ªÉÄʸÀÆgÀÄ «±Àé«zÁ央AiÀÄ

University of Mysore
(Re-accredited by NAAC at ‘A’ Grade with a CGPA of 3.47)
(Ranked 57th overall and 36th among Universities in NIRF ranking 2017)

zÀÆgÀ ²PÀët ¤zÉðñÀ£Á®AiÀÄ

DIRECTORATE OF DISTANCE EDUCATION
NCHS Building, Manasagangotri, Mysuru - 570006

M.A. SOCIOLOGY II Semester

MODERN SOCIOLOGICAL THEORIES

Self Instruction Material

Prepared by:

Prof. Vinay Rajath D.

Dept of PG Studies and Research in Sociology
Mangalore University

2020
 Modern Sociological Theories (HC)

Course Objectives

CO1. Know the theoretical foundations of Sociology

CO2. Understanding later developments in sociological Theory.
CO3. Critical thinking, analytical ability to interpret social scenario.
CO4. Learn historical and socio-economic roots of sociological theory.
CO5. Understand the intellectual forces in the rise of sociological theory.
CO6. Learn the methodological issues that shaped sociological thinking.
CO7. Utility of the theoretical perspectives in understanding society.
CO8. Understanding of major sociological perspectives.
CO9. Develop research orientation with major theoretical perspectives.

Course Content

The content of the course largely covers the important perspectives in

modern sociological theory. The prominent perspectives discussed are – the
structural, functional, conflict and the theories of social change. The course
introduces the reader some of the important thinkers in the respective
perspectives. They are – Radcliffe Brown, Fredrick Nadel, Levi Strauss in
structural perspective; Bronislaw Malinowski, Talcott Parsons and Robert K
Merton in functional perspective; Georg Simmel, Lewis A Coser, Ralf Dahrendorf
and Randall Collins in conflict perspective; Vilfredo Pareto, Pitirim A Sorokin and
William F. Ogburn in the social change perspective.

Self Instruction Material

The Self Instruction material is prepared from different source books

commonly available today in the leading bookshops, libraries and online sources.
The material covers the concepts prescribed in the syllabus in precise and
comprehensive manner. However, it still requires some complementary reading.
The main source books are mentioned at the end of each unit as books for
further reading.

Course Outcome:

CO1. Understand major sociological perspectives.

CO2. Research orientation in theoretical perspectives.
CO3. Relevance and analytical utility of the theoretical perspectives.
CO4. Theoretical and methodological sociological thinking.
CO5. Understanding social structure and change.

2 Directorate of Distance Education, University of Mysore

 Syllabus/Content

Introduction 05

1. Structural Approach 13
a. Alfred Reginald Radcliffe Brown 21
b. Siegfried Fredrick Nadel 31
c. Claude Levi Strauss 35

2. Functional Perspective 47
a. Bronislaw Malinowski 57
b. Talcott Parsons 71
c. Robert K Merton 89

3. Conflict Approach 111

a. Georg Simmel 117
b. Lewis A Coser 129
c. Ralf Dahrendorf 139
d. Randall Collins 149

4. Theories of Social Change 167

a. Vilfredo Pareto 187
b. Pitirim Alexandrovich Sorokin 203
c. William Fielding Ogburn 211

3
Modern Sociological Theories
4 Directorate of Distance Education, University of Mysore
 Modern Sociological Theories
Introduction
Sociological theories can be categorised as
falling into two main branches, structural perspective
(Macro) and social action (Micro) perspective. They
both attempt to explain how people behave in society
but differ in the way they approach the analysis of it.
Structuralism is an idea based on the assumption that
the actions of humans are structured by the social
environment. It is the ways these structures behave
that determine how we behave. In this course we are
concerned with the structural approach; and the main
structural theories, consensus theory (functionalism)
and conflict theory. Functionalists stress common
values are the starting point for social organisation.
For them it is important to look at society as a whole
and not the individual, they explore the ways in which
the various institutions make up society to maintain
social order. Conflict theory stresses how common
values are the end result of economic organisation and
inequality. They see society as divided into social
classes, which have the potential to be in conflict with
each other.

Consensus theorists take a very positive view

of society. Society is seen as a system whereby all the
interconnected parts fit together to form a whole. The
early functionalists drew an analogy between society
and the human body. Various organs in a living
organism work together to maintain one healthy
‘whole’; similarly, various institutions in a society work
together to produce ‘social order’.

The aim of this course is the analysis of modern

sociological theories. Generally modern means the
theories put forward after World War II. In order to
understand these theories one needs to be familiar
with the history of social thought. The general topics
that come under this purview are:

5
Modern Sociological Theories
 1. Sociological theories as a continuation of classical
theories.
2. Functionalism as a theoretical and methodological
orientation in sociology: Talcott Parsons, Robert
Merton.
3. Conflict theories in modern sociology: Ralf Dahrendorf
and Lewis A. Coser.
4. Critical theorizing in modern sociology.
5. Utilitarian sociologies - Social exchange theories and
Conflict exchange theory.
6. Theories of rational choice in sociology: Institutional
approach in sociology.
7. Subjectivist approach to social theory - symbolic
interactionism, Grounded theory and Dramaturgical
approach.
8. Phenomenological sociology. Ethno-methodology.
9. Cultural structuralism: Pierre Bourdieu. Anthony
Giddens’ structuration theory.

This course contains some selected theories to

focus on major sociological theoretical orientations.
Sociological theories are statements of how and why
particular facts about the social world are related.
They range in scope from concise descriptions of a
single social process to paradigms for analysis
and interpretation. Some sociological theories explain
aspects of the social world and enable prediction
about future events, while others function as broad
perspectives which guide further sociological analyses.

Kenneth Allan (2006) proposed the distinction

between sociological theory and social theory. In
Allan's usage, sociological theory consists of abstract
and testable propositions about society. It often relies
on the scientific method, which aims for objectivity,
and attempts to avoid passing value judgments. In
contrast, social theory focuses on commentary and
critique of modern society rather than explanation.
Social theory is often closer to Continental philosophy;
thus, it is less concerned with objectivity and
derivation of testable propositions, and more likely to
pass normative judgments.

6 Directorate of Distance Education, University of Mysore

 Prominent sociological theorists include Talcott
Parsons, Robert K. Merton, Randall Collins, James
Samuel Coleman, Peter Blau, Immanuel Wallerstein,
George Homans, and Jonathan H. Turner. Prominent
social theorists include: Jürgen Habermas, Anthony
Giddens, Michel Foucault, Alfred Schütz, Jeffrey
Alexander, and Jacques Derrida. There are also
prominent scholars who could be seen as being in
between social and sociological theories, such
as Harold Garfinkel, Herbert Blumer, Claude Lévi-
Strauss, Pierre Bourdieu and Erving Goffman.
Sociological theory attempts to answer the
following three questions:
(1) What is action?
(2) What is social order? and
(3) What determines social change?
In many attempts to answer these questions,
three predominant theoretical problems emerge.
These problems are largely inherited from the classical
theoretical traditions. The consensus on the central
theoretical problems is: how to link, transcend or cope
with the three dichotomies: subjectivity and
objectivity, structure and agency, and synchrony and
diachrony. The first deals with knowledge, the second
with agency, and the last with time.
Sociological theory often grapples with the
problem of integrating or transcending the divide
between micro, meso and macro-scale social
phenomena, which is a subset of all three central
problems. These problems are not altogether empirical
problems, rather they are epistemological: they arise
from the conceptual imagery and analytical analogies
that sociologists use to describe the complexity of
social processes.
Objectivity and subjectivity
The problem of subjectivity and objectivity can
be divided into, on one side, a concern over the
general possibilities of social actions, and on the other,
the specific problem of social scientific knowledge. In

7
Modern Sociological Theories
 the former, the subjective is often equated with the
individual, and the individual's intentions and
interpretations of the objective. The objective is often
considered any public or external action or outcome. A
primary question for social theorists is how knowledge
reproduces along the chain of subjective-objective-
subjective, that is to say: how is inter-subjectivity
achieved? Historically, qualitative methods have
attempted to ease out subjective interpretations and
quantitative survey methods to capture individual
subjectivities. Also, some qualitative methods take a
radical approach to objective description. The latter
concern, as Bourdieu puts, is with scientific
knowledge, results from the fact that a sociologist is
part of the very object they seek to explain.
Structure and agency
Structure and agency form an enduring
ontological debate in social theory: "Do social
structures determine an individual's behaviour or does
human agency?" In this context 'agency' refers to the
capacity of individuals to act independently and make
free choices, whereas 'structure' relates to factors
which limit or affect the choices and actions of
individuals (such as social class, religion, gender,
ethnicity, and so on). Discussions over the primacy of
either structure or agency relates to the core of
sociological epistemology ("What is social world made
of?", "What is a cause in the social world, and what is
an effect?") A perennial question within this debate is
that of ‘social reproduction’: how are structures
(specifically, structures producing inequality)
reproduced through the choices of individuals?
(Dorsey 2018).
Synchrony and diachrony
Synchrony and diachrony, or statics and
dynamics, within social theory are terms that refer to a
distinction emerging out of the work of Levi-
Strauss who inherited it from the linguistics
of Ferdinand de Saussure. The static is an analysis of
static social reality. Diachrony, on the other hand,

8 Directorate of Distance Education, University of Mysore

attempts to analyze dynamic sequences. Synchrony
would refer to social phenomena as a static concept
like a language, while diachrony would refer to
unfolding processes like actual speech. In Giddens'
introduction to Central Problems in Social Theory, he
states that, ‘in order to show the interdependence of
action and structure...we must grasp the time space
relations inherent in the constitution of all social
interaction.’ And like structure and agency, time is
integral to discussion of social reproduction.
The contemporary discipline of sociology is
theoretically multi-paradigmatic. In Randall Collins'
well-cited survey of sociological theory (Ibid) he
retroactively labels various theorists as belonging to
four theoretical traditions: functionalism, conflict,
symbolic interactionism and utilitarianism. Modern
sociological theory descends predominately from
functionalist (Durkheim) and conflict-cantered (Marx
and Weber) accounts of social structure, as well as the
symbolic interactionist tradition consisting of micro-
scale structural (Simmel) and pragmatist (Mead,
Cooley) theories of social interaction. Utilitarianism,
known as ‘rational choice’ or ‘social exchange’ is an
established tradition within sociological theory. A
tradition that is often forgotten is that of social
Darwinism, which applies the logic of Darwinian
biological evolution to people and societies. This
tradition supports classical functionalism and is
associated with several early sociologists, primarily
Herbert Spencer, Lester F. Ward and William Graham
Sumner. Contemporary sociological theory retains
traces of each these traditions and are by no means
mutually exclusive. The major four orientations are:
Structural functionalism
As a broad historical paradigm in both sociology
and anthropology, functionalism addresses the social
structure as a whole and in terms of the necessary
function of its constituent elements. A common
analogy is to regard norms and institutions as 'organs'
that work toward the proper functioning of the entire

9
Modern Sociological Theories
 'body' of society. The perspective was implicit in the
original sociological positivism of Comte, but was
theorized in full by Durkheim. Functionalism also has
an anthropological basis in the work of theorists such
as Marcel Mauss, Bronisław Malinowski and Alfred
Radcliffe-Brown. It is in Radcliffe-Brown's specific
usage that the prefix 'structural' emerged. Classical
functionalist theory is generally united by its tendency
towards biological analogy and notions of social
evolutionism. As Giddens states: "Functionalist
thought, from Comte onwards, has looked particularly
towards biology as the science providing the closest
and most compatible model for social science. Biology
has been taken to provide a guide to conceptualize the
structure and the function of social systems and to
analyze processes of evolution via mechanisms of
adaptation. Functionalism strongly emphasizes the
pre-eminence of social world over its individual parts.
Conflict theory
Social conflict is the struggle between segments
of society over valued resources. From the perspective
of social conflict theory, in the West, by the 19th
century, a small population had become capitalists.
Capitalists are people who own and operate factories
and other businesses in pursuit of profits. In other
words, they own virtually all large-scale means of
production. However, capitalism turned most other
people into industrial workers, whom Marx called
proletarians. Proletarians are people who, because of
the structure of capitalist economy, must sell their
labour for wages. Conflict theories draw attention to
power differentials, such as class, gender and race
conflict, and contrast historically dominant ideologies.
It is therefore a macro level analysis of society that
sees society as an arena of inequality that generates
conflict and social change. Karl Marx is regarded as
the father of the social conflict theory, which is a
component of the four major paradigms of sociology.
This sociological approach doesn't look at how social
structures help society to operate, but instead looks at
how "social patterns" can cause some people in

10 Directorate of Distance Education, University of Mysore

 society to be dominant, and others to be oppressed.
However, some criticisms to this theory are that it
disregards how shared values and the way in which
people rely on each other help to unify the society.
Symbolic interactionism
Symbolic interaction, often associated with
interactionism, phenomenological sociology,
dramaturgy, and interpretivism, is a sociological
tradition that places emphasis on subjective meanings
and the empirical unfolding of social processes,
generally accessed through analysis. The approach
focuses on creating a framework for building a theory
that sees society as the product of the everyday
interactions of individuals. Society is nothing more
than the shared reality that people construct as they
interact with one another. This approach sees people
interacting in countless settings using symbolic
communications to accomplish the tasks at hand.
Therefore, society is a complex, ever-changing mosaic
of subjective meanings. Some important sociologists
associated with this approach include Max Weber,
George Herbert Mead, Erving Goffman, George
Homans and Peter Blau. It is also in this tradition that
the radical-empirical approach of Ethno-methodology
emerges from the work of Harold Garfinkel.
Utilitarianism
Utilitarianism is often referred to as exchange
theory or rational choice theory in the context of
sociology. This tradition tends to privilege the agency
of individual rational actors and assumes that within
interactions individuals always seek to maximize their
own self-interest. As argued by Josh Whitford, rational
actors are assumed to have four basic elements the
individual has
1) A knowledge of alternatives,
2) A knowledge of, or beliefs about the consequences of
the various alternatives,
3) An ordering of preferences over outcomes,
4) A decision rule, to select amongst the possible
alternatives.

11
Modern Sociological Theories
 Exchange theory is specifically attributed to the
work of George C. Homans, Peter Blau and Richard
Emerson. The utilitarian perspective in sociology was,
most notably, revitalized in the late 20th century by the
work of James Coleman (Dorsey 2018).
In this course we focus on main four areas /
approaches in understanding modern theories, viz.,
structural approach, functional approach, conflict
approach and theories of social change.

12 Directorate of Distance Education, University of Mysore

 Unit 1. Structural Approach
Unit Structure

1.0. Learning Outcomes

1.1. Introduction
1.2. Alfred Reginald Radcliffe Brown
1.2.1. Brown’s Understanding of Social Structure
1.2.2. Social Structure and Social Organisation
1.2.3. Social Structure and Institutions
1.2.4. Structural Continuity and Structural Form
1.2.5. Check your progress
1.3. Siegfried Fredrick Nadel
1.3.1. Theory of Social Structure
1.3.2. Elements of Society
1.3.3. Check your progress
1.4. Claude Levi Strauss
1.4.1. Structure of Society
1.4.2. Structural anthropology
1.4.3. Anthropological theory
1.4.4. Structural Anthropology and Culture
1.4.5. Check your progress
1.5. Let us sum up
1.6. Glossary
1.7. Answer to check your progress
1.8. Further Reading and References
1.9. Model questions

1.0. Learning Outcomes:

After reading through this unit you will be able to –

LO1. Understand the structural approach in sociological analysis

LO2. Learn important concepts in structural theory
LO3. Understand contributions of prominent thinkers in structural theory
LO4. Learn the growth and development of structural approach
LO5. Learn to analyse society through structural perspective

13
Modern Sociological Theories
 1.1. Introduction

The term ‘structure’ has been applied to human

societies since the 19th century. Earlier, its use was
more common in fields as construction or biology. The
Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary gives three
meanings of the term structure:
a. The way in which something is organised, built, or put
together (e.g., the structure of the human body);
b. A particular system, pattern, procedure, or institution
(e.g., class structure, salary structure); and
c. A thing made up of several parts put together in a
particular way (e.g., a single-storey structure).

In Social Anthropology a study on structure will

encompass all the three meanings. The term
structure, therefore implies, an ‘interconnectedness’ of
parts, i.e., the parts of a society are not isolated
entities, but are brought together in a set of
relationships. Spencer developed the organic analogy,
believing that this analogy will be greatly valid if we
are able to show not only that society is like an
organism but also that ‘organism is like society’. This
analogy was basic to the understanding of the concept
of social structure. Organic analogy is used more than
other analogies such as of the solar system, and later,
of atomic and chemical systems, because an organism
is far more concrete than other systems, and is easy
to understand, comprehend and explain (Harris 1968).

When we consider structure as an important

analytical concept, the world is an organised entity;
comprising interconnected parts. Here each part is to
be studied in relationship with other parts. Thus,
‘Structure refers to the way in which the parts of an
entity are interconnected so that the entity emerges
as an integrated whole, which for the purpose of
analysis can be broken down into individual parts.’

One important theoretical approach to the

concept of social structure is structuralism, which
studies the underlying, unconscious regularities
of human expression, that is, the unobservable

14 Directorate of Distance Education, University of Mysore

structures that have observable effects on behaviour,
society and culture.

The critical difference between social structure

theory and structuralism is one of approach. Analysis
of social structure uses the standard empirical
(observational) methods to arrive at generalizations
about society, while structuralism uses subjective,
interpretive, phenomenological and qualitative
analysis. Most sociologists prefer the social structure
approach and regard structuralism as philosophical,
more compatible with the humanities than with the
social sciences.

Currently, those pursuing research in the area

of social structure focus on the development of
theories, laws, generalizations, calculi, and methods
that account for structural regularities in society. They
are not concerned with demonstrating the limitless
structural regularities in society (such as linguistic
routines, the permanence of national boundaries, the
stability of religious practices, or the durability
of gender or racial inequality).

In concrete, the task of structural analysis is

not so much to account for poverty, as it is to account
for the rates of poverty. Likewise, the analysis focuses
on empirical data such as the distribution of cities in
the world, the patterns of land use, the shifts in
educational achievement, changes in occupational
structure, the increase in collaboration between
institutions, the existence of networks among groups,
the cycles of growth or decline in organizations and
institutions, or the unintended collective consequences
of individual choices.

Only a few sociologists have developed

structural theories that apply to institutions and whole
societies. Peter M. Blau developed a formal macro-
sociological theory concerning the influences of large
population structures on social life. He identified how
different population groups relate to each other. He
found that occupational heterogeneity increases the

15
Modern Sociological Theories
 chance for contact between people in different status
groups. For populations with multiple-group
affiliations, in-group associations tend to promote
intergroup relations.

French anthropologist Claude Lévi-Strauss

derived this theory from structural linguistics,
developed by the Swiss linguist Ferdinand de
Saussure. According to Saussure, any language is
structured in the sense that its elements are
interrelated in non-arbitrary, regular, rule-bound ways;
a competent speaker of the language largely follows
these rules without being aware of doing so. The task
of the theorist is to detect this underlying structure,
including the rules of transformation that connect the
structure to the various observed expressions.

French philosopher Michel Foucault used this

approach in his study of corporal punishment. His
research led him to conclude that the abolition of
corporal punishment by liberal states was an illusion,
because the state substituted punishment of the ‘soul’
by monitoring and controlling both the behaviour of
prisoners and the behaviour of everyone in the
society. British sociologist Anthony Giddens suggested
the term structuration to express the view that social
life is, both dynamic and ordered.
In sociology, as in anthropology and linguistics,
structuralism is the methodology that implies elements
of human culture must be understood by way of their
relationship to a broader, overarching system or
structure. It works to uncover the structures that
underlie all the things that humans do, think, perceive,
and feel. As summarized by philosopher Simon
Blackburn, structuralism is "the belief that phenomena
of human life are not intelligible except through their
interrelations. These relations constitute a structure,
and behind local variations in the surface phenomena
there are constant laws of abstract structure".
Structuralism in Europe developed in the early
1900s, in the structural linguistics of Ferdinand de
Saussure and the subsequent Prague, Moscow and

16 Directorate of Distance Education, University of Mysore

 Copenhagen schools of linguistics. In the late 1950s
and early 1960s, when structural linguistics was facing
serious challenges from the likes of Noam Chomsky
and thus fading in importance, an array of scholars in
the humanities borrowed Saussure's concepts for use
in their respective fields of study. French
anthropologist Claude Lévi-Strauss was perhaps the
first such scholar, sparking a widespread interest in
structuralism.
The structuralist mode of reasoning has been
applied in a diverse range of fields, including
anthropology, sociology, psychology, literary criticism,
economics and architecture. The most prominent
thinkers associated with structuralism include Claude
Lévi-Strauss, linguist Roman Jakobson, and
psychoanalyst Jacques Lacan. As an intellectual
movement, structuralism was initially presumed to be
the succession to existentialism. However, by the late
1960s, many of structuralism's basic tenets came
under attack from a new wave of predominantly
French intellectuals such as the philosopher and
historian Michel Foucault, the philosopher Jacques
Derrida, the Marxist philosopher Louis Althusser, and
the literary critic Roland Barthes. Though elements of
their work necessarily relate to structuralism and are
informed by it, these theorists have generally been
referred to as post-structuralists. In the 1970s,
structuralism was criticized for its rigidity and
ahistoricism.

The origins of structuralism connect with the work

of Ferdinand de Saussure on linguistics. In brief,
Saussure's structural linguistics propounded three
related concepts (Blackburn 2008).
1. Saussure argued for a distinction between langue (an
idealized abstraction of language) and parole
(language as actually used in daily life). He argued
that the ‘sign’ was composed of a signified, an
abstract concept or idea, and a ‘signifier’, the
perceived sound/visual image.

17
Modern Sociological Theories
 2. Because different languages have different words to
describe the same objects or concepts, there is no
intrinsic reason why a specific sign is used to express
a given signifier. It is thus ‘arbitrary’.
3. Signs thus gain their meaning from their relationships
and contrasts with other signs. As he wrote, ‘in
language, there are only differences without positive
terms.’
Blending Freud and Saussure, the French (post)
structuralist Jacques Lacan applied structuralism to
psychoanalysis and, in a different way, Jean Piaget
applied structuralism to the study of psychology. But
Jean Piaget, who would better define himself
as constructivist, considers structuralism as "a method
and not a doctrine" because for him "there exists no
structure without a construction, abstract or genetic".
In a later development, feminist theorist Alison
Assiter enumerated four ideas that she says are
common to the various forms of structuralism. First,
that a structure determines the position of each
element of a whole. Second, that every system has a
structure. Third, structural laws deal with co-existence
rather than change. Fourth, structures are the "real
things" that lie beneath the surface or the appearance
of meaning.
According to structural theory in anthropology
and social anthropology, meaning is produced and
reproduced within a culture through various practices,
phenomena and activities that serve as systems of
signification. A structuralist approach may study
activities as diverse as food-preparation and serving
rituals, religious rites, games, literary and non-literary
texts, and other forms of entertainment to discover
the deep structures by which meaning is produced and
reproduced within the culture. For example, Lévi-
Strauss analysed in the 1950s cultural phenomena
including mythology, kinship (the alliance theory and
the incest taboo), and food preparation. In addition to
these studies, he produced more linguistically focused
writings in which he applied Saussure's distinction

18 Directorate of Distance Education, University of Mysore

between langue and parole in his search for the
fundamental structures of the human mind, arguing
that the structures that form the "deep grammar" of
society originate in the mind and operate in people
unconsciously (François 1997).
Lévi-Strauss included the analysis of sounds
based on the presence or absence of certain features
in his conceptualization of the universal structures of
the mind, which he held to operate based on pairs
of binary oppositions such as hot-cold, male-female,
culture-nature, cooked-raw, or marriageable vs.
tabooed women.
A third influence came from Marcel Mauss
(1872–1950), who had written on gift-exchange
systems. Based on Mauss Lévi-Strauss argued that
kinship systems are based on the exchange of women
between groups (a position known as 'alliance theory')
as opposed to the 'descent'-based theory described
by Edward Evans-Pritchard and Meyer Fortes. While
replacing Marcel Mauss Lévi-Strauss' writing became
widely popular in the 1960s and 1970s and gave rise
to the term ‘structuralism’ itself.
Authors in Britain, France and United States
were highly influenced by structuralism. However,
more generally, criticisms of structuralism by Pierre
Bourdieu led to a concern with how cultural and social
structures were changed by human agency and
practice, a trend referred to as 'practice theory'.
In the 1980s, deconstruction, and its emphasis
on the fundamental ambiguity of language rather than
its crystalline logical structure, became popular. By the
end of the century structuralism was seen as a
historically important school of thought; but the
movements that it produced, commanded attention,
rather than structuralism itself,
Structuralism as a school of thought
emphasizes the view that society is prior to
individuals. It employs the nature of social interaction
as patterned behaviour and uses it as a tool in all
sociological analysis. The elements which are basic to

19
Modern Sociological Theories
 human mind and universally applicable determine the
possible varieties of social structure.
Anthony Giddens used the term struturation to
express mutual dependency of human agency and
social structure. Social structure should be viewed as
associated with social action. Social institutions as
organized patterns of social behaviour are proposed as
the elements of social structure by the functionalists.
Karl Marx analysed how social relations are
structured to sustain inequalities in the society. Marx
used the concept of structure to denote the
distribution of resources. Thus structure is the
symbolic, material and political resources that the
actors employ in their interactions and produce the
structure of their social relations. Marx used the
concept of dialectics in the interaction process which
in turn tend to change and transform the nature of
social relations thereby changing the social structure.
The theory of social structure has attracted the
attention of different scholars and their findings,
interpretations and analysis of the elements of social
structure has revealed the dynamic nature of social
structure. In this unit we shall discuss the arguments
of three prominent structuralists.
a. A. R. Radcliffe-Brown, who perceived social structure
is a reality
b. Siegfried Fredrick Nadel, who sees social structure, is
the social reality itself.
c. Claude Levi Strauss, who believed that structure of
society, is a surface manifestation of fundamental
mental processes.

20 Directorate of Distance Education, University of Mysore

1.2. Alfred Reginald Radcliffe Brown

Radcliffe-Brown (1881-1955) was one of the

most eminent anthropologists of the first half of the
20th century.

He was born and educated in England. His

original intention had been to study natural
sciences, but his tutor, W. W. Rowse Ball, a
mathematician and minor historian, and incidentally
a great admirer of Sir James Frazer, diverted him to
“moral science.” In those days, moral science
included experimental psychology and economics as
well as philosophical subjects. Radcliffe-Brown took his bachelor’s degree in
1905.

Radcliffe-Brown’s outlook rested on a highly personal philosophy of

science. In its more general philosophical aspect, his position was a synthesis, of
extraordinarily diverse elements: he drew his theory of reality from Heraclitus, his
theory of process from Herbert Spencer, and his theory of epistemology from
Durkheim. There is evidence that he drew on Hume, Samuel Alexander,
Whitehead, and Ralph Barton Perry, and he had a considerable affinity for
Chinese philosophy. He freely acknowledged the influence of certain writers of
the French Enlightenment, notably Condorcet and Montesquieu, in forming his
conception of social science. Comte and Durkheim had considerable attraction for
him, and he spent much effort in testing some of Durkheim’s ideas against facts.

1.2.1. Brown’s Understanding of Social Structure

A. R. Radcliffe Brown was the chief pioneer of
British School of Structuralism. Besides his contribution
to ‘structural-functional approach’, one of his
important contributions was to the understanding of
the concept of social structure. Radcliffe-Brown
believed that social phenomena are investigated by
methods similar to those used in natural and biological
sciences; and makes an important distinction between
an ‘individual’ and a ‘person’. As an individual, ‘he is a
biological organism’ which keeps on carrying out a
multitude of physiological and psychological functions
till the time he is alive. As a ‘person’, the human being
is a ‘complex of social relationships’. It is the unit of
study for sociologists and social anthropologists.

21
Modern Sociological Theories
 Radcliffe-Brown uses the term ‘social personality’ for
the ‘position’ a human being occupies in a social
structure. It does not imply that the position remains
the same throughout the life of an individual; it
changes over time. We study persons in terms of
social structure and we study social structures in terms
of persons who are the units of what it is composed.
So we need to understand that society is not a
‘haphazard conjunction of persons’, rather an
organised system where norms and values control the
relationships between persons.

Radcliffe Brown proposed to explain social

phenomena as persistent systems of adaptation,
coaptation and integration; instead of explaining them
in historical or psychological terms, which he believed
to be impossible, his main working hypothesis was
that the life of a society can be conceived of as a
dynamic fiduciary system of interdependent elements,
functionally consistent with one another. As Radcliffe-
Brown explains, structure refers to an arrangement of
persons and organization to an arrangement of
activities. At the same time, he substituted the
concept of “social system” for that of “culture.”

According to Radcliffe-Brown all social relations

of person to person or interpersonal relations and the
differentiation of individuals and of classes by their
social role are in fact concerned with relations
between persons, which norms and values of that
society condition. Radcliffe-Brown further stated that
social structure is that concrete reality that comprises
the ‘set of actually existing relations at a given
moment of time, which link together certain human
beings.’ We can conduct direct observation on social
structure – we can see the ‘actually existing relations’,
describe and classify them, and understand the
relations of persons with others. Social structure is
observable, empirical, and fully amenable to study by
methods of natural and biological sciences.

22 Directorate of Distance Education, University of Mysore

 Both the social structure and organism are
prone to change yet they are stable. Social structure
continues over time, a kind of continuity that Radcliffe-
Brown calls ‘dynamic continuity’. It is like the ‘organic
structure of a living body’. By change he means that
organs of both the structure are liable to development
and destruction. As a living body constantly renews
itself by replacing its cells and energy level, in the
same way, the actual ‘social life renews the social
structure.’ Relations between people change over
time. While the social structure changes over time,
there remains an underlying continuity and relative
constancy, which designates its structural form. This
certainly does not imply that the structural form is
static — it also changes, sometimes gradually,
sometimes with suddenness, as happens in cases of
revolution. But even then, some kind of a continuity of
structure is maintained. The job of sociologists and
social anthropologists is to discover the structural form
of society. It is to move from particular to general, or
in the language of Radcliffe-Brown, from ‘ideographic’
to ‘nomothetic’. Brown’s attempt was the first rigorous
attempt to define the concept of social structure,
rather than just taking its meaning for granted.

1.2.2. Social Organisation

The concept of structure refers to an

arrangement of parts or components related to one
another in some sort of larger unity. Thus, the
structure of the human body at first appears as an
arrangement of various tissues and organs. If we go
deeper, it is ultimately an arrangement of cells and
fluids.

In social structure, the basic elements are

human beings or persons involved in social life. The
arrangement of persons in relation to each other is the
social structure. For instance, persons in our country
are arranged into castes. Thus caste is a structural
feature of Indian social life. The structure of a family is
the relation of parents, children, grandparents etc.
with each other. Hence, for Radcliffe-Brown, structure

23
Modern Sociological Theories
 is not an abstraction but empirical reality itself. Hence,
Radcliffe-Brown’s conception of social structure differs
from that of other social anthropologists.

We may look for structural features of social life

in social groups of all kinds, by examining their
structure. Within groups, people are arranged in terms
of classes, categories, castes, etc. A most important
structural feature, in Radcliffe-Brown’s opinion, is the
arrangement of people in person-to-person direct
relationships. A social structure is fully apparent during
the inter-group interactions, and interpersonal
interactions.

Therefore, Structure refers to arrangements of

persons. Organisation refers to arrangements of
activities. For Radcliffe-Brown Social organisation is
“the arrangement of activities of two or more persons
adjusted to give a united combined activity” (Radcliffe-
Brown 1958: 169). For example, a cricket team
consists of bowlers, bat-persons, field persons and a
wicket-keeper whose combined activities make the
game possible.

Radcliffe-Brown illustrates the concepts of

structure and organisation with reference to a modern
army. The structure consists of arrangement of
persons into groups: divisions, regiments, companies,
etc. These groups have an internal arrangement of
their own, namely ranks. Thus we have corporals,
majors, colonels, brigadiers, etc. The organisation of
the army or arrangement of activities can be seen in
the allocation of various activities to various persons
and groups. Manning the borders of the land, helping
the Government during times of national calamity, etc.
are some of the activities of an army.

1.2.3. Social Institutions

One of the basic premises underlying a social
relationship is the expectation that persons will
conform to certain norms or rules. This task is done by
the social institutions. An institution refers to an

24 Directorate of Distance Education, University of Mysore

established, socially recognised system of norms and
behaviour patterns concerned with some aspect of
social life. In a society, family-related institutions, set
down acceptable patterns of behaviour to which family
members are expected to conform. A child is expected
to show respect to the parents; the parents are
expected to support and care for the child as well as
aged members of the family, and so on.

Institutions define for a person how he is

expected to behave, and also how he may expect
others to behave. Of course, individuals do violate
these rules from time to time and various sanctions
exist to cope with deviations. According to Radcliffe-
Brown, social structure has to be described in terms of
the institutions, which regulate the relationships
between persons or groups. “The structural features
of social life of a particular region consist of all those
continuing arrangements of persons in institutional
relationships, which are exhibited in the actions, and
interactions that in their totality make up the social life
(Ibid: 175).

In constructing his theory of social systems,

Radcliffe-Brown considered ‘phenomenal intelligible
reality’ to consist of objects or events and the relations
between them. The relations are of two kinds, which
may be symbolized as R and r. The first kind, R, are
spatiotemporal relations of ‘real interconnectedness’;
the second, r, are logico-mathematical relations which
are ‘immanent in the universe’ and independent of
space and time. He conceived of social anthropology
as a discipline that ultimately would deal theoretically
with both classes.

The social anthropology of function, structure

and relational networks deals with the relations of real
interconnectedness; with “…continuing arrangement
of persons in relationships defined or controlled by
institutions, i.e., socially established norms or patterns
of behaviour”. The substance of the study is the ‘real
and concrete’ social structure resulting from ‘role-

25
Modern Sociological Theories
 activities’ of persons acting from ‘positions’ in that
structure. Interrelational (R) concepts apply only to
what he called ‘the internal nature’ of particular social
systems, a system being a set or assemblage of
interdependent parts forming ‘a naturally occurring
unity,’ a complex, ordered, and unified whole in a
particular region over a period of time.

In the second phase of the development of

social anthropology, an effort would be made to deal
with r-relations, which Radcliffe-Brown conceived to
be, relations of similarity and difference. This would
require some sort of non-quantitative mathematics or
other system of symbols.
In addition to identifying abstract relationships
between social structures, Radcliffe-Brown argued for
the importance of the notion of a 'total social
structure', which is the sum total of social relations in
a given social unit of analysis during a given period.
The identification of 'functions' of social practices was
supposed to be relative to this total social structure.
Lévi-Strauss saw social structure as a model.
Radcliffe-Brown argued for a 'natural science of
society'. He claimed that there was an independent
role for social anthropology here, separate from
psychology, though not in conflict with it. This was
because psychology was to be the study of individual
mental processes, while social anthropology was to
study processes of interaction between people (social
relations).
Radcliffe-Brown carried out extensive fieldwork
in the Andaman Islands, Australia, and elsewhere. On
the basis of this research, he contributed extensively
to the anthropological ideas on kinship, and criticised
Lévi-Strauss's Alliance theory. He also produced
structural analyses of myths, including on the basis of
the concept of binary distinctions and dialectical
opposition.
Radcliffe-Brown conducted fieldwork in the
Pacific among the Andaman Islanders from 1906 to

26 Directorate of Distance Education, University of Mysore

1908 as part of his thesis research. While completing
his field-work, Radcliffe-Brown began to read the work
of French sociologist Emile Durkheim. Durkheim’s
ideas about the structure of social relationships would
have a profound effect on Radcliffe-Brown and would
influence his development of structural-functionalist
ideology.

From 1910 to 1912, Radcliffe-Brown carried out

fieldwork among various aboriginal tribes of Australia.
A distinct focus of this research was kinship and its
relationship to social structure. Two important
volumes resulted from this fieldwork: The Social
Organization of Australian Tribes (1931) and Structure
and Function in Primitive Society (1935).

Throughout the latter part of his life, Radcliffe-

Brown continued to pursue research on the social
structure of primitive groups. Following World War II,
Radcliffe-Brown set up research projects in Africa and
Australia. He also conducted field research in South
America.

It is already noted, for Radcliffe Brown, social

structure is not an abstraction but empirical reality. It
helps us to see the entire web of social relationships in
a systematic way and thus gain insight into the way
society works and remains integrated. He mentions
two methods for the interpretation of cultural
materials-historical methods which narrate the process
of historical development of a culture but its
application is not possible in tribal societies which lack
historical records and functional methods which
assume culture as an integrated functional system and
tend to discover and verify general laws of function
which they assume to be valid for all human societies.
Brown specialized in the study of kinship and marriage
concentrating on the classificatory kinship terminology.

27
Modern Sociological Theories
 1.2.4. Structural Continuity and
Structural Form

While explaining social structure, Brown uses

two more concepts, structural continuity and structural
form. The former accounts for the dynamics in the
structure; and the latter, stability and continuity, of
social structure. Social structure refers to an
arrangement of persons; then, we could conclude that
once the persons die or disappear, structure must also
disappear. However, this is not the case. Individuals
may come and go, but structure persists or continues.
Social groups or classes, have an ever-changing
membership. They lose members by death and gain
new ones by birth. An association or a club may lose
members who may die, resign or lose the next
election, but they will soon be replaced by new ones.
A tribal chief may die, but soon a successor takes his
place. Here Brown makes the distinction between
social structure and structural form. The social
structure is always in a state of flux.

Individuals are born and die; hence, the

composition of society is ever-changing. Although
social structures are in flux, the structural form is
comparatively stable. This structural form is reflected
in the ‘social usages’ or norms widely observed. These
social usages persist, even though persons come and
go. The stability of this structural form depends on
how well integrated its parts are (e.g. family,
educational system, political system, etc.) and the
performance by these parts of the special tasks
necessary to maintain it. For instance, the special task
of the family is the rearing and socialisation of
children. Educational institutions impart training, the
political system is concerned with governance. These
tasks refer to ‘functions’ of the parts of the system.

Radcliffe-Brown’s social anthropology is best

described by separating two main elements, a general
theory and a central one (Shuler 2010: 102).

28 Directorate of Distance Education, University of Mysore

 The general theory produced three connected
sets of questions.

The first set deals with static, or morphological,

problems: what kinds of societies are there? What are
their similarities and differences? How are they to be
classified and compared?

The second set deals with dynamic problems:

how do societies function? How do they persist?

The third deals with developmental problems:

how do societies change their types? How do new
types come into existence? What general laws relate
to the changes?

The general theory dealing with these problems

was taken from biology and bore heavily on Spencer’s
thought in its emphasis on three aspects of
adaptation: ecological adaptation to the physical
environment; social adaptation, i.e., the institutional
arrangements by which social order is maintained; and
the socialization, or ‘cultural adaptation,’ of persons.

The central theory dealt with the

determinants of social relations of all kinds. Radcliffe-
Brown phrased it in terms of the coaptation or fitting
together or harmonization of individual interests or
values that makes possible ‘relations of association’
and ‘social values’. The theory resembles Spencer’s
‘market’ model of interaction and draws on the
tradition reflected in Ralph Barton Perry’s General
Theory of Value.

The two theories are articulated in the idea that

the life of a society can be conceived and studied as a
system of relations of association and that a particular
social structure is an arrangement of relations in which
the interests or values of different individuals and
groups are co-opted within fiduciary ‘social values’
expressed as institutional norms.

29
Modern Sociological Theories
 Although Radcliffe-Brown did not regard the
study of social structure as the whole of anthropology,
he considered it to be its most important branch; and
he asserted that the study of social structure leads
immediately to the study of interests or values as the
determinant of social relations and that a social
system can be conceived and studied as a system of
values.

