This is just a reminder, mainly for those who were absent, that I will be handing out a write-up of our first OUT-OF-CLASS ESSAY at the beginning of class on Tuesday, March 2nd. I had originally planned to do this in-class, but I decided not to because I knew a couple people would have to leave class early. Nonetheless, it is probably better that we do it this way, because I am a bit behind in terms of class lectures. On Tuesday I will quickly wrap up Chapter 2 and plan to get through ALL of Chapter 3, so you should be that far in your reading in the text. As a hint, the topic will have to do with the two major (contrasting) views of societal evolution that are brought out in these two chapters. Finally, after I hand the topic out on Tuesday, you will have until CLASS TIME ON THURSDAY (MAR. 4TH) TO COMPLETE IT, so you should get right on it after I hand it out. It will be OPEN-NOTEBOOK, OPEN-BOOK, of course and it is worth 25 points.
See you next Tuesday.
Friday, February 26, 2010
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
Follow-Up to "What Good (or Use) is Sociological Theory Anyway?"
It is presently 12:15PM, Wed. Feb., 17th, and Natalie and John have yet to submit your comments for this exercise. The deadline was this past Monday. Please do so ASAP. 5 points are at stake.
Regarding those who have submitted your comments, I'd like to follow-up on the blog with some general comments of my own. Let me stress that none of the points I am going to make are intended as real criticisms of anyone's comments. I was not asking for much with this exercise, just a reflection on the relevance of some theories or theorists you have already encountered. But I will say a couple submissions were weak and really did not address the question of relevance very well or at all in one case.
In general, what did these various theorists and their interpretations of social reality help us to do? Basically, better understand how individuals and/or societies behave or function, and knowing this may help us adapt better to certain social situations. Several focused on this social psychological dimension (eg., Goffman, Festinger, Mead, Sapir/Whorf being a bit broader). Some others cited theorists' ideas that offered some critical perspective on society or an aspect of society (eg., Weber, Marx, Freud, Becker, King).
But whether your observations were more social psychological or sociological (focusing on the larger society or some aspect of it), one can say that these theories, ideas, concepts helped you interpret and understand some aspect of social reality. Of course, we could pursue this further by raising questions about the validity of these ideas, about how narrowly or broadly applicable they may be. Our goal, of course, is trying to understand society and social life in all of its complexity, which, ultimately, is the only basis for improving the quality of life for individuals and society as a whole.
PLEASE INCORPORATE THESE BRIEF COMMENTS IN YOUR CLASS NOTES. I BELIEVE THEY ARE PERTINENT TO WHAT I TALKED ABOUT IN MY FIRST CLASS LECTURE.
Regarding those who have submitted your comments, I'd like to follow-up on the blog with some general comments of my own. Let me stress that none of the points I am going to make are intended as real criticisms of anyone's comments. I was not asking for much with this exercise, just a reflection on the relevance of some theories or theorists you have already encountered. But I will say a couple submissions were weak and really did not address the question of relevance very well or at all in one case.
In general, what did these various theorists and their interpretations of social reality help us to do? Basically, better understand how individuals and/or societies behave or function, and knowing this may help us adapt better to certain social situations. Several focused on this social psychological dimension (eg., Goffman, Festinger, Mead, Sapir/Whorf being a bit broader). Some others cited theorists' ideas that offered some critical perspective on society or an aspect of society (eg., Weber, Marx, Freud, Becker, King).
But whether your observations were more social psychological or sociological (focusing on the larger society or some aspect of it), one can say that these theories, ideas, concepts helped you interpret and understand some aspect of social reality. Of course, we could pursue this further by raising questions about the validity of these ideas, about how narrowly or broadly applicable they may be. Our goal, of course, is trying to understand society and social life in all of its complexity, which, ultimately, is the only basis for improving the quality of life for individuals and society as a whole.
PLEASE INCORPORATE THESE BRIEF COMMENTS IN YOUR CLASS NOTES. I BELIEVE THEY ARE PERTINENT TO WHAT I TALKED ABOUT IN MY FIRST CLASS LECTURE.
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
First Exercise: What Good (or Use) is Sociological Theory Anyway?
Without doing any research or reading in our text, I want you to identify a sociologist that you have read or heard about in any sociology course you have taken and briefly describe an idea or concept he or she developed that you believe has some merit or usefulness. Describe briefly in what way exactly you believe this idea or concept is useful.
