Theoretical Sociology A Concise Introduction to

Twelve Sociological Theories 1st Edition

Jonathan H. Turner download

https://ebookname.com/product/theoretical-sociology-a-concise-
introduction-to-twelve-sociological-theories-1st-edition-
jonathan-h-turner/

Get the full ebook with Bonus Features for a Better Reading Experience on ebookname.com
Instant digital products (PDF, ePub, MOBI) available
Download now and explore formats that suit you...

Theory and research on human emotions 1st Edition

Jonathan H. Turner (Editor)

https://ebookname.com/product/theory-and-research-on-human-
emotions-1st-edition-jonathan-h-turner-editor/

Introduction to Abstract Algebra Second Edition

Jonathan D. H. Smith

https://ebookname.com/product/introduction-to-abstract-algebra-
second-edition-jonathan-d-h-smith/

Criminology A Sociological Introduction E. Carrabine

https://ebookname.com/product/criminology-a-sociological-
introduction-e-carrabine/

Resumes for College Students and Recent Graduates Vgm

Professional Resumes Series 3rd Edition Editors Of Vgm

https://ebookname.com/product/resumes-for-college-students-and-
recent-graduates-vgm-professional-resumes-series-3rd-edition-
editors-of-vgm/
Professional IIS 7 1st Edition Ken Schaefer

https://ebookname.com/product/professional-iis-7-1st-edition-ken-
schaefer/

Contaminated land investigation assessment and

remediation Second Edition Harris

https://ebookname.com/product/contaminated-land-investigation-
assessment-and-remediation-second-edition-harris/

A Companion to the Hellenistic World 1st Edition Andrew

Erskine

https://ebookname.com/product/a-companion-to-the-hellenistic-
world-1st-edition-andrew-erskine/

On the Art of Singing Richard Miller

https://ebookname.com/product/on-the-art-of-singing-richard-
miller/

Informal international lawmaking Joost Pauwelyn H B

https://ebookname.com/product/informal-international-lawmaking-
joost-pauwelyn-h-b/
Programming in Visual C 2008 3rd Edition Julia Case
Bradley

https://ebookname.com/product/programming-in-visual-c-2008-3rd-
edition-julia-case-bradley-2/
Theoretical Sociology
To the memory of my dear friend, Clara Dean, who in 1969 began typing all my manuscripts and who,
at age 85, retired in 2010 from typing, only to die in 2012. I will forever be grateful to her friendship
and incredible competence for over forty years in getting my manuscripts ready for publication.
Theoretical Sociology
A Concise Introduction to
Twelve Sociological Theories

Jonathan H. Turner
University of California, Riverside
FOR INFORMATION: Copyright  2014 by SAGE Publications, Inc.

SAGE Publications, Inc. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or
2455 Teller Road utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical,
Thousand Oaks, California 91320 including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage
E-mail: [email protected] and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the
publisher.
SAGE Publications Ltd.
1 Oliver’s Yard
55 City Road
London EC1Y 1SP
Printed in the United States of America
United Kingdom
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
SAGE Publications India Pvt. Ltd.
B 1/I 1 Mohan Cooperative Industrial Area A catalog record of this book is available from the Library of
Mathura Road, New Delhi 110 044 Congress.
India
9781452203478
SAGE Publications Asia-Pacific Pte. Ltd.
3 Church Street
#10-04 Samsung Hub
Singapore 049483

This book is printed on acid-free paper.

Acquisitions Editor: Diane McDaniel
Editorial Assistant: Lauren Johnson
Production Editor: Eric Garner
Copy Editor: Lana Todorovic-Arndt
Typesetter: C&M Digitals (P) Ltd.
Proofreader: Jennifer Gritt
Indexer: Diggs Publication Services, Inc.
Cover Designer: Gail Buschman
Marketing Manager: Erica DeLuca 13 14 15 16 17 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
Brief Contents

About the Author x

Preface xi

Chapter 1: Theoretical Sociology Today 1

Chapter 2: Functional Theorizing 7
Chapter 3: Conflict Theorizing 32
Chapter 4: Ecological Theorizing 60
Chapter 5: Exchange Theorizing 73
Chapter 6: Symbolic Interactionist Theorizing 96
Chapter 7: Dramaturgical Theorizing 117
Chapter 8: Structural Theorizing 136
Chapter 9: Cultural Theorizing 164
Chapter 10: Critical Theorizing on Modernity and Postmodernity 197
Chapter 11: Stage-Model Evolutionary Theorizing 222
Chapter 12: Biologically Inspired Evolutionary Theorizing 245

Index 263
Detailed Contents

About the Author x

Preface xi

Chapter 1: Theoretical Sociology Today 1

Controversy Over What Theoretical Sociology Can or Should Be   1
Violating The Law of Small Numbers   2
Issues That All Thoerists Must Resolve for Themselves   3
Can Sociology Be a Science?  3
Should Sociology Be Critical, Moral?  4
What Is the Most Important Approach to
Sociological Analysis?  4
What Level of Analysis Is Most Important?  5
Conclusion  6
Chapter 2: Functional Theorizing 7
The Beginnings of Functionalism   7
Auguste Comte’s Advocacy  7
Herbert Spencer’s Functionalism  9
Emile Durkheim’s Functional Analysis  13
The Basic Elements of Early Functional Theories  14
The Transition Into Modern Functionalism   15
Anthropological Functionalism  15
Contemporary-Era Functional Theories   18
Talcott Parsons’ “Action Theory” as an Illustration  18
The Downfall, Once Again, of Functionalism  24
Conclusion: Can Functionalism Be Saved?   27
Chapter 3: Conflict Theorizing 32
Early Conflict Theories in Sociology   32
Herbert Spencer’s Theory of Conflict  32
Karl Marx’s Theory of Conflict  33
Max Weber’s Conflict Theory  35
Georg Simmel’s Conflict Theory  36
Contemporary Conflict Theories   37
Analytical Conflict Theories  37
Historical-Comparative Conflict Theories  43
 Randall Collins’ Conflict Theorizing  45
Neo-Marxian Theories of Conflict  50
Conclusion  57
Chapter 4: Ecological Theorizing 60
Early Ecological Thinking In Sociology   60
Contemporary Ecological Theorizing In Sociology   61
Urban Ecological Analysis  61
Organizational Ecological Analysis  66
Macro-Level Ecological Theorizing in Sociology  69
Conclusion  71
Chapter 5: Exchange Theorizing 73
The Reluctance to Embrace Utilitarianism and Behaviorism   73
Early Distrust of Utilitarian Economics  73
The Rise and Initial Rejection of Behaviorism  74
Early Exchange Theories in Classical Sociology  76
Contemporary Exchange Theories   78
Basic Exchange Processes  79
Exchange Processes, Social Solidarity,
and Commitment Behaviors  85
Conclusion  92
Chapter 6: Symbolic Interactionist Theorizing 96
George Herbert Mead’s Synthesis   96
Contemporary Symbolic Interactionism and the
Analysis of Identities   99
Multiple Identities  99
Hierarchies of Salience and Prominence  102
Emotions, Defensive Strategies, and Defense Mechanisms  104
Psychoanalytic Symbolic Interactionist Theories   106
Conclusion  114
Chapter 7: Dramaturgical Theorizing 117
The Durkheimian Roots of Dramaturical Theory   117
Erving Goffman’s Dramaturgical Theory of Encounters   118
The Dramaturgical Metaphor  118
Encounters  119
Focused Encounters  119
Unfocused Encounters  124
Extensions of Goffmanian Dramaturgy   126
Arlie Hochschild on Emotional Labor  127
Candace Clark’s Theory on the Dramaturgy  129
Randall Collins on Interaction Rituals  132
Conclusion  134
Chapter 8: Structural Theorizing 136
Social Structure: An Embarrassing Confession   136
Anthony Giddens’ “Structuration” Theory   138
 Giddens’ Critique of Science in Sociology  139
Structuration  139
Agents, Agency, and Action  145
Routinization and Regionalization of Interaction  146
Network Theorizing on Structure   150
The Development of Network Analysis  150
Basic Theoretical Concepts in Network Analysis  151
Patterns and Configurations of Ties  153
Can Network Analysis Make Conceptions
of Structure More Precise?  159
Toward a More Simplified Conception of Social Structure   160
Conclusion  163
Chapter 9: Cultural Theorizing 164
Another Embarassing Confession   164
Early Sociological Conceptions of Culture  165
The Mid-Century Legacy of Claude Levi-Strauss  167
Cultural Analysis Today   168
Robert Wuthnow’s Theory of Cultural Meanings  168
Pierre Bourdieu’s Constructivist Structuralism  172
Jeffrey C. Alexander’s Approach to Cultural Pragmatics  178
Gary Alan Fine’s Theory of Idioculture  183
Jonathan Turner’s Explicitly “Weak” Cultural Program  188
Conclusion  194
Chapter 10: Critical Theorizing on Modernity
  and Postmodernity 197
The Delimma of Early Critical Theory   198
Marx’s Emancipatory Optimism vs. Weber’s Pessimism  198
The Rise of the Frankfurt School  199
The Transformation of Marx’s Project  202
Contemporary Frankfurt School   203
Jurgen Habermas’ Conception of “The Public Sphere”  203
The Critique of Science  204
Legitimation Crisis in Societies  204
Early Analysis of Speech and Interaction  206
Habermas’ Reconceptualization of Evolution  207
The Changing Balance Between System
and Lifeworld (Cultural) Processes  208
The Postmodern Turn In Critical Theorizing   209
Economic Postmodernism  209
Cultural Postmodernism  215
Conclusion  220
Chapter 11: Stage-Model Evolutionary Theorizing 222
Early Stage Models of Societal Evolution   223
Functional Theories of Evolution  223
 Early Conflict Theoretic Explanations  228
The End of the Classical Era  231
Modern Stage Models of Societal Evolution   232
Gerhard Lenski’s Theorizing on Societal Evolution   232
Talcott Parsons’ Stage Model of Evolution   238
Conclusion  243
Chapter 12: Biologically Inspired Evolutionary Theorizing 245
New Ideas From Biology   246
The Genetics of the Individual  246
The Genetics of Populations  246
The Codification of Sociolobiology   247
Fitness and Evolution  247
Group and Individual Selection  247
Key Behaviors Driven by Genes: Inclusive Fitness,
Kin Selection, and Reciprocal Altruism  248
Evolutionary Psychology  251
Cross-Species Comparisons  253
Richard Machalek’s Approach  253
Alexandra Maryanski’s Approach  257
Making Evolutionary Theorizing More Darwinian,
More Biological  261
Conclusion  262

Index 263
About the Author

Jonathan H. Turner (PhD, Cornell University) is Distinguished Professor of sociology at the

University of California, Riverside and University Professor for the University of California.
The leading authority on sociological theory, Dr. Turner is the author of 38 influential books,
which have been published in twelve different languages, as well as the author of many
research articles in numerous journals and books.

