The functionalism theory is one of socio-structural theories which views society from a systematic approach. It usually entails the study of inter-related components of a society as a whole. The underlying principle behind the functionalism theory is to relate the working of a society as one whole being that depends on several other organs and sub-organs for a complete compatibility and functioning of a single large system.
Under this approach, the system is perceived to be the society while the sub-systems include the various elements which make a society such as family set-ups, education systems, economic factors, social settings, political settings, cultural set ups and religious beliefs. Functionalism theory assumes that each sub-system has its own roles or functions which play a significant role in determining the nature of the society.
Although the theory of functionalism has been transferred and applied in other ideas, it remains one of the best theories that insightfully recognizes the organization and structure of an ideal society (Harrington 87). The theory has been a major boost towards the reshaping societies that have disproportional sub-systems like education and heath structures. Weeks (56) argues that for a society to exist, there must be inhabitants who make up the population or the demographic pattern of a society.
Borrowing from the concepts of the functionalism theory, it is clear that human demography has an impact on the society. There should be a balance of population especially in terms of resources usage. In addition, there must be aspects of social harmony through social norms and ethics. With an emphasis on population demography, Weeks (58) asserts that population demography of a society is determined by three elements mortality, migration and fertility.
However, the three elements are never constant due to the ever changing factors and subsystems of a society. Sub-systems of a society such as family, education and even religion are dynamic and so it is of ultimate importance recognize the relationship that exists between the elements of population and the ever changing society sub-systems (Weeks 67).
The scientific study of human population
Population demography is a sociological concept that is helpful in determining the application of functionalism theory in a society. For instance, by using elements such as mortality rate, immigration and fertility, a society may be able to plan for available resources either in terms of providing social amenities like education, health and employment. It is futile to plan for education if there are no children being born in the society.
The same can also be said in the case of employment if the mortality rate is increasing due to lack of proper medical attention to the available human resource (Weeks 103). This methodology of determining the trends of the existing population is of greater significance to government during budget allocations of resources to important functions such as education, health, infrastructure and the general economy. According to Weeks, there must be a relationship between these demographic elements and social functions (60).
Mortality rate which determines the size of the population in comparison with the rate of deaths in a social setting is of greater importance, especially when ascertaining the function of the public health. If the function of public health is not at its optimal operation, diseases such as HIV and AIDS will continue to eradicate human population and increase the mortality rate.
On the other hand, there will be an imbalance of the society considering the dependency ratio will increase as more patients will become unproductive. Fertility of a population is imperative in determining the production of a country (Weeks 105). If the population capability to give birth is optimal, then functions such as health, education need to be increased, but if the capacity to give birth is reduced, there is a probability that functions such as education may be operating at good levels or low levels.
There will be deficiency of man power in the society and so possible that other society’s functions will not work well towards the development of the society. Migration is another element that determines demographic population, if a society experiences inwards migration then functions such as culture, education, health facilities will be affected.
A lot of efforts will be initiated by the society to ensure it gains from inward migration especially in provision of human resources in the economic sector of the society. If the society experiences outwards migration, there still will be a positive and negative effect in the society’s functions. For example a positive effect will be experienced from reduced expenditure on functions such as public health and housing. On the other hand, a negative effect will be experienced from lack of man power in the economy of the society.
Conclusion
It is therefore of ultimate importance that a balance of these society functions be maintained by conducting a human population survey that highlights processes such as migration, fertility and mortality (Harrington 90). From these processes, societies will be able to cater for the needs of the society through education, health, culture, religion and by far with sub-functional needs that cater for age-groups and families.
Works Cited
Harrington, Austin. Modern social theory: an introduction. London: Oxford University Press, 2005.
Weeks, John, R. Population: an introduction to concepts and issues. 10th Edition. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Co. , 2008.
Different schools of thoughts have come up with a different of theoretical perspectives to explain different phenomenon’s in human life. In the book “Sociology in Global Perspective”, the writer has suggested five theoretical approaches to define human social situations however, according to my observation of different scenarios in human life, structural functionalism approach stand to be more relevant than other theories. This paper discusses the applicability of structural functionalism approach in social life understanding.
Structural Functionalism
According to the theory, the society is taken as a living organism, with different organs, which are mandated to perform different duties for the general welfare of the community. Failure to an organ results to a deficit in the entire system. Human beings are social animals, however no one person has similar personally to another, the expectation of an individual form another should be harmonised looking at different interest. To maintain social cohesion and harmony, every individual must understand his duty and undertake them effectively.
Sometimes the duties may be painful to undertake but since the society as a system wants them done, an individual is left with no defence than perform the duty. For example, it is the role of parents to take care of their children and the children should respect the parents. These are roles defined by the community and its existence maintains social harmony (Babbie 12-34).
The society is formed by its people and institutions developed to manage different aspects of life. The performance of these institutions can only be in harmony and undertake their duties effectively if they operate like an organ of the entire system.
For example, the education system should enlighten people on appropriate and accepted behaviours so that they do not fall into trouble with the police institution. On the other hand, the police officers ensure there is peace and harmony in societies for schools to operate in. Such institutions form parts of the entire community.
Decisions enforceable in a community follow a utilitarian approach where decision makers have to weight options before making a decision. The best decision is made to benefit the largest population or that will cause minimal danger to the smallest population.
The reason behind such moves is to give all organs of the system as suggested by structural functionalists equal consideration since when one organ suffers, then another one which might have not been affected directly will suffer. For example in international negotiations and agreements like Kyoto protocol on environmental damage, members make a decision based on the benefits that the entire community will have.
Power systems and respect for national and international laws can be seen to be effected by structural functionalism existing in the community. People feel more obligated to respect the laws and follow their leaders since they are of believe that the role of those people is to guide them and their role is to follow their pathways.
This explains the existence of political class in an economy. For example, the people respect a decision or a side taken by the government even if the people might feel ignored by the people. They only will comply since they believe their leaders have the role and capacity to take such decisions (Babbie 12-34).
Conclusion
Structural functionalism theory defines the society as a living organism, where every organ has to work effectively to maintain social cohesion and social harmony. The theory is applicable in modern lifestyle where harmony exists on when societies undertake their roles effectively.
Work Cited
Babbie, Earl. What is Society? Reflections on Freedom, Order, and Change. Thousand Oaks: Pine Forge Press, 1994. Print.
Culture is a key factor in socialization that regulates various areas of human connection, from daily conversation to the functioning of the global marketplace. Music, fashion, technology, and values are all cultural products. It is necessary to compare the concepts of culture from two main theoretical perspectives: functionalism and critical sociology. Functionalists observe community as a system in which all parts work or function together to create society as a whole. Thus, society needs a culture to exist and develop positively. Cultural norms serve to support the smooth functioning of society, and cultural values guide people in their choices.
Really as members of the community work together to meet the needs of society, culture exists to satisfy the fundamental requirements of its members. Functionalists also study culture in terms of values. Education is an essential concept in the United States because it is valued (Robbins 134). The culture of education – including material culture, such as classrooms, textbooks, libraries, dormitories – supports the value of educating society members.
Critical sociology views the civil structure as inherently uneven, based on differences in power related to issues such as class, gender, race, and age. Culture is marked as strengthening ‘privilege’ for special groups based on nationality, gender, and race for critical sociology. Similarly, women strive for equal rights with men and eradicate discrimination. Older people are fighting to protect their rights, health care, and independence from legislators’ younger generation. There are inequalities in the system of cultural values (Robbins 210). Therefore, the cultural norms of society benefit some people but harm others. Some rules, formal and informal, are practiced at the expense of others.
In some states, gay and lesbian couples have been denied marriage. Racialism and prejudice are very extremely alive today. Although cultural diversity is supposedly valued in the United States, many people are still troubled with interracial marriages. Same-sex marriage is banned in most states, and polygamy, common in some cultures, is unthinkable for most Americans (Damien and Saad-Filho 611). The theory is based on the influence of economic production and materialism.
That is well-developed access to technology and education in wealthy nations versus the lack of technology and knowledge in underdeveloped countries. The critical theory states that the possibilities and potential of material production affect other components of society, including culture. People who belong to the lower class have less ability to adapt to cultural change.
This view contrasts with the perspective of functionalism theory. For structural functionalism, culture is one of the basic requirements of society. Accordingly, because all members of the community have free access to cultural heritage, they can make useful choices. Also, in terms of value systems, culture plays a significant role. People’s understanding of basic ethical and social principles motivates civilization to develop and enrich themselves spiritually.
Instead, in critical sociology, the economic dimension occupies a central place. That is, all segments of the population strive only for material enrichment but receive it only a tiny part. Accordingly, only a privileged position of society can enjoy cultural heritage, and all others have limited access. Thus, for one theory, culture is an important condition for the development of society, and another approach neglects it.
