Category: Free Essays

Education was not always free for everyone in Britain, nor does it look like it will remain free, at least with regard to higher education in Britain. Up until relatively recently (1871 Forster Act) education was only open to those who could afford it, the upper class and a section of the middle class. Public schools (those that you paid for) were one of the few forms of schooling. The working class child received a very short and simple education, usually in a religious run school, a Church school. Then with industrialization, education was gradually extended to all. It was argued that in order for Britain to succeed, that is, remain at the forefront of the worlds economies it had to have a literate and numerate workforce. Education for all came into being because the capitalist industrial system required certain abilities amongst the workforce and because the capitalist class was broadly supportive of it.

The Ideological Functions of Education

For many Marxists education is seen as the ideological apparatus of the state, that is, it disseminates ruling-class ideology. It is a myth making machine, its very existence seems to foster the most absurd beliefs. This is very much the argument of the French Marxist and philosopher Louis Althusser. According to Althusser no class can hold power indefinitely solely on the basis of the use or threat of force. The Police, Army and the Prisons can only hold back the tide but not a tidal wave. Ideology provides the most effective means of control, by controlling what others think you control what they do. It is the most complete form of control.

Althusser believes that the education system has taken over from the Church as the main agent of ideological transition essential to the maintenance of the capitalist economic system. For example, in the past most people accepted their positions in life, no matter how unbearable, because they believed it was Gods will. They were poor because God wished it so, they were hungry because God wished it so, they were powerless because God wished it so. Such beliefs are now in decline, although many still hold them, much more common is the belief that everything boils down to the great God of education. Those who are smart and hardworking do well in education and gain educational qualifications and in turn do well in the world of work. Those who are unemployed and working in low paid jobs did not gain educational qualifications and were probably not academically gifted. This is, however, an ideological belief as it has been shown that the higher your parents social class so the higher your educational qualifications and duration spent in education. Class still determines where you end up in the majority of cases. The education system propagates the view, however, that success is all down to intelligence and hard work.

Schools directly transmit the ideological belief that capitalism is fair and just. For example, you might learn about free market economies and how their competitive nature creates great wealth for every American. You might learn about how companies compete in the market place, which in turn means that they try to under-cut rivals which in turn means constant innovation in efficiency and good value for the general public etc.

A good example, one that I heard while travelling on the train, is provided by those who go to the local elite school. I happened to overhear, much to my astonishment, a girl of about 13 or 14 years old actually selling shares in her “school business”. Her and some fellow pupils had set up their little business, at the bequest of their teachers, and were now busy selling shares to their fellow pupils. She explained it was a sound investment. Her fellow pupils, equally enthusiastic, snapped up the shares with greedy hands. The very fact that their teachers suggested and encouraged such activity would seem to suggest that those students involved in it, and around it, would come to see the private enterprise system as a just and fair system. The conception of the role of the teacher is, after all, one of fairness and equality.

Schools are also ideological in that they foster certain values which function to ensure the continuance of the capitalist system and perform certain other functions. Ideology consists not just of certain beliefs that distort reality but also of values which function to preserve the existing social order. One of these values, particularly prevalent in societies such as America and Britain, is that of competition. The school is an arena of competition, the teachers the judges and instigators. The use of certain sports in schools is part of this ideological function. For example, the playing of competitive games such as football, rugby, cricket etc. where there are two opposing sides, one side will be winners the other losers. One side must compete against the other, they must try to outscore their opponents. The winners, and those who perform best, are afforded prestige (the Jocks) while those who do not are openly mocked by teacher and student alike. Pupils are taught to compete rather than to help one another to each others mutual benefit. It is this sort of value attachment which is instrumental to the survival of capitalism and its “smooth” functioning. To put it simply, if the working class decided that instead of competing for the limited number of jobs that exist at any given time, thus ensuring that some have no jobs, that they would band together and demand full employment then capitalism, and with it the capitalist class, might be overthrown.

The education system also plays an ideological role in that it is through the school that much of our stock of knowledge, be it ideological or otherwise, about the world is gained. The school is one of the main agents of socialization. Only certain things are, however, taught in schools. This is not so much because teachers are reactionary middle-class types, although many are, but more because what they are allowed to teach is governed by the curriculum. What they teach is dictated by the the state. They may well wish to teach students about things such as Socialism, Anarchy and the evils of the free enterprise system but they dare not. For example, I learnt about Russian history without ever recalling hearing the words Karl Marx or hearing a single idea of Marx expressed in class. If someone had said Marx to me at age 15 I would have replied Groucho Marx? You are taught a sanitized view of history, one in which class conflict does not figure. History is taught as if history were nothing more than the product of certain charismatic individuals. You will also learn all about “democracy” but never about the alternatives to “democracy”, that is, socialist democracy. When you are told of socialism you are told of the Communist regimes of Russia, further perpetuating the ideological belief that these societies are socialist when it is evident they are not.

Bowles and Gintis

“Schooling in Capitalist America”

Bowles and Gintis, in one of the best known Marxist accounts of the education system, argue that there is a close correspondence between the social relationships that exist in the classroom and those of the workplace. This correspondence is essential for the reproduction of the next generation of workers appropriately schooled to accept their roles and position in society. Without this correspondence capitalism would not function quite so smoothly. There would be constant “rebellion” within the workplace and even many who thought that a new social order was required to realise full human potential.

Hierarchies

One of the things that school and the workplace have in common (apart from being boring and monotonous) is that they are both hierarchically organised. A hierarchy basically means that they are organised in a way that is analogous to a wedding cake. There are different layers each one resting upon the other, each one smaller than the other, with each one in turn having more power or authority than the one below. At the bottom of the school cake rests the base of the pupils while at the top sits the pretty little cherry of the headmaster or headmistess, then above them there is another hierarchy. Pupils have little control over what they learn and when they learn it and how they learn it. This is decided in part by the teacher and in part by the curriculum. This corresponds to their later experience of work, which like school is organised in a hierarchy. Karl Marx describes the workplace as follows:

Masses of labourers, crowded into the factory, are organised like soldiers. As privates of the industrial army they are placed under the command of a perfect hierarchy officers and sergeants…(Communist Maniefsto)

In school pupils are encouraged, through various sanctions, both positive and negative, to conform to the existing hierarchy. Schools reward punctuality, hard work and obedience and discourage creativity and critical awareness. You can think but only about how better to do a given task (instrumental reasoning), Don’t ever think about the merits of the task itself. Such attributes, which school fosters in the majority of pupils, are what employers require and desire. They do not want workers who question authority or who come to work five minutes late or spend their time thinking about how better the economic system could be organised so that all may share the wealth it creates.

The Jug and the Mug

Schools also correspond to work in that schools offer little satisfaction or enjoyment to the pupil. For the majority of pupils school is a boring monotonous place, somewhere which takes away their free time and prevents them doing what they really want. Learning is conducted on the jug and the mug principle. The teachers are the jugs brimming with knowledge the pupils are the mugs ready to be filled with knowledge. The teacher pours their knowledge day after day in the same dreary fashion into the pupil. The pupil is encouraged to look towards other things such as educational qualifications as the aim of their study. Such educational qualifications, they are told, will mean more money in later life. They are encouraged to work through external rewards. Again this closely corresponds to work as work will for the vast majority be extremely monotonous and boring in the extreme. They will either be standing at a factory line repeating the same task day after day or sitting in an office completing the same task day after day. If education was itself interesting, stimulating and give a sense of satisfaction then pupils may then expect the same from work, they would be bitterly disappointed. They may even give up the whole notion of wage slavery, imagine that!

Inequality is Justified by the Education System

Capitalist societies are societies in which exists inequalities, particularly of wealth, power and opportunity. If ever such inequality was to be seriously questioned, in all its manifestations, then it could, lead to the erosion and replacement of the free market economy or capitalism. One way in which this situation is avoided is by promotion of the ideological belief that such inequalities are justified. Inequalities are to put it simply, right. Education makes inequality more socially acceptable by broadcasting the myth that it offers every student an equal chance. Nowadays in societies such as Britain and America all children are entitled to state education. The argument is that those who achieve top qualifications go on to top jobs and that they deserve their success because they are smarter and more hard working then their fellow class mates. The education system promotes this myth and leads people to think along such lines simply by its existence. Bowles and Gintis, however, point out that your chances of educational success are closely related to the class of your parents. The higher the social class of your parents so the greater the duration of your stay in education and the higher your qualifications.

But what about the evidence that suggests a correlation between educational success and intelligence. Various studies have shown that those who achieve educational success, higher education qualifications, have higher IQs than average. They are to put it simply, bright. Bowles and Ginits do, however, attempt to counter this argument. They argue that the relationship between these two variables is not a causal one. Intelligence does not determine educational success. If this was true then you would expect people with roughly the same IQ to have roughly the same educational success. Ginits and Bowles examined the educational attainment of those with roughly similar IQs and found widely different educational attainment levels. They argue that the higher than average IQ of those who have attained higher educational qualifications is a by product of their longer duration in education. Their higher IQs are a result not a cause of their educational attainment. Certainly the evidence would seem to suggest that this is indeed correct.

The Myth of Education

(Some Personal Observations)

Part of the dominant ideology of all capitalist societies would appear to be the belief that intelligence plus dedication equals educational success which in turn means success in the workplace. We can represent this chain of thought by the following equation:

Intelligence/Dedication =/+ Educational Success = Monetary Success

Material Resources

I will now deal with the first part of this equation, that intelligence and dedication equals educational success. This is simply not true. Bowles and Gintis argue that by contrast educational success is determined much more by the social class of the students parents. This is not to say that all those from a working-class background will not achieve educational success or that all those from upper or middle class backgrounds will achieve educational success. Ralph Miliband (“The State in capitalist Society”) puts it as follows: “It may not be essential, in order to achieve material or professional success, to be born of wealthy or even of well-to-do parents: but it is certainly an enormous advantage, rather like joining a select club, membership of which offers unrivalled opportunities for the consolidation and advancements of the advantages which it in any case confers.” Being born of well-to-do parents gives certain benefits, some of which derive from the better material circumstances of the family. But how is money translated into educational success? There are a number of ways in which this is translated.

Money can’t buy you Love but it can buy an Education

Material wealth allows parents to provide certain resources which in turn help their son or daughter gain educational success. They can for instance pay to send their children to public schools (fee paying schools) where no matter how undeserving the student they are almost certainly guaranteed educational success. In Britain rumour constantly circulates that the “Toffs” get their exams marked much easier than their state school counterparts. Whatever the truth of such rumours the environment and standard of teaching is certainly of a higher standard than an inner city comprehensive, poorly funded with demoralised staff.

Even if parents are not well enough off to send their children to public schools (ones that you pay for) there are still other ways in which material well being can help. Parents may not be able to afford to buy their children an education but they may be able to afford to send their children to private tutors to subsidize their state education. They can afford to pay the fees for private tuition on a one to one basis, which can make the difference between a pass and a fail. Such tuition done on a one to one basis, conducted over a substantial period of time, can often make the difference between educational success and failure. Also, the more you can pay so, in general, the better standard of tuition you will receive. In Northern Ireland you may pay as much as A?30+ an hour for such tution from a professional body.

Lastly, parents can also afford to buy other resources which will increase the students chances of educational success. They can afford to pay for such things as extra textbooks, a resource which is increasingly expensive. They can also afford to buy children one of the most essential tools of their educational careers, a decent computer with a printer and internet connection. Despite what teachers may say to the contrary, and they say it repeatedly, presentation is just as important as content. Your content may be great but if presentation is poor then your marks will suffer. Those with computers and printers have no such problems. They can even run spell checks and grammar checks at the touch of a button. Their handwriting may be a scrawl but if you print your work no one need ever know. The internet is perhaps one of the most important factors in this element of educational success. Internet access is not equally spread throughout societies and the world. There are those who are connected and those who are not connected. Those who are not connected do not have access to the vast amounts of information that are stored on the servers of the world wide web. Even if there is a connection in school it is no substitute for a home connection. It can take literally hours to find the information you want, most schools have time limits.