1.2.5. Check your progress

1. What is social structure according to Radcliffe Brown?

..........................................................................................................
..........................................................................................................
..........................................................................................................
2. What is social structure and what is social organisation?
..........................................................................................................
..........................................................................................................
3. What are social institutions?
..........................................................................................................
..........................................................................................................
4. What is phenomenal intelligible reality?
..........................................................................................................
..........................................................................................................
5. What method of study did Radcliffe Brown prominently use?
..........................................................................................................
..........................................................................................................
6. Explain structural continuity and structural form.
..........................................................................................................
..........................................................................................................

30 Directorate of Distance Education, University of Mysore

1.3. Siegfried Fredrick Nadel
Nadel was born in Vienna, Austria, the son of
a lawyer. He started his education in music; he also
developed interests in philosophy and psychology.
His career was at first in music; and began
publishing on the topic as well.
Nadel served as an assistant at the
Psychologisches Institut and grew more and more
interested in ethnomusicology. He produced radio
programmes for Radio Vienna on music which
included discussions of non-Western music, and in
1930 wrote a piece on the marimba. This transformed into an interest in the
anthropology of Africa.
In 1932 Nadel was awarded a Rockefeller Fellowship, allowing him to do
post-graduate training in anthropological African field research. Nadel studied at
the London School of Economics, supervised by Bronisław Malinowski and C.G.
Seligman. Nadel began his fieldwork in Nigeria in 1933 with the Nupe people of
modern-day Nigeria. His Ph.D. Political and Religious Structure of Nupe Society
was completed in 1935.
After earning his Ph.D. he continued to conduct fieldwork in Nigeria and
lectured at the Summer School on Colonial Administration at the University of
Oxford. In 1938 he became the Government Anthropologist of the Anglo-
Egyptian Sudan and conducted fieldwork with the Nuba tribe. In 1941, as World
War II broke out, Nadel enlisted in the Sudan Defence Force, transferring later
that year to the British Army's East African Command. By this time Nadel had
served on the Eritrean-Ethiopean border and was appointed, as a Major,
Secretary of native Affairs in the British Military Administration of Eritrea. In 1944
he returned to England produced academic work on the Nuba and Eritrea,
including Land Tenure on the Eritrean Pleateau. In 1945 he was transferred to
the Home Establishment, promoted to Lieutenant-Colonel, and made Secretary of
Native Affairs and Deputy Chief Secretary of the British Military Administration
in Tripolitania.
Nadel left government service in 1946 and quickly rose through the ranks
of British anthropology. He served as a lecturer at the London School of
Economics and then in 1948 became the head of the anthropology department at
the University of Durham. In 1950 he was appointed to the inaugural chair in
anthropology at the Australian National University. In 1952, Nadel was appointed
Dean of the Research School of Pacific Studies. During the early 1950s Nadel
published two more books, Foundations of Social Anthropology (1951) and Nupe

31
Modern Sociological Theories
Religion (1954). He died unexpectedly at the age of 53. His Theory of Social
Structure appeared posthumously in 1957.
Nadel’s major contributions to anthropology lie not in ethnography but in
theory. Although he is frequently referred to as a leading representative of British
social anthropology, his work shows varied influences: Malinowski’s and
Radcliffe-Brown’s in anthropology; Max Weber’s and Parsons’ in sociology;
Whitehead’s in philosophy; and Köhler’s, Koffka’s, and Lewin’s in psychology. He
was also familiar with the work of a large number of American cultural
anthropologists. The breadth of Nadel’s theoretical approach makes it difficult to
identify him with any particular school.

1.3.1. Theory of Social Structure

Nadel’s theory of social structure is seen in his
(posthumously published) book entitled The Theory of
Social Structure (1957). Nadel’s central argument was
that the structuralist orthodoxy was inadequate to
understand society; it has to be combined to a
functionalist perspective. Nadel disagrees with
Radcliffe-Brown’s idea that social structure is an
observable entity. At the same time, he rejects Lévi-
Strauss’s view that social structure has nothing to do
with empirical reality. From Radcliffe-Brown, he
borrows the idea that each person occupies a position
in the social structure, but from an empirical level of
inter-personal interaction, he moves to a level of
abstraction where the person becomes the actor who
plays a role with respect to the others. This
abstraction does not imply that it loses touch with
reality. Therefore, for Nadel, social structure is still the
social reality itself, or an aspect of it, not the logic
behind it (Nadel 1957: 150).

According to Nadel the components of social

structure are roles and the pattern of interconnected
roles constitutes the social structure of a society. He
defines social structure as: ‘we arrive at the structure
of a society through abstracting from the concrete
population and its behavioural pattern or network (or
‘system’) of relationships obtaining between actors in
their capacity of playing roles relative to one another’
(Ibid 12).

32 Directorate of Distance Education, University of Mysore

 When describing structure, Nadel feels that we
abstract relational features from the totality of the
perceived data, ignoring all that is not in order or
arrangement; we define the positions relative to one
another of the component parts. Structures can be
transposed irrespective of the concrete data
manifesting it; differently expressed, the parts
composing any structure can vary widely in their
concrete character without changing the identity of
the structure.

Nadel explains, societies are made up of

people; societies have boundaries, people either
belonging to them or not, and people belong to a
society in virtue of rules under which they stand and
which impose on them regular determinate ways of
acting towards and in regard to one another (Thakur
2009: 2). For determinate ways of acting towards or in
regard to one another we usually say relationships and
we indicate that they follow from rules by calling them
institutionalised or social relationships. We identify the
mutual ways of acting of individuals as relationships
only when the former exhibit some consistency and
uniformity since without these attributes they would
merely be single or disjointed acts. Most relationships
lack this simple uniformity. Rather, the concrete
behaviour occurring in them will always be diversified
and more or less widely variable intentionally changing
with the circumstances it will be constant or consistent
only in its general character in its capacity to indicate
a certain type of mutuality or linkage.

1.3.2. Elements of Society

According to Nadel, there are three elements of
society (Shah 2017):
a. A group of people,
b. Institutionalised rules according to which members of
the group interact,
c. An institutionalised pattern or expression of these
interactions.

The institutionalised rules or patterns do not

change easily and this creates orderliness in society.

33
Modern Sociological Theories
 These rules determine the status and roles of the
individuals. There is an order among these rules and
status also which provide an ordered arrangement of
human beings.
There are three dichotomies to resolve, which are
aspects of structure:
a. Structure as opposed to function,
b. Structure as opposed to qualitative character and
c. Structure as opposed to process.
Structures such as the human mind, grammar,
and language are sometimes called ‘deep structures’
or ‘substructures’. Since such structures are not readily
observable, they must be discerned from intensive
interpretive analysis of myths, language or texts. Then
they can be applied to explain the customs or traits of
social institutions.

Nadel has tried to explain that structure refers

to a definable articulation an ordered arrangement of
parts. It is related to outer aspect of society and is
totally unconcerned with the functional aspect of
society. He has emphasized that social structure refers
to the network of social relationships which is created
among human beings when they interact with each
other according to their status in accordance with the
patterns of society. Nadel therefore says that structure
indicates a transportable being relatively invariants
while the parts themselves are variable (Ibid).

1.3.3. Check your progress

1. In which work of Nadel we find his theory of social structure?
................................................................................................................
2. According to Nadel what constitutes social structure?
................................................................................................................
3. Name the elements of society according to Nadel
................................................................................................................
4. Define social structure according to Nadel
................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................

34 Directorate of Distance Education, University of Mysore

1.4. Claude Levi Strauss
Claude Lévi-Strauss was a French
anthropologist and ethnologist whose work was key
in the development of the theory of structuralism
and structural anthropology. He received numerous
honors from universities and institutions throughout
the world and has been called, alongside James
George Frazer and Franz Boas, the "father of
modern anthropology".
His ideas reached many fields in the
humanities, including Sociology, philosophy.
Structuralism has been defined as "the search for
the underlying patterns of thought in all forms of human activity."
While he was a visiting professor of sociology, at the University of São
Paulo, Brazil, Strauss undertook his ethnographic fieldwork. He first studied
the Guaycuru and Bororó Indian tribes, staying among them. This experience
cemented Lévi-Strauss's professional identity as an anthropologist.
1.4.1. Structure of Society
Perhaps the most provocative and debatable
contribution to the concept of social structure was that
of Claude Lévi-Strauss, the French structuralist, who is
famous for his ingenious cross-cultural analysis of
myths and kinship systems. Levi-Strauss believes that
structure of society is a surface manifestation of
fundamental mental processes. If for functionalism,
society is a ‘kind of living creature’, consisting of parts,
which can be ‘dissected and distinguished’, for
structuralism, it is the analogy from language that
helps us in conceptualising society. From the study of
a given piece of language, the linguist tries to arrive at
its grammar, the underlying rules which make an
expression meaningful, although the speakers of that
language may not know about it. Similarly, the
structuralist tries to infer its underlying structure from
a given piece of social behaviour. In structuralism, the
shift is from observable behaviour to structure, from
organic analogy to language. Further, structuralism
submits that the set of relations between different
parts can be transformed into ‘something’ that

35
Modern Sociological Theories
 appears to be different from what it was earlier. It is
the idea of transformation — of one into another that
lies at the core of structuralism, rather than the quality
of relations.

Lévi-Strauss says that social structure is not a

field of study; it is not a ‘province of enquiry’. We do
not study social structure, but it is an explanatory
method and can be used in any kind of social studies.
Lévi-Strauss distinguishes the concept of social
structure from that of social relations. The social
relations are the ‘raw data of social experience’ – they
are the relations between people, empirical and
observable. It is from social relations that models
comprising the social structure are built. Although the
models are built from raw, empirical reality, they
cannot be reduced to it. The ensemble of social
relations in a given society can be described, but social
structure is an anthropologist’s construction, built for
the purpose of analysis.

Social structure and its constituents, the social

relations are theoretical constructions used to model
social life. A major goal of social anthropology was to
identify social structures and formal relationships
between them and that qualitative or discrete
mathematics would be a necessary tool to do this.

He makes three distinctions:

1 Between observation and experimentation on models;

2 Between the conscious and unconscious character of
the models; and
3 Between mechanical and statistical models.

The observation of social relations and the

construction of models after these facts need to be
distinguished from ‘experiments’ on models. By
experimentation, Lévi-Strauss means the ‘controlled
comparison’ of models of the same or of a different
kind, with an intention to identify the model that
accounts best for the observed facts (Nutini 1965:
707-731).

36 Directorate of Distance Education, University of Mysore

 In a structural analysis, the first step is to
observe the facts without any bias, then to describe
them in relationship to themselves and in relation to
the whole. From this, models are constructed, and in
the final analysis, the best model is chosen. This
distinction is with reference to the anthropologist who
studies society. By comparison, the distinction
between conscious and unconscious models is made
with reference to the society under study.

Conscious models are the insider’s models:

according to which the society views itself. Underneath
these models are ‘deeper structures’, the unconscious
models, which the society does not perceive directly or
consciously. Anthropologists principally work with the
models that they construct from the deeper lying
phenomena, rather than with conscious models. It is
because, Lévi-Strauss says, the aim of conscious
models is to ‘perpetuate the phenomena’ and not to
‘explain’ it.

According to Levi-Strauss, ‘structuralism

includes a wide range of social phenomena as systems
of communication, kinship system and exchange of
spouses’. He further says: The real structure is the
model, or perhaps the mind.

His variety of structuralism is based on how the

mind works. He is the expounder of the concept of
binary oppositions. The mind of man works in such a
way that he thinks about binary oppositions. Strauss
argues that there are abstract models of thought or
formats in the mind of man.

A social structure is not a reality which can

directly be seen. But it is a reality that exists beyond
the visible reality. The function of the structure
constitutes the underlying logic of the system which
can be explained by the apparent reality.

Strauss has developed binary oppositions out of

the data which he gathered from the field. He asserts
that the ‘man organizes the world in contrasting pairs

37
Modern Sociological Theories
 and develops coherent systems of relationship from
such a starting point’.

The central element in Levi-Strauss’ perspective

is the idea that ‘all kinship systems are elaborations on
four fundamental kin relationships: brother-sister,
husband-wife, father- son and mother’s brother-
sister’s son’. He regards this as the elementary social
structure (Gaurav 2019).

Structuralism was a linguistic movement and a

very rigorous means of understanding language by
breaking down speech into the smallest possible units
and organizing these units in opposing pairs and
arranging these opposites into a network of
relationships. But the pathway of Structuralism from
linguistics to anthropology to philosophy was a long
journey.

The accepted mode of analyzing the tribal

cultures was through kinship, which was assumed to
be the key to their social systems.

1.4.2. Structural anthropology

The Elementary Structures of Kinship was

quickly came to be regarded as one of the most
important anthropological works on kinship. In line
with Durkheim's Elementary Forms of the Religious
Life, Elementary Structures re-examined how people
organized their families by examining the logical
structures that underlay relationships rather than their
contents. While Radcliffe-Brown argued that kinship
was based on descent from a common ancestor, Lévi-
Strauss argued that kinship was based on the alliance
between two families that formed when women from
one group married men from another.
Lévi-Strauss sought to apply the structural
linguistics of Ferdinand de Saussure to
anthropology. In those days, family was traditionally
considered the fundamental object of analysis, but
was seen primarily as a self-contained unit consisting

38 Directorate of Distance Education, University of Mysore

of a husband, a wife and their children. Nephews,
cousins, aunts, uncles and grandparents all were
treated as secondary. Lévi-Strauss argued that, akin to
Saussure's notion of linguistic value, families acquire
determinate identities only through relations with one
another. Thus he inverted the classical view of
anthropology, putting the secondary family members
first and insisting on analyzing the relations between
units instead of units (Moore 2009: 231–247).
Similarly, Lévi-Strauss identified myths as a
type of speech through which a language could be
discovered. His work is a structuralist theory of
mythology which attempted to explain how seemingly
fantastical and arbitrary tales could be so similar
across cultures. Because he believed there was not
one "authentic" version of a myth, rather that they
were all manifestations of the same language, he
sought to find the fundamental units of myth, namely,
the mytheme. Lévi-Strauss broke each of the versions
of a myth down into a series of sentences, consisting
of a relation between a function and a subject.
Sentences with the same function were given the
same number and bundled together; these are
mythemes (Lévi-Strauss 1955: 428-444).
What Lévi-Strauss believed he had discovered
when he examined the relations between mythemes
was that a myth consists of binary oppositions.
Oedipus, for example, consists of the overrating of
blood relations and the underrating of blood relations,
the autochthonous (indigenous rather than descended
from migrants or colonists) origin of humans and the
denial of their autochthonous origin. Influenced
by Hegel, Lévi-Strauss believed that the human mind
thinks fundamentally in these binary oppositions and
their unification (the thesis, antithesis, synthesis triad),
and that these are what make meaning possible.
Furthermore, he considered the job of myth to be a
sleight of hand, an association of an irreconcilable
binary opposition with a reconcilable binary opposition,
creating the illusion, or belief, that the former had
been resolved.

39
Modern Sociological Theories
 1.4.3. Anthropological theory
Lévi-Strauss's theory is set forth in Structural
Anthropology (1958). Briefly, he considers culture a
system of symbolic communication, to be investigated
with methods that others have used more narrowly in
the discussion of novels, political speeches, sports,
and movies.
For Lévi-Strauss, the methods of linguistics
became a model for all his earlier examinations of
society. His analogies usually are from phonology
(though also later from music, mathematics, chaos
theory, cybernetics, and so on).
According to him a really scientific analysis
must be real, simplifying, and explanatory. Phonemic
analysis reveals features that are real, in the sense
that users of the language can recognize and respond
to them. At the same time, a phoneme is an
abstraction from language, not a sound, but a
category of sound defined by the way it is
distinguished from other categories through rules
unique to the language. The entire sound-structure of
a language may be generated from a relatively small
number of rules.
In the study of the kinship systems that first
concerned him, this ideal of explanation allowed a
comprehensive organization of data that partly had
been ordered by other researchers. The overall goal
was to find out why family relations differed among
various South American cultures. The father might
have great authority over the son in one group, for
example, with the relationship rigidly restricted
by taboos. In another group, the mother's brother
would have that kind of relationship with the son,
while the father's relationship was relaxed and playful.
Even though Lévi-Strauss frequently speaks of
treating culture as the product of the axioms and
corollaries that underlie it, or the phonemic differences
that constitute it, he is concerned with the objective
data of field research.

40 Directorate of Distance Education, University of Mysore

 The purpose of structuralist explanation is to
organize real data in the simplest effective way. All
sciences are either structuralist or reductionist. And
structural explanations can be tested and refuted. A
mere analytic scheme that wishes causal relations into
existence is not structuralist in this sense.

1.4.4. Structural Anthropology and

Culture

Levi-Strauss was very influenced by linguistics,

or the study of language, and wondered how this
might be useful for understanding culture and society.
He saw culture as a pattern, very similar to language.
Just like language is a collection of words, culture is
like a collection of different symbols.
Levi-Strauss was interested in how these
different symbols are related to one another. These
symbols don't mean very much individually, but when
combined they form a pattern that is meaningful.
Culture is composed of hidden rules that give it
meaning. The job of an anthropologist is to uncover
these rules. We do this through the concept of binary
oppositions. He believed that all human thought works
by thinking through binaries, or opposites. Take a few
examples:
 Man and woman
 Death and life
 Morning and night
 Raw and cooked

These oppositional structures are universal

patterns that make up human thought. Levi-Strauss
thought that all cultures think like this. And, these
binaries only make sense in relation to one another. In
other words, 'morning' only has meaning to us when
we think about its opposite, 'night' (Cummins 2019).

41
Modern Sociological Theories
 1.4.5. Check your progress

1. Define structuralism of Levi Strauss

............................................................................................................
............................................................................................................
2. Is social structure real?
............................................................................................................
............................................................................................................
3. What is structural anthropology?
............................................................................................................
............................................................................................................
4. What is the similarity between structure and culture?
............................................................................................................
............................................................................................................
............................................................................................................

1.5. Let us sum up

In this unit we have learnt the basic principles to understand structural
perspective. The unit covers the contributions of three prominent thinkers in
structural perspective. Brown believed that social phenomena are investigated by
methods similar to those used in natural and biological sciences. Social structure
is a concrete reality that comprises the set of actually existing relations at a given
moment of time, which link together certain human beings.

Nadel disagrees with Brown’s idea that social structure is an observable

entity. On the other hand he rejects Levi Strauss’ view that social structure has
nothing to do with empirical reality. For Nadel social structure is the social reality
and not the logic behind it. We arrive at the social structure of a society through
abstracting from the concrete population.

Levi Strauss argues, a social structure is not a reality which can directly be
seen. It is a reality that exists beyond the visible reality. He says, the real
structure is a model or the mind, based on how the mind works.

42 Directorate of Distance Education, University of Mysore

1.6. Glossary

o Structuralism – school of thought that emphasises the view that society is

prior to individuals.
o Social structure – orderly arrangements of parts in a society
o Structural form – the stability nature of social structure
o Structural continuity – dynamic or changing aspect of social structure
o Social organisation – arrangement of activities in a given society
o Social institution – established, socially recognised system of norms and
behaviour patterns
o Phenomenal intelligible reality – objects and events and relations between
them
o Fieldwork – collection of empirical data by personal visits
o Deep structures – that are not readily observable but discerned from
intensive interpretive analysis or language, texts or symbols
o Structural anthropology – application of principles of social structure to
anthropology

1.7. Answer to check your progress

1.2.5

1. Social structure is not an abstraction but empirical reality itself. It is that

concrete reality that comprises the ‘set of actually existing relations at a
given moment of time, which link together certain human beings.’
2. Social structure refers to arrangements of persons. Social organisation
refers to arrangements of activities.
3. An institution refers to an established, socially recognised system of norms
and behaviour patterns concerned with some aspect of social life.
4. Phenomenal intelligible reality consists of objects or events and the
relations between them.
5. The method of study Radcliffe Brown prominently used was fieldwork.
6. Structural continuity refers to component of society that is ever changing,
and structural form refers to the persistence or the stability in structure.

1.3.3

1. We find Nadel’s theory of social structure in his work, The Theory of Social
Structure.
2. According to Nadel roles and the pattern of interconnected roles
constitutes the social structure of a society.
3. According to Nadel, there are three elements of society:
a. A group of people,

43
Modern Sociological Theories
 b. Institutionalised rules according to which members of the group
interact,
c. An institutionalised pattern or expression of these interactions.
4. ‘We arrive at the structure of a society through abstracting from the
concrete population and its behavioural pattern or network of relationships
obtaining between actors in their capacity of playing roles relative to one
another’.

1.4.5

1. “structuralism includes a wide range of social phenomena as systems of

communication, kinship system and exchange of spouses”.
2. A social structure is not a reality which can directly be seen. But it is a
reality that exists beyond the visible reality.
3. Structural anthropology is the application of structural principles to
anthropology. Strauss explained this in use of kin relation and myths.
4. Just like language is a collection of words (structure), culture is like a
collection of different symbols.

1.8. Further Reading and References

Further Reading:
Abraham, M. Francis. 1990. Modern Sociological Theory: An Introduction. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.

Allan, Kenneth D. 2007. The Social Lens: an invitation to social and sociological
theory. US: Thousand Oaks.
Clarke, Simon. 1981. The Foundations of Structuralism A Critique of Lévi-Strauss
and the Structuralist Movement. Barnes & Noble Books. New Jersey
Lévi-Strauss, C. 1953. ‘Social structure’, in A.L. Kroeber (ed.) AnthropologyToday:
An Encyclopedic Inventory. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Nadel, S.F. 1957. The Theory of Social Structure. London: Cohen & West Ltd.

Radcliffe-Brown, A. R. 1952. Structure and Function in Primitive Society: Essays

and Addresses. London: Cohen & West.

Radcliffe-Brown, A. R. 1958. Method in Social Anthropology: Selected Essays. Ed.

M. N. Srinivas. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Radcliffe-Brown, A. R. 1977. The Social Anthropology of Radcliffe-Brown (A.

Kuper, Ed.). Boston: Routledge and Kegan.

Turner, Jonathan H. 1987. The Structure of Sociological Theory. Jaipur: Rawat

Publications.

44 Directorate of Distance Education, University of Mysore

Reference:
Blackburn, Simon. 2008. Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, second edition revised.
Oxford: Oxford University Press, p. 353

Cummins, Emily. 2019. Claude Levi-Strauss: Biography, Theory & Structuralism.

https://study.com

Dorsey, Arris and Readable Collier. 2018. Origins of Sociological Theory. UK: Ed-
Tech Press.

Dosse, François. 1997. History of Structuralism: Volume 1: The Rising Sign,

1945-1966, University of Minnesota Press, p. 24.

Gaurav. 2019. Essay on Lévi-Strauss Structuralism.

http://www.shareyouressays.com

Harris, Marvin. 1968. The Rise of Anthropological Theory, A History of Theories of

Culture. New York: Thomas Y. Crowell Company
Kenneth, Allan. 2006. Contemporary social and sociological theory: visualizing
social worlds. Pine Forge Press. pp. 10.
Lévi-Strauss, Claude. 1955. The Structural Study of Myth. The Journal of
American Folk lore. Vol. 68. No 270. Pp 428-444.
Lévi-Strauss, Claude. 1958. Structural Anthropology. New York: Basic Books.

Moore, Jerry D. 2009. "Claude Levi-Strauss: Structuralism". In Visions of Culture:

An Introduction to Anthropological Theories and Theorists. Walnut Creek,
California: Altamira. pp. 231–247.

Nadel, S.F. 1957. The Theory of Social Structure. London: Cohen & West Ltd.

Nutini, Hugo G. 1965. Some Considerations on the Nature of Social Structure

and Model Building: A Critique of Claude Lévi-Strauss and Edmund Leach.
American Anthropologist. Vol. 67, No. 3, pp. 707-731
Shah, Shelly. 2017. Social Structure – Meaning, Elements and Types.
https://www.sociologydiscussion.com

Shuler, James M. 2010. Philosophical Foundations of Management and

Governance. Morrisville: Lulu Enterprises. p 102.
Thakur, Devendra and DN Thakur. 2009. Tribal life and Forests. New Delhi: Deep
and Deep Publications. P 2.

45
Modern Sociological Theories
1.9. Model questions

Short answer questions

1. What is structuralism?
2. What do you mean by social structure?
3. Mention the important contributors to the theory of social structure
4. Comment on structural anthropology and culture
5. Define social structure
6. State the elements of society
7. What is the relationship between social structure and social institution?
8. What is structural continuity and structural form?
9. What is social structure?
10. What is structural anthropology of Levi Strauss?

Short note questions

1. Explain browns understanding of social structure
2. Explain structural continuity and structural form
3. Describe structural anthropology of Levi Strauss
4. Describe the elements of society according to Nadel
5. Discuss the structure of society as proposed by Strauss

Long essay questions

1. Discuss the structure of society according to Levi Strauss
2. Discuss Nadel’s theory of social structure
3. Discuss Radcliffe Brown’s understanding of social structure
4. Explain the concept of structural continuity and structural form

46 Directorate of Distance Education, University of Mysore

 Unit 2. Functional Perspective
Unit Structure
2.0. Learning outcomes
2.1. Introduction
2.1.1. Growth of Functionalism
2.1.2. Functionalism in Social Anthropology
2.1.3. Prominent Thinkers in Functionalism
2.2. Bronislaw Malinowski
2.2.1. Functionalism of Malinowski
2.2.2. Concept of Culture as functioning and integrated whole
2.2.3. Techniques for Studying Culture
2.2.4. Theory of Needs
2.2.5. Check your progress
2.3. Talcott Parsons
2.3.1. Action Theory
2.3.2. System Theory - AGIL paradigm
2.3.3. Social Evolutionism
2.3.4. Pattern Variables
2.3.5. Check your progress
2.4. Robert K Merton
2.4.1. Middle Range Theories
2.4.2. Social Structure, Anomie, and Strain Theory
2.4.3. Functional Analysis
2.4.4. Dysfunctions
2.4.5. Unanticipated consequences and manifest and latent functions
2.4.6. Functional Alternatives
2.4.7. Check your progress
2.5. Let us sum up
2.6. Glossary
2.7. Answer to check your progress
2.8. Further Reading and References
2.9. Model questions

2.0. Learning Outcomes:

After studying the material in this unit you will be able to –

LO1. Learn the growth of functional perspective in sociology

LO2. Learn about the prominent functional thinkers
LO3. Understand the functionalism of Malinowski
LO4. Understand the system theory of Talcott Parsons
LO5. Understand social structure and strain theory of Merton
LO6. Know the nature of manifest and latent functions
LO7. Learn about middle range theories

47
Modern Sociological Theories
 2.1. Introduction
According to the functionalist perspective, each
aspect of society is interdependent and contributes to
society's stability and functioning as a whole. If all
goes well, the parts of society produce order, stability
and productivity. If it does not, the parts of society
must adapt to recapture a new order, stability and
productivity.

Functionalists believe that society is held

together by social consensus, in which members of the
society agree upon, and work together to achieve,
what is best for society as a whole. This stands apart
from the other two main sociological perspectives:
symbolic interactionalism, which focuses on how
people act according to their interpretations of the
meaning of their world, and conflict perspective,
which focuses on the unequal and ever-changing
nature of society.

Literally, the word ‘function’ (from Latin, fungi,

functio,) means ‘to perform’ or ‘to serve’ (a purpose).
As a distinct approach of analysing society,
functionalism emerged first in social anthropology in
early 20th century, and later in sociology, in the 1930s.
However, its roots go back to the concept of organic
analogy, used in the philosophy of Antiquity by Plato
and Aristotle. The concept of ‘purpose’ or ‘end’ goes
back to Aristotle’s reference to the telos (purpose) of
things as their final cause. The idea of a latent telos is
also found in Adam Smith’s metaphor of the ‘invisible
hand’ as the automatic mechanism that maximises
wealth, individual welfare, and economic efficiency
through the increase in labour. It is from telos that the
word ‘teleology’ is derived, which means that
‘everything is determined by a purpose’.

The functionalism as a perspective is based

largely on the works of Herbert Spencer, Emile
Durkheim, Talcott Parsons and Robert Merton.
According to functionalism, society is a system of

48 Directorate of Distance Education, University of Mysore

interconnected parts that work together in harmony to
maintain a state of balance and social equilibrium for
the whole.

For example, each of the social institutions

contributes important functions for society: Family
provides a context for reproducing, nurturing and
socializing children; education offers a way to transmit
a society’s skills, knowledge and culture to its youth;
politics provides a means of governing members of
society; economics provides for the production,
distribution and consumption of goods and services;
and religion provides moral guidance and an outlet for
worship of a higher power (Mooney 2013).

The functionalist perspective emphasizes the

interconnectedness of society by focusing on how
each part influences and is influenced by other parts.

For example, the increase in single parent and

dual-earner families has contributed to the number of
children who are failing in school because parents
have become less available to supervise their
children’s homework. As a result of changes in
technology, colleges are offering more technical
programmes, and many adults are returning to school
to learn new skills that are required in the workplace.
The increasing number of women in the workforce has
contributed to the formulation of policies against
sexual harassment and job discrimination (Ibid).

Functionalists use the terms functional and

dysfunctional to describe the effects of social elements
on society. Elements of society are functional if they
contribute to social stability and dysfunctional if they
disrupt social stability. Some aspects of society can be
both functional and dysfunctional.

For example, crime is dysfunctional in that it is

associated with physical violence, loss of property and
fear. But according to Durkheim and other
functionalists, crime is also functional for society
because it leads to heightened awareness of shared
moral bonds and increased social cohesion (Ibid).

49
Modern Sociological Theories
 2.1.1. Growth of Functionalism

Durkheim is not a ‘functionalist’ in the sense in

which the term has come to be used for the approach
that A.R. Radcliffe-Brown and Bronislaw Malinowski,
have advocated. Durkheim does not use the term
‘functionalism’, although he defines the concept of
social function.

The beginning of the 20th century saw the

continuation of the old evolutionary approach, its
gradual decline and it also witnessed the rise of
functionalism. The impact of anthropological
functionalism was felt in other disciplines, particularly
sociology. Functionalism emerged as an extremely
important approach, holding its sway till the late 1960s
and the early 1970s. In its history of about 150 years,
from the positivism of Comte, then in the ‘sociologistic
positivism’ of Durkheim, and later, in the works of the
20th century functionalists, functionalism has come to
comprise a number of variants and focus areas.
Society is a system like any other system.
1. As a system, society consists of parts (like,
institutions, groups, roles, associations,
organisations), which are interconnected,
interrelated, and interdependent.
2. Each part performs its own function – it makes its
own contribution to the whole society – and also, it
functions in relationship with other parts.
3. A change in one part brings about a change in
other parts, or at least influences the functioning of
other parts, because all the parts are closely
connected.
4. The entire society, ‘whole’ – is greater than the
mere summation of parts. It cannot be reduced to
any part, or no part can explain the whole. A
society has its own identity, its own ‘consciousness’,
(in Durkheim’s words, ‘collective consciousness’).

50 Directorate of Distance Education, University of Mysore

2.1.2. Functionalism in Social
Anthropology

The founders of the British functional approach,

Radcliffe-Brown and Malinowski, were strongly critical
of the 19th century evolutionism. Radcliffe-Brown said
that it was based on ‘conjectural history’, and not
‘authentic history’. The scholars who later came to be
known as ‘functionalists’ sought to shift the focus of
their study from ‘what society was’ to ‘what society is’,
and this study should be carried out not by speculative
methods, but by living with people in their natural
habitats and learning from them, from the field.

Abandoning the search for origins and the pasts

of institutions, and the ways in which cultural traits
have diffused from one part of the world to the other,
Radcliffe Brown (1952: 180) defines each society as a
‘functionally interrelated system’ in which ‘general laws
or functions operate’.

Radcliffe Brown suspects that functionalism

might become teleological. He thus substitutes for the
word ‘need’ the term ‘necessary conditions of
existence’ that are empirical.

Radcliffe-Brown looks at the distinction between

an organism and society. An organism dies, but a
society continues to survive over time, although it may
be changed and transformed. An organism can be
studied even when its parts have stopped working.
That means, the structure of an organism can be
studied separately from its function, which is not the
case with society (Levine 1995).

Compared to Radcliffe Brown, Malinowski

claims the creation of a separate ‘school’, the
‘Functional School’. The aim of functional analysis for
him is to arrive at the ‘explanation of anthropological
facts at all levels of development by their function, by
the part they play within the integral system of
culture’. He assumes that every civilisation, every
custom, material object, ideas and belief fulfils some

51
Modern Sociological Theories
 vital function, has some task to accomplish, represents
an indispensable fact within a working whole.

Functionalism is an approach in sociology which

attempts to understand social phenomena in terms of
their relationship to the system. The history of this
analysis can be found in the founders of sociology
such as - August Comte, Spencer and Emile Durkheim.
They emphasize the necessary connections between
the different elements of the society.

Therefore, functionalism looks at society as a

system of interconnected parts that work together in
harmony to maintain a state of balance and social
equilibrium for the whole. This perspective looks at
society in its totality. It is completely based on
integrity of the different organs of the society.

2.1.3. Prominent Thinkers in

Functionalism
Auguste Comte
Auguste Comte, the "Father of Positivism",
pointed out the need to keep society unified. He was
the person to coin the term sociology. Comte suggests
that sociology is the product of a three stage
development: Theological stage, Metaphysical stage
and Positive or scientific stage; Describing society
through the application of the scientific approach,
which draws on the work of scientists.

Herbert Spencer
Herbert Spencer was a British philosopher who
applied the theory of natural selection to society. He
was in many ways the first true sociological
functionalist. While Durkheim is widely considered the
most important functionalist among positivist theorists,
much of his analysis was culled from reading
Spencer's work, especially his Principles of
Sociology. In describing society, Spencer alludes to the
analogy of a human body. Just as the structural parts
of the human body, the skeleton, muscles, and

52 Directorate of Distance Education, University of Mysore

various internal organs, function independently to help
the entire organism survive, social structures work
together to preserve society.

Spencer recognized three functional needs or

prerequisites that produce selection pressures: they
are regulatory, operative (production) and distributive.
He argued that all societies need to solve problems of
control and coordination, production of
goods, services and ideas, and, finally, to find ways of
distributing these resources (Dorsey 2018: 55-65).

Emile Durkheim
Durkheim’s definition of function has
tremendously influenced the writings of later
functionalists, both in social anthropology and
sociology. For him, function is the ‘contribution’ a part
makes to the whole for its ‘maintenance and well
being’. Thus, function is a ‘positive contribution’: it is
inherently good for society, for it ensures its continuity
and healthy maintenance. By making its contribution,
each part fulfils the needs of society. Once needs have
been fulfilled, society will be able to survive and
endure. Durkheim applies this framework of social
function in all his studies.

Durkheim rejects Darwin’s idea that once the

size of a human population increases, there will be a
struggle for existence and those who happen to be fit
will survive, while the rest will be eliminated. Instead
of lending support to the theory of competition,
conflict and elimination, Durkheim shows that as
human population increases, society becomes more
and more differentiated with the division of labour
moving towards the specialisation of jobs (Dorsey
2018: 55-65).

Durkheim also rejects the explanations of the

division of labour that economists and psychologists
had advanced. For him, the function of the division of
labour is sociological: it contributes to social solidarity.
Modern industrial society is integrated because of the
interdependence that comes into existence with the

53
Modern Sociological Theories
 specialisation of jobs. In his study of Australian
totemism, he shows that the function of religion is to
produce solidarity in society, ‘to bind people in a moral
community. Durkheim is particularly interested in
showing that the function of social facts is moral.
Social institutions work to produce the goal of
integration.

Talcott Parsons
Parsons was largely influenced by Durkheim
and Max Weber, synthesizing much of their work into
his action theory, which he based on the system-
theoretical concept and the methodological principle
of voluntary action. He held that "the social system is
made up of the actions of individuals. His starting
point is the interaction between two individuals faced
with a variety of choices about how they might
act, choices that are influenced and constrained by a
number of physical and social factors.

The key processes for Parsons for system

reproduction are socialization and social control.
Socialization is important because it is the mechanism
for transferring the accepted norms and values of
society to the individuals within the system.
Socialization is supported by the positive and negative
sanctioning of role behaviours that do or do not meet
these expectations. A punishment could be informal or
more formalized. If these two processes were perfect,
society would become static and unchanging, but in
reality this is unlikely to occur (Dorsey 2018: 55-65).

Parsons recognizes that the structure of the

system is subject to change, and these changes occur
in a relatively smooth way. Individuals in interaction
with changing situations adapt through a process of
‘role bargaining’.

Davis and Moore

Kingsley Davis and Wilbert E. Moore (1945)
gave an argument for social stratification based on the
idea of ‘functional necessity’ (also known as the Davis-
Moore hypothesis). They argue that the most difficult

54 Directorate of Distance Education, University of Mysore

jobs in any society have the highest incomes in order
to motivate individuals to fill the roles needed by
the division of labour. Thus inequality serves social
stability.

Robert K Merton
Robert K. Merton made important refinements
to functionalist thought. He fundamentally agreed with
Parsons' theory. Merton tended to emphasize middle
range theory rather than a grand theory. Merton
believed that any social structure probably has many
functions, some more obvious than others. He
identified three main limitations (in earlier
functionalism): functional unity, universal
functionalism and indispensability. He also developed
the concept of deviance and made the distinction
between manifest and latent functions. Manifest
functions referred to the recognized and intended
consequences of any social pattern. Latent functions
referred to unrecognized and unintended
consequences of any social pattern (Dorsey 2018: 55-
65).

Almond and Powell

In the 1970s, political scientists Gabriel Almond

and Bingham Powell introduced a structural-
functionalist approach to compare political systems.
They argued, in order to understand a political system,
it is necessary to understand not only its institutions
(or structures) but also their respective functions.
They also insisted that these institutions, to be
properly understood, must be placed in a meaningful
and dynamic historical context.

This idea stood in marked contrast to prevalent

approaches in the field of comparative politics, the
state-society theory and the dependency theory.
These were the descendants of David Easton's system
theory in international relations, a mechanistic view
that saw all political systems as essentially the same,
subject to the same laws of "stimulus and response",
or inputs and outputs, while paying little attention to

55
Modern Sociological Theories
 unique characteristics. The structural-functional
approach is based on the view that a political system
is made up of several key components, including
interest groups, political parties and branches of
government.

In addition to structures, Almond and Powell

showed that a political system consists of various
functions, chief among them are, political socialization,
recruitment and communication. Socialization refers to
the way in which societies pass along their values and
beliefs to succeeding generations, and in political
terms describe the process by which a society
inculcates civic virtues, or the habits of effective
citizenship; recruitment denotes the process by which
a political system generates interest, engagement and
participation from citizens; and communication refers
to the way that a system promulgates its values and
information.

56 Directorate of Distance Education, University of Mysore

2.2. Bronislaw Malinowski
Bronisław Kasper Malinowski was an
anthropologist and his writings on ethnography,
social theory and field research are a lasting
influence on the discipline of anthropology.

From 1910, Malinowski studied exchange

and economics at the London School of
Economics (LSE) under Seligman and Westermarck,
analysing patterns of exchange in Aboriginal
Australia through ethnographic documents. In
1914, he was given a chance to travel to New
Guinea accompanying anthropologist R.R. Marett, but due to World War I he was
unable to travel back to England. The Australian government, however, provided
him with permission and funds to undertake ethnographic work within their
territories and Malinowski chose to go to the Trobriand Islands,
in Melanesia where he stayed for several years, studying the indigenous culture.
He returned to England after the war and published his main work Argonauts of
the Western Pacific (1922), which established him as one of the most important
anthropologists in Europe of that time.

He took posts as lecturer and later as a chair in anthropology at the LSE,

attracting large numbers of students and exerting great influence on the
development of British Social Anthropology. The prominent anthropologists as
Raymond Firth, E. E. Evans-Pritchard, Hortense Powdermaker, Edmund Leach,
Audrey Richards and Meyer Fortes were his students.

