutionary including human character and social institutions and he believed that if no action was taken to interfere with the natural order of things, the human perfection is inevitable.

William James (1842-1910):

The founder of functionalism and American psychology, even though he didn’t want to be known as a psychologist, he published his book ‘the principles of psychology in 1819, James said that the book proved that there was no such thing as a science of psychology; he even stated that psychology was ‘merely quote an elaboration of the obvious.

Even though this book was such a success as James offered a different perspective of looking at the mind, which opposed the view of psychology at that time, his alternative view agreed with the functional approach to psychology; the study of the adaptation of living people to their environment.

James had an interest of how the mind functions to help us adapt to the environment. So, he establish functionalism as an approach to psychology, which state that the mind evolved to help us adapt to the world around us, and that the focus of psychology should be the study of those adaptive process and concerned with how behaviour and mental abilities serve in enabling people to adapt to and live in their environment. James sees consciousness as a continuous stream or flow of images and sensations, and any tempting attempt to divide it can only distort it. (Schultz & Schultz,2008)

Even though functionalism was not founded as a school of thought, the University of Chicago and Columbia University became closely associated with functionalism. James and functionalism widened psychology to include animal behaviour, religious experience, and abnormal behaviour and promoted educational psychology.

Functionalism

Functionalism came out in response to structuralism. Structuralism was the first school of thought in psychology, founded by Edward B. Titchener; the main structuralist, who gave psychology its first definition as a science of the study of mental experience, of consciousness, to be studied by trained introspection.

Titchener was one of Wilhelm Wundt’s students, who started the world’s first experimental psychology lab, he also was structuralist

Structuralism’s main idea was to break consciousness down into manageable parts in order to understand the structure of consciousness using the ‘introspection’ technique. the problem with this approach is that it is too subjective.

Functionalism came out supporting the idea that we have traits and abilities but rather than trying to understand the experience of these traits and abilities we should study the purpose they serve and understand consciousness rather than trying to break it down into pieces. . Asking why? what is the purpose? How does it help in some way? focusing on how behaviour functions rather than what is the structure of the mind.

William James in functionalism focused on how the consciousness functions not about the structure of the mind, as when buying a car, its structure isn’t important but how it functions is important. He also focused upon the way humans adopt to the environment; their role and behaviour played an important role to be better to the environment.

This school of thought examined that people adopt their behaviour in order to satisfy with their needs.

John Dewey, A psychologist, philosopher and educational innovator, He wrote ‘psychology’ in 1887, which was over shared by William James’ principles. In 1896, he published ‘the reflux arc concept in psychology’ emphasizing the adaptive value of mind and consciousness. He said that the functionalism stimulus-response relationship determines the goal of the behaviour and that responses always occur in a functional context.

Probabilistic functionalism

Probabilistic Functionalism is one of the central ideas about environmental perception; this approach was established by Egon Brunswick, who proposed the ‘lens model’; in which information about a setting manifests itself as objective cues , which are selectively perceived, and lead to a final evaluative conclusion by the perceiver.

Brunswik’s theory is considered functionalist in nature as different perceivers will select and weight different cues. but the successful perceiver selects the most important cues in order to function effectively in a setting. probabilistic functionalism defines environmental perception as ‘the attempt to extract a useful image of a place from a large number of potentially useful environmental cues, particularly in a setting that is new to a person, each cue has a particular probability of being accurate.

Brunswick added to his theory the idea of Ecological validity due to the variability in the use of individual cues. This refers to the degree of “truth” of the probabilistic relations between an objective environment and the cues that the individual select, in order to lead the perceiver to an accurate perception of an actual space.

Perceptual errors and illusions in an environment may be experienced by anyone, as cues could contribute accurately in the assessment of an environment, or could lead to false impressions, according to the degree of congruence with ecological validity, which is considered as an indicator for the perceiver’s understanding of an environment and how much it accurately reflect the objective environment. As most people’s perceptions seek to keep them safe, so they learn to pay attention to cues that validly represent a safe and functional path through work and life. Reflect the objective environment. As most people’s perceptions seek to keep them safe, so they learn to pay attention to cues that validly represent a safe and functional path through work and life.

Affordance by James J. Gibson

Even though the concept of ‘affordance’ cannot be found in William James or John Dewey thought, but the assumptions of functionalism intersect with it. functional psychology perception became realizable, both comprehensible and experimentally feasible, because of the concept of affordance. affordances are perceived functional properties of objects, places and events of an environment in relation to an individual perceiver as useful for a particular purpose.

“The affordances of the environment are what it offers… [perceivers]… what it provides or furnishes, either for good or ill.” by Gibson. Thus, functional properties set up the possibilities for action in the environment. ‘

She meant that affordances specify the behaviours permitted by these objects in the environment. As she that the environment is made up of arrangements of substances and surfaces, which provide affordances to perceivers. Such as a flat horizontal expanse in front of a person affords walking or horizontal surface situated about 45 cm above the ground affords sitting, and a surface of water affords swimming.

Gibson’s approach highlighted the role of the environment in human perception and rely on substances and surfaces, Gibson insisted that the designers should focus on the substances and surfaces rather than the form as the building users do not pay attention to form and shape, but to affordances.

The difference between affordance by Gibson and probabilistic functionalism by Brunswick is that Gibson believed that the environment provides perceivers with a direct functional assessment of some elements. While in probabilistic functionalism by Brunswick, the assessment being processed through a set of cues that are weighted and interpreted.

Comparison between functionalism and other schools of thought and theories

The different schools of psychology represent the major theories within psychology that emerged when psychology was considered a science, differentiated by the debate over how to explain the human mind and behaviour.

