The Journal of Sociology & Social Welfare

Volume 5 Article 4
Issue 4 July

July 1978

Structural Functional Theory, Social Work Practice and Education

Joe Hudson
Minnesota Department of Corrections

Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/jssw

Part of the Clinical and Medical Social Work Commons, and the Social Work Commons

Recommended Citation
Hudson, Joe (1978) "Structural Functional Theory, Social Work Practice and Education," The Journal of
Sociology & Social Welfare: Vol. 5 : Iss. 4 , Article 4.
Available at: https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/jssw/vol5/iss4/4

This Article is brought to you by the Western Michigan

University School of Social Work. For more information,
please contact [email protected].
 Structural Functional Theory,
Social Work Practice
and Education

By

Joe Hudson
Minnesota Department of Corrections
St. Paul, Minnesota

INTRODUCTION - THE PARSONIAN SYSTEMS FRAMEWORK

The theoretical framework of structural functionalism in sociol-
ogical theory does not consist of a single, unified, and consistent
exposition. Different writers make different emphases, use somewhat
different terminolog, and include different phenomena under a variety
of similar terms. Rather than attempt to deal superficially with a
wide variety of theorists writing out of this perspective, we will
focus primarily on the central concepts in the work of perhaps the most
eminent proponent of this approach in current sociological work - Tal-
cott Parsons - and, in turn, discuss the relevance of this framework
for social work education and practice.
Viewing the Parsonian systems approach from a general perspective,
the close linfs with the older sociological tradition of organicism
can be noted. That is, the idea of an organic system is generalized
to social pheonmena and made the central theoretical focus without,
in the process, being related to a particular historical situation.
In short, an abstract "eystem" is postulated in which social and cul-
tural phenomena are conceptually handled and this "system" is regarded
as analogous to biological organisms. Furthermore, the system is con-
ceived as being "boundary maintaining" and "strncture maintaining."
That is, it is viewed as resisting external forces and retaining some
considerable degree of stability and structure in order to remain a
system. As Parsons has put this:
"The concept of an open system interchanging with environ-
ing systems also implies boundaries and their maintenance.
When a set of interdependent phenomena shows sufficiently
definite patterning and stability over time, then we can
say that it has a "structure" and that it is fruitful to
treat it as a "system". . .In so far as boundaries in this
sense do not exist it is not possible to identify a set of
interdependent phenomena as a system." 2
Through the use of organismic analogy, Parsons tends to apply the
basic principles of systems to all phenomena from the level of the
biological organisms up to, and inclusive of, the larger social order.

