Page 1 of 11

Alexis Stanwick

400189058

March 23, 2021

SOCIOL 2LL3: Introduction to Contemporary Sociological Theory

Professor David Young

Structural Functionalism Assignment

With Conflict Theory and Symbolic Interactionism

Introduction

Societies across the globe are governed by norms, values and common moralities that

are influenced by the culture of said society and the social structures that exist within it. The

three theories that will be outlined in this essay will be the theoretical perspectives of conflict

theory and symbolic interactionism to evaluate structural functionalism. Further key points that

will be raised in this essay will be stratification, how emotions and the concept of the looking-

glass self impacts role-set and role relationships, and how an individual’s status impact’s their

place within society. Sociologist’s have utilized structural functionalist theory as a means of un-

derstanding the functional unity of society. Moreover the “standardized social and cultural be-

liefs and practices are functional for society as a whole as well as for individuals in society”

(Ritzer & Stepinsky, p. 107), focusing on how societies, organizations, cultures and groups of

people interact with one another. The alternative version of structural functionalist theory is con-

flict theory, and although conflict theory stemmed from structural functionalist theory, its consid-

ered more of an alternative reaction is the sense it is “orientated toward the study of social

structures and institutions” (Ritzer & Stepinsky, p. 117). However conflict theorists believe that

the order within society is purely created out of coercion from the groups of people at the top of

the system, hence it’s the backbone to Neo-Marxism and was created through Marxist theory.

Lastly, the concept of the self is a key component within symbolic interactionism, as the primary

concern is human action and interaction, and how symbols and meanings influence individuals

(Ritzer & Stepinsky, p. 65).

Historical Context

The first step to understanding why structural functionalist theory is important, is to un-

derstand the origin and history behind it, and determine who were the sociologist that cultivated

this perspective. The first appearance of structural functionalism theory was by Robert Merton,

and his professor Talcott Parsons. Merton and Parsons shared a common interest in cultivating

structural functionalism, however they both took different avenues on the exploration of this per-
 Page 3 of 11

spective. Parsons is considered the most important structural functionalist, but some of the most

important and influential statements on structural functionalism was created by his student, Mer-

ton (Ritzer & Stepinsky, p. 105).

Structural functionalism was the dominant sociological perspective for many years, how-

ever due to the beliefs that it had a conservative bias, it began to decrease in importance over

the last three decades (Ritzer & Stepinsky, p. 91). The person who launched Parsons career in

sociology was Pitirim Sorokin, who attended Harvard University in 1930, and by the end of his

first year there, had established a sociology department and hired Parsons as an instructor in

sociology. Parsons then went on to become the dominant figure head, whilst Sorokin faded into

the background (Ritzer & Stepinsky, p. 21). However, the influencers of Parsons work were

Kingsley Davis and Wilbert Moore, who were the authors of one of the most pivotal works in

structural functionalism, that being the functional theory of stratification (Ritzer & Stepinsky, p.

21 & 93).

The development of structural functionalism was at its peak between the 1940s and

1950s when Parsons shifted from action theory to structural functionalism and from there the

perspective gained theoretical hegemony and reigned the dominant theoretical concept until the

1960s (Ritzer & Stepinsky, p. 25). After the decline in popularity of structural functionalism in the

sociology community, the remaining structural functionalists evolved the theory in the 1970s to

societal functionalism (Ritzer & Stepinsky, p. 92). The primary concern of “societal functionalism

is the large-scale social structures and institutions of society, their interrelationships, and their

constraining effects on actors” (Ritzer & Stepinsky, p. 92). Thus this approach broadens the

ideals and allows for change, altering from structural functionalism perspectives, which was re-

stricted in opportunity for change.

Merton was another key contributor to the development of structural functionalism but

had more of a Marxism influence, rather than Parsons who paid little attention to him (Ritzer &

Stepinsky, p. 21 & 108), creating a clear distinction that “structural-functional analysis focuses
 Page 4 of 11

on groups, organizations, societies, and cultures” (Ritzer & Stepinsky, p. 108). Furthermore he

emphasized the ability for society to be able to loose parts of itself and remain functional, such

as the elimination of discrimination of minority groups (Ritzer & Stepinsky, p. 110).