The first school of thought in psychology, established by the German psychologist Edward Titchener. is structuralism, concerned with breaking down the mind into it fundamental parts or ‘structure’ that could be studied to explain the behaviour, using the introspection technique. While functionalism came as a reaction for structuralism, stated that the mind and consciousness existed for a purpose, It functioned on the mind’s functions and adaptations and focuses on the purpose that the traits and abilities serve rather than trying to understand the experience of these traits and abilities

Gestalt psychology was also a response to structuralism, where it is believed that you must look at the whole of experience Instead of breaking down thoughts and behaviour to their smallest elements. Functionalism differs from gestalt and structuralism that it did not have a single leader.

Behaviourism is focused on observable behaviour that can be explained by environmental causes, considering behaviour simply as a learned response to an external stimulus. It agrees with functionalism in rejecting the method of introspection and that behaviours are functionally described. Behaviourism contradicts with Charles Darwin’s theory of natural selection.

Functionalism critique

Functionalism was criticised mainly from the structuralists, as it did not adhere to structuralism’s subject matter and methods. Titchener and his followers argued that functionalism was not psychology at all because it deviated from the introspective analysis of the mind into elements. also, because of the diverse uses of the term function.

Functionalism was criticized also by Wundt; ‘It is literature. It is beautiful but it is not psychology.

Structuralists also objected to functionalists’ emphasis the practical application in psychology, without making it distinct from pure science. Another criticism has been provided by Henle who had pointed out that functionalism had become too eclectic.

Introduction to Sociological Theories: Structural Functionalism, Conflict Theory, and Symbolic Interactionism

Everything in society can be explained through different perspectives, have you ever wondered which perspectives sociologists use? There are endless perspectives used in sociology but there are three main viewpoints I will cover throughout this essay. The three perspectives are structural functionalism, conflict theory, and symbolic interactionism. Each perspective can be used to explain gender roles, racial relationships, and class differences in society. Jeffrey Alexander states in his article in the Cambridge University Press, “to grasp this, it is necessary to treat Durkheim’s theoretical statements analytically rather than concretely. That is to say, when he speaks of the principles of a “society” and its integration, we should not take this to mean empirically this necessarily refers to a “whole society” as conventionally defined.” (Alexander 109)

Analyzing Society Through Structural Functionalism

“The promise of structural functionalism is nothing less than to provide a consistent and integrated theory from which can be derived explanatory hypotheses relevant to all aspects of a political system,” (Lane 461) the nature of Lane’s statement outlines the true objective of structural functionalism as a perspective in sociology. Structural functionalism means a theoretical approach that sees society as a structure with interrelated parts designed to meet the biological and social needs of individuals that make up that society. Structural functionalism advocates the belief that society is held together by shared values like languages and symbols, this is considered a strength throughout this perspective. “Structural functionalism is notable not only for its breathtakingly high level of generalization but also for apparent inconsistency with its own claims…” (Lane 464) Structural functionalism states that in a perfect society all parts work together to maintain ultimate stability. However, with every strength, there is a weakness to follow. Some sociologists say that structural functionalism cannot adequately explain social change due to the circular nature of the theory and others argue that structural functionalism no longer is relevant or useful at a macro level. Structural functionalism explains gender roles as a family being the most important component of society where gender roles preserve and stabilize the family in the pre-industrial era. For example, men work outside and away from home. Women stay and care for the house and their families. This is considered a division of labor, arguably due to biological limitations like the strength differences between the groups, and other physical limitations like pregnancy and nursing. After the Industrial Revolution and World War 2, women were finally exposed to the workforce and then explored new capabilities and fulfillment due to the absence of being forced to be bound to their households. Racial relationships explained through structural functionalism say that race and ethnicity are useful measures of group solidarity. This promotes unity and strong bonds within a group, to stand together or fall alone. Racism is said to be simply another justification for the dominance of a particular group. Group A is dominant as they possess superior qualities. Whereas group B is on the bottom due to the fact they hold inferior qualities. Racism has dysfunctions that make official racism inefficient. Talent is ignored and limits contributions to the greater good, resources enforcing segregation are thought of as wasteful and could ultimately be used to better ends. The Davis-Moore Thesis explains class differences through structural functionalism as the greater the functional importance of a social role, the greater the reward must be. The theory deems that social stratification represents the inherently unequal value of different work. Certain tasks in society are valued more than others. The people more qualified to fill these roles must be rewarded more than others who lack to maintain the qualifications.

Conflict Theory: Understanding Social Inequalities

Conflict theory is defined as a theory that looks at society as a competition for limited resources. Sociologist Simmel says that conflict can help integrate and stabilize society. It brings groups together to battle inequity as well as there being lots of goodwill in the act of reducing inequity. Sociologist Simmel argues that this is a strength of the conflict theory perspective. A weakness discussed and mutually agreed upon by sociologists over this perspective is that there is too much focus on conflicts and ignores the effects of stability and it ignores any known stable element of society. Gender roles explained through the conflict theory state that society is a struggle, the dominant group in today’s world would be male, and the subordinate group would be female. Examples of changes in gender roles over time would include women’s suffrage, the right to choose, the wage gap in the working class, and the glass ceiling. The husband and wife power dynamic in sociology is comparable or thought of as equal to the factory owner and factory worker dynamic. Conflict theory interprets racial relationships as racism creating disenfranchisement and suppression of subordinate groups. This keeps the competition away from the dominant group, meaning that there will be less threat to power. Conflict theory covers the intersection theory, which is the suggestion that we cannot separate the effects of race, class, gender, sexual orientation, or any other attributes. Discrimination may be worse for others of a singular minority group. For example, a black person experiences discrimination, but changes if they were rich or poor, male or female, gay or straight, Christian or Muslim. In today’s society conflict theorists believe that the straining working relationships between employees and their employers still exist, this is looked at through how the conflict theory explains class differences in today’s society. Jeffrey Alexander in the Cambridge University Press explains Durkheim’s theory and what it this theory means for class differences in conflict theory, “Durkheim’s theory provides a crucial means for showing what determines their internal group solidarity, as well as the nature of the symbols and sentiments that make up their class cultures.” (Alexander 109) Conflict theorists are deeply critical of social stratification, asserting that it benefits only some of society. Conflict theorists believe that social stratification perpetuates inequality. Conflict theorists push to bring awareness to inequalities, such as how a rich society can have so many poor members.

