r ~

\
- /n1;11ect:X.1 badkprmi/
·. . • • a al s1$ may
rThe hi~~ort 9ffun'?':o~I .. ic :nai.ogy, PM~ s

. ..
: ..• . · ·. be ,,...;d to
. •, nceptton
~~••:r=-b·
. .
~ionaJ analysas.-

,..
•
•
C1iAPTER 4 . 4_,tivers~lls,·
-~- a
~pe~-6 f
:!a:rid' ou·rkheim:~ c a ~
•~rn -~n e(l1.I_J_ I _r .
:ystem;.
iµ' C o ~
iiotiorially orgam . . . . . the· - ~ r y.
. ·~tionaJis~ c 0 futc
. . . ; . . .. - .
nents _m h~_rm~~y. .<>
T ·. him . conHnSU:1 :untve.rsolu,
viewed 50Ctety 8$ _a ~u_. · .· · · ·. dation
. • -b very (oun
.. ·· ts of society. was t _e . : . al model _
'corr9~auoµ _between _t ~ !=le~n. . ~:ted··ari· organic: b10Jog1C . •.. ·of
of social sti:qcture._.Spe~r- °!'re : .. ists in such a coast~~IOD .
1' and contended: 'Jf or~amzat1on co115. ·tuaJJv-dependenf act~ons~then .
(Modern soci~logical theory has been profoundly influenced_by func- the whole that its parts can carry 9n .~u ·. · · ,.,., -'go a dependence
tional ~alysi! which . becam·e eno~mously popula~ at the turn _of the -· .. .. ·· ··s ·hlgh there mu.M- . _ ..
in pr-0port1on . as_organization .' -. . . . h t sep·a ration is fatal; ~uu
centurx,J DuQng the last two gener_ations,. functional analysis has of ·each part_upor(the- rest .so ·gr~at -t a . h in the indiv.idual
become t_he prfncipali if _not the only. reigning, paradigm of contem~ · ' . trµ th ·'s
1 • eq·uaHy well s own - • . • 1·
porary soclologr with more-adherents th~n any oth~r,m6de of_socio- conversely; .Th 1s .. ; . , . _ · · _1.e att£ibu~.,oc1a ·
. d . . th . . I orgaru$.Jll J However. •L - ·. ,. . . .. •
·logical analysis _or school of thouaht,, Jt e,;ncrsed an~ estl\bliahcd itself ._org11~_ism ~-n · · m_ c s~u~ . .. - • . , ' di.such as desire fo~· happt• .
atruct11res and prpeenc~ to m~1v_ 1dual hoc .. . ·n .\ . . _-. .
at the most opportune time whcri -sociologists had Jmi apandoned
n~,'·a -contcnt_ion:•re'Jccted o_u tr~h~ .by purkhct~ . over elements
the numerous partial explanations and deterministic theories and
- Durkhe~ni insiste~ ·on the ·P.r:_!~acy ~f .th e ~ys ~m . matter · of
were looking for a more comprehensive theoretical and methodo-
an maintained . that social facts i the prop~r ~ubJ~ _ . d . ·
logical tool for the analysis of various social phenomena and their
sociolo,gy, 1:1-r~ independent _of _tfle ind_ividual wal_land impose upo: ·
inter.-relatedness .. It emerged in the tradition of great sociologkal
him from without .. He caullo~~d ·against confusing the consequen~
theories 'consciously orienting its.elf to th~ - and continually devc-
with the causes of ·a ·social p~enomerion: 'To show how a fa~t _1 5
.Ioping them' 1 a_nd gave -soci9logy a rie~ and powerful explicative
·useful •·1s -not ·to·.ex·plain ~ow· it origina:t ed o_r wh:y it' is w_ha_ t Jt ts.
I
·paradigm of. soci~ty_ ,µnmatched; yet, by iny competing' mode of
•Th~ .u·ses whfoq it serv.es. pr(?S~ppose·. the · specific. _propert~s char:ac-
·sociological thinking. · . · I· ·
[functional analysis_i~ not new; it has a/-long history · iri _.b~th _the terizing ft .but d~ ~ot.cr~atcf.tJi~m / 4 A' f~t ca_n e_xist: ..withou_t _.being
useful, it ·may outlive its_purpos·e :or i(may.·change its function over
natural and . the social sciences. It borrowed heavily from biological
. time. Th~ role .of Christianity ·is 'np_t·the .same today as it was- in_ the
.sciences·, especially the extensfon of the many . analogies ·bet";een • t' • • ' • • • •• • • .
spciety and organjsm. A I-though •the.early rganiqisn:i, with its emphasis Middle_Ages but its ~eligicius.cfogmas have not ~anged .for centuries.
on almost tota'f integration of parts wfrh t e whole.is-now abandoned, Therefore, ,P_urkb~)m j_~j~_t_e·d _·Q,:1··~ -~pai:atipn Qf 1b.e ·two . methods qf
· its theoretical consequences· persist . in su·ch . ~ntraJ conc~pts as explanation-the· C3US;il arid .. the functional-but maintained both .
structure and 'int-er.relatedness of elem .·t;, Thus, fun~tiorialism is : ~ere _necess~ry.:}When, thcn,' th~_ei?Ia.nati~n-.9f s?¢ial p~enomc~on;
~jmp~y_a view of society_ a.~ a: self-regul ing system ·of interrelated _1s _u ndertake~we mu.st see~ separately the efficient cause which ·
~~foments with structured social relation hips and observed regµlari- · prodllee§ •~ and the function •it fufti-1s.' 5 T.hus did Durkheim .elaborate
tie~t is a ·sociologic.al ·pers!'ective whi_~ seeks to explain a_ social th~ logic of Juncti.onalism by --systematica_lly explainirig .t he causes
erm(ent or cultural pattern m terms of I s consequences for different and consequences of.s~ial facts. and establish fur.otionalism as ·a viable
elements-as well as for the system a a whoJe. A°Jthough func- meth~do_logical and theoretical 'tool for sociologi.c al analysis. And the
tionalism manifest-~ it~elf in. a great . ariety of appr-0aches, there two -British ant-hropologi~t~, R~ddiffe-Brown and Malinowski, -ela-
is one common ··_e1em~nt: '_a;n int-eresnin relati~g one part of a ~at~ _and codified functionaf~s~ -as the basis of anthropologicai-
SQCiety or social system to anotner p .a it or t-o some aspect -0f t-he
and sociologiccll-thinking. .. ·
whoJe'.~ · .· / · Ma1inowski~~ ~unctional_ism i~ '<>(ten te·rmed as individualistic func-
.. I
 -~
,.,
.
82 Modern SoC"iol<>gicut_ Tlu!o;y: •
.·.2,2--
..
~ ~;}·
.
)
Functionalism 83
I
pr~r~quisi"te~. sevc~J of th~m ~:a·y conflict to prod.uce 'COl)trad,ictory
~ · funct10na.1 requisites wliich inhere within ·-soci'nt systems or impinge •
-_upon th~m frotn without'. He sug_gests .
prob'lem t~ be 'investigated, Therefore funct:ional analysis ~ust br(ng
out both -positive and ·p.egative ·co~squences and specify which
e~eme . \contribute to.what and how . .
T,h~t all socia_l.syst~ms are, at· one ti~c·or an~ther, plagued by contra- · · . ~stulat!t_pf universal functio_'!__ ism. Th_is pos~~late ass_ume~
dictoi:y. funct~onal requirements (or imperatives) and that the~e nrc t 'alt' standardized social or cultural forms have pos1h\.'.e functions .
. -~ssoc1ated with· the formation _of•tnutually· antagonistic, ·structliral Nineteenth .century anthropologists, for instance, assumed that every
-~rn!._ngcm_~~tsthat function to me.et these.requirements. -Implied in thfs.
· 1s the no~•o~ that some ~r tl)e·se ·mutually co1'itradictory· st ruptures may . continuing. social pattern or custom i:nust have posi.tive functions
act_u ally be ess-entlal tnt~e •opera.tl~n '· or •maintenance' ~~r. th.c syi\tcm.12 of
contributing . to ·the. i:naintenancc . the ,system. ~nd . dubbed as
· •survivals·•·any patterns whosefunctions c~uld not be readily identi~
0
Sj~be_rg identlfi~ tht"Ce sOt1r.~$·~fpo_htradictory demands: the 11ecds
of tho inter!'al . system: alone;-~~.e· di~junc:tivcnes~ . between internal_ ·fled.· Typical is Malinowski's contention that 'in every type- or
.. civilization, every custom,· material object, .idea and belieffulfil's some
·.needs and extern.al_constrain~,- nnd the conflict among the- ·external
·constraints themselves. ·· ·· · · · ·. · vftat' function:' Thi!i. assertion is certainly open to debate. What is
is.
.,.,.
~- . - ._···_.·. t
. • ,: .. . . : .
mJ11PL1o.A...
-~ Merton's C,odifi/arion o/.Fu,ictional An·atysis•

d . .
ov..
. /J r-/
uCt19/n~,.< '.m·
vUfl
,~ ,._; f .;~
. · :

good: for the 'ind_ividual not necessarily good for the society. A
social custom that has positive consequences for ·the elite may have
negative consequences fot the masses. E'ven social in'Stitution~ w~ich
.
··(More _t~an ~; o~her sociologist Robert Merto~ has co11trib_uted to ·_: . are deliberately created for the bett~rment of society .as a. ~hole i:nay
. V,he cod1fication .. and systematization ·of functional analysis. He re· ·have disastrous·consequences at_times and imder cert_aio ·circumstances
.
.-
•
. for segments of the society. For example, universities and technical
_viewed t~e ·.essential ~ostulates~ ·:· functional _analy~is and critiqm:c,1 .
--~- - . and_mod1fied them as fi;>llows: 23 · · . · ·· schoo.Js in developing countries that turn out educated people faster
I~ a t e of the functiona unity of society. Based on biologi~I than the economy can absorb them into gainful employment may be
a ~ g ~ s postulatc•vie~vs society as a well i.~tegratcd and consis- ~owin~ !h: ~eds of frustration leading to. greater violence and political
. tent whole the elements of whidi contribute to the· maintcna1icc of 1
mstabjl,tt9::_J . . .
the total:sy~t~m·. Ra'dcliffe-Br.-own. speaks of.the .contribution :of parti• (. · . Pci~t&-Gt:.incmpensa-b1lit-y-:-'I'he assumption is that if a social
·cular social usages •to the ~oia:i' so~ial' life as . the functioning ·or the r . ·p
.
m is well established, it must be mee~ing some .basic needs of
.tile ·sy~tern, and hence· if must ·be indispensable. It is a ·.double-
total . tioc·i"I ..system'. an~ Mal.inowsk°i; going one step further, ;,•~.r:
. ·argues·that u1ase1..are functlo'ttal •for -culture ns· a whole-indlr~tly ·: \ . ~arrcllcq assumption-certain (unction• . arc indispensabl~ for the
. therefore .fot ·the -biological ·and· mental welfare of each .,indtvidµo.l · ·1urvi.val of (he' social system; and certain social or cultural forms are
member'. The, :underlying assui:npticm is that standard social institu• · ·fndispensablc-for fulfilling these functions. Merton rejects the postu-
" .,,, tions or .cpmmoniy shared _beliefs and practices are functional · ~or
_ev~ry member of .the ~ociety.. Me.rion· questi_ons the assu'inption a~d
·1ate as .formulated and suggests that 'the same cultural item may
perfofm multiple· functions and .alternative items may fulfi.l the same
. contends that cultural items-..do not f'unction unifo'rmly for the society function. The need fcir .governm~nt may be met by a rut.hless dicta:
.,._ .., €',-,·- . !:,'·'· .-J'
.... ,, • '4 ,.,
if:- ,., ,.,.,...t....
p~ ,
,~ • •-- ••••·•·-- ..
,M• ' • •
.'4;ntL :'/'l:--;.,_1:-:~= =~-: h~·.'!'
.!\ ..... ;.,~ -c•• •' • •Y'l nnrr!ltPti the
'• •• -- ' • •
to·r, a,..liberal democrat .or a traditional monarch. If social integration
soeial s·olidarity,. homogeneit'y° 'and. -i'ntegration :of primitive .societies. IS Lil~ iunciion·or religion, this function could be served by a strong,
1111111111"'
Even if such a conception. ha~ n,cri.ts as a working hypot.hesis for centralized government. If salvation is the function served ·by religion:
ant-hropologists doing field workJn fairly ~tatic .and 'homogeneous' ·_a simple system of faith would do, and the complexity of numerous
little ·cor:nmunities; its· ·appii(;at.ion to modern complex · .societies religious forms. is hard to explain. Therefore Merton introduces such
characterized by funotional ·sr,ecializatitm, structural differentiation complementad concepts a:s 'functional alternatives'' functional equi-
and° rational bureaucracy,. is· ·of. doubtful value. Moreover, valents· or 'functi~nal subst~tutes'.) .
integration, or even· society: fo_~ that matter, i·, no· longer given hut :1 Merton has codified functional analysis as follows:
~ n a l analysis begi~s with the ~election of a standardized
 t,
. Functionalism 85
.S4 . Modern Soti-Ol~~i('(l/ Theqry :· . . . . . . . . . .. ·we must focus _attention
indis_P,Cnsability of p~rt~pla~ c~lt~~~I item~, s which can serve as <:,1
~=
{i.e., P~~terncd or repctiti~e) soci~j or cultural ·itcm.wJiose fu~ions· ort the range of possible vanation m•the 1~m
are_ supposed {O be studi~d.. . . fu.n~i~nal, alternatives, ,uivalents:or _subst1t~tes. -d ndence of the
~nctional analysis generally invoi"vcs· refere~ ·to ~ubj~ivc
-~tional' analysis·mu$t rccogmze th: i~ter e of vJriation
disp_os1t1ons sue_!\~ motives and _puwoses of individuals inyolv~ in
a s_ocl~-~ system wh,1chuc not .to be: confused with·t-hc' conocpts of
clcmi::nt~ of the socia_lsyste~ as ~eH as the h~ited in
iii the itcms·which can.fulfil dc11~tcdfunct_ions .
t:C system, It is
. Nor- can
C
obJ~~nscqucnccs of attit11dc, "belief :anil· behaviour.· , · . uacleu to ~aY,· t~at everything it -related to every~hing C1st~ be elimi- '~
· -3,: I~ an !',ttem~t-to ·cliin1nate ·~mc qr the 'p~cy~ll!ilg ' types ot' it •·bc. llssu~cd tliat ~rtaln elcJDC'!lts of a social system ca
c~nf~s1on, Merton .set_s out to:rcde~n5 currcllt.co:n~ptioris of •rune•_ · natcd ~hout affecting the rest of t!>,at system. . . . . C
I/ I q;~cl1Jn.,j
./'·9 F.r flr/1·•-D.1···.c~if!rVJ. · · · · ··· . ·\
ions·a~e those pbs~ vcd :con~eciuen~s which rn_akc for the adap-
0
at1on or adJustment of · given.system; and qysjuncti~s; those obscr-
I
·

