Functionalism theory. Paradigms of sociological knowledge Theoretical premises of functionalism in sociology include the following

As noted above, Marxism is more characterized by a deterministic approach to explaining social life. The ideas of functionalism are largely inherent in Anglo-American sociology. The basic principles of functionalism were formulated by the English sociologist G. Spencer (1820 - 1903) in his three-volume work “The Foundation of Sociology” and developed by the English ethnographer A. Radcliffe-Brown and the American sociologists R. Merton and T. Parsons.

Let us briefly consider what the basic principles of the functional approach according to G. Spencer are:

1) Same as supporters systematic approach, functionalists viewed society as a holistic, unified organism , consisting of many parts: economic, political, military, religious, etc.

2) But at the same time they emphasized that each part can exist only within the framework of integrity , where it performs specific, strictly defined functions.

3) The functions of parts always mean satisfying some social need. Yet together they are aimed at maintaining the sustainability of society and the reproduction of the human race.

4) Since each part of society performs only its inherent function, then in the event of a disruption in the activity of this part, the more the functions differ from each other, the more difficult it is for other parts to fill the disturbed functions.

5) Spencer gave great value social control. The social system, in his opinion, maintains stability mainly because it contains elements of control. These include political governance, law enforcement, religious institutions, and moral standards.

According to G. Spencer, social control is based on “fear of the living” and “fear of the dead.” “Fear of the living” is created by the state, “fear of the dead” by the church. The main condition for preserving social integrity is the agreement of the majority of society with the system of values adopted in it.

Functionalism in sociology was developed in the works of R. Merton. Sharing the basic principles of functionalism formulated by G. Spencer, R. Merton introduced a number of clarifications to this concept:

1) Just as one phenomenon can have different functions, so the same function can be performed by different phenomena.

2) R. Merton introduces the concept of dysfunction, that is, a destructive function. He argues that the same elements can be functional in relation to some systems and dysfunctional in relation to others.

3) R. Merton introduces a distinction between explicit and hidden (latent) functions. Explicit function is an effect that is caused intentionally and recognized as such. Latent function- this is a consequence that was not intended to cause actor, and it doesn't know what caused it.

A significant stage in the development of the methodology of functionalism is the structural functionalism of T. Parsons. From his point of view, any social system has two main orientations, which he called "axes of orientation". First axis – external-internal. This means that any system is oriented either to environmental events or to its own problems. Second axis - instrumental-consumotor. This means that the orientation of systems is related to either immediate, actual or long-term, potential needs and goals.

From the position of these axes in the cross-shaped tables, a set of four main functional categories arises: adaptation, goal achievement, integration and reproduction of the structure. These functions of the social system, according to Parsons, are provided by various subsystems. Thus, within a social system, the adaptation function is provided by the economic subsystem, the goal achievement function is provided by the political subsystem, the integration function is provided by legal institutions and custom, the structure reproduction function is provided by the system of beliefs, morality and socialization bodies, including educational systems and institutions.

Functionalism is widely used in empirical scientific research. However, sociologists who adhere to different methodological guidelines emphasize three main disadvantages of functionalism:

1) An ahistorical approach to the study of society. Society in functionalism is considered statically, outside the dynamics of development.

2) Inability to provide a description and analysis of conflicts, an ideological orientation towards stability, while a lot of social conflicts occur in modern society.

3) Failure to properly reflect the individual in the social.

System of concepts of sociology

As already mentioned, the subject of sociology is revealed in the system of its concepts. You can find them in sociological dictionaries, encyclopedias, textbooks and textbooks, in the process of studying a sociology course.

For example, Theodore Caplow, in his classification of sociological terms (1971), identified 20 key concepts:

Of course, the categorical apparatus of sociology is not limited to these concepts. Sociological research continues, sociological theory develops, and the conceptual basis of sociological science increases.

Paradigms sociological knowledge

Returning to the subject-object specificity of sociology, it should be noted that since its inception, this science has never represented a single, monolithic knowledge; it breaks up into various directions and schools. Today sociological science is multi-paradigm knowledge. You can select five paradigms, which are the methodological and intellectual foundations of sociological theories. Each paradigm will set its own vision of the object and subject of sociology.

1. Paradigm of social facts. It views social reality through the prism of social structures, institutions and their functions. Within this paradigm there are functionalism, structural-functional theory(G. Spencer, E. Durkheim, T. Parsons, R. Merton) and theory social conflict (L. Koser, R. Dahrendorf, etc.).

Basics functionalism founded by the English philosopher and sociologist Herbert Spencer (1820–1903). He viewed society as social organism, comparing it with living biological organisms and noting that each of its structural parts performs a function that is important for the entire society. The more complex the development of a society, the more diverse its functional connections.

The theoretical premises of functionalism in sociology of the 20th century are as follows:

1) society is a system of parts united into a single whole (an integral social system);
2) social systems remain stable because they have institutions and mechanisms of social control, such as law enforcement agencies and courts;
3) functional connections in social systems are not reduced to explicit functions; latent and alternative functions also exhibit their effects;
4) dysfunctions in society, of course, exist, but they are somehow overcome or take root in society;
5) changes in society are usually gradual, evolutionary, and not revolutionary;
6) social integration, unity in society are achieved on the basis of the majority of citizens following a common (unified) system of values.

Thus, in functional theories, society is represented a holistic, functionally and structurally interconnected social system. Particular attention in functionalism is paid to the study of conditions and factors that ensure stability and order in society.

According to theories of social conflict Any society is characterized by conflicts between participants social life, their struggle for power, resources, values, recognition. Conflicts can be acute, pronounced and protracted, but they can also be short-lived and almost invisible. They perform a constructive or destructive function in society. In a modern democratic society there are sufficiently developed institutions for regulating social conflicts. Conflict theories explore " conflict model society", social conflicts and their role in society, social mechanisms, institutions for the prevention and resolution of social conflicts.

2. Paradigm of social definitions. Its origins lie in the work of the German sociologist Max Weber. Researchers working within this paradigm believe that social phenomena can be understood only on the basis of the meanings that people attach to actions, situations, and stimuli when interacting with each other. Stand out here symbolic interactionism(J. Mead, G. Bloomer), phenomenological sociology(A. Schutz et al.), ethnomethodology(G. Garfinkel).

Fundamental Ideas symbolic interactionism formulated by the American sociologist George Herbert Mead (1863–1931). Proponents of this approach note that people, by assigning incentives affecting them outside world certain values, react precisely to semantic meaning symbols, and not on stimuli as such. J. Mead's views on society and personality were developed in the “dramatic sociology” of Erving Goffman (1922–1982). From his point of view, human life is similar to a theatrical performance, since people are like actors on stage playing roles that they take on in order to impress and influence others.

