functionalism and cultural studies: manifest ruptures and latent continuities

8/13/2019 Functionalism and Cultural Studies: Manifest Ruptures and Latent Continuities

1/16

.Carl Patrick BurrowesCommunicationTheorySix:OneFebruary1996

From Functionalism toCultural Studies: ManifestRuptures and LatentContinuities

Pages:88 103

Functionalism practically disappeared as an explicit tradition in com mun ication sdue t o the radical theoretical realignments of the 1980s.Th ree criticisms proveddecisive to this undoin g; political conservatism; prob lems of logic main lytautolo gy and a n inappropriate appeal to teleological explanations; and atenden cy t o im pose psychological and sociological analyses on specificallycultural materials. Form ulated in reference to systemic Parsonian functio nalismwh ich do min ate d th e broader social sciences these criticisms are relatively easyto reconcile within the contextual actionist M ertonian tradition which tookroot in the comm unications con text but on ly through a constructive dialoguewith th e cultural studies and cultural indicators approaches bo th of whic h havespent the last decade investigating a traditionally functio nalist concern hehypothesis of cultural systems integration. f functionalism offers to thiscross-fertilization a focu s on the norma tive orders of society the culturalindicators appro ach provides a rigorous m etho dol ogy and cultural studiescautions a greater sensitivity t o social hierarchies.

Functionalism in communications is generally regarded as a philosophi-cal position tha t em phasizes the consequences (functions) for the socialsystem of the phenomena under study. Unlike scholars who focus onepisodic events, functionalists study patterns, rituals, an d routines alongwith their consequences for society and its mem bers. Th is concern withsystemness assumes the existence of boundaries that delineate the unitunder analysis from its environment. At the heart of this approach is aconcern “with the way in which people behave, or misbehave, following,making or breaking cultural rules” (Kuper, 1985, p. 528; also Parsons,1977; Wright, 1989) . Beyond these points of agreement lie fundamentalphilosophical and other differences that are reflected in the variety oflabels applied to this tradition rom functionalism (implying theoreticalcoherence) to f unc t iona l - s t ruc tura l i sm (implying coherence of the systembeing analyzed) to funct ional analys is (suggesting a g eneral philosophicalstance).’The importance of functionalism to mass communications, while of-ten asserted, remains difficult to gauge, given the relatively scant atten-tion paid to theoretical issues in historical treatments of the field. Thisneglect of theory has been traced to the fragmentation of interests in thefield (Merton, 1957, p. 443 , he desertion of seminal early theorists

88


2/16

From Functionalism to C ultural Studies

(Berelson, 1959), an obsession with methods (Nordenstreng, 1968, p.208), and the pragmatic and practical beginnings of the discipline (Gol-ding Murdock, 1980, p. 60). Further obscuring functionalism’s placein the field has been a tendency for discussions to remain framed byrelatively narrow disciplinary, geographic, and temporal boundaries.Excluded from consideration, consequently, has been the European“prehistory” of the tradition, along with its specifically anthropologicalroots. The relative lack of attention to functionalism in particular maybe traced to the radical realignment of mass communication theorizingduring the 1980s, which drained interest away from functionalism andother elements of the ancient rtgime just as historical treatments of thefield were increasing and becoming m ore exp licit.Since few articles and sc holars have take n functionalism as their exclu-sive focus (e.g., Klapper, 1963; Rothenbuhler, 1987; Wright, 1964,1974, 1989), treatment of the approach remains sketchy, generally ap-pearing as one element in broad discussions of theoretical o r disciplinaryhistory (e.g., Delia, 1987; Gitlin, 1981; Golding Murdock, 1980;Hall, 1982; Hardt , 1979; Kline, 1972; McQuai l , 1969; Rogers, 1983).Within the existing literature, the level of influence attributed to func-tionalism varies directly with t he degree of homogeneity attributed to thefield by various scholars as well as the theoretical allegiances of thebeholder. Holist an d structuralist critics of “conventional research” tendto direct their attack at the elementarist impulses of positivist, behavior-ist effects research, thus effacing the functionalist com ponents of com-munication theory (e.g, Blumler, 1985; Gitlin, 1981; Halloran, 1981;Hard t , 1989; Kim, 1988) while nonstructuralists present functionalismas one of several competing influences o n th e early discipline (e.g., CareyKreiling, 1974; Delia, 1987; Hard t , 1989). In contrast, the approachis credited as a con stituent elem ent of com mu nications by those scholarswho saw themselves working in the 1960s toward the creation of aunified discipline (e.g, Klapper, 1963; Wright, 1964) and later by thosewh o viewed the field as divisible into at m ost tw o parts , a d ominant anda challenging paradigm (e.g., Golding M urd oc k, 1989; Kim, 1988;Rogers, 1983). If not the reigning paradigm, functionalism clearly heldsway over a considerable portion of the intellectual terrain by the 1960s(Elliott, 1974; Golding Murdock, 1989; Kline, 1972; Rothenbuhler,1987; Wright, 1974). It pervaded th e vocabulary, if n ot th e analyses, ofmany early comm unication scholars including Klapper 1963), Lasswell1971), Merton 1957), and Wright 1964). As a result of the radicalrealignment of communication theorizing during the 1980s (Blumler,1985; Delia, 1987; Gitlin, 1981; Golding Murdock, 1980; Halloran,1981; Kim, 1988; Kline, 1972; Rosengren, 1985),2 functionalist as-sumptions a nd concepts disappeared as explicit concerns in commun ica-tions, only to reemerge under some unlikely banners, especially culturalstudies and cultural indicators research.

