Structural functionalism
From Geography
Structural functionalism
Contents |
Structural functionalism
Structural functionalism is "a tradition of social theory most closely associated with the writings of (...) Talcott Parssons (Johnston, Gregory, Pratt & Watts, 2000, p. 794). The central idea of structural functionalism "is that the structure of any social system cannot be derived from 'the actors point of view' but must instead be explained by the ways in which four 'functional imperatives' or 'sub-systems' necesarry for the survival of any social system are met" (ibid.). These four sub-sytems are (Campbell, 1981):
1. Adaption. The way how people, while acting in their social roles, can adapt to their material environment. They fit in the environment or they use it to satisfy their needs.
2. Goal attainment. How can participants of a society, as an individual or role occupants, achieve their (collective) objectives? An example of this imperative is the political aspect of social organization.
3. Integration. In society there are various instruments whereby individuals are forced the co-operate with eachother and where conflicts are minimized. Concrete examples are law, administration and customary mores.
4. Latency or Pattern Maintenance. In the society there are methods for ensuring that individuals internalize or voluntarily adhere to the norms of society. These norms are those ones in which they are brought up. For example the process of socialization within the families and educational organizations.
It is important to note that each sub-system contributes to and is supported by the the other three (Campbell, 1981).
Actually, Parssons himself did not consider the concept “structural functionalism” to be the right description for his approach. He preferred the term 'action theory'. Important in his structural functionalist/action theorist approach are, among others, the interchanges between systems and sub-systems ("a formal cybernatic model of society"), which drew upon general systems theory and [[[classical social theory]]](ibid.).
Critique
Although Parssons and his structural functionalism have had a major influence on modern social theory, the idea has been criticized in Human Geography for several reasons. The most important critique is that structural functionalism is seen "as another attempt to construct a general model of society out of what is in fact a highly particular reading of the United States of America" (ibid., p. 795). Especially postmodernist writers are critical about totalizing theories as the one by Parsson. They stress instead that context-dependency is crucial in understanding the postmodern world and accuse authors such Parssons of “blindness” to “heterogeneity”, “otherness” and “differences” (Gren, 1994, pp. 135), caused by belief in “universal truths” (enlightment ideals) to be accessed by “human reason” and “rationality” (ibid., pp. 134-135). The critique by postmodernists can be summarized as being focused especially on “objectivism”, “transcendentalism”, “foundationalism” and the “rejection of universal meaning” (ibid., p. 136), which are features of Parsons work.
Related authors An important systems theorist who has been associated with Talcott Parson and structural functionalism, is Niklas Luhmann (Arnoldi, 2001, p. 1), who has been a former student of Parsson at Havard University. Although it is important to notice that Luhmann is influenced by many other, competing and contradictory ideas and theories (ibid.), parts of his work can be seen as "innovative extensions of Parsson's original schema” (Johnston et al, 2000, p. 794). He took over the idea of organic cybernatics to explain social systems as self-regulating (Arnoldi, 2001, p. 3). Yet in his academic development Luhman turned “away from Parson” and used the idea of self-regulation to develop ideas of ”self-creation” of social systems (Arnoldi, 2001, p. 3). He thus substituted “the focus on action” as promoted by Parson to a focus on “communication”, by regarding meaning as constituting force, getting power through the way actants make sense of their environments (ibid.). Whereas parson sticked to a an “external point of view” on action and actors, Luhmann lets himself guide partly by ideas of the phenomenological tradition without taking subsuming totally (ibid.): ,,Luhmann neither nor”. Instead of researching on “how action is coordinated into action systems” (Arnoldi, 2001, p. 3) he concentrates on “meaning processing social systems” “excluding” an actors point of view but still including “sense-making” (Arnoldi, 2001, p. 4). Luhmanns work has become influential for many more works, partly carrying on ideas of Talcott Parssons. Besides Luhmann, also Alexander and Wallerstein have further developed the structural functionalist system theory by Parssons (ibid., pp. 794-795).
References
- Arnoldi, J. (2001) Niklas Luhmann. An Introduction. In: Theory, Culture & Society. Vol. 18, No. 1, pp. 1-13.
- Campbell, T. (1981). Seven theories of Human Society. Oxford. United Kingdom: Clarendon Press
- Gren, M. (1994). Earth Writing. Exploring representation and social geography in-between meaning/matter. University of Gothenburg, B(85), 126-143.
- Johnston, R.J., Gregory, D., Pratt, G. and Watts, M. (2000). The dictionary of Human Geography (4th edition). Malden: Blackwell Publishing.
Contributors
- Page created by --JikkeVanTHof 16:39, 18 October 2011 (CEST)
- Enhanced by Janna Völpel s3015041JannaVolpel 15:56, 7 May 2012 (CEST)
- Page enhanced by --HennyLi 19:36, 4 October 2012 (CEST)
