Comparing and contrasting functionalist and conflict theorists

While each of the theorists had their own interpretation of the different phenomenon, these different explanations have been grouped into three main theories namely the conflict, functionalist and the symbolic interactionist perspective. With that in mind, this paper will focus on two of the theories, the conflict and functionalist perspective, specifically on how the respective theorists deal with consensus and social cohesion in the society. Functionalists The fundamental argument of functionalists is that the society is a collection of parts that work together for a common purpose. This then means that the theorists believed that the society ideally worked like the human body whose parts need to be in harmony for it to operate at its best. Thus, when part of the society is dysfunctional, the theorists argue that it will have a direct negative impact on some other parts as well (Stolley 23).

As aforementioned, there are key individuals behind these interpretations and in this context, the functionalists. They include Emile Durkheim and Robert Merton who was mentioned earlier in this text. In the context of social cohesion and consensus, the functionalists mentioned above agreed to a larger extent whereby each appears to expound the interpretation of the other functionalist further. For instance, both Durkheim and Merton believe that the individual is a product of the society and that cohesion is derived from the individual seeing himself as an important player for the proper functioning of the society. Individually, Durkheim argues that cohesion is derived from the individual specializing in a given area and that this makes people dependent on each other. For instance, when countries go into war such as the previous two World Wars, the antagonists had to create alliances with other countries in order to win against their enemies.

A good example is the friendship that formed between Japan and America despite after World War 2 despite the two countries conflicting earlier (Ritzer 266). Similar to functionalists, the theorists in this perspective did not entirely agree but each aimed to provide further elaboration to a previous argument. However, they all agreed on the existence of conflict within the society and that the common problems brought about cohesion. One notable explanation of social cohesion in this theory was made by Dahrendorf. This is indeed true given that the modern human being requires assistance from different individuals in order to accomplish a goal. Therefore, since people know they need each other, they will constantly work to foster good relationships with the aim of getting the maximum benefit.