The American sociologist Robert King Merton identified four. Robert King Merton: biography. "Norms of Science" and other concepts
The outstanding modern American sociologist Robert Merton (1910-2003) was already recognized as a classic of sociological science during his lifetime. In his very extensive scientific heritage, two theoretical constructions are most significant for the development of modern sociology: the theory of the “middle level” and the “neofunctional theory”, which has become an alternative paradigm of structural functionalism.
The theory of the "middle level". Merton's concept of "the theory of the middle level" became an effective methodological innovation that made it possible to largely overcome the crisis situation that arose in sociological science by the middle of the 20th century. The essence of this crisis was to widen the gap between the two levels sociological knowledge: general theoretical (fundamental) sociology and empirical sociology. The empirical level of sociology is associated with the collection of numerous facts, information, opinions of members of social groups, personal data, their subsequent processing, as well as the generalization and formulation of primary conclusions regarding specific phenomena of social life. This gap meant that the most important basic principle of sociology, the unity of general sociological theory and empirical research, was called into question (as already stated by O. Comte). Indeed, general theorizing, not supported by knowledge of specific facts of social reality, becomes meaningless, devoid of direct practical significance. At the same time, empirical studies that are not bound by general theoretical conclusions cannot explain the nature of most social phenomena. In this context, the theory formulated by Merton offered an alternative methodology of sociological knowledge, which became a successful way of accumulation and knowledge in sociology.
The very concept of “theories of the middle range” is used by Merton in two senses: 1) theories with a limited, “middle” range of application; and 2) theories of the average level of generalization, occupying an intermediate position between concrete empirical regularities and highly abstract intellectual schemes. Moreover, the second meaning is the main one for Merton. According to Merton, theories of the middle range are theories that are in the intermediate space between the particular, but also necessary working hypotheses that arise in many in the course of everyday research, and all-encompassing systematic attempts to create a unified theory that will explain all observable types. social behavior, social organizations and social change. Thus, limited in terms of the level of generalization and empirically confirmed "theories of the middle level" make it possible to combine, consolidate individual working hypotheses, and, in turn, are themselves subject to integration into larger theoretical systems.
According to Merton, it is the "theories of the middle level", as empirically confirmed hypotheses, that form the basis, the subject of sociological science. Theories of the middle level can be both the result of a generalization of a large group of social facts, and a means of concretizing individual areas of sociology. The cognitive effectiveness of the new methodology was quite convincingly demonstrated by the American sociologist himself. Thus, Merton actively developed the sociology of deviant behavior, the sociology of bureaucracy, the sociology of science, the sociology of medicine, the sociology of reference groups, the sociology of mass communications, the sociology of role conflict, the sociology of aggression, and other similar theories. At present, sociologists have developed about 50 "theories of the middle level" in line with Merton's methodology. These theories encompass more and more new spaces of social reality, eventually creating a holistic, empirically confirmed, i.e. actually scientific, idea of society as a complex structural and functional system.
neofunctional theory. Merton developed a new paradigm (model) of structural-functional analysis in sociology. The formulation of new approaches was carried out as a revision of the classical functional theory(represented primarily by E. Durkheim and T. Parsons), which by the middle of the 20th century had in fact largely exhausted its cognitive potential and was experiencing a serious methodological crisis. In fact, Merton gave a second life to the oldest sociological school, adapting its fundamental principles to modern social conditions and the state of science.
Building an updated concept of structural-functional analysis, Merton subjected to a thorough criticism of the three main postulates (hypotheses) of the classical versions of functionalism (structural functionalism).
The first postulate criticized by Merton is the idea of the functional unity of society, assuming complete functional coherence and system-integrative orientation of all socio-cultural models of society and individual practices. We are talking about the fact that any part of the social system is functional for the entire system. This thesis means that there is a “pre-established harmony” between the goals of a particular actor, the objective consequences of his actions and the needs for the survival of the social system (society).
Merton considered the theoretical assumption about high degree integration of modern social systems. This thesis can be basically true only in relation to traditional, especially early, pre-literate societies. Modern, complex, highly differentiated societies cannot be regarded as absolutely coherently functioning and fully integrated social systems. The idea of functional unity leads, according to Merton, to ignoring the complexity of the results and the ambiguity of the consequences of the interaction of different sociocultural structures for different social groups and individual members of society. Therefore, it is necessary to abandon the identification of the intentions and motives of social behavior and its objective consequences. This implies the need to recognize, along with the explicit functions of social structures, their latent (hidden, implicit) functions. Explicit function - it is an objective consequence of an action, caused intentionally and recognized as such by acting subjects. An explicit function presupposes the coincidence of internal semantic motivation with the objective consequences of social behavior. According to Merton, an explicit function can be defined as an objective consequence of the action of a social structure, caused intentionally, openly recognized by the community and actors and contributing to the self-regulation of the social system, its adaptation to the environment. Latent function - these are the objective consequences that were not included in the intentions of the actors and were not realized by them. It is the unintended and unrecognized (i.e., unconscious and unexpected) consequence of social action.
