Essays Functionalism And Marxism Defined

On By In 1

Functionalism And Marxism Essay

In the history of anthropology and sociology, there have been many different social theories. Often these theories are influential for a period of time and then lose popularity once a new, more seductive theory is established. Marxism and functionalism are two examples of social theories that made a grand impact on the anthropological and sociological fields, but have since faded from the forefront. Marxism was established by Karl Marx in the mid-1800s and was later adopted by other theorists, such as Marvin Harris. Marxism was built upon the idea that there has been an ongoing class struggle in human history and it is this conflict between classes that will lead to social change and eventually to the birth of Communism. Functionalism was introduced during the mid-1900s and was adopted by Émile Durkheim, E.E. Evans-Pritchard, Bronislaw Malinowski, Alfred Radcliffe-Brown, and many other ethnographers. The basic notion of functionalism is that society consists of many different, but interrelated parts, each of which have a specific function and work together to maintain a society. The ethnographer often saw it as their job to uncover the social order and structure present within the society (Baert 1998). Although Marxism and functionalism were developed in close temporal proximity and similarities can be established between the two theories, at their core they are fundamentally in opposition to each other.
The major difference between the two theories is that from the Marxist perspective society is viewed as constantly changing, whereas from a functionalist mode of thought society is seen to be relatively stable. Marx viewed society as dynamic, or “continually evolving,” because of the recurrent replacement of the ruling class (Marx 1845, 143, 145). When a current ruling class and its modes of production, the thesis, stop fulfilling the needs of the society, society becomes opposed to that class, the anti-thesis, and a new ruling class “representative of the whole of society” gains the hegemonic power, the synthesis (Marx 1845, 145). With the changing of the ruling (or bourgeoisie) class, there is a “constant revolutionizing [of] the instruments of production,” which leads to changing modes of production (Marx 1845, 143; 1848, 158). Marx thought that the modes of production within a society were so influential on the nature of the individual that they could be viewed as the “mode of life” (Marx 1845, 143). He argued that an individual’s behavior and relationships are dependent upon the “material conditions determining their production” (Marx 1845, 143). Since the nature of the individual relies on the modes of production, when the modes of production change, Marx saw the individual and society changing, as well.
Marvin Harris also noted the importance of the modes of production in determining the state of society. However, he realized a set of limitations within Marx’s original iteration and determined that the statement needed...

Loading: Checking Spelling


Read more

Functionalism vs Marxism : A Family Case Study

617 words - 2 pages The definition of a family is one still being argued over by sociologists. However, for the purposes of this essay, I have chosen the broad definition of family as "a group of people who live together" The family chosen for this examination it will be argued, fit the functionalist view of the family. In order to demonstrate this, the functionalist view of the family will first be outlined.According to functionalist theory, the existence...

Sociological Accounts on Individuals Acquiring Their Identities

850 words - 3 pages Sociological Accounts on Individuals Acquiring Their Identities The concept of identity has been defined as 'A sense of self that develops as the child differentiates from parents and family and takes a place in society' (Jary and Jary, 1991.) Through the process of socialization, individuals acquire their identities, but this issue cause different understandings according to sociological accounts. Here, I will show...

Analyzing Social Change Through Functionalism, Conflict Theory, and Punctuated Equilibrium

1372 words - 5 pages Albert Einstein said it best, “The significant problems we have cannot be solved at the same level of thinking with which we created them” - Albert Einstein(58 Quotes). Social change is an opportunity for positive growth in today’s world, however it may sometimes take a tragedy to get there. Many big events in history such as The French Revolution and the Civil Rights Movement have caused social change, but our world is stronger because of those...

Describe the Functionalist (Emile Durkheim), Conflict (Marxist) and Interactionist approach to the Socialization of Education.

895 words - 4 pages Describe the Functionalist, Conflict and Interactionist approach to the Socialization of Education.Education - A Functionalist PerspectiveEmile Durkheim proposed an explicitly functionalist explanation of the role of education in society....

