Sociological Theory

Sociologists study social events, interactions, and patterns, and they develop a theory
in an attempt 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.
Theories usually vary in scope and depend on the issues that need to be studied.
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.
In sociology, a few theories provide broad perspectives that help explain many different
aspects of social life, and these are called paradigms. Paradigms are philosophical
and theoretical frameworks used within a discipline to formulate theories,
generalizations, and the experiments performed in support of them. Three paradigms
have come to dominate sociological thinking, because they provide useful explanations:
structural functionalism, conflict theory, and symbolic interactionism.

Structural Functionalism:
Introduction
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,
Hebert Spence (1820–1903), 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.
The parts of society that Spence referred to were the social institutions, or patterns of
beliefs and behaviors focused on meeting social needs, such as government,
education, family, healthcare, religion, and the economy.
The focus is macro-sociological, with institutions and structures existing in the society
as a whole. This is the origin of the structure part of the structural functional approach.
The different parts of each society contribute positively to the operation or functioning of
the system as a whole. This is the functional part of the structural functional approach.
Functionalism attempts to explain the relationship of different parts of the system to
each other, and to the whole. These parts are usually work together in an orderly
manner, without great conflict. The different parts are usually in equilibrium, or moving
toward equilibrium, with consensus rather than conflict governing the inter-relationships
of the various parts.

Function
Each society has certain needs in that there are a number of activities that must be
carried out for social life to survive and develop. Goods and services must be produced
and distributed in order for people to survive, there must be some administration of
justice, a political system must exist, and some family structure must operate so as to
provide a means to reproduce the population and maintain social life on a daily basis. In
the structural functional model, individuals carry out each of these tasks in various
institutions and roles that are consistent with the structures and norms of the society.

One example of functionalism is inequality. Functionalists generally argue that a certain

degree of inequality is functional for the society as a whole, and the society could not
operate without a certain degree of inequality. Rewards in the form of income, status,
prestige, or power must be provided in order to induce people to carry out the work
required of them and get them to prepare for and perform in roles required by society.

Structures
Functionalist analysis looks on social systems as having certain needs, and society as a
system of social structures (economic, legal, educational, gender structures). If the
needs are being met, then it is the social structures that meet these needs. The
structures are thus functional in the sense that they help society to operate.
Interconnections exist within and among these structures, and individuals and groups
are constrained by these structures.

Interdependence
Since society is composed of different parts, and the proper operation of these parts is
necessary to the smooth operation of society as a whole, the interdependence of the
parts is an important feature of functional analysis. The roles taken on by people, and
the institutions and organizations of society are all interdependent. A change in any one
part affects others, requiring other parts to take account of the changes, modify its
actions, and adapt to any changes necessary. While most sociological approaches
recognize the interdependence of the elements of a society, the functionalist approach
tends to regard these elements of society (individuals or institutions) as having
particular functions to perform. For example, it is argued that each individual occupies a
status or position within a structure. Status and role tend to go together in what is called
the 'status-role bundle. These are the ways in which individuals fill the structures of
society. So long as roles are performed, the structures function smoothly, and it is
individuals carrying out their functions and roles within these structures that make the
structures work.

Equilibrium
Functionalists argue that societies are generally in a normal state of affairs, with the
different parts functioning smoothly to contribute to the operation of the society. There
may be disturbances from this normal state of affairs – from outside the society,
because the different parts are not operating properly, or because of features such as
population or technical change – but these disturbances trigger adjustments in the
various parts of society that return the society to a state of equilibrium. An example from
economics is that when there are shortages of a product, the price of the product rises,
and this induces producers to produce more of the product, thus eliminating the
shortage. When there is a disturbance in the social world, the various roles and
organizations have means to return the society to a more normal state of affairs.

Consensus – Norms and Values

The functional approach tends to argue that there is consensus within the social
system. Individual behavior is governed by social norms or rules that are generally
accepted and agreed upon. These are like moral regulations in that they govern
behavior, and while they are coercive, they are also generally agreed upon. These
norms and values are consistent with the equilibrium state of society, or normal state of
affairs. There are aspects of these norms that return the society to a normal state of
affairs in the case of a disturbance – for example, sanctions, punishment, social
approval, and social disapproval.

