Functionalism And Structural Functionalism

FUNCTIONALISM

Functionalism arose as a reaction to evolutionism and diffusionism in the early twentieth

century. Functionalists seek to describe the different parts of a society and their
relationship by means of an organic analogy.

The organic analogy compares the different parts of a society to the organs of a living
organism. The organism is able to live, reproduce and function through the organised
system of its several parts and organs. Like a biological organism, a society is able to
maintain its essential processes through the way that the different parts interact.

Institutions such as religion, kinship and the economy were the organs and individuals
were the cells in this social organism. Functional analysis examines the social significance
of phenomena, that is, the function they serve a particular society in maintaining the
whole.

Bronislaw Malinowski and A.R. Radcliffe-Brown had the greatest influence on the
development of functionalism from their posts in Great Britain and elsewhere. Two
versions of functionalism developed between 1910 and 1930: Malinowski’s bio-cultural (or
psychological) functionalism; and structural-functionalism, the approach advanced by
Radcliffe-Brown.

Functionalism looks for the function or part that is played by several aspects of culture in
order to maintain a social system. It is a framework that considers society as a system
whose parts work together to promote solidarity and stability. This approach of
theoretical orientation looks at both social structure and social function. It describes the
inter-relationship between several parts of any society.

These parts or the constituent elements of a society could be named as norms,

traditions, customs, institutions like economy, kinship, religion etc. These parts are
interrelated and interdependent.

Idea of function came up from an analogy drawn between an organism and society
(organic analogy concept propounded by Herbert Spencer and Emile Durkheim).
Functionalism was mainly led by Bronislaw Malinowski and A.R. Radcliffe Brown. Both
were purely functionalists but their approach slightly differed as Malinowski is known as
bio cultural functionalist but Radcliffe-Brown is mainly known as Structural
Functionalist.
Malinowski suggested that each and every trait of culture exists to fulfil an individual's
needs, while Radcliffe-Brown focused on social structure rather than biological needs. He
considered society as a system. He looked at institutions as orderly sets of relationships
whose function is to maintain the society as a system.

Malinowski’s School of Functionalism:

Bronislaw Malinowski

B K Malinowski was born in 1884 Poland. He received his PhD in Physics and
Mathematics. He got the opportunity to read Frazer’s book Golden Bough and got attracted
to Anthropology. Later he became a Postgraduate Student at the London School of
Economics. He had been trained by the greatest field worker of the day, C G Seligman.

He not only spend longer period than any anthropologists before and after him in a
single study of 'primitive' people, the Trobriand Islanders of Melanesia, but he
was the first anthropologist to conduct study in native language. Malinowski
emphasised upon participant observation and writing ethnographic diary for all
researchers, while conducting field studies.

Argonauts of the Western Pacific (1922) , Magic Science and Religion (1925) and A
Scientific Theory of Culture (1944) are his major works in the field of Anthropology.

Malinowski’s definition of the term culture was given in 1931 in the Encyclopedia of the
Social Sciences (1931:621-46). He wrote, “...culture comprises inherited artefacts, goods,
technical processes, ideas, habits and values”. For Malinowski, social organisation is
clearly a part of culture.

In this respect, you will find that his definition of culture is quite similar to Tylor’s (1881)
definition. Tylor said that culture is ‘that complex whole which includes knowledge,
belief, art, law, morals, customs and all other capabilities and habits acquired by man as a
member of society’. A comparison between the two definitions shows that Tylor stressed
the complexity aspect while Malinowski emphasised the wholeness aspect of culture.
Malinowski used the term culture as a functioning whole and developed the idea of
studying the ‘use’ or ‘function’ of the beliefs, practices, customs and institutions which
together made the ‘whole’ of a culture. He viewed different aspects of culture as a
scheme for empirical research, which could be verified by observation. In this sense, we
can say that Malinowski became an architect of what is known as the fieldwork method
in anthropology/sociology.

Malinowski published the results of his painstaking fieldwork in 1922 in his famous
monograph, Argonauts of the Western Pacific. Here, he used the concept of culture as a
balanced system of many parts. He explained that the function of a custom or institution
was to be understood in the way it helped to maintain the culture as a whole. Malinowski
instructed that a culture had to be studied in its own right... as a self-contained reality’.

MALINOWSKI’s FIELDWORK (PARTICIPANT OBSERVATION)

Franz Boas made a field-study among the Eskimos(Inuit) and later studied the American
Indians(Kwakiutl) of the North-West coast (British Columbia, Canada). He gave special
importance to learning the language of the people to be studied.

