Conflict and Functionalist Theory Differences Essay

Introduction The conflict 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 like Georg Samuel and Max Weber which he considered were necessary (Cliffs 1971: 12-16).   According to the theory, positivism does not necessarily answer everything contrary to believes of functionalists. In general, the conflict theory states that everything happens for reasons other than a general believe that it was just supposed to happen; there are causes and influences which cause such things to happen and the responsibility lies solely on the people and there main purpose is not to gain knowledge only as a functionalist but the transformation of the gained knowledge into action (Durkheim 1915: 23-27).   According to the theory even scientists should be activist with regard to their theories, not only explain why such things happen, instead, they are supposed to instigate the necessary changes in their theories in order to help resolve these issues (Cliffs 1971: 17-20). Read more: Functionalist and Conflict Perspectives The theory differences The believers of conflict theory and functionalist theory have clear differences in their beliefs, 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 transformed the whole society into something totally 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 have any serious problems even though conflict theorists do believe that they exhibit other unseen reasons other than the issue of just because â€Å"we like it† (Merton 1968: 10-15). The way functionalists see the world All 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 simply 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 need for consensus and stability in the society (Cliffs 1971: 20-26). An example of a functional analysis; Shils and Young notes how ceremonies and rituals are meant to serve the purpose of promoting social integration in their society; the rituals concerning monarchy, church, government leaders, 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). Comparing it with conflict theory by Marx According to Marxists and his believers of the conflict theory, there exists a fundamental conflict between different groups in our society, because, the conflict continues to increase and persist and therefore it is not temporal as functionalists clam it to be:   For example, according to Marx analyzing the conflict theory, all societies are constructed in order to survive, and we enter into 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 education 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 means 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 classes, 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 operate through class of conflict as mentioned; and in a capitalist society there are oppositions between bourgeoisie and the proletariat. The real wealth is only created by the labor power of workers, but low wages are paid to the workers below the profits made the owners and this creates the major contradiction (Durkheim 1915: 29-31). Conclusion In 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 united (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 cited Cliffs, E. (1971). The System of Modern Societies. NJ: Prentice-Hall: pp12-26 Durkheim, E. (1915). The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life: A Study in Religious  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   Sociology. Translated by Joseph Ward Swain. New York: Macmillan press:   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   pp.23-31 John, A. S. and Tr. Simpson, G. (1951). Suicide: A Study in Sociology: New York IL:    Free Press: pp.16-23 Merton, R. K. (1968). Social Theory and Social Structure; New York: Free Press: pp.10-18 Parsons, T (1951). The Social System; Glencoe, IL: Free Press: pp.21-28 Simpson, G. (1964). The Division of Labor in Society; New York: Free Press: pp.21-24