Ideational Resources
Relations Within the Classroom

What are ideational resources I hear you ask. The term Ideational resources is simply another way of saying cultural resources. Classes (groups of people who occupy a common relatiohsip to the means of production)as you already know (don’t you?) have their own, more or less distinct, sub-cultures. That is, they have different norms, values, beliefs, stocks of knowledge, ways of speaking, customs or to put it simply ways of life. The average working class man or woman will not speak and behave in the same way as the average upper class British person. This can lead to certain biases (certain things are more likely to happen)within the classroom which in turn lead to certain types of students being less successful than others.

Basil Bernstein has conducted work with regard to what might be termed ideational resources. Bernstein is interested in speech patterns. We should remember that speaking is not something that comes automatically, speech is very much cultural not biological. Also, we should remember that certain ways of speaking, such as “speaking posh”, are also learnt. People are not born with marbles in their mouths others must put them there. Berstein identified two forms of speech code,: the elaborated form and the restricted form. The restricted speech code takes the form of short hand speech. Such speech is usually short and does not conform to common grammar. The meanings are also hard to grasp for those not part of the particular social group using the terms. The elaborated code on the other hand uses fully formed sentences with universal meanings. Such a speech code is context free, it can be understood by all those who know it whether friends of the speaker or not.

Bernstein also realized that the form of speech code used predominantly in the classroom was the elaborated speech code. The elaborated speech code was how the teacher expressed him or her self and it was the language in which the text book was written. The middle-class child to some extent learns and is fluent in both forms of speech, both restricted (which they use with parents and friends) and elaborated (which they use in the context of the classroom). The working-class child by contrast only learns and feels at home with the restricted speech code. This may mean that during lessons, which are taught in the elaborated speech code, they lose track and cannot understand what is being communicated to them. They will be misunderstood and will in turn misunderstand what is taught. Hardly a recipe for educational success.

There are other ways in which ideational resources also play a part. The classroom is an arena of meaning, just like social life in general. People attach meanings (beliefs, purposes, intentions etc.) to objects, events and actions. They define the situation and act according to this definition whether it be true or false. The classroom is presided over by the teacher who is by virtue of their occupation “middle class”. The teacher is a member of a community and will as a result internalised many of the prejudices, both positive and hegative, of that community. This stock of knowledge (prejudices)enables them to apply certain labels to pupils. There is an ideal student and a disruptive pupil, an “intelligent” student and a “stupid” student. Research has shown that teachers are more likely to label middle class children as students likely to succeed while they are more likely to label working class children as failures or disruptive. This can lead to a self fulfilling prophecy. Because the teacher believes that a student is destined to fail they fail. This is because they may spend less time explaining things to the student and may also let them away with poor work, perhaps even with doing no work.

Knowledge and the Education System

(Pushers of Junk)

Its a commonsesnse assumption that all schools do much the same thing, that is, they teach. But this is only part of the story. What the student learns within the school, be it part of the curriculum or not, will vary with school. To put it simply, those who go to “elite” schools, schools for the well-to-do and the “intelligent”, learn different things to those who go to “normal” schools. Also, there is even a distinction, in Northern Ireland at least, between state schools. There are Grammar schools and technical schools. The elite schools, and to a lesser extent the grammar schools, instruct students how to be leaders. They are assigned positions of authority, they take part in games requiring leadership, they are groomed for leadership. They are also taught the mysteries of the free enterprise system. They learn about “business”, they are even given practical experience of running a business. Those who go to the Technical schools, the vast majority of whom are from wroking class homes, are taught to be “doers”. They are to be the hands for the thinkers, those who will lead them, their colleagues in the elite schools. They are chanelled by teachers, and by “career advisors” (pushers of junk) to follow certain paths, but virtually never encouraged to go down the academic path. The academic path is those from elite schools. How can you ever become a member of the capitalist class or even the various elites of capitalist society if you lack the knowledge of how the system works? How do you become, even if you wanted to, an entrepureneur when all you have ever been taught is to be a worker.

The very knowledge that is passed down to children across the generation may affect their chances of educational success. Schools teach pupils, they try to instill them with knowledge. They don’t teach them any knowledge, only certain things. For example, in the elite schools you will learn about things such as classical music, literature, art etc. or “high culture” as it is known. To a lesser extent this “high culture” is also present in the wider education system, its just diluted. The child from the upper or middle class has already internalised much of this sort of knowledge, it is part of their sub-culture. The working class child has also internalised certain knowledge but not of the same sort. They might know a lot about football or films or pop music but they do not know what the middle class child knows.

Perhaps the best example of this is the TV programme University Challenge (shown in Britain). In this poor excuse for entertainment two opposing university teams answer questions, the majority of which are about “high Culture”. The victors are universally regarded as “very smart” but they are smart simply because they know about “high culture”, because they can regurgitate a lot of facts that form part of their daily existence, their culture. To put it simply the student who can recite a Shakespearean sonnet is considered a “genius”, the pupil who recites the lyrics from a Rage Against The Machine song is an idiot who has wasted their time (Ya Gotta A Kuc*in Bullet in Ya Head).A

The Second Part of the Equation

So far we have only examined the reasons why the first part of the equation is not true but what about the second part. Does educational success really equal material and/or professional success?

Not all working class children fail miserably in terms of their education. Some go on to further education and gain degree level qualifications, some will even go on to form the ranks of the service class. They will be doctors, teachers, journalists, lawyers some may even become captains of industry. The percentage of those who do achieve this is, however, very small relative to the size of the working class. Across the generations the middle class tends to reproduce itself, middle class parents have children who in turn go on to gain middle class jobs and in turn have middle class children and so on. That there is token mobility does not mean that class is not important, indeed such token mobility may strengthen the existing social order. If the existing order is defined as just and fair there is less chance of its overthrow from below.

Middle class children are not just successful because they gain qualifications, this is only part of the story. Middle class children, and those from the upper class particularly, are successful in part not because of what they know but because of who they know, or who their parents know. They have connections, networks of “friends”. Let’s say there are two people who go for the same job, that of an accountant, one of them is from a working-class background, the other is from a middle class background. The middle class job applicant has a father who happens to be a member of the same Church, same Masonic lodge, same Golf Club as the Manager of the factory. Exactly who do you think will get the job? The working-class job applicant whose Dad is a refuge collector or the job applicant whose parents are middle class and form part of a network of “friends”, or to put it slightly different, have connections? Qualifications are important but they are only part of the story, connections are much more important.

In Northern Ireland nepotism (giving favours to family anf friends) has always been rife although it has declined slightly since Direct Rule. Mainland Britain also, however, has its own form of nepotism or pattern of bias in terms of the labour market hierarchy. In Britain it remains the case that the elite positions in nearly every institutional sector, be it in private industry, the state, the church, the Army etc. have been monopolized by people from a certain background sharing certain educational characteristics in common. Many sociologists point to the existence of an “old Boys network”. The British sociologist Anthony Giddens argued that in britain there is no major institutional sector where less than half of those in top positions are of public school (private funded school) background. For example the following percentages were found with regard to the varying institutions:

Percentage who attended public school.

Anglican Bishops 80%+

Army officers over rank of major-general 80%+

Top Judges 80%+

Conservative MPs 76%

Senior Civil Servants 60%

Directors of industrial corporations 73%

Directors of financial firms 80%

Labour Party 26%(It has probably increased)

As we can see there is a certain pattern with regard to those who occupy the top positions in organisations, be they the military or the company boardroom. Part of the reason for this pattern is down to connections, the old boy networks. Those who occupy top positions have been in many cases to the same school, perhaps at the same time. They have frequented in the same circles, gone to the same Universities (Oxford and Cambridge), and are members of the same societies etc. They feel a common sense of identity with those who are like them, those who have had an elite education. If you are an Eton man then you must be okay.

Part of the explanation for this pattern of bias with regard to the educational background is to be found in the networks that exist but also in part because of the higher prestige that attaches itself to certain educational institutions. Whether rightly or wrongly certain educational establishments, such as Eton public school and Oxford and Cambridge universities, have much greater prestige than a former Polytechnic in Manchester or a comprehensive in inner city London. This fact turns the whole argument of equality within education upon its head. Degrees are not viewed as equal although the same work goes into a degree from Oxford or Cambridge as in any of the “lesser” universities. How can their be equality of opportunity when even those who have equal qualifications are judged differently depending on where they gained such qualifications?A

Conclusion

I have attempted to show that education is something of a myth making machine. All the education in the world may not gain you entry to the ranks of the capitalist class. You must have the connections to make your education work for you. Also, the material disadvantages combined with cultural disadvantages all conspire to make the chances of the child from a working class background getting a good education much less. I myself would see material resources as of paramount importance when it comes to educational success. Other factors also come into play, such as the standard of housing and diet of the student, all of which are in favour of the middle class child. We should not, however, overlook the role that ideational or cultural resources play in determining educational success or failure either. Lastly, even when the working class child is successful in terms of education this by no means is translated into success in the labour market as witnessed by the large numbers of people with degrees and other higher qualifications who “underachieve” when it comes to paid employment.(“Twenty years of schooling and they put you on the day shift” Bob Dylan). In conclusion it is not so much what you know that holds the key to professional and monetary success but who you know. Marxists would argue that true equality of opportunity, be it educational or otherwise, can only be created in a socialist society in which inequalities had ceased to exist. Raymond Boudon writes: “For inequality of educational opportunity to be elimanted, either a society must be unstratified or its school system must be completely undifferentiated.”

Function is an unclear term, often used by orthodox sociologists to define the logical and social place of roles, institutions and structures in terms of the production and reproductionof a society as a social

Functionalists believe everything serves a specific function in our society and these functions need to be understood. Everyone has a role to fill in this functional society, in other words we need to have stratification so as everyone has a purpose. Functionalists are very

boundaried and thin within the square. For this theory to really work, there needs to be a consensus amongst the individuals that make up society, they need to believe everything is in the best interest of this so called utopia. There is obviously no conflict of interest. This does not seem possible in this modern age, so can functionalism still be considered a plausible theory. It does of course have its merits, yes everything does have its function, but these functions are up for a degree of interpretation and change. Unfortunately functionalism

does not explain change except in a gradual evolutionary way.

Conflict Theory

Conflict theory is a body of theories including marxism, which claims that all social orders are fractured by social conflict, typically between classes and other groups, over control of valued resources including wealth, power and property (Bessant & Watts, 1999). Conflict theorists believe that conflict is the basis of social order and that a minority of people with power are able to impose their will over others. There is a conflict of interest, people have different goals and purpose. They will use whatever means to gain this, even to the detriment of others in their society. Those with more power and money have the ability to gain a higher level of services by the main institutions in our society (such as education and health), thus creating a greater level of stratification in society. This in turn creates more conflict as those who cannot get the services they need turn to deviant or dependant methods to gain the same baisc needs. Unfortunately it is a vicious circle which continues to breed contempt from both sides of the fence in our society.

Durkheim

Durkheim (1858-1917) was one of the original ‘founding fathers’ of positivist sociology (functional theory), his concern was how to preserve society. The basis for social order (how society hung together and worked over time) was not economic but moral for Durkheim, expressed in the type of solidarity that a society exhibited (Willis,1999).

