Antoin Sevruguin (late 1830s–1933) was a photographer in İran during the Qajar Dynasty (1785–1925).

Antoin in Vienna, Before 1880



Born into a mixed Armenian-Georgian family in the Russian embassy of Tahran, Persia: Antoin Sevruguin was one of the many children of Vassil de Sevruguin and a Georgian Achin Khanoum. Vassil de Sevruguin was a diplomat to Tehran. Achin had raised her children in Tbilisi, Georgia, because she was denied her husband’s pension. After Vassil died in a horse riding accident Antoin gave up the art form of painting, and took up photography to support his family. His brothers Kolia and Emanuel helped him set up a studio in Tehran on Ala al-dawla Street (today Ferdowsi St.).



Many of Antoin’s photographs were taken from 1870-1930. Because Sevruguin spoke Persian as well as other languages, he was capable of communicating to different social strata and tribes from his country Iran. His photos of the royal court, harems, and mosques and other religious monuments were compared to the other Western photographers in Persia. The reigning Shah, Nasir ed-Din (reigned from 1846-1896) took a special interest in photography and many royal buildings and events were portrayed by Sevruguin.

Landscape photography


Because Sevruguin travelled Persia and took pictures of the country, his travels record the Iran as it was in his time. Sevruguins pictures show Teheran as a small city. They show monuments, bridges and landscapes which have changed since then.

Ethnographical photography


Some of Sevruguin's portraiture fed preexisting stereotypes of Easterners but nevertheless had a commercial value and today prove to be historical records of regional dress. Photographic studio's in the ninetheenth century advertised a type of picture known in French as "types". These were portraits of typical ethnic groups and their occupation. They informed the European viewer, unfamiliar with Persian culture, about the looks of regional dress, handcraft, religion and professions. Photographing regional costums a was an accepted method of ethnological research in the nineteenth century. Many European ethnological museums bought Sevruguins portraiture to complement their scientific collection. Museums collected pictures of merchants in the bazaar, members of a zurkhana (a wrestlingschool), dervishes, gatherings of crowds to see the taziyeh theatre, people engaged in shiite rituals and more. Sevruguins portraits were also spread as postcards with the text: 'Types persans'. Sevruguin was a photographer who had no boundaries in portraying people of all sorts of social classes and ethnic backgrounds. He portrayed members of the Persian royal family as well as beggars, fellow countrymen of Iran or Westerners, farmers working fields, womenweavers at work, army officers, religious officials, Zoroastrians, Armenians, Lurs, Kurds, Shasavan, Chaldeans, Gilak, Afghans.

Sevruguin'in fotoğraf stüdyosu


Many Westerners who lived in Persia and travellers who visited the country brought back pictures from Sevruguin, mentioning him in travelogues of the time. Sevruguins photographic studio was located on the Avenue Al-Dawla and was not the only photographing studio in this street. Local people could have their picture taken in this studio as well. They could pose in front of a painted backdrop. Most pictures were taken as a glassnegative and printed out as an albumineprint. Often a logo with Sevruguins name was printed on one side of the picture. Many 19th Century tourist misspelled his Sevruguins name, finding it difficult to spell it in Western scripture: Sevraguine, Sevrugin, Sevriogin, Segruvian, and Serunian for example. His name was phonetically spelled Sevr-joe-gien.



In 1908 the world was denied the rich collection of Sevruguin’s images when Cossacks of Muhammad Ali Shah (reigned from 1907-1909) inadvertently bombed his store in suppression of Zahiru’d-Dawla, the constitutionalist Governor of Rasht. His house, along with the whole street was burned. Up to that point Antoin had seven thousand plus photographs. Only two thousand were salvaged. In an attempt to modernize Persia Reza Pahlavi Shah (reigned from 1925-1941) confiscated the remaining traditional images.



After his death from a kidney infection Antoin’s images resurfaced. He was survived by seven children from his marriage to Louise Gourgenian. His daughter Mary reclaimed a portion of the photos through a friendship with Muhammad Reza Pahlavi Shah (reigned from 1941-1979.) 696 of Antoin’s negatives survive today.