Founder phenomenological sociology Austrian sociologist and philosopher Alfred Schutz (1899–1959) believed that sociology should study the everyday (vital, phenomenal) world of man. The basis of the social world is intersubjectivity, those. its “co-creation” by interacting subjects (individuals). Explanation of the construction of social reality and actions generated by intersubjective model-constructions has become central to phenomenological sociology.

Thus, in sociological concepts included in the paradigm of social definitions, social reality is largely represented as a “world of meanings and symbols” that are significant in the actions and communication of individuals.

3. Paradigm of social behavior. In modern sociology, this paradigm finds its expression in behavioral sociology(B. Skinner et al.) and social exchange theories(D. Homane, P. Blau). Within the framework of these theories, the task of sociology is declared to be the study human behavior. The relationships between people are explained on the basis of the principle of “reward-punishment”. People tend to repeat actions (behavior patterns) for which in the past they were rewarded in one form or another (praise, money, admiration, reward, recognition, prestige, love, etc.). And vice versa, they strive to avoid what they failed, defeated, for which they received reprimand, punishment.

Thus, within the framework of the social behavior paradigm, the behavior of individuals in social space, understood as a system of social reinforcers (rewards - punishments), and social structures interactions that have developed in the process of exchange relations.

4. Psychological paradigm in sociology originated in late XIX century (G. Tarde, G. Lebon). In the 20th century, it developed under the significant influence of psychoanalysis by Sigmund Freud, who viewed social life through the prism of the structure of the conflict “It - I - Super-Ego” within the individual and between him and society. Some initial provisions of Freudianism: the importance of the unconscious in the existence of man and society, the Oedipus complex - later underwent changes in the theories of neo-Freudianism (E. Fromm) and neo-Marxism (G. Marcuse).
5. Paradigm of socio-economic determinism represented by the Marxist social concept (K. Marx, F. Engels, G. V. Plekhanov, V. I. Lenin). In Marxist theory, social reality is viewed as a totality public relations, emerging in the process of joint life activity of people. The focus of her attention is on socio-economic formations, the change of which is determined primarily by changes in the method of production, as well as the prospects for transforming society on communist principles.

As noted, sociological research continues, including efforts to integrate the paradigms of sociological science.

Features of the sociological approach to the study of society and social reality. Among the most important we note the following.

Sociological knowledge must provide substantiated answers to a number of core questions identified by the founders of sociology back in the 19th century:

– What the situation really looks like? This question forces researchers to build their surveys based on reliable facts, to avoid the misconceptions of everyday consciousness, to look for deeper layers of social existence hidden from superficial observation;
– Why is it really like this?? This question focuses on identifying the mechanisms and patterns of social life;
– What and how will happen next? This issue is related to the goal of developing reasonable forecasts of social development;
– What to do to change society in a “decent” direction? This question involves the development of recommendations for people involved in management, as well as citizens, so that they more accurately understand social situations and thereby have better chances to realize their interests and life plans.

Modern sociological science, of course, has come a long way from the concepts of early sociology. She managed to overcome the legacy of a naive naturalism and extremes positivism, in essence, establishing an equal sign between the laws of nature and society, between the methods of natural and social sciences. The image of the social world in the sociology of the late 20th century beginning of the XXI century looks different than in the theories of classical sociology. The cognitive tools of sociological science have been transformed, but scientific knowledge of society remains the unchanged goal of activity for the majority of current sociologists.

However, today there is a different view of sociology. In particular, in postmodernism social life is interpreted as devoid of any interrelations and patterns; randomness, instability, and fragmentation of unrelated phenomena reign in it. Postmodern innovations can be treated differently, but be that as it may, they provide an important service to sociology in understanding the social world.

To a large extent, the specificity of cognition in modern sociology is revealed in the idea of sociological imagination. The author of the concept of sociological imagination is the famous American sociologist Charles Wright Mills (1916–1962). According to Mills, the sociological imagination is ability to link a biography individual person, society and history.

It's important to note a few things here. Sociological imagination:

1) suggests considering social phenomena as the result of intentional or unintentional actions of social subjects, individuals or groups, and thus opposes fatalism, “hard-edged” determinism, and ideas about the role of Providence;
2) is based on an awareness of the structural and cultural boundaries that determine the chances and prospects of social actors, and thereby undermines the myth of absolute freedom human and opposes voluntarism;
3) includes a historical view of the social world;
4) focuses on dynamics as opposed to static approaches in the study of phenomena of the social world;
5) means understanding the huge variety of forms in which social life finds its manifestation. Thus, the sociological imagination defends tolerance and is directed against dogmatism and ethnocentrism.

For a sociologist who professes the idea of sociological imagination, there can be no taboo topics in the study of society, as well as large and small questions. In small

– separate fact - the sociologist seeks to reveal the general
– social trend and strives to see the general social in social specifics.

The lack of sociological imagination cannot be compensated for by anything else, for example, a large amount of empirical data, dogmatic schemes, an appeal to the opinion of the authorities, etc.

Society in sociology is studied as social system, but – the system is contradictory, changing, possessing complex structure. In sociology, the approach associated with the construction of ideal (utopian) models of society is unacceptable. The future is not predetermined; We can rightfully say that humanity continues to develop, but the challenges it faces are also increasing.

Thus, when characterizing our time, the term has increasingly begun to be used "risk society" which was introduced into scientific discourse by the German sociologist Ulrich Beck (b. 1944). Various spheres of society: economic, political, legal, cultural sphere, etc. - in sociology are considered both as parts of the social whole (as well as in relation to each other) and as separate social systems.

Sociology is a theoretical and empirical science. There are two main ways to obtain knowledge in sociology:

A) empirical – obtaining primary information, facts, their empirical processing, description;
b) theoretical – systematic analysis and synthesis of empirical information, facts, formulation of concepts, theories.

These are two sides of the same “coin” of sociological knowledge of the world of sociality, and therefore the view of sociology on the phenomena and processes of social reality is both fixing descriptive and conceptual, explanatory.

In sociology, the discussion periodically resumes about the relationship between theory and empirics (experiential knowledge), their place and significance for sociological science. Extreme positions are also expressed.

Extremes are called extremes because in relation to them the truth is always somewhere nearby. Sociology without its theoretical and empirical components could not have emerged as a modern social science. Without empirics, sociology can turn into a kind of doctrinaire, and without theory it will not only be impossible to “see the forest for the trees,” but even to discern anything really worthwhile.

