INPUT-OUTPUT MODEL

The linkage between different sub-systems can also be shown through an input-output model. Any sub-system receives ‘inputs’ from the wider social system, which are then ‘processed’ within the sub-system. The process is technically known as ‘through-put’, and is delivered to the wider social system as ‘outputs’.

Take the example of a college as a sub-system of the education system of society, the education system itself being a sub-system of the wider social system. The college has a faculty and administrative staff recruited from the available manpower and gets its paraphernalia produced by other sectors; its student clientele—the key input—is produced by lower-level schools as an ‘output’. A fixed number of years of schooling at the college transforms these school-leavers into ‘graduates’, who leave the system as ‘outputs’. The courses offered within the college, standards of teaching and examinations, and the overall management of the system are conditioned by the external environment. The courses are designed by the university to which the college is affiliated, and student preferences for courses are governed by the market demand for skills, or general preference pattern of the youth. Similarly, teaching within the college depends on the quality of teaching staff the college is able to attract, and the level of job satisfaction it provides in terms of salary and perks, compared to other professions. In all such matters, the subsystem of the college is influenced by occurrences in the wider social system in varied fields such as economy, polity, and academics. Sociological investigation of any social structure—society as a whole, any local community (village or city, or even a mohalla), any organization (a factory, a school, or a club)—requires such an orientation to gain a meaningful understanding of the phenomena.

 

Figure 8.4 Input-Output Model

FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS

The focus in structural analysis is on the elements of patterning that are relatively constant. This is not to deny the significance of change. For example, the structure of the Indian polity is well-defined in our Constitution. The division between the executive, the judiciary and legislative bodies, fundamental rights, and the party system are constant. But within these constants, Indian polity has changed while functioning for over six decades. From a one-party dominance system of governance, it entered into an era of coalition without changing the Constitution. Structural analysts pay particular attention to equilibrium. Any system that might deviate from its path has to return to its normal course. There are in-built mechanisms in every social system to take care of deviations and help the system return to ‘normality’.

This is similar to the process of homeostasis found in living beings. Through this process, the system either comes to terms with the exigencies imposed by a changing environment, or undergoes structural change; in case of failure, it experiences a dissolution of its boundary-maintaining mechanism. A human body, for example, undergoes this process when it falls ill for some time and then returns to normality. There is a popular saying: if you treat a cold, you will be better within seven days; if you don‘t, it will take a week! This is indeed a reference to homeostasis, to inner forces that bring back the body back to normality.

Functional reference relates to the dynamic dimension of social structure. Beginning with the relative given-ness of the structure—the constants—sociological analysis proceeds to examine the behaviour of the structure in exigencies caused by factors external to that social structure. The focus of the functional analyst, on the other hand, is on the consequences of actions of elements of the social structure.

The Concept of Function

Robert Merton—student and later a colleague of Talcott Parsons—took this line of theoretical formulation forward. Proposing his paradigm of functional analysis, Merton said: ‘Functional analysis is at once the most promising and possibly the least codified of contemporary orientations to problems of sociological interpretation’ (1957: 19). This has happened because ‘Too often, a single term has been used to symbolize different concepts, just as the same concept has been symbolized by different terms.’ In sociological literature, terms like use, utility, purpose, motive, intention, aim and consequences have been used almost as synonyms of ‘function’. Similarly, the term ‘function’ has been used to denote at least five different concepts:

1. Used for some public gathering or festive occasion.
2. As equivalent to occupation.
3. Used to refer to the activities assigned to incumbents of a social status, and more particularly to the occupant of an office or political position. This is why an official is called a functionary.
4. The word has ‘its most precise significance in mathematics, where it refers to a variable considered in relation to one or more other variables in terms of which it may be expressed or on the value of which its own value depends. This conception, in a more extended (and often more imprecise) sense, is expressed by such phrases as “functional interdependence” and “functional relations”, so often adopted by social scientists.’
5. ‘Stemming in part from the native mathematical sense of the term, this usage is more often explicitly adopted from the biological sciences, where the term function is understood to refer to “vital or organic processes considered in respects in which they contribute to the maintenance of the organism”.’

Merton also reviewed the three interconnected postulates commonly adopted by functional analysts. These postulates hold:

1. ‘that standardized social activities or cultural items are functional for the entire social or cultural system’—Postulate of the Functional Unity of Society;
2. ‘that all such social and cultural items fulfil sociological functions’—Postulate of Universal Functionalism; and
3. ‘that these items are consequently indispensable’—Postulate of Indispensability.

