Structural-Functionalism
Structural-functionalism focuses on social structures as well as the functions that such structures perform. Structural-functionalists are influenced by the work of, among others, Émile Durkheim, who discussed, for example, the functions of structural limits placed on deviance. Structural-functional theorists tend to have a positive view of social structures such as the military, the police, and the Department of Homeland Security. Structural-functional theorists also assert that those structures are desirable, necessary, and even impossible to do without. However, as you will see later, not all sociologists view social structures as completely positive. Structural-functionalism tends to be a “conservative” theory. The dominant view is that if given structures exist and are functional—and it is often assumed that if they exist, they are functional—they ought to be retained and conserved.
Table 2.1
A series of well-known and useful concepts have been developed by structural-functionalists, especially Robert Merton ([1949] 1968; Crothers 2018). One central concept in Merton’s version of structural-functionalism is functions, or the observable, positive consequences of a structure that help it survive, adapt, and adjust. National borders are functional in various ways. For example, the passport controls at borders allow a country to monitor who is entering the country and to refuse entry to those it considers undesirable or dangerous. This function has become increasingly important in the era of global terrorism.
Merton further elaborated on his basic theory by differentiating between two types of functions. The first encompasses manifest functions, or positive consequences brought about consciously and purposely. For example, taxes (tariffs) are imposed on goods imported into the United States from elsewhere in the world in order to make the prices of those goods higher compared with American-made goods and thus protect U.S.-based producers. That is a manifest function of tariffs. However, such actions often have latent functions, or unintended positive consequences. For example, when foreign products become more expensive and therefore less desirable, U.S. manufacturers may produce more and perhaps better goods in the United States. In addition, more jobs for Americans may be created. Note that in these examples, both manifest and latent functions, like all functions within the structural-functionalist perspective, are positive.
One more concept of note is the idea of unanticipated consequences, or consequences that are unexpected and can be either positive or, more importantly, negative. A negative unanticipated consequence of increased tariffs is a trade war. China, for example, has responded to an increase in U.S. tariffs by raising its own tariffs on U.S. imports. As the United States retaliates with new and still higher tariffs, we could be in the midst of an unanticipated, and probably undesirable, trade war involving the United States, China, and perhaps other nations. Such a trade war remained a possibility in early 2019, although negotiations to prevent it were ongoing.
Structural-functionalism is greatly enriched when we add the concept of dysfunctions, or observable consequences that negatively affect the ability of a given system to survive, adapt, or adjust. While border and passport controls clearly have functions, they also have dysfunctions. After 9/11, Congress passed many immigration-related acts. As a result, it has become much more difficult for everyone to enter the United States (Kurzban 2006). This is true not only for potential terrorists but also for legitimate workers and businesspeople. As a result, many talented workers and businesspeople from other countries have decided to go elsewhere in the world, where there are fewer restrictions on their ability to come and go. However, large numbers of students continue to flock to the United States.
The fact that both functions and dysfunctions are associated with structures raises the issue of the relative weight of the functions and the dysfunctions. How can we determine whether a given structure is predominantly functional or dysfunctional? In terms of the tightening of border controls, we would need to weigh the benefits of keeping out potential terrorists against the losses in international business transactions.
Structuralism
Structuralism focuses on structures but is not concerned with their functions. While structural-functionalism focuses on quite visible structures, such as border fences, structuralism is more interested in the social impacts of hidden or underlying structures, such as the global economic order or gender relations. It adopts the view that these hidden structures determine what transpires on the surface of the social world. This perspective comes from the field of linguistics, which has largely adopted the view that the surface, the way we speak and express ourselves, is determined by an underlying grammatical system (Saussure [1916] 1966). A sociological example would be that behind-the-scenes actions of capitalists and the capitalist system determine the public positions taken by political leaders.
Marx can be seen as a structuralist because he was interested in the hidden structures that determine how capitalism works. So, for example, on the surface capitalism seems to operate to the benefit of all. However, hidden below the surface is a structure that operates mostly for the benefit of the capitalists, who exploit the workers and often pay them subsistence wages. Similarly, capitalists argue that the value of products is determined by supply and demand in the market. In contrast, Marx argued that hidden beneath the surface is the fact that value comes from the labor that goes into the products, and this labor comes entirely from the workers.
Marx’s frequent collaborator Friedrich Engels ([1884] 1970) looked at relationships between women and men and theorized that the structures of capitalism and patriarchy kept women subordinated to men.
Engels believed that female oppression was rooted in the hidden and underlying structure of private property rights in capitalism. As a result, he thought that the key to ending that oppression was to abolish private property. The connections he drew between gender inequality and the underlying structure of society have proved to be enduring, and many contemporary feminist theorists have built more sophisticated analyses on them (Chae 2014).
A structuralist approach is useful because it leads sociologists to look beyond the surface for underlying structures and realities, which determine what transpires on the surface. Thus, for example, military threats made by North Korea, and its test-firing of missiles, may not really be about military matters at all but instead about that country’s failing economic system. North Korea may hope that the symbolic expression of military power will distract its citizens, strengthen its global prestige, frighten others, and perhaps coerce other countries, especially the United States, into providing economic aid. The threat posed by North Korea’s nuclear missiles prompted President Trump to meet with North Korea’s leader Kim Jong-un in 2018 and to make various concessions such as halting, at least temporarily, “war games” with South Korea. A follow-up meeting between these leaders in early 2019 broke down early without any agreement.
Conflict/Critical Theories
Several theories are discussed under this heading: conflict theory, critical theory, feminist theory, queer theory, critical theories of race and racism, and postmodern theory. They all tend to emphasize stresses, strains, and conflicts in society. They are critical of society in a variety of different ways, especially of the power exercised over less powerful members of society.
Conflict Theory
The best known of these theories, at least in American sociology, is conflict theory (R. Collins 2012). It has roots in Marx’s theory, and much of it can be seen as an inversion of structural-functionalism, which conflict theory was designed to compete with