The functionalist perception of both inequality and affirmative action are seen in the context of society as a single body. In order for this body to function and develop successfully, every aspect needs to remain strong at all times. In order for a particular aspect of society to remain strong, it needs to be controlled by a group of very capable and talented people. These people, ideally, should specialise in their specific stream of work, according to their individual talents. As every person is different, we will all undoubtedly perform at various levels of effort, thus requiring various amounts of reward and prestige. The functionalist approach to inequality therefore believes that inequality is inevitable and even necessary for society’s existence.
The functionalist approach towards affirmative action and inequality believes that they are valuable to society, but can also become detrimental to society’s well being if they cause harmful side-effects. These “harmful side-effects” are not specified, but one can assume that the functionalists are referring to economic problems, rather than humanitarian ones. Inequality and affirmative action are described as potentially being both “pathological” and “problematic” depending on whether they detract from society’s well being or perform inadequately.
Opponents to affirmative action claim that it would lead to the employing of inadequate people, who would decrease efficiency in the workplace. This would lead to a “lower overall productivity,” and this would be damaging to society’s economic well-being. These opponents also worry that by requiring a certain percentage of minority workers, a company would be disregarding those who are more qualified. These opponents are presumably implying that these “more qualified” people are white.
Davis and Moore’s (1945) functionalist theory states, “In any society certain positions or activities are more important to the general welfare of others…many of these also require greater skill, ability, or diligence than the average member of society has.” Davis and Moore also state that by enticing certain elite individuals with rewards they will become motivated to perfect their skills and “take up those essential but more demanding tasks.” Functionalists, as previously mentioned, do not believe that every form of inequality necessarily productive for society. If social inequality prevents certain (‘highly qualified’) people from being able to become successful, then it is deemed as dysfunctional. Functionalists see meritocracy as the ideal social system as it allows the ‘best’ and most talented people to excel in their chosen careers, regardless of race or gender.
As opposed to the functionalist picture of society, where all components seek an overall successful performance, the conflict perspective observes society as a constant clash between various elements for status, authority, financial resources and material produce. This perspective believes that certain individuals or groups obtain a great deal of power in certain areas of society, and subsequently utilize that power to award themselves more privileges than the average individual. These privileges include political rights, material rewards and a higher status. Even those groups described as “disadvantaged” compete amongst themselves for recognition and power within society. This results in a completely fractured society, where small elements have no consideration for society as a whole, but attempt to better themselves for personal gain.
In regards to racial inequality, James Blackwell’s idea (1990) suggests that in order for a society to achieve racial equality, it would have to change the “power relations” among various groups. In the context of contemporary America, for instance, the dominant group (whites) has remained powerful predominantly due to inequality. Inequality has prevented other minority groups from reaching their full potential and obtaining a higher level of power. The dominant group has thereby primarily served its own needs, and it continues to do so as it restricts the power of weaker minorities. “Gate keeping” ensures that the authoritative standard is always monitored, preventing a substantial number of minority groups from taking over from the dominant one.
Affirmative action was essentially established for socio-economic competition, as it aimed at taking away the white person’s unfair advantage in the workplace, therefore creating and fair atmosphere where the best-suited person is appointed to the job. This is one of the conflict perspective’s four observations, in which he explicitly recognises that racial groups do contend with one another. The second observation recognises that social change does not occur without pressure on the government. Martin Luther King Jr. noted that it was unusual for advantaged groups to give up their privileges voluntarily. In the late 1960s and early 70s hiring minorities was only considered as a result of heavy political pressure and lobbying.
The third observation discusses how “American apartheid” (Massey and Denton, 1993) prevents certain minority groups from achieving success in various areas. It argues that America’s competitive system is not healthy, as everyone is not given equal opportunities. As the functionalist perspective believes that gate keeping prevents certain capable minorities from becoming successful, so the conflict perspective believes that it isolates poor minorities in the ‘worst’ areas, schools and jobs. Supporters of affirmative action therefore believe that every American doesn’t have an equal opportunity to achieve maximum success.
The fourth observation examines that competitive groups require alliances with those who able to assist, or these groups attempt to sabotage their opposition by creating internal divisions. The initially black Civil Rights movement, for example, accepted the support of any minority group, as a stronger, united force would be more beneficial. Contemporary America remains divided about affirmative action, with the Democrats supporting and the Republicans opposing this social policy. Other critics of affirmative action believe that it will not only widen the split between groups, but it will also create conflict between groups as minorities are no longer working together as a united resisting body. If these minority groups unite, and fight for more opportunities for all of those in need, there is a greater chance that their requests would be seen to.
Disagreement over affirmative action takes place on two levels. The first is the direct struggle for jobs for certain material things, e.g. university placement, jobs etc., and involves political influence. The second is an ideological conflict and takes place among any two individuals or groups with opposing ideas. Basically, this conflict is intended to debate whether or not affirmative action is morally and economically valuable.
Affirmative action and inequality will continue to be debatable and controversial issues. It is generally accepted that affirmative action is the best way to go about change in society, as it is only fair to give minorities the rights and abilities to succeed, as they have been discriminated against for so long. Inequality is rather inevitable, as we are not all suited to the same things, and never will be. If one man puts far more effort and time into his job, surely he deserves more rewards than someone who applies himself less. As we are attempting to repair the (almost irreparable) mistakes of our past, certain sacrifices have to be made by the dominant groups in order to build and strengthen those who have been wronged.
« return.