Functionalism and Systemism

Functionalism and Systemism

Données clés

Faculté	Faculté des sciences de la société
Département	Département de science politique et relations internationales
Professeur(s)	Rémi Baudoui
Cours	Introduction to Political Science

Lectures

• From Durkheim to Bourdieu
• The origins of the fall of the Weimar Republic
• Max Weber and Vilfredo Pareto
• The notion of "concept" in social sciences
• Marxism and Structuralism
• Functionalism and Systemism
• Interactionism and Constructivism
• Interests
• The institutions
• Ideas
• The theories of political anthropology
• What is War?
• The War: Concepts and Evolutions
• The reason of State
• State, sovereignty, globalization and multi-level governance
• What is Violence?
• Welfare State and Biopower
• Political regimes and democratisation
• Electoral systems
• Governments and Parliaments
• Morphology of contestations
• Régimes politiques, démocratisation
• Action in Political Theory
• Introduction to Swiss politics
• Introduction to political behaviour
• Public Policy Analysis: Definition and cycle of public policy
• Public Policy Analysis: agenda setting and formulation
• Public Policy Analysis: Implementation and Evaluation
• Introduction to the sub-discipline of international relations
• Introduction to Political Theory

Functionalism and systemism are two theoretical approaches in political science that attempt to understand the relationships, structures and processes within political systems.

• Functionalism: This concept focuses on the roles and functions that various elements of the political system play in maintaining the stability and balance of the system as a whole. It examines how each part contributes to the stability of the overall system. In political science, functionalism can be used to analyse how different institutions (such as the legislature, the executive, the judiciary, etc.) contribute to the stability and functioning of the overall political system.
• Systemism: Systemism, or systems theory, is an approach that views political phenomena as part of a larger system. It focuses on the interactions between different parts of the system and how these interactions influence the system as a whole. Systemism tries to understand the political system as a whole rather than focusing only on its individual parts.

Both theories can be used to understand the power relations, the interactions between the different parts of a political system and how these elements contribute to stability or change in the political system.

Languages

Español Français

Functionalism

Just as each organ in the human body has a specific function and contributes to the proper functioning of the organism as a whole, each institution or structure within a society has a specific function and contributes to the stability and well-being of the society as a whole. Functionalism is based on the idea that society is a complex system whose different parts work together to promote solidarity and stability. In political science, this approach is used to analyse how different institutions or structures, such as government, the economy, education, the media, etc., contribute to the stability and functioning of society as a whole.

Society or politics is thus interpreted as a living body. This anthropomorphic approach, comparing society to a living organism, helps to understand how the different parts of society interact to create a functional whole. In this analogy, the different social and political institutions are compared to the organs of a body. For example, the government could be seen as the brain, providing guidelines and decisions for the rest of the body. The economy could be compared to the circulatory system, distributing resources (like blood and oxygen in a body) throughout society. Schools and universities could be seen as the nervous system, providing the education and information (analogous to nerve signals) that enable society to function. Just as the body needs all its organs to function properly, society needs all its institutions to maintain balance and stability. Moreover, just as the organs of the body interact and depend on each other, so too are social and political institutions interdependent and their interactions have an impact on the overall functioning of society.

Functionalism became a dominant theory in sociology and political science in the 1930s to 1960s, particularly in the Anglo-Saxon world. Sociologists such as Talcott Parsons and Robert K. Merton played a crucial role in the development of functionalist theory. Talcott Parsons, in particular, is often regarded as one of the main contributors to functionalist theory. His theory of social action, which emphasises the interdependence of the parts of a social system and the role of norms and values in social stability, has had a major influence on functionalism. Robert K. Merton introduced the notion of manifest and latent functions. Manifest functions are the expected and intended effects of social actions, while latent functions are the unintended and often unrecognised effects.

In the 1960s, functionalism was criticised for its emphasis on stability and social order, and for its failure to account for social change and conflict. In response to these criticisms, new theories, such as structural conflict and symbolic interactionism, began to emerge. However, functionalism remains an important approach in sociology and political science, and its concepts continue to influence the way we think about societies and political systems.

From this perspective, each element of society, whether material or immaterial, has a role to play in keeping the whole system in balance. The stability and proper functioning of society is ensured by the interaction and interdependence of these various elements, each fulfilling its respective functions. For example, in a society, the production of goods and services is an essential function to meet the material needs of the members of society. Family and social structures ensure the reproduction and socialisation of new members, thus contributing to the continuity of society. Political and legal institutions ensure the protection and maintenance of order, thus contributing to the stability and security of society. Similarly, every belief, value and social norm has a function to play. For example, religious beliefs can contribute to social cohesion by providing a framework of shared meaning and values. Social norms regulate the behaviour of individuals and promote cooperation and harmony in society.

