Robert King Merton , LIFE AND WORKS OF R.K.MERTON               

 Robert King Merton (1910-2003)

Life and Works of Robert King Merton

Important Sociological Works

Functionalism

Functional Method in Sociology

Postulates of Functionalism

Spencer”s Analysis of Functionalism

Structural Functional View of Redcliffe Brown

Merton’s Functional Paradigm

Reference Group and Types

Middle Range Theory
Social Structure and Anomie

Conclusion

 

 

LIFE AND WORKS OF R.K.MERTON

Robert King Merton’s name is very much familiar in the field of
social thought. Ablest disciple of Talcott Parsons, he by virtue of
his scholarly knowledge had the privilege of taking the position of his illustrious teacher in Harvard University According to Morgaret Wilson Vine, Robert K. Merton was one of the ablest social thinkers that America Produced.

Robert King Merton, an eminent American sociologist, was born on July 5, 1910, in the slums of South Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. His parents were immigrants from Eastern Europe. His father was a carpenter and truck driver. He grew up with a passion for knowledge and learning. At the age of eight he had discovered the local public library and started to read books of many fields. He was more interested to read biography. Merton did his graduation from the South Philadelphia High School for Boys in February 1927. He won a scholarship at Temple University and immediately distinguished himself by the calibre of his academic year in the same year.

He developed his interest in philosophy with the interaction of James Dunham, the dean of Temple University and a professor of philosophy. Later, he got inspiration in sociology from George E. Simpson who was a young and enthusiastic instructor in this university. In 1931, at the age of twenty-one, Merton won a followship that took him to Harvard and graduate work in Sociology. In Harvard, Merton got the opportunity to study with distinguished scholars such as Talcott Parsons, George Sarton, Pitrim Sorokin and L.J. Henderson. Merton began to publish articles in various journals such as Social Forces, the American Journal of Sociology, the American Sociological Review, the Quarterly Journal of Economics, Sociology and Social Research, Isis and the Scientific Monthly. In 1934, Merton became an instructor and tutor at Harvard. In the same year, he married Suzanne M. Car hart, a social worker who had also been a student at Temple University.

He received a doctorate from Harvard University, where he was one of Parsons earliest and most important graduate student. Parsons stated on the relationship with graduate students at Harvard, “the most important single one was with Robert Merton”. He adds, “For a considerable time, Merton and I came to be known as the leaders of a structural-functional school among American sociologists.”  His doctorate work was first published in Osiris in 1938 as Science, Technology and Society in Seventeenth-Century England.

In 1939, he was appointed associate professor at Harvard University and thereafter professor at Tulane University. In Tulane University, he also served as the chairman of the department. Two years later, in 1941, he accepted appointment as assistant professor of sociology at Columbia University.

In 1947, he became a professor at the same University and was named a Giddings professor in 1963. He also served as president of the American Sociological Association in 1956-1957 and president of the Eastern Sociological Society in 1968-69. He was also an associate director of the University’s Bureau of Applied Social Research from 1942-71. Merton, in fact, holds honorary degrees from Temple, Emory, Loyola (Chicago), Kalamazoo, Western Reserve, Chicago, Tulane, Colgate. Yale, Layden, Wales, and Harvard. He currently holds the titles of special service professor and University Professor Emirates. At Harvard, Merton was influenced by Pitrim Sorokin for large-scale theorising, empirical research and statistical studies. At This time he worked closely with another sociologist, Paul Lazarsfeld. Paul Lazarsfeld influenced Merton to become active in empirical research.

As a sociologist, Merton’s interest has been in diverse field, such as sociology of science and the professions, sociological theory and mass communication, and so on. He has widely written on science, housing, mass  persuasion, the interview, business administrations, the student-physician, the freedom to read, social problems, Durkheim, Le Bon, Arabian intellectual development, invention, military technique, civilisation, population, time, the sociology of knowledge, bureaucracy, personality, crime, the family, questionnaires and scale, radio and film propaganda, discrimination, mass communication, public opinion polling, influence, research policy, epidemiology, friendship, medical school, professions, the corporations, quantifications, genius, nursing, anomy, leadership, and aging. Despite his wide range of work, he never produced a systematic theory or a system of sociology. He has not written any book on society.

Social Theory and Social Structure (1949) is considered as Merton’s major contribution in the field of sociology. In this book, he has written two classic essays on the relationship between sociological theory and empirical research and advocated a structural functional approach to the study of society and has given the concepts of manifest and latent-function and dysfunction. Besides functional analysis he has also discussed the concept of anomie and theory of reference group in this book. Other major work  in the field of sociology are middle-range theory, and his work on role-sets.

 

 

Important  Sociological Works

–     Science, Technology and Society in 17th Century England,                (1938)

–    Mass Persuasion, (1946)

–    The Focussed Interview, (1956)

–    Social Theory and Social Structure, (1957)

–    Contemporary Social Problems (with Nisbet), (1961)

–    On the Shoulders of Giants, (1965) On Theoretical Sociology, (1967) Social Theory and Functional Analysis, (1969)

–    The Sociology of Science, (1973)

–    Sociological Ambivalence, (1976)

 

 

Functionalism

Functionalism as a school of thinking arose as a critique to the utilitarian notion that humans are economically motivated, rational actors who strive to maximize their „utilities  or gains. Utilitarianism

which held sway in the 19th century assumed that there exists „an invisible hand of order  through „open competition in free markets  which provided people with the opportunity to satisfy various needs through the market

August  Comte, the father of modern sociology refered to function in his concept of consesua universalis. However, Herbert Spencer is regarded as the father of functionalism in sociology. According to Radcliffe Brown the concept of function was first used by Emile Durkheim in 1895. To quote his words, “The concept of function applied to human societies is based on an analogy between social life and organic life. The recognition of the analogy and of some of its implications is not new. In the nineteenth century the analogy, the concept of function, and the world itself appeared frequently in social philosophy and sociology. So far as I know the first systematic formation of the concept as applying to the strictly scientific study of society was that of Emile Durkheim in 1895.”  The functional approach in sociology has been caught in a terminological confusion. Too often a single term has been used to symbolize by different concepts just as the same concept has been symbolize by different terms.

According to Don Martindale, the term function may be interpreted in four possible meanings :

  1. Function in the mathematical sense of values determined by one or more factors.
  2. Function as useful activity as the meaning of the term in everyday life.
  3. Function as appropriate activity which is not only utilitarian but fulfils some aim or purpose.
  4. Function as system determined or system sustaining in which the function is determined by the social system.

Sociologists and anthropologists have used the term function not in the above mentioned first and second but in the third and fourth particularly the last sense. Harry and Johnson, while defining the term function, write, “Any partial structure, a type of sub group, a role, a Social norm, or a cultural value is said to have a function if it contributes to the fulfilment of one or more of the social needs or a social system of sub-system.” It may be noted here with Robert Merton that function is not purpose. While the purpose may he subjective, the function is an objective consequence of action. In the words of A. R. Redcliffe Brown, “Function of a particular social usage is the contribution it makes to the social life as the functioning of social system.” Rejecting the individualistic functionalism of Malinowski, and following Durkheim, Radcliffe Brown wrote, “By the definition here offered ‘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. Such a view implies that a social system (the total social structure of a society together with the totality of social usages in which that structure appears and on which it depends for its continued existence) has a certain kind of unity, which we may speak of as a functional unity.

We may define it as a condition in which all parts of  the social system work together with a sufficient degree of harmony or internal consistency, i.e., without producing persistent conflicts which can neither be resolved not regulated.”

Explaining the meaning of functionalism Harry C. Bredemeier wrote, “The functional approach to sociology consists basically of an attempt to understand social phenomena in terms of their relationship to some system. At least two distinct kinds of procedures, however, seem to be covered by that statement. One is an attempt to assess that part played by an observed pattern of behaviour in the maintenance of some larger system in which it is included. A second type of functional analysis should be clearly distinguished from the foregoing. This is an attempt to explain the persistence of an observed pattern of behaviour, that is, to approach an observed phenomenon with the question of its causes in mind.”

 

Functional Orientation

 

The functional orientation is of course neither new nor confined to the social sciences. The central orientation of functionalism is expressed in the practice of interpreting data by establishing their Consequences for larger structures in which they are implicated. It has been found in virtually all the human sciences such as biology, physiology, psychology, economics, law, anthropology and sociology. The prevalence of the functional outlook in itself is no warrant for its scientific value. However, it does suggest that cumulative experience has forced this orientation upon the disciplined observers of man organisation upon the disciplined observers of man organism, psychological actor, and member of society and bearer of culture.

 Functional Method in sociology

More immediately relevant is the possibility that experience in other disciplines may provide useful methodological models for functional analysis in sociology. To learn the canons of analytical procedure in these often more exacting disciplines is not, however, to adopt their specific conceptions and techniques, lock stock and barrel. For example the methodological framework of biological researches is not to adopt their substantive concepts.

The logical structure of experiment, for example, does not differ in physics, chemistry or psychology, although the substantive hypothesis, the technical tools, the basic concepts and the practical difficulties may differ enormously. Nor do the near substitutes for experiment cont rolled observation, compare active study and the method of discerning differ in their logical structure in anthropology, sociology or biology.

 

POSTULATES  OF  FUNCTIONALISM

Functional analysts have adopted three interconnected postulates.

These are as follows:

  1. Postulate of the Functional Unity:

Radcliffe-Brown characteristically puts this postulate in explicit terms on the concept of function as follows. “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. Such a view implies that a social system has a certain kind of unity, which we may speak of as a functional unity. We may define it as a condition in which all parts of the social system work together with a sufficient degree of internal consistency, i.e., without producing persistent conflicts which can neither be resolved nor regulated.”

But social usages or sentiments may be functional for some groups and dysfunctional for others in the same society. For example, the functional interpretation of religion deriving from Durkheim’s orientation which was based largely upon the study of non-literate societies, these authors tend to single out only the apparently integrative consequences of religion and neglect its possibly disintegrative consequence in certain types of social structure. Some facts are as given below:

(I) when different religions co-exist in the same society, there is often deep conflict between the several religious groups. In what sense then, does religion make for integration of “the” society in the numerous multi-religion societies?

