He is the founder of structural functionalism. Structural-functional direction in sociology. Contemporary sociological theories

Functionalism as an exploratory orientation has clearly emerged over the past fifty years. It has undergone a complex evolution since the early 1930s, when the founders of British anthropological functionalism, V. Malinovsky and A. R. Radcliffe-Brown, formulated the main provisions of this trend.

An important milestone its history was American structural functionalism (T. Parsons, R. Merton, etc.), which developed and extended the functionalist methodology to all sections of sociology. At the same time, the general scientific content of structural-functional analysis as a kind of systemic methodological concepts gradually grew together with various sociological theories of a different origin (for example, with the theory of social action) and began to be identified with them. Therefore, in order to reveal the logical structure of functional analysis in its pure form, it is necessary to trace it in various historical contexts, separating it from later theoretical additions.

Many essential features of the functional approach in a broad sense can be found in Ancient Greece among the Eleatics (in the teachings of Parmenides about the “one”), as well as among S. Montesquieu, O. Comte, G. Spencer and other thinkers. Thus, Comte's social statics was based on the principle that the institutions, beliefs and moral values of society are interconnected into one whole. The existence of any social phenomenon in this whole is explained if the law is described, how it coexists with other phenomena. G. Spencer used functional analogues between the processes of the organism and society. The laws of organization of society and organism are homologous. Like the evolutionary development of an organism, the progressive differentiation of structure in society is accompanied by a progressive differentiation of functions. According to Spencer, we can talk about the organic interdependence of parts, about the relative independence of the whole (structure) and parts both in society and in the body. The processes of social evolution, like the development of living organisms, are natural and genetic processes that cannot be accelerated by legislation. A person can only distort or delay the course of these processes.

Based on his quantitative-mechanical scheme of evolution (independent of Darwin, by the way), Spencer partly anticipated the formulation of the problems of structural complexity, the relationship between the processes of social differentiation and integration in modern functionalist neo-evolutionaryism.

The general methodology of the bioorganic school also had a certain external resemblance to all modern systemic trends in sociology. late XIX V. Her very attempt to conceptualize the structure and functional connections of the social whole was valuable. The problem of combining a temporary "organismic" picture of the social whole and evolutionary-genetic ideas turned out to be tenacious, in a modified form it passed to structuralism, structural functionalism and other system-oriented areas in sociology. Specially sociological, and not philosophical development (albeit on a narrow biological basis) of old ideas about the primacy of the whole, the requirements arising from them to consider social phenomena and processes between individuals and groups in their correlation with the structure and processes of the whole, a peculiar formulation of the problem of the functional unity of its parts , as well as the natural-scientific interpretation of development as a gradual genetic process, independent of human consciousness, to some extent connect the bioorganic school with the trends of modern functionalism.
But they stand closest to the new functionalism and have consciously assimilated the method and theoretical constructions Durkheim. His entire sociology is based on the recognition that society has its own reality, independent of people, and that it is not just an ideal being, but a system of active forces, a "second nature." Hence Durkheim concluded that the explanation of social life must be sought in the properties of society itself.

Close to functionalism are such features of its method as the analysis of the structural past of social institutions and the current state of the environment in determining the area of possible structural options in future development, the relativity of assessments of the functional utility of a given social phenomenon depending on the point of view (requirements of the institution, a group of individual participants), level analysis, etc. Coincides with the general natural-scientific orientation of functionalism, Durkheim's desire to put sociology on a par with physics or biology, interpreting ideas as things and finding for it its own distinctive reality in the form of social facts that could be objectively studied, measured and compared .

Durkheim developed a functional theory of social change, which was based on the idea of structural differentiation, creating the prerequisites for further advancement of American functionalist neo-evolutionism of the 1950s and 1960s (T. Parsons, N. Smelser and others). In particular, T. Parsons recognized the dependence of his approach to the structural differentiation of social systems on Durkheim's evolutionism, noting the extreme value of his concept. For modern attempts to synthesize structural and procedural descriptions of social phenomena, it is important that most of Durkheim's research - whether it be his sociology of the family, religion, analysis of the development of the social division of labor, forms of ownership and contract law - is built on a historical foundation.
Starting from the ideas of Durkheim, the leading English social anthropologists, B. Malinovsky and A. R. Radcliffe-Brown, took up the development of the functional method and the basic concepts of functionalism, “structure” and “function”.

Radcliffe-Brown was one of the initiators of applying a systems approach to the so-called primitive societies. His theoretical principles continued the traditions of English empiricism: social phenomena should be considered as natural facts and in their explanation one should follow the methodology natural sciences: in theory, only such generalizations are allowed that can be verified.
Considering society as a living organism in action, Radcliffe-Brown believed that the study of its structure is inseparable from the study of its functions, that is, from showing how the constituent parts of the system work in relation to each other and to the whole. He rejected attempts (characteristic of his contemporary, another famous English anthropologist - B. Malinovsky) to connect social phenomena with individual needs, whether biological or psychological.

Initial for Radcliffe-Brown were the following basic structural ideas about society.

1. If a society is to survive, there must be some minimum solidarity among its members: the function of social phenomena is either to create or to maintain this solidarity of social groups, or else to maintain the institutions that serve it.

2. Therefore, there must also be a minimum coherence of relations between parts of the social system.

3. Each type of society exhibits basic structural features, and different kinds human activities are linked to them in a way that contributes to their conservation.

Determining the influence of Radcliffe-Brown on the formation of functionalism in Western sociology, one can note his considerable contribution to the development and refinement of the concepts of social structure. His concepts can be regarded as a necessary stage in the development of the concept of "structure" in general, as a result of which it has reached a sufficient level of generality and has gained the possibility of being applied to any organizational ordering of social phenomena.

Another English anthropologist, Bronisław Malinowski, did a lot to form the concept of function. In his concept, this concept is central. According to Malinovsky, social phenomena are explained by their functions, that is, by the role they play in the integral system of culture, and by the ways in which they relate to each other.

The most objectionable has always been the premise of early functionalism that every event within a system is in some way functional to the system. Later, it was called the “postulate of universal functionality.” For early functionalism, the problem remained completely unresolved: is it permissible to consider culture as a whole functional, since it prescribes adaptive normative patterns of human behavior. Malinovsky's school tended to recognize its functionality: "All elements of culture, if this concept (functionalist anthropology) is true, must be working, functioning, active, efficient."

