functionalism

society as a social system, Merton's internal critique of functionalism

society as a social system - society as a system

In describing society, functionalists often use an organic analogy. Parsons (1970) identifies 3 similarities between society and a biological organism.

1. System - Organisms, such as the human body, and societies are both self-regulating systems of inter-related, interdependent parts that fit together in fixed ways.
2. System needs - Organisms have needs, such as nutrition for example. If these are not met, the organism will die. Functionalists see the social system as having basic needs that must be met if it is to survive. e.g. its members must be socialised if society is to continue.
3. Functions - For functionalists, the function of any part of a system is the contribution it makes to meeting the system's needs and thus ensuring its survival.

society as a social system - value consensus and social order

Parsons → social order is achieved via the existence of a shared culture / a central value system. A culture is a set of norms, values, beliefs and goals shared by members of a society. It provides a framework that allows individuals to cooperate by laying down rules about how they should behave and what others may expect of them, defining the goals they should pursue, etc.

Social order is only possible so long as members of society agree on these norms and values. Parsons calls this agreement value consensus. Value consensus is the glue that holds society together.

society as a social system - integration of individuals

The basic function of the value consensus is thus to make social order possible. It does this by integrating individuals into the social system, thereby directing them towards meeting the system's needs. e.g. the system has to ensure that people's material needs are met, and so the consensus may include a general value about the need for people to work. To achieve this goal, there also needs to be a set of specific rules of conduct or norms - e.g. about punctuality, how to obtain jobs etc.

For Parsons, the system has two mechanisms for ensuring that individuals conform to shared norms and meet the system's needs:
- Socialisation - The social system can ensure that its needs are met by teaching individuals to want to do what it requires them to do. Through the socialisation process, individuals internalise the system's norms and values so that society becomes part of their personality structure.
Different agencies of socialisation, such as the family, education system, media and religion, all contribute to this process.
- Social control - Positive sanctions reward conformity, while negative ones punish deviance. e.g. if the value system stresses individual achievement via educational success, those who conform may be rewarded with college diplomas, while those who deviate by dropping out may be stigmatised as layabouts.

cuz individuals are integrated, via socialisation and social control, into a shared value system, their behaviour is oriented towards pursuing society's shared goals and meeting its needs. The behaviour of each individual will be relatively predictable and stable, allowing cooperation between them. This integration into the shared normative order makes orderly social life possible. From these basic ideas, Parsons builds up a more detailed model of the social system.

society as a social system - the parts of the social system

'building block' approach to describing Parsons' model of the social system. At the bottom, individual actions. Each action an individual performs is governed by specific norms. These norms come in 'clusters' called status-roles. Statuses are the positions that exist in a given social system; e.g. 'teacher'. Roles are sets of norms that tell us how the occupant of a status must carry out their duties - e.g. teachers mustn’t show favouritism.

Status-roles also come in clusters, known as institutions. e.g. the family is an institution made up of the related roles of father, mother, child, etc. In turn, related institutions are grouped together into sub-systems. e.g. shops, farms, factories, banks and so on all form part of the economic sub-system, whose function is to meet society's material needs. Finally, these sub-systems together make up the social system as a whole.

society as a social system - the system’s needs (AGIL schema)

Parsons identifies four basic needs. Each need is met by a separate sub-system of institutions:
(1) adaptation: The social system meets its members' material needs through the economic sub-system.
(2) goal attainment: Society needs to set goals and allocate resources to achieve them. This is the function of the political sub-system, through institutions such as parliament.
(3) integration: The different parts of the system must be integrated together to pursue shared goals. This is the role of the sub-system of religion, education and the media.
(4) latency: refers to processes that maintain society over time. The kinship sub-system provides pattern maintenance (socialising individuals to go on performing the roles society requires) and tension management (a place to ‘let off steam’ after the stresses of work).

Parsons describes adaptation and goal attainment as instrumental needs - instrumental refers to the means to an end, such as producing food to sustain the population. He describes integration and latency as expressive needs, since they involve the expression or channelling of emotions. By carrying out their respective functions, the four sub-systems ensure that all society's needs are met and social stability is maintained.

society as a social system - social change

Parsons identifies two types of society - traditional and modern. Each has its own set of norms. e.g. in modern society we pursue our individual self-interest, achieve our status and are all judged by the same universalistic standards. By contrast, in traditional societies, individuals are expected to put collective interests first, status is ascribed and they are judged by particularistic standards (such as different laws for nobles and commoners).

Parsons → change is a gradual, evolutionary process of increasing complexity and structural differentiation. The organic analogy is relevant here. societies move from simple to complex structures. e.g. in traditional society, a single institution - the kinship system - performs many functions. it organises production and consumption (adaptation), often provides political leadership (goal attainment), socialises its members (latency) and performs religious functions (integration).

but, as societies develop, the kinship system loses these functions - to factories, political parties, skls, churches, etc. Parsons calls this structural differentiation - a gradual process in which separate, functionally specialised institutions develop, each meeting a different need.

