The word can mean different things in different circumstances, but Douglas
refers to the classic tradition in sociology that goes back to Durkheim (and
Phil's reference is very helpful). I learned about it in the context of
American sociology, so that is what I can speak to here. The French and
British traditions are no doubt different. The idea of functionalism is
generally that each part of the social "organism" (and organism metaphors=
are
common) has a particular function, and each is normatively needed to make=
the
whole work. Some of the 20th century Ameican names identified with
functionalism are Talcott Parsons, Robert Merton, and lately, Jeffrey
Alexander. Parsons was a student of the physiologist L.J. Henderson, who
tended to emphasize organism-level processes like homeostasis. The metaphor
was taken to mean that each part, or strand, of an organism plays a part in
keeping the social balance, the homeostasis.
Critics of functionalism -- and I am among them -- think that functionalism=
is
a conservative (politically and morally) philosophy. Why? It presumes that
there is a right and a wrong way to do society; that there is just one=
social
order; that things that are different (including, in Merton's case,=
scientific
discovery) are deviant. The writing tends to use one voice, and to speak
across times and places, rather than empirically and specifically as a
starting
point for generalization (although many would say that Merton's work does=
not
fit this criticism).=20
One contrast between functionalism and another school of American
sociology, my
own, which is symbolic interactionism, can be found in two works that=
studied
professional socialization in medicine: =20
Merton, Robert, Reader, George and Patricia Kendall. 1957. The
student-physician : introductory studies in the sociology of medical=
education
Cambridge, Harvard University Press.
Becker, Howard, Hughes, Everett, Geer, Blanche and Anselm Strauss. 1961.=
Boys
in white; student culture in medical school. Chicago, University of Chicago
Press.=20
The Student Physician emphasized, in classic functionalist fashion, the
ways in
which medical students internalize the norms of a profession, and become
doctors, a special group that serves a unique social function. Boys in=
White
emphasized, in classic interactionist function, the uncertainties, loss of
idealism, and formation of a revised identity faced by medical students --=
and
how they are not so different from any other kind of student or job
preparation. The difference in emphasis is a hallmark of the two traditions.
In some recent work on classification, Geof Bowker and I take up some of=
Mary
Douglas' work on categories -- both to use and to criticize. The emphasis=
on
control in the quote below is one I would instinctively associate with
functionalism. Despite political differences, she has an acute eye and=
always
is worth reading. She also has one of my favorite quotes, "Similarity is an
institution." If anyone's interested in the Douglas critique I'm happy to
share
it.
Hope this helps,
Leigh
Geoffrey Bowker and Susan Leigh Star. Sorting Things Out: Classification=
and
Its Consequences. MIT Press, in press. For sample chapters,
www.lis.uiuc.edu/~bowker/classification
>
> What is the meaning of "functionalist" in this case ?
> Elsa
>>
>> -----Mensagem original-----=20
>> De: Chris Francovich <<mailto:cfran@micron.net>cfran@micron.net>=20
>> Para: <mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>> <<mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>=20
>> Data: Quarta-feira, 10 de Mar=E7o de 1999 15:35=20
>> Assunto: Functionalist Dilemma
>>
>> Hello all:=20
>> =20
>> 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
>> of latent groups but am confused with her statement "Without a
functionalist
>> form of argument, we cannot begin to explain how a thought 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.=20
>> =20
>> This, however, is contrasted 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
>> =20
>> 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
>> =20
>> Any thoughts?=20
>> =20
>> Thanks,=20
>> =20
>> Chris Francovich
>
>
>
______________________________________________