Documento Apoyo Funcionalismo Estructuralismo

7/29/2019 Documento Apoyo Funcionalismo Estructuralismo

1/20

dURKHEIM

Mtodo de estudio de los hechos sociales

Durkheim propone estudiar los hechos sociales como cosas (no porque estos sean cosasmateriales propiamente dichas, sino por su caracterstica de observables y verificables

empricamente), pues plantea que pueden ser observados y contrastados por medio del mtodo

cientfico, estableciendo tres reglas bsicas.

La primera regla menciona lo necesario de desechar todas las ideas preconcebidas, utilizando slo

aquellos criterios y conceptos construidos cientficamente. El socilogo debe aislarse de sus

creencias poltico-religiosas, porque podran influir sobre los hechos sociales que se estudian.

La segunda define previamente el hecho social y lo segmenta. Tras la definicin, se procede a la

bsqueda y recopilacin de datos acordes al caso estudiado, que permitan llegar a la elaboracin

de conclusiones.

Por ltimo, la tercera regla menciona que slo se debe tener en cuenta aquellos caracteres que

tienen un grado de objetividad propio del hecho social. El socilogo debe alejarse de las

sensaciones de carcter subjetivo.

Idea de estructura

Para Durkheim, la sociedad est estructurada alrededor de un conjunto de pilares que manifiestan

a travs de expresiones. As, se acerca al Dios de Spinoza tal como fue tomado posteriormente por

el estructuralismo, que encuentra as en este autor antecedentes y fundamentos. No obstante, no

se debe confundir este concepto con la caracterizacin que Durkheim hace de Dios y las religiones,

que, tal como figura en Las formas elementales de la vida religiosa, describe a las creencias

religiosas expresadas en ritos, simbologas, emblemas o ideas abstractas como representaciones

elaboradas por la sociedad para afirmar su sentido, su objetivo como tal. Las creencias se

evidencian al padre de la sociologa clsica como indispensables para la reproduccin de la

sociedad, en tanto acarrean una moral (de este modo, al hablar de creencias nos encontramos

expuestos al factor subjetivista en el pensamiento de Durkheim, ya que para hacer efectivo el fin

de los lazos sociales es necesario que los componentes de la sociedad se apropien de las creencias

internalizadas y acten conforme a ellas).

As, la idea de Dios proviene del hombre, aunque su manifestacin como sustancia sea spinoziana

(expresa sus atributos pero no crea).

[editar]

Definicin y concepto


2/20

La 'Estructura social' es un concepto omnipresente pero alguna vez es empleado con diferentes

significados, pues es definido como equivalente a sistema social o a organizacin social guiada por

normas y valores. Las diferentes perspectivas en sociologa: de la dialctica, del funcionalismo y

del Interaccionismo simblico, aportan descripciones con distintos puntos de vista de estructura ylo mismo sucede con las ciencias sociales ms prximas a la sociologa : la ecologa humana, la

psicologa social y la antropologa cultural, lo cual en s mismo es util, porque tambin en esto la

diversidad enriquece. Una definicin cientfica seria: la estructura compleja de un modelo como

descripcin de una teora, representada grficamente, son las relaciones entre variables y no sus

respectivos valores.

Hay un largo artculo en Internet que desarrolla histricamente todo esto: 'un acercamiento a los

paradigmas en sociologa[1]' con el concepto de estructura y accin, es decir, 'ni todo es

estructura (organizacin), ni todo es accin (poblacin)'. Una definicin simplista de estructura

sera 'la Organizacin del Sistema'.

En los dos planos macrosociologa como superestructura y microsociologa como hbitat o espacio

personal, puede mejor definirse los conceptos con el siguiente paso, (tomado de la ecologa en

relacin con el ecosistema); completando las parejas con el medio ambiente y la tecnologa.

[editar]La nueva definicin

Estructura social es una poblacin con una organizacin y una tecnologa, que vive y se desarrolla

en un medio ambiente. Se puede definir ahora el sistema, como est establecida de hecho esa

sociedad, llenndola de contenidos, que interactan por las redes de la estructura, usandocualquier tabla: cultura como lenguaje, arte, religin, etc., valores como gobierno, propiedad,

estratificacin, familia, grupos, etc., completando as su identificacin e identidad y mejorando su

entendimiento. El sentido de reducir los elementos a dos: cultura y valores, es para separar los

aspectos culturales de los sociales, por ejemplo, la cultura popular como expresin de los valores

populares. Esta clasificacin en dos grupos (o ms) tiene problemas, que en apariencia no inciden

sobre la estructura, por ejemplo religin, si es la bsqueda de lo trascendente o es la socializacin

de las personas, en este caso estara en el segundo grupo. Por extensin la estructura social

modifica y es modificada por la tecnologa y el medio ambiente. El anlisis sociolgico de las

estructuras sociales no puede hacerse sobre la estructura en s misma, pues no es algo tangible,

sino que es una definicin formal; es como el hogar de los muchos componentes, que aqu se han

simplificado con cultura y valores.

Los modelos de anlisis estn muy desarrollados en el funcionalismo-estructuralismo y en la

dialctica-conflicto, con dos enfoques diferentes. Tentativamente pudiera decirse para ambos

enfoques que el sistema social es la misma Estructura social interactuando con todos los

componentes diversos, ya sea aplicndolo a la sociedad global o a formaciones ms localizadas y


3/20

eventualmente con menos componentes. Los anlisis sern sobre los componentes. El cambio

social enfatizar o el estructuralismo o la teora del conflicto.

