Evolutionary Perspective

UNIT 2 FUNCTIONALISM*

Structure
2.0 Objectives
2.1 Introduction
2.2 Founders of Functionalism
2.1.1 Herbert Spencer
2.1.2 Emile Durkheim
2.1.3 Bronislaw Malinowski
2.1.4 A.R. Radcliffe-Brown
2.3 Later Functionalists
2.3.1 Talcott Parsons
2.3.2 R.K. Merton
2.4 Let Us Sum Up
2.5 References

2.0 OBJECTIVES
After going through this Unit, you will be able to know:
The concept of functionalism;
The contributions of various functionalists;
The causal factors of social change;
The rate of social change;
The impact of social change on human society; and
Social change and the future.

2.1 INTRODUCTION
Functionalism refers to the perspective the way the theories in sociology and
social anthropology have explained social institutions or other social phenomena
primarily in terms of the functions they perform. When we speak of some social
institutions, social activity or social phenomenon, we mean its consequences
for the operation of some other institution, activity or society as a whole, such
as, consequences of the punishment of a crime or a reward for an extra ordinary
discovery by some scientists. Some social thinkers in nineteenth century theorised
about society in terms of an ‘organic analogy`. This notion of analogy was derived
from biology, as there is a biological organism likewise. We can consider a
society as on organism, which is a complex whole of several inseparable and
inter-dependent organs. It has its roots in the organicism of early 19th century.
One of the beginners of this idea of ‘organic analogy` was Herbert Spencer.
Other important proponents who clearly theorised functions of social institutions
was French sociologist Emile Durkheim.
The idea of studying social life in terms of social functions was central among
early twentieth century British social Anthropologists, prominent among them
* Contributed by Prof. J.K. Pundir, Sociology Department, CCS University, Meerut 21
Perspectives in Sociology-I are B. Malinowski and A.R. Radcliffe-Brown. Adjoining with social structure,
the idea of structural-functionalism or structural functional perspective dominated
the scene of sociology in various parts of the world. In American sociology, in
the light of the contemporary social processes, some evaluation was undertaken
by two prominent sociologists namely Talcott Parsons and R.K. Merton.
Contributions of these two American sociologists are also considered path
breaking in the functional perspective in addition to others which have not been
so importantly acknowledged. Neo-functionalism is a later and recent
consideration to the theorising of society, retaining some of the basic ideas of
the founders of this perspective. It finds the limitations of existing notion of
functionalism and improves upon the earlier basic considerations of
functionalism.

2.1 FOUNDERS OF FUNCTIONALISM

2.1.1 Herbert Spencer
Hebert Spencer (1820=1903) is a British Sociologist who is generally considered
by some historians of sociology as a continuator of Auguste Comte’s organist
and evolutionary approach. But his general orientation differs significantly from
that of Comte. He himself claims that “Comte tried to give a coherent account
of the ‘progress of human conceptions’ whereas my aim is to give a coherent
account of the progress of the external world …to describe the necessary and
the actual, filiation of things … to interpret the genesis of phenomena which
constituted of nature “ (Coser 1996). Both organic and social aggregates are
characterised by Spencer according to progressive increase in size. Social
aggregates, like organic ones, grow from relatively undifferentiated states in
which parts resemble one another into differentiated states... once parts become
unlike, they become mutually dependent on each other (ibid). Thus, with growing
differentiation comes growing interdependence and hence integration. Largely
sociologists have considered Herbert Spencer as an evolutionary sociologist but
his basic consideration of parts with growing differentiation becoming
interdependent and this working for or resulting into integration indicate the
genesis of the elements of “structural-functional” theorising of society as an
organism, a living whole. On the basis of such writings it is said that the notion
of social function had been formulated in the nineteenth century most explicitly
by Hebert Spencer. This analysis of social structure and social function has been
provided by him in his famous book, Principles of Sociology. This contains the
very first idea of theorising social function in sociology (Bottomore 1975). Later
it has been taken up systematically, rigorously and clearly by other sociologists
and social anthropologists in late nineteenth century and early-mid twentieth
century. The main ideas of Herbert Spencer on functionalism may be summarized
as follows:
1) Society is a system (an organic whole or organism). It is a coherent whole
of connected and interdependent parts.
2) This system can only be understood in terms of the operation of specific
structures each of which has a function for maintaining the social whole.
3) The systems have needs that must be satisfied if the systems have to survive
(i.e. continuity of society). Therefore the function of a structure must be
determined by understanding the needs it satisfies.
22
Though Herbert Spencer is given the credit for formulating explicitly the tenets Functionalism
of functionalism in sociology at first, he has remained controversial about his
ideas regarding functional needs etc. of the social system to which he considered
a social organism similar to a biological organism and also analyses its evolution.
Thereby he is not considered a functionalist per se but an evolutionist. Of his
many publications during his lifetime, the most significant books well known
among sociologists are “The Study of Sociology” and “Principles of Sociology”
(published during 1870-1880s). He enjoyed the esteem of radical thinkers like
John Stuart Mill, Huxley and others.

