Introduction to functionalism
 
1. Overview.  Many aspects of the functionalist approach to sociology are similar to
those of other sociological approaches, but with a particular emphasis on function,
interdependence, consensus, equilibrium, and evolutionary change.  Some of these
aspects are:
 
a. Macro.  The focus is macro-sociological, with institutions and structures existing in
the society as a whole.  This is the origin of the structure part of the structural
functional approach.  Functionalist analysis looks on social systems as having certain
needs, and society as a system of social structures (economic, legal, educational,
gender structures).  If the needs are being met, then it is the social structures that meet
these needs.  The structures are thus functional in the sense that they help society to
operate.  Interconnections exist within and among these structures, and individuals
and groups are constrained by these structures. 
 
b. Function.  The different parts of each society contribute positively to the operation
or functioning of the system as a whole.  This is the functional part of the structural
functional approach.  Each society has certain needs in that there are a number of
activities that must be carried out for social life to survive and develop.  Goods and
services must be produced and distributed in order for people to survive, there must be
some administration of justice, a political system must exist, and some family
structure must operate so as to provide a means to reproduce the population and
maintain social life on a daily basis.   In the structural functional model, individuals
carry out each of these tasks in various institutions and roles that are consistent with
the structures and norms of the society.
 
c. Interdependence and equilibrium.  Functionalism attempts to explain the
relationship of different parts of the system to each other, and to the whole.  These
parts are usually work together in an orderly manner, without great conflict – Adams
and Sydie note that this approach has examined “the issues of order and integration in
society” (p. 343).  The different parts are usually in equilibrium, or moving toward
equilibrium, with consensus rather than conflict governing the inter-relationships of
the various parts. 
 
d. Evolutionary change.  While equilibrium, consensus, and static rather than
dynamic analysis is most common, there is some discussion of change.  Change tends
to be orderly and evolutionary, rather than revolutionary or with dramatic structural
breaks.  Conflicts or external factors stimulate adjustment of the parts to move toward
a new equilibrium.  As change occurs, the various parts of societies become more
differentiated, with these parts adapting to new needs and problems.  Societies
become more complex, with new institutions and subsystems developing that perform
the new functions required to make the society operate smoothly.  Note the similiarity
to Durkheim’s view of how the division of labour develops. 
 
C. Origins and influence
 
The structural functional model comes from a variety of authors, but is most
associated with Talcott Parsons.  Robert Merton is another well known sociologist
who provided some important structural functional theoretical statements.  All of
these were sociologists who were from the United States and spent most of their
academic life there.   As a result, this approach is often associated with sociology in
the United States.
 
The functional approach was developed from the 1930s through the 1960s in the
United States.  Parsons studied Weber and Durkheim, and translated some of these
into English.  Parsons thus became a major interpreter of these writers in America,
and his interpretation may be considered to have developed the influence of these
writers in a particular way.  Although a liberal within the American context, Parsons
used concepts and models from Weber and Durkheim to establish a sociological
approach which countered the Marxian view. 
 
This approach dominated American sociology from the 1940s through to the early
1970s. With a few exceptions, it was the only sociological approach used, and
Marxian concepts and approaches were almost entirely absent from sociology
textbooks.  While this approach was not conservative in the sense of attempting to
return to an earlier society, it also did not encourage or support any radical
change.  Politically, it fit the cold war liberal and pluralist political approach that
became dominant in American universities during this period.  Part of this was to
counter any influence of communism, socialism, or Marxism. 
 
In the 1960s, the structural functional approach came under increasing attack and
ultimately was discredited.  It was unable to explain a number of features of American
society, such as poverty, social change, dissent, and the continuing influence and
political and economic power of the wealthy.  As sociologists began to read more of
Weber and Durkheim, it became clear that the structural functional interpretation
missed much of the subtlety of these writers.  It also became clear that Marx also had
much to contribute to the analysis of social structure and social change.  More
recently, feminist approaches have also attacked functionalism, arguing that the
structural functionalists provided a justification for male privilege and ignored the past and potential
contributions of women. 
 
