Theoretical Perspectives In Sociology Module 2

MODULE II FUNCTIONALIST PERSPECTIVE Origin and development of Functionalism The functionalist perspective, also called functionalism, is one of the major theoretical perspectives in sociology. It has its origins in the works of Emile Durkheim, who was especially interested in how social order is possible or how society remains relatively stable. Functionalism interprets each part of society in terms of how it contributes to the stability of the whole society. Society is more than the sum of its parts; rather, each part of society is functional for the stability of the whole society. The different parts are primarily the institutions of society, each of which is organized to fill different needs and each of which has particular consequences for the form and shape of society. The parts all depend on each other. Functionalism sees social structure or the organisation of society as more important than the individual. Functionalism is a top down theory. Individuals are born into society and become the product of all the social influences around them as they are socialised by various institutions such as the family, education, media and religion. Functionalism sees society as a system; a set of interconnected parts which together form a whole. There is a relationship between all these parts and agents of socialisation and together they all contribute to the maintenance of society as a whole. Social consensus, order and integration are key beliefs of functionalism as this allows society to continue and progress because there are shared norms and values that mean all individuals have a common goal and have a vested interest in conforming and thus conflict is minimal. For example, the government, or state, provides education for the children of the family, which in turn pays taxes on which the state depends to keep itself running. The family is dependent upon the school to help children grow up to have good jobs so that they can raise and support their own families. In the process, the children become law- abiding, taxpaying citizens, who in turn support the state. If all goes well, the parts of society produce order, stability, and productivity. If all does not go well, the parts of society then must adapt to recapture a new order, stability, and productivity. Functionalism emphasizes the consensus and order that exist in society, focusing on social stability and shared public values. From this perspective, disorganization in the system, such as deviant behavior, leads to change because societal components must adjust to achieve stability. When one part of the system is not working or is dysfunctional, it affects all other parts and creates social problems, which leads to social change. According to the functionalist perspective of sociology, each aspect of society is interdependent and contributes to society's stability and functioning as a whole. For example, the government provides education for the children of the family, which in turn pays taxes on which the state depends to keep itself running. That is, the family is dependent upon the school to help children grow up to have good jobs so that they can raise and support their own families. In the process, the children become law-abiding, taxpaying citizens, who in turn support the state. If all goes well, the parts of society produce order, stability, and productivity. If all does not go well, the parts of society then must adapt to recapture a new order, stability, and productivity. For example, during a financial recession with its high rates of unemployment and inflation, social programs are trimmed or cut. Schools offer fewer programs. Families tighten their budgets. And a new social order, stability, and productivity occur. Functionalists believe that society is held together by social consensus, in which members of the society agree upon, and work together to achieve, what is best for society as a whole. This stands apart from the other two main sociological perspectives Modern sociological theory has been profoundly influenced by functional analysis which became enormously popular at the turn of the century. During the last two generations, functional analysis has become the principal paradigm of contemporary sociology with more adherents than any other mode of sociological analysis or school of thought. It emerged and established itself at the most apt time. It emerged in the tradition of great sociological theories consciously orienting it to them and continually developing them. Functional analysis is not new; it has a long history in both natural and social sciences. Thus functionalism is simply a view of society as a self- regulating system of interrelated elements with structured social relationships and observed regularities. Functionalism manifests itself in a great variety of approaches. The history of functionalism may be traced to Comte’s ‘consensus universalis ‘ , Spencer’s Organic Analogy, Pareto’s conception of society as a system in equilibrium and Durkheim’s causal functional analysis. Comte viewed society as a functionally organized system, its components in harmony. Durkheim insisted on the primary of the system over elements and maintained that social facts the proper subject matter of sociology are individual will and imposed upon him from without. He elaborate the logic of functionalism by systematically explaining the causes and consequences of social facts and established functionalism as a viable methodological and theoretical tool for sociological analysis. Radcliffe- Brown and Malinowski, elaborated and codified functionalism as the basis of anthropological and sociological thinking. Malinowski’s functionalism is often termed as individualistic functionalism because of its treatment of social and cultural systems as collective responses to fundamental biological needs of individuals modified