In England, anthropological field visits for collecting first-hand information were

introduced by A.C. Haddon of Cambridge University. He led in 1878- 79 the famous
expedition to the Torres Straits region of the Pacific. The purpose behind this expedition
was to train scholars in conducting professional fieldwork. In his team of fieldworkers,
Haddon included specialists in various academic areas.

Another important landmark in collecting ethnographic material was the expedition of

A.R. Radcliffe-Brown to the Andaman Islands, India, in 1906-08.

Bronislaw Malinowski, made three field visits to New Guinea. In his first visit to New
Guinea, Malinowski lived among the Mailu of Toulon Island, a West Papua-Melanesian
group. This visit was made during September 1914 to March 1915. In June 1915 Malinowski
went to the Trobriand islands and stayed there until May 1916. Again he went to these
islands in October 1917 and lived there for one year.

Malinowski first conversed with the Trobrianders in pidgin-English but soon in a matter of
three months, he could make his inquiries in the native dialect. Of the two years of
fieldwork among the Trobriand islanders, he spent only six weeks in the company of
Europeans. He had pitched his tent right among the huts of the natives. This gave him an
ideal position to observe the way of life of the Trobrianders.
Furthermore, Malinowski was not just a passive observer and collector of facts about a
society. He collected them by employing certain techniques. He was the first
professionally trained anthropologist to conduct fieldwork in a primitive community. He
evolved a range of techniques of fieldwork.

Malinowski suggested that individuals have physiological needs (reproduction, food,

shelter) and that social institutions exist to meet these needs. There are also culturally
derived needs (economics, social control, education, and political organisation), that
require institutional devices. Each institution has personnel, a charter, a set of norms or
rules, activities, material apparatus (technology), and a function. Malinowski argued that
uniform psychological responses are correlates of physiological needs. He argued that
satisfaction of these needs transformed the cultural instrumental activity into an
acquired drive through psychological reinforcement.

He assumes that “in every civilization every custom, material object, ideas and belief fulfil
some vital function, has some task to accomplish, represents an indispensable fact within
a working whole.”

Malinowski’s starting point is the individual, who has a set of ‘basic’ (or ‘biological’)
needs that must be satisfied for its survival. As stated in Malinowski’s text The Scientific
Theory of Culture and Other Essays:
1. Culture is essentially an instrumental apparatus by which man is put in a position
to better cope with the concrete, specific problems that face him in his
environment in the course of the satisfaction of his needs.
2. It is a system of objects, activities, and attitudes in which every part exists as a
means to an end.
3. It is an integral whole in which the various elements are interdependent.
4. Such activities, attitudes and objects are organised around important and vital
tasks into institutions such as family, the clan, the local community, the tribe, and
the organised teams of economic cooperation, political, legal, and educational
activity.
5. From the dynamic point of view, that is, as regards the type of activity, culture can
be analysed into a number of aspects such as education, social control,
economics, systems of knowledge, belief, and morality, and also modes of
creative and artistic expression.

The functional view of culture lays down the principle that in every type of civilization,
every custom, material object, idea and belief fulfils some vital function, has some task to
accomplish, represents an indispensable part within a working whole.
Malinowski’s Theory of Needs:
Malinowski developed a clear-cut theory of need in his book Scientific Theory of Culture
and Other Essays. In this book he defines need as the system of conditions in human
organisms, in the cultural setting and in relation of both to the natural environment, which
need to be satisfied for survival of the group. According to the functional approach of
culture, institutions of a culture operate to satisfy the needs of individuals and that of a
society as a whole.

In this book he distinguishes three levels of needs which are as follows:

1. Primary or basic or biological need
2. Instrumental need or derived need
3. Integrative need

Malinowski proposes that these three levels constitute a hierarchy. At the bottom is
placed the biological system, followed next by the instrumental, and finally, by the
integrative. The way in which needs at one level are fulfilled will affect the way in which
they will be fulfilled at the subsequent levels.

The most basic needs are the biological, but this doesn’t mean one is more important
than others. Culture is the kernel of Malinowski’s approach. It is ‘uniquely human’, for it is
not found to exist among sub-humans. Composing all those things – material and
non-material – that human beings have created right from the time they separated from
their simian ancestors, culture has been the instrument that satisfies the biological needs
of human beings. It is a need-serving and need-fulfilling system.

Because of this role of culture in satisfying biological needs that Malinowski’s

functionalism is also known as “biocultural functionalism”

Malinowski set of seven biological needs and their respective cultural responses:
Derived Needs
Derived needs relate to the requirement of maintenance of cultural apparatus, regulation
of human behaviour, socialisation, and exercise of authority. The responses to them
comprise those of economics, social control, educational and political organisation.

