# data[].attributes.body
Functionalist theories have contributed to anthropology to explain why institutions play an important role in keeping society satisfied with its needs. Functionalists also argue that if the needs of individuals are met then the needs of society will also be met. It studies the relationship between the individual and the bigger entity of a society. Organic analogy is often used to understand functionalism through the different parts of a society interacting together in order to maintain order and to ensure proper functioning.  Bronislaw Malinowski studied the theory of psychological functionalism, which he published in his book Argonauts of the Western Pacific.  This theory focuses on the individuals rather than society as a whole whereas Radcliffe-Brown studied structural functionalism, that focuses on society as a whole and not the individuals that make it up.

# data[].attributes.body
1. Identify three strengths of Functionalist Theory?

Well the main thing is that it promotes the fact that society is structured and organised relationship in terms of rules

When we look from the point of an anthropologist, the SFT is great for building theories that envision society as a complex system that works together to promote the wellbeing of all

The SFT values consensus and working together, this brings system, order, and stability to societies.

2. What are the differences between manifest and latent functions, and why is this differentiation important in anthropology?

Manifest functions are conscious, deliberate and beneficial

Latent functions ones the unconscious, unintended and beneficial

3. Why do Structural functionalists believe crime and deviance could be good for society?

"Crime brings together upright consciences and concentrates them." - Durkheim

4. Identify three main weaknesses of functionalist theory, justifying each choice?

It over-emphasizes the consensus that exists in society. I think that the justification of this is clear - sometimes it is better to have a not working society, rather than society that is decided about something bad

Something what I don’t like about SFT is that it basically puts societies on the same level as organisms, and personally I don’t think that because there is such a similarity, it should mean that all people should behave in the same way to promote a group. And then, the main weakness in my eyes are the Parsons five lines of defence against deviance, as I strongly believe that society is made to benefit individuals and not to benefit itself or its structure and by punishment or death (!!) no one benefits from it.

Some functionalists have problem explaining social change - because their theory is based on the fact that is society exists to fulfil needs, then when needs are met, they believe that there is no need to change, which clearly goes against the culture change theory and it proves that it’s wrong because every each culture - and society - keeps changing.

# data[].attributes.body
Functionalist contribution to anthropology

The Social-functionalist theory was a new point on Anthropology and on the study of societies that was made by Bronislaw Malinowski, the difference in this approach is that Malinowski completely lost all love for individuals and he rather build his theory on the structure of a society than agency, or before mentioned individualists. In his book, Argonauts of the Western Pacific (Malinowski, 1922) he explains the contribution, social activity makes to a society and focuses on the concept that as humans, we mostly work in systems of rules. Moreover, he says that institutions, set of rules regulations, norms and expectations, are in fact made to meet certain requirements of a society. Furthermore, in his book he states that individual and group behaviour, in most of the cases, serves a function for larger society and vice versa, institutions are made for individuals to help them in living in coherence with the society and with themselves.

# data[].attributes.body
1. Strengths of functionalist theory

Functionalism explains how society is maintained by individuals
Each society has functional subsystems, or institutions, which supports the interdependency of each and the benefiting of individuals, as long as the group is benefited.
Functionalism is based on Unit Act, meaning actors in a social space work towards an end goal, which will benefit the larger society.
2. As stated by Robert Merton, there are dysfunctions of society. Manifest functions are intended consequences, while latent functions are unintentionally brought upon by social events. The differences of these terms is important because not everything is done with a positive end goal in mind. Not everything is always in control of humans, thus outcomes are not always as they were intended. Social conflict may cause some sort of disadvantage.
3. Durkheim is one anthropologist who suggests that crime and deviance may be good for society. He once stated, “Crime brings together upright consciences and concentrates them." In order for normalization and conformity to occur, outliers must unify to ensure an adaptable community. Parsons also discussed deviance and social injustice as an inevitable part of society.
4. Weaknesses of functionalist theory
Functionalism may be too idealistic because individuals conform to the socially wants and needs of society.
Functionalists are optimistic that leaders will always have the best domestic interests in mind, yet the needs of individuals may not always be met.
The term functionalism is quite broad and easily related to any topic of anthropology, making the definition too easily contorted to different studies, questioning the validity of the theory.

# data[].attributes.body
1. Identify three strengths of Functionalist Theory.

Functionalist theory provides an easily understood overview on a society and explains in detail how all institutions in a culture works together towards a common goal through the Unity Act.

