Talk:Manifest and Latent Funtions (Group 9)

While figuring out for manifest and latent functions of a social phenomenon for my final essay, I just got curious about the boundary between two functions. Once people recognize a hidden function of a social event/phenomenon and notice further effects on society, does that latent function still remain as latent? Then, what would be the appropriate boundary to distinguish them when people are recognizing both functions?

This is a really interesting question and I think that the boundary is very abstract and has no determinate line to categorize one side as latent and the other side as manifest. I believe that the latent function will always remain latent because it is not 'advertised' as such. For example, we recognize that a school's latent function is not to just educate students but its manifest function remains intact and known as the manifest function because that is what is being promoted by society and the schools themselves.

Aram, you make an interesting point. I agree with Jessica that "latent functions will always remain latent". The meanings in which we assign to objects/phenomenons are never fixed, but are rather evolving. When the latent function becomes obvious, by default it is no longer latent. As a result, I think the function can transform into a manifest function through space and time.

Thanks for an interesting question, Aram, and for some insightful responses! I agree with both Jessica and Bich that latent functions will always remain latent as they lose their latency once widely recognized by the public. With that being said, latent functions can, in a sense, transform into latent functions; once this transformation is complete, however, the exact same functions once latent are classified as manifest.

To add on to this for another direction, the idea of understanding HOW latent and manifest functions are conceived and re-ified as either manifest or latent is interesting to me. For example, I have not read Chomsky's work on "Manufacturing Consent" with mainstream media, but I know that in it, he makes the argument that mainstream media's function of manufacturing consent was not latent, but absolutely manifest from its conception. It's interesting that the subject of such a prominent work is not entirely focussed on the function itself (although it is somewhat, I imagine), but much moreso on the distinction of how a the nature of a function (either manifest or latent) really has an effect on function itself, and how there is such a need, scholarly, to uncover whether or not institutions like mainstream media are indeed manufacturing consent either manifestly or latently.

I think that latent functions have a possibility to remain latent functions even after the hidden functions of an action/institution is recognized, as it is up to the individual whether or not they choose to accept these hidden functions as such or to ignore it and continue to solely believe in an action's/institution's manifest function. For example if we examine individuals who pray to their god in the hopes that their problems/wishes are answered, we can see this boundary between latent and manifest function being challenged. The manifest function of praying would be that they actually believe in the existence of a god and that in doing so their god will solve their problems or answer their wishes. The latent function of praying would be that individuals use it as a means to console themselves in times of stress and hardship. However when an individual's pray is continuously unanswered, at what point do they reject its manifest function and accept the fact that the action of praying has a latent function that acts as a way for individuals to console themselves. For those that eventually lose faith in the manifest function of praying, the latent functions of it would then become manifest functions. However, for those that refuse to accept the latent functions of praying as such, the lines between manifest and latent functions remain.

Great question Aram, like many of the social phenomenons we have learned about, it is rare to find a salient periphery that makes us understand, distinguish, and determine exactly when to classify the theory. Some are more obvious than others but I do think Merton's claiming and the differences between manifest and latent functions can easily get confused. I think that the two functions are not entirely dichotomous which is why interpretation can be difficult.

For Merton, there always seems to be a manifest and latent function for every institution, action, etc. and I am curious on whether there is anything that doesn't necessarily have a latent function?

This is a great question actually because when you think about latent functions, Merton is suggesting that it is always present. I can't think of any examples of a situation where one couldn't find a latent function. Originally I considered the idea of doing something for yourself but even the idea of doing something for yourself would carry on into how society sees you as a person. In our society, we build ourselves off of those social connections and we continue to evolve through meeting those needs and connecting with others, so I don't think there is much in society that functions as an isolated manifest function.

I do agree with you that even situations in which a person is acting in their own self interest, that action plays into the greater role of how that individual is perceived by society. It is hard to pinpoint the latent functions of every event or institution though, because Merton argues that latent functions are often unintended and unforeseen consequences. Many of which aren't even known until the latent consequences are causing a disruption in the cohesions of social structure.  

