All Academic, Inc. Research Logo

Info/CitationFAQResearchAll Academic Inc.
Document

Functionalism Revisited: A practice based Functionalism
Unformatted Document Text:  Functionalism Revisited 19 among the individuals. The rules (social order) found here are not statically determined as a whole, but observed and formulated in a lively manner by those who engage in the interaction. Further, such individuals’ actions – that constitute social rules – are accomplished in an unconscious manner. In other words, most of what they do is not given much thought. Through a breaching experiment, Garfinkel makes this point. That is, instead of proving how social system is sustained through improvised manners, he focuses on individuals’ reaction toward excessively violated action – unusual movements in a chess game, behaving as a guest at home, for example. The findings were: (1) when people interact, they depend on the experiences obtained from the past and assumed to be mutually identical with a tolerable communicable range; and (2) they employ this knowledge into the interactive scene without giving much thought about it (in a taken-for-granted manner). Heritage (1984) summarizes the experiments that maintaining and sustaining mutual understanding require the individual not to exert cognitive efforts, but to depend upon trust that is to be regarded as a moral necessity. Hence, for Garfinkel, the social order rises out of the mutual interaction in a spontaneous manner, demands the involved individual to comply with the very order, and hence works as a moral constraint. It should be also noted that such demands (for the compliance) do not stem from the efforts of keeping the pre-existing, and sacred normative rules, but from the expectancy of keeping the normal events that are expected by the interactant in a taken-for-granted manner (constitutive – rules are realized only in the interaction; double constitutive later in the concepts of social action). What is lacking in Garfinkel’s insight is an explanation about general social rules. Garfinkel mainly focuses on the localized action between two individuals; and discovers how fluent communication and interaction between two individuals are accomplished. Garfinkel also does not fully address issues about power (see, Cohen, 2000; Tucker, 1998). Giddens differs from Garfinkel in a point that he explicates how the spontaneous and improvised social actions are related to society in general – localized action contributes to the general patterns of the social and systematic relations. In order to link the two, Giddens uses concepts of social and system integration. According to Giddens, system refers to enduringly practiced relations in any kinds of groups, including organizations. Therefore, system integration is a general picture of relations among any kinds of social units – at an abstract level; and as the word, “integration,” suggests, such relations have a characteristic of regularity. This idea becomes clear when Giddens discusses about the concept of time. He uses three concepts of time – (1) duree of day-to-day experience, (2) life span of individual, and (3) longue duree of institutions. Among three, he points out that the first and the last concept of time has a “reversible,” repeating characteristic. That is,

Authors: Kim, Hyo.
first   previous   Page 19 of 42   next   last



background image
Functionalism Revisited 19
among the individuals. The rules (social order) found here are not statically determined as a whole, but
observed and formulated in a lively manner by those who engage in the interaction. Further, such
individuals’ actions – that constitute social rules – are accomplished in an unconscious manner. In other
words, most of what they do is not given much thought.
Through a breaching experiment, Garfinkel makes this point. That is, instead of proving how
social system is sustained through improvised manners, he focuses on individuals’ reaction toward
excessively violated action – unusual movements in a chess game, behaving as a guest at home, for
example. The findings were: (1) when people interact, they depend on the experiences obtained from the
past and assumed to be mutually identical with a tolerable communicable range; and (2) they employ this
knowledge into the interactive scene without giving much thought about it (in a taken-for-granted
manner).
Heritage (1984) summarizes the experiments that maintaining and sustaining mutual understanding
require the individual not to exert cognitive efforts, but to depend upon trust that is to be regarded as a
moral necessity. Hence, for Garfinkel, the social order rises out of the mutual interaction in a
spontaneous manner, demands the involved individual to comply with the very order, and hence works as
a moral constraint. It should be also noted that such demands (for the compliance) do not stem from the
efforts of keeping the pre-existing, and sacred normative rules, but from the expectancy of keeping the
normal events that are expected by the interactant in a taken-for-granted manner (constitutive – rules are
realized only in the interaction; double constitutive later in the concepts of social action).
What is lacking in Garfinkel’s insight is an explanation about general social rules. Garfinkel
mainly focuses on the localized action between two individuals; and discovers how fluent
communication and interaction between two individuals are accomplished. Garfinkel also does not fully
address issues about power (see, Cohen, 2000; Tucker, 1998). Giddens differs from Garfinkel in a point
that he explicates how the spontaneous and improvised social actions are related to society in general –
localized action contributes to the general patterns of the social and systematic relations. In order to link
the two, Giddens uses concepts of social and system integration. According to Giddens, system refers to
enduringly practiced relations in any kinds of groups, including organizations. Therefore, system
integration is a general picture of relations among any kinds of social units – at an abstract level; and as
the word, “integration,” suggests, such relations have a characteristic of regularity. This idea becomes
clear when Giddens discusses about the concept of time. He uses three concepts of time – (1) duree of
day-to-day experience, (2) life span of individual, and (3) longue duree of institutions. Among three, he
points out that the first and the last concept of time has a “reversible,” repeating characteristic. That is,


Convention
Submission, Review, and Scheduling! All Academic Convention can help with all of your abstract management needs and many more. Contact us today for a quote!
Submission - Custom fields, multiple submission types, tracks, audio visual, multiple upload formats, automatic conversion to pdf.
Review - Peer Review, Bulk reviewer assignment, bulk emails, ranking, z-score statistics, and multiple worksheets!
Reports - Many standard and custom reports generated while you wait. Print programs with participant indexes, event grids, and more!
Scheduling - Flexible and convenient grid scheduling within rooms and buildings. Conflict checking and advanced filtering.
Communication - Bulk email tools to help your administrators send reminders and responses. Use form letters, a message center, and much more!
Management - Search tools, duplicate people management, editing tools, submission transfers, many tools to manage a variety of conference management headaches!
Click here for more information.

first   previous   Page 19 of 42   next   last

©2012 All Academic, Inc.