According to structural-functionalism, society consists of many individual actors who interact with each other to meet their needs. The unification of people into society was the result of the emergence of shared ideas and tasks. Therefore, the best way to achieve the goals was to join forces. To achieve common welfare, the community divided the responsibilities of the members according to their skills. Moreover, all people have certain statuses and roles; the rank should be assigned equally, not hierarchical.
In a united society, the needs of the system are critical, so individuals must take on different roles to fulfill the functions of their statuses. If responsibilities are divided correctly, then the order will prevail in society. To maintain the distribution of operations, it is necessary to use socialization, education, and lifelong learning. These tools will help to understand the value of each person and his need to maintain stability. If the sharing of roles in civilization is successful, this process will become automatic, which will let norms and values acquire an individual character. That is, people will be able to satisfy their desires and at the same time work for the public welfare (William 156).
As a result, a society in which there are many roles and statuses will allow each member to choose them independently and show individuality. If it is necessary to control the community’s activities, special bodies are created to ensure stability and security with the consent of the people.
According to Marx, the creation of modern society was associated with the emergence of capitalism as a global economic system. Consequently, the economic method of production determined the culture of society, law, political system, family form, and the distribution of people’s responsibilities. According to his theory, economic conflict in society is the driving force of change. The system of production defined two categories, such as means of creation and production relations. The means of creation depended on the state’s level of development; it could be high technology and factories or primitive tools. As for production relations, there was a division into classes.
Thus, people performed only those functions that were part of their responsibilities and were not entitled to claim higher social roles (William 158). Therefore, there was no practical development of society; the state’s efforts to control even the division of labor could lead to economic stagnation. Also, members of society will likely try to change the distribution of roles and classes. As a result, it can lead to destruction and collapse of the system.
Thus, the approaches are common in that people come together to achieve a specific goal, often economic. After establishing mechanisms for achieving well-being in accordance with functional theory, there is a division into individual roles, and a choice is given to each member of society. Therefore, the functional theory empowers individuals and the state to develop. Critical sociology did not provide for the right of everyone to choose a place in society. That is, the privileged classes received the best jobs and status according to the distribution. Accordingly, if people do not have the right to decide but only constantly perform the same duties, then the type of society becomes closed. (William 160). As a result, there is no progress and the desire of individuals to perform their boring roles, which leads to decline.
Structural functionalists describe the process of socialization as a value according to which all individuals jointly accept the rules behavior. It is a kind of unwritten social contract that helps maintain order in society and determine the rights and responsibilities of each member. Socialization itself is a long process that admits people to learn, inherit and disseminate specific knowledge and habits that allow the development of the individual and society. The functionalist paradigm believes that a socialized society is constant. Functionalism argues that it is the social structure that is responsible for positive and negative changes in society (Candea 42).
Therefore, the social formation is constantly trying to maintain a delicate balance between all components of society. Also, it is vital to regard that the development of society is due to the observance by people of already established rules. Therefore, the correct values and priorities must be laid down in the formation of the core of society.
Critical theory is not based on the concept of socialization in the traditional sense. Instead, an important point is the political formation of society. In the theoretical realm, authors argued that capitalism should grow into socialism without social revolution. In the realm of politics, the revisionists defended the theory of harmony of class interests and class cooperation, denying the view of the proletarian revolution and the dictatorship of the proletariat (Chuanhao 27). Accordingly, socialization was to take place through the transition to a new and better social order, which would allow all classes to enjoy the same level of rights, which led to the common ideal.
In my opinion, the theory of structural functionalism proved to be the most viable. The distribution of roles in the system at the individual request allowed for the prosperity of all spheres of society. Indeed, among the main factors that influenced the development of society and socialization were cultural values. Also, the necessity of development and training allowed transferring knowledge and information about the change of institution through generations.
Works Cited
Candea, Matei. Schools and Styles of Anthropological Theory. Routledge, 2018.
Chuanhao, Ma. ‘Research on Contemporary Significance of Marx’s Political Socialization.’ WOP in Education, Social Sciences and Psychology, vol.4, 2017, pp.27-29.
Damien, Cahill, and Saad-Filho Alfredo. ‘Neoliberalism Since the Crisis.’ Critical Sociology, vol. 43, no. 4–5, 2017, pp. 611–613.
Little, William. Introduction to Sociology. BCcampus, 2016.
Robbins, Derek. Anthem Companions to Sociology. Anthem Press, 2016.
Functionalism is a sociological perspective of analysis that focuses on the relationship that exists between the societies parts; how the society’s parts are functional (adaptive). The theory does stress on the interdependence of the patterns and institutions of the society as well as their interactions in keeping unity socially and culturally. This theory happens to be the first theory to exist and still dominating among the theories ever applied in sciences of a social nature and in sociology. Even with criticism the perspective is still useful in sociology and will still raise important questions for sociological research and development (Ritzer & Goodman, 2003).
The perspective of functionalism is building on two sister stresses: social globes’ objective use of scientific techniques and example utilization between single organism and general society.
Utilization of the scientific technique the same way we study the physical globe we can similarly study the globe of sociology. Further more, their optimistic seeing of social that is scientific, supposes that the study of the globe of social could be without value, in the sense that the investigating people’s values will not in essence tamper with the insignificant looking for rules of the social nature to maintain order of behavior of the systems of social. These ideas are associated with the great French sociologist Emile Durkheim, who was the first sociologist to use scientific and statistical methods in sociological research forming functionalist theory’s basis (Pampel, 2007).
Functionalists have a belief that the society is bound together by means of having consensus socially or force of cohesiveness, whereby the members belonging to the society collectively accept to and in unity work to attain, that that goes well with the society as one. Several theories were developed by Emille Durkheim in regard to an individuals attachment to the community. Mechanical cohesion type of unity comes about when society’s people hold same beliefs as well as values and do same kinds of work. Mechanical unity regularly does take place in customary, uncomplicated societies as those where people do farming or cattle herding. Amish community is an example of where mechanical unity is shown. Organic solidarity on the contrary is a social cohesion form which come up when people in a society are interdependent, but stick on differing beliefs and values and undertake differing sorts of work. Organic unity happens frequently in societies which are complicated and advanced in industries like the huge American cities in the two thousand millennium, the likes of New York City. (Durkheim, 1915).
In the second place the stressing of functionalists on the organic component of the society, triggers functionalists to have a speculation about the requirement that should be accomplished for there to exist a system socially, as well as the technique the institutions of the social nature get those requirements met. For example a functionalist will squabble that a religion has to be posed by a society, on the basis that directives of a religious nature carry definite duties that adds to the survival of the social system as one, in the same way that organs of a body posses duties that are vital to the body’s survival. (Ritzer & Goodman, 2003).
This example amid the society and a creature concentrate on the social systems balancing mechanism: systems that are social operate to keep an equilibrium and turn to it after external forces perturb the stability among social related institutions. This particular equilibrium is arrived at, mainly by members to the society doing socialization into the norms as well as the values that belong to the society, ensuring that they have attained consensus. In places that we have insufficient socialization for any given reason to cause compliancy to culturally precise duties and norms shored up socially, a number of ways of control socially exist to regain compliancy or to separate non complying people from the rest who are compliant. This social machinery; control vary from informal imposing of sanctions to activities that happen in connection with definite formal associations like institutions of mental, prison places as well as schools.
There is some resemblance that may happen to be seen amid what the functionalist speak and what is spoken biologically or in case of science related to computers. The viewing of the society indicate that it is a structure of parts that have an interrelation such that given one is distracted it translates the distraction to others. Within the structures boundaries rounds of feedback and amid parts of exchange normally result in the balancing action. Most transformations result from development or growth naturally, but other transformations are as a result of external factors affecting the structure. One of the functionalist stand persons for example Talcott Parsons, who is also the bet know functionalist from America looks at the society as a collection of structures within structures: the structure of personality amid the structure of a small team amid the structure of the community amid the society. Parsons even sow the globe as a structure of societies. Talcot also had a belief that order, cooperating a well as having stability in the community are based on having consensus of value that is generally accepted by people belonging to the society on what is good and of worth to them. (Parsons, 1951).
Functionalist regularly base their analysis on a particular person, in general with the aim of showing how a persons behavior is shaped by huge social factors. It is the tendency of functionalists to speak about actor acting individually as the decision making people, whereas apart of the critics have proposed that theorists who proponent functionalism are, consequently, taking indivividuals as either they are puppets, that decisions made by them can be foretold from the social system location and anticipation and customs they have in their hearts, or sometimes like near prisoners of the clear ways of social control which are placed about by the community. Functionalists, in any case, have had a tendency of being least concerned about how people can manage and have their ability to control their life leading to control of their destiny.
