Theoretical Perspectives Essay The text discusses Theoretical.docx

Theoretical Perspectives Essay
The text discusses “Theoretical Perspectives in Sociology” in
chapter 2. As a student, you sociologically view the world in a
particular way. Do you see the world as a place where things
simply “work out” (structural functionalism), or is it constantly
in conflict (conflict theory)? Perhaps you see the world
primarily as a place that is about relationships between people
(symbolic interactionism).
Write an essay (750-1,000 words) that addresses the following:
1. Define and explain the three ways to view the world
“sociologically.”
2. Identify which sociological perspective (structural
functionalism, conflict theory, symbolic interactionism) most
closely represents your view of the world. Describe the factors
that have caused you to view the world through that perspective,
such as personal experience in our society, popular culture,
media, etc. In addition, use an example from world events that
demonstrates evidence of your theory. Briefly explain why you
did not choose each of the other two perspectives being careful
to demonstrate that you understand the other perspectives.
Top of Form
Theoretical Perspectives Essay
1
Unsatisfactory
0.00%
2
Less than Satisfactory
65.00%
3
Satisfactory
75.00%

4
Good
85.00%
5
Excellent
100.00%
70.0 %Content
10.0 %Define and explain the three ways to view the world
sociologically.
Paper fails to or incorrectly defines and explains the three ways
to view the world sociologically.
Paper inadequately defines and explains the three ways to view
the world sociologically. Explanation is weak and missing
evidence to support claims.
Paper adequately defines and explains the three ways to view
the world sociologically. Explanation is limited and lacks some
evidence to support claims.
Paper clearly defines and explains the three ways to view the
world sociologically. Explanation is strong with sound analysis
and appropriate evidence to support claims.
Paper thoroughly defines and explains the three ways to view
the world sociologically, with quality details and well-
researched evidence. Explanation is comprehensive and
insightful with relevant evidence to support claims.
30.0 %Identify which sociological perspective (structural
functionalism, conflict theory, symbolic interactionism) most
closely represents your view of the world. Describe the factors
that have caused you to view the world through that perspective,
such as personal experience in our society, popular culture,
media, etc.
Paper fails to identify which sociological perspective most
closely represents the student?s view of the world.
Paper inadequately identifies which sociological perspective
most closely represents the student?s view of the world.

Description of the factors that caused the student to view the
world through this perspective is weak and missing logical
connections.
Paper adequately identifies which sociological perspective most
closely represents the student?s view of the world. Description
of the factors that caused the student to view the world through
this perspective is somewhat limited and lacks some clarity.
Paper clearly identifies which sociological perspective most
this perspective is strong and sound.
Paper thoroughly identifies which sociological perspective most
this perspective is comprehensive and insightful.
30.0 %Use an example from world events that demonstrates
evidence of your theory. Briefly explain why you did not choose
each of the other two perspectives being careful to demonstrate
that you understand the other perspectives.
Paper fails to use an example from world events that
demonstrates evidence of the theory the student chose. No
explanation why student did not chose each of the other two
perspectives.
Paper inadequately uses an example from world events that
demonstrates evidence of the theory the student chose.
Explanation of why student did not chose each of the other two
perspectives is weak and missing logical connections.
Paper adequately uses an example from world events that
perspectives is somewhat limited and lacks some clarity.
Paper clearly uses an example from world events that
perspectives is strong and sound.

Paper thoroughly uses an example from world events that
perspectives is comprehensive and insightful.
20.0 %Organization and Effectiveness
10.0 %Thesis Development and Purpose
Paragraphs and transitions consistently lack unity and
coherence. No apparent connections between paragraphs are
established. Transitions are inappropriate to purpose and scope.
Organization is disjointed.
Some paragraphs and transitions may lack logical progression of
ideas, unity, coherence, and/or cohesiveness. Some degree of
organization is evident.
Paragraphs are generally competent, but ideas may show some
inconsistency in organization and/or in their relationships to
each other.
A logical progression of ideas between paragraphs is apparent.
Paragraphs exhibit a unity, coherence, and cohesiveness. Topic
sentences and concluding remarks are appropriate to purpose.
There is a skillful construction of paragraphs and transitions.
Ideas progress and relate to each other. Paragraph and transition
construction guide the reader. Paragraph structure is seamless.
5.0 %Paragraph Development and Transitions
Paragraphs and transitions consistently lack unity and
coherence. No apparent connections between paragraphs are
established. Transitions are inappropriate to purpose and scope.
Organization is disjointed.
Some paragraphs and transitions may lack logical progression of
ideas, unity, coherence, and/or cohesiveness. Some degree of
organization is evident.
Paragraphs are generally competent, but ideas may show some

