Social Lens - Chapter Parsons e Merton

8/10/2019 Social Lens - Chapter Parsons e Merton

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/social-lens-chapter-parsons-e-merton 1/37

StructuraI FunctionaIism:

Talcott Parsons andRobert K. Merton

n Chapter 1, we saw that understanding modernity is vital for understanding

contemporary theory and sociology. It's equally important for us to also under stand

a couple of the developments in the mid-twentieth century that formed

contemporary theory, especially in the United States. or our purpose the two mostsignificant are !alcott "arsons and the ran#furt School. In many ways these two

forces too# the social disciplines in opposite directions$ "arsons saw himself %uild

ing on the ideals of modern #nowledge-the ran#furt School did &ust the oppo

site and argued that rather than leading to social &ustice, social science destroys the

possi%ility of freedom and equality. oth were centrally concerned with culture$

"arsons saw culture as the most important factor leading to social cohesion and

harmony-the ran#furt School saw culture, especially popular culture, as produc

ing false consciousness. (nd %oth have influenced contemporary theory %eyond

their specific ideas.

)istorically, the ran#furt School developed first. )owever, I'm going to start

with "arsons %ecause he e*tends and systemati+es the things we learned a%out

modern #nowledge and society in Chapter 1. (dditionally, as you'll see through this %oo#, "arsons' influence is more central as many contemporary theorists continue

to see themselves arguing for or against his wor#. !here are good reasons for giving

this much influence to "arsons, %ut there's also a sense in which I'm ma#ing him an

ideal type, similar to what I did with modernity. oth "arsons and modernity e*ist

and are clearly important %ut I'm not presenting a well-reasoned and documented

case for either. I'm using them as heuristics for our discussion throughout the

%oo#-they represent ways for us to discover questions, ideas, and theories that

come with each of our theorists. (nd %ecause the influence of the ran#furt School

actually %ecomes increasingly important toward the end of the twentieth century,

199

I



MID-TWENTIETH CENTR! S"CI"#"$IC%# THE"R!2

rather than mid-century, I'll %e saving our consideration of that perspective for the

last chapter in this section. !he ideas of critical theory set the stage well for "art III$ Contemporary ew isions and Critiques.

In this chapter, I will %e introducing the wor# of two functionalists, !alcott

"arsons and /o%ert K. 0erton. In preparation for reading "arsons, I recommend

that you first review the synopsis for functionalism that you wrote for Chapter 1-

notice how "arsons draws on the functionalism of %oth Spencer and 2ur#heim.

"arsons sets the overall parameters of functionalist thin#ing in the twentieth century

and gives us a very a%stract, analytical model of functionalism. 0erton was a student

of "arsons, yet he also was critical of certain elements of his mentor's approach. (s

we'll see, 0erton wanted to more firmly ground functionalist analysis in the empir

ical world, and he wanted to open the perspective up to alternative possi%ilities.

Analytical Functionalism:

Talcott Parsons (1902-1979)

T&eorist's Di(est

Conce)ts an* T&eor+: Ma,in( t&e Social S+stem

Voluntaristic ActionConstraining and Patterning Social Action

Conce)ts an* T&eor+: S+stem Functions an* Control

System RelationsCybernetic Hierarchy of Control

Conce)ts an* T&eor+: Social C&an(e

Cultural Strain

Revolution

Summar+

arsons was a man with a grand vision. )e wanted to unite the social and

%ehavioral disciplines into a single social science and to create a single the

oretical perspective. "arsons wor#ed at this not only theoretically %ut also

organi+ationally. In 134, "arsons %ecame department chair of sociology at

)arvard University. 5ne of the first things he did was to com%ine sociology,

anthropology, and psychology into one department, the 2epartment of Social

/elations. !he reason he did this was to %rea# down the %arriers %etween disci

plines in order to create a general science of human action. )is desire, then, wasn't

simply to understand a portion of human action 6as in sociology7 he wanted,

rather, to comprehend the totality of the human conte*t and to offer a full and

P



complete e*planation of social action. !he department e*isted from 1348 to 139and formed the %asis of other interdisciplinary programs across the United States.

(fter 1: years of wor#, "arsons' first %oo# was pu%lished in 13;9$ The Structureof

Social Action. !his %oo# is characteri+ed %y <ewis Coser 613997 as a =watershed in the

development of (merican sociology in general and sociological theory in particu

lar ... >which? set a new course-the course of functional analysis-that was to dom

inate theoretical developments from the early 134:s until the middle of the 13@:s=

6p. 8@7. 0ore than any other single %oo#, it introduced Auropean thin#ers to

(merican sociologists and gave %irth to structural functionalism. )is other prominent

wor#s include The Social System, Toward a eneral Theory of Action, !conomy and

Society, Structure and Process in "odern Societies, and The American #niversity. or

much of the twentieth century, "arsons was =the ma&or theoretical figure in Anglish

spea#ing sociology, if not in world sociology= 60arshall, 133B, p. 4B:7. !he =question

of what the field of sociology is and how it should %e done ... was more or less settled

in the post-war period %y the dominance of "arsons' functionalism= 6Calhoun,

erteis, 0oody, )aff, D ir#, 1::1, pp. 1-7. (s ictor <id+ 6:::7 notes, =!alcott

"arsons ... was, and remains, the pre-eminent (merican sociologist= 6p. ;BB7.

!here are at least three ways in which "arsons helped shape the center of sociolog

ical discourse in the twentieth century$ the way he theori+ed, the pro%lem he

addressed, and the theory itself. Ee'll start with his theori+ing. /ecall that science is

%uilt upon positivism and empiricism. (s such, science assumes that the universe is

empirical, it operates according to law-li#e principles, and humans can discover those

laws through rigorous investigation. Science also has very specific goals, as do most#nowledge systems. !hrough discovery, scientists want to e*plain, predict, and control

phenomena. (dditionally there are two other important issues in positivistic theory,

which we find in the following quotes from prominent contemporary theorists$

!he essence of science is precisely theory ... as a generali$ed and coherent

%ody of ideas, which e*plain the range of variations in the empirical world in

terms of general principles.... >I?t is e*plicitly cumulative and

integrating. 6Collins, 13B@, p. 1;48, emphasis added7

( true science incor%orates the ideas of its early founders in introductory te*ts

and moves on, giving over the analysis of its founders to history and philos

ophy. 6!urner, 133;, p. i*, emphasis added7

!he first thing I want us to glean from the a%ove quotes is that scientific theory is

generali$ed. !o ma#e an idea or concept general means to ma#e it applica%le to an

entire group of similar things. (s you'll see when we consider "arsons' theory, his con

cepts are very general 6and thus fairly dry-%ut, then, all scientific theory is that way7.

Scientific #nowledge also involves %oth theory synthesis and cumulation. Synthesis

involves %ringing together two or more elements in order to form a new whole. or

e*ample, water is the synthesis of hydrogen and o*ygen. Theoretical synthesis, then,

involves %ringing together elements from diverse theorists so as to form a theory that

ro%ustly e*plains a %roader range of phenomena. Cumulation refers to the gradual

%uilding up of something, such as the cumulative effects of drin#ing alcohol. Theory



cumulation specifically involves the %uilding up of e*planations over time. !his incre

mental %uilding is captured %y Isaac ewton's famous dictum, =If I have seen further

it is %y standing on the shoulders of giants$'Fet, what isn't clear in ewton's quote is

that the ultimate goal of theory cumulation is to forget its predecessors.

!o ma#e this clear, let's compare the writings of two authors, Adgar (llan "oe

and (l%ert Ainstein. )ere's one of "oe's famous stan+as$

5nce upon a midnight dreary, while I pondered, wea# and weary,

over many a quaint and curious volume of forgotten lore,

Ehile I nodded, nearly napping, suddenly there came a tapping,

(s of someone gently rapping, rapping at my cham%er door.

='!is some visitor,= I muttered, =tapping at my cham%er door5nly this, and nothing more$'

)ere's one of Ainstein's famous quotes$

E=me

!here are some o%vious differences %etween these two quotes$ 5ne is poetry and

the other a mathematical equation. ut I want you to see a %it more. 2oes it matter

who wrote =5nce upon a midnight dreary=G Fes, it does. ( large part of understand

ing poetry is #nowing who wrote it-who they were, how they lived, what their other

wor#s are li#e, what style they wrote in, and so on. !hese issues are part of what

ma#es reading "oe different from reading Amily 2ic#inson. ow, does it matter who

wrote

E H me? ot really. Fou can understand everything you need to #now a%out E H me

simply %y understanding the equation. !he author in this sense is immaterial.

5ne of the a%ove quotes is from onathan ). !urner's %oo# Classical Sociological

Theory& A Positivist's Pers%ective. !urner's 6133;7 goal in that %oo# is =to codify the

wisdom of the masters so that we can move on and ma(e boo(s on classical theory

unnecessary'' 6p. i*, emphasis added7. !hat last highlighted section is the heart of

theory cumulation$ Cumulating theory implies that we do away with the individual

authors and historic conte*ts and #eep only the theoretical ideas that e*plain, predict,

and control the social world. In that spirit, here's a theoretical statement from

!urner's 6133;7 %oo#$

!he degree of differentiation among a population of actors is a gradual s-function

of the level of competition among these actors, with the latter varia%le %eing an

additive function of$

(. the si+e of this population of actors,

. the rate of growth in this population,

C. the e*tent of economical concentration of this population, and

2. the rate of mo%ility of actors in this population. 6p. B:7



Chapter 8 e Structural Functionalism: Parsons an* Merton 5

irst, notice how general the statement is it can %e applied to any group of people, living anywhere, at any time. otice also that there's no mention of from

whom these ideas originally came. ow, you and I might #now from whom this

proposition comes 62ur#heim7, %ut does it matterG o. <i#e Ainstein's formula, it's

immaterial. If we are doing social science, what matters is whether or not we can

show this statement to %e false through scientific testing. I- we can't, then we can

have a certain level of confidence that the proposition accurately reflects a general

process in the social world. In science, authorship is superfluous it's the e)%lanatory

%ower of the theory that matters. !he cumulation of these general statements is one

of the main goals of scientific theory.

5f his ground%rea#ing wor#, "arsons 6 13437 says,=The Structure of Social Action

was intended to %e primarily a contri%ution to systematic social science and not to

history= 6pp. %-/. )is wor# is actually a synthesis of three theorists. "arsons

6 13@17 notes how he used each one$

for the conception of the social system and the %ases of its integration, the

wor# of 2ur#heim for the comparative analysis of social structure and for

the analysis of the %orderline %etween social systems and culture, that of 0a*

Ee%er and for the articulation %etween social systems and personality, that

of reud. 6p. ;17

Fet "arsons clearly wants us to forget the historical and personal origins of the

theories-for science, it's the power of the synthesi+ed theory to illuminate and

delineate social factors and processes that matters. !his approach to theory is also

what led to the three sociological perspectives or paradigms you were taught in

your introduction to sociology courses$ structural-functionalism, conflict theory,

and interactionism. !o say that someone is a functionalist, for e*ample, is to pay

more attention to the general features of the theory than what he or she contri%utes

originally.

