Neo-Functionalism sprouted from the interest in Talcott Parsons theory on Functionalism. The basic aim has been to merge strong points of functionalism with strong points of other critical perspectives. To create a ‘hybrid’ so that one can deal with opposing issues such as consensus and conflict, equilibrium and change, collectivity and individuality in a balanced manner. Neo-functionalism submits that in order to enrich our understanding of the

processes of order and action in society, we should think of borrowing from

other theories and perspectives in sociology and other social sciences.

First in Germany, Niklas Luhmann and Jürgen Haberma were associated with neo-functionalism. They introduced concepts like biology and cybernetics and combined some aspects of Parson’s theory with general systems theory. They disagreed with Parsons about individuals having limited options for social relationship and behaviour because ‘social systems penetrate the personality system’. Luhmann moved individual out of the social system into a ‘societal environment’ where he has more freedom to carry out ‘irrational and immoral behaviour’

In America, Jeffrey Alexander and Paul Colom were the main spokespeople of Neo-functionalism. They defined Neofunctionalism as ‘a self-critical strand of the functional theory that seeks to broaden functionalism’s intellectual scope while retaining its theoretical core’. Their goal was to create more synthetic theory. They introduced concepts such as conflict and subjective meaning.

Alexander suggests sociology should be based on a post-positivist understanding of Science, meaning we can understand the world around as through theoretical explanations as much as an empirical inquiry. Post-positivism submits that a theory can be discussed, examined, verified,

and elaborated with reference to other theories rather than empirical research. In other words, the referent for a theory might be another theory rather than an ensemble of facts.

Neo functionalism can be seen as an effort’ or ‘tendency’ to overcome the following problems of functionalism:

1. Anti-individualism: the Individual in functionalism was a product of social forces, was passive and lacked creativity.
2. Antagonism to change- functionalism is a theory of social order rather than of change.
3. Conservatism- Offering justification of present system and its practices
4. Idealism- depicting society as an ideal society, where everything is in order and stability
5. Anti-empiricist bias — being more concerned with abstract social systems instead of real societies.

Merits and Demerits of Neo-Functionalism:

Merits:

1. An open and pluralistic description of society as a whole
2. An even-handed apportionment when it comes to action vs. structure (or action vs. order).
3. Integration is viewed as a possibility; deviance and social control are considered realities.
4. Discernment between personality, culture, and society.
5. Differentiation is viewed as the central driving force producing social change.
6. The development of concepts and theory is considered to be independent of all the levels involved in sociological analysis.

Demerits (isn’t neo-functionalism old wine in new bottles?)

1. There are limits to the length to which any theoretical perspective can go in accommodating incompatible notions and yet retain its name and lineage.
2. For some critics, the changes introduced in structural-functionalism are more cosmetic than real: eg Individuals are still regarded as ‘reactors to the system’ rather than ‘dynamic and creative actors’
3. Society can be studied objectively and still continues to be predominant.
4. Conflict is recognized but still remains at a secondary place.
5. Revolution is certainly not considered,
6. Despite the ‘hybridization’, drawing upon different theoretical perspectives, neo-functionalism is not a ‘distinct paradigm’. Scepticism prevails about the future of neo-functionalism