89


3/16

CommunicationTheory

Although M cQuail (19 69, p. 84 ) noted correctly that n o one commu-nication researcher has been outstandingly associated with the applica-tion of functional analysis, one individual Cha rles R . Wright -dispro-portionately influenced the explicit formulation of functionalism incomm unication (Carey Kreiling, 19 74 ). Wright’s formulation drewo n an earlier tradition of functionalist research in comm unications (Lass-well, 19 71 ; Lazarsfeld M ert on , 194 8; Wiley, 19 42 ). In synthesizingthis literature, Wright (1 96 4) uncritically reproduced several of its weak-nesses. In citing uncensored news as an example of potential disruptivemedia content (p . 1 02 ) , for exam ple, he followed Lazarsfeld Merton’s19 48 ) judgmental operationalization of “dysfunction” (Carey Krei-ling, 1 97 4; for Merton’s similar treatment of anomie, see Hilbert, 19 89 )while ignoring his own acknowledgment that only standardized (i.e.,patterned and repetitive) items were a ppro pria te for functional analysis(p . 94 ). In keeping with the d om inan t scientistic orientation of communi-cation studies of that era , as well as the Parsonian concern with achieving“theoretical closure on the set of primary functions of a social system”(Parsons, 1977, p. 11 ) , the functions identified in earlier studies-andaccepted by W right ere transsystemic an d transhistorical (i.e., sur-veillance, en tertainm ent, and ethicizing). But functions like these, placedbeyond the vagaries of culture and history, did no t fulfill an importantgoal of earlier functionalisms, which was to explain the relationship ofspecific artifacts and institutions to each othe r w ithin a given culture.Recent discussions of functionalism in com mu nication s have not oftenreflected the important differences within the tradition that have longbeen acknow ledged in the broad er social science literature, n ot least ofall by functionalists themselves (K up er, 19 77 , pp. 49-52; M alinow ski,193 9; Merton , 195 7; Parsons, 1 977 ). Functionalis ts have shown a con-sistent tendency to bifurcate over major philosophical issues such asdegree of systemness, outcom e of func tions and the level of synchronicityassumed to characterize social processes. Although an assumption ofdeterminism has served to distinguish Durkheimian holism, this ernpha-sis came to be moderated with the transference of functionalism acrossthe A tlantic due t o a n American propensity to wa rd voluntarist theoriesas well as the intervening rise of Freudian psychology. Previously re-garded as a theory (Radcliffe-Brown, 19 68 , pp . 117 -13 2) o r set of theo-ries (Malinow ski, 19 45 , pp. 41-51; Malinow ski, 19 77 ), in the senseof having a cohe rent set of assu mp tions wedded to a specific me thod,functionalism came increasingly to be regarded as a“conceptua1 scheme”(Parsons, 19 77 ) or a research “approach” (M erton , 1957, p. 2 0) or evena “s logan” (Good y, 1973 ) .At the point of functionalism’s incorporation into communicationstudies, a t least tw o strains existed: on e systemic, the oth er c ontextualist.The former, identified most closely with Talcott Parsons, emphasizedtotal systems as the appropriate framework of analysis, assumed stasiso r systemic stabilization to be the outcom e of functions, regarded human

90


4/16

From Functionalism t Cultural Studies

nature as largely structured, and was oriented toward nomothetic re-search, that is, the building of general laws. In contrast, Parsons’s stu-dent Robert Merton advocated a contextualist approach that allowedanalysts to select subsystems as their frameworks, acknowledged dys-functions and unintended functions as possible outcomes, adopted anactionist view of hum an n atu re, and pursued a research program with a nideographic focus (i.e., geared to wa rd the study of discrete phenom enon)(Hilbert, 1989; Parsons, 1977, pp. 108-111; Rose, 1960; Sztompka,1986).These multiple origins and orientations of the tradition came tobe obscured in communications, where the functionalist emphasis onsociality has been interpreted largely in sociological terms while its cul-tural roots were all but ignored. Functionalism, it is worth recalling,originated in anthropology in reference to c u l t ~ r e , ~he problematic tha tthen had no name. The culture concept was implicit in Durkheim’s19821 1896)use of “social facts” as well a s in Radcliffe-Brown’s 1968)use of the “social life of a people as a whole.” In drawing from thecontextualists and their emphasis on individual agency, cognition, andintentionality, communication scholars slighted the normative concernsof systemic functionalism. A failure to distinguish among variants offunctionalism has led some scholars to propose throwing the M ertonianbaby ou t with its Parsonian ba th wa ter.

Three Absences: Change Culture andCausalityOf the criticisms directed at functionalism, three proved decisive in itsundoing in comm unications: problems of logic, mainly tautology, and aninappropriate appeal to teleological explanations; political conservatism,linked to an inadequate treatment of stratification and a tendency toignore power; and a tendency to impose psychological and sociologicalanalyses on specifically cultural materials. These criticisms came fromthree distinct sources. Problems of logic tended to be highlighted bypositivists who held causal explanations a s the m odel for both the natu-ral and social sciences (e.g., Hempel, 1959; Jarvie, 1965; Levy, 1988).Charges of political bias and inadequa te treatment of stratification havebeen raised mainly by radical critics (e.g., Golding M ur do ck , 1980;Hall, 1982; Hardt , 1979; Mills, 1959), used here to include conflicttheorists and neo-Marxists. T he conservative charge, although form u-lated by Mills 1959) specifically in relations to Parson’s grand theory,within communications has come to be indiscriminately applied to allfunctionalism (e.g., Ha ll, 1982, p. 88; Rogers, 1983, p. 222). Ironically,just as the charge of political conservatism was ga ining gro un d, function-alism was changing in a contextual direction that accommodated en-dogenous change. The third criticism has been developed within com-munications mainly by humanists (e.g., Carey, 1978, 1989; Carey

91


5/16

CommunicationTheory

Kreiling, 1974; Kreiling, 1978). A cumulative effect of these critics wasa loss of nuance in discussions, a caricatur ing of functionalism.In explain ing functionalism’s alleged conservatism, m ost scho lars tend

to highlight three factors: acceptance of the general frame work of West-ern societies, especially the United States, as given and desirable (G oldingMurdock, 1980; Hard t , 1989; Mayhew, 1982); the political usesmade of the theory, especially as an antidote to Marxism (Hardt , 1979);and an inhe rent conservative bias o n the part of functionalists, stemmingfrom their focus o n routinization, consensus, and holism (GoldingMurdock , 1980; Hall , 1982; Hardt , 1979; Swingewood, 1984) whileignoring cultura l stratification (Ca rey Kreiling, 1974; Elliott, 1974;Golding Murdock, 1980).