The second postulate of classical functionalism, rejected by Merton, is idea of the universality of functionalism, according to which any division of the social system, any social practice is considered as "useful", i.e. again as functional to maintain the integrity of the system. Merton considered this assumption not only simplistic, but often incorrect. One can always find examples of events, sociocultural practices, or consequences of behavior that not only do not correspond, but also contradict the task of integrating a social system. In functional analysis, one should proceed from the premise that a certain social structure can be in relation to society as a system functional, dysfunctional or non-functional. Function are those observable consequences of the action of the social structure that contribute to the adaptation or adaptation of this system. Dysfunction are those observable consequences of the operation of the social structure that reduce the adjustment or adaptation of the system. non-functionality are those observable consequences of the action of the social structure that are indifferent to the system under consideration. Merton proposed to replace the postulate of universality of functionalism with the criterion that existing cultural forms have a whole set of functional consequences. Merton also formulates the thesis about "functional balance". The essence of this thesis is that stable cultural forms (structures) have a “clean balance” (positive ratio) of functional consequences either for society as a whole or for subgroups that have sufficient power to maintain the integrity of these forms either through direct coercion or through indirect persuasion.
The third postulate of classical functionalism, revised by Merton, is the thesis about the functional necessity (coercion) and functional indispensability (non-alternativeness) of individual structures of society. The essence of this thesis is that any specific social institution (sociocultural subdivision) is necessary to meet the need for survival, to preserve the social order of the system. At the same time, only this specific institution can satisfy a specific social need. According to classical functionalism, each function is performed by some one social institution. At the same time, a social institution is characterized by functional unambiguity and irreplaceability (as a necessary functional part of the whole).
Merton rejected the thesis of the functional necessity and indispensability of certain structures. Instead, he came up with the idea "structural-functional equivalents" or "structural-functional alternatives". According to Merton, the same role in various systems different structures can play: just as the same element can have multiple functions, the same function can be performed by different alternative elements. At the same time, it is emphasized that, although a function can reveal itself through alternative structures, the range of such alternative possibilities is not unlimited.
Anomie. Among the most important categories of neofunctional analysis is the concept of "anomie". The classical interpretation of this phenomenon was given by E. Durkheim, who used it to characterize a special crisis state of society. Merton modified this concept, expanding the boundaries of its use to characterize generally well-ordered, prosperous societies. Merton understood by anomie a special social condition, associated with the tension of the functional activity of the social structures of society and the deviations in the behavior of individual individuals caused by it (tension). The anomic state arises as a result of the impossibility of practical coordination in the actions of individuals of socially (officially) approved goals and institutionalized (prescribed by society as obligatory) means of achieving them. Merton illustrates this position on the example of modern American society. It is well known that in American society, generally accepted values orient a person towards social self-promotion, towards “making money”, towards success. Self-discipline and intensive work are assumed as the means to achieve this goal (attitude). According to these socially (structurally) prescribed norms, people who work long and hard should succeed regardless of their starting position in life. In fact, this is not the case, since most people who are initially disadvantaged have limited prospects for growth. Those who “did not succeed” face misunderstanding and even condemnation from those around them for their inability to succeed. In such a situation, there is a great temptation to advance by any means, including illegal ones. Thus, Merton directly connects the state of anomie with the provocation of deviant (deviant) forms of behavior.
Anomie and social deviance. Developing the theories of anomie and deviant behavior, Merton developed a classification of models of social adaptation (and corresponding behavior) of an individual to cultural norms developed in society, depending on whether people recognize the dominant values (goals) and whether they follow the rules accepted in society to achieve value goods.
Merton's classification includes five behavioral patterns:
1) conformist (adaptive) model of adaptation (behavior). It assumes that the individual shares the goals of a given society and seeks to implement them by legal means recommended by society;
2) innovative adaptation model characterized by the fact that the individual accepts the goals of society, but denies the limitations existing in society in the means of achieving these goals;
3) ritualism, ritual type of adaptation and behavior characterized by following generally accepted standards in the absence of understanding by individuals of the actual goals and meanings, the social consequences of their actions;
4) Retreatism or escapism as a model of deviant adaptation manifests itself in the denial by individuals of both the goals that dominate in society and the means prescribed by society to achieve them;
5) Riot (rebellion), rebellious form of behavior how a radical form of deviant behavior is associated with a resolute and total refusal of individuals both from socially recognized goals and from the means of achieving them, while replacing both with fundamentally new goals and fundamentally new means.
Amer. sociologist, one of the leading theorists of structural functionalism in sociology. Born in Philadelphia. In 1931 he graduated from Temple University (Philadelphia). In 1934-40 he taught sociology at Harvard University; P. Sorokin, T. Parsons and J. Sarton, who worked here at that time, had a great influence on the formation of sociol. views M. In 1936 he defended his doctorate at Harvard. dis. “Science, technology and society in England of the 17th century” (published in 1938). In 1941-79 - prof. Columbia University. In 1957 he was elected president of Amer. sociological associations; in 1968 - a member of the National. US Academy of Sciences. In the 80s. - one of the leaders of the Bureau of Applied social studies in New York. Breadth scientific interests M. made creatures, contributed to the development of both a common sociol. theory, as well as many special sociological disciplines (sociology of science, sociology of professions, sociology of medicine, sociology of mass communications, study of social structure, sociology of deviant behavior, role theory, theory of reference groups). Main work M. are thematic. Sat. essays: “ social theory and social structure” (1949; 2nd ed., 1957; 3rd ed., 1968), Sociology of Science” (1973), “Sotsiol. ambivalence” (1976).
