Achieve Great Things, Initiate Changes, Transform from Better to Best, Excel and Remain Humble

Gret-Fisico Bldg., Maharlika Highway, Brgy. Lumingon, Tiaong, Quezon, Philippines

Telefax Number: (042)-545-6547 / Cell No. 0922-8934738

DISCIPLINE AND IDEAS IN THE APPLIED SOCIAL SCIENCES

I. UNIT NO. & TITLE: CHAPTER II: DOMINANT APPROACHES AND IDEAS IN THE SOCIAL
SCIENCES
II. LESSON NO. & TITLE: Lesson 1.2 MACROLEVEL APPROACHES IN THE SOCIAL
SCIENCES
III. WEEK NUMBER: Week 5-7 (March 08-26, 2021)
IV. MODULE NUMBER: Module 5-7
V. OBJECTIVES: At the end of the lesson, students must be able to:

 Apply the major social science theories and its importance in examining
socio-cultural, economic, and political conditions.
a. Structural-functionalism
b. Marxism
c. Symbolic Interactionism

VI. ACTIVITY:

GREEN ALERT
Instruction: Identify one environmental issue or problem in your community or village. Walk and look
around your community while observing the environmental problem that you identified. First, identify the
areas in your community where the problem is visible. Locate them in your community or village map.
Next, locate the areas that are not very much affected by the problem. Then compare these two areas
and sets data. Can you see any pattern or trend? Are those marked areas near or proximate to each
other.
With the information/data you have, analyze the nature and degree of the problem, analyze its
causes and impacts on you and your family as well as your community or village. For causes, identify
political, economic and sociocultural factors/causes. For impacts, identify consequences for or
implications on health and well-being, economic security, and peace and order in your community or
village.
Examples of environmental issues or problems that you may wish to explore include, but are not
limited to, (1) waste disposal and/or collection; (2) drainage and sewage; (3) pollution (air, waste, noise)
(4) migrant population; (5) industrial sites and waste; (6) public transport system; (7) mining activities;
(8) quarrying; (9) deforestation, and (10) fault line.

Please write your analysis or assessment by completing the information required in the following
table.

GREEN ALERT

Your community’s environmental issue/problem is ______________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
 Causes Impacts

POLITICAL HEALTH and WELL-BEING

ECONOMIC ECONOMIC SECURITY

 SOCIOCULTURAL PEACE AND ORDER

Processing Questions:
 Is there something that you can do now to avert the negative impacts on your community?
Why or why not? Please suggest a solution to the problems, and outline your plan on how
to do it.

VII. DISCUSSION:

MACROLEVEL APPROACHES IN THE SOCIAL SCIENCES

STRUCTURAL FUNCTIONALISM
Structural functionalism is "a framework for building a theory that sees society as a complex system whose
parts work together to promote solidarity and stability" (Macionis 2007, 15). Such parts of the whole system may vary
in terms of functions but they are all related to each other. Interdependent as they are, they all have one goal and
that is to maintain or keep the whole system, at least in its present form. It follows therefore that the working of one
part would have effects on the other parts.
Structural functionalism was developed by Talcott Parsons in the 1930s under the influence of the works of
Max Weber and Emile Durkheim (McMahon 2015). It emphasizes social structure, "any relatively stable pattern of
social behavior" and social functions, "the consequences of any social pattern for the operation of society as a whole"
(Macionis 2007, 15). Examples of social structure are the family, government, religion, education, and economy.
Social structure shapes our lives in various contexts such as the family, the workplace, classroom, and community;
and all social structure functions to keep society going, at least in its present form (Macionis 2007).
 Robert Merton (1910-2003) expanded the concept of social function by arguing that any social structure
may have many functions. He distinguished between manifest functions, "the recognized and intended
consequences of any social pattern" and latent functions, the unrecognized and unintended consequences of any
social pattern." (Macionis 2007, 15).
Higher education, for instance, can be seen with both manifest and latent functions. The manifest function of
higher education is to provide the youth with the information and skills needed to enable them to perform their jobs
after graduation. By keeping millions of young people out of the labor market, where a significant number of them
may not get hired right away after graduation, serves as the latent function of higher education AS a "marriage
broker", that is, bringing together peoples of similar social Dackgrounds is an equally important, yet not often
recognized latent function of higher education (Macionis 2007, 16)

