Learning ResourcesLinksFROM THIS LINK CHAPTERS 1, 2, 3, &4 ht.docx

Learning Resources/Links
FROM THIS LINK CHAPTERS 1, 2, 3, &4
http://www.aupress.ca/index.php/books/120219
This reading discusses how social scientists analyze religion in
terms of what it does for the individual, community, or
society.http://www.sociologyguide.com/religion/social-
functions-and-dysfunctions-of-religion.php
This article talks about the allegation that some clergy are
suspected of helping those causing unrest in the Ukraine.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/07/world/europe/evidence-
grows-of-russian-orthodox-clergys-aiding-ukraine-
rebels.html?_r=0
This article discusses the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and its
history and ethnic relations, architecture, food, economy, and
political life. Pay particular attention to the section gender roles
and statuses. http://www.everyculture.com/Sa-Th/Saudi-
Arabia.html
A report that presents labor market and economic opportunities
for both men and women. The report touches on significant
progress towards gender equality in education around the world,
but notes persistent inequalities in
pay.http://www.oecd.org/social/50423364.pdf
An interactive timeline on the Middle East protests of 2011.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/interactive/2011/mar/22/mid
dle-east-protest-interactive-timeline
This article discusses the political unrest North Africa, Syria,
and Middle East and how has democracy fared against the
support for Islam in these regions.
http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/138479/sheri-
berman/the-promise-of-the-arab-spring
This article discusses the declining birth rate of women
throughout most the world and the sociological and
demographic implications.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/05/opinion/sunday/bye-bye-
baby.html?_r=0
A series of articles on the ranking of US students compared to
the world, based on the PISA exam. The first two articles have
opposing interpretations of US test scores. The third shows
where the US compares to the world in education, and the last
one shows how educational rankings relate to economic
performance of nations.
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/education/2010-12-07-us-
students-international-ranking_N.htm
http://news.stanford.edu/news/2013/january/test-scores-ranking-
011513.html
http://www.oecd.org/pisa/keyfindings/PISA-2012-results-
snapshot-Volume-I-ENG.pdf
http://www.oecd.org/pisa/46643496.pdf
This article discusses how the US students lag around the
average on the Program for International Student Assessment
(PISA) test of science, math, and reading.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/us-students-
lag-around-average-on-international-science-math-and-reading-
test/2013/12/02/2e510f26-5b92-11e3-a49b-
90a0e156254b_story.html
A podcast by Diane Rehm on a book by Amanda Ripley, The
Smartest Kids In the World, where the author follows three
American kids who study abroad.
http://thedianerehmshow.org/audio/#/shows/2013-08-
19/amanda-ripley-smartest-kids-world/@00:00
In this module we explore the differences between philosophical
and sociological approaches to the question, "What is the
relationship between the individual and society?" In doing so,
we summarize the three theoretical frameworks sociologists
typically have used to respond to this question. We then review
four recent developments that challenge these established
perspectives, developments that are explored in greater detail in
subsequent modules.

Throughout this module, we summarize several terms used in
our analysis. The module closes with an overview of the key
questions we will consider throughout the semester's readings.
https://content.umuc.edu/file/a08a81e5-53bb-474f-8de7-
7309e7199ca2/1/SOCY313-0510.zip/Modules/M1-Module_1/S3-
Commentary.html
Module 1: The Individual and Society—A General Introduction
Topics
IntroductionThe Distinctiveness of the Sociological
PerspectiveThe Individual and Society: Three Theoretical
PerspectivesFour Challenges Facing Contemporary Sociological
TheoryResources for Rethinking the Relationship between the
Individual and SocietyThe Individual and Society: A
Preliminary Perspective
Introduction
At the dawn of the twenty-first century, few Americans
imagined the events that would come to characterize a new
sense of national identity and the norms that would be called
upon to support it. The period from 1945 to 2000 witnessed not
only an altered world map, but, among other things:
· the rise of the "baby boom generation"
· the flowering of the American civil rights movement (together
with the movements that followed it)
· the rising (albeit selective) levels of educational and
occupational achievement that burst open in the sixties
· Vietnam and the American peace movement
· inflation, OPEC, and the 1973 oil embargo
· new patterns of immigration
· the West's widening recognition of Holocaust horror
· inflation, globalization, and the first Gulf War
· the Internet and politics unbounded (read: impeachment,
hanging chads, a downward DOW)
and early into the twenty-first century, the moments of 9-11 that
without question, Americans everywhere share.
So one has to wonder: How does a society maintain itself in the

