RESEARCH ARTICLE
Shaping Social Realities, Critiquing Power
Peer-Reviewed, International,
Academic Research Journal
Citation
Petrove, A. (2021). Shaping Social
Realities, Critiquing Power
Structures and Comprehending
Social Change Through Sociological
Frameworks. Social Science Chronicle,
Vol. 1, Issue - 1, pp. 1-15.
Digital Object Identifier (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.56106/ssc.2021.006
Received - March 11, 2021
Accepted - July 23, 2021
Published - July 30, 2021
Web-Link
All the contents of this peer
reviewed article as well as author
details are available at
http://socialsciencechronicle.com/a
rticle-ssc-2021-006
Copyright
The copyright of this article is
reserved with the author/s.
© 2021, Anton Petrove.
This publication is distributed under
the terms of Creative Commons
Attribution, Non-Commercial, Share
Alike 4.0 International License. It
permits unrestricted copying and
redistribution of this publication in
any medium or format.
Structures and Comprehending Social
Change Through Sociological
Frameworks
Anton Petrove1*
1 Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom.
* Corresponding Author
Abstract
This research paper explores a rich array of sociological theories that collectively offer lenses through which
the intricate dynamics of human society can be comprehended. At the heart of sociological inquiry lies a
diverse array of theoretical frameworks that have shaped the discipline and continue to inform research and
analysis. From Functionalist perspectives that view society as a system of interdependent parts to Critical
Theory, which critiques societal structures and aims to foster social justice, these theories provide distinct
insights into societal structures, power dynamics, and human behavior. The journey through these
frameworks elucidates their individual contributions, from Functionalism’s emphasis on societal equilibrium
to Conflict Theory’s scrutiny of power differentials. Symbolic Interactionism sheds light on the micro-level
dynamics of social interaction, while Feminist Theory advocates for the eradication of gender-based
disparities. Structuralism explores the influence of societal structures, Rational Choice Theory dives deep into
individual decision-making, and Social Exchange Theory examines give-and-take dynamics within
relationships. Phenomenology challenges the objectivity of reality, emphasizing subjective experiences, while
Critical Theory critiques and aims to transform oppressive systems. Synthesizing these perspectives unveils
their interconnectedness, offering a holistic understanding of societal dynamics. They not only enrich our
comprehension of society but also position us to critically evaluate societal structures and power dynamics,
fostering potential social transformations. The enduring relevance and significance of these frameworks in
contemporary sociology underscore their instrumental role in shaping research, policy-making, and societal
discourse. The integration and adaptation of these theoretical frameworks continue to empower critical
analyses and discussions, paving the way for deeper comprehension of societal complexities and fostering
advocacy for social justice. These theories serve as guiding lights, illuminating pathways towards
transformative change and a more equitable and just society, a testament to our enduring commitment to
understanding and fostering a world where justice and equality prevail.
Keywords
Sociological Theories, Functionalism, Conflict Theory, Symbolic Interactionism, Critical Theory, Power
Dynamics, Social Structures, Social Justice, Human Behavior, Societal Dynamics.
1. Introduction
Sociology, as a vibrant and dynamic field, encompasses a myriad of theoretical frame-
works that serve as critical lenses through which the complex amalgamation of human behav-
ior, societal structures, and power dynamics is analyzed and understood. These theoretical
Page 1 of 15
Social Science Chronicle
paradigms, each with its distinct perspectives, illuminate the
intricate interplay between individuals and society, providing
comprehensive insights into the multifaceted nature of social
phenomena (Cetina & Cicourel, 2014; Fox, Lidz, & Bershady,
2005; Reed, 2006; Star, 1996; J. H. Turner, 2008). From macro-
level perspectives that dissect the grand structures of society to
micro-level approaches that delve into individual interactions,
these theories collectively contribute to a rich understanding of
the complexities within the social world. At the heart of socio-
logical inquiry lie a diverse array of theoretical frameworks that
have shaped the discipline and continue to inform research and
analysis. Among these, Functionalism stands as a cornerstone
theory that views society as a system comprising interconnect-
ed parts, each serving a vital function in maintaining social
stability and equilibrium. Emerging from the works of Emile
Durkheim and Herbert Spencer, this perspective illuminates
the interdependence of various social institutions and their
functions in ensuring societal cohesion (Chiareli, 2019a;
Giroux, 1980a; Lamont & Wuthnow, 1990; Soltanpour, Peri, &
Temri, 2019; Stolley, 2005).
In contrast, Conflict Theory, championed by thinkers such
as Karl Marx, dives deep into the inherent power differentials,
social stratification, and the perpetual conflict between domi-
nant and subordinate groups within society. This perspective
highlights the inequalities and disparities that arise from the
struggle for resources and power, emphasizing how these dy-
namics shape social interactions and perpetuate societal ten-
sions. Symbolic Interactionism, another influential framework
within sociology, zooms into the micro-level interactions
among individuals, examining how shared symbols and mean-
ings shape social life (Lockie, 2004; Nalah & Ishaya, 2013;
Prus, 1999; Stout, 2004; Sutherland & Feltey, 2012). Pioneered
by George Herbert Mead, this perspective underscores the
significance of symbols in constructing social reality, emphasiz-
ing the role of communication and interaction in shaping indi-
vidual identities and social dynamics. Feminist Theory, arising
from multiple strands such as liberal, radical, Marxist, and
postmodern feminism, challenges the pervasive gender-based
inequalities and aims to dismantle the structural oppression and
marginalization of women. This critical lens emphasizes the
historical and contemporary power imbalances between gen-
ders and seeks social reforms to achieve gender equality
(Chiareli, 2019b; Delaney, 2015; Henry & Milovanovic, 1991;
Robbins, Chatterjee, & Canda, 2010; J. H. Turner, 2012).
Structuralism, a theoretical approach that explores how so-
cietal structures influence individual behavior, dives deep into
the impact of larger societal systems on shaping human experi-
ences. Pioneered by Claude Levi-Strauss and Ferdinand de
Saussure, Structuralism underscores the stability and intercon-
nectedness of societal systems and their influence on individual
agency. Rational Choice Theory, rooted in economics and later
extended to sociology, posits that individuals make decisions
based on rational calculations aimed at maximizing benefits and
minimizing costs (Browne, 2016; Giroux, 1980b; Jacobsen,
2019; Yar, 2012; York & Mancus, 2009). This theoretical per-
spective dives into the strategic evaluation of costs and benefits
as individuals navigate their choices in various domains of life.
Social Exchange Theory, akin to Rational Choice Theory, con-
centrates on the interactions among individuals, examining the
give-and-take dynamics within relationships. This perspective
elucidates social interactions as akin to economic transactions,
www.socialsciencechronicle.com
https://doi.org/10.56106/ssc.2021.006
emphasizing the calculated process of exchanging resources to
maximize benefits and minimize costs within relationships.
Phenomenology, emerging from the works of Edmund Husserl
and developed by Maurice Merleau-Ponty, accentuates the
subjective experiences of individuals and how they interpret
and make sense of their world (Brantlinger & Danforth, 2006;
Collinson, 2005; Griswold, 2012; Shabani, 2003; Williams,
2004). This lens challenges the objectivity of reality, emphasiz-
ing the significance of lived experiences and the interpretation
of the world through individual consciousness. Lastly, Critical
Theory, emanating from the Frankfurt School and scholars like
Max Horkheimer and Theodor Adorno, serves as a trans-
formative lens that critiques societal structures, norms, and
power dynamics, aiming to transform oppressive systems and
advocate for social justice. This critical framework illuminates
the underlying power dynamics and systemic oppressions with-
in society, fostering analyses that aim to dismantle oppressive
structures and foster social change (Edgley, 2003; Hutchison,
2003; Matsueda, 2006; M. J. Thompson, 2016; Wagner, 1964).
The diversity and complexity of these theoretical frame-
works collectively offer a comprehensive view of the intricacies
within societal structures, power dynamics, and human experi-
ences. This research paper endeavors to synthesize and juxta-
pose these various lenses, underscoring their contributions to
our understanding of social life and their collective role in un-
raveling the intricate fabric of human society. By weaving to-
gether the insights from these diverse perspectives, this paper
aims to provide a holistic comprehension of the multifaceted
nature of societal dynamics. Moreover, the integration of these
theories offers a nuanced understanding of societal phenome-
na, setting the stage for critical analyses aimed at unraveling the
complex web of human experiences within society. It empha-
sizes the interconnectedness among these frameworks, high-
lighting their mutual reinforcement and the complementary
insights they offer. This comprehensive view not only enables a
richer understanding of the social world but also positions us
to critically evaluate societal structures and power dynamics,
paving the way for potential social transformations and foster-
ing a more just and equitable society.
2. Organic Structure of Society: Analyzing Functionalism
in Sociological Perspectives
Functionalism, an influential sociological perspective, em-
bodies a comprehensive theoretical framework that perceives
society as an intricately structured entity comprising interde-
pendent elements, analogous to a well-integrated and cohesive
organism (Barbalet, 2001; Capper, 1993; Harper & Snowden,
2017; Ritzer, 2004; Walter, 2017). The fundamental premise of
functionalism, which derives its origins from the works of early
sociologists like Emile Durkheim, is the conceptualization of
society as a complex system, much akin to a living organism,
where various components harmoniously interact to sustain
equilibrium and order. This theoretical outlook elucidates the
interconnection and interdependence of societal elements,
delineating how they function collaboratively to ensure the
stability and coherence of the larger social structure. At its core,
functionalism posits that society operates akin to a biological
organism, where each part serves a specific function, and the
collective functioning of these parts contributes to the overall
health and stability of the system (Allan, 2005; Catton Jr &
Page 2 of 15
Social Science Chronicle
Dunlap, 1978; P. A. Jackson & Smith, 2014; Ritzer, 2015;
Schafer, 1971).
This analogy allows functionalists to draw parallels between
societal structures and the organic systems found in nature,
underscoring the need for each part to perform its designated
role to sustain the whole. Within this theoretical framework,
social institutions, such as education, family, religion, and the
economy, are regarded as vital components that fulfill essential
functions crucial for the smooth operation and continuity of
society. The theory of functionalism extends beyond the mere
recognition of these institutions, emphasizing their roles in
maintaining social order and stability (Buzan, 2004; MacDon-
ald, 2001; Prior-Miller, 2017; Ulmer, 2017; White, Martin, &
Adamsons, 2018). For instance, the family institution is per-
ceived as the primary unit for socializing individuals and
transmitting cultural norms and values, contributing to the
overall cohesion of society. Similarly, education, as another
critical social institution, functions to impart knowledge, skills,
and social norms necessary for the functioning of the work-
force and the perpetuation of societal stability.
Furthermore, functionalism accentuates the idea that social
phenomena and structures persist in society because they serve
a purpose or function. This perspective contends that societal
elements exist and endure because they fulfill essential roles,
contributing to the maintenance and continuity of the social
system (Charmaz, 2011; Shmuel N Eisenstadt, 1990; Martin,
2004; Risman, 2018; J. H. Turner & Maryanski, 1979). Dys-
function or breakdown in any of these components is believed
to disrupt the equilibrium and may trigger compensatory
mechanisms to restore stability. This intricate interplay of soci-
etal parts and their functions echoes the organic analogy, sug-
gesting that disturbances within one segment can reverberate
across the entire system, potentially leading to societal imbal-
ance and disarray. While functionalism offers a compelling
framework for comprehending the workings of society, it has
not escaped criticism.
One notable critique pertains to its inclination to oversim-
plify complex social structures and dynamics. Critics argue that
functionalism tends to overlook conflict, power differentials,
and the impact of individual agency in shaping society. This
perspective often neglects the disparities and inequalities pre-
sent within societal structures, emphasizing instead the harmo-
nious interdependence of components. Moreover, functional-
ism has been accused of adopting a conservative stance by
legitimizing the existing social order and overlooking the po-
tential for societal change or transformation. In contemporary
sociological discourse, functionalism persists as a foundational
theory that offers insights into the functional interplay among
societal elements, contributing significantly to the understand-
ing of social order and stability (Conyers & Calhoun, 2015;
Hall, 2003; O’Donnell, 1999; Rogers, 2013; J. H. Turner, 2007).
However, its limitations and oversights necessitate the inte-
gration of other theoretical perspectives, such as conflict theory
or symbolic interactionism, to capture the complexities inher-
ent in societal dynamics. As society evolves and confronts new
challenges, the adaptability and inclusivity of multiple theoreti-
cal frameworks become imperative in providing a more com-
prehensive understanding of the multifaceted nature of human
social interactions and the ever-evolving structures of society.
Page 3 of 15
3. Conflict Theory in Societal Analysis
Conflict theory serves as a pivotal lens in sociological anal-
ysis, epitomizing a paradigm that scrutinizes society through
the lens of persistent conflict, inequality, and power differen-
tials. At the crux of conflict theory lies the notion that societal
structures are not harmoniously interdependent, as posited by
functionalism, but rather exhibit inherent conflict and tension
resulting from competing interests, particularly between dis-
tinct social classes. This perspective traces its origins to the
works of Karl Marx, who postulated that the stratification of
society into social classes—primarily the bourgeoisie and the
proletariat—sowed the seeds of perpetual struggle, with the
dominant class exerting control over resources, power, and
influence, thus perpetuating social inequality and conflict
(Doda, 2005; Savelsberg, 1994; Ugwudike, 2015; Valentine,
Trautner, & Spade, 2019; Zerihun, 2005). The foundational
premise of conflict theory lies in the belief that society is char-
acterized by unequal distribution of resources, rights, and op-
portunities among different social groups. These disparities
generate power differentials, contributing to a perpetual state
of conflict between those who possess authority and those who
are marginalized or oppressed. This perspective emphasizes the
role of power as a pivotal force in society, where individuals or
groups exert influence to protect their own interests, often at
the expense of others, resulting in a continual tug-of-war for
control and dominance within the social hierarchy (Brent,
Brent, & Lewis, 2013; Chang, 2004; Davis, 1972; Liu, 2015;
Rigney, 2001).
The focal point of conflict theory is the examination of
how power differentials and structural inequalities perpetuate
societal conflicts. For instance, the bourgeoisie, possessing
economic and political power, aim to maintain their dominant
position and perpetuate the status quo to safeguard their inter-
ests. Meanwhile, the proletariat, lacking similar power and re-
sources, find themselves in a disadvantaged position, leading to
a struggle for better rights, resources, and improved conditions.
This struggle is not merely confined to economic domains but
permeates various facets of societal life, including education,
law, politics, and cultural norms. Moreover, conflict theory
underscores the dynamic nature of conflict within society. It
postulates that conflict is not merely an anomaly or an occa-
sional disruption but an intrinsic and integral aspect of social
life. This perpetual conflict is fueled by the disparities in
wealth, power, and opportunities among different societal
groups (Eder, 1993; Király, Pataki, Köves, & Balázs, 2013;
