Functionalism

What is Post-Modernism, functionalism & Marxism? What is ‘The Matrix’? And what have these three got to do with ‘The Matrix’? These questions are very difficult to answer some would say and others wouldn’t have much of a problem. Firstly, Post-Modernism, some claim, is replacing modernity. It’s being done by the loss of faith in science and rationality. These types of thoughts developed mainly from the 1980’s onwards and increased sceptism about theories of a better future. However these thoughts are in a relativist position, which denies that there are absolutes in any area of human knowledge.

People believe that social positions of the informer are informed. Secondly, Functionalism means “structures, which fulfil the objective to maintain a system”. This basically means functionalists try and maintain order and peace in society. Lastly there’s Marxism. This is totally the opposite to a functionalist perspective. Marxism tries to create conflict between people and it always picks up on the negative views within society or organisations. You’re probably thinking what has all this got to do with ‘The Matrix’?

Well, ‘The Matrix’ as we all know was one of the biggest hit films in America and the UK. It is all about the future and what the world is really like. How it’s seen through selected individual’s eyes. Keanu Reeves stars as ‘Neo’ in the movie, and ‘Neo’ means the one in a foreign language. The Matrix is known as a system, a computer. The Matrix basically being the Planet Earth. At the start of the movie ‘Neo’ is an ‘everyday’ individual, working with computers for his living until he begins to receive eerie messages on his PC and peculiar phone calls.

This shows a functionalist and working class perspective as he’s an ordinary guy and lives a normal life earning money for his living. After this Neo is given an instruction which said to ‘Follow the sign’. The sign being a white rabbit on a females shoulder. Here we can see that this is completely un-natural, who hacks into computers and telephone lines to show a dull message? At first he was totally against going further with the matter but then he didn’t no what to do. This shows a Post-Modernism type of view as he’s undecided in what he wants to do. However ‘Neo’ was very curious and he decided to follow the sign.

This again shows a form of Post-Modernism as he wants to know what’s behind all these ‘Signs’. Having followed the white rabbit he’s led to a club where he meets a lady called Trinity who begins to show Neo things he’s never seen before. After all this Neo wakes up in his bedroom, as if nothing has happened but he still remembers everything. So this is a type of modern view, bringing Neo back to the ‘Truth’ and ‘Reality’ part of the universe. The following day he meets again with this lady named Trinity and she shows him ‘The One’, Morpheus. Morpheus is the leader of the group at present.

Neo is taken into a room where he is given two options, one where he has the option to take a red pill or the other where he takes a blue pill. The red pill keeps Neo in the ‘fantasy’ land and the blue which takes him back to his normal life where he forgets everything. Neo decides to take a really big chance and stay in the land of fantasy and takes the red pill. This shows a major type of Post-modernism, wanting to know more, wanting to know about other realms, and basically being really curious. It also shows a modern view as it didn’t take much time for him to decide what he wanted to do.

Having taken this pill Neo is ‘Re-Born’ in a totally different way and is picked up by this strange looking creature and is thrown down this shoot to the other crew members. A number of people would definitely say this is creating a Jesus like sense; being ‘Re-Born’ and again this could cause conflict between some groups. So Neo decided to leave his ‘modern’ style life and live in another ‘Realm’. A few tests are run on Neo and he is given the all clear through Morpheus. Neo meets all his other crew members, some of their names being Tank, A-Poc and Switch.

After this Neo is taken to a computer program where he battles with his leader Morpheus, Neo begins to realise he can do things he had never done before, such as fighting Kung-Fu style. Some may argue that this is a type of conflict or Marxism as he is being taught how to fight. Neo is also taken into a computer program where he is told to jump between two buildings which a really high and really far apart. Morpheus shows him how to do it, Neo tries to believe he can do and jumps. However he was unsuccessful, so this is trying to make Neo believe something he cannot do at the moment.

So he fails the jump but is still alive as it was only a computer program. Neo begins to believe even more. Neo is taken back to the crew where he sleeps. Later on Neo is taken on a mission with his crew into ‘The Matrix’ where they are attacked by ‘Agents’, these are people who are against Morpheus and would take any measure to kill any one of them. In a way this shows reality because there are some people out there who are willing to kill an individual at any expense. The group could be a Marxist group because all they want to do is create conflict between each other. Again some can argue that Neo’s group are doing the same.

Neo and the rest manage to escape excluding Morpheus, who is beaten and taken away with the Agents. Again this is a Marxist perspective as the agents are trying to create conflict. The only way of exiting ‘The Matrix’ is by receiving a phone call on selected telephones. These phones take them back to the ‘Real World’. This is a post modernist point of view as this wouldn’t normally happen in the world as we know it. Tank manages to get back safely and decides to cause a big problem. He agreed with the ‘Agents’ that he would do anything to get out of the ‘Real world’ and return to ‘The Matrix’.

