Karl Marx and Max Weber were the first struggle theoreticians in the 19th and early twentieth centuries. Following Marx and Weber were three mid-20th century struggle theoreticians: Lewis Coser. Ralf Dahrendorf. and Randall Collins. Coser draws his theoretical thoughts from Simmel. Like Simmel. Coser maintains that struggle is healthy for society. In contrast. Dahrendorf combines theoretical thoughts from Marx and Weber. Dahrendorf sees power as the chief characteristic in all societal relationships. However. Collins incorporates Weber. Durkheim. and Goffman’s theories to supply a micro-level orientation to conflict theory. Collins besides used geopolitics at a planetary degree to analyze political struggles historically and geographically.

Harmonizing to Marx and Weber. the root of most societal struggle comes from an unequal distribution of category. position. and power. every bit good as a group’s sense of want caused by category ( Allan. 2007 ) . Coser. Dahrendorf. and Collins added to Marx and Weber’s theories. These struggle theoreticians assert that the grade of want is indispensable in making category consciousness and critical consciousness. In peculiar. Coser discusses the effects of inter and intra group struggle. Internal struggle can construct up over clip between groups and go explosive. Internal groups have a psychological demand to be in struggle with each other.

Manners of let go ofing ill will and developing authorization with a corresponding justness system are necessary for healthy internal struggle. Further. external struggles between groups create good defined and guarded boundaries to separate rank. Group rank becomes sole. which is necessary for group endurance. “Conflict sets boundaries between groups within a societal system by beef uping group consciousness and consciousness of discreteness. therefore set uping the individuality of groups within the system” ( Coser. as quoted in Allan. p. 219. 2007 ) . Coser maintains that struggle can hold functional effects. Some functional effects of struggle are: societal alteration. invention. and increased centralised power.

Structural Functionalism was the dominant theoretical attack in the United States from the 1930s through the seventiess. Structural Functionalism asserts that the assorted parts of society are interrelated and organize a complete system. “Just as the organic structure is a system with specific parts ( e. g. . weaponries. legs. liver ) that guarantee its overall operation. so. excessively. society is a system with specific parts ( household. authorities. economic system. faith. etc. ) necessary for its really survival” ( Appelrouth and Edles. 2008. p. 349 ) . Two cardinal structural functionalism theoreticians are Talcott Parsons and Robert Merton. Parsons theories were extremely abstract. Parsons developed a societal action theory to explicate why people behave the manner they do. He explained human actions as a consequence of three systems: societal systems. personality systems. and cultural. and behavioural systems ( Appelrouth and Edles. 2008 ) .

These systems are non separate entities ; instead together they form a simplified theoretical account of society. “Social systems. personality systems. and cultural systems undergird all action and all societal life” ( Appelrouth and Edles. 2008. p. 352 ) . Parsons applied his theory to the American household in Sexual activity Functions in the American Kinship System ( 1943 ) . Parsons proclaimed that “many adult females succumb to their dependence cravings through such channels as neurotic unwellness or compulsive domesticity and thereby abdicate both their duties and their chances for echt independence” ( Parsons. 1943 as quoted by Appelrouth and Edles. 2008. p. 382 ) . Sexual activity Roles in the American Kinship System ( 1943 ) incited unfavorable judgments as Parson endorsed traditional gender functions. and asserted that dire effects would happen if these functions were breached.

Robert Merton’s theoretical influences were wide. He read extensively. and there are elements of Durkheim. Weber. Simmel. and Marx in his theories. In contrast to Parson’s abstract theories. Merton was a middle-range theoretician. Middle scope theories “lie between the minor but necessary working hypotheses that evolve in copiousness during daily research and the across-the-board systematic attempts to develop a incorporate theory that will explicate all the ascertained uniformities of societal behaviour. societal organisation. and societal change” ( Merton. as quoted by Appelrouth and Edles. p. 383 ) . Merton was best known for his differentiation between manifest and latent maps.

Whereas manifest maps are the witting purposes of the histrion. latent maps are the unintended effects of the action. Merton used the illustration of the Hopi rain dance to exemplify manifest and latent maps. The manifest map of the rain dance frequently does non bring forth rain. and is called superstitious by some. However. the rain dance continues to be performed for a map that the histrion is incognizant of. which is the latent map ( Appelrouth and Edles. 2008 ) . “…This behaviour may execute a map for the group. although this map may be rather distant from the avowed intent of the behavior” ( Merton. 1949 as quoted by Appelrouth and Edles. 2008. p. 391 ) . Even though the Hopi rain ceremonial does non bring forth the manifest map of bring forthing rain. the ceremonial does bear latent maps that sociologists and anthropologists can analyze.

