Structural functionalism, or simply functionalism, is a framework for building theory that sees
society as a complex system whose parts work together to promote solidarity and stability.
This approach looks at society through a macro-level orientation, which is a broad focus on the
social structures that shape society as a whole, and believes that society has evolved
like organisms. This approach looks at both social structure and social functions. Functionalism
addresses society as a whole in terms of the function of its constituent elements; namely
norms, customs, traditions, and institutions. A common analogy, popularized by Herbert Spencer,
presents these parts of society as "organs" that work toward the proper functioning of
the "body" as a whole. In the most basic terms, it simply emphasizes "the effort to impute,
as rigorously as possible, to each feature, custom, or practice, its effect on the functioning
of a supposedly stable, cohesive system". For Talcott Parsons, "structural-functionalism"
came to describe a particular stage in the methodological development of social science,
rather than a specific school of thought. The structural functionalism approach is a
macrosociological analysis, with a broad focus on social structures that shape society as
a whole.
Theory Classical theories are defined by a tendency
towards biological analogy and notions of social evolutionism:
Functionalist thought, from Comte onwards, has looked particularly towards biology as
the science providing the closest and most compatible model for social science. Biology
has been taken to provide a guide to conceptualizing the structure and the function of social systems
and to analyzing processes of evolution via mechanisms of adaptation ... functionalism
strongly emphasises the pre-eminence of the social world over its individual parts.
While one may regard functionalism as a logical extension of the organic analogies for societies
presented by political philosophers such as Rousseau, sociology draws firmer attention
to those institutions unique to industrialized capitalist society. Functionalism also has
an anthropological basis in the work of theorists such as Marcel Mauss, Bronisław Malinowski
and Radcliffe-Brown. It is in Radcliffe-Brown's specific usage that the prefix 'structural'
emerged. Radcliffe-Brown proposed that most stateless, "primitive" societies, lacking
strong centralised institutions, are based on an association of corporate-descent groups.
Structural functionalism also took on Malinowski's argument that the basic building block of
society is the nuclear family, and that the clan is an outgrowth, not vice versa.
Émile Durkheim was concerned with the question of how certain societies maintain internal
stability and survive over time. He proposed that such societies tend to be segmented,
with equivalent parts held together by shared values, common symbols or, as his nephew Marcel
Mauss held, systems of exchanges. Durkheim used the term 'mechanical solidarity' to refer
to these types of "social bonds, based on common sentiments & shared moral values, that
are strong among members of pre-industrial societies". In modern, complex societies,
members perform very different tasks, resulting in a strong interdependence. Based on the
metaphor above of an organism in which many parts function together to sustain the whole,
Durkheim argued that complex societies are held together by organic solidarity, i.e.
"social bonds, based on specialization and interdependence, that are strong among members
of industrial societies". These views were upheld by Durkheim, who,
following Comte, believed that society constitutes a separate "level" of reality, distinct from
both biological and inorganic matter. Explanations of social phenomena had therefore to be constructed
within this level, individuals being merely transient occupants of comparatively stable
social roles. The central concern of structural functionalism is a continuation of the Durkheimian
task of explaining the apparent stability and internal cohesion needed by societies
to endure over time. Societies are seen as coherent, bounded and fundamentally relational
constructs that function like organisms, with their various working together in an unconscious,
quasi-automatic fashion toward achieving an overall social equilibrium. All social and
cultural phenomena are therefore seen as functional in the sense of working together, and are
effectively deemed to have "lives" of their own. They are primarily analyzed in terms
of this function. The individual is significant not in and of himself, but rather in terms
of his status, his position in patterns of social relations, and the behaviours associated
with his status. Therefore, the social structure is the network of statuses connected by associated
roles. It is simplistic to equate the perspective
directly with political conservatism. The tendency to emphasise "cohesive systems",
however, leads functionalist theories to be contrasted with "conflict theories" which
instead emphasize social problems and inequalities. Prominent theorists
Auguste Comte Auguste Comte, the "Father of Positivism",
pointed out the need to keep society unified as many traditions were diminishing. He was
the first person to coin the term sociology. Auguste Comte suggests that sociology is the
product of a three-stage development. 1. Theological Stage: From the beginning of
human history until the end of the European Middle Ages, people took a religious view
that society expressed God's will. In the theological state, the human mind, seeking
the essential nature of beings, the first and final causes of all effects—in short,
absolute knowledge—supposes all phenomena to be produced by the immediate action of
supernatural beings. 2. Metaphysical Stage: People began seeing
society as a natural system as opposed to the supernatural. Began with the Enlightenment
and the ideas of Hobbes, Locke,and Rousseau. Reflected the failings of a selfish human
nature rather than the perfection of God. 3. Scientific Stage: Describing society through
the application of the scientific approach, which draws on the work of scientists.