2.1.2 Emile Durkheim

David Emile Durkheim (1858-1917) is a French Sociologist who is generally
regarded as the founder of French sociology as well as Sociology as a distinct
discipline. He developed a rigorous methodology combining empirical research
with Sociological Theory. His work focused on how traditional and modern
societies evolved and function. From his many writings four books are endorsed
as most valuable among sociologists around the world, namely, The Division of
Labour in Society, The Rules of Sociological Method, Le Suicide, and Elementary
Forms of Religious Life. Emile Durkheim, clearly outlined the subject of
Sociology and its methodology. He borrowed some ideas selectively from the
contributions of Herbert Spencer. He clearly advanced the concept of (social)
functions and established functionalism into a coherent, clear and justified
doctrine. He established the clear-cut concept of functions in his famous work,
“The Division of Labor in Society” wherein he studied the functions of division
of labor in society (or for the society as a whole).

Before we briefly describe these functions, let us first look at how he defines
functions. In his book ‘Division of Labor in Society’, he takes up at first the
clear cut formulation of the concept of function. According to him ‘function of
social institution is the correspondence between it (the institution) and the need
of the social organism’ (this analogy of social organism is derived from Spencer).
That means a social institution satisfies a need of society. What then is the vital
need of society? He takes up this issue in this study. The crucial or vital need of
society, according to him, is the maintenance of solidarity in society (in other
words, integration of society). In studying division of labor, as a social institution,
he asks the question, ‘What is the function of division of labor in Society’? He
addresses this issue in terms of the vital need of the society. For Durkheim,
social solidarity is the vital need of society. The division of labor in Industrial
Society (as was Western Europe, during the latter half of the nineteenth century)
provides the basis of this social solidarity. These are rapidly differentiating
societies in comparison to the simpler societies. Durkheim considers solidarity
as the vital need as without maintaining solidarity in society the society may
break up and might not remain a society per se.

In his later work (last book), “The Elementary Forms of Religious Life”, he
undertakes the task of studying the causes and functions of religion. Durkheim
argues that religion is one of the great sources for regulating the society, thus
fulfilling the function of maintaining solidarity. Religion unites people into a
common system of ideas (collective consciousness) which then regulates the
affairs of the collective. He is of the view that if the vital need, of maintaining
solidarity in society, is not met, then, pathological (abnormal) forms like ‘anomie’
are likely to occur. It is this perspective which distinguishes sociology from 23
Perspectives in Sociology-I other social sciences. He is considered the founding father of functional
perspective or theory in sociology. But some social thinkers consider that his
functionalism has been rooted in the evolutionary theory, and there is no doubt
that it appears to be true to some extent. But establishing sociology as a distinct
discipline with its subject matter and method, the credit would go to him.
Likewise, establishing theorising society by functional perspective remains also
his accomplishment.

2.1.3 Bronislaw Malinowski

Bronislaw Malinowski (1884-1942) is a British Social Anthropologist who is
well known for his theory of functionalism. He was said to have been greatly
influenced academically by Emile Durkheim, C.G. Seligman and E. Westermarck.
He influenced many social anthropologists, and under his influence they devoted
themselves to the detailed and meticulous description of actual behavior in
particular societies. His functional approach emphasized on the field work
involving exact observation and recording of social behavior. He studied the
Trobriand Islanders following his approach by mainly using ‘participant
observation’ method. His book, ‘Argonauts of the Western Pacific’ is the outcome
of his field work on the Trobriand Islanders. The publication of this classical
book earned him as a world known Anthropologist. It was from this detailed
and meticulous description of culture of Trobrianders that he came out strongly
against the Evolutionary Theory and the Comparative Method of the earlier
sociologists and anthropologists and his unique functionalism. He made the
conceptual formulation of functional approach in a later writing, ‘A Scientific
Theory of Culture’. He argued that ‘every’ cultural item contributes to the
maintenance of the culture-whole; it thus satisfies some need of this whole. He
further asserts that ‘every cultural item fulfills some vital function’. Malinowski
used the concept of function suggesting that society (for him culture) could be
conceptualised as it is made up of interdependent parts (his term-cultural items)
that operate together to meet different social needs. Malinowski’s functionalism
added two new ideas: (i) a notion of system levels, and (ii) concept of different
and multiple systems needs at each level. According to him, there are three
system levels: the biological, the social structural and the symbolic.