Within Canadian sociology, functionalism was not as influential as in the United
States.  Sociology was not as well developed in Canada as in the U.S., and some of
the British and European approaches were more influential here.  The structural
functional model also did not seem to have the same applicability here as in the U.S.
partly because equality of opportunity and individualism were not as highly developed
here.  The different ethnic groups and their history have also been considerably
different in Canada than in the United States.  When Canadian sociology did develop,
some of the political economic approaches were incorporated into Canadian sociology
to create a somewhat different discipline than in the U.S.
 
As a result of challenges in the 1970s, structural functionalism fell into disfavour in
the study of sociology.  However, it is still an important model in a number of
ways.  First, outside sociology itself, many of arguments used by the structural
functional approach are popular explanations.  In addition, some of the structural
functional arguments are used by those in power to justify inequalities and explain the
value of their contribution to society.  This is an consensus model, one which can be
used to support the social order.
 
Second, it can be considered the sociological counterpart of many economic models
of inequality.  In particular, it fits well with the human capital model of education and
the economy.  It can also be considered to the counterpart of some models of
liberalism in the political sphere.  For example, the notion of equality of opportunity
should be a basic part of this model.
 
Third, even though it may provide and inadequate model of explanation, it may be
useful as a model for description.  Much of the quantitative information concerning
the structure of society has been developed by sociologists working in the
functionalist perspective.  While the exact connection of these quantitative studies to
the structural functional approach may not be clear, much quantitative analysis makes
many of the same assumptions as do functionalists.   Some of these have provided
very useful data for understanding society and examination of the nature of social
inequality.
 
D. Talcott Parsons
 
1. Introduction
 
Much like Durkheim, “Parsons’s primary concern throughout his life was the problem
of order in society” (Adams and Sydie, p. 349), that is "how, if individuals were really
separate entities pursuing their self-interest, there could be any order at all: How could
there be anything but disorder?"  (Johnson, p. 116).  In practice, people do cooperate,
and there is a degree of social integration.  For Parsons this comes from the values of
society and of social actors – the basis of social action can be termed
voluntarism.  “People act on the basis of their values; their actions are oriented and
constrained by the values and norms of people around them; and these norms and
values are the basis of social order” (Knapp, pp. 191-192)
 
2. Life and Influences
 
a. Life.  Talcott Parsons (1902-1979, United States) was the most important figure in
the structural functionalist school of sociological thought.  He dominated sociology in
the United States for many years, coming into disfavour in the 1960 and 1970s.  In
sociology today, his approach is generally treated as outmoded, although some of his
ideas are now being viewed more favourably, and perhaps in a less conservative
context than they were originally presented.
 
Parsons was born in Colorado, studied in the eastern Unitied States, and then did
graduate work at the London School of Economics and then in Heidelberg,
Germany.  Weber's influence was still strong in Heidelberg, and part of Parsons'
doctoral thesis concerned the views of Weber.  Parsons became a professor at Harvard
in 1927 and stayed there until his death in 1979.  In 1937 he published his major
work The Structure of Social Action.  This book introduced Weber to the United
States, and laid the groundwork for Parsons' later work.  In 1949 he was president of
the American Sociological Association, and in 1951 published The Social
System.  These works remained dominant within American sociology through the
1970s. 
 
b. Influences.  The contribution of Durkheim to Parsons' theory will be
clear.  Concepts such as order, solidarity, and integration, as well as some aspects of
the family and sex roles are similar to what is found in Durkheim.  The contribution of
Weber may be less clear, but is apparent in several ways.  First, Weber was concerned
with (i) analysis of social structures as a whole, and (ii) social action.  Parsons
referred to his own theory as action theory and argued that social phenomena must be
understood in terms of individual meaning, but also must be examined at the “level of
collective action among groupings of actors.”  (Turner, p. 47).  As with many
functionalists, Parsons was concerned with the same issues as Weber, “how do the
subjective states of actors influence emergent patterns of social organization, and vice
versa?” (Turner, p. 47).  He referred to his theoretical approach as a general theory of
action systems. 
 
Parsons developed many concepts and elaborate conceptual schemes that could be
considered ideal types of the Weberian type.  These emphasized important features of
social systems, and of the type that Parsons considered important for purposes of his
analysis of social integration.  They were regarded as useful in different contexts, and
a means of comparing concrete situations, to see the extent to which they conform or
deviate from these ideal types.  (Paragraph based on Turner, pp. 47-8).
 
