society as a complex system whose parts work together to promote solidarity and stability.

This approach looks at society through a macro-level orientation, which is a broad focus on the

social structures that shape society as a whole, and believes that society has evolved

like organisms. This approach looks at both social structure and social functions. Functionalism

addresses society as a whole in terms of the function of its constituent elements; namely

norms, customs, traditions, and institutions. A common analogy, popularized by Herbert Spencer,

presents these parts of society as "organs" that work toward the proper functioning of

the "body" as a whole. In the most basic terms, it simply emphasizes "the effort to impute,

as rigorously as possible, to each feature, custom, or practice, its effect on the functioning

of a supposedly stable, cohesive system". For Talcott Parsons, "structural-functionalism"

came to describe a particular stage in the methodological development of social science,

rather than a specific school of thought. The structural functionalism approach is a

macrosociological analysis, with a broad focus on social structures that shape society as

a whole.

Theory Classical theories are defined by a tendency

towards biological analogy and notions of social evolutionism:

Functionalist thought, from Comte onwards, has looked particularly towards biology as

the science providing the closest and most compatible model for social science. Biology

has been taken to provide a guide to conceptualizing the structure and the function of social systems

and to analyzing processes of evolution via mechanisms of adaptation ... functionalism

strongly emphasises the pre-eminence of the social world over its individual parts.

While one may regard functionalism as a logical extension of the organic analogies for societies

presented by political philosophers such as Rousseau, sociology draws firmer attention

to those institutions unique to industrialized capitalist society. Functionalism also has

an anthropological basis in the work of theorists such as Marcel Mauss, Bronisław Malinowski

and Radcliffe-Brown. It is in Radcliffe-Brown's specific usage that the prefix 'structural'

emerged. Radcliffe-Brown proposed that most stateless, "primitive" societies, lacking

strong centralised institutions, are based on an association of corporate-descent groups.

Structural functionalism also took on Malinowski's argument that the basic building block of

society is the nuclear family, and that the clan is an outgrowth, not vice versa.

Émile Durkheim was concerned with the question of how certain societies maintain internal

stability and survive over time. He proposed that such societies tend to be segmented,

with equivalent parts held together by shared values, common symbols or, as his nephew Marcel

Mauss held, systems of exchanges. Durkheim used the term 'mechanical solidarity' to refer

to these types of "social bonds, based on common sentiments & shared moral values, that

are strong among members of pre-industrial societies". In modern, complex societies,

members perform very different tasks, resulting in a strong interdependence. Based on the

metaphor above of an organism in which many parts function together to sustain the whole,

Durkheim argued that complex societies are held together by organic solidarity, i.e.

"social bonds, based on specialization and interdependence, that are strong among members

of industrial societies". These views were upheld by Durkheim, who,

following Comte, believed that society constitutes a separate "level" of reality, distinct from

both biological and inorganic matter. Explanations of social phenomena had therefore to be constructed

within this level, individuals being merely transient occupants of comparatively stable

social roles. The central concern of structural functionalism is a continuation of the Durkheimian

task of explaining the apparent stability and internal cohesion needed by societies

to endure over time. Societies are seen as coherent, bounded and fundamentally relational

constructs that function like organisms, with their various working together in an unconscious,

quasi-automatic fashion toward achieving an overall social equilibrium. All social and

cultural phenomena are therefore seen as functional in the sense of working together, and are

effectively deemed to have "lives" of their own. They are primarily analyzed in terms

of this function. The individual is significant not in and of himself, but rather in terms

of his status, his position in patterns of social relations, and the behaviours associated

with his status. Therefore, the social structure is the network of statuses connected by associated

roles. It is simplistic to equate the perspective

directly with political conservatism. The tendency to emphasise "cohesive systems",

however, leads functionalist theories to be contrasted with "conflict theories" which

instead emphasize social problems and inequalities. Prominent theorists

Auguste Comte Auguste Comte, the "Father of Positivism",

pointed out the need to keep society unified as many traditions were diminishing. He was

the first person to coin the term sociology. Auguste Comte suggests that sociology is the