Distinctions to understand the difficult concepts was provided by Robert Merton. In the first place he offers a distinction between latent and manifest duties: respectively, those ones that are not recognized and those who do them do not aim at them and the recognized one whose actors aim at them in the social structure and therefore they carry the actors’ motive of acting. Also he does give the difference amid outcomes that work positively for the society, those that do not work at al and those that do not belong anywhere in relation to the society. Thirdly, he distinguishes amid levels of the community that is, the particular social whose behavior frequent patterns are functional or not functional. Eventually he admits that the specific social systems that meet the functional needs of the community can be done, but other ways that are systematic may exist that can also meet the same requirements which are functional in nature (Merton, 1968).
In illustrating the difference between manifest and latent functions we can have a simple example. The manifest duty of going to church may be for example to worship God as one of the religious team, but the for the same the latent duty may e to have the members of the religious society helped to get a difference be amid their personal value away from the value of institutions. Manifest duties are obvious considering the use of common sense. However this is not automatic for latent duties that do require sociological view to unlock them. A sociological view in the case of functionalism involves the considering how the smaller portions duties relate to the whole’s duties (Farmakis, 2008).
Theories of functionalists have been exposed to criticism in that they are teleological, that is, having the usual arrangement of cause and impact by elucidating items in terms of what happens afterwards, not what did happen before that. Functionalist of firm stand may elucidate definite practices of religion for example as duties by their adding to the society’s survival: nonetheless such customs of religion will regularly have firmly been established a long time before the question consequently gets an answer of whether the community as a whole will survive. Considering this kind of basic logic criticizing of the theory of functionalists a number of the existing sociologist are not utilizing open functionalist elucidations concerning phenomena socially, and the excessive version of functionalism as expanded on by parsons talcot is not in the current use. Negative duties like divorce are claimed to have been ignored by functionalism. Critics do claim further that functionalism does qualify the way people are and the way they have to comply. Functionalism does not encourage persons to actively participate in transforming their social world even when this can be of value to them. Instead of this functionalism see transformations in the society as not wanted since the potions of the society will act to repair this automatically. Nonetheless, a number of sociologists persist anticipating that by cautious, purposeful social phenomena inspection they will eventually be able to find out the social behaviors regulations generally and are optimistic by this which motivates them for the great thought and research sociologically (Collins & Makowsky, 1978).
The criticism that is raised against functionalism is very useful and valid and useful for sociological research and thinking as well as daily life applications. This is due to the vacuum it leaves by not encouraging people play actively in social change and thus they are left behind with social change. This might not go on well since the society comprises socialization that is subject to social change. Also as much as the society has the positive side the negative sides are becoming increasingly costly to the society. For example the case of divorce changes the social norms and custom setting of a society affecting the cohesion that existed. Similarly crime is viewed all over the world as a bad thing in the society. But functionalism takes it in the positive way such that without it there could not be employment for lawyers, policemen, judges and all the others whose employment is found in those lines. Apart from employment, functionalism views crime as making people to come together on a common issue hence playing social part. This may seem weighty but it ignores the huge negative impact and symbolism it has on the society.
Functionalism is therefore subject to many questions that will always raise criticism unless addressed in more elaborate and otherwise exclusive manner. However functionalism perspective will still have relevance to the society because the positive part of the society usual calls for enhancement even with substantial criticism. The proponents of functionalism can be counted on their work for instance the socialization period during the World War I and World War II that saw revolutions in the civilization of people.
Functionalism perspective of sociology does study the society at a macro level. This means that the society is studied or analyzed at abroad scale as a whole. Functionalist view of an individual is that people are not forced to undertake or perfume functions of the society but rather they are molded into performing them. As viewed by a functionalist, order in the society is kept when society members does corporate with one another. Functionalist view of social change has it that social change is positive and predictable. The major idea carried by the functionalist perspective is the stability one.
Functionalism however faces strict opposition from the conflict perspective which considers the negative side of the society as not stable and in a constant struggle. The interaction perspective also opposes the functionalist by studying nonverbal communication and small teams giving due attentions to symbols and objects. This is a micro level of study of the society and may carry weight since society is made up of units. All this suggestions together with other criticism of functional theory are logical and sensible but they do not discard functionalism theory in fact is still a dominant perspective. Functionalism theory criticism only forms the basis for future sociological research and development with an aim of understanding and influencing the society in part and as a whole. This gives hope that the future will comprehensively unlock why people do what they do and suggest the best way to make the society at least stable. This means that the norms, customs and values in the society will have to be harmonized giving a particular reliable way of maintaining order in society. We shall the be in a place of not just justifying or refuting what is taking place as well as the way it is taking place in society. Eventually society will have the shape.
References
Collins, R. and Makowsky, M. (1978) The Discovery of Society. New York: Random House
Durkheim, E. (1915) The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life: A Study in Religious Sociology. Translated by Joseph Ward Swain. New York: Macmillan.
Farmakis, J 2008 Readings in Social Theory- The Classical Tradition to Post Modernism. 5th edition Boston: McGraw Hill
Merton, R. 1968. Social Theory and Social Structure. New York: Free Press.
Pampel, F (2007) Sociological Lives and Ideas – An Introduction to the Classical Theorists New York: Worth Publishers
Parsons, T. (1951) The Social System. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.
Ritzer, G. & Goodman, D. J. (2003) Sociological Theory Sixth Ed. Boston: McGraw Hill
The functionalist perspective is a theory that affirms that the world is a structure of interconnected parts in which every part is essential in ensuring that the structure works. The structure of the system contains establishments like family, religion, and education that make up a social system. The main aim of all the parts of the system is to ensure that order is maintained in society. The various structures in the society make sure that agreements, integration, stability, and balance are maintained in the society.
This means that everything in society, though extraordinary has a reason for being that way. It also brings out the point that social inequality is important in any social setting. It states that without inequality, division of work would not be possible since people have different talents, for instance not everyone can be a police officer. In other words, people should not be rewarded the same way so that they can work hard to achieve top positions.
Body
In normal circumstances, society for example sees crime as a problem that should be eliminated. Functionalism, however, insists that crime has a number of benefits. In this way, the theory argues that crime generates the need to have opportunities for police officers, criminal investigators, lawyers, and other positions related to this line of work. In the case where crime is eliminated, it would mean that all these positions disappear and such people would be rendered unemployed. In this way, the theory argues that crime helps families and the society at large to be united in order to fight issues such as crime.
I prefer this theory because it also helps make the society unite in various activities. This can be illustrated in the case where crime or any other unacceptable behaviors in the society lead to a strong society that values customs such as unity.
These kinds of unacceptable behavior allow the society to remember the status quo thus reorganize formerly practiced customs. For instance, in the past years’ such behaviors led to the social development of rights movements such as women’s rights, and in countries like United States African American and homosexual rights have been created. In this way maltreatment of the disadvantaged in the society has led to the questioning and breaking of such cultural customs that were oppressive.
The functionalist perspective also helps create a very clear picture of how society is interdependent in many aspects leading to its stability. This for example can be illustrated in the case where the state helps offer to learn to children for the family, and the family pays taxes to the government that the state uses to keep itself going. The family looks upon the school to educate the children so that they can be able to find good jobs in the future and thus they will be able to provide and take care of their own families. With time, children grow up and develop into law-abiding individuals, and they help the state by paying their taxes.
In cases where things turn out well, the parts of the society are able to attain order, efficiency, and stability. If things do not turn out well, the parts of the society will have to develop a new order to achieve stability and efficiency. For instance, in case there is economic instability families will be required to use smaller budgets; schools create few courses, and so on. (Talcott)
Conclusion
The functionalist perspective believes in social agreements to create a stable society. The theory advocates for a society to be united in all its values, customs as well as beliefs. In this way, many societies are able to enjoy the continuous flow of normal activities in a normal society. This theory is very efficient especially in cases where things go the right way as they are planned. The functional perspective theory ensures that the society maintains order that will help them grow in all sectors. In this way, everyone works for the good of society at large.
Works Cited
Talcott, Parsons, “The Present Status of “Structural-Functional” Theory in Sociology.” In Talcott Parsons, Social Systems and The Evolution of Action Theory New York: The Free Press, 1975.
This paper is set to explore the functionalism theory, the social exchange theory, and the rational choice theory. As we shall see herein, these three theories share very close ties, and together they are seen to be more useful in describing human actions together than they do individually. The theories complement each other in many ways and all share a foundation in psychology, economics and sociology.