Mouzelis, 2008; Ritzer, 1990; J. H. Turner & Machalek, 2018).
It highlights the perpetuation of conflict as an agent of
change, potentially challenging existing power structures and
paving the way for societal transformation. Critically, conflict
theory elucidates the notion that social change and progress
often stem from these conflicts and struggles. It postulates that
societal change is not a result of consensus or smooth func-
tioning but emerges from the clashes and contestations be-
tween different groups vying for their interests. Historical revo-
lutions, labor movements, civil rights protests, and other social
upheavals serve as prime illustrations of how conflicts, stem-
ming from inequality and injustice, act as catalysts for societal
transformation (Görke & Scholl, 2006; Janowitz, 1991; Livesay,
1985; Merton, 1996; Strasser, 2014). However, despite its pro-
found insights, conflict theory is not devoid of criticism.
Social Science Chronicle
Detractors argue that it oversimplifies the multifaceted na-
ture of society by predominantly focusing on economic factors
and class conflict, neglecting other dimensions such as race,
gender, and culture. Furthermore, critics highlight the theory’s
propensity to accentuate division and conflict at the expense of
acknowledging instances of cooperation and consensus within
society. In contemporary sociological analyses, conflict theory
remains instrumental in understanding societal structures, em-
phasizing the dynamics of power and inequality (J. H. Bal-
lantine & Roberts, 2008; Dunlap, 2002; Gumplowicz, 1980;
Sovacool & Hess, 2017; Wrong, 2018). It has expanded beyond
its original focus on economic class conflict to encompass a
broader spectrum of social inequalities, including gender, race,
and other forms of oppression. The integration of conflict
theory with other theoretical perspectives, such as functional-
ism and symbolic interactionism, enables a more comprehen-
sive understanding of the multifaceted nature of societal dy-
namics and the complexities inherent in human interactions
within societal structures. As society evolves, conflict theory
continues to offer invaluable insights into the persistent strug-
gle for power and resources, as well as the potential for societal
change stemming from these conflicts.
4. Social Realities in Symbolic Interactionism
Symbolic interactionism stands as a cornerstone in socio-
logical theory, delving into the intricate mechanisms that un-
derlie human interactions, emphasizing the role of symbols and
shared meanings in shaping social reality. The framework of
symbolic interactionism, notably championed by scholars such
as George Herbert Mead and Herbert Blumer, operates on the
foundational premise that individuals actively construct and
interpret their social world through a complex interplay of
symbols, language, and shared meanings (Branom, 2014; Côté,
2019; Giroux, 1982; Katovich & Reese, 1993; R. H. Turner,
1988). This perspective diverges from broader societal struc-
tures or institutions, focusing instead on the micro-level inter-
actions between individuals and how these interactions con-
tribute to the creation of social reality. At its essence, symbolic
interactionism accentuates the significance of symbols, which
encompass any object, gesture, word, or even a concept that
conveys a particular meaning to individuals. These symbols are
not inherently meaningful but acquire significance through the
process of social interaction and mutual agreement. For in-
stance, language itself is a system of symbols, where words or
phrases represent shared meanings and concepts within a par-
ticular society or group.
Understanding this, symbolic interactionism contends that
individuals actively interpret and assign meaning to these sym-
bols, shaping their perceptions of the world and guiding their
behaviors within social contexts (Shmuel Noah Eisenstadt,
1995; Joas, 1993; McNamee & Glasser, 1987; Shalin, 1986;
Weigert, 2008). Moreover, symbolic interactionism emphasizes
the notion of the ‘self’ and the ‘other.’ The ‘self’ is the individ-
ual’s own understanding of themselves, formed through social
interaction and the internalization of external perceptions and
meanings. The ‘other’ represents individuals with whom one
interacts, shaping and influencing the perceptions and behav-
iors of the ‘self.’ This duality of the ‘self’ and the ‘other’ under-
scores the importance of social interactions in the construction
of one’s identity and understanding of the social world. The
exchange of symbols and meanings within these interactions
www.socialsciencechronicle.com
https://doi.org/10.56106/ssc.2021.006
aids in the development of self-concept and social identities
(Biddle, 1986; Lange, 2015; Ritzer, 1991; Schur, 1969; J. B.
Thompson, 1983). Crucially, symbolic interactionism asserts
that human behavior is not merely a response to external stim-
uli or predetermined social structures but is actively shaped by
the meanings individuals attribute to situations and symbols. In
essence, individuals act based on their interpretation of the
situation rather than responding mechanically to the situation
itself. This process of interpretation and meaning-making is
ongoing and evolves through continuous social interactions,
contributing to the fluid and dynamic nature of social reality.
Furthermore, this theory highlights the importance of social
roles and how individuals adopt and perform these roles within
various social contexts (Abrutyn, 2013; Denzin, 2017; Fine,
1993; Roslender & Dillard, 2003; J. H. Turner & Boyns, 2001).
People assume different roles in different situations, guided
by the expectations and meanings associated with those roles.
For instance, a person’s behavior and demeanor in a profes-
sional setting may markedly differ from their behavior in a
social or familial context. These roles are not fixed but are sub-
ject to negotiation, adjustment, and reinterpretation as individ-
uals engage in social interactions and attribute new meanings to
their roles. However, symbolic interactionism has faced criti-
cisms, notably for its focus on micro-level interactions and the
potential oversight of larger societal structures and systemic
influences on individual behavior (Fararo, 2001; Fine, 1995;
Fuchs, 2006; Hustedde, 2009; Wexler, 2017). Critics argue that
while this theory elucidates the intricacies of individual interac-
tions, it might not fully address the broader social forces and
power dynamics that shape these interactions. In contemporary
sociological discourse, symbolic interactionism retains signifi-
cance, particularly in understanding the nuances of everyday
social interactions and the construction of social reality. Its
incorporation into research methodologies and analyses offers
a profound understanding of how individuals navigate their
social worlds, emphasizing the dynamism and subjectivity in-
herent in human interactions (Cockerham, 2007; Guess, 2006;
Heilbroner, 2012; Howard, 1994; Jun, 2012). When integrated
with other sociological theories, such as functionalism and
conflict theory, symbolic interactionism enriches the compre-
hension of the interplay between micro-level interactions and
broader societal structures, contributing to a comprehensive
understanding of the complexities inherent in human social life.
5. Gender and Feminist Theories in Societal Analysis
Feminist theory stands as a critical and expansive frame-
work within sociology, seeking to unravel and rectify the intri-
cate fabric of social, political, and economic inequalities in-
grained within the fabric of gendered power dynamics. This
lens operates on the foundational premise that societal struc-
tures are inherently marked by unequal distributions of power,
privileges, and opportunities based on gender, with a particular
emphasis on the subjugation and marginalization of women
(Allan, 2013; Cicourel, 1995; Eder, 2015; Olsson & Jerneck,
2018; Putney, Alley, & Bengtson, 2005). Central to feminist
theory is the recognition that gender is not merely a biological
or natural distinction but a social construct that shapes and
influences individuals’ experiences, opportunities, and societal
roles. At its core, feminist theory scrutinizes the historical and
contemporary imbalances in power and resources between
genders, shedding light on the systemic oppression and dis-
Page 4 of 15
Social Science Chronicle
crimination that women face across various spheres of life.
This lens discerns that the disparities in social, economic, and
political realms are not arbitrary but are deeply entrenched
within societal structures and norms (Hurrelmann, 1988; Mor-
row & Torres, 1995; Phillipson & Baars, 2007; Powell & Gil-
bert, 2008; R. Turner, 2017). It advocates for a critical analysis
of these power differentials, questioning the origins and per-
petuation of gender-based inequalities. Feminist theory does
not stand as a singular, monolithic viewpoint; rather, it com-
prises multiple strands and perspectives, including liberal, radi-
cal, Marxist, and postmodern feminism, each offering distinct
insights into the mechanisms of gender-based inequality. Liber-
al feminism, for instance, strives for gender equality through
legal and societal reforms, emphasizing equal opportunities for
men and women within existing structures. Radical feminism
dives deep into the root causes of gender inequality, highlight-
ing the need for fundamental societal restructuring to eradicate
patriarchal systems (Baert & Da Silva, 2010; Clarke, 1991;
Schiff, 1976; Stedman, Decker, Riley, & Siemer, 2012; W. E.
Thompson, Hickey, & Thompson, 2016).
Marxist feminism explores the intersectionality of class and
gender, underscoring how capitalism and gender oppression
intertwine to exacerbate inequalities. Postmodern feminism
challenges the notion of a singular, universal truth and critiques
the construction of gender identities within society. An essen-
tial aspect of feminist theory is the concept of intersectionality,
which underscores that gender oppression is often compound-
ed by other forms of discrimination and privilege, such as race,
class, sexuality, and ethnicity. Intersectionality elucidates how
these interlocking systems of oppression intersect, creating
distinct and varied experiences for different groups of women
(Brickell, 2006; Burrell & Morgan, 2017; Doing, 2001; Hirsch,
2018; Teixeira, 2017). For instance, a woman of color might
face different challenges and prejudices compared to a white
woman due to the intertwining factors of race and gender.
Recognizing these intersecting layers of oppression is vital in
understanding the complex experiences of individuals within
society. Feminist theory critically examines the pervasive nature
of gender-based oppression in various domains, including edu-
cation, labor, politics, and familial structures. In education, for
instance, it unveils the historical marginalization of women in
academic and professional spheres, highlighting disparities in
educational opportunities and the perpetuation of gender ste-
reotypes (Giddens & Griffiths, 2006; Hassard, 1995; Llewellyn,
Agu, & Mercer, 2008; Swingewood, 1999; J. H. Turner, 2001).
Within the labor force, feminist theory illuminates the une-
qual pay, limited career advancement, and workplace discrimi-
nation women face, emphasizing the need for equity in em-
ployment opportunities and fair treatment. In politics, this lens
underscores the underrepresentation of women in leadership
roles and decision-making positions, advocating for greater
female participation and representation in governance struc-
tures. Moreover, it unveils the intricate power dynamics and
societal expectations within familial structures, emphasizing the
need for breaking away from traditional gender roles and pro-
moting egalitarian relationships. Critics of feminist theory argue
against its generalizations and its perceived portrayal of women
as a homogenous group, overlooking variations in experiences
among women. Some critics contend that this lens might
downplay the complexities of male experiences and the ways in
which men are also affected by societal gender norms. In con-
temporary sociology, feminist theory remains a crucial lens
Page 5 of 15
through which societal structures and power dynamics are
scrutinized (J. Ballantine & Hammack, 2015; Bernardi, Gonzá-
lez, & Requena, 2007; Boltanski, Honneth, & Celikates, 2014;
Godwyn & Gittell, 2011; Hirsch, 2008). Its influence extends
beyond academia, influencing policy-making, activism, and
social movements aimed at rectifying gender-based disparities.
The integration of feminist theory with other sociological
frameworks, such as critical theory or symbolic interactionism,
enables a more comprehensive understanding of the multifac-
eted nature of gender dynamics within society. This interdisci-
plinary approach is instrumental in comprehending the com-
plexities of gender-based inequalities and in working towards
creating a more equitable and just society for all genders. The
ongoing evolution and diversification of feminist thought con-
tinue to enrich sociological discourse, amplifying the imperative
to dismantle gender-based oppression and achieve gender
equality across diverse societal domains.
6. Navigating Societal Structures in Structuralism
Structuralism, within the realm of sociology, stands as a
significant theoretical approach that dives deep into the fun-
damental interplay between social structures and individual
behaviors, unraveling the intricate ways in which larger societal
systems mold and influence human experiences. At its core,
structuralism diverges from approaches like symbolic interac-
tionism, which focus on micro-level interactions, by emphasiz-
ing the primacy of overarching societal structures and systems
in guiding and governing human behavior. This perspective
asserts that individuals are not solely agents operating within a
vacuum of personal choices but are significantly influenced and
even constrained by the larger social structures in which they
are situated (Callero, 2003; Giulianotti, 2015; Kingsbury &
Scanzoni, 1993; Molnar & Kelly, 2013; Scambler, 2018). The
foundational premise of structuralism is rooted in the belief
that society operates through established, enduring struc-
tures—such as institutions, laws, norms, and social hierar-
chies—that mold and regulate human behavior. These struc-
tures are not haphazard or coincidental but are deeply embed-
ded and established within society, exhibiting a degree of per-
manence that dictates the parameters within which individuals
navigate their lives.
Structuralism postulates that these systems exert a pro-
found influence, shaping the thoughts, actions, and opportuni-
ties available to individuals within a given society. Emphasizing
the importance of social structures, structuralism explores the
ways in which these frameworks shape and constrain individual
agency (Bernstein, 1986; Estes & Edmonds, 1981; Johnson,
2008; Layder, 2014; Prus, 1995). For example, the structure of
the economy, with its distribution of wealth and resources,
significantly impacts the life opportunities available to individu-
als. Similarly, legal structures and societal norms govern behav-
iors, determining acceptable and unacceptable actions within a
community. This lens also recognizes the role of social hierar-
chies, such as class, race, and gender, in delineating the life
trajectories and experiences of individuals. Structuralism under-
scores that individuals’ behaviors and choices are not isolated
but are deeply entwined with and influenced by these broader
social structures. Moreover, structuralism highlights the stabil-
ity and persistence of these societal structures, often emphasiz-
ing their inertia and resistance to immediate change (Cronk,
1973; Dennis & Martin, 2005; Denzin, 2005; Fine, 1990; Forte,
Social Science Chronicle
2004). These structures tend to perpetuate themselves and
endure over time, shaping the experiences of individuals and
providing a framework within which social life is organized.
While acknowledging the constraints posed by these structures,
structuralism does not negate the potential for change. Howev-
er, it suggests that transformations within societal structures
often occur gradually and are subject to complex interactions
among various social forces. Furthermore, structuralism is
integral in understanding the interconnectedness of various
societal systems. It elucidates how different social institutions
and structures interlock and impact one another. For instance,
the economic system significantly influences education,
healthcare, and politics, while these systems, in turn, reciprocal-
ly influence the economy. This interconnectedness underscores
the intricate web of societal structures and the ripple effects
that changes in one sector may have across the entire system
(Blumer, 1986; Carter & Fuller, 2016; Hall, 1972; Matsueda &
Heimer, 1997; Quist-Adade, 2019).
Critics of structuralism point to its tendency to downplay
the role of individual agency and subjective experiences in fa-
vor of an overemphasis on the power of societal structures.
They argue that this approach might oversimplify the complex-
ities of human behavior and individual decision-making pro-
cesses. In contemporary sociology, while structuralism remains
a foundational perspective, its limitations have led to the inte-
gration of complementary theoretical frameworks. Post-
structuralism, for instance, challenges the rigidity of structural-
ism by focusing on the fluid and dynamic nature of social
structures and the multiplicity of truths and experiences within
