Functional Theory

FUNCTIONAL THEORY

Functional theory, also referred to as the functionalist perspective, is one of the major theoretical perspectives in sociology. It has its origins in the works of Émile Durkheim, who was particularly concerned with understanding how social order is possible and how society maintains relative stability. Functionalists accept social change as a constant feature of society that does not necessarily require explanation as an abnormal occurrence. However, changes can disrupt the equilibrium of society. When such disruptions occur, social institutions and cultural patterns gradually adjust until the changes become integrated into the existing culture and social system. From the functionalist perspective, changes that prove to be useful or functional for society are likely to be accepted and incorporated into the social system. In contrast, changes that are useless or dysfunctional are likely to be rejected or disappear. Functional theory, therefore, focuses primarily on the macro-level of social structure, examining how institutions and social structures contribute to the maintenance of social order, stability, and equilibrium rather than concentrating on the micro-level of everyday social interaction.

1. Talcott Parsons (1902–1979)

The most influential and best-known contemporary American sociologist embracing this approach is Talcott Parsons. Detailed examination of Parsons’s complex ideas concerning social change that appeared in a number of these publications over time: The Social System (1951), Societies: Evolutionary and Comparative Perspectives (1966), The System of Modern Societies (1971), and The Evolution of Societies (1977) are beyond the scope of this discussion. The ensuing analysis will consider only some of his ideas about change in the context of equilibrium theory.

Talcott Parsons’s theory of social change was shaped by the biological theory of evolution. He developed the model of ‘a paradigm of evolutionary change’. The first component of that paradigm is the process of differentiation. Parsons assumed that any society is composed of a series of subsystems that differ in terms of both their structure and their functional significance for the larger society. As society evolves, new subsystems are differentiated. This is not enough. They also must be more adaptive than earlier subsystems. Thus, the essential aspect of Parsons’s evolutionary paradigm was the adaptive upgrading. The Parsonian model of social change is a positive one. When he talks about social change, he focuses on the positive aspects. His evolutionary scheme follows four stages of social evolution. These are mentioned below:

a) Constitutive Symbolism: This is the earliest form of society with a low level of differentiation. In such a society, a set of religious symbols controls social life.

b) Advanced Primitive Society: This is the initial phase of the start of social stratification in society. Agriculture and pastoral economy started.

c) Intermediate Society: In this stage, writing and literary skills are developed.

d) Industrialised Society: Here, the traditional economy is replaced by an industrial economy.

Talcott Parsons is a structural functionalist who focused more on the equilibrium of the social system than on change. In his schema, changes in one element lead to changes in the entire structure.

2. William Fielding  Ogburn (1886–1959)

As one of the most influential early American sociologists, William F. Ogburn, in his presidential address to the American Sociological Society (ASS) in December 1929, told colleagues that sociology was “not interested” in improving the world. Science, he suggested, is interested only in discovering new knowledge. For him, society was simply a term for the collective responses of the individuals who comprised it, and he maintained that sociology should be confined to measuring and tabulating environmental change and its responses.

His cultural lag theory may be considered a kind of equilibrium theory. Ogburn’s theory holds that societies operate as homeostatic mechanisms, in which changes that upset equilibrium in one part tend to produce compensating changes to restore equilibrium. In this situation, however, the new equilibrium condition differs from the old one and there is a lag between the two equilibrium states. The unequal rates of change produce a strain or maladjustment, which in turn produces a lag, until the more slowly changing, usually nonmaterial, culture catches up. For example, if technology changes, the curriculum may become outdated, and students will be less able to get jobs. Unemployment may then be a problem until education is modernised. In Ogburn’s words (1922/1923, p. 201), "Where one part of culture changes first, through some discovery or invention, and occasions changes in some part of culture dependent upon it, there frequently is a delay in the changes occasioned in the dependent part of culture.”

In essence, Ogburn argues that material culture and nonmaterial culture change in different ways. Change in material culture is considered to have a marked directional or progressive character. This is because there are generally agreed-upon standards of efficiency that are used to evaluate material inventions. To use aeroplanes as an example, designers keep working to develop planes that will fly higher and faster, carry more payload, and have a lower unit cost; and because aeroplanes can be measured against these standards, inventions in this area appear both rapidly and predictably.

In the area of nonmaterial culture (knowledge and beliefs, norms and values), on the other hand, there are often no generally accepted standards. The obvious directional character of change in material culture is lacking in many areas of nonmaterial cultures.

