Perspetives 1 (SOC 351)

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman
Institute of Distance Learning, KNUST Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Template
For
Course Material
A 3-credit course outlay
2008
1
KWAME NKRUMAH UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND
TECHNOLOGY, KUMASI
INSTITUTE OF DISTANCE LEARNING

(B. A SOCIOLOGY AND SOCIAL WORK, 3)
SOC 351: PERSPECTIVES IN SOCIOLOGICAL THEORY1
Credit: 3 Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

P. DWUMAH
Publisher’s Information
© IDL, 2011
2
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any
means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording or by any information
storage and retrieval system, without the permission from the copyright holders.
For any information contact:
Dean
Institute of Distance Learning
New Library Building
Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology
Kumasi, Ghana
Phone: +233-51-60013
+233-51-61287
+233-51-60023
Fax: +233-51-60014
E-mail: idldean@kvcit.org
idloffice@kvcit.org
kvcit@idl-knust.edu.gh
kvcitavu@yahoo.ca
Web: www.idl-knust.edu.gh
www.kvcit.org
ISBN:
Editors:
Publisher’s notes to the Learners:

1. Icons: - the following icons have been used to give readers a quick access to where similar
information may be found in the text of this course material. Writer may use them as and when
necessary in their writing. Facilitator and learners should take note of them.
Icon #1 Icon #2 Icon #3 Icon #4 Icon #5


Summary
Learning Objective Activity Introduction Information
3
    
Time For Activity Self Assessment Group Discussion Read New Terms
  
Well Done Pause Online
Note/Learning Tip Question
2. Guidelines for making use of learning support (virtual classroom, etc.)
This course material is also available online at the virtual classroom (v-classroom) Learning
Management System. You may access it at www.kvcit.org
Course Writer
Peter Dwumah is a Lecturer of Sociology in the Department of Sociology and Social Work,
College of Art and Social Sciences, Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology,
Kumasi. He is also the coordinator for courses offered to other departments of the university,
from the Department of Sociology and Social Work.
4
He holds a Master of Philosophy degree in Development Studies from the University of
Cambridge, U.K and a Bachelor of Arts degree in Sociology with Political Science from the
University of Ghana, Legon.
Course Introduction
This course SOC 351: PERSPECTIVES IN SOCIOLOGICAL THEORY 1 is a 3-Credit course

designed for B. A Sociology & Social Work 3
COURSE OVERVIEW
This course is titled, “Perspectives in Sociological Theory”. During our discussions we will
examine some of the theoretical orientations used in the explanation of society, social
phenomena and social behaviour.
In Unit 1 we will look at general issues relating to sociological perspectives and theory. This
includes definition and classifications of sociological perspectives, theory and sociological
theory, identification of issues in sociological theory construction, approaches to the study of
sociological theory as well as the importance of studying sociological theory.
5
In Unit 2 we discuss the functionalist perspective, its components as well as criticisms that have
been levelled against it. The criticisms have been categorised into substantive, methodological
and logical problems.
In Unit 3 we examine the contributions of early sociologists such as Auguste Comte, Herbert
Spencer, Vilfredo Pareto and Emile Durkheim to functional analysis. We place the works of the
founding fathers of sociological thought under theoretical frameworks for you to appreciate them
better.
In Unit 4, we continue with the analysis of the contributions of scholars to functionalism as a
theoretical perspective in sociology. We examine the functional analysis and related works of
Talcott Parsons and Robert King Merton.
In Unit 5 we analyze the conflict perspective. This is also a major orientation under the macro or
structural perspective. We look at the conflict ideas of Karl Marx popularly referred to as
Marxism. We also examine the views of Neo-Marxists whose writings are inspired by Marx but
had a different focus such as Antonio Gramsci and Ralf Dahrendorf.
Unit 6 is the last topic for discussion this semester. We examine the functions of conflict as
postulated by Simmel and Coser. They examined the functions of conflict.
COURSE OBJECTIVES
The course seeks to discuss:
1. Sociological Perspective and Theory
2. Functionalist Perspective
3. The contributions of the early sociologists to functionalism
4. The contributions of Parsons and Merton to functionalism
5. Conflict Perspective: Marxism and Neo-Marxism
6. Functions of Conflict: Simmel and Coser
COURSE OUTLINE
This course is in six (6) units. It involves discussion and analysis of:
 Unit 1: Understanding Sociological Perspectives and Theory
 Unit 2: Functionalist Perspective
 Unit 3: Early Sociologists and Functionalism
 Unit 4: Talcott Parsons/Robert Merton and Functionalism
 Unit 5: Conflict Perspective: Marxism and Neo-Marxism
 Unit 6: Functions of Conflict: Simmel and Coser
GRADING
6
The grades you obtain from class exercise(s), quizzes, and examinations would constitute 30
marks. The end of semester examination would constitute 70 marks. These would add up to 100
marks.
REFERENCES
Abraham F. & Morgan J.H (2010), Sociological Thought from Comte to Sorokin, Macmillan
Aron, R. (1990) Main Currents in Sociological Thought (Two Volumes)
Assimeng, M. (1997) Elementary Perspectives in Sociology, Paper 2, The Province and
Perspectives of Social Theory
Coser, L. A (1977), Masters of Sociological Thought, NY: Harcourt, Brace and Javenovich
Dzorgbo, D.B.S (2010), Perspectives in Social Theory, Institute of Continuing and Distance
Education, University of Ghana
Giddens, A. (1996), Capitalism and modern social theory: An analysis of the writings of Marx,
Durkheim and Max Weber. Cambridge University Press
Giddens, A. (2001), Sociology, 4th ed. Polity Press, U.K
Haralambos & Holborn (2004), Sociology: Themes and Perspectives, 6th ed, HarperCollins
Publishers Ltd, London
LaVerne T.W (1990), Sociology: The Study of Human Relationships, 4th ed, Harcourt, Brace and
Javenovich, Ltd, U.S.A
Ritzer, G (1996), Sociological Theory, 2nd ed, McGraw Hill Inc, USA
Robertson Ian (1987), Sociology 3rd ed, Worth Publishers, Inc, USA
Timasheff, N.S & Theordorson G.A (1976) Sociological Theory, Its Nature and Growth, 4th ed,
Random House, New York
Turner, J.H (1978), The Structure of Sociological Theory, The Dorsey Press, U.S.A
Turner, J.H (2007), The Structure of Sociological Theory, 4th ed, Rawat, India
Table Of Contents
Publisher’s Information ......................................................................................................................... 23
Course Writer........................................................................................................................................ 45
Course Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 56
Table Of Contents.................................................................................................................................. 78
7
Unit 1 ................................................................................................................................................ 1010
SESSION 1-1: EXPLANATION OF SOCIOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE ...................................... 1112
1-1.1Definition of Sociological Perspective ............................................................................... 1112
1-1.2 Structuralism And Determinism Versus Agency Voluntarism ............................................ 1314
SESSION 2-1: THEORY AND SOCIOLOGICAL THEORY ........................................................ 1415
2-1.1 Explanation of Theory and Sociological Theory .................................................................... 1415
2-1.2 Sociological Theory Construction ..................................................................................... 1616
2-1.3 Why study of sociological theory is important. .................................................................. 1718
Unit 2 ................................................................................................................................................ 2020
SESSION 1-2: EXPLANATION OF FUNCTIONALISM ............................................................. 2121
1-2.1 General views ................................................................................................................... 2121
1-2.2 Key Components of Functionalism ................................................................................... 2122
SESSION 2-2: CRITICISMS OF FUNCTIONALISM ................................................................... 2323
2-2.1 Substantive criticisms ....................................................................................................... 2323
Unit 3 ................................................................................................................................................ 2627
SESSION 1-3: AUGUSTE COMTE AND FUNCTIONALISM ..................................................... 2828
1-3.1 Brief Introduction ............................................................................................................. 2828
SECTION 2-3: HERBERT SPENCER AND FUNCTIONALISM ................................................. 2930
2-3.1: Brief Introduction ............................................................................................................ 3030
2-3.2: Spencer and Functionalism .............................................................................................. 3030
2-3.3: Vilfredo Pareto And Functionalism .................................................................................. 3232
2-3.4: Emile Durkheim And Functionalism ................................................................................ 3233
Unit 4 ................................................................................................................................................ 3839
SESSION 1-4: TALCOTT PARSONS AND THE THEORY OF ACTION ................................... 3940
1-4.1 Brief Biography ................................................................................................................ 3940
1-4.2 Voluntaristic Theory of Action .......................................................................................... 3941
8
SESSION 2-4: PARSONS FUNCTIONAL PREREQUISITES ...................................................... 4344
2-4.2 Functional Prerequisites .................................................................................................... 4344
2-4.3 Parsons’ Social Change And Pattern Variables .................................................................. 4446
2-4.4 Parsons’ Pattern Variables ................................................................................................ 4446
SESSION 2-4: ROBERT KING MERTON AND FUNCTIONALISM .......................................... 4648
2-4.1 Brief biography of Merton ................................................................................................ 4648
2-4.2 Merton and Functional Analysis ........................................................................................ 4648
2-4.3 Merton’s theory of deviance .............................................................................................. 4850
Unit 5 ................................................................................................................................................ 5254
SESSION 1-5: CONFLICT PERSPECTIVE AND MARXISM ..................................................... 5355
1-5.1 Explanation of Conflict Perspective .................................................................................. 5355
1-5.2 Marxism ........................................................................................................................... 5456
1-5.3 Criticisms of Marxism ...................................................................................................... 5759
SESSION 2-5: NEO-MARXISM ................................................................................................... 5860
2-5.1 Brief comments ................................................................................................................ 5860
2-5.2 The Conflict Views of Ralf Dahrendorf ............................................................................. 6062
2-5.3 Criticism of Neo-Marxism ................................................................................................ 6264
Unit 6 ................................................................................................................................................ 6466
FUNCTIONS OF CONFLICT: VIEWS OF SIMMEL AND COSER ................................................ 6466
SESSION 1-6: GEORG SIMMEL AND CONFLICT PERSPECTIVE .......................................... 6567
1-6.1 Brief biography of Simmel ................................................................................................ 6567
1-6.2 Simmel and the source of conflict ..................................................................................... 6567
1-6.3 Simmel and the functions of conflict ................................................................................. 6668
1-6.4 Methods of Conflict resolution .......................................................................................... 6769
SESSION 2-6: LEWIS COSER AND CONFLICT ........................................................................ 6870
2-6.1 Brief biography of Coser ................................................................................................... 6870
9
2-6.2 Coser and the functions of conflict .................................................................................... 6870
Formatted: Font: (Default) Times New Roman
Unit 1
UNDERSTANDING SOCIOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVES AND
THEORY
Introduction
Welcome to the course titled “Perspectives in Sociological Theory.” As you are already aware,
sociology is a scientific study of society, social behaviour as well as human interaction. This
discipline adopts different theoretical orientation in its study. An understanding of these
perspectives is therefore fundamental to sociologists. They constitute important analytical frames
adopted by sociologists in the explanation of social phenomena.
However, the comprehension of these sociological theories in particular and theory generally
appears difficult. This is because they are mistakenly recognized as the opposite of reality. They
are said to be about the structure of impractical, unrealizable realms of thought. They are
therefore regarded as being tantamount to day dreaming. People as such have an aversion to it
and even come out with statements such as ‘don’t talk theory.’ But the reality is that everything
considered practical has a theory associated with it. It is therefore difficult to separate theory
from practice.
In this Unit we will look at general issues relating to sociological perspectives and theory. This
will include definition and classifications of sociological perspectives, theory and sociological
theory, identify issues in sociological theory construction, approaches to the study of sociological
theory as well as the importance of studying sociological theory.
Learning Objectives Formatted: Font: Times New Roman
After reading this unit you should be able to: Formatted: Font: Times New Roman
1. Define and classify sociological perspectives

2. Explain theory and sociological theory
3. Identify key issues in sociological theory
construction
4. Indicate the approaches to the study of sociological
theory
10
5. Examine the importance of studying sociological
theory
Unit content
Session 1-1: Explanation of sociological Perspective
1-1.1 Definition of Sociological Perspective
1-1.2 Classification of Sociological Perspective
Session 2-1: Theory and Sociological Theory

2-1.1 Explanation of theory and sociological theory
2-1.2 Features of sociological theory
2-1.3 Sociological theory construction
2-1.4 Approaches to the study of sociological theory
2-1.5 Importance of studying sociological theory

SESSION 1-1: EXPLANATION OF SOCIOLOGICAL
PERSPECTIVE
Let us now begin our discussion by examining the concepts such as perspective, sociological
perspective as well as the categories of sociological perspectives which include macro, micro and
meso. Another classification which focuses on structuralism and agency will also be discussed.
1-1.1Definition of Sociological Perspective Formatted: Font: (Default) Times New Roman
Sociology as a discipline has various perspectives. Perspective according to the Oxford English
Dictionary is a way of thinking about something. It is a way of looking at something.
Sociological perspective is simply the approach of viewing or understanding social phenomena,
human behaviour or society which is based on certain assumptions. It is thus an orientation for
looking at various features of the social world.
Classification of Sociological Perspectives
It is important to note that there are many sociological perspectives or ways of perceiving and
constructing social reality, analysing society, and humans’ social life.
So there is no single perspective in sociology for understanding society and social behaviour. No
single perspective gives us all the truth about our social world and behaviour. The social world
and human behaviour are too complex to be explained by a single perspective hence the
inevitability of multiple perspectives in sociology. Each perspective thus offers partial truths and
not absolute truths about the social world and human behaviour.
11
One way to categorise them is distinguishing between macro, micro and meso sociological
perspectives.
Macro Perspective
Macro perspective is regarded as structural perspective. It examines structure of the society as a
whole. It analyses the way society as a whole fits together. Structural perspective argues that
human behaviour is largely determined by society. In effect, society makes man; human beings
are puppets of society. So this perspective argues that the values and attitudes that we have
and the activities and relationships we produce are seen as the result of, or at least are
greatly influenced by the organization and structure of the society in which we live. This is
the mainstream sociological orientation. In other words, this perspective is very fundamental to
sociology as a discipline. We are who we are because we find ourselves in a particular society.
The society therefore influences us as well as social phenomenon.
The functionalist and conflict perspectives fall under this broad macro perspective. We will
discuss the functionalist and conflict perspectives in detail later in the semester.
Functionalists view society as a social system with interrelated parts performing various
functions to satisfy human needs. They emphasise on harmonious relations and equilibrium.
Some of the scholars contributing to the functionalist perspective include Comte, Spencer,
Durkheim, Parsons and Merton.
The conflict perspective also analyses society as a whole. Such scholars view society as made up
of groups having different interests and therefore there is the likelihood of clash, conflict and
instability. Karl Marx, Simmel, Weber and Dahrendorf are some of the scholars having the
conflict orientation.
Micro Perspective
Micro perspective is also known as interpretive sociology or micro sociology. Scholars having
this micro perspective view society as the product of human activity. They stress the
meaningfulness of human behaviour. Man to them makes society. In other words the society and
its aspects exist as a result of the behaviour of man.
This broad categorization argues that human beings have consciousness-thoughts, feelings,
understandings, meanings, intentions and awareness of existence and of being. Because humans
have minds and are thinking beings their actions are meaningful. Humans define and evaluate
situations, give meanings to situations and their actions and those of others, they consider given
lines of action and their possible consequences and then initiate appropriate action.
They simply do not respond to external stimuli as advocated by positivists. Humans do not
simply behave, they act. Individuals act on the basis of meanings they draw from situations.
Sociologists should therefore investigate the meanings that underlie human actions. Sociologists
12
should therefore not observe action from outside and impose an external logic on it but they must
interpret the internal logic or motive that directs the actions of actors.
Max Weber’s writings social action which we explained in some detail when we were studying
“Introduction to Sociological Thought” last year is an orientation under this micro perspective.
This is because of its emphasis on the action of people as well as the meaning and understanding
behind the actions. We will recap what we studied next semester when we focus on the micro
orientations in sociological theory.
Another variety of the micro perspective is symbolic interactionism. This variety explains human
behaviour and human society by examining the ways in which people interpret the actions of
others, develop a self-concept or self-image as well as interpret actions in terms of meaning. This
perspective views symbols and the associated meanings as critical in human interaction.
Phenomenology is also a micro perspective. This is a philosophical orientation which was
applied to the study of the social world. Such theorists deny the existence of the social
structure. To such theorists, the social world consists of the definitions and categorisations of
members of society.
There are other orientations such as dramaturgical perspective, ethno methodology and
exchange theories which can be placed under this micro perspective as a broad categorization
for the purpose of analysis.
Meso Theories
In recent times many sociologists are of the view that both camps-macro and micro theories- are
useful in providing insight into the complex social realities and they have sought to bridge the
theoretical divide within sociology by synthesizing and integrating claims from macro and micro
perspectives into new perspectives called meso theories. They are those theories that lie in
between macro and micro theories. Some of the renowned sociologists in this field are Anthony
Giddens, Jurgen Harbermas, and Randall Collins etc. Because of these theories the academic
fight between macro and micro theorists has subsided.
1-1.2 Structuralism And Determinism Versus Agency Voluntarism Formatted: Font: (Default) Times New Roman
Apart from classifying sociological perspectives into macro, micro and meso orientations, they
can be categorised into structuralism and determinism or agency and voluntarism. Dzorgbo
(2010)
Structuralism is an approach which is founded on the assumption that our actions and behaviours
are largely structured or determined by our social environment or society. So the values and
attitudes that we have and the activities and relationships we produce are seen as the result of, or
at least are greatly influenced by the organization and structure of the society in which we live.
The structures of the larger society are therefore mainly responsible for our actions and
behaviours. From structuralism it can be concluded that human beings are puppets of society.
13
Individuals are as such not free to act as they wish. Individuals just respond automatically to
external stimuli.
Comte, Durkheim and Marx were among the scholars who postulated that the structures of
society are crucial in determining our actions. Theories such as functionalism, Marxism and
Neo-Marxism emanate from structuralism.
Agency and voluntarism as another categorization focus on the importance of the individual and
his ability to freely or voluntarily initiate action. These sociologists emphasize on the ability of
individuals to initiate actions based on their understanding of the meanings generated in the
course of interaction. The popular agency theories are symbolic interactionism, ethno
methodology, feminist theory, exchange theory and rational choice theory.