El determinismo estructural, tomado de la teora de sistemas, implicando mecanismos como

autopoiesis y varios ms de retroalimentacin en realidad es similar a los condicionantes

estructurales en aplicaciones de todos estos conceptos de las ciencias sociales a hechos reales,que se estudian tal como se presentan como realidad social y al mismo tiempo con proyeccin de

futuro: pobreza, vivienda, alimentacin.

Un enfoque diferente, buscando profundizar en el concepto de estructura, es el examen del

movimiento filosfico sobre la estructura o estructuralismo, pero ste es voltil, pues se resume

en nuevas corrientes como el postestructuralismo, el postmodernismo y el postmaterialismo,

alrededor del tema bsico : la prioridad de la estructura social real o conceptual, sobre la accin

social, emigrando hacia estudios culturales, como la antropologa o la lingstica y si nuevamente

se volviera a la forma ms radical -el tema bsico-, pudiera ser enriquecedor para la categora de

estructura, dependiendo de lo que se tratase de investigar: el tema filosfico de las prioridades o

el tema sociolgico de los condicionantes.

Estructura: En cuanto a concepto fundamental de la sociologa y de la antropologa de la cultura,

ofrece dificultades de aplicacin y entendimiento pues apunta a diversos planes de la realidad

social; por otra parte hablamos de la estructura social que une a dos personas, y solamente a ellos

dos, de una forma especial que resulta del estatus y de lo que desempean.

La Estructura: Pero tambin hablamos de la estructura de toda una sociedad. La estructura social

la podemos deducir por existencia de su influjo en la accin o relacin social de los individuos.

Una bibliografa corta, un manual de Sociologa : Sociologa: 'Una invitacin al estudio de la

realidad social' de Antonio Lucas Marn en EUNSA, una aplicacin ante un problema : 'El dilema de

la supervivencia' de Juan Dez Nicols en Obra Social Caja Madrid y otro manual : 'Sociology' de

James M. Henslin en Allyn and Bacon.

Nueva estructura social.

Analizando verticalmente laestructura socialen la actualidad se podra decir que el Per se

conforma de varios niveles.

a.- La pobreza extrema. Aquel que est en este nivel es el que no tiene nada, el indigente que

vive solo de la caridad y por lo general solo percibe por ao mximo 30 dlares.
http://www.monografias.com/trabajos32/nocion-estructura-social/nocion-estructura-social.shtmlhttp://www.monografias.com/trabajos32/nocion-estructura-social/nocion-estructura-social.shtmlhttp://www.monografias.com/trabajos32/nocion-estructura-social/nocion-estructura-social.shtmlhttp://www.monografias.com/trabajos32/nocion-estructura-social/nocion-estructura-social.shtml


4/20

b.- Pobrezacrtica. Hasta hace 10 aos era el nivel ms bajo de pobreza, ahora ocupa el

penltimo lugar y lo componen los desocupados permanentes o la gente coningresospor

debajo del nivel mnimo de subsistencia.

c.- nivel de supervivencia. Aqu se encuentran losniostrabajadores callejeros, los callejeros,

los comerciantes ambulantes, de menores ingresos, una parte de las mujeres de comedores

populares, los campesinos minifundistas o que no poseentierrao sector informal. Aqu las

personas se desarrollan porque se dedican a diversas actividades y tienen una gran movilidad

geogrfica viven en lafronterade la legalidad y reciben aporte simultaneo de varios delos

miembros. Aqu la configuracin familiar es slida.

d.- Las nuevas ocupaciones masivas. Los productores y comerciantes son los proletarios de

hoy, casi todos ellos viven en la informalidad incluida actividad ilegal.

e.- Los asalariados. Son los que tienen ocupacin estable y elsalarioes lo que los hace

diferentes, son la clase media y su nueva forma de vida, aqu se juntan empleados y obreros que

antes era diferenciados.

f.- Las actividades rentables. Que incluye a aquellos que realizan actividades rentables con

algunas empresas profesiones liberales y actividades informales rentables. La clase media alta.

h.- La clase alta. Es de los empresarios ynegocioslegales e ilegales de altarentabilidady losque tienen un alto nivel de ingresos. Es el que como siempre determina el poder poltico. Ms

halla de las actividades, el poder econmico manda ante todo, ya lo hemos comprobado en

