What is Structural Functionalism?

Structural functionalism, or, simply, functionalism, is a framework for

building theory that sees society as a complex system whose parts work
together to promote solidarity and stability. Two theorists, Herbert Spencer
and Robert Merton, were major contributors to this perspective. Important
concepts in functionalism include social structure, social functions, manifest
functions, and latent functions. Let's examine this perspective deeper and
take a look at a few examples.

Social Structure and Social Functions

The structural-functional approach is a perspective in sociology that sees
society as a complex system whose parts work together to promote
solidarity and stability. It asserts that our lives are guided by social
structures, which are relatively stable patterns of social behavior. Social
structures give shape to our lives - for example, in families, the community,
and through religious organizations. And certain rituals, such as a handshake
or complex religious ceremonies, give structure to our everyday lives. Each
social structure has social functions, or consequences for the operation of
society as a whole. Education, for example, has several important functions
in a society, such as socialization, learning, and social placement.
Reading: Structural-Functional Theory
Sociological Paradigm #1: Functionalism
Functionalism, also called structural-functional theory, sees society as a
structure with interrelated parts designed to meet the biological and social
needs of the individuals in that society. Functionalism grew out of the
writings of English philosopher and biologist, Hebert Spencer (1820–1903),
who saw similarities between society and the human body; he argued that
just as the various organs of the body work together to keep the body
functioning, the various parts of society work together to keep society
functioning (Spencer 1898). Outline of a man with a briefcase inside of a
gear, surrounded by other gears.The parts of society that Spencer referred to
were the social institutions, or patterns of beliefs and behaviors focused on
meeting social needs, such as government, education, family, healthcare,
religion, and the economy.

Émile Durkheim, another early sociologist, applied Spencer’s theory to

explain how societies change and survive over time. Durkheim believed that
society is a complex system of interrelated and interdependent parts that
work together to maintain stability (Durkheim 1893), and that society is held
together by shared values, languages, and symbols. He believed that to
study society, a sociologist must look beyond individuals to social facts such
as laws, morals, values, religious beliefs, customs, fashion, and rituals, which
all serve to govern social life. Alfred Radcliff-Brown (1881–1955) defined the
function of any recurrent activity as the part it played in social life as a
whole, and therefore the contribution it makes to social stability and
continuity (Radcliff-Brown 1952). In a healthy society, all parts work together
to maintain stability, a state called dynamic equilibrium by later sociologists
such as Parsons (1961).

Durkheim believed that individuals may make up society, but in order to

study society, sociologists have to look beyond individuals to social facts.
Social facts are the laws, morals, values, religious beliefs, customs, fashions,
rituals, and all of the cultural rules that govern social life (Durkheim 1895).
Each of these social facts serves one or more functions within a society. For
example, one function of a society’s laws may be to protect society from
violence, while another is to punish criminal behavior, while another is to
preserve public health.

Another noted structural functionalist, Robert Merton (1910–2003), pointed

out that social processes often have many functions. Manifest functions are
the consequences of a social process that are sought or anticipated, while
latent functions are the unsought consequences of a social process. A
manifest function of college education, for example, includes gaining
knowledge, preparing for a career, and finding a good job that utilizes that
education. Latent functions of your college years include meeting new
people, participating in extracurricular activities, or even finding a spouse or
partner. Another latent function of education is creating a hierarchy of
employment based on the level of education attained. Latent functions can
be beneficial, neutral, or harmful. Social processes that have undesirable
consequences for the operation of society are called dysfunctions. In
education, examples of dysfunction include getting bad grades, truancy,
dropping out, not graduating, and not finding suitable employment.
Criticism
One criticism of the structural-functional theory is that it can’t adequately
explain social change. Also problematic is the somewhat circular nature of
this theory; repetitive behavior patterns are assumed to have a function, yet
we profess to know that they have a function only because they are
repeated. Furthermore, dysfunctions may continue, even though they don’t
serve a function, which seemingly contradicts the basic premise of the
theory. Many sociologists now believe that functionalism is no longer useful
as a macro-level theory, but that it does serve a useful purpose in some mid-
level analyses.
Contemporary sociologists criticize later definitions of social structure by
scholars such as Spencer and Parsons because they believe the work (1)
made improper use of analogy, (2) through its association with functionalism
defended the status quo, (3) was notoriously abstract, (4) could not explain
conflict and change, and (5) lacked a methodology for empirical
confirmation.