Durkheim was particularly concerned to distinguish social facts, which he sometimes described as “states of the collective mind,” from the forms these states assumed when manifested through private individual minds. This distinction is most obvious in cases of customs,

moral and legal rights and religious beliefs etc.

Marx

For Karl Marx (1818-1883), the transformation had to be understood primarily as a change in the economic structure of societies; a change in the means by which economic production was organised from a system called feudalism to one called capitalism (Willis 1999). Marx was a man looking to understand society, he followed many different paths and was alienated many times for his ideas. His theories on value and surplus value, accumulation, exploitation,

pauperization, crisis and appropriation, class struggle and revolution made no immediate impact on the workers’ movement, until after his death in 1883 (Rius 1999).

Unemployment

We are entering a new phase in world history – one in which fewer and fewer and fewer workers will be needed to produce the goods and services for the global population…For the whole of the modern era, people’s worth has been measured by the market value of their labour…now new ways of defining human worth and social relationships will need to be explored (Rifkin 1996). Life has changed, globalization and feminism have had a huge impact on the work environment around the world. Technology has also made many jobs redundant. Unemployment has become an issue allaround the globe, explanations of this phenomenom are plenty. How does unemployment serve a purpose, or is it just another chance for the powerful to stamp on those with less power? The government views the unemployment situation as an idividual problem. It is due to the lack of training of the individual, they now make people have training to continue to get unemployment benefits. This is a great idea as far as keeping the individual busy and increasing the self-esteem and knowledge, but what then? We are now creating alot of qualified people for positions which don’t exist. We need to look at why there are not enough positions to employ these individuals. If it is not lack of skills, then what is it? Could it be that they government or us as a society are not doing enough to promotebusiness in Australia, instead sending our work load overseas for cheaper labour. We need to look at why the positions are non existant rather than assuming it is the individuals fault. Unemployment affects our society in so many ways. The four main institutions I am looking at are family, education, health and government.

Firstly the family, unemployment places added financial and mental strain on the family. The lack of income can cause many families to have to live without the basic necessities which we take for granted, they then need to turn to welfare agencies in order to survive. Lack of income also means children often have to miss out on school activities

and sports programs as the family budget can no longer stretch the distance. This monetary strain can cause breakdown in both the individual and family. This can turn in domestic violence, alcoholism, gambling, family dysfunction and even suicide. Unemployment has such wide ranging affects on family life. Alcoholism, smoking, the illegal use of drugs and crime are associated with unemployment (Makkai 1994).This can then be made even more significant when their is further stratification caused by age, disability, ethnicity, gender, sex, class and race. For example, if your race was one that expected the men to work and the wife to stay at home and raise the children. When you become unemployed, you may lose your standing as both a husband and member of your community, as you can no longer provide appropriately for your family. Each of these aspects further increases the impact of unemployment.

Secondly, there is education. Public versus private is already a hotly argued issue, do children get a better education from private or public education. This is not an issue for Australians who cannot afford the private education system. It is still a struggle though to pay for books, uniforms, excursions, camps and other school activities. Add in unemployment and the issue becomes even harder. If you currently have your children in private education and become unemployed, you may not be able to meet the financial demands. Taking your child out

of their school and changing them to the public education system can then be very traumatic for everyone involved. Once again add any of the other stratification issues mentioned before and the situation can become very volatile. You may have certain reasons for attending special schools, if then cannot afford to maintain this situation what happens to your child. For example, a special school for your disabled child, mainstream public school may not be able to handle your childs disability. Your child is then left in a situation which is detrimental to their well being.

Thirdly, government, unemployment is such a hot issue with voters that the government must be seen to be doing as much as they can to help the situation. They are always making promises to decrease the unemployment rate, unfortunately the unmployment rate does not really give an accurate picture of how many people are out of work. It is only those who are registered as looking for work. The government provides welfare and training for unemployed but they do not seem to see the bigger picture. The government also creates stratification by having different payments and services for different races, rather than basing services provided on an individual needs basis. For example, Austudy and Abstudy.

Finally, health system, the health system is hit hard by unemployment especially with the drop in bulk billing. Many unemployed people cannot afford to go to a non-bulk billing doctor so instead go into their local emergency department. This is causing congestion in the emergency department. There is also an increase of illness (mental and physical) and suicide amongst the unemployed. This is creating a huge draw on our medicare and health system. Those on low incomes or unemployed cannot afford to have private health insurance, so are therefore no getting all the help they need. We are creating a system where people are leaving illnesses and injuries until they are quite serious due to the fact that they cannot afford to see a specialist.

We will now look at what the functionalists and the conflict theorists say about it.

Unemployment (Functionalism)

Functionalists believe unemployment serves a purpose in society. We need unemployment in our society, it plays its own part. For all those who are or have been unemployed, it is hard to see how it can possibly be good for society, part of the master plan. Unemployment creates so much misery and further increases the problem of stratification.

Those in the underprivileged class have to rely on government handouts, which only creates further poverty as those people struggle to make ends meet. This in turn affects the family structure by adding extra money pressures. This is the point though, unemployed people create work for centrelink staff, welfare agencies, counsellors and keep cheap discount stores in work. It also maintains that there will always be someone to take the menial jobs that others don’t want. Those lower classed people will do the jobs others won’t. We need the divisions to make sure there are people to cover all types of places in society.

Unemployment (Conflict Theory)

Conflict theorists see unemployment as more evidence of those in a powerful or priviledged position taking advantage of others. Power is the emphasis is an employment situation, while employed you have a certain amount of power, both over your work environment and your own life. Once unemployed you become powerless, reliant on the government to provide you an income. Once in this position, an individual is likely to take a job which is below their abilities and for less pay, just so as to be earning an income. The difference in class and standing continues to increase. Those with money, do not need to stoop to this type of position, they can instead wait until an

appropriate job comes up or they can indulge in further education to improve their position even more.

Conclusion

Unemployment plays are major part in our society, its affects are wide reaching. The implication that unemployment is an individual problem due to lack of skills, only seeks to increase the problem. The idea that who we are is depicted by what we do as a job, creates further stratification of our society. Long-term unemployment has been shown to be one of the most important contributors to domestic violence and other forms of crime, as well as psychological illness and suicide (Baker 1993).

Whether we look at unemployment from a functional or conflict perspective, there is no right or wrong answer. We need to look at it from both perspectives to get a better idea of the situation, and then to look at possible ways of dealing with the issue. There will always be unemployment due to changes in the environment, whether they are biological or technological. For this reason further insights into how society deals with unemployment is

necessary. Stratification is a principal aspect of the evolution of a society’s social identity, when this is compounded with unemployment, alienation and dysfunction becomes a consequence.

Murdock (1949) studied 250 different societies and concluded that the family is so functional to society, that it is unavoidable and universal since neither the individual nor society could survive without it. He argued that every nuclear family has these four essential functions without which society could not continue sexual, reproductive, and economic and education. All these four functions are essential according to Murdock without sexual and reproductive no member of society would be there, life would stop if there was no economic function that is family providing for its members and without education, socialisation would not be there hence absence of culture. Murdock has been criticised for not considering whether the functions of the family could be performed by other social institutions and he does not examine alternatives to the family.

Parsons (1955) studied the modern American family in the 50’s. He argued that there are two basic and irreducible functions of the family, these are, the primary socialisation of children which Parsons sees as a responsibility of the family to shape the child’s personality to suite to the needs of society. The second function is the stabilisation of adult personalities, the family gives adults the emotional support necessary to cope with the stresses of everyday life. (Taylor and Richardson etl 2002). Parsons as with Murdock has been criticised for showing the picture of the family as attuned children and compassionate spouses caring for each other’s needs.

There is a natural division of labour within the nuclear family, roles are segregated positively and everyone carry out different roles, for example the instrumental male, whose role is to provide for the family thus the bread winner and expressive female whose role is to provide warmth, love and care for children at home. Based on Biology the woman is the child bearer therefore has to look after the child, this role maintains social stability. Family patterns have changed with time such as cohabitation, rise of reconstituted families and increase in single or lone parent in western family life and changes in the law on divorce have made it easier to obtain.

Functionalist theory has been criticised to have concentrated on the family being positive and gives little attention to its weaknesses while in feminism the nuclear family is oppressive to women due to gender distinctions in domestic duties. Functionalists argue that the family is of equal profit to everyone, however Marxists argue that society developed by the need of the capitalist economy. It is the bourgeoisie who benefits not the whole society. Functionalists focus too much on the significance that the family has for society and disregard the sense family life has for individual.

Radical psychiatric argue against functionalism for ignoring the negative aspect of the family like domestic violence. Functionalists also ignore different types of families by focussing mainly on nuclear family. Interactionist David Clark (1991) identified four types of marriage arguing against functionalist, not all families are the same. Functionalist depicts everything as positive in the family while radical psychiatric looks at the negative side of the family.

Feminism is a conflict theory that sees the family as patriarchal. Men gain more in a family than women. They view the family on a macro scale. Feminists shows how men dominate social relationships thus symmetrical conjugal roles is seen as an allegory. Feminist argues that Men oppress women through domestic violence, the economic involvement to society made by women’s domestic labour within the family.

Liberal feminist Wollstonecraft (1792) wanted equality for women in terms of rights, liberties and vote by the change of law and policy. Radical feminists like Millett (1970) argue that the organisation of society enables men to dominate women. They believed that gender distinctions are politically and socially constructed therefore wanted radical reforms and social change. Kate Millet invented the term “The personal is political” meaning everything in society is political. Radical Feminists think not just patriarchal men that benefit from family but all men. Sociolist feminists look at gender as the basis. Sociolist Marxists combine gender with class. They argue that there is a dual oppression for women that they have to go to work as well as work at home.

Marxists feminist believe that the destruction of the capitalist society brings equality to everything. Lesbian feminists believe society forces them into heterosexuality so that men can oppress them. They challenge heterosexuality as a means of male supremacy. Humanist feminists argue that society only allows men to self-develop not women and that society distorts women’s human potential.

Marxist feminist Bentson (1972) argues that family responsibilities make male workers less likely to withdraw from labour, with wife and children to support. Ansley (1972) sees the emotional support in family, stabilises male workers thus making them less likely to take their frustration out on the system. Feeley (1972) sees the family as a dictatorial unit dominated by the husband and also the family values teach obedience. Children learn to accept hierarchy and their position in it. Greer (2000) is a radical feminist who believes that family life continues to disadvantage and oppress women. She points out Britain has very high divorce rate thus less stability in families.

Marxist feminist like functionalist they tend to ignore the diversity of modern family life assuming everyone lives in heterosexual nuclear family. They paint a very negative picture of family life possibly exaggerated. Unlike functionalists who see male and female roles being different but equal, Marxist feminists believe that men dominate family relationships. Feminist theory discards functionalist view that society as a whole is benefited by socialisation in the family but rather men benefits more. Women are portrayed as passive victims of exploitation, it does not take into account women who abuse men by fighting back. Functionalist believes that norms and values benefits society while for feminist they benefit men more for example obedience, women being obedient to men. Feminists focus on nuclear family only and the negative aspect of it. Increase in awareness of women’s rights has influenced the norms of society.

Marxists views of family sees socialisation process results in the spread of a ruling class philosophy, whereby individuals are deceived into accepting the capitalist system and the supremacy of the capitalist class thus hegemony.Bourgoisie benefits by creating a labour force and proletariat continue to be exploited. Engel s (1972) argued that bourgeois nuclear family as an institution which oppressed women. They were seen mainly as children bearers, economically dependent to their husbands and remain faithful to them. According to Engels the family is designed to control women and protect property thus men needed to know their children in order to pass on their property.

