Organic Metaphor in Functionalist Theory - Literature review Example

Modern Sociological Theory Organic Metaphor in Functionalist Theory Biology became the most prestigious science in the mid to late 19th century, 1850-1900 and it involved invention of microscope, which led to the discovery of molecules and cells(the life building blocks), and the discovery of germs. However, the germ theory of disease in turn led to public works project to improve water and sewer systems. The book of Charles Darwin’s, that is the origin of species (1859), and the descent of man (1871) made the theory of evolution accessible to the literate public. Despite this, functionalist theory in biology was not as famous, but nevertheless it was crucial and its relations to other parts explain each part of an organism and each part is explained by its functions for the organism as a whole. However, anthropologist adopted the principal ideas of biological functionalism. Society became conceived as a giant organism and as well differently, anthropology used an organic metaphor to study society, as well as the functionalist theory in anthropology. Each institution or part of the culture is explained by its interdependence with other parts, and each part of society or culture is explained by what it does for the entire society (Radcliff-Brown, 1965). Postulates of Radcliff-Brown and Malinowski’s Functional Theory The functionalistic unity postulate of the society: This postulate states that every part of a social system, for instance, institutions as society basic structure module is serving to preserve the whole society. The postulate of positive universalism of functionalism says that each component has a role that is positive for the whole society. The third postulate of functional importance states that each useful life role is not substitutable component of the social system and as well is impossible to separate it. However, the quality of the components makes the quality of the whole. The postulates are emphasizing the components as parts of the system and not the system itself. In addition, the quality of the whole developed the quality of the components, and every component is related with all the others. Radcliffe-Brown observes the social world and the organization as analogy to the main body; therefore, it is the key source of his thoughts concerning social structure that he sees as relationship organization among people that are controlled by an institution(Malinowski, 1939). Robert K. Merton Criticism on Each Postulate and His Proposals The first postulate, which is the functional unity of a society, Robert, cited the comment that the function of a given social usage is the contribution it provides to the entire social life as the working of the entire social system. According to Robert, he noticed that a provision of some non-literate community/society show a higher degree of integration, and it is not legitimate to assume that this pertains to all societies. In addition, it is also possible that what is functional for society does not prove functional for all individuals or some groups of people within the society (Robert, 1957). The second postulate of universal functionalism refers to what was a rather old debate in anthropology concerning survivals, that is, practices that do not have current functions but are to be understood in terms of history of a group. Argues gave his passion and argues that in order to accept that there are degrees of integration; therefore, practices can survive if they are functional for a given group of people or individuals. This identifies power as a central issue. Finally, Merton addressed indispensability postulate. Merton directed his critic to Malinowski’s view that each item fulfills a significant role and is representing an indispensable part within a working whole. However, provided his comments that this is not clear whether it is the function that is indispensable or the particular item held to be fulfilling the function. Merton proposed that it is important to distinguish the functional prerequisites and the particular social forms or items to meet those functions (Robert, 1957). Middle Range Theory Middle-Range theory is mostly applied in sociology to offer guidance in empirical inquiry. It is intermediate to the social system general theories, which are very remote from a given classes of organization, social behavior, and change that account for what is seen. In addition, it is intermediate to those descriptions that are too detailed and orderly of particulars, which are not generalized in any case. Furthermore, Middle-range theory includes abstractions, of course, but they are enough close to data to be incorporated in propositions that allow empirical testing. Middle-range theories are dealing with aspects that are delimited of social phenomena, as their labeling (Robert, 1957), indicates it. Functionalist Theory appeal to the Generation of Social Scientist who Dominated Sociology There are various reasons that led to the functionalist theory to dominate sociology. These include the great depression that occurred between the year 1929-1942 and its disintegrating effects on American society. In addition, there was crisis tendency in capitalism over production/ under consumption, virtually no welfare state or safety net and extremely high levels of unemployment and underemployment as well as migration. Elements of Domhoff Theory of Power in Contemporary America The social upper class in contemporary United States of America societies is the social class that consists of the wealthiest group in the society and at the same time wields great political power. About this view, the social upper class is always contained in the wealthiest small percentage of the population, and they are differentiated by immense wealth that is in the form of estates, which are ever