inconsistency in organization and/or in their relationships to
each other.
A logical progression of ideas between paragraphs is apparent.
Paragraphs exhibit a unity, coherence, and cohesiveness. Topic
sentences and concluding remarks are appropriate to purpose.
There is a skillful construction of paragraphs and transitions.
Ideas progress and relate to each other. Paragraph and transition
construction guide the reader. Paragraph structure is seamless.
5.0 %Mechanics of Writing (includes spelling, punctuation,
grammar, language use)
Surface errors are pervasive enough that they impede
communication of meaning. Inappropriate word choice and/or
sentence construction are used.
Frequent and repetitive mechanical errors distract the reader.
Inconsistencies in language choice (register) and/or word choice
are present. Sentence structure is correct but not varied.
Some mechanical errors or typos are present, but are not overly
distracting to the reader. Correct and varied sentence structure
and audience-appropriate language are employed.
Prose is largely free of mechanical errors, although a few may
be present. The writer uses a variety of effective sentence
structures and figures of speech.
Writer is clearly in command of standard, written, academic
English.
10.0 %Format
5.0 %Paper Format (Use of appropriate style for the major and
assignment)
Appropriate template is not used or documentation format is
rarely followed correctly.
Appropriate template is used, but some elements are missing or
mistaken; lack of control with formatting is apparent.

Appropriate template is used, and formatting is correct,
although some minor errors may be present.
Appropriate template is fully used; There are virtually no errors
in formatting style.
All format elements are correct.
5.0 %Research Citations (In-text citations for paraphrasing and
direct quotes, and reference page listing and formatting, as
appropriate to assignment)
No reference page is included. No citations are used.
Reference page is present. Citations are inconsistently used.
Reference page is included and lists sources used in the paper.
Sources are appropriately documented, although some errors
may be present.
Reference page is present and fully inclusive of all cited
sources. Documentation is appropriate and style is usually
correct.
In-text citations and a reference page are complete. The
documentation of cited sources is free of error.
100 %Total Weightage
Bottom of Form

Theoretical Perspectives of SociologyBy David Claerbaut,
Ph.D.
Chapter 2
Topics
· Introduction
· Theory
· Comparing the Three Theories
· Worldviews
· Conclusion
· Chapter Review
· References
Introduction
Sociology is the science of human group behavior. This group
orientation is sometimes called the sociological perspective.
This perspective exists because, according to scientific study,
humans conduct themselves differently in groups than they do
as individuals. Moreover, because humans are social beings who
live in groups—ranging from families to nations—common
traits and characteristics typify groups just as they can for
individuals. For example, the United States is a nation group.
As a nation, the United States has some common characteristics
in the form of values, attitudes, and beliefs that shape its
citizens. Sociologists focus on the social rather than individual
contexts in which people live, emphasizing how group
experiences shape the behavior of its members, and particularly
how people are influenced by the larger society in which they
live. In short, sociology always links personal experience to the
larger society of which it is a part (Robertson, 1987; Schaefer,
1989; Stark, 1989).
Sociology is a science because it is based on a rational body of
knowledge, much of which can be tested objectively. Although

sociologists are engaged in truly scientific study, there are also
theories in the study of sociology. It is important to understand
that there is no single grand theory or paradigm in sociology
that functions like the elemental chart in chemistry or the
multiplication tables in mathematics; rather, there are a number
of theories in the discipline. This is largely because of the
extreme complexity and ever-changing nature of human
behavior. This chapter looks at the role of theories in general
and how they relate to scientific research in the field of
sociology. This chapter also discusses the three major theories
in sociology—structural functionalism, conflict theory, and
symbolic interactionism— and compares each theory as it
provides a lens through which people view social reality (Coser,
1977; Henslin 1998, 2014).
Theory
A theory is a set of ideas that attempts to explain the known
facts of a subject in a way that makes sense. A theory can be
tested by determining whether it accounts for and explains all
the known facts in a sensible way. Detectives use theories to
solve crimes. They look at the facts of the crime and the
scientific evidence, such as fingerprints and DNA, and construct
a theory of how the crime was done and who committed it. If
the facts and scientific evidence in any way contradict the
theory, the theory is rejected.
The science of sociology uses the same method. In fact, for a
field of study to be a science, its theories must be both based on
scientific evidence and tested by research. In sociology, there
are a number of social facts—social realities that influence
human behavior. For example, it is a fact that humans live in
large and small groups, or societies, that have defined patterns
of feeling, thinking, and acting, or culture. These groups
interact and they affect and influence one another. Out of these
group experiences, humans develop an understanding of the
world and their place in that world. For example, a Christian
woman who has lived her entire life in Chicago, Illinois, may
look at the world through the eyes of a Christian worldview.