The functionalism theory
The functionalist theory describes society as an entity that is made up of different parts; these parts have different purposes that are essential to the functioning of society. The society is described using the metaphor of a living organism, a living organism has several organs that are organized into a functioning system, the various organs have different functions, for example, a human being has a kidney, a heart, lungs among others and the function of these organs is to sustain the human being, Similarly, members of a society can be thought of like cells in a person body, the institutions that exist in society are seen as its organs. The functionalist theory seeks to analyze the significance of each of the constituents of the society and establish the purpose they serve to ensure that social stability is maintained. (Farganis 2008: pp172) Functionalism theory has been supported by a number of sociologists, all of them having their own understanding of theory of functionalism, some of these theorists include; Émile Durkheim was one of the leading scholars who developed the functionalist theory, he was concerned with how societies maintain stability and survival he emphasized that moral consensus plays a vital role in maintaining social order and establishing equilibrium in society. Durkheim proposed that societies are differentiated into different parts with all parts being held together by solidarity, there are two forms of ‘glues’ in the society, that is, the things that held society together, mechanical and organic solidarity. Mechanical solidarity consisted of shared roles and duties, in modern societies the members perform different tasks, resulting in interdependence, while organic solidarity embodied a shared culture that consisted of shared values, symbols, or systems of exchanges. Talcott Parsons had his views on functionalism, he viewed society in terms of four social systems; these are personality, society, culture, and behavior. Each of these systems has to meet four needs for it to function; these needs include adaptation, integration, goal attainment and latency. Robert K. Merton studied functionalism in terms of the society’s functions, these functions were latent and manifest. Manifest functions occur as a result of the intended adjustment of society to various social stimuli. Latent functions occur as a result of a cultural idea that is not intended by the members of a society (Farganis 2008: pp 168) however, functionalism has a number of shortcomings, these include the fundamental perspective that functionalism is opposed to major social change. Functionalism does not explain the changes that take place in society rather it focuses on the maintenance of the existing social order. Other sociologists regard functionalism as a theory that can only be used in the analysis of data in research but is not able to come up with new areas of study.
Social exchange theory
Social exchange theory grew from the intercourse of sociology, economics and Psychology. Social exchange theory postulates that relationships are built on a symbiotic foundation; people assess the value of relationships based on what they pose to gain in the future. (Farganis 2008: pp 251) Social exchange theory tries to explain how people feel in regards to a relationship depending on the individual’s perception of what they invest into the relationship, what they expect to receive from the union, and the likelihood of making that relationship a better one. Individuals in a relationship of any given nature need to know what is fair in their relationship i.e. what they expect to gain given their input and in this way they develop a comparison level. This comparison level varies greatly from relationship to relationship depending on what is at stake, the degree of cohesion between the individuals, and their expectations. The expectations that individuals have from each other in a relationship are called a ‘balance of exchange’. How much is an individual expecting from another and how much is he willing to divulge? the balance of exchange is different in the different stages of a relationship, for example in the early stages of a romantic relationship couples are normally very generous with each other and hence the balance of exchange is often ignored but as the relationship matures on the couples become more and more aware of the balance of exchange and they start demanding fairness in the relationship. Exchange theory describes social order as built on negotiation between people in a relationship. It explains that relationships are formed on the basis of a cost-benefit analysis, people accept to do favors for their friends because they know that in time the favor will be returned. Before they do something, they ask themselves, ‘ what is in it for me?’ when people give a lot into a relationship, they also expect a lot in return (Homans 1961: pp 112)
Rational choice theory
Rational choice theory is a model that is set on explaining socio-economic behavior. rationality literary means ‘logical’ or ‘sane’ or ‘level headedness’ it implies that people’s behaviors are normally based on a rational choice, that is, they seek to maximize utility they receive as a result of their course of action based on their individual tastes and preferences given the level of constraints that they face. The individual’s actions are perceived as a means to an end. Rational choice theory is based on the assumption that social situations are a result of the action of each individual member of a group. A society’s behavior is a result of all the individuals’ behaviors that are set on maximizing utility at the least costs and therefore this is perceived as the society’s aggregate behavior is rational (Elster 1989: pp13). The rational choice theory, therefore, adopts a utilitarian basis that an individual is a reasoning entity who considers costs, benefits, and the means before he makes a rational decision.
A critique of rational choice theory and social change theory
Katherine Millar in her book ‘communication theories’ criticizes the social exchange theory on the basis that it reduces human interaction to an economic foundation, Millar also addresses the fact that this theory addresses all relationships from the point of view that it is an open relationship whereby all the facts are laid out barely and nothing is hidden from either party involved however this is not normally the case as some people conceal their intentions at the beginning of relationships in order to gain an upper hand as the relationship matures. Another problem involves is collective action. The existence of social norms and social structure renders the theory crippled, the society is built on the norms of helping others, if individuals calculated the economic gain before taking any action then that means individuals would never help others. social norms also pose a threat to the theory of rational choice and social exchange because individuals accept and follow social norms that eventually lead them to act in ways that do not benefit themselves but the society as a whole for example people pay taxes, the taxes do not benefit the individual himself but the society as a whole. This argument is described by Talcott parsons as the Hobberian problem related to order. If every individual action is self-interested then how is social life possible?
The idea of rational choice and social exchange is based on the principles of behavioral psychology. Human behavior is no different from the behavior of other animals; it is determined by the gains and punishments that may be received. People act in ways that they may be rewarded and try their level best to avoid punishment. This is the determining factor of human behavior. Human beings are motivated by an array of factors, these include economic gains, love, approval, power and prestige. This does not change the way human behavior is to be explained, the mechanisms involved are the same. The study of human behavior is built on the assumption that an individual’s behavior is primarily motivated by economic gain. It employs the idea that human beings are rational in their actions. This theory applies to social interaction as exchange theory.
Conclusion
As it has been discussed in-depth, the theories of functionalism, rational choice, and social exchange are very effective when they are used together as these theories complement each other, each theory has its own weaknesses but these weaknesses are downplayed when the theories are used together. These three theories are all set on the same basis of Psychology, Economics and Sociology.
Reference list
Farganis, J. 2008. Readings in Social Theory: The Classical Tradition to Post-Modernism. Boston: McGraw Hill.
Elster, J.1983. Sour grapes. Cambridge: Cambridge university press.
Homans, G. 1961. Social behavior: Its elementary forms. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
One of the major conceptions of the neo-functionalism of the 1960s has been the coinage of the concept of spillover which meant to justify the process of European integration. The concept denotes that the inner dynamics which demand the members of a local system to either enhance the extent or enlarge the level of their mutual commitments or both. To clarify, spillover can be well comprehended as a method whereby “a given action, related to a specific goal, creates a situation in which the original goal can be assured only by taking further actions, which in turn create a further condition and a need for more, and so forth” (Lindberg, 1963. p 9). A central question in the understanding of spillover has been whether it implies that there are no limits to the number of policies that can be dealt with at the European level and this paper seeks to respond to this pertinent question.
The concept of spillover
In responding to this pertinent question concerning the validity of spillover in the political integration of the European states, it is important to comprehend that the political spillover is evaluated to be less impractical compared to other types of spillover such as functional spillover or cultivated spillover. The efficiency of the spillover and its success in the European integration in much debated. Whereas there are theorists who consider the practicality in the implementation of spillover, a large number of political thinkers consider the concept to be less practical. Remarkably, political integration does not indicate a process through which the national policymakers attempt to create sovereign foreign, security, and defense policies but it is a framework for them to take up initiatives, resources, and devotion. The chief among the many spillover barriers is the fact that “political integration is more time consuming, less possible than economic one because of lack of functional motivation of interest groups in nonformal financing of this process. According to that, political integration is not a logical next stage for economic integration.” (Verbal, p, 8-9). In this background, it is clear that political integration is not a very successful concept and there are limits to which policies can be dealt with at the European level.
It is also significant to note that the concept of spillover can be best understood in the background of European integration and the inclusion of policies in the union is limited by factors that make the political integration less successful. There are various conditions for the success of spillover in the European integration which limits the number of policies that can be integrated with the union of European states. “Most theories of regional integration reckon two conditions, economic cooperation and (at least a minimum set of) common institutions, as necessary for the integration to proceed.” (Malamud 2005). This has its impact on the policies that can be dealt with at the European level.
Conclusion
Thus, it is significant, in conclusion, to note that the concept of spillover does not imply that the limitless number of policies can be integrated for consideration at the European level. The political integration of Europe is far from realizing and the spillover can be effectively conceived only at a later stage where European integration is complete. Therefore, there needs to be a specific condition set, for the unlimited number of policies to be dealt with at the European level which is yet to be created.
References
Lindberg, Leon N., 1963. The Political Dynamics of European Economic Integration. Stanford: Stanford University Press, p. 9.
MALAMUD, Andrés. (2005). Spill over in European and South American Integration. A Comparative Evaluation. [online]. CIES e-Working Paper. Web.
VEEBEL, Viljar. (2002). Spill over Barrier in the Process of European Integration. [online]. EuroCollege Working Papers. No.5. p, 8-9. Web.
Structural Functionalism in its most basic terms emphasizes the effort to impute as rigorously as possible to each feature, custom, or practice, its effect on the functioning of a supposedly stable, cohesive system (Bourricaud, 94). Under the theory of functionalism, all parts of a society’s structure are just organs that work together to ensure the proper function of the social body as a whole. This paper will be about how Functionalism is used by Hugo Chavez’s government to preserve the Marxist Venezuelan state.