M. proposed an original paradigm of functional analysis of social phenomena. The development of this paradigm took place in the context of criticism of the functionalist models of social anthropology and the model of structural-functional analysis proposed by Parsons. After analyzing the basic procedures of functional analysis in social anthropology perv. thurs. 20 century, M. identified three main. postulate, to-rykh he explicitly or implicitly adhered to: (1) the postulate of the functional unity of the society, according to Krom, all social phenomena have a positive functional significance for the society as a whole; (2) the postulate of universal functionalism, according to Krom, without exception, all existing social phenomena perform positive, and only positive, functions in the social system; (3) a postulate of necessity, according to Krom all existing social phenomena for about-va are functionally necessary and irreplaceable. These postulates, developed on the basis of a study of relatively small, compact and poorly differentiated non-written ob-in, are not suitable for the study of complex ob-in modern. type with a developed social structure. Proceeding from this, M. proposed a new paradigm of functional analysis, which is more adequate to the tasks facing sociology.
Criticizing the first postulate, M. pointed out the need to study the consequences of a phenomenon for different structural divisions of a complexly differentiated society, as well as the need to distinguish between different forms, types and degrees of social integration, the study of which should be the subject of empirical. research, not a priori postulation. In complex about-wah modern. type different segments can be integrated in different ways. M. evaluates the second postulate as a tautology; in addition, any phenomenon may have for the system as a whole and for the individual. its segments have not only positive consequences, but also negative ones, leading to disintegration. In this regard, M. introduced the concept of dysfunction and put forward a methodology. the requirement to study both functional and dysfunctional consequences of certain social phenomena for the system as a whole and for the individual. its parts. After analyzing the postulate of necessity, M. established the need for empirical. determining the functional prerequisites for each concret. the system under study (i.e. preliminaries, conditions that are functionally necessary for the existence of the system). At the same time, the a priori assumption that every function in society must necessarily be performed by some one irreplaceable phenomenon must be abandoned, since it contradicts the facts. In this regard, the concept of functional alternatives (functional equivalents, or functional substitutes) was introduced and DOS was formulated. theorem of functional analysis: “in the same way as the same phenomenon can have numerous. functions, and the same function can be performed differently. phenomena."
An important merit of M. was the clarification of the concept of "function", as well as the distinction between explicit and latent functions. Functions were defined by M. as the objective observable consequences of the phenomenon, contributing to the adaptation and adaptation of the system. Explicit functions were understood as those objective functionally positive consequences of the phenomenon, to-rye were included in the subjective intentions of the participants in the system and were realized by them; under latent - those objective consequences, to-rye are not realized by the participants and were not part of their intentions. Of paramount importance for sociology is the study of latent functions and dysfunctions.
M. also proposed an original strategy for the development of sociology, which received in present. time of widespread recognition. The essence of this strategy is to bridge the gap between theory and empirical. research through the development of middle-level theories focused on limited areas of social phenomena (eg, economics, politics, medicine, religion, etc.). The concentration of attention on the theories of the middle level should, in terms of M., provide theory. basis of empirical research and open the way in the future to such a general theory, which would avoid speculation and have a solid empirical basis. foundation. The “middle level” strategy was polemically directed against Parsons’ “grand theory”, which M. considered premature, useless and unproductive at the current stage of social development. scientific knowledge.
In the works “Social structure and anomie” (first version - 1938) and “Social structure and anomie: continuation” (included in the collection “Social theory and social structure”), M. turned to the problem of anomie, raised by Durkheim. Anomie was considered as a state of normlessness, or normative uncertainty, resulting from such disagreements in the social structure, when its different segments make normative demands on the individual, which cannot be simultaneously satisfied. The subject of special analysis was the mismatch between culturally approved goals and institutional norms governing the choice of means to achieve them. A special case of such a mismatch is characteristic of the modern. app. about-va imbalance between the value of monetary success and institutionalized means to achieve this goal, to-rye are inadequate and ineffective. M. identified five ideal-typical reactions to anomie: 1) submission (emotional acceptance of goals and means); 2) innovation (acceptance of goals while rejecting institutionally proposed means); 3) ritualism (emotional acceptance of means while abandoning goals); 4) retreatism (emotional rejection of approved goals and means); and 5) rebellion (complete abandonment of old ends and means and an attempt to replace them with new ones). A special case of innovative adaptation to anomia, characteristic of modern. Amer. ob-va, is an "illegal device", i.e. emots. accepting the value of monetary success and choosing illegal (culturally frowned upon, but technically effective) means to achieve it, determined by the impossibility of achieving this goal by legal means. “The dominant influence of the standards of success existing in the group ... leads to the gradual displacement of legitimate, but very often ineffective attempts to achieve it and to the increasing use of illegal, but more or less effective means of an immoral and criminal nature. The demands of culture, made to a person in such a case, are incompatible with each other ... Antisocial behavior acquires, therefore, scales only when the system of cultural values exalts, in fact, above all, def. symbols of success common to the population as a whole, while the social structure of the society severely restricts or completely eliminates access to proven means of mastering these symbols for a large part of the same population. Such dysfunctional phenomena as crime, demoralization, mental. frustration, bureaucratic ritualism, etc., turn out to be essentially normal reactions to an abnormal environment.
