Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
SOCIAL CHANGE:
Explorations, Diagnoses,
and Conjectures
Edited by.
With an Introduction by
DON MARTINDALE
I
In a recent artiele, Kingsley Davis (6) bas proposed such a catholic
13 David Lockwood
definition of functionalism as to make it virtually indistinguishable from
the most hasic presuppositions of contemporary saciology.
very cornforting. But if by functionalism nothing more were
This is a11
meant than
seeing society as a system of interdependent parts, and an aversion to
"reductionism," then most of those who have been engaged in criticism
of functionalism would be proselytized overoight. How many would ac-
cept the attendant ideas, such as that of "functional requisites," is more
debatable, and would probably depend on bow they were interpreted.
Again, exactly what elements are included as "parts" of a social system,
and the exact implieations of the idea of "interdependence" itself, are ob-
Social Integration and viously areas of potential disagreement (10).
But, omitting these eansiderations, surely the "general" funetionalist
standpoint which Davis has restated must be distinguished from its more
System Integration specifie and controversial fann. Davis avoids mentianing preeisely those
characteristics which are now widely associated with, though not logically
entaile.d by, a functionalist orientation: fust, the emphatic role attributed
to "common vaIue elements" in the integration of social action; and
secand, the unwarranted assumption tbat the study of social stahility must
precede the analysis of social change. Both these predispositions, but
especially the :6rst, typify what we wish to speak of from now on as norma-
The terro "social change" will be taken to mean a change in the institu- tive functionalism. 1
tiona] structure of a soCial system; more particularly, a transformation of Before going on to examine the position to which we are led by the
the core instituti(!!laLor.deL of a society such that we can .peak of a critics of nonnative functionalism, one further distinetion is relevant to
chan'ge intYPe'~f society. 1 do _Dot beleve that it is necessary to reach the subsequent argumento It is the wholly artificial one between "social
agreement on what is meant by the "core institutional arder" of a society integration" and "system integration." Whereas tbe prohlem of social
aI on how a typology of societies i5 to be diHerentiated befare tbere can integration focuses attentia_n upon the orderly or eonHictful re1ationships
be.meaningful discussion of how the process of change takes place. That between the actors, the prohlem of system integration focuses on tbe or-
is, unless there is sorne a priori commitment to a "dominant factor" theory derly or conflictful relationships between the pan., of a social system.
of social change; in which case the wrangle about whether change has It may be said at once that tbe connection between tbese twe aspects
"really" taken place can be endless. of integration is neatly made by normative fuflctionalism. The logic js
The main purpose of tbis chap'ter is to discuss sorne of the implications simple. Since the ouly systematically differentiated parts of a society
of recent criticisms of functionalism, especially those which have a bear- are its institutional patterns, the only sauree of social disorder arising
Jng on how social change is internally generated in a society. The fuesiS from system disorder is that which takes the form of role conHict stem-
is tliat, in concentrating their fire on a s.pecial, albeit prominent, --version ming from incompatible institutional pattems. If, however, it js held that
~
"1'1"\'"
..J 1.,
'oJ \.
such institutional pattems do not exhaust the generally relevant u parts '"
,1 , of functionalism ("normative functionalism"), cIltlcs have hecome over-
involved with what may be called the problems of "social integration."
1 Couldner quite properly points out that tlrls tendency has amounted to what i8
As a result, they have tended to ignore what is just as relevant to their in fact "implicit factor-tbeorizing": "Although the methodological position of the
central interests in con:8ict and social change, namely, the problem of earlier functionaUsts commonly a-ffirmed an amorphous, :lnterdependence of parts
"system integration." And here the perspective of general functionalism within a social system, it does not follow that the specmc empirical analysis in which
they -engaged actually utilized this principIe. In particular, the classic contributioDs,
would still seem to be the most useful instrumento from Comte to Parsons, haya gone out of their way to stress the significance oI
'shared vaIne elements' in maintaining the equilibrlwn of social systems" (10
p.265). '
370
SOCIAL SYSTEM MODELS SOCIAL AND SYSTEM INTEGRATION 373
of a social system, then this particular articulation of system and social (authority) over others is the most general farol' of "scarce resource" and
integration is only one way of relating tbe phenomena of devianee'" and one that is inherent in society itself. "The distribution of authority in
"conillct" to the operation of the system as a functioning entity. 'Fo!bis associations," writes Dahrendorf, "is the ultimate 'caus~' of the formation
point we shalI return later. For tbe moment, what needs stressing is tlt!t of conillct groups" (5, p. 172). Thus, if potential conHicts of interest be-
th.e exities of normative functionalism have devated their critique entirely tween those who exercise authority and those over whom authority is
to the way in which !bis theory handles the problem oE social integration; exercised are a "normal" feature of social organization, the de-instirntion-
and particularly to the ambiguities of the concept of "institution." alization of power, and the use of power to maintainmstitutions, are ever
present possibilities. In any realistic and dynamie vew of instirntionaliza-
tion, the role of power, both in the generation and control of conHict, is of
II
prime concern.