Case Study of Structural-Functional Paradigm

The social structures of marriage and family create deep social and
emotional bonds that give individuals in depth systems of support and
generate expectations of social responsibility within their members,
achieving the function of creating social cohesion. Basically, spouses support
each other financially, socially, emotionally and physically and are driven to
achieve by socially defined expected standards of married life. Families
provide the same systems of support for all of their family members,
providing healthy settings and opportunities for individual growth for the
children. The structural – functionalism perspective sees the family doing its
part by preparing its members in a way that will benefit the society. The
family is like a body or system and each member performs vitally important
functions. Similarly, the heart is dependent on the lungs and brain for the
body to function properly. If one part or a person is not doing its or his/her
part then it is said to be dysfunctional. The family is said to be not
functioning as a whole and something is wrong with that family.
Social-Conflict Paradigm
The social-conflict paradigm is also a macro-oriented paradigm. The social-
conflict paradigm is one of the ideas of Karl Marx. He believes that social-
conflict is unavoidable. It is the driving force to improve and progress to a
better society. Human beings compete with each other to acquire the
maximum benefits. The social-conflict theory opposes with the structural-
functional theory where the social components work together to stabilize the
society. A person who poses powers and resources tend to oppress other
groups which are lower social class and this resulting in social-conflict. One
will also be able to force others to accept his/her views if they have the
authority. Social-conflict not only happens between different classes, it can
also occur in various religious, ethnics, cultural, etc. The demand of human
beings is endless, when the most basic desires are met, new needs will then
emerge. For example, pacers want to have a bike; bicyclists want to have a
motorbike; motorcyclists plan to buy a car… The needs and desires of
humans are endless caused humans have to work hard every day to fulfil
their desires. However, this phenomenon eventually leads to a progressive
society because everyone strives to achieve their needs.
Case Study of Social-Conflict Paradigm
A conflict theorist might ask, “Who benefits from the current higher
educational system?” The answer, for a conflict theorist attuned to unequal
distributions of wealth, is the wealthy. The educational system often screens
out poorer individuals, not because they are unable to compete
academically, but because they cannot afford to pay for their education.
Because the poor are unable to obtain higher education, they are generally
also unable to get higher paying jobs, thus they remain poor. The
functionalist might say that the function of education is to educate the
employees, a conflict theorist might point out that it also has an element of
conflict and inequality, favouring one group (the wealthy) over other groups
(the poor). Thinking about education in this way helps illustrate why both
functionalist and conflict theories are helpful in understanding how society
works.
Symbolic-interaction Paradigm
Symbolic-interaction theory focuses on the study of the relationship between
the individual and others. It is a micro-level orientation which emphasizes the
social interactions between the individuals in some specific situations. As
people interact with each other, a person’s self-awareness is the result of the
judgement from the surrounding people. The symbolic-interaction theory
advocate humans have their own “self”, and because of this “self” people
play a “role” of others, and they gain the ability to look at themselves
through the eyes of others. If one does not have the ability to interact with
the people and society, the social stability cannot be maintained. Because of
the shared reality that human created, the human social interaction can be
stable, expand and maintained. George Herbert Mead says that symbolic-
interaction has three characteristics: It has an explanation on the behaviour
of others; there is a definite process, which means one is ready to tell others
when they do something; have a prediction on others reaction, which is able
to predict what they do will cause what responses from others. This depends
on the interaction between two individuals have a shared meaning of the
symbol system. Mead sees society as an organized interaction between
different individuals, this interactive form of organization depends on the role
of the spirit, but also to establish an internal communication process on the
basis of the use of meaningful symbols.
Case Study of Symbolic-Interaction Paradigm
Consider applying symbolic interactionism to the marriage. The things such
as, commitments between spouses, a white bridal dress, a wedding cake, a
wedding ceremony, a wedding band and flowers are the symbols of
marriage. People relate some general meanings to these symbols. For
certain individuals, they maintain their own perceptions of what meaning are
these symbols carrying. For instance, one of the spouses may see their
