N. J. Demerath III (1967:501–18) has defended functionalism against its detractors by pointing out that the latter have often been guilty of the “synecdochic fallacy”; that is, they have identified specific types of functionalism and treated them as if they represented functionalism in general. They have permitted the part to represent the whole (a synecdoche, by definition), and their strident critiques of functionalism are thus applicable only to specific formulations (or even to tangential issues, as we shall see in the appendix) and not to functionalism in general. In distinguishing among types of functionalism, Demerath identifies relatively simple bivariate theories as “structuralistic” and the more elaborate multivariate theories (e.g., theories of deviance and social control in their usual formulations) as “functionalists.” A similar distinction once was drawn by Gouldner, who “has taken the further step of aligning the two options with particular theorists,” Merton and Parsons (Demerath, 1967:504–5):