Symbolic Interactionism: Interpreting Individual and Social Interactions

Symbolic interactionism is defined as a theoretical perspective through which scholars examine the relationship of individuals within their society by studying their communication through language and symbols. The symbolic interactionism perspective says that language and symbols are believed to be the way in which people make sense of their social worlds and is also characterized as a strength throughout structural functionalism. “Modern societies are shaped by the communication process, public opinion, competition, conflict, and economic exchange.” Denzin goes on further to say “human nature is social in nature, nourished by primary groups whose values are mediated by social institutions, especially the economy.” (Denzin 4) Theorists Herman & Reynolds (1994) note that this perspective sees people as being active in shaping the social world rather than simply being acted upon, defenders consider this one of symbolic interactionism perspectives’ greatest strengths. A weakness demonstrated by symbolic interactionism would be that the research done from this perspective is too often scrutinized because of the difficulty of the remaining objective. Furthermore, this perspective is extremely narrow-focused. Symbolic interactionism explains gender roles as the symbols of masculinity and femininity such as clothes, toys, and career choices. Both masculinity and femininity use different problem-solving techniques such as emotion versus logic. The Doing Gender theory comes up in this perspective, this is when people perform tasks or possess characteristics based on the gender role assigned to them. For example, using makeup, or choosing gender-appropriate careers are all socially taught. Symbolic interactionism justifies racial relationships as that race and ethnicity are strong sources of identity. Symbols of race and ethnicity may impact how impressions are made that in reality differ from real life. Social media and other people’s stories can add to influencing and establishing prejudice. If exposure to second-hand knowledge about race or ethnicity didn’t exist, people would not hold racist values. The theory of culture of prejudice states that the theory of prejudice is embedded in our culture, exposure to caricatures of different races and ethnicities, both good and bad but wholly unindicative of the majority. Prejudice is taught at a young age to categorize and spread to people and their cultures. Class differences explained through the symbolic interactionist perspective state that this theory examines stratification from a micro-level perspective. This means that the analysis strives to explain how people’s social standing affects their everyday interactions. Symbolic interactionists note that people’s appearance reflects their perceived social standing, like housing, clothing, and transportation indicate social status, as do hairstyles, take in accessories, and personal style.

Conclusion: The Relevance of Sociological Theories in Understanding Society

In conclusion, the perspectives used by sociologists to identify everyday interactions and functions in society are changing every day. The three perspectives are structural functionalism, conflict theory, symbolic interactionism, and how the perspectives have explained gender roles, racial relationships, and class differences in today’s society. Sociologists comb through perspectives and should recognize the changes in each as society moves forward and times change. Going back to structural functionalism, Ruth Lane suggests that this perspective has been improving as time moves forward, “structural functionalism will “liberate” the concept of political development from its western bias and “encompass the full range of cultural diversity” in human government. The framework seems, in hindsight, a transparently western model, and idealized model as well.” (Lane 464).

There are various theoretical perspectives that provide assumptions and explanations to how various social events and ideas relate to each other. This includes viewpoints such as those represented in functionalism, conflict theory, and symbolic interactionism. While some may disagree with certain theoretical perspectives since they are all different, each perspective is important because it is a way to organize our thoughts, ideas, and research so we can present it clearly to others and understand society in our own way. Some perspectives may be distinguished based on whether or not they have a macro-approach, which is the long term social processes of organizations and institutions, or a micro-approach, which is the detailed study of the everyday life of individuals.

To begin, the first perspective worth mentioning is functionalism. Functionalism is the macro-approach that society is a large complex system in which there are connected elements that must work together to create harmony and for the society to be successful. This is related to English philosopher, Herbert Spencer’s, theory that society is similar to the human body in which each part must work together for there to be any function. Functionalism is also influenced by French philosopher, Emile Durkheim’s, theory that no one can lead society alone, we all must depend on each other and organic solidarity, which is everyone doing something different, for society to function. The functionalist perspective focuses on how each element influences and is influenced by each other. There is also the general assumption that most members in society must agree on the same beliefs and values so there could be order. This however, is not ideal since there is no way of dealing with social changes.

In addition, there is also the macro-approach theoretical perspective known as conflict theory. Conflict theory is the perspective of looking at society as a competition. In this viewpoint, each group or interest must compete with each other over the distribution of social resources such power and wealth. This is also closely associated with economic determinist, Karl Marx’s, theory that society is divided into those who own the means of production and those who do not, so only the fittest will survive. It suggests the idea that there will always be conflict, as that is the only way society will improve, but it will only be that way as long as there is no conflict great enough to break society. This has helped us understand the many social changes that have occured in history over time, but does not recognize or explain the reason for having harmony and stability.

Lastly, the final theoretical perspective to cover is symbolic interactionism. Symbolic interactionism is the micro-approach idea that we act based on the meanings and understandings we have, our meanings are created from social interaction, and shared cultural meanings continuously emerge and change. So, it is more common for people to define and characterize themselves based on how others view and label them. This idea, however, also has its limitations because research found in this perspective is not objective or open minded. It also does not support the social structures commonly found in most societies.

