FUNCTIONALIST THEORY OF
SOCIAL CHANGE
Dr Jubril Jawando
Soc 205 C19-1
Social Change
OUTLINE
Functionalism and social change
Economic theory of change
Basic postulates
Critiques
Some practice questions
FUNCTIONALISM AND SOCIAL
CHANGE
Functionalism developed mainly as a reaction to
evolutionism, in the early years of twentieth
century.
Critics of evolutionism advocated that there was
no use to know the first appearance of any item of
culture and social behaviour.
They called it the “fruitless quest for origin”.
One of the most significant assumptions of
functionalists is that society (or culture) is
comprised of functionally interdependent parts or
the system as a whole.
• These theorists believed that the society, like
human body, is a balanced system of institutions,
each of which serving a function in maintaining
society.
• When events outside or inside the society’
disrupts the equilibrium, social institution makes
adjustments to restore stability.
• This fundamental assumption became the main
basis of the critics of functionalism to charge
that if the system is in equilibrium with its
various parts contributing towards order and
stability, it is difficult to see how it changes.
• Critics (mostly conflict theorists) argued that
functionists have no adequate explanation of
change.
• They cannot account for change, in that there
appears to be no mechanism which will
disturb existing functional relationships.
• Thus, functionalists have nothing or very little
to offer to the study of social change as this
approach is concerned only about the
maintenance of the system, i.e., how social
order is maintained in the society
• Society may change, but it remains stable through new forms of
integration.
• The functionalists responded to this charge by employing concepts such as
equilibrium and differentiation.
• For instance, a leading proponent of functionalist approach, Talcott
Parsons approaches this problem in the following way:
•
• He maintained that no system is in a perfect state of equilibrium although
a certain degree of equilibrium is essential for the survival of societies.
• When changes occur in one part of society, there must be adjustments in
other parts.
• If this does not occur, the society’s equilibrium will be disturbed and strain
will occur.
• The process of social change can therefore be thought of as a ‘moving
equilibrium’.
• Parsons views social change as a process of ‘social
evolution’ from simple to more complex form of
society.
• Social evolution involves a process of social
differentiation.
•
• The institutions arid roles which form the social
system become increasingly differentiated and
specialized in terms of their function.
• As the parts of society become more and more
specialized and distinct, it increases the problem of
integration of parts which in turn set forth the
process of social change and social equilibrium.
• Some followers of functionalism argued that if it
is a theory of social persistence (stability), then
it must be also a theory of change.
• In the process of adaptation of social institutions
in a society, change is a necessary condition or
rather it is imminent in it.
• Thus, one can explain changes in the economy as
adaptations to other economics or to the polity,
or changes in the family structure in terms of
adaptation to other institutions, and so on.
According to functional theory change may
come from three main sources:
Adjustment to external disturbances such as a
recession in world trade.
Structural differentiation in response to
problems within the system, e.g., electoral
reforms in response to political unrest.
Creative innovations within the system, e.g.,
scientific discoveries or technological advances.
ECONOMIC (MANDAN) THEORY OF
CHANGE
• Owing largely to the influence of Marx and
Marxism, the economic theory of change is
also known as the Marxian theory of change.
• Economic interpretations of social change
need not be always Marxist, but none of the
other versions (such as Veblen who also
stressed on material and economic factor) of
the doctrine are quite as important as
Marxism.
• The Marxian theory rests on this funda
mental assumption that changes in the
economic ‘infra-structure’ of society are the
prime movers of social change.
• For Marx, society consists of two structures
—’infra-structure’ and ‘super-structure’.
• The ‘infra-structure’ consists of the ‘forces
of production’ and ‘relations of production’.
The ‘super-structure’ consists of those features of
the social system, such as legal, ideological,
political and religious institutions, which serve to
maintain the ‘infra-structure’, and which are
moulded by it.
To be clearer, according to Marx, productive forces
constitute ‘means of production’ (natural resources,
land, labour, raw material, machines, tools and
other instruments of production) and ‘mode of
production’ (techniques of production, mental and
moral habits of human beings) both and their level
of development determines the social relation of
production, i.e., production relations.
These production relations (class relations)
constitute the economic structure of society
—the totality of production relations.
Thus, the socio-economic structure of
society is basically determined by the state
of productive forces.
For Marx, the contradiction between the
constantly changing and developing
‘productive forces’ and the stable
‘production relations’ is the demurrage of all
social development or social change.
BASIC POSTULATES
• Change is the order of nature and society. It is
inherent in the matter through the contradiction of
forces.
