ABSTRACT
FuNcTIONALISM in anthropology has at least two components. I t is, first of all, a theory of how societies w o r k . Second, since it conceives of societies working in certain ways, it prescribes a method for their study. As the method stems from the theory of how they work, one would naturally expect that the two stand or fall together. This is not the case. On the contrary, the whole stormy history of functionalism derives much of its tension from attempts to split them apart. Critics have pointed out that the theory behind functionalism is conservative, restrictive, or even demonstrably false. Defenders of the faith have again and again pointed to the splendid and undeniable achievements of functionalist anthropology. Yet it seems never to have been seen that the criticisms could be accepted without in any way damaging the methodology; the separation could be made.
