ASSIGNMENT

IN

UNDERSTANDING CULTURE,
SOCIETY AND
POLITICS

SUBMITTED BY:

KURT ALDEN B. DE PERALTA

ABM-12

SUBMITTED TO:

REV. FR. ELMER LORETO, SVD

 3 Major Theories of Sociology

1. STRUCTURAL FUNCTIONALISM THEORY

According to the functionalist perspective, also called functionalism, each aspect of

society is interdependent and contributes to society's functioning as a whole. The government, or
state, provides education for the children of the family, which in turn pays taxes on which the
state depends to keep itself running. That is, the family is dependent upon the school to help
children grow up to have good jobs so that they can raise and support their own families. In the
process, the children become law‐abiding, taxpaying citizens, who in turn support the state. If all
goes well, the parts of society produce order, stability, and productivity. If all does not go well,
the parts of society then must adapt to recapture a new order, stability, and productivity. For
example, during a financial recession with its high rates of unemployment and inflation, social
programs are trimmed or cut. Schools offer fewer programs. Families tighten their budgets. And
a new social order, stability, and productivity occur.

Functionalists believe that society is held together by social consensus, or cohesion, in which
members of the society agree upon, and work together to achieve, what is best for society as a
whole. Emile Durkheim suggested that social consensus takes one of two forms:

 Mechanical solidarity is a form of social cohesion that arises when people in a society
maintain similar values and beliefs and engage in similar types of work. Mechanical
solidarity most commonly occurs in traditional, simple societies such as those in which
everyone herds cattle or farms. Amish society exemplifies mechanical solidarity.

 In contrast, organic solidarity is a form of social cohesion that arises when the people in
a society are interdependent, but hold to varying values and beliefs and engage in varying
types of work. Organic solidarity most commonly occurs in industrialized, complex
societies such those in large American cities like New York in the 2000s.

The functionalist perspective achieved its greatest popularity among American sociologists in
the 1940s and 1950s. While European functionalists originally focused on explaining the inner
workings of social order, American functionalists focused on discovering the functions of human
behavior. Among these American functionalist sociologists is Robert Merton (b. 1910), who
divides human functions into two types: manifest functions are intentional and obvious,
while latent functions are unintentional and not obvious. The manifest function of attending a
church or synagogue, for instance, is to worship as part of a religious community, but its latent
function may be to help members learn to discern personal from institutional values. With
common sense, manifest functions become easily apparent. Yet this is not necessarily the case
for latent functions, which often demand a sociological approach to be revealed. A sociological
approach in functionalism is the consideration of the relationship between the functions of
smaller parts and the functions of the whole.

Functionalism has received criticism for neglecting the negative functions of an event such as
divorce. Critics also claim that the perspective justifies the status quo and complacency on the
part of society's members. Functionalism does not encourage people to take an active role in
changing their social environment, even when such change may benefit them. Instead,
functionalism sees active social change as undesirable because the various parts of society will
compensate naturally for any problems that may arise.

Functionalism, also known as the functionalist perspective, arose out of two great
revolutions of the 18th and 19th centuries. The first was the French Revolution of 1789, whose
intense violence and bloody terror shook Europe to its core. The aristocracy throughout Europe
feared that revolution would spread to their own lands, and intellectuals feared that social order
was crumbling.

The Industrial Revolution of the 19th century reinforced these concerns. Starting first in
Europe and then in the United States, the Industrial Revolution led to many changes, including
the rise and growth of cities as people left their farms to live near factories. As the cities grew,
people lived in increasingly poor, crowded, and decrepit conditions. One result of these
conditions was mass violence, as mobs of the poor roamed the streets of European and American
cities. They attacked bystanders, destroyed property, and generally wreaked havoc. Here was
additional evidence, if European intellectuals needed it, of the breakdown of social order.

In response, the intellectuals began to write that a strong society, as exemplified by strong
social bonds and rules and effective socialization, was needed to prevent social order from
disintegrating (Collins, 1994). In this regard, their view was similar to that of the 20th-century
novel Lord of the Flies by William Golding (1954), which many college students read in high
school. Some British boys are stranded on an island after a plane crash. No longer supervised by
adults and no longer in a society as they once knew it, they are not sure how to proceed and
come up with new rules for their behavior. These rules prove ineffective, and the boys slowly
become savages, as the book calls them, and commit murder. However bleak, Golding’s view
echoes that of the conservative intellectuals writing in the aftermath of the French and Industrial
Revolutions. Without a strong society and effective socialization, they warned, social order
breaks down, and violence and other signs of social disorder result.