T!"#$%T&% '$!%T

)rie* io+raphy

Talcott Parsons 0as born December 123 14563 in Colora*o S)rin(s3 Colora*o. %s a +oun(man3 Parsons be(an &is uni7ersit+ stu*ies at %m&erst. He )lanne* on becomin( a )&+sician

but later c&an(e* &is ma8or to economics. Parsons recei7e* &is % in 1469. e(innin( in t&at

+ear3 Parsons stu*ie* )olitical econom+ abroa*3 irst at t&e #on*on Sc&ool o Economics.

T&ere &e came in contact 0it& t&e ant&ro)olo(ist ronisla0 Malino0s,i3 0&o 0as teac&in(

a mo*iie* S)encerian unctionalism. Parsons also met &is 0ie-to-be3 Helen Wal,er3 0&ile in

#on*on. Parsons t&en stu*ie* at t&e ni7ersit+ o- Hei*elber(3 0&ere Ma Weber &a*

atten*e* an* tau(&t. %t Hei*elber(3 Parsons stu*ie* 0it& Karl ;as)ers3 0&o &a* been a

)ersonal rien* o Weber's.

*Continued+-



<Continue*/

%ter teac&in( a s&ort 0&ile at %m&erst3 Parsons obtaine* a lecturin( )osition at Har7ar*.

He 0as one o t&e irst instructors =alon( 0it& Carle >immerman an* Pitirim Soro,in/ in

Har7ar*'s ne0 sociolo(+ *e)artment in 1421. Parsons became *e)artment c&air in 1496 an*

be(an 0or, on t&e De)artment o Social Relations-orme* b+ combinin( sociolo(+3

ant&ro)olo(+3 an* )s+c&olo(+. It 0as Parsons' 7ision to create a (eneral science o &uman

be&a7ior. T&e *e)artment 0as in eistence rom 149? to 14@6 an* orme* t&e basis o ot&er

inter*isci)linar+ )ro(rams across t&e nite* States.

%ter 15 +ears o 0or,3 Parsons' irst boo, 0as )ublis&e* in 142@: The Structure of Social

Action. More t&an an+ ot&er sin(le boo,3 it intro*uce* Euro)ean t&in,ers to %merican

sociolo(ists an* create* t&e irst list o AclassicalA t&eorists. Parsons 0as )articularl+ res)onsible

or brin(in( Ma Weber to t&e attention o .S. sociolo(istsB Parsons translate* se7eral o Weber's

0or,s3 inclu*in( The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism.

Parsons *ie* on Ma+ 3 14@43 0&ile tourin( $erman+ on t&e ?5t& anni7ersar+ o &is

(ra*uation rom Hei*elber(.

Central %ociolo+ical ,uestions

Parsons 0as a man 0it& a (ran* 7ision. He 0ante* to unite t&e social an* be&a7ioral

*isci)lines into a sin(le social science an* to create a sin(le t&eoretical )ers)ecti7e. His *esire3

t&en3 0asn't sim)l+ to un*erstan* a )ortion o &uman be&a7iorB &e 0ante*3 rat&er3 to

com)re&en* t&e totalit+ o t&e &uman contet an* to oer a ull an* com)lete e)lanation o

social action. His central concern 0as 0it& social or*er: I &umans are basicall+ sel-moti7ate*3

&o0 is social or*er ac&ie7e* =Notice t&at Parsons' assum)tion about &uman nature is

basicall+ t&e same as Dur,&eim's3 in C&a)ter ?/.

%imply %tate

Peo)le are moti7ate* to action because o biolo(ical an* )ersonal nee*s3 but in ac&ie7in(

t&ose nee*s )eo)le also buil* u) a s+stem t&at is (o7erne* )rimaril+ b+ culture an*

inormation. T&e contet3 t&en3 o &uman action is 0&at Parsons calls t&e Aunit actA: a situation

0&ere t&e means an* en*s o action are outline* b+ cultural norms. T&ese norms are e)licitl+

oun* in social institutions t&at mana(e 0&at Parsons calls latent )attern maintenance3

institutions t&at socialie us into t&e norms3 7alues3 an* belies o societ+ =li,e amil+ an*

reli(ion/. Societ+ also &as t&ree ot&er nee*s aroun* 0&ic& institutions are bui.lt: nee*s or

a*a)tation3 (oal attainment3 an* inte(ration. T&ese orm t&e lar(er contet or latent )atternmaintenance an* action. Social c&an(e occurs as a result o cultural strain3 moments 0&ere

cultural e)ectations *on't meet 0&at t&e ot&er t&ree institutions are able to )ro7i*e.

.ey Concepts

t&e )roblem o social or*er3 7oluntaristic action3 action t&eor+3 t&e unit act3 mo*es o

orientation3 a*a)tation3.(oal attainment3 inte(ration3 latent )attern maintenance3 (enera

lie* me*ia o ec&an(e3 7aluesB moti7es3 cultural )atterns3 action t+)es3 institutionaliation3

%$I#3 socialiation3 c+bernetic &ierarc&+ o control3 euilibrium3 cultural strain3 alienati7e

moti7ationa I elements



Chapter 8 G Structural Functionalism: Parsons an* Merton 7

Concepts an- Theory: /a0in+ the %ocial %ystem

"arsons saw himself responding to the %roblem of social order posed %y the philoso

pher !homas )o%%es 618BB-1@937. "arsons' understanding of this )o%%esian

pro%lem of social order %egins with the fact that all humans are ruled %y passions.

(nd, all people are motivated to fulfill these passions and, more importantly, they

have the right to fulfill them %ecause =there is 'no common rule of good and evil to

%e ta#en from the nature of the o%&ects themselves=' 6)o%%es, as quoted in "arsons,

1343, p. B37. In other words, things aren't good or %ad in themselves and people

have different desires for diverse things-thus there is no %asis for rule. In the

a%sence of any rule, people will use the most efficient means possi%le to acquire

their goals. =!hese means are found in the last analysis to %e force and fraud=

6"arsons, 1343, p. 3:7. !hus the most natural state of humanity is war of all against

all. !he question, then, is how is social order achievedG "arsons' %asic response is the

normative order-social order achieved through norms. Ehile some of the lan

guage might %e new to you, most of "arsons' response will pro%a%ly feel familiar.

!he reason that's pro%a%ly the case is that "arsons' answer to the pro%lem of social

order has %ecome for many sociologists the %asic answer given in introduction to

sociology classes. "arsons %egins with what he considers to %e the %asic element of

society$ voluntaristic action.

oluntaristic Action

"arsons credits 0a* Ee%er with his %eginning point for theory. !his area of theori+ing is referred to as action theory. (ction theory references a group of theories

that focus on human action rather than structure. Eithin this group are theories

that center on meaning and interpretation 6li#e 0ead7, and theories that are con

cerned with the nature of human action 6li#e e*change theory, Chapter ll 7. Ee%er

was concerned with %oth, %ut he e*plicitly developed a typology of social action.

(ccording to Ee%er, simple %ehavior is distinguished from social action %y the su%

&ective orientation of the actor. If, in the action, the person ta#es into consideration the

meaning of the act for others, then it is social action. Ee%er argued that there are four

distinct types of social action$ traditional, affective, value-rational, and instrumental

rational. !he focus ofEe%erian action theory is on the latter two types, and it is con

cerned with the degree of rationality in human %ehavior. A*change and rational choice

theories ta#e up these issues in particular, and argue that action is %est understood in

terms of people ma#ing rational choices in which they ma*imi+e their utilities 6hence

the name =utilitarianism=7. In other words, people have dear preferences and try to get

the most out of every encounter with other people %y weighing costs and %enefits. !he

question here %ecomes, how rational can people %e in e*changesG

"arsons specifically names his approach =voluntaristic action theory.= )e isn't so

much concerned a%out how meanings are negotiated in interaction, li#e 0ead, %ut

he wants to understand the conte*t of human action. <i#e rational choice theories,

voluntaristic action draws from utilitarianism in that it sees humans as ma#ing

choices %etween means and ends. ut it modifies utilitarianism %y seeing these

choices as circumscri%ed %y the physical and cultural environments.



(n e*ample of voluntaristic action is your %ehavior right now. In order to read

this %oo#, you had to enroll in class, pic# up the sylla%us, %uy the %oo#, schedule

time to read, and actually sit down and read it. (ll of this may %e seen as volun

taristic action$ Fou voluntarily acted, choosing among various ends and means

you could %e drin#ing a %eer and watching ! right now, %ut you selected this

%ehavior. =ut,= you say, =I didn't volunteer to do this class wor#J= Fes, you did

no%ody physically forced you. )owever, you volunteered under certain influences

from the environment. !he same with shaving or not shaving this morning, or the

clothes you are wearing right now. !hey are all aspects of voluntaristic action the

questions have to do with how much freedom you have in ma#ing choices in action,

and what goes into the decisions that you ma#e in order to act.

"arsons' first theoretical wor#, The Structure of Social Action, e*plains this by giv

ing us an analytical model of action. It's a framewor# or scheme through which wecan view and understand human action. "arsons' scheme doesn't predict the #inds

of actions in which people will engage his thin#ing is more fundamental than that.

)e gives us an analytical model that we can ta#e into any situation and %egin to

understand the myriad elements that go into human action.

The Unit Act

!his analytical model in its completion is termed the unit act. "arsons argues

that every act entails two essential ingredients$ an agent or actor and a set of goals

toward which the action is directed. Ee can see here Ee%er's notion of social

action 6in particular, instrumental rationality7 and its influence on "arsons'

theory. !he initial state within which the actor chooses goals and directs his or her process of action has two important elements$ the conditions of action and the

means of action. !he actor has little immediate agency or choice over the condi

tions under which action ta#es place. "arsons has in mind such things as the pres

ence of social institutions or organi+ations, as well as elements that might %e

specific to the situation, such as the social influence of particular people or physi

cal constraints of the environment. or e*ample, %eing at a fraternity party 6phys

ical setting7 will influence your action, %ut so will the presence of your parents

6social influence7 at the same party.

Ehen it comes to the means, on the other hand, the actor does potentially have

choice. Some situations allow quite a %it of freedom, %ut others, such as %eing in a

&ail, do not. )owever, notice that even in those situations where there is freedom of

choice a%out the means and goals, the normative orientation of the action limits or

defines the choices made. or "arsons, this is an e*tremely important point. "arsons

says that the concept of human action demands that there %e normative influence.

In other words, "arsons is arguing that human action is distinctly cultural action.

/emem%er that norms are %ehaviors that have sanctions attached to them, %e they

positive or negative. Such %ehaviors necessarily have social meaning attached to

them, have a position on a value hierarchy, and are directly or indirectly related to

some social group. 0ost of the rest of "arsons' wor# may %e seen as an e*plication

of the environment, particularly the cultural one, wherein social action ta#es place.