Self Assessment 1-1
1. Define sociological perspectives

2. Explain the following broad classifications of sociological perspectives
a. Macro perspectives
b. Micro perspectives
c. Meso perspectives
3. Differentiate between structuralism and agency as classifications of sociological
perspectives. Formatted: Font: Times New Roman
SESSION 2-1: THEORY AND SOCIOLOGICAL THEORY

Having explained perspectives and sociological perspectives, let us now explain theory and
sociological theory. The course we are doing is titled “Perspectives in Sociological Theory”. It is
therefore important to appreciate theory and sociological theory as concepts.
2-1.1 Explanation of Theory and Sociological Theory

First let us look at theory before discussing sociological theory.
Theory has been defined variously by different scholars. LaVerne, Thomas (1990), in his book
‘Sociology: The Study of Human Relationship’ defines theory as the ‘systematic explanation of
the relationships among phenomenon.’ Haralambos & Holborn (2004), in their book ‘Sociology:
Themes and Perspectives’ also define theory as ‘a set of ideas which claims to explain how
something works.’ Scott & Marshall (2005) indicated in their ‘Oxford Dictionary of Sociology’
that theory ‘embraces a set of interrelated definitions and relationships that organizes our
concepts of and understanding of the empirical world in a systematic way’. Theory therefore
14
relates to the establishment of the relationships that exist between concepts for the explanation of
things. It is as such the ‘brain’ behind every becoming; a mental activity.
It is worthy of note that there can be no facts without theory. There cannot be a separation
between theory and practice. This is because what is recognized as practical and thus a fact or
reality has a mind behind it which is the theory. For example the fact that the world is round and
that it orbits around the sun are inseparable from theories that explain the nature and movement
of heavenly bodies. Facts therefore do not speak for themselves as it is often stated.
There are theories in different academic disciplines such as biology, physics, chemistry, and
engineering among others. Social theories have also been propounded by different social
thinkers. Social theory is wider, and encompasses the thoughts of people from a wide variety of
disciplines apart from sociology. This is why economists, philosophers, educationists, political
scientists, theologian etc are of interest to the students of social theory. It should thus be noted
that social theory came before sociological theory.
What then is sociological theory? In ‘A Modern Dictionary of Sociology’ (1970), Theordorson
and Theordorson define sociological theory as ‘theory that attempts to provide systematic
explanations and prediction relating to the nature, patterns, and dynamics of human interaction.’
Haralambos & Holborn (2004) also stated that a sociological theory ‘is a set of ideas which
claims to explain how society or aspects of society work. It provides explanation to the human
society.’ Related to this Schaefer (2005) wrote that in sociology, theory is a set of statements that
seeks to explain problems, actions or behaviour. An effective theory according to him may have
both explanatory and predictive power. Sociological theory therefore relates to the use of
sociological concepts to explain and predict social occurrences and human behaviour.
Like all theory, sociological theory is selective. No theory can explain everything. It is selective
in terms of its priorities and perspectives. It therefore provides a particular and partial view of
reality.
Theories and sociological theories are not static. They change in time and space. A
sociological theory that explains the secondary school drop out rate in Ghana today may not be
the same a decade ago. It may also not be the same in the explanation of this phenomenon in a
different country.
Features of Sociological Theory

There are certain features that sociological theories have. These include the following:
 Some level of abstraction: Sociological theories are made up of concepts which are
abstract in nature.
 Generality of assertion: The theoretical statements and conclusions are to some extent
general on the basis of certain conditions. Sociological theories therefore have a feature
of generalization.
 Logicality of postulation: The set of statements that make up the sociological theory is
logical.
15
 Predictive capacity: The theory of the social phenomena can form the basis for
prediction. Prediction is the ability to anticipate a given result when situations,
conditions, or circumstances are the same.
 Empirical verifiability: Sociological theories should be testable empirically. The analysis
of data should be available to other sociologists as well as the methodology used should
be usable by other sociological theorist.
2-1.2 Sociological Theory Construction

It is important to explore some elements in sociological theory construction. In other words if
you want to construct a sociological theory, what are some of the elements to consider?
Sociological theories are constructed and tested to explain social occurrences and human
behaviour. There are however some relevant steps to follow in the construction of sociological
theories as noted by Stark (1994).
These include;
 Wonder: The theorist becomes curious about the phenomenon. Without wondering about
a phenomenon being observed he/she cannot develop a theory. To construct a
sociological theory to explain deviance, prostitution, ‘streetism’, poverty etc the theorist
has to be astonished by that social occurrence or behaviour.
 Conceptualize: This involves the isolation and definition of key elements, known as
concepts, which are names used to identify some set or class of things that are said to be
alike. They are words (cognitive tools) which are applied to specific categories of social
behaviour. Concepts act as the building blocks of theory and for that matter sociological
theory. These concepts are abstractions. There are numerous sociological concepts.
These include social stratification, social mobility, social structure, group etc. The
theorist has to identify and develop operational definitions for some sociological concepts
relevant for the theory. Operational definitions as identified by Turner (1978) “are sets of
procedural instructions telling investigators how to go about discerning phenomena in the
real world which are denoted by an abstract concept”. As a result of these definitions, the
problem of how to relate abstract concepts to empirical events is resolved.
 Theorize: This entails stating why and how concepts are related in explaining the social
phenomenon or human behaviour under study. This is what is known as a theoretical
statement. There is as such the development of statements aimed at establishing the
relationship that exist between the sociological concepts for the explanation of the social
phenomena. The set of statements which constitute the theory must include or imply
conclusions that are empirically verifiable and thus testable.
16
The theory must be testable. Stark (1994) identified the steps in making a theory testable. These
include: operationalize, hypothesize, observe, analyze and assess.
Approaches to the study of Sociological Theory

There are different approaches to the study and presentation of sociological theory. Two
principal ways can be identified according to Assimeng (1997). In other words if you take a
publication on sociological theory there are two approaches in the presentation. These are the
 Thinker to thinker approach: This relates to the study of sociological theory in a
chronological fashion from one scholar to another, for example from Auguste Comte to
Karl Marx, then to Spencer etc. This is the approach adopted by Harry E. Barnes in his
book ‘An Introduction to the History of Sociology’(1948), Raymond Aron’s ‘Main
Currents in Sociological Thought’ (1965) and Lewis Coser’s ‘Masters of Sociological
Thought’ (1971)
 Thematic approach: This entails the study of sociological theory on the basis of
different broad themes. The views of different sociological theorists are therefore
analyzed under themes. Examples of the broad themes include organisms, conflict,
functionalism, symbolic interaction, social exchange etc. So under functionalism for
instance the views of social thinkers like Spencer, Durkheim, and Parsons among others
could be analyzed. This was the approach adopted by Jonathan Turner in ‘The Structure
of Sociological Theory’ (2007)
The approach that will be adopted in this course is the thematic approach. We will identify the
broad themes and examine the contributions of different scholars to the themes. For instance we
will explain functionalism. Then we will discuss the contribution of scholars such as Auguste
Comte, Herbert Spencer, Emile Durkheim, Talcott Parsons and Robert King Merton to this
orientation. The same approach will be adopted when analysing the conflict perspective.
2-1.3 Why study of sociological theory is important.

There might be some people who would wonder why the study of sociological theory as a course
in sociology is important. Is it necessary to study sociological theory and to engage in
sociological theorizing?
The answer is ‘Yes’ for the following reasons.
 It is a field of study, so why ignore it? It is a branch of human knowledge which
examines the way thinkers have explained the nature and consequences of human
associative life. It should be rewarding to get a feel of how men and women have thought
about society, its problems and the solutions that have previously been offered to the
difficulties of interactive life.
17
 It helps in developing a critical mind. It provides a quiet, critical and questioning
dimension to the day-to-day things that go on in social life. Studying and engaging in
theoretical work helps the individual to question the happenings in the social world for a
proper understanding of them.
 It is important in ascertaining the causes of social phenomena and human behaviour from
a sociological perspective.
 The social effects of social occurrences and human behaviour are unravelled through the
study and development of sociological theories. The consequences of social happenings
manifestly and latently; intentionally and unintentionally are ascertained.
 It is useful for evaluation of policies and programs: Sociological theorizing is relevant in
the pre and post evaluation of policies and programs by government as well as the private
sector.
 It helps in coming out with solutions to social problems. Through the study of
sociological theory, the theorist becomes aware of some theories, which could be
effectively applied to dealing with the social problem under study. He/She can also
develop some sociological theories relevant in dealing with social problems.
 It acts as a foundation for sociological research. Sociological research is conducted
within a theoretical framework. In other words sociological research is based on
sociological theory. There cannot therefore be a separation between sociological theory
and research.

Self Assessment 2-1
1. Using examples explain sociological theory to a lay person.

2. Identify and explain any three (3) of the features of sociological theory.
3. Identify and explain any three (3) of the importance of studying sociological theory.

Learning Track Activities

Unit Summary
18
In this Unit, we have discussed different aspects of sociological perspectives and theory. We
began with the definition and classification of sociological perspectives. We indicated that
sociological perspectives are ways of viewing the social world. The perspectives broadly include
macro, micro and meso perspectives. All these categories have different theories. For instance
under the macro perspective which emphasises on society and its structures in the explanation of
the social world, there is functionalism and conflict theories. We also examined the features of
sociological theory, key issues in sociological theory construction, and approaches to the study
of sociological theory. Finally we examined the importance of studying sociological theory.

Key terms/ New Words in Unit

1. Sociological perpective
2. Macro perspective
3. Micro perspective
4. Meso perspective
5. Theory
6. Sociological theory
7. Conceptualise
Unit Assignment 1 Formatted: Font: Times New Roman
1. Using a social phenomenon of your choice discuss the key steps to

consider in the construction of a sociological theory.
19
Unit 2
FUNCTIONALIST PERSPECTIVE
Introduction
Welcome to Unit 2 of the course titled “Perspectives in Sociological Theory”. It is my hope that
you have understood sociological perspectives and theory as we discussed in Unit 1. We
indicated that there are different perspectives in the analysis of the social world. These
perspectives can broadly be grouped under the macro, micro and meso perspectives. Under the
macro perspective which focuses on the society and its structures in the explanation of the social
world there is functionalism and conflict orientation.
In this unit we will discuss the functionalist perspective, its components as well as criticisms that
have been levelled against it.
After reading this unit you should be able to:

1. Explain the functionalist perspective
2. Analyze the components of the functionalist
perspective
3. Identify and explain the criticisms against the
functionalist perspective
Unit content
Session 1-2: Explanation of Functionalism
1-2.1 General views
1-2.2 Key components of the functionalist perspective
Session 2-2: Criticisms of Functionalism
20
2-2.1 Substantive criticisms
2-2.2 Methodological problems
2-2.3 Logical problems
SESSION 1-2: EXPLANATION OF FUNCTIONALISM

Let us now begin our discussions of functionalism as a theoretical orientation in sociology.
1-2.1 General views

Functionalist perspective is also viewed as functionalism or functional analysis. It is a
perspective that has a long history. It is evident in the works of Auguste Comte, Herbert Spencer,
Emile Durkheim and Talcott Parsons. Robert Merton also contributed to the functionalist
tradition. It was the dominant social theory in the 1940’s and 50’s.
Functionalism is a structural perspective in that it focuses on structure and the workings of
society. As a result some scholars regard this orientation as structural-functionalism. It regards
the society as important in making man. In other words, the society has a critical role in shaping
the behaviour of man. Man is therefore “man”, a social being because of the influence of society.
Functionalism can also be regarded as a consensus theory. Consensus theories see shared norms
and values as fundamental to society. They focus on social order based on value consensus and
view social change as occurring in a slow and orderly fashion.
1-2.2 Key Components of Functionalism Formatted: Font: (Default) Times New Roman
The functionalist perspective has some key elements which include viewing society as a social
system, analysis of functional prerequisites and concept of function.
Society as a System
Functionalism views society as a system which relates to a set of interconnected parts which
together form a whole. The basic unit of analysis is society. As a system the various parts are
understood in terms of their relationship to the whole as well as other parts.
Functionalists, especially early functionalists often analysed society using an organic analogy
(also referred to as organicism), between society and organism. Functionalists believe that one
can compare society to a living organism, in that both a society and an organism are made up of
interdependent working parts (organs) and systems that must function together in order for the
greater body to function. This ‘organic analogy’ sees the different parts of society working
together to form a social system in the same way that the different parts of an organism (for
instance a human body) form a cohesive functioning entity. The early sociologists tried to
21
identify the similarities and differences between the society and a living organism. This is
evident in the writings of Comte and Spencer, which will be explored in Unit 3.
Functional Pre requisites

The functionalists indicate that societies have functional prerequisites or functional requirements.
These are the necessary conditions of existence. Every living organism has certain necessary
conditions for it to survive. In the same way society has basic needs that must be met if it is to
continue to exist. Various sociologists have identified some functional prerequisites of society.
They include Davis and Moore (1967) who claimed that all societies have some form of social
stratification; Peter Murdock (1949) indicated that family exists in every known human society.
Talcott Parsons also identified some functional pre requisites popularly referred to as the AGIL
scheme. We will discuss this scheme when we get to Parsons functional analysis.
The Concept “Function”

Function as a concept refers to the contribution of the part to the whole. So the function of any
part of society is the contribution it makes to meet the functional prerequisites of the social
system. The different parts of society contribute to the maintenance and survival of the system.
For example, the family as an aspect of society ensures the continuity of society by reproducing
and socialising new members. Again, religion as an aspect of society is to integrate the social
system by reinforcing common values.
The functionalists, apart from analysing functions of the different parts of the society also engage
in the analysis of dysfunctions. Dysfunctions relate to the effects of any social institution which Formatted: Font: Bold
detract the maintenance of society. In other words, they are those effects that disrupt or disturb
the operations of society or aspects of the society. So something is dysfunctional if it inhibits the
working of the system as a whole or another part of the system. For instance, if teenage
pregnancy is a social phenomenon which affects the operations of the educational institutions it
could be regarded as dysfunctional. However, the concept “dysfunctions” is not much
emphasised compared to the functions.

