Functionalists view society as a complex system composed of various interconnected parts that work together to maintain stability and order.

When examining a phenomenon like the Occupy Wall Street movement, functionalists would primarily focus on option c: how the movement contributes to the stability of society by offering discontented individuals a safe, controlled outlet for expressing their dissent.

Option c is correct because functionalists believe that social movements and protests serve a purpose in society beyond just the immediate goals of the protestors. From a functionalist perspective, such movements can act as safety valves for societal discontent.

They provide an avenue for individuals to voice their grievances and frustrations without causing significant disruption to the established social order. By allowing dissent to be expressed within a controlled framework, society can address issues without risking widespread disruption or upheaval.

Moreover, the Occupy Wall Street movement, from a functionalist viewpoint, brought attention to income inequality, corporate influence, and economic disparity. It prompted discussions and brought these issues to the forefront of public consciousness.

In doing so, it served a function by highlighting areas of concern within the societal structure, potentially leading to reforms that could address these grievances in a more controlled manner.

However, let’s analyze why the other options might not align with the functionalist perspective:

a. The minute functions that every person at the protests plays in the whole

Functionalists do acknowledge the importance of individual roles in contributing to the overall functioning of society.

However, focusing solely on the minute functions of individuals at protests might overlook the broader purpose of the movement within the societal framework. It’s more about the movement’s impact on society as a whole rather than the specific roles of individuals within it.

b. The internal conflicts that play out within such a diverse and leaderless group

While internal conflicts within a movement are noteworthy, functionalists might not emphasize these conflicts as much as other perspectives might. Instead, they tend to view social movements as mechanisms that ultimately serve a function in maintaining social stability, regardless of internal disputes.

d. The factions and divisions that form within the movement

Similarly, while acknowledging factions and divisions within a movement, functionalists might not see these divisions as the primary focus when analyzing the movement’s impact on society. Instead, they are more concerned with how the movement as a whole contributes to the overall stability of the social structure.

In essence, functionalists would emphasize how movements like Occupy Wall Street provide a platform for expressing dissent without significantly destabilizing the social order. They view such movements as integral in allowing societal change to occur within manageable boundaries, contributing to the overall stability and functionality of the society.