So these latent functions do exist everywhere, but not necessarily because they play into how society views the person, but because each action has (whether it be predictable or unpredictable/unnoticed) a consequence.

I do agree with you that even situations in which a person is acting in their own self interest, that action plays into the greater role of how that individual is perceived by society. It is hard to pinpoint the latent functions of every event or institution though, because Merton argues that latent functions are often unintended and unforeseen consequences. Many of which aren't even known until the latent consequences are causing a disruption in the cohesions of social structure.  

So these latent functions do exist everywhere, but not necessarily because they play into how society views the person, but because each action has (whether it be predictable or unpredictable/unnoticed) a consequence.

I agree with Kristy. I think that every person subliminally and unconsciously carries out actions dependent on their personal situations and how it will affect them, even if it's primarily for the benefit of somebody else or a greater end goal. People don't tend to carry out actions that don't intrinsically affect or benefit them, every individual first outweighs the pros and cons to their actions. To conquer with Merton, it creates this idea that the manifest functions always exist. These manifest functions then inherently affect the solidarity of the social sphere by influencing what happens inside it, creating latent functions that affect society as a whole. These latent functions, much like the manifest functions, always exist. This is due to everything people do individually creating a lasting effect or change on what happens within a group of people or a society. It's impossible for an individual to do something without it affecting other people. Every action has a consequence.

I agree, this is an interesting question as Merton's explanation of manifest and latent functions leads people to think that there must be latent functions behind all social behavior. I also cannot think of any social actions that do not carry latent functions. This is because individuals shape and are shaped by society; thus, I do not think it possible to carry out social action without affecting other people or the structures within society in some way.

Crystal raised a question: if we could bring Merton and Marx’s ideas together, what would you say are the manifest and latent functions of a capitalist economic system?

Manifest functions--driving the economy forwards. The bourgeoises' manifest function as the owning class is to accumulate profit and maximize control over markets. The proletariats' manifest function as the working class is to produce and to contribute to the economy by selling their labour.

Latent functions--a) reinforcing group identity/common consciousness (Durkheim) and b) reinforcing hegemony (Gramsci) of the bourgeoisie class. The latent functions, I think, in the context of Marx's capitalist economic system, are actually more prevalent than the manifest functions. Beyond the very purpose of advancing the capitalist economy, certain underlying principles, values, norms, and beliefs are simultaneously produced and re-produced. a) For example, we can apply Durkheim's common consciousness to examine how both the Proletariat and Bourgeoisie understand themselves and their place in relation to others. They act according to this sort of social solidarity. As well, b) we can apply Gramsci's hegemony as another latent function to consider how consensual control, more effectively than coercive control, establishes a set of underlying ideologies for society. This is when people voluntarily assimilate the world view of the dominant group. In other words, the latent function of the capitalist system is that the Proletariats are assimilating the world view that is shaped by the Bourgeoisie.

Those are great latent functions, Barbara. I want to add some latent functions regarding gender that will bring in the work of Gilman and De Bouvoir.

I see another latent function of the capitalist economic system that Marx illustrates in reinforcing the gendered division of labour. Gilman writes about how there is not an economic reciprocal power with women and men. Men, being the labourers, enable women economically whilst a woman does not have the same reciprocal power to the man. Combined with De Bouvoir's understanding of gender through social darwinism, there is an illusion of biological distinctions between man and woman. The man is seen as objective and rational whilst the woman is seen as emotional and subjective.

In the context of Marx's illustration of the division of labour, I see the latent function of capitalism to limit women to merely family and subsistence work to reproduce and stabilize the workforce.

I believe that the Manifest function of the capitalist economic system is for the bourgeoise class to accumulate as much wealth as they possibly can. The Latent functions of this system are to change the world, to make it more technologically advanced and maintain the differences between the classes. I believe that as long as this economic system exits with the divisions of the bourgeoise and proletariats we cannot achieve equality between classes.