innumerable cantidad de delincuentes gobernantes.
http://www.monografias.com/trabajos901/praxis-critica-tesis-doctoral-marx/praxis-critica-tesis-doctoral-marx.shtmlhttp://www.monografias.com/trabajos901/praxis-critica-tesis-doctoral-marx/praxis-critica-tesis-doctoral-marx.shtmlhttp://www.monografias.com/trabajos901/praxis-critica-tesis-doctoral-marx/praxis-critica-tesis-doctoral-marx.shtmlhttp://www.monografias.com/trabajos7/cofi/cofi.shtmlhttp://www.monografias.com/trabajos7/cofi/cofi.shtmlhttp://www.monografias.com/trabajos7/cofi/cofi.shtmlhttp://www.monografias.com/trabajos16/espacio-tiempo/espacio-tiempo.shtmlhttp://www.monografias.com/trabajos16/espacio-tiempo/espacio-tiempo.shtmlhttp://www.monografias.com/trabajos16/espacio-tiempo/espacio-tiempo.shtmlhttp://www.monografias.com/trabajos11/tierreco/tierreco.shtmlhttp://www.monografias.com/trabajos11/tierreco/tierreco.shtmlhttp://www.monografias.com/trabajos11/tierreco/tierreco.shtmlhttp://www.monografias.com/trabajos27/transformaciones-fronterizas/transformaciones-fronterizas.shtmlhttp://www.monografias.com/trabajos27/transformaciones-fronterizas/transformaciones-fronterizas.shtmlhttp://www.monografias.com/trabajos27/transformaciones-fronterizas/transformaciones-fronterizas.shtmlhttp://www.monografias.com/trabajos11/salartp/salartp.shtmlhttp://www.monografias.com/trabajos11/salartp/salartp.shtmlhttp://www.monografias.com/trabajos11/salartp/salartp.shtmlhttp://www.monografias.com/trabajos15/plan-negocio/plan-negocio.shtmlhttp://www.monografias.com/trabajos15/plan-negocio/plan-negocio.shtmlhttp://www.monografias.com/trabajos15/plan-negocio/plan-negocio.shtmlhttp://www.monografias.com/trabajos12/rentypro/rentypro.shtml#ANALIShttp://www.monografias.com/trabajos12/rentypro/rentypro.shtml#ANALIShttp://www.monografias.com/trabajos12/rentypro/rentypro.shtml#ANALIShttp://www.monografias.com/trabajos12/rentypro/rentypro.shtml#ANALIShttp://www.monografias.com/trabajos15/plan-negocio/plan-negocio.shtmlhttp://www.monografias.com/trabajos11/salartp/salartp.shtmlhttp://www.monografias.com/trabajos27/transformaciones-fronterizas/transformaciones-fronterizas.shtmlhttp://www.monografias.com/trabajos11/tierreco/tierreco.shtmlhttp://www.monografias.com/trabajos16/espacio-tiempo/espacio-tiempo.shtmlhttp://www.monografias.com/trabajos7/cofi/cofi.shtmlhttp://www.monografias.com/trabajos901/praxis-critica-tesis-doctoral-marx/praxis-critica-tesis-doctoral-marx.shtml


5/20

Structural functionalism is a broad perspective in sociology and anthropology which sets out tointerpret society as a structure with interrelated parts. 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.[1] In the most basic

terms, it simply emphasises "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.[2][3]

Parsons called his own theory for action theory and argued again and again that the term

structural-functionalism was a misleading and inappropriate label to use as a name of his theory.

Contents [hide]

1 Theory

2 Prominent Theorists

2.1 Herbert Spencer

2.2 Talcott Parsons

2.3 Davis and Moore

2.4 Robert Merton

2.5 Almond and Powell

3 Structural functionalism and unilineal descent

4 Decline of functionalism

5 Criticisms

6 Influential theorists

7 See also

8 Bibliography

9 Notes


6/20

[edit]Theory

Classical functionalist 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

analysing processes of evolution via mechanisms of adaptation ... functionalism strongly

emphasises the pre-eminence of the social world over its individual parts (i.e. its constituent

actors, human subjects).

Anthony Giddens The Constitution of Society 1984, [4]

Whilst one may regard functionalism as a logical extension of the organic analogies for society

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

institutions unique to industrialised capitalist society (or modernity). Functionalism also has an

anthropological basis in the work of theorists such as Marcel Mauss, Bronisaw Malinowski and

Radcliffe-Brown. It is in Radcliffe-Brown's specific usage that the prefix 'structural' emerged.[5]

mile Durkheim

Durkheim 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. 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. In modern, complicated

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 complicated societies are held together by organic solidarity.

These views were upheld by Radcliffe-Brown, 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


7/20

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 parts (or social institutions) working together in an unconscious, quasi-automatic

fashion toward achieving an overall social equilibrium. All social and cultural phenomena aretherefore 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. The social structure, then, is the network

of statuses connected by associated roles.

It is simplistic to equate the perspective directly with political conservativism.[6] The tendency to

emphasise "cohesive systems", however, leads functionalist theories to be contrasted with

"conflict theories" which instead emphasise social problems and inequalities.

[edit]Prominent Theorists

[edit]Herbert Spencer

Herbert Spencer

Herbert Spencer, a British philosopher famous for applying the theory of natural selection to

society, was in many ways the first true sociological functionalist;[7] 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 (1874-96).

While most avoid the tedious tasks of reading Spencer's massive volumes (filled as they are with

long passages explicating the organic analogy, with reference to cells, simple organisms, animals,

humans and society), there are some important insights that have quietly influenced many

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

Action" (1937), Cultural anthropology, too, uses functionalism consistently.

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

the differentiation and increasing complication of an organic or "super-organic" (Spencer's term

for a social system) body, followed by a fluctuating state of equilibrium and

disequilibrium[disambiguation needed] (or a state of adjustment and adaptation), and, finally, a

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


8/20

concluded that society is constantly facing selection pressures (internal and external) 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,[8] and recognised that the degree of

centralised 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 centralisation of power as leading to stagnation

and, ultimately, pressure to decentralise.

More specifically, Spencer recognised three functional needs or prerequisites that produceselection pressures: they are regulatory, operative (production) and distributive. He argued that all

societies need to solve problems of control and coordination,[disambiguation needed] 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 organisation,[9] but, with increasing population (both in terms of sheer numbers

and density), problems emerge with regards to feeding individuals, creating new forms of

organisation 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 specialised functions;

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

administrators.

Perhaps Spencer's greatest obstacle to 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 Eqyptian

times. 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 (knowingly or otherwise) in their analyses, as is especially the case in the recent re-emergence

of evolutionary theory.