_;¥'Functionalists generally tend ti,) focus OD the statics ot. ~ 1:e1

structure apd ·to reject the study o( _structuraLchange. Howev~r,
concept of.' dysfµnction, which implies strain, stress and tension °~ C
. vcd consequcn~ which lessen. the adaptation or adjustment of the the structural level, proyidcs an analytical approach to the study 0
• system. There is also t~c·crri'piric.,_1 possibility ·or ncm-f1111ct'ionaf consc- dyna~.9-aiiti change. . · ·: . · C
q_ucnccs, : which. arc simply i_rrelcva.nt to. the system under oonsidcra- .. · . Nr.'Merton .ca-US-for · greatcr·.attcntioil to the problem of · t~e
t1on .- · · . ·. •. · · · ·
In any given insta1J~, an it~m" may ·hav~ ~th· fundf~n~l and.
· · · ·· ·· validation .of ¥arious functional issumptions and postulat_cs. 'This ·c
requires, abov~ a11, ·~ rigorou~ staiemeni of the ·sociological proc~-
-~ .
dysfunctional consequences, giving rise to the difficult and important
problem of evolving canons for assessing the net balanCC: of the aggre- dur~s of analysis which most ncarjy. approximate _the logic of expert•
mentjl.tlo . ··.
· •. ·_ . .
gate of consequences. · · ·
Th_e second problem (arising from the easy confusion of motives .and . unctional analysis it~~lf has:~o intrinsic commitment to any C
functions) requires us to introduce a·conceptual distinction. between ideological position; -how~ver; sp~ific functional formulations ad-
·the _cases in which the subjective aim-in-view coincides with the objec-
tive consequcace, a11d the cases in which they giverge. 7 · ··
vanced by particular sociologists .rna·y have an identifiable ideological
note . .the two arc not to be confused. :
C
· .M1th.if£1W!ni:tions are thos~ obje11tivc consequc~Q.l'ltributing to .C!'wo.·of ·Merton's uio~ :sigwficant contributio~s to functional
* the adjustmenl"or"iqlptation· of th.c syst:em. which .~te .lnte_ndcd and
tecogilizcd by participants in .the system,~· ·· . . analysis ate iubsumed under his dlacussio11 -of the d(stioction between
maiiifcst.and 1atcnt·fwictioris ·and·between function and dysfunction.
C
;.l.4len1.Ju.1.1rti.Q.!IS..-COrrcla_tively,'~iilg t ·os_e w'hich are neither intcri• .
. ded ·nor recognized. 24 · ·· · · ·· 1 · · · ·• · . ~anifcst .functi~ns arc thos~, oonsequences . that_ arc intended and C
i recognized by,the participants in_.- thc system of action concerned, and
_J.-,~ing to identify functions bein fulfilled for t~c society a.s a latent functions are those consequences neither _intended nor recog- ·~
• \\'.hole can be misleading since items. ay be ,func_t10nal for -some nized by ·part~ipants. Function (or cufunction in t_bc words of Levy)
individuals and some group·s and dysfu ciiona_lfor other$, We- must · . is any activity or usage that-contnbtitcs to the adaptation or. adjust•
therefore con.sider a range .of units for hjch the i~m has desigoatcd mcnt :otthe unit to the unit's·setting, and dysfunction is any activity
that lessens the adaptation or a.dju,.tmcnt -of the; ·unit to its setting. (
of
/,~i::~~p~;on · fun~ti~nal req irements wh~ involves ful- These distinctions: and Mc~on's clarification of them have'. made
filling 'conditions -of survival' or meet ng 'bi_ological needs' must be functional analysis of cultural patterns and social institutions both (
re-examined. We must seek -to ·establis types of functional require• more mcaningf.u{ and scientific.
ments (universal i•s. specific) as wetl a procedures for validating the The same social ar-rangcme~t can. have, or may be perceived to (
assumo~ of these requirements. . have, both positive and negative CO!lSOqucnces. Religion is perceived
,.- u11ct_io.nal analysis must ~e,ek ·to. identify and analyse the social as means of salvation by the faithful but it is characterized as the
. mechanisms through ~hich·fu11ctions . rc;{ulfiHed. opiate 91' the people by Marilsii..What is functional for some may be
7. J:µr(li'no abando~ed the gratuitou assumption of the functional
_/,,,, "' I
II
111,...,,-
£ 86 Modern ·Sociologi02/ Theo"ry .
dysfunctional for otbe~s. Thi rain that saves- a crop spoils a picnic.
What is ·in the best interest of the .individual may be detrimental to
rll?i
the solidarity of the collectivity. The Ch.inese custom -of accumulating
and buming·large sums.of paper _money _to propitiate the spirit ·of.
the ,ancestors ~a)' _•f'un~tionaf~ for-the ancestors and the progeny
r from the polnt.ohlew of -the ''fa!thf'ul' but not necessarily so for the
economy ·c,r populatl<in In ·_gen~ral •. What 11· functional ror a l)artl•
r- cular group under certain cirCU!llstilnccs niay be dysfunctionatror
the same group u~der other ci~~mstances; Maintenance of a rigidly
be
stratified ·asc!1ptive society may functional for the aristocracy but ·
npt for ever. T4e disgJ'.llntled poor-and the oppressed may . rise in
or, rebellion and overthrow the oltgarohy for whom the' system has been
functional. Thus . what .was functional for the elite·in the short run
r.y-,- works toward' tliejr- destruction, in 'the long .run. Conversely' the
socio-economic arrangement that'is,·dysfuncti6iial for the proictariat .
lea:ds. to rcvollitionary mo{-eme_ri~' .al\d·new structural arran_gements .
with positive consequerices_(or:the proletarias:J' . ·
The typology of manifest and latent functions is equally, illuminat:
j_j_/jng. fM_e ton ivcs the exani_ple of _Ho i . dians....w:ho.-in.times:oC
1
of"l-~ drou~; gather to pe orm a tifuat dance wi_th the prof~ssed intention
~ - · of magically causing.rain. Vv'_~ether the ritual brings rain or not, it
!_'ft ....... \,__) does promote a generi! f~)jng ofsocial solidarity, and_even provides
· possibly relaxation and enter~inment, an<i,thc custom continues,. The
Muslim who undertakes the ·tracliticinal 'pilgrimage to Mecca and the .
Hindu who organizes·an ela\:?orate• ritualistic ceremony . to write the
name' of his favourite deity.a::millioQ times arc both -tr.yins to acquj_~e .• i ""; ........
"'-Ii spiritual merits, ·the intended' ~unction -of th_e activity, but the lat:nt
.l ·
~ -- function may be a substantial eo,ha!lcement of the ~tatus and prestige
· r the actor. Furthermore, Jatent functions of_ certain. activiti~s are
~- r~cognizcd .by interested gr9ups_ although__not intended ~Y the_spon•. I
9 .for
sors c;f those -activities. Fouilample, the intend~ fµnct_1~.~ of estab-
rr -
lishing a new univer_sity ifa: Jown i~ to_ ser\'e the need_s or'h!gher
education. But the.latent fun~t1on..;..a s1gn1ficant boost 1o _the l_ocal ·
econo_m y-is cicrtai~lyll'CC08nizcd by the b_usiness community. Wha~
· · latent to some is ·manifest to others. Also the very .proces~ of
,-,.;.·
r
IS · t' the -latent functions by' the observer makes them manifest.
repor ing_. .• . ·h I · ·d
Sotneti~es the intended co'!,seqilences ma~1fest emse ~es in myr1a
. nd even overshadow the. professod mtent1ons as ,n the case of
rr ways _a 't ai'stic cc:remonies in old societies·which assume significance
many rtt u . '. I e·v.:,;,,·ts Ttiis cxp· 1ains why the Hopi rain -dance and
_ as grea socaa "" · · .
,l_~... •· ' '
C '-~
. .''6'2.
.
··Funci{~na/ism 87
similar' religiou~ .ceremo'llies pcrsisi regardlrss of whether they fulfil .
theirma_njfest-magic•a1 functioris·pr not, for'they have·important social
consequ~nces_like promoting social solidarity or enhancing the social
t statu~ Q( f~e pa,rticip~ntsJ _ . •_ . ·
'Varietits rJ/'Functiontilfsm ·
Fuf!Ptlo~alisrt1 is n~t a slrigl~ attain o(lhoilahi: It represents a vatiety
of approaches, systems of definitions and phiiosophical orientations.
If Maiinow~ki proposed an fndividualistic functfonalism; D11rkheim's
was necessa,rily socie_tal functionaiism. &adclilfe-Brown established .
-stmcturai-fu'nctionalism ·and .Talcott Parsons. sought .to _provide a
syrtthe~is of social-structural and .individualisttc types·of functional-
.•ism. Abrahanison ob~erves: .' . .
An indivi<!ualistJc emphasis, ~sociaied wiiti Mali now.ski, poses as its ·
. centrahjuesfioo: Hoo/°do social inslitutioi)s function:. to satisfy indivi-
dual need? A'societa:I emphasis, l)y contrast, ~reats the social organism
i ' as·•a sui generis, .viewing individual needs as socially.deiermined. Its
I
central issue involves the way in which social instituiicins function to
meet theneedsof.thnocial system, or or-the nonreducible collec1ivity.
-P.arsons' synthesis merged the two, emphasizin·g the interpenetration
·ofihe s·ocial and the personality, as well as the cultural, systems.25
;
. . '
i And Robert Merion codified ·and systcmdti'zcd runctional analysis ·in
i
r · ierms of.co·nlemporary-sociological theory,
.fun~r{o_11alis1i1as 'Theory
16
Kingsley Davis equat~s functional analysis with sociological analy-
iI He
sis., wanls the debaie about -furtc1ional·analysis to be abandoned ,
there is no special meihpd or body of iheory called functional
·analysis which can be distinguish~ frorri other methods or theories
. within sociology. .The assumption of a 'homogeneous' mode of analy:
. sis 'distinct from other sociofogical modes of analysis is false and lias
become a source of widespread confusion. Funcrional analysis is
sociological analy_;is itse_lf, arid 'the lack of agreement on functional:
ism reflects the lack of agreement on the issues of sociological analysis
itself'. According to Davis functional analysis may be.said to do two
things: to relate the parts of a society to the whole, and to relate one
part to another. Jndecd, this is what rvery scienc~ does: to 'expla in
phc~omcna-from the standpoint_of a s1·.1,,,m of reasonini wh ,ch r rc-
I

