Social Structure (Structure-Functionalism)

Structure-functionalism relies upon an "organic" analogy of human society as being "like an organism," a system of interdependent parts that function for the benefit of the whole. Thus, just as a human body consists of parts that function as an interdependent system for the survival of the organism, society consists of a system of interdependent institutions and organizations that function for the survival of the society.

Relying upon the successes of biologists in understanding the human body, functionalists took a similar approach to understanding human social systems. Social systems were dissected into their "parts," or institutions (family, education, economy, polity, and religion), and these parts were examined to find out how they worked and their importance for the larger social system. The rationale was that if scientists could understand how institutions worked, then their performance could be optimized to create an efficient and productive society. This approach as proved to be very successful and is the predominant philosophy guiding macro-level sociology today.

Structure-functionalism arose in part as a reaction to the limitations of utilitarian philosophy, where people were viewed as strictly rational, calculating entrepreneurs in a free, open, unregulated, and competitive marketplace. The tenet of functionalism, and the fundamental building block of all sociology, is that people behave differently in groups than they do as individuals. Groups have "lives of their own," so to speak. Or, as you might hear from a sociologist, "the whole is greater than the sum of its parts." Just as the "invisible hand of order" can guide economic relations, "social forces" can guide social relations, and thus yield for society very positive outcomes (volunteerism, democracy, laws, moral and ethical standards for behavior, family and educational systems, communities) and very negative outcomes (discrimination, organized crime, moral decay, warfare, poverty).

The idea of the functionalists was to create a science of society that could examine the parts of human social systems and make them work for the betterment of all. And it is the task of sociologists to use scientific principles to help create the best form of society possible.

Listed below are the central tenets of the functionalist approach to understanding human social systems. We will use these tenets throughout this course to gain a functionalist perspective on social issues facing rural America today.

1. Society as a system of interrelated parts functioning for the good of the whole.
   
   Keep in mind that functionalism is always oriented toward what is good for the whole. As we examine different philosophical foundations of sociology, we will note the advantages and disadvantages of this perspective.
   
   
2. All social systems have four key functions: Adaptation, Goal-Attainment, Integration, Latency.
   
   These functional imperatives roughly correspond to the five institutions of human societies (economics, politics, family/education, and religion). By understanding which functional imperative is most closely related to current issues of rural America, we can understand the importance of the issue and its likely impact on the well-being of rural America.
   
   
3. Social action takes place within a social system of cultural norms and institutional structures.

Implications of structure-function theory for the sociology of technology:

1. The Structure-Function paradigm focuses upon the functions and dysfunctions of technology for the society as a whole.
2. There is an emphasis on equilibrium and stability of the social system.
3. Social action takes place within a social system of cultural norms and institutional structures. That is, technology must be compatible with existing ideas and practices.
4. There is an emphasis on integrating technology within a complex system of institutions and norms.
5. There is an emphasis on alleviating, as much as possible, the negative consequences of new technologies within the context of advancing technological progress for adaptation.

Application in Context Hog lots in Iowa? One might ask, "For the benefit of Iowa, should local communities be given control over the siting of large-scale hog confinement operations?" If no significant harm to Iowa can be documented by limiting local control and Iowa is seen to benefit from the revenues of hog lots, then the structure function paradigm suggests limiting local control for the benefit of Iowa.

Critical Sociology (Marxian Analysis)

From the critical perspective, society is a system of competing parts in conflict for scarce resources. All social systems are considered to have a small minority of power elites who control most of the functions of society. All social action, including the development and dissemination of technology, takes place within an arena of conflict and exploitation of secondary segments of society by dominant segments of society. Thus, from the social structure paradigm, new technologies arise in response to demand for improved efficiency, productivity, and societal well-being. From the critical perspective, however, new technologies are supplied by the power elite to further their class interests. That is, technology is developed for and by the power elite. An essential element of this paradigm is that exploitation of power is considered to be inherent in society and therefore inevitable in the development and dissemination of technology.

