Became concerned with rapid social change as we transitioned into a modern industrial society
Very different to traditional society - had little DOL and strong collective conscience
Rapid change risks undermining old norms, without establishing new ones
= Anomie
Society exists as a separate entity above members
Many questioned logic of treating society as if it were separate
Durkheim rejected - members are constrained by 'social facts' = moral codes and beliefs passed on to gens
Therefore, not the consciousness of the individual that directs the behaviour, but common beliefs that shape their consciousness
Postmodernists - functionalists can't explain the diversity and isntability today, as they assume society is stable/orderly
See funcionalism as a meta - no longer relevant as society is fragmented
Social actionists - society isn't a big thing 'out there' as D describes. Instead, social reality is what individuals construct by giving meaning to world
Functionalism is unscientific - claims aen't falsifiable
Functionalism can't account for today's diversity
Not relevant, outdated - no longer collective conscience as no longer dependent on each other in work, no longer assumed nuclear family is the prime type
Experienced rapid social change through migration and techno advancements, but no anomie
Is relevant, recognises rapid social change would occur
1 of 3
Functionalism - Parsons 1
Parsons 1
Sees similarities between society and an organism
Both systems: are self-regulating with independent parts, has basic needs to survive, each part much contribute
Social order is possible bc of a shared culture which gives rules on how to behave
Creates a value consensus - the 'glue'
Socialisation process ensures individuals internalise norms and values, and +ve and -ve sanctions in place to maintain social control
Marxists critical - society basd on explotation as divided into classes
Marxists - only have stability bc ruling class prevent change through ideological manipulation
'shared' values only benefit an maintain ruling class
Functionalism legitimises their position and acts as a conservative ideology
Isn't relevant - pre-undustrial society doesn't work the same way as modern industrial does
As Parsons sees society as having inter-related reliant institutions, but in modern society many are only dstantly related so no 'knock-on effect' if one of them falters
Relevant - theory of society similar to organism is useful, claims social system has needs e.g. socialised members > still need to be fulfilled
2 of 3
Functionalism - Parsons 2
Parsons 2
Assumes everything is functionally indispensable in its current form > nuclear fam better than lone-p
Also assumes all parts are tightly integrated - change in one area has 'knock on effect' elsewhere
Also assumes everything in society performs beneficial functions
Merton critical - there are functional alternatives e.g. lone-p can replace nuclear, and can be better in some cases
Merton - not all society is related e.g. structure of banking is seperate to sports
Merton - Parsons neglects idea of conflict theories - some things are functional for some groups and dysfunctional for others e.g. DV
Parsons is too deterministic - views individuals as having no free will
Functionalism overemphasises the level of consensus in society - apart from the simplest of societies, people have different values and attitudes within the same society
Ignore differences in power
Not relevant - assumptions only applicable to pre-industrial e.g. universal functionalism as not everything performs a +ve function for everyone
Comments
No comments have yet been made