6

Functional School of Thought

From the 1940s the functional perspective in sociology emerged as the most dominant theoretical school in the discipline and it continued to rule for two decades. It was mainly the American sociology where functionalism prospered. It is considered as the most disputed sociological perspective in the history of sociology. Quite appropriately, Don Martindale commented that the most primary theoretical and methodological debates in post-war social science have centred on functionalism and alternatives to it. It is true that beyond the 1960s the functional school lost its appeal and vigour, but it continued to impress sociological thinking as an alternative qualified version of the orthodox paradigm came to existence. Organismic analogy is the basic premise of functionalism which conceptualized the society as a whole constituted of functional parts (Martindale 1965).

The perspective of functionalism attempts to explain society in terms of the system needs, while at the same time it stresses on the role of structure of a society in shaping human behaviour. Thus, quite often it has been interchangeably used with the term structural functionalism. Synoptically the functional perspective is captured by Wallace and Wolf:

According to this view social systems tend to perform certain tasks that are necessary for their survival, and sociological analysis, therefore, involves a search for the social structures that perform these tasks or meet the needs of the social system. (Wallace and Wolf 1999: 17)

Analogy with living organism forms the basic guiding idea of functional theories. It rests on the idea that like any living organism, society as a stable system is constituted of different parts which are interrelated. They function meaningfully in an interrelated way for the maintenance of the whole, i.e., the society. Inherent in this theory is the idea of interdependence of functionally specific parts and the requirement of the whole as being met by such functions performed by the constituting parts. Obviously such a perspective has to emphasize on the idea of system stability or equilibrium. Any change in any of the parts leads to a disturbance of that state of equilibrium. An equilibrium state only ensures a smooth functioning of the society. As a macro sociological theory functionalism, therefore, constitutes a consensual view of society. The focus of such a view is on the social institutions and patterns, the smooth functioning of which is held as basic requirement for ensuring social order and stability.

The other aspect of functionalism which follows directly from its insistence on social equilibrium is that a common set of value permeates through the whole body of the society. Equilibrium is a result of value consensus perspective. Society as a system can function properly only when all it members share and agree on basic values, thought to be good for the society. The normative structure of a society is then a shared one, and thus any damage to that is thought to be destabilizing the entire system as such. Containing change is theorized by functionalists as something of primary importance for the sake of survival of the system. A homeostatic model of society advanced by functionalism, therefore, ignores the issues of conflict and structural change of a social system. On the question of social change it only admits a low scale change from within, which does not actually alter the existing structure.

In modern sociological thought the contribution of Talcolt Parsons and Robert King Merton is widely acknowledged. However, the sociological thinking of Auguste Comte, Herbert Spencer and Emile Durkheim actually served as the backdrop for the modern development of the functional school. Also, Max Weber's influence on Talcolt Parsons needs to be noted to appreciate Parsons's grand theory of structural functionalism.

INTELLECTUAL INFLUENCES ON FUNCTIONALISM

Many of the ideas of modern functionalist thinkers are rooted in Auguste Comte's attempt to lay the foundation of a science of society by effecting a distinction between social processes that hold society together and the mechanisms of change. Basically invoking an organismic understanding for human society, Comte found it useful to make a distinction between social processes and mechanisms of change like the way it is being done in biology between anatomy and physiology. For Comte, the social processes which lead stability to society are social statics, and mechanisms of change are social dynamics. While social dynamics tell us about the laws of social change or progress, social statics tell us about the constitutive units like the individual, family and other such aspects of society. Science of society actually starts by examining these social statics and subsequently arrives at the laws of change, which are always ordered.

HERBERT SPENCER

We can notice a very rudimentary organismic analogy in Comte's early positivistic attempts. Actually it was Herbert Spencer (1820–1903), the British social thinker, who organized the organic analogy more coherently to be applied for an understanding of human society. Spencer considered society as a super-organic body and that there are certain basic similarities between society and living body. As a Social Darwinist, he held that social institutions, like plants and animals, grow in an evolutionary scheme and progressively become complex. They are also interdependent on each other to constitute the whole. Spencer adapted the Darwinian theory of natural selection to suggest that individual human beings who are capable would prosper and proliferate when unhindered by external interventions. Only, the ‘unfit’ would perish. They adapt to the environment by fulfilling certain universal requisites of the society.

