The Functionalist perspective views society as a cohesive and relatively stable and orderly system where each group has a role to play. Functionalists emphasize the importance of consensus in maintaining social order. Theorists association with this perspective are Auguste Comte, Emile Durkheim, Talcott Parsons, and Robert K. Merton. Comte believed that the job of the science of sociology is uncover the laws that governed societies and to establish order. Keep in mind that he was writing in the early 19th century in the aftermath of the French Revolution. He distinguished between social statics and social dynamics. Statics is the study of social order and dynamics the study of social change and progress (Collins and Makowsky 22, 2005). Comte likened society to biological organisms such as the human body. A human body is composed of various parts (heart, lungs, kidneys) and each part must work in order for the whole to exist. Moreover, each part has a role to play in maintaining the life of the body. For Comte, the same is true for societies. Societies are made up of parts (family, government, religion, statuses, social roles), and each part has a role to play in keeping society ordered and stable. When all the parts fit and each plays its respective role, then consensus and harmony is achieved. This consensus is achieved when most members of society share the same beliefs and are accepting of their roles in society.

A sociologists, which you were already introduced to in Chapter 1 who is associated with the functionalist perspective is Emile Durkheim, who expands on Comte's concepts. For Durkheim, cooperation, agreement, and consensus keep societies together. An important concept he introduces is the collective consciousness, which refers to the shared beliefs and moral attitudes of a community. These communal beliefs are responsible for unifying society and forming solidarity. In his 1893 work The Division of Labor in Society, Durkheim differentiates between two types of solidarity: mechanical and organic. Mechanical solidarity exists in societies that are isolated and homogeneous. People in the society shared similar beliefs and norms. These societies are relatively small and social ties are based on custom, family, and emotions. Social relationships are long lasting. In contrast, Organic Solidarity happens in larger societies and complex division of labor forms the basis of solidarity and independence. Rather than kinship or familial ties, individual status in society is determined by occupation and individual achievement. In essence, mechanical solidarity is associated with “traditional” societies and organic with contemporary societies.

For example, in most tribal societies, community members will most likely share the same religion and have the same belief systems. Their relationships are based on emotions and historical bonds, which are rarely broken. On the other hand, in modern day societies, relationships are fleeting. For example, we change our jobs often and have very little emotional attachments to our co-workers and bosses. Our societies are diverse and social cohesion is achieved because of our diversity and division of labor.

Division of labor refers to how each group in society has a specific role to play in order for society to function. These specialized roles are an integral quality of division of labor. Teachers teach, nurses assist doctors, parents take care of children etc. Division of labor can best be visualized in a car manufacturing plant. In making a car, workers have a specialized task. There are groups of people in charge of putting the doors, people in charge of installing the steering wheel and so on. Just as the car must go through each level of manufacturing to be complete, for the functionalist perspective, each group in society has a role to play in order for society to exist in stability.

Robert K. Merton distinguishes between two types of functions: manifest and latent. Manifest functions are the functions that are intended by society. Latent functions are indirect consequences. Merton used the Hopi Tribe of Arizona and New Mexico rain dance to distinguish between these two functions. The Hopi believe that performing the rain dance will bring rain for harvest (manifest), but Merton claims that the rain dance also “also has the effect of promoting the cohesion of the Hopi society (latent function) (Giddens 19).” Another example is school. The manifest function of school is for students to learn. The latent function is it provides a place for young people to congregate and make friends with adult supervision. Schools also provides jobs for teachers and staff.

Merton also distinguished between functions and dysfunctions. Dysfunctions are what disrupts order in society. In Merton's words “ a social dysfunction is any process that undermines the stability or survival of a social system (96, 1996).” War and terrorism are examples. However, dysfunctions are not always be disadvantageous for all of society. In some cases, social actions that seem dysfunctional may actually be functional for other groups in society. The melting of the icecaps as a result of global warming may threaten the earth, but for oil producers, the oil deposits discovered in the arctic are beneficial to their business. Slavery may have been dysfunctional for slaves and Blacks, but functional and quite beneficial for slave owners, wealthy plantation owners, and the American economy (Rivoli 2005). For the functionalists, the social institutions mentioned in the previous chapter, if properly implemented, help perpetuate the status quo. As discussed, ones' status in society help determine which groups that person will belong to. And since group membership influence ones' social networks, a status prevents people from venturing out of their position in society.

You might be shaking your head and thinking, slavery and climate change may be functional for certain groups of society, but these are wrong! This is true, but inherent in the concept of division of labor is difference and at a certain level, inequality. Another analogy of division of labor are sports teams. In basketball, there is the center, forwards, the guards and the head coach as the central characters. Imagine if the coach decides to start playing himself. The center decides to play the part of the guard, and the forwards decide they want to be the coach. The team would most surely lose. Or how about in the middle of the battle field the private start issuing orders and starts ignoring the hierarchy in the military. For the functionalist perspective, this is when disorder happens—when people or groups do not play their part. A unified system, which is society, needs every part of the whole to do its part.

For the functionalist perspective, these roles can change and alter through time, but what is important is for groups to adapt to these changes in order to maintain cohesion. Failure to adapt means a breakdown of social order and chaos. For example, the abolition of slavery can be attributed to the move from agricultural to industrial production. When it comes to industrial production, people enslaved are just not as prodictive. Moreover, with the ability to produce more goods, you need more poeple to buy. Surely, people who aren't paid can't afford to buy goods, so you essentially shrunk the market with slavery.