I am looking for two paragraphs at most (no dissertations). Post them as a comment on this blog post. This activity is worth 5 activity points, which you will earn for any reasonable submission. Please do so by next Monday, Feb. 15th, so I can have the opportunity to review them and possibly use some in class next week.
I am looking for two paragraphs at most (no dissertations). Post them as a comment on this blog post. This activity is worth 5 activity points, which you will earn for any reasonable submission. Please do so by next Monday, Feb. 15th, so I can have the opportunity to review them and possibly use some in class next week.
Monday, February 8, 2010
Welcome to SOC. 340 Blog: Spring 2010
Welcome to the place in the "blogosphere" set up for this course, Sociology 340: The Development of Sociological Theory." We will be using this space over the course of the semester for what I call "individual and group activities and exercises," and for occasional posting of lecture notes and reminders. As I note in the syllabus, I would suggest that you check this site out at least once a week. I will usually give you notice in class if I will be posting anything on this blog or if there is an activity I'd like you to do. Often, if I feel that I did not do a terribly good job presenting something in class, I may use this blog space to make amends and try to clarify or elaborate on some remarks I made in class. You will need to check this blog prior to the midterm and final exams for some questions (and answers) that will appear on each of those tests. Finally, I hope you will feel free to use this space to post any questions or comments you may not feel comfortable verbalizing in class.
BY THE END OF THIS FIRST WEEK I WILL BE POSTING A "GET-YOUR-FEET-WET" INDIVIDUAL ACTIVITY TO GET YOU ACCUSTOMED TO USING THIS BLOG. BE LOOKING FOR IT.
BY THE END OF THIS FIRST WEEK I WILL BE POSTING A "GET-YOUR-FEET-WET" INDIVIDUAL ACTIVITY TO GET YOU ACCUSTOMED TO USING THIS BLOG. BE LOOKING FOR IT.
Thursday, May 7, 2009
Family Final Exam Questions
The following are the questions I accepted from the families. Remember, these will be on the final exam. Each participating member earns three points for this activity, and the members of the GREEN FAMILY will each earn two bonus points.
BLUE FAMILY (Jessica H., Amanda, Grant, Natalie)
1. In what TWO respects did Weber have a different view of social change than Marx, Comte, and Durkheim? (2)
ANSWER: (a) Weber did not have any linear conception of social evolution or commitment to ideas of beneficial progress. (b) Weber was pessimistic about the dehumanization of modern rationalized, bureaucratized life.
2. In the context of the critical theorists discussed in Chapter 16, such as Max Horkheimer who you read about, what did they regard as "emancipatory theory" (which is also similar to Horkheimer's idea of objective reason)? (2)
ANSWER: not simply a way to make sense of the facts, but helping people to see and understand what IS so that they can see what MIGHT BE.
YELLOW FAMILY: (Megan, Matt, Claire)
1. Regarding Weber's view of race, I applauded his clear recognition that race is a ________________________ distinction NOT a _________________________ distinction. (2)
ANSWER: a SOCIAL not a BIOLOGICAL distinction
2. Although Weber predicted the development of an "iron cage" of bureaucracy or rationality in western capitalist societies, in what other type of society did he see bureaucracy becoming even more entrenched? (1)
ANSWER: socialist
GREEN FAMILY (Jessica G., Justina, Kristin, Lewis, Courtney) 2 bonus points
1. In "Freud and the Fundamentalist Urge," what did the author claim Freud saw as important for both a healthy psyche and a healthy body politic? (1)
ANSWER: a good deal of continuing tension
2. What was the "double-consciousness" DuBois spoke of? (2)
ANSWER: Being an American and Black: "two souls, two thoughts, two unreconciled strivings; two warring ideas in one dark body."
3. What did Weber mean by "rationalization?" (2)
ANSWER: "the process of making life more efficient and predictable by wringing out individuality and spontaneity in life."
4. Name any TWO of the three important things that Talcott Parsons accomplished in his first book, "The Structure of Social Action." (2)
ANSWER: Any two of the following: (1) introduced an Amercian audience to the work of some great European sociologists: Durkheim, Weber, Pareto; (2) took seriously the idea of society as a system or SOCIAL REALISM; (3) his theory of social action integrated fields of psychology, sociology, and anthropology.
_____________________________
That's it. Remember, the exam is on TUESDAY, MAY 12 from 9-12. See you there.
BLUE FAMILY (Jessica H., Amanda, Grant, Natalie)
1. In what TWO respects did Weber have a different view of social change than Marx, Comte, and Durkheim? (2)
ANSWER: (a) Weber did not have any linear conception of social evolution or commitment to ideas of beneficial progress. (b) Weber was pessimistic about the dehumanization of modern rationalized, bureaucratized life.
