Functionalism is a macro, structuralist theory. This means they see human behaviour being shaped as an influence of social forces. It is also seen as a consensus theory, as functionalists’ argue that, individuals are socialised into a shared value to ensure conformity and social order. However, this functionalists approach is criticised by action theorists, as they argue that individuals create society through their interactions. Unlike other functionalists, Parsons argues that individuals are integrated through socialisation and social order.
Other theories also have the idea that the Functionalists are exaggerating the consensus in society. Along with the Postmodernists, Marxists would also disagree with the Functionalist approach, as they believe that culture promotes capitalism, which they think has adverse effects on society; producing an economic system that determines the norms and values of society. Simply, classic Marxists say that people are socialised into a culture based on their social class and they blame it on capitalism. Overall, Marxists believe that culture is holding society back because it is reinforcing the class
As stated in Giddens, sociologists who support this theory see individuals as not created by society but as the creators of society. Both the functional and conflict perspective, study society on a macro level. Unlike the micro study of society that looks to the individual, structural theory instead looks to society as a whole. Supporters of this theory view society as the creator of the individual, it is believed that the rules norms and values of society influence and govern the individuals. This essay will look at that two structural theories of functionalism and Marxists, it will compare and contrast both perspectives and identify similarities and differences in their views of on education family, as well as highlighting the strengths and a weaknesses in both perspectives.
For example the nature vs nurture debate. Talcott parsons (1902-79) were a key functionalist thinker. He saw society as a system made up of interrelated institutions (like the human body) He thought the main role of an institution was to socialise individuals so they behaved in acceptable ways. He argued that socialisation is the key to understanding patterns of human behaviour. Our behaviour is controlled by the rules of society into which we are born; the result is we don’t have to be told that what we are doing is socially unacceptable- we already know and feel uncomfortable if we don’t conform to social norms.
Assess the Usefulness of Micro Sociology to Our Understanding of Society Assess the usefulness of micro sociology to our understanding of society (33marks) Micro sociology focuses on the actions and interactions of individuals and is a bottom-up approach. Such micro approaches, see society as shaped by its members, who possess agency, in other words, the ability to act as free agents. Micro approaches, also known as action theories, include social action theory, symbolic interactionism, phenomenology and ethnomethodoly. However, macro sociologists take a deterministic approach, as they believe that our actions are determined by society. Macro theories include Functionalism and Marxism, who see individuals as puppets, under the control of social structures.
Assess the usefulness of microsociology to our understanding of society There are two main approaches to the study of society, which are mirco and marco The mirco approach is a small scale where individual behaviour shapes society this is a bottom up approach. The main sociological perspective is social action theory which is associated with a sociologist called Weber. Many agree this is a useful approach to the study of society, however it has been heavily criticised by structuralist’s who take a marco approach and believe society shapes individuals. Microsociology was founded by WEBER who believed that individuals shape society and all have free will and are not determined by pre-existing social structures in society. His views led to the introduction of interactionism.
Functionalism is a structuralist theory that looks at society as a structure. They see society as more important than the individual, it is their belief that the individual are the product of society, the person is shaped by the norms and values that society teaches. Functionalists see religion, family, the political system and education as part of a complex system that has all the necessary parts in order to keep the system going. The modern day functionalism began with the work of Émile Durkheim. He started the work of positivism; this was biological analogies to explain how society should function.
Therefore, religion is a conservative force. For example, religion prevents a false class conscience which prevents the working class from realising their true potential and keeps them oppressed. As a result, religion prevents a true class conscience where the working class realise they are being exploited. Moreover, religion acts a form of “compensation” for the working class as the belief in God and heaven offers the working class compensation for the misery the experience through capitalism. Marxists argue that religion promises us happiness, but this is an illusion hiding the truth; true happiness can only be found in a revolution.
Thoreau accuses society for being responsible for consuming the identity of people by preoccupying them with small details and of life, such as the government unjustly using people because they do not know anything different than to obey and conform. The government and society have taken over intellect and conscience, taking individualism as well. This lack of individualism and increased complexity of living is even more true in our world today than it was when Thoreau wrote these essays with concern about it. With technology booming the way it is and will continue to, people’s lives become more complicated and more is expected from them. They are being taken over by detail and spreading attention over many responsibilities instead of being able to focus on a few.
Therefore the law did not resolve conflicting interests but imposed the interests of one group over another. While this can still happen today it seems that the law does try hard to make sure everyone is satisfied and everyone’s interests are accounted for. Rudolf von Jhering said that the law is the main way of ordering society, his views was that the rights of the majority should take precedence over the individual. He said that society is made up of conflicting interests that cannot all be satisfied and that the role of the law was to balance them out so the individual conformed to the needs of society. Roscoe Pound said that interests are both individual and social and that conflicts are only resolved through considering them on the same level.