-481-
 A variety of concepts have been introduced by the structural-
functionalists for the purpose of explicating the systems scheme. A
central concept is that of "function" or, in more refined terms, the
concepts of "eufunction" and "dysfunction " referring to system main-
1
taining and system disrupting activities. Clearly, however, the
concept of 'function' is distinguished from 'purpose.' While a 'pur-
pose' is viewed as something subjective, something in the mind of the
participants in a social system, the concept of 'function' is regarded
4
as an objective consequence of action.
Parsons has also emphasized the concept of the "functional Pre-
requisites" of the system to refer to the essential functional problems
which every social system must solve in order to continue existing as
an independent and distinctive entity. In addition, there are the
concepts of "functional alternatives, "functional substitutes," all
of which are largely synonomous and point to the idea that certain
elements of the system are not functionally indispensable but may be
substituted with other elements.
A key characteristic of the system theorists in general and Par-
sons in particular is the focus on "dynamic equilibrium" within the
social system. Essentially, this feature relates to the analogous
feature of homeostasis within biological organisms. Thus for Parsons,
the idea of static equilibrium is no more a characteristic of the
biological organisms than it is of the social system. This, for at
least two reasons: first, there is always a certain amount of continu-
ing process within the system which provides an impulse for change of
state and, secondly, there is supposedly always an element of flux in
the external situation which tends to throw the system continually off
balance. In short, the "dynamic equilibrium" of a social system is
not so much a matter of a system remaining always in a stable state
as it is of the system having the capacity to achieve some stability
5
after each minor disturbance. The dominant tendency is towards sta-
bility within the system as maintained through mechanisms of social
control which serve the equilibrating function in Parsons' theoretical
scheme. The central focus is on tension reduction and functionalism
0
rather than tension production and disorder. The unit of analysis
7
in the structural-functionalist social system is the status-role.
Status refers to the location of the individual and role is essentially
what the individual does in that position. Inasmuch as each person
occupies a number of different statuses, the organized system of stat-
uses and roles which can be attributed to the particular individual con-
stitute his identity as a social actor. In turn, systems of statuses
are combined into "collectivities" which are "partial social systems,"
each of which is composed of particular interactive roles. A network
of such collectivities is seen as constituting a complex social system.
It is what Parsons refers to as the concept of "institutionalization"
which ties a complex system together - meaning that actions of the
individuals involved in the social system (the "social actors") are
8
guided by shared and internalized values. These shared values held
by the social actors within the system are the "glue" that holds the
system together and although perfect integration within the system is
never found empirically, it is the mode of normative integration which
has been sketched above that Parsons regards as fundamental in all ac-
tual social systems.
While dysfunctions are viewed as existing within the system and
are seen as potentially persisting for long periods of time, they are
treated by Parsons as tending to resolve themselves ok to be institu-
tionalized in the long run. Change is regarded as occurring in a gen-
erally gradual, adjustive manner within the system - the "dynamic state
of equilibrium'! of the system.
Parsons perceives four functional problems faced by every social
system, two of which have to do with relations of the system to the
external environment, the others with aonditions internal to the system
itself. These "social needs" or "functional prerequisites" of the sys-
tem arise out of social interaction and not out of the peculiar nature
of the social actors constituting the system. Parsons argues that
every social system must solve four functional problems in order for
9
the system to exist as an independent entity.
The first "functional prerequisite" relates to the instrumental
problems of goal attainment. Essentially, this refers to the coordina-
tion of activities in such a way that a system moves toward whatever
goals it has set itself. Second, there are the problems of adaptation
to the external situation of the system. Included in these are not only
the problems of coming to terms with the environment but also the active
manipulation of either the environment or the system itself. Third,
there are the internal problems of integration referring to the relations
of individual social actors in the system to one another and the prob-
lem of establishing and maintaining a level of solidarity or cohesion
among them. Finally, there are the related problems of pattern main-
tenance and tension management. Both are concerned with conditions in-
ternal to the system itself which have consequences for system func-
tioning. The problem of pattern maintenance and tension management is
essentially that faced 17 the social actor in reconciling the various
norms and demands imposed by his participation in any particular sub-
system with those of other sub-systems in which he also participates.
Parsons has applied this type of scheme to role differentiation
within social systems. For example, in the systems of the family, a
husband-father is viewed as the specialist in the instrumental function
relative to the interactionp of the family with the external environ-
ment while the wife-mother is the specialist in the expressive or social-
emotional areas concerned with relations internal to the family. Also,

-483-
 this scheme has been applied in terms of analyzing structural differen-
tiation among social sub-systems in the same larger system or society.
That is, Parsons argues that for each of the four functional problems
of the social system of society, there will be a corresponding "func-
tional sub-system" of the society.
Parsons argues that the econoy is the adaptive sub-system of the
society. That is, economic institutions are primarily developed to
deal with adaptive problems faced by the social system. With respect
to problems of pattern maintenance and tension management, the family
is regarded as primary although other sub-systems are also seen as play-
ing a part. Because it is the major socializing agency of society and
as a result of the extent to which it plays a part in the day to day
management of tension, Parsons sees the family as having primacy in
dealing with the pattern maintenance and tension management system needs
while educational institutions, religious groupings, and hospitals are
secondarily included. Goal attainment problems fall within the primacy
of the state, polity, or, more specifically, the government. In short,
the task of defining system goals and moving toward them is primarily
the delegated responsibility of government. The integrative sub-sys-
tem is the most diffuse of all and is divided among the state, the
church, and many other structures about which important cultural values
are focused.
According to Parsons, each of the functional sub-systems of a so-
ciety can itself be analyzed as a social system with its own system prob-
lems. This point has been previously alluded to relative to the dis-
cussion of the role differentiation within the family. Thus for each
of the sub-systems, the other sub-systems are viewed as the most signi-
ficant part of the environment and all of the sub-systems are regarded
as having interchanges with one another. This is what Parsons has re-
ferred to as the "inheremt relativity" in this frame of reference. Any
element is seen as relative to the system within which it is viewed,
while the system itself is relative to the system or systems within
which it acts as an element.
Diagrammed in crux form, Parsons' scheme resembles the following:

Intra-Societal Functions Sub-System

Pattern Maintenance and Tension
Management ) Family
Integration - State, Church
Goal Attainment Polity
Adaptation . Economy

CRITICAL COM3IENTS
It would be an enonnous tasks to systematically deal with all of
the criticisms which have been directed toward the structural function-