  • L.A. Ferydoun Barjesteh van Waalwijk van Doorn, Gillian M.Vogelsang-Eastwood (eds.), Sevruguin's Iran / Iran az negah Sevruguin, Late nineteenth century photographs of Iran from the National Museum of Ethnology in Leiden, the Netherlands, Teheran/Rotterdam 1378/1999.
  • Bohrer, Frederick N., ED. Sevruguin and the Persian Image. London: University of Washington Press, 1999.
  • Iraj Afshar, ‘Some remarks on the early history of photography in Iran’ in Qajar Iran; political, social and cultural change, 1800-1925, E.Bosworth, C. Hillenbrand (eds.), Edinburgh 1983, pp. 262-2.
  • Iraj Afshar, Ganjine-ye aks-haye Iran. hamrah-e tarikhche-ye vorud-e akkasi be Iran, A treasury of early Iranian Photographs together with a concise account of how photography was first introduced in Iran, Teheran 1371/1992.
  • Exhibition of Antoin Sevruguin's Photographs (Archived 2009-10-25) at www.geocities.com
  • http://www.asia.si.edu/archives/finding_aids/herzfeld.html

Dış bağlantılar


Scott McKenzie (born Philip Blondheim, January 10, 1939,[1] Jacksonville, Florida) is an American singer, best known for his 1967 hit single and generational anthem, "San Francisco (Be Sure To Wear Flowers In Your Hair)".[2]

Life and career


McKenzie grew up in North Carolina ve Virginia, where he became friends with the son of one of his mother's friends, John Phillips. In the mid 1950s, he sang briefly with Tim Rose in a high school group called The Singing Strings, and later with Phillips, Mike Boran and Bill Cleary formed a doo wop band, The Abstracts. In New York, The Abstracts became The Smoothies and recorded two singles with Decca Records, produced by Milt Gabler. In 1961 Phillips and McKenzie met Dick Weissman and formed The Journeymen, which recorded three albums for Capitol Records. After disbanding The Journeymen in 1964, they discussed forming a group called The Mamas & the Papas. McKenzie wanted to perform on his own, so Phillips formed the group with Denny Doherty, Cass Elliot ve Michelle Phillips, his second wife. The group soon moved to Kaliforniya. Two years later, McKenzie followed from New York and signed with Lou Adler's Ode Records.

Phillips wrote and produced "San Francisco (Be Sure To Wear Flowers In Your Hair)", which was released in 1967, for McKenzie. John Phillips played guitar on the recording and Michelle Phillips played bells. The bass line of the song was supplied by session musician Joe Osborn. It became a Top 10 hit in the Amerika Birleşik Devletleri and a number one in the UK and several other countries. It sold over seven million copies globally, and was awarded a gold disc.[3]

McKenzie followed the song with "Like An Old Time Movie", also written and produced by Phillips, which was a minor hit. His first album, The Voice of Scott McKenzie was followed with an album called Stained Glass Morning. He stopped recording in the early 1970s and lived in Joshua Tree, Kaliforniya ve Virginia Beach.

In 1986, he started singing with a new version of The Mamas and the Papas. With Terry Melcher, Mike Love ve John Phillips, he co-wrote the number 1 single for the Beach Boys, "Kokomo" (1988).

By 1998, he had retired from the road version of The Mamas and Papas, and currently resides in Los Angeles, California. He appeared at the Los Angeles tribute concert for John Phillips in 2001, amongst other 1960s contemporary acts.


  1. ^ Scott McKenzie official website
  2. ^ Discogs'ta Scott McKenzie diskografisi
  3. ^ Murrells, Joseph (1978). The Book of Golden Discs (2nd bas.). London: Barrie and Jenkins Ltd. s. 225. ISBN 0-214-20512-6. 


As the behaviours are repeated in more interactions and these expectations are entrenched or institutionalized a role is created. Parsons defines a role as the “normatively regulated, participating of a person in a concrete process of social interaction with specific, concrete role-partners” [1961:43-44]. Although any individual (theoretically) can fulfill any role, they are expected to conform to the norms governing the nature of the role they fulfill [Cuff & Payne, 1984:44]. Furthermore, one person fulfills many different roles at the same time. In one sense an individual can be seen to be a “composition” [Parsons & Shills, 1976:190] of the roles in which they inhabit. Certainly today, when asked to describe themselves most people would answer with reference to their roles in society.