In his classification of social functions into manifest or latent, Merton recognized that the effects or outcomes
of social structure are not all necessarily good and not necessarily good for everyone. He coined the term "social
dysfunction." A social dysfunction is "any social pattern that may disrupt the operation of society" (Macionis 2007,
16).
What causes social dysfunction? The lack of consensus among peoples in a given polity or society about
what is helpful or harmful to society is a key feature of every society or polity. Differences in backgrounds or status,
for instance, may lead to differences in recognition and appreciation of
what is functional or not to particular individuals or groups of peoples. In
a capitalist order, for example, high profits for factory owners can be
seen as dysfunctional for factory workers as they receive low wages
(Macionis 2007, 16).

The structural-functional approach built on the following

premises:
1. Within every social structure or system-politics, family,
organizations -each member of the system has a specific function.
Those functions can be small or substantial, are dynamic in nature
2. (i.e., they can change), and work toward the same purpose: to keep the system operational within its environment.
3. Change is evident within any society or system; however, for the system to survive, it must adapt to that change in
order to maintain its equilibrium (McMahon 2015).

To maintain the equilibrium of the system, Parsons identified four imperatives for societies to survive, which
he called the AGIL model, the acronym stands for the first letter of each of these four imperatives. These are:
 Adaptation: acquiring and mobilizing sufficient resources so that the system can survive.
 Goal Attainment: setting and implementing goals
 Integration: maintaining solidarity or coordination among the subunits of the system
 Latency: creating, preserving, and transmitting the system's distinctive culture and values (McMahon 2015
Emphasis added).
 Structural functionalism was under sustained criticisms in the late 1960s such that by the 1970s, it has lost
its credibility (McMahon 2015). A generalized criticism of structural functionalism was aimed at the theory's
lack of explanation for social conflict or social change in addition to its "bias of political conservatism"
(Smelser 1990 in McMahon 2015).

In more specific terms, structural functionalism was criticized for being unable to explain phenomena such
as social change, disagreement with
social and political aims, and the influential underpinnings of the wealthy. Moreover, structural functionalism's
qualitative methodology, its emphasis on the general rather than the specific, and its non inclusion of psychology in
the discussion of human behavior came also under attack from social scientists (McMahon 2015).
Critics argue that structural functionalism's focus on social stability and social order ignore inequalities of
social class, race, and gender which cause tension and conflict in the society (Macionis 2017). Feminists, in
particular, are critical of structural functionalism due to the theory's gender-blindness to the historical contributions of
women (McMahon 2015). Others find the focus on stability and order at the expense of conflict of structural
functionalism as somewhat conservative (Macionis 2017) and less likely to produce cumulative and generalizable
knowledge.
In response to these criticisms, some social scientists revert to structural functionalism as it offers a valid
explanation of consensus, which supports the Concept of social order (McMahon 2015). Others made a critical
response. They developed the social-conflict approach (Macionis 2017). In the social Sciences, Marxism is an
example of this social-conflict approach in the Social Sciences.

INSTITUTIONALISM
The study of political institutions was dominant within political science in Britain and the US in the early
twentieth century. Until the 1950s institutionalism enjoyed a privileged status within the discipline-its assumptions and
practices as well as its methodological and theoretical premises were rarely questioned, let alone subject to the
behavioralist critique (Lowndes 2002).
The institutional approach can be understood as a subject matter, as a method, and as a theory. As a
subject matter, the study of political institutions is central to the identity of the discipline of political science (Rhodes
1995).