Malinowski emphasises on the study of culture as a whole (or the totality) with
its functions and patterns. He examined, explained and analysed as to why and
how culture functions, how different elements of culture are related into an entire
cultural pattern. For him, functionalism attempts to explain the parts institutions
play within the integrated whole of culture. Institutions operate to satisfy the
needs of the individuals and that of the society as a whole. Malinowski considers
that every aspect (element) of culture has a function and they are all
interdependent and interrelated. Therefore, a functional unity can be observed
among them in maintaining the existence of human beings.

Malinowski’s basic argument is based on the premise that every aspect of culture
has a function, i.e. satisfaction of a need. He identifies three levels of needs: (i)
Primary (ii) Institutional and (iii) Integrative. Primary needs are largely biological
needs such as sex, food and shelter. Institutional needs are the institutions
(economic, legal, etc.) which help in satisfying primary needs. Integrative needs
refer to those needs that help the society maintain coherence such as religion.
Some sociologists consider that Malinowski’s functionalism was individualistic-
24
functionalism as it focused on fundamental biological needs of the individuals. Functionalism
Some others would also consider his functional approach as ‘pure functionalism’.
It is also said that his functional approach involved a strong assertion of the
functional integration of every society.

2.1.4 A.R. Radcliffe-Brown

Alfred Reginald Radcliffe-Brown (1881-1955) is a British Social Anthropologist
whose theories of functionalism (structural-functionalism) somewhat differs from
that of Malinowski. He is said to have been greatly influenced by the
functionalism of Emile Durkheim. He clarifies how some of the problems of
organic analogizing might be overcome in functionalism. He recognizes that
“the concept of function is based on an analogy between social life and organic
life”. He considers that the serious problem with functionalism was the tendency
for analysis to appear teleological. Taking into account Durkheim’s definition
of function ‘the way in which a part (a social institution) fulfills a system’s
needs’, Radcliffe-Brown emphasized that it would be necessary to substitute
for the term ‘needs’, by ‘necessary conditions of existence’. It was his effort to
avoid teleological implications of functionalism. Thus, he replaces the term
‘needs’ given by Durkheim by ‘necessary conditions of existence’. For him the
question is which conditions are necessary for survival and that issue would be
an empirical one. It would have to be discovered for each given social system.
He considers that there is a diversity of conditions necessary for the survival of
different systems. He avoids the assertion that every item of culture (as considered
by Malinowski) must have a function and that items in different cultures must
have the same function.

Radcliffe-Brown views that it is not a singular functional analysis but structural

functional analysis which has several important assumptions — (1) One necessary
condition for survival of a society is that it has minimal integration of its parts,
(2) the term function refers to those processes that maintain this necessary
integration or solidarity; (3) Thus, in each society structural features can be
shown to contribute to the maintenance of the necessary solidarity. In this
approach, according to Radcliffe-Brown, the social structure and the conditions
necessary for its survival are irreducible.

In this whole analysis and understanding, like Durkheim, Radcliffe-Brown saw

society as a reality in and of itself. For this reason he used to visualize cultural
items, such as kinship rules and religious rituals, as explicable in terms of social
structure, particularly its need for solidarity and integration. Radcliffe-Brown
assumes some minimal degree of solidarity that must exist in the system. He
studied lineage systems in terms of their consequences for maintaining this
solidarity. In his study ‘The Andaman Islanders’, he analyses the function of
weeping and dancing ceremonies. These ceremonies, which are repetitive,
adjudicate conflicts, and thus re-establish the solidarity of the system (of the
community, which fell apart for the time being due to tiny conflicts).