3. Action Systems
 
Parsons developed an analysis of psychology, economics, politics, sociology, and all
social science, although much of this was never completed.  For Parsons, there are
many systems or  action systems where “the parts are connected” (Adams and Sydie,
p. 350).  A system is something that has a boundary, so that there is an inside and an
outside to the environment comprising the system.  Examples of systems are the
social, cultural, and personality systems (Wallace and Wolf, p. 28).  Systems have
interdependent parts, order or equilibrium, and a tendency to maintain the boundaries
and relations of the parts to the whole.  These could be the society as a whole,
structures or institutions within society (economy, legal system, religious institutions),
or smaller subsystems (family or individual) that form part of society.  These are
action systems in the sense that they involve social action, and each system has certain
needs or conditions that are necessary for the survival and continued operation of the
system.  Systems also have goals that may be created as a result of needs and desires
of members of these systems.
 
A physical analogy to the systems of Parsons is a heating or cooling system for a
building.  The building has boundaries, an outside and an inside, and the boundaries
are generally fixed or maintained over time.  There are interdependent parts to the
system which function together to maintain a certain level of temperature in the
building.  Thermostats and furnaces or air conditioners are used to heat or cool the
building, and these are self-regulating, maintaining a certain equilibrium temperature. 
 
Parsons was primarily interested in the social system, viewing it as the preserve of
sociology, and examining social interaction and the relationships among
individuals.  A personality system, concerning human motivation and orientation,
underlies the social system.  Individuals might be motivated by culture and social
factors, looking for approval in social relationships.  Individual personality was
considered to be a combination of biological drives and culture, with actors being
relatively passive.  Drives may come from the behavioral or biological organism, with
its “organization ... affected by the processes of conditioning and learning that occur
in the individual's life.”  Ritzer (p. 249) notes that Parsons would be opposed to the
sociobiological interpretation, arguing instead that biological drives were socially
developed.
 
Above the social system is the cultural system, the system of patterned and ordered
symbols.  While it is created by humans, this is the “social stock of knowledge,
symbols, and ideas” (Ritzer, p. 247).  This includes language and other forms of
communication, systems of morality, and all of the shared knowledge of
people.  Parsons refers to this as the cultural tradition, and argues that elementary
communication is not possible without “some degree of conformity to the
'conventions' of the symbolic system.” (Parsons, 1951, p. 11).   Symbols are
interpreted by individuals and individual actors in different situations so that they may
react somewhat differently to them.  For social interaction to occur, it is important that
there be a stability in the symbol system, “a stability which must extend between
individuals and over time, [and] could probably not be maintained unless it functioned
in a communication process in the interaction of a plurality of actors.” (Parsons, 1951,
p. 11).
 
Because it is composed of symbols, the cultural system can move easily between
systems, and strongly affects other systems.  Note that it is a separate system, and one
that cannot be reduced to aspects of the social system.  It affects the social system,
creating norms and values that guide social behaviour, and the personality system
through socialization and learning.  Given the power of the cultural system to
influence and control other systems,  “Parsons came to view himself as a cultural
determinist” (Ritzer, p. 247). 
 
Social System.  The social system was Parsons' main concern.  This is society as a
whole, or the various institutions such as the family within society.  Parsons'
definition of the social system is:
 
A social system consists in a plurality of individual actors interacting with
each other in a situation which has at least a physical or environmental
aspect, actors who are motivated in terms of a tendency to the
"optimization of gratification" and whose relation to their situations,
including each other, is defined and mediated in terms of a system of
culturally structured and shared symbols (Parsons, 1951, pp. 5-6).
 
The basic unit of the system for Parsons was the status-role bundle or complex.  These
are structural elements, and are not characteristics of the individual or of
interaction.  Rather they are like the positions within the stratification model.  A status
is a structural position within the social system, and a role is what the individual who
has that status does.  For example, brother or sister could refer to a status, and there
are certain roles that are generally associated with these statuses.  Note that these
statuses need not be hierarchical as in the stratification model. 
 