To quote Rhodes (1995, 43), "If there is any subject matter at all that political scientists Can claim
exclusively for their own, a subject matter that does not require acquisition of the analytical tools of sister fields and
that sustains their claim to autonomous existence, it is, of course, formal-legal political structure Public
administration, a subdiscipline within political science, has the study of institutions as its key characteristic.
Public administration is the study of "the institutional arrangements for the provision of public services"
(Hood 1987, 504, in Rhodes 1995, 52) or "the study of public bureaucracies" (Rhodes 1979,7, in Rhodes 1995, 52).
William Robson (1975, 195, in Rhodes 1995, 52) describes the dominant approach in public administration as
institutional.
It concentrated attention on the authorities engaged in public administration, analyzed their history, structure,
functions, powers, and relationships. It enquired how they worked and the degree of effectiveness they achieved.

As a method, the traditional or classic institutional approach is "descriptive- inductive, formal-legal, and historical-
comparative." It is descriptive because it employs the techniques of the historian and explores specific events, eras,
people, and institutions and inductive because inferences are drawn from repeated observations (Rhodes 1995, 43).
 As such, the classic institutional approach systematically describes and analyzes phenomena that have
occurred in the past and explain contemporary political phenomena with reference to past events. The goal is to
explain and understand but not to formulate laws (Kavanagh 1991, 482, in Rhodes 1995, 42).
The institutional approach also applies the formal-legal inquiry. Formal because it involves the study of
formal governmental organizations, and legal because it includes the study of public law (Eckstein 1979, 2, in
Rhodes 1995, 44). An example of formal-legal methods in the study of political institutions is constitutional studies
(Rhodes 1995).
The classic or traditional institutional approach is also comparative. Woodrow Wilson (1989, xxxiv, in
Rhodes 1995, 45) argued that one's institutions can be understood and appreciated only by those who know other
systems of government. . By the use of a thorough comparative and historical method.. .a general clarification of
views may be obtained."
As a theory, the classic or traditional institutional approach does not only make statements about the
causes and consequences of political institutions. also espouses the political value of democracy (Rhodes 1995).
Proponents of the approach treat the functioning and fate of democracies dependent variable) as a function
of, or influenced by legal rules and procedures (independent variable). Moreover, the approach offers an opportunity
for infusing into the empirical study of politics the analysis of political values (Rhodes 1995). Influenced by the
political philosophy of Michael Oakeshott, Johnson (1975, 276-7, in Rhodes 1995, 47) describes the rationale for the
study of political institutions in the following manner:
political institutions express particular choices about how political relationships ought to be shaped; they are in the
nature of continuing injunctions to members of a society that they should try to conduct themselves in specific ways
when engaged in the pursuit of political This is to define political institutions as necessarily containing a ends
normative element.

Critics to the classic or traditional approach attack the approach's limitation both in terms of scope and
method. Peters (1999, 6-11, in Lowndes 2002, 92) describes the "proto-theory" of the traditional approach as
"normative (concerned with 'good government), structuralist (structures determine political behavior), historicist (the
central influence of history), legalist (law plays a major role in governing) and holistic (concerned with describing and
comparing whole systems of government)" (Lowndes 2002, 92)

