1.4 Theoretical Perspectives in Sociology
Learning Objectives
By the end of this section you should be able to:
- Describe the ways that sociological theories are used to explain social institutions.
- Differentiate between structural functionalism, conflict theory, and symbolic interactionism.
Figure 1.7 Sociologists develop theories to explain social occurrences such as protest rallies. (Credit: David Shankbone/flickr)
Sociologists study social events, interactions, and patterns, and they develop theories to explain why things work as they do. In sociology, a theory is a way to explain different aspects of social interactions and to create a testable proposition, called a hypothesis, about society (Allan 2006).
For example, although suicide is generally considered an individual phenomenon, Émile Durkheim was interested in studying the social factors that affect it. He studied social solidarity and social ties within a group and hypothesized that differences in suicide rates might be explained by differences in religious beliefs and practices. Durkheim gathered a large amount of data about Europeans and found that Protestants were more likely to commit suicide than Catholics. His work supports the utility of theory in sociological research.
Theories vary in scope depending on the scale of the issues that they are meant to explain. Macro-level theories relate to large-scale issues and large groups of people, while micro-level theories look at very specific relationships between individuals or small groups. Grand theories attempt to explain large-scale relationships and answer fundamental questions such as why societies form and why they change. Sociological theory is constantly evolving and should never be considered complete. Classic sociological theories are still considered important and current, but new sociological theories build upon the work of their predecessors and add to them just like any other scientific discipline (Calhoun, 2002).
In sociology, a few theoretical paradigms provide broad perspectives that help explain many different aspects of social life. Different from sociological theory itself, theoretical paradigms are philosophical and theoretical frameworks used within a discipline to formulate theories, generalizations, and the experiments performed in support of them. Think of theoretical paradigms as general guidelines that sociologists follow when thinking about and developing research studies; from what we are interested in studying (i.e., research topics), to how we collect data to understand our research topics (i.e., research methods), to how we analyze the data we collect and ultimately create sociological theories to contribute to the ongoing scientific discourses in our disciplines and subfields.
Today, there are three paradigms most prominent in sociological thinking, as they have and continue to provide useful explanations about societies: structural functionalism, conflict theory, and symbolic interactionism.
|
Sociological Theories/Paradigms |
Level of Analysis |
Focus |
Analogies |
Questions that might be asked |
|
Structural Functionalism |
Macro or Mid |
The way each part of society functions together to contribute to the functioning of the whole. |
How each organ works to keep your body healthy (or not.) |
How does education work to transmit culture? |
|
Conflict Theory |
Macro, mid, or micro |
The ways inequities and inequalities contribute to social, political, economic, and cultural differences and how they perpetuate power imbalances. |
The ones with the most toys win and they will change the rules of the games to keep winning. |
Does education transmit only the values of the most dominant groups? |
|
Symbolic Interactionism |
Micro |
The way one-on-one interactions and communications happen and impact individuals and communities. |
What does it mean to be an X? |
How do students react to cultural practices, such as changing the name of their school? |
Table 1.1 Sociological Theories or Perspectives Different sociological perspectives enable sociologists to view social issues through a variety of useful lenses.
Structural Functionalism
Structural functionalism, also called structural-functional theory, sees society as a structure with interrelated parts designed to meet the biological and social needs of the individuals in that society. Functionalism grew out of the writings of English philosopher and biologist, Herbert Spencer, who saw similarities between society and the human body. He argued that just as the various organs of the body work together to keep the body functioning, the various parts of society work together to keep society functioning (Spencer, 1898). The parts of society that Spencer referred to were the social institutions, or patterns of beliefs, behaviors, norms, values, and social practices focused on meeting basic social needs (i.e., food, water, shelter, and companionship). Some of the most prominent social institutions in society are the economy, government, education, family, healthcare, and religion.