According to functionalist theory, although every society must fulfil certain universal functions (such as the production of goods and services, reproduction, and the protection of its members), the way in which these functions are fulfilled may vary from one society to another depending on its specific cultural and social institutions. This is where the concept of 'functional equivalents' comes in. Different cultural institutions or practices may perform the same function in different ways. For example, socialisation - the process by which individuals learn and integrate the norms and values of their society - can take place in different ways in different societies. In some societies, it may be primarily through imitation, where individuals learn social norms by observing and imitating others. In other societies, it may be through fusion, where individuals are immersed in a social group and adopt its norms and values. In still other societies, it may be through transmission, where norms and values are explicitly taught and passed on from generation to generation. These different methods of socialisation are 'functional equivalents' in that they all perform the same function - the socialisation of individuals - but in different ways. This illustrates the flexibility and variability of societies in the way they perform universal functions.

Functionalism was indeed born out of anthropology and was influenced by several important thinkers:

1. Bronisław Malinowski: A Polish-British anthropologist, Malinowski is often regarded as the founder of British social anthropology and one of the pioneers of functionalism. He introduced the idea that to understand a culture, one must examine how its different parts work together to meet basic human needs. Malinowski also emphasised the importance of fieldwork and participant observation in the study of societies.
2. Alfred Radcliffe-Brown: Another British anthropologist, Radcliffe-Brown, developed what he called "structural-functionalism". He saw society as an organic system, where each part has a specific function that contributes to the survival of the system as a whole. Radcliffe-Brown focused on the study of social relations as a structural system.
3. Talcott Parsons: An American sociologist, Parsons developed a complex version of functionalism known as "social action theory". He saw society as an interconnected system of parts that work together to maintain a balance. Parsons emphasised the role of social norms and cultural values in maintaining social stability and argued that any social change must be gradual to preserve this balance.
4. Robert K. Merton: Merton, also an American sociologist, made several important modifications to functionalist theory. Unlike Parsons, Merton did not believe that everything in society contributes to its stability and well-being. He introduced the concepts of manifest and latent functions, distinguishing between expected and unexpected or unrecognised effects of social actions. Merton also recognised the existence of dysfunctions, or the negative effects of social structures on society.

Bronislaw Malinovski (1884 - 1942): Anthropological functionalism or absolute functionalism

Bronisław Malinowski is one of the most important figures in twentieth-century anthropology. Born in Poland, Malinowski began his university studies at the Jagiellonian University in Kraków, where he studied philosophy and physics. However, he soon became interested in anthropology and decided to continue his studies in this field. He then moved to London, where he began studying at the London School of Economics (LSE). At the LSE he worked under the anthropologist C.G. Seligman and obtained his doctorate in 1916. His thesis, based on his fieldwork in Melanesia, laid the foundations for his functionalist approach to anthropology. He embarked on extensive fieldwork in Melanesia, a region of the South Pacific that includes many islands, including Papua New Guinea, the Solomon Islands, Vanuatu, New Caledonia and others. His fieldwork laid the foundations for the method of participant observation, which remains a central method in anthropology today. This approach involves living in the community one is studying for a long period of time, learning the local language and participating as much as possible in the daily life of the community.

His most famous book, "The Argonauts of the Western Pacific", is a detailed study of the Kula, a complex system of trade between the various islands of Melanesia. In this work, Malinowski not only described the Kula system in detail, but also sought to understand how it functioned in the wider context of Melanesian society, including its role in politics, religion and social life. Malinowski's contribution to functionalist theory rests on his idea that every aspect of a culture - including its rituals, myths, economic and social systems - has a specific function that contributes to the satisfaction of the basic needs of the people in that culture. This approach has had a lasting influence on anthropology and also contributed to the emergence of functionalist theory in sociology and political science.

Bronisław Malinowski is famous for spending several years on the Trobriand Islands (now known as the Kiriwina Islands in Papua New Guinea) from 1915 to 1918. During this period he lived among the local population and participated in their daily activities, a method of field study known as participant observation. One of Malinowski's most important observations during his stay on the Trobriand Islands was the system of exchange known as the Kula. This complex system of trade between different islands involved the exchange of red shell necklaces and white shell bracelets, which were traded in opposite directions around a circle of islands. Malinowski argued that the Kula system was not only a form of economic exchange, but also a means for individuals to establish and maintain social and political relationships.

Malinowski's approach was revolutionary at the time and greatly influenced the development of anthropology. He showed that a complete and accurate understanding of a culture can only be obtained by living within that culture and participating in its daily activities. This provided an insider's perspective on how the different parts of the culture - economy, politics, religion, etc. - work together to meet the needs of the people.

The Kula system, observed by Bronisław Malinowski in the Trobriand Islands, is a system of ritual exchange in which precious objects are given without expectation of immediate payment, but with the implicit obligation that they will eventually be returned. Two main types of objects are exchanged in the Kula: red shell necklaces, called soulava, which circulate clockwise around a circle of trading partners, and white shell bracelets, called mwali, which circulate counter-clockwise. These objects have no utilitarian value per se, but are valuable because of their history and symbolic meaning. Individuals participating in the Kula sometimes travel long distances to exchange these objects. When an object is received, it is kept for a period of time and then given to another trading partner in a subsequent exchange. By participating in the Kula, individuals establish and strengthen social and political ties, gain prestige and navigate complex relationships of reciprocity and obligation. Malinowski's work on the Kula has been highly influential and has helped shape our understanding of economics, politics and culture in non-Western societies. He also played a key role in the development of functionalist theory in anthropology, which sees the different parts of a culture as interconnected and working together to meet the needs of society.

