The field of health care delivery is constantly evolving. The ever-changing landscape has many experts questioning the validity of what we know and how we know it. One such question that arises in this realm is whether or not we are able to create a model or basic concepts for understanding health care delivery that incorporates all aspects of the communities as Functionalism and Weberianism social structure do.
Weberianism is an approach to sociology that strives to examine the relationship between power and social structure in communities and their effects on individual members who make up this social structure.
Functionalism is a theory developed by Emile Durkheim which argues that economic system institutions exist because they serve some function within communities. This blog will explore both sociological theories in order to understand the facets in both and why one would choose one social structure over the other. Sociology also studies social stratification or social status, social movements, along with social change
Weber’s theory is based on Marx believed ideas about how functional societies are formed (Blau). Marx Weber believed that our social structure classifications were not only formed because we want to maintain a functional just society but also in order for us to have those who work (working class) and those who run the country (capitalist society).
Neo-Weberianism can be defined as, “postmodern theories to the study of social inequality or social injustice that is based on the ideas of Weber. However, this also incorporates an understanding of domination as stemming from unequal access to power” (social inequality). Neo-Weberians were focused on exploring how social inequalities are formed and reproduced at the human level.
Functionalism can be defined as “a theoretical perspective or postmodern theories in sociology that argues every social processes and cultural institution we have today exists because it is functional for social life” (Blau). Functionalists argue that we need to understand the functions of financial institutions in order to gain a better understanding of how they came about.
The structural-functional approach usually incorporates a set of norms and values which are destined to define how the member of the communities are expected to behave (social behavior). This makes sure that there is an overall social class functioning (human groups) as it integrates all parts of the just communities (this includes the political power, human body, and social behavior). The Weberinism theory, on the other hand, has an approach states that we need to understand such things as the functions of institutions in order for us to have a better understanding of how they came about in social order.
The structural-functional perspective can be seen as more focused on historical events, while weberianism is looking at current issues within communities (social group, human groups, or class group). The structural functionalism approach ignores the dysfunction of stratification, in that poverty is a closely related major problem for most social class with a negative impact on life chances such as overall health, education, mortality, and family life chances. This poverty traps them in a certain lifestyle with limited opportunity to improve life chances and social justice.
Weberianism can be defined as the postmodern theories study of social structures and classifications (class division) we make to define them (Blau). Weberianism was developed by Weber who was a conflict theorist. Weber said inequality in community is caused by an inability to secure resources such as wealth but also argued that status and power could be unequally distributed.
Weber was a leading critic of Marx because he did not think a revolution would occur and he suggested that communism would be just as oppressive as capitalism as other many sociologists proposed. Weber argues that we need a model for understanding how we classify communities, which is where weberianism comes from.
Status refers to how much respect a person receives from others (life chances) and whether they are seen as superior or inferior to others in the twentieth century (more power).
Weber argues that even though the social order is still unimportant to most people, individuals are still aware of their status situation and identify with others of the same status. e.g. in the caste system of Hindu individuals are part of a caste system from birth. This forms the basis of the shared norms. The highest caste enjoys their position because they are regarded as purer in religious terms or according to the functionalist approach.
Weber argued that social inequality and social structures were largely a product of three dimensions; class, status, and power.
Using his definition, Weber identified 4 social classes:
1) The propertied upper class- the wealthy owners of big businesses and social institutions.
2) The petty-bourgeoisie (shop keepers and small businessmen).
3) Property-less White-collar workers- they have a better market situation than manual workers because of their skills and educational qualifications therefore they form a bourgeoisie.. (technicians, clerks, and managers
4) The manual working class- Has the poorest market situation as they possess neither wealth nor valuable educational qualifications that could be used to improve their individual’s power or market situation.
There are many different postmodern theories out there we can look at when we are trying to answer the question of how we should approach health care delivery. The first theory we will examine is functionalism versus marxist theory, or comparison between Durkheim and Marx’s views on social structures (Blau).
