Contribute to Discussion Forum 11.pdf

Contribute to Discussion Forum 11
sociology multi-part question and need the explanation and answer to help me learn.
This is the first discussion forum. Please post your answers (by replying to this post)) to the
questions at the end of the Instructor's Comments before 11:59 PM Tuesday evening. The
deadline to complete reading others' posts and making your replies is 11:59 PM on
Wednesday evening.
Discussion Questions
(1) Webb believed that the richness of sociological data degrades as a function of the
distance of the observer to the social situation s/he is studying. In simple terms, what does
she mean by “distance” from the social situation? What is an example of research where the
observer is far from the situation? What is an example of a research method where the
observer is close to the situation? What are the implications of Webb’s view for how
sociologists should conduct their research?
(2) The S-F perspective argues that "healthy" social change should take place gradually,
more evolutionary than revolutionary. What are some of the political implications of this
assumption? For example, whose interests does slow social change favor in society?
(3) Pick any social system of which you are a member. What sub-units of that system satisfy
each of Parsons' AGIL functional requisites? How does each sub-unit meet its A, G, I, or L
goals? Be sure to do more than just share what the adaptations, goals, integration, and
latency requisites are: tell us also what systems are in place (personal and/or social) that
help achieve these requisites over time.
Requirements: NA
SOC 320: Sociological Theory Robert E. L. Roberts Copyright © 2023. Robert E. L. Roberts.
All rights reserved Page 1 Instructor's Comments Topic 11: Structural Functionalism and
Positivist Sociology We are now entering the fourth learning module for the course. The
topics in this module explore some of the major theoretical styles and themes that shaped
Sociology in Europe and the U.S. between 1940 and 1980. The first topic examines perhaps
the most influential perspectives—positivism and structural functionalism—whose roots
can be traced back through Durkheim, Martineau, and Comte. The two topics that follow
examine perspectives--critical theories and post-structural theories—with different
intellectual roots and decidedly oppositional stances toward structural functional
theorizing. I will begin my comments on positivism and structural functionalism by
reviewing the work of Beatrice Potter Webb, who predated the 1940-1980 era (she lived

from 1858 to 1943). I include her work in this period because it provides a very clear
foundation and rationale for what became the dominant mode of developing sociological
theory after 1940: positivism. I will then turn to a description of structural functionalism
and an examination of the theories of one its most celebrated devotees: Talcott Parsons.
Beatrice Potter Webb Beatrice Webb was a profoundly important figure in sociological
theory, although an often unrecognized one. Like the members of the Chicago Women’s
School (CWS) in America, Webb was strongly committed to finding ways to reduce what she
saw as increasing poverty despite increasing wealth generation in capitalist/industrialist
societies. She was also deeply committed to using sociological methods to help inform our
understanding of the forces that contribute to increasing poverty. Webb's unique
contribution to this effort was her articulation of a critical positivist approach to
understanding social life. Background: Debates about Poverty in Victorian England Webb
began her work in sociology amid debates about poverty and social programs in England.
The predominant explanation for poverty at the time viewed poverty as resulting from
individual deficiencies (e.g., lack of effort, skills, intelligence, etc.). Swept up in the
prevailing intellectual infatuation with evolutionary thinking, many scholars and
policymakers argued that poverty reflected the natural selection process whereby the "least
fit" gravitated toward lower socioeconomic levels in society. The same scholars and policy
makers argued that it would be unwise to intervene in this "natural" process, because to do
so would inhibit social evolution and progress.
All rights reserved Page 2 Briefly, they argued that public intervention in the problem of
poverty would pull down the rest of society. One rationale for this argument was the
assertion that there is always a finite supply of money available to pay workers. If money is
diverted away from workers to the unemployed (or underemployed), then there is less
money to go to the "deserving" workers (thus dragging down their lifestyle). Well,
economics has progressed since then, but at the time, it was difficult to argue against this
belief. Webb was among a small but growing group of social thinkers who believed that
governments could effectively intervene to alleviate social problems such as poverty. The
key ingredient required for effective intervention, however, was a very solid understanding
of the forces that led to poverty. Webb's position was that one had to apply rigorous
scientific methods to uncover these forces and to learn how they interacted with one
another. In the next section, I discuss her thoughts on sociological methods. Inductive
Positivism Webb argued that any claims to understand social life must be inductively
achieved and grounded in the rigorous application of scientific methods. By induction, she
means that sociologists should attempt to engage in their work as free from bias as possible,
and to allow their understandings to grow out of a systematic appraisal of the empirical
world. I think it's easiest to explain her point by contrasting it with the deductive approach
that was more widely applied in her day (and remains popular today). The deductive
approach begins with a theory or set of hypotheses about the processes that one is
investigating. The researcher is then guided by these expectations in designing a research
project that will test the validity of the theory. Many of those Victorians who believed in the
"individual deficit" theory of poverty used just such an approach. They began with the

