Emile Durkheim and Structural Functionalism

What are the *two primary ways society reinforce solidarity*?

*Organic* solidarity: Solidarity by DIFFERENCES; we're held together by that fact that we rely on others for what we ourselves lack in. Reinforced by the *division of labour*; we specialize in different jobs and are not able to leave society to go and live on our own *Mechanical* solidarity: solidarity by SIMILARITIES; we're held together by the things we have in common. Reinforced by *punishment for crimes* since historically being divergent from the norm was punished severely. A *specific social institution* is responsible for *fulfilling the function of solidarity (punishment, division of labour)

Who argued that social institutions can serve *multiple functions*? What type of subfunctions can they fulfill in society? (2)

*Robert Merton* defined: *Manifest Function*: The OBVIOUS purpose- what the institution is *explicitly* for *Latent Function*: The HIDDEN purpose of an institution (a useful side affect of its existence). They can be *unforseen* but are still *positively functional*; even though they're hidden they still help society

AGIL(e) (who developed this acrnoym- what does it represent/what's its purpose)

*Talcott Parsons* with this system describes the *BASIC KINDS of FUNCTION* any society MUST meet on order to continue to exist *A*: *Adaptation*- can this society adapt to its *material* environment and ensure its members are provided for? *G*: *Goal Attainment*- Can the society identify goals *for the future* and *plan* how to attain them? *I*: *Integration*- Are all members of the society successfully integrated into a coherent, relatively similar whole? *L*: *Latency* Can this society sustain certain patters/values over time? Parsons says we can analyze specific institutions to see which AGIL function is met: ex: Political State for Goal Attainment . Education system for Integration

Both Symbolic Interactionism and Critical Theories see *society as _____________________*

*made up of parts that are fundamentally distinct* Society is nothing more than *the sum total of the interactions of these parts* Each part can *theoretically be considered in isolation*- this is how structural functionalism analyzes society

Macrosociology or Microsociology? why? 1) Critical Theorists 2) Symbolic Interactionism 3) Structural Functionalism

1) macro: looks at power in whole of society 2)micro: analyses individual actions 3)macro: examines society as a coherent whole

Social Fact

BOTH a fact that is true about SOCIETY AS A WHOLE (but not about individual-suicide rates) AND things treated as 'real' in society by its members like morality or religion. Durkheim rejects that suicide can only be understood in terms of an individual's personal experiences: *Individualized explanations did not explain* the groups with such huge differences. ex: some groups with high levels of mental health issues often had lower suicide rates Thus symbolic interactionist explanations would fail (protestants and catholics were both equally strict on forbidding suicide) There must be *something about these groups INDEPENDENTLY of the individuals that make them up that explains these differences between others*

Some theories are better at explaining *certain aspects* of society than others

Critical Theory: Culture, Socialisation, Politics, Mass Media, Gender & Sexuality, Race & Ethnicity, Class & Inequality Symbolic Interactionism: Culture, Personal Identity, Religion, Mass Media Structural Functionalism: Personal Identity, Socialisation, Religion

"The word function... expresses the corresponding relationship existing between these [bodily] movements and certain* needs of the organism.* Respiration *fulfills the function *of introducing into animal tissues the gases *necessary for sustaining life* etc... To ask what is the function of the division of labour is to investigate the *need to which it corresponds*." -_________

Durkheim Here he creates the anology of living things: we understand animal biology by asking what role a particular organ has; likewise society will be understood as a system made up of integrated functions contributing to the whole.