This is definitely a Marxist view, as he is trying to create conflict whereas the other crew members are trying to create some form of order in the ‘Real World’ while they battle it out with tank. Unfortunately for tank he is defeated and the rest manage to get back safely. They all begin to panic about Morpheus because they know that if anyone dies in ‘The Matrix’ dies in the ‘Real World’. Neo decides its time for him to shine and takes the matter into his own hands. This again can be seen as a functionalist perspective as he wants to create order but in order to do this he is going to create conflict.

He returns to ‘The Matrix’ along with Trinity and seeks out Morpheus. The two groups battle it out and finally they reach a result. Neo defeats the ‘Agents’ and realises he had powers which he never knew he had. However, Morpheus dies and Neo takes over the role of being ‘The One’. Overall we can see that there are functionalist, Marxist and Post-Modern perspectives throughout the whole of the film. Some for good, some for bad, but which are which is for you to decide. At times it’s about your own personal views or opinions.

Structuralism VS. Functionalism Breanne Jagiello National University Structuralism VS. Functionalism “We are the cosmos made conscious and life is the means by which the universe understands itself. ” –Brian Cox. Both structuralism and functionalism were intended to seek answers to questions of the conscious mind. The basis for scientific psychology began with structuralism and later attempted to model psychology on evolutionary theory (functionalism).

Both sciences share some commonalties as well as many differences and are still used and relevant in modern psychology. Structuralism can be defined as “E. B Tichener’s system of psychology, which dealt with conscious experience as dependent on experiencing persons” (Schultz & Schultz, 2012, p. 18). In this system mental processes are broken down into the most basic components. This science taught that all human knowledge had been derived from human experience, and that there is no other source of knowledge.

Following structuralism was functionalism “A system of psychology concerned with the mind as it is used in an organism’s adaptation to its environment” (Schultz & Schultz, 2012, p. 18). Functionalism focused on how the mind operated, and sought to answer what mental processes accomplished. Both sciences are concerned with uncovering questions regarding the conscious self. The two sciences have been considered to be highly integrated and interrelated. What manifests itself as a function from one angle may be viewed as structure from another and vice versa; therefore, one cannot do justice to the evolution of economic theories by concentrating exclusively on either structuralism or functionalism—a synthesis of the two is essential” (Karsten, n. d. , p. 180). Functionalism and structuralism both relied on introspection as a method for research. Although flaws were found in introspection observation, it has still proven to be an essential bridge to unlocking psychological wisdom.

Introspection relies on self-reports about personal thoughts or feelings, essentially experience. “Experience is a common starting point for all sciences, from physics to psychology, and each science must be permitted to use those explanatory principles” (Shook, n. d. , p. 348) While there were similarities between each science, there were many more differences. Functionalism can be thought of as a response to structuralism. With functionalism came a new beginning for the basis of psychology.

Structuralism focused on what happened when an organism experienced an event, while functionalism focused on the how and why. “It did this first by abandoning key elements of Wundt’s effort to model scientific psychology on the physiological successes and instead attempted to model psychology on evolutionary theory”(Green, 2009, p. 75). Functionalist also differed in that; they believed breaking down the elements would deceive consciousness. Their ideas about consciousness were in terms of the whole, “mental life is a unity, a total experience that changes.

Consciousness is a continuous flow, and any attempt to divide it into temporarily distinct phases can only distort it”(Schultz & Schultz, 2012, p. 137). Titchener, on the other hand, taught that consciousness was the sum of experiences as they happen at any given time. He focused on the parts while Wundt focused on the whole. Functionalists were not concerned with the structure of mental processes, researchers were more concerned with how these processes “lead to practical consequences in the real world”(Schultz & Schultz, 2012, p. 03) Structuralism was concerned with determining the structure and basic parts of consciousness. Leaders in functionalism and structuralism had very different perspectives of how the mind should be analyzed, both contributed to the development of psychology in very different ways. Structuralism clearly defined conscious experience and, “their research methods were in the highest tradition of science”(Schultz & Schultz, 2012, p. 100). Functionalism also had an impact on psychology’s development. Animal behavior became an important area of study as a consequence to this the science.

Research methods such as physiological research, mental tests, questionnaires, and objective descriptions were introduced with functionalism. Both sciences can be related to modern day psychology. Introspection is still used in some cases through self-reports based on experience. “Self-reports are still requested from people exposed to unusual environments, such as weightlessness for space flight. Introspective reports involving cognitive processes such as reasoning are frequently used in psychology today” (Schultz & Schultz, 2012, p. 100).

Structural functionalism and conflict theory have some different points of view. One of them is that structural functionalism sees society as a complex system, that permit it to interact cohesively, and looks society as a macro-level orientation; while the conflict theory focuses on the social system that only work for a select few of society and is known because the struggle for dominance among social groups that compete for scarce resources. Knowing this, How different structural functionalism views gender than conflict theory does in a society?

