FUNCTIONALISM AND SYSTEMS THEORY

Main questions of sociology

1. What underlies action (e.g., self-interest or orientation toward values?) What is social
action (mutual alignment of individual interests or creation of common definition of situation)?
2. How does social order come about? Does social life consist primarily of structures
(e.g., "social classes") or individual behavior?
3. What is social change? What is typical of our 'modern' or contemporary society
(temporal diagnosis)?

From actions to social structure/social systems: the so-called 'micro-macro' or 'structure-

agency' problem
● Act theory or so-called 'micro-theory' mainly studies everyday behavior
in face-to-face interaction
● Covers a whole range of currents that are "strong on action, weak on institutions" (symbolic
interactionism, ethnomethodology, RCT, etc)
● Emphasizes perspective and 'knowledgeability' of actors (emphasis on intentions or the
'why' of actions), but in terms of analysis of macro-structures (and how they affect social
interaction) these directions often fall short
● Social structure is usually seen as merely a derivative of concrete actions and
Macro= view of society as a whole
Question: how does something like fixed social structures emerge from that action?
● So-called 'macro theory' studies mainly large-scale social systems, such as a state, class
structures, labor market, mass media, a system of public health, etc.
● Also examines how these change/transform over time, e.g. in
modernization processes (social change)
● Primary interest in deeper 'structuring' or social determinacy of concrete human behavior
● 'strong on institutions, weak on action': attention to concrete human action
disappears into the background
Macro=focus on large-scale social institutions or systems The state, the administration, etc.
● Although there may be some preference among many authors for a micro or
macro perspective, many contemporary sociologists refuse to be pinned down to one or the
other

● Important contemporary authors such as Pierre Bourdieu, Anthony Giddens or Niklas

Luhmann want to integrate action and systems theory, micro and macro with each other
Characterized by all kinds of attempts to transcend dichotomies Beyond action and systems
theory

Are not treated in depth in this course

Bordieu: hinge of the habitus:subjectification of objective conditions on the objectification of
the subjective, internalization of externalization and vice versa
the habitus is the subjective reflection of the objective conditions of life in which a person is
socialized `
Internalization: Worker's habitus: the subjective way of seeing developed as people grow up
in specifically objective conditions (deeper structures), which precipitate into habitus (stable
set of preferences,.)
Externalization internalization = once one has the habitus, it will lead to a certain behavior, it
will reproduce through one's practices that social structure.
By developing habitus they contribute to maintaining the structure
Giddens: between structure and action , between objective macro structures and the
concrete actions of individuals, these presuppose each other mutually
There must be an underlying language structure
When we speak we activate the whole of that underlying structure , and conversely
reporduction of language depends at the same time on the individual use of that language
When we act, we always use underlying social and cultural rules, e the reporduction depends
on the individual actions of people
Functionalism
History and context (structural functionalism)
Functionalism

● Dominant movement in sociology from the 1940s through the 1960s, but today "bad
reputation" (often wrongly)
● Reaction to functionalism (e.g., symbolic interactionism, ethnomethodology,
conflict sociology, etc.) has defined identity of postwar sociology
● Most influential representative: Talcott Parsons (1902-79), but intellectual roots go far back
Postwar functionalism
Was dominant paradigm within which sociologists worked Afterwards in 80s/90s acquired
bad repute
We still think within the contours of that paradigm

Functionalism: history and context

● Herbert Spencer (1820-1903):
🞆 'Organicism' : society must be studied - by analogy with living nature - as an organism (cf.
human body)
Evolutionary thinking : society evolves through 'differentiation'
● Essence of functional analysis = Part-whole
Society forms a systematic whole of different parts that perform specific 'function' in the
survival of the whole
🞆 Specific social institutions, rituals or actions must be understood
be understood in relation to their contribution to the reproduction of the society/group
History goes back to the very earliest sociology
Spencer= for the first time brought into sociology the importance of evoutionary thinking
Society becoming more complex, more functions, organs differentiated
People thought in terms: how do different parts contribute to different functions to be fulfilled
in the whole
How do parts relate to the whole system 2nd bullet point is definition of functionalism

Emile Durkheim: 'founder' of functionalism

● "The function of a social fact should always be sought in its connection with some social
purpose"
● E.g.. How to explain the universal occurrence of religion? What is the social function
of religion?
- Community life is not only the source (cause or 'la cause efficiente') that gives rise to
religious beliefs and practices, it also explains the survival of religion ('fonction'): after all,
religion must keep collective consciousness alive. By strengthening the adherence of
community members to central values and norms , religion underpins or 'recreates' the
cohesion of the community
Contributes to the development of functionalism Religion fulfills an essential function in any
society
When people take part in collective rituals = effervescence collective = collective energy that
is generated and reminds people that they are members of something greater.