In sociology ( social sciences in general) two approaches have emerged in explaining society:

A) social realism(from Latin realis - real). From this point of view, society is a special kind of reality(lat. sui generis), distinct and even independent from the totality of individuals composing society;
b) social nominalism(from Latin nomina - name). Here the reality of the individuals who make up society is affirmed, while society itself does not form a special reality. Society is nothing more than a fetish.

What is considered true – nominalism or realism? A lot has been said about this. The outstanding Russian-American sociologist P. A. Sorokin believed that neither one nor the other is acceptable for sociology, noting that society is a product interaction aggregates of people, and not their mechanical sum. According to the Russian sociologist N.I. Lapin (b. 1931), the reality of society should be expressed not by the formula of nominalism - “individuals and their inter-individual relationships are real” and not by the formula of realism - “society is a reality of a special kind”, but by the statement: “society is real , since social actions and interactions of individuals and social communities are real."

The sociological imagination guides researchers to consider the individual in society contextually(from Latin contextus - connection, connection), since the individual and society are aspects of the social continuum.

“For sociology, it turns out to be extremely important and significant that we constantly seem to be spinning in... different contexts, entering one of them, leaving another, finding ourselves in a purely “virtual” context, finding ourselves in a new context in order to return again to the same, etc. And in each of these contexts we meet a new “society” and “environment”... Accordingly, we meet new people occupying different statuses (positions), playing different roles, we are connected with other ties with these people. , we enter into a different type of relationship with them, we are faced with different conditions and rules of the “game”; we ourselves act differently, we say something differently, with our participation we influence what is done in such a group, we contribute to its transformation. , modifications and cause various other consequences and events."

Sociology in the study of society is open to other areas of knowledge, rejecting isolationism in science; is focused on the development of interdisciplinary studies of society and social relations, without excluding the possibility of deeper integration of social sciences in the future.

Sociological knowledge cannot be perceived as a set of immutable dogmas. Sociology is a developing field based on its “classics”, accumulated experience and knowledge. scientific research, which, together with other social and humanities strives to fulfill the important need of people and society to understand the constantly changing social world.

In conclusion, we present the definition of sociology, which in Russian science is considered the most complete and is reproduced in many dictionaries, encyclopedias, and educational publications. Its author is Academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences G. V. Osipov.

Sociology is the science of general and specific social laws and patterns of development and functioning of historically defined social systems, the science of the mechanisms of action and forms of manifestation of these laws and patterns in the activities of individuals, social groups, communities, classes, peoples.

How to properly manage the finances of your business if you are not an expert in the field financial analysis - Financial analysis

Financial management - financial relations between entities, financial management at different levels, securities portfolio management, techniques for managing the movement of financial resources - this is not a complete list of the subject" Financial management"

Let's talk about what it is coaching? Some believe that this is a bourgeois brand, others that it is a breakthrough in modern business. Coaching is a set of rules for successfully running a business, as well as the ability to correctly manage these rules

1. Structural functionalism

“Who was the first functionalist? Quite possibly he was the first person to think systematically and to some extent objectively about the nature of the social.”

Although the term “structural functionalism” appeared only in the 20th century, and as a theoretical paradigm this approach finally took shape in the second half of our century, its roots go back to the founders of sociological theory - O. Comte, G. Spencer and E. Durkheim. The fact is that structural functionalism comes from such ideas about society that are inextricably linked with the formation of sociology and its definition as independent science. He views society as an objective reality, consisting of interconnected and interdependent parts, the development and functioning of which can only be explained “from the inside.” The method preferred by structural functionalism is the old method of classical sociology - the historical-comparative method.

For this reason, even supporters of this approach sometimes prefer to talk about it not as a theory, but as a method of analysis most suitable for solving sociological problems, although not capable of solving all of them. Describing one of the most significant representatives of this paradigm, R. Merton, T. Parsons wrote: “He especially did not like to attach the name “ism” to his approach and argued that a simple descriptive definition of “functional analysis” was more suitable.”2

However, despite this, structural functionalism is perceived by its supporters and especially its opponents as a fairly unified theoretical paradigm with well-established traditions and areas of analysis. We will consider the concepts of two representatives of this paradigm: R. K. Merton and L. A. Kozer. The first of them did a lot for the establishment of the structural-functional approach, proving its scientific and methodological validity, the second tried to show, within the framework of this approach, the possibility of solving the problem of conflict.

Robert King Merton (b. 1910) is one of the most prominent representatives of the structural-functional trend in modern sociology. His wide erudition, deep knowledge of the works of the classics of sociological knowledge and his own extraordinary talent as a researcher helped him defend the paradigm of functional analysis in the face of severe criticism that fell on functionalism in the 60-70s. He believed and continues to believe that functionalism is a key form of theoretical judgments about society, presupposing its objective nature. And in this sense, functionalism is the main, if not the only, way of thinking suitable for the science of sociology as an independent discipline.

R. Merton's concept was significantly influenced by the works of M. Weber, W. Thomas, E. Durkheim and T. Parsons, whose student he was. Analyzing their views, he came to the conclusion that the idea of society as an objective, structured phenomenon and its influence on the behavior of individuals leads to a significant expansion of sociological knowledge, without, of course, solving all problems. This idea generates problems that “I find interesting and a way of thinking about problems that I find more effective than any others I know,” wrote R. Merton.3

From this preference flows the theme that is the leitmotif of most of his works - the theme of social structure and its influence on social action. Already in his doctoral dissertation4 (1936), written under the undoubted influence of M. Weber’s “Protestant Ethics,” he focuses his attention on the relationship between the growth of Protestant communities and development scientific knowledge in 17th-century England, emphasizing the ways in which institutionalized structures (religious organizations) influence changes in people's activities and worldviews. From the same angle, he views bureaucracy as an “ideal type” (in Weber’s understanding) of social organization.5 Noting, following M. Weber, the most essential features of a bureaucratic organization, arguing that it is a formal, rationally organized social structure, incorporating clearly defined patterns of action ideally suited to the goals of the organization, he proceeds to analyze the individual as a product of this structural organization. He believes that the bureaucratic structure requires the formation of certain personality traits in the individual, or at least unquestioning adherence to structural requirements. The imperative nature of these requirements leads to submission to regulations without awareness of the purposes for which these regulations are established. And although they can; contribute to the effective functioning of the organization, they can also negatively affect this functioning, generating over-conformity, leading to conflicts between the bureaucrat and the client for whose sake he acts. R. Merton empirically examines the influence of social organization on personality in order to then move on to theoretical postulation.

