Structural Functionalism
Lecture 3: Structural functionalism
Structural functionalism – Radcliffe-Brown
Anthropology is a natural science
Radcliffe-Brown was one of the main figures of the structural functionalist school of British anthropology. He viewed anthropology as a natural science, similar in essence to the physical and biological sciences. The object of natural science was to investigate the structure of the universe. Social phenomena constitute a distinct class of natural phenomena, and social structures are just as real as are individual organisms.
Following from this, the anthropologist had to use methods similar to those in the physical and biological sciences, the empirical observation of natural phenomena. Anthropologists shouldn’t be concerned with ‘culture’ since that word does not denote any concrete reality, but is rather a vague abstraction. Instead, what can be revealed by direct observation is how humans are connected by a complex network of social relations.
Social structure as a whole can only be observed in its functioning. Most of the social relations which in their totality constitute the structure, such as relations of father and son, buyer and seller, ruler and subject, cannot be observed except in social activity in which the relations are functioning.
Science is not concerned with the particular, the unique, but only with the general. The actual relations of Tom, Dick or Harry may go down in field note-books and may provide illustrations for a general description. But what anthropologists need for scientific purposes is an account of the form of the structure. A general or normal form is abstracted from the variations of particular instances.
Structural functionalists were not interested in the historical development of the societies they studied, as this was not directly observable, and was in effect speculation.
Society is an organism
Radcliffe-Brown drew from Durkheim the idea that social institutions perform a ‘function’ which
Structural functionalism – Radcliffe-Brown
Anthropology is a natural science
Radcliffe-Brown was one of the main figures of the structural functionalist school of British anthropology. He viewed anthropology as a natural science, similar in essence to the physical and biological sciences. The object of natural science was to investigate the structure of the universe. Social phenomena constitute a distinct class of natural phenomena, and social structures are just as real as are individual organisms.
Following from this, the anthropologist had to use methods similar to those in the physical and biological sciences, the empirical observation of natural phenomena. Anthropologists shouldn’t be concerned with ‘culture’ since that word does not denote any concrete reality, but is rather a vague abstraction. Instead, what can be revealed by direct observation is how humans are connected by a complex network of social relations.
Social structure as a whole can only be observed in its functioning. Most of the social relations which in their totality constitute the structure, such as relations of father and son, buyer and seller, ruler and subject, cannot be observed except in social activity in which the relations are functioning.
Science is not concerned with the particular, the unique, but only with the general. The actual relations of Tom, Dick or Harry may go down in field note-books and may provide illustrations for a general description. But what anthropologists need for scientific purposes is an account of the form of the structure. A general or normal form is abstracted from the variations of particular instances.
Structural functionalists were not interested in the historical development of the societies they studied, as this was not directly observable, and was in effect speculation.
Society is an organism
Radcliffe-Brown drew from Durkheim the idea that social institutions perform a ‘function’ which