His ethnography of the Trobriand Islands described the complex institution

of the Kula ring, and became foundational for subsequent theories of reciprocity
and exchange. He was also widely regarded as an eminent fieldworker and his
texts regarding the anthropological field methods were foundational to early
anthropology, for example coining the term participatory observation. His
approach to social theory was a brand of psychological functionalism emphasising
how social and cultural institutions serve basic human needs, a perspective
opposed to Radcliffe-Brown's structural functionalism that emphasised the ways
in which social institutions function in relation to society as a whole.

57
Modern Sociological Theories
 2.2.1. Functionalism of Malinowski

The 18th century scholars, like David Hume,

Adam Smith and Adam Ferguson in Britain,
Montesquieu and Condorcet in France, were interested
in finding out the origins of human institutions. They
thought that by examining primitive societies they
could know about the origins of their own social
institutions. They deduced theories about primitive
societies without ever collecting any evidence about
them. Inevitably their theories were based on
principles prevailing in their own times and cultures.
But what was significant about them was that these
scholars considered human societies as an important
subject of study. They thought that, as in the natural
sciences, universal laws of society could be discovered
by studying human social institutions.

Their successors in the 19th century, the

evolutionists, were interested in social evolution and
the progress of human culture. The evolutionists
argued that because some societies were more
‘advanced’ than others, all societies had to pass
through certain stages of development. Theory of
Charles Darwin, about the evolution of human species,
strengthened the idea that the progress of human
history could be studied in terms of an evolutionary
process. Even now there are people who believe that
human societies pass through evolutionary stages.
The 19th century scholars were primarily interested in
finding out the origins of human institutions.

Under the leadership of Bronislaw Malinowski,

the emphasis of social anthropology, on studying
societies on the basis of first hand observation became
a turning point in the development of sociological
theory. Social anthropologists insisted that
ethnographic account must be based on the study of a
chosen society through personal visits. They also
claimed that societies ought to be studied for their
own sake and they criticised those who studied
primitive cultures only to reconstruct the history of
humankind. Malinowski opposed both the evolutionists

58 Directorate of Distance Education, University of Mysore

and the diffusionists and went ahead with the task of
establishing social anthropology as an alternative way
of studying human societies.

Malinowski’s starting point was the individual,

who has a set of ‘basic’ (or biological) needs that must
be satisfied for its survival; unlike Radcliffe-Brown who
begins with society and its necessary conditions of
existence (integration). Because of the importance
that Malinowski gives to the individual the term
‘psychological functionalism’ is associated with him.
(Radcliffe-Brown’s approach is called ‘sociological
functionalism’ because he takes society as the key
concept).

Malinowski’s approach distinguishes between

three levels: the biological, the social-structural, and
the symbolic (Turner 1987: 50). Each of these levels
has a set of needs that must be satisfied for the
survival of the individual. It is on his survival that the
survival of larger entities (such as groups,
communities, societies) is dependent. Malinowski
proposes that these three levels constitute a hierarchy.
At the bottom is placed the biological system, followed
by the social-structural, and finally, the symbolic
system. The way in which needs at one level are
fulfilled will affect the way in which they will be
fulfilled at the subsequent levels. The most basic
needs are the biological, but this does not imply any
kind of reductionism, because each level constitutes its
distinct properties and needs, and from the
interrelationship of different levels that culture
emerges as an integrated whole. Culture is the core of
Malinowski’s approach. It is ‘uniquely human’, for it is
not found to exist among sub-humans. Comprising all
those things, material and non-material, that human
beings have created right from the time they
separated from their simian ancestors, culture has
been the instrument that satisfies the biological needs
of human beings. It is a need-serving and need-
fulfilling system. Because of this role of culture in
satisfying biological needs that Malinowski’s

59
Modern Sociological Theories
 functionalism is also known as ‘bio-cultural
functionalism.’

The concept of culture is fundamental to

Malinowski. Radcliffe-Brown believes that the study of
social structure is an observable entity, encompasses
the study of culture; therefore, there is no need to
have a separate field to study culture. Social structure
is concerned with all observations, what
anthropologists see and hear about the individuals.
Culture is in the minds of people, not amenable to
observation as social structure is. The basis of
Malinowski’s approach is a theory of ‘vital sequences’,
which have a biological foundation and are
incorporated into all societies. These sequences
number eleven, each composed of an ‘impulse’, an
associated physiological ‘act’ and a ‘satisfaction’ which
results from that act (refer table on page 66 pertaining
to theory of need).

Malinowski follows this eleven-fold paradigm

with a set of seven biological needs and their
respective cultural responses (refer table on page 67
pertaining to basic needs).

For example, the first need is of food, and the

cultural mechanisms are centered on the processes of
food getting, for which Malinowski uses the term
‘commissariat’, which means the convoy that
transports food. Similarly, the second need is of
reproduction (biological continuity of society) and the
cultural response to which is kinship concerned with
regulating sex and marriage. From this, Malinowski
goes on to four-fold sequences, which he calls the
‘instrumental imperatives’, and associates each one of
them with their respective cultural responses. The
four-fold sequence is of economy, social control,
education, and political organisation. From here, he
shifts to the symbolic system – of religion, magic,
beliefs and values – examining its role in culture.

Malinowski is often considered one of

anthropology's most skilled ethnographers, because of

60 Directorate of Distance Education, University of Mysore

 the highly methodical and well theorised approach to
the study of social systems. He is often referred to as
the first researcher to bring anthropology "off the
verandah", that is, experiencing the everyday life of
his subjects along with them (Kluckhohn 1943: 208-
219). Malinowski emphasised the importance of
detailed participant observation and argued that
anthropologists must have daily contact with their
informants if they are to adequately record the
‘imponderabilia of everyday life’ that are so important
to understand a different culture. The goal of the
anthropologist or ethnographer is to grasp the native's
point of view, his relation to life, to realize his vision
of his world (Jones 2015: 346).

Malinowski originated the school of social

anthropology known as functionalism. In contrast to
Radcliffe-Brown's structural functionalism, Malinowski
argued that culture functioned to meet the needs of
individuals rather than society as a whole. He
reasoned that when the needs of individuals, who
comprise society, are met, the needs of society are
met. The feelings of people and their motives were
crucial knowledge to understand the way their society
functioned (Malinowski 1922).

Malinowski’s main method for functionalism is

fieldwork. He is considered the “father of fieldwork”
for his in-depth description of participant-observation
and ethnography. Malinowski's systematic approach
to field work seeks to bring the method of hard
science to ethnography. In Argonauts, he states three
principles of method:

1. The anthropologist conducting field work must have

scientific goals and values.
2. The best and the only way to study another culture
competently is to actually live in it.
3. A researcher must apply a number of special methods
of collecting, manipulating and fixing his evidence.

The method Malinowski proposes has three

basic tenets, which he describes in anatomical terms.

61
Modern Sociological Theories
 1. It is ideal for an ethnographer to learn as much as
possible, from many different viewpoints, about how a
culture structures itself as a whole. In order to outline
all the interactions of a given society, one has to take
continual and detailed field notes regarding all
activities in the culture, from the most basic everyday
events to the fantastic. The rules and regularities of
life as they are observed create ‘the firm skeleton’ of
the culture.

2. Seek for a clear picture of the individual reality of

living within a given cultural skeleton. Malinowski calls
this ‘the imponderabilia of actual life’ (the subtle yet
unmistakable manner in which personal vanities and
ambitions are reflected in the behaviour of the
individual and in the emotional reactions of those who
surround him). The real substance of the social fabric
is what creates the ‘flesh and blood’ of a society.

3. Make a clear record of the spirit of the society. This

describes a method to record the inner dialogue of
individuals who live in a given culture corpus
inscriptionum (exact phrases and descriptions) of
feelings and thoughts as they were conveyed to the
researcher in the native language.

Thus, there are three steps to Malinowski’s field work.

o Skeleton - Describe and detail the structure of a

society;
o Flesh and blood - Fill in the ways in which this
structure is inhabited by the individual lives within the
culture; and
o Spirit - Through exact transcription, give an account of
how it feels to live that life.

These three lines of approach lead to the final

goal, to grasp the native’s point of view, his relation to
life, to realize his vision of his world.

Prior to Malinowski’s functionalist approach,

anthropology was done from a distance. His theories
and methods showed how a true researcher cannot

62 Directorate of Distance Education, University of Mysore

 hope to understand a culture and its individuals
without learning the language and living the life of the
subjects. By involving oneself in another culture,
Malinowski was able to conceive the inter-
connectedness of a society. His work showed how
living in the village with no other intention but to
understand the native life can lead to a rich
understanding of a very different society and its
individuals (Malinowski 1922: 18).

2.2.2. Concept of Culture as functioning

and integrated whole

Malinowski’s concept of culture included

1. Material culture,
2. Concrete categories of human activity and
3. Constitutional charters for social groups, and beliefs.

1. The first category, i.e., material-culture includes

implements and consumer goods. These were
artefacts or physical objects. They were the products
of human actions and were instrumental in satisfying
human needs.
2. The second component, i.e., concrete categories of
human activity, is covered by the term custom, which
included elements of social organisation.
3. The third component, i.e., constitutional charters for
social groups and beliefs, included cultural objects and
also some aspects of social organisation.

The above description shows that Malinowski

treated culture as almost everything that concerned
human life and action and that it was not a part of
human organism as a physiological system. For
Malinowski, culture was that form of behaviour which
individuals learnt and held in common and passed on
to other individuals. It included also the material
culture linked with such learned patterns of behaviour
(Firth 2006).

Malinowski drew a line of distinction between

material objects on the one hand and customs, beliefs
and social groupings on the other. Material objects

63
Modern Sociological Theories
 functioned as implements and consumer goods.
Customs, beliefs and social groupings were properties
of those individuals who were involved in socio-
cultural behaviour. Malinowski in a way used ‘culture’
as equivalent to society or social system.

Malinowski used the term culture as a

functioning whole and developed the idea of studying
the ‘use’ or ‘function’ of the beliefs, practices, customs
and institutions which together made the ‘whole’ of a
culture. He viewed different aspects of culture as a
scheme for empirical research, which could be verified
by observation; the fieldwork method in anthropology
and sociology (Ibid).

2.2.3. Techniques for Studying Culture

Malinowski developed techniques or field
methods for studying the functioning whole of culture.
The three broad kinds of material required special
techniques of data-collection (Malinowski 1922).

1. He advanced the method of statistic documentation by

concrete evidence for outlining the institutions and
customs of a culture. He wanted the fieldworker to
understand elements of an activity and links between
its separate aspects from opinions, descriptions
elicited from people, from observation of actual cases.
2. Social action of everyday life was to be observed and
minutely recorded in a special ethnographic diary. In
working out the rules and regularities of native
custom, and in obtaining a precise formula for them
from the collection of data and native statements, we
find that this very precision is new to real life, which
never adhere rigidly to any rules. It must be
supplemented by the observations of the manner in
which a given custom is carried out, of the behaviour
of the natives in obeying the rules so exactly
formulated by the ethnographer, of the very
exceptions which in sociological phenomena almost
always occur.

64 Directorate of Distance Education, University of Mysore

3. Collect ethnographic statements, characteristic
narratives, typical utterances, items of folklore and
magical formulae to document native mentality,
Malinowski wanted to understand the complexity of
divergences between what people say about what
they do, what they actually do and what they think.

A gifted field worker should achieve personal

identification with the people he or she wanted to
study. Malinowski referred to the concept of function
as use. Cultures were integrated wholes because they
were functioning unit. All aspects of culture carried a
meaning for members of a social group. They were a
means for satisfying people’s needs. This was the
rationale for their being together. Explanation of
culture in terms of needs took Malinowski into the
area of psychology.

2.2.4. Theory of Needs

Malinowski’s search for concepts to analyse
primitive culture led to a particular approach to
explanation of social facts. This approach is known as
his ‘theory of needs’. It was presented in A Scientific
Theory of Culture by Malinowski. According to him the
‘needs’ were two-fold, namely, the needs of the
individual and the needs of the society. Malinowski
(1944: 90) defined the term need as – ‘the system of
conditions in the human organism, in the cultural
setting, and in relation of both to the natural
environment, which are sufficient and necessary for
the survival of group and organism’. A need,
therefore, is the limiting set of facts. Habits and their
motivations, the learned responses and the
foundations of organisation, must be so arranged as to
allow the basic needs to be satisfied. The first part
speaks of the system of conditions in the human
organism. It refers to biological impulses which need
to be satisfied.

65
Modern Sociological Theories
 Biological Impulses

Malinowski (1944: 77) provided a table of

‘permanent vital sequences’ incorporated in all
cultures. These sequences refer to the satisfaction of
impulses of an individual. These sequences are
presented in the following table:

66 Directorate of Distance Education, University of Mysore

 This table refers merely to the satisfaction of
the impulses of an individual. In this and the following
list, Malinowski used unfamiliar words. Their meanings
have been provided in parentheses.

Types of Needs
Malinowski (1944: 91) added the concept of
individual and group survival to that of individual
impulse. He constructed a model of types of needs. It
comprised three types, namely, basic, derived and
integrative needs.

i) Basic Needs
The basic needs focussed on the conditions
essential to both individual and group survival.
The table of basic needs:

Basic Needs Cultural Responses

Metabolism Commissariat (food supplies)
Reproduction Kinship
Bodily comforts Shelter
Safety Protection
Movement Activities
Growth Training
Health Hygiene

Culture, in terms of the table of ‘basic needs’,

has the value of biological survival. This may be
described as ‘primary determinism’.

ii) Derived Needs

The human being’s life as a social creature
brings about a ‘secondary determinism’. For the
satisfaction of basic needs culture creates its own
needs. These are, (1944: 125), ‘derived needs’ or
imperatives, which relate to

Need Response
a) Requirements of maintenance Economics
of cultural apparatus
b) Regulation of human behaviour social control
c) Socialisation education
d) Exercise of authority political organisation

67
Modern Sociological Theories
 These derived needs or imperatives do not
include all imperatives established among human
beings. The young of many animals can also be taught
these rules. But none, except human beings, have the
ability to transmit them to their young. apes are able
to ‘teach’ their young how to behave and in this sense
they have rules. But it is hard to imagine the mother
chimpanzee commenting on another mother-baby set
as observing no rules. This happens only when habit
changes into custom.

iii) Integrative Needs

Human social life is characterised by what

Malinowski (1944: 125) calls the ‘integrative
imperatives’. Through integrative imperatives, habit is
converted into custom, care of children into the
training of the next generation and impulses into
values. The phenomena such as tradition, normative
standards or values, religion, art, language and other
forms of symbolism belong to the sphere of integrative
imperatives. For Malinowski the essence of human
culture is contained in symbolism or in values.

This shows that Malinowski’s theory of needs

recognises the biological bases of cultural activities
and therefore it can be applied to explain and compare
cultural behaviour from different parts of the world.
He considers social structure as one of the cultural
means to satisfy primary, derived and integrative
needs of human beings. This conceptual scheme gave
Malinowski an explanatory tool to prepare field records
of a high order.

Malinowski’s (1929) study of The Sexual Life of

Savages in N W Melanesia and his student Audrey
Richard’s (1932) Hunger and work in a Savage Tribe
amply demonstrate that different cultures not only
satisfy but also regulate and limit biological impulses.

Culture was taken by Malinowski as an

instrument for the satisfaction of human needs.

68 Directorate of Distance Education, University of Mysore

 Culture’s function in terms of needs helped Malinowski
to systematically record and analyse the rich
ethnographic material he collected in the Trobriand
islands.

In the process, Malinowski confined himself to

establishing culture as a tool, to serve functional roles.
Secondly, in showing the functional role of culture, he
emphasised the satisfaction of needs of the individual.
His theory of functionalism did not proceed beyond
this. Functionalism could not be developed by
Malinowski as a methodological concept. In the words
of Evans-Pritchard (1954: 54), for Malinowski
functional method was ‘a literary device for integrating
his observations for descriptive purposes’. It was
Malinowski’s contemporary Radcliffe-Brown who later
developed the functional or organismic theory of
society.

2.2.5. Check your progress

1. What important change Malinowski brought in the methodology in

studying society?
.............................................................................................................
2. What are the three levels in Malinowski’s approach in the study of society?
.............................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................
3. Why Malinowski is called as the father of fieldwork?
.............................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................
4. According to Malinowski what are the three principles of fieldwork in
functionalism?
.............................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................

69
Modern Sociological Theories
 5. What are the three components of Malinowski’s concept of culture?
.............................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................
6. What are the techniques for studying culture?
.............................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................
7. What are the two fold needs in theory of need?
.............................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................
8. What are the types of needs discussed by Malinowski?
.............................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................

70 Directorate of Distance Education, University of Mysore

2.3. Talcott Parsons
Talcott Parsons was an American sociologist,
best known for his social action theory and
structural functionalism. Parsons is considered as
one of the most influential figures in sociology in
the 20th century.

Based on empirical data, Parsons' social

action theory was the first broad, systematic, and
generalizable theory of social systems developed in
the United States and Europe. Some of Parsons'
largest contributions to sociology in the English-
speaking world were his translations of Max Weber's work and his analysis of
works by Weber, Émile Durkheim and Vilfredo Pareto. Their work heavily
influenced Parsons' view and was the foundation for his social action theory.
Parsons viewed voluntaristic action through the lens of the cultural values and
social structures that constrain choices and ultimately determine all social
actions, as opposed to actions that are determined based on internal
psychological processes.

Parsons was a strong advocate for the professionalization of sociology and

its expansion in American academia. He was elected president of the American
Sociological Association in 1949 and served as its secretary from 1960 to 1965.

The Structure of Social Action (SSA), Parsons' most famous work, took
form piece by piece. Its central figure was Weber, and the other key figures in
the discussion were added, little by little, as the central idea took form. Parsons
first achieved significant recognition with the publication of The Structure of
Social Action (1937), his first grand synthesis, combining the ideas of Durkheim,
Weber, Pareto, and others.

2.3.1. Action Theory

Parsons produced a general theoretical system
for the analysis of society, which he called ‘theory of
action’, based on the methodological and
epistemological principle of ‘analytical realism’ and on
the ontological assumption of ‘voluntaristic action’.
Parsons' concept of analytical realism can be regarded
as a kind of compromise between nominalist and
realist views on the nature of reality and human
knowledge. Parsons believed that objective reality can

71
Modern Sociological Theories
 be related to only by a particular encounter of such
reality and that general intellectual understanding is
feasible through conceptual schemes and theories.
Interaction with objective reality on an intellectual
level should always be understood as an approach.
Parsons often explained the meaning of analytical
realism by quoting a statement by Henderson: ‘A fact
is a statement about experience in terms of a
conceptual scheme’.

Parsons' ‘analytical realism’ insisted on the

reference to an objective reality. He asserts that all
knowledge which purports to be valid in anything like
the scientific sense presumes both the reality of object
known and of a knower. We can go beyond that and
say that there must be a community of knower who
are able to communicate with each other. Without
such a presupposition it would seem difficult to avoid
the pitfall of solipsism. The so-called natural sciences
do not impute the ‘status of knowing subjects’ to the
objects with which they deal (Parsons 1980:52).

Parsons' action theory can be characterized as

an attempt to maintain the scientific rigour of
positivism while acknowledging the necessity of the
‘subjective dimension’ of human action incorporated in
hermeneutic types of sociological theories. It is
cardinal in Parsons' general theoretical and
methodological view that human action must be
understood in conjunction with the motivational
component of the human act. Social science must
consider the question of ends, purpose, and ideals in
its analysis of human action. Parsons' strong reaction
to behavioristic theory as well as to sheer materialistic
approaches derives from the attempt of the theoretical
positions to eliminate ends, purpose, and ideals as
factors of analysis. Parsons was criticizing the
attempts to reduce human life to psychological,
biological, or materialist forces. What was essential in
human life was how the factor of culture was codified.
According to Parsons Culture was an independent

72 Directorate of Distance Education, University of Mysore

variable and could not be deducted from any other
factor of the social system (McNeill 1981).

2.3.2. System Theory - AGIL paradigm

The heuristic scheme that Parsons used to
analyze systems and subsystems is called the AGIL
paradigm or the AGIL scheme. To survive or maintain
equilibrium with respect to its environment, any
system must to some degree adapt to that
environment (adaptation), attain its goals (goal
attainment), integrate its components (integration),
and maintain its latent pattern (latency pattern
Maintenance), a sort of cultural template. The
concepts can be abbreviated as AGIL and are called
the system's functional imperatives. It is important to
understand that Parsons AGIL model is an analytical
scheme for the sake of theoretical production, but it is
not any simple copy or any direct historical summary
of empirical reality. Also, the scheme itself does not
explain anything, just as the periodical table nothing
by itself in the natural sciences. The AGIL scheme is a
tool for explanations and is no better than the quality
of the theories and explanation by which it is
processed.

In the case of the analysis of a social action

system, the AGIL paradigm, according to Parsons,
yields four interrelated and interpenetrating
subsystems: the behavioral systems of its members
(A), the personality systems of those members (G),
the social system (as such) (I), and the cultural
system of that society (L). To analyze a society as a
social system (the I subsystem of action), people are
posited to enact roles associated with positions. The
positions and roles become differentiated to some
extent and, in a modern society, are associated with
things such as occupational, political, judicial and
educational roles (Ibid).

Considering the interrelation of these

specialized roles as well as functionally differentiated
collectivities (like firms and political parties), a society

73
Modern Sociological Theories
 can be analyzed as a complex system of interrelated
functional subsystems:

The pure AGIL model for all living systems:

 (A) Adaptation.
 (G) Goal attainment.
 (I) Integration.
 (L) Latency (pattern maintenance).

The Social System Level:

 The economy — social adaptation to its action and

non-action environmental systems
 The polity — collective goal attainment
 The societal community — the integration of its
diverse social components
 The fiduciary system — processes that function to
reproduce historical culture in its direct social
embeddedness.

The General Action Level:

 The behavioral organism (or system), in later versions,

the foci for generalized intelligence.
 The personality system.
 The social system.
 The cultural system.

The cultural level:

 Cognitive symbolization.
 Expressive symbolization.
 Evaluative symbolization. (Sometimes called: moral-
evaluative symbolization.)
 Constitutive symbolization.

The Generalized Symbolic media:

Social System level:

 (A) Economic system: Money.

 (G) Political system: Political power.
 (I) The Societal Community: Influence.
 (L) The Fiduciary system (cultural tradition): Value-
commitment.

74 Directorate of Distance Education, University of Mysore

 Parsons elaborated upon the idea that each of
these systems also developed some specialized
symbolic mechanisms of interaction analogous to
money in the economy, like influence in the social
community. Various processes of interchange among
the subsystems of the social system were postulated
(Parsons 1970: 26 - 50).

2.3.3. Social Evolutionism

Parsons contributed to social evolutionism and
neo-evolutionism. He divided evolution into four sub-
processes:
1. differentiation, which creates functional subsystems of
the main system, as discussed above;
2. adaptation, in which those systems evolve into more
efficient versions;
3. inclusion of elements previously excluded from the
given systems;
4. generalization of values, increasing the legitimization
of the increasingly complex system.
Furthermore, Parsons explored the sub-processes
within three stages of evolution:
1. Primitive,
2. Archaic and
3. Modern
Parsons viewed Western civilization as the
pinnacle of modern societies and the United States as
the one that is most dynamically developed.

In the case of society, Parsons submits that the

institutions (structures) maintain equilibrium by
fulfilling the ‘needs’, which must be satisfied if the
system has to persist. Institutions also solve the
recurring problems in a manner similar to the way in
which the units of the organism comparable to the
institutions of societies do in their natural
environment. The system ensures that these
institutions work appropriately on everyday basis,
satisfying the needs. For achieving equilibrium, society
requires the processes of socialisation, the

75
Modern Sociological Theories
 internalisation of societal values, and the mechanisms
of social control so that deviance is checked.

All ‘action systems’, (society is one of them), as

noted earlier, face four major needs, namely
Adaptation (A), Goal Attainment (G), Integration (I),
and Pattern Maintenance, Parsons later renamed,
(Latent Pattern Maintenance—Tension Management),
Latency (L). Parsons pictures the social system as a
large square, which he divides into four equal parts.
These parts are the four functional problems,
represented by the acronym, AGIL. The underlying
idea is that all systems need to accomplish these four
functions in order to survive (Parsons 1970: 26 - 50).
The first two are necessary for survival and continued
operation; and the last two being a means of
regulation of the social system.

AGIL Model

Means (Instrumental) Ends (Consummatory)

External A Adaptation Goal attainment G

Internal L Latency (PM&TM) Integration I

1) Adaptation:

Adaptation meant securing sufficient resources

from the society’s external environment and
distributing them throughout the system. Each society
needs certain institutions that perform the function of
adaptation to the environment, which is an external
function. Adaptation provides the means, the
instrumental aspects, to achieve goals. Biological
organism performs the function of adaptation in the
general system of action. In the context of society,
economic institution performs this function.

Each system exists in an environment, and

must be able to adapt to this environment. In the

76 Directorate of Distance Education, University of Mysore

process of adaptation, the environment is also affected
and may be adapted to the society. This is the
mobilization of resources so that the system can
survive and that things can be done to meet goals of
the system. In the family or household, adaptation
could include obtaining economic resources - earning
an income to support the family. For larger social
systems, the economy is the system which allows the
system to survive, grow, and change. The major
institutions in the economic sphere, such as
agriculture, industry and services provided through the
market are the means by which adaptation takes
place. These serve the function of allowing the
system to survive and provide the goods and services
required for society to operate. The market
mechanism itself can be regarded as a system that
has some tendencies in the direction of stable
equilibria. Some of the government institutions
relating to the economy also help serve this
function.

2) Goal Attainment:

Goal Attainment is concerned with the need of

the system to mobilise its resources to attain the goals
and to establish priorities among them. It mobilises
motivations of the actors and organises their efforts.
In the general system of action, personality performs
this function, while in case of society this task is given
to the political institution, because power is essential
for implementation and decision-making. Goal
attainment is concerned with ends, the consummatory
aspects. Since goals are delineated in relation with the
external environment, it is, like adaptation, an external
function.

The goals of the system must be defined,

means of attempting to achieve these goals must be
laid out, and then these goals must be achieved.
Within the social system, the polity is an important
aspect of this, setting and altering the goals for the
society as a whole, and “mobilizing actors and

77
Modern Sociological Theories
 resources to that end”. The state bureaucracy and
other organizations, business and nonprofit, all help to
implement and achieve these goals. Smaller scale
institutions also have goals, for example, the
University as a system has the goal of teaching,
research, and community service. Within a family or
individual system, there will also be goals, although
these may not be so clearly spelled out as in formal
organizations. Each organization, as a subsystem, has
certain goals, and within this there will be positions
with roles to play in helping the organization achieve
these goals. Within a business, there will be
marketing, production, finance, etc. positions that
each has specific roles within the context of
attempting to make profits for the business and help
the business expand. Within the family, husband and
wife, parents and children are each statuses with roles
for meeting family goals.

3) Integration:

Integration is regarded as the ‘heart’ of the

four-function paradigm. Integration implies the need
to coordinate, adjust, and regulate relationships
among various actors (or, the units of the system,
such as the institutions), so that the system is an
‘ongoing entity’. According to the general theory of
action, the social system performs this function,
whereas in society, legal institutions and courts are
entrusted with this task. Integration is concerned with
ends, and the internal aspects of the system.

This is the means by which social relationships,

and interrelationships among units or groups, are
regulated. As various social processes functions occur,
strains, tensions and conflicts may emerge. These are
a result of the way that individuals relate to each other
and as different units carry out their tasks and roles
that need to be done in a system. Means of managing
these tensions, resolving conflicts and ensuring that
orderly means of carrying on activities. At the level of
society as a whole, there are a variety of institutions

78 Directorate of Distance Education, University of Mysore

 that do this. Religion, education, the media, the legal
structures, police and courts, all play a role. Sporting
events could be seen in this light, anthems, rules of
the game, common allegiances, etc. Where strains
are great, there may be a need for social control,
formal and informal sanctions, or discipline to enforce
order. In general though, Parsons thought that
systems develop automatic means of integration, and
roles and organizations to help carry this out do
develop. Within subsystems, there is a set of roles
that do this, although these may not always be
specialized. For example, in educational institutions,
teachers carry out the roles of adaptation, goal
attainment and integration as part of their activities.

4) Latency (Pattern Maintenance and Tension

Management):

Latency function pertains to the issues of

providing knowledge and information to the system. In
the general theory of action, culture, the repository of
knowledge and information, accomplishes this
function. Culture does not act because it does not
have energy. It lays hidden, supplying actors (who are
high in energy) with knowledge and information they
require for carrying out action. Because culture exists
‘behind’ the actions of people, it is called ‘latent’.
Integration takes care of two things:
a. It motivates actors to play their roles in the system
and maintain the value patterns; and
b. To provide mechanisms for managing internal tensions
between different parts and actors.

Latency is the function of pattern maintenance

and Parsons also refers to this as the cultural-
motivational system. These are referred to as latent
because they may not always be as apparent as the A,
G, or I functions (Parsons 1970: 26 - 50).

The organizations and roles that perform latent

functions can be regarded as those that “furnish,
maintain, and renew both the motivation of individuals
and the cultural patterns that create and sustain this

79
Modern Sociological Theories
 motivation”. Parsons refers to these as fiduciary, that
is, founded on trust. At the level of the social system,
these are schools, educational institutions, and the
major institution that is concerned with the latent
function is kinship and family or other forms of
personal relationships. Within this, leisure, affection,
love, sex, and friendship, can all play an important
function. People provide comfort, consolation and
relief to each other, thus reducing tension or keeping
it within manageable limits. In addition, socialization
is a major function with respect to the raising of
children, and also with respect to the ongoing
socialization that occurs throughout the life span. For
Parsons, the role of women was key here. Within
organizations, there may be little of the latent
functions as an explicit part of the organization, but
people within any organization develop these
themselves, or come to the organization with these
functions developed.

The problem that every society faces is of

keeping its value system intact and ensuring that the
members conform to the rules. It will be possible
when societal values are properly transmitted and
imbibed. The institutions that carry out this function
are family, religion, and education. Latency gives
means to achieve ends; it is internal to the system.

For the purpose of analysis, Parsons identifies

sub-systems corresponding to the AGIL model in all
systems and their sub-systems. At the general level of
action theory, the biological organism performs the
function of adaptation, the personality system, the
function of goal attainment, the social system
integrates different units, and the cultural system is
concerned with pattern maintenance.

The social system is broken down into the four

AGIL functions. Economy performs the function of
adaptation; polity (or political institution), the function
of goal attainment; and ‘societal community’ carries
out the function of integration. ‘Societal community’
produces solidarity, unity, cohesiveness, and loyalty to

80 Directorate of Distance Education, University of Mysore

norms, values, and institutions. The function of
pattern maintenance is the task of the ‘fiduciary
system’, which pertains to the nature of a trust or a
trusteeship. This system produces and legitimises
moral values, beliefs, and expressive symbols.

Each of the sub-systems of the system can be

taken up for analysis by treating it as a ‘system’, and
then, breaking it down into four parts looking for its
components that respectively perform the functions of
adaptation, goal attainment, integration, and latency.
This way of analysing society is known as the systemic
approach. Parsons’s AGIL model is an ideal type,
applicable more to differentiated societies than simple
societies. In the latter case, institutions may collapse
into one, with the result that the same institution may
perform different functions. The example of family
may be cited here, which carries out economic,
political, and religious functions, in addition to the
functions traditionally assigned to it, like socialisation
of the young. In communist societies, the party may
decide the aspects of economy, the processes of
production and distribution, and thus, adaptation and
goal attainment may appear indistinguishable.

General Level of Action Theory

Organism Personality

Culture Social System

AGIL Functions in the Social System

Economy Polity

Fiduciary System Societal Community

The social system was Parsons' main

concern. This is society as a whole, or the various

81
Modern Sociological Theories
 institutions such as the family within society. Parsons'
definition of the social system is:

A social system consists of a plurality of

individual actors interacting with each other in a
situation which has at least a physical or
environmental aspect, actors who are motivated
in terms of a tendency to the ‘optimization of
gratification’ and whose relation to their
situations, including each other, is defined and
mediated in terms of a system of culturally
structured and shared symbols (1951: 5-6).

The basic unit of the system for Parsons was the

status-role bundle or complex. These are structural
elements, and are not characteristics of the individual
or of interaction. Rather they are like the positions
within the stratification model. A status is a structural
position within the social system, and a role is what
the individual who has that status does.

Within this social system, Parsons considered

the needs of the system as important, and individuals
fulfilled certain system functions by taking on various
roles as means of carrying out the function of their
statuses. Individuals are discussed by Parsons as
carrying out actions that maintain order in the
system. Socialization, education and learning in the
child, and continued socialization throughout life are
the means by which the norms and values of society
are learned by individuals. This is what binds the
individual to the social system as a whole. If
successful, this socialization process means that the
norms and values become internalized by individuals,
and when people pursue their own interests, they also
serve the needs of the society as a whole.

In modern society there are many roles,

statuses and opportunities for individuals to express
their different personalities. For Parsons, this is a
positive feature of a social system, and a flexible
system of this sort is more able to maintain
order. However, if people become too deviant, there

82 Directorate of Distance Education, University of Mysore

are social control mechanisms that either stop the
deviance (ultimately at the legal level). In most cases
though, there are stronger mechanisms that the social
system has to maintain order. This is the socialization
process, the continued operation through one's whole
life.

2.3.4. Pattern Variables

Talcott Parsons contributed to the field of

sociological theory, particularly through his
development of a "general theory of action." One way
that Parsons organized his analysis of social action and
activities within social systems is through pattern
variables. Social action is voluntary, oriented and
subject to guidance or influence of social
norms. These pattern variables provide a way of
categorizing the types of choices and forms of
orientation for individual social actors, both in
contemporary society and historically. Adams and
Sydie state that these are means of guiding
“individuals toward one or other of a set of
dichotomous choices” (Turner 1987: 15).

Parsons constructed a set of variables that can

be used to analyze the various systems. These are
the “categorization of modes of orientation in
personality systems, the value patterns of culture, and
the normative requirements in social systems” (Turner
1987: 58).

Pattern variables also provide a means of

describing and classifying institutions, social
relationships, and different societies, and the values
and norms of these. All of the norms, values, roles,
institutions, subsystems and even the society as a
whole can be classified and examined on the basis of
these pattern variables. These were necessary to
make the theory of action more explicit and “to
develop clearer specifications of what different
contingencies and expectations actors were likely to
face” (Wallace and Wolf 1986: 30).

83
Modern Sociological Theories
 The pattern variables are constructed as polar
opposites that give the range of possible decisions and
modes of orientation for a social actor. They are ideal
types of social action that provided a conceptual
scheme for analyzing action within systems. In
practice, individual choice is unlikely to be so simply
divided between the polar opposites and the social
action of an individual may be a combination of the
two, between the opposites. Therefore, there may be
a continuity of possible forms of action bridging the
extremes, so that much social action occurs between
the poles.

The pattern variables provide a means of

looking at various forms that norms and social actions
can take, and what their orientation is. These can
describe the nature of societal norms, or the basic
values that guide, and form the basis for decisions in
the personality system. The range of possible types of
motivation and action is considerably broader in
Parson's scheme than in much of the classical
sociological writers. Perhaps these pattern variables
can be thought of as a way that people do relate to
situations they face, the type of orientation they have,
and how they are likely to interpret meaning in each
social action.

The pattern variables can be used to refer to

either the type of social action or the type of
society. Social action and interaction in early forms of
society were more likely to be characterized by
expressive characteristics. In contrast, in modern
societies, with a more complex division of labour and
differentiation of statuses and roles, much of social
action and interaction is characterized by instrumental
characteristics.

84 Directorate of Distance Education, University of Mysore

Parsons’ Pattern Variables

Expressive Instrumental
Ascription Achievement
Diffuseness Specificity
Affectivity Neutrality
Particularism Universalism
Collectivity Self

a. Affectivity and Affective Neutrality

Neutrality refers to the amount of emotion or

affect that is appropriate or expected in a given form
of interaction. Particularism and diffuseness might
often be associated with affectivity, whereas contacts
with other individuals in a bureaucracy may be devoid
of emotion and characterized by affective neutrality.
Affective neutrality may refer to self discipline and the
deferment of gratification. In contrast, affectivity can
mean the expression of gratification of emotions.

b. Collectivity or Self

These emphasize the extent of self interest as

opposed to collective or shared interest associated
with any action. Each of our social actions is made
within a social context, with others, and in various
types of collectivities. Where individuals pursue a
collective form of action, then the interests of the
collectivity may take precedence over that of the
individual. Various forms of action such as altruism,
charity, self-sacrifice can be included here. In
contrast, much economics and utilitarianism assumes
egoism or the self seeking individual as the primary
basis on which social analysis is to be built.

c. Particularism and Universalism.

These refer to the range of people that are to

be considered, whereas diffuseness and specificity
deal with the range of obligations involved. The issue
here is whether to react “on the basis of a general
norm or reacting on the basis of someone’s particular
relationship to you” (Wallace and Wolf 1986: 34). A

85
Modern Sociological Theories
 particular relation is one that is with a specific
individual. Parent-child or friendship relationships
tend to be of this sort, where the relationship is likely
to be very particular, but at the same time very
diffuse. In contrast, a bureaucracy is characterized by
universal forms of relationships, where everyone is to
be treated impartially and much the same. No
particularism or favoritism is to be extended to
anyone, even to a close friend or family member.

d. Diffuseness and Specificity.

These refer to the nature of social contacts and

how extensive or how narrow are the obligations in
any interaction. For example, in a bureaucracy, social
relationships are very specific, where we meet with or
contact someone for some very particular reason
associated with their status and position, e.g. visiting a
physician. Friendships and parent-child relationships
are examples of more diffuse forms of contact. We
rely on friends for a broad range of types of support,
conversation, activities, and so on. While there may
be limits on such contacts, these have the potential of
dealing with almost any set of interests and problems.

e. Ascription and Achievement.

Ascription refers to qualities of individuals, and

often inborn qualities such as sex, ethnicity, race, age,
family status, or characteristics of the household of
origin. Achievement refers to performance, and
emphasizes individual achievement. For example, we
might say that someone has achieved a prestigious
position even though their ascribed status was that of
poverty and disadvantage.

f. Expressive and Instrumental.

Parsons regards the first half of each pair as the

expressive types of characteristics and the second half
of the pattern as the instrumental types of
characteristics. Expressive aspects refer to “the
integrative and tension aspects” (Morgan 1975:
29). These are people, roles, and actions concerned

86 Directorate of Distance Education, University of Mysore

with taking care of the common task culture, how to
integrate the group, and how to manage and resolve
internal tensions and conflicts. This may take many
different forms but often is associated with family, and
more specifically with the female role in family.
The instrumental characteristics refer to the
goal attainment and adaptation aspects. These are
the characteristics, people, roles, and actions
associated with ideas, problem solving, getting the
task done. These tasks are often associated with male
roles, public activities, the economy or politics.

These can also be used to refer to the type of

society. Social action and interaction in early forms of
society were more likely to be characterized by
expressive characteristics. In contrast, in modern
societies, with a more complex division of labour and
differentiation of statuses and roles, much of social
action and interaction is characterized by instrumental
characteristics.

Parsons had a conservative view of women and

the family; he recognized the importance of the latent
function, and he puts in on a par with the other three
functions that must be part of any system.

