Functionalism is a macro structural theory that focuses on how social institutions function to
meet the needs of society. It's a modernist consensus theory with a metanarrative.
The organic analogy by durkheim- society is a system of interconnected parts that form as a
whole, which is similar to the organs of the body. Each institution/organ has a unique role, to
keep society functioning smoothly.
Parsons says society is similar to a biological organism because
1) self regulating systems of interrelated/connected parts fitting together in fixed ways
2) Both systems have needs like nutrition or socialisation or it dies
3) The function of each part is the contribution to meeting its systems needs/survival
But an analogy is a comparison to aid comparison, not an explanation or proof
Consensus and social solidarity by Parsons- society runs smoothly because there is a
central value system/shared culture that creates harmony by providing a framework of how
to behave. Social order is only possible when everyone is taught the same norms and values
via socialisation e.g. primary vs secondary.
Social control mechanisms ensure we conform to norms and values via positive sanctions
(rewards) and negative sanctions (disciplinary procedures or CJS). Socialisation and social
control creates further consensus because it makes a clear framework of what's acceptable
and allows us to predict behaviour of each other.
Functionalists (especially durkheim) use positivity methods to objectively and scientifically
study society with quantitative data and creating laws of behaviour. For example, durkheims
study of suicide uses official statistics to show that suicide has sociological causes, not just
psychology of individuals.
Merton was a functionalist but argued it was too optimistic as ignoring the elements of
dysfunction in society, not just the positive functions, e.g. the strain theory.
Conflict theorists criticise functionalism for not explaining conflict, e.g. the organic analogy
saying that all the parts work together for a greater good when in reality it works for the good
of the bourgeoisie/patriarchy. It justifies the existing social order as desirable
Action theorists say it's too deterministic, individuals have free will rather than just being
puppets on the string of social systems. Functionalism reifies society, so it's seen as a
distinct thing that exists above individuals but action theorists take a voluntaristic view where
individuals have choice.
Postmodernists say functionalism can't explain diversity and instability in current society
because the metanarrative is no longer applicable as our society is increasingly fragmented.
Therefore functionalism is just one version of society but we should celebrate the diversity of
views, not just one view
, Marxism is a macro, structural theory that takes a top down (how structures affect
individuals) approach to look at the societal conflict caused by the exploitation of the
proletariat by the bourgeoisie. Marx developed this modernist theory and its meta narrative.
Materialism is the way that humans have material needs like food/shelter and Marx believes
over time we learn to meet these needs using the means of production. Production is
organised through the relations of product but this creates the division between the classes.
Factors of production + relations = mode of production. Explains why we live in capitalism
But too simplistic, more than two classes
Marx says the superstructure (all institutions) has the role of maintaining and legitimising
capitalism via the bourgeoisie control of them like religion/education/family. They spread
ruling class ideology and create a false class consciousness. This explains the status quo
and lack of working class revolution
But ignores gender or ethnicity conflicts
Gramsci is a humanist thinker (how humans are controlled by society) that discusses
hegemony as the domination of people through their ideas, and the use of consent
(ideology) vs coercion (force) to maintain ruling class power. Hegemony is used by
controlling institutions like the function, so that society accepts the ruling class.
But hegemony is never complete, in the future a class consciousness will be gained.
Althusser (Student of gramsci) is a structural thinker (how society controls humans) and
says capitalism is reproduced through the Ideological and Repressive State Apparatus. RSA
is armed bodies of men that coerce the w/c into compliance through threat of force/punish.
But this is just the same as gramsci
Feminists say marxists should include womens’ subordination under capitalism as unpaid
homemakers or cheap labour sources that traditional marxists ignore
But this ignores patriarchal subordination in non-capitalist societies.
Postmodernists say marxism can't account for diversity/instability in today's society and that
their metanarrative ignores the smaller subsections of society, not just class e.g. ethnicity.
Functionalists say that marxism ignores the positives within society like social solidarity.
Social order is achieved via a shared culture of norms and values we agree to.
