Conflict and Functionalist Theory Differences Essay Example for Free

Conflict and Functionalist Theory Differences Essay macrocosmThe departure theory originated from Karl max, the famous sociologist, during his original development of the theory and his fine-tuning work, he included the qualifications of other sociologists the likes of Georg Samuel and Max Weber which he considered were necessary (Cliffs 1971 12-16). According to the theory, positivism does non necessarily answer everything verso to believes of functionalists.In general, the conflict theory states that everything materialises for reasons other than a general believe that it was just supposed to happen on that point atomic number 18 causes and influences which cause such things to happen and the responsibility lies solely on the people and there main role is not to gain knowledge solitary(prenominal) as a functionalist barely the fault of the gained knowledge into action (Durkheim 1915 23-27). According to the theory even scientists should be activist with regard to thei r theories, not only explain why such things happen, instead, they are supposed to instigate the necessary changes in their theories in club to help resolve these issues (Cliffs 1971 17-20).Read much Functionalist and Conflict PerspectivesThe theory differencesThe believers of conflict theory and functionalist theory come clear differences in their vox populis, because when functionalist say that they do everything they do because we love to do it, the conflict theory belief that our societies are not guided necessarily by stability or anything of the sort, but it is possible to transform the whole society into something tot everyy new (John Simpson 1951 16-20).Karlmax, Simmed and Weber, and the believers of conflict theory belief that anything that can cause a difference has the capacity to cause a conflict also, be either in areas of competition, opinions, interests and even power, but to a functionalist these issues do not fetch any serious problems even though conflict the orists do believe that they exhibit other un readn reasons other than the issue of just because we like it (Merton 1968 10-15).The way functionalists see the worldAll functionalists believers emphasize on the importance of value consensus in society and they do not expect any conflict to occur and if it occurs it is seen as being temporal which will be only if counteracted as the society continues to become better and their main concern of these conflicts is to accept them as small issues when compared to the contain for consensus and stability in the society (Cliffs 1971 20-26).An ensample of a functional analysis Shils and Young notes how ceremonies and rituals are meant to take to heart the purpose of promoting social integration in their society the rituals concerning monarchy, church, government leaseers, are mainly involved in public promise while the family is seen as the role it plays for members of society, like personal stability and socialization (Parsons 1951 19-23) . examine it with conflict theory by MarxAccording to Marxists and his believers of the conflict theory, there exists a fundamental conflict betwixt different groups in our society, because, the conflict continues to increase and persist and therefore it is not temporal as functionalists vaulting horse it to be For example, according to Marx analyzing the conflict theory, all societies are constructed in order to survive, and we enter into family relationships with the sole purpose of production (Parsons 1951 21-25).Therefore the combined forces of production and social relationship form basis for economic or infrastructure of any society, while other aspects, like superstructures are shaped by infrastructure, for instance reading system is shaped by economic factors and therefore any changes in infrastructure will lead to eventual changes in the superstructure (Simpson 1964 21-23).The Marxist theory states that all societies have contradictions this actor there is exploitation by one social group, which leads to the creation of conflict of interests because of the main reason that this one social group owns all the factors of production which only benefits them at the expense of others who are mainly the workers (Parsons 1951 25-28). They therefore, propose that this trend should be stopped. For example the society is comprised of orderes, and in its simplest form, there are two main classes of classification.The main determination of an individual to these classes is their relationship to the means of production, which are land, labor and factories (Merton 1968 16-18). This means that this class that owns the factors of production and therefore, the most powerful. The least powerful class is therefore the one which sells its labors in order to make a living out of it.To be more specific, let us consider wages versus profit achieved by the Bourgeoisie according to the theory, all societies blend in through class of conflict as mentioned and in a capita list society there are oppositions between bourgeoisie and the proletariat. The real wealth is only created by the labor power of workers, but wiped out(p) wages are paid to the workers below the profits made the owners and this creates the major contradiction (Durkheim 1915 29-31).ConclusionIn the recent past, workers have become more differentiated and this has eliminated homogeneity in terms of class-consciousness and thus they have increased their awareness of differences between themselves and this has made the above class groups to be split and not get together (John Simpson 1951 21-23). It is not important therefore for the society to be characterized by the competing interest groups who are in conflict therefore we should have ties of the following economic power and social and secondly political ties to the ownership of means of production (Simpson 1964 24).Work citedCliffs, E. (1971). The System of Modern Societies. NJ Prentice-Hall pp12-26Durkheim, E. (1915). The Eleme ntary Forms of the Religious Life A withdraw in Religious Sociology. Translated by Joseph Ward Swain. New York Macmillan press pp.23-31John, A. S. and Tr. Simpson, G. (1951). Suicide A Study in Sociology New York IL trim Press pp.16-23Merton, R. K. (1968). Social Theory and Social Structure New York Free Press pp.10-18Parsons, T (1951). The Social System Glencoe, IL Free Press pp.21-28Simpson, G. (1964). The Division of Labor in Society New York Free Press pp.21-24