x
Preface

T
here is surprisingly little consensus among sociologist about what theory is and what
it is supposed to do for sociological analysis. For some, theory represents the way that
science explains the empirical world. For others, it is simply an orienting perspective
that can be used to describe events. For still others, theory is to be normative, advocating
social arrangements that reduce oppression and inequality. All of these views of theory have
been present since sociology’s beginnings, and the arguments and debates among those hold-
ing one or the other of these views can become, to say the least, quite contentious. So, in writ-
ing a short introduction to sociological theory, it is difficult to know where to begin and end,
given the controversy. I have sidestepped the controversy by outlining diverse approaches
within twelve broad theoretical traditions. In some, scientific explanation is the dominant
view; in others, a more descriptive view prevails; in still others, a critical view of the role of
theorizing dominates; and in a few, two or all three visions of what theory should be can be
found. My biases are toward scientific theorizing, where abstract laws and models that explain
how the social universe operates are preferred. Yet, I have given fair coverage to the alternative
approaches because, like it or not, they are part of what is called sociological theory today.
I have written many long books on theory, but I have tried something new here. I have—at
least for me—written a short book that is still comprehensive but that highlights the key elements
of a particular theoretical perspective and some of the important theorists working within a per-
spective. The goal has been to create a handbook that packs a lot of information into a small
space, especially compared to the other large books on theory that I have written in the past. I
originally thought of titling the book Lectures on Theoretical Traditions because the chapters have
drawn upon my lecture notes, but I have also pulled important elements from my larger and
longer books. The result, I hope, is a book that is useful in many different ways, such as a concise
introduction to the range of theorizing in sociology, a convenient review of theory for those
brushing upon on sociological theorizing, a source of lectures for instructors, and a quick guide
to those who do not know much about sociological theory and are just curious about what it is.
It was fun to write this book, and moreover, it was good for me—champion of theoretical
tomes—to summarize in an abbreviated but a still robust manner.
Jonathan Turner
Murrieta, California
USA

xi
 Theoretical
Sociology
CHAPTER
1 Today

Controversy Over What Theoretical

Sociology Can or Should Be
Sociology emerged as an explicit discipline in the early 1800s, although people have always
thought about the universe around them, including the social universe of their own creation.
Auguste Comte,1 the titular founder of sociology, preferred the name social physics for the
new discipline because, during his time, the notion of “physics” had not been usurped by the
current discipline using this name. Physics back then meant “to study the nature of ”; there-
fore, social physics was to be a scientific discipline devoted to studying the nature of the
social universe created by people’s behaviors, interactions, and patterns of social organiza-
tion. For Comte, explanations in science are developed through theory, and thus, sociological
theory was to be the vehicle by which explanations of the social universe were to be achieved—
just as is the case in physics and biology.
Since the label, social physics, had already been used by a Belgian statistician, Comte had to
adopt the Latin-Greek hybrid label of sociology—a name that he did not like but had to accept.
From the very beginning, the view of sociology as an explanatory science, like any natural science,
was questioned by many. Today, many still do not believe that sociology can be a natural science,
and hence, theoretical sociology cannot offer explanations like those in the “hard” sciences. For
these critics, humans have the capacity to change the very nature of their universe, with the result
that there can be no universal laws about social dynamics like those in physics or even biology.
Moreover, so much of what happens in history is by chance events converging to produce unpre-
dictable outcomes. And so, at best, sociological theory can describe for a time the social universe,
but as this universe changes its fundamental character, old theories must give ways to new theories,
which will also eventually become obsolete as humans remake their universe.
For others, whether or not sociology can be a science, it must first of all be critical of social
conditions where oppression and inequality prevail. Sociology should emphasize unjust social
conditions and propose liberating alternatives; and for many who make this argument, the
scientific pretension of some in the discipline is part of the problem—a theme that has existed
in sociology from its first moments as a new discipline.

1
Auguste Comte, The Positive Philosophy of Auguste Comte, three volumes. Condensed and translated by H. Martineau
(London: George Bell and Sons, 1896, originally published in serial form in French between 1830 and 1842).

1
2   THEORETICAL SOCIOLOGY

For still others, theoretical sociology should be seen as conceptual schemes that allow
sociologists to describe important social processes, at least for a time until these processes
change fundamentally. Sociology provides, in essence, a set of eyeglasses for seeing reality
and, equally significant, for understanding this reality at a given time and place.
There are many variants on these views of what theoretical sociology can, and should, be.
Given this lack of consensus—and indeed, outright hostility among some epistemological
camps—it becomes difficult to know what to include in a book on theory, and particularly in a
short book like this one. My biases, as are well known, lean toward a view of theory as scientific,
but I would be foolish to assume that others all feel the same way. As a result, I have written this
book to emphasize that theoretical sociology has a set of theoretical perspectives—some scien-
tific, others less so; some descriptive, others explanatory; some critical, others value-neutral—
that have been developed over the last two centuries of sociological theorizing. I have done my
best to summarize these perspectives fairly and in as much detail as a short book will allow.2
For each perspective, I first seek to examine its origins in classical sociology. Then, I review
its basic structure and line of argumentation. And finally, I offer examples of variations in how
theorists have used a particular theoretical perspective and orientation. Thus, I try to pack a
great deal of material into relatively short number of pages, but not to the point of making the
book too dense. I offer a concise but not, I trust, a dense introduction to theoretical sociology.

Violating the Law of Small Numbers

There are eleven chapters after this one, and thus, it might seem that this book reviews this many
distinctive theoretical approaches—which might be true except for the fact that there are vari-
ants of these perspectives that are often quite different. The result is that the number of perspec-
tives examined is much greater than the twelve that are advertised in the subtitle of this book,
which always imposes the problem of “small numbers.” Any intellectual field can probably have
fewer than seven major perspectives that everyone can grasp,3 and so once we go beyond seven,
the intellectual landscape becomes cognitively more complex. So, from the start, we are at twelve
perspectives, but once we see the sometimes dramatic variations within a perspective, we have
easily doubled the total number of distinctive approaches in the field of theoretical sociology.
Despite the cognitive overload of having many variants of what I see as the twelve basic
approaches outlined in the next chapters, this complexity must be accepted because it is the state
of sociological theory today. Depending upon one’s preferences, some of the theoretical orienta-
tions examined in these chapters are not essential, whereas for others, they are. Clearly, some
approaches are more widespread than others, and yet some of the less practiced approaches are
among sociology’s oldest perspectives or, alternatively, some of the newest perspectives promise to
become increasingly prominent over the next decades. I have, therefore, had to make some judg-
ments about what I think is most prominent today; others might make up a somewhat different

2
I have also written very detailed reviews of theoretical sociology. See, for example, Jonathan H. Turner,
Contemporary Sociological Theory (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2012) and Theoretical Sociology: 1830 to the Present
(Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2012).
Randall Collins, The Sociology of Philosophies (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1998).
3
 Chapter 1: Theoretical Sociology Today   3

list but, in the end, I do not think that our lists would be so different because, despite the complex-
ity of theoretical sociology, there is a core set of approaches that continue to dominate the field.
When I entered the field of sociology almost fifty years ago, textbooks on theory listed many
perspectives, which I found confusing because, as I looked at the field in the 1960s, only a few
approaches really dominated. Still, texts had lots of historical detail, and the result was many more
perspectives than I can review here on these pages. When I wrote my first text on sociological
theory,4 I reduced the number of contemporary perspectives down to four basic approaches: func-
tional, conflict, exchange, and interactionist theory. One can still find this list organizing introduc-
tory textbook descriptions of theoretical sociology today. While I knew that I had chosen the most
dominant approaches in the field, I also suspected that this small number of recognizable perspec-
tives would not last, and I was correct. They began to differentiate and elaborate, and once we add
some of those that I had not included, the actual number of approaches was much greater than was
evident almost forty years ago in that first book, titled The Structure of Sociological Theory. What
changed theoretical sociology was further breakdown over the consensus of what theory is, can be,
or should be, coupled with the comeback of approaches that had been left for dead.
Without consensus over epistemology, the criterion of science could no longer be used to
sort out dominant perspectives. Furthermore, with the resurrection of older approaches, such
as evolutionary theory, the number of theoretical approaches began to grow and, as variants
within perspectives were successfully added, sociology finds itself almost back to where I
started in the 1960s—with perhaps too many approaches. But this is the reality of the day, and
I have tried to do my best to capture this variety without overwhelming the reader with too
many fine-grained distinctions. For the goal of this book is to be concise and to offer a broad
overview of theoretical sociology as it is currently practiced in the discipline.

Issues That All Theorists Must

Resolve for Themselves
Over that last five decades, I have often been dismayed by the controversies in theoretical
sociology. Debate can be intense among protagonists, and unfortunately, because the debate is
over epistemologies and often moralities as well, it never ends. I would encourage all who read
this book not to get bogged down in these issues that cannot be resolved, except by personal
preferences of theorists. Certain questions need to be answered by each theorist, and depend-
ing on the answers given, different scholars will pursue different theoretical approaches. What
are the basic questions? There are surprisingly few.

Can Sociology Be a Science?

This is probably the most fundamental question. Depending upon the answer, the kind of
theorists that a scholar becomes will vary. My views were not always as strong as they are
today. I recall in graduate school that there were great debates among students on whether or

4
Jonathan H. Turner, The Structure of Sociological Theory (Homewood, IL: Dorsey Press, 1974). There were seven
editions of this book, mostly published by Wadsworth Publishing when the book then went out of print in 2012.
4   THEORETICAL SOCIOLOGY

not sociology could be a science. I had no strong views at the time, but over the years, I have
decidedly come down on the side of trying to make sociology a hard science. Others have
gone the exact opposite route. Several of my (still) good friends from graduate school were
once as rabid as I am now about the prospects for a natural science of society; today, we are
in opposite camps but, thankfully, we can live with each other’s differences in epistemological
faith. But, anyone who becomes a theorist must make a decision on this fundamental ques-
tion. Even in reading the pages of this book as, perhaps, a beginner in theory, you may find
yourself starting to think about this question; and the more you pursue sociology, and theo-
retical sociology in particular, the more salient this question becomes.

Should Sociology Be Critical, Moral?

Critical sociologies and scientific sociology are often viewed as opposites, but such need not
be the case. Most people who become sociologists often begin by being drawn to a discipline
because it studies problems in societies and, it would appear, seeks to do something about these
problems. I was certainly drawn to sociology for this reason, and I was not alone in the 1960s,
which was a watershed period of protest and realignment of Western societies around the world.
Critical theorists are normative, and moral; they search out oppressive conditions; they analyze
their root causes and effects; and they demand that these conditions be eliminated. One can be
a scientist and pursue this agenda, as I have done for many years—less in my actually sociology
and more in my personal life. But critical theorizing demands the value neutrality of scientists,
where the goal is to understand as much as to condemn social conditions. Critical theorists often
argue that, by not taking a critical and moral stance, the scientists end up implicitly supporting
the oppressive status quo. I do not accept this judgment, but many do; and so, at some point,
scholars have to make decisions about where their inner critical theorists will reside, and
whether or not these inner critical theorists will be subordinate to a more dominant value-
neutral scientist. Early in my career, I gave much more free rein to my inner critical theorist;
today, I keep it bottled up when I do science, letting it out when I am done doing scientific
analysis. Others do just the opposite, and still others let the two battle it out.
Whatever the decision, it has to be made, perhaps not so much as a conscious decision, as
was my case, but as an emerging preference where one just prefers one side or the other. I
decided in the mid-1970s that my sociology would be a better sociology and, moreover, a
more useful sociology if I began by holding in check my moral biases and, instead, devoted
my time to figuring out how the social world operates, without passing moral judgments.
With such knowledge, I would be in a better position to propose viable solutions to real
world problems. Again, others do not accept this, seeing it as a “cop-out,” but the important
point is that you have to make a decision or let these two inner demons fight it out for control
of how you do sociology.

What Is the Most Important Approach to

Sociological Analysis?
This question is less disturbing because it does not have to be answered early in a career,
and indeed, it can be answered in different ways at varying points in a sociological career.
 Chapter 1: Theoretical Sociology Today   5

I started out as a committed symbolic interactionist (see Chapter 5), and then switched to
other perspectives, primarily functionalism (Chapter 2) and conflict theory (Chapter 3). But
over the years, I have found just about every theoretical perspective useful, and so, now I am
so eclectic that I could not categorize myself by any of the perspectives examined in the chap-
ters to follow. My goal is to figure out how the social universe operates, and I am willing to
beg, borrow, or steal an idea from any perspective that allows me to achieve this goal. Indeed,
I spend much of my time integrating theories.
Still, when we first start out, some approaches are typically more appealing than others.
And often, people stay with this initial decision for their entire careers. One has to start some-
where, and picking an approach that is appealing is one way to begin. But, I found myself
intrigued by almost every new approach that I learned over the decades, even ones that I
initially did not like (but later saw merit in); for others, maybe just a couple of perspectives
will do it for a career. Reading the theories outlined in this volume will probably lead readers
to prefer one or two over the others, and this is a good place to begin developing one’s socio-
logical imagination.