The AGIL functions must exist at all levels, in

society as a whole, and in each subsystem. These
may not be consciously worked out functions, and
roles and functions can be shared among
organizations or individuals. In traditional societies,
most of these functions would have been centred in
family and kinship structures, and in local
communities. In these societies, there may have been
little differentiation in functions, although culture and
the integration function often came to be associated
with religion. As societies have developed, these
functions tend to evolve, with different institutions
developing different functions, and with different
functions developing within each organization.
Specialized functions and roles develop, and
specialized institutions to carry these out also evolve,
and it is best to have specialized roles and specialized

87
Modern Sociological Theories
 institutions to carry out the functions of a modern
society. These may develop in an evolutionary
fashion, without any conscious consideration, much
like Durkheim's natural development of division of
labour. As in bureaucracies, they may be consciously
worked out organizational structures. Some of this
can be seen by examining Parsons' view of change.

2.3.5. Check your progress

1. What is the theoretical system Parsons produced for the analysis of

society?
.............................................................................................................
2. What is the scheme Parsons used to analyse the system and subsystems
in society?
.............................................................................................................
3. What are the four sub-processes Parsons explained in social evolutionism?
.............................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................
4. Name the four components of AGIL model
.............................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................
5. What did Parsons construct to analyse the various systems in society?
.............................................................................................................
6. List the pattern variables proposed by Parsons
....................................................................
....................................................................
....................................................................
....................................................................
....................................................................
....................................................................

88 Directorate of Distance Education, University of Mysore

2.4. Robert K Merton
Robert King Merton was an
American sociologist. He spent most of his career
teaching at Columbia University. In 1994 he was
awarded the National Medal of Science for his
contributions to the field and for having founded
the sociology of science. He is considered a
founding father of modern sociology and also
gained a status for the work he contributed
to criminology.

Merton developed notable concepts such as

"unintended consequences", the "reference group", and "role strain", and
perhaps is best known for the terms "role model" and "self-fulfilling prophecy". A
central element in modern sociological, political, and economic theory, a self-
fulfilling prophecy is one type of process through which a belief or expectation
affects the outcome of a situation or the way a person or group will behave.

Social roles were central to Merton's theory of social groups. Merton

emphasized that, rather than a person assuming one role and one status, they
have a status set in the social structure that has, attached to it, a whole set of
expected behaviours. Over his career, Merton published several papers in the
sociology of science. However, he has also contributed his ideas and theories to
the fields of deviance theory, organizations, and middle-range theory.

R.K. Merton took the help of biological sciences to define the term 'Function'
in sociology. He explained that the function is the contribution of social
institutions to society, just like the contribution of organic process inside the
human body for the survival of human beings.

Merton says that functions of the social institutions maintain the society and
the contributions bring order, unity and cohesiveness in society. Society is
constituted by innumerable parts like economy, polity, religion, education, family
etc. These parts are not isolated, but are interconnected with each other. Each
part has a different function to contribute to society. For example, education has
a function, because it prepares the child to adapt to the society. All these
functions of social institutions together help in maintaining the society.

Merton argues that the function of a social institution can be better said by
observer than the participant. Because participants may believe that their own
subjective motives are the real objective motives of the social institution. For
example, children may think that the function of the school is to make friends,

89
Modern Sociological Theories
whereas the real objective function of the school is to impart knowledge in
children for the society's sustenance. Hence, social scientists should look beyond
the subjective motives of the participants and need to know the objective
consequences of the social forms. To know this, one needs to question self that
how really does the institution contributes to the cohesiveness of the society.

2.4.1. Middle Range Theories

Parsons’ theory is popularly known as a ‘grand

theory’, an all-encompassing, unified theory, which is
believed to have a large explanatory power. However,
Robert Merton is sceptical of such a theory, for it is
too general to be of much use (Merton 1957). Instead,
he expresses his preference for mid-level (middle-
range) theories, which cover certain delimited aspects
of social phenomena (such as groups, social mobility
or role conflict). Because of this middle-range
strategy, Merton’s functionalism is quite different from
that of Parsons.

Merton abandons the search for any functional

prerequisites that will be valid in all social systems. He
also rejects the idea of the earlier functionalists that
recurrent social phenomena should be explained in
terms of their benefits to society as a whole.

Merton tries to attempt a ‘codification of

functional analysis in sociology’, a functional paradigm
(perspective) (not a grand theory) that takes into
consideration the actual dimensions of social reality, of
conformity and deviance, understanding and
explaining them. Like other functionalists, he views
society as a system of interconnected parts, where
functioning of a part has implications for functioning of
other parts and the entire system. Like his
predecessors, he was interested in the concepts of
equilibrium and integration, and the contribution of
customs and institutions to the persistence of
societies. His definition of function is also in terms of
‘positive contribution’ of a part to the whole: functions
are those contributions or consequences that ‘make
for adaptation or adjustment of a given system’. For
the working of society and its institutions, it is

90 Directorate of Distance Education, University of Mysore

important that all share a set of common values and
norms, which is another distinguishing property of
functionalism.

Merton's work is often compared to that

of Talcott Parsons. Merton enrolled in Parsons' theory
course while at Harvard, and he admired Parsons'
work because it introduced him to European methods
of theory, while also broadening his own idea and
conclusions about sociology. However, unlike Parsons,
who emphasized the necessity for social science to
establish a general foundation, Merton preferred more
limited, middle-range theories (Calhoun 2003).

Merton himself fashioned his theory very similar

to that of Emile Durkheim in his work Suicide or Max
Weber in The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of
Capitalism. Merton believed that middle range theories
bypassed the failures of larger theories because they
are too distant from observing social behaviour in a
particular social setting. According to Merton, middle-
range theory starts its theorizing with clearly defined
aspects of social phenomena, rather than with broad,
abstract entities such as society as a whole. Theories
of the middle range should be firmly supported by
empirical data. These theories must be constructed
with observed data in order to create theoretical
problems and to be incorporated in proposals that
allow empirical testing. Middle-range theories,
applicable to limited ranges of data, transcend sheer
description of social phenomena and fill in the blanks
between raw empiricism and grand or all-inclusive
theory (Mann 2008).

Middle-range theory is an approach to

sociological theorizing aimed at integrating theory and
empirical research. It is currently the de facto
dominant approach to sociological theory construction.
Middle-range theory starts with an empirical
phenomenon (as opposed to a broad abstract entity
like the social system) and abstracts from it to create
general statements that can be verified by data. This

91
Modern Sociological Theories
 approach stands in contrast to the earlier "grand"
theorizing of social theory, such as functionalism and
many conflict theories .

The term "middle-range theory" does not refer

to a specific theory, but is rather an approach to
theory construction. Raymond Boudon defines middle-
range theory as a commitment to two ideas (Boudon
1991: 519–522).

The first is positive, and describes what such

theories should do: sociological theories, like all
scientific theories, should aim to consolidate otherwise
segregated hypotheses and empirical regularities; if a
theory is valid, it explains and in other words
consolidates and federates empirical regularities which
on their side would appear otherwise segregated.

The other is negative, and it relates to what

theory cannot do: it is hopeless and quixotic
(idealistic) to try to determine the overarching
independent variable that would operate in all social
processes, or to determine the essential feature of
social structure, or to find out the two, three, or four
couples of concepts ... that would be sufficient to
analyze all social phenomena (Bailey 1991: 37–55).

Middle range theories of R.K Merton came as

rejection of mega theory of Parsonian sociology. His
theory advocates that theory building in sociology
should not be governed by intellectual aggression or
academic speculation.

Sociological theories cannot afford to be rogue,

unrealistic, jargon focused and simply logical. Rather
theories are developed in sociology to arrange the
empirical facts in a consolidated manner. Hence they
should be fact driven. The social theories should come
out of facts explaining in systematic manner. Instead
mega speculations that there is a social system where
there is exchange, negotiation, convergence,
consequently control and integration sociology must

92 Directorate of Distance Education, University of Mysore

look into the actual problems and issues related to
empirical situations.

Mega theories are highly speculative and do not

correspond to the empirical realities. They make an
attempt to study every possible dimension of social
reality that is not possible in the field of sociology. The
degree of abstraction is quite high when concepts are
chosen to develop such theories therefore these kind
of mega theories do not have much of relevance to
understand the essence of social reality. Hence
sociology has to reject mega theoretical constructs
replacing them by middle range theories.

Merton is not comfortable with the use of

natural science theories in the field of sociology. He
advocates that theories in natural science come out of
cumulative research made on a given problem by
large body of scholars in time and space. It is possible
on part of a natural scientist to modify, amend or
revise the theories of his predecessors applying such
theories to contemporary problems and issues. Natural
phenomena being static, cumulative research on them
become possible and a broad agreement among the
researchers studying the same problem gives rise to
the growth of unified theories in the field of natural
sciences.

In the field of sociology the form of capitalism,

patterns of democracy, role of family as a group keeps
changing in time and space. Therefore cumulative
research should largely speak about diversity,
variabilities present in their structure and functions;
for which mega theories in sociology may be necessity
to natural science, but it is absolutely unwanted for
sociological research. Sociology must have to go for
middle range theories than striving for scientific status
extending natural science theories into the field of
sociological research.

Sociology should not be compared with natural

sciences. Merton borrows substantive ideas from
sociology of Weber as the basic problem with ideal

93
Modern Sociological Theories
 type construct is that it asserts that totality of reality
cannot be studied by sociology therefore sociology
must have to study the essence of reality. Sociology is
encountering with the problem of identification of the
issues for conducting research that needs to be
resolved. The Weberian sociology is committed to
macroscopic issues that are difficult to study in every
possible detail.

If sociological research considers that it must

have to address to microscopic structures then it will
not be difficult for sociologists to understand various
dimensions of a given social reality. Middle Range
theories in sociology advocate that in sociological
research facts are important than theories. It gives
rise to a situation where facts speak for themselves.
These theories are small, understandable, coming out
of a given empirical situation having capacity to
explain same or different types of situations without
any possible ambiguities or controversies. For
instance, reference group theory, concept of in-group
or out-group, theory of suicide and theories of social
mobility are defined as middle range theories which
can provide a guide to sociological research in time
and space. Middle range theories have to be
constructed with reference to phenomena that are
observable in order to generate an array of theoretical
problems as well as to be incorporated in propositions
that permit empirical testing.

2.4.2. Social Structure, Anomie and

Strain Theory
Merton adopted Emile Durkheim's concept
of anomie, developing it, through several revisions,
resulting in his strain theory of deviant behaviour.
Robert Merton set out to expand upon the concept of
Durkheim’s anomie. He began by stating that there
are two elements of social and cultural structure.

The first structure is culturally assigned goals

and aspirations. These are the things that all

94 Directorate of Distance Education, University of Mysore

individuals should want and expect out of life,
including success, money, and material things.

The second aspect of the social structure

defines the acceptable mode for achieving the goals
and aspirations set by society. This is the appropriate
way that people achieve what they want and expect
out of life. For society to maintain a normative
function there must be a balance between aspirations
and the means by which to fulfil such aspirations.

According to Merton, balance is maintained as

long as the individual feels that he is achieving the
culturally desired goal by conforming to the
institutionally accepted mode of doing so. In other
words, there must be an intrinsic payoff, an internal
satisfaction that one is playing by the rules, and there
must also be an extrinsic payoff, achieving the goals.
It is also important that the culturally desired goals be
achievable by legitimate means for all social classes. If
goals are not achievable through an accepted mode,
then people may come to use illegal means to achieve
the same goal.

Merton was interested in the possible

outcomes, or dysfunctions, that occur when the
balance between aspirations and means to achieve
them is lost. He described several possible adaptations
to the strain such imbalance produces: Conformity,
Innovation, Ritualism, Retreatism, and Rebellion. This
formed the basis of his famous strain theory. Merton
changed the definition of cultural aspirations to include
those goals held out as legitimate objectives for all or
for diversely located members of society (Merton
1938: 672-682).

It was Durkheim’s theory of anomie that

inspired Merton’s theory of the same name. However,
there is a fundamental difference between the
theories and the direction in which they work. Merton
accepted Durkheim’s concept of anomie and its
meaning of a normless state of society. However,
Merton saw a disjunction between culturally devised

95
Modern Sociological Theories
 goals and accepted means of achieving the desired
ends, which leads to strain. Durkheim theorized that if
the human appetite for goals was not regulated and
became limitless, anomie would ensue, and
from anomie, strain would emerge. Such strain would
manifest itself in a variety of forms, one of which
could be deviant behaviour (Merton 1949).

Strain theory

Merton argued that the real problem is not

created by a sudden social change, as Durkheim
proposed, but rather by a social structure that holds
out the same goals to all its members without giving
them equal means to achieve them. It is this lack of
integration between what the culture calls for and
what the structure permits that causes deviant
behaviour. Deviance, then, is a symptom of the social
structure. Merton's sociology of deviance theory does
not focus upon crime as such, but rather upon various
acts of deviance, which may be understood as leading
to criminal behaviour.

Merton noted that there are certain goals which

are strongly emphasized by society. Society
emphasizes certain means to reach those goals.
However, not everyone has equal access to the
legitimate means to attain those goals. The stage then
is set for anomie. Merton presented five modes of
adapting to strain caused by the restricted access to
socially approved goals and means. He did not mean
that everyone who was denied access to society's
goals became deviant. Rather the response, or modes
of adaptation, depends on the individual's
attitudes toward cultural goals and the institutional
means available to attain them.

96 Directorate of Distance Education, University of Mysore

Typology of Deviance

Institutional means
Accept Reject

Conformity Innovation
Cultural goals

Accept

New
Reject

Ritualism Retreatism
means

Rebellion

goals
New

Merton's Paradigm of Deviant Behaviour

Attitude to Attitude to Modes of

Goals Means Adaptation

accept accept Conformity

accept reject Innovation

reject accept Ritualism

reject reject Retreatism

reject/accept reject/accept Rebellion

o Conformity: Conformity is the most common

mode of adaptation. Individuals accept both the
goals as well as the prescribed means for achieving
those goals. Conformists will accept, though not
always achieve, the goals of society and the means
approved for achieving them.

o Innovation: Individuals who adapt through

innovation accept societal goals but have few
legitimate means to achieve those goals, thus they
innovate (design) their own means to get ahead.
The means they adopt to get ahead may be
through robbery, fraud, or other such criminal acts.

97
Modern Sociological Theories
 o Ritualism: In ritualism, individuals abandon the
goals they once believed to be within their reach
and dedicate themselves to their current lifestyle.
They play by the rules and have a safe daily
routine.

o Retreatism: Retreatism is the adaptation of those

who give up not only the goals but also the means.
They often retreat into the world of alcoholism and
drug addiction. They escape into a non-productive,
non-striving lifestyle.

o Rebellion: The final adaptation, rebellion, occurs

when the cultural goals and the legitimate means
are rejected. Individuals create their own goals and
their own means, by protest or revolutionary
activity.

Innovation and ritualism are the pure cases

of anomie as Merton defined it, because in both cases
there is a discontinuity between goals and means.

2.4.3. Functional Analysis

The central orientation of functionalism is in
interpreting data by their consequences for larger
structures in which they are implicated. Like
Durkheim and Parsons Merton analyzes society with
reference to whether cultural and social structures are
well or badly integrated. Merton is also interested in
the persistence of societies and defines functions that
make for the adaptation of a given social system.

Merton thinks that shared values are central in

explaining how societies and institutions work,
however he disagrees with Parsons on some issues.
According to Merton's perception of functionalism, all
standardized social and cultural beliefs and practices
are functional for both society as a whole as well as
individuals in society. Merton elaborates on his three
main issues or flaws with functionalism, which he
labels postulates (Mann 2008). His identified faults are
distinguished as:

98 Directorate of Distance Education, University of Mysore

 The postulate of the functional unity of society,
The postulate of universal functionalism, and
The postulate of indispensability.

1. Various parts of social systems must show a high level

of integration, but Merton argues that a generalization
like this cannot be extended to larger, more complex
societies.

This postulate of the functional unity of society

refers to the misunderstanding that societies are
functional and harmonious unions. He points out that
not all societies are happy and well-integrated, where
people function well together and all involved prosper.
Merton cites examples, as civil wars, African-
Americans in the 1950s and South African blacks
during the apartheid regime as instances where
societies were not necessarily functional for all people.

2. The claim of universal functionalism argues that all

standardized social and cultural structures and forms
have a positive function. Merton argues that this is a
contradiction to what is seen in the real world; not
every structure, idea, belief, etc., has positive
functions.

The postulate of universal functionalism disproves

the idea that not all ideals work for everyone in a
society. Merton believes that some things may have
consequences that are generally dysfunctional or
which are dysfunctional for some and functional for
others. For example, poverty may benefit the rich
because they are allowed to maintain more of their
wealth, but it certainly does not benefit the poor who
struggle. Merton states that only by recognizing the
dysfunctional aspects of institutions, can we explain
the development and persistence of alternatives.
Merton's concept of dysfunctions is also central to his
argument that functionalism is not essentially
conservative.

3. The claim of functional indispensability states that the

parts of society have positive functions, and represent

99
Modern Sociological Theories
 indispensable parts of the working whole, which
implies that structures and functions are functionally
necessary for society. Merton argues, people must be
willing to admit that there exist various structural and
functional alternatives within society.

The postulate of indispensability challenges the

social function for customs, ideals, or institutions as a
whole. Merton raises the doubt of whether every social
institution performs a specific function. Merton
believes that several institutions can provide the same
function or none at all, so it is impossible to interpret
what functions are vital or not to a society.

His belief in empirical testing led to the

development of his "paradigm" of functional
analysis. In terms of structural functionalism, Merton
felt that the focus should be on social functions rather
than on individual motives.

2.4.4. Dysfunctions
While agreeing with other functionalists on
certain points, Merton has made a distinct contribution
to a set of two typologies, namely, the distinction
between ‘function’ and ‘dysfunction’, and between
‘manifest’ and ‘latent’ functions. Most functionalists
think that all contributions are inherently good or
‘functional’ for society, a proposition Merton finds
difficult to accept. He thinks there are acts that have
‘consequences which lessen the adaptation or
adjustment of the system’. Manifest functions are
those consequences people observe or expect, while
latent functions are those consequences that are
neither recognised nor intended.

Merton was able to advance four types of

explanations in terms of the two dichotomies (function
and dysfunction; manifest and latent functions). The
earlier functionalists put forth only one explanation
and that too with respect to latent functions. Merton’s
conceptual scheme guided empirical research, rather

100 Directorate of Distance Education, University of Mysore

than remaining a theory with several explanatory
claims, like the ‘grand theory’ of Parsons.

Merton emphasizes the existence

of dysfunctions. He highlighted problems that tend to
keep social systems from meeting all functional
requirements. One group's function could be another
group's dysfunction; a general incident could turn out
to be both functional and dysfunctional for the same
group. A certain degree of social cohesion eases the
productivity of a group and is therefore functional, but
it can become dysfunctional when it surpasses a
certain threshold, because then the members of the
group may become equally indulgent and fail to hold
each other to high performance standards. In order to
help people determine whether positive functions
outweigh dysfunctions, and vice versa, Merton
developed the concept of net balance. There must be
levels of functional analysis. Rather than solely
focusing on the analysis of society as a whole, Merton
argued that analysis could and should also be done on
an organization, institution or group.

2.4.5. Unanticipated consequences and

manifest and latent functions
Some of the crucial innovations that Merton
made to sociology include the description of the
unanticipated consequences of social action, latent
functions vs. manifest functions, and dysfunctions.
Unanticipated consequences are actions that have
both intended and unintended consequences.
Everyone is aware of the intended consequences, but
the unintended are more difficult to recognize, and
therefore, sociological analysis is required to uncover
what they may be. Wide field of human activity things
do not go as planned, and paradoxes and strange
outcomes are seen. One of these outcomes is the
‘self-defeating prophecy’, which through the fact of its
being publicized, is actually wrong.

101
Modern Sociological Theories
 Merton was able to illustrate this by
referencing Karl Marx's prediction that as societies
become more modern, the wealth will be concentrated
amongst fewer people, and the majority of society
would suffer from poverty and misery. This prediction
helped to stimulate the socialist movement, which in
some countries slowed the development that Marx had
predicted. The opposite of the "self-defeating
prophecy" then, is the ‘self-fulfilling prophecy’, when
an originally unfounded prophecy turns out to be
correct because it is believed and acted upon. Manifest
functions are the consequences that people observe or
expect, or what is intended; latent functions are those
neither recognized nor intended (Merton 1936: 894-
904).

In distinguishing between manifest and latent

functions, Merton argued that one must dig to
discover latent functions. Merton began by describing
the negative consequences of political machines, and
then changed the angle and demonstrated how the
people in charge of the machines, acting in their own
interest. Merton made it very clear that unanticipated
consequences and latent functions are not the same.
Latent functions are one type of unanticipated
consequences; functional for the designated system.

There are also two other types of unanticipated

consequences:

o Those that are dysfunctional for a designated system,

these comprise the latent dysfunctions,
o Those which are irrelevant to the system which they
affect neither functionally or dysfunctionally ... non-
functional consequences.

Robert K. Merton’s contribution to functionalism

lies in his clarification and codification of functional
analysis.
1. He strips functionalism bare of the unexamined and
insupportable assumptions of many of its practitioners,
2. He broadens the analysis to incorporate change as
well as stability,

102 Directorate of Distance Education, University of Mysore

3. He makes critical distinctions between functions and
personal motives,
4. Develops a descriptive protocol for functional analysis
to guide the analyst in social observations, and
5. He engages in the functional analysis of a variety of
socio-cultural phenomena to demonstrate the utility of
the perspective.

2.4.6. Functional Alternatives

Functionalists believe societies must have

certain characteristics in order to survive. Merton
shares this view but stresses that particular institutions
are not the only ones able to fulfil these functions; a
wide range of functional alternatives may be able to
perform the same task. This notion of functional
alternative is important because it alerts sociologists to
the similar functions different institutions may perform
and it further reduces the tendency of functionalism to
imply approval of the status quo (Wani 2017).

2.4.7. Check your progress

1. What is the important feature of middle range theory?
..............................................................................................................
2. What is anomie according to Merton?
..............................................................................................................
3. What is the cause for structural strain?
..............................................................................................................
..............................................................................................................
4. What are the types of deviance according to Merton?
..............................................................................................................
5. What are the postulates of functional analysis?
..............................................................................................................
..............................................................................................................
..............................................................................................................
6. What are dysfunctions?
..............................................................................................................

103
Modern Sociological Theories
7. What are latent functions?
..............................................................................................................
8. What are manifest functions?
..............................................................................................................
9. What are functional alternatives?
..............................................................................................................
..............................................................................................................

2.5. Let us sum up

In this unit you have learnt about the functional perspective of analysing
society. In fact it is taking a step further from structural perspective adding the
element that each part in the structure performs certain function for the stability
of the society. We have discussed three prominent contributors of functionalism.

The unique contribution of Malinowski for functionalism is fieldwork, with

in depth description of participant observation and ethnography. Malinowski’s
starting point is the individual who has the basic needs that must be satisfied. He
develops the theory of needs to understand individual in society/ culture.

Talcott parsons produced theory of action for the analysis of society. It is

based on the principle of analytical realism that insisted on the reference to an
objective reality. This is an attempt to maintain the scientific rigour of positivism
at the same time acknowledging subjective dimension. Parsons further developed
AGIL paradigm or scheme to analyse systems and subsystems in society. He also
constructed a set of variables popularly; known as pattern variables that can be
used to analyse the various systems in society.

Robert K Merton is well remembered in sociology for his middle range

theory and the strain theory. He sees the approach of Parsons as grand theory
but too general to use in the analysis of society. On the other hand he also
rejects the idea of understanding phenomenon in terms of their benefits. Merton
attempts a codification of functional analysis that taken into account the actual
dimensions of reality, integrating theory and empirical research. Hence he
developed the middle range theory. Another contribution of Merton to functional
analysis is the different types of functions as functions and dysfunction and also
latent functions and manifest function. This clarifies the levels of functioning.
Merton also reflects on the social structure and finds a disjunction between the
culturally defined goals and the means of achieving them. He develops his stain
theory to explain the deviant behaviour in society.

104 Directorate of Distance Education, University of Mysore

2.6. Glossary

o Field work – data collection by participant observation

o Material culture – includes implements and consumer goods
o Concrete categories – customs which include elements of social
organisation
o Constitutional charters – are cultural objects
o Types of needs – three types, basic, derived and integrative needs
o Analytical realism – reference to an objective reality
o Theory of action – Parsons general theoretical system for the analysis
of society
o System theory – scheme that Parsons used to analyze systems and
subsystems
o AGIL paradigm – includes components as Adaptation (A), Goal Attainment
(G), Integration (I), and (Pattern Maintenance) Latency (L)
o Pattern variables – a set of variables that can be used to analyze the
various systems Parsons constructed.
o Middle range theory – an approach to sociological theorizing proposed by
Merton aimed at integrating theory and empirical research
o Grand theory – an all-encompassing, unified theory
o Anomie – a state of normlessness in society
o Strain theory – A disjunction between culturally devised goals and
accepted means of achieving the desired ends.
o Typology of deviance – patterns of deviance adapted to structural strain
o Postulates – flaws in functionalism
o Dysfunction – those that tend to keep social systems from meeting all
functional requirements
o Manifest function – intended functions
o Latent function – unintended functions but still functional to the system
o Functional alternatives – a wide range of functional alternatives available
to fulfil the functions

2.7. Answer to check your progress

2.2.5.

1. Studying societies on the basis of first hand observation

2. The three levels in Malinowski’s approach in the study of society are - the
biological, the social structural and the symbolic.
3. Malinowski is called as the father of fieldwork for his in-depth description
of participant-observation and ethnography
4. According to Malinowski the three principles of fieldwork in functionalism
are-

105
Modern Sociological Theories
 a. Conducting field work must have scientific goals and values.
b. To study another culture competently one has to actually live in it.
c. Apply a number of special methods of collecting, manipulating and
fixing evidence.
5. Three components of Malinowski’s concept of culture are-
a. material culture,
b. concrete categories of human activity and
c. Constitutional charters for social groups and beliefs.
6. The techniques for studying culture are -
a. method of statistic documentation
b. Social action of everyday life to be observed and minutely recorded
c. Collect ethnographic statements, characteristic narratives, typical
utterances, items of folklore, etc.
7. The two fold needs in theory of need are, the needs of the individual and
the needs of the society
8. The types of needs discussed by Malinowski are, basic, derived and
integrative needs

2.3.5.

1. The theoretical system Parsons produced for the analysis of society is

"theory of action"
2. The scheme Parsons used to analyse the system and subsystems in
society is AGIL paradigm or the AGIL scheme
3. The four sub-processes Parsons explained in social evolutionism are -
a. differentiation;
b. adaptation;
c. inclusion; and
d. generalization of values.
4. The four components of AGIL model are - Adaptation (A), Goal Attainment
(G), Integration (I), and (Pattern Maintenance) Latency (L)
5. Parsons constructed Pattern variables to analyse the various systems in
society.
6. Pattern variables proposed by Parsons are –
a. Affectivity and Affective Neutrality
b. Collectivity or Self
c. Particularism and Universalism
d. Diffuseness and Specificity
e. Ascription and Achievement
f. Expressive and Instrumental

106 Directorate of Distance Education, University of Mysore

2.4.7.

1. Middle-range theory is an approach to sociological theorizing aimed at

integrating theory and empirical research
2. A situation caused by structural strain.
3. A disjunction between culturally devised goals and accepted means of
achieving the desired ends, which leads to strain.
4. The types of deviance according to Merton are – Innovation, Ritualism,
Retreatism and Rebellion
5. The postulates of functional analysis are -
a. The postulate of the functional unity of society,
b. The postulate of universal functionalism, and
c. The postulate of indispensability.
6. Dysfunctions are those that tend to keep social systems from meeting all
functional requirements
7. Latent functions are the unintended functions but still functional to the
system
8. Manifest functions are the intended functions.
9. Functional alternatives are a wide range of functional alternatives available
in the system to fulfil the functions.

2.8. Further Reading and References

Further Reading:
Abraham, M. Francis. 1990. Modern Sociological Theory: An Introduction. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.

Merton, R.K. 1975. ‘Structural Analysis in Sociology’. In P.M. Blau (ed),

Approaches to the Study of Social Structure. New York: Free Press.
Merton, Robert K. 1957. Social Theory and Social Structure. New York: The Free
Press.

Parsons, Talcott. 1951. The Social System. Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd

Sztompka, Piotr. 1986. Robert K. Merton, An intellectual profile. London.

Macmillan.

Turner, Jonathan H. 1987. The Structure of Sociological Theory. Jaipur: Rawat

Publications.

107
Modern Sociological Theories
References:

Bailey, Kenneth D. 1991. "Alternative Procedures for Macrosociological

Theorizing". Quality and Quantity. 25 (1): 37–55.

Boudon, Raymond. 1991. "What Middle-Range Theories Are". Contemporary

Sociology. 20 (4): 519–522.

Calhoun, Craig. 2003. "Robert K. Merton Remembered". Footnotes. 31 (3).

American Sociological Association.

Dorsey, Arris and Readable Collier. 2018. Origins of Sociological Theory. UK: Ed-
Tech Press. Pp 55-65.

Evans-Pritchard, E. 1954. Social anthropology. Free Press.

Firth, Raymond. 2006. Man and Culture: an evaluation of the work of Malinowski.
London; Routledge.

Jones, W Glenn. 2015. My Gone Austine. USA: GWJ Archives Project. P 346.

Kluckhohn. 1943. "Bronislaw Malinowski 1884–1942". The Journal of American

Folklore, Vol. 56, No. 221, pp. 208–219

Levine, Donald N. 1995. The Organism Metaphor in Sociology. Social Research.

Vol. 62, No. 2, pp. 239-265

Malinowski, B. 1922. Argonauts of the Western Pacific. London: Routledge and

Sons.

Malinowski, B. 1944. A Scientific Theory of Culture and Others Essays. Chapel

Hill, N. Carolina: The University of North Carolina Press.

Malinowski, B. and H. Ellis. 1929. The Sexual Life of Savages in North-Western

Melanesia. An Ethnographic Account of Courtship, Marriage, and Family
Life Among the Natives of the Trobriand Islands, British New Guinea.
London.

Mann, Doug. 2008. Understanding Society: A Survey of Modern Social Theory.

Don Mills, Ont.: Oxford UP, 2008

McNeill, Patrick and Charles Townley. 1981. Fundamentals of Sociology, UK:

Hutchinson Educational.

Merton, Robert K. 1936. “The Unanticipated Consequences of Purposive Social

Action.” American Sociological Review 1:6: 894-904.

108 Directorate of Distance Education, University of Mysore

Merton, Robert K. 1938. “Social Structure and Anomie.” American Sociological
Review 3: 672-682.

Merton, Robert K. 1949. “Social Structure and Anomie: Revisions and

Extensions,” in The Family, edited by Ruth Anshen. New York: Harper
Brothers.

Merton, Robert K. 1957. Social Theory and Social Structure. New York: The Free
Press.

Mooney, Linda A. 2013. Understanding Social problems. USA: Wadsworth

Cengage Learning. P 8.

Morgan, D. H. J. 1975. Social Theory and the Family. London: Routledge and
Kegan Paul.

Parsons, Talcott 1970. The Social System. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd.
pp. 26 - 50

Parsons, Talcott. 1951. The Social System. Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd

Parsons, Talcott. 1980. "On Theory and Metatheory". Humboldt Journal of Social
Relations. 7:1 - Fall/Winter 1979–1980. p. 52.

Richard, Audrey. 1932. Hunger and work in a savage tribe: a functional study of
nutrition among the southern Bantu. London: Routledge & Sons, Ltd.

Turner, Jonathan H. 1987. The Structure of Sociological Theory. Jaipur: Rawat

Publications.

Wallace, Ruth A and Alison Wolf. 1986. Contemporary sociological theory:

continuing the classical tradition. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Wani, Irshad Ahmed. 2017. The Sociology, a study of Society. New Delhi:
Educareation Publishing. P 130.

109
Modern Sociological Theories
2.9. Model questions

Short answer questions

1. What is strain theory?
2. What is social evolutionism?
3. What middle range theory
4. Describe action theory
5. According to Malinowski ‘culture is an integrated whole’, explain.
6. What are dysfunctions?
7. Mention the prominent functional thinkers
8. What are the functional alternatives?
9. What is AGIL Paradigm?
10. What is anomie?

Short note questions

1. Write a note on the growth of functionalism
2. Discuss the theory of needs
3. According to Malinowski what are the techniques of studying culture?
4. What are manifest and latent functions?
5. Write a note on social structure and anomie
6. Briefly explain the strain theory of Merton
7. Describe Merton’s functional analysis
8. Write a note on Merton’s functional alternatives
9. Explain the theory of needs
10. Discuss the pattern variables
11. Explain Parsons’ theory of social action
12. Analyse Merton’s Middle Range Theory

Long essay questions

1. Explain the System Theory of Talcott Parsons
2. Discuss the Action Theory of Parsons
3. Explain the pattern variables discussed by Talcott Parsons
4. Examine the functional analysis of RK Merton
5. Examine the postulates of functionalism
6. Discuss the strain theory of Merton
7. Explain middle range theories
8. Explain manifest and latent functions with suitable examples
9. Explain the theory of needs of Malinowski

110 Directorate of Distance Education, University of Mysore

 Unit 3. Conflict Approach
Unit Structure

3.0. Learning Outcomes

3.1. Introduction
3.2. Georg Simmel
3.2.1. Key Concepts in Simmel’s Sociology
3.2.2. Simmel’s views on conflict
3.2.3. Check your progress
3.3. Lewis A Coser
3.3.1. Realistic Conflict and Unrealistic Conflict
3.3.2. The impact of conflict
3.3.3. Social conflict and the theory of social change
3.3.4. Functions of Conflict
3.3.5. Check your progress
3.4. Ralf Dahrendorf
3.4.1. Class Conflict Theory Dahrendorf
3.4.2. Authority Component
3.4.3. Social Groups and Social Change
3.4.4. Nature of Social Change
3.4.5. Check your progress
3.5. Randall Collins
3.5.1. Interaction Ritual Chains Theory
3.5.2. Main elements in Collin’s Conflict Sociology
3.5.3. Geopolitics
3.5.4. Geopolitical Dynamics
3.5.5. Check your progress
3.6. Let us sum up
3.7. Glossary
3.8. Answer to check your progress
3.9. Further Reading and References
3.10. Model questions

3.0. Learning Outcomes:

The objective of this unit is to understand the alternative approach to

structural and functional perspective in sociology. After reading this unit you will
be able to –

111
Modern Sociological Theories
LO1. Understand the key concepts in conflict perspective
LO2. Learn about the views of Simmel on conflict
LO3. Understand the functions of conflict
LO4. Analyse the possible change through conflict
LO5. Understand the components of conflict other than economy
LO6. Learn to analyse the society form the inequality and conflict components

3.1. Introduction
Conflict theory is a perspective in sociology that
emphasize a materialist interpretation of history,
dialectical method of analysis, a critical stance toward
existing social arrangements, and political programme
of revolution or reform. Conflict theory draws attention
to power differentials, such as class conflict, and
dominant ideologies. It is therefore a macro-level
analysis of society. Conflict theory does not refer to a
unified school of thought. Certain conflict theories set
out to highlight the ideological aspects inherent in
traditional thought. While many of these perspectives
hold parallels.

Conflict theory is most commonly associated

with Karl Marx. Based on a dialectical materialist
account of history, Marxism conceived that capitalism,
like previous socio-economic systems, would inevitably
produce internal tensions leading to its own
destruction. Marx ushered in radical change,
advocating proletarian revolution and freedom from
the ruling classes. Karl Marx was aware that most of
the people living in capitalist societies did not see how
the system shaped the entire operation of society.
Many of the members in capitalistic societies see the
rich as having earned their wealth through hard work
and education, and see the poor as lacking in skill and
initiative. Marx rejected this type of thinking and
termed it false consciousness, (explanations of social
problems as the shortcomings of individuals rather
than the flaws of society). Marx wanted to replace this
kind of thinking with class consciousness, (the
workers' recognition of themselves as a class unified in
opposition to capitalists and ultimately to the capitalist

112 Directorate of Distance Education, University of Mysore

system itself). In general, Marx wanted the
proletarians to rise up against the capitalists and
overthrow the capitalist system.

Two early conflict theorists were the Polish-

Austrian sociologist and political theorist Ludwig
Gumplowicz and the American sociologist and
palaeontologist Lester F. Ward. Although these
developed their theories independently, they had
much in common and approached conflict from a
comprehensive anthropological and evolutionary point-
of-view as opposed to Marx's rather exclusive focus on
economic factors (Dorsey 2018: 66-71).

Gumplowicz describes how civilization has been

shaped by conflict between cultures and ethnic
groups. large complex human societies evolved from
the war and conquest; the winner of a war would
enslave the losers; eventually a complex caste system
develops. Gumplowicz understood conflict in all its
forms: class conflict, race conflict and ethnic conflict.

Ward directly attempted to refute the elite

business class' laissez-faire philosophy as advocated
by Herbert Spencer. At the most basic level Ward saw
human nature itself to be deeply conflicted between
self-aggrandizement and altruism, between emotion
and intellect, and between male and female. These
conflicts would be then reflected in society and Ward
assumed there had been a "perpetual and vigorous
struggle" among various "social forces" that shaped
civilization. Ward was more optimistic and believed
that it was possible to build on and reform present
social structures with the help of sociological analysis.

C. Wright Mills has been called the founder

of modern conflict theory. In Mills's view, social
structures are created through conflict between people
with differing interests and resources. Individuals and
resources, in turn, are influenced by these structures
and by the "unequal distribution of power and
resources in the society." The power elite of American
society had "emerged from the fusion of the corporate

113
Modern Sociological Theories
 elite, the Pentagon, and the executive branch of
government." The interests of these elite were
opposed to those of the people. The policies of the
power elite would result in "increased escalation of
conflict, production of weapons of mass destruction,
and possibly the annihilation of the human race."

The conflict perspective views the social world

as riddled with tension and strife. While stability and
order (structural-functional approach) remain
recognized facts of the social world, the conflict
perspective seeks to discover the tensions that exist
behind the disguise of order. Some segments of
human systems hold more power, money, prestige,
and other valuables than do other segments; hence,
there is inevitably a conflict of interests between the
"haves" and the "have-nots." Those who possess
valuable resources naturally wish to retain them, while
those without resources want to secure them by some
means or the other.

In the functional perspective, the social world is

viewed as a system of parts; the goal of functionalism
is to analyze the impact of certain processes on the
overall system. The functional approach is typically
concerned with stability and order among system
parts, however, the conflict perspective focuses on the
tensions and conflicts among system parts. For
example, rather than study the needs met by the
economy of a society, conflict sociologists would study
how those who own and control the economy seek to
deny resources, such as power and money, to those
who merely work in factories and corporate
bureaucracies. They would analyze how such opposed
interests produce tension, overt conflict, and eventual
change in the relations between owners and workers
in the economy.

Like functionalists, conflict sociologists analyze

macrostructures. However, they emphasize the conflict
processes inherent in these structures. Examination of
tensions between nation states, social classes,

114 Directorate of Distance Education, University of Mysore

employers and employees, communities, ethnic and
racial populations, and other aggregates of people is
more typical than the study of family tension,
interpersonal disputes, and similar face-to-face
conflicts. The conflict sociologist is more concerned
with the big events that shape entire communities,
organizations, societies, and even world systems.

In recent years, it has been incorporated into

microanalysis of human organization. Such analysis
explores the relations among individual people in
concrete situations. It assumes that individuals in any
social relationship have different levels of resources,
such as knowledge, prestige, power, attractiveness, or
anything else that people value. Those with more
resources than others use their means to gain
advantage, which creates the potential for competition
and conflict among individuals. From this close
perspective, any interaction among people can involve
a conflict of interests between those with more and
those with fewer resources. In other words, individuals
negotiate over resources in order to achieve some
degree of balance and accommodation to each other.

This view of conflict has often used

an exchange theoretical orientation. Exchange theory
is, in fact, a variation of conflict theory. It is also a
perspective that permits analysis of both the
interpersonal micro-dynamics and the large-scale
macro-dynamics of conflict processes, using a
common theoretical orientation.