Universal functionalism has inherent difficulties, which are clearly visible in Malinowski's scheme. One of his guiding principles, that specific cultural phenomena are created to satisfy certain needs, is almost a tautology, since for any phenomenon, in essence, it is easy to establish that it satisfies some need. Malinovsky's assertion that every cultural phenomenon must have a function, that is, that it exists because it satisfies some contemporary need, otherwise it would not exist, is overly strong. Only a special study can establish whether a given phenomenon is useful for something and for someone.

Structural functionalism is a direction of sociological thought, a sociological school, whose representatives proceeded from the fact that each element social interaction, performing its specific functions, exists within the framework of the integral structure of society.

In this topic, I will consider the most significant stages in the formation of the school of structural functionalism itself, the originality of functionalist concepts and the views of its most prominent representatives.

1.Structural - functional direction in the theory of Emile Durkheim.

It is in Emile Durkheim (1858-1917) that we meet a truly structural and functional understanding of the social system with the elucidation of its important elements. The most important works of Durkheim, which deal with these problems: "On the division of social labor" (1893), "Rules of sociological method" (1895), "Suicide" (1897), "Elementary forms of religious life" (1912).

The key to understanding Durkheim's functionalism is his concept of social facts. Only in the light of social facts can one explain why a person acts this way and not otherwise, why people enter into certain relationships, connections. Social facts can be:

Morphological, i.e. material nature

Spiritual - "collective ideas" that have a particularly deep impact on a person.

The main postulate of Durkheim's method is the position formulated by him:

the first and basic rule is that social facts must be considered as things. "A thing is" every object of knowledge, which in itself is impenetrable to the mind, this is all about which we can formulate adequate concepts by a simple method of mental analysis, this is all, which the mind can understand only on condition of going beyond itself, by observation and experiment, successively moving from the most external and immediately accessible signs to the less visible and deeper ones.

The totality of social factors - things - constitutes the social system, its institutions, values and norms. In order to cognize a social system, its content and originality, one must empirically comprehend such of its most important elements as social facts, as well as the nature of the connection and interaction between them. To explain the social to the social, in Durkheim's own words, is the functional analysis of the social system.

And so, the social fact exists objectively, outside the individual. Outwardly it is an object, it can be observed. But at the same time, social facts are generated by the cumulative actions of people, and in this sense they are inseparable from a person, his activity. Values and norms, for example, are social facts because they are qualitatively different from what is contained in individual consciousness: they, as social facts, have a different basis - "collective consciousness". The collective consciousness that exists in every society dominates the individual, leads to the establishment, consolidation of certain patterns of behavior, typical modes of action, generally recognized rules that become objective social facts that determine the feelings, thinking and behavior of individual individuals.

Values and norms are the levers of social regulation. At the same time, the sociologist emphasizes that social norms are effective only when they are based not on external coercion, but on the moral authority of society and the moral perfection of people.

An important aspect of Durkheim's method of functionalism lies in the fact that he saw the reasons for the existence of this particular fact of other social facts preceding it. A sociological explanation of facts, realities, phenomena and processes, studied separately from each other, must occur in terms of social causes and social functions. The state of society depends on the internal connections of its morphological (material) structure and the nature of its collective consciousness. Therefore, the explanation of social life must be sought in the nature of society itself.

According to Durkheim, society has certain functional prerequisites, the most important of which is the need for social order. This follows from human nature, which has two sides:

the first is selfish: in part, people's behavior is determined biological needs which are realized in the satisfaction of their own interests, which makes it difficult for individuals to integrate into society;

the second is the side of human nature - the ability to believe in moral values.

Society, supporting this side, thus provides the possibility of social life and stability.

Durkheim was far from thinking that society functions smoothly at all times. On the contrary, in a number of his works he suggested that industrial societies could decline. This will become possible if selfishness leads to the loss of control over individuals by society.

According to Durkheim, the most important contribution to social stability and the development of human interaction is labor, or rather, the division of labor between individuals. With the growth of the division of labor, impersonal functional dependence becomes an increasingly important integration force - no one provides for himself anymore, each individual begins to perform a certain social function, a social role. The division of labor shapes the personality, causing differences between individuals who develop personal abilities and talents in accordance with their professional role.

It should be noted that the causal analysis of social facts, according to Durkheim, is the search for the dependence of a social phenomenon on social environment. Such an approach could open up broader possibilities in the knowledge of society if the sociologist pointed to the social, economic, and historical sources of such dependence. But he limited himself to the functional side. The sociologist advocated the unity of causal analysis with structural analysis, which constituted the specifics of the interpretation of society, which he himself designated by the term "sociological determinism".

2. Talcott Parsons: the school of structural functionalism.

Talcott Parsons (1902-1979) is the central figure in the structural-functionalist direction, the creator of the school itself with many students. Parsons is rightfully the largest representative of the theoretical sociology of the 20th century, the founder of the theory of the social system and the theory of social action. He made a decisive contribution to the creation modern language sociology, to the development of basic concepts in their systemic representation.

The first major problem that we see in Parsons' theory is the concept and content of the social system, its structure, structural components and functions. The sociologist admits that by this time there were certain prerequisites for such a study of society, the most significant of which were:

1. Achievement clinical psychology representing the human individual as a dynamic structural-functional system.

2. Results obtained by social and cultural anthropology.

3. According to Parsons, Durkheim showed a genuine structural and functional understanding of the social system with the isolation of its most important elements and functions.

4. The works of the German sociologist M. Weber contained the substantiation of the social actions of individuals in the context of the functioning of social organizations and institutions.

The focus of Parsons' study is individuals and their actions. At the same time, the sociologist comes to the conclusion that the social actions of people, firstly, are regulated by norms and, secondly, occur within the framework of the value system. Society is a normative community.