-431 -
alists. Instead, the aim here will be to briefly identify some of the
major types of criticisms which have been made.
A general point made against the structural functionalist orien-
tation is that it reflects a conservative ideological bias in favor of
the dominant institutions
10
of the particular social system or society
under consideration.
Related to the charge of a conservative ideological bias is the
criticism pointing to the inability of the structural functionalist
approach to handle the problem of social conflict and change. It is
argued that while mature organisms, by the very nature of their organi-
zation, cannot change their given structure beyond very narrow limits,
this capacity is precisely what distinguishes social systems. 11 Dahren-
dorf, for example, has noted that there is a primary emphasis placed
upon value consensus within the social system and consequently there is
an inability of this viewpoint to allow for structurally generated con-
flicts. 12 The concept of dysfunction, from this criticism, is seen as
a residual one which has been thrown in after the fact and is unable to
explain serious conflicts in the structure of particular social systems.
Related to the issue of change and conflict is the charge of the
"over-socialized" conception of the individual found in structural
functionalist theory. The individual is viewed as essentially a social
creature depending entirely upon training provided by, and experienced
in, the social system. The almost total malleability of the individual
is stressed, so that, in principal, conflicts between the individual
and the group are totally eliminated.
Parsons has also been charged with failing to delineate specifically
what constitutes a "dynamic" or "moving" equilibrium.13 In this connec-
tion, Sprottl 4 has noted that the emphasis of the systems theorists
upon equilibrium is implicitly illogical and infers disequilibrium
rather than the converse, as a consequence of the fact that a constant
tendency towards equilibrium presupposes original imbalances away from
which the system moves. To operationally define the equilibrium of the
system under consideration raises a whole host of problems. Unless
one can state with some precision what the defining conditions of the
systemic equilibrium are, there would not seem to be any way to pin the
abstraction down to empirical reality. Furthermore, to argue as Parsons
does that there is a strain toward equilibrium within the social system
is to posit a hypothesis that can only be examined on empirical evidence
applicable to the particular case. Social phenomena may or may not il-
lustrate homeostatic tendencies at any given time or place - the issue
15
is ultimately an empirical one.
Hemple has questioned the very nature of the "functional indis-
pensability" of any particular social or cultural phenomena and he
notes that, "in all concrete cases of application, there do seem to
6
exist alternatives.11 Along this line Bendix and Berger argue that

-485-
every social phenomena has consequences for both the continued adapta-
17
tion and impairment of the social structure. As opposed to this
view, the Parsonian framework argues for an either/or function or
dysfunction for the particular social fact of the system. In addition,
Bendix and Berger have noted that the concept of system boundaries is
open to serious questions on the grounds that because we are not able
to specify the limits of what is possible in society, we are unable
to define the boundaries of a system.

STRUCTURAL-FUNCTIONALISM IN SOCIAL WORK

Howard W. Polsky has written extensively from a structural func-
tionalist perspective on problems related to the residential treatment
18
of children and adolescents. Polsky's first published work, while
not making direct use of a systems approach, can be seen as setting
the theoretical stage for the use of systems theory in all of his later
publications. The central finding of the "Cottage Six" study was a
demonstration of the negative effects of the peer sub-culture upon the
formal goals of the residential treatment unit and the consequent ex-
tent to which the institution unwittingly supported the deviant values
of this peer group. Essentially, then, Polsky's study focused upon
the relationship between the informal peer group culture and the for-
mal goals and values of the larger and official institutional culture.
The extent to which he found that the dominant reference group for the
youth was the informal, as opposed to formal and official goals and
values of the institution, led him into the use of the Parsonian frame-
work from which to theoretically understand the social relationships
of the residebtial unit and the manner in which these relationships
effect and are effected by the treatment goals.
19
In a later publication, Polsky explicitly formulated his systems
perspective and pointed to the utility of this framework for understand-
ing the cottage system as well as for guiding practice skills in the
direction of "neutralizing" the deviant values of the peer group and
replacing them with more positive ones. The language and concepts of
Parsonian systems theory are made explicit in this paper by Polsky.
Thus, he defines a "social system" as, "a distinctive entity of interde-
pendent parts (statuses)... M and further, he notes;
By social system is meant a boundary-maintaining interdepen-
dence of parts that make up a whole in moving equilibrium.
A system must be distinguished from an entity: a system con-
sists of parts that are in some way different from one
another in nature or function; these parts must be coordina-
ted if the system is to maintain itself as a system rather
than a collection or congeries. Social systems are supported
by mutual orientations of their interacting actors and by
the internalization of relevant values. 21

