Introduction
There is an arduous need to study the society and this
has given rise to various theories and interrelated concepts to describe,
explain and even predict how the society and its parts are related to each
other. This vehement task which seeks to scientifically test, combine,
magnify, enlarge, clarify, and expand our understanding of people, their
behaviours, and their societies has not been
futile as researchers, scholars, academia and even thinkers have come up with
macro theories i.e. Conflict and Functional theories, which aims at studying
society, say millions of people in a state, country, or even at the world level
and micro theories i.e. Symbolic Interactionism or Social Exchange theories,
which studies small groups or individuals, say a couple, family, or team.
Needless to also point out that this recompensing task has also birthed
different theories which Hammond, Cheney & Pearsay (2015) classified as Grand
theories which deal with the universal aspects of social processes or problems
and is based on abstract ideas and concepts rather than on case specific
evidence, i.e. Conflict, Functionalism, Symbolic Interactionism, and Social
Exchange theories and Middle-Range theories
which are theories derived from specific scientific findings and focuses on the
interrelation of two or more concepts applied to a very specific social process
or problem, i.e. Continuity, Activity, Differential Association, and Labeling
theories.
The
society can be studied the same way the human body can be studied—by analyzing
what specific systems are working or not working, diagnosing problems, and
devising solutions to restore balance. Socialization, religious involvement,
friendship, health care, economic recovery, peace, justice and injustice,
population growth or decline, community, romantic relationships, marriage and
divorce, and normal and abnormal family experiences are just a few of the
evidences of functional processes in our society (Hammond, Cheney &
Pearsay, 2015).
The
political system, an integral part of the system adequately deserves to be
studied in this manner. A lot has been said about the political system as being
the interface upon which different actors within the polity or society
interact, as the set of formal legal institutions that constitute a government
or a state, or simply put, formal institutions that define a government’s structure.
It therefore wouldn’t be a waste of time and resources if this system is
studied scientifically and empirically for the sake of drawing conclusions for
prediction. This has necessitated the adoption of different theories from
various fields ranging from but not limited to Biology, Sociology,
Anthropology, Cybernetics and Communications.
It
was Gabriel Almond who drew the attention of political scientists to the theory
of Structural-Functionalism in the 1970s. In the words of Scott (n.d.)
Structural-Functionalism represented a vast improvement over the
then-prevailing mechanistic theories of David Eaton and others derived largely
from international relations. He went further to posit that
Structural-Functionalism is an approach to understanding political systems that
took into account not only its structural components — its institutions — but
also their functions within the system as a whole. Prior to structural
functionalism, scholars had no way of systematically comparing different
political systems beyond a rudimentary, and oftentimes inconclusive, analysis
of their institutions.
At its most basic level, the model of
structural functionalism posits that a political system is made up of
institutions (structures), such as interest groups, political parties, the
executive, legislative and judicial branches of government, and a bureaucratic
machinery. This information is not sufficient, however, to make a meaningful
comparison between two political systems. Two countries may share many of the
same political institutions, but what distinguishes the two systems are the
ways in which these institutions function.
For Almond, a fuller understanding
emerges only when one begins to examine how institutions act within the
political process. As he described it, interest groups serve to articulate
political issues; parties then aggregate and express them in a coherent and
meaningful way; government in turn enacts public policies to address them; and
bureaucracies finally regulate and adjudicate them. It is so called structural
functionalism because Almond has explained his views keeping these structures
of political system in mind. He has, in fact, stressed that every political
system has some structures and these structures perform certain functions meant
for it. Nitisha (cited by www.politicalsciencenotes.com) submitted that in his
noted work The Politics of the Developing
Areas Almond has drawn our attention to an interesting issue. He says that
though there are differences between developed and developing countries so far
as structures are concerned, the structures perform almost similar functions.
Structural-Functionalism:
Basic Concepts Defined
Structure
Here the word structure is used in a
sense different from sociological sense. Structure means institutions. Every
political system has several institutions such as political party, legislature,
executive, judiciary, etc. Almond claims that all these were previously called
institutions. But he has changed the nomenclature.
