9 Structural- functionalism: Radcliffe Brown

Minakshi Gogoi

Contents

Introduction

1. British School of Structural Functionalism

1.1 Alfred Reginald Radcliffe-Brown’s Concept of Social Structure

1.2 S.F. Nadel

1.3 E.R. Leach

1.4 Raymond Firth’s Views on Structure-function

2. American School of Structural Functionalism 2.1 Talcott Parsons

2.2 Robert K. Merton

2.3 Kluckhohn

3. French School of Structural Functionalism: 3.1 Émile Durkheim

3.2 Levi-Strauss

Learning Outcomes

To develop an understanding about structural functionalism
To know about different schools of thought of structural functionalism
To know the contribution of different pioneers to the concept
To critically analyze to concept

Introduction

Structural Functionalism is a sociological theory that attempts to explain why society functions the way it does by focusing on the relationships between the various social institutions that makes up society (e.g., government, law, education, religion etc.)

Structural Functionalism is a theoretical understanding of society that puts social systems as the collective means to fill society’s needs. In order for social life to survive and develop in society there are a number of activities that need to be carried out to ensure that certain needs are fulfilled. In the structural functionalist model, individuals produce necessary goods and services in various institutions and roles that correlate with the norms of the society. Thus, one of the key ideas in Structural Functionalism is that society is made-up of groups or institutions, which are cohesive, share common norms, and have a definitive culture.

Gender inequality offers a good illustration. According to Structural Functionalist thought, a woman being subordinate to men allows the cogs of society to function smoothly as everyone in the society knows his or her respective positions in the hierarchy. The implication, of course, is that, because society is functioning smoothly with gender stratification, such stratification is acceptable and efforts should not be made to change the arrangement. This example illustrates that Structural Functionalism is generally seen as being supportive of the status quo.

Malinowski and Radcliffe Brown developed the concept of synchronic functional analysis of culture which was concerned with present and now. In their view the purpose of comparison was to explore socio-cultural institutions of present day societies in terms of their socio-cultural similarities.

Radcliffe-Brown who had used the term function earlier than Malinowski was not ready to accept Malinowski, who claimed himself as the father of functionalism on the basis of theory of need for which culture, either in past or at present was functional instrument. Radcliffe-Brown put great emphasis upon distinguishing on the structural function from the function of Malinowski and others. According to Brown the only acceptable definition of function was, ‘the contribution an institution makes to the maintenance of social structure”. The gap in opinions of Radcliffe-Brown and Malinowski become so wider that Brown and his associates established a separate school of thought known as Structural-Functional School of Anthropological thought. As the concepts of structure become wedded with function, this school is also known as Structural Functional school. The Structural Functional Theory also got acceptance in America by the sociologist and anthropologists, while in French, Emile Durkheim and Levi Strauss developed Structural-Functional theory to a great extent.

Structural Functional School is divided into three main groups, namely, British School of Structural Functionalism, American School of Structural Functionalism and French School of Structuralism. The names of contributors of Structural Functionalism School of Anthropology are given below:

STRUCTURAL FUNCTIONAL SCHOOL OF ANTHROPOLOGY

The concept of structure and function was first given by Herbert Spencer in his book, Principles of Sociology (1885, Vol.1), where he talked about fundamental similarities between ‘organism’ and ‘society’. He treated society as integrated order of parts like an organism in which parts are interrelated and integrated in order to provide the structure of that particular society. These different unites of the society contribute valuable functions as a integrated whole for the existence of society and maintenance of social order. This view of Spencer had made him structural functionalist.

The concept of structure and function also appeared in the writings of Emile Durkheim, French anthropologists in his book entitled “Division of Labour” (1893) and in the Roles of Sociological Method (1895). Durkheim is of the view that structural unites of society such as family, political, religion, kinship, economic organization contribute valuable functions for maintaining the order of the society. The term social structure is defined by many anthropologists and sociologists.

