Opothleyahola

This  level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Sociology Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology articles Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Conservatism High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Systems High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Systems, which collaborates on articles related to systems and systems science.SystemsWikipedia:WikiProject SystemsTemplate:WikiProject SystemsSystems articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is within the field of Social systems theory. Philosophy: Social and political / Modern Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Associated task forces: /  Social and political philosophy Modern philosophy

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Dinocako.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 10:19, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone put the references and 'see also's' back, as someone got rid of them, and I'm not sure how to - Thanks Anthropax 18:24, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I was taught that Malinowski and Evans-Pritchard were functionalists, and Radcliffe-Brown the structural-functionalist (more Durkheimian). Elsewhere (the structuralism article?) the point is made that R-B takes a top-down approach to functionalism (i.e. the function is to satisfy collective needs), whereas Malinowski and E-P view function in terms of individual needs. This needs to be included, but I dislike this school of anthropology and haven't attended to my studies enough to change the article myself! (anon)

Indeed, it seems to me that both Malinowski and Radcliffe-Brown should be added to this page. Radcliffe-Brown's Wikipedia page notes him as the originator of structural functionalism. Phifty (talk) 16:03, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Does his theory need a new page to itself? From my Anthropology lecturers, I got the impression that this was the British form of Structural-Functionalism, not the American school, which is different. Anthropax 02:22, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As it is said in the article, Malinowski was the head of brittish functionalism, and Radcliffe-Brown and Evans-Pritchard (the former being a disciple of RB) were structural-functionalists, that is to say, they aimed at the study of the social as a whole, rather than to individuals; and that whole is different than the sum of its parts.

From what I understand Parson is the chief peson associated with s-f. This article is certainly incomplete without mentioning him, and if there are two schools of s-f it should be mentioned as well.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  21:18, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

it would be useful to make a seperate article, or at least make a section in this one, that talks about the relation and differences between structural functionalism and 'structuralism', since both use the same buzzword and were in vogue at around the same time (50's-60's ?), though in different disciplines/geographical-institutional locations. they also seem to be motivated by a rising concern for 'structure', and may therefore have an interesting historical relationship/loosely common origin. (if nothing else, this would be useful to aleviate confusion .. i have in mind something like the 'cybernetics and systems theory' article, which explicitely analyses the relationship between these oft-confused subjects, although in that case the two are much more related than here.)

I have completely rewritten the opening paragraph as it was rather confused. Let's keep it short to prevent such confusion. Some points-

(1) Structural functionalism began, if not by name then always implicitly, in the work of Comte, and was then later developed in full by Durkheim. The article previously stated that Weber and some 20th century theorists were responsible for it. That's way off. You might wish to articulate that Weber was a functionalist in some sense, but it should be done with a little more nous than that.

(2) Structural functionalism shares an affinity with sociological positivism, but the two are not synonymous. Furthermore, a functionalist does not necessarily have to be a positivist, and vice versa. Due to the nature of Action Theory, for example, Parsons rejected the functionalist label often attributed to him, but nevertheless I think he is, broadly-speaking, a good example of a non-positivist functionalist.

(3) Similarly, functionalism shouldn't be equated directly with conservativism. Okay, so Marxism came along and left (no pun intended) Durkheim looking a lot more conservative, but Durkheim was nevertheless a very liberal thinker by 19th century standards. The aim of functionalism, and of course sociology in general, was to solve the social ills brought about by industrialisation and the horrors of modernity. ;) Peace out! --Tomsega (talk) 22:48, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Many commentators would draw a distinction between 'functionalism' and 'structural functionalism', and the word 'structural' may become easily confused with 'structuralism', which is a similar but separate school of thought. The page should really be renamed simply to 'Functionalism'. --Tomsega (talk) 11:17, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but there is a problem. Functionalism is currently a disambiguation page which lists the varieties of functionalism in various disciplines. I don't find that inappropriate, despite the fact that the term originated in sociology. But I found myself scratching my head when I read the opening sentence of this article: "Functionalism, or in some contexts structural functionalism..." (I had to double-check the article title). What to do about it? One option would be to re-title the article "Functionalism (sociology)" or "Functionalism (sociology and anthropology). Comments? Sunray (talk) 21:51, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the present title is the most appropriate and descriptive. There are similarly other "functionalisms" that could easily claim to be the functionalism. That is why we have a disambiguation page. Parenthetical titles are not preferred.Greg Bard (talk) 21:55, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What does "structural functionalism imply to you? Sunray (talk) 23:48, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It implies a difference between it an other functionalisms such as the functionalist theory of mind. I always prefer a descriptive title rather than one with parentheses. I think another problem is that several academic fields claim this as a topic of study. I wouldn't favor "Functionalism (sociology and anthropology)" at all. Especially since it is also of interest to political scientists and economic theorists. In fact I would even favor merging Consensus theory into this article under the name "Structural functionalism".Greg Bard (talk) 00:48, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We are in agreement that several academic disciplines claim functionalism as a topic of study. And I do agree that there should be an article called "structural functionalism." However, the way this article is written right now, at least in many places, conflates the terms "functionalism" and "structural functionalism." I think that there should be a general article on functionalism in sociology and another on structural functionalism, which would treat the variations on functionalism by Radcliffe-Brown and Parsons. Sunray (talk) 05:43, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If there is material to be had, I support that. Not knowing about sociology I will defer. However, consistent with what I was saying... I would prefer the new one be Sociological functionalism.Greg Bard (talk) 05:58, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that "Functionalism (sociology) would be more consistent with article naming conventions. Sunray (talk) 07:13, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

--Gonzalcg (talk) 19:59, 6 February 2012 (UTC) I think that would be considered the creation of a more general article "functionalism" with "structural functionalism" as a large class into "functionalism". For example, the anthropological functionalism of Malinowski has been classified in opposition to structural functionalism of Radcliffe-Brown by many authors. I want to make this in the Portuguese wikipedia, but I aim for an unified criterion. (I apologize for my bad English)[reply]

I, the mysterious IP address from beyond the moon, have added an essay tag to this article, as it reads far more like an essay than an objective, informative article - heck, the critism section even features 'I' and other personal pronouns related to the author. 122.57.184.195 (talk) 05:20, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article has to be divided into two, as sociological and anthropological functionalism are the not exactly the same. This one talks mainly from sociological perspective and only briefly mentions Bronislaw Malinowski, the father of anthropological functionalism. Anthropological article should deal with Evans-Pritchard and Radcliffe-Brown too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mihamiha (talk • contribs) 04:24, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please somebody utterly rewrite the Criticism section! It currently stands as a total ruin of the battles between Parson fanboys and people critical of the positivist, essentialist, and social-Darwinistic (note Spencer's influence!) "all-is-well-as-long-as-we-never-change-anything" notion, signified by a horrifying language where pretty much every single sentence starts either with However or Yet! For Goodness' sake, it even uses first-person speech ("I") in places! --79.193.41.61 (talk) 08:40, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

9 years later, the Critisism section is still a mess. Schizophonix (talk) 18:44, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is a large picture of him, whilst there is little information. Does he need a section? Brad7777 (talk) 16:52, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

was there ever any kind of scientific evidence for any of the main premises of strucfunc? If not, this should be mentioned. AFAIK structuralism went out of favor in liuistics precisely because later research findings could not be seen as supporting the basic views in stucturalism about how concepts (mental content) formed. Does this also apply to sociology? --128.214.12.45 (talk) 12:46, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone help me understand how the title image of a social network map is relevant to the topic? To me it actually seems misleading to the meaning of the theory itself. Thanks --Fire lily445 (talk) 21:24, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]