(ii) Human society achieves its unity primarily through the possession by its members of certain ultimate values and ends in common. But what is the evidence indicating that “non-religious” people, say, in our own society less often subscribe to certain common “values and ends” than those devoted to religious doctrines?

(iii) In what sense does religion make for integration of the larger society, if the content of its doctrine and values is at odds with the content of other, non-religious values held by many people in the same society?

Such functional analyses show that religions provide integration of those who believe in same religious values. But it is unlikely that this is meant since it would merely assert that integration is provided by a consensus on any set of values.

In non-literate societies, there is but one prevailing religious system so that apart from individual deviants, the membership of the total society and the membership of the religious community are virtually co-extensive. In this type of social structure a corning set of religious values ray have as one of its consequences the reinforcement of common sentiments and of social integration. But this generalization cannot be applied to other types of society.

 

  1. Postulate of Universal Functionalism

The items of culture must be recognised to have multiple consequences, some of them functional and others perhaps dysfunctional. This postulate holds that all standardardized social or cultural forms have positive functions. Malinowski advances this in Anthropology in its most extreme form when

He says. “The functional view of culture insists therefore upon the principle that in every type of civilization, every custom, material object, idea and belief fulfils some vital function.”

The postulate of universal functionalism is of course the historical product of the fire, barren and protracted controversy over survivals which raged among the anthropologists over the question that a custom cannot be explained by its present utility but only becomes intelligibly through its past history. But the evolutionary theory of culture made rethinking, on it necessary.

This postulate also faced criticism from a range of non-functional consequences of existing cultural forms. Present cultural forms have a net balance of functional consequences cither for the society considered as a unit or for sub-groups sufficiently powerful. This formulation at once avoids the tendency of functional analysis of concentrate on positive functions and directs the attention to other types of consequences as well.

 

  1. Postulate of Indispensability

This postulate shows that every cultural item satisfies some vital need of society, and cannot be substituted by any other item. Malinowski advances this in Anthropology in this form. “In every type of civilization, every custom, material object, idea and belief fulfils some vital function, has some task to accomplish, and represents an indispensable part within a working whole”. Again, he points out, “Its magic fulfils an indispensable function within culture. Its satisfies a definite need which cannot be satisfied by any other factor of primitive civilization.”

The account of the role of religion by Davis and Moore seems at first to maintain that it is the institution which is indispensable. “The reason why religion is necessary religion plays a unique and indispensable part in society.” It is the function of religion but not the institution of religion, which is regarded as indispensable.

The postulate of indispensability contains the following assertions:

(a) it is assumed that there are certain functions which are indispensable in the sense that, unless they are performed, the society will not persist. This then, sets forth a concept of functional prerequisites. Or preconditions functionally Necessary for a society.

(b) It is assumed that certain cultural and social forms are ides enable for fulfilling cache of these functions. This involves a Concept of specialized and irreplaceable structure.

In contrast to this concept of in-dispensability of cultural forms there is then the concept of functional alternatives or functional equivalents, or functional sot tittles. Just as the same items may have multiple functions so may the same function be diversely fulfilled by alternative items.

So in this postulate the indispensability  of functions give rise to the concept of functional necessity  and the indispensability  of institutions gives rise to the concept of functional alternatives.

PREMISES AND PROPOSITIONS OF FUNCTIONALISM

According to Abrahamson “ Functionalism requires the prior conceptualization of a system before it’s “explanatory imagery makes any sense “According to Martindale the organic system is the fundamental explanatory model of Functionalism . Thus the following are the premises and propositions of Functionalism :

 

1.Functional analysis involves emphasis on the

primacy of the system.

In the words of Martindale , The distinctive property of functional  analysis is the utitization of some concept of system as primary for  sociological analysis . The first requirement of a comprehensible analysis is the clear definition of the  system presumed. Nothing will render a functional analysis ambiguous more quickly or completely than uncertainty as to just what in , the particular case, constitutes the system . Once one has isolated the components have been identified, the relation between these components becomes primary.

  1. Functional interrelation between the elements

Functionalism is based upon the promises that the elements of a system are functionally interrelated just as the parts of an organism are internally interrelated . In the words of Talcott Parsons “ .On the one hand it includes a system of structure categories which must be logically  adequate to give a determinatc description of an empirically possible , complete empirical system of the relevant class . One of the prime functions of system on this level is to insure completeness , to make it methodologically impossible to overlook anything important. And thus explicitly to describe all essential structural elements and relations of the system .On the other hand , such a system must also include a set of dynamic functional  categories. These must articulate directly with the structural categories . They must describe  processes by which these particular structures are maintained or upset , the relations of the system in environment are mediated “

  1. Contribution of every element to the system.

The Functionalists believe that every element of a system contributes to it positively  o negatively . Which the positive contribution is know as eufunction the negitive function is know as dysfunction.

  1. Integrated configuration of elements.

In the words of Parsons, “Functionally specialized or differentiated sectors of living systems stand in some kind of an order of cybernetic ally hierarchical control relative to cache other. This is quite a fundamental principle of ordering such systems and, of theoretical problems.”

  1. Built-in-mechanisms for self-regulation.

Functional. As believe that every society has a built in mechanism for self regulation. Parsons has explained this self-regulating principle by “The maintenance of relative stability, including stability of certain processes of change like the growth of a substantially greater environmental variability, is “mechanisms” that adjust the state of the system relative to changes in its environment.” Self-regulation, however, does not maintenance of status quo. Functionalists believe in the concept of dynamic equilibrium meaning a minimum of integration of a net balance of an aggregate of consequences. In the words of Van den Bergh, “Although integration is never perfect, social systems are fundamentally in a state of dynamic equilibrium, i.e., adjective responses to outside Changes tend to inanimate the final amount of change within the system. The dominant tendency is thus towards stability and incur tea, as maintained through built-in mechanisms of adjustment and social control.”

  1. Shared goals and values.

Pointing out the value of shared goals and values in a social system, Talcott Parsons wrote, “This integration of a set of common value patterns with the internalized need-disposition structure of the constituent personalities is the core phenomenon of the dynamics of social systems. 1hus the stability of any social system except the most cvancscent interaction process as such integration may be said to be the fundamental dynamic theorem of sociology. It is the major point of reference for all analysis which may claim to be a dynamic analysis of social process.” In the words of Van Den Bergh, “The most import ant and basic factor making for social integration is value consensus i.e., underlying the whole social and cultural structure, there are broad aims or members of a given social system consider desirable and agree on. Not only is the value system (or ethos) the deepest and most important source of integration, but it is also the stables elemet of socio-cultural systems.”

  1. Dominance of stability and consensus.

Thus society is based upon stability and consensus. To quote, Van Den Bergh, “Dysfunctions, tensions and ‘deviance’ do exist and can tend to resolve themselves or to be ‘institutionalized’ in the long run. In other words, while perfect equilibrium or persist for a long time, but they integration is never reached, it is the limit towards which trial systems tend. Change generally urns in a gradual, adjective fashion, and n in a sudden revolutionary way Changes which appear to be drastic, in fact affect mentally the rail super structure while leaving the one elements of the vial ad cultural structure largely unchanged”

  1. Functional prerequisites.

Functional prerequisite is generalised condition necessary for the maintenance of a vial system. A berk and his associates have presented a list of punitive and negative funcunal prerequisites. Of these the negative conditions leading to clapper of a Social system are :

(I) The biological extinction or

(ii) Apathy of the members, i.e. the causation of individual dispersion of members motivation;

(iii) The war of all against all; and

(iv)         The absorption of the society into another society.The functional prerequisites that must be met to ensure the Survival of society are :

(I)           Provision for an for sexual recruitment adequate relationship to the environment and

(ii) Role differentiation and role assignment.

(iii)         Communication.

(iv)         Shared cognitive orientations.

(v)          A shared, articulated set of goals.

(vi)         The normative regulation of means.

(vii)        1he regulation of affective expression.

(viii)        Socialization.

(ix)         The effective control of disruptive forms of behaviour.

Spencer’s analysis of functionalism and individualism

Herbert Spencer is considered as both functionalist as well as evolutionist. Function, for Spencer, is inevitable for society and this School became centre stage for theoretical orientation in sociology. He wrote in 1876 in volume 3rd of his principles of Sociology on the utility and usefulness of function. In his words, “there can be no true conception of a structure without a true conceptions its function.” At the same time, society has greater role to play for the benefit of its members. Spencer stats the society exits for the benefit of its members; not its members for the benefit of society. The claims of the body politic are nothing in themselves and become something only in so far as the embody the claims of its competent individual. The individual in spencerian theory thus, get maximum freedom and self –determination for the interests, of societal progress.

spencers’s analysis, structure and function are interdependent and interlinked to each-other, spencer emphasised that a change in the profile of structure occurred with the change its function. He rightly points out.

Changes of structure cannot occur without changes in functions… If organisation consists in such construction of the whole that its parts can carry on Mutually-Dependent actions, then in proportion as organization is high there must go a dependence of each part upon the rest so great that separation is fatal; and conversely, this truth is equally well shown in the individual organism and in the social organism.

Spencer was, by nature, not only functionalist but also a individualist. There many essential components are necessary for the determination of characteristics of the whole of society, and that fundamental characteristic is the individual. In this regard, spencer conceived that society would work as a vehicle for the enhancement of individual purposes. Spencer stated, “Just the kind of individuality well be acquired which finds in the most highly-organised community the fittest sphere for its manifestation…. The ultimate man will be one whose private requirements coincide with public ones. He will be that manner of man who, in spontaneously fulfilling his own nature, incidently performs the functions of a social unit”

The best society therefore is a society that applies least controls on the individual for functionalist approach of spencer if society is to evolve into higher and more advanced social structures and functions, it must move from the simple to the complex activities of a society which is related to the movement from the lesser military stage to the more industrial societies are problematic and difficult, however, the construction of his functional approach gives a broader understanding of various parts of society in brief, the relation between man (or animal) and his constituent cells is the equivalent of the relation between society and its constituent cells men this is an analogy of scale, and strongly suggestes the continually of all phenomena.

