Critical Theory vs Structural Functionalism: A Critical Evaluation
By Emma Flowers – 3rd Year Undergraduate Student – Sociology
Introduction
This essay critically evaluates two key theories of social change: Honneth’s (2007) critical theory and Parsons’(1951) structural functionalism. It begins by outlining each theory in turn before offering a comparative analysis, concluding that Honneth’s model offers a more relevant and applicable framework for understanding contemporary social transformation. Norms and values are understood here as essential components of social life—norms being shared expectations of behaviour, and values referring to broader moral beliefs (Brennan et al., 2013; Horne and Mollborn, 2020; Frese, 2015).
Critical Theory
Critical theory was developed in 1937 by neo-Marxists who opposed Marx’s economic determinism (Ritzer and Stepnisky, 2018; Joas and Knöbl, 2009). According to Marx, economic factors such as methods of production, distribution or exchange can determine the course of social evolution. Ellwood (1911: 37) emphasises Marx’s focus on economic determinism by stating that Marx believes that all social conditions are sufficient if economic conditions are. This contrasts with critical theory’s focus on the individual.
While classical critical theorists focused on capitalism and instrumental reason, Honneth expands the scope of critical theory by centring social recognition as the foundation of personal development and, by extension, social transformation (Zurn, 2015). If struggle is successful, social change of recognition order occurs through institutionalisation of practice that gives individuals recognition and freedom (Zurn, 2015:5). The use of recognition intends to provide a framework for societal analysis, including the self, development of social relations and institutions (Petherbridge: 2013:6).
Moreover, in The Struggle for Recognition (1992), Honneth outlines categories of recognition: forms of love, rights and solidarity (Roberts, 2009:300). These explain an individual’s desires for self-confidence, self-respect and self-esteem (Roberts, 2009:300). Honneth conveys that individuals become themselves through mutual recognition which categorises intersubjectivity between groups such as parents and children or men and women (Zurn, 2015:6). Therefore, there is a moral demand to feel recognition from others and to recognise others (Zurn, 2015:6). When recognition is not received, the ability to form appropriate identities and conform to social norms is affected, motivating social change (Ritzer and Stepnisky, 2018:292; Petherbridge, 2013:13). Honneth’s critical theory conveys that social change can occur through deviance of normative feelings in society (Petherbridge, 2013:13).
Critics question the emphasis on recognition as well as some arguing that recent developments of Honneth’s recognition model is difficult to portray change in society (Ritzer and Stepnisky, 2018:292; Angella, 2018:485). Additionally, some argue that Honneth’s concept of recognition needed to be multidimensional to explain reproduction through cooperation, how individuals gain access to reality and how individuals become aware of and react to domination (Angella, 2018:486).
Structural Functionalism
Structural functionalism focuses on the analysis of the structure of the social system, its sub-systems, maintenance, social order and equilibrium (Dillon, 2020:154). Parsons states that social order is maintained through patterns, norms, and values internalised in personalities or institutions (Rocher et al.,1974:35).
Within systems, there are four subsystems: economy, polity, socialisation and societal community. They have core functions known as the ‘AGIL model’ to enable order maintenance and adaption to change (Swingewood, 2000:144). These include adaptation, goal attainment, integration and pattern maintenance (Rocher et al.,1974:40). These subsystems have functional prerequisites, including provision of individual and environment relationship, role assignment, shared beliefs, normative regulation of means, socialisation and control of deviant behaviour (Dillon, 2020:155; Swingewood, 2000:143). According to Parsons, subsystems are autonomous yet interdependent as they must work simultaneously to maintain social order (Dillon, 2020:155). However, as subsystems differ, tension and strain occur (Dillon, 2020:155). Therefore, Parsons introduces the concept of equilibrium, which is the system’s capacity to return to normal after minor disturbances by adjusting to change (Black, 1961:53). Parsons (1951:481) believes that for equilibrium to be maintained, socialisation needs to occur.