What Level of Analysis Is Most Important?

The answer to this question is much like the one above: you may start out at the micro
level of interpersonal processes, but then move to more meso- or macro-level phenomena.
Some scholars never leave where they start out. For example, many symbolic interactionists
stay at the more micro level; conflicts theorists and functionalists might stay at the macro
level. Yet, others begin to see that we need to understand all the levels, and so, they begin
to theorize about all levels of social reality.
Social reality unfolds at three levels: (1) the face-to-face interpersonal level; (2) the macro
level of societies, inter-societal systems, institutions (e.g., economy, polity, law, kinships, religion,
science, etc.), and stratification; and (3) the meso level of corporate units (groups, organizations,
communities) and categoric units (membership in social categories like class, ethnicity, gender).
Some argue that one or the other of these levels is more “primary” than the others in the sense
that one level yields more understanding than the other two. I have called those who make this
argument micro and macro chauvinists because they assume that social reality can only be
understood by focusing on the micro or macro levels of reality. There also could be meso-level
chauvinists. Being a chauvinist in this sense is not necessarily bad because, by studying one level
and seeking how far one can take explanations, it often yields important insights, although I
would argue that at some point, further understanding cannot be gained without shifting levels
of analysis.
Early sociology was decidedly macro in its interests in trying to understand the big trans-
formations to societies that came with modernity. More recently, theorizing in sociology often
has a more micro bias. Again, as a starting point, one needs to jump into reality at one of
these levels—just to get started being a sociologist. I found the micro level fascinating as an
undergraduate, but when I got to graduate school and was exposed to macro sociology, I
found this level of reality just as fascinating. I spent half my career being primarily a macro-
level theorists, but the second half has involved a great deal of micro-level theorizing on emo-
tions and interpersonal processes. And most important, to me at least, is that I have tried to
6   THEORETICAL SOCIOLOGY

integrate all three levels of theorizing into a more general theory.5 My view is that sociologists
should not dismiss any of these three levels, no matter what one’s preferences are. A preference
for a particular level does not mean that only this level matters; they all matter if we are to
understand social reality, and the best theories seek to integrate explanations across more than
one level.
So, the answer to the question on levels of analysis can be almost anything, as long as
it does not lead to intolerance. My experience has been that sociology majors tend to
refer the micro level—say, as outlined in Chapters 6 and 7—but such is not always the
case. You should try to answer the question when you are finished with the book and see
where your preferences lie, at least for the present.

Conclusion
We all must accept the empirical fact that sociology is a very diverse discipline. It is the broad-
est of the social sciences, covering the entire spectrum of human behavior, interaction, and
organization; moreover, it attracts people with very different orientations. It should not be
surprising that sociologist argue a lot because they develop different preferences over episte-
mology, morality, and substantive inquiry into social reality. The theories in this book reflect
these differences. The diverse perspectives reviewed in the pages should be viewed as different
sets of eyeglasses. Each perspective allows you to see some social processes much better than
others, but none allows you to see everything. You will need many other sets of eyeglasses to
capture a fuller image of social reality; and so, by the time that these pages are finished, you
will have more than a dozen prescription lenses for seeing and making sense of the social uni-
verse. I would recommend that you hang onto these prescriptions and, in fact, keep adding to
you collection of eyeglasses.

Jonathan H. Turner, Theoretical Principles of Sociology, three volumes (New York: Springer, 2010–2012).
5
 Functional
CHAPTER
2 Theorizing

The Beginnings of Functionalism

Auguste Comte’s Advocacy
By the early decades of the nineteenth century, the time was right for a new discipline com-
mitted to the systemic study of the social world. As noted in the last chapter, Auguste Comte put
a name to an accumulating body of theorizing about the nature and dynamics of societies, call-
ing this discipline by the Latin-Greek hybrid name of sociology, or the study of the social.1 Comte
had preferred the name social physics, by which he meant to study the fundamental nature of the
social universe. But, to Comte’s dismay, he discovered that the name had already been taken by
a Belgian statistician, and so, he was reluctantly forced to use the label “sociology.”
Comte was well aware that the nineteenth century would be the “century of biology”
because the idea of evolution was in the air, but he also recognized that the most successful
of the sciences—what eventually became known as “physics”—represented the appropriate
model of how science should formulate theories. Biology could provide the metaphor as well
as the entry point for legitimating the new science of society, while physics could provide the
template for how sociological laws are to be formulated and tested.

Comte’s Use of Biology

In trying to justify sociology, Comte constructed his infamous “hierarchy of the sciences” to
argue that the last and most complex science to emerge in the new era of what he termed posi-
tivism, or theoretically driven science, would be sociology. Sociology was now in the process of
arising from biology and, in so doing, would complete the hierarchy with, not surprisingly,
sociology being at the top. Indeed, in a fit of modesty, he termed sociology “the queen science.”
Biology was to be the study of organisms, while the new, emerging sociology was to be the
study of social organisms, or the analysis of the structured patterns of relations among organ-
isms. In making his case for sociology, Comte began to analogize that society is a more complex
organism. As a complex organism, societies are ultimately built not from individual human
organisms but, rather, from another social organism—families—which, in societies, were the

1
Auguste Comte, The Positive Philosophy of Auguste Comte, three volumes. Condensed and translated by H. Marinteau
(London: George Bell and Sons, 1896, originally published in serial form in French between 1830 and 1842).

7
8   THEORETICAL SOCIOLOGY

functional equivalent of cells in biological organisms. He went on to assert that all other parts—
groups, organizations, communities, and other social structures—were ultimately elaborations
of the family as the most fundamental part of societies. And so, societies as social organisms
could be distinguished from biological organisms by the fact they were built from social organ-
isms that were linked together by common culture and political authority.
From this “organismic analogy,” sociology’s first theoretical perspective was forged,
although Comte did not take this analogy theory very far. He divided sociology into statics
(structural properties of the social) and dynamics (processes creating, sustaining, and chang-
ing the properties and relations among these properties making up the social organism). This
image of a social organism suggested a particular mode of analysis, and this approach eventu-
ally became known as functionalism or, at times, as structural functionalism.
The essence of functionalism is to visualize particular social structures as having effects on
the viability of the social organism in its environment. Just as the heart, lungs, stomach, or any
structure in an individual organism has a “function” for sustaining the body, so the “body
social” or society can be analyzed by discovering the functions of particular social structures.
What typified the societies over the course of history was their growth in their size and com-
plexity; and thus, like individual organisms, the evolutionary trend is toward increased com-
plexity of organisms and social organisms. Furthermore, like individual organisms, social
organisms become more complex as they grow or, in more modern language, differentiated
into increasingly diverse social units that make up the whole. Each of these units can be exam-
ined by the functions they serve for sustaining societies.
Another element of functional analysis was positing a series of needs or requisites that must be
met if a society or any social system is to persist in its environment. As we will see, subsequent
functionalists began to construct lists of multiple requisites or, alternatively, one master system
need and then analyze any social structure in terms of meeting a particular system requisite. For
Comte, there was one basic need among all social systems that grow and become more complex:
the need for social integration, or the coordination, regulation, and control of differentiated system
parts. Societies that cannot meet this inclusive requisite will reveal increased potential for social
“pathologies,” whereas those that can develop (a) mechanisms of mutual interdependence among
system part, (b) centers of power for political control and regulation of system parts, and (c) cul-
tural codes common to all differentiated social units, would be the most likely to meet the requisite
for social integration. Comte’s basic model is outlined in Figure 2.1.
As simple as this model appears, it contains many of the elements that define sociology, not
only in the past but also today. Still, Comte only hinted at functional theory, viewing this theory
as arising from biology, and moreover, in one of his many pretentious moments, Comte felt that
the development of scientific sociology would be able to guide the future development of biology.
Yet, even though actual theorizing by Comte is rather spotty, he gave the discipline its first self-
conscious agenda. But, he also did more: he offered a vision for how theory should be developed
in sociology.

Comte’s Use of Early Physics

Comte was a champion of a natural science view of what sociology could be. Like any science,
sociology can develop explanatory laws about the properties and dynamics of the social world,
and the best of these laws would be those that are about timeless and fundamental processes that
 Chapter 2: Functional Theorizing   9

Figure 2.1 Comte’s Implicit Model of Social Statics

Level of + Level of + Level of + New integrative

social integrative selection mechanisms revolving
differentiation problems in pressures around (a) structural
societies over for new interdependencies;
coordination mechanisms (b) centralization of
and control of integration power and authority;
and (c) common culture
+ +

Note: Potential for social

+ = increases pathologies
− = decreases
−

Source: Turner, Jonathan. (2012). The Emergence of Sociology Theory, Figure 3.1, p. 49. SAGE Publications, Inc.

always occur when humans organize themselves into social systems. This was the image of sci-
ence in the era after Newton’s formulation of the law of gravity that was thought, at the time,
capable of explaining many of the properties and dynamics of the cosmos. The same, Comte
argued, was possible for the social universe; explanation would come from articulating abstract
laws about the dynamics of fundamental properties of a cosmos composed of social systems.
This advocacy was controversial in Comte’s time, and as we shall see in later chapters, it remains
controversial to the present day and, no doubt, well into the future of the discipline. His vision for
theory was a series of abstract laws that, much like those in physics, could explain why the funda-
mental properties of the social universe exist in the first place and, then, how these properties
operate. So, from the model in Figure 2.1, he clearly advocated that three of the fundamental
properties of the social universe are (a) structural interdependencies among differentiated units,
(b) centers of power and authority, and (c) cultural systems that regulate the actions of individuals
and the social units. These three properties of the social universe have evolved because they were
needed, and once they exist, their dynamics revolve around increasing system-level coordination,
control, and integration among differentiated subsystems in society. Thus, for Comte, the sub-
stance of sociology was pulled from an analogy to biology—the study of social organisms and their
evolution toward increasing differentiation—but the explanatory methodology came from physics.

Herbert Spencer’s Functionalism

Herbert Spencer was one of the most prolific and well-known scholars of the nineteenth cen-
tury, whose star began to fall in the early decades of the twentieth century and could never be fully
reignited to its earlier brightness. Indeed, contemporary sociologists are often rather hostile to
Spencer, frequently without ever having read very much, if any, of his work. Spencer was a phi-
losopher who embarked on a project that he labeled Synthetic Philosophy. To say that this project
was ambitious is an understatement because his goal was to subsume ethics, physics, psychology,
biology, and sociology under some basic laws of the universe, loosely “deduced” from the laws of
10   THEORETICAL SOCIOLOGY

physics as they had been articulated at the midpoint of the nineteenth century. This law was to
explain the evolution of all domains of the universe from simple to more complex forms.2 In laying
out his grand Synthetic Philosophy to subscribers of his work, Spencer wrote a short summary of
his theoretical principles, two major treatises on ethics, and multi-volume works on psychology,
biology, and sociology.3 He wrote Principles of Biology4 before he began to write Principles of Sociol-
ogy5 in 1873, which came out in serial form to subscribers to his Synthetic Philosophy. As install-
ments of these serial publication of his ideas accumulated into a volume, they were bound, eventu-
ally producing the three volumes of Principles of Sociology that are still available today and that, in
the decades between 1874 and 1994, were among the most read books ever written by a sociologist
(this is why so many copies are available today).6 This sequence in Spencer’s treatise on psychology
and biology was no coincidence because he was following—through he denied it—in Comte’s
footsteps, but with considerably more detail and sophistication.