From the empirical focus of R. Merton's works follows his unique view of sociological theory. As can be seen from the previous presentation, his analysis of bureaucratic organization is not much different from the theoretical constructs of T. Parsons: in both cases, social organization is an integrated set of roles (normative rules and expectations), subordinated to goals that may not be realized; the formation of action patterns is rational; the structure influences the personality, determining its traits, etc. But R. Merton does not pretend to be original. He simply argues that T. Parsons' analysis is too abstract, not too detailed, and therefore not applicable in the study of social realities. The colossal possibilities inherent in it do not work due to too much abstraction from empirical phenomena and an overly cumbersome system of relations between concepts, lacking flexibility, and, therefore, forced to “adjust” existing facts to suit itself. Therefore, R. Merton sees his task as creating a “middle-level theory”, which would be a kind of “connecting bridge” between empirical generalizations and abstract schemes like the Parsonian one.

The construction of such a “middle-level theory,” according to R. Merton, can be carried out on the basis of consistent criticism of the broadest, unjustified generalizations of previous functionalism and the introduction of new concepts that serve the purposes of organizing and interpreting empirical material, but are not “empirical generalizations” that is, not produced inductively from available facts. The task of criticism also includes clarifying basic concepts, since “too often one term is used to express different phenomena, just as the same phenomena are expressed by different terms.”6

The first provision that comes under criticism from R. Merton is the provision of functional unity. He believes that the main condition for the existence of previous functionalism was the assumption that all parts of the social system interact with each other in a fairly harmonious manner. functional analysis postulated the internal coherence of the parts of the system, in which the action of each part is functional for all the others and does not lead to contradictions and conflicts between the parts. However, such complete functional unity, possible in theory, according to R. Merton, contradicts reality. What is functional for one part of the system is dysfunctional for another, and vice versa. In addition, the principle of functional unity presupposes the complete integration of society, based on the need to adapt it to the external environment, which, naturally, is also unattainable in reality. Criticizing this principle, R. Merton proposes to introduce the concept of “dysfunction”, which should reflect the negative consequences of the impact of one part of the system on another, and also demonstrate the degree of integration of a particular social system.

The second unjustified generalization highlighted by R. Merton directly follows from the first. He calls it the position of “universal functionalism.” Since the interaction of parts of a social system is “unproblematic,” then all standardized social and cultural forms have positive functions, that is, all institutionalized patterns of action and behavior - by virtue of the fact that they are institutionalized - serve the unity and integration of society, and, therefore, following these patterns is necessary to maintain social unity. Hence, every existing norm is correct and reasonable and one must obey it, and not change it. Already the first concept introduced by R. Merton - the concept of “dysfunction” - denies the possibility of such universal functionality. Considering the second proposition, he concludes that since every pattern can be both functional and dysfunctional, it is better to speak of the necessity of an institutionalized social relationship in terms of a balance of functional and dysfunctional consequences rather than to insist on its exclusive functionality. Thus, all valid norms in R. Merton are functional not because they exist (institutionalized), but because their functional consequences outweigh the dysfunctional ones.

The third unjustified position of functionalism, highlighted by R. Merton, is to emphasize the “utter importance” of certain functions and, accordingly, the material objects, ideas and beliefs that express them. The absolute necessity of certain functions leads to the fact that the lack of their implementation calls into question the very existence of society as a whole or any other social system. From this position, according to R. Merton, follows the concept of “functional prerequisites,” which becomes self-sufficient and dominant, for example, in the sociological analysis of T. Parsons. The second side of this assumption is to emphasize the importance and vital necessity of certain cultural and social forms that express these functions. R. Merton does not deny the possibility of the existence of such functions and objects expressing them. He argues that such functions may be different for different societies and social systems. Therefore, it is necessary to empirically test and justify the introduction of each of these functions, and not extrapolate some of them to all social systems and all historical development. To generalize this formulation of the problem “functionally necessary conditions“He proposes to introduce the concept of “functional alternatives.”

R. Merton analyzes another problem often raised by opponents of functionalism. This problem lies in the ambiguity of the relationship between the “conscious motives” that guide social action and the “objective consequences” of that action. He once again emphasizes that structural-functional analysis focuses its attention primarily on the objective consequences of an action. To avoid the mistake of his predecessors, who declared these consequences to be the result of the conscious intentions of the participants, he introduces a distinction between “explicit” and “hidden” functions. For him, “explicit functions are such objective consequences of action aimed at adapting or adapting the system that are intentional and conscious of the participants; the hidden functions will then be effects which are neither intentional nor conscious.”

Thus, criticizing the previous functional analysis, R. Merton makes amendments to it, changing the most odious and unacceptable provisions of functionalism, leaving, in essence, his model unchanged. He shares the main provisions of the classics of sociology, including T. Parsons, that society is a special type of objective reality, that the actions of individuals are rational and consciously motivated! He views social phenomena primarily as structures that determine people's behavior and limit their rational choice. The concepts he introduced: dysfunction, balance of functional and dysfunctional consequences, functional alternatives, explicit and hidden functions serve to “relieve” the tensions that arise when analyzing empirical facts. At the same time, while preserving the essential features of functionalism, R. Merton also preserves the vulnerability of his constructions to criticism. The main provisions of this criticism are similar to those that we highlighted in relation to the general theory of social systems by T. Parsons: conservatism and utopianism of the view of social life; static theoretical model that does not explain social changes; oversocialized concept of personality; understanding of human freedom as freedom of choice between socially structured opportunities, etc.

It may seem that R. Merton's approach revives old reasoning in the spirit of E. Durkheim. However, its additions to functional analysis include the possibility of understanding that social structures, when differentiated, can cause social conflicts and that they simultaneously contribute to changes in both the elements of the structure and the structure itself. R. Merton makes an attempt to revive and justify the oldest and traditional method of sociological reasoning. And perhaps he is right that every sociologist is. partly a structural functionalist if he is a sociologist.

R. Merton's additions served as a good “source of vitality” for the structural-functional way of theorizing. However, criticism of functionalism due to its ignorance of the problems of social conflict turned out to be so strong and obvious that it required additional efforts. The scientist who tried to prove the possibility of a structural-functional explanation of the conflict was Lewis Alfred Coser (b. 1913);

His most famous work, “Functions of Social Conflict”8 (1956), which laid the foundation for the development of conflict theory (see paragraph 2 of this chapter), paradoxically, was aimed at demonstrating that structural functionalism is suitable for describing conflict and social change.

