4.4 Functional analysis
4.4.2 Concept of functional relations
Functional analysis originates from Durkheim‘s work „Suicide‟ (1951), as it discusses the positive consequences of crime on society even though they are seen as dysfunctional.
Durkheim focused on the functional aspect of religions in his book „Elementary Form of the Religious Life‟ (1915), in which he underlines the social consciousness of belonging to a group, which generates a constraining situation and when people‘s behaviour is to follow the regulations of the group.
Durkheim does not highlight either the origin or the structure of the organization. He only emphasises the contribution it makes to the cohesion of society and that this is the necessity of each organization. According to him, the importance of different sectors of society is the functional contribution to maintain societal cohesion. Coleman (1990: 22) emphasizes that
―functional analysis is specifying the consequences, positive and negative, of a given social phenomena for the various social structures in which they are implicated‖
Social phenomena would have the meaning only through the role they play in the community. In reality, this has more effect if ordinary people actively respond to the expected objectives of the social organization. Functional analysis does not consider conflict to be an integral part of the social system. This is selective consideration by functionalists, as it does not consider conflict within a social phenomenon of this theory. The use of the concept ‗functional analysis‘ in Merton‘s work in 1949 underlines its perspective of not considering contradictions and conflict.
The focus on cohesion and consensus are key elements in functional analysis, a concept that does not analyze variations that are not relevant to its definitions (Merton 1996: 6). Functional analysis also does not consider changes to be dramatic but rather to be evolutionary. This would be open to discussion as well, as changes are considered revolutionary. Social organizations are
119 never static. Some of their elements have progressive changes and others change in a dramatic way because there are different factors that generate and influence those changes. The environment which social organizations belong to is more significant in giving them meaning.
Political orientation mostly proposes or prescribes meaning to the community, which accepts it naively or actively discusses its content and effectively applies it. Various understandings thus arise; the population seems stressed by the consequences and the environment of the social phenomenon.
However, in the case of any change in socio-political context, organizations adopt those changes.
When adopting those changes, some of the manifest functions may change and become latent or dysfunctional and vice versa. In other words, there is interdependence between the conception, the orientation and the management of the social organization and its role. In another way, however, differences would be observed at each stage, from the ideal predefinition to the practical realization of the predefined objectives. The functional aspect of each social system engages a discussion between community and public interest. The roles they are going to play would hold rational and irrational interpretations, following different expectations. Variations between expected and unexpected functions are able to generate conflict to a dramatic interpretation of the predefined objectives of a social system. Any considerable change in the environment in which the social system is integrated requires the system to take account of it.
This means integrating these changes.
In view of the above, we can say that there is an interdependence of different elements in a society. The functionalist approach tends to regard these elements of society as having particular functions to perform. Nevertheless, the actor would add disparities between intended and unintended functions of a social system. In the view of Grabb (1990), the relevant function of a social organization can be located in expected consequences, as defined not only by the aim of the organization but also by the unexpected functions as part of the uncertain environment of the social organization (Grabb 1990: 101).
120 Moreover, Merton (1968: 118) used the sociological experience of the ceremonial rain of the Hopi to explain functionalist theory in detail. The term function originates from biological sciences, where there is a ‗functional interdependence‘ or ‗functional relations‘. In fact, the presence of an element gives rise to the connections with other elements in the organization. This connection is static within a biological system, but not within social systems where all the elements are dynamic. This affects the functional relations of each social organization. For instance, if the functional aspect of the heart is defined by the circulation of blood, a vein is required to serve the rest of the body and the heart would not replace the vein. There is a fixed place and function that would not be permitted to replace any part and plays its function. Any problem concerning the heart affects the whole process of other parts (Merton 1996: 67).
The functional system of the heart is universal and fixed for all individuals on the planet.
However, this is not the case in the dynamic aspect within social organizations. Social organizations differ and their universality changes with time and space. What is important for the population today in Rwanda may not be relevant in any other country, or what was necessary fifty years ago, may not relevant be today.
In view of the above, it means that social organizations are embedded in an environment that evolves. This evolution generates the re-adaptation of the social organization, including reworking of its expected and non-expected functions. This means that the rationality of the projected functions would be challenged. According to Giddens (1974), ideas form the logical conception of an organization and admit that clarification leads to ‗searching for a meaning‘,
‗analysis of alternatives and consequences‘, ‗a strategy‘ and ‗predictability‘ (Giddens 1974: 54- 59). Nevertheless, all those concepts that convey the meaning of rationality are open to subjectivity.
121 We cannot strictly ascertain that the expected functions of a social organization will produce the expected consequences. When we are seeking meaning, the elements of the social environment may change. In this way, the situation forces us to amend the meaning and, accordingly, the strategy may be effective or not; this opens predictability to subjectivity. If the expected rationality unlocks the expected irrationality, this means that both are always together to reveal the functional meaning of a social organization.
Coming back to the biological illustration of functionalism, the unexpected effects would be analyzed to justify the presence of some unpredictable consequence. The functional aspect that uses the biological perspective can partly relate to the social consensus of human organization.
The internal and external factors that affect the functional relations of a human body are examined by a specialist. This is because, if the problem is detected, the conclusion would be the same for all specialists in the field and intervention would lessen the negative impact (Merton 1968: 75). The working consensus in functionalism, illustrated by the biological system, is determined by the ‗static‘ place of each part and function. This is not the case in social organizations or in its sub-entities, because internal and external constraints can force or disorient the functional analysis of a social entity. In addition to this, there are multidimensional functions when a social organization is being analysed.
The contribution of each part to maintaining the society as a system, as sociologists and social anthropologists put it, can be partly applied because: (i) the individual behaviour is moulded by broader social forces that make them change the process and so adapt and adopt their behaviour to the situation in which they are an active actor; (ii) these social forces constraining the behaviour of individuals are social facts. The latter are external to individuals; ―they impose behaviour and thoughts as well as sentiments on individuals‖ (Lehmann 1993: 51-52, Timasheff
& Theodorson 1976:106-107).
122 Social facts are embedded in socio-political and economic structures which provide a framework for their interpretation. The actors, being individuals or groups, interpret the effects of the social facts according to the environment in which they are produced and also on their personal experiences. (iii) The socio-cultural and political context, of which those interpretations are a part, keep changing. Thus, behaviours, ideas or symbols can have various interpretations, which give sense to the reality of how people understand them.
Understanding a system is forcibly given by its functions, whether expected or not. For this reason, the actor would clearly define a social system based on its consequences. The rational consideration of the effects of a social system is subject to various criticisms, due to the actor‘s expectations. We believe that each society builds on norms which address a platform of viewing things. Because these things are related to customs, some behaviours are considered as deviances and so-called irrational social behaviour become norms that contribute positively to challenging and improving the social system (Giddens 2001: 207).
In this context, the functional aspect cannot be locked into the concept of ‗consensus‘ as one way of ‗maintaining the system together‘ (Merton 1996: 67). Diversity in understanding can be a further step toward maintaining or improving the social system. Human understanding of social phenomena does not neglect the environment in which the individual is integrated (Ashe 1999:
88). The duality regarding rationality and irrationality, stability and instability, cohesion and difference of social system functions is pressurized by both social and political forces. This is an important aspect of setting and altering the goals for society as a whole and ―mobilizing actors and resources to that end‖ or to its functions (Ritzer 1992: 246). Various interpretations of the functional aspect of a social system would carry a positive contribution.
123