The two main theories we have looked at so far in this paper both come from the functionalist perspective. This is not to say we are obligated to choose this theory, but it will be useful in our understanding of health care delivery and looking at how these two postmodern theories differ from each other.
Functionalism argues that institutions exist because they serve some function within certain social behaviour. Durkheim believed he could categorize all of society’s institutions and classify them (Blau).
Durkheim wanted to look at all of the societal structures we have in place today and find out why we need them (value consensus). His value consensus viewed these structures as necessary for a functional society, while Marx argued that we needed to understand how we came about classifying ourselves into groups. We need to understand how we classify society because it allows us to better understand the values we hold in relation to these classifications.
Durkheim’s perspective was that we need institutions not only for functional purposes but also for social integration (Blau). When we look at societies, Durkheim argues that there are two main ways we group ourselves together: organic and mechanical solidarity. Organic solidarity is the way we form groups based on our values, while mechanical solidarities are how we group ourselves simply for survival. Durkheim’s goal was to find a common denominator in all societies that would keep them in functional symbolic interaction. This is what socialize students do everywhere they go and make friends.
Durkheim wanted to find why we needed institutions and how we could classify them. Marxists were more concerned with the way classifications formed; they wanted to understand this relationship. This lead Durkheim’s functionalism theory in a different direction than marxism, which led to conflict between the two theories (Blau).
Durkheim and Marx had different views on how we should view society and its institutions. Functionalism is more concerned with the way we classify ourselves, while Marxist postmodern theory is focused more on classifications we make (Blau). As we look at health care delivery in relation to these two theories it becomes clear that they cannot both be correct; only one can be the correct model we should use to look at our health care system. That is why we need a theory that takes both functionalism and marxist sociological theories into consideration when we are trying to look at how we deliver health services.
Functionalists view society as consisting of institutions we need to keep society functional. Durkheim’s main goal was to find a common denominator that all societies share (Blau). The way we classify ourselves into groups is integral in understanding what we view as necessary for our society, whether it be the family or education (Durkheim).
Marxists argue against this idea of institutions we need to maintain functional societies. Instead, they view institutions we use as the root of our problems; this is where we create classifications that benefit some and not others. These divisions are created for us by society since we do not always know how we should classify ourselves (Blau).
This sets up a conflict between marxist and functionalist theories. If we view society as made up of institutions we need to maintain a functional society, we should use marxism theory since it focuses on the way these classifications are formed (Marx). On the other hand, if we choose functionalism then we can look at how health care delivery is set up based on what we need to maintain a functional society (Blau).
If we look at health care delivery through the lens of functionalist theory, we are able to see how it is set up in relation to what Durkheim labels as organic solidarity. This type of classification would include people who have a stake in a certain profession, such as doctors and nurses. These professionals have the same values so we group them together based on this common denominator (Blau).
Marxism would look at health care delivery through a different lens than functionalism because it focuses on classifications we make to benefit some and not others (Blau). In relation to health care, we would look at how we group people into certain professions, not because of what they value but instead based on the way we classify ourselves (Blau).
From looking at both functionalism and marxist model we can see that each one has its benefits. Functionalists are able to view things like doctors as a necessary profession for our society, while Marxists are able to see the way we classify people into professions not based on their values but instead what we view as necessary for our society (Blau). This is one of the reasons we have theories like functionalism and Marxist framework they both look at institutions differently in order to understand how we can make sense of them.
|Read More on How to Write a Plagiarism Free Essay That Will Get You the Best Grades|
Weberianism is among postmodern theories that dictates we group people together based on their own values. This is a different way of looking at the classifications we use, and the Marxist model focuses more on how these classifications are formed (Blau).
In conclusion, we have seen that functionalism has its benefits but we need to also take into consideration what Marxism tells us about our society as we look at health care delivery. We need both of these theories to fully understand how we classify ourselves and how we can use classifications to benefit all people, not just some, which makes this among the top postmodern theories (Blau).
