Anthropology 702 Essay

Topic: Compare and contrast the functionalist and structuralist

schools of thought as reactions to the early nineteenth century of
evolutionism.
The nineteenth century evolutionist have infact influenced the works of many writers as well
as scholars in general. In addition, in a reaction to this theory emerged the theory of
functionalism as well as structuralism. This essay will therefore give a brief account of the
nineteenth century evolutionism followed by an in depth explanation of the two theories as
well as a comparison of the two accompanied by relevant examples followed by an overall
conclusion.

The nineteenth century evolutionist firstly had claimed that societies in general developed in
accordance to what they had referred to as a universal order in which every society regardless
of their whereabouts followed this universal order. Furthermore, the evolutionist proceeded to
identify the various universal evolution stages in which they had classified them as savagery,
barbarism and finally the highlest level that one could reach, civilization. Moreover, the
evolutionists in this era were believed to have collected data from missionaries as well as
traders. The evolutionist themselves had rarely visited the areas that they were analysing.
Therefore, in this era the evolutionist relied heavily on secondary information which as stated
previously was acquired in various ways through different individuals (Beattie, 1964).

Therefore, they had opted to apply a generalized theory somewhat in an attempt to explain
development in various societies in a standardized manner. In addition to this, it is then said
that these evolutionist had some assumptions with regards to evolution and development in
general, one being the idea that human beings in general share similar characteristics
throughout the world. Therefore, in a way implying that these individuals all go through the
same process of development and do not differ in anyway. Furthermore, the nineteenth
century evolutionist are said to have contributed tremendously to anthropology in the sense
that they had provided what one could reffer to as the first systematic method of thinking
about one’s self as well as explaining human societies in general (Beattie, 1964).

Therefore,in an reaction to the nineteenth century evolutionism two very important theories
were brought forward. Functionalism for one was said to be introduced by Radcliffe Brown
as well as Malinowski (Landa, 2007). The theory of functionalism therefore was said to seek
to examine the overall social significance of phenomena which is basically the purpose that
they serve in society in an attempt to maintain the whole. Furthermore, within this theory
individuals are viewed as forming part a system which included every individual within that
particular society. In addition, the main focus of this theory was on the metaphor of the living
organism where it is stated that the several parts of the organism are grouped together to
ensure the a smooth run of a society (Landa, 2007).

In addition, Malinowski stated that individuals have physiological needs and that various
social institutions are developed in order to meet the various needs of these groups of
individuals. In addition as previously stated cultural institutions function in a way that makes
it possible for the psychological as well as the physical needs of individuals in a society to be
met. Malinowski was concerned with how individuals found ways to pursue their own ends
within the restrictions of their culture (Landa, 2007). In addition, another aspect of
functionalism is brought forth which is structural functionalism.

Structural functionalism looks at how various social structures as well as cultures have
contributed to the roles that individuals held in a society. In addition according to structural
functionalism the roles that individuals have in society is based on statuses that continue to
exist in unmodified forms even after an individual has disappeared. Therefore, the theory of
functionalism places huge emphasis on social structures as a whole and not on individuals
alone reason being is that they believe that the group as a whole brings in a great level of
reality which is distinct from those of biological forms as well as inorganic matter. In
addition, under the theory of structuralism functionalism the general fieldwork is said to be
geared towards gaining an overall understanding of how social structures are organised as
well as how they function within various cultures.

Social structuralism is also interested in taking an in depth look at social laws which govern
behaviour from a somewhat cross cultural perspective rather than simply focusing on one
culture. Alternatively, the theory of Structuralism according to Claude Levi Strauss in which
he states that cultural forms are based on the common properties of the human mind.
Therefore, implying that the structure of thoughts that individuals have in one part of the
world can be found across all cultures. Moreover, the goal of structuralism is said to be able
to discover the universal principles of the human mind underlying each culture (Scholte,
1974). Therefore, as analytical model structuralism is said to assume the way that individuals
think is in fact unuiversal and these thought pastterns can be used in order to explain what is
referred to as the deep structure or the underlying meaning which exists in cultural
phenomena (Beattie, 1964).
As previously stated the structuralist paradigm within the field of anthropology is said to
believe that the way people think is infact universal and their thought processes is said to be
the same across all cultures. In addition, it is said that these mental processes therefore exist
in the form of binary oppositions. Therefore, some of these sorts of oppositions, include
aspects such as hot and cold, raw and cooked, male and female and so forth. Morever,
structuralist therefore suggest that the binary oppositions are reflected in a variety of cultural
institutions. Anthropologist therefore may discover the underlying thought processes by
examining aspects such as myths, language and kinship (Scholte, 1974). In addition it is then
said that a hidden reality exist beneath all cultural expressions. Basically, the strutural
approach states the one ought to understand the underlying meaning involved in human
thought which are expressed in cultural acts due to the fact that is believed that elements of
culture in as well as of themselves are not explanatory but rather form part of a meaningful
system therefore, the elements of culture ought to be understood in terms of their relationship
to the entire system (Scholte, 1974).