Gender differences are viewed from functionalism as an efficient way to create divisions and specializing of cooperative labour into specifically circumscribed tasks and roles. Also, it is viewed as a social system where particulars segments are responsible for specific labor acts.

These division of labor are very efficient because create a maximum use of resources. This theory has been criticized for reifying gender roles. In functionalist perspective gender roles contribute to social relations.

Conflict theory has a different look of gender. In this theory gender is viewed as an attempt from male to keep power and privilege over female, and males are seen as the dominant group while females are seen as the subordinate group. The only reason why gender roles still exist is because to maintain their power and status the dominant group is still working for that.

There exist some difference about how this two theories, functionalist and conflict perspective sees gender and what is the importance in society. In my personal opinion I’m more with the idea that functionalism have with gender.

Theories in sociology provide us with different perspectives with which to view our social world. A perspective is simply a way of looking at the world. A theory is a set of interrelated propositions or principles designed to answer a question or explain a particular phenomenon; it provides us with a perspective. Sociological theories help us to explain and predict the social world in which we live. Sociology includes three major theoretical perspectives: the structural-functionalist perspective, the conflict perspective, and the symbolic interactionist perspective.

Each perspective offers a variety of explanations about the causes of and possible solutions for social problems (Rubington & Weinberg, 1995). Structural-Functionalist Perspective The structural-functionalist perspective is largely based on the works of Herbert Spencer, Emile Durkheim, Talcott Parsons, and Robert Merton. According to structural-functionalist, society is a system of interconnected parts that work together in harmony to maintain a state of balance and social equilibrium for the whole.

For example, each of the social institutions contributes important functions for society: family provides a context for reproducing, nurturing, and socializing children; education offers a way to transmit society’s skills, knowledge, and culture to its youth; politics provides a means of governing members of society; economics provides for the production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services; and religion provides moral guidance and an outlet for worship of a higher power.

The structural-functionalist perspective emphasizes the interconnectedness of society by focusing on how each part influences and is influenced by other parts. For example, the increase in single-parent and dual-earner families has contributed to the number of children who are failing in school because parents have become less available to supervise their children’s homework. Due to changes in technology, colleges are offering more technical programs, and many adults are returning to school to learn new skills that are required in the workplace.

The increasing number of women in the workforce has contributed to the formation of policies against sexual harassment and job discrimination. Consideration In viewing society as a set of interrelated parts, structural-functionalists also note that proposed solutions to a social problem may cause additional social problems. For example, racial imbalance in public schools led to forced integration, which in turn generated violence and increased hostility between the races. The use of plea bargaining was adopted as a means of dealing with overcrowded court dockets but resulted in “the revolving door of justice. Urban renewal projects often displaced residents and broke up community cohesion. Structural-functionalist use the terms “functional” and “dysfunctional” to describe the effects of social elements on society. Elements of society are functional if they contribute to social stability and dysfunctional if they disrupt social stability. Some aspects of society may be both functional and dysfunctional for society. For example, crime is dysfunctional in that it is associated with physical violence, loss of property, and fear.

But, according to Durkheim and other functionalists, crime is also functional for society because it leads to heightened awareness of shared moral bonds and increased social cohesion. Sociologists have identified two types of functions: manifest and latent (Merton, 1968). Manifest functions are consequences that are intended and commonly recognized. Latent functions are consequences that are unintended and often hidden. For example, the manifest function of education is to transmit knowledge and skills to society’s youth. ut public elementary schools also serve as baby-sitters for employed parents, and college offer a place for young adults to meet potential mates. The baby-sitting and mate selection functions are not the intended or commonly recognized functions of education–hence, they are latent functions. Structural-Functionalist Theories of Social Problems Two dominant theories of social problems grew out of the structural-functionalist perspective: social pathology and social disorganization. Social Pathology According to the social pathology model, social problems result from some “sickness” in society.

Just as the human body becomes ill when our systems, organs, and cells do not function normally, society becomes “ill” when its parts (i. e. , elements of the structure and culture) no longer perform properly. For example, problems such as crime, violence, poverty, and juvenile delinquency are often attributed to the breakdown of the family institution, the decline of the religious institution, and inadequacies in our economic, educational, and political institutions. Social “illness” also results when members of a society are not adequately socialized to adopt its norms and values.

Persons who do not value honesty, for example, are prone to dishonesties of all sorts. Early theorists attributed the failure in socialization to “sick” people who could not be socialized. Later theorists recognized that failure in the socialization process stemmed from “sick” social conditions, not “sick” people. To prevent or solve social problems, members of society must receive proper socialization and moral education, which may be accomplished in the family, schools, churches, workplace, and/or through the media.