wedding rings as a symbol of “endless love” while the other may just see
them as a simple financial expense. Much faulty communication can result
from the perceptions of different people on the same events and symbols.
Besides, the people choose to marry symbolizes that human beings need a
companion for their life. It symbolizes that every individual needs financially,
socially, emotionally and physically supports to lead a balanced and steady
lifetime.
Rational choice theory is based on the premise of individual self-interested
utility maximization. Organizational theory is based on the premise of
efficient functioning of organizations through means/ends rationality within
organizations. Organizational economic theory, which consists of
transactions cost economics and agency theory, forms an indirect link
between rational choice theory and organizational theory. However,
transaction cost economics and agency theory differ in their grounding
premises. Transaction cost theory holds to the premise of organizational
theory that organizational rationality dictates that organizations are
efficiently designed means/ends mechanisms, in some cases more efficient
than markets, and finds the rational choice theory premise of individual self-
interested utility maximization is problematic under conditions of uncertainty
and asset specificity. Agency theory holds to the premise of rational choice
theory that individuals are self-interested utility maximizers, but finds the
organizational theory premise, that organizations function efficiently, is
problematic. Thus, economic organizational frameworks, which purport to
link micro-level rational choice theory to meso-organizational theory are
unable to do so, due to the incompatibility of the premises on which rational
choice and organization theory rest. As one set of premises are assumed, the
other becomes problematic. No organizational theory has successfully
integrated RCT and OT.
2.4 Some Common Misunderstandings
Rational choice theory is often criticized, sometimes with good arguments,
and sometimes with bad. Although some of the bad arguments may apply to
bad versions of the theory, critics ought to address the best versions. The
most common misunderstanding is that the theory assumes agents to have
selfish motivations. Rationality is consistent with selfishness, but also with
altruism, as when someone is trying to select the charity where a donation
can do the most good.
Rational choice theory is also sometimes confused with the principle of
methodological individualism. True, the theory presupposes that principle.
Talk about beliefs and desires of supra-individual entities, such as a class or
a nation, is in general meaningless. The converse does not hold, however.
Some of the alternatives to rational choice theory also presuppose
methodological individualism.
Furthermore, it is sometimes asserted that the theory is atomistic and that it
ignores social interactions. Almost the exact opposite is true. Game theory is
superbly equipped to handle three important interdependencies: (a) the
welfare of each depends on the decisions of all; (b) the welfare of each
depends on the welfare of all; and (c) the decision of each depends on the
decisions of all. It is also sometimes asserted that the theory assumes
human beings to be like powerful computers, which can instantly work out
the most complex ramifications of all conceivable options. In principle,
rational choice theory can incorporate cognitive constraints on a par with
physical or financial constraints. In practice, the critics often have a valid
point.
Finally, it is sometimes asserted that the theory is culturally biased,
reflecting (and perhaps describing) modern, Western societies or their
subcultures. However, the minimal model set out above is transhistorically
and transculturally valid. This statement does not imply that people always
and everywhere act rationally, nor that they have the same desires and
beliefs. It means that the normative ideal of rationality embodied in the
model is one that is explicitly or implicitly shared by all human beings.
People are instrumentally rational because they adopt the principle of least
effort. ‘Do not cross the river to fetch water,’ says a Norwegian proverb. Also,
as people know that acting on false beliefs undermines the pursuit of their
ends, they want to use cognitive procedures that reduce the risk of getting it
wrong when getting it right matters. That they often fail to adopt the right
procedures does not undermine the normative ideal.
7 Concluding Remarks
Rational choice theory is a diverse set of approaches to the study of society
that are based in assumptions of individual rationality. Indeterminacies in
such theory often mirror indeterminacies in social relations and individual
understandings of these. Indeed, many rational choice explanations have
demonstrated the indeterminacy of social choice. Among the most important
contributions of such theorizing is the descriptive clarity it often adds to our
understanding of issues that have been poorly characterized before. Rational
choice explanation is inherently about states of affairs, although it can
include in a state of affairs concerns for anything that motivates people. It is
therefore easy to see how it fits with utilitarianism.