She would also view social realty as a female in terms of
gender. In addition, her experience would be shaped by living in
a highly urbanized (rather than rural) area of the Midwest.
There are many social environments that form a perspective on
how she would see the world.
Sociological theories, then, are efforts to explain human group
behavior in a comprehensive fashion. Some questions that
sociological theories attempt to answer include:
· How are the various human organizations constructed so that
they fit together to form a functioning unit? For example, how
does the United States, as a nation, fit together and function in a
stabilized way?
· How do various groups within a larger society interact? For
example, how do the rich and poor interact within a nation, and
does this interaction affect the overall functioning of a nation?
· How do humans communicate and make sense of their
relationships?
· How do humans attach meaning to events and relationships?
Theories are not developed in a vacuum. Sociologists are always
engaged in research that tests their theories. Moreover, this
research may result in the discovery of new social realities that,
in turn, will be integrated into theories. For example, in the
early days of sociology, scholars believed that deviant behavior
was based on biology because the brains of deviants were
different from those of society’s mainstream members (Douglas
& Waskler, 1982). Subsequent research, however, quickly
determined that much deviance is learned in groups. Hence, the
theories of deviance were revised to account for this (Douglas
& Waskler, 1982). Sociology is based on an ever-changing and
developing field of knowledge with theories that are
continuously refined as the result of careful research.
There are three major theoretical perspectives in sociology.
These theories provide three distinct ways of viewing human
group behavior. These macro-level and micro-level theories,
though different, do not necessarily conflict with one another.
Structural Functionalism

Structural functionalism is a macro-level theory that views a
society as a complete unit, in much the same way one might
look at a human body as a complete organism that is made up of
vital parts and systems. This theory sees society as consisting of
many parts called structures (Dobriner, 1969).
Figure 2.1. Major Structures and Functions in Society
Major Structures and Functions in Society
Structures
Functions
Politics
Social order and control
Religion
Meaning of life and universe
Education
Socialization and progress for society
Family
Unit of reproduction and early socialization
Economics
Distribution of goods and services
Within these structures are roles that are performed by people
who occupy them. For example, in the structure of religion, the
role of pastor exists, which is occupied by an individual. These
structures work together to accomplish purposes or functions.
For example, a nation’s political structure, which exists to
protect its citizens and advance their welfare, interacts with the
nation's education structure, which exists to prepare its citizens
to advance the culture. Because it is believed that an educated
nation is a stronger one, the political structure funds public
education. This simple example illustrates how two structures
interact and influence one another.
Emile Durkheim (1858-1917), one of the founding fathers of
sociology, was a structural functionalist. According to
Durkheim, earlier, less developed, rural societies were
characterized by commonly held religious and social beliefs,

and that these common beliefs were what unified and held
together such societies (Coser, 1977). Moreover, the economic
system was simple and independent, with agriculture being the
dominant means making a living. He called these mechanical
societies. As life became more complex and urban, societies
contained a more diverse population, one that did not
necessarily share common social or religious beliefs. How are
these societies held together amid all the differences among
their inhabitants?
Durkheim suggested interdependence was what held together
these modern societies. People were bound together by their
need for one another in order to survive. The farmer may not
know the grocer, but he needs to sell his produce to him. The
grocer may not know his customer, but the grocer needs the
customer’s money and the customer needs the food. People do
different jobs creating a division of labor all webbed together
for a common survival. To Durkheim, such a society was held
together by organic solidarity, made up of interconnected and
interdependent components. It was this diversity of functions,
rather than similarity of beliefs and values, that unified these
societies (Durkheim, 1893/1933, 1895/1964, 1897/1966).
There are a few key points involved in structural functionalism.
First, is that the society is viewed as a whole. The parts are
studied only in terms of how they function and contribute to the
well-being of the whole society. Hence, education is studied in
terms of how it serves the interests of the entire society.
It is also important to realize that for structural functionalists,
society rests largely on consensus. There needs to be a general
agreement on the norms, values, and beliefs of the larger
society. Its members need to internalize and accept the validity
of these norms for the system to operate (Sumner, 1906).
When the structures and their functions are in harmony, there is
stability and societal health. Nonetheless, just as there are
functions, there are also dysfunctions. The latter refers to
negative effects on the stability of the larger system. For
example, a major recession in the economic structure of a