Functional analysis does not emphasize conflict, does not consider conflict to be an
integral part of the social world, and generally does not consider change to be dramatic
but rather to be evolutionary. While the writers who take this approach often advocate
reforms, these may be minimal, thus providing support for existing structures. At the
same time, the structural functional approach is in the tradition of western liberalism –
arguing for equality of opportunity, a liberal democracy, and social reforms that would
encourage these. Politically, this approach has often been used as a means of
countering radical reforms, at other times it has contributed to more modest reforms.

Origins and Influence

Unlike the other major theoretical approaches, the structural functional model comes
from a variety of authors. Usually it is associated with Talcott Parsons, although the
single most famous article is a short summary article on social stratification by Kingsley
Davis and Wilbert Moore. Robert Merton is another well known sociologist who provided
some important structural functional theoretical statements. All of these were
sociologists who were from the United States and spent most of their academic life
there. As a result, this approach is often associated with sociology in the United States.
Wallace and Wolf trace the development of structural functionalism to Comte, Herbert
Spencer, and Durkheim. The functional approach was developed from the 1930s
through the 1960s in the United States. Parsons studied Weber and Durkheim, and
translated some of these into English. Parsons thus became a major interpreter of these
writers in America, and his interpretation may be considered to have developed the
influence of these writers in a particular way. Although a liberal within the American
context, Parsons used concepts and models from Weber and Durkheim to establish a
sociological approach which countered the Marxian view.

This approach dominated American sociology from the 1940s through to the early
1970s. With a few exceptions, it was the only sociological approach used, and Marxian
concepts and approaches were almost entirely absent from sociology textbooks. While
this approach was not conservative in the sense of attempting to return to an earlier
society, it also did not encourage or support any radical change. Politically, it fit the cold
war liberal and pluralist political approach that became dominant in American
universities during this period. Part of this was to counter any influence of communism,
socialism, or Marxism.

In the 1960s, the structural functional approach came under increasing attack and
ultimately was discredited. It was unable to explain a number of features of American
society, such as poverty, social change, dissent, and the continuing influence and
political and economic power of the wealthy. As sociologists began to read more of
Weber and Durkheim, it became clear that the structural functional interpretation missed
much of the subtlety of these writers. It also became clear that Marx also had much to
contribute to the analysis of social structure and social change. More recently, feminist
approaches have also attacked functionalism, arguing that the structural functionalists
provided a justification for male privilege and ignored the past and potential
contributions of women.

Within Canadian sociology, functionalism was not as influential as in the United States.
Sociology was not as well developed in Canada as in the U.S., and some of the British
and European approaches were more influential here. The structural functional model
also did not seem to have the same applicability here as in the U.S. partly because
equality of opportunity and individualism were not as highly developed here. The
different ethnic groups and their history have also been considerably different in Canada
than in the United States. When Canadian sociology did develop, some of the political
economic approaches were incorporated into Canadian sociology to create a somewhat
different discipline than in the U.S.

Criticism:
As a result of challenges in the 1970s, structural functionalism fell into disfavor in the
study of sociology. However, it is still an important model in a number of ways. First,
outside sociology itself, many of arguments used by the structural functional approach
are popular explanations. In addition, some of the structural functional arguments are
used by those in power to justify inequalities and explain the value of their contribution
to society. This is a consensus model, one which can be used to support the social
order.

Second, it can be considered the sociological counterpart of many economic models of

inequality. In particular, it fits well with the human capital model of education and the
economy. It can also be considered to the counterpart of some models of liberalism in
the political sphere. For example, the notion of equality of opportunity should be a basic
part of this model.

Third, even though it may provide and inadequate model of explanation, it may be
useful as a model for description. Much of the quantitative information concerning the
structure of society has been developed by sociologists working in the functionalist
perspective. While the exact connection of these quantitative studies to the structural
functional approach may not be clear, much quantitative analysis makes many of the
same assumptions as do functionalists. Some of these have provided very useful data
for understanding society and examination of the nature of social inequality.

