3.     SOCIETY

3.1     What is the nature of our South African society in general?

Most of what appears in the daily news of our country reflects urban society, and it would be reasonably acceptable to reference what is happening in South African cities and towns when defining South African society. I will, therefore, base my perceptions of what could be argued as the nature of South African society on what is currently happening in our cities and towns, and at a later stage, comment on rural and village life. In my discussion, small towns that are often given rural status will be included in the scenario painted for towns and cities.

“Advocates of this perspective, such as Comte and Durkheim, frequently employ an organic analogy to liken the functioning of society to that of a living organism. They contend that the components of society collaborate, much like the various parts of the human body, to benefit society as a whole.” (Unknown, n.d.)

I found a very simple layman’s explanation of a functionalist society in CliffsNotes.

“According to the functionalist perspective, also called functionalism, each aspect of society is interdependent and contributes to society’s functioning as a whole. The government, or state, provides education for the children of the family, which in turn pays taxes on which the state depends to keep itself running. That is, the family is dependent upon the school to help children grow up to have good jobs so that they can raise and support their own families. In the process, the children become law-abiding, tax-paying citizens, who in turn support the state. If all goes well, the parts of society produce order, stability, and productivity” (Houghton, n.d.) (Emphasis mine)

Houghton’s definition of the role and function of EDUCATION in a Functionalist society can be presented as follows:

Figure 1: Typical Functionalist Society 

A typical Functionalist Society is the model I grew up in, and it is probably the one that most South Africans are familiar with. Before the great 1994 watershed, we had a perception of law and order which had to be maintained by state forces. Today, we are still talking about law and order. Whose law and whose order?

The idea behind Functionalism is that there exists a consensus among the different groups that make up society. This law and order, presumed to be a result of consensus, could be argued to be based on an evolved consensus in South African cities and towns. What is considered acceptable or unacceptable behaviour and practice in our cities and towns grew from European standards and Christian conformation. The way of living of the indigenous inhabitants of our country has irrevocably been influenced by societies from abroad and across our immediate borders. It is an influence that is still alive, and it will continue for as long as we are open to communication in any conceivable form. The reality of our situation is that we have come to accept a foreign way of thinking, and we started preaching it with frightening conviction. In some instances, surrealism became reality, and many ended up being more convinced about ‘truths’ with no scientific basis, fiercely reliant on hearsay from those who brought the initial story. At present, our country is run according to a set of rules and regulations that are based on “consensus”, and we have a legal system in place to ensure that citizens abide by these rules and regulations. One of the assumptions of the Functionalist model requires that its governance is by consensus. Current South Africa can thus tick that box as having satisfied this criterion.

3.2     Do we satisfy the interdependent requirements of Functionalism?   

An over-simplified scenario suggests a state or government providing services for its citizens, and citizens in turn paying taxes to the state to fulfil its function; that of providing services for its citizens. One is dependent on the other. This appears to be a reasonably simple recipe and might even work if all the citizens were of equal standing and monotypical. Unfortunately, our social reality displays individuals of different means and abilities who have emerged from an era where racial differences were accentuated to a point where it became synonymous with wealth and geographical location. These developments were so poignant that after more than 30 years of new governmental dispensation, this tendency is recreated by its own volition. Separate development casts societies into areas of different opportunity, and sadly, it is the less affluent areas that have grown less functional in the functionalist paradigm.

By design, any major problem we face in our country is placed at the doorstep of the government of the day. The government is expected to address or solve issues concerning education, unemployment, social grants, health care, and any issue that cannot be adequately financed by people with little or no income. A potentially unworkable functionalist scenario develops when it is assumed that the government will use taxes paid by its citizens to provide services for them. In this highly stratified country of ours, it is unavoidable that many of the people who are in dire need of ‘government assistance’ are the very same people who are not able to contribute towards the country’s tax base. This, in a true ‘functionalist sense’, could suggest a problem concerning keeping the system functional. However, it could also be argued that dysfunctionality in any one sector of a functionalist paradigm could create a wide spectrum of professional opportunities related to law, healthcare, politics, government, etc. This may sound strange, but the belief that education is key to success is exactly where meritocracy finds a niche.

Meritocracy, in my understanding, suggests something like what Donald Trump, President of the U.S.A. and Theresa May, Prime Minister of Britain, implied in 2017, cited in an article by Jo Littler (Littler, 2017)

‘Like so many before him, Trump was wrapping political reforms in the language of meritocracy, conjuring up the image of a “fair” system where people are free to work hard to activate their talent and climb the ladder of success.”

Since becoming prime minister, Theresa May had also promised to make Britain “the world’s great meritocracy” … “I want Britain to be a place where advantage is based on merit not privilege,” she proclaimed, “where it’s your talent and hard work that matter, not where you were born, who your parents are or what your accent sounds like.” (Littler, 2017) (Emphasis mine)

This interpretation of meritocracy represents a premise for functionalist thinking and behaviour. It embodies a light at the end of a proverbial dark tunnel and holds real promise for the have-nots.

“Davis and Moore (functionalists) said as we now live in a meritocratic society the education system becomes the best mechanism for selecting the right people for the right jobs – role allocation. Meritocracy is the notion that people should and are duly awarded by society for their hard work and efforts. Those that work hard will and can achieve but those that choose not to, achieve their due rewards”.  (Thompson, 2008)

It is not difficult to identify living examples of “successful” people in many communities. The route to this desired success has long been identified as the one winding through educational institutions, and in most cases, it travels through mainstream schools.  Unfortunately, the words of Theresa May echo hollowly in the corridors of our public mainstream schools, where, for most of our children, talent and hard work do not matter. It would be more accurate to argue that it matters, “where you were born, who your parents are or what your accent sounds like”.

I retired from active teaching in December 2017, and the refrains bolded in the references above were repeated in classrooms I had the privilege to work with since 1976 when I started teaching. I am convinced that it was the ideal preached before my time and will probably be the mantra for years still to come. If this perceived panacea called education could perhaps be singled out as an important driver of success, it is worth taking a closer look at it, more especially if one takes the notion of meritocracy into account.