at two major macro-level perspectives: the structural-functional and conflict theories.
▲ The Tanzanian village elders in this photo continue to have authority to make local (micro-level) decisions about the traditional irrigation canals being improved in their village, but their expanded water supply is possible in part because of international financial support (meso- and macro-level decisions).
© Karen Porter
Structural-Functional Theory.
Structural-functional theory, also called functional theory, assumes that all parts of the social structure (groups, organizations, and institutions), the culture (values and beliefs), and social processes (e.g., legislators working to create a law, an instructor teaching a child, or laws passed to bring about positive social change) work together to make the whole society run smoothly and harmoniously. To understand the social world from this perspective, we must look at how the parts of society (structure) fit together and how each part contributes to the maintenance of society. For instance, two functions (purposes) of the family include having children and teaching them to be members of society. These and other functions help perpetuate society, for without reproducing and teaching new members to fit in, societies would collapse.
Émile Durkheim (1858–1917) is considered the founder of the functionalist perspective. He theorized that society is made up of necessary parts that fit together into a working whole. Durkheim believed that individuals conform to the rules of societies because of a collective conscience—the shared beliefs in the values of a group (Durkheim 1947). People grow up sharing the same values, beliefs, and rules of behavior as those around them. Gradually, individuals internalize these shared beliefs and rules. A person’s behavior is, in a sense, governed from within because it feels right and proper to behave in accordance with what is expected. As such, the functionalist perspective of Durkheim and subsequent theorists places emphasis on social consensus, which gives rise to stable and predictable patterns of order in society. Because people need groups for survival, they adhere to the group’s rules so that they do not stand apart from it. This means that most societies run in an orderly manner, with most individuals fitting into their positions in society.
Functions, consequences of an action or behavior, can be manifest or latent. Manifest functions are the planned outcomes of interactions, social organizations, or institutions. Some of the planned consequences of the microwave oven, for instance, have been to allow people to prepare meals quickly and easily, facilitating life in overworked and stressed modern families. Latent functions are unplanned or unintended consequences of actions or of social structures (Merton 1938, [1942] 1973). Some of the unplanned consequences of microwave ovens were the creation of a host of new jobs and stimulation of the economy as people wrote new cookbooks and as businesses were formed to produce microwavable cookware and prepared foods ready for the microwave.
Latent functions can be functional (helpful) or dysfunctional (bad for the organization or society). Functional actions contribute to the stability or equilibrium of society whereas dysfunctions are those actions that undermine the stability or equilibrium of society (Merton 1938). For example, by allowing people to prepare meals without using a stove or conventional oven, the microwave oven has contributed to some young people having no idea how to cook, thus making them highly dependent on expensive technology and processed foods, and in some cases adding to problems of obesity.
▲ Although the microwave oven and fast-food restaurants have had many benefits for a society in a hurry, one dysfunction is the deterioration of health, especially due to obesity.
© iStock.com/yaoinlove
From a functionalist theory perspective, it is important to examine the possible functional and dysfunctional aspects of life in society in order to maintain harmony and balance.
In summary, the structural-functional perspective
examines the macro-level organizations and patterns in society;
looks at what holds societies together and enhances social continuity;
considers the consequences or functions of each major part in society;
focuses on the way the structure (groups, organizations, and institutions), the culture, and social processes work together to make society function smoothly; and
notes manifest functions (which are planned), latent functions (which are unplanned or secondary), and dysfunctions (which undermine stability).
Critique of the Structural-Functional Perspective.
Some ideas put forth by functional theorists are so abstract that they are difficult to test with data. Moreover, functionalism does not explain social changes in society, such as conflict and revolution. It assumes a stable world. As we try to understand the many societal upheavals in the world, from suicide bombings in major cities to economic ups and downs in stock markets and trade relations, it is clear that dramatic social change is possible. The functionalist assumption is that if a system is running smoothly, it must be working well because it is free from conflict. It assumes that conflict is harmful, even though we know that stability may come about because of ruthless dictators suppressing the population. In short, stability is not always good, and conflict signifies tensions in societies.
Thinking Sociologically
Describe a manifest and a latent function of the system of higher education in the United States today. Is the latent function dysfunctional? Why or why not?
Conflict Theory.
In many ways, conflict theory turns the structural-functional theory on its head. Conflict theory contends that conflict is inevitable in any group or society. It claims that inequality and injustice are the source of the conflicts that permeate society. Resources and power are distributed unequally in society, so some members have more money, goods, and prestige than others. The rich protect their positions by using the power they have accumulated to keep others in their places. From the perspective of poor people such as Hector, it seems the rich get all the breaks. Most of us want more of the resources in society (e.g., money, good jobs, education, nice homes, and cars), causing the possibility of conflict between the haves (those who control resources) and the have-nots (those who lack resources). These conflicts sometimes bring about a change in society.
Modern conflict theory has its origins in the works of Karl Marx (1818–1883), a German social philosopher who lived in England during the height of 19th-century industrial expansion. Capitalism had emerged as the dominant economic system in Europe. Capitalism is an economic system in which individuals and corporations, rather than the state, own and control the means of production (e.g., factories). As they compete for profits, some win while others lose.
Marx recognized the plight of workers toiling in factories in the new industrial states of Europe and viewed the ruling elites and the wealthy industrial owners as exploiters of the working class. Marx wrote about the new working class crowded in urban slums, working long hours under appalling conditions, without earning enough money for decent housing and food.