-436-
 In both of these "definitions" the Parsonian concept of "system"
can be noted. For as was noted earlier, in Parsons' treatment the
unit of analysis in the social system is the status-role and a system
of statuses constitute a collectivity or sub-system out of which is
formed the social system. Polsky directly adopts this conceptualization
in the above quotations. These quotations also reflect the emphasis
on the interdependence of the status relationships constituting the
system, the emphasis on "boundaries," the phenomenon of "moving equi-
librium," along with the stress placed upon the common value orienta-
tions which have been internalized by the social factors and which
function to support the system. All of these concepts stem directly
from Parsons' scheme. While Polsky uses the concept of "moving equi-
librium" and Parsons that of "dynamic equilibrium," the difference is
more emantic than substantive.
By using the notion of the "functional prerequisites" of the sys-
tem as formulated by the functionalists, Polsky develops a systems
paradigm for analyzing the interactions which occur in a residential
treatment unit. The paradigm is a four-fold scheme based on a two way
axis of internal, external, and instrumental, expressive. The system
is conceived as having both external dimensions - "in order for a
system to maintain equilibrium it has to be able to adapt facilities
22
in the environment to achieve goals and gain satisfaction - and inter-
nal dimensions -"...it must be able to resolve frictions and tensions
23
satisfactorily." Combined with these dimensions are those relating
to the functions of the system - the task oriented or instrumental
function of the system which relates to the achievement of system
goals and the expressive function relating to the resolution of problems
arising within the system.
Summarizing the scheme, Polsky identifies four functional "needs"
of any social system: the external expressive, resolving environmental
problems; external instrumental, the achievement of environmental goals;
internal instrumental, achieving internal equilibrium of the system;
and internal expressive, reolution of internal tensions.

Diagrammed:
External System Internal System
Instrumental Ext. - Instr. Int. - Instr.
Expressive Ext. - Exp. Int. - Exp.

The paradigm proposed by Polskyj can be seen as essentially amount-

ing to the Parsonian paradigm of the functional prerequisites of the
social system. In turn, the scheme is applied to the basic problems
associated with the negative influence of the peer sub-culture upon the
formal treatment goals of the residential unit. In his later work
Polsky has brought this scheme to full Parsonian bloom.

-487-
 In two later publications, Polsky and Claster have filled in the
2
outline of the four-fold scheme as follows: 4

Instrumental Expressive
External Adaptation Goal Attainment
Internal Pattern Mainten- Integration
ance and Tension
Management

This scheme is then used to assess the nature of the adult-youth

interactions in the residential treatment cottage social system. Polsky
argues that each of the four cross-classifications can be regarded as
a key function arising out of the role assumed by the adult staff mem-
ber in his interaction with the youth. Thus the system "need" or func-
tion of adaptation corresponds to the adult role of monitor, custodian,
or supervisor; goal attainment is regarded as corresponding to the
adult role of counselor, guide, or teacher; pattern maintenance and
tension management corresponds to the role of nurturer, comforter, and
supporter; the integration function corresponds to the friend, mediator,
judge role.2 5 The scheme is presented as follows:

Instrumental Expressive
External System Need-Adapta- System Need -
tion Goal Attain-
Functional Role- ment
Monitor Functional Role-
Guide
Internal System Need-Patt. System Need-
Maint. Integration
Functional Role- Functional Role-
Supporter Friend

More analytically,
26
the scheme is presented by Polsky and Claster
as follows:

INSTITUTION
Instrumental Expressive

External Adaptation Goal Attainment

"Monitor Role" "Guide" Role

COTTAGE

Internal Pattern Maintenance Integration

"Supporter" Role "Friend" Role

-433-
 Essentially, the "monitor" role relates to an orientation by the
adult toward the youth relating to complying with the regulations of
the larger institution. From the diagram it can be noted that the
adult staff role of "monitor" corresponds with the external-instrumen-
tal functional system "need" of adaptation. Similarly, the role of
"guide" relates to helping the child formulate and work towards par-
ticular goals which are compatible both with his Derceived needs and
the values of the institution. Both of these role relationships-
"Monitor" and "Guide" - relate to the relationship of the social
system of the cottage unit with the external social system of the larg-
er institution in which it is situated. The two functional needs of
pattern maintenance and tension management and integration are corres-
pondingly related to the functional roles of "supporter" and "friend."
Both are seen as contributing to the maintenance of the internal system
- i.e. the social system of the cottage unit. The role of "supporter"
characterizes the nurturing role of the adult insofar as he enables
the youth to function within the system of the cottage unit. Finally,
the integrative function is fulfilled by the adult assuming the role
of a "friend" in the for of an informal relationship - i.e. in such
forms as informal conversations directed toward no specific goal.
By analytically breaking down the various role functions performed
by the adult directly involved in working with youth in institutional
settings, Polsky argues that one is able to more effectively analyze
the total function of the institutional setting as manifested in the
role of the cottage worker. As he puts it:
Uncovering the complex interplay of functions underlying
an apparent unitary role enables us to develop a more com-
prehensive picture of the dynamics, conflicts, and poten-
tialities of the cottage worker's role.
Polsky also argues that the particular roles which are emphasized will
largely determine the nature of the ongoing interaction between the
adults and the youth, largely determine the nature of the interplay
between the informal and formal cultures, and consequently affect the
treatment atmosphere of the cottage.
While the scheme is presented in a structural manner and does
seem to imply relative stability, Polsky's orientation is toward per-
ceiving the dynamic nature of the theoretical scheme. That is, while
any particular child care worker may, at any one point in time, be
interacting with a youth on the basis of one of the functional roles,
superordinately that child care worker should be flexibly shifting from
one role to another vis-a-vis the particular situation of the specific
children with whom he is interacting. In turn, the actual extent to
which each particular role is manifested by different child care workers
within any one institutional setting will, it is argued, affect the
nature of the cottage sub-culture.