With all of this in mind, the theoretical perspective I find most convincing is functionalism. I feel this way because I do think of society as a system that only functions well if everyone does their own individual parts. We can’t have everyone doing the same jobs, being of the same race, or having the same personalities because then there would be no progress and everything would be the same in society. Instead, it is important for everyone to have their own designated roles so there is diversity and growth. Also, I believe in the idea that no one could lead society alone, we all have to work together based on the same beliefs and values to create a community for everyone.

In final analysis, the three major theoretical perspectives in sociology are functionalism, conflict theory, and symbolic interactionism. Functionalism focuses on everyone having their own role and working in harmony, conflict theory is looking at society as a competition where there is only survival of the fittest, and symbolic interactionism is the belief that we act based on the meanings and understandings we make through social interaction. Although they are all different in their own ways, each play a significant role in the way we view ourselves and our own society today. That is why it is still important to know and identify them today.

1. Introduction

Have you wondered the contemporary societies must be better than traditional one? Social change is inevitable due to various factors, like technological progress and urban development. However, it may not necessarily lead to an improvement in all aspects. The modern factory system is a valid illustration. The contemporary practice of it may induce some negative impacts on the workers and cause exploitation. In this essay, I will explain why I believe the practices of the modern factory system represent the source of contradiction and exploitation but not productivity and efficiency by sharing the circumstances at Foxconn. Then, after the analysis of the practices, I will compare and contrast functionalism and Marxism in understanding labor relations in contemporary societies. In the end, there is a conclusion and I will express my personal views on the modern factory system.

2. Working conditions in Foxconn

Foxconn is one example of a modern factory. It is a Taiwanese electronics manufacturer and is responsible to supply electronics parts for worldwide companies. Foxconn is the largest electronics contract manufacturer and a lot of Foxconn factories are located in China. Since most of the factories are distributed in China and the suicide among Foxconn workers are controversial, this section will focus on the working conditions in the factory and explore how they manage the workers.

Foxconn is like a military camp and sweatshop. All they want is the workers to be disciplined and restrained. To maximize the profit of the company, the factory will sacrifice the essential human needs of its workers. They are obsessed with production targets, business growth, and interests (Chan, 2013). For them, they are aiming at efficiency and higher labor productivity. Because of this, they will separate the workers and prevent them from establishing connections with others. All they desire is for each labor to concentrate on their duties and tries to be more efficient and precise. Therefore, if anyone makes a mistake, the leader will warn the others by humiliating him publicly. It is like the potential of the laborers is unlimited and everyone wants to force them to complete the tasks quicker. To maximize the gain, the wages of the workers are only slightly above the minimum wage and they never share the profit gain. Instead of distributing the profits to labor, the firm prefers to reinvestment and earn more. Moreover, talking is prohibited among workers. Even the workers felt solitary and isolated in a stressful working environment and attempt suicide, the company will blame the workers to sustain the reputation of the company. Many practices at Foxconn are violating labor rights. The example at Foxconn is the authentic practices in the modern factory.

3. The explanation of why it is a source of contradiction and exploitation

In my opinion, the practices of the modern factory system represent the source of contradiction and exploitation. Contradiction and exploitation express the class struggle, the gain of one class is the other’s loss (Wood, 2002). The contradiction section, it implies class antagonisms. The people involved in the contemporary factory operation are divided into two groups, one is the owners and one is the workers. Owners are capitalists and workers are in the working class. They will develop their class consciousness and have an opponent relationship (Giddens & Sutton, 2017). Different classes are having conflict regarding the distribution of benefits and the ruling power. This also explains the suicide and protest from Foxconn’s workers afterward. The working class will employ these methods to voice their opinion and disapproval to the owners and the working environment.

For exploitation, there is an exploitative relationship between the capitalist and the working class. To maximize the gain, the capitalist would demand discipline and long spun working hours from workers. It is like the example of Foxconn, they command the workers to work for twelve hours a day and a day off per two weeks (Chan, 2013). The labor power and the unreasonably low salary are used to maximize the capitalists’ gain. Exploitation means the success and profit produced by the mistreatment of workers and produced solitary in the workplace (Giddens & Sutton, 2017). The alienation in the workplace is used to raise the productivity of the workers. The workers at Foxconn cannot establish supplementary relationships in the factory, it causes solitary and all they can do is focus on their duty. This working condition is inhumane and causes the workers to feel stressful and under pressure.

Productivity and efficiency can be reasonable when defining the division of labor in the factory. It is a strategy used to enhance labor productivity and work opportunities (Adler, 2010). However, productivity and efficiency cannot describe everything that occurred in the authentic practices of the modern factory system. Take Foxconn as an example, there are ungrateful working conditions and treatment. It administers workers as commodities and the tools to gain extra money (Wood, 2002). They never confer caring but exploitation. If the company only craves to boost productivity and efficiency, there are several alternatives. The owners can be caring but not punishing all the time. They can help the workers feel welcomed and strengthening a sense of belonging. These methods can motivate workers to work diligently. Nevertheless, the owners manage to practice in an inhumane approach. It is full of mocking and endless isolation. They apply the most harmful way to increase profit and never appreciate the workers. For the owners, the workers are constantly machines but not humans. Therefore, I consider the practices of the modern factory system is more similar to the source of contradiction and exploitation but not productivity and efficiency.

4. The similarities between functionalism and Marxism regarding labor relations in contemporary societies

Functionalism and Marxism both have numerous similarities and differences in interpreting labor relations in contemporary societies. In this section, I will compare their similarities. Functionalism and Marxism admit that there are more innumerable applications of the division of labor in contemporary societies. Modern societies desire higher working productivity and efficiency so various companies will attempt to practice division of labor. They recognize the division of labor can induce higher productivity but it will cause the dilemma of solidarity to the workers (Adler, 2010). To present diverse parts of the production process, workers will lack a sense of belonging. The isolation of labor induces them to commit suicide as they perceive that they are detached from the world (Ritzer, 1996). Since the whole production process is divided into different parts, they will feel lonely and irrelevant. The solidarity will hold back the societies.