by cultural values. Radcliffe- Brown rejected Malinowski’s individualistic functionalism and following the Durkheim on tradition, emphasized structured social relationships. Radcliffe-Brown focused primarily on the function of each element in the maintenance and development of a total structure, and largely overlooked functional consequences of specific elements for differentiated parts of the whole and for the individual components. He defined that function is the contribution which a partial activity makes to the total activity of which it is a part. The function of a particular social usage is the contribution it makes to the total social life as the functioning of the total social system. A social system has a certain kinds of unity, which we may speak of as a functional unity. From the 1930s, structural functionalism was the dominant theoretical approach in American sociology. Functionalists coined pivotal concepts, such as ‘role’, ‘norms’, and ‘social systems’ that came to form the basic building blocks of contemporary sociology. Moreover, a few functionalists concepts, such as ‘role model’ and ‘self –fulfilling prophecy’, have entered our colloquial vocabulary as well. Structural functionalism is most well known not for the specific concepts that it introduced but rather for the meta theoretical framework on which it is based. Structural functionalism envisions society as a system of interrelated parts, and they emphasize how the different parts work together for the good of the system. The classic structural functionalist image of society is as an organism such as body, with different parts working together an interdependent way. In addition, structural functionalism emphasizes ‘system within systems’. For instance, while each family can be considered its own self contained ‘system’ or unit, it is also a component of society as a whole. Other major components of society, include the economy- the system for providing goods and services to members of that society; the government- the system for determining the rules for that society and the distribution of power, and the religious system- the system that provides individuals with core values and a sense of meaning. In short, for structural functionalists, just as the body is a system with specific parts( e.g. Arms, legs, liver) that ensure its overall functioning, so, too, society is a system with specific parts (family, govt, economy, religion etc.) necessary for its vary survival. Structural functionalists typically emphasize how the various systems and sub systems work together. TALCOTT PARSONS [1902-1979] Talcott Parsons, an American thinker, was born in 1902 in Colorado Springs. He was the 5th and last child of his parents. Talcott Parsons acknowledged that his parents’ values influenced him considerably. Theirs was a liberal household, in which morality, modern industrial system, economic individualism and exploitation of labor were topic of concern. He studied the natural sciences, particularly biology, as well as philosophy and social sciences. He graduated from London school of economics in the year 1924. In 1927 he got his doctorate from Hiedelberg University. He began his teaching at Harvard University. His important works include 1. Structure of social action 2. Theory of social and economic organizations 3. Essays in sociological theory 4. The social system and towards a general theory of social action Another in support of Functionalism is Talcott Parsons. Parsons claims that society is the way it is as social structures are interconnected and dependant on each other. Functionalists therefore see change as evolutionary – change in one part of society will eventually occur in another. Social ills e.g. crime and deviance, have disabling effects on society and gradually effect other parts. They recognize interconnections between various parts of society occur due to a value consensus. Parsons believes that as society changes, it develops and the pattern variables within it will become more complex. Change, therefore, trickles throughout society. Parsons summed this up as the ‘Organic Analogy’. Functionalists believe that sociological matters should be explained with scientific facts. This is otherwise known as Positivism. The founder of Positivism, Angste Comte, describes it as a method of study based primary facts, objectively measured, from which makes it possible to identify issues in society that effect individuals and leaves room for innovation in law and establishing new legislation. An example of this would be statistics. Positivists believe that sociology should adopt the methodology of the natural sciences and focus only on directly observable social facts and correlate them with other observable social facts. Theory of social action Perhaps Parsons’s single most important idea is that action must not be viewed in isolation. Parsons is known as the chief exponent of theory of social action. His ideas are available in his “structure of social action”. For him society embraced the entire social field of man. Society, he believes is an element in the complete whole of human social life. The society also affected by environments, heredity and culture on the one hand and religious, metaphysical and political systems on the other. Society is so complex that it covers and touches all relationships of man with man. Society comprises of only complex of social relationship. He characterized society as sum total of all human relationship. Action must be understood as a proof in time or as a system. As parsons explicitly state that “actions are not empirically discrete but occur in constellations we call systems”. He defined “social action by saying that it is a process in the actor situation system which has motivational significance to the individual actor or in the case of collectivity, its component individuals”. In other words, all social actions