'Functionalist Theory Essay\r'

'The brotherly occasionalist opening is i that views the decree as unrivaled that is neighborly dodge make up of interrelated components. Each of these components is important and industrial plant together towards the achievement of a unit of measurement make out society. A common analogy supporting the operativeist theory is the human body which has several body organs which usually work together with problems in one organ affecting the rest of the body. The major components indoors a society are custom, traditions, norms and institutions such(prenominal) as families.\r\nIt is agreed among major functionalists that affectionate institutions make the necessity components of society with rules and regulations beingness compulsioned so as to organize the society in an effective manner. Functionalism inwardly the discipline of anthropology developed in the early twentieth century as a reaction to the extremes of the diffusionist and evolutionary theories developed a t heart the 19th century (Goldschmidt 1996).\r\nThe turn was as a result of a interpolate in focus from the more speculative diachronic examination of cultural traits and kindly customs as survivals to a more synchronic examination of the assorted mixer institutions existing indoors functioning societies. Functionalists were attempting to augment socio-cultural examination beyond the limits of the evolutionary notion of amicable history which viewed cultural traits and loving customs as the residual pieces of cultural history.\r\nThe theory has anthropological root based on the thoughts and whole kit and caboodle of Bronislaw Malinowski, who argued that kindly institutions existed so as to meet the physiological needs of singulars inwardly a society. As such, affectionate constancy was achieved by ensuring the needs of the individual(a)s comprising the society were met with adequate knowledge of the feelings and motives of these individuals forming a basis for agni seing how the society functioned. He viewed socialisation as the main element that ensured the needs of the members of a society were met.\r\nIt is also based on the whole kit and boodle of Alfred Radcliffe-Br witness who argued that the basic divisions of anthropology were the various actiones of human life within a social structure interlinked through interactions. stability within society was therefore achieved through social practices that would repeat themselves and develop overtime supporting individually other. As such, he theorized functional analysis as the attempt to understand social stability by observing how these social practices would fit together.\r\nThe functionalist theory is also based on the thoughts and works of major social positivists and was first theorized by Auguste Comte following the French gyration which resulted in social malaise. This led him to see the need for social cohesion within society. This was followed by the works of Emile Durkheim th at advanced the theory of fundamental solidarity, whose major tenseness was on the fundamental function that ethical consensus vie in ensuring social sound out as easy as building an balance within society.\r\nHis main concern was how certain societies were able to maintain stability and be able to survive hence proposed that such societies are usually go subdivisions with the separate divisions being held mutually by common values and symbols. In addition, Talcott Parsons argued that a social trunk is usually one that is comprised of the actions of individuals who are faced with a variety of choices which in turn are influenced by several social and physical factors.\r\nHe posited a social system that had cardinal types of action systems which included nicety, personality, organismic, and society, with each these four systems having to satisfy four functional needs which were latency, adaptation, integration, and intention attainment. His analysis involved saying the pro cesses and trade offs of social structures within and between the four system levels (Turner and Maryanski 1991). rally principles in the functionalist theory Functionalist analysis studies the social splendour of phenomena.\r\nIt stresss to examine the various functions that these phenomena serve within a society in order to preserve the whole (Jarvie, 1973). According to Malinowski, the major concepts included: • Understanding carriage based on an individual’s penury in addition to both rational and ridiculous behavior; • Recognizing the interrelationship of the various spots which comprised a elaboration forming a system; and • Recognizing a particular item and identifying its function within the contemporary operation of a agri finis.\r\nRadcliffe-Brown based his works on those of Emile Durkheim who had posited that social phenomena comprised a domain of reality that was independent of any biological or psychological facts. As such, social pheno mena stool to be explained in terms of the other social phenomena occurring within the domain (Broce, 1973). Radcliffe-Brown therefore studied the set under which the various social structures are upheld within society.\r\nHe developed an analogy between organic life and social life in order to be able to explain the idea of function hence placing furiousness on the contribution of phenomena to preserving social order. Functional analysis has given value to social institutions. This is because it considers them as integrated and active components of a social system and not as simple customs (Langness, 1987). Functionalism has also contributed to the current idea that traditional usages watch been formed by the necessity that human beings have to live collectively in harmony.\r\nIts emphasis on exhaustive fieldwork has offered an in-depth study of human societies. In addition, the study of functional interrelationship between institutions and customs has nominated a framework fo r collecting information on how societies function. major criticisms There have been several criticisms raised against the functionalist theory leading to its decline. The functionalist theory has been criticized for its major ignorance towards historical process in addition to its presumption that societies exists in an equilibrium state (Goldschmidt, 1996).\r\nInteractionist theorists have criticized this theory receivable to its distress to conceptualize sufficiently the multifaceted nature of individual actors and the methods of interaction within societies. Marxist theorists have criticized functionalism due to its conservativism and the fixed nature of examination utilise that underlined the role of social phenomena in the preservation of the status-quo within society (Holmwood, 2005). Constructionist theorists have criticized functionalism due to the use of classificatory theories that characterized phenomena based on their functions (Turner and Maryanski, 1991). Response s to Critiques\r\nComparative functionalism, developed by Walter Goldschmidt, attempts to respond to the difficulties that have developed as a result of Malinowski’s argument that a culture can be comprehended on its own with institutions been seen as products of the various cultures within which they were created. Comparative functionalism seeks to understand institutional differences between cultures by examining phenomena within the divers(prenominal) cultures and the problems experienced in these societies. This approach is worthwhile since it is aware(p) of the universality of the functions to which social institutions are a receipt to.\r\nProblems are usually consistent from one culture to another culture, but the institutional solutions that will be needed will vary from one culture to another (Holmwood, 2005). As such, one begins with analyzing the problem so as to find out how institutional procedures provide solutions. Neo-functionalism is an attempt to revise Br itish structural-functionalism. Some neo-functionalists seek to analyze phenomena based on particular functional requisites. Other neo-functionalists focus on matters of social integration, social evolution, and social differentiation.\r\nOthers examine how the various cultural processes such as rituals, values, and ideologies integrate with social structures. However, neo-functionalism places little emphasis on how phenomena are able to meet system needs (Turner and Maryanski, 1991). This approach is worthwhile since it provides a tie between human behavior, which frequently involves cooperation, and natural selection, where individual interaction involves competition more than cooperation. References Broce, G. (1973). History of Anthropology. Minneapolis: bourgeois Publishing Company. Goldschmidt, W. (1996). Functionalism. In cyclopaedia of Cultural Anthropology, Vol 2.\r\nDavid Levinson and Melvin Ember, eds. cutting York: Henry Holt and Company. Holmwood, J. (2005). Function alism and its Critics, in Harrington, A. Modern Social possibility: An Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Jarvie, I. C. (1973). Functionalism. Minneapolis: Burgess Publishing Company. Kuper, A. (1996). Anthropology and Anthropologists. London: Routledge. Langness, L. (1987). The Study of Culture. Novato, calcium: Chandler & Sharp Publishers, Inc. Turner, J. H. & Maryanski, A. (1991). Functionalism. In Borgatta, E. F, Encyclopedia of Sociology, Vol 2. New York: MacMillan Publishing Company.\r\n'