societal environment. Thus systems analysis looks at a political sys tem in active or dynamic terms.

It
interprets a system as a complex organized form of behaviour through which something gets done. It
views a system as an active set of relationships.

Functionalism is differentiated from systems analysis in the sense that it emphasizes the process of
interaction. Functionalism views a system as a collection of parts that interact with each other. The
components of the system adjust to and influence each other to bring about any resulting new state of
the system. Systems analysis is basically interested in the process of transformation; functionalism in the
process of interaction. However, this is more an instance of hair-splitting than a basic distinction.

We may point out that systems analysis avoids the shortcomings and pitfalls of the psychological
approach of behaviouralism. As against the 'atomistic' model of behaviouralism, systems thinking is
holistic. As against reductionism (which Frankl says is 'a mask for nihilism'), systems analysis takes a full
view of the picture and takes due account of the interrelations within and beyond.23 It has merits which
recommend its use. Kaplan has particularly stressed the follow- ing merits of systems analysis."

1. It accounts for a large number of descriptive concepts and categories which can be used for the
interpretation of new facts, and for the study of new areas. Its categories are explicit and the framework
of reference need not shift as new facts are brought in.

2. It makes possible the integration of variables that do not fall within a single discipline. It is possible to
generate a hypothesis by indicating structural similarities with other subject matter. We im- agine a
homeostatic political system like a human body or an air conditioner. The concepts of 'closed' or 'open'
systems or feedback process make us imagine systems in other disciplines. Such paral- lelisms, if based
on sound reasoning, will result in greater clarity of understanding.

3. It makes explicit what is incomplete in analysis. Its insights are helpful in furthering research. It is
particularly of value in so

Rting ace

home

Approaches in Political Analysis 27

out a large quantity of data and in recognizing the patterns and uni- formities that tie the elements of a
system together.

4. It has suggestive value as it is a heuristic method of gaining knowledge and interpreting the real world.

David Easton argues that the chief merit of systems analysis lies in the fact that by identifying the major
classes of variables that re- quire investigation, and by explaining the operation of political sys. tems, it
provides the criteria of relevance for the collection of data and presents a coherent perspective or
conceptual framework for the analysis of political systems. Easton's notion of support for political objects
(the authorities, the regime and the political community) has become more relevant today since various
societies are experiencing different stages of decline in the input of support. Similarly, Easton's output of
policies has assumed great significance as policy analysis has become the crucial concern of political
scientists in the seventies.

Attention ought to be drawn also to certain disadvantages of sys- tems analysis among which are the
following:

1. Spiro doubts the usefulness of systems analysis in analyzing politics because the concepts drawn from
biology, physics and so on, are sometimes irrelevant and the analyst falls into the trap of mis- placed
analogies.25

2. Systems analysis is useful in macro-analysis, but not very useful: in a micro-analysis of forces which
constitute a large part of social interaction. Systems analysis does not take note of the complete
psychological aspects of the interaction function. Young rightly says that it does not offer very much for
studies dealing with the pol- itical aspects of such matters as 'perception, expectation, cognition'." 26

3. Systems analysis may not be able to answer questions such as

those on the scope and depth of power as it was being used. Nor

does it help us to understand the strategies and tactics involved in the

exercise of power. 4. Systems analysis provides for a large number of concepts, some of which may not
be relevant in a particular study, and some of the notions of which are not of practical utility.
5. A proper application of theory would require a very high level of theoretical consciousness which is
generally difficult to acquire, and its application is possible only in a programme of research requiring
abstract analysis of a high order. This leads to difficulties in empirical operationalization.

6. Kaplan argues that the use of systems analysis in social sciences

28 POLITICAL SOCIOLOGY

can be made only with certain reservations and awareness of its limi- tations. As social objects lack the
fixed and definite character of natural objects, particularization in social and political forms is just not
possible. We cannot construct models that copy faithfully the particularities of the real world. Our
mathematical and computer tools are inadequate in representing the complex inter-relationship
between social and political structures. The highly complex models 'run the risk of being artifacts'
because the more complex a model, the more sensitive it is to slight variations. Highly particularized
models lack both generality and relevance to any specific problem of social science. On the other hand, a
completely general theory may lack explanatory power. It might enunciate the most elementary truisms
about social and political structures, or alternatively, mislead by attempting to do something which it
cannot accomplish. Hence, it is better to make use of the comparative method and theory, or confine
oneself to say- ing different things about distinguishable systems rather than the same thing about every
system.

The ideas of structural-functional analysis are spelt out by Gabriel Almond in his famous introduction to
The Politics of the Developing Areas. It would, however, be worthwhile to trace functionalism to earlier
contributors. The concept of functionalism refers to the social system as an organic body in which certain
vital functions must be performed by different organs and structures in order that the social system may
maintain itself and survive. A social system, for instance, must perform recruitment and socialization
functions so that a society is able to have its members in constant supply and that these members are
socialized into common norms and values to maintain social cohesion. From this basic 'organismic'
notion of a social system, there followed a number of ideas: (a) that the functions are necessary for the
survival of a social system, and that therefore, (b) the functions are universal. The earlier version of
functionalism, as associated with Radcliffe-Brown and Malinowski in particular, emphasized three main
principles: functional unity, functional universalism and func- tional indispensability." According to
Radcliffe-Brown, the function of a social activity or institution is the contribution it makes to the total
social life. Malinowski further maintained that every social institution or tradition fulfils some vital
function, and every custom or belief therefore, is indispensable.

Robert Merton has subjected this version of functionalism to scath- ing criticism and provided necessary
correctives." He first points out