Lecture Notes: Intro. Section VII & Chapter 14: Twentieth-Century Functionalism: Parsons and Merton

Section VII: Twentieth-Century Functionalism and Beyond

A. This introduction is surprisingly 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

(Even though the authors cover some basic concepts Parsons introduced, overall I don't believe they did a good job presenting his overall view of society, or the more important criticisms of his theory. So, I am going to present Parsons' thought based more on a short piece by Alex Inkeles (which I'll hand out in class) and then draw on the text wherever relevant.)

Talcott Parsons (1902-1979)

A. Despite the difficulty of his writing style (discussed on p. 348) and the wide criticism of his theories, Talcott Parsons was one of the most important 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 Department of Social Relations under his leadership. As chairman, he had a hand in turning out some of the most prominent American sociologists of the past century, such as Robert Merton. Parsons even made the cover of Time magazine on the occasion of his death in 1979, something not too many sociologists have done.

2. In his earliest major work, "The Structure of Social Action," (briefly mentioned and discussed on p. 349), Parsons accomplished THREE things: (a) 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 was well over 100 pages alone, and very insightful and comprehensive. He felt these thinkers were converging on a comprehensive theory of social action, which he went on to articulate in his book. (I would also mention that Parsons translated some of Weber's works.)
(b) Second, Parsons was one of the first American sociologists to take seriously the notion that SOCIETY IS A SYSTEM, which is to say, he embraced SOCIAL REALISM. (c) Third, in his theory of social action, he tried to integrate aspects of psychology (Freud), anthropology, and sociology (i.e., individual/inner, culture, and society).

3. But beyond this early emphasis on social action, after WWII, he came to focus more on the bigger picture of the social order (what Don Martindale described as a move from "Social Behaviorism" to "Macrofunctionalism," p. 349). It is in a book entitled, "The Social System," that he most clearly (or turgidly, according to critics like Mills) articulated the STRUCTURAL-FUNCTIONAL framework, which I believe is better captured in the excerpt from Inkeles than in our text.

a.) 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. It certainly was evident in our discussion of many 19th-century sociological theorists.

b.) The structural functional view focuses on society as a whole or a system (like an organism), and on the interrelation of INSTITUTIONS moreso than on individuals or groups.

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

d.) 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 how it changes, though) -- 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. see bottom, p. 354)

1.) Eg. 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 he will live." (p. 35, handout) (This conservative view of the family also comes through in the authors' discussion of gender, p. 356.)

2.) 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).

e.) Inkeles argues that the most serious complaint against this perspective (which I did not notice being mentioned 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." He goes on to suggest that the functionalists tend to underemphasize the individual's needs relative to the group or society.

f.) Inkeles also gets at what I believe is a more serious charge -- that it tends to provide a rationalization for the exisiting 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. Wrigh Mills) would challenge this perspective. (This criticism is referred to in the "Critique and Contributions" section (p. 358), but it is not brought out very well.)

2.) This has to do with Parsons' introduction of the concept of EQUILIBRIUM (which is very inadequately treated in the text, p. 350) "Homeostasis" 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 and stability. See last paragraph, p. 37- most of p. 38, handout.

a.) Inkeles, then, puts his finger on a number of problems with this equilibrium model as it applies to society, especially how it ignores the role of conflict in society. (See last paragraph, p. 38-39, handout)

More ammunition to expose the conservative bias built into this equilibrium model is provided in the following passage from systems' theorist, Walter Buckley:

"From the 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.


Robert K. Merton (1910-2003) and like his mentor, Merton's death was widely reported on.

A. Of all of Parsons' students/colleagues/defenders, I believe it can be fairly said that Robert Merton left the biggest mark on contemporary American society. And he did so in many areas (deviance, methods, etc.), as well as by modifying some aspects of functionalism. It is this latter point that I want to focus on in particular.

B. Merton's contributions to functionalism are discussed under the heading, "Specifying Functionalism" (p. 361). There are THREE such conceptual specifications that are covered, which I would say have broad application.

1. First, the distinction between MANIFEST and LATENT FUNCTIONS: manifest function being "the observed or intended outcome," and latent function being "the unintended or unrecognized result."

a.) The authors, then, proceed to give examples of this from Durkheim and Veblen. Apparently, Merton referred to Veblen's "Theory of the Leisure Class," and suggested that: "accumulation of material possessions had the manifest function of making life more comfortable and the latent function of providing status and prestige (i.e., "conspicuous consumption")." (I am not so sure -- I believe Veblen would have insisted that status and prestige is the manifest function of the accumulation of wealth.)

b.) I like an example that comes from Piven & Cloward's book, "Regulating the Poor," in which they distinguish between the manifest function of welfare (reducing or eliminating poverty) and the latent function being regulating the poor (give the poor enough so as not to rebel), which they regarded as its primary function.

c.) In general, this distinction suggests that we not acccept things at face value; that we look beneath the appearance of things.

2. Second, the concept of DYSFUNCTION (which should be in bold print in the text) or negatively functional. Note that in describing this, the authors also note how it responds to an issue Inkeles raised about functionalism. See middle two paragraphs, p. 362.

The above distinctions (manifest/latent & dysfunction) have implications for Parsons' focus on system equilibrium. See top paragraph, p. 364.

3. Finally, I believe we need to acknowledge a contribution of Merton's that I know I've made use of (although I am not so sure it was original with him) -- the concept of SELF-FULFILLING PROPHECY.

a.) The authors note that this notion of the "self-fulfilling prophecy" is connected with another well-known observation of W.I. Thomas: "If men define situations as real, they are real in their consequences."

1.) Note bank example, p. 365.

I would say the BOTTOM LINE with Merton is that, in various ways, he was challenging the accusation that functionalism was inherently conservative.
___________________________________

That's all for now. You might want to print these notes out, as well as the previous notes posted on the two previous blog posts on Chapters 12 & 13.