The Kula is a system of ritual exchange that does not fit traditional Western economic models. The objects exchanged in the Kula - soulava shell necklaces and mwali shell bracelets - have no intrinsic value as material goods, but acquire great symbolic and social significance in the context of the Kula. What is particularly interesting about the Kula is that it is not a one-off exchange, but a continuous system of exchange. An object received in the Kula is not kept permanently, but has to be given to another trading partner in a later exchange. In this way, Kula objects are constantly on the move, circulating from one individual to another and from one island to another. Furthermore, Kula exchanges are accompanied by complex rituals and ceremonies, and participation in the Kula confers prestige and social status. The Kula is thus much more than a simple system of economic exchange: it is a complex social and cultural phenomenon that strengthens social ties, establishes reciprocal relationships and structures the political and social life of the Trobriand Islands. In studying the Kula, Malinowski demonstrated that in order to truly understand a social or cultural phenomenon, it is necessary to study it in its context and understand how it fits into the overall functioning of society. This is one of the fundamental principles of anthropology and functionalist theory.

The Kula is a system of exchange which, although not involving financial elements in the traditional sense of the term, is of crucial importance for social cohesion and the maintenance of links between the different communities of the islands. The objects exchanged in the Kula are symbolic goods that serve to strengthen relationships between people and maintain some form of stability and continuity in society. In addition, the Kula is a highly ritualised and supervised process. There are specific rules about who can participate in the Kula, what objects can be exchanged and how they should be exchanged. Furthermore, Kula exchanges are often accompanied by magical and religious rituals, which further emphasise their social and cultural significance.

Malinowski's approach of analysing cultural practices in terms of their functions within society is a key feature of functionalist theory. In the case of the Kula, Malinowski showed that what may appear to be a simple system of exchange of goods is in fact a crucial element of the social and political structure of the Trobriand Islands.

Bronisław Malinowski's functionalist view sees cultural practices and institutions not as isolated elements, but as integral parts of a larger social system that functions to meet the needs of society. In the case of the Kula, the function of this exchange system is not primarily economic, but rather social and political. The Kula serves to strengthen social ties between individuals and communities, to establish and maintain reciprocal relationships, and to structure social and political relations. By forcing people to meet and exchange regularly, the Kula promotes peace and co-operation between the different communities of the Trobriand Islands.

This functionalist view has important implications for the way we understand and analyse political and social systems. It suggests that in order to fully understand an institution or cultural practice, we need to examine its function in the context of society as a whole. This approach can help us understand how different institutions and practices contribute to social cohesion, political stability, and other aspects of the functioning of society.

Alfred Radcliffe-Brown: 1881 - 1955

Alfred Radcliffe-Brown was a British anthropologist who played a fundamental role in the development of structuralism and functionalism in the field of anthropology. He is best known for his studies of Aboriginal societies in Australia.

Radcliffe-Brown proposed the idea that societies can be understood as structured systems of social interaction, where each part of the society has a specific function that contributes to the stability and survival of the whole. He compared society to a biological organism, where each organ has a specific function that contributes to the well-being of the whole body. In his book "Structure and Function in Primitive Society", Radcliffe-Brown explored these ideas in detail. He argued that primitive societies, such as those of the Australian Aborigines, have complex social, political and spatial structures that are largely invisible to the untrained eye, but can be revealed by careful analysis. Radcliffe-Brown also emphasised the importance of rituals and myths in these societies, which he saw as key tools for maintaining social order and ensuring group cohesion. For him, these cultural elements are not mere superstitions, but essential functional elements of society.

Radcliffe-Brown's contribution to anthropology and functionalist theory has been extremely influential. His work laid the foundation for many subsequent studies of social structure and political systems in a variety of cultural contexts.

Radcliffe-Brown merged the ideas of structuralism and functionalism to create the structural-functionalist theory.

In this perspective, a society is seen as a system of interconnected structures, each with a specific function that contributes to the stability and integrity of the whole system. These structures are the result of social practices and interactions, not of biological or arbitrary factors. They are the product of human activity, but they exist outside of and influence individuals. Structuralism emphasises the need to examine societies as a whole and to understand how the different parts fit together to form a coherent whole. Functionalism, on the other hand, focuses on analysing the specific functions that each part of a society performs in the context of the wider social system.

Structural-functionalism combines these two approaches by focusing both on how social structures are created by specific social functions and how these structures contribute to the stability and cohesion of society as a whole. This approach has been widely used in anthropology and sociology to analyse a wide variety of societies and cultures.

