Relevance: Sociology: paper-I
In Parsons’ view the stability of a social system is maintained not only through the rules and regulations that society imposed upon its members or through other measures of social control that state enforces upon its citizens but in a more enduring manner, by the internalisation of socially approved values, expected behaviour patterns and codes of social existence. This internalisation takes place in society through the process of socialisation of its members. Child learns from his/her environment in the family and neighbourhood both the expected and prohibited norms and values with respect to different social institutions and social roles. Later on as the person grows older, the school, the college and work-place make the person learn and imbibe other sets of social values and expected behaviour patterns.
Recall from the past exercise Parsons’ concept of, the functional prerequisites of a social system. These functional prerequisites are adaptation, goal attainment, integration and latency, which are all necessary responses, in Parsons’ view for the existence and survival of any social system. The institutions and processes, which serve to maintain the existence of the system, are considered to be functional for the system by Talcott Parsons.
Functionalism represents the viewpoint that all social systems invariably possess the tendency to evolve and integrate such processes and institutions as elements (parts) of the system, which help in its own self-maintenance. Social systems are basically oriented to evolving such units as components of their form, be it in the shape of processes (such as, in Parsons’ understanding, adaptation, goal-attainment, integration and latency) or as social institutions, such as government, economy, schools, courts, etc. all of which serve to maintain the system as if on purpose. The term teleology refers to this purposiveness of institutions. Teleology is thus an essential characteristic of functionalism. It is based on an analogy with the organic system, for instance the human body. In the human body, processes such as respiration, blood circulation, maintenance of a constant temperature, etc., are intended to maintain the health of the body. As such these processes are Ideological or purposive in nature. Simply stated, teleology is any explanation, which is in terms of the final cause or purpose. For example, it would be teleological to argue that fruits and seeds exist so that animal and birds can eat them in order to live; or that the function of the long tail of monkeys is to help them jump easily from tree to tree.
NOTE:
Teleology
Besides several criticisms of functionalism, its teleological nature is its logical criticism. As you know, teleology is the explanation for the existence of a process or institution or any object or idea in terms of the purpose it fulfils. Thus, according to this explanation the effect is treated as the cause. This is the principal objection to the functionalist theory. For example, according to this theory, religion exists in societies in order to uphold the moral order of societies. Here the effect of religion
The vital functions of the human body have the purpose of maintaining the survival of the body, and if any foreign infection threatens the body, its internal system reacts to save it from such invasions and continues to do so until the threat has been neutralized. There is a self-regulatory role that such processes play in human body. It is called homeostasis.
Functionalism implies that social systems bear resemblance to organic systems such as the human body. The processes and institutions in social systems and the human body possess self-regulatory mechanisms that keep them stable and save it from external threats. A stability of this sort is called homeostasis. But unlike the human body however, which has a universality for all species of human kind, the social systems are historical products. Parsons acknowledges the enormous variations in the forms and styles of social systems. This is ensured by the plasticity of human infant, which unlike other animal species does not grow up with a limited general trait of behavior. The child learns different languages, conforms to different sets of cultural values and behavior patterns of the group of society in which he/she is born. The child also has the unlimited capacity to learn new languages, cultural styles, etc.; depending on what it is exposed to. Human beings are not born with pre-determinate instinctive traits like other animals are. The socialization process of the human child and its personality system maintain the stability and integration of the social system through the internalization of values and ways of social behavior that the social system approves. In addition, human beings not only learn from culture and society but also create new forms of culture and integrate them within pre-existing patterns.
FUNCTIONALISM AND SOCIAL CHANGE
The above characteristics of functionalism might give us an impression that it only has to do with continuity and self-maintenance of the social system, and that it does not have a view of social change. In fact, there are many sociologists who have criticised functionalism only for this reason and argued that functionalism over-emphasizes only those features of a social system which bring about stability of continuity. They also accuse functionalism for assuming a large measure of agreement or consensus in a society on its core values, beliefs and behaviour patterns or opinions about social issues. This Criticism is based on the-functionalist position that members of a social system are socialised from childhood onwards to a common set of beliefs and values, which are specific to that society.
Talcott Parsons did not deny the element of value consensus and stability in a social system that results from the functional processes of the systems concerned. But he also visualised the possibilities of social change. This results from the specific nature of individual social systems as well as from the very nature of the motivational orientations, which organise action systems of members in a society. The first links social systems to its external boundary conditions, such as ecology, resources, physical and environmental conditions as well as to historical factors such as cultural contacts, diffusion of ideas and interests and to social strains arising out of these historical factors. The second relates it to motivational elements in action systems, which are essentially directional in nature. The direction of orientation of motives and values generates harmony as well as strain in the social system. The first leads to stability, the second to change. Parsons viewed social change at two levels, firstly, change which emerges from processes within the social system, and secondly, the processes of change of the social system itself.
According to Parsons social sciences have yet to formulate a general theory of social change which can take into account both these aspects of social change. But sociology can approach the problem of social change if it delimits its analysis in two respects, first, change must be studied with the help of a set of conceptual categories or paradigms. The conceptual categories that Parsons puts forward for such analyses of change are those of motivational and value orientation, as well as those that relate to the functional prerequisites of the system. Second, social change, according to Parsons, must be studied at a specific historical level rather than in a general form applicable universally to all societies. Parsons, therefore, held the view that for sociologists it is relatively easier to study processes of change within the social system than processes of changes of the social system as a whole.
Parsons’ main contributions relate to studies of changes within the social systems in varying specific situations, but he had also attempted to analyse changes of whole social systems with the help of the concept of “evolutionary universals” which he formulated later in his career. We shall be studying Parsons’ contributions to processes of social change at both these levels.