As such an evolutionary scheme was proposed by Spencer where the concept of differentiation was very important. As a society grows in size, like organic bodies, it involves both multiplications of individuals as well as compounding of the groups. The increase in size brings in more complex social structure as a result of growing differentiation. It is not that only the social structures get differentiated, but also the functions of the interrelated parts get increasingly differentiated. In turn, this progressive differentiation entails greater interdependence amongst differentiated parts. Like any living organism, society too evolves from a simple undifferentiated state to compound and more compound states through progressive differentiation. The concept of differentiation was all too important for later day functionalists to adopt into their schemes.

In his Principles of Sociology (1898), Spencer made clear his ideas of difference between modern and pre-modern societies. Specialized roles and institutions are the characteristic features of modern society. As a society progresses, along with its size it involves a proliferation of specialized roles. In a complex differentiated structure only individuals with a competence over any specific role and institutions with specialized function could only survive. And such survival is made possible through increased interdependence. We see that the functional school too used the same framework to account for the stable functioning of a society. From an undifferentiated state of incoherence a coherent and differentiated state of a society emerges where the functional requirements act as the principal organizing axis of any society.

EMILE DURKHEIM

Apart from the influences of Comte and Spencer, significant contributions from social anthropologists B. Malinowski and Radcliffe-Brown also helped the development of functionalism is sociology. But among sociologists it was the French sociologist Emile Durkheim who first used the functional approach in his analysis of society.

In his major works, Durkheim was strongly influenced by Spencer's biological analogy of society. He tried to explain the contribution of the parts of the organism towards the need of the whole. Apart from using biologically inspired terms, the major assumptions of Durkheim reflected those of the organicists. Those are:

1. Society viewed as an entity in itself, and as distinguished from and irreducible to its parts
2. Parts of society as fulfilling basic needs or requisites of the whole
3. Basic needs of a society have to be fulfilled if ‘abnormal’ states are to be avoided, and
4. Societies have equilibrium states around which normal function occurs. (Turner 1974)

All of the preceding assumptions permeate through Durkheim's works. Inspired by Comte's positivist as well as functionalist premises, he developed a view of society as a sum total of constitutive individuals groups, organizations and institutions. Such a notion of society figures prominently in all subsequent theories of functionalists. The functionalists later on tried to explain society in terms of the ways it realizes the functions required to maintain itself in an equilibrium state. Durkheim's adoption of the functional perspective is best available from his work, The Dualism of Human Nature and Its Social Conditions (1914).

A great number of our mental states, including some of the most important ones, are of social origin. In this case then, it is the whole that, in a large measure, produces the part; consequently, it is impossible to attempt to explain the whole without explaining the part without explaining, at least, the part as a result of the whole. (Durkheim 1973: 149)

The work of Durkheim which most significantly inspired Talcott Parsons, the greatest theorist of the school, was The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life (1912). He selected the simplest practices of religion among the most primitive people to show the ‘pan-religionism’ of most pre-modern societies. The theory was to examine the functions that religion plays in organizing the collective sentiments and activities of the people. From the secondary sources, Durkheim selected a primitive Australian tribe Arunta and analysed the practice of totemism amongst them. Taking totemism as the simplest form of religion amongst the Arunta he theorized at a general plane that group life is the efficient cause of all religions and also, that the sacred–profane division is universal and functional for the social life as a whole. Parsons took the clue from Durkheim's study of the sacred. It influenced Parsons's structural theory of functions. It was Durkheim who prompted Parsons to see the worth of a structural functioning system as a complex of need and working for the stable continuance of the whole. Similarly, Durkheim's contention in his The Division of Labour in Society (1893) that crime and deviance as functional at a normal rate, and that it provides an occasion for a dramatic display of social solidarity goes a long way to impact functional theorizing on society.

THE ANTHROPOLOGICAL TRADITION

Bronislaw Malinowski, one of the proponents of functionalism in anthropological studies, along with Radcliffe-Brown had an overwhelming influence in functional sociology. Also the French structural anthropologist Claude Levi-Strauss's analysis of structural system in terms of binary opposition invoked the idea of examining all social phenomena as systems of communication. Implanting the principles of structural linguistics Strauss's analysis went on to show how the different arrangement of its parts (interplay of the signifier and the signified) creates meanings.