-489-
 Looking more critically at the systems paradigm and the uses to
which it is put by Polsy and Claster, a number of concerns present
themselves. First, it should be noted that in the original formulation
of the paradigm of system "needs" or functional prerequisites, Parsons
and his colleagues held that maximizing efforts to resolve one of the
28
problems, intensified one of the other problems. That is, it is
postulated that resolving adaptation problems will increase problems
of integration, the resolution of goal attainment will intensify the
problem of general pattern maintenance, and the converse is also seen
as true. For example, in a decision making group when the members
cooperate in assessing information (adaptation) prior to making a deci-
sion (goal attainment), they will strain their personal relationships
(integration), and temporarily prevent each other from fulfilling
other needs and goals (pattern maintenance and tension management).
In short, the interrelations of the system is stressed through the dy-
namic interplay between the four functional problems. However, in
Polsky and Claster's use of the paradigm this interplay between the
system needs appears to have been lost. Nowhere is the reader presen-
ted with an indication of the "connectedness" of the system needs to
each other. The closest the authors come to this point is in their
discussion of a cottage system's overemphasis on a particular orienta-
tion and the effects this is likely to have on the general quality
of the cottage atmosphere or culture. For example, overemphasis on
the adaptation function and the "monitor" role is likely to-result in
a custodially oriented cottage system. However, the question then
arises; what of overemphasizing the "guide" role of the goal attainment
need; will this result in effects upon the pattern maintenance func-
tion and the "supporter" role? According to Parsons' work this would
seem to be the result. Polsky and Claster do not relate to this at
all. We must assume, however, that such an event would be forthcoming.
2
In later sections of their book, 9 Polsky and Claster briefly
allude to a scheme for differentiating the major types of child care
30
worker role orientations. And in a more recent work, Polsky has more
extensively dealt with this scheme and has related his analysis much
more in the direction of focusing on the problematics of values and of
3
change in the cottage system. The scheme is presented as follows: 1

High (1,9) (9,9)

concern for youth
autonomy, maximizing
peer group initiative (,) (1,9)
and involvement Low High
concern for production,
goal consumption

-490-
 Although Polsky does not refer to any theoretical connections
between this scheme and his earlier systems model, it would appear
that he has, for all intent and purposes, retained the earlier scheme
in modified form. Essentially, what he seems to have done is to reduce
the four functional needs of the system to two axis of a graph, each
of which contain two role orientations or functional needs. One axis
contains the adaptation and pattern maintenance functions - now re-
formulated as the "concern for production and goal consumption." The
vertical axis can now be seen as combining the goal attainment and
integration spheres which are now called "concern for youth autonomy,
maximizing peer group initiative and involvement." While Polsky has
changed the labels and modified the scheme to emphasize role orienta-
tions of workers, the essential thrust of the scheme remains the same.
Several further features of this paper by Polsky should be noted,
all would seem to be themes that run through his earlier work as well.
First, after Parsons, Polsky makes the basic assumption that as social
systems, society or social groups are held together or made possible
through the existence of common norms which, in effect, regulate the
"war of all against all." Durkheim's question, "How is society pos-
sible?," is answered through an emphasis on common normative patterns.
These patterns, in turn, are seen as deriving from the processes of
socialization. As was previously indicated, Parsons has made this
point quite explicit in his work. Polsky adopts this perspective
throughout all of his published work dealing with a systems framework.
As he puts it:
The selective reception of input is governed foremost by the
underlying values of the members composing the social system
which insures a stability of their interaction in interde-
pendent events, the basic stuff of human systems. 32
and further, we are informed:
The ultimate hold, however, upon the members are the system
norms, the justification and idealization of its functions
and a common acceptance of the rules to get the job done.
These norms emerge out of the social experience and culture
of the larger society into which members are born and so-
cialized, principally by parents and their surrogates. 33
Thus the reader is told that the orderly processes which occur in
the social system are not to be attributed primarily to the contemporary
social structure of the system but, instead, to the fact that individuals
in the system have at some time in the past - in childhood - internal-
ized the roles and norms of the system. While this type of explanation
certainly has a degree of plausibility for the institutionalized aspects
of society, it seems doubtful whether it can serve as more than a par-
tial explanation for the problematic and changing aspects of the system.
From this perspective, change in the system is treated and defined