The fate of structural functionalism is one of evolution, the theory will mutate and change

with the growth of understanding within the sociological field. This evolution will be similar to

how structural functionalism evolved from organicism, and common to how society changes

trends and fads, this perspective will ultimately endure a similar fate. As it would be reasonably

impossible to eliminate the concept as a whole, however the evolution and inclusivity of the per-

spective is absolutely able. Therefore the direction Merton took with structural functionalism al-

lows the continuation of the perspective, whereas Parsons slowly died out.

Theoretical Ideas

A few key ideas within structural functionalism perspective involve the functional theory

of stratification system and how the concept of the role-set is intertwined in it. First the theory of

stratification system was created in 1945 by Kingsley Davis and Wilbert Moore, and is consid-

ered one of the “best-known single piece of work in structural-functional theory” (Ritzer &

Stepinsky, p. 93). Davis and Moore believed that stratification was fundamental and applicable

across the globe, arguing that it is a functional necessity and viewed it as a structure relating to

a system of positions, rather than individuals in the system (Ritzer & Stepinsky, p. 93); thus it

created a macro-level perspective, focusing on the broader system as a whole, rather than an

individuals part in it.

A social system is functional similar to a vehicle engine, it has its internal mechanisms

and parts that make up a greater purpose, for without even the smallest piece, the engine would

fail. Social structures operate in similar accordance, as a “social status involves not a single as-

sociated role, but an array of roles” (Merton, p.110). To clarify the term status, it is an individuals

position within the social system associated to the obligations and rights that individual has, fur-

ther the term role indicates behaviour oriented to the expectations of others (Merton, p.110).
 Page 5 of 11

Moreover, The concept of role-set is related to how people involved in similar role-relationships

occupy particular social status (Merton, 110). Thus to apply these terms to the theory of stratifi-

cation, as stratification is the functional system itself, whilst individuals uphold role-sets that de-

termine their status and place within a social system. Depending on the role an individual holds

in society, determines that individuals worth, and results in the amount of power that individual

attains.

Merton outlines six social mechanisms of role-sets, each describing how the role-set if

influential to social structures and thus how it relates to stratification; these are: 1. relative im-

portance of various statuses, 2. differences of power of those in the role-set, 3. Insulation of

role-activities from observability by members of the role-set, 4. Observability of conflicting de-

mands by members of a role-set, 5. Mutual social support among status-occupants, 6. Abridg-

ing the role-set (Merton, p. 113-117). To address the first social mechanism, relative importance

of various statuses, he argued that “social structures designate certain statuses as having

greater importance than others” (Merton, p.113). For example, doctors are help in high prestige

for their extensive knowledge, talents, and how their role contributes to the overall benefit of so-

ciety. For if we did not have doctors, the ill would not receive medical care, there would be no

advances in curing terminal diseases and furthering medical research, civilians would essen-

tially be left to their own devices and life expectancy would decrease drastically.

The second social mechanism is the differences of power of those in the role-set, and

how those in a higher power role-set and authority positions are able to force their will in social

actions, due to the advantage of power dynamics among status occupants (Merton, p.113-114).

To ensure that the demands of society are met, higher power role-sets, such as a doctor and

similarly relating high power jobs, have incentives that promote the field in order to attract peo-

ple to the profession, for if there was not a high salary, great prestige, sufficient leisure and

power associated with the profession (Ritzer & Stepinsky, p. 93) the interest would decline and

society would suffer. Furthermore, continuing with the doctor as a reference point, those in the
 Page 6 of 11

medical field may not want to endure the several years of extensive schooling and the copious

hours involved in getting a doctorate, if there were no benefits to the position once attained, thus

they would be “understaffed and undefiled and society would crumble” (Ritzer & Stepinsky, p.

93).

The third social mechanism used to further understand role-sets, is insulation of role-ac-

tivities from observability by members of the role-set, meaning people primarily converse and in-

teract with others from their social status. The expectations role-sets headways the actions and

the role-behaviour an individual portrays due to observation from other members in the role-set

(Merton, p. 114). Merton indicates that social norms and role-performances can become appar-

ent to others in the social system and thus creates a bases for effective social control (Merton

p.114). Individuals in these social status’ are also granted a privileged information and confiden-

tial communications. For example, movie stars and celebrities are in influential positions within

society, and are able to exert their will onto others and with mass amounts of fans idolizing

them, they are able to maintain that power. However they do not converse with the fans on a

daily basis and instead associate with other celebrities, relative to their status. They attain a po-

sition of privilege that allows them information in connection with other high status patrons, for

example, Lady Gaga and President Joe Biden have a close relationship, and she was granted a

seat at Biden's presidential inauguration. Individuals of high status’ within their role set are also

granted more confidential communications from the individuals below them, for example, secret

meetings amongst high profile political leaders, it segues into observable behaviour and how

they act within the public eye, in addition to other members within their role-set.