What are the social forms of suicide? (4)

Durkheim says there *are multiple forms of suicide* which are shaped by level of SOCIAL INTEGRATION of individuals *Egoistic* suicide: (lack of social integration) caused by isolation and lack of societal bonds *Altruistic* suicide: (excess social integration) caused by lack of individuality ex: religious martyrdom/dying for a cause *Anomic* suicide: (lack of social regulation of desire/impulse) caused by dramatic change in circumstance that is not easily adapted to. ex: falling into poverty *Fatalistic* suicide: (excess social regulation of impulse/desires) caused when theres no hope of change in situation, ex: trapped in prison Each form of suicide is reflected in the *way they commit suicide* (bombing suicide vs. isolated suicide)

"When I perform *my duties as a brother, a husband or a citizen...* I fulfill obligations which are defined in law and custom and which *are external to myself and my actions... *Similarly the believer has discovered from birth, ready fashioned, the beliefs and practices of his religious life; *if they existed before he did, it follows that they exist outside him.* *The system of signs that I employ* to express my thoughts, the monetary system I use to pay my debts, the credit instruments I utilise in my commercial relationships, the practices I follow in my profession, etc., *all function independently of the use I make of them*" - ______________

Emile Durkheim, Rules of Sociological Method This quote reveals that Individuals play certain social roles that constrain their action and must work within social norms Even for things that we do for our own selves we use collective things; we can't decide to ignore it or change it at will Shared symbols are INDEPENDENT of the individual, they are concrete SOCIAL FACTS

Durkheim on suicide rates- what did he study and what did it reveal?

He examined closely what seemed to be so personal/individual a thing like suicide, and saw that *some groups have significantly higher suicide rates*: Protestants more than catholics, unmarried more than married, etc. So, the difference is at the social level: *there must be some SOCIAL (not individual) reason for it*

How did Durkheim explain the higher rates of suicide in Protestants over Catholics?

He said that this was a *consequence of weaker social bonds in Protestantism*, as in, the religion did not emphasize communal worship, thus * suicide may have been caused by a lack of social unity*

Sui generis (why does it seem to pertain to collective consciousness?)

Literally means: 'of its own kind' Treating society as 'sui generis' means we *can't explain it in terms of something else* with things like individuals or economic structures. The collective consciousness doesnt really benefit one group over another (which is something critical theorists would argue) and it doesn't seem to be entirely explainable by the interactions of people: *thus it seems to exist above our ability to change it at will* Thus Durkheim suggests we should *analyze society sui generis* since 'the social' is different *in kind* from anything that is described purely on basis of individual needs,desires,acts. And so we look at it *on its own terms* as self-contained So we should evaluate social structures and institutions according to their role in *maintaining the WHOLE of society*

Positivism (who argued for this type of outlook?)

Philosophical/theoretical assumption that only observable, measurable, and empirically-verifiable facts *count as knowledge* It rejects metaphysical or ethical speculation *August Comte* argued clearly fro *POSITIVITIC study of society* (he was the first to coin the term sociology) He wanted to *ignore value judgements* about society- not trying to moralize or rank societies in terms of quality. He does not believe that conscious individual motives are most important to understand in society. *STATISTICAL analysis allows objective, impartial study of society* to measure and compare parts effectively.

Anomie (your favourite) (what is the stance on disunity for structural and critical theorists)

Sense of lacking social regulation or structure, leaving us adrift in a world without meaning--> prevalent in the modern world (for Durkheim) Structural functionalists place a strong emphasis on *social integration* as an essential for a well-being society and individual members. For Durkheim, *we need the broader context of society* to provide meaning to our lives. He sees *anomie and social disintegration as major problems*: *Society hsould by DEFAULT be unified* *Contrast with conflict theorists* who see disunity as the norm! They believe that any unity is just imposed by the dominant social group

Socialisation (what are structural functionalists most interested in in individuals)?

Social process where individuals are 'trained' to be members of society- taught common values, ways of behaving etc, to fit in. Structural functionalists believe *humans NEED society*, and so must identify the social forces keeping us together.. (culture ,religion, education,etc. make us more SIMILAR and HOLD us in society) *Equally *even individuals have a social function*- not just structures that cover all society. Institutions like the criminal justice system help train us to be part of society. Regarding individuals, structural functionalists are most interested in *how those individuals are brought into harmony with society*-what forms of *socialization*/training aid people to be more conscious of their social role?