According to the sociologist Talcott Parsons, “Social Structure is a term applied to particular arrangement of interrelated institutions, agencies and social patterns as well as status and roles which each person assumes in the group” (1951:89).

Anthropologist Radcliffe-Brown the chief pioneer of British School of Structural Functionalism, opines that “components of social structure are human beings, the structure itself being an arrangement of persons in relationship institutionally defined and regulated” (1950:82).

1. British School of Structural Functionalism

1.1 Alfred Reginald Radcliffe-Brown’s Concept of Social Structure:

The concept of social structure and its functional features has been described by Radcliffe-Brown in his book “Structure and Function in Primitive Society” (1952). According to him the concept of structure refers to an arrangement of parts related to one another in some sort of larger unity. For instance, the structure of a house reveals the arrangement of walls, roofs, rooms, passage, windows, etc. In social structure the ultimate components are the arrangements of persons in relation to each other. For instance, in a village arrangements of persons into families are found, which is again a structural features. For example, in a family, we find mother, brother, sister, uncle, aunt etc.

Structural Features of Social Life: According to A.R. Radcliffe-Brown, the structural features of social life as follows:

Existence of social group: social structure consists of all kinds of social groups like family, clan, moieties, social sanction, totemic group, social classes, caste group, kinship system etc. The inter relations among these groups constitute the core of the social structural phenomenon.
Internal structure of the group: these groups have specific internal structure. For example, a family consists with the relations of father, mother and their children.
Arrangement into social classes: these groups are arranged into social classes and categories. For example, the economic classes in the Western societies and the castes in the Indian societies.
Social Distinctions: there is social distinction between different classes which is based on sex, economic distinctions, and authority and caste distinctions. For example, in India there is social distinction between the Brahmins and Shudras.
Arrangement of persons in dyadic relationship: an example of dyadic relationship is person to person relationship like master and servant.
Interaction between groups and persons: interaction between persons can be seen in social processes involving co-operation, conflict, accommodations etc. while the interaction between groups can be seen while nation goes to war with another nation.

Types of Social Structure: According to Radcliffe-Brown the importance of social institution is that social structure is the arrangement of persons which is controlled and defined by institutions. There are two types of models of studying social structure i.e. actual social structure and general social structure. ‘Actual social structure’ according to Brown, the relationship between persons and groups change from time to time. New members come into being through immigration or by birth, while others go out of it by death and migration. Besides this, there are marriages and divorces whereby the members change in several times. Thus, actual social structure remains changes in many times. On the other hand, in general social structure, remain relatively constant for a long time. For instance, if one visits the a village and again visits that particular village after few years i.e. after 10 years later he or she finds that many members of the village have died and others have been enrolled. Now they are 10 years older who survive than the previous visit. Their relations to one another may have changed in many respects; but the general structure remains more or less same and continuing. Thus Radcliffe-Brown held the view that sometimes the structural form may change gradually or suddenly but even though the sudden changes occur the continuity of structure is maintained to a considerable extent.

Structure and Function:

Radcliffe-Brown in order to illustrate the relationship between then structures and function he again turns to biology. The structure of an organism is consists of ordered arrangements of its parts and functions of the part is to interrelate the structure of an organism. Similarly, social structure is ordered arrangement of persons and groups. The functions of persons are to the structure of society and social organism. In fact, social function is the inter-connections between social structure and social life. Social structure is not to be studied by considering the nature of individual members of group, but by examining the arrangement of functions that make society persistent. He further points out that the relationships of parts of an organism to one another are not static. The whole point about an organism is that if the organism is alive so that study of its structure-the relationship of parts, must be activated by a study of its functioning of processes by which its structure is maintained. In all types of organisms, other than the dead ones structure and function are logically lined. Thus, structure and function are logically linked and structure and function support each other and necessary for each other’s continuity.

The social life of a community can be defined as the functioning of social structure. For example, the function of recurrent activity such as punishment of crime or a funeral ceremony is the part it plays in social life as a whole and therefore makes contributions to the maintenance of structural continuity.