face of so much change? How do international events impact
individuals in their daily and role-based lives? How do social
structures continue—or not? How do people—real individuals
with their multiple social, occupational, family, online, and
other roles—maintain a focus? And, equally important, how do
individuals participate in such change beyond being mere
recipients? Put more dramatically, whether online or off, how
and in what ways are individuals both the products and
producers of the societies in which they live?
This course addresses these and related questions in the light of
sociological theory as it developed in the nineteenth and
twentieth centuries (in its European and American settings), and
it locates a discussion of the individual and society within the
context of global and national social change.
Return to top of page
The Distinctiveness of the Sociological Perspective
Sociology as the Study of Societies and Social Change
Since its beginnings in the nineteenth century, sociology has
worked to address several questions, but three are basic. First,
early sociologists asked, "How is it that society comes into
being?" That is, how is it that people and/or groups interact and
become so set in their ways such that over time one can see a
specific geographic entity we call a society? Second, these
theorists also asked, "How is it that societies change?" That is,
how do societies lose, redefine, or otherwise reconfigure their
set ways? Third, the early sociologists asked, "Given the fact of
change in a society, what are the consequences of social change
for the individuals who make up the members of a given
society?"
Nineteenth-century sociologists asked these questions because
during the periods of the Enlightenment and the Industrial
Revolution Western Europe experienced three types social
change:
1. change that affected the political make-up of societies—as
monarchies gave way to the rise of democracy
2. change that affected the economic realities of societies—as

bartering gave way to the rise of capitalism
3. change that affected the cultural and normative expectations
of societies—as estate-based custom and tradition gave way to
cities, their impersonalism, and bureaucratic structures
Some early sociologists, such as Max Weber (1864–1920) and
Karl Marx (1818–1883), came to these changes by way of
history and philosophy, and as a result, their answers to the
above three questions mirrored those of their earlier intellectual
interests. For example, Weber's historical and philosophical
background is reflected in his methodology of verstehen, or the
emphasis that sociologists should study the context and
intentionalities individuals bring to interactions, whether
interactions are with others or among larger social units.
Similarly, Marx's philosophy is reflected in his hope that
inequities will be resolved with the advent of a socialist state in
which no individuals own property, and "class" differences are,
thereby, precluded.
A third early social theorist, Emile Durkheim (1858–1917),
stands out particularly. Durkheim stressed the need for both
conceptual and quantitative responses to the questions noted
above, so that sociology would be recognized as a valid science
of society. In fact, one of his most noted early works was his
classic study of suicide. This study compared suicide rates of
different countries in order to test specific hypotheses that
would indicate how even this highly privatized act was, in the
end, itself social.
By the time sociology became established in American and
European universities during the mid-twentieth century,
generations of sociologists had combined the historical,
philosophical, and statistical roots of sociology's early days to
engender an approach to research that paralleled those of the
natural sciences. As a social science, sociology's answers to
questions had also to be rooted in logical and systematically
collected observations about presumed or "hypothesized"
realities. Further, any conclusions drawn from such research
were to remain open and provisional pending the discovery of

new data that might require a different conclusion. Thus
sociology became its own social scientific enterprise, and was
no longer an auxiliary effort tied to either philosophy or other
social sciences. What then, is the distinctiveness of the
sociological perspective? The answer is presented below two
parts: (1) the differences among sociology, philosophy, and
other social sciences; and (2) the specific object of sociological
research and analysis.
Differences among Sociology, Philosophy, and Other Social
Sciences
The differences between sociology and philosophy, and
sociology and other social sciences are easy to see if we take
our overall question, i.e., "What is the relationship between the
individual and society?" and ask how either a philosopher or
other social scientist (other than a sociologist) might approach
it.
Sociology versus Philosophy
From the perspective of philosophy, one might say that this
relationship is, first and foremost, singular and not multiple. In
other words, there is really one and only one relationship at
play between the individual and society: namely, that the
individual should uphold the social order, howsoever that social
order is defined. The political philosophies of Plato (427–347
BCE) and Aristotle (384–322 BCE) each reflect these emphases,
as do the philosophies of such later thinkers as of Machiavelli
(1469–1527 CE) and Mussolini (1883–1945 CE). Second, a
philosophical approach to our question directs attention
exclusively to the logical (and perhaps even metaphysical)
grounds of individual-societal interaction, such that the answer
to our question rests with what can be argued rationally, rather
than by any other criteria.
A sociological approach to our question, however, stresses first
that there are several ways in which individuals and their
societies may be related to each other. Thus one's interaction
with his or her local grocery chain is a part of one's relationship
to society, as are a person's memberships in social clubs,