Advocates of functionalism
One of the most popular proponents of Functionalism was Herbert Spencer. He was one of the first to propose the idea of a “super-organic” body supported by a number of sub-organs. He was also influenced by Darwinist philosophies because he believe that the “super-organic” was always under siege from internal and external pressures and it had to adapt its internal workings by differentiation. Spencer postulates that there are three factors that create a need for this selection regulatory, operative and distributive pressures. For him, society must learn to solve the inherent problems of control and coordination, the production of goods and services and also uncover ways of properly disseminating them. If his theory is followed then it explains how Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez arouse to become the chief or “big man” of his country to take control of the levers of power.
A later theorist named Robert Merton came up with his own ideas about functionalism. He criticized existing theories because he believed that not all the parts of society exist to support its existence. Instead, some institutions can have other functions or even be dysfunctional. Certain organs may functions for some societies while being utterly dysfunctional for others and vice versa. In other words, some organs only function for a dominant individual or a group (Holmwood, 91). Hence there is a level of power and coercion in functionalism. Merton also proposed that there can be alternatives to existing social organs such that existing organs are not indispensable to society. This last statement is a major innovation on the part of Merton since in the past those who taught functionalism always supported the status quo and did not offer the possibility of an alternative.
Critics of functionalism
Functionalism has come under fire because as a social theory it does not account for the possibility of social change and social conflict. Another criticism is that functionalism is teleological. In other words, it describes societies and their organs entirely by their effects and does not dwell upon the reasons why those organs have those effects. Finally, there is the criticism that a society unlike a person, can not have needs. While society can have needs they can be fulfilled or unfulfilled and unlike a person, it will continue to exist even if the needs are not met, contrast this with wants.
In relation to Marxism, the form of government that is in Valenzuela, functionalism is criticized for being partisan and promoting advanced welfare capitalism (Holmwood, 103). By comparison, Marxism seeks to promote the advancement of socialist dialect and criticized existing state organs as a means to perpetuate the hold of capitalism in society. Despite this conflict between the two opposing views, it is apparent that Venezuela’s Marxist government is putting functionalism to good use in maintaining its hold on power.
Venezuela is one of the last bastions of Marxism in the world
Venezuela is one of the last bastions of Marxism in the world. Together with Cuba, it is the only state in the Americas that still believes in socialism as a valid form of governance. Its president Hugo Chavez is a card-carrying member of the United Socialist Party of Venezuela (PSUV) which is a close ally of the Communist Party of Venezuela (PCV). Their names alone suggest a close allegiance to Marxist doctrines and the socialist agenda those doctrines promote. Since the start of the Bolivarian Revolution in 1998, these parties have remained in power thanks in part to the cunning of Hugo Chavez and his careful manipulation of the State’s organs.
Venezuela is the fifth-largest producer/exporter of oil. When Chavez took over the government in 1998 he made radical changes to strengthen Venezuela’s leverage as an oil producer. At the time he took power the Oil Cartel OPEC was failing in its purpose to protect the interests of oil-producing nations. Countries were no longer obeying the Oil production quota and depressing the prices of oil. This was very bad for Venezuela because oil was one of its major exports. Chavez went around the world to help strengthen OPEC. He even went so far as hosting the first OPEC summit in 25 years (Wilpert, 2008). This is already a good example of the use of the diplomatic organs of state to promote the survival of the Chavez regime. The government was well aware that since Oil was an important industry and an excellent source of money to support the government’s agenda. Hence it was imperative that Venezuela receive the best value for its money. Here the government is pushing its agenda of controlling the value of its production of oil.
The reinstatement of quotas that were brought about by adherence to Opec was not welcomed universally. The Venezuelan oil company, PDVSA, went on strike in December of 2002 halting vital oil production. They considered the government as a whole to be dysfunctional and demanded early elections. This is an example of how social organs may benefit the majority but not certain groups as proposed by Merton. In this case, Venezuela as a whole prospered to a degree because the high oil prices meant that a lot of money was flowing into the country and being used to fund social programs benefiting the majority. The minority, PDVSA, suffered because it was geared toward maximizing oil output and the reduction in production meant that much of their workforce was idle. The plan of PDVSA backfired as the government simply fired the striking workers. Hence the PDVSA oil strike is a classic example of the power and coercion found in functionalism. The PDVSA was too weak to coerce action and the other state organs simply crushed their ‘rebellion’.
The Oil strike of 2002 and the dislocations that occurred because of it caused a considerable amount of chaos in the country. Hence Chavez was forced to renationalize the oil industry to return it to good production efficiency. This also allowed the government to claim a larger share in the oil revenues. The president claimed that this was his way of redistributing a greater portion of the profits to the people. Royalty payment from oil went up to 30% of the price double from what it was from pre-strike levels. These actions are a continuation of the efforts by the Chavez government to use the oil industry as leverage to fund its social projects to provide better for its people which are mostly poor. This form of leverage is very important because the poor people in Venezuela are the prime source of votes and support for the socialists and if they are displeased the Marxists may soon find themselves out of power.
The Church is another important functional organ of the Venezuelan state. Like all Latin American states, Venezuela was originally a colony of Europeans at the time when Europeans were still a very religious people. As a result, they transplanted their Christian religion to the natives and their descendants. Hence to this day the Church still plays a very major role in their lives. Marxist’s ideology speaks against religions in general calling religion the “Opiate of the masses” because it is a way to pacify the working class and prevent them from revolting they said. Due to the highly religious nature of the Venezuelan people suppressing religion was not feasible in Venezuela. A sort of truce exists between the Marxist government and the Church in Venezuela. A live and let live policy exists where the Marxists allow the Church to subsist without too much trouble. This helps pacify the people of Venezuela because the Church has a moderating influence on people who would otherwise rise up if they felt oppressed. Hence even if the Church is not strictly a state organ it serves a function for the survival of the state. History has shown, Mexico is a prime example, that socialist regimes in Latin America that try to suppress the Church.
A foreign relation is a powerful tool in Venezuela’s arsenal. Venezuela has kept friendly relations with its neighboring Latin American States and Western countries. The exception to this rule is the United States since the 2002 Oil Strikes and the coup d’état where the United States imprudently recognized the validity of the regime of Pedro Carmona. Hence it is was only natural that the ties between Chavez’s government and the U.S. have cooled. Furthermore, Venezuela has been building close ties to states which are not allied to the United States as if they were trying to form an alternative to the U.S.-dominated Organization of American States. There is also a string of Venezuelan activity on the international scene that has run contrary to what the United States wanted. For example, Venezuela recognized South Ossetia when the United States insisted that the new state was illegitimate. It would appear that Venezuela is trying to establish a multi-polar world by creating a power-bloc among third-world countries. The function of this is to raise the profile of Venezuela to that of a seeming competitor of the United States. This serves two functions. First, it increases the national pride and prestige of the average Venezuelan making him feel exalted that his nation is growing in power so much so that it is competing on the world stage with the World’s only remaining superpower. This pride translates to support as the common rally behind their brave leaders. The second function it serves is precisely the uplifting of the Venezuelan state on the world stage. By tracing a bold path in world affairs Venezuela is earning the respect of its neighbors who will admire its independence of American policy dictated by the United States.
The military is another functional state organ that helps preserve the Marxist state. Venezuela has a military with over 100,000 soldiers, it is well paid and well-motivated thanks in part to the government’s oil monopoly. While unrest is not a major factor in Venezuela the army exists and as the 2002 coup shows can easily be turned against any potential rebels. The military is a functional organ that guarantees Hugo Chavez and his cohorts will endure because for as long as the Venezuelan army is loyal to the government there is very little chance for an armed uprising to succeed. While this is not as glaring or apparent, Hugo Chavez and his regime are, in part, propped up by a loyal military that easily intimidates any rivals.
Even the economic growth that has occurred and the prosperity it brings to Venezuela is an effective state organ in preserving the Marxists in power. One of Chavez’s main bases of power is the poor of Venezuela. Economic growth eventually trickles down to the poor who feel that their prosperity is increasing. Hence they are less inclined to reject or oppose the socialist reforms that Chavez is trying to impose on the country. This is in keeping with Marxist ideology because the poor, typically the working class and the downtrodden were supposed to be uplifted in a Marxist government. In the Venezuelan context, wealth slowly trickles to the poor via the improving economy or through social programs put in place by the government. These actions serve a function similar to the Church by reducing any simmering discontent the people may have against their new rulers.