Parsons Sex Roles in the American Kinship System ( 1943 ) received a batch of unfavorable judgment in the twentieth century. This twentieth century unfavorable judgment stems from Parsons indorsement of traditional gender functions. and the dire effects that would happen should these functions be breached. Interestingly. the twenty-first century critiqued the twentieth century reviews. The twenty-first century does non claim that Parsons averments were non sexist. instead that the twentieth century reviews were sexist ( Appelrouth and Edles. 2008 ) . As Appelrouth and Edles ( 2008 ) note. Parson’s polar premiss was non sexist at all. Parsons believed that alterations that are functional for one portion of the system will bring forth alterations that are non needfully functional for other parts of the system. Appelrouth and Edles ( 2008 ) further noted the sexism in the twentieth century in the premiss that adult females could come in the work force without important alterations being made to other societal constructions and systems. and without a major addition in quality day care and child care installations.

How would Parsons position twenty-first century households? I maintain that Parsons might happen twenty-first century households dysfunctional. Twenty-first century households do non hold the stiff construction that Parsons describes. Parsons wrote from a 1940s. 1950s white male in-between category position. and could non visualize the position of other societal categories. However. households today are socially and racially diverse. particularly in the US. and even the white in-between category household does non suit Parsons forbidden function definitions. In the twenty-first century. there is significant function confusion in households. Gay and sapphic twosomes follow kids and raise them with same sex parents.

More male parents stay at place to take attention of their kids while the female parent is the primary breadwinner. Increased educational chances for adult females have produced a professional category of adult females who sometimes earn well more than their hubbies. Families in the twenty-first century are besides make up one’s minding to hold fewer kids. and are get marrieding at a ulterior age ( and sometimes non at all ) . In short. the twenty-first century has produced more: adult females in the work force. individual parent families. stay-at-home pas. same sex parents. and racially blended households. It is arguable whether households in the twenty-first century are dysfunctional. Surely there are dysfunctional households ; yet. many households perform good in the new societal order.

Would Parsons see the twenty-first century alteration in sex functions as negatively impacting the household? Indeed. some would reason that changed sex function definitions create confusion. and impact the household and the socialisation of kids negatively. However. sex function alterations in the twenty-first century are logical when one looks at the state of affairs utilizing Parson’s AGIL strategy. The twenty-first century has produced rapid alterations. and as a consequence. household functions have had to alter in order to accommodate to the new environment.

Social alterations and alterations in the occupation market have forced people to conform. Therefore. households have had to accommodate to the new economic system ( A ) . and hence have new ends ( G ) . which create alterations in the societal system with norms and interactions ( I ) . and therefore cultural systemic alteration occurs to accommodate to the new order ( L ) ( Appelrouth and Edles. 2008 ) . Hence. the new societal order is more functional for the twenty-first century. Therefore. it can be concluded that Parsons fixed and inflexible function construction is merely one word picture of a functional household. as portrayed by twenty-first century households.

Merton’s manifest and latent maps are applicable as a functional analysis tool for societal organisations. In measuring societal plans. assessors may be given to merely look into manifest maps. When questioning a societal organisation as to whether they achieved their plan ends or intended intent. the reply received in the manifest map gives small deepness of information. Granted. this type of manifest enquiry is of import. as it reveals whether plans have achieved their declared ends.

However. this manifest enquiry can be achieved merely by oppugning bureau forces. On the other manus. utilizing latent enquiry. the assessor can detect deeper theoretical jobs. By merely analyzing manifest maps. the judge becomes simply a recording equipment and translator of behaviour and actions. In contrast. latent enquiry provides more deepness to an appraisal. Latent enquiry discovers unrecognised information that can non be obtained by a manifest enquiry. Latent enquiry discovers effects. motives. and paradoxes. which provide utile assessment information. Therefore. when used together. both manifest and latent maps are a valuable functional analysis tool for sociological enquiry.

Resources
Allan. K. ( 2007 ) . The Social Lens: An Invitation to Social and Sociological Theory. California: Pine Forge Press.

Appelrouth. S. . and Edles. L. ( 2008 ) . Classical and Contemporary Sociological Theory. California: Pine Forge Press.