educational groups, and political or other voluntary
organizations. Second, a sociological approach to our question
notes that given this variation, these ways must be detailed
empirically as well as conceptually. For this reason,
sociologists engage in statistical analyses of social phenomena
and strive for comparative perspectives. Third, a sociological
approach to our question stresses, further, that given the many
ties one may have to society, these ties themselves may be
contradictory—as for example, when one holds memberships in
organizations that bespeak "equality" yet practice inequality
among membership roles. The experience of women in many
religious organizations illustrates such a circumstance, as did
the experience of African Americans in the period prior to the
civil rights movement of the twentieth century.
To sum up these differences between philosophical and
sociological approaches to studying the relationship between the
individual and society, we may say the following:
1. Whereas philosophy rests primarily on abstract and logical
reasoning about the relationship between the individual and
society, sociology demands confirmation of logical assumptions
by facts.
2. Whereas philosophy tends to be univocal in its emphasis
about the relationship between the individual and society,
sociology looks to a variety of possible patterns and not those
imposed by logic only.
3. Whereas philosophy may be static, given its foundation on
abstract and logical reasoning, sociology is provisional in that it
must revise its insights when confronted with new and/or
additional facts that challenge previous conclusions.
It is important to note that these differences do not mean that
sociologists ignore philosophical or rational insights; in fact,
they do not. Rather, what these differences do emphasize is that
(1) sociology focuses on the pluralism and empirical variation
that exist in human experience—and in our case here, the
pluralism and variation evident in the "relationship between the
individual and society," and (2) sociology stresses that all

insights must be confirmed by empirical and/or systematic
investigation before being expressed as "truths," and that these
expressions are themselves provisional and contingent upon
further investigation.
Sociology versus Other Social Sciences
A second set of arguments explains the differences between
sociology and other social sciences, e.g., psychology, political
science, or economics. Here, what is important is the "object" of
sociological thinking and research. In brief, the widest object of
sociology's research is that of how what is "social" comes into
being. That is, how is it that societies, groups, or other multiple
member entities happen, become organized in patterned ways,
and remain so or change? This is clearly not the question of
psychologist, whose object of analysis is that of the individual
and his or her personality, whether that analysis is conducted
through the use of Freud's psychoanalytic categories (1961),
Jung's grounding "archetypes" (1981), or Maslow's "hierarchy
of needs" (1973).
Nor is the object of sociological analysis and research the same
as political science's concern, i.e., the analysis of power and
authority within the world—although as well shall see,
sociology often ventures into this domain. Nor, as a last
example, is the object of sociology's research that of the
economist's main effort, i.e., the understanding and analysis of
"how people go about coping with the central problem of
economic life…" which is "scarcity" (Strada 2003, p. 391) or
understanding "the production, distribution and consumption of
goods and services, in domestic and international contexts
(Strada 2000, p. 7)." Although once more, sociology often
addresses this domain.
Rather, what sociologists try to understand is society itself, and
with this, the elements of sociation itself, i.e., the process(es)
by which individuals (or more broadly, "social actors") connect
to one another and/or their societies, and maintain, change
and/or modify those connections. How then, do sociologists
understand their distinct subject matter of society—that is, its

origins and means of stability and/or change? And how do
sociologists understand the implications of these for the
individuals or social actors who variously contribute to the
making and/or remaking of society's components? How indeed!
The Individual and Society: Three Theoretical Perspectives
As indicated above, the relationship between the individual and
society is multi-faceted. To understand its many aspects,
sociologists have developed several concepts which, over time,
have coalesced into three main theoretical frameworks (also
termed perspectives):
1. structural functionalism
2. conflict theory
3. symbolic interactionism
Each of these perspectives provides different insights about the
following four things
1. what society is
2. how and why society operates the way it does
3. how individuals connect with and are connected to society
4. how individuals connect with and are connected to the social
wholes of which they are a part
To introduce these insights, we shall begin with structural
functionalism, a theoretical framework that has been dominant
in American sociology since the 1950s, largely through the
influence of Talcott Parsons (1902–1979), a sociologist at
Harvard University.
Structural Functionalism
Structural functionalism, also termed functionalism, stresses
several aspects of social interaction, but three are crucial: the
idea of action systems, society's subsystems, and the character
of change.
Action Systems
The first aspect of social interaction of importance to
functionalism is the idea that society is but one of several
"action systems." In a hierarchy of four systems by which one
can explain human interaction as a whole, society is, in effect,