• Marx wrote: “Matter is objective reality, existing
outside and independent of the mind.
• The activity of the mind does not arise independent
of the material.
• Everything mental or spiritual is the product of the
material process.”
• The world, by its very nature is material
• Everything which exists comes into being on the basis
of material course, arises and develops in accordance
with the laws of motion of matter.
• Things come into being, exist and cease to exist, not
each independent of all other things but each in its
relationship with others.
• Things cannot be understood each separately and by
itself but only in their relation and interconnections.
• The world does not consist of permanent stable things
with definite properties but of unending processes of
nature in which things go through a change of coming
into being and passing away
• For Marx, production system is the lever of all
social changes, and this system is dynamic.
• Need system determines production and the
technological order, i.e., mode of production.
• It is man’s material necessities that are at the
root of his productive effort, which in its turn are
the basics of all other forms of his life.
• Marx believed that change occurs through
contradiction of forces and this is present
throughout the history in some or the other form.
• Marx viewed the course of history (social change)
in terms of the philosophy of ‘dialectics’.
• (An idea borrowed from Hegel but Marx called it
materialistic.
• According to Hegel, evolution proceeds according
to a system of three stages—thesis, antithesis and
synthesis).
• Accordingly, the change, development, and
progress take place by way of contradiction and
conflict and that the resulting change leads to a
higher unity.
In particular, Marx viewed the class struggle
and the transition from one social system to
another as a dialectical process in which the
ruling class viewed as ‘thesis’ evoked its
‘negation’ (‘antithesis’) in the challenger
class and thus to a ‘synthesis’ through
revolutionary transformation resulting in a
higher organisation of elements from the old
order.
In the dialectical point of view of change, sharp
stages and forces are abstracted out of the continuity
and gradations in the social process and then
explanations are made of the process on the basis of
these stages and forces in dialectical conflict.
Marx believed that the class struggle was the driving
force of social change.
For him it was the ‘motor of history’.
He states that “the history of all hitherto existing
society is the history of class struggles” (Communist
Manifesto, 1848).
• Society evolves from one stage to another by
means of struggle between two classes—one
representing the obsolescent system of
production and the other nascent (new) order.
• The emerging class is ultimately victorious in
this struggle and establishes a new order of
production; within this order, in turn, are
contained the seeds of its own destruction—the
dialectical process once more.
• Change will only occur as a victory of the
exploited class.
• Marx believed that the basic contradictions
contained in a capitalist economic system
would lead to class consciousness.
• Class consciousness involves a full
awareness by members of the working class
of the reality of exploitation, a recognition of
common interests, the common identification
of an opposing group with whom their
interests are in conflict.
• This realisation will unite them for prole
tarian revolution.
The proletariat would overthrow the bourgeoisie
and seize the forces of production—the source of
power.
Property would be communally owned.
Now, all members of society would share the
same relationship to the forces of production.
A classless society would result.
Since the history is the history of the class
struggle, history would now end.
CRITIQUES
• Marx is often charged for his deterministic attitude
toward society and its change.
• There is some controversy as to whether Marx really
meant to assert that social and cultural phenomena are
wholly or only determined by economic or ‘material’
conditions.
• His various statements are not fully reconciled and are
susceptible of either interpretation.
• In his later writings he has objected to the interpretation
of his ideas that makes other than economic factors
purely derivative and non-causal (Selected
correspondence).
•
• But he holds to the position that the economic
situation is the foundation of the social order and
this is the gist of Marxian theory.
• Few deny that economic factor influences social
conditions of life.
• Its influence is certainly powerful and penetrating.
• But, it cannot be regarded as a sole factor
affecting social change. There are other causes
also which are as important as the economic factor
• To say that the super-structure of society is
determined by its infrastructure, i.e.,
production system (economic system) of a
society is going too far.
• The link between the social change and the
economic process is far less direct and
simple and sufficient than the Marxian
psychology admits.
• Moreover, Marx oversimplified the class
structure of society and its dynamics of
social change in the form of class struggle.
• Dorthy S. Thomas (1925) commented that:
• “it is not difficult to establish correlation
between social changes and economic
changes, though it is harder to interpret
them”.
• Thus, economic determinism does not solve
the major problem of social causation.
SOME PRACTICE QUESTIONS
Describe the assumption of Talcott Parsons’
theory of change
With vivid examples, explain the underlining
assumption of the marxist’s theory of change
Clearly enumerate the functionalists
postulations of social change
Attempt a vivid criticism of the economic
theory of change