The leading exponent of the general functionalist school, Robert K. Al lirst sight, it would seem that the image of society constructed by
5 Merton, has aIready drawn attention to the static connotation of tbe tenn nonnative functionalism has given rise to counter-arguments which
~ institution: "It is not enough," he writes, "to refer to tbe <institutions' as bring us round fu]] cirele to the polemical starting point of modern soci-
:S thougb they were all uniformly supported by all groups .and strata in the '" ology, namely, the debate on social contracto But forhmately both nor-
:" 'SOcietY. Unless systematic consideration is given to th.e degree of su.p- --~ mative functionalists and conillct theorists are not prepared to recognize
c" port of particular 'institutions' by specific groups we shall overlook the -l: \:1 as a real issue the Greenian dichob;>my of ''Will'' versus "Force" (ll).
?:. important place of power in society" (15, p. 122). The major criticism' ~ ~ 111e themes of norms-consensus-order, and power-alienation-conBict are
;:::r- of normative functionalism which has frequently heen made is that it '-' --... not regarded as viable sociological alternatives. a
;!::: _ treats institutions primarily as moral entities, with.out rigorously exploring _ " =
... It is, ,therefor<:..a little surprising to find that both Dahrendorf and Rex
: th e. in~erp~ay.between norms ":,,d power that is univ."rsally present iniL~\\\ ~ consider it necessary to develop their antitheses to normative functional-
.;;. maJor IDstitutional contexts. This weakness has beeo seIzed upon by such ism in- a systematc fOnDo These take th.e shape, respectively, of a "coer-
'" writers as Dahrendorf (5) and Rexl!9). -Their basic theses are sufll-M cion theory of society" and a "conillct model of society".' For!bis strategy
~" " ciently similar to be treated jointly. For the sake of convenience, their..n they give reasons which are even more surprising. The rust is that they
-::::;--S ideas may be called "conillct theory." ".- both feel their <fmodels" or frames of reference" are specially suited to
~ ~ The conHict theorists have pointed out fust that nonns and power must certain problem areas in sociology, particularly to the shldy of industrial
""" ~ be considered as general alternative modes of "institutionalizing" social societies (5, pp. 161-164; 19, p. 112, p. 114). And, second, Dahrendorf
. .:;; relationships. To quote Rex: feels that the unification of the "integration theory" (normative function-
We have also to recognise tbat sorne of the ends which the aetors in om tation of the legitimacy of specific acts means that authority is never given, but is al-
system purseS.ay be random ends frOID the point of view of the systern or ways contingent upon its exercise. It is precisely with such conHicts arising within
aetually in conflict with it. If there is an actual conflict of ends, the be- the inte'rstices of iDstitutionalized power that "conBict theory" 1s concerned; and
not simply with the more unosual approximations to "unstructured" power conHicts.
haviour of actors towards one another may not be detennined by shared 3 At any rate, in fonnal tenns. For instance, Parsons: 1 do not think it is usefuI
Donns but by the success which each has in ~ the other to act to postulate a deep dichotomy between theones which give importance to bellefs
in aecordance with his interests. Power then becomes a crucial variable and values on the one hand, to allegedly 'reaUstic' interests, e.g., economic, on the
in lhe study of social systems (19, p. 112). other. Bellefs and valnes are actualized, partially and imperfectly, in realistic situa-
tions of social interaction and the outcomes are always codetennined by the values
aud reaUstic exigencies; conversely what on concrete leveIs are called 'interests' are
Second, potential conHicts of interest are seen as endemic in aU social by no means independent of the values which have been institutionallzed in the
systems which uinstitutionalize" power relatonships,.2 because power relevant groups" (18, p. 173). See also Dahrendon (5, p. 159, p. 163) and Rex
(19, p. 112). But while there is formal agreement on this point, both the norma-
.2 Briefly, to define authorlty as institutIonallzed power is to beg exactly the ques- tive functionallsts and the conflict theorists fail to explore in any rigorous way the
tion that Mrton raises, if the Une between authorlty and, power is drawn -in teIlDs interre1ationship of "normative" and "realistic" elements oI social systems.