Constrainin+ an- Patternin+ %ocial Action

)aving understood that human action is circumscri%ed %y various conditions,

"arsons sets out to understand those circumstances. In e*plaining the conditions,

"arsons in the end creates an a%stract theory of the social system. <et's %egin %y

thin#ing a%out the situation. /emem%er, "arsons is thin#ing a%stractly, so we don't

want to %e too specific. So, what do you %ring with you to a social interaction,

whether you are meeting to practice for a play or to study for a testG "arson argues

that you %ring two things$ motivations and values. )e refers to these as modes of

orientation %ecause they orient or position us within the situation, whatever it

might %e. Motives, of course, refer to something within a person 6such as a need,

idea, or emotion7 that stimulates her or him to action. 0otives are the energy for

action$ ( person without motivation is li#e a car without gas-nothing happens.alue refers to a thing's worth and it is always a position on a hierarchy-some

things are valued more highly than others. !hus, in every situation we are moti

vated to do something and we have certain ideas a%out what will %e valued in the

encounter with regard to the action.

(ccording to "arsons 6133:7, all social action is understood in terms of some

form of relation %etween means and ends$ =!his appears to %e one of the ultimate

facts of human life we cannot get %ehind or thin# away= 6p. ;:7. !he relationship

%etween means and ends is formed through shared value systems. In this sense, cul

tural value systems function %asically as a scale of priorities that contains the fun

damental alternatives of selective orientations. !his shared value system prioriti+es

means and ends, and, %ecause it is shared, value hierarchies sta%ili+e interactions

across time and situations. (ction and interaction would %e disorgani+ed without

the presence of a value system that organi+es and prioriti+es goals and means. !he

evaluative aspect of culture is particularly important in this respect %ecause it

defines the patterns of role e*pectations and sanctions, and the standards of cogni

tive as well as appreciative &udgments for any interaction. In other words, the val

ues that we hold tell us the #inds of %ehaviors we can e*pect from others and how

to &udge those %ehaviors and other social o%&ects.

<et me give you an e*ample. I had coffee with a colleague the other day. Ee are

in the planning stages of a %oo# on sociological social psychology. !here are a

num%er of ways to loo# at social psychology from a sociological position, and in my

department there are several people who hold these various views. I am not plan

ning on writing a %oo# with them, nor did I invite them to go to coffee. It's not that

I don't li#e them I do, %ut I have a particular perspective a%out social psychology

%ased on valuing certain aspects of the literature more than others. 0y colleague

shares those views. ecause of that shared value system, we #now what to e*pect

from each other and how to value and appraise what is said and done, %oth intel

lectually and aesthetically.

"arsons sees value systems as having multiple levels that correspond to various

degrees of commitment. (ction may %e sta%ili+ed through a shared system of

meanings and priorities, %ut for a society to %e integrated, people need to %e com

mitted to paying the costs necessary to preserve the system. In any functional



interaction, we can name and prioriti+e the things that are important, %ut this dis

cursive or cognitive accounting isn't enough. Ee must also %e committed to some

things more than others in terms of willingness to sacrifice. "eople are compelled

to sacrifice when the collective means something to them, that is, when they have a

significant level of emotional investment in the group the more meaningful is

the collective, the more willing people are to ma#e sacrifices. !hus, the value sys

tem of any group varies by degree of commitment, with orientations and prefer

ences at the most %asic level and ultimate meanings and values at the highest level.

<i#e 2ur#heim, "arsons recogni+es the %asic human need for =ultimate= mean

ings, yet his argument concerning the need for ultimate significance is more tied to

group identification and Ee%er's concern with legitimacy. "arsons argues that

interaction requires individual actions to have meanings that are defina%le with ref

erence to a common set of normative conceptions. In other words, our %ehaviors

%ecome meaningful %ecause they are related to a group and its e*pectations.

roup identity is, of course,KLym%olic. In general, humans are not tied together by

%lood or instinct %ut %y ul&ssu, such as the ideas of freedom and democ

racy in a national identity. By their very nature, sym%ols require legitimacy, grounds

for %elieving in the meanings and system. o sym%olic or normative systems are ever

self-legitimating, nor are they legitimated by appeal to simple utilitarian issues. or

e*ample, we rarely hear someone &ustify the institution of (merican education %y

saying that it is necessary to the survival of the (merican system 6unless you're in a

sociology class7. <egitimating stories always appeal to a higher source. !hus, "arsons

613@@7 argues that legitimation is always =meaningfully dependent= 6p. ll7 upon

issues of ultimate meaning and therefore is always in some sense religious.

(ccording to "arsons, we hold three general #inds of values$ cognitive, appreciative, and moral. In other words, in any situation, we will place importance on

empirical, factual #nowledge 6cognitive7 standards of %eauty and art 6apprecia

tive7 or ultimate standards of right and wrong 6moral7. !here are also three #inds

of motives$ cognitive, cathectic, and evaluative. Cognitive motivation refers to a need

for information. Fou might %e motivated to meet with your advisor %ecause you

need information a%out which courses to ta#e. Cathectic motivation is the need for

emotional attachment. Fou might feel the need to call home some wee#end in order

to e*perience emotional attachment to your family. Eith evaluative motivation, we

are prompted to act %ecause we feel the need for assessment, such as tal#ing with

your %oss halfway to your year-end evaluation to find out where you stand.

!here are also three types of cultural patterns. Culture acts as a resource for

%oth our motivations and our values in action, so it shouldn't surprise us to findthat "arsons' ty%es of culture correspond to his types of motivations and values.

Culture, then, contains a belief system. Ehile we might thin# of %eliefs in a religious

sense, "arsons has in mind %elief as cognitive significance. It's interesting that he

would phrase cognitions in terms of %elief. )e's ac#nowledging that the ideas we

hold in our head, through which we see and #now the world around us, are in fact

%eliefs a%out the way things are. Culture also contains e)%ressive symbols. !hus, cul

ture not only provides the things we #now, it also patterns the way we feel. !hese

feelings are captured, understood, and e*pressed through sym%ols such as wedding



rings to e*press love, or gang colors to sym%oli+e aggression. Culture also containssystems of valueorientation standards. It is culture that tells us what to value and

how to value it.

!hese different #inds of motives, values, and cultural patterns com%ine to pro

duce three distinct types of social action. !hese function much li#e Ee%er's ideal

types in that they are ways of understanding action, and none of them usually

appears in its pure form. I've pictured how these ideal types are formed in igure B.1.

Aach type of action-strategic, e*pressive, and moral-is formed %y com%ining a

motivation with a value. Aach of the specific culture systems provides information

and meaning for each of the action types as well as the corresponding needs and

values. (s you can see, the ideal type of instrumental action is composed of the

need for information and evaluation %y o%&ective criteria. A*pressive action is moti

vated %y the need for emotional attachment and the desire to %e evaluated %y artis

tic standards. 0oral action is motivated %y the need for assessment %y ultimate

notions of right and wrong.

In any social encounter, then, we will %e oriented toward it with varying degrees

of motivation and values. !here are three different #inds of motivations and three

types of value systems. !he motivations and values will com%ine to create three dif

ferent types of action. (ny social action will have varying degrees of each type,

depending on the specific com%ination of motives and values, and can %e under

stood in terms of %eing closer to or further from any of the ideal types of action.

)owever, the importance of this scheme of social action is not simply its potential

for measurement. "arsons goes %eyond Ee%er in proposing a typology of social

action, and he uses it to form a %roader theory of institutionali+ation.Ehat "arsons is doing is %uilding from the ground floor to the top of the sys

tem, from the actor in the unit act to society. )e starts with one small action and

then argues that actors have discerna%le orientations toward their %ehavior. (s a

result, actions tend to fall into specific types. In %rief, we have come this far$ volun

taristic action --@ unit act --@ modes of orientation --@ types of action. rom this

point, "arsons argues that people tend to interact with others who share similar ori

entations and actors. So, if I want to engage in strategic, instrumental action, with

whom will I %e most li#ely to interactG or instance, if I'm interested in %uying a

guitar that has %een advertised in the paper 6strategic7, then I'm not interested in

interacting with someone who wants to tal# a%out the evils of roc# music 6moral7

or the %eauty of a ivaldi concerto 6e*pressive7.

5%viously, I will see# out others who want the same #ind of thing out of theinteraction. (s we interact over time with people who are li#ewise oriented, we

produce patterns of interaction and a corresponding system of status positions,

roles, and norms. Status %ositions tell us where we fit in the social hierarchy of

esteem or honor roles are sets of e*pected %ehaviors that generally correspond to a

given status position 6for e*ample, a professor is e*pected to teach7 and norms

are e*pected %ehaviors that have positive andMor negative sanctions attached to

them. !ogether, these form a social system-an organi+ation of interrelated parts

that function together for the good of the whole. Society is composed of various

social systems li#e these.



12 MID-TWENTIETH CENTR! S"CI"#"$IC%# THE"R!

T+)es o %ction

"rientation Toar

%ocial %ituation

M"TI%TED

BY

3ee-s an- alues

Nee* or

"b8ecti7e

Kno0le*(e

Nee* or Emotional

%ttac&ment

Types o*

Culture Pattern

Belief Systems

of Cognitie

Significance

Types o*

Action

Strate(ic

%ction

Nee* or

E7aluation

Systems of

E!pressie

Symbolism

E)ressi7e

%ction

"b8ecti7e

Kno0le*(e

P#%CE %#E

P"N

%est&etic

Feelin(s

E7aluati7e

Stan*ar*s

Systems of "alue#

$rientation

Standards

Moral

%ction



or this, "arsons gives us a theory of institutionali+ation. !he notion of institutionalization is very important in sociology. enerally spea#ing, institutionali+a

tion is the way through which we create institutions. or functionalists such as

"arsons, institutions are enduring sets of roles, norms, status positions, and value

patterns that are recogni+ed as collectively meeting some societal need. In this con

te*t, then, institutionali$ation refers to the process through which %ehaviors, cogni

tions, and emotions %ecome part of the ta#en-for-granted way of doing things in a

society 6=the way things are=7.

I've diagrammed "arsons' notion of institutionali+ation in igure B.. otice

that we move from voluntaristic action within a unit act and modes of orientation

to social systems. In this way, "arsons gives us an aggregation theory of macro-level

social structures. 5ne of the classic pro%lems in sociological theory is the lin#

%etween the micro and macro levels of society. In other words, how are the levels of face-to-face interaction and large-scale institutions relatedG )ow do we get from

one to the otherG 0ost sociologists simply ignore the question and focus on one

level or another for analysis. )ere "arsons gives us the lin# through the process of

institutionali+ation. <arge-scale institutions are %uilt up over time as individuals

with particular motivations and values interact with li#e-minded people, thus cre

ating patterns of interaction with corresponding roles, norms, and status positions.

!here's a follow-up question to the micro-macro pro%lem$ 5nce created, how

do institutions relate %ac# to the interactionG or 2ur#heim, the collective con

sciousness %ecomes an entity that can act independently upon the individual

and the interaction. It does this through moral force$ "eople feel the presence

and pressure of something greater than themselves and conform. or "arsons,

it's a %it different, even though he does ac#nowledge moral force. (ccording to

T&e Process o Institutionaliation

oluntaristic

%ction:

T&e nit %ctTa,en-or-

Interaction Patterns o $rante*

Emer(in( Roles3T+)es o

%mon( #i,e-'/

Interaction1-- Norms3 an*

T&e Social

%ction"riente* %cross Time

StatusS+stem

Mo*es o %ctors an* S)ace"rientation

Positions-

To0ar*Institutions

%ction

=alues3

Moti7es3

Cultures/



"arsons, all social arrangements, whether micro or macro, are su%&ect to system

pressures. !hus, institutions influence interactions not so much %ecause of their independent moral force, %ut rather %ecause interactions function %etter when

they are systematically em%edded in #nown and accepted ways of doing things.

