Ecological Systems Theory and Modern Functionalism

            Two social systems theories that influence modern ways of thinking for social workers are ecological systems theory and modern functionalism.  Both theories use holism as a central theme.

             The ecological systems theory states that human beings “can be understood only in the context of the systems in which they live” (Ashford & Lecroy, 2010, p. 143).  This theory uses the principal tenants that social work is focused on the person and situation, as well as the system and its environment, and that each influences the other.  In addition, the theory proposes that all systems work best when all actions that affect the individual positively affect the environment as well.  Two contributors to this theory, Brim and Bronfenbrenner, proposed levels of functioning called microsystems, mesosystems, exosystems, and macrosystems (Ashford & Lecroy, 2010, pp. 143-144).  Ecological systems theory is important because “it enhanced our ability to look at the environment in a way that allowed for its modification.  This perspective redirected attention to the transactions between people and environment rather than focusing on either the person or the environment” (Ashford & Lecroy, 2010, p. 145).

            In contrast, modern functionalism views relationships in a different way.  Talcott Parsons proposed that all social life revolves around agency, “the idea that goal-oriented people act in intentional ways” and that all actions have “alternative courses” called “pattern variables.”  These pattern variables showed there were only a limited number of social choices available to individuals in any situation based on their social environment.  Parsons also refined his theory, which became known as structural functionalism.  In this refinement, he identified four functions in any social system that are necessary for its continued survival:  adaptation, goal attainment, integration, and pattern maintenance.  In addition, he proposed five institutions that play a necessary role in the survival of any social system:  family, religion, education, economy, and government.  The main idea of functionalism is that it helps “us study our social institutions, and social institutions represent the final step in the process in which cultural values are translated into customary behavior” (Ashford & Lecroy, 2010, p. 146).

            Although ecological systems theory as well as Brim and Bronfenbrenners’ levels are well-accepted social systems theories, Parson’s structural functionalism has come under intense criticism at various levels throughout the years.  Two writers propose that Parson’s theory has the “effect of biologizing or mechanizing human society” and that this is actually a departure from generalized systems of functioning to the scientific approach of reductionism as opposed to the social systems theory approach of holism (Soo & Munch, 1979, p. 30).  In addition, because both ecological systems theory and modern functionalism depend on the stability of systems to understand behavior, a third theory, conflict theory, was developed (Ashford & Lecroy, 2010, p. 147).

            Each of these two theories approaches social systems from different viewpoints.  Ecological systems theory makes social workers aware that what affects one piece of a system, affects the rest of the system also, just like in a biological way where adding snakehead fish previously unknown to a stable river ecology will have catastrophic effects.  However, modern functionalism breaks down smaller systems into the functions that affect them and work to create an awareness to social workers, not only of effects of changes on clients and their environments, but also on the choices that clients face in all parts of the systems in which they participate.

            Ashford, J.B & Lecroy, C.W. (2010). Human behavior in the social environment: A 

                multidimensional perspective. Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole Cengage Learning.

Chong Soo, L., & Munch, P. A. (1979). Fractured Weber: A Critique of Parsons' 

     Interp[r]etation. Qualitative Sociology, 2(2), 26-41.