Social Structure and Change

Introduction. Social structure and social change are general concepts used by social scientists, particularly in the fields of sociology and social and cultural anthropology. They are often conceived of as polarized twin concepts, social structure referring to permanence, social change to the opposite. The relationship between the two concepts is, however, more complicated. “Structure,” for instance, does not necessarily indicate lack of change. Those features of a society, or any other social group, that are regarded as parts of its structure are always generated by dynamic processes.

For example, the kinship structure of a given society (the typical composition of household units and the rules governing marriage and line of descent) is maintained by continuous changes in families, as marriages are concluded; children are born, grow up, and become adults; and people die. Second, although many social processes show a cyclical pattern – the formation, dissolution, and reformation of families being one example – social life never repeats itself completely. The kinship relations in one generation are never an exact replica of those in the previous one. The same processes that serve to maintain the social structure may also lead to social change and modification of the structure over a long period.

The concepts of social structure and social change pertain not only to basic characteristics of human social life but also to certain ideals and preferences. The structure, or order, of the society, generally regarded as harmonious and conducive to the general well-being, has also been seen as conflict-ridden and repressive. Similarly, social change has been conceived of both as progress and as decay, as emancipation on the one hand and as deviance from good tradition on the other. Such widely varying evaluations have influenced different theories concerning the nature of social structure and social change, and they continue to be reflected, to some extent, in present-day social thought.

Some of the more prominent of these theories are examined here.

Functionalism

The functionalist orientation took shape in the nineteenth century, in the writings of the French sociologist Emile Durkheim (1858-1917) and the British sociologist Herbert Spencer (1820-1903). Its leading contemporary spokesmen have been the American sociologists Talcott Parsons and Robert Merton.

Spencer drew an analogy between societies and living organisms. An organism is made up of many specialized parts (the brain, the heart, the lungs, and so on). Each part has a particular function which contributes to maintaining the whole. (The lungs, for example, extract oxygen from the air and deposit it in the blood; the heart pumps the blood through the body.) These parts are interdependent: each needs the others. For the organism to survive, they must work in harmony with one another. So it is with societies. Each society is composed of many specialized structures (the family, religion, politics, the education system, and so on). Each of these structures has a function that contributes to maintaining the whole. (The family, for example, bears and raises children.) These social structures are interdependent. (The economy depends on the education system to provide future workers with skills; the education system depends on the economy for funds.) For a society to survive, its interdependent parts must function in harmony. Functionalists hold that survival depends on cooperation, and that cooperation depends on consensus (agreement) on basic values and rules for behavior. Under normal conditions the various parts of society work together toward shared goals, producing order and stability. Viewed from this perspective, conflict is a symptom of “disease” in the social organism.

Contemporary functionalists have abandoned Spencer’s analogy between societies and organisms as oversimplified.

Modern functionalists stress the delicate balance among different social structures. Because these structures are interdependent, change in one area of social life inevitably causes adjustments in other areas. For example, changes in the economy (such as a rise in unemployment) bring about changes in the family. Likewise, changes in the family (an increase in divorce and in the number of single parents) bring about changes in the economy. According to this perspective, sudden and rapid change can throw the entire system – the whole society – off balance.

From the functionalist perspective the basic questions for sociological research are: What functions do different parts of the system serve? (What do they contribute to the whole?) and How are the parts connected to one another?

Merton pointed out the important distinction between manifest functions – those that are intended and recognized – and latent functions – those that are unintended and often unrecognized. For example, the manifest function of education is to provide youngsters with information, skills, and values. The latent functions of education include keeping young people out of an overcrowded job market: providing a “baby-sitter” for working parents; and perpetuating class differences by sorting students into academic and vocational tracks according to their perceived potential.

The functionalist perspective is particularly useful in mapping the connections between various elements of a social system.

But many sociologists are critical of the functionalist approach. According to its critics, the main weaknesses of functionalism are: (1) its tendency to assume that whatever social arrangements do exist should exist because they are functional, thus ignoring other possibilities; (2) its neglect of the role power plays in the creation and maintenance of social arrangements; and (3) its inability to explain social change except as dysfunction or as the result of outside influences.

