Talk:Structural functionalism

message: Can someone put the references and 'see also's' back, as someone got rid of them, and I'm not sure how to - Thanks Anthropax 18:24, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  References and see also section 

message: Does his theory need a new page to itself? From my Anthropology lecturers, I got the impression that this was the British form of Structural-Functionalism, not the American school, which is different. Anthropax 02:22, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Parsons 

message: I have completely rewritten the opening paragraph as it was rather confused. Let's keep it short to prevent such confusion.
Some points-
: (1) Structural functionalism began, if not by name then always implicitly, in the work of Comte, and was then later developed in full by Durkheim. The article previously stated that Weber and some 20th century theorists were responsible for it. That's way off. You might wish to articulate that Weber was a functionalist in some sense, but it should be done with a little more nous than that.
: (2) Structural functionalism shares an affinity with sociological positivism, but the two are not synonymous. Furthermore, a functionalist does not necessarily have to be a positivist, and vice versa. Due to the nature of Action Theory, for example, Parsons rejected the functionalist label often attributed to him, but nevertheless I think he is, broadly-speaking, a good example of a non-positivist functionalist. 
: (3) Similarly, functionalism shouldn't be equated directly with conservativism. Okay, so Marxism came along and left (no pun intended) Durkheim looking a lot more conservative, but Durkheim was nevertheless a very liberal thinker by 19th century standards. The aim of functionalism, and of course sociology in general, was to solve the social ills brought about by industrialisation and the horrors of modernity. ;) Peace out! --Tomsega (talk) 22:48, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  General criticisms 

message: Many commentators would draw a distinction between 'functionalism' and 'structural functionalism', and the word 'structural' may become easily confused with 'structuralism', which is a similar but separate school of thought. The page should really be renamed simply to 'Functionalism'. --Tomsega (talk) 11:17, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, but there is a problem. Functionalism is currently a disambiguation page which lists the varieties of functionalism in various disciplines. I don't find that inappropriate, despite the fact that the term originated in sociology. But I found myself scratching my head when I read the opening sentence of this article: "Functionalism, or in some contexts structural functionalism..." (I had to double-check the article title). What to do about it? One option would be to re-title the article "Functionalism (sociology)" or "Functionalism (sociology and anthropology). Comments? Sunray (talk) 21:51, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the present title is the most appropriate and descriptive. There are similarly other "functionalisms" that could easily claim to be the functionalism. That is why we have a disambiguation page. Parenthetical titles are not preferred.Greg Bard (talk) 21:55, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: What does "structural functionalism imply to you? Sunray (talk) 23:48, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It implies a difference between it an other functionalisms such as the functionalist theory of mind. I always prefer a descriptive title rather than one with parentheses. I think another problem is that several academic fields claim this as a topic of study. I wouldn't favor "Functionalism (sociology and anthropology)" at all. Especially since it is also of interest to political scientists and economic theorists. In fact I would even favor merging Consensus theory into this article under the name "Structural functionalism".Greg Bard (talk) 00:48, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: We are in agreement that several academic disciplines claim functionalism as a topic of study. And I do agree that there should be an article called "structural functionalism." However, the way this article is written right now, at least in many places, conflates the terms "functionalism" and "structural functionalism." I think that there should be a general article on functionalism in sociology and another on structural functionalism, which would treat the variations on functionalism by Radcliffe-Brown and Parsons. Sunray (talk) 05:43, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: If there is material to be had, I support that. Not knowing about sociology I will defer. However, consistent with what I was saying... I would prefer the new one be Sociological functionalism.Greg Bard (talk) 05:58, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems to me that "Functionalism (sociology) would be more consistent with article naming conventions. Sunray (talk) 07:13, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

text: --Gonzalcg (talk) 19:59, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rename 

message: I, the mysterious IP address from beyond the moon, have added an essay tag to this article, as it reads far more like an essay than an objective, informative article - heck, the critism section even features 'I' and other personal pronouns related to the author. 122.57.184.195 (talk) 05:20, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Essay 

message: Please somebody utterly rewrite the Criticism section! It currently stands as a total ruin of the battles between Parson fanboys and people critical of the positivist, essentialist, and social-Darwinistic (note Spencer's influence!) "all-is-well-as-long-as-we-never-change-anything" notion, signified by a horrifying language where pretty much every single sentence starts either with However or Yet! For Goodness' sake, it even uses first-person speech ("I") in places! --79.193.41.61 (talk) 08:40, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewrite ''Criticism''! 

message: There is a large picture of him, whilst there is little information. Does he need a section? Brad7777 (talk) 16:52, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Emile Durkheim 

message: was there ever any kind of scientific evidence for any of the main premises of strucfunc? If not, this should be mentioned. AFAIK structuralism went out of favor in liuistics precisely because later research findings could not be seen as supporting the basic views in stucturalism about how concepts (mental content) formed. Does this also apply to sociology? --128.214.12.45 (talk) 12:46, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scientific evidence (other than conjectures and phislophical arguments)? 

message: Can someone help me understand how the title image of a social network map is relevant to the topic? To me it actually seems misleading to the meaning of the theory itself. Thanks --Fire lily445 (talk) 21:24, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title Photograph