L. Coser's appeal to the problem of social conflict is far from accidental. It is connected with his general views on the role and place of sociology in people's lives. He shares the initial premise of many classics of sociological knowledge that sociology as a science arose from the need to provide a realistic (scientific) project for the transformation of society or to show the ways and possibilities of such a transformation. Defending, if not the revolutionary, then at least the reformist nature of sociological knowledge, L. Coser considers order and conflict as two equivalent social processes. He argues that the conflict was the focus of attention of the classics of sociology, while relying on the developments of G. Simmel. He emphasizes that, like all social phenomena, conflict cannot have one-sided consequences: only positive or only negative. Conflict simultaneously produces both. Previous sociologists have too often emphasized negative aspects conflict and forgot about the positive ones.

Based on this, L. Coser sets himself the task of establishing the conditions under which the conflict is positive or negative. He does not strive to create a comprehensive concept of society and the individual. His goal is much more modest - to demonstrate that conflict as a social process (one of the forms social interaction) can be an instrument for the formation, standardization and maintenance of social structure; that it helps to establish and maintain boundaries between groups; that intergroup conflict can revive group identity, protecting the group from assimilation. He brilliantly proves all this using historical material in his work “Functions of Social Conflict.”

From the point of view of sociological theory, he does not introduce anything new into structural functionalism, except for ideas about the ability of structures to be the result of social conflict and the possibility of their maintenance and approval through conflict within and between groups. The conditions for the positivity and negativity of a conflict appear at the level of empirical generalizations. His separation of the main provisions of structural functionalism leads him, like R. Merton, to the same range of problems: teleology, lack of theoretical interpretation, etc. It turns out that the possibility of explaining a real conflict (implicitly contained in T. Parsons) and theoretical understanding conflict on an abstract level is far from the same thing. Representatives of another theoretical direction took up the creation of such a theoretical understanding.

Submitting your good work to the knowledge base is easy. Use the form below

Students, graduate students, young scientists who use the knowledge base in their studies and work will be very grateful to you.

Introduction

Conclusion

Introduction

The rapid development of empirical sociology in the USA in the 20-30s, and then in Europe, undoubtedly played a very important role in the further development of the entire sociological science, sharply strengthened its connection with real social life and increased the prestige of sociology. At the same time, the further, the more and more clearly the one-sidedness in the development of sociological knowledge was revealed, since the enormous progress in empirical and applied sociology was not then accompanied by corresponding progress in theoretical sociology, necessary for generalization and serious analysis of the rapidly accumulating factual material. This was repeatedly noted, in particular, by P.A., who came to the USA. Sorokin, who seriously criticized the then American sociology for its one-sided passion for empiricism to the detriment of theory, for its reluctance to develop broad social problems, for petty topics.

By the 1930s, the need for creating a systematic sociological theory that could find application in empirical sociology became acute. After a number of unsuccessful attempts to create such a theory and connect it with empirical sociology, this theory manifested itself in the form of structural functionalism and took a dominant position in Western sociology in the 50s and 60s

1. The concept of functionalism in modern sociology

Structural functionalism is a direction in sociology that considers society, society, their phenomena and processes as social systems that have their own structure and mechanism of interaction of the corresponding structural elements, each of which performs a unique role, function in a given system. One of the central tenets of structural functionalism states: “The function of an individual social phenomenon is its contribution to the total social life, which represents the functioning of the social system as a whole.”

Another expression of the essence of functionalism can be the position that just as one phenomenon can have different functions, so the same function can be performed by different phenomena.

The foundations of the concept of structural functionalism are most fully outlined by the American sociologist T. Parsons, who relies in his searches on the concepts of Spencer and Durkheim. The basic idea is the idea " social order", which personifies the desire to maintain the balance of the system, to harmonize its various elements among themselves, to achieve agreement between them. These ideas dominated Western sociology for a long time, sometimes under a slightly modified name - structuralism. In France, it was developed by M. Foucault, C. Lévi-Strauss and others. The main approach of this theory is to define the parts of society and identify their functions. At the same time, structural functionalism practically rejected the idea of development, calling for maintaining “equilibrium” within the existing system and coordinating the interests of various structures and subsystems. This conclusion was made based on an analysis of public and government system The USA, which T. Parsons considered the standard, and whose stability he regarded as a great achievement.

It was intended to improve structural functionalism neoevOlutionism, who turned to the problem of man and tried to explain the process of complication of social systems through the ever-increasing differentiation of functions performed by individuals. R. Merton, trying to overcome the limitations of the structural-functional approach, created a theory of social change by introducing the concept of “dysfunction”. He introduced the idea of change into functionalism, but limited change to the “average” level - the level of a specific social system. The idea of social change has given rise to the need to search and study cause-and-effect relationships.

2. Structural-functional direction in sociology

2.1 Structural-functional direction in the theory of Emile Durkheim

It is in Emile Durkheim (1858-1917) that we encounter a truly structural-functional understanding of the social system with an explanation of its important elements. The most important works of Durkheim, which address these problems: “On the Division of Social Labor” (1893), “Rules sociological method"(1895), "Suicide" (1897), "Elementary Forms of Religious Life" (1912).

The key to understanding Durkheim's functionalism is his concept social facts. Only in the light of social facts can it be explained why a person acts this way and not otherwise, why people enter into certain relationships and connections. Social facts can be:

morphological, i.e. material nature

spiritual - “collective ideas” that have a particularly deep impact on a person.

The main postulate of Durkheim’s method is the position he formulated: “the first and fundamental rule is that social facts must be considered as things". A thing is "any object of knowledge that in itself is impenetrable to the mind, this is everything about which we can formulate adequate concepts by a simple method of mental analysis, this is everything that the mind can understand only if it goes beyond itself, through observations and experiments, consistently moving from the most external and directly accessible signs to the less visible. The totality of social factors - things - constitutes the social system, its institutions, values and norms. In order to understand the social system, its content and originality, it is necessary to empirically comprehend its most important elements, such as social facts, as well as the nature of the connection and interaction between them. Explain the social to the social, as Durkheim himself put it, is a functional analysis of the social system.

And so, a social fact exists objectively, outside the individual. Outwardly it is an object, it can be observed. But at the same time, social facts are generated by the aggregate actions of people, and in this sense they are inseparable from a person and his activity. Values and norms, for example, are social facts because they are qualitatively different from what is contained in individual consciousness: as social facts, they have a different basis - “collective consciousness”. The collective consciousness existing in every society dominates over the individual, leads to the establishment and consolidation of certain patterns of behavior, typical methods of action, generally accepted rules, which become objective social facts that determine the feelings, thinking and behavior of individual individuals.