Émile Durkheim applied Spencer’s theory to explain how societies change and survive over time. Durkheim believed that society is a complex system of interrelated and interdependent parts that work together to maintain stability (Durkheim, 1893), and that society is held together by shared values, languages, and symbols. He believed that to study society, a sociologist must look beyond individuals to social facts such as laws, morals, values, religious beliefs, customs, fashion, and rituals, which all serve to govern social life (Durkheim, 1895). Each of these social facts serves one or more functions within a society. For example, one function of a society’s laws may be to protect society from violence, while another is to punish criminal behavior, while another is to preserve public health. Alfred Radcliff-Brown (1881–1955) defined the function of any recurrent activity as the part it played in social life as a whole, and therefore the contribution it makes to social stability and continuity (Radcliff-Brown 1952). In a healthy society, all parts work together to maintain stability, a state called dynamic equilibrium by later sociologists such as Parsons (1961).
Another noted structural-functionalist, Robert Merton (1910–2003), pointed out that social processes often have many functions. Manifest functions are the impacts of a social process that are sought or anticipated, while latent functions are the unsought impacts of a social process. A manifest function of a college education, for example, includes gaining knowledge, preparing for a career, and finding a good job that utilizes that education. Latent functions of your college years include meeting new people, participating in extracurricular activities, or even finding a spouse or partner. Another latent function of education is creating a hierarchy of employment based on the level of education attained. Functions can be beneficial, neutral, or harmful. Social processes that have undesirable consequences for the operation of society are called dysfunctions. In education, examples of dysfunctions include getting bad grades, truancy, dropping out, and not finding suitable employment upon graduation.
Criticism
One criticism of structural-functionalism is that it can’t adequately explain social change even though the functions are processes. Also problematic is the somewhat circular nature of this theory: repetitive behavior patterns are assumed to have a function, yet we profess to know that they have a function only because they are repeated. Furthermore, dysfunctions may continue, even though they don’t serve a function, which seemingly contradicts the basic premise of the theory. Many sociologists now believe that structural-functionalism is no longer useful as a macro-level theory, but when used critically can still be useful for studying social institutions and realities.
Big Picture: A Global Culture?
Figure 1.8 Some sociologists see the online world contributing to the creation of an emerging global culture. Are you a part of any global communities? This Indiana rabbi is participating in what was recognized as the longest Zoom meeting, which started in Australia after the Sabbath and proceeded through each of the world’s time zones, effectively lasting much longer than a day. (Credit: Chabad Lubavitch/flickr)
Sociologists around the world look closely for signs of what would be an unprecedented event: the emergence of a global culture. In the past, empires such as those that existed in China, Europe, Africa, and Central and South America linked people from many different countries, but those people rarely became part of a common culture. They lived too far from each other, spoke different languages, practiced different religions, and traded few goods. Today, increases in communication, travel, and trade have made the world a much smaller place. More and more people can communicate with each other instantly—wherever they are located—by telephone, video, and text, sometimes regardless of language barriers. They share movies, television shows, music, games, and information over the Internet. Students can study with teachers and pupils from the other side of the globe. Governments find it harder to hide conditions inside their countries from the rest of the world.
Sociologists research many different aspects of this potential global culture. Some explore the dynamics involved in the social interactions of global online communities, such as when members feel a closer kinship to other group members than to people residing in their own countries. Other sociologists study the impact this growing global culture has on smaller, less powerful local cultures. Yet other researchers explore how international markets and the outsourcing of labor create social inequalities. Sociology can play a key role in peoples’ abilities to understand the nature of this emerging global culture and how to respond to it.
Conflict Theory
Conflict theory looks at society, and societal change, as composed of conflicts that manifest over limited resources. This perspective is a macro-level approach most identified with the writings of German philosopher and economist Karl Marx, who saw society as made up of individuals in different social classes who compete for social, material, political, and economic resources such as food and housing, employment, education, and leisure time. Conflict theorists analyze social institutions like government, education, and religion by looking at the inequalities they create, maintain, and sustain over time. For example, some individuals and organizations can obtain and keep more resources than others, and these “winners” use their power and influence to maintain and create social institutions. The perpetuation of power results in the perpetuation of oppression.