In modern about-ve access of a person to the means of production, consumer products, symbols of prestige and success is mediated by participation in formal, rationally organized social structures (bureaucratic organizations). In Art. “Bureaucratic structure and personality” M. analyzed the dysfunctions of the bureaucratic. structure and its influence on the personality of the individual participating in it. Main dysfunction of the bureaucracy, in terms of M., is a shift in goals: the need for bureaucratic. organizations in the strict observance of discipline implies the need means emots. investments in compliance with rules and regulations, and “this same emphasis leads to the movement of feelings from the goals of the organization to the individual. details of the behavior required by the rules. Adherence to rules, initially understood as a means, turns into an end in itself; ... "instrumental value becomes an end value." Discipline, interpreted as following instructions regardless of the situation, is no longer seen as a means ... but becomes an immediate value in the life organization of the bureaucrat. The shift in goals supported by the personality structure of a bureaucrat may be in conflict with tech. the effectiveness of the organization itself. An important feature of the personality of a bureaucrat is over-conformism, resulting in conservatism, fear of the new, ritualism and technicalism. One more feature bureaucratic influence. structure on personality is the depersonalization of relations: "The personality pattern of a bureaucrat is formed around the norm of impersonality." The depersonalization of relations can have latent-dysfunctional consequences both for the bureaucratic organization itself. organizations and for the wider community in which it operates.
Numerous work M. devoted to the sociology of science. In the work “Science and Democratic. social structure” (1942) M. analyzed the ethos of the modern. science, by which he understood “an emotionally colored set of rules, regulations, customs, beliefs, values and predispositions, which are considered mandatory for a scientist.” The ethos of science consists of 4 main. institutional imperatives: 1) universalism, manifested in the subordination of questions of truth to pre-established impersonal criteria and in the requirement of an open scientific career for everyone, regardless of race, beliefs, politics, affiliation, etc.; 2) "communism", which consists in a common property
the importance of all members of the Society for the achievements of science; 3) impartiality; and 4) organized skepticism. The most favorable environment for the development of science - democracy, social structure, DOS. moral imperatives to-swarm do not contradict the ethos of science. At the same time, in a number of cases, the ethos of science is in conflict with the institutional norms of the community as a whole or otd. its segments; then the social structure impedes the development of science, and conditions arise in the society for an open “revolt against science”. Such dysfunctional relationships between science and social structure were analyzed by M. in the work “Science and social order” (1937). "Rebellion against science" can be manifested in the desire of otd. segments of society (for example, a totalitarian state) to deprive science of its autonomy by displacing the ethos of science with its institutional imperatives; in opposition to “pure science”, which ignores the objective consequences of its discoveries (such as, for example, an arms race, an ecological crisis, an increase in unemployment); in opposition to the “esotericism” of scientific provisions, which can sometimes lead to the mass dissemination of “new mysticisms” operating with scientific phraseology; in counteracting the organized skepticism of science on the part of those institutional structures whose basic values are questioned by science (eg, religions, states).
A number of works by M. - “Science, technology and society in England in the 17th century.” (1936) and several later articles - were devoted to the analysis of the interaction between Protestantism and the development of science in 17th century England. M. tested the hypothesis of M. Weber about the positive impact of the Protestant ethos on the development of science in modern times. her form. Subjected to the study of numerous documents (works of theologians, philosophers, scientists, statistical data, etc.), M. established that a number of elements of the Protestant ethos and Protestant ideology - in particular, a positive assessment of worldly activity, empiricism and the right to free research, utilitarianism, explicit doubt in authorities, the attitude to knowledge as a charitable occupation leading to the comprehension of the wisdom of the Creator - stimulated the 17th century in England. interest in scientific research and technology. professions. The basis of the influence of these religions. attitudes towards the development of science was their congeniality to the emerging scientific ethos, due to which “these two areas were well integrated and, on the whole, mutually supported each other, not only in England of the 17th century, but also in other places and at other times” .
Cit.: Social Theory and Social Structure. Glencoe (III.), 1957; The Sociology of Science. N.Y., 1973; sociological ambivalence. N.Y., 1976; The Sociology of Science: An Episodic Memoir. Carbondale, 1979; On the Shoulders of Giants. N.Y., 1985; Sociology today: problems and prospects (Merton R. et al.). M., 1965; Social structure and anomie // Sociology of crime. M., 1966; Social structure and anomie // Sociological research. 1992. No. 2-4; The Matthew effect in science. II: The accumulation of benefits and the symbolism of intellectual property // “Thesis”. T. I. Issue. 3. M., 1993; Explicit and latent functions // Amer. sociological Thought: Texts. M., 1994.