Spencer’s Theoretical Methodology

Like Comte, Spencer had a natural science view of what sociology should and could be. The
notion of “principles” appears in most of his major works because he felt that he had isolated
the fundamental properties of the social, biological, psychological, physical, and ethical uni-
verses, with specific sets of volumes developing highly abstract principles or laws loosely
“derived” from the physics of his time about the operative dynamics of each of these universes
(see footnote 2 below for the basics of this “law”).
In the case of sociology, the three volumes of Principles of Sociology are filled with abstract
laws about a wide range of social phenomena, copiously illustrated with data from biology and
vast amounts of data on societies of the past and present at all stages of development from
preliterate to modern industrial forms of social organization. These data were published in the
separate volumes of what he labeled Descriptive Sociology—a monumental achievement that,
like so much of Spencer’s work, have fallen in obscurity.7 These principles were interwoven, in

Here is one of Spencer’s statements on his general law of evolution:

2

“. . . an integration of matter and concomitant dissipation of motion, during which the matter passes from
an indefinite incoherent homogeneity to a definite coherent heterogeneity; and during which the retained
motion undergoes a parallel transformation.” P. 343, First Principles (see note 3).
Herbert Spencer, First Principles (New York: A. L. Burt, 1880, originally published in 1862); Social Statics: Or, the
3

Conditions Essential to Human Happiness Specified, and the First of Them Developed (New York: Appleton-Century
Crofts, 1888, originally published in 1850–1851); The Principles of Psychology, 3 volumes (New York: Appleton-
Century-Crofts, 1880, originally published in 1885).
Herbert Spencer, The Principles of Biology, 3 volumes (New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1864–1867).
4

5
Herbert Spencer, The Principles of Sociology, 3 volumes (New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1895, originally
initiated in 1874).
6
For a more recent republication of this great work, see The Principles of Sociology, 4 volumes (New Brunswick, NJ:
Transaction Publishers, 2002) with, for it is worth, a long introduction by me.
7
Herbert Spencer, Descriptive Sociology, or Groups of Facts was initiated in 1873 and finished after Spencer’s death,
with the last volume coming out in 1934. See my and Alexandra Maryanski’s review of the logic of Descriptive
Sociology in “Sociology’s Lost Human Relations Area Files,” Sociological Perspectives 31 (1988): pp. 19–34.
 Chapter 2: Functional Theorizing   11

both his biology and sociology, into an organismic emphasis. For biology, it was the study of
individual organisms, whereas sociology was the study of what he labeled superorganisms, or
the “organization of organisms” into societies. Moreover, anticipating the effort to reconnect
biology and sociology in the present era (see Chapters 11 and 12), Spencer felt that any species
of animals that organizes into a society is a superorganism worthy of sociological analysis.

Spencer’s Organismic Analogy

Spencer wrote a rather defensive essay about “reasons” for “dissenting from A. Comte,” but
it is clear that he took Comte’s ideas and simply developed them further.8 Probably Spencer’s
most famous passages to the mind of contemporary sociology are on the comparison of the
superorganic with the organic, where the similarities or “parallels in principles of organiza-
tion” between individual and superorganisms were listed along with differences between
societies and organisms. These analogies constitute only a few pages in a work that is over
2,000 pages long, and yet, this is about all that theorists in the contemporary era know about
Spencer—an obvious sign that he is no longer read extensively. Nonetheless, his ideas have
endured, even if their influence on present-day theory is not fully recognized.
Similarities between the organic and superorganic include:9 both can be distinguished from
inorganic matter because the organic and superorganic grow and develop; in both, growth is
accompanied by increases in complexity or differentiation of structure; in both, an increase in
the number of distinctive functions occurs with the differentiation of structure; both reveal
interdependencies among diverse parts, with change in one affecting the structure of other
parts; in both, each part of the whole is either an micro superorganism in itself (e.g., family,
groups, organization) or a living part (e.g., cells, organs) within an organism; and in both, the
life of the whole can be destroyed, but the parts will live on for a while.
There are, however, some distinctive differences between superorganisms and organisms:
The degree of connectedness and proximity of parts is greater in organisms than superorgan-
isms; the nature of communication is vastly different because communication in organisms
occurs through “molecular waves passing through various channels,” whereas in superorgan-
isms, communication occurs via cultural symbols organized into languages; and there are vast
differences in consciousness and thought in organisms and superorganisms, with all units in
superorganisms possessing capacities for consciousness, reasoning, and decision making,
while only one part (the brain) is capable of consciousness in organisms.

The Four Functional Requisites

The organismic analogy in Spencer’s work is only important because it follows on his great
treatise on Principles of Biology, where individual organisms were seen as having fundamental
requisites that must be met to sustain life. Like organisms, superorganisms reveal structures
that integrate diverse parts, and moreover, superorganisms and organisms reveal basic func-
tional needs or requisites that must be met to ensure their viability in an environment.

Herbert Spencer, Reasons for Dissenting From the Philosophy of M. Comte and Other Essays (reprinted in Berkeley,
8

CA: Glendessary, 1968).

Spencer, Principles of Sociology, volume 1, p. 448.
9
12   THEORETICAL SOCIOLOGY

The result of this emphasis is that Spencer posited three general functional requisites for
superorganisms that have correspondence to similar requisites for organisms. In reality, there
are four requisites because Spencer divides one into two halves. The four requisites are listed
and defined in Table 2.1.

Table 2.1 Spencer’s List of Functional Requisites in Superorganisms

1. Production revolving around the gathering of resources and their conversion into usable
resources for sustaining a population (operation)

2. Reproduction: Structures for creating new members of the population and for sustaining as
well as creating the social structures and cultures organizing their activities (operation)

3. Regulation: The consolidation of power and authority as well as cultural symbols (e.g.,
ideologies and beliefs) to control and coordinate individual and corporate units’ activities

4. Distribution:
a. The development of infrastructures for moving persons, information, and resources in
geographical space
b. The development of mechanisms for exchanges of resources among individuals and
corporate units in a population

Thus, superorganism must meet needs for (1) operation, or (a) production of substance
that sustains the superorganism and (b) reproduction of both the individual organisms (i.e.,
people) and the social structures and culture of superorganisms that organizes people’s
activities; (2) regulation, or the capacity to coordinate and control people and the structures
organizing their lives by the consolidation of power and the development of cultural systems
of values, beliefs, norms, and laws; and (3) distribution or the movement of people, resources,
and information about the territories and structures of superorganisms.10 As noted and
emphasized in Table 2.1, I have broken the requisite of operation (also termed the “sustaining
system”) down into its separate requisites, thereby producing the four total functional requisites
listed in Table 2.1: production, reproduction, regulation, and distribution.
Spencer’s basic argument is that as populations grow, the superorganism or society organiz-
ing the activities of all its members will differentiate new kinds of structures and associated
cultural systems. This differentiation will occur on what he often termed the basic axes of
production, reproduction, regulation, and distribution since these are what is essential for
sustaining the viability of a superorganism. For example, as populations grow, there are pres-
sures to produce more food to sustain the larger population, with the result that structures
within the economy differentiate. With population growth and differentiation, there are new
problems of making sure that individuals are capable of participating in the new and diverse
structures and their cultures, thus leading to the differentiation of ever-more education struc-
tures to ensure reproduction of the new structures. With growth, problems of coordination of
diverse types of actors in diverse types of social structures increase, as do problems of poten-

Spencer, Principles of Sociology, volume 1, pp. 498–548.

10
 Chapter 2: Functional Theorizing   13

tial conflict as the degree of stratification increases or as do problems of deviance as cultural

controls weaken, thereby leading to the evolution of polity and law as social control mecha-
nisms and alterations in the cultural systems that are used to regulate conduct. And with
growth, problems of distributing resources, people, and information increase, causing the
development of new distributive infrastructures (roads, ports, canals, etc.) and distributive
mechanisms for exchanging resources (e.g., new, more differentiated markets).
For Spencer, then, theory must first explain the dynamics of population growth and dif-
ferentiation, which represented an application of his general law borrowed from physics (see
footnote 2 on p. 10). In general, population growth will cause differentiation in order to sup-
ply the necessary “structural support” for the larger “social mass.” As noted above, differentia-
tion occurs in a clear pattern along each of the four axes that correspond to the functional
requisites summarized in Table 2.1. All other theoretical principles in Spencer’s Principles of
Sociology are devoted to explaining patterns of development and change in institutional sys-
tems that evolve along these four axes, especially the consolidation of power and its relation
to stratification and inequality that also increase with differentiation of institutional systems.
For, just as institutional systems differentiate, so do the number of classes and social strata in
a society; and these new strata always pose problems of regulation and thus encourage more
consolidation and centralization of power, along with ideologies legitimating this mobiliza-
tion of power. Thus, Spencer was a conflict theorist (see next chapter) as much as a function-
alist, but it is his functionalism that has exerted the most influence in sociology.

Emile Durkheim’s Functional Analysis

Emile Durkheim borrowed much from Spencer. Like Spencer, he emphasized the basic
relationship between population growth and structural differentiation. In contrast to Spencer,
however, Durkheim argued that this transformation from simple to complex posed one mas-
ter requisite for societal survival: the need for integration among differentiation actors.11 Like
Comte, he posited pathological forms of differentiation in this transition from simple to com-
plex societies, but he also assumed that over time the proper mechanisms of integration would
eventually evolve. Unlike Spencer and more like Comte, Durkheim emphasized the impor-
tance of cultural systems as a unifying force, especially the evolution of the institution of law
to coordinate and control relations within and between social units. He recognized that cul-
tural values—or general moral standards of right and wrong—become more abstract and
“enfeebled” if they are to have relevance for all actors pursuing diverse goals and interests in
highly differentiated social systems. Thus, the problem in complex social systems became one
of backfilling more specific cultural rules and beliefs, derived from highly abstract values, into
all of the differentiated spheres of institutional activity in complex societies. In this way, the
morality of a society as expressed in its values could be made salient and relevant to actors
operating in diverse social worlds created by structural differentiation.12

Emile Durkheim, The Division of Labor in Society (New York: Free Press, 1947, originally published in French in 1893).
11

12
Durkheim’s idea was that values have to become very generalized and, in so doing, they thus cannot provide suffi-
cient or precise regulation of actions by themselves. They can only provide powerful moral premises, but these
must be translated into more specific premises and rules for the basic domains of institutional activity—e.g.,
economy, polity, kinship, religion, law, education, etc.
14   THEORETICAL SOCIOLOGY

Later in his career as Durkheim turned to the study of religion,13 Durkheim began to
emphasize the importance of society-wide symbols marked by totems that would personify
the whole society and to which its members must give ritual observance so as to increase their
emotional attachments not only to local groupings but also to solidarity across the entire
society. In this way the master requisite for integration could be realized in highly differenti-
ated societies. This analysis of cultural dynamics, without their functionalist trappings, has
influenced a great many other theoretical traditions in sociology, as we see in many chapters
in this short review of theoretical sociology. But for my present purposes, it is Durkheim who
extended Comte’s ideas and brought to functionalism a conceptualization of culture as critical
to meeting the requisite of integration in complex social systems.