But functionalists can't explain societal change or conflict.
meet the needs of society. It's a modernist consensus theory with a metanarrative.
The organic analogy by durkheim- society is a system of interconnected parts that form as a
whole, which is similar to the organs of the body. Each institution/organ has a unique role, to
keep society functioning smoothly.
Parsons says society is similar to a biological organism because
1) self regulating systems of interrelated/connected parts fitting together in fixed ways
2) Both systems have needs like nutrition or socialisation or it dies
3) The function of each part is the contribution to meeting its systems needs/survival
But an analogy is a comparison to aid comparison, not an explanation or proof
Consensus and social solidarity by Parsons- society runs smoothly because there is a
central value system/shared culture that creates harmony by providing a framework of how
to behave. Social order is only possible when everyone is taught the same norms and values
via socialisation e.g. primary vs secondary.
Social control mechanisms ensure we conform to norms and values via positive sanctions
(rewards) and negative sanctions (disciplinary procedures or CJS). Socialisation and social
control creates further consensus because it makes a clear framework of what's acceptable
and allows us to predict behaviour of each other.
Functionalists (especially durkheim) use positivity methods to objectively and scientifically
study society with quantitative data and creating laws of behaviour. For example, durkheims
study of suicide uses official statistics to show that suicide has sociological causes, not just
psychology of individuals.
Merton was a functionalist but argued it was too optimistic as ignoring the elements of
dysfunction in society, not just the positive functions, e.g. the strain theory.
Conflict theorists criticise functionalism for not explaining conflict, e.g. the organic analogy
saying that all the parts work together for a greater good when in reality it works for the good
of the bourgeoisie/patriarchy. It justifies the existing social order as desirable
Action theorists say it's too deterministic, individuals have free will rather than just being
puppets on the string of social systems. Functionalism reifies society, so it's seen as a
distinct thing that exists above individuals but action theorists take a voluntaristic view where
individuals have choice.
Postmodernists say functionalism can't explain diversity and instability in current society
because the metanarrative is no longer applicable as our society is increasingly fragmented.
Therefore functionalism is just one version of society but we should celebrate the diversity of
views, not just one view
, Marxism is a macro, structural theory that takes a top down (how structures affect
individuals) approach to look at the societal conflict caused by the exploitation of the
proletariat by the bourgeoisie. Marx developed this modernist theory and its meta narrative.
Materialism is the way that humans have material needs like food/shelter and Marx believes
over time we learn to meet these needs using the means of production. Production is
organised through the relations of product but this creates the division between the classes.
Factors of production + relations = mode of production. Explains why we live in capitalism
But too simplistic, more than two classes
Marx says the superstructure (all institutions) has the role of maintaining and legitimising
capitalism via the bourgeoisie control of them like religion/education/family. They spread
ruling class ideology and create a false class consciousness. This explains the status quo
and lack of working class revolution
But ignores gender or ethnicity conflicts
Gramsci is a humanist thinker (how humans are controlled by society) that discusses
hegemony as the domination of people through their ideas, and the use of consent
(ideology) vs coercion (force) to maintain ruling class power. Hegemony is used by
controlling institutions like the function, so that society accepts the ruling class.
But hegemony is never complete, in the future a class consciousness will be gained.
Althusser (Student of gramsci) is a structural thinker (how society controls humans) and
says capitalism is reproduced through the Ideological and Repressive State Apparatus. RSA
is armed bodies of men that coerce the w/c into compliance through threat of force/punish.
But this is just the same as gramsci
Feminists say marxists should include womens’ subordination under capitalism as unpaid
homemakers or cheap labour sources that traditional marxists ignore
But this ignores patriarchal subordination in non-capitalist societies.
Postmodernists say marxism can't account for diversity/instability in today's society and that
their metanarrative ignores the smaller subsections of society, not just class e.g. ethnicity.
Functionalists say that marxism ignores the positives within society like social solidarity.
Social order is achieved via a shared culture of norms and values we agree to.
But functionalists can't explain societal change or conflict.
