User:Lui Sanc/Functionalism in Anthropology
 | This is not a Wikipedia article: It is one user's draft page that he or she is working on. It may be incomplete and/or unreliable. This page was last edited by Lui Sanc (talk | contribs) 4 months ago. |
Functionalism in Anthropology[change | change source]
Before Anthropology developed into the discipline that people are familiar with today, it started with regular people attempting to understand the purpose behind people's actions. Anthropologists usually try to apply meaning to people's actions because they do not feel that people only do things to survive. However, some early anthropologists did feel that people only exist to survive; and that is the only reason for their actions. Believing people only do things to survive is what caused the theory functionalism to exist. The theory explains people do the things to meet the basic human needs like eating, being protected, and reproducing and this is for theory works with every person and society. These are all things to ensure mankind will continue to exist.
An important part of functionalism to know is the actions people do take are affected by where they live. So individuals in different locations may have actions to eat that look different however the goal to eat remains the same. Additionally, functionalism does not seem visible because the reason why people do things disappears the more people do them. An example of this would be eating; people eat cause they are hungry, this is something that happens every day. Another fact is that people also eat because if they do not eat, they would die. People normally do not think about dying from missing a meal, and this is how functionalism becomes invisible.
Malinowski and the Development of Functionalism[change | change source]
Bronisław Malinowski, who is credited with the creation of British social anthropology lived between 1884 and 1942. He also made the theory of functionalism. Again, the theory maintains the idea that everything an individual does is to meet their basic needs of survival. However, these needs are often met in the same ways people have seen the people around them meet these specific needs. These actions of copying are an example of cultural responses, and because of these cultural responses, other needs arise before meeting the basic need (Malinowski 1939, p. 948).
Malinowski created this theory through his time spent with the Trobriand people on the Trobriand islands. While Malinowski was on the island studying the Trobriand people he noticed they did things in their own way, which was different from him. However they achieved the same goals as him, even though they done it differently. Seeing this showed him that there are many ways to meet the basic needs of a person/society (Malinowski 1939, p. 950). It also showed Malinowski two more things, the first being that there are shared common goals of survival that people meet everyday. Secondly, no person or society can be considered primitive because everyone attempts to meet basic needs of survival (Malinowski 1939, p. 950).
The Basic Needs of Survival[change | change source]
Malinowski believed people's actions were shaped by the basic needs of survival, however the way in which people completed these goals was in response to how they saw other people around them completing them (Malinowski 1939, p. 940). The basic needs in which people aim to meet sometime without knowing were nutrition, reproduction, safety, relaxation, movement, and growth (Malinowski 1939, p. 942). In order to demonstrate how the actions people take can be broken down to a basic need of human survival he made the Synoptic Survey of Biological and Derived Needs and Their Satisfaction in Culture chart, shown below (Malinowski 1939, p. 942).
The easiest way to understand the chart is by picking an action and breaking it down from left to right. For example using the chart and breaking down the action of going to school can be shown to have met one or more basic human needs. Starting with column F which is labeled 'systems of thought and faith', it is known that people go to school because they assume it will make them become smart and therefore relates to ‘knowledge’ and it could relate to the ‘arts, sports, games, and ceremony’ in column F. Going to column E which is called symbolic and integrative needs, going to school would meet the needs of all of column E, however in this example we will attempt to follow one path to make it simpler. So focusing on the shared experience and belief, which is learned through the action of attending school. The next column D focuses on responses to instrumental need, by going to school an individual is learning shared beliefs and rules in society, which helps an individual gain education, and submit to the society's control (which is not as bad as it sounds).
The next column is 'instrumental needs' which aims to show that if one goes to school to become educated, understands societies rules and follows them, they than can have effect within the systems they live in which would refer to the cultural apparatus and or controlled actions (refers to charters of behavior and sanctions) because they understand how society works. Following the next column B, those previous action of going to school, becoming educated, and would connect to training and marriage/family. These connect because people would want to other members of their society to follow rules and are smart so that they are well off in life and meet society's standards. This then follows the basic needs of reproduction and safety because to be well off not only helps in someone's quality of life but attractiveness to other people. Going to school to gain an education might seem like it helps put people in a better position in life. However it is so much deeper than that having a better position in life increases the chance of survival. If survival is the main and only goal this demonstrates how education can allow that, and is something people do not normal boil down to as just a piece of a part of a bigger action to meet humans basic needs.
Limitations of Functionalism[change | change source]
One argument made against functionalism was by Radcliffe-Brown, who is known for another theory called structural-functionalism. Radcliffe-brown argued that functionalism did not notice how important society rules and systems were in keeping people together and alive (Radcliffe-Brown 1940, 7). Another argument against functionalism was presented by Jon Elster when he brought up the functionalist paradox, which is the question of why do things exist in society if they do not always play a role in people's actions to meet their basic needs. This question makes functionalism seem invalid because if things exist to meet the basic needs of humans then there should not be anything existing within society that purpose can not connect to basic needs (Smith 2013, 108). An example of the paradox question is if society exists to ensure basic needs are met, then why is there inequality because that would make survival harder (Smith 2013, 108).
References[change | change source]
Malinowski, Bronislaw. 1939. “The Group and the Individual in Functional Analysis.” American Journal of Sociology 44, no.6: 938–64. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2769422.
Radcliffe-Brown, Alfred. R.1940. “On Social Structure.” The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland 70, no. 1: 1–12. https://doi.org/10.2307/2844197.
Agency and Adaptation: New Directions in Evolutionary Anthropology
Smith, Eric. 2013."Agency and Adaptation: New Directions in Evolutionary Anthropology," Annual Review of Anthropology 42, No.1: 103-120