Conflict Theory

Where the functionalist orientation directs attention to the sources of consensus and agreement in a society, conflict theory (as the name implies) focuses on the sources of conflict and change. Conflict theorists might draw an analogy between a society and a giant arena, where a large number of teams are locked in competition for a small number of prizes. The score is never even: For one team to win, others must lose. The team that is on top in any given period has the power to decide on the rules of the game, and does everything in its power to preserve its advantage. Although other teams may acknowledge this advantage, they never wholly accept the position of “losers” and watch for ways to turn the tide. Hence the game is never settled. By analogy, the things people want in life – wealth, power, and prestige – are always in short supply. Competition for scarce resources inevitably leads to conflict among groups. Social conflict develops not only over a distribution of goods, but also over the question of what goods are to be produced and how. Should investment be made in weapons, medicines, or food production?

The groups that control crucial sources of wealth (mines, factories, etc.), the communication media, and other vital resources usually are in a position to dominate political and other social activities as well. Sometimes a dominant group relies on the threat or use of force to maintain its privileges. In other cases the dominant group is able to use religious doctrines or the education and communications systems to convince subordinated groups that existing social arrangements are right or inevitable. But dominant-subordinate relationships are always unstable. The threat that exploited groups will rebel is ever present. Thus conflict theorists maintain that society is held together not by consensus, but by constraint. Although they acknowledge that social change can be disruptive, they argue that in many cases protest movements and revolutions lead to progress and greater social justice.

Whereas functionalists view social arrangements in terms of their functions for society as a whole, conflict theorists ask, Functional for whom? From this perspective, the basic questions for sociological research are: Who benefits from a given social arrangement? and How does the dominant group maintain its position?

The rise of conflict theory in sociology can be seen as an intellectual revolution against the implied conservatism of functionalism (whatever exists must be functional). It offered a more dynamic view of society, and has provided numerous insights into such phenomena as “the war between the sexes” and family politics, as well as large-scale economic and political upheavals. The major weakness of conflict theory is that it does not explain the sources of harmony and consensus in social life. Many societies are stable over long periods of time, institutions do endure over many generations, and most marriages do not end in divorce.

Symbolic Interactionism

The third major theoretical orientation of sociology, symbolic interactionism, was developed by the American sociologists George Herbert Mead (1863-1931) and Charles Horton Cooley (1864-1924) in the early twentieth century, and has been elaborated in recent years by Erving Goffman (1967), Herbert Blumer (1969), and others. Symbolic interactionists emphasize the role of individual action in creating and maintaining social structures. Its greatest contributions are in the study of the direct interpersonal encounters that are the basis of even the largest social institutions.

Symbolic interactionism is based on the assumption that the way individuals understand or interpret themselves, other people, and situations influences their behavior.

Humans communicate with one another by means of symbols – not only words and phrases, but also gestures and actions that have acquired social meaning. And we learn what behavior and events mean through interaction with other people. Our view of the world is shaped by our culture and by the different roles we play in society. Even our identity or sense of self is shaped by social interaction. Out image of ourselves is based in large part on the reflection we see in other people’s eyes – a “looking-glass self,” in Cooley’s phrase. The “Peanuts” cartoon character Charlie Brown, for example, knows he is a failure because in his interactions with Lucy and other characters he learns that they view him as clumsy and inept.

Although they have many different areas of interest, symbolic interactionists share a common focus. For these sociologists the basic questions are: How do people interpret their social scripts? How do they arrive at shared understandings and unconscious knowledge? How does everyday interaction support or modify social definitions of reality?

Symbolic interactionism links sociology to real people, everyday events, and face-to-face encounters, verbal and nonverbal. But it has not shown how the sum of ordinary (or extraordinary) social encounters produces a functioning society. It has not translated special cases into explanations of such large-scale phenomena as political traditions and economic trends.