society. The integration of multiple theoretical lenses, such as
symbolic interactionism or feminist theory, offers a more com-
prehensive understanding of the dynamic interplay between
societal structures and individual behaviors (Habermas, 1987;
Hutchison, Charlesworth, & Cummings, 2003; M. C. Jackson,
2007; Lemke, 2005; Marshall & Bengtson, 2011). This interdis-
ciplinary approach facilitates a nuanced comprehension of the
multifaceted nature of human experiences within larger societal
systems. Structuralism’s enduring legacy lies in its foundational
role in highlighting the pervasive influence of societal struc-
tures on human behavior, serving as a launching point for
more intricate analyses and discussions within sociology.
7. Rational Decision-Making in Sociology and Economics
Rational Choice Theory stands as a foundational perspec-
tive within sociology and economics, proposing that individuals
engage in decision-making processes driven by rational calcula-
tions aimed at optimizing their gains while minimizing their
costs. This theory roots its fundamental premise in the assump-
tion that individuals are rational actors who possess clear pref-
erences, employ logical reasoning, and act purposefully to
achieve their self-interest. At the core of Rational Choice Theo-
ry lies the belief that human behavior is fundamentally driven
by a cost-benefit analysis, wherein individuals weigh the poten-
tial advantages and disadvantages of various courses of action
before making decisions. Central to Rational Choice Theory is
the notion of utility maximization, wherein individuals strive to
maximize the benefits or ‘utility’ derived from their choices.
This utility can encompass various forms, from economic gains
to social or emotional satisfaction. It assumes that individuals
aim to make choices that offer the highest possible utility or
satisfaction, given the constraints they face (Akinyoade, 2013;
www.socialsciencechronicle.com
https://doi.org/10.56106/ssc.2021.006
Churton & Brown, 2017; Giroux & Robbins, 2015; Morris &
Herring, 1984; Scambler & Scambler, 2015). The decision-
making process, therefore, is seen as a rational calculation to
achieve the most favorable outcome. This theoretical perspec-
tive applies not only to economic choices but extends to a
broad spectrum of decisions in various aspects of life, such as
personal relationships, education, career, and even criminal
behavior. It postulates that individuals assess the potential
costs and benefits associated with each decision and opt for the
alternative that promises the most favorable outcome, given
their preferences and constraints. For example, in economic
scenarios, a rational individual would opt for a higher-paying
job over a lower-paying one, assuming all other factors remain
equal.
Moreover, Rational Choice Theory highlights the role of
constraints and information in decision-making. Individuals
might face limitations such as time, resources, or information
when making choices (Alexander & Colomy, 1985; Bengtson,
Burgess, & Parrott, 1997; Gewirtz & Cribb, 2009; Luhmann,
2018; J. H. Turner, 1988). This theory assumes that individuals
make rational decisions based on the information available to
them at the time of the decision. Consequently, the accuracy
and comprehensiveness of information play a pivotal role in
rational decision-making. A lack of information or misinfor-
mation may lead to decisions that deviate from optimal out-
comes. Critically, this theory assumes that individuals act inde-
pendently, considering their own self-interests when making
decisions. It acknowledges that individuals might have different
preferences and goals, and as rational actors, they act in ways
that best serve their own interests. This element of self-interest
is central to Rational Choice Theory, presupposing that indi-
viduals prioritize their personal welfare when making choices.
However, Rational Choice Theory faces several critiques.
Critics argue that it might oversimplify human behavior,
ignoring the influence of emotions, social norms, and other
non-rational factors that often play a crucial role in decision-
making. Additionally, it has been challenged for assuming per-
fect information and perfect rationality, which might not align
with real-world decision-making processes. In contemporary
sociological and economic studies, Rational Choice Theory
remains an influential perspective despite its limitations. While
acknowledging the complexities inherent in human decision-
making, this theory continues to offer valuable insights into the
ways individuals evaluate choices and make decisions in various
domains. Scholars often integrate Rational Choice Theory with
other theoretical perspectives, such as behavioral economics or
social exchange theory, to capture the nuances and intricacies
of decision-making processes. This integration of multiple per-
spectives enhances the understanding of human behavior and
decision-making within different contexts (Levine, 1995; Neu-
ber, 2011; Nichols, 2003; Sharrock, Hughes, & Martin, 2003).
Moreover, Rational Choice Theory has found applications
in diverse fields, including political science, criminology, and
sociology. In political science, it’s used to analyze voting behav-
iors and political decision-making. In criminology, it underpins
analyses of criminal behavior, examining how individuals weigh
the potential gains and risks before engaging in illegal activities.
In sociology, it’s employed to understand social interactions
and collective behaviors within communities. The interdiscipli-
nary applications and adaptability of Rational Choice Theory
contribute to its enduring relevance and significance in study-
Page 6 of 15
Social Science Chronicle
ing human behavior and decision-making processes. While
acknowledging its simplifications and limitations, the theory’s
utility in explaining decision-making continues to shape re-
search and analyses across multiple disciplines, offering a foun-
dational framework for understanding the rational underpin-
nings of human behavior in various contexts.
8. Social Interaction through Exchange Dynamics
Social Exchange Theory, a foundational perspective within
sociology, dives deep into the intricate dynamics of relation-
ships and interactions, centering on the give-and-take processes
among individuals. This theory posits that social interactions
are analogous to economic transactions, wherein individuals
engage in a calculated process of exchanging resources—be
they tangible or intangible—to maximize benefits and minimize
costs (Buechler, 2008; Michalowski, 2016). Derived from the
works of theorists such as George Homans and Peter Blau,
Social Exchange Theory elucidates the dynamics of interper-
sonal relationships, emphasizing the inherent balance of reci-
procity, negotiation, and the rational evaluation of costs and
rewards within these interactions. The core tenet of Social Ex-
change Theory revolves around the notion of social relation-
ships as transactions in which individuals weigh the potential
benefits and costs of their interactions. Much like an economic
exchange, individuals assess the ‘rewards’ or benefits they an-
ticipate receiving from the relationship against the ‘costs’ they
might incur.
Rewards can encompass a spectrum of elements, from
emotional support and companionship to material resources or
information, while costs might involve time, effort, or emo-
tional strain. Individuals seek to maximize rewards while mini-
mizing costs in their interactions, aiming to achieve a favorable
‘profit’ in their social transactions. Furthermore, this theory
underlines the significance of the ‘comparison level’ and the
‘comparison level for alternatives’ in shaping individuals’ per-
ceptions of their relationships. The comparison level denotes
an individual’s expectation of what they believe they deserve or
should receive in a relationship. If the actual rewards in a rela-
tionship meet or exceed this comparison level, individuals per-
ceive the relationship as satisfactory. The comparison level for
alternatives, on the other hand, refers to an individual’s evalua-
tion of potential alternatives available outside the current rela-
tionship. If an individual believes that the potential rewards
from an alternative relationship surpass those of the current
one, they might be inclined to terminate or seek modifications
in the existing relationship.
The theory emphasizes the role of reciprocity in relation-
ships, underscoring that individuals engage in social interac-
tions with an implicit expectation of reciprocity. This notion
aligns with the belief that individuals feel obliged to reciprocate
in kind if someone provides them with resources or favors.
Moreover, Social Exchange Theory explores the concept of
equity in relationships, positing that individuals seek a fair and
balanced exchange of resources within their interactions. If one
party feels they are contributing more or receiving less than the
other, it might lead to dissatisfaction and potential adjustments
in the relationship to restore balance. The application of Social
Exchange Theory extends to diverse relationships, from friend-
ships and romantic partnerships to professional networks and
community engagements. Within friendships, individuals might
Page 7 of 15
exchange emotional support, trust, and companionship while
evaluating the equity and reciprocity of these exchanges. In
romantic relationships, the theory explicates the exchange of
love, intimacy, and material support, emphasizing the im-
portance of fairness and balance in these interactions. In pro-
fessional networks, individuals may engage in exchanges of
knowledge, opportunities, and support while assessing the
costs and rewards within these networks.
Similarly, community engagements and societal interactions
are analyzed through the lens of Social Exchange Theory, elu-
cidating the dynamics of give-and-take in communal relation-
ships. Critics of Social Exchange Theory point to its limitations
in accounting for the complexities of human relationships.
Some argue that reducing relationships to mere cost-benefit
analyses overlooks the emotional, cultural, and contextual as-
pects that significantly shape interactions. Additionally, the
theory’s focus on the quantification of rewards and costs might
oversimplify the multifaceted nature of relationships. However,
in contemporary sociological analyses, Social Exchange Theory
remains a valuable perspective in understanding the dynamics
of social interactions. Scholars have integrated this theory with
other frameworks, such as relational dialectics or communica-
tion theory, to capture the intricacies and complexities of rela-
tionships. This integration allows for a more comprehensive
understanding of the multifaceted nature of human interactions
and the diverse mechanisms at play within different relation-
ship contexts.
Furthermore, the applications of Social Exchange Theory
extend beyond sociology to fields such as psychology, econom-
ics, and organizational behavior. In psychology, this theory
informs studies on interpersonal relationships, shedding light
on the dynamics of exchange and reciprocity within these rela-
tionships. In economics, aspects of Social Exchange Theory are
integrated into analyses of consumer behavior and market
transactions, emphasizing the rational evaluation of costs and
benefits. In organizational behavior, the theory elucidates the
dynamics of employee-employer relationships and the give-
and-take dynamics within these interactions. The interdiscipli-
nary applications of Social Exchange Theory underscore its
enduring relevance and influence in understanding human in-
teractions within various contexts. While acknowledging its
simplifications and limitations, the theory’s utility in explaining
the dynamics of social transactions continues to shape research
and analyses across multiple disciplines, offering a foundational
framework for understanding the rational underpinnings of
social interactions and relationships in diverse settings.
9. Fragmented Realities in Postmodern Societies
Postmodernism stands as a pivotal and multifaceted
framework that significantly challenges the foundations of tra-
ditional sociological theories, advocating a radical reevaluation
of the conventional understanding of truth, reality, and the
structures that govern society. Emerging as a response to
modernism’s emphasis on rationality, progress, and universal
truths, postmodernism presents an alternative lens through
which to perceive and analyze the world. Central to this per-
spective is the rejection of the idea of a singular, absolute truth
and the recognition of the inherently fluid, subjective, and ever-
changing nature of societal constructs. At its core, postmodern-
ism questions the validity of metanarratives—grand, overarch-
Social Science Chronicle
ing stories or theories that claim to explain all of history, socie-
ty, or human existence. It challenges the notion that there is a
single truth or reality that underpins all social phenomena. In-
stead, postmodernism posits that reality is fragmented, diverse,
and multifaceted, shaped by varying perspectives, experiences,
and interpretations. This perspective emphasizes the subjective
nature of truth, contending that reality is a construct influenced
by individual perceptions and shaped by the cultural, historical,
and social contexts in which individuals exist. Postmodernism
challenges the belief in stable, fixed truths and asserts the idea
of “hyperreality,” a concept that delineates the blurring of
boundaries between reality and simulations or representations.
It contends that in a postmodern society, the distinction be-
tween what is real and what is a representation of reality be-
comes increasingly indistinct.
For instance, the prevalence of media, advertising, and digi-
tal technologies has created a landscape where representations
and simulations can often be perceived as reality. The prolifera-
tion of social media, for instance, allows individuals to curate
and project their identities, blurring the line between reality and
constructed personas. Moreover, postmodernism critiques the
idea of stable, enduring identities and instead advocates for a
fluid, decentered understanding of the self. It contests the no-
tion of a unified, coherent self and highlights the multiplicity of
identities and experiences that individuals encompass. The self
is perceived as contingent, context-dependent, and fragmented,
shaped by various social, cultural, and historical influences.
This fluidity challenges traditional notions of identity, question-
ing the stability and coherence of individual selves. One of the
fundamental aspects of postmodernism is its emphasis on the
deconstruction of binary oppositions and hierarchies. It ques-
tions the validity of binaries such as good/evil, male/female, or
nature/culture, highlighting their artificiality and their role in
creating and perpetuating power differentials and hierarchies
within society. Postmodernism contends that these oppositions
are not fixed but are socially constructed, and their deconstruc-
tion allows for a more nuanced understanding of the complexi-
ties inherent in these concepts.
Postmodernism’s critique extends to traditional sociological
theories, such as functionalism and structuralism, emphasizing
their limitations in capturing the complexities and dynamics of
a postmodern society. It questions the assumption of grand
narratives and overarching truths posited by these theories,
advocating instead for a more fragmented, contextual, and
diverse understanding of societal phenomena. The fluidity and
subjectivity of postmodern thought provide a powerful lens to
examine the contemporary, rapidly changing, and globalized
world, which evades singular explanations and resists overarch-
ing theories. Critics of postmodernism highlight concerns
about the potential for a loss of objective truth and the erosion
of common values or standards. They argue that the emphasis
on subjectivity and the rejection of overarching narratives
might lead to relativism, where all perspectives and truths are
considered equally valid, potentially undermining shared under-
standings and collective meaning-making processes within
society. In contemporary discourse, postmodernism’s influence
pervades various fields beyond sociology, including art, litera-
ture, philosophy, and cultural studies. Its impact extends to
diverse domains, challenging established norms, perspectives,
and narratives. Within art and literature, for instance, postmod-
ernism rejects traditional forms and challenges linear narratives,
embracing fragmentation and intertextuality. In philosophy, it
www.socialsciencechronicle.com
https://doi.org/10.56106/ssc.2021.006
offers new ways of understanding knowledge and reality, ex-
ploring diverse perspectives and the limitations of language in
capturing truth. In cultural studies, postmodernism is instru-
mental in analyzing the complexities of a rapidly changing,
globalized world, where diverse cultural influences intersect
and interact. The interdisciplinary applications and adaptability
of postmodern thought continue to shape discussions and
analyses, leading to a deeper understanding of the complexities
inherent in contemporary societies. While acknowledging its
limitations and the critiques it faces, postmodernism’s influence
in challenging established norms and providing a more nu-
anced understanding of the multifaceted nature of reality and
society remains significant. Its enduring legacy lies in its radical
reevaluation of truth, reality, and societal constructs, fostering