Social Disorganization According to the social disorganization view of social problems, rapid social change disrupts the norms in a society. When norms become weak or are in conflict with each other, society is in a state of anomie or normlessness. Hence, people may steal, physically abuse their spouse or children, abuse drugs, rape or engage in other deviant behavior because the norms regarding their behaviors are weak or conflicting.

According to this view, the solution to social problem lies in slowing the pace of social change and strengthening social norms. For example, although the use of alcohol by teenagers is considered a violation of a social norm in our society, this norm is weak. The media portray young people drinking alcohol, teenagers teach each other to drink alcohol and buy fake identification cards (IDs) to purchase alcohol, and parents model drinking behavior by having a few drinks after work or at a social event.

Solutions to teenage drinking may involve strengthening norms against it through public education, restricting media depictions of youth and alcohol, imposing stronger sanctions against the use of fake IDs to purchase alcohol, and educating parents to model moderate and responsible drinking behavior. Conflict Perspective Whereas the structural-functionalist perspective views society as comprising different parts working together, the conflict perspective views society as comprising different groups and interests competing for power and resources.

The conflict perspective explains various aspects of our social world by looking at which groups have power and benefit from a particular social arrangement. The origins of the conflict perspective can be traced to the classic works of Karl Marx. Marx suggested that all societies go through stages of economic development. As societies evolve from agricultural to industrial, concern over meeting survival needs is replaced by concern over making profit, the hallmark of a capitalist system.

Industrialization leads to the development of two classes of people: the bourgeoisie, or the owners of the means of production (e. g. , factories, farms, businesses), and the proletariat, or the worker who earn wages. The division of society into two broad classes of people–the “haves” and the “have-nots”–is beneficial to the owners of the means of production. The workers, who may earn only subsistence wages, are denied access to the many resources available to the wealthy owners. According to Marx, the bourgeoisie use their power to control the institutions of society to their advantage.

For example, Marx suggested that religion serves as an “opiate of the masses” in that it soothes the distress and suffering associated with the working-class lifestyle and focuses workers’ attention on spirituality, God, and the afterlife rather than on such worldly concerns as living conditions. In essence, religion diverts the workers so that they concentrate on being rewarded in heaven for living a moral life rather than on questioning exploitation. Conflict Theories of Social Problems There are two general types of conflict theories of social problems: Marxist and non-Marxist.

Marxist theories focus on social conflict that results from economic inequalities; non-Marxist theories focus on social conflict that results form competing values and interests among social groups. [Note: Non-Marxist theories are also referred to as neo-Marxist theories–“non” and “neo” are interchangeable. ] Marxist Conflict Theories According to contemporary Marxist theorists, social problems result from class inequality inherent in a capitalistic system. A system of “haves” and “have-nots” may be beneficial to the “haves” but often translate into poverty for the “have-nots. Many social problems, including physical and mental illness, low educational achievement, and crime are linked to poverty. In addition to creating an impoverished class of people, capitalism also encourages “corporate violence. ” Corporate violence may be defined as actual harm and/or risk of harm inflicted on consumers, workers, and the general public as a result of decisions by corporate executives or manages. Corporate violence may also result from corporate negligence, the quest for profits at any cost, and willful violation of health, safety, and environmental laws (Hills, 1987).

Our profit-motivated economy encourages individuals who are otherwise good, kind, and law-abiding to knowingly participate in the manufacturing and marketing of defective brakes on American jets, fuel tanks on automobiles, and contraceptive devices (intrauterine devices [IUDs]). The profit motive has also caused individuals to sell defective medical devices, toxic pesticides, and contaminated foods to developing countries. Blumberg (1989) suggests that “in an economic system based exclusively on motives of self-interests and profit, such behavior is inevitable” (p. 06). Marxist conflict theories also focus on the problem of alienation, or powerlessness and meaninglessness in people’s lives. In industrialized societies, workers often have little power or control over their jobs, which fosters a sense of powerlessness in their lives. The specialized nature of work requires workers to perform limited and repetitive tasks; as a result, the workers may come to feels that their lives are meaningless. Alienation is bred not only in the workplace, but also in the classroom.

Students have little power over their education and often find the curriculum is not meaningful to their lives. Like poverty, alienation is linked to other social problems, such as low educational achievement, violence, and suicide. Marxist explanations of social problems imply that the solution lies in eliminating inequality among classes of people by creating a classless society. The nature of work must also change to avoid alienation. Finally, stronger controls must be applied to corporations to ensure that corporate decisions and practices are based on safety rather than profit considerations.

Non-Marxist Conflict Theories Non-Marxist conflict theorists such as Ralf Dahrendorf are concerned with conflict that arise when groups have opposing values and interests. For example, antiabortion activists value the life of unborn embryos and fetuses; prochoice activists value the right of women to control their own body and reproductive decisions. These different value positions reflect different subjective interpretations of what constitutes a social problem. For antiabortionists, the availability of abortion is the social problem; for prochoice advocates, restrictions on abortion are the social problem.

