Main trends of research in the social and human ... - unesdoc - Unesco

Sociology I 09
But what if the distribution of power in the society is such that conflicts are
always resolved to the disadvantage of certain social groups? Here a new voice
is heard, that of the German sociologist, Dahrendorf. He feels that in order to
understand and appreciate social change, a ‘radical departure from the func-
tional system model of society’ is necessary. What sociologists should study is
not equilibrium but social change which results from the antagonism which
each society creates and which neither originates at random nor is susceptible to
elimination by a re-established equilibri~m.7~
Although he nowhere states it in explicit and quotable sentences, it is clear
that Dahrenforf’s objection against functionalism is that it is not directed toward
the future. In his book on German society, discussed in the previous section of
the present chapter, the underlying purpose of his analysis is to find means for
strengthening democracy in his country. When he criticises functionalism for not
taking into account the possibility of ‘radical change’ he is not thinking of revolu-
tion. His concern is a society which derives new goals from old conflicts. After
the social worker and the mediator, he now introduces the statesman who guides
his country by social planning based not on force but rather on some rational
system of trial and error.79
Dahrendorf might one day be the fmt sociologist to realize this image in his
own career. But like everyone else he has no success with his attack on func-
tionalism. Its new version, akin to general systems theory, is prepared to meet
the challenge. The creative role of conflict can easily be subsumed as a positive
feedback. The role of planning is well provided for in evolutionary and morpho-
genic social systems. As a matter of fact, even the ‘older’ functionalism is not
as vulnerable as Dahrendorf assumes. This wil become dearer when I now
turn to my third topic: recent trends in the study of functional mechanisms.
3. Functionalmechanisms. I quoted above the sixth point in Merton’s paradigm
in which he calls for greater attention to social mechanisms. In recent years this
call has been heeded by a number of writers whom we might label neo-functionalists.
They provide a bridge to the general systems theorist. While their imagery
of systems is not as radical, they are concrete indeed about the links which hold
their systems together.
It would be possible to describe this trend with considerable generality.
However, the main ideas are best set forth by considering individuals or small
groups which are connected by membership with larger units, for instance,
communities. The customary concern of the functionalist is the contribution
which the small unit (i) makes to the larger system (S). The neo-functionalist
also asks: why does (i) make this contribution, how does (S) repay him? In
principle, this matter can be discussed in two ways: from the point of view of the
individual or from the point of view of the larger social unit. It is perhaps significant
that two basic papers representing these two symmetric approaches appeared
almost simultaneously. W. J. Goodego starts out with the notion ofrole strain.
An individual is often subject to conflicting demands from various social groups,
and must somehow manage to reconcile them. Up to this point, the exposition
quite closely follows Merton’s paper on role set. But Goode notes that one