Similarly, Roy Macridis, a comparativist in political science, critiques the approach's subject matter and
method while focusing on the study of comparative government. He claims that, comparative government was
"excessively formalistic in its approach to political institutions," did not have 'a sophisticated awareness of the
informal arrangements of society and of their role in the formation of decisions and the exercise of power"; was
"insensitive to the nonpolitical determinants of political behavior"; was 'descriptive rather than problem-solving, or
analytic in its method"; was insensitive to hypotheses and their verification; and therefore, was unable to formulate a
comparative "political theory of dynamics" (Macridis 1963, 47-8, in Rhodes 1995, 48).
The historical methods and legal analysis of the classic institutional approach are inadequate. Historical
methods cannot explain systematically the structure and behaviour of governments due to its focus on the unique.
The gap between the formal statements of the law and the practice of government renders legal analysis ineffective
(Rhodes 1995).
David Easton, the most influential critic of the traditional study of politics found the classic institutional
approach wanting on two grounds.
First, the analysis of law and institutions could not explain policy or power because it did not cover all the
relevant variables (Easton 1971, ch. 6) Second, "hyperfactualism" or "reverence for the fact' (75), meant that political
scientists suffered from "theoretical malnutrition" (77), neglecting "the general framework within which these facts
could acquire meaning (89) (Rhodes 1995, 49)
Other critics noted that the approach was concerned with the institutions of government, and yet operated
with a restricted understanding of its subject matter. Its focus was on formal rules and organizations rather than
informal conventions and on official structures of government rather than broader institutional constraints on
governance (within and outside of the state (Lowndes 2002).
By the 1980s, the traditional or classic institutional approach has declined in its importance in political
science. March and Olsen (1984, 734 in Lowndes 2002, 94, and Rhodes 1995, 53) coined the term "new
institutionalism" critiquing the traditional or classic institutional approach as having "receded in importance from the
position they held in the earlier theories of political scientists." Asserting that political institutions played a more
autonomous role in shaping political outcome, they make claims that:
The bureaucratic agency, the legislative committee, and the appellate court are arenas for contending social forces,
but they are also collections of standard operating procedures and structures that define and defend interests. They
are political actors in their own right (March and Olsen 1984, 738, in Lowndes 2002, 94, and Rhodes 1995, 53).
In contrast to the traditional or classic institutional approach, now referred to as the "old institutionalism,"
new institutionalism has a much broader, yet sophisticated definition of its subject matter.
Political institutions are no longer equated with political organizations: institution' is understood more broadly to refer
to a 'stable, recurring pattern of behavior (Goodin 1996, 22). The new institutionalists are concerned with the informal
conventions of political life as well as with formal constitutional and organizational structures. New attention is paid to
the way in which institutions embody values and power relationships, and to the obstacles as well as the
opportunities that confront institutional design. Crucially, new institutionalists concern themselves not just with the
impact of institutions upon individuals, but with the interaction between institutions and individuals (Lowndes 2002,
91).
New institutionalists argue that institutions do matter. In their seminal article on new institutionalism, March
and Olsen (1984) emphasized the central value of institutions vis-a-vis individual choices in explaining political
phenomena. They argue that political behavior is "embedded in an institutional Structure of rules, norms,
expectations and traditions that several limited the free play of individual will and calculation" (March and Olsen 1984,
736). Burnham et al., (2004, 18) captures it succinctly: "political phenomena could not be simply reduced to the
aggregate consequences of individual behavior; rather, "the choices that people make are to a significant extent
shaped by the institutions within which they operate."

There are several variants of new institutionalism reflecting the divide between "normative" approaches and
a new, more sophisticated version of rational choice.
Normative institutionalism argues that political institutions influence actors' behavior by shaping their
"values, norms, interests, identities and beliefs" (March and Olsen 1989, 17). Hence "normative" refers to a concern
with norms and values as explanatory variables (owing much to the traditions of sociological institutionalism), and not
to 'normative theory' in the sense of promoting particular norms.
Rational choice institutionalism denies that institutional factors "produce behavior" or shape individuals'
preferences, which they see as endogenously determined and relatively stable (favoring utility maximization). Political
institutions influence behavior by affecting "the structure of a situation" in which individuals select strategies for the
pursuit of their preferences (Ostrom 1982, 5-7). Institutions provide information about others' likely future behavior,
and about incentives (and disincentives) attached to different courses of action (Lowndes 2002, 95)
INTERDISCIPLINARY APPROACH IN THE SOCIAL SCIENCES HUMAN-ENVIRONMENT
SYSTEM APPROACH
HUMAN-ENVIRONMENT SYSTEM APPROACH
The Human-Environment Systems (HES) in the social sciences is an interdisciplinary approach in the social
sciences. It bridges the gap between, and integrate knowledge from, the social and the natural sciences within one
framework in the study of environmental and social issues.
Human-environment system (HES) refers to "the interaction of human systems with corresponding
environmental or technological systems" Scholz & Binder, (n.d., 791). The HES approach conceptualizes mutual
dependence between human and environmental systems. Scholz and Binder (n.d., 791) describe this mutual
dependence as "two different systems that exist in essential dependencies and reciprocal endorsement." The use of
the term human systems or "social systems ranging from society to individuals" (Apostle 1952 in Scholz and Binder
n.d.) can be traced as far back as the time of the ancient Greeks, while the use of the term environmental systems
began late in the early nineteenth Century (Scholz and Binder n.d., 791).
Human-environment interactions existed since time immemorial, but the scope and intensity of these
interactions have increased significantly since the Industrial Revolution. Whereas most of the early human-
environment interactions have taken place at a local/national scale, contemporary interactions between human and
natural systems have not only reached regional, subregional, continental, and global scales but have also become
special concerns (Liu J et al., 2007).
The human-environment system, also referred to as the "coupled human- environment system" or the
"coupled human and natural system" or CHANS "acknowledges the fact that humans, as users, actors, and
managers are not external, but integral elements of the human-environment system" (Schr ter D. et al. 2004, 11). As
integral parts of the human-environment system as Users, actors, and managers-they become duty bearers
themselves who must share the responsibility for the sustainability of the human-environment system.
The science of CHANS builds on but moves beyond previous work such as human ecology, ecological
anthropology, and environmental geography (Liu. et. a., 2007). The following are three central features of HES or
CHANS.
First, CHANS research focuses on the patterns and processes that link human and natural systems.
Second, CHANS research, such as integrated assessment of climate change, emphasizes reciprocal interactions
and feedbacks-both the effects of humans on the environment and the effects of the environment on humans. Third,
understanding within-scale and cross-scale interactions between human and natural components (e.g., how large-
scale phenomena emerge from local interactions of multiple agents and in turn influence local systems) is a major
challenge for the science of CHANS. Although each of these three aspects has been addressed in some studies on
human-environment interactions, the science of CHANS promotes the integration of all these aspects (Liu J. et al.,
2007, 639).