Radcliffe-Brown considers that ‘functional unity (integration or solidarity) of a

social system is of course, a hypothesis’. He finally considers that function is
the contribution which a partial activity makes to the total activity (a whole) of
which it is a part. All partial activities (parts) contribute to the maintenance of
the whole and bring about a kind of unity which is said to be a social unity of the
organism. He is known as functionalist but his functionalist view is strictly related 25
Perspectives in Sociology-I to structure. His specific writings on the concept of function are available in his
well-known work ‘Structure and Function in Primitive Society’.

2.2 LATER FUNCTIONALISTS

2.3.1 Talcott Parsons
Talcott Parsons (1902-1979) is a prominent American Sociologist who is probably
the most dominant theorist of the twentieth century. Parsons’ functionalism has
attempted to incorporate the suggestiveness of early functional analysis,
especially the conception of social system as consisted of interrelated parts. The
current forms of functional theorizing have tried to cope with the analytical
problems of teleology and tautology, which Durkheim and Radcliffe-Brown
unsuccessfully tried to avoid. In borrowing the 19th century organicism and
exploiting conceptually the unity of viewing system parts as having implications
for the operation of the systematic whole, this modern functionalism of Parsons
and others provided early sociological theorizing with a unified conceptual
perspective.

From the 1950s to 1970s Parsonian functionalism was clearly a focal point around
which the critical controversy raged. Even later, Parsonian functionalism remains
a subject of intense controversy. In 1937, his major work ‘The Structure of Social
Action’ was published, and for the next four decades, his ideas dominated. His
basic idea was rooted in a sequence of the action of the actors. Following certain
norms, values and other ideas (as available in the system) an actor is oriented
towards achieving goals (social goals, inclusive of individual goals) by operating
in situational conditions. These give rise to action systems. This ‘system’ of
social action or ‘social system’ is the key word to his functional analysis. The
social system is comprised of statuses, roles and norms. According to him, actors
are oriented to situations in terms of motives (needs). The motives (or needs)
are mainly of three types: (1) Cognitive (need for information or knowledge),
(2) Cathetic (need for emotional attachment) and (3) Evaluative (need for
assessment). Further, Parsons gives the notion of functional prerequisites.
Following Durkheim and Radcliffe-Brown’s lead, he views integration (within
and among action systems) as a basic survival requite (i.e. need of the social
system, or in simpler terms, the need of society). He is concerned with the
integration within the social system itself and between the social system and the
cultural system on the one hand and between the social system and personality
system on the other. These three systems, namely, Social System, Cultural System
and Personality system are crucial in his analysis. His conceptual scheme reflects
the systematic interconnectedness of social systems. Later he returns to the
integrative problems of culture and personality.

Another related concept, to his concept of social systems is the concept of

institutionalisation. As interactions became institutionalized, a social system can
be said to exist. According to him, institutionalisation is the process through
which social structure is built up and maintained. Institutional cluster of roles,
that is, stabilized patterns of interaction comprise a social system.

For understanding social system he considered its structural elements and

functional prerequisites. The structural elements are goals, roles, norms and
values. For fulfilling the needs of the social system, every social system has
26
necessarily functional prerequisites, i.e., to say the institutionalised organs (or Functionalism
sub systems) within the sphere or perimeters of the social system. This he presents
in a paradigm known as ‘AGIL’ paradigm. A stands for adaptation, G stands for
goal attainment, I for integration and L for Latency (i.e. pattern maintenance
and tension management). Adaptation is a system in society for fulfilling basic
needs – food, shelter, etc. According to him, Economy or Economic sub system
fulfills these needs. This subsystem is always available in all societies. Goal
attainment is a system that concerns with how to determine these goals. He
distinguishes individual and collective goals and his emphasis remains largely
on collective goals. The polity or Political sub system (as a sub system of social
system) fulfills the need of goal attainment within the context. Integration is
another vital need of the social system. This is undertaken by institutionalised
arrangement like (and most importantly) religion. Thus, in his consideration,
religion corresponds to this need of maintaining integration in society. No system
can be continued and maintained if there are no controls. If there are deviations
or conflicts, then the social system must have the capacity to contain all these.
In Parsons` paradigm latency is maintained by institution of law – law courts,
police, and administrative system. Thus, legal system (as a subsystem) fulfills
the need of latency.

