More Menu

What is Functionalism? Explained

byPosted at

Contents

  1. Introduction
  2. The Origins of Functionalism
  3. ‘System’ and Functionalism(s)
  4. A General Note on Systems Theory and System Analysis
  5. Parsons and The Social System
  6. Merton: Structures in the System are Not Always Functional 
  7. Criticisms of Structural Functionalism

Introduction

Functionalism as a school of thought arose as a critique of the utilitarian idea that humans are economically motivated rational actors who strive to maximize their "utility" or profits. The utilitarianism that prevailed in the 19th century assumed that there was "an invisible hand of order" through "open competition in free markets" that allowed people to satisfy different needs through the market (Turner 2007: 37). This ultimately promoted social order and organized human behavior (Turner 2007). Sociologists opposed such utilitarianism and adopted organicism, according to which society and the social order are conceived in terms of its perception as a biological being. Sociology as a discipline arose in response to the whirlwind transformations that European and American society went through politically, economically, and culturally after the French and American revolutions. The typical concern of most sociological thinkers in the 19th century was: How is social order possible? And what makes society possible?

To understand social change, macro-level studies have been conducted to decipher patterns of social change. Society has been studied as a total and autonomous system. This chapter takes us through the trajectory of functionalism (or, more generally, structural functionalism) in its great attempt to explain the social system. Functionalism has been revised as neo-functionalism, celebrating its methodological aspects and criticizing its tendency to overlook several important aspects of society (such as conflict). We will see in this transition how the analysis of the system itself has been reconfigured.

The Origins of Functionalism

To explain the essential question of social order, functionalism as a mentality emerged in Europe and America in the 19th century. Turner (2007) cites "the organism of Auguste Comte", the father of sociology who approached the question through the scientific lens of research into social laws. As with natural laws, Comte believed that social phenomena expressed law-like tendencies and studied what explanation of society was possible. Although Comte did not identify himself as a functionalist, his comparison of elements of society (such as families) with cells and tissues whose proper functioning leads to the maintenance of the "social organism" makes him an important contributor to and one of the founders of functionalism , according to Turner (2007: 40). Herbert Spencer also contributed to the development of functionalism by likening societies to an organism and spawned "required functionalism" as Turner (2007) calls it. This implies that social structures exhibit certain “universal requirements that must be met in order to fit into an environment” (Turner 2007: 43). The key idea of ​​functionalism was that - social processes and structures have certain "demands" or needs that must be met for social order to be possible. Emile Durkheim's functionalism was most evident in his work The Division of Labor in Society, in which he illustrates how specialized organs (institutions) of society (of modern, industrial, or "organic" society) work together to create social order. Through his concepts of 'normal' and 'pathological', he showed how social order is disrupted when parts of the social body deviate from their adaptive roles. "Social systems have needs that must be satisfied if 'abnormal' states are to be avoided" (Turner 2007: 45). In the anthropological tradition, A.R. Radcliffe-Brown and Bronislaw Malinowski's names are associated for their contribution to the functional school of thought. From Durkheim's functional analysis of structures, they found answers to the intellectual challenges facing anthropology at the time. Turner claims that it was Malinowski who "extended the limited functional orientation of Durkheim and Radcliffe Brown in the directions taken by the early sociological functionalists of the 1940s and early 1950s" (Turner and Maryanski 1988: 114). These anthropologists were first introduced to sociology by Merton at Harvard University in America. According to Turner, American sociology was not developed to deal with questions of total social systems, and it was through these European influences that functionalism "settled" into sociology and experienced a revival in works. from Parsons and Merton see was. Functionalism was of great importance in the 1940s to the early 1960s.