Integrative Needs
To the sphere of integrative needs, belong the phenomena subsumed under such terms
as tradition, religion, mythology, art, magic etc. Contrary to evolutionary views on
evolution of science, religion and magic, Malinowski proposed a functional approach to
study them. He opined that they are the highest and most derived imperative of human
culture. They are the third order of imperatives or needs.For him, magic, myth, religion,
and art take their places alongside rational knowledge(science) as the foundation of
culture. Thus they are instrumental in the existence of individuals, man and society.

Of all living beings, man is the only animal, who can accumulate experiences, reflect on
them, and use them to foretell the future. Science, the system of knowledge, organises
and integrates human activities, so that the present and future can be made to better
serve the needs of men, on the basis of past experiences. As man’s knowledge is
insufficient and subject of accumulation in each generation, the gaps between
knowledge and power creates anxiety and hesitation in him and he uses magic. Magic is
employed as a substitute for a rational system, which gives him courage to act even
without perfect knowledge.

Malinowski illustrated his functional scheme with the charter of an institution. He defined
the charter of an institution as the system of values for the pursuit of which human
beings enter into any organisation already existing. He defined personnel of an
institution as the group organised on different principles of authority, division of
functions and distribution of privileges and duties. The rules or norms of institutions are
technical acquired skills, habits, legal norms, ethical commands, which are accepted by
members or imposed upon them.

The first aim of every society, according to Malinowski, is survival. Thus, according to the
charter, in every society, there are personnel who have norms or set of values. These
norms and values inspire personnel for material apparatus, which creates activities, and
activities ultimately lead a function. This may be shown in diagram below:

Malinowski’s view on the Social Change:

Malinowski was not interested in causality but in the utility of institutions. In terms of
Functional analysis, one can show that no new invention, no revolution, no social or
intellectual change ever occurs except when new needs are created. Thus, culture is not
static, but dynamic.

Criticism of Malinowski’s Functionalism:

1. The major objection to Malinowski’s functionalism is that it cannot readily account
for cultural variation. Most of the needs he identified such as needs of food are
universal. All societies must deal with them if they are to survive. Thus while a
functionalist approach may tell us why all societies engage in food gathering
practices, it cannot tell why different societies engage in different food gathering
practices. In other words, it doesn’t explain why certain specific cultural patterns
arose to fulfil a need that might be fulfilled just as easily by any number of
alternative possibilities.
2. He explained how every aspect was serving the needs of individuals. But the
interests of individuals may be in conflict, what is desirable for one may not be
desirable for others.
3. The theory proposed by Malinowski is ahistorical in nature i.e. it doesn’t take into
account the past of institutions. It is only concerned with the present form of
society and not bothered about what led to the present form.(Goldschmidt,1996).
 STRUCTURAL FUNCTIONALISM

A R Radcliffe-Brown

A R Radcliffe-Brown (1881-1955) was born at Birmingham in England. He began his

career as a student of W H R Rivers in psychology, but became his first student in
social anthropology in Cambridge in 1904. In 1906 he was sent out to the Andaman
Islands. He dutifully recorded Andamanese myths, ceremonies and customs up to 1908.
His books The Andaman Islanders published in 1922. He read, wrote and taught social
anthropology at many Universities viz. Sidney, Cape-Town,Chicago and Oxford and
guided the destiny of many British anthropologists. His work ‘Structure and Function in
Primitive Society’ laid the foundations of his school of structural functionalism in
anthropology.

Structural Functionalism is a theoretical understanding of society that puts social systems

as the collective means to fulfil society’s needs (instead of individual needs). In order for
social life to survive and develop in society there are a number of activities that need to
be carried out to ensure that certain needs are fulfilled. In the structural functionalist
model, individuals produce necessary goods and services in various institutions and roles
that correlate with the norms of the society. Thus, one of the key ideas in Structural
Functionalism is that society is made-up of groups or institutions, which are cohesive,
share common norms, and have a definitive culture.

Unlike Malinowski’s emphasis on individuals, Radcliffe-Brown considered individuals

irrelevant. Brown was influenced by Emile Durkheim. Durkheim advocated the study of
‘social facts’ in a sociological manner. He spoke of studying these facts objectively,
without preconceived notions. In his view, society was basically a moral order. The
concept of the ‘collective conscience’ was an important part of his work. Durkheim
wanted to develop sociology on the lines of the natural sciences i.e. as an ‘objective’,
rigorous science. All these ideas attracted Radcliffe-Brown. Durkheimian sociology
combined with Radcliffe-Brown’s admiration for the natural sciences resulted in his ideas
about the ideal society of the future.