Why has he changed the names? The
reason forwarded by Easton is that he wants to adopt concepts and categories
which will be suitable for analyzing political systems which are radically
different from each other. So he wants to adopt such terms as will enable him
to analyze and compare all (or at least major) political systems. His
innovative terms do not end with structure. He uses political system instead of
state. In his opinion the term state is mainly a legal concept. But political
system includes many other ideas besides legality. Almond further says that
“power” is a legal term and for that reason he cautiously avoids the use of the
term state.
Function
The concept function can conveniently
be used. Even the word “function” is more comprehensive. He also prefers role
to office. In this way Almond has made strenuous efforts to acquaint his
readers with the new concepts and he has expressed his intention of doing this.
Elaborating his intention Almond (cited by www.politicalsciencenotes.com) has
said: “the search for new concepts is not an ad hoc matter. It reflects an
underlying drift towards a new and coherent way of thinking about and studying
politics that is implied in such slogans as behavioural approach…. We are not
simply adding terms to an old vocabulary, but rather are in the process of developing
or adapting a new one”.
Almond claims that the new terms do
not constitute a corpus of conceptual vocabulary but they indicate a new
dimension of the nature of political science. He wants to revolutionize the
system and study of political science. Almonds’ conceptualization process has
really revolutionized the political science in general and comparative politics
in particular.
Rationale for
Structural Functionalism
In structural-functional analysis, one
determines the important structures and then attempts to trace out the
functions of these structures”. In every political system there are certain
structures and these cannot be confused with each other. So far as the
functions are concerned there is certain amount of overlapping among the function
of the structures. But this overlapping should not be over-emphasized. This is
a very common picture of every political system. The structural functionalism
enables us to have a clear conception about the role of the various structures.
This is essential at least for two purposes. One is a student of political
science will be able to compare various political systems.
The second is, the student will be
able to assess the various aspects of the political system. From the
structural-functionalism we come to know about the operational process of the
political system. In the concept structural functionalism the students must
know both the structures and the functions.
Origin of
Structural Functionalism
The
structural-functional approach is derived from earlier uses of functionalism
and systems models in anthropology, sociology, biology, and political science.
Structural functionalism became popular around 1960 when it became clear that
ways of studying U.S. and European politics were not useful in studying newly
independent countries, and that a new approach was needed.
Structural-functionalism assumes that a bounded (nation-state) system exists,
and studies structures in terms of their function(s) within the system. For
structural functionalists the question to be answered is what does a structure
(guerrilla movement, political party, election, etc.) do within the political
system (of country x)? The goal is to find out what something actually does in
a political system, as opposed to what it is supposed to do. Thus, structural
functionalists would not waste time studying constitutions in Third World
countries if they found that the constitutions [structures] had little impact
on political reality (U. Del, 1999).
As
documented by politicalsciencenotes.com, Davies and Lewis in their noted work
writes: “structural functional analysis can be said to have originated in the
biological and mechanical sciences. Within the social sciences it was first
used in anthropology and was later developed and refined as a mode of sociological
analysis, predominantly by Talcott Parsons”.
Emile
Durkheim (1858-1917) is treated as “an inheritor of a long French tradition of
social thought”. Durkheim elaborately analyzed the basic structure of society,
their various parts, different social systems and he did this in an organismic
outlook. Society, according to Durkheim, is to be viewed as an entity. There
are several parts of any society and all of them are well-connected. The parts
perform their allotted duties but the parts are not completely independent on
each other. He also viewed that the systems or the parts of the society are
quite normal divisions and the functions which they perform are also normal.
Two renowned
anthropologists Bronislaw and A. R. Radcliffe-Brown were heavily influenced by
the organicism of Durkheim. Radcliffe-Brown (1881-1955) believed that the
concept of function applied to human society is based on an analogy between
social life and organic life.
Radcliffe-Brown’s
views have been summarized by Turner in the following manner:
(1) One
necessary condition for survival of a society is minimal integration of its
parts.
