Social Evolutionism and Functionalism: Functions Importance (Essay Sample)

Social Evolutionism and Functionalism
Name
Institution
Social Evolutionism and Functionalism
Introduction
Functionalism is an anthropological theory which utilizes the organic analogy to describe the various parts of a society and how they relate to each other. The biological analogy is an approach that compares the parts of society to the different organs of an organism. According to this theory, a body requires an optimal functioning of all its organs to function well. Similarly, the society works well only if all the parts which make it interact healthily. These societal elements include various institutions such as religious institutions, the economy, and kinship. Biological organs are made up of cells whose health determine that of the part they create. The functionalism theory likewise asserts that societal institutions, just like the organs of a biological organism, are composed of cells which are the people who reside in them. The work of a functionalist according to this perspective is to analyze the social importance of the functions played by different phenomena in maintaining the unity of the society (Murphy 2009; Goldschmidt 1966).
The social evolutionism theory is an anthropological approach which views the progress of civilization as a single direction street which every member of the society must follow. The researchers behind this theory precisely tracked the modes of operation of different cultures starting with the hunter-gatherer group to the civilization that characterized England in the mid-nineteenth century. To understand the manner in which culture has evolved, archeologists and anthropologists carried out a cross-cultural investigation in which they compared different cultures spread across time and space (Murphy 2009; Bourke 2011). This paper seeks to examine the strengths and weaknesses of these two anthropological theories.
Discussion
The Evolutionism theory is anchored on five key principal concepts. The first one is the unilinear social evolution which refers to the notion that culture evolves in a mostly uniform manner considered to be progressive. It is a perspective which asserts that societies progress through similar milestones which inevitably take them to a common end. Although the approach originally consisted of only three parts which were savagery, barbarian, and civilization, it was later expanded to include numerous other subdivisions to offer a better account of a much broader cultural diversity. The psychic unity of mankind is the second principal concept of the theory. It is fundamentally a belief that the brains of human beings are similar thereby implying some psychic unity. By assuming the existence of common evolutionary stages for all persons, the theory proposes that all people start with similar psychological potentials their location in the globe notwithstanding (Murphy 2009; Gluckman 2012).
Survivals as a concept of this theory are traces of past customs still existing in the modern day cultures. It was suggested by a scholar by the name Tylor in an endeavor to give meaning to various social customs. The fourth concept of the theory is called primitive promiscuity. It is a perspective which argues that the original society in which human beings lived lacked rules to govern marriage and sexual relationships. This viewpoint was held by anthropologists such as Morgan, Frazer, Mclellan, and Bachofen. Lastly, stages of development backed by early theorists were a mostly tripartite social evolution scheme. This perspective asserted that societies evolved from savagery to barbarianism then lastly to civilization. Although the original scientist connected to the approach was Montesquieu, it was later adopted by Morgan and Tylor (Murphy 2009; Radcliffe-Brown 1940).
The Nineteenth-Century Evolutionism theory asserts that societies grow by a single universal order which they term as cultural evolution. The scholars behind this theory came up with its premises through identifying the global milestones of development after which they developed societal classes. There are various strengths which researchers attach to this opinion. Firstly, it is a perspective which contributed immensely to anthropology via the creation of systemic methods which did not exist before. These are tools which can be utilized for thinking about and deciphering human societies. Moreover, the evolution theory gives excellent insights into the technological developments characterizing communities. Through it, people can understand the various stages through which technology has gone starting from the primitive tools which members of the stone age period used to the most complex ones used by societies in the England civilization. The theory argues that complex societies tend to be more advanced regarding the technology they use when compared to more simple ones (Murphy 2009; Nisbet 1969).
Early evolutionists are also lauded for their efforts to come up with a scientific discipline of anthropology, and this is seen as a key strength of the theory. Through this endeavor, the theorists were able to facilitate the development of the underpinnings of the highly organized discipline of anthropology. These foundations were non-existent and as such, their creation acted as a significant boost to this area. They gave three basic assumptions which are regarded presently as integral to anthropological thought and research methodology. The first assumption is about the need to study cultural phenomena in a naturalistic design. The second is the dictum that the cultural differences characterizing various societies today are as a result of varying socio-cultural experiences as opposed to psychological ones. Lastly, they proposed the use of comparative techniques as a substitute for the various experimental techniques carried out in laboratories when investigating phenomena in physical sciences (Murphy 2009; Zeitlin 1973).
There are also various weaknesses which scholars attach to this theory. Firstly, contemporary anthropologists posit that the Nineteenth-Century Evolutionism was quite simplistic and could therefore not clearly describe how different societies developed. The theorists behind the evolutionism school of thought made use of racist views regarding human development which were relatively more popular in the nineteenth century. Some of the scholars contributing to it included Henry Morgan and Edward Burnett. These two scientists are criticized for making the assumption that people belonging to different societies had varying levels of intelligence. This view according to historical particularists is a highly speculative and ethnocentric one. Additionally, the theorists contributing to this opinion point made the assumption that the minds of people living in different societies shared various common characteristics. As such, human beings across the globe are supposed to pass through the same milestones of development. The scholars also viewed Western societies as the most superior ones in the entire world. Clearly, this was a mistaken assumption since it was anchored on the fact that these communities dominated the world both economically and militarily (Murphy 2009; Zeitlin 1973).
Morgan’s assertion that family units grew continuously smaller and highly self-contained as societies evolved is criticized by current scholars for having various flaws. Here, Morgan postulated an evolution sequence that c went through. However, an enormous quantity of ethnographic data that was collected years after his proposal does not support this postulate. For instance, the society that Morgan described as savage does not engage in group marriage or intra-family marriage as he claimed (Murphy 2009).
The idea of recurrence embodied by theorists such as Tylor and McLellan is criticized by current scholars. This concept asserted that if a similar belief or custom was practiced in different societies spread across the globe, then it could be utilized in the reconstruction of the development history of these societies. This approach is criticized for making an evaluation of evidence picked out of context. Moreover, researchers argue that most of the observations underpinning the view were collected by incompetent amateur observers owing to the lack of trained field workers at the time of its development (Murphy 2009).
Additionally, the theorists behind the evolutionism approach are criticized for developing a theory which is incapable of accounting adequately for cultural variations across societies. For instance, there are certain societies which are already in the civilization stage while others are still in savagery. As such, the psychic unity of mankind postulated to explain parallel evolution becomes unable to explain these cultural differences. Further, early evolutionism fails in explaining the reasons as to why certain societies became extinct. Lastly, the assertion by the theorists behind this approach that Victorian England was the greatest development level possible for human beings is out rightly wrong (Murphy 2009).
Functionalism and structural functionalism have several associated strengths. Firstly, the macro-scale approach used by the theory is a key strength. It is a view which enables functionalist theorists to make valid societal observations. These sociologists are allowed to observe the institutions found in the society courtesy of the underpinnings inherent in the theory. Secondly, scholars assert that the theory is a consensus one as it sees the society as highly fair and just. It appreciates the fact that societies have embraced democracy by allowing people who live in them to freely share common values and norms. This view point is evident in Western societies thereby a fundamental strength of the perspective (Murphy 2009; Turner and Maryanski 1979).
The assertions given by Parson are viewed as strengths of the functiona...