 ‘System’ and Functionalism(s)

When we talk about functionalism, we don't mean just a single theorist or a single branch of thought. Now let's look at the different types of functionalisms that appear in the sociological literature. For example, Parson's functionalist approach is labeled by Turner (2007) as "analytical functionalism", Merton's as "empirical functionalism", and Luhmann's as "systemic functionalism". The detailed contribution of each of the three thinkers will be covered in separate chapters. Each of them had different focuses and methodological variations. What they all have in common, however, is the “system perspective” (Moore 1979: 322). According to Collins (1997), a system is “anything that has parts connected by processes or relationships. A system can be open or closed, stable or unstable. Functionalism is a particular type of systems theory which attempts to explain the existence of parts of society in terms of their contribution to the maintenance of society as a whole” (Collins 1997: 75). Therefore, social order depended on the processes of 'differentiation' and 'interdependence' of parts, as illustrated by Durkheim's idea of ​​'organic solidarity' (Moore 1979: 324). Wells (1978) explains that culture was the main concern of functionalism. Culture refers to "the organized values, norms and beliefs which govern all social life" (Wells 1978: 7). Culture, according to Wells, is understood by functionalists to be inherently stable and permanent in nature. Culture brings social order. Thus, functionalism has always been interested in "how parts of culture (e.g., norms regulating kinship) work for the total culture, i.e. what is their purpose (function) in the overall culture (socialization of children, regulation of fertility, etc.). on)' (Wells 1978: 7). Functionalists are concerned with issues of regulation or "the problem of integration" in society (Moore 1979:329). Moore (1979) exclaims that "nonconformity or deviance has remained a theoretical problem with regard to integration" (1979: 329).

Functionalism as a theory allows you to answer why does a certain system or social model exist? According to it, the existence of something should be explained by the function it performs in society. The existence of "system requirements" or "needs" emphasizes that structures in society have functions that must be fulfilled for the social order to prevail. This is the basis of "structural functionalism". Structural functionalism views social systems as "a tendency to perform particular tasks necessary for their survival, and sociological analysis therefore involves the search for social structures which perform these tasks, or meet the 'needs' of the social system" (Wallace and Wolf 1995:17). According to Ritzer (2011), one does not have to worry about “structure” and “function” at the same time. For example, he argues that one can study the structures of society without asking questions about the functions of these structures. He says structural functionalism has different approaches; among sociological structural functionalists, however, “social functionalism” remains dominant (Ritzer 2011: 238). This branch of functionalism deals with the large organizations, institutions, and organizations of society with an emphasis on their interrelationships and how they constrain the actions of people in society. Besides Durkheim, Parsons and Merton, Kingsley Davis and Wilbert Moore are also associated with structural functionalism. The latter two are known for their theories of functional stratification.

Wallace and Wolf (1995:18) note the following central arguments or commonalities among different
functionalists:
  1. The general interrelatedness or interdependence, of the system‟s parts; 
  2. The existence of a “normal” state of affairs, or state of equilibrium, comparable to the normal or healthy state of an organism; and 
  3. The way that all the parts of the system reorganize to bring things back to normal.
Functionalism has been heavily criticized for providing the simplest and cheapest interpretation of everything (Collins 1997: 54) and for its goal of preserving the status quo (Turner 2007). Moore (1979) points out that the "integration model" of functionalism often ignores conflicts and contradictions within systems. Collins (1997) suggests that it provides an ideological rationale for dominant group interests, teleology, inclusiveness that neglects social diversity, and political conservatism are some of the critiques discussed by Wells (1978). According to Wells, the most notable study of functionalism can be attributed to the Polish sociologist Piotr Sztompka (1974). According to Sztompka, there are many streams of functional theorizing. When we talk about functionalism, the two most important theorists whose names come up are Talcott Parsons and Robert K. Merton, to whom we will turn in a moment.

Before understanding Parsons' theory of systems action, it is useful to consider the larger framework of systems theory to which it belongs.