Both of them also acknowledge the labor will sense unfairness or depression when they encountered the varied treatments by the employer. There will exist economic exploitation and class conflict. Since there exist class relationships, it is unavoidably to have unequal distribution of benefits (Bilton, Bonnelt, Jones, Lawson, Skinner, et al., 2002). When the laborers cannot obtain equally distributed benefits, some of them will be dissatisfied and furious. Due to this problem, Functionalism and Marxism have a consensus on possessing regulation. Workers require regulation to maintain order. Without order and regulation, chaos will rise (Adler, 2010). They necessitate decent punishment to demonstrate how to behave properly. With proper regulation, the workers will have fewer opportunities to feel unfair and displeasure. Therefore, to sustain healthy labor relations, they consider it is fundamental to possess proper regulation and punishment.

5. The differences between functionalism and Marxism regarding labor relations in contemporary societies

Functionalisms present labor relations in an optimistic direction. On the contrary, Marxism presents it in a permissive direction. Functionalists believe the specialization of labor can motivate people to cooperate more because of their need for the services of others (Ritzer, 1996). As contemporary societies hold more practices on specialization and all process depends on numerous laborers, functionalists think that it enhances the dependence of everyone. If they want to achieve what they want, they need to operate with each other. Thus, society has become a greater existence due to collaboration. The labor relation is mutually benefiting one another and working on what they are more talented. They need the wages from the employer and the employer also demands their talent and experience. Both of them need the help of one another to survive so the labor relation is more similar to a harmonious situation. Functionalists optimistically believe the labor relationship so it is distinctive from Marxism. Functionalisms focus on the good side of the labor relationship but not on the corrupt side.

Marxism, they concentrate more on the exploitative relationship in labor and employer. They believe that the workers have to trade their abilities and creativity as a marketable commodity and make use by the capitalists (Bilton, Bonnelt, Jones, Lawson, Skinner, et al., 2002). Even they serve and devote a lot, they will be continuously exploited. However, they need to exchange their time to survive. During the production process, they are performed like a machine but not human and all of them are dissociated (Ritzer, 1996). They can simply work in a tiny role in the working process so they cannot recognize much about the outcome. Hence, they cannot develop their talent and abilities and they will remain to be a part of the working class. As labor’s productivity is equivalent to income, they can only work endlessly and obey to the capitalist system (Bichler, Nitzan, & Muzio, 2012). The employer will not be the one who got insulted or condemned as they have power and wealth. This is how Marxism interpreted labor relations in contemporary societies.

6. Conclusion

From the example of Foxconn, we can understand the practices of modern factory systems. Functionalism tends to believe the practices of it is the source of productivity and efficiency. On the contrary, Marxism tends to believe it is the source of contradiction and exploitation. They are holding diverse perspectives but they agree on the frequently used division of labor in contemporary societies. In my opinion, Marxism’s interpretation of the class struggle and the working condition is more precise. The tragedy of the workers at Foxconn makes me recognize that some employers can objectify the labor and take away their essential need for relaxation and communication. It is inhumane and the capitalists should concern their workers if they want the workers to contribute and devote themselves to the company.

Introduction

On the grounds of contemporary theory, it is satisfactory that it is perturbed with the understanding of deep structures of such as class, ethnicity, religion, and gender from the functionalism perspective, conflict theory, symbolic interaction, critical theory, and postmodernism perspective. However, as it is obliged by the assignment, the pivotal point of this essay will be on comprehending the deep structure of class from the analysis of functionalism perspective, conflict theory, and critical theory. Therefore, this essay calls for the meaning of class, its analysis from the perspectives of functionalism perspective, conflict theory, and critical theory, and at length an inference appropriate to the essay.

Class

A social class refers to as a set of postulations in the social sciences and political theory occurring mainly on the models of social stratification in which people are clustered into a set of hierarchical social classifications of the upper classes, middle classes, and the lower classes (Abbas, 2012). Class is a thesis of inspection for sociologists, political scientists, anthropologists, and social historians. Nevertheless, there is no concurrence on a definition of class and the phrase has a spacious range of sometimes incompatible meanings (Barry, 2001).

Some people contend that due to social mobility, class boundaries do not prevail. In normal expression, the term social class is usually corresponding with the socio-economic class which is precisely marked as the people having a common social-economic, cultural, political, and educational status for example the working class, an emerging professional class, elite class among others (Kuper, 2004). Even so, academics discern social class and socioeconomic status, with the foregoing alluding to someone’s relatively stable socio-cultural background and the later alluding to someone’s present-day social and economic situation and accordingly being more varying over and over again (Rubin, et al., 2014).

More so, Encyclopedia Britannica explicates class as a group of individuals inside a society who possess one and the same socio-economic standing (The editors of Encyclopedia Britannica, 2019).

The phrase class is said to have first originated into spacious use in the early 19th century, replacing phrases such as rank, and order among others as elucidations of the paramount hierarchical groupings in society. This terminology reflected changes in the structure of western European societies after the industrial and political revolutions of the late 18th century (Milton, 1949).

Functionalism perspective analysis of class

Functionalism is the theory that claims that every element of society contributes to the stability of the whole society. It maintains that society is more than the sum of its parts rather, each part of society is functional for the stability of the whole. Durkheim related society to an organism, and argues that just like within a body of an organism, each element plays an important role. None can function alone. If one part experiences a crisis or failure, other parts must adapt to fill the vacancies in some way.

