结构功能主义

结构功能主义（Structural functionalism），通常简称为功能主义（Functionalism），又称功能学派或功能论，是结构理论的框架，视社会为众多部件组成的复杂系统，这些部件为了促使社会稳固及稳定运作而协力合作。 
结构功能主义使用宏观取向的方式观看社会，重视塑造社会形态的社会结构，并视其为整体，相信社会演变就像具有多个器官一样。除了社会结构外，结构功能主义亦会透过社会功能角度理解社会。功能主义视社会为其部件的功能综合体，包括社会风俗传统、常规机制。
赫伯特·斯宾塞形容这些社会的部件有如「人体器官」一般，使「身体」能良好运作而努力。基本来说，结构功能主义严格检视每一个社会特式、风俗、实践方式等元素怎样能如愿地促成稳定而有凝聚力的系统。对塔尔科特·帕森斯来说，结构功能主义在描述社会科学方法论的发展阶段，而不是特定的思想流派。
结构功能主义指出，所有社会现象——无论这现象多不道德、多荒谬、多邪恶、多不应该存在，只要它确实存在，则必然发挥某种社会功能，例如贿选、黑市交易等。结构功能主义的研究目标是寻找这些表象底层所代表的社会功能，以此理解社会系统的运作。
理论.
古典理论使用社会进化论的生物学类比和概念作为定义：
虽然有些人将功能主义理解为由卢梭等政治哲学家提出的社会有机类比的逻辑延伸，社会学获得工业化的资本主义社会（或称作「现代性」）机构的密切关注。功能主义在马瑟·牟斯、布罗尼斯拉夫·马林诺夫斯基及拉德克利夫-布朗等理论学的工作中获得一些人类学基础。在拉德克利夫-布朗的用法中「结构」这个前缀首次出现。拉德克利夫-布朗提出，大部没有国家的「原始」社会并没有强力的中央机关，们是由基于血统而连系在一起的群体而成的协作团体 。结构功能主义也采用了马林诺夫斯基的论点，认为社会的基本组成部件是核心家庭，而氏族是其衍生物，并非「反之亦然」。
艾弥尔·涂尔干对于社会维持内部稳定及持续存活的确定性感到担忧。他提出社会更像是分割成多个等效部分，因为共同价值、共通的符号及交流系统才维系在一起。涂尔干使用「机械团结」（mechanical solidarity）来形容这些「基于共同的情感和共同的道德价值观，在工业化之前的社会有强大作用」的社会纽带 。在现代，复杂社会中的成员进行差异性很大的工作，导致严重的相互倚靠。基于上面提及的生物学比喻，多个组件共同协力来维持整体的运作，涂尔干认为复杂社会是以「有机团结」(organic solidarity)维系在一起，称「基于专门化及相互倚靠，在工业化社会有强大作用」。
奥古斯特·孔德在之后认为，社会构成一个独立的现实「层次」，将生物学及无机物有所区分出来。因此这个层次适合对社会现象作出解释，可见个体相对于稳定的社会角色，不过是临时人员。结构功能主义的主要关注点是延续涂尔干的工作，解释社会能持续地保持表面上稳定及有内部凝聚力的原因。
社会被认为是相关、联系的、本质上是由关系构造而成的，以器官似的形式在无意识、类似是自动的形式以各种的工作朝著达致整体的而运行著。因此，所有社会及文化现象在互相协同的意义上被视为「功能」，确实地被认为具有本身的「生命」。他们主要分析这个意义上的功能。个人的重要性不在於单单那个人，而是他的身份和地位在社会关上的模式，以及与他身份有关的各种行为。因此，社会结构是由赋予的角色连结而成的身份网络。
此观点易于视为于与政治保守主义完全相等。但是，强调「复杂系统」的倾向往往导致功能主义者与冲突理论产生对比，后者强调的是社会问题和不平等。
杰出的理论家.
赫伯特·斯宾塞.
赫伯特·斯宾塞 (1820–1903)是一个英国哲学家，他知名于将自然选择理论套用于社会。他在很多方面来说，他是第一个真正的社会学功能主义者。事实上，当涂尔干广泛被认为是功能主义最重要的实证主义理论家，人们也知道他的分析是摘自斯宾塞的著作，尤其是他的《社会学原理》。在描述社会时，斯宾塞将其暗示为人体的类比。就如人类的结构部件—骨骼、肌肉及各种内在器官—为了帮助整个生物生存而个别独立地运作著。社会结构也协同工作以维持社会存续。
阅读斯宾塞巨量的篇幅可能很乏味（有著长篇的段落解释有机类比，附以细胞、简单有机体、动物、人类及社会的参考内容），里面也有一些重要的见解静静地影响了很多现代的理论家，包括塔尔科特·帕森斯的早期著作《》。文化人类学也一直使用功能主义。
s (internal and external) that force it to adapt its internal structure through differentiation.