A General Note on Systems Theory and System Analysis

The term "systems theory" was coined after Ludwig von Bertalanffi's "general theory of systems" (1968). In the following paragraphs, we will see how he transformed over the years from Parsons to neo-functionalists like Alexander and Luhmann. Let's look at the common characteristics of system analyzes. The systems analysis approach is based on the assumption that 'complex relationships of parts cannot be treated in isolation from the context of the whole. Systems theorists reject the idea that society or other large-scale components of society should be treated as unified social facts. Instead, the focus is on relationships or processes at different levels within the social system» (Ritzer 2011: 331). Another important feature of any systems approach is that it sees socio-cultural systems in terms of processes, of a complex web of information and communication networks (Ritzer 2011).

A common thread running through various forms of functionalism is "integration". Systems theory in general (although unlike Parsons' action theory) allows for the analysis of sudden changes and developments and dynamics in society. Systems theory is also called the "cybernetic approach". Cybernetics is a commonly used concept in the natural sciences, mainly in physics. "Self-regulation through information processing" or feedback system which is the "process by which a machine or system monitors its performance and uses that information to regulate its ongoing performance" (Shibutani 1986:119). This is the main idea behind cybernetics. For example, a thermostat measures heat output and feeds it back to the furnace which controls the fuel supply (ibid). The heating system is therefore self-regulating (ibid). One such idea of ​​cybernetics is found in Parsons' Cybernetic Hierarchy of Control (Turner 2007: 73). Therefore, systems theory is based on the feedback mechanism between environment and society. Parsons' functionalism was therefore a subspecies of systems theory.

Parsons and The Social System

Wells (1978) argues that Parsons' work was "so prolific and important to contemporary theory that it is perhaps best thought of as a 'school' of functionalism itself". Parsons' most important contribution was his AGIL model, which he used to illustrate that every social system performs four functions - adaptation, goal attainment, integration, and latency - to maintain order and "survive" (Ritzer 2011 : 242). These four "functional imperatives" provide for the adjustment of the system to maintain order by channeling and balancing disruptive tendencies within the system. These four functions are each served by four systems: the organism (adaptation), the personality (attainment of objectives), the social system (integration) and the cultural system (latency). four-way systems, through the “internalization of values ​​through socialization” and forms of social control (Turner 2007: 67). It begins with “uniform action” which consists of the “motivated actor” seeking goals while being constrained by their situational and cultural norms and constraints. According to Parson, a social system arises when "differently oriented actors interact with each other, develop similarities and maintain patterns of interaction, which become 'institutionalized'. Such institutionalized patterns form the social system (Turner 2007: 63). It is important to note that Parsons saw the social system as one of interaction, but that interaction itself was not central to his theory. Rather, it was the concept of 'status' and 'role' which, in his view, shaped the social system (Wallace and Wolf 1995). Status refers to structural position within the social system» and role is «what the actor does in that position seen in its functional significance for the larger system» (Ritzer 2011: 244). Other important contributions of Parsons to the functional school of thought, apart from the action system, were model variables, system problems, and the theory of evolutionary change (Wallace and Wolf 1995: 27). Throughout his work, it can be seen that he was primarily concerned with the system as a whole and that any reference to individual actors was related to the actors' relationship to society.