It is holistic rather than atomistic point of view.

The relationship between the actor and the society is explained in great detail. The biological and psychological needs of the actor can only be met by society, which is why actors cooperate towards the common goal of the Unity Act.

2. What are the differences between manifest and latent functions, and why is this differentiation important in anthropology?

Manifest functions have a clear intention to reach a goal while latent functions reaches a goal unintentionally. It is important to anthropologists to be able to distinguish which functions the actors are aware of, and which they aren’t aware of. In anthropology, the latent functions are studied in depth as these are the functions that brings social cohesion to the society.

3. Why do Structural functionalists believe crime and deviance could be good for society?

Emile Durkheim is an example of a functional anthropologist who studied crime and deviance. According to Durkheim, total social integration can never be enforced, thus crime is inevitable. Deviance from the norms has a positive consequence as it keeps the society flexible and adaptable. Crime questions the ideals, norms and goals of the society which is important in order to keep the culture a subject of change.

4. Identify three main weaknesses of functionalist theory, justifying each choice?

Functionalism focuses too little on the individual needs of the actors, and assumes that all actors in a society will have the same goals. The Unity Act is thus faulty as goals won’t always be united.

In a society, it is difficult to maintain the power order between different institutions, which disturbs the order of the functionalism. The political institution might, for example, have a lot more power than the religious institution in a society. Every institution might also be valued differently in the eyes of each individual actor.

Works well in theory, but worse in practice. For functionalism to work, the society, the actors and all of the institutions needs to uphold great order at all times. Everything that occurs in the society has to be for the sake of “the greater good.” In this way, the theory is a bit idealistic.

# data[].attributes.body
Functionalist theories contribute a reason for maintaining the major institutions of a society as a whole. These institutions, including nuclear family, politics, economics, religion, community, and family, all cooperate in order to form social progress. If the social needs of the entire society are met, then those of the individual should also be met. Functionalism explains the interdependence of a community. In anthropology, there are multiple forms of functionalist theories. Bronislaw Malinowski studied the theory of psychological functionalism, as published in Argonauts of the Western Pacific, in which the each society focuses on the states of the individual. Radcliffe-Brown studied structural functionalism, in which the individuals work to maintain the whole. Another sociologist, Durkheim studied the functionalist theory of religions in his 1912 publication of The Element Forms of Religious Life.

# data[].attributes.body
1. Identify three strengths of Functionalist Theory?

It has a detailed observation of the structure and relationships in a society.

It provides an explanation for the actions/functions of a society

It showcases a society as a orderly and complex system, a good perspective for study.

2. What are the differences between manifest and latent functions, and why is this differentiation important in anthropology?

Manifest functions have intended, conscious, deliberate and beneficial, consequences where as latent functions unconscious, unintended yet beneficial for the society. The differentiation is important since it allows anthropologist to determine to what extent a society understands the impacts of its actions.

3. Why do Structural functionalists believe crime and deviance could be good for society?

They believe that crime brings the society together in a unified action to create a consequence deemed worthy/necessary to maintain order and conformity to its norms and practices.

4. Identify three main weaknesses of functionalist theory, justifying each choice?

It assumes idealistically that all societies do have functions for all its actions, its provides a very tidy picture of cooperative social life. This weakness given its ideal and to some extent immature assumption, makes the theory less valid.

# data[].attributes.body
The functionalist ethnographers provided a different point of view in the the anthropological study of cultures and societies. The two main theories, in the British functionalism, were Bronislaw Malinowki's theory of theory of physiological functionalism where he stated that the most fundamental requirement of each societal institution is to see that the basic physiological need of its people is met and A.R. Radcliffe Brown's theory of structural functionalism, where he believes/states that every institution in a society contributes to the overall social totality. To put it into perspective, Malinowski would state that a funeral meets the psychological needs of the individual, whereas Browne would state that a funeral creates social solidarity of the participant group.Thus, in essense, Browne, Malinowki and other functionalist analysed the society, as the name suggests, through the functions of its activities.

# data[].attributes.body
Functionalists contribute to anthropology through a holistic viewpoint on society and the institutions it consists of. It focuses on the structure rather than the agency in the society, and individualism is not prioritized. To functionalists, all parts of society work together in order to promote stability, solidarity, and order. Bronislaw Malinowski(Agronounts of the Western Pacific, 1922) is a functionalist anthropologist who studied the psychological function that this viewpoint promoted. When it comes to institutions, Malinowski believed that functionalism provided the actors with psychological reliefs such as less anxiety or worry about the future. In this way, society as a whole meets the needs of the actor.

