Sociological Theories

A theory is an attempt to explain. Sociological theories therefore attempt to explain society. The
following are some of the main sociological theories.

Functionalism or Structural Functionalism Theory

The Functionalist Theory claims that society is in a state of balance and kept that way through
the function of society's component parts. This theory has underpinnings in biological and
ecological concepts. Society can be studied the same way the human body (an organism) can be
studied - by analyzing how the specific parts work together and what specific systems are
working or not working, diagnosing problems, and devising solutions to restore balance.
Socialization, religious involvement, friendship, health care, economic recovery, peace, justice
and injustice, population growth or decline, community, romantic relationships, marriage and
divorce, and normal and abnormal family experiences are just a few of the evidences of
functional processes in our society.
Sure, Functionalists do agree with Conflict Theorists that things break down in society and that
unfair treatment of others is common. These break downs are called Dysfunctions, which are
breakdowns or disruptions in society and its parts that threaten social stability. Increased
insecurity, corruption, immorality, the erosion of social values, political violence etc are
examples of dysfunctions in the social, political and economic sectors of the society.
But,Functionalists also identify two types of functions: manifest and latent functions. Manifest
Functions are the apparent and intended functions of institutions in society. Latent Functions are
the less apparent, unintended, and often unrecognized functions in social institutions and
processes.
For example the government's manifest function includes regulation of behaviuor to ensure
proper governance and accountability.
But the government also provides latent or accidental functions to society? Eg in hiring, in
procument, and in many other istances.

Or take the case of industries. Their manifest function is to manufacture commodities for
consumption by the people. But as they do that, they also pollute and degrade the environment-
latent function.
Functionalists realize that just like the body, societies get "sick" or dysfunctional. By studying
society's parts and processes, functionalists can better understand how society remains stable or
adjust to destabilizing forces when unwanted change occurs. According to this theory most
societies generally find that healthy balance and maintain it (unless they don't and collapse as
many have in the history of the world). Equilibrium is the state of balance maintained by social
processes that help society adjust and compensate for forces that might tilt it onto a path of
destruction.

Conflict Theory
This is a prominent sociological theory that is often contrasted with structural-functionalism.
Conflict theory argues that society is not best understood as a complex system striving for
equilibrium but rather as a system of competition. Society is made up of individuals competing
for limited resources (e.g., money, leisure, sexual partners, etc.). Broader social structures and
organizations (e.g., religions, government, etc.) reflect the competition for resources in their

1
inherent inequalities; some people and organizations have more resources (i.e., power and
influence) and use those resources to maintain their positions of power in society.

Conflict theory was developed in part to illustrate the limitations of structural-functionalism.

The structural-functionalist approach argued that society tends toward equilibrium, focusing on
stability at the expense of social change. This is contrasted with the conflict approach, which
argues that society is constantly in conflict over resources. One of the primary contributions
conflict theory presents over the structural-functional approach is that it is ideally suited for
explaining social change, a significant problem in the structural-functional approach.

The following are three primary assumptions of modern conflict theory:

 Competition over scarce resources is at the heart of all social relationships. Competition
rather than consensus is characteristic of human relationships.
 Inequalities in power and reward are built into all social structures. Individuals and
groups that benefit from any particular structure strive to see it maintained.
 Change occurs as a result of conflict between competing interests rather than through
adaptation. Change is often abrupt and revolutionary rather than evolutionary.

A way to help you think about society from a conflict perspective is to ask, "Who benefits from
this competition in society?" or "Who benefits from the current educational system in most
countries ?" The answer, of course, is those who can afford. Why? Because higher education is
expensive.

The educational system often screens out poorer individuals not because they are unable to
compete academically but because they cannot afford to pay for their education. Because the
poor are unable to obtain higher education, this means they are also generally unable to get
higher paying jobs which means they remain poor. This can easily translate into a vicious cycle
of poverty. Thus, while the function of education is to educate the workforce, it also has built
into it an element of conflict and inequality, favoring one group (the wealthy) over other groups
(the poor). Thinking about education this way helps illustrate why both structural-functionalist
and conflict theories are helpful in understanding how society works.

Conflict theory was elaborated by later scholars such as Max Gluckman, Lewis A. Coser, Randall
Collins, Ralf Dahrendorf and other scholars.

However, the primary limitation of the social-conflict perspective is that it overlooks the
stability of societies. While societies are in a constant state of change, much of the change is
minor. Many of the broader elements of societies remain remarkably stable over time,
indicating the structural-functional perspective has a great deal of merit.

Note : Sociological theory is often complementary. This is particularly true of structural-

functionalism and social-conflict theories. Structural-functionalism focuses on equilibrium and

2
solidarity; conflict-theory focuses on change and conflict. Keep in mind that neither is better
than the other; when combined, the two approaches offer a broader and more comprehensive
view of society.

Symbolic Interactionism Theory

Interactionism comes in two theoretical forms: Symbolic Interaction and Social
Exchange. Symbolic Interaction claims that society is composed of ever-present interactions
among individuals who share symbols and their meanings. It is a very useful theory for:
understanding other people; improving communications; learning and teaching skills in cross-
cultural relations; and generally speaking, "not doing harm to your classmates or roommates."
Values, communication, witch hunting, crisis management, fear from crime, fads, love and all
that comes with it, dating joys and woes, "evil and sin," "who I am," mate selection, conflict
resolution, and both personal and national issues can all be better understood using Symbolic
Interactionism.

