Collins社會學字典的定義，可以參考看看 structural-functionalism. (2006). In Collins Dictionary of Sociology. Retrieved from http://www.credoreference.com/entry/collinssoc/structural_functionalism structural-functionalism 1. theoretical approaches in which societies are conceptualized as SOCIAL SYSTEMS, and particular features of SOCIAL STRUCTURES are explained in terms of their contribution to the maintenance of these systems, e.g. religious ritual explained in terms of the contribution it makes to social integration. As such, structural-functionalism can be seen as an alternative general term for FUNCTIONALISM. See also FUNCTION, FUNCTIONALIST) EXPLANATION. 2. (more specifically) the particular form of functional analysis associated with Talcott PARSONS, often distinguished from ‘functionalism’ in general, as 'structural-functionalism’. Sometimes the work of the modern functionalist school in SOCIAL ANTHROPOLOGY, including RADCLIFFE-BROWN and MALINOWSKI, is also referred to by this term. functionalism. (2006). In Collins Dictionary of Sociology. Retrieved from http://www.credoreference.com/entry/collinssoc/functionalism functionalism Theories in sociology and social anthropology which explain social institutions primarily in terms of the FUNCTIONS they perform. To talk of the function of something is to account for a social activity or phenomenon by referring to its consequences for the operation of some other social activity, institution, or society as a whole. Modern functionalists treat societies as SYSTEMS of interacting, and self-regulating, parts. In the 19th century, social thinkers theorized about society in terms of an organic analogy. As Herbert SPENCER wrote: All kinds of creatures are alike in so far as each exhibits cooperation among its components for the benefit of the whole; and this trait, common to them, is a trait common also to societies’. The idea of studying social life in terms of social functions was also central in early 20th-century British SOCIAL ANTHROPOLOGY. Both RADCLIFFE-BROWN and MALINOWSKI used the concept of function suggesting that society could be conceptualized as made up of interdependent parts that operate together to meet different social needs. In the 1950s and early 1960s, ‘structural-functionalism’ was the dominant theoretical perspective in North American sociology. In the 1950s, the functionalist approach was associated especially with a form of SYSTEMS THEORY (see also STRUCTURAL-FUNCTIONALISM), articulated by Talcott PARSONS at Harvard University. Parsons’ theories were widely influential, though there was critical dissent from other functionalists (see MERTON) and from non-functionalists (e.g. MILLS). In the 1970s and 1980s, functionalism's star waned, partly as a result of internal theoretical weaknesses, but also from changes in the political climate (see also GOULDNER). One central area of debate has concerned the nature of FUNCTIONAL(IST) EXPLANATION. A further major area of debate has concerned its treatment of social order, social conflict and social change. One criticism is that the functionalist perspective neglects the independent ‘agency’ of individual social actors, in general tending to operate with an ‘ oversocialized conception’ of the human subject (see OVER-SOCIALIZED CONCEPTION OF MAN), e.g. treating people as ‘ cultural dopes’ (see ETHNOMETHODOLOGY). Social ROLES are seen as essentially prescribed by NORMS and static expectations of behaviour, rather than actively ‘taken’ and recreated through interaction with others (compare SYMBOLIC INTERACTIONISM). It has also often been suggested that a functionalist perspective has difficulty in accounting for social conflict and instability All of these criticisms of functionalism have some substance, but are also an overstatement. Parsons in particular sought to combine an ‘ action frame of reference’ with an emphasis on system and social functions. And, while often concentrating on the conditions of ‘social order’ (including the functions of SOCIAL CONFLICT), both historically (e.g. as for Spencer) as well as in Parsons’ later work, functionalism has usually also sought to combine the analysis of social order with an EVOLUTIONARY THEORY of social change: a model of increasing SOCIAL DIFFERENTIATION, of increasing functional adaption of society (see also EVOLUTIONARY SOCIOLOGY, EVOLUTIONARY UNIVERSALS). These models of social change have in turn been widely criticized (e.g. see MODERNIZATION, DEPENDENCY THEORY) but their existence shows that it is as a particular model of change, rather than a theory which neglects change, that functionalism must be discussed. Despite the many criticisms, both the term ‘function’ and the functionalist perspective retain widespread significance in sociology, for they involve a concern with the crucial issue of the interrelationship of parts to wholes in human society and the relationship between SOCIAL STRUCTURE and human AGENCY, as well as issues of social order and social change. --

※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc) ◆ From: 140.112.24.253 ※ 編輯: nakts0123 來自: 140.112.24.253 (04/02 16:54)