According to Radcliffe-Brown, the importance of differentiation between structure and function is that it can be applied to the study of both of continuity in forms of social life and of processes of change. He is of the opinion that similar things may have different meanings in different cultures and also that different things may have similar functions. Although they have individual meaning and functions, they have a comparable social function at all.

Radcliffe-Brown’s Structural Functional Law: Radcliffe-Brown is of the opinion that law is a necessary condition of continued existence. According to Radcliffe-Brown generalization about any sort of subject matter are of two types:

Generalizations of common opinion
Generalizations that have been demonstrated by a systematic examination of evidence afforded by precise observations systematically made. This particular type of generalization is also called as scientific law.

Criticism of Radcliffe-Brown’s Structural Functionalism:

The structural and functional approach of Radcliffe-Brown’ has been subjected to a very great criticism. Some of them are useful and some of them are useless. The major criticisms are discussed briefly:

According to some critics, it is wrong to look at society as a living organism because the structure of the living organism does not change, but the society does?
There is an error arising from the assuming that one’s abstraction of a social situation reflects social reality in all details.
According to this approach, the functions of unites of society are determined. The analysis is done on the basis of imagination, in the absence of any concrete cases.
I this approach the explanations are technological where the function has been used in terms of purpose.
Structural functionalism believes in static in place of dynamic; but it does not deal with the changes.
This approach mainly supports capitalism and the ruling class leading to the exploitation of the people to be ruled.
Structural functionalism creates suspicion between cause and function. It does not reveal any differentiation between the result of the behavior and their causes.
This approach treat social order as an integrated whole; a situation sometimes arises where society can be seen in state of imbalance and disequilibrium.
This structural functionalism is value biased; that often tries to show if the purpose were kept in arrangement of order.

Although the structural functionalism approach of Radcliffe-Brown has been criticized in many respects, yet this approach has some significant features from many respects. Some of them are as follows:

This approach provides a foundation of knowledge and law by which the social behavior can be controlled.
Structural functionalism approach of Radcliffe-Brown gives a conceptual frame work through which the observations and explanations of social events is scientifically possible.
This approach builds some theories and principles by which social facts can easily be explained.

There are also other contributors of British School of Structural Functionalism. The views of this

British Structural Functionalism are as follows:

1.2 S.F. Nadel: Nadel developed the theory of social structure in his book “The Theory of Social Structure” (1957). According to Nadel “we arrive at the structure of society through abstracting from the concrete population and its behavior that pattern or network or system of relationships obtaining between actors in their capacity of playing roles relative to one another” (Nadel, 1957:12)

According to him, there are three elements of society:

A group of people
Institutionalized rules according to which the members of the group interact
An institutionalized pattern or expression of these interaction

The institutionalized rules do not change easily, but determine the status and roles of the individuals. Among these roles and status, there is an order which provide an ordered arrangement of human beings.

1.3 E.R. Leach: He was a British Social Anthropologist who dealt with the change without abandoning the useful notions of structure and function.

Leach, in his book entitled “Political System of Highland Burma” (1954), proposed a creative solution by considering conflict itself as a form of structure. In social system of Highland Burma area, individuals are presented with inconsistencies in the schemes of values, by which they ordered their lives. Thus, they face the alternate mode of actions. For him, the functionalism becomes dynamic and diachronic.

1.4 Raymond Firth’s Views on Structure-function: Raymond Firth also dealt with the dynamic or diachronic functionalism like Leach. According to Firth, decisions are not made in terms of optimization of power, but according to personal evaluations of efficiency towards any given goal. These goals, are not random, but formulated by the groups and sub groups to which individuals belong. This sub groups are internally structured and interrelated with one another as well as to structure of society as a whole. For example, individual belongs to several sub groups which is determined by certain criteria of marriage, religion, class, caste, kinship, occupation, economic status etc. Membership in this groups are overlapping, conflicts in the choice of action often arises. This is because what is efficient within the framework of one individual may be detrimental for the other members of that particular group.