Sometimes the social problem is not the conflict itself, but rather the way that conflict is expressed. Even most prolife advocates agree that shooting doctors who perform abortions and blowing up abortion clinics constitute unnecessary violence and lack of respect for life. Value conflicts may occur between diverse categories of people, including nonwhites versus whites, heterosexuals versus homosexuals, young versus old, Democrats versus Republicans, and environmentalists versus industrialists.

Solutions to the problems that are generated by competing values may involve ensuring that conflicting groups understand each other’s views, resolving differences through negotiation or mediation, or agreeing to disagree. Ideally, solutions should be win-win; both conflicting groups are satisfied with the solution. However, outcomes of value conflicts are often influenced by power; the group with the most power may use its position to influence the outcome of value conflicts.

For example, when Congress could not get all states to voluntarily increase the legal drinking age to 21, it threatened to withdraw federal highway funds from those that would not comply. Symbolic Interactionist Perspective Both the structural-functionalist and the conflict perspectives are concerned with how broad aspects of society, such as institutions and large groups, influence the social world. This level of sociological analysis is called macro sociology: It looks at the “big picture” of society and suggests how social problems are affected at the institutional level.

Micro sociology, another level of sociological analysis, is concerned with the social psychological dynamics of individuals interacting in small groups. Symbolic interactionism reflects the micro sociological perspective and was largely influenced by the work of early sociologists and philosophers such as Max Weber, Georg Simmel, Charles Horton Cooley, George Herbert Mead, William Isaac Thomas, Erving Goffman, and Howard Becker. Symbolic interactionism emphasizes that human behavior is influenced by definitions and meanings that are created and maintained through symbolic interactions with others.

Sociologist William Isaac Thomas ([1931] 1966) emphasized the importance of definitions and meanings in social behavior and its consequences. He suggested that humans respond to their definition of a situation rather than to the objective situation itself. Hence, Thomas noted that situations we define as real become real in their consequences. Symbolic interactionism also suggests that our identity or sense or self is shaped by social interaction. we develop our self-concept by observing how others interact with us and label us. By observing how others view us, we see a reflection of ourselves that Cooley calls the “looking glass self. Lastly, the symbolic interaction perspective has important implications for how social scientist conduct research. The German sociologist Max Weber (1864-1920) argued that in order to understand the individual and group behavior, social scientists must see the world from the eyes of that individual or group. Weber called this approach Verstehen, which in German means “empathy. ” Verstehen implies that in conducting research, social scientists must try to understand others’ view of reality and the subjective aspects of their experiences, including their symbols, values, attitudes, and beliefs.

Symbolic Interactionist Theories of Social Problems A basic premise of symbolic interactionist theories of social problems is that a condition must be defined or recognized as a social problem in order for it to be a social problem. Based on this premise, Herbert Blumer (1971) suggested that social problems develop in stages. First, social problems pass through the stage of “societal recognition”–the process by which a social problem, for example, drunk driving, is “born. ” Second, “social legitimation” takes place when the social problem achieves recognition by the larger community, including the media, schools, and churches.

As the visibility of traffic fatalities associated with alcohol increased, so the the legitimation of drunk driving as a social problem. The next stage in the development of a social problem involves “mobilization for action,” which occurs when individuals and groups, such as Mothers Against Drunk Driving, become concerned about how to respond to the social condition. This mobilization leads to the “development and implementation of an official plan” for dealing with the problem, involving, for example, highway checkpoints, lower legal blood-alcohol levels, and tougher drunk driving regulations.

Blumer’s stage development view of social problems is helpful in tracing the development of social problems. For example, although sexual harassment and date rape have occurred throughout this century, these issues did not begin to receive recognition as social problems until the 1970s. Social legitimation of these problems was achieved when high schools, colleges, churches, employers, and the media recognized their existence. Organized social groups mobilized to develop and implement plans to deal with these problems.

For example, groups successfully lobbied for the enactment of laws against sexual harassment and the enforcement of sanctions against violators of these laws. Groups mobilized to provide educational seminars on date rate for high school and college students and to offer support services to victims of date rape. Some disagree with the symbolic interactionist view that social problems exist only if they are recognized. According to this view, individuals who were victims of date rape in the 1960s may be considered victims of a problem, even though date rape was not recognized at that time as a social problem.

Labeling theory, a major symbolic interactionist theory of social problems, suggests that a social condition or group is viewed as problematic if it is labeled as such. According to labeling theory, resolving social problems sometimes involves changing the meanings and definitions that are attributed to people and situations. For example, as long as teenagers define drinking alcohol as “cool” and “fun,” they will continue to abuse alcohol.