(2) The term
function refers to those processes that maintain this necessary integration.
(3) In each
society structural features can be shown to contribute to the maintenance of
necessary solidarity. In this way, briefly stated, Radcliffe-Brown has offered
us a picture of structural functional feature of any system especially social
system.
Bronislaw
Malinowski (1884-1947) is another sociologist who introduced structural
functionalism to the study of society. He has divided the society into three
system levels: the biological, the social-structural and symbolic. Turner
writes: “At each of these levels one can discern basic needs or survival
requisites that must be met if biological health, social structural integrity
and cultural unity are to exist. These system levels constitute a hierarchy
with biological systems at bottom. He stressed that the way in which needs are
met in one system level sets constraints on how they are met at the next level
in the hierarchy”.
Talcott
Parsons:
The
structural functionalism has also been elaborated by Talcott Parsons who “was
most probably the most dominant theorist of his time. It is unlikely that any
one theoretical approach will so dominate sociological theory again”. This
assessment of Turner about Parsons is not without any reason. In the fields of
sociology and structural functionalism the contribution of Parsons is still
gratefully remembered by the students of sociology and political science.
Parsons has pointed out four important prerequisites of structural
functionalism and these can be treated as the main functions of structural
functionalism.
These are
adaptation, goal attainment, integration and latency. Adaptation involves the
problem of securing from the environment sufficient facilities and then
distributing these facilities throughout the system. Goal attainment denotes
the problems of establishing priorities among system goals and mobilizing
system resources for their attainment. Integration refers to the problem of
coordinating and maintaining viable interrelationships among system units.
Latency
implies two related problems—one is pattern maintenance and the other is
tension management. There are many actors in the social system and how they
play their role that requires to be ascertained. In every system there arises
tension and conflict and all these should be managed. In any system there are
many subsystems and all these functions are performed by them.
Characteristics of Political System:
Mention has been made that Almond’s
analysis has built-up a huge structure of general systems theory and he has
thrown light on the subject from different angle. According to Almond all the
political systems have in common four main characteristics. He has also
admitted that there may be minor variations in some of the characteristics but
the main theme remains unaltered.
The characteristics are:
(1) There are simple and complex
political systems in different parts of the globe. The industrialized matured
societies of the West have complex political structures whereas the developing
countries of the Third World have simple structures. Almond’s point is that all
the political systems have political structures.
Even the simplest political systems
have political structures which may be compared with the developed structures
of the West. Almond has admitted that the comparison between two types of
structures may not be completely relevant but they can be compared. Moreover, the
emergence of the new state systems in the Third World encouraged Almond to
devise a technique that will be helpful for comparison. Here lies the credit of
Almond.
2. There may be differences between
the systems and structures but all the systems perform almost same political
functions. For the purpose of comparative analysis the frequency of the
performance can be studied.
3. The political structures may be
specialized, non-specialized or may be primitive. But thorough study of the
various aspects has revealed that the structures are multifunctional which
means that though the functions of a particular structure have been
specifically stated, in practice the structure performs other functions.
For example, the chief function of the
court is to adjudicate, but in practice it performs legislative functions. In
the same way the legislative wing of the government has been found to act like
a court of law. In liberal democracies the pressure groups participate in the
legislative function. In both democratic and authoritarian systems the multifunctional
character of structure is found.
4. All political systems are mixed
systems in the cultural sense. The culture of any political system is the
mixture of modern and traditional cultures. From the study of the cultures of
various political systems Almond has found that there cannot exist any
all-modern and all-primitive cultures. Even the cultures of primitive political
systems are partially molded by the developed cultures of the West.
Of course there may be difference of
predominance of any particular culture on the cultural aspects of another
system. For example, during the British rule Indian society and culture were
influenced by British culture. But at the same time the British culture and
society could not keep itself away from Indian culture.
However, the percentage of mixture may
be different in both cases. There are also stages in the process of
assimilation. These are the four main characteristics of all the political
systems and by finding out the characteristics Almond has made attempt to
generalize the political systems.