In addition, rather than %eing dependent upon individual people or interac

tions, or having its own whimsical nature as 2ur#heim would have it, society is

su%&ect to self-regulating pressures %ecause it is a system.

etting %ac# to the actual process of institutionali+ation, "arsons argues that it

has two levels$ the structuring of patterned %ehaviors over time 6this is the level

we've %een loo#ing at7 and individual internali+ation or sociali+ation. "arsons

understands internali+ation in reudian terms. reud's theory wor#s li#e this$

"eople are motivated %y internal energies surrounding different need dispositions.

(s these different psychic motives encounter the social world, they have to conform

in order to %e satisfied. Conformity may %e successful 6well-ad&usted7 or unsuc

cessful 6repressed7, %ut the point to notice here is that the structure of the individ

ual's personality changes as a result of this encounter %etween psychic energy and

the social world. !he superego is formed through these encounters.

or "arsons, the important point is that cultural traditions %ecome meaningful

to and part of the need disposition of individuals. !he way we sense and fulfill our

needs is structured internally %y culture. or "arsons, then, the motivation to con

form comes principally from within the individual through reudian internali+a

tion patterns of value orientation and meaning. (s the same set of value patterns

and role e*pectations is internali+ed %y others, that cultural standard is said to %e,

from the point of view of the individual, institutionali+ed.

It

is worth pointing out that "arsons argues that the content of the institutionalsolutions to societal needs doesn't matter. So, for e*ample, it doesn't matter if a col

lective perpetuates itself %iologically through the institution of family 6however it

is defined7 or through an institutionali+ed hatchery such as a chic#en farm. Nhat is

important is that the perceived solutions are a set of highly rituali+ed %ehaviors that

are seen as typical, %elonging to particular settings 6such as church rather than

school7, and are %elieved to solve collective pro%lems.

Concepts an- Theory: %ystem *unctions an- Control

Ee came across the idea of requisite needs in Chapter . Fou'll remem%er that

functionalism argues that all societies have certain needs that must %e met inorder to function, &ust li#e the human %ody. Eith 2ur#heim we saw that society

needs a certain level of solidarity, which is provided through the collective con

sciousness. "arsons not only gives us additional needs, he tal#s a%out them more

a%stractly than did 2ur#heim. "arsons argues that society is a system and that it

functions li#e any other system. In other words, he contends that all systems have

the same needs, whether social, %iological, physical, cultural, or any other system.

!here are four such needs$ adaptation, goal attainment, integration, and latent

pattern maintenance.



15Chapter 8 G Structural Functionalism: Parsons an* Merton

!o get us thin#ing, let me as# you a question$ (re you hungryG 0ay%e you aren't

now, %ut sooner or later you will %e, %ecause every %ody needs food to live. Fet it isn't

really food per se that you need. Fou need the nutrients that are in the food to sur

vive. Ehen you eat something, your %ody has a system that e*tracts the necessary

resources from the food and converts it into usa%le things 6li#e protein7. So, your

%ody doesn't really need a stea# it needs what is in it. "arsons calls this function

adaptation %ecause it adapts resources and converts them into usa%le elements.

<et's use a larger illustration. Avery organism, society, or system e*ists within and

%ecause of an environment. or e*ample, duc#s are not found at the South "ole %ut

penguins are. Aach of these organic systems has adapted to a given environment

and e*tracts from the surroundings what it needs to e*ist. It is the same with

society. In order to e*ist, each and every society must ada%t to its environment %y

inventing ways of ta#ing what is needed for survival 6such as soil, water, seeds, trees,animals7 and converting them into usa%le products 6food, shelter, and clothing7.

Society must also move those products around so that they are availa%le to every

mem%er 6or at least most mem%ers7. In society, we call this su%system the economy.

!he economy e*tracts raw resources from the environment, converts them into

usa%le commodities, and moves the commodities from place to place.

e aware that the economy and adaptation are not the same thing. !he economy

is the subsystem in society that fulfills the ada%tation need. In the %ody, it's the diges

tive su%system. Fet the digestive system and the economy are o%viously not the

same things. !hey fulfill the same function %ut in different systems. !he reason I'm

ta#ing such pains here is that it is important to see that "arsons' scheme is very

a%stract and can %e used to analy+e any system, so I want you to %e clear on how to

apply it. 6In addition, if your professor as#s you to e*plain the adaptation function

and you say that it is the economy, you'll %e wrong.7

Avery system also needs a way of ma#ing certain that every part is energi+ed and

moving in the same direction or toward the same goal. "arsons refers to this su%

system as goal attainment. In the human %ody, the part of us that activates and

guides all the parts toward a specific goal is the mind. !he mind puts %efore us cer

tain goals, things that we need or want to do. Ee feel motivated to action %ecause

our mind invests emotion into these goals.

<et's say that you have the goal of %ecoming the ne*t imi )endri*. So you set

a%out listening to all of the legendary roc# guitarist's C2s, you read all the %oo#s

a%out )endri*'s style, and you practice si* hours a day. Fou also wor# a &o% and save

your money in order to %uy the same #ind of guitar and equipment that )endri*

used so you can sound &ust li#e him. Fou are motivated. Four mind has caught the

image of yourself playing guitar and has controlled and coordinated your fingers,

arms, and legs-in short, all your actions-to move you toward that goal. 5n the

other hand, perhaps you aren't as motivated a%out school. (fter all, you're going to

%e a %ig roc# star, so who needs schoolG So the different parts of your %ody are not

energi+ed and coordinated to meet the goal of doing well in school. In the %ody, it's

the mind that coordinates all the different actions and su%systems to achieve a goal.

In the social system, the institution that meets this need for goal attainment is gov

ernment, or polity 6same meaning, different word7.



Systems also need to %e integrated. y definition, systems do not contain a sin

gle part, %ut many different parts, and these parts have to %e %rought together toform a whole. )ave you ever watched a floc# of geese in flightG /ather than flying

singularly in a hapha+ard manner, their actions are coordinated and integrated. !he

dictionary defines =integration= as meaning to form, coordinate, or %lend into a

functioning or unified whole to unite with something else and to incorporate into

a larger unit. !he geese are a%le to form into a larger unit mostly %ecause of

instincts. or human %eings, it is a %it more comple*.

)umans generally use norms, fol#ways, and mores to integrate their %ehavior.

orms can %e informal 6such as the norms surrounding our %ehavior in an eleva

tor7 or they can %e formal and written down. ormal and written norms are called

laws. <aws help to integrate our %ehaviors so that, rather than millions of individ

ual units, we can function as larger units. "arsons refers to this function as integra

tion, and in society that function is performed %y the legal system. !he legal system

lin#s the various components together and unites them as a whole. Ehen, for

e*ample, (pple Computer crosses the %oundaries of I0, it is the legal system that

ma#es them wor# together, even though they pro%a%ly don't want to.

(s should %e apparent, polity and the legal system are intimately connected,

%ecause these two functions are closely related. In our %odies, for instance, the mind

functions as the goal-attainment system and it uses the central nervous system to

actually move the different parts of the %ody. ut the mind and the central nervous

system are two different things. ( person can %e completely paraly+ed and still have

full access to his or her mind, or the %ody can %e in perfect wor#ing order with the

mind completely gone. In the same way, polity and law are related %ut separate.

!he final requisite function that "arsons proposes is latent pattern maintenance.Avery system requires not only direct management, such as that performed %y a gov

ernment, %ut also indirect management, which "arsons terms latent pattern mainte

nance. ot everything that goes on in our %ody is directed through cognitive functions.

/ather, some of these functions, li#e %reathing, are managed and maintained through

the autonomic nervous system, a su%system that maintains patterns with little effort.

Society is the same way. It is too costly to ma#e people conform to social e*pectations

through government and law there has to %e a method of ma#ing them willing to con

form. or this tas#, society uses the processes of sociali$ation 6the internali+ation

of society's norms, values, %eliefs, cognitions, sentiments, etc.7. !he principal sociali+

ing agents in society are the structures that meet the requirement of latent pattern

maintenance-structures such as religion, education, and family. 6y the way, the word

latent, from which "arsons gets his term, means not visi%le, dormant, or concealed.7"arsons argues that these four requirements can %e used as a #ind of scheme to

understand any system. Ehen %eginning a study of a system, one of the first things

that must %e done is to identify the various parts and how they function. "arsons'

scheme allows us to categori+e any part of a system in terms of its function for the

whole. In igure B.;, I have diagrammed the way this analytical scheme loo#s. !he

four functions are noted %y the initials (CI<. !he larger %o* represents that system

as a whole, which, of course, needs the four functions. ecause they function as sys

tems themselves, each of the four su%systems can %e analy+ed in terms of the same

scheme. I've used adaptation in this case, %ut the same can %e done with each of them.



Aaptation

%$I#-Functional Reuisites

oal

Attainment

% C

# II

# I

#

4

a$

%ystem #elations

urthe

r, "arsons

gives us a

way of

understan

ding

interinstit

utional

relations.

!his is

important

%ut little

e*plored

ground.

Ehat

usually

passes as

institution

al

analysis is

withi00 an

institution

al sphere

rather

than

%etween.



o

r

e

*

a

m

p

l

e

,

w

e

m

i

g

h

t

l

o

o

#

a

t

t

h

e

i

n

s

ti

t

u

t

i

o

n

o

f

f

a

m

i

l

y

i

n

t

h

e

U

n

i

t

e

d

S

t

a

t

e

s

a

n

d

s

e

e

t

h

a

t

c

h

a

ng

e

s

a

r

e

o

c

c

u

r

r

i

n

g

. Some of

these

changes

are

society-

wide

6such as

the

increase

in single-

parent

families7,

some are

the

su%&ect of

much

moral

de%ate

6such as

whether

or not to

define gay

cou ples

as

family7,

and someare

present

%ut not

part of

the pu%lic

discourse

6li#e an

acquainta

nce of

mine who

introduce

d me tohis wife,

the

mother of

his

children,

and his

girlfriend

-three

different

women-

who were

all four

living

happily

together

in this

arrangeme



n

t

7

.

E

e

c

a

n

a

l

s

o

l

o

o

#

a

t

ma

r

r

i

a

g

e

a

n

d

d

i

v

o

r

c

e

r

a

t

e

s

,

%

i

r

t

h

a

n

d

d

e

a

t

h

r

a

t

e

s

,

p

r

o

p

o

r t

i

o

n

s

o

f

f

a

m

il

i

e

s

u

n

d

e

r

t

h

e

p

o

v

!hese

#inds of

research

agendas

can %e

enlighteni

ng, %ut

they are

also quite

lim ited.

