Sample Theory Application Paper #1: The Latent Functions of Boot Camp

Raizel Arnholt

I. Introduction

To a civilian, many of the practices of the military (such as the upkeep of shiny boots or the donning of extremely short hair) seem superficial and trite. But are

these army procedures as trivial as they appear? A functionalist would say that every action of the military serves a particular function that is necessary to keep the

military (as a whole entity) running. Robert Merton's theory suggests that specific military practices fulfill both manifest and latent functions. An effective military relies

on a strong sense of group solidarity, blind obedience, and esprit de corps. This results from the latent function of many of these seemingly "functionless" military

practices. Not only do many military acts, such as marching, fulfill manifest functions, but they also fulfill deeper latent functions, providing for a more effective

military. This theory could be tested by surveying and interviewing soldiers both before and after boot camp to see if their sense of solidarity and levels of obedience

are raised upon completion of the training. The existence of latent functions of military practices could further be tested by setting up a controlled boot camp where

normal military training occurs, but without the use of uniforms, marching, or other such group solidarity and obedience promoting practices. Then a comparison

could be drawn between the levels of esprit de corps between the "test" boot camp and a normal boot camp.

II. Case Selection

The United States Armed Forces play a crucial role in protecting our nation's interests. Countless guidelines and regulations dictate the operations of the

military. Some of these rules and procedures seem minor, yet they serve certain important functions. Still, others appear to serve no function at all. From the moment

basic training begins, soldiers immediately become aware of the importance and necessity of following specific army guidelines and procedures, however trivial or

pointless they seem.

For example, US servicemen must wear their hair cut in a very utilitarian hairstyle, cut according to established guidelines and measurements. Dress uniforms

and fatigues must be worn in specific ways. For instance, boots must always be shined and brass must be polished. Socks must be rolled and placed in the same

direction in perfectly organized foot lockers. Beds in the barracks must be made according to strict guidelines.

There are other standard procedures of the military which seem to serve only basic functions, yet they are regarded as having vital importance. Rather than

haphazardly running or walking from one place to another, soldiers must march (often to a cadence kept by patriotic marching songs). Soldiers rotate KP or kitchen

duty. Guard duty is strictly kept, even during boot camp where there is no real threat, and thus no real reason to keep guard.

The military has a reason for everything that it does. Therefore, all of its tedious provisions and regulations must have functions, though they may be hidden. But

it is hard to understand the importance of seemingly trivial things such as the necessity of keeping barrack floors spit-shined. Similarly, why are soldiers in boot camp

required to take "change of quarters" duty where they stay up all night in a battalion office waiting for a message which they know will never come? To gain a better

understanding as to why the military places such importance on seemingly trite rules and guidelines, perhaps a deeper look should be taken at the functions of such

procedures.

III. Theory

A functionalist would argue that every action or procedure of the military serves a certain function that is necessary for the maintenance of the Armed Forces

(as it is an organism itself).

Functionalist Robert K. Merton would say that most army procedures and rules fulfill both a manifest and a latent function. However, he would also point out

that not everything is functional. There is a distinction between things that appear to be functional and those that actually are functional.

Merton defines manifest function as "those objective consequences for a specified unit (person, subgroup or cultural system) which contribute to its adjustment

or adaptation and were so intended" (Merton, Social Theory, p. 330) and latent function as, the "unintended and unrecognized consequences of the same order"

(Merton, Social Theory, p. 330). Further, he says that the distinction between these two types of functions "aids the sociological interpretation of many social

practices which persist even though their manifest purpose is clearly not achieved" (Merton, Social Theory, p. 330). Merton would apply this paradigm to the

provisions and procedures of the military. The fact that a soldier has perfectly shined boots seems to fulfill no certain "manifest function." He or she could fight just as

well in scuffed up boots. However, Merton would suggest that the reason that this rule exists is not because of a lack of intelligence on the army's part (Merton,

Social Theory, p. 330). Rather, forcing soldiers to have shiny boots fulfills two latent functions. It promotes obedience, since the soldiers must obey superior's

orders of keeping there boots shiny, and it promotes group solidarity (since everyone has shiny boots).

