Functionalism vs. Conflict Theory Theories

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.

On Differences

However, there is no denying the fact that these theories have more differences than similarities. For one, the starting point of functionalism is a state where people are in order, where social equilibrium is experienced while conflict theory maintains that the key to investigating the social world is by looking at conflict, at class struggles. Hence, class struggles exist all the time -- the world is not in equilibrium as functionalism points out (Demerath, 1996).

Functionalism is also premised on the fact that people have already achieved a consensus -- the consensus by which reality is to be constructed and this allows them to successfully define and fulfill their roles in the society. On the other hand, conflict is premised on the fact that consensus has not been achieved because it is still a matter under constant struggle (ibid).

Lastly, functionalism is also being charged as failing to account for social change which conflict theory satisfactorily addresses. To maintain that the society is in constant movement towards the attainment of social equilibrium or balance, the theory fails to address the ways and mechanisms by which the society is changing (ibid).

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.