However, the major input of functionalism in sociology came from B. Malinowski. The term functionalism was actually coined by him. While studying the Australian aboriginal tribes of the Western Pacific islands he concluded that it was possible to link up functionally the various types of cultural response such as economic, legal, scientific, magical and religious to human physiological needs (Timasheff 1967); that is, biological determinism was employed by Malinowski to understand culture, and the proposition that followed from such a theory helped functionalists to develop the notion of functional requisites with a focus on institution as the functional isolate.

Another major exponent of functional anthropology was Radcliffe-Brown who tried to correct the teleological implications associated with organismic analogy associated with orthodox functional understanding. Thus, instead of system needs he preferred the term necessary condition of existence and advanced a more structural theory. He rejected the practice of relating items to individual needs. For him, structure is the network of actually existing relationship and function is the recurrent activity that contributes to the maintenance of the whole.

The propositions of Radcliffe-Brown that impacted upon functional theory are that, in the beginning society needs to be studied by its morphology, which includes in its definition, comparison and classification. The process within the structure takes place as a result of function; that, for a society to survive there must be a minimal consistency of relationship and solidarity between parts of a social system; and finally, that, each society or type of society exhibits certain basic structural features and various practices are related to these so as to contribute to their survival. On the whole, Radcliffe-Brown treated social structure and its requirements as something irreducible. Later day functionalists gained insights from all these anthropological exercise to take note of the various consistent patterns of behaviour and to relate them to the logic of the existence of the whole society.

TALCOTT PARSONS

Talcott Parsons is considered as the undisputed leader of functionalism who dominated the world of sociology, especially the American sociology since the publication of his The Structure of Social Action in 1937. Over the years he shifted his focus from action theory to the system analysis, but remained as a grand theorist of the functional school. He influenced a whole range of scholars, especially in the departments of Sociology of the American universities, the epicentre of which was the Harvard.

Born in Colorado Springs in 1902, Talcott Parsons hailed from a religious and intellectual background. In his undergraduate school he studied biology and social sciences at Amherst College. The idea of interdependence of an organism's parts which he learnt from biology shaped his subsequent idea of a social system. Subsequently he moved to the London School of Economics where Malinowski's ideas impressed him too. He left from Heidelberg, Germany immediately after that and although Max Weber was no more alive but his ideas continued to reverberate through Heidelberg. Parsons was immediately attracted to Weber's action theory. This was evident in his doctoral work from Heidelberg. He returned to Harvard and secured a post in 1927 and eventually became the first sociology faculty at Harvard. As a visiting professor he taught at various universities like Pennsylvania, Rutgers, California (Berkeley), but retired only from Harvard as emeritus professor. He died in 1979.

As one of the most prominent theorists of his time Parsons inspired a whole range of his students. Many of whom later emerged as leading sociologists of their own right. The most prominent of them was Robert King Merton, who reflected upon Parsons's theory and advanced it further. Parsons is considered as a grand theorist who with a single theoretical model tried to explain all social behaviour across time and space. Essentially his model was a structural–functional one. Although quite an abstract model, it is considered as the most powerful theoretical model to have emerged in the twentieth-century sociology.

SOCIAL ACTION THEORY

The Structure of Social Action (1937) was Parsons's first major work which had a strong imprint of Max Weber's methodology of understanding human society. Weber's insistence on understanding the normative order of a society in terms of value-orientations of interacting individuals appealed to Parsons. He accepted Weber's methodology to study society as made up of interacting individuals and he reiterated that such interactions are affected by the social environment. He also stressed upon the fact that, interactions are a part of the greater action system which ought to be integrated into a grand conceptual scheme.

Parson's action theory rests on the distinction between action and behaviour. Acknowledging the subjective nature of human interactions, he held that it is not behaviour, which is just a reactive response, occasioned by a stimulus. Action on the contrary indicates an active intervention of the action as one who is in cognizance of his/her situation and act weighing all the alternative lines of action.

For Parsons, the basic unit of sociological study is the unit act, which implies an action. An actor orients his/her action towards an end but s/he has alternative choices as far as means towards the end is concerned. However, in situations where there are no such choices, there is at least a ‘normative orientation’ to govern an action (Parsons 1949). Through such actions we get the structures and processes which are always meaningfully intended and implemented in actual concrete situations. While adopting the most appropriate means an actor always pursues a goal negotiating the social environment of such action. Thus, an actor is always bound by a social system.

SYSTEM ANALYSIS

It was later that Parsons shifted more towards a theory of social system and tried to explain how the structure and processes of social systems govern an unit act or the social action. In The Social System (1951), Parsons elaborated upon his theory of social action to bring in the notion of the complex of status and role to theoretically construct the idea of social system.

