Download Jalal Clemens

Jalal Clemens
Social Theory
Dr. Greil
4-1-01
The Conflict Perspective and the Functionalist
Perspective
The relationship between the conflict perspective and the functionalist perspective in
sociology is unique by the fact that some sociologists claim the conflict perspective is the
antithesis of the functionalist perspective while others claim that the conflict perspective and
the functionalist perspective are incredibly similar and that the conflict perspective is just a
derivative of the functionalist perspective. Below both opinions on the relationship between
the conflict perspective and the functionalist perspective are examined. My opinion and the
opinion of most of those I read side with the conflict as a derivative idea; however it is my
goal to at least present both sides of the argument.
The main proponent of the idea that the conflict perspective is the antithesis of the
functionalist perspective is Ralf Dahrendorf. Ralf Dahrendorf, who identified himself as a
conflict theorist, juxtaposed the conflict perspective with the functionalist perspective to
show how very different they were. Dahrendorf’s first point was that in structural
functionalism one of the base assumptions is that there is a persisting configuration of
elements and that society is relatively stable, where as in the conflict perspective, society is
based on reactions to conflict that are ubiquitous within society. Dahrendorf’s second main
point was that structural functionalism believes that society is built on a well-integrated
configuration of elements while the conflict perspective sees every society experiencing at
every moment a continuous social conflict that molds society. The third difference that
Dahrendorf points out is that from the functionalist perspective every element in a society
contributes to the function of that society in a positive way while the conflict perspective
believes that every element in a society contributes to change within that society. The final
difference that Dahrendorf posits in his writings to show that there is a major difference
between the conflict perspective and the functionalist perspective is that, from the
functionalist’s point of view, society rests on the consensus of the population while the
conflict theorists argue that society rests on the constraint of the population, which leads to a
constant social conflict.
Even though Dahrendorf sees major differences between the functionalist and the
conflict perspectives he recognizes that “society cannot exist without both conflict and
census which are prerequisites of each other. Thus, we cannot have conflict unless there is
some prior consensus.”1 With this statement, Dahrendorf implies that either the conflict
perspective or the functionalist perspective can be used, depending on which part of the
society one is studying. Dahrendorf supports this idea that there must be two theories to
explain society by pointing out that “it seems at least conceivable that a unified theory is not
feasible at a point which has puzzled thinkers ever since the beginning of Western
philosophy.”2 He says that structural functionalism is possibly valid but incomplete and is
only good for studying things that are integrative whereas when a sociologist is looking at
competing groups and conflict they should use the conflict assumptions. Dahrendorf’s
support of the idea of using two different theories depending on which part of society you are
looking at makes his argument a great deal less appealing to me. In order to give his theory
legitimacy, Dahrendorf argues that conflict theory is based on Marxian ideas using
economics as a source for conflict. However, many sociologists like Jonathan Turner and
Peter Weingart say that Dahrendorf’s conflict perspective “constitutes an inadequate
translation of Marxian theory into sociology.” These sociologists go on to argue the point,
1
George Ritzer, Sociological Theory (5th ed.; New York, NY: McGraw Hill, 2000) p. 259.
Ralf Dahrendorf, Class and Class Conflict in Industrial Society (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press,
1959) p. 164.
2
which I greatly agree with, about how it is useless to have the two different perspectives to
explain different parts of society because there are times when there is a strong need for a
theoretical perspective that enables us to deal with conflict and order simultaneously.3
On the flip side of the coin in searching for a possible link to create a theory that
works well with both conflict and order, a number of sociologists see many of the ideas that
are part of the conflict perspective coming out of the functionalist perspective. Many of the
similarities that sociologist see are negative ones due to the inherent problems in both
structural functionalism and conflict theory. The similarities between these two perspectives
can first be seen in Dahrendorf’s emphasis on systems, which he terms “imperatively
coordinated associations,”4 on roles, and on positions, which are the same ideas that
structural functionalism includes. Jonathan Turner points out that both structural
functionalism and conflict theory suffer from the same inadequacies as they both “emerge
mysteriously from legitimate systems,” in addition to suffering from many of the same
conceptual and logical problems such as vague concepts and tautologies.5 A more general
critique points out that, due to the fact both structural functionalism and conflict theory are
macroscopic, they do not contribute much, if any at all, to the understanding of individual
thought and action.
