>
>I agree with Kelley that there are social scientists who would consider
>themselves both Marxist and functionalist, just as there are philosophers
>who
>consider themselves advocates of both Marxism and rational choice theory. I
>find the combinations syncretic, rather than synthetic, but in the normal
>course of things, I don't think there is much point in arguing about how
>people choose to identify themselves. . . . I wouldn't want to invest a lot
>of energy in trying
>to convince them of the bi-polar nature of their political or intellectual
>identity. That is not a discussion that will go very far, be very
>productive
>or even end on very friendly terms.
>
>What I do think is important, and is worthy of some energy, is pointing out
>how functionalism generally, and Marxist functionalism specifically, is
>inadequate social theory. It seems to me that the general critique of
>Parsonian structural functionalism offered in the sociology debates of the
>1960s, that it provides a description of the social system as an unified
>and
>integrated organism in harmony, if not complete stasis, and thus is unable
>to
>account for conflict and change, is fundamentally correct.. . . .
>
>Take a classic work of Marxian functionalism, Bowles and Gintis _Schooling
>in
>Capitalist America_ [SCA]. This is a text which has been on my mind a lot
>lately, because of its status as a 'classic' of radical analysis of
>American
>education and because of Gintis' subsequent conversion to the cause of
>school
>vouchers. . . . .
_________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com