The exchange approach is concerned with the

distribution of valuable resources, as money, power,
and prestige. Human affairs are viewed as exchanges
of precious resources. Whether among individuals,
corporations, communities, or nations, social relations
always involve one party's seeking to gain valuable
resources from another. In order to gain these
valuables, other desirables must be given up. Thus,
social relationships involve efforts by individuals and
collective units to extract a profit in the exchange of

115
Modern Sociological Theories
 resources. When one individual lends assistance to
another, something is expected in return-typically
approval, esteem, or willingness to return the favour
later. Union and management bargain for agreements
over how much labour is to be exchanged for money,
power, and fringe benefits. When corporations
compete in the market, each seeks to realize monetary
profit. When units received less than they give up,
tension and conflict are likely to occur. When the
exchange of resources is considered equitable, some
degree of stability in relations is likely.

Karl Marx inspired modern conflict theory.

Seeing the misery of workers and peasants in early
industrial Europe, he envisioned for a revolution that
he believed would better their lives. He saw society as
held together not so much by consensus over ideas as
by power. Those with power could force and
manipulate others to do their bidding. Power comes
from property, from owning the means of production
on which the economic system and people's survival
depends. Those who possess the land in agricultural
societies have power, those who own factories in
industrial societies have power, and this power is
immense. Owners coerce, they manipulate ideas, and
they convince people that whatever exploitation they
do is in people's best interests.

Marx emphasized that societies reveal natural

sources of conflict and tension. Order and stability are
always subject to countervailing forces of disorder and
change. The unequal distribution of power makes this
conflict inevitable. Each type of economic system-
slavery, feudalism, and capitalism, reveals a different
set of power relationships between those who own
property and those who do not. But in each type those
without power seek to gain it, and once they have
power, others attempt to take it from them.

116 Directorate of Distance Education, University of Mysore

3.2. Georg Simmel
Simmel was one of the first generation of
German sociologists. His neo-Kantian approach laid
the foundations for sociological anti-positivism,
presenting analyses of social individuality and
fragmentation. Simmel referred culture to "the
cultivation of individuals through the agency of
external forms which have been objectified in the
course of history". Simmel discussed social and
cultural phenomena in terms of "forms" and
"contents" with a transient relationship; form
becoming content, and vice versa, depending on
the context. In this sense he was a forerunner to structuralist reasoning in social
sciences. With his work on the metropolis, Simmel was a precursor of urban
sociology, symbolic interactionism and social network analysis. Simmel's work
served as an inspiration for the development of structuralist approaches to study
society, and to the development of the discipline of sociology in general.

In contrast to all the other sociologists, Simmel's interest in current affairs

and in social and political issues was minimal. Occasionally he would comment in
newspaper articles on questions of the day, such as social medicine, the position
of women, or criminal insanity, but such topical concerns were clearly peripheral
to him. With the outbreak of the war Simmel threw himself into war propaganda
with passionate intensity.

Simmel was a most prolific writer. More than two hundred of his articles
appeared in a great variety of journals, newspapers, and magazines during his
lifetime, and several more were published posthumously. He wrote fifteen major
works in the fields of philosophy, ethics, sociology, and cultural criticism.

After his dissertation, his first publication, entitled On Social Differentiation

(1890), was devoted to sociological problems, but for a number of years
thereafter he published mainly in the field of ethics and the philosophy of history,
returning to sociology only at a later date. His two major early works, The
Problems of the Philosophy of History and the two volumes of the ‘Introduction
to the Science of Ethics’, were published in 1892-93; these were followed in
1900, The Philosophy of Money. After several smaller volumes on religion, on
Kant and Goethe, and on Nietzsche and Schopenhauer, Simmel produced his
major sociological work, Sociology: Investigations on the Forms of Sociation, in
1908. Much of its content had already been published previously in journal
articles. He was unable to develop a consistent sociological or philosophical
system, and did not succeed in creating a "school" or a few direct disciples.

117
Modern Sociological Theories
 Among Americans Robert Park's work finds Simmel's profound impact.
German sociologists Karl Mannheim, Alfred Vierkandt, Hans Freyer and Leopold
von Wiese also were influenced by Simmel's work. Theodor Adorno, Max
Horkheimer, and the other representatives of the Frankfort school of neo-Marxist
sociology owe him a great deal, especially in their criticism of mass culture and
mass society. Modern German philosophers from Nicolai Hartmann to Martin
Heidegger were also indebted to him.

Simmel's most famous works today are The Problems of the Philosophy of
History (1892), The Philosophy of Money (1900), The Metropolis and Mental
Life (1903), Soziologie (1908), and Fundamental Questions of Sociology (1917).
On Social Differentiation (1890), Introduction to the Science of Ethics (1893),
and Sociology: Investigations on the Forms of Sociation (1908). He also wrote
extensively on the philosophy of Schopenhauer and Nietzsche, as well on art,
most notably his book Rembrandt: An Essay in the Philosophy of Art (1916). In
1909 Simmel, together with Ferdinand Tönnies and Max Weber, and others, was
a co-founder of the German Society for Sociology.

There are four basic levels of concern in Simmel’s work (Ritzer 2007: 158-188).

1. His assumptions about the psychological workings of social life.

2. His interest in the sociological workings of interpersonal relationships.

3. His work on the structure of and changes in the Zeitgeist, the social and
cultural “spirit” of his times. He also adopted the principle of emergence,
which is the idea that higher levels emerge from the lower levels.

4. He dealt with his views in the nature and inevitable fate of humanity. His
most microscopic work dealt with forms and the interaction that takes place
with different types of people. The forms include subordination, super-
ordination, exchange, conflict and sociability.

3.2.1. Key Concepts in Simmel’s

Sociology
Dialectical thinking

A dialectical approach is multi-causal, multi-

directional, that integrates facts and value. This
approach rejects the idea that there are hard and fast
dividing lines between social phenomena. It focuses
on social relations; looks not only at the present but

118 Directorate of Distance Education, University of Mysore

also at the past and future, and is deeply concerned
with both conflicts and contradictions. Simmel’s
sociology was concerned with relationships, especially
interaction, and was known as a “methodological
relationist”. This approach is based on the idea that
interactions exist between everything. He was mostly
interested in dualisms, conflicts, and contradictions in
whatever realm of the social world he happened to be
working on (Ibid).

Individual consciousness

Simmel focused on forms of association and

paid little attention to individual consciousness.
Simmel believed in the creative consciousness and this
belief can be found in diverse forms of interaction, the
ability of actors to create social structures and the
disastrous effects those structures had on the
creativity of individuals. Simmel also believed that
social and cultural structures come to have a life of
their own (Ibid).

Sociability

"All the forms of association by which a mere

sum of separate individuals are made into a 'society,'
"he describes as a, "higher unity," composed of
individuals. He was fascinated by the "impulse to
sociability in man". He described it as "associations
through which the solitariness of the individuals is
resolved into togetherness, a union with others," a
process by which, "the impulse to sociability distils out
of the realities of social life the pure essence of
association," and "through which a unity is made,"
which he refers to as, "the free-playing, interacting
interdependence of individuals" (Ibid 158).

He defines sociability as, "the play-form of

association," driven by, amicability, breeding, cordiality
and attractiveness of all kinds. To occur this free
association the personalities must not emphasize
themselves too individually, with too much abandon
and aggressiveness. This world of sociability, a

119
Modern Sociological Theories
 democracy of equals, without friction, so long as
people blend together in a spirit of fun and affection to
bring about among themselves a pure interaction, free
of any disturbing material accent (Ibid 159).

Simmel describes idealized interactions, "the

vitality of real individuals, in their sensitivities and
attractions, in the fullness of their impulses and
convictions...is but a symbol of life, as it shows itself in
the flow of a lightly amusing play," or "a symbolic
play, in whose aesthetic charm all the finest and most
highly sublimated dynamics of social existence and its
riches are gathered" (Ibid 163).

Dyad and triad

A dyad is a two-person group; a triad is a

three-person group. In a dyad a person is able to
retain their individuality. There is no other person to
shift the balance of the group thereby allowing those
within the dyad to maintain their individuality. In the
triad group there is a possibility of a dyad forming
within the triad thereby threatening the remaining
individual's independence and causing them to
become the subordinate of the group. This seems to
be an essential part of society which becomes a
structure. Unfortunately as the group (structure)
becomes increasingly greater the individual becomes
separated and grows more alone, isolated and
segmented.

Simmel's view was somewhat ambiguous with

respect to group size. On one hand he believed that
the bigger the group the better for the individual. In a
larger group it would be harder to exert control on the
individual, but on the other hand with a large group
there is a possibility of the individual becoming distant
and impersonal. Therefore, in an effort for the
individual to cope with the larger group they must
become a part of a smaller group such as the family
(Ibid ).

120 Directorate of Distance Education, University of Mysore

Distance

The value of something is determined by the

distance from its actor. In "The Stranger", Simmel
discusses how if a person is too close to the actor they
are not considered a stranger, but if they are too far
they would no longer be a part of a group. The
particular distance from a group allows a person to
have objective relationships with different group
members (Ibid).

The Philosophy of Money

In this major work, Simmel saw money as a

component of life which helped us understand the
totality of life. Simmel believed people created value
by making objects, then separating themselves from
that object and then trying to overcome that distance.
He found that things which were too close were not
considered valuable and things which were too far for
people to get were also not considered valuable.
Considered in determining value was the scarcity,
time, sacrifice, and difficulties involved in getting the
object. For Simmel, city life led to a division of labour
and increased financialization. As financial transactions
increase, some emphasis shifts to what the individual
can do, instead of who the individual is. Financial
matters in addition to emotions are in play (Ibid).

The Stranger

Simmel’s concept of distance comes into play

where he identifies a stranger as a person that is far
away and close at the same time. The Stranger is
close to us, insofar as we feel between him and
ourselves common features of a national, social,
occupational, or generally human nature. He is far
from us, insofar as these common features extend
beyond him or us, and connect us only because they
connect a great many people (Simmel 1976).

A stranger is far enough away that he is

unknown but close enough that it is possible to get to

121
Modern Sociological Theories
 know him. In a society there must be a stranger. If
everyone is known then there is no person that is able
to bring something new to everybody. The stranger
bears a certain objectivity that makes him a valuable
member to the individual and society. People let down
their inhibitions around him and confess openly
without any fear. This is because there is a belief that
the Stranger is not connected to anyone significant
and therefore does not pose a threat to the
confessor's life.

Simmel observes that because of their peculiar

position in the group, strangers often carry out special
tasks that the other members of the group are either
incapable or unwilling to carry out. For example,
strangers made a living from trade, which was often
viewed as an unpleasant activity by "native" members
of those societies. In some societies, they were also
employed as arbitrators and judges, because they
were expected to treat rival factions in society with
an impartial attitude. Objectivity may also be defined
as freedom.

The objective individual is bound by no

commitments which could prejudice his perception,
understanding, and evaluation of the given. On one
hand the stranger's opinion does not really matter
because of his lack of connection to society, but on
the other the stranger’s opinion does matter, because
of his lack of connection to society. He holds a certain
objectivity that allows him to be unbiased and decide
freely without fear. He is simply able to see, think, and
decide without being influenced by the opinion of
others.

Secrecy

According to Simmel, in small groups, secrets

are less needed because everyone seems to be more
similar. In larger groups secrets are needed as a result
of their heterogeneity. In secret societies, groups are
held together by the need to maintain the secret, a
condition that also causes tension because the society

122 Directorate of Distance Education, University of Mysore

relies on its sense of secrecy and exclusion (Simmel
1906: 441–498). For Simmel, secrecy exists even in
relationships as intimate as marriage. In revealing all,
marriage becomes dull and boring and loses all
excitement. Simmel saw a general thread in the
importance of secrets and the strategic use of
ignorance: To be social beings who are able to cope
successfully with their social environment, people need
clearly defined realms of unknowns for themselves.
Furthermore, sharing a common secret produces a
strong "we feeling." The modern world depends on
honesty and therefore a lie can be considered more
devastating than it ever has been before. Money
allows a level of secrecy that has never been
attainable before, because money allows for “invisible”
transactions, due to the fact that money is now an
integral part of human values and beliefs. It is possible
to buy silence.

Flirtation

In his multi-layered essay, published in 1923,

Simmel discusses flirtation as a generalized type of
social interaction. According to Simmel, "to define
flirtation as simply a 'passion for pleasing' is to confuse
the means to an end with the desire for this end." The
distinctiveness of the flirt lies in the fact that she
awakens delight and desire by means of a unique
antithesis and synthesis; through the alternation of
accommodation and denial. In the behaviour of the
flirt, the man feels the proximity and interpenetration
of the ability and inability to acquire something. This is
in essence the "price." A sidelong glance with the head
half-turned is characteristic of flirtation in its most
banal guise (Simmel 1984).

Fashion

In the eyes of Simmel, fashion is a form of

social relationship that allows those who wish to
conform to the demands of a group to do so. It also
allows some to be individualistic by deviating from the
norm. There are many social roles in fashion and both

123
Modern Sociological Theories
 objective culture and individual culture can have an
influence on people. In the initial stage everyone
adopts what is fashionable and those that deviate
from the fashion inevitably adopt a whole new view of
what they consider fashion.

Simmel argued that following what is in fashion

involve dualities as also the effort on the part of some
people to be of fashion. Unfashionable people view
those who follow a fashion as being imitators and
themselves as nonconformists; but Simmel argued,
the latter are simply engaging in an inverse form of
imitation. This means, those who try to be different or
"unique," are not, because in trying to be different
they become a part of a new group that has labelled
themselves different or "unique" (Ritzer 2007: 163).

3.2.2. Simmel’s views on conflict

Simmel says several remarkable things about

conflict in society. His reasoning often appears
complicated, and often, quite profound. Moreover, he
is emphatically a precursor to all who engage in
serious thinking about the place of conflict in social
life. He argues that conflict is inseparable from social
interaction, and thus “sociation”; and is even itself a
form of sociation. He sees conflict, as “one of the most
vivid interactions” and, as an example of social
interaction, by definition beyond the scope of social
acts by the lone individual. Furthermore, conflict is not
the cause of some sort of pathology of human
interaction, but the resolution or ‘cure’ of such
pathology (Abraham 1982).

Conflict is not, tautologically speaking for a

moment, the cause of conflict, the cause of itself.
Rather, Simmel sees it as both a consequence and a
resolution, of “divergent dualisms”, that is, of “the
tension between contrasts”, between yin and yang,
thesis and antithesis. His is deliberately not a Marxian,
though he uses certain Marxian terms, such as: "the
antithetical and the convergent"; Conflict is "the
synthesis of elements that work both against and for

124 Directorate of Distance Education, University of Mysore

one another"; "Conflict itself resolves the tension
between contrasts" and "unity of harmony and
contradiction"(Simmel 1955: 14-15).

He is not anti-Marx; he chooses to strike his

own path. The phenomenology of social life, suggests
to him that conflict's resolving function (effect) is
triggered, ultimately, by the presence and interplay of
certain “dissociating factors”: “hate, envy, need,
desire”. The most likely dialectical consequence of
conflict is not necessarily a Marxian sort of overthrow
but rather peace between and among the parties. It is
not conflict, then, that is to be resolved when there is
conflict since, it does not cause itself. Instead,
attention must in principle and pointedly be paid to
the dissociating factors, the real causes of conflict.

Broadly, the “dissociating factors” call to mind,

and are a selection from, the seven deadly sins of the
bible, namely: (1) Lust/desire/lechery, (2) gluttony/
over-consumption/ selfishness, (3) greed/avarice/
hoarding, (4) physical laziness/ sloth/despair, (5)
wrath/hatred/anger, (6) envy/jealousy, and (7) pride/
vanity. Simmel thus reverts to Christian theology for
clarity about, and validation of, the causality of
conflict. Consciously or subconsciously, he turns that
theology into his conceptual scheme.

For Simmel, conflict is not “a disruptive

temporary phase. Instead, peace and conflict are
equivalent faces of social reality; neither is inherently
constructive or destructive”. Conflict is neither
disruptive but always temporary', nor temporary but
always disruptive. It is a resolving process, with,
though he does not explicitly say so, a clear dialectical
trajectory (or "Laws of Motion").

Harmony and conflict are neither equivalent

'faces' of social life, nor, always co-present in equal
measure. In clear dialectical motion, "interpenetration"
precedes "synthesis" and prepares the grounds for it.
Prior to a particular form of synthesis, there is always
some kind of imbalance, the very reason a resolution

125
Modern Sociological Theories
 is sought, or seeks to impose itself, before it is in turn
negated: if not here, in this web of group affiliations,
then there or there and then.

His stance on “the conflict is not there to be

solved” can be considered the dictum which
summarizes Simmel's idea. There is no starting unity,
a good original nature or a romantic peace stability
that at some point would be broken so that, once
settled, the conflict could be restored. On the
contrary, it is the becoming of ever-conflicting
opposites that produces a common reality. Individuals,
groups and institutions are built within a dense "web
of conflicts" that produces "unity among differences",
which will be questioned in turn. Hence the theoretical
proposal: what is common, peace, is not only gained
by eliminating the negative component, nor by
increasing the positive component; it results instead
from the management of forces that are both
constructive and destructive, cooperative and selfish.
Conflict flows in the tiniest spheres, giving matter to
both individual and collective life. Simmel’s method
implicitly calls for a non-violent rationality, aimed at
reaching a 'modest amount of conflict' or intolerance,
in order to preserve a relatively 'sufficient' degree of
peace or social integration.

George Simmel in all his works stressed both

the connection as well as the tensions between the
individual and society. Individual is both a product of
society as well as the link in all-social processes in
society. Relationship between individual and society is
therefore dual in nature. Individual is at one and the
same time within the society and outside it. He exists
for society as well as for himself. Social individual
cannot be partly social and partly individual. Social
individual is shaped by a fundamental unity in which
we find a synthesis of two logically opposed elements.
They are, an individual both a being and social link, is
himself as well as a product of society. This dialectical
approach brings out the dynamic inter-linkages as well
as conflicts that exist between social units in society.

126 Directorate of Distance Education, University of Mysore

 In real life no society can exist with absolute
harmony. Conflict is an essential and complementary
aspect of consensus or harmony in society. He
maintains that socialization or human interactions
involve contradictory elements like harmony and
conflict, attraction and repulsion, love and hatred and
so on. He also made a distinction between social
appearances and social realities. There are certain
relationships of conflict that give the appearance of
being negative to both the participants as well as the
outsiders. But if we analyze these conflictive
relationships they have latent positive aspects.

Summing up of Simmel’s views on conflict, we

can say, there are five basic functions which conflict
serves, both between groups and within a single
group. They are: connection, definition, revitalization,
reconnaissance, social glue and safety valve.

1. A form of connection.
Conflict makes a basic form of exchange and
interaction. Being described as "not getting along" is
often considered socially undesirable. We are not to
fight; we can just walk away. We have something to
lose by doing so. Conflict provides a basic way of
asserting one's relationship with others. Among groups
conflict maintains a form of negotiation. Within groups
it does so by releasing tensions among members that
might harm the group. One of the features of
professional conduct is that persons who do not like
another personally can work together.

2. Identity/boundary definition.
Conflict among groups sharpens their exterior
boundaries. It heightens the sense of "us" versus
"them." Within groups conflict focuses the differences
between ranks and social levels. The officer
demonstrates the rank and authority in the process of
ordering what to do.

3. Revitalization of norms/traditions/mores.
Conflict among groups revitalizes traditions and
norms. In the sports activities the major factor in

127
Modern Sociological Theories
 sports is in the group solidarity the conflict promotes.
Within groups, the individual is confronted with an
opportunity to recommit to the values that underlie
membership in the group.

4. Reconnaissance and information gathering.

Information gathering, reconnaissance is a
function of conflict. Small-scale conflicts determine
whether large-scale conflicts are worth the trouble.
Among groups conflict serves this information-
gathering purpose. Within groups reconnaissance
(investigation) serves to determine whether members
will accommodate or reject a deviant member.

5. As social glue and safety valve.

Each conflict is a push away from one party
toward other parties. It can lead to creation of
associations or coalitions. In a community with
multiple, crisscrossing associations and coalitions
alliances along one major line of cleavage can be
prevented. Similarly the safety valves provide
opportunities to displace conflict from original object.
It institutionalizes conflict so that it gets resolved.

3.2.3. Check your progress

1. What is sociability?
.................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................
2. What is diad and triad?
.................................................................................................................
3. What does Simmel mean in the philosophy of money?
.................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................
4. Who is a stranger?
.................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................

128 Directorate of Distance Education, University of Mysore

3.3. Lewis A Coser
Lewis Coser was the first sociologist to try to
bring together structural functionalism and conflict
theory; his work was focused on finding the
functions of social conflict. Coser argued,
with Georg Simmel, that conflict might serve to
solidify a loosely structured group. In a society that
seems to be disintegrating, conflict with another
society, inter-group conflict, may restore the
integrative core. Similarly, conflict with one group
may also serve to produce cohesion by leading to a
series of alliances with other groups.

Conflicts within a society, intra-group conflict, can bring some ordinarily

isolated individuals into an active role. Conflicts also serve a communication
function. Prior to conflict, groups may be unsure of their adversary’s position, but
as a result of conflict, positions and boundaries between groups often become
clarified, leaving individuals better able to decide on a proper course of action in
relation to their adversary.

The major works of Coser include: The Functions of Social Conflict, 1956;
The American Communist Party (with Irving Howe), 1957; Sociological Theory,
1964; Men of ideas, 1965; Political Sociology, 1967; Continuities in the Study of
Social Conflict, 1967; A Handful of Thistles: Collected Papers in Moral Conviction,
1968; Sociological Theory (with Bernard Rosenberg), 1969; Masters of
Sociological Thought, 1970; The Seventies: Problems and Proposals (with Irving
Howe), 1972; Greedy Institutions, 1974; The New Conservatives: A Critique from
the Left (with Irving Howe), 1974; The Idea of Social Structure, Papers in Honor
of R. K. Merton, 1975; The Uses of Controversy in Sociology, 1976; Refugee
Scholars in America, 1984; Conflict and Consensus, 1984; Books: The Culture
and Commerce of Publishing (with Charles Kadushin and Walter W. Powell), 1985
and Voices of Dissent (with Maurice Halbwachs), 1992

Contemporary sociologists have focused on certain aspects of social

behaviour while ignoring a few other theoretically important aspects. One of
these neglected aspects of sociological theory, according to Coser, concerns the
functions of social conflict.

In order to develop a theory of social conflict, Coser takes the ideas of

Georg Simmel, in his analysis of conflict in terms of interactive processes and
depicts conflict as "a form of socialization." No group can be entirely harmonious.
Group formation is a result of both association and dissociation, so that both

129
Modern Sociological Theories
conflict and cooperation serve a social function. Therefore, some degree of
conflict is an essential element in group formation.

Coser discusses how conflict serves the function of establishing and

maintaining group identities. According to Simmel, conflict sets boundaries
between groups by strengthening group consciousness and awareness of
separateness from other groups. Reciprocal antagonisms between groups
preserve social divisions and systems of stratification. These reciprocal
"repulsions" both establish the identity of the various groups within the system
and also help to maintain the overall social system. The distinction between one's
own group and "outsiders" is established in and through conflict. This includes
conflicts between classes, nations, ethnic groups, and political parties. In social
structures where there is a substantial amount of mobility, the mutual hostility
among groups is accompanied by the lower strata's attraction to the higher
strata. Such structures tend to provide many occasions for conflict.

Coser describes some positive functions served by the expression of

hostility in conflict. Simmel maintains that such expression maintains
relationships under conditions of stress and thereby prevents group dissolution.
Conflict "clears the air" and allows for the free behavioural expression of hostile
dispositions. This might be thought of as a "safety-valve theory" of conflict,
according to which conflict serves as an outlet for hostilities so that relationships
between antagonists can be maintained. Though hostility is expressed, the
relationship as such remains unchanged. Pressure to modify the system to meet
changing conditions is reduced.

3.3.1. Realistic Conflict and Unrealistic

Conflict

Coser discusses a distinction between "realistic"

conflict and "unrealistic" conflict. Conflicts that arise
from frustration of specific demands and are pursued
as a means toward results are "realistic" conflicts.
Non-realistic conflicts, on the other hand, result from
one antagonist's need to release tension. Here conflict
is an end in itself, and need not be oriented toward
the attainment of specific results. Rather, it is primarily
a response to frustrations in which the object appears
suitable for a release of aggressiveness. There are no
alternatives to means, though the target of hostility
can easily change. Realistic conflict, on the other
hand, will cease if the actor can find alternative ways

130 Directorate of Distance Education, University of Mysore

to achieve his end. Means other than conflict are
potentially available. This distinction shows why we
should not explain the social phenomena of conflict
entirely in terms of tension release (Coser 1956).

Hostile impulses do not suffice to account for

social conflict, and not every conflict is accompanied
by aggressiveness. Conflict simply presupposes a
relationship and social interaction. Nevertheless,
realistic conflicts are often accompanied by distorted
sentiments. There is a distinction between realistic
reasons for engaging in conflict on the one hand, and
the emotional energies involved during the conflict on
the other. There is often failure to realize that conflict
may be motivated by these two distinct yet
intermingled factors: realistic conflict issues and
parties' affective investment in the conflict. The main
function of the mediator is to eliminate non-realistic
elements of aggressiveness so that opponents can
deal more realistically with their competing claims.

In relationships in which individuals are very

deeply involved, both feelings of attraction as well as
feelings of hostility are likely to arise. The closer the
relationship, the greater the affective investment, and
the more potential there is for ambivalence.
Antagonism is a central part of intimate social relations
and a by-product of cooperation and frequent
interaction. Close social relationships may therefore be
said to contain an essential element of ambivalence.

Coser suggests that the closer the relationship,

the more intense the conflict. Given the ambivalence,
it is understandable that conflict would arouse very
strong feelings and lead to intense conflict. Also, the
fear of intense conflict is likely to lead parties to
suppress their hostile feelings, the accumulation of
which is likely to further intensify the conflict once it
breaks out. If parties' total personalities and identities
are involved in the relationship, there is greater
likelihood that non-realistic, hostile elements will come
into play.

131
Modern Sociological Theories
 Individuals who participate extensively in
certain groups are typically concerned with that
group's continuance. They are likely to react violently
if someone with whom they have shared the cares and
responsibilities of group life wishes to break away
from the group. Such betrayal threatens group unity
and is often perceived by a close group as a symbolic
threat to its identity. Violent reactions to disloyalty
may result; intense conflict and group loyalty are thus
two aspects of the same relation.

The more frequent the interaction, the more

occasions for hostile interaction. However, frequent
occasions for conflict do not necessarily result in
frequent conflicts. This is because the closeness of
relationship and the strong mutual attachment may
induce parties to avoid conflict. When conflict occurs,
it is likely to be intense. However, conflict also has the
potential to re-establish unity. Much depends on the
issues that are at stake in conflict and the type of
social structure in which conflict occurs.

There is a distinction between conflicts over

basic matters of principle and conflicts over less
central issues. So far as conflict resolves tension
between antagonists it can serve to integrate
relationships. However, conflict tends to serve this
positive function only when it concerns interests or
values that do not contradict the basic assumptions
upon which the relation is founded. Loosely structured
groups and open societies that are capable of avoiding
conflicts over core values, tend to be stable (Ibid).

The absence of conflict within a relationship

cannot serve as an index of its underlying stability. In
fact, parties are more likely to express their hostile
feelings if they feel secure and stable in the
relationship. They are more likely to avoid acting out
their hostile feelings if they fear the termination of the
relationship. The fact that a relationship is free of
conflict cannot be taken to indicate that it is free from
potentially disruptive elements. In fact, if parties'

132 Directorate of Distance Education, University of Mysore

 relationship is stable, conflicts are likely to arise
between them. For this reason, occurrence of conflict
can actually indicate the strength and stability of a
relationship. Conflict can serve as a balancing
mechanism.

3.3.2. The impact of conflict

Coser discusses the impact of conflict with out-

groups on the structure of in-groups (Coser 1956).

1. Conflict with outside groups tends to increase

internal cohesion. Coser suggests that whether
increase in centralization likewise results depends on
the character of the conflict and the type of group.
Centralization is more likely in cases of warlike conflict
and in social structures with a marked division of
labour. Despotism is likely where there is a lack of
group cohesion. And both centralization and despotism
depend on the group's structure and common values
prior to conflict. Social systems that lack solidarity are
likely to disintegrate in the face of conflict with outside
groups. In some cases, groups may actually search for
or invent enemies in an effort to maintain unity and
internal cohesion.

2. Groups engaged in continual struggle with

outside groups tend to become intolerant
within and are less likely to tolerate even
limited dissent. These groups maintain and reinforce
their unity in the face of dissent through the voluntary
or forced withdrawal of those who threaten the
group's solidarity. In some cases, they may even
search for internal dissenters in order to serve as
scapegoats. On the other hand, groups that do not
make such strong claims on people's identity and
establish no rigid criteria for membership are more
likely to be large, and able to resist outside pressures.
They also tend to be more flexible in structure and
more capable of tolerating conflict within the group.

3. Elimination of personal reasons tends to make

conflict more intense - Coser makes a distinction

133
Modern Sociological Theories
 between two types of conflict: that in which the goal is
personal and subjective, and that in which the matter
in contention has an impersonal, objective aspect.
Objectified struggles, which go beyond personal
issues, are likely to be more severe and radical. These
are conflicts in which parties understand themselves
as representatives of collectives or groups, fighting not
for themselves, but rather for the goals and ideals of
the group.

4. When parties are pursuing a common goal,

objectification of the conflict can serve as a
unifying element. There are also cases where the
very act of entering into conflict establishes
relationships where none previously existed. Once
relations have been established through conflict, other
types of relations are likely to follow. Conflict often
revitalizes existent norms and creates a new
framework of rules and norms for the contenders. This
is because conflict often leads to the modification and
creation of laws as well as the growth of new
institutional structures to enforce these laws. The
presence of antagonistic behaviour makes people
aware of the need for basic norms to govern the rights
and duties of citizens. The resulting creation and
modification of norms makes readjustment of
relationships to changed conditions possible. However,
this is possible only if there is a common
organizational structure in place to facilitate the
acceptance of common rules and conformity with
them. Also, if the parties are relatively balanced in
strength, a unified party prefers a unified party. Each
group's having a centralized internal structure ensures
that once they have devised some solution, peace can
be declared and maintained. There will be no lingering
enemies to disrupt the relationships.

5. Conflict is integrative insofar as it allows parties

to assess their relative power and thus serves
as a balancing mechanism to help consolidate
societies. Conflict also leads to the formation of
coalitions and associations between previously

134 Directorate of Distance Education, University of Mysore

unrelated parties. If several parties face a common
opponent, bonds tend to develop between them. This
can lead to the formation of new groups or result in
instrumental associations in the face of a common
threat.

Conflicts with some produce associations with

others. However, the unification that results when
coalitions are formed simply for the purpose of
defence need not be very thoroughgoing. Alliance can
simply be an expression of groups' desire for self-
preservation. Such alliances may be perceived by
other groups as threatening and unfriendly. This may
lead to the creation of new associations and coalition,
thus drawing groups into new social relations.

Coser suggests that conflict tends to be

dysfunctional only for social structures in which there
is insufficient toleration or institutionalization of
conflict. Highly intense conflicts that threaten to "tear
apart" society tend to arise only in rigid social
structures. Thus, what threatens social structures is
not conflict as such, but rather the rigid character of
those structures.

3.3.3. Social conflict and the theory of

social change
Coser gives more attention to the role played
by people’s emotions and he agreed upon Simmel that
there are aggressive or hostile impulses in people, and
he stresses close and intimate relationship both love
and hatred. Close proximity brings ample opportunities
for resentment to develop, in which conflict and
disagreement are integral parts of relationship, and
not the signs of instability and breakup. The nature of
hostility and conflict varies for sociological reasons and
it leads to change. Coser always concentrates to
maintain group cohesion and concern the functional
aspect of the subject. Coser distinguished conflict as
internal and external conflicts; both establish identity,
maintain stability and increase cohesion.

135
Modern Sociological Theories
 External conflict:

External conflict is essential in establishing

group’s identity. For Marx conflict makes a class self-
aware, and for Simmel conflict sets boundaries
between groups within a social system by
strengthening group consciousness and awareness of
separateness establishing the identity of groups within
the system. Coser distinguished conflict expression,
between hostile sentiments and actual conflict and
suggests that hostile sentiments are more essential for
group formation than actual conflict. External conflict
can strengthen a group and makes group members
conscious of their identity by introducing a strong
negative reference group to which they contrast
themselves, and it also increases their participation.

Internal conflict:

As Durkheim, Mead and Marx argue a group’s

opposition to and conflict with ‘deviants’ makes
apparent to group members what they ought to do.
Hence, internal conflict is central to defining a group’s
identity, which is embodied in norms that define
correct behaviour. Internal conflict increases a group’s
survival, cohesion and stability. As Simmel argues
internal conflict is a crucial safety valve under
“conditions of stress preventing group dissolution
through the withdrawal of hostile participants” and if
opposition to one’s associates were not possible,
people would, “feel pushed to take desperate steps
opposition gives us inner satisfaction, distraction,
relief.” Internal conflict can be important because
“stability within a loosely structured society can be
viewed as partly a product of the continuous incidence
of various conflicts crisscrossing it”.

Social Organisation

Durkheim’s orientation to the study of society,

prevented him from taking due cognizance of a variety
of societal processes, among which social conflict is
most conscious in which Durkheim looks at violence
and dissent as deviant and pathological to the social

136 Directorate of Distance Education, University of Mysore

 equilibrium rather than as opportunities for
constructive social changes. Coser viewed conflict as a
process under conditions, functions to maintain the
body social or some of its vital parts. All social systems
reveal imbalances, tensions and conflicts of interests
among various interrelated part. Processes within and
between the system’s constituent parts operate under
different conditions to maintain, change, and increase
or decrease a system’s integration and adaptability.
Many processes such as violence, dissent, deviance
and conflict which are typically viewed as disruptive to
the system can also be viewed, under specifiable
conditions, as strengthening the system’s basis of
integration as well as adaptability to the environment.

Therefore, Coser articulates set of oppositions

about the functions of conflict for social system and he
gives some proposition about the condition in which
conflict leads to disruption and mal-integration of
social system. Conflict maintains or re-establishes
system integration and adaptability to changing
conditions in the integration of system. It leads to the
outbreak of varying types of conflict; which in turn,
causes temporary reintegration of the system, which
causes increased flexibility in the system’s structure,
increased adaptability to resolve future imbalances
through conflict, and increased capacity to adapt to
changing conditions.

3.3.4. Functions of Conflict

1. In a system the more differentiated and functionally
interdependent are the units, the more likely is the
conflict to be frequent but of low degrees of intensity
and violence.
2. The more frequent are conflicts, the less is their
intensity and the lower is their level of violence, then
in a system the conflicts are more likely-
a. Increase the level of innovation and creativity of
system units,
b. Release hostilities before they polarize system
units,
c. Promote normative regulation of conflict relations,

137
Modern Sociological Theories
 d. Increase awareness of realistic issues, and
e. Increase the number of associative coalitions
among social units.
3. The more the conflict promotes the above factors (a,
b, c, d and e), then the greater will be the level of
internal social integration of the system and greater
will be its capacity to adapt to its external
environment.

Coser begins with statements about the

inevitability of forces, coercion, constraint, and
conflict, but his analysis quickly turns to the
integrative and adaptive consequences of such
processes. He emphasises integrative and adaptive
functions of conflict into functional needs and
requisites that necessitate conflict to occur. He argues,
the system causes conflict in order to meet its
integrative needs, and thereby acknowledges change
in social system. It is viewed primarily as a crucial
process in promoting integration and adaptation.

3.3.5. Check your progress

1. What are the realistic and unrealistic conflicts?
................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................
2. List the impacts of conflict according to Coser
................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................
3. What are the functions of conflict?
................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................

138 Directorate of Distance Education, University of Mysore

3.4. Ralf Dahrendorf
Ralf Gustav Dahrendorf, was a German-
British sociologist, philosopher, political scientist
and liberal politician. As class conflict theorist,
Dahrendorf was a leading expert on explaining
and analyzing class divisions in modern society,
and is regarded as "one of the most influential
thinkers of his generation." Dahrendorf wrote
multiple articles and books; his most notable
works are - Class Conflict in Industrial
Society (1959) and Essays in the Theory of
Society (1968).

He served as director of the London School of Economics and Warden

of St Antony's College, University of Oxford. He also served as a Professor of
Sociology at a number of universities in Germany and the United Kingdom, and
was a Research Professor at the Berlin Social Science Research Center.

Ralf Dahrendorf studied philosophy, classical philology, and sociology at

Hamburg University between 1947 and 1952. After completing his doctorate in
sociology at the London School of Economics in 1954, he returned to Germany
where, from 1958, he held a succession of Chairs in Sociology, culminating in
Konstanz University in 1969. At this early stage in Dahrendorf's academic career,
he took an interest in Marxist theory and wrote his PhD thesis on Karl Marx's
theory of justice. "Starting in the late 1950s Dahrenforf, like Coser, argued for a
conflict theory approach to sociology." He continued his academic research
at London School of Economics under Karl Popper as a Research Scholar in
1953–1954, gaining a PhD degree in sociology in 1956. He was a professor of
sociology in Hamburg (1957–1960), Tübingen (1960–1964) and Konstanz (1966–
1969).

Dahrendorf published his most influential work on social inequality, Class

and Class Conflict in Industrial Society in 1959. Despite later revisions, this book
still remains as his first detailed and most influential account of the problem of
social inequality in modern, or post-capitalist societies.

In analyzing and evaluating the arguments of structural functionalism

and Marxism, Dahrendorf understood that these could account for all of society.
Marxism did not account for evidence of obvious social integration and cohesion.
Structural functionalism, on the other hand, did not focus enough on social
conflict. He also argued that Marx defined class in a narrow and historically-
specific context. During Marx's time, wealth was the determining factor in

139
Modern Sociological Theories
attaining power. The wealthy, and the powerful, ruled, leaving no way for the
poor to gain any power or increase their position in society.

Considering the aspects of both Marxism and structural functionalists to

form his own beliefs, Dahrendorf highlighted the changes that have occurred in
modern society. Dahrendorf believed in two approaches to society, Utopian and
Rationalist. Utopian is the balance of values and solidity and Rationalist is the
dissension and disagreement. Both are social perspectives; and the Utopian
approach is most apparent in modern-day society.

Dahrendorf discusses literary utopias to show that the structural-

functionalists’ idea of the social system is utopian in itself because it possesses all
the necessary characteristics. Specifically, with democracy comes voting for
political parties, and increased social mobility. He believed that the struggle for
authority creates conflict. Money, political power, and social status were all
controlled by the same group, the capitalist, which gave the workers little
incentive to accept the status quo.

Traditional Marxism ignores consensus and integration in modern social

structures. Dahrendorf's theory defined class not in terms of wealth like Marx,
but by levels of authority. Dahrendorf combines elements from both of these
perspectives to develop his own theory about class conflict in post-
capitalist society. Dahrendorf agrees with Marx in that authority, in the 19th
century, was based on income, and thus the rich bourgeoisie ruled the state. Yet
things have changed then, where workers formed trade unions and allowed them
to negotiate with the capitalist.

3.4.1. Class Conflict Theory of

Dahrendorf
Dahrendorf developed and advanced his theory
of class conflict. He proposes a symbolic model of
class conflict with authority as the generic form of
domination, combined with a strong systematic view
of society and the structuration of class
relationships. This theory is said to have developed in
reaction to structural functionalism and in many ways
represents its antithesis. The conflict theory attempts
to bring together structural functionalism and
Marxism.