Social systems, as defined by Parsons, are systems formed by the states and processes of social interaction between acting subjects. The structure of these systems can be analyzed using 4 types of variables: values, norms, teams and roles ("The system of modern societies"). Since the social system itself is formed by the interactions of human individuals, each participant is at the same time an actor with certain goals, ideas, attitudes, and an object of orientation, both for other actors and for himself. The core of the social system is a structured normative order through which collective life is organized. As an order, in order to be meaningful and legitimate, it contains values, differentiated and ordered rules and norms that are correlated with culture. The collective of people, which is covered by the normative system, is under its "jurisdiction", called by Parsons the societal community.

Thus, the social system acts as a structure consisting of values, norms, collective organizations and roles. These four structural categories in Parsons' conceptual scheme correspond to certain functional requirements. In other words, in order to exist and develop, to be vital, any social system must meet four basic functional requirements. This is adaptation, goal achievement, integration and retention, preservation of the pattern. 4 functional requirements fulfill the 4 above-mentioned components of the system (values, norms, collective organizations, roles), personified by certain social institutions.

Values are primary for the preservation and maintenance of a sample of a functioning system, which involves their transmission from generation to generation through education and mastery of the elements of the society's culture. The family, school, religion, state and other public institutions fulfill this functional requirement. Institutions have a special role social control. Each public institution has its own goals. main function role in the social system is adaptation, which concerns the relationship between the system and its environment: in order to exist and develop, the system must have a certain degree of control over its environment, primarily economic, which is a source of material wealth and people's livelihoods. In general, the ability to perform meaningful role activities is, according to Parsons, the most common adaptive resource of any society.

The task of presenting modern sociological theories is even less visible than the attempt to present the views of their classical predecessors. However, there is already a fairly well-established classification here, which makes it possible to systematize the presentation and confine ourselves to several representatives of each direction. Consider the following most authoritative directions modern sociological thought (recognizing some conventionality and possible incompleteness of this classification):

structural functionalism;
phenomenological sociology;
ethnomethodology and sociology of everyday life;
post-industrialism;
sociological theories, and J. Moreno.

This section deals mainly with the work of foreign sociologists: the next section is devoted to Russian sociology.

Structural functionalism

This influential current of sociological thought goes back to the works of O. Comte, G. Spencer, M. Weber. It considers society as a large organism, the individual parts of which perform certain functions. Therefore, the social structure, social institutions arise and operate in order to satisfy social functions. All kinds of social conflicts and contradictions are considered in structural functionalism as dysfunctions to be eliminated.

The most prominent representative of this trend was the Russian-American sociologist Pitirim Sorokin (1889-1968). Sorokin can be called the "last classic" and at the same time the greatest sociologist of our time. The long life of P. Sorokin is divided into two periods - Russian and American. Sorokin graduated from the law faculty of St. Petersburg University. Prominent Russian scientists M. Kovalevsky and E. De Roberti were his teachers, and the works of E. Durkheim had a great influence on Sorokin. Sorokin took an active part in the political life of Russia as a member of the Socialist-Revolutionary Party, at one time he was the secretary of A. Kerensky, he was in prison both under the tsarist government and under the Bolsheviks. In 1922 he emigrated from Russia and after a year of living in Berlin and Prague moved to the United States, where he became world famous.

The main work of Sorokin was the titanic four-volume work "Social and Cultural Dynamics" (1937-1941), surpassing even K. Marx's "Capital" and V. Pareto's "Treatise on Sociology" in volume (in 1957, an abridged one-volume version of this book was published, translated now into Russian). In Social and Cultural Dynamics, Sorokin applies a sociocultural approach to the analysis of social changes, based on the analysis of a huge array of data of different quality. Describing his research, Sorokin writes: "It poses only one central problem, namely: the change and fluctuation of ideational, idealistic and sensual cultures." But this study covers more than two and a half millennia of the history of ancient and Western civilizations (with excursions to other cultures) and such areas as art, science, politics, economics, morality, social relations, philosophical categories, etc.

Sorokin distinguishes two main integrated types of culture: ideational and sensual. Ideational culture is characterized by rationalism, idealism, indeterminism, realism, sociological universalism, ethics of principles, etc.; accordingly, sensory culture is characterized by empiricism, materialism, determinism, nominalism, sociological singularism, the ethics of happiness, etc. In addition, Sorokin identifies a third, idealistic type of culture, synthesizing two basic types. Based on a huge amount of material, Sorokin convincingly demonstrates the cyclical alternation of the basic types of culture throughout human history in all areas of activity and thinking. Sorokin's main conclusion: by the middle of the 20th century, sensual culture comes to its crisis and is gradually replaced by an ideational, or idealistic, type of culture.

Another important area scientific interests P. Sorokin was a study of social structure, stratification and mobility. In these studies, P. Sorokin actively uses geometric analogies. Here are his definitions: “1) social space is the population of the Earth; 2) social position is the totality of his ties with all groups of the population, within each of these groups, that is, with its members; 3) the position of a person in the social universe is determined by establishing these connections; 4) the totality of such groups, as well as the totality of positions within each of them, constitute a system of social coordinates that makes it possible to determine the social position of any individual.

Sorokin also owns the following classic definition: "Social stratification is the differentiation of a given set of people (population) into classes in a hierarchical rank." He gave a detailed description of social stratification (economic, political, professional as its main types) and the mechanisms of social mobility, by which he understood "any transition of an individual or a social object (value) ... from one social position to another."

Peru P. Sorokin also owns the fundamental "System of Sociology", the brilliant study "Modern Sociological Theories" and fifty other monographs.

Other distinguished representative structural functionalism was the American sociologist Talcott Parsons (1902-1978). T. Parsons was the son-in-law of M. Weber and a translator into English language his book The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. In addition to Weber, Parsons creatively mastered the legacy of E. Durkheim, F. Tennis and many other classics, which allowed him to create an original sociological theory published in the monographs The Structure of Social Action, The System of Modern Societies and other works.

Parsons' theory is based on the concept of "social action" dating back to M. Weber. Such an approach presupposes as a basic analytical unit not society or culture, as too large objects, but a separate, elementary action.