Social system is a theoretical construct which emerges from the process of interaction between plurality of actors in a situation which has at least a physical or an environmental aspect. Actors interact because they are motivated in terms of optimization of gratification. Their relation to each other as well as to their situation is defined and mediated in terms of culturally structured and shared symbols. Further, Parsons elaborated the scheme of structuring a complete system of social action by suggesting that the social system is just one of the three aspects of that:

[A] social system is only one of three aspects of the structuring of a completely concrete system of social action. The other two are the personality systems of the individual actors and the cultural system which is built into their action. Each of the three must be considered to be an independent focus of the organization of the elements of the action system in the sense that no one of them is theoretically reducible to terms of one or a combination of the other two. Each is indispensable to the other two in the sense that without personalities and culture there would be no social system and so on around the roster of logical possibilities. (Parsons 1951: 5–6)

A system of social action then rests on an interrelationship between the social, cultural and personality system and which is marked by reciprocal support mechanism. A requisite minimum amount of support is being mutually shared so that a system and all of the subsystems strike a point of equilibrium.

Interestingly, Parsons did not put interaction as the basic unit for study in The Social System. It is the status–role complex which forms the basic unit. This complex is neither an aspect of actors nor an aspect of interaction but rather it is a structural component of the social system. Status refers to the structural position within a social system and role is what an actor does in that position. Thus, actors are considered a bundle of statuses and roles which are of functional significance for the social system.

A general theory of action Parsons could develop moving away from a voluntaristic theory of action by acknowledging that goal-seeking actors avail choices in terms of selecting their means, but within the constraints of norms, values, ideas as well as situational constraints. A plurality of interactive relationship with one or more members of the society, which a single actor indulges in, cannot be understood without a functional analysis of the interrelatedness affected by the interaction of a plurality of all such actors.

The interrelatedness of the social, cultural and political system is explained by Parsons by meticulously conceptualizing the social system as a result of interactions between oriented actors. Accordingly, actors are oriented to situations in terms of motives and values. Motive means the need and readiness to mobilize energy. While valuation means conceptions about what is appropriate. Interaction pattern is sustained as a result of sharing of the normative order by the oriented actors. Subsequent institutionalization of such patterned interactions is to be conceptualized as a social system. In this grand scheme, Parsons introduces the conceptualization of the cultural system and the personality system. Effectively to realize the social system made up of unit actions one also needs to see motives as a result of the personality system and values as a result of the cultural system. These sub-systems are analytically independent from one another but are inter-penetrating and inter-connected. Parsons’ functional explanation rests on such a general theory of action which is a composite of the three inter-penetrating systems of social, cultural and personal.

FUNCTIONAL REQUISITES

The notion of functional requisites was used by Parsons to understand the systemic features of the social, cultural and personality systems. Integration between and among systems (sub-systems, synonymously) is a basic survival requisite. For the purpose of integration each of the systems must fulfill two basic functional requisites. They are:

1. A sufficient proportion of the actors in each of the systems must adequately be motivated to carry out the expected role as required by the particular system, and
2. Cultural patterns which fail to provide the minimum normative order to govern the actors or put unrealistic demand on people need to be avoided by a system. This is required to avoid deviance and conflict.

The cultural system is of primary importance as it does not only mediate interaction among actors, it also integrates the personality and the social system. Through the norms and values culture is embodied in the social system and the same is internalized by the actors in the personality system. Culture is therefore an internalized aspect of the personality system. As a patterned ordered system of symbols the cultural system is the major binding force of the various elements of the social world. The symbols are the objects of orientation to actors. Culture is largely symbolic whereby it is readily transmitted from one system to another. And finally, in the social system it provides institutionalized patterns (Ritzer 1996).

Further, ‘need-disposition’ is thought to be the basic component of the personality system. According to need-disposition, actors either accept or reject objects presented in the environment or, they may even seek new ones if those made available are failing to satisfy need-disposition. Such need-dispositions need not be all that innate but are shaped by social setting as well (Parsons 1951).

Parsons’ usage of the term ‘functional prerequisites’ reflects his overriding concern with the maintenance of order within the social system. But by talking about the integration of value patterns and need-dispositions, he brings up the issue of the relationship between actors and social structures. Thus, the processes of socialization and internalization figure prominently in Parsonian sociology. As he said, ‘The combination of value-orientation patterns which is acquired [by the actor in socialization] must in a very important degree be a function of the fundamental role structure and dominant valves of the social system’ (Parsons 1951: 227).