One of the theorists that tried to show how structural functionalism and conflict
theory could be combined is Lewis Coser. In his book Social Functions of Conflict Coser
presents a functionalist theory of conflict where he says that under “certain conditions”
conflict can be functional to a society.6 To define those certain conditions Coser says that in
3
George Ritzer, Sociological Theory (5th ed.; New York, NY: McGraw Hill, 2000) p. 263.
Ralf Dahrendorf, “Out of Utopia: Toward a Reorientation of Sociological Analysis” American Journal of
Sociology 1958, vol. 64, pp. 115-127.
5
Jonathan Turner, “A Strategy for Reformulating the Dialectical and Functional Theories of Conflict” Social
Forces 1975, vol. 53, pp. 433-444. and Jonathan Turner, The Structure of Sociological Theory, 3rd. ed.
(Homewood, IL: Dorsey Press, 1982).
6
Lewis Coser, The Functions of Social Conflict (New York, NY: Free Press, 1956).
4
small groups conflict can be very bad but in society as a whole conflict can promote balance
and stability. Conflict theory is based on the idea that the fight for authority and power is the
basis for our society. One of the aspects of authority and power is that if an individual or a
group has power or authority in one venue such as the mailing industry that does not mean
that they have any power or authority in another venue such as horse racing. He also points
out that a group or individual can take sides on two different issues with two other groups
that are in conflict with each other on an issue that does not relate to the first group or
individual. In this way no person or group is excluded from society because there is always
someone or some group that the group or individual is in conflict with on an issue while at
the same time there is always someone or some group that the individual or group is in
agreement with. Coser sees this overlapping and cross cleavage conflict as a positive conflict
a.k.a. a functional conflict because this conflict promotes stability and all inclusiveness in a
society so that the society is flexible yet stable. Coser adds and additional argument that
conflict can be functional for a society because it allows individuals and groups within a
society to blow off steam and promote positive change without having the society come
crashing down around their heads. However, Coser’s functionalist conflict theory also comes
with its flaws as it only covers positive conflict on a large scale and ineffective in working
with negative conflict in smaller groups.
In conclusion conflict theory’s basic problem was that it could never divorce itself
from its structural functionalism roots and like structural functionalism was incomplete in its
scope. I think Ritzer defines the relationship between structural functionalism and conflict
theory the best in his statement that “it [conflict theory] was more a kind of structural
functionalism turned on its head than a truly critical theory of society.”7
7
George Ritzer, Sociological Theory (5th ed.; New York, NY: McGraw Hill, 2000) p. 259.
Bibliography
Coser, Lewis. The Functions of Social Conflict. New York, NY: Free Press, 1956.
Dahrendorf, Ralf. Class and Class Conflict in Industrial Society. Stanford, CA: Stanford
University Press, 1959.
Dahrendorf, Ralf. “Out of Utopia: Toward a Reorientation of Sociological Analysis.”
American Journal of Sociology 1958. vol. 64. pp.115-127.
Ritzer, George. Sociological Theory. 5th ed. New York, NY: McGraw Hill, 2000.
Turner, Jonathan. “A Strategy for Reformulating the Dialectical and Functional Theories of
Conflict.” Social Forces, 1975. vol. 53. pp. 433-444.
Turner, Jonathan. The Structure of Sociological Theory. 3rd. ed. Homewood, IL: Dorsey
Press, 1982.
Special thanks to all the information contained in the lectures of Dr. Greil and our class
discussions from which many of the ideas contained in this essay were taken.