proceed from mechanism. Social actions are concerned with organism; actor’s relations with other persons and social institutions. Parsons used the term “Unit act” to refer to a hypothetical actor in a hypothetical situation bounded by an array of parameters and conditions (required effort, ends or goals, situation, norms). Instead of constructing action in terms of something concrete (such as business or an individual). Parsons conceptualized action systems as a means for analyzing social phenomena. Parsons has defined social action by saying that “it is a process in the actorsituation system which has motivational significance to the individual actor or in the case of collectivity its component individuals”. Social actions are concerned with organism, actor’s relations with other persons and social institutions. Talcott Parsons saw social action as composed of four basic elements that distinguish it from isolated, individual behavior,  It is oriented toward attainment of ends or goals.  It takes place in situations consisting of the physical and social objects to which the actor relates  It is normatively regulated (that is, by norms that guide the orientation of actions)  It involves expenditure of effort or energy Parsons (1937) and Parsons and Shils further maintain that actions are organized into three modes or realms: social systems, personality systems and cultural systems. These systems are analytically rather than empirically distinct. That is these systems are not physically separate entities but rather a simplified model of society that Parsons and Shils use to explain the organization of action. Put in another way, social systems, personality systems and cultural systems undergind all action and all social life. Social system Parsons’ ideas about social systems are available to us in his volume entitled ‘social system’. According to him there are five elements of social systems namely individual actors, interaction of actors, motivation of the interactions; situations and environments connected with interactions and cultural relations. All these elements are closely connected and inter-linked with each other and in fact, social system is network of interpretative relationship. Parsons is of the view that social systems have both negative and positive aspects. These develop as a result of situations and interaction between various individuals. As a result of interaction actors are motivated to do certain things with the result that a particular system develops. It is known as positive aspect of social system. On the other hand in societies there are certain activities which people wish to avoid, which usually are as a result of some sort of interaction. Such as aspect is known as negative aspect of social system. He said that destructive forces exist in every society. Social controls can best be observed when such measures which are against these systems are fully well checked. This will help in maintaining equilibrium; for this it is essential that certain institutional priorities should be fixed; an institution being understood as a well established norm of behaviour. The institutions can be relational, regulative, culture and relational-regulative. Relational institutions come to stay because of certain situations and interactions due to which certain relations emerge, which give birth to certain institutions. In such institutions there are certain offices and statuses which also divide the actors. Regulative institutions regulate and guide the actions of individuals. In case there is no proper regulation, there is every possibility that social structure may come under heavy strains and interests of weaker sections of society may be ignored. Thus institutions which regulate social behaviour are called regulative institutions. There are certain institutions which are responsible for our cultural pattern and help promoting as well as accelerating our cultural behaviour. These help in maintaining our non- values and behaviour and are called cultural institutions. Relational-regulative institutions perform the functions of establishing relationship and regulating behaviors. According to parsons structural components of social system are kinship, stratification, and power system and religion and value integration. Every social system recognizes blood relationship. In the social system role of kinship assumes significance because it makes the task of socialization easy. It also regulates some of our social behaviors. Then comes stratification. It is also useful. As we know that there is no society in which there is no hierarchy. It is with the help of stratification that the place of each individual in the social hierarchy is decided, which in turn helps in knowing the job of stratification that we come to know who is performing what quality of job and to what extent the job needs rewards and incentives. The rewards can be economic, aesthetic i.e. which can provide one recreation and also satisfy his ego. In the study of social system then comes the role of power system. Such a system becomes essential for checking and controlling the behaviour of both the individuals as well as the groups. This system also helps checking social disorganizations, which otherwise would create many social problems. This however does not include physical power. In social system, religion plays a bog role. It is religion which helps preserving social values and norms and upholds such moral values which keep the people closer and together. Religion and social values also bring the people closer and nearer to each other. Religion and values even govern internal attitudes and make the whole system dynamic. It also helps in ensuring that norms and values do not get disintegrated. From the ideas of parsons, it appears that he was an original thinker. His ideas about social system and social control were quite unique and new. These provided