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