Robert King Merton (b. 1910) is one of the most prominent representatives of the structural-functional trend in modern sociology. His broad erudition, deep knowledge of the works of the classics of sociological knowledge, and his own outstanding talent as a researcher helped him defend the paradigm of functional analysis in the face of the most severe criticism that hit functionalism in the 60s and 70s. He believed and continues to believe that functionalism is a key form of theoretical judgments about society, suggesting its objective nature. And in this sense, functionalism is the main, if not the only, way of thinking suitable for the science of sociology as an independent discipline.
The concept of R. Merton was significantly influenced by the works of M. Weber, W. Thomas, E. Durkheim and T. Parsons, whose student he was. Analyzing their views, he came to the conclusion that the idea of society as an objective, structured phenomenon and its influence on the behavior of individuals leads to a significant expansion of sociological knowledge, without, of course, solving all the problems. This view generates a problematic that “I find interesting and a way of thinking about problems that I find more effective than all the others that I know,” wrote R. Merton.
From this preference follows the theme that is the leitmotif of most of his work - the theme of social structure and its influence on social action. Already in his Ph.D. organizations) affect the change in the activities and attitudes of people. From the same point of view, he considers the bureaucracy as the "ideal type" (in Weber's understanding) of social organization. Noting, following M. Weber, the most essential features of a bureaucratic organization, arguing that it is a formal, rationally organized social structure that includes clearly defined patterns of action that ideally correspond to the goals of the organization, he proceeds to analyze the personality as a product of this structural organization. He believes that the bureaucratic structure requires the formation of certain personality traits in the individual, or at least unquestioning adherence to structural requirements. The imperativeness of these requirements leads to submission to regulators without realizing the goals for which these regulators are established. And while they may; contribute to the effective functioning of the organization, they can also negatively affect this functioning, giving rise to overconformity, leading to conflicts between the bureaucrat and the client. R. Merton empirically explores the influence of social organization on personality, in order to then move on to theoretical postulation.
From the empirical orientation of the works of R. Merton, his peculiar view of sociological theory follows. He simply claims that T. Parsons' analysis is too abstract, not too detailed, and therefore not applicable in the study of social realities. The colossal possibilities inherent in it do not work due to too much abstraction from empirical phenomena and an overly cumbersome system of relations between concepts, devoid of flexibility, and, therefore, forced to “adjust” existing facts to suit itself. Therefore, R. Merton sees his task as the creation of a “middle-level theory”, which would be a kind of “connecting bridge” between empirical generalizations and abstract schemes like Parsonian.
The construction of such a “middle-level theory”, according to R. Merton, can be carried out on the basis of consistent criticism of the broadest, unjustified generalizations of previous functionalism and the introduction of new concepts that serve the purposes of organizing and interpreting empirical material, but are not “empirical generalizations”, that is not produced inductively from the available facts. The task of criticism also includes the clarification of basic concepts, since "too often one term is used to express different phenomena, just as the same phenomena are expressed by different terms."
The first provision that falls under the criticism of R. Merton is the provision on functional unity. He believes that the main condition for the existence of the previous functionalism was the assumption that all parts of the social system interact with each other quite harmoniously. Functional analysis postulated the internal connectivity of the parts of the system, in which the action of each part is functional for all the others and does not lead to contradictions and conflicts between the parts. However, such a complete functional unity, which is possible in theory, according to R. Merton, contradicts reality. What is functional for one part of the system is dysfunctional for another, and vice versa. In addition, the principle of functional unity presupposes the complete integration of society, based on the need to adapt it to the external environment, which, of course, is also unattainable in reality. Criticizing this principle, R. Merton proposes to introduce the concept of "dysfunction", which should reflect the negative consequences of the impact of one part of the system on another, as well as demonstrate the degree of integration of a particular social system.
The second unjustified generalization singled out by R. Merton follows directly from the first. He calls it the thesis of "universal functionalism". Since the interaction of the parts of the social system is "unproblematic", then all standardized social and cultural forms have positive functions, that is, all institutionalized patterns of action and behavior - due to the fact that they are institutionalized - serve the unity and integration of society, and, therefore, following these patterns necessary to maintain social unity. Hence, any existing norm is correct and reasonable, and one must obey it, and not change it. Already the first concept introduced by R. Merton - the concept of "dysfunction" - denies the possibility of such a universal functionality. Considering the second position, he comes to the conclusion that, since each pattern can be both functional and dysfunctional, it is better to talk about the need for one or another institutionalized social attitude in terms of a balance of functional and dysfunctional implications than to insist on its exceptional functionality. So everything actual norms according to R. Merton, they are functional not because they exist (institutionalized), but because their functional consequences outweigh the dysfunctional ones.