Merton regarded these as overstatements. An examination of the first postulate led him to conclude that ‘one cannot assume full integration of all societies’. Integration is a matter of degree. One can talk of highly integrated or highly disintegrated societies, but there is no empirical evidence of a totally integrated one. In employing functional analysis, one will have to look to those specified social units that are served by given social functions, and cultural items should be seen to have multiple consequences, not all of them functional. Moreover, consequences may be different for different groups, and therefore there is a need to work out the net balance of consequences.

Commenting on the second prevalent postulate, Merton says that ‘although any item of culture or social structure may have functions, it is premature to hold unequivocally that every such item must be functional’. This postulate gained currency when evolutionists were talking of ‘survivals’, which have lost their utility and were treated as part of the past; functional analysts insisted on attributing a function to each article of culture, refuting the theory of survivals.

The same train of thought led to the postulate of indispensability of all cultural items or practices. Malinowski, for example, argued that ‘… in every type of civilization, every custom, material object, idea and belief fulfils some vital function, has some task to accomplish, represents an indispensable part within a working whole’ (1926: 132). The indispensability postulate connotes two propositions:

1. the indispensability of certain functions; and
2. the indispensability of existing social institutions or cultural forms.

Both meanings rule out the possibility of functional alternatives, equivalents, or substitutes. Merton refutes the charge that functional analysis is conservative. He does this by challenging existing postulates and suggesting an objective framework—a paradigm—that takes note not only of function but also of dysfunction, and applying this dichotomy to functions that are both manifest and latent. Functional analysis is thus neither conservative nor radical. In fact, it helps to analyse the change that occurs in a social and cultural system. It is wrong to regard functionalism as ‘anti-change’ and thus supportive of the ‘status quo’. Since anthropologists studied preliterate societies that were slow-changing, and thus appeared tradition-bound, their attention was drawn to this aspect of continuity and their theoretical formulation reflected this feature, giving the impression that they resisted change. Brilliant analyses of social change attempted by sociologists using the structural-functional frame of reference are, in this regard, a strong rebuttal to the allegation.

Manifest and Latent Functions

The action framework, as stated earlier, suggests that an action is taken with a view to achieving a certain goal. And to attain the goal, an actor is required to adopt culturally approved means.

When the stated intention—or motivation—results in the attainment of the desired goal (consequence), it is a manifest function of the action. ‘Manifest functions are those objective consequences contributing to the adjustment or adaptation of the system which are intended and recognized by the participants in the system’ (Merton, 1957: 51).

However, sometimes the consequences of an action are the ones that were neither intended nor recognized. Such consequences are termed Latent Functions.

This formulation helps us to avoid confusing motives with functions. It is also a reminder of the fact that motive and function vary independently. This distinction (i) ‘clarifies the analysis of seemingly irrational social patterns’; (ii) ‘directs attention to theoretically fruitful fields of inquiry’; (iii) ‘precludes the substitution of naive moral judgements for sociological analysis’; and (iv) directs attention towards the discovery of latent functions to further enrich sociological theory.

Functions and Dysfunctions

Functions, whether manifest or latent, are seen as consequences of any partial structure, be it a sub-group, a status-role combine, a social norm, or a cultural value or practice. These consequences can be either good or disastrous for the system. There is also a possibility that the consequences may be neutral, in the sense that they will neither fulfil any social need (by contributing to the smooth working of the system) nor adversely affect the system. Consequences of any sub-system that contributes to the fulfilment of one or more needs of a social system are generally called functions—in a positive sense. Since the term function is employed for all types of consequences, positive functions are often termed eufunctions. Functions that hinder the fulfilment of one or more needs of the system and are thus disruptive or negative are called dys functions. Those that are neutral in character are referred to as non-functions.

Since Manifest functions are those that correspond with stated intentions that are socially recognized, they are all eu functions. It is mainly Latent functions that can be either of the three. Thus, not all Latent functions are dys functional.