Durkheim defined social facts as “ways of acting, thinking and feeling, external to the
individual, and endowed with a power of coercion by reason of which they control him”.
To Durkheim society is sui generis. Society comes into being by the association of
individuals. Hence society represents a specific reality which has its own characteristics.
This unique reality of society is separate from other realities studied by physical or
biological sciences.

THE CONCEPT OF SOCIAL STRUCTURE IN RADCLIFFE-BROWN’S WORK:

The concept of social structure and its functional features has been described by
Radcliffe-Brown in his book “Structure and Function in Primitive Society” (1952).

According to him the concept of structure refers to an arrangement of parts related to

one another in some sort of larger unity. For instance, the structure of a house reveals
the arrangement of walls, roofs, rooms, passage, windows, etc.

In social structure the ultimate components are the arrangements of persons in relation
to each other. For example, in a family, we find mother, brother, sister, uncle, aunt etc.

Elements of Social Structure:

In a social structure, human beings organise themselves into association and institutions
for the pursuit of some objective. The aim can be fulfilled only if the social structure is
based upon certain principles. These principles set the elements of social structure in
motion, which are as follows:

i) Normative System: Normative system presents the society with the ideas and values.
The people attach emotional importance to these norms.
ii) Position System: Position system refers to status and roles of the individuals. The
desires, aspirations and expectations of individuals are varied, multiple and unlimited.
So, these can be fulfilled only if the members of society are assigned different roles
according to their capabilities and capacities.
iii) Sanction system: For the proper enforcement of norms every society has a sanction
system. The integration and coordination of different parts of social structure depends
upon conformity to social norms. The nonconformists are punished by society according
to the nature of non-conformity.
iv) A system of anticipated response: The anticipated response system calls upon the
individuals to participate in the social system.
v) Action system: It is the object or goal to be arrived at by the social structure. The whole
social structure revolves around it.

Structural Features of Social Life:

According to A.R. Radcliffe-Brown, the structural features of social life as follows:
1. Existence of social group: social structure consists of all kinds of social groups like
family, clan, moieties, social sanction, totemic group, social classes, caste group,
 kinship system etc. The inter relations among these groups constitute the core of
the social structural phenomenon.
2. Internal structure of the group: these groups have specific internal structure. For
example, a family consists of the relations of father, mother and their children.
3. Arrangement into social classes: these groups are arranged into social classes and
categories. For example, the economic classes in the Western societies and the
castes in the Indian societies.
4. Social Distinctions: there is social distinction between different classes which is
based on sex, economic distinctions, and authority and caste distinctions. For
example, in India there is a social distinction between the Brahmins and Shudras.
5. Arrangement of persons in dyadic relationship: an example of dyadic relationship
is person to person relationship like master and servant.
6. Interaction between groups and persons: interaction between persons can be
seen in social processes involving co-operation, conflict, accommodations etc.
while the interaction between groups can be seen while nation goes to war with
another nation

Types of Social Structure:

According to Radcliffe-Brown the importance of social institutions is that social structure
is the arrangement of persons which is controlled and defined by institutions. There are
two types of models of studying social structure i.e. actual social structure and general
social structure.

‘Actual social structure’ - according to Brown, the relationship between persons and
groups change from time to time. New members come into being members of society
through immigration or by birth, while others go out of it by death and migration.
Besides this, there are marriages and divorces whereby the members change several
times. Thus, actual social structure changes many times.

On the other hand, the general social structure remains relatively constant for a long
time.For instance, if one visits a village and again visits that particular village after a few
years , he or she may find that many members of the village have died and new ones
have been enrolled. Their relations to one another may have changed in many respects;
but the general structure remains more or less same and continuing.

Thus Radcliffe-Brown held the view that sometimes the structural form may change
gradually or suddenly but even though the sudden changes occur the continuity of
structure is maintained to a considerable extent.
Radcliffe-Brown’s concept of function
As Radcliffe-Brown (1971) puts it, “….the life of an organism is conceived as the
functioning of its structure. It is through and by the continuity of the functioning that the
continuity of the structure is preserved”.

The continuity of the social structure is maintained by the process of social life. Social life
consists of the activities and interaction of various human beings and of the groups of
which they are a part. Social life, in other words, refers to the way in which the social
structure functions.