This general framework reached fruition in the writings of Émile Durkheim (1858–
1917), a French scholar largely responsible for the sociological perspective as we now know it.
Adopting the conservative intellectuals’ view of the need for a strong society, Durkheim felt that
human beings have desires that result in chaos unless society limits them. He wrote, “To achieve
any other result, the passions first must be limited.…But since the individual has no way of
limiting them, this must be done by some force exterior to him” (Durkheim, 1897/1952, p. 274).
This force, Durkheim continued, is the moral authority of society.

How does society limit individual aspirations? Durkheim emphasized two related social
mechanisms: socialization and social integration. Socialization helps us learn society’s rules and
the need to cooperate, as people end up generally agreeing on important norms and values, while
social integration, or our ties to other people and to social institutions such as religion and the
family, helps socialize us and integrate us into society and reinforce our respect for its rules. In
general, Durkheim added, society comprises many types of social facts, or forces external to the
individual, that affect and constrain individual attitudes and behavior. The result is that
socialization and social integration help establish a strong set of social rules—or, as Durkheim
called it, a strong collective conscience—that is needed for a stable society. By doing so, society
“creates a kind of cocoon around the individual, making him or her less individualistic, more a
member of the group” (Collins, 1994, p. 181). Weak rules or social ties weaken this “moral
cocoon” and lead to social disorder. In all of these respects, says Randall Collins (1994, p. 181),
Durkheim’s view represents the “core tradition” of sociology that lies at the heart of the
sociological perspective.

The functionalist perspective is based largely on the works of Herbert Spencer, Emile
Durkheim, Talcott Parsons, and Robert Merton. According to functionalism, society is a
system of interconnected parts that work together in harmony to maintain a state of balance and
social equilibrium for the whole. For example, each of the social institutions contributes
important functions for society: Family provides a context for reproducing, nurturing, and
socializing children; education offers a way to transmit a society’s skills, knowledge, and culture
to its youth; politics provides a means of governing members of society; economics provides for
the production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services; and religion provides moral
guidance and an outlet for worship of a higher power.

The functionalist perspective emphasizes the interconnectedness of society by focusing

on how each part influences and is influenced by other parts. For example, the increase in single
parent and dual-earner families has contributed to the number of children who are failing in
school because parents have become less available to supervise their children’s homework. As a
result of changes in technology, colleges are offering more technical programs, and many adults
are returning to school to learn new skills that are required in the workplace. The increasing
number of women in the workforce has contributed to the formulation of policies against sexual
harassment and job discrimination.

Functionalists use the terms functional and dysfunctional to describe the effects of social
elements on society. Elements of society are functional if they contribute to social stability and
dysfunctional if they disrupt social stability. Some aspects of society can be both functional and
dysfunctional. For example, crime is dysfunctional in that it is associated with physical violence,
loss of property, and fear. But according to Durkheim and other functionalists, crime is also
functional for society because it leads to heightened awareness of shared moral bonds and
increased social cohesion.

Criticism

One criticism of the structural-functional theory is that it can’t adequately explain social
change. 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 functionalism is no longer useful as a macro-level theory, but that it does serve
a useful purpose in some mid-level analyses.

FUNCTIONALISM is a Macro theory as is focuses on the relationship between the parts of

society; how aspects of society are functional.
2. CONFLICT THEORY

The conflict perspective, which originated primarily out of Karl Marx's writings on
class struggles, presents society in a different light than do the functionalist and symbolic
interactionist perspectives. While these latter perspectives focus on the positive aspects of
society that contribute to its stability, the conflict perspective focuses on the negative,
conflicted, and ever‐changing nature of society. Unlike functionalists who defend the status quo,
avoid social change, and believe people cooperate to effect social order, conflict theorists
challenge the status quo, encourage social change (even when this means social revolution), and
believe rich and powerful people force social order on the poor and the weak. Conflict theorists,
for example, may interpret an “elite” board of regents raising tuition to pay for esoteric new
programs that raise the prestige of a local college as self‐serving rather than as beneficial for
students.

Whereas American sociologists in the 1940s and 1950s generally ignored the conflict
perspective in favor of the functionalist, the tumultuous 1960s saw American sociologists gain
considerable interest in conflict theory. They also expanded Marx's idea that the key conflict in
society was strictly economic. Today, conflict theorists find social conflict between any groups
in which the potential for inequality exists: racial, gender, religious, political, economic, and so
on. Conflict theorists note that unequal groups usually have conflicting values and agendas,
causing them to compete against one another. This constant competition between groups forms
the basis for the ever‐changing nature of society.