To analyze social action, Parsons proposed and substantiated complete system paired categories, which include: "affectiveness - neutrality" (to assess the emotional state of the acting subject and his attitude to the situation); "orientation to oneself - orientation to the team" (the degree of egoism/altruism in the actions of the subject); "particularism - universalism" (whether an individual, when assessing a situation, uses qualities that are important for him personally or socially recognized norms); “Quality-activity” (whether the subject, when evaluating an object, pays attention primarily to its qualities or to what it does); “concreteness (“specificity”) - diffuseness” (the subject fulfills only a strictly defined set of obligations in relation to the object or is ready to expand it, if this does not contradict other obligations).

A generalized description of the action according to Parsons is given in Table. 1.1.

Table 1.1. Action

Thus, Parsons interprets the social system as part of a more general system of action that performed an integrative function. A more detailed description of the social system itself is given in Table. 1.2.

Table 1.2. Society (social system)

Subsystems	Structural Components	Aspects of the development process	main function
societal community		Inclusion	Integration
Sample reproduction	Values	Generalization of values	Sample reproduction
Policy	Collectives	Differentiation	goal achievement
Economy		Increasing adaptive capacity	Adaptation

According to Parsons, “the subsystem of preservation and reproduction of the pattern is primarily concerned with the relationship of society with the cultural system and through it with the highest reality; the goal-achieving, or political, subsystem of relations with personal systems of individuals; adaptive, or economic, subsystem - relations with the behavioral organism and through it with the material world. The central role is played by the integrative social subsystem, which ensures social order and thus the solution of the question posed by T. Hobbes: how to avoid the "war of all against all". T. Parsons also owns research in the field of social stratification, motivation economic activity, methodology, etc.

Symbolic interactionism

Symbolic interactionism, as a theory of social interaction, views human communication as a constant dialogue carried out with the help of symbols. At the same time, not only real actions are important, but also the intentions of social actors in the course of interaction.

The forerunners of the theory of symbolic interactionism were the American sociologists Ch. X. Cooley (1864-1929) and W. Thomas (1863-1947). According to Cooley, social nature“works out in man through simple forms of intimate interaction, or primary groups, especially family or neighborhood groups, which exist everywhere and always affect the individual in the same way.” W. Thomas especially vividly expressed the role of intentions in the statement, which is now called "Thomas's theorem": "If a situation is defined as real, then it is real in its consequences."

However, the American scientist George Herbert Mead (1863-1931), who also worked in the “classical” era, is considered the founder of symbolic interactionism. Mead was influenced by the American pragmatic philosophers W. James, J. Dewey, C. Pierce, and the psychologist J. Watson. J. Mead himself called his theory "social behaviorism", i.e., put at the forefront the analysis of a person's response to the action of external stimuli, the dependence of social behavior on the environment. However, in comparison with biopsychological behaviorism, which treats a person as a passive object, Mead's theory considers an active and intelligent subject, whose actions are determined not only by external stimuli, but also by his own spiritual activity.

In operationalizing his theory, Mead introduced a distinction between signs, gestures, and meaningful symbols. Signs are natural or social phenomena that evoke an instinctive response (to hide from the rain, an angry dog or a bully). Signs that act as social regulators become gestures (for example, the actions of a traffic controller at a crossroads). Finally, generalized gestures that are applicable to the interpretation of a wide class of situations and have a universal meaning are called symbols: Meaningful characters called signs and symbolic gestures that evoke in another individual the same idea of their inherent meanings as in the first, and therefore evoke the same reaction.

Mead also introduced the notion of "assuming the role of the other", which makes communication possible. The subjects of interaction "try on" the actions and potential intentions of other subjects, relying on gestures and symbols. Mutual interpretation of roles ensures communication.

It should be noted that J. Mead himself published very little work during his lifetime, the development and popularization of the theory of symbolic interactionism was carried out by Meade's student Herbert Bloomer (1900-1987). Here is an extended characterization of the social world according to Bloomer: “Human beings live in a world of meaningful objects, and not in an environment consisting of symbols and self-constituting entities. This world has a social origin, because meanings arise in the process of social interaction. Thus, different groups develop different worlds, and these worlds change if the objects that compose them change their meanings... In order to identify and understand the life of a group, it is necessary to identify the world of its objects; identification must be carried out in terms of the meanings that objects have in the eyes of the members of the group.

Thus, symbolic introductionism does not deal with the objective social world, but with the multitude of subjective social "worlds" that individual groups create for themselves through symbols in social interaction.

Phenomenological sociology

According to the theory of symbolic interactionism, in the course of social actions, individuals symbolically demonstrate to themselves and others the meaning of their behavior. A more detailed analysis of the phenomenology of behavior was carried out by the Austro-American scientist A. Schutz (1899-1959). His only lifetime work, "The Semantic Structure of the Social World" (1932), has the meaningful subtitle "Introduction to Understanding Sociology," which emphasizes the connection between Schutz's theory and M. Weber's theory. However, Schutz criticized Weber for insufficient, in his opinion, philosophical substantiation of sociological theory. Therefore, Schutz himself set the task of this justification, relying on the philosophical works of E. Husserl.

The founder of phenomenological philosophy, E. Husserl, introduced the concept of "life world", which is "the spatio-temporal world of things, as we perceive it before and outside of any science." Schutz uses this philosophical concept to substantiate the meaning of social action, which was not explained by M. Weber.

Since each individual has his own life world, phenomenological sociology naturally comes to the idea of constructing social reality in accordance with the life worlds. The task of phenomenological sociology, according to Schutz, is not to attempt an objective description and explanation of social reality, but to study the process of constituting the world by thinking and constructing a person's own life world.

Schutz's student and follower, Thomas Luckman (born in 1927), processed fragments of the teacher's handwritten heritage and published the book Structures of the Life World under two surnames. It explores human behavior in the everyday life world, the process of socialization, the interaction of the individual life world with other life worlds. The leading role in the formation of social behavior is played by the natural setting that determines the life world of the individual.

The further development of the ideas of phenomenological sociology was carried out by T. Luckman together with Peter Berger (b. 1929) in the book The Social Construction of Reality (1966), which became a notable event in modern sociology. The work of P. Berger and T. Lukman is based on a dialectical approach: the life world of a person is determined by the objective conditions of his existence, and at the same time, social reality is constructed by individuals. Therefore, G. Hegel and K. Marx can be called the ideological predecessors of Berger and Luckman. Another theorist whose ideas influenced the authors was

Karl Mannheim (1893-1947), who put forward the thesis that any thinking is determined by the general spiritual atmosphere of the era.