In addition to the process of structural differentiation, Parsons also sees gradual change occurring through moving (or dynamic) equilibrium. As a change occurs in one part of the system, it produces compensatory changes in other parts. Thus, the rise of industry brings a change in the family from extended to nuclear. In this way society gradually changes from one type to another.

society as a social system - Durkheim (1858-1917) and functionalism

traditional society was based on 'mechanical solidarity' with little division of labour, where all its members were fairly alike. A strong collective conscience bound them so tightly together that individuals in the modern sense didn’t really exist. but, in modern society, the division of labour promotes differences between groups and weakens social solidarity. It brings greater freedom for the individual, but this must be regulated to prevent extreme egoism destroying all social bonds. Similarly, rapid change undermines old norms without creating clear new ones, throwing people into a state of anomie or normlessness that threatens social cohesion.

society exists as a separate entity over and above its members - a system of external social facts shaping their behaviour to serve society's needs.

Merton's internal critique of functionalism

Criticisms of Parsons systems theory have come from both outside and inside functionalism. Within functionalism, Merton (1968) criticises three key assumptions of Parsons:

(1) Indispensability - Parsons assumes that everything in society - the family, religion, etc. - is functionally indispensable in its existing form. Merton → this is just an untested assumption and he points to the possibility of 'functional alternatives'. e.g. Parsons assumes that primary socialisation is best performed by the nuclear family, but it may be that one-parent families or communes do it just as well or better.

(2) Functional unity - Parsons assumes that all parts of society are tightly integrated into a single whole or 'unity' and that each part is functional for all the rest. he assumes that change in one part will have a 'knock-on' effect on all other parts. but, neither of these assumptions is necessarily true. Complex modern societies have many parts, some of which may be only distantly 'related' to one another. Instead of functional unity, some parts may have 'functional autonomy' (independence) from others. It’s hard to see the connections between, say, the structure of banking and the rules of netball.

(3) Universal functionalism - Parsons assumes that everything in society performs a positive function for society as a whole. Yet some things may be functional for some groups and dysfunctional for others. The idea of dysfunction introduces a neglected note into functionalism, by suggesting that there may be conflicts of interest and that some groups may have the power to keep arrangements in place that benefit them at the expense of others.

The central point behind Merton's criticisms is that we can’t simply assume, as Parsons does, that society is always and necessarily a smooth-running, well-integrated system.

Merton's internal critique of functionalism - manifest and latent functions

Merton → distinction between 'manifest' and 'latent' functions. He cites the example of the Hopi Indians who, in times of drought, perform a rain-dance with the aim of magically producing rain. This is its manifest or intended function. From a scientific viewpoint this is unlikely to achieve its goal.

but, the ritual may also have an unintended or latent function - such as promoting a sense of solidarity in times of hardship, when individuals might be tempted to look after themselves at the expense of others. Merton's distinction is thus useful in helping to reveal the hidden connections between social phenomena, which the actors themselves may not be aware of.

the four kinds of external critiques of functionalism - (1) logical criticisms

Critics argue that functionalism is teleological. Teleology is the idea that things exist cuz of their effect or function. For example, the functionalist claim that the family exists because children need to be socialised is teleological - it explains the existence of the family in terms of its effect.

but, critics argue that a real explanation of something is one that identifies its cause - and logically, a cause must come before its effect. By contrast, functionalism explains the existence of one thing (the family) in terms of something else that can only be its effect (socialisation), since socialisation can only come after we have families.

Functionalism is also criticised for being unscientific. For many, a theory is only scientific if in principle it’s falsifiable by testing. Yet this is not true of functionalism. e.g. functionalists see deviance as both dysfunctional (since society's needs can only be met if individuals conform) and functional (e.g. by reinforcing social solidarity). If deviance is both functional and dysfunctional, then the theory can’t be disproved and is unscientific.

the four kinds of external critiques of functionalism - (2) conflict perspective criticisms

Conflict theorists such as Marxists criticise functionalism for its inability to explain conflict and change. This inability arises partly out of the organic analogy: organisms are relatively stable and harmonious systems in which all the parts work together for the common good.

Marxists → society isn’t a harmonious whole. Rather, it’s based on exploitation and divided into classes with conflicting interests and unequal power. Stability is simply the result of the dominant class being able to prevent change by using coercion or ideological manipulation. 'shared' values are merely a cloak concealing the interests of the dominant class.

Conflict theorists see functionalism as a conservative ideology legitimating the status quo. Its focus on harmony and stability rather than conflict and change, along with its assumptions of 'universal functionalism' and 'indispensability', all help to justify the existing social order as inevitable and desirable. Critics argue that this approach legitimates the privileged position of powerful groups who would have most to lose from any fundamental changes in society.

the four kinds of external critiques of functionalism - (3) action perspective criticisms

Wrong (1961) criticises functionalism's 'over-socialised' or deterministic view of the individual. He describes the functionalist view as the social system uses socialisation to shape people's behaviour so they’ll meet the system's needs by performing their prescribed roles. Individuals have no free will or choice - they’re puppets whose strings are pulled by the social system. From an action perspective, this is fundamentally mistaken. While functionalism sees human beings as shaped by society, the action approach takes the opposite view - that individuals create society by their interactions.

A related criticism is that functionalism reifies society - treats it as a distinct 'thing' over and above individuals, with its own needs. By contrast, action approaches argue that society isn’t a thing 'out there' with its own independent existence. the only social reality is the one that individuals construct by giving meaning to their worlds.

the four kinds of external critiques of functionalism - (4) postmodernist criticisms

Postmodernists argue that functionalism assumes that society is stable and orderly. As such, it cannot account for the diversity and instability in today's postmodern society.

functionalism is an example of a meta-narrative or 'big story' that attempts to create a model of the workings of society as a whole. However, such an overall theory is no longer possible because today's society is increasingly fragmented.