The theoretical sociology of Robert K. Merton is best conceptualized as a form of neofunctionalism developed in response to the criticisms often leveled at is logical base. However, this effort leaves many substantive points untouched, while several of its reform raise new questions.

To begin, Merton’s work may be an attempt to reconcile the irreconcilable. For example, the effort to accommodate change occurs in a theoretical matrix primarily concerned with adjustment and order. This means that such theory can conceive of change only in the limited sense of tempering or eliminating certain dysfunctional parts of the whole, a process that leaves the overall societal system intact. It is clear that Merton’s revision of functionalism does not address change at the societal or institutional level. His focus was on adjustments that are consistent with the existing nature of the social system. Thus the underlying dilemma of functionalist (as well as organist and systems) theory remains untouched. In creating a portrait of order, societal and cultural patterns emerge as systems of mutually reinforcing elements. Substantive social change, specifically in the form of new institutions, is simply unexplained. It can only represent, as it did in Merton’s early sociology, a process pushed by those trapped in deviant roles.

There are other examples of the union of opposites. Merton sought to soften the Durkheimian image of the social actor as a passive respondent to impersonal and external forces. And he also acknowledged, as we have seen, the troublesome ambiguities of social life. However, these are qualifications of functionalism, not basic departures from its cardinal premises. Merton has not succeeded in freeing the actor from the subjugation of society. Nor have his concessions to societal ambivalence altered an emphasis on a well-integrated (if not perfectly integrated) normative order.

We should also recall that theoretical systems are, by definition, given to explanation. Merton’s reformulation of functionalism has rendered it a form of analysis. Whether this is a blessing or a curse depends upon one’s assumptions about sociology. As a system of explanation, functionalism seeks to answer the "why" of existing patterns by showing their purposes as well as their necessary consequences of the system as a whole. However, Merton’s reformulations (including the concept of dysfunction) encourage us to analyze the consequences of social practices while selectively rejecting their necessity or positive value. And this introduces an important problem. Traditional functionalists do have an answer, albeit a recurring one, for why a social or cultural phenomenon exists: It is necessary for the whole; it contributes to the adaptation of society. Merton’s logic, however, cannot account for why a dysfunctional element exists and still remain functionalist logic.

Finally, whatever the intentions or beliefs of its makers, functionalism lends itself to a conservative ideology. This is because the issues of conflict, inequality, state coercion, and other sources of disharmony and change simply do not fit the logic of this theory. Through purging functionalism of those premises that have drawn critical fire, Merton’s efforts may have created a more perfect conservatism. In the final (functionalist) analysis, he has cast society as a system that adapts and survives irrespective of some mistakes, normative ambiguity, and human volition.

Here the criticisms of functionalist thought are blunted in part through the forging of a conceptual elasticity. Functions become dysfunctions, the positive becomes negative, and society survives and adapts through trade-offs. By such means, social systems of whatever range become less rigid, more able to adapt while remaining the same.

Critique Of Parsons And Merton

Parsons and Merton are considered to be the two most outstanding American sociologists who have let a lasting mark on our understanding of concepts, theories and methods of sociology. They have given an insight, through their contributions, into the mainstream concerns of American sociology during the decades 1940s to 1960s. Though Parsons and Merton were contemporaries and shared many common concerns in sociology, they were drawn into this discipline from different traditions, and backgrounds. Their view, too, on the role and relevance of sociology in contemporary world were quite divergent.

The commonalities and differences in the contributions of the two sociologists can be discussed around some selected themes like perspective on sociology, functional approach, social system and social structure, and the sociological theory and social change.

Perspective on Sociology

Both considered sociology to be a scientific discipline. For this sociology used its own specialized methods. Sociological studies were therefore explanatory and also diagnostic, i.e., they could also identify problems. The emphasis in the writings of Parsons and Merton on the scientific character of sociology has been criticized by many later sociologist as ‘positivism’. These later authors accrue the two sociologists of neglecting the unique historical and symbolic features of social reality which require entirely different methods of study.

Apart from these elements in the perspective on sociology which are common in the writings of the two sociologists you will also notice differences in their vision of sociology. Parsons has a universal and general approach to theory in sociology. Merton, on other hand, takes a more modest view of sociological theory. His emphasis is on specific and not universal questions of theory and methodology. For instance, Merton illustrates his application of sociological theory to such specific issues as “reference group”, “anomie” or “nature of science” Parsons on the other hand talks of a “general theory of action.”

Functional Approach

Both Parsons and Merton have followed a functional approach of analysis in their sociology. But functionalism as dealt with by Merton is located in time and space. It deals with empirical reality. he particularly draws our attention to the reasons why functional theories of Radcliffe-Brown and Malinowski which were formulated to deal with the realities of a simpler tribal society, isolated from rest of the world, could not be applied to contemporary societies of our own time which are complex and where historical traditions have overlapped on social institutions over several centuries. Therefore, Merton says that an institution such as religion, which is universally integrative in simple tribal societies, may cause disharmony in our own society where there are many religions which often compete against one another. Similarly his concepts of latent and manifest functions are also based on the historical experience of modern society. Parsons on the other hand does not take such a specific or historical view on the issues of functionalism. His concepts of functional prerequisites such as “adaptation”, “goal-orientation”, “integration” and “latency” are general and a historical, that is, they are found in all societies at any point of time.