Once you realize that individuals are, by their social natures, very symbolic with one another,
then you begin to understand how to persuade your friends and family, how to understand others'
points of view, and how to resolve misunderstandings
Symbolic Interactionism should make it possible for you as a student to
understand your lecturers’ expectations and know how to cope with them. Our daily interactions
are full of symbols and an ongoing process of interactions with other people based on the
meanings of these symbols.
"Hi?" What does this mean? It’s a greeting! If you want to surprise someone, ask them what
they mean by saying "Hi." If they have a sense of humor, they will likely laugh. If not, you may
have to explain yourself.
Symbolic Interactionism explores the way we communicate and helps us to understand how we
grow up with our self-concept. It helps you to know what the expectations of your roles are and
if you perceive yourself as doing a good job or not in meeting those expectations.
Symbolic Interactionism is very powerful in helping people to understand each other.
Newlyweds, roommates, life-long friends, young adult children and their parents, and teammates
can all utilize the principles to "put themselves in the other's shoes;" That is, "see the world
through their lenses;" One of the major realization that comes with Symbolic Interactionism is
that you begin to understand the other people in your life and come to know that they are neither
right nor wrong, just of a different point of view. They just define social symbols with varying
meanings.
To understand the other person's symbols and meanings, is to approach common ground.

Social Exchange Theory

The other theory in interactionism is Social Exchange. Social Exchange claims that society is
composed of ever present interactions among individuals
who attempt to maximize rewards while minimizing costs. Assumptions in this theory are similar
to Conflict theory assumptions yet have their interactistic underpinnings.
Basically, human beings are rational creatures, capable of making sound choices once the pros
and cons of the choice are understood. This theory uses a formula to measure the choice making
processes.
(REWARDS-COSTS)=OUTCOMES

3
or
("What I get out of it"-"What I lose by doing it")="My decision"
We look at the options available to us and weigh as best we can how to maximize our rewards
and minimize our losses. Sometimes we get it right and other times we make a bad choice. One
of the powerful aspects of this theory is the concept of Equity. Equity is a sense that the
interactions are fair to us and fair to others involved by the consequences of our choices.
For example, why is it that women who work 40 hours a week and have husbands who work 40
hours per week do not perform the same number of weekly hours
of housework and childcare? Scientists have surveyed many couples to find the answer.
Most often, it boils down to a sense of fairness or equity. Because she defines it as her role to do
housework and childcare, while he doesn't; because they tend to fight when she does try to get
him to perform housework, and because she may think he's incompetent, they live with an
inequitable arrangement as though it were equitable (don't get me
started on the evidence that supports men sharing the actual roles of housekeepers and childcare
providers. Each of us tries constantly to weigh pros and cons and to maximize the outcomes of
our choices.

For instance, try this sometime; Go to the cafeteria one day, pick the least attractive person you
can find, take them on a date to a nice restaurant, drive there, and pay for everything, then give
the person a peck on the cheek, the end of the date. Logically, you would ask;
"Why would i do that?" and "That's my point,"

Feminist Perspectives

Sociologists began embracing the feminist perspective in the 1970s, although it has a long
tradition in many other disciplines. Proponents of the feminist perspective view inequity based
on gender as central to all behaviour and organization. Because of its focus on inequality, the
feminist perspective is often considered part of the conflict perspective.
However, it is distinguished as a separate sociological perspective because of its distinctiveness
in terms of content and method. Feminist sociologists explore the use of many different methods
of doing research. Beyond this they focus on gender disparities and the implications these
inequalities have for the everyday lives of women, men, and families.
There are different types of feminist theories including Marxist feminism, liberal
feminism, and radical feminism, each with their own distinct focus and stance on gender
relations. Whatever the particular strain of feminist theory, they broadly share the view that
biological sex differences are exacerbated by complex historical, cultural, and social processes,
that the gender division of labour is a hierarchical one with men receiving more rewards than
women, that sociology has long been dominated by the
male perspective and male ways of knowing, and that changes, whether gradual or radical, are
required to achieve equality between the sexes.
Feminist scholarship has broadened our understanding of social behaviour by taking it beyond
the male point of view. Many feminist researchers look at how gender, ethnicity, and social class
interact to influence the distribution of power in society. Dorothy Smith, a major figure in
Canadian feminist theory and methodology, helped revolutionize

4
the discipline by first critiquing traditional, male-centred sociology and then offering another
way of doing sociology, one that builds an account of how things work against women and other
oppressed people.
Smith argued that there are different standpoints, different “ways of knowing,” and that when
people get caught up in seeing things one way only (malecentred), and give authority to that one
way of looking at the world, we lose valuable sources of insight and knowledge—those which
are silenced by this process (women’s perspectives) (Smith 1975, 1990; Campbell 2003).
Feminist scholars have not only challenged stereotyping of women; they have argued for a
gender-balanced study of society in which women’s experiences and contributions are as visible
as those of men (England 1999; Komarovsky 1991; Smith 1987, 1990; Tuchman 1992).