抄録
The concept of function has come to be understood now-a-days mostly in the sense used in the so-called functional-structural analysis in accordance with the ascendancy of that kind of approach in sociology. “Function” in this sense mean the correspondence between human activities and the needs of society. It was none other than Durkheim who defined function in this way and gave rise to its popularity among sociologists. However, the term “function” had originally another important meaning, as Durkheim himself pointed out. Function in this sense meant not the correspondence between human activities and the needs of society, but human activities themselves and what is to be noticed is that this usage has not only not been abandoned, but is still influential among sociologists who are also interested in the formation of general theory of society. Spencer who introduced the terms “structure” and “function” for the first time from biology into sociology used the term in the sense of activities, though he himself did not fail to take in to account their duties to society considered as an organism. This usage was exemlified more vividily in Schaeffie's work “Bau und Leben des sozialen Koerpers” where function was understood directly as life itself. How this usage has continued to be prevalent is reflected in the fact that we can find it also in the comparatively recent publications of sociologists such as Ginsberg, Sprott and Maclver.
Notwithstanding this it is true that this usage is now becoming to be regarded as outmoded or inadequate. However, we cannot leasily agree to this judgment as long as we can ascertain the fact that this usage is still cherished by not a small number of sociologists. To put it briefly, I think that this usage has its own reason to defended and this reason is not lost even at the present time. The term function, as activity is in itself useful for denoting dynamic aspect of society without having to do with its correspondence to society and is also able to be the starting point for building up new concepts such as functional correspondence, functional consequence and others, if function as activity comes to be investigated in its correspondence with social need or in its consequence. It cannot be denied that the concept of functional correspondence and functional consequence have scientific untilities. But the question is whether it is expendient to use the term “function” to mean correspondence or consequence, overlooking its simpler and original meaning of activity. No donbt the term function in mathematics has the meaning of correspondence and this circumstance contributed not a little to the wider acceptance of term “function” as correspondence among the sociologists. Nevertheless, it is clear that we have no reason to follow this example and restrict the meaning of the term function in sociology to that in mathematics, especially when we can find another usage established and utilized since the beginning of sociology. Presumably what is now requred is a reinvestigation of the term function as activity and possibly a consolidation of a new functional approach based on this concept of function in sociology which might well be compared to the approach once developed in psychology in the name of functional psychology.