Self Assessment 1-2
1. Explain functionalism as a structural perspective in sociology.

2. Identify and explain the key elements of the functionalist perspective.
3. Analyze the university from a functionalist orientation.
22
SESSION 2-2: CRITICISMS OF FUNCTIONALISM
I hope you have understood the functionalist perspective and its components. Now let’s discuss
the criticisms of this orientation
Functionalism was a dominant theoretical orientation in sociological analysis until the 1970s
when its dominance was reduced. This was as a result of the numerous criticisms levelled against
this theoretical frame. The criticisms can be categorized into substantive criticisms, logical and
methodological criticisms.
2-2.1 Substantive criticisms

1. It does not deal adequately with history. It is therefore inherently a historical. It is unable
to deal with the past. It focuses mainly on the present by examining the functions of
social phenomenon and institutions to the functioning of the society.
2. It is unable to deal effectively with the process of social change. The approach has been
criticized for its seeming incapacity to deal with contemporary process of social change.
As indicated earlier it emphasizes more on the present rather than the past as well
changes in the society.
3. The functionalist perspective has also been criticized as unable to deal effectively with
conflict. It overemphasizes harmonious relationship, exaggerates societal consensus,
stability and integration; disregarding conflict, disorder and change. It rather regards
conflict as destructive and pathological.
4. The approach is criticized as having a conservative bias. The focus on culture, norms and
values explains its conservative nature. Fundamental in this orientation is its passive
sense of the individual actor.
5. There is the mistake of the perspective to accept the legitimizations employed by elites in
society for social reality. The normative system is interpreted as reflective of the society
as a whole, when it may in fact be better viewed as an ideological system promulgated by
and existing for the elite members of society.
6. The perspective has also been criticized as vague, unclear and ambiguous. It deals with
abstract social systems instead of real societies, making its postulations abstract. No real
society according to Ritzer (1996) is discussed by Parsons in his work.
7. The emphasis of functionalist on the development of grand single theory or at least a set
of conceptual categories that can be used to analyze all societies throughout history does
not exist. This view of a single theory to critics is an illusion.
23
8. Critics question the possibility of assessing effects which is fundamental in functional
analysis. Functionalists argue that once an institution has originated, it continues to exist
if, on balance, it ahs beneficial effects on the system. This argument is problematic since
it is extremely difficult to establish all the effects to enable one weigh the balance of
functions and dysfunctions.
9. Critics argue against the postulation by functionalists that human behaviour is determined
by the system. People are therefore seen as creations of the system. Critics on the other
hand argue that humanity rather actively constructs its own social world.
2-2.2 Methodological Problems Formatted: Font: (Default) Times New Roman
1. There are no adequate methods to study the questions of concern to structural

functionalism. The question raised is, what tools can be used to study the contribution of
one part of a system to the system as a whole?
2. Structural functionalism makes comparative analysis difficult since it emphasizes on the

significance of a part in the context of a particular social system.
2-2.3 Logical Problems Formatted: Font: (Default) Times New Roman
1. Critics have identified a logical problem of illegitimate teleology. Teleology is the view
that society (or other social structures) has purposes or goals. In order to achieve these
goals, society creates or causes to be created specific social structures or social
institutions. An illegitimate teleology is one that implies that purpose or end states guides
human affairs when such is not the case. For example it is illegitimate to assume that
because society needs procreation and socialization it will create the family institution.
So according to critics, the functionalist perspective treats an effect as a cause. To them a
variety of alternative structures could meet these needs. A legitimate teleology would
define and demonstrate empirically and theoretically the links between society’s goals
and the various substructures that exist within society. An illegitimate teleology would be
satisfied with a blind assertion that a link between a societal end and a specific
substructure must exist.
2. Another logical problem to critics is that functionalist perspective is tautological. The

conclusion of a tautological argument makes explicit what is implicit in the premise or is
simply a restatement of the premise. There is circular reasoning often taking the form of
defining the whole in terms of its parts and then defining the parts in terms of the whole.
24

Self Assessment 2-2

1. What are the substantive criticisms levelled against the functionalist perspective?
2. Discuss the methodological problems of functionalism.
3. Analyze the logical problems of functionalism identified by critics.


Unit Summary
In Unit 2 we discussed the functionalist perspective. This is one of the dominant macro
perspectives in sociological theory. It regards the society as a system with interrelated parts. This
perspective also examines the functional pre requisites as well as the analysis of functions. All
these are important in the functionalist orientation. Any efforts to analyze a social phenomenon
or institution from a functionalist perspective would require the analysis of these key elements.
We also explained the different criticisms levelled against the functionalist perspective including
the substantive criticisms, methodological and logical problems. Due to the numerous criticisms
there have been scholars such as Jeffrey Alexander (1985) who have developed Neo-
functionalist arguments.

Key terms/ New Words in Unit

1. Functionalist
2. Functionalist perspective
3. Social system
4. Functional pre requisites
5. Function

Review Question:
25
1. Give a functionalist account of a social institution of your choice.

 Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Unit Assignment 2
1. Identify a social phenomenon of your choice and analyze it from a
functionalist perspective.
Unit 3
EARLY SOCIOLOGISTS AND
FUNCTIONALISM
26
Introduction
Functionalism is one of the macro perspectives in sociological theory. It is therefore a structural
orientation. This is because it focuses on the society and its aspects in the explanation of social
phenomenon and social life generally.
As indicated earlier our approach for the semester will be to explain the perspective and then
identify the contribution of scholars to the perspective. So in Unit 2 we focused on the
explanation of the functionalist perspective. In Unit 3 and Unit 4 we will discuss the
contributions of different scholars to the functionalist orientation.
In this Unit we will look at the contributions of early sociologists such as Auguste Comte,
Herbert Spencer, Vilfredo Pareto and Emile Durkheim to functional analysis. Some of their
works were discussed when we were studying the course titled “Introduction to Sociological
Thought”. However we are placing those works under a theoretical framework for you to
appreciate them better.

After reading this unit you should be able to:
1. Discuss Comte’s contribution to functionalism
2. Analyze Spencer’s contribution to functional
analysis
3. Explain Pareto’s contribution to functionalist
perspective
4. Identify and explain Durkheim’s contribution to
the functionalist orientation
Unit content
Session 1-3: Auguste Comte and Functionalism
1-3.1 Brief Introductions
1-3.2 Comte and Functionalism
Session 2-3: Herbert Spencer and Functionalism
2-3.1 Brief Introductions
2-3.2 Spencer and Functionalism
Section 3-3: Pareto and Functionalism
3-3.1 Brief Introduction
2-3.2 Pareto and Functionalism
Section 4-3: Emile Durkheim and Functionalism
4-3.2 Durkheim and Functionalism
27
SESSION 1-3: AUGUSTE COMTE AND FUNCTIONALISM
Let us examine the contribution of the early sociologists to functionalism by examining the
works of Comte. But first let’s look at a brief biography of the scholar.

Auguste Comte, one of the early sociologists has been regarded as the founder of sociology.
Auguste Comte was French who lived from 1798 to 1857. He was born in a southern French city
of Montpellier on January 1, 1978. He schooled at Ecole Polytechnique. His thinking reflected
the happenings of his time: the French revolution and industrialization. Comte was startled by
the destructive effects of the French and industrial revolutions, by the disorder created through
the forcible destruction of social groups intermediate between the family and the state. So his
goal was the improvement of society, which necessitated the development of a theoretical
science of society. Comte has been recognized as being very influential in the development of
sociology generally and sociological theory specifically. He came out with the term sociology
and contributed to the development of a methodology by emphasizing on positivism; social
statics and social dynamics; law of three stages; hierarchy of the sciences; as well as writing on
religion.
1-3.2 Comte and Functionalism

Now, what are the aspects of Comte’s writings that are regarded as contributions to the
functionalist orientation? That is the focus now.
Comte believed that there exist an affinity between sociology and biology. This affinity resided
in their common concern with organic bodies. This affinity led him to divide sociology into
social statics (morphology) and social dynamics (social growth and progress) in his work the
Positive Philosophy (1838). To him these subdivisions should be the subject matter of
sociologists. What do these divisions entail?
Social Statics describes the processes by which the overall structure of a society remains Formatted: Highlight
relatively stable over time. It involves the study of conditions of the existence of society at any
given moment, which is analyzed by means of a theory of social order. It thus relates to the study
of the conditions and preconditions of social order. This aspect of sociology investigates the laws
of action and reaction of the different parts of the social system. The main fact of social statics is
therefore order, which is based on consensus universalis, that is a community of ideas held by
those forming a society.
Social dynamics describe the processes by which elements within society change in a systematic
fashion to allow for social development. It therefore involves the study of society’s continuous
movement in social phenomena through time by means of a theory of social progress. As such it
is the description of the successive and necessary stages in the development of society. The main
28
fact of social dynamics is social growth and progress. Sociologists should as such study the
factors that account for changes in society.
Sociology to Comte must first recognise the correspondence between individual organism in
biology and the social organism in sociology. He argued that in biology there can be the
decomposition of the structure anatomically into elements, tissues and organs. This same process
happens with the social organism. This structure can be decomposed into families (elements or
cells), classes, or castes (tissues) and cities and communities (organs).
Comte also indicated in his writings that social processes should not be analysed in terms of first
causes that is origins and final causes, relating to consequences or functions. In other words, if
one wants to study social processes the focus should not be on the identification of origins and
consequences. This assertion has been criticised though. However, mentioning consequences
which relates to functions in his analyses indicates that he made some contribution to the
functional analysis (i.e. functionalism). Comte rather argued that social processes should be
analysed in terms of the circumstances of the phenomenon and connect them by the natural
relations of succession and resemblance.
The examination of Comte’s work therefore brings to the fore some fundamental elements
inherent in the functionalist perspective. He reintroduced organic analogies into sociological
enquiries indicating the commonalities between the living organism in biology and the social
organism in sociology. He talked about the need to place less emphasis on final causes that is
consequences. All these show that he contributed to the functional analysis. However, he is not
one of the major contributors.

Self Assessment 1-3

1. Analyze the contribution of Auguste Comte to the functionalist perspective. Formatted: Font: (Default) Times New Roman
SECTION 2-3: HERBERT SPENCER AND FUNCTIONALISM

Having discussed the contributions of Comte to functionalism, let us examine what Spencer also
did in relation to the functionalist perspective. However, it is important to have a brief idea about
the scholar before we proceed to his contributions to the functionalist orientation.
29
2-3.1: Brief Introduction
He was a British, born in Derby in the English Midlands, the heart of British industry. He lived
from 1820 to 1903. He did not attend regular school because of frequent sickness and weakness.
He was therefore educated by his father and uncle. He became a railway engineer at the age of
seventeen after being well trained in mathematics and the natural sciences and later an editor of
the ‘Economist’ before delving into publications. Socially the outcome of the industrial
revolution influenced him. At that time the industrial revolution was over and Britain was ahead
of other countries. There was therefore the notion of progress and a better life for the people.
This influenced and made Spencer an optimistic prophet of progress.
2-3.2: Spencer and Functionalism Formatted: Font: (Default) Times New Roman
To Spencer the universe is divided into realms or domains. These are:

- Inorganic realm-This realm is concerned with the physical and chemical aspects of the
universe.
- Organic realm-This realm is concerned with the biological and psychological aspects of
the universe.
- Super organic realm-This realm is concerned with the sociological. In other words it
focuses on human interaction.
His great philosophical project as indicated by Turner (2007) was to generate a series of abstract
principles or laws – what he termed the first or cardinal principles – that could explain all the
realms. Spencer’s actual focus throughout his work however, was to explain social processes in
the abstract laws or principles. He argued that both the organic and super organic realms obey
the same abstract laws or first principles.
He came out with a methodology for the study of social phenomenon, which has a functional
aspect of it. To him investigators have to use comparison. This entails the comparison of
societies of different kinds and societies in different stages to ascertain their size and structure.
Again there is the need for functional analysis. This relates to the contribution(s) of the different
units that make up the social organism or the organism as a whole.
Comparison of organism and society

Spencer compared the organism and society in an attempt to identify the similarities and
differences. This means that he engaged in an organic analogy, which is characteristic of
functionalist writings.
Comparing the organic and super organic domains, Spencer identified some similarities and
differences. The similarities of the organism and society include the following:
- Both the living organism and social organism increase in size and structure. Their
structure becomes more complex and differentiated.
30
- The differentiation of structures leads to differentiation of functions which helps in the
sustenance of the whole.
- In both the biological and social organism there is integration of the structures through
mutual dependence. Each structure can be sustained only through its dependence upon
others.
- Each structure is a systematic whole by itself. In other words, each structure is a micro
society.
- Structures in the living and social organism can ‘live on’ for a while after the destruction
of the systematic whole.
The differences between the organism and society include the following:
- There is a difference in the degree of connectedness of the parts or structures. In the super
organic system there is less direct and continuous physical contact and more dispersion of
parts than in organic system.
- The modes of contact are also different. There is more reliance upon symbols during
interaction in the super organic compared to the organic system.
- The levels of consciousness and voluntarism are also different. Consciousness is

dispersed in all units of society but concentrated in a single unit with the organism.
Spencer’s Functional Prerequisites

Spencer also pointed out in his writings that both the organic and super organic wholes reveal
certain universal requisites that must be fulfilled in order for them to adapt to an environment.
These are necessary conditions for their existence. They are the universal needs or requisites that
structures function to meet. Spencer recognized three functional needs or requisites that
produced selection pressures: regulatory, operative (production), and distributive. He argued that
all societies needed to solve problems of control and coordination, production of goods, services,
and ideas, and finally, find ways to distribute these resources. Initially, in tribal societies, all
three of these needs are inseparable, and the kinship system is the dominant structure satisfying Field Code Changed
them. All institutions were subsumed under kinship organization. However, with increasing
population -- both in terms of sheer numbers and density -- problems emerged in regards to
feeding individuals, creating new forms of organization (i.e., the emergent division of labor),
coordinating and controlling various differentiated social units, and developing systems of
resource distribution. The solution, as Spencer sees it, would be to differentiate structures to
fulfill more specialized functions.
Spencer concluded that society was constantly facing selection pressures -- internal and external
exigencies -- that forced a society to adapt by increasing the internal structure through
31
differentiation. However, every solution to a problem caused a new set of selection pressures that
threatened the society's viability.