Marxists say the family serves capitalism in four ways. The family acts as a safety valves for the stress and frustration of working class men, the family as a unit of consumption buys the goods and services provided by capitalism. Women domestic work is unpaid which benefits capitalism and lastly the family socialises children thereby reproducing both labour power and acceptance of capitalism false consciousness. Zaretsky (1976) analysed that the family is one place where male workers can feel they have power and control. This helps them accept their oppression in wider society, furthermore Zaretsky sees the family as a main prop to the capitalist economy.

Marxists view of divorce in families is seen by increased economic pressure from unemployment this may place added strain and also family members living longer could increase pressure on relationships.

Marxists decline the functionalist view that society based on value consensus and thus benefits all. Instead they see the welfare of powerful groups influencing the way society is controlled. Marxist view ignores family diversity it sees the nuclear family as being simply determined by the economy. This theory reproduces conflict between classes bourgeoisie and proletariat while in factionalists family operates as united everything benefits society. Capitalist system is dominated both economically by rich at the expense of the poor but seen as a fair system by functionalists that works together in the interest of all members causing limited conflict in society. Anthropologists have suggested that the emergence of the nuclear family did not actually coincide with emergence of capitalism. Somerville (2000) argues that Zaretsky exaggerates the importance of the family as a protection from life in capitalist society. As with functionalism reproduce social stability, Marxism produces labour force and feminism produce patriarchy.

Interactionism also known as interpretive humans are seen as symbolic creatures meaning we define what is around us through signs and language. They study families on a micro scale instead of generalising the whole population, they also look at what family live is actually like rather than how it should be or how it is assumed to be.Interactionists view families as different and unique thus there is no one way of family life, like other perspectives would suggest. The way a family behaves and interacts is based on interpretation of meanings and roles. We are products of our culture what we take as common sense or reality varies according to the culture we live in.

Goffman (1969) compares life to drama, we are actors who take on roles and act them out as public performances. Each role has its own script which tells us how to act and what cues to expect from other members involved in our interaction. Bauman (1990) argues that roles and relationships learnt in the family are essential to shaping our future. Not all families are close and warm family metaphors are often used to represent closeness, for example using the term brother and sister amongst members of political organisations.

Kellner (1964) looked at socially constructed roles in a marriage, argues that the reality of marriage is an ongoing construction which needs to be reaffirmed, negotiated and renegotiated. Clark (1991) conducted a study of how couples constructed a meaningful marriage. He identified four types of marriage. Drifting marriages where meanings and ideas of the future are unclear, surfacing marriages often made up of people who have been married before, establishing marriages newly wed couple for long term future and lastly struggling marriages financial problems often from unemployment causes tension and anxiety. The conjugal roles in interactionism show that the roles of husband and wife are constantly evolving. For example both husband and wife working and sharing domestic tasks.

Interactionist view families on a micro scale so can discover how individuals make family life based on interactions with each other. They are not interested in generalisations about family life but seek to understand how families are unique. They go further than the common sense view of families that functionalism believes in and look at the meanings of what family life is actually like. Unlike functionalism, Marxism and feminism where there is a set function of the family, interactionism is different for there is no one set function of the family. Families can differ based on their interactions, meanings, roles and culture. The discovery of four different types of marriage offers an opposing argument to functionalism, not an ideal nuclear family.

It has been criticised while concentrating on meanings, motives and action it ignores the wider structures in which families operate and are shaped. Sometimes generalisations of families are useful as they allow the development of political social policy. Interpretive approaches try to comprehend the family from the perspective of its members.

This research should give you an insight on how the families have changed with time. From different views and approaches, understanding families from traditional way of views to modern family’s ways of view.

The basis of today’s theoretical perspectives provides sociologists with a philosophical position for asking certain kinds of questions about society and the people that occupy it. The three primary perspectives are functionalist, conflict, and interactionist. These three theories are very relative to education and the whole learning process. These different perspectives allow sociologists the ability to explain how society influences people and their actions. Each perspective uniquely conceptualizes society, social forces, and human behavior.

The functionalist perspective, also known as functionalism, states that each aspect of society is interdependent and contributes to society’s functioning as a whole. The government, or state, provides education for the children of the family, which in turn pays taxes on which the state depends to keep itself running. The family is dependent upon the school to help children grow up to have good jobs so that they can raise and support their own families. With this being said, the children become law-abiding and taxpaying citizens, who in turn support the state. The parts of society produce order, stability, and productivity. If something goes wrong, the parts of society then must adapt to recapture a new order, stability, and productivity. For example, the financial recession we are in right now, with the high rates of unemployment and inflation, social programs and their budgets are usually cut back because funding isn’t available. Families end up having to cut back on their spending and budget as well just to make ends meet. Functionalists believe that society is held together by social consensus and work together to achieve what is best for society as a whole.

The functionalist perspective was popular during the 1940s and 1950s among American sociologist. American functionalists focused on discovering the functions of human behavior and European functionalists focused on explaining the inner workings of social order. Sociologist Robert Merton, who was born in 1910, divided human functions into two different types: manifest functions are those that are intentional and obvious and latent functions are those that are unintentional and not obvious. For example, my manifest function of attending my church is to worship, receive the word, and help children, but my latent function may be to help those children learn to discern religious and personal views. Manifest functions are apparent, while the latent functions have a more sociological approach. A sociological approach in functionalism is the consideration of the relationship between the functions of smaller parts and the functions of the whole.

Functionalism has received criticism for neglecting the negative functions of something such as abuse. Critics claim that the perspective justifies the status quo and complacency on the part of society’s members. Functionalism does not encourage people to take an active role in changing their social environment, even when such change may benefit them. Instead, functionalism sees active social change as undesirable because the various parts of society will compensate naturally for any problems that may arise.

Karl Marx’s writings on class struggles sparked the conflict perspective. The conflict perspective presents society in a different light than do the functionalist and symbolic interactionist perspectives. The conflict perspective focuses on the negative, conflicted, and ever-changing nature of society. Unlike functionalists who defend the status quo, avoid social change, and believe people cooperate to effect social order, conflict theorists challenge the status quo, encourage social change, and believe rich and powerful people force social order on the poor and the less fortunate.

American sociologists in the 1940s and 1950s generally ignored the conflict perspective in favor of the functionalist, the 1960s saw American sociologists gain interest in conflict theory. They also expanded Marx’s idea that the key conflict in society was strictly economic. Today, conflict theorists find social conflict between any groups in which the potential for inequality exists such as race, gender, religion, political views, and economic stance, etc. Conflict theorists note that unequal groups usually have conflicting values and agendas, causing them to compete against one another. This constant competition between groups forms the basis for the ever-changing nature of society.

Critics of the conflict perspective point out its negative view of society. The theory attributes humanitarian efforts, altruism, democracy, civil rights, and other positive aspects of society to capitalistic designs to control the masses, not to inherent interests in preserving society and social order.

The symbolic interactionist perspective, directs sociologists to consider the symbols and details of everyday life, what these symbols mean, and how people interact with each other. Although symbolic interactionist perspective traces its origins to Max Weber’s assertion that individuals act according to their interpretation of the meaning of their world, the American philosopher George H. Mead (1863-1931) introduced this perspective to American sociology in the 1920s.

According to the symbolic interactionist perspective, people attach meanings to symbols, and then they act according to their subjective interpretation of these symbols. Verbal conversations, in which spoken words serve as the predominant symbols, make this subjective interpretation very evident. The words have a certain meaning for the “sender,” and, during effective communication, they hopefully have the same meaning for the “receiver.” Words are not static “things”; they require intention and interpretation. Conversation is an interaction of symbols between individuals who constantly interpret the world around them. Of course, anything can serve as a symbol as long as it refers to something beyond itself. Written music serves as an example. The black dots and lines become more than just marks on the page; they refer to notes organized in such a way to make music. Symbolic interactionists give serious thought to how people act, and then seek to determine what meanings individuals assign to their own actions and symbols.

Applying symbolic interactionist perspective to the American institution of marriage, symbols may include wedding bands, vows of life-long commitment, a white bridal dress, a wedding cake, a Church ceremony, and flowers and music. American society attaches general meanings to these symbols, but individuals also maintain their own perceptions of what these and other symbols mean. For example, one of the spouses may see their circular wedding rings as symbolizing “everlasting love,” while the other may see them as a financial expense.

Critics claim that the symbolic interactionist perspective neglects the macro level of social interpretation or the “big picture.” In other words, symbolic interactionists may miss the larger issues of society by focusing too closely on the “trees” or the size of the diamond in the wedding ring rather than the “forest” or the quality of the marriage. The perspective also receives criticism for slighting the influence of social forces and institutions on individual interactions.

All of these perspectives have valid points as well as constructive criticism that holds value. The one perspective that sticks out to me is the conflict perspective; to me this perspective is real. I think being able to identify the many things that are wrong with our society today, makes the blows less painful when something goes wrong. The conflict perspective focuses on the negative, conflicted, and ever-changing nature of society. With this being said the conflict perspective can also be viewed in a positive light. Someone learning about this perspective their eyes could be opened up to many different issues that they might not necessarily experience.

Introduction

The functionalist and the conflict perspectives are two major approaches of sociological analysis. These perspectives can apply on different aspects to help us understand the society, for instance, deviance and social control, culture and socialization and so forth. In this paper, I will first focus on the particular features of these perspectives, then mainly focus on family and social stratification and comment on the insight or criticism of functionalist and conflict perspectives in understanding these areas in the society.

Functionalist-the conception of society

Firstly, let focus on the particular features of Functionalism, this approach is inspired by Emile Durkheim idea of society and his sociology is often referred as structural functionalism. (Dillon 2011, p. 79) The Functionalism suggested that the society is compared to a biological organism that can assumed as a system or structure made up of many integrated parts, the society seen as a structure will key institutions fulfil different functions for the survive and continuation of the society, it is named as functional pre- requisites. (Liu 2014, p. 6)

Functionalist-the nature of society

Also, the functionalists assumes the nature of society is characterized by order and stability, without collective conscience or shared values and beliefs, achieving social order is impossible, they believes in value consensus, which are members of society agreeing upon shared belief about right and wrong can help the society to run smoothly and is the best for the society as a whole.(Liu 2014, p. 5) And if members of society have shared values, therefore they also have similar identities, this helps cooperation and avoids conflict. According to Liu (2014), conflict is possible, but considered as dysfunctional from temporary disturbances in the system, and order would be restored as society develops. (Liu 2014, p. 5) The chief form of social conflict that Durkheim addressed was a crime. Durkheim saw crime as “a factor in public health, an integral part of all healthy societies. (Durkheim 1938, p. 67)

Functionalist-the relationship between individuals and the society

Besides the nature of society, functionalist also had theorized about the relationship between individuals and the society. Functionalists believe that individuals are shaped by the society to perform different roles and have different norms that need to follow in accordance with their social statues that ensure the smooth running of society. Members of society have values consensus that I mentioned in the above paragraph, social order is based on this consensus and cooperation among members.