Herbert Spencer
Herbert Spencer was a British philosopher famous for applying the theory of natural
selection to society. He was in many ways the first true sociological functionalist.
In fact, while Durkheim is widely considered the most important functionalist among positivist
theorists, it is well known that much of his analysis was culled from reading Spencer's
work, especially his Principles of Sociology. Spencer allude society to the analogy of human
body. Just as the structural parts of the human body - the skeleton, muscles, and various
internal organs - function independently to help the entire organism survive, social structures
work together to preserve society. While most avoid the tedious tasks of reading
Spencer's massive volumes, there are some important insights that have quietly influenced
many contemporary theorists, including Talcott Parsons, in his early work The Structure of
Social Action. Cultural anthropology also consistently uses functionalism.
This evolutionary model, unlike most 19th century evolutionary theories, is cyclical,
beginning with the differentiation and increasing complication of an organic or "super-organic"
body, followed by a fluctuating state of equilibrium and disequilibrium, and, finally, the stage
of disintegration or dissolution. Following Thomas Malthus' population principles, Spencer
concluded that society is constantly facing selection pressures that force it to adapt
its internal structure through differentiation. Every solution, however, causes a new set
of selection pressures that threaten society's viability. It should be noted that Spencer
was not a determinist in the sense that he never said that
Selection pressures will be felt in time to change them;
They will be felt and reacted to; or The solutions will always work.
In fact, he was in many ways a political sociologist, and recognized that the degree of centralized
and consolidated authority in a given polity could make or break its ability to adapt.
In other words, he saw a general trend towards the centralization of power as leading to
stagnation and ultimately, pressures to decentralize. More specifically, Spencer recognized three
functional needs or prerequisites that produce selection pressures: they are regulatory,
operative and distributive. He argued that all societies need to solve problems of control
and coordination, production of goods, services and ideas, and, finally, to find ways of distributing
these resources. Initially, in tribal societies, these three
needs are inseparable, and the kinship system is the dominant structure that satisfies them.
As many scholars have noted, all institutions are subsumed under kinship organization, but,
with increasing population, problems emerge with regard to feeding individuals, creating
new forms of organization—consider the emergent division of labour—coordinating and controlling
various differentiated social units, and developing systems of resource distribution.
The solution, as Spencer sees it, is to differentiate structures to fulfill more specialized functions;
thus a chief or "big man" emerges, soon followed by a group of lieutenants, and later kings
and administrators. The structural parts of society function interdependently to help
society function. Therefore, social structures work together to preserve society.
Perhaps Spencer's greatest obstacle that is being widely discussed in modern sociology
is the fact that much of his social philosophy is rooted in the social and historical context
of Ancient Egypt. He coined the term "survival of the fittest" in discussing the simple fact
that small tribes or societies tend to be defeated or conquered by larger ones. Of course,
many sociologists still use him in their analyses, especially due to the recent re-emergence
of evolutionary theory. Talcott Parsons
Talcott Parsons was heavily influenced by Émile Durkheim and Max Weber, synthesizing
much of their work into his action theory, which he based on the system-theoretical concept
and the methodological principle of voluntary action. He held that "the social system is
made up of the actions of individuals." His starting point, accordingly, is the interaction
between two individuals faced with a variety of choices about how they might act, choices
that are influenced and constrained by a number of physical and social factors.
Parsons determined that each individual has expectations of the other's action and reaction
to his own behaviour, and that these expectations would be "derived" from the accepted norms
and values of the society they inhabit. As Parsons himself emphasized, in a general context
there would never exist any perfect "fit" between behaviours and norms, so such a relation
is never complete or "perfect." Social norms were always problematic for Parsons,
who never claimed that social norms were generally accepted and agreed upon, should this prevent
some kind of universal law. Whether social norms were accepted or not was for Parsons
simply a historical question. As behaviours are repeated in more interactions,
and these expectations are entrenched or institutionalized, a role is created. Parsons defines a "role"
as the normatively-regulated participation "of a person in a concrete process of social
interaction with specific, concrete role-partners." Although any individual, theoretically, can
fulfill any role, the individual is expected to conform to the norms governing the nature
of the role they fulfill. Furthermore, one person can and does fulfill
many different roles at the same time. In one sense, an individual can be seen to be
a "composition" of the roles he inhabits. Certainly, today, when asked to describe themselves,
most people would answer with reference to their societal roles.