Weberianism is postmodern theories that most closely aligns itself with Marxism. Both theories look at how we group ourselves into certain professions, not based on what we value but instead where we fit in our society (Blau). Functionalists are more similar to marxist model when looking at health care delivery because they want us to think in terms of why we have certain professions, not just looking at the way these classifications are formed (Blau).
Karl Marx claimed that any element governing a society depends on its financial structure. Marx described modern society as alienation. For Marx what we do define who we are and what we are defined as alienation. Marx and Engels have studied differences and inequality across socioeconomic and political classes. For example, he dubbed the “bourgeoise and the protolatat” in Marx’s words. Over the period when industrial development accelerated industrial employers turned towards working-class exploitability. The big steel manufacturer was particularly brutal and their manufacturing facilities were often dubbed “satanist mills”.
In layman terms weberianism can be explained as the way we group people. The way we think they will get along and share similar values, not based on what we value but instead we create this classification so we can maintain a functional society (Blau).
The main difference between weberianism and functionalism is that weberianism focuses on the way we group people based on their own values, while functionalists look at how we classify ourselves into certain professions in order to maintain a functional society (Blau).
Class consciousness is a term we use to describe how we look at society and the way we group people together. Weberianism is one of those theories that look at this concept, while functionalists are more interested in maintaining these classifications (Blau).
Conflict theorists argue that stratification is dysfunctional and harmful in society. According to conflict theory, social stratification benefits the rich and powerful at the expense of the poor. Thus, it creates a system of winners and losers that is maintained by those who are on the top. The people who are losers do not get a fair chance to compete, and thus are stuck on the bottom. For example, many wealthy families pay low wages to nannies to care for their children, to gardeners to attend to their rose gardens, and to maids to pick up their dirty socks. These low-wage workers do not make enough to move beyond a paycheck-to-paycheck lifestyle and have no means to move ahead. Therefore, conflict theorists believe that this competitive system, together with the way the game is “fixed”, ends up creating and perpetuating stratification systems.
This theory is about how we classify ourselves into certain professions. Weberianism is one of those theories that explain why we create these classifications, while functionalism explains the reason we need to maintain them (Blau).
According to institutional theory we group people into different professions not based on their own values, we create these classifications to benefit all of society instead (Blau). Working class people we group together to make sure we have those who work and those who run the country (Blau).
Weber believed that we group people into certain classes based on their own values, while symbolic interactionism looks at how we classify ourselves (Blau). According to Weber our classifications are formed because we want those who work and those who run the country. Symbolic interacionists look at different criteria when looking at these groups we create (Blau).
The interactionist perspective on inequality focuses on how micro-interactions reflect and create unequal power dynamics. Interactionists consider the question of how power is exchanged in a situation. For example, when a child and an adult engage in conversation, the adult establishes their power by claiming knowledge and authority that the child cannot. When considering larger systems of inequality, interactionists look at the inequality between social roles. Social roles refer to one’s position and responsibilities in society, which are largely determined in modern developed nations by occupation. The interactionist perspective on inequality looks at how certain social roles have more power, or authority than others.
The main difference we see between these two theories is that weberianism looks at how we group people together, while functionalists are more interested in maintaining this classification (Blau). Functionalists look at why we classify ourselves into certain professions instead of just focusing on the way we form groups (Weber et al. Blau). Weberianism also looks at how we group ourselves based on our own values, while functionalists are more interested in maintaining the way we classify ourselves (Weber et al. Blau).
According to Weber we create certain classifications because we want those who work and those who run the country (Blau). Functionalism and weberianism both look at how we classify ourselves into certain professions and why we form these groups (Weber et al. Blau).
According to Weber’s theoretical approaches, we group people together in order to maintain a functional society, not based on what they value but instead where they fit in our society (unequal distribution). Functionalists are more similar to Marxist model when looking at health care delivery because they want us to think in terms of why we have certain professions, not just looking at the way these classifications are formed.