Functionalism of Parsons and Merton have been criticized by many sociologists for their various limitations. One of the major limitations pointed out by critics is the overdependence of functionalism on the assumption that a social system is based on principles of agreement or consensus. Functionalism thus assumes that all institutions largely reflect values and goals which are commonly accepted by most of the members of the society. It thus neglects aspects of dissent and conflict in the social system. Marxist sociologists criticize functionalism for its neglect of class conflict or class antagonism that exist in society. Political sociologists have criticized it for neglecting the role of power and domination in the structure and function of social institutions. But the main drawback in functionalism is not of total omission of these issues because both Merton, and also Parsons, deal with aspects of dissent and conflict in society. What is neglected perhaps is the balance in the role played by both consensus and conflict in society. This is a question which remains largely unresolved in their sociological theory.

Social System and Social Structure

Both Parsons and Merton have dealt with the concepts of “role”, “status”, “social structure”, “social system”, “group” and so on. These are the basic units for understanding the nature of society. There is a subtle difference between the approaches of the two sociologists. This difference is probably due to the difference in their vision of sociology. For Merton the basic problem in sociology is to utilize the conceptual packages of sociology and its methods for the understanding of social problems. Like Parsons, Merton takes not only social but also psychological factors into account in defining social structure, status and role.

But unlike Parsons’ general and highly abstract approach to the understanding of social system. Merton talks of theories of the “middle range”. In middle range theories conceptual abstractions emerge from the need to understand certain concrete empirical situations. There is no presumption in this case of providing an overall theoretical scheme for societies in general.

Sociological Theory

Considerable importance is given, both by Parsons and Merton, to the role of theory in sociology and what should be the nature of such theories. Merton approaches the problem more cautiously emphasizing the need for limitations of empirical verification of hypotheses. He cautions sociologists not to indulge in too general or abstract constructions of theory. Such a view of theory neither has a clearly define sets of hypotheses nor the tools for their empirical verification. For this reason Merton does not favour a general theory in sociology but prefers the “middle range theory” instead, which is of a limited but well-defined nature and covers a specific problems of study. The “reference group theory” is a good example of this kind of theory. According to Merton tools of logical classification called paradigms are necessary steps in constructing such theories of the middle range.

Parsons on the other hand treats theory in a very general and abstract manner. He favours a rigorous logical method of classification as in his formulation of “pattern variables” or “types of orientations” . He considers a general and universally applicable theory possible in sociology which can be applied to any period of time. This is particularly so in the understanding and analysis of social system. However, in the analysis of social change, and especially when he discusses the evolutionary universals he is talking about specific societies at different evolutionary stages in history. Also when he is talking about types of social systems he is referring to specific societies. Yet these specificities do not stand on their own but are part of a broader and more general scheme. Evolutionary universal, for instance, tells us of the stately progression of stages through which all societies must necessarily pass at different points of time. His delineation of different types of social systems also rests on his abstract and general formulations of pattern variables.

The explanatory sweep in Parsons general theory of action is indeed very vast ranging from the study of personality systems to the examination of social systems and cultural systems. This indeed covers the total gamut of social reality. Parsons’ view of theory is also cross-disciplinary with relevance not only for sociology but also for psychology, political science, economics, cultural anthropology and other social science disciplines. His perspective on theory therefore is much wider than that of Merton.

Social Change

This is also true in respect of the analysis of social change. Parsons makes a distinction between “changes in systems” and “changes of systems”. He puts forward his analysis of both these aspects of change.

Merton on the other hand takes into account mainly the changes in social structure. He does not, like Parsons, propose a direct of “evolutionary universals” in the process of systemic social transformation. However, in the analysis of changes with social systems on which both Parsons and Merton both focus, there is much communality of approach. Both socialists explain changes within the social system as arising out of “strain” or pressure on members of groups in society to constantly relocate their roles and statuses. Role and status mobility arise out of tension of redefinition of aspirations, which Merton called “anticipatory socialisation”. According to parsons strain arises because of conflicting motivational orientations in the context of a plurality of inters. Thus, essentially both Parsons and Merton share a common view of why there is a continual tendency in social systems or social share a common view of why there is a continual tendency in social systems or social structures for internal differentiation and social change. Parsons, however, also brings in the forces of social movement and mobilization of interest groups to bear upon the processes of social change. He, in addition attempts to advance a general evolutionary direction of social change through a set of stages of transformation . Merton has largely ignored such aspects in his study of social change.