To the exte nt that their political views were known , however, leadingfunctionalists fell toward the left end of the W estern political spectrum,ranging from Durkheim, wh o was moderate (Lukes, 1982), to the liber-alism of Parsons, M erto n, and Malinow ski to the socialism of Radcliffe-Brown (Goody, 1973). That this point of relative difference came to beemphasized by radical critics is not surprising since the two approachesfall at opposite ends of the change axis but share a holistic view ofsociety, a rejection of utilitarian individualism and a concern with object-ivism.The perception of political conservatism (i.e., being inherently dis-posed against endogenous social change) may be traced to the methodsof early functionalist anthropologists, an emphasis on systematic syn-chronic data collection, which tended to yield the equivalent of stillphotographs (Goo dy, 1973, p. 205; Merton , 1957, p. 5 3 ) . Those wh ocharge functionalism generally with an inherent bias against endogenouschange overlook subtle shifts in research designs and methodologicalchoices brought about by application of the approach to modern socie-ties. Critics also tend to efface philosophical and conceptual differencesbetween systemic and nom othetic variants on the one hand and contex-tualist and ideographic forms on the other. For exam ple, Parsons’s em-phasis on functions as coordinating adapta tion to changes in the environ-ment (Flanigan Fogelman, 1965; Grimes, 1988; Rose, 1960;Sztompka, 1986) was not shared by Malinowski, whose last study wasaptly an d suggestively titled The Dynamic of Culture Change 1945);o rMerton 1957, p . 9 ) , who considered his work as contributing to thedevelopment of a theory of class dynamics, which he regarded as one ofthe major tasks facing sociology; or Davis 1942, 1949),wh o expendedconsiderable effort on the development of a theory of stratification. Eventhose functionalists w ho stressed structuration and stasis as an outcomeof functio ns did not assume these qualities to characterize empirical soci-eties (Wright Hilbert, 1980, pp. 210-211) any more than radicalcritics who emphasize theories of change assume society to be devoid ofstructuration and continuities.In charging alleged conservative uses, critics have often overlooked

92


6/16

From Functionalism to Cultural Studies

the rich crop of functionalist-inspired reformist studies tha t have exam -ined stratification and alienation in modern societies (e.g., Davis, 1942;Whyte, 1943). Even Parsons wh o is “often made to s tand in for ortho-doxy” was “an ardent advocate of th e extension of rights, opportun ities,and participation to all social groups” (Mayhew, 1982, p. 54). Hiswork s o n intergroup conflicts a nd obstacles to full participation include“The Problem of Polarization on the Axis of Color” 1968), “Racialan d Religious Differences as Factors in Gr ou p T ensions” 1949, “SomeSociological Aspects of the Fascist Movement” 1 42), “The Sociologyof Modern Anti-Semitism’’ 1942).These works may not contain radicalindictments of the social order, but neither were they conservative callsfor the preservation of past privilege. Both in content and timing, theyplaced the analytical skills and reputations of respected scholars in theservice of social change.

T o refute th e charge of inherent conservatism, Merton attempted tooffset functionalism’s single-minded a ttention to system maintenance byaccentuating the n otion of dysfunctions which laid undeveloped in thework of Durkheim. In doing so, he made four distinctive modificationsto functionalist “postulates.” Merton argued that not all cultural itemsfulfill functions; that diverse items may fulfill the same function; thatsome items, which he labeled dysfunctional may co ntribute adversely tothe adjustment and ada ptation of the system; an d that the focus of empir-ical studies should be on the net balance of functional consequences.Those arguments went against the grain of accepted functionalist wis-do m t ha t all functions were positive, tha t all systems enjoyed a functionalunity a nd th at the removal of certain constituent elements-regard ed asindispensable ould fundamentally alter the work ings of each system.Th e cumulative result of these changes w as a m ore dynam ic, ideographicfunctionalism (Merton, 1957, pp. 30-37; also Rose, 1960; Swinge-wood, 1984; Sztompka, 1986).What is more im porta nt, Merton also presented an extended com pari-son of the contradictory charges leveled against functionalism o n the on ehand and Marxism on the other, viewed in the 1950s as ideologicalopposites. Since functionalism had been charged by some with beingradical and by others as being conservative, he argued, i t was m ethod-ologically neutral (Merton, 1957, pp. 37-41; also Flanigan Fogel-man , 1965, p . 119; Thomas, 1980). His point, regarding the relativistnature of political judgments of theory, was more fully developed bySplichal 1988,p. 624), wh o noted t ha t ultimately all attempts at locat-ing research approa ches a t fixed points on a political spectrum are bou ndto be ahistorical, essentializing, and inaccurate because the political roleof a theory varies depending o n th e specific historical co ntext.

Of the critics charging functionalism w ith logical problems, the m ostinfluential was probably Hempel 1959, p. 277; also Jarvie, 1965, p.22; Levy, 1988, p. 245), who cited a tautological use of concepts likeadjustment an d adaptation as well as an inapprop riate use of teleological

93


7/16

CommunicationTheory

explanations. Both criticisms have subsequently been raised in communi-cations, with reference to “uses and gratification” studies in particular.For exam ple, Elliott 1974) criticized th e arg um ent tha t use leads to thegratification of need as “at best circular and at worst imprisons researchwithin a stable system of functional interdependence from which there isnot escape” (p. 253) . Carey a nd K reiling 1 9 7 4 )noted similarly that “infunctional analysis the primary emphasis is not upon determining theantecedents or origins of behavior but upon determining the import orconsequences of behavior for the maintenance of systems of thought,activity, or social groups” ( p. 235; italics added).Although functionalists have acknowledged the tendency toward tele-ology evident in work s influenced by their a pp roa ch , they have generallyrejected attempts by critics to locate the problem at the level of theory.Radcliffe-Brown 1968) sought to develop safeguards against th at dangerin systematic conceptualization while M erto n 1957) turned to the devel-opment of a systematic method and of “middle-range theories,” betweenthe extrem e impulses of grand theories and w ha t Mills called “abstractedempiricism.” As a guard against tautology, Hempel 1959) endorsedMerton’s recommendation of more precise and testable hypotheses with-out which functionalist studies were likely to yield the “trivial truth thatany system will adjust itself to any set of circumstances” (p. 295; alsoMart indale, 1965) . For Martindale 1 9 6 9 , functionalism’s alleged tele-ology could be traced to the antipositivist proclivities of the leadingfunctionalists, and disproportional estimate of the role of closed systemsin social life and a n inade quate treatm ent of social change.While Hempel’s ideal was causal explanations of social phenomena,Andrkn 1984) leaned tow ard the defense of teleological ones:Of course, there is a real distinction between the causes of an action and theagents’ reason for d oin g it; but it is also a matter of course that in many instancesthe agent’s reason for performing an act is als o a cause of his performing that act .And many people will probably refer t ideas that form the premises of a p racti-cal inference that is the content of a collective teleological co nnection wh en askedwhy they performed a certain action. Especially when the action is an instance ofa collective practice. Th is means that teleological understanding of societalstructures is relevant for anyone who wants to explain causally) events therein.p p . 67-68)

