Neo-functionalism

                                                                                    ~     Randhir Gautam

  

After 50 years of its emergence (1930), functionalism started to lose its popularity in 1980s.

Ignorance of the question of social conflict, disorganization of society, and change prove its conservative bias, one-dimensional views and idealism in terms of theory building. It misunderstood hierarchy as order. Universalization of application of its theory was illusory. In order to overcome its major difficulties, neo-functionalism came into existence.

 Epistemological orientation –

 The mid-1980s   was a time of non-ideological orientation of theory building in social sciences. Alexander himself states that “neofunctionalism is a tendency rather than a developed theory” (1985).  Paradigms were differentiated in oppositional group between conflict and order theories, micro and macro approaches, structural and cultural views.

As we know the very emergence of parsionian sociology began with the question of social action which latter become the crux of micro sociology. Parsonian functionalism was obsessed with system theory that is to say it   solely interested in explaining the survival of society.  functionalism ignored   dynamism and creativity of an individual. Individual is only rational but also has expressive action in this way parsonian and Weberian action theory limit the sense of action.  I will later talk about social action in details.

  Context of theory building -

 Social theories give birth in particular context. Neofunctionalism was born in a context of the Vietnam War, civil Rights movement, women movements, student movements and Black movements. conservative orientation of sociology significantly replaced by many different orientation of theories. Hierarchy, war, conflict and social justice come into the center of conceptualization of society. 

 Alexander provides new insights by making functionalism self-critical while retaining its theoretical core. Therefore, his goal is to create a more synthetic theory which can incorporate the concerns of culture and individual. He changes parsonian theoretical orientation towards dynamic, multi-dimensional, open-ended and plural theory. He also rejects menopausal determinism and reductionism in theory building.  He tried to discernment between personality, culture, and society in order to make social theory systematic. He thinks theory building is considered to be independent of all the levels involved in sociological analysis.

 

  Methodological question of neo-functionalism –

 Alexander emphasizes the role of presuppositions In theory building. He states Presuppositions are of a metaphysical nature, and therefore cannot be empirically validate, but they constitute to produce theories by inspiring and guiding the notions drown from empirical world.  

Why are presuppositions useful?

They are useful because they establish their epistemological foundations, in the sense that they point out general standards of validity for social sciences, and provide them with general principles able to subsume principles deriving from lower analytical levels.

 He further states social changes involve a theoretical change only if only thinker’s reformulate propositions. Once Alexander said “theoretical changes take place not because of new empirical evidences, but because of the scientist’ new epistemological and theoretical orientation”

 For example, Female gender was excluded from the civil sphere until feminist movements took place in 20^th century. He is one of the first thinker who identified intellectual perspective as a connotation of social change.  He further states conceptual distinction in social sciences is not to be seen as opposition but these conceptual categories are only made for the purpose of study.

   What is the perspective of neofunctionlism?

The major contributor of neofunctionalism in America are Jeffrey Alexander and Paul Colomy and Richard Münch in Germany. These thinkers tried to integrate theories such as pragmatism, symbolic interactionism, phenomenology, Frankfurt school, exchange theory and so on.

Neofunctionalism operates with in a formulation of ‘strong programme’ with a descriptive model of society that sees society as composed of elements that, in interaction with one another, form a pattern. This pattern allows the system to be differentiated from its environment. Parts of the system are “symbiotically connected,” and their interaction is not determined by some overarching force. Alexander argues social change is not productive of conformity and harmony but rather “individuation and institutional strains”. He states neofunctionalism pays equal attention of both micro and macro constituents of society.  Neofunctionalism is also concerned with interest in integration, not as an accomplished fact but rather as a social possibility.

Alexander argues    promoting social order through shared value systems must be balanced by explicit recognition of conflicting interests, environmental conditions and constraints, and the unforeseen contingencies individuals face in dealing with the particular situations in which they find themselves.  

Here I am going to quote Alexander for the better understanding of neo-functionalism.

“The central question that every social theory addresses in defining the nature of action is whether or not–or to what degree–action is rational………. [T]o presuppose that action is instrumentally rational is to assume that action is guided by ends of pure efficiency. In terms of the more differentiated terminology of goals and norms, it assumes that goals are calculated to achieve broader normative purposes in the most efficient manner possible, given the constraining external conditions. Because any relation of goals to norms that is not efficiently rational is disregarded, goals can be viewed as performing a function similar to means. Ideally oriented goals, are, in effect, reduced to materially oriented means, and more general norms as such become irrelevant: action is viewed as a continuous effort at economizing, calculating, and, indeed, “rationalizing.” (Alexander)

   This quotation itself answers the most important question. Whether social order to be seen as reflecting objective or external constraints or subjective internal commitments?

Alexander does not argue that social order is insignificant but he ask more fundamental question how social order is created and sustained?

parsons, Marx and  Weber all interpreted human action in one dimensional way. Marx emphasized social consciousness, Parsons emphasized on voluntarism and Weber empathized on meaning making interaction. Neo-functionalism analyses alternative way and argued for a multidimensional framework

 Sociology of culture

   Why culture is important for Alexander?

 One of the main functions of culture is that it allows people to express themselves, sometimes aesthetically . culture is very significant in Alexander's analysis in terms of multi-dimensional and systematic understanding of social action . 

Alexander calls neo-functionalism; strong program. He wanted to conceptualize the relationship between society and culture.  His quest for sociology of culture is quite significant for sociology. He claims the autonomy of culture from any social determination. He advocates new approach of social investigation. What is ‘strong programme’?

The strong programme attaches great relevance to meanings, narratives, beliefs, symbols and ideologies, collective representations, and in general to the cultural aspect of social life. He seeks to interpret actors, and taking into account the hierarchies and the social institutions that mediate the relation between actors and culture. Criticizing Parsons' view of culture, he states culture is not merely institutional regulating and controlling system.

Alexander also questions the distinction between social agency and social action by stating that social   action is the movement of persons, intended as actors, in time and space. Social agency means actors’ freedom to move among the three structured environments of the social, the cultural and the personality system. He criticized Giddens for that matter.

   Criticisms of Neo-functionalism - 

  Some sociologists argue Individuals are still regarded as ‘reactors to the system’ rather than ‘dynamic and creative actors’. Social Conflict and racial stratification are recognized but remains at secondary place in the theory (Abrahamson 2001).  Social movements are certainly not considered. So, some thinkers argue ‘isn’t neofunctionalism old wine in new bottles.

McLellan criticizes that the thesis expounded in the ‘strong program’ is not sufficiently argued, because Alexander’s insistence on the relevance of values, rather than on other constitutive elements of civil society, is neither historically nor theoretically justified.

                Despite such criticisms neo-functionalism provides all the limitations of contemporary sociological theories. From Weber to Hebermass, form Parsons to Marx. such as Parsons was ambivalence about order and normativity. Weber was ambivalent about the consequences of modernity so and so forth. I think you most look Alexander most recent work the dark side of modernity.