It's what I would call a paradigmatic statement.
Try:
Burrell, G. & Morgan, G. (1979) Sociological paradigms and organisational
analysis : elements of the sociology of corporate life. London :
Heinemann.
Don't be put of by the "corporate" bit in the title. They give a good
"traditional" account of sociological paradigms, of which functionalism
is one (and which appears in several forms). In their view, functionalism
assumes consensus and stability and it stands opposed to radicalist
theories like Marxism, which assumes social antagonisms and constant
social change rather than stability, uniformity, and the like.=20
Of course, neither set of paradigmatic assumptions will give a full
sociological account. Such rigid standpoints have been the food for much
sociological arguments, and the raison d'etre for many sociologists for
some years now.
Thanks for your bi-lingual account.
regards,
Phil
At 09:33 11-03-99 -0300, you wrote:=20
>>>>
<excerpt><excerpt><smaller>What is the meaning of "functionalist" in
this case ?</smaller> <smaller>Elsa</smaller> =20
<bold><smaller>-----Mensagem original-----
De: </smaller></bold><smaller>Chris Francovich <<cfran who-is-at micron.net>
<bold>Para: </bold>xmca who-is-at weber.ucsd.edu <<xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
<bold>Data: </bold>Quarta-feira, 10 de Maro de 1999 15:35
</smaller><bold>Assunto: </bold>Functionalist Dilemma
</excerpt><fontfamily><param>Arial</param> size=3D2>Hello
all:</fontfamily> size=3D2> <smaller>I am currently
reading Mary Douglas' book How Institutions Think (1986, Syracuse
University Press) and have come across a theme that is confusing me.
I am enjoying the book wholeheartedly and wading through her discussion =20
of latent groups but am confused with her statement "Without a =20
functionalist form of argument, we cannot begin to explain how a thought=20
world constructs the thought style that controls its experience." (p.
43). On its face this seems wholly sensible. I am enjoying the
structure that she is bringing to my understanding of how we even
define a cultural group.</smaller><fontfamily><param>Arial</param> =20
size=3D2></fontfamily> size=3D2>This, however, is contraste=
d
with a statement (about a theme) that Jean Lave makes in Cognition
in Practice (1988, Cambridge University Press): "The concept of
cultural uniformity reflects functionalist assumptions about society
as a consensual order, and cultural transmission as a process of
homogeneous cultural reproductions across generations." (p. 10). =20
size=3D2> size=3D2>Now I realize that using categories at the
social level to describe, explain, or interpret phenomena at the
local level is problematic. But isn't it necessary to use a
functionalist argument even to get the ideas into language? And if
we can't argue from a functionalist perspective what else is there?=20
size=3D2> size=3D2>Any thoughts? size=3D2> =
=20
size=3D2>Thanks, size=3D2> size=3D2>Chris Francovich=20
</excerpt>
Phil Graham
p.graham who-is-at qut.edu.au
http://www.geocities.com/SunsetStrip/Palms/8314/index.html