Criticisms of Talcott Parsons Structural Function

Criticisms of Talcott Parsons Structural Function

Criticisms of Talcott Parsons' Structural Functionalism Talcott Parsons' sociological theory of structural functionalism was a dominant perspective of analyzing society until the 1960s. It was particularly very influensive in English speaking countries, especially in the United States of America, since the end of the Second World War. However, its significance began to be questioned, in the 1950s, as a result of increasing criticisms labeled at its discovered inadequacies. Criticisms arose in critical attack of Structural Functionalism's static and abstract focus on maintenance of social order, social stability/regulation and the structures within society and its lack of acknowledging social change and conflict. In other words it was criticized of its conservatism to sustain status quo. Thus, this paper will discuss the main reasons why Structural Functionalism was considered by critics as having a conservative bias in its analysis of society.

According to critics, one of their significant arguments against Parson's structural functionalism was its inability to approach historical situations effectively-ahistorical. Eisenstadt (Short, 1981:27) best explains this point; ...the charge was that in its explanation of concrete historical situations or phenomena, this school neglected past influence and processes in favor of a static or circular explanatory theory. Although structural functionalism to some extent deals with historical events, the argument was that its explanation was often speculative in the early stages and idealizations in the later phases of its elucidation of the evolution of society (Ritzer, 1996:116), from a primitive to a modern society. It was speculative in the sense it was theoretically imaginative, incomplete and that its conclusions were not based on solid facts that can be proven. Relatively, this school was criticized of portraying or representing society as perfect, regardless of what historical revelations of imperfections in society shows.

Significantly another criticism of Parsons' structural functionalism was its inability to deal with social changes in the contemporary effectively. Because of its obsession and concern for static structures, critics argued that structural functionalism, Parsons' especially, failed to address social changes. In that it means that Parsons' was more into the maintenance of existing social structures, institutions or systems as evolving into a modern form. This maintenance of society is extracted from the internal rules, norms, values and regulations of these various ordered and cooperative institutions. Thus he overlooked revolutionary changes but an evolution of existing structures. Relatively, Parsons has been criticised of overemphasizing the internalization of social norms and values. According to Dennis Wrong (Abrahamson 1981:58), he argued that Parsons over assumed that people will behave accordingly with their interrelated standards. He advanced on by saying that Parsons missed the fact that behaviour is a problematic outcome of internal conflicts between impulses and controls. This was an attack against Parsons' assumption that the establishment of a consensus order and its collective maintenance is an absence of social dilemma (Ibid).

Also in attack of this particular supposition that people internalized norms and values to which they act accordingly, Garfinkel argued that people are considered by Parsons as passive recipients of norms and values of their society (Ibid). He pointed out that people confront situations and develop a meaningful course of situationally appropriate actions. That is, without being totally restricted by pre-existing standards-people are not passive recipients. Furthermore, Parsons' structural functionalism faced the most important condemnation of the school. That is, its incapacity to provide an explanation based on conflict. Parsons systematically neglected conflict, partly because he viewed social interaction as typically involving equal reciprocity among participants, according to Alvin Goodner (Ibid: 60). He further argued that Parsons implies that people will continue to be locked into complementary roles and that they should be, regardless of obvious existing inequalities. According to the conflict school led by Dahrendorf, Parsons' structural functionalism fails to see power and coercion in the structures of society and the conflicting principles or workings of these structures (Ritzer, 1996:129-130). This is because of its overemphasis on norms and values in maintaining social order which camouflaged power and its coercive nature in society. Dahrendorf maintains that society is in a state where there are those who have power and those who are controlled or the dominator and the dominated. Thus, the dominator controlled the less powerful, according to their interests in order to retain their status. Dahrendorf did not actually rubbish the structural functional perspective of Parsons' but was, as he claimed, balancing the perspective on societal structures and their conflicting functions. Now let us reflect the short falls of Talcott Parsons' structural functionalism in terms of the South Pacific society. Thus, let us take the recent social, political and economic situations in Solomon Islands and Fiji as examples and show how this school fails to explain it. First, let us briefly examine the two circumstances in these two former British colonies.

Fiji stands in the clearing in terms of race or ethnicity as a social, economic and political tool in other words the dominance of race/ethnic politics. As such access to educational scholarships, land and political power is determined by race/ethnicity. This was exhibited during the coups of May and September 1987, and 2000. Ethno-Political conflict in Fiji is mainly [but not solely] between Indo-Fijians and Ethnic Fijians. Thus, the rise of Indians to powerful political positions in the government was/is not fully accepted by some ethnic Fijians. As demonstrated by the recent coup d''at, September 2000, where by the democratically elected first Indo-Fijian Prime Minister, Mahendra Chaudry and his government was ousted by George Speight who claimed to represent Indigenous Fijians . Here it is obvious that some ethnic Fijians are not prepared for an Indian