The Basic Elements of Early Functional Theories

By the time of Durkheim’s death in the second decade of the twentieth century, functionalism
was dead in sociology, but as I examine shortly, anthropologists picked it up, keeping it alive until
the mid-twentieth century. At this point, functionalism would rise from the dead and, surprisingly,
become the dominant theoretical perspective in sociology, at least for a relatively short time. At the
early death or abandonment of functionalism by sociologists, the basic contours of functionalism
were clearly evident, and perhaps I should pause to list its key elements:

1. Social systems are composed of interrelated parts.

2. These systems reveal both internal and external problems of adaptation to their environ-
ments that must be resolved if the system is to endure. These problems can come from
A. External changes in the physical and bio-ecological environment of a society
B. External relations with other populations
C. Internal environments generated by the growth and differentiation of societies
3. Whether from external or internal sources, these problems of survival and adaptation can be
visualized as system “needs” or “requisites” that must be met; depending upon the theorists,
these requisites are typically seen to revolve around such adaptive problems as
A. Integration within and among differentiated units of
1. Diverse institutional systems (e.g., economy, family, government, religion, etc.)
2. Diverse classes and strata created by the stratification of inequalities in resource
distributions
B. Coordination and control of differentiated actors through the
1. Consolidation and use of power and law as social control mechanisms
2. Development of common symbol systems and totems marking the sanctity of the
entire social system and toward which emotion-arousing rituals are performed
3. Development of new mechanisms of structural interdependence that connect dif-
ferentiated units

Emile Durkheim, The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life (New York: Free Press, 1947, originally published in
13

French in 1912).
 Chapter 2: Functional Theorizing   15

C. Production of necessary resources to support members of the population, especially

population’s and society’s growth
D. Reproduction of members and the new, more complex social units organizing their
activities evolve with system growth
E. Distribution of resources, individuals, and social structural units, cultural symbols
and information to more differentiated social units and across the expanded territo-
ries of a system as it grows
4. Understanding of social systems as a whole and their constituent parts is only possible by
analyzing the need(s) or requisite(s) of the system that any given part of a society meets.

The Transition Into Modern Functionalism

Functional approaches to explaining the social universe were not abandoned in sociology because
of their defects, which were many, but because of their emphasis on evolution (see Chapter 11). All
functional schemes were couched in an evolutionary framework, emphasizing the movement of
societies from simple to complex forms. There was always an Enlightenment commentary by white
Europeans about such evolution from simple to more complex societies as representing “progress”
and “advancement.” Unfortunately, this commentary on progress tended to see all those societies
below the European industrial endpoint of evolution as somehow inferior, not just in their struc-
ture and culture but also in the biology of the human organisms that inhabited them. The labels
“savage” and “primitive” were often used to describe non-industrial societies and their members.
The not so subtle racism in many of these portrays of preliterate societies eventually produced
profound backlash, especially when Social Darwinism advocating a world of the “survival of the
fittest” emerged to justify the abuse of “inferior” peoples as a “natural part” of the evolutionary pro-
cess. Ironically, Darwin never phrased his ideas about natural selection in these terms. Rather, the
phrase—“survival of the fittest”—is Spencer’s, uttered in Social Statics in 1850,14 nine years before
Darwin’s On the Origins of Species was published. The result was to stigmatize Spencer more than
Darwin but, more fundamentally, to stigmatize evolutionary models of progressive evolution in
general. And as these often rather racist models were thrown out, the baby in this bathwater—func-
tionalism—was also discarded. But it did not die; it found new and nurturing home in anthropol-
ogy, where it prospered as a theory. It was so successful that by the midpoint of the last century,
sociologists brought functionalism back it its original home, making it the dominant theoretical
orientation in sociology for a decade or so, before its many problems were used to mount a devas-
tating critique of functionalism as a flawed mode of theorizing in general. The result was that, once
again, functionalism appeared to die, but instead, it morphed into a more acceptable guise where
the notions of “function” and “functional requisites” were downplayed, if not hidden from view—
thus making it more acceptable to larger audiences of social scientists.

Anthropological Functionalism
The demise of evolutionary stage models, which anthropologists helped create because
they provided the data on preliterate societies, was generally accepted in anthropology

Spencer, Social Statics (see note 3 for full citation).

14
16   THEORETICAL SOCIOLOGY

but, in contrast to sociology, the functionalism was not thrown out with the evolutionary
bathwater. The reason for the retention of functionalism is that anthropologists doing
fieldwork in preliterate societies confronted a problem: How could they explain the exis-
tence of particular structures and cultural practices among preliterate populations? These
populations do not have a written history, and so, even with oral traditions (which were
highly mythologized), researchers could not trace the history of an important structure
(e.g., kinship system) or practice (e.g., religious ritual or belief), with the result that it was
hard to explain why preliterate populations had built such structures or come to engage
in certain practices.
Functionalism provided an answer: examine how the structure or practice operates to meet
certain functional needs of the social whole organizing the members of a population. By being
able to posit the function that a structure or a practice performed for maintaining the viability
of a preliterate society, the sense having explained that structure was achieved. This has always
been the comforting thing about functionalism; it gives the sense that one has answered the
big questions about a society—what allows it to survive?—and this is the reason that anthro-
pologists adopted functionalist modes of explanation. In addition, it is also the reason that
functionalism refuses to die despite its near-death experiences in the twentieth century. It asks
and tries to answer an interesting question—perhaps the most interesting question—about
societies. Two anthropologists in particular—both icons of mid-twentieth century anthropol-
ogy—adopted functional strategies that mirrored Spencer’s and Durkheim’s respective
approaches.

The Functionalism of Bronislaw Malinowski

Much like Spencer, Malinowski posited multiple functional requisites for different system
levels in societies, as Spencer had done in Principles of Biology and Principles of Sociology.
Unlike Spencer, however, Malinowski posited different survival requisites for each system
level in his theory: organisms, social structure, and culture.15 Table 2.2 summarizes the requi-
sites for just the structural and cultural systems of a society.
For the social structural level of human social organization, the requisites posited by
Malinowski look much like Spencer’s: production and distribution, social control and
regulation, reproduction through education, and consolidation of power and authority.
Thus, those populations that can develop institutional systems that produce and distrib-
ute sufficient resources to sustain and reproduce system members and that regulate and
coordinate action through authority are more likely to survive. If we add to this list the
requisites enumerated by Malinowski for the cultural system level, then we can complete
Spencer’s list of requisites and add those integrative requisites deemed critical by
Durkheim. And as will become very evident shortly, the combined lists anticipated the
functional needs posited by the most famous modern-era functionalist—Talcott Parsons.

Bronislaw Malinowski, “Anthropology,” Encyclopedia Britannica, supplemental volume 1 (London, 1936); A

15

Scientific Theory of Culture (Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press, 1944); Magic, Science, and
Religion and Other Essays (New York: Free Press, 1948).
 Chapter 2: Functional Theorizing   17

Table 2.2 Malinowski’s Conception Requisites for System Levels

Requisites for the Cultural or Symbolic System Level

1. Requisite for systems of symbols that provide information necessary for adaptation of a
population to its environment
2. Requisite for systems of symbols that provide a sense of control over a population’s destiny and
over change events
3. Requisite for systems of symbols that provide members of a population with a sense of a
“communal rhythm” in their daily lives and activities

Requisites for the Structural (Instrumental) System Level

1. Requisite for production and distribution of consumer goods to sustain a population

2. Requisite for social control of behavior and its regulation
3. Requisite for education of people in traditions and skills
4. Requisite for the organization and execution of (power) authority relations

The Functionalism of A. R. Radcliffe-Brown

In his analysis of kinship systems among pre-literates,16 A. R. Radcliffe-Brown argued that the
problems of functionalism—to be addressed later—can be obviated by three steps. One, recog-
nize that any society must meet some minimal level of integration among its parts. Two, under-
stand that the term function refers to those “necessary conditions for a societies existence” which
can be seen, a la Durkheim, as the necessity for integration. And three, in each society, look for
features that can be shown to contribute to the maintenance of integration. The goal of explana-
tion, therefore, is to describe these features and outline how they contribute to integration; once
this task is completed, these features are “explained”—at least by the logic of functionalism.
These two theories and others carried functionalism in anthropology to the mid-century when
the sociologists, Talcott Parsons and colleagues, began to develop their own functional schemes
alongside those of anthropologists who continued to develop functional explanations well past the
century’s midpoint.17 Why the sudden interests by sociological theorists in functionalism? Func-
tionalism came back into sociology because, while the decades between 1900 and 1950 were not
bereft of any theorizing, there was clearly a lack of general theories18 that sought to explain large

A. R. Radcliffe-Brown, “Structure and Function in Primitive Society,” American Anthropologist 37 (July–

16

September 1937): pp. 31–50; Structure and Function in Primitive Society (New York: Free Press, 1952).
See, for example, Walter Goldschmidt, Comparative Functionalism (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1966).
17