Rational choice value theories, when introduced into the study of law, have
led to the burgeoning movement of law and economics, which has produced
the most systematic analysis of the broad sweep of law and legal rules that
legal scholarship and practice have hitherto seen. The quick march of that
movement—roughly beginning with the Coase theorem (Coase 1988)—
through virtually all areas of law has provoked counterattacks, but none of
these is itself grounded in a value theory systematic enough to permit more
than piecemeal objections. The Coase theorem says, with audacious
generality and simplicity, that if there are no transaction costs to impede
economic cooperation between owners of various resources, then ownership
will not affect production, although it presumably will affect how the profits
from the production are divided. That theorem, along with earlier work of
Ronald Coase and many others, has led to the massive study of transaction
costs.

We have a rich understanding of the problems of rational choice value

theories just because those theories have been a major focus in the
development and articulation of the entire discipline of economics. The
theories are a product of centuries of determined and often brilliant debate
with dozens of major contributions. Alternative value theories have had far
too few advocates and critics to yield much understanding at all. Indeed,
value claims commonly seem to be ad hoc and not systematically
generalizable. Such considerations are no argument for the superiority or
rightness of any value theory. But they may be a tonic for those who wonder
how the only well-articulated class of value theories is so easy to criticize: It
has enough content to be subject to extensive and varied criticism.
Critiques of Rational Choice Theory
Critics have argued that there are several problems with rational choice
theory. The first problem with the theory has to do with explaining collective
action. That is if individuals simply base their actions on calculations of
personal profit, why would they ever choose to do something that will benefit
others more than themselves? Rational choice theory does address
behaviors that are selfless, altruistic, or philanthropic.
Related to the first problem just discussed, the second problem with rational
choice theory, according to its critics, has to do with social norms. This
theory does not explain why some people seem to accept and follow social
norms of behavior that lead them to act in selfless ways or to feel a sense of
obligation that overrides their self-interest.
The third argument against rational choice theory is that it is too
individualistic. According to critics of individualistic theories, they fail to
explain and take proper account of the existence of larger social structures.
That is, there must be social structures that cannot be reduced to the actions
of individ What is Rational Choice Theory
Rational choice theory is an economic principle that assumes that individuals
always make prudent and logical decisions that provide them with the
highest amount of personal utility. These decisions provide people with the
greatest benefit or satisfaction — given the choices available — and are also
in their highest self-interest. Most mainstream academic assumptions and
theories are based on rational choice theory.
BREAKING DOWN Rational Choice Theory
Rational choice theory assumes that all people try to actively maximize their
advantage in any situation and therefore consistently try to minimize their
losses. The theory is based on the idea that all humans base their decisions
on rational calculations, act with rationality when choosing, and aim to
increase either pleasure or profit. Rational choice theory also stipulates that
all complex social phenomena are driven by individual human actions.
Therefore, if an economist wants to explain social change or the actions of
social institutions, he needs to look at the rational decisions of the
individuals that make up the wholeuals and therefore have to be explained in
different terms.
What is a Political Culture?
The term 'political culture' is used in the field of social science. It refers to
historically-based, widely-shared beliefs, feelings, and values about the
nature of political systems, which can serve as a link between citizens and
government.