Values and norms are the levers of social regulation. At the same time, the sociologist especially emphasizes that social norms are effective only when they are based not on external coercion, but on the moral authority of society and the moral perfection of people.

An important aspect of Durkheim's method of functionalism is that he saw the reasons for the existence of this particular fact of other social facts that preceded it. A sociological explanation of facts, realities, phenomena and processes studied separately from each other should occur in termsX social reasons and social functions. The state of society depends on internal connections its morphological (material) structure and the nature of its collective consciousness. Therefore, the explanation of social life must be sought in the nature of society itself.

According to Durkheim, society has certain functional prerequisites, the most important of which is the need for social order. This stems from human nature, which has two sides. The first is egoistic: people’s behavior is partly determined by biological needs, which are realized in satisfying their own interests, which makes it difficult for individuals to integrate into society. The second side of human nature is the ability

believe in moral values.

Society, supporting this side, thereby provides the possibility of social life and stability.

Durkheim was far from thinking that society functions smoothly at all times. On the contrary, in a number of his works he suggested that industrial societies could decline. This will become possible if selfishness leads to the loss of control over individuals by society.

According to Durkheim, major contribution Labor, or more precisely, the division of labor between individuals, contributes to social stability and the development of human interaction. With the growth of the division of labor, impersonal functional dependence becomes an increasingly important integration force - no one provides for himself anymore, each individual begins to perform a certain social function, social role. The division of labor shapes personality, causing differences between individuals who develop personal abilities and talents in accordance with their professional role.

It should be noted that the causal analysis of social facts, according to Durkheim, is the search for the dependence of a social phenomenon on the social environment. Such an approach could open up greater opportunities for understanding society if the sociologist pointed out social, economic, historical sources such dependence. But he limited himself to only the functional side. The sociologist advocated for the unity of causal analysis with structural analysis, which constituted the specifics of the interpretation of society, which he himself designated by the term “sociological determinism.”

2.2 Talcott Parsons: school of structural functionalism

Talcott Parsons (1902-1979) is a central figure in the structural-functionalist movement, the creator of the school itself with many students. Parsons is rightfully the largest representative of theoretical sociology of the 20th century, the founder of the theory of the social system and the theory of social action. He made a decisive contribution to the creation modern language sociology, in the development of basic concepts in their systemic presentation.

The first major problem which we see in Parsons' theory is the concept and content of the social system, its structure, structural components and functions. The sociologist admits that by this time certain prerequisites had developed for such a study of society, the most significant of which were:

1. Achievement of clinical psychology, representing the human individual as a dynamic structural and functional system;

2. Results, results obtained by social and cultural anthropology.

3. According to Parsons, Durkheim showed a genuine structural-functional understanding of the social system, highlighting its most important elements and functions.

4. The works of the German sociologist M. Weber contained the rationale for the social actions of individuals in the context of the functioning of social organizations and institutions.

Parsons' research centers on individuals and their actions. At the same time, the sociologist comes to the conclusion that people’s social actions, firstly, are normatively regulated and, secondly, occur within the framework of a value system. Society is a normative community.

Social systems, as defined by Parsons, are systems formed by states and processes of social interaction between acting subjects. The structure of these systems can be analyzed using 4 types of variables: values, norms, groups and norms (“System modern societies"). Since the social system is formed by the interactions of human individuals, each participant is at the same time actor having certain goals, ideas, attitudes, and object orientation, both for other actors and for oneself. The core of a social system is the structured normative order through which collective life is organized. As an order, in order to be meaningful and legitimate, it contains values, differentiated and ordered rules and norms that are culturally related. The group of people who are covered by the normative system and are under its “jurisdiction” is called Parsons societal community.

Thus, the social system appears in the form of a structure, withOconsisting of values, norms, collective organizations and roles. These four structural categories in Parsons' conceptual scheme correspond to specific functional requirements. In other words, in order to exist and develop, to be vital, any social system must meet four basic functional requirements. These are adaptation, goal achievement, integration and retention, preservation of the pattern.4 funTonational requirements fulfill 4 highernamed system components (values, norms, collective organizations, roles), personified by ODAedivided social institutions.

Values are primary for preserving and maintaining the imagehthe purpose of the functioning system, which involves passing them on from generation to generation through education and mastery of the elements of the culture of society. Family, school, religion, state and other social institutions fulfill this functional requirement. A special role belongs to institutions of social control. Each public institution has its own goals. The main function of a role in a social system is adaptation, which concerns the relationship between the system and its environment: in order to exist and develop, the system must have a certain degree of control over its environment, first of all economic, economic which is the source of material wealth and human life. In general, the ability to perform significant role actions is, according to Parsons, the most general adaptive resource of any society.

The second major problem which must be highlighted in Parsons' theory is the problem of social order, the nature of integration, and the stability of social systems. In this aspect, culture and cultural values play a central, dominant role.

In life, people in the process of interaction simultaneously oppose each other. This is also typical in class, group and personal relationships. Therefore, it is important that the force and factors of interaction prevail over the forces and factors of counteraction, and the unifying principle is stronger than the tendency to separation. As long as the relationship of interaction between the individual, culture and social system is maintained, the system is viable.

At the same time, neither values themselves nor standardized role expectations ensure integration and social order without the formation institutional structure, which refers to value groups, standardized norms and expectations, and a system of social control. Process institutionalization, according to Parsons, is the integration of standardized expectations with various forms of social control - material, spiritual and administrative. Culture and values play not only a fundamental role in the processes of institutionalization in themselves, but also, as it were, sanction the entire legal system. Efficiency of institutional forms and legal systems depends not only on how they express the holistic orientations of people - what is dear to them and what they value - but also on what moral support human society provides these forms.

Thus, the system is stable, sustainable, consensus is ensured if it develops according to the above scheme, observing the rules of institutional integration and the evolution of political, social, economic institutions in accordance with those common values that stimulate the predictable social behavior of most people.

Third major problem, important for a holistic view of the theory of a social system, is the problem of social change and evolution. Speaking about order and stability, about consensus, Parsons at the same time saw processes that lead to social change. The sociologist notes that practical study These processes are the task of empirical research.

In The Functional Theory of Change, Parsons notes that in practice no social system is in a state of perfect equilibrium. Although a certain degree of balance is necessary to ensure the viability of the system. Therefore, he represents the process of social change as a “moving equilibrium.”

The process of evolutionary development corresponds to the process innovation, which signifies a breakthrough and provides society with a new level of adaptive capacity. Innovation, first of all, covers the sphere of culture and values.