Even Hempel 1959) did no t regard problem s of logic posed by teleol-ogy as insurmountable. To be testable, he argued, teleological explana-tion would need to include a specification of th e circumstances in whichpurposive agents would supervene established routines (“laws”); pre-cisely indicate the observable effects likely to be produced by the inter-vention of purposive actions; and, most important, establish suitablehypotheses of self-regulation (pp. 277-278). Th is call for feedback loops

9


8/16


offers the most promising resolution of the teleological problem, avoid-ing the dange r of utilitarianism, w hile providing fo r the (re)cou pling ofthe twin Durkheimian concern with normative order and the realm ofaction th at were separated in the development of functionalism, with thenormative being d ropped u pon the incorporation of the tradition intocomm unications (resulting in uses and gratifications). A return to thisearlier functional concern with rule making and rule breaking already isevident in the growing metatheoretical literature in the broader socialsciences (e.g., Alexander, 1988, 1990; Giddens, 1984, especially pp.169-185) and t o a lesser ext ent, in comm unication studies (e.g., A ndrkn,1984).The culturalist criticism, although the most recent and perhaps mostwidely articulated within communications, is perhaps the easiest to rec-oncile to the functionalist pro gram . From the cultural perspective, Careyan d Kreiling riting togeth er (Care y an d Kreiling, 1974) and sepa-rately (Carey, 1978; Carey, 1989; Kreiling, 1978)- have offered someof the sharpest, yet m ost sy mp athetic, criticism of sociological function -alism. Kreiling 1978) specifically criticized the prevailing tendencyamong comm unication scholars t o view cultural artifacts a s “reflections”of firmer, more significant variables. “The issue of the meaning andappeal of the cultural materials is bypassed as the subject is translatedinto psychological and sociological categories’’ (p . 242). Drawing uponDurkheim and Gans, he proposed a perspective on culture that would“make the conventions the problematic of cultural studies and attem pt tochart their appearance and transformation” (p. 253) and would “regardpopular culture as consisting of bodies of cultural materials tha t expressthe styles and tastes of groups that create and uphold them, and weshould think of the groups as cultural groups” (p. 249).Together, Carey and Kreiling 1974) urged communication scholarsto “link the function of mass media consumption with the symboliccontext of the mass-communicated materials o r with the actual experi-ence of consuming them” (p . 232).To accom plish this, they arg ued, usesand gratifications will have to undergo a triple conversion: a n adoptionof a cultural view of humans (in place of the current sociological andpsychological models); a n acceptance of the existence of multiple culturalrealities (instead of the c urre nt assumptions t ha t o ne ha rd reality existsbeyond culture); and a knowledge of the existence of culturally con-structed “tastes” tha t do not co nform t o the current means-end model ofhuman behavior along with specifying of the relevant context. T ake n asa whole, cultural studies calls for pop ular cu lture and o ther media arti-facts to be studied for their “meaning an d appeal” rather than as reflec-tions of dee per psychological a nd sociological categories (Kreiling, 1978,p . 242). The radical reformation of the discipline implicit in this ap-proach is encapsulated in the title of Carey’s 1989) book Communica-tion as Culture. The culturalists’ criticisms, while valid in relation tosystemic sociological functionalists, simply do n ot apply w ith equ al va-

9s


9/16

CommunicationTheory

lidity to contextualists like Merton 1957) who have accommodated atthe level of theory the existence of multiple systems or to Malinowski1944, 1977), whose research focused explicitly upon the domain ofculture. Thus, the critique of functionalism by cultural studies advocatesis merely a call for a return to the source, to the road n ot taken (Alexan-der, 1988; Rothenbuhler, 1993).

The Return of Functionalist Concerns andAssumptionsHaving lost the theoretical battles of the 1980s, functionalism has re-emerged in other guises for the 1990s. As a major challenger duringthe 1980s to the “dominant paradigm” in general and functionalism inparticular, “cultural studies” provides a surprising refuge for functional-ist assumptions. Traveling under this name are such distinct approachesas the sociological analyses of Raym ond W illiams, rooted in the Marxistbase-superstructure model; the structural analyses of popular culturaland hegemonic ideology undertaken by Stuart Hall and his colleaguesat the Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies at the University ofBirmingham; a nd the pra gmatic hermeneutics of James Carey an d AlbertKreiling. Several fields of interest, now taken to be unique to culturalstudies- including consensus maintenance (C orc ora n, 1988; Hall, 1982;Hard t , 1989; Williams, 1961,1977)and ethnography an d anthropology(Corcoran, 1988)- were earlier plowed by functionalists. In its searchfor linkages between the parts of a social system, furthermore, culturalstudies often suggests the extre me holism for which systemic functional-ism w as rightly criticized (e.g., Co rco ran , 1988, pp. 602, 605; Curran,Gurevitch Woollacott, 1982, p. 27; Hard t , 1989, pp. 586, 605;Splichal, 1988; Williams, 1961, p. 46, 1977, pp. 139-140). This holismis evident in the claim of Splichal 1988) that “Cultural Studies reliesupon a systemic concept of wholeness that presupposes the ‘strugglebetween components of the whole, in which the role, significance, orfunction of any component ultimately results from the interaction of allcomponents”’ (p . 633). Having proposed articulation of parts a s worthyof investigation, c ultural studies research ers have often developed logicalproblems similar to their functionalist nem esis in explaining those articu-lations (Newcomb, 1991). In ignoring the structuring influence of thenormative order, they follow uses and gratifications studies in a celebra-tion of audience sovereignty and consumer choice (Golding M urd ock ,1991; Morley, 1992). In an ironic turnabout, the works of Hall andcolleagues recently have come under attack for conservatism (M illiba nd,1985).“Cultural indicators” CI) studies, on the other hand, build on thecontextual-functionalist hypothesis of integration of systems, using stan-dardized instruments to measure individual symbolic elements, their