Within this social system, Parsons considered the needs of the system as important,
and individuals fulfilled certain system functions by taking on various roles as means
of carrying out the function of their statuses.  Individuals are discussed by Parsons as
carrying out actions that maintain order in the system.  Socialization, education and
learning in the child, and continued socialization throughout life are the means by
which the norms and values of society are learned by individuals.  This is what binds
the individual to the social system as a whole.  If successful, this socialization process
means that the norms and values become internalized by individuals, and when people
pursue their own interests, they also serve the needs of the society as a whole. 
 
In modern society there are many roles, statuses and opportunities for individuals to
express their different personalities.  For Parsons, this is a positive feature of a social
system, and a flexible system of this sort is more able to maintain order.  However, if
people become too deviant, there are social control mechanisms that either stop the
deviance (ultimately at the legal level).  In most cases though, there are stronger
mechanisms that the social system has to maintain order.  This is the socialization
process, and the continued operation of the socialization process through one's whole
life. Parsons comments
Without deliberate planning on anyone's part, there have developed in our
type of social system, and correspondingly in others, mechanisms which,
within limits, are capable of forestalling and reversing the deep-lying
tendencies for deviance to get into the vicious circle phase which puts it
beyond the control of ordinary approval-disapproval and reward-
punishment sanctions (Parsons, 1951, pp. 319-320).
Note the self-regulating nature of this social control mechanism that evolves. 
 
4. Pattern Variables
 
Parsons constructed a set of variables that can be used to analyze the various
systems.  These are the “categorization of modes of orientation in personality systems,
the value patterns of culture, and the normative requirements in social systems”
(Turner, p. 58)     These became a way of describing and classifying different
societies, and the values and norms of that society.  All of the norms, values, roles,
institutions, subsystems and even the society as a whole can be classified and
examined on the basis of these patterned variables.  For Parsons, these were necessary
to make the theory of action more explicit and “to develop clearer specifications of
what different contingencies and expectations actors were likely to face” (Wallace and
Wolf, p. 30).  The patterned variables are set up as polar opposites that give the range
of  possible decisions and modes of orientation.  Any actual role or decision may be a
combination of the two, between the opposites.  For Parsons though, these provided
an ideal type conceptual scheme that allowed analysis of various systems of parts of
systems.  The five pattern variables are as follows.
 
The pattern variables provide a means of looking at various forms that norms and
social actions can take, and what their orientation is.  These can describe the nature of
societal norms, or the basic values that guide, and form the basis for decisions in, the
personality system.  The range of possible types of motivation and action is
considerably broader in Parson's scheme than in much of the classical sociological
writers, at least the utilitarians, Durkheim and Marx.  Weber viewed motivation and
meaning as key, but did not provide a guide concerning how to apply these in
general.  Perhaps these pattern variables can be thought of as a way that people do
relate to situations they face, the type of orientation they have, and how they are likely
to interpret meaning in each social action. 
 
a. Affectivity and Affective Neutrality.   Neutrality refer to the amount of emotion
or affect that is appropriate or expected in an given form of interaction.  Again,
particularism and diffuseness might often be associated with affectivity, whereas
contacts with other individuals in a bureaucracy may be devoid of emotion and
characterized by affective neutrality.  Affective neutrality may refer to self discipline
and the deferment of gratification.  In contrast, affectivity can mean the expression of
gratification of emotions.
 
b. Collectivity or Self.  These emphasize the extent of self interest as opposed to
collective or shared interest associated with any action.  Each of our social actions are
made within a social context, with others, and in various types of
collectivities.  Where individuals pursue a collective form of action, then the interests
of the collectivity may take precedence over that of the individual.  Various forms of
action such as altruism, charity, self-sacrifice (in wartime) can be included here.  In
contrast, much economics and utilitarianism assumes egoism or the self seeking
individual as the primary basis on which social analysis is to be built. 
 
c. Particularism and Universalism.  These refer to the range of people that are to be
considered, whereas diffuseness and specificity deal with the range of obligations
involved.  The issue here is whether to react “on the basis of a general norm or
reacting on the basis of someone’s particular relationship to you” (Wallace and Wolf,
p. 34).  A particular relation is one that is with a specific individual.  Parent-child or
friendship relationships tend to be of this sort, where the relationship is likely to be
very particular, but at the same time very diffuse.  In contrast, a bureaucracy is
characterized by universal forms of relationships, where everyone is to be treated
impartially and much the same.  No particularism or favoritism is to be extended to
anyone, even to a close friend or family member. 
 