In structural-functionalism, the structures of society are not simply seen as rigid and unchanging entities, but as dynamic and interactive elements that play an active role in the organisation of social life. These structures can take many forms, such as social institutions, cultural norms, belief systems, rituals, and even forms of communication. Each structure fulfils a specific function that contributes to the stability and order of society. For example, an institution such as marriage may have the function of regulating sexual relations, providing a framework for the upbringing of children, and defining the roles and responsibilities of men and women in society. These structures also function as regulatory mechanisms that help maintain social balance and prevent chaos or disorder. They promote cooperation and harmony between individuals and groups by establishing common rules and norms of behaviour. In sum, in the structural-functionalist perspective, the structures of society are seen as essential elements that enable people to live together in an orderly and functional way.

Structural-functionalism recognises that societies are not static, but dynamic and capable of adapting and evolving in response to various factors. This adaptability can be manifested at several levels:

1. Ecological: Societies can adapt to their physical and ecological environment, by changing their livelihoods, technologies or environmental practices in response to changes in their environment.
2. Institutional: Social, political and economic institutions can change and adapt in response to internal or external factors. For example, a society may reform its political institutions in response to social pressures for more democracy or social justice.
3. Cultural: The values, norms and beliefs of a society may also change and adapt over time. For example, a society may change its attitudes towards certain behaviours or social groups in response to wider cultural or ideological changes.

These different levels of adaptability can interact and reinforce each other, leading to profound transformations in the structure and function of society. However, even in the context of these changes, structural-functionalism suggests that societies will maintain a certain coherence and stability, as the new structures and functions that emerge will serve to maintain the social order and cohesion of the society.

With the concept of social system in the structural-functionalist perspective. Society is seen as a complex organism composed of interdependent elements - individuals, groups, institutions - all of which are connected by social relations. None of these elements exist in isolation; they are all part of a larger whole and contribute to its functionality and stability. In this sense, the 'social system' is not simply a collection of individuals, but an organised entity with its own structures and functions. These structures are not only shaped by the interaction of individuals, but also influence the behaviour and attitudes of individuals. They create a framework of norms, values and rules that guide the behaviour of individuals and help to maintain order and social cohesion. In this sense, collective values are central to the social system. They provide a common basis of understanding and identification that binds individuals together and facilitates cooperation and social harmony. These values can be embedded in the institutions and cultural practices of a society, helping to shape the way individuals interact and behave with each other.AA

he notion of a social system is central to sociology and political science, particularly from structuralist and functionalist perspectives. A social system is an organised set of social interactions, structured around shared norms, values and institutions. It is a framework that organises and regulates the behaviour of individuals and groups within society. In a social system, institutions play a crucial role. Institutions are durable structures that establish rules and procedures for social interactions. They include formal organisations such as government, schools and businesses, as well as informal cultural norms and values. Institutions help to structure social behaviour, create predictability and order, and facilitate cooperation and coordination between individuals and groups. By adhering to the norms and values of a social system, individuals contribute to the stability and continuity of that system. However, social systems are also dynamic and can change and evolve in response to internal and external factors. Sociology, as a discipline, is interested in the study of these social systems - how they are structured, how they function, and how they change and develop over time.

In his structural-functionalist approach, A.R. Radcliffe-Brown emphasised the concept of adaptability, the ability of a social system to adjust and change in response to internal and external constraints. According to Radcliffe-Brown, society is an integrated system of institutions, each with a specific function to perform in maintaining the whole. This idea, borrowed from biology, postulates that a society, like an organism, is a system of interdependent elements that work together for the survival and equilibrium of the overall system. Each institution or social structure has a function to perform in this system - it must contribute to the stability and cohesion of the society. With regard to the link between structure and function, Radcliffe-Brown saw structure as an arrangement of interdependent parts, each with a specific function to perform. He argued that the function of an institution or social practice should be understood in terms of its role in maintaining the overall social structure. As for adaptability, Radcliffe-Brown argued that societies have the capacity to adapt and modify themselves in response to environmental and social changes. This may involve changes in social institutions, norms, values, etc., in order to maintain the balance and stability of the social system as a whole. This is how Radcliffe-Brown conceived the dynamics between a society's structure, function and adaptability.

Talcott Parsons: 1902 - 1979

Talcott Parsons.

Talcott Parsons is indeed one of the most influential theorists in the field of sociology and social theory of the 20th century. Talcott Parsons began his studies in biology at Amherst College before turning to sociology and economics. He then studied at the London School of Economics, where he was influenced by the work of several important figures in sociology and economics, including Harold Laski, R.H. Tawney, Bronislaw Malinowski and Leonard Trelawny Hobhouse. D. in sociology and economics at the University of Heidelberg in Germany.

Parsons significantly contributed to functionalist theory, focusing on how different parts of society contribute to its integration and stability. His work greatly influenced the development of structural functionalism, which views society as a system of interdependent interactions.

