structuralist-functionalist theory & patriarchy

Jordan Malsack
Professor Holly Denning
Gened 130
Individual and Society
22 October, 2014
Midterm Essay

Two men had a theory, this theory has made a big impact on today’s society in some ways, but it has had no effect in various other ways as well. The structuralist-functionalist theory was of big importance to two men in the year 1945. These two men’s names were Kingsley Davis and Wilbert E. Moore. Davis and Moore were two men who claimed that individualistic work ethic was based on merit, the deserving of rewards. They thought that people who were higher up in the hierarchy of job importance had the most difficult jobs and in turn were the most needed and because of this were paid the best. Davis and Moore called this idea the structuralist-functionalist theory. It was an explanation of social stratification with the basis in the idea of functional necessity. Now this theory does not seem to exist in many cases. Take teachers for example, or even the president of our country. These are important jobs, are they not? Well for how important they are, or how important they seem to us, they most certainly do not get paid very much. This is where the idea of meritocracy comes in. Meritocracy is a political philosophy that says that power should be bestowed on individuals almost wholly according to merit. Which is what Davis and Moore are trying to explain through their theory. This philosophy would fix many of the unfair income for a lot of jobs such as those stated before, school teachers, the president, and many more. Of course with great ideas come great conflicts as well.This conflict has to do with the jobs that are so dangerous, hundreds of people die every year. According to Jobs.aol.com, nine hundred plus truck drivers dies in the year of 2007. How much do these men and women get paid? On average truck drivers and sales workers make twelve dollars an hour. So while Davis and Moore’s theory supports social stratification and meritocracy, it has faults in the fact that it would be fair according to importance of jobs. Class consciousness also attributes to this problem in a positive manner. Karl Marx thought that social classes developed based upon the different positions that men and women fulfill in the succeeding “mode of production.” Marx thought that class consciousness was a sort of “prerequisite” to successful proletarian revolution. After this revolution ended successfully, Mark proclaimed he envisioned a society without social classes. with social classes being terminated, the people could focus on coming together as one and figuring out how to fix the unfair distribution of money according to the scale of necessity of the job. Max Weber was a German sociologist who introduced the theory of “life chances.” This was a probabilistic concept that describes how likely it is that an individual's life will turn out a certain way given certain factors. In some ways Weber’s theory can be seen as an expansion on some of Karl Marx’s ideas. Life chances have a lot to do with income, social class, and occupational prestige. If Marx’s theory would become possible, and there were no more social classes, many people’s life chances would change. If one child has less money than another they are considered to be in a lower class. With this children these days make fun of and bully children who do not have the correct types of clothes, or who do not live in great big houses with in ground pools. Kids get bullied each and every day. This will cause kids to grow up with low self-esteem and/or eating disorders, or depression. Life chances can be horrible if you do not have the right kind of income, or are not in the correct social class. This is why, just as Marx wanted, social classes need to be eliminated. Davis and Moore were two very important men with a very important theory. This theory has gotten us to where we are today.

Have you ever thought about why men are meant to be the “head of the family?” Why women are supposed to be inferior to their significant other? Well there are a couple of reasons to explain this. Religion, material surplus, and monogamy all help explain why patriarchy emerged when it did.
Patriarchy is a system of society in which the father or eldest male is the head of the family. Patriarchy has always been known to be there, from hunters and gatherers, the way “patriarchy” has technically always been there. Males biologically have a more dominant tendency about them. They have a bigger desire to be of higher status than other men and/ or women in their family, community, or workplace. In all societies around the world you could tell that they have a patriarchal way about them. Men run the households, and the country in most cases, men are out in the fields during the day laboring to bring in the food for families. All together men have, ever since the beginning, “had the pants in the relationship”.
Monogamy aided the unfolding of patriarchy by simply being a unity, or marriage, of one husband and one wife. Monogamy is the most widespread marriage form throughout the world. This is mostly due to the fact that the gender ratio in the world is nearly one hundred males to one hundred females in all societies. This means that there is about an equal amount of men to women.
Through religion people have always learned that this family arrangement, patriarchal, is fortified by teachings that emphasize discipline, self-sacrifice, and the sanctity of the family unit. In the time Martin Luther was alive protestantism frequently used the commandment in Exodus 20:12 to rationalize the debts owed to our superiors. “Honor thy father” was said to apply not only to our fathers, but elders as well, and the king.
How did patriarchy come to? Well, it seems to have always pretty much been there. Religion, material surplus, and monogamy all explain this in various ways.