EEU Integration Theories:Neo-Functionalism “Any comprehensive theory of integration should potentially be a theory of disintegration. ” (Schmitter, 2002: 4) Introduction Neo-functionalism, as the first integration theory of EU to form a regional cooperation, is a theory of collective security and collective development but there was a compromise, a negative side: interdependence; sometimes `excessively? to a supranational authority and the risk of by-passing of nation state.

The balance of the scale was rather sensitive and it was both supported and rejected by many passionately. This paper tries to find an answer to the question “What is the significance of the neo-functionalist theory for integration process of the EU and what are the dynamics and causes of the decline in mid 1960s and its renaissance after 1980s? ” and deals with the theory from a very limited perspective. Its predecessors and successors will be kept out of discussion but a closer view to the phases of neo-functionalism will be provided.

The main argument of this paper is that, in its first phase between 1950s until the mid 1960s, neo-functionalism suffered from abstraction of the power of nation state in a period in which supranational governance was not thoroughly internalized; whereas, with the deepening of integration process and theoretical contributions by scholars, enabled neo-functionalism to see the reality of integration through a more realist and mature perspective and to be more comprehensive in terms of realizing the power of myriads of actors in the integration process during its second phase after mid 1980s.

In the first part, definition of neo-functionalism and its importance in the post WW II context will be given. In the second part, the theory will be elaborated with its core concepts and in the third part, criticisms of the theory will be given from both empirical and theoretical grounds. In the fourth and last part, the recent history of neo-functionalism will be evaluated and the revival period will be elabotared in connection with the recent aspects of European integration. 1. Definition of Neo-functionalism and its importance in the post WW II context The Europe after the two world wars had a catastrophic burden.

Although numbers vary, around 35 million in the first and around 55 million casualties depicted the highest number of losses in the history of mankind. As a precursor to United Nations, League of Nations failed to prevent the road to the second world war primarily due to lacking an armed forces of its own; moreover, nation states hardly had the enthusiasm to support any formation that limited their sovereignty. The pain and destruction after the two wars created an incentive to cooperate for further economic and human losses.

Neo-functionalism is conceptualized by Ernst B. Haas in this context to explain boosting of regional cooperation and create interdependence in such a way that any conflict would result in great economic losses, which prevents rational states from further conflicts. “Then came along the political project of creating a united Europe, which had the result of creating a myriad of institutions in which very, very many people participated. … These institutions developed a permanence through which both French and German … learned to do routine business with each other every day.

A problem which they experienced was a common problem. … first comes the traumatic lesson, then comes the institution for learning to deal with each other” (Haas, 2000: 16 in Risse, 2004:1). The case of European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) was the example that Haas took to exemplify this cooperation to integration process. The ECSC was the first organisation based on supranational integration, with the states that composed them pooling a whole range of national powers (European Nagivator, The European Communities).

Until it was merged to the European Commission in 1967, The High Authority governed the ECSC to provide a common market in terms of coal and steel. “The Six (Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg and the Netherlands) opted for integration and supranationalism as the means of unification. ” (Henig, 1997:12) For Haas, political integration is “the process whereby political actors in several distinct national settings are persuaded to shift their loyalties, expectations, and political activities toward a new centre, whose institutions possess or demand jurisdiction over the pre-existing national states” (Haas 1958,16).

According to neo-functionalist thinking “the fundamental idea was that international relations shouldn`t be seen as a zero sum game, and that everybody wins when countries become involved in processes of economic and political integration” (Stroby-Jensen in Cini, 2007:84). The main reason for this arguments is one of the key concepts of neo-functionalism, namely spillover, which will be substantiated in the next part. 2. Main concepts of Neo-functionalist theory The Spillover thesis

Neo-functionalist theory assumes that cooperation in a certain area triggers cooperation in several other areas areas (sometimes not previously planned ones) to achieve a through integration in the original area and creates new political goals (Stroby-Jensen in Cini, 2007:84). According Neo-functionalism the logic of spillover is central to explain the expansive logic of European integration and in this part three main types of spill over will be briefly identified to understand this expansive logic with a closer view.

The first type of spill over is the functional or technical spillover, which suggests some sectors are so interdependent to each other that, it is impossible to isolate them and further integration is the key to prevent further problems. In other words, it takes place “when integration in one industry/sector creates its own impetus and necessitates further integration both in the same, and in other industries/sectors” (Howell, 2002:17).

The second type is the political spillover according to which policy areas are purposefully linked together due to ideological reasons, sometimes as “package deals” (Stroby-Jensen in Cini, 2007:85). With such integration, the actors will realise their benefits in the international level instead of national one and form international coalitions (Haas, 1968:34). So the elites will learn to pursue their benefits in the international level and “refocus their activities, expectations and even loyalties to the new center” (Tranholm-Mikkelsen, 1991:4).

