functionalist view on religion essay

• school Campus Bookshelves
• menu_book Bookshelves
• perm_media Learning Objects
• login Login
• how_to_reg Request Instructor Account
• hub Instructor Commons
• Download Page (PDF)
• Download Full Book (PDF)
• Periodic Table
• Physics Constants
• Scientific Calculator
• Reference & Cite
• Tools expand_more
• Readability

selected template will load here

This action is not available.

14.3: The Functionalist Perspective on Religion

• Last updated
• Save as PDF
• Page ID 57105

Functions of Religion

The functionalist perspective, which originates from Emile Durkheim’s work on religion, highlights the social role of religion.

Learning Objectives

Explain how functionalists view the purpose of religion in society

• The positivist tradition encourages the study of society using dispassionate and scientific methods.
• Emile Durkheim argued that religion provides social cohesion and social control to maintain society in social solidarity.
• Collective consciousness, which is the fusion of all of our individual consciousnesses, creates a reality of its own.
• Critics of the functionalist approach point out that religion can be dysfunctional. For example, religion may incite violence by a fundamentalist religious group.
• social control : any control, either formal or informal, that is exerted by a group, especially by one’s peers
• social cohesion : The bonds or “glue” that maintain stability in society.

The structural-functional approach to religion has its roots in Emile Durkheim’s work on religion. Durkheim argued that religion is, in a sense, the celebration and even (self-) worship of human society. Given this approach, Durkheim proposed that religion has three major functions in society: it provides social cohesion to help maintain social solidarity through shared rituals and beliefs, social control to enforce religious-based morals and norms to help maintain conformity and control in society, and it offers meaning and purpose to answer any existential questions. Further, Durkheim placed himself in the positivist tradition, meaning that he thought of his study of society as dispassionate and scientific. He was deeply interested in the problem of what held complex modern societies together. Religion, he argued, was an expression of social cohesion.

Religion, for Durkheim, is not imaginary, although he does deprive it of what many believers find essential. Religion is very real; it is an expression of society itself, and indeed, there is no society that does not have religion. We perceive as individuals a force greater than ourselves and give that perception a supernatural face. We then express ourselves religiously in groups, which for Durkheim makes the symbolic power greater. Religion is an expression of our collective consciousness, which is the fusion of all of our individual consciousness, which then creates a reality of its own.

It follows, then, that less complex societies, such as the Australian Aborigines, have less complex religious systems, involving totems associated with particular clans. The more complex a particular society is, the more complex the religious system. As societies come in contact with other societies, there is a tendency for religious systems to emphasize universalism to a greater and greater extent. However, as the division of labor makes the individual seem more important, religious systems increasingly focus on individual salvation and conscience.

The primary criticism of the structural-functional approach to religion is that it overlooks religion’s dysfunctions. For instance, religion can be used to justify terrorism and violence. Religion has often been the justification of, and motivation for, war. In one sense, this still fits the structural-functional approach as it provides social cohesion among the members of one party in a conflict. For instance, the social cohesion among the members of a terrorist group is high, but in a broader sense, religion is obviously resulting in conflict without questioning its actions against other members of society.

Religion and Social Support

According to many social science studies, psychological well-being is positively correlated with religious engagement.

Discuss the relationship between religion and social and individual well-being

• Many studies suggest that religious people are happier and less stressed than their non-religious counterparts.
• The Legatum Prosperity Index reflects the research that there is a positive link between religious engagement and well-being.
• Religiosity has a salutary relationship with psychological adjustment, because it is related to less psychological distress, more life satisfaction, and better self-actualization.
• well-being : a state of health, happiness and/or prosperity
• self-actualization : Self-actualization is a term that has been used in various psychology theories, often in slightly different ways. The term was originally introduced by the organismic theorist Kurt Goldstein for the motive to realize one’s full potential. However, the concept was brought most fully to prominence in Abraham Maslow’s hierarchy of needs theory, in which “self-actualization” was the final level of psychological development that can be achieved when all basic and mental needs are fulfilled. In such a case, the “actualization” of full personal potential takes place.
• religiosity : An index of how strongly religious a person is

Religion and Health

There is now extensive research suggesting that religious people are happier and less stressed than their non-religious counterparts. Social scientists have identified a number of mechanisms that might explain why religion might make an individual happier, none of which rest on the explanation of divine intervention or supernatural phenomenon. Certain features of religious practice may facilitate greater well-being for members. These include the following:

• basic social contact
• a large, non-family network of social support
• the positive mental health one derived from optimism and volunteering,
• coping strategies to enhance one’s ability to deal with stress
• a worldview that prevents existential questions from arising

Scientific Studies of Religion and Health

The Legatum Prosperity Index reflects the research that suggests that there is a positive link between religious engagement and well-being. People who report that God is very important in their lives are on average more satisfied with their lives, after accounting for their income, age and other individual characteristics that might bias results. A 1993 study by Kosmin & Lachman indicated that people without a religious affiliation appeared to be at greater risk for depressive symptoms than individuals affiliated with a religion. Surveys by Gallup, the National Opinion Research Center and the Pew Organization conclude that spiritually committed people are twice as likely to report being “very happy” than the least religiously committed people. An analysis of over 200 studies contends that high religiousness predicts a lower risk of depression, a lower risk of drug abuse, fewer suicide attempts. Those same studies associate religious involvement with reports of higher satisfaction with sex life and a sense of well-being. A review of 498 peer-review academic studies revealed that a large majority of them showed a positive correlation between religious commitment and higher levels of perceived well-being of self-esteem. These same studies revealed a positive correlation between religious involvement and lower levels of hypertension, depression, and clinical delinquency. A meta-analysis of 34 recent studies published between 1990 and 2001 found that religiosity has a salutary relationship with psychological adjustment. Religious involvement was related to less psychological distress, more life satisfaction, and better self-actualization. Finally, as signaled in a recent review of 850 research papers, the majority of well-conducted studies suggest that higher levels of religious involvement are positively associated with indicators of psychological well-being (life satisfaction, happiness, positive affect, and higher morale). In these studies, religious involvement was associated with less depression, fewer suicidal thoughts, and less drug alcohol abuse.

Contributors and Attributions

• Curation and Revision. by : Boundless.com. CC BY-SA

CC licensed content, Specific attribution

• social cohesion. ( CC BY-SA ; Wiktionary via en.wiktionary.org/wiki/social_cohesion)
• Sociology of religion. ( CC BY-SA ; Wikipedia via en.Wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociology_of_religion%23.C3.89mile_Durkheim)
• Social cohesion. ( CC BY-SA ; Wikipedia via en.Wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_cohesion)
• Social control. ( CC BY-SA ; Wikipedia via en.Wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_control)
• Existentialism. ( CC BY-SA ; Wikipedia via en.Wikipedia.org/wiki/Existentialism)
• social control. ( CC BY-SA ; Wiktionary via en.wiktionary.org/wiki/social_control)
• Upper church - the congregation gathers_0775 | Flickr - Photo Sharing!. ( CC BY ; Flickr via http://www.flickr.com/photos/emeryjl/505296571/ )
• Religion and happiness. ( CC BY-SA ; Wikipedia via en.Wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_and_happiness)
• Boundless. ( CC BY-SA ; Boundless Learning via www.boundless.com//sociology/definition/religiosity)
• well-being. ( CC BY-SA ; Wiktionary via en.wiktionary.org/wiki/well-being)
• self-actualization. ( CC BY-SA ; Wikipedia via en.Wikipedia.org/wiki/self-actualization)
• The Empowered; Happiness is wearing the 5 Dhyani Buddhas Crown and Holding a Flower and Dorje (vajra), Initiate, Highest Yoga Tantra initiation, Hevajra, Tharlam Monastery of Tibetan Buddhism, Boudha, Kathmandu, Nepal | Flickr - Photo Sharing!. ( CC BY ; Flickr via http://www.flickr.com/photos/wonderlane/4238484609/ )

Final dates! Join the tutor2u subject teams in London for a day of exam technique and revision at the cinema. Learn more →

Reference Library

Collections

• See what's new
• All Resources
• Student Resources
• Assessment Resources
• Teaching Resources
• CPD Courses
• Livestreams

Study notes, videos, interactive activities and more!