expectation that individual deficits explained poverty, and they attempted to gather
"scientific" evidence that supported the theory (this is one major critique of Herbert
Spencer's work). Not surprisingly, this approach yielded much "evidence" that individuals
were responsible for their poverty. By contrast, Webb argued that to have a clearer picture
of the causes of poverty, one had to begin with no assumptions about its causes. The best
way to proceed in her view was to gather scientific data on "the situation-at-hand" that
revealed the complexity behind what was "commonly believed" about the situation (e.g.,
that poverty was caused by individual deficits). Moreover, she believed that the "best" data
were gathered as close to the situation-at-hand as possible (no ivory tower research here).
This belief followed her assumption that the quality of data degraded very quickly, the
farther was one's vantage point from the actual experience one was trying to understand.
For example, she believed that many non-poor people's understandings of poverty came
from their reading of newspapers. This inserted
All rights reserved Page 3 journalists between the readers and the subjects--creating
opportunities for "common assumptions" to be used to distort the "true" experiences of the
poor. A Structural Theory of Poverty The fruit of Webb's rigorous induction was a growing
belief that poverty did not result from individual factors as much as it was the result of
social structures. Despite her admonition that one should begin one's analysis as free of
biases as possible, Webb admitted that she began her study of poverty in the hopes of
finding ways to strengthen individual character (and, thus, reduce poverty). However, as
she investigated poverty more fully (while trying to discover ways to strengthen character)
she discovered that no amount of character strengthening could overcome social forces that
reinforced poverty. Increasingly, she came to view these social forces as primary
determinants of wealth and poverty, not the character of the individuals who wound up rich
or poor. She argued that she "discovered" that capitalist competition and class conflict had
more to do with the creation and maintenance of poverty/wealth distinctions that
individual character differences. Ironically, this same belief led her away from her earlier
claims that sociologists should attempt to be unbiased in their work to the slightly modified
claim that sociologists should be aware of how their own structural position (e.g., social
class) shapes the way they view the problems they are investigating. Sociological Activism
Webb argued that the sociologist's role in society was to provide high quality data to help
policymakers and social activists develop experimental social programs and to evaluate
whether these programs are working. Her hope was that eventually society would gravitate
toward organizing itself around other imperatives than capitalist competition. But she was
no Marxist. She argued that society would be better served if it moved toward a more
democratic decision-making process for the deployment of productive (and consumption)
energy. Rather than relying purely on competition and opportunism to drive economic and
political development, she hoped that producers and consumers would enter more
collective dialogue about social aims. She referred to this new basis of social organization
as the "collective bargain," a stage of industrialization beyond the present system of
capitalist exploitation of workers/consumers: a kind of socialism that would supersede
what she saw as rampant individualism. Structural Functionalism As promised, I will now

describe Structural Functionalism (S-F)-- arguably the most widely accepted paradigm
among sociological theorists between 1940 and 1980. To be sure, S-F elicited quite
vigorous critiques, especially among Marxists, Feminists, and Critical Theorists, but for
many years, it reigned as the dominant perspective within American Sociology. Its heyday
was the period from the 1940 to the mid-
All rights reserved Page 4 1960s. However, it has regained strength within the theorist
community as strains of neo-functionalism have emerged and flourished. My aim here is to
sketch out the contours of Structural-Functionalism by presenting five assumptions that
underpin this perspective. 1. Organic Metaphor: Society Viewed as Like an Organism The
key to understanding S-F is to recognize that it is built upon a metaphor: that societies and
social relations are like living organisms. Adopting this metaphor leads the sociologist to
approach her or his subject matter much like biologists or ecologists would approach their
subject matter. The social group (whether the world system, a nation, a community, a
family, a workplace, a friendship network, or a couple) is viewed as if it were an internally
complex, developing, and evolving organism. Like an organism, the social group or
"system" (from now on I'll use the more widely applied term "social system") has survival
needs that must be met to continue to exist. The sociologist's job is to learn about the
morphology of the system as well as the function that the various parts of the system play in
securing the system's continued development and survival. 2. Society is a System of
Integrated and Interdependent Parts As the S-F theorist casts a gaze on a social system, s/he
is inclined to see an organism comprised of many interlocking sub-units that are
interdependent, much like a body's organs are interconnected and interdependent. Think
of the relationship between organs in the human body. For example, the human heart is
connected to a circulatory system that distributes oxygenated blood to tissue throughout
the body. The heart's role is to keep the blood circulating throughout the body. The blood
also collects metabolic waste, some of which is expelled through the respiratory system.
Each of these parts of the body serves specific functions as is dependent on the others.
Without the heart, the blood doesn't circulate. Without the system of veins, arteries, and
capillaries, the blood doesn't reach the cells that need its oxygen. Without the lungs, carbon
dioxide can't be expelled from the system. Social systems are seen in the same light. Larger
social systems, like societies, are seen as comprised of many smaller parts that promote
system survival. For example, societies usually have some system of education whereby
new members are socialized to behave in line with cultural norms and values. Some of the
education may take place in informal settings as with family members, friends, etc. These
informal systems are augmented by formal systems, such as schools and workplaces. Each
of these educational contexts, informal and formal, are thought to be interconnected and
interdependent--and all are thought to be necessary to the system's overall survival. In
societies, there are also political systems and economic systems that coordinate the
administration of power, production, and consumption. The S-F theorist would
All rights reserved Page 5 see these systems as interconnected and interdependent among
themselves, as well as with other sub-systems like educational institutions, families,