In Politics and Social Structure, Parsons explored how social and political structure affects individual and collective actions. He suggested that actions are governed by shared norms and values within society, which in turn are influenced by the social and political structure. In 'Social Systems and the Evolution of Action Theory', Parsons developed his theory of action, which centres on the idea that human action is directed and regulated by cultural norms and values. He argued that individual actions are linked to larger social systems and that these systems evolve and change over time. Finally, in 'Action Theory and the Human Condition', Parsons further developed his theory of action, focusing on how human conditions, such as physiological and psychological needs, cognitive abilities and social relationships influence actions.

Talcott Parsons is one of the most important sociologists of the twentieth century, not least because of his systemic approach to social action. For him, action is not just an individual act, but is embedded in a system of action. This system of action is an interdependent set of behaviours that aim to achieve a certain goal. It is therefore not only a question of understanding individual action, but also of understanding how this action fits into a wider set of social relations and institutions. In this context, government, public policies and institutions are not only the result of the action of isolated individuals, but are part of a complex system of social interactions. This emphasises the importance of social structure in determining the behaviour of individuals and how individual actions contribute to reproducing or transforming this structure. For example, government policy can be understood as the product of a system of action comprising politicians, bureaucrats, interest groups and citizens, each acting according to their own motivations, but all contributing to the implementation of the policy within specific social structures. This systemic approach to social action has had a great influence on sociology and political science, especially in the analysis of institutions, public policy and power.

In Talcott Parsons' thinking, a system of action is a set of interdependent units of action. Each unit of action is guided by norms and values that direct its behaviour towards specific goals. These units of action can be individuals, but also groups, organisations or whole societies. In this system, the actions of the different units are linked to each other to form a coherent whole. Thus, individual choices are influenced by the system of action as a whole, and in turn help to shape that system. For example, in an organisation such as a company, the actions of individual employees are coordinated to achieve the company's objectives. Each employee acts according to his or her specific role in the organisation, but his or her actions also contribute to the achievement of the company's overall objectives.

What is important in this perspective is that individual actions are not simply determined by the personal preferences of individuals, but are also influenced by the norms, values and goals of the action system as a whole. Thus, individual choices are both influenced by and influence the overall action system.

Talcott Parsons conceptualised what he called the 'action system theory' (or the 'AGIL scheme' - Adaptation, Goal attainment, Integration, Latency) to explain how societies (or any social system) attempt to maintain social balance and order. Each of the four functions in this diagram is essential for the survival of a social system. They all work together, and if any one of them fails, the system may be in danger.

1. Adaptation: This refers to the ability of a social system to gather and use resources from its environment to survive and thrive. It is basically the relationship of the system with its environment, and how it adapts to it.
2. Goal attainment: This refers to the ability of the system to define and pursue goals. In a society, this could be seen as the role of government, which sets policy goals and implements policies to achieve them.
3. Integration: This function is related to managing the relationships between different parts of the social system to maintain order and avoid conflict. This is the aspect of social cohesion, how the different parts of a system work together to maintain unity.
4. Latency: This function concerns the maintenance and renewal of the motivations, values and norms that underpin the system. It is the cultural 'glue' that binds people together and keeps the system going.

These four functions interact with each other and are all necessary for the survival of a social system.

In reality, perfect compliance with these four functions is rarely achieved. Social systems are complex and dynamic, and are subject to many internal and external pressures that can disrupt their functioning.

1. Adaptation: Social systems can fail to adapt appropriately to changes in their environment. For example, a company may not be able to adapt quickly to a new technology, which may result in its failure. Similarly, a company may find it difficult to adapt to rapid changes, such as those caused by globalisation or climate change.
2. Pursuit of goals: Social systems can also fail to define and achieve their goals. For example, a government may fail to achieve its goals for poverty reduction, unemployment, education, health, etc.
3. Integration: Tensions and conflicts can arise within a social system, threatening its integrity. For example, social, ethnic, religious or political divisions can threaten the stability of a society.
4. Latency: Finally, social systems may experience difficulties in maintaining and renewing the values, norms and motivations that sustain their existence. For example, a value crisis may occur when traditional norms are challenged or when people feel disconnected from the dominant values of society.

These problems are often interconnected and can reinforce each other, creating significant challenges for the stability and sustainability of social systems. Therefore, understanding these functions and how they can be supported and strengthened is crucial for the management and resolution of social problems.

Fichier:Parson means goal.png

Parsons' functional paradigm of the action system is circular and dynamic. Each function, or phase, of the cycle - Adaptation, Goal Pursuit, Integration, Latency - is not only the consequence of the previous phase, but also the condition for the next.

That is, each function must be performed not only to meet the immediate needs of the system, but also to prepare the system to perform the next function. For example, Adaptation (the ability of the system to use the resources of the environment to meet its needs) is necessary not only for the immediate survival of the system, but also to enable it to define and pursue its Goals. Similarly, the achievement of Goals is a prerequisite for Integration (the coordination and cohesion of the system), which in turn prepares the system for the Latency phase (the generation and conservation of energy or motivation for action).