“Twenty-first-century socialism” and the dogma that is attached to it is another efficient state organ that exists to perpetuate the Marxists in power. The idea of a modern kind of socialism is supported by the students and the middle class. When Chavez came to power in 1998 people honestly believed that he was a great reformer. His current performance would suggest that he is. The majority of the people, particularly the poor and the intellectuals, have supported his reforms as necessary although clouds are beginning to gather. In 2006 Chavez held a referendum trying to impose a new constitution on the country the referendum failed. The Venezuelan people were not willing to surrender more rights to the government than it already has. This would suggest that the functionalist systems put into place by Chavez were beginning to fail in their objective of keeping the people pacified and supportive of the Chavez regime. However, this would not be so. The 2008 elections showed that the people continued to vote overwhelmingly in support of Chavez and his political party has continued to dominate the provincial and national legislatures. This is despite the fact that unlike in 2005 the opposition parties vigorously contested the elections. The party-dominated legislature is another functionalist organ that helps preserve the state. Since the United Socialist Party of Venezuela (PSUV) and Communist Party of Venezuela (PCV) members dominate the legislature there is no doubt that in the event that laws need to be passed perpetuating the regime the legislature will be most accommodating to any needs of Chavez.
Conclusion
In conclusion, functionalism is a positivist theory that proposed that States are similar to human bodies in that they also need vital organs to survive. Unlike the biological organs of a human being, State organs are organizations that function to preserve the existence of the state against external and internal pressures. The government itself is the largest functionalist organ of the Marxist government in Venezuela because is the government that allows the creation and preservation of the instruments or state organs which the Chavez government relies on heavily to preserve its continued existence. It is via the instruments of government that Chavez as president can solve the inherent problems of control and coordination. As president and head of the dominant political party, he is able to control the instruments of dissemination. Finally thanks to the pervasive and socialist nature of the government he is able to control the levels of goods and services produced, as evinced by the recent scuffles his government had with oil production monopoly PDVSA that nearly cost Chavez his regime.
However, the functionalist nature of the government only benefits the majority or at least the majority it claims to represent the descamisados of the poor. Socialist programs are being enforced in the state with the stated view of alleviating the poverty and suffering of the common people. However such aid comes at the expense of frequently inefficient government centralized programs. The inefficiency of the programs comes from the fact that a centralized aid program frequently becomes inflexible and unable to adapt to specific needs which would not be seen save by those who are on the ground in the poorest provinces themselves. If the socialist programs were truly working for the entire country then there would no viable opposition party since they would have no supporters. Instead, despite the near-total dominance of Chavez and his party in the political scene a vibrant and active opposition remains to contest power with him.
Ironically, in the effort to keep itself in power the functionalist Marxist regime in Venezuela is forced to make some unorthodox compromises. For example, Marxism is traditionally the enemy of organized religion. Yet in the Venezuelan context, the State can not easily ignore the influence and power of the Church. Hence instead of trying to suppress the Church like other more radical socialist regimes like China and Cuba have tried to do. Venezuela’s government has adopted a live and let live policy with respect to the Church. Also even if Marx originally proposed that the state would eventually wither away in a truly socialist regime, the opposite is occurring in Venezuela. Despite being a socialist regime, Venezuela’s government has been noticeably trying to concentrate power into the hands of the President and his allies. Showing that instead of weakening the state is become stronger and stronger. A final irony is that Chavez and his regime are heavily supported by intellectuals and students in contrast to the normally logger-heads attitude of the same against a communist or socialist government. All these contradictions point to one thing. Chavez et al. control a functionalist state that is at best nominally socialist. It will employ all the means at its disposal to remain in power. Fair and foul means have been used in the past and will continue to be used to ensure that Chavez and his cronies will remain in power. The state organs are being manipulated to provide the basis of support and to suppress any possible sources of dissent.
Reference
Bourricaud, F. The Sociology of Talcott Parsons Chicago University Press. ISBN 0-226-067564. p. 94
Holmwood, J., (2005) “Functionalism and its Critics” in Harrington, A., (ed) Modern Social Theory: an introduction, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 87–109
The history of the European Union dates back to the World War II. European countries were determined to prevent such human as well as economic costs witnessed during the war from ever happening again. The formation of the Council of Europe among Western European countries in 1949 marked the beginning of the establishment of the European Union.
In attempts to ensure that cooperating countries do not make weapons of war which they could use to turn against each other, France, Germany, Netherlands, Belgium, Italy and Luxembourg signed a treaty in 1951 to guarantee the smooth running of their heavy industries under single management.
The European Union is an economic as well as a political union functions through a hybrid system which includes supranational independent institutions as well as intergovernmentally made decisions which are made by the member states (Albi 204).
Supranationalism refers to a type of decision-making among United States or communities delegate or transfer power to an institution by involving and taking into consideration the views of all the governments making up the union. The term is popular with the European Union which has formed a unique kind of political entity. It is the only entity that practices international popular elections. This goes beyond the usual political integration generally adopted by international agreement (Kiljunen 21).
Its supranational foundation makes war among member states unthinkable as well as materially impossible. In addition, supranationalism reinforces democracy. On the other hand, intergovernmentalism refers to an approach where states as well as the national governments are the main actors in the process of integration.
Intergovernmentalism recognizes the importance of institutionalization in international politics as well as the influence of processes of local politics on governmental preferences. It explains the radical changes that took place during the integration of the European Union.
Finally, neo-functionalism is a concept that describes and tries to explain the course of regional integration in terms of interaction among three casual factors which include; increasing interdependence between countries; supranational market rules which are adopted to substitute national regulatory regimes; and finally organizational capacity to successfully resolve disputes as well as to create international legal regimes (Ernst 366).
It developed in 1960s as a result of the perceived spill-over effects which were expected to result from the European integration.
European Union during the Cold War, Liberalism and Communism
During the period of the cold war, Europe was divided into the west and east Europe. However, European integration which resulted to the formation of the Council of Europe and later European Union among the Western European nations, have expanded eastwards after the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. Most of the Eastern European nations were controlled by the USSR and they therefore formed the Council of Mutual Economic Assistance (COMECON).
During this period of the cold war (1945-1990), countries which maintained a free-market economy were offered aid by the US. This was part of the US Marshall Plan of 1947 to reunite Europe. Western European nations removed key trade barriers so as to connect their economies and benefit from free trade areas through a common union and this provided the basis for the formation of EU as well as increasing cross-border trade.
Meanwhile, as the western economies benefit from increased economic growth, nations under the COMECON were under pressure to maintain their economies majorly as a result of the Cold War. The Cold War therefore slowed down European Integration as the two sides followed different agendas and ideologies.
During the Cold War, the western and eastern countries followed different political and economic ideologies. While the west leaned towards capitalism, the east supported communism which was the USSR’s ideology. The Marshall Plan which lasted for only four years (1948-1951) was part of the US plan to fight the spread of communism. During the period of communism the western capitalist countries removed trade barriers and as a result experienced high economic growths.
On the contrary, Soviet leaders constantly frustrated CEECs’ reform efforts through constant economic pressure as well as occasional military interventions. The end of communism among the Central and Eastern European Countries began after the free parliamentary elections held in Poland in1989 (Baldwin and Wyplosz 20).
Liberalism began in 1949 after the formation of the Organization for European Economic Cooperation (OEEC) in 1948 among the western states and the Council of Mutual Economic Assistance in 1949 among the Soviet bloc. The major aim was to achieve free-trade territory among the capitalist and communist states respectively. Liberalization promoted rapid expansion of trade as well as economic growth among the OEEC countries in the 1950s and 1960s (Baldwin &Wyplosz 5).
The second period of liberalism which began in the mid-1980s to late 1990s was characterized by constraining and pushing of governments of European nations by the economic interest groups towards further integration (Bieler 576). The Western, Central and Eastern European countries focused on deregulation as well as liberalization of national economies so as to allow free flow of capital, goods, people and services.
The European integration in the mid-1980s onwards focused on the internal market deregulation which was institutionalized under the Single European Act of 1987 as well as the Economic and Monetary Union which was formed during the Treaty of Maastricht of 1991. In the 1990s, EU’s major agenda was the issue of enlargement. Austria, Sweden and Finland who were members of the European Free Trade Association joined the EU in 1995 after negotiations which took place in 1993 and 1994 (Bieler 575).
Formation of the EU
The need for reconciliation after the end of the World War having experienced devastating human killings and destruction of infrastructure led to the formation of the Council of Europe in 1949. This led to the creation of a de facto supreme court, European Court of Human Rights in 1950 based in Strasbourg. The Council of Europe was mainly concerned with issues of democracy and human rights. The member states agreed to transfer their national authorities over their steal as well as coal production to the ECSC Commission.
This promoted greater transparency as well as trust among themselves. The two institutions, ECSC and Euratom were later merged into EEC in 1967 during the Brussels Treaty to form the European Communities (EC). Denmark, the UK and Ireland later joined EC in 1973 while Greece became a member in 1981. Spain and Portugal also joined in 1986.
East and West Germany were reunified in 1990 and hence East Germany became a member of the Community. The European Union was finally established in 1993 by the Treaty of Maastricht founded on the pre-existing European Economic Community which by then had twelve member states (Stirk and Weigall 111-15).
