Manifest and Latent Funtions

Objective Consequences and Subjective Dispositions

According to Merton , the function of a social institutions or a cultural practices can be understood at two levels[1].

Firstly, the participant ( internal, subjective)

Secondly, the observer ( outside , objective)

For exapmle, someone is about to get married and you ask her why is she getting herself into it. What is its function? It is quite possible that she, the participant, may tell you that he is marrying for the fulfilment of her human needs. But, then, Merton would say that the participant is confusing her own subjective motives with the real, objective function of marriage. The objective function of marriage or family is not love but the socialisation of the child. Thus, says Merton, the concept of function involves the standpoint of the observer, not necessarily that of the participant.

In other words, social function refers to observable objective consequences, not subjective dispositions. A school child may think that he goes to school because he finds his friends there; but the function of school is something else; it is to add to and aid in the growth of knowledge that the society needs in order to sustain itself.

In other words, in order to see the function of a social institution or a cultural practice, it is not sufficient for the social scientist to remain contented with the subjective dispositions or the motives an actor attaches to it. Instead, the social scientist has to see the objective consequences: how really does the institution contribute to the cohesiveness of the society.

Merton in his functional analysis sees both the type of functions in terms of manifest and latent. Be it a manifest function or a latent function, it is the objective, observed consequence which makes for the adaptation or adjustment of a given system. Whereas the participants are aware of the manifest function, they are not aware of the latent function. In other words, the latent function is neither intended nor recognized.

This is because the participants can see what is immediately visible; they cannot always see the deeper or latent meaning of what they do. But for social scientists, the task is to go beyond and common sense perception of the participants and see the latent consequences of social practices.

Think of Emile Durkheim’s famous analysis of the social functions of punishment. Its immediate, manifest function is obvious. Everyone knows it. It reminds the criminal that society would not permit his deviance. But, then, it has a latent function too, which is not generally recognized. The latent function of punishment. Durkheim would argue, is not what happens to the criminal; instead, it is deeper; it intensifies society’s faith in its collective conscience; the punishment of the criminal is an occasion that reminds the society of its force and its collective morals.

According to Cohn Campbell , there are at least four different meanings which Merton gives to the manifest-latent distinction.

There is, first of all, that presented in the explicit formulation, i.e. the contrast between conscious intention and actual consequence. Merton’s discussion of the Hopi is an example of this type of interpretation. The Hopi ceremonials are designed to produce abundant rainfall. But it is not as if rain really falls on account of the ceremonials performed by the Hopis. Rainfall does not depend on ceremonials. This may tempt you to conclude that the Hopi ceremonials reflect nothing except an irrational superstitious belief of the primitive folk. Well, the ceremonials do not produce rainfall. But the ceremonials enable the scattered members of the group to assemble together and engage in a common activity. This reinforces their group identity and solidarity which is no mean achievement. This is the latent function of the ceremony.

Secondly, Merton himself comes to use the dichotomy to refer to the commonsense knowledge and sociological understanding. In his discussion of conspicuous consumption, the idea is conveyed by Merton. Merton has discussed in detail, from Veblen’s famous book:(1899) Theory of the Leisure Class in which the author sought to examine the latent function of the pattern of conspicuous consumption. Veblen says that people buy new models of car or TV sets not solely because they want transportation facilities or they want to know about the world, but also because it helps them to reaffirm their social status. In other words, buying costly goods serves the latent function of reaffirming one’s social status. It is in this sense, says Merton, that sociologists help us to increase our knowledge about the world, the consequences of our beliefs, cultural practices, life-styles, etc.

Thirdly, there is the usage which equates manifest with the formal and official aims of organizations and latent with the purposes fulfilled by unofficial or illegal ones. In the discussion of the “political machines” in America , the organizational aspect is highlighted. Merton gives a revealing example from the American society. The ‘immoral’ political machine, says Merton, serves what the official democracy fails to accomplish. In the impersonal American democracy the voters are regarded as amorphous, undifferentiated masses. But the political machine with its keen sociological awareness regards the voter as a person living in a specific neighborhoods with specific personal wants. In other words, in an impersonal society, the political machine fulfils the important social function of humanizing and personalizing the manner of assistance to those in need.The message Merton wants to convey is clear. It is futile to be critical of an ‘immoral’ practice unless one can think of a ‘moral’ alternative that can take its place in functional terms, A moral critique on its own is simply insufficient.

Finally, there is the suggestion that manifest and latent relate to different levels of understanding, with the former equal to apparent or surface meaning while the latter concerns the deeper or underlying reality of the phenomenon in question.  This is present throughout his studies.

Function, Dysfunction and eufunction

It is now clear that functions are those observed consequences which make for the adaptation or adjustment of a given system. But, then not everything is functional. Not everything helps to make for the adaptation of a system. So Merton uses another concept called dysfunction. Dysfunctions, according to Merton, are those observed consequences which lesson the adaptation or adjustment of the system.

For example, the institution of caste in modern Indian society, far from having a function, has dysfunctions. Instead of intensifying the democratic ideal, caste tends to lessen the degree of democratisation