third from the bottom up. This is because it is preceded first by
the "biological organism" (today we would say the ecosystem)
and second, by the "personality system," or life as experienced
by individuals. Society, or the "social system," then follows,
and after it, is the "cultural system," which represents the
society's most general and abstract set of ideas and values, or
what Parsons considered society's "patterns" of self-
understanding. Figure 1.1 below portrays the four-level
framework developed by Parsons.
Figure 1.1
Hierarchy of Talcott Parsons's Action Systems
Level of Human Behavior
Object of Analysis
Expressed Through
Studied by
Culture
Cultural system
Symbols/values/ideas
Anthropology
Society
Social system
Social structure
Sociology
Individual
Personality system
Individual personality
Psychology
Physical environment
Biological organism/Ecosystem
Laws of nature
Natural sciences
It is important to note that these four action systems do not
emerge in pure sequence, nor do they remain in complete
isolation from one another. Rather, they evolve over time, and
over time, exert mutual influence on one another. This is
because cultural norms and values gradually become formalized

from lived experience and are in turn, subsequently
institutionalized as specific social structures. In this light, then,
the cultural system becomes the normative framework for the
social system, and according to Parsons, it thereby provides the
basis for consensus in the society, with change occurring at
limited and gradual rates.
Society's Subsystems
This gradual evolution of the social system brings us to the
second main emphasis in functional theory, i.e., the idea that
society (or the "social system") is made up of specific
institutions which function to meet the general needs of the
society as a whole. Parsons called these institutions
society's subsystems, and for Parsons, five were key:
1. government (or "the polity")
2. religion (or "the sacred")
3. the economy
4. education
5. the institution of the family
Each of these subsystems has particular functions it performs on
behalf of society as a whole, and for Parsons, each thereby
contributes to the overall stability of society or its "hang
together" quality. For Parsons, then, the function of the
government, or political system, is to distribute power and its
use within the society, whether that society is a democracy, a
monarchy, or something else. Similarly, the function of the
religious system is to answer the society's questions of deepest
meaning (e.g., Why does injustice exist? What happens at
death? What is the purpose of life?). As a final example, the
function of the family system is (among other things) to provide
future members for the society (through birth) and to pass on
the society's heritage to these new members through effective
socialization. In sum, according to Parsons, the point of these
subsystem functions is their contribution to the system as a
whole, so that system stability and equilibrium may be
maintained over time.
Parsons's theory provided basic answers to sociology's main

questions. That is, society comes into being through the
institutionalization of patterned interaction, it continues through
reproduction and the socialization of its young, and it maintains
its stability through the interactive functions of its several
subsystems. Parsons' framework, however, was not without its
critics, and chief among them was a second influential
functionalist, Robert Merton (1910–2003), who spent virtually
his entire teaching career at Columbia University.
Merton stressed what he felt were two important correctives to
Parsons' general theoretical framework. The first of these was
the need for a clearer theoretical statement about how the
social, cultural, and personality systems are actually connected
to each other during interaction experiences. To address this
need, Merton emphasized social roles as the connectors or
midpoints between individuals and the social wholes of which
they are a part. In fact, Merton's work on "role theory" is among
the most classic of twentieth century sociological writings.
Second, Merton felt that just as some things "functioned"
positively on behalf of society's stability and equilibrium,
others functioned negatively—or even surprisingly. Merton thus
distinguished between an institution's latent functions (i.e.,
unintended and unexpected functions) and its manifest
functions (i.e., expected and intended functions). Some
examples from the educational world will make the point.
Generally, speaking, one of the main "purposes" or functions of
the educational system is to maintain literacy within the
population. In Merton's terms this would be a manifest
function of the educational system. At the same time, though,
the grading and tracking features of the educational system also
maintain social class differences within the general population,
and it is this latter function which in Merton's terms is latent or
unexpected. Some theorists also use the term dysfunctional for
what is latent, because generally latent functions are those of
negative and unintended consequence. Merton's own
terminology, however, was limited to manifest and latent when
describing intended and unintended consequences of social-

