ABSTRACT
Several lines of analysis show that functionalism is not a special method within sociology or social anthropology. First, the definitions most commonly agreed upon make functionalism synonymous with sociological analysis, and make non-functionalism synonymous with either reductionist theories or pure description. Second, the issues raised with respect to functionalism, except insofar as they spring from the ambiguities of words like “function,” are really the basic issues or questions of sociological theory. Third, historically the rise of functionalism represented a revolt against reductionist theories, anti-theoretical empiricism, and moralistic or ideological views under the name of sociology or social anthropology. Although functionalism may have been salutary at the time it arose, the ambiguities of its special terminology make the myth that it is a special method a liability now. It seems wise to abandon the myth for the sake of increased clarity and efficiency.
