As any internal organ of the human body is important for its proper functioning, in the same manner, the different units that exist within the society also work together to maintain internal consistency. Herbert Spencer does quite a fair job in pitting one against the other- although one cannot ignore the similarities between the two. But the question is not about whether the theory is entirely correct or not- those are semantics and are highly subjective- but its relevance in today’s contemporary times.
The various organizations within the society indeed have certain roles assigned to them for the smooth and proper operation of the society as a whole- be it the legislature or the health industry. The problem emerges when we delve deeper within the society and narrow down our search- which brings us to our target audience- individuals and small social groups. Let us take a look at a few of these negative ramifications of social order that continue to persist owing to the existence of such schools of thought.
- Cultivates hegemony – In the sage words of the entire High School Musical cast, we must “stick to the status quo.” Functionalists ask us to do the same. The social structure exists in time and space, is objective, concrete, and to some degree, static. Members of society consider social structures legitimate and strive to maintain them. The legitimacy of norms maintains a social equilibrium or balance that maintains the status quo. What they are not able to explain are the inequalities that continue to persist. Socially privileged sections of society are acquiring power at a rapid rate and are more dominant over the lives of minorities and ordinary citizens. Any retaliation or dissent expressed against such groups calls for negative reinforcement (that usually exists in the form of violence).
- Romanticizes the negative – Now, according to the functionalists, everything that exists within the large chasm that is our society, has some purpose or the other for its ‘greater good’. Guess what? It includes poverty! Shocking, I know. Followers of this notion believe that the existence of poverty is not something that needs correction. There are grounds for its existence. Said grounds being ‘a motivating factor for the youth’. I believe that the functionalist perspective is highly benign to a fault. It fails to address the major issues at their very roots. Time for another unsolicited pop culture reference. Captain Kirk in one of the episodes of Star Wars criticizes war culminating between two planets and points out how convenient the idea of war is- a much more diplomatic and ‘clean’ method of dealing with issues, thus destroying the incentive to actually solve the problem itself. If we continue to accept things the way they are, doesn’t the society lose the prospect to overthrow unhealthy and warped paradigms?
- Restrictive nature – Studying the needs of a society calls for a microscopic vision and view, whereas the functionalists tend to use a macroscopic approach. Social solidarity and collective consciousness are kept above individual want. It leaves little room for one to have their own identity, since their roles are already instilleded in them since birth. People are often restricted from taking certain operational decisions, solely because they are deviating from the societal norms. This often makes them undesirable aliens within their coterie. Take the case of members of the LGBTQ community-marginalization of the members of this group is not at all uncommon. Functionalists consider the family unit as the primary and most integral unit within the society and stresses on its preservation. Therefore, homosexuality and the like are highly discouraged as they threaten to undermine the value of marital cohesiveness (which is fundamental). The looser the bonds that we have with society, the more likely we are to break the rules and deviate from the said norms. For instance, it was quite a shock to a few people when they found out I had opted for humanities instead of mainstream subjects, just because I scored well in school.
- Gender-based norms – Gender stratification is somewhat considered a contributing factor to the stability of the economic and social aspects of society. Even as children, boys and girls are often imparted different approaches to life. Consider them certain cues and innuendos that direct one to act in a way that is often predetermined and ‘expected of them’. According to the functionalist perspective, the division of labor should be such wherein the females take on the role of the more expressive and emotionally supportive individual, whereas the men are assigned a far more practical and instrumental role in this equation. Assigning roles early on in life can be highly detrimental to the originality of a person, as they have already been instructed about their roles and contributions to society.
Opposing such a well-entrenched power structure is definitely a task, owing to the bandwagon effect created within the society. Think of it as you getting validation for your views on a certain topic, only for it to get stronger every time someone agrees with you. Having such a rose-tinted view of the society blinds one to the possibility of negative outcomes that emerge from the functioning of the societal institutions. Failing to follow the status quo does not call for ostracization. What does that make us? Human behavior that is determined by societal forces reduces our being to something resembling puppets, programmed by societal phenomenons. It is okay for a structure to exist, for stability to prevail- just not at the cost of losing the egalitarian and ingeniousness that makes one social order (or individual) unique.