society will have a negative impact on the overall stability and
well-being of a society. The effects of the recession will ripple
through the other structures, and accommodations and
adjustments will need to be made in many, if not all, of the
structures to regain stability.
Societies survive because there are always far more functional
than dysfunctional effects and they possess the capacity to
adjust and readjust to changes without losing stability.
However, if there were a massive breakdown in a major
structure, such as politics, in which the government collapses,
the entire system would be riddled with dysfunction, putting its
survival in jeopardy.
Because all the parts or structures are interconnected in
structural functionalism, these parts are constantly readjusting
to accommodate changes and attempt to remain stable. When
major change occurs, all the major parts adjust to maintain the
equilibrium of the society. When the Civil Rights Movement
addressed segregation in the United States, massive changes
occurred throughout the nation. Schools were desegregated, job
opportunities were broadened for racial minorities, and voting
rights were extended to all citizens. In short, the educational,
economic, and political institutions had to change to
accommodate this major social movement.
Conflict Theory
Conflict theory is a macro-level theory that offers a very
different perspective from Structural Functionalism. Whereas
the latter focuses on the entire society as a series of interactive
and cooperative units, conflict theory sees society as composed
of a number of groups in constant battle over power, prestige,
and economic resources.
Karl Marx (1818-1883), who witnessed the Industrial
Revolution in Europe, is the father of conflict theory. Marx
focused on class conflict. He saw a small group of elites, called
capitalists or the bourgeoisie, in control of the wealth and
power in European society while the masses, the proletariat,
labored in the factories for meager wages (Marx & Engles,

1848/1967). In Marx’s time, capitalism was in its infancy, and
there were no legal protections for employees. There were no
unions, no minimum wage, no benefits, nor any laws to spare
the workers from exploitation. Marx’s view was widely adopted,
and since that era, conflict theory has held sway as a major
sociological perspective.
Karl Marx (1818-1883)
Karl Marx (1818-1883) was a philosopher, economist,
sociologist, and political revolutionary. Born in Germany and
Jewish by birth, Marx was exposed to Christianity when his
father converted to Lutheranism in 1816. Early in life, Marx
was a radical dissident, with incidents of drunkenness and
rebellion. His brilliance allowed him to earn his doctorate from
the University of Jenna at the age of 23. His radical politics,
however, soon had him moving to Paris, France and then to
England. Married and the father of seven children, only three of
whom lived to adulthood, Marx was an avowed communist
during the Industrial Revolution. He believed European society
consisted of two classes: those who owned the factories (forces
of production) and those who labored under their oppressive
control. His most famous work, The Communist Manifesto
(1848), written with his colleague Friedrich Engels, advocated a
“classless society.” It viewed history as a series of class
struggles in which capitalism ultimately would be replaced with
communism. Marx’s class-struggle worldview has made him the
ultimate conflict theorist.
Looking at a society through the lens of competition and
discord is the key to understanding conflict theory. The specific
groups may change, but the larger process remains the same—
society is composed of opposing groups locked in competition
for power and control. The process is never ending, because,
according to conflict theory, once the social order is changed
and a new group gains power, that group begins battling with
the others to maintain its control (Manza & McCarthy, 2011).
Hence, there is no societal stability in conflict theory. On the

contrary, society is in constant turmoil, gurgling openly or
under the surface with groups in competition, with the society at
large continuously taking new shape as it accommodates the
outcome of new battles. There is constant change. Whereas
structure functionalism focuses on societal stability and
equilibrium, conflict theory is concerned with inequality,
exploitation, and competition.
In the United States and elsewhere, conflict theorists see the
various social classes in constant competition for the nation’s
wealth, power, and prestige. Racism and sexism are viewed
through the conflict perspective, with the notion that the group
in power attempts to maintain its power at the expense of the
minority, even to the extent of defining and degrading the
minority by labeling it as inferior. The history of white
dominance is testimony to a difference in power, with one racial
group affecting laws that subjugate other groups, along with
stereotypes and unflattering attributes ascribed to other groups.
For Marx, economics was the basis of all exploitation. Hence,
racism, sexism, and class conflict were all viewed in how they
affected the economic well-being of disadvantaged groups
(Lengermann & Niebrugge, 2007; Mills, 1959).
Women were long regarded as second-class citizens and denied
the right to vote in America before 1920. In the conflict
theorist's view, from that point to the present day, women have
been battling for an equal share of social power. In fact, many
scholars today believe that the elevated divorce rate in the
United States is a result of a continuing battle of the sexes over
power, as previously accepted gender roles that affirmed male
dominance have given way to equal status.
During Marx's days as a student in Berlin, he became
acquainted with the work of German philosopher Georg
Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, and it influenced his own thought.
Hegel believed that in the world of ideas, a basic idea, or thesis,
eventually will be challenged with a competing idea, or
antithesis, out of which emerges a new system of thinking, or a
synthesis. More important, this thesis-antithesis-synthesis is a

