analysis are those that lead to stability and inertia through mechanisms of
adjustment and social control. The structures of the political system are
presented in a neutral light as a mere arena for the resolution of conflict that
is impartial as regards the contestants.
The conception of society as a functional unity is a mystification of social
reality. However, we should remember that one of the sociological fore-
fathers of functionalism, Robert Merton, explored the ‘dysfunctions’ that
threaten social cohesion. This reminds us that what is functional for one
group in society may be dysfunctional for another, perhaps to the extent of
undermining the vitality of the whole. Functionalists tended to focus on
mutually supporting parts of a political system and its survival through
adaptation, but there are some important exceptions to this.
Functionalism can be criticized for being more concerned with the inte-
gration of interests into a single normative pattern than with instability and
conflict as sources of social change. Conflict over the allocation of scarce
resources are seen as resolved within a framework of common values.
Functionalism can be faulted for not being capable of explaining the very
changes that were its raison d’êtrebecause it concentrates on the prerequi-
sites of the maintenance of the status quo. The tendency to regard every-
thing that exists, including the characteristics of the political system, as
functional and therefore desirable become normatively supportive of the
perpetuation of existing social arrangements. Social inequality and stratifi-
cation, for example, are functional because society has motivated people to
seek higher rewards and induced people to perform the duties attached to
their station in life. Functionalism begins to look like an arbitrary selection
of values insofar as it fails to show how choices can be made between the
values which, though functional to an existing system, would be dysfunc-
tional to an alternative one.
The concept of ‘system’, stressing the interdependence and integration
found in biological organisms, when applied to human societies obliges us to
view them as organisms in which the parts are subordinate to the whole.
Utility is thus found in all patterns of behaviour. Conflict becomes regarded as
pathological or abnormal. Such a view of society will be favoured by some
‘parts’ (or interests) but will work to the disadvantage of others. Political real-
ities present a challenge to the functionalist paradigm. One practical conse-
quence of developmentalism was that the human dimension of development,
and particularly the costs and benefits of different developmental strategies to
different social groups, were neglected (Pratt, 1973, p. 89).
This encourages a conservative bias in functionalism (Abrahamson,
1978). Some functionalists, such as Merton, argued that functionalism is
Modernization and Political Development 65