Structural Functionalism and Conflict Theory Essay Example for Free

Structural Functionalism and strife Theory EssayKarl Marx and Max Weber were the first conflict theorists in the 19th and early twentieth centuries. Following Marx and Weber were triad mid-twentieth ampere-second conflict theorists Lewis Coser, Ralf Dahrendorf, and Randall Collins. Coser draws his speculative ideas from Simmel. Like Simmel, Coser maintains that conflict is healthy for society. In lineage, Dahrendorf combines theoretical ideas from Marx and Weber. Dahrendorf sees power as the main feature in all favorable relationships. However, Collins incorporates Weber, Durkheim, and Goffmans theories to provide a micro-level orientation to conflict theory. Collins likewise used geopolitics at a spheric level to examine political conflicts historically and geographically.According to Marx and Weber, the root of most companionable conflict comes from an unbalanced distri justion of class, status, and power, as well as a groups sense of deprivation caused by class (Al lan, 2007). Coser, Dahrendorf, and Collins added to Marx and Webers theories. These conflict theorists assert that the degree of deprivation is essential in creating class consciousness and critical awargonness. In particular, Coser discusses the consequences of inter and intra group conflict. Internal conflict can make up up over time between groups and become explosive. Internal groups have a psychological posit to be in conflict with each some other.Modes of releasing hostility and ariseing authority with a check justice organisation are necessary for healthy internal conflict. Further, external conflicts between groups create well defined and guarded boundaries to distinguish membership. Group membership becomes exclusive, which is necessary for group survival. Conflict sets boundaries between groups within a affable system by strengthening group consciousness and awareness of separateness, thus establishing the identity operator of groups within the system (Coser, as q uoted in Allan, p. 219, 2007). Coser maintains that conflict can have operable consequences. Some dutyal consequences of conflict are social change, innovation, and increased centralized power.Structural Functionalism was the dominant theoretical approach in the United States from the 1930s through the 1970s. Structural Functionalism asserts that the various parts of society are interrelated and put to work a completesystem. Just as the body is a system with specific parts (e.g., arms, legs, liver) that hold in its overall functioning, so, too, society is a system with specific parts (family, government, economy, religion, etc.) necessary for its very survival (Appelrouth and Edles, 2008, p. 349). cardinal key structural usableism theorists are Talcott Parsons and Robert Merton. Parsons theories were highly abstract. Parsons developed a social action theory to apologize why people behave the way they do. He explained human actions as a result of three systems social systems, personality systems, and cultural, and behavioral systems (Appelrouth and Edles, 2008).These systems are non separate entities rather together they form a simplified model of society. Social systems, personality systems, and cultural systems undergird all action and all social life (Appelrouth and Edles, 2008, p. 352). Parsons applied his theory to the American family in call down Roles in the American Kinship carcass (1943). Parsons proclaimed that many women succumb to their dependency cravings through such channels as neurotic disease or compulsive domesticity and at that placeby abdicate both their responsibilities and their opportunities for genuine independence (Parsons, 1943 as quoted by Appelrouth and Edles, 2008, p. 382). Sex Roles in the American Kinship System (1943) incited criticisms as Parson endorsed traditional gender roles, and asserted that appalling consequences would occur if these roles were breached.Robert Mertons theoretical influences were broad. He rea d extensively, and there are elements of Durkheim, Weber, Simmel, and Marx in his theories. In contrast to Parsons abstract theories, Merton was a middle-range theorist. Middle range theories lie between the minor but necessary working hypotheses that evolve in abundance during day-to-day research and the all-inclusive systematic efforts to develop a unified theory that will explain all the observed uniformities of social behavior, social organization, and social change (Merton, as quoted by Appelrouth and Edles, p. 383). Merton was best known for his distinction between clear and possible functions.Whereas pellucid functions are the conscious intentions of the actor, latent functions are the unintended consequences of the action. Merton used the example of the Hopi rain dance to decorate manifest and latent functions. The manifest function of the rain dance often does nonproduce rain, and is called irrational by some. However, the rain dance continues to be performed for a fu nction that the actor is unaware of, which is the latent function (Appelrouth and Edles, 2008). This behavior may perform a function for the group, although this function may be quite unconnected from the avowed purpose of the behavior (Merton, 1949 as quoted by Appelrouth and Edles, 2008, p. 391). Even though the Hopi rain ceremony does not produce the manifest function of producing rain, the ceremony does bear latent functions that sociologists and anthropologists can study.Parsons Sex Roles in the American Kinship System (1943) received a lot of criticism in the 20th century. This 20th century criticism stems from Parsons endorsement of traditional gender roles, and the dire consequences that would occur should these roles be breached. Interestingly, the twenty-first century critiqued the 20th century critiques. The twenty-first century does not claim that Parsons assertions were not prejudiced, rather that the 20th century critiques were come aliveist (Appelrouth and Edles, 2 008). As Appelrouth and Edles (2008) note, Parsons pivotal premise was not sexist at all. Parsons believed that changes that are functional for one part of the system will produce changes that are not necessarily functional for other parts of the system. Appelrouth and Edles (2008) further noted the sexism in the 20th century in the premise that women could enter the work force without significant changes being made to other social structures and systems, and without a major increase in timbre daycare and childcare facilities.How would Parsons view twenty-first century families? I maintain that Parsons might find 21st century families dysfunctional. Twenty-first century families do not have the rigid structure that Parsons describes. Parsons wrote from a 1940s, fifties white male middle class perspective, and could not picture the perspective of other social classes. However, families directly are socially and racially diverse, especially in the US, and even the white middle clas s family does not fit Parsons proscribed role definitions. In the 21st century, there is substantial role confusion in families. Gay and lesbian couples adopt children and raise them with identical sex parents.More fathers stay at domicile to take care of their children while the mother is the primary breadwinner. Increased educational opportunities for women have produced a professional person class of women who sometimes earn substantially more than theirhusbands. Families in the 21st century are also deciding to have fewer children, and are marrying at a later age (and sometimes not at all). In short, the 21st century has produced more women in the workforce, single parent households, stay-at-home dads, same sex parents, and racially blended families. It is arguable whether families in the 21st century are dysfunctional. Certainly there are dysfunctional families yet, many families perform well in the new social order.Would Parsons view the 21st century change in sex roles as ne gatively affecting the family? Indeed, some would argue that changed sex role definitions create confusion, and affect the family and the socialization of children negatively. However, sex role changes in the 21st century are logical when one looks at the situation using Parsons AGIL scheme. The 21st century has produced rapid changes, and as a result, family roles have had to change in order to adapt to the new environment.Social changes and changes in the job market have forced people to conform. Therefore, families have had to adapt to the new economic system (A), and therefore have new goals (G), which create changes in the social system with norms and interactions (I), and thus cultural systemic change occurs to adapt to the new order (L) (Appelrouth and Edles, 2008). Hence, the new social order is more functional for the 21st century. Therefore, it can be concluded that Parsons fixed and inflexible role structure is only one depicting of a functional family, as portrayed by 21st century families.Mertons manifest and latent functions are applicable as a functional analysis tool for social organizations. In evaluating social architectural plans, assessors may tend to just investigate manifest functions. When querying a social organization as to whether they achieved their program goals or intended purpose, the answer received in the manifest function gives little depth of information. Granted, this oddball of manifest inquiry is important, as it reveals whether programs have achieved their stated goals.Nevertheless, this manifest inquiry can be achieved just now by questioning agency personnel. On the other hand, utilizing latent inquiry, the assessor can discover deeper theoretical problems. By simply examining manifest functions, the evaluator becomes merely a recorder and transcriber ofbehavior and actions. In contrast, latent inquiry provides more depth to an assessment. Latent inquiry discovers unrecognized information that cannot be obtained by a manifest inquiry. Latent inquiry discovers consequences, motivations, and paradoxes, which provide useful assessment information. Therefore, when used together, both manifest and latent functions are a valuable functional analysis tool for sociological inquiry.ResourcesAllan, K. (2007). The Social genus Lens An Invitation to Social and Sociological Theory. California true pine Forge Press.Appelrouth, S., and Edles, L. (2008). Classical and Contemporary Sociological Theory. California Pine Forge Press.