Socialisation is the process of learning how to act and behave in society according to shared norms and values through interacting with others and performing different social roles (Dillon, 2020:157). Individuals learn, transmit and share culture through interacting with each other through shared norms and values, maintaining solidarity and system order to fulfil the system’s functional needs (Dillon, 2020:157; Swingewood, 2000:143; Rocher et al., 1974:42). Parsons states that norms are fundamental to social action (Dillon, 2020:156). Furthermore, Parsons defines their theory as one of voluntaristic action involving a social actor, an end, a situation and a normative orientation through which an actor’s choices are voluntary yet culturally bounded by societal norms (Dillon, 2020:156). Parsons’ model assumes that social order depends on the integration of individuals through internalised norms and values (Dillon, 2020). While this approach offers insight into how societies maintain stability, it lacks a framework for understanding transformative change, which is a central feature of Honneth’s recognition theory (Zurn, 2015).
There are criticisms of Parsons, including their obscure language (Black,1961:2). Smelser (2012) articulates this by stating that Parsons’ The Social System (1951) is unintelligible, with too much Jargon and use of vocabulary only known to Parsons. Additionally, some argue that Parsons’ theories are not clear as he ‘pyramids’ their arguments with limited reference to applicability (Black, 1961:2). An example of this is provided by Barber (1994) who states that Parsons uses their concept of ‘social system’ in an inconsistent manner as either a society or one of three differing subsystems. Moreover, Parsons’ theory was not successful, with critics claiming that it showed a static and descriptive classification rather than the democracy that Parsons had aimed for (Gerhardt, 2017:448). Also, some feminists are against Parsons’ theory of structural functionalism due to Parsons’ view of the father as the breadwinner, maintaining stability and order and the mother’s role to pass on family traditions, forgetting single parents and working mothers (Ormerod, 2020).
Furthermore, Parsons lacks the ability to consider the ‘real world’ as they see conflict as a dysfunction to the system order, whereas others, such as Honneth, believe that conflict is key to social change (Gerhardt, 2017:439). However, Parsons was writing at a time of uncertainty in America, with revolution and change on the horizon, and their theory was popular in Anglo-American social theory during the 1950s and 1960s (Ormerod, 2020). Therefore, functionalism was popular due to the stability and order it offered and was relevant to the context Parsons was in (Ormerod, 2020). Due to this, it should be taken into account that structural functionalism is based on early 20th-century American culture.
Critical Evaluation
It can be argued that both Parsons and Honneth focus on social interaction. Parsons believes integration and social interaction are essential for the maintenance of social order in their theory of structural functionalism (Dillon, 2020:156-157). In comparison, Honneth focuses on social interaction and feelings of recognition (Petherbridge, 2013:13). However, Honneth believes that social interaction can lead to progressive social change, whereas Parsons believes that social interaction is key to maintaining social order (Zurn, 2015:5; Petherbridge, 2013:13).
Honneth’s critical theory is supported by Petherbridge (2013:3), who argues that the main aim is to view society in an action-theoretic way to remove structural and functional views. This contrasts with Parsons’ theory, which is based on the analysis of the structure of society and the functions needed to maintain social order (Dillon, 2020:154). These theorists’ contrast in their approaches as Honneth focuses on the individual and their struggles for recognition as a motivating factor for social change, whereas Parsons focuses on the structure of society.
In a society increasingly concerned with identity-based marginalisation and emotional wellbeing, Honneth’s emphasis on mutual recognition as a driver of social change aligns closely with contemporary realities. This is relevant to the significant increases in mental health problems, as one in four people in England experiences mental illness (Mind, 2024). Additionally, Honneth’s theory is key for social movements such as the issue of the state bans on women’s reproductive rights in the United States of America (Bindel, 2024). In contrast, Parsons’ model, rooted in 1950s American values, offers limited tools to address issues such as systemic inequality or social protest.
