Functionalism, and conflict theory after the 1960s

Functionalism views society from the side of balance, order, and integration. From Comte and Spencer’s organism theory it developed, through Durkheim, Merton, Parsons, and others, into a broad sociology that likens society to an organism whose parts keep the whole alive. Universal compulsory education is tied to industrial society, and the school is placed as a mechanism that turns a life in the family into a life as an adult in society.

Conflict theory starts from the limits of that view. In the 1950s functionalism seemed suitable; from the 1960s, after recession, the Vietnam War, and a deepening rich-poor gap, it is expected to be a more suitable method. It is strong on the reproduction of inequality through school, but, the essay says, it undervalues education’s part in social cohesion, and is short of alternatives and of a way to resolve the working class’s educational possibility.

A British turn around the 1970s, and a thought on what education is

Around the 1970s, while conflict theory unfolded in the United States, the new sociology of education arose in Britain and was named by Gorbutt. It criticized earlier macro models for treating the educational process as a black box, and turned to the social character of the curriculum and to micro processes inside the school, arguing that the knowledge taught should be what is most suitable for the student.

The writer finds “what is education?” a hard question, and offers this: the whole that shares a life of teaching and learning, a solidarity and a ceaseless process, in which each person is both teacher and learner. In a present of free-market strata, the conclusion says, more equal opportunity matters, and theory should not lean to one side. This page stays with the 1950s, the 1960s, and that British turn around the 1970s, and does not add later official education figures. The same Korean report, at fuller length, is on CampusDown.