Functions of Political Systems:
The chief objective of Almond was to
make a comparative study of the major political systems and for that purpose
what he has done ultimately became the foundation of general systems
theory/analysis. For the purposes of comparison Gabriel Almond has divided the
functions of political system into two broad categories—Input functions and
output functions.
Easton and Almond have borrowed the
terms—input and output from economics for the purpose of analyzing the
functions and behaviour of political systems and their different structures.
This approach helps comparison considerably.
The input functions are:
1. Political socialization and
recruitment.
2. Interest articulation
3. Interest aggregation
4. Political communication.
The output functions are:
1. Rule making
2. Rule adjudication
3. Rule application.
If we focus our attention to these two
types of functions performed by political systems we shall find that the input
functions are generally done by the nongovernmental organizations and agencies
which include pressure groups, interest groups, parties, educational
institutions. The government has very little part to play in the input
functions.
While performing the input functions
the agencies have little scope to violate the common law and existing legal and
constitutional structure. But if the agencies have in mind the idea of changing
the existing structure, they can do otherwise.
Input Functions:
(i) Political Socialization and
Recruitment:
The first input function of the
political system is political socialization and recruitment. One expert of
political socialization calls it “a continuous learning process involving both
emotional learning and manifest political indoctrination”. Through the process
of political socialization people gradually adjust themselves with the
political system. “Political system” defines Almond “is the process of
induction into the political culture. Its end product is a set of
attitudes—cognitions, value standards and feelings —towards the political
system, its various roles and role incumbents”.
In developed political systems of the
West, schools, churches, political parties and other voluntary organizations
generally play the leading role in socializing the people. The socialization
process is not very much prominent in the Third World states but the very
existence can never be denied. As society gradually develops the process of
socialization also proceeds.
From the study of political system
Almond has come to know that socialization may be latent and manifest. When the
transmission of values, ideas, thoughts, feelings etc. takes place in a direct
way, it may be called manifest socialization. Latent political socialization does
not take place directly.
The values, thoughts, ideas, feelings
of one system are influenced by those of other systems. Both latent and
manifest socialization work simultaneously in any political system and both are
important. In order to revolutionize the people’s thought and outlook the
latent method is resorted to.
When the boundaries of political
systems are not clearly demarcated the differences among the different cultures
are found to be insignificant. In that situation political socialization fails
to assume a clear shape. But when the boundaries are well-settled the impact of
one culture falls upon the culture of another political system and vice versa.
In this way the political socialization advances.
Defining political recruitment Almond
says: “Political recruitment function takes up where the general political
socialization function leaves off. It recruits members of the society out of
particular subcultures, religious communities, statuses, classes, ethnic
communities and the-like and inducts them into specialized roles of the
political system, trains them in appropriate skills, provides them with
political cognitive maps, values, expectations and affects”.
The definition is self-explanatory.
Here also the non-governmental organizations such as political parties, groups
etc. recruit persons and train them to perform specific functions. The purpose
of political recruitment is to train the general public to make them suitable
for the political system.
The objective of both political
socialization and recruitment is to ensure the stability of the political
system. If any external force threatens the political system the citizens, on
their part, can resist it and socialization makes it possible. Plato suggested
a scheme of education for the ideal state whose purpose was to train the
citizens to make them suitable for ideal state. It is also socialization.
(ii) Interest Articulation:
The second important input function of
political systems is interest articulation. In every political system,
specifically pluralist political system, citizens claim the fulfilment of their
demands or materialization of interests. But there is a big gap between the
raising of demands and their realization. Demands must be placed before the
competent authority in an articulated form and they must pass through proper
channel. So we find that both the articulation of demands and their placement
are vital. From the analysis of Almond we come to know that the interest
articulation is a complicated and broad concept. Many agencies are involved in
this function.
Almond has pointed out four of such
agencies:
(1) Institutional interest groups.