The critical perspective relies heavily upon ideas set forth by Karl Marx in his critiques of capitalist society. Marx relied upon the philosophical perspective of dialectical materialism to guide his critique of capitalism. The dialectic, as used by Marx and Georg Hegel, has a three-part structure: the thesis (i.e., status quo or central argument), the antithesis (i.e., an alternative to the status quo or the counter-condition of the central argument), and the synthesis (i.e., the resolution of the conflict of the thesis and antithesis, usually considered to be an "advancement" over the thesis, a "move forward" to something better). Although Karl Marx's idea of a communist utopian society failed due to an inadequate understanding of human motivation and organization, his identification of potential problems with human social systems still is a crucial element of all the social sciences. His hypotheses that human societies can experience sufficient organized and intentional exploitation by powerful elite's to lead to their collapse have received enough support that citizens should be aware of these potential problems and maintain a constant vigil against their becoming too severe.

Listed below are the central tenets of the Marxian approach to understanding human social systems. We will use these tenets throughout this course to gain a Marxian perspective on social issues facing rural America today.

1. Society as a system of competing parts in conflict for scarce resources.
   
   From the perspective of Marxism, the fundamental processes of society are competition and conflict, rather than cooperation for the good of the whole, which we noted (with qualifications) was the emphasis in structure-functionalism.
   
   
2. All social systems have a small minority of powerful elite's
   
   For Marx, these persons/organizations were those most closely linked with the means of production: the owners of large industries.
   
   
3. Social action takes place within an arena of conflict and exploitation between dominant and secondary segments of society.
   
   With the Marxian approach, it is instructive to identify the dominant and secondary segments that affect and will be affected by the outcome of social action regarding current issues. Using Marxism, we anticipate that dominant segments will use their power to exploit resources from secondary segments of society.

Marx's Dialectical Materialism

To understand Marxian social philosophy, it is instructive to review its underlying principle, which is dialectical materialism. The dialectic consists of three parts: the thesis (the status quo, or our current understanding of "reality"), the antithesis (a contradiction to the status quo, or a recognized flaw in our current understanding of "reality"), and the synthesis (a suggested alternative to the status quo, or an improved understanding of "reality"). In one sense, the dialectic refers to inherent, inevitable conflict. Thus, citizens must inevitably wrestle with society as it is, the recognized flaws in society, and suggested alternatives for an improved society. In another sense, the dialectic is a method for achieving progress. Thus, citizens can use the dialectical way of thinking to improve society by recognizing and attempting to overcome its flaws.

Marx focused on material conditions (e.g., food, clothing, housing, access to health care and education). For Marx, the dialectic represented inherent conflict between the means and relations of production. Owners were forced to exploit labor to achieve the competitive edge over their rivals in the capitalist economy, but in the process, destroyed the very source of their profit: labor.

Thus, Marx used dialectical materialism to understand capitalist society and its flaws for the purpose of suggesting an alternative that would create a better society.

Thesis: Means of production. The status quo was capitalist society, which required the lowest possible labor costs.

Antithesis: Relations of production. Marx witnessed firsthand the horrific conditions of manual labor in industrialized England in the mid-19th century.

Synthesis: Communism. To eliminate poverty and the misuse of power in capitalist society, Marx proposed a society that would end the holding of private property--people would work for the common good and share in the fruits of their labor.