2. In the context of the critical theorists discussed in Chapter 16, such as Max Horkheimer who you read about, what did they regard as "emancipatory theory" (which is also similar to Horkheimer's idea of objective reason)? (2)
ANSWER: not simply a way to make sense of the facts, but helping people to see and understand what IS so that they can see what MIGHT BE.
YELLOW FAMILY: (Megan, Matt, Claire)
1. Regarding Weber's view of race, I applauded his clear recognition that race is a ________________________ distinction NOT a _________________________ distinction. (2)
ANSWER: a SOCIAL not a BIOLOGICAL distinction
2. Although Weber predicted the development of an "iron cage" of bureaucracy or rationality in western capitalist societies, in what other type of society did he see bureaucracy becoming even more entrenched? (1)
ANSWER: socialist
GREEN FAMILY (Jessica G., Justina, Kristin, Lewis, Courtney) 2 bonus points
1. In "Freud and the Fundamentalist Urge," what did the author claim Freud saw as important for both a healthy psyche and a healthy body politic? (1)
ANSWER: a good deal of continuing tension
2. What was the "double-consciousness" DuBois spoke of? (2)
ANSWER: Being an American and Black: "two souls, two thoughts, two unreconciled strivings; two warring ideas in one dark body."
3. What did Weber mean by "rationalization?" (2)
ANSWER: "the process of making life more efficient and predictable by wringing out individuality and spontaneity in life."
4. Name any TWO of the three important things that Talcott Parsons accomplished in his first book, "The Structure of Social Action." (2)
ANSWER: Any two of the following: (1) introduced an Amercian audience to the work of some great European sociologists: Durkheim, Weber, Pareto; (2) took seriously the idea of society as a system or SOCIAL REALISM; (3) his theory of social action integrated fields of psychology, sociology, and anthropology.
_____________________________
That's it. Remember, the exam is on TUESDAY, MAY 12 from 9-12. See you there.
Sunday, May 3, 2009
Reminders & More Lecture Notes
I forgot to allow time for the families to confer last Thursday 4/30 about making up final exam questions, partly because attendance was so poor. But I will make sure to give the families time this coming Tuesday 5/5. In the meantime you should be giving some thought to this and making up questions on your own so the families can decide which questions to submit on Tuesday. Remember, the deadline for submitting these questions (and answers) is WEDNESDAY, 5/6.
Also, don't forget that your final short essay, involving Ahrens and Chapter 19 in the text is due on Tuesday, May 5th. As I noted in my write-up of this assignment, I will not be very forgiving of late papers.
MORE LECTURE NOTES: we left off on Thursday in Chapter 19, where I had gotten into the Fact-Value Debate.
After noting that the authors do a pretty good job on this debate, although they rely on some of the weaker critics (in my opinion) -- Friedrichs and Gouldner, then...
1. They begin with Howard Becker's presidential address to the 1960 ASA convention, which sort of laid down the gauntlet to those who were questioning sociology as a value-free, empirical science (such as C. Wright Mills). As quoted, Becker says, "There is no substitute for remaining in close touch with the empirical evidence, with the 'damned facts.'" (p. 480, bottom) -- this reflected the position of professional, institutionalized sociology.
2. The authors go on to mention some of the prominent American critics -- Alfred McClung Lee, Robert Lynd, C. Wright Mills, Alvin Gouldner.
a.) The nature of the challenge to value-free orthodoxy is captured in a reference to Alvin Gouldner. See short paragraph, mid. p. 482. Note the assumption that values and passion are considered synonymous, as are reason and facts.
b.) Of course, the value-free stance did not sit too well with many students (and professors) who were getting involved in various protests. They obviously felt sociology should be relevant to these issues, to taking a stance on them.
c.) Lurking in the background of all this is Karl Marx, as the authors comment: "The Marx who was relevant was not, however, the Marx of class conflict but the Marx of alienation." (a distinction I don't really agree with, but I believe they mean: not the later, more scientific Marx but the early humanist Marx.)
d.) The first ASA president to embrace the dissenters' view of this issue was Alfred McClung Lee. He later expanded his presidential address into a book, "Sociology for Whom?". He also founded the Society for Humanist Sociology. See middle two paragraphs, p. 486.
3. Even though this debate has yet to be resolved, the authors suggest it opened the door to a variety of new approaches.