 According to Herbert Spencer, “If organization consists in such a construction of the whole that its parts can carry can mutually dependent actions, then in proportion as organization is high there must dependence of each part upon the rest so great that separation is go a fatal; and conversely. This truth is equally well shown in the individual organism and in the social organism.” Herbert Spencer believed that the Social structure is a living organism. It is made up of parts which can be distinguished but which cannot survive or exist except within the frame work of society. Spencer wanted to explain clearly the nature of social structure by the help of this theory. Though in line with his theory Spencer  considers  society to be an individual writ large. He does not let the individuals lose their identity in society. Indeed he is an individualist and a firm advocate of the independence and rights of the individuals. He only tried to point out certain striking similarities between the individual who may be regarded as microcosmic society and society as macrocosmic individual. He said, ‘It is also a character of social bodies. As of living bodices, that while they increase in size they increase structure. Like a low animal, the embryo of a high one has few distinguishable parts; but whiles it is acquiring greater mass, its parts multiply and differentiate. It is thus with in a society. At first, the unlike messes among its groups of units are inconspicuous in number and degree; but as population arguments, divisions and sub-divisions become more numerous and more decided. Further, in the social organism as in the individual organism, differentiation ceases only with that completion of the type which marks maturity and precedes decay.”

Similarities between Society and Organism

The similarities between the society and individual organism as drawn by Herbert Spencer are as follows:

  1. Different from inanimate bodies.

The first similarity between a living organism and society is their difference from inanimate bodies. None of them is inanimate. In inanimate there is no growth and development, but, on the other hand, there is continuous growth and development in both society and living organism. Thus, on account of their common difference from the inanimate bodices, society and living organism may be regarded to be similar.

  1. Increase in quantity leads to change in structure.

The second similarity in society and living organism is that increase of quantity in both leads to change in their structure. According to Spencer as there is increase in the quantity of living organism there is change in its structure. The primitive living organism is a unicellular creature: but with the increase in the cells, differentiation of organs results. At the higher levels of evolution the structure of the body becomes quite complex. Similar is the case with society. In the beginning the structure of society is very simple. At this level each individual does all the work by himself and there is no differentiation of functions. Each man himself is a craftsman, hunter, sculptor etc. But with the quantitative increase in society the structure of society becomes more and more complex and there is increasing differentiation of functions in society. Like the organs of the society the functions in society become specialized.

  1. Change in structure leads to change in functions.

With the change in the structure, organs and communities there results a change in their functions. The functions becomes more and more specialized. This applies to the body of a living creature. With the changes in the structure of organs, there is change in its functions.

  1. Differentiation as well as harmony of organs.

While it is true that with the evolution there develops greater differentiation in the organs of society as also that of individual, but side by side of this differentiation there is also harmony between various organs. Each organ is complementary to the other and not opposed. This holds true both in the body of a living organism and society.

  1. Loss of an organ does not necessarily

results in the loss of organism.

The society as well as the individual is an organism. It is a fact common to both that a loss of some organ does not necessarily result in the death of an organism. If an individual loses his hand it is not necessary that this may result in his death. Similarly, in society loss of

Particular association does not necessarily mean death of the society.

  1. Similar processes and methods of organization.

There is another similarity between the society and the living organism. According to Spencer as there are various systems, respiratory circulatory system etc., similarly there are various systems in the social organism responsihic for its efficient functioning. In society transport system, production and distribution systems etc., fulfil their respective roles. Thus, Spencer has shown similarity between a living organism and the society.

Differences between Social and Individual Organism

After   pointing out  the similarities between the individual organism and the society, Herbert Spencer spelled the differences between them. He said, “the parts of animal from a concrete whole, but the parts of society from a whole which is discrete. While the living units composing the one are bound together in close contact, the living units composing the other are free, are not in contact, and are more or less widely dispersed.”

In other words, the organism is a concrete, integrated whole whereas society is a whole composed of discrete and dispersed elements. “In the biological organism consciousness is small part of the aggregate. In the social organism it is diffused throughout the aggregate: all the units possess the capacity for happiness and misery, if not in equal degree, still in degrees that approximate. As, then, there is no social sensorium, the welfare of the aggregate, considered apart from that of the units, is not end to be sought. The society exists for the benefit of its members; not its members for the benefits of society.”

Thus there are certain crucial difference between the society and living organism which cannot be overlooked. these are :

1.The parts of body are incapable of independent existence but parts of societies can exist independently.

Explaining the difference between a living organism and society, Spencer observes that whereas the various organs of the body are incapable of independent existence same is not the case with society. The various parts of society can exist independently. whereas the limbs of body like hand, leg etc., Cannot be conceived to exist outside of body there is no such difficulty in conceiving the independent existence of family association etc., apart from society.

2.Difference regarding centrality of consciousness.

There is another difference between the society and a living organism. the difference pertains to consciousness. In a living organism there is one central consciousness which is conscious of the whole body. there is no separate consciousness and thinking power in the various part of the body on the other hand in society there is no central consciousness, only individual possesses consciousness.

3.Difference regarding dependence of Organs on Organism

Both the society and the individual are the organisms. The organs of society are individuals, Family, group etc., and the parts of body are its various organs. According to Spencer parts of the body are dependent upon the body. Their existence is for the sake of body. On the other hand, in society its parts are more significant than the society. indeed society exits for the good of its constituents. Spencer was a thinker, he had affinity with individualist philosophy, according to which the state and society exist for the good of the individual and not vice versa.

Spencer maintains that we can understand society best, if we compare it with an organism. He thinks that society is like a biological system. a greater organism, alike in its structure and its functions. Like an organism, society is also subject to the same process of gradual growth or development from a simple to complex state. Like any organism, society also exhibits differentiation in functions, and integration of structure.

In this connection, it must be noted that Spencer does not subscribe to the view that society is an organism;  he maintains it only as an analogy.  Spencer indicates that society resembles an organism in the following important respects: (1) both grow or develop gradually; (2) both begin as germs: (3) both exhibit differentiation in structure and functions: (4) in both there also exists close integration or inter-dependence of parts: (5) both are composed of units (cells in case of organism and individuals in case of society): (6) in both cases individual units have no existence apart from the whole; (7) both have a special sustaining distributive system (circulation of blood through veins in an organism, and circulation of goods through transport and commercial services in a society), and a special regulating system (nervous system in an mental system in a society); (8) both as an or alimentary system, a special circulatory or organism and govern complex in they grow, become more structure.

Side by side with the above-mentioned similarities, there are, however, certain points of dissimilarities also. Society is also unlike organism in the following important respects: (1) In organic growth, nature plays a dominant role: ‘an organism naturally grows. On the other hand, social growth may be checked, or stimulated by cells, but they lose their identity when integrated with in the organic whole. They have no separate life or existence. But within a society an individual can be fitted as a constituent part of the social whole, while maintaining its own distinctive character and its separate individual life. (3) The discrete character of the social organism and the concrete nature of the animal organism is another fundamental difference. (4) In an organism, consciousness is concentrated in the small part of the aggregate, that is, in the nervous system, while in a society is diffused throughout the whole aggregate.

 

 View of Emile Durkheim

 

According to Durkheim, “The determining cause of a social fact should be sought among the social facts preceding it and not among the states of the individual consciousness.” It is so since, sociology, according to Durkheim, is not subservient to psychology. He has rejected psychological explanation of social facts. Everywhere he examines functions of a unit in the whole. The well-known thinkers like Walter Buckley, Lewis A. Closer, Bernard Rosenberg, Robert K. Merton and Talcott Parsons consider Durkheim to be a functionalist.

Indeed, Durkheim was responsible for introducing the term functionalism in France. But, however, he is a unique functionalist. For example, according to Durkheim, crime, suicide, look, anti-social acts indeed fulfil an important social need. They help to draw the attention of general consciousness towards prevailing social anarchy and disorganisation. Thus, they are not without meaning or purpose. Indeed, “Crime is necessary, it is bound up with the fundamental conditions of all social life and by that fact is useful, because those conditions of which it is a part are themselves indispensable to the normal evolution of law and morality.” Thus, in the traditional meaning of the term, Durkheim is not a functionalist. He is a functionalist in the sense that according to him very social fact fulfils some social need or purpose.

Explanation of Social Facts

“The determination of function,” says Durkheim “is necessary for the complete explanation of the phenomena. he  explain a social fact  is not enough to show the cause on which it depends; we must also show its function in the establishment of social order.” Thus, Durkheim established certain fundamental guiding principles for the explanation of Social facts.

(1) In explaining a given social phenomenon, we must seek separately the efficient cause which produce it and the function it fulfils.

(2) The function of a social fact cannot but be social and therefore it ought always to be sought in its relation to some social end. Durkheim has made a distinction between the meaning of functions, purpose and aim. The social facts are not the results of aims and purposes. The aims and purposes are the result of function. The ends of function can be good or bad, this is also determined by the social conditions. Durkheim does not make use of the term function for all social activity. He confines its use to the function of division of labour and the function of religion.  The term ‘need has been used in a very comprehensive manner.

The term need is not used only in the context of individual need nor for the needs of any part of the society but is used for the whole of society. By needs we would understand the immediate effects of the social functions and they are produced by social conditions and not by individual wishes. Durkheim regards society and social conditions to be ‘things’. Thus needs are also the consequences of social conditions. In the words of Durkheim, “Function refers to the effect of the part on the whole, not to that of the whole on the part.”