Conflict perspectives-the conception of society

The next perspective that we need to discuss is conflict perspectives, conflict perspectives are inspired by Karl Marx and mostly related to his theory. Marxism, similar with functionalists also has emphasis on the importance of the social structure. The society is made up of distinct groups that have different interest, values and belief. However C. Wright Mills, the founder of modern conflict theory, have a different view on this aspect with functionalists. In Mills’s view, social structures are created through conflict between people with differing interests and resources. Individuals and resources, in turn, are influenced by these structures and by the “unequal distribution ofpowerand resources in the society. (Knapp 1994, p. 228-246)

Conflict perspectives-the nature of society

Unlike functionalists who believe people cooperate to maintain the social order and the stability, conflict perspectives suggested that the nature of society is characterized by conflicts, because of the struggles among group of scarce resources. The existence of separate interests mean there is always having possible for conflicts. (Liu 2014, p. 8) The conflict perspective believes rich and powerful people force social order on the poor and the weak. Conflict theorists, for example, Karl Marx uses two class models to analyse the capitalist society. As the economic system is the base structure of society in Marx’s view, the capital class who owned the means of production exploited the working class who had to sell their labor by paying them less in wages than the wealth they could produce. The capitalists became richer through control the mean of the production. (Liu 2014, p. 9-10)

Conflict perspectives-the relationship between individuals and the society

We can observe that conflict perspective also have assumption of the relationship between individuals and the society. Similar with Functionalism, Conflict perspective believes individuals are shaped by the society and the positions of their social groups. However, conflict perspectives put effort to focus on the conflict side. Different social groups come into conflict and thus cannot have consensus with others. In capitalist society, the social order is known as “ruling class ideology” to support the status quo. It distorts the true nature of society and creating a mistaken belief about society which is “false class consciousness”. (Liu 2014, p. 11)

After the discussion on the particular features of Functionalism and Conflict Perspectives, then we should focus on the usefulness of the two perspectives in understanding two essential areas in society, family and social stratification. However, let have a short introduction of these perspectives’ assumption first.

The assumption of functionalism in family

Broadly speaking, the functionalism has focused on the functions of the family in society and for its members. It looks at how the family as an institution to maintain the social order and stability, and the significance of the family for its individual members.

George Peter Murdock, one of the major contributors to the field of anthropology and a functionalist in the field of Sociology has proposed that all families have four significant functions: sexual, economic, reproductive, and educational. These functions are important and fulfil needs in all societies. He proposes that the best institution to perform these functions is the family. The family is the primary point of socialization to provide children with values and norms. Family also stabilizes adult personalities. A family unit provides emotional security for each person in the relationship. (Haralambos & Holborn, 2000, p. 509)

We can observed that the insight of the functionalism is it can point out the essential features of family can provide positive role for people can become stable and maintain social order. However, Murdock’s approach was criticized as too mechanical with a classification system. Objections were also raised that his methodology was biased, because he has studied about 250 societies, from small hunting communities to industrial societies, but he used Western standards in comparative analysis of all different cultures.

Also, Structural- functionalist perspectives emphasized the positive and functional aspects of the modern family, neglecting its dysfunctional aspects, which including conflict and violence that take place in the family, for instance, over 30% to 40% homicides in Hong Kong took place within family. (Liu 2014, p.13)

The assumption of conflict perspectives in family

Meanwhile, conflict perspectives, especially the Marxist have a different understanding in the family aspects. As we know that, in Marxist perspectives, the economy is the base structure that support several of the superstructure; Family is one of the superstructure was providing support to the economic base. Thus, the family institution helps fuel the capitalist economy with an abundance of labour.

For instance, family can be an institution of nurturing children to be the next generation of workers, hence capitalist class can recruit them cheaply. Women also as a reserve army of labour can be cheap additional source of labour that helps to keep wages down. At the cultural level, the institution of family helps socializing individuals into accepting existing economic and political arrangements. It functions to implant the ideology of the capitalist class into the consciousness of the populace. (Liu 2014, p.150)

Although the Marxist perspective points to the intriguing connection between the family and economy, and provide an alternative view, it has also received much criticism. One of the biggest criticisms is Marxist too simplified to explain the negative sides of the family, focus on the exploitation and inequality within family ignores the supports one can get from the family.

Also, the various features of the family are regarded as no more the features and requirements of the economic base; family is only the institution solely develops to support the capitalist society. It is kind of reductionist explanatory framework that is too simplistic. (Liu 2014, p. 17)

The assumption of functionalism in social stratification

Functionalists consider that social stratification has important consequences for the operation of society. Davis and Moore argue that this system is both functional and inevitable. Kingsley Davis and Wilbert E. Moore (1945) gave an argument for social stratification as a solution to a problem by any societies. They argue that the most difficult jobs in any society have the highest incomes in order to motivate individuals to fill the roles needed by the division of labour. Thus inequality serves social stability (Davis and Wilbert, 1970, p. 242-249) In other words, social stratification can have a ‘placing and motivating’ function for individuals in the social structure.(Liu 2014, p. 9)

The social stratification system allocates each individual to jobs and rewards them according to the functional importance of the job. This thesis implies that societies become more productive as they approach meritocracy. However, too much focus on meritocracy can erode the social structure of kinship and community. In addition, it might encourage some categories of individuals to look down upon others.

Also, Tumin (1953) has critiqued that the differential rewards are more possibly a result of differences in power rather than of functional importance. The rationalization of existing system of stratification and inequality by an appeal to the inevitability of stratification and inequality is fallacious. (Liu 2014, p. 11)

The assumption of conflict perspectives in social stratification

Rather than functionalists believe the social stratification had the positive role in the society, the Marxists believe the stratification in term of class is more divisive than integrative. Marxists use Two-class model, owners and non-owners of the means of production to determine the class stratification.

The class conflict between the capitalist class and the working class would soon fall into either the bipolar class positions of capitalist or worker. The extreme polarization of the two classes would lead working class to realize the conflict and their class interest; they would eventually organize themselves into a potent social-political force to protect its class interest and fight back, at the end leading to a revolution that bring a new economic conditions, the end of the capitalist system and later to communism in which all classes and states are abolished.(Liu 2014, p. 14)

Although the Marxism has it insight of the social stratification, there is still some criticism of it. For instance, it is a dispute over the bi-polar class structure, the class structure of society is difficult to depict; two-class model is too simplistic. In fact, in modern society, there is a new class rising, which is middle class that have professionals who manage but not own the means of production cannot easily categorize into the two-class model.

Moreover, Marx’s prophecy of class struggle and revolution took place in the pre-industrial societies, but we can observe that Russia, China and Vietnam both are not industrial societies or a great capitalist society, but happen the revelation of the communist revolution. The revolution of worker is fewer in the rapidly industrializing western rather Asia. It is not like Marx’s theory suggested.

Also, Marx predicted the inevitability of the worker revolution in capitalist societies. However there are several of factors can account for the absence of the revolution predicted by Marx, for instance, more extensive worker organisation, the demands of workers have been institutionalised through the creation of trade union and more extensive legal protection, capitalists provide better conditions of work through law enforcement and security systems contain workers’ frustrations. Through the welfare provision and improve the conditions for workers can made compromises between two classes. (Liu 2014, p.16)

Conclusion

To conclude, we can observe that both two perspectives had their insight and criticisms. Because of the societies are rapidly changing in nowadays, hence it is hardly suitable to apply in the every different societies.

Work Cited

Davis, Kingsley and Wilbert E. Moore. “Some Principles of Stratification.”American Sociological Review,10 (2), 242-9. 1970.
Dillon, Michele.Introduction to Sociological Theory: Theorists, Concepts, and Their Applicability to the Twenty-first Century (2nd Edition). Chichester, U.K.: Wiley-Blackwell, 2010. Print.
Durkheim, E.The Rules of Sociological Method.Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1938.
Liu, Garland. Lecture notes: Topic 4 (Sociological perspectives). The Open University of Hong Kong, 2014. Print.
Liu, Garland. Lecture notes: Topic 5 (Family, social change and women’s role). The Open University of Hong Kong, 2014. Print.
Liu, Garland. Lecture notes: Topic 6 (Social stratification). The Open University of Hong Kong, 2014. Print.
Knapp, P.One World – Many Worlds: Contemporary Sociological Theory(2nd Ed.). Harpercollins College Div, 1994.

Karl Marx developed the idea of Marxism between 1818 and 1883. He believed that the basis of class was driven by the mode of production and that class division in society was based on economic power, With the workers, the proletariat, being ruled and exploited by the ruling class, the bourgeoisie.

Marx described the Proletariat as being the subordinate class who sold their labour power to the ruling class, the Bourgeoisie. The proletariat made their living by working for profit making companies where they had no power over business decisions. On this basis Marx said society was in continual conflict, with an unequal relationship between the rich and poor where the poor were exploited. Marx said that the relentless pursuit of profit was at the heart of the conflict that he called Capitalism. The surplus wealth made as a result of profit, staying with the Bourgeoisie. The workers were exploited to increase profit with longer working hours and harder working conditions in order to produce as much profit as possible for the wealthy. The workers did not benefit from this profit. Marx believed the working classes suffered from false class-consciousness. They were brainwashed and did not realise that they were being exploited and being fooled by the media and education into believing capitalism was fair. However, Marx believed that society would eventually become polarised leading to two extremes with rich and poor leading very different lifestyles, having very different life chances and opportunities to education and health, so that eventually the workers would revolt and start a revolution.

A criticism of the Marx theory of social class is that his view was too deterministic. He limits his theory to the idea of economic power and the relationship between the Proletariat and the Bourgeoisie. However there are many other conflicts in society such as religion, nationality and gender. These conflicts cannot be explained in terms of economic power. Marx made predictions that have not come true such as a life of poverty for the working classes. This has proved false. Living standards for the working class have improved with the introduction of the welfare state and the compulsory education system. These benefits have given the working class better life chances, with the opportunity to gain a profession and become socially mobile, thus the Middle class has grown. Marx also predicted that communism would eventually replace Capitalism. This has not happened and in Eastern Europe communism has been rejected. We could also argue that rather than the working class being brainwashed into a false class-consciousness, they could actually be sensibly reconciled to capitalism, where they can earn a decent day’s wage for an honest day’s work without the responsibility of making important decisions whilst still able to maintain a good standard of living for their family. Also, voting rights and trade unions have given the working classes more power and influence than that predicted by Marx.

Marx also predicted that their would be a revolution, however the working classes were more interested in improving their own pay and working conditions than overthrowing the Bourgeoisie. It could be that we accept this stratification because we see the benefit of where that economy supports our lifestyle no matter what our class.

Another theory of social class is the functionalist described by Emile Durkheim 1858-1917 this theory is based on a value consensus with shared values and norms creating harmony, integration and equilibrium. Functionalist do not recognise the Marxist view of a society in conflict. Durkheim thought that social stratification is positive and beneficial to social order, comparing society to the human body with each class like an organ of the body, having an important role essential for overall well being. He saw the basis of class as a meritocracy where society is based on a reward system. We receive merits for achievements based on our incomes and status, educational ability and occupation with society existing of high and low achievers

Davis and Moore 1945 support the Functionalist approach theory stating that social stratification exists in all humans societies, such as the family and religion and so therefore it must be functional and beneficial. Davis and Moore believe that social stratification is a ‘devise by which the most important roles are filled by the most qualified person’. They defined functionalist importance according to the uniqueness of the position and the ability of others to perform the task. Therefore doctors are judged to be more important than nurses as doctors would be able to take on the role of a nurse but nurses would not be able to do the job of a doctor. Davis and Moore also believed that by awarding unequal rewards people will continue to work hard to keep these rewards and not loose a particular lifestyle and all the trappings that come with it such as home, car and holidays.

Tumin was a critic of this analysis. He said that certain functions in any society are more important than others. How do we know which functions are more important and who makes that decision? He also argued that people could be attracted to jobs for reasons other than high financial reward and status, such as job satisfaction and a sense of duty and service.

Another criticism of the functionalist theory could be that nurses do a very important job and are not rewarded accordingly and that we have people in positions of power, earning high salaries, that do not deserve such status and salary. Entrance in to high status and salary professions such as law and medicine are often limited to those with access to the best education, often private, and the most expensive Universities therefore keeping all the power and wealth within a certain class, those who already have wealth and power.