Several theorists suggested variations on this basic theme like Polish-Austrian sociologist Ludwig Gumplowicz (1838–1909) who expanded on Marx’s ideas by arguing that war and conquest are the bases of civilizations. He believed that cultural and ethnic conflicts led to states being identified and defined by a dominant group that had power over other groups (Irving, 2007).
German sociologist Max Weber (1864–1920) agreed with Marx but also believed that, in addition to economic inequalities, inequalities of political power and social structure cause conflict. Weber noted that different groups were affected differently based on education, race, and gender and that people’s reactions to inequality were moderated by class differences and rates of social mobility, as well as by perceptions about the legitimacy of those in power. A reader of Marx, Georg Simmel believed that conflict can help integrate and stabilize a society. He said that the intensity of the conflict varies depending on the emotional involvement of the parties, the degree of solidarity within the opposing groups, and the clarity and limited nature of the goals. Simmel also showed that groups work to create internal solidarity, centralize power, and reduce dissent. The stronger the bond, the weaker the discord. Resolving conflicts can reduce tension and hostility and can pave the way for future agreements.
In the 1930s and 1940s, German philosophers, known as the Frankfurt School, developed critical theory as an elaboration on Marxist principles. Critical theory is an expansion of conflict theory and is broader than just sociology, incorporating other social sciences and philosophy. Critical theory is a holistic theory that attempts to address structural issues causing inequalities. It aims to explain what is wrong in the current social reality, identify the people impacted as well as the people or social institutions that can create changes, and in doing so, provide practical goals for social transformation (Horkeimer, 1982).
More recently, inequality based on gender or race has been analyzed similarly, identifying institutionalized power structures that help to maintain inequality between groups. Janet Saltzman Chafetz (1941–2006) presented a model of feminist theory that attempts to explain the forces that maintain gender inequality as well as a theory of how such a system can be changed (Turner, 2003). Similarly, critical theories on race, which grew out of the work of W.E.B. Dubois, provide a critical analysis of racism and how it manifests, is created, and maintained within social institutions like the criminal legal system. Critical theorists on race also focus on social groups and social movements that have and are transforming race relations, such as the Civil Rights Movement.
Criticism
Just as structural-functionalism was criticized for focusing too much on the stability of societies, conflict theory has been criticized as it tends to focus on conflict to the exclusion of recognizing stability. Many social structures are extremely stable or have gradually progressed over time rather than changing abruptly as conflict theory would suggest.
Sociology in the Real World
Farming and Locavores: How Sociological Perspectives Might View Food Consumption
The consumption of food is a commonplace, daily occurrence. Yet, it can also be associated with important moments in our lives. Eating can be an individual or a group action, and eating habits and customs are influenced by our cultures. In the context of society, our nation’s food system is at the core of numerous social movements, political issues, and economic debates. Any of these factors might become a topic of sociological study.
A structural-functionalist approach to the topic of food consumption might analyze the role of the agriculture industry within the nation’s economy and how this has changed from the early days of manual-labor farming to modern mechanized production. Another might study the different functions of processes in food production, from farming and harvesting to flashy packaging and mass consumerism.
A conflict theorist might be interested in the power differentials present in the regulation of food, by exploring where people’s right to information intersects with corporations’ drive for profit and how the government mediates those interests. Or a conflict theorist might examine the power and powerlessness experienced by local farmers versus large farming conglomerates, such as what is highlighted in the documentary, Food Inc., which focuses on the inequitable outcomes of the patenting of genetically modified seeds by the global corporation Monsanto. Another topic of study might be inequities in access to foods, and how some social classes have more readily and easily available quality, nutritious, and healthy foods, while others do not.
Symbolic Interactionist Theory
Symbolic interactionism is a micro-level theory that focuses on the relationships among individuals within a society. Communication—the exchange of meaning through language and symbols—is believed to be how people make sense of their social worlds. Theorists Herman and Reynolds (1994) note that this perspective sees people as being active in shaping the social world rather than simply being acted upon.