96


10/16


linkages to each other as well as their geographic and temporal spread(Gerbner, 1969; Melischek, Rose ngren, Steppers, 1984; NamenwirthWeber, 1987).These studies have proceeded a long three distinct lines:the impact of differential exposu re t o a symbol system o n viewers’ per-ceptions of the world, society, and self, as undertaken by Gerbner andhis colleagues in the United States (e.g., Gerbner, 1969; Gross, 1984;Signorielli, 1984; Signorielli Morgan, 1990); long-term culturalchanges and their relationship to econom ic and social developments, asexplored by Rosengren and his Swedish collaborators (e.g., Rosengren,1981, 1983b); and computer-based content analyses of political docu-ments to uncover the dynam ics of cultural systems, explored m ainly byNam enw irth and associates (e.g., Nam enwirth Weber, 1987).CI researchers have developed research designs that overcome theextrem e logical flaws identified by critics of th e earlier trad ition, incorpo-rate concerns with stratification, and relate the genres and rituals theystudy first to each other and to the cultures of which they are a part,rather than to the social, political, and economic realms of society. Forexample, Gerbner 1 69) examined the differential distribution ofpower, while discriminatory portrayal of gays, blacks, the elderly, andwomen in television programs geared toward mass audiences (Gross,1984; Signorielli, 1984). Another set of studies charted the long-termdynamics of culture change by using the value dictionary developed byLasswell Namenwirth 1968), to trace the treatment of four funda-mental functional problems da pta tion , goal attainmen t, interaction,an d latency-in a series of Am erican, British, and Ge rm an political docu-ments (Namenwirth 8c Weber, 1987). The latter studies are doublyinfluenced by Parsonian functionalism, through their use of the fourbasic functions and the value dictionary- both developed in tha t tradi-tion. CI researchers also have restored attention to systems for the en-forcement of norms as “the nexus between culture and praxis” ( A n d r h ,1984, p. 63), which Mertonian functionalism had deemphasized anduses and gratification scholars had all but ignored. T his concern with theenforcement of n orm s is implicit in the “m entions technique,” a me thodfor measuring the enforcement powers of literary critics developed byRosengren 1981, 1983), an d m ore explicit in the appro ach to televisedviolence as “a dra m atic cultural lesson, reflecting, de mo nstrating, a ndmaintaining a hierarchy of social control and power relationships” in thestudies of Gerbner and associates (Morgan, 1984, p. 365; also Gross,1984; Signorielli, 1984; Signorielli Morgan, 1990). In a reversal ofthe usual political po larities in com mu nications, the thoroughly empiri-cal CI researchers have co me un der fire fo r alleged left-wing do-good-ism(Tannenbaum, 1984). In addition, with the notable exception of theSwedish CI researchers (e.g., Reimer, 1989; Rosengren, 1983), scholarsin this tradition still show a greater penchant to relate cultural materialsto sociological and economic categories (e.g. , Namenwirth Weber,

97


11/16

CommunicationTheory

1987) than to th e climates of tastes and feelings that would be expectedto engage the attention of culturalist analyses (Care y Kreiling, 1974;Kreiling, 1 9 7 8 ) .

onclusionAs a search for commonalities in communication theory has recentlydisplaced the divisive debates of the 1970s (e.g., Carey Kreiling,1974; Garnham, 1983; Rogers, 1983; Splichal, 1988; VordererGroeben, 1992; White, 1983) , attempts a t rapprochement have focusedin particular on the chasm between empiricist U.S. communicationsscholarship and holistic European communications studies (BlumlerGurevitch, 1982; Gurevitch Blumler, 1977; Nordenstreng, 1976;Rogers, 1983) . Often overlooked in these discussions, given its collapsein 1980s , is functionalism, a c ornersto ne of earlier com mu nication theo-rizing. Yet, in several of its incarnations the approach was developedexplicitly to bridge various research traditions: Durkheimian sociologyas a link between apriorist theorists and what Mills called “abstractedempiricists,” intended “to unite the two rival theories without incurringtheir inconveniences” (Du rkh eim , 1965, p. 32) . Parsonian functionalismreflected an infusion of European intellectual traditions into Americansocial thought (Mayhew, 1982, p . 3 ) , while Merton 1 9 5 7 ) offered hisSocial Th eo ry and Social Structure as a step toward the consolidation ofAmerican sociology of mass comm unicatio ns and Euro pean sociology ofknowledge, both being “species of that genus of research which is con-cerned with the interplay between social structure and communications”(p . 439) .Given its proven heuristic value (Flaniga n Fogelma n, 1965, p. 11 1,Jarvie, 1965, p . 31) , functionalism has earned a place in the evolvingtheoretical heterodoxy called communications. Its pervasive spreadthrough the social sciences, provides a basis for dialogue between com-mu nication s and disciplines as diverse as anthropo logy, p olitical science,sociology, linguistics, economics, and geography. However, the futureof functionalism points neither toward the Mertonian strain advancedby Wright 1 9 6 4 ) nor the Parsonian alternative once championed byRothenbuhler 1 9 8 7 ) ,but rath er in the direction of a refashioned culturalvariant th at seeks to overcome the logical and political limitations of thetradition. T he co mbined holistic an d empiricist assumptions of contex-tual functionalism in particular provides an ideal bridge between U.S.and European comm unications traditions.If functionalism is to retain its vitality, however, it must draw uponmore tha n i ts own past. I t would benefit from a more explicit dialoguewith the various other approaches th at explore the hypothesis of systemicintegration, particularly the C1 tradition, from within the functionalistapp roa ch, and cultural studies, which developed outside the tradition ofnot only functionalism bu t com munication studies as well. To this evolv-

98


12/16


ing partnership, co ntextual functionalism and CI offer rigorous m ethod-ological grounds for testing the important issues raised by critical cul-tural studies and systemic functionalism (Splichal, 1988, p. 621). Ifcultu ral studies caution s a sensitivity to culture and a greater concern forthe maintenance and organization of hierarchies, functionalism focusesgreater attention o n the norm ative ord ers of society and brings a lengthyhistory filled with instructive setbacks and advances. Cultural indicatorsprovides an “integral” model t ha t could save critical cultural studies fromthe kind of “eclectic and piratical” use of empirical methods noted byHall 1982, p. 88; also Vorderer Groeben, 1992).