a sort of mechanism by which society could remain organized and disorganization which otherwise would have come in it could be checked. He drew the attention of the sociologists to the fact that each society was always under heavy strains and if it was desired that there should be smooth working, these strains should be checked. Similarly his views about social action were also quite original. In fact by his views and ideas his very mush made the society think in new direction. His view was thus very useful in the field of social thought. Pattern variables In toward a general theory of action (1951), parsons and shils develop a set of concepts called the pattern variables. The pattern variables are a set of five ‘choices that akin to the collective level AGIL scheme, apply not only to the individual level but to the collective level but to the collective level as well. They refer at once to the variant normative priorities of social system, the dominant modes of orientation in personality systems, and the patterns of values in cultural systems. Though, both ends of each pattern variables dichotomy are readily apparent in contemporary society at all three levels (social, cultural and personality). The pattern variables are an extension of a renowned dichotomy first formulated by the German theorist Ferdinand Tonnies (1963/1935). Tonnies’s distinction between Gemeinschaft ( community) and Gesellschaft (purposive association) was later reformulated by Emile Durkheim in his conceptualization of “mechanical” versus “organic solidarity”. According to these classic dichotomies, modern societies are based on individualistic “purposiveness” and functional interdependence. While traditional societies are rooted in collectivistic “sameness” (or community) and an intense feeling of community. The relation between Parsons’ pattern variables. PATTERN VARIABLE: A dichotomy that describes alternatives of action between which each person (and group) has to choose in every situation. The actions are shaped by the three systems: personality, cultural, and social. 1. Affectivity/ Affective-Neutrality Affectivity: Emotional impulses are gratified. For example, a child is allowed to show “love” for parent. Affective-neutrality: Emotional impulses are in an organization (such as the DMV) or a teacher grading papers is expected to be emotionally “neutral”. 2. Self-orientation/Collectivity-orientation Self-orientation: Action is based on the actor’s own interests, needs, and goals. For example, a student decides what to study in college based on his or her own interests. Collectivity-orientation: Action is based on what is best for the “collectivity”. For example, a child quits school to support her family. 3. Universalism/Particularism Universalism: Action is based on “general standards” or universal laws and moral rules. For example, the supreme court decides cases according to ruler valid for the whole community. Particularism: Action is based on the priority and attachment actors place on relationships and situations. For example, you give support to a friend without considering whether his or her actions were right or wrong. 4. Ascription/Achievement Ascription: Action based on given attributes (race, sex, age). For example, being eligible for the draft or allowed to buy alcohol or vote because you are a specified age. Achievement: Action based on performance. For example, graduation from college based on completion of requirements for graduation. 5. Specificity/Diffuseness Specificity: Action based on specific criteria/roles. For example, clerk/customer role. Teacher/student role- there is narrowly and clearly defined criteria for interaction. Diffuseness: Open guidelines for action. For example, becoming friends with a teacher, going beyond the clear boundaries of teacher/student relation. As for parson’s pattern variables, affectivity means that the emotions are considered legitimate in action (“gratification of impulse” in parson’s terms), while affectiveneutrality means that emotions are closed out of action. For instance, in contemporary societies it is normative to display affectivity in personal relationships but not in bureaucratic relationships: you might kiss or hug a close friend upon greeting him on the street (affectivity), but you won’t do the same to the next client in line in your job as a clerk at the Department of Motor vehicles (affective-neutrality) indeed. Parsons maintained that affective-neutrality was generally more pervasive in modern Western societies than in traditional societies-which parallels the shift noted by Tonnies as well as Weber from a more religiously oriented (non rationalistic) society to a more rationalistic, scientifically oriented society. This shift is particularly apparent when considering the contrast between traditional and modern scientific medicine. Modern medicine typically involves tests and procedures performed by a myriad of specialists who are often strangers to the patient. The relationship between patient and medical specialist (or medical technician) is typically marked by professionalism and affective-neutrality rather than affectivity and emotional involvement. In a traditional society such as the kamba, together shaman and patient might invoke a drug-induced state in order to complete a thorough spiritual and physical “cleansing’ of the aggrieved soul. In this case, rather than being excluded from medical treatment, emotions are integral to the healing process. Self –orientation means that the individual actor prioritizes the needs and goals of the “self”. While conversely, the collectivity-orientation denotes the prioritization of the needs and goals of the collectivity or group as a whole. Parsons suggested that “self- orientation” is considered more legitimate in modern and postmodern than in traditional societies, while in traditional societies, the reverse is true. In