Self Assessment 2-3
1. Discuss Herbert Spencer’s organic analogy.

2. Identify and explain the functional requirements of Herbert Spencer.
2-3.3: Vilfredo Pareto And Functionalism
Brief Introduction
Vilfredo Pareto was an Italian sociologist, who lived from 1848 to 1923.
Pareto and Functionalism
Pareto laid an intellectual foundation for modern functionalism when he patterned his system of
society on a psychochemical system characterized by interdependence of parts and adjustive
changes, rather than on the biological organism. With the conception that society is a
physiological and chemical system, Pareto regards the molecules of the system as individuals
with interests, drives and sentiments. Wallace and Wolf (2006) in assessing Pareto’s contribution
to functionalism maintain that Pareto was the first sociologist to precisely describe a social
system in terms of the interrelatedness and mutual dependence among its parts and assert that
Parson later borrowed Pareto’s idea of a dynamic or moving equilibrium that produces harmony
for the system to discuss how systems adapt and change while maintaining equilibrium.

Self Assessment 1-3

1. Briefly discuss Vilfredo Pareto’s contribution to the functionalist perspective.
2-3.4: Emile Durkheim And Functionalism
Brief Introduction
Emile Durkheim was born at Epinal in the eastern French province of Lorraine on April 15,
1858. He graduated from Ecole Normale Superieure in Paris. Durkheim lived in wartime France
accounting for a disruption of the existing social order. His overriding problem in all his work
therefore concerns the sources of social order and disorder, the forces that make for regulation
and de-regulation in the body social.
Durkheim and Functionalism
32
Emile Durkheim’s early works were heavily infused with organismic terminology. He
emphasised on the society as a whole in his sociological analysis. To him, society was to be
viewed as an entity in itself that could be distinguished from and was not reducible to its
consistent parts. Rejecting biological or psychological interpretations, he focused on the socio-
structural determinants of mankind’s social occurrences and human behaviour.
He was concerned with the characteristics of groups and structure in terms of explaining social
phenomena rather than with individual attributes. For example in studying the differences in
suicide rates, he examined the characteristics of the groups; ways of bringing about cohesion and
solidarity among members; lack of cohesion or condition of relative normlessness. He
demonstrated that suicide varies inversely with the degree of integration. When society is
strongly integrated, it holds individuals under its control.
In conceiving of society as a reality, sui generis, Durkheim in effect gave analytical priority to
the social whole. He also believed that the parts of the system fulfil basic functions, needs or
requisites of the whole, which is fundamental to the functionalism.
Durkheim's functional analysis always stressed the important function of ideas. Human beings
create ideas to regulate their affairs. They hold values, beliefs, doctrines, and dogmas; they
regulate their conduct with norms and rules; and they come to see these ideas as compelling
truths and to invest them with great emotion. These constitute collective conscience of society.
He engaged in the analysis of social facts. These social facts are fundamental to sociologists. To
him in the study of social facts sociologists should engage in functional analysis. Social
phenomena are ‘social facts’ and these are the subject matter of sociology. It is ‘every way of
acting, fixed or not, capable of exercising on the individual an external constraint.’ They are
things that are external to but coercive of the individual. There are four major characteristics of
social facts:
 They have distinctive social characteristics and determinants which are not amenable to
explanation on either the biological or psychological level
 They are external to the individual
 They endure through time outlasting any set or group of individuals
 They are endowed with coercive power, imposing themselves upon him, independent of
his will.
Examples of social facts are public morality, family, religious observances, rules of professional
behaviour and other social institutions.
Sociology to Durkheim is the study of social facts. Social facts are therefore the main intellectual
concern of sociology. Since social facts are related to social institutions he defined sociology as
the science of institutions, of their genesis and functioning.
Social facts according to Durkheim should be treated as things. He noted that things include all
objects of knowledge that cannot be conceived by purely mental activity, those that require for
their conception data from outside the mind, from observations and experiments. This was
analyzed in his work, ‘The Rules of Sociological Method’.
33
Social facts to him are not products of individual human wills and hence cannot be ascertained
by psychological investigation. They are external to the individual and at the same time
inevitably and significantly mould human actions. The facts of individual and of collective life
are therefore interrelated but they are not coterminous.
He studied social facts as not only phenomena ‘out there’ in the world of objects, but as facts that
the actor and social scientist come to know. They become part of the individuals’ consciousness.
The societal consciousness therefore dominates the individuals’ consciousness. It is through this
internalization process that social facts become effective guides and controls the conduct of
people.
From Durkheimian perspective the determining cause of a social fact should be sought among
the social facts preceding it and not among the states of the individual consciousness. To be able
to explain a social fact there is the need for an examination of other social facts. They should
therefore not be explained from biological or psychological sources.
Durkheim distinguished between two (2) kinds of explanation of social facts, namely functional
explanation and historical explanation.
Functional explanation accounts for the existence of a phenomenon or the carrying out of an
action in terms of its consequences – its contribution to maintaining a stable social whole.
Historical explanations on the other hand give account of the chronological development of the
phenomenon or action.
Durkheim’s functional postulations are evident in his work on Division of Labour. In this work
his emphasis was on the identification of what holds society together; what account for social
solidarity. He distinguished between two kinds of solidarity evident in societies: mechanical
solidarity and organic solidarity.
Mechanical solidarity is a kind of solidarity based on resemblance. It is rooted in the similarity of
the individual members of a society. People are homogenous, mentally and morally. It exists in
societies with low division of labour. Societies with mechanical solidarity have strong states of
collective conscience. This relates to the sum total of beliefs and sentiments common to the
average members of society and forming a system in its own right. The common conscience
therefore possesses a distinct reality for it persists in time and so serves to unite the generations.
It lives in and through individuals. This common conscience almost completely blankets
individuals’ mentality and morality. So members in these societies are bound together by
common experience and shared beliefs because most of them do similar occupations. It is thus
solidarity of resemblance. Social constraint in these societies is expressed in repressive, severe
criminal law that serves to maintain mechanical solidarity by punishing misdeeds or crimes.
These societies also demand a high degree of regimentation and have undifferentiated structures.
Organic solidarity is the kind of solidarity in the society which is rooted in the dissimilarity of
the members. A society having organic solidarity is characterized by specialization, division of
labour and individualism. It therefore develops out of differences. As a result of the increasing
differentiation of functions there is the growth of division of labour. This division of labour is as
a result of the increasing volume of a society, which refers to the increase in the size of the
34
population; increasing material density, referring to an increase in the number of individuals on a
given ground surface; and increasing moral density, relating to the intensification of
communication between individuals. This gives rise to increasing interdependence of individuals
in society. This is analogous to the parts of a human being. Each part is different playing a
function. But for the survival of the person the different parts are functionally interdependent.
This interdependence and recognition of the importance of other’s contribution therefore holds
societies characterised by organic solidarity together. The significance of collective conscience
in such societies lessens. Criminal law supported by repressive sanctions as they pertain in
societies with mechanical solidarity tends to be replaced by civil and administrative law calling
for restitution of rights rather than punishment.
It is worthy of note that the young Durkheim stated that strong systems of common belief
characterize mechanical solidarity. Organic solidarity results from progressive increase in the
division of labour and thus increased mutual dependence. It thus needed fewer common beliefs
to tie members to this society. Later Durkheim revised and stressed that those systems with a
highly developed organic solidarity still needed a common faith, a common conscience
collective, if they were not to disintegrate. So the mature Durkheim realized that it was only if
all members of a society were anchored to common sets of symbolic representations, to common
assumptions about the world around them, could moral unity be assured. Without them whether
primitive or modern society, it is bound to degenerate and decay.
These two forms of solidarity correspond to two extreme forms of social organization, namely
archaic and industrial societies. Archaic or primitive societies are characterized by the
predominance of mechanical solidarity whereas the modern industrial societies are characterized
by the dominance of organic solidarity.
The analysis of organic solidarity is a manifestation of his functional analysis. It exhibits the
tenets of functionalism emphasizing on the different parts of society and their functions to the
maintenance of the whole.
Durkheim also analysed deviance and crime from a functionalist perspective. To him, "Crime
brings together honest men and concentrates them."
(Giddens, 1972, p. 127 [excerpt from The Division of Labor in Society]) This quote exemplifies
the stance Durkheim took toward crime. He recognized deviance as important to the well-being
of society and proposed that challenges to established moral and legal laws (deviance and crime,
respectively) acted to unify the law-abiding. Recognition and punishment of crimes is, in effect,
the very reaffirmation of the laws and moral boundaries of a society. The existence of laws and
the strength thereof are upheld by members of a society when violations are recognized,
discussed, and dealt with either by legal punishment (jail, fines, execution) or by social
punishment (shame, exile).
Crime and deviance actually produces social solidarity, rather than weakens it. In other words, it
brings people in a society together. When a law is violated, especially within small communities,
everyone talks about it. Meetings are sometimes held, articles are written for local news
publications, and in general, a social community bristles with activity when a norm is broken. As
35
is most often the case, a violation incites the non-violators (society as a whole) to cling together
in opposition to the violation, reaffirming that society's bond and its adherence to certain norms.
Another idea Durkheim held was that deviance and crime also help to promote social change.
While most violations of norms are greeted with opposition by the masses, others are sometimes
not, and those violations that gain support often are re-examined by that society. Often, those
activities that once were considered deviant are reconsidered and become part of the norms,
simply because they gained support by a large portion of the society. In sum, deviance can help a
society to rethink its boundaries, and move toward social change, hopefully for the greater
benefit of the group.
He studied religion which relates to a unified system of beliefs and practices relative to sacred Formatted: Font color: Red
things, that is to say, things set apart and forbidden-beliefs and practices which unite in one
single moral community called a Church, all those who adhere to them. He was not concerned
with the variety of religious experience of individuals but rather with the communal activity and
the communal bonds to which participation in religious activities gives rise. Religion is thus a
collective thing. It binds men together.
To him religious phenomena emerge in any society when a separation is made between the
sphere of the profane-the realm of everyday utilitarian activities-and the sphere of the sacred-the
area that pertains to the numinous, the transcendental, the extraordinary. They therefore refer to
things human beings set apart including religious beliefs, rites, deities, or anything socially
defined as requiring special religious treatment. For example the wine for mass regarded as the
blood of Christ is regarded as a sacred thing. The profane cannot touch sacred things with
impunity.
Durkheim pointed out the functions of religion. He indicated four major functions of religion as
 Disciplinary-imposing self-discipline and a certain measure of asceticism on adherents
 Cohesive-bringing people together; reaffirm social bonds; reinforce social solidarity
 Vitalizing-maintains and revitalizes the social heritage of the group and helps transmit its
enduring values to future generations.
 Euphoric social force-Helps in providing hope and happiness for members. It as such
serves to counteract feelings of frustration and loss of faith by re-establishing the
believers’ sense of well-being.
Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, Font color: Yellow
 Self Assessment 2-3 Formatted: Font: Times New Roman
1. Distinguish between functional explanation and historical explanation in the analysis

of Durkheim’s social facts.
2. What is the manifestation of functionalism in Durkheim’s analysis of organic
solidarity?
3. Identify and explain the functions of religion according to Emile Durkheim.
Learning Track Activities Formatted: Font: Times New Roman
36
 Unit Summary Formatted: Font: Times New Roman
In this Unit, we examined the contributions of the early sociologists to the functionalist
perspective. We began with a discussion of the contributions of Auguste Comte. He came out
with an organic analogy resulting in the distinction between social statics and social dynamics.
He talked about the need to place less emphasis on final causes, that is, consequences. Spencer’s
functional analysis is also evident in his organic analogy as well as the functional requirements
of a society. Pareto contributed to functionalism by describing a social system in terms of the
interrelatedness and mutual dependence among its parts. Finally we pointed out the
manifestations of functional analysis in Durkheim’s works. We discussed Durkheim’s functional
interpretations in his analysis of social facts, organic solidarity, deviance and religion.
 Key terms/ New Words in Unit Formatted: Font: Times New Roman
1. Consensus universalis
2. Social statics
3. Social dynamics
4. Inorganic realm
5. Organic realm
6. Superorganic realm
7. Organic analogy
8. Selection pressures
9. Social facts
10. Functional explanation
11. Historical explanation
12. Mechanical solidarity
13. Organic solidarity
14. Sacred
15. Profane Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Unit Assignment 3
Give a functionalist account of deviance as postulated by Emile Durkheim. Formatted: Font: Times New Roman
37
Unit 4
TALCOTT PARSONS/ROBERT K. MERTON AND
FUNCTIONALISM
Introduction
So far we have been discussing functionalism as a macro perspective. Macro perspectives focus
on the society and its structures in the explanation of social life. Functionalism examines the
society and its aspects as a social system; functional pre requisites; as well as functions. We have
also examined the contributions of some of the early sociologists including Comte, Spencer,
Pareto and Durkheim to the functionalist perspective.
In this Unit, we will continue with the analysis of the contributions of scholars to functionalism
as a theoretical perspective in sociology. We will examine the functional analysis and related
works of Talcott Parsons and Robert King Merton.
1. Explain Parsons’ theory of action

2. Discuss Parsons’ functional prerequisites, social
change and pattern variables
3. Analyze Merton’s views on functionalism and
38
theory of deviance Formatted: Font: Times New Roman
Unit content
Session 1-4: Talcott Parsons and theory of action
1-4.1 Brief biography of Parsons
1-4.2 Voluntaristic theory of action
Session 2-4: Parsons’ Functional Prerequisites
2-4.1 Functional prerequisites
Session 3-4: Parsons’ Social Change and Pattern Variables
3-4.1 Parsons’ social change
3-4.2 Parsons’ pattern variables
Session 4-4: Robert King Merton and Functionalism
4-4.1 Brief biography of Merton
4-4.2 Merton’s functional analysis
4-4.3 Merton’s theory of deviance
SESSION 1-4: TALCOTT PARSONS AND THE THEORY OF

ACTION
1-4.1 Brief Biography
Talcott Parsons lived between the years 1902 and 1979. He was an American sociologist whose
theories about mechanisms of society and the organizational principles behind societal structures
influenced sociology. He was born in Colorado Springs and educated at Amherst College
studying biology and philosophy, the London School of Economics and the University of
Heidelberg where he received a Phd in Sociology and Economics. He was a member of the
faculty of University of Harvard from 1927 until 1974 teaching sociology and serving as head of
Department of Social Relations. Nationally, he was a strong advocate for the professionalization
of sociology and its expansion within American academia. He was elected president of the
American Sociological Association in 1949 and served as secretary from 1960–1965. He retired
from Harvard in 1973, but continued teaching (at a number of other universities as a visiting
professor) and writing until his death in 1979, while on a trip to Germany. Among Parsons Books
are “The Structure of Social Action” (1937); “The Social System” (1951); and “Sociological
Theory and Modern Society” (1967). He started his analysis by focusing on the individuals. His
name is synonymous with functionalism.
1-4.2 Voluntaristic Theory of Action