-491-
largely as a by-product of the malfunctioning of social control mechan-
isms. Conflict and change come to be regarded as "pathological" con-
sequences arising out of certain dysfunctional aspects of the system
and the focus is then on the means by which control is to be restored.
The functional consequences of social conflict34 are largely ignored
as is the fact that dissensus and conflict are simultaneously generated
35
out of the structural conditions of the social system.
It should also be noted that while Polsky has been relatively con-
sistent in his use of the Parsonian framework, some modifications can
be detected over the course of his various publications. Thus, while
36
in his original work he emphasized a "closed system," Polsky has
more recently noted that, "it is dangerous to assume explicitly or
37
implicitly a closed system." Moreover, in contrast to his earlier
work in which he used the concepts of "function" and "dysfunction" in
a loose evaluative sense, in his more recent work Polsky makes quite
explicit the normative problem of who is to say what individual or
organizational needs are functional or dysfunctional for the particular
system under consideration. Thus while he notes that:
Evaluating social arrangements as functional or dysfunctional
38
is equivalent to classifying them as normal or pathological.
he also notes:
Making judgments about the functioning of the system and the
human needs that are being served by it, I well realize, pre-
supposes a whole catalog of assumptions.. .39
Polsk1 is thus well aware of the nature of the evaluative problem.
Being aware, the way is then open for him to specify objective criteria
of what is to be considered as "functional" or "dysfunctional" for the
particular system under consideration. He seems to fail in this by
presenting the rather vague and abstract concept of "maximizing indi-
vidual autonomy" as the crucial differentiating factor. The subjective
nature of this concept and the consequent lack of specific empirical
referents makes it appear as rather worthless. It can, quite literally,
mean anything to anybody.
The fact that Polsky has directly adopted the Parsonian framework
from which to view the "needs" and structure of the residential cottage
system leaves him open to a number of the criticisms levied against
Parsons. It is evident from his increased sophistication in the use
of this model that he is aware of the criticisms and has attempted to
modify his scheme in the direction of taking them more fully into ac-
count. However, there still remains the fact that Polsky's scheme is
rife with anthropomorphisms in the form of the system "seeking" equi-
librium, and having "needs." Furthermore, Polsky's work tends to em-
phasize stability and structure over the processual nature of social
reality. While Parsons has ingeniously attempted to answer this crit-
icism by arguing that all theory construction inherently entails a

-492-
process of "mythologization" in which the investigator must abstract
40
from the empirical world, he seems to lose sight of the fact that
while theory construction may indeed be viewed as a process of "mythol-
ogization" this does not necessarily mean that the "connectedness" of
phenomena or the rendering of them as essentially static need neces-
sarily follow. In short, the processual nature of social reality can
be treated on a theoretical level without being made static.