Sociology news, insights and enrichment

Currated collections of free resources

Browse resources by topic

• All Sociology Resources

Resource Selections

Currated lists of resources

Study Notes

Functionalist Views on the Role of Religion

Last updated 15 Sept 2022

• Share on Facebook
• Share on Twitter
• Share by Email

Functionalists argue that religion is a conservative force and that this is a positive function for society and for individuals. Religion helps to create social order and maintains the value consensus.

Durkheim, Parsons and Bellah argue that religion performs important functions for society, while Malinowksi argues that it performs an important function for the individual. All agree that religion promotes stability and helps to preserve the status quo and prevent upheaval and rapid social change.

Durkheim and the study of the Arunta

Durkheim conducted a study of the Arunta, an Australian aboriginal tribe’s religious beliefs in order to establish the function of the beliefs and ceremonies and what it really signified.

Durkheim deliberately chose what he considered to be a very primitive religion in order to focus on the essential elements of belief and its functions. He argued that society divided objects and activities into the sacred and the profane. The profane were everyday experiences with a clear function, while the sacred had a greater, collective significance. In the religion Durkheim studied, various “totems” were considered sacred.

From his detailed study of “primitive religion” he identified four key functions of religion in society:

• Discipline - Religious rituals impose self-discipline, which encourages individuals to behave sociably and not simply pursue their own selfish course of action, which would be anti-social and destabilising.
• Cohesion - The key function is social cohesion: worship brought the community together. Through worship people reaffirm and reinforce the bonds that keep them together.
• Vitalising - Durkheim also argued that religious belief maintained traditions, ensuring that the values that are passed down from generation to generation are kept vital and at the heart of the society.
• Euphoric - Finally, if members of society were ever to become frustrated or lose their faith, the religion serves to remind them of their place in something much bigger. Again it prevents individuals from becoming anti-social.

Durkheim concluded that when a society came together to worship collectively, what they were really worshipping was society itself. Durkheim recognised that society was becoming less religious and more secular, but he argued that there was still this secular function for religious belief. This was developed in the 1960s by Bellah with his work on Civil Religion .

Bellah (1967) argued that in some modern secular states, people worshipped society in a clear way, still based around symbols, but without the supernatural, divine element of traditional religions. His example is Americanism , the way American society, which was religiously diverse and increasingly secular, coalesced instead around America itself, with the religious symbols being the flag, the national anthem, famous historical figures, etc. While this might not fit everyone’s definition of religion, it performs the same functions that Durkheim identified and promotes social cohesion, order, stability and prevents radical change, again acting as a conservative force. While the USA is the clearest example of this, some sociologists have pointed to how strong association with a royal family reveals a similar sort of civil religion (e.g. the public mourning on the death of Princess Diana in the UK). People can unite around ideas like “God Bless America!” without necessarily all worshipping the same God, or practising the same religion (or practising a religion at all). People can have very different ideas about what happens after death, but can take comfort from someone “dying for their country”.

Talcott Parsons also made a case for religion performing these fundamental functions to integrate people into the value consensus. He argued that religions quite directly socialised people into shared values, which were often stated quite directly by the religion, such as the 10 Commandments in Judaism and Christianity. He further argues that religion answers the ultimate questions, those that (at least when Parsons was writing) were deemed to beyond the scope of science. Why do good people suffer or die young? Religions can offer answers in terms of tests of faith and rewards in the afterlife. This gives meaning to what might otherwise seem a meaningless existence.

Malinowski (1954) studied the religious practices of the Trobriand islanders. What he noted was that when the islanders were fishing on inshore, safe waters they did not practice religious ceremonies, but they did so when fishing in more dangerous waters. He concluded that religion had a psychological function: it helped individuals to deal with an anxious and stressful situation. These sorts of unpredictable events can cause instability and disruption in society, so by performing this psychological function religion also helped preserve the stability of society. The equivalent of the dangerous fishing expeditions, in contemporary society and religion, is events like births and deaths. Religious ceremonies accompany these events in order to preserve stability. In this way religion performs psychological functions for the individual.

Evaluating functionalist views of religion

• Some, such as P. Worsley (1956) have criticised Durkheim’s study of the Arunta from an anthropological and theological perspective, suggesting that he misunderstood certain aspects of the religion, particularly the idea of the separation between the sacred and profane and the significance of totems.
• These theories are outdated and arguably tell us little about religion today. They envisage a society with a single unifying religion that brought people together, whereas in most developed, western societies today there is no consensus about religion. Even in countries where there is a state religion and significant levels of religiosity, religion is often a major factor in conflict, such as in several middle eastern countries.
• Malinowski’s study was unusual for a functionalist in that it was a participant observation. This was high in validity and was very detailed, conducted over four years. However, from a positivist perspective, it was unreliable and the conclusions could not be generalised to other tribes or societies.
• Some would argue that describing “Americanism” as a religion stretches the definition of religion too far. It is clear that patriotism or nationalism does functions as a form of belief system or ideology and that it may well carry out some of the functions that Durkheim, Parsons or Malinowski ascribe to religion. However, is that enough for something to be considered religious, or does it not require some sort of supernatural, divine element to it? (See previous discussion of sociological definitions of religion). “Americanism” arguably does have this (“God Bless America!” etc.) but this is arguably the application of traditional religious belief to a political ideology, rather than being a religion in its own right.
• Beliefs in Society
• Functional Definition

You might also like

What is religion, science and religion: compared, traditional marxist views on the role of religions, feminist views on the role of religions, neo-marxist views on religion and social change, religious organisations: churches, sects and denominations, belief systems, new age movements and cults, our subjects.

• › Criminology
• › Economics
• › Geography
• › Health & Social Care
• › Psychology
• › Sociology
• › Teaching & learning resources
• › Student revision workshops
• › Online student courses
• › CPD for teachers
• › Livestreams
• › Teaching jobs

Boston House, 214 High Street, Boston Spa, West Yorkshire, LS23 6AD Tel: 01937 848885

• › Contact us
• › Terms of use
• › Privacy & cookies

© 2002-2024 Tutor2u Limited. Company Reg no: 04489574. VAT reg no 816865400.

• Books, Journals, Papers
• Current Events
• Life Around The World
• Research Methods
• Sociology Theorists
• Functionalism
• Postmodernism
• Social Constructionism
• Structuralism
• Symbolic Interactionism
• Sociology of Crime & Deviance
• Sociology of Art
• Sociology of Food
• Sociology of Disability
• Sociology of Economics
• Sociology of Education
• Sociology of Family
• Sociology of Gender
• Sociology of Health
• Sociology of Identity
• Sociology of Ideology
• Sociology of Inequalities
• Sociology of Film
• Sociology of Gaming
• Sociology of Literature
• Sociology of Music
• Sociology of Nature & Environment
• Sociology of Politics
• Sociology of Power
• Sociology of Race & Ethnicity
• Sociology of Religion
• Sociology of Sexuality
• Sociology of Technology
• Sociology of Violence & Conflict
• Sociology of Work
• Privacy Policy

The Functionalist View of Religion in Sociology

Functionalism is a sociological perspective that seeks to understand society by examining the functions and roles of its various institutions. When it comes to religion , functionalists view it as a fundamental institution that plays a crucial role in maintaining social order and cohesion. This article will outline and explain the functionalist view of religion, highlighting its key concepts and ideas.