Parsons later developed the idea of roles into collectivities of roles that complement
each other in fulfilling functions for society. Some roles are bound up in institutions and
social structures. These are functional in the sense that they assist society in operating
and fulfilling its functional needs so that society runs smoothly.
Contrary to prevailing myth, Parsons never spoke about a society where there was no conflict
or some kind of "perfect" equilibrium. A society's cultural value-system was in the typical case
never completely integrated, never static and most of the time, like in the case of
the American society in a complex state of transformation relative to its historical
point of departure. To reach a "perfect" equilibrium was not any serious theoretical question in
Parsons analysis of social systems, indeed, the most dynamic societies had generally cultural
systems with important inner tensions like the US and India. These tensions were a source
of their strength according to Parsons rather than the opposite. Parsons never thought about
system-institutionalization and the level of strains in the system as opposite forces
per se. The key processes for Parsons for system reproduction
are socialization and social control. Socialization is important because it is the mechanism for
transferring the accepted norms and values of society to the individuals within the system.
Parsons never spoke about "perfect socialization"—in any society socialization was only partial
and "incomplete" from an integral point of view.
Parsons states that "this point [...] is independent of the sense in which [the] individual is
concretely autonomous or creative rather than 'passive' or 'conforming', for individuality
and creativity, are to a considerable extent, phenomena of the institutionalization of expectations";
they are culturally constructed. Socialization is supported by the positive
and negative sanctioning of role behaviours that do or do not meet these expectations.
A punishment could be informal, like a snigger or gossip, or more formalized, through institutions
such as prisons and mental homes. If these two processes were perfect, society would
become static and unchanging, but in reality this is unlikely to occur for long.
Parsons recognizes this, stating that he treats "the structure of the system as problematic
and subject to change," and that his concept of the tendency towards equilibrium "does
not imply the empirical dominance of stability over change." He does, however, believe that
these changes occur in a relatively smooth way.
Individuals in interaction with changing situations adapt through a process of "role bargaining."
Once the roles are established, they create norms that guide further action and are thus
institutionalised, creating stability across social interactions. Where the adaptation
process cannot adjust, due to sharp shocks or immediate radical change, structural dissolution
occurs and either new structures are formed, or society dies. This model of social change
has been described as a "moving equilibrium," and emphasises a desire for social order.
Davis and Moore Kingsley Davis and Wilbert E. Moore gave an
argument for social stratification based on the idea of "functional necessity". They argue
that the most difficult jobs in any society have the highest incomes in order to motivate
individuals to fill the roles needed by the division of labour. Thus inequality serves
social stability. This argument has been criticized as fallacious
from a number of different angles: the argument is both that the individuals who are the most
deserving are the highest rewarded, and that a system of unequal rewards is necessary,
otherwise no individuals would perform as needed for the society to function. The problem
is that these rewards are supposed to be based upon objective merit, rather than subjective
"motivations." The argument also does not clearly establish why some positions are worth
more than others, even when they benefit more people in society, e.g., teachers compared
to athletes and movie stars. Critics have suggested that structural inequality is itself
a cause of individual success or failure, not a consequence of it.
Robert Merton Robert K. Merton made important refinements
to functionalist thought. He fundamentally agreed with Parsons' theory. However, he acknowledged
that it was problematic, believing that it was over generalized [Holmwood, 2005:100].
Merton tended to emphasize middle range theory rather than a grand theory, meaning that he
was able to deal specifically with some of the limitations in Parsons' theory. Merton
believed that any social structure probably has many functions, some more obvious than
others. He identified 3 main limitations: functional unity, universal functionalism
and indispensability [Ritzer in Gingrich, 1999]. He also developed the concept of deviance
and made the distinction between manifest and latent functions. Manifest functions referred
to the recognized and intended consequences of any social pattern. Latent functions referred
to unrecognized and unintended consequences of any social pattern.