,nalism is The .
in· the most :• .
\ its instillatio~ · ·
:i to the central
again closely ·
shared concep-
i.mpprta~ce of
I.Spire in sociftl.
'Pri:se as a soci•
~ed around the
rivate profit."i,
search for inte-
ence and equi-
> again. shared
;ely because he
1mon v~Iues-
equally strong
1001 system as
lles in modem
:>r_k of Co~te, ·
e now h.un to
.ferton.
lier Books, 1961). -
~ ddle ruver, NJ:
'1]: Prentice Hail,
r., "Change and
nard Barber and
, generalized cri-
xpectati~ns, and
;tates, follows i.n
a preoccupation
discussed in hls
i .Communilaria-,,
d Morolily in a
H~im hailed the
heroism of her
ne the frightful
hat our educa-
them; that o.ur
ed. Ferdinand
'~
Functionolism J9
Pa-rt ne --·;·
ARSONS: GRAND THEORY
Talcott Pa · ens _(1902-1979)"was the son of a Congregational minister who
later serve ·as president of Marietta College in Ohio. Parsons did his under-
graduate . ork at Amh~r$t, where he majored in biology. As.he describes it· '~
· in his inte lcctual autobiography, he was ~'converted" to the social sciences
in his jun~or year, but owing.' to faculty twnover_ he was unable then to
pursue hi~ interests in detail. 29 It is important to keep in mind this early
interest inl'biology; however, because the directjon he too,k in sociology was
clearly ro~ted in biological stvdies a~d their concern with the interdepend-
ence of ari organism's parts. · ·
· ·A y~ar at the Lqndcm Scho9l of Economks was followed by an ex- -~
change fe,ow~hip to Heidelberg, where he ehCQ\mtereq. Max Weber's work·
. for the fir5at time and where h:e wrote a doctoral <;lLssertation on ''The Concept -~
of Capita~sm in Recent Getj:rian Literatw-e,"·treatin~, among others, Marx
and . Webfr. Parsons played__an important part in intrC?dudn~ Wet?er to .
Americ~ hen·he ~anslated The frotestant_ E;thic and ·th~ Sp~rit of Ca~italism
(1930} an later analyzed Weber's theoretical pers.pect1ve m what· 1~ now
Volume _II 1of The-Structure of Socia/Actfcm (1.937). .
. · ·Folldwing a yea,r of teaching at Amherst, Parsons ~ent to Harvard as
an instruc~or in 1927l0 and ta1,1ght there until he was retired as emerihJs pro-
fessor in 1p73. In 1942 he was elected ·president of the American Sociological
Associati<:f.. After his retiremeri_t he ·continue_d. to teach as. a visiting professor
-~t s~ch u~vers~~ies as ~ennsyl~ania, Rutgers, ~n~. California at Berkeley.
Shortly before his death m May 1979 he was conn.nt.n,ng work ·on such topks
as sociobi~logy (the study of the biological bases Qf humari behavior), i.nter-
disctplinaty studies, and the ·cultu,ral system level (the level of analysis that
focuses o* _the question of meaning, or sym~olic systems) in his generc)l
31
theory of ~ction. His critics, both positive nnd negative~ are num ero u s; ;i nd
although functionalism is n~ loriger the dominant . pe_rspective, his work
nwe have relied on Parsons's a~tobiographical statement and on Benton JohnsQn's
monograph throughout this se~io':. See_Parsons, '-'On Building Social System Theory," 826-Bl;
and Benton Johnson, Fu11ct1011al1sm 1n Modern Sodology: I.Jrrdustanding Talcott Pars~
(Morristown, NJ: General Learning Pr~ss, 1975). 115
JOFrom 1927 to 1930 he was in the economics department.·Harvard's sqciology depart-
ment was established in 1930. . ·
. "FrQm a personal interview with Parsons on Febn.iary 16, 1977.
l 40 Chapter 2 . l
se~es as a ~aJor reference point in, ~od~- ciological theory:lJ Much of
this chapter will be devoted ~o a _dtscuss1on qf Parsons's contributions _to
functionalism:-his systems of action, his action *hema, the pattern variables;
and the system problems. J TI)e social system is thenext level in Parsons's scheme, and it is the on_e
- :!r
PARSONS'S SYSTEM LEVELS l
The concept of a ,ystem is at the core of any d~"ion of Parsonian theo,y.
Parsons stated, "The concept of system iri t~e action ffeld -~ others, in
has been central to my thinking from a ve~ early stage.''~l His general
theory of action, in which -he gives his overall icttires of how societies are
structured and fit together, includes four syst s: the cultural system, the
sotjal~stem, the personality system, and t. behavioral organism- as a
system. · : · ·
basic unit of analysis at the cultural stem level is "meaning" or
"symbolic systems." Some. examples of sym olic • systems are religious
beliefs, languages, and national .values. In his iew cultural traditions are
made -up of shared -symbolic syste~. As we would expect, at this lev_el
Parsons focuses on shared values: A key co cept here
is socialization,
~here~y societal values are internalized by a so ·cty's members; that is, ·they
make society's values their own. In Parsons's ·e~, socialization is a po\V•
erful integrative force in maintaining social co trol and holding a society
together. . .
Heads of state often draw on the functi nalist perspective in their
speeches. The following excerpts from President John F. Kennedy's inau-
gural address on January 20, 1961, exemplify a leader's appeal to shared
values on both national and international levels:
t
Let ·every ·nation know ... that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet
any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the swvival and the
success of liberty. · ·
. . . In your hands, my fello'Y citizens, more than mine, will rest the iinal
·success or failure ol our course. Since thJs country was founded, each gen-
eration ol Americans has been summoned .to give testimony to its national
loyalty. . ·M,
. . . And sq, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for
you-ask what you can do for your ·country._
-"'Jwo lestschrifts have been published. See·Buber and lnkele,, Slability and Soclo/.Changt·
Jan J. Loub,er et al., ed., Explor,ztion, on Cmtral 771,o,y in Socfl,/ Scltnte: EJ#y, ln .Hon11r of Ta/coli
Parsons (New York: Free Prea,, 1976). For a complete bibliography through 1977, He Talcott
Parson,, Action Theory rmd lht HurMn Condition (New Yorln:Pree Pru,, 1978), - .
upar,on,, "BuJJdlng Socl&I Syatem Th1ory,* 8'9. S.. 11110 °W1lter Buckley'• critlqu1 ot the
way /unctlonallJts illce P1110N u,e "ayat,m" In hla Socluloty ind Modn-11 Systnn, Thto,y (Upper
Sa,4-f/e River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 196n.
-··
Functionalism
My.fell~w citizen:s of the·wo;ld:.ask not whal.America will do for you, but
41
~-
. ~··
what together we can do-for_ the freedom of m,m.r - ·
on which he "has elaporated the ri\ost. ·Here the ·bask uriit is ''role -inter-
action." Parsons defined social system as foll~ws:
A social system consists.in a plurality of individual actors interacting with
each other in a situat~on which has at least a physical or environmental as-
pect, actors who are moti:,,~ted in terms of a tendency to the "optimization of
,: -:-'!) ::- gratificati~n" and _whos~Jelation to \heii- situation~, including each other, is
· · ·-defmecl ·and mediated tn terms of a system of culturally structured and ·
I30.<,;1,.1ha~ symbol's." . _. · · ·
..•-.;->-..~(l.1j.iJt,d, tf.'i,...<;j o. -c/.1.~tJ..c. .
•u;. - ., In Pars<lns's d~i.rillion of a social system, .plurality can mean ~P or
more, and actors can be people· or coUectivities. ·Thus, a·social system can be
made up of anything from nyo people interacting in a restaurant to the r-ela-
.tionships wj.thin the- United Nations, where the actors are member: naUoQS.
. 'fhe relationship of the social system_to the cultural _system Ls .apparent ·in
. Parsons's reference to Hculturally structured and sh!rea symbols," which
~efine ~e _w ay ac~ors ~teract. ·
According to Panons, the basic .unit of the person~ty sy~tem is the
individual ,c:tor, the human person. His focus at this level is on individual
needs, motives, and ·attitudes>-such as the "motivation_toward gratification,"·
which he ·emphasizes .in his ciefinitiori of social systma quoted above. At. we
shall see, motivation toward gratification corresponds to both conflict
theory's and exchange theory's explicit assumptions that people are self-
interested or profi~ maxirniz~s.,. ·, -
In the fourth system, the behavioral organism, the basic unit is the
human being in its biological sense-that is, the physical aspect of the
human person, including the organic and physical environment in which ·
the human being live&." In refertjng to this system, Parsons explicitly men-
tions_· the organism's. central nervous system and motor ac:tivity.:11 As we
mentioned.earlier, he return~ to 1:'la in~erest in sociobiology to.....-a.rd the end.
of his life.» · · ·· · •
, Parsons's view -of so~a~ tion·will illustrate how all these systems are
· ' interrelated_.At birth we are simply behavioral organisms; only as we develop
• .
• i •
,<
"P11bllc Pop,f!I of 1/ll Pmid1.nl1,of l~c United Stal~: John F. Kennedy (Washlngto11; DC: U.S.
Covenunant·Printlng.Offlce, 1962), t·-3. Thal\ka to AM.- _X anour for drawlng·0ur .1tt1n\l0n lo
1h11 1ourc1. •
"Thlcott Paraon1, Th, Social Syaltm (New York: Fr,i Priisa, .1.951 ), !.
·"Sae Chap,ten 3 and 7.- .. _
~alcott P1raona, Th, Syaltlfl of.Mo.km SociDlugy (Upper SAddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall,
1971), s. - · '. . .
"See Chapter 8 for _a dlscu~ l0n of the sociology of the body.
 -~
li
F
a Chapte,2
as indivfduah do ·we gain any pen,o~ Identity. How, then, do people
Zu. r;,? ? . ? ~ ~ ~

.,.____,.t,flnollsm 43
r
1· - FIGURE 2-1
· .sorialiZll!d?As we mentioned eerlfer, Parsons says that people inter- 0?,-/1/
,, nalize values of a ~ely; that is, the social values of the cu.I· .
(slluaffon
~- rmeOli
turaJ S)'Stem their own PY learning from olher a:c:tors in the Social system what , (CX)"ld'ldons)
is expectec;f of them. In other wor4s, thef learn role expectations and so
· bea:Jme full participants in scic:iety. Thus-the values come from the cultural
SJStm\; .the CQrtespQriding nonnative or role expectations are learned in the BA Degree
(goal)
social system; the individual identity from the personality system; and
the biol~ equipment comes from the behavioral organism. - - 2
l:et us ~ea concrete soda! ~tem and see how socialization works
within it Consider an urpan gang. H ollj o{ the values of the_gang is -the ·
ability to·steal cars or sell. drugs, tpen,~ \renilts who wish to become full /
membelS of that gang not only will 1ratre to mal::~ that value their own fcul·
tu:raj S)'Stfflt), but 'they must alsQ Jci,ow how ·much of such behavior is
ecpecttd of them. In-social system terms,.they must conform to normative
expectations, Their own identity mll;'t aJt?,be fnvolv~ in theµ- membership: ·
DW!nbenhlp fn the gang must .answer certiin needs or drives in their own sodal s ste 4 • In AM Doe's· case, she must ass all courses r . · ,
peDonalitia The behavioral org_anism is-~ Involved because ·potential her degree..t,ctor~ o1-igno _ . s o _ ~a~ie: the rules <;leff¥.e their.-
·png manba, must pones, a certain i:fextmCY, ~d the physkal skills to encfsariah ~w the behave, and nonl}ative expectations must be fulfilled b
ttaI c:an or sell drugs without detectio~ or bocUly injury ilnd live up to the a-n£ a~ho1s motivate to R,W:S..Y.e. - .OJ:tl)S a_y_ueen
expectations·of_the gang meznbera. is
lnt~rf'ijI{i~.l ~l~Jor; she o( he m..Q_tivated to act ae,eropriatel~ Now!',.;
example should help illustrate the interpenetration of all four . cu .!d?E.,~ <~ y_lt~Ld be,g!d__:tha ~.11orms a,~aLthe,heart Parsg~ s o}
systems. 'Parsons doe, not consider his lotµ" system levels to be mutually !h.~Qry_gf a¢_ um.. @nd...why. Parso_ns.consid.ers~-h~ NMil S)stem !hat legit-
exdwive; ratheT, they~ the interdependence tltat functionalism con- i.zn,~t~~..!h~ to.,be 1m;1.n~.m- ; . . . ..
sistendy streises. In ·the following section, we discuss PaFsons's theory of · In C~pter 1 we drew a1distinction between theones IJl the scientific i
action, a framework for desaibfng actual bduivior within the context of the sense, fro which one can logically deduce concrete prop<>sitions · and
srstems: , ,, hypotheses, and general orientations to analysis, We can see t~at Parsons'~
,I
. all-encomp ssing general theory of action belongs more to the latter than to
---
_.NS'S THEORY OF ACTION
f~ .
-
•tarts·wjth
-
O la "
er, or "actoi," whv l."OUJC oe

the fonner . tegory. It provides concepts that are appropriate for describing
a wide ran e of behavior and ·for emphasizing the interdependence of
society's co ponents rather than direct statements about what people will
do in dlife nt situations or the structure of actual societies. However,

