Parsons & Dahrendorf - Social Order & Social Change

   Compare and contrast Parsons’s structural         functionalism and Dahrendorf’s conflict theory on social order and social change.

          Today, I will explain Parsons’s structural functionalism theory & Dahrendorf’s conflict theory on social order and social change. We will compare and contrast their ideas. They have a lot of common ideas. At the same time, they have a lot of opposite ideas. In these difference and similarities, the Word of social is key point for them.

         First of all, we can look directly to the Talcott Parson. He is contemporary and classical theorist. Also, called structural functionalist and has a positivist view. He creates a consensus in his idea. How it happened. He is influenced by Weber, also his idea integrates the Durkheim’s key points. Parsons’ functionalism takes the form of a schema or descriptive framework of society, its component parts, and the interactions between them. He focuses on structure of social system and subsystems.

              In this part, we will look to the social system and four primary subsystems. Parson thought that every social actors such as institutions, parties, societies and so on. Each one has to examine their own characters, rights. However, it is a requirement for the continue and protect to society, equilibrium of the system. Moreover, society is an action system and it’s can examine on four subsystems and these are main ingredient of modern societies. Which they are;

            1)     Adaptation to the environment. Organizations oriented to economic production. For example, Companies.

            2)     Goal attainment. Organizations oriented to political goals such as government agencies, banks.

            3)     İntegration in to the societal community by articulating and enforcing society's collective norms. Integrative organizations which are courts, political parties.

            4)     Latency or pattern maintenance which are cultural organizations such as museums, education and religious organizations.

          Another part of his idea is social action theory. It based on unit act. He says that every scientific analysis begins with unit. Namely, start with the smallest, minimum facts such as molecule. For this idea, we need four requirements. We can look with list;

1)    An actor who has a mind and body and individual. The actor able to exercise a kind of action.

2)    The purpose or end. Every act has to have aim and need these. Every actor does their behaviors with conscious. Parsons pay attention to conscious. For example, studying sociology, aim is being a sociologist.

3)    Situation. We can say that the act is started by the actor. There is a two aspect for this;

-        The actor has no or pretty small control on actions. It can be natural or refers to the social structures in which the action takes place. Also, economy and rational choice can be effective.

-        The actor has some control and change power.

4)    The last one is normative orientation. Means can not choose randomly or there is no true reaching the aims. The actor has an understanding of what these norms and they guide the actor. For example, the relationship between children and family, it can change culture to culture and society to society. There is no one way for his.

       Parsons argue that consensus is a requirement. Society must have a common social values because when people different expectations, the wheel does not spin. Plurality cause that people can not whole degree. There must a little convention of the symbolic system. It limit the people desires so one of the basic degree can be reach conformity. Also social system can provide with consensus value. Moreover, culture control the system. For example religion is a value system that brings people together. Also there are three patterns. The abstract patterns of behavior in special situations. The patter of maintenance behaviour be interested in how they do. Characteristic pattern of behavior is reaction of others. Parsons structural functionalism theory support these arguments.

       On the other hand, we will speak about the conflict theory of Dahrendorf. It argues that there is no consensus, the conflict hold the society together. Dahrendorf is opposite of the Parsons and he support the conflict theory which totally opposite of the structural functionalism. Dahrendorf ideas coming from Karl Marx and Max Weber. Two of them is influenced by Max Weber so they have common ideas about the society.

       However, Dahrendorf try to synthesize concept of class and class conflict idea which belongs to Karl Marx, the methodology and the concepts of modern theory and social conflict and change. He creates a mix idea but it is better than Parsons because Dahrendorf is argue that society can not hold in one way, it must be change again and again. People can have different ideas but it not cause the chaos. The changing can control by the democracy. Class differences of workers and owners in the past. There is huge unsafe, unequal points and it create a huge conflict. However, in modern time there are lots of organization for his so the conflict is not same as past. Now, it can controllable. He focuses on the some titles on his idea such as groups, class etc. So, we can say that changing is better than the Parsons idea. Social conflict exist in natural life but we can regulate or control with democratization or institutionalization.

       In conclusion, we focus on the similarities and differences of two ideas. They have common and opposite ideas. I thing Dahrendorf idea better than Parsons because Dahrendorf’s idea pretty similar real life.