(2) Non- associational interest
groups,
(3) Anomic interest groups and
(4) Associational interest groups.
Institutional interest groups generally
consist of legislatures, executives, bureaucracies etc. These institutional
interest groups articulate interests (of their own) in various ways and they
exert pressure upon the authority for the realization of interests.
The institutional interest group is a
formally organized group and consists of professional persons. Particularly the
bureaucracy in various ways creates pressure upon the authority for the
fulfilment of their demands and the authority is forced to act accordingly.
There are non-associational interest
groups. People form associations or groups out of their sociable character. Man
is by nature a social animal. But non-associational interest groups are formed
on the basis of different grounds. Such groups are formed by persons of the
same religious, ethnic or family, community. Affinity develops among the people
of the same religion, ethnic group, or kinship.
The members of the non-associational
groups complain about their non-delegation to the legislature, or the
non-fulfilment of their legitimate demands. The presence of non-associational
interest groups is very common in developing societies because of the great
attachment of people to religion, kinship, caste etc.
It has been found that these groups or
subgroups fight together against the authority and on political consideration
the authority of the political system is forced to comply with their demands.
In almost all political systems riots
or militant demonstrations frequently erupt and these are led by men who want
to snatch away few privileges from the political system. These groups are
called anomic interest group. These groups have no permanent structure or
organizations. On certain important political or social or economic issues they
spontaneously form agitation or lead demonstrations.
Emphasizing their role Almond says
that the anomic groups besides articulating interests also perform adjudication
functions, rule application function such as to free the prisoners and
communication function which means communicating the news to various anomic
interest groups.
Finally we shall deal with
associational groups. Such groups are formed by the trade unions, businessmen,
industrialists or professional groups and persons. The articulation of interest
by such groups is quite prominent in all political systems. Trade unions create
pressure upon the industries or authority in support of their demands and if
necessary launch agitation.
This form of technique to articulate
interest is not only common but also very effective. In democratic countries
the right to form association and through it to process is an important right
and workers and professional groups taking this opportunity agitate for
realization of demands.
In the opinion of Almond: “The
performance of the interest articulation function may be manifest or latent,
specific or diffuse, general or particular, instrumental or affective in
style”.
Sometimes the groups or agitators
place specific demands before the authority such as revision of pay scale or
lessening of working hour etc. This is called manifest interest articulation.
If the groups demand in indirect or ambiguous ways and do not demand specific
solution and do not place clear formulations it may be called latent interest
articulation.
The failure of the political system
forces the people to demand that the present political system should be
changed. Capitalism is to be replaced by socialism. The demands may be of
general type such as poor people should be given more financial relief and rich
people ought to be taxed more. In all these forms, interest articulation takes
place.
(iii) Interest Aggregation:
Interest aggregation is the third
function of the political system. In our analysis of the second function we
have noted that various organizations, groups and agencies as well as political
parties raise demands and grievances in an articulated form. Now the problem is
mere placing of demands or problems is not sufficient for their translation
into fruitful policies. For that reason the issue of interest aggregation
arises.
Various demands and claims are to be
aggregated into a consolidated form and after that the political system takes
action. “Aggregation may be accomplished by means of the formulation of general
policies in which interests are combined, accommodated or otherwise taken
account of or by means of recruitment of political personnel, more or less
committed to a particular pattern of policy”.
The political system cannot take
separate steps or adopt measures for each set of demands and claims. Naturally
a general policy is formulated which covers all demands and claims. Almond’s
specification of interest articulation and interest aggregation does not always
work in all systems. In developed political systems these two are clearly
demarcated but not in less developed systems.
In democratic countries the process of
interest articulation and interest aggregation are different because the
voluntary organizations demand to the government on behalf of the common people
and these are passed through different channels to the authority. But in
authoritarian system of administration or in tribal society both the functions
are performed by same person.
(iv) Political Communication
Function:
So far we have noted the three
different functions of political system—political socialization, interest
articulation and interest aggregation. These three functions are performed by
means of political communication. All sorts of interests are articulated
through communication and, again, they are aggregated by means of
communication. Naturally, without communication the political system will not
be in a position to discharge any function.