Critics of the conflict perspective point to its overly negative view of society. The theory
ultimately attributes humanitarian efforts, altruism, democracy, civil rights, and other positive
aspects of society to capitalistic designs to control the masses, not to inherent interests in
preserving society and social order.

In many ways, conflict theory is the opposite of functionalism but ironically also grew
out of the Industrial Revolution, thanks largely to Karl Marx (1818–1883) and his collaborator,
Friedrich Engels (1820–1895). Whereas conservative intellectuals feared the mass violence
resulting from industrialization, Marx and Engels deplored the conditions they felt were
responsible for the mass violence and the capitalist society they felt was responsible for these
conditions. Instead of fearing the breakdown of social order that mass violence represented, they
felt that revolutionary violence was needed to eliminate capitalism and the poverty and misery
they saw as its inevitable result (Marx, 1867/1906; Marx & Engels, 1848/1962).
 According to Marx and Engels, every society is divided into two classes based on the
ownership of the means of production (tools, factories, and the like). In a capitalist society,
the bourgeoisie, or ruling class, owns the means of production, while the proletariat, or working
class, does not own the means of production and instead is oppressed and exploited by the
bourgeoisie. This difference creates an automatic conflict of interests between the two groups.
Simply put, the bourgeoisie is interested in maintaining its position at the top of society, while
the proletariat’s interest lies in rising up from the bottom and overthrowing the bourgeoisie to
create an egalitarian society.

In a capitalist society, Marx and Engels wrote, revolution is inevitable because of

structural contradictions arising from the very nature of capitalism. Because profit is the main
goal of capitalism, the bourgeoisie’s interest lies in maximizing profit. To do so, capitalists try to
keep wages as low as possible and to spend as little money as possible on working conditions.
This central fact of capitalism, said Marx and Engels, eventually prompts the rise among workers
of class consciousness, or an awareness of the reasons for their oppression. Their class
consciousness in turn leads them to revolt against the bourgeoisie to eliminate the oppression and
exploitation they suffer.

Over the years, Marx and Engels’s views on the nature of capitalism and class relations
have greatly influenced social, political, and economic theory and also inspired revolutionaries in
nations around the world. However, history has not supported their prediction that capitalism
will inevitably result in a revolution of the proletariat. For example, no such revolution has
occurred in the United States, where workers never developed the degree of class consciousness
envisioned by Marx and Engels. Because the United States is thought to be a free society where
everyone has the opportunity to succeed, even poor Americans feel that the system is basically
just. Thus various aspects of American society and ideology have helped minimize the
development of class consciousness and prevent the revolution that Marx and Engels foresaw.

Despite this shortcoming, their basic view of conflict arising from unequal positions held
by members of society lies at the heart of today’s conflict theory. This theory emphasizes that
different groups in society have different interests stemming from their different social positions.
These different interests in turn lead to different views on important social issues. Some versions
of the theory root conflict in divisions based on race and ethnicity, gender, and other such
differences, while other versions follow Marx and Engels in seeing conflict arising out of
different positions in the economic structure. In general, however, conflict theory emphasizes
that the various parts of society contribute to ongoing inequality, whereas functionalist theory, as
we have seen, stresses that they contribute to the ongoing stability of society. Thus, while
functionalist theory emphasizes the benefits of the various parts of society for ongoing social
stability, conflict theory favors social change to reduce inequality. In this regard, conflict theory
may be considered a progressive perspective.
 Feminist theory has developed in sociology and other disciplines since the 1970s and for
our purposes will be considered a specific application of conflict theory. In this case, the conflict
concerns gender inequality rather than the class inequality emphasized by Marx and Engels.
Although many variations of feminist theory exist, they all emphasize that society is filled with
gender inequality such that women are the subordinate sex in many dimensions of social,
political, and economic life (Tong, 2009). Liberal feminists view gender inequality as arising out
of gender differences in socialization, while Marxist feminists say that this inequality is a result
of the rise of capitalism, which made women dependent on men for economic support. On the
other hand, radical feminists view gender inequality as present in all societies, not just capitalist
ones.

Criticism

Just as structural functionalism was criticized for focusing too much on the stability of societies,
conflict theory has been criticized because 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.

CONFLICT THEORY is a Macro theory as it focuses on the way Inequalities contribute to

social differences and perpetuate differences in power.

An Example of Conflict Theory

For example, conflict theorists view the relationship between a housing complex owner and a
tenant as being based mainly on conflict instead of balance or harmony, even though there may
be more harmony than conflict. They believe that they are defined by getting whatever resources
they can from each other.

