A chief reason for the decline in popularity of structural functionalism is that it confuses 'function' with 'cause.'

• A. True
• B. False
• C. Not stated
• D. Not applicable

Answer: (A)

The main idea here is how functional explanations can blur cause with purpose. Structural functionalism looks at social patterns by the functions they serve for the whole system—how they help maintain stability. When a feature is said to exist because it serves a function, that can slide into treating the function as the cause of the feature’s existence. In other words, it suggests a teleological, “it exists to do this,” reasoning rather than identifying the actual historical or causal origins. Critics have long argued that this conflation makes explanations about why things occur appear circular or static, and it downplays how change, conflict, power, and historical context shape society. That tension—function as justification rather than true causation—contributed to the decline of structural functionalism. Proponents later tried to refine the view (like distinguishing manifest from latent functions), but the core critique remains a core reason the approach lost prominence.