Studying

the

phenome

non of

=latch#ey

#ids= is

important

, %ut it

only

e*plains

one small

part of

the

institution

of family

and %yitself says

nothing

a%out the

instruc

tional

relations

%etween

the

family

and

governme

nt. (s

we've

noted,

each

su%syste

m is part

of a

whole

and, as

such,

each is

related tothe other.

If, for

illustratio

n, I put

dirt



in the fuel system of an automo%ile, it will affect the rest of the car, not &ust the fuel

system itself. !he same is true for society. If there are changes in one su%system, thosechanges will ripple their way through all of society.

amily, in our society, is usually thought of as a married couple with .8 #ids. Fet

this model, called the nuclear family, has not always %een the norm. In fact, it is a pretty

recent model, historically spea#ing. Up through feudalism, marriage and family were

far more important politically and economically. "eople got married to prevent wars

or to seal economic commitments. (s a result, the #inship structure was considera%ly

more e*tensive and marriages were generally arranged %ecause they were socially

important. 0arriages in the United States are not generally arranged we conceptual

i+e marriage as e*isting principally for the individual and as %eing motivated %y love.

!hus, when we %emoan the loss of =family values,= it is a historically specific set

of values. !hese values came a%out %ecause of changes in the rest of society. (s

institutions differentiated, the goal-attainment and adaptation functions were nolonger dependent upon or related to family in the same ways. ureaucratic nation

states emerged that were a%le to negotiate their interstate relations through treaty

and war 6using a standing army7 the economy shifted to industriali+ed production

and forced families to move from their traditional home to the city where most of

the relationships that people have are not with or associated with family, as they

were in traditional settings. 0any other changes, such as the proliferation of capi

talistic mar#ets and the de-centering of religion, also influenced the definition,

functions, and value of family.

!he point I'm trying to ma#e is that for us to truly understand an institution, we

must see it in its institutional conte*t, in its relationships to other institutions. rom

a systems or functionalist point of view, the environment for any institution is cre

ated %y other institutions 6su%systems7 they mutually affect and sustain one

another. "arsons conceptuali+es su%system relations using his (CI< scheme and the

actual paths of influence as %oundary e*changes. ust as the digestive su%system in

our %odies provides nutrients for the circulatory su%system, and the circulatory sys

tem in e*change provides %lood to the digestive system, so every social institution

is loc#ed in a mutual e*change. I've listed these %oundary e*changes in !a%le B.1.

Ehat you will see is that each relationship is defined in terms of what one su%sys

tem gives to another. oth Spencer and 2ur#heim argued that as institutions dif

ferentiate, they %ecome mutually dependent, %ut neither of them e*plicated the

dependency. )ere "arsons does that for us.

(s you can see, the ta%le outlines what each su%system or institution gives to the

other three. <et's loo# at family as the originating su%system for a moment in theta%le. Fou can read the list of its outputs in the center column and the receiving insti

tutions on the right. !he list shows the functions that family provides for the other

su%systems. !hrough proper sociali+ation, family provides political loyalty to the

government it provides a compliant pool of la%or for the economy and it influences

the moral content of sociali+ed patterns of norms that %ecome law. I don't want to

ta#e us through each of these relations you can do that on your own. !he most

important thing to glean is the idea of interinstitutional relations. In addition, while

we may at some point %ecome more sophisticated in our analysis of the associations,

the place to %egin is right where "arsons does$ the functional dependencies.



' .. - O 3 A

217Chapter 8 G Structural Functionalism: Parsons an* Merton

Ta5le 861

lnterinstitutior iRl

lations

P+66=2O$8.,Il 'N.'' t %&

N,N.Q

Cy5erneticierarchy o*Control

cJG GK

"arsons develops an overall model of

how the systems surrounding human life

integrate. !he model is called the general

system of action or the cybernetic hier

archy of control. Cy%ernetics is the study

of the automatic control system in the

human %ody. !he system is formed %y the

%rain and nervous system and control is

created through mechanical-electrical

communication systems and devices. In

using the term =cy%ernetic,= "arsons tells us

that control and thus integration are

achieved primarily through information.

(lso note that in cy%ernetics, control is

achieved automatically, through what

"arsons calls latent patterned maintenance.I've outlined the control system in

igure B.4. (s you can see, the cy%ernetic

hierarchy of control is understood through

"arsons' (I< system. 6In the model,

I have also e*panded the social system toindicate what we have already seen$ !he

1riginating

Subsystem 1ut%ut

Receiving

Subsystem

Econom+ =%/ Pro*ucti7it+ Polit+ =$/

Ne0 out)ut combinations #a0 =I/

Consumer (oo*s an* ser7ices Famil+ =#/

Polit+ =$/ Im)erati7e coor*ination #a0 =I/

%llocation o )o0er Famil+ =#/

Ca)ital Econom+ = %/

#a0 =I/ Moti7ation to )attern conormit+ Famil+ =#/

"r(aniation Econom+ = %/

Contin(ent su))ort Polit+ =$/

Famil+ =#/.:; .

-

\''N

. I L

#abor Econom+ =%/

Political lo+alt+ Polit+ =$/

Pattern content #a0 =I/

'. JA ,+'2&&,,&3



218 MID-TWENTIETH CENTR! S"CI"#"$IC%# THE"R!

socialsystem is

understood

in terms of

(I< as

well.7 !here

are thus four

systems that

influence

our lives$

the culture,

social,

personality,

and organic

systems. !he

culture

system is at

the top,

indicating

that control

of human

%ehavior

and life is

achievedthrough

cultural

information

. !his

emphasis on

culture

would

o%viously

not %e true

for most

animals.

/egardless

of the recent

news and

de%ates

a%out apes

%eing a%le to

use and

possi%ly

share sign

language,

culture is

not the

primary

information

system for

any animal

other than

humans. or

most animals, infor mation comesgenerally through sensory data, instinctual

predispositions, and ha%itual patterns of

action.



C+bernetic Hierarc&+ o Control

Ultimate 'eality

Inormation

an* Control

#

Culture

S+stem

Social

S+stem

GPersonalit+

S+stem

A"r(anic

S+stem

P&+sical En7ironment

# :Reli(ion3 E*ucation3 Famil+

I :#a0

:Polit+

% :Econom+

Ener(+ or

%ction

!he position of culture at the top also indicates that it requires the most energy

to sustain. (s information flows from the top down, energy moves from the %ottom

up. Culture has no intrinsic energy. It is ultimately dependent upon the systems that

are lower in the hierarchy for its e*istence. vithout such energy, culture will cease

to e*ist. or e*ample, anthropologists and archaeologists #now that a a%ylonian




culture e*isted at one time. !hat #nowledge of past e*istence is itself part of our

culture, %ut the a%ylonian culture has long since died %ecause its support mecha

nisms have passed away.

Culture is most immediately dependent on the social system for its e*istence.

It is also dependent upon the personality system, %ecause it is individual

humans who internali+e and enact culture. Since the personality system is

dependent upon the organic system 6the human mind needs the human %ody7,

culture is indirectly dependent upon it as well. I'd li#e to pause here and men

tion one thing$ /ecent theori+ing argues that culture is also directly reliant on

the organic %ody. "ierre ourdieu 61393M13B47, for instance, argues that culture

%ecomes em%odied. !here are not simply cognitive and emotional elements in

culture. Culture also contains practices that form part of the way our %odies

e*ist. !hrough our culture we develop tastes, dispositions, and automatic %ehaviors. or e*ample, our taste in food is dependent upon our culture.

0oreover, not only is our language cultural, %ut so is the way we spea# it, as in

regional accents.

otice also that human life is conte*tuali+ed %y conditions of ultimate reality

and the physical environment. "arsons never ma#es any comment a%out what ulti

mate reality is, %ut its understood e*istence is e*tremely important for the culture

system. /emem%er that our most important values are framed in terms of ultimate

truths, and these truths are religious in nature. "arsons, then, sees religion as an

important influence on the culture system in general.

5verall, information moves down and energy moves up. Aach system is

em%edded in and dependent upon the other-systems are reciprocally related to

one another. 5ne of the things that "arsons wants to point out with this #ind of

model is that differentiated, comple* systems are dependent upon generalized

media of exchange for facilitating communication and cooperation among and

%etween the diversified parts. or e*ample, in a comple* society, each of the

ma&or structures has distinct goals, values, norms, and so forth. !he capitalist

economy has the goal of producing profit, while the education system has the

goal of producing critical thin#ing. !hese value-oriented goals may at times

clash, %ut a generali+ed medium of e*change will tend to #eep the system in

equilibrium. "arsons offers language as the prototype of such generali+ed

media of communication and e*plicitly identifies money 6from the adaptive

su%system7, power 6from goal attainment7, and influence 6integration7 as other

such media.

Concepts an- Theory: %ocial Chan+e

5ne of the critiques often leveled against "arsons is that he only sees systems in equi

li%rium and his theori+ing thus maintains the status quo. !he criticism is not entirely

correct. "arsons does assume that systems are in a state of equili%rium that is, the

forces of integration and disintegration are %alanced. )e feels that any social system

worth studying would have a fair degree of permanence, and thus, =there must %e a



tendency to maintenance of order e*cept under e*ceptional circumstances= 6"arsons

O Shils, 1381, p. 1:97. "arsons 613817 calls this tendency toward equili%rium the

=first law of social process= 6p. :87 and the =law of inertia= 6p. 4B7. )owever, it is

not the case that "arsons ignores social change. )e actually has a notion of

revolutionary change in addition to slow evolutionary change.

<i#e 2ur#heim, "arsons argues that the principal dynamic of evolutionary

change is differentiation, and he sees that structural differentiation %rings a%out

pro%lems of integration and coordination. "arsons argues that these pro%lems

would create pressures for the production of an integrative, generali+ed value

culture and a generali+ed medium of e*change. !hus, li#e 2ur#heim, "arsons

argues that culture is the most important facet of a comple* social system. It is

culture that provides the norms, values, and %eliefs that allow us to interact, and

it is culture that provides the general information that the social system needs inorder to operate.

Cultural %train

)owever, the process of culture generali+ation, "arsons 613@@7 notes, may also

%ring a%out severe cultural strain =!o the fundamentalist, the demand for greater

generality in evaluative standards appears to %e a demand to a%andon the 'real'

commitments= 6p. ;7. or e*ample, in U.S. society, the call to return to =family val

ues= is &ust such an issue. Societies that are a%le to resolve these conflicts move

ahead to new levels of adaptive capacity through innovation. 5thers may =%e so

%eset with internal conflicts or other handicaps that they can %arely maintain them

selves, or will even deteriorate= 6"arsons, 13@@, p. ;7.It is at this point that revolutionary change %ecomes more li#ely. Culture gener

ally allows people and other social units 6li#e organi+ations7 to interact. It provides

us with a language and value system. Ehen people or organi+ations %egin to value

different #inds of things or to spea# different languages, the situation is ripe for

conflict. "arsons sees this #ind of pro%lem as a type of strain strain is defined as a

distur%ance of the cultural e*pectation system. Ehen we have different values, we

do not #now what to e*pect in an encounter. Strain always sets up re-equili%rating

processes, %ut these processes may ta#e a long time to reach %alance and the system

may %e su%stantially different as a result. Change due to revolution occurs in two

phases$ =1/ the ascendancy of the movement and 67 the adoption of the move

ment as =setting the tone= for the society-the re-equili%rating process 6this latter

is the part that 0ar* and critical theorists leave out of their theories of revolution

ary change7.