By addressing the flaws identified by cultu ral studies and o ther critics,the much-derided functionalist tradition could emerge from the heat ofrecent deb ates much strengthened. W hile details remain to be developed,a reformulated functionalism w ould build upon the “integrative” mean-ing of functional outco me rather tha n th e “stabilizing” or “m aintenance”connotation. Second, it would ad op t a contextualist ra ther than systemicdefinition of subject matter, with analysts being responsible for definingand justifying the selected context. Third, it would involve a return toDurkheim’s concern with uncovering the gram mar of social and culturalrelations as embedded in patterned symbol manipulation an d behavior.Although the number of scholars explicitly identifying their work asfunctionalist has declined dras tically since the 1960s, several researchersinfluenced in varying degrees by the app roac h have proceeded t o investi-gate the functionalist hypothesis of integration of cultural systems whileexplicitly incorp orating concerns with stratification an d m ultiple culturalsystems into the design of their recent studies. Research a long these lineswill probab ly proceed under a variety of banners as scholars continue tododge being labeled functionalist but one certainty emerges from thesmoke and ashes of recent incendiary debates: Any approach investigat-ing the hyp othesis of systemic interaction must confron t th e functionalistlegacy or risk repro ducing its weaknesses.

Carl Patrick Burrowes is Carter G. W ood son Distinguished Professor ofJ ournalism atMarshall University Huntington W V 25755. The author thanks Dr. Robert Craig of theUniversity of Colo rado at B oulder or urging him toward this line of inquiry and theanonymous reviewers o Communication Theoryfo r their helpful comments.Author

’ These terms are used interchangeably in this paper with functionalism being used mostoften simply because it is shorter.In addition to these sources, at least two leading communication journals devotedspecial issues entirely t this shift: Hirsch Carey 19 78 ), Comm unication Research 5 3)and Gerber 19 83 ), he Journal of Communication 3 33) .Culture may be defined, following Kroeber and Kluckoln 19 52 ), as consisting of“patter ns, explicit and im plicit, of and for behavior acquired and transmitted by sym bols,constitutin g the distinctive achievement of human grou ps, including their em bodim ents inartifacts; the essential core of culture consists of traditional i. e ., historically derived andselected ) ideas and especially their attached values; culture systems may, o n the one ha nd,

Notes

99


13/16

CommunicationTheory

be considered as products of action, o n the other as conditioning elements of furtheractions” (p . 1 8 1 8 ) .

Alexander, J . C . 1988).Introduction: Durkheimian sociology and cultural studies today.In J . C. Alexander (Ed. ) , Durkh eimian sociology: Cultural studies (pp. 1-21). Cam-bridge: Cambridge University Press.Alexander, J . C. 1990). Neofunctionalism today: Reconstructing a theoretical tradition .In G. Ritzer (Ed. ) , Frontiers o f so ci d theory ( p p . 33-67). New Y ork: Colum bia Univer-sity Press.Andren, G . 1984).T h e cemen t of society: On causation an d teleology between p atterns ofculture and production/reproduction structures. In G . Melischek, K E . Rosengren,J . Steppers (Eds.) , Cultural indicators: A n international symposium (pp. 49-70). Vi-enn a, Austria: Akademie der Wissenschaften.Berelson, B. 1959).Th e state ofconimu nication research. Public Opi nion Quarte rly 23,l-6.Blumler, J. 1 985). European-American differences in communication research. In E. Rog-ers F. Balle (E ds. ), T he media reuolution in America and in western Europe (pp.185-199). Norw ood , NJ : Ab lex .

Blumler, J . G. , Gurevitch , M . 1982).T he political effects of mass communication. InM . Gurevi tch et a l (Eds . ) , Culture society and the media. London: Methuen.Carey, J . W . 1978).Social theory and co mmu nicatio n theory. Communication Research5,357-368.Carey, J . W . 1989). Com mun ication as culture: Essays on media and society. Boston:Unwin Hyman.Carey, J . W., Kreiling, A. L. 1974).Popular cultu re and uses and gratif ications: Notestowards an accommodation. In J. G . Blumler Elihu Katz (Eds.), T h e uses of masscomm unicatio ns: Curren t perspectives on gratifications research (pp. 225-248). Bev-erly Hills, CA: Sage.Corcora n, F . 1989).Cultural s tudies: From the Old World to New World (Commentaryon H a r d t ) . J . E . Anderson (Ed. ) , Communicat ion yearbook 12 (pp. 601-617). NewBrunswick, N.J. : Interna tional Com mun ication Association.

Cur ran , J . , Gurevi tch , M . , Woollacot t , J . 1982).Th e s tudy of the media: Theoreticalapproaches . In M . Gurevi tch , T . Bennett , J . Curran, Ja ne t Woollacot t (Eds . ) , Cul-ture society and the media ( p p . 11-29). London: Methuen.Davis, K. 1942).A conceptua l analysis of stratification. American Sociological Review 7Davis, K. 1949).Human society. New York: Macmillan.Delia, J . G . 1987).Com mun ication research: A history. In C . R. Berger S. H . Chaffee(Eds . ) , Handbook of comm unica tion science (pp. 20-98). New bury Park, CA: Sage.Durkheim, E . 1982).The rules of sociological me thod . New York: Free Press. (Originalwork published 1896).Elliott, P. 1974).Uses and gratifications research: A critique and a sociological alterna-tive. In J . G . Blumler E . Katz ( ,Eds.) , T h e uses of mass communications: Currentperspectives on gratifications research ( p p . 249-268). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Flanigan, W . , Fogelman, E . 1965).Functionalism in political science. In D. Martindale( E d . ) , Functionalzsm in the social sciences (pp. 1 1 1-126). Philadelphia: AmericanAcademy of Political and Social Science.Garnham , N . 1983).Toward a theory of cultural materialism. lournu1 of Communica-t ion 33, 314-329.Gerbner, G . 1969).Toward ‘‘cultural indicators:” The analysis of mass mediated publicmessage systems. In G. Gerbner ( E d . ) , The analysis of communicat ion content (pp.123-132). New York: Wiley.Gerbner, G . (E d . ) 1983).Ferment in the field [Special issue]. lournal of Communicat ion

3 33).Giddens, A . 1984). The Const i tu t ion of society: Outline of the theory of structuration.Gitlin, T. 1981).Media sociology: T he dominant paradigm. Mass commu nication reviewGolding, P. , Mu rdoc k, G. 1980).Theor ies of communications and theories of society.