Along with the process of socialization Parsons also advanced the idea of social control as another mechanism of ensuring social order. Only a gentle measure of social control is indicated by him as a supplement to socialization which would allow the social system to maintain its equilibrium. But at the last instance, Parsons was more focused on the system as a whole. It is his structural–functional scheme that explained how the structure of the system acts on and maintains the constitutive actors.

PATTERN VARIABLES

Parsons is regarded as a grand theorist because of his vigorous detailing and meticulous examination of every aspect of social system and its constitution. To account for the variable properties of social systems he developed a set of concepts called pattern-variables. With the help of this set Parsons tried to capture and categorize the modes of orientation in the personality system, the value patterns in the cultural system and the normative requirements in the social system. The five set of pattern variables are placed in a way so as to account for comparisons of values in different cultures at a very general plane. ‘The variables are pharased as polar dichotomies, that, depending on the system under analysis, allow a rough categorization of decisions by actors, the value orientations of culture, or the normative demands on status–role’ (Turner 2003: 42). The five set of variable properties coined as pattern variables are as follows:

1. Affectivity and affective neutrality: This concerns the presence of emotional content in an interactive situation.
2. Diffuseness and specificity: This concerns the spread of the demands and obligations in an interactive situation.
3. Universalism and particularism: This variable denotes whether evaluation and judgment of others in an interactive situation is standardized on the basis of a general norm, or such evaluation is person specific and discreet.
4. Achievement and ascription: This variable deals with the issue of whether an actor is assessed on the basis of performance or on the basis of in born/ascribed statuses.
5. Collectivity and self-orientation: This variable deals with the issue of whether an action is motivated by group interest or directed towards self-interest only.

The five variables are called pattern-variables as any action can be placed within the matrix of the five dichotomies and examined universally as belonging to or approximating which type of social action. Deciding upon these universal dichotomies one can then classify a social action, on a larger scale; a social system as such as belonging to pre-modern or modern state of human social living.

FUNCTIONAL IMPERATIVES

As a dynamic theorist, Talcott Parsons kept on qualifying upon his own theories continuously and advancing fresh insights onto the study of society. He, along with Robert Bales and Edward Shils in 1953, co-authored Working Papers in the Theory of Action. In this work he proposed the concept of functional imperatives and further elaborated the same concept in Economy and Society (1956, co-authored with Neil Smelser). Parsons became categorical with four sub-systems of a social system, such as the economic (behavioural organization), political, fiduciary and societal community.

The four functional imperatives are adaptation, goal attainment, integration and latency. It is popularly known as the AGIL scheme of Parsons in sociological literature. Moving beyond his earlier proposition of functional prerequisites, Parsons talks about four sub-systems in a society as performing four distinct functions for the maintenance of the whole system. In fact they are the imperatives for each of the sub-systems without which the stability of the social system would be precarious.

The functional imperatives are:

1. Adaptation: This refers to the problem of securing from the environment sufficient resources and distributing them throughout the system. It demands adapting to the environment and its changing conditions. This function is to be performed by the economic sub-system.
2. Goal attainment: This refers to establishing priorities among system goals and mobilizing system resources for attaining such goals. This function is accomplished by the political sub-system.
3. Integration: This refers to the crucial aspect of coordinating and regulating the interactions between actors and subsystems within the greater social system. The societal community with law as the principal element performs this task as an imperative.
4. Latency: This refers to the functions of tension maintenance and pattern management. This is to be accomplished by the fiduciary system, with schools, family and religion as the principal institutions. Accordingly actors are sufficiently motivated by appropriate socialization to ensure the perusal of a common set of goals and values.

Initially, Parsons was less enthusiastic in his action theory about the behavioural organism, where he mainly focused on the other three — social, cultural and personality system. He simply noted the behavioural system as a source of energy for the rest of the society (Ritzer 1996). But after he had developed the functional imperative scheme of AGIL, he effected the four functional imperatives to operate through the four sub-systems, where along with the social, cultural and personality system, the behavioural organization is also highlighted. Thus, when applied to the four sub-systems, the AGIL scheme attains specific and distinct operational areas. The behavioural organization carries out the role of adaptation in order to survive in the environment. The personality system performs the role of goal-attainment by motivating individuals towards desired goals. The function of integration is accomplished by the social system, while the cultural system ensures that appropriate norms, values and expectations of the society are internalized by the individuals — the function of latency.