diverse perspectives and fostering critical analyses that contrib-
ute to the ongoing dialogue surrounding the complexities of
the postmodern world.
10. Exploring Subjective Realities of Phenomenology
Phenomenology, a foundational theory in the realms of
philosophy and sociology, accentuates a radical departure from
the traditional objective stance of examining the world, steering
towards a comprehensive understanding of subjective experi-
ences, interpretations, and the intricate process through which
individuals construct and make sense of their reality. Rooted in
the works of philosophers like Edmund Husserl and later ex-
pounded upon by thinkers such as Martin Heidegger and Mau-
rice Merleau-Ponty, phenomenology posits that reality is not an
objective entity that exists independently of human conscious-
ness but is actively shaped and interpreted by the subjective
experiences and consciousness of individuals. At its essence,
phenomenology concerns itself with the study of phenome-
na—events, occurrences, or experiences—as they manifest in
an individual’s consciousness. It emphasizes the lived experi-
ences of individuals, recognizing these experiences as the pri-
mary source of knowledge about the world.
Phenomenology endeavors to explore the structures and
meanings of these experiences and how individuals actively
interpret and give significance to the world around them. The
focus lies on understanding the essence and content of these
lived experiences, rather than aiming to uncover an objective
truth that exists independently of human perception. One of
the fundamental premises of phenomenology is the suspension
of judgment and preconceptions about the world. This process,
termed ‘bracketing’ or ‘epoche,’ encourages researchers to set
aside preconceived notions and assumptions about reality. By
suspending judgment, individuals can engage in a more open
and unbiased exploration of the phenomena as experienced by
individuals. This approach allows for a clearer examination of
the richness and complexity inherent in individual experiences,
unencumbered by external influences or biases. Phenomenolo-
gy emphasizes the concept of ‘intentionality,’ highlighting that
consciousness is always consciousness of something. In simpler
terms, every experience or perception is directed towards an
object or something external. This intentional nature of con-
sciousness underscores the interconnectedness between the
subject (the experiencing individual) and the object (what is
being experienced). This lens encourages the examination of
how individuals actively engage with and interpret their experi-
ences, shaping their understanding of the world. Moreover,
phenomenology underscores the significance of ‘lifeworld’ or
Page 8 of 15
Social Science Chronicle
‘Lebenswelt,’ describing the everyday world as experienced and
interpreted by individuals. It encompasses the multitude of
experiences, emotions, perceptions, and social interactions that
constitute an individual’s lived reality. The lifeworld serves as
the canvas upon which individuals construct their understand-
ing of the world, providing the context and foundation for
their experiences and interpretations. This concept emphasizes
that individuals’ understanding of the world is deeply rooted in
their subjective experiences within their lifeworld.
Phenomenology, with its focus on subjectivity and individ-
ual experiences, has critical implications for understanding and
interpreting various aspects of human life, ranging from per-
ception and embodiment to social interactions and culture. In
perception, phenomenology explores how individuals perceive
and make sense of the world through their senses, underscor-
ing that perception is not a passive reception of stimuli but an
active, interpretative process that involves the individual’s ex-
periences, beliefs, and context. In embodiment, it elucidates
how individuals experience the world through their bodies,
emphasizing the embodied nature of human consciousness and
the impact of the body on the experiences and interpretations
of reality. Social interactions are also a significant domain in
phenomenology, with an emphasis on how individuals con-
struct meaning and interpret their social world through their
interactions with others. It highlights the shared meanings and
interpretations individuals create in their social encounters,
contributing to the construction of a shared reality within a
community or society. Critics of phenomenology raise con-
cerns about its subjective nature and its potential to overlook
objective truths or realities. Some argue that by emphasizing
individual experiences and interpretations, phenomenology
might not account for a shared, objective reality that exists
independently of subjective experiences.
However, in contemporary philosophical and sociological
discourse, phenomenology remains an influential and multifac-
eted framework, contributing significantly to the understanding
of subjective experiences and interpretations. The integration
of phenomenology with other theoretical perspectives, such as
hermeneutics or critical theory, offers a more comprehensive
understanding of the complexities inherent in human experi-
ences and the diverse mechanisms at play within different con-
texts. The applications of phenomenology extend beyond phi-
losophy and sociology, encompassing various fields such as
psychology, healthcare, and education. In psychology, phe-
nomenology informs studies on consciousness, perception, and
human experiences, shedding light on the diverse and subjec-
tive nature of individual experiences. In healthcare, it aids in
understanding patients’ experiences and perspectives, providing
a more holistic approach to care that incorporates the subjec-
tive experiences of individuals. In education, phenomenology
informs teaching and learning practices by focusing on the
students’ experiences and interpretations, promoting a student-
centered approach that acknowledges the diversity of experi-
ences within the classroom. The interdisciplinary applications
and adaptability of phenomenological thought continue to
shape discussions and analyses, leading to a deeper understand-
ing of the complexities inherent in human experiences. While
acknowledging its limitations and the critiques it faces, phe-
nomenology’s influence in illuminating the subjective nature of
human experiences remains significant. Its enduring legacy lies
in its radical reevaluation of truth, reality, and individual experi-
ences, fostering diverse perspectives and fostering critical anal-
Page 9 of 15
yses that contribute to the ongoing dialogue surrounding the
complexities of human consciousness and lived experiences.
11. Critical Theory in Deconstructing Injustice
Critical Theory serves as a fundamental and transformative
lens within sociology, characterized by its rigorous critique of
societal structures, norms, and power dynamics with the ulti-
mate goal of fostering social change and justice. Rooted in the
works of scholars such as Max Horkheimer, Theodor Adorno,
and Herbert Marcuse at the Frankfurt School in the mid-20th
century, Critical Theory emerged as a response to the limita-
tions of traditional sociological theories and as a means to un-
ravel and challenge the prevailing power structures that perpet-
uate inequalities and social injustices. At its core, Critical Theo-
ry posits that societal structures, norms, and institutions are not
neutral or impartial but are inherently shaped by and perpetu-
ate power imbalances, hierarchies, and systemic oppressions. It
examines the ways in which these structures maintain and rein-
force domination, exclusion, and exploitation, particularly of
marginalized or underprivileged groups within society. Critical
Theory challenges the status quo by shedding light on the un-
derlying mechanisms that sustain social inequalities and perpet-
uate oppressive systems.
This approach encompasses a wide array of critical per-
spectives, including Marxist theory, feminist theory, critical race
theory, and postcolonial theory, among others. These various
strands share a common goal: to analyze and deconstruct the
power dynamics and structural inequalities within society.
While each branch has its specific focus, they collectively em-
phasize the need to critique and transform societal structures to
promote social justice and equality. Critical Theory emphasizes
the examination of the underlying power dynamics and hierar-
chies within society. It challenges the notion that power oper-
ates neutrally and suggests that it is often wielded by dominant
groups to maintain control over marginalized or oppressed
groups. This lens scrutinizes the ways in which power is uti-
lized to perpetuate social inequalities, exclusion, and exploita-
tion. It sheds light on how certain groups maintain their domi-
nance by controlling resources, institutions, and discourses,
thus reproducing and reinforcing systemic injustices. Further-
more, Critical Theory accentuates the importance of praxis—
the intersection of theory and practice—in effecting social
change.
It asserts that theoretical analyses should not remain in the
realm of abstract critique but should be translated into action
aimed at transforming oppressive structures and promoting
social justice. The goal is to empower marginalized groups and
challenge the status quo by fostering activism, social move-
ments, and policy changes that aim to dismantle oppressive
structures. One of the fundamental aspects of Critical Theory
is its emphasis on the role of ideology in shaping and perpetu-
ating societal inequalities. It contends that ideologies, often
propagated by dominant groups, serve to justify and maintain
the status quo. These ideologies frame and justify social hierar-
chies and power imbalances, leading to the naturalization and
perpetuation of oppressive structures. Critical Theory aims to
unveil these ideologies, critique their underlying premises, and
challenge the narratives that sustain inequality and injustice.
Moreover, Critical Theory encourages reflexivity and self-
critique. It calls for individuals to critically analyze their own
Social Science Chronicle
positions, privileges, and biases within society. By acknowledg-
ing one’s own role within power structures and recognizing
personal biases, individuals can better engage in the process of
dismantling oppressive structures and promoting social justice.
Critics of Critical Theory often argue that it can be too focused
on critique and can lack concrete solutions or action plans for
social change. Additionally, critics raise concerns about poten-
tial ideological biases within Critical Theory and its potential to
discredit other viewpoints by labeling them as part of oppres-
sive structures.
In contemporary sociology and social sciences, Critical
Theory remains a powerful and influential framework, shaping
discussions and analyses aimed at understanding and challeng-
ing oppressive structures. Scholars and practitioners have ex-
tended the applications of Critical Theory to various domains,
including education, politics, and cultural studies. In education,
it informs pedagogical approaches aimed at fostering critical
thinking, social consciousness, and activism among students. In
politics, it influences analyses of power structures and policy-
making, advocating for social justice-oriented policies. In cul-
tural studies, Critical Theory is instrumental in analyzing the
power dynamics and ideologies perpetuated within cultural
expressions and representations. The interdisciplinary applica-
tions and adaptability of Critical Theory continue to shape
discussions and analyses, leading to a deeper understanding of
the complexities inherent in societal structures and power dy-
namics. While acknowledging its limitations and the critiques it
faces, the enduring legacy of Critical Theory lies in its radical
critique of societal injustices, fostering diverse perspectives,
and promoting critical analyses that contribute to ongoing dis-
cussions on social justice and equity. Its influence remains sig-
nificant in challenging and transforming oppressive structures
within society, advocating for a more just and equitable world.
12. Conclusion
In this comprehensive exploration of sociological theories,
we have delved into a rich amalgamation of frameworks that
provide critical lenses through which we perceive and under-
stand the intricate dynamics of human society. From Function-
alism to Critical Theory, these theoretical paradigms offer di-
verse perspectives on how society functions, how power is
wielded, and how individuals interpret and construct their so-
cial reality. By synthesizing and juxtaposing these theories, this
research paper has endeavored to provide a holistic view of the
multifaceted nature of societal dynamics. The journey through
these theories has revealed the profound impact they have on
sociological inquiry, shaping the ways in which scholars and
researchers analyze and interpret the complexities of human
behavior, societal structures, and power dynamics. Each theory
brings its unique insights and critical focus, offering a particular
lens through which the social world can be illuminated. From
the macro-level perspectives that scrutinize the grand struc-
tures of society to the micro-level approaches that delve into
individual interactions, these frameworks collectively enrich
our understanding of society. Functionalism, which views soci-
ety as a system of interconnected parts working together to
maintain stability and social equilibrium, highlights the interde-
pendence of various social institutions. The examination of
Functionalism underscores the intricate balance that exists
within society, with each component contributing to the overall
functioning of the social system. By understanding how institu-
www.socialsciencechronicle.com
https://doi.org/10.56106/ssc.2021.006
tions fulfill vital functions, Functionalism provides an essential
perspective on societal cohesion.
On the other hand, Conflict Theory, with its focus on
power differentials, social stratification, and the perpetual con-
flict between dominant and subordinate groups, reveals the
inequalities and disparities that arise from the struggle for re-
sources and power. It challenges the prevailing social order and
emphasizes the role of power in shaping societal dynamics. The
insights gained from Conflict Theory contribute to an in-depth
analysis of power dynamics within society. Symbolic Interac-
tionism, which scrutinizes how shared symbols and meanings
shape social interactions, underlines the significance of com-
munication and interaction in constructing individual identities
and social reality. This perspective dives deep into the world of
micro-level interactions, offering a profound understanding of
the role of symbols in shaping human behavior. Symbolic In-
teractionism provides valuable insights into the realm of every-
day interactions. Feminist Theory, emerging from multiple
strands, seeks to challenge the gender-based disparities and the
structural oppression of women. This critical lens emphasizes
the pervasive gender inequalities and advocates for gender
equality, pushing for social reforms to rectify historical and
contemporary marginalization.
Feminist Theory sheds light on the importance of disman-
tling gender-based oppression. Structuralism explores how
societal structures influence individual behavior, emphasizing
the role of larger societal systems in shaping human experienc-
es. The examination of Structuralism underscores the stability
and interconnectedness of societal systems and their influence
on individual agency. This perspective offers insights into the
impact of societal structures on individual behavior. Rational
Choice Theory, rooted in economics and later extended to
sociology, posits that individuals make decisions based on ra-
tional calculations to maximize benefits and minimize costs.
This perspective dives deep into the strategic evaluation of
costs and benefits, revealing how individuals navigate their
choices in various domains of life. Rational Choice Theory
contributes to an understanding of individual decision-making
processes. Social Exchange Theory, akin to Rational Choice
Theory, focuses on relationships and interactions, examining
the give-and-take dynamics among individuals. This perspec-
tive elucidates social interactions as akin to economic transac-
tions, emphasizing the calculated process of exchanging re-
sources to maximize benefits and minimize costs within rela-
tionships.
Social Exchange Theory offers insights into the dynamics
of social interactions. Phenomenology, which emphasizes the
subjective experiences of individuals and how they interpret
and make sense of their world, challenges the objectivity of
reality. It underscores the significance of lived experiences and
the interpretation of the world through individual conscious-
ness. Phenomenology contributes to a deeper understanding of
individual subjectivity and the construction of reality. Lastly,
Critical Theory, serving as a transformative lens, critiques soci-
etal structures, norms, and power dynamics. Its aim is to trans-
form oppressive systems and advocate for social justice. This
critical framework sheds light on the underlying power dynam-
ics and systemic oppressions within society, fostering analyses
that aim to dismantle oppressive structures and foster social
change. The synthesis of these diverse theoretical perspectives
has unveiled not only the individual contributions of each
Page 10 of 15
 Social Science Chronicle