Parsons came out with the ‘Structure of Social Action’ (1937) in which he developed a
voluntaristic theory of action, conceiving of human beings as making choices between means
39
and ends. Voluntarism to Parsons is the subjective decision-making processes of individual
actors which are partial outcomes of certain kinds of constraints, both normative and situational
(Turner, 2007). There are some elements of voluntaristic action. These include;
- Actors are individuals
- Actors are goal seeking
- Actors are in possession of alternative means to achieve goals
- Actors are confronted with a variety of situational conditions (such as biological make
up, heredity, external ecological constraints) that influence the selection of goals and
means.
- Actors are seen as governed by values, norms and other ideas which influence what is
considered a goal and what means are selected to achieve it.
So an action involves actors making subjective decisions about the means to achieve goals, all of
which are constrained by ideas and situational conditions. The action theory starts with the
‘actor’ who could either be a person or collectivity.
Diagrammatic Representation of the Voluntaristic Theory of Action
Field Code Changed
Norms, values and other ideas
Means 1
Means 2
Actor Goals
Means 3
Means n
Situational Conditions
Figure 11:
Source: Turner, J.H (2007)

As variously oriented actors interact, they come to develop agreements and sustain patterns of
interaction which become institutionalised.
The institutionalised patterns culminating from interaction among actors can be regarded as
social system. Social life to him is made possible by the relationships that develop between
40
individuals as a result of their actions. These social relationships together contribute to the social
system element. The analysis of social system is part of his general work on action systems.
Parsons defined a social system thus:
A social system consists in a plurality of individual actors interacting with
each other in a situation which has at least a physical or environmental
aspect, actors who are motivated in terms of a tendency to the
“optimisation of gratification” and whose relation to their situation,
including each other, is defined and mediated in terms of system of
culturally structured and shared symbols.
The definition seeks to define a social system in terms of many of the key concepts in Parson’s
work – actors, interaction, environment, optimisation of gratification and culture.
Even though Parsons identified the social system as a system of interaction, he emphasised on
status – role complex as the basic unit of the system. This is neither an aspect of actors nor an
aspect of interaction, but rather a structural component of the social system (Ritzer, 1996). Status
refers to a structural position within the social system, and role is what the actor does in such a
position, seen in the context of its functional significance for the larger system.
Apart from the social system, Parsons identified the cultural, behavioural and personality
systems. These systems constitute Parsons’ action systems in his theory of action. The cultural
system is the complex of language, values, beliefs, norms and other ideas (Turner, 2007:63).
Culture also entails symbols. It can “move from one social system to another through diffusion
and from one personality system to another through learning and socialisation”. Socialization is a
very powerful integrative force in maintaining social control and holding society together.
Personality to Ritzer (1996: 245) is defined as “the organised system of orientation and
motivation of action of the individual actor. Personality system to Parsons therefore relates to the
motives and role-playing skills of the actor. The basic unit of the personality system to Parsons is
the individual actor or the human being.
Social life to Parson is carried out by individuals with personalities, that is, individuals with
dispositions, attitudes, thoughts and feelings. These personality elements motivate individuals to
engage in action. With reference to the behavioural system Parsons had very little to say about it.
It is the source of energy for the rest of the systems. It is based on genetic constitution but its
organisation is affected by the processes of conditioning and learning that occurs during the
individual’s life.
The four systems- cultural, social, personality and behavioural-form what Parsons calls the
general system of action. For Parsons the four systems are not mutually exclusive; rather they
exhibit the interdependence that functionalism consistently stresses. In any society there is an
interpenetration of the elements/systems. They are only separated for analytical purpose since
they interpenetrate in practice.
In Parsonian analysis of the social system, which is fundamental to his functionalism, he was
concerned with whole societies but a social system is not necessarily a whole society. Any
41
organised pattern of interaction, whether micro or macro form is termed a social system (Turner,
2007). The idea of social system therefore encompasses all types of collectivities.
In studying society, Parsons was concerned about how social order is possible within it. He
believed that only a commitment to common values provides a basis for order in society. As
such, value consensus (which is a critical component of functionalism) forms the basic
integrating principle in society. If members of society are committed to the same values, they
will tend to share a common identity, which provides a basis for unity and cooperation
(Haralambos and Holborn, 2004).
So the basic focus of sociology should be the analysis of the institutionalization of patterns of
value orientation in the social system. In other words the emphasis should be on how to
institutionalize the values into the social system. When values are institutionalized and behaviour
structured in terms of them, the result is a stable system. There will therefore be the existence of
a state of ‘social equilibrium’ in which the various parts of the system is in a state of balance.
This social equilibrium is attained through socialisation.
Socialization to Scott & Marshall (2004) is the process by which we learn to become members of
society, both by internalizing the norms and values of society and also by learning to perform our
social roles. Haralambos and Holborn (2004) define socialization as ‘the process by which
individuals learn the culture of their society’. This process continues through out people’s life
course. It does not just happen during childhood but continues till death. The agents of
socialization including the family, school, organizations, mass media, peer group etc are all
fundamental in this learning process. When individuals imbibe and manifest the culture of a
society then there would be social equilibrium as postulated by Parsons.
Again the mechanisms of social control are also important in the attainment of social
equilibrium. Social control refers to the social processes by which the behaviour of individuals or
groups is regulated. These mechanisms of social control discourage deviance and so maintain
order in the system.

1. Analyze Parsons’ theory of action.
2. Identify and explain the action systems in Parsons’ theory of action.
3. Explain the social system from Parsonian perspective.
4. What are the two (2) elements that are important in the attainment of social
equilibrium in a social system?
42
SESSION 2-4: PARSONS FUNCTIONAL PREREQUISITES

2-4.2 Functional Prerequisites
According to Parsons, there are two main conditions that must be met for any social system to
survive. Firstly, it must relate effectively to its environment, and secondly, it must maintain its
own internal integrity. Parsons further breaks down these two vital conditions into four
functional imperatives, which the system must satisfy. Parsons viewed society as a system
having four (4) basic functional prerequisites. They are the functional requirements, necessary
conditions that must be fulfilled if the system is to survive. This is Parsons’ popularly known
AGIL schema. The functional prerequisites can be viewed as problems that society must solve if
it is to survive. As noted by Aberle et al (1950), “functional prerequisites refer broadly to the
things that must get done in any society if it is to continue as a going concern” So they are the
generalized conditions necessary for the maintenance of the system concerned. The specific
structural arrangements for meeting the functional prerequisites differ, from one society to
another and in the course of time, change in any given society.
They are adaptation, goal attainment, integration and latency (pattern maintenance).
A – Adaptation: This involves the problem of securing from the environment sufficient
facilities and then distributing these facilities through the system. It refers to the relationship
between the system and its environment. In order for the social system to survive it must have
some degree of control over their environment to help in the provision of at least food, clothing
and shelter. The social system therefore makes use of the environment to satisfy the physical
needs of members. The economic institution is mainly concerned with this functional
requirement.
G – Goal Attainment: This deals with the problem of establishing priorities of the system and
mobilising resources for their attainment. It refers to the need for all societies to set goals
towards which social activity is directed. Political institution is mainly responsible for this.
Governments set goals and allocate resources to achieve them. The economy is regulated and
directed by laws passed by government even in so called free enterprise systems.
I – Integration: Integration focuses on the problem of coordinating and maintaining viable
interrelationships among system units: It deals with internal coordination and ways of dealing
with differences. It refers to the adjustment of conflict. Integration is concerned with the
coordination and mutual adjustment of the parts of the social system. The legal system is the one
institution that meets this need. Legal norms define and standardise relations between individuals
and between institutions and so reduce the potential for conflict. When conflict does arise, it is
settled by the judicial system and does not therefore lead to the disintegration of the social
system. Law is an example of societal, community or institutions of social control. Institutions
such as family, religion, sports, festivals, media, churches etc, all work to ensure and sustain
43
integration in the social system. Industrial dispute mechanisms, family tribunals etc are also
mechanisms for social integration.
L – Latency (Pattern maintenance): This deals with the problem of how to ensure that actors
in the social system display the appropriate characteristics. Latency refers to ‘the maintenance of
the basic patterns of values, institutionalized in the society. At the societal level, marriage and
family institutions are devoted to pattern maintenance.
The subsystem identified in the analysis of the functional prerequisites (AGIL schema) are
arranged in hierarchical order beginning with the socialisation system (deals with pattern
maintenance) on top of the hierarchy, followed by societal community or institutions of social
control (deals with integration); then political system (deals with goal attainment) and the
economic system (deals with adaptation).
It is important to note that adaptation and goal attainment refer to the first condition for survival
that is the need for social units to relate to their environments from which they draw resources
and facilities and into which they inject outputs of their environment. Integration and latency
refer to the second condition for survival, which relates the need to maintain internal integrity.
1. What does AGIL scheme stands for in Parsonian terms?

2. Identify and explain Parsons’ functional requirements.
2-4.3 Parsons’ Social Change And Pattern Variables Formatted: Font: (Default) Times New Roman
Parsons’ Social Change

Talcott Parsons also wrote on social change. He developed what he called “a paradigm of
evolutionary change”. Parsons argued that in practice, no social system is in a perfect state of
equilibrium, although a certain degree of equilibrium is essential for the survival of societies.
The process of change can be pictured as a “moving equilibrium”. To him, once a disturbance
has been introduced into an equilibrated system there will tend to be a reaction to this
disturbance, which tends to restore the system to equilibrium. So when change occurs especially
in adaptation the other functional prerequisites also change causing social change. This social
change is viewed in terms of a process of social evolution from simple to more complex forms of
society.
Economic changes to Parson might cause an initial stimulus. However, in the long run, cultural
changes, that is changes in values determine the ‘broadest patterns of change’.
2-4.4 Parsons’ Pattern Variables

On the basis of the fundamental role of values in accounting for change, Parsons identified two
(2) sets of cultural values, known as pattern variables “A” and “B” which are characteristic of
simple and advanced industrial societies respectively. This classification reminds us of
44
Durkheim’s notions of mechanical solidarity (where the collective conscience is strong) and
organic solidarity (where collective conscience is weak because of the emergence of
individualism) and Ferdinand Tonnies’ (1855-1936) gemeinschaft-gesellschaft typology. He was
interested in contrasting primitive communities (gemeinschaft) with modern industrialized
(gesellschaft). Whereas gemeinschaft is characterized by predominance of close, personal or
kinship relationships, gesellschaft is characterized by the predominance of impersonal, formal or
business-like behaviours or relationships. Parsons examined difference between the two types of
societies and labels the relationships that exist in pre-industrial societies as predominantly
personal, informal and expressive and relations in modern societies as predominantly
impersonal, formal and instrumental.
Summary of Parsons Pattern Variables
Pattern Variables A Pattern Variables B

Ascription – Status is ascribed; determined Achievement – Status is achieved through a
by the type of family into which a person is person’s effort; emphasizes on the
born; emphasizes on the in-born qualities of performance of individuals, i.e what they can
individuals do, merit and personal achievement
Diffuseness – People enter into relationships Specificity – People enter into relationships
with others to satisfy a large range of needs; with others to satisfy particular needs;
emphasizing broad relationships dealing with emphasizing limited relationships for specific
a wide range of purposes and interests. purposes
Particularism–Emphasizes on the Universalism – Emphasizing the organization

organization of particular relationship; of interaction according to general principles;
Individuals act differently towards particular Individuals act according to universal
people; rules and regulations are applied principles; rules and regulations are applied
differently depending on how close or distant to individuals equally. People are treated
a person is to individuals who are concerned. equally before the law, no matter where you
come from or who you are.
Affectivity – Emphasizing on the Affective neutrality – Gratification is
gratification of emotions; gratification is deferred; individuals have self discipline and
immediate. People act to gratify their desires desire to achieve goals in the longer term.
as soon as possible
Collective orientation – People put the Self orientation – People pursue their own
interests of the social groups to which they interests first, rather than those of the social
belong before their own interests; group to which they belong
emphasizing collective interest or pursuing
shared interests.
45
Social change to Parsons requires a movement of a society from the practice of pattern variables
A towards the adoption of pattern variables B. That to him is the basics for development.
Parsons pattern variables are ideal constructs. It does not mean in reality that all people in
modern societies conduct their lives as pattern variables B suggest or every individual in pre-
industrial societies behave in the manner suggested by pattern variables A. What needs to be
stressed is that modern societies tend to exhibit more of pattern variables B than traditional
societies and traditional societies also tend to exhibit more of pattern variables A than modern
societies.
1. What accounts for the most significant social change in a society from Parsonian
perspective?
2. Using Parsons’ pattern variables, how different are simple societies from
advanced industrial societies.
SESSION 2-4: ROBERT KING MERTON AND

FUNCTIONALISM
2-4.1 Brief biography of Merton

Merton lived from 1910 to 2003. He was born Meyer R. Schkolnick on 5th July 1910 in
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, the son of immigrants from Eastern Europe. He spent most of his
working life at Columbia University, New York. His doctoral dissertation, published in 1938 as
“Science, Technology and Society in 17th Century England”, became a seminal text in
establishing the sociology of science as a significant field of sociological studies. In twelve
single-authored books and collections of essays, Merton also made path-breaking contributions
to sociology of the professions in general and medical sociology in particular, to sociology of
mass communications, to sociology of racism and to micro-sociology.
2-4.2 Merton and Functional Analysis

On his functional analysis, Merton saw functional theorising as embracing three questionable
postulates which are
(1) The functional unity of social systems
(2) The functional universality of social items
46
(3) The indispensability of functional items for social systems
Merton analysed these postulations, identifying their questionable features.
(1) The postulate of the functional unity of society – This holds that all standardised social
and cultural beliefs and practices are functional for society as a whole as well as for
individuals in society. The various parts must therefore show a high level of integration.
Merton however argues that the degree of integration in a system is an issue to be
empirically determined. The important theoretical and empirical questions to be answered
according to Turner (2007) include
- What levels of integration exist for different systems?
- What various types of integration can be discerned?
- Are varying degrees of integration evident for different segments of a system?
- What variety of processes leads to different levels, forms and types of integration for
different spheres of social systems?
For Merton (1968), to begin analysis with the postulate of “functional unity” or integration of
the social whole can divert attention away from not only the questions raised but also from
the consequences of a given social or cultural item for diverse social groups and for
individual members of these groups. So instead of the postulate of functional unity there
should be an emphasis on varying types, forms, levels and spheres of social integration and
the varying consequences of the existence of items (Turner, 2007). For specified segments of
social systems. Merton therefore diverts functional analysis away from concern with total
systems toward an emphasis on how different patterns of social organisation within social
systems are created, maintained and changed.
(2) The postulate of universal functionalism - This relates to the argument of functionalist
that all standardised social and cultural forms and structures have positive functions.
Merton indicated that this is not true of the real world situation. To him not every
structure, custom, idea, belief has positive functions. There are some that can be
dysfunctional. There is therefore the need for the analysis of diverse consequences or
functions of socio-cultural items – whether positive or negative and thus the need to
calculate “net balance of consequences” of items for each other and the system as a
whole.
(3) The postulate of indispensability – Functional analysis states that all standardised
aspects of society not only have positive functions but also represent indispensable parts
of the working whole. As such all structures and functions are functionally necessary for
society. No other structures and functions could work quite as well as those that are
currently found within society. (Ritzer, 1996) To Merton, an examination of the empirical
world reveals quite clearly that alternative structures can exist to fulfil basically the same
requisites.
Functionalists should therefore be concerned with various types of “functional alternatives” or
“functional equivalents” and “functional substitutes within social systems. In this way, functional
analysis would not view as indispensable the social items of a system (Turner, 2007).
47
Merton generally argued that all these functional postulates rely on non-empirical assertions
based on abstract, theoretical systems. It is therefore the responsibility of sociologists to examine
each empirically.
On the basis of Merton’s analysis of the three postulations under functionalism, he came out with
alternative functional analysis. In other words, he advocated some basic fundamentals that
should be the concern of functional analysis. To him, functional analysis must specify:
1. The social patterns under consideration whether a systemic whole or some subpart.
2. The various types of consequences of these patterns for empirically established survival
requisites.
3. The processes whereby some patterns rather than others come to exist and have the
various consequences for each other and for systemic wholes.
Early structural functionalists focused mainly on functions. Merton developed the idea of
“dysfunctions” – the negative consequences of structures or institutions in the maintenance of
other part of the social system or system as a whole. He also came out with the idea of non-
functions. These are consequences that are irrelevant to the system under consideration. They
may include social forms that had positive or negative consequences in the past but are irrelevant
in contemporary society.
Merton again introduced the concepts of manifest and latent functions. Manifest functions are the
intended consequences of a social item whilst latent functions are the unintended consequences
of a social item. The intended consequences are obvious and everyone is aware of them.
Sociological analysis is therefore required to unravel the unintended consequences. Peter Berger
(1963) has called this “debunking” or looking beyond stated intensions to real effects.
Merton pointed out that a structure may be dysfunctional for the system as a whole and yet may
continue to exist. This happens because it may be functional for a part of the social system. For
example, discrimination in society can be dysfunctional for the entire system but still exist. He
argued that not all structures are indispensable to the workings of the social system. Some part of
our social system can be eliminated.
2-4.3 Merton’s theory of deviance

