What is Neo – Functionalism
Defining neo-functionalism, Alexander and Paul Colomi write – “It is a self-critical stream of functionalist theory that seeks to expand the intellectual realm of functionalism while retaining its doctrinal spirit.” Neo-functionalism is directly related to Parsons’s structuralist Inspired by functionalism, it has evolved. It also begins with Parsons and ends with it. Overall, the old artwork has been painted with new colors.
With regard to neo-functionalism, Alexander clearly says that it is not a developed theory, but only a trend.
New functionalism has been developed by many post-modern sociologists. Although it is still in construction stage and its success/failure is still in future trough. However, given the theoretical basis of neo-functionalism, its success can be expected. Geoffrey Alexander, Niklas Luhmann, Paul Colomy, Richard Munch, Neil Smelser, Mark Gould and George Ritzer are the main thinkers of neofunctionalism. Here the contribution of Geoffrey Alexander as the main thinker of neo-functionalism will be discussed.
Neo Functionalism of Jeffrey Alexander
Geoffrey Alexander, the leading thinker of neo-functionalism, was born in America in 1947. His education took place at Harvard University, USA. Inspired by the neo-left Marxist ideology, Alexander actively participated in student movements. After completion of education, Alexander became a teacher at Varkle University and Ph. D . Also received the degree. Alexander is currently the Chair of the Department of Sociology at the University of California, USA. Jeffrey Alexander Alexander has been influenced by Marxist ideology, so he is counted among the neo-functionalist as well as the neo-leftist Marxists. According to Alexander, Neo-Left Marxism does not accept the economic determinism of traditional Marxism because Neo-Left Marxism has again restored the place of the doer in history which was completely forgotten by Marxism. But in 1970, due to circumstances, Alexander was disillusioned with Neo-Marxism. Alexander’s major work is ‘Theoretical Logic in Sociology’ which was published in four volumes in 1982-83. In this book, he has done the work of theoretical coordination. Through this book, Alexander started opposing Parsons. This book is considered equivalent to the works of Parsons. Parsons emphasized on positivism in sociological studies, but Alexander through this book has emphasized on post-positivism in sociological studies.
The main works of Alexander are as follows
Theoritical Logic in Sociology , 1982-83
Neo Functionalism , 1985
Twenty Lectures : Social Theory Since World War II , 1987
Durkheimian Sociology : Cultural Studies ( ed. ), 1988
Action and its Environments , 1988
Fir – de – Siecle Social Theory , 1995
Neo Functionalism and Beyond , 1998
Parsons’ functionalism is explained in a new style. This is Alexander’s new functionalism. He was not satisfied with some of the assumptions of Parsons’s functionalism. Alexander has presented his ideas while trying to overcome those shortcomings. It is necessary to briefly understand these thoughts of Alexander in a point-by-point manner.
Opposition to Positivism
He is of the opinion that sociology should pay attention to the theoretical element along with experience. If we take care of experience only, then new conclusions will not be able to come out. The theory is that the combination of empiricism and theoretician would encourage rationality in sociology. This post-positivist approach to the theory puts him in the domain of special sociologists.
In sociological studies, positivism was propounded by Auguste Comte. Positivism is another name for experience based studies. Many eminent sociologists have supported positivism. Even Parsons’ functionalism is based on positivism. Alexander does not accept positivism. Positivism has one major drawback of its own. Suppose a theory was formed on the basis of positivism. “The upper class is more luxurious than the middle or lower class. “Now whenever a researcher will go to the field to study on this subject, he will collect facts in the study area on the basis of this principle because facts are not collected against the theory. Due to this deficiency, Alexander has presented post-positivism.
The concept of action and order
He has not accepted Parsons’s interpretation of action and law. In relation to action and order, Alexander is of the opinion that there can be two purposes of the doer behind performing any action – either he finds that action useful or else he does that action only to maintain order. This concept of action and order is found only in neo functionalism.
Alexander wants to give a new theoretical argument to sociology. This intention of his is seen in his book ‘Theoretical Logic in Sociology’. For this he has introduced the concept of action and order. Both these concepts can be used in any logic of sociology.
New Explanation of Functionalism –
The term functionalism has been defined by many sociologists. It is most clearly defined by Robert Merton. He has also given its three meanings-
(i) In general, a function means a function.
