Chapters in text to be covered & Lecture Notes

As I put on the blackboard on Tuesday, here is the list of chapters in the text that I plan to cover over the rest of the semester:
Chapter 14
Introduction to Section VIII
Chapter 16
Introduction to Section IX
Chapter 19
Chapter 24
Ahrens notes (3 copies of which are on reserve in the library)

I thought I would also post some lecture notes to catch up a bit, and also to give the families an indication of what I plan to cover (and not cover), which may help a bit in terms of making a decision about which overlooked concept or idea you want to present.

Section VII: Twentieth-Century Functionalism and Beyond

A. This introduction is surprisingly short and weak considering the fact that functionalism is one of the dominant sociological theories of the 20th century. It's a theory whose principal concern is ORDER in society, exploring the functions of various elements of society -- how the various elements or parts are integrated in the larger whole of society.

Chapter 14: Twentieth-Century Functionalism: Parsons and Merton

(As I have already noted in class, I don't believe the authors do a very good job presenting Parsons' overall view of society or the more important criticisms of this theory. So I am going to rely more on the short piece by Alex Inkeles which I handed out, as well as draw on the text occasionally.)

Talcott Parsons (1902-1979)

A. Despite the difficulty of his writing style (discussed p. 348), and the wide criticism of his theories, Parsons was one of the most important and influential sociological theorists America has produced.

1. Although it took him a while to break into the Sociology Dept. at Harvard (9 years as an untenured instructor), he eventually became chairman of that department which was re-named the Dept. of Social Relations under his leadership. As chairman, he helped train some of the most prominent American sociologists of the 20th century such as Robert Merton. Parsons even made the cover of Time magazine on the occasion of his death in 1979, a feat not too many social scientists have accomplished.

B. In his earliest major work -- The Structure of Social Action (briefly mentioned and discussed on p. 349), Parsons accomplished at least three major things:

1. First, he introduced an American audience to the work of some of the great European sociologists whose work had been largely neglected to this point (1937) -- namely, Durkheim, Weber, and Pareto. His commentary on Durkheim alone was well over 100 pages, and very insightful and comprehensive. He felt all three thinkers were converging on a comprehensive theory of social action, which he went on to present in the rest of the book. (Also, he translated some of Weber's work)

2. Second, Parsons was one of the first sociologists in America to take seriously the notion that society is a system, which is to say, he embraced SOCIAL REALISM.

3. Third, in his theory of social action he tried to integrate aspects of PSYCHOLOGY (Freud), ANTHROPOLOGY, and SOCIOLOGY. As the authors observe (mid p. 349): "Social action, wrote Parsons, is (1) voluntaristic, or a matter of making choices; (2) subjective, or based on internal orientations and responses; and (3) at least partially grounded or limited by the norms and values of one's culture." (Note: this account does not directly correspond with those three disciplines.)

C. But beyond this early emphasis on social action, after WWII he came to focus more on the bigger picture of social order (Martindale -- move from Social Behaviorism to Macrofunctionalism, p. 349). It is in a book entitled, The Social System, that he most clearly (or turgidly) articulates the so-called "structural-functional framework," which I believe is better captured in the excerpt from Inkeles than in our text.

1. Inkeles observes that the so-called "organismic analogy" -- looking at society, like a biological organism, in terms of structures and functions -- has a long history. Certainly was evident in our discussion of many 19th century sociological theorists.

2. The structural-functional view focuses on society as a whole or a system, and on the interrelation of INSTITUTIONS moreso than individuals or groups.

3. It contends that what accounts for the persistence and continuity of society, as new generations come and go, is that "societies find means (structures) (which) fulfill needs (functions)...of organized social life." (p. 35)

4. Inkeles goes on to observe that the structural-functional view is more concerned with SOCIAL STATICS, or explaining the existing social order (not how it came to be or changes) -- how various institutions function to keep society in operation. (This supports the view of many commentators that Parsons is a "status quo conservative," ideologically speaking. p. 354 bottom)

(a) For example, as Inkeles brings out: the family is an institution set up to "...ensure fulfillment of the functions of sexual reproduction, of early care of the dependent infant, and of his training in the ways of society in which we will live." (this conservative view of the family comes through in the authors' discussion of gender, p. 356)

(b) Structural-functionalists also deal with the question of how these institutions are integrated or co-ordinated to preserve the unity of society, the social organism.

D. Inkeles argues that the most serious complaint against this perspective (which I did not notice in the text) is that structural-functionalists often fail to specify for whom or what something is "functional." "What is functional for society may not be functional for the individual." (I am not sure I agree, but...) Inkeles goes on to suggest that the functionalists tend to underemphasize the individual needs relative to the group or society.

E. Inkeles also gets at what I believe is a more serious charge -- that it tends to provide a rationalization for the existing institutions and social order -- that what exists is interpreted as functional, therefore, changing or removing an institution would be interpreted as detrimental to society.

1. This is the point at which the so-called "conflict theorists" (including C. Wright Mills) would challenge this perspective. (This criticism is referred to in the Critique and Contributions section, p. 358, but it is not well brought out.)

2. This has to do with Parsons' introduction of the concept of EQUILIBRIUM (which is very inadequately treated on p. 350, text). "Homeostatis" is another term for this -- the idea that just as the body regulates, adjusts itself (eg. body temperature, etc.), so too, society has mechanisms that seek to adjust parts of society -- to bring them back into order, stability (Inkeles, pp. 37-8).

(a) Inkeles puts his finger on a number of problems with this equilbrium model as it applies to society, especially how it ignores the role of conflict in society. See, pp. 38-9)

(b) More ammunition to expose the conservative bias built into this equilibrium notion is provided in the following passage from Walter Buckley (a systems' theorist in his own right): "From many statements made by functionalists, it seemed possible to conclude that since a social system persisting a long time is functionally integrated, or has reached a state of 'equilibrium,' it must have attained an ideal state of adjustment, whether in terms of individual happiness or common welfare. Such a situation, therefore, is evaluated as 'good' and must not be changed: what is, is best, and any change is for the worse."
(But Buckley went on to note that, although this has been the interpretation made by some, functionalism can also have radical implications. It all depends on what is defined as a stable, healthy society.)


That's all for now. This brings us up to Robert Merton, about whom I plan to focus on his distinction between "manifest" and "latent" functions.