CONCLUSION
The most general feature of the structural functionalist systems
approach is the emphasis placed upon the unitary or holistic nature
of particular phenomena under investigation. The emphasis is on a
synthetic orientation as opposed to one which is more analytic in na-
ture. Viewing the profession of social work from this orientation
one would not perceive discrete, largely air-tight compartments of
casework, group work, community organization, administration, research,
education, and so on, but instead would look to a more holistic con-
ception of social work. Thus the logic of the systems approach leads
away from increasing differentiation within the profession and in the
direction of a unified, social work process which can be traced through-
out the various sub-fields. Hearn has explicitly related to this
point:
.if individuals, groups, and communities can all be regard-
ed as systems, and if there are certain properties common to
them all, it seems likely that there may also be certain
common principles that define their operation and that the
latter may form a part, at least, of a.unified conception
of social work. 41
As Hearn brings out in the above statement, the systems principle
of perceiving commonalities in terms of principles of organization from
the level of the individual through the levels of the group, the com-
munity, and the larger social order, leaves the way open for a unified
conception of the social work process which, in turn, has relevance
for the methods of casework, family treatment, group work, community
organization, and administration. This holistic type of orentation,
however, directly entails the basic assumption that elements of social
phenomena cannot be regarded as isolated from one another but must be
seen as ultimately linked through a network of relationships. The
social work analyst or practitioner must assume the relatedness of all
phenomena - tinkering in one place has reverberations across space
and time. The focus is on the systemic relations of elements rather
than on the nature of an element, in and of itself, in a relationship.
Thus the use of the systems perspective should sensitize the worker
to the possibility that a change in one part of the system may have
effects in another part due to the interdependence of the system ele-
-493-
ments. Moreover, the consequences of the changes effected may be nei-
ther linear or desirable in nature. That is, a change strategy injec-
ted into the system may have cumulative or amplified undesirable ef-
fects in certain parts of the system while having minimal effects in
other parts. As a glaring example of this process in the form of a
national change strategy -- the "war on poverty" - we can note the
host of unanticipated consequences arising out of the implementattion
of the "maximum feasible participation" clause in the Economic Oppor-
tunity Act of 1964.42 It should be noted, however, that the desired
changes may be brought about in one part of the system, not only by
focusing directly upon it but also by the alteration of more distantly
removed elements. Thus, in effect, systems analysis directs attention
to the multiple possibilities of intervention into the system with
respect to solving a particular constellation of problems.
In itself, as has been noted, the structural-functionalist scheme
tends to overstress the stable properties of social life. On the other
hand, the conflict view of social life espoused by such theorists as
Marx and Dahrendorf tends to over-stress the instability and disinte-
grative aspects of social systems. Rather than being necessarily anti-
3
thetical views, these can, as Dahrendorf has noted,4 be seen as com-
plementary views of social reality. Thus, for example, in Polsky's
use of the Parsonian framework, by incorporating the disjuntive ele-
ments of the system into the analysis the reader could be provided
with a more coherent and "real]istic" assessment of the total configura-
tion of elements which go to make up the system of the residential
treatment unit. The consensual and dissensual, the stability and in-
stability, the integrative and disintegrative elements of the unit
would then be more fully elaborated. Also the extent to which conflict
contributes to the integration of the system and the extent to which
consensus can prevent integration would be more amenable to empirical
analysis. As it is, Polsky completely omits such considerations from
his work. Thus, while his analysis of the social system of the resi-
dential cottage untilis insightful, it is also one-sided. A goal for
social work theory is to combine into a balanced theoretical perspec-
tive both aspects of the empirical world with relevant intervention
strategies based upon such a synthesis.
Most generally, then, the structural functionalist variant of sys-
tems theory would seem to have great relevance for the development of
a social work model in the form of focusing upon the contextual "system"
in which the social phenomena under consideration occur. This attempt
to focus on the contemporaneous interrelatedness of phenomena bears
quite obvious connection to Kurt Lewin's "field theory." In his terms,
field theory analysis proceeds not by picking out one or another iso-
lated element within a situation, the importance of which cannot be
judged without consideration of the situation as a whole, but rather by

-494-
starting with a characterization of the situation as a whole. Watz-
lawick, and his co-authors have put this well:
..a phenomenon remains unexplainable as long as the range
of observation is not wide enough to include the context
in which the phenomenon occurs. Failure to realize the
intricacies of the relationships between an event and the
matrix in which it takes place, between an organism and its
environment, either confronts the observer with something
"mysterious" or induces him to attribute to his object of
study certain properties the object may not possess. 44
And in a very different context, Roszak has related to this necessity
for "global vision:"
Our habit is to destroy this receptive peripheral vision
in favor of particularistic scrutiny. We are convinced
that we learn more in this way about the world. And, af-
ter a fkahionwe do...We learn what one learns by scru-
tinizing the trees and ignoring the forest, by scrutini-
zing the cells and ignoring the organism, by scrutinizing
the detailed minutiae of experience and ignoring the
whole that gives the constituent parts their greater
meaning. In this way we become ever more learnedly stu-
pid. Our experience dissolves into a congeries of iso-
lated puzzles, losing its overall grandeur. 45

-495-
 FOOTNOTES
1 Don Martindale, The Nature and Types of Sociological Theory,
New York, Houghton Mifflin, 1960, pp. 449-450.
2 Talcott Parsons, "An Outline of the Social System" in Talcott
Parsons, et al., Theories of Society, Glencoe, The Free Press,
1962, p. 36.
3 Robert K. Merton, Social Theory and Social Structure, Glencoe,
The Free Press, 1957, Pp. 19-84.
4 Robert K. Merton, Ibid., pp. 23-24.
5 Talcott Parsons, Ibid., p. 37.
6 See, for example,7Tcott Parsons and Edward A. Shils, eds.,
Towards A General Theory of Action, New York, Harpers, 1962,
p. 107.
7 Talcott Parsons and Edward A. Shils, Ibid., pp. 95-96.
8 Talcott Parsons, The Social System, Glencoe, The Free Press, 1951,
p. 8.
9 Talcott Parsons, "An Outline of the Social System," Ibid., pp. 38-
41.
10 See on this point; C. Wright Mills, The Sociological Imagination,
New York, Oxford University Press, 1968, pp. 48-49.
11 Walter Buckley, Sociology and Modern Systems Theory, Englewood
Cliffs, N.J., Prentice-Hall, 1967, p. 14.
12 Ralf Dahrendorf, "Out of Utopica; Toward a Re-Orientation of So-
ciological Analysis" in Ralf Dahrendorf, Essays in the Theory of
Society, Stanford University Press, 1968, p. 117.
13 Robin Williams, "The Sociological Theories of Talcott Parsons"
in Max Black, ed., The Social Theories of Talcott Parsons,Englewood
Cliffs, Prentice-Hall, 1961, p. 94.
14 W.J.H. Sproth, "Principia Sociologica, 11," British Journal of
Sociology, 14, 1963, pp. 307-320.
15 Note on this point; Alvin W. Gouldner, "Reciprocity and Autonomy
in Functional Theory," in L. Gross, ed., _rmposium on Sociological
heory, New York, Harper, 1959, p. 244.
16 Carl G. Hempel, "The Lobic of Functional Analysis" in L. Gross,
Ibid., p. 284.
17 Reinhard Bendix and Bennett Berger, "Images of Society and Prob-
lems of Concept Formation" in L. Gross, Ibid., p. 112.
18 Howard W. Polsky, Cottage Six, New York, Russell Sage Foundation,
1962.
19 Howard W. Polsky, "A Social System Approach to Residential Treat-
ment," in Henry Maier, ed., Group Work as a Part of Residential
Treatment, New York, National Association of Social Work, 1965.
20 Howard W. Polsky, Ibid., p. 117.
21 Op. Cit., p. 118.
22 Op.Cit., p. 122.
23 Op Cit., p. 122.
24 Howard W. Polsky and Daniel S. Claster, The Dynamics of Residen-
tial Treatment, Chapel Hill, The University of North Carolina
Press, 1968; Howard W. Polsky and Daniel S. Claster, "The Struc-
ture and Functions of Adult-Youth Centers," in Muzafer Sherif and
Carolyn W. Sherif, eds., Problems and Youth, Chicago, Aldine,
1965, pp. 189-211.
25 Howard W. Polsky and Daniel S. Claster in Sherif and Sherif, Ibid.,
p. 193; Howard W. Polaky and Daniel S. Claster, Ibid., p. 11.
26 Sherif and Sherif, Ibid., p. 197.
27 Howard W. Polsky and Daniel S. Claster, The Dynamics of Residen-
tial Treatment, p. 11.
28 Talcott Parsons, "An Outline of the Social System," in Talcott
Parsons, et al, pp. 38-41.
29 Howard W. Polsky and Daniel S. Claster, Ibid., pp. 171-173.
30 Howard W. Polsky, "System as Patient: Client Needs and System
Function," in Gordon Hearn, ed., The General Systems Approach:
Contributions Toward An Holistic Conception of Social Work, New
York, Council on Social Work Eiucation, 1969, pp. 12-25.
31 Howard W. Polsky, Ibid., p. 23.
32 Op Cit., p. 12.
33 Op Cit., p. 13.
34 Lewis A. Coser, The Functions of Social Conflict, Glencoe, The
Free Press, 1956.
35 Ralf Dahrendorf, Class and Class Conflict in Industrial Society,
Stanford University Press, 1959.
36 Howard W. Polsky, "A Social System Approach to Residential Treat-
ment," in Henry Maier, ed., Ibid., p. 118.
37 Howard W. Polsky, "System as Patient: Client Needs and System
Function," in Gordon Hearn, ed., Ibid., p. 12.
38 Op Cit., p. 17.
39 Op Cit., p. 19.
40 Charles Ackerman and Talcott Parsons, "The Concept of Social Sys-
tem as a Theoretical Device," in Gordon J. DiRenzo, ed., Concepts,
Theory and Explanation in the Behavioral Sciences, New York,
Random House, 1967, p. 26.
41 Gordon Hearn, Theory Building in Social Work, Toronto, University
of Toronto Press, 1958, p. 52.
42 See; Daniel P. Moynihan, Maximum Feasible Misunderstanding, New
York, The Free Press, 1969.
43 Paul Watzlawick, Janet Beavin, Don Jackson, Pragmatics of Human
Comaunication, New York, W.W. Norton, 1967, pp. 20-21.
44 Theodore Roszak, The Making of a Counter Culture, New York,
Doubleday, 1969, p. 251.

-497-