[edit]Talcott Parsons

Talcott Parsons was heavily influenced by Durkheim and Max Weber, synthesising 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."[10] His starting point, accordingly, is the interaction between two


9/20

individuals faced with a variety of choices about how they might act,[11] choices that are

influenced and constrained by a number of physical and social factors.[12]

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

own behavior, and that these expectations would (if successful) be "derived" from the accepted

norms and values of the society they inhabit.[11] As Parsons himself emphasised, however, in ageneral 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 (as has often been alleged)

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 behaviors are repeated in more interactions, and these expectations are entrenched or

institutionalised, 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."[13] 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.[14]

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"[10] 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.[11] Some roles are bound up in institutions and social structures

(economic, educational, legal and even gender-based). These are functional in the sense that they

assist society in operating[15] and fulfill its functional needs so that society runs smoothly.

A society where there is no conflict, where everyone knows what is expected of him, and where

these expectations are consistently met, is in a perfect state of equilibrium. The key processes for

Parsons in attaining this equilibrium are socialisation and social control. Socialisation is important

because it is the mechanism for transferring the accepted norms and values of society to the

individuals within the system. Perfect socialisation occurs when these norms and values are

completely internalised, when they become part of the individual's personality.[16]

Parson states that "this point [...] is independent of the sense in which [the] individual isconcretely autonomous or creative rather than 'passive' or 'conforming', for individuality and

creativity, are to a considerable extent, phenomena of the institutionalization of

expectations";[17] they are culturally constructed.

Socialisation is supported by the positive and negative sanctioning of role behaviours that do or do

not meet these expectations.[18] A punishment could be informal, like a snigger or gossip, or more

formalised, through institutions such as prisons and mental homes. If these two processes were


10/20

perfect, society would become static and unchanging, and in reality this is unlikely to occur for

long.

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

subject to change,"[19] and that his concept of the tendency towards equilibrium "does not imply

the empirical dominance of stability over change."[20] He does, however, believe that thesechanges occur in a relatively smooth way.

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

bargaining."[21] 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 (and therefore a new system) are formed, or society dies. This

model of social change has been described as a "moving equilibrium,"[22] and emphasises a desire

for social order.

[edit]Davis and Moore

Kingsley Davis and Wilbert E. Moore (1945) gave an argument for social stratification based on the

idea of "functional necessity" (also known as the Davis-Moore hypothesis). 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.[23]

This argument has been criticized as fallacious from a number of different angles:[24] 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, which they may benefit more people in society,

e.g., teachers compared to athletes and movie stars. Critics have suggested that structural

inequality (inherited wealth, family power, etc.) is itself a cause of individual success or failure, not

a consequence of it.[25]

[edit]Robert Merton

Robert K. Merton was a functionalist and he fundamentally agreed with Parsons theory. However,

he acknowledged that it was problematic, believing that it was too generalized [Holmwood,

2005:100]. Merton tended to emphasise middle range theory rather than a grand theory, meaningthat he was able to deal specifically with some of the limitations in Parsons theory. He identified 3

main limitations: functional unity, universal functionalism and indispensability [Ritzer in Gingrich,

1999]. He also developed the concept of deviance and made the distinction between manifest and

latent functions.

Merton criticised functional unity, saying that not all parts of a modern, complex society work for

the functional unity of society. Some institutions and structures may have other functions, and


11/20

some may even be generally dysfunctional, or be functional for some while being dysfunctional for

others. This is because not all structures are functional for society as a whole. Some practices are

only functional for a dominant individual or a group [Holmwood, 2005:91]. Here Merton

introduces the concepts of power and coercion into functionalism and identifies the sites of

tension which may lead to struggle or conflict. Merton states that by recognizing and examining

the dysfunctional aspects of society we can explain the development and persistence ofalternatives. Thus, as Holmwood states, Merton explicitly made power and conflict central issues

for research within a functionalist paradigm [2005:91].

Merton also noted that there may be functional alternatives to the institutions and structures

currently fulfilling the functions of society. This means that the institutions that currently exist are

not indispensable to society. Merton states that just as the same item may have multiple

functions, so may the same function be diversely fulfilled by alternative items [cited in

Holmwood, 2005:91]. This notion of functional alternatives is important because it reduces the

tendency of functionalism to imply approval of the status quo.

Mertons theory of deviance is derived from Durkheims idea of anomie. It is centra l in explaining

how internal changes can occur in a system. For Merton, anomie means a discontinuity between

cultural goals and the accepted methods available for reaching them.

Merton believes that there are 5 situations facing an actor.

Conformity occurs when an individual has the means and desire to achieve the cultural goals

socialised into him.

Innovation occurs when an individual strives to attain the accepted cultural goals but chooses to

do so in novel or unaccepted method.

Ritualism occurs when an individual continues to do things as proscribed by society but forfeits the

achievement of the goals.

Retreatism is the rejection of both the means and the goals of society.

Rebellion is a combination of the rejection of societal goals and means and a substitution of other

goals and means.

Thus it can be seen that change can occur internally in society through either innovation or

rebellion. It is true that society will attempt to control these individuals and negate the changes,

but as the innovation or rebellion builds momentum, society will eventually adapt or face

dissolution.

The last of Mertons important contributions to functionalism was his distinction between

manifest and latent functions. Manifest functions refer to the conscious intentions of actors;

latent functions are the objective consequences of their actions, which are often unintended

[Holmwood, 2005:90]. Merton used the example of the Hopi rain dance to show that sometimes


12/20

an individuals understanding of their motive for an action may not fully explain why that action

continues to be performed. Sometimes actions fulfill a function of which the actor is unaware, and

this is the latent function of an action. 2.14.08

[edit]Almond and Powell

In the 1970s, political scientists Gabriel Almond and Bingham Powell introduced a structural-

functionalist approach to comparing political systems. They argued that, in order to understand a

political system, it is necessary to understand not only its institutions (or structures) but also their

respective functions. They also insisted that these institutions, to be properly understood, must be

placed in a meaningful and dynamic historical context.