In every political system there must
exist a network of elaborate communication system and it must have enough
autonomy to work independently. We can treat it as an important precondition
and it is essential for successful functioning of the political system. All the
organizations must have freedom to articulate interests, these, after being
aggregated, must be communicated to the relevant authority.
Since in authoritarian systems there
is no elaborate and effective network of political communication a political
system is generally characterized by the political communication function. “Thus
it is essential in characterizing a political system to analyze the performance
of the communication function. Just because of the fact that all the political
functions are performed by means of communications, political communication is
the crucial boundary-maintenance function.” In one area or subsystem claims are
made and it is transmitted to another subsystem through communication.
The success of the input functions of
the political system to a large extent, depends upon the efficient and
independent network of communication. But is unfortunate that such a network is
not always available in all systems. Governments are inclined to control
communication.
Output Functions:
Output functions of political system
include—rule making, rule application and rule adjudication. Gabriel Almond and
many others have made thorough study about the output functions of various
political systems and he has concluded that the output functions or the
governmental functions are not uniform in all political systems.
In liberal democracies such as United
States, Britain, France, Canada etc. the governmental functions bear striking
similarities. But in the newly independent states of the Third World these
functions assume different nature. This is mainly due to the nature of their
political systems.
Edward Shills in the Political
Development of the New States has divided the new states into the following
categories:
1. One category is political
democracy. In political democracies legislature, executive and judiciary are
comparatively autonomous and their functions are different. The parties and
groups also enjoy sufficient freedom in discharge of their functions.
2. There are tutelary democracies in
some countries. The characteristic feature of such democracies is there is the
combination of the formal forms of democracy and the structural forms of
democracy. Elites have gained ascendancy over other groups and classes. In such
democracies the legislature and judiciary are not allowed to enjoy full
autonomy and authority. In fact, power is concentrated in the executive and
bureaucracy. Executive and the bureaucracy are controlled by elites. The formal
structure is maintained.
3. Modernizing oligarchies are
characterized by powerful bureaucracy. Also, army has a tremendous influence in
the administration of state. Top-ranking army officers and bureaucrats control
the administration. In such types of political systems emphasis on economic
development is laid.
4. Totalitarian oligarchic systems are
found in some countries. The entire state administration is controlled by
ruling elite, top bureaucrats, party bosses and leaders. ‘Common people or the
rank and file of the party has no say in the policy formulation and
implementation. It has been maintained that is former Soviet Union and other
communist states totalitarian oligarchy existed.
5. There is, finally, traditional
oligarchy. Hereditary or dynastic monarchy falls in this category. Relatives
and henchmen of monarchy are generally recruited to the posts of top
bureaucracy. In fact, these persons fully control the state administration in
the name of the king. The structures of government in ancient India and
European countries belonged to this category. Ordinary people had no access to
power and authority. The priests and relatives of king enjoyed power.
The common forms of political system
found in the Third World states are tutelary democracy, modernizing oligarchy
and traditional oligarchy. The three governmental functions are not clearly
defined which exists in political democracies. Such democratic systems prevail
in Japan, Israel, and Turkey etc.
Adaptation and Change:
The core idea of Almond’s structural
functionalism is how the structures of the political system function and how
(through the functions and other ways) adjusts with other systems as well as
with the environment surrounding it. This, like Easton’s analysis, lays the
foundation of general system analysis.
It has been held by Almond and many
others that behind the building up of a general system there is the very
crucial role of adaptation and change. The two, of course, cannot be
effectively separated. If the political system adjusts (or adapts) itself with
the new challenges emanating from the environment, then that means that the political
system has succeeded in adapting with the outer conditions which we call the
environment.
Again, change travels with the
adjustment or adaptation. Adaptation means make suitable for a new use or
purpose. When a political system is faced with new circumstances, it cannot
outright neglect or reject them. So it tries to accommodate itself with the new
situation. Moreover, in a democratic set up, it is not an easy task to neglect
the new situation because the citizens might have support or weakness for
these.
