Final answer:
The biggest critique of functionalism is its inadequacy in explaining social change and progress, along with its ahistorical nature and circular reasoning. The theory is also contradicted by the persistence of dysfunctions in society, which challenges its basic premise.
Step-by-step explanation:
One of the biggest critiques of functionalism, also known as structural-functional theory, is that it fails to adequately explain social change and progress. The concept, which analogizes society to a living organism where each part maintains the system's stability and functionality, tends to focus on how social institutions perpetuate existing structures rather than how they evolve or change over time. Critics argue that functionalism is inherently ahistorical and often ignores the specific historical experiences of groups, such as the impacts of colonialism on societies.
Futher critiques highlight that functionalism assumes repetitive behavior patterns necessarily have a function simply because they occur repetitively, leading to a somewhat circular reasoning. Dysfunction within a society, according to functionalism, should fade as it does not serve the purpose of social stability; yet, there are examples where dysfunctions persist. This contradiction challenges the premise that every aspect of a society functions to maintain social order and harmony.
Despite these criticisms, the theory is still considered to have some utility in mid-level analyses, but many sociologists now believe it is no longer sufficient as a macro-level theory. This is partly due to its inability to account for rapid social change or account for the motives and issues of conflict that can arise within a society.