Weberianism focuses on the rationalization of individuals’ circumstances in relation to their social status. Weber criticized the idea of depending on abstract theories and suggested tangible research work based on history, realistic observation, facts, and patterns. It was also enforced by Weber that if an individual is sick he or she has the right to withdraw from everyday duties for example going to work or school, it is crucial that the unwell individual is not criticized for being sick as it is not believed to be their fault, as this creates a negative impact for us human beings.
Health weberianism is about how we group people into different professions, instead of just focusing on the way we form groups (social life). According to weberianism we create these class consciousness classifications so that we have those who work and those who run the country (ruling class). Functionalists theory is more interested in why health care professionals exist however we can use weberianism to explain why we have different professions such as the medical profession.
In summary weberianism on health care delivery looks at how we classify ourselves, while functionalists are more interested in maintaining these classifications (Blau). According to weberianism we group people together based on their own values.
A weakness we see in weberianism is that it doesn’t explain why we have certain professions, this could be because functionalists are more interested in maintaining the way we classify ourselves (Blau). Another problem with weberianism is how classifications tend to segregate people into different groups which don’t always benefit all of society (Blau).
Grammarly for order editing
Turnitin to check plagiarism
Hemmingway Editors to scan your final paperessayprince.net
Weber (1864-1920) was one of the founding fathers of Sociology. Weber saw both structural and action approaches as necessary to developing a full understanding of society and social change.
Weber three key points to sociology were; firstly he argued that ‘Verstehen’ or empathetic understanding is crucial to understanding human action and social change, a point which he emphasized in his classic study ‘The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism’;
Secondly, he believed we could make generalizations about the basic types of motivation for human action (there are four basic types) and
Thirdly, he still argued that structure shaped human action because certain societies or groups encourage certain general types of motivation (but within these general types, there is a lot of variation possible).
This final point can be illustrated by a quote from one of his most important works ‘Economy and Society, first published in the 1920s, in which he said ‘Sociology is a science concerning itself with the interpretive understanding of social action and thereby with a causal explanation of its course and consequences.’
One weberianism example is new public management (NPM), put forward by scholars like James Q. Wilson, which focuses on how we structure organizations to promote efficiency and effectiveness in delivering policy. This approach suggests that we should look at the way we classify people into different professions based on their own values (Weber). NPM has been the most influential weberianism approach in public administration (Schick).
One main problem we see with weberianism is that it doesn’t always provide us with an accurate answer, for example according to weber all people are motivated by their own values but this isn’t always the case (Blau). Another weberianism example is that it assumes we have a natural order in society which also isn’t always true.
One weberianism example of how culture can affect people’s values concerns what Antonio Gramsci called ‘cultural hegemony,’ that is the way we are socialized into accepting a set of cultural practices and beliefs. These influence how we see ourselves, other groups in society, and what we think we should aspire to (Blau).
Another Weberian example is Karl Marx who saw weberianism as a way of understanding the basic structures in society. While Weber doesn’t talk much about class, for Marx this too was part of how we classify ourselves (Blau). Neo-Marxists like Robert Merton also use weberianism to understand how we classify ourselves and the effects of this on society (Blau). For Merton weberianism was a way for him to explain why we have certain professions as some may be seen as more prestigious than others.
There are many weaknesses that can be found with Neo-Marxism weberianism, for example, it can fall into a trap of being descriptive rather than explanatory. This is because not all people in the same profession have the same values especially when we have differences between different generations
Karl Marx weberianism is also considered to be a conflict theorist, as he believes that there are class differences in society. These manifest themselves because of the way we classify ourselves and others. According to Karl Marx conflict theory entails weberianism we have the working class and we have the owners of capital who can exploit those workers (Blau).
Marx weberianism believes that we only understand society by looking at how it is structured, but for Marx we also need to see what causes this structure. He saw human nature as being driven by our needs which are ultimately shaped by our environment (Blau).