Conflict Theory
Conflict theory looks at society as a competition for limited resources. This perspective
is a macro-level approach most identified with the writings of German philosopher and
sociologist Karl Marx (1818–1883), who saw society as being made up of individuals in
different social classes who must compete for social, material, and political resources
such as food and housing, employment, education, and leisure time. Social institutions
like government, education, and religion reflect this competition in their inherent
inequalities and help maintain the unequal social structure. Some individuals and
organizations are able to obtain and keep more resources than others, and these
“winners” use their power and influence to maintain social institutions.
Marx, focused on the causes and consequences of class conflict between the
bourgeoisie (the owners of the means of production and the capitalists) and the
proletariat (the working class and the poor). Focusing on the economic, social, and
political implications of the rise of capitalism in Europe, Marx theorized that this system,
premised on the existence of a powerful minority class (the bourgeoisie) and an
oppressed majority class (the proletariat), created class conflict because the interests of
the two were at odds, and resources were unjustly distributed among them.
Within this system an unequal social order was maintained through ideological coercion
which created consensus--and acceptance of the values, expectations, and conditions
as determined by the bourgeoisie. Marx theorized that the work of producing consensus
was done in the "superstructure" of society, which is composed of social institutions,
political structures, and culture, and what it produced consensus for was the "base," the
economic relations of production.
Marx reasoned that as the socio-economic conditions worsened for the proletariat, they
would develop a class consciousness that revealed their exploitation at the hands of the
wealthy capitalist class of bourgeoisie, and then they would revolt, demanding changes
to smooth the conflict. According to Marx, if the changes made to appease conflict
maintained a capitalist system, then the cycle of conflict would repeat. However, if the
changes made created a new system, like socialism, then peace and stability would be
achieved.
This theory sees society in a framework of class conflicts and focuses on the struggle
for scarce resources by different groups in a given society. It asks such questions as
what pulls society apart. How does society change? The theory holds that the most
important aspect of social order is the domination of some group by others, that actual
or potential conflicts are always present in society.
The theory is useful in explaining how the dominant groups use their power to exploit
the less powerful groups in society. Key concepts developed in this perspective include:
conflict, complementation, struggle, power, inequality, and exploitation.
While functionalism emphasizes stability, conflict theory emphasizes change. According
to the conflict perspective, society is constantly in conflict over resources, and that
conflict drives social change. For example, conflict theorists might explain the civil rights
movements of the 1960s by studying how activists challenged the racially unequal
distribution of political power and economic resources. As in this example, conflict
theorists generally see social change as abrupt, even revolutionary, rather than
incremental. In the conflict perspective, change comes about through conflict between
competing interests, not consensus or adaptation. Conflict theory, therefore, gives
sociologists a framework for explaining social change, thereby addressing one of the
problems with the functionalist perspective

Although this theory gained fame in recent decades, it came under sharp criticism, for
its overemphasis on inequality and division, for neglecting the fact of how shared values
and interdependence generate unity among members of society; it is also criticized for
its explicit political goals. Another critique, which equally applies also to structural
functionalism, is that it sees society in very broad terms, neglecting micro-level social
realities. 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.
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 the way in which people make sense of their
social worlds. Theorists note that this perspective sees people as being active in
shaping the social world rather than simply being acted upon. George Herbert Mead
(1863–1931) is considered a founder of symbolic interactionism though he never
published his work on it. Mead’s student, Herbert Blumer, 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. 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. Social scientists
who apply symbolic-interactionist thinking look for patterns of interaction between
individuals. Their studies often involve observation of one-on-one interactions. For
example, while a conflict theorist studying a political protest might focus on class
difference, 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. This perspective views symbols as the basis of social life.
Symbols are things to which we attach meanings. The theory stresses the analysis of
how our behaviors depend on how we define others and ourselves. It concentrates on
process, rather than structure, and keeps the individual actor at the center. According to
symbolic interactionism, the essence of social life and social reality is the active human
being trying to make sense of social situations. In short, this theory calls attention to the
detailed, person-oriented processes that take place within the larger units of social life
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.
Symbolic interaction theory analyzes society by addressing the subjective meanings
that people impose on objects, events, and behaviors. Subjective meanings are given
primacy because it is believed that people behave based on what they believe and not
just on what is objectively true. Thus, society is thought to be socially constructed
through human interpretation. People interpret one another’s behavior and it is these
interpretations that form the social bond.
Constructivism is an extension of symbolic interaction theory 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 which are widely agreed-upon or generally accepted by most within the
society. This approach is often used to understand 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 associating different behaviors
with deviance. 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 in to 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.
Critics of this theory 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” rather than the “forest”.
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.