In sum, Parsons's functional theory is premised on the fundamental concepts of organic evolution. The concepts which run through his model are that of variation, selection, adaptation, differentiation and finally, integration. He is popularly known as a system analyst. A grand systemic study of society — society conceptualized as a system being constituted by sub-systems, and mutual interdependence between the sub-system with each performing a particular function, is the core of Parsons's model of society. The aspect of coordination and sharing of a common normative order is given primary importance, which rests on as well as relies on the capacity to garner sufficient resources from the environment. An equilibrium model of society is thereby presented in the most detailed way, while it is theoretically quite abstract but provides insights for empirical studies as well.

ROBERT KING MERTON (1910–2003)

As a functionalist, R. K. Merton's credit goes as one who could critique T. Parsons and the orthodox versions of functionalism but still could advance on improved version of functionalism. Instead of opting for an overarching grand theory, he looked out for more empirically grounded theories of functionalism. He suggested that a continued run of the functionalist theory rested on making theory closer to empirical research. Merton was instrumental in enriching functionalism with new ideas and concepts to make it recover the lost prestige, which was due to the system–equilibrium model of the orthodox version.

Robert King Merton came from a humble background of Jewish origin. Born in 1910 to immigrant Jewish parents, he spent his early years in a South Philadelphia slum. From an early age he was attracted towards cultural and intellectual activities. He studied in the Temple University with a scholarship and was introduced to sociology by none other than the translator of Emile Durkheim, George E. Simpson. Interestingly, Merton confessed in his autobiographical work that he chose his intellectual interest from Durkheim's theoretical treatment of varied subjects and the empirical bent of his sociology (Merton 1994). After receiving a fellowship Merton joined Harvard, where he came in touch with both Pitrim Sorokin and Talcott Parsons. Sorokin oriented him with the wide areas of the European social thought, but Merton was impressed with Parsons's great works. He obtained his doctorate from the Harvard in 1936.

In his own admission Merton said that apart from Durkheim it was George Simmel's sociology which inspired him. From the great masters he adopted the spirit of developing sociological theories of social structure and cultural change which would help him to understand the process through which social institutions characterize human society. As against subject specialization he followed the path of studying a variety of sociological subjects. The empiricist Paul F. Lazarsfeld, Merton's colleague inspired him too to see the bearing of empirical research on theoretical constructs (Merton 1994). His basic thrust was to make functionalism a dynamic one with an empirical bent, which was in contrast with Parson's abstract theories.

CRITIQUE OF ORTHODOX FUNCTIONALISM

The non-empirical propositions based on abstract, theoretical systems, according to Merton, had led to assumptions that all systems have needs and requisites that must be met and that certain structures are indispensable in meeting these ends. That was the tradition of functional theorizing mainly influenced by the anthropological tradition as well as by Talcott Parsons’ theory of social system. In order to modify and qualify the functionalist heritage Merton pointed out that the orthodox version rested on three postulates which need to be reassessed (Merton 1949).

The three postulates are as follows:

1. Functional unity of society: It holds that all standardized social activities or cultural items are functional for the entire society and cultural systems. Merton said that this may hold good for primitive societies which were small in size and least complex but cannot be held to be true for all societies. Such high level of integration can only be an empirical variable. Such an image of society as perfectly integrated and homogenous actually works on a naïve assumption that all elements in a society are ‘good’ for the whole and work towards harmony of the society. By introducing the term ‘dysfunction’ Merton instead postulated that, some parts/elements of a society may not have such a positive function for the whole as such. The concept of dysfunction, Merton said, ‘which implies the concept of strain, stress and tension on the structural level, provides an analytical approach to the study of dynamics and change’ (Merton 1949: 53).
2. Universal functionalism: It holds that all standardized social and cultural forms and structures only fulfill positive functions. In fact this follows from the first postulate, i.e., there are no dispensable elements in a social arrangement. This is almost an anthropological fundamentalism, which justifies every element of a culture just in terms of its existence. Merton opined that such a situation may contradict empirical reality. It is premature and a prior assumption that each and every item or part is functional for the whole, as there may be items which are having non-functional consequences for the society and as such irrelevant.
3. Indispensability: It holds an extreme position that all standardized social and cultural items are indispensable and necessary conditions for the social whole; that the equilibrium stable state of a society cannot be attained without each of these elements. Such an image of society tantamount to suggest that except the given there cannot be any alternatives. Merton critiqued this postulate to indicate that there could be functional alternatives, which he termed as functional equivalents in a society. These modifications are a must to admit that there are variations in a society and such variability of its institutions could only enthuse detailed empirical study of a society. In fact this variability is the promise of an enriched study of a society and that of the subject matter as well.