neighborhoods, etc. 3. The Various Parts of Society Meet the Needs of Systemic Survival As
you may have surmised above, the S-F view is that the parts or elements of society must
serve some functional role for the social system's survival. They come to this conclusion by
starting with the assumption that no social system is guaranteed survival (just like no
organism has that guarantee). The mere fact that a social system exists is testimony to its
ability to survive in the S-F view. Key to a system's survival in this view is the operation of
its various sub-parts (or organs). As with the body, surviving sub-units of the social system
are thought to serve some useful purpose for the larger system's survival. From this
standpoint, parts that do not contribute to the system's survival will wither away. Think of
this as social evolution in action. Adaptive parts of the system will survive, and maladaptive
ones will go away (or else they will lead to the death of the social system). Most S-F
theorists believe that the societies that they inhabit are old enough to have proven that their
sub-units and sub-systems are adaptive (otherwise, the society would have become extinct
many years beforehand). This leads S-F theorists to see a certain value in the status quo:
because it represents the culmination of "adaptations" that have led to the system's
survival. One can imagine at this point the kinds of critiques that might be raised by S-F's
Marxian and Feminist colleagues! Just think for a minute and ask yourself: What would Ida
Wells-Barnett have to say about the S-F respect for the status quo? 4. The Social System
Tends toward Equilibrium Another assumption is that social systems exist in a kind of
dynamic equilibrium: a balance of forces that might disrupt society (like self-interest) and
forces that keep society together (like cooperative values). From the S-F perspective, the
society's continued existence requires that this delicate balance be maintained. Like the
human body, that must maintain a dynamic equilibrium (say, for example, reflected in an
average body temperature of 98.6), societies are constantly seeking to return to equilibrium
in the aftermath of shocks to the equilibrium. For example, a social upheaval following a
particular judicial or political decision will have to be quickly quelled in order to regain the
delicate balance of forces in society. Left unchecked (like an infection untreated) the social
upheaval threatens to bring down the system. 5. "Healthy" Social Change is Slow,
Evolutionary, Not Revolutionary Following the last assumption, the S-F view is that healthy
social change must proceed very slowly. Otherwise, the balance of positive and negative
forces in society will be lost and the system will fail. You can see this kind of thinking in
Durkheim's work on the division of labor. He argued that when social change was too rapid,
the glue holding society together was undermined, leading to social anarchy
All rights reserved Page 6 and individual ruin. From this perspective, Marx's ideas about
the value of a quick and total revolution of the proletariat made no sense at all, for it could
do nothing more than bring the destruction of the social system and the individuals in it. In
the discussion session, we'll examine some of the political implications of the S-F
perspective. Talcott Parsons In a discipline dominated by structural-functionalists, Talcott
Parson’s was the dominant player. Like many of his predecessors and contemporaries,
Parsons strove to develop a grand theory that would link together our understandings of
biological, psychological, and social processes to produce explanations of human life. In
other words, Parsons was in search of a "grand" theory (or metanarrative) that could be