Functionalism and Society

Functionalism, as a theoretical framework, emphasizes the interdependence of various social institutions and their contribution to the overall stability and functioning of society. According to functionalists, society is like a living organism, where each institution performs specific functions necessary for its survival.

You might also like

Exploring Death Cults in the Sociology of Religion

The Significance of Deism in Sociology

Religion, in this context, is seen as one such institution that fulfills important social functions. It provides individuals with a sense of meaning, purpose, and identity, offering answers to existential questions and guiding moral behavior.

Functions of Religion

Functionalists identify several key functions that religion performs within society:

1. Social Cohesion

Religion acts as a powerful force for social cohesion, bringing individuals together and creating a sense of community. It provides a shared set of beliefs, values , and rituals that unite people and foster a sense of belonging. Through religious ceremonies and gatherings, individuals come together to worship, celebrate, and reinforce their shared identity.

2. Social Control

Religion plays a vital role in regulating and controlling individual behavior. It provides a moral framework and a set of ethical guidelines that shape people’s actions and decisions. Religious teachings and commandments often discourage behaviors that are considered deviant or harmful to the social order. By promoting moral values and enforcing social norms, religion helps maintain social control.

3. Emotional Support

Religion offers emotional support to individuals during times of crisis, loss, or uncertainty. It provides comfort, solace, and a sense of hope in difficult situations. Through religious rituals, prayers, and the belief in a higher power , individuals find strength and resilience to cope with life’s challenges.

4. Socialization

Religion plays a crucial role in the socialization process, particularly in shaping the beliefs, values, and behaviors of children. Religious institutions, such as churches, mosques, or temples, provide spaces for religious education and moral instruction. They teach individuals the customs, traditions, and rituals associated with their faith, instilling a sense of identity and belonging from an early age.

5. Cultural Integration

Religion acts as a unifying force within diverse societies, fostering cultural integration. It provides a framework for individuals from different backgrounds to come together and share common beliefs and practices. By transcending ethnic, racial, and social divisions, religion promotes social integration and harmony.

Critiques of the Functionalist View

While the functionalist perspective offers valuable insights into the role of religion in society, it has faced criticism from other sociological perspectives. One critique is that functionalism tends to overlook the potential negative consequences of religion, such as religious conflicts, discrimination, and inequality .

Additionally, functionalism assumes that all individuals benefit equally from religion, regardless of their social position or power. Critics argue that religion can be used as a tool for social control by the dominant groups, reinforcing existing power structures and perpetuating social inequalities.

The functionalist view of religion highlights its significant contributions to society, emphasizing its role in maintaining social order, cohesion, and individual well-being. Religion provides a sense of meaning, moral guidance, and emotional support to individuals, while also fostering social integration and control. However, it is essential to acknowledge the limitations of this perspective and consider alternative viewpoints to gain a comprehensive understanding of religion’s complex dynamics within society .

Mr Edwards has a PhD in sociology alongside 10 years of experience in sociological knowledge

Related Stories

Explore the concept of death cults, their characteristics, and examples of notable groups that fall under this category. Learn about...

Learn about deism, a philosophical belief that emerged during the Enlightenment period. Explore its origins, key beliefs, and significance in...

Understanding Conversion in Religion: Types, Factors, and Implications

Learn about the concept of conversion in religion, including its types, factors influencing it, and its implications for individuals and...

An Outline and Explanation of the Methodist Religion in Sociology

Learn about the Methodist religion from a sociological perspective. Explore its historical background, beliefs and practices, organization and structure, and...

The Feminist View of Identity: An Outline, Explanation, and Analysis

The Marxist View of Ideology: An Outline, Explanation, and Analysis

The Functionalist View of the Media in Sociology

Get the latest sociology, recommended.

The Functionalist View of Meritocracy in Sociology

Understanding Marginalization in Sociology

Popular story.

The Functionalist Perspective on Gender in Sociology

Understanding clans in sociology, what is a social actor exploring the concept in sociology, pierre bourdieu’s symbolic violence: an outline and explanation, symbolic interactionist view of family: understanding the dynamics and significance.

Easy Sociology makes sociology as easy as possible. Our aim is to make sociology accessible for everybody. © 2023 Easy Sociology

© 2023 Easy Sociology

Functionalist Perspective & Theory in Sociology

Charlotte Nickerson

Research Assistant at Harvard University

Undergraduate at Harvard University

Charlotte Nickerson is a student at Harvard University obsessed with the intersection of mental health, productivity, and design.

Learn about our Editorial Process

Saul Mcleod, PhD

Editor-in-Chief for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MRes, PhD, University of Manchester

Saul Mcleod, PhD., is a qualified psychology teacher with over 18 years of experience in further and higher education. He has been published in peer-reviewed journals, including the Journal of Clinical Psychology.

Olivia Guy-Evans, MSc

Associate Editor for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MSc Psychology of Education

Olivia Guy-Evans is a writer and associate editor for Simply Psychology. She has previously worked in healthcare and educational sectors.

On This Page:

Functional theories in sociology see society as a system of interconnected parts that work together to maintain stability and order. Each part (like family, education, or religion) serves a function to benefit society as a whole.

Key Takeaways

• The functionalism perspective is a paradigm influenced by American sociology from roughly the 1930s to the 1960s, although its origins lay in the work of the French sociologist Emile Durkheim, writing at the end of the 19th century.
• Functionalism is a structural theory and posits that the social institutions and organization of society influence the running of society and individuals’ behaviors.
• Talcott Parsons expanded upon Durkheim”s idea of the society as a moral regulator to create a “grand” theory of sociology intended to explain all of human behavior in relation to institutions.
• According to both Parsons and Durkheim, societies undergo an evolution, and large, formalized structures (such as the family or education) evolve to serve the purpose that small communities once had. People become more interdependent.
• Functionalism has been heavily criticized by a number of schools of thought, but has been revised beginning in the 1970s by American Sociologists. Functionalist theories largely argue that social problems and phenomena are, rather than a symptom of a societal flaw, in some way beneficial to society.

What is a Functionalist Theory in Sociology?

Functionalism examines how the social institutions that make up society, such as the economy, education, family, religion, and media, all perform a useful purpose, and also influence members of society.

Functionalism is a theory that views society as a complex but orderly and stable system with interconnected structures and social patterns that operate to meet the needs of individuals’ needs.

The main ideas of the Functionalist perspective are that:

• There is a social structure that exists independently of individuals. This social structure consists of norms and values passed on through institutions that shape the individual.
• Sociologists should study society scientifically in a way that looks for the general laws explaining human action on a macro level.
• Socialization is important because individuals need to be regulated for everyone’s benefit. Thus, the integration and regulation of individuals are good.
• Sociologists should analyze society as a system by looking at each social phenomenon and the contribution it makes to the whole of society. Talcott Parsons believed that society acts in a similar way to the human body, as social institutions interact in the same way as human organs. Both are interconnected and interdependent parts that function for the good of the whole.
• Social institutions usually perform positive functions — such as creating value consensus, social integration, social regulation, preventing anomie, etc. Functionalism is a consensus theory that assumes that the institutions of society are working together to maintain social cohesion and stability.

Functionalism originated in British anthropology. In particular, the Polish-British anthropologist Bronislaw Malinowski (1943) proposed functional analysis as a solution for sociologists to interpret social situations through intuition rather than observation.

According to Malinowski, this functional analysis brings scientific attention to the study of cultures different from those of the ones observing it. Thus, before analyzing a social phenomenon typical of a given culture — say, an institution, material object, or idea — people first must think about what function that social phenomenon has within this culture.

The essential assumption of Malinowski”s functionalism is that in every single civilization, every custom, material object, idea, and opinion fulfills some vital function, helping to both express and maintain it.