This idea stood in marked contrast to prevalent approaches in the field of comparative politics

the state-society theory and the dependency theory. These were the descendants of David

Easton's system theory in international relations, a mechanistic view that saw all political systems

as essentially the same, subject to the same laws of "stimulus and response" or inputs and

outputs while paying little attention to unique characteristics. The structural-functionalapproach is based on the view that a political system is made up of several key components,

including interest groups, political parties and branches of government.

In addition to structures, Almond and Powell showed that a political system consists of various

functions, chief among them political socialisation, recruitment and communication: socialisation

refers to the way in which societies pass along their values and beliefs to succeeding generations,

and in political terms describes the process by which a society inculcates civic virtues, or the habits

of effective citizenship; recruitment denotes the process by which a political system generates

interest, engagement and participation from citizens; and communication refers to the way that a

system promulgates its values and information.

[edit]Structural functionalism and unilineal descent

In their attempt to explain the social stability of African "primitive" stateless societies where they

undertook their fieldwork, Evans-Pritchard (1940) and Meyer Fortes (1945) argued that the

Tallensi and the Nuer were primarily organised around unilineal descent groups. Such groups are

characterised by common purposes, such as administering property or defending against attacks;

they form a permanent social structure that persists well beyond the lifespan of their members. In

the case of the Tallensi and the Nuer, these corporate groups were based on kinship which in turnfitted into the larger structures of unilineal descent; consequently Evans-Pritchard's and Fortes'

model is called "descent theory". Moreover, in this African context territorial divisions were

aligned with lineages; descent theory therefore synthesised both blood and soil as two sides of

one coin (cf. Kuper, 1988:195). Affinal ties with the parent through whom descent is not reckoned,

however, are considered to be merely complementary or secondary (Fortes created the concept

of "complementary filiation"), with the reckoning of kinship through descent being considered the


13/20

primary organising force of social systems. Because of its strong emphasis on unilineal descent,

this new kinship theory came to be called "descent theory".

Before long, descent theory had found its critics. Many African tribal societies seemed to fit this

neat model rather well, although Africanists, such as Richards, also argued that Fortes and Evans-

Pritchard had deliberately downplayed internal contradictions and overemphasised the stability ofthe local lineage systems and their significance for the organisation of society.[26] However, in

many Asian settings the problems were even more obvious. In Papua New Guinea, the local

patrilineal descent groups were fragmented and contained large amounts of non-agnates. Status

distinctions did not depend on descent, and genealogies were too short to account for social

solidarity through identification with a common ancestor. In particular, the phenomenon of

cognatic (or bilateral) kinship posed a serious problem to the proposition that descent groups are

the primary element behind the social structures of "primitive" societies.

Leach's (1966) critique came in the form of the classical Malinowskian argument, pointing out that

"in Evans-Pritchard's studies of the Nuer and also in Fortes's studies of the Tallensi unilineal

descent turns out to be largely an ideal concept to which the empirical facts are only adapted by

means of fictions." (1966:8). People's self-interest, manoeuvring, manipulation and competition

had been ignored. Moreover, descent theory neglected the significance of marriage and affinal

ties, which were emphasised by Levi-Strauss' structural anthropology, at the expense of

overemphasising the role of descent. To quote Leach: "The evident importance attached to

matrilateral and affinal kinship connections is not so much explained as explained away."[27]

[edit]Decline of functionalism

Structural functionalism reached the peak of its influence in the 1940s and 1950s, and by the

1960s was in rapid decline.[28] By the 1980s, its place was taken in Europe by more conflict-

oriented approaches,[29] and more recently by 'structuralism'.[30] While some of the critical

approaches also gained popularity in the United States, the mainstream of the discipline has

instead shifted to a myriad of empirically-oriented middle-range theories with no overarching

theoretical orientation. To most sociologists, functionalism is now "as dead as a dodo".[31]

As the influence of both functionalism and Marxism in the 1960s began to wane, the linguistic and

cultural turns led to myriad new movements in the social sciences: "According to Giddens, the

orthodox consensus terminated in the late 1960s and 1970s as the middle ground shared by

otherwise competing perspectives gave way and was replaced by a baffling variety of competing

perspectives. This third 'generation' of social theory includes phenomenologically inspired

approaches, critical theory, ethnomethodology, symbolic interactionism, structuralism, post-

structuralism, and theories written in the tradition of hermeneutics and ordinary language

philosophy."[32]


14/20

While absent from empirical sociology, functionalist themes remained detectable in sociological

theory, most notably in the works of Luhmann and Giddens. There are, however, signs of an

incipient revival, as functionalist claims have recently been bolstered by developments in

multilevel selection theory and in empirical research on how groups solve social dilemmas. Recent

developments in evolutionary theoryespecially by biologist David Sloan Wilson and

anthropologists Robert Boyd[disambiguation needed] and Peter Richersonhave provided strongsupport for structural functionalism in the form of multilevel selection theory. In this theory,

culture and social structure are seen as a Darwinian (biological or cultural) adaptation at the group

level.

[edit]Criticisms

Main articles: Conflict theory and Critical theory

In the 1960s, functionalism was criticized for being unable to account for social change, or forstructural contradictions and conflict (and thus was often called "consensus theory"). The

refutation of the second criticism of functionalism, that it is static and has no concept of change,

has already been articulated above, concluding that while Parsons theory allows for change, it is

an orderly process of change [Parsons, 1961:38], a moving equilibrium. Therefore referring to

Parsons theory of society as static is inaccurate. It is true that it does place emphasis on

equilibrium and the maintenance or quick return to social order, but this is a product of the time in

which Parsons was writing (post-World War II, and the start of the cold war). Society was in

upheaval and fear abounded. At the time social order was crucial, and this is reflected in Parsons'

tendency to promote equilibrium and social order rather than social change.