Parsons then developed the idea of roles into collectivities of roles that complemented each other in fulfilling functions for society [Parsons, 1961:41]. Some of the roles are bound up in institutions and social structures, such as economic, educational, legal, and even gender structures. These structures are functional in the sense they assist society to operate [Gingrich, 1999], and fulfill its functional needs so that the society runs smoothly. A society where there is no conflict, where everyone knows what is expected of them, and where these expectations are constantly being met, is in a perfect state of equilibrium. The key processes for Parsons in attaining this equilibrium are socialization and social control. Socialization is important because it is the mechanism for transferring the accepted norms and values of a society to the individuals within the system. Perfect socialisation occurs when these norms and values are completely internalized, that is they become part of the individual’s personality [Ritzer, 1983:196]. Parsons states, “this point, it should be made clear, is independent of the sense in which individual is concretely autonomous or creative rather than ’passive’ or ‘conforming’, for individuality and creativity, are to a considerable extent, phenomena of the institutionalization of expectations” [1961:38], that is they are culturally constructed characteristics. Socialization is supported by the positive and negative sanctioning of role behaviours which do or do not meet these expectations [Cuff & Payne, 1984:46]. A punishment could be informal, such as a snigger or gossip, or more formalized through institutions such as prisons and mental institutions. If these two processes were perfect then society would become static and unchanging, and in reality this is unlikely to occur for long.

Parsons recognizes this, stating that he treats “the structure of the system as problematic and subject to change” [1961:37] and that his concept of the tendency towards equilibrium “does not imply the empirical dominance of stability over change” [1961:39]. He does however believe that these changes occur in a relatively smooth way. Individuals in interaction with changing situations adapt through a process of “role bargaining” [Gingrich, 1991]. Once the roles are established, they create norms that guide further action and are thus institutionalized, creating stability across social interactions. Where the adaptation process cannot adjust, due to sharp shocks or immediate radical change, structural dissolution occurs and either new structures (and therefore a new system) are formed, or the society dies. This model of social change has been described as a “moving equilibrium” [Gingrich, 1991], and does emphasize a desire for social order.

Eleştirel Boyutu


In the 1960s, functionalism was criticized for being unable to account for social change, or for structural contradictions and conflict (and thus was often called "consensus theory"). The refutation of the second criticism of functionalism, that it is static and has no concept of change, has already been articulated above, concluding that while Parsons’ theory allows for change, it is an orderly process of change [Parsons, 1961:38], a moving equilibrium. Therefore referring to Parsons’ theory of society as static is inaccurate. It is true that it does place emphasis on equilibrium and the maintenance or quick return to social order, but this is a product of the time in which Parsons was writing (post-World War II, and the start of the cold war). Society was in upheaval and fear abounded. At the time social order was crucial, and this is reflected in Parsons' tendency to promote equilibrium and social order rather than social change.

Furthermore, Durkheim used a radical form of guild socialism along with functionalist explanations. Also, Marxism, while acknowledging social contradictions, still uses functionalist explanations. Parsons' evolutionary theory describes the differentiation and reintegration systems and subsystems and thus at least temporary conflict before reintegration (ibid). "The fact that functional analysis can be seen by some as inherently conservative and by others as inherently radical suggests that it may be inherently neither one nor the other." (Merton 1957: 39)

Stronger criticisms include the epistemological argument that functionalism is teleological, that is it attempts to describe social institutions solely through their effects and thereby does not explain the cause of those effects. However, Parsons drew directly on many of Durkheim’s concepts in creating his theory. Certainly Durkheim was one of the first theorists to explain a phenomenon with reference to the function it served for society. He said, “the determination of function is…necessary for the complete explanation of the phenomena” [cited in Coser, 1977:140]. However Durkheim made a clear distinction between historical and functional analysis, saying, “when…the explanation of a social phenomenon is undertaken, we must seek separately the efficient cause which produces it and the function it fulfills” [cited in Coser, 1977:140]. If Durkheim made this distinction, then it is unlikely that Parsons did not. However Merton does explicitly state that functional analysis does not seek to explain why the action happened in the first instance, but why it continues or is reproduced. He says that “latent functions …go far towards explaining the continuance of the pattern” [cited in Elster, 1990:130, emphasis added]. Therefore it can be argued that functionalism does not explain the original cause of a phenomenon with reference to its effect, and is therefore, not teleological.

Another criticism describes the ontological argument that society can not have "needs" as a human being does, and even if society does have needs they need not be met. Anthony Giddens argues that functionalist explanations may all be rewritten as historical accounts of individual human actions and consequences (see Structuration theory).

A further criticism directed at functionalism is that it contains no sense of agency, that individuals are seen as puppets, acting as their role requires. Yet Holmwood states that the most sophisticated forms of functionalism are based on “a highly developed concept of action” [2005:107], and as was explained above, Parsons took as his starting point the individual and their actions. His theory did not however articulate how these actors exercise their agency in opposition to the socialisation and inculcation of accepted norms. As has been shown above, Merton addressed this limitation through his concept of deviance, and so it can be seen that functionalism allows for agency. It cannot, however, explain why individuals choose to accept or reject the accepted norms, why and in what circumstances they choose to exercise their agency, and this does remain a considerable limitation of the theory.

