The theory, therefore, tends to produce an impression that everything which exists in a society at any given time is easily assumed to be there because it is ‘functional’. It is an equilibrium model based on assumptions of consensus. Thirdly, the structural-functionalist approach is criticised on the ground that it is concerned with the status quo and that the possibilities of social change are virtually ruled out.

It must also be pointed out, in fairness to the exponents of the theory, that the leading advocates of the theory use ‘function’, only to mean ‘as a consequence of, thus avoiding value-judgments and teleological implications altogether. In reply to this criticism, it is held that “many groups act so effectively in unison that it seems “as if they were a single organism possessed of only a single will or purpose”. “Function seems only another word for purpose, and it is often argued that a person can have purpose but that a collectivity cannot”. Secondly, the structural-functional approach is criticised on the ground that it is teleological. Was it equally ‘functional’ for the slaves? It is, therefore, held that “the functionalist point of view easily leads one to under-emphasise the importance of the individual and his needs relative to those of the group”. If we accept Aristotle’s contention as valid, we have to answer the question: Aristotle justified the institution of slavery, saying that it was not only necessary but also desirable. The critics point out that what may be ‘functional’ from the point of view of the structure or unit may not be ‘functional’ for the individual or for a section of the people. (“With respect to a given unit ‘eufunction’ may be defined as any function that increases or maintains adaptation or adjustment of the unit to the unit’s setting, thus making for the persistence of the unit as defined in its setting”). Most often, the term ‘function’ is used in the sense of ‘eufunction’. In the first place, reference has already been made to the varied uses of the term ‘function’ by the advocates of the theory. The structural-functional theory has, however, been subjected to various criticisms. Criticisms of Structural-Functional Analysis: The structural-functional theory, therefore, widens our perspective and broadens our horizon “concerning the possibilities for variation in the forms of social life”. In our study of a primitive or strange society we shall naturally look for the institutions which meet these and similar other urgent requirements of society.

Otherwise, such societies could not exist.

But even such societies must have some arrangement to regulate the use of force or to provide for the flow of goods and services. There may not also exist the complex economic structure of the type we are familiar with. For example, in primitive societies there may not exist a government in the sense in which we use the term. (iii) The structural-functional theory has been of great help in making comparative studies of societies in various stages of development. Structural-functionalists have taught us to see society as a “whole”. This perspective is particularly valuable to social planners. (ii) The emphasis of the structural-functionalist approach on the inter-relatedness of several parts of society makes us aware of the fact that a change in one part of society, whether intended of unintended, affects other parts of society.

Structural functional theory criticism