The third type of spillover is the cultivated spillover which puts emphasis on central institutions like the Commission especially when nation states aren`t willingful for further integration. So it is assumed “that the European Commission will be pro-active in the management of European integration” (Howell, 2002:17). But the important point here is that the central institutions such as the Commission act “not only as mediators, but also more directly as agents of political integration or as `policy enterpreneurs`” (Stroby-Jensen in Cini, 2007:85).

Elite Socialization and Supranational Interest Group Thesis The second and the third thesis of neo-functionalism are elite socialization thesis and supranational interest group thesis. “The elite socialization thesis describes that over time civil servants and politicians involved on a regular basis in the supranational policy process will tend to develop European loyalties and preferences” (Mailand, 2005:6). This loyalty would result in prioritizing the European interests rather than the national ones in the framework of pan-European norms and ideas.

This formation of European-minded agents result in a common European identity. The latter one, the supranational interest group thesis, argues the presence of interest groups putting pressure on governments to accelerate the integration process based on their economic and political interests. “Organized interest groups are also expected to become more European, as corporations and business groups formulate their own interests with an eye to the supranational institutions” (Stroby-Jensen in Cini, 2007:87).

They “may ally themselves with supranational institutions like the European Commission in pursuing their agendas” (Ozcan, 2008:8). 3. Main criticisms for the Neo-functionalist theory The power of a theory is closely related with its accuracy of prediction. That is why neo-functionalism was considered to be quite convincing around 1950s and 1960s. From the middle of 1960 the theory suffered a great deal due to the incompatibilities with reality until its renaissance around mid 1980s due to the developments in integration process.

But in this part the main criticisms towards neo-functionalism before its revival will be elaborated with its imperfections under empirical and theoretical grounds. From an empirical grounds perspective, due to its attempt for being a grand theory, neo-functionalist school put forward some great assumptions, the most attention drawing of which is the emphasis on incremental integration rather than with fluctuations during the integration process of Europe.

On the one hand, compared to its predecessor functionalism (as mentioned at the beginning of the paper, due to the limitations, the contextual approach to neo-functionalism is abstracted from this paper), neo-functionalism takes into consideration the non-automated integration; but on the other hand, ironically, based on spill over concept, neo-functionalism did not take into consideration the possibility of spill-back until the middle of 1960s, which can shortly be defined as the process of disintegration and “withdraw from joint obligations” (Schmitter, 2002:20), and downgrading their commitment to mutual cooperation.

The most explicit example would be the Empty Chair Crisis “From 30 June 1965 to 29 January 1966, in disagreement with the Commission of the European Communities on the financing of the common agricultural policy (CAP), France’s representatives refuse to attend any intergovernmental meetings of the Community bodies in Brussels” (European Navigator, The Empty Chair Crisis). The French president Charles de Gaulle who had a military background created a huge crisis which ended up with the Luxembourg Compromise in 1966.

The main reason for this was the gradual transition from unanimous voting to qualified-majority voting as provided for in the Treaty of Rome with effect from 1966 (Europa Glossary, Luxembourg Compromise). The crisis due to the intergovernmental view of French government formed the end of the first phase of neo-functionalism, leaving its place to a nation-state dominated perception of integration. From a theoretical grounds perspective, neo-functionalist school was criticized for the inability to predict the nature of integration.

Concerning this, even Haas himself acknowledged that “What once appeared to be a distinctive `supranational? style now looks more like a huge regional bureaucratic appendage to an intergovernmental conference in permanent session. ” (Haas, 1975:6). As it is mentioned in the empirical grounds part, the concept of spill over was seen not to reflect the realities of integration process all the time. The second important critique from a theoretical point of view is towards the elite socialization thesis, which mainly assumes the development of supranational loyalties and identities.

This criticism argues that in fact it is not possible to separate the servants from their national roots and even if they are paid and appointed by a supranational authority, they may still have a “larger ear” (Dihm, 2010: Field Trip to Brussels Meeting) for their national backgrounds either due to due their previous networks or nationalist sentiments. The third criticism focuses on the nature of neo-functionalism, which gives the main importance on the supranational character of international relations.

Again taking into consideration the empirical criticism, the intergovernmental aspect was underestimated in case of national interests by the neo-functionalist school and the main criticism was towards an analysis which is more centered on intergovernmental aspects. 4. The revival of Neo-functionalism in the late 1980s and early 1990s Although Neo-functionalism lost its popularity after the middle of 1960s (after a period of popularity in 1950s and first half of 1960s), it started to gain its popularity due to the revitalization of EU integration process.

This renewed interest is closely associated with the Single European Act (1986) which brought forward creation of an internal market in EU until 1992. “To facilitate the establishment of the internal market, the act provides for increasing the number of cases in which the Council can take decisions by qualified majority voting instead of unanimity” (Europa. eu, Single European Act). This accelerated the integration process in many ways besides removing trade barriers only, making the concept of spillover frequently referred to once again after a long slumber.

Nevertheless according to some, this renewal would not be sufficient to understand the linear progression of social events. “As social scientists, we wish for theories about the social world to build on each other in some linear fashion but more often than not we observe, instead, a cyclical pattern by which different schools of thought replace each other in commanding out attention over time. Leading figures in the various theoretical traditions follow this same pattern” (Orru, 1988:115).

But this was merely a cyclical pattern in fact when a closer analysis is made concerning the main theoretical aspects of the renaissance of neo-functionalism. After the theory strengthened by the developments in EU, the most significant contribution came from Alec Stone Sweet and Wayne Sandholtz`s “European Integration and Supranational Governance”. Their main argument is given at the beginning of their article as “We argue that European integration is provoked and sustained by the development of causal connections between three factors: transnational exchange, supra-national organization, and European Community (EC) rule-making. (Stone-Sweet, Sandholtz, 1997:297) and their main emphasis is on “cross-border transactions and communications that generate a social demand for EC rules and regulation” and institutionalization due to EC rules and as endresult “this process provokes further integration” (Stone-Sweet, Sandholtz, 1997:297). As seen above, their theory is based on a sense of causality and their position is in between the intergovernmental and supranational politics which is seen as a continuum and “the continuum measures the increasing influences of three factors on policy-making processes and outcomes within any given policy sector.

These factors are: (1) supranational organizations; (2) supranational rules; and (3) transnational society” (Stone-Sweet, Sandholtz, 1997:303). Bargaining takes place between a number of actors to decide on which end of the continuum is more predominant during the decision making process; nevertheless, since they also take into consideration the intergovernmental aspect, they argue “the grand bargains are, by definition, intergovernmental” (Stone-Sweet, Sandholtz, 1997:307).

They not only take into consideration the intergovernmental policies, but also accept them existing in all stages and parts of the decision making system by saying “ In fact, intergovernmental decision-making is ubiquitous in the EC, present even at the far right-hand pole of our continuum [which is Supranational Politics]” (Stone-Sweet, Sandholtz, 1997:306).

What they take as their starting point to their theory constitutes the core point of their argument, which is the society as the determinant actor especially “non-state actors who engage in trans-actions and communications across national borders, within Europe” (Stone-Sweet, Sandholtz, 1997:306). It will be the people to demand a certain standard of European rules standards and “as transnational exchange rises, so does the societal demand for supranational rules and organizational capacity to regulate” (Stone-Sweet, Sandholtz, 1997:306).

Stone-Sweet and Sandholtz also make a check of their argument by looking at “Eurosclerosis”. “The period from the mid-1960s to the mid-1980s in the context of European integration is often referred to as an era of stagnation or eurosclerosis. ” (Awesti, 2006:2). Stone-Sweet and Sandholtz argue that during this period starting from the Empty Chair Crisis to The Single European Act in other words “ In the worst days of ‘Eurosclerosis’ in the 1970s, levels of intra-EC trade and other forms of exchange soared” and they point out a direct correlation between the integration process and the exchanges that take place.

As seen, transaction based integration theory is depicted as a process which is mainly driven by the volume of transactions taking place for a thorough integration process by triggering a vast extent of regulations in myriads of areas. Conclusion Mentioned as the first words of this paper “Any comprehensive theory of integration should potentially be a theory of disintegration” (Schmitter, 2002:4), Schmitter highlights that the strength and weakness of neo-functionalism is rather similar and what creates integration may end up with disintegrative consequences.

Being accepted as the first of the integration theories, neo-functionalism has had a very debated place due to its defying characteristics against the sovereignty of nation states. When all the information given above is summed up, it would be possible to say that the time p in which a theory exists in, is crucial for its existence. In other words, the perceptions and conditions of its age is of great importance to decide on the consistency of a theory.

Neo-functionalism suffered due to the theoretical assumptions and the realities of integration process in its first phase; nevertheless, the notion of supranationality seemed to be better absorbed and digested by the nation-states in its second phase. Another significant determinant factor about the life of a theory that one can deduct by looking at the example of neo-functionalism is the level of abstractions. How much a theory shall abstract and accept is a major question and although in the first phase Haas didn`t totally deny the authority of nation-states, due to the sensitivities of the age, the theory weakened considerably.

Even if they don? t define themselves as neo-functionalists, Stone-Sweet and Sandholtz`s approach to integration process as a continuum between the two poles of sovereignty brought a fresh start for the decision-making and integration process of EU. All in all, today neo-functionalism with its renewed form, is one of the most significant theories to observe and understand the dynamics of integration process of EU together with all the bargaining process that takes place between the actors involved.