It is religion that binds people to the group and society, reminding them that they are not
merely an atomic individual, but that they are part of something more important, something
greater

Structural-functionalism in British anthropology: Radcliffe-Brown and Malinowski

● Attempt to make social anthropology scientific and empirical:
🞆 Not speculating on the "origin "* of (seemingly meaningless) habits, but investigating what
keeps the habit alive
🞆 Community is not an arbitrary hotchpotch of habits, norms,
institutions, etc: it is a coherent, structured system of action whose parts are adapted to each
other
🞆 Function = effect caused by social structures or practices, which
contributes to the reproduction of the whole
- Two figureheads of prewar British anthropology, both influenced by Durkheim
- *A form of explanation that was very popular in 19th century anthropology was to explain
contemporary (apparently meaningless) practices and customs as 'survivors' (survivals) of
earlier social practices. E.g.; the handshake was explained as a survivor from the period
when men carried weapons and handshaking was seen as a way of showing that no
weapons were concealed. This practice has survived itself but the utility or function it once
had has been lost.
- Functionalists: even if this origin is correct, this does not "explain" why the practice
continues to exist today; the question must be: why do social actors continue to perform a
particular act? Why is a social phenomenon maintained here and now? If a practice makes
no 'contribution' to action or coordination of action, it seems more likely that the practice will
die out. (e.g. shaking hands : recognition of the other as a 'full member' of the community,
allows for regulated interaction)
- structural functionalism = effect produced by social structures or practices, which
contributes to the reproduction of the whole,
- e.g.. Malinoswki's and Merton's reading of diverse rites and practices such as the rain
dance. Most contemporaries regarded ritual as nothing more than a sign of superstition, an
irrational and primitive remnant of the past. According to Merton, however, the matter was not
so simple. Although causing rain was indeed the reason given by the Hopi themselves for the
ceremonial, in his view this was only part of the story. Hidden beneath it, not intended or
recognized as such by the Hopi, were other and deeper functions. These rain dances,
Merton wrote, "may fulfill the latent function of reinforcing the group identity by providing a
periodic occasionon which the scattered members of the group assemble to engage in a
commonactivity" (1968: 118). The rain dance was a form of collective expression that
removed uncertainty for the future and was the basis of group unity and connectedness. The
rain dance was thus not simply an outdated ritual of the past, but possessed a functional
necessity in the present
2 major representatives of what has been called structural functionalism in anthropology

Above all, verwetenschizing anthropology= making past explanations more scientific

By adding the idea of function
Vb handshake often explained as survivor dating back to the time when we all carried
weapons, a way of showing to each other that one does not keep a weapon hidden in the
hands
Is now no longer linked to that but functionalists said, story about origin may be true but that
does not explain at all why that practice remains so widely represented today
Why do soc actors today continue to hold a certain view, perform a certain act?
If that would not provide a function for social action in the now, it would not survive otherwise.
What is the effect, the function, something that in future contributes to reporduction vna the
whole?
Reverse causality, only follows afterwards
Assumption they start from: every soc group, every culture,... hangs together in a more or
less systematic way
E.g. rain dance: forms the basis for soc cohesion and confidence in the future of that group

Functionalist thinking: an application

Classic example of early sociological functionalist analysis: Davis & Moore's analysis of
social stratification
● How to explain the universal presence of 'social stratification'?
● Basic answer: social need to place and
motivate in the social structure. Social inequality is an instrument by which society ensures
that the most important positions are held by the best qualified individuals
● Society has 'built' rewards into social position in the form of
'rights' associated with a position, plus the additional 'benefits' often associated with it (e.g.,
salary, prestige, adequate free time, etc.).
● Generally, the best rewards are associated with 1. positions that are most important
are to the community ('differential functional importance') and 2. require the most talent or
training ('differential staff scarcity')
● Explains social variation in social stratification
-Every community must somehow see its members placed in social positions and get them to
perform the tasks to be performed in these positions. It thus faces a double problem of
motivation: motivating suitable individuals to occupy certain positions (i.e. not everyone is
equally suitable and not all social positions are equally agreeable) and, once in these
positions, to perform the tasks associated with them (need for continued motivation).
- Therefore, first, a community must have certain rewards that it can use as incentives and,
second, it must distribute these rewards differentially according to positions. The rewards and
their distribution thus become part of the social order and thus lead to stratification.
- In a sense, the rewards available to a community are "built into" the position: in fact, they
consist of the "rights" associated with a position,

plus the additional benefits often associated with it (e.g., salary, prestige, adequate free time,
etc.). In general, the best rewards are associated with 1. positions that are most important to
the community ('differential functional importance') and 2. require the most talent or training
('differential workforce scarcity')
- This also provides an explanation for historical and social variation: positions that are
important in one social system are not necessarily so in another; and certain skills needed for
one system are not at all required for another
- Social inequality is thus an instrument by which society ensures that the most important
positions are held by the best qualified individuals
Why is it that we find social stratification in just about every empirical society we know?
Clear hierarchy and asymmetric distribution of income, power, health,.... Answer: has to do
with the function that social stratification performs in each society, that function can be
described as follows, has to do with basic problem of social allocation (each society has to
distribute the individuals in spec society among the versch positive available in that society),
and has to motivate the members to perform those tasks