309-321.

Berkeley: University of California Press.yearbook (pp. 73-121). Beverly Hills, CA : Sage.Mass comm unicatio n review yearbook ( p p . 59-76). Beverly Hills, C A: Sage.

1


14/16

From Functionalism o Cultural Studies

Golding, P., Mu rdock, G. 1991). Culture, communications and political economy. InJ. Curr an M. Gurevitch (Eds .), Mass media and society (pp . 15-32). New York:Edward Arnold.Goody, J. 1973). British functionalism. In R. N arroll F. Narroll (Eds.), Main currentsin cultural anthropolog y (pp . 185-215). New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.Grimes, M. D. 1988). Th e functionalist perspective on social inequality: S ome neglectedtheoretical an d conceptual roots. Sociological Inquiry 58 182-1 93.Gross, L. 1984) . The cultivation of intolerance: Television, blacks and gays. In G.Melischek, K. E. Rosengren J. Steppers (Eds.), Cultural indicators: A n in-ternational symposium (pp. 345-363). Vienna, Austria: Akademie der Wissen-schaften.Gurevitch, M., Blumler, J. G. 1977) . Mass media and political institutions: The sys-tems approach. In G. G erbner (Ed.), Mass media policies in changing structures. NewYork: W iley.Hall, S. 1982). Th e rediscovery of “ideology”: Return of the repressed in media studies. InM. Gurevitch, T. Bennett, J. Curran J. Woollacott (Eds.), Culture society and themedia (pp. 56-90). London: Methuen.Halloran, J. D. 1981). The context of mass communications research. In E. M cAnany, J.

Schnitman N. Janus (Eds.) , Com mu nication and social structure (pp . 21-57). NewYork: Praeger.Hardt , H. 1979). Introduction. In H. Hardt (Ed.), Social theories of the press: EarlyGerman and American perspectives. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Hardt , H. 1989). Th e return of the critical and the challenge of radical dissent: criticaltheory, cultural studies, and Am erican mass comm unication research. In J. A. A nderson(Ed.) , Communication yearbook 12 (pp . 558-600). New Brunswick, NJ: Interna-tional Communication Association.Hempel, C. G. 1959). The logic of functional analysis. In L. Gross (Ed.), Symposium o nsociological theor y (pp . 271-307). New York Harper Row.Hilbert, R. A. 1989) . Durkheim and Merton on anomie: An unexplored contrast and itsderivatives. Social Problems 36,242-250.Hirsch, P., Carey, J. W. (Eds.) 1978) .Comm unication and culture: Humanistic modelsin research [Special issue]. Comm unication Research 5 3 ) .Jarvie, I C. 1965) . Limits of functionalism and alternatives to i t in anthropology. InD. Martindale (Ed.), Functionalism in the social sciences (pp . 18-34). Philadelphia:American Academy of Political and Social Science.Kim, Y.Y. 1988). On theorizing intercultural communication. In Y. Y Kim W. B.Gudykunst (Eds.), Theories in intercultural comm unication (pp . 11-21). Beverly Hills,CA: Sage.Klapper, J. T. 1963). Mass communication research: An old road resurveyed. PublicOpinion Quarterly 27,515-527.Kline, F . G . 1972). Theory in mass communication research. In F. G . Kline P. J.Tichenor (Eds.), Current perspectives in mass communication research (pp. 17-40).Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Kreiling, A. 1978). Toward a cultural studies approach for the sociology of popularculture. Comm unication Research 5 ,240-263 .Kroeber, A. L., Kluckholm, C. 1952). Culture: A critical review of concepts anddefinitions. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Peabody Museum of American Ar-cheology and Ethnology P apers.Kuper, A. 1977) . The social anthropology of Radcliffe-Brown. London: RoutledgeKegan Paul.Kuper, A. 1985) .Th e historians’ revenge. American ethnologist 10,523-528.Lasswell, H. 1971). The structure and function of communication in society. In W .Schramm D. Roberts (Eds.), The process and effects of mass com mun ication (pp .84-99). Urbana: University of Illinois Press.Lasswell, H. D. Namenwirth, J. Z . 1968). The Lasswell Value Dictionary 3 vols.).New H aven: Yale University, mimeo.Lazarsfeld, P., ik Merton, R. K. 1948). Mass communication, popular taste and orga-nized social action. In L. Bryson (E d.), The communication of ideas (pp . 95-118). NewYork: Harper.Levy, M. J. 1988). Dynamic functionalism: An exchange. Social Forces 67,243-247.