The majority of positions in our Government; the people in power are held by people that attended the top private schools in the country. With the present economic climate there is real resentment for the unequal distribution of pay and wealth and anger grows at “fat cat” levels of pay and the huge bonuses paid out to company directors and those that work in the finance sector.

The functionalist approach ignores the dysfunction of stratification, in that poverty is a major problem for many people with a negative impact on life chances such as health education, mortality and family life. This poverty traps them in a certain lifestyle with limited opportunity to improve life chances.

Max Weber 1864-1920 proposed a different theory on social class called Weberianism he introduced the idea of social class being linked to marketability. Weber agreed with Marx that social inequality resulted from a struggle for scarce resources in society (Moore et al 2006). He agreed that this struggle was mainly concerned with economic recources, however he introduces a third dimension such as status and political power. We can identify with this idea by looking at powerful trade union leaders such as Arthur Scargill who would see themselves as staunchly working class, whilst holding a position of great power and influence. Weber believes that society can be competitive with individuals able to fight for economic gain status and political power (Moore et al 2006).

Weber divided society into seven different classes of hierarchy with an upper class at the top and an underclass at the bottom but does not distinguish clearly between the classes. Weber believes it is hard to define as people may be untruthful about their wealth and that we have varying degrees of power of control at different times. The identity tags of a certain class are more available to all, such as new cars and holidays. The working classes may obtain these experiences and material possessions on credit however that would not be clear to someone looking on from the outside, making it harder to be placed in a particular class group. Weber also recognised the importance of social networking as a means of gaining a particular lifestyle. Groups such as the Masons offer this as people from different professions as diverse as doctors and plumbers get together to support each other with a system of “favours”, supporting the saying “it’s not what you know it’s who you know”.

Max Weber predicted that society would be become more fragmented with the many different layers of class. This contradicts Marx who believed that society would become polarised with just two extremes of rich and poor.

The main criticism of the Weber theory is that he underestimates the importance of class divisions in society. Weber also ignores the link between status class and political power, which is evident when looking at the social class of those who hold positions of power in our country today. All are mainly middle or upper class from a privileged background of wealth and private education.

A more recent argument has been put forward by Paluski and Waters (1996) who believe that class is dead. This view is called Postmodernism and they believe that profound social changes such as globalisation means that class divisions are now actually status divisions. This is a very different way of defining society. It is believed that society is now too fluid and diverse to be able to define our identity and behaviour by a class system. We must understand the role of consumerism and the world media in shaping our identity. Postmodernists believe that we can buy the image that we wish to portray and this then becomes our identity. Polemus (1997) believes that we now live in a pick and mix society where there is a mix of so many identities that it becomes impossible to pigeon hole people into a particular class.

According to Emile Durkheim and more recently with Talcott Parsons (Marshall 1994: 190-1) functionalism refers to system which interrelated with connection of several elements and each and every one of it has their own purpose of existence. Each elements play significant roles and responsibility to contribute within the system (Anderson and Taylor, 2005). Society had classified into different classes and status from low to high, but functional of duties difficult to verify significance of individual roles in society. Every character in society is essential roles within the system to circulate and they tend to affects each other. Contributions of every job have their own rewards but normally not all are equally paid. For examples, like stars they earn more than ordinary jobs like nurses but it does not represent the nurses are not play significant roles in society. Although nurses have less power and prestige than the stars, their functional position more vital compare to stars.

Karl Marx is the first developer of conflicts theory used the hypothesis to explain about the development and revolution of industrials, he pointed out that emphasis of materialist among the culture of industries. Example like the 19th century of Europe, labour market was primarily control by groups of capitalists who were wealthy with outsized assets. Capitalists overuse their authority towards workers cause exploitation and rise up conflicts between them. At earlier times labours are treated like slave with getting value that lesser than what they have created in production and have no rights to voice up their inequality. Unfair treatment towards the labour show the gaps of power differences between the classes of society, the richest upper class who own the assets and poorest lower class who sell their labour time to.

1.3 Symbolic Interactionism

Sociologists clarify the interactionism theory explain about communication among people within verbally and symbolic in order to share or approach meaning or messages (LaRossa and Reitzes, 1993). Symbolic interactionism enables human using various symbols to interact with others and impart appropriate meaning and messages with common languages (Mead, 1934). Indirectly, symbols and behaviours that individual present are majorly influence by social norms and believe. Each individual have their own specific perspectives and way to behave hence through interaction some symbols may created and develop. Meaning of symbols which attempt to send to others must be correctly connected to particular meaning and words which related in order to help receiver understand clearly and better or otherwise it will lead to misunderstanding and conflicts between each other.

2.0 Early Conflicts Theories aa‚¬” Karl Marx

The earliest conflicts theories derived from Second World War period while the capitalists power over whelmed the labour market. Labours been treated as slaves work within the company and treated unfairly. The values that created by labours are more than what they deserve to received and caused exploitation. The earlier conflict theories emphasized more on inequality treatment of labours in industrials and value perceptions of people at earlier time ago (Swingwood, 1975). Capitalists maximize their authority on labour force to maximize production and profits and minimize time consuming. Labours welfare been ignored and status are classified as lower class which groups that always discriminate by society especially upper class capitalists.

In early industrial sectors, Karl Marx allocates the society to two primary classes: Bourgeoisie, the party who own most of the assets such as monetary capitals, machines or factory and virtually monopolize the economy markets and Proletariat, the workers who sell their efforts and contribute to the industries (McAll, 1992).

Due to scarcity resources of society, owners tend to get advantages from others. Capitalists over practice their authority and caused conflicts between classes, hence labours dissatisfaction arise the changes of social system to solve the exploitation problems (Anderson and Taylor, 2006). Karl Marx believes that if the conflicts situation keeps on remaining, the society will overcome the capitalism issues.

After on at 1930, Max Weber, a German sociologist had developed a bureaucratic form which derived from Marxist capitalism theory. Max Weber emphasized the rules and regulation will certify the legitimate power which is the basis of social conflicts (Wesolowski, 1979). He believes that if the legitimate power does not be identify officially it would bring conflicts upon.

Recent System Thinking on Conflicts Theories

Max Weber bureaucracy system is broadly applied by all organizations now or should say as it had become basis element of organizations. The standardize process with rules and regulations assist management system more efficiently to manage labour force and resources. However, systematic process needs to improve to comply with external factors of organizations. According to the rapidly changing environment nowadays it would be challenge for organization to adapt to the various factors of environment.

System can be determine in three degrees whether it is open system or closed system and group into two vital model, entropy which more refers to closed system which movement towards system run down and negentropy which refers to system which movement forward to advance structure (Bailey, 1990). The sociologist Niklas Luhmann (1927-1988) had develop system theory approach to examine the conflicts occur between system of organizations and the environment (Nollman, 2005). Luhmann explain differentiation of system and environment is one of complicate. Environment used to be more complex than system since there are few factors to be considered and try assembling it to adapt with owns culture system of organizations.

Autopoietic system were develop by Luhmann which explained that it taking system like legal system or bureaucracy system as references among others. The system has four characteristic which can used to explain the system nowadays too. Firstly, autopoietic system generates its elements, for example money in economic market. Without the certification of value by market, money will not be valuable and just a paper. Both related and influence each other in the system. Autopoietic system is self-orientated to lay down boundaries and coordinate their organizations structure. The system usually set own limitations and regulations of managing structure of company.

The system of autopoietic is self-reference within the economic system. As example, economic system created value for money and at the same time it considers the market to determine the price. Furthermore, autopoietic is a closed system which means the system does not directly attach with the environment (Esposito, 1996). Groups of people from lower class like labour might not have the ability to join within the system hence it shows that in economic market only involves who are wealthy and able to invest into the market.

Communications are essentials part to solve conflicts. Within the standardize system it might be efficient but not truly effective. Interactions between people are importance to identify and understand each other. Society and psychic system have mutual element, both rely on communication to get the actual meaning of interaction (Ritzer, 2008). Sometimes, different people might using different way to approach others but meaning are not necessary propose, because meaning derived from particular words that been selected. Media nowadays will exercise different ways of sending messages to consumers, but some meaning might be hazy and hidden lead the consumer to the wrong information. This problem been declare by Luhmann and called it as double contingency.

Double contingency discuss about the trouble of communication between parties and considerations of sending the correct messages. Society form by different cultures, norms and religions hence people all have their own believes and behaviour. Message sending by an individual to others might explain in other ways. As long as receiver understand the meaning which related and connected to particular words the information will be correctly present or else conflicts might occur. Luhmann, the first system theorists had develop sociology approach to solve the difficulties that organization facing. System could be adapt to external factors that might bring negative impacts to company. Both system and environment indirectly are interrelated to each others, with absence of one, it either will be hard to stand by its own.

4.0 Communication as on-going struggle

Within system, communication acts an essential role to deliver appropriate information to the public. But not all information allowed to exposes to the society. Hence, this had cause misunderstanding and conflict rises between communication systems because of forbidden objectives or motif. As a lively examples showed will be conflicts between community, media and government. Therefore, government act as the capitalist within the system and media act as intermediaries to send information to society.

Government are the main authority with supervising the society system hence, they monopolise the whole market. For that reason, government had entirely dominated mediaaa‚¬a„?s activities and that is where the struggles occur. Media had limitations of rights to deliver information to society. Their delivery information are red tape by government to avoid conflicts arise with the society. The forbidden information of government rises up conflicts as well even without declaration of media despite of every individual are sensitive to aware of any threaten information that will bring negative effects towards them.

From the above, conflicts of society had verified that communication of recent system theory still consist with on-going struggle.

5.0 Comparison of early conflicts and recent conflicts

Comparing the earlier and modern theories of conflicts, we can view that in early time conflicts theories arise because of inequality and division of labours with different classes of society. Power and capitals which monopolize the economy markets and exploit the labours that classify as lower class and get discriminate. Marx and Weber both consent towards the facts of conflicts arises from profit thinking of the capitalists or who with most authority (Henslin, 2002). However the sociologists have their own explanation towards economic order, Marx classifies that early centuries class of society conflicts and capitalists are the elements which monopolize the economic market. Another hand Weber states that power relationships are determined by character of political power and they have their own significant responsibilities. Between these two sociologists conflict theories, Weber conflict theories can enforce social change but Marxist only promote changes of system itself (Cohen, 2000).

Until nowadays, conflicts still arise between owners and labours but for modern conflict theories, but the difference is older days workers struggle for basic survival but workers nowadays struggle for more to authority and job entitlement. The welfare of workers does improve and partly solve struggles among both capital and labour. The capitalist phenomena had over taken by modern system theories but still conflicts maintaining such as the conflicts of challenges towards their job advancement or power. Furthermore, conflicts like discrimination of status and classes still exist between societies.

5.0 Conclusion

Nowadays majorly business are globalise hence organizations have to adapt to the challenging environment which full with new factors like technology. In order to improve efficiency, conflicts are the natural process to be experience and develop social changes. Capitalists who owned more assets are main authority to supervise the labour process yet people might misuse the power for own interests. The unbalance of social life will be still exist and so with conflicts, but both does not appear to be crucial mode like early years. Conflicts are continuous and might difficult to handle, but conflicts had lead organizations to more advanced system and make improvements. Communication between individuals helps improving understanding each other and minimizes the occurrence of conflicts but if the information does not send or approach properly it might cause another troubles and make the circumstances worsen.