On the basis of the analysis of class, functionalism theory assumes that society is a complex system of interdependent parts that cooperate together in order to ensure a society`s survival (Pope, 975). Functionalism exclaims that classes are needed, indispensable as well as inevitable because they provide everyone with a place in society and they all have a role to fulfill for example if one person is in the wrong place, they mess up the class structure and the society does not function correctly (Fletcher, 1956).

Functionalist theorists also equate society with the way the human body works. They look at society as being made up of interrelated parts that must all work in harmony for the larger system to perform. As a lens from which to consider social class then, functionalists highlight the ways in which social classes are functional for society (Kemper, 1976). The Proponents of the functionalism perspective point out that those people in the lower class (poor) also play a central role in society and are necessary for several reasons. They argue that society needs the poor to do the dirty jobs that nobody else wants, particularly given the low wages for working in difficult conditions such as workers in many factories and farms. For example, if everyone in as society would be superfluously rich in the upper class with a lot of money and other material possessions, who would be cleaning their toilets, collecting garbage, guarding them, and cleaning their compounds among others. Consequently, according to the functionalist perspective, social class is inevitable and functional for society because everybody in different classes plays his /her role.

More so, Kingsley Davis and Wilbert Moore, explain on the need for social classes by exclaiming that, in order to function, society must have people working in a variety of professions including physicians, teachers, and politicians among others. Due to the personal ability, extensive training, and advanced degrees required for the more specialized positions, people in those professions are rewarded with increased earnings and higher status than those whose positions require less (Kingsley & Wilbert, 1945). A good example can be grasped from this framework if you finish high school, and then you continue to University, you pursue a law course and then ultimately you become an attorney, your income and status should reflect the skills needed for your profession. In reverse, if you drop out of school and work as a watchman, you would still be making a contribution to society but your contribution would be less important and therefore not deserving of as much income and status as an attorney. Therefore, according to the functionalist perspective, social class is inevitable and functional for society.

Conflict theory analysis of class

Conflict theory is said to have emanated from the works of philosopher Karl Marx, who focused on the causes and consequences of class conflict between the bourgeoisie or the owners of the means of production and the capitalists and the proletariat the working class and the poor highlighting on the economic, social, and political implications of the rise of capitalism in Europe (Polak, 2008). Karl Marx speculated that this system presupposes on the existence of a powerful minority class the bourgeoisie and an oppressed majority class the proletariat, which created class conflict because the interests of the two were clashing, and resources were unjustly distributed among them.

Conflict theory analyses classes in the ways social groups disagreement, and fight over power and other resources in form of material possession and wealth. Conflict theorists believe that social classes make society dysfunctional because it harms individuals and societies (Hans & Neil, 1992).

Conflict theory focuses on the competition between classes for scarce resources. The upper classes (capitalists) is seen as practicing battle with those under them (workers), in an effort to maintain their power, prestige, and wealth (Erik, 2005). The conflict perspective suggests that the class system is very deep-rooted because the capitalists (haves) control social institutions such as education, religion, politics, and the law and set them up in favor of their positions and values and also because they pass on their spoils to their children. The same also applies for the have-nots, who also pass on what they have to their children unfortunately, this class has little to pass on but a disadvantaged position.

Conflict theorists also point out that many people in unskilled jobs are pushed into that kind of employment because of social class inequality (Jacques & Stathis, 2008). They have not had the educational and other opportunities afforded by those who are better off. Given equal opportunity and support, they argue that many people in low-wage jobs could perform in higher-level positions. The conflict perspective, therefore, characterizes social class as the result of a struggle for scarce resources.

However, Karl Marx lamented that in order for society to be the better of false consciousness, it should be replaced with class consciousness, the awareness of one’s social class in a society instead of existing as a class in itself and the proletariat class must become a class for itself in order to produce social change (Karl & Angels, 1848). Instead of just being an inertness class of a society, the class could become an advocate for social improvements. Only once society entered this state of political consciousness would be ready for a social revolution implying to mean that capitalism characterized by social inequalities, and exploitation among others will have come to an end with the reception of socialism.

Critical theory analysis of class

Critical theory is a school of thought that circumscribes a wider reference to a method of self-conscious critique aimed at altering, liberating, and emancipation through enlightenment which does not clutch emphatically to its own established assumptions (Guess, 1981). It is a social theory oriented towards critiquing and changing society as a whole. It differs from traditional theory, which focuses only on understanding or explaining society. Critical theories aim to dig beneath the surface of social life and uncover the assumptions that keep human beings from a full and true understanding of how the world works (Guess, 1981). The critical theory emerged out of the Marxist tradition and was developed by a group of sociologists at the University of Frankfurt in Germany who referred to themselves as The Frankfurt School of thought (Guess, 1981).

On the issue of class, the critical theory Centre its focuses on social totality than social classes and it maintains that no facet of our life world can be apprehended in isolation, unlike conflict theorists who affirm that classes originate from unequal distribution and control of the means of production or economic capital (Lisa & Adrian, 1997).

More so, the critical theorist’s unlike Karl Marx who only suggested class hegemony in the spheres of production, the conflict theorists suggested class hegemony throughout the civil society in unions, schools, churches, a family that the entire system of values, attitudes, beliefs, and morality supporting the dominant order sustained itself (Adamson, 1980).

Critical theorists also assert that a social class passes on core elements of habitus and capital from one generation to the other and discerns itself actively and passively from other clusters. They argue that social classes impasse social mobility and opportunities since social classes are possibly identified by mere observation (Bronner, 1994). Therefore the limits of social mobility and the limits of activities are the limits of a social class.