#e7olution

our conditions must %e met for a revolutionary movement to %e successful. irst,

the potential for change must e*ist "arsons refers to this potential as the alienative

motivational elements. "eople %ecome motivated to change the system as the result

of value inconsistencies. !hese inconsistencies are inevita%le and continually present




in an empirical system of action, particularly one that has %een generali+ed to incor

porate a num%er of diverse groups, such as in the United States. or e*ample, the term

e4uality has %een stretched to include groups not intended %y the founding docu

ments 6%lac#s weren't originally included in =all men are created equal=7. !he term

has %ecome more general, yet at the same time, the generality of the term sets up con

flicts as more and more groups see themselves as disenfranchised, and others-the

fundamentalists-see the generali+ation as movement away from traditional or

received truth.

Second, dissatisfaction with the system is not enough to %egin a revolutionary

movement the su%group must also %ecome organi+ed. !he organi+ation of a group

around a su%culture ena%les mem%ers to evade sanctions of the main group, create

solidarity, create an alternative set of normative e*pectations and sanctions, and it

ena%les e*pressive leadership to arise.!hird, the organi+ed group must develop an ideology that incorporates sym%ols

of wide appeal and can successfully put forward a claim to legitimacy. !he a%ility

to develop an alternative claim to legitimacy is facilitated %y two factors. 5ne is that

the central value system of large societies is often very general and is therefore sus

cepti%le to appropriation %y deviant movements. !he other factor is that serious

strains and inconsistencies in the implementation of societal values create legiti

macy gaps that can %e e*ploited %y the revolutionary group.

!he fourth condition that must %e met is that a revolutionary su%group must

eventually %e connected to the social system. It is this connection that institutional

i+es the movement and %rings %ac# a state of equili%rium. !here are three issues

involved$ 6 17 !he utopian ideology that was necessary to create group solidarity

must %end in order to ma#e concessions to the adaptive structures of society 6e.g.,

#inship, education7-in other words, the revolutionary group must meet the reality

of governing a social system 67 the unstructured motivational component of the

movement must %e structured toward its central values-the movement must insti

tutionali+e its values %oth in terms of organi+ations and individuals and 6;7 out

groups must %e disciplined vis-a-vis the revolutionary values that are now the new

values of society.

%ummary

Q "arsons is usually the one credited with having clearly articulated a systemsapproach in sociology. !his #ind of theoretical method encourages us to see society

in terms of system pressures and needs. !wo issues in particular are important$ the

%oundary %etween the system and its environment and the internal processes of

integration. "arsons divides each of these into two distinct functions. A*ternal

%oundaries are maintained through adaptation and goal attainment internal-process

functions are fulfilled %y integration and latent pattern maintenance. Systems theory

also encourages us to pay attention to the %oundaries %etween su%systems, in terms

of their e*changes and communication. ecause relatively smart or open systems

have goal states, ta#e in information, and contain control mechanisms, they tend



toward equili%rium. "arsons conceptuali+es society as &ust such a system. In addition,

%ecause "arsons sees everything as operating systemically, his theory is cast at a very

a%stract level and is intended to %e applied to any and all systems.

Q "arsons %uilds his theory of the social system from the ground up. )e %egins

with voluntaristic action occurring within the unit act. )umans e*ercise a great

deal of agency in their decisions however, their decisions are also circumscri%ed %y

the situation and normative e*pectations. !he normative e*pectations in particular

are where human agency is most e*pressed and where culturally informed motives

and values hold sway. !hese different motives and values orient the actor to the

situation and com%ine to create three general types of action$ strategic, e*pressive,

and moral. "eople tend to interact socially with those who share their general types

of action. (s a result, interactions %ecome patterned in specific ways, which in turn

tends to create sets of status positions, roles, and norms. ve may say that status positions, roles, and norms are institutionali+ed to the degree that people pattern

their %ehaviors according to such sets and internali+e the motives, values, and

cultures associated with them.

Q 2ifferent sets of institutionali+ed status pos1t1:ns, roles, and norms are

clustered around different societal needs. ecause society functions as a system,

there are four general needs that must %e met$ adaptation, goal attainment,

integration, and latent pattern maintenance. In comple*, differentiated societies,

these functions are met %y separate institutional spheres. !he different

institutions are integrated through the system pressures of mutual dependency

and generali+ed media of e*change. !he social system itself is only one of four

systems that surround human %ehavior. !here are the cultural, social, personality,and physical systems, each corresponding to (I< functional requisites. ecause

systems are dependent upon information, the culture system is at the top.

Information flows from the top down, and the energy upon which culture is

dependent flows from the %ottom up. "arsons refers to this scheme as the

cy%ernetic hierarchy of control.

Q Systems tend toward equili%rium. !hey can, however, run am1ss if the

su%systems are not properly integrated. In the social system, this happens through

cultural strain. (s societies %ecome more differentiated, the media of e*change

must %ecome more general. In this process, it is possi%le that some groups will see#

to hold onto the dysfunctional culture. !his case sets up a strain within the system,

with some su%systems or groups refusing to change and other su%systems moving

ahead. 0otivation for social revolution is possi%le under these conditions. (fter

people are motivated to change society, they must then create a su%culture that can

function to unite their group and create an alternative set of norms and values. !his

culture must eventually have wide enough appeal to successfully ma#e a claim to

legitimacy. In a revolution, either side could win 6the reformers or the

fundamentalists7, %ut in either case, certain steps are systemically required to

reintegrate the system. (fter the revolution, the su%group must produce a culture

that can unite the system. Institutionali+ation occurs at this point as it does at any

other time$ through %ehaviors patterned and people sociali+ed around a set of

status positions, roles, and norms.



!mpirical Functionalism:

#o5ert .6 /erton (1910-200)

!heorist's 2igest

Concepts and !heory$ Critiquing "arsons' unctionalism

5unctionalism's Assum%tions

Concepts and !heory$ 2ynamic unctionalism !mergent Social Change

Summary

s you undou%tedly noticed, "arsons' wor# is very a%stract. )is desire was

to create a scheme that could %e used to analy+e almost any social phe

nomenon in its %roader conte*t. Ee can call this #ind of approach a grandtheory. ( grand theory is one that e*plains all phenomena through a single set of con

cepts. rand theorists li#e "arsons generally assume that everything in the universe

operates in system-li#e ways, and that all systems are %uilt on the same principles and

are su%&ect to the same dynamics. or e*ample, %iology, psychology, sociology, and

physics are all similar systems and can %e ultimately e*plained using the same theory.

!hin#ing as a grand theorist implies that you tend to see things wor#ing in very

a%stract and mechanistic terms. !he theory has to %e a%stract in order to em%race all

the phenomena in the universe. or instance, in a grand theory you couldn't use simple

psychological terms to e*plain psychology %ecause they wouldn't apply in sociology or

%iology-the terms of a grand theory must %e more a%stract than any one discipline.

T!"#$%T&% '$!%T

)rie* io+raphy

/o%ert R. 0erton was %orn on uly 4, 131:, in "hiladelphia to ewish immigrant parents.

0erton's given name was 0eyer /. Sch#olnic#, which he initially changed to %etter suit

his amateur magician show. (s a young man, 0erton spent many hours at the (ndrew

Carnegie <i%rary reading and studying history, science, and %iographies. 0erton studied

6Continued+ -



=Continue*/

an* 0or,e* 0it& Pitirim Soro,in3 Talcott Parsons3 an* Paul #aarsel*3 all si(niicant names

in sociolo(+. He inis&e* &is P&D rom Har7ar* in 142 an* soon became a )art o t&e

acult+ t&ere. Merton mo7e* to Tulane ni7ersit+ =Ne0 "rleans/ in 14243 an* in 1491 too, a

)osition at Columbia ni7ersit+ in Ne0 !or,3 0&ere &e remaine* or t&e rest o &is career.

Merton ser7e* as )resi*ent o t&e %merican Sociolo(ical %ssociation3 t&e Eastern Sociolo(ical

Societ+3 an* t&e Societ+ or Social Stu*ies o Science. His &onors inclu*e more t&an 65 &onorar+

*octoral *e(rees an* members&i) in t&e National %ca*em+ o Sciences. In 14493 t&e )resi*ent o

t&e nite* States a0ar*e* Merton t&e National Me*al o Science. In a**ition3 Robert K. Merton

0as t&e at&er o Robert Co Merton 0&o 0on t&e Nobel Prie in economics =144@/. Man+ o

t&e conce)ts t&at Merton coine* &a7e ma*e t&eir 0a+ into )o)ular culture3 suc& as Asel-

ulillin( )ro)&ec+3A Arole mo*el3A Amaniest an* latent unctions3A an* Auninten*e*

conseuences.A

Merton )asse* a0a+ on Februar+ 623 6552.

!entral "ociological #uestions

%s a stu*ent o Parsons3' Merton 0as un&a))+ 0it& t&e anal+tical le7el t&at Parsons' t&eor+ is

cast. He ar(ue* t&at sociolo(+ &a*n't *one enou(& em)irical researc& to ma,e t&e ,in*s o

statements Parsons *i*. Merton's concern3 t&en3 0as to brin( unctionalism *o0n to t&e

em)irical le7el 0&ere it coul* be teste*.

"imply "tated

In )lace o Parsons' abstract t&eor+3 Merton (roun*s unctionalism usin( unctional

alternati7es3 maniest an*.latent unctions3 *+sunctions3 an* unantici)ate* conseuences. %ll

our o t&ese issues can mo7e a societ+ in a *irection t&at sim)le unctionalism

0oul*n'toresee or be able to e)lain. Merton also ar(ues t&at ot&er actors can brin( social

c&an(e rat&er t&an euilib rium: unantici)ate* conseuences o social action3 *e7iance3 an*

sociolo(ical ambi7alence.

$ey !oncepts

mi**le-ran(e t&eor+3 unctional alternati7es3 maniest .an* latent unctions3 *+sunctions3

unantici)ate* conseuences3 structuralt&eor+ o *e7iance3 sociolo(ical ambi7alence

Concepts an- Theory:

Criti9uin+ Parsons& Functionalism

(lthough his focus was ultimately on theory, 0erton wor#ed relentlessly to ground

functionalism in the empirical world first, %efore ma#ing grand, a%stract state

ments. )is alternative approach is to wor# with middle-range theories. 0iddle

range theories =lie %etween the minor %ut necessary wor#ing hypotheses ... and

the all-inclusive systematic efforts to develop a unified theory that will e*plain all

the o%served uniformities of social %ehavior, social organi+ation and social change=

60erton, 13@9, p. ;37. 0erton argues that sociology is too young a discipline to %e



concerned with grand theories, and his intent with the concept is to ground sociological theory in =theoretically oriented empirical research= 6p. 8@7.