Army procedure fulfills the important latent functions of facilitating blind obedience, ~ group solidarity, and esprit de corps. For instance, the manifest function

of marching is transport. That is, soldiers must have a way to get from one place to another. However, marching also fulfills a latent function. By marching together, in

a timed rhythm, the soldiers are provided with a sense of group solidarity. Further, the soldiers are learning to blindly trust their superiors. The commanders may

shout out a "left face" command, and the soldiers must trust that their commanders aren't turning them towards danger. In addition, as the soldiers march, they often

sing songs. This serves the manifest function of keeping the cadence. However~ these songs have a latent function of promoting patriotism. Merton writes, "...it is

through participation in activities [such as patriotic songs] that creates an atmosphere of patriotism and national feeling... for the majority, patriotism is the symbolic

expression of loyalty... (Merton, Mass, p. 103).

Another example of the latent and manifest function of military rules can be found in the use of uniforms. Uniforms serve the manifest function of giving the

servicemen clothing and protection from the elements. Further, uniforms denote which "side" a soldier is on and his or her rank. However, there is also an inherent

latent function of uniforms. Since everyone is wearing the same uniform, the soldiers lose their identity, and a sense of group solidarity is achieved. All of the soldiers,

regardless of their rank, age, or gender, look essentially the same on the battlefield.

Merton says that in all social systems (such as the military) there are functional decisions to be made and that it must be kept in mind that "... up to a certain

point, social cohesion facilitates the productivity of a group" (Merton, On Social, p. 98). This social cohesion is the result of the latent functions of many military

procedures. Wearing uniforms and marching, for example, serve the obvious manifest functions of protection and transport, but they also provide the latent function

of unification and of bonding soldiers together. Social cohesion promotes trust, and this trust is what keeps a military functional. Thus, Merton would say that the

latent functions of military practices keep the armed forces productive.

One final view that Merton would have on the manifest and latent functions of military procedure comes from his theorem that "the social functions of an

organization help determine the structure, just as the structure helps determine the effectiveness with which functions are fulfilled" (Merton, On Theoretical, p. 136).

Although commanders can demand the subordinate soldiers to perform seemingly meaningless tasks such as "change of quarters" duty or guard duty of a barrack

during boot camp (neither of which seem to fulfill a manifest function), there is an inherent integration between the different ranks of soldiers. Therefore, the latent

function of these tasks is to solidify this integration by promotion of obedience. The stronger the structure of the army and the more integrated the ranks, the more

effective it will be.

In using Merton's theory of manifest and latent functions, a hypothesis on the "functions" of military practices can be drawn. Although most military practices

and procedures seem to have definite manifest functions, many don't. However all military practices seem to fulfill the latent function of promoting blind obedience,

group solidarity, and esprit de corps. Thus, an effective military is developed.

Sample Theory Application Paper #2: Is Divorce Functional?

Aimee Buck

I. Summary

Divorce is a social phenomenon that is understood as either destroying the institution of marriage or maintaining the ideology of freedom so prevalent in the

American social system. To better understand this phenomenon, research should be done on the effect of divorce on the institution of marriage and the social system

of America. Talcott Parsons, in his analysis of social systems and institutions, presents a theory of structural functionalism that could be useful in addressing divorce.

Through his definitions of social systems, institutions, and ideology and his own analysis of divorce, one can hypothesize that divorce is merely an expression of role

changes within the institution of marriage and the American social system itself. Through a survey and observation of married couples, the hypothesis of divorce as an

expression of role changes can be tested. The survey will be particularly useful in analyzing how strongly one believes in the American ideology of freedom and how

this relates to the acceptance of divorce.