More so, the critical theory maintains that the division of classes in the legal system is still largely valid in contemporaneous days (Michael J. Thompson, 2017). They explain that the legal system is probably not intentionally designed to oppress the lower classes however, the discrepancies are incorporated, contained in the meaning of the socially accepted symbols, and transmitted from one generation to the next. Formally, all individuals are equal, but their habitus and its evaluation differ according to social class.

Conclusion

In a nutshell, the functionalism perspective analysis on class examines the positive functions of different social classes in a society and points out that classes are not only important but also indispensable as well as inevitable because they provide everyone with a place in society and they all have a role to fulfill. More so, the conflict theorists believe that social class makes society dysfunctional because it harms individuals and societies and analyzed classes on the causes and consequences of class conflict between the bourgeoisie or the owners of the means of production and the capitalists and the proletariat the working class and the poor highlighting on the economic, social, and political implications of the rise of capitalism. Critical theory on the other hand analyses class not only in conflicting spheres but also in aiming at altering, liberating, and emancipation of classes through enlightenment and focuses on the social totality of societies than social classes.

References

1. Abbas, k. (2012). The comparison of a middle class in developed societies and Iran society. Journal of American Science, 179-183. Retrieved from http://www.jofamericanscience.org/journals/am-sci/am0808/027_9920am0808_179_183.pdf
2. Adamson, W. L. (1980). Hegemony and Revolution: A Study of Antonio Gramsci’s Political and Cultural Theory.
3. Barry, J. R. (2001). Definition of Class,. Routledge Encyclopedia of International Political Economy: , 01.
4. Bronner, S. E. (1994). critical theory and its Theorists.
5. Erik, O. W. (2005). Approaches to Class Analysis. Cambridge, Uk: Cambridge University Press.
6. Fletcher, R. (1956). Functionalism as a Social Theory. The Sociological Review Foundation. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-954X.1956.tb00976.x
7. Guess, R. (1981). The idea of A critical Theory, Herbamas and the Frankfurt school. New York, USA: Cambridge University Press.
8. Hans, H., & Neil, J. S. (1992). Social Change and Modernity. Berkely: UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA PRESS. Retrieved from https://publishing.cdlib.org/ucpressebooks/view?docId=ft6000078s;chunk.id=0;doc.view=print
9. Jacques, B., & Stathis, K. (2008). Critical Companion to Contemporary Marxism (Vol. 16). Leiden, Netherlands: Hotei Publishing,IDC Publishers, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers and VSP. Retrieved from https://www.ssc.wisc.edu/~wright/621-2013/CRITICAL_COMPANION_TO_CONTEMPORARY_MARXISM.pdf
10. Karl, M., & Angels, F. (1848). Manifest der Kommunistischen Partei. London: J.E. Burghard.
11. Kemper, T. D. (1976). Marxist and Functionalist Theories in the Study of Stratification: Common Elements thatLead to a Test. Social Forces,, 54(03), 559-578. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/2576282.pdf?refreqid=excelsior%3Ae395cd708e033cd87c70ff700ffe8fdb
12. Kingsley, D., & Wilbert, M. (1945). Some Principles of Stratification. American Sociolog- ical Review, 10(02), 242-49. Retrieved from https://web.ics.purdue.edu/~hoganr/SOC%20602/Spring%202014/Davis%20and%20Moore%201945.pdf
13. Kuper, A. (2004). Social Class. The social science encyclopedia. Retrieved from https://books.google.com/books?id=2oES3pJufP4C&pg=PA111.
14. Lisa, A. Z., & Adrian, C. (1997). Putting Critical Theory to Work: Giving the Public Administrator the Critical Edge. Administrative Theory & Praxis,, 19(02), 208-224. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/25611214
15. Michael J. Thompson. (2017). Introduction: What Is Critical Theory? The Palgrave Handbook of Critical Theory, 1-14. doi:DOI: 10.1057/978-1-137-55801-5_1
16. Milton, G. (1949). Social Class in American Sociology. American Journal of Sociology, 55(03), 262-268. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/2771137
17. Polak, M. (2008). Class, Surplus and the Division of Labor: A post Marxian Exploration. East Eisenhower Parkway: ProQuest LLC. Retrieved from http://etheses.lse.ac.uk/2357/1/U615306.pdf
18. Pope, W. (975). Durkheim as a Functionalist. The Sociological Quarterly, 16(03), 361-379. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/4105747.pdf?refreqid=excelsior%3A35fe0da3147b47461746012b899ebc42
19. Rubin, M., Denson, N., Kilpatrick, S., Matthews, K. E., Stehlik, T., & Zyngier, D. (2014). “I am workingclass”: Subjective self-definition as a missing measure of social class and socioeconomic status in higher education research. Educational Researcher, 43(04), 196-200. Retrieved from doi: 10.3102/0013189X14528373
20. The edittors of Encyclopedia Britannica. (2019). Social class, Social Differntiation. Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc. Retrieved from https://www.britannica.com/topic/social-class

Life brings along a lot of good and bad affairs. However, we try to focus on the good which brings us happiness, but the bad affair sometimes tends to ruin the good times. One of the bad affairs that society today faces is homelessness. Homelessness can be defined as not having a fixed roof over one’s head or living in temporary accommodation under the threat of eviction. This paper focuses on societal views to try to explain the issue of homelessness in the United States of America.

Structural functionalism considers homelessness as an element of both functional and dysfunctional states in society. The functionalist perspective works on the basis of consensus and cohesion within a society. The theory provides a macro view of society that is seen as a codependent system that influences one another in various ways. For example, the case of a dysfunctional family institution is among the leading causes of homelessness in the country. This may arise from issues like domestic abuse, where the roles of individuals within the family institution are not being fulfilled. This leads to dysfunction hence breakdown. The abused party may hence be forced to move and live in the streets or an emergency shelter hence homeless. Evidently, a social problem that affects a particular society should and must be perceived as a problem that affects a sample of the population and needs to be resolved.