(ii) Mathematically it implies causation. And
(iii) In sociology, function refers to action and order.
Alexander is not satisfied with the functional meanings of Merton. He has disagreed on the nomenclature of functionalism in his book ‘Neo-functionalism’ (Neo-functionalism, 1985). He has presented functionalism as follows
We should look at the whole society from an open and pluralistic point of view, that is, every area of the society should be studied from every point of view.
We should not only focus on positive social processes but also on negative or disruptive social processes. Negative social processes are the reality of society. By centering both types of processes, there is a possibility of integration.
We should not oppose social differentiation. Social differentiation is essential for social change. At the same time, it is necessary to clarify the concepts used in sociology in a free way.
In the interpretation of action and structure, we should keep in mind that they both influence each other. That’s how they should be studied. Not considering the two as separate.
Society, culture and personality are different concepts. These should be seen separately.
Brown’s Structural – Functional Theory
According to Brown, “We call a complex web of social relations by the name of social structure. “Brown has tried to understand his concept of social structure separately from the concept of ‘social function’. In this way, instead of understanding the social structure in the context of the whole society, he has conceived a social structure, which is that structure or The function of a particular social structure of social relations can be known if it contributes to maintaining the structural continuity of the whole system. In fact, Brown has considered social structure as a branch of natural science. It is based on the fact that social phenomena are studied by the methods used in the natural and biological sciences, but since society is a network of social relationships, the study of social structure in sociology is actually the study of the complexities of social relations. It’s the same study.
Brown tried to define social structure in institutional form.
has done. Individual is an important part of society, which is surrounded by institutions. Individuals are linked to other people in the society through institutions. The importance of these institutions can be seen in the fact that certain patterns of social relations of individuals are developed in the society. Thus the formation of individuals in a definite and orderly form through institutions, the development of certain patterns and a cohesive “form of all this together” is called ‘social structure’. Brown later developed his own concept of social structure. He made some changes in this concept. In 1952 he published the book ‘Structure and Function in a Primitive Society’. In this, Brown personified his revised concept about social structure in the following words. “Structure in the Concept of Function” The concept of interconnectedness, in which we take the arrangement of relationships found between different units and whose continuity depends on the functioning of these units. “Thus, according to Brown, social structure is a dynamic continuum. In other words, social structure is not like the structure of a house, but a dynamic continuum like the structure of the body of a living human being. What is meant here is that the structure itself is It is permanent, but can change in many of its elements, gets and will be the same, but the permanence of the structure remains.
New members come in the society, new institutions are developed, new societies are formed, new needs are born and according to them new changes take place, but not all changes have the same effect on the social structure. Had to Brown has also considered the local aspect of social structure. He states that every social structure also has a local aspect. In his own words, “If we make a comparative study of the social structure of two societies, it is necessary that we consider the local aspect of both the structures. Thus it is not possible to study any structure entirely outside that geographical area.” Where its members are settled – because that geographical area also affects the behavior and personality of those members. Similarly, we cannot study social structure without local basis.” According to Brown, in the study of social structure, we In particular, consider three things:
(1) Social activists,
(2) Social Physics,
(3) Processes of social change.
(1) Social Morphology – Under Brown’s normative structure, we consider how the typical external structure of a society maintains its stability by incorporating internal changes. He told that morality, law, rituals, religion, rites, education etc. are important parts of the structure, through which social structure exists and remains present. Brown has also tried to explain the importance of language in social structure. Continuity is maintained between different individuals of society and different units of society through language. Similarly, Brown has also considered the division of labor important in the social structure. In any society we see different persons performing different activities at different times, but their diversity does not disturb their unity, because they are also part of definite social structure. Brown has also given the example of ‘reference group’ to make the social structure more clear, because the behavior of individuals and their social relations can be understood only in the context of the individuals and their relations of the group of which they are members. There are. Brown has also described social interests, social values and social institutions as important for understanding the external pattern of social structure, as they all prove to be important in maintaining the continuity of social structure.