George Herbert Mead is considered a founder of symbolic interactions, though he never published his work on it (LaRossa and Reitzes, 1993). Mead’s student, Herbert Blumer (1900-1987), coined the term “symbolic interactionism” and outlined these basic premises: humans interact with things based on meanings ascribed to those things; the ascribed meaning of things comes from our interactions with others and society; the meanings of things are interpreted by a person when dealing with things in specific circumstances (Blumer 1969). If you love books, for example, a symbolic interactionist might propose that you learned that books are good or important in the interactions you had with family, friends, school, or church. Maybe your family had a special reading time each week, getting your library card was treated as a special event or bedtime stories were associated with warmth and comfort.
With regards to the analysis of food systems above, sociologists viewing food consumption through a symbolic interactionist lens would be more interested in studying such things as the symbolic use of food in religious rituals, or the role it plays in the social interaction of a family dinner. This perspective might also explore the interactions among group members who identify themselves based on their sharing a particular diet, such as vegetarians (people who don’t eat meat) or locavores (people who strive to eat locally produced food).
Social scientists who apply symbolic interactionism look for patterns of interaction between individuals. Their studies often involve the observation of one-on-one interactions. For example, while a conflict theorist studying a political protest might focus on class differences, a symbolic interactionist would be more interested in how individuals in the protesting group interact, as well as the signs and symbols protesters use to communicate their message.
The focus on the importance of symbols in building a society led sociologists like Erving Goffman (1922-1982) to develop a technique called dramaturgical analysis. Goffman used theater as an analogy for social interaction and recognized that people’s interactions showed patterns of cultural “scripts.” He argued that individuals were actors in a play. We switch roles, sometimes minute to minute—for example, from student or daughter to dog walker. Because it can be unclear what part a person may play in a given situation, they have to improvise their roles as the situation unfolds (Goffman, 1958).
Studies that use the symbolic interactionist perspective are more likely to use qualitative research methods, such as in-depth interviews or participant observation, because they seek to understand the symbolic worlds in which research subjects live.
Constructivism is an extension of symbolic interactionism, which proposes that reality is what humans cognitively construct it to be. We develop social constructs based on interactions with others, and those constructs that last over time are those that have meanings that are widely agreed upon or generally accepted by most within society. This approach is often used to examine what’s defined as deviant within a society. There is no absolute definition of deviance, and different societies have constructed different meanings for deviance, as well as how to relate to it when deviant behaviors occur.
One situation that illustrates this is what you believe you’re to do if you find a wallet in the street. In the United States, turning the wallet into local authorities would be considered the appropriate action, and to keep the wallet would be seen as deviant. In contrast, many Eastern societies would consider it much more appropriate to keep the wallet and search for the owner yourself. Turning it over to someone else, even the authorities, would be considered deviant behavior.
Criticism
Research done from this perspective is often scrutinized because of the difficulty of remaining objective. Others criticize the extremely narrow focus on symbolic interactionism. Proponents, of course, consider this one of its greatest strengths.
Sociological Theory Today
These three approaches still provide the main foundations of sociological thinking and theorizing today, though they have evolved. Structural-functionalism was a dominant force before and after World War II, until the 1960s and 1970s. With the impacts of the social movements of the mid-20th Century and the increasing diversity of academic institutions in the United States, sociologists began to understand that structural-functionalism did not sufficiently explain the rapid social changes happening in the United States and around the globe at that time. The Women’s movement and the Civil Rights movement forced academics to develop approaches to study these emerging social changes.
Conflict theory then gained prominence, with its emphasis on institutionalized inequalities. Critical theory, and particular aspects of feminist theory and critical theories on race, focused on creating social change through the application of sociological principles. The field saw a renewed emphasis on helping ordinary people understand sociology principles, in the form of public sociology.
Gaining prominence in the wake of Mead’s work in the 1920s and 1930s, symbolic interactionism declined in influence during the 1960s and 1970s only to be revitalized at the turn of the twenty-first century (Stryker, 1987). Postmodern social theory developed in the 1980s to look at society through an entirely new lens by rejecting previous macro-level attempts to explain social phenomena. Its growth in popularity coincides with the rise of constructivist views of symbolic interactions.