THEORIES OF THE MIDDLE RANGE

Neither abstract theorization nor crude empiricism could serve the purpose of sociological study. Merton treaded a middle path, suggesting ‘theories of the middle range’. He asserted that, functional theory must work with a limited set of assumptions. From such limited assumptions only specific hypotheses need to be developed and subsequently put to empirical testing. This could be accomplished by acknowledging the bearing of theory on research and vice-versa.

Middle–range theory is principally used in sociology to guide empirical inquiry. It is intermediate to general theories of social systems which are too remote from particular classes of social behaviour, organization and change to account for what is observed and to those detailed orderly descriptions of particulars that are not generalized at all. Middle range theory involves abstractions, of course, but they are close enough to observed data to be incorporated in propositions that permit empirical testing. Middle-range theories deal with delimited aspects of social phenomena, as is indicated by their labels. One speaks of a theory of reference groups, of social mobility, or role–conflict and of the formation of social norms just as one speaks of a theory of prices, a germ theory of disease, or a kinetic theory of gases. (Merton 1949: 39)

Illustrating with the theory of role-set Merton showed that broad theoretical orientation of great classicists, be it Marx, Sorokin or Parsons, cannot adequately account for such. For him systems of sociological thought, although, are projected as logically close-knit and mutually exclusive sets of doctrine but comprehensive sociological theories are actually sufficiently loose-knit and internally diversified. Only middle-range theories with a measure of empirical confirmation are better suited as comprehensive theories.

In order to drive his point home, Merton makes a distinction between role-set and ‘multiple roles’. Traditionally, ‘multiple roles’ referred to the various social statuses, could be even in different institutional spheres, in which individuals find themselves. It could not recognize the complex of roles which could be associated with a single social status. But role-set as a component of a social structure leads one to infer that individuals with adequate social regularity perform the components of countless role-sets through multiple social structures. To begin with, role-set theory implies that a single social status gives rise to a single associated role, but it implies an array of roles. Without being restrained by extreme conflicts in their role-sets, individuals perform the functional task of managing such situations. This qualified understanding of role-set occasions new studies of discovering and identifying the social mechanisms which facilitate such an array of roles to be performed. According to Merton, only empirical studies could account for the social processes which have designated consequences for designated parts of social structure. In a nutshell, sociological theories of the middle range explain elements of social structure. This is in contrast to the grand theories which are successful in providing only concrete historical descriptions of particular social systems.

AN ALTERNATIVE PARADIGM FOR FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS

In order to correct the static orthodox version of functionalism Merton attempted to codify functional analysis in sociology all through. He promoted a new paradigm of relevant concepts and problems as an alternative approach. The different aspects of this alternative and qualified paradigm are as follows:

1. The object of analysis for a functionalist theorist must represent a standardized item, such as social roles, institutional patterns, social processes, social norms, group organization etc., i.e., only patterned and recurrent items of a society need to be imputed with the notion of function
2. The conception of the motives or purposes of individuals involved in a social system, i.e., the subjective dispositions of the individuals must gain the attention of a functional analyst, at some point or the other, of the research, and
3. The obvious confusion between subjective dispositions and objective consequences must be eradicated with a proper understanding of the term function. For Merton, function is not the same thing as purpose or motivation; rather functions are defined as, ‘those observed consequences which make for the adaptation or adjustment of a given system’ (Merton 1949: 105).

   To resolve this confusion between the subjective dispositions and objective consequences of an item Merton introduced the concepts of manifest and latent functions. In simple terms, manifest functions are those that are intended, whereas latent functions refer to the ones which are unintended. This distinction addresses the problem of distinguishing between the cases in which the subjective aim-in-view coincides with the objective consequence, and the cases in which they diverge. Such an analytical distinction is related to Merton's contention of unanticipated consequences. One may do things which are aimed at some goal but end up achieving something else. For a sociologist studying the intended consequences are far easy, but the challenge is more in identifying those which are unintended and where mostly the actors are unaware of it.

