A Dance Between Two Models
The Functional Model is found in a harmonious and stable society in which each component of the society functions properly. Components of a society include government sector, commercial sector, etc. Each component is supposed to contribute to the stability of the societies social order in pursuing a common goal.
In a progress towards a sustainable environment, the Functional Model is applicable only when the society has the same common goal. Under this situation, consumers and suppliers will try to consume and produce in a sustainable way. In situations where market mechanism cannot address the problems of environmental externalities, government interventions like tax, subsidies, code of practice, etc. can help to rectify market failures as far as possible. However, when a society is in a lack of this common goal, the functional model would no longer help to pursue sustainable environment. Instead, a conflict model will be helpful.
The Conflict model is found when someone in a society suffers from the existing social structures and social processes. These sufferings result into conflicts in the society that push changes. Power, wealth and prestige, etc. in the society are emphasized in Conflict model. Thus, when a society is lacking a common goal to pursue a sustainable environment, people who are discontented with the existing situations will stand up and voice out. These people will eventually start a series of campaigns, lobbying the public and the government to focus the issue and rectify the situation.
Society adopts facets of both the foundational functional model and the more fluid conflict model. The functional model, while acknowledging its inadequacies provides stability, organization, common values and structures/institutions to maintain a stable and harmonious community - kind of like a necessary foundation. However, the conflict model delicately overlays the functional model in that 'conflict' leads to constructive change, progress and perhaps, eventually, greater equity, prosperity and sustainability for the better good of the community.
"The conflict model believes in confrontation by those who are disadvantaged or who lack political power to gain what they believe is right". These conflicts are often born through the principles and values of individuals or community groups such as social movements or activist groups. It is the efforts of these groups who inform and educate the general community about issues that we might otherwise be unbeknown to (for example whale killing or the like).
They represent the views of at least part of the community, and through their support, pressure government into shaping or reshaping environmental policies and decisions (and the government does want those votes!). The conflict model has been extremely important in allowing the concerns of activists to be voiced and in the development of sustainable development and environmental management and protection.
I hope the greenies keep on keeping the government on their toes and us informed! I am very sceptical of green groups “keeping us informed”. Green groups are based on emotionalism and I think this is very true in majority of cases. In many instances, green groups sensationalize issues in an effort to win our sympathy. But in many cases this may actually hinder environmental management or change. An example of this is the culling of elephants in Kruger National Park (South Africa). Due to international pressures from green groups it is not longer acceptable for Kruger National Park management to cull the elephant population. As a result, the elephants are doing more damage than good further damaging the environment.
Yes, there are other ways to deal with the elephant population such as contraception methods and translocation. The contraception method was tried but abandoned due to the amount of stress place on the animal. Translocation is a very costly operation and in many cases the elephants simply return to the point of origin. The elephant population could be effectively controlled through culling but international green groups will not allow this to occur. Now who is wrecking the environment?
Models are "a simplified description of a system etc. to assist calculations and predictions" (Concise Oxford dictionary) or "a representation of reality in which main features of some aspect of the real world are presented in simplified terms in order to make that aspect easier to comprehend and to facilitate making predictions" (Oxford Dictionary of Earth Science). So models simplify to facilitate understanding, calculation and prediction. They do not, of their nature, describe the whole, all that exists in reality. That's O.K. – they aren't meant to. Problems arise when the model is applied to the real world without respect to the inbuilt limitations. It can be argued interminably and pointlessly as to which is right; they probably all have their grain of truth - their particular focus, or 'aspect of the real world'. As I see it, this real world works on a fusion of the two (structural/functional and conflict) models. In any given situation, the current paradigm is followed until some form of conflict brings a different viewpoint to the public's attention. Whether this viewpoint is accepted or rejected, the existing paradigm responds by changing - either to suppress or incorporate (to some degree) the conflicting view. While the terminology here is general, I believe this applies to the situation under discussion.