Naturally, the political system will
gradually adjust itself with the challenges. This adaptation or adjustment
brings about change in the political system. The change is inevitable because
in an open system the political system cannot keep itself aloof from other
systems. Thus adaptation and change are linked.
Thus, Almond’s theory of general
system is also a theory of political change. Because of the influence of outer
factors the political system is impelled to adapt itself with them and this
finally causes change. This change may be qualitative or quantitative. But the
fact remains that in both Easton’s and Almond’s general systems analysis there
is both adaptation and change.
Almond’s theory of political change
denotes: “those transactions between political system and its environment that
affect changes in general system performance”. The traditional political
scientists did not deal with the concept of political change so elaborately.
Their main concern was the functions of institutions.
Almond calls this adaptation or
adjustment conversion process. The demands or claims coming from other systems
or from the environment do not remain unattended. Today or tomorrow they are
converted into decisions or policies. The demands, claims and supports for
these are called inputs and the decisions/policies are called outputs. This is
the conversion process. Inputs are converted into outputs. The conversion takes
place through feedback.
But the conversion depends upon the
capabilities of the political system. Here capabilities indicate the ability of
the political system to receive the demands and claims (which are called inputs)
and to act accordingly (which means to implement them). It is essential on the
part of the political system to proceed the work of political socialization and
political recruitment. This will help the political system to create a support
base for the existing system. “Thus” Almond asserts, “capabilities analysis is
the method by which the empirical investigation of political system is
undertaken. It links the deductive analysis with the reality”.
How does the change take place? It is
the function of political system to respond to the demands, claims and supports
and this finally leads to change.
Almond identifies three different
sources from which these originate:
(1) The elites and their associates
and affiliated groups.
(2) Numerous social groups and
organizations which are active in the society and the environment.
(3) Finally, within the political
system the demands may originate. Whatever may the sources of demands be, the
political system, for convenience, should respond. It is mainly due to the fact
that if the political system deliberately neglects the demands some sort of
political turmoil will disturb the political system. So, for the sake of
stability of political system, it is really incumbent for it to take care of
demands and to do something so that stability is not disturbed.
Almond’s system analysis also throws
light on the stability and, along with it, the balance or equilibrium. Both
Easton and Almond were concerned with the stability of the political system.
This stability largely depends on the equilibrium position or the balance
between inputs and outputs.
Explaining Almond’s views, Davies and
Lewis have made the following observation: “A political system is stable when
the flow of inputs and outputs is such that inputs are converted in a way that
does not result in any strains (emphasis added) being imposed on the systemic
capacity to respond to them) for such strains may have led the structure of the
system itself to suffer basic changes”.
Stability, equilibrium, balance etc.
are specially coined terms to denote the nature and function of political system.
Easton and Almond believed that the capitalist system possesses certain
self-regulatory mechanisms by which can defend itself. The internal system or
arrangement can combat any recalcitrant elements/forces. In order to strengthen
their stand both Easton and Almond have strenuously advocated the general
systems theory.
Evaluation
Structural functionalism elaborated
by Gabriel Almond suffers from a number of shortcomings some of which are:
1. The critics are of opinion that
Almond borrowed the chief elements and aspects of his structural functionalism
mainly from sociology and specifically from Parsons —the most noted sociologist
of the second-half of the twentieth century. The problem is the term and
concepts having abundant relevance in sociology may not have the same in
political science.
But Almond’s structural functionalism
has done it and because of this the sociological terms applied in political
science do not carry with them proper meaning and importance. The critics are
of the view that this method of analysis makes the subject cumbersome.
For example, he has used “system” and
“interactions” which have been borrowed from anthropology. But the import of
the two terms in political system is unlikely to be same and the entire
analysis appears to be confused.