140 Directorate of Distance Education, University of Mysore

 Functionalism is beneficial while trying to
understand consensus while the conflict theory is used
to understand conflict and coercion. To understand
structural functionalism, we focus on three works: of
Davis & Moore, Parsons, and Merton. Capitalism has
undergone major changes since Marx initially
developed his theory on class conflict. This new
system of capitalism, (post-capitalism), is
characterized by diverse class structure and a fluid
system of power relations. Thus, it involves a much
more complex system of inequality than Marx
originally outlined. Post-capitalist society has
institutionalized class conflict into state and economic
spheres. For example, class conflict has been
habituated through unions, collective bargaining, the
court system, and legislative debate. In effect, the
severe class strife typical of Marx's time is no longer
relevant (Cashmore 1999: 109–111).

There is "dissension and conflict at every point

in the social system" and "many societal elements as
contributing to disintegration and change". Order
comes from coercion from those at the top; power is
an important factor in social order. Dahrendorf
believed that both conflict theory and consensus
theory are necessary because they reflect the two
different parts of society.

Dahrendorf recognized consensus theory was

also necessary to fully reflect society. Consensus
theory focuses on the value integration into society,
while conflict theory focuses on conflicts of interest
and the force that holds society together despite these
stresses. Structural functionalism was the commanding
theory in sociology, until the conflict theory came
along as its major challenger. Dahrendorf's thesis was
"the differential distribution of authority invariably
becomes the determining factor of systematic social
conflicts". "And conflict theory should be seen as a
little more than a transitional development in the
history of sociological theory. Although the theory
failed because it didn't go far in the direction of

141
Modern Sociological Theories
 Marxian theory, and it was still early (1950s and
1960s) for American sociology to accept a full-fledged
Marxian approach (Ritzer 2002).

3.4.2. Authority Component

Dahrendorf rejects Marx's two-class system as

too simplistic and overly focused on property
ownership. Due to the rise of the joint stock company,
ownership does not necessarily reflect control of
economic production in modern society. Instead of
describing the fundamental differences of class in
terms of property, Dahrendorf claims that we must
"replace the possession, or non-possession, of
effective private property by the exercise of, or
exclusion from, authority as the criterion of class
formation". A crucial component to Dahrendorf's
conflict theory is the idea of authority. Although, it
initially appears to be an individual issue and also
psychological; authority is related to positions and not
individuals. Hence, subordination and authority are
products of expectation specified by society, and if
those roles are not adhered to, sanctions are imposed.
Roles of authority may conflict when in different
positions that call for different things. These different
defined areas of society where people's roles may be
different are called imperatively coordinated
associations. The groups of society in different
associations are drawn together by their common
interests. Latent interests are natural interests that
arise unconsciously in conflict between superordinates
and subordinates. He defines manifest interests as
latent interests when they are realized. Therefore,
Dahrendorf believed that understanding authority is
the key to understand social conflict (Tittenbrun
2013).

Dahrendorf takes latent and manifest interests

and further classified them as unconscious and
conscious interests. He found the connection between
these two concepts to be problematic for the conflict
theory. The basis of class conflict was the division of

142 Directorate of Distance Education, University of Mysore

three groups of society: quasi groups, interest groups,
and conflict groups (Ritzer 2010). Thus, society can be
split up into the "command class" and the "obey
class". The command class exercises authority, while
the obey class not only has no authority, but is also
subservient to that of others. With a clear interplay
between both class types class conflict theory sought
to explain that interplay. Quasi groups are "aggregates
of incumbents of positions with identical role
interests". Interest groups are derived from the quasi
groups and they are organized with members, an
organization, and a programme or goal. The main
difference between quasi groups and interest groups
are that interest groups are able to organize and have
a sense of "belongingness" or identity. Other
conditions like politics, adequate personnel, and
recruitment would play a role along with the groups.
Under ideal circumstances, conflict could be explained
without reference to other variables (Robinson
1979:39). He did not believe that random recruitment
into the quasi group, it would not start a conflict
group. Dahrendorf believed that conflict also leads to
change (in social structure) and development. His
belief in a changing society separated Dahrendorf's
ideas from Marx who supported the concept of a
utopia.

3.4.3. Social Groups and Social Change

Dahrendorf gives three sets of conditions that
must be met for a group to become active in conflict:
technical, political, and social conditions (Allan 2007:
246-248).

The technical conditions are those things

without which a group simply can’t function. They are
the things that actually define a social group as
compared to an aggregate. The technical
conditions include members, ideas or ideologies and
norms. The members that Dahrendorf has in mind are
the people who are active in the organization of the
group. Eg. Religious group or a political party. For a

143
Modern Sociological Theories
 collective to function as a group, there also has to be
a defining set of ideas, or an ideology. These ideas
must be distinct enough from other group to set the
conflict group apart. A group also requires norms.
Without norms, people tend to go off in their own
direction either by mistake or intention. Norms are
particularly important for interest groups involved in
conflict. Conflict demands a united stand from the
interest group, and norms help preserve that
solidarity. The existence of norms implies a power
hierarchy within the interest group.

The political conditions refer specifically to

the ability to meet and organize. political conditions:
polity or government can either hamper or allow
interest groups to develop.

Social conditions - there are two elements

here: communication and structural patterns. The
more people are able to communicate, the more likely
they will form a social group (interest group). A
group’s ability to communicate is central to Marx’s
view of class consciousness; Dahrendorf brings it into
his theory. Marx of course was aware of some
communication technologies, such as printing and
newspapers, but still saw that bringing people
together in physical proximity was necessary for
communication. Dahrendorf saw even more
technological development than did Marx, and seen
this condition fully blossom with the advent of
computer technologies and now the Internet.
Communication is thus far advanced in modern
society. The second part of Dahrendorf’s social
conditions sets a limit on communication. The social
connections that people make must be structurally
predictable for an interest group to develop. For
example, internet communication. When email and the
Internet first began, there were few mechanisms that
patterned the way people got in touch with one
another. People would email their friends or business
acquaintances, and in that sense computer
technologies only enhanced already established social

144 Directorate of Distance Education, University of Mysore

connections. But with the advent of search engines
like Google and Web sites like Yahoo, there are now
structural features of the Internet that can more
predictably bring people together.

3.4.4. Nature of Social Change

According to Dahrendorf, conflict will vary by its

level of intensity and violence. Conflict intensity refers
to the amount of costs and involvement. The cost of
conflict is rather intuitive; it refers to the money, life,
material, and infrastructure that are lost due to
conflict. Involvement refers to the level of importance
the people in the conflict attach to the group and its
issues. This involvement is varying on a continuum
from the level that a game of checkers requires to that
of a front-line soldier. Checkers only requires a small
portion of a person’s personality and energy, while
participating in a war where life and death are at stake
will engulf an individual’s entire psyche. For
Dahrendorf, conflict violence refers to how conflict is
manifested and is basically measured by the kinds of
weapons used. Peaceful demonstrations are conflictual
but exhibit an extremely low level of violence, while
riots are far more violent. While violence and intensity
can go together, they don’t necessarily co-vary, and
they tend to influence social change in different
directions. More intense conflicts will tend to generate
more profound social changes. We can think of the life
of Mahatma Gandhi as an example of conflict with a
high level of intensity but no violence. Gandhi is also a
good example of the profound social changes that
intense conflict can engender. He was not only
centrally responsible for major structural changes in
Indian society, he has also had a profound and lasting
impact worldwide. On the other hand, the violence of
a conflict will influence how quickly the changes occur.
Invasion of Iraq by the U.S. military is a violent
conflict and rapid social change. However, Dahrendorf
is concerned primarily with explaining class conflict
within a society. Often class conflict, especially over
longer periods of time, involves both intensity and

145
Modern Sociological Theories
 violence and thus they are difficult to empirically
disengage from one another.

Within a society, the violence of class conflict,

as defined by Dahrendorf, is related to three distinct
groups of social factors:

1. The technical, political, and social conditions of

organization;
2. The effective regulation of conflict within a society;
and
3. The level of relative deprivation.

Violence is negatively related to the three

conditions of organization. In other words, the more a
group has met the technical, political, and social
conditions of organization, the less likely it is that the
conflict will be violent (Allan 2007: 249-251).

The violence of a conflict is also negatively

related to the presence of legitimate ways of
regulating conflict. In other words, the greater the
level of formal or informal norms regulating conflict,
the greater the probability that both parties will use
the norms or judicial paths to resolve the conflict.
However, this factor is influenced by two others. In
order for the two interested parties to use legitimate
roads of conflict resolution, they must recognize the
fundamental justice of the cause involved, and both
parties need to be well organized.

The possibility of violent conflict is positively

related to a sense of relative deprivation.

Level of Intensity - Within a social system, the level of

conflict intensity is related to

1. The technical, political, and social conditions of

organization;
2. The level of social mobility; and
3. To the way in which power and other scarce resources
are distributed in society.

Both violence and intensity are related to group

organization and the relationship in both cases is

146 Directorate of Distance Education, University of Mysore

negative. The violence and intensity of conflict will
tend to go down as groups are better organized;
better organization means more rational action.

The relationship is positive when the more

society’s scarce resources are bestowed upon a single
social category, the greater will be the intensity of the
conflict.

The intensity of a conflict is negatively related

to social mobility.

The level of violence tends to go up with

increasing levels of emotional involvement, the
presence of transcendent goals, and a sense of
change from absolute to relative deprivation.

Conversely, the likelihood of violence in conflict

tends to go down when the interest groups meet the
technical, social, and political conditions of
organization (class organization); when they have
explicitly stated rational goals; and when there are
norms and legal channels available for resolving
conflict.

As the violence of conflict increases, we can

expect social changes to come rapidly and we can
anticipate groups to experience stronger boundaries,
solidarity, and more efficient control and authority.

Dahrendorf comments on conflict intensity, and

he argues that decreasing class organization and
social mobility and increasing covariance of authority
and rewards will tend to produce higher levels of
intensity, which in turn will produce more profound
structural changes.

Regardless of how fast or how dramatically

societies change, the changes must be
institutionalized. For Dahrendorf, institutionalization
occurs within structural changes “involving the
personnel of positions of domination in imperatively
coordinated associations” (Allan 2007: 250).

147
Modern Sociological Theories
 3.4.5. Check your progress

1 What is the important component of conflict according to Dahrendorf?

................................................................................................................
2 What are the three conditions required in a group to become active in conflict?
................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................
3 On what factors does the level of intensity of conflict depend?
................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................

148 Directorate of Distance Education, University of Mysore

3.5. Randall Collins
Randall Collins is an American sociologist
who has been influential in both his teaching and
writing. He has taught in many notable universities
around the world and his academic works have
been translated into various languages. He is a
leading contemporary social theorist whose areas of
expertise include the macro-historical sociology of
political and economic change; micro-sociology,
including face-to-face interaction; and the sociology
of intellectuals and social conflict. Collins's
publications include The Sociology of Philosophies:
A Global Theory of Intellectual Change (1998). His current research involves
macro patterns of violence including contemporary war, as well as solutions to
police violence. He is considered to be one of the leading non-Marxist conflict
theorists in the United States.

Collins is a social scientist who views theory as essential to understand the

world. He says "The essence of science is precisely theory...a generalized and
coherent body of ideas, which explain the range of variations in the empirical
world in terms of general principles". He has devoted much of his career and
research to study society, how is it created and destroyed through emotional
behaviours of human beings. Collins believes that the simplest explanation for
radical behaviour and actions is emotion. Emotional energy, is the "amount of
emotional power that flows through one's actions" and does not refer to one
specific emotion. When Collins talks about emotion, he never talks about specific
emotions like love, joy, hate, and so forth. The same is true with his interest in
culture. For Collins, culture becomes symbolic goods that are used in exchange
or sacred symbols that unite a group. Collins also emphasizes the significance of
people coming together and the influence this has on behaviour.

3.5.1. Interaction Ritual Chains Theory

Smoking, sex and social stratification and many

other things in our social lives are driven by a common
force: interaction rituals. His Interaction Ritual
Chains is a major work of sociological theory that
attempts to develop a "radical micro-sociology." It
proposes that successful rituals create symbols of
group membership and pump up individuals with
emotional energy, while failed rituals drain emotional

149
Modern Sociological Theories
 energy. Each person flows from situation to situation,
drawn to those interactions where their cultural capital
gives them the best emotional energy payoff.

This theory of interaction ritual chains is where

the individual is the carrier of the micro-macro link.
There are two components to this linkage: emotional
energy and cultural capital. Emotional energy is the
emotional charge that people can take away with
them from an interaction. Cultural is the shorthand
way of talking about the different resources we have
to culturally engage with other people. The idea of
cultural capital covers a full range of cultural items:
the way we talk; what we have to talk about, how we
dress, walk, and act. In short anything that is
culturally references us to others (Collins 2005).

There are three types of cultural capital

1. Generalized Cultural Capital,
2. Particularized Cultural Capital, and
3. Reputational Capital.

Generalized cultural capital is the individual's

stock of symbols that are associated with group
specific and can be used with strangers, somewhat the
way money can.

Particularized cultural capital refers to cultural

items we have in common with specific people. Lastly,

Reputational Capital is when somebody knows

something about you, she or he is more likely to
engage you in conversation than if you are a complete
stranger.

Thinking also can be explained by the

internalization of conversations within the flow of
situations; individual selves are thoroughly and
continually social, constructed from outside.

The theory of Interaction Ritual Chains is

inspired by the thoughts of Emile Durkheim, Max
Weber and Erving Goffman. It has itself inspired

150 Directorate of Distance Education, University of Mysore

various domains across the social sciences,
including Management Studies, Creative Tourism,
International Relations, and Jeffrey C. Alexander's
Cultural Pragmatics. Numerous empirical studies have
likewise employed Interaction Ritual Theory, for
instance to explore how specific institutions maintain
themselves, how websites use interaction ritual chains
to form the identity of its users, or how diplomats
establish exchange programmes to invite foreign elites
into their countries.

Violent confrontation goes against human

physiological hardwiring. This is in opposition to
explanations by social scientists that violence is easy
under certain conditions, like poverty, racial or
ideological hatreds, or family pathologies.

Collins draws on the work of Weber, Durkheim,

and Goffman to argue that symbolic goods and
emotional solidarity are among the “main weapons
used in conflict”. This is a unique and powerful
addition to the conflict perspective. Most conflict
theories are oriented toward the macro-level.
Stratification is generally understood as operating
through oppressive structures that limit access and
choices; and power is conceived of as working
coercively through the control of material resources
and methods of social control (Allan 2007).

Collins argues that the conflict around stratified

resources has a strong symbolic character. Resources
aren’t simply material. Both stratification and conflict
require symbolic supplies and emotional investment in
order to work. Collins also draws our attention to a
different side of conflict. Conflict doesn’t just happen
between warring factions. Conflict is dependent upon
and occurs in subtle forms within the realm of face-to-
face interactions and rituals. Collins also sensitizes us
to a different mode of conflict: the internalization of
symbolic meanings expressed through belief in
accepted legitimations.

151
Modern Sociological Theories
 3.5.2. Main elements in Collin’s Conflict
Sociology

Scarce Resources and Mobilization

1. The unequal distribution of each scarce

resource produces potential conflict between
those who control it and those who don’t.

Dahrendorf argues that there is one primary

resource in society: power. Randall Collins, on the
other hand, follows the basic outline that Weber gave
us of the three different types of scarce resources:
economic resources, which may be broadly understood
as all material conditions; power resources, which are
best understood as social positions within control or
organizational networks; and status or cultural
resources, which Collins understands as control over
the rituals that produce solidarity and group symbols.
Notice that Collins expands and generalizes two of
these resources. Both Marx and Weber saw economic
resources in terms of class position; Collins, however,
argues that economic resources ought to be seen as
encompassing a much broader spectrum of issues—
control over any material resources (Allan 2007: 253).

2. Potential conflicts become actual conflicts to

the degree that opposing groups become
mobilized.

There are at least two main areas of resource

mobilization: The first area involves emotional, moral,
and symbolic mobilization. The prime ingredient here
is collective rituals. This is one of Collins’s main
contributions to conflict theory. Groups don’t simply
need material goods to wage a battle; there are also
clear emotional and symbolic goods used in conflict.
Collins uses Durkheim’s theory of ritual performance to
explain symbolic mobilization. In general, the more a
group is able to physically gather together, create
boundaries for ritual practice, share a common focus
of attention, and have a common emotional mood, the
more group members will

152 Directorate of Distance Education, University of Mysore

1. Have a strong and explicit sense of group identity
2. Have a worldview that polarizes the world into two
camps (in-group and out-group)
3. Be able to perceive their beliefs as morally right
4. Be charged up with the necessary emotional energy to
make sacrifices for the group and cause.

The second main area for mobilization concerns

the material resources for organizing. Material
mobilization includes such things as communication
and transportation technologies, material and
monetary supplies to sustain the members while in
conflict, weapons, and sheer numbers of people. The
ability to mobilize material resources is a key issue in
geopolitical theory.

There are a couple of consequences that follow

these propositions. If there are two areas of
mobilization, then there are two ways in which a party
can win or lose a conflict. The first has to do with
material resources, which get used up during conflicts.
People die; weapons are spent; communication and
transportation technologies are used up, break down,
or are destroyed; and so on. A conflict outcome, then,
is dependent not only upon who has the greatest
resources at the beginning of a war, but also upon
who can replenish those supplies. A group can also
win by generating higher levels of ritual solidarity as
compared to their enemies. For example, Martin
Luther King Jr., obviously had fewer material
resources than the ruling establishment, but the civil
rights movement was able to create higher levels of
ritualized energy and was able to generate broad-
based symbolic, moral appeal.

A group can also lose the conflict if its members

are unable to renew the necessary emotional energies.
Emotional energy and all the things that go with it:
motivation, feelings of morality, righteous indignation,
willingness to sacrifice, group identity, and so on, thus
have a decay factor. Symbols and ideas aren’t
themselves sacred or moral, nor do they actually
“carry” sacredness or morality; they only act as

153
Modern Sociological Theories
 prompts to evoke these emotions in people. It is
necessary, then, to renew the collective effervescence
associated with the symbol, moral, or group identity.
If collective rituals aren’t continually performed,
people will become discouraged, lose their motivation,
entertain alternatives views of meaning and reality,
and become incapable of making the necessary
sacrifices (Allan 2007: 254).

The Propagation and End of Conflict

3. Conflict engenders subsequent conflict.

In order to activate a potential conflict, parties

must have some sense of moral rightness. Groups
have a difficult time waging war simply on utilitarian
grounds. They have to have some sense of moral
superiority, some reason that extends beyond the
control of material good. As a result, conflicts that are
highly mobilized tend to have parties that engage in
the ritualized exchange of atrocities. Collins calls this
the negative face of social solidarity. The trick is to see
and understand that there has never been a group
that has entered into a conflict knowing or feeling that
they are wrong. For instance, the people who flew the
airplanes into the World Trade Center felt morally
justified in doing so. And the history is filled with such
illustrations. There is still a debate concerning the
reasons and justifiability of the use of nuclear
weapons during WW II. Whatever side of the debate
people take, it is undeniable that retribution was and
is part of the justification (Allan 2007: 255).

4. Conflicts diminish as resources for

mobilization are used up.

Just as there are two main areas of conflict

mobilization, there are two fronts where
demobilization occurs. For intense conflicts, emotional
resources tend to be important in the short run, but in
the long run, material resources are the key factors.
Many times the outcome of a war is determined by the
relative balance of resources.

154 Directorate of Distance Education, University of Mysore

 Randall Collins gives us two corollaries.

1. Milder or sporadic forms of conflict tend to go on for

longer periods of time than more intense ones. Fewer
resources are used and they are more easily renewed.
This is one reason why terrorism and guerilla warfare
tend to go on almost indefinitely. Civil rights and
relatively peaceful political movements can be carried
out for extended periods as well.
2. Relatively mild forms of conflict tend to deescalate due
to the bureaucratization of conflict. Bureaucracies are
quite good at co-optation. To co-opt means to take
something in and make it one’s own or make it part of
the group, which on the surface might sound like a
good thing. But because bureaucracies are value and
emotion free, there is a tendency to downplay
differences and render them impotent. For example,
one of the things that our society has done with race
and gender movements is to give them official status
in the university. One can now get a degree in race or
gender relations. Inequality is something we now
study, rather than it being the focus of social
movements. In this sense, these movements have
been co-opted. “This is one of the unwelcome lessons
of the sociology of conflict. The result of conflict is
never the utopia envisioned in the moments of intense
ideological mobilization; there are hard-won gains,
usually embedded in an expanded bureaucratic shell”.

The second front where conflicts may be lost is

de-escalation of ritual solidarity. A conflict group must
periodically gather to renew or create the emotional
energy necessary to sustain a fight. One of the
interesting things this implies is that the intensity of
conflicts will vary by focus of attention. Conflict that is
multi-focused will tend not to be able to generate high
levels of emotional energy. The civil rights movement
today has splintered because the idea of civil rights
isn’t held by everyone involved as a universal moral.
The groups involved don’t focus on civil rights per se;
they focus on civil rights for their group (Allan 2007:
256).

155
Modern Sociological Theories
 3.5.3. Geopolitics

Geopolitics is that geopolitical processes happen

over the long run. We have difficulty thinking in the
long term. We are focused on the individual and
immediate gratification, and even the economic
planning that is done is oriented toward short-term
portfolio management. Geopolitical theory is sociology
over the long term. It explains how nations grow and
die. The processes and dynamics can’t be seen by just
looking at our daily concerns. We have to rise above
ourselves and look historically (Allan 2007: 256).

Secondly, geopolitical theory focuses on the

state rather than the economy. Generally speaking,
world-systems theory, like that of Immanuel
Wallerstein, focuses on the economy. Collins
understands the world system in more Weberian
terms, where the nation-state is the key actor on the
world stage. Nation-states are relatively recent
inventions. Up until the sixteenth century, the world
was not organized in terms of nation-states. People
were generally organized ethnically with fairly fluid
territorial limits, as with feudalism. Feudalistic states
were based on land stewardship established through
the relation of lord to vassal. Its chief characteristics
were homage, the service of tenants under arms and
in court, wardship, and forfeiture. A nation-state, on
the other hand, is a collective that occupies a specific
territory, shares a common history and identity, is
based on free labour, and sees its members as sharing
a common fate.

In Weberian terms, the state is defined as an

entity that exercises a monopoly over the legitimate
use of force within and because of a specific
geographic territory. First and foremost, nation-states
have a monopoly on force. In fact, one of the main
impetuses behind the nation is the ability to regularly
tax people for the purpose of creating a standing
army. Previously, armies were occasional things that
were gathered to fight specific wars. A standing army
is one that is continually on standby; it is ready to

156 Directorate of Distance Education, University of Mysore

fight at a moment’s notice. Notice that nation-states
are organized around the legitimate use of power.
Thinking about power in terms of legitimacy brings in
cultural and ritual elements. If power is defined as the
ability to get people to do what you want, then
legitimacy is defined in terms of the willingness of
people to do what you want. In order for any system
of domination to work, people must believe in it. In
Weber’s theory, to maintain a system of domination
not based on legitimacy costs a great deal in terms of
technology, money, and peoplepower. In addition,
people generally respond in the long run to the use of
coercion by either rebelling or giving up, the end result
is thus contrary to the desired goal. Authority and
legitimacy, on the other hand, imply the ability to
require performance that is based upon the
performer’s belief in the rightness of the system. With
nation-states, there is an interesting relationship
between force and legitimacy. According to Randall
Collins, this legitimacy is a special kind of emotion: it is
“the emotion that individuals feel when facing the
threat of death in the company of others”. Legitimacy
isn’t something that is the direct result of socialization,
though it plays a part. Rather, legitimacy is active; it
ebbs and flows and is stronger at some times than at
others; people feel more or less patriotic depending on
a number of factors, most notably ritual performance.

The governments of nation-states are painfully

aware of the active nature of legitimacy. Legitimacy
provides the government’s right to rule. Though also
associated with economic prosperity and mass
education, nationalism; the nation-state’s particular
kind of legitimacy; is dependent upon a common
feeling that is most strongly associated with ritualized
interactions performed in response to perceived
threat. This threat can be internal, as in the case of
minority group uprisings, crime, and deviance, but it is
most strongly associated with externally produced
threat and shock. The other defining feature of the
nation-state is the control of a specific geographic
territory. One of the reasons that a standing army

157
Modern Sociological Theories
 originally came about was to defend a specific
territory. As humans first became settled due to
agriculture, it became increasingly necessary to defend
the territory and internally organize a population that
was growing in both size and diversity. The
geographic contours of this territory are extremely
important for Collins. Collins argues that the idea of
property “upholds the macro-world as a social
structure”. The reason behind this is that property is
the fundamental backdrop against which all interaction
rituals are produced. Further, geographic space is not
simply the arena in which interactions take place; it is
one of the fundamental elements over which people
struggle for control, thus making space a strong ritual
focus of attention. Thus, on one level, the explicitness
and increased size of the territories associated with
nation-states have important implications for the
production of interaction ritual chains and macro-level
phenomena in general.

3.5.4. Geopolitical Dynamics

Territory is also important because specific
geopolitical issues are linked to it. All forms of political
organization come and go, including nation-states.
Nations are born and nations die. A sociological study
in the long run ought to explain and predict, the life
course of a nation. The geopolitical factors that predict
and explain the rise and fall of nations are linked to
territory. There are two territorial factors: heartland
and marchland advantages. Heartland advantage is
defined in terms of the size of the territory, which is
linked to the level of natural resources and population
size. Larger and wealthier territories can sustain larger
populations that in turn provide the necessary tax
base and manpower for a large military. Larger
nations can have larger armies and will defeat smaller
nations and armies. Marchland advantage is defined in
terms of a nation’s borders: nation-states with fewer
enemies on their immediate borders will be stronger
than other nations with more enemies nearby but a
similar heartland advantage. Marchland nations are

158 Directorate of Distance Education, University of Mysore

geographically peripheral; they are not centered in the
midst of other nations. Taken together, we can see
that larger, more powerful states have a cumulative
resource advantage: nations with both heartland and
marchland advantage will tend to grow cumulatively
over time, and the neighbours of such nations will
tend to diminish. Eventually, as smaller nations are
annexed, larger nations confront one another in a
“showdown” war, unless a natural barrier exists (such
as an ocean). Natural barriers form a buffer between
powerful states and will bring a stable balance of
power. On the other hand, nations that are
geographically central and have multisided borders will
tend to experience internal political schisms and
conflict that can lead to long-term fragmentation. The
key to geopolitical theory and the demise of
heartland/marchland nations is overexpansion. A
nation can overextend itself materially and culturally.
One of the important features of warfare is the cost
involved with keeping an army supplied. The further
away an army has to go to fight, the greater are the
costs involved in transporting goods and services to it.
This issue becomes important as the size of the army
increases past the point where it can forage or live off
the land. A critical point is reached when a nation tries
to support an army that is more than one heartland
away (if there is another nation or more in between
the two warring factions). A nation-state can also
overextend itself culturally. Remember that legitimacy
is a cultural good. The legitimacy of a nation is
strained the farther away it moves from its ethnic
base. In other words, there is an increase in the
number and extent of tension points the more a nation
increases its social diversity. There are more areas of
potential disagreement within a diverse population
than among a homogeneous population, especially if
the other ethnic groups are brought into society
through warfare or other measures of forced
annexation (Allan 2007: 257).

In the case of the USSR, in 1991, the Union of

Soviet Socialist Republics officially collapsed. Five

159
Modern Sociological Theories
 years prior, Collins published a book with a chapter
entitled “The Future Decline of the Russian Empire.”
Collins’s prediction of the fall of the USSR was based
on geopolitical theory. The historical expansion of
Russia illustrates these principles of geopolitical
theory. The expansion began with Moscow in the late
14th century, a small state with a marchland
advantage. Fighting fragmented rivals, Moscow made
slow cumulative growth. By 1520, Moscow had
annexed all of ethnic Russia. By late 1700s, Russia had
expanded across Siberia and the Southern Steppes
and was a strong military power in Europe.

Russia further expanded by taking advantage of

Napoleon’s wars, the fall of the Ottoman Empire, and
China’s prolonged civil wars; this further expansion
was based on geopolitical factors. Finally, USSR was
the largest country on the globe, consisting of 15
soviet socialist republics whose territories reached
from the Baltic and Black Seas to the Pacific Ocean, an
area of 86,49,512 square miles, 11 time zones, and
that shared common boundaries with six European
and six Asian countries.

Thinking of geopolitical issues, the problems

that USSR faced are obvious. The nation was over-
extended both culturally and economically. It no
longer held heartland advantage: in terms of total
population, the enemies of USSR outnumbered them
3.5 to 1; and in terms of economic resources, it was
4.6 to 1. In addition, because of its successful
expansion, USSR did not have marchland advantage.
It had done away with all weak buffer states and only
faced powerful enemy nations in all directions.
Further, USSR had to exert military control over its
Eastern European satellites, which were 2 and 3 times
removed from the heartland. It had to defend borders
over 36,000 miles. USSR contained 120 ethnic groups.
As projected, “if Russia has shifted from a marchland
to an interior position, it may be expected that in the
long-term future Russia will fragment into successively
smaller states”, it did happen.

160 Directorate of Distance Education, University of Mysore

 3.5.5. Check your progress

1. What is Interaction Ritual Chain Theory

..........................................................................................................
..........................................................................................................
2. What are the types of cultural capital?
..........................................................................................................
..........................................................................................................
..........................................................................................................
3. List the main elements in Collin’s conflict sociology
..........................................................................................................
..........................................................................................................
..........................................................................................................
..........................................................................................................
4. What is geopolitical theory?
..........................................................................................................
5. What is geopolitical dynamics?
..........................................................................................................
..........................................................................................................
..........................................................................................................

3.6. Let us sum up

In this unit we have learnt to analyse the society through conflict
perspective. The social structure does not always provide smooth going
processes. Conflict and inequality are the facts in all societies. In this unit we
have understood the contributions of prominent conflict thinkers in
understanding society. Simmel focuses on sociation between the members as
linking element. He explains the distance and closeness in his concept of ‘the
stranger’.

Coser analyses the functional part of conflict. Conflicts are not always
destructive or dissociative. They also have the unifying components. He also
differentiates the realistic and unrealistic conflicts in understanding the nature of
conflicts. In his analysis he specifically articulates the impacts of conflicts on
group and society. Hence his approach is taken as conflict functionalism.

161
Modern Sociological Theories
 Dahrendorf focuses on conflict in modern society. When Karl Marx
emphasises the economic component as the prime cause of conflict, Dahrendorf
argues the component of power as the factor for conflict in the modern society.
He also analyses the conditions necessary in a group to become active in conflict
– technical, political and social.

Collins focuses on emotions and emotional energy to understand

behaviour. He develops ‘interaction ritual chain theory’ to understand people in
society. By way of presenting four elements in conflict, Collins explains the origin
of conflict, mobilization, propagation and the end of conflict. In a unique concept
of geopolitics he shows light on the growth of nations and their gradual death
depending on the nature of their dynamics.

3.7. Glossary
o Sociation – is the impulse to sociability in man
o Diad – group of two
o Triad – group of three
o Philosophy of Money – money as a component of life which helped us
understand the totality of life
o The stranger – Simmel’s concept of distance
o Realistic conflict – Conflicts that arise from frustration of specific demands
and are pursued as a means toward results
o Unrealistic conflict – conflicts from antagonist's need to release tension
o Functions of conflict – functions that are resultants of conflict and are
work as unifying factors
o Interaction Ritual Chain – Theory that proposes successful rituals create
symbols of group membership and pump up emotional energy
o Geopolitics – the theory that explains how nations grow and die

3.8. Answer to check your progress

3.2.3.

1. Sociability is a process through which the solitariness of the individuals is

resolved into togetherness, a union with others.
2. A dyad is a two-person group; a triad is a three-person group.
3. Simmel saw money as a component of life which helped us understand
the totality of life. People created value by making objects, then
separating themselves from that object and then trying to overcome that
distance.
4. Simmel’s concept of distance; he identifies a stranger as a person that is
far away and close at the same time.

162 Directorate of Distance Education, University of Mysore

3.3.5.

1. Conflicts that arise from frustration of specific demands and are pursued
as a means toward results are "realistic" conflicts. Non-realistic conflicts
result from antagonist's need to release tension.
2. Impacts of conflict according to Coser are –
a. Conflict with outside groups tends to increase internal cohesion
b. Groups in continual struggle with outside groups tend to become
intolerant within and are less likely to tolerate even limited dissent
c. Elimination of personal reasons tends to make conflict more intense
d. When parties are pursuing a common goal, objectification of the
conflict can serve as a unifying element
e. Conflict is integrative insofar as it allows parties to assess their
relative power and thus serves as a balancing mechanism to help
consolidate societies
3. Functions of conflict are –
a. The more differentiated and functionally interdependent the units
are in a system, the more likely is the conflict to be frequent but of
low degrees of intensity and violence
b. The more frequent are conflicts, the less is their intensity and the
lower is their level of violence
c. The more the conflict promotes the factors – (level of innovation
and creativity, release hostilities, promote normative regulation,
increase awareness and increase the number of associative
coalitions) the greater will be the level of internal social integration
and greater will be its capacity to adapt to its external environment
3.4.5.

1. The important component of conflict according to Dahrendorf is authority

2. The three conditions required in a group to become active in conflict are –
technical, political, and social conditions.
3. factors on which the level of intensity of conflict depend are –
a. The technical, political, and social conditions;
b. The level of social mobility; and
c. How power and other scarce resources are distributed.

3.5.5.
1. Interaction Ritual Chain Theory proposes, successful rituals create symbols
of group membership and pump up individuals with emotional energy.
2. There are three types of cultural capital
a. Generalized Cultural Capital,
b. Particularized Cultural Capital, and
c. Reputational Capital.

163
Modern Sociological Theories
 3. The main elements in Collin’s conflict sociology are -
a. The unequal distribution of each scarce resource produces potential
conflict between those who control it and those who don’t.
b. Potential conflicts become actual conflicts to the degree that
opposing groups become mobilized.
c. Conflict engenders subsequent conflict.
d. Conflicts diminish as resources for mobilization are used up.
4. Geopolitical theory explains how nations grow and die
5. A sociological study to explain and predict the life course of a nation. The
geopolitical factors, heartland and marchland advantages that predict and
explain the rise and fall of nations are linked to territory.

3.9. Further Reading and References

Further Reading
Abraham, M. Francis. 1990. Modern Sociological Theory: An Introduction. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.

Collins, R. 1975. Conflict sociology. New York: Academic Press.

Collins, R. 1987. Interaction ritual chains, power and property: The Micro-macro
connection as an empirically based theoretical problem. In J. C. Alexander,
et.al. The Micro-macro link. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Collins, R. 2008. Violence: A Micro-Sociological Theory. Princeton, NJ and Oxford:

Princeton University Press.

Coser, Lewis A. 1956. The Functions of Social Conflict. London: The Free Press of
Glencoe.

Coser, Lewis A. 1957. Social Conflict and the Theory of Social Change The British
Journal of Sociology, Vol. 8, No. 3. 197-207. http://links.jstor.org
Dahrendorf, Ralf. 1958. Toward a Theory of Social Conflict. The Journal of
Conflict Resolution, Vol. 2, No. 2. pp. 170-183. http://links.jstor.org
Dahrendorf, Ralf. 1959. Class and Class Conflict in Industrial Society. Stanford,
CA: Stanford University Press.

Giddens, A. 1972. 'Elites in the British class structure' in Scott, John (ed.),
(1990), The Sociology of Elites, Volume 1, Aldershot: Edward Elgar
Publishing.

Theron, Franses Anne. 1989. Conflict Theory of Randall Collins.

ujcontent.uj.ac.za.

Turner, Jonathan H. 1987. The Structure of Sociological Theory. Jaipur: Rawat

Publications.

164 Directorate of Distance Education, University of Mysore

References

Abraham, M. Francis, 1982. Modern Sociological Theory: An Introduction. New

Delhi: Oxford University Press.

Allan, Kenneth D. 2007. The Social Lens: an invitation to social and sociological
theory. US: Thousand Oaks.

Barla, Amrit. 2019. The Conflict Functionalism of Lewis A Coser. Pondicherry

University. https://www.academia.edu

Cashmore, Ellis and Rojek Chris. 1999. Dictionary of Cultural Theorist. New York,
NY: Oxford University Press. pp. 109–111.

Collins, Randall. 2005. Interaction Ritual Chains. Princeton University Press.

Coser, Lewis. 1956. The Functions of Social Conflict. New York: The Free Press.

Dorsey, Arris and Readable Collier. 2018. Origins of Sociological Theory. UK: Ed-
Tech Press. Pp 66-71.

Ritzer, George. 2007. Modern Sociological Theory (7th ed.). New York: McGraw–
Hill. Pp 158-188

Ritzer, George. 2010. Sociological theory (8th ed.). Boston: McGraw-Hill.

Ritzer. George and Jeffrey Stipnisky. 2002. Contemporary Sociological Theory

and its Classical Roots. USA: Sage Publications.

Robinson, Robert V. and Kelley, Jonathan. 1979. "Class as Conceived by Marx

and Dahrendorf: Effects on Income Inequality and Politics in the United
States and Great Britain". American Sociological Review. 44 (1): 38–58.

Simmel, Georg. 1906. "The Sociology of Secrecy and of Secret Societies".

American Journal of Sociology. 11 (4): 441–498.

Simmel, Georg. 1955. Conflict and the Web of Group Affiliations. New York: The
Free Press.

Simmel, Georg. 1976. The Stranger The Sociology of Georg Simmel'. New York:
Free Press.

Simmel, Georg. 1984. Women, Sexuality & Love. New Haven: Yale University
Press.

Tittenbrun, Jacek. 2013. Ralph Dahrendorf’s Conflict Theory of Social

Differentiation And Elite Theory. Innovative Issues and Approaches in
Social Sciences, Vol. 6, No. 3

165
Modern Sociological Theories
3.10. Model questions

Short answer questions

1. Describe social conflict
2. State the functions of conflict
3. Write a note on the key concepts in Simmel’s sociology
4. Briefly explain Coser’s theory of social change
5. What is geopolitics?
6. Mention the impact of conflicts
7. What is Interaction Ritual Chain Theory?
8. What is social conflict?
9. What is realistic conflict?
10. What is the nature of social change according to Dahrendorf?
11. What is geopolitics?

Short note questions

1. Analyse Simmel’s views on conflict
2. Explain realistic and unrealistic conflicts
3. Explain geopolitical dynamics
4. Describe Simmel’s views on conflict
5. Examine the authority component of conflict according to Dahrendorf

Long essay questions

1. Examine interaction ritual chain theory of Collins
2. Discuss the elements in Collin’s conflict sociology
3. Describe the class conflict theory of Dahrendorf
4. Examine the authority component in conflict theory of Dahrendorf
5. Discuss Coser’s conflict functionalism
6. Examine Coser’s understanding of social conflict and social change
7. Discuss Simmel’s views on conflict

166 Directorate of Distance Education, University of Mysore

 Unit 4. Theories of Social Change
Unit Structure

4.0. Learning Outcomes

4.1. Introduction
4.1.1. Historical background
4.1.2. Patterns of social change
4.1.3. Theories of Social Change
4.2. Vilfredo Pareto
4.2.1. Circulation of Elites
4.2.2. Residues
4.2.3. Derivations
4.2.4. Check your progress
4.3. Pitirim Alexandrovich Sorokin
4.3.1. Sensate and Ideational Culture
4.3.2. Cultural Dynamics
4.3.4. Check your progress
4.4. William Fielding Ogburn
4.4.1. Stages of Technological Development
4.4.2. Check your progress
4.5. Let us sum up
4.6. Glossary
4.7. Answer to check your progress
4.8. Further Reading and References
4.9. Model questions

4.0. Learning Outcomes:

After having discussed about structural, functional and conflict
perspectives in sociology, this unit focuses on the fact of social change in society.
The structural and functional perspectives do not seem to be accounting for
social change. However, the conflict perspective does, as a result of conflict. This
unit specifically discusses on social change. After reading the material you will be
able to –

LO1. Learn about the theories of social change

LO2. Understand the patterns of social change
LO3. Know the nature of change among the elites in society
LO4. Understand how cultures change
LO5. Learn about the technological development in society
LO6. Understand the contributions of prominent thinkers towards
analysing change in society

167
Modern Sociological Theories
 4.1. Introduction
Social change, in sociology, is understood as the
alteration of mechanisms within the social structure,
characterized by changes in cultural symbols, rules of
behaviour, social organizations, or value systems.