C. The authors put the next debate (Macro/Micro Perspectives) in the context of Thomas Kuhn's, "The STructure of Scientific Revolutions," and his analysis of "paradigm change." Clearly, the fact/value debate falls under the same heading, as the authors point out, and they also describe in fairly simple terms the macro/micro debate. See bottom p. 488 - 489.
1. Although the authors see this macro/micro dichotomy as a "misguided division of the sociological endeavor" (as I also do), it has tended to divide sociologists -- even lead to competition for legitimacy and students (and their fees)-- the latter being truly pathetic in my opinion.
D. This sets the stage for the last two sections of this chapter -- recent theoretical work which attempts to bridge these divides. In particular, feminist sociological theory and theories of race and colonialism. (But, unless I missed something, I did not see much evidence of these new perspectives bridging any divide. At best, they just articulate new points of view that had been missing.)
So, I am going to conclude my remarks on Chapter 19 here, which will set the stage for talking about the Ahrens material on Tuesday. See you then.
Also, don't forget that your final short essay, involving Ahrens and Chapter 19 in the text is due on Tuesday, May 5th. As I noted in my write-up of this assignment, I will not be very forgiving of late papers.
MORE LECTURE NOTES: we left off on Thursday in Chapter 19, where I had gotten into the Fact-Value Debate.
After noting that the authors do a pretty good job on this debate, although they rely on some of the weaker critics (in my opinion) -- Friedrichs and Gouldner, then...
1. They begin with Howard Becker's presidential address to the 1960 ASA convention, which sort of laid down the gauntlet to those who were questioning sociology as a value-free, empirical science (such as C. Wright Mills). As quoted, Becker says, "There is no substitute for remaining in close touch with the empirical evidence, with the 'damned facts.'" (p. 480, bottom) -- this reflected the position of professional, institutionalized sociology.
2. The authors go on to mention some of the prominent American critics -- Alfred McClung Lee, Robert Lynd, C. Wright Mills, Alvin Gouldner.
a.) The nature of the challenge to value-free orthodoxy is captured in a reference to Alvin Gouldner. See short paragraph, mid. p. 482. Note the assumption that values and passion are considered synonymous, as are reason and facts.
b.) Of course, the value-free stance did not sit too well with many students (and professors) who were getting involved in various protests. They obviously felt sociology should be relevant to these issues, to taking a stance on them.
c.) Lurking in the background of all this is Karl Marx, as the authors comment: "The Marx who was relevant was not, however, the Marx of class conflict but the Marx of alienation." (a distinction I don't really agree with, but I believe they mean: not the later, more scientific Marx but the early humanist Marx.)
d.) The first ASA president to embrace the dissenters' view of this issue was Alfred McClung Lee. He later expanded his presidential address into a book, "Sociology for Whom?". He also founded the Society for Humanist Sociology. See middle two paragraphs, p. 486.
3. Even though this debate has yet to be resolved, the authors suggest it opened the door to a variety of new approaches.
C. The authors put the next debate (Macro/Micro Perspectives) in the context of Thomas Kuhn's, "The STructure of Scientific Revolutions," and his analysis of "paradigm change." Clearly, the fact/value debate falls under the same heading, as the authors point out, and they also describe in fairly simple terms the macro/micro debate. See bottom p. 488 - 489.
1. Although the authors see this macro/micro dichotomy as a "misguided division of the sociological endeavor" (as I also do), it has tended to divide sociologists -- even lead to competition for legitimacy and students (and their fees)-- the latter being truly pathetic in my opinion.
D. This sets the stage for the last two sections of this chapter -- recent theoretical work which attempts to bridge these divides. In particular, feminist sociological theory and theories of race and colonialism. (But, unless I missed something, I did not see much evidence of these new perspectives bridging any divide. At best, they just articulate new points of view that had been missing.)
So, I am going to conclude my remarks on Chapter 19 here, which will set the stage for talking about the Ahrens material on Tuesday. See you then.
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
More Lecture Notes
I got into Chapter 14, Twentieth-Century Functionalism, and specifically Talcott Parsons last time, so I will pick up where I left off....
C. Beyond his early emphasis on "the structure of social action" (which is also the title of his first book), in the 1950s Parsons came to focus on the bigger picture of the 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, especially Durkheim.
2. The structural-functional view focuses on society as a whole or 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 in the text, p. 356).
b.) Structural functionalists also deal with the question of how these institutions are integrated or coordinated to preserve the unity of society, the social organism.