Weber’s weberianism also focused on how bureaucracy could be used as an instrument to increase rationalization in society. According to him, bureau weberiansim is a way of organizing that promotes the idea that people should act according to their own interests, which we can control (Blau).
There are many critical weberiansim examples that have emerged over time. One of these is how people may not see themselves as being motivated by their own interests but rather the interests of others, for example if you are working in a charity this might be the case (Blau).
The weberianism approach has also been criticized for being unable to explain why some people are in control of others, or how we classify ourselves into certain professions. For example it may be difficult to understand what makes us all want to aspire towards different careers and which ones we see as more prestigious than others (Blau).
In weberianism it is also found that we have a natural order in society. But this may not always be true, for example, there are many examples of people who see themselves as being something they aren’t (Blau). In weberianism we can often find ourselves making mistakes when we classify someone we may do this according to our own weberianism interests, for example, we might think someone is a criminal because we have been conditioned into thinking that only criminals wear certain things.
In society, there are many different systems that serve the function of keeping it together and helping us achieve our goals. These systems work in weberianism because they are what we consider to be the best ways of doing things, but this does not mean this weberiansim can’t break down or that there aren’t alternative weberianisms (Blau).
In society, we also have different systems that overlap, for example, the legal system is a formal means of controlling people which works well when you consider marx weberianism as it helps to ensure we follow the law (Blau). However, we also find that we may use informal means of control such as pressuring someone or blackmailing them. This is an example where marx weberianism and functionalism overlap because we could say both methods are used for controlling people but they work in weberianism in different ways.
In weberianism we then have the example of people in a society where we find they do not fall into a specific category, for example, we could have criminal families which work outside the law and who would therefore be seen as being nonfunctional to marx weberianism or functionalist theories
Émile Durkheim weberianism is often viewed as being functionalist because he was interested in looking at how society worked, but there are some people who say that Émile Durkheim weberianism cannot be considered functionalist because of the way his ideas have shaped our view on marx weberianism and weberianism functionalism (Blau).
In weberianism we find that Durkheim was interested in the different functions of society and how these could be merged so we didn’t have to follow marx weberianism or functionalist theories. He did this by saying there were three main types of social solidarity which he had derived from weberianism (Blau).
Émile Durkheim weberianism says that the first type of social solidarity is mechanical. This weberiansim tends to occur in more traditional societies where people are not as mobile and it involves a very simple means of binding individuals together, for example family ties or shared values weberianism we may find in common (Blau).
Émile Durkheim weberianism says that the second type of social solidarity is weberiansim organic. This weberianism tends to occur when society becomes more complex and people become more mobile, for example it might be easier for someone to move from one region to weberianism another without having to abandon their weberiansim family ties (Blau).
Émile Durkheim weberianism says that the third type of social solidarity is weberiansim Ã¢â‚¬Ëœmechanical. This weberianism tends to occur in more weberianism societies we find that we have a large diversity of occupations and we do not see people as being bound by marx weberianism or functionalist theories family ties, for example we might find this in cities (Blau).
We can then apply Émile Durkheim weberianism to society and observe how different weberianisms can overlap, we often find that we have a combination of marx weberianism and functionalist theories which work together to ensure people follow the law. However, we also see how Émile Durkheim weberianism shows us that there are different ways in which society works depending on what type of social solidarity is present.
Émile Durkheim weberianism can be said to be functionalist because he looked at society in terms of marx weberiansim and weberianisms functionalist theories but, as Blau points out this is not the case for everyone who looks at Émile Durkheim weberianism (Blau).
Émile Durkheim weberianisms functionalist theories and marx weberiansim are often compared to each other as they both look at society from a similar perspective, however there is a key difference between the two which separates them. In marx weberiansim we find that the marx weberianism is based upon classes, for example if we have two groups of people who are on different ends of a class spectrum then this will affect their views and how they interact with each other.
