functionalism

Functionalists have a consensus view of society, believing that society is based on a social agreement and people in society work together for the common good of all, this is known as the organic analogy. This organic analogy is extremely important for understanding Functionalism as it highlights the need for stability and predictability in society.

1. Functionalist Theories of Class Inequality

i) Durkheim

Durkheim supports the idea of the organic analogy and believed that society itself is more than the sum of the people who make it up. He believes the events within society will impact the lives of individuals regardless of their own actions or opinions, for example wars effect civilians as well as those in the armed forces. Consequently, Durkheim states that society continues when individuals pass, highlighting the idea of the makeup of society being a social fact. For example, social class positions exist beyond the life-span of the original members of each class group.

Society is therefore more important than individuals who create it. (Remember, Functionalism is a structural theory which looks at a macro approach to studying social phenomena). Because Functionalists believe that society is more important than individuals, people’s feelings and sometimes be ignored for the sake of making the whole of society operate more cohesively

Within society today, Functionalists believe inequality is universal. Inequality of whole groups in the social structure is known as stratification. This means a structured ranking of entire groups of people that perpetuates unequal economic rewards and power in a society.

Functionalists believe stratification, or layering is good for society, a natural and inevitable process as this promotes the concept of meritocracy. The layering is useful because it ensures that the best people are at the top and those who are less worthy are further down the pyramid, and therefore have less power and are given fewer rewards than the high-quality people at the top.

Ultimately, Durkheim believes poor people are poor because they do not work hard enough for the best positions and have the least talent leading to the existence of social class divisions. The existence of meritocracy provides all with an opportunity to excel, yet some fail to apply themselves.

The ideas of Functionalism are probably best expressed through the culture of the USA where the American Dream is the widespread goal of almost every citizen.

The argument that those at the bottom are held back by structural constraints such as poor housing, poor education and general poverty is dismissed by most Functionalists with the argument that they are simply not trying hard enough. For example, this is why criminality is often seen as a choice rather than the Marxist assumption that it is down to the uncontrollable desperation caused by capitalism. Functionalists such as Durkheim are not willing to accept that people can’t change their situation and instead believe that it is their inability to appropriately fit in with the collective conscience which leads them to stray from the value consensus of society and end up in lower levels of strata.

Evaluation

1. Marxists Bowles & Gintis would criticise Durkheim’s view as they argue that positions in society are not down to individuals and their effort, but down to connections. They believe elite self-recruitment is prevalent in society where people gain high status due to who they know not what they know.

2. The Sutton Trust ‘Elitist Britain’ (2019) would also disagree with Durkheim and support Bowles & Gintis, pointing out that more than a third of the current Cabinet went to private school and over 57 per cent attended Oxbridge. Looking at a variety of roles in the news media, including influential editors and broadcasters, we see a similar picture, with 43% having been privately educated and 36% graduating from Oxbridge. With 65% of Senior Judges, 59% of Permanent Secretaries and 57% of Lords being privately educated in comparison to just 7% of the population. Clearly, the evidence for a decline in elite self-recruitment is limited.

ii) Parsons

Parsons focuses on a different angle of social inequality, instead highlighting that in a logical society an individual will be evaluated in relation to their performance and ranked in terms of who performs most successfully. Those who are most successful will gain both prestige and high rewards. One example would be looking at a national election. It is reasonable in Functionalist ideology, to assume that the winner of an election will have done so based on their performance in the lead up to the vote and their ranking afterwards is therefore justified.

Therefore, stratification is inevitable in any society because some people will of course, perform better than others. This justifies the unequal rewards yet can lead to arrogance on the part of some of the winners and ‘sour grapes’ on the part of some losers. However, all should accept the situation and outcome because of the value consensus which is needed to maintain order. It is when people do not accept this consensus that they may resort to crime and deviance, retreatism etc.

Evaluation

1. Marxists however will argue that stratification is divisive, and any apparent value consensus is simply ruling class ideology designed to make the working class accept unequal rewards.

2. Althusser would criticise Parsons, he argues that stratification is not inevitable, but it is a process that has been taught to us through the ideological state apparatus. For example, institutions teach individuals that their success or failure is down to their efforts rather than structural constraints, which allows ruling class to keep their positions in society without people questioning this inequality.

iii) Davis & Moore

Davis and Moore would agree with Parsons, stating that stratification is a system of allocating status positions and jobs. The key focus of their theory however is that stratification is universal and necessary.

Davis and Moore believed that society needs to fill the most important and difficult jobs with the most talented and hardworking people. If people were all paid the same regardless of their work, they would take the easiest jobs and do as little training as possible. There would be no incentive to work hard and do difficult educational courses. An example of their theory in practice would be that it makes sense for the CEO of a company, whose position is more important functionally, to make more money than a cleaner working for the same company.