 

       Objectivistic Explanation

  1. Durkheim has given an objectivistic explanation of the term Function; he has explained the term function in his unique way. Ordinarily, by function we understand activity. For example, the function of digestion is an activity of the human organism. However Durkheim attaches a special connotation to the term function.
  2. According to him function is not merely an activity, but the purpose or the end met or fulfilled by activity. Further, a function meets some need; it is a function only if it satisfies some need. Thus, the digestive action of the stomach releases in the stomach certain secretions, which, in turn, digest the food and the digested food replenishes the lost energy of the body. Digestion helps to maintain the bodily energy and make it grow. Thus growth and replenishment are the functions of digestion. It digestion does not lead to the restoration of the energy, it is not functioning properly.
  3. Describing the function of the division of labour in society, Durkheim says that it is a moral activity. The function of morality is to bring about cohesion in society and inculcate love and sympathy among its members. The same kind of function is performed by the division of labour. Therefore, it has the same functions as morality. The division of labour fulfils immediate social needs. It also inculcates general and communal consciousness which is necessary for social concision.
  4. According to Durkheim, sociology is a study of social facts, It is a science social facts. Its purpose is to know the causes and consequences of apical fact. In place of purpose end aim, Durkheim prefers to use herm function. This is because the function’ is morally anural what’s the words aim and purpose suggest good or favourable consequences. The results of consequences of social facts may or may not be favourable; these can be even dangerous. The facts are spontaneous and do not depend upon the human wishes and desires.

 

       Social Fact as a Thing.

 

Various utilitarian sociologists have also tried to explain the meaning of functions and aims. According to them a utilitarian persists and fulfils its specific role in the society. But however, Durkheim does not accept their explanation. According to him, the utility of activity depends upon social conditions. Besides, the utilitarian explanation of social facts ignores the causes and concentrates on results but, as a matter of fact, without an adequate knowledge of causes of social facts, there can be no science of sociology. The social facts are the things which do not emerge or come about as a result of human will or desire their causes are in the social conditions. The social facts have greater force than the individuals. They affect the individuals and also maintain their own entity.

 

Meaning  of Function

 

Bredemier,  Malinowski, Radcliffe Brown and Gregory Betson are some of the sociologists who accept Durkheim’s interpretation of the term function though there is some difference in detail. According to Bredemier, The functional approach to sociology consists basically of a sample to understand social phenomena in terms of the relationship to some system. Durkheim wholly concurs with this view but when he makes a distinction between function and social need the differences crop up. For Durkheim function and social need are not constant but mobile concepts.

A function cannot be transformed into social need. Nor can we fix the meaning of the term function. Therefore, it is not necessary that a certain thing should always fulfil a social need.

The things are as real as the society, though they are related to society, and cannot be conceived outside of society; nonetheless they have their indent pendent being. Therefore, they may not behave in the same manner in all social conditions However; they are not similar in status to society. “Society is a reality suigeneris”

Durkheim did an intensive study of all other functionalists. He knew that most of them were influenced by the views of Darwin and Spencer. These thinkers regarded society in such high esteem that they felt that the individual must adjust himself with social exigencies under all circumstances. The individual has no freedom of manoeuvre according to these thinkers. Some utilitarian thinkers are also

Functionalists but they consider that society is an instrument for fulfilling the needs of individuals. Thus, we can broadly distinguish between two kinds of functionalists. The first kind is represented by those who give the individual more importance than society whereas the second kind is represented by those who regarded society more important than the individuals.

 Characteristics of System.

According to Durkheim the system made up of individuals represents a specific reality which has its own  characteristics. Of course, nothing collective can be produced if individual consciousnesses are not assumed, but this necessity is by itself insufficient. These consciousnesses must be combined in a certain way, social life results from this combination and is, consequently, explained by it “Individual minds, forming groups by mingling and fusing, give birth to a being psychological if you will but constituting a psychic individuality of a new sort.” Thus, Durkheim contends: “Since their essential characterise consists in the power they possess of exerting, from outside, a pressure on individual consciousness and in consequence sociology is a not corollary of psychology.”

Criticism of Psychological Explanation

Durkheim has also criticized the psychological explanation of the social facts. According to the psychological school of sociology the social facts are mental. They try to explain their origin and development on the basis of psychological laws. But psychological behaviour is a consequence of inner social act and we cannot define a cause in terms of its effects.

Similarly Durkheim has also criticized the personalist definition of social facts, according to which social facts are the result of human will and desire. These can be satisfied according to needs. But Durkheim does not give much importance to personal needs. The social facts are the products of social conditions and these do not, in any way, depend upon human will and wishes. They manifest social conditions and not the needs of any individual; therefore, they fulfil the social needs and not the personal needs. Durkheim has tried to explain the origin and development of social facts entirely in the context of social conditions,   so called individual and personal needs are indeed themselves the effects of invisible social conditions. Therefore, to think in terms of personal desires and needs is very superficial. The individuals can be the efficient causes and as such they can accelerate or slow down the social action; but they are not the true causes. The truce causes are always social. For example, overpopulation may induce men to limit their Families by Planned Parenthood and this may ultimately check the rise in population. We may think that men have voluntarily checked the population, but, as a matter of fact, the social fact of overpopulation and not family planning is the real cause of population control. How anybody acts in a society depends largely on social conditions. Whether one adjusts to social conditions or rebels against them depends also on social conditions.

Therefore, ultimately man makes adjustment with the social conditions. Indeed, according to Durkheim, the moment a person comes in contact with society he loses his individuality. Emphasizing the dominant importance of society, Durkheim says, “Society is not at all the illogical or logical, incoherent and fantastic being which it has been too often considered quite on the contrary, the collective consciousness is the highest form of the psychic life, since it is consciousness of consciousness.” Being placed outside of and above individual and local contingencies, it sees things only in their permanent and essential aspects, which it crystallized into communicable ideas. Society sees farther and better than individuals. Thus Durkheim considers society to be like an organism of which the various members are limbs; and the limbs cannot exist out of the total organism.

 

In the same way individuals of their actions, fulfil needs which are not personal but social.  However, Durkheim does believe that “When the explanation of social phenomena is undertaken we must seek separately the efficient cause which produces it and functions it fulfils.”

STRUCTURAL FUNCTIONAL VIEW OF RADCLIFFE BROWN

Rejecting Malinowski’s individualistic functionalism Radcliffe Brown laid emphasis upon structured social relationships following Durkheimian  tradition.

He however, substituted Durkheim’s term ‘needs’ by ‘necessary conditions of existence’. He chose social structure as the unit of analysis. He sought to explain interpersonal relationships by focussing upon the function of each element of total Structure of the society. He said, “By the definition here offered, 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. Such a view implies that a social system (the total social structure of a society together with the totality of social usages in which that structure appears and on which it depends for its continued existence) has a certain kind of unity, which we may speak of as a functional unity. We may define it as a condition in which all parts of the social system work together with a sufficient degree of harmony or internal consistency, i.e., without producing persistent conflicts which can neither be resolved nor regulated.”

According to Radcliffe-Brown, “Ethnology is faced with the dilemma that it must either give up forever all hope of understanding such things as myth or ritual, or it must develop methods for determining as accurately as can be what meanings they have for the people to whose culture they belong.”

Thus, he has trice to develop proper methods for determining the meaning of different Clements of culture in his anthropological studies. In his study The Andaman Islanders, he puts the problem in these words, “We have to explain why it that the Andaman’s think and act in certain ways . The explanation of each single custom is provided by showing what is its relation to the other customs of the  Andamanese and to their general system of ideas and sentiments.” Radcliffe-Brown’s approach in this study can be called structural-functional.

He conducted empirical research in Andaman. He tried to show the relevance of ritual in their social life. The relevance of ritual is shown by pointing out their function in the collective life. According to Radcliffe Brown, “The discovery of the integrative function of an institution, usage, or belief is to be made through the observation of its effects, and these are obviously in the first place effects on individuals, on their life, their thoughts, and their emotions. Not all such effect is significant or at least equally so. Nor is it the immediate effects with which we are finally concerned, but the more remote effects on the social cohesion and continuity.” Thus, according to Radcliffe-Brown, the meaning and function are two different but related terms. He points out that the social functions of mythology or ritual cannot be discussed without an understanding of particular myths and ritual actions.

   Explaining the meaning of function in ethnology, Radcliffe-Brown has pointed out, “The notion of function in ethnology rests on the conception of culture as an adaptive mechanism by which a certain number of human beings are enabled to live a social life as an ordered community in a given environment.”

This adaptation, according to Radcliffe-Brown, has two aspects, external and internal. The external aspect can be found in the relation of the society to its geographical environment. The internal aspect can be seen in the controlled relations of individuals within the social unity. Radcliffe-Brown has used the terms, “social integration” to cover all the phenomena of internal adaptation.

In a scientific study, according to Radcliffe-Brown, elaboration of hypothecs and the observation and classification of facts should be carried on independently. The theorists and the observers should work with systematic cooperation. Thus, he starts his study of the Andaman Islanders by making certain workable hypotheses. In his own words, Stated as briefly as possible the working hypothesis here adopted is as follows:

(1)   a society depends for its existence on the presence in the minds of its members of a certain system of sentiments by which the conduct of the individuals is regulated in conformity with the needs of the society.

(2)    Every feature of the social system itself and every event or object that in any way affects the well being or the cohesion of the society becomes an object of this system of sentiments.

(3)   In human society the sentiments in question are not innate but are developed in the individual by the action of the society upon him.

(4)   The ceremonial customs of a society are a means by which the sentiments in question are given collective expression on appropriated occasions.

(5)   The ceremonial (i.e., collective) expression of any sentiment serves both to maintain it at the requisite degree of intensity in the mind of the individual and to transmit it from one generation to another.”

  Radcliffe-Brown, in this study, has used the term social function denote the effects on an institution (custom or belief) in so far as they concern the society and its solidarity or cohesion.” Thus the social nation of ritual in the life of Andaman Islanders is to maintain and transmit from one generation to another the emotional disposition on which the society depends for its existence. Radcliffe-Brown has shown that there is a correspondence between the customs and beliefs and systems of social sentiments. He has also pointed out that there is a correspondence between the sentiments and social structure. Thus he has pointed out relationship between social structure and social function. He has, however, not tried to discover the historical origin of these customs.