!here are five attri%utes to middle.range theories& =1/ !hey consist of a limited

set of assumptions that lead to specific hypotheses, which in turn are empirically

confirmed 67 they are capa%le of %eing %rought together with other middle

range theories to form wider networ#s of theory 6;7 middle-range theories can

%e generali+ed and applied to different situations 6so the theory is not merely

organi+ed descriptive data7 6 47 %ecause they don't address the more a%stract

assumptions of grand theory, middle-range theories can fit easily into different

systems of theory, li#e "arsons' social systems or 0ar*'s historical materialism

and 687 middle-range theories will typically %e in harmony with the method of

classical theorists.

"arsons' and 0erton's approaches represent two methods of theory %uilding$

"arsons privileges reason and argues that theories should %e logically deduced, and

0erton's tactic privileges empirical data and induction. 5f course, middle-range

theories contain a%stractions, =%ut they are close enough to o%served data to %e

incorporated in propositions that permit empirical testing= 60erton, 13@9, p. ;37.

0iddle-range theories usually come in the =theories of= form, such as theories of

gender inequality, role conflict, deviance, and so forth. !hese middle-range theories

don't try to e*plain society at large rather, they e*plicate some small portion of it

without necessarily connecting it to any other aspect of society. 0erton's idea is

that, as these mid-level theories are proposed and tested, they will %e %rought

together to form a more comprehensive and empirically grounded general theory.

or e*ample, after sufficient empirical testing, we could ta#e <emert's la%eling

theory of deviance and 0erton's structural strain theory and %lend them together

to form a more general theory of deviance, rather than %ringing them together at

the a%stract level as "arsons does.

Functionalism&s Assumptions

0erton also raises questions a%out three of functionalism's ma&or claims. Up

until 0erton, these assumptions seemed to %e the defining features of functional

ism. irst, functionalism posits a functional unity of society. !his postulate states

that the social activities and cultural items that are patterned and standardi+ed

across society are functionally related. In other words, all wor#ing societies have a

functional unity in which all parts of the system wor# together with a fairly highlevel of accord and consistency. or e*ample, the functional unity of society princi

ple would assume that the education, government, and religious sectors all wor#

together harmoniously and without fail as parts of the same system. !his assump

tion is what underlies the idea of system equili%rium.

!he second assumption that 0erton questions is the idea of universal function

alism. !his supposition postulates that all social activities or cultural items have

positive sociological functions. In other words, if there is a patterned feature in

society, then it must %e functional %y the very fact that it e*ists. or e*ample, find

ing a society such as the United States where male aggression has high value, the

functionalist assumes that it must have positive %enefits for the whole.



!he last postulate of functionalism that 0erton challenges is that of indis%ens

ability& Avery patterned part of society and culture fulfills a vital function within the

society and is therefore indispensa%le. !his postulate not only assumes there are

certain functions that a society cannot do without, it also assumes that those func

tions must %e fulfilled %y certain cultural or social forms and those forms are there

fore indispensa%le. or e*ample, a functionalist may decide that every society needs

a system of ultimate meanings that gives relevance to all other meanings. !he func

tionalist may then assume that it is only religion that can provide those meanings.

y such reasoning, religion itself %ecomes necessary for society, when in fact the

function may %e met through other institutions.

0erton sees these assumptions as potentially o%scuring true research. enerally

spea#ing, if we assume that something is true, we can usually find evidence for it.

!he first thing 0erton wants to do, then, is change each of these assumptions into

empirical questions. /ather than assuming that government and religion are posi

tively integrated, ma#e it a research question$ In what ways are government and

religion related to one anotherG 5r, might not male aggression have effects that are

other than positiveG (s you can pro%a%ly tell, to as# such questions implies some

ideas that "arsonian functionalism does not contain.

Concepts an- Theory: 'ynamic *unctionalism

In order to help us thin# more clearly a%out functional relations in society, 0erton

gives us several new concepts$ functional alternatives, manifest and latent functions,

dysfunctions, and unanticipated consequences. !he idea of functional alternativesconceptuali+es the possi%ility that other #inds of structures may meet societal

needs. or e*ample, the function of %iological reproduction doesn't necessarily

have to %e met through family. 5r, for another e*ample, could the meanings that

religion provides %e supplied through other institutions, such as a =civil religion=G

!he concepts of manifest and latent functions specifically refer to the positive con

tri%utions that a social structure has for society, %ut the concepts allow us to see

functions in a more comple* light. 0anifest functions are the #nown contri%utions

and latent functions are the hidden or unac#nowledged contri%utions of social

structures. ( good e*ample is education$ ( manifest function of education is to pass

on the cultural #nowledge of a society a latent function of education is to provide a

marriage mar#et that pairs people on several important dimensions 6such as class7.

0erton also wants us to %e a%le to see that social structures or institutions may

have negative effects, when seen from a functionalist position. ( dysfunction, then,

is a consequence of a social structure that leads to less adaptation and integration.

!he idea of a dysfunctional family is a micro-level phenomenon that comes from

0erton's concept 6here the dysfunctional consequences come from the perfor

mance of a social role, such as father or mother7. In addition, dysfunctions may %e

manifest or latent.

<atent functions and dysfunctions are concepts that descri%e the outcomes of

social structures. !he idea of unanticipated consequences, on the other hand,



MID-TWENTIETH CENTR! S"CI"#"$IC%# THE"R!%%&

generally refers to the effects of social acts of individuals. Unanticipated consequences, then, are those outcomes of social action that are not intended %y the

actor. 0erton 6139@7 gives us several sources of unanticipated consequences.

(mong them are ignorance 6at times, there is such a wide range of possi%le con

sequences that they can't all %e #nown7 chance conse4uences 6=those occasioned

%y the interplay of forces and circumstance that are so numerous and comple*

that prediction of them is quite %eyond our reach= >p. 181?7 error 6the most com

mon source of which is ha%itual action7 im%erious immediacy of interest 6concern

for immediate consequences %loc#s out consideration of long-term effects7 and

basic values 6the actor is concerned with su%&ective rightness rather than o%&ective

consequences$ =)ere is the essential parado* of social action-the 'reali+ation' of

values may lead to their renunciation= >p. 184?7.

!mer+ent %ocial Chan+e

Eith the idea of unanticipated consequences, 0erton is opening up the social

system for unpredicta%le change. unctionalism has usually seen social change in

evolutionary terms-slow change over long periods of time that in the long run

leads to increased comple*ity and thus surviva%ility. (s we've seen, "arsons opens

this idea up a %it %y giving us a functional theory of social revolution. !he reasons

it's a functional theory are that revolutions are only possi%le %ecause of system

strain, such as value inconsistency, and that all revolutions must reintegrate or equi

li%rate the system. 0erton ta#es us a step further.

ot only are large systems suscepti%le to strain, as "arsons has it, %ut the %ehav

iors of individual actors within the system are also suscepti%le to unanticipated

consequences, %ecause of ignorance, mista#es, values, failure to ta#e the long run

into account, and chance consequences. Unanticipated consequences, then, func

tion as a wild card in the social system. oth the idea of dysfunctions and that of

unintended consequences are particularly important for 0erton's 6139@7 theory

%ecause they %oth lead to structural change. Structures change through =cumula

tively patterned choices in %ehavior and the amplification of dysfunctional conse

quences resulting from certain #inds of strains, conflicts, and contradictions in the

differentiated social structure= 6p. 187, and through =unanticipated consequences

of purposive social action= 6p. 14@7.

!here are two more issues that are important in structural change, according to

0erton$ deviance and am%ivalence. 0erton's structural theory of deviance arguesthat society values certain goals and the means to achieve those goals. In the United

States, for e*ample, we value economic success and %elieve that education and hard

wor# are the proper means to achieve that goal. )owever, in any social system there

are disenfranchised people who do not have equal access to the legitimate means to

achieve success, yet are nonetheless sociali+ed to value the same goals as the ma&or

ity. !his structural location puts these people in a position of tension or strain.

enerally spea#ing, most people accept the goals and means of society 0erton

calls this type of response conformity 6acceptance of %oth goals and means7. ut for

those in structural strain, there are four other possi%ilities$ innovation 6accept the



goals %ut use innovative means, such as ro%%ery7, ritualism 6a%andon the goals and

perform the means without any hope of success7, retreatism 6deny %oth the goals

and the means and retreat through such things as alcoholism or drug a%use7, or

rebellion 6the individual creates his or her own goals and means7. (s with unin

tended consequences, deviant %ehaviors may accumulate to the point where they

influence the social structure.

Ee can thin# of this idea of accumulation within a system in terms of the heat

thermostat in your home. If it's cold outside and you have your thermostat set at @8

degrees, the internal temperature of your house will trip the thermostat, which will

turn your heat on. If you come into your house while the heat is on, chances are

good that it will stay on-your %ody will have very little influence on the internal

temperature. )owever, if you %ring several of your friends and #eep adding more people, the total mass of %odies within the house will eventually generate enough

heat to trip the thermostat in the opposite direction and turn the heat off. If you

#eep adding people to your house, you will eventually create enough heat that the

thermostat will pro%a%ly turn the air-conditioner on. It's not a perfect analogy, %ut

you can see where we are heading. /elatively few acts of deviance or unintended

consequences will have little effect, %ut as they accumulate, the social system will

respond and change &ust as your thermostat would.

(m%ivalence generally refers to emotional or psychological attitudes that con

flict with one another. "ociological ambivalence, on the other hand, refers to

7o%%osing normative tendencies in the social definition of a role7 60erton, 139@, p. 1,

emphasis original7. It is important for us to see that the am%ivalence here is struc

tural, not individual-the am%ivalence e*ists within the social structure. or

e*ample, medical doctors e*perience contradictory role e*pectations$ !hey are

e*pected to %e emotionally detached in their professional relations with their

patients, and at the same time they are e*pected to display compassion and concern

for their patients. !here is a way in which sociological am%ivalence is an effect of

modern social change$ (m%ivalence has =evolved to provide the fle*i%ility of nor

matively accepta%le %ehavior required dealing with changing states of a social rela

tion= 60erton, 139@, p. ;17.

!hus, in 0erton's scheme of functionalism, social structures and systems are

ro%ust and comple*. 0erton argues that systems are not simply su%&ect to func

tional consequences rather, systems regularly e*perience dysfunctions, manifest

and latent functions, and functional alternatives. Eith these ideas, 0erton is

proposing that functional analysis %e open to the possi%ility of multiple conse

quences and focus on the net %alance of outcomes. 0erton also presents us with a

picture of the individual social actor, with culture on one side and social structure

on the other. !hese two structures form the salient environment for the person.

!hat is, individuals set a%out doing their tas#s within this environment that %oth

restrains and ena%les. !he different structural environments that individuals find

themselves within produce differing rates and #inds of deviance and social

am%ivalence. !ogether, am%ivalence, deviance, unanticipated consequences, and

dysfunctions-all of which are intrinsic to social structure-accumulate to create

social change.



MID-TWENTIETH CENTR! S"CI"#"$IC%# THE"R!%'(

%ummary

Q 0erton critiques "arsons' analytical approach to theory, arguing that scientific

theory must accumulate over time and %egin with testa%le middle-range theories.

5nce tested, these mid-range theories, in turn, can %e %rought together to form more

general theories of social structure and action.