This expression and maintenance of culture through phenomena that take place within it is called integration.

Examples of Functionalism

An example of functionalism would be the family . According to functionalism, the family is a societal structure that provides for the reproduction and protection of children.

Families serve as a primary agent of socialization, fostering an understanding of expected behaviors, norms, and values.

By meeting the emotional needs of its members, stable families underpin social order and economic stability. Social Problems Mid-twentieth-century sociologists were often concerned with policy and, correspondingly, social problems (Tumin, 1965).

Crime and Deviance

Crime serves a function in society to reinforce what is acceptable behavior, as the public nature of the punishments shows people what will happen for breaking the rules. Very serious crimes can also lead to society coming together to condemn the perpetrators.

Deviance refers to actions that go against the norms and values of a society. These may not be against the law but are frowned upon by most in society.

The Education System

An example of functionalism would be the education system. Durkheim and Parsons argued that schools are a ‘society in miniature’ that teach universalistic values.

For functionalists, education is central in passing on the mainstream norms and values that keep society together, through the process of secondary socialization. This is achieved hidden curriculum and PSHE lessons

The education system also allows young people to specialize and train for specific jobs based on their abilities. This allows students to move from the ascribed status and particularistic values of the home to an achieved status within society.

Disengagement Theory of Aging

Functionalism underlines perhaps the oldest theory of aging — disengagement theory.

Disengagement theory suggests that withdrawal from society and social relationships is a natural part of becoming old. The theory, developed by Elaine Cumming and Warren Earl Henry in their 1961 book, “Growing Old,” has largely been disproven.

Nonetheless, disengagement theory has several key postulates, each of which suggests that the process of losing social ties as one ages is normal and even beneficial to society.

These are (Cumming & Henry, 1961):

• Everyone expects death, and one”s abilities deteriorate over time. Thus, people will lose ties to those they cannot benefit from.
• Individuals will become more freed from the norms imposed by interaction with others in society.
• Because of men and women”s different roles in society, they will disengage differently.
• Aging causes knowledge and skill to deteriorate. However, success in industrialized society demands knowledge and skill. Aging is functional in that it ensures that the young possess sufficient knowledge and skill to assume authority while the old retire before they lose skills.
• Complete disengagement results when both the individual and society are ready for disengagement.
• The loss of one”s functional role in society will cause crisis and demoralization until they assume the role of disengagement.
• individuals become ready to disengage when they become aware of their mortality. Each level of society grants aging individuals permission to disengage based on their dwindling contribution to societal institutions.
• Disengagement leads to relationships in one”s remaining roles changing.
• Disengagement theory is independent of culture.

Durkheim and Functionalism

Emile Durkheim is widely considered to be the father of sociology. Durkheim believed that individuals are inherently selfish and social structure and social order are important in that they constrain their selfishness.

However, Durkheim also believed that, as societies evolved in a way that made people more individualistic, maintaining social order became an increasingly difficult problem for society (Pope, 1975).

Durkheim’s Key Ideas

Durkheim believed that there is a social structure made up of norms and values.

He believed that this structure existed above individuals because individuals are born into a society with norms and values.

People”s behaviors, according to Durkheim, were shaped by a social structure, consisting of social facts, such as norms and values, and institutions, which exist external to the individual and constrain the individuals’ behavior.

Secondly, Durkheim emphasized that sociologists should use scientific methods to uncover the basic laws that govern human behavior.

Durkheim’s work was largely aimed at demonstrating the importance of organic solidarity as well as trying to find out what societies must do in order to achieve this organic solidarity (Pope, 1975).

Thirdly, Durkheim believed that individuals have an inborn tendency to be selfish and that it was the goal of society to regulate these selfish desires. This means that Durkheim considered too much freedom to be bad for both the individual and society.

He thought that greater levels of human happiness and “progress” could be achieved if people cooperated together, rather than competing in a war of all against all for scarce resources.

Durkheim and Social Solidarity

Social solidarity and cohesion is achieved and maintained through socialization process and learning of norms and values of society.

To restrain naturally selfish tendencies, Durkheim believed that societies need to create a sense of social solidarity — making individuals feel as if they are part of something bigger and teaching them the standards of acceptable behavior.

This is what Durkheim called moral regulation. Both social solidarity and moral regulation rely on effectively socializing individuals into wider society (Pope, 1975).

While Durkheim believed that solidarity and moral regulation were achieved in different ways in primitive and advanced industrial societies, these goals were far harder to achieve in industrialized ones.

For example, in “primitive” societies such as Feudal Europe, social regulation worked on a small scale and was locally based, and people lived in the same area their entire lives. There was very little role differentiation and no complex division of labor.

That is to say, people generally had the shared experiences of living in the same village, carrying out the same activities, and living with the same people their entire lives.

Durkheim believed that, because the people in societies such as Feudal Britain shared the same reality, the same goals, and even the same religion, they are closely reliant on one another, meaning that moral regulation and social solidarity are easily achieved. Durkheim called this situation mechanical solidarity : solidarity based on similarity (Pope, 1975).

Meanwhile, during the Industrial Revolution, the number of specialized tasks increased. The division of labor , as a result, also became more complex.

Individuals, despite shifting more toward individualism, became more interdependent — trading self-sufficiency for dependence on a large number of people that they did not know.

As a result, the ability of large social institutions — like religion — to provide universal morals declined. As people within a society ceased to live the same lives, a need to find solidarity grounded in something other than similarity arose.

Durkheim called this organic solidarity , a social cohesion that results from the interdependence of people in a society.

Durkheim and Anomie

Without a sense of social solidarity society can fall into anomie , a normlessness where a person doesn’t know what it means to be normal within society.

Durkheim (1897) believed that the vast differences between individuals in industrialized societies created a crisis of moral regulation. Durkheim calls this condition anomie.

He argued that the question of how modern societies could achieve moral regulation and keep individuals compliant was the primary problem of contemporary civilization.

He called this moral regulation organic solidarity: social solidarity based on difference (Pope, 1975).

Durkheim believed that labor organizations and education would provide society with necessary moral regulation because education could simultaneously teach people the diverse skills required for an advanced specialization of labor and provide them with shared norms and values through teaching subjects such as history.

Talcott Parsons’ Functionalism

While functionalism before Parsons attempted to produce explanations of everything that exists and happens in a particular time, Parsons aimed to use functionalism to create a general theory of how all social systems work.

Parsons melded together the theories and key issues of several other sociologists — Durkheim, Marshall and Pereto, and Weber — to create his grand theory.

The Organic Analogy

Talcott Parsons believed that society acts in a similar way to the human body, as social institutions interact in the same way as human organs.

Both are interconnected and interdependent parts that function for the good of the whole. This is called the organic analogy.

Organisms like the human body have needs that need to be met and so does society. Social institutions have evolved to meet society’s needs, such as value consensus and social order.

Parsons believed that one of the most important functions of social institutions is the creation of value consensus: an agreement around shared values. This commitment to common values was, for Parsons, the basis for order in society.

Value Consensus

Value consensus means that a majority of society agree with the goals that society sets to show success. These included values such as a belief in work ethic and meritocracy.

Parsons argued that work ethic ensures that people value working rather than leisure. This helps create more goods that can help society function, and a belief in meritocracy , that people believe that hard work should be rewarded, thus incentivizing people to work harder.

Value consensus and social order are maintained through institutions of formal social control, such as the police, and informal social groups, such as families and schools, who socialize children into social values and norms shared by the majority of society.

Parsons believed that the family is responsible for passing on society’s basic norms and values by providing early socialization, the stabilization of adult personalities, and a place for people to escape from the pressures of modern life.

Education integrates individuals into wider society, promoting a sense of belonging and identity. Parsons believed that education does this through teaching students a shared history and language.