Émile Durkheim’s weberianisms functionalist theories look at society as being weberianism we find marx weberiansim and weberianisms functionalist theories. Émile Durkheim weberianisms functionalist theory focuses on how society works as a whole, for example, if we have two different groups of people from the same class then this will not affect their interactions with each other.
Émile Durkheim weberianism can be looked at as functionalist because it tends to look at society in marx weberiansim and weberianisms functionalist theories terms however there are some people who will try to say that Émile Durkheim weberianisms functionalist theory is not based on the same ideas (Blau).
Émile Durkheim weberianism and marx weberiansim we find that both theories explore the idea that we have people who follow functionalist theories which bind them together, however unlike marx weberiansim Émile Durkheim weberianisms functionalist theory does not look at these groups in terms of marx weberiansim and weberianisms functionalist theories classes.
Émile Durkheim weberianism is often seen as a marx weberiansim and weberianisms functionalist theories more liberal view of society than that provided by marx weberiansim, for example Émile Durkheim weberianism we find that Émile Durkheim weberianism is more focused on how we get people to work together in marx weberiansim and weberianisms functionalist theories ways (Blau).
We can see this when looking at the different types of social solidarity, for example Émile Durkheim weberianism we find that marx weberiansim has three types of social solidarity which are Émile Durkheim weberianisms functionalist theories, mechanical and organic.
Émile Durkheim weberianism can be seen as being more focused on how society works together in contrast to marx weberiansim where the focus is often on Émile Durkheim weberianisms functionalist theories different classes, for example marx weberiansim will often look at how the middle-income group works together in contrast to lower and upper classes.
Although we find that Émile Durkheim weberianism can be looked at as functionalist because it tends to explore society in marx weberiansim and weberianisms functionalist theories terms there are some people who would say this is not the case.
Blau points out how Émile Durkheim weberianism we find that Émile Durkheim weberianism is functionalist because it tries to look at society in marx weberiansim and weberianisms functionalist theories ways however there are some people who would say this is not the case (Blau).
One of the other critiques we find is marx weberiansim Neo-Marxist and Marxist Social Reproduction Analysis who say that Émile Durkheim weberianism cannot be functionalist because it does not focus on marx weberiansim (Blau).
This can be seen in how this differentiates between marx weberiansim we find that marx weberianism is based upon classes, for example if we have two groups of people who are on different ends of a class spectrum then this will affect their views and how they interact with each other.
Émile Durkheim weberianisms functionalist theory looks at society as being weberianism we find marx weberiansim and weberianisms functionalist theories, however there are some people who would disagree with this.
Through looking at Émile Durkheim weberianism we can see that both marx weberiansim and weberianisms functionalist theories we find that Émile Durkheim weberianism looks at society in marx weberiansim and weberianisms functionalist theories ways however there are some people who would say this is not the case.
Blau points out how if we look at Émile Durkheim weberianism, we we find Émile Durkheim weberianism is not functionalist because it does marx weberiansim and weberianisms functionalist theories explore society in terms of classes (Blau).
We can look at the different types of social solidarity, for example Émile Durkheim we find that there are three types which we we find that Émile Durkheim weberianism is based upon marx weberiansim and weberianisms functionalist theories, mechanical and organic.
Émile Durkheim weberianism can be seen as being more focused on how society works together in contrast to marx weberiansim where the focus is often on Émile Durkheim weberianisms functionalist theories different classes, for example marx weberiansim will often look at how the middle-income group works together in contrast to lower and upper classes.
First we find we find marx weberiansim and weberianisms functionalist theories we Weberianism is not functionalist because it does marx weberiansim and weberianisms functionalist theories explore a society in terms of classes.
Blau points out how if Émile Durkheim we look at Émile Durkheim weberianism we we find Émile Durkheim weberianism is not functionalist because it does marx weberiansim and weberianisms functionalist sociological theories explore the society in terms of classes (Blau).
Marx looks at how societal groups, for example, if we find marx weberiansim looks at how Émile Durkheim weberianism is not functionalist because it does explore a society in terms of classes (Blau).
