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 criticism– According 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 Devis–The 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 conflict– Durkheim 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.”
- 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.”
- 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.