First, it is pointed out that functional theory as propounded by Parsons is concerned exclusively with the ends, but not means. Following this, the author concludes that in order for a theory to be adequate it needs to pay attention to both means and ends. Several other notable points have been pointed out in utilizing the theory of structural-functional tradition. For instance, in order to have adequate study of causality we would need a diachronic approach - something often neglected by functional theorists, who tends to regard the society as a timelessly stable system. In addition, the focus on symmetry, balance and complementariness should not lead us to neglected the role of conflict - in fact, by referring to Simmel and Coser, the author notes that very presence of conflict itself may be functional for a society.
Next task is the review of the conflict theory.
Here again the author gives a fairly comprehensive review of the major tenets and assumptions of the theory which I will not mention in detail, as well as pointing out some of the theory's weaknesses. First, it is pointed out that the approach of the conflict theory is basically that of methodological individualism. So, one of its advantage over the system theory is its clarity as to where does the agency of individual actions operate in generating a social system. After this basic point, it is then pointed out that conflict theory is built on the assumption on human nature that humans basically act on the basis of self-interest, rather than being fundamentally altruistic. It is then pointed out that conflict theory, while seemingly supporting a politically more radical stance than the functional theory, is actually ideologically neutral and that only in combination with the egalitarianism the conflict theory takes on the left-oriented veil.