framework but also the interconnectedness and mutual rein-
forcement among these theories. As we have traversed through
the complexities of sociology, it becomes evident that these
perspectives are not isolated silos; rather, they converge to
provide a holistic understanding of societal phenomena. By
integrating these various lenses, we can achieve a more com-
prehensive understanding of the intricacies of human behavior,
societal structures, and power dynamics.
The integration of these theoretical perspectives offers a
nuanced understanding of societal phenomena, enabling critical
analyses that aim to unravel the complex web of human experi-
ences within society. It positions us to not only gain a deeper
understanding of the social world but also empowers us to
critically evaluate societal structures and power dynamics, ulti-
mately paving the way for potential social transformations. The
diverse theoretical frameworks presented in this research paper
underscore the importance of rigorous critique, deep analysis,
and the constant pursuit of social justice. As we conclude this
journey through sociological theories, it is worth noting the
enduring relevance and significance of these frameworks.
While they have been critiqued, adapted, and evolved over
time, their influence in shaping sociological research and fos-
tering our understanding of society remains pivotal.
These theories continue to inform research, policy-making,
and social movements, serving as invaluable tools for those
seeking to comprehend, critique, and transform the complex
web of human social interactions. In contemporary sociology,
the integration and adaptation of these theoretical frameworks
continue to shape discussions and analyses, leading to a deeper
understanding of the intricacies inherent in societal structures
and power dynamics. Their interdisciplinary applications ex-
tend beyond the realms of academia, influencing policy deci-
sions, social movements, and the broader societal discourse.
The enduring legacy of sociological theories lies in their ability
to empower individuals and communities to critically analyze
the social world, advocate for social justice, and pave the way
for a more equitable and just society. In conclusion, the multi-
tude of theoretical perspectives within sociology offers a com-
prehensive lens through which we can scrutinize and interpret
the complexities of human society. As we navigate the ever-
evolving landscape of social interactions and power structures,
these frameworks stand as guiding lights, illuminating the path
toward deeper understanding and transformative change. The
rich amalgamation of sociological theories remains an enduring
testament to our commitment to unravelling the intricate dy-
namics of human society and fostering a world where justice
and equality prevail.

