Robert K. Merton - Latent and Manifest Functions, Conformity and Deviance, Reference Groups
Latent and Manifest Functions: Latent functions are the unrecognized and unintentional functions of a social process, such as the Hopi Rain Dance, which increases solidarity in the society without being explicitly intended. Manifest functions, on the other hand, are recognized and intended functions of a social process. These are the subjective dispositions behind the social process.
Robert K. Merton developed the modern functional paradigm in response to the limitations of the classical functional paradigm in explaining modern industrial societies and accounting for conflict and change. For example, in exams, the manifest function may be to reward talent and hard work, while the latent function may be to reinforce hierarchy in the society.
Deviance: Deviance, explored in an essay titled 'The Paradigm of Deviance,' has been studied by various scholars. John Bowlby found that chronic recidivists (juvenile delinquents) often lacked intimate relations with their mothers during childhood, leading to a tendency to commit crime. Albert Cohen criticized Merton's theories, suggesting they only explain pecuniary deviance directed towards financial gains, not senseless violence or vandalism. Cloward and Ohlin introduced the concept of criminal sub-culture to explain deviance beyond Merton's theory.
Howard Becker proposed the Labeling Theory, which argues that society's labeling of behavior as deviant contributes to its deviance. Edwin M. Lemart distinguished between primary and secondary deviation, with primary deviance consisting of deviant acts before being publicly labeled, and secondary deviance being the response to societal reaction.
Bernard Lander of the Chicago School found that social disorganization provides a key to understanding deviance.
Reference Group: Reference groups (RG) were described by Shibutani as a collectivity of individuals, real or imagined, whose perspective is assumed by the actor. Reference group theory explores how the status of people we know affects our mental health. In urban China, knowing high-status people was found to be detrimental to mental health, whether individuals knew mostly high-status people or just many people of comparatively higher status than themselves.
Two competing theories for how the status of people in our network affects our mental health are social capital theory, focusing on resources, and comparative reference group theory, focusing on comparison.