Finally, other institutions can regulate individual behavior through social sanctions. This can prevent crime and deviance from becoming unmanageable.

Functional Prerequisites

Parsons also believed that societies have certain functional prerequisites — things that societies need in order to survive. For example, a society must produce and distribute food and shelter, organize and resolve conflicts, and socialize young people.

Parsons believed that social systems have four needs that must be met for continued survival: adaptation, goal attainment, integration, and latency.

The Four Basic needs of society

• Goal Attainment (Political Function): Parsons believed that a society is only possible when there are common standards: the society must have a collective goal, and acceptable means for achieving it.
• Adaption (Economic Function) – Every society has to provide for the needs of its members in order for the society to survive.
• Integration (Social Harmony) – Specialist institutions develop to reduce conflict in society. For example, education and media create a sense of belonging.
• Latency : The unstated consequences of actions – there are 2 types of latency: Pattern Maintenance: Maintaining value consensus through socialization and Tension Management. Opportunities to release tension in a safe way.

Parsons also viewed social change as a process of social evolution.

That is to say; he thought that human societies underwent a progression from hunter-gatherers to complex industrial ones and that more complex societies were inherently better because they are more adaptive — able to respond to changes in the environment, more innovative, and more capable of utilizing the talents of a wider range of people.

As a result, in a conclusion echoing Darwinism, these advanced societies are better able to survive.

Parsons believed that several factors bolster societal progress. While economic and technological changes lead to societies evolving, he argued that values increasingly become the driver of social progress in advanced societies.

To Parsons, the values of advanced industrialized societies are superior to those of traditional societies because modern values allow society to be more adaptive.

Parsons believed that the collapse of major social institutions — family, education, and so forth, could cause regression into a more primitive form of social organization.

The Social System

Parsons was influenced by many European scholars, such as Malinowski and Weber. Some have argued that Parson’s sociology addresses American society in particular, and that it is, rather than an ideological justification of the state of America contemporary to him, an attempt to identify the minimum requirements of integration in a society composed of different ethnic groups with different traditions and cultures.

This means that an action is only a social action when social purposes and standards are identified in the context of interactions that consider their finalities and rules an integral part of the social situation.

Parsons (1951) introduced the idea of a system to address the problem of integration. Parsons said that since people perform actions according to defined principles, rather than in a random way, they have a “personality system.”

Here, a system is the set of symbols that make the interaction possible and the network of relationships between people that do not act in an uncoordinated way but according to the positions assigned to them in this network of relations.

Parsons believed that the cultural, personality, and society systems all had to be the same as each other. The culture helps people to create their personality through internalizing the rules and values of a society (Parsons, 1951).

Meanwhile, the internalization of these cultural models gives order and stability to society because all of the people in a society tend to behave in a way that conforms to society”s expectations.

There are three parts of every action, according to Parsons:

• the finality — the goal to reach and negative consequences to avoid (the “cathetic” element);
• the knowledge of a situation necessary to complete an action — the knowledge element; and, finally, the ability to pick out among many possible choices —
• the “evaluation” element.

Parson believed that personality can only arise in the context of social relations, which can create a system of common signs and symbols for navigating symbols.

These social relations take place in mutual relations among people who act according to their status and roles. While status defines the position that a person occupies in a system of relations considered to be a structure regardless of personality, roles relate to what someone does in relation to others, and what is typical of a certain status.

Criticisms of Functionalism

Although Parson”s first attempts at creating a grand theory of sociology were well-regarded in the 1950s, Neo-Marxists, conflict theorists, and symbolic interactionists criticized him heavily.

Eventually, American sociologists attempted to revive the grand theory.

There are a number of criticisms of the functionalist perspective (Holmwood, 2005). Among the most notable include:

• Criticism of whether there is really a societal “structure” that exists outside of individuals.

Because institutions cannot be isolated in controlled experiments, this task is extremely difficult, if not impossible.

If everyone, for example, believed in the value of achievement in meritocracy, then disorder might result because not everyone can reach the highest levels of achievement.

Thus, Mann believed (1970), social stability is more likely if those at the bottom of society do not follow the society”s principle values, which they are less likely to achieve.

• Criticism of functionalism being a deterministic theory: some have criticized functionalism for portraying human behavior as if it is programmable in a precise way by social institutions.
• Functionalism ignores class conflict and coercion: Marxists argue that mainstream social values are actually the values of elite groups, and that conflict arises from a small group of elite actors imposing social order on the majority.
• Criticism that functionalism is ideological: In arguing that certain institutions are necessary, some have argued that functionalism justifies the existence of the social order. Micheal Mann (1970), for instance, argued that social stability might occur because of a lack of consensus rather than because of it. Not all social institutions are functionally indispensable, and there are functional alternatives. For example, the family is not the only institution that can perform primary socialization.
• Not all the institutions of society perform a positive function for society, instead for some people they are dysfunctional. For example, domestic abuse makes the family dysfunctional for its members.

For that reason, gradual social reform should be all that is needed to address a social problem. Functionalism even suggests that social problems are functional in some ways for society because, otherwise, these problems would not continue.

For example, while crime is a major social problem, it creates hundreds of thousands of jobs in law enforcement, courts and corrections, home security, and the informal economy, where people engage or deal with crime.

Similarly, poverty, while a major social problem, coerces poor people to do jobs that people would otherwise not want to do (Gans, 1972). Poverty also provides employment, such as for those who work in social services that help the poor.

Bales, R. F., & Parsons, T. (2014). Family: Socialization and interaction process . Routledge.

Cumming, E., & Henry, W. E. (1961). Growing old, the process of disengagement . Basic books.

De Nardis, P. (2007). Function. The Blackwell Encyclopedia of Sociology , 1-2.

Durkheim, E. (1892). The division of labor in society . Free Pr.

Durkheim, E. (1951). Suicide [1897]. na.

Holmwood, J. (2005). Functionalism and its Critics . Modern social theory: An introduction , 87-109.

Murdock, G. P. (1943). Bronislaw Malinowski .

Parsons T. (1937,1968]). The Structure of Social Action . New York: Free Press.

Parsons, T. (1939). The professions and social structure . Social forces, 17 (4), 457-467.

Parsons T. (1951). The Social System . London: Routledge.

Parsons T. (1964). Essays in Sociological Theory. Revised Edition . New York: The Free Press.

Parsons T. (1978). Action Theory and the Human Condition . New York: The Free Press.

Parsons, T. (1970). On building social system theory: A personal history. Daedalus , 826-881.

Parsons, T., & Shils, E. A. (2017). The social system (pp. 190-233). Routledge.

Parsons, T. E., & Shils, E. A. (1951). Toward a general theory of action .

Parsons, T. (1971). The system of modern societies (p. 12). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Pope, W. (1975). Durkheim as a Functionalist . Sociological Quarterly, 16 (3), 361-379.

• TOP CATEGORIES
• AS and A Level
• University Degree
• International Baccalaureate
• Uncategorised
• 5 Star Essays
• Study Tools
• Study Guides
• Meet the Team

Compare and contrast the Marxist and Functionalist explanations of the role of religion in society.

JENNI SAYER

Compare and contrast the Marxist and Functionalist explanations

of the role of religion in society.

Marxists and Functionalists both have different views on the role of religion in society. Functionalists believe that the role of religion is to keep society stable and to with hold the norms and values of society. Marxists on the other hand argue that religion is used as a form of social control. Both views do agree that religion is used to keep society the same and not to bring about any change.