Liu, J. et al. (2007) made a clear articulation of the reason why an integration of the three aspects is
necessary. They argued that "such integration is needed to tackle the increased complexity and to help prevent the
dreadful consequences that may occur due to the fundamentally new and rapid changes, because the magnitude,
extent, and rate of changes in human-natural couplings have been unprecedented in the past several decades, and
the accelerating human impacts on natural systems may lead to degradation and collapse of natural systems which
in turn compromise the adaptive capacity of human systems."
To understand and appreciate the human-environment system (HES) approach in the social sciences, the
following discussion outlines three areas or fields of inquiry where the HES approach is relevant and necessary both
as an analytical tool and framework.
One is the study of the human causes of environmental change-not only proximate causes, such as burning
coal, releasing heavy metals into rivers, and clearing forests, that immediately change a part of the environment-but
especially indirect causes or driving forces, such as population growth, economic development, technological
change, and alterations in social institutions and human values, that must be understood to forecast trends in
environmentally destructive human activity and, if necessary, to change those trends.
 A second field of inquiry concerns the effects of environmental change on things people value- both
proximate effects, such as on growing seasons and rainfall in agricultural areas, soil fertility, endangered species,
and so on, and indirect effects, such as on population migrations, international conflict, agricultural markets, and
government policies.
The third field is the study of the feedbacks between humanity and the environment the ways individuals,
organizations, and governments act on the basis of experienced or anticipated environmental change to manage
human activity and preserve environmental values. These feedbacks provide the greatest challenge for scientists and
policy-makers, partly because there are so many ways people can intervene in the system (Stern 1993, 1897).
To date, significant studies on the many problems of human-environment interaction have been undertaken.
For example, "in understanding how people perceive and judge environmental risks; how societies create institutions
for managing common-property resources, such as fisheries, grasslands, and the atmosphere; what brought about
anthropogenic environmental changes in the past; the dynamics of public concern about the environment; and the
economic forces affecting natural resource availability" (Stern 1993, 1898).
However, the field of inquiry of human-environment interaction has achieved modest progress only. Stern
(1993, 1898) identified both scientific and institutional reasons that explain such modest outcome.
It has all the scientific problems of other interdisciplinary fields, but more intensely because it involves all the
disciplines of environmental science and those of social science as well. It is difficult in such a field to do high-quality
interdisciplinary work, integrate separate disciplinary projects, and set productive research agendas, and some are
tempted to proceed without the requisite background knowledge.
There are also significant institutional barriers in academia and government. Universities are reluctant to
give institutional support to interdisciplinary fields that do not yet have widespread recognition or a proven ability to
attract resources. . the field does not have a unifying society or journal, university departments, or the other
conventional signs of a cohesive intellectual community.
In government, "there is an almost complete mismatch between the roster of federal agencies that support
research on environmental change and the roster of federal agencies with strong capabilities"
So what can be done? Adopting the National Research Council report's recommendations for global change
research, (Stern 1993, 1899) proposed that there should be: (1) increased institutional and financial support for
research, post-graduate and -doctoral fellowships, as well as interdisciplinary research centers to enhance
interdisciplinary training; (2) improved systems Tor acquisition and management of data related to human-
environment interactions; and (3) environmental research activities of disciplinary associations in social science.