This solution is seriously flawed in several respects. First, it errs in focusing too strongly upon the economic conditions of society. Certainly, economic conditions are important, but they are not the only ones to affect divisions among people and subsequently the well-being of society. Differences in religion, race, and gender, for example, also are sources of inequalities and exploitation. Contemporary theories of conflict therefore have expanded Marx's insights to incorporate a broader range of potential divisions among populations. One might respond that these extensions of Marxism reinforce rather than contradict the theory. And to some extent they do. The flaw in Marxism is that it ignores the fact that other divisions among people sometimes are more important to their cooperating with one another than are economic ones. Therefore, the potential revolution predicted, and advocated, by Marx based upon economic divisions is diffused to some extent by other societal divisions. Second, Marx failed to recognize the power of democratic political systems. No one is pretending that all persons in democracies have equal influence on decisions. Democracies do, however, offer a path to change that does not require revolutions against unmoving sources of power. Third, Marx did not and realistically in his time could not anticipate the rise of the mass consumption, mass production society. That is, Marxian theory does not account for the rise of economic power among workers as a means to consume the goods and services they produce. Fourth, and most importantly, Marx failed to recognize a basic human need for meritocracy: to be rewarded for extra effort and productivity. A communist society society fails to satisfy people's desires to advance themselves through their efforts.

Incorrect Assumptions of Marx's dialectical materialism:

1. too much emphasis on economic relations.
2. social conflict is rarely bipolarized.
3. political interests are not strictly class (economic) based.
4. power rests on more than economic relations.
5. conflict does not always cause social change.

Correct Assumptions of the critical perspective:

1. inherent conflict between "haves" and "have nots" and focus on intentional manipulation by the power elite to maintain unequal distribution of resources.
2. role of power in the distribution of resources.
3. conflict as a major source of change in social systems.

Marx's understanding of societies, the people that live in them, and capitalist economy is sufficiently flawed that his suggested solution to capitalism is itself inherently flawed. Marxian social philosophy is valuable today, however, because it reminds us of the potential exploitation of the less powerful by the more powerful and of the need for the less powerful to be mindful of this potential. Here is an example of how we can apply this philosophy to contemporary society. Mrs. LaVon Griffieon, in her essay, Food for Thought, notes that "We are so trusting in our ignorance." I think this statement epitomizes contemporary applications of the Marxian critique of society. Mrs. Griffieon has learned firsthand, as a "farm wife living in Iowa," that the forces of multinational agribusiness organizations might create a structure of agriculture that will be detrimental, rather than beneficial, to the well-being of rural society. One in which ordinary farmers are exploited by too powerful multinational agribusiness firms.

To effectively apply Marxian theory to today's conditions, therefore, we should recognize that:

1. the more powerful are in a position to exploit resources from the less powerful,
2. the less powerful as a result of their lack of access to decision making can become alienated (i.e., separated) from society and therefore more likely to engage in less productive or even deviant activities,
3. citizens of democracies, who have the opportunity to institute change, need to be ever mindful of potential exploitation and take actions to protect equal opportunities for all.

Thus,

1. Individual interests are distinct from, and opposed to, the general interest represented by the State. Citizens do not consider themselves as participants in public affairs, but view the state as an external necessity of which they have to take account.
2. The state is the rule of reason in society, the incarnation of freedom. The citizen, as a separate individual, has civil and economic, but not political interests.
3. Reconciliation of this conflict is based on the fact that people are creatures of reason.
   • If freedom is located in the selfish desires of the individuals, then social life would appear possible only by setting up an external organization to limit this freedom; government then appears as a necessary evil.
   • But if citizens realize that their true freedom consists in the acceptance of principles, of laws which are their own, a synthesis of universal and particular interests becomes possible.
   • This synthesis can be actualized only in and through political institutions, whereby the State is distinguished from civil society.
   • Civil life then remains as an element of the State, but only as a subordinate moment in it. Political interests transcend but do not replace individual economic interests.
   • People have a universal side and so can accept universal laws without becoming unfree.

Marx could not accept this abdication of power, and citizen responsibly, to the State. He saw the need for citizens to become more politically active, especially given the terrible conditions of the working class and the inevitable (in his opinion) collapse of capitalism.

Implications of conflict theory for the sociology of technology:

1. Focus on biased estimations of risk.
2. Focus on unequal distribution of risk.
3. Focus on ethical need for a technology.
4. Focus on potential for changing social relationships from the introduction of a technology.
5. Emphasis on preventing the negative consequences of new technologies.