In addition to the differences in the directional character of change, Ogburn believes that material culture tends to change faster than nonmaterial culture. This difference in the rate of cultural change provides the basis for the concept of cultural lag. Material inventions bring changes that require adjustments across various areas of nonmaterial culture. The invention of the automobile, for instance, freed young, unmarried men and women from direct parental observation, enabled people to work at great distances from their homes, and, among other things, facilitated crime by making escape easier.

3. Robert K. Merton (1910-2003)

For Robert K. Merton, the strain, tension, and contradictions among the component parts of social structure may lead to social change. This is a brief explanation of the functional theory of social change. Sociologists who were not satisfied with functionalist explanations turned to conflict theories.

Functions are observed consequences that facilitate the adaptation or adjustment of a given system, and dysfunctions are observed consequences that hinder such adaptation or adjustment. There is also the empirical possibility of non-functional consequences, which are simply irrelevant to the system under consideration. In any given instance, an item may have both functional and dysfunctional consequences, giving rise to the difficult and important problem of evolving canons for assessing the net balance of the aggregate of consequences.

The second problem (arising from the easy confusion of motives and functions) requires us to introduce a conceptual distinction between the cases in which the subjective aim-in-view coincides with the objective consequence, and the cases in which they diverge. Manifest functions are the objective consequences that contribute to the system's adjustment or adaptation and are intended and recognised by participants in the system. Latent functions, correlatively, are those which are neither intended nor recognised. Two of Merton’s most significant contributions to functional analysis are subsumed under his discussion of the distinction between manifest and latent functions and between function and dysfunction. Manifest functions are those consequences that are intended and recognised by the participants in the system of action concerned, and latent functions are those consequences neither intended nor recognised by participants. Function (or eufunction in the words of Levy) is any activity or usage that contributes to the adaptation or adjustment of the unit to the unit’s setting, and dysfunction is any activity that lessens the adaptation or adjustment of the unit to its setting. These distinctions and Merton’s clarification of them have made functional analysis of cultural patterns and social institutions both more meaningful and scientific.

For Robert K. Merton, the strain, tension, and contradictions among the component parts of social structure may lead to social change. This is a brief explanation of the functional theory of social change. Sociologists who were not satisfied with functionalist explanations turned to conflict theories. Merton disagreed with some of the points made by Durkheim and Parsons. He argued that institutions not only provided functions for society but also dysfunctions (like a virus in the social body) or even non-functions (with no positive or negative effect). This meant that, within a functional society, not all institutions could be considered ‘indispensable’. Instead, some institutions may be more dysfunctional than functional and thus potentially disposed of and replaced by more functional institutions. An example of this logic being applied can be seen when looking at prisons as a social institution. Durkheim and Parsons would analyse prisons by looking at the positive contributions (functions) they provide to society, e.g., making citizens feel safer and rehabilitating offenders back into the ‘value consensus’. Merton, on the other hand, would analyse their positive and negative aspects and consider whether prisons could be replaced by a more functional institution that could perform the same functions more efficiently. The earlier functionalists were often accused of seeing society through ‘rose-tinted spectacles’, yet this criticism could not be so easily made of Merton.

4. Bronislaw Malinowski

Bronislaw Kasper Malinowski, a Polish anthropologist, is an important advocate of functionalism. His approach explains social and cultural practices in terms of the functions they perform in meeting human needs and maintaining social life. According to Malinowski, every element of culture exists because it serves some vital function.

In his work Argonauts of the Western Pacific (1922), Malinowski demonstrated how cultural practices among the Trobriand Islanders facilitated survival. He argued that primitive knowledge allows individuals to adapt practically to their environment, religion provides courage during crises and reintegrates society, and magic serves as a psychological coping mechanism that transforms everyday uncertainty into hope.

Malinowski identified 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 needs are met at one system level constrains how they are met at the next level in the hierarchy.

The important system levels for sociological or anthropological analysis are the structural and symbolic. And in this discussion, the social-structured level receives the most attention. The requisites or needs of the two most sociologically relevant system levels are listed. In analysing the structural system level, Malinowski stressed the necessity of institutional analysis. For Malinowski, institutions are the general and relatively stable ways in which activities are organised 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 organise conduct?

4. Material apparatus: What is the nature of tools and facilities used to organise 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 organisation 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 analysing 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 analysing institutions as they operate to meet functional requisites. It is fair to say, therefore, that Malinowski drew the rough contours for modern sociological functionalism.