structural functionalism theory and political environment

From concrete interpretations to sweeping generalizations of society and social behavior, sociologists study everything from specific events (the micro level of analysis of small social patterns) to the “big picture” (the macro level of analysis of large social patterns). Sociologists analyze social phenomena at different levels and from different perspectives. Managed Care as a Means of Cost Control.Hinduism, Buddhism, Confucianism, and Taoism.Marriage, Family, Alternative Lifestyles.

Universal Education: Growth and Function.

Social Stratification and Homosexuality.

Prevalence of Homosexuality, Bisexuality.

Social and Personality Growth: Age 12–19.

Social and Personality Growth: Age 7–11.

Piaget's Model of Cognitive Development.

Culture's Roots: Biological or Societal?.

Sociological Research: Designs, Methods.

Complementary Perspectives in Sociology.

Despite these shortcomings, the Marxian analytical approach is valid to understanding societal development (Scupin and DeCorse 1995). Some of Marx’s predictions regarding the socialist and communist stages of societal development happened to be wrong. Current Marxian anthropologists reject the unilineal model of societal development suggested by Marx. Unlike neo-functionalists, Marxist anthropologists “are concerned specifically with the transformation of social orders and the relationships between conflict and cultural evolution” ( Ibid. Unlike functionalists who stressed order, stability and equilibrium in society, Marxist anthropology argued that society is in constant struggle of social class conflicts among the dominant and minority groups in society. This theory is basically materialistic as it assumes that the systems of producing material goods influences and shapes society.

Basing some of his ideas on the 19th century evolutionary thinking, Marx stated that societies pas through different stages of development. Marxist anthropological theory derives directly or indirectly from the writings of Karl Marx. Despite these weaknesses, functionalism influenced a great deal of empirical research in anthropology. (Scupin and DeCorse, 1995) The theory was also unable to explain social and cultural change, as it viewed society as stable and unchanging.

The theory was ahistorical, neglecting historical processes. Functionalist anthropology assumed an orderly world, paying little or no attention to competition and conflict (Howard and Dunaif-Hattis, 1992).

The weakness of functionalist theory was that it failed to explain why societies different or similar. Two dominant British anthropologists in functionalism were Radcliff Brown and Bronslaw Malinowski, representing two strands in the theory: structural functionalism, which stresses the preeminence of society and its structure over the individuals, and how the various elements of the social structure function to maintain social order and equilibrium and psychological functionalism, which stresses individual needs to be met by society. The theory sees society as a complex system whose parts work together to promote solidarity and stability it states that our social lives are guided by social structure, which are relatively stable patterns of social behavior (Macionis, 1997).Īll social structures contribute to the operation of society. The theory regards culture as an integrated whole (Howard and Dunaif-Hattis, 1992), and tries to explain how the relationships among the parts of society are created and how these parts are functional (meaning having beneficial consequences to the individual and the society) and dysfunctional (meaning having negative consequences). This perspective is one of the dominant theories both in sociocultural anthropology and sociology. However, diffusionism has some validity in that it helps to explain the emergence of classical civilizations such as those in Egypt, Greece, and Rome (Howard and Dunaif-Hattis, 1992 Scupin and DeCorse, 1995). The diffusionists believed that nonwestern societies are inherently inferior, saying that these peoples are not innovative in creating civilizations. The weakness of this theory, like evolutionism, was that it was ethnocentric in its assumptions. Some extreme line of thought in this theory, called the British diffusionism, argued that all sorts of civilization originated in Egypt and spread to other societies. This may explain the similarities in cultural features between societies. Cultural knowledge regarding technology, economy, religious views, etc, diffuses or spreads from one society to another. This theory maintained that societal change occurs when societies borrow cultural traits from one another. Diffusionism developed in early part of 20th century it was also interested in explaining why societies are at similar or different stages of development.

Structural functionalism theory and political environment