18
There was not a complete lack of general theory. For example, urban ecology was an ongoing perspective, as was
human ecology. Scholars like Pitirim Sorokin wrote large theoretical treatises, although these did not endure in the
sociological imagination. Still, a few scholars are now trying to revive Sorokin’s ideas (e.g., Vicent Jeffries). Also,
work in the tradition of George Herbert Mead on interaction processes continued but really did not break out as
a distinct theoretical perspective until the 1950s.
Exploring the Variety of Random
Documents with Different Content
four years. Afterwards he bad charge of the Christian church at
North Yakima for several months, eventually resigning and going
east. After one year in Clinton, Missouri, and one vear in Boise,
Idaho, he returned to Washington and was located first in Pomeroy
and later in Ellensburg. Although he still preaches every Sunday, he
closed his work in the ministry as a calling when he gave up the
Ellensburg: charge. In 1888 he was elected president of the first
state convention of ministers and for one year served the association
as a state evangelist. In 1898 he organized the first church in Zillah,
at the present time an active and a growing congregation. Rev> Air.
Walden has always been a student of horticulture and many years
ago published a book in Iowa entitled "The Small Fruit Guide." In
1891 he purchased eighty acres of land where he now lives and
afterwards sent his sons here to start a nursery. This was
successfully accomplished and one hundred thousand fruit trees
were sold in the valley, besides those grown for the setting of a large
orchard on the place. Other acres were afterwards added to the
farm, which now consists of two hundred and six acres, sixty of
which are in bearing orchard and forty more in young trees. Mr.
Walden is known as the apple king of central Washington, and
probably produces more and finer apples than any one else in the
state. He personally superintended the packing of fifty boxes of
apples which he sent to the Buffalo Exposition and which captured a
gold medal. He is an acknowledged authority on horticulture ; is
editor of the horticultural department of The Ranch, a farm paper
published at Seattle ; is a regularly engaged lecturer before the
farmers' institutes throughout the state, and has been invited to
lecture on the subject in British Columbia and at other places. Mr.
Walden was married in Iowa in 1862, to Miss Mary O. Berry, who
was born in the same state in 1840, the daughter of Samuel H. and
Ellen (Barnes) Berry. The wife died in North Yakima in 1891 ; she
was the mother of nine children. Mr. Walden was again married in
1892 to Mrs. Anna E. (Beeson) Van Voorhees, born in Ohio, July,
1843, the daughter of Samuel and Martha (Smith) Beeson. Mr.
Walden has one brother living, Joseph, born in Iowa and now living
in Minnesota. The following are the names of the children: A.
fudson, James C, Lettie M.. Leila, William B.. Hattie and Mattie
(twins), deceased: Smiley F., born in Iowa, April 22. 1867, married in
North Yakima. October 25. 1893, to Miss Edna Van Buskirk: their
children are : Francis L., Zella M., and Gladys B. ; Francis M., born in
Iowa. October 18, 1877, married, June 30, 1903. to Miss Myrtle
Gale, living on the home farm. Mr. Walden's fraternal connections
are with the Masons. In political matters he advocates the principles
of the Republican partv. The greater portion of his time is devoted to
the superintendency of the fruit farm, which has yielded in some
vears a net income of one hundred dollars per acre. He always takes
a special interest in educational matters and was identified with the
organization of school district No. 50. He is widely known over
central Washington for his work as a minister and as a horti 
 678 CENTRAL WASHINGTON. culturist ; is a man of
influence in local and general affairs : has lived a very busy and a
very useful life, and wherever known is highly esteemed and
respected by his fellow men. JOHN P. FOX, postmaster at Zillah,
Washington, is a native of Ohio, where he was born July 17, 1847,
the son of John and Mary (Fisher) Fox. His father was a former, born
in Virginia, 181 1, one of the first settlers in Vernon county,
Wisconsin, where he died ; he was of German and Irish descent. His
mother, of German descent, was born in Pennsylvania in 1814 and
died in Wisconsin. The son John attended school in Wisconsin until
sixteen years old, when he began to earn his own living. At the age
of twenty he opened a blacksmith shop, hiring a smith from whom
he learned the trade, following this, with intervals spent in other
occupations, until 1898. In 1870 he went to Minnesota and engaged
in raising wheat; but the venture not proving successful, he returned
to Wisconsin, farmed for four years and again opened a blacksmith
shop. In 1887 he went to Champion, Nebraska, opened a shop and
continued there until 1893, when he came to Washington, locating in
Zillah. Here he bought a shop that had already been built, the first
erected in the town, which he operated until he received the
appointment as postmaster in 1898. In 1900 he purchased forty
acres of land adjoining the town and has made of it one of the best
farms in the vicinity. Two sisters, Mrs. Amanda Marsh and Mrs.
Melissa Marsh, live in Nebraska; two brothers, Elias and LaFayette,
live in Wisconsin. One sister and three brothers are dead ; two of
the brothers, members of Company I, Sixth Wisconsin volunteers,
died while soldiers of the Civil war. Mr. Fox was married in Wisconsin,
in 1868, to Miss Clarissa Allen, who was born in Wisconsin June 22,
1848, the daughter of John W. and Larina (Boyer) Allen, natives of
New York. Miss Allen was fifth in a family of nine girls and four boys.
Six of her brothers and sisters are living, as follows: Mrs. Harriet
Bingham, Mrs. Amanda Lind, Mrs. Juliette Board, Mrs. Augusta
Proctor, Thomas and Ethan Allen, all living in Wisconsin. John W.
Allen, the father of Mrs. Fox, was a pioneer of the early forties in
Wisconsin, a period when there were no railroads and when it was
necessary to haul wheat by wagon to Milwaukee, a distance of
r.inetv miles. Three children have been born to Mr. and Mrs. Fox :
Delmer, born in Wisconsin, May 27, 1869, now a real estate dealer in
Zillah. married, and has one daughter, Gratia, born in Ashland,
Wisconsin, 1895 ; George, born in Minnesota January 28, 1871, also
married, and living in Zillah; and Walter, born in Wisconsin, April 9,
1880. living with his parents. Besides the farm, on which there are
six acres of orchard, Mr. and Mrs. Fox have a comfortable home in
Zillah. Mr. Fox is a Republican, and has fraternal connections with
the Masons and with the Odd Fellows. He is an efficient postmaster,
a man of energy and correct principles, well known for his sterling
traits of character and highly respected by his fellow men. WILLIS S.
DOUGLASS, water superintendent of the big Sunnyside canal, who
resides at Zillah, has been a citizen of Yakima county for fourteen
years. He was born in the state of New York, March 25. 1874, the
son of Joshua P. and Eliza (Robinson) Douglass. The elder Douglass
was a native of New York, born in 183 1, was a teacher by
profession, and for a number of years was principal of the Utica,
New York, schools. In the later years of his life he followed farming
and died in Yakima county, November 20, 1902. His wife, the mother
of Willis Douglass, also a native of New York, born in 1835, died in
Yakima county, July 20, 1903. When the son Willis was but two years
old his parents moved from New York to Nebraska and here he
received his education in the common schools. When seventeen
years old, in 1891, he came to Yakima county, Washington, and
engaged at once in carpenter work for the Northern Pacific, Yakima
and Kittitas Irrigation Company, the promoter of the Sunnyside
canal. During the winter months he attended school and, in 1884.
attended one term in the Woodcock academy. He continued with the
irrigation company, was from time to time promoted, and when the
canal changed owners, in 1889, he was made water superintendent,
a position of many responsibilities, which he still holds. He has four
sisters and two brothers : Mrs. Alice Walker and Mrs. Nannie Mudd,
residing in Zillah; Joshua P., a printer, living in Chicago, Illinois;
Grace, living on the home farm; Arthur, a law student in California,
and Lena, a school teacher, living on the home farm. There is also a
half-brother, Ernest M. Douglass, principal of the public schools at
Sunnyside. Arthur Douglass has spent six years in the Philippines,
three years as a soldier in a volunteer regiment. October 9, 1897,
witnessed the marriage in North Yakima of Willis Douglass and Miss
Ethel D. Eader, who was born in Danville, Illinois, March 18, 1880,
the daughter of David and Mollie "(Pricternore) Eader, natives of
Illinois and now living in Indiana. Her father is a dealer in musical
instruments and has several stores in eastern cities. Mrs. Douglass
has three sisters : Mrs. Edith Stevens, in California; Mrs. Mable
Henderson, in Seattle; and Gratia Eader. with her parents. Two
children have blessed the union of Air. and Mrs. Douglass: Lucile.
born August 1. 1898. and Clarence E., born October 10, 1901. The
family attend the
 BIOGRAPHICAL. 679 Christian church. Mr. Douglass'
fraternal connections are with the Modern Woodmen and the
Woodmen of the World. In political matters, he is an ardent
supporter of President Roosevelt. His property interests consist of a
valuable fortyacre farm, three and one-half miles east of Zillah, a
comfortable home in the town and some real estate in Chicago,
Illinois. Mr. Douglass is known as a man of strict integrity, of
exceptional business and executive ability, energetic and progressive,
and he is held in high esteem by all with whom he comes in contact
in a business or social way. GEORGE W. MASON, for fourteen years a
resident of Yakima county, is now farming five miles east of Zillah.
He is a native of Pennsylvania, born December 25, 1837, the son of
Jacob and Amanda (Harroun) Mason, the father a native of
Pennsylvania and a pioneer of Minnesota, and the mother a native of
Vermont, born in 1806. Mr. Mason received his education in the
common schools of Wisconsin; quit school at the age of nineteen
and, until twenty-six years of age, assisted his parents on the farm.
At this age he enlisted in Company B, Tenth Minnesota volunteer
infantry, for service in the Civil war. He served from August 14, 1862,
to May 22, 1865, the date of his honorable discharge, and during
this time took part in some of the most important and decisive
battles of the war. Prior to 1862 he saw service in Minnesota and
Dakota against the Sioux Indians, participated in the hazardous
engagements of the campaigns and escaped unharmed. For ten
years after the war he engaged in farming in Minnesota. In 1875 he
moved to Linn county, Oregon, and for three years farmed near
Harrisburg. meeting with good success, but failing in health. In 1879
he removed to Goldendale, Washington, where for ten years he
followed carpenter work and farming. In 1890 he again changed his
location, this time going to Xorth Yakima, where he opened a hotel
and also worked at the carpenter's trade. In 1892 he purchased forty
acres of land, where he now resides, and which he has transformed
from a wild sage-brush tract to a very productive farm and a most
comfortable home On the farm is an orchard of four acres, a good
dwelling and other buildings, and twenty head of stock, the result of
energy and perseverance. While a resident of Minnesota, Mr. Mason
served on the board of supervisors in his home county and also as
township treasurer. He is now a district road supervisor of Yakima
county. He put up the first building in the town of Prosser, hauling
the lumber fifty miles. He has three sisters and two brothers living:
Mrs. Camelia Sanborn, in Portland; Mrs. Lucinda Mills, in California;
Mrs. Harriet Baker, in Minnesota; David, in Oregon, and Edgar E., in
Klickitat county. In 1869 Mr. Mason was married in Minnesota to Miss
Melinda Twitchell, who was born in Maine, August 18, 1844, the
daughter of Hiram and Maria (Dodge) Twitchell, natives of Maine,
and both long since dead. Mrs. Mason was the oldest of a family of
six children. The names of her brother and sisters follow: William
Twitchell; Mrs. Mary Mason. Klickitat county ; Airs. Anna Williams,
Goldendale; Mrs. Helen Merton, Zillah, and Mrs. Efne Hackley,
Cleveland, Washington. To Mr. and Mrs. Mason have been born
seven children, four in Minnesota and three in Washington : Mrs.
Lettie Faulkner, born March 5, 1870, now in Cleveland, Washington;
Mrs. Clara B. Sprague, September 17, 1871, living in Zillah; Artemas,
May 2, 1873, farming near Zillah; Ralph, October 7, 1874, farming
near Zillah; Albert, July 8, 1880; Jesse, January 17, 1883, and Ethel,
May 10, 1886; the three younger children reside with the parents.
Mr. Mason has resided nearly all of his years on the frontier and is
familiar with the dangers and hardships of pioneer life. He has led a
busy and a useful life; is a man of correct principles, fair and
honorable in his dealings with others, and is held in high esteem by
his fellow men wherever he is known. ROBERT D. HEROD, for ten
years a resident of Yakima county, resides in Zillah and operates one
of the best farms in the section, situated a short distance from town.
He is one of the most successful farmers in the valley. Mr. Herod is a
native of Ontario, Canada, born June 6, 1862. He is the son of John
and Eliza (Robinson) Herod, the father a farmer by occupation, born
in England in 1823 and still living, in good health, in Canada; the
mother (deceased) born in Canada in 1830. The son, Robert D.,
spent his youth and early manhood in the country of his birth and
was there educated. He remained in school until twenty years old,
engaging at this early age in contracting and building and remaining
so occupied for five years. In 1889 he moved to Tacoma,
Washington, and for a time followed brick laying, being very
successful in this occupation. Shortly afterwards, because of his
proficiency, he was made foreman by the contractor, A • E. Barrett,
and eventually formed a partnership with him in the contracting and
building business. The firm built some of the finest brick business
blocks in Tacoma ; they also built the science hall and the boys'
dormitory at the State Agricultural College at Pullman, Washington.