Conclusion
In conclusion, while both Honneth and Parsons highlight the role of social interaction, their theories diverge in purpose and applicability. Parsons’ model explains how societies strive for cohesion, whereas Honneth offers a more dynamic framework that captures the emotional and moral dimensions of social progress. Given contemporary concerns with mental health, identity, and inequality, critical theory’s focus on recognition makes it a more compelling tool for understanding and fostering meaningful social change today.
Reference List
Angella, M. (2018) ‘On the Consistency of Axel Honneth’s Critical Theory: Methodology, Critique, and Current Struggles for Recognition’, The Philosophical Forum, 49(4), pp.399-560.
Barber, B. (1994) ‘Talcott Parsons on the Social System: An Essay in Clarification and Elaboration’, Sociological Theory, 12(1), pp. 101-105.
Bindel, J. (2024) ‘The US War on Reproductive Rights Should Concern Women Everywhere’, Aljazeera, 22nd March.
Black, M. (1961) The Social Theories of Talcott Parsons: A Critical Examination. Engelwood Cliffs, N,J: Prentice-Hall.
Brennan, G., Eriksson, L., Goodin, R.E. and Southwood, N. (2013) Explaining Norms. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Dillon, M. (2020) Introduction to Sociological Theory: Theorists, Concepts, and Their Applicability to the Twenty-First Century, 3rd edn., Newark: John Wiley and Sons Incorporated.
Ellwood, C.A. (1911) ‘Marx’s “Economic Determinism” in the Light of Modern Psychology’, American Journal of Sociology, 17(1), pp. 35-46.
Frese, M. (2015) ‘Cultural Practices, Norms and Values’, Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 46(10), pp. 1327-1330.
Gerhardt, U. (2017) ‘Confrontations and Controversies in the Theory of Talcott Parsons’, Sociologicky Casopis, 53(3), pp.437-462.
Honneth, A., 2007. Disrespect: The normative foundations of critical theory. Cambridge: Polity Press
Horne, C. and Mollborn, S. (2020) ‘Norms: An Integrated Framework’, Annual Review of Sociology, 46(1), pp. 467-487.
Joas, H. and Knöbl, W. (2009) Social Theory: Twenty Introductory Lectures. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Jones, P. and Bradbury, L. (2017) Introducing Social Theory, 3rd edn., Newark: Polity Press.
Koskinen, H.J. and Hirvonen, O. (2023) The Theory and Practice of Recognition. New York: Routledge.
Mind (2024) Mental Health Facts and Statistics. Available at: https://www.mind.org.uk/information-support/types-of-mental-health-problems/mental-health-facts-and-statistics/ (Accessed on: 21st October 2024).
Ormerod, R. (2020) ‘The History and Ideas of Sociological Functionalism: Talcott Parsons, Modern Social Theory and The Relevance for OR’, Journal of Operational Research Society, 71(12), pp. 1873-1899
Parsons, T. (1951) The Social System. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Petherbridge, D. (2013) The Critical Theory of Axel Honneth. Lanham: Lexington Books.
Ritzer, G. and Stepnisky, J. (2018) Sociological Theory, 10th edn, London: SAGE Publications.
Roberts, N. (2009) ‘Recognition, Power and Agency: The Recent Contributions of Axel Honneth to Critical Theory’, Political Theory, 37 (2), pp. 296-309.
Rocher, G., Mennell, B. and Mennell, S. (1974) Talcott Parsons and American Sociology /Guy Rocher; translated by Barbara and Stephen Mennell; with an introduction by Stephen Mennell. London: Nelson.
Smelser, N.J. (2012) ‘Foreword’ in Parsons, T. (ed) The Social System. Louisiana: Quid Pro Books.
Swingewood, A. (2000) A Short History of Sociological Thought, 3rd edn., New York: Palgrave.
Zurn, C.F. (2015) Axel Honneth: A Critical Theory of the Social. Cambridge: Polity Press.