never-ending process. The dialectic figure below illustrates this
process. Applied to conflict theory, the dialectic would suggest
that any system inevitably will be challenged by a competing
one, and this in turn will create a new system (Marx & Engels,
1848/1967).
Figure 2.2. Hegelian Dialectic (as applied to Conflict Theory)
Hegelian Dialectic (as applied to Conflict Theory)
THESIS
ANTITHESIS
SYNTHESIS
Original theory
or system
è
Competing or conflicting theory
or system
è
New theory
or system
A key to conflict theory is the belief that there is a limited
amount of power, prestige, and economic resources. One
group’s dominance is always at the expense of others. Hence,
inequality is built into the social system. In conflict thinking,
genders, races, and social classes are viewed in terms of
competition with one another. Sociologists in the conflict theory
tradition look at a society through the lens of power, wealth,
and prestige, determining what group holds control and how it
attempts to maintain that control, as well as what groups are
systematically deprived by the group in control.
Symbolic Interactionism
Unlike structural functionalism and conflict theory, which look
at a society in its totality, symbolic interactionism views society
as a collection of relationships among people, relationships that
are filled with common meaning and significance. In short,

symbolic interactionism looks at society as emerging from
social interaction at the micro level (Whorf, 1956).
The key to understanding symbolic interactionism lies in the
word symbol. The most important use of symbols in human life
occurs in language. Perhaps 99% of all human communication is
in the form of language—speaking or writing. Language is
composed of words, which are conveyed through sounds when
spoken and marks on paper, a screen, or some other surface
when written. Words are symbols that carry meaning. The
sounds and marks represent things and ideas in the real world.
For example, when the word house is used, a physical building
does not appear; rather, the user, audience, or reader gets a
mental picture of a physical building. People can talk for hours,
or send messages back and forth through various electronic
devices using the word house and understand fully what they
mean.
The use of symbolic communication is one of the points of
separation between humans and animals. Humans, unlike
animals, can live in an abstract world. Hence, the word marriage
has meaning. That meaning may differ from one society to
another, but in each, the term has meaning. Love is another
example. No one sees or touches love, yet it is perhaps the most
powerful element of human existence. It may carry different
meanings depending on one’s family, community, or religious
background, but it has a powerful meaning. This very book is an
example of humans' ability to live in an abstract world. Readers
look at the marks here and decipher their meaning, and, from
that process, they learn new things. This ability to communicate
in an abstract form opens up a new world for humans. While
animals live only in the present, humans can discuss,
appreciate, and understand the past as well as the future. It
means humans can learn from past mistakes and plan for the
future.
In symbolic interaction, people are thinking beings, not merely
unthinking occupants of structures or conditioned members of
competing groups. They create their own realities through

interaction with others (Cooley, 1902). Moreover, life is always
in the present. Although individuals have a past and can draw
thoughts and experiences from it, what is important is one’s
thinking and interaction in the present situation.
A key term in symbolic interaction is definition of the situation.
The meaning of any situation is defined by the individuals
involved. For example, a deeply religious person may consider
the idea of dying a blessed opportunity to enter a glorious
afterlife, while other members of the person's family may view
it as a tragic loss of a loved one. Or if Team A defeats Team B,
the members of Team A may define that situation as a glorious
victory, while those on Team B may define the situation as a
bitter defeat. Any situation, then, is given meaning by the
individuals involved, and when two people interact and share a
common definition of a situation, their communication is
enhanced.
Roles
Many symbolic interactionists view social life in terms of a
stage with roles—sets of expected behaviors in a social
situation. Thinking people create roles in the drama of human
life. These roles go beyond conventional ones, such as teacher,
physician, or pastor, to more personal ones, such as empathizer,
dependent, or contrarian. For example, a family member may
adopt a rather dependent role in life, seeking and gaining
attention and aid from other family members at every turn.
Soon, the other members of the family act toward this person in
that role. However, if that same person were suddenly to gain a
sense of potency and become truly independent, it would disrupt
the family system because the meaning of the person’s role
would have changed.
The metaphor of drama and scripts is a part of symbolic
interactionism. Sociologist Erving Goffman, for example, saw
social life played out on a stage on which people chose
behaviors based on gaining acceptance (Goffman, 1959). In
symbolic interactionism, people relate to others on the basis of
perceived roles. Based on the definition of situation, people

imagine how a person perceived to have a particular role would
think, and they try to relate to the other person on the basis of
that perception. If they are correct, their interaction will go
smoothly. For example, consider the role of medical expert. A
medical expert in a health facility usually is regarded with great
significance. Often there are perks and other benefits associated
with the role. The person usually is addressed as “Doctor”
rather than “Ralph.” The patient who sees the medical expert
and defines him as such will often accord that expert great
respect, while the expert will treat the patient from a position of
authority.
In a sense, the medical expert and the patient each have scripts
that play out the human drama on the stage of medicine. The
stage becomes important because the two actors here have a
common definition of the meaning and the role of a health
facility. Sociologists in the symbolic interactionism tradition
are always looking at the stage of interaction, determining the
roles, scripts, and interactions of the characters.
Self
Because of the advanced development of the human brain, not
only can people communicate in symbols, they each have an
identity, which symbolic interactionists call self. The self is
developed through the process of interaction with others.
Individuals understand the meaning of the symbols in their
social groups and are shaped by their application of those
symbols. That process is called socialization—the shaping of
the individual to function in the society. For example, as
children learn language, their parents communicate norms and
values to them in a way that influences their thoughts and
actions. People learn other norms and values in school and in
their communities, including gender roles. The totality of this
experience shapes who they are. It socializes them.
It is through this socialization that people develop a self.
George Herbert Mead (1863-1931), a founding father of
symbolic interactionism, developed the concept of the self.
Mead believed that each person had an I and a Me. The Me, also