In 1894 Mr. Herod came to Yakima county and purchased thirty
acres of land two miles from Zillah, which he transformed from a
sage-brush wilderness into a beautiful fruit farm and an ideal home.
In 1899 ne went to British Columbia on a prospecting and mining
trip but did
 CENTRAL WASHINGTON. not meet with very great success.
Returning to the farm, he sold it in 1902 for seven thousand five
hundred dollars. He then purchased eighty acres near Zillah, on
which he is putting out forty-two acres of orchard and fifteen acres
of hops ; the remainder is seeded to alfalfa. Those who have
assisted materially in the development of the Yakima valley, now one
of the most famous agricultural regions of the Northwest, are
entitled to special credit, and none has been more successful in this
great work than Robert Herod. His industry has met its just reward
and he is now the possessor of the valuable farm described above,
besides a beautiful home in Zillah on which he has erected a fine
eightroom dwelling. He also carries a paid-up, twentyyear
endowment life policy for three thousand dollars and owns two
thousand five hundred shares in the Kootenai-Tacoma mine in British
Columbia. Mr. Herod is seventh in a family of ten children. One
brother, John, lives in Detroit, Michigan ; the other members of the
family, whose names follow, live in Canada: Mrs. Rebecca Clark,
William, Thomas, Mrs. Mary A. Ford, James, Charles, Edmund and
Matiida. November 25, 1891, Mr. Herod was married in Tacoma to
Miss Emma Thorndyke, a native of Canada and the daughter of
Edward and Elizabeth Thorndyke, the father a native of England and
the mother of Canada; both the parents are dead. Mrs. Herod's
brothers and sisters are as follows : John Thorndyke, deceased,
William, Mrs. Ellen J. Gibson, Mrs. Elizabeth Derbyshire, Mrs. Anna
Salter, Edward, Joseph, Adelaid, Mrs. Hortense Oliver, and Mrs. Maria
Oliver. Mrs. Gibson lives in Yakima county, Mrs. Derbyshire and Mrs.
Salter in Buffalo, N. Y., Mrs. Hortense Oliver in England, and the
others in Canada. Mr. and Mrs. Herod have one child, Alice Mignon,
born in North Yakima, August 15, 1902. Husband and wife are
members of the Episcopal communion. Mr. Herod is a member of the
Modern Woodmen of America and, as a politican, supports the
principles of the Republican party. He is industrious, and progressive
in his ideas ; is a man of exceptional business ability and of the
strictest integrity. He has good business foresight and an abiding
faith in the future of the Yakima valley. He is a man of influence in
local and county affairs, is making a success of life and, wherever
known, is respected and highly esteemed by his fellow men. ISAAC
M. McCART, who came to Yakima county in 1893, is engaged in
farming and fruit growing one-half mile east of Zillah. His birthplace
was New Orleans, Louisiana, and the date of his birth September 15,
1853. He is the son of James R and Matilda (Wheat) McCart, natives
of Kentucky, both deceased. His father was a tobacco merchant,
born April 17, 1827, and his mother was born February 9, 1833. Until
fourteen years of age, the son of Isaac attended the common
schools of Kentucky and Indiana, receiving a good education. During
the next six years he learned the trade of a practical machinist and
also became a mechanical engineer. Completing his apprenticeship
at the age of twenty he went to Leavenworth, Kansas, and entered
the employ of the Leavenworth Mining Company, continuing with
them for five years as chief engineer in the boiler room and pump
house; thence he went to Richmond, Missouri, and for four years
acted as the chief engineer of mine No. 7. His next move was to
Portland, Oregon, where for a time he was variously employed; then
moving to Gray's Harbor, Washington, and remaining for eighteen
months as first assistant engineer for the Cosmopolitan Commercial
Company; thence to Ocosta, Washington, where for fourteen months
he was chief engineer for A. P. Watton & Company. In 1893 he came
to North Yakima and shortly afterwards to Zillah, where he
purchased a homestead relinquishment to one hundred and sixty
acres of land, on which he is still residing. Although having many
obstacles to overcome, he has persevered in the work of
improvement and now has one of the most productive and valuable
farms in that part of the country. Not until the third year did he
produce enough to meet expenses; then raising forty-six tons of
potatoes on five acres, and selling for eleven dollars per ton, he was
given a start and has since netted each year a good income from the
place, thirty acres being directly under the big ditch and under a
high state of cultivation. From one and one-fourth acres he sells
each year four hundred dollars worth of strawberries, and from his
orchard receives a handsome income. He is also a breeder of fine
stock; has some registered Jersey and Shorthorn cattle, also a
Hambletonian horse, a gelding, registered number, 79027. He has
also a thoroughbred gelding, seven years old, that is considered a
phenomenon ; it is fifteen hands high and weighs one thousand
three hundred and fifty pounds. In addition, he ■ raises standard
bred hogs and poultry. Mr. McCart has one sister and two brothers,
Mrs. Florence E. Brown, Benjamin F. and James H. McCart, junior,
living in Richmond, Missouri, and one sister, Mrs. Carrie B. Jones, in
Centerville, Iowa. He was married in Washington, Indiana, in 1897,
to Miss Katherine Herbert, who was born in Champaign, Illinois,
October 25, 1858, the daughter of Dorsey and Mary (Moore)
Herbert; the father (deceased), a native of Kentucky; the mother
now living in Indiana. Mrs. McCart has three sisters and one brother,
residents of Indiana: Mrs. Margaret B. Carter, Mrs. Mary E. Janott,
Joseph Herbert and Mrs. Callie Hutchinson. Mr. and Mrs. McCart
attend the Episcopal church. In politics, Mr. McCart is a Silver
Republican and takes
 BIOGRAPHICAL. nSl a lively interest in campaigns, taking
the stump for his party in both state and national contests. He is a
forceful and effective speaker. He is a man of integrity and influence,
is making a success of life, is one of. the substantial and reliable
citizens of the county and commands the confidence and respect of
all who know him. GEORGE P. EATON, living five and fiveeighths
miles southeast of Zillah, is a native of New York state, born in
Oxford, February 25, 1855, tne son of Warren and Eliza (Penston)
Eaton, the father (deceased) a farmer, born in Vermont in 1814, the
mother, still living in Oxford, born in Utica, New York, September 12,
1818. The son, George, received his education in the Oxford
academy and in Cornell university, being graduated from the latter
institution with the class of 1878. After graduation he at once
entered the employment of Dr. Jackson, of the Dansville (New York)
Sanitarium, as his private secretary, continuing so employed until
March, 1880, when he started for the Pacific coast, locating for a
short time at Waitsburg, Washington, as reporter on the Waitsburg
Times. During the same summer Mr. Eaton entered the surveying
department of the Oregon Railway and Navigation Company, quitting
in the fall of the year, and employing himself one term as a school
teacher. From December, 1880, to October, 1881, he was engaged in
the United States land office at Walla Walla, first as stenographer
and later as clerk; thence going to Tacoma and entering the land
department of the Northern Pacific railroad. He went to Portland.
Oregon, when the company's office was removed there in
September, 1882, and was promoted from clerk to assistant chief
clerk, then to chief clerk, and eventually to assistant general land
agent. He afterwards served for one year as secretary of the
Washington State Immigration Association, and was subsequently
for several years chief tax clerk for the Northern Pacific railroad at
Tacoma. He is now secretary of the Sunnyside Railvvav Company,
organized for the purpose of building a railroad from Toppenish to
Prosser via Sunnyside, and is also president and general manager of
the Sunnyside Farm Company. In 1891 he filed on three hundred
and twenty acres of desert land five miles from Zillah, and began
improvements in the spring of 1892, being among the first to begin
improvements under the big ditch. This land he eventually sold to
the Sunnyside Farm Company, of which he is president. Mr. Eaton
has three sisters : Mrs. Amanda C. Fletcher and Lizzie B. Eaton, of
Oxford, New York, and Mrs. Emma M. Brown, of Waverlv. New York.
One brother, Charles B., is a member of the firm of Bowman, Bolster
& Eaton, court stenographers, of Seattle. Another brother, James W.,
served jn the Civil war in Company H, New York heavy artillery, was
taken prisoner in the battle of Cedar Creek, Virginia, and died in
Salisbury prison in January, 1865. Mr. Eaton was married to Miss
Emma Kinnear, youngest daughter of William C. Kinnear and
Elizabeth Kinnear, of Crawfordsville, Iowa. Her parents died when
she was a child. Mrs. Eaton came west with her brothers, Alvin L.
Kinnear, deceased ; Emera Kinnear, now a merchant of Spokane,
Washington, and W. L. Kinnear, a merchant at Bonner's Ferry, Idaho,
and her sister, Mary J. Williams, of Oakesdale, Washington. She
received her education in St. Paul's school, Walla Walla, being one of
the first graduates and afterwards a teacher in that institution. To
Mr. and Mrs. Eaton have been born the following children : Emma K.
Eaton, born in Portland, Oregon; Warren, born January 15, 1888:
Edith, born February 22, 1890, and Clara, born June 25, 1895, the
three younger children being born in Tacoma, Washington. Mis.
Eaton belongs to the Episcopal church. In political campaigns, Mr.
Eaton supports the principles of the Republican party. He is a man of
exceptional business and executive ability, of strict integrity, fair and
honorable in his dealings with others, and is esteemed and
respected by all with whom he comes in contact in a business or
social way. CORNELIUS H. FURMAN, proprietor of the Hotel Zillah
and dealer in real estate in Zillah, Washington, is a native of Illinois,
where he was born August 6, 1855, the son of William and Maria
(Morton) Furman. His father was a miller by trade, born in
Rochester, New York, in 1826. His mother, born in Ohio, of Vermont
parentage, in 1835, still lives, a resident of Zillah. The son,
Cornelius, received his education in the schools of Wisconsin and
Iowa, and, at the age of fifteen, quit his studies to assist his father
on the farm. In the meantime, between the ages of eleven and
fifteen, he had learned the miller's trade, and, at the age of
seventeen, took charge of a flour-mill in southern Minnesota,
continuing its operation for five years. From 1879 to 1889 he served
the government most satisfactorily in the capacity of railway postal
clerk. At the end of this time he engaged in the real estate and
improvement business in the employ of the St. Paul & Duluth
Railroad Company. During this period the disastrous Hinkley,
Minnesota, fire occurred, which, spreading to adjacent territory,
destroyed all the buildings on a farm belonging to Mr. Furman. He
assisted in the rescue of the Hinkley sufferers, and at once rebuilt
the farm buildings, which a short time afterwards were carried away
by a cyclone. May 30, 1899, he left Minneapolis for Yakima county,
Washington. Arriving here, he invested in some land near North
Yakima, selling the same sixmonths later at a fifty per cent advance
over the purchase price. He then came to Zillah, and purchased
 CENTRAL WASHINGTON. the hotel and stage line, with
which he has since been identified, and also engaged in the real
estate business. He has since become interested in valley lands ;
owns forty acres in the vicinity of Zillah, and a number of lots in the
town. He also has a fine bunch of horses and cattle. He is the oldest
in a family of four children. The names of his three brothers follow :
Benjamin C, deceased ; Adilbert D., who served with the Fifteenth
Minnesota boys in the Spanish-American war, now an electrician,
living in Minnesota ; and Charles B., a grain inspector, living in West
Superior. Mr. Furfnan was married in Windom, Minnesota, December
20, 1878, to Miss Ella V. Hopkins, born in Pennsylvania, January 20,
1858. the daughter of Oliver and Rachel ( Randolph ) Hopkins,
native of Pennsylvania and New York, respectively, and both dead.
Mrs. Furman has one brother, Stephen Hopkins, a Minnesota farmer.
She had two brothers who died in the Confederate prison at
Andersonville. Mr. and Mrs. Furman have three daughters and one
son, all born in Minnesota, as follows : Mrs. Mildred B. Haynor. of
Faro. British Columbia ; Mrs. Rachel M. McCormick, and Mrs. Clara
M. Renehan, living in Yakima county; and Benjamin C, at home. Mr.
and Mrs. Furman attend the Methodist church. In political matters,
Mr. Furman is an influential Republican, and is now justice of the
peace at Zillah. His fraternal connections are with the Modern
Woodmen, the Independent Order of Odd Fellows and Rebekahs.
and Mrs. Furman is a member of the Royal Neighbors. He is a
leading citizen and a man of influence in local affairs, of exceptional
business ability and of strict integrity, and commands the respect
and esteem of his fellow men. JULIUS F. CRITTENDEN, for ten years
a resident of Yakima county, is engaged in agricultural pursuits three
miles southeast of Zillah. His native town is Saline, Michigan, where
he was born September 20, 1851. His father, Byron B. Crittenden,
was a farmer and a photographer, born in the state of New York in
1827. His mother, Eliza (Morgan) Crittenden, was a native of
Pennsylvania, born in 1829. Both parents are dead. The son Julius
spent his early life in his native state, where he received his
education. At the age of twenty he quit his studies and for several
years assisted his father on the farm, remaining so employed until
1880. At this time he entered the employ of the Michigan Central
Railroad as a brakeman, remaining: with them for seven years and
eventually becoming a conductor. In this capacity he was afterwards
employed by the Burlington railroad and later lay the Chicago Great
Western road. Concluding to abandon railroading as a life business,
he resigned his position in 1894 and came directly to Washington,
stopping for a short time in'Tacoma. In May of this year he came to
Zillah and purchased ten acres of arid sage-brush land and
immediately commenced its improvement. He met with many
reverses and was forced to endure many hardships, but being