\ .,11.
;1
I
I
ei..._er Hingle pt, on ora coUe iv1 . I • e-ac or · e. Parsons als 'provides some more speclfic arguments about how different
Pt.,rions Ha t~ tor as motivated to spend ~ ergy in reachin~ a desirable societies wo _k when he elaborates on the normative expectations and cul-
JOQ( QLeng, as defined &r-ihe..aittural.:syste!1;1_~...[wffia,-ror,;nn QQe -ii'a tural goals t at dominate his theory of action. The next section discusses this :,
!'a~PLUf!Jl!~};JUgr~-Th~ WiOJJ..~~.~ ce _in a situation (3), which aspect of Pa sons's though:]
mcl~es .mt11n1_~flitfe,, too)~..Qr_ reso,2'-ffsuv,acomftt lo!rs-(@Wlwl1at
ariJ.tJILJfie pur,u,t-ofthe-g-O'"d lr.Xiuloo_e, for Instance, has the intellectual
. -,,
it~-·_
abiJJ~.d._J~ o n , but ch,; l e - - - • . . . PATTE~N VA
eoune, that -- -:-:--~-- -:;.~-:: _- -, . __ __ , Tv
· now,, "',£hansfn.flo.a.Jol>thaknifm!Dw11erffirneedid11m,-,, .'"••Hal In . As we saw i~ the preceding section, !'arsons was initiauy preoccupied with
her 1/tua n, llut.m@n, Mdo>ndl--....i;,.d a 1i b,a- _
the formulat/on o{ his theory o{ aclJon. 1 e por raye purpos1veac:-tc:m-
i
licm preca~'!!~_Pl-!J,i,11_½.Alld..1h.16 rson, 11 11cHon who-weremtented 19 goafs but hnd to fu l fi ~ · ·•-•
th~ory, "al/ -thae element, ·are regulated by th,e normal(V(ff•lon ar s o e
·-- ,---¥-· 1 ,J
deflnecroy n . , - --·::.~ '""Y •~l,/U I Q oe gratified. Parson~
'I•
fel tth1ff1fB'"n'e)l:tintetre~rmrlrasl<was fo devel~ clei\rer ~peq!i fatiP,Ds of
,,,,
 ,
J
1::
44 Chapter 2
\,
Functionalism 45
what different contin encics and.ex ectations act rs were Lin,., ,u ,ace. e . , ' I•
/.
~~,.~F ·•- u
~~n. o.-. -- SihJ.atiO~ _::-.:•. ~•r : '-U~\IUUUTPn '°n,.; ••----. gender relations are not viewed •,'IS either natural or immutable. Rather, lhe
gender-related status quo is viewed as the product of sociocultural and hlstor•
a~ e tonnulated ~ ~-- s.au:i,unze exe,;c-
ical forces which have been created, and are constantfy re-created by humans,
Ii. !
tatic t i
a ~~
. o ~.licit.) lat-ionshlps=They.
· m ~ ~ his abstract theory.....of and theref~e can p·otentially be changed by human agency.'1 ·
'U;u.s_RortiQ_ru>.£..l;aesons's work is
· Ui!L 936) Mmrin~
based on
,. . , ~
a~~g
es.) Toenn,es was interested 1n co1 .. ,..
Qn Ferdin"n~
..
,,M__ ,__ , . ,
m- .f,
WhJ'\,~!f!r:'
wol~~!~~ (auem variable scheme, . which was
strongly criticized by feminists, he went beyond a simple twofold typology, of
ties (gemeinsc a t Wit modem 1n expressive/instrumental. His ttem variables are
a fivefold elaboration of the
traditional-modem· typolo · arso ' is
<g~ - ·
.kiiL. .. , , o::1ano - ; • • •
al bonds or
minance.oi "a di~ omr, one ~ide of .whi must be chosen by an actor before the meaning
of a situation IS detemunate tor fit m :1nCl 1h uc h ~,M~ t: - -- - - - '
.!J!2re _imoersona -~ us12ess-ty e relationshi -!~. ur 1e1m, _follow_i]g h tu ti »u I
0
i:;_s1 a on. .. ------ .. -·--, t'......... , VIUl<llJII: represents a prob em oi;_,
T"-",._~,-•~ly~Jl'~.ru,li.QatiWoaJJ!imitil,,Jm!. , d!!Jc,ocil!i.i:!,.
~M-.u
~ilemmalfi'at ml:lsf6e solvedoy tfie actor lfe'lore action can take placO .·
H~ abe e_d t e_fci@er_;:-•~m~he_ni_caLsplid~/1 --:r-::-:---;-'t,,~olkct~.Qn-
s ong) and the latter "or ~nic solid ere,.thµo l!e,c:t~
-~ bl~ 2-l summa.rizes the pattern vanable scheme. In ,each case the
c: _ .... _ s"'.'ea ow ~g _ -~ , - ·= ~ik~.'l:~_nies.And
cho-: lhit ·actorumcanx •llll-' Wl.!IPJialely make dill<;! a(Q)J<I~
DtirKfielm';l'arsons cons1ciers t e difference bet :li~.o,.t,e,.fia..£wldb lb!JYE,.e q_f socle~. ,!hMpproprlate choke, for tradlti~ l so.sletieu i ~
' ~- ' ,' ' • " . - proprfa1ecru5Ic~Jor 1!'0~:
men . 1£S in tra ttional 'SO , which are predom i-
n~ na and . info"I'a e. ressivc,a'; T a to~ es in ormocjei;n
socie~Even sinh.are.pJ~.Q,gminantly.._
__ .,_ · · im12ersonal or fo •M••- t make is.between ascription and achievement,
ne.edcd. Pwn. ~J~_pele~ ~:!,n!t:'iret;forI$nce~
to orient onese Towaid
others on the basis of w.lMu
fam!!J.J::ie.~es that the ins
h~ i '~.= -~~~ tneya?e(lmt l!!;on1fil_ ba.§fs1l,~.9.uat!_ti&~suq'i~wi[iiJ~, r~ ~-
effinicity) or on the basis of :what they can do or have done (that is, on the
t~ ~ . U : fatmn~tl'i'l'§jj[l!'.:"ot::'Uf".cta,@-- · basis=of 'p erfot'humc-~)'!"·F~ nmple;-in-modem- societies··suc:h-aFtffirs';
de.pend ... L~ .-~Ju:..£.tatescthat.ebeca1:1se-:of-t-hecocci;;;tion:il racM __ ,,_,,, ••
of the father, the mother must take on the e loyers are expected to orient themselves toward_~ ntia!' employees on
S~ ffnTcruiclfert"feinfiifstsJuve' ___ . ,u,, au,urn; s St e nt . ~orlf"ineyjlayedgn~~inj_fi: ~ ast and ~ -
regar g e post 1ve nc:tions o · t 1s expre!!Stve strumental dlvisfon of "~q in t~e f!1hlr~:, n~t .,accru.~ to t~ ~ ~ '. g_f ii~~f,~ ~ual
lioorlntne7jmjj_y_was~.mP.l,lo;JMffiut ti.q~ y::liaiicfilb ·---···-..-·,, or lamil connections. Thus employer, snou1d Cfil)ose
c4.,.ed Parsons's theo of ender socialization a o ressive for both formance ·or. achievement; s'i e o m
attern v · ri · otom rather
genders, but particularly for women, 0 .,.,.._ "" - ' - t an the ascri tive or u r · tance a _oun . member of
· As'we-men1Ionecf1nfhe·preface, e work of a famous family is hired over others 't4th~be.ijg_X::,P-,erfurmanc:e..q~a.ti~
' - - -·- . . 4"21~ •
presented throughout this book. At this point
, feminist theory:
First, gender comprises a central focus or subje~t m11tter Qf the theory. Feminist
_/47 Expressive
(Geme/nschoN)