 

VIEW OF   MALINOWSKI

According to Malinowski social and cultural systems are collective responses to fundamental biological needs of individuals modified by cultural values. This view is known as individualistic functionalism. In his book, Argonauts of the Western Pacific, Bronislaw  Malinowski has given ‘an account of native enterprise and adventure in the Archipelagos of Melanesian New Guinea’. As he has himself pointed out, he is mainly concerned with the economic activity of the Trobriand Islanders. This activity centres around the institution known as KULA. Thus this monograph is particularly concerned with one phase of the savage life only.

However, as Malinowski has said in the preface of this book, “One of the first conditions of acceptable ethnographic work certainly is that it should deal with the totality of all social, cultural and psychological aspects of the community, for they are so interwoven that not one can be understood without taking into consideration all the others.” Therefore, though the book deals with the economic theme but repeated reference has been made to social organization, magic, mythology and folklore.

As J. O. Frazer has appreciated in the foreword to this book, “It is characteristic of Dr. Malinowski’s method that he takes a full account of the complexity of human nature.” Thus social structures and processes, institutions and values are functional responses to individual’s physiological needs. Needs such as hunger  and sex promote cultural usages and social institutions. Cultural usages and social institutions decide the expression of basic drives. Thus culture is a totally integrated way of life, a homogenous and harmonious organic whole. Various cultural structures are interrelated. Culture is an instrumental reality which exists and functions in response to a variety of individual needs whose fulfilment leads to the development of numerous cultural patterns and social usages.

Merton’s Structural Functionalism

The term “structure” refers to some sort of ordered arrangement of components and traits; whereas “function” means a system-determined and system-

Maintaining   activity of the different constituent units which contribute to the maintenance of structural continuity. From this point of view it can be said that there are inter-relationships and interdependency between structure and function.

Function is essential for the existence and continuity of structure. Similarly, without structure there can be no function because it is within the structural framework that the function can be performed.

Merton has pointed out that there are three basic assumptions of functionalism-

(1) All the social units perform certain standardized and positive functions;

(2) These units perform these social functions for the entire social or cultural system, and

(3) On the basis of these functions the very existence of social structure or system is possible; therefore, these units and their functions are indispensable.

Merton does not accept these assumptions. According to him, the assumption of the functionalist is wrong that all the social units perform only positive functions. The real position is that there may be some units that do not perform positive function, but negative function or dyes-functions and thereby contributing not to the organization but disorganization of society, thus endangering its very existence. There may be also some units of society performing such functions that are partially dysfunctional and partially non functional. Therefore, all the social units neither perform their positive  Social Thought functions for the entire system, nor their functions are indispensable for the existence of the social structure or system.

Therefore, Merton’s own assumptions, as stated by Don Martindale, are as follows:

(a) functional unity or integration is actually subject to certain empirical conditions; (b) the same social functions, usages and phenomena can be functional for one group but dysfunctional for another group:

(c) the concept of universal functionalism needs to be amended because the functional consequences of one society cannot be applied to other society, because in each society social conditions differ;

(d) the assumption that function of each unit is indispensable also needs to be amended, because the same unit may perform more than one function and that the fulfilment of a function is possible by other alternatives also.

In his functional theory Merton has developed four basic concepts:

(1) Function;

(2) Dysfunction;

(3) Manifest function; and

(4) Latent function.

(1) Functions, in the word of Merton, “are those observed consequences which make for the adaptation, or adjustment of a given system.” So functions contribute to social organization, unity or integration.

(2) Dysfunctions, in the words of Merton “are those observed consequences which lessen the adaptation or adjustment of system.” That is, dysfunctions contribute to social disorganization, disunity and disintegration of the social system. If a father earns money and spends it for the well-being of the entire family members and does his duties for their betterment, he is doing functions. But if the same father earns money and spends it on wine, women and gambling, and neglects his duties as father, these would be his dysfunctions.

 (3) Manifest Functions, according to Merton, “are those objective consequences contributing to the adjustment or adaptation of the system which are intended and recognized by participants in the system.” More clearly, if a person performs a function consciously with certain intention, aim, or objective, and is also conscious about its possible positive results or consequences it is manifest function.

(4) Latent Functions, according to Merton, “are those which are neither intended nor recognized.” That is, if a person performs a function with certain intention or aim, but the result of his function is quite contrary to his intention, Ice., if his function produces such results or consequences which he never intended nor recognized, it is latent function.

If a person is doing his M. B . B. S course to become a doctor and to achieve a better career. It is his manifest function . because he is doing that with certain intentions and is also conscious about its resolt . But it by virtue of his heing a doctor his marriage is settled with a very beautiful girl and to fetches high amount of dowry .

This would be the latent function of hi M.B. B.S. degree because when he look up  M.B.B.S course his intention was not to fetch high dowry or to get a beautiful bride. Similarly. The manitest  function of industrialization is to increase production and employment opportunities . because these objectives are intended and recognised.

But the latent function of the same industrialization is over crowding of cities development of slums industrial diseases . Increase in crime and delinquency rates . Prostitution alcoholism etc . Which were neither intended nor recognized by the pioneers of industries.

Thus, the major distinction between manifest and latent functions are as follows :

(1)    Manifest function are overt in nature , while latent functions are covert.

(2)    Manifest function are done with certain pre-intentions and the ac-tor is conscious about them .But in latent function he is not conscious . More clearly , manifest function are intended action , but latent functions are not

(3)    In manifest function the actor is conscious about the possible consequences of his actions , while latent function produces such results or consequences which the actor never thought of .

(4)    In manifest function the motive and situation of the action are within the knowledge of the actor or they are recognised , But in latent function actor has no pre-knowledge of either the motive or the consequences of his action . Finally according to Merton , all the social functions including dys-functions and non-function even have a relevance to social structure and affect it in one way or the other. Therefore , structural -funtional approach is essential because in the worlds of Merton :

The social function of an organization helps to determine the structural just as the structure determine the effectiveness with which the functions are fulfilled “

 

Merton’s  Functional Paradigm

 

Merton, in this section, is concerned to deal with the necessity of a paradigm which contains a set of concepts without which the sociologist cannot adequately carry out a functional analysis. As Merton puts it, “The paradigm brings these (concepts, postulates, vocabularies, and ideological imputations) together in compact form, thus permitting simultaneous inspection of the major requirements of functional analysis and serving an aid to self-correction of provisional interpretations…. The paradigm presents the hard core of concepts, procedures and inference in functional analysis.”

Merton sets out a long and complicated paradigm, including concepts and queries, and containing eleven rubrics or headings:

(1) The item (s) to which functions are imputed: Merton, here, made it clear that functional analysis focuses on groups, organisations, societies, and cultures. He stated that any object that can be subjected to functional analysis must “represent a standardised (i.e. patterned and repetitive) item.” These items are, according to Merton, “social roles, institutional patterns, social processes, cultural patterns, culturally patterned emotions, social norms, group organisations, social structures, devices for social control, etc.” In addition, Merton argues that analysis of sociological data is necessary in functional analysis.

(2) Concepts of subjective dispositions (motives, purposes): Functional analysis involves in the merger of the concepts of subjective disposition such as motives and purposes of the individual with the concepts of objective consequences of attitude, belief, and behaviour. That is, in a social system, subjective disposition of the individual are not to be confused with the concepts of objective consequences.

(3) Concepts of objective consequences (functions, dysfunctions): The focus of the functionalist should be on social functions rather than on individual motives. On, here, makes an attempt to eliminate conceptual confusion involved in functional analysis. He defined and distinguished the concepts of functions, dysfunctions, latent and manifest functions as follows:

Functions are those observed consequences which make for the adaptation or adjustment of a given system; and dysfunctions, those observed consequences which lessen the adaptation or adjustment of the system. There is also 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 solving canons for assessing the net balance of the aggregate of consequences.

The second problem (arising from the easy confusion of motives and functions) requires introduce a conceptual distinction between the cases in which the subjective aim-in-view coincides with the objective consequences, and the cases in which they diverge. Manifest Functions are those objective consequences contributing to the adjustment or adaptation of the system which are intended and recognised by participants in the system.

Latent functions, correctively, being those which are neither intended nor recognised.

(4) Concepts of the Unit sub served by the function: Merton points out that every item may be not dysfunctional or functional for society of the society. In other words, some items may be functional for one group and dysfunctional for another group or sub-system us to   as a whole but to particular section

(5) Concepts of Functional requirements (needs, prerequisites): The assumption of functional requirements involves in the re-examination of fulfilling conditions of ‘survival or meeting “biological needs” of the system. “This involves the difficult problem of establishing types of functional requirements (universal vs. specific); procedures for validating the assumption of these requirements; etc.”

 (6) Concepts of the Mechanisms through which functions are fulfilled: Functional analysis must seek to identify and analyse the social mechanisms through which functions are fulfilled.

(7) Concepts of functional alternatives (functional equivalents substitutes): Merton abandoned the gratuitous assumption of the functional indispensability of particular social structures and emphasized on the requirement of some concept such as functional alternatives equivalents, or substitutes. In this sense, “we must focus attention on the range of possible variation in the items which can serve as functional alternatives, equivalents or substitutes.”

(8)Concepts o structural context (or structural constraint): Functional analysis must recognise the interdependence of the elements of the social structure as well as the limited range of variation in the items which can fulfil designated functions in the social system. As Merton puts it. “Failure to rwgnise the relevance of interdependence and attendant structural constraints leads to utopian thought in which it is tacitly assumed that certain elements of a social system can be eliminated without affecting the rest of that system.”

(9) Concepts of dynamics and change: Functional analysts generally tend to focus on the statics of social structure and to neglect the study of structural change. Merton accepts the role of dysfunction in social change. He writes: The concept of dysfunction, which implies the concept of strain, stress and tension on the structural level, provides dynamics and change.