Funding Information:
This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Disclosure Statement:
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Competing Interest:
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Data Availability Statement:

Data sharing is not applicable to this article as no new data were created or analysed in this study.

References

▪ Abrutyn, S. (2013). Revisiting institutionalism in sociology: Putting the “institution” back in institutional analysis: Routledge.
▪ Akinyoade, D. (2013). Theories in peace and conflict research.
▪ Alexander, J. C., & Colomy, P. (1985). Toward neo-functionalism. Sociological Theory, 3(2), 11-23.
▪ Allan, K. (2005). Explorations in classical sociological theory: Seeing the social world: Pine Forge Press.
▪ Allan, K. (2013). The social lens: An invitation to social and sociological theory: Sage Publications.
▪ Baert, P., & Da Silva, F. C. (2010). Social theory in the twentieth century and beyond: Polity.
▪ Ballantine, J., & Hammack, F. M. (2015). The sociology of education: A systematic analysis: Routledge.
▪ Ballantine, J. H., & Roberts, K. A. (2008). Our social world: Introduction to sociology: Pine forge press.
▪ Barbalet, J. M. (2001). Emotion, social theory, and social structure: A macrosociological approach: Cambridge University Press.
▪ Bengtson, V. L., Burgess, E. O., & Parrott, T. M. (1997). Theory, explanation, and a third generation of theoretical development in
social gerontology. The Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 52(2), S72-S88.
▪ Bernardi, F., González, J. J., & Requena, M. (2007). The sociology of social structure. 21st century sociology: A reference handbook, 1, 162-
170.
▪ Bernstein, R. J. (1986). Structuration as critical theory. Praxis International, 6(2), 235-249.
▪ Biddle, B. J. (1986). Recent developments in role theory. Annual review of sociology, 12(1), 67-92.
▪ Blumer, H. (1986). Symbolic interactionism: Perspective and method: Univ of California Press.
▪ Boltanski, L., Honneth, A., & Celikates, R. (2014). Sociology of Critique or Critical Theory? Luc Boltanski and Axel Honneth in
Conversation with Robin Celikates. Translated by Simon Susen.