Parsons's Pattern Variables

. Instrumental
.(Gesellschott)
theory seeks ultimately to understand the gendered nature of virtually all
social relations, Institutions, and processes. Second, gender relations are Ascription .Ach_levement
viewed as a problem. By this I mean that feml,nlst'theory seeks to understand Diffuseness Specificity
how gender iR related to social inequities, strains, and contra~lcUona. flinally, AffectMty _Neutrality
Parttculorlsm . Unlvetsallsm
Collectivity ·Seit
n 1 "5e,e our eariler discussion
-Durkh~lm, o(· these two type, o( 1qlid1rity In th1t eectlon about
.I
!~ "Talcott Par10N, £UO!(S In So~lologiC11/ Thmy (New York: Free Press, 1954), 422-23,, . "J1n1t
Peacock, s: Ch~tz, Frminill Soclolon: ·A,i Ovfflll,w of Contemporary
1988),·S. · Tltdorlu (ltuca, IL:
I . "5" lht dl1n,11ton of Patricia Hill C:0Wn1 (Chapter 5) and Oorothy I!. Smith (Chapter 6), \ ..
"TalcottMA:
(Cambridge, Hanud'lbwonl
Pano\\', Ulllvtrelty Prw, Theory
• Gm,ral of Action, edited ·with l!dward A. Shila
1951), Tl.
\
 .
i·'.
~-:
I,
46 Chapter 2
i Functlonqlism 47
I
1:i
:' ublic l's to .-·be e ected There remain situations, . ; · · ·· ' · t onl in theJirst one
; 0
lft-o....,.,.. .-.-~ -!tn_\_ent or _ ~ -~ ! ~t _ t _..,._,,...,..., om~s mo a
pa . .· ~ o__ne-m~~ u.tii!h._~~l!..~ , . . es ·
ssian;e Into t.,!_
~~!,~i~ lt co~l$.!u~ved t_hat a person lied-.
~ gal1ve sanctions from aulhormes"tnthe~ ~ ~ l r -
h r er. t 1~ importa.nt.to..kee..p in mJttd that what we are discussing he~ : .
't
~e._u.u,
1s t e arp_ropnate choi-- be""' • .
Parsons -~ "": . ~e:en_as.cnptiY.e_a_
• ruLa_chifvement options· · .,,,
-or choi • -- . Y.t..expectatt~be core of the decision; the either•
4 ce is not an arbitr~ one. Thus, m Ann ~ e's case, ~_!l!s,h we used jp J alism._Here the
cass live s tana ara s a ictate that she r reactu;,-.~nn t e
ln••A •I.A - -- -
1
- - _ _ .:;._ - - meone S e a rel a.tjgn , _ . "'bership YY3
'-!i:~~.$ i!. t~~cher il' rutr S9Sii,t~§.eXR~'1es:I to treat alls.b.i-
C\llt
stude
, · -- ·- r-r ·-- ···- ---• - • - - - ..--, .. _ ..... ,.._.,,.U\,IOCIUyspeoncreJII.•
·,!iDNhi~ M-, the~'¥ relationship predelihes ,is lilMS:U !Ji• doctor <! . . . . .
makes -.,,,.,,ds
that are not ®Mo:-!ed with l ! J « a r e ~ .Ouu .,,uu ur uu u ., 12!' 11JU111e<I. Sell-interest IS highly U1Stitutionalm,d
~ i $ f ions •fil familJ:, bu.sines,, o,- sex life, a negative . siness world for exam le, where the rofit m, .· .
expected; the ~bent will &e""llf( orul ipay even stoe ~g the dentist ii~ imate B con a t · · . . ected to ca . out their duties b
_ge~ Iii sho"ir,llj~fLl!!Ji!W fhiiigs.J1Q.u.(;!!1'1 ask X~"!.!?<st.tcimd Jo do for the bes mterests of the_ ublic, so a ..ro nate role.behav,or tS onen e o
Y_(lll; that relattonshie is based on Jionexduslon. A•pecilic relationship like thO inTei'esls of the CQ ectivity ra U)etJban to se -in eres s. r. ug arsons
one _between dentist and patient excl.udes all .irrelevant behavior and specifi. originatly inc~uded collectivity-self, i.U.~...~.Q.J.~ qisappear from his own for-
cl!Jy aefules what is relevio:,t P"'80ns argues that in modem societies the mtilatiQ!n 1 f ~ ~ ,.12s:iL__J ,; . .,
.-cdyd=ithm! oeh~VJor, wfieieas in Although Talcott Parsons adnutt~ tQbe1.ng an. incurable theonst (on
1
. - • ·
onaJ societies, more •tionships are dl!tuse~j the de~ic:ation page of The- Social System), he was also concerned with the
1e third ··_· a ect' · or ttffective m:11trality: Here the . , l , . . .
w----
l
sic, J
• -:
or can e ec: emo 1
..
~ n in th
e
'T~kott. Pa~~ns, 'The. ~QOl Ous as a 5?cial System: Some of Its Functions 1n
American Society, 1n Eduaat1on, Economy, and Soc1,ty, ed. A. H. Halsey, Je11n Floud, and
,
.a hons _- An en a orta .
~1th _aJ(ectiy 1 t y ~d~4 roll_eifyJeacb,er and student are
1 C. A,~otd Andmon, 434-55 (Now Yo,ka p,..
the pnvate sphert of the family, however.
p,.,,,
l 96 l). E,,pre.,iv,choie,, ,,. app,op,t,to In
.
expected to opt for nel!!t.lll!Y~~ew of the school system in the . . "Change, In normative expe~•tlons resulting from changes in laws Qr guideUnes do not
nlteaStrtes·maa'entallv .i.: that ·when·ch)lcfren s s em a 1 • en.,\lre conlonnlty,. as :W• hive learned froD\ the civil rights _movement in the United States.
mately
. • age i1J(
' ey are •~•tom,
.., to t he_aIIec ti ve re Iatl .ns ro>ey Opportunity
Wltnft1, for Comrn~slon.
ln,tance, the backlog
. · of . c1111 to be lna_pected by the· Equal Employll'lent
I e.. , s
· '-- '
.
··
y can get •ir•y with 101111 me11u111 .of .
•
"In ~lcott ""'"'• "1'111,m V..rtaot11 111wm,,,• A.,,,.,,
(IIIOlt 44741,
s..,,,.,,,.,
RI,!., 21
r, ..... Mid hi, .... b .that >h, coll,cttvt>y,1ell .......... wu .......,,
- .,The growing incidence of violence i~ th~ family makes this assumpilon more question- l'fftricl~ fonnulatlon of an element in the Qrganlzat\on of acth;,n components at the level riext
able tQ.day. : above that deslgnat.e d by the primary patte"'.\ variables" (480). In other words, he saw it on ii
more abstract level than the ott,,r four.
 ,, ... :.-, .,.·;;v _,;-;,,, ;.,. , ;.· ,i ..
..:·,·;~~~:~: ::::_!: .:·~.:?::-~:::; . • ,1.',., ·.:: .·:- :,:.: ;:-: :... ,:-:<~ll;t1:--i~~~~:.:t;~;{:·:!· :. · :-~t~B~'.~ : : :·: :~· .., ... .~-- -~~~1:;~1:-· ':~
,f
I
!(,
·::-::: ?,
1!; 48 Chapter 2
i,j! .
.,.
Functioncllsm 49
... '.\; :!
empirical application of the pattern variables. The results of one of his rare If we assume, in the 'Parsonian framework,"~hat individual actors are
, ;
~en~;s i~to empirical research areteported in The Social Sy?tem in.a chapter socialized and thus are II:\Olivated to meet.the-demands of societal expecta- .. ' ,~,
,.' titled S~c1al Structure and Dynanuc Process: The Case of Modern Medical tions, then ·we can 1expect ac;t(?rli• to make appropriate choices about the
"' 41
Practice." ln this chapter Parsons -utilized the_pattern variable scheme as he pattern \,'.ariabl~s, a~d we ~predict.their b~havior on the basis of informa- ,,
'' des~bed the.doctor-patient relati~n'Ship. ln gathering data for his study of tion about values and nonnative expectations, However, in some situations·
•}
'•
;l medical practice, Parsons engaged m \)0th participa,nt ob:iervation and inter- the choice ·not simply a-µ\atter of one or the. other. For instance, teacher•
:. is
views with physicians at 'Iufts Medical CeNer and Massachusetts 'General
Hospital." As might be expected, he depicted the doctor's role as predomi•
parents who have their own
tjilldren as students in'the classroom will find ~t
their parent ·role conflic~g with .the teacher role in many instances. The
nantly instrumental. Because of the high levels of ,technical competence choice in this case Is not al~!\YII either a universalistic or a partic:ularistic one; :..
)
required, the doctor's position is seen as an achieved status: one is not born the blood relationship muddies ~he waters considerably because the decision
a doctor (though being the child of a.doctor may help).'° Parsons points out
that the complexity and subtlety of the knowledge and skill r~quired, and
involves both universalism, and particularism; Pai:sons leaves little room for
ambivalence on the·part of the.actor, who may both love and hate .the person
<::iJ
the consequent length and intensity of training, demand performance or with whom he or she is p ~ g to.interact.52 ..
· achievement c:ritez:ill as well as a universalistic orientation. For instance, a •·i' §
· Thus the patt~m va,riable scheme is not as .neat as it appears at fir~t
doctor must concentrate on making· the patient well, and in this respect all glance, either as a way of clarilying and describing role relationships or as a
patients must be treated the same. . . way of predicting people's· appropriate choices. On their own the pattern
11.· Likewise, affective neutrality is necessary because the physician is variables do not tell the sociologist how people will 'behave when faced wi.th • ~!
j
, expected to treat problems in objective, scientifically justifiable tefms. 51 For ·role conflicts. In addition, it is questionable whether sqcialization is as effec-
this reason surgeons do not ordinarily operate on family members. Finally, · tive, or people's behaviqr.,~ simply and clearly a function of normative ~b-
because a doctor is a specialist in matters of health and disease, specificity of expectations, as Parspns' s'.a pproach implies. In other words, people's appro-
function is involved. Patients do not, for instance, ordinarily cohsult their priate• choice may frequ~yy ·not ·be their actual one. The occurrence of
doctors about their income taxes; even though physicians may be helpful in nonpr~scribed, or what Parions would ca~. "deviant," behavior will occupy
,...
, I ..
this matter, that is not their area of expertjse. .us again in the context of our
·next topic: Parsons's work on system problems (~
Parsol\s points Ollt that the partkwar patterning of the doctor's 1'9le is and equilibrium, · __ · .
Ii·:.
j .:
..;_j , ·· .;

