Finding a Function
Talcott Parsons argued that all social institutions have a function (at least when they are formed) which is intended to be beneficial to society. He did add that sometimes institutions outlast their own functionality and keep going long after they have ceased to serve any useful function. Are there any institutions which you feel no longer serve a useful purpose? If so, what has gne wrong?
For me the institution that has outlasted its own functionality would be marriage. Looking back through social history you can understand the need for marriage for, at its most basic level marriage was for material stability and the proof of legitimate children to pass down your name and possessions too. Because of the rudimental understanding of reproduction in the past this was the only way any offspring would be protected by law. In the modern era science has negated this concept. I understand that on a personal level two people want to show their commitment to each other through marriage but feel that couples today are more interested in the show of a wedding (social media being one of the key factors, and as shown with Jean Baudrillard’s theory of media saturation, which in turn creates hyperreality) rather than the commitment of a marriage.
ReplyDeleteWe can explain the changing patterns of marriage in the UK with different sociological theories.
Liberal feminism is one of these theories it focuses on the changing gender roles explaining greater gender equality and more careers for women therefore leading to women choosing a career over marriage as they no longer must get married to be financially secure, in actual fact according to the theory of liberal feminist marriage is seen as a poor option for women. Especially in the now dominant, service lead economy (which is predominately female).
Postmodernity focuses on individual and cultural changes, there is now more individual choice and a decline in traditional values because of the acceptance of diversity and the process of secularization. This includes the decline in the stigma of cohabiting and single parent families.
And finally
Late Modernism which is Associated with the ideas of Anthony Giddens and Ulrich Beck. Giddens argues that the decline in marriage is not as simple as people simply having more freedom – People are less likely to get married because of structural changes making life more uncertain. People may want to get married but living in a late-modern world means marriage doesn’t seem like a sensible option.
Ulrich Beck argues that fewer people getting married is because of an increase in ‘risk consciousness’ people see that nearly half of all marriages end in divorce and so they are less willing to take the risk and get married. Beck also talks about individualization, a new social norm is that our individual desires are more important than social commitments, and this makes marriage less likely. Giddens builds on this and says that the typical relationship today is what he describes as a “Pure Relationship”, one which lasts only if both partners are happy with it, not because of tradition or a sense of commitment. This makes cohabitation and serial monogamy rather than the long-term commitment of a marriage more likely.
For Durkheim, prison is one of the many important social institutions that work in harmony as a positive function contributing to stabilising British society. After a recent conversation within class, I started to think about the function of British prisons. Obviously, their main purpose is to lock away the criminals to keep the members of society safe – and in that respect, they still maintain this purpose.
ReplyDeleteHowever, if prison was really as effective as Durkheim proposed by acting as a deterrent, and regulation of society, why is there a 60% reoffending rate? At the end of September 2021, there was just under 80,000 prisoners, with 96% of them being male. Meaning 48,000 will re-offend!
For me, prisons have outlasted their functionality as they are no longer a positive function to society. I’m not sure just locking people up is sufficient, yes it’s a punishment by restricting their liberty but is it enough? Most prisons within the UK were built in the 1900s, which are now not equipped to take the number of prisoners sent to them, leaving them over-crowded and able to cater for the individual’s needs. By changing the prisons priority from just incarceration to include rehabilitation it would not only help people when they are released but would also save the British justice system on average £45,000 per prisoner (2019/20).
I believe that prisons are trying to reform the prisoners but in reality most of the time it just socialises its boarders into deeper criminal norms which exacerbate their struggle to reintegrate back into society without turning to crime again. Ajah and Nweke (2017), suggested that inmates should require skills whilst within prison that will get them on the road to employment when they leave. I totally agree with this, there are so many benefits all around. Keeping the prisoners busy could potentially stop the violence as they will be too tired to fight. The hard physical work would help the prisoners feel mentally fulfilled, the pride and the sense of achievement of doing a hard day’s work would make them feel better about themselves, which should reduce self-harm and suicide, as some may have never experienced the positive effect of working.
Nevertheless, more needs to be done, latest figures from 2019/20 report that only 49% of prisons have purposeful activity meaning a good level or above which prisoners are able, and expected, to engage in activity that is likely to benefit them. Worst still, only 4% of prisons achieved their target number of prisoners released into employment within six weeks after their release date. Which if the prisoners learned a trade whilst they were in prison there would be a better chance of employment once they were released. Which would lower the reoffending level and maybe restore prisons to a more effective means of social control.