Thus, the action system is always in motion, moving from one phase to another in a continuous loop. This dynamic cycle model reflects the complexity and interdependence of social processes in action systems.

Robert King Merton (1910 - 2003): middle range functionalism

Robert King Merton.

Robert King Merton was a renowned and influential American sociologist. Born on July 4, 1910, and died on February 23, 2003, Merton is best known for developing fundamental concepts in sociology, such as the theory of manifest and latent functions, anomie, self-fulfilling prophecy, the role model, and the Matthew effect. Merton also made a significant contribution to the sociology of science with his analysis of the so-called 'priority' phenomenon in scientific discovery. He also studied the impact of certain social structures on the conduct of science. His work on manifest and latent functions has been particularly influential. Manifest functions are the intended and recognised consequences of a social phenomenon or action, while latent functions are the unintended and often unrecognised consequences. For example, in the case of education, a manifest function would be the acquisition of knowledge and skills, while a latent function might be the socialisation of individuals into certain societal norms and values. His work has profoundly influenced sociology and continues to be widely cited and used in contemporary sociological research.

Robert Merton brought a more nuanced perspective to functionalist theory, recognising that individuals play an active role in society and that social dysfunction is an inherent reality of any social organisation.

1. The role of individuals: Merton emphasised that although social structures exert a strong influence on the behaviour of individuals, individuals are not simply passive in the face of these structures. Rather, they are able to interpret their social environment and act in creative and often unpredictable ways. In other words, Merton recognised that individuals are both influenced by the social system and able to influence it in return.
2. Anomie and social dysfunction: Merton also pointed out that not all parts of a social system always work harmoniously together. He introduced the concept of anomie to describe a state of confusion, disorder or lack of clear rules, which can occur when social structures change rapidly or when cultural expectations are in conflict. Furthermore, Merton pointed out that social dysfunction, such as deviance and crime, is often a response to anomie.

Robert Merton was influenced by Emile Durkheim, one of the founding fathers of modern sociology. Durkheim developed the functionalist theory, which focuses on how the different elements of a society work together to maintain order and stability. Durkheim's influence on Merton is particularly evident in the concepts of anomie and social dysfunction. Durkheim introduced the concept of anomie to describe a state of social disintegration where individuals no longer feel guided by shared norms and values. He argued that anomie results from a lack of social regulation and can lead to problems such as suicide and crime. Merton took this concept and developed it by analysing the causes and consequences of anomie in the context of American society. He also integrated Durkheim's ideas on social functions and dysfunctions into his own functionalist theory. In sum, Merton helped to extend and deepen functionalist theory by building on Durkheim's work and adapting it to new social contexts and problems. These contributions of Merton to functionalist theory made the approach more dynamic and more capable of accounting for the complexity of social life.

In Merton's theory of anomie, anomie is seen as a state of disequilibrium caused by the mismatch between cultural goals and the institutionalised means to achieve them. In other words, when a society imposes expectations or aspirations on its members that they cannot achieve through legitimate means, this can lead to anomie, or a sense of alienation and disorientation. Anomie, according to this perspective, can manifest itself in a number of ways, for example through deviant behaviour, such as crime or rebellion against established social norms. It can also lead to social disorganisation, conflict and tension within society. It is important to emphasise that for Merton, anomie is not simply an absence of norms, but rather a breakdown or inconsistency in the normative system of society. This may result from rapid and profound changes in society, or from the failure of social institutions to adapt or respond to new conditions or demands. In all cases, anomie represents a form of social dysfunction, where the normal structures and processes of society are disrupted or undermined.

The concept of anomie reflects a situation in which the social norms that govern the behaviour of individuals are weakened or confused. This can occur when society is undergoing rapid and profound change, or when there is a significant mismatch between the cultural aspirations of a society and the legitimate means available to achieve those aspirations. In this context, anomie can be seen as a kind of 'grey area' between an old social order and a new order that has not yet been clearly defined or accepted. It is a potentially problematic period of transition, during which individuals may feel lost, confused or unsure of how to behave. Anomie is described not only as a social structure that no longer functions, but also as individuals waiting for lost meaning and who, in the expectation of this lost meaning, may redefine specific behaviours including violent or deviant behaviour. Deviance is behaviour that no longer corresponds to the behaviour and aspirations of society. Deviance would occur when there is a disproportion between the cultural flows considered valid and the legitimate means to which individuals can have access to achieve these goals. Furthermore, it should be noted that Merton uses the concept of anomie to explain deviance and crime in society. According to him, when individuals cannot achieve their goals by legitimate means (for example, due to poverty or discrimination), they may be tempted to resort to illegitimate means, which may lead to deviant or criminal behaviour.