related to cultural tradition and that tht apedallzalion o! teclwcal compe!enc:e

ls c:haracteriatic: o! that role 1n contemporary America. In .tribal societies the •, . ~ · : -A&,,~ . ,.
••
role of medicine man could be an ascribed.status, passed on from parents to ..i ~~~TIO.NAL $Y~~~M PR~BLEMS-AGIL
.'l ::·
\ .I
:
children. 'A medicine man's behavior to others and ·theirs to .him were defined
.
1 1:f: '
rr,.. .
'i.,-:
by and varied according ·to particularistic variables·. In addition, because the
medicine man might often be consulted.on many matters wvelated to health
l
i Shohitly after Parso~ work¥ out the pattern variable scheme, he embarked.
i. · on ·s next intellectual ~ion. He Wll\ted to reduce the lack of certainty
r:·'· ~d sickness, diffusen~s of function, rather than specificity, would be the ; in his theory of acti.o~ about what goals (like our JiU\e Doe's BA degree)
;,:\; . norm. We might also expect to see more aHectivity exhibited becaus.e of do~e actors would pursue; and he wanted to specify further the pattern variables.
,t t ';
., tribal ties. Thus the patterning of the appropriate choices would be different in The Ideas he c;leveloped~which have beeh referred to variously as ~e
tribal societies. The contrast between the roles of medicine man and physician "syatem problema," the "~c:tional ~peratives,"-~e "AGIL model" .<based
illustrate, the.general shift from an expressive orientation in gemtinschll/t sod• on the Ii.rat letters oi the four func:tioN he deviaed), or the "four-function
eties to an ll'Strumental orientation in industrial, or gesellschllft, soclel1os, As paradlgm"-were his attempt to incorporate· into his theory propositions
-~ we explained earlier, this shift is at the heart of the pattern variable scheme. ·about 'the nature of goals. •
This work evolyed from .Parsons's collaboration with Robert F. Bales in
i~;i
; '
•istt Parsons, Tht Social Syste~. 428,-79, . experiments on leadership. in small groups: Bales observed changes in the
af "See Pusons, "Building Soci&I System Theory," 835. This may come as a ~urprise to those quality of activity as the small groups attempted to solve their task prob-
l•i . 1 •
who assumed th,t Panons never engaged in empirical research. ·lems. In a typical (neeting the groups would begin by requesting and
-One could ugue tl\at there 11 111 ucri.bed clement Inherent In the doctor's role, ,, the
f!l~j !.,
·
expweo -edical ichool
f u, ,
education mikes it ualer for thoae born of wealthy parents lo aspire
U . _.,
providlng infont¥tion th~t :rould solve the problem of a common orientation
1', ;!• lo the medical profession In the rul= 5tales.
1·11•: ''Parsons, Tlte Socilll Systtm, 435. See Nell Smelsei's d~cuss\on or ambivalence in Part Three of this chapter.
11
/. l!il
)t!O ~.:(, :..\••. <• .· •" ,,'· ... ,:.:• ,,: .... ••" :\•~:-:,.~):t: •:-~1; , :, , •,h..;, ·., \•;~h; .-:-~:;::~;~i~~: ~~~;:.~~;:~.'.~~:~~-- •" ..· ., ...
.-...:~.- -•t. _. , , •• •. · ., • •. . • ._ ..- . .• ~:}~:t~W:-:•::!:::{;:~i:;::·.-., ,... .:::::-.::: ... ~-'.~-~~W}>: .}:· ·.:.·.<~;;ll~!tt· ' ' . '' ' ' ': . ' ' .
; ' ' .-~'
'
.,,
.. •TI,I d•
:.,. ·'•.: \'( ; ~ _··,, ' ,.,
t, .... . . . , , . ... ... . . .
- - - - -
·;- ;.;
52
. ~- Cl
Chapter 2 i
I•,.'
11-f ; f' - \)' •t
,. •:.''
FIGURE 2·"2 Parsons's Four-Funcllon . ,. Functlonollsm &3
Paradigm Applied to -the United Slates as
a S.o clal System. among .them, In the United States this system problem of directing resources I :!.
(Adopted from Figure 3 In Talcott Parsons ond · to collective ends Is essentially.the .concern of political institutions. Basically
Nea J. Smelset konomy Ond Society (Glencoe.
· the function of decision-making l,odies, goal attainment's central question is
IL: Free Pre~ 1956). 53. Reprinted With permis-
sion of Routted__oe ond Kegon Poul.) the ~ ~ te use of po~er to~plement so~ial decisions:-\ . ft
ritegration, the I In the~x, is at the heart ofthe fol!Mtinction paradigm '
G :Jiec~olving t~ pro~le~ has been a priority for functionalists; especially l il
goal attainment since Durkheim. -By integration Parsons -mea,ns the need to coordinate,
system, ·thus preventing II_\U~ l interference, .in order to keep. the system ·
adjust, and,regulate Iel~tion:Sh!ps among various actors or units within the fl
Economic
Polltlcol functioning. In the ~al sys~rp of the United States, legal institutions and ·1:::
courts meet the need for so~.l Q.trol; the central question is the imple- '
mec::n ·of nonns, -or influence. .. . ,, p
Educotlonol . ._The · four.th :11ystem need, e L· in Parsons's box_(latent pattern
Rellglous, m111 nce-1,n,lon manage.men 1a·twofold;,fira~, the need to make cert&l.n
Fomuy Lego!
that .actors are auffidently ·motivated to play their _parts in the system or .·•.,·. ~:
.: ..
maintain the -value /'pattern"; ·•~d second, the need to proyide mech1misms ·.:
.~
L ..
latent pattern molntenonce....;
.
lritegratlon
I for internal Jension.management. This problem.is.one of keeping the value !i f
tension monogement i -sy.stem intact and guaranteeing_the confonn,ity of the ~embers of the system ii '
·•, -b y transmitting aodetal._v.alues.and. by invoicing value commitJnel)t. 1n the
.,·_. l
ii~
.
. l . United States-the relevant ao~ in~titutlona-are .family, religion, the media,
i·:·.- sotjety or the social system as alarge square, that ~e divides into four equal 1 and ed'l,lcatlon,. and_·the- cent,•l· quution ls moral. commlti;nent to ohared
ii :
:,. · .
parts.'These parts ilre the four~tional system proplems, represe~ted·by the ' valu~.-, ,. , ..:.
letters AGIL.00 (See Figure 2-2.) . . ..od, arsons's later involvements In einp.lrical research was related
[:;; ~ t does Parsons me ,. y the letters AGIL n his famous square? By 1' ·d' to the AGIL scher;na. With Gerald Platt, Parsons studied higher edu- :.:-: .,·
,··· A, adaptation he is ·pointing to the need to secure ufficient resources from cation by means of a sample survey of members of U.S. colleges and univer~ ..
,,_. the environment and distribute ·them -throughout e system. Social institu- sity faculties.'! In·The Ammcan"Univmity, the .st:ruc::ture of higher 1;ducation
j !.
tions are interrelated systems ofsocial nonrts an . roles that satisfy social I~ described as ."ipedallilng ln"linplementing·th• ~~al patt1rn1 of cognl• ·1·1
~;: /\
needs or functions and help solve social system pro lems, Examples of social ·tive rationality,"~ 'By,,cognltivi~raticnallty they :q\,an the rational or "aden•
:I '
~:.
t .tific" approach .to gen~ting·knowledge and searching for ~th and the
f:~ instihitions are the economy, th~ political order, the law, religion, education, . ,:
~-: and the family. lf it is·to survive, a _social system n· ds_certain structures or ·whole range of. teaching and learning 11.'.ithin this framework. Par.sons's and
I.:, Flatt's data on.faculty.teaching goals show that cognitive rationality is the
institutions that will perform the function of adapta 'on to the environment.
Taking the United States a_s a_soda! system, a Parsa n arialysis would point ·paramount shared yalue-within-the American system of higher education."' 1_I . t·.
,~
ta the economy as the social institution that meets this need, or solves the .Thus the American- system of;- higher education. u-ansxnits and maintains
.._problem of securing sufficient resources;_it would id ntify production or the .values .central to ·modern American:)sciety; it .has a p.attem maintenance
function and so Is placed in the L box,
!J \
wealt~.th~sults as the central .~uestio·n. · . . . li
· --~v s.tands for goal uttarnment,~ystem s need to mobilize tts
• • •• • • • •• .~• • 11
~ 1,~
rces and energie$ to . attain system goals an to establish priorities "Talcott.PanoN and Cerald M. Pl~tt, Tht Amtri01n Un i~mil_y (Cambridge, MA: Harvud
L.
I~! , . Unlveralty Proa, \"973 _· ), Alt):\ough no ma)or rnonograpl) with &Mlysls of the data from thll 1t11dy
fi
haa oppeam, a nulllbu of anJclu 'hav1 been pub~. See, lor example, Gerald M. Platt,
•For Puaons, a society and a 1oclal •)'•tern are not 1ynony 0111. "A aocl11y." ht 1ay1, #It Telc:ott Panona, and Rlt, ~tt\11, "Peculty Teaching Coala, l 96&-\ 973," Social Problem• 14
3
i_ l.·· 1 ryp.t ol ,ocilll 1y1t1m , , , which •tt.•IN tht hlght1t l1vtl of 1tll·i /lkleney u a 1y1ttm In rtla• l\976)1 .298..,,071 '11\d Ceraltl, Platt, T,,\cott' P•i•ol)I, . and !Uta · Klrahataln, "Und1rsr1,b1te
I~ !Ion to lt1 environment," (Soclt1lt1, £r,olwtlo,c,1ry and Co1npd11/IL Pmpwlw, (Upper Saddle T1achl11a .1invlrbM\1n11r Noffl11tlv1 Orltl\l&tlona to T11chln11 Amon a l'ai:ulty In ·th1 1-llghor
·t : River, NJ: Prentlco Hall, 19661, 9), As mentioned earlier, a social RY• em may range from an Inter• . Educ1tlon1l Syatem,• Socfologkal ln~wf,y SI (1981): IS!-65,
1r
I
l
I
national organlzaUon to a nudeu lamlly. · ·· . . \ , "Par10n1 al\ll Platt, Titt Amtri'!ln iJnlvu,lty, 39~.
''See Platt, Paraons, and Klrshst~in, "Undergraduate Teaching Environments," t~
1·1 . I
·:?;~nJ~}~i: : ·~-:~;;~:~:;:: ~ -. ''" "'"'~
·:,:::•.:··:::- .
:•~:,. ,,:-: ' . 7 ·ry.g~~~ 1?'.:~:·h~- -h- ·. .- ·~::~;\~{· ':::1~m!:r- :
 ~-;~.:~-:8~:1;~.:,- ·. -: : .. :• ·::·:~:::;_~::::. _ _ _:._ ·'_! _ll~{tt.::::;~:t:t· ··-·--··
_ _ _ _c........
KolLa
e4 Chopter_2
In 'Figure· 2-2 ·we pi;etented the,·four-function paradigm In terms of
· ·soc:fal structures and plctu~d the United States l.n Parsonlan fashion,
However, t~g• an.. 11ot ~·ec:11a~rily 10 ri.. t. In .1l mpler aodetles _there ·is
more of-a tendency to coll~pse ~ctlona. The Parsonian brealct;iown f9r thir
United States does not fit, for e,cample, the pygmy t:r:i,bes of the African
forests who engage ·in little division of labor (typical of a gem·einschaft
society), As .members of the tribl!, all participate i,n h1..U1ting, hut building,
socialization of the young, and so~ial control in ·general. Again, jn a centraijy
planned totalitarian state, si;ich as commu·rust China, the party may be the.
instih.ttion responsible for .both e,i:onoll'\k production and the direction of
resources and setting of priorities, so that the G and A boxes are collapsed
in.to one. Conversely, in a market economy the institutions.concerned .with G
spiU ove'r i,nto A: priorities' a~ set by market forces affecting supply and
demand and not by cen~al politic11l decision making.
This points to a general-problem with Parsons's four functions . Because
they are analytic categories; ·~ e four functions are not necessarily clearly
separable. Institutions do tjc,f,necessarily fit neatly intO one box, and the
. scheme in itself caMot be .us~ tQ predict what i[lst;itutions a $Qciety will
develop or what functions :a[given institution will fulfill. Rather, the. para• ·
digm serves as a way of cla~Jfyinf !njtft1.Hion,, after thee_vent.
The ~inplexiiy of app,lying tpe four-funcf:ion paradigm !;,~comes even ·
more apparent- when o~e ~~es,.~at: Parsons believes the sam,e problems
face every system; tlus''meai\s:-not only ~e large. s9dal system _but eacn of
•· ,.. - lts subsyatezris at well: We·cy\ look at the la.mli]y 11 a ·1oci1l •~c:ture that
I,J.- .jl lul{ill~ t~• lar,er 1odil.l)'•~~••.n-.d /or late~t r,•ttem .maintenance-tension
t:1! ' mana,,m,nt, ~•·in, Pl,W,. ~,21 , b~t WI can ~- ·~ l~k .•t th• family lt11U
u ·• 1odal ·•}'lltezn with the.-.m-1 Jouz p,roblew. to be solved. Thus we can
r;:1:,-:·.
~/
( '
picture the L b:o_x 1n·our dla8?m oi'the United States as Itself a so~ial system
divided into four boxes of itiown. Parsons's viewpoint reg~rding the family
rill_-!:·
,t ! was consistently a _traditional_· on,, so it is not surprising to fmd h,i,m ·f
assumilig that it is the fath~r p ho solves the problem of adaptation by being '
h
~
't/ ;:
I' the breadwinner. Thdath~ ~lso makes the ?'ajor ~ecisions, thus fulfilling
., . the goal atta.iiunent functiom,.~nd plays a dominant role µ, coordin~ting
and ad;usnng family relatiqnshipJ to keep the system Integrated. The
mother'$ chief functions are .tcf tran~mit family values to the children and to
crea·te and maintain an atmo, phere 'where .tenslons can be released (PM-L).
Qnce again, however, things may be far less neat and predJctable than
r· Parsons implies, especially in. a .pemod when the traditional family is less
and Jes~ the statistical nqrm. Husba/nd and wife may contribute equally to
1fJ. · . acfap,-i~on; or the wife.maybe the major breadwiMer; or the state may play
1,1; ;. a crucjal role through welfare, unemployment benefits, or soda! security
.payments. The other three hinctions may be shared as well. Parsons's
scheme Identifies u.nweranl nu,ctions. b~t caMot l,n Itself ,predkt how they
...
fl
'f
~·-
--...;..~f -~2/S: _;: ::)\..:," -'--~---·_.:_~i~~})~C
--~-s} :;}:\( .. -~].:
Functlonollsm 55
di
af point to remember about the four system needs is. that P~rs~ns
onsided them the prerequisites for social equilibrium. Their contmumg
~ally op!ration is In t~rn ensured, .according to Pars?n~'s ~heory, by two
;nechanis·ms: socializal!on and soc1.al control. If soc1alizahon works, all
ftnembers of a society will b~ committed to shared values, make the appro-
priate choices- am~ng the pattern va~able_s, anQ _generally do what. 1s
expected of them m terms of adaptahon, mtegration, and so . forth. For
example, people will-marry a"nd socialize their.children (L), and within the
f~mily, fathers will; as they "should," be the breadwinners (A). Moreover,
svch successful socialization produces what Parsons refors to as com-
plementarity of expectation5. This means that both p~rties involved in an int_c r-
action sih.lation share and accept the same culh,lral values <1nd normative
expectations, so that each actor knows what- the other expects, and their
responses complement each other. . Actors are motivated to meet the
demands o ·etal expectations, and do interact appropriately: the happy :1
resqlt ' quilibrium.
Parsons's work tends to imply that this sihlation of complementary
expec::tations and behayior afld of equilibrium is the Ql'\e that obtains the bulk
· , _of .the, time..~owever, he·also deals with sih,lations Qf diseq~illbrium, in
"which' the·balant:e·of society. liql~!in,ubed· and in wi\lchi he· ~rgues, forces
com~ to 'play. ~hafrestore equilib~um. Thus;•froi:n day to 'day, iher~:will ot:cur ·
ca~e~ of'dev.ianc~;-and riorms,r~g~rding rQie _intera~ti~n will be transgressed., .
. •~ .In .th.•:~~~, ~f a mot,or,i•t who .dpv.•~ thr9~~h :~. r~.4 µg~L Ir, ,I'ar,s~nian
...1,rm~~tt;l1 ::th.,n,'.~h1q0tjal ~ ,ntr~I-co~~•: \nto ',J:ll~y, an.~-• l'ltga~ve 1nnct'ions.
·arcf u11d to f!'Alce Te~11kltrant. actors'. conform. A police· officer will probably ·
In
gjve .a ticket ·t~ 'the deviant motorist. ParsQns's v!eW every society has
general social control mechanisms, _like the police and courts, that operate tq
de~! with deviance, bring behavior back into line with expectations, and
restore equilibrium:-7 ·
As mentione~lier, role i.ntera~tion is the basic component of a social
system in Parsons's theory, However, Stacey and Thome, in arguing·against
the term se:r and/or gtnder role, or an emphasis on the process of se)( and/ or ·
gender role socialization, state tha~ the notion of role
(fcuses attentio~, II\Ore,fn indivi<;lual~ than on social W1Jcture, and implies that
the female role and th~ male role are complementary (i.e., separate Qr dif-
f~rent .:but equal), ,:he terms are depolitidzing; they strip experi\ltlce from its
~1s\on~~I 11nd politic~! co~text a~d neglect q1,1estions- of power and conflict. It
1s s1gnif1cant that soc1olog1sts do not speak qf "class roles" or "race roles."H
"Judith Stacey and Barri• Thor.ne, "The Mining Femlnl1t Rtv0lut10n In Soci0lo11Y," Socio/
Prolllt,n, 32, no, 4 (Aprll 1985): 307,
 '',,

' (
;, . r,
.:

Functlonolism
, , I•

any tuncdon~ ~nalyals, •~ a/4he refers ~uently In hii •na!Ylis to the d::.
·to which sodety ls wep. or poorly adjusted.'°' But.he fails to define ~h,~ .
.tional requirements for such integration,. Instead he refers to t~em as one,,~!
!1'
. the cloudiest and empirically most debatable·co~cepts' functional_theolj', .
. As might be .expected from his remarks on ~1d_d le-r~~e !~eory, in
general, Merton's achiev~~t is t~ provide an~ce~ent '. clanf1catio~ of t~e
. requirem~nts of functionalis;q ~eory and to s~o.w-how a g~neral functton~st
orientation can be used fttiitfully in empmcal analysis, rather than to
provide n,irther general pro~·ositjons abou.t soc~al structure and equilibrium.-.

MERTON'S THEORY O~:llEVIANC.