# data[].attributes.body
1. Identify three strengths of Functionalist Theory?
2. What are the differences between manifest and latent functions, and why is this differentiation important in anthropology?3. Why do Structural functionalists believe crime and deviance could be good for society?
4. Identify three main weaknesses of functionalist theory, justifying each choice?

# data[].attributes.headline
Task One: Annotate Handout with Comments

# data[].attributes.subject
Task One: Annotate Handout with Comments

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Create a new document and edit with others at the same time -- from your computer, phone or tablet. Get stuff done with or without an internet connection. Use Docs to edit Word files. Free from Google.

# data[].attributes.body
Website Link Functionalism

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Functionalism is -

1. An ethnographic methodology distinctive of cultural anthropology.

2. A historical school of anthropology (also known as British school).

4. A philosophy of social sciences in the Anglo-American philosophical tradition.

Underlying functionalist theory is the fundamental metaphor of the living organism, its several parts and organs, grouped and organized into a system, the function of the various parts and organs being to sustain the organism, to keep its essential processes going and enable it to reproduce.

In trying to legitimate the new discipline of sociology, Auguste Comte (1830-1842, 1851-1854) revived analogies made by the Greeks and, closer to his time, by Hobbes and Rousseau that society is a kind of organism. In so doing, Comte effectively linked sociology with the prestige of biological science. For functional theory, then, society is like a biological organism that grows, and as a consequence, its parts can be examined with respect to how they operate (or function) to maintain the viability of the body social as it grows and develops. Functionalist analyses therefore, examine the social significance of phenomena, that is, the purpose they serve a particular society in maintaining the whole (Jarvie 1973). As Comte emphasized (1851-1854, p. 239), there is a ''true correspondence between Statistical Analysis of the Social Organism in Sociology, and that of the Individual Organism in Biology'' (1851-1854, p. 239). Moreover, Comte went so far as to ''decompose structure anatomically into elements, tissues, and organs'' (1851- 1854, p. 240) and to ''treat the Social Organism as definitely composed of the Families which are the true elements or cells, next the Classes or Castes which are its proper tissues, and lastly, of the cities and Communes which are its real organs'' (pp. 211-212). Yet, since these analogies were not systematically pursued by Comte, his main contribution was to give sociology its name and to reintroduce organismic reasoning into the new science of society.

Spencer used the organismic analogy to create an explicit form of functional analysis. Drawing upon materials from his monumental The Principles of Biology (1864-1867), Spencer's The Principles of Sociology (1874-1896) is filled with analogies between organisms and society as well as between ecological processes (variation, competition, and selection) and societal evolution (which he saw as driven by war). Spencer did not see society as an actual organism; rather, he conceptualized ''superorganic systems'' (organization of organisms) as revealing certain similarities in their ''principles of arrangement'' to biological organisms (1874-1896, part 2, pp. 451-462). In so doing, he introduced the notion of ''functional requisites'' or ''needs,'' thereby creating functionalism. For Spencer, there were three basic requisites of superorganic systems: (1) the need to secure and circulate resources, (2) the need to produce usable substances, and (3) the need to regulate, control, and administer system activities (1874-1896, part 2, p. 477). Thus, any pattern of social organization reveals these three classes of functional requisites, and the goal of sociological analysis is to see how these needs are met in empirical social systems.

Later functionalists produced somewhat different lists of requisites. Émile Durkheim argued that sociological explanations ''must seek separately the efficient cause [of a phenomenon]-and the function it fulfills'' (1895, p. 96), but, in contrast to Spencer, he posited only one functional requisite: the need for social integration. For Durkheim, then, sociological analysis would involve assessment of the causes of phenomena and their consequences or functions for meeting the needs of social structures for integration.

The initial split between functionalists and structural functionalists began with two pioneering sociologist philosophers, viz. Herbert Spencer who adopted what is later termed as functionalism, and a second version by Emile Durkheim, later termed as structural functionalism. Two versions of functionalism developed between 1910 and 1930: biocultural (or psychological) functionalism, the approach advocated by Malinowski, and structural- functionalism, the approach advanced by Radcliffe-Brown. With Radcliffe-Brown, Malinowski pushed for a paradigm shift in British anthropology, a change from the speculative, historical to the ahistorical study of social institutions. This theoretical shift gave rise to functionalism and established fieldwork as the constitutive experience of social anthropology (Kuper 1973, Young 1991).