In the above example, some of the limited resources which may contribute to conflicts between
tenants and the complex owner include the limited space within the complex, the limited number
of units, the money which tenants pay to the complex owner for rent, and so on. Ultimately,
conflict theorists see this dynamic as one of conflict over these resources. The complex owner,
however gracious a landlord he or she may be, is fundamentally focused on getting as many
apartment units filled as possible so that he or she can make as much money in rent as possible.
This may introduce conflict between housing complexes, among tenant applicants looking to
move into an apartment, and so forth. On the other side of the conflict, the tenants themselves are
looking to get the best apartment possible for the least amount of money in rent.

This example illustrates that conflict can be inherent in all types of relationships, including those
that don't appear on the surface to be antagonistic. It also shows that even a straightforward
scenario can lead to multiple layers of conflict (in this case, between the tenants and the owner,
the owner and competing owners of other complexes, and between tenant applicants looking to
move into an apartent, for example).
3. SYMBOLIC INTERACTIONISM

The symbolic interactionist perspective, also known as symbolic interactionism,

directs sociologists to consider the symbols and details of everyday life, what these symbols
mean, and how people interact with each other. Although symbolic interactionism traces its
origins to Max Weber's assertion that individuals act according to their interpretation of the
meaning of their world, the American philosopher George H. Mead (1863–1931) introduced
this perspective to American sociology in the 1920s.

According to the symbolic interactionist perspective, people attach meanings to symbols,

and then they act according to their subjective interpretation of these symbols. Verbal
conversations, in which spoken words serve as the predominant symbols, make this subjective
interpretation especially evident. The words have a certain meaning for the “sender,” and, during
effective communication, they hopefully have the same meaning for the “receiver.” In other
terms, words are not static “things”; they require intention and interpretation. Conversation is an
interaction of symbols between individuals who constantly interpret the world around them. Of
course, anything can serve as a symbol as long as it refers to something beyond itself. Written
music serves as an example. The black dots and lines become more than mere marks on the page;
they refer to notes organized in such a way as to make musical sense. Thus, symbolic
interactionists give serious thought to how people act, and then seek to determine what meanings
individuals assign to their own actions and symbols, as well as to those of others.

Consider applying symbolic interactionism to the American institution of marriage.

Symbols may include wedding bands, vows of life‐long commitment, a white bridal dress, a
wedding cake, a Church ceremony, and flowers and music. American society attaches general
meanings to these symbols, but individuals also maintain their own perceptions of what these
and other symbols mean. For example, one of the spouses may see their circular wedding rings
as symbolizing “never ending love,” while the other may see them as a mere financial expense.
Much faulty communication can result from differences in the perception of the same events and
symbols.

Critics claim that symbolic interactionism neglects the macro level of social
interpretation—the “big picture.” In other words, symbolic interactionists may miss the larger
issues of society by focusing too closely on the “trees” (for example, the size of the diamond in
the wedding ring) rather than the “forest” (for example, the quality of the marriage). The
perspective also receives criticism for slighting the influence of social forces and institutions on
individual interactions.
Whereas the functionalist and conflict perspectives are macro approaches, symbolic
interactionism is a micro approach that focuses on the interaction of individuals and on how they
interpret their interaction. Its roots lie in the work in the early 1900s of American sociologists,
social psychologists, and philosophers who were interested in human consciousness and action.
Herbert Blumer (1969), a sociologist at the University of Chicago, built on their writings to
develop symbolic interactionism, a term he coined. This view remains popular today, in part
because many sociologists object to what they perceive as the overly deterministic view of
human thought and action and passive view of the individual inherent in the sociological
perspective derived from Durkheim.

Drawing on Blumer’s work, symbolic interactionists feel that people do not merely learn the
roles that society has set out for them; instead they construct these roles as they interact. As they
interact, they “negotiate” their definitions of the situations in which they find themselves and
socially construct the reality of these situations. In so doing, they rely heavily on symbols such as
words and gestures to reach a shared understanding of their interaction.

An example is the familiar symbol of shaking hands. In the United States and many other
societies, shaking hands is a symbol of greeting and friendship. This simple act indicates that you
are a nice, polite person with whom someone should feel comfortable. To reinforce this symbol’s
importance for understanding a bit of interaction, consider a situation where someone refuses to
shake hands. This action is usually intended as a sign of dislike or as an insult, and the other
person interprets it as such. Their understanding of the situation and subsequent interaction will
be very different from those arising from the more typical shaking of hands.