Society ensures that the highest pay and the best working conditions go to those who are prepared to put the time and effort into working hard for them. The high rewards act as motivation for the years of work and preparation required for the difficult and responsible careers that some people choose. This also links to the idea that incentives are needed to ensure productivity. In a Marxist communist society, no incentives would be needed as all people should be given the same amount of money regardless of the job or role they have in society (known as collectivisation).

Another applied example would be as follows; Bin men are important to public sanitation, but do not need to be rewarded highly because little training or talent is required to perform their job. For example, according to this theory doctors should be rewarded highly, because extensive training is required to do their job. It is logical that society must offer greater rewards (e.g., income, holidays, promotion) to motivate the most qualified people to fill the most important positions.

For Functionalists, the poor play a central role in society and are necessary for several reasons. For example, they argue that we need the poor to do the “dirty” jobs that nobody else wants, particularly given the low wages for working in difficult conditions such as work in many factories and farms. “Although I don’t want a dirty job, my life depends on someone else doing these jobs.”

Evaluation

1. Neo-Marxist Tumin raised a number of criticisms of Davis & Moore: The first of these was that Davis & Moore assume the most highly paid positions are the most important. Tumin believed some working-class jobs to be just as important as middle class positions, yet do not get the recognition they deserve. Differences in pay and prestige might be due to power differences, not how important the job is.

2. Tumin also questions the idea that stratification differences can lead to a motivation to improve one’s position. He highlights how such differences can discourage those at the bottom further, providing those at the top with opportunities to erect barriers to stop others from getting into their position.

2. New Right Perspectives of Class Inequality

The New Right have developed the Functionalist theory of stratification and meritocracy and their work is an applied theory, having a direct impact on social policy. The New Right have had strong links with the UK Conservative party and the USA Republican party.

i) Murray

Murray believes that the lower classes are held back by their cultural values of laziness and fecklessness, rather than genuine structural disadvantages, supporting ideas of Functionalism.

Murray argues those at the bottom of society, whom he refers to as an underclass, are outsiders in relation to cultural values.Murray sees them embracing an alternative subculture of deviant values centred around being workshy, living off welfare benefits and having fatalistic attitudes, for example, taking life as it comes.

Murray’s theory indicates that those in poverty and in positions of lower social classes are responsible for such statuses due to the cultural values adopted.

Evaluation

1. Murray's work has been criticised by Marxists for its refusal to recognise the significance of structural factors, such as capitalism and for scapegoating single parent families and those on benefits.

ii) Marsland

Marsland argues that the Joseph Rowntree Foundation (JRF) overstates the degree of relative poverty in the UK.

He suggests that the welfare state offers all of societies members a safety net to ensure that they are provided for and do not lack the essentials to get by.

For Marsland he claims that there is enough equality of opportunity in society to cater for people who have the desire and talent to better themselves. As such, those who decide to remain poor do so because it is their decision. Marsland would suggest that the overgenerous welfare state has led to a loss of self-reliance.

Evaluation

1. Marxists would criticise Marsland, his ideas reflect bourgeoisie interests through ensuring that the poorest members of society are locked further into poverty and reliance on exploited wage labour.

2. There is an inconsistency to the ideas presented by Marsland. He argues that the welfare state has reduced the extent of relative poverty, however he confuses relative with absolute poverty. Whilst benefits certainly help to safeguard a minimum level of subsistence, it does not reduce the growing gap between the poorest and richest in society.

iii) Saunders

Saunders shares a similar view to that of Murray, in relation to those at the bottom of the class structure. However, he combines this with the Postmodernist view that society is now divided based on consumption rather than traditional class factors.

Saunders puts forward the concept of a consumption cleavage, arguing that a process of social re-stratification has taken place, dividing those seeking to satisfy their consumption needs through private ownership of cars, housing, private education and health care, in contrast to those reliant upon social housing, public transport, state education and health care.

Saunders argues that divisions of consumption and lifestyle cut across 'old' class lines, with consumption now influencing and shaping identity and social attitudes to a far greater extent.

Saunders saw society as meritocratic.

Evaluation

1. Crompton criticises Saunders for claiming class is dead on the one hand yet continuing to point to occupational class as a powerful influence on income, consumption and political attitudes on the other.

2. This is developed further by Breen & Goldthorpe who criticise Saunders for ignoring how the poor and unemployed find themselves trapped in a continuing cycle of deprivation and lack of opportunity and therefore can’t consume due to lack of income.