2. American School of Structural Functionalism:

Besides Britain, functionalism was also accepted in America. Two most influential leaders of American sociological functionalism are Talcott Parsons and Robert K. Merton. Their views are discussed below briefly.

2.1 Talcott Parsons: Talcott Parsons used the concept of function uncritically in the early writings, but he began to scrutinize the writings later on in his book named “The Social System” (1951). In this book he described four principle type of social structure.

Universalistic social values
Particularistic social values
Achieved social values
Ascribed social values

Universalistic social values are found almost in every society and which is applicable to everybody. An example of universalistic social values is an efficient craftsman who is valued by everyone for the production of cheaper and superior.

Particularistic social values are made on the basis of state, religion, caste and so on, which is varied from society to society and this particularistic social values are very important for that particular society.

In achieved social status, the status is achieved on the basis of the efforts. For example, an individual can become a present of a country by his efforts although he born in a lower caste or lower class families. Similarly, in ascribed social values the status is achieved through hereditary.

2.2 Robert K. Merton: Robert K. Merton fundamentally agreed with Parsons’ theory. Merton believed that any social structure probably has many functions; some may be more obvious than the others. Merton identified three main limitations i.e. functional unity, universal functionalism and indispensability (Gingrich, 1999). Merton criticized functional unity, saying that not all parts of a modern complex society work for the functional unity of society. Consequently, there is a social dysfunction referred to as any social pattern that may disrupt the operation of society (Macionis, 2011). Some institutions and structures may have other functions and some may generally be dysfunctional. This is because of the reason that not all structures are functional for society as a whole. According to Merton there are two types of functions as follows:

In the “manifest functions” a social pattern can trigger a recognized and intended consequence.
In the “latent functions”, a social pattern results in an unrecognized or unintended consequence.

Defining manifest and latent functions, Merton says that, “Manifest functions are those objective subsequences controlling to the adjustment or adaptation of the system, which are intended and recognized by participants in the system. Latent functions being those which are neither intended nor recognized” (Merton, 1957:63).

2.3 Kluckhohn: According to Kluckhohn function is”…a given bit of culture is functional in so far as it defines a mode of response, which is adaptive from the stand point of the individual”. Later Kluckhohn became dissatisfied with his functional theory because it dealt with the structure but not dealt with the processes.

3. French School of Structural Functionalism:

3.1 Émile Durkheim: He was concerned with the question of how certain societies maintain internal stability and survive over time. He proposed that such societies tend to be segmented, with equivalent parts held together by shared values, common symbols or, as his nephew Marcel Mauss held, systems of exchanges. Durkheim used the term ‘mechanical solidarity’ to refer to these types of “social bonds based on common sentiments & shared moral values that are strong among members of pre-industrial societies” (Macionis, 2011). In modern, complex societies, members perform very different tasks, resulting in a strong interdependence. Based on the metaphor above of an organism in which many parts function together to sustain the whole, Durkheim argued that complex societies are held together by ‘organic solidarity’, i.e. “social bonds, based on specialization and interdependence, that are strong among members of industrial societies” (Macionis, 2011).

3.2 Levi-Strauss: He applied structuralism more broadly to all forms of communication. Levi-Strauss notion of communication structure forms a bridge between Radcliffe-Brown’s functioning structure and the notion of transaction. The processes which active social structure can be seen as communication of people, goods, service, ideas and so on. This communication operates according to rules. Thus the activities which constitute social communication are structured.

you can view video on Structural- functionalism: Radcliffe Brown

Suggested Readings

Leach, E., 1954: Political System of Higland Burma. Boston: Beacon Press.
Levi-Strauss, C. 1949: Elementary Structure of Kinship. Paris.
Levi-Strauss, C. 1963: Structural Anthropology. New York: Basic book.
Parsons, T., 1937: The Structure of Social Action. New York: Free Press.