The third unjustified position of functionalism, singled out by R. Merton, is to emphasize the "perfect importance" certain functions and, accordingly, the material objects, ideas and beliefs that express them. The absolute necessity of certain functions leads to the fact that the absence of their implementation calls into question the very existence of society as a whole or any other social system. From this position, according to R. Merton, the concept of “functional prerequisites” follows, which becomes self-sufficient and sufficient, for example, in the sociological analysis of T. Parsons. The second side of this assumption is the emphasis on the importance and vital necessity of certain cultural and social forms expressing these functions. R. Merton does not deny the possibility of the existence of such functions and objects expressing them. He argues that such functions may be different for different societies and social systems. Therefore, it is necessary to empirically test and justify the introduction of each of these functions, and not to extrapolate some of them to all social systems and all historical development. To generalize this formulation of the problem, “functionally necessary conditions He proposes to introduce the concept of "functional alternatives".
R. Merton analyzes another problem often raised by opponents of functionalism. This problem lies in the vagueness of the relationship between the "conscious motives" that guide social action and the "objective consequences" of this action. He once again emphasizes that structural-functional analysis focuses primarily on the objective consequences of an action. To avoid the error of his predecessors in claiming these consequences to be the result of the conscious intentions of the participants, he introduces a distinction between "overt" and "hidden" functions. For him, “explicit functions are such objective consequences of an action aimed at adapting or adapting a system that are intentional and conscious of the participants; the latent functions will then be effects that are neither intentional nor conscious.
Thus, criticizing the previous functional analysis, R. Merton introduces amendments to it that change the most odious and unacceptable provisions of functionalism, leaving, in essence, its model unchanged. He shares the main provisions of the classics of sociology, including T. Parsons, that society is a special kind of objective reality, that the actions of individuals are rationally and consciously motivated! Social phenomena are considered by him primarily as structures that determine the behavior of people, limiting their rational choice. The concepts introduced by him: dysfunction, balance of functional and dysfunctional consequences, functional alternatives, explicit and hidden functions serve to “relieve” tensions arising from the analysis of empirical facts. At the same time, while maintaining the essential features of functionalism, R. Merton also retains the vulnerability of his constructions to criticism. The main provisions of this criticism are similar to those that we singled out in relation to the general theory of social systems by T. Parsons: the conservatism and utopianism of the view of social life; static theoretical model that does not explain social change; oversocialized concept of personality; understanding of human freedom as freedom of choice between socially structured opportunities, etc.
It may seem that R. Merton's approach revives the old reasoning in the spirit of E. Durkheim. However, his additions to functional analysis include the possibility of understanding that social structures, when differentiated, can cause social conflicts and that they simultaneously contribute both to changes in the elements of the structure and in itself. R. Merton makes an attempt to revive and justify the oldest and traditional method sociological reasoning. And perhaps he is right that every sociologist is partly a structural functionalist if he is a sociologist.
R. Merton's additions served as a good "source of viability" of the structural-functional method of theorizing, however, the criticism of functionalism due to its ignorance of the problems of social conflict turned out to be so strong and obvious that it required additional efforts.
American sociologist.
Introduced into sociological and general scientific use the concepts: "Self-Fulfilling Prophecies"; "Theories of the middle level» / Theories of the middle range; "Ethos of Science"; "Matthew effect" etc.
“For about the past four centuries, eminent scholars have warned of the possible dangers of erudition. The historical roots of this attitude lie in the rejection of the scholastic approach of the commentator and interpreter. Yes, at Galilee loud call: “... a person does not become a philosopher if he is constantly worried about what is written by others and he never looks with his own eyes at the creations of nature, trying to recognize already known truths in it and explore some of the countless ones that have yet to be discovered. So, I believe, you will never become a philosopher, but you will only be a student of other philosophers and an expert on their work.
Robert Merton, Social theory and social structure, M., "Ast", 2006, p. 55-56.
“The minimum requirements and norms of optimality adopted in a particular field of research (for example, history or sociology) should not be confused with the general system of normative rules in force in science - the scientific ethos, the concept of which was first developed in 1942. Robert K. Merton.
Merton identified four "institutional imperatives" of science: universalism, communism, selflessness, and organized skepticism. To these four imperatives, a fifth, originality, was soon added (and “communism” was replaced by “communalism” or collectivism during the Cold War), and this set of rules of science became known under the acronym CUDOS(Communalism, Universalism, Disinterestedness, Originality, Skepticism).
The idea was that science was meant to be common goal for all scientists who must work on their research for the benefit of humanity as a whole."
R. Toshtendal, Disciplines and specialists in practical professions and in research activities(c. 1850-1940), in Sat: Human Sciences: the history of disciplines, M., "Publishing House high school economy”, 2015, p. 366.
In 1968 Robert Merton wrote: “... What the printed page communicates changes in part as a result of the interaction between the deceased author and the living reader. Just as the Song of Songs is different when you read it at 17 and at 70, so is Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft Weber,"Le suicide" Durkheim or "Soziology" Simmel different when read in different times. For just as new information has the opposite effect, helping to recognize prescience and anticipation in early work, so changes in modern sociology, problems and areas of interest of sociologists allow new ideas to be found in the work that we have already read.
Robert Merton, On the history and systematics of sociological theory / Social theory and social structure. M., "Ast", 2006, p. 62.