Effects of neo-functionalism on European integration
European integration is seen as having followed Neo-functionalism. The Organization for European Economic Community was created to promote development among the European nations. It resulted into the establishment of the Council of Europe, European Coal and Steal Community, the European Economic Community as well as the European Atomic Community and finally the European Union.
It also led to deregulation of internal markets among individual member states as well as liberalization of trade in the European Union during liberalism. It led to the formation of European Free Trade Association which consisted of four member states, Sweden, Austria, Norway and Finland who later Joined European Union. Economic interest groups and associations pushed for further integration among European countries so as to pursue their economic interests.
This resulted into establishment of supranational European institutions as a result of political spill-over. Neo-functionalism also promoted high economic growth especially among the OEEC countries between 1950 and 1970 as a result of elimination of trade and payment barriers among member states.
It also promoted cooperation among the European communities on matters of human rights, democracy, security, environment, labour policies, and health standards as well as economic cooperation leading to signing of several treaties aimed at achieving those (Haas (a) 368. It therefore made European integration inevitable.
It therefore facilitated the European integration as more and more countries pursued regional integration to eliminate their limited economic activities (Haas (b) 162). The enactment of the constitution of the European Union could an assurance increase in European in the future. The international secretariats in the EU manages co-operation among member countries while the international courts enforce European integration. European integration was facilitated by the Single European Act of 1987.
Effects of intergovernmentalism on European integration
Intergovernmentalism had an influence on the establishment of supranational European Union institutions and policies. International co-operation among European countries resulted from the common national interest of countries particularly economic interests rising from decisions and forces of the national politics.
Intergovernmentalism led to the historical progression from custom, to political and then to economic union and finally to monetary union in the EU starting from the six member states to nine, twelve, fifteen and finally twenty seven. The institutional framework as well as rules that guide the European integration reflects the bargaining power of different nations.
The legislators, promoters as well as the promulgators of the expanding European integration are mainly the individual national governments and in particular, the major European Union countries and their representatives and heads of state (Puchala 319).Intergovernmentalism was very significant during the periods leading to important agreements. Besides, the legally recognized signatories of any EU treaty are state representatives.
As a result of intergovernmentalism, the European Union respects the national identities of its member countries and in particular, those whose governments adopt democratic principles in their governance systems as outlined in the Treaty of the European Union. Respect for national identity is preserved whenever key intergovernmental decisions are being made under unanimity, when amending treaties or while dealing with issues of the European Council.
Again when it comes to foreign policy, national concerns dominate European interests. Member states have always protected their national interests and restrict future transfer of their sovereignty. They therefore operate through intergovernmental institutions instead of transferring supreme authority to European Union’s central institutions. The interests of the member state executives and not the supranational actors determine the policy outcomes (Moga 801-802).
Effects of the leaders to the integration and the ideologies (6 ECSC countries)
The aftermath of the World War II had encouraged leaders to come together and cooperate so as to eliminate any factor that could cause war and also promote European political and economic Union. Leaders of governments as well as ministers of the Western European countries facilitated European integration in several ways such as policy reforms, ideologies and political pressures.
Robert Schuman who was the then French Prime Minister and Foreign Minister offered the proposal to create ECSC which would help eliminate future wars between Germany and France which were major superpowers by then. His proposal was explicitly political; however, it followed an economic integration approach with broad political objectives.
He helped reform the French policy to surrender its permanent control over parts of Germany which were coal mining areas such as the Saar and the Ruhr regions to set pace for the establishment of the ECSC. Other leaders such as Jean Monnet also helped in writing the French policy. His guiding principles were international democracy among states.
Political leaders such as Andre Philip, Edourad Bonnfous and Paul Reynaud among others supported linkages of economies through the formation of ECSC. They initiated specialist subcommittees in the Council of Europe to help establish ECSC. However, Charles de Gaulle opposed the formation of ECSC terming it as false and weak approach. Western European leaders developed the legal framework to guide the operations of the ECSC and the Franco-German reconciliation.
The leaders also facilitated and participated in the signing of the Treaty of Paris in 1951by France, Italy, West Germany, Luxembourg, Belgium and Netherlands. In 1953, a common market for both coal and steal was opened. The Western European leaders guided ECSC’s operations through to 1967 when it was merged into the EEC.
All the countries and the leaders involved pursued capitalist and both intergovernmentalism and neo-functionalism ideologies such as democratic governance through creation democratic institutions both nationally and internationally, free-market economy and respect for human rights.
Intergovernmentalism influence neo-functionalism and the integration
Intergovernmentalism set up serious barriers to policy innovation in the event of non-unanimous governmental agreement. The institutional policies and decisions reflect the interests of member state governments or representative executives. New policy initiatives have occasionally been met with oppositions and always have slim chances of being adopted given the political system of the EU. The forms supermajority procedures practiced in the EU’s political system remains a hurdle to neo-functionalism.
Intergovernmentalism adopted by the member states to protect EU’s constituent units and their national autonomy hinders the operations of neo-functionalism. Far-reaching market liberalization has occasionally blocked political re-regulation of EU’s policies and also threatens the future European integration process since it could lead to market imbalance. Frustration among the electorates could lead to voting for parties which are far off the centre and in turn endanger European integration (Falkner 4).
Conclusion
European integration has been influenced by the ideologies of intergovernmentalism and neo-functionalism at different periods and on different decisions and initiatives. The two ideologies provide divergent assumptions about European integration. Neo-functionalism brings a new political setting whereby countries forgo their desire as well as ability to perform both domestic and foreign policies autonomously with an aim of making joint decisions or transferring decision-making to new central institutions.
The ideology was very popular in the 1950s and 1960s and promoted the establishment of several economic communities and the enlargement of co-operating members from 6 members to 27. It also promoted co-operation among European communities solving common problems. On the other hand, intergovernmentalist perspective which became popular in the 1970s emphasized on individual governments of the co-operating union as the determinants of decisions and policy outcomes.
It promoted the participation of governments in important agreements as well as protection of national sovereignty of member states. The ideology resulted into the creation of legal framework to guide the operations of the supranational institutions of the European Union. Supranational institutions respect the national identities of individual member states.
Works Cited
Albi, Anneli. Implications of the European constitution. EU enlargement and the constitutions of Central and Eastern Europe. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2005. Print.
Baldwin, Richard. and Wyplosz, Charles. Manuscript for the Economics of European Integration. 2003. Web.
Bieler, Andreas. The struggle over EU enlargement: A historical materialist analysis of European integration. Journal of European Public Policy, 2002: 575-597. London: Taylor & Francis Ltd.
Falkner, Gerda. Interlinking neofunctionalism and intergovernmentalism: Sidelining governments and manipulating policy preferences as “passerelles”. Working Paper, No. 03/2011 (2011): 1-25. Vienna: Institute for European Integration Research.
Haas, Ernst. Beyond the Nation-State: Functionalism and International Organization. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1964. Print.
Haasm, Ernst. International Integration: The European and the Universal Process. International Organization 15 (1961): 366-392. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Kiljunen, Kimmo (2004). The European Constitution in the Making. Centre for European Policy Studies. Brussels: Centre for European Policy Studies.
Moga, Teodor. The Contribution of the Neofunctionalist and Intergovernmentalist Theories to the Evolution of the European Integration Process. Journal of Alternative Perspectives in the Social Sciences, 1:3 ( 2009): 796-807. Iasi: University of Cuza.
Puchala, Donald. Institutional, Inertgovernmentalism and European Integration: A Review Article. Journal of Common Market Studies, 37:2 (1999): 317-331. New Jersey: Blackwell publishers.
Stirk, Peter and Weigall, David. The Origins and Development of the European Community, Leicester: Leicester University Press, 1992. Print.
Nowadays, millions of people are interested in developing discussions about the role of the philosophy of mind in human behaviour, the quality of the relationships between mind and brain, and the way of how the world should be perceived and studied. The peculiar feature of the philosophy of mind is the inability to come to one logical conclusion and choose one strong position. Mental activities are usually equated or compared with brain activities through a number of scientific, psychological, and behavioural terms. The task of a philosopher is to “give an account of the mind solely in terms of behaviour and dispositions to behave, yet think that the behaviour… is so complex and sophisticated that it could not have a purely material cause” (Armstrong 54). There are many philosophers whose thoughts and contributions have to be recognised. Still, the work of Hilary Putnam deserves special attention because his vision includes the investigation of mental states through the prism of the identity theory, behaviourism, and psychology.