product of a three-stage development. 1. Theological Stage: From the beginning of

human history until the end of the European Middle Ages, people took a religious view

that society expressed God's will. In the theological state, the human mind, seeking

the essential nature of beings, the first and final causes of all effects—in short,

absolute knowledge—supposes all phenomena to be produced by the immediate action of

supernatural beings. 2. Metaphysical Stage: People began seeing

society as a natural system as opposed to the supernatural. Began with the Enlightenment

and the ideas of Hobbes, Locke,and Rousseau. Reflected the failings of a selfish human

nature rather than the perfection of God. 3. Scientific Stage: Describing society through

the application of the scientific approach, which draws on the work of scientists.

Herbert Spencer

Herbert Spencer was a British philosopher famous for applying the theory of natural

selection to society. He was in many ways the first true sociological functionalist.

In fact, while Durkheim is widely considered the most important functionalist among positivist

theorists, it is well known that much of his analysis was culled from reading Spencer's

work, especially his Principles of Sociology. Spencer allude society to the analogy of human

body. Just as the structural parts of the human body - the skeleton, muscles, and various

internal organs - function independently to help the entire organism survive, social structures

work together to preserve society. While most avoid the tedious tasks of reading

Spencer's massive volumes, there are some important insights that have quietly influenced

many contemporary theorists, including Talcott Parsons, in his early work The Structure of

Social Action. Cultural anthropology also consistently uses functionalism.

This evolutionary model, unlike most 19th century evolutionary theories, is cyclical,

beginning with the differentiation and increasing complication of an organic or "super-organic"

body, followed by a fluctuating state of equilibrium and disequilibrium, and, finally, the stage

of disintegration or dissolution. Following Thomas Malthus' population principles, Spencer

concluded that society is constantly facing selection pressures that force it to adapt

its internal structure through differentiation. Every solution, however, causes a new set

of selection pressures that threaten society's viability. It should be noted that Spencer

was not a determinist in the sense that he never said that

Selection pressures will be felt in time to change them;

They will be felt and reacted to; or The solutions will always work.

In fact, he was in many ways a political sociologist, and recognized that the degree of centralized

and consolidated authority in a given polity could make or break its ability to adapt.

In other words, he saw a general trend towards the centralization of power as leading to

stagnation and ultimately, pressures to decentralize. More specifically, Spencer recognized three

functional needs or prerequisites that produce selection pressures: they are regulatory,

operative and distributive. He argued that all societies need to solve problems of control

and coordination, production of goods, services and ideas, and, finally, to find ways of distributing

these resources. Initially, in tribal societies, these three

needs are inseparable, and the kinship system is the dominant structure that satisfies them.

As many scholars have noted, all institutions are subsumed under kinship organization, but,

with increasing population, problems emerge with regard to feeding individuals, creating

new forms of organization—consider the emergent division of labour—coordinating and controlling

various differentiated social units, and developing systems of resource distribution.

The solution, as Spencer sees it, is to differentiate structures to fulfill more specialized functions;

thus a chief or "big man" emerges, soon followed by a group of lieutenants, and later kings

and administrators. The structural parts of society function interdependently to help

society function. Therefore, social structures work together to preserve society.

Perhaps Spencer's greatest obstacle that is being widely discussed in modern sociology

is the fact that much of his social philosophy is rooted in the social and historical context

of Ancient Egypt. He coined the term "survival of the fittest" in discussing the simple fact

that small tribes or societies tend to be defeated or conquered by larger ones. Of course,

many sociologists still use him in their analyses, especially due to the recent re-emergence

of evolutionary theory. Talcott Parsons

Talcott Parsons was heavily influenced by Émile Durkheim and Max Weber, synthesizing

much of their work into his action theory, which he based on the system-theoretical concept

and the methodological principle of voluntary action. He held that "the social system is

made up of the actions of individuals." His starting point, accordingly, is the interaction

between two individuals faced with a variety of choices about how they might act, choices

that are influenced and constrained by a number of physical and social factors.