used to explain, predict, and control human social life. What was his perspective? Parsons'
grand theory rests on the fundamental functionalist assumption that societies need not
continue to exist. He saw social systems as no less susceptible to entropy (degrading into
its most simple, and disorganized state) than any other living member of the world ecology.
Survival of the social system in the face of the forces that would bring its demise was
predicated on its successful functioning and adaptation. Parsons spent much of his time
theorizing about the adaptations necessary for social systems to continue to exist. His most
basic view of social systems is that they are driven by the bio-psycho energy of the people
that comprise the system. In this view, everyone possesses a certain amount of energy for
action that is expended in the process of everyday living. In its primal, non-socialized state,
this energy is unbridled and generally follows an individual's self-interest (think of the
unsocialized baby's behavior--very egocentric and focused on satisfying basic needs like
eating, sleeping, bonding, etc.). The basic problem for society is to develop ways to channel
this bio-psycho energy in ways that promote the continued existence of the social system.
In other words, social systems must find ways to get their individual members to cooperate
with one another in a pro-social manner. This should remind you a bit of Durkheim
Functional Requisites of Every Social System: AGIL Like other structural functionalists,
Parsons employs an organic metaphor to help him explain the development of social
systems that can continue to survive. He begins with the assumption that all living things
(including social systems) must satisfy four problems of existence to survive (he calls these
functional requisites for survival). This is what students of Parsons call his "AGIL" scheme.
Each letter represents one of the four functional requisites for survival. The "A"
corresponds to the fact that every living organism must be able to ADAPT to the changing
demands of its environment. The "G" corresponds to Parson's assumption that successful
organisms must be able to identify and meet GOALS. A simple goal for an individual might
be to eat; more complex goals could include finding a mate/partner, building a shelter,
getting an
All rights reserved Page 7 education, etc. For a larger social system, the goals might be to
socialize members, coordinate commerce, allocate power, etc. The "I" corresponds to the
fact that sub-units of any successful social system are well integrated with one another
(INTEGRATION). The last letter, "L", corresponds to LATENCY: Parsons' belief that every
social system must promote consistency in goals, values, and behaviors across the sub-units
of the system. In Parsons' view, the AGIL functional requisites applied equally to all
elements of social reality, from individuals, to dyads, to groups, to organizations, and to
larger societies. The AGIL framework thus provides the sociological analyst a conceptual
framework for making sense of the existence of any part of a social system. One merely had
to ask two general questions: (1) what are the ways in which this sub-unit's AGIL requisites
are met? and (2) which one or more of the AGIL requisites of the larger social system does
this sub-unit support? Here is an example. Let us take the educational system. First, we
would view it as a sub-unit of a larger social system, but also as a social system. We would
ask what aspects of the educational system support its AGIL requisites. This would lead us
to identify sub-units of the educational system that functioned to meet help the system

adapt (shared governance?), set and achieve GOALS (faculty and students?), support
INTEGRATION (administration?) and assure consistency in norms and values (mission
statements?). Second, we would view the educational system as one important sub-unit of
the larger social system. Other important sub-units of the system might be the political,
economic and cultural systems. From this standpoint, we ask what role (function) the
education system plays in meeting the AGIL requisites of the larger system. One could
argue that the educational system helps to assure LATENCY, a consistency in goals, values,
and behaviors (through socializing members of society to common norms and
understandings). The Importance of Latency Though he saw all four functional requisites as
necessary conditions for a system's survival, Parsons suggested that some requisites were
more important than others in human social life. As I mentioned above, he saw the basic
problem of social systems was their need to harness the bio-psycho energy of their
members--to avoid collapse into individualist anarchy. The key to social system survival
was to maintain at least some minimal level of pro-social values and behaviors to avoid
chaos. Thus, social institutions that helped to shape motivations, goals, and behaviors
toward a common, pro-social standard become central to the continued existence of the
system. From this perspective, social problems result from failures to maintain an adequate
balance of conformity and deviance. This could occur following structural changes in the
economic or political sphere that radically change social structures and daily life. In such a
context, old values would be of little use to coordinate action. Chaos would be expected
until new values emerged. Thus, from this perspective, social change should occur
gradually lest a society be thrown completely off-kilter. Advocates of
All rights reserved Page 8 this approach reasoned that public policy should move slowly,
guided by the wisdom of sociologists who could suggest where to attempt change, what
level of pressure to apply to the site of change (how much change to create at any one time),
and assess the effects of the small changes on the rest of the system. This is much like the
Federal Reserve's approach to controlling inflation through small changes in monetary
policy and simultaneous attention to data about many aspects of the economy. Discussion
Questions (1) Webb believed that the richness of sociological data degrades as a function of
the distance of the observer to the social situation s/he is studying. In simple terms, what
does she mean by “distance” from the social situation? What is an example of research
where the observer is far from the situation? What is an example of a research method
where the observer is close to the situation? What are the implications of Webb’s view for
how sociologists should conduct their research? (2) The S-F perspective argues that
"healthy" social change should take place gradually, more evolutionary than revolutionary.
What are some of the political implications of this assumption? For example, whose
interests does slow social change favor in society? (3) Pick any social system of which you
are a member. What sub-units of that system satisfy each of Parsons' AGIL functional
requisites? How does each sub-unit meet its A, G, I, or L goals? Be sure to do more than just
share what the adaptations, goals, integration, and latency requisites are: tell us also what
systems are in place (personal and/or social) that help achieve these requisites over time.

Contribute to Discussion Forum 11.pdf

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Contribute to Discussion Forum 11.pdf

Similar to Contribute to Discussion Forum 11.pdf (17)

More from studywriters

More from studywriters (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Contribute to Discussion Forum 11.pdf