FUNCTIONALISM AND ITS CRITICS - Intercollegiate Studies Institute

More documents

Recommendations

Info

FUNCTIONALISM AND ITS CRITICS 237 led him to experience "one of those moments of intellectual liberation; when a concept comes along that gives one ' s thoughts an ordered structure."' Almond's earlier work had lacked a systematic theoretical focus, and had been largely descriptive or concerned with the development of what Merton would call theories of the middle range.' After his conversion to a functional approach, however, Almond moved in a somewhat different direction from that of Easton or Parsons. While the latter tended to concentrate on conceptual rigor, Almond remained far more concerned with developing constructs which were tied as closely as possible to concrete problems. Specification of the meaning of theoretical terms or examining all of the implications of theoretical constructs seemed less important to him than developing some ordering of the material of politics, and he continued to borrow concepts freely from other intellectual traditions than functionalism. It is for this reason, perhaps, that his influence among students of comparative politics has been far greater than that of Easton. Most of those scholars studying the politics of developing areas have felt that it was far easier to apply Almond than to work with Parsons ' or Easton ' s more elaborate frameworks. Almond has denied that even his work of the period (roughly 1956-1969) can easily be subsumed under the rubric of functionalism, and this is certainly true.' Even at the height of his " functional period, " if we may so label it, he remained fairly ecclectic. More recently this ecclecticism has become even more pronounced. Functionalism is a mansion with many rooms, and has meant somewhat different things to different theorists. Certainly Almond ' s functionalism is, as we shall see, of a far more restricted kind than that of Radcliffe-Brown or Parson.' Thus many of the criticisms which have been directed against them are not applicable to him. ' Gabriel Almond, " Political Development: Analytic and Normative Perspectives, " Comparative Political Studies, I (January, 1969), p. 449. 4 These had included: The American People and Foreign Policy ( New York, 1950), and The Appeals of Communism ( Princeton, 1954). The term middle range theory is from Robert K. Merton, Structure ( New York, 1949), pp. 3-16. 5 In a personal communication. Social Theory and Social °For a discussion of the variety of approaches subsumed under the rubric of functionalism, and the variety of interpretations of its essential nature, see Francesca M. Cancian, "Varieties of Functional Analysis, " International En-
238 THE POLITICAL SCIENCE REVIEWER On the other hand, it is the elaboration of a theoretical framework broadly functional in orientation which has distinguished Almond ' s work in the past sixteen years, and the issues raised by the approach shall serve as the focus for organizing this essay review. Even where Almond is elaborating a concept like political culture or developing a theory of political evolution, or talking about the capabilities of political systems, concepts and theories which are compatible with a number of approaches, the fact that he thinks of a political system in functional terms gives his approach a particular cast. The same, of course, is true of Talcott Parsons. The latter ' s emphasis on cultural variables is derived from a non-functionalist (Weber) and his developmental theory (from which Almond ' s seems to be derived) probably has more in common with that of Spencer than he would care to admit. Yet the fact that he is a functionalist leads. him to, rely implicitly on biological analogies of a certain kind which are not intrinsic to an evolutionary theory of social and political development. I shall attempt to summarize Almond ' s ideas as they have developed, bringing out what seem to me some of the underlying, but often unstated assumptions. At relevant points I shall point out ambiguities, contradictions and lacunae. It must be said at the outset that Almond ' s writing, because of his ecclecticism, and lack of concern with theoretical completeness, abounds in these. I shall, however, ignore minor details and stick to major issues. After all, the key question is whether a functional approach, presented in as reasonable a form as possible, is likely to be of more value in the study of politics than alternate conceptual frameworks. If this seems likely to be the case, theoretical elegance is not essential at this stage, although the possibility of improvement is.' Conceptual frameworks are not proven or disproven, they are only more or less useful. A cyclopedia of the Social Sciences (New York, 1968) 6, pp. 29-43, and N. J. Demerath III and Richard A. Peterson (eds.), System Change and Conflict (New York, 1967). A short history of functionalism will be found in Don Martindale, The Nature and Types of Sociological Theory ( Boston, 1960), pp. 441-500. A variety of functional approaches in political science are . described in articles by Robert T. Holt and William Flanigan and Edwin Fogelman in Don Martindale (ed.), Functionalism in the Social Sciences ( Philadelphia, 1965), pp. 84-110 and pp. 111-126. 7 Abraham Kaplan, The Conduct of Inquiry (San Francisco, 1964), pp. 77-78, points out that complete conceptual clarity is not the sine qua non of scientific advance, and that such clarity is attained only after the maturation of new approaches to the study of nature, man and society.
Page 1: FUNCTIONALISM AND ITS CRITICS : An
Page 5 and 6: 240 THE POLITICAL SCIENCE REVIEWER
Page 9 and 10: 244 THE POLITICAL SCIENCE .REVIEWER
Page 41: 276 THE POLITICAL SCIENCE REVIEWER

FUNCTIONALISM AND ITS CRITICS - Intercollegiate Studies Institute

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?