Merton criticized functional unity, saying that not all parts of a modern complex society
work for the functional unity of society. Consequently, there is a social dysfunction
referred to as any social pattern that may disrupt the operation of society. Some institutions
and structures may have other functions, and some may even be generally dysfunctional,
or be functional for some while being dysfunctional for others. This is because not all structures
are functional for society as a whole. Some practices are only functional for a dominant
individual or a group [Holmwood, 2005:91]. There are two types of functions that Merton
discusses the "manifest functions" in that a social pattern can trigger a recognized
and intended consequence. The manifest function of education includes preparing for a career
by getting good grades, graduation and finding good job. The second type of function is "latent
functions", where a social pattern results in an unrecognized or unintended consequence.
The latent functions of education include meeting new people, extra-curricular activities,
school trips. Another type of social function is "social dysfunction" which is any undesirable
consequences that disrupts the operation of society. The social dysfunction of education
includes not getting good grades, a job. Merton states that by recognizing and examining the
dysfunctional aspects of society we can explain the development and persistence of alternatives.
Thus, as Holmwood states, "Merton explicitly made power and conflict central issues for
research within a functionalist paradigm" [2005:91].
Merton also noted that there may be functional alternatives to the institutions and structures
currently fulfilling the functions of society. This means that the institutions that currently
exist are not indispensable to society. Merton states "just as the same item may have multiple
functions, so may the same function be diversely fulfilled by alternative items" [cited in
Holmwood, 2005:91]. This notion of functional alternatives is important because it reduces
the tendency of functionalism to imply approval of the status quo.
Merton's theory of deviance is derived from Durkheim's idea of anomie. It is central in
explaining how internal changes can occur in a system. For Merton, anomie means a discontinuity
between cultural goals and the accepted methods available for reaching them.
Merton believes that there are 5 situations facing an actor.
Conformity occurs when an individual has the means and desire to achieve the cultural goals
socialised into him. Innovation occurs when an individual strives
to attain the accepted cultural goals but chooses to do so in novel or unaccepted method.
Ritualism occurs when an individual continues to do things as proscribed by society but
forfeits the achievement of the goals. Retreatism is the rejection of both the means
and the goals of society. Rebellion is a combination of the rejection
of societal goals and means and a substitution of other goals and means.
Thus it can be seen that change can occur internally in society through either innovation
or rebellion. It is true that society will attempt to control these individuals and negate
the changes, but as the innovation or rebellion builds momentum, society will eventually adapt
or face dissolution. Almond and Powell
In the 1970s, political scientists Gabriel Almond and Bingham Powell introduced a structural-functionalist
approach to comparing political systems. They argued that, in order to understand a political
system, it is necessary to understand not only its institutions but also their respective
functions. They also insisted that these institutions, to be properly understood, must be placed
in a meaningful and dynamic historical context. This idea stood in marked contrast to prevalent
approaches in the field of comparative politics—the state-society theory and the dependency theory.
These were the descendants of David Easton's system theory in international relations,
a mechanistic view that saw all political systems as essentially the same, subject to
the same laws of "stimulus and response"—or inputs and outputs—while paying little attention
to unique characteristics. The structural-functional approach is based on the view that a political
system is made up of several key components, including interest groups, political parties
and branches of government. In addition to structures, Almond and Powell
showed that a political system consists of various functions, chief among them political
socialization, recruitment and communication: socialization refers to the way in which societies
pass along their values and beliefs to succeeding generations, and in political terms describe
the process by which a society inculcates civic virtues, or the habits of effective
citizenship; recruitment denotes the process by which a political system generates interest,
engagement and participation from citizens; and communication refers to the way that a
system promulgates its values and information. Structural functionalism and unilineal descent
In their attempt to explain the social stability of African "primitive" stateless societies
where they undertook their fieldwork, Evans-Pritchard and Meyer Fortes argued that the Tallensi
and the Nuer were primarily organized around unilineal descent groups. Such groups are
characterized by common purposes, such as administering property or defending against
attacks; they form a permanent social structure that persists well beyond the lifespan of
their members. In the case of the Tallensi and the Nuer, these corporate groups were
based on kinship which in turn fitted into the larger structures of unilineal descent;
consequently Evans-Pritchard's and Fortes' model is called "descent theory". Moreover,
in this African context territorial divisions were aligned with lineages; descent theory
therefore synthesized both blood and soil as two sides of one coin. Affinal ties with
the parent through whom descent is not reckoned, however, are considered to be merely complementary
or secondary, with the reckoning of kinship through descent being considered the primary
organizing force of social systems. Because of its strong emphasis on unilineal descent,
this new kinship theory came to be called "descent theory".
