Structural-Functional vs Conflict Model
The structural-functional model of society emphasises the process of socialisation, or learning to follow rules established through stable social institutions. On the other hand, the conflict model proposes a more dynamic society, whereby a society moves forward through power struggles over rights and beliefs. (See Edgar, Earle & Fopp (1993) for a more detailed discussion of these models).
These two models, while admittedly only presenting a simplified and somewhat abstract view of real-life societies, provide a good starting point for analysing the roles and comparative effectiveness of government regulation and environmental activism in achieving progress towards a sustainable environment. In the context of this question, proponents of the structural-functional model point towards the positive role of government regulation in addressing environmental concerns within the established framework of societal institutions. In stark contrast, the conflict model stresses the progress made towards sustainability through the actions of environmental groups, and highlights the role of conflict as the driving force behind positive environmental outcomes.
While arguments exist for and against both models in terms of their contribution to environmental sustainability, the conflict model has to date played the far greater role. It is only through environmental activism and conflict that environmental concerns have become embedded in the structural-functional fabric of society. If the conflict model had not come into play in the environmental arena, it is likely that socialisation (a la the structural-functional model) would still be teaching us, through the social institutions of family, education and religion, to be ‘good little consumers’, and to exploit and subdue nature for our own ends. (Lines (1991) provides a detailed history of this school of thought in an Australian context).
Through the conflict model, environmental activists have propelled environmental issues into the collective public consciousness. In terms of its role as an agent of social change, the conflict model appears to be far more responsible for enacting a shift from our traditionally anthropocentric society to a more biocentric, environmentally aware viewpoint. Thus, when pitted against the structural-functional model, the conflict model can be viewed as the more effective in terms of achieving environmental gains.
While the contribution of the structural-functional model (represented in this scenario by the government) is worthy of some credit in relation to its contribution to the environment, the role of the activist is by far the most effective. If it weren’t for the work of environmental activists and their supporters, dams would have destroyed Tasmania’s unique Franklin River wilderness, toxic waste would still be incinerated at sea and nuclear waste dumped there and mines would probably be operating in the Antarctic and Kimberly regions – to name just a few of the campaign successes of the last decades.
While these successes have not been solely the work of activists, without their relentless lobbying such issues would continue to fester and manifest into environmental catastrophes. The public relies on, and needs activists to bring these such issues to light. While a generalisation most governments, be they local or federal, will not act to correct an environmental problem unless there exists public commotion among the voting majority. While action is usually taken by governments it is all too often reactionary and only rarely preventative.