The conflict theory states that society is in a state of conflict due to scarce resources. According to the theory, capitalism is the main cause of homelessness. Capitalism creates power differences between the “haves” and the “have not’s” whereby the wealthy group gains control through power and competition hence can afford to live luxuriously. On the other hand, the poor are left homeless as they cannot pay the expensive housing prices in the country. Therefore, capitalism identifies the homeless as the losers in society.

In conclusion, homelessness is a major societal problem in the United States of America and is caused by a number of factors. From the above observations, it is evident that in as much as homelessness is caused by individual flaws, society also plays a big role in contributing to the issue. The government of the United States of America should therefore take charge to minimize the gap between the rich and the poor as well as finding ways to find ways to try to solve the individual flaws, like creating counseling groups to help solve the dysfunctional state.

Talcott Parsons is an American sociologist who was born on December 13th, 1902, and died on May 8th, 1979 in Germany. He is known for his social action theory and structural functionalism. Parsons looked at society as institutions such as the economy, education, media, law, religion, and family that all work together to keep society going. As individuals we all have a part to play to shape society, we become a product of society from the influences around us. Parson believed that the family had two functions: primary socialization, which is during early childhood and provides the base for all later learning, and secondary socialization, which happens later in childhood when the children are socializing more with people who are not in their family home. He also believes that families help adults to behave in a way that goes in line with social norms and values and to be caring to each other in times of stress, this then ties in with Parsons’ warm bath theory.

Parsons’ theory is that the family is a social institution and that it meets the needs of society. Parsons believed that the nuclear family fitted well in the industrial economy with families having their own roles. With one adult being the ‘breadwinner’, which was more looked at as a male figure, and the other adult’s role, which would more likely be a female would be to take care of the children and make a ‘house a home’. In the family home, the children start to learn to socialize, so they get taught not to hit, to be kind, to share, to acceptable behavior, life skills and the family’s economic role would be to have a job to make sure the children have all they need. Parsons was a major figure in the structural-functionalist school of thought, he believed that in society we have the same common values and we have different cultures within a society, and this causes conflict which is normally caused by disagreement in thoughts and ways of life because of different beliefs within religion.

Parsons believed that education gave a sense of achievement and this helped individuals to have the skills to find a job in the industrial society because their status was chosen by ability not by birth Parson also believed that education was the right process for individuals to have a fair opportunity to succeed. Functionalists see society as consisting of many different parts that are linked and connected to keep the system going. Parsons’ theory is that the nuclear family plays an important part in society by building environments for loving relationships with children and spouses and teaching the social norm and values that are then beneficial for society. Murdock believed that the family is the most important institution to do this. Parsons’ nuclear family theory has a very positive look on the life of the family. The warm bath theory that Parsons came up with is the idea of a family man coming home from work and being greeted by a loving family where the woman takes care of the needs of the children and is ready to welcome the man home and take care of his needs so that he is refreshed before the next working day. Parsons argued that society can be understood by looking at the functions they do. Parsons said that the four functional requirements are adaption, goal attainment, integration, and pattern maintenance. Parsons believed that the needs of society would need to come before individual’s needs, this is why he is believing that it is so important that the family and education have an important job to teach the social norms and values in the family and education institutions because this will help to hold the people together in value consensus.

Parsons’ theory is like Murdock’s (1949) theory that the family teaches children the social norms and values to keep society going. Parsons and Murdock both believe that the nuclear family is the perfect type of family. But not everyone will agree with this theory, as it paints a picture of a perfect family, and not everyone’s family would be like that. Functionalism is important because it looks at every aspect of society, how it functions, and how that helps society. For example, a child goes to school the get their education which the government provides this then covers the taxes, so it is an institution running itself to keep that part of society going. In the nuclear family, the work life and home life were kept separate, and the only thing that linked them together was the male family member who worked to provide for the family.

In my childhood home growing up, my mother stayed at home while fostering, and my father went out to work, my mother took care of all of us and did all the house chores. My father was set in his way by being brought up by his grandparents who, like the nuclear family, the male went out to work and the wife stayed home and took care of the children and the house then provided a hot meal for the man to arrive home. This was common in my house and I thought it was normal. Until my mother had to go out to work because the times are changing, and children were growing up, my mother wanted to do something for herself because staying at home and looking after the children and the house all the time can make the women in the family feel like her purpose is not as great at the males. As times are changing, I feel the men are too. You also see examples of the nuclear family in adverts and they portray the perfect family which is misleading because there is no such thing as a perfect family.

Parsons’ approach has been criticized by a group of Marxist writers in the 1970s who argued that it exploits the free domestic work of the housewife. It is just expected that the woman of the house takes on the role of bringing up the children and taking care of the house, even though the man of the house can only work so many hours because the women of the house can look after their children. Marxist writers argued this because domestic labor is important for the capitalist economy, only the men get paid not the women who are helping so the male can go to work the women’s contribution is free. Many women did get part-time jobs, but they were always paid lower and only called in when there was a shortage of workers and normally got cheap labor from the women’s work.

In this day and age, both parents must go out and work because of the cost to live, but a lot of women are still needed to take on the role of the car giver too. But I do think that there is more of a shared role and fathers are more hands-on and will help to clean, cook, and tend to the needs of the children.

Marxism and functionalism do have one thing in common and that is that they see society as a whole, they see society as more than just the individuals who live in it, and the social institutions and structures are important when looking at society.

Human behavior is complex, so sociology is known for having more than one theory or thought as it would be very difficult to find an approach to cover lots of different behaviors and outlooks. Having lots of different thoughts and theories provides a good range of ideas for social scientific work.