system functions. Merton's critique of Parsons' work was
extensive and we shall return to it later in the course, but here it
highlights the need for clear theoretical concepts that express
directly what sociologists are striving to say.
The Character of Change
The third main emphasis of functional theory is its grounding
assumption about the character of "change." Over all, because
each of society's institutions functions to maintain system
equilibrium, change is presumably held in check by a balance of
internal efficiencies that theoretically keep system stress to a
minimum. Change is, therefore, something that happens
gradually (if at all) and its presence is (for functionalists)
dependent on minimizing stress within the overall system. As
we shall see, this point is contested by conflict theory, which
argues that "stress" within the system is often the indicator of a
potential problem in the system and typically one of systemic
inequality.
Conflict Theory
Sociology's second major theoretical framework is that of
conflict theory. Conflict theory has its roots in the writings of
Karl Marx and his theory that capitalism is an exploitative and
inherently conflict-producing economic system, because it is
premised upon the power-based profit advantage of one group
of people (those with extensive resources) over a second group
of people (those who lack resources) who are, thereby,
economically dependent on the first group.
Conflict theory is especially helpful in addressing questions of
social and political inequality, e.g., patterns of bias and their
systemic outcomes. This is because conflict theory presses one
to examine latent as well as manifest functions of power,
particularly with respect to the types and amounts of access that
individuals and groups have to limited social resources. For this
reason, then, conflict theory has figured prominently as a
framework for analyzing patterns of dominant and subordinate
relations in American political and social experience.
Although rooted in European Marxist thought, conflict theory

became an established perspective within American sociology
during the 1950s and 1960s, and as used by contemporary
theorists, its application highlights exploitation that can exist at
both society's macro (i.e., institutional or system-wide) and
micro or interpersonal levels. Moreover, as most commentators
point out, because conflict theory argues that exploitation is
endemic to social interaction, conflict theory prioritizes
exploitation as a topic of analysis in sociology, and tends,
thereby, to be less conservative in its political orientation than
is functionalist theory. Put differently, conflict theory is
directed more to changing, rather than upholding, society's
status quo. The sociological literature on dominant and
subordinate group relations as rooted in patterns of prejudice
and discrimination is an example of conflict theory's main
contribution to sociology in the last half century, as is almost
the entire field of social problem analysis.
Explaining Society and Its Processes
Like functionalism, conflict theory also provides answers to
sociology's basic questions. First, societies come into being as a
result of exploitation and the struggle of groups and individuals
for scarce resources. Moreover, societies continue because a
society's more powerful members maintain themselves (and
society) through the use of power over those who are dependent
upon them for such important things as food, shelter, work, and
income. Finally, societies change either because it is to the
benefit of those in power for such change to happen, or because
at times, those who are exploited realize their exploitation and
are in differing ways empowered to do something about it. At a
later point in the course we will put some specific questions to
conflict theory concerning the conditions that make some people
more or less aware of the power imbalances they are
experiencing. For now, however, our emphasis is on the main
ideas expressed by conflict theorists and the implications of
these ideas for understanding the character of society as
conflict-ridden.
Symbolic Interactionism

The third main perspective sociologists use to understand social
and human behavior is symbolic interactionism, or the idea that
although institutionalized social structure is always the
backdrop of micro and macro interactions, it is actually through
the media of symbols and the definitions of things that
individuals relate and meet in social connection(s). Generally,
symbolic interactionism stresses the face-to-face level of
interaction, and in this it contrasts clearly with functionalism
and conflict theory, which typically stress the macro or social
structural level of social interaction. Symbolic interaction is not
without some implications for large-scale interaction, however,
because symbols and social meanings (i.e., shared definitions of
a situation) can be either highly personalized (such as family
traditions during the holidays) or culture-wide, as is the case
with the significance of one's flag or national anthem. For
symbolic interactionism, it is, however, the symbols themselves
that are the keys to understanding interaction and all related
social phenomena, because, according to this view, without the
shared understanding of those symbols, interaction could not
and would not happen.
As a rule, symbolic interactionism does not address all of
sociology's main questions. Its focus on shared symbols as
contexts of understanding, however, draws attention specifically
to the role of language and metaphor as elements in the
theorizing process, and for this reason it is very suggestive of
insights that can complement those of functionalism and
conflict theory. Moreover, its particular attention to language
and metaphor make it very useful in analyzing micro or face-to-
face levels of interaction. It is, therefore, an important factor in
the development of social constructionism, a theoretical
perspective that we will examine later in the course. G. H.
Mead (1863–1931) is the theorist most associated with symbolic
interactionism, but there are others: Herbert Blumer (1900–
1987), one of Mead's graduate students, is also well known in
this framework, as are the "sociologists of knowledge," Peter
Berger and Thomas Luckmann (1966), who have combined