Q 0erton also wants to ground functionalism in the empirical world %y getting

rid of some of the more a%stract assumptions underlying functional theori+ing. In

particular, 0erton questions the functional unity of society, universal functionalism,

and indispensa%ility.

Q 0erton further esta%lishes an empirical %ase for functionalism %y arguing that

there may %e alternative outcomes to structural arrangements and individual social

action. 0erton proposes four concepts to help us thin# a%out different outcomes$

functional alternatives, manifest and latent functions, dysfunctions, and unanticipated

consequences.

Q 0erton also sensiti+es us to more su%tle and continuous social change. 0erton

sees quite a %it of social change %uilding up through unanticipated consequences of

social action, deviance, and sociological am%ivalence. "eople rarely have full #nowledge

of the possi%le outcomes of their %ehaviors. If enough of the unanticipated

consequences of %ehavior are similar, they will in the long run accrue enough presence

or force to %ring social change. 2eviance also %uilds up over time however, deviant

%ehavior is more structurally %ased than unanticipated consequences. "eople have

structured relations with the goals and means of any society. !hese relations result in

four different types of devimRe$ innovation, ritualism, retreatism, and re%ellion. (s

similar forms of deviance accumulate, they too will push for social change. <i#e

deviance, sociological am%ivalence is structured. If the %ehaviors that emerge from

these structured positions %ecome patterned, they will also create pressures within the

social system for change.

4earnin+ /ore-Primary an- %econ-ary %ources

A' Primar+ rea*in(s or Talcott Parsons:

o Parsons3 T. <142@/. The Structure o f Social Action. Ne0 !or,: Mc$ra0-Hill. <Parsons'

ma(num o)us/

o Parsons3 !. =149/. Social Structure and Personality Ne0 !or,: Free Press.

o Parsons3 !. =14/. Societies. En(le0oo* Clis3 N;: Prentice Hall. =Per&a)s t&e most

easil+ un*erstoo* o Parsons' 0ritin(s/



=Continue*/

G Primar+ rea*in(s or Robert K. Merton:

o Merton3 R. K. = 1494/. 1n Theoretical Sociology Ne0 !or,: Free Press.

o Merton3 R. K. =14?@/. Social Theory and Social Structure =Re7. e*./. Ne0 !or,: Free Press.

o Merton3 R. K. =14@/. Sociological Ambivalence and 1ther !ssays. Ne0 !or,: Free Press.

G To rea* more about Parsons3 I 0oul* recommen* t&e ollo0in(:

o Holton3 R. ;.3 O Turner3 .S. =144/. Talcott Parsons *8ey Sociologists-. C&ic&ester3

K: Ellis Hor0oo*.

o #i*3 . =6555/. Talcott Parsons. In $. Riter =E*./3 The 9lac(well Com%anion to

"a3or Social Theorists. "or*3 K: lac,0ell.o Robertson3 R.3 O Turner3 .S. =E*s./. =1441 /. Talcott Parsons& Theorist of "odernity

#on*on: Sa(e.

G For Merton3 rea* t&e ollo0in(:

o Stom),a3 ". 614/. Robert 8 "erton.: An ;ntellectual Profile. Ne0 !or,: St. Martin's Press.

"eeing the "ocial )orld *+noing the theory-

G Write a 6?5-0or* s+no)sis o Parsons' anal+tical unctionalism.

G Write a 6?5-0or* s+no)sis o Merton's em)irical unctionalism.

G %ter rea*in( an* un*erstan*in( t&is c&a)ter3 +ou s&oul* be able to *eine t&e ollo0in(

terms t&eoreticall+ an* e)lain t&eir t&eoretical im)ortance to Parsons' t&eor+ o socialor*er: the %roblem o f social order, voluntaristic action, action theory, the unit act, modes or

orientation, ada%tation, goal attainment, integration, latent %attern maintenance,

generali$ed media of e)change, values, motives, cultural %atterns, action ty%es, institutionali$ation, AC;<, sociali$ation, cybernetic hierarchy of control, e4uilibrium, cultural

strain, alienative motivational elements.

G %ter rea*in( an* un*erstan*in( t&is c&a)ter3 +ou s&oul* be able to *eine t&e ollo0in(

terms t&eoreticall+ an* e)lain t&eir t&eoretical im)ortance to Merton's em)irical

unctionalism: middlerange theory, functional alternatives, manifest and latent functions,

dysfunctions, unantici%ated conse4uences, structural theory of deviance, sociological

ambivalence.

G %ter rea*in( an* un*erstan*in( t&is c&a)ter3 +ou s&oul* be able to ans0er t&eollo0in( uestions =remember to ans0er t&em theoretically -&

o E)lain &o0 social s+stems are orme* t&rou(& mo*es o orientation an* t+)es

action3 an* t&rou(& roles3 norms3 an* status )ositions an* &o0 t&ese

s+stems sol7e t&e )roblem o social or*er.

o Describe a s+stem's unctional reuisites an* interstructural relations

Parsons' %$I# anal+tical sc&eme.

o E)lain &o0 t&e c+bernetic &ierarc&+ o control 0or,s an* its im)ortance

un*erstan*in( &o0 societ+ unctions.



%'% MID-TWENTIETH CENTR! S"CI"#"$IC%# THE"R!

o Discuss t&e )rocess o social c&an(e rom t&e be(innin(s o a social mo7ement to

t&e or*erin( o t&e ne0 social s+stem =euilibrium/.

o E)lain 0&at mi**le-ran(e t&eories are an* &o0 t&e+ it into t&e o7erall enter)rise

o t&eor+ buil*in(.

o Discuss Merton's critiues o unctionalism an* &is )ro)ose* alternati7es.

o se Merton's structural t&eor+ o *e7iance to *iscuss &o0 *e7iance occurs in a societ+.

!n+a+in+ the %ocial orl- (usin+ the theory)

G Parsons' )rimar+ )oint o 7ie0 is t&at &e sees t&in(s as a s+stem. Recall 0&at ma,es a

s+stem a s+stem an* anal+e t&is societ+ in terms o a s+stem. Is t&is societ+ a s+stem I

so3 in 0&at 0a+s I not3 in 0&at 0a+s *oes it not meet t&e criteria #et's ta,e it *o0n ale7el: %nal+e t&e uni7ersit+ +ou atten* in terms o s+stem ualities. Is it a s+stem W&at

about +our classroom Is it a s+stem in Parsonian terms Can +ou anal+e +our rien*s&i)

net0or, in terms o s+stems W&at about +ou as a )erson Do +ou eist as a s+stem I

all t&ese are s+stems3 &o0 are t&e+ lin,e* to(et&er

G Do +ou t&in, t&at 0e can un*erstan* (lobaliation rom a s+stems )ers)ecti7e I so3

name at least i7e *ierent 0a+s t&at Parsons' t&eor+ coul* be use* on a (lobal basis.

G Rememberin( Parsons' i*ea o cultural strain3 ta,e a loo, at t&e societ+ in 0&ic& +ou li7e.

Is it ri)e or cultural strain I so3 0&+ W&at ,in*s o cultural strain can +ou

i*enti+ From a Parsonian a))roac&3 0&at are t&e eects 0e mi(&t e)ect

G se Parsons' unit act anal+tical sc&eme to e)lain +our be&a7iors at sc&ool to*a+. Ta,e

t&e sc&eme an* use it in at least i7e *ierent settin(s =suc& as sc&ool3 &ome3

s&o))in( mall3 cross0al,3 beac&3 an* so on/. Ho0 *oes &is sc&eme &ol* u) Were

+ou able to anal+e all o t&e be&a7iors euall+ 0ell

G Recallin( Parsons' i*ea o (eneralie* me*ia o ec&an(e3 I'* li,e or +ou to c&oose t0o

institutions. W&at (eneralie* me*ia o ec&an(e *o +ou t&in, eist bet0een t&ese t0o

institutions Ho0 0oul* +ou (o about *eterminin( i t&e me*ia +ou )ro)ose are

actuall+ at 0or,

G Pic, t0o *ierent social institutions3 suc& as reli(ion an* t&e econom+. %nal+e eac&

institution usin( Merton's i*eas o unctional alternati7es3 maniest an* latent unctions3

*+sunctions3 an* unantici)ate* conseuences.

G sin( a co)+ o to*a+'s ne0s)a)er =local or national/3 in* all t&e articles t&at

co7er some orm o *e7iance. se Merton's t&eor+ o *e7iance to cate(orie an*

un*erstan* 0&at is (oin( on.

ea7in+ the Threa-s (5uil-in+ theory)

G Ho0 *i* Parsons set t&e t&eoretical lan*sca)e or muc& o t&e t0entiet& centur+

G Com)are an* contrast t&e s+no)sis o unctionalism +ou 0rote or S)encer 0it& t&ose o

Parsons an* Merton. Combine t&ese into a robust *einition o unctionalism.

( Continued )



=Continue*/

G "ne o sociolo(+'s abi*in( concerns re7ol7es aroun* t&e issue o social c&an(e. In t&e

c&a)ter on Dur,&eim3 I as,e* +ou to consi*er S)encer an* Dur,&eim's t&eories o social

c&an(e an* t&e )roblems o inte(ration. In t&e c&a)ter on Weber3 I as,e* +ou to com)are

an* contrast Mar an* Weber on t&e issues o ineualit+ an* social c&an(e. Ho0 *oes

Parsons' t&eor+ o re7olution an* c&an(e inclu*e t&e issues rom t&e S)encerJDur,&eim

s+nt&esis an* t&e MarJWeber s+nt&esis In ot&er 0or*s3 to 0&at etent *oes Parsons'

t&eor+ inclu*e bot& conlict an* unctional issues o social c&an(e W&at *oes Parsons'

t&eor+ lea7e out

G S)encer an* Dur,&eim bot& )ro)ose reuisite unctions. Com)are an* contrast bot&

S)encer's an* Dur,&eim's lists 0it& Parsons'. W&ere *o S)encer's unctions it W&ere

*oes Dur,&eim's unction it Does Parsons lea7e an+t&in( out

G Com)are an* contrast Mea*'s t&eor+ o action 0it& t&at o Parsons. Do +ou see an+

0a+ t&ese t0o a))arentl+ *iscre)ant t&eories can be brou(&t to(et&er to orm

uller un*erstan*in( o &uman action

G %not&er o sociolo(+'s abi*in( concerns is t&e relations&i) bet0een t&e in*i7i*ual an*

societ+. Sometimes t&is )roblem is )&rase* in terms o a(enc+ =ree 0ill/ 7ersus structure

=*etermination/3 an* ot&er times it is tal,e* about as t&e micro-macro lin,. Ho0 are

t&e in*i7i*ual an* societ+ relate* Ho0 *o t&e actions o )eo)le in ace-to-ace

encounters (et translate* to macro-le7el structures Ho0 *o structures inluence

actors Parsons *oesn't ans0er all t&ese uestions3 but &e (i7es us one o our irst

*etaile* t&eoretical e)lanations o t&e micro-macro lin,. %ccor*in( to Parsons3 &o0 *o

t&e actions o )eo)le in ace-to-ace encounters (et translate* to macro-le7el structuresDoes &is t&eor+ seem reasonable to +ou

Documents

Social Lens - Chapter Parsons e Merton