referred to as generalized other, is the collective set of values
and attitudes learned from others. This generalized other is the
social self. The I is how the individual person responds to this
collective set of values and attitudes (Mead, 1934).
In grammatical terms, the I is the subject form, the part of an
individual that makes the person unique. The Me is the object.
For example, if one were to say, “I think there should be no
laws against speeding,” this person is distinguishing individual
values and attitudes—the I—from the collective values and
attitudes of the society.
This relationship of the I to the Me goes on constantly in the
human brain. In fact, symbolic interactionists would say that
this internal interaction—this speaking to oneself—is the
essence of thinking. Many people think best by talking to
themselves aloud. Whether silent or aloud, this conversation
with one’s own brain is the basis of thinking.
This sense of self goes one more step. While animal behavior is
largely programmed biologically, human behavior is a matter of
choice. A human has a variety of options on how to act in any
situation. For example, at a gathering, an individual can speak,
remain quiet, or leave. Those choices are examples of
conducting oneself. For example, placing certain foods before
an animal will guarantee the animal will eat. A human,
however, might eat all the food, part of the food, or none of it.
Again, people do not react, they conduct themselves.
Figure 2.3. Summary of the Three Major Theories
Summary of the Three Major Theories
STRUCTURAL FUNCTIONALISM
CONFLICT THEORY
SYMBOLIC INTERACTIONISM
Basic Points
Basic Points
Basic Points
Societies are systems with parts
Societies are based on competition among groups for power,
wealth, and prestige

Society is the product of individual and group interaction
There is consensus and balance; major conflict is destructive
Societies continue to generate competition and conflict; conflict
may be positive
Society is a drama, based on roles and how people play them
Major change creates instability
Change is constant
Change occurs when people change their “scripts”
Focus is on how parts operate together for the whole society
Focus is on competing groups and how they gain and maintain
power
Focus is on understanding the roles and interactions in the
social drama
Key Issues
Key Issues
Key Issues
The role each part plays in contributing to the larger social
system
Who has the power to create change for their benefit
How actors in the social drama learn to understand meaning
Limitation of Theory
Explanation of power and
social change
Explanation of cohesion and stability
Explanation of how small interactions create a larger social
system
Comparing the Three Theories
When comparing the theories, the major similarity between
structural functionalism and conflict theory is that they are both
macro theories. Although they can be applied to groups as small
as the family, they provide overall views of how a society
functions. A major difference between these two is in the area
of consensus. Whereas structural functionalists see society

bound together on a very practical and interdependent level, the
conflict theorists see competition and discord at the foundation
of society. Structural functionalism is about consensus,
stability, and even harmony. Conflict theory is about divisions,
competition, and separation.
The two theories also differ in the area of change. Major change
is viewed as disruptive and even threatening to the structural
functionalism system. A change in one part will require
adjustments and accommodation in the related structures in
order to maintain overall equilibrium in the society. In conflict
theory, change is the norm. Groups are forever in competition
over the unequal distribution of power, prestige, and wealth,
resulting in never-ending conflict. Groups in power maintain
that power at the expense of others who aim to gain control of
that power. Whenever a subordinate group gains power in the
system, the social order is changed, but the competition
continues.
Hence, while structural functionalism provides an excellent
model for how a society holds together, similar to the human
body and its parts, it does not deal as well with major, and
especially sudden, social change. Conflict theory is the
opposite; it is based on social change and upheaval but is not
well-focused on how societies maintain stability and cohesion.
Symbolic interactionism is a micro theory, and, as such, offers a
sharp departure from structural functionalism and conflict
theory. The unit of analysis in symbolic interactionism is not
the society as a whole but, rather, the myriad interactions
among members of society and the shared meanings they attach
to those interactions. Human social life is viewed in the context
of common understandings of symbols and roles as they are
communicated and created in interaction. As such, symbolic
interactionism is a bit more abstract and difficult to describe in
simple terms. For example, it does not look at social life in
terms of defined structures or groups but in terms of roles and
common understanding of a given social situation. These roles
and definitions are created by actors in the drama of human life.

