Читать книгу Sociology - Anthony Giddens - Страница 129

In the 1940s, 1950s and 1960s, a version of functionalist theory known as structural functionalism became the central paradigm of sociology, though it was never totally dominant. It is hard for students today, who see sociology as a discipline that is inevitably pluralistic, argumentative and theoretically diverse, to appreciate just how different doing sociology was at that time. Sociology and structural functionalism were often seen as one and the same thing (Davis 1949). Two American sociologists stand out during this period: Robert Merton and his mentor, Talcott Parsons.

Parsons combined the ideas of Durkheim, Weber and Vilfredo Pareto into his own brand of structural functionalism, which began from the so-called problem of social order (Lee and Newby 1983). This asks how society can hold together when all the individuals within it are self-interested and pursue their own wants and needs, often at the expense of others. Philosophers such as Thomas Hobbes (1588–1679) answered this by saying that the emergence of the modern state, with all of its policing and military powers, was the crucial factor. The state protects individuals from one another and from external enemies, and, in return, citizens accept the state’s legitimate right to exercise power over them.

Parsons rejected this solution. He recognized that conformity to social rules was not produced simply through the negative fear of punishment; people also conformed in positive ways, even teaching others the moral rules of society. Such a positive commitment to an orderly society shows that social rules are not just an external force acting on individuals but have become internalized during the process of socialization. Society exists not only ‘out there’ but ‘in here’ as well.

Having established the primacy of a sociological understanding of social order, Parsons turned his attention to the overall social system. He devised a model known as the AGIL paradigm (Parsons and Smelser 1956). If a social system (or society) is to continue, there are four basic functions it must perform. First, it must be capable of adapting to its environment, gathering enough resources to do so. Second, it must set out and put in place goals to be attained and the mechanisms for their achievement. Third, the system must be integrated and the various sub-systems must be effectively coordinated. Finally, the social system must have ways of preserving and transmitting its values and culture to new generations.

In less abstract terms, Parsons saw the economic sub-system performing an adaptive function, the political sub-system as setting society’s goals and the means of attaining them, the community sub-system (‘societal community’) as doing integrative work, and the educational sub-system (and other socializing agencies) as transmitting culture and values – the latency function (see figure 3.1). Structural functionalism was a theory which gave priority to the overall system and its ‘needs’ and was always vulnerable to the charge that it overemphasized consensus and agreement. The task of solving this problem passed to Robert Merton, who pursued a more critical version of functionalism.

Merton saw that many sociological studies focused on either the macro level of society or the micro level of social interaction but failed to ‘fill in the gaps’ between macro and micro. To rectify this, he argued for middle-range theories of the meso level in particular areas or on specific subjects. An excellent example is his study of working-class criminality and deviance. Why was there so much acquisitive crime among the working classes? Merton’s explanation was that, in an American society which promotes the cultural goal of material success but offers very few legitimate opportunities for lower social class groups, working-class criminality represented an adaptation to the circumstances in which many young people found themselves. The fact that they aimed to achieve the material success promoted by the system meant they were not evil or incapable of reform. Rather, it was the structure of society that needed to change. This thesis shows that Merton tried to develop functionalism in new directions, and, in doing so, he moved closer to conflict theory.

Figure 3.1 Parsons’s AGIL scheme

Merton also distinguished between manifest and latent functions: the former are observable consequences of action, the latter are those that remain unspoken. In studying latent functions, Merton argued, we can learn much more about the way that societies work. For example, we might observe a rain dance among tribal people, the manifest function of which appears to be to bring about rain. But, empirically, the rain dance often fails and yet continues to be practised – why? Merton argues that its latent function is to build and sustain group solidarity, which is a continuing requirement. Similarly, Merton argued that institutions contained certain dysfunctional elements which create tensions, and the existence of these allowed him to discuss the potential for conflict in ways that Parsons could not.

See chapter 22, ‘Crime and Deviance’, for a more detailed discussion and critique of Merton’s ideas.

What became of structural functionalism? Following the death of Parsons in 1979, Jeffrey Alexander (1985) sought to revisit and revive the approach, aiming to tackle its theoretical flaws. But, by 1997, even Alexander was forced to concede that the ‘internal contradictions’ of his ‘new’ or neofunctionalism could not be resolved. Instead, he argued for a reconstruction of sociological theory beyond functionalist assumptions (Alexander 1997). Hence, Parsonian structural functionalism is, to all intents and purposes, defunct within mainstream sociology.

Parsons’s ideas became so influential because they spoke to the developed societies about their post-1945 situation of gradually rising affluence and political consensus. But they lost ground in the late 1960s and the 1970s as conflicts began to mount, with new peace and anti-nuclear movements, protests against American military involvement in Vietnam, and radical student movements emerging in Europe and North America. At that point, conflict theories, such as Marxism, were reinvigorated, as they offered a better understanding of the new situation. As we will see later, understanding globalization, multiculturalism, shifting gender relations, risk and environmental degradation has led to a new round of theorizing today.

Merton sought to explain why a disproportionate amount of officially recorded acquisitive crime involved the working classes.