(2) Social Physiology – In the study of social structure, we should keep in mind that social structure is almost like physical structure, as there are different parts in our body. Similarly, there are social relations in the society. The relationship is found in different parts of the society in the same way as it is found in different parts of the body, just as there is continuity even after changes in the physical structure, in the same way there is continuity in the social structure. It is worth mentioning here that in the social structure we do not study ‘individuals’, but ‘social men’.
Brown says that the development of new forms of structure has happened through the process of evolution. There are two important aspects of this process of evolution-
(1) There has been a continuous process in history by which many forms of social structure have been born in a few forms. And
(2) It was through this process that the simple forms of society evolved into complex forms.
Structuralism of Nadel
According to Nadal, the word ‘structure’ refers to the arrangement and arrangement of various organs.
There is a sense of systematic yoga. From this there is no sense of the nature, nature or importance of its parts or the content contained in it. When we use the word ‘structure’, we take everything out of it, which is not related to order or arrangement. For example, if we refer to the structure of a box, we do not consider whether the box is of wood, tin, or iron, whether the box contains papers or clothes, or whether it is empty, or filled. Let us describe the structure of the box. This means that we can express and modify the structure, regardless of the tangible material that expresses the structure. In other words, we can also say that we can bring about a change in the embodied nature of its tangible parts by not changing the structure. In Nandal’s own words, the word ‘structure’ denotes an orderly sequence of phases, which can be considered to be transferable and in which relatively immutable is found, although its parts themselves are variable. When we use the word “structuring” in the context of society, we use the phrase ‘social structure’. This means that in order to understand the social structure, we have to be clear about what we mean by society. According to Nadal, we have understood society as such a group of human beings, in which its individuals are related to each other on the basis of any such institutionalized or general rules, which direct, regularize and control their actions, That is, four interrelated elements can be seen in the market of society. “
( 1 ) Person
( 2 ) Determinate ways of acting toward or in regard to one another
(3) Various forms of ‘social relations’ arising out of them and their manifestations.
(4) Consistency and stability are found to some extent in these relationships.
With respect to Nandal’s concept of ‘Society’, it is noteworthy that neither excessive irregularity is found among human beings nor incidental immutability among the people who act. The main reason for this is that there are some institutional rules for performing actions, which automatically create regularity among individuals. Thus, after explaining society, Nadel defined social structure. “We will call the structure of a society the pattern, order and orderliness and regularity of the relations found between the person doing the action in relation to the other people out of the concrete population and its behavior.”
In the field of functionalism where great importance is given to the ideas of Ek Pore Brown and Malinowski , in the modern period S . F . Nadel’s ideas are considered very important. This is because scholars like Brown, Malinowski and Durkheim have explained functionalism with the term function and these people have focused their attention on the interdependence found between the various elements found in culture and how human beings are perceived by certain elements of culture. Emphasis is placed on the fulfillment of any requirements. In contrast, Nandal has explained functionalism in terms of structure. Nadal does not see society as a culture or as a system, but as a system and order.
According to Nandal, to understand a society it is necessary that we understand its structure. Changes may take place in different parts of the society, but there is continuity, regularity and variability in the structure of the society. Therefore, when we talk about the functions within the social structure, we should not only talk about the interdependence of different parts of the society or culture, but we should also consider that the regularity and continuity of the structure of the society is also maintained or No . Thus, in Nadal’s view, functionalism refers to the system or continuity in the society that persists even after changes are made in different parts of the society.
Another example is given by Nadel with the harmonium. Nadal says that we can understand the structure of harmonium without coming out of its vocals. The reason for this is that the end object or function is not included in the discussion of the structure. It is clear that without the tangible material expressing the structure, the tangible nature of the parts that make up the structure can change drastically. In other words, “construction represents an orderly sequence of parts, which may be considered to be transferable and which are relatively immutable, while the parts themselves are variable.”
According to Nadel, we can understand the social structure and the functions inherent in it in terms of continuity and regularity of relations. It may be that there may be a change in the relations found between different members of the society. It may also happen that changes may be found in the expressions of these relations, but the regularity and orderliness of the relations do not change easily, because individuals act on the basis of certain social and institutional rules. Hence this rule of relations
Mitigation and continuity serve to maintain the regularity and continuity of the social structure. Therefore, according to Nadal, social structure is not formed by mere combination or summation of existing or existing social relations. This is not possible unless some sort of systematic orderliness and continuity is found in them.