According to Merton, deviance is a symptom of dysfunction or disorganisation within a social system. When there is a gap between the culturally valued goals in a society and the socially accepted means of achieving those goals, it creates a tension or pressure that can lead to deviance. In the context of the mafia, if a society values wealth and economic success, but the legitimate means to achieve these goals (e.g. education, hard work, entrepreneurship) are inaccessible to certain groups of people (due to poverty, discrimination, etc.), then these people may be tempted to resort to illegitimate means (such as organised crime) to achieve these goals. In this sense, deviance can be seen not only as a symptom of social dysfunction, but also as a creative or adaptive response to that dysfunction. However, this response may itself create new problems and challenges, such as crime, violence and social instability.

In "Contemporary Social Problems: An Introduction to the Sociology of Deviant Behavior and Social Disorganization", Merton and Nisbet analyse how social and cultural structures can produce both conforming and deviant behaviour. Merton developed a theory called "structural deviance theory" which analyses how the social and cultural structure of a society can lead to deviance. According to this theory, when the social structure of a society sets up cultural goals, but does not provide all its members with the legitimate means to achieve these goals, some individuals may resort to deviance to achieve these goals. In addition, Merton also introduced the concept of 'social disorganisation' to describe a situation where social norms and rules of behaviour are weak or non-existent, which can lead to a high level of deviant behaviour. Merton's theory has had a considerable influence on the sociology of deviance and remains a major reference in this field.

In their analysis of social disorganisation, Merton and Nisbet identified several key factors that can contribute to the disorganisation of a social system:

1. Institutional conflicts: These occur when the institutions of a society come into conflict with each other. For example, in a society where economic values take precedence over family values, an individual may be torn between the need to work long hours to be economically successful and the desire to spend time with his or her family. These types of conflicts can create stress, confusion and disorganisation in society.
2. Social mobility: Excessive or insufficient social mobility can also contribute to social disorganisation. For example, in a society with very low social mobility, individuals may feel trapped and frustrated, which can lead to deviance and social disorganisation. Conversely, in a society with very high social mobility, individuals may feel disconnected from their community and roots, which can also lead to social disorganisation.
3. Anomie: Anomie, a concept Merton borrowed from Durkheim, refers to a situation in which social norms are weak or confused, which can lead to deviance and social disorganisation. In an anomic society, individuals may feel lost and disoriented, not knowing how to behave or what goals they should pursue.

Functionalism is an approach that examines the functions of social phenomena and how they contribute to the stability and continuity of society as a whole. Functionalism focuses on the interdependence of the different parts of society and how they fit together to form a coherent whole. The Kula is an excellent example of this kind of phenomenon. The Kula is a complex system of ritual exchange practised by the Trobriand Islanders of Papua New Guinea. Although these exchanges involve objects of value, their real function, according to anthropologists such as Bronislaw Malinowski, is not economic but social. The Kula system creates links between different communities, promotes cooperation, strengthens social status and prevents conflict. In this way, it contributes to the stability and order of society as a whole. Thus, although individual exchanges may seem irrational or inefficient from an economic point of view, they are in fact functional for society as a system. It is this aspect of functionalism - the idea that social institutions and practices can have important social functions, even if they are not immediately obvious - that has been particularly influential in sociology and anthropology.

In a functionalist perspective, individuals are seen as integral parts of a larger social system. Their behaviour, values and norms are expected to support the overall functioning and stability of this system. This is often referred to as social integration - the process by which individuals are made to accept and adhere to the norms and values of the social system in which they live. However, as you point out, there can be variations in the degree of integration of individuals. Some may adhere closely to the dominant norms and values, while others may deviate from them. These deviations from the norm are often referred to as 'deviations'. Deviance is not necessarily negative or destructive to the social system. Sometimes it can be a driver for change and evolution. For example, deviant behaviour can challenge existing norms and values, which can lead to their re-evaluation and change. In other cases, deviance may reinforce norms and values by providing an example of what not to do. However, excessive or destructive deviance can threaten the stability of the social system. This is where social control mechanisms come in, which aim to discourage deviance and encourage conformity to the norms and values of the system. These mechanisms can take many forms, ranging from formal sanctions (such as legal punishment) to informal sanctions (such as social disapproval). In summary, from a functionalist perspective, individuals are both products and producers of the social system. Their behaviour can support or challenge the system, and the system, in turn, seeks to regulate their behaviour to maintain its own equilibrium and stability.

Systemic theory

In systems theory, social or human action involves four main systems:

• biological system: elementary motivations of the individual;
• personality system: psychic organization of the individual;
• social system: set of interaction relationships;
• cultural system: set of values.

What is the difference between a traditional policy approach and a systems approach?

In the traditional approach to policy analysis, we study the actors as such and the decision-making process, whereas in systemic policy analysis, we think in terms of interactions between the actors, in terms of resource allocation processes, and then think in terms of the power of the actor or the social benefits of the actors, i.e. in terms of the weight of the actors in the system. In the systemic analysis, we will rather question the field of competitiveness, relations and conflict between the players in the systems.