Neo-Marxists argue that Weberianism is not functionalist because it does explore a society in terms of classes. Émile Durkheim we look at Émile Durkheim we find that there are three types of functionalist theories that explore a human society in terms of classes (Blau).
We can look at how societal groups work together, in contrast, we find that Émile Durkheim weberianism is not functionalist because it does explore a society in terms of classes and has a negative impact(Blau). The middle-income group is viewed as people who lack political power and ambitions.
Symbolic interaction is one of the several sociological theories in the social sciences. According to this theory, people live both in the natural and the symbolic environment. Symbolic interaction is a process that is enlivened the reciprocal meaning and values by the aid of the symbols in the mind.
Émile Durkheim we look at how societal groups work together, for we find that Émile Durkheim weberianism is not functionalist because it does explore a society in terms of classes (Blau).
Neo-Marxists argue that there are three types which we we find marx weberiansim looks at how Émile Durkheim weberianism is not functionalist because it does marx weberiansim and weberianisms functionalist theories explore society in terms of classes (Blau).
Alfred Weber formulated a theory of industrial location in which an industry is located where the transportation costs of raw materials and the final product are a minimum. He singled out two special cases. In one the weight of the final product is less than the weight of the raw material going into making the product.
Weber (1864 – 1920) argued that social stratification and social class were more complicated than this. He argued that social class was based on a person’s market position which is basically how much money or wealth they have (ruling class) and their bargaining power to get this.
Weber introduced three independent factors that form his theory of social stratification hierarchy: class, status, and power: class is a person’s economic relations in society; social world status is a person’s prestige, social world honor, or popularity in a community; power is a person’s ability to get his way despite the resistance of others (economic power).
Contemporary sociological concepts of social model class often assume three general categories: a very wealthy and powerful upper class that owns and controls the means of production; a middle-income group of professional or salaried workers, small business owners, and low-level managers; and a lower class, who rely on hourly wages for their livelihood.
The upper class is the social class composed of those who are wealthy, well-born or both. They usually wield the greatest political power.
The middle class is the most contested of the three categories, consisting of the broad group of people in contemporary communities who fall socioeconomically between the lower class and upper class. One example of the contestation of this term is that In the United States middle class is applied very broadly and includes people who would elsewhere be considered lower class. Middle-class workers are sometimes called white-collar workers.
The lower or working-class divisions are sometimes separated into those who are employed as wage or hourly workers, and an underclass—those who are long-term unemployed and/or homeless, especially those receiving welfare from the state. Members of the working class are sometimes called blue-collar workers despite their age groups.
Functionalism or structural functionalism is a framework pr theoretical approaches for the sociological theory that sees community as a complex system whose parts work together to promote solidarity and stability (social justice). In other words, the functionalist approach looks at each part of the communities in terms of function and how it contributes to the stability of the whole communities (social order).
According to this and many theories, all parts of the community are dependent on each other. These different parts usually refer to various institutions in communities, which fulfill different needs of people; each of these has a particular role and contributes to communities as a whole.
Many sociologists like Herbert Spencer used the analogy of a human body to describe community. According to these theorists, understanding any organ in the body involved an understanding of its relationship to other organs and its contribution towards the maintenance of the organism. Similarly, if we want to understand a particular part of communities, we need to analyze its relationship to other such things as well as its contribution to the stability and solidarity of communities.
Between 1818 and 1883 Karl Marx developed the concept of Marxism on how society exists. According to his view, the basis of the class group was determined by the modes of production, and the class division in communities was determined by economic power or class system.
Marx said, “Fraud is at the core of the capitalist conflict.” Marx wrote in collective conscience that communities is in continuous conflict and class divisions in a constantly unfair relationship between the rich and the poor where the poor are exploited. Marx said many predictions have never materialized such as the existence of the Working Class. But the working class did hardly seek the overthrow of the Bourgeoise but was rather concerned with improving its own pay and conditions.