In their succinct theory, Berger and Luckman substantiated such phenomena as institutionalization, legitimation, and the formation of social order. As Berger and Luckman point out, “every human activity undergoes habitualization. Any action that is often repeated becomes a model, it can subsequently be reproduced with economy of effort ipso facto recognized as a model by its performer. Moreover, habitualization means that the action in question can be performed again in the future in the same way and with the same practical effort. It is these stable habits that are called social institutions. Institutionalization facilitates social interaction by transforming large classes of everyday operations into routine ones that do not require special mental efforts.

However, for its practical implementation social institutions need legitimacy. Legitimation has a hierarchical structure and includes: the level of primary knowledge, rudimentary theoretical knowledge, explicit theories of legitimation, symbolic universes. The latter act as “protective mechanisms both for the institutional order and for the individual biography. In addition, they provide for the definition of social reality, i.e., they establish the boundaries of what belongs to the sphere of asocial interaction.”

Social order, according to Berger and Lukman, arises due to the institutionalization of behavioral patterns and is fixed in the course of socialization with the help of mechanisms of legitimation. The most important function of the social order is to maintain the identity of the individual: “In order for him to maintain confidence in what he thinks about himself, as he is, the individual requires not only an implicit confirmation of this identity, brought even by casual daily contacts, but an explicit and emotionally charged confirmation from significant others."

Ethnomethodology and sociology of everyday life

These trends are also currents in the general mainstream of "understanding sociology". The concept of "ethnomstology" was introduced by the follower of A. Schutz, the American sociologist Harold Garfinkel (born in 1917). Ethnomethodology is the study of the rules by which everyday communication people (by analogy with ethnography, which studies the rituals and customs of various peoples). The considered rules are accepted by people on faith and are implemented as if automatically. Ethnomethodology generally approaches the description of everyday actions formally, paying attention not to why they are performed, but to how individuals act. This links ethnomethodology with behaviorism, as well as pragmatism as its philosophical basis, and symbolic interactionism. It must be avenged that the main currents of “understanding sociology”—symbolic interactionism, phenomenological sociology, ethnomethodology, the sociology of everyday life—are very close and often difficult to separate.

The specificity of ethnomethodology is much more practical than in other currents, the nature of the research methods used by it. Ethnomethodological experiments are widely known, in the course of which sociologists deliberately put unprepared people in an unexpected situation. For example, young people behaved at home like polite guests, asking permission to take this or that object, permission to smoke, etc.; in other cases, the experimenter, during the conversation, gradually brought his face closer to the face of the object of the experiment, etc. These experiments revealed the standard reaction of the subjects: first, confusion, then the search for a reasonable explanation for the unusual behavior (rationalization), and after that, calmness. This reaction shows that most people tend to look for standard, routine explanations for unusual behavior, even if these explanations are obviously forced.

The largest researcher everyday behavior was Canadian-American sociologist Irving Goffman (1922-1982). Based on many years of observations, he developed the theory of impression management, which reveals the methods and techniques by which people make the impression they want on others. This theory was summarized in the work of I. Hoffmann "Introducing yourself to others in everyday life."

Hoffmann characterized his position as “the approach of theatrical performance, and the principles that follow from it are dramaturgical principles. It examines the ways in which the individual presents himself and his activities to other people in the most common work situations, the ways in which he directs and controls the formation of their impressions of himself, as well as examples of what he can and cannot do during self-presentation. In front of them".

Although Hoffmann was elected president of the American Sociological Society towards the end of his life, he can hardly be called a sociological theorist. Hoffmann's works can rightfully be attributed to fiction thanks to their brilliant style and many subtle life observations. Nevertheless, Hoffmann occupies a prominent place among "understanding sociologists", and his ideas were used by such "pure" theorists as N. Luhmann and J. Habermas.

STRUCTURAL FUNCTIONALISM

Structural functionalism- a direction of sociological thought, a sociological school, whose representatives proceeded from the fact that each element of social interaction, performing its specific functions, exists within the framework of the integral structure of society.

1.Structural - functional direction in the theory of Emile Durkheim.

Morphological, i.e. material nature

Spiritual - "collective ideas" that have a particularly deep impact on a person.

The main postulate of Durkheim's method is the position formulated by him:

the first and basic rule is that social facts must be considered as things. "A thing is" every object of knowledge, which in itself is impenetrable to the mind, it is everything about which we can formulate adequate concepts by a simple method of mental analysis, it is everything that the mind can understand only on the condition of going beyond oneself, through observation and experiment, successively moving from the most external and directly accessible signs to less visible and deeper ones.

An important aspect of Durkheim's method of functionalism lies in the fact that he saw the reasons for the existence of this particular fact of other social facts preceding it. A sociological explanation of facts, realities, phenomena and processes, studied separately from each other, must take place in terms of social causes and social functions. The state of society depends on the internal connections of its morphological (material) structure and the nature of its collective consciousness. Therefore, the explanation of social life must be sought in the nature of society itself.

According to Durkheim, society has certain functional prerequisites, the most important of which is the need for social order. It comes from human nature, which has two sides

the first is selfish: in part, people's behavior is determined by biological needs, which are realized in order to satisfy their own interests, which makes it difficult for individuals to integrate into society;

the second is the side of human nature - the ability to believe in moral values.

Society, supporting this side, thus provides the possibility of social life and stability.

Durkheim was far from thinking that society functions smoothly at all times. On the contrary, in a number of his works, he suggested that societies could decline. This will become possible if selfishness leads to the loss of control over individuals by society.

It should be noted that the analysis of social facts, according to Durkheim, is the search for the dependence of a social phenomenon on the social environment. Such an approach could open up broader possibilities in the knowledge of society if the sociologist pointed to the social, economic, and historical sources of such dependence. But he limited himself to the functional side. The sociologist advocated the unity of causal analysis with structural analysis, which constituted the specifics of the interpretation of society, which he himself designated by the term "sociological determinism".