unable to get away, because of lack of means and for other reasons,
he persevered, continuing his improvements, and by the year 1899
began to realize something from the farm. Since that year each
season has witnessed an improvement in conditions. He eventually
purchased fifteen acres adjoining the original investment and the
whole iract has, by skill and industry, been transformed from its wild,
arid state to a beautiful farm and home, on which is a splendid
orchard containing six acres. One brother, Clarence Crittenden, is a
printer, living in Seattle. The marriage of Julius Crittenden and Miss
Carrie Lewis was celebrated in Michigan in 1872. Miss Lewis was
born in Michigan November 24, 1856, the daughter of Jacob and
Mary (Agard) Lewis, natives of Ohio, the father (deceased), born in
1804, and the mother, born in 1829, now living near Lansing,
Michigan. Mrs. Crittenden has two brothers living, Daniel and Alfred
Lewis. Mr. and Mrs. Crittenden have two daughters and one son, all
born in Michigan. Their names follow: Mrs. Blanche Smith, living in
Connell, Washington ; Mrs. Bessie Rowland, in Yakima county, and
Earl J. Crittenden, at home. Byron B. Crittenden, father of the
subject of this article, was a man well known in this section of the
county and greatly reverenced and esteemed because of his genial
nature and his devoutly Christian life. He was public spirited and
charitable to a fault ; assisted by donations of money and labor in
the building of the Christian church at Zillah, of which he was a
member and, following his dfath, near Zillah, January 13, 1901, his
remains were followed to their last resting place by one of the
largest processions of friends that has ever been witnessed in this
part of the county. Mrs. Crittenden is a member of the Christian
church. In political affairs, Mr. Crittenden is a Democrat; his fraternal
connections are with the Knights of Pythias. He is industrious and
energetic and hence is meeting with success ; is a man of integrity
and correct principles, and with his wife, shares the confidence and
respect of all who know them. JEREMIAH L. LEASE, agriculturist and
fruit grower, resides three and one-half miles east of Zillah. He is a
native of West Virginia, where he was born Januarv 18, 1838. His
father, John B. Lease (deceased), was a Maryland farmer, born 1806,
and his mother, Susanna (Flick) Lease (deceased), was a Virginian,
born 1810. Jeremiah Lease, although a resident of the state of
Washington for seven years only, is a typical
 BIOGRAPHICAL. 683 pioneer and frontiersman, the blazer
of many a "spotted trail" over which the forerunners of civilization
penetrated the wilds of the Middle West and the Northwest. He
belongs to that class known as "self-made" men whose knowledge
of the world has been gained by experience and observation rather
than by years of application to study. His life has been spent on the
frontier, where school privileges were not enjoyed and where
opportunities for acquiring "knowledge from books" were not
afforded. But he has been a man of resources, of industry and
perseverance, and has faced the dangers and hardships of life with
true courage, forcing success where many others have failed. In
1846, when he was eight years old, his parents moved from Virginia
to an unsettled portion of Ohio; thence in a short time to the
Wisconsin frontier; in 1870 to South Dakota ; then to North Dakota,
where settlement was made on the Cannon Ball river. He was there
during the Indian troubles that unsettled the affairs of that region
and was among the Indians at the time Chief Sitting Bull was slain.
In 1897 he came to Washington, locating in Asotin county, and in
1901, came to Yakima county and purchased the land on which he
now resides. Here he has a valuable farm and a comfortable home,
ten acres of orchard and thirty acres of timothy and clover, twenty-
five head of cattle and horses, and all the accumulations of the
successful farmer. In i860 Mr. Lease was married in Wisconsin to
Miss Mary A. Shanbaugh, who died a few years later in South
Dakota. He was again married in Missouri in 1881 to Miss Emma
Parsons. Mr. and Mrs. Lease have ten children, all living at home.
Their names follow : Jeremiah, Jr., Thomas, Emanuel, Mary, Alonzo,
Maude, Alice, James R., Katie and Frederick W. Mr. and Mrs. Lease
worship with the Seventh Day Adventists. In politics, Mr. Lease votes
with the Democratic party. Coming to the country comparativelv a
poor man, he has made a success of forming. He is known as a man
of sound principles, fair and honorable in all ways, and enjoys the
confidence and esteem of his fellow men. ARCHIE J. ELLIOTT, the
well-known blacksmith of Zillah, Washington, is a native of Canada,
born in the family home on the banks of the St. Lawrence river, in
1846. He is the son of Hiram and Margaret (Borden) Elliott, also
natives of Canada. The father's ancestors were immigrants to
Canada from the state of New York. In 1863 Hiram Elliott moved to
Illinois and later to Iowa, where he died. His wife, the mother of
Archie Elliott, died in Nebraska, in 1902. The son Archie received his
education in Canada and m 1863 went with his parents to Illinois. At
the age of eighteen he began learning the blacksmith's trade and
spent the first few years in this trade in Illinois and Iowa. He was
then for several years located in various cities, going first to Omaha,
Nebraska; thence to Des Moines and Cedar Falls, Iowa; thence to
Oregon, Illinois, where he formed a partnership with a cousin;
thence to Hampton, Iowa, where he remained two years. Leaving
Iowa again, he went to Cheyenne, Wyoming, and entered the
employ of the government as a horseshoer and, eighteen months
later, was sent to Fort Robinson, where, for thirteen years, he
continued in the service of the United States. In the beginning of the
SpanishAmerican war he was sent to Chickamauga, Georgia, where
troops were being massed, and expected to be sent on to Cuba. He
was held at Chickamauga during the summer, however, and in the
fall of the year 1898 severed his connection with the government
and went to Crawford, Nebraska, where he engaged for a time in
farming. In 1900 he again changed locations, this time coming to
Washington, overland with teams, arriving at Zillah July 14, and at
once putting up a shop. Later, however, he rented a shop already
built and in operation, and in turn rented his new building to a
physician for an office, but has since built another shop. He has built
up a good trade and is now recognized as one of the substantial
citizens of the town. He has invested considerable capital in town
property and now owns two residences, besides a number of
business and residence lots. Mr. Elliott was married, in 1873, to Miss
Nellie Quick, who died a few years later, leaving two children,
George P. and Charles A. In 1807 he was again married, to Mrs.
Rosa Hand. Mr. Elliott is a member of the Independent Order of Odd
Fellows. He is making a success of his business in Zillah; is energetic
and progressive, a man of generous impulses, esteemed by friends
and acquaintances and respected by all with whom he comes in
contact in a business or social wav. COLONEL A. C. WALKER, for
fourteen years a citizen of Yakima county, Washington, is now
engaged in farming and raising fruit two miles east of Zillah. Mr.
Walker is a native of the old Bay state, having been born in
Worcester county, Massachusetts, in 1834. He is the son of Walter
and Salinda (Hill) Walker, natives of Massachusetts, father and son
being born in the same county. The elder Walker was of English and
French descent and his people settled in Massachusetts in a very
early day. The son, A. C. Walker, was educated in his native state;
attended the common and high schools and afterwards took the
preparatory course required for matriculation in the colleges of
Massachusetts. After the completion of his studies he was placed
 684 CENTRAL WASHINGTON. in a wholesale boot and shoe
house, where he became thoroughly conversant with all
departments of the business, and, until his coming to the Pacific
Northwest, was always connected with some of the great
manufacturing establishments of that great manufacturing state.
After many years' close attention to his commercial interests he
became possessed with the desire to see the Pacific coast country
and, with this end in view, left Massachusetts in 1890 for Portland,
Seattle and other points, thinking to spend six months in pleasurable
rambles up and down the coast. After a visit to the cities named he
came to Yakima county to spend a short time with a relative, Colonel
Howlett, and, being delighted with the climate and with the
wonderful possibilities of the country, he decided to remain, making
it his permanent home. The first year was spent in the real estate
business with Colonel Howlett in North Yakima. In the meanwhile he
had taken up a timber claim, a desert claim and a homestead, the
latter where he now resides, and eventually proved up on all the
tracts. At that time the surveys for the great Sunnyside canal had
not been made. When the canal was completed he gave the
company eighty of his one hundred and sixty acres, for the water
right on the other half, which he has improved and developed into
one of the best producing farms in this section of the county, and
has made of it also an ideal home. He has since added one hundred
acres to his holdings in the valley, and at the present time engages
principally in the raising of alfalfa. He was about the first
homesteader to settle here, there being at the time absolutely no
one permanently settled between this point and Prosser. Mr. Walker
was married in Massachusetts in early life, but the wife died before
his departure for the west. He has one son, Arthur, in the wholesale
boot and shoe business in Boston. In 1 901 he was again married to
Miss Alice Douglas, a native of New York. Mr. Walker's fraternal
connections are \yith the North Yakima lodge of Elks. In political
matters he supports the principles of the Republican party and was a
few years ago the party candidate for assessor, meeting defeat with
the balance of the ticket. He is recognized as one of the most
influential party leaders, both in local and state campaigns. He is a
man of exceptional business and executive ability and is one of the
more successful agriculturists of the valley. Fourteen years' residence
in the county has not diminished his faith in its future, which he
believes to be fraught with still greater possibilities in the further
development of its natural resources. As a man of strictest integrity
and honor, of progressive ideas and devotion to the advancement of
the people among whom he has established a permanent home, he
has won and retains the confidence and respect of all. ALVIN
DALTON, farmer and horticulturist, lives three miles southeast of
Zillah. He was born in Columbia county, Wisconsin, July 26, 1847,
tne son of William and Clara (Bradley) Ualton, natives of Maine.
William Dalton served under General Scott in the War of 1812, with
Great Britain, and his father was a soldier in the Revolution. The
parents are dead. They were pioneers in Wisconsin, Minnesota and
Montana, going from Wisconsin to Minnesota in 1861, and shortly
afterwards to Montana with the Captain Fisk immigrant train. At the
time the last long, dreary and hazardous journey was made, Alvin
Dalton was fourteen years old, his early youth having been spent in
the common schools and on the farm in his native state. In 1865 he
went to Colorado, and from there returned to Minnesota, where he
remained four years. June 12, 1871, he was married in Sioux City,
Iowa, to Miss Isabella Fogg, daughter of George and Nancy (Brown)
Fogg, the father a veteran of the Civil war, who was sent to the
middle Northwest to assist in quelling the Sioux Indians. He was of
English descent. The parents of Mrs. Dalton are dead. Mr. and Mrs.
Dalton, with her parents, went to Colorado in 1874 and engaged in
farming, propecting and raising stock ; thence, in 1877, to the Black
Hills, where Mr. Dalton followed mining for three years, assisting
while there in putting in the first timbers in the famous Homestake
mine. In 1882 he went to the Wood river, Idaho, mining region ;
thence to the Coeur d'Alene mines ; thence to Thompson Falls,
Montana, engaging during; this period in mining and hunting. From
Thompson Falls he went to Kootenai county, Idaho, and took up a
ranch on the Pend d'Oreille lake, raising stock here for five years.
During the floods of 1894 most of his stock perished and he decided
upon another change in location. Selling; out the same year, he
came to Yakima countv and took up the farm where he has since
resided. He has made two trips to Alaska, the first, in 1897, with his
son, Frank P., and the second in 1899. The two sons, Frank P. and
Wallace Alvin, are now in that "land of the midnight sun." While
there Mr. Dalton had many interesting experiences, at one time
making a continuous journey of fourteen days with a pony and
sleigh down the Yukon river on the ice from Skagway to Dawson,
and again making a trip of seven hundred miles with his son, Frank,
to the mines on Myrtle creek. In August of the same year he
traveled down the Koukuk river from its head to the Yukon, then
down the Yukon to St. Michaels and thence home. Mr. and Mrs.
Dalton have one daughter, Florence I., living at home. Mrs. Dalton is
a member of the Episcopal church. Politically, Mr. Dalton is a
Republican, but he believes there are some sound principles in the
platform of the
The text on this page is estimated to be only 11.75%
accurate

I'hni .vj-n-ii.ilit'ii by F. J. Tiel ARTHUR GURLEY.

Welcome to our website – the ideal destination for book lovers and
knowledge seekers. With a mission to inspire endlessly, we offer a
vast collection of books, ranging from classic literary works to
specialized publications, self-development books, and children's
literature. Each book is a new journey of discovery, expanding
knowledge and enriching the soul of the reade

Our website is not just a platform for buying books, but a bridge
connecting readers to the timeless values of culture and wisdom. With
an elegant, user-friendly interface and an intelligent search system,
we are committed to providing a quick and convenient shopping
experience. Additionally, our special promotions and home delivery
services ensure that you save time and fully enjoy the joy of reading.

Let us accompany you on the journey of exploring knowledge and

personal growth!

ebookname.com