(10) Problems of validation of functional analysis: Merton emphasizes functional assumptions, postulates, imputations and observations. “This requires, above all, a rigorous statement of the sociological procedures of analysis which most nearly approximate the logic of experimentation. It requires a systematic review of the possibilities and limitations of comparative (cross-cultural and cross-group) analysis.”

(11) Problems of the ideological implications of functional analysis: Functional analysis itself has no intrinsic commitment to any ideological position.

 

Having  discussed paradigm for functional analysis, Merton goes on to describe the purposes and utilities of paradigm in sociological analysis in five ways

(I) Firstly, paradigms provide a notational function. “They provide a compact parsimonious arrangement of the central concepts and their interrelations as these are utilised for description and analysis…”)

(2)Secondly, paradigm provides a pragmatic and logical guide for the avoidance of ad hoc (i.e., logically irresponsible) hypotheses.

(3) Third purpose of paradigm is to advance the accumulation of theoretical interpretation. In this connection, paradigm provides a foundation upon which the house of theoretical interpretations is built.

(4) Fourth purpose is to make systematic cross tabulation of significant concepts and sensitise the sociologist toward empirical and theoretical problems.

(5) Fifth and final purpose of paradigm is to make codification of methods of qualitative analysis in a logical Manner.

Functional analysis of Merton, in fact, provides a new direction to mode of sociological interpretation that tries to find out the creatural problems of structural functionalism and its conceptual confusion by establishing some of the essential concepts. In this  connection. Merton has given three postulates to explain functional approach and provides a detailed analysis of paradigm to remove the conceptual confusion. Merton, in fact, applies it in different aspects of various types of society.

Criticisms of Functionalism

 

The given  ahead criticisms have been advanced against functionalism :

1.Substantive criticismAccording to Percy.S. Cohen “the chief substantive criticism of functionalism are these it overemphasis the normative element in social life; it minimize the importance of social conflict at the expense of social solidarity. It stresses the harmonious nature of social system and family it falls to account for social change and even treats this as abnormal” these may be elaborated as follow:

(a) Teleological Bias DevisThe functionalist has explained even incest taboo with reference to social purpose according to him, “The incest taboo confine sexual relation and sentiments to married and child, brother and sister. In this way confusion is prevented and family organization maintained. The incest taboos therefor exist because they are essential to and form part of the family structure.” In this example the contribution has been confused with its reason and the reasoning is logically fallacious. Herbert Spencer observes that the theory that every element of society provides to its self-preservation is, frankly teleological, it argues that the purpose of society is its own preservation. However, levy has rejected the validity of the equation of function with purpose or cause. As he puts it, “thus, it is not permissible to say a given process of allocation of duties in a business firm exists because it is a functional requisite of that firm in its setting that is teleology, pure and simple, little if at all different from the statement “legs were created to wear pants and noses to were spectacles.” It is permissible to say that, if there is to be such a firm in such a time there must be (or even in some cases that people planned so in order to have such a firm) a definite allocation of duties, that in its absence the first would cease to function.”

(b) Emphasis on solidarity-rather than conflictDurkheim has emphasised the value of social solidarity ion his functionalism. However, even following Durkheim, Radcliffe Brown has referred to so many elements of conflict in society. However, some of the functionalists have exaggerated stability and integration of the systems. For example, Talcott Parsons has exaggerated the nature of society as well integrated systems. He placed consensus on values and ideas and shared expectation. Denis wrong has condemned internalization theories of the functionalist sociologists. According to him, the individual is creative and has the ability to evaluate social critically. To quote his words, “when our sociological theory over-stresses the stability and integration of society we will and up imaginating that man is the disembodied, conscience-driven, status-seeking phantom of current theory” Dahrendorf has criticised the functionalist for minimising the role of power authority and coercion in enforcing consensus and integration. According to Abrahamson, “functional theories conventionally view system needs as inherent rather than intended; and deliberate, or enacted, change is seen as problematic, both in terms of frequency of occurrence and probability of success” as Van Den Berghe, points out this sort of “shortcoming result from looking at social structure as the static ‘backbone’ or society and considering structural analysis in social science as analogous to anatomy or morphology in biology.”

(c) Emphasis on status rather than change-It has been pointed out by Eisentadle that “functional analysis is incapable of dealing with social change because of its reliance of social phenomena as being functionally adjusted to one another through their contribution to societal needs, and on the assumption of existence of equilibrating mechanism in the social system which counteracted any tendencies to functional maladjustment or inconsistency.” According to C. Wright Mills functionalists fail to explain the great range of historical institutional variability of social systems. Dahrendorf has pointed out that the concept of equilibrium cannot explain social change. However, Van Den Berghe contends that a dynamic equilibrium model cannot account for the irreducible facts that :

ü   Reaction to extra-systemic change is not always adjustive.

ü   Social system can, for long periods, go through a vicious circle of over deepening malintegration.

ü   Change can be revolutionary, i.e., both sudden profound.

ü   The social structure itself generates change through internal conflicts and contradictions.

Rejecting the change that functionalism cannot explain social change.M.F. Abraham maintains, “These criticisms are not entirely justified. In the first place, with the concepts of dysfunction, structural conflict and negative consequences of cultural items are recognised. Secondly, most of the leading functionalists have neo-evolutionary perspective which views change as a continuous process of increasing structural differentiation and functional specialization. Thirdly, the concepts of dynamic equilibrium haschange built into it and views society as a system in imperfect balance and open to adjustive changes. Fourthly, “Sensitivity to the interrelation of the component elements of a social system has increased our understanding of social change.”

  1. Ideological Criticism-The following criticism have been levelled at functionalism:

(a) Utopian- According to Dahrendorf, Functional analysis is utopian. It explainin terms of ideal state of adjustment, individual happiness and common welfare. To this criticism Merton has pointed out that functional analysis is neutral as a general rule. As Davis puts it, “similarly, the view of functionalism as disguised ideology is most often advanced by those who are themselves ideologically oriented as shown by the selectivity of the evidence adduced and by the purport of the theory proposed as substitutes. Strictly speaking, this theory’s support of a moral or political bias is independence of its scientific validity.”

(b) Maintenance of status quo-It has been pointedout that the functionalists insist that the status quo should not be disturbed   thus it is an ideologically conservative theory supporting the establishment. As Myrdalc points out “If a thing has a ‘function’ it is good or at least essential. The term ‘function’ can have a meaning only in terms of an assumed purpose; if that purpose is left undefined or implied to be the ‘interest of society’ which is not  further defined, as considerable leeway for arbitrariness in practical implication is allowed but the main direction is given; a description of social institutions in terms of their functions must lead to a conservative teleology.”

(c) Radicalism- Others have accused functionalists of radicalism. Van Den Berghe argues that both Marxists and functionalist utilize part-whole relations and the concept of equilibrium. However, as Abrahamson has pointed out, functional theories have rarely provided support for radical movements. this debate may be summed up in the following statements of Harold Fallding :

ü   Functional analysis involves evolution.

ü   The evolution involved in functional analysis is objective and needs no apology.

ü   Evaluating social arrangements as functional or dysfunctional is equivalent to classifying them as normal or pathological; this is a necessary preliminary to the search for casual explanation.

ü   It is because the demand for need-satisfaction through them is unrelenting, that social arrangements much achieve stability, adaptive change and integration. For this reason, making judgements of function or dysfunction, normality or pathology, presupposes a whole catalogue of assumptions about human needs.”

  1. Methodological Criticism- The following methodological criticism have been levelled against functionalism :

(a) Weak Method- Functionalism is a weak method since it rests on intuition of the observer in the functions of a particular element. Thus, the recognition of functions depends on the perception and imagination and not on scientific evidence.

(b) Lack of Predictability-Based upon intuition the functional analysis provides no sufficient basis for deduction or induction. Therefore, it lacks the predictability of a scientific method. Thus, however, does not mean that functional analysis totally fails to explain inter-relationship between social phenomena. Accepting the contribution of functionalism to both sociological theory and research, Eisentadt writes, “The impact of the broad structural-functional paradigm and its analytic concepts and orientations impinged on many areas of research.Hardly on area of research remained unaffected by these developments. In almost all fields of sociology, the structural-functional approach not only provided a general view, image, or map of the social foci of research. In such area of research as stratification, political organization, educational sociology and the study of deviance, man specific paradigms and research programs were related to or derived from the structural-functional framework. In other substantive fields, as in studies of public opinion and voting behaviour, which had developed strong concentration on middle-range theories, not only were the concepts those that had been developed in the structural model. This model also provided the basis for a broader analytical orientation.”

4.Inadequate treatment of individual-societyrelationships- Referring to this inadequacy Emmet writes, “The elements of a social system may be institutionalized roles, but the member of a society are individuals which cannot simply be reduced to their function, where ‘function’ is defined ass the contribution each makes to maintaining the equilibrium of the social system. Their purpose may sometimes have a negative effect on this,or be simply indifferent.” Homens points out that the functionalists act as if there were no men around.Rejecting this charge, M.F. Abraham writes, “However, Parsons’ formulation of the personality system with the motivation, gratification deprivation complex and other psychological variables and Inkeles’ theory of personality and social structure have given the individual his due place in sociological analysis.

 

Reference Group

 

The  concept of Reference group formally originated in the field of Social Psychology.  This  field  fuocuses    primarily on the response of the individual to their interpersonal and more extended social environment. The concept of “Reference Group” was first introduced by H.H. Hyman in his book “The Psychology of Status” in 1942. In order to understand the concept broadly, we may distinguish between two types of groups-

(I) Membership Group and

(ii) Reference Group.

The group of which the individual is actually the member and which is his own group” is called “membership group”. But in practice, it can be observed that psychologically an individual can maintain his relation with such a group of which he is not an actual member, but even then attempts to include in his behaviour and action the norms, values and behaviour pattern of that outside group. Such group is known as “Reference Group”. It is the reference group of an individual in the sense that his behaviour, attitude, action and thought have a reference to the norms, values, and behaviour-pattern of that group of which he is not the actual member.