With no delay, descent theory had found its critics. Many African tribal societies seemed
to fit this neat model rather well, although Africanists, such as Richards, also argued
that Fortes and Evans-Pritchard had deliberately downplayed internal contradictions and overemphasized
the stability of the local lineage systems and their significance for the organization
of society. However, in many Asian settings the problems were even more obvious. In Papua
New Guinea, the local patrilineal descent groups were fragmented and contained large
amounts of non-agnates. Status distinctions did not depend on descent, and genealogies
were too short to account for social solidarity through identification with a common ancestor.
In particular, the phenomenon of cognatic kinship posed a serious problem to the proposition
that descent groups are the primary element behind the social structures of "primitive"
societies. Leach's critique came in the form of the classical
Malinowskian argument, pointing out that "in Evans-Pritchard's studies of the Nuer and
also in Fortes's studies of the Tallensi unilineal descent turns out to be largely an ideal concept
to which the empirical facts are only adapted by means of fictions.". People's self-interest,
manoeuvring, manipulation and competition had been ignored. Moreover, descent theory
neglected the significance of marriage and affinal ties, which were emphasised by Levi-Strauss'
structural anthropology, at the expense of overemphasising the role of descent. To quote
Leach: "The evident importance attached to matrilateral and affinal kinship connections
is not so much explained as explained away." Decline of functionalism
Structural functionalism reached the peak of its influence in the 1940s and 1950s, and
by the 1960s was in rapid decline. By the 1980s, its place was taken in Europe by more
conflict-oriented approaches, and more recently by 'structuralism'. While some of the critical
approaches also gained popularity in the United States, the mainstream of the discipline has
instead shifted to a myriad of empirically-oriented middle-range theories with no overarching
theoretical orientation. To most sociologists, functionalism is now "as dead as a dodo".
As the influence of both functionalism and Marxism in the 1960s began to wane, the linguistic
and cultural turns led to a myriad of new movements in the social sciences: "According
to Giddens, the orthodox consensus terminated in the late 1960s and 1970s as the middle
ground shared by otherwise competing perspectives gave way and was replaced by a baffling variety
of competing perspectives. This third 'generation' of social theory includes phenomenologically
inspired approaches, critical theory, ethnomethodology, symbolic interactionism, structuralism, post-structuralism,
and theories written in the tradition of hermeneutics and ordinary language philosophy."
While absent from empirical sociology, functionalist themes remained detectable in sociological
theory, most notably in the works of Luhmann and Giddens. There are, however, signs of
an incipient revival, as functionalist claims have recently been bolstered by developments
in multilevel selection theory and in empirical research on how groups solve social dilemmas.
Recent developments in evolutionary theory—especially by biologist David Sloan Wilson and anthropologists
Robert Boyd and Peter Richerson—have provided strong support for structural functionalism
in the form of multilevel selection theory. In this theory, culture and social structure
are seen as a Darwinian adaptation at the group level.
Criticisms
In the 1960s, functionalism was criticized for being unable to account for social change,
or for structural contradictions and conflict. Also, it ignores inequalities including race,
gender, class, which causes tension and conflict. The refutation of the second criticism of
functionalism, that it is static and has no concept of change, has already been articulated
above, concluding that while Parsons' theory allows for change, it is an orderly process
of change [Parsons, 1961:38], a moving equilibrium. Therefore referring to Parsons' theory of
society as static is inaccurate. It is true that it does place emphasis on equilibrium
and the maintenance or quick return to social order, but this is a product of the time in
which Parsons was writing. Society was in upheaval and fear abounded. At the time social
order was crucial, and this is reflected in Parsons' tendency to promote equilibrium and
social order rather than social change. Furthermore, Durkheim favored a radical form
of guild socialism along with functionalist explanations. Also, Marxism, while acknowledging
social contradictions, still uses functionalist explanations. Parsons' evolutionary theory
describes the differentiation and reintegration systems and subsystems and thus at least temporary
conflict before reintegration. "The fact that functional analysis can be seen by some as
inherently conservative and by others as inherently radical suggests that it may be inherently
neither one nor the other." Stronger criticisms include the epistemological
argument that functionalism is tautologous, that is it attempts to account for the development
of social institutions solely through recourse to the effects that are attributed to them
and thereby explains the two circularly. However, Parsons drew directly on many of Durkheim's
concepts in creating his theory. Certainly Durkheim was one of the first theorists to
explain a phenomenon with reference to the function it served for society. He said, "the
determination of function is…necessary for the complete explanation of the phenomena"
[cited in Coser, 1977:140]. However Durkheim made a clear distinction between historical
and functional analysis, saying, "When ... the explanation of a social phenomenon is undertaken,
we must seek separately the efficient cause which produces it and the function it fulfills"
[cited in Coser, 1977:140]. If Durkheim made this distinction, then it is unlikely that
Parsons did not. However Merton does explicitly state that functional analysis does not seek
to explain why the action happened in the first instance, but why it continues or is
reproduced. He says that "latent functions ... go far towards explaining the continuance
of the pattern" [cited in Elster, 1990:130, emphasis added]. Therefore it can be argued
that functionalism does not explain the original cause of a phenomenon with reference to its
effect, and is therefore, not teleological. Another criticism describes the ontological
argument that society cannot have "needs" as a human being does, and even if society
does have needs they need not be met. Anthony Giddens argues that functionalist explanations
may all be rewritten as historical accounts of individual human actions and consequences.