Page 11 of 15
Social Science Chronicle https://doi.org/10.56106/ssc.2021.006

▪ Branom, C. (2014). Perspectives of Social Justice in Sociology. Social Justice and Social Work: Rediscovering a Core Value of the Profession,
125-138.
▪ Brantlinger, E., & Danforth, S. (2006). Critical theory perspective on social class, race, gender, and classroom management. Handbook
of classroom management: Research, practice, and contemporary issues, 157-179.
▪ Brent, E., Brent, E. E., & Lewis, J. S. (2013). Learn sociology: Jones & Bartlett Publishers.
▪ Brickell, C. (2006). The sociological construction of gender and sexuality. The Sociological Review, 54(1), 87-113.
▪ Browne, C. (2016). Critical social theory: Sage.
▪ Buechler, S. (2008). What is critical about sociology? Teaching Sociology, 36(4), 318-330.
▪ Burrell, G., & Morgan, G. (2017). Sociological paradigms and organisational analysis: Elements of the sociology of corporate life: Routledge.
▪ Buzan, B. (2004). From international to world society?: English school theory and the social structure of globalisation (Vol. 95): Cambridge University
Press.
▪ Callero, P. L. (2003). The sociology of the self. Annual review of sociology, 29(1), 115-133.
▪ Capper, C. A. (1993). Educational administration in a pluralistic society.
▪ Carter, M. J., & Fuller, C. (2016). Symbols, meaning, and action: The past, present, and future of symbolic interactionism. Current
sociology, 64(6), 931-961.
▪ Catton Jr, W. R., & Dunlap, R. E. (1978). Environmental sociology: A new paradigm. The american sociologist, 41-49.
▪ Cetina, K. K., & Cicourel, A. V. (2014). Advances in social theory and methodology (RLE social theory): Toward an integration of micro-and macro-
sociologies: Routledge.
▪ Chang, J. H. Y. (2004). Mead's theory of emergence as a framework for multilevel sociological inquiry. Symbolic Interaction, 27(3), 405-
427.
▪ Charmaz, K. (2011). Grounded theory methods in social justice research. Strategies of qualitative inquiry, 4(1), 359-380.
▪ Chiareli, A. A. (2019a). Applying the" Christian Sociological Re-Imagination" Approach: An Analysis of Illegal Immigration in the US.
Journal of Sociology and Christianity, 9(2), 29-54.
▪ Chiareli, A. A. (2019b). Constructing a" Christian Sociological Re-Imagination:" Creation, Fall, and Redemption as a Unifying
Analytical Framework. Journal of Sociology and Christianity, 9(1), 27-47.
▪ Churton, M., & Brown, A. (2017). Theory and method: Bloomsbury Publishing.
▪ Cicourel, A. V. (1995). The social organization of juvenile justice (Vol. 36): Transaction Publishers.
▪ Clarke, A. E. (1991). Social worlds/arenas theory as organizational theory. Social organization and social process: Essays in honor of Anselm
Strauss, 119.
▪ Cockerham, W. C. (2007). Social causes of health and disease: Polity.
▪ Collinson, D. (2005). Dialectics of leadership. Human relations, 58(11), 1419-1442.
▪ Conyers, A., & Calhoun, T. C. (2015). The interactionist approach to deviance. The handbook of deviance, 259-276.
▪ Côté, J.-F. (2019). The past, present, and future of GH Mead in symbolic interactionism: A dialectical encounter around the issue of
feminism, power, and society. In The Interaction Order (Vol. 50, pp. 117-140): Emerald Publishing Limited.
▪ Cronk, G. F. (1973). Symbolic Interactionism: A" Left-Meadian" Interpretation. Social Theory and Practice, 2(3), 313-333.
▪ Davis, N. J. (1972). Labeling theory in deviance research: A critique and reconsideration. The Sociological Quarterly, 13(4), 447-474.
▪ Delaney, T. (2015). Connecting sociology to our lives: An introduction to sociology: Routledge.
▪ Dennis, A., & Martin, P. J. (2005). Symbolic interactionism and the concept of power. The British journal of sociology, 56(2), 191-213.
▪ Denzin, N. K. (2005). Symbolic interactionism and ethnomethodology: A proposed synthesis. Contemporary Sociological Thought, 123.
▪ Denzin, N. K. (2017). The research act: A theoretical introduction to sociological methods: Transaction publishers.
▪ Doda, Z. (2005). Introduction to sociology. In: Ethiopia pubilic health.
▪ Doing, S. (2001). Sociological perspectives.
▪ Dunlap, R. E. (2002). Paradigms, theories, and environmental sociology. Sociological theory and the environment: Classical foundations,
contemporary insights, 329-350.
▪ Eder, K. (1993). The new politics of class: Social movements and cultural dynamics in advanced societies (Vol. 23): Sage.
▪ Eder, K. (2015). Social movements in social theory. The Oxford handbook of social movements, 31-49.
▪ Edgley, C. (2003). The dramaturgical genre. Handbook of symbolic interactionism, 140-172.
▪ Eisenstadt, S. N. (1990). Functional analysis in anthropology and sociology: An interpretative essay. Annual Review of Anthropology,
19(1), 243-260.
▪ Eisenstadt, S. N. (1995). Power, trust, and meaning: Essays in sociological theory and analysis: University of Chicago Press.
▪ Estes, C. L., & Edmonds, B. C. (1981). Symbolic interaction and social policy analysis. Symbolic Interaction, 4(1), 75-86.
▪ Fararo, T. J. (2001). Social action systems: Foundation and synthesis in sociological theory: Bloomsbury Publishing USA.
▪ Fine, G. A. (1990). Symbolic interactionism in the post-Blumerian age. In Frontiers of social theory. The new syntheses (pp. 117-157):
Columbia University Press.
▪ Fine, G. A. (1993). The sad demise, mysterious disappearance, and glorious triumph of symbolic interactionism. Annual review of
sociology, 19(1), 61-87.
▪ Fine, G. A. (1995). A second Chicago school?: The development of a postwar American sociology: University of Chicago Press.
▪ Forte, J. A. (2004). Symbolic interactionism and social work: A forgotten legacy, Part 1. Families in society, 85(3), 391-400.
▪ Fox, R. C., Lidz, V. M., & Bershady, H. J. (2005). After Parsons: A theory of social action for the twenty-first century: Russell Sage Foundation.
▪ Fuchs, C. (2006). The self-organization of social movements. Systemic practice and action research, 19, 101-137.
▪ Gewirtz, S., & Cribb, A. (2009). Understanding education: A sociological perspective: Polity.
▪ Giddens, A., & Griffiths, S. (2006). Sociology: Polity.
▪ Giroux, H. A. (1980a). Beyond the correspondence theory: Notes on the dynamics of educational reproduction and transformation.
Curriculum Inquiry, 10(3), 225-247.
▪ Giroux, H. A. (1980b). Critical theory and rationality in citizenship education. Curriculum Inquiry, 10(4), 329-366.

www.socialsciencechronicle.com
Page 12 of 15
Social Science Chronicle

▪ Giroux, H. A. (1982). The politics of educational theory. Social Text(5), 87-107.

▪ Giroux, H. A., & Robbins, C. G. (2015). Theories of reproduction and resistance in the new sociology of education: Toward a critical
theory of schooling and pedagogy for the opposition. In Giroux Reader (pp. 3-45): Routledge.
▪ Giulianotti, R. (2015). Sport: A critical sociology: John Wiley & Sons.
▪ Godwyn, M., & Gittell, J. H. (2011). Sociology of organizations: Structures and relationships: Sage Publications.
▪ Görke, A., & Scholl, A. (2006). Niklas Luhmann's theory of social systems and journalism research. Journalism studies, 7(4), 644-655.
▪ Griswold, W. (2012). Cultures and societies in a changing world: Sage.
▪ Guess, T. J. (2006). The social construction of whiteness: Racism by intent, racism by consequence. Critical Sociology, 32(4), 649-673.
▪ Gumplowicz, L. (1980). Outlines of sociology: Transaction Publishers.
▪ Habermas, J. (1987). The tasks of a critical theory of society. In Modern German Sociology (pp. 187-212): Columbia University Press.
▪ Hall, P. M. (1972). A symbolic interactionist analysis of politics. Sociological Inquiry, 42(3‐4), 35-75.
▪ Hall, P. M. (2003). Interactionism, social organization, and social processes: Looking back and moving ahead. Symbolic Interaction, 26(1),
33-55.
▪ Harper, C., & Snowden, M. (2017). Environment and society: Human perspectives on environmental issues: Routledge.
▪ Hassard, J. (1995). Sociology and organization theory: Positivism, paradigms and postmodernity: Cambridge University Press.
▪ Heilbroner, R. (2012). A Social Ethics Approach to Social Problems. Walls and Bridges: Social Justice and Public Policy, 1.
▪ Henry, S., & Milovanovic, D. (1991). Constitutive criminology: The maturation of critical theory. Criminology, 29(2), 293-316.
▪ Hirsch, M. (2008). The sociology of international economic law: Sociological analysis of the regulation of regional agreements in the
world trading system. European Journal of International Law, 19(2), 277-299.
▪ Hirsch, M. (2018). The Sociological Perspective on International Law. A Revised Version of This Chapter Will Be Included in International
Legal Theory: Foundations and Frontiers (Jeffrey L. Dunoff & Mark A. Pollack, Eds., Cup, Forthcoming), Hebrew University of Jerusalem Legal
Research Paper(19-01).
▪ Howard, J. A. (1994). A social cognitive conception of social structure. Social Psychology Quarterly, 210-227.
▪ Hurrelmann, K. (1988). Social structure and personality development: The individual as a productive processor of reality: CUP Archive.
▪ Hustedde, R. J. (2009). Seven theories for seven community developers. An introduction to community development, 20-37.
▪ Hutchison, E. D. (2003). Dimensions of human behavior: Person and environment (Vol. 1): Sage.
▪ Hutchison, E. D., Charlesworth, L. W., & Cummings, C. (2003). Theoretical perspectives on human behavior. Hutchison (Ed.),
Dimensions of human behavior: Person and environment, 2, 46-88.
▪ Jackson, M. C. (2007). Systems approaches to management: Springer Science & Business Media.
▪ Jackson, P. A., & Smith, S. J. (2014). Exploring Social Geography (Routledge Revivals): Routledge.
▪ Jacobsen, M. H. (2019). Critical and cultural interactionism: Insights from sociology and criminology: Routledge.
▪ Janowitz, M. (1991). On social organization and social control: University of Chicago Press.
▪ Joas, H. (1993). Pragmatism and social theory: University of Chicago Press.
▪ Johnson, D. P. (2008). Symbolic Interaction: Constructing the Social World–and its Participants' Identities. Contemporary Sociological
Theory: An Integrated Multi-Level Approach, 109-135.
▪ Jun, J. S. (2012). The social construction of public administration: Interpretive and critical perspectives: State University of New York Press.
▪ Katovich, M. A., & Reese, W. A. (1993). Postmodern Thought in Symbolic Interaction: Reconstructing Social Inquiry in Light of
Late‐Modern Concerns. Sociological Quarterly, 34(3), 391-411.
▪ Kingsbury, N., & Scanzoni, J. (1993). Structural-functionalism. In Sourcebook of family theories and methods: A contextual approach (pp. 195-
221): Springer.
▪ Király, G., Pataki, G., Köves, A., & Balázs, B. (2013). Models of (future) society: Bringing social theories back in backcasting. Futures,
51, 19-30.
▪ Lamont, M., & Wuthnow, R. (1990). Betwixt and between: Recent cultural sociology in Europe and the United States. In Frontiers of
social theory. The new syntheses (pp. 287-315): Columbia University Press.
▪ Lange, E. (2015). (Re) igniting a sociological imagination in adult education: the continuing relevance of classical theory. International
Journal of Lifelong Education, 34(5), 491-513.
▪ Layder, D. (2014). Structure, Interaction and Social Theory (RLE Social Theory): Routledge.
▪ Lemke, J. L. (2005). Textual politics: Discourse and social dynamics: Taylor & Francis.
▪ Levine, D. N. (1995). Visions of the sociological tradition: University of Chicago Press.
▪ Liu, S. (2015). Law's social forms: A powerless approach to the sociology of law. Law & Social Inquiry, 40(1), 1-28.
▪ Livesay, J. (1985). Normative grounding and praxis: Habermas, Giddens, and a contradiction within critical theory. Sociological Theory,
3(2), 66-76.
▪ Llewellyn, A., Agu, L., & Mercer, D. (2008). Sociology for social workers: Polity.
▪ Lockie, S. (2004). Collective agency, non-human causality and environmental social movements: a case study of the Australian
‘landcare movement’. Journal of sociology, 40(1), 41-57.
▪ Luhmann, N. (2018). Trust and power: John Wiley & Sons.
▪ MacDonald, M. (2001). Finding a critical perspective in grounded theory. Using grounded theory in nursing, 112, 113-158.
▪ Marshall, V. W., & Bengtson, V. L. (2011). Theoretical perspectives on the sociology of aging. Handbook of sociology of aging, 17-33.
▪ Martin, P. Y. (2004). Gender as social institution. Social forces, 82(4), 1249-1273.
▪ Matsueda, R. L. (2006). Differential social organization, collective action, and crime. Crime, law and social change, 46, 3-33.
▪ Matsueda, R. L., & Heimer, K. (1997). A symbolic interactionist theory of role-transitions, role-commitments, and delinquency.
Developmental theories of crime and delinquency, 44(3), 163-213.
▪ McNamee, S., & Glasser, M. (1987). The power concept in sociology: A theoretical assessment. Humboldt Journal of Social Relations, 79-
104.
▪ Merton, R. K. (1996). On social structure and science: University of Chicago Press.
▪ Michalowski, R. J. (2016). What is crime? Critical Criminology, 24, 181-199.