2. Talcott Parsons: the school of structural functionalism.

Talcott Parsons (1902-1979) is the central figure in the structural-functionalist direction, the creator of the school itself with many students. Parsons is rightfully the largest representative of theoretical sociology. XX century, the founder of the theory of the social system and the theory of social action. He made a decisive contribution to the creation of the modern language of sociology, to the development of basic concepts in their systemic representation.

1. Achievement of clinical psychology, representing the human individual as a dynamic structural and functional system;

2. Results obtained by social and cultural anthropology.

3. According to Parsons, Durkheim showed a genuine structural and functional understanding of the social system with the isolation of its most important elements and functions.

4. The works of the German sociologist M. Weber contained the substantiation of the social actions of individuals in the context of the functioning of social organizations and institutions.

Social systems, according to Parsons, are systems formed by the states and processes of social interaction between acting subjects. The structure of these systems can be analyzed using 4 types of variables: values. Norms, collectives and norms ("The system of modern societies"). Since the soma social system is formed by the interactions of human individuals, each participant is at the same time an actor. Possessing certain goals, ideas, attitudes, and an object of orientation both for other actors and for oneself. The core of the social system is a structured normative order through which collective life is organized. As an order, in order to be meaningful and legitimate, it contains values. Differentiated and ordered rules and norms that are correlated with culture. The collective of people that is covered by the normative system is under its "jurisdiction", Parsons calls the societal community.

Values are primary for the preservation and maintenance of a sample of a functioning system, which involves their transmission from generation to generation through education and mastery of the elements of the society's culture. The family, school, religion, state and other public institutions fulfill this functional requirement. A special role belongs to the institutions of social control. Each public institution has its own goals. The main function of the role in the social system is adaptation, which concerns the relationship between the system and its environment: in order to exist and develop, the system must have a certain degree of control over its environment, primarily economic, which is a source of material wealth and people's livelihoods. In general, the ability to perform meaningful role activities is, according to Parsons, the most common adaptive resource of any society.

The second major problem that needs to be highlighted in Parsons' theory is the problem of social order, the nature of integration, the stability of social systems. In this aspect, culture and cultural values play a central, dominant role.

In life, people in the process of interaction simultaneously counteract each other. This is also characteristic of class, group and personal relationships. Therefore, it is important that the force and factors of interaction prevail over the forces and factors of opposition, and the unifying principle be stronger than the tendency to disengage. As long as the relationship of interaction between the individual, culture and social system is preserved, the system is viable.

At the same time, neither values per se nor standardized role expectations provide integration and social order without the formation of an institutional structure, which refers to value groups, standardized norms and expectations, and a system of social control. The process of institutionalization, according to Parsons, is the integration of standardized expectations with various forms of social control - material, spiritual and administrative. Culture, values, play not only a fundamental role in the processes of institutionalization by themselves, but, as it were, they sanction the entire legal system. The effectiveness of institutional forms and legal systems depends not only on how they express the holistic orientations of people - what is dear to them and what they value - but also on what moral support is given to these forms by human society.

Thus, the system is stable, sustainable, consensus is ensured if it develops according to the above scheme, observing the rules of institutional integration and the evolution of political, social, economic institutions in accordance with those common values that stimulate the predictable social behavior of most people.

The third major problem that is important for a holistic view of the theory of the social system is the problem of social change and evolution. Speaking of order and stability, of consensus, Parsons also saw the processes that lead to social change. The sociologist notes that the practical study of these processes is the task of empirical research.

In The Functional Theory of Change, Parsons notes that in practice no social system is in a state of perfect equilibrium. Although a certain degree of balance is necessary to ensure the viability of the system. Therefore, he presents the process of social change as a "moving balance".

The process of evolutionary development corresponds to the process of innovation, which means a breakthrough and provides society with a new level of adaptive capacity. Innovation first of all covers the sphere of culture and values.

The differentiation of society requires integration. For example, in a system where there are hiring, various professions, the head of the house in a traditional society can no longer control production within the framework of his former role, determined by kinship. The production organization must therefore develop a system of authority which was not present in the kinship system. Production and home teams must be coordinated within the larger system through changes in the structure of the local community. Thus, new "rules" of the game and conditions for the performance of new roles arise. Parsons notes that the most important thing in the new legitimation is a new value orientation of a person, especially in his two differentiated spheres of action and responsibility - in his professional role and in his family.

Parsons sees social evolution as a movement from simple to more complex forms of society. Over time, cultural changes occur, values change, which predetermines larger patterns of change. To designate them, Parsons distinguishes two cultural values, which he calls structural variables A and B. The basis for their distinction is the ways in which society solves the most vital issues of its members.

According to Parsons, type A structural variables are characteristic of simple societies, while type B structural variables are characteristic of historically higher industrial societies. The sociologist concretizes his view of social evolution through the following five dilemmas, in which the first part refers to a society with structural variables of type A, and the second - to type B.

Structural variables of type A

Structural variables of type B

prescription

Status is prescribed, it is determined by the type of family in which the individual is born

Achievement

The status of the individual is achieved through his personal efforts (hard work)

diffuseness

People enter into relationships to satisfy a wide range of needs.

Specificity

People enter into relationships to satisfy specific needs (buyer-seller relationship)

Particularism

Individuals behave differently towards specific people, for example, they are loyal to family members but not to strangers.

Universalism

Individuals act in accordance with universal principles, for example, everyone is equal before the law, so the police officer will arrest his relative if necessary

affectivity

People strive to satisfy their desires as quickly as possible.

affective neutrality

People become more neutral about reward timing (saving funds for big purchases)

Collective Orientation

People put interests social group to which they belong is above their own interests

self-orientation

First of all, people pursue their own interests, not the interests of their social group.

According to Parsons, the social evolution of societies presupposes a movement towards structural variables of type B. If a society is unable to move in this direction, then stagnation begins in it, because structural variables of type A oppose social progress: a society in which status is prescribed prevents the most able individuals to fulfill important social roles.

Parsons himself considered his views on social evolution as initial, in need of development.

3. Functionalism by Robert K. Merton

Parsons' "high" theory became the object of criticism from sociologists who did not share his "scholastic", "formalistic" concept. These include primarily Robert King Merton (1910). He argued with Parsons and on specific aspects developed and rethought whole line his theoretical positions.