A further criticism directed at functionalism is that it contains no sense of agency, that
individuals are seen as puppets, acting as their role requires. Yet Holmwood states that
the most sophisticated forms of functionalism are based on "a highly developed concept of
action" [2005:107], and as was explained above, Parsons took as his starting point the individual
and their actions. His theory did not however articulate how these actors exercise their
agency in opposition to the socialization and inculcation of accepted norms. As has
been shown above, Merton addressed this limitation through his concept of deviance, and so it
can be seen that functionalism allows for agency. It cannot, however, explain why individuals
choose to accept or reject the accepted norms, why and in what circumstances they choose
to exercise their agency, and this does remain a considerable limitation of the theory.
Further criticisms have been leveled at functionalism by proponents of other social theories, particularly
conflict theorists, Marxists, feminists and postmodernists. Conflict theorists criticised
functionalism's concept of systems as giving far too much weight to integration and consensus,
and neglecting independence and conflict [Holmwood, 2005:100]. Lockwood [in Holmwood, 2005:101],
in line with conflict theory, suggested that Parsons' theory missed the concept of system
contradiction. He did not account for those parts of the system that might have tendencies
to Mal-integration. According to Lockwood, it was these tendencies that come to the surface
as opposition and conflict among actors. However Parsons thought that the issues of conflict
and cooperation were very much intertwined and sought to account for both in his model
[Holmwood, 2005:103]. In this however he was limited by his analysis of an ‘ideal type'
of society which was characterized by consensus. Merton, through his critique of functional
unity, introduced into functionalism an explicit analysis of tension and conflict.
Marxism which was revived soon after the emergence of conflict theory, criticized professional
sociology for being partisan to advanced welfare capitalism [Holmwood, 2005:103]. Gouldner
[in Holmwood, 2005:103] thought that Parsons' theory specifically was an expression of the
dominant interests of welfare capitalism, that it justified institutions with reference
to the function they fulfill for society. It may be that Parsons' work implied or articulated
that certain institutions were necessary to fulfill the functional prerequisites of society,
but whether or not this is the case, Merton explicitly states that institutions are not
indispensable and that there are functional alternatives. That he does not identify any
alternatives to the current institutions does reflect a conservative bias, which as has
been stated before is a product of the specific time that he was writing in.
As functionalism's prominence was ending, feminism was on the rise, and it attempted
a radical criticism of functionalism. It believed that functionalism neglected the suppression
of women within the family structure. Holmwood [2005:103] shows, however, that Parsons did
in fact describe the situations where tensions and conflict existed or were about to take
place, even if he did not articulate those conflicts. Some feminists agree, suggesting
that Parsons' provided accurate descriptions of these situations. [Johnson in Holmwood,
2005:103]. On the other hand, Parsons recognized that he had oversimplified his functional
analysis of women in relation to work and the family, and focused on the positive functions
of the family for society and not on its dysfunctions for women. Merton, too, although addressing
situations where function and dysfunction occurred simultaneously, lacked a "feminist
sensibility" [Holmwood, 2005:103]. Postmodernism, as a theory, is critical of
claims of objectivity. Therefore the idea of grand theory that can explain society in
all its forms is treated with skepticism at the very least. This critique is important
because it exposes the danger that grand theory can pose, when not seen as a limited perspective,
as one way of understanding society. Jeffrey Alexander sees functionalism as a
broad school rather than a specific method or system, such as Parsons, who is capable
of taking equilibrium as a reference-point rather than assumption and treats structural
differentiation as a major form of social change. "The name 'functionalism' implies
a difference of method or interpretation that does not exist." This removes the determinism
criticized above. Cohen argues that rather than needs a society has dispositional facts:
features of the social environment that support the existence of particular social institutions
but do not cause them. Influential theorists
Kingsley Davis Michael Denton
Émile Durkheim David Keen
Niklas Luhmann Bronisław Malinowski
Robert K. Merton Wilbert E. Moore
George Murdock Talcott Parsons
Alfred Reginald Radcliffe-Brown Herbert Spencer
Fei Xiaotong See also
Notes
References Barnard, A. 2000. History and Theory in Anthropology.