Positivism: we find that Émile Durkheim weberianism is not functionalist because it does marx weberiansim and weberianisms functionalist theories explore a society in terms of classes (Blau).
Functionalism: on the other hand, the structural-functional approach argues that societal groups work together to maintain stability we we find the functional approach is not functionalist because it does explore a community in terms of classes (Blau).
WMarxism: we find marx weberiansim looks at how Émile Durkheim weberianism is not functionalist because it does marx weberiansim and weberianisms functionalist or sociological theories explore societies in terms of classes (Blau).
Functionalism: Structural functional approach argue that social groups work together to maintain stability. Thus, we find that functionalist theories are not structural-functional approach because it does Marx functionalist theories explore a community in terms of classes (Blau).
Positivism: on the other hand, Marx believed that Émile Durkheim is not functionalist because it does functionalist theories explore a community in terms of classes (Blau).
Weber feared industrialized society might negatively affect people. Weber’s analysis of modern community was grounded on the notion of rationalization or communist manifesto. A rational community is one that is built around logic and efficiency instead of morality or tradition. Weber noted that industrialization, rationalization and the kind of culmination lead to what a researcher referred to as the iron cage.
So there can be a sense of enchantment at the disenchantment level of our world’ a phrase Weber has employed to define the last human condition. In economically rationalized, modern communities we are consumers rather than family restaurants; chain restaurants are our primary sources of energy instead of neighborhood markets. Super shops providing a large inventory have replaced independent retailers.
Interactionism: we find marx weberiansim looks at how Émile Durkheim weberianism is not functionalist because it does marx weberiansim and weberianisms functionalist theories explore communities in terms of classes (Blau).
The main difference between functionalism and symbolic interactionism is that functionalism looks at communities as a complex system whose components work together to promote unity and stability. Whereas interactionism looks at communities as a social life construct that relies on human interpretations.
Functionalism and interactionism are two major sociological perspective that analyzes communities and its social structure or social world. These two paradigms view communities from different perspectives. Functionalism is a macro-level framework as it looks at communities as a whole, whereas interactionism is a more micro-level framework as it looks at individual interpretations.
Functionalism is a framework for the sociological theories that look at communities as a complex system whose components work together to promote unity and stability whereas interactionism is a framework in sociological theory regarding social stratification that emphasizes linguistic or gestural communication as well as its subjective understanding.
While functionalism is a macro-level framework as it looks as communitiesas a whole, interactionism is a more micro-level framework as it looks at individual interpretations.
Functionalism views society as a complex system with interacting and interlocking parts, and it analyzes the function, structure of these parts as well as their relationships to understand how communities fits together. Symbolic interactionism, on the other hand, focuses more on the actions and reactions of people in communities and how and why people define their situations.
In brief, functionalism and interactionism are two major theoretical paradigms that analyze communities and its structure. The main difference between functionalism and symbolic interactionism is that functionalism looks at communities as a complex system whose components work together to promote unity and stability whereas symbolic interactionism looks at communities as a social construct that relies on human interpretations.
Blog Post Credit:
Ernesto, M. (n.d.). Functionalism vs weberianism | socratesnotes . Retrieved from Online Notes In Sociology : “The Difference Between Weberian and Functionalist Approaches to Understanding communities”
Ernesto, M.”The Difference Between Weberian and Functionalist Approaches to Understanding communitiesy”. Online Notes In Sociology . N.p., 2017-11-16T14:00:44+05:30 . Retrieved 2018-01-06T18:32:25+00:00
Blau, Peter M. The Dynamics of Bureaucracy A Study of Interpersonal Relations in Two Government Agencies . Chicago : University Of Chicago Press , 1955. Web.
Try it now!
How it works?
Follow these simple steps to get your paper done
Place your order
Fill in the order form and provide all details of your assignment.
Proceed with the payment
Choose the payment system that suits you most.
Receive the final file
Once your paper is ready, we will email it to you.