Furthermore, Durkheim favored a radical form of guild socialism along with functionalist

explanations. Also, Marxism, while acknowledging social contradictions, still uses functionalist

explanations. Parsons' evolutionary theory describes the differentiation and reintegration systems

and subsystems and thus at least temporary conflict before reintegration (ibid). "The fact that

functional analysis can be seen by some as inherently conservative and by others as inherently

radical suggests that it may be inherently neither one nor the other." (Merton 1957: 39)

Stronger criticisms include the epistemological argument that functionalism is tautologous, that is

it attempts to account for the development of social institutions solely through recourse to the

effects that are attributed to them and thereby explains the two circularly. However, Parsons drew

directly on many of Durkheims concepts in creating his theory. Certainly Durkheim was one of the

first theorists to explain a phenomenon with reference to the function it served for society. He

said, the determination of function isnecessary for the complete explanation of the

phenomena [cited in Coser, 1977:140]. However Durkheim made a clear distinction between

historical and functional analysis, saying, whenthe explanation of a social phenomenon is

undertaken, we must seek separately the efficient cause which produces it and the function it

fulfills [cited in Coser, 1977:140]. If Durkheim made this distinction, then it is unlikely that


15/20

Parsons did not. However Merton does explicitly state that functional analysis does not seek to

explain why the action happened in the first instance, but why it continues or is reproduced. He

says that latent functions go far towards explaining the continuance of the pattern [cited in

Elster, 1990:130, emphasis added]. Therefore it can be argued that functionalism does not explain

the original cause of a phenomenon with reference to its effect, and is therefore, not teleological.

Another criticism describes the ontological argument that society can not have "needs" as a

human being does, and even if society does have needs they need not be met. Anthony Giddens

argues that functionalist explanations may all be rewritten as historical accounts of individual

human actions and consequences (see Structuration theory).

A further criticism directed at functionalism is that it contains no sense of agency, that individuals

are seen as puppets, acting as their role requires. Yet Holmwood states that the most

sophisticated forms of functionalism are based on a highly developed concept of action

[2005:107], and as was explained above, Parsons took as his starting point the individual and their

actions. His theory did not however articulate how these actors exercise their agency in opposition

to the socialisation and inculcation of accepted norms. As has been shown above, Merton

addressed this limitation through his concept of deviance, and so it can be seen that functionalism

allows for agency. It cannot, however, explain why individuals choose to accept or reject the

accepted norms, why and in what circumstances they choose to exercise their agency, and this

does remain a considerable limitation of the theory.

Further criticisms have been levelled at functionalism by proponents of other social theories,

particularly conflict theorists, Marxists, feminists and postmodernists. Conflict theorists criticised

functionalisms concept of systems as giving far too much weight to integration and consensus,

and neglecting independence and conflict [Holmwood, 2005:100]. Lockwood [in Holmwood,

2005:101], in line with conflict theory, suggested that Parsons theory missed the concept of

system contradiction. He did not account for those parts of the system that might have tendencies

to mal-integration. According to Lockwood, it was these tendencies that come to the surface as

opposition and conflict among actors. However Parsons thought that the issues of conflict and

cooperation were very much intertwined and sought to account for both in his model [Holmwood,

2005:103]. In this however he was limited by his analysis of an ideal type of society which was

characterised by consensus. Merton, through his critique of functional unity, introduced into

functionalism an explicit analysis of tension and conflict.

Marxism which was revived soon after the emergence of conflict theory, criticised professional

sociology (functionalism and conflict theory alike) for being partisan to advanced welfarecapitalism [Holmwood, 2005:103]. Gouldner [in Holmwood, 2005:103] thought that Parsons

theory specifically was an expression of the dominant interests of welfare capitalism, that it

justified institutions with reference to the function they fulfill for society. It may be that Parsons

work implied or articulated that certain institutions were necessary to fulfill the functional

prerequisites of society, but whether or not this is the case, Merton explicitly states that

institutions are not indispensable and that there are functional alternatives. That he does not


16/20

identify any alternatives to the current institutions does reflect a conservative bias, which as has

been stated before is a product of the specific time that he was writing in.

As functionalisms prominence was ending, feminism was on the rise, and it attempted a radical

criticism of functionalism. It believed that functionalism neglected the suppression of women

within the family structure. Holmwood [2005:103] shows, however, that Parsons did in factdescribe the situations where tensions and conflict existed or were about to take place, even if he

did not articulate those conflicts. Some feminists agree, suggesting that Parsons provided

accurate descriptions of these situations. [Johnson in Holmwood, 2005:103]. On the other hand,

Parsons recognised that he had oversimplified his functional analysis of women in relation to work

and the family, and focused on the positive functions of the family for society and not on its

dysfunctions for women. Merton, too, although addressing situations where function and

dysfunction occurred simultaneously, lacked a feminist sensibility [Holmwood, 2005:103],

although I repeat this was likely a product of the desire for social order.

Postmodernism, as theory, is critical of claims of objectivity. Therefore the idea of grand theory

that can explain society in all its forms is treated with skepticism at the very least. This critique is

important because it exposes the danger that grand theory can pose, when not seen as a limited

perspective, as one way of understanding society.