In addition, based on the above there are noticiable differences between the two theories.
Firstly, functionalism evidently focuses on the whole which is the society in general which
consists of a large of individuals and social structures which are put into place in an attempt
to ensure the smooth running of that particular society. For example, the government will
provide education for children that belong to that particular society, the family of those
children will pay tax that of which the state depends on. In addition the school assists in
helping the children receive a good education that will help them get good jobs in order for
them to support their families. In addition these children will become law abiding as well as
tax paying citizens who eventually will end up supporting the state. Therefore, functionalism
focuses on the group in order to ensure that the society as a whole runs smoothly which
therefore will benefit everyone (Landa, 2007).

Alternatively, structuralism seeks to understand the underlying meaning involved in the

individual human mind as expressed in culturals acts. Therefore, they look at the behaviour of
an individual that of which may include their everyday activities such as running errands,
brushing their teeth, going to school or work and so forth. Structuralism acknowledges that in
order to understand the behavior of individuals one ought to understand the way that their
minds work and what has been influencing the way that they think (Scholte, 1974). In
addition, functionalism also focuses on how cultural institutions function to meet the physical
and psychological needs of people in a society. Therefore, it is believed that people have the
same needs and the structures put into place are there to satisfy such needs. Whereas,
structuralism acknowledges the fact that the universal principles of the human mind is what
influences culture not culture that influences the individuals mind. In my opinion
functionalism is similar to the nineteenth century evolutionism theory in the sense that it
believes that things are done in a particular way that does not change over time. Therefore, it
also makes use of generalized theories in order to explain the development stages in various
societies. The two focus on a standardized way of doing things unlike structuralism that
acknowledges that change is something that is inevitable.

Therefore, the way someone in Australia for instance may influence the way someone in
South Africa thinks and may change some of the things that they usually say and do. In
addition, functionalism implies that structures remain the same over time. For example, what
an individual wears in 2015 will be worn in 2055 without changing the individuals within
that society will pass away but the structures will forever remain the same over time.
Alternatively, structuralism as previously stated states that the human mind is influenced by
universal elements for example someone that belongs to the zulu culture and believes in
witchcraft but at a later stage changes religions perhaps due to a change of environment may
stop believing in witchcraft this way their thoughts have been influenced which results in
change. Therefore, structuralism unlike functionalism can be influenced making change
posible which makes room for modification. In addition, functionalism wants to understand
the social structures of a society whereas in structuralism there is a focus on the individual in
order to understand the structures of a society.

In conclusion, based on the above it has been made evident that functionalism tends to focus
on society as a whole and strays from taking an individualistic approach to viewing society.
Therefore, functionalist basically believes that society is made up of parts that contribute to
the whole. In addition, the structures within a functionalist society therefore do not change
over time but remain the same and sum of the whole is what contributes to the smooth
running of the society. Alternatively, the structural theory focuses on the individual state of
mind due to the fact that they believe that this is what influences their overall behavior.
Therefore, struturalist believe that the minds of human beings are influenced by universal
thought patterns which results in a great amount of change over time within that particular
society.
Bibliography:

Beattie, J.H.M (1964) Other Cultures: Aims, Methods and Achievements in social
anthropology. New York: Free Press.
Landa, O (2007) Functionalist perspectives in anthropology.

Scholte, B (1974). 'Structural Anthropology as an Ethnologic. The Unconscious in Culture:

The Structuralism of Claude Levi-Strauss in Perspective. New York: Dutton.