Social Structure

888 words - 4 pages Soc100-125Topic: Social StructureIn order for us to understand why sociological theories could be classified into 'consensus' and 'conflict' perspectives it may be best to first define these concepts. Consensus is a concept of society in which the absence of conflict is seen as the equilibrium state of society based on a general or widespread...

Social change.

1141 words - 5 pages Social change is the central problem of sociology. Sociologists have explained the question on how social change comes about largely by the close analysis of particular change processes and by refining definitions. Social change theories encompass a very broad range of phenomena, including short-term, and long term, large-scale and small scale changes.Social change refers to any significant alteration over time in behaviour patterns and...

Main perspectives of Sociology

3771 words - 15 pages Sociology is a social science. It is the study of the social lives of people, groups, and societies, sometimes defined as the study of social interactions. It evolved in the early 19th century. It concerns itself with the social rules and processes that connect and separate people not only as individuals, but as members of associations, groups, and institutions. Sociology is interested in our behaviour as social beings, therefore the...

Assess Marxist Theories of Crime and Deviance

626 words - 3 pages Marxism is a social structural theory. This means that marxists, like functionalists believe that society and the way it is structured are the main causes of crime. Unlike functionalists, who argue that crime and deviance are inevitable in all kinds of society, marxists argue that crime is only inevitable in capitalist societies and that capitalism by its very nature is criminogenic. Marxists view law as part of the superstructure, which in...

Functionalism Theory of Education

1389 words - 6 pages There are three main theoretical perspectives (or theories) that represent the views of sociologist and educators, these views are the conflict perspective, symbolic interactions, and functionalism. Although all of these theories are important to education and society, I have chosen to focus my research or theoretical perspective on functionalism also including the effects functionalism and education. The Functionalist perspective is one of the...

Investigation social sciences

543 words - 2 pages Donya Javaheri October 12, 14Investigating and Individual SummarySocial sciences are divided into three disciplines of anthropology, psychology, and sociology. The theories presented in these three disciplines can represent the factors that influence an individual's development. First off, Anthropology focuses on human cultures from a holistic approach. The three methods that anthropologists use to organize...

Assessment of the Usefulness of Functionalism in Understanding the Family

1806 words - 7 pages Assessment of the Usefulness of Functionalism in Understanding the Family Functionalism is a structuralist theory. This means it sees the individual as less important as the social structure of society. It is a ‘top down’ theory. The family can be defined as an intimate domestic group composed of people related to each other by blood, sexual relations and legal ties. When assessing how useful functionalism is when...

Although sociology is a recently developed field of study, the advancement of the study is progressing rapidly. Sociological theories are ways sociologists explain society and its mega structure. The structural conflict and structural consensus theories are inevitable chapters of sociology. With some similarities, these two theories have different ideologies and ways of explaining the society. In this essay, the similarities and differences will be compared and contrasted.

Functionalism, the structural consensus sociological theory is a key theory that was developed by Emile Durkheim, one of the founding fathers of sociology. This theory sees society as a mega structure of inter-related social institutions such as schools and the legal system that is in constant consensus. Functionalists believe all parts of society all work together to maintain the functional equilibrium of the society, viewing each part as a ‘functional clog’. It also touches on functional prerequisites for the survival of a society and anomie, an idea by Durkheim which describes a normless state in society.

Marxism, the structural conflict sociological theory is a very significant chapter in sociology. It was founded by Karl Marx who believed strongly in communism. Marxism is understood as the theory and practice of working class self-emancipation. This theoretical and political tradition is radically different from the way Marxism is generally described by both critics and many 'adherents' who identify Marxism with the repressive state capitalist regimes that used to dominate Russia and eastern Europe and still hold sway in China, North Korea, Vietnam and Cuba.