of the presence or absence of a c1aim to legitimacy, not in terms of .tbe sentimenj:s """ Both authors state their propositions in smnmary form (5~ pp. 236-240; 19~ pp.
of tbose (prlncipally) over whom authority is exerc1sed. Perhaps the most general" 129-131, p. 195, pp. 236-240). Their premises are _very sinilar: "Every society
consideration which makes tbe "de-institUtionallzation" of authority an ever-present clisplays at every point ci!~P~ and conHict; social conflict. is ubiquitous" (5, p.
possibility is the fact that, whereas the legitimacy _o- authority tends to taIce the form 162"); "Instead f being organised arcond a consensos oI values, social systems may
of general principIes, acts of authoritjt. are always specrnc; and fuey are always. be thought of as involving eonflict situations at central points" (19, p. 129). The
more specific than derived rules of authority, no matter how well developed the m'ajor disagreement between the two would seem to be how fat, in fact, Unes oI social
18tter. Thus, the "exploitable" ambiguity surrounding the divation and interpre- CQnilict overlap. See Rex (19, pp. 117-118).
374 SOCIAL S,YSTEM MODElaS SOCJLU.- AND SYSTEM- INTEGRATION 375
aJism) and the "coercion theory" is unlikelyand probrbly impossible (5, than in procnring an agreed defintion of "institution" or "society,'" that
p. 164). r J~ \) I f1 ~ re
'~ nt", ( the desired uuification of whicb Dabrendorf is so sceptical is constantly
Neither DI these reasons is very. compellin..s. You cannot _ass~~ that being achieved. In actual fact, the divergence between wbat he calls
society is unthinkable as...ei.the a purely moral ar a purely coercive entity, "ntegration theory" and "coercion theory'" s much more evident in de-
and then ;uggest that a vocabulary built around one or the other of these fining problems than in solving lhem.
unthinkable premises is necessary because sorne societies are manifestly Why, then, the concentration on the development of alternative con~
more orderly al conHictful than others. To be sure, fue degree to which ceptual schemes in wbieh the ideas of power and conflict playa central
power enters into social relationships is a factor indispensable far tbe- role? PartIy because the recognition given by normative functionalism
understanding DI both the imperfectiou" af consensus aud the propeusity to the arguments put fOlward along these 'lines has so far amounted to
'1 \ to confli<;:t, But even in siruations where power is very evident aud C0D-' nothing more than lip service. More fundamentally, perhaps, it is be-
{Ve ~Jl flict enderic, it is. doubtful wbether the phenomena of conflict can be cause, in seeing equilibrium analysis combined in normative functional-
kadeguatel'L.. grasped withot incorporating into conflict theory many sm with a focus on shared vaIue elements, Dahr~ndorf and Rex, with
(l),',\~V\cl( DI the concepts ano propositions concerning tbe dynamic properties of their manifest nterest in social change, have as a consequence sought
, iD
I value systems (or ideologies) ~eh have been developed, or taken over, the key to this problem in the area of power and conflic!. lf this is so,
;; I'\~t( by normative functionalism. ~iven the power structure, the nature how far do the. conflict theorists take us in the analysis of social ehange?
::: of the vaIue system is of signallll1portance for the genesis, intensity, and Dabrendorf and Rex assert that social cbange is a result of the sbifting
direction of potential conflicto Particularly crucial is the way in wbieh balance of power between conflict groups (5, pp. 231-236; 19, p. 196).
it structures the levels of aspiration of different social strata. It may, of Now, while social chang~ is very freqnentIy associated with conBict, the
its own accord, create aspirations which generate demands for change, reverse does not necessarily hold. Conillct may be both endemic and
or add fuel to the fire of conHicting material interests. It may be sumo intense in a social system withont causing any basic structural change.
ciently open and ambiguous to be exploited simultaneously by difIerent Why does sorne conillct result in change while other conHict does ;not?