contemporary American society, college students typically choose their major based on their own interests and goals. Most Americans choose their own marriage partner, a choice that is based primarily (if not strictly) on personal issues, in many traditional societies, marriages are not so much an individual but rather, a collective concern. In such societies, marriages are often arranged by elders, who focus on the economic and social benefits of the prospective new kinship formation (a collective consideration) rather than strictly the needs and wants of the bride and groom (who may or may not even know each other): Universalism means that an action is based on impersonal, universal standards or general rules, such as queuing up, filling out a standardized job application, or having each person’s vote count equally in an election. Conversely, particularism refers to actions that are guided by the uniqueness of that particular relationship, for instance, inviting only “really good friends” to your party. For example, if you stand by your sister even though she acted badly (for illegally), you are prioritizing the particular relationship you have with her over her action (even though you find it offensive). By contrast, if you turn your sister in to the police because what she did was illegal, you would be applying a universal standard. In this case, your particular relationship is not the central concern. Ascription means that evaluations or interactions are guided by given personal attributes (e.g., race, gender, age),while achievement (performance) means that evalutions or interactions are based on an actor’s performance with regard to established standards (e.g., college entrance examinations, physical endurance tests for firefighter trainees).Parsons maintained that the achievement orientation was increasingly important in modern Western societies, whereas in traditional societies, ascribed charateristics (e.g., clan, gender, age) were generally given greater priority.Thus, for instance, an individual’s tenure and successin her in her career is determined more by her peformance than by inheritance or privilege.In all of the pattern variables, the distinctions between traditional and modern society must not be takentoo far.Obviously, upper-class children still inherit significant privilages, making class position one of the most vital attributes in today’s world ; and race and gender are, to a extent, ascribed rather than achieved as well.Indeed, although his pattern variables explicitly follow Tonnies’s dichotomy between traditional and modern societies, in fact, Parsons fully recognized that each pole of each pattern variable exists in both types of society. The multivocality of the pattern variables is most readily apparent in Parsons’s notion of subsystems or systems, because this means that the pattern-variable continuum is always apparent in fullat another level. Although affective –neutrality is generally considered more legitimate than affectivity in modern societies, as evidenced in economic relationships, affectivity is generally considered a more legitimate basis of action in the context of the family.Similarly, although achievement is generally prioritized in the public sector and ascription is prioritized in the family, even within one system (the family, the economy, the legal system).each dimension of the pattern variable invariably appears.Parents might base a child’s privileges on both achievement (e.g., grades, behaviour) and ascription.Ascription and achievement are both readily apparent in the legal system.Traditional societies have a parallel continuum,too,in that there are explicit contests or competitions for particular social roles and rewards (achievement), but in order to participate you must possess specific ascribed traits.Finally,diffuseness means means nothing is “closed out” in making a particular choice or undertaking a particular action, while specificity means that action is based on a specific criterion.For instance, in urban, bureaucratic societies, we are often expected to act within narrowly defined role in order to maximize efficiency.Impersonal mechanisms, such as queuing up or taking a number, are intended to be based solely on one criterion (e.g.,who got their first),thereby displaying affective-neutrality and universality (i.e., fairness) rather than emotion or favoritism.By contrast, in similar, slower-paced, rural, traditional communities in which speed and efficiencyare not of such paramount importance, the criteria for action may be more diffuse ; less is excluded from the interaction. Functionalism of Merton- Functionalist Paradigm Robert K. Merton is one of Talcott Parson’s Harward University student who carved out a riche in sociology by introducing the “middle range theory” in the discipline. He was educated with prominent socialists like Sorokin, Harold. Garfinkel and others in the Harvard University under the tutelage of Talcott Persons. Sorkin, Emile Durkhein & George simmer also cast an influence on Robert K. Merton’s theory. Merton argued that using Emile Durkhein’s conception of religion he has developed social cohesion, an important element of functionalism specially the latent functions. R.K. Merton wrote some important books of which the social theory and social structure and the sociology of science are particularly useful. Merton also developed some concepts like self fulfilling prophesy, role model, deviant behavior and focus groups. Merton’s Manifest & Latent Functions Merton distinguished the functions of society between manifest and latent. The former represents those functions as expected or intended by the members of the society. They know that these functions would take place and so were prepared for them. They would only be surprised if these did not take place; whereas the latent function are un – intended functions which can take place only as a