   Latent function is one type of unanticipated function which is functional for the society. But there are other two types of unanticipated functions — one that is dysfunctional, i.e., damaging for the social structure, and the other being one which is irrelevant or non-functional for the designated system.

4. Given the understandings of variability of function it is required for functional analysis to consider a range of units for which an item has designated consequences. This is so, as same items may be functional for some individuals and sub-groups and dysfunctional for others.
5. Often ex post facto functional requirements are understood by functionalists. To avoid such tautological analysis one must establish types of functional requirements (universal or specific) and procedures for validating the assumptions of these requirements.
6. One must attend to concrete and detailed accounts of the mechanisms which operate to perform a designated function, i.e., functions are fulfilled through social and not psychological mechanisms. Thus, such mechanisms like rituals, division of social labour or role-segmentation etc., need to be studied.
7. Variability of social structures is to be recognized. As such the functional indispensability is to be dismissed in favour of functional alternatives or substitutes.
8. However, the range of variation of social structure is not without bound. Items fulfill designated functions variously but within the structural context. The integration of the parts or the interdependence of the elements of a social structure limits the variation. Therefore, the effective possibility of change is bound by the structure.
9. The very concept of dysfunction points to the areas of stress, strain and tension on the structural level. The orthodox functional focus on the static unchanging character needs to be abandoned in favour of an analytical approach which appreciates the examination of dynamics and change in a society.
10. A functional analysis must be ready with a rigorous statement of the sociological procedures of analysis which should be amenable to the logic of experimentation. One needs to validate functional analysis, which can be done through systematic reviews of the possibilities and limitations of comparative study.
11. From the sociology of knowledge perspective, functional analysis must be aware and sensitive to the issue of ideological implications of a study. Intrinsically functional analysis is value-free; nevertheless, particular analyses or hypotheses may have an identifiable, ideological role, where such a possibility needs to be accounted for, if one is interested to accomplish the alternative paradigm for functional analysis.

The paradigm offers a provisional guide, a codified manual for engaging in functional analysis. It raises functionalism to a new height of acceptance, at least a new lease of life for functionalism. Merton anticipated the stiff criticism that Parsonian functionalism would invite, and thus, he developed an improved version of that. Possibly, the greatest contribution of Merton goes in his attempt to make functionalism dynamic by stripping it from abstract rationalistic approach to a more empirical-based perspective. Thus, the close association between theory and research gets a thorough methodological treatment from Merton's use of functionalism. Prior to Merton structural functionalists were interested in analysing functions of one social structure or institution for another. But he made the analysis more empirically grounded by focusing on groups, organizations, societies and cultures.

SUMMARY

Since its coming during the 1940s, functionalism has been the centre of major sociological attention. It emerged as the most dominant sociological theory, especially in the United States, in the 1950s and 1960s. Subsequently, it declined mainly due to its obsession with stability and value consensus model of society. Talcott Parsons led the way to develop a view of society which rested on the principle of a shared normative order. Merton's intervention definitely extended the life of functionalism, with the introduction of some valid new concepts. However the perspective remained focused on system equilibrium. Society and systems do comprise interdependent parts, but the issues of structural change and conflict remained unattended in this perspective.

Key Words

• Action Theory
• Dynamic Functionalism
• Functionalism
• Funtional Imperatives
• Pattern Variables
• Social System
• Value Consensus

Glossary

Action Theory: Recognizing motives as part of human actions, it tries to explain ends, purposes and ideals when looking at actions.

Functionalism: A broad perspective in Sociology which holds society as constituted of interrelated parts, and each part contributing to the maintenance of the whole.

Latent Function: That which is neither recognized nor intended. A latent function of a behaviour is not explicitly stated, recognized or intended by the people involved.

Manifest Function: In functional sociology, any function of an actor, institution or other social phenomenon that is planned and intentional.

Middle Range Theory: Theory which attempts to integrate theory and empirical research.

Pattern Variables: Five dichotomies to show the contrasting values to which individuals orient themselves in social interaction. One side of the dichotomies reflects the value patterns dominant in traditional society, the other reflects the dominant values of modern society.

Social System: Undestanding society as an interrelated structure constituted of social action, and which is marked of from ecological, biological, psychical and technical systems.

Discussion Points

• Theoretical influences on Functional Theory.
• Parsons's System Analysis.
• Critique of Orthodox Functionalism.
• Merton's Middle-range Theory.