conillct groups; Dr, contrariwise, be capa:ble of absorbing counter-ideolo- Conflict theory would bave to answer that tbis is decided by the variable
gies within itself. Or, sudden change in the relative material positions oI factors affecting the power balance between groups. Here we reach the
different groups may result in widespread conillct as a consequence oI analytcallimits of conHict theory. As a reaction to normative function~
what Durkheim calls "moral de-classification." It could, therefore, be aJism it is entirely confined to the problem of social integration. What is
argued that even the analysls 01 t1iat facefOISocial integration to which missing is the system integration focus of "general functionalism, which,
Dahrendorf and Rex consider their" theories to be especially relevant- by contrast with normative functionalism, involves no prior cornmihnent
namely, social conflict - requires nothing less than a systematic extension to the study of system stabiJity. 6
of their framework to take explicitly into acconnt the variable properties Tbis is exceedingly interesting because both Dabrendorf and Rex
of vaIne systems that have been the focus of normative functionalism. 5 arrive at their respective positions throngh a "generalization of Marx. Yet
To the extent that this is done, their conflict theory ceases to be a "spe- it is precisely Marx who clearly differentiates social and system integra-
ciar' approach. That 'status is reserved for the unmodified version of tion. The propensity to c1ass antagonisffi (social integration aspect) is
normative functionalism. generally a function of the eharacter of production relationsbips (e.g.,
Finally, both normative functionaJism and conflict theory quite ob- possibilities of intra-class iclentification and cornrnunication). But the
viously utilize many sociological concepts (which are tbe property 01 dynamics of c1ass antagonisms are clearly related to the progressively
neither the one perspective nor the other for the solntion oI their re- 61 may refer here once more to the excellent essay by Gouldner (10) and espe-
spective problems). Witness only Dahrendorf's (5, pp. 213-218) extensive cially to his idea of the "functional autonomy" of parts. This concept prevides D.n
use of the concept of "multiple group relationships" to account for. the obvious link between social and system integration. He explicitly points out tbat
"the concept of the differential functional autonomy of parts directs atlention to the
variability of cIass conflict in a way that is not at alI dissimilar from the need to distnguish between parts having a greater or lesser vested interest in system
way it is used, for example, by WilIiams (24, pp. 560-561). Surely it is in maintenance," and that "not only efforts to change the system, but ruso those directed
at maintain1ng it are likely to entail confUct and resistance" as a result of differential
the active use of precisely such common concepts and propositions, rather functional autonomy. What 1 find a little ambiguous, however, is rus use of the term
"parls" of a system: at one stage they seem to mean structural aspects (e.g., ecologi-
15 To take an actual example, compare the explJcit use of the idea o the "explona- cal conditions)j at another, actual groups (the French bourgeoisie). The "parts"
bllity" of the common value system by Parsons (17, p. 293, p. 355) in accounting for which may become functionally D.utonomous are sureIy g10UpS; the "parls" whose
the intensification o "deviance" with the implicit reference to such an idea by Rex. interplay conditions their functional autonomy are the stTuct1Jlal elements of the sys-
(19, p. 125) in discussing class conflicto temo 1 hope this will become clear in the subsequent argumento
376 SOCIAL SYSTEM MODELS SOCIAL,1\NIf. 5YSTEM""1NTEORATION
growing "contradictions" DI the economia system. One might almost say 'odependence of such relationships from other social structu.r.es in the
that the "conflict" which in Marxian theory is decisive for change is Dot same society varies very considerably; .and that in particular, the salleney
the power conIDat arising from the relationships in the productive -system, oE the economie system under capitalism is not at aH characterist:fe of
but the system conillct arising from "contradictions" between "property most histdrical societies in which the mode of political organization
institutions" and the "forces of productiono" Though definitely linked, heavily conditioned the structure and potential change of productive re-
these two aspects of integration are not only analyticaIly separable, but lationships.7 Marxian theory has not, for fairly obvious reasons, been
also, because of tbe time element involved, factuaIly distinguishable. overmuch concerned to rehut such criticisms of its basie sociological \
Thus it is perfectly possible, according to !bis theory, to say that at any assumptions. Given its premises about the general long~run decisiveness
particular paint DI time a society has a high degree of social integration of the eeonomie arder for social change, it has quite logically confined its
( eogo, relative absence of class conllict) and yet bas a low degree of sys- discussion of system integration to the internal dynamics of -the mode of
tem integration (mounting excess productive capacity ). production itseIf - to the economc theory of the contradiction between
Further interest atlaches ta the faet tbat the idea DI stIucturaI contra- "forces of production" (tecbnological potential) and lhe "relations of
diatians is central to the general functionalist view of change: production" (property institutions ) 8 0