Now let’s say that someone does not shake hands, but this time the reason is that the person’s
right arm is broken. Because the other person realizes this, no snub or insult is inferred, and the
two people can then proceed to have a comfortable encounter. Their definition of the situation
depends not only on whether they shake hands but also, if they do not shake hands, on why they
do not. As the term symbolic interactionism implies, their understanding of this encounter arises
from what they do when they interact and their use and interpretation of the various symbols
included in their interaction. According to symbolic interactionists, social order is possible
because people learn what various symbols (such as shaking hands) mean and apply these
meanings to different kinds of situations. If you visited a society where sticking your right hand
out to greet someone was interpreted as a threatening gesture, you would quickly learn the value
of common understandings of symbols.
SYMBOLIC INTERACTIONISM is a Micro theory as it focuses on one-to-one interactions
and communications.

Criticism

Research done from this perspective is often scrutinized because of the difficulty of remaining
objective. Others criticize the extremely narrow focus on symbolic interaction. Proponents, of
course, consider this one of its greatest strengths.

Examples of Symbolic Interactionism

To better understand how those wearing this lens view reality, we can look at a specific example.
Imagine you have a sibling with whom you have had a rivalry your whole life. You see your
sister as having always received an unfair bias, getting what she wanted more than you have.
You perceive her as picking at your flaws when you interact or cutting you down in some way.
All of these experiences take place through a series of communications, social situations, and
thoughts you have about your sister.

Events will also be symbolic to you, representing more to you than the objective facts might
suggest. For instance, she receives a promotion with her company within a year of being hired.
Since you don't believe she has the skills for the job, you give the situation a particular meaning,
specifically, that it is unfair and that it is an example of how your sister always gets what she
wants.

Perhaps then your sister loses her job abruptly with no other job in sight and comes to you for
emotional support as she recovers from the loss. You and she grow closer as she expresses
appreciation for your help and solicits advice from you on how to move forward. Your role
changes from that of a critical onlooker who is jealous to one who is needed for support and
compassion. The loss of her job becomes an opportunity to connect with other aspects of who
your sister is as a person, rather than seeing her as your sister who has an unfair advantage in the
world. You give your sister a new meaning: that of a person in need of your support and perhaps
not always as lucky as you had thought.

Symbolic interactionists would look at this series of events and note how your experiences and
interactions with your sister form your understanding of reality. Before she loses her job, you
have one version of reality in your mind. Symbolically, you see your sister as having an unfair
advantage in the world and hold this idea in your mind. When the dynamic shifts and you play a
role of supporting her in a time of need, the meaning you give your sister's life fluctuates,
changes, and develops. All of this is based on the social interactions you have, the language used
to communicate, and the symbolic meaning you give to these events and thoughts.
EXAMPLE FOR THE 3 THEORIES:

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-functional approach to the topic of food consumption might be interested in 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 examination might
study the different functions that occur 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 be interested in the
power and powerlessness experienced by local farmers versus large farming conglomerates, such
as the documentary Food Inc. depicts as resulting from Monsanto’s patenting of seed
technology. Another topic of study might be how nutrition varies between different social
classes.

A sociologist viewing food consumption through a symbolic interactionist lens would be more
interested in micro-level topics, such 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 study 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).
 SOURCES

https://www.cliffsnotes.com/study-guides/sociology/the-sociological-perspective/three-major-
perspectives-in-sociology?fbclid=IwAR0k4b1CyhDc3oR8JK2_q4ydcuhOpDpcX2c1XiI4D
NdNeGCc1SaFC9tTjAU

https://laulima.hawaii.edu/access/content/user/kfrench/sociology/The%20Three%20Main
%20Sociological%20Perspectives.pdf?fbclid=IwAR0pzd8fuvF0itUubK_4Iu4vXw-
WxBFweaGhWGWNJfT4ZPhfr6wbIK-r2rc

https://open.lib.umn.edu/sociology/chapter/1-3-theoretical-perspectives-in-sociology/?
fbclid=IwAR3qNJ742eL6ohyW_sIcsYW1rFnJ3m5ca_qvrWfeAz7K9Mc-rKc1Iy02WiY

https://courses.lumenlearning.com/sociology/chapter/theoretical-perspectives/?
fbclid=IwAR0_geooV4fFw-FU8SCgojI-ftKwwKcXIY3OND7CUFLVhXTKVxGzAVWyEzU

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/conflict-theory.asp

https://study.com/academy/lesson/symbolic-interactionism-in-sociology-definition-criticism-
examples.html