In general, change from the functionalist perspective is viewed with caution. Since the parts of the system are interconnected, a change in one aspect can greatly alter the whole. Thus, fear often stymies change.

Unlike the functionalist perspective, the conflict perspective believes that societies can best be understood by looking at power and the various power struggles among groups in society. For the conflict perspective, society is made of various interests and groups competing for power. Power is seen as a zero-sum game, meaning, one's gain is another's loss. Conflict also arises because of groups competing for scarce resources. The end results is not stability, but inequality and constant tension.

The theorist most associated with the conflict perspective is Karl Marx. Writing in 19th century Western Europe, where industrialization and capitalism has disrupted the existing organization of society under a feudal system, Marx saw the existing social class system as divided by the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. The bourgeoisie make up the capitalist class. This group owns capital and exploits the proletariat or the working class. A thorough investigation of Marx's ideas will be analyzed in our chapter on class systems. For now, what is important to note is that Marx analyzed how capitalism in its very core is a system of exploitation, not just in economic terms, but in all aspects of social life. With control of the economy, the bourgeoisie also has taken control of politics and socio-cultural beliefs. Thus, social structures and social institutions exists to serve the needs of the ones in power. Marx does not think that human nature or individuals are inherently greedy and evil; rather, the established economic system makes inequality beneficial for others, which causes groups to act in such a combative manner.

Beyond Marx, the conflict perspective does not limit itself to the economy and social class in assessing power struggles between groups. Conflict exists between gender, age groups, developed and underdeveloped countries, and cities vs. rural areas, just to name a few. Thus, conflict is present in all aspect of social life. When one assess a situation using this perspective, one is interested in how the relationship leads to an advantage for one group and a disadvantage for another. A branch of conflict perspective which focuses on a specific group struggle is the feminist perspective. Some influential feminist scholars are Abigail Adams (1744-1818), Ida Wells-Barnett (1862-1931), and Gloria Steinem (1934). This branch of conflict perspective concentrates on inequality based on gender.

Unlike functionalism, conflict perspective sees change as inevitable and a basic feature of society. As a result of inequality and the battle for power, each group is always trying to be on top of the hierarchy. Stability and cooperation are not a basic feature of societies. Social order is maintained, not through the unified functioning of the whole, but through coercion and power. While functionalism is criticized for highlighting social cohesion, the conflict perspective is criticized for overlooking events and elements of society wherein competing groups have come together for a common cause.

Both the functionalist and the conflict perspective have one thing in common, both assess society at the macro-level. They look at social structures and the relationships between the various groups in society. In contrast, the symbolic interactionist perspective analyzes society from the micro-level. This means that the symbolic interactionist perspective observes interactions between people through their means of communication. From these personalized negotiations, they attempt to explain society as a whole. For this perspective, “society is considered to be socially constructed through human interpretation (Andersen 22, 2006).” Unlike the first 2 perspectives we have discussed, interactionism takes the level of analysis to individuals and smaller groups.

Symbols are particularly important for this perspective. Symbols can include material objects, words, actions, gestures, and facial expressions that have a shared meaning for a group of people. A ring band is a symbol of marriage for most western societies while in parts of India, a necklace is worn instead. Nonverbal communications are also symbols—these are actions which are culturally understood. For example, asking a waiter for the bill is communicated differently across societies. In the Philippines, the customer can outline a rectangle with the index fingers, while in Japan, the index fingers are crossed to form an X. Facial expressions are also forms of symbols and are cultural. In a research done by the University of Alberta, Canada on facial emotions between Japanese and Americans, researchers found that Americans focus more on the mouth when it comes to interpreting emotions whereas the Japanese focus more on the eyes. The study compared how Americans and Japanese interpreted images, which showed different emotions. Their findings are also supported by the way Americans and Japanese use emoticons or the symbols used to convey emotions in an email or through text messaging. Americans use these emoticons as a symbol of happy face :) or :-) and :( or :-( for sad face. The mouth changes in these emoticons. Contrastingly, in Japan, (^_^) represents a happy face and (;_;) a sad face (Science Daily, 4/5/2007).

Symbolic interactionists consider interaction, symbols, and the tacit and overt rules and meaning we attach to them as the basis of social order and society itself. Through these everyday interactions and exchanges we construct society. Erving Goffman (1922-1982) and his dramaturgical approach captures some of the essence of the interactionist perspective. For Goffman, people are similar to actors on a stage. People put on a different face depending on the situation. We present a different self in front of our family, another face if with friends and so on. Like the other two perspectives, symbolic interactionist has its share of criticisms. The focus on everyday interactions lends itself to subjective interpretation of social relations and does not capture the overall structure of society. Although it explains how social order is maintained,it does not address the larger social institutions that make up societies.

• Functionalist Perspective
• Social Statics
• Social Dynamics
• Collective Consciousness
• Mechanical Solidarity
• Organic Solidarity
• Fatalistic Suicide
• Roles
• Manifest Function
• Latent Function
• Conflict Perspective
• Bourgeoisie
• Proletariat
• Symbolic Interactionist
• Dramaturgical Approach