. E. .
I

· Though Merton's ·cort~rib~#ons to sociology are legion, his __theory· of

deviance, which has beeri·r,~printed. several ti.mes ·in different languages, is
one:of his l;>est_known: 1n· d.e,~eloping his theory <?f deviance, Merton utilizes
explanatory !act:9rs tbjlt arf Jypi~al of Nridional analysis-n~mely, cultural
goals and institutionallzed[~ z#is. H.:_~~~- ~~°--~~e .a. -~_aj<?,r _independent
~•rl~bl1111 ~!.~Y~.11•~, ,~o~.i~.l~. at~~· ~•~d ?.Y..'D\ltkh1~ tc;, explain
•~dde, a form ol d,.,.,nq,;J,.et u,-,-call that D\ukh1lzn"1 gtneral dtllnitton
of anomie wu ·• lade of}J~ation,' or no~~i'[~i•"··~_!ft~!'•~ defu.)Uion
·cliffen somewhat; for hlm1rQ o~e ls a discontinuity between_~tural .goals
an_d )he 1.,gltimate_trie~ !~.Y.~~~le for rea~g. Jhern. He_aJ?.elles this
a·~aly~ls to·.ili.~ _
µ~t~ ·S.~a~f,~ here the ·g·oi.~ of_~onetary success
emphasized ·but there is .no corretponding emphasis •On. the "legititnate

:;;~%,;=~r;t~~~;:e:~fu-1\~,
country
functional for ·those groups•:,w i~ the ~ho lack tlie means to the
goal of monetary' success. Th~ it is a s~urce of strain for the system, in the
P~rsoniari sense;·and 'it leadf·to a considerable amount of deviance." 2 .
. -~ depi~g his model graphically Merton chose tC? use a plus sign(+).
to 1nd1cate.~~~P-~~~~~.-~~ ~~.~Jl of ~ -o~-~-~~--!~Ss~ss .~?'..t~e·~eans ~QJ.pe
go~~, and ll!, ~~:..~ ~~~ ;j~gp,(-:-) ~q -~ 4i~_~e._the ~~jection:·(or 'u.ilavail-
a_bility~ otth~_gQ,!J..Qr;_me.~l)f•.!.9.·it. He th~ a~ves -at five modes·o-f adapta-
tio.n,_?r. typ~ ~f de~,nce.} ?ur schematic presentatio~ (Figure 2-3) differs
.,. ' ~-
1•Merto n, Social Thto,y and S~nl Structur,, 81, 106,
· ..lbld,, /or examplo, p, 217, Merton'• ·cone.pt of I t ·. '
Owkhelm and to lndud, iht n-.lll for Nlh&ral , f', •1ratlon '"INto owt moet to
nJtt• to bt IJ:l llnt with one ano\ht.r,,~ the dlacuaai:~~hrnt~h' ,actual lnat1tuUoN and opportu•
11•lbld., ·101, : . .. · , · . 1 . eory of ~•vltnce, ~hlc)doJlowe,
· 1116et Merton', chapter,;•"'Social

St"'ctur,, 185-2'8, .
s· · · ·. ·.· ·
· .,..,• ·· tru~rt ·and .~oml~/' .ln Sodol Th,ory and Social
, ·uapansont, in fact,· borrowed 'from M .. , . .· . . . .
onentation. See Par1ona, 77i, S~i(d:·~y•tnn, ~~-on .• model Ji hJ~ own c:Jassilf~atJon ol deviant
 Functlonollsm 71

. .. ! '"'
. . . ton finished h,is last book, Tire
. hortly aftez:.his ninety-fi,rst,b~~day, Mer ·n Sociclo ical Semantics .~nd
G
Adventures of Strend1,;r1~. A Study Barber. -he book traces t~e
,.
. ;::;ociology of Sc~enct, coautho~ ~th E:i~;do~ ·and •luck by which some-
.. r serendipity, the combination o
hjstory O • ··t b
thing is discovered not qw .e y ac:M rt
cident ·
. this section on e on,
1n concl ud.mg .
.
. . . •.
• .
we cllln se·e •hat in c;i-enetal he alerts

functionalists to question ~n? to e~ ~ate c;n .c

-· '
,
ci
. al . 'ti ally the.contributions of van~us
••

.n he asks who ben-

-
·alinsti~tions. He also raises ques~ons of meq1Jallty,whe. h . p sons .
,..+.,_ thus leading .to a more cnhcal VleW t an 'ar
soa . . .....
efits from ce~am Su \,l\..~W \;,;J, . . '. '.

•
I
f.
Part Three

-
'

Neo'FUNCTIONALISM
-

- •
-.~
• __ ..., __ • C.- S

-~eofunctionaUs1n is a theoreti<;al _d evelop~e~t that· em~r$'~~- in_ t~e mJ~-

1 SQs in the United States and Germany. lrl .19~ the~~ sect~o~ ,_o~. _the
American Sociological -A sso~a~on, then Je.ff;~f-.C.,. f~~xa~~er,.
devoted two sessions to· a conference on·<n~on.i.n.ction~Usm •a~ ·.th~ -.a~nual
meeting. Most of the ·p~pers prese~ted -r e~ppr~ed--,an~ ·.recQ~si<:¼ered· 't he
. empirical applications .of Parson.tan .the·9ry. Alexa,nder, ~ecc;,$11~.~-~ ·_a·s . -~he
leading proponent of neolul'\c:tiort.al.am _ln. the United ~.t.ates, :s.ul:>seq~ently ·
pu~lished a ~ol_u~e titled Neofunct-i~nalism,- nrl . . ·: ... · ·::. ·:··-:: ~
:. ": : ;.. ' . . .
. ~ the' iJ)t.r~d\lCtiQn !O Ne_~fu~ctional~l~~ari~er·s·u.:·~~~st~--,twe~;-~ .~- . .·
lantiesbetwee11-~eofunct1onalism and neo-~_a_rx.ism_.. Both -~_du~e-a critique .
-.
..

of some of the basic tenets of _Jhe ,original ·theory, the i.ncorpora·tion o( ele-
ments from .antagonistic theoretical traditions, and a·variety of comp.etin·g
developm~nts rather .than. a single coherent form. Alexander_then argues
that neofunc,tionalism is a tendency rather than .a develQped theory, _and he
elaborat~s ~n the various tendencies.of n~functionalism:·(1) to .c.reate a form \~

