Functionalism and conflict theory in sociological analysis

Functionalism vs. Conflict Theory

Theories tell us a lot about social world. Not only do they provide us with rich accounts of our social environment but they also give us a particular kind of perspective; the lenses through which we shall understand and analyze our social setting.

Functionalism theory, also known us structural functionalism, can be traced back to Auguste Comte and Herbert Spencer who analyzed the society in the same way that a living organism is to be analyzed. The interrelatedness of the different parts of any biological system allows it to function. This particular metaphor can be used in analyzing the society, i.e. By looking at the many parts of the society and how they all function together to attain the social equilibrium -- the normal state of the society. When some of the parts fail to fulfill their functions, the society is in an abnormal or pathological state (Henslin, 1993). Simply put, we have to look at the structure -- the many parts that compose a society and how they are interconnected and the function -- how each part contributes to the dynamics of the society (ibid).

Conflict theory, on the other hand, underscores the fact that the society is not always at a state of "social equilibrium." Founded by Karl Marx, conflict perspective looks at how class struggles define the society. The key to understanding the society is by looking at the small group of people who controls the means of production and the larger group of people that are being exploited by these capitalists. But conflict theory has grown from the Marxist brand to other branches of the conflict perspective. For example, conflict theorist Ralf Dahrendorf, maintains that conflict exists in all relations where authority exists. As he points out, authority or power can be seen in every strata of the social pyramid -- in all parts and levels of our society. In sum, we can see that conflict theory's basic unit of analysis is the struggle or conflict that can be seen in social relations which is rooted in the inequality and/or scarcity of resources (ibid).

After presenting the gist of functionalism and conflict theories, this paper will now tackle the similarities and differences of these two schools of thought.

On Similarities

Given the basic tenets that this paper has presented earlier, we can infer that both theories' account of human nature is such where people are active social actors. For functionalism, people, as members of the society, have roles to fulfill to be able to maintain the society's natural state. On the other hand, for conflict theory, struggle arises because the greater majority of people is aware and consequently fights the exploits of the ruling class.

Which is better?

This brings us to the question of which theory is more effective in explaining the social world. The operative word in this crucial question is the term effective. For the purpose of this paper, let us adopt the definition of effective as being able to produce the desired effect (Merriam Webster Online Dictionary, 2009) -- the desired effect being the ability to explain the social world.

Putting in mind the above considerations, I believe that none of these two theories is better than the other or more effective than the other in explaining the social world. Allow me to substantiate this claim. By looking at similarities and differences, we can see that every theory is rooted in several assumptions about the social world. The diversity of the social world does not allow for a uniform observation and consequently assumptions about our social setting. This premise leads us to the fact that there will always be no one way by which we can best describe the society. Indeed, we have seen that both theories have their strengths and weakness; they make several assumptions and leave out several observations. This is the mechanism by which theorizing revolves.

At the end of the day, what we can realize is that the world is too vast, complex, and rich, that no one theory can best capture our social reality. What we need is what Protagoras recognizes as 'multiplicity of perspectives' -- the ability to see things in many angles; to analyze the social world from many different perspectives (Zappen et al., 1997). Competing theories like functionalism and conflict theory continuously exist because they are both deemed fundamental in explaining social realities.