Merton: Structures in the System are Not Always Functional 

Merton is known for his contribution to functionalism through his "mid-range" theories (e.g. these theories have an empirical basis rather than being structured explanations around the realm of abstraction. His ideas are more methodologically oriented as a claim of a grand theory. Merton emphasized that it is not necessary to theorize about society as a whole, but can analyze, for example, an institution or a group (Ritzer 2011). Turner (2007) calls Merton's functionalism "empirical functionalism", mainly because Merton insists that "empirical tests, not theoretical propositions, are essential to functional analysis", and this "led him to develop his 'paradigm of functional analysis as a guide for integrating theory and research” (Ritzer 2011: 253). There are two main differences between Merton and Parsons (Ritzer 2011). First, Parsons leaned toward grand theories, while Merton clung to average theories. Second, Merton pushed structural functionalism towards a Marxist approach by considering conflict situations where functions do not always promote social order. Merton criticizes the three postulates of classical structural functionalism. First, the postulate of functional unity, which assumes that all “standardized social and cultural beliefs and practices are functional both for society as a whole and for the individual in society. This view implies that the different parts of a social system must exhibit a high degree of integration» (Ritzer 2011: 252). To this Merton observed that this may be true for simple and primitive societies, but such a generalization cannot be made for larger and more complex societies. The second criticism was directed against the postulate of “universal functionalism” according to which all “cultural forms and structures have positive functions” (Ritzer 2011: 252). This has been refuted by his concept of "dysfunction". Merton challenges the functionalists' idea that everything (any institution or structure) that exists in society is functional to society. For example, something that works for one social group may be dysfunctional for another group. Take the example of poverty. The poor are recruited into underpaid and "dirty" jobs that otherwise would not find takers. The existence of the poor gives philanthropists the opportunity to engage in community service. However, poverty is dysfunctional for the poor themselves (Wells 1978:9). Thirdly, he showed that there are functional alternatives and argued against the postulate of indispensability, which supported the idea that the social structures present in society are best suited to perform the functions and that no other alternative could possibly meet these needs (Ritzer 2011). It is here that one might find traces of the Marxian approach to challenging the status quo. Merton held that there are overt or more obvious consequences of social structures. These are easily discernible because their consequences are considered “intentional”. But there are functions whose consequences are latent or unintended (Ritzer 2011). The latter should be interested in a sociologist. He also distinguishes the "latent" and "unexpected" consequences. The latent consequences are unexpected, but the latter include two other types of consequences. You may have unexpected dysfunctional consequences or consequences that do not work that are "unrelevant" for the system.

Criticisms of Structural Functionalism

A common criticism of structural functionalism, to which Parsons and Merton belonged (Ritzer 2011; Wallace and Wolf 1995), is that it tends to overemphasize the harmonious or orderly aspect of social relations and neglect the aspects of conflict that lead to positive social changes. can and need not always be “destructive” in nature (Ritzer 2011: 259). Second, issues of agency structure and the dialectic between them are neglected. They seem to care only about the limiting effects of societal values ​​and norms. Ritzer, quoting Gouldner, states that "people are as busy using social systems as they are supporting them" (Ritzer 2011: 259). Third, structural functionalists fall into the trap of viewing social reality as projected by ruling elites as the actual society without asking how such a society came into being in the first place (Rizer 2011). Finally, teleology and tautology are the greatest pitfalls of structural functionalism. Ritzer (2011) agrees with Turner and Maryanski that it is not 'teleology' per se that is problematic, but 'illegitimate teleology'. A purposive argument is one that assumes that certain social structures and processes exist because they serve a function in society. But the “illegitimate” teleological argument is one in which just justification is taken to the extreme (Ritzer 2011). An example that Ritzer cites in this context is that the family must exist to achieve the goal of procreation and socialization in society; therefore, society "needs" a family is an invalid purposive argument, as there could be other institutions that could perform the same function. A tautological argument is a form of “circular reasoning” in which the conclusion is a “restatement of the premise” (Ritzer 2011: 260). A social system is thus defined in terms of the interrelationships between different parts, and the parts that make up the social system are explained in terms of their relationship to the social whole. In such circular reasoning, Ritzer (2011) argues that neither the society nor the parts are properly explained.

References

  1. Bertalanffy, Ludwig Von. “The History and Status of General Systems Theory.” The Academy of Management Journal 15, No. 4 (1972): 407-426. 
  2. Bottomore, Tom and Robert Nisbet. A History of Sociological Analysis. USA: Heinemann /educational Books Ltd, 1979. 
  3. Collins, Randall. Theoretical Sociology. Jaipur: Rawat Publications, 1997. 
  4. Murphy, John W. “Talcott Parsons and Niklas Luhmann: Two Versions Of The Social "System." International Review of Modern Sociology 12, No. 2 (1982): 291-30.
Post a Comment
Tag,

Comments

Thank You