 

Definition of Reference Group

In the words of Sheriff and Sheriff, “Reference Groups are those groups to which the individual relates himself as a part or to which he aspires to relate himself psychologically. In everyday language, reference groups are those groups with which he identifies or aspires to identify himself.”

Otto Kleinberg has stated that “the groups with reference to which the individual fashions his behaviour and attitudes and belongs to them psychologically, even not being their actual member, may be called reference groups.”

Robert K. Merton has explained that “any of the in-groups or out-groups which become points of reference for shaping one’s attitudes, evaluations and behaviour, is his reference group.”

Essential elements of Reference Group

  1. Every reference group has a psychological basis. Reference group that group with which an individual maintains a psychological relationship, though he is actually not its member.
  2. Individual tries to assimilate in his behaviour and acfions, the norms, values and behaviour-pattern of his reference group.
  3. Many individuals can have a common reference group. Similarly. There can be many reference groups in a society.
  4. The reference group is “ideal” from the point of view of the individual; that is why he identifies or aspires to identify himself with that group.
  5. “Once a reference group, always a reference group” is not the rule. That means, an individual can change his reference group according to changing situation, time, place, intellectual level, etc.
  6. A reference group is usually a superior or higher group of which an individual is not the actual member. Individual has higher aspirations, so he relates himself with groups of higher status.
  7. Each and every reference group is “ideal” from individual’s point of view. But this does not mean that from the point of view   of society also refrence group is essentially “idealt may not be so. It  is ideal only for those who accept it as reference group.

 

Theory of Merton

 

The systematic data of Robert k.Mertonand A.s Rossi ‘s” The American soldier “ provide a useful occasion for examining Merton ‘s theory of Reference Group Behaviour Which has been further clarified and improved in Merton ‘s Social Theory and social structure” In this connection Merton ‘s conclusion is that the reference group of an individual can be both his member – ship group or “ in group “ as well as a non -membership group or “ out -group . In the first case , the members of his own in group can become frame of reference . According to Merton theory of Reference  group behaviour explains as to how individual accepts an in – group or an out –grout as his point of reference . To quote Merton Reference groups are , in principle , almost innumerable : any of the groups of which one is a member , and these are compara-tivelyfew as well as groups of which one is not a member , and these are of course , many , can become points of reference for shaping one’s attitude , evaluation and behaviour.

Merton ‘s theory of reference group can briefly be stated as follows:

  1. Membership- Group as a Reference Group : It has been observed that on many occasions , an individual accepts that sub – group of his membership group as his reference group whose achievement are more than his own sub-group as his reference group whose achievements are more than his own sub-group . For soldiers , for example , that sub- group of soldiers becomes their reference group which won bravely medals or awards .
  2. Multiple Reference Group – Under this category Merton has mentioned two types of reference groups

(I)         Conflicting reference groups  are those groups which presents conflicting norms , values etc. They are attractive for the individual , but he fails to decide as to which one is better . He ultimately rejects that group which is totally strange and related to quite different conditions.

(II) Mutually sustaining reference group : Merton ‘s conclusion is that group is accepted as a reference group with which an individual remains in constant and continuous touch because of which that group exerts it’s influence on the individual in shaping in shaping his values , attitudes and behaviour .

  1. Significant Others :  According to Merton , just like reference groups , there can be reference individuals also whom Merton calls as ‘significant others “ Such significant persons are “ideal ,, for the individual and therefore he desires to become similar to these  “ significant other “ by accepting their values , ideals and behaviour pattern . In so doing the ultimate aim is to climb up on the social ladder to reach nearer to these significant persons or group of the persons.
  2. Conformity and Non-Conformity

In the opinion of Merton, the functional importance of reference groups is that they motivate the individual to conform to the ideals, values and norms of the reference groups with the result that the norms, values and ideates of the individual do not conform with the values, norms and ideals of the group of which he is the actual member, Therefore,

Conformity with non-membership group and non-conformity with membership group become the characteristic pattern of individual’s behaviour, norms, values and ideals. But such non-conformity is allowing end by his society or group only to the extent that it does not become dysfunctional.

  1. Non-Membership Group

According to Merton, it is not essential that an individual must have actual inter-factional relation with a non-membership group to accept it as his reference group. He may only relate himself with that group psychologically or may only aspire to identify himself with that group. In that case also, that group will be his reference group.

  1. Positive and Negative Reference Group

According to Merton, Reference Groups can both be positive and negative. This means that a reference group, say the group of one’s ideal teachers, by nature can be such as to exert wholesome and healthy impact on the individual and also a reference group, say a criminal gang, by nature can exert unhealthy influences.

  1. Selection of Reference Individual or Group

Merton has also explained The two basis or considerations on which a reference individual or group is selected by an individual-

(a) the selection can be on the basis of role-model. Some roles of others are liked much by the individual, and on the basis of this liking. He may accept a  group  or an individual as his reference group or reference individual. For example, he may like much the teaching method of a teacher and may, therefore, accept him as a reference-individual when he himself becomes a teacher.

(b) The selection of a reference individual or group can also be motivated by the desire of achieving higher social status and personal success. In this case, persons or groups better placed in social, economic or political field are accepted as reference group.

  1. Functional aspects of Reference Group

Merton has mentioned certain functions as well as dysfunctions of reference groups. First of all, reference group motivates the individual to accept its values, attitude and behaviour-pattern. Consequently, not only many newer values, ideals, thought. Images and behaviour pattern are added to individual’s personality. But also their emerge possibilities of his going high in social status because of those new values, thoughts, etc. Thus, according to Merton, the function of reference groups towards anticipatory socialization of the individual is noteworthy. But when the reference group is of negative nature, its influence on individual can be dysfunctional. Also when the society is of closed or conservative

Nature, it does not tolerate such individuals who discard the accepted traditional norms, values and ideals and accept that of others. Such “betrayal” or change over is resisted and opposed by the society as a result of which the state of social tension and conflict emerges. There is another dysfunction of reference groups. As a matter of fact, an individual is alienated from the values, ideals and norms of his own membership group in the same proportion are accepts the values, ideals and norms of his reference group. As a result his adjustment with his own group becomes more and more difficult. From this point of view also the role of reference groups is dysfunctional.

 

REFERENCE GROUP THEORY

 

Reference group theory is one of the major contributions of Merton in sociological theory. This theory is appeared in the long papers, the first of which, written in collaboration with Alice S. Rossi, deals with the theory itself and second with continuities in the theory The concept “relative deprivation”, which is given in The American Soldier by Samuel A. Stauffer, is central to theory of reference group.

Relative deprivation is utilised for the interpretation of variations in attitudes among different categories of men in relation to age, education, marital status and so forth. In order to highlight the connection of the concept of relative deprivation with reference group theory, it is essential to relate them with the notion of ‘others that represent non-membership or out groups. In this sense, a series A Concepts, such as, membership and non-membership groups, out and in-groups are involved. As Merton says, “Reference groups are, in principle, almost innumerable; any of the groups of which one is a member, and these are, of course, can become points of reference for shaping one’s attitudes, evaluating and behaviour” The important focus of inquiry in reference group theory is that people orient their attitude and behaviour toward the other members of the group to which they do not belong.

The main aim of reference group theory is “to systematise the determinants and consequences of those process of evaluation and self-appraisal in which the individual takes the values or standards of other individuals and groups as a comparative frame of reference” The precise nature of the theory of reference group can be better seen through a detailed conceptual analysis related to it.

 

 Relative Deprivation

 

In developing the concept of relative deprivation, the authors of The American Soldier, on the whole, centred their attention on the deprivation component rather than the relative component of the concept. This concept is primarily used to understand the feelings of dissatisfaction, deprivation, or injustice among soldiers. Authors recognise that “”deprivation’ is the incidental and particularised component of the concept of relative deprivation, where as the more significant nucleus of the concept is its stress upon social and psychological experience as ‘relative’…. It is the relative component, the standards of comparison in self-evaluation that these concepts have in common”. It seems to me, therefore, that the concept of relative deprivation makes a ground for reference group behaviour.

 The Concept of Group and Group Membership

The concept of group and it’s various typology are involved in the study of reference group. Merton expressed three ways to understand group and group memberships: Sociological concept of a group: It refers to a number of people who interact with one another in accord with established patterns.” Here, people are involved in the process of social interaction. This is only known as objective criterion of the group based on the frequency of interaction

(ii) A Second criterion of a group is that the interacting persons define themselves as ‘members’ At this point, their interaction are morally binding on all the members of the group.

(iii) The correlative and third criterion is that the persons in interaction are defined by others as “belonging to the group”. These other include fellow-members and non-members.

In this context, it is necessary to make distinction of social groups from social categories and collectivises. Social categories refer “to established statuses between the occupants of which there may be little or no interaction” On the other, all groups are collectivises but all collectivises are not group. The  collectivises that are lack of involvement in the interaction among members are not groups.

  The Concept of Non-Membership

Merton accepts the view that men and women try to stay in their own group. But what makes the study of reference group particularly interesting is that “they frequently orient themselves to groups other than their own in shaping their behaviour and evaluations”. Merton defines, “non-members are those who do not meet the interactional and definitional criteria of membership”.73 Non-members are always having tendency to become members of other group. But they differ in their attitudes toward becoming members. Merton analyses three ways to becoming members of a group:

(a) some may aspire to membership in the group; “

(b) others may be indifferent toward such affiliation; and

(c) still others may be motivated to remain unaffiliated with the group.Reference group theory has of course incorporated the first of these motivated attitudes toward membership as constituting one mechanism making for positive orientation of non-members toward the norms of a group” But for reference group, individual adopts the values and norms of a group to which he aspires but does not belong.

 The Concepts of In-Group and Out-Group

William Graham Sumner has firstly introduced the concepts of in-group and out-group. In the words of Sumner a differentiation arises between us, the we-group, or in- A group, and everybody else, or the other-groups, out-groups.”

