Overview

Structural Functionalism was the dominant paradigm in British social anthropology from the 1930s to the 1960s. Associated with A.R. Radcliffe-Brown and Bronislaw Malinowski, it analyzes social institutions (like kinship, religion, or law) not by their history, but by the role they play in maintaining the social order. It asks: “What does this custom do for the society?”

Core Idea

The core idea is the organic analogy. Just as a heart pumps blood to keep the body alive, a ritual or a law functions to keep the society alive. Society is seen as a system seeking equilibrium. If a part doesn’t contribute to the survival or stability of the whole, it wouldn’t exist.

Formal Definition

It is a theoretical perspective that interprets each part of society in terms of how it contributes to the stability of the whole society. It emphasizes social structure (the network of social relations) and function (the contribution an institution makes to the maintenance of that structure).

Intuition

Why do we shake hands? A functionalist wouldn’t care about the history of the gesture. They would say: “Shaking hands establishes trust and reduces conflict, which helps society run smoothly.” Why do we have funerals? “Funerals repair the tear in the social fabric caused by death and reaffirm group solidarity.” Everything has a purpose for the group.

Examples

  • Joking Relationships: Radcliffe-Brown analyzed “joking relationships” (where you are allowed to tease certain relatives, like in-laws) not as random fun, but as a mechanism to diffuse potential tension in awkward social relationships, thus preserving stability.
  • Religion: Émile Durkheim (the grandfather of functionalism) argued that religion isn’t just about belief in gods; its function is to bind the community together through shared rituals (collective effervescence).
  • The Kula Ring: Malinowski showed that this complex system of shell exchange wasn’t “primitive money” but a way to maintain political alliances and social status across islands.

Common Misconceptions

  • It explains change: Functionalism is notoriously bad at explaining social change or revolution. It assumes stability is the norm and conflict is a “dysfunction.”
  • It justifies the status quo: By arguing that everything (even poverty or crime) has a “function,” it can seem to justify inequality as necessary for the system.
  • Social Structure: The enduring patterns of social relations (e.g., class, family, government).
  • Holism: The idea that you cannot understand a part without understanding the whole system.
  • Dysfunction: A concept introduced later (by Merton) to describe institutions that have negative consequences for the system.

Applications

  • Organizational Theory: Businesses often use functionalist models to ensure all departments are working towards the company’s goals.
  • Family Therapy: Viewing the family as a “system” where a child’s bad behavior might be serving a function (e.g., distracting parents from their own marital problems).

Criticism / Limitations

  • Ahistorical: It ignores history. It treats a society as a snapshot in time (“synchronic”) rather than a developing process (“diachronic”).
  • Circular Logic: “It exists because it functions, and it functions because it exists.” It often fails to explain why a specific institution arose, only what it does now.
  • Conflict Theory: The main rival to functionalism (Marxism), which argues that society is defined by conflict and power struggles, not consensus and stability.

Further Reading

  • Radcliffe-Brown, A.R. Structure and Function in Primitive Society. 1952.
  • Malinowski, Bronislaw. Argonauts of the Western Pacific. 1922.
  • Durkheim, Émile. The Division of Labour in Society. 1893.