Structure and Function

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).

 

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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. Arrangement of persons in dyadic relationship: an example of dyadic relationship is person to person relationship like master and servant.
  6. 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:

  1. 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?
  2. There is an error arising from the assuming that one’s abstraction of a social situation reflects social reality in all details.
  3. 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.
  4. I this approach the explanations are technological where the function has been used in terms of purpose.
  5. Structural functionalism believes in static in place of dynamic; but it does not deal with the changes.
  6. This approach mainly supports capitalism and the ruling class leading to the exploitation of the people to be ruled.
  7. Structural functionalism creates suspicion between cause and function. It does not reveal any differentiation between the result of the behavior and their causes.
  8. This approach treat social order as an integrated whole; a situation sometimes arises where society can be seen in state of imbalance and disequilibrium.
  9. 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:

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

 

Important Terminology

  • Social Structure
  • Socail Form
  • Socail Function
  • Socail Institution
  • Social Norms

WORKS BY RADCLIFFE-BROWN

Dates in brackets in text are dates of first publication and are included in the collection 1923-1949.

  • 1913 Three Tribes of Western Australia. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland 43:143-194.
  • 1914 The Definition of Totemism. Anthropos 9:622-630.
  • (1922) 1948 The Andaman Islanders. Glencoe, 111.: Free Press.
  • 1923 The Methods of Ethnology and Social Anthropology. South African Journal of Science 20:124-147.
  • (1923-1949) 1961 Structure and Function in Primitive Society: Essays and Addresses. London: Cohen & West; New York: Free Press.
  • 1929 Notes on Totemism in Eastern Australia. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland 59:399-415.
  • 1930a Editorial. Oceania 1:1-4.
  • 1930b Former Numbers and Distribution of the Australian Aborigines. Official Yearbook of the Commonwealth of Australia 23:687-696.
  • 1930c The Sociological Theory of Totemism. Pages 295–309 in Pacific Science Congress, Fourth, Batavia-Bandoeng (Java), 1929, Proceedings. Volume 3: Biological Papers. The Hague: Nijhoff.
  • (1931a) 1948 The Social Organization of Australian Tribes. Glencoe, 111.: Free Press.
  • 1931b Applied Anthropology. Australian and New Zealand Association for the Advancement of Science, Report 20:267-280.
  • 1940 Preface. In Meyer Fortes and E. E. Evans-Pritchard (editors), African Political Systems. Oxford Univ. Press.
  • 1950 Introduction. Pages 1–85 in A. R. Radcliffe-Brown and Daryll Forde (editors), African Systems of Kinship and Marriage. Oxford Univ. Press.
  • 1958 Method in Social Anthropology: Selected Essays. Edited by M. N. Srinivas. Univ. of Chicago Press.
Join Telegram