Ideas influenced his work:
Robert King Merton
Merton, Robert King (1910-2003) - American sociologist, professor of sociology and director of the Bureau of Applied Social Research at Columbia University. Merton's main work is "Social theory and social structure" ("Social theory and social structure").
Philosophical Dictionary / ed.-comp. S. Ya. Podoprigora, A. S. Podoprigora. - Ed. 2nd, sr. - Rostov n/a: Phoenix, 2013 , from 224.
Merton Robert King (born 1910) is an American sociologist. Biography. Professor and director of the Bureau of Applied Social Research at Columbia University. Research. In his research, he relied on structural-functional analysis. He analyzed the process of formation of modern science. He substantiated the introduction of the concept of "dysfunction", which characterized the possibility of deviations from the equilibrium position of a certain social structure due to the uneven development of its elements. The author of "Merton's paradigm", according to which social deviations arise due to a mismatch of social values and the possibilities for their achievement.
Kondakov I.M. Psychology. Illustrated dictionary. // THEM. Kondakov. - 2nd ed. add. and reworked. - St. Petersburg, 2007 , With. 325.
Works. Social Theory and Social Structure. 1949; The Focused Interview. Glencoe, 1956; Social conformity, deviation and opportunity structure // American Sociological Review. 1959. V. 24, N 2, Sociology Today. Problems and Prospects. N.Y., 1960; Social structure and anomie // Sociology of crime. M., 1966; theoretical sociology. L., 1967: The Sociology of Science. Chicago, 1973.
Merton Robert King (1910–2003). Renowned American sociologist. In the early period of creativity, he was influenced by the ideas of M. Weber, especially his work “The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism”, and the views of E. Durkheim, which is justified by Merton’s research setting to overcome the empiricism of American sociology through its synthesis with the European tradition. The theme of science (as a social institution with specific value-normative regulators) is one of the cross-cutting topics of Merton, who laid the foundations of American sociology. In the second period of creativity, he develops a structural-functional theory, creates his own version of the concept, which, in contrast to the functional imperativeism of T. Parsons, is qualified as functional structuralism. He subjected structural functionalism to criticism from within, revising its main methodological guidelines and theoretical provisions. He proposed a program for creating theories of the middle level (rank). He introduced the concept of a balance of functional and dysfunctional consequences that follow from the implementation of a particular model, institutionally fixed in the social system. He created his own version of E. Durkheim's concept of social anomie. As a result of social changes in the system, there is an accumulation of dysfunctions (the problem of the permissible threshold, the transition of the normatively permissible into the pathological) and innovations (the problem of changing the dimension and reference, i.e., the mechanisms of regulation). Dysfunctions, according to Merton, are caused by the mismatch of the element, side effects and effects of structural actions, discord in the subsystem. Hence the possibility of growing anomie in the system and the growth of deviant behavior, when cultural norms (goals) begin to diverge from their institutional support (sanctioning) of the system. Therefore, deviation is any deviation from the line of conformist behavior. The development of Merton's concept was one of the most important meaningful stages in the evolution of the structural-functional method in social philosophy and sociology.
A. Akmalova, V. M. Kapitsyn, A. V. Mironov, V. K. Mokshin. Dictionary-reference book on sociology. Educational edition. 2011 .
Merton (Merton) Robert King (b. 5.7.1910, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania), American sociologist. Merton is a representative of structural-functional analysis [introduced the concept of "dysfunction", the distinction between "explicit" and "latent" (hidden) functions]. He owns the idea of the so-called theories of the middle level, which should link empirical research and the general theory of sociology.
An example of Merton's sociological analysis is his theory of anomie (a concept borrowed from Durkheim). Anomie, according to Merton, is a special moral and psychological state of individual and social consciousness, which is characterized by the decomposition of the system of "moral values" and the "vacuum of ideals." Merton considers the cause of anomie to be the contradiction between the individualistic "norms-goals" of culture prevailing in the United States (the desire for wealth, power, success, acting as attitudes and motives of the individual) and existing institutions sanctioned by the means to achieve these goals. The latter, according to Merton, practically deprive the vast majority of Americans of any opportunity to achieve their goals "by legal means." This contradiction, according to Merton, also underlies crime (the rebellion of an individualist against the laws and rules that bind him, created by institutions), apathy and disappointment in life (loss of life goals). Merton sees this contradiction not as a product of the capitalist system, but as a "universal" conflict, supposedly typical of "industrial society". In a number of works, Merton acts as a liberal-democratic critic of bureaucratic and militaristic tendencies in the United States, without, however, going beyond the boundaries of bourgeois ideology. Merton owns empirical studies of the media in the United States (radio, film, television, press), containing criticism of the latter, as well as works on the sociology of knowledge and the sociology of science.
Philosophical encyclopedic Dictionary. - M.: Soviet Encyclopedia. Ch. editors: L. F. Ilyichev, P. N. Fedoseev, S. M. Kovalev, V. G. Panov. 1983 .