(1995) words

Functionalists view the family as a nuclear family structure, i.e. a mother, father and 1 or 2 children. Murdock surveyed 250 societies from the small hunting tribes to the large industrialised societies. He found that in every society there was some form of a nuclear family, he concluded from this study that the nuclear family was universal. Murdock’s definition of a nuclear family is

Within the framework of the nuclear family, Murdock identified with four family functions which if were ignored, society would not exist. Sexual, Reproduction, Economic and Education were the four functions. Similar to Murdock, Tallcott Parsons another functionalist had his own views of what functions the nuclear family should contribute to society. He believed that there were two important roles within the family – Expressive and Instrumental. The women’s role was the Expressive role as she was the one who raised, nurtured and taught the children the norms and values within the home. The man’s role was the Instrumental role because he went out to work to provide financial security for his family. Parsons also identified the family as being the primary agent of socialisation and came up with the ‘warm bath theory’ – primary socialisation (norms and values) and stabilisation of adult personalities (support and love for the adults within the family.

Criticisms

Functionalist’s view of the family is similar to a fairy tale, because they ignore the family dynamics and in some families the darker side i.e. abuse, neglect and violence through male domination.

Marxism

A Marxist perspective of the family saw the family as a means of production and cheap labour whereby they are influenced by capitalism in a capitalist society. Marxists identified three main functions which they saw as a way for the family to fulfil for capitalism. Inheritance of Property – means that in order for property to be handed down to a legitimate heir, sexual relationships need to be restricted to one person, thus the offspring would be blood related. For this to happen,

The monogamous nuclear family developed with the emergence of private property, in particular the private ownership of the forces of production, and the advent of the state, (cited in Haralambos, M. 1985. 340)

The second function is the Ideological Functions which families need to fulfil by socialising children with the ideas that there will always be bosses and workers within a capitalist society. The last function looks at the Unit of Consumption whereby families work to produce goods, which are bought by the families to enable them to be fed and clothed, which bring greater profit for the capitalists.

Criticisms

Marxists ignore the different structures of families which are found in today’s society and with this the different roles within the family.

Feminism

Feministic views of the family are split into 3 groups, similar to that of the key perspectives. Liberal feminists believe that both the male and the females have equal roles within the family when it comes to the household chores and childcare. Marxist feminists view the women as the producer of future workers and women’s oppression stems from capitalism and not the family. Radical feminist’s view of the family structure is one of patriarchal and that men are seen as the enemy. This type of family within society is also seen by feminists as the key institution in its contribution to maintaining social control

Criticisms

All three branches of feminism view the nuclear family as the most dominant unit within society, as well as believing that all members of the family serve society, performing different functions.

Post Modernist

A post modernistic view of the family is at the opposite ends of the scale to functionalism. Post modernists believe that in most societies there are diverse and multi-cultural types of families where members within these units are free to make their own life choices as to how, what and where they live, work and socialise within society. Post modernists also believe that everyone is entitled to the same opportunities in education, healthcare and family support as in their view, there are no class divisions (working and ruling classes), in most societies. Zietlin et al summarises this view of the world,

The post modern world is shaped by pluralism, democracy, religious freedom, consumerism, mobility and increasing access to news and entertainment, (Zietlin class handout 2009. 92)

Criticisms

Because of their views of equal opportunities and freedom of speech and choices they ignore the fact that some people can and do make wrong choices with regards to ignoring the norms and values which are passed down the generations which inevitably upsets the social control aspects in some societies.

How the roles and relationships of the family have change over time.

Sociologists view childhood as Social Construction because they are biologically distinct from adults, (Harris, M. 2008.44)

For this reason I will explain the question in two parts.

Children

The role of the child within a pre-industrial family (pre 1750), was one of equal standing. As soon as the child could walk and talk they were taught the family trade and were expected to carry on the family tradition. After the industrial revolution came the emergence of the industrial family (1800-1900), when children as young as 6 or 7 were sent to work in factories and down coal mines to bring money into the family home, however this brought about higher mortality rates because children weren’t as strong as adults. The mortality rates went into decline when the modern industrial family emerged (1900-2000), this is because children were starting to be seen as children and not as cheap labour. Experiences of childhood began to emerge for the majority of children within families, however there are still some societies today that still send their children out to work, but this is now not the norm in today’s world.

Gender roles and relationships

During the pre-industrial years both men and women worked together with other family members. However this all changed between 1750 and 1900 when women were expected to stay at home and be responsible for household chores, childcare and producing the future workforce. This type of family structure was very patriarchal – the men had the power so they were the dominators in the family. However this started to change when the modern industrial family emerged between 1900 and 2000, as more women were given the opportunity to become educated, this led to more women in the workforce. This led the family to share the household chores and the childcare and sometimes swap roles within the family if the man became unemployed.

Diversity of the contemporary family structure

What is a family? This question has been raised by many sociologists and the majority of these have all had different opinion. However in answer to this question, a family can be the nuclear or extended type of family, which are 2 or 3 generations living under one roof. This type of family was more common pre-1750 when families worked with and supported each other, and which still does happen in some cultures and societies i.e. Asian families. Other types of family structures which are more common in Britain today are the one parent families, the step families, the divorced families and the gay and lesbian families who have children. Families today are extremely diverse and multi-cultural through social influences from the media, education and global improvements.

Conclusion

Throughout this assignment I have paid particular attention to the different views of Functionalism, Marxism, Feminism and Post Modernism. I have given an evaluation of each perspective and have briefly described the changes in roles, relationships and structures within families. I have concluded in my evaluation that my opinion of families and households is one that in today’s society of choice, freedom, diversity and multi-cultural structures that post modernism is by far the best view and explanation of society today.

Functionalism is a pragmatic – even materialistic – application of the concepts of culture to the physical needs of humans, but it does not address in any way the cultural evolutionary steps espoused by Lewis Henry Morgan, and does not in any way assume that war, hierarchical stratification and class systems are universal in all forms of society. Class struggle and exploitation are contingent and deterministic, not general and ubiquitous phenomena. The idealization of pre industrial societies, so dear to Rousseau and the romantics, was merely a manifestation of support for the postulated evolutionary inevitability of class formation in technologically complex societies. Such support succeeded, for a time, in transforming an academic discipline with philanthropic aims into an arm of European colonialism.

A preference for “functionalist” explanations dominated the social sciences from the turn of the twentieth century through the 1950s, which is to say that anthropologists and sociologists were preoccupied with the purpose of a social act or institution rather than its mechanisms of self-perpetuation. The only strong alternative to that kind of analysis were historical explanations, accounting for the existence of a social fact by stating how it came to be. What came to per understood as social function followed two very distinct trajectories. In England, under the influence of Alfred Raginals Radcliff-Brown, who was in turn a follower of the sociologist Emile Durkheim, it was argued that the goal of anthropology is to extrapolate the collective benefit of any given function. In this view, institutions like marriage and religions are to be explored for what they contribute to the social order and the public good. Radcliffe-Brown has traditionally been called the father of structural functionalism although he never quite saw his theory of befitting that particular theoretical current. He went to great length to distinguish his idea of function from Malinowski’s, who was the greatest proponent of functionalism.

Malinoski’s belief that any social practice exists to satisfy physical and biological needs, Radcliff-Brown adamantly rejected the assertion as devoid of merit and insisted on detaching social practices from biology. Instead, influenced by the philosophy of Alfred North Whitehead, he claimed that the fundamental units of anthropology were processes of human life and interaction. Because these are by definition characterized by constant flux, what calls for explanation is the occurrence of stability. A popular view in the study of tribal societies had been that all societies follow a unilineal path (“evolutionism”), and therefore “primitive” societies could be understood as manifesting earlier stages along that universal path, and “modern” societies can be observed to contained vestiges of ancestral organization. Another perspective was that social practices tend to develop only once, and that therefore commonalities and differences between societies could be explained by a historical reconstruction of the interaction between societies (‘diffusionism’). According to both of these views, the proper way to explain differences between tribal societies and modern ones was historical reconstruction.

Radcliffe-Brown rejected both of these because of the untestable nature of historical reconstructions. Instead he insisted in attempting to find rugularities in human agglomerates through comparative analysis and assembling a catalogue of truly scientific knowledge of social life. He firmly believed that there was an opening for social anthropology to play a role in what, up until that time, has been the purview of psychology. He didn’t postulate that any conflict would arise because while psychology studied the life of the mind of individuals, social anthropology focused on the interactions between people. In so doing he laid the foundations for an philosophical distinction between psychology and social anthropology the same way distinctions have been made between physiology and biology. Moreover, he claimed that existing social scientific disciplines, with the possible exception of linguistics, were arbitrary and did not have any principled reason to exist; “once our knowledge of society is sufficient”, he argued, “we will be able to form subdisciplines of anthropology centered around relatively isolated parts of the social structure” (Radcliff-Brown 1952). But without extensive scientific knowledge, it is impossible to know where these boundaries will be drawn. He writes: “The very important concepts are social structure and social organization. The concept of structure refers to an arrangement of parts or components related to one another in some sort of larger unity…In social structure the ultimate components are individuals human beings thought of as actors in the social life, that is, as persons, and structure consists of the arrangement of persons in relation to each other.” (Radcliff-Brown 1952).

At the bases of the unilineal theory of culture, which stated that culture developed in the same manner everywhere on the globe. All of the activities in a given society would partake of the same character; some sort of internal logic would cause one level of culture to evolve into the next. This way, society can be thought as a sort of superorganism with many organs working together as organs in a body do (Kroeber, 1917). In contrast, the more influential functionalist school described the satisfaction of individual needs, which is to say what a person derived by participating in a custom.

In the United States, where anthropology was influenced by the German-educated Franz Boas, the preference was for historical accounts. This approach had obvious problems, which Boas promptly admitted. Non-literate cultures cannot possibly produce literary accounts of their history. For this reason, anthropologists are forced to rely on generalized notion of culture such as the one that cultural resemblances are due to some historically unretrievable past interaction between groups. Boas came to believe that no overall pattern in social development could be proven, in his mind there was no single history, only histories as varied as the people who created them. There are three broad choices involved in the divergence of these schools and each had to decide what kind of evidence to use; whether to emphasize the particulars of a single culture or look for patterns underlying all societies; and what the source of any underlying patterns might mean for the definition of a common humanity.

The famous ethnographer Bronislav Malinowski, which studies the Trobriand Islanders of northwest Melanesia in 1929, noticed that children were raised without adult coercion, something that appeared to the western world to be unnatural and immoral. Children were allowed to explore their sexual curiosity without fear or shame. Furthermore, women and men were free to engage in unrestricted sexual activity before marriage without fear of ostracization. Women were able to combine both productive work (aimed at the creation or provision of goods) and reproductive work (aimed at the upkeep of previously existing items) because such societies did not make much of a distinction between them (Malinowski 1922). This has served as a launching platform for feminist anthropologists to claim that in many pre-class societies, sexual relations were treated more freely, often without the jealousy, possessiveness and objectification that is associated with sexual relations in contemporary western society. The rise of class division has been attributed with adversely effecting the status of women in society, and such class division can be traced back directly to the new implements of agricultural production. The invention of the heavy plow and the domestication of animals brought that about. Men became the primary agricultural laborers and, because of their traditional role as hunters, were also in charge of animal domestication. Men, came to dominate the sphere of production and became therefore the owners of society surplus wealth. Or at least some men, for the rise of class society and the State, as Engels pointed out, did not only represent the world “historic defeat of the female sex” (Engels 1884), it also represented the economic subordination of a majority of men to a tiny minority of wealthy men. With the development of agriculture and animal domestication came private property. Women – and most men – unlucky enough to be serfs became subordinate to a new ruling class.

