推 onase:感謝解答 04/02 19:16
推 hero1056:等我閒閒沒事來個整段翻譯作為回答的回報好了... 04/02 23:36
Collins社會學字典的定義，可以參考看看
structural-functionalism. (2006). In Collins Dictionary of
Sociology. Retrieved from
http://www.credoreference.com/entry/collinssoc/structural_functionalism
structural-functionalism
1.
theoretical approaches in which societies are conceptualized
as SOCIAL SYSTEMS, and particular features of SOCIAL
STRUCTURES are explained in terms of their contribution to
the maintenance of these systems, e.g. religious ritual
explained in terms of the contribution it makes to social
integration. As such, structural-functionalism can be seen as
an alternative general term for FUNCTIONALISM. See also
FUNCTION, FUNCTIONALIST) EXPLANATION.
2.
(more specifically) the particular form of functional
analysis associated with Talcott PARSONS, often distinguished
from ‘functionalism’ in general, as
'structural-functionalism’. Sometimes the work of the modern
functionalist school in SOCIAL ANTHROPOLOGY, including
RADCLIFFE-BROWN and MALINOWSKI, is also referred to by this term.
functionalism. (2006). In Collins Dictionary of Sociology.
Retrieved from
http://www.credoreference.com/entry/collinssoc/functionalism
functionalism
Theories in sociology and social anthropology which explain
social institutions primarily in terms of the FUNCTIONS they
perform. To talk of the function of something is to account
for a social activity or phenomenon by referring to its
consequences for the operation of some other social activity,
institution, or society as a whole. Modern functionalists
treat societies as SYSTEMS of interacting, and
self-regulating, parts.
In the 19th century, social thinkers theorized about society
in terms of an organic analogy. As Herbert SPENCER wrote: All
kinds of creatures are alike in so far as each exhibits
cooperation among its components for the benefit of the
whole; and this trait, common to them, is a trait common also
to societies’. The idea of studying social life in terms of
social functions was also central in early 20th-century
British SOCIAL ANTHROPOLOGY. Both RADCLIFFE-BROWN and
MALINOWSKI used the concept of function suggesting that
society could be conceptualized as made up of interdependent
parts that operate together to meet different social needs.
In the 1950s and early 1960s, ‘structural-functionalism’
was the dominant theoretical perspective in North American
sociology. In the 1950s, the functionalist approach was
associated especially with a form of SYSTEMS THEORY (see also
STRUCTURAL-FUNCTIONALISM), articulated by Talcott PARSONS at
Harvard University. Parsons’ theories were widely
influential, though there was critical dissent from other
functionalists (see MERTON) and from non-functionalists (e.g.
MILLS). In the 1970s and 1980s, functionalism's star waned,
partly as a result of internal theoretical weaknesses, but
also from changes in the political climate (see also
GOULDNER).
One central area of debate has concerned the nature of
FUNCTIONAL(IST) EXPLANATION. A further major area of debate
has concerned its treatment of social order, social conflict
and social change. One criticism is that the functionalist
perspective neglects the independent ‘agency’ of individual
social actors, in general tending to operate with an ‘
oversocialized conception’ of the human subject (see
OVER-SOCIALIZED CONCEPTION OF MAN), e.g. treating people as ‘
cultural dopes’ (see ETHNOMETHODOLOGY). Social ROLES are
seen as essentially prescribed by NORMS and static
expectations of behaviour, rather than actively ‘taken’ and
recreated through interaction with others (compare SYMBOLIC
INTERACTIONISM). It has also often been suggested that a
functionalist perspective has difficulty in accounting for
social conflict and instability All of these criticisms of
functionalism have some substance, but are also an
overstatement. Parsons in particular sought to combine an ‘
action frame of reference’ with an emphasis on system and
social functions. And, while often concentrating on the
conditions of ‘social order’ (including the functions of
SOCIAL CONFLICT), both historically (e.g. as for Spencer) as
well as in Parsons’ later work, functionalism has usually
also sought to combine the analysis of social order with an
EVOLUTIONARY THEORY of social change: a model of increasing
SOCIAL DIFFERENTIATION, of increasing functional adaption of
society (see also EVOLUTIONARY SOCIOLOGY, EVOLUTIONARY
UNIVERSALS). These models of social change have in turn been
widely criticized (e.g. see MODERNIZATION, DEPENDENCY THEORY)
but their existence shows that it is as a particular model of
change, rather than a theory which neglects change, that
functionalism must be discussed.
Despite the many criticisms, both the term ‘function’ and
the functionalist perspective retain widespread significance
in sociology, for they involve a concern with the crucial
issue of the interrelationship of parts to wholes in human
society and the relationship between SOCIAL STRUCTURE and
human AGENCY, as well as issues of social order and social
change.
--
※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc)
◆ From: 140.112.24.253
※ 編輯: nakts0123 來自: 140.112.24.253 (04/02 16:54)