A functional explanation accounts for the existence of a phenomena or carrying out of an action in terms of its consequences - its contribution to maintaining a stable social whole.

Malinowski suggested that individuals have physiological needs and that social institutions develop to meet these needs. There are also culturally derived needs and four basic "instrumental needs" (economics, social control, education, and political organization), that require institutional devices. Each institution has personnel, a charter, a set of norms or rules, activities, material apparatus (technology), and a function. Malinowski believed that uniform psychological responses are correlates of physiological needs. He argued that satisfaction of these needs transformed the cultural instrumental activity into an acquired drive through psychological reinforcement (Goldschmidt 1996:510; Voget 1996:573).

Malinowski's functionalism is best discussed in relation to the Trobriand ethnography with the aid of which it was developed. One theme here was the distinction between magic, religion, and science, which Malinowski broadly took over from Frazer (1890). In this view, science was empirical, rational knowledge, while magic was reasoning from false premises, though both had instrumental purpose. Malinowski detected both in Trobriand society, a derogation from Frazer's placing of them at opposite ends of a simple evolutionary sequence that linked but did not unify different societal types. This is connected with Malinowski's further observation that while some rituals, such as healing, were means to an end, others, such as the festival of Milamala (when ancestral spirits return briefly from Tuma, the next world), were not. Further, the Trobrianders could give a clear reason for the former, but could only refer the latter to "custom." This also appears to be the distinction between magic and religion for Malinowski, though he also grouped them together as being miraculous, mythological, and linked with emotional stress. However, this was no picture of the Trobrianders being sunk in fear and awe for most of their lives. On the contrary, Malinowski regarded them as essentially practical and rational: it was only when reason, the empirical and scientific, could no longer provide an explanation that magic and religion was resorted to. Thus a Trobriander knew how to build a canoe technologically, but to cope with the emotional stress of going on a sea voyage into the unknown he needed magic and ritual. Similarly, inshore fishing was a purely technical matter of no great consequence, but open-sea fishing required magic. Religion, on the other hand, was essentially a response to the fear of annihilation through death (cf. Milamala above), while myth was important in providing a charter for present social norms and action, especially as regards the points of tension in society (e.g., the fact that the matrilineal rule of descent in Trobriand society meant that a man had to support his sister's children as much as his own).

SYNOPTIC SURVEY OF BIOLOGICAL AND DERIVED NEEDS AND THEIR SATISFACTION IN CULTURE

(SOURCE: Malinowski's Basic Human Needs as presented in Langness 1987:80)

Malinowski's main work consists of his Trobriand ethnography, published piecemeal as a series of separate studies, each treating a different theme. The first, Argonauts of the western Pacific (1922), dealt with exchange through the Kula cycle and considerably influenced Marcel MAUSS (1954) (see SOCIAL EXCHANGE). The sexual life of savages (1929) contains his views on the family, kinship, and marriage (see also Malinowski 1930), and Coral gardens and their magic (1935) treats of the relationship between technique and ritual in Trobriand gardening. Also important is the self-explanatory collection Magic, science and religion (1948). The early The family among the Australian Aborigines (1913) is an application of Westermarck's theories of the FAMILY to published sources on , whereas the posthumously published collection A scientific theory of culture (1944) is more explicitly theoretical. Mention should also be made of Malinowski's personal diaries (1967) from the years he was in the field, which were published posthumously by his second wife without his authority. They give considerable insight into his state of mind in this period and are frequently shocking because of his unsympathetic attitude toward the people with whom he was living, which is quite at variance with his published writings.

Structural functionalism is one type of consensus theory it posits that society is based on mutual agreements. It sees the creation and maintenance of shared values and norms as crucial to society, and views social change as a slow, orderly process. Examples of prominent consensus theorists include Auguste Comte, Émile Durkheim, Radcliffe-Brown, Talcott Parsons, and Robert Merton. These theories stand in contrast to conflict theories, such as those of Karl Marx, that view the world as based on a system of oppressive hierarchies, social order at the whim of dominant groups, and social change as rapid and disorderly resulting from struggles between groups.