Its emphasis on shared meaning enables symbolic interaction to
account for social harmony. For example, if citizens think
individuals wearing police badges are valid authority figures,
they will likely comply with orders from such individuals. Such
common definitions of situations and the roles within it is what
society is constructed on, according to symbolic interaction.
Conflict, then, would be attributed to a lack of shared
definitions of a situation.
In any case, symbolic interaction does not offer a clear link
connecting these personal interactions to comprehensive
understanding of the workings of a society at large.
Figure 2.4. Basic Elements and Comparison of the Three Major
Theories
Basic Elements and Comparison of the Three Major Theories
PERSPECTIVE
ANALYSIS
FOCUS
SOCIETY
QUESTIONS
Structural Functionalism
Macro
Social order, consensus
Interrelated parts that contribute or societal stability
What are the major parts and what are their functions?
Conflict Theory
Macro
Competition, conflict, change
Competing groups, tension, inequality, change
How is inequality built in to the society? Who benefits? Who is
deprived?
Symbolic Interactionism
Micro
Symbolic communication among actors
Dynamic, ongoing system of interactions
How do people interpret symbols? How does this influence
behavior?

Worldviews
No theory is altogether objective. It is based on worldview.
Marx, for example, had a clear, anticapitalist worldview through
which he viewed all of social reality. Structural functionalists
see the world from a perspective of stability and necessary
interdependence within and among nation-states. Symbolic
interactionists view social reality through the myriad
interactions among people. These worldviews influence all
aspects of the theorist's thinking. In that respect, sociology is
not a pure science. Though it is devoted to objective study and
research, there are theories that shape understanding.
Worldviews generate other perspectives in the discipline. For
example, there are a variety of perspectives in sociology that
attempt to view the world through the lens of a particular
group’s experience. The African-American and gender-studies
departments in universities provide examples of this inclusion
of interest-based perspectives or worldviews.
Christian Worldview
The Christian worldview, in which there is the acceptance of a
transcendent God who interacts with His creation, uses
Scripture as the lens through which reality is viewed. The
Christian worldview begins in the biblical book of Genesis
(ESV), which opens with, "In the beginning, God..." Just as
works of art are created by the artist and books originate with
their authors, a Christian worldview of education begins with
God, the Creator of the universe. A Christian worldview then,
starts with God in every academic discipline (Claerbaut, 2004).
Proverbs 1:7 states, "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of
knowledge, but fools despise wisdom and discipline."
In The Outrageous Idea of Christian Scholarship, historian
George Marsden (1997) asks: How differently would an

academic subject look if a student believed in God and inserted
Him into his or her thinking? What effect would it have? For
example, one might look at the physical sciences differently if
one saw the complexity of the universe as the creation of an
almighty God. Art and literature might be seen differently if
one's worldview includes God and His grace for all people.
Philosophy might be studied differently if the student believed
that ultimate truth exists in God. One might take a different
approach to psychology if one sees humans as moral agents who
are always dealing with the tension between right and wrong. In
sociology, one might look at the different theories in terms of
how they fit a Christian belief about God and human nature.
In other words, a Christian worldview injects a God-
consciousness into education. Instead of “checking their faith at
the door,” students with a Christian worldview put on a set of
Christian lenses and look at their subjects through the
perspective of their faith, just as Marx used his worldview of
oppression and the dialectic in his studies.
Conclusion
Sociology is the science of human group behavior. It operates
with three major theories: structure functionalism, conflict
theory, and symbolic interactionism. These theories, along with
others, constitute worldviews that shape how people look at
human group reality.
Study Guide Review Questions
1. How do theory and science fit together in sociology?
2. How would structural functionalism and conflict theory differ
in discussing social change?
3. What is meant by macro-level and micro-level theories?
4. How do the theories differ in the cause and effect of social
change?
5. How does the concept of worldview affect the development
of theories?
Chapter Review
· Sociology is a science in that uses scientific methods to
discover facts pertaining to social reality.

· Unlike mathematics and the physical sciences, sociology does
not have one overall paradigm.
· Sociology is guided by three major theories: structural
functionalism, conflict theory, and symbolic interactionism.
· Each theory has strengths and weaknesses, but they all provide
a lens through which sociologists view social reality.
· These major theories, along with others, function as
worldviews that shape the sociologist’s perspective of reality.
Key Terms
· Antithesis: A position in opposition to a theory; a counter-
theory.
· Bourgeoisie: Karl Marx’s term used to describe those who
owned "the means of production," such as a land, factories,
investment capital, etc.
· Capitalism: An economic system in which goods and services
are owned and controlled by private individuals rather than the
state.
· Conflict Theory: A major sociological perspective that sees
society as a set of groups in constant competition over wealth,
power, and prestige.
· Definition of the Situation: A term used in symbolic
interactionism to refer to the perceived meaning of a given
circumstance by an individual.
· Dialectic: An ongoing debate or discussion, with theories and
counter-theories.
· Dysfunction: A force that disrupts or impairs a social system.
· Generalized Other: An individual’s internalization of the
norms and expectations of the individual's society.
· I: Similar to Freud’s ego, this is the source of the individual’s
social conduct.
· Macro-level Theory: A theory in which the unit of analysis is
the overall society.
· Me: Similar to the generalized other, it is the individual’s
understanding of the society’s norms and expectations, against
which one assesses one's own behavior.
· Mechanical Solidarity: A way in which a society is held