Every solution, however, causes a new set of selection pressures that threaten society's viability. Spencer was not a determinist in the sense that he never said that
斯宾塞在很多方面是一个，他办认了统一和中央化的政权在特定的政体可能会破坏其应变能力。换句话说，他认为一个中央集权的政权会倾向停滞，最终呈现去中心化的压力。
Perhaps Spencer's greatest obstacle that is being widely discussed in modern sociology is the fact that much of his social philosophy is rooted in the social and historical context of ancient Egypt. He coined the term "survival of the fittest" in discussing the simple fact that small tribes or societies tend to be defeated or conquered by larger ones. Of course, many sociologists still use his ideas (knowingly or otherwise) in their analyses, especially due to the recent re-emergence of evolutionary theory.
塔尔科特·帕森斯.
塔尔科特·帕森斯 在1930年代开始他的写作，对社会学、政治科学、人类学、心理学作出贡献。帕森斯很受涂尔干及马克斯·韦伯的影响，他将二人的研究合成为他的行动理论，它基于系统理论的概念及的方法论原理。他认为「社会是由个体的行为组成」。因比，他的出发点是两个个人面对一系列怎样采取行动的选择时，两者之间的互动。他指出人们的选择是受到多个物理及社会因素的影响和限制。
帕森斯坚持每个人也期望其他人的行动及对他的行为的反应，并影响他自身的行为，这些期望是「出自」他们所居位的社会的常规及价值观。就如帕森斯所强调的，在一般情况下一方面的行为和社会常规之间不能「完美配合」，所以人际关系总是不会完整或「完美」。
Furthermore, one person can and does fulfill many different roles at the same time. In one sense, an individual can be seen to be a "composition" of the roles he inhabits. Certainly, today, when asked to describe themselves, most people would answer with reference to their societal roles.
Parsons later developed the idea of roles into collectivities of roles that complement each other in fulfilling functions for society. Some roles are bound up in institutions and social structures (economic, educational, legal and even gender-based). These are functional in the sense that they assist society in operating and fulfilling its functional needs so that society runs smoothly.
Contrary to prevailing myth, Parsons never spoke about a society where there was no conflict or some kind of "perfect" equilibrium. A society's cultural value-system was in the typical case never completely integrated, never static and most of the time, like in the case of the American society, in a complex state of transformation relative to its historical point of departure. To reach a "perfect" equilibrium was not any serious theoretical question in Parsons analysis of social systems, indeed, the most dynamic societies had generally cultural systems with important inner tensions like the US and India. These tensions were a source of their strength according to Parsons rather than the opposite. Parsons never thought about system-institutionalization and the level of strains (tensions, conflict) in the system as opposite forces per se.
The key processes for Parsons for system reproduction are socialization and social control. Socialization is important because it is the mechanism for transferring the accepted norms and values of society to the individuals within the system. Parsons never spoke about "perfect socialization"—in any society socialization was only partial and "incomplete" from an integral point of view.
Parsons states that "this point [...] is independent of the sense in which individual is concretely autonomous or creative rather than 'passive' or 'conforming', for individuality and creativity, are to a considerable extent, phenomena of the institutionalization of expectations"; they are culturally constructed.
Socialization is supported by the positive and negative sanctioning of role behaviours that do or do not meet these expectations. A punishment could be informal, like a snigger or gossip, or more formalized, through institutions such as prisons and mental homes. If these two processes were perfect, society would become static and unchanging, but in reality this is unlikely to occur for long.
Parsons recognizes this, stating that he treats "the structure of the system as problematic and subject to change," and that his concept of the tendency towards equilibrium "does not imply the empirical dominance of stability over change." He does, however, believe that these changes occur in a relatively smooth way.
Individuals in interaction with changing situations adapt through a process of "role bargaining". Once the roles are established, they create norms that guide further action and are thus institutionalized, creating stability across social interactions. Where the adaptation process cannot adjust, due to sharp shocks or immediate radical change, structural dissolution occurs and either new structures (or therefore a new system) are formed, or society dies. This model of social change has been described as a "moving equilibrium", and emphasizes a desire for social order.
结构功能主义及帕森斯受到很多的批评。多个批评者指出帕森斯没有强调政治和货币的斗争、社会变革的基础，及大量「操控」以致其不受质量和标准约束。结构功能主义及大部份帕森斯的写作似乎对于制度化及非制度化行为之间的关系、制度化出现的过程的方面表现不足。