Difference between Structural functionalism and Symbolic Interactionism

Symb. Interactionism treats society as a contract held by individuals while Structural treats it as autonomous (INDEPENDENT of individuals)

Intersections of theory

Symbolic interactionism's account of values can work with functionalist understanding of solidarity, to look at different perspectives on our shared beliefs Jürgen Habermas's analysis of social development unites symbolic interactionism in analysis of lifeworld, structural functionalism in analysis of system, and critical theory in judging the differences between them. Anthony Giddens' theory of structuration tries to unite social constructionism with functionalist idea of structures

Function

The role in maintaining society as a whole thats played by any particular part of it. Each *social institution or form of social organization* has such a function. Durkheim believed we should analyze society as we would an organism. By dissection, we see certain organs *and can explain these organs by saying what role they fulfill* Society *should be treated as a whole*- whats it made up of? how do these parts fit together? What *shared structures* are there? Why are they there? *ANY part of socity is explained by its role for the whole*

Collective Consciousness

The shared taken-for-granted moral beliefs or values that almost all members of society agree on without *really questioning it* For Durkheim *the totality of beliefs and sentiments* common to members of society forms a system with a life of its own- it is termed as *the collective/common consciousness* Ex: crime is defined by the conscience collective (we all yuj. assume that stealing and murder is wrong). The way we should dress or what we eat and how we treat others falls underneath of collective consciousness as well When the collective conscious is offended, *we feel like something sacred is attacked*, thus this horror suggests something ABOVE the individual is attacked.

Solidarity what is the disagreement b/w symbolic interactionist and structural functionalist on this.

The social force that holds all members of society together, keeping us united with one another and *distinct* from other societies (in Durkheim) Symbolic interactionists see individuals who happen to draw on agreed symbols in order to achieve personal goals, but they don't see anything beyond that holding people together. Durheim and the structural functionalists disagree with this- *every society must have solidarity to keep all its individual parts together* There is in fact a difference b/w a *crowd of people* in a room and a *society of people* As *individuals we're deeply linked to society*. (even tho i dont live in fort mac, i still feel like a mcmurrite.

Structural Functionalism

Theoretical paradigm that analyzes society as a complete system where *every* structure serves a *function* that keeps the whole together. Inspired by Durkheim in 1940s US Structural funcitonalists see society as developed *from SIMPLER and MORE HOMOGENEOUS to a more complex society. Societies once looked identical to the whole that it made up, but now *different regions or parts of society fulfill different functions* (AB gives oil, Sask makes wheat) No single part can be understood fully on its own- rather it is defined by its role within the complete system of *INTERDEPENDENT parts*

How do Structural Functionalists regard the notion of conflict?

They assume *no conflict* and asks about coherence instead . Conflict is a symptom of dysfunction (Robert MErton) which may stimulate improvement ex: can help unify groups even more against a common enemy. OR the lack of it means society has mechanical solidarity where all are similar.

Totemism who likened this with sports and religion-what was his reasoning?

Type of religion focused around the *veneration of sacred totems or symbols*, ex: images of sacred animals found among Native People. Durkheim saw religion best described as a purely social thing: *societies represent THEMSELVES in religions*; totemistic religions do this directly wherein their sacred animal doesn't just represent their god, but *their entire society as a whole* Other religions are similar to totemism by *treating certain objects or rituals as 'sacred'* And so religious totems represent *sacredness of society as a whole* since only the members may contact the sacred objects. *Robert Bellah* draws parallels b/w *major sports and religion*: ppl wear totemic team clothing and celebrate unity when going to cheer the Oilers.

What is criticized about critical theory and symbolic interactionism What kind of perspective (macro/micro) does structural functionalism have on society?

crit theory: doesnt really explain the genuine examples of consensus and social order symb interactionism: doesnt pay enough attention to the internal structures of shared beliefs Structural func will take a *macrosociological* look on explaining *social order*

What is the assumption of Structural Functionalism on society?

it makes the positive assumption that parts of society work together productively for the WHOLE. Everything is good for society.