together by common beliefs and values.
· Micro-level Theory: A theory in which the unit of analysis is
the interaction of individuals within a society.
· Norms: The basic rules of societies.
· Organic Solidarity: A way in which a society is held together
by interdependence.
· Proletariat: A term Karl Marx used to refer to the working
class of the society.
· Role: A set of expected behaviors in a social situation.
· Science: A rational body of knowledge, much of which can be
tested objectively.
· Self: Mead’s idea of one’s personal identity; the self is a
product of social interaction.
· Social Facts: The social or collective realities that influence
individual behavior.
· Socialization: The means by which people learn how to fit in
and function in a society through association with others.
· Structural Functionalism: A major sociological perspective
that views society as an interdependent system of parts
(structures) and purposes (functions) that work together to make
a society operate.
· Symbolic Interactionism: A major sociological perspective
based on human communication within groups. It holds that
humans live in a world of symbols (e.g., language) that have
meaning, and that society is held together through shared
meaning.
· Synthesis: A combination of ideas or a new theory emerging
from a thesis and antithesis.
· Theory: A system of ideas that account for known facts.
· Thesis: In a dialectic, the initial theory or system that
generates a counterforce.
Key People
· Emile Durkheim (1858-1917): A founding father of sociology
who contributed to the theory of structural functionalism.
· Karl Marx (1818-1883): Originator of conflict theory, who
based his thinking on the capitalistic economic structure of

Europe during the Industrial Revolution.
· George Herbert Mead (1863-1931): Famous social
psychologist whose focus was on the development of the self.
References
Claerbaut, D. (2004). Faith and learning on the edge: A bold
new look at religion in higher education. Grand Rapids, MI:
Zondervan.
Cooley, C. H. (1902). Human nature and the social order. New
York, NY: Scribner.
Coser, L. A. (1977). Masters of sociological thought: Ideas in
historical and social context (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Harcourt
Brace Jovanovich.
Dobriner, W. M. (1969). Social structures and systems. Pacific
Palisades, CA: Goodyear.
Douglas, J. D. & Waksler, F. C. (1982). The sociology of
deviance: An introduction. Boston, MA: Little, Brown.
Durkheim, E. (1933). The division of labor in society (G.
Simpson, Trans.). New York, NY: Free Press. (Original work
published 1893)
Durkheim, E. (1964). The rules of sociological method (S. A.
Solovay & J. H. Mueller, Trans.). New York, NY: Free Press.
(Original work published 1895)
Durkheim, E. (1966). Suicide: A study in sociology (J. A.
Spaulding & G. Simpson, Trans.). New York, NY: Free Press.
(Original work published 1897)
Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life.
New York, NY: Peter Smith.
Henslin, J. (1998). Sociology: A down-to-earth approach. Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Henslin, J. (2014). Essentials of sociology. Upper Saddle River,
NJ: Pearson.
Lengermann, P. M., & Niebrugge, G. (2007). The women
founders: Sociology and social theory, 1830–1930. Prospect
Heights, IL: Waveland Press.
Manza, J., & McCarthy, M. A. (2011). The neo-Marxist legacy
in American sociology. Annual Review of Sociology, 37, 155-

183.
Marsden, G. (1997). The outrageous idea of Christian
scholarship. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Marx, K., & Engels, F. (1967). The communist manifesto. New
York, NY: Pantheon. (Original work published in 1848)
Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind, self and society. Chicago, IL:
University of Chicago Press.
Mills, C. W. (1959). The sociological imagination. New York,
NY: Oxford University Press.
Robertson, I. (1987). Sociology (3rd ed.). New York, NY:
Worth.
Schaefer, R. T. (1989). Sociology (3rd ed.). New York, NY:
McGraw-Hill.
Stark, R. (1989). Sociology (3rd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Sumner, W. G. (1906). Folkways: A study in the sociological
importance of usages, manners, customs, mores, and morals.
New York, NY: Ginn.
Whorf, B. (1956). Language, thought, and reality: Selected
writings of Benjamin Lee Whorf (J. B. Carroll, Ed.).
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Theoretical Perspectives Essay The text discusses Theoretical.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Theoretical Perspectives Essay The text discusses Theoretical.docx

Similar to Theoretical Perspectives Essay The text discusses Theoretical.docx (20)

More from christalgrieg

More from christalgrieg (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Theoretical Perspectives Essay The text discusses Theoretical.docx