When a given social system is large and comprises of many interrelated

institutions, these are typically viewed as subsystems. The above mentioned
AGIL is thus, an example of interrelated subsystems. According to Parsons it is
necessary to remember that a social system is circumscribed by cultural patterns
and infused with personality systems. Thus, Parsons goes much ahead of the
formulations of functionalism by Durkheim and Radcliffe-Brown. According to
Jonathan Turner the development of four functional requisites – A, G, I and L –
is not a radical departure from the earlier works. It is true that structures are
viewed explicitly in terms of their functional consequences for meeting the four
requisites. This leads to the survival capacity of the social system and Parsonian
scheme begins to look like an elaborate mapping operation. Of course, much
criticism has been inflicted on the Parsonian functionalism but most theoretical
desirable alternatives take some threads from his theory, whether reject all or in
parts. Thus, his functionalism remains a well-known theoretical formulation of
the twentieth century.

2.3.2 R.K. Merton

Robert King Merton (1911-2003) is a well-known American sociologist who
attempted to overcome the shortcomings of functionalism advanced by its
founders namely Durkheim, Radcliffe-Brown and Malinowski. He is one of the
two great American Sociologists who dominated the scenario of functionalist
theory during the middle period of the twentieth century along with Talcott
Parsons. He began with the very etymological meanings of ‘function’ and
separated out of those the relevant and contextual meaning of the term being
adopted by early sociologists. In this sense function refers to the ‘vital or organic
process considered in respects in which they contribute to the maintenance of
the organism`. This meaning conveys the way in which it has been used in biology.
He states that it is this usage, with modifications appropriate to the study of
human society (as an organism), that early sociologists Durkheim and Radcliffe-
Brown have adopted and thus clarified the key concept, ‘function’. According
to Merton, Radcliffe-Brown has been most explicit in tracing the working
27
Perspectives in Sociology-I conception of social function to the analogical model found in biological sciences.
Durkheim also referred to ‘vital organic processes and the need of the organism’.
Of course, Radcliffe-Brown moved on to state ‘function of any recurrent activity,
the part it plays in the social life as a whole and the contribution it makes to the
maintenance of structural continuity’. But all that was based on analogy between
social organism (a society) and parts (activity or institution in society). The
allegation was also made against the functionalism of the earlier theorists that
functionalism only takes note of maintenance, i.e., stability, and there was no
scope of understanding change, and that concept was applied only to the simpler
societies.

Merton addressed to these limitations in his reformulation or modification of

the concept of function. He clarifies the concept of function as ‘those observed
consequences which make for the adaptation or adjustment of a given system’.

Merton was of the view that there was problem with the earlier definition of
function which states that ‘functions are those observed consequences which
make for the adaptation or adjustment of a given system’. According to him,
there has been a tendency in the definition to observe only the positive
contribution of an item to the social or cultural system in which it is implicated.
But he asserts that there are some contributions of at least some social or cultural
items, which, over a period result otherwise, i.e., they become an obstacle or
hindrance to the adaptation or adjustment. Considering this possibility (which
is at times empirically verifiable), he introduced the counter notion of
‘dysfunction’. He defines dysfunctions as “those observed consequences which
lessen the adaptation or adjustment of a given system”. There is also an empirical
possibility of non-functional consequences which are simply irrelevant for the
system under consideration. He further elaborates the concept of function to
‘consequences which are apparent and those which are hidden’ by using the
terms ‘manifest functions’ and ‘latent functions’. It is not only a logical possibility
or utopia but it is also found to be true in empirical situations. Merton was very
well convinced of this reality and verified the role (function/contribution) of
some social institutions, norms and traditions. This initial formulation serves as
a starting point for examining the concept of function as propounded by earlier
functionalists. He was an observer to the changes of his times that were occurring
in the western societies in general and American Society in particular.