The fourth form of social mechanisms is observability of conflicting demands by mem-

bers of a role-set. This mechanism relates to the third as it is about disagreements to those in

affiliated role-sets, as some demands can contradict other demands in the group. Merton ex-

plains a dynamic where “members of the role-set are happily ignorant that their demands upon

the occupants of a status are incompatible, each member may press his own case” (Merton, p.
 Page 7 of 11

116), which can manifest as many against one in certain social situations. It often creates a third

party who gains leverage by the conflict, who often causes a incident then retreats into the

background, becoming a bystander, pushing the issue to be settled by the members of the role-

set, rather than the individual who sparked the contradictory demands.

The fifth mechanism is mutual social support among status-occupants, and it means de-

spite what an occupant says, they are not alone. Instead the “fact that he is placed in a social

position means that there are others more or less like-circumstanced” (Merton, p. 116), thus oc-

cupants of role-sets generally fortify together as a unit in order to maintain social control and

provide support for one another. Even if there is a conflict amongst members of the role-set and

an occupant is under external pressures, they will seek support through “the organizational and

normative support of their peers” (Merton, p. 117).

The sixth and last social mechanism Merton illustrates is abridging the role-set. This en-

tails when conflicts within a role-set cause role-relations to crumble and break off, while simulta-

neously reinforcing the consensus of those who remained in the role-set (Merton, p. 117). This

is only possible under a special set of circumstances, and can only happen when it is still possi-

ble for status-occupants to continue fulfilling their roles, despite the fact they lost members.

Moreover, the social structure will remain intact, even if an individual leaves, and this is gener-

ally a result of a shift in the social structure, rather than a personal choice (Merton, p. 117).

Finally, upon analysis each of these social mechanisms contribute to the supporting

functionality of stratification within the structural functionalist perspective. For if there were no

role-sets creating a multi-level facet of professions, demands of society seldom be met. For if

society didn’t provide rewards for certain professions, “we could not expect people to undertake

the ‘burdensome’ and ‘expensive’ process for medical education if we did not offer such re-

wards” (Ritzer & Stepinsky, p. 93). Thus role-sets are created and depended on, and the inter-

nal mechanisms of the role-relationships provide a social structure the enables continued pro-

duction of these high-prestige fields. The dynamic within the stratification system becomes un-
 Page 8 of 11

stable as low-ranking role-sets occupants demand higher incentives for doing more interesting

or enjoyable roles, but said roles require less talent and less ability, thus creating anarchy

among the social structure.

Evaluating Ideas

Anarchy among the role-sets is what initially created the alternative to structural function-

alism, which is conflict theory. This is ultimately an emotional response to the displeasure of the

position an individual, coined with the belief that social order is based within manipulation and

control by the dominant social groups, and subordinate groups overthrowing dominant groups

(Ritzer & Stepinsky, p. 91). The overall end goal of society is to reach a harmonious utopia

where “there are no classes, no conflicts, no state, and indeed no division of labour”

(Dahrendorf, p. 116) and it is believed this can be attained through the actions of conflict theory

and Marxist ideals of a proletariat revolution. Structural functionalism can come into play as the

norms, and values that create society would need some provisions, such as selections of social

positions being regulated and secured, how children are brought up and educated, leading to

the regulation of sexual intercourse and how both the physical and social reproduction of society

is conducted (Dahrendorf, p. 117). With these ideals needed to create a utopia, and how struc-

tural functionalism is still relevant today. With these parameters, the perspective could be use-

ful, if it were to embody the Merton ideals surrounding it.

The work of structural-functional analysis would provide a benefit in understanding the

structures of a utopia. For Dahrendorf illustrates Platos concept of a perfect society, that “has a

structure, is functioning, is in equilibrium and is therefore just” (Dahrendorf, p. 119). Thus one

may be able to argue that structural-functional analysis allows the ability to maintain society as it

is, but to adjust the treatment of minority groups, for if everyone is treated just and everyone

plays their role, society overall is maintained whilst improving for equality of everyone.