Parsons determined that each individual has expectations of the other's action and reaction

to his own behaviour, and that these expectations would be "derived" from the accepted norms

and values of the society they inhabit. As Parsons himself emphasized, in a general context

there would never exist any perfect "fit" between behaviours and norms, so such a relation

is never complete or "perfect." Social norms were always problematic for Parsons,

who never claimed that social norms were generally accepted and agreed upon, should this prevent

some kind of universal law. Whether social norms were accepted or not was for Parsons

simply a historical question. As behaviours are repeated in more interactions,

and these expectations are entrenched or institutionalized, a role is created. Parsons defines a "role"

as the normatively-regulated participation "of a person in a concrete process of social

interaction with specific, concrete role-partners." Although any individual, theoretically, can

fulfill any role, the individual is expected to conform to the norms governing the nature

of the role they fulfill. Furthermore, one person can and does fulfill

many different roles at the same time. In one sense, an individual can be seen to be

a "composition" of the roles he inhabits. Certainly, today, when asked to describe themselves,

most people would answer with reference to their societal roles.

Parsons later developed the idea of roles into collectivities of roles that complement

each other in fulfilling functions for society. Some roles are bound up in institutions and

social structures. These are functional in the sense that they assist society in operating

and fulfilling its functional needs so that society runs smoothly.

Contrary to prevailing myth, Parsons never spoke about a society where there was no conflict

or some kind of "perfect" equilibrium. A society's cultural value-system was in the typical case

never completely integrated, never static and most of the time, like in the case of

the American society in a complex state of transformation relative to its historical

point of departure. To reach a "perfect" equilibrium was not any serious theoretical question in

Parsons analysis of social systems, indeed, the most dynamic societies had generally cultural

systems with important inner tensions like the US and India. These tensions were a source

of their strength according to Parsons rather than the opposite. Parsons never thought about

system-institutionalization and the level of strains in the system as opposite forces

per se. The key processes for Parsons for system reproduction

are socialization and social control. Socialization is important because it is the mechanism for

transferring the accepted norms and values of society to the individuals within the system.

Parsons never spoke about "perfect socialization"—in any society socialization was only partial

and "incomplete" from an integral point of view.

Parsons states that "this point [...] is independent of the sense in which [the] individual is

concretely autonomous or creative rather than 'passive' or 'conforming', for individuality

and creativity, are to a considerable extent, phenomena of the institutionalization of expectations";

they are culturally constructed. Socialization is supported by the positive

and negative sanctioning of role behaviours that do or do not meet these expectations.

A punishment could be informal, like a snigger or gossip, or more formalized, through institutions

such as prisons and mental homes. If these two processes were perfect, society would

become static and unchanging, but in reality this is unlikely to occur for long.

Parsons recognizes this, stating that he treats "the structure of the system as problematic

and subject to change," and that his concept of the tendency towards equilibrium "does

not imply the empirical dominance of stability over change." He does, however, believe that

these changes occur in a relatively smooth way.

Individuals in interaction with changing situations adapt through a process of "role bargaining."

Once the roles are established, they create norms that guide further action and are thus

institutionalised, creating stability across social interactions. Where the adaptation

process cannot adjust, due to sharp shocks or immediate radical change, structural dissolution

occurs and either new structures are formed, or society dies. This model of social change

has been described as a "moving equilibrium," and emphasises a desire for social order.

Davis and Moore Kingsley Davis and Wilbert E. Moore gave an

argument for social stratification based on the idea of "functional necessity". They argue

that the most difficult jobs in any society have the highest incomes in order to motivate

individuals to fill the roles needed by the division of labour. Thus inequality serves

social stability. This argument has been criticized as fallacious

from a number of different angles: the argument is both that the individuals who are the most

deserving are the highest rewarded, and that a system of unequal rewards is necessary,

otherwise no individuals would perform as needed for the society to function. The problem

is that these rewards are supposed to be based upon objective merit, rather than subjective

"motivations." The argument also does not clearly establish why some positions are worth

more than others, even when they benefit more people in society, e.g., teachers compared

to athletes and movie stars. Critics have suggested that structural inequality is itself