Merton (1968) analyzed the relationship between culture, structure and anomie. Merton’s theory
of deviance is derived from Durkheim’s idea of anomie. He used this relationship in explaining Field Code Changed
deviance. He defines culture as “that organized set of normative values governing behaviour
which is common to members of a designated society or group”. Social structure to him relates
to “that organized set of social relationships in which members of society or group are variously
implicated”. (Merton 1968: 216 in Ritzer, 1996)
Anomie occurs “when there is an acute disjunction between the cultural norms
and goals and the socially structured capacities of the groups to act in accord
with them.” (Merton 1968: 216 in Ritzer, 1996) For Merton, anomie means a
48
discontinuity between cultural goals and the accepted methods available for
reaching them. In other words because of their position in the social structure of Formatted: Font: Times New Roman
society, some people are unable to act in accord with the normative values in the
achievement of the goals.
Anomie occurs as the disjunction between the means and goals.
Merton distinguishes the cultural goal of economic success from the legitimate structural means
(educational attainment and hard work) by which they might be achieved. According to Merton,
value system creates almost universal striving for success and specifies a range of normatively
approved means of securing this goal, but the structure of economic resources in that society
enables only certain privileged groups and classes to succeed.
This creates feelings of relative deprivation among many poorer individuals, who turn to various
forms of individual deviance. Where there seem to offer alternative means to the same desired
ends. So anomie occurs as the disjunction of means and goals.
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. He has access to both the legitimate means and approved goals
 Innovation occurs when an individual strives to attain the accepted cultural goals but
chooses to do so in novel or unaccepted method. It entails keeping goals but rejecting
legitimate means as in theft
 Ritualism occurs when an individual continues to do things as prescribed by society but
forfeits the achievement of the goals. With this keeping to legitimate means becomes a
goal in itself, as in the case of slavish bureaucrat
 Retreatism is the rejection of both the means and the goals of society. It includes
rejecting or withdrawing from goals and means, as in drug case
 Rebellion is a combination of the rejection of societal goals and means and a substitution
of other goals and means. This is evident in political radicalism
Merton’s theory of anomie has been criticized for assuming too much conformity and consensus;
an overly integrated view of society and an over- socialized view of people. However it has been
very influential in theories of delinquency.
 Self Assessment Formatted: Font: Times New Roman
1. Explain the three (3) questionable postulates of functionalism identified by Robert

King Merton.
2. With examples, explain the following concepts indicated in Merton’s writings on
functionalism.
a. Dysfunction
b. Manifest function
c. Latent function
3. Critically analyze Merton’s theory of deviance. Formatted: Font: Times New Roman
49
In Unit 4, we have discussed the contributions of Talcott Parsons and Robert King Merton to the
functionalist perspective. We analyzed Parsons’ theory of action in which his action systems
were explained. We also discussed Parsons’ functional pre requisites constituted by adaptation,
goal attainment, integration and latency. Then we looked at his views on social change which
emphasized on cultural change. Parsons’ pattern variables identified some values that are
characteristic of simple and modern societies. There was also the discussion of Merton’s
functional analysis, manifest function, latent function and the theory of deviance which drew
inspiration from the theory of anomie postulated by Durkheim.
1. Action systems
2. Cultural system
3. Behavioural system
4. Personality system
5. Social system
6. Social equilibrium
7. AGIL schema
8. Adaptation
9. Goal attainment
10. Integration
11. Latency
12. Pattern maintenance
13. Moving equilibrium
14. Pattern variables
15. Pattern variable A
16. Pattern variables B
17. Ascription versus achievement
18. Diffuseness versus specificity
19. Particularism versus universalism
20. Affectivity versus affective neutrality
21. Collective orientation versus self orientation
22. Functional unity
23. Functional universality
50
24. Indispensability of functional items
25. Functional alternatives
26. Functional equivalents
27. Functional substitutes
28. Dysfunction
29. Non-function
30. Manifest function
31. Latent function
32. Anomie
33. Conformity
34. Innovation
35. Ritualism
36. Retreatism
37. Rebellion

 Review Question:
How does an individual decide to engage in an action? Discuss this relation
to Parsons’ theory of action.

 Formatted: Font: Times New Roman
Unit Assignment 4 Formatted: Font: Times New Roman
Apply Parsons’ AGIL to the analysis of the maintenance of a business organization. Formatted: Font: Times New Roman
51
Unit 5
CONFLICT PERSPECTIVE: MARXISM AND
NEO-MARXISM
Introduction
Welcome to Unit 5 of the course titled “Perspectives in Sociological Theory”. As we indicated
earlier there are different perspectives in sociology. These are different ways of looking at or
explaining the social world. The perspectives can be broadly categorised into macro, micro and
meso orientations. So far we have been discussing functionalism as a macro perspective. We
looked at what functionalist perspective focuses on as well as the contributions of various
scholars to the perspective. We examined the contributions of Comte, Spencer, Pareto,
Durkheim, Parsons and Merton.
In this Unit we will be examining the conflict perspective. This is also a major orientation under
the macro or structural perspective. We will look at the conflict ideas of Karl Marx popularly
referred to as Marxism. We will also examine the views of Neo-Marxists whose writings are
inspired by Marx but had a different focus such Antonio Gramsci and Ralf Dahrendorf.
1. Explain the conflict perspective

2. Analyze Marxism as a conflict orientation
3. Discuss the Neo-Marxist ideas of Gramsci and
Dahrendorf Formatted: Font: Times New Roman
Unit content
Session 1-5: Conflict Perspective and Marxism
1-5.1 Explanation of Conflict Perspective
1-5.2 Marxism
1-5.3 Criticisms of Marxism
Session 2-5: Neo-Marxism
2-5.1 Brief comments
2-5.2 Conflict views of Antonio Gramsci
2-5.3 Conflict views of Ralf Dahrendorf
52
2-5.4 Criticisms of Neo-Marxism Formatted: Font: Times New Roman
SESSION 1-5: CONFLICT PERSPECTIVE AND MARXISM
1-5.1 Explanation of Conflict Perspective

Conflict perspective is another sociological perspective to which scholars such as Karl Marx,
Weber, Simmel and Ralf Dahrendorf have contributed. It became persuasive since the late 1960s.
Conflict perspective has a model of society as a whole and adopts a structured approach. Even
though there are at times differences in the argument of scholars on the source of conflict that
characterise society, they all accept the idea that there are groups in society that have different
interest. As such there is the likelihood of clash, conflict and instability. They emphasise the
importance of interests over norms and values that are fundamental to functionalists. Conflict
sociologists therefore see a social world in continual struggle. They assume that social behaviour
is best understood in terms of conflict or tension between competing groups such as different
classes, sexes, races or ethnic groupings. As noted by the conflict theorists, conflict need not be
violent; it can be non-violent taking the form of labour negotiations, party politics, competition
between religious groups etc.
In studying any culture, organisation or social group such sociologists concentrate on finding
 who benefits,
 who suffers,
 who dominates at the expense of others, as well as
 How society’s institutions may help to maintain the privileges of some groups and keep
others in a subservient position. For example how family, government, religion,
education, media etc may help in maintaining the dominance of a group over another.
Common to all conflict approaches are the following points of emphasis:
 All social relations in all social systems reveal inequalities in the distribution of valuable
resources.
 Tension between those with and those without resources is inevitable because those with
resources have an interest in keeping them and those without resources have an interest in
securing more resources.
 Such tensions will, in the long run, erupt into conflict.
 With conflict will come a change in social relations and in the structure of a social
system.
 Human organization is thus in a state of constant tension, with inequalities in social
relationships creating conditions of conflict and change.
The conflict orientation has been criticized for overemphasizing tension and struggle among
different groups in society. It places less emphasis on consensus, order, harmonious relations that
exist in society and the elements that accounts for them.
53
Many conflict theories draw their inspiration from the works of Karl Marx, Georg Simmel and
Max Weber.
1-5.2 Marxism
Marxism is a conflict theoretical orientation which centres on the writing of Karl Marx. He was
born in 1818 in Trier in the Rhineland district of Germany. His parents were Heinrich and
Henrietta Marx. He schooled at the University of Berlin He was a philosopher, an economist and
sociologist. The changing of society was the fundamental focus of Marx’s intellectual work.
Karl Marx is regarded as one of the founding fathers of sociology. He emphasised on the
influence that economic system has on the other aspects of society such as politics, religion,
laws, morals etc. This approach is known as economic determinism, which he emphasized in his
social and economic analysis. This relates to the recognition that economic system is the
fundamental determinant of the structure and development of society. The economy to him is
thus the foundation of the whole socio-cultural system.
The economic system is the mode of production, which constitutes the substructure or
infrastructure. This is made up of the forces of production (the productive capacity of the society,
which is a function of scientific knowledge, technology etc); and the relations of production
(includes social relations, distribution of income).
The whole superstructure which relates to all aspects of the society-the major institutions, values
and beliefs systems including politics, religion, law, philosophy, art etc-depends on the
substructure that is the economic system. This system therefore explains the current structure of
a society as well as any changes that take place within the society.
Therefore, the ethical beliefs and values, philosophical doctrines, laws etc are not to be taken for
granted in terms of their own logic and what they apparently state, but should be seen as a
reflection of the economic position, the class interests of those who maintain them.
The conflict analysis of Marx is evident in his study of history. The history of human society is a
process of tension and conflict. His view of history is based on the idea of dialectics. Dialectics
represent a struggle of opposites, a conflict of contradictions. Such a struggle accounts for
change.
The idea of dialectics was developed by the German philosopher Hegel who applied it to the
realm of ideas – conflict between incompatible ideas producing new concepts that account for
social change. Hegel gave the analysis of thesis, anti-thesis and synthesis. Marx rejected Hegel’s
emphasis on ideas but rather argued that the source of change lies in contradictions in the
economic system (that is material factors). His views on history are therefore referred to as
dialectical materialism. Conflict that exists between different groups in the mode of production
account for social change
From Marxian perspective in all stratified societies, there are two (2) major social groups: a
ruling class and a subject class. The power of the ruling class comes from its ownership and
control of the means of production.
54
The ruling class exploits and oppresses the subject class. As a result there is a basic conflict of
interest between the two classes. Class struggle therefore ensues. Rather than functionally
collaborating, these classes struggle among themselves for their interests. For him, struggle
rather than peaceful growth was the engine of progress. Strife was as such the father of all things
and conflict the core of historical process. Class struggle was therefore the driving force of social
change.
The division of society into classes gives rise to political, ethical, philosophical and religious
views of the world, views which express the existing class relations. On the basis of this he noted
that the ideas of the ruling class were, in every age, the ruling ideas, that the class which was the
dominant material force in society was at the same time its dominant intellectual force. The class
which has the means of material production at its disposal has control at the same time over the
means of mental production. There is therefore a ruling class ideology within the broader society.
This ruling class ideology from Marxian view produces false class consciousness, a false picture
of the nature of the relationship between social classes. It relates to an incorrect assessment of
how the system works and of their (capitalists and workers) role and interest in it. Members of
both classes tend to as such accept the status quo as normal and natural and are largely unaware
of the true nature of exploitation and oppression. Against this background there is a degree of
stability in the society until class consciousness is developed by the proletariat resulting in class
struggle.
Class struggle was the basis of his general historical analysis of society commonly known as
historical materialism which entailed the analysis of how particular forms of society had come
into existence and the specific historical contexts within which apparently universal or eternal
social forms-state, religion, and market, and so forth-were located by emphasizing the primacy of
socio-economic processes and relation, (Scott & Marshall, 2004). In other words, historical
materialism deals with the analysis of history by placing emphasis on the mode of production.
The concern with conflict and contradiction is central to the idea of dialectics.
Class interests and the confrontations of power that they bring in their wake are to Marx the
central determinant of social and historical process. This was why Marx and Engels stated in the
Communist Manifesto that ‘the history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class
struggles.’ To Marx men make their own history.
In his historical analysis he noted that societies have passed through different stages based on the
modes of production and characterized by social inequality with the exception of the original
stage, primitive communism. He conceived of 4 major successive modes of production in the
history of mankind. Each of these came into existence through contradictions and antagonisms
that had developed in the previous order. The four different stages are:
 Primitive communism: At this stage there was the communal ownership of the mode of
production by the society. There was also minimal division of labour. As such societies at
this stage do not have different major classes. They were also not characterized by class
struggle.
55
 Ancient stage: This stage was based on slave labour. There were slaves and slave
owners. The slaves worked for their masters. The masters owned them and could use
them for anything at anytime.
 Feudal stage: This stage was based on serfdom. There were the lords and the serfs. The
serfs worked for the lords. But the serfs were not owned as it was in the ancient stage
 Capitalist stage: This stage was based on wage labour. There were the bourgeoisie and
proletariat. The proletariat worked for the bourgeoisie. This was the era Marx found
himself and therefore was preoccupied with the relationship between these classes.
However he prophesied that there would be a class struggle between the bourgeoisie and
the proletariat, leading to a revolution, which would result in a transitional period called
the dictatorship of the proletariat. The final stage of the historical development is the
Communist society. In this society there would be the elimination of classes and thereby
the source of social conflict. In a communist society, nobody owns anything but
everybody owns everything and each individual contributes according to his ability and
receives according to his need.
He recognized the presence of other classes in the capitalist stage eg the left overs from
the previous society such as the landowning aristocracy and peasants; petty bourgeoisie
(the self employed, owners of small businesses). They will join any of the dominant
classes.
Marx’s analysis was based mainly on the capitalist society in terms of the exploitation that he
observed. To him the basis for the antagonism in capitalist society is the contradiction between
the forces of production and the relations of production. Powerful forces of production were
being developed resulting in increasing productivity and wealth. Meanwhile poverty and misery
were the lot of the majority of people who found themselves in the working class because the
distribution of income was not commensurate with the effort exerted.
The working class will develop class consciousness and therefore change from being ‘a class in
itself’ to ‘a class for itself’. A class in itself is a social group whose members share the same
relationship to the means of production. They are all offering their labour for wages; they are all
proletariats for instance. To Marx a social group only fully becomes an actual class when it
becomes a class for itself. At this stage its members have class consciousness. This means that
false consciousness has been replaced by a full awareness of the true situation, by a realization of
the nature of exploitation. The class in itself therefore becomes fully conscious of their situation.
It is fully aware of their common interests and common enemy and the members realize that only
by a concerted action can they overthrow their oppressors. There is thus the development of class
solidarity.
To Marx, the working class was bound to develop this class consciousness relevant in
overthrowing the bourgeoisie. The dialectical process will come to an end with the overthrow of
the bourgeoisie by the proletariat leading to a transitional phase called ‘the dictatorship of the
proletariat’ and then the establishment of a communist society. This society according to Marx is
classless. There is no private ownership of property; the means of production are communally
56
owned. There is no division of the society into exploiters and exploited. There is therefore no
possibility of revolution. The members of society are fulfilled as human beings since they control
their own destinies and work together for the common good. From Marxian perspective religion
does not exist in this society since the social conditions that produce it have disappeared. Since
history is the history of class struggle, history would now end.
1-5.3 Criticisms of Marxism