Differentiation of society requires integration. So, for example, in a system where there is hiring, various professions, the head of the house in a traditional society can no longer control production within the framework of his former role determined by kinship. Production organization must, therefore, develop a system of authority that did not exist in the kinship system. Work and home communities must be coordinated within the larger system through changes in the structure of the local community. Thus, new “rules” of the game and conditions for fulfilling new roles arise. Parsons notes that most important in the newegitimation is a new value orientation of a person, especially in his two differentiated spheres of action and responsibility - in his prOprofessional role and in his family.

Parsons views social evolution as a movement from simple to more complex forms of society. WITH Over time, changes occur in the sphere of culture, values change, which predetermines larger patterns of change. To designate them, Parsons identifies two groups of cultural values, which he calls structural variables A and B. The basis for their differentiation is the ways in which society resolves the most vital issues of its members.

According to Parsons, structural type variables A are characteristic of simple societies, while structural variables of type B are characteristic of historically higher industrial societies. The sociologist concretizes his view of social evolution through the following five dilemmas, in which the first part relates to a society with structural variables of type A, and the second to type B.

Type A structure variables

Type B structural variables

Prescription

Status is prescribed, it is determined by the type of family into which the individual is born

Achievement

An individual's status is achieved through personal effort (hard work)

Diffusion

People enter into relationships to satisfy a wide range of needs.

Specificity

People enter into relationships to satisfy specific needs (buyer-seller relationships)

Particularism

Individuals behave differently towards specific people, for example they are loyal to family members but not to strangers

Universalism

Individuals act according to universal principles, for example, everyone is equal before the law, so a policeman will arrest his relative if necessary

Affectivity

People strive to satisfy their desires as quickly as possible

Affective neutrality

People become more neutral about the timing of rewards (saving money for big purchases)

Collective orientation

People put interests social group to which they belong is higher than their own interests

Self-orientation

First of all, people pursue their own interests, not the interests of their social group

According to Parsons, the social evolution of societies presupposes a movement towards structural variables of type B. If a society is unable to move in this direction, then stagnation begins in it, because structural variables of type A counteract social progress: A society in which status is prescribed prevents the most capable individuals from fulfilling important social roles.

Parsons himself viewed his views on social evolution as initial and in need of development.

2.3 Robert K. Merton's functionalism

Parsons' "high" theory became the object of criticism from sociologists who did not share his "scholastic", "formalistic" concept. These primarily include Robert King Merton (1910). He argued with Parsons and, on specific aspects, developed and rethought a number of his theoretical positions.

Merton is the creator of a more advanced, dynamic, empirically based theoretical system. He called his theory the theory of “medium level” or “medium range”. These are essentially numerous intermediate theories, such as theories of deviant behavior, role conflicts, bureaucratic structure, etc.

First large problem when considering Merton's sociological theory, this is, firstly, clarification of the dilemma: who is a sociologist, what direction does he represent - structuralism or functionalism? Second, what place does social structure and structural analysis have in his theory? Merton himself proceeds from the fact that functionalism and structuralism are inseparably interconnected as directions of a unified theory of the social system. Functionalism is a theoretical and dynamic idea of a working social structure and the interaction of its components. Within the framework of the structural-functional paradigm, a functionalist must first of all be a structuralist. This is summarized in his approach to the subject of sociology, the task of which is “the clear explanation of logically interrelated and empirically supported assumptions about the structure of society and its changes, human behavior within that structure and the consequences of that behavior.”

Let's consider what are the main and general characteristics of Mertonian functionalism.

This is the second big one problem.

Merton's theory of functionalism consists of two interrelated aspects: critical and creative-innovative.

Merton believes that the use of three interrelated postulates in functional analysis, which was widespread in anthropology and then in sociology, is incorrect.

1. "Postulate of the functional unity of society." From this statement it follows that any part of a social system is functional for the entire system. However, Merton argues that in complex, highly differentiated societies this “functional unity” is questionable. For example, in a society with a diversity of beliefs, religion tends to divide rather than unite.

Further, the idea of functional unity assumes that a change in one part of the system will lead to changes in all others. Again, Merton argues that this cannot be taken for granted, insisting on specific research. He argues that in highly differentiated societies his institutions can have high degree"functional autonomy".

2. The “postulate of the universality of functionalism” states that “all standardized social or cultural” norms have positive functions.” Merton believes that this statement is not only simplistic, but may also be incorrect. The sociologist proposes to proceed from the premise that any part society may be functional, dysfunctional or dysfunctional.

3. Merton also criticized the “postulate of obligation,” according to which some institutions or social formations are attributes of society (functionalists often viewed religion in this light). Criticizing this postulate, Merton argues that the same functional requirements can be satisfied by alternative institutions. In his opinion, there is no convincing evidence that institutions such as family and religion are attributes of all human societies. To replace the idea of obligation, the sociologist proposes the concept of “functional equivalents” or “functional alternatives.”

Thus, defining Merton’s place in structural functionalism, we can say that he not only organically combined theory, method and facts, creating a “middle-level theory,” but his theoretical positions acquired the character of a method in the empirical and theoretical aspects. Thus, he largely overcame the abstractness of Parsons' theory.

Conclusion

In the 70s, the influence of structural functionalism weakened somewhat, both under the influence of criticism from other sociological movements, especially for its well-known metaphysical nature and conservatism (despite the fact that R. Merton partially managed to overcome these shortcomings of the views of T. Parsons), and under the influence of a new, sharply aggravated socio-political situation in Western countries, primarily due to the inability of structural functionalism to adequately reflect and analyze acute social conflicts. But even then it remained one of the main directions of modern sociology. Moreover, the 80s led to a new rise in popularity of the functionalist paradigm, which was reflected in the emergence of neofunctionalism.

The structural theory of society provides a rich, multidimensional paradigm for sociology that is deeply rooted in the classical sociological tradition of the 19th century. On long time The “paradigm” set the tone for intellectual searches within the discipline and determined the main direction in sociology. Based on the best thinking traditions, the structural paradigm has not exhausted its capabilities. It may yet provide valuable, heuristic stimuli for the sociology of the future.

Nevertheless, criticism of the limitations of structural functionalism continues to be heard today. Therefore, with all its merits and considerable popularity, this trend in modern sociology can hardly be called not only generally accepted, but even predominant.

List of used literature

Gromov I., Matskevich A. Semenov V. Western sociology. St. Petersburg, 1997.

Kapitonov A.E. Sociology of the 20th century. - Rostov-on-Don: Phoenix, 1996. - 512 p.