Throughout the historical development of

the discipline, sociologists have borrowed models of
social change from other academic fields. In the late
19th century, when evolution became the predominant
model for understanding biological change, ideas of
social change took on an evolutionary cast, and,
though other models have refined modern notions of
social change, evolution still persists as an underlying
principle.

Other sociological models created analogies

between social change and the West’s technological
progress. In the mid 20th century, anthropologists
borrowed from the linguistic theory of structuralism to
elaborate an approach to social change called
structural functionalism. This theory postulated the
existence of certain basic institutions (including kinship
relations and division of labour) that determine social
behaviour. Because of their interrelated nature, a
change in one institution will affect other institutions.

Various theoretical schools emphasize different

aspects of change. Marxist theory suggests that
changes in modes of production can lead to changes
in class system, which can prompt other new forms of
change or incite class conflict. The conflict theory
operates on a broad base that includes all institutions.
The focus here is not only on the divisive aspects of
conflict, because conflict, while inevitable, also brings
about changes that promote social integration. Taking
yet another approach, structural-functional theory
emphasizes the integrating forces in society that
ultimately minimizes instability (Alexander 2016: 35).

Social change can evolve from a number of

different sources, including contact with other

168 Directorate of Distance Education, University of Mysore

societies (diffusion), changes in the ecosystem (which
can cause the loss of natural resources or widespread
disease), technological change (epitomized by the
Industrial Revolution, which created a new social
group, the urban proletariat), and population growth
and other demographic variables. Social change is also
spurred by ideological, economic, and political
movements.

Social change in the broadest sense is any

change in social relations. Viewed this way, social
change is an ever-present phenomenon in any society.
A distinction is sometimes made between processes of
change within the social structure, which serve in part
to maintain the structure, and processes that modify
the structure (societal change).

The specific meaning of social change depends

first on the social entity considered. Changes in a
small group may be important on the level of that
group itself but negligible on the level of the larger
society. Similarly, the observation of social change
depends on the time span studied; most short-term
changes are negligible when examined in the long run.
Small-scale and short-term changes are characteristic
of human societies, because customs and norms
change, new techniques and technologies are
invented, environmental changes spur new
adaptations, and conflicts result in redistributions of
power.

This universal human potential for social

change has a biological basis. It is rooted in the
flexibility and adaptability of the human species, the
near absence of biologically fixed action patterns
(instincts) on the one hand and the enormous capacity
for learning, symbolizing, and creating on the other.
The human constitution makes possible changes that
are not biologically (genetically) determined.

169
Modern Sociological Theories
 4.1.1. Historical background

Several ideas of social change have been

developed in various cultures and historical periods
(Britannica 1998). Three may be distinguished as the
most basic:

1. The idea of decline or degeneration, or, in religious

terms, the fall from an original state of grace,
2. The idea of cyclic change, a pattern of subsequent and
recurring phases of growth and decline, and
3. The idea of continuous progress.

These three ideas were already prominent in

Greek and Roman antiquity and have characterized
Western social thought since that time. The concept of
progress, has become the most influential idea,
especially since the Enlightenment movement of the
17th and 18th centuries. Social thinkers in different
countries advanced theories on the progress of human
knowledge and technology.

Progress was also the key idea in 19th century

theories of social evolution, and evolutionism was the
common core shared by the most influential social
theories of that century. Evolutionism implied that
humans progressed along one line of development.
This development was predetermined and inevitable,
since it corresponded to definite laws; therefore, some
societies were more advanced in this development
than were others, and that Western society was the
most advanced of these and therefore indicated the
future of the rest of the world’s population. This line of
thought has since been disputed and disproved.

Auguste Comte advanced a “law of three

stages,” according to which human societies progress
from a theological stage, which is dominated by
religion, through a metaphysical stage, in which
abstract speculative thinking is most prominent, and
onward toward a positivist stage, in which empirically
based scientific theories prevail.

170 Directorate of Distance Education, University of Mysore

 The most encompassing theory of social
evolution was developed by Herbert Spencer, who
linked social evolution to biological evolution.
According to Spencer, biological organisms and human
societies follow the same universal, natural
evolutionary law: “a change from a state of relatively
indefinite, incoherent, homogeneity to a state of
relatively definite, coherent, heterogeneity.” In other
words, as societies grow in size, they become more
complex; their parts differentiate, specialize into
different functions, and become, consequently, more
interdependent.

Evolutionary thought also dominated the new

field of social and cultural anthropology in the second
half of the 19th century. Anthropologists as Sir Edward
Burnett Tylor and Lewis Henry Morgan classified
contemporary societies on an evolutionary scale. Tylor
postulated an evolution of religious ideas from
animism through polytheism to monotheism. Morgan
ranked societies from “savage” through “barbarian” to
“civilized” and classified them according to their levels
of technology or sources of subsistence, which he
connected with the kinship system. He assumed that
monogamy was preceded by polygamy and patrilineal
descent by matrilineal descent (Britannica 1998).

Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels too were highly

influenced by evolutionary ideas. The Marxian
distinctions between primitive communism, the Asiatic
mode of production, ancient slavery, feudalism,
capitalism, and future socialism may be interpreted as
a list of stages in one evolutionary development. Marx
and Engels were impressed by Morgan’s
anthropological theory of evolution, which became
evident in Engels’s book The Origin of the Family,
Private Property, and the State (1884).

The originality of the Marxian theory of social

development lay in its combination of dialectics and
gradualism. In Marx’s view social development was a
dialectical process: the transition from one stage to
another took place through a revolutionary

171
Modern Sociological Theories
 transformation, which was preceded by increased
deterioration of society and intensified class struggle.
Underlying this discontinuous development was the
more gradual development of the forces of production
(technology and organization of labour).

Marx was also influenced by the counter current

of Romanticism, which was opposed to the idea of
progress. This influence was evident in Marx’s notion
of alienation, a consequence of social development
that causes people to become distanced from the
social forces that they had produced by their own
activities.

Émile Durkheim and Max Weber showed

ambivalence toward the ideas of progress. Durkheim
regarded the increasing division of labour as a basic
process, rooted in modern individualism, that could
lead to “anomie,” or lack of moral norms. Weber
rejected evolutionism by arguing that the development
of Western society was quite different from that of
other civilizations and therefore historically unique.
The West was characterized, according to Weber, by a
peculiar type of rationality that had brought about
modern capitalism, modern science, and rational law
but that also created, on the negative side, a
“disenchantment of the world” and increasing
bureaucratization. The work of Durkheim, Weber, and
other social theorists around the turn of the century
marked a transition from evolutionism toward more
static theories (Britannica 1998).

Theories of cyclic change that denied long-term

progress gained popularity in the first half of the 20th
century. These included the theory of the Italian
economist and sociologist Vilfredo Pareto on the
“circulation of elites” and those of Oswald
Spengler and Arnold Toynbee on the life cycle of
civilizations. In the 1930s and ’40s, Harvard
professor Pitirim Sorokin developed a cyclic theory of
cultural change in the West, describing repetitions of
change from the ideational to the idealistic and
sensate and back again.

172 Directorate of Distance Education, University of Mysore

 Although the interest in long-term social change
never disappeared, it faded into the background,
especially when, (from the 1920s until the 1950s)
functionalism emphasizing an interdependent social
system, became the dominant paradigm both in
anthropology and in sociology. “Social evolution” was
substituted for the more general and neutral concept
of “social change.”

The study of long-term social change revived in

the 1950s and continued to develop through the
1960s and ’70s. Neo-evolutionist theories were
proclaimed by several anthropologists, including Ralph
Linton, Leslie A. White, Julian H. Steward, Marshall D.
Sahlins, and Elman Rogers Service. These authors held
to the idea of social evolution as a long-term
development that is both patterned and cumulative.
Unlike 19th century evolutionism, neo-evolutionism
does not assume that all societies go through the
same stages of development. Instead, much attention
is paid to variations between societies as well as to
relations of influence among them. The latter concept
has come to be known by the term acculturation. In
addition, social evolution is not regarded as
predetermined or inevitable but is understood in terms
of probabilities. Finally, evolutionary development is
not equated with progress.

Revived interest in long-term social change was

sparked by attempts to explain the gaps between rich
and poor countries. In the 1950s and ’60s, Western
sociologists and economists developed modernization
theories to help understand the problems of the so-
called underdeveloped countries. Some modernization
theories have been criticized, however, for implying
that poor countries could and should develop, or
modernize, in the manner of Western societies.
Modernization theories have also been criticized for
their lack of attention to international power relations,
in which the richer countries dominate the poorer
ones. These relations have been brought to the centre
of attention by more recent theories of international

173
Modern Sociological Theories
 dependency, typified by the “world capitalist system”
described by American sociologist Immanuel
Wallerstein. His world systems theory, however, has
been attacked for empirical reasons and for its failure
to account for the collapse of Soviet regimes and their
subsequent movement toward capitalism and
democracy. Wallerstein’s theory has also drawn
criticism for failing to explain significant Third World
economic development such as that seen in South
Korea, Singapore, and Hong Kong (Britannica 1998).

4.1.2. Patterns of social change

Theories of social change, both old and new,
commonly assume that the course of social change is
not arbitrary but is, regular or patterned. The three
traditional ideas of social change, decline, cyclic
change and progress, have unquestionably influenced
modern theories. Yet because these theories are not
scientifically determined, they fail to make an explicit
distinction between decline and progress. In fact, the
qualities of decline and progress cannot be derived
scientifically (from empirical observations) alone but
are instead identified by normative evaluations and
value judgments. If the study of social change is to be
conducted on scientific and non-normative terms,
then, only two basic patterns of social change can be
considered: the cyclic, and the one-directional. Often
the time span of the change determines which pattern
is observed (Britannica 1998).

Cyclic change

Much of ordinary social life is organized in cyclic

changes: those of the day, the week, and the year.
These short-term cyclic changes may be regarded as
conditions necessary for structural stability. Other
changes that have a more or less cyclic pattern are
less predictable.

Long-term cyclic changes are addressed in

theories on the birth, growth, flourishing, decline, and
death of civilizations. Toynbee conceived world history

174 Directorate of Distance Education, University of Mysore

in this way in the first volumes of A Study of History,
as did Spengler in his Decline of the West. These
theories have been criticized for conceiving of
civilizations as natural entities with sharp boundaries,
thinking that neglects the interrelations between
civilizations (Britannica 1998).

One-directional change

This type of change continues more or less in

the same direction. Such change is usually cumulative
and implies growth or increase, such as that of
population density, the size of organizations, or the
level of production. The direction of the change could
be one of decrease or a combination of growth and
decrease. Yet another change may be a shift from one
pole to the other of a continuum, from religious
to secular ways of thinking. Such a change may be
defined as either growth (of scientific knowledge) or
decline (of religion).

The simplest type of one-directional change is

linear, occurring when the degree of social change is
constant over time. Another type of social change is
that of exponential growth, in which the percentage of
growth is constant over time and the change
accelerates correspondingly. Population growth and
production growth are known to follow this pattern
over certain time frames.

A pattern of long-term growth may also

conform to a three-stage S curve. In the first phase

175
Modern Sociological Theories
 the change is slow enough as to be almost
imperceptible. Next the change accelerates. In the
third phase the rate of change slackens until it
approaches a supposed upper limit. The model of the
demographic transition in industrializing countries
exhibits this pattern. In the first (pre-modern or
preindustrial) stage both the birth rate and the
mortality rate are high, and, consequently, the
population grows very slowly; then mortality
decreases, and the population grows much faster; in
the third stage both the birth rate and the mortality
rate have become low, and population growth
approaches zero. The same model has been
suggested, more hypothetically, for the rates of
technological and scientific change (Britannica 1998).

Combined patterns of change

Cyclic and one-directional changes may be

observed simultaneously. This occurs in part because
short-term change tends to be cyclic while long-term
change tends to follow one direction. For example,
production rates of industrializing countries exhibit the
pattern of short-term business cycles occurring within
long-term economic development.

176 Directorate of Distance Education, University of Mysore

 These patterns cannot be applied simply and
easily to social reality. At best, they are
approximations of social reality. Comparing the model
with reality is not always possible, because reliable
data are not always available. Moreover, many social
processes do not lend themselves to precise
quantitative measurement. Processes such as
bureaucratization or secularization, can be defined
through changes in a certain direction, but it is hard to
reach agreement on the dimensions to be measured.

It remains to be seen whether long-term social

change in a certain direction will be maintained. The
transformation of medieval society into the Western
nations of the 20th century may be conceived in terms
of several interconnected long-term one-directional
changes. Some of the more important of these
changes include commercialization, increasing division
of labour, growth of production, formation of nation-
states, bureaucratization, growth of technology and
science, secularization, urbanization, spread of
literacy, increasing geographic and social mobility, and
growth of organizations.

Many of these changes have also occurred in

non-Western societies. Most changes did not originate
in the West, but some important changes did, such as
the Industrial Revolution and the rise of capitalism.
These changes subsequently had a strong impact on
non-Western societies. Additionally, groups of people
outside Western Europe have been drawn into a global
division of labour, with Western nation-states gaining
dominance both politically and economically
(Britannica 1998).

4.1.3. Theories of Social Change

A variety of reasons have been offered
throughout history to explain why social change
occurs. The problem of explaining social change was
central to 19th century sociology (Mondal 2019).

177
Modern Sociological Theories
 Theories of social change can be divided into two
groups:

1. Theories relating to the direction of social change: this

includes
(a). Various types of evolutionary theories and
(b). Cyclical theory.

2. Theories relating to causation of change:

(a). Those explaining change in terms of endogamous
factors or processes;
(b). Those emphasising exogamous factors such as
economic, cultural or historical.

1. Evolutionary Theory

The notion of evolution came into social

sciences from the theories of biological evolution. With
the advent of Darwinian Theory of biological evolution,
society and culture began to be regarded as
undergoing the same changes and demonstrating the
same trends.

Herbert Spencer, the forerunner of the

evolutionary thought in sociology, took the position
that sociology is “the study of evolution in its most
complex form”. For him, evolution is a process of
differentiation and integration.

Assumptions and Distinctive Features of the

Evolutionary Change:

1. Change is the characteristic feature of human society.

2. Present observed condition of society is presumed to
be the result of change in the past.
3. Change is inevitable and it is ‘natural’.

It was assumed that the change is basically the

result of operation of forces within the society or
culture; and there is improvement in the next stage
over the preceding one.

The conception of evolution was applied not

only to the development of societies but also to art,

178 Directorate of Distance Education, University of Mysore

literature, music, philosophy, sciences, religion,
economic and political life (state) and almost every
other achievement of the mind of man. Both Spencer
and Durkheim employed the concept of structural
differentiation to indicate that as society develops
more functions, it becomes structurally more complex.

Auguste Comte, put an evolutionary idea of

social development, as a sequential progression of
societies. Comte linked developments in human
knowledge, culture and society and delineated the
three great stages through which all societies must
pass.

The evolutionary approach to social

development was also followed by radical thinkers,
such as Marx and Engels, who maintained that each
stage of civilisation, such as feudalism, prepared the
ground for the next.

There are three main types of evolutionary theory:

(1) Theory of Unilinear Evolution

It postulates the unidirectional, ordered or

progressive nature of social change. According to this
theory, change always proceeds toward a predestined
goal in a unilinear fashion. Followers of this pattern of
change argue that society gradually moves to an even
higher state of civilisation which advances in a linear
fashion and in the direction of improvement.

Theories of Saint-Simon, Comte, Morgan, Marx

and Engels, and many other anthropologists and
sociologists come under this category.

(2) Universal Theory of Evolution

Slight variant form of unilinear evolution, this

states that every society does not necessarily go
through the same fixed stages of development.
Rather, the culture of mankind, taken as a whole, has
followed a definite line of evolution.

179
Modern Sociological Theories
 Spencer’s views can be categorised under this
perspective who said, mankind had progressed from
small groups to large and from simple to compound
and in more general terms, from homogenous to the
heterogeneous.

(3) Multilinear Theory of Evolution

This type of evolutionism is developed more

recently and is more realistic than the unilinear and
universal brand of evolutionary change. Multilinear
evolution is a concept, which attempts to account for
diversity. It essentially means identification of different
sequential patterns for different culture or types of
cultures. This theory holds that change can occur in
several ways and that it does not inevitably lead in the
same direction. Theorists of this persuasion recognise
that human culture has evolved along a number of
lines.

2. Cyclical Theory

Cyclical change is a variation on unilinear theory

which was developed by Oswald Spengler and Arnold
J. Toynbee. They argued that societies and
civilisations change according to cycles of rise, decline
and fall just as individual persons are born, mature,
grow old, and die. According to Spengler, every
society has a predetermined life cycle - birth, growth,
maturity and decline. Society, after passing through all
these stages of life cycle, returns to the original stage
and thus the cycle begins again.

Toynbee upheld this theory; he has studied the

history of various civilisations and found that every
civilisation has its rise, development and fall. He
propounded the theory of “challenge and response”
which means that those who can cope with a changing
environment survive and those who cannot die.

A variant of cyclical process is the theory of P.A.

Sorokin, which is known as ‘pendular theory of social
change’. He considers the course of history to be

180 Directorate of Distance Education, University of Mysore

continuous, though irregular, fluctuating between two
basic kinds of cultures: the ‘sensate’ and the
‘ideational’ through the ‘idealistic’. According to him,
culture oscillates like the pendulum of a clock between
two points.

Vilfredo Pareto’s theory of ‘Circulation of Elites’

is also essentially of this type. Major social change in
society occurs when one set of elites replaces another;
a process he calls ‘circulation of elites’. All elites tend
to become decadent in the course of time. They
‘decay in quality’ and lose their ‘vigour’. He said,
societies pass through the periods of political vigour
and decline which repeat themselves in a cyclical
fashion.

3. Economic (Marxian) Theory of Social Change

Owing largely to the influence of Marx and

Marxism, the economic theory of change is also known
as the Marxian theory of change. The Marxian theory
rests on this fundamental assumption that changes in
the economic ‘infrastructure’ of society are the prime
movers of social change.

Change is the order of nature and society. It is

inherent in the matter through the contradiction of
forces. Matter is objective reality, existing outside and
independent of the mind. The activity of the mind
does not arise independent of the material. Everything
mental or spiritual is the product of the material
process. Therefore, world, by its very nature is
material.

Everything which exists comes into being on

the basis of material course, arises and develops in
accordance with the laws of motion of matter. Things
come into being, exist and cease to exist, not each
independent of all other things but each in its
relationship with others.

Things cannot be understood each separately

and by itself but only in their relation and intercon-

181
Modern Sociological Theories
 nections. The world does not consist of permanent
stable things with definite properties but of unending
processes of nature in which things go through a
change of coming into being and passing away.

For Marx, production system is the lever of all

social changes, and this system is dynamic. Need
system determines production and the technological
order, i.e., mode of production. It is man’s material
necessities that are at the root of his productive effort,
which in its turn are the basics of all other forms of his
life.

4. Conflict Theory

Social theorists in the 19th and early 20th

century were concerned with conflict in society. But,
the label of conflict theorists is generally applied to
those sociologists who opposed the dominance of
structural-functionalism. These theorists argued that in
functionalism there is no place of change and as such
it cannot explain change.

They had neglected conflict in favour of a

unitary concept of society that emphasised social
integration. By contrast, conflict theorists asserted that
institutions and practices continue because powerful
groups have the ability to maintain the status quo.
Change is a crucial significance, since it is needed to
correct social injustices and inequalities.

Conflict theorists do not believe that societies

smoothly evolve to higher level. Instead, they argue
that conflicting groups struggle to ensure progress.
They assert that conflict is a necessary condition for
change. There is no society which does not have
conflict of some kind or another. Thus, conflict is
associated with all types of social change in some way
or the other.

The modem conflict theory is heavily influenced

by the ideas of Karl Marx. It may be regarded as the
offshoot of his economic theory of social change which

182 Directorate of Distance Education, University of Mysore

states that economic change only occurs and produces
other change through the mechanism of intensified
conflict between social groups and between different
parts of the social system.

Marx viewed social change as a resolution of

conflict over scarce economic resources, whereas
Dahrendorf viewed social change as a resolution of
conflict over power. Marx believed a grand conflict
would occur between those who had economic
resources and those who did not; whereas Dahrendorf
believed that there is constant simultaneous conflict
among many segments of society.

5. Technological Theory

When the average person speaks of the

changes brought about by ‘science’, he is generally
thinking of ‘technology’. The ‘technology’ refers to the
application of knowledge to the making of tools and
the utilisation of natural resources. It involves the
creation of material instruments used in human
interaction with nature.

Technology is not only one but an important

factor of social change. It is said that almost whole of
human civilisation is the product of technological
development; it only means that any change in
technology would initiate a corresponding change in
the arrangement of social relationships.

Technological development creates new

conditions of life which forces new conditions in
adaptation. Technology, particularly the amount of
energy gathered and the way in which it is used,
determines the forms and content of culture and
society.

Certain social consequences are the direct

result of mechanisation, such as new organisation of
labour, destruction of domestic system of production,
the expansion of the range of social contacts, the
specialisation of function etc. Its indirect

183
Modern Sociological Theories
 consequences are the increase of unemployment, the
heightening of competition etc.

The invention of wheel, gunpowder, steam

engine, printing press, telephone, radio, TV, internet,
aeroplane, motor car and so many other inventions in
medical and other fields have revolutionised the
human life. Advances in agricultural technology, has
made possible the creation of a surplus.

Technological developments have affected a lot

of changes in attitudes, beliefs and even in traditions.
These influence almost all aspects of our life and
culture.

The production and use of food, shelter,

clothing and commodities, physical structures, and
fabrics all are also aspects of society’s technology. The
most important aspect of technology in that a man
thinks rationally and objectively about things and
events. Man has become more pragmatic in his
outlook. New forms of transportation and
communication, which have contributed to significant
changes in social life, are all due to the change in
technology.

There is a greater mobility of people today than

that was in the 19th or 20th century because of the
modem rapid means of transport. It is an important
factor in the determination of spatial aspect of social
relationships. Changes in communication devices have
also influenced all aspects of social life (work, leisure,
family, friendship, sports etc.) enormously.

Modern technology has also revolutionised the

concept and quality of the systems of production,
communication, social organisation and various
processes of acculturation and symbolisation in
societies. Technology helps in realising of our goals
with less effort, less cost and with greater efficiency.

Technology has advanced in leaps and bounds

over the decades and the single invention that has had

184 Directorate of Distance Education, University of Mysore

to greatest impact on our lives is the cell phone. It is
now not only used as a means of communication but it
has enabled us to operate home appliances and
entertainment devices, monitor our home’s safety, and
customise our internal home environment.

Functionalism and Social Change

Functionalism, as a new approach of study of

society, developed mainly as a reaction to
evolutionism, in the early years of twentieth century.
One of the most significant assumptions of
functionalists is that society (or culture) is comprised
of functionally interdependent parts or the system as a
whole. These theorists believed that the society, like
human body, is a balanced system of institutions, each
serves a function in maintaining society. When events
outside or inside the society’ disrupts the equilibrium,
social institution makes adjustments to restore stability
(Chandra 2017).

In fact, functionalists have no adequate

explanation of change. They cannot account for
change, in that there appears to be no mechanism
which will disturb existing functional relationships.
Thus, functionalists have nothing or very little to offer
to the study of social change as this approach is
concerned only about the maintenance of the system.
Society may change, but it remains stable through
new forms of integration. The functionalists responded
to change by employing concepts such as equilibrium
and differentiation.

Parsons views social change as a process of

‘social evolution’ from simple to more complex form of
society. Social evolution involves a process of social
differentiation. The institutions roles that form the
social system become increasingly differentiated and
specialised in terms of their function. As the parts of
society become more and more specialised and
distinct, it increases the problem of integration of
parts which in turn set forth the process of social
change and social equilibrium.

185
Modern Sociological Theories
 In the process of adaptation of social
institutions in a society, change is a necessary
condition or rather it is imminent in it. Thus, one can
explain changes in in terms of adaptation to other
institutions.

Therefore, according to functional theory change may

come from three main sources:

1. Adjustment to external disturbances.

2. Structural differentiation in response to problems

within the system, e.g., electoral reforms in response
to political unrest.

3. Creative innovations within the system, e.g., scientific

discoveries or technological advances.

186 Directorate of Distance Education, University of Mysore

4.2. Vilfredo Pareto
Vilfredo Federico Damaso (1848 –1923) was
an Italian engineer, sociologist, economist, political
scientist, and philosopher. He made several
important contributions to economics, particularly in
the study of income distribution and in the analysis
of individuals' choices. He was also responsible for
popularising the use of the term "elite" in social
analysis.

In his childhood, Pareto lived in a middle-

class environment, receiving a high standard of
education. In 1869 he earned a doctor's degree in engineering. His dissertation
was entitled "The Fundamental Principles of Equilibrium in Solid Bodies". His later
interest in equilibrium analysis in economics and sociology can be traced back to
this paper.

For some years after graduation, he worked as a civil engineer, first for
the state-owned Italian Railway Company and later in private industry. In 1886,
he became a lecturer on economics and management at the University of
Florence. His stay in Florence was marked by political activity, much of it fuelled
by his own frustrations with government regulators.

Pareto seems to have turned to sociology for an understanding of why his

abstract mathematical economic theories did not work out in practice, in the
belief that unforeseen or uncontrollable social factors intervened. His sociology
holds that much social action is non-logical and that much personal action is
designed to give spurious logicality to non-rational actions.

Pareto's sociology was introduced to the United States by George

Homans and Lawrence J. Henderson at Harvard, and had considerable influence,
especially on Harvard sociologist Talcott Parsons, who developed a systems
approach to society and economics that argues the status quo is usually
functional. Pareto was a lifelong opponent of Marxism.

Important Publications and books by Vilfredo Pareto are : The Mind and
Society. 1935. Manual of Political Economy: A Critical and Variorum Edition.
1906. The Rise and fall of Elites: An Application of Theoretical Sociology. 1968.
The Transformation of Democracy. 1921.

187
Modern Sociological Theories
 4.2.1. Circulation of Elites
Social cycle theories are among the earliest
social theories in sociology. Unlike the theory of social
evolutionism, which views the evolution of
society and human history as progressing in some
new, unique direction(s), sociological cycle theory
argues that events and stages of society and history
generally repeat themselves in cycles. Such a theory
does not necessarily imply that there cannot be
any social progress (Priya 2019).

The first social cycle theory in sociology was

created by Italian sociologist and economist Vilfredo
Pareto. He cantered his theory on the concept of
an elite social class, which he divided into cunning
'foxes' and violent 'lions'. In his view of society,
the power constantly passes from the 'foxes' to the
'lions' and vice versa.

The theory of change expounded by Pareto is

his theory of ‘Circulation of Elites’. Pareto’s treatment
of the circulation of elites is often cited and is
generally considered the most interesting part of his
sociology. Pareto believed that individuals are born
with quite different abilities and acquire quite different
skills and aptitudes.

In every society there are classes, therefore,

each society is heterogeneous. Such heterogeneity
takes place on account of mental, moral, physical and
cultural reasons but helps in maintaining social
balance and organisation. Some people are more
gifted than others. Those who are most capable in any
particular grouping are the elite. The term elite
denotes, ‘a class of people who have the highest
indices in their field of activity.’

Pareto defines, “By elite, we mean the small

number of individuals who, in each sphere of activity,
have succeeded and have arrived at a higher rank in
the professional hierarchy.” The successful

188 Directorate of Distance Education, University of Mysore

 businessmen, artists, successful writers, professors
etc. are the examples here.

Pareto further divided the elite class into two

categories:

1. Governing elite - comprise individuals who directly or

indirectly play some considerable part in government.
2. Non-governing elite - comprise the rest of the
individuals.

Pareto’s main discussion focuses on the

governing elite. Governing elites are directly and
indirectly concerned with administration. They play
highly important role and enjoy prestigious place in
society. Non-Governing elites are not connected with
administration but occupy such a place in society that
they somehow influence the administration.

Circulation or upward and downward circulation

amongst the members of the elite and non-elite is a
typical characteristic of the elite. The work and the
role of the elites are influenced by two types of factors
which are always operative in every society. One type
which is constant is called residues, the other type is
derivations.

According to Pareto social change comes

because of residues of combination and residue of
persistence of aggregates. Cycle of social change is a
continuous process. Political, economic and ideological
factors are responsible for continuing this process.
Following the Machiavellian formula, Pareto states that
the elites are able to manipulate and control the
masses by resorting to two methods: Force or Fraud,
which corresponding to Machiavelli’s famous anti-
thesis between the ‘Lions” and the “Foxes”.

The “Foxes” are the elites abundantly endowed

with residues of the first class (Residues of
combinations) which includes the propensities in social
groups to adopt flexibly to environmental or situational
exigencies. They are capable of innovation and
experiment, prefer materialistic to idealistic goals, but

189
Modern Sociological Theories
 lack fidelity to principles and use strategies that vary
from emotional appeal to unadulterated fraud.

The “Lions” are conservative elites in whom the

second class of residues (Persistence of aggregates)
predominates. They have faith and ideology; they
display group loyalty and class solidarity; they gain
and retain power by the use of force.

Every society has elite groups of different kinds.

These elites, being the best or excellent members of
their classes are always in a minority. But they are
vital and it is they who determine the development or
progress of every society.

Pareto concerns himself with a simple

distinction between those having power called the elite
and those having none called the non-elite. He sees
the history of every human society as the history of
the relations between its elite who rules and its non-
elites who are just ruled. Circulation of Elite is
between elite and non-elite, and between governing
elite and non-governing elite.

There can be also a circulation of elites in the

sense of being a process by which individuals circulate
between the elite and the non-elite. This process of
replacement takes place in two ways. It is either by a
gradual process of infiltration or by a violent
revolution.

Pareto explains all this in terms of changes in

psychological characteristics of the members of the
elite on the one hand, and those of the lower strata,
on the other. Thus when the elite no longer possesses
the residues necessary for keeping it in power and at
the same time at the lower strata of society, the
necessary residues are sufficiently manifest then the
declining elite recruits new elements from the lower
strata of society and thereby restores its vitality. Or it
may so happen that an elite decaying in the necessary
residues is violently overthrown by the lower classes
strong in the requisite residues necessary for keeping
them in power (Wani 2017: 120-123).

190 Directorate of Distance Education, University of Mysore

 The elites not only change within or amongst
their own classes, they also do so across the classes. A
few individuals may join the ranks of elites from the
non-elite groups. And a few elites may become non-
elite members of society.

The numbers of the various elite groups may

decline both in arithmetical terms as well as in their
quality or significance on account of the various
factors. When this happens the elites cease to be
elites and tend to come down to the non-elite group.
On the other hand, when some members of the non-
elite groups achieve excellence or acquire special
power they tend to join the particular elite groups.

Pareto says that this kind of increase in the

number or strength of elites as well as the decrease or
decline in their ranks is common features of every
society. Pareto takes a very large canvas of history
particularly Roman history and the Italian history of
his times to show how the circulations of elites take
place.

He observes that in a perfectly free society

there would be a constant and free circulation of
elites. But such a perfect society is almost an ideal
society. Most societies have imperfections of various
types and therefore the circulation of elites is seldom
ideally free or unimpeded.

In case of great social changes as signified by

wars or revolutions there takes place a large scale
replacement of the old elites by the new ones.
Whether particular elites stay in power or not, whether
they are partially or fully replaced or not, the fact
remains that they remain in vital positions and
characterised the development and progress of a
given society.

Men have a predominance of either Class-I

residues where they are the “foxes” or of Class-II
residues where they are the “lions”. The style of
governing will depend on whether the ruling elite is
composed of the foxes or the lions. The foxes are bold

191
Modern Sociological Theories
 and adventurous, they do not care to be cautious and
live by cunning and cleverness.

In the economic field, the foxes are the

speculators; they do not dread risks for the sake of
maximum profits. They indulge in promotion schemes.
The lions on the other hand, are solid, conservative,
tradition loving, loyal to family, church and nation.

They always prefer to rely on force rather than

on cleverness. In their economic field they are
rentiers. They are cautious, thrifty, content with small
returns on safe investments and unwilling to gamble.
The elite are composed of either of these types of
individuals depending on the sort of residues that
happen to prevail.

When Class I residues are dominant, the foxes

will rule and the predominance of Class II residues will
establish the rule by the lions. Indeed, history reveals
a constant alteration between elite having the
dominant Class I residues and an elite having the
preponderance of Class II residues.

In every society there are “people who possess

in a marked degree the qualities of intelligence,
character, skill, capacity, of whatever kind; that there
are two kinds of elite: that the two groups are
disjunctive at any given time, and that there is an up
and down circulation of the elite. But aristocracies with
the governing elite at the top, do not last.

Pareto says, “History is the grave-yard of

Aristocracy”. The famous statement reveals the fact
that history is accentuated with the elite class since
generation, who emerge, dominate, fall into
decadency and is replaced by non-decadent elites in
society. Pareto has given a number of reasons for
mortality of aristocracy which are un-graved in history
for generation and generation.

1. Aristocrats (mainly King and Emperor) were engaged

in historical wars which lead to degeneration of
aristocracy.

192 Directorate of Distance Education, University of Mysore

2. The inheritors of aristocracy are not necessarily
possessed with some inherent traits of that of their
forefathers. But they rule or govern on the basis of
heredity even though they may not have the
necessary skill, knowledge about governance and
sufficient ability to govern the kingdom, or empire;
they fall into decadence after few hours of glory.

Thus aristocracies emerge, dominate, fall into

decadence and fall into power, replaced by non-
decadent elites.

On the whole the up and down movement of

elite takes place in two ways. Firstly, some non-elite,
by their merit, may rise to the level of elite. Secondly,
by revolution the entire governing class may be
reduced to the status of the governed. Pareto says,
circulation of elite is necessary for healthy social
change (Sabbag 2018: 63-65).

The general mechanism of society according to

Pareto, can be understood by interest, residues,
derivations and social heterogeneity. These four major
variables are in a state of mutual dependence on
which the movement of society depends. These are
the four clear components in all the activities which
had to assume some sort of equilibrium in any social
system.

‘By the circulations of elites, “Pareto wrote, “the

governing elite is in a state of continuous and slow
transformation. It flows like a river, and what it is
today is different from what it was yesterday. Very
often, there are sudden and violent disturbances. The
river floods and breaks its banks. Then afterwards, the
new governing elite resume again and slow process of
self-transformation. The river returns to its bed and
once more flows freely on.”

4.2.2. Residues

Residues are the most important among social

factors. Human actions depend greatly on the
character of their drives. Among these drives, the

193
Modern Sociological Theories
 especially important are those which are relatively
constant. Pareto calls them residues. His residue is not
an instinct, nor is it exactly a sentiment.

Residues are the manifestation of sentiments

and instincts but the manifestation is not constant.
Residues are intermediary between sentiments and
concomitant behaviour. These are related to human
instincts but not synonymous with them. Residues are
those permanent elements in man’s rationalization of
behaviour and are intermediary between sentiments.

In the words of Pareto, “Residues are

intermediary between the sentiments, we cannot know
directly and the belief systems and acts that can be
known and analyzed. These are related to man’s
instinct, but they do not cover all the instincts, since
the method we have followed enables us to discover
only those of the instincts which give rise to
rationalizations.”

Pareto believed that society was a system of

equilibrium. He treated individuals as the parts of this
system, and he assumed that such individuals are
affected by certain forces, the most important of
which he described as “sentiments.” Sentiments
cannot be observed (Sabbag 2018: 63-65).

Pareto claimed that it is possible to observe the

effects of sentiments. These effects are psychic states,
described as unchanging “residues” in social action.
Residues represent the underlying psychological
substratum of social action.

Characteristics of Residues:
1. Residues are not instincts and sentiments.
2. They are the manifestation of sentiments and
instincts.
3. Residues are related to individual instincts but these
residues do not cover all of them.
4. Residues are intermediary between the sentiments we
cannot know directly and the belief system and acts
that can be known and analyzed.

194 Directorate of Distance Education, University of Mysore

5. Residues are non-logical
6. Residues are not based on any reason.
7. Residues are more or less permanent motivators of
human behaviour. They guide human behaviour.
8. Residues represent the general elements of human
actions and behaviour.
9. Residues cannot be explained with the help of logic
and experimentation.
10. Residues are responsible for maintaining social
equilibrium.
11. Residues may change according to the demand of
time and condition even if they are relatively stable
elements.

Classification of Residues:

Pareto classified residues into six groupings

which corresponding more or less to certain instincts
or emotional propensities of mankind (Sabbag 2018:
63-65).

1. Residues of Combination:

It is the combination of various similar and

opposing elements. They are established on the basis
of physical and psychological elements. These
elements have no logical base. The principle is similar
things produce similar results.

195
Modern Sociological Theories
 This is class-I residue. “It is an inclination to combine
….things.”

It explains human intellectual curiosity and

ability to synthesize information. Legends and myths
are built up by this residue.

For example, Devotion to God leads to

salvation. Likewise butterfly in dream indicates future
happiness. There is no logic behind the working of
such residues but they effectively control our social
behaviour. Class-I residues are found in inventors,
speculators and politicians.

2. Residues of Persistence of Aggregates:

These residues are responsible for giving

stability to the social relations and the relations
between individual members of a particular social life.
These residues are born because of certain
circumstances but they continue even when that
situation has ceased to exist. This is class-2 residues.
It explains the inertia associated with group
membership. It explains the persistence of kin groups,
ethnic groups and socio-economic classes.

Traditions and customs are good examples of

these residues. There is a natural tension, or anti-
thesis between class-2 and class-I residues. Class-2
residues are found in churchmen, family men and
“good subordinates.”

These residues are responsible for giving

stability in two areas:

(i) Social relationship as a whole.

(ii) Individual behaviour within the society.

Members of society have respect for these

residues. Pareto called these residues as residues of
social integrity and stability. Pareto feels that these
residues help in maintaining relationship in 3 levels.

196 Directorate of Distance Education, University of Mysore

1. Relationship of man with man.
2. Relationship of man with environment.
3. Relationship of living with dead or spirit or soul.

These residues are emerged because of certain

circumstances. These also will continue even when
these situations have stopped to exist.

3. Residues of Manifestation of sentiments

through external activities:

Residues of this class are connected with

external activities. These activities deal with the
unexpressed desires of the individual. These feelings
express themselves in form of religious feelings and
worship. These class 3 residues are manifested in
ceremonies, religious ecstasies and festivals. Political
movements in order to achieve political freedom and
such other social and economic movements those are
intended at getting economic and social emancipation
are parts of these residues.

4. Residues of Sociability:

Because of this residue man becomes a social

animal and tries to modify his behaviour according to
social norms and values. These residues make for
communal living. These residues are also connected
with life in society. These Class 4 residues explain the
persistence of fashion, feelings of pity and cruelty and
acts of self-sacrifice. Co-operation, sympathy, fears,
kindness are the results of these residues. This kind of
residues is very important for social organisation.

5. Residues of the integrity of Personality:

These residues of class 5 involve “the defence

of integrity and development of personality.” This class
is manifested in “sentiments” to alterations in the
social equilibrium. The sentiments to which class 5
residues correspond are “sentiments of interest.” They
refer to individual acts based on self-interest. These
residues are for maintaining the integrity and balance

197
Modern Sociological Theories
 of personality. These are also helpful in making people
moral in maintaining high moral standards.