Application in Context Hog lots in Iowa? From the critical perspective, the answer to the question posed above is that people should "revolt," not in a violent way, but through their voting power, to establish laws to enable local people to control their well-being in the face of powerful corporations who care only for profit and not about the welfare of local citizens.

Human Agency (Symbolic Interactionism)

This paradigm focuses not upon societal institutions or power relationships within society, but upon interactions among the members of the society. It addresses issues of how people make the rules that determine which technologies will be adopted and which ones will be rejected. In a democratic society, ultimately, it is the people who decide whether to adopt new technology, assuming they have full knowledge and access to power through their votes and other means of influence. The central question addressed from the perspective of human agency is, "How do people evaluate technology?"

Where did society come from, anyway? Well, from us! From the perspective of symbolic interactionism, society is in a constant state of re-creation through interaction and negotiation of meanings. We created the rules we live by, and, importantly, we re-create these rules everyday through our interactions with one another. Mostly, societies are conservative with respect to social change. But, our redefining of: 1) the symbolic meanings we attach to things and events, 2) our sense of morality and ethics, and 3) what we choose to value have important implications for the rules we create and the ways we choose to live with one another.

Listed below is a very abbreviated outline of the central tenets of the symbolic interactionist approach to understanding human social systems. We will use these tenets throughout this course to gain a symbolic perspective on social issues facing rural America today.

1. Key concepts: definition of the situation, perception, social construction of reality, morality.
   
   From the symbolic interactionist perspective, morality, ethics, values, even reality are not "given," we create them, through our interactions with one another. Reality is a marketplace of ideas, where not everyone has an equal say-so.
   
   
2. Social action is influenced by person's beliefs, attitudes, perceptions, and negotiations of meanings.
   
   The rules are open for grabs. If you do not like your society: work hard to change it!

A critical element of human agency is the notion of socially constructed reality, or to be more directed toward the content of this course, socially constructed risk assessments. The essential features of socially constructed risk assessments are:

• Persuasive arguments.
  
• Social comparison.
  
• Choice shift.

New technologies bring about uncertainty within an arena of ignorance. That is, most persons do not have the educational background to understand, for example, the science of biotechnology. We are neither uneducated nor stupid, but simply ignorant about much of the world around us. Thus, we face the consumer's dilemma: We must make a decision about whom to trust in the face of our ignorance. Active citizens begin by hearing out persuasive arguments in favor of and in opposition to the new technology. The arguments themselves, however, although necessary to gaining acceptance of the technology, are not sufficient to do so. Why? Because experience tells the public that even very highly trusted research and development organizations sometimes make mistakes and that, sometimes, new technologies are developed just for the economic benefit of the powerful elite. So, people turn to others for guidance. They socially compare their opinions with those of others. In a sense, people seek safety in numbers. If consumers sense a consensus of thought in favor a new technology--an indication that it is social acceptable--then their choice shift moves toward adoption. Without a sense that they are making a wise decision, however, their choice shift moves toward rejection of the technology.

Implications of symbolic interactionism for the sociology of technology:

1. Focus on socially constructed nature of risk.
2. Focus on cultural influences on risk construction.
3. Focus on changing definitions of appropriate technology. Consideration of ethics and morals.
4. Emphasis on understanding the meaning of a technology for members of the society.

Application in Context Hog lots in Iowa? Should the siting of large-scale hog confinement operations be subject to local control? From the perspective of human agency, the sociologist will focus on understanding the decision made by investigating social comparison processes. If sociologists choose to do so, they also can focus on influencing this decision by applying principles of innovation diffusion. If sociologists, as change agents, choose to influence, then they must utilize the social structure and critical paradigms to decide what is best for society and how best to mitigate the inevitable negative consequences of new technology development.

Summary

Sociology 415 addresses issues of social structure and exploitation of power in technology development and dissemination, but its primary focus is upon the effects of human agency on technology adoption and rejection. Thus, the process of socially constructed risk assessments is a critical element of the strategies we will learn about later in discussing techniques of technology transfer.