In this paper, the perspectives developed by Putnam in the second half of the 20th century will be proved as effective and educative means for understanding people, their needs, and actions. His computational functionalism, as well as the notions of a Turing Machine and a Probabilistic Automaton, was successfully accepted by society. However, to everyone’s amazement, Putnam changed his views to quite the opposite ones, seriously criticising functionalism in all its forms. This philosopher was not afraid to admit that it was normal to change the mind, improve the work of the brain, and choose behaviours that correspond to personal thoughts and attitudes. Despite the existing alternatives developed by Putnam and other philosophers to disprove its credibility and practicality in the philosophy of mind, functionalism can be supported as a view where mental states have to be discussed in terms of their functional roles and causal relations to other states, behaviours, and inputs, cognitive development, and computation in terms of which an analogy between the brain and a machine can be explained.
Functionalism Basics and Development
The philosophy of mind is characterised by a number of theories and approaches supported and opposed by different authors. Its goal is to evaluate the nature of the human mind through a biopsychosocial paradigm of consciousness and the relationships between mental states. Nagel explains consciousness as something that can make “the mind-body problem really intractable” (165). It is not just a problem to comprehend the relations between mind and body. It is a challenge people have to be ready for. Among the existing schools and positions, including dualism, monism, behaviourism, and the identity theory, functionalism can be specially identified because of three important reasons. First, being introduced as a reaction to the identity theory, it was supported and then opposed by its creator (Heil 87). Therefore, it is necessary to understand why one idea caused so many discussions and controversies. Second, this theory can be used to examine one big picture of society, as well as its smaller structures. Finally, being focused on interactions, but not on individuals, it helps to understand human minds, their reasons, and their intentions.
The domination of functionalism is evident today. Most functionalism philosophers define themselves as “materialists of one sort of another” (Heil 87). Compared to the necessity to search for new objections to the reports where the processes in sensation statements are the processes in the brain like it was made by Smart in his theoretical perspective of identity (62), functionalists did not stop on processes or states only, but expand their evaluations on functions in causal relations which have a beginning, a number of mental states, and an end. Functionalism does not aim at criticising or improving the identity theory of mind developed by Smart or behaviourism supported by Armstrong. It is a new doctrine the goal of which is to explain why both above-mentioned theories are not enough to understand human behaviours and what can be done more to discover new perspectives. In fact, it is possible to observe similar traits in all these three doctrines. For example, like behaviourists, functionalists want to divide mental states into groups, and like the supporters of the identity theory, they discuss all processes internally.
Functionalism is used to evaluate all processes from the point of view of what they aim at but not what they are made of. Mental states can vary, and this variety is not as important as the ability to perform roles and meet specially established expectations. Regarding such nature of the relationships, mental states may be of different forms, types, and material, as well as have different locations and histories, and stay effective and appropriate in case they perform their functional roles in a proper way.
As well as other theories and directions in the philosophy of mind, functionalism cannot be defined as a single and one-sided doctrine. It may include a “shared collection of insights and convictions” with the help of which the same idea can be observed from another angle (Heil 94). These views include machine-stated or computational functionalism founded and developed by Hilary Putnam, psycho functionalism used by Jerry Fodor to reject behaviourism, analytic functionalism introduced by David Lewis in his intentions to decrease the role of properties of mental states, or mechanistic functionalism developed by Gualtiero Piccinini to explain the role of structures in understanding the functions of mental states. In fact, each approach has a chance to be approved and supported. In this paper, a decision to focus on computational functionalism by Putnam is made to prove the correctness of three main arguments that (1) functionalism is better than behaviourism because of its ability to cover more reasons and outcomes, (2) functionalism progress can be explained by cognitive development, and (3) functionalism is a good reason for creating an analogy between what the mind and a machine can do.
Causal Relations of Mental States: Functionalists vs Behaviourists
Being a part of the theory of mind, functionalism seems to be a better explanation of mental states, including human beliefs, desires, or a feeling of pain through the prism of causal relations compared to behaviourism where all actions are explained through reflexes and responses. Human behaviours and relationships in modern life are complex and unpredictable. Even if people understand what they want to achieve, they can hardly realise their actual roles and outcomes of their activities. To comprehend the essence of mental states, a functionalist Putnam suggests comparing pain and brain state and explains that a feeling of pain “or the state of being in pain, is a functional state of a whole organism” (54). At the same time, he admits a possibility of pain as a brain state is intelligible even if it is not true.
In his intentions to use causal relations between mental states, Putnam uses several strong objections. The characteristics of pain may be properly learned by investigating the way of how a machine works. For example, a child hits a knee (it may be identified as a sensory input) and starts crying (it is a behavioural output). It is a natural development of the events in the sense of non-mental aspects. Functionalists are strong in their definitions and, instead of explaining a mental state using its features and main properties, they identify what a mental state is regarding its functions (the uniqueness of functionalism) and even consider that two different thoughts may be relevant (the same approach is observed in the identity theory or behaviourism). Lewis proves that “the concept of any functional state as such does, of course, differ from the concept of any brain state as such”, but allows the possibility that “different concepts might be concepts of the same state” (232). Therefore, it is wrong to put functionalism and behaviourism far from each other in order to understand what influences human behaviour and what properties have to be recognised.
Cognitive Development Contribution to Functionalism
An understanding of human behaviour through the terms of computational functionalism developed by Putnam can be explained by a fast and effective growth of cognitive science and the development of new psychological instruments. Functionalism is based on the perspective that “suits the needs of many empirical scientists, a perspective that promises solutions to a host of long-standing philosophical puzzles about minds and their relation to material bodies” (Heil 87). Cognitive science turns out to be a significant contribution to the theory of mind, introducing new mechanisms that can be used to recognise human cognitive skills as the types of information processing and gain control over mental representations known as computations. This progress is based on the ability to use knowledge and recognise all mental states and processes. However, such perspective seems to be too general because all cognitive mental states have to be related to the entire world and function as causes of human behaviour.
Therefore, cognitive science has a certain impact on the evaluation of human behaviours and opportunities. Still, theorists have to be ready to narrow down this topic and give reasonable explanations for their choices. Being inspired by new opportunities and options of cognitive science, Putnam develops the theory of computational functionalism using a Turing Machine and a Probabilistic Automaton as a strong “model for an organism” (54). This model promotes a new vision of causal relations and the approval of a mind-machinery analogy for understanding human behaviour.
Mind-Machine Analogy
In order to explain why it is not appropriate to identify mental and brain states, Putnam finds it effective to use a number of technical notions, including a Turing Machine and a Probabilistic Automaton. A Turing Machine is a device that may compute different tasks hypothetically, giving instructions and recommendations related to inputs and outputs and proving the importance of causal relations. In fact, both terms, a Turing Machine and a Probabilistic Automaton, have similar qualities with the only one difference that in the latter, “the transitions between states are allowed to be with various probabilities rather than being deterministic” (Putnam 54). Mental states have to perform their functional roles within a system that is defined through a Turing Machine. Putnam introduces sensory inputs as the description of the system and tries to explain the behaviour of this system through what is actually known and what cannot be realised. Regarding such analogies, it is possible to understand the mind (the system) without understanding its particulars (brain states) and impossible without realising its functions (mental states).
In this analogy, it is also achievable to prove that functionalists and identity theorists can never come to the same conclusions. Putnam believes that for mental and brain states being the same, all physical and chemical structures of organisms have to be the same as well. Such approach is not only unreasonable but also hardly provable because even if the same mental state can be found in two humans, their physical or chemical properties differ from each other.
Conclusion
In general, the theory of functionalism and the work of Hilary Putnam in particular help to understand how diverse and unpredictable the boundaries of human behaviour. Functionalist theories have already undergone considerable changes and improvements because of the growth of cognitive science, the development of computing technologies, and the role of introspective knowledge. In the list of contemporary theories where behaviourism, the identity theory, monism, and dualism are recognised, functionalism remains one of the commonly used theories because of its possibility to combine the characteristics of different approaches and consider recent social changes and expectations. Putnam, as one of the brightest representatives of functionalism, explains human behaviour by creating a question but not by giving explanations. The peculiar feature of his approach is the possibility to challenge and inspire modern people at the same time. In their intentions to find an answer, they learn more about their functions, sensory inputs, behavioural outputs, and other causal relations between mental states that show the right way of how to achieve the best possible results in human experience.
Works Cited
Armstrong, David M. A Materialist Theory of the Mind. Routledge, 1968.
Heil, John. Philosophy of Mind: A Contemporary Introduction. 3rd ed., Routledge, 2013.
Lewis, David. “Review of Putnam.” Readings in Philosophy of Psychology, edited by Ned Block, vol. 1, Harvard University Press, 1980, pp. 232-233.
Nagel, Thomas. Mortal Questions. 15th ed., Cambridge University Press, 2015.
Putnam, Hilary. “The Nature of Mental States.” Readings in Philosophy of Psychology, edited by Ned Block, vol. 1, Harvard University Press, 1980, pp. 223-231.
Smart, John Jamieson Carswell. “Sensation and Brain Processes.” Philosophy of Mind: Classical and Contemporary Readings, edited by David J. Chalmers, Oxford University Press, 2002, pp. 60-68.