Structural Functionalism

14,000,000 Leading Edge Experts on the ideXlab platform

Scan Science and Technology

Contact Leading Edge Experts & Companies

Scan Science and Technology

Contact Leading Edge Experts & Companies

The Experts below are selected from a list of 297 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform

Alan Barnard - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • history and theory in anthropology Functionalism and Structural Functionalism
    2000
    Co-Authors: Alan Barnard
    Abstract:

    The terms ‘functionalist’ and ‘Structural-functionalist’ and their corresponding ‘isms’ are now quite stable in their meanings. However, this was not always the case. Before looking at the theories, a brief tour of the changing nuances of the terms is in order. ‘Functionalism’ is a broad term. In its widest sense, it includes both Functionalism (narrowly defined) and Structural-Functionalism. I use it mainly in the narrower sense, that is, to refer to ideas associated with Bronislaw Malinowski and his followers, notably Sir Raymond Firth. It is the perspective concerned with actions among individuals, the constraints imposed by social institutions on individuals, and relations between the needs of an individual and the satisfaction of those needs through cultural and social frameworks. ‘Structural-Functionalism’ tends to be concerned less with individual action or needs, and more with the place of individuals in the social order, or indeed with the construction of the social order itself. Typically, the latter term identifies the work of A. R. Radcliffe-Brown and his followers. In Britain these included E. E. Evans-Pritchard (in his early work), Isaac Schapera, Meyer Fortes, and Jack Goody, among many others. Yet the boundary between Structural-Functionalism and Functionalism was never rigid. Some of Radcliffe-Brown's followers did not mind the term ‘functionalist’; others took to the labels ‘Structural-functionalist’ or ‘Structuralist’ (to distinguish their work from that of Malinowski). Furthermore, the term ‘British Structuralist’ was heard in the 1950s to distinguish Radcliffe-Brownianism from Levi-Straussianism or ‘French Structuralism’ (described in chapter 8).

  • History and Theory in Anthropology: Structuralism, from linguistics to anthropology
    History and Theory in Anthropology, 2000
    Co-Authors: Alan Barnard
    Abstract:

    ‘Structuralism’ refers to those theoretical perspectives which give primacy to pattern over substance. For a Structuralist, meaning comes through knowing how things fit together, not from understanding things in isolation. There are some similarities between Structuralism and Structural-Functionalism: both are concerned with relations between things. However, there are important differences. Structural-Functionalism finds order within social relations. Structuralists are generally as interested in structures of thought as in structures of society. Moreover, the Structural-Functionalism of Radcliffe-Brown was based mainly on inductive reasoning. One starts with data and sees what generalizations can be made about them. Structuralists often employ a method which is primarily deductive, that is, based on certain premises. Structuralists might follow these premises and see where they lead, rather as in algebra or geometry. They often prefer to work out logical possibilities first, and then see how ‘reality’ fits. Indeed, for a true Structuralist, there is no reality except the relation between things. Claude Levi-Strauss has been interested in both the internal logic of a culture and the relation of that logic to structures beyond the culture – the structure of all possible structures of some particular kind. This is especially the case in his work on kinship (e.g., Levi-Strauss 1969a [1949]; 1966a), arguably the most structured realm of culture. Yet, while Levi-Strauss is both the best known and the most characteristic of Structuralist thinkers, Structuralist thought is applicable more widely.

  • History and theory in anthropology
    History and Theory, 2000
    Co-Authors: Alan Barnard
    Abstract:

    Anthropology is a discipline very conscious of its history. Alan Barnard has written a clear, detailed overview of anthropological theory that brings out the historical contexts of the great debates, tracing the genealogies of theories and schools of thought. His book covers the precursors of anthropology; evolutionism in all its guises; diffusionism and culture area theories, Functionalism and Structural-Functionalism; action-centered theories; processual and Marxist perspectives; the many faces of relativism, Structuralism and postStructuralism; and recent interpretive and postmodernist viewpoints. This is a balanced and judicious survey, which also considers the problems involved in assessing anthropological theories.

  • History, Economics, and Anthropology: The Work of Karl Polanyi
    History and theory in anthro, 2000
    Co-Authors: Alan Barnard
    Abstract:

    Anthropology is a discipline very conscious of its history. Alan Barnard has written a clear, detailed overview of anthropological theory that brings out the historical contexts of the great debates, tracing the genealogies of theories and schools of thought. His book covers the precursors of anthropology; evolutionism in all its guises; diffusionism and culture area theories, Functionalism and Structural-Functionalism; action-centered theories; processual and Marxist perspectives; the many faces of relativism, Structuralism and postStructuralism; and recent interpretive and postmodernist viewpoints. This is a balanced and judicious survey, which also considers the problems involved in assessing anthropological theories.