IX. PRACTICE/APPLICATION/SYNTHESIS:
(See worksheet)

X. ASSESSMENT:
(See worksheet)

XI. REFLECTION:
Make an essay on how Social Sciences and Applied Social Sciences differ from each other. (10 sentences)

XII. FEEDBACK: Teacher’s comments or reactions after submission and checking.

Prepared by: Checked By:

BERNADETH R. RODRIGUEZ JOAN B. DIMACULANGAN
 Subject Teacher Coordinator

Noted By:
LAARNI L. TOLENTINO
Principal

Achieve Great Things, Initiate Changes, Transform from Better to Best, Excel and Remain Humble

Gret-Fisico Bldg., Maharlika Highway, Brgy. Lumingon, Tiaong, Quezon, Philippines

Telefax Number: (042)-545-6547 / Cell No. 0922-8934738

WORKSHEET

Name: ___________________________ Date: __________________

Section: __________________________ Teacher: ________________

PRACTICE/APPLICATION/SYNTHESIS:

CRITICAL THINKING. Answer the following essay questions.

1. How would you differentiate the micro-level and macro-level approaches in the social sciences?
2. Why is it important to apply the interdisciplinary approach in the social sciences when studying social issues and
problems?
3. How does the rational choice theory explain social behavior?
4. What are the weaknesses of rational choice theory (RCT)? How do critics explain the weaknesses of the RCT?
5. According to sociologists, how does social experience develop one’s self?
6. How did George Herbert Mead explain the concept of “self”?
7. How does structural functionalism explain the nature of society?
8. According to structural functionalist, why does social dysfunction occur?
9. How do critics explain the weaknesses of the structural functionalist theory?
10. How do critics explain the weaknesses of Institutionalism?

ASSESSMENT:
Fill in the blanks. Write the missing word or concept to complete the statements below.
1. According to Sigmund Freud, when the infant is born, the mind has only one part, the ______________.
2. The three elements of the personality structure are the _________, ego, and the superego.
3. Critics of psychoanalysis claim that psychoanalysis is not ____________ because it does not satisfy
methodological specifications of the sciences.
4. The ego operates according to the _____________ principle.
5. ____________ refers to the set of moral inhibitions.
6. Descriptive phenomenology was developed by _____________________.
7. Hermeneutic phenomenology is used to interpret the ________________ of lived experiences.
8. ________________ is the art and science of interpretation.

9. Descriptive phenomenology and interpretative phenomenology share four common features: description,
_____________, essences, and intentionality.
10. ________________ are spoken accounts of personal experience.

REFLECTION:
Write a short paper that explains the causes of a particular social problem using the different approaches in the social
sciences.
1. In your analysis of the social problem, use the micro-level approaches (RCT and Symbolic Interactionsm) or the
macro-level approaches (Structural functionalism and Institutionalism) in understanding the causes and the nature of
the social problem.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________

2.Explain how the interdisciplinary approach (e.g., human-environment approach) in the social sciences can be
applied in understanding and addressing the social problem.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Prepared by: Checked By:

BERNADETH R. RODRIGUEZ JOAN B. DIMACULANGAN
Subject Teacher Coordinator

Noted By:
LAARNI L. TOLENTINO
Principal