~f fu,ncn_on~lism t~at 'is mul~dimensional an~ . inchii_ des mj~o ·as \.veil as
macro l~vels _of_ analysis; (2) to ~ush ·functionalism to the left an(;! ~ej~ct
Parson~ s optin:usm al;>'°ut ~oderT\lty~ _
(3) to argue for an.implicit .dem~c:.rati¢
-~
thru~t m f~n~honal ~nalys1s; (4) to t~corporate a .conflict orienta·non; and
.~~>. to emp~~s1z_e .c~ntmg~~cy (unc_e~tainty) a~d int~ractional creativity. - ~'{
What remai.ned at issue among neofunclionalists · howeve· ·.· --- h
follow! kf d { i · · · · ' r,. were t e
. . . ng n .s O n_terrelated probl~ms: How may researchers best charac-
terize _the relation~hip between co~fhct or ~ontingency ·a~~-59.cial ord_er?. TQ
111
See Jeffery C. Alex111'der, ed.,· Nto/unctlo"nll,,,. (Beverly Milt . ~- . , · · . ·
t>avld Sciulli and Dean· Cer1t1ln, "Social hieory and Tllt'Ott P1 ,, A. Sage, 1985); "l\d
Re1Jlew pf Soc/0/01'¥ (Palo Alto, CA: Annual Revltw, 198S), . 11'101'\I In tliu1 1980s," A."rruol
 72 Chapter 2
what extent must Parsons's emphasis upon the relationship between social
action and -social order be reformulated in order to inform empirical ..
re11earch? In the 1980s and -1990s contributors to neofunctionalism in the
United States, in addition to·Alexander, include Paul Colomy, Dean Gerstein,-.
Marl_< Could, Frank Lechner, David Sciulli, llnd Neii Smelser, and in
Germany Niklas Luhmann and Richard Munch. In the following section we
briefly mention the work of Alexander, Smelser, and Luhmann·.
--
~::LEXANDER
.... ,-
·' In his book titled Neofunctionalism and After, Jeffrey Alexander confessed that
-he considers the neofunctionalism project as finished , He -argues that ·the
t'tansition from orthodox to reconstructed functionalism has been completed
because the legitimacy oi some of Parsons's central concerns has been estab•
lished, In Alexander's vie.w, neofunctionalism "has succeeded in helping to
establish Parsons as a classkiil figure." This means _that, like other classical
theorists, Parsons's theoretical position,-though historically eminent, will not
dominate contemporary theoretical work. Alexand~r adds that Parsons's
ideas are "no more important than some of the critical achievements of other
classical theorists.'~ 1
·On the 9ther hand, Alexander continues to vi~w functionalism as a
"vital current in contemporary work ... one strong sti/and in the fabric of the
new theoretical movement." Further, he predicts tha• neofuncUonalists will
continue to pro_d uce creative and important sociolpgical .studies. But he
adds,... '.'The very success of neofunctionalism points bjeyond it as well." 11'
' For Alexander the direction of the new theoreti* _ movement is beyond
rec~ctiori of already e~ting theories an_d toward · ation of new ones. It
is his posi~~n that what has s~~ted these tn~v~m ts ar~ "the e~erge~c_e
of new politically generated theones sucn as fenurus multiculturalism, evil
society, and postcolonialism." 111 Aiexander's depa~ from Parsons's focus
on equilibrium at'the macrosociological level is appa~t when he states:
The divisive classes generated by economic life, l~e~ lig_archies, generate? .by
political and organizational power, the gender and a e h1erarch1es of families,
the demonology frequently legitimated by religi s institutions, and the
ethnic, regional, and racial domµutions oft~n ge erated by the very c?~-
struction of national civil states-such intrusions fragment and spht c1v1l
society even while its very el:istence promises particfation and restoration of
the social whole. 11 ' I for ways to _avoid exp~rj.encing ambivalence is that it is "such a powerful,
. ! . .
'"Jeffrey c, AJexander, NtofunctioMllsm and After (Malden, tyfA: Blackwell, 1998), S-13.
"'Ibid., 13. . :I
"'Ibid., 17. ;i
"'Ibid., 227.
.·
Functlonollsm · 73
. . ' ·:;~:- ·. . . ,-,~,
Daily newspapefs throughout the world are fill~d with example~ of
these destructive intrusions· in the lives' of rich·and poor, parents and chil-
dren, husbands and wives; clergy and laity, and the majorities and minori-
ties acros;i racial, ethnic, and regional dimensions. ln Alexander's recent
book, The.Meanings~/ Social Life: A Cultura( S~cio/ogy, he vi~s culture -as
embodied in both 1odal,l.nstl.tutions and human personalltl.e sing a serlea
of empirical studies from·the Holoca\.!S_t·to Watergate, he illus ates how the
.deep patterns of meaning'.qan help us to understand not only the power of
.violence and degradatiol},\}:iut. also the steady persiste11ce of_hope-)
. Alexa~der s~l!s ,his w,oi:k as a contribution to. the new theoret:i:cal move-
ment and c,;mfesses.that he-has shifted from following Parsons in his neglect
of order in the lives of in~vidual people, to theorizing much more directly
in the mkrcisociological tr_aditioh. An illustration of this is his new work on
action. Whereas Parsoni-:Consistently viewed aqors as analytical concepts,
Alexander defines actio~[ias the movement of concrete, living, breathing
persons as they make their .way through time and spac:e. In addition, when
he argues that every action-:contains· a dim'!nsion of free will, or agency1 1n
this respect·he is expandlng functionalism to include some of the concerns of
symbolic interactionism_=) · -
~ ELSER .
[Een Smels~r, who coauthored. Econ~.y and Society . with Parsons while a
graduate_ student at\Harvard, hu been a ~y figure among neofunctional- .
ists._"0 Though Sm~er•s work moved in directions different from Parsons's,
their friendship en~ur~•: u.ntU _Parsons's . death.111 . Smelser's presidential
address at the 1997 mee~g of the· American Sociological Association, titled
"The Rational and the Ambivalent in the Social Sciences," exemplifies what
was previo~ly _d escri~ as the movement toward creation of new theories. _
( In tlus ad~ress Sm~er sets out to establish the concept of ambivalence as an
essential element fo:r the unde~tanding of individual behavior, social insti-
tutions, and the hwnan condition in general) In contrast to Parsons and
Merton, Smelser's approach, based on·Freud's theory of ambivalence, takes
intrapsychic processes, rather than roles, as the starting point. As Smelser
describes it, _"the nature _~f ambivalence is to hold opposing affective orienta-
tions toward the same pe~son, object, or symbol." The reason people look
. '"Sff, for example, Nell J. Smeber, "Evaluating the Model of Structural Diflerenti1tion in -
Relation to·Educational Change.'ln the Nl'neieenth Century," in Alexander, •NeofMnclioMlism,
11~129. . . .,. · · .
'"for background on ~mets.er, see Ruth A. Wallac:e, "New ASA rresldent Nell J. SD'\el.ter:
A Bridge-Builder Par Excellenfet Foolnoies 24.7_(Septembe.t /October 1996): 1. 10.
 ~r:-
74 Chapter 2
persistent, unresolvable, volatile; generali:pble,. and anxiety-producing feature of
the human condition."~ · ·''· ·
[In applying .the..!"'otion.(?l ambivalence, Smelser refers to phenomena
sue.kb death And separation, retirement; and moving away from a commu-
nity. He sees-the postulate o( ambivalence as mosf.applicable, however, In a
range of sih.lations where persona are 'dependent qn one another, 1uch as
lov1re, partner,, Intimate,, and lriend!:Jie argu~• that theJorm ol depend•
en~•~•>' vary: . . . , .
;)
A subordinate person in a power relationship is politically de~endent; a persQ~
who Is comm,ittecl tQ a religious or sodal movement~ Ideologically dependen.t1
a person in love Is tmotlonal,ly dependent. The common element, however, IS
that ~om to leav~holce-ls restricted beaus.e It Is costly politically, lde-
. ologic,lly,•or emotionally. Thus, d~pendenc:e entails entrapment.'" · ~ H M A N N ..
/Sm~lser argues that certain'·~ '>di ·organizations where people are
' 1 ~ " by personal or instih.ltiorii li~~tment, like Coffman's "total
instih.ltions," "seedbeds of ambiv'~tnce and its consequences-spite,
petty wrangling, struggle~ for recognition, and vi.cious politics.-'' 124 For .
example, Smelser points tb academic departments, . where "people are
'locked in' by tenure or by the yea~g and struggle for ·tenw:e,··and can
escape only at great cost unless a mor~w~ttractive_ opportunity arises." He
\ adds, "People have. to live with one a11M.her, but this does not mean they
have to love one another; it implies, rather, that they both love and hate one
an~ther."~ · ·~· . ,
. More recently Smels~ ha~;beeft wo.rJdng on th.e perspective of cultural
trauma, which he de!µled. during a .p ~~ tatiot' at the Na~onal Academy. of
Sdenca ~ r l l 29, 2002: ~•n ~em~ of a collectivity feel they have
bten.1ub to a homhdous event·that leaves indelible marks upon their
·group consciousness, marking- their memori~ forever, and changing their
future ·identity in fund1unent:al and UTeV'ocable ways." 11' All an illustration
he presents nine traumatic ingredfents of the attack on the World Trade
Center and the Penta~on on September .11, -2001: a~ initial .reaction of ·w
shod<, disbelief, ·an~ emotional numbing; (2) -~ective and behavioral rea~-
tions such as fear, .anxiety, and teffllr; (3) wid~pread collective mourning;
(4) an immediate sense of the indelibility of ~e trau.ma;,(5) a sense of national
brooding over the event; (6) a collectiye endowment 9f th:e events with a
. . "'Neil]. Smelser, "The Rational and the Amblvale11t In the Social Sciences," l\mtrican'
Soclolo,fiCt1! Rrvlnu 63. l (Fel>ruar.y 1998): 6.
IDibl_f, 8, . . . . . . . Press, 1982), 59.
'HfbJd:, 9. See abo Chapter S f~r. Goffman', ~ork on total iNtltutfons.
'-Smelser, 'The RatfDnaJ and the Ainblval~ ~ 9, .
••Ibid., 11. · . -4g_~•;
· ··•i--l•U
l'f,@°i!
'!¥
... .. .
Functlonollsm 75
sacred <;haracter; . (7) deliberate efforts to remember the .events c91lectively;
(8) sustailled public interest in the remembering process; and . (9) a culmi-
_natin.g sense that American identity had been altered fundamentally. Smelser
views the catastrophe as "a fully ambivalent event-simultaneously shocking
and fascinating, depressing and exhilaratin~, ·grotesq1,1e and bea1,1ti.fµl,
,uUyins and cleonsing-and leavi11g the country feel,u,g both bad and good
about ltHlf," Thu• Septem\,er ·1-1 wa, a 1erlou1 c:ultw'al trauma, ·but it
. also Included "a b~t of national unity, a reafflrmatiQn of. Americanism, a
substantial . national .mobilization, a righteous mission, .a nd a cause for
celebration." 121
German theqrists tend to read Parsons thro1,1gh the eyes of Niklas Luhmann,
ho spent a 'year. in ·the early 1960s .st Harvard studying_u~der Pa~sons.
Luhmann views Parsons's tneory as a milestone because it has been the
only attempt to begin with a numbc;r of equally important functions and
then to give a theoretical deduction to thet;n .... No one else has dared to try
this or even tho\lght H was ·possible.'' 121 However,. what_Parsons's theory is
mi~sing, according to Luhmann, are the concepts of self-reference and com-
plex,ity. His own work attempts to fomu,tlate a vruversal or grand theory Qf
social systems th~t incorporates these concept!:]
,Luhman~ ·argues that a soci~l syste~ e,usts "whenever the actions of
se~al persons are meaningful, interrelated and are thU$ ... marked off
from·an envi.ron~ent." 119 Asocial system thus emerges whenever any inter-
action takes place ~mong· lndividuals. According to Luhmann, there are
three typ11 of ioclal 1y1tems: t on 1 1teiN (face-to,.fac:e .lnterac:tion of
h.u~an be~~gs), organization systems w ere membership ls linked to spe•·
c:onchtion~,_and societal systems ·(the all-et;nbraci,ng social ~ystem,
en~ sodeties).1~ ) ·.
~lf-referena:'according to Luhmann, is a· condition for the efficient
· functi~ning of systems; It means that·the system is able to observe itself, can
reflect on itself and what it is doing, and can make decisions as a result of
this·reflection. Self-referential systems have the ability to "delineate their self
identities."u• · They can describe themselves by setting up .boundaries ,
"'Ibid.; 11 .
'11$ee Niklas Luhmann, The DiffertMliatioM of Society (New York: Columbia University
11
'lbid., 70.
'·"'Ibid., 71-7S.
"'Niklas Luhmann. "Tau·10Jogy and Paradox In the Self-Oescriptions of Modern Soci11y,"
Sociological Tlttory 6 (1988): 26-:17.
 I.
.~.-.,,.
~;!-
· t,\' ,
.,
76 Chapter2
Functionalism 77
,'/•
regarding what they are and what they are not; in other words, the system
has "str\,\ctural autonomy."~ · . to reach a yes, Think, for example, of the difficult decision arising from tech-
Self-referencing, in Luhmann's view, takes place ii\ all subsystems, such nological innovations·that have produced an
enormous..variety·of software
as politics, science, economy, family, education, and
lav,, ~e provides us with · programs for computersJ How·does one choose a word-processing program,
an example of the sell•referendng of I ayatem when he·aaya that the adentillc ·a print•er, &· c~llular-pttt!ne, or a. program for·•~g the net for inst~nce,
subsystem "reflects on ltseU In lund~mental th"Worizlng·and in· its dedsions to when.newer ~d mont aophlatlcatecl v11rsio,na· ·are being_ Introduced alinoat
continue.or discontinue l!S historically given· tradltions."u1 uSeU-referential daU~ . , t . . . ··. .
systems are not only self-organizing or-self-regulating·systems.... Th~y exist (.J,.l1hmann argues that th~ fundamental problems of such a paradoxical
as a closed network of the production of elements whlc:h ·reproduces itself world can be solved, C?r.tra~f9rmed In.to minor problems, by-religion or.by
as a network by continuing to produce the ele~ent~ which are needed to ·. several functional. ·equivalents•_of religion In modl!m society, including art,
continue to produce the elements."',. . love,-sovereign power, and making money.•~ What these ajtemat;ives have in
To argue that a system is self-reforendng is to co,nfer _on the system a common is that they prQvide._at least some actors with shared standards of
capability for decision making ..How much is gained by such-a reifica_tion? action accepted on faith. The)(allow complex_sets of Interactions ~ceed
It is one thing to s_uggest, as Parsons do~, that a system has needs, but quite in a world that-would otherwise be_c:haotic and incomprehensible. ·
another to say that it can reflect on itseU and make decisions. It seetns to . Luhma'i'I\ is balj~c:ally not.as optimistic aboul the future as w sons.
us that an example such as the one just given confuses .the issue even further. LuhmaM·argues that-the modem world b too c:omplex for shared norms or
Alter all, the ·scientific subsystem that reflects on ·itseU- consists, In the e.ven value generalization, an~ he c:rltidzes Parsons for overestimating not
last analysis, of groups of scientists who do the reflecting and make the · only 'the social consensus ~J.ia ·func:tionallr necessary ._but also 'the con-
decisions. · sensus that, exists ·Jn actuall~· What unites us, ·ac:corditlg ·to Luhmann, is
"co~on acceptance of sc;h~tized {or structural) contingency." 1411 · •
rLuhmann's position, however, is that the human subject or concrete
soc~groups should not be the . central point of social thought. Societal
~a later work Luhmann points to the negati:ve aspects (dysfunctions)
of modernity. He views society as confronted with the full consequences of
systems, according to Luhmann, are too coi;nplicated to be treated in this
its structural selections, such as the ecological problems resulting from its
way. They must be treated not as being composed o{ hurnan beings; but
own "ratioriality." 111 Luhmann-also points to the growing awareness of and
rather as .being composed of communication units. L-\dividuals, then, are
merely part of the environment the societJl system. Subjective meaning ls arudety about global risks nourished by _modern ecological problems and the
ruled out; as evidenced In his statement that "there is no plausible way to struggle to maintain the'level 9f aodal weUare. In fact, Luhmann describes
base.systems theory on a·Weberian concept of meaningfui'"ac_ticiri."'"' this as the "era.of unmasked ~ety.'11~ . .
(- In his book titled Risk: A Sociological '11teory, Luhmann defin~s risk as a
In LulunaM's theory the chief t~k performed by ~odal systems is to
reduce complexity."'' Luhmann is convinced t~at Parsons's theory of action pomffial harm threatening an lncilviduol that is baaed on a d!:ci.sion-made by
· the individual.•~·~t is a c:alcula.tion regarding potential loss and advantage In
offers "only meager resources for handling complexity'''J7 and that "a theory
of society will have to concern-itself Y.'.ith ideanuch as the red':lction of th~ .tenns of time, like deci.dfug whether or when or where to dispose of nuclear
materials or to smoke a cigarette.\ -, . . · .· . .
. extreme complexity and contlng~ncy of ~e worlc;i."~ In ~~aM's vie~(
greater complexity brings_ m:ore choices and more ;Pos,s1blllties, and this In this analyala L ~ g i s h ~ between risk and g.anger, the .
means that c:hooslng among altemativea ls_more dlfflc,ult; 11 takes more noes latter define<! u a potential ·'hann to whic:h an Individual is pafll~.ely
exposed, that la, ·without tha~ partkw~ lndividui\l. havirlg made a d1'clalon
· to do_10--for. exaznple, a tomldo, ,,rthq\llke, or hurricane. ln the. ca•.• of
••Luhmann, Oifferatt~lion of Sodtty, 258. danger, he exp~al~, "the posalble loss is caused externally, that ls to aay,Jt is
"'Ibid., 265. attributed to the 11'.IVironment.'.'!41 •. •
"'Niklas Luhmann, •Soctety, .Meaning, Religion-Based onrlf•Reference," Sociological
Analysis 46 (1985): 6. Al thiJ quote demonstrates, a combination of unclear definitions 011d
highly abstract concepts makes Luhmann'• theory difficult to grill . IMLuhll)ann, "Society, Meaning; :iellglon," 9. ·.
'"Luhmann, Difftrtnliiilion of Society, 232. "'Luhmann, Dilfmnlial_iDn of.Society, xix.
"'Ibid., xxvi. 1Luhminn, "Tautology and
11
Patadox/ 36.
11
'Ibid., 92. lbid.,33. ·
1
• lllJbid., 192. Whereas LuhmaM argues for the reduction qt complexity, Patricia Hill
"
Collins takes the opposite position. See also Chapter.5. . '"Nlklas LulunaM, Risk: .A ~logiClll Theory (New Yo.rk: Aldine de Gruyter, 1993), 11.
"'Ibid., 22.
-,