Different countries have different political cultures, which can help us

understand how and why their governments are organized in a certain way,
why democracies succeed or fail, or why some countries still have
monarchies. Understanding our own political culture can also provide clues
to political relationships, such as those we share with each other or our
governments.
In the United States, we may be tempted to think of political culture in terms
of our voting status as a Democrat or a Republican. However, it's important
to understand that political culture differs from political ideology. The term
'political ideology' refers to a code of beliefs or views about governments and
politics that may influence the way we vote or whether or not we support
certain legislative actions.
For example, two people can share a political culture, but have different
political ideologies. In other words, a right-wing conservative can be from the
same political culture as a left-wing liberal. In other words, political culture is
something we share, while a political ideology is something, we use to define
ourselves and make political decisions.
Theories
In 1963, two political scientists, Gabriel Almond and Sydney Verba, published
a study of the political cultures associated with five democratic countries:
Germany, Italy, Mexico, the United Kingdom, and the United States.
According to Almond and Verba, there are three basic types of political
culture, which can be used to explain why people do or do not participate in
political processes.
In a parochial political culture, like Mexico, citizens are mostly uninformed
and unaware of their government and take little interest in the political
process. In a subject political culture, such as those found in Germany and
Italy, citizens are somewhat informed and aware of their government and
occasionally participate in the political process. In a participant political
culture, like the United Kingdom and the United States, citizens are informed
and actively participate in the political process.
Other theories of political culture address how political culture takes root and
is transferred from generation to generation through political socialization
and include Seymour Martin Lipset's formative events theory, which
describes the long-lasting effects of key events that took place when a
country was founded; Louis Hartz's fragment theory, which explains the long-
lasting effects of European colonization on countries and societies; and
Roger Inglehart's post-materialism theory, which explains the long-lasting
effects of childhood economic and social conditions.
A Political Culture is a set of attitudes and practices held by a people that
shapes their political behavior. It includes moral judgments, political myths,
beliefs, and ideas about what makes for a good society. A political culture is
a reflection of a government, but it also incorporates elements of history and
tradition that may predate the current regime. Political cultures matter
because they shape a population’s political perceptions and actions.
Governments can help shape political culture and public opinion through
education, public events, and commemoration of the past. Political cultures
vary greatly from state to state and sometimes even within a state.
Generally speaking, however, political culture remains more or less the same
over time.
Regional Culture
Even within the United States, political culture varies from place to place. For
much of the twentieth century, southern politicians were reputed to be slow-
acting and polite, whereas northern politicians were seen as efficient but
abrupt and sometimes rude. This belief led President John F. Kennedy to
once lament that Washington, D.C., had the charm of a northern city and the
efficiency of a southern one.
Citizenship
Political culture is connected to notions of Citizenship because political
culture frequently includes an idea of what makes people good citizens. A
Citizen is a legal member of a political community, with certain rights and
obligations. Because each country has its own requirements for citizenship
and attendant rights, the definition of “citizen” varies around the world.
Aristotle And Citizenship
The Greek philosopher Aristotle was probably the first person to puzzle over
what makes someone a citizen in his treatise Politics (c. 335–323 bce). He
reasoned that living in a particular place does not automatically make a
person a citizen because, in his day (as in ours) resident aliens and
immigrants often lived in a country without becoming citizens. In the end,
Aristotle defined a citizen as one who shares in the offices and power of a
regime (even if only in a small way). So, a tyranny has one citizen, whereas a
democracy has many citizens.
Characteristics of Good Citizens
A good citizen lives up to the ideals of the regime and embodies much of
what a particular political culture considers important. An American who lives
an exemplary life but who does not work to help the community will probably
be viewed as a good person but not as a good citizen. Instead, Americans
expect good citizens to help others and to make the community a better
place through active participation in public life. In the United States, a good
citizen is often expected to do some or all of the following:
Vote in elections, Obey all local, state, and federal laws, Pay taxes Be
informed about political issues Volunteer to help less fortunate people
Demonstrate patriotism by respecting the flag, singing the national anthem,
and knowing the Pledge of Allegiance Recycle Help the community when
needed

Stereotypes

Political scientists seem to be in a quandary. On the one hand, they make

generalizations about politics and people in order to gain a broader
understanding. On the other hand, political scientists do not want to rely on,
or perpetuate, stereotypes. Finding a balance between these two is difficult.
Scholars must carefully examine their use of language and data in an
attempt to avoid stereotyping.
Political Culture and Change
Political culture changes over time, but these changes often happen slowly.
People frequently become set in their ways and refuse to alter their attitudes
on significant issues. Sometimes it can take generations for major shifts to
occur in a nation’s political culture.
Nation-Building And Political Culture
Political culture has presented great difficulties to the military forces in Iraq
and Afghanistan engaged in nation-building during the early years of the
twenty-first century. The United States is trying to build liberal democracies
in these states, but in both places, long-held attitudes toward women and
other ethnic groups, along with habits of obedience shaped by years of
tyranny, have interfered. As a result, establishing democracies in these
states could take a very long time.