passed on from certain generation to other. However, the social upper class view themselves as members of families that for so long have been distinguished by fame and wealth that are ostensibly available to all in a democratic society. In addition, they view themselves as generations of leadership in education, military, charity, public service, as well as arts (Domhoff, 1997). The corporate community is defined as organizational networks that consist of all those profit seeking organization. They are big corporations, banks and other financial companies that sit astride the American economy as any community. Corporations have many types of connections and common bonds. They include shared ownership, long-standing patterns of supply and purchase, and the use of the same legal, accounting, advertising and public relation firms. In addition, corporate community shares common members on their boards of directors, which have the ultimate responsibilities for the fate of corporations (Domhoff, 1997). The Power Elite group can be described as those building on the ideas that are developed in the process of policy-formation and its success in the arena of the electorate to ensure that they dominate the federal government. However, lobbyists for law firms, trade associations, and corporations plays a key function to shape government on very narrow issues concerning to business sectors or specific corporations. Their significance importance is not always overestimated because a majority among those elected to the Congress always agrees with them. The policy-formation network and corporate community mostly supply top-level governmental official as well as give new policy directions on key issues. This group involves bureaucratic, intellectual, corporate, and military as well as government elites who keeps on controlling the main institutions in the US whose actions and opinions influence the key decisions of those who make policies. In addition, the battles and conflicts comes from the public opinion and electorate, and the power elite also opposition from a minority of officials who have been elected and their supporters in liberal advocacy groups and labor unions. However, these oppositions and conflicts sometimes succeed in blocking power elite initiatives (Domhoff, 1997). Methodological Approach used by Domhoff in his Study of the Corporate Community and What would Merton Thinks During the study of corporate community and middle class, Domhoff used particularly secondary sources of information. He depended on what most Historians had produced. For instance, the study that had already been shown by historical diaries, newspapers, as well as other documents during that period. In addition, in studying the corporate detailed research that had been done by reporters were used for instance, fortune business magazine provided information that lead to listing of bigger corporations every year since 1950s. However, Merton had its share of criticism and thoughts. He believes that Domhoff, consciously or either unconsciously, had allocated his scant resources during the time of producing the sociological theory as it is done during the production of items, for example, plumbing supplies. In addition, their work and allocations reflected assumptions with no basis. He believes that the theories such as, the middle range theory hold the greater promise and can be effectively used by sociologist. How Upper Class Reproduce itself Due to their lifestyle and wealth, it makes easier, these managers, owners, and managers, to draw closer to a common social group. However, they fall under the same exclusive clubs, frequent the same winter resorts and summer, and send their kids to relatively best private schools. Members of the corporate community thereby become a corporate rich who create a nationwide social upper class through their social interaction. The corporate rich as well as the entrepreneurs increase their small numbers by directing and developing wide and diverse non-profit organizations, the most essential of which are a set of tax-free foundations for charity, policy discussion groups, and think tanks (Domhoff, 1997). Social Changes that occurred in World and United States Between the year 1940s and 1950s American sociologists have always ignored the conflict theory in favor of the functionalist. However, from the year 1960s sociologists from American gained considerable interest in conflict theory. Perhaps, the reason was that inequality existed among those who were attempting to control the resources of the society as well as their advantages. These groups are not, however, bound to society by the values they share, but by being coerced at the hands of people those in power. This perspective emphasizes conformity, social control, and not consensus. Individuals and groups advance their self-interests and struggle to control of society resources. Those who have the most resources are exercising power over those with power struggle and inequality result. However, there is great attention that is paid to race, class, and gender because they are observed as the grounds of the most enduring and pertinent struggles in society. In addition, most other theories focus on the society aspects that are positive, perspective of conflicts focuses on aspects that are negative, ever changing society nature and conflicted society (Malinowski, 1939). References Domhoff, W.(1997). Power and Class in the Year 2000, 3rd edition.Mayfield Publishers. Malinowski, B.(1939). The Group and the Individual in Functional Analysis.The American Journal of Sociology, 44(6): 938–964. Radcliffe-Brown, A. R. (1965). On Social Structure, In Structure and Function in Primitive Society. New York: Free Press, 188–204. Robert K. M.(1957). "The Role Set: Problems in Sociological Theory," The British Journal of Sociology8 (2), 106-20. Read More