Although he had published The Structure of Social Action in 1937, it was not until The Social System (1951) and Towards a General Theory of Action (1951) were completed that Talcott Parsons (1902-1979) emerged as the most inﬂuential contributor to structural functionalism. There are important differences in Parsons's major writings, but constant throughout his career was the ambition to formulate a systematic general theory that he described as "... a conceptual scheme for the analysis of social systems in terms of the action frame of reference" (Parsons 1951: 3). For Parsons, the fundamental starting point for constructing any scientiﬁ c theory is to establish an abstract frame of reference. In the scientiﬁ c study of social action, the empirical basis for the frame of reference is a group of interacting individuals (social actors). Social actors have particular goals that they wish to achieve, and to realize those goals they must take advantage of opportunities (means) that are available under a particular set of conditions (situations). Parsons was clear that none of these elements can be reduced to the others, and he sought to formulate an action frame of reference for the study of social action that was capable of accounting for the individual and situational factors motivating people to act in the ways that they do.

He answered this question from the viewpoint of structural functionalism and outlined what he believed are its major tenets:

(5) systems create and maintain boundaries separating them from their environments;

(6) allocation and integration are necessary for a system to reach a certain state of equilibrium; and

(7)systems will tend toward self-maintenance by maintaining their boundaries, the interdependent relationship among parts, and the relationship between parts and the whole; by controlling variations in the environment; and by controlling tendencies of the system to change from within.

In addition to structures, Parsons was also concerned with functions. Parsons saw functions as those activities that had the goal of fulfilling a need of the system. He believed that there were four necessary functional imperatives of all systems: [A] adaptation (how a system copes with its outside environment by both adapting to it and by adapting the environment to meet the needs of the system), [G] goal attainment (the definition and achievement of the primary goals of the system), [I] integration (how the system regulates the relationship of its various parts as well as the relationship among the other three functional imperatives), and [L] latency, or pattern maintenance (how the system provides, maintains, and rejuvenates the motivation of individuals and the cultural patterns that stimulate and maintain that motivation). These functional imperatives are known as Parsons's AGIL scheme.

Functions become integrated with systems in Parsons's theory as each component of the AGIL scheme is handled by a different system. Most generally, adaptation is handled by the behavioral organism that adjusts to and transforms the outside world. Goal attainment is handled by the personality system that defines the goals of the system and mobilizes he necessary resources to reach outlined goals. Integration is done by the social system that controls the various components of the system. Latency is performed by the cultural system that provides individuals with norms and values to motivate them to action.

Merton (1910-2003) became one of Parsons's most influential collaborators in the structural functionalist orientation, but he also emerged as one of Parsons's most important critics. Merton believes that Parsons's emphasis on developing comprehensive theoretical systems did not facilitate the process of actually doing sociological research. In contrast to the abstraction and deduction that Parsons promotes, Merton argues that sociologists should work on testable and researchable hypotheses in specific situations. He also argues that sociologists should gradually develop theories from empirical evidence. What is lacking in functional analysis, insists Merton, is an integration of theory and research, a problem confounded by the failure in sociological discourse to distinguish progressively between "the history of theory" and "the systematics of theory."

Merton defined functions as those consequences that lead to the adjustment or adaptation of a system. In addition, he argued that not all functions had positive consequences and that some, in fact, were better described as dysfunctions. In addition, nonfunctions are those consequences that have no effect at all on the system. The development of dysfunctions and nonfunctions to complement the existing theory of functions led Merton to develop the idea of a net balance. A net balance is an understanding of the relative weight of functions and dysfunctions in a given system. It is more of a theoretical orientation then an empirical tool because the magnitude and evaluation of what constitutes functions and dysfunctions are highly subjective. The issue of how to study a net balance led Merton to the idea of levels of functional analysis. He argued that society did not have to be studied as a whole but those organizations, groups, and other subcomponents of society were also valid as research topics. Merton, in fact, was a proponent of "middle-range" theories. Thus, what is the net balance of those functions, and dysfunctions, at one level may well be different at another level.

Another valuable contribution of Merton to the field of structural functionalism was the idea of manifest and latent functions. Manifest functions are those that are intended, whereas latent functions are those that are unintended yet still functional for the system. Closely related to the idea of latent functions is that of unanticipated consequences, although this term encompasses not only those unintended consequences that are functional for the system but also those that are dysfunctional and nonfunctional as well. In sum Latent functions are those objective consequences of a cultural item which are neither intended nor recognized by the members of a society. Manifest functions are those objective consequences contributing to the adjustment or adaptation of the system which are intended and recognized by participants in the system (Kaplan and Manners 1972:58).

