Structural functionalism is a broad
perspective from the disciplines of sociology and anthropology that interprets
society as a complex system that is beyond the human beings which comprise it.
Its focal point of analysis are social structures and institutions within
society, how they interact with each other and with individuals within the
social system (Ritzer and Goodman, 2004). Tracing its origins, August Comte
(1798-1857) introduced structural functionalism as a theory of society that
emanates from biology. He finds the organism as a natural model for society;
arguing that the way how an organism relates with its environment, how its
parts interrelate within its overall system, and how it maintains balance is
similar to the operation of a social system (Harper, 2011). Emile Durkheim, in
his classic work Division of Labor
(1893), expands structural functionalism in asking how exactly society is able
to maintain a level of integration similar to those of organisms. He argues
that through interdependency and interaction of individuals with more
specialized roles, or mechanical solidarity, social ‘facts’ or institutions
emerge which are beyond the individual and has a life on its own. For both
theorists, the individual or human agency is downplayed as less deterministic
and independent; individuals only act the roles or functions required of them
by the social system.
Modern theorists develop a more
sophisticated structural functionalist perspective. The German sociologist,
Niklas Luhmann (1997), furthers the deconstruction of an anthropocentric view
of society and argues that individuals are not integral parts of society;
society is a system of communication. It is further divided into autopoeitic
communicative spheres—the economy, politics, family, religion and etc.—that
operate according to their respective functions based on their own medium and
codes. Individuals do not so much act independently but rather participate in
the function of a specific communicative sphere by using its medium (Moeller,
2006). That is, the individual merely traverses the different communicative spheres;
he does not exist in himself, he exists as part of a social sphere. The inter-relations of these communicative
spheres make up the entire social system. Luhmann, however, emphasizes that in
a highly modern society, no communicative sphere will dominate or be the
overarching steerer of society unlike the dominance of religion and the family
of traditional societies.
The Philippines is caught in the
transition between tradition and modernity. Such transitional societies are
characterised by the dominance of a single sphere, invading other spheres and
taking over their functions using its own terms. In the Philippines, the
dominant institution is the family. Instead of functioning within its own terms
of love, the family becomes a better vehicle for the functions of the economy
and politics.
Businesses
and capital in the country are often concentrated in the hands of a few
families. Economic mobility and success then becomes divorced from economic
merit; it becomes a function of familial relations and connections. As noted
before, the cultural tradition of the extended family reinforces the dominance
of the family in the economy. Big capital and businesses of families are
further consolidated and strengthened through marriage or extended kinship.
This is evident in the big business conglomerates and even in the small to
medium industries in the country. The language of the economy is no longer that
of merit and skill, but that of personal affection and preferences.
 |
| Photo from namfrel.com.ph |
In
politics, instead of political parties, families become the main vehicle to
access the state apparatus. Political power rotates around political dynasties,
made larger in terms of network through marriage and extended kinship. As a
consequence, policies are no longer made on the basis of the public good; but
on the interests of these families. This is most evident in the issue of
agrarian reform. The rational policy is to pursue agrarian reform; but because
the sphere of politics is dominated by the family who are landlords, agrarian
reform never materialized in the Philippines.
The
consequences of the family dominating these spheres of society are tremendous.
It concentrates power in the hands of the few, disregards merit for personal
connections and preferences, and leaves the majority of the public in worse
conditions. Unless the less personalistic mediums of spheres of the state and
the economy, for example, become better articulators of their respective
functions, the family will continue to be the dominant institution in
Philippine society.
0 comments:
Post a Comment