Malinowski’s Functionalism
It was only in Malinowski’s writings, A Scientific Theory of Culture and Other Essays (1944) and Dynamics of Culture Change (1945), a full-blown ‘functional approach’ in the analysis of culture appeared. According to him, functionalism attempts to explain the part institutions play within the interrelated whole of culture. Malinowski defines functional method as: “The functional view of culture lays down the principle that in every type of civilization, every custom, material object, idea and belief, fulfills some vital function, has some tasks to accomplish, represents an indispensable part within a working whole.” His work, particularly in the study of the Trobriand Islanders, provided valuable insights that reshaped and expanded functionalism in sociology. The following are –
1. Theory of Transformation of Needs: Malinowski suggested that individuals have physiological needs and that social institutions develop to meet these needs. There are also culturally derived needs and four basic “instrumental needs” (economics, social control, education, and political organization), that require institutional devices. Each institution has personnel, a charter, a set of norms or rules, activities, material apparatus (technology), and a function. Malinowski believed that uniform psychological responses are correlates of physiological needs. He argued that satisfaction of these needs transformed the cultural instrumental activity into an acquired drive through psychological reinforcement.
2. Influence of Herbert Spencer: The main provisions of the Malinowski concept were formed under the strong influence of H. Spencer. In particular, Malinowski shared Spencer’s view of society as a peculiar biological organism. The basis of Malinowski’s concept became the theory of needs. The basic (biological) needs, there are also secondary, secondary (food distribution, division of labor, defense, reproductive regulation, social control) and integrative (psychological security, social harmony, cognition system, laws, religion, magic, mythology, art) needs. , Which are served by culture. Each aspect of culture has its function in one of the requirements listed above. For example, magic, according to B. Malinowski, provides psychological protection from danger, myth gives historical authority to the management system and values, and so on.
3. Small Society Studies: Malinowski’s immersion in the lives of the Trobriand Islanders allowed him to observe and analyze their rituals, magic, and myths. He said that these cultural elements served specific needs within the society. Functionalism, as advocated by Malinowski, aimed to study real people and understand the purpose behind their customs, emphasizing the functionality of each cultural component.
4. Concept of Basic and Derived Needs: Malinowski identified both physiological and culturally derived needs, emphasizing the role of cultural institutions in meeting these needs. He introduced the concept of “instrumental needs,” including economics, social control, education, and political organization, which required specific institutional devices for fulfillment. He argued that satisfaction of these needs transformed cultural activities into acquired drives through psychological reinforcement.
5. System Levels and Hierarchy: Malinowski reintroduced Spencer’s ideas of system levels and hierarchy into functional analysis. He identified three system levels—biological, social-structural, and symbolic. Each level had basic survival requisites, with a hierarchical relationship between them. The way needs were met at one level set constraints on subsequent levels, highlighting the interdependence of biological, social, and symbolic systems.
6. Institutional Analysis: Malinowski stressed the importance of institutional analysis in understanding societal requisites. He viewed institutions as stable ways of organizing activities to meet critical needs. By outlining universal elements such as personnel, charter, norms, material apparatus, activity, and function, he provided a common analytical framework for comparing social organizations within and between societies.
7. Universal Functional Needs: Malinowski identified four universal functional needs at the social-structural level—economic adaptation, political authority, educational socialization, and social control. These needs became central to subsequent functionalist theories in sociology. His emphasis on the structural level as the essence of sociological analysis paved the way for modern sociological functionalism.
8. Integration of Biological and Cultural Elements: Unlike some earlier functionalists, Malinowski integrated biological and cultural elements into his analysis. He acknowledged the primary biological needs of individuals, such as food and shelter, and demonstrated how cultural institutions evolved to meet these needs. This holistic approach bridged the gap between biological and cultural explanations of human behaviour.
Malinowski’s functionalism aimed to explain why cultures have certain customs. It saw these practices as tools to meet needs. This view provided insight into different cultures. But later, anthropologists saw flaws in functionalism. They moved toward studying history and power structures. But Malinowski’s methods influenced anthropology greatly. Functionalism changed views of culture by focusing on the purpose behind customs.
Malinowski with Trobriand Islanders, 1918Bronislaw Malinowski reintroduced Herbert Spencer's approach, it offered a way for modern sociologists to employ functional analysis. Malinowski’s scheme reintroduced two important ideas from Spencer: (1) the notion of system levels and (2) the concept of different and multiple system needs at each level. In making these two additions. Malinowski made functional analysis more appealing to 20th-century sociological theorists.
In Malinowski’s scheme, there are three system levels: the biological, the social structural, and the symbolic. At each of these levels, one can discern basic needs or survival requisites that must be met if biological health, social-structural integrity, and cultural unity are to exist. Moreover, these system levels constitute a hierarchy, with biological systems at the bottom, social structural arrangements next, and symbolic systems at the highest level. Malinowski stressed that the way in which needs are met at one system level sets constraints on how they are met at the next level in the hierarchy. Yet, he did not advocate a reductionism of any sort; indeed, he thought that each system level reveals its own distinctive requisites and processes meeting these needs. Additionally, he argued that the important system levels for sociological or anthropological analysis are the structural and symbolic. And in this actual discussion, it is the social-structural level that receives the most attention.
In analyzing the structural system level, Malinowski stressed that institutional analysis is necessary. For Malinowski, institutions are the general and relatively stable ways in which activities are organized, to meet critical requisites. All institutions, he felt, have certain universal properties or “elements” that can be listed and then used as dimensions for comparing different institutions. These universal elements are :
1. Personnel: Who and how many people participate in the institution?
2. Charter: What is the purpose of the institution; what are its avowed goals?
3. Norms: What are the key norms that regulate and organize conduct?
4. Material apparatus: What is the nature of tools and facilities used ‘to organize and regulate conduct in pursuit of goals?
5. Activity: How are tasks and activities divided? Who does what?
6. Function: What requisite does a pattern of institutional activity meet?
By describing each institution along these six dimensions, Malinowski believed that he had provided a common analytical yardstick for comparing patterns of social organization within and between societies. He even went so far as to construct a list of universal institutions as they resolve not just structural but also biological and symbolic requisites. Malinowski’s functional approach opened new possibilities for sociologists who had long forgotten Spencer’s similar arguments. He suggested to sociologists that attention to system levels is critical in analyzing requisites; he argued that there are universal requisites for each system level; he forcefully emphasized that the structural level is the essence of sociological analysis; and much like Spencer before him and Talcott Parsons a decade later, he posited four Universal functional needs at this level economic adaptation, political authority, educational socialization, and social control, which were to be prominent in subsequent functional schemes. Moreover, he provided a clear method for analyzing institutions as they operate to meet functional requisites. It is fair to say, therefore, that Malinowski drew the rough contours for modern sociological functionalism.
Criticism of Malinowski Functionalism
Some anthropologists said functionalism focuses too much on needs and purpose. Cultures are complex systems. Parts of culture may remain even when they no longer serve a function. Other anthropologists felt functionalism ignored conflict and change in societies. They said it made cultures seem overly stable and fixed.
Anthropologists after Malinowski found exceptions to his theory. Some elements of culture do not meet basic needs. Still, functionalism changed how anthropologists study culture. It remained influential for many years. Malinowski emphasized studying real people and observing culture in daily life. This had a big impact on anthropology.
Post a Comment