In1945, they wrote what is perhaps the best-known piece of structural functional literature on the topic of social stratification. They argued that a system of stratification is not only functional but also necessary for societies to persist and remain healthy. This idea led them to argue that a classless society had never existed because the need for a system of stratification had always created such a system. They did not, however, believe that the creation of such a stratified system was always a conscious undertaking on the part of society but, rather, that it could be, and often was, an "unconsciously evolved device."

Following their structural functional orientation, Davis and Moore saw stratification in society not in terms of people but in terms of positions. This meant that they were primarily interested in how certain positions came to be ranked higher or lower than other positions, not in how certain individuals came to fill those ranked positions. They did believe, however, that one of the biggest problems faced by society was how to get the right people to fill the right positions and then, more important, how to keep them there. Their argument was that some positions in society are more pleasant to occupy, some are more crucial for the health and continuity of the society as a whole, and different types of positions require different types of knowledge and skills. Those positions that are generally attributed with a higher social ranking (e.g., politicians, bankers, lawyers) are not as pleasant to occupy, are more important to the overall health of society, and require the highest level of skill and education. Consequently, it is these positions that must also carry the highest level of social prestige, monetary compensation, and available leisure time.

Radcliffe-Brown focused attention on social structure. He suggested that a society is a system of relationships maintaining itself through cybernetic feedback, while institutions are orderly sets of relationships whose function is to maintain the society as a system. Radcliffe-Brown, following Auguste Comte, believed that the social constituted a separate "level" of reality distinct from those of biological forms and inorganic matter. Furthermore, he believed that explanations of social phenomena had to be constructed within the social level. He believed that individuals were replaceable, transient occupants of social roles. Unlike Malinowski's emphasis on individuals, Radcliffe-Brown considered individuals irrelevant (Goldschmidt 1996:510).

Drawing influence from Durkheim sets his goal of investigation as Compare social structure cross-culturally. He investigated what principles account for different structures which in turn Leads to function which is to investigate How do structures maintain society? For him Function is the role of structure in social continuity. He stated that Social system (society) has a functional unity: All parts work together well enough to maintain society. As the traditional societies studied by early anthropologists were generally without a written history, anthropologists were confronted with the problem of explaining the existence of activities and structures in these societies. The explanatory problem became particularly acute in the post-World War I period with the demise of evolutionism and diffusionism as deciphering tools (Turner and Maryanski 1979). Functional analysis provided a novel alternative: Analyze structures such as kinship or activities such as rituals in terms of their functions for maintaining the society. It was A. R. Radcliffe-Brown ([1914] 1922, 1924, 1935, 1952) who sustained the Durkheimian tradition by emphasizing the importance of integrative needs and then analyzing how structures-most notably kinship systems-operate to meet such integrative requisites.

structural functionalism has also been critiqued by many in the field. A number of the more noteworthy critiques include (1) that it is ahistorical (it did in fact develop in reaction to the historical evolutionary approach of many anthropologists at that time); (2) it is unable to deal with contemporary processes of social change; (3) it cannot adequately deal with conflict (it is generally viewed as a consensus theory and hence in contradiction to conflict theory); (4) it has a conservative bias that maintains the status quo and the dominating power of the elite class; (5) it is generally too abstract, vague, and ambiguous to bear much relationship to the real world; (6) the theories are too grand and ambitious when more historically and situation relevant theories might be more appropriate; (7) there are inadequate methods to research the questions of interest; and (8) comparative analysis is virtually impossible.

Turner and Maryanski (1979) also saw the problems of teleology and tautology plaguing structural functionalism. More specifically, they saw illegitimate teleology as a problem. It is legitimate to assume that society has certain goals and that it brings certain structures and functions into creation to achieve these goals. What many structural functionalists do, however, that is illegitimate is to assume that the current structures and functions in society are the only ones that could have been created to achieve these goals. In addition, tautology is a problem because both the whole and its parts are defined in terms of the other. The whole is defined in terms of its parts and the various parts are then defined in terms of the whole. Hence, neither is truly defined at all.

Related articles in this blog:

Functionalism - the basic anthhropological idea - click here

Camic, Charles. 1992. "Reputation and Predecessor Selection: Parsons and the Institutionalists." American Journal of Sociology 57: 421-445.