6. Residues regarding sex:

The sex residues, i.e. the class 6 residues are

responsible for “mental states” having to do with
sexual activities. All those residues that are
responsible for establishing, maintaining and
strengthening the sex relations come under this
residue. These residues are also concerned with
sexual urges. These residues influence our outlook,
attitude and thinking. According to Pareto, debauchery
that is carried out in the name of welfare of women is
based on these very residues. Since there are many
sex taboos, therefore sexual residues are very
complex and complicated.

4.2.3. Derivations

Derivations are those “non-logico experimental

theories” that people use to explain what they think
they are doing when they are engaged in non-logical
uniformities of behaviour that are explicable in terms
of residues. Derivations are appeals and assertions
that permit individuals to move towards the preferred
goal states that are because of residues. Although
derivations make action appear to be logical, they do
not permit such individuals to understand the real
purpose of their action. Therefore, Derivations have
much in common with Marx’s “ideology” and with
Freud’s “rationalization.”

Derivations only arise when there is reasoning,

argument and ideological justification. Those factors
which help in presenting logical explanations to the
activities on the basis of needs, nature, circumstances
and norms are known as Derivations. Man tries to
explain the logic behind the action. These actions may
not always be correct. This is what Martindale has
said, “The Derivations consist in the ways in which
men disseminate and explain their actions” (Sabbag
2018: 59-61).

198 Directorate of Distance Education, University of Mysore

 Characteristics of Derivations:

1. Derivations are linked with residues. These try to

explain actions performed under the influence of
residues.
2. Derivations are non-logical actions and facts. These
are accepted on the basis of emotions and feelings.
3. Through derivations we try to provide justification to
our ideologies and the actions on the basis of morality,
logic and ideologies.
4. As compared to residues, derivations are more flexible
and changeable.
5. These are an attempt to hide realities.
6. Derivations are neither instinctive nor logical.
7. Derivations are the factors that keep in presenting
logical explanation to the activities on the basis of
needs, circumstances, nature and norms.

Types of Derivations:

Pareto, on the basis of his analysis has tried to

classify derivations under the following four heads.

1. Derivations of Assertion:

It is including affirmations of facts and

sentiments. These sentiments are not subjected to
experimentation. These are usually accepted as true
and it is not possible to oppose them. This class of
derivation is used with class-I residues. For instance, a
scientists might see himself as working long hours
because he has “a thirst for knowledge.”

199
Modern Sociological Theories
 He described himself as a thoroughly logical
person, dedicated to “truth.” Pareto however would
have claimed -that such a person is embodying the
non-logical “instincts for combinations.” Affirmations
which are partially based on facts and partially on
sentiments are called “Mixed Affirmations.” If these
affirmations are repeated they are generally accepted.

2. Derivations of Authority:

If the affirmations are based on reason and

stated with definiteness they become an authority.
Those derivations that are the sanction of some force
or power behind it are called “Authority”. Authoritative
relations in this class are in concord with sentiments.
This class of Derivation is used with Class-2 residues.

For instance, the residents of ethnic Ghettoes

might claim that they prefer to stay in their
neighbourhood so that they can be with their own
people and attend their own churches. They might
point out that this is “logical” because, by living in the
same neighbourhood they do not have to cross town
to get what they want.

Pareto however, would have insisted that their

desire to place themselves under the authority of their
own communal mores was a derivation from the
residue of group persistence.

3. Derivations accord with Sentiments:

This class of derivations is based upon

agreements with emotions and the invocation of meta-
physical entities. These include sentiments, collective
interests, legal entities such as law and justice, meta-
physical entities such as solidarity, progress, humanity
etc. Such derivations are to be found when we link our
sentiments with national interest, spiritual welfare etc.

4. Derivations of Verbal Proofs:

These are found in form of metaphors and

analogies. Metaphors are figure of speech by which a

200 Directorate of Distance Education, University of Mysore

thing is spoken of as being that which is only
resembles. Analogies are agreement in certain
respects between things otherwise different. Verbal
proofs are not based on realities, but are used only to
prove justification. Most political speeches belong to
the categories of verbal proof. Verbal proofs are non-
logical in character. It is more concerned with the
psychological procedure by which men influence one
another.

Criticisms:

1. Pareto has used the residues as drives but he has

not tried to say whether these drives are physical or
natural facts or results of socio-historical process.

2. Pareto has not clearly explained the nature of

residues and relationships exist between residues.

3. Bogardus argues, classification of residues is vague.

It is another name given to instincts and sentiments.

4. The notion of residues is often misunderstood as

merely a decorative term for instinct.

5. Residues and derivations are not justifiable in all

circumstances. According to Bogardus, Derivation is
the 7th residue. It can safely be termed as “residue to
justification.”

6. Sorokin argues, Derivations are kind of weather

cock which turns according to the direction of wind.

7. Sometimes concepts of residues and derivations

give rise to wrong notions.

Moreover, residues and derivations are very

much helpful in explaining social movements, social
change and dynamics of social history.

201
Modern Sociological Theories
 4.2.4. Check your progress

1 Who are elites?

................................................................................................................
2 What are the two types of elites?
................................................................................................................
3 What are the terms used for the governing elites?
................................................................................................................
4 What are residues?
................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................
5 How residues are classified?
................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................
6 What are derivations?
................................................................................................................
7 What are the types of derivations?
................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................
8 What is circulation of elites?
................................................................................................................

202 Directorate of Distance Education, University of Mysore

4.3. Pitirim Alexandrovich Sorokin
Pitirim Alexandrovich Sorokin was a
Russian-born American sociologist and political
activist, best known for his contributions to
the social cycle theory. Sorokin was an anti-
communist, and during the Russian Revolution was
a member of the Socialist Revolutionary Party,
supporter of the White Movement, and a secretary
to Prime Minister Alexander Kerensky who was a
leader in the Russian Constituent Assembly. After
the October Revolution, Sorokin continued to
fight communist leaders, and was arrested by the
new regime several times before he was eventually condemned to death. After
six weeks in prison, Sorokin was released and went back to teaching at the
University of St. Petersburg, becoming the founder of the sociology department
at the university. In 1922, Sorokin was again arrested and this time exiled by
the Soviet government, emigrating in 1923 to the United States, and became
a naturalized citizen in 1930.

Sorokin was professor of sociology at the University of Minnesota from

1924 to 1940; later he accepted an offer by the president of Harvard University,
where he worked until 1959. Sorokin's academic writings are extensive; he wrote
37 books and more than 400 articles. His controversial theories of social process
and the historical typology of cultures are expounded in Social and Cultural
Dynamics (4 vols) and many other works. Sorokin was also interested in social
stratification, the history of sociological theory, and altruistic behaviour.

Sorokin's work addressed three major theories:

social differentiation, social stratification and social
conflict. The theory of social differentiation describes
three types of societal relationships. The first is
familistic, which is the type that we would generally
strive for. It is the relationship that has the most
solidarity, the values of everyone involved are
considered, and there is a great deal of interaction.

Social stratification refers to the fact that all

societies are hierarchically divided, with upper and
lower strata and unequal distribution of wealth, power,
and influence across strata. There is always some
mobility between these strata. People or groups may
move up or down, acquiring or losing their power.

203
Modern Sociological Theories
 Social conflict refers to Sorokin's theory of war.
Whether internal to a nation or international, peace is
based on similarity of values among the people of a
nation or between different nations. War has a
destructive phase, when values are destroyed, and a
declining phase, when some of values are restored.
Sorokin thought, the number of wars would decrease
with increased solidarity and decreased antagonism. If
a society's values stressed altruism instead of egoism,
the incidence of war would diminish.

In his Social and Cultural Dynamics, his

masterpiece, Sorokin classified societies according to
their 'cultural mentality', which can be "ideational"
(reality is spiritual), "sensate" (reality is material), or
"idealistic" (a synthesis of the two). He suggested that
major civilizations evolve from an ideational to an
idealistic, and eventually to a sensate mentality. Each
of these phases of cultural development not only
seeks to describe the nature of reality, but also
stipulates the nature of human needs and goals to be
satisfied, the extent to which they should be satisfied,
and the methods of satisfaction. Sorokin has
interpreted the contemporary Western civilization as a
sensate civilization, dedicated to technological
progress and prophesied its fall into decadence and
the emergence of a new ideational or idealistic era.

An outstanding importance in Sorokin's work is

its concentration on social change. He devoted most of
his time to social change or dynamics. He sought to
find out what social change meant, why it has
occurred, what it did to the person and the societies,
and what were the eventual destinations of persons
and societies in the new forms. His first book in his
"second life", (after remission of the death
sentence and permanent banishment) was Sociology
of Revolution. His second was Social Mobility, or
movements and changes of persons, classes, ideas,
values and other social things.

Sorokin had one "writing life" before

banishment and another one after. His first concerned

204 Directorate of Distance Education, University of Mysore

crime, law, peasant conditions (traditional sociology)
plus professional chores such as Elements of Sociology
(1919, Russian) and Systematic Sociology, (2 Vols.,
1920-21, Russian). His second in the United States
was mainly about social change and dynamics, plus a
few professional chores. The analysis of social change,
its importance and comprehensiveness, made by
Sorokin may be a permanent contribution toward the
science of sociology and our knowledge.

Common Features among Social Change Writers

1. Had the objectivity of an outsider. He is a man

originating outside of the cultures about which he
writes, and coming into them with some of the
dispassion of the visiting scholar from afar. In a
technical and a psychological sense Sorokin was not a
mass or orthodox Russian by culture. His constant
movements have been into new cultures, from the
fringes of the Arctic to Harvard University in the U.S.A.

2. Sorokin's early engagement in political agitation

with a resultant broadening of experience and close
physical contact with the tangible and intangible good
and evil forces of a Machiavellian nature in the
ordinary management process of society. Most great
social change writers, and these philosophers of
history, had considerable "experiences" of this nature.

3. Most of these social change philosophers had un-

orthodox educations arising largely out of the
situations in which they found themselves. They did
not ordinarily receive formal educations in standard
subjects in which they later made their names.

4. Many great philosophers of history had experienced

imprisonment, punishment, and death sentences for
their activities and views, and the fortunate ability to
recover and unwillingness to be crushed by this
psychological passage out of life, and then return. In
these cases, their great work of a creative nature
might be said to have been made in their second lives
or their "reincarnations". Most of these writers were in
danger much of the time and escaped by narrow

205
Modern Sociological Theories
 margins. They were always living on time which had
been gained by accident (Zimmerman 1968).

4.3.1. Sensate and Ideational Culture

Pitirim A Sorokin, in his book “Social and
Culture Dynamics”-1938, has offered explanation of
social change. His work has had a more lasting impact
on sociological thinking. Instead of viewing civilisations
into terms of development and decline he proposed
that they alternate or fluctuate between two cultural
extremes: The “sensate” and the “ideational’.

The sensate culture stresses those things which

can be perceived directly by the senses. It is practical,
hedonistic, sensual, and materialistic. Ideational
Culture emphasises those things which can be
perceived only by the mind. It is abstract, religious,
concerned with faith and ultimate truth. It is the
opposite of the sensate culture. Both represent ‘pure’
types of culture.

Hence no society ever fully conforms to either

type. Without mentioning the causes, he said that as
the culture of a society develops towards one pure
type, it is countered by the opposing cultural force.
Cultural development is then reversed moving towards
the opposite type of culture.

Too much emphasis on one type of culture

leads to a reaction towards the other. “Societies
contain both these impulses in varying degrees and
the tension between them creates long-term
instability”. Between these types, of course, there lies
the third type, ‘idealistic’ cultures. This is a happy and
a desirable blend of the other two, but no society ever
seems to have achieved it as a stable condition.

Sorokin’s theory has not been accepted by the

sociologists for it portrays his prejudices and probably
his disgust with the modern society. His concepts of
‘sensate’ and ‘ideational’ are purely subjective. His
theory is in a way speculative and descriptive. It does

206 Directorate of Distance Education, University of Mysore

 not provide an explanation as to why social change
should take this form. Thus, the cyclical theories, in
general are not satisfactory.

He identified these three strikingly consistent

phenomena, based on a careful study of world history
including detailed statistical analysis of phases in art,
architecture, literature, economics, philosophy,
science, and warfare (Uebersax 2010).

1. There are two opposed elementary cultural patterns,

the materialistic (Sensate) and spiritual (Ideational),
along with certain intermediate or mixed
patterns. One mixed pattern, called Idealistic, which
integrates the Sensate and Ideational orientations, is
extremely important.

2. Every society tends to alternate between materialistic

and spiritual periods, sometimes with transitional,
mixed periods, in a regular and predictable way.

3. Times of transition from one orientation to another are

characterized by a markedly increased prevalence of
wars and other crises.

Some features of the Sensate, Ideational,

and Idealistic cultural patterns are :

Sensate (Materialistic) Culture

 The defining cultural principle is that true reality is

sensory – only the material world is real. There is no
other reality or source of values.
 This becomes the organizing principle of society. It
permeates every aspect of culture and defines the
basic mentality. People are unable to think in any
other terms.
 Sensate culture pursues science and technology, but
dedicates little creative thought to spirituality or
religion.
 Dominant values are wealth, health, bodily comfort,
sensual pleasures, power and fame.

207
Modern Sociological Theories
  Ethics, politics, and economics are utilitarian and
hedonistic. All ethical and legal precepts are
considered mere man-made conventions, relative and
changeable.
 Art and entertainment emphasize sensory stimulation.
In the decadent stages of Sensate culture there is a
frenzied emphasis on the new and the shocking
(literally, sensationalism).
 Religious institutions are mere relics of previous
epochs, stripped of their original substance, and
tending to fundamentalism and exaggerated fideism
(the view that faith is not compatible with reason).

Ideational (Spiritual) Culture:

 The defining principle is that true reality is

supersensory, transcendent, spiritual.
 The material world is variously: an illusion, temporary,
passing away, sinful, or a mere shadow of an eternal
transcendent reality.
 Religion often tends to asceticism and moralism.
 Mysticism and revelation are considered valid sources
of truth and morality.
 Science and technology are comparatively de-
emphasized.
 Economics is conditioned by religious and moral
commandments (e.g., laws against usury).
 Innovation in theology, metaphysics, and
supersensory philosophies.
 Flourishing of religious and spiritual art (e.g., Gothic
cathedrals).

Most cultures correspond to one of the two

basic patterns above. Sometimes, however, a mixed
cultural pattern occurs. The most important mixed
culture Sorokin termed an Integral culture (also
sometimes called an idealistic culture). An Integral
culture harmoniously balances sensate and ideational
tendencies.

208 Directorate of Distance Education, University of Mysore

 Integral (Idealistic) Culture:

 Its ultimate principle is that the true reality is richly

manifold, a tapestry in which sensory, rational, and
supersensory threads are interwoven.
 All compartments of society and the person express
this principle.
 Science, philosophy, and theology blossom together.
 Fine arts treat both supersensory reality and the
noblest aspects of sensory reality.

Sorokin examined a wide range of world

societies. In each he believed he found evidence of
the regular alternation between Sensate and
Ideational orientations, sometimes with an Integral
culture intervening. According to Sorokin, Western
culture is now in the third Sensate epoch of its
recorded history.

Based on a detailed analysis of art, literature,

economics, and other cultural indicators, Sorokin
concluded that ancient Greece changed from a
Sensate to an Ideational culture around the 9th
century BC; during this Ideational phase, religious
themes dominated society.

Following this, in the Greek Classical period

(roughly 600 BC to 300 BC), an Integral culture
reigned: the Parthenon was built; art flourished, as
did philosophy (Plato, Aristotle). This was followed by
a new Sensate age, associated first with
Hellenistic (the empire founded by Alexander the
Great) culture, and then the Roman Empire.

As Rome’s Sensate culture decayed, it was

eventually replaced by the Christian Ideational culture
of the Middle Ages. The High Middle Ages and
Renaissance brought a new Integral culture, again
associated with many artistic and cultural innovations.
After this Western society entered its present Sensate
era, now in its twilight. We are due, according to
Sorokin, to soon make a transition to a new
Ideational, or, preferably, an Integral cultural era.

209
Modern Sociological Theories
 4.3.2. Cultural Dynamics
Sorokin was interested in the process by which
societies change cultural orientations. He opposed the
view, held by communists, that social change must be
imposed externally, as by a revolution. His principle of
immanent change states that external forces are not
necessary: societies change because it is in their
nature. Although sensate or ideational tendencies may
dominate at any given time, every culture contains
both mentalities in a tension of opposites. When one
mentality becomes stretched too far, it sets in motion
compensatory transformative forces.

Human beings are themselves partly sensate,

partly rational, and partly intuitive. Whenever a culture
becomes too exaggerated in one of these directions,
forces within the human psyche will, individually and
collectively, work correctively. As a Sensate or
Ideational culture reaches a certain point of decline,
social and economic crises mark the beginning of
transition to a new mentality. These crises occur partly
because, as the dominant paradigm reaches its late
decadent stages, its institutions try unsuccessfully to
adapt, taking ever more drastic measures. However,
responses to crises tend to make things worse, leading
to new crises. Expansion of government control is an
inevitable by-product (Uebersax 2010).

4.3.3. Check your progress

1 What are sensate ad ideational cultures?

................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................
2 What are the three cultural patterns Sorokin identifies in his theory of change?
................................................................................................................
3 How social change takes place according to Simmel?
................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................

210 Directorate of Distance Education, University of Mysore

4.4. William Fielding Ogburn
William Fielding Ogburn was an American
sociologist . He was also a statistician and an
educator. He was a professor of sociology at
Columbia from 1919 until 1927, when he became
chair of the Sociology Department at the University
of Chicago. He served as the president of American
Sociological Society in 1929. Ogburn was also
known for his idea of "culture lag" in society's
adjustment to technological and other changes.
This concept is mentioned in the book Future
Shock, by Alvin Toffler. He was one of the most
prolific sociologists of his time, with 175 articles
under his name.

Perhaps Ogburn's most enduring intellectual legacy is the theory of social

change he offered in 1922. He suggested that technology is the primary engine
of progress, but tempered by social responses to it. Thus, his theory is often
considered a case of Technological determinism, but is really more than that. The
determinisam can be of two types - Hard Determinism and Soft Determinism.

Hard determinists view technology as developing independent from social

concerns. They believe that technology creates a set of powerful forces acting to
regulate our social activity and its meaning. Soft determinism, as the name
suggests, is a more passive view of the way technology interacts with socio-
political situations. Soft determinists still subscribe to the fact that technology is
the guiding force in our evolution, but maintain that we have a chance to make
decisions regarding the outcomes of a situation. Ogburn, in fact, proposed a
slightly different variant of soft determinism, in which society must adjust to the
consequences of major inventions, but often does so only after a period of
cultural lag. Cultural lag, a term coined by Ogburn, refers to a period of
maladjustment, which occurs when the non-material culture is struggling to
adapt to new material conditions.

4.4.1. Stages of Technological

Development
Early writers on innovation during the sixteenth
and seventeenth centuries were concerned with
change as the antithesis of orthodoxy and authority.
The introduction of change or novelty, in religion and
politics, defined what innovation is; it had nothing to

211
Modern Sociological Theories
 do with technology. The term innovation was
pejorative, and remained so until the late nineteenth
or early twentieth century. Then, innovation acquired
a positive association and change became a topic for
study. In studying innovation, researchers turned to
the concept of change: cultural change
(anthropology), technological change (economics) and
social change (sociology). Hence, innovation is about
bringing something new into the world: an idea, a
behaviour (or action) or an object (Barnett, 1953).

Ogburn was particularly interested in explaining

social change: why social changes occur, why certain
conditions apparently resist change, how culture
grows, how civilization has come to be what it is. To
Ogburn, invention is the evidence of change. If there
are few inventions, there are few changes” (Ogburn
and Nimkoff, 1940: 815). In explaining change,
Ogburn opposed evolutionary theories based either on
biological explanations or on the development stages
of culture. To him, social change cannot be
comprehended using biological explanations.

Ogburn argues, biological changes are slow:

“Biological variations and transmissions of these
variations occur through a slow process of heredity
and selection, and through mutations whose
frequency is not great” (Ogburn 1922b: 123-130).
Consequently, the explanation of social change must
be sought in culture rather than in the biological
nature of man (Jaffe 1968: 278). Inventions are more
frequent than mutations (Ogburn 1922b: 131). 2

Rather than following existing biological or

anthropological theories, Ogburn concentrated on
studying the mechanisms of change. To Ogburn, a
central factor or mechanism of social change was
technological invention, or “material culture”. The key
to social change may be sought in invention, any new
element in culture. To understand social change it is
necessary to know how inventions are made and how
they are diffused (Ogburn 1933: 331).

212 Directorate of Distance Education, University of Mysore

 Technology has possible contributions to
sociology, quite comparable with those of geography,
biology and psychology. However, there have been no
sociologists who based sociology on technology. The
neglect of the consideration of technology by
sociologists has resulted in a great loss in the
development of sociology (Ogburn 1938:1).

For change to happen, there are two forces

were at work. On one hand, invention (and its
diffusion) is growing at an accelerated rate. On the
other hand, inertia and resistance lead to delays or
lags in adoption and adjustment of adaptive culture or
social institutions. The environment of man consists of
two parts, natural and social. The latter, often called
culture, includes two dimensions, the mental and the
material. The use of material things is a very
important part of the culture; but is not particularly
emphasized. Culture is social heritage, the
accumulated products of human society, and includes
the use of material objects as well as social institutions
and social ways of doing things.

According to Ogburn culture grows by means of

invention (and its diffusion). Inventions occur due to
three factors:
1. Individuals (mental ability),
2. Culture base (antecedents and achievements), and
3. Social attitude towards the new (Ogburn 1922b: 111).

Ogburn developed his views on these factors

over the next three decades. He got deeper into many
dimensions of this theory:
1. He downgraded the role of individuals as the source of
invention;
2. He argued rather for the social roots of invention;
3. He suggested the concept of cultural lag to account
for, why culture does not change and to study the
effects of invention.

Hence, Ogburn has often been accused of

technological determinism. Ogburn posited four stages

213
Modern Sociological Theories
 of technical development: invention, accumulation,
diffusion, and adjustment.

Invention is the process by which new forms of

technology are created. Inventions are collective
contributions to an existing cultural base that cannot
occur unless the society has already gained a certain
level of knowledge and expertise in the particular
area.

Accumulation is the growth of technology due

to the fact that the invention of new things outpaces
the process by which old inventions become obsolete
or are forgotten—some inventions (such as writing)
promote this accumulation process.

Diffusion is the spread of an idea from one

cultural group to another, or from one field of activity
to another. As diffusion brings inventions together,
they combine to form new inventions.

Adjustment is the process by which the non-

technical aspects of a culture respond to invention.
Any retardation of this adjustment process causes
cultural lag (Ogburn 1922).

Inventions depend on individuals, more

particularly those people in the upper strata of the
curve of mental ability in a population. Here, mental
ability refers to learning and education not heredity.
But the (material) culture has a good deal to do with
determining the nature of the particular inventions
that are made. Ogburn looked at the phenomenon of
independent or duplicate inventions (and discoveries),
and produced a list of 148 inventions, and determined
that many inventions have been made two or more
times by different inventors, each working without
knowledge of the other’s research. This is to say,
invention depends on the cultural factor, or
preparation, and on cultural needs. The existing status
of culture is an important a determinant of a
succeeding culture, and the processes of cultural
evolution are to be explained in cultural and social

214 Directorate of Distance Education, University of Mysore

terms, in terms of sociology and not in terms of
biology and psychology (Ogburn and Thomas 1922a:
87-93).
Individuals and their inherited qualities and
mental abilities greatly influence the times, but only
through favourable social conditions, through cultural
materials and social valuations. Great men thus appear
as media; Men are a medium in social change; Great
men are the product of their times, and they in turn
influence their times. The production of great men and
their influence are strongly conditioned and
determined by the particular existing stage of
historical development. The great man and his work
appear therefore as only a step in a process, largely
dependent upon other factors (Ogburn 1926: 42-43).

A great discovery or invention often requires

many years of effort, usually by several inventors and
the contributions of many inventions (Ogburn et. al.
1946: 59). It is a threefold combination of previous
inventions, many individuals and diverse activities.

For Ogburn, Cultural Lag as framework;

diffusion is relatively much more common occurrence
than invention itself in explaining change. According to
Ogburn, psychological and social resistance to the
diffusion and use of inventions leads to social
maladjustments. Ogburn identified two sorts of
maladjustments. One concerns the adaptation of man
to culture. The other is that between the different
parts of culture: various parts of modern culture are
not changing at the same rate, some parts are
changing much more rapidly than others. A cultural
lag occurs when one of two parts of culture changes in
greater degree than the other part does, causing less
adjustment between the two parts than existed
(Ogburn 1957a: 167). Ogburn is principally interested
in the lags or delays between the material part of
culture and the non-material part, or adaptive culture
(rules, religion, family, policy, etc.).

215
Modern Sociological Theories
 There is relationship between the two types of
invention, technological and social. Mechanical
invention is the source of all change. Just as
mechanical inventions furnish an incentive for certain
social inventions, so social inventions sometimes
stimulate the making of mechanical inventions. In
some cases, the social invention comes first; but in
other cases it is the mechanical development. The
close relationship between social and mechanical
invention is characteristic of the nature of the
influence of inventions on society (Ogburn and Gilfillan
1933: 124-125). The cultural lag was the concept
through which Ogburn turned to the study of the
social effects of technology. His study concluded with
a series of general propositions about the process of
invention and the influence of inventions on society
(Ogburn and Gilfillan 1933: 158-163):
o An invention often has many effects spreading out like
a fan.
o A social change often represents the combined
contributions of many inventions.
o Inventional causes and social effects are intertwined in
a process.
o An invention has a series of effects following each
other somewhat like the links of a chain.
o Groups of similar inventions have an appreciable social
influence where that of any particular one may be
negligible.
o The accumulation of the influences of the smaller
inventions is a significant part of the process.
o The majority of inventions are merely slight
improvements on some existing devices.
o There are social factors as well as mechanical ones in
social change.
o Social factors in social changes are often derivatives,
in part from mechanical inventions, and vice versa.
o The effects of invention on society are of various
degrees and kinds (habits, social classes,
organizations, social institutions, ethics, systems of
thought or social philosophies).

216 Directorate of Distance Education, University of Mysore

o It takes time for the social influences of inventions to
become fully felt.
o There are social inventions as well as mechanical ones
effective in social change.

Ogburn’s theory on the social effects of

invention relies on several concepts. Ogburn first
makes a distinction between use and effect of
invention. The distinction rests on time: use occurs
simultaneously with adoption, whereas effect appears
later; use applies to individuals, effect to social
organizations and organized habits (Ogburn et. al.
1946: 69). Similarly, social effects of an invention
depend on how widely the invention is used. Effects
are many: social, cultural, environmental, health,
political, and are not reducible to economic effects.
Therefore, it is desirable to look at technology from
various points of view. For example, Ogburn identified
150 effects of information and communication
technologies on behaviour, recreation and
entertainment, transportation, education,
dissemination of information, religion, industry and
business, occupations, and government and politics.

Ogburn also distinguishes the kinds of effects.

There are immediate or direct effects, and there are
derivative effects. Immediate effects are the effects on
producers and users. Derivative effects are changes in
social and political institutions. The pattern of
causation is like that of a network: everything is
connected. Where a new invention or scientific
discovery is made and, if adopted, effects are soon felt
by users and producers, sometimes in many different
areas. These are followed by successive derivative
effects in other parts of society which are also being
affected by changes coming from various other
sources. The process is further complicated because of
resistances which delay or prevent resulting changes
(Ogburn 1957b: 20-23).

To understand this complex process of

invention, Ogburn propounded two general principles.

217
Modern Sociological Theories
 The first is that of convergence: The influence of many
inventions canalizes on a single point. It is a common
occurrence to have influences from several inventions
converge on a single social institution. The second
principle is that of successive derivative influences or
effects: The influences of inventions resulting from a
succession of impacts are generally called derivative
influences, first, second, third, and so on (Ogburn
1941: 171-181). The study of the effects of invention
led Ogburn to propose a highly influential idea in
science, technology and innovation studies: that of
invention as a sequential process.

Ogburn’s series of sequences culminated in the

concept of Social Change, Ogburn suggested a theory
to explain cultural evolution. The theory summarizes
thirty years of thought on invention. To Ogburn
cultural evolution is not a matter of inherited mental
ability, but a process involving factors or steps, as in
biological evolution (variation, natural selection,
heredity): invention → accumulation → diffusion →
adjustment (Ogburn 1950: 393).

Invention is the (first) central factor.

Invention is not confined to mechanical invention but
includes social inventions, such as the League of
Nations, and innovation in other parts of culture, as,
the invention of a religious ritual or an alphabet; it
also comprises scientific discoveries. Invention is the
combination of existing and known elements of
culture, material and/or non-material, or a
modification of one to form a new one. Inventions
come from three sources: mental ability, demand and
cultural base. By mental ability refers to that
proportion of a population with superior ability
(education) as a necessary factor for invention
(Ogburn 1950: 377-379).

The second stage is accumulation. Inventions

accumulate selectively, but over time more elements
are added than are lost. Inventions accumulate
because they have utility: the more efficient replaces

218 Directorate of Distance Education, University of Mysore

 the less efficient. This accumulation tends to be
exponential because an invention is a combination of
existing elements, and these elements are
accumulative. Accumulation is a function of the size of
the cultural base (Ogburn 1950: 381-382).
Accumulation of inventions means not only a greater
amount of social change but a more rapid social
change. This exponential rate is cyclical: it flattens out
eventually or declines, then experiences a further
period of growth.

The third stage is diffusion. It is the spread of

inventions from the area of origin to other areas,
helped by communication and transportation. Most
inventions are acquired by diffusion, or importing
them from elsewhere. Ogburn explained the unequal
levels of culture not by racial ability, but by location
plus diffusion (Ogburn 1950: 387).

The final stage is adjustment. An invention in

one part of culture occasions a change in another part,
following a delay or lag. Social evolution goes forward
by inventions which produce disequilibrium in society,
which in turn sets up forces which seek a new
equilibrium (Ogburn 1950: 390). The social inventions
responsible for the adjustments are the governmental
organizations and social and economic institutions.

According to Ogburn, if a lag gave rise to the

idea of a time sequence, the idea of effects (and their
sequence) gave rise to the idea of predicting
invention. He had identified two types of problems for
policy purposes.
1. The encouragement of invention. Financial incentives
other than patents have to be offered to inventors.
2. The direction which invention takes and the lag in
adoption: The problem of the better adaptation of
society to its large and changing material culture and
the problem of lessening the delay in this adjustment
are cardinal problems for social change (Ogburn and
Gilfillan 1933: 166).

219
Modern Sociological Theories
 Ogburn’s solution to this problem was to
develop studies to anticipate inventions and their
social effects.
How Technology Is Changing Our Lives?
A. Technology refers to both the tools used to accomplish
tasks and to the skills or procedures to make and use
those tools.
1. Technology is an artificial means of extending
human abilities.
2. Although all human groups use technology, it is
the chief characteristic of post-industrial societies
because it greatly extends our abilities to retrieve
and analyze information, communicate, and travel.
3. The sociological significance of technology, is how
technology changes our way of life.
B. The computer is an example of how technology
shapes our lives.
1. Within the field of education, computers are
transforming the way children from kindergarten
through college learn. Distance learning will
become such a part of mainstream education that
most students will take at least some of their high
school, college and graduate courses through this
arrangement.
2. In the world of business and finance, computers
have made national borders meaningless, as vast
amounts of money are instantly transferred from
one country to another.
3. The way wars are fought has also changed
because of computers.
C. Some people have reservations about our
computerized society.
1. Fears range from cyber crime—such as identity
theft, to fearing that the government will be able
to exert complete control over us.
2. Cyberspace may create social inequality. On the
national level, we could end up with “information
have-nots,” primarily inner-city residents cut off
from the flow of information. On the global level,
unequal access to advanced technology may put
the Least Industrialized Nations at a disadvantage.

220 Directorate of Distance Education, University of Mysore

 4.4.2. Check your progress

1 What is cultural lag?

...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
2 What are the four stage Ogburn argues in the technological development?
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................

4.5. Let us sum up

In this unit you have leant about the social change taking place in the
society. Pareto analyses the change at the level of governing elites through the
components of residues and derivations.

Sorokin focuses on culture and suggests that cultures change alternately

between sensate and ideational cultures

Ogburn discusses four stages of technological change and the change that
technology bringing about in the society.

4.6. Glossary
o Elites – class of people with the highest indices in their field of activity
o Circulation of elites – interchange of positions between two types of elites
o Residues – Residues are intermediary between the sentiments, we cannot
know directly and the belief systems and acts that can be known and
analyzed
o Derivations – non-logico experimental theories that people use to explain
what they think they are doing
o Sensate culture – refers things which are perceived directly by the senses.
o Ideational culture – emphasises things that are perceived only by mind.
o Idealistic culture – integral culture, a desirable blend of the sensate and
ideational cultures.
o Cultural lag- period of maladjustment, which occurs when the non-
material culture is struggling to adapt to new material conditions
o Invention – process by which new forms of technology are created
o Accumulation – the growth of technology due to the invention of new
things outpaces the process by which old inventions become obsolete
o Diffusion – the spread of an idea from one cultural group to another
o Adjustment – the process by which the non-technical aspects of a culture
respond to invention

221
Modern Sociological Theories
4.7. Answer to check your progress

4.2.4.

1. Elites are a class of people who have the highest indices in their field of
activity.
2. The two types of elites are, governing elites and non-governing elites.
3. The terms used for the governing elites are, Lions and Foxes.
4. Residues are intermediary between the sentiments, we cannot know
directly and the belief systems and acts that can be known and analyzed.
5. Residues are classified as
a. Residues of Combination
b. Residues of Persistence of Aggregates
c. Residues of Manifestation of sentiments through external activities
d. Residues of Sociability
e. Residues of the integrity of Personality
f. Residues regarding sex
6. Derivations are non-logico experimental theories that people use to
explain what they think they are doing.
7. The types of derivations are:
a. Derivations of Assertion
b. Derivations of Authority
c. Derivations accord with Sentiments
d. Derivations of Verbal Proofs
8. Circulation of elites refers to the interchange of position between the
governing elites, lions and foxes.

4.3.3.

1. The sensate culture refers things which can be perceived directly by the
senses. Ideational Culture emphasises things which can be perceived only
by the mind.
2. The three cultural patterns Sorokin identifies in his theory of change are,
sensate culture, ideational culture and idealistic culture.
3. According to Simmel social change takes place by alternating between the
sensate and the ideational cultures.

4.4.3.

1. Cultural lag refers to a period of maladjustment, which occurs when the

non-material culture is struggling to adapt to new material conditions.
2. The four stage Ogburn argues in the technological development are -
invention, accumulation, diffusion, and adjustment.

222 Directorate of Distance Education, University of Mysore

4.8. Further Reading and References

Further Reading
Abraham, M. Francis. 1990. Modern Sociological Theory: An Introduction. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.

Godin, Benoît. 2010. William F. Ogburn’s Contribution to Technological

Innovation Studies. Canada.
Kundu, Abhijit. 2011. Sociological Theory. Delhi: Pearson Education India.

Ogburn, William Fielding. 1922. Social Change with Respect to Culture and
Original Nature. New York: B. W. Huebsch.

Simpson, Richard L. 1953. Pitirim Sorokin and His Sociology. Social Forces,
Volume 32, Issue 2, Pages 120–131, https://doi.org

References
Alexander, Stephanie J. 2016. Sociology. New York: Britannica Educational
Publishing. P 35.

Barnett, H. G. 1953. Innovation: the Basis of Cultural Change, New York:

McGraw Hill.

Britannica. 1998. Social Structure and Change (excerpts) From Enc. Britannica.
the Robinson Rojas Archives. https://www.rrojasdatabank.info/

Chandra, Shradha. 2017. Social Welfare Administration in India. United States:

Lulu Press Inc. P 32.

Jaffe, A. J. 1969. ‘Ogburn, William Fielding’, in S. Shills (ed.), International

Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, New York: CollinMacmillan: 277-281.

Mondal, Puja. 2019. Theories of Social Change Explained.

http://www.yourarticlelibrary.com

Ogburn, W. F. 1922a. Bias, Psychoanalysis, and the Subjective in Relation to the

Social Sciences, Publications of the American Sociological Society. 17: 62.

Ogburn, W. F. 1922b. Social Change with Respect to Culture and Original Nature.
New York: Viking Press.

Ogburn, W. F. 1926. The Great Man Versus Social Forces, Social Forces, 5 (2).
Reprinted in O. D. Duncan (1964), William F. Ogburn on Culture and
Social Change: Selected Papers, Chicago: University of Chicago Press: 33.

223
Modern Sociological Theories
Ogburn, W. F. 1933. Social Change, in E. R. A. Seligan (ed.), Encyclopedia of the
Social Sciences, New York: Macmillan, Vol. 3: 330-334.

Ogburn, W. F. 1938. Technology and Sociology. Social Forces, 17 (1): 1-8.

Ogburn, W. F. 1941. Technology and Planning, in W. F. Ogburn and G. B.

Galloway (eds.), Planning for America. New York: H. Holt and Co.: 168.

Ogburn, W. F. 1950. Social Change with Respect to Culture and Original Nature.
Gloucester (Mass.): Peter Smith.

Ogburn, W. F. 1957a. Cultural Lag as Theory, Sociology and Social Research.

January-February: 167-174.

Ogburn, W. F. 1957b. How Technology Causes Social Change, in F. R. Allen et al.

(eds.), Technology and Social Change. New York: Appleton-Century-
Crofts: 12-26.

Ogburn, W. F. and M. F. Nimkoff. 1940. Sociology. Cambridge (Mass.): Riverside

Press.

Ogburn, W. F., and S. C. Gilfillan. 1933. The Influence of Invention and

Discovery, in US President’s Research Committee on Social Trends, Recent
Social Trends in the United States, New York: McGraw-Hill, Volume 1: 122.

Ogburn, W. F., J. L. Adams and S. C. Gilfillan. 1946. The Social Effects of

Aviation, Cambridge (Mass.): Riverside Press.

Ogburn, William Fielding. 1922. Social Change with Respect to Culture and
Original Nature. New York: B. W. Huebsch.

Priya, Rashmi. 2019. Pareto’s Circulation of Elites: Characteristics and Criticisms.

http://www.yourarticlelibrary.com

Sabbag, Mamduh Kahil. 2018. Vilfredo Pareto Philosophical Theory, Action and
Residues with its classification. Baghdad: Seagul Publications.

Uebersax, John S. 2010. Culture in Crisis: the Visionary Theories of Pitirim

Sorokin. https://satyagraha.wordpress.com

Wani, Irshad Ahmed. 2017. The Sociology, a study of Society. New Delhi:
Educareation Publishing. P 120-123.

Zimmerman, Carle C. 1968. Sorokin, The World's Greatest Sociologist. Saskatoon,

Canada: University of Saskatchewan.

224 Directorate of Distance Education, University of Mysore

4.9. Model questions

Short answer questions

1. Who are elites?
2. State the residues
3. Mention the patterns of social change
4. Mention the theories on social change
5. Mention the derivations
6. What is cultural lag?
7. What are the patterns of social change?
8. Mention the residues according to Pareto
9. What are the cultural dynamics of Sorokin

Short note questions

1. Describe sensate and ideational cultures
2. Examine the theory of circulation of elites
3. Discuss the stages of technological development
4. Explain the theory of Circulation of Elites
5. Discuss sensate and ideational culture
6. Explain Ogburn’s stages of technological development

Long essay questions

1. Discuss the stages of technological development explained by Ogburn
2. Explain Sorokin’s cyclical theory of social change
3. Describe Pareto’s circulation of elite theory

225
Modern Sociological Theories