The earlier notion of function, as advanced by Radcliffe-Brown and Malinowski

assumed that there was no stress or conflict in society (as the case might be in
simpler societies) but in complex societies of his (Merton‘s) time stress or conflict
was an important factor in social life. The stress indicates changes of some or
the other kind, let alone the changes in functions of social institutions or social
items. With these considerations he has examined the earlier formulation which
he labeled as ‘Prevailing Postulates of Functional Analysis (in Sociology)’. While
formulating and using the concept of function Radcliffe-Brown states that
“function of a particular usage is the contribution it makes to the total social life
as the functioning of the total social system”. Merton argues that this view implies
that the social system has a certain kind of unity which may be called as functional
unity. He considers functional unity as a condition where all parts of the social
system work together with harmony and internal consistency (without producing
any persistent conflicts). This view may be true when we look at small, highly
integrated aboriginal tribes but when we look at highly differentiated complex
28
societies which have large realm, it is not so. Thereby Merton examines this Functionalism
‘postulate of functional unity’ (codified from the notion given by Radcliffe-
Brown) by tracing several illustrations. This unity of total society cannot be
posited in advance of observation. The functional analysis requires that there
should be specification of units for which the item is functional. The given item
may have some functional consequences and some others as dysfunctional, thus,
we may not assume full integration of all societies all the times.
Merton examines the second postulate of ‘Universal Functionalism’ extracted
or codified from the views of Malinowski. Malinowski states that ‘functional
view of culture insists that in every type of civilization, every custom, material
object, idea or belief fulfills some vital function’. According to Merton this may
be true of small non-literate societies. Functionalists overreacted on the concept
of survival and function of every cultural item. Because there are functions and
dysfunctions of social items, what remains is the ‘net balance of consequences
(difference of positive and negative consequences)’. Thus, for complex societies
he argues that the assertion must be on ‘the net balance of consequences’.
He again takes up the third formulation, i.e., the third postulate codifying the
earlier statement of Malinowski emphasizing the gravity of the word vital.
Following the assertion, he takes the example of religion (a social institution)
which is indispensable in society. To this view of Malinowski, i.e., ‘Functional
Indispensability’, he argues that ‘maintaining integration’ is the indispensable
need of the society but not the institution because same need can be satisfied by
other social institutions in complex differentiated societies. Thus, Merton comes
out with the concept of functional alternatives, equivalents or substitutes over
the postulate of functional indispensability.
To all these considerations, examinations and reformations, Merton codified
and summarized in the set of points/issues, what he calls it ‘Paradigm for
Functional Analysis in Sociology’. His paradigm contains all these terms,
concepts, possibility of their usage in empirical research in complex societies.
This paradigm consists of eleven points from the concepts of function to the
application and understanding change in the system elements. His theories are
particularly presented in his classic book ‘Social Theory and Social Structure’.

2.4 LET US SUM UP

Theoretical perspective of functionalism aims to understand society by the
functioning of various parts (items, institutions, activities etc.) which contribute
to the satisfaction of the vital needs of social system (society as a whole). The
founding authors focused on the needs or necessary conditions of existence of
society to which social institutions correspond. The parts or institutions are
considered interrelated and interdependent. Society is perceived, like an organism
of functionally interrelated component parts. These parts perform functions which
are essential for the survival and continuity of society. Each element contributes
positively to this maintenance. Later sociologists perceived, particularly in
complex-differentiated societies, that there are some negative consequences of
some institutions over a period of time as well. Parsons maintains that social
system has in itself to contain these deviations (latency). Lastly Merton is of the
view that the functions of institutions are substituted by other alternatives and
thus stresses are overcome, some of which may always occur in the system.
This may well be understood within functional analysis propounded by him. 29
Perspectives in Sociology-I
2.5 REFERENCES
Crothers, Charles (1987). Robert K. Merton. Chichester, England: Ellis Horwood.
Durkheim, Emile. (1997) [1893]. The Division of Labour in Society. Trans. W.
D. Halls, Intro. Lewis A. Coser. New York: Free Press.
Durkheim, Emile. (1982) [1895]. The Rules of Sociological Method. Tr. by W.D.
Halls. New York: The Free Press.
Durkheim, Emile.  (1995) [1912]. Elementary Forms of the Religious Life. Trans.
Karen E. Fields. New York et al: Free Press.
Malinowski, Brownislaw. 1922. Argonauts of the Western Pacific: An Account
of Native Enterprise and Adventure in the Archipelagoes of Melanesian New
Guinea. London: George Routledge & Sons Ltd.
Malinowski, Bronislaw (1969) [1944]. A Scientific Theory of Culture and Other
Essays. London; Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press.
Merton, R.K. (1968). Social Theory and Social Structure. New York et al: The
Free Press.
Parsons, Talcott. (1951). The Social System. New York: The Free Press.
Radcliffe-Brown, A.R. 1922. The Andaman Islanders. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Radcliffe-Brown. A.R. (1951). Structure and Function in Primitive Society:
Essays and Addresses. London: Cohen & West.
Spencer, Herbert. 1873. The Study of Sociology. New York: D. Appleton.
Turner, Jonathan (1995). The Structure of Sociological Theory. Jaipur: Rawat.

30