Komarov M.S. Introduction to Sociology. M., 1994.

Contemporary American sociology. M., 1994.

Sociological dictionary / comp. A.N. Elsukov, K.V. Shulgina. - 2nd ed. reworked and additional - Minsk, 1991. - 528 p.

The paradigm of structural functionalism in sociology (contents, representatives, theories)

Structural functionalism is a direction of sociological thought, a sociological school, whose representatives proceeded from the fact that each element of social interaction, fulfilling its specific functions, exists within the integral structure of society. Society is a social system that has its own structure. Its essence consists in identifying the elements of social interaction that are subject to research and determining their place (function) in some connection, the qualitative certainty of which makes its systematic consideration necessary. In one form or another, the functional approach is present in all social concepts where society is viewed in a systemic way.

The basic idea of structural functionalism is the idea of “social order,” which embodies the desire to maintain the balance of the system, to harmonize its various elements, and to achieve agreement between them. These ideas dominated Western sociology for a long time, sometimes under a slightly modified name - structuralism.

Certain ideas about this possibility of studying society were expressed by O. Comte, E. Durkheim, and G. Spencer.

Spencer believed that each system must have its own specific functions, and each part of the structure, while performing its functions, can only exist within the framework of integrity. He also considered society at the level of institutions and functions.

Comte's social statics studied how the parts (structures) of society function and interact with each other in relation to society as a whole.

In Emile Durkheim we encounter a truly structural-functional understanding of the social system with an elucidation of its important elements. The most important works of Durkheim, which address these problems: “On the Division of Social Labor” (1893), “Rules of Sociological Method” (1895), “Suicide” (1897), “Elementary Forms of Religious Life” (1912).

It was E. Durkheim who first theoretically and methodologically substantiated the fundamental postulates of structural functionalism. He suggested that sociology is a structuring science, that is, a science that studies the whole, which cannot be reduced to the sum of its parts.

Talcott Parsons: school of structural functionalism. Theory of social action.

Parsons's works: “The Structure of Social Action”, “The Social System”.

According to Parsons, human action is complex system, the subsystems of which are: 1. Organism ( biological system, providing the physical ability to act). 2.Personality ( psychological system, ensuring the development of action goals). 3. Social system (normative system that provides a combination of goals and consistent actions acceptable from the point of view of others). 4. Culture (a value system that ensures the maintenance of traditions, goals, means and norms for regulating actions). 4 conditions for the existence of the system: 1. Adaptation function (the system must be adapted to the environment). 2. Function of achieving goals (the system must be self-regulating, goals must be developed in it and a mechanism for achievement must function). 3. Integration function (the system must be internally integrated, that is, there must be stable connections between elements). 4. Stability function (the system must be structurally stable, that is, the structure of the system must be reproduced as a model for a long time).

Functionalism of Robert K. Merton Parsons' "high" theory became the object of criticism from sociologists who did not share his "scholastic", "formalistic" concept. These primarily include Robert King Merton (1910). He argued with Parsons and, on specific aspects, developed and rethought a number of his theoretical positions. Merton is the creator of a more advanced, dynamic, empirically based theoretical system. He called his theory the theory of “medium level” or “medium range”. These are essentially numerous intermediate theories, such as theories of deviant behavior, role conflicts, bureaucratic structure, etc. The first major problem when considering Merton's sociological theory is, firstly, to clarify the dilemma: who is a sociologist, what direction does he represent - structuralism or functionalism? Second, what place does social structure and structural analysis have in his theory? Merton himself proceeds from the fact that functionalism and structuralism are inseparably interconnected as directions of a unified theory of the social system. Functionalism is a theoretical and dynamic idea of a working social structure and the interaction of its components. Within the framework of the structural-functional paradigm, a functionalist must first of all be a structuralist. This is summarized in his approach to the subject of sociology, the task of which is “the clear explanation of logically interrelated and empirically supported assumptions about the structure of society and its changes, human behavior within that structure and the consequences of that behavior.”

Thus, by combining two directions - functionalism and structuralism, two ways of thinking and analysis into a single theory, he developed more specific and effective concepts of social structure, deviant behavior, role conflicts, etc. According to the sociologist, any structure is not only complex, but and internally asymmetrical: it constantly contains conflicts, dysfunctions, deviations, tensions, and contradictions. Let's consider what the main and general characteristics Mertonian functionalism. This is the second major problem. Merton's theory of functionalism consists of two interrelated aspects: critical and creative-innovative. Merton believes that the use of three interrelated postulates in functional analysis, which was widespread in anthropology and then in sociology, is incorrect. 1. "Postulate of the functional unity of society." From this statement it follows that any part of a social system is functional for the entire system. However, Merton argues that in complex, highly differentiated societies this “functional unity” is questionable. For example, in a society with a diversity of beliefs, religion tends to divide rather than unite. Further, the idea of functional unity assumes that a change in one part of the system will lead to changes in all others. Again, Merton argues that this cannot be taken for granted, insisting on specific research. He argues that in highly differentiated societies, his institutions can have a high degree of "functional autonomy." 2. The “postulate of the universality of functionalism” states that “all standardized social or cultural” norms have positive functions.” Merton believes that this statement is not only simplistic, but may also be incorrect. The sociologist proposes to proceed from the premise that any part society can be functional, dysfunctional or dysfunctional! 3. Merton also criticized the “postulate of obligatoryness”, according to which some institutions or social formations are attributes of society (in this light, functionalists often viewed religion. Criticizing this postulate, Merton argues that those). the same functional requirements can be satisfied by alternative institutions. In his opinion, there is no convincing evidence that institutions such as family and religion are attributes of all human societies. To replace the idea of obligation, the sociologist proposes the concept of “functional equivalents” or “functional alternatives.”

Merton's concept of manifest and latent (hidden) functions can be considered as his most positive and significant contribution to functional analysis. Only a narrow-minded empirical practitioner limits himself to the study of explicit functions. Armed with the concept of a hidden function, the sociologist directs his research precisely into that area that is not visible. Thus, determining Merton’s place in structural functionalism, we can say that he not only organically combined theory, method and facts, creating a “middle-level theory,” but his theoretical positions acquired the character of a method in empirical and theoretical aspects. Thus, he largely overcame the abstractness of Parsons' theory.

Works: " Social theory and social structure"

Functions are divided into explicit and latent. Explicit is the recognized and expected result of the existence of a structural element. Latent - hidden, unrecognized result. Dysfunction is a harmful effect on the system that disrupts its stability and normal reproduction.