Functionalism: Functionalism is a theory of mind in contemporary philosophy, developed largely as an alternative to both the identity theory of mind and behaviourism. Its core idea is that mental states (beliefs, desires, being in pain, etc.) are constituted solely by their functional role – that is, there are causal relations to other mental states, sensory inputs, and behavioural outputs. Since mental states are identified by a functional role, they are said to be realized on multiple levels; in other words, they are able to be manifested in various systems, even perhaps computers, so long as the system performs the appropriate functions. While functionalism has its advantages, there have been several arguments against it, claiming that it is an insufficient account of the mind.
Functionalism formed as a reaction to Titchener theory of structuralism. Titchener argue that such a functionalist analysis is incomplete without a thorough investigation of the mental structure and functions, Titchener arguments formulate a coherent goal and helped functionalist due to which psychologist became interested in the function of mind.
Titchener was against functionalism, but during describing his theory of structuralism, he explains in detail functionalism too. Before him functionalism was loosely formulated between empiricism and the commonsense mentalist of the layman.
Functionalism is a social paradigm that views society as a system of interdependent parts, or subsystems. For society to work, all parts of the whole must have a general consensus. For example–they must have shared values to provide societal expectations of individuals. Another aspect of a functional society is the existence of common symbols.
Structural functionalists believe that society leans towards equilibrium and social order. They see society like a human body, in which institutions such as education are like important organs that keep the society/body healthy and well. Social health means the same as social order, and is guaranteed when nearly everyone accepts the general moral values of their society. Hence, structural functionalists believe the aim of key institutions, such as education, is to socialize children and teenagers. Socialization is the process by which the new generation learns the knowledge, attitudes and values that they will need as productive citizens. Although this aim is stated in the formal curriculum, it is mainly achieved through “the hidden curriculum”, a subtler, but nonetheless powerful, indoctrination of the norms and values of the wider society. Students learn these values because their behaviour at school is regulated until they gradually internalize and accept them. Education must, however perform another function. As various jobs become vacant, they must be filled with the appropriate one. Therefore, the other purpose of education is to sort and rank individuals for placement in the labour market [Munro, 1997].
According to Sennet and Cobb however, “to believe that ability alone decides who is rewarded is to be deceived”. Meighan agrees, stating that large number of capable students from working class backgrounds fail to achieve satisfactory standards in school and therefore fail to obtain the status they deserve. Jacob believes this is because the middle class cultural experiences that are provided at school may be contrary to the experiences working class children receive at home. In other words, working class children are not adequately prepared to cope at school. They are therefore “cooled out” from school with the least qualifications, hence they get the least desirable jobs, and so remain working class. Sargent confirms this cycle, arguing that schooling supports continuity, which in turn supports social order. Talcott Parsons believed that this process, whereby some students were identified and labelled educational failures, “was a necessary activity which one part of the social system, education, performed for the whole”. Yet the structural functionalist perspective maintains that this social order, this continuity, is what most people desire. The weakness of this perspective thus becomes evident. Why would the working class wish to stay working class? Such an inconsistency demonstrates that another perspective may be useful.
Conflict Theory
Like functionalism, conflict theory also views society as a system of social structures. However, conflict theorists have a different opinion on the purpose of those structures. While functionalism views the sub-systems within the system of a society as entities that work together for the benefit of all, conflict theory holds that the subsystems are in place and perpetuated in order to benefit only those that hold power. The people that hold power are the one’s that have control of what are perceived as scarce resources, like money, land, and political influence.
Conflict theory emerged in the 1950s and 1960s in response the social turmoil in the United States and Europe. However, the concept behind conflict theory dates back to the 19th century writings of Karl Marx.
The perspective of conflict theory, contrary to the structural functionalist perspective, believes that society is full of social groups with different aspirations, different access to life chances and gain different social rewards. Relations in society, in this view, are mainly based on exploitation, oppression, domination and subordination.
Many teachers assume that students will have particular middle class experiences at home, and for some children this assumption isn’t necessarily true. Some children are expected to help their parents after school and carry considerable domestic responsibilities in their often single-parent home. The demands of this domestic labour often make it difficult for them to find time to do all their homework and thus affects their academic performance.
Where teachers have softened the formality of regular study and integrated student’s preferred working methods into the curriculum, they noted that particular students displayed strengths they had not been aware of before. However few teachers deviate from the traditional curriculum, and the curriculum conveys what constitutes knowledge as determined by the state – and those in power. This knowledge isn’t very meaningful to many of the students, who see it as pointless. Wilson and Wyn state that the students realise there is little or no direct link between the subjects they are doing and their perceived future in the labour market. Anti-school values displayed by these children are often derived from their consciousness of their real interests. Sargent believes that for working class students, striving to succeed and absorbing the school’s middle class values, is accepting their inferior social position as much as if they were determined to fail. Fitzgerald states that “irrespective of their academic ability or desire to learn, students from poor families have relatively little chance of securing success”. On the other hand, for middle and especially upper class children, maintaining their superior position in society requires little effort. The federal government subsidises ‘independent’ private schools enabling the rich to obtain ‘good education’ by paying for it. With this ‘good education’, rich children perform better, achieve higher and obtain greater rewards. In this way, the continuation of privilege and wealth for the elite is made possible.
Conflict theorists believe this social reproduction continues to occur because the whole education system is filled with ideology provided by the dominant group. In effect, they perpetuate the myth that education is available to all to provide a means of achieving wealth and status. Anyone who fails to achieve this goal, according to the myth, has only themself to blame. Wright agrees, stating that “the effect of the myth is to…stop them from seeing that their personal troubles are part of major social issues”. The duplicity is so successful that many parents endure appalling jobs for many years, believing that this sacrifice will enable their children to have opportunities in life that they did not have themselves. Those people who are poor and disadvantaged are victims of a societal confidence trick. They have been encouraged to believe that a major goal of schooling is to strengthen equality while, in reality, schools reflect society’s intention to maintain the previous unequal distribution of status and power.
This perspective has been criticized as deterministic, pessimistic and allowing no room for the agency of individuals to improve their situation. It should be recognized however that it is a model, an aspect of reality which is an important part of the picture. SECTION-II Answer at least two questions in about 500 words each from this section.
Subcribe on Youtube - IGNOU SERVICE
For PDF copy of Solved Assignment
WhatsApp Us - 9113311883(Paid)
0 Comments
Please do not enter any Spam link in the comment box