II. Case Selection

Divorce is a social phenomenon that has been researched profusely but has not been clearly understood. Some Americans view divorce as a tremendous social

problem that is devastating to children and the institution of marriage. For these Americans, "marriage is primarily a social institution, designed for the efficient rearing

of children, and for the transmission of values" (Talbot, 1997). They feel that divorce is destroying marriage and family values. Other Americans view divorce as an

individual right and an act of freedom. For these Americans marriage is an institution about the union of two people who love each other. They see divorce as a

means of perfecting marriage since it allows people to explore and find what is right for them. Thomas Jefferson wrote that, "liberty of divorce prevents and cures

domestic quarrels" (Talbot, 1997). Conflict over divorce usually comes down to the institution of marriage versus the ideology of the American society. The

American tradition of freedom has long held that divorce is an act of independence and an individual right. To better understand divorce, research should be done on

the effects of divorce on both the institution of marriage and the American social system. How does divorce affect the institution of marriage? Is it an attempt to

destroy this institution or perfect it? How does divorce affect the social system of America? Is it an act of freedom and an individual right? To conduct this research, I

will rely on Talcott Parsons' theory of structural functionalism. His view on social systems, institutions, and values will be helpful in analyzing the effects of divorce on

social systems and institutions.

III. Theory

Talcott Parsons was the dominant figure in sociology in the I 940s and through the 1960s. His theory of structural functionalism was based on the functionalism

of Emile Durkheim. Functionalism is a perspective on society which views society as a living organism whose parts are supposed to fulfill a distinct function. Like

Durkheim, Parsons thought of society as an existence. For Parsons, society existed as a system. The social system, along with culture, personality, and the behavioral

organism, are action systems. These action systems are all interrelated and interdependent upon each other.

Parsons defined social systems as "those constituted by states and processes of social interaction among acting units" (Parsons, 1961-1971, p. 323). He

structured the social system into components of values, norms, collectivities, and roles. Values are "conceptions of desirable types of social systems that regulate the

making commitments by social units" (Parsons, 1961-1971, p. 323). Values act as pattern-maintenance functions; that is, they serve to maintain patterns created by

society. Values serve as important aspects of institutions. Parsons defines institutions as "a complex of institutionalized role integrates which is of strategic structural

significance in the social system in question" (Parsons, 1951, p. 39). In other words, an institution encompasses role relationships which are important in the overall

social system. In the institution of marriage, then, the roles of wife and husband are considered important in the overall context of society.

Ideology is another important feature of the social system. Parsons defines ideology as "a system of beliefs, held in common by the members of a collectivity"

(Parsons, 1951, p. 349). This belief system, however, has to have "some level of evaluative commitment to the belief as an aspect of membership in the collectivity"

(Parsons, 1951, p. 349). For a belief system to be an ideology, then, it has to be part of the role of collective membership. The idea of freedom is an ideology for

America since freedom is an important aspect of American life and is essentially a role that Americans play.

Parsons actually wrote on divorce in his book, Family, Socialization, and Interaction Process. He analyzed divorce rates in the United States from 1920 to

1951. Obviously, this was before the upsurge of divorces that occurred in the 1960s. In this analysis, he finds that the rate of couples who are married and still with

their spouses is the highest it has ever been. He concludes that, "divorce certainly has not led to a general disillusionment with marriage" (Parsons & Bales, 1955,

p.5). Parsons suggests that high divorce rates are an indication of the changing roles of family and marriage. These changing roles "impose additional strain on family

and marriage as systems, and on their members as personalities" (Parsons & Bales, 1955, p. 25). This strain is what led to the higher divorce rate.

By applying Parson's theory to my case selection of the effect of divorce on social systems and institutions, it appears that divorce is an expression of role

changes within the institution of marriage. Thus, divorce is not acting to destroy the institution, instead it is expressing the changes that are occurring within the system

itself. These role changes also affect American society. Again, divorce is the expression of these changes.