Malinowski is also notorious for being the first to create a comprehensive theory of data collection during fieldwork. His ethnography of the Trobriand Islands described the complex institution of the Kula ring, and became foundational for subsequent theories of reciprocity and exchange. He was also widely regarded as an eminent fieldworker and his texts regarding the anthropological field methods laid the foundations for early anthropology, let alone coining the now revered technique of “Participatory Observation”. His approach to social theory was a brand of functionalism emphasizing how social and cultural institutions serve basic human needs, a perspective opposed to Radcliffe-Brown’s social functionalism that emphasized the ways in which social institutions function in relation to society as a whole. In 1920, he published a scientific article on the Kula Ring, perhaps the first documentation of generalized exchange. In 1922, he earned a doctorate of science in anthropology and was teaching at the London School of Economics. That year his book Argonauts of the Western Pacific was published. It was widely regarded as a masterpiece, and Malinowski became one of the best-known anthropologists in the world. For the next two decades, he would establish the London School of Economics as Europe’s main center of anthropology. He became a British citizen in 1931.

Some of his observations became pivotal in being able to record thoroughly and accurately what the ethnographer sees and hears. He notes “If in making a daily round of the village, certain small incidents, characteristic forms of taking food, of conversing, of doing work are found occurring over and over again, they should be noted down at once. It is also important that this work of collecting and fixing impressions should begin early in the course of working out a district. Because certain peculiarities, which make an impression as long as they are novel, cease to be noticed as soon as they become familiar. Other again can only be perceived with a better knowledge of the local conditions.” (Malinoswki 1922)

The Manchester School was also partly a cultural product of the work of Marx and Engels and and other economists and sociologists and focused on issues pertaining to social justice such a apartheid and conflict. Recurring themes included issues of conflict and reconciliation in small-scale societies and organizations, and the tension between individual agency and social structure. The original founder in 1947 and one of the most prominent scholars of the Department of Social Anthropology at the University of Manchester was Max Gluckman. This department placed a special emphasis on “case studies”, training which Gluckman derived from his earlier training in Law. The case method involved detailed analysis of particular instances of social interaction to infer rules and assumptions. Gluckman was a political activist, openly and forcefully anti-colonial. He engaged directly with social conflicts and cultural contradictions of colonialism, with racism, urbanization and labor migration. Gluckman combined the British school of structural-functionalism with a Marxist focus on inequality and oppression, creating a critique of colonialism from within structuralism. In his research on Zululand in South Africa, he argued that the African and European communities formed a single social system, one whose schism into two racial groups formed the basis of its structural unity. In stressing the role of conflict in social life and in taking into account the role of colonialism and race relations in modern African societies, Gluckman moved social anthropology in Britain in a Marxist direction. Yet he never completely abandoned the more traditional British interest in societies as stable self-regulating systems. His ethnographic analyses were distinguished by the use of a detailed single case study to illustrate general structural principles. Moreover, Gluckman and his students refined the use of statistics in the analysis of social structure and the introduction of historical materials as evidence for the contrast between periods of social stability and change. In all his work, Gluckman insisted on the highest standards of scholarship.

Word Count: 2050

For every emerging adult, friendships and romantic relationships are always bond together, their intricate interrelationship is a natural need for multi-dimensional self-development. There are similarities and differences between these two forms of relationships, but everyone agrees that his/her friends and his/her romantic partners are always the most important people within his/her social networks. Beyond their similarities, friendships and romantic relationships serve distinct functions. “Friendships tend to satisfy social integration needs (i.e., companionship), feelings of worth, and to a lesser degree, intimacy. Romantic relationships primarily satisfy intimacy needs and provide emotional support.” (Furman, 12) Therefore, we might expect their uniqueness to be connected to real adulthood’s qualities. So in what exact quality does a real adult differ from adolescent? From contemporary researches, scholars have clearly defined: “Individuals who perceive themselves to be adults are less self-focused, more family focused, and more certain of the characteristics they desire in a romantic partner compared to those who do not perceive themselves to be adults.” (Erikson, 201) Then, if individuals who are considered to be real adults are expected to have more positive qualities in romantic relationships and fewer positive qualities in friendships, then we might think that the adulthood criteria is negatively associated with friendship, but more positively related to romantic relationship qualities. In this paper, we will first introduce the current status of Chinese undergraduate students studying in America and then we want to explore which relationship (romantic relationship & friendships) is the dominant source for positive individual development towards achieved adulthood criteria among this group of emerging adults, and possible explanations behind this social phenomenon.

According to the Institute of International Education’s Open Doors Report (IIEODR), there were 98,235 Chinese undergraduate students studying in the United States in 2009, which has increased by 21.1 percent between 2007 and 2009. Compared to both their peers in China and Native American students, these individuals are experiencing a very special emerging adulthood period, especially for those who come to the States for their first time. They tend to have very few social networks, therefore a better chance to form more intimate relationships within that Chinese circle. Other potential factors include the influence of cultural & social-historical vale differences, and homesickness. So how do those factors affect the emerging adulthood for such a large pool of people?

Let us first make clear about some special fact of emerging adulthood for common people. “It is a period of development bridging adolescence and young adulthood, during which young people are no longer adolescents but have not yet attained full adult status, during which emerging adulthood young people are in the process of developing the capacities, skills, and qualities of character deemed by their cultures as necessary for completing the transition to adulthood.” (Arnett 331,1998) In short, the transition to adulthood is a special period of time feeling in-between the former status of adolescence and the forthcoming status of adulthood (Arnett 335, 1998). During the period of coming of age, close relationships mostly consist of peer networks, heterosexual adolescents, and romantic partners. The burgeoning literature on this population of emerging adults might serve very good examples to illustrate how friendships and romantic relationships affects future formation as they gradually achieve important developmental markers for adulthood. And as they do so, their behaviors are more commensurate with those of adults. Both positive and negative influences help those emerging adults get to know the criteria of adulthood as we can see in The Chosen. Danny introduces Reuven to his broad yet rigorous method of analyzing Talmud, while Reuven teaches Danny patience and open-mindedness when Danny is frustrated with experimental psychology. As a result of their friendship, Reuven and Danny grow up at the same time. However, when true friendship between opposite sex has achieved certain level of adulthood, then it becomes ill suited. In other words, friendships may become less useful as one approaches adult status and immediately after one has taken on romantic relationship. We can see extremely opposite story happened in I Capture the Castle. Brotherhood and sisterhood are supposed to be a higher level of intimacy than friendships, but Rose chooses to go off with Neil secretly, leaving the family behind. Between sisterhood and romantic relationship, Rose eventually chose the second one even it means ultimate betrayal to the family. Therefore we can say that: “a drop in friendship quality itself might be associated with emerging adults’ focus on more satisfying and intimate romantic relationships.” (Simone, 167) No matter if it is real with those two novels or other similar ones, at least we can find some similarities in western understanding, as young people move from preadolescence through late adolescence, their romantic relationships become increasingly central in their social world, and it affects other aspects of adolescent’s development such as identity transformation, future family relationships, the development of sexuality, and scholastic achievement and career planning. (Simone, 186)

From those tones of western literature describing the specialty about emerging adulthood, we can see that even traditional emerging adulthood is already a special period for every young adult in a familiar environment. Therefore, studying aboard leads to a more distinctive process of coming of age, for those Chinese students have to face the intimacy against isolation crisis. In order to solve it, most Chinese undergraduate students in a foreign country tend to have both close friends and romantic partners. Without any family influence, foreign students spend almost everyday with their friends, and particularly with romantic partners since both relationships have been associated with happiness. Any in-depth communication may develop into a romantic relationship because in reality, to form intimate partnerships is the fulfillment of developmental demands. Except for romantic relationship, friendship is another important relationship during emerging adulthood among foreign students. (Arnett 19,2004) So which relationship for foreign students is the dominant factor?

Let us then consider the differences in beliefs towards emerging adulthood between Western and Eastern worlds. For most American students, they pay more attention on active self-exploration rather than identity foreclosure that is more common among Chinese groups. Most American parents encourage their kids to experience real romantic relationships at least once before college. By doing so, American students are more likely able to forge their own path in search for individualism during that process. It is the process of autonomy seeking that lead to a consolidated understanding of independent decision-making, emotional independence, and assertiveness in the relationship with others. (Furman, 26) Within such a new environment, Chinese undergraduates move through transition to adulthood in a similar but a faster pace: study aboard leads to a distinctive developmental process that interferes with self-exploration during emerging adulthood because at the same time, Chinese students will experience both active self-exploration like other American youngsters, and re-organization of themselves in the new environment. Most research data gathered from comparison studies on these special groups from the American psychological association has strongly indicated that foreign students in emerging adulthood not only have a more disorganized sense of themselves, but also a higher level of autonomy and relatedness in both relationships (romantic relationship and friendship). (Sophie, 418-420) Their successful transition normally begins with a strong connection to a certain groups and later moves towards higher level of relationships. Most of those researches also find out that this special trend within the Chinese group has connection to their growing background. Most Chinese high school gradates have never been through a real romantic relationships because of society traditions and family perceptions. When they first fit into a new circle, they are more easily affected by emotional turbulences within that circle due to their lack of experience. Another interest thing is that current college students prefer flexible relationships to serious marital relationships; foreign students therefore have an easier access to a larger pool of people, which greatly increases the chance of meeting someone they favorably inclined towards. When foreign students become relatively easy with American society, culture and living-style, they are more inclined to move certain relationships to a high new level, as first discovered by Erikson in 1968. He concludes, “Higher level of self-identity exploration and commitment is associated with higher intimate relationships with romantic partners.” (Erikson, 98) During real romantic relationships, Chinese students will develop relationship maturity primarily through three stages: self-focused, role-focused, and individuated-connected. Each of them is associated with the practice of independence, interdependence, role transitions, norm compliance, chronological transitions, and family capacities. (Erikson, 75) It is quite interesting that dramatic changes in those qualities tend to associate with less positive friendship qualities, but more positive romantic relationship qualities, and previous scholars have also discovered similar coming-of-age process within Native American student groups. At the beginning of adolescence, friendships intimacy is the most obvious component. Other fairly higher lever of intimacy becomes the dominant part as people move into early adulthood and their primary goal is to become independent, to secure a relationship with good alliance, intimacy, aid, and emotional support. (Sophie, 421) Possible explanation behind such a social phenomenon is that Chinese students value the friendship and feelings of satisfaction from years of a shared history, especially at the beginning when they first entered U.S, but when they adopting new adult roles in the society, something like companionship and nurturance is likely to be gone. What is more is that when comparing to one’s romantic partner, one’s expectations towards his time investment may adjust tremendously.

All of those researches are based on horizontal study of international students in U.S because of lacking statistics directly gathered from Chinese students. But all of the researches have reached similar conclusion. Studying aboard in a totally different country is a unique experience during emerging adulthood. Because of social, cultural, or even religious difference, foreign students tend to move through transition of adulthood in a relatively faster pace comparing to native students. For most Chinese students study in America, scholars have discovered that students’ future identity formation and achieved adulthood criteria such as independence and interdependence is positively associated with romantic relationships which consists of companionship, worth, affection, and emotional support, but is negatively associated with any friendship qualities. On the contrary, having achieved considerably more adulthood criteria such as family capacities, norm compliance, and chronological transitions is associated with poorer friendship qualities, particularly with respect to relationship qualities that depended upon a substantial time investment in the relationship (companionship and nurturance). (Simone, 19) All of those researches also suggest that the transition to adulthood has important implications for emerging adults’ social adjustment. That is, as Chinese students begin to take on adult roles and responsibilities, they experience a developmental need to shift their focus from friendships to romantic relationships, thus impacting qualities of these relationships. (Sophie, 421) Of course, emerging adults have other important persons in their social network beyond best friends and romantic partners, and the interplay of these relationships has been shown to relate to their adjustment too, therefore, further research on Chinese students studying in the US should be conducted in order to reach a more conclusive conclusion.