Emile Durkheim wrote from a Functionalist perspective on the role of religion. In his book “The Elementary Forms of Religious Life” Durkheim argued that all societies are divided into two categories, “the scared” and the “profane” (secular).  He saw religion as “a unified system of beliefs and practices relating to sacred things,” these sacred things could be gods, times, places, events or objects and are all symbols that represent something. Durkheim went on to argue that these sacred things represent not only their religion, but also their society. He used the religion of Aborigines, which he named Totemism, to develop this argument. Aborigines’ societies are made up of clans, with each clan having a sacred symbol. Durkheim argued that because these symbols represent their society, the people are actually worshiping society. Durkheim believes that we worship our own society in our religion because our religion embodies the ideas, morality and culture we share. Durkheim also sees religion as reinforcing the collective conscience. Worshiping society allows us to be united with common morals, values and norms, thus society is strengthened. Finally Durkheim sees the role of religion as allowing an individual to be able to “endure the trials of existence, or to conquer them”.

Some do argue that Durkheim’s work is of less value due to the fact he did not study modern industrial cultures. However, Durkheim himself countered this argument by predicting how religion in modern society may develop. He saw the collective conscience becoming weaker as society becomes more specialised and complex. Durkheim thought that attitudes to society might cease to be religious and the “cult of man,” the belief in the individual human dignity, would bind people together. Other people have criticised Durkheim’s work due to the fact that there are new religions that reject norms and values current at the time, e.g. the Amish. Also Durkheim does not recognise the fact that religion can be a force for social change. Another criticism is the fact that society does not always work as a force for social integration and consensus, with many conflicts being over religion, for example in Northern Ireland or the former Yugoslavia where religion challenges social order and cohesion. However, Bainbridge and Stark argue that people still do have a perpetual need of religion and new movements appear to fill the place left by those religions that no longer suit the needs of people.

Bronislaw Malinowski was an anthropologist who conducted a famous study called “Religion and Magic” among the Trobriand Islands, he was also writing from a functionalist perspective. Malinowski supported Durkheim’s views on religion’s role in society in reinforcing social norms and values and promoting social solidarity, but he does not see religion as reflecting society as a whole nor that religion is worshiping society. Malinowski instead believes that the role of religion in society is to provide for the individual in times of emotional stress. He argues that people turn to religion in what are known as “life crises”, birth, death, marriage and puberty. He sees religion as an expression of community feeling aimed to unite that community, it also gives the individual someone to blame, be thankful for or provide some one to talk to. The other time in which society turns to religion in response to emotional stress in when events take place whose outcome are important but uncertain and uncontrollable, therefore creating anxiety. Malinowski uses an example from his study of the Trobriand Islands. Fishing in open seas requires many rituals as they fear storms and are uncertain about catches, however fishing in calm waters does not require any rituals as there is no danger. Malinowski argues that religion helps society by dealing with individuals’ situations of emotional stress that could threaten the stability of society. However Malinowski does exaggerate the importance of religious rituals in helping people cope with stress and he also only looks at a small society. Homans supports his theory though by suggesting that Malinowski was correct because often the rituals can be reassuring to people if they are carried out correctly.

This is a preview of the whole essay

The final person who sees the role of religion from a functionalist point of view is Talcott Parsons. Parsons developed Durkheim's analysis of religion as a force of social cohesion and agreed that religion embodied the values and morals of society. Parsons firstly sees the role of religion in society as providing guidelines for people to live by; religion legitimises the core values of society. For example, the Ten Commandments basically make up the laws of society, e.g. “Thou shalt not kill” or “Thou shalt not steal”. Therefore religion helps to keep society stable and in order by giving people values and norms. Parsons also sees religion as linked to stressful events, like Malinowski. In times of the unforeseen or uncertainty religion’s role in society to help people cope and adjust. For example after September 11 th church attendance rose dramatically, allowing people with something they feel is stable and secure. Therefore religion maintains social solidarity and prevents tension that may disrupt social order.

In comparison Marxists see the role of religion quite differently; they favour the idea that religion is a form of social control. The traditional Marxist view is that religion exploits and oppresses individuals and in the idea society there would be no religion. Marx argues religion is the “Opium of the people,” and is an illusion, which eases the pain of exploitation and oppression. The poor are placed in a state of false consciousness through a process of socialisation. Religion eases the pain of oppression of the working class by a number of ways. Firstly religion promises life after death and eternal bliss, this makes life on earth more bearable and people have something to look forward to.  Engel argues that this is the appeal of Christianity; there is a promise of “salvation from bondage and misery”. Religion also makes people believe the suffering endured by oppression is a virtue. People believe they are rewarded for their pain and those that are rich and live luxurious lives are less likely to get into heaven. Religion offers hope that supernatural powers will intervene to solve problems, the anticipation makes life more bearable. Finally the role of religion as easing the suffering endured by oppression takes place through justifying social order and the position a person has in it. For example the Monarch was considered “The Divine Right” and was placed on earth by God, Hindus also have a caste system where an individual is born into their caste and cannot move out of it. Marxists argue that all this supports the social structure of society. Also there are examples in the past of how religion has influenced the working class, for example the Chartist movement of the 19 th  century was a political reform movement hoping to change the position of the working class through a six point charter. Although there were other factors involved, one of the main reasons Chartism failed was because the Church did not support them. The church told the working class that they should accept their position in society and not try to change it. This supports the Marxist idea that religion can be used to maintain the class structure in society.

Of course both Functionalist and Marxists are criticised. Firstly, Functionalists often ignore the dysfunctional side of religion, which Marxists highlight. Functionalists have the consensus view of society, whereas Marxists favour the conflict, therefore Functionalists do not see the role of religion in society as to suppress or control individuals.  however, there is strong evidence of religion being divisive and disrupted like in Northern Ireland where religion has lead to years of serious conflict between Protestants and Catholics, there is also the Muslim and Hindu partition of India. As well as this Functionalists do not pick up on the point Marxists also high light, that religion can act as a comfort and allow them to accept injustice and inequality because they will be rewarded in the after life. However sociologists do support Functionalism. Robert Bellah developed the concept of civil religion by looking at the USA. In the USA there are a variety of faiths, but Americans are unified by a faith in Americanism. The USA have many symbols that could be considered sacred, like Durkheim’s sacred symbols in Totemism, these include statues, places, songs and sayings, e.g. “God Bless America” and American coins reading “In God We trust”, as well as oaths being said to the American flag. This supports Durkheim’s theory that people are actually worshiping their society in religion and also supports the idea that religion can unite people. Other support for Functionalism includes it offering an account of the personal attraction of religious belief with people seeking reassurance from religion when things go wrong. Finally, religious practice and ritual also offers people a sense of comfort and unity at times of social stress, like bereavement.

Marxism  is criticised through the fact that some religions are revolutionary like the Levellers and Puritans, they rebel against the system and are not passive and docile. Also there has been a tradition of radical theology, for example in Latin America with the “Liberation Theory”, this was the idea that the only way the poor will escape poverty will be through their own political action and the clergy must play a role by expressing the discontent of the poor from the pulpit. Another example is Nazi Germany where priests opposed Hitler and South Africa where many of the clergy spoke out against Apartheid, led by Archbishop Desmond Tutu. This shows that religion can help bring about change and does not necessarily keep society stable. The final criticism is that Marxism views religion as a form of social control to justify and maintain inequalities. This idea is weakened by the fact that many church leaders in Britain have campaigned against inequalities in capitalism. Some church leaders saw Thatcher’s Britain based on greed. The Church of England commissioned a report, “Faith in the City”, which claimed that Thatcher’s policies were making the plight of the poor in the inner cities worse. Also a survey in 1996 by the Daily Mail showed that the Church of England Synod felt the most important moral issues of the day were unemployment, the environments and the developing world. Therefore religion can highlight inequalities rather than maintain them. Support for Marxism comes from the idea of linking religion and the state, as in the concept of the “Devine Right of Kings”. Religion has been used to justify oppression. For example on the sugar plantations in the West Indies during the eighteenth century, slaves had to become Christians. Finally religious belief is often strongest among the poor and oppressed.

