Conflict theorists, such as neo-Marxists, study and interpret the conflicts that are inherent in civilization. Specifically, they study the individual, small-scale, and mass uprisings that result from struggling against an inherently oppressive system. Neo-Marxists, in accordance with classical Marxism, recognize the inherent oppression in capitalism and labor-based societies in which the wealthy/bosses benefit from the labor and exploitation of the poor and working classes. Conflict theorists study how states create artificial consensus through propaganda, indoctrination (school), coercion, nationalism/patriotism, punishment, and even "rights." For instance, the United States government loves to boast that it is a government "by the people" where rights such as freedom of assembly and expression prove that people consent to being governed. However, mass protests are only allowed if they are permitted, fit in the strict boundaries of what the state considers a legitimate and nonviolent protest, and don't actually do anything that would force the state to concede to a demand. Millions marched in protest against the war in Iraq, yet the government continued. Nothing changed as a result of the mass protests, and the state was also able to boast about people's "right" to protest the war that would continue regardless of the protests. When uprisings occur that actually challenge the status quo and rule of law, the state reacts with brutal oppression, such as was seen in the recent years of uprisings against police killings of black people.
Functionalists, on the other hand, tend to look at institutions, both state-based and not, as proof of consensus and social cohesion. Rather than studying how threat of violence, actual violence, and coercion keep states in power, functionalists assert that governments exist to maintain peace, meet social needs, and maintain the status quo. Where conflict theorists see the status quo as indicative of exploitation and the silencing of the oppressed, functionalists see the status quo as proof of social cohesion and consensus.
Conflict theorists, as their label implies, emphasize social division and conflict as endemic to societies. Marxian conflict theorists argue that division occurs along economic lines, in particular conflict between people stemming from their relationship to the means of production. In other words, all aspects of a society can be understood as manifestations of this conflict. Conflict theorists view consensus as either ephemeral or as artificial. They would argue that by looking deeply and critically enough, one can find conflict in a society where consensus supposedly exists. They might also argue that the things that supposedly create social cohesion—religion or agreed-upon behavioral norms, for example, are deliberately used by ruling classes to perpetuate their rule. Marx famously referred to religion as an "opiate for the masses" for essentially this reason.
Functionalists view society, essentially, as an organism, and look at institutions and ideologies in terms of how they function as a whole. By this way of thinking, cohesion and consensus are essentially the natural state of human societies. They tend to look at the institutions in a society in terms of how they promote this cohesion. The family, for functionalists, serves to inculcate the social norms that allow for cohesion in a society. Consensus, or agreement, on these norms is what allows a society to survive. Even supposed breaches in cohesion, like crime, are viewed by classical functionalists in terms of the role they play in arousing people to return to their shared values.
How one evaluates these two sociological perspectives is largely up to that individual, but modern sociology no longer leans exclusively on either. There is, in fact, a great deal of overlap among the two approaches.
https://laulima.hawaii.edu/access/content/user/kfrench/sociology/The%20Three%20Main%20Sociological%20Perspectives.pdf
https://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/en/slaughte.htm
A common conflict theorist approach to the question of social cohesion is to note that elites with power benefit from the passivity of other classes and thus have established institutions to control forces that might otherwise lead to the kinds of social rebellion that would destabilize society. A neo-Marxist approach would clearly recognize the nature of modern society as fundamentally exploitative. However, they must consider how institutions such as compulsory education allow those with power in society a great degree of freedom in shaping the minds of new generations to make them into relatively docile workers, as well as how institutions such as the police attempt to control rebellion when it breaks out. That is to say, those who benefit from the continuation of the present society use their power to prevent alternatives from breaking out.
A functionalist approach is more likely to view society as basically stable by its very nature, noting how institutions such as religion and culture bond people together. While a conflict theory approach might highlight the way in which elites are able to influence these areas of life to advance their interests, a functionalist approach is more likely to treat these institutions as having more organic roots.
Personally, I see the conflict theory approach as more persuasive out of these two options, as it makes clear why there are forces that resist social cohesion and explains how the system attempts to defeat them.
No comments:
Post a Comment