Cambridge: CUP. Barnard, A., and Good, A. 1984. Research Practices
in the Study of Kinship. London: Academic Press.
Barnes, J. 1971. Three Styles in the Study of Kinship. London: Butler & Tanner.
Holy, L. 1996. Anthropological Perspectives on Kinship. London: Pluto Press.
Kuper, A. 1988. The Invention of Primitive Society: Transformations of an Illusion. London:
Routledge. Kuper, A. 1996. Anthropology and Anthropologists.
London: Routledge. Layton, R. 1997. An Introduction to Theory
in Anthropology. Cambridge: CUP. Leach, E. 1954. Political Systems of Highland
Burma. London: Bell. Leach, E. 1966. Rethinking Anthropology. Northampton:
Dickens. Levi-Strauss, C. 1969. The Elementary Structures
of Kinship. London: Eyre and Spottis-woode. Coser, L., Masters of Sociological Thought:
Ideas in Historical and Social Context. 2nd Ed., Fort Worth: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich,
Inc., pp. 140–143. Craib, I., Modern Social Theory: From Parsons
to Habermas, Harvester Wheatsheaf, London Cuff, E. & Payne, G.,(eds) Perspectives in
Sociology, Allen & Unwin, London Davis, K. "The Myth of Functional Analysis
as a Special Method in Sociology and Anthropology", American Sociological Review, 24(6), 757-772.
Elster, J.,, “Merton's Functionalism and the Unintended Consequences of Action”,
in Clark, J., Modgil, C. & Modgil, S., Robert Merton: Consensus and Controversy, Falmer
Press, London, pp. 129–35 Gingrich, P., “Functionalism and Parsons”
in Sociology 250 Subject Notes, University of Regina, accessed, 2406, uregina.ca
Holmwood, J., “Functionalism and its Critics” in Harrington, A., Modern Social Theory: an
introduction, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 87–109
Homans, George Casper. Sentiments and Activities. New York: The Free Press of Glencoe.
Hoult, Thomas Ford. Dictionary of Modern Sociology. Lenski, Gerhard. "Power and Privilege: A Theory
of Social Stratification." New York: McGraw-Hill. Lenski, Gerhard. "Evolutionary-Ecological
Theory." Boulder, CO: Paradigm. Maryanski, Alexandra. "Evolutionary Sociology."
Advances in Human Ecology. 7:1-56. Maryanski, Alexandra and Jonathan Turner.
"The Social Cage: Human Nature and the Evolution of Society." Stanford: Stanford University
Press. Marshall, Gordon. The Concise Oxford Dictionary
of Sociology. ISBN 0-19-285237-X Merton, Robert. Social Theory and Social Structure,
revised and enlarged. London: The Free Press of Glencoe.
Nolan, Patrick and Gerhard Lenski. Human Societies: An Introduction to Macrosociology." Boulder,
CO: Paradigm. Parsons, Talcott The Social System, Routledge,
London Parsons, T., & Shils, A., Toward a General
Theory of Action, Harvard University Press, Cambridge
Parsons, T., Theories of Society: foundations of modern sociological theory, Free Press,
New York Perey, Arnold "Malinowski, His Diary, and
Men Today Ritzer, G., Sociological Theory, Knopf Inc,
New York Sanderson, Stephen K.. "Social Transformations:
A General Theory of Historical Development." Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
Turner, Jonathan. "Herbert Spencer: A Renewed Appreciation." Beverly Hills: Sage.
Turner, Jonathan. "Macrodynamics: Toward a Theory on the Organization of Human Populations."
New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press. Turner, Jonathan and Jan Stets. "The Sociology
of Emotions." Cambridge. Cambridge University Press.