consequence of the former for which they were not prepared. Merton argued that it is the job of the sociologist to trying uncover the latent functions of social activities and institution. Functional Alternatives Merton has also devised alternative functions known as the substitutes which could instead deliver the sort of functions advocated by Talcot parson’s in the form of functional pre requisites’. Merton argued that use of religion as a therapeutic device could be substituted effectively by the alternative therapeutic devises like counseling and reasoning which can make then understand the values of normal life in society. Secondly people in their predicament could be educated in the vocational field and trained as skilled and useful workers of society. Education can liberate the minds from religious superstitions. It can also motivate them to become work-oriented. Independent and self reliant which would help them recover from depression, obsession and frustration. Merton argued that functionalist approach should take guard of the fact that any part of society may be functional, dysfunctional or non functional. Merton Relation with Early Functionalism As a functionalist, Merton criticised Talcot Parson’s functional perspective as erroneous. He argued that his postulations could not be defended scientifically, Merton’s middle range theory is more compatible with empirical research than the macro the theories of Talcot parsons. Sociogist. Paul Lazarsfeld also helped Merton in his effort to develop the ‘niddle Range Theor’ using couantitative Methdology.’ Merton’s Paradigm for Functional Analysis Merton saw functional theorizing as potentially embracing 3 questionable postulates: 1. The functional unity of social systems: Merton, to begin analysis with the postulate of functional unity’ or integration of social whole can divert attention away from not only these questions but also from not only these questions but also from the varies and “disparate consequences of a given social or cultural item for diverse social groups and for individual members of these groups.” Merton begins to direct function analysis away from concern with total system toward an emphasis on how different pattern of social organization with in more inclusive social systems are created, maintained, and changed not only by the requisites of the total system but also by interaction among socio-cultural items within systematic wholes. 2. The functional Universality of social items. : Merton, if an examination of empirical systems is undertaken, it is clear that there is wider range of empirical possibilities. Merton proposes the analysis of diverse consequences or functions of socio- cultural items-whether positive or negative, manifest or latent- “for individuals, for subgroups, and for the more inclusive social structure and culture. In this way, Merton visualizes contemporary functional thought as compensating for the excesses of earlier forms of analysis by focusing on the crucial types of consequences of socio-cultural items for each other and if the facts dictate, for the social whole. 3. The indispensability of functional items for social systems: The facts leads Merton to postulate the importance in functional analysis of concern with various types of “functional alternatives,’ or functional equivalents,” and “functional substitutes” with in social systems. In this way, functional analysis would not view as indispensable the social items of a system trap of assuming that items must exist to as assure the continued existence of a system. Rather, functional analysis must specify (1) Social patterns under consideration, whether a systematic whole or some subpart; (2) the various types of consequences of these patterns for empirically established survival requisites; and (3) the processes whereby some patterns rather than others come to exist and have the various consequences for each other and for systematic wholes. A Protocol for Executing functional Analysis To ascertain the causes and consequences of particular structures and processes, Merton insists that functional analysis begins with “sheer description” of individual and group activities. In describing the patterns of interaction and activity among units under investigation, it will be possible to discern clearly the social items to be subjected to functional analysis. Such descriptions can also provide a major due to the functions performed by such patterned activity. The first of these steps is for investigators to indicate the principal alternatives that are excluded by the dominance of a particular pattern. The second analytical step beyond sheer description involves an assessment of the meaning, or mental and emotional significance, of the activity for group members. Illustrating Merton’s Functional Strategy Merton paradigm and protocol for constructing functional theories the middle range are remarkably free of statement about individual and system needs or requisites. In his protocol statements Merton approaches the questions of the needs and requisites fulfilled by a particular item only after description of (1) the item in question, (2) the structural context in which the item survives, and its meaning for the individuals involved with this information, it is then possible to establish both the manifest and latent functions of an item, as well as the net balance of functions and dysfunctions of the item for varied segments of a social system. Unfortunately, it implied sequencing of functional analysis is not always performed by Merton, presumably for at least two reasons. For at least these reasons, then, execution of Merton’s strategy is difficult. Much like that of his anthropological strew men, such as Radcliffe- Brown and Malinowski, Merton’s need to analyses separately the causes and functions of structural item is not as evident in the actual account of empirical evidence.