Davis, Kingsley. 1959. "The Myth of Functional Analysis as a Special Method in Sociology and Anthropology." American Sociological Review 24: 757-772.

Kroeber, Alfred L., and TalcooParsons. 1958. "The Concept of Culture and of Social System." American Sociological Review 23: 582-583.

www.bolender.com/Sociological%20Theory/Parsons,%20Talcoo/parsons,_talcoo.htm (all about parsons)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Functionalism is - 1. An ethnographic methodology distinctive of cultural anthropology. 2. A historical school of anthropology (also known as British school). 4. A philosophy of social sciences in the Anglo-American philosophical tradition.

# data[].attributes.body
Word Cloud

# data[].attributes.body
The Basics

# data[].attributes.body
Write a one paragraph reflection on the "functionalist contribution to anthropology" supported by relevant ethnography?  Attach to the padlet.

# data[].attributes.body
Functionalism / Cohesion Theory

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Definition of Terms

When we study the different theories of anthropology, things can get a bit difficult to understand. Actually, unless you have a minor in one of the social sciences, I'd go as far as to say things can be downright confusing!

Keeping this in mind, today's lesson on the theoretical perspective of functionalism will be very elementary indeed. Our goal will be to get ourselves to the place where we can define functionalism and identify some of its leading proponents. If we can accomplish this, we'll call it a good day!

Let's start with the definition, and then we'll get to its supporters. According to the work of leading anthropologists Carol and Melvin Ember, functionalism is the theoretical orientation that looks for the function that a certain aspect of culture or social life plays in maintaining a cultural system. It's the idea that the function of everything we do is to support ourselves or our society.

Comparisons & Examples

Let's break it down a bit more. A common way to do this is to compare functionalism in anthropology to functionalism in biology. Think of it this way: our bodies have many organs; the function of each organ is to keep us alive. The heart doesn't just pump blood for its own sake; its 'function' is to bring blood to the rest of our systems so that we stay alive. In the same manner, the lungs don't just process oxygen for their own sake, they 'function' so we might live.

In the same manner, functionalism asserts that the function of all aspects of culture, or the learned behaviors and ideas that are characteristic of a particular people group, is to keep its people and its society alive and kicking! To give a tangible example, let's look at religion.

A staunch functionalist would probably claim that religion is just a man-made part of culture that functions to keep society ticking. To explain: humans have anxiety; in turn, they need some sort of stability. Enter religion, a way for man to explain unexplained things, an anchor for man to hold on to when things seem out of control.

Therefore, as a part of culture, religion's function, according to a functionalist, is to take care of man's need for security. Like the heart pumps the body with blood to keep it going, religions pump man with hope to keep him moving along. Restating our definition, an ardent functionalist would say that religion, as an aspect of culture, 'functions' in order to maintain the society in which it exists.

Malinowski

With the definition of functionalism sort of nailed down, let's move on to two of the men who are usually considered its biggest proponents. Now, depending which source you read, both of these guys are given credit with developing the theory of functionalism. For our purposes, we'll let the professionals argue over who really came up with the theory. We'll just refer to Bronislaw Malinowski and Émile Durkheim as two of the most famous functionalists in history.

First, Bronislaw Malinowski, as a British anthropologist, Malinowski claimed that all aspects of culture function in order to support society. However, he put a bit of a twist on it. For him, it was more individual or personal. He asserted that all aspects of culture originated in order to meet the need of the individual.

In other words, culture came about because individuals had needs. As these individual needs are met, the individual is then free to support society. To put him in a neat little box, let's say that Bronislaw Malinowski felt that culture functioned to take care of the need of the individual. To him, the individual trumped society. Unfortunately for Malinowski, most of his theories have been rather dismissed by more modern anthropologists.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
functionalism in anthropology: the works of durkheim and malinowski - video & lesson transcript | study.com

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Functionalism in Anthropology: The Works of Durkheim and Malinowski - Video & Lesson Transcript | Study.com

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
When we study the different theories of anthropology, things can get a bit difficult to understand. Actually, unless you have a minor in one of the social sciences, I'd go as far as to say things can be downright confusing! Keeping this in mind, today's lesson on the theoretical perspective of functionalism will be very elementary indeed.

# data[].attributes.body
Remember he's very much involved in both anthropology and sociology.

# data[].attributes.body
Cohesion Theory