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 :
- Function in the mathematical sense of values determined by one or more factors.
- Function as useful activity as the meaning of the term in everyday life.
- Function as appropriate activity which is not only utilitarian but fulfils some aim or purpose.
- 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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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 “
- 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.
- 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.”
- 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.”
- 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.”
- 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”
- 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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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 “