We can present the classification of functions in the following manner:

 

Figure 8.5 Classification of Functions

 

There is yet another aspect, not, however, made explicit by Merton, which relates to intentions. Like functions, intentions too can be both manifest and latent. In such circumstances, when a consequence matches a latent intention, it is similar to manifest function, although it is placed in the category of Latent functions. Such a consequence can also be positive or negative. An unstated intention such as this is referred to as ‘hidden agenda’. Policy makers and planners make explicit their goals in ‘politically correct’ language, but might also simultaneously pursue another agenda that hinders the attainment of the stated goal and leads to latent dysfunctions. When Community Development Programmes were launched in India in the 1950s, their stated aim was to uplift rural India by removing poverty, improving agricultural practices, promoting literacy, and ensuring better health. An assessment and evaluation of this massive programme found that the rich had become richer while the poor remained poor in the villages. The menace of poverty has still not been eliminated, despite more than six decades of development focusing mainly on rural India. Critics allege that it has been the hidden agenda of the elite and powerful to keep the poor poor; and thus it is not a failure of planning, as things worked according to the hidden agenda and succeeded in attaining the goal of benefiting the few and impoverishing the majority.

It is important to emphasize that latent functions are not always dysfunctional. Functional theory suggests that latent functions can be eufunctional, dysfunctional, or even non-functional. Take the example of the policy of ‘reservations’ enacted by the Indian Constitution. The intention of the constitution-makers was to pay special attention to relatively oppressed groups by listing them in two different schedules—one for the lower/depressed castes (now widely known as Dalit) and the other for tribal groups—in order to improve their overall living conditions and social position and erase the caste distinctions that perpetuated untouchability. Besides special developmental programmes for these communities and the areas inhabited by them, provisions were also made to ‘reserve’ seats for them in educational institutions, government jobs, and in state and central legislative bodies. As a consequence of this action, the condition of these groups has improved over the years, and there is a visible presence of people belonging to these categories in the public domain, some occupying high positions in ministerial, gubernatorial, and other high-ranking assignments. These can be regarded as manifest functions. However, the policy of reservations has been under constant attack on several counts. It is argued that ‘positive discrimination’ in favour of SCs and STs has resulted in ‘negative discrimination’ against those who do not belong to such groups, but who deserve to be rewarded on the basis of merit. It is also said that this practice has led to the development of a ‘vested interest’ in these groups to remain backward. Even the Supreme Court has hinted that the creamy layer among these groups, which has emerged as a consequence of these measures, is now pocketing all the benefits, which do not reach the really deserving. Rather than paving the way for the eradication of caste, these measures have fostered caste solidarities and created rifts between the so-called upper castes and Dalits—a trend that is dysfunctional as it engenders animosity rather than amity. It is such a combination of eufunctions and dysfunctions that a net balance of consequences is called for.

Functional Equivalents or Alternatives

Functional theory insists that no mechanism is indispensable. The same function can be obtained through some other mechanism. These other mechanisms are alternatives or functional equivalents. Take marriage, for example. Marriage is an institution that gives social recognition to mating on a regular basis, and defines certain obligations for the parties involved. In the same society, different groups can have different ways to conduct a marriage. Even the same group can choose from various alternatives. A Hindu, for example, might get married in an elaborate Hindu ceremony, or go to an Arya Samaj temple and tie the knot in Vedic tradition, or simply go to a temple and exchange garlands with the deity and priest as witnesses (so often portrayed in films), or have a court marriage. These are functional equivalents of a marriage ceremony. A widow remarriage, likewise, can either be elaborate or be a simple ritual of ‘offering a sari’ and paying a monetary tribute to the family of the widow’s late husband.

Giving gifts as dowry has been an old practice in India. The original intention was to give the bride a ‘parting gift’; it was different from the ‘bride price’ prevalent in many tribal societies, where the price—value—is paid by the aspiring bridegroom as compensation for taking away a member of the family. Dowry was not meant as compensation, as the party losing a member was not at the receiving end. Dowry served the function of maintaining good relations and enhancing the prestige of the bride. But with passing times, it became dysfunctional, in the sense that instead of accepting it as a social gesture, the bridegroom’s family came to regard it as their right, and began making unreasonable demands. The demands continued to be made even after a few years of marriage, with non-compliance leading to wife-beating, torture, and quite often dowry deaths—brides committing suicide or being killed by the husband and the in-laws. A cultural tradition that had eufunctions has now degenerated into an ugly practice, and become dysfunctional for the family.

These instances—of course, many more can be added from our day-to-day experience—also hint at the changes that occur in a social system, many ofwhich are associated with the consequences of individual and group performance, and the conflicting demand structures of various status positions simultaneously held by single individuals.