The function of any recurrent social activity is the part it plays in maintaining the
continuity of the social structure. For example, marriage is a recurrent social activity.
Through marriage, individuals of the opposite sex are brought together and society
legitimises their sexual relationship. Children may be born and new members are added
to society. Thus, by providing a socially acceptable outlet for sexual relations and
providing a legitimate way through which society obtains new members, marriage
contributes or performs a function in maintaining social structure.

Function of social usage or activity refers to the contribution it makes to the functioning
of the total social system. This implies that the social system has a certain kind of unity,
which Radcliffe-Brown terms as ‘functional unity’. By this he means a condition in which
all the parts of the social system work together in a harmonious, consistent fashion.

For instance, if we take up the example of Indian society in Pre-British India, we may say
that the various parts of the social system, e.g. village organisation, caste, joint family
etc. worked together in a consistent fashion. They complemented each other and
contributed to maintaining the existing social structure.

SOME EXAMPLES OF RADCLIFFE BROWN’S STRUCTURAL FUNCTIONALISM

In his work, the Andaman Islanders, Radcliffe-Brown (1933) writes: “Every custom and
belief plays some determinate part in the social life of the community, just as every organ
of a living body plays some part in the general life of the organism”.

Case Study - Ceremonial Weeping in the Andaman Islands :

Andamanese ceremonies are marked by formal weeping. Andamanese weep,
ceremonially on a number of occasions, e.g. when friends and relatives are reunited after
a long separation, after a death, during marriage and initiation ceremonies, peace-
making ceremonies and so on.
 Radcliffe-Brown holds that the purpose underlying all ceremonies is the expression and
transmission of sentiments, which help to regulate individual behaviour in conformity
with the needs of society.

Formal weeping, Radcliffe-Brown concludes, takes place in situations in which social

relations which have been disturbed or interrupted are about to resume. For instance,
when long-lost friends meet, ceremonial weeping marks the fact that the long separation
is over, and the friendship will resume once more. Similarly, ceremonial weeping at
funerals marks the final departure of the deceased. Soon, life will have to go on as usual;
the normal relations and activities will resume. Ceremonial weeping has a definite role or
function to play in the life of that society.

Kinship in Primitive Societies

Since the kinship system provided major organisational principle for most primitive
communities, it is imperative to understand its principles. By focussing on this topic,
Radcliffe- Brown contributes a great deal in helping students of social anthropology
understand the peoples they studied.

Radcliffe-Brown is not merely interested in the usages, which shape the relationships
between kin, but also in the terms used to denote kin, i.e., kinship terminology. Further,
he concentrates on ‘classificatory’ systems of kinship terminology, wherein kin outside
the circle of family are also classified along with members of the family.

For example, mother’s sister, though outside the circle of the patrilineal family, is
nonetheless classified as ‘mother’, Radcliffe-Brown identifies three basic principles of the
classificatory system of kinship terminology:

a) The unity of the sibling group — Here, brothers and sisters share a feeling of
solidarity and are treated as a unit by outsiders. For eg: My mother’s sister is also
addressed as ‘mother’, my mother’s brother is like a ‘male mother’.
b) The unity of the lineage group — A lineage refers to the descendants in a line
(traced either through male or female) of a single ancestor. Like siblings, lineage
members show solidarity and are treated as a single unit by outsiders.
c) The ‘generation principle’ — It is observed that in all kinship systems, there is a
certain distance or tension between members of succeeding generations. For
example, my mother has to socialise me, hence she will try to discipline or control
me.

Radcliffe-Brown saw joking relationships as involving essentially ‘permitted disrespect’.

Avoidance relationships, in contrast, involve extreme respect, such that avoiding the
relative in question is the most satisfactory way of ensuring that the implicit tensions of
the relationship do not result in conflict. RadcliffeBrown argued that joking and
avoidance relations limit conflict and increase social solidarity by directing sentiments in
such a way as to control potentially threatening social interaction.

CRITICISM OF RADCLIFFE BROWN’S STRUCTURAL FUNCTIONALISM

1. According to some critics, it is wrong to look at society as a living organism
because the structure of the living organism does not change, but the society
does.
2. This approach treats social order as an integrated whole; a situation sometimes
arises where society can be seen in a state of imbalance and disequilibrium.
3. He emphasised the contribution of phenomena to maintaining social order.
However, Radcliffe-Brown’s disregard for individual needs was apparent in this
analogy.
4. The structural functionalist approach cannot explain variation in social structure.
5. It is ahistorical in nature i.e. it doesn’t explain how a particular institution has
achieved the present form.
6. Structural functionalism is value biased, it often tries to show if the purpose was
kept in arrangement of order. By maintaining a strict social structure , it supports
exploitation of women, children, labour and dalits.