Critics of Marx argue that he overemphasized the economic system as the cause of changes and
thus historical development. He therefore saw causation solely in terms of economic forces even
though there are other factors apart from economic issues that account for change. Religion can
for instance cause a change.
He also overemphasized class conflict. He stressed so much on conflict placing less emphasis on
order, unity, solidarity and the elements that ensure these. He is thus considered as a conflict
theorist.
It has also been argued that the revolution against capitalism that Marx prophesied has not been
realized in industrialized societies. The class structure has rather become increasingly complex
and differentiated. There is even a steadily growing middle class. Critics argue that there is the
development of labour unions concerned about workers welfare. Marx did not foresee the
development of these labour unions which have proven false the competition that will ensue
among individual workers. The industrialized capitalist societies have therefore not seen a
progressive pauperization of the working class that is the proletariats being poorer in relation to
the bourgeoisie. This prophecy has not materialized probably because of the work of the labour
unions.
Classlessness in communist societies as indicated by Marx has been noted by critics as false.
They argue that even within communist societies there are classes. Everybody is not treated the
same. Leaders of these countries do not receive the same treatment as the ordinary people.
Classes therefore exist even though it no comparable to what exist in capitalist societies.
It has also been argued that the collapse of communism in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union
in the late 1980s and early 1990s suggests that the promise of communism has been replaced by
the desire for Western-style democracies. From Marx’s perspective the Western style of life
would give way to the communist way of life. But it appears the opposite is happening.
Communism is rather giving way to Westernization. Again critics point out that the essentially
two classes that he stated was not true since there were other categories of people who do not fit
into any. The managers of the different organizations, the professionals working in the society
may neither be bourgeoisie or proletariat. This is because even though they are not owners of the
means of production, their lifestyles make it difficult to categorize them as part of the working
class who are being exploited.
There is also a criticism with reference to the applicability of the dialectic approach to the
analysis of history. It is noted that reality is not necessarily dualistic, with a thesis giving rise to
57
an antithesis. A particular thesis however in the real world can give rise to quite different
antithesis and syntheses.
1. Explain the conflict perspective to a non-sociologist.
2. Give a critical analysis of Marxism as a conflict orientation in sociology.

3. Evaluate Marxism as a theoretical perspective in sociological theory.
SESSION 2-5: NEO-MARXISM
2-5.1 Brief comments

Neo-Marxists are sociologists whose work has been inspired by Marx’s theories but who have
developed a distinctive approach. Most neo-Marxists use some concepts that are different from
those that Marx used. They emphasize on issues that are different from that of Marx in the
explanation of the structure and development of society. One of such scholars is Antonio
Gramsci whose work is analysed below.
The Conflict Views of Antonio Gramsci
Antonio Gramsci lived between 1891 and 1937. He was an Italian sociologist and political
activist. After a childhood marked by poverty and ill health, he entered the University of Turin,
where he seems to have been a particularly talented student of language related matters.
However, because of continuing poverty and deepening political involvements, he left the
university in 1915 after four years of study and without graduating. Thereafter he became an
influential journalist, a prominent political activist and parliamentarian, the leader of the Italian
Communist Party (1924-1926) and finally a political prisoner in Musolini’s gaols (1926-1937).
His main contributions to sociological theory are contained in his work “The Prison Notebooks”
(1929-1935, edited and translated into English in 1971).
He argued against Marx’s economic determinism. To him the economic infrastructure did not
determine to any great degree what occurred in the superstructure. He believed in reciprocity
between the economic structure and superstructure, thus, although the infrastructure could affect
what took place in the superstructure, the reverse was also possible.
He indicated that ownership of the means of production was not sufficient to guarantee that a
ruling class would monopolise power in a society. In order to maintain its leadership and
dominance or as he called it ‘hegemony’, a ruling class should win support from other members
of society. Hegemony is defined by Gramsci as cultural leadership exercised by the ruling class
(Ritzer, 1996). To him, the ruling class could not rely on false class consciousness to guarantee
its position, since all members of the subject classes had some awareness of their exploitation.
58
He divided the superstructure into two (2) parts: political society and civil society. Political
society is normally thought of as the state which primarily is concerned with the use of force by
the army, police and legal system to repress troublesome elements within the population. Civil
society consisted of those institutions normally thought of as private including the church, trade
unions, mass media, and political parties.
To Gramsci, the ruling class achieves hegemony if it could maintain its control by gaining the
approval and consent of members of society. As such control over the civil society was
fundamental in the maintenance of the ruling class’ hegemony. Hegemony was largely achieved
not through the use of force but by persuading the population to accept the political and moral
values of the ruling class. The ruling class as noted by Gramsci could only remain hegemonic if
it was prepared to compromise and take into account the demands of exploited classes. The
ruling class had to make concessions in order to be able to rule by consent instead of relying on
the use of force. Some policies had to be adopted for the benefit of the subject class. This
hegemony could be complete when there is the development of historic blocs – a successful
alliance which achieved a high level of hegemony.
Gramsci noted that both the ruling and subject classes are divided. Ruling class was divided into
groups such as financiers, small and large industrialists and landowners, whilst the subject class
included industrial workers, agricultural peasants. Hegemony was only possible if there was
some alliance between two or more groups.
Gramsci placed greater emphasis on divisions within classes as well as between classes. He
attached more importance to the culture of a society and the institutions of the superstructure
such as church, the mass media and the education system. He also placed more stress upon the
role of ideas in maintaining political stability.
These notwithstanding, he believed that the ruling class could not completely indoctrinate the
population since individuals possessed dual consciousness. Part of their consciousness is derived
from the ruling class’ control over civil society and its ability to use institutions such as the
church and schools to persuade people to accept that capitalism was natural and desirable.
Another part of their consciousness also emanates from their own activities and experiences
through which they will appreciate their poor conditions and the need for some reform.
As such the ruling class could never completely monopolise power since power is not derived
only from economic control but from the control of people’s ideas and beliefs which cannot be
controlled entirely. He looked forward to a proletarian revolution. As noted by Ritzer (1996) the
masses had to act in order to bring about a social revolution. But to act, the masses had to
become conscious of their situation and the nature of the system in which they lived. The masses
needed to develop a revolutionary ideology. However they could not do so on their own. To
Gramsci the revolutionary ideology had to be developed by intellectuals and then extended to the
masses and put in practice by them. The masses could not generate such ideas, and they could
experience them, once in existence, only on faith. The masses could not become self-conscious
on their own; they needed the help of social elites.
59
2-5.2 The Conflict Views of Ralf Dahrendorf

Ralf Dahrendorf was a sociologist, political scientist and economist, born in Hamburg, Germany,
in 1929. He obtained a British citizenship and therefore a German-British. He earned degrees in
philosophy, classical philology and sociology from Hamburg University and in 1952 he gained a
doctorate of philosophy and classics. From 1953 to 1954 he completed postgraduate studies at
the London School of Economics. He was a professor of sociology in Hamburg (1957-1960),
Tubinga (1960-1964) and Constanza (1966-1969). He was elected to the German parliament for
the Free Democratic Party, a liberal political party, and was a Parliamentary Secretary of State in
the Ministry of Foreign Affairs during Willy Brandt´s first term as Chancellor. In 1970 he was
made a Commissioner of the European Commission in Brussels. He also continued pursuing his
academic career and was a director of the London School of Economics (1974-1984) and a
warden of St. Anthony´s College, a graduate college at Oxford University specialising in
international studies. He is a professor at Berlin University´s Faculty of Social Sciences since
2005.
Prominent amongst his studies are his contributions to social conflict theories, which deal with
such issues as the need for integration and order in contemporary societies, whilst defending the
concept of conflict as an element of social change. Likewise, he upholds the need for Europe to
confront the problems it faces, such as unemployment and maintaining a welfare state. Ralf
Dahrendorf is the author of an extensive collection of works, including Class and Class Conflict
in Industrial Society (1959), The Modern Social Conflict: The Politic of Liberty (1988), Society
and Democracy in Germany (1967) and Law and Order (1994). He has been awarded over
twenty honorary doctorates by universities in such countries as the United Kingdom, Ireland,
Belgium, Italy and the United States.
Dahrendorf’s Conflict Argument

Dahrendorf contributed to the conflict theoretical orientation. He argued that society has two
faces – consensus and conflict – and that sociological theory therefore should be divided into two
parts, consensus theory and conflict theory. The consensus theory examines value integration
whilst the conflict theory emphasizes on conflicts of interest and the coercion that holds society
together. Society could not exist without both conflict and consensus. He developed a conflict
theory of society which is viewed as a dialectical-conflict perspective.
Dahrendorf criticised Marx’s economic determinism and argument that conflict was based upon
the ownership or non-ownership of the means of production. For him, the close association
between wealth and power is no longer valid in the twentieth century, so the source of conflict is
60
not mainly in the economic system. Managers rather than owners of means of production
exercised day-to-day control over the means of production.
Conflict to Dahrendorf was as a result of differences in the distribution of authority. So his
central thesis was that differential distribution of authority ‘invariably becomes the determining
factor of systematic social conflicts’ (1959: 165 in Ritzer, 1996). Authority is legitimate power
attached to the occupation of a particular social role within an organisation (Haralambos &
Holborn, 2004). Authority to him does not reside in individuals but in positions. Various
positions within society have different amounts of authority. This authority is characteristic of
the ‘imperatively coordinated associations’ (ICA) which represents a distinguishable Formatted: Highlight
organisation of roles (Turner, 2007). Power and authority to Dahrendorf are the scarce resources
over which ICA compete and fight and thus are the major sources of conflict and change in
institutionalised patterns.
Any particular ICA can be typified in terms of two basic types of roles, ruling and ruled. The
ruling cluster of roles has an interest in preserving the status quo and the ruled cluster has an
interest in redistributing power or authority (Turner, 2007). Authority implies both super
ordination and subordination. There is a conflict of interest which is at least latent at all times.
These unconscious role expectations are known as latent interests. Manifest interests are latent
interests that have become conscious (Ritzer, 1996). With these contradictory interests, the
groups engage in contest over authority leading to a redistribution of authority in the ICA. In turn
the redistribution of authority represents the institutionalisation of a new cluster of ruling and
ruled roles, become polarised into two interest groups that initiate contest and therefore change.
Social reality is typified in terms of this unending cycle of conflict over authority within the
various types of ICAs within the social world.
Authority is not constant – a person of authority in one setting does not necessarily hold a
position of authority in another setting. Similarly, a person in a subordinate position in one group
may be in a super ordinate position in another (Ritzer, 1996). So for example if a person who is a
manager and has a position of authority in a company will tend to act to maintain that authority,
but if the same person has a subordinate position in a religious organisation, he may try to
change the organisation to increase their own authority.
Dahrendorf distinguished three broad types of groups. First type of group is the quasi group.
They are the aggregates of incumbents of positions with identical role interests. They act as the
grounds for the recruitment of people into the second type interest group. With the interest group
the personnel of members have a structure, a form of organisation with a programme or goal. Out
of the interest groups, there is the emergence of conflict groups – those that actually engage in
group conflict. They engage in actions that lead to changes in social structure. When the conflict
is intense, the changes that occur are radical.
Criticisms of Dahrendorf’s Work

(1) He has been criticised as producing a confused picture of the social structure. Society is
portrayed as consisting of so many different groups all of which may be in conflict with
61
each other, that, it is difficult to get a clear picture of how society works. It is not clear
what the end result will be; why one group will be successful and another will not.
(2) Critics have a problem with Dahrendorf’s causal analysis. Peter Weingart (1969) in his
publication ‘Beyond Parsons? A Critique of Ralf Dahrendorf’s Conflict Theory” in
Social Forces 48: 151 – 65 argues that Dahrendorf forfeits a genuine causal analysis of
conflict and therefore an explanation of how patterns of social organisation are changed.
How it is that conflict emerges from legitimated authority relations among roles in an
imperatively coordinated association? How is it that the same structure that generates
integration also generates conflict? Under what conditions does conflict emerge? To
critics therefore, Dahrendorf’s causal analysis does not deal with why, when and where
such change occurs. His analysis is therefore vague.
(3) Methodological problems have also been raised by critics. To them there is a difficulty in
measuring the concepts used by Dahrendorf such as power, legitimacy, authority,
interests, domination and even conflict. These concepts were broadly defined without
specifics to lead themselves to empirical investigations.
2-5.3 Criticism of Neo-Marxism

The argument of Neo-Marxists has been criticized. Critics argue that Neo-Marxists have
developed no clear alternative approach to understanding society. They reduce the role of the
economy in their theories and attach more importance to cultural and ideological aspects of
society. But they are generally unable to specify when and in what circumstances cultural or
economic factors were more important in shaping society.
1. Who are referred to as Neo-Marxists?