The Neo-Marxist idea of the role of religion in society varies somewhat from traditional Marxism. Neo-Marxists do not necessarily see the role of religion as reflecting the interests of the ruling class. Neither do they see religion as always a form of false consciousness for the oppressed. Instead Neo-Marxists see religion as an authentic expression and tool of resistance against class based oppression. Gramsci, an Italian Marxist, saw the Roman Catholic Church as a tool of the state and the ruling class, but he did not believe this was inevitable. He believed that the working class intellectuals could develop popular forms of religion to challenge the dominant ruling class ideology. Maduro said that religion can play a role in the political struggles of the oppressed classes in developing classes and he looked closely at the ideas of the Liberation Theology. Therefore, the Neo-Marxist approach would belief that religion could be used to create change and would support religious groups such as the Levellers and religious leaders like Archbishop Desmond Tutu. Brian Turner used a Marxist Approach in his book “Religion and Social Theory” (1983). He agreed with Marx that religion comes from the economic infrastructure, but not  that religion has a universal role in society today, nor that religion is always an important part of the ruling class ideological control. Turner believes that in the past religion was more important to the ruling class than peasants. This was because there was a need to pass on land to the eldest son (known as primogeniture), so the church defended marriage and the legitimacy of children and also religion provided a livelihood for younger sons. Turner sees the reason for religion being of less importance in today’s society because wealth lies in the hands of corporations not land and property, therefore religion is an optional extra for modern capitalist societies.

Functionalism and Marxism approaches to the role of religion are both that it is there as a form of social cement, to keep society stable. Max Weber argues against this idea by saying that religion can bring about social change. In his book “The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism” Weber studied the impact of Christianity on the development of modern western societies, his book remains highly influential because it offers an alternative view of the rise of Capitalism to the one suggested by Marx. Weber believed that religion could be a major source of social change through the intervention of significant ideas or people. In his book, Weber examined why capitalism has developed in some western countries,  but not in the east, which is the idea that religion can be a major source of change through the intervention of significant ideas. He suggested that other societies do not have the values necessary for the development of capitalism. He argued that Judaism and Christianity had the key teachings and values, which encouraged capitalism, especially Calvinists and Puritans, because many of the people in industrial areas of Europe in the seventeenth and eighteenth century were Calvinists. Calvinists believe in Predestination which is an idea that people are not free to make their own choices but are allocated places in heaven in advance, those who go to heaven are elect. Calvinists often look for reassuring “signs” which include working hard, material success gained through work and living a sober life. This gives rise to capitalism, Weber argues, by making it possible for people to accumulate wealth and reinvest it, property was seen as a sign of moral degradation so people were under no obligation to look after the poor, people did not enjoy their wealth by spending it, instead reinvesting it to make more money.

However, Weber also has the idea of “The Legitimisation Debate” where religion can be a source of change through the intervention of significant individuals. Weber argues that state religions can offer legitimacy and power to governments, which Marxists view. Weber argues there are three types of authority, Rational legal authority, where people rule because they see it makes sense to do so, Traditional authority where people obey because they always have done and there is no question of their leaders rule and Charismatic authority where people obey because they are hypnotised by the powerful personality of the leader. Weber believes social change occurs because charismatic leaders arise and people follow. Many religions have a single prophet and there are numbers of charismatic leaders who have influenced people’s religious belief in modern times. Weber offers a useful challenge to traditional Marxism, which is often too simplistic because only economic factors are considered. Weber also sees religion as a positive force of social change whereas Marxism and Functionalism do not. Finally, Weber offers us an understanding of the meaning of religion in people’s lives. However, Weber’s work has been criticised due to the fact he does not examine pre-Reformation Europe, where there were some very well developed capitalist structures, such as in Italy. Also, as Kautsky argues, some extreme Protestants were barred from a variety of professional occupations and so were forced into business. Finally, Sombart argues that Weber was mistaken about the beliefs held by Calvinists. He believes that Calvinists were against greed and the pursuit of money for their own sake.  

In conclusion, Marxism and Functionalism do disagree on the finer points of the role of religion in society. The Functionalist belief the role of religion is to provide social solidarity, value consensus and harmony, whereas from the Marxist perspective the role of religion is to maintain the social structure and ease the pain of oppression. Both views see religion’s role as keeping society stable and not bringing about any social change. Weber’s views provide a useful argument against this idea, viewing religion force of social change.  All three views on religion are applicable to today’s society, although it has changed somewhat from when many of the theories were written. The perspective give a deeper insight into the role of religion and allows religion to be seen not just as a practice that should be taken for granted, but as an having an influential role in the way society operates.

Document Details

• Word Count 2915
• Page Count 4
• Subject Sociology

Related Essays

Compare and contrast the Marxist and Functionalist explanations of the role...

Compare and contrast the Functionalist and Marxist views of society.

Compare and contrast Marxist and Functionalist accounts of religion.

Compare Marxist and Functionalist theories of the role of religion

What Is the Functionalist Perspective? Essay

Introduction, works cited.

The functionalist perspective is a theory that affirms that the world is a structure of interconnected parts in which every part is essential in ensuring that the structure works. The structure of the system contains establishments like family, religion, and education that make up a social system. The main aim of all the parts of the system is to ensure that order is maintained in society. The various structures in the society make sure that agreements, integration, stability, and balance are maintained in the society.

This means that everything in society, though extraordinary has a reason for being that way. It also brings out the point that social inequality is important in any social setting. It states that without inequality, division of work would not be possible since people have different talents, for instance not everyone can be a police officer. In other words, people should not be rewarded the same way so that they can work hard to achieve top positions.

In normal circumstances, society for example sees crime as a problem that should be eliminated. Functionalism, however, insists that crime has a number of benefits. In this way, the theory argues that crime generates the need to have opportunities for police officers, criminal investigators, lawyers, and other positions related to this line of work. In the case where crime is eliminated, it would mean that all these positions disappear and such people would be rendered unemployed. In this way, the theory argues that crime helps families and the society at large to be united in order to fight issues such as crime.

I prefer this theory because it also helps make the society unite in various activities. This can be illustrated in the case where crime or any other unacceptable behaviors in the society lead to a strong society that values customs such as unity.

These kinds of unacceptable behavior allow the society to remember the status quo thus reorganize formerly practiced customs. For instance, in the past years’ such behaviors led to the social development of rights movements such as women’s rights, and in countries like United States African American and homosexual rights have been created. In this way maltreatment of the disadvantaged in the society has led to the questioning and breaking of such cultural customs that were oppressive.

The functionalist perspective also helps create a very clear picture of how society is interdependent in many aspects leading to its stability. This for example can be illustrated in the case where the state helps offer to learn to children for the family, and the family pays taxes to the government that the state uses to keep itself going. The family looks upon the school to educate the children so that they can be able to find good jobs in the future and thus they will be able to provide and take care of their own families. With time, children grow up and develop into law-abiding individuals, and they help the state by paying their taxes.

In cases where things turn out well, the parts of the society are able to attain order, efficiency, and stability. If things do not turn out well, the parts of the society will have to develop a new order to achieve stability and efficiency. For instance, in case there is economic instability families will be required to use smaller budgets; schools create few courses, and so on. (Talcott)

The functionalist perspective believes in social agreements to create a stable society. The theory advocates for a society to be united in all its values, customs as well as beliefs. In this way, many societies are able to enjoy the continuous flow of normal activities in a normal society. This theory is very efficient especially in cases where things go the right way as they are planned. The functional perspective theory ensures that the society maintains order that will help them grow in all sectors. In this way, everyone works for the good of society at large.

Talcott, Parsons, “The Present Status of “Structural-Functional” Theory in Sociology.” In Talcott Parsons, Social Systems and The Evolution of Action Theory New York: The Free Press, 1975.

• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2023, October 31). What Is the Functionalist Perspective? https://ivypanda.com/essays/what-is-the-functionalist-perspective/

"What Is the Functionalist Perspective?" IvyPanda , 31 Oct. 2023, ivypanda.com/essays/what-is-the-functionalist-perspective/.

IvyPanda . (2023) 'What Is the Functionalist Perspective'. 31 October.

IvyPanda . 2023. "What Is the Functionalist Perspective?" October 31, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/what-is-the-functionalist-perspective/.

1. IvyPanda . "What Is the Functionalist Perspective?" October 31, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/what-is-the-functionalist-perspective/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "What Is the Functionalist Perspective?" October 31, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/what-is-the-functionalist-perspective/.

• The Functionalist Perspective and Functionalisms
• Functionalist and Conflictual Theories in Sociology
• Functionalist Approach to Deviance and Crime
• Functionalist, Conflict, and Interpretive Theories
• Functionalist Perspective in Everyday Life
• The Worth of a Girl Video Analysis Using Functionalist Theory
• Functionalist and Constructivist Approaches to Regionalism
• Functionalist Ideas in the Smoke Signals Movie
• Views on Graffiti From Sociological Perspectives
• Youth Crime in Functionalism and Conflict Theories
• Functionalism, Social Exchange and Rational Choice
• "Code of the Street: Decency, Violence, and the Moral Life of the Inner City" by E. Anderson
• Escape From the Narrow-Mindedness as the Way of Overcoming the Crisis
• Sociologists Recognize Norms in Formal and Informal
• Human Nature and Instincts: Theories and Principles

ReviseSociology

A level sociology revision – education, families, research methods, crime and deviance and more!

Evaluate the Functionalist View of the Role of Education in Society (30) #LONG VERSION

Essay practice for A-level sociology!

Table of Contents

Last Updated on September 17, 2021 by Karl Thompson

An A-level sociology essay written for the AQA’s 7192 (1) specification, exam paper 1. This is the long, ‘overkill’ version of the essay, written using the PEAC system (Point – Explain – Analyse – Criticise)

An obvious starting point before reading this essay would be to read my post on the Functionalist Perspective on Education .

NB – At time of posting, it’s half an essay, more to follow!

Introduction

Functionalism is a somewhat dated structural theory popular in 19 th century France (Durkheim) and mid-20 th century America (Parsons). Functionalist theorists adopted a ‘top-down’ approach to analysing the role which institutions, such as schools play in relation to other institutions, such as work, and generally believe that schools form an important part of a society’s structure. Functionalism is also a consensus theory: functionalists generally emphasise the positive functions which schools perform for individuals and society, arguing that schools tend to promote social harmony and social order, which they see as a good thing.

Below I will analyse and evaluate four specific ‘functions’ or roles which schools perform according to Functionalist theory, ultimately arguing that it obscures more than it enlightens our understanding of the role of education in society.

Education and Social Solidarity

POINT 1: According to Emile Durkheim (1890s), the founder of modern Functionalism, the first role of education was to create a sense of social solidarity which in turn promoted value consensus.

EXPLANATION : Social Solidarity is where the individual members of society feel themselves to be a part of a single ‘body’ or community and work together towards shared goals. According to Durkhiem schools achieved social solidarity through children learning subjects such as history and English which gave them a shared sense of national identity, which in turn promoted value consensus, or agreement on shared values at the societal level.

Analysis: Durkheim thought schools were one of the few institutions which could promote solidarity at a national level – he may have a point. It is difficult to imagine any other institution which governments could use to socialise individuals in to a sense of national identity.

Evaluation: To evaluate this point, there do seem to be examples of where schools attempt to promote a sense of social solidarity. Writing in the 1950s, Talcott Parsons pointed to how, in American schools, children pledge allegiance to the flag; while today British schools and colleges are obliged to promote ‘British Values’ (woohoo!)

However, it is debatable whether schools are successful in instilling a genuine sense of social solidarity into most, let alone all students. A minority of students are excluded from schools, and around 5% are persistent absentees – if students are not in mainstream education, then schools cannot promote a sense of belonging; while for those students who are at school, many are there ‘in body, but not necessarily in spirit. Finally there is the fact there is such a huge diversity of schools (faith schools, private schools, home education) that surely education is too fragmented and divided for it to promote true solidarity at the national level – to the extent that postmodernists suggested there is no such thing as a unified culture anymore.

Education teaches Skills for Work

POINT 2: A second function of education, again according to Durkhiem, is that schools teach individuals the specialist skills for work, which is crucial in a complex, modern industrial economy. (Schools thus have an important economic function).

Durkhiem argued that school was an efficient way of teaching individuals these diverse skills while at the same time teaching them to co-operate with each-other – schools thus instilled a sense of organic solidarity, or solidarity based on difference and interdependency, with school being one of the only institutions which could do both of these functions simultaneously within the context of a national economy.

The idea that schools have an economic function certainly seems to be true – basic literacy and numeracy are certainly important for any job today, and ever since the New Right, Vocational education has expanded, right up to the present day in the form of Modern Apprenticeships, and today. There is also a relationship between government expenditure on education and economic growth – more developed countries tend to have stronger economies.

However, it is debatable whether schools prepare children adequately for work – for example, there is a shortage of STEM graduates, and many doctors come to Britain from abroad, so maybe the education system today focuses on the wrong subjects, not the subjects the economy actually needs to grow effectively? There is also a Postmodern critique from Ken Robinson that suggests that ‘schools kill creativity’ – a system obsessed with standardised testing hardly prepares people to go into the creative industries or become entrepreneurs, both of which are growth areas in the current UK economy.

More to follow…!

Short version of this essay

• Point – Simply state something Functionalists say about education
• Explain – Explain what is meant by the ‘Function’ of education mentioned previously
• Expand – this could mean giving examples, evidence, or explaining in more depth
• Criticise – criticise with evidence against or limitations

(P1) Secondary Socialisation and Value consensus       

• The teaching of norms and values after the family – leading to agreement around these norms and values
• Formal Curriculum – Shared history/ Shared language/ Shared religion
• Team sports – working together shared aim
• Ethnocentric Curriculum
• Sub cultures
• More school types – more diversity, surely = less value consensus?

(P2) Teaching skills for work – economic function          

• Diverse subjects,
• Punctuality
• Vocationalism and apprenticeships have expanded
• Are apprenticeships useful?
• Tea servers

(P3) Bridge between home and school  

• School prepares us for the world outside the family – it acts like a society in miniature
• Particularistic/ Universalistic Standards
• Doesn’t apply to everyone – Home schooling

R(P4) Role Allocation  

• Different qualifications sift people into appropriate jobs
• Does this through exams – sifting and sorting
• Meritocracy (since 1944)
• Marxism – not meritocratic – myth of meritocracy,
• Private schools
• Feminism – gender stereotyping and subject choice

Evaluate using other perspectives –

• Marxism – Agrees with Functionalists that school socialises us into shared values, but these values are the values benefit the ruling class (we get taught that inequality is natural and inevitable, we believe in the myth of meritocracy and so end up passively accepting society as it is.
• Feminism – Functionalism ignores the gender divide in school
• Interactionism – Argues Functionalism is too deterministic – it sees individuals as passive, but there is a lot more evidence that pupils are active and aren’t just moulded by the school system

Conclusion – You must point out that this perspective is too optimistic and overgeneralises!

Signposting

This essay plan is based on these class notes on the Functionalist perspective on education .

For more essays, please see my main post on exam advice, short answer questions and essays .

Please click here to return to the homepage – ReviseSociology.com

Share this:

• Share on Tumblr

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed .

Discover more from ReviseSociology

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading