Intersectionality and Functionalism

I spent about six hours sorting over forty pounds of candy over the weekend (long story), and while I did so, my mind obviously went to sociology. I mean, I had to think about something. Within ten minutes of Friday’s class ending, my head was already full of thoughts. After a discussion about intersectionality and functionalism, that’s bound to happen. I love the topic of intersectionality. As someone who has an identity reaching very significantly into intersectionality, I truly do find it fascinating. But what happens when intersectionality meets functionalism? Well, I made a loose attempt at this during class. Following my professor’s “I think I know what you’re trying to say, and you’re right, but be careful”, I immediately started thinking. As always, I need to put these thoughts somewhere. So here we go!

Aside from my moderate obsession with Emile Durkheim, I typically fall towards the conflict theorist side of things. Perhaps that is why I’m so intrigued by intersectionality. Largely associated with conflict theory, intersectionality is the teaching that identity is not clear cut, we cross over into many different realms. Our identity is made up of our socioeconomic status, gender identity, sexuality, race, ability status, and so much more. However, conflict theorists see intersectionality as a massive contributor to social inequality. I get that, it makes sense. Our society doesn’t hold a lot of space for the intersectional identities we most definitely have. For lack of better verbiage, intersectionality can really piss off a conflict theorist in this regard. This isn’t to say conflict theorists don’t like intersectionality, but it is to say that the reality of it can most definitely contribute to inequality.

The question my professor presented us with was in relation to how functionalists would feel about the legalization of gay marriage. More specifically, would a functionalist support the legalization of gay marriage? My initial response: Who wouldn’t support the legalization of gay marriage? Functionalists, that’s who. If you’ve read a few of my previous posts then you know that functionalism revolves around the idea that society operates alright, that each role is specific and important, so on and so forth. The contingency here is that these roles are set. In functionalist ideology, there are separate roles for each gender, race, socioeconomic status, etc. What happens when those roles are challenged by intersectionality? We know that conflict theorists would say inequality. But what would a functionalist say? I’m going to leave that unanswered for a bit.

I found a very interesting article recently linking functionalism and intersectionality all the way back to Darwin. Considering Darwin’s role as the Father of Evolution, that essentially brings intersectionality way back to the beginning of, well, I guess existence. While this article went really scientific with things, I found the subject matter quite relevant. A sidestep from what I’m trying to get at, I guess this article sort of supports my own ideas on intersectionality. 1, it’s real. 2, it’s complicated. And 3, it has a very big role in society. Before I delve into this role (through the lens of conflict theory and functionalism) I’ll share a bit more of my thoughts and experiences as they relate to intersectionality. You can skip the next paragraph if you’re not interested in the personal stuff. I promise I won’t be offended (;

Something I’ve struggled with for a very long time is the reality that I don’t “fit” anywhere. My identity is composed of too many things to allow me to genuinely feel like I belong in any one space, and I mean this on all levels. I’m too mature to fit in with my college-aged peers, but I’m too young to fit in with the “adults”. I’m too academically driven to fit in with certain cliques, but not academically driven enough to fit in with others. These are some of the really small examples. We could also talk about how I’m too high functioning to fit in with the disabled community, but too disabled to fit in with the able-bodied community. We could talk about the duality of my financial situation. Or we could talk about religion. Or we could talk about gender and sexuality (saving those ones for another day… you’re welcome.) The point of the matter here is that no matter which angle I take, I just don’t fit. I spent years in therapy trying to understand this mess, and after being met with “you’ll find your crowd” for too long, I gave up. That is, until I realized the crux of it. Cue today’s key word: Intersectionality! With this understanding of how intersectionality has impacted my social existence, I’d say I’m one of the PO’d conflict theorists. Why don’t we have room for these vast elements to exists as one whole, complete identity?

This leads me to something else my sociology professor said. When discussing gender, she explained that society really does run on the binary. Male and female. As I’ve said in previous posts, I’d like to think I do a decent job of trying to look past the social structures that aren’t necessarily essential This binary would be one of them. My professor’s words were a great wake up call. As she discussed this clear-cut view society takes, my head started spinning. So you’re telling me that even though there is sooooo much more that goes into an identity than solely gender, we’re still living in a binary world? I had the same thoughts when we discussed race, and again when we discussed meritocracy.

Let’s explore that last one again. Meritocracy. My professor outlined Oprah’s “Big Three”. No, we’re not talking astrology here. Oprah is a black woman raised in a low-income household. One, two, three. That’s part of what makes her success so important. That’s part of what makes her merit so extraordinary. That’s intersectionality, folx!

Now let’s set meritocracy aside and reintroduce this idea of societal operation. If we really are living by the binary, then roles are fixed based on gender. (We could make similar statements about race and other aspects of an intersectional identity) Stay with me. If roles are fixed by gender, then gay marriage will be a big issue for functionalists. If society functions because our gender roles are respective, challenging those roles (especially through the intersectionality of LGBTQ+ identity) would then mean intersectionality pisses off functionalists too. Well now everyone is mad..

But there’s another layer to this. We didn’t dedicate too much time to this in class, but it’s so important. The question my professor presented wasn’t only if functionalists would support gay marriage, it was if functionalists would support the legalization of gay marriage. While it breaks my heart to think of something like love being a crime, that is technically what it was under the LGBTQ+ umbrella. It was illegal, and in some regions still is, for two people of the same gender to get married. Love was a crime, but that’s what functionalists will use to their advantage. In an article I read for my sociology class, I read that, “what is normal, simply, is the existence of criminality…” (Emile Durkheim, “The Functions of Crime”) Recognize the name in that parenthetical reference? The man, the myth, the legend… The Father of Sociology himself… Emile Durkheim. If crime is normal, according to functionalists, then why legalize what was once a crime? What I find mind-blowing is Durkheim’s definition of a crime: “Crime… consists of an act that offends certain very strong collective sentiments.” 😮

If we run under this definition of a crime, then the legalization of gay marriage would quite literally make a crime accepted in society. These “collective sentiments” of being offended will perpetually be associated to the LGBTQ+ community. so long as those sentiments are still around, which let’s be honest, they will be, functionalists won’t support the legalization of gay marriage. What I love about this example is that I think I caught Durkheim in a conundrum? Bear with me, let me explain…

In this same article, Durkheim claims crimes are necessary because they are, “indispensable to the normal evolution of morality and law.” Ok, so crimes are supposed to teach us how to better act and behave (as if one could choose their sexual orientation… I digress.) Durkheim is saying crimes will guide our moral evolution. But here comes the catch. Durkheim also says that, “in order that these transformations may be possible, the collective sentiments at the basis of morality must not be hostile to change, and consequently must have but moderate energy.” Do you see where I’m going with this? Key words here: not be hostile to change… Need I say more?

If functionalists won’t support the legalization of gay marriage because gay marriage is a necessary crime, but the point of crime is to morally evolve, then remind me again why functionalists won’t support it? I know, fixed roles. I’ll bark about that one another day. I’m sure Durkheim was fully aware of this conundrum, but it was pretty fun for me, being the sociological novice that I am, to work through it in my brain. There are so many different avenues we could explore when it comes to the relationship between functionalism and intersectionality, but for the sake of this post’s length, I’ll leave it here for now. Besides, I have another draft waiting for me to finish it. Thanks for bearing with me through yet another rambling of my brain’s nonstop wheel of thoughts. As always, there’ll be more from where that came…

Referenced Article: “The Functions of Crime” By Emile Durkheim (my professor uploaded a copy of it for our class, but you could probably find it online, or at least a more “in depth” analysis of it…)

So long, until next time!