2. Discuss the conflict ideas of Antonio Gramsci.
3. Discuss the conflict ideas of Ralf Dahrendorf.

In Unit 5 we have explored the conflict perspective. This is a perspective which focuses on
different groups and interests in the society. Social life is therefore explained in terms of the
struggle between or among the various groups. Issues that are raised in conflict analysis include
who benefits, who suffers, who dominates at the expense of others, as well as how society’s
institutions may help to maintain the privileges of some groups and keep others in a subservient
62
position. For example how family, government, religion, education, media etc may help in
maintaining the dominance of a group over another.
We also discussed Marxism as a conflict orientation. Marxism emphasizes on the class struggle
characteristic of the economic system which is the key determinant of happenings within the
society. In other words Marxism focuses on economic determinism since it indicates that the
economic system is the substructure which determines all other aspects of the society known as
the superstructure.
Apart from Marxism, there was a discussion of Neo-Marxist postulations. These are sociologists
whose work has been inspired by Marx’s theories but who have developed a distinctive
approach. There was the examination of the conflict ideas of Gramsci in relation to hegemony as
well as Dahrendorf’s views which emphasized on differences in authority as the source of
conflict.
1. Conflict perspective
2. Marxism
3. Neo-Marxism
4. Substructure
5. Superstructure
6. Mode of production
7. Historical materialism
8. False class consciousness
9. Class in itself
10. Class for itself
11. Hegemony
12. Political society
13. Civil society
14. Authority
15. Imperatively Coordinated Association
16. Quasi group
17. Interest group
18. Conflict group

 Review Question:
Give a conflict account of a social phenomenon of your choice. Formatted: Font: Times New Roman
 Discussion Question:
 How different is Marxian conflict perspective from that of Antonio
 Gramsci? Formatted: Font: Times New Roman
63
Unit Assignment 5
Using the university as a case, analyze the conflict views of Ralf Dahrendorf. Formatted: Font: Times New Roman
Unit 6
FUNCTIONS OF CONFLICT: VIEWS OF SIMMEL AND COSER
Introduction
Congratulations for making it to the last Unit of the course for this semester. We have been
identifying different sociological perspectives. These are ways of analyzing the social world. We
examined sociological perspectives, sociological theory, functionalist perspective, and
contributions of some early sociologists to functionalism, Parsons’ views on functionalism,
Merton’s functional analysis, conflict perspective, Marxism, Neo-Marxist ideas of Gramsci and
Dahrendorf among others. Formatted: Font: Times New Roman
In this Unit we will look at the views of Simmel and Lewis Coser to the conflict orientation.
They examined the functions of conflict.
1. Discuss the source of conflict as noted by Simmel

2. Analyze the functions of conflict as evident in the
work of Simmel
3. Explain the functions of conflict according to
Coser
Unit content
Session 1-6: Georg Simmel and Conflict
1-6.1 Brief biography of Simmel
1-6.2 Simmel and the source of conflict
1-6.3 Simmel and the functions of conflict
Session 2-6: Lewis Coser and Conflict
2-6.1 Brief biography of Coser
2-6.2 Coser and the functions of conflict
64
SESSION 1-6: GEORG SIMMEL AND CONFLICT

PERSPECTIVE
1-6.1 Brief biography of Simmel
He was born in Berlin and lived from 1858 to 1918. He studied in the University of Berlin where
he obtained his doctorate after writing a dissertation on Kant. He became an unpaid lecturer
dependent on student fees from 1885 to 1901. However, he survived financially since his
guardian, who was a family friend, left him a fortune. He was regarded as an academic outsider.
This notwithstanding, he attended meetings of philosophers and sociologists and together with
Weber and Toennies co-foundered the German Society of Sociology.
He stood between the Anglo-French tradition of positivism who regarded sociology as directly
descendant from natural sciences and not essentially different from them; and the German
philosophical and historical tradition, who viewed the study of culture and social life as
essentially different from the realm of the natural science. To the German philosophers and
historians human affairs involved unique events and free will and thus not subject to
generalization.
Simmel noted that there are important distinctions between sociology and the natural sciences.
On the other hand he insisted on the possibility and importance of sociological generalizations.
He was committed to developing a body of theoretical statements that captured the form of basic
social processes, an approach he labelled formal sociology. He wrote a short essay on conflict,
which serves as a major source of insight for contemporary conflict theorists in sociology.
Simmel like Marx viewed conflict as ubiquitous and inevitable in society. He sought the
consequences of conflict for social continuity.
1-6.2 Simmel and the source of conflict

Simmel postulated an innate ‘hostile impulse’ or ‘a need for hating and fighting’ among the units
of organic wholes, although this instinct is mixed with others for love and affection and is
circumscribed by the force of social relationships. Therefore Simmel viewed conflict as a
reflection not only of conflicts of interest but also of hostile instincts. So one of the ultimate
sources of conflict, lies in the innate biological make up of human actors.
In an effort to reconcile his assumptions about the nature of the social organism with notions of
hating and fighting instincts, he devoted considerable effort to analysing the positive
consequences of conflict for the maintenance of social wholes and their subunits. Hostile
impulses were seen not so much as a contradiction or cancer to the organic whole but as one of
many processes maintaining the body social.
65
Simmel viewed conflict as a variable that manifests different states of intensity or violence. The
polar ends of this variable continuum are ‘competition’ and the ‘fight’. Competition involves the
more regulated and parallel strivings of parties toward a mutually exclusive end and fight
denotes the less regulated and more direct combative activities of parties against each other.
Simmel was more concerned with the analysis of the less intense and violent conflicts that
promoted the solidarity, integration and orderly change of the system.
1-6.3 Simmel and the functions of conflict Formatted: Font: (Default) Times New Roman
Simmel analysed the consequences of conflict for;
(1) The conflict parties

(2) The systematic whole in which the conflict occurs.
Functions of Conflict to Conflict Parties

Conflict to Simmel is functional to the conflicting parties. It increases the degree of
centralisation and the level of internal solidarity of groups. Violent conflict increase solidarity
and internal organisation of conflict parties. The increased level of organisation within conflict
groups enables then to realise many of their goals without overt violence (but perhaps with
covert threat of violence) and such partial realisation of clearly defined goals cuts down internal
system tension and hence promotes integration.
Functions of the Social Whole

Conflict, whether violent or non-violent performs integrative functions of the social whole.
Conflicts of low intensity and high frequency do not lead to radical social change but rather
release tension and become regulated thereby promoting stability in social systems. Violent
conflicts present the possibility that with the increasing organisation of the conflicting groups,
the degree of violence of their conflict will decrease as their goals become better articulated. The
consequence of such organisation and articulation of interests will be a greater disposition to
initiate milder forms of conflict, involving competition, bargaining and compromise.
Specific functions of conflict

 Conflict enhances the unity of an in-group. That is to say conflict with an out-group
brings members of an-in-group together, reinforcing ‘we-feeling’, loyalty and conformity
to norms
 It helps in testing the strength of relationships. The interaction that occurs during and
after conflict would help in examining how strong a relationship is.
 Conflict functions to bring into the open negative feelings, which if suppressed, might
continue to build and contribute to greater social disruption.
 It can also lead to a strengthening of the position of one or more parties to the
relationship, thereby increasing the individual’s self dignity and esteem.
66
 Conflict can be a cause of individuals and groups’ development. The proper management
of conflict can be the determinant of advancement of individuals and groups.
 It can lead to the formation of coalitions among previously unrelated groups in a system.
 It permits a more realistic appraisal of social relationship and of areas of agreement and
disagreement by the participants.
Conflict can thus be a creative and constructive rather than a destructive force.
To him conflict is the very essence of social life, an irremovable aspect of social living. The
good society is not conflict-free but rather ‘sewn together’ by a variety of crisscrossing conflicts
among component parts. Peace and feud, conflict and order are thus correlative.
It would therefore be a mistake to distinguish sociology of order from one of disorder, a model of
order from one of conflict. These are not distinct realities but only differing formal aspects of
one reality.
1-6.4 Methods of Conflict resolution Formatted: Font: (Default) Times New Roman
Simmel further suggested four ways in which conflict may be terminated as noted by Abraham
& Morgan (2004).
 Disappearance of the object of conflict: With this method the contending parties are
deprived of the object of their conflict, often by a third party.
 Victory: This results from the superiority of one party over the other.
 Compromise: It entails the parties agreeing to divide or share the object of conflict.
There can be a symbolic compromise if the object cannot be shared. So there is the
objective sharing of the object.
 Conciliation: This relates to ‘forgive and forget’. It is a subjective orientation involving a
change of heart.
1. Discuss the source of conflict as evident in the work of Georg Simmel
2. Identify and explain the functions of conflict according to Simmel
3. From Simmelian perspective, analyse how conflict can be resolved.

67
SESSION 2-6: LEWIS COSER AND CONFLICT
2-6.1 Brief biography of Coser

[add interactive subject matter; with examples, insert captioned illustrations, diagrams,
tables, figures, etc.]
2-6.2 Coser and the functions of conflict

As noted by Dzorbo (2010), Lewis Coser aregues functionally that conflict can also be
the basis for social order in his book “Functions of Social Conflict” (1956).
He argues that conflict can exist between or within societies or groups.
Coser argues that conflict sharpens the sense of group boundaries and contributes to unity
and a feeling of group identity. Members feel more united and nationalistic when they
have someone else as enemy to fight. This is evident in the conflicts between Jews and
Arabs, US and Al Qaeda, China and Taiwan, Christians and Moslems, Blacks and Whites
in the US, Kokombas and Nanumbas, Abudus and Andanis. In all these conflicts, the
various groups become more conscious of their separateness and group identity than
before.
Conflict also leads to the centralization of internal structure of the group. In times of war,
a government may seek increase power and people will willingly subordinate everything
to a common effort.
Again, conflict leads to the search for allies. Warfare between two states sets both on the
path to look for allies.
1. Identify and explain the functions of conflict as postulated by Lewis Coser.

In this Unit we have discussed the functions of conflict indicating that it should not
always be viewed as a destructive social phenomenon. It may be constructive. We
therefore explored the functions of conflict as noted by Georg Simmel and Lewis Coser.
Simmel indicated the functions of conflict to the conflicting parties as well as the social
whole. Specifically he pointed out that conflict enhances the unity of an in-group, helps
in testing the strength of relationships, functions to bring into the open negative feelings,
68
which if suppressed, might continue to build and contribute to greater social disruption,
increasing the individual’s self dignity and esteem, can be a cause of individuals and
groups’ development.
Simmel again identified some conflict resolution mechanism including disappearance of
object of conflict, victory, compromise and conciliation.
We also examined the functions of conflict noted by Lewis Coser which included unity of
the group, centralization of the group structure and the search for allies.
1. Hostile impulse
2. Victory
3. Compromise
4. Conciliation

 Discussion Question:
Using examples discuss the conflict resolution mechanisms postulated by
Simmel.



Unit Assignment 6
With reference to the source of conflict, how different is Simmel’s analysis from
that of Dahrendorf?
Course Summary
This course titled, “Perspectives in Sociological Theory” examined some of the theoretical
orientations used in the explanation of society, social phenomena and social behaviour.
In Unit 1 we looked at general issues relating to sociological perspectives and theory. This
included definition and classifications of sociological perspectives, theory and sociological
theory, identification of issues in sociological theory construction, approaches to the study of
sociological theory as well as the importance of studying sociological theory.
In Unit 2 we discussed the functionalist perspective, its components as well as criticisms that
have been levelled against it.
In Unit 3 we examined the contributions of early sociologists such as Auguste Comte, Herbert
Spencer, Vilfredo Pareto and Emile Durkheim to functional analysis. We placed the works of the
69
founding fathers of sociological thought under theoretical frameworks for you to appreciate them
better.
In Unit 4, we continued with the analysis of the contributions of scholars to functionalism as a
theoretical perspective in sociology. We examined the functional analysis and related works of
Talcott Parsons and Robert King Merton.
In Unit 5 we examined the conflict perspective. This is also a major orientation under the macro
or structural perspective. We looked at the conflict ideas of Karl Marx popularly referred to as
Marxism. We also examined the views of Neo-Marxists whose writings are inspired by Marx but
had a different focus such as Antonio Gramsci and Ralf Dahrendorf.
Unit 6 is the last topic for discussion this semester. We examined the functions of conflict in
relation to the views of Simmel and Coser. They examined the functions of conflict.
Course Quiz/Exams Formatted: Font: Times New Roman
[Supply course quiz of this course here for the attention of the Institute’s examinations officer]
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = detach and return to IDL, KNUST = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Learner/Course End User Feedback Form
70

Perspetives 1 (SOC 351)

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Perspetives 1 (SOC 351)

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Institute of Distance Learning, KNUST Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

A 3-credit course outlay

INSTITUTE OF DISTANCE LEARNING

SOC 351: PERSPECTIVES IN SOCIOLOGICAL THEORY1

Credit: 3 Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

For any information contact:

Publisher’s notes to the Learners:

Icon #1 Icon #2 Icon #3 Icon #4 Icon #5

Learning Objective Activity Introduction Information

Note/Learning Tip Question

2. Guidelines for making use of learning support (virtual classroom, etc.)

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

This course SOC 351: PERSPECTIVES IN SOCIOLOGICAL THEORY 1 is a 3-Credit course

Publisher’s Information ......................................................................................................................... 23

Course Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 56

SESSION 1-1: EXPLANATION OF SOCIOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE ...................................... 1112

1-1.1Definition of Sociological Perspective ............................................................................... 1112

1-1.2 Structuralism And Determinism Versus Agency Voluntarism ............................................ 1314

SESSION 2-1: THEORY AND SOCIOLOGICAL THEORY ........................................................ 1415

2-1.1 Explanation of Theory and Sociological Theory .................................................................... 1415

2-1.2 Sociological Theory Construction ..................................................................................... 1616

2-1.3 Why study of sociological theory is important. .................................................................. 1718

Unit 2 ................................................................................................................................................ 2020

SESSION 1-2: EXPLANATION OF FUNCTIONALISM ............................................................. 2121

1-2.1 General views ................................................................................................................... 2121

1-2.2 Key Components of Functionalism ................................................................................... 2122

SESSION 2-2: CRITICISMS OF FUNCTIONALISM ................................................................... 2323

2-2.1 Substantive criticisms ....................................................................................................... 2323

Unit 3 ................................................................................................................................................ 2627

SESSION 1-3: AUGUSTE COMTE AND FUNCTIONALISM ..................................................... 2828

1-3.1 Brief Introduction ............................................................................................................. 2828

SECTION 2-3: HERBERT SPENCER AND FUNCTIONALISM ................................................. 2930

2-3.1: Brief Introduction ............................................................................................................ 3030

2-3.2: Spencer and Functionalism .............................................................................................. 3030

2-3.3: Vilfredo Pareto And Functionalism .................................................................................. 3232

2-3.4: Emile Durkheim And Functionalism ................................................................................ 3233

Unit 4 ................................................................................................................................................ 3839

1-4.1 Brief Biography ................................................................................................................ 3940

1-4.2 Voluntaristic Theory of Action .......................................................................................... 3941

2-4.2 Functional Prerequisites .................................................................................................... 4344

2-4.3 Parsons’ Social Change And Pattern Variables .................................................................. 4446

2-4.4 Parsons’ Pattern Variables ................................................................................................ 4446

SESSION 2-4: ROBERT KING MERTON AND FUNCTIONALISM .......................................... 4648

2-4.1 Brief biography of Merton ................................................................................................ 4648

2-4.2 Merton and Functional Analysis ........................................................................................ 4648

2-4.3 Merton’s theory of deviance .............................................................................................. 4850

Unit 5 ................................................................................................................................................ 5254

SESSION 1-5: CONFLICT PERSPECTIVE AND MARXISM ..................................................... 5355

1-5.1 Explanation of Conflict Perspective .................................................................................. 5355

1-5.2 Marxism ........................................................................................................................... 5456

1-5.3 Criticisms of Marxism ...................................................................................................... 5759

SESSION 2-5: NEO-MARXISM ................................................................................................... 5860

2-5.1 Brief comments ................................................................................................................ 5860

2-5.2 The Conflict Views of Ralf Dahrendorf ............................................................................. 6062

2-5.3 Criticism of Neo-Marxism ................................................................................................ 6264

Unit 6 ................................................................................................................................................ 6466

FUNCTIONS OF CONFLICT: VIEWS OF SIMMEL AND COSER ................................................ 6466

SESSION 1-6: GEORG SIMMEL AND CONFLICT PERSPECTIVE .......................................... 6567

1-6.1 Brief biography of Simmel ................................................................................................ 6567

1-6.2 Simmel and the source of conflict ..................................................................................... 6567

1-6.3 Simmel and the functions of conflict ................................................................................. 6668

1-6.4 Methods of Conflict resolution .......................................................................................... 6769