Jeffrey Alexander (1985) sees functionalism as a broad school rather than a specific method or

system, such as Parson's, which is capable of taking equilibrium (stability) as a reference-point

rather than assumption and treats structural differentiation as a major form of social change. "The

name 'functionalism' implies a difference of method or interpretation that does not exist." (Davis

1967: 401) This removes the determinism criticized above. Cohen argues that rather than needs a

society has dispositional facts: features of the social environment that support the existence of

particular social institutions but do not cause them. (ibid)

ESTRUCTURALISMO. SOCIOLOGA.

Pero la desaparicin de los socilogos clsicos en torno a la 1 Guerra mundial produce fuerte

impacto en la Sociologa, que logra recuperarse con dificultad en los aos siguientes. En 1937 se

publica una importante obra de carcter sistemtico, La estructura de la accin social de Talcott

Parsons, que no slo recupera el trmino estructura, sino que contribuye muy eficazmente, junto

con antroplogos y economistas, a que el trmino se generalice rpidamente en la literatura

cientfica contempornea, ya que no slo las disciplinas que se ocupan de la Naturaleza, sino

tambin la Filosofa y las ciencias humanas y sociales como la Biologa, la Antropologa, la


17/20

Psicologa, el Derecho, la Poltica y, especialmente, la Economa, han incorporado los conceptos y

la metodologa estructural (v. t).

Diversas acepciones. No obstante, a la frecuencia en el uso del trmino no ha correspondido la

uniformidad en la definicin del concepto (v. ESTRUCTURA).

Anlisis del concepto. Parece metodolgicamente necesario intentar definir con independencia

los conceptos, de acuerdo con la naturaleza de los fenmenos que corresponden a cada ciencia.

En relacin con el concepto estructura social es necesario descubrir en el proceso cientfico

anterior las races de una posible uniformidad bsica. En efecto, del anlisis comparativo de losgrandes sistemas sociolgicos y de las investigaciones empricas ms importantes se puede

concluir que existe una zona de convergencia entre los socilogos, que puede condensarse en los

siguientes postulados o caractersticas:

1) El concepto de estructura social es macrosociolgico y objetivo, es decir, hace referencia a la

sociedad (v.) como conjunto unitario y a ciertos elementos que la constituyen al margen de la

existencia individual de sus miembros. 2) Los elementos que integran la estructura social son

radicales desde el punto de vista analtico, esto es, aparecen en la literatura sobre el tema de

cuadros ltimos de referencia en la explicacin positiva de los fenmenos sociales. 3) Son

relativamente estables: como la sociedad misma, se renuevan y transforman, pero manifiestan

histricamente cierta lentitud en sus cambios que permiten distinguirlos de otros ms episdicos y

transitorios, conocidos en la literatura sobre el tema como cambios coyunturales. 4) Diferencian

objetivamente a la sociedad, agrupando a los individuos y grupos en grandes conjuntos

homogneos al margen de su advertencia y de su voluntariedad. De la misma manera que

determinados rasgos psicolgicos configuran la estructura de la personalidad y permiten a los

psiclogos crear ciertas tipologas que ayudan a la investigacin ulterior del psiquismo humano, y

el predominio de ciertos modelos valorativos configura y distingue unas reas culturales de otras,

los elementos que integran las estructuras sociales crean ciertas semejanzas y diferencias entre

individuos que los equiparan socialmente y que pueden ser o no conocidas por los mismos

interesados. 5) Los elementos estructurales se imponen socialmente y condicionan el

comportamiento.


18/20

Condicionamiento social y funcionalidad de la estructura. Algunos socilogos incorporan el

concepto de posicin status (v.), al concepto de estructura social, y definen a sta como la red de

posiciones sociales interconexas (Merton) o como una fotografa posicionel de la sociedad (S.

F. Nadel), empleando el trmino status en el sentido jurdico-cultural de Linton. Sin embargo, este

trmino tiene otra significacin ms profunda y asptica, que se refiere no a lo que el hombre

debe hacer en una situacin dada de acuerdo con el sistema de valores, las expectativas sociales olas reglamentaciones del Derecho, sino a lo que efectivamente puede hacer en orden a su

promocin, comportamiento, educacin y forma de vida en general. Segn esto, la estructura

social se impone en cuanto ofrece a cada individuo determinadas posibilidades de situarse en una

posicin y de actuar despus en un mbito reducido o amplio, de acuerdo con la naturaleza de la

posicin ocupada. Esta determinacin de posibilidades, de colocacin y de accin, constituyen la

forma ms originaria y radical de condiciona miento social, pero no se identifica con

determinismo; slo permite inferir que en un contorno estructural dado surgirn muy

probablemente comportamientos sociales uniformes, esto es, que a posiciones socialmente

uniformes accedern personas que encuentran oportunidades semejantes de ascensin y que, una

vez situadas en ellas, se comportarn muy probablemente de manera similar.

Por ltimo, como sexta caracterstica, los elementos que integran la estructura son

interfuncionales, ejercen funciones objetivas, semiautomticas y observables. La funcionalidad de

la estructura no tiene carcter teleolgico, ni es de suyo buena ni mala; constituye su proyeccin

dinmica sobre la sociedad y no puede calificarse de buena o mala, til o daosa por referencia a

criterios culturales de orden tico o jurdico.

Estas caractersticas, inducidas del anlisis comparativo de la literatura sociolgica sobre el

tema, permiten identificar las estructuras que se configuran histricamente segn las

circunstancias de espacio y tiempo. En las sociedades primitivas, la estructura social consiste en el

sistema de parentesco, como ensean con absoluta uniformidad G. P. Murdock, A. R. Radcliffe-

Brown, R. Firth, C. LviStrauss y dems antroplogos contemporneos. En las modernas

sociedades de Occidente, el sistema de parentesco ha perdido importancia estructural y se ha

visto reemplazado por sistemas industriales, econmicos y polticos nuevos, que no es posible

detallar aqu.