  • history and theory in anthropology
    2000
    Co-Authors: Alan Barnard
    Abstract:

    List of figures List of tables Preface 1. Visions of anthropology 2. Precursors of the anthropological tradition 3. Changing perspectives on evolution 4. Diffusionist and culture-area theories 5. Functionalism and Structural-Functionalism 6. Action-centred, processual and Marxist perspectives 7. From relativism to cognitive science 8. Structuralism, from linguistics to anthropology 9. PostStructuralists, feminists and (other) mavericks 10. Interpretive and postmodernist approaches 11. Conclusions Appendix 1: dates of birth and death of individuals mentioned in the text Appendix 2: glossary References Index.

Tang Zhipin - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

Jeremy Rayner - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • Structural Functionalism redux adaptation to climate change and the challenge of a science driven policy agenda
    Critical Policy Studies, 2017
    Co-Authors: Adam Wellstead, Michael Howlett, Jeremy Rayner
    Abstract:

    ABSTRACTMost efforts to develop a comprehensive, science-based approach to climate change adaptation have been written by natural scientists and resource managers and have adopted an underlying conception of policy-making as a functional process of mutual adjustment between elements of tightly linked natural and social systems. The influence of this framing is especially clear in the popularity of key metaphors such as ‘stress,’ ‘barriers,’ ‘vulnerability,’ and ‘resilience.’ There are obvious advantages to this way of proceeding, not least the possibility of using the systems concept as an overarching framework to integrate the multidisciplinary teams of researchers commonly employed in large-scale assessments of climate change impacts. Nonetheless, this underlying conception of linked natural and social systems presents significant challenges when it comes to moving the ideas found in these strategic documents forward into the world of policy and practice. As the case studies of North American, Australia...

Sun Jiayue - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • on the function of social work a Structural Functionalism perspective of analysis
    Journal of Social Science of Hunan Normal University, 2011
    Co-Authors: Sun Jiayue
    Abstract:

    Abiding by the thought approach of Structural Functionalism,the understanding of the function of social work should be inspected progressively from small subsystem to big social system,including three layers:individuals,groups,and society.Individual functions of social work mainly include three functions:personality shaping,emotion regulation,behavioral tranformation;group functions of social work mainly include three functions:goal orientation,regulation restraint,and value integration;social functions of social work mainly includes two functions:social integrating,social directing.

Douglas Booth - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • Social Structure and Social Theory: The Intellectual Insights of Robert K. Merton
    Sport and Modern Social Theorists, 2020
    Co-Authors: Douglas Booth
    Abstract:

    Many sociologists argue that “Structural-Functionalism” was the dominant theoretical perspective in sociology between the late 1930s and the early 1960s, especially in North America. From the perspective of sport sociology, Jarvie and Maguire contend that Structural-Functionalism “played a key part in the early development of the sociology of sport in North America and on both sides of what was then the European ‘iron curtain’ ” (1994, p. 5). Although the degree of dominance of Structural-Functionalism in general sociology and sport sociology is a moot matter (see Loy & Booth, 2000a), there is no doubt that Robert K. Merton and Talcott Parsons were the twin theoretical towers of Structural-Functionalism.

  • 2Structure and Social Theory
    2020
    Co-Authors: Robert K. Merton, Douglas Booth
    Abstract:

    Many sociologists argue that “Structural-Functionalism” was the dominant theoretical perspective in sociology between the late 1930s and the early 1960s, especially in North America. From the perspective of sport sociology, Jarvie and Maguire contend that Structural-Functionalism “played a key part in the early development of the sociology of sport in North America and on both sides of what was then the European ‘iron curtain’ ” (1994, p. 5). Although the degree of dominance of StructuralFunctionalism in general sociology and sport sociology is a moot matter (see Loy & Booth, 2000a), there is no doubt that Robert K. Merton and Talcott Parsons were the twin theoretical towers of Structural-Functionalism. However, it is also evident that Structural-Functionalism in general, and Merton’s form in particular, had little impact on general sociology or sport sociology during the last quarter of the twentieth century. A cursory glance of articles published in the last two decades in the Sociology of Sport Journal and the International Review for the Sociology of Sport reveals few residuals of the functionalist tradition still in existence. Yet, if the present generation of sociologists consider Merton’s approach unfashionable, we maintain that key aspects of his theoretical perspectives remain relevant for the sociological analysis of sport. In this chapter we trace the development of Merton’s career, including his two main theoretical orientations, and attempt to illustrate the import of his intellectual insights for the study of sport. Intellectual biography 1

Related terms

Structural Functionalism - 15 days free trial to Access Experts & Abstracts