It is the fact that membership groups are not co-terminus with in-groups, nor non-membership groups with out-groups. Reference group theory treats both types of groups at all levels of social interaction.

Positive and Negative Reference Groups

Reference groups, outlines Merton, are of two types. Positive reference group, in fact, is synonymous with reference group. A Negative reference group whose norms and activities an individual guide to what he shall reject and oppose. Merton defines uses as a in his own words, “The positive type involves motivated assimilation of the norms of the group or the standards of the group as a basis for self-appraisal; the negative type involves motivated rejection, i.e., not merely non-acceptance of norms but the formation of counter-norms”.

 The Concept of Anticipatory Socialisation

The consequence of conforming to the norms of a group other than own’s own is discussed in the concept of anticipatory socialisation. It “means that individuals begin to conform to the norms of the groups to which they want to belong in preference to the norms of the groups to which they actually belong”.7 Merton speaks of anticipatory socialisation in the context of non-membership reference groups. In anticipatory socialisation, only vertical mobility is possible. Anticipatory socialisation can be seen through different career patterns of life-medical student into doctor, graduate student into lecturer, lawyers into law firm partner, and recruit into member of the team, clerk into supervisor and so on.

Merton and Rossi further argue that although anticipatory socialisation may be functional for the individual, it can be dysfunctional for the group. For instance, conformity offers rewards to individuals and helps to sustain the structure of authority in the Group and in larger social systems. The foregoing discussion of the concepts of relative depivation, group, membership and non-membership, in and out groups, collectivises and social categories, positive and negative reference groups, and anticipatory socialisation is oriented to understand the reference group theory. To understand reference group theory, it is essential to discuss determinants and structural elements of reference groups.

Determinants of Reference Group

Merton emphasizes on the determining factors that one’s make choice to reference groups. Merton speaks of various possibilities, three in numbers, in which an individual takes the values or standards of other individuals or groups as a comparative frame of reference. These are reference individuals, selection among different membership groups and the selection of non-membership groups. Merton goes on to elaborate on the determinants that stimulate the same individual to choose different reference groups for different purposes.

  1. Selection of Reference Groups and of Reference Individuals:

The term reference group was originally introduced by Hyman. The term includes behaviour oriented both to groups and to particular individual. The individuals are interested to select not only reference groups but they select reference individual also. The reference individual, here, is similar to a role-model. In a reference individual usually more than one role, such as, charisma, status, and so on, is involved. The concept of role model can be thought of as more restricted in scope, denoting a more limited identification with an individual in only one or a few selected roles. but the person who identifies himself with a reference individual will seek to “approximate the behaviour and values of that individual in his several roles”. Merton accepts biographers, editors of “Fan magazines” and “gossip columnists” as reference individuals.

  1. Selection of Reference Groups among Non-membership Groups:

Merton is fascinated by non-membership group. At the same time, he warns that people are probably more influenced by the groups. However, he emphasized on why and under what circumstances men choose non-membership groups as their reference groups. According to Merton, there are three factors involved in the selection of non-membership groups. First, “the selection of reference groups is largely governed by the capacity of certain Soups to confer some prestige in terms of the institutional structure of society”. In this context, power and status are the major basis for the selection of non-membership groups.

Secondly, it examines that what kind of people generally Accept non-membership groups as their reference groups. Merton answers, I is generally the isolates’ in a group who may be particularly ready to adopt the values of non-membership groups as normative frames of reference”. The isolates’, who are supposed to be sensitive and rebellion, are more intense urge for mobility toward other groups in which they do not belong.

Thirdly, it suggests that “social systems with relatively high rates of social mobility will tend to make for widespread orientation so non-membership groups as reference groups” This factor is applicable to the people of open system in which anticipatory socialisation will be in function.

  1. The Selection of Reference Groups among Membership Groups:

Merton points out that there is general tendency among peoples to influence by their own groups. But the fact is “that non-membership groups constitute the excusive focus for reference group theory’s a person may belong to innumerable groups right from family to religious groups. Membership groups are mainly based on two frames of reference, i.e., normative and comparative. Normative are permanent in nature, whereas comparative are temporary. A membership group which is not going to last for long is unlikely to be chosen as a reference group is considered to be temporary in nature. For instance, a class of undergraduate students are only sat for short duration of three years is considered to be temporary. On the other hand, a group, such as, a kinship, or a caste group, or a professional group, stay for long time serve as a reference group is considered to be permanent.

Structural Elements of Reference Groups

The structural elements, which are centrally involved in reference group behaviour conceived as a social processes. In this context, the element of cbservability or visibility plays a major role in this process.

  1. Observability and Visibility; Patterned Avenues of Information about Norms, Values and Role-performance:

Reference group theory spumes that individuals compare their own lot with that of others me knowledge of the situation in which these other find we Themselves In other words, as Merton outlines, the theory of rlerence group behaviour must provide a medium through which knowledge is gained. Reference group behaviour must recognise the importance of the norms and values obtaining in the group that one has to follow it. In fact, visibility of both norms and of role-performance is required for the actual behaviour of members of the group. But the fact is that, in reality, it is difficult to have complete knowledge of these norms and of actual role performances. It is, argues Merton, mainly based on the structure of the group. At the same time, Merton believes that both norms and role-performance can be visible if the structure of authority is to operate effectively.

In addition, Merton accept a limit to the degree of visibility and observability. Here the notion of ‘privacy’ is essential to explain this fact. For instance, an authority from high level would automatically maintain secrecy at work because of various reasons. In short, “reference group theory”, argues Merton, “must systematically incorporate the variable of observability of norms, values, and role-performance obtaining in the group as a frame of reference”

  1. Non-conformity as a Type of Reference Group Behaviour

Merton has emphasized on “that conformist and nonconformist behaviour can be adequately described,…, only if this behaviour is related to the membership groups and non-membership groups taken as frames of normative and evaluative reference”.85 Non- Type of Reference Group Behaviour as a conformity, he explains, to the norms of an in-group is equivalent to conformity to the norms of an out-group. In the theory of anomie, he described various ways to understand deviant behaviour of the person in different type of social structure. As Merton rightly puts it, “In the language of reference group theory, therefore, attitudes of conformity to the official mores can be described as a orientation to the norms of a non-membership group that is taken as a frame of reference. Such conformity to norms of an out-group positive is thus equivalent to what is ordinarily called non-conformity, that is, non-conformity to the norms of the in-group.”

  1. The Structural Context of Reference Group Behaviour:

Role- Sets, Status-Sets, and Status-Sequences: In addition to observability and diverse types of nonconformity and deviance in the process of reference group behaviour, it is the need to examine the social orings urea of roles and statuses and the dynamics of role-sets, statuses, and status-sequences.  Ralph Linton has recognised the two concepts-social status and social roles-are fundamental to the description and analysis of a social structure. “By status Linton meant a position in a social system occupied by designated individual, by role, the behavioural enacting of the patterned Expectations attributed to that position. Status and role, in these terms, are concepts serving to connect the culturally defined expectations with the patterned behaviour and relationships which comprise social structure”.

Merton defines role-set as “a particular social status involves, not a single associated role, but an array of associated roles” For instance, a medical student does not associated only with single status as a student but also an array of other roles relating to different statuses, such as, other students, nurses, physicians, social workers, medical technicians and so on. The concept of role-sets, here, important in the context of reference group theory. However, it is difficult to satisfy everyone in the role-set. In this context, Merton speaks of, “structural source of instability in the role-set”. Merton outlines, “the basic source of disturbance in the role-set is the structural circumstance that any one occupying a particular status has role-partners who are differently located in the social structure”.

At this juncture, Merton identified four important mitigating factor,” which reduce the impact of these conflicts or disturbances involved in the role-sets. First, a differential degree of involvement mitigates the effects of diverse role expectation. For instance, a role set among the college students, some are more and some are less involved in their relationship with the student. Second mitigating factor Merton discusses is that those in the role-set may be competing with each other for power but in some circumstances, their involvement in the conflict may give the role incumbent more autonomy. Merton’s third mechanism to alleviate role conflict is the insulation of role activities from observance by role-set members. Fourth mitigating factor, according to Merton, is the degree to which conflicting demands by members of a role set can be observed. If it is obvious that demands conflict, it is the duty of the members of the role-set and not of the role incumbent to resolve the contradictions. In addition to it, Merton suggests that the mutual Social support and withdrawal of control mechanism would be Hemphill to resolve conflicts of expectations among members of the role-set. This discussion of the role-set illustrates Merton’s emphasis on the analysis of dysfunctional elements and functional alternatives.

In addition to role-sets, the concept of status-sets and status- Sequences also constitute the problem in the context of reference group theory. It is, in fact, in the problem of articulation same as

That of role-sets. In status-sets, the same individual may find himself or herself in different status, such as, teacher, husband, mother, father, brother, sister, political leader, social worker, author, etc. Every status has its distinctive role-set. “Status-sets plainly provide one basic form of interdependence between the institutions and

Subsystems of a society. This stems from the familiar fact that the same persons are engaged in distinct social systems”. Merton points out that the major difficulty occur in organising their role activities in status-sets. For instance, an administrator may not do justice to his other statuses, such as, the status of a husband or the status of a father, because of his commitment to a larger public cause. However, Merton suggests the ways in which one can avoid the tension in the status-set. First. “People are not perceived by other as occupying only one status”. Secondly, the notion of empathy which helps you to sympathetically understand the lot of others. Empathy serves to reduce the pressures exerted upon people caught up in conflicts of status obligation.” Thirdly, the components of status-set are not combined at random. This form of combination reduces the possibility of conflict from both the psychological and social viewpoints. As Merton puts it, “values internalised by people in prior dominant statuses are such as to make it less likely that they will be motivated to enter statuses with lies incompatible with their own” Status-sequence, according 10 Merton, is the observation of sequences of role-sets and status in this seems, role-sets, status-sets, and status-sequences are interlinked to each other and they help to generate other problem for the functional analysis of social structure.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top