Is It Ever Acceptable To Explain A

Social Phenomenon In Terms Of Its Function. Essay, Research Paper

Before attempting to answer the question it is necessary to define a few terms that will be used in this essay. The first of these is the word function, which as Merton shows has a number of different meanings. He defines it as, “vital or organic processes considered in the respects in which they contribute to the maintenance of the organism.”. Merton also quotes A. R. Radcliffe-Brown, “The function of any recurrent activity, such as the punishment of a crime, or a funeral ceremony, is the part it plays in the social life as a whole and therefore the contribution it makes to the maintenance of the structural continuity.” Stinchcombe provides a definition of a functional explanation as “One in which the consequences of some behaviour are essential elements of the causes of that behaviour.” Stinchcombe states that the most common kind of functional explanation is that of motivation, we perform some action because we want the consequences that follow from that action. A case where a functional explanation may be called for is where observations based on a uniform consequence in a number of situations show that the consequence has been reached by a variety of different behaviours. For example people may use a zebra crossing, a pelican crossing or a subway, whilst all having the same motivation of getting to the other side of the road. Functional explanations are linked to situations of equifinality, that is where various means are perceived to lead to the same end and an actor tries one of these means after another until he reaches that end, at which point he stops changing between means. To illustrate this point Stinchcombe cites the case of the sociological father. In many societies the sociological father is the same actor as the biological father, but this is not always the case. In some instances an uncle, a stepfather, or a grandfather may fulfil this role. Thus the end would appear to be that some man is responsible for the child and there are a number of means by which this can be fulfilled. In order to determine whether a functional explanation of a situation is correct, it is necessary to observe whether equifinality exists in that situation. If the difficulty of achieving a given end is increased and this brings about an increase in the activity of the entity, this suggests that the entity is motivated by a desire to reach the end. Increased activity includes an increased variety of means tried, an increase in the amount of time spent trying to achieve the end, searching for new information and a willingness to sacrifice other things to further the chances of achieving the end. So someone who wanted to become a professional footballer, as opposed to an amateur, might increase the amount of time that they spent training, seek guidance from coaches and give up activities that they find pleasurable but which might hinder their chances of achieving their end, such as smoking. Similarly, if the end is achieved in spite of difficulties which make it harder to achieve, the entity’s actions must be motivated by the end, they must really want it. The view of functionalism expressed so far has been rather simplistic, in that the consequences of an action have been seen only from the point of view of the actor. Obviously in a social system, where a large number of individual actors are interacting the consequences of any one action may be felt by a number of the other actors. The consequences for these other actors of one person’s actions may be good or bad, that is it may have positive or negative externalities. Many things may be good for one group of people and bad for another. Consider shifts in taxation strategy as an example. The question therefore arises as to how it is determined which such actions, patterns of behaviour or institutions persist. According to Marx and his supporters the idea of power is essential in such an explanation. The relative power of the social classes is determined by a number of factors. These include the mode of production, the authority system required by a given technology and by who owns the productive property. So long as these factors remain constant, so will the power structure of the society, and thus the patterns of behaviour. The mode of production changes over time, however, as a result of changes in technology, extensions of the market and larger units of production for example. This in turn brings about changes in the power structure, with changes in the mode of production causing changes in the relative power of the different social classes. The greater the power of a particular class, the more effective it is in causing and shaping social structures. Thus the consequences on powerful classes of a social structure have more importance regarding the maintenance or destruction of that social structure than do its consequences on the less powerful classes. People are thus classified according to how important they are as causes of social arrangements. In functional explanations of a structure greater emphasis is placed on the consequences for powerful people than on the consequences for less powerful people. Another simplification which has so far been made relates to the consequences of a particular pattern of behaviour. So far it has been assumed that the consequences of an action are obvious to the actor and that it is the beneficial nature of these consequences which brings