Merton is the creator of a more perfect, dynamic, empirically grounded theoretical system. He called his theory the “middle level” or “medium range” theory. These are essentially numerous intermediate theories, such as theories of deviant behavior, role conflict, bureaucratic structure, and so on.

The first major problem in considering Merton's sociological theory is, firstly, the clarification of the dilemma: who is a sociologist, what direction does he represent - structuralism or functionalism? Secondly, what is the place of social structure and structural analysis in his theory? Merton himself proceeds from the fact that functionalism and structuralism are inseparably interconnected as directions of a unified theory of the social system. Functionalism is a theoretical and dynamic idea of a working social structure, the interaction of its components. Within the framework of the structural-functional paradigm, the functionalist must first of all be a structuralist. This is generalized in his approach to the subject of sociology, whose task is "to clearly explain the logically interconnected and empirically verifiable assumptions about the structure of society and its changes, human behavior within this structure and the consequences of this behavior."

Thus, by combining two directions - functionalism and structuralism, two ways of thinking and analyzing into a single theory, he developed more specific and effective concepts of social structure, deviant behavior, role conflicts, etc. According to the sociologist, any structure is not only complex, but and internally asymmetric: it constantly contains conflicts, dysfunctions, deviations, tensions, contradictions.

Let us consider what are the main and general characteristics of Merton's functionalism.

This is the second big problem.

Merton's theory of functionalism consists, as it were, of two interrelated aspects: critical and creative and innovative.

Merton considers incorrect the application of three interrelated postulates in functional analysis, which was widespread in anthropology, and then in sociology.

1. "The postulate of the functional unity of society." From this statement it follows that any part of the social system is functional for the entire system. However, Merton argues that in complex, highly differentiated societies, this "functional unity" is questionable. For example, in a society with a diversity of beliefs, religion tends to divide rather than unite.

Further, the idea of functional unity suggests that a change in one part of the system will lead to changes in all the others. Once again, Merton argues that this cannot be taken for granted, insisting on specific research. He argues that in highly differentiated societies, his institutions may have a high degree of "functional autonomy".

2. The "universality postulate of functionalism" states that "all standardized social or cultural" norms have positive functions. "Merton believes that this statement is not only simplified, but may be wrong. The sociologist proposes to proceed from the premise that any part society can be functional, dysfunctional or non-functional!

3. Merton also criticized the "obligatory postulate", according to which some institutions or social formations are attributes for society (in this light, functionalists often considered religion). Criticizing this postulate, Merton argues that the same functional requirements can be met by alternative institutions. In his opinion, there is no convincing evidence that such institutions as the family, religion are attributes of all human societies. To replace the idea of obligation, the sociologist proposes the concept of "functional equivalents" or "functional alternatives".

Merton's concept of explicit and latent (hidden.) functions can be regarded as his most positive and significant contribution to functional analysis. Only the narrow-minded practical empiricist confines himself to the study of explicit functions. Armed with the concept of a latent function, the sociologist directs his research into precisely the area that is not visible.

Thus, defining Merton's place in structural functionalism, we can say that he not only organically combined theory, method and facts, creating a "middle level theory", but his theoretical positions acquired the character of a method in empirical and theoretical aspects. In doing so, he largely overcame the abstractness of Parsons' theory.

Bibliography

Textbooks and study guides

Gromov I., Matskevich A.. Semyonov V. Western sociology. SPb., 1997, Ch. I, § 1, part II.

Komarov M.S. Introduction to sociology. M., 1994. Ch. "Social systems and social structure".

Contemporary American Sociology. M., 1994, (Talcott Parsons, Robert Merton)

Books and monographs

Durkheim E. On the division of social labor. Method of sociology. M., 1991.

Parsons T. The system of modern societies. M., 1997

Parsons T. Functional theory of change. In the book:

American sociological thought. M., 1994

Merton R. Explicit and latent functions. In the book:

American sociological thought. M., 1994.

Journal articles

Merton R. Social theory and social structure. Social structure and anomie. - Sotsis, 1992, No. 2-4.

Ionin L.G. Culture and social structure. -Sotsis, 1995, No. 2-5.

Borzunova E.A. Sociological concepts of the legitimacy of power by T. Parsons and M. Weber: comparative analysis. - Sotsis, 1997, No. 9.

The rapid development of empirical sociology in the United States in the 1920s and 1930s, and then in Europe, undoubtedly played a very important role in the further development of the entire sociological science, sharply strengthened its connection with real social life and increased the prestige of sociology. At the same time, the further, the more and more clearly one-sidedness in the development of sociological knowledge was revealed, since the huge progress in empirical and applied sociology was not then accompanied by a corresponding progress in theoretical sociology, necessary for the generalization and serious analysis of the rapidly accumulating factual material. This was repeatedly noted, in particular, by P. A. Sorokin, who arrived in the United States, and seriously criticized the then American sociology for its one-sided fascination with empiricism at the expense of theory, for its unwillingness to develop broad social problems, for petty topics. By the 1930s, there was an acute need to create such a systematic sociological theory that could find application in empirical sociology. After a series of unsuccessful attempts to create such a theory and connect it with empirical sociology, this theory manifested itself in the face of structural functionalism and occupied a dominant position in Western sociology of the 50s and 60s.

Structural functionalism is a direction in sociology that considers society, society, their phenomena and processes as social systems that have their own structure and mechanism of interaction of the corresponding structural elements, each of which performs a specific role, function in this system. One of the central postulates of structural functionalism says: “The function of an individual social phenomenon is its contribution to the total social life which is the functioning of the social system as a whole”. Another expression of the essence of functionalism can be the position that, as one phenomenon, it can have various functions, and the same function can be performed by different phenomena.

In 1937, the first major work of the student of P.A. Sorokin and a prominent representative of the Harvard sociological school, Talcott Parsons (1902-1979), was published, called “The Structure of Social Action” and determined the foundations and general direction of all his creative activity to create a common sociological theories. His subsequent works such as The Social System (1951), K general theory Action” (1952, co-authored with E. Shils), “Societies: Evolutionary and Comparative Perspectives” (1966), “The System of Modern Societies”, “The Social System and the Evolution of Action Theory” (1977), “Action Theory and Conditions human existence” (1978) and others, made him one of the leading sociologists of our century, who largely determined the face of modern theoretical sociology.