The similarities of both contrasting structural theories are only exterior resemblances and have no associations with the ideas behind them. Firstly, both sociological theories are macro theories. The focus of both theories studies the society as a whole and in a large-scale manner. Other than that, analogies are used in both theories to explain the social structure. Functionalism uses the human body as an analogy that describes how all the organs in the body are vital and work together for survival. On the other hand, Marxism uses the building analogy to show how the economy is the base of all aspects in society and how the superstructure develops according to how the economy develops. Furthermore, Functionalism and Marxism are sociological theories developed in Europe. Functionalism was founded by Emile Durkheim, a French sociologist and Marxism was founded by Karl Marx, a German philosopher. Other than the exterior factors, both sociological theories have nothing else in common and often contradict each other.

The main ideologies of the structural consensus and structural conflict theory stand parallel to each other and can never come to an agreeing point. One of Functionalism’s key concepts is the collective conscience brought up by Emile Durkheim, which is defined as shared norms and valued in a society. Functionalists believe that collective conscious comes from socialization. Individuals learn what are the society’s expectations, values and norms from interacting with others. In contrast, Marxism spoke on the conflict of interest within the society itself. The bourgeoisie wants monopolization and more riches to themselves which will result in the tyrant exploitation of proletariats while the proletariats want more wages and fair working hours. To sum up, Functionalism spoke on how all individuals in society is in consensus with the social order and social rules whereas Marxism touches on the subject of how conflict is within the society.

Another key concept in Functionalism and Marxism can be compared which is the theory of social equilibrium by Talcott Parsons and the theory of dialectical materialism by Joseph Dietzgen. In sociology, a system is said to be social equilibrium when there is a dynamic working balance among its interdependent parts. Each subsystem will adjust to any change in the other subsystems and will continue to do so until equilibrium is retained. The process of achieving equilibrium will only work if the changes happen slowly, but for rapid changes it would throw the social system into chaos, unless and until a new equilibrium can be reached. Dialectical materialism contradicts the social equilibrium theory by stating how the economic base and conflict is the root of all change in society. Dietzgen believed that the economy influences change on all other social institutions and all change as the product of a constant conflict between opposites arising from the internal contradictions inherent in all events, ideas, and movements. In short, the concept of social equilibrium is about how all aspects of society works together as a whole to maintain the balance when change happens and the concept of dialectical materialism challenges it by declaring how conflict and the economy inflicts social change.

Both theories’ belief in social change is also different. Functionalism believes that social change is evolutionary, in other words, slowly and gradually. They believe that social change comes naturally. It changes in a consensus and peaceful way. But according to Marxism, social change is revolutionary. It is inflicted by conflict and can be explained by dialectical materialism which means change in the economic mode inflicts social changes. Karl Marx once even said that “Bloodshed is sometimes necessary for social change.”

Functionalism and Marxism also have opposing views on social stratification. To functionalists, division of the social class is a necessity. This contributes to the social reward and sanction theory. It is to keep everyone in society motivated to improve and become better, hence, society will still be able to function properly. Moreover, Functionalists believe that social classes exist to create balance in society. Distribution of the classes balances the society by labeling people in levels of social class so that there are different social roles for everyone. Yet in the view of Marxists, social stratification is another way of how the ruling class keeps their power by labeling individuals as working class. The bourgeoisie did such a well work that it produced false class consciousness within the proletariats. Besides, Marxists view social stratification as the base of conflict within society. The conflict strain is due to the friction of the working class’s needs for more wages and the ruling class’s exploitation and deprivation of the working class’s rights.

Both theories have arranged and explained the structure of society in different perspectives. Functionalism used the analogy of a human body to describe how every organ works together to keep the body alive, depicting how social institutions work together to create balance in society. It highlights on the importance of all roles and parts of society. Marxism, on the other hand, uses a building analogy whereby the base of the building is the economy and other institutions in society are above the base and are called superstructures.

Though the two theories are macro theories but the ideologies are a big contrast. Functionalism helps us understand how society is integrated to function as a whole. Marxism wakes us and gets us to understand more on the exploitations we are exposed to. Without functionalism and Marxism, sociology would be very inadequate.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *