Functionalism is still adominating orientation in the social sciences, although it has been criticised in sociology by representatives of conflict theory, and more generally within the symbolic interactionism paradigm of the social sciences since the 1960s. Defending functionalism, R. Merton suggested to modify some of its assumptions, but keeping to the postulates of homeostasis, social hierarchy and functional dependency54. Today, functionalism does no longer dominate in many social sciences, but it still has prominent advocates, including N. Luhmann and A. Giddens55.
Many critics of functionalism are of the opinion that it is closely related to neopositivism and that the convergence in time related to the creation of both ←31 | 32→these currents was not a coincidence. Z. Bauman believes that an obvious result of the application of the enlightenment’s ideals in the cultural discourse was Social Darwinism and its mission to ‘civilise savages’56. A functionalist view of culture is based on assumptions focused aroundthe neopositivist Vienna Circle. This signifies cognitive and political optimism, and a belief in the project of objectivist science, which again leads to human progress. The neopositivist concept of the cultural discourse within the functionalist current was related to a striving for the studies of culture based on models drawn from the natural sciences. Thus, they were attempting to build such a project in the social sciences that, apart from objectivism and axiological neutrality, would offer a determinist model of cultural processes. This utopia is rooted in the mechanistic physics of the Newtonian paradigm, together with its own characteristic elements such as time and space universalism, determinism and a mathematical perception of reality. They were also striving for a cleansing of scientific research of ‘metaphysical’ elements, which were, by definition, omni-present in cultural discourse. System and structure became popular notions describing culture, and were seen from the perspective of the social functions. In the functionalist, and then structural understanding, culture was a system and a structure, through which the coherence of societies and other human communities was developed and maintained. Thus, the integrational role of culture was of crucial significance, as it connected, provided identity, and – in consequence – shaped the scientific progress and development of humankind. Logical empiricism, including its scientism, offered an epistemological and methodological basis for the development of functionalism in the social sciences. The theories developed were supposed to be subject to empirical verification, as a result of the development of a reliable scientific method, which would be in accordance with the cognitive ideals of natural science. The proposed empirical research method was supposed to allow for mathematical formalisation and quantification of the results of scientific inquiries. The goal of the analysis of a social group was to find the causative relationships between functions, i.e. variables, in the model. Thus, it would be possible to generalise, which would allow creation of a more general, repeatable pattern, allowing for the description of all social processes in a standard way57.
←32 | 33→
Management science consolidated at the same time as neopositivism and functionalism, i.e. at the beginning of the 20th century. It does not come as a surprise that the creators of management science, such as F.W. Talor and H. Fayol, assumed neopositivism as the default, natural way of practising it. Functionalism also dominates in the social sciences, and is the fundamental approach to cultural processes. After the Second World War, the systemic approach go connected with functionalism and neopositivism, which led to a consolidation of the dominant paradigm in the social sciences58.
A system is a whole, comprising functionally interconnected sub-systems. The general systems theory was created by L. Bertalanffy, who integrated previous concepts59. Similarly to functional structuralism, the basic assumptions include integration of the whole system, a striving for homeostasis and balance, and functional correlations between its elements and a hierarchical system structure. The systems theory postulates a differentiation between closed and open systems, which bears a similarity to the Durkheimian analogy between the mechanistic and the organic. Another important issue is the assumption of emergence, or the appearance of specific features of a system at subsequent levels of complexity. The general systems theory was one of the attempts at creating the most general theories integrating science. This generality is both a value and a limitation of the concept at the same time. Far-reaching generalisations would allow the integration of science, eliminating the dichotomy between the natural and social sciences, but on the other hand, generality results in a lack of possibility to falsify concepts. This places the general systems theory on the level of science philosophy, not an actual empirical science60..
The understanding of organisational culture in the neopositivist-functionalist current refers to the assumptions of nomothetic science, which strives for the generalisation of credible research results. Organisational culture is seen as being an entity of a systemic and holistic character that objectively exists. It consists of specific elements (subsystems) which function within cause and effect correlations. The most often mentioned elements of organisational culture include values, norms, basic assumptions, cultural patterns, heroes, stereotypes, myths, stories, rituals and taboos.
←33 | 34→
The functionalist view of culture puts emphasis on balance, harmony and order, which are related to research into the problem of internal integration. Therefore, the subjects of interest are not subcultures or counter-cultures which, by definition, limit the internal integration of culture. According to E. Schein, organisational culture develops within two key orientations. The first is the need for internal integration, which is manifested in the strength or homogeneity of culture, and the other is the striving for the external adaptation, which is manifested in its competitiveness. A balance between these two dimensions results in creation of an effective, positive organisational culture61. Internal integration can be viewed at as coherence and the strength of internal relationships, determining the way organisation functions as a whole. The levels of internal integration of functioning organizations may differ. One can create a continuum from full integration to complete disintegration, using the criticism of functionalism made by representatives of the conflict theory, such as R. Dahrendorf and L. Coser62 (Tab. 2). A fully integrated organisation is a hypothetical entity, which never occurs in reality. It is theoretically possible only in the context of a total institution, which is a very special, extreme case of organisation. Full disintegration means the breaking of the organisational whole into smaller entities, as a result of decentralist tendencies. A fully disintegrated organisation is of a transitory and temporary character, as after reaching the critical point of system disintegration it can no longer be perceived as a whole.
| Integrational concept | Coercive concept |
| Organisation is permanent and stable | Organisation undergoes permanent changes |
| Organisation is a system of functionally integrated elements | Organisation is a system of random, temporary relationships between its elements |
| Organisation functions in the context of social order | Organisation functions in the context of a social conflict |
|
|