Further criticisms have been levelled at functionalism by proponents of other social theories, particularly conflict theorists, marxists, feminists and postmodernists. Conflict theorists criticised functionalism’s concept of systems as giving far too much weight to integration and consensus, and neglecting independence and conflict [Holmwood, 2005:100]. Lockwood [in Holmwood, 2005:101], in line with conflict theory, suggested that Parsons’ theory missed the concept of system contradiction. He did not account for those parts of the system that might have tendencies to mal-integration. According to Lockwood, it was these tendencies that come to the surface as opposition and conflict among actors. However Parsons’ thought that the issues of conflict and cooperation were very much intertwined and sought to account for both in his model [Holmwood, 2005:103]. In this however he was limited by his analysis of an ‘ideal type’ of society which was characterised by consensus. Merton, through his critique of functional unity, introduced into functionalism an explicit analysis of tension and conflict.

Marxism which was revived soon after the emergence of conflict theory, criticised professional sociology (functionalism and conflict theory alike) for being partisan to advanced welfare capitalism [Holmwood, 2005:103]. Gouldner [in Holmwood, 2005:103] thought that Parsons’ theory specifically was an expression of the dominant interests of welfare capitalism, that it justified institutions with reference to the function they fulfill for society. It may be that Parsons’ work implied or articulated that certain institutions were necessary to fulfill the functional prerequisites of society, but whether or not this is the case, Merton explicitly states that institutions are not indispensable and that there are functional alternatives. That he does not identify any alternatives to the current institutions does reflect a conservative bias, which as has been stated before is a product of the specific time that he was writing in.

As functionalism’s prominence was ending, feminism was on the rise, and it attempted a radical criticism of functionalism. It believed that functionalism neglected the suppression of women within the family structure. Holmwood [2005:103] shows, however, that Parsons did in fact describe the situations where tensions and conflict existed or were about to take place, even if he didn’t articulate those conflicts. Some feminists agree, suggesting that Parsons’ provided accurate descriptions of these situations. [Johnson in Holmwood, 2005:103]. On the other hand, Parsons recognised that he had oversimplified his functional analysis of women in relation to work and the family, and focused on the positive functions of the family for society and not on its dysfunctions for women. Merton, too, although addressing situations where function and dysfunction occurred simultaneously, lacked a “feminist sensibility” [Holmwood, 2005:103], although I repeat this was likely a product of the desire for social order.

Postmodernism, as a theory, is critical of claims of truth. Therefore the idea of grand theory that can explain society in all its forms is treated with skepticism at the least. This critique is important because it exposes the danger that grand theory can pose, when not seen as a limited perspective, as one way of understanding society.

Jeffrey Alexander (1985) sees functionalism as a broad school rather than a specific method or system, such as Parson's, which is capable of taking equilibrium (stability) as a reference-point rather than assumption and treats structural differentiation as a major form of social change. "The name 'functionalism' implies a difference of method or interpretation that does not exist." (Davis 1967: 401) This removes the determinism criticized above. Cohen argues that rather than needs a society has dispositional facts: features of the social environment that support the existence of particular social institutions but do not cause them. (ibid)

Yakın Kuramsal Yaklaşımlar


Structural functionalism, a theoretical concept developed by other anthropologists like Claude Lévi-Strauss and Edmund Leach as well as Samuel P. Huntington, takes the view that society consists of parts (e.g. police, hospitals, schools, and farms), each of which have their own functions and work together to promote social stability. Structural-functionalism was the dominant perspective of cultural anthropologists and rural sociologists between World War II and the Vietnam War.

A social function is "the contribution made by any phenomenon to a larger system of which the phenomenon is a part." (Hoult 1969: 139) This technical usage is not the same as the popular idea of a function as an "event/occasion" or a duty, responsibility, or occupation. A distinction, first made by Robert K. Merton, is made between manifest and latent functions (Marshall 1994: 190-1) and also between functions with positive (functional or positively functional) and negative (dysfunctional) effects (Hoult 1969: 139). "Any statement explaining an institution as being 'functional or 'dysfunctional' for men [sic] could readily be translated with no loss of meaning into one that said it was 'rewarding' or 'punishing.'" (Homans 1962:33-4)

Functional alternative (also functional equivalent or functional substitute) indicates that, "just as the same item may have multiple functions, so may the same function be diversely fulfilled by alternative items." (Merton 1957: 33-4) The concept may serve as an antidote to "the gratuitous assumption of the functional indispensability of particular social structures." (ibid: 52)--->