Sources

1. Education is the most basic tool for keeping a human nature that goes on learning through a lifetime, and also a field that can be approached from first principles. Education can be called every process that makes up human learning, and the theories that explain it have developed into various branches as history has developed. The main part compares the features of functionalist educational theory, conflict educational theory, and the new sociology of education, and considers the writer’s own thought about education. Functionalism is a stance that tries to understand a view of society from the side of balance in society, the keeping of order, and integration. It can be seen as a relatively conservative view. The development of functionalist educational theory began in the effort of various scholars who tried to leave the philosophical and religious thinking of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries and to understand society systematically and scientifically. The appearance of the functionalist outlook starts in the work of Comte, who can be called a founder of sociology. The functionalist view, which began from the organism theory offered early by Comte and Spencer, later developed into a very inclusive sociological theory, reaching Pareto, Durkheim, Radcliffe-Brown, Malinowski, and Merton and Parsons. The main theories of functionalism are divided into consensus theory, the equilibrium model, the order model, and structural-functional theory, but in the view of society they are the same. In other words, they are the same in being a view that emphasizes the order and integration of society, values consensus more than conflict, and emphasizes the static face of society more than the dynamic. Functionalism takes seriously the functional factors essential for a social system to last, and likens one society to an organism. That is, society, like an organism, is composed of different parts, and these various parts perform the functions needed for the whole of society to continue. Therefore the parts of society are interdependent, and through the performance of different functions the parts that have an interdependent character functionally maintain the society as a whole, and that society requires the various roles of its members. Social selection, socialization, and the process of training are indispensable if the various occupations that exist in society are to be carried out properly. Because role burdens are divided among one another, and because people know well the tasks they and others should do, a value system and an orientation shared by the group as a whole are maintained, and further the solidarity of the group as a whole is maintained. For functionalists, social integration and the division of roles are important preconditions of social life. Also, according to functionalists, universal compulsory education has a close connection with the needs of industrial society, and the school formalizes and performs basic work that, in a simple society, had been performed informally in the family and the local community. The modern concept of the school performs these roles much more effectively, and in a fair and humane way, than they are performed in a society where a universal compulsory education system had not been established. That is, the school becomes a mechanism that, in modern industrial society, changes a life performed as a family member into a life as an adult in society. Conflict educational theory starts from the limits of functionalist educational theory. In the social situation of the 1950s, functionalism seemed as if it were a suitable theory, but from the 1960s onward conflict theory is expected to be a more suitable method of research. Conflict theory, because of causes such as the economic recession of the 1960s, the Vietnam War, and the deepening of the gap between rich and poor, became an occasion for a large increase, in the United States and France among other places, of scholars who argued that studying this chronic social instability critically or from a conflict view could explore the essence of education and a fundamental solution to the problem. Conflict theory sees society as a continuous run of competition and conflict between individuals and groups. Therefore, because constant social change, expressed as struggles for power, conflicts of interest among groups, and the oppression of a ruler and the resistance of the ruled, is in the character of this theory, it first settled as a critical theory against functionalism as functionalism was becoming an established theory. But while functionalism and conflict theory show contrasting characters, they also have a complementary character, and if one bears in mind that functionalism also considers the concept of conflict as a social factor, the meaning of examining conflict theory is very important. The value of a study that compares the character conflict theory has with our society and educational system, amid an excessively fast speed of industrial development and social change, and that can compare this with the educational reality of other advanced countries, can be regarded as meaningful. Also, examining how conflict theory interprets the educational function of capitalism, which is hard to explain as a functional theory, and what alternatives it presents, becomes a basis for presenting a theory and a solution suitable to the reality of Korean education, so conflict theory has a very important character. Conflict theory is very powerful in bringing out the basic problems of school and society. Critical pointing to the reproduction of social inequality through school education, or to the standardization of a particular culture and ideology, has high value. But, having overemphasized conflict and competition for power, it undervalues the point that the element called education contributes to raising social cohesion and to enhancing a sense of national community. Not only that, by overemphasizing unequal elements in educational selection, it does not properly recognize the selection effect of ability and talent through education, and it has a tendency to ignore also the public merit of school education, which has made a large contribution to upward social movement. In addition, it presented problems the existing school system has, but insufficient presentation of alternatives to them can be called a defect that conflict theory has. In conflict theory, by not analyzing the content of the educational system, the appearance of a radical theory of educational politics was hindered, and therefore it became hard for a satisfactory theory of educational change to develop. Also, even in the problem of class reproduction that they themselves argued, by not mentioning a solution to this problem it acted as a weakness that conflict theory has. Therefore this relative neglect of the content of school education, as with functionalism, has the result that the problem called the educational possibility of the working class is hard to resolve. Around the 1970s, when conflict theory was unfolding with the United States as its stage, a new form of educational sociology arose in Britain, and this was named the new sociology of education. The new sociology of education, which began to be called that by Gorbutt, announced, as the name itself says, that a new academic paradigm had appeared. In earlier educational sociology, which took a macro approach, the process was omitted in grasping the relation between school education and society, and reliance was placed only on an input-and-output model, so the process in which school education takes place was somewhat neglected. The new sociology of education, raising a criticism that this approach treated the process of education as a black box, introduced the need for research on the curriculum, that is, on the social character of educational content, and on the social processes performed in teaching and learning. In short, the appearance of the new sociology of education meant a turn from the macro view that had been aimed at toward a micro view that would turn interest toward internal phenomena of the school. As the knowledge taught in school became an issue in this way, structural problems receded to the rear, and micro problems such as the curriculum or methods of teaching formed by school members, categories of evaluation, and interaction between teacher and student appeared as the main area of concern in educational sociology. People who stress ideas and values in the element called education often see equal educational opportunity and the efficiency of education, control of those who deviate, and social class or family environment as factors that decide academic results. This is what is called the old sociology of education, and in the new sociology of education it is argued that still more attention should be given to the selection of students and the organization of knowledge, the analysis of educational ideas and values, and the curriculum. The curriculum, together with educational ideas, is the area they value most. The question of what knowledge should in fact be taught to students, why, and by what method, is their important concern, and this is precisely the problem of the curriculum. They argue that the knowledge taught to the student should not be knowledge that already exists externally, apart from the being of the student, but should be what is most meaningful or suitable for them. That is, they are emphasizing the relevance of the curriculum. If one is asked what education is, the writer finds it truly hard to answer. In order to make this definition reasonably clear, it seems one would have to pay considerable attention so as not to contradict conventional, historical, and social standards about education. Whether one can avoid attacks on validity and accuracy is uncertain, but if one describes the concept of education comprehensively, it is bound to flow toward a somewhat sentimental and vague expression. An honest starting point for educational practice, the essay thinks, can secure genuineness only from such practical worry and from a posture of constant study. This is also a reason we cannot give up a more developed and expanded provision or definition of education itself. What, after all, is education? In any case, every concept or provision about education will be an operational definition that has reflected a request of interests inside the context of each dominant discourse. In the midst of that, the definition of education the writer offers is the whole that shares a life of teaching and learning, that is, a solidarity of all people and acts, and a ceaseless process. The phenomenology of education always generates situations at the crossing point of ceaseless teaching and learning. All of us are at once those who teach and those who learn. A teacher learns while teaching, and a student also teaches while learning. Further, these mutual subjects of education become at once the content of education and also the curriculum. We also pursue learning as if from a teacher, or from ourselves, or arriving at nature and water. Is this interpretation of a field of education in fact something new that appeared suddenly one day? No. This is the plain look of an educational phenomenon that has always been together with us from the beginning of humanity. In the conclusion, the main part has looked at the concepts and features of each of functionalist educational theory, conflict educational theory, and the new sociology of education, and has considered what the writer’s thought about education is. In the present situation, where social strata are arising because of free-market competition, the writer thinks that effort to offer more equal educational opportunity to many students is very important. In the process of establishing the content and direction of educational theory, it is necessary, the essay holds, not to lean to one side, but to establish educational theory in a more objective and fair direction. Among the sources, a first-semester 2013 lecture note for an introduction to education is named. This page stays with the 1950s and 1960s as the essay places them, and with the British turn around the 1970s, and does not add later official education figures.

Last updated: 14 November 2026