T. Parsons entered the history of sociological thought, first of all, as the creator modern theory social action and on this basis - the structural-functional theory of social systems, designed to serve as the basis for solving particular empirical and applied problems. The starting point in these theories is the understanding of social action as a unity of three subsystems: the subject of action (the individual as actor), a certain situation and value-normative prescriptions as conditions for action. Empirical data, according to Parsons, acquire real meaning if they are studied in the "actor-situation" coordinate system. They attach the greatest importance to the category of “action system”, and the social system itself is understood not as a system of “cultural standards” (E. Durkheim), but as a system of social action, motivated behavior, interacting with cultural standards, as well as with physical and biological elements of the environment. environment. Social action for T. Parsons is a self-organizing system, characterized by symbolism (language, values, etc.), normativity and voluntarism (independence from the environment). IN common system social action T. Parsons singled out four subsystems: social system, culture, personality and behavioral organism, which for each other act as specific environments for their activity. Thanks to this, he managed to overcome the opposition between society and the individual, characteristic of many previous sociological concepts, including those of Comte and Spencer, Durkheim and Weber.

T. Parsons paid much attention to the problem of sustainability, the stability of social systems. For their normal existence and development, it is necessary for the system and its subsystems to perform an invariant set of functions: adaptation to environment; goal achievement, i.e. ensure the implementation of the main goals of the system and mobilize the means to achieve it; integration and coordination of the activities of the structural elements of the system and the maintenance of a value model (i.e., the retention of the system of values prevailing in society and the removal of tension within the system). In the social system, the function of adaptation is performed by the economic subsystem; goal achievement function - political subsystem; integration function - legal institutions and customs; and the function of maintaining the value pattern (reproducing the structure) is the system of beliefs, morality, and the organs of socialization (family, education system, etc.).

Social development, according to Parsons, takes place in the direction of increasing structural differentiation of societies, the complication of their social structure, leading to a decrease in their stability. Thus, in a "primitive" society there is no social differentiation; in the "intermediate" - is detected, expanded and deepened; and in the "modern" society - receives the greatest development. The change of these types of societies is associated with the successive implementation of three types of revolutions, respectively - "industrial", based on the differentiation of economic and political systems; "democratic" - on the separation of social and political systems; and "educational" - to separate the system of reproduction of culture from the social system.

Another equally well-known representative of structural functionalism is Robert Merton (born 1910), a student of P.A. Sorokin and T. Parsons, who did a lot for organic compound theoretical and empirical in sociology on the basis of the theories of functional analysis and the “middle level” developed by him. His main works are Social Theory and Social Culture (1949), Social Theory and Social Structure (1957), Social Structure and Anomie (1966), Explicit and Latent Functions (1968), Sociology of Science ( 1973), "Methods of studying social structure" (1975), "Sociological ambivalence" (1976), "Social research and practical professions" (1982), etc. entered the golden fund of sociology of the 20th century.

In the works of R. Merton, the development of the theory and methodology of structural functionalism occupies a central place. Unlike T. Parsons, he abandoned the idea of creating a general, all-encompassing theory of social systems and a high unified sociological theory and concentrated his efforts on a functional analysis of middle-level social systems and the development of a sociological theory of "middle range". Explaining his approach, R. Merton pointed out that such theories are “theories that are in the intermediate space between particular, but also necessary working hypotheses that arise in many in the course of everyday research, and comprehensive systematic attempts to develop a unified theory that will explain everything observable types of social behavior, social organization and social change”. It is precisely such theories that reject claims for inclusiveness and universality that, according to R. Merton, make it possible to best ensure the unity of theory, method and empirical facts, to solve on this basis the fundamental problem of the relationship and interaction of macro- and micro-sociology, empirical and theoretical sociological research .

The problems of functionalism were also further developed in the works of R. Merton. Functionality in a certain sense is expressed in his teaching even more clearly than in T. Parsons. In addition, if the latter, as noted above, focused on the functions, functionality of social systems and their structures that ensure social order, then R. Merton focused on dysfunctions, dysfunctionality, leading to increased social tension, social contradictions and violation of social order. A function for R. Merton is “those observable consequences that serve the self-regulation of a given system or its adaptation to the environment”, and dysfunction is directly opposite consequences. An important contribution to the theory of functionalism was his doctrine of two forms of manifestation of functions - explicit and hidden (latent). The first takes place when it comes to the objective and intentional consequences of social actions, and the second - about unintended and unconscious consequences. This distinction serves the purpose of avoiding confusion between the conscious motivation of social behavior and its objective consequences, and between the point of view of the actor and the point of view of the observer.

In the study of relatively less general sociological problems, R. Merton's contribution to the development of the theory of anomie and deviant behavior, as well as in the sociology of social structure, professions, science, bureaucracy, mass communications, medicine, etc. All these problems were also studied by him on the basis and from the perspective of structural functionalism. Some of them will be discussed in the corresponding chapters of the next section. It is also important to note here that, for example, both social anomie and deviations are considered by R. Merton as a manifestation of crisis, disorder, discord, dysfunctionality of the social system, associated with decomposition moral values and a vacuum of ideals in the public and individual consciousness, which is quite characteristic of the current state of Russian society.

In the 1970s, the influence of structural functionalism weakened somewhat, both under the influence of criticism from other sociological schools, especially for its well-known metaphysics and conservatism (despite the fact that R. Merton partially managed to overcome these shortcomings of the views of T. Parsons), and under the influence of a new, sharply aggravated socio-political situation in Western countries, primarily due to the inability of structural functionalism to adequately reflect and analyze acute social conflicts. But even then it remained one of the main directions of modern sociology. Moreover, the 1980s led to a new rise in the popularity of the functionalist paradigm, which found its expression in the emergence of neo-functionalism. Nevertheless, criticism of the limited possibilities of structural functionalism does not cease to sound today. Therefore, with all its merits and considerable popularity, this trend in modern sociology can hardly be called not only universally recognized, but even predominant.

Structural functionalism

Symbolic interactionism

Phenomenological sociology

Ethnomethodology and sociology of everyday life

You may be interested