Page 13 of 15
Social Science Chronicle https://doi.org/10.56106/ssc.2021.006

▪ Molnar, G., & Kelly, J. (2013). Sport, exercise and social theory: An introduction: Routledge.
▪ Morris, A., & Herring, C. (1984). Theory and research in social movements: A critical review.
▪ Morrow, R. A., & Torres, C. A. (1995). Social theory and education: A critique of theories of social and cultural reproduction: State University of
New York Press.
▪ Mouzelis, N. P. (2008). Modern and postmodern social theorizing: Bridging the divide: Cambridge University Press.
▪ Nalah, A. B., & Ishaya, L. D. (2013). A conceptual overview of deviance and its implication to mental health: a bio psychosocial
perspective. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science Invention, 2(12), 1-9.
▪ Neuber, A. (2011). Understanding violence in the ‘society of captives’: Sykes meets Bourdieu in prison. The Howard Journal of Criminal
Justice, 50(1), 1-16.
▪ Nichols, L. T. (2003). Voices of social problems: A dialogical constructionist model. In Studies in Symbolic Interaction (pp. 93-123):
Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
▪ O’Donnell, D. (1999). Habermas, critical theory and selves‐directed learning. Journal of European Industrial Training, 23(4/5), 251-261.
▪ Olsson, L., & Jerneck, A. (2018). Social fields and natural systems. Ecology and Society, 23(3).
▪ Phillipson, C., & Baars, J. (2007). Social theory and social ageing. Ageing in society, 68-84.
▪ Powell, J. L., & Gilbert, T. (2008). Social theory and emotion: sociological excursions. International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy,
28(9/10), 394-407.
▪ Prior-Miller, M. (2017). Four major social scientific theories and their value to the public relations researcher. In Public relations theory
(pp. 67-81): Routledge.
▪ Prus, R. (1995). Symbolic interaction and ethnographic research: Intersubjectivity and the study of human lived experience: State University of New
York Press.
▪ Prus, R. (1999). Beyond the power mystique: Power as intersubjective accomplishment: State University of New York Press.
▪ Putney, N. M., Alley, D. E., & Bengtson, V. L. (2005). Social gerontology as public sociology in action. The american sociologist, 36(3-4),
88-104.
▪ Quist-Adade, C. (2019). Symbolic interactionism: The basics: Vernon Press.
▪ Reed, M. (2006). 1.1 Organizational theorizing: A historically contested terrain. The Sage handbook of organization studies, 19-54.
▪ Rigney, D. (2001). The metaphorical society: An invitation to social theory: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
▪ Risman, B. J. (2018). Gender as a social structure: Springer.
▪ Ritzer, G. (1990). Micro-macro linkage in sociological theory: Applying a metatheoretical tool. In Frontiers of Social Theory. The New
Syntheses (pp. 347-370): Columbia University Press.
▪ Ritzer, G. (1991). The recent history and the emerging reality of American sociological theory: A metatheoretical interpretation. Paper presented at the
Sociological Forum.
▪ Ritzer, G. (2004). Encyclopedia of social theory: Sage publications.
▪ Ritzer, G. (2015). Essentials of sociology: Sage Publications.
▪ Robbins, S. P., Chatterjee, P., & Canda, E. R. (2010). Contemporary human behavior theory: Pearson.
▪ Rogers, A. (2013). Human behavior in the social environment: Routledge.
▪ Roslender, R., & Dillard, J. F. (2003). Reflections on the interdisciplinary perspectives on accounting project. Critical perspectives on
accounting, 14(3), 325-351.
▪ Savelsberg, J. J. (1994). Knowledge, domination, and criminal punishment. American Journal of Sociology, 99(4), 911-943.
▪ Scambler, G. (2018). Sociology, health and the fractured society: A critical realist account: Routledge.
▪ Scambler, G., & Scambler, S. (2015). Theorizing health inequalities: The untapped potential of dialectical critical realism. Social Theory
& Health, 13, 340-354.
▪ Schafer, R. B. (1971). Exchange Theory and Symbolic Interaction: An Analysis of Interactionist Perspectives: The Pennsylvania State University.
▪ Schiff, D. N. (1976). Socio-legal theory: social structure and law. The Modern Law Review, 39(3), 287-310.
▪ Schur, E. M. (1969). Reactions to deviance: A critical assessment. American Journal of Sociology, 75(3), 309-322.
▪ Shabani, O. A. P. (2003). Democracy, power and legitimacy: The critical theory of Jürgen Habermas: University of Toronto Press.
▪ Shalin, D. N. (1986). Pragmatism and social interactionism. American sociological review, 9-29.
▪ Sharrock, W., Hughes, J. A., & Martin, P. J. (2003). Understanding modern sociology: Sage.
▪ Soltanpour, Y., Peri, I., & Temri, L. (2019). Area of protection in S-LCA: human well-being or societal quality. The International Journal
of Life Cycle Assessment, 24, 2073-2087.
▪ Sovacool, B. K., & Hess, D. J. (2017). Ordering theories: Typologies and conceptual frameworks for sociotechnical change. Social
studies of science, 47(5), 703-750.
▪ Star, S. L. (1996). 13 Working together: Symbolic interactionism, activity theory, and information systems. Cognition and communication at
work, 296.
▪ Stedman, R. C., Decker, D. J., Riley, S., & Siemer, W. F. (2012). Sociological considerations in wildlife management. Human dimensions
of wildlife management, 58-67.
▪ Stolley, K. S. (2005). The basics of sociology: Greenwood Press.
▪ Stout, A. K. (2004). BRINGING SOCIAL MOVEMENTS INTO THE DIALECTIC. Social Problems, Law, and Society, 19.
▪ Strasser, H. (2014). The normative structure of sociology (RLE Social Theory): Conservative and emancipatory themes in social thought: Routledge.
▪ Sutherland, J.-A., & Feltey, K. (2012). Cinematic sociology: Social life in film: Sage.
▪ Swingewood, A. (1999). Sociological theory. Sociology: Issues and Debates, 50-72.
▪ Teixeira, M. (2017). The sociological roots and deficits of Axel Honneth’s theory of recognition. The Palgrave Handbook of Critical
Theory, 587-609.
▪ Thompson, J. B. (1983). Rationality and social rationalization: An assessment of Habermas's theory of communicative action. Sociology,
17(2), 278-294.
▪ Thompson, M. J. (2016). The domestication of critical theory: Rowman & Littlefield.

www.socialsciencechronicle.com
Page 14 of 15
Social Science Chronicle

▪ Thompson, W. E., Hickey, J. V., & Thompson, M. L. (2016). Society in focus: An introduction to sociology: Rowman & Littlefield.
▪ Turner, J. H. (1988). A theory of social interaction: Stanford University Press.
▪ Turner, J. H. (2001). Sociological theory today. In Handbook of sociological theory (pp. 1-17): Springer.
▪ Turner, J. H. (2007). Human emotions: A sociological theory: Taylor & Francis.
▪ Turner, J. H. (2008). 21st Century Sociology. In: Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
▪ Turner, J. H. (2012). Contemporary sociological theory.
▪ Turner, J. H., & Boyns, D. E. (2001). The return of grand theory. In Handbook of sociological theory (pp. 353-378): Springer.
▪ Turner, J. H., & Machalek, R. S. (2018). The new evolutionary sociology: Recent and revitalized theoretical and methodological approaches: Routledge.
▪ Turner, J. H., & Maryanski, A. (1979). Functionalism: Benjamin/Cummings Publishing Company Menlo Park, CA.
▪ Turner, R. (2017). Social psychology: Sociological perspectives: Routledge.
▪ Turner, R. H. (1988). Personality in society: Social psychology's contribution to sociology. Social Psychology Quarterly, 1-10.
▪ Ugwudike, P. (2015). An introduction to critical criminology: Policy Press.
▪ Ulmer, J. T. (2017). The extensive legacy of symbolic interactionism in criminology. The Handbook of the History and Philosophy of
Criminology, 103-122.
▪ Valentine, C. G., Trautner, M. N., & Spade, J. Z. (2019). The kaleidoscope of gender: Prisms, patterns, and possibilities: Sage Publications.
▪ Wagner, H. R. (1964). Displacement of scope: A problem of the relationship between small-scale and large-scale sociological theories.
American Journal of Sociology, 69(6), 571-584.
▪ Walter, R. R. (2017). Emancipatory nursing praxis: a theory of social justice in nursing. Advances in Nursing Science, 40(3), 225-243.
▪ Weigert, A. J. (2008). Pragmatic thinking about self, society, and natural environment: Mead, Carson, and beyond. Symbolic Interaction,
31(3), 235-258.
▪ Wexler, P. (2017). Social analysis of education: After the new sociology (Vol. 57): Routledge.
▪ White, J. M., Martin, T. F., & Adamsons, K. (2018). Family theories: An introduction: Sage Publications.
▪ Williams, R. H. (2004). The cultural contexts of collective action: Constraints, opportunities, and the symbolic life of social
movements. The Blackwell companion to social movements, 91-115.
▪ Wrong, D. H. (2018). The oversocialized conception of man: Routledge.
▪ Yar, M. (2012). Critical criminology, critical theory and social harm. New directions in criminological theory, 52-65.
▪ York, R., & Mancus, P. (2009). Critical human ecology: Historical materialism and natural laws. Sociological Theory, 27(2), 122-149.
▪ Zerihun, D. (2005). Introduction to sociology. In: Ethiopia Public Health Training Initiative.

© 2021, Author(s).

This open access publication is distributed under Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0) License.

You are free to:

Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format.
Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material.

However,
Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made.
Non-Commercial — You may not use the material for commercial purposes.
Share Alike — If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you must distribute your contributions under the same license.

You shall not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.
There are no additional restrictions.

Page 15 of 15