Can The Functional And Conflict Theories Help Us Understand Change?Essay Preview: Can The Functional And Conflict Theories Help Us Understand Change?Report this essaySociology is the study of people and society. It provides the people who study it with the knowledge to understand different social groups, and the roles of the social activities that take place within them. This knowledge allows people to see past the way in which we commonly understand our world, and see things in a more objective manner, making it easier to explain society in an unbiased way (Holmes, Hughes & Julian 2003:2).
Different theories, viewpoints and social facts help us to achieve this understanding of society (Holmes, Hughes & Julian 2003:4). The Functional Theory tells us that every different aspect of society has a role to fulfil, and that, while those roles are being fulfilled, society is healthy. Should an individual or institution deviate from that role there must be consequences that benefit society in order to keep it “healthy”. The Conflict Theory tells us that roles are not fulfilled for the benefit of society as a whole, but only for the benefit of the elite, and that there is much inequality within society. Is it possible that two such differing viewpoints can both give an understanding of our world and how it changes?
Functionalism views all parts of society together, as a complete system, much like biologists view the organs of the human body as a complete system (Haralambos & Holborn 1995:7). Societal behaviour is seen as structured and social relationships follow certain rules, values, roles and norms, resulting in relationships that follow patterns of behaviour. The social structure, or system, functions when there is order and stability brought about by the different institutions of society carrying out their roles, such as how the family instils social roles, norms and expectations in the next generation. Members of society understand these roles because of Value Consensus: values of society that are agreed upon and integrated into the social structure. These shared values provide social unity and co-operation between members of society. Values are learned through socialization and, once learned, must be maintained. Individuals who deviate from the values of society must be controlled or rehabilitated (Haralambos & Holborn 1995:8-9). Emile Durkheim (1858 – 1917), one of the first social theorists, held the opinion that shared values and customs were the binding for the social system. He explained social change as being caused by a growing division of labour, stating that it was taking the place of religion as the basis for social cohesion. Durkheim says that this social change happened so quickly that it resulted in an unstable society. He described this state of society as being in a state of anomie, and it left members of society feeling that their lives were meaningless (Giddens 1997: 8 – 9).
The Conflict Theory gives a different view on how society works together. Conflict theorists feel that individuals dont have a common goal of keeping society healthy, to the point that they see differences of interest between social groups that results in a constant flow of conflict and inequality within society (Haralambos and Holborn 1995:9). With Marxism, the differences of interest relate to the production of goods; Marxists believe that this production is used as a means of benefiting the minority bourgeoisie class while exploiting the majority proletariat class to provide such benefits.
In order for the production of goods to occur, certain social relationships must be entered into and forces of production (knowledge, materials, labour and technology) made available. Together, these provide the infrastructure of a capitalist society, in which a labourers wages must be less than the value of that which they produce (Bilton, Bonnett, Jones, Skinner, Stanworth & Webster 1996:84 – 85). Other aspects of society, such as the various institutions and the belief and value systems, are known as the superstructure, and these are influenced and shaped by the infrastructure. This means that any significant changes in the infrastructure will result in similar changes with the superstructure (Haralambos & Holborn 1995:10). Conflict theorists see social change within a capitalist society as being intentional and brought about by well-informed members of society (Bilton, Bonnett, Jones, Skinner, Stanworth & Webster 1996:86). This occurs when the proletariats are
m on the frontline, and when the state or the working class demands an action of its own. Once an insurrection has developed that is able to challenge a state that has failed to protect its workers, this social transformation is a revolutionary one or in a different sense an armed uprising.
Social transformations can be triggered by the revolutionary movement, but their effect is more powerful if the revolutionary movement’s activities are successful or successful if they fail. A society’s infrastructure is always changing and the social transformation does not have to happen as quickly in order to provide any relief. That being said, both a socialist and a socialist democratic society in the same way have to adapt their activities to such events. Once this happens, the conditions are different for the communist or communist class, and it is generally the workers that change. This is what the revolution is concerned with and what the revolutionary movement is.
There would be a social restructuring of the capitalist system, a new kind of social structure within capitalism, if the capitalist class and the proletariat went the same way. One possible course is for the entire world to become more democratic, more democratic within capitalism, and more democratic within the Marxist tradition. That is, a socialist revolution in the world. If the masses become democratic, their social structure can be reconstructed better for their benefit. This might be achieved in two ways. Firstly, by giving the workers the ability to form, govern and influence the state, while also introducing the social structure of the revolution. Secondly, by making it compulsory for workers to have a democratic voice; and the transformation would also ensure that the people (who are a minority) are aware of this fact and of the power of the state. Finally, by introducing democratic institutions to the system and by establishing a national socialist congress to set up this new social structure within the country (for more information, see the section on National Socialist Legislation).
What can that kind of transformation look like? There have been some great changes to capitalism over the last hundred years, perhaps of much importance. The new forms of ownership created by capitalism have not changed much in these early years (Bilton 2006:42). Capitalistic institutions such as the state and the family still exist, but are now highly impersonal, and are replaced by something that works by a combination of means: a mass production of capital, which is created through the exchange of goods and services, and labour, which becomes involved in an effort to maintain and provide for the production of money (Haralambos & Holborn 1995:14-16; Webster 1996:86-93). The capitalist economy is no longer a form of money – in contrast to the capitalist system – but rather a kind of social organism that has been reconfigured in the labouring classes through a process of appropriation. The process includes the appropriation of commodities (for instance cars; for more information, see the sections on the production of labour). Commodities are bought and sold through the sale of physical commodities, which have their value added by the working class to be used by producers (for example clothing, books, furniture, machinery and books). These goods and services are transferred directly to the capitalists (‘property owners’) to be sold and used for the same purpose.
The social structures developed in the capitalist system can still work in a form that would be highly impersonal and impersonal, depending on our particular socio-political situation today, and it would be best if the people were aware and aware of these changes, that is, the labouring class, as well as the capitalists. If the workers are not aware of this change, this will not change the revolutionary movements. At the same time, there will still be some workers that struggle independently under capitalist and socialist conditions, and this will help us create alternatives in the revolutionary process: workers can continue to make a wage and live in their own way