D. Inkeles argues that the most serious complaint against this perspective (which I did not see 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." (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 -- 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 in the text). "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, stability (Inkeles, pp. 37-38).
a.) Inkeles 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, 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 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)
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 sociology. 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 function. MANIFEST FUNCTION being "the observed or intended outcome." LATENT FUNCTION being "the unintended or unrecognized result."
a.) The authors then proceed to give examples of this from Durkheim and Veblen. Merton apparently 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 am not so sure I agree -- I believe Veblen would have insisted that status and prestige are part of the manifest function of the accumulation of wealth.)
b.) I like the example of Piven and Cloward in their book, Regulating the Poor, where they distinguish between the manifest function of welfare (reducing or eliminating poverty) and the latent function being regulating the poor (that is, give the poor just enough so they will not rebel). This distinction suggests the need to look beneath the appearance of things.
2. Second, the concept of DYSFUNCTION (or negatively functional). Note that in describing this, the authors also note how it responds to an issue Inkeles raised. See middle two paragraphs, p. 362. (let me add, the term, dysfunction, should be in bold print.)
C. The above distinctions (manifest, latent, dysfunction) have implications for Parsons' focus on system equilibrium. See top p. 364.
D. Finally, I believe we need to acknowledge a contribution of Merton's that I know I've made use of in other classes (although I wonder if it was really original with him) -- the concept of a SELF-FULFILLING PROPHECY.
1. The authors note how "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." See bank example, p. 365. Also, Dr. King -- Belief in racial inferiority justified slavery and later, segregation, and that slavery and segregation kept blacks inferior, which served to rationalize the perpetuation of that unequal system and convince many blacks to accept their second-class status.
E. The bottom line for Merton as regards his modifications to functionalism is that he challenged the accusation that functionalism is inherently conservative.
That brings me up to my comments on Max Horkheimer's "Eclipse of Reason" (the paper I handed out) and Chapter 19, which I will take up in class tomorrow. I will also hand back your papers. Also, do not forget the final essay due next Tuesday, which involves reading those lecture notes of Prof. Ahrens on reserve in the library.
C. Beyond his early emphasis on "the structure of social action" (which is also the title of his first book), in the 1950s Parsons came to focus on the bigger picture of the 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, especially Durkheim.
2. The structural-functional view focuses on society as a whole or 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 in the text, p. 356).
b.) Structural functionalists also deal with the question of how these institutions are integrated or coordinated to preserve the unity of society, the social organism.
D. Inkeles argues that the most serious complaint against this perspective (which I did not see 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." (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 -- 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 in the text). "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, stability (Inkeles, pp. 37-38).
a.) Inkeles 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, 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 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)
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 sociology. 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 function. MANIFEST FUNCTION being "the observed or intended outcome." LATENT FUNCTION being "the unintended or unrecognized result."
a.) The authors then proceed to give examples of this from Durkheim and Veblen. Merton apparently 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 am not so sure I agree -- I believe Veblen would have insisted that status and prestige are part of the manifest function of the accumulation of wealth.)
b.) I like the example of Piven and Cloward in their book, Regulating the Poor, where they distinguish between the manifest function of welfare (reducing or eliminating poverty) and the latent function being regulating the poor (that is, give the poor just enough so they will not rebel). This distinction suggests the need to look beneath the appearance of things.
2. Second, the concept of DYSFUNCTION (or negatively functional). Note that in describing this, the authors also note how it responds to an issue Inkeles raised. See middle two paragraphs, p. 362. (let me add, the term, dysfunction, should be in bold print.)
C. The above distinctions (manifest, latent, dysfunction) have implications for Parsons' focus on system equilibrium. See top p. 364.
D. Finally, I believe we need to acknowledge a contribution of Merton's that I know I've made use of in other classes (although I wonder if it was really original with him) -- the concept of a SELF-FULFILLING PROPHECY.
1. The authors note how "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." See bank example, p. 365. Also, Dr. King -- Belief in racial inferiority justified slavery and later, segregation, and that slavery and segregation kept blacks inferior, which served to rationalize the perpetuation of that unequal system and convince many blacks to accept their second-class status.
E. The bottom line for Merton as regards his modifications to functionalism is that he challenged the accusation that functionalism is inherently conservative.
That brings me up to my comments on Max Horkheimer's "Eclipse of Reason" (the paper I handed out) and Chapter 19, which I will take up in class tomorrow. I will also hand back your papers. Also, do not forget the final essay due next Tuesday, which involves reading those lecture notes of Prof. Ahrens on reserve in the library.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)