d. Diffuseness and Specificity.  These refer to the nature of social contacts and how
extensive or how narrow are the obligations in any interaction.  For example, in a
bureaucracy, social relationships are very specific, where we meet with or contact
someone for some very particular reason associated with their status and position, e.g.
visiting a physician.  Friendships and parent-child relationships are examples of more
diffuse forms of contact.  We rely on friends for a broad range of types of support,
conversation, activities, and so on.  While there may be limits on such contacts, these
have the potential of dealing with almost any set of interests and problems. 
 
e. Ascription and Achievement.   Ascription refers to qualities of individuals, and
often inborn qualities such as sex, ethnicity, race, age, family status, or characteristics
of the household of origin.  Achievement refers to performance, and emphasizes
individual achievement.  For example, we might say that someone has achieved a
prestigious position even though their ascribed status was that of poverty and
disadvantage.
 
f. Expressive and Instrumental.    Parsons regards the first half of each pair as the
expressive types of characteristics and the second half of the pattern as the
instrumental types of characteristics.  Expressive aspects refer to “the integrative and
tension aspects” (Morgan, p. 29).  These are people, roles, and actions concerned with
taking care of the common task culture, how to integrate the group, and how to
manage and resolve internal tensions and conflicts.  This may take many different
forms but often is associated with the family, and more specifically with the female
role in the family.  
 
The instrumental characteristics refer to “the goal attainment and adaptation aspects”
(Morgan, p. 29).  These are the characteristics, people, roles, and actions associated
with ideas, problem solving, getting the task done.  These tasks are often associated
with male roles, public activities, the economy, or politics. 
 
These can also be used to refer to the type of society.  Social action and interaction in
early forms of society were more likely to be characterized by expressive
characteristics.  In contrast, in modern societies, with a more complex division of
labour and differentiation of statuses and roles, much of social action and interaction
is characterized by instrumental characteristics. 
 
5. Functional System Problems – AGIL (P)
 
Social systems have needs.  In order to survive and continue, each social system or
subsystem has four characteristics that must be met.  These are functional needs of the
system, “a complex of activities directed towards meeting a need or needs of the
system.” (Ritzer, p. 240).  The first two are necessary for survival and continued
operation, with the last two being a means of regulation of the social system.  These
functional needs can be remembered by the acronym AGIL.
 
a. Adaptation (A).   Each system exists in an environment, and must be able to adapt
to this environment.  In the process of adaptation, the environment is also affected and
may be adapted to the society.  This is the mobilization of resources so that the system
can survive and that things can be done to meet goals of the system.  In the family or
household, adaptation could include obtaining economic resources -- earning an
income to support the family.  For larger social systems, the economy is the system
which allows the system to survive, grow, and change.  The major institutions in the
economic sphere, such as agriculture, industry and services provided through the
market are the means by which adaptation takes place.  These serve the function of
allowing the system to survive and provide the goods and services required for society
to operate.  As economists describe the economy, there are many equilibrating
mechanisms within the economy that produce order.  The market mechanism itself
can be regarded as a system that has some tendencies in the direction of stable
equilibria.  Some of the government institutions relating to the economy also help
serve this function.   Note also how the economy as a system modifies the natural
environment.
 
b. Goal Attainment (G).  Each system has certain purposes associated with it.  The
goals of the system must be defined, means of attempting to achieve these goals must
be laid out, and then these goals must be achieved.  Within the social system, the
polity (political sphere and government) is an important aspect of this, setting and
altering the goals for the society as a whole, and “mobilizing actors and resources to
that end” (Ritzer, p. 246).  The state bureaucracy and other organizations – business
and nonprofit – all help to implement and achieve these goals.  Smaller scale
institutions also have goals, for example, the University of Regina as a system has the
goal of teaching, research, and community service.  Within a family or individual
system, there will also be goals, although these may not be so clearly spelled out as in
formal organizations.  Each organization, as a subsystem, has certain goals, and within
this there will be positions with roles to play in helping the organization achieve these
goals.  Within a business, there will be marketing, production, finance, etc. positions
that each have specific roles within the context of attempting to make profits for the
business and help the business expand.  Within the family, husband and wife, parents
and children are each statuses with roles for meeting family goals.
 
c. Integration (I).   This is the means by which social relationships, and
interrelationships among units or groups, are regulated.  “By integration Parsons
means the need to coordinate, adjust, and regulate relationships among various actors
or units within the system … in order to keept the system functioning” (Wallace and
Wolf, pp. 39-40). 
 