Structural functionalist address important issues, however sociologist may be able to get

a clearer answer by analyzing conflict theory and symbolic interactionism. Whilst structural func-
 Page 9 of 11

tionalism delves into the potential issues with the actual structure of society, conflict theory can

provide sights to the melancholy of the citizens of society as to why they feel the way they do.

Symbolic interactionism focuses on three primary points, first is the interaction between

the actor and the world, second is a view of both the “actor and the world as dynamic processes

and not static structures, and [third] the great importance attributed to the actor’s ability to inter-

pret the social world” (Ritzer & Stepinsky, p. 91). Symbolic interaction provides a greater under-

standing over structural functionalism as it focuses more on individuals and how they relate to

each other and the social systems around them, rather than how the structures within society

function. This perspective aids more in answering questions of conflict theory as it airs room for

change. Conflict always implies a disagreement of values, and there are structures within social

systems that purposely produce conflict (Dahrendorf, p. 120). The force for change can be

driven by the ultimate desire for equilibrium of society, and ones ultimate desire to belong within

society.

Utilizing Charles Horton Cooley’s symbolic interactionism perspective of the looking

glass self, can correlate to conflict theory because ones concept of the self can be influenced

through societal structures and thus impacting the overall structure within society. The looking-

glass self is complied of three components; “first, we imagine how we appear to others. Second,

we imagine what their judgement of that appearance must be. Third, we develop some self-feel-

ing, such as pride or mortification, as a result of our imagining other’s judgements” (Ritzer &

Stepinsky, p. 69). By Cooleys concept of how we change ourselves in reaction to approval of

others, an individual may alter the self in order to avoid mortified feelings towards them. There-

fore the individual is more likely to change to fit the current societal structure, thus attaining a

oneness among their peers. The social system model has influenced individual thought sur-

rounding the topic of social change, as sociologists accept the distinction between change of so-

ciety and a change from within (Dahrendorf, p. 126). The weaponization of social control has

become an individual’s focal point for information, and by remaining stagnant with structural
 Page 10 of 11

functionalism, it creates unreal expectations of social organization, as it is within human nature

to constantly evolve and change (Dahrendorf, p. 126).

Furthermore, Dahrendorf’s conflict theory depicts a model associated with “the notion

that wherever there is social life there is conflict may be unpleasant and disturbing [but] it is in-

dispensable to our understanding of social problems” (Dahrendorf, p. 126). Therefore a weak-

ness associated to structural functionalism is the denial of conflict in understanding social prob-

lems, and the static nature of the perspective that give little leeway in the ability to create

change and growth. Moreover, while stratification is a benefit of structural functionalism and is

utilized as a means of understanding what professions are pivotal of society, conflict theorists

see “whatever order there is in society as stemming from the coercion of some members at the

top” (Ritzer & Stepinsky, p. 118); through examination using the look-glass self, we can better

understand why people may or may not be influenced to act along with social control.

Conclusion

Finally, the society is ever changing and utilizing various perspectives to shape the so-

cial structure. Multiple sociologists have spent their lifetime cultivating structure functionalism

and attempted to understand the functional unity of society. By studying the interaction of soci-

eties, groups of people, cultures, and organizations, it allows an in-depth analysis to the internal

workings and functions that structure society. Though studying the benefits of the stratification

system, the impacts of role-sets and role-relationships, and the concept of the looking glass self,

sociologists are able to piece together actions of individuals and understand why people interact

with each other the way they do. Furthermore, we are able to understand that conflict provides a

driving force for change and creating a utopia for everyone, and there is only a select few ways

that it is attainable. With the era of structural functionalism drawing to an end, the dominant field

that can be perceived is Marxist conflict theory, and with using Cooleys concept of the looking-

glass self, sociologist can provide a deeper understand as to why that is and how external influ-

ences shape our perception of the self.

References

Dahrendorf, R. (1958). Out of utopia: Toward a reorientation of sociological analysis. American

Merton, R. K. (1957). The role-set: Problems in sociological theory. British Journal of Sociol-
ogy, 8(2): 106-120.

Ritzer, G. & Stepnisky, J. (2017). Introduction to contemporary sociological theory (Custom