In systemic analysis, systemic policy analysis is based on the assumption that each group of actors has norms, specific processes of action and processes of distribution of modes of action in order to categorize actors in a more complex process. In a systemic analysis, an analysis of the interactions in the very environment in which these interactions occur is implemented by giving more space in the interaction between action and environment that is contextualized in the notion of system.

In systemic analysis, the hypothesis of consistency is maintained; the process must be consistent. We will study the systems of actors, the systems of coherence as well as the coherence between the different sub-systems, i.e. we will analyse the decision-making process of political processes as a set of actors and agents from which sub-systems through which they act derive. We are in a retroactive analysis which means that a decision process and rarely a linear process. An action process poses a question of action and then it seeks to define the action processes, begins to act and finally revisits the conditions of its action. This is called non-linear causality.

David Easton (1917 - 2014) Systems Theory in Political Science

Easton is interested in the invention and constitution of a systemic theory in political science. He will seek to use this systemic view of the social sciences to try to analyze what politics is.

In his book The Political System published in 1953 he says that basically this theory is done in the interpretation of politics as universality, there is politics everywhere, but as being in one system one can compare all systems in relation to others. It is far removed from the relativistic vision of anthropology. The fundamental thought of anthropology is cultural relativism, there are different political governments and what is interesting is to understand the nature and their own functions.

The systemic vision in political science will start on the other side by pulling us towards a political theory that considers that we can build universal knowledge all the more easily because it recognizes that the vision of a political and global system. In political science when we analyze political systems we are in a comparative analysis of systems, if there are differences it is that they are always systems.

Easton's hypothesis is that one can construct a political theory by advancing political science on the basis of productions of systemic understanding models.

Thus, he sees contemporary society as a chaos that man can end if he applies the scientific method to the analysis of political phenomena in order to characterize them as they were conceived and developed.

It is for a global systemic theory, it is necessary to dissect in contemporary society what are the different systems at work.

The main functions of political theory according to Easton :

1. propose criteria to identify the variables to be analysed
2. establish relationships between these variables
3. explain these relationships
4. develop a generalization network
5. discover new phenomena

Basically, we have a very global vision of the analysis of the field of the system in which these criteria fit between the different elements of the subsystems. It is a political science which will analyse the major socio-political systems and which may have interrelations with the qualification of the types of regimes concerned.

Jean-William Lapierre (1921 - 2007)

Lapierre starts from the hypothesis of the analysis of political systems in his book L'analyse des systèmes politiques published in 1973.

To analyse political systems, we must start from the idea of a universality of political systems, we are in a global society that is constituted by social systems that can be analysed

For Lapierre, a political system is a system, an organization in which the elements are interrelated. Every political system is part of a naturalistic vision; political systems are inputs and outputs.

• input: a political system can only function by integrating information and data within society in order to transform them.
• output : reconstructs data in action processes of standards, techniques, laws, rules, judgments.

The political process is the capture of resources. One of the explanations of the French Revolution is the marginalization of the king from French society. At the beginning of the 18th century, Louis XIV and Louis XV feared Parisian riots. Louis XIV will build Versailles as an extraterritoriality to prevent the nobles from rebelling in the provinces, but leaves the territory and no longer has inputs to understand what is happening in Paris. When the great epidemics linked to the great agricultural crises arrived the people woke up and made the revolution. We can note this brief exchange between Louis XVI and La Rochefoucauld: "Mr. King, something has happened. Is it a revolt? No, sire, it's a revolution! ». The relationship between input and output is interesting in the sense that a political system must process information by capturing it, on the contrary there can be no adapted management of the territory.

These are images that pose the field of politics in the confrontation between inputs and outputs in the management of calculated risks, i.e. that we have resources to take, but they come with constraints that we must restore in a project space taking into account the inherited constraints, if we no longer have inputs we can ask ourselves that it is the nature of outputs, i.e. that the answers will be out of reality.

Lapierre describes the political system as a decision-making system it is a system that has one; even if it is programmed ideologically it must take into account reality.

This theory is interesting, because any political system must be decision-making, but it is not programmed because it must evolve, adapt, process the information it has, however incomplete it may be, because they allow it to define outputs.

Hence, a political system according to Lapierre is a system of action conditioned by resources and constraints in a situation of incomplete information and uncertainty about objectives. Thus, we can define the means to mobilize and anticipate the repercussions of the action.

Basically, a political system seeks to manage the best interests of the organization and all the constraints it inherits. In other words, it is sometimes necessary to try to manage the "less evil".

The limits of these two approaches

Limitations of the functionalist approach

It is to consider everything from functions, it is a too functionalist reduction which can lead to interpreting the system of action as being totally functionalist when in reality this is far from it.

Limitations of the systems approach

Not everything is political systems to make comparisons. The logic is to lead us towards value judgments, i.e. to have us reinterpret the value of a political system as such according to categories to the detriment of others. The danger would be to engage too quickly in comparative analyses of political systems or criteria for defining political systems. It globalizes too much and lets us imagine that everything is comparable.

Annexes

• Œuvres en ligne de Malinowski sur le site des « Classiques des Sciences sociales »