As various social processes functions occur, strains, tensions and conflicts may
emerge.  These are a result of the way that individuals relate to each other, and as
different units carry out their tasks and roles that need to be done in a system.  Means
of managing these tensions, diffusing and resolving conflicts and ensuring that orderly
means of carrying on activities can be ensured.  At the level of society as a whole,
there are a variety of institutions that do this.  Religion, education, the media, the legal
structures – police and courts – all play a role.  Ritzer refers to these as societal
community.  Any institutions that help disseminate the shared culture, and reinforce
“that culture through ritual celebrations of its values” (Cuff, p. 45) help in
this.  Sporting events could be seen in this light - anthems, rules of the game, common
allegiances, etc.   Where strains are great, there may be a need for social control,
formal and informal sanctions, or discipline to enforce order.  In general though,
Parsons thought that systems develop automatic means of integration, and roles and
organizations to help carry this out do develop.  Within subsystems, there is a set of
roles that do this, although these may not always be specialized.  For example, in
educational institutions, teachers carry out the roles of adaptation, goal attainment and
integration as part of their activities.
 
d. Latency (L) or pattern maintenance (P).   This is the function of pattern
maintenance and Parsons also refers to this as the cultural-motivational system
(Parsons, 1967, p. 261).  These are referred to as latent because they may not always
be as apparent as the A, G, or I functions.  For Parsons, "All institutionalization
involves common moral as well as other values.  Collectivity obligations are, therefor,
an aspect of every institutionalized role.  But in certain contexts of orientation-choice,
these obligations may be latent ... .” (Parsons, 1951,  p. 99).  Even though these exist
they may not be readily apparent and thus are latent.  The test of their nature would be
to determine the actors reaction in a specific situation. 
 
The organizations and roles that perform latent functions can be regarded as those that
“furnish, maintain, and renew both the motivation of individuals and the cultural
patterns that create and sustain this motivation” (Ritzer, p. 242).  Parsons refers to
these as fiduciary, that is, founded on trust.  At the level of the social system, these are
schools, educational institutions, and the major institution that is concerned with the
latent function is kinship and family or other forms of personal relationships.  Within
this, leisure, affection, love, sex, and friendship, can all play an important
function.  People provide comfort, consolation and relief to each other, thus reducing
tension or keeping it within manageable limits.  In addition, socialization is a major
function with respect to the raising of children, and also with respect to the ongoing
socialization that occurs through over the life span.  For Parsons, the role of women
was key here, as will be seen in the following section on the family.  Within
organizations, there may be little of the latent functions as an explicit part of the
organization, but people within any organization develop these themselves, or come to
the organization with these functions developed. 
 
While Parsons had a conservative view of women and the family, at least he did
recognize the importance of the latent function, and he puts in on a par with the other
three functions that must be part of any system.  For Marx, social reproduction serves
a similar role to that of the latent function, but Marx spent little time analyzing this,
more or less taking it for granted.  Weber and Durkheim pay little attention to this
function, although Durkheim appears to have recognized the problem, and may have
treated it in a somewhat similar manner to that adopted by Parsons.
 
The AGIL functions must exist at all levels, in society as a whole, and in each
subsystem.  These may not be consciously worked out functions, and roles and
functions can be shared among organizations or individuals.  In traditional societies,
most of these functions would have been centred in family and kinship structures, and
in local communities.  In these societies, there may have been little differentiation in
functions, although culture and the integration function often came to be associated
with religion.  As societies have developed, these functions tend to evolve, with
different institutions developing different functions, and with different functions
developing within each organizations.  Specialized functions and roles develop, and
specialized institutions to carry these out also evolve, and it is best to have specialized
roles and specialized institutions to carry out the functions of a modern, complex
society.  These may develop in an evolutionary fashion, without any conscious
consideration, much like Durkheim's “natural” development of the division of
labour.  Or, as in bureaucracies, they may be consciously worked out organizational
structures.  Some of this can be seen by examining Parsons' view of change