Compositions: Mass persuasion, N. Y. - L., (with M. Fiske and A. Curtis); The focused interview, Glencoe, (co-author); Seience, technology and society in seventeenth century England, N. Y., 19702; Social theory and social structure, N. Y., 19682; On the. shoulders of giants, N. Y., 1965; On theoretical sociology, L., 1967; Contemporary social problems, N. Y., 1971s (with R. A. Nisbet); The sociology of science, Chi., 1973; in Russian Lane - Social structure and anomie, in the book: Sociology of Crime, M., 1966; Explicit and latent functions, in the book: Structural-functional analysis in modern. sociology, c. 1, M., 1968.
Literature: Andreeva G. M., Modern. bourgeois empirical sociology, M., 1965; Zamoshkin Yu. A., Crisis bourgeois. individualism and personality, M., 1967; The history of the bourgeois sociology first. floor. 20th century, M., 1979; The idea of social structure. Papers in honor.pf R. K. Merton, N. Y., 1975; Approaches to the study of social structure, N. Y., .
Merton Robert King (July 5, 1910, Philadelphia) is an American sociologist, one of the founders of the sociology of science and the structural-functional trend in sociology. He taught at Columbia University. From a philosophical point of view, his studies of the genesis of new European science are most important and interesting, revealing its dependence on a specific socio-political context, on the emerging scientific community, on its new values and norms, on the religious orientations that prevailed among scientists in the 17th century. Continuing and developing the approach to the study of the genesis of the new European rational thinking, begun by M. Weber, he in his famous work "Science, technology and society in England of the 17th century" (Science, Technology and Society in sevententh century England. N.Y., 1939) connected the emergence and strengthening of science with Puritan religious morality. The values of individualism, rationalism, usefulness, etc., embodied in it. served as stimulating factors for the social justification of the role of the scientist and science in society.
On the basis of this historical-sociological analysis, in subsequent works, Merton formulated the concept of the normative ethos of science. As a set of values and norms necessary for scientific activity, this ethos includes such regulators as universalism, collectivism, disinterestedness, and organized skepticism. Cognition is considered by him as an activity that corresponds to these universal norms, which remain practically unchanged throughout the history of science, stable and ensure the existence of science as such. This single value-normative structure of science, or its ethos, is expressed in a system of more specific prescriptions, prohibitions, preferences, sanctions, and rewards. The next step in his analysis of science is the description of the exchange system underlying these norms. Science as a social institution has a specific system of distribution of rewards for the implementation of institutionally prescribed roles. The social function of the scientist is to achieve new knowledge, which turns into a collective property; new results are exchanged for recognition from colleagues in the scientific community. The forms of recognition are diverse: giving the name of a scientist to a discovery - for example, Ohm's law (eponymy), honorary awards, academic titles, etc.
Since the goal of science is to obtain new, original results, priority disputes are very significant in science. He devoted special works of the 50s to the study of priority conflicts in science and simultaneous discoveries, which allowed him to reveal the ambivalence of the motives and behavior of scientists, in particular their fluctuations between the desire to assert their priority and the fear of being ethically immodest. The discovery of mutually opposite normative principles that regulate the real behavior of scientists led him to fix such forms of deviant (deviant) behavior of scientists as plagiarism, defamation of opponents, refusal to fight for recognition. Deviant behavior testifies to the absolutization of one of the ambivalent values of science as a social institution and is dysfunctional for it. In this problematic, the analysis of science intersects with its general sociological interests. He introduced into sociology the concept of dysfunction as something that does not contribute to the survival and adaptation of the system and made a distinction between explicit and latent functions. In the spirit of the basic postulates structural-functional analysis, he explored the diverse forms of deviant behavior and anomie, in which the decomposition of the system of moral values is inherent in the individual and collective consciousness. The source of anomie lies in the gap between the norms and goals of culture and the existing social institutions that provide the means to achieve these goals. The gap between them is expressed in crime, apathy and the loss of life goals.
The basic principles of Merton's sociological concept became in the 60–70s the core of research by such sociologists as B. Barber, N. Storer, W. Hagström, D. Kaplan, D. Crane and others. in the 80s, both in the USA and in Europe, criticism of Merton's concept began and alternative approaches were formed. Both his historical and scientific studies of the genesis of science are criticized for a narrow national interpretation of the process of the emergence of science, linking it only with Great Britain, for an excessively rigid connection between science and Puritan morality, as well as general sociological ideas.
A.P. Ogurtsov
New Philosophical Encyclopedia. In four volumes. / Institute of Philosophy RAS. Scientific ed. advice: V.S. Stepin, A.A. Huseynov, G.Yu. Semigin. M., Thought, 2010 , vol. II, E - M, p. 536-537.
Read further:
Historical Persons of the United States (Biographical Index).
Philosophers, lovers of wisdom (biographical index).
Compositions:
Social structure and anomie. - In the book: Sociology of Crime. M, 1966;
Explicit and latent functions. - In the book: Structural-functional analysis in modern sociology, vol. 1. M., 1968;
On Theoretical Sociology. L., 1967;
The Sociology of Science. Chi., 1973.
Literature:
History of bourgeois sociology of the first half. 20th century M., 1979;
The idea of social structure. Papers in honor of R. Merton. N.Y., 1975.