2. Defining political system Almond
says that interaction is to be found in all independent societies that is in
order to be a system there shall be interactions among various parts or
subsystems of independent societies. Now critics say that what is exactly meant
by “independent” is not clear from Almond’s definition. Are the societies free
from foreign domination? If it so means then should we say that a system does
not exist in societies controlled by foreign power? We cannot form a definite
reply.
Hence the ambiguity overcasts the
definition of Almond. It would have been better if he had clarified his stand.
It is however opined that Almond uses the term independent in general sense. A
society will be called independent if it enjoys power to take decision.
3. Some critics are of the view that
he has thrown very little light on the structural aspects of political systems.
He has given them new nomenclatures. He calls state a political system,
institutions, structures etc. But by giving new names he has not been able to
change the character and functions of political system/state.
The units remain the same and there do
not occur changes in functions, behaviour etc. We can say that the structural
functionalism of Almond can, at best, be called a new attempt to view
politics/states. It can be called a model and not more than that.
4. Numerous factors operate behind the
interaction among the system. But it is unfortunate that he has not drawn our
attention to these factors. We believe that for a comprehensive analysis and
for the purpose of general systems theory all these are to be brought into
active consideration. Otherwise, the general systems theory will remain
incomplete.
5. The gravest charge against Almond
is he has, in a clandestine and covert way, supported the existing structure of
the capitalist system. He wants to establish that the capitalist system,
through its management and self-regulatory mechanism, can defend itself. It is
a better system in comparison with other systems.
6. In spite of all these criticisms
one might say that Almond’s model (structural functionalism) is the most
suitable one for comparative analyses and we come to know from his writings
that he modelled this aiming at a comparative analysis. We think that his
purpose has been served. With the help of structural functionalism we can
easily compare the different political systems. Not only this, his model will
help us compare the various systems systematically and methodologically.
7. In this age of globalization his
model has a clear and overriding importance. Because of the tremendous impact
of globalization the world has become too small. Almost all the countries of
this world have come closer and no state can claim that it is outside the
influence of other states. Naturally, the influence of one or more states is
bound to fall on the activities and systems of other states.
In the light of this we can say that
Almond’s theory has special significance. The political, cultural, economic and
other elements, today, can very easily create impact upon different states.
This influence is never a one-way traffic. The result is that the structural
functionalism of Almond has received new dimensions in this age of globalization.
Particularly the capitalist states of the West are, in different ways,
influencing and dominating the states of the Third World. One must take note of
it.
8. There is no denying the fact that
the General Systems Theory has opened the new vistas of comparative politics.
Though Aristotle is considered by many as the originator of comparative
politics, the credit of expanding its base and periphery should go to Almond.
To do justice to Almond, one must say that it is Almond who has modernized and
popularized the concept of comparative politics.
9. It is true that the main purpose of
Almond and his supporters was to corner the advance of Marxism. But
simultaneously it is also true that he has strengthened the foundation of
liberalism.
10. Some critics object to the use of
terms borrowed from other disciplines but only this method has enhanced the
acceptability and reliability of political science.
References
Hammond, R., Cheney, P, Pearsey, R. (2015) Introduction to Sociology Textbook.
Retrieved April 13, 2016 from http://www.freesociologybooks.com
Mahner, M.
and Mario, B. (2001). Function and Functionalism: A Synthetic Perspective. Philosophy of Science 68(1):75-94.
Nitisha (2014) Almond’s Model:
Structural Functionalism. Retrieved April 14, 2016 from http://www.politicalsciencenotes.com/
Scott, L. (n.d.) On Structural
Functionalism. Retrieved April 14, 2016 from http://www.scottlondon.com/articles/almond.html
Spencer,
J. (2000). British Social Anthropology: A Retrospective. Annual Review of Anthropology 29:1-24.
Silverman,
S. (2004). Totems and Teachers,
Perspectives on the History of Anthropology. 2nd edition. New
York: Columbia University Press.
University of Delaware (1999) POSC311: Politics of Developing Nations. Retrieved April 13, 2016
from http://udel.edu/~jdeiner/strufunc.html
www.politicalsciencenotes.com