1 1


15/16

CommunicationTheory

Lukes, S. 1 9 8 2 ) . In troduct ion. In E. Durkheim, The rules of sociological method. N e wYork: Free Press.Malinowski, B. 1 9 3 9 ) . The group and the individual in functional analysis . AmericanJournal of Sociology 4 4 938-964.Malinowski , B. 1 9 4 5 ) . The dynamics ofculture change. New Haven , CT: Yale Un iversityPress.Malinowski, B. 1977) . A scientific theory of culture. Chapel Hill: University of Nor thCaro lina Press. (Origin al work published 1944) .Martindale , D. 1 9 6 5 ) . Limits of and alternatives to functionalism in sociology. In D.Mar t inda le (E d . ) , Functionalism in the social sciences (pp. 144-162). Philadelphia:American Academy of Political and Social Science.Mayhew, L. 1 9 8 2 ) . In troduct ion. In T. Parsons , On institutions and social evolution.Chicago: University of Chica go Press.McQuail , D . 1969) . Towards a sociology of mass communications. London: M acmillan.Melischek, G. , Rosengren, K. E., Steppers, J . 1 9 8 4 ) . Cultural indicators: A n interna-Merton , R. K. 1946) .Muss persuasion. New York: Harper Bros.Merton , R. K 1 9 5 7 ) .Social theory and social structure. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.Mil l iband, R. 1 9 8 5 ) .T h e new revisionism in Britain. New Left Review 1 5 0 , 2 9 - 4 6 .Mills, C . W . 1 9 5 9 ) . The sociological imagination. Ne w York: Oxf ord University Press.M o r g a n , M . 1 9 8 4 ) . Symbolic victimization an d real world fear. In G. Melischek, K. E.Rosengren, J. Steppers (Eds.) , Cultural indicators: A n international symposium (pp.137- 15 8) . Vienn a, A ustria: A kademie de r Wissenschaften.Morley, D. 1992) . Populism, revisionism an d the “new” audience research. Poetics 21329-344.Namenwir th , J. Z. Weber , R. P. 1 9 8 7 ) .Dynamics ofculture. Boston: Allen Unw in.Newcom b, H. M . 1 9 9 1 ) .On the dialogic aspects of mass communication. In R. K. AveryD. Eason (Eds . ) , Critical perspectives o n media and society (pp. 69-87). New York:Guil ford.Nordens treng, K 1968) . Communications research in the United States. Gazette 14,207-216.Nordens treng, K 1976) . Recent developments in Europe an com muni cation theory. In H.D., Fischer J. C. Merrill (Eds.) , International and intercultural communications.New York: Hastings House.Parsons, T . 1942) . The sociology of modern anti-Semitism. In T. Graeber S. Britt(eds . ) ,Jews in a gentile world. N e w York: Macmillan.Parsons , T . 1 9 4 2 ) . Some sociological aspects of the fascist movements. Social forces. 21 ,138-147.Parsons , T . 1945) . Racial and religious differences as factors in group tensions. In L.Finkelstein et a1 (Eds .), Unity and differences in the modern world. New York: Harp.Parsons, T. 1 9 6 8 ) .Th e problem of polarization o n the axis of color. In J. Franklin (Ed.) ,Color and race. Boston: Hou ghto n Mifflin.Parsons , T . 1 9 7 7 ) . Social systems and the evolution of action theory. New York: FreePress. (Origina l work published 1977)Radcliffe-Brown, A. R . 1968) . Structure and function in primitive society New York:Free Press. (Orig inal work published 1952) .Reimer, B. 1 9 8 9 ) .Postmodern structures of feeling: V alue s and lifestyles in th e postmod -ern age. In J . R. Gibbons (Ed. ) , Contemporary political culture: Politics in a postmod-ern age. New bury Park , CA: Sage.Rogers, E. M. 1983) .T he empirical and critical schools of comm unicatio n research. In E.Rogers F. Balle (E ds.) , The media revolution in America and in western Europe (pp.219-235) . Norw ood , NJ : Ab lex .

tional symposium. Vienn a, Austria: Akademie d er Wissenschaften.

Rose, A. M. 1 9 6 0 ) .O n Merton’s neofunctionalism. Alpha Kappa Deltan. 28, 14-17.Rosengren, K . E. 1 9 8 1 ) . Mass c omm unicat ions as cultural indicators: Sweden, 1945-1975. In G. C . Wilhoit H . de Bock (Ed s.) , Mass communication review yearbook(pp. 717-737) . Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Rosengren, K. E . 1 9 8 3 ) .Swedish literary climate 1953-1 976. Lun d, Sweden: Student-litteratur.Rosengren, K. E. 1985) . Growth of a research tradition. In, K. E. Rosengren, L. A.

102


16/16


Wenner P. Palmgreen (Eds.), Media Gratification research (pp . 275-284). BeverlyHills, CA: Sage.Rothenbuhler, E. W. 1987). Neofunctionalism for mass communication theory. Masscommunication review yearbook (pp . 67-85). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Rothenbuhler, E. W. 1993).Argument for a Durkheim ian theory of the communicative.Journal of Communication 43,158-163.Signorielli, N. 1984).Th e demography of the television world. In G. Melischek, K. E.Rosengren, J. Steppers (Eds.), Cultural indicators: A n international sym posium (pp .137-158). Vienn a, Austria: A kademie der Wissenschaften.Signorielli, N., Mo rgan, M . 1990). Cultivation analysis: New directions in mediaeffects research. Newbury Park , CA: Sage.Splichal, S. 1989).Critical theory and em pirical critique in mass commu nication research:Some methodological considerations (Com mentary on H ard t). Comm unication year-book 2 (pp. 618-635). New Brunswick, N. J.: International Comm unication Associ-ation.Swingewood, A. 1984).Functionalism. In A. Swingewood ( Ed .), A short history ofsocio-logical thought (pp. 227-253). New York : St. Martin’s Press.Sztompka, P. 1986).Robert K . Me rton: An intellectual profile. New York: Macmillan.

Tannenbaum, P. H. 1984). f cultural indicators are the answer, wh at is the que stion? InG. Melischek, K. E. Rosengren, J . Steppers (Ed s.), Cultural indicators: An interna-tional symposium (pp . 97-104). Vienn a, Aus tria: Akademie der Wissenschaften.Thomas, S. 1980).Some problems of the paradigm in com munication theory. Philosophyof the Social Sciences 10,427-444.Vorderer, P., Groeben, N. 1992). Audience research: What the humanistic and thesocial science approac hes could learn fr om each oth er. Poetics 21, pp. 361-376White, R. A. 1983). Mass communication and culture: Transition to a new paradigm.Journal of Communications 33,279-301.Whyte, W . F. 1943).Street corners ociety. Chica go: University of Chicag o Press.Willey, M. 1942).Th e functions of the newspaper. Annals of th e American Academy of

Williams, R. 1961).The long revolution. Ne w Y ork: C olumbia University Press.Williams, R. 1977).Marxism and literature. New York: Oxford University Press.Wright, C. R. 1964).Functional analysis and mass comm unication. In L. A. Dexter D.M. White (Eds.), People society and mass communications (pp. 91-109). Glencoe:Free Press. (Original work pub lished 1960).Wright, C. R. 1974). Functional analysis and mass communication revisited. In J. G.Blumler E. Katz (Eds.), The uses of mass com mun ications: Current perspectives ongratifications research (pp . 197-212). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Wright, C., Hilbert, R. E. 1980). Value implications of the functional theory ofdeviance. Social Problem s. 28,205-219.Wright, C. R. 1989).Functional analysis. In E. Barnouw (Ed.), International encyclope -dia of communications (pp . 203-206). New York: Oxford University Press.

Political and Social Science 21 9, 18-24.

103

functionalism and cultural studies: manifest ruptures and latent continuities

Documents