En sntesis, la estructura social puede formularse en un concepto inducido histricamente del

proceso cientfico y de la evolucin de las sociedades de Occidente, diciendo que es el conjunto

articulado de elementos reales coextensivos a la sociedad, radicales desde el punto de vista

analtico y relativamente estables, que la diferencian objetivamente, se imponen a los individuos y

grupos, condicionan su comportamiento y son interfuncionales. Los elementos o variables que

integran la estructura de las sociedades industrializadas de Occidente son los cuadros bsicos


19/20

ocupacionales-industriales, econmicos, polticos y, en algunas sociedades, los jerrquico-polticos

u otros.

Histricamente, la estructura social tiene dos dimensiones, espacio y tiempo, y de acuerdo con

las caractersticas que ofrece la sociedad total, los sistemas culturales y la personalidad bsica

nacional.

V. t.: SOCIEDAD 1 Y 11.

BIBL.: Adems de la citada en el texto: E. ROSE, The English Record o/ a Natural Sociology,

American Sociological Review, 25, 1960, 193 ss.; F. SNCHEz LPEZ, Sociologa de la accin,

Madrid 1964, 107 ss.; M. L. LEvY, The Structure o/ Society, Princeton, 1959; B. BARBER, The

Structural-Functional Analysis, American Sociological Review, 21, 1956, 129 ss.; R. K. MERTON,

Teora y estructura sociales, Mxico 1964, 369 ss.; S. F. NADEL, The Theory ol Social Structure,

Londres 1957, 154; G. P. MURDOCK, Social Structure, Nueva York 1949; A. R. RADCLIFFE-BROWN,

Structure and Function in Primitive Society, Londres 1952; F. SNCHEz LPEz, La estructura social,

2 ed. Madrid 1968.

Structuralism is an intellectual movement that developed in France in the 1950s and 1960s, in

which human culture is analysedsemiotically(i.e., as asystem of signs).

Structuralism in anthropology and sociology

Main article: Structural anthropology

According to structural theory in anthropology and social anthropology, meaning is produced and

reproduced within a culture through various practices, phenomena and activities that serve as

systems of signification. A structuralist approach may study activities as diverse as food-

preparation and serving- rituals, religious rites, games, literary and non-literary texts, and other

forms of entertainment to discover the deep structures by which meaning is produced and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semiotichttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semiotichttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semiotichttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sign_(semiology)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sign_(semiology)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sign_(semiology)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sign_(semiology)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semiotic


20/20

reproduced within the culture. For example, an early and prominent practitioner of structural

anthropology, anthropologist and ethnographer Claude Lvi-Strauss, analyzed in the 1950s

cultural phenomena including mythology, kinship (the alliance theory and the incest taboo), and

food preparation. In addition to these studies, he produced more linguistically-focused writings in

which he applied Saussure's distinction between langue and parole in his search for the

fundamental structures of the human mind, arguing that the structures that form the "deepgrammar" of society originate in the mind and operate in us unconsciously. Lvi-Strauss took

inspiration from information theory and mathematics[citation needed].

Another concept utilised in structual anthropology came from the Prague school of linguistics,

where Roman Jakobson and others analyzed sounds based on the presence or absence of certain

features (such as voiceless vs. voiced). Lvi-Strauss included this in his conceptualization of the

universal structures of the mind, which he held to operate based on pairs of binary oppositions

such as hot-cold, male-female, culture-nature, cooked-raw, or marriageable vs. tabooed women.

A third influence came from Marcel Mauss (18721950), who had written on gift-exchange

systems. Based on Mauss, for instance, Lvi-Strauss argued that kinship systems are based on the

exchange of women between groups (a position known as 'alliance theory') as opposed to the

'descent' based theory described by Edward Evans-Pritchard and Meyer Fortes. While replacing

Marcel Mauss at his Ecole Pratique des Hautes Etudes chair, Lvi-Strauss' writing became widely

popular in the 1960s and 1970s and gave rise to the term "structuralism" itself.

In Britain authors such as Rodney Needham and Edmund Leach were highly influenced by

structuralism. Authors such as Maurice Godelier and Emmanuel Terray combined Marxism with

structural anthropology in France. In the United States, authors such as Marshall Sahlins and

James Boon built on structuralism to provide their own analysis of human society. Structural

anthropology fell out of favour in the early 1980s for a number of reasons. D'Andrade suggests

that this was because it made unverifiable assumptions about the universal structures of the

human mind. Authors such as Eric Wolf argued that political economy and colonialism should be at

the forefront of anthropology. More generally, criticisms of structuralism by Pierre Bourdieu led to

a concern with how cultural and social structures were changed by human agency and practice, a

trend which Sherry Ortner has referred to as 'practice theory'.

Some anthropological theorists, however, while finding considerable fault with Lvi-Strauss's

version of structuralism, did not turn away from a fundamental structural basis for human culture.

The Biogenetic Structuralism group for instance argued that some kind of structural foundation for

culture must exist because all humans inherit the same system of brain structures. They proposeda kind of Neuroanthropology which would lay the foundations for a more complete scientific

account of cultural similarity and variation by requiring an integration of cultural anthropology and

neurosciencea program that theorists such as Victor Turner also embraced.

Documento Apoyo Funcionalismo Estructuralismo

Documents

Transcript of Documento Apoyo Funcionalismo Estructuralismo