Mead's work with many emphases of functionalist and conflict
theory.
As our discussions progress over the topics of this course, we
will flesh out other aspects of these dominant theoretical
frameworks. At this point, however, it is enough to note that
each framework makes specific assumptions about: (1) how
societies develop, (2) how they continue, change, or remain
largely the same; and (3) how human development is a dynamic
of interaction between individuals and the social wholes of
which they are a part.
Socialization
An important concept that cuts across each of the three
theoretical frameworks described above is socialization, or what
theorists have generally described as the internalization of a
society's language, norms, and values. In each of these
perspectives, socialization is seen as multi-staged. First, there is
primary socialization, which occurs during childhood.
Following this, secondary socialization begins. Secondary
socialization continues throughout life and includes adolescent
socialization during the teen years and role-based or
occupationally specific experiences of socialization as one
passes through various aspects of adult life.
These experiences of socialization are coordinated by the
individuals making up society's various subsystems. In primary
socialization, these include family members, school teachers,
social and community leaders, and increasingly, the impact of
media and popular culture. Similarly, the agents of secondary
socialization also include family members and popular culture,
but in addition, role models who personify life goals and how to
reach them, as well as cultural norms about what is possible
within one's circumstances.
Each of sociology's three theoretical perspectives has a
particular view about socialization. In the functionalist
perspective, primary and secondary socialization are seen as
functional or positive for society, because they engender
cooperation among society's members. That is, individuals learn

the norms and roles appropriate to various institutional
subsystems, and they thereby learn how to maximize their
efficiency within them. In turn, this minimizes potential strains
within the system.
A different perspective about socialization is held, however, by
conflict theorists. This is because in the conflict perspective,
attention is focused on how socialization engenders compliance
to society's norms rather than commitment to society's norms.
This difference in perspective is not a simple matter; nor is
simply it a matter of ideology—although ideologies are often at
play in discussions of this topic. Rather, what is at issue here
are two distinct things. The first includes the value-based
assumptions particular to the functional and conflict-theory
perspectives, i.e., the idea that society rests either on consensus
as borne by effective socialization (the functionalist view) or
alternatively, compliance as also borne of effective
socialization (the conflict theorist view).
The second point at issue in this consensus-compliance
distinction is whether the individual has influence over his or
her own socialization. This issue was raised in a now-famous
essay by Dennis Wrong in 1961. At that time, Parsons's
functionalist framework was quite prevalent in American
academic circles, and as laid out by Parsons, his overall theory
stressed that the "personality system" is adequately explained
by Freudian theory, with society's subsystems providing the
arenas for the resolution of Freud's variously detailed
psychosexual conflicts. In a critique of Parsons's work,
however, Dennis Wrong argued that Parsons's understanding of
socialization was flawed in at least two ways. First, it equated
socialization with internalization, but did not spell out how
internalization actually occurs. Second, Parsons's application of
Freud's theory was rigid and reductionistic in that it limited
personal development to the dynamics of psychosexual crises
only, and ignored other flexibilities that Freud himself
discussed. According to Wrong (1961), each of these flaws
contributed an "oversocialized conception of man" [sic] within

the social sciences, such that individuals emerged as simply
automatons of society's various institutions. Wrong argued
against such oversocialization because, in effect, it presumed
that individuals are powerless before the elements of their
socialization, and that they are, therefore, the pawns of social
processes only.
Oversocialization is a logical implication of the functionalist
perspective, and for many years it was a dominant emphasis
within the theoretical literature. Since Wrong's critique,
however, oversocialization has received extensive discussion,
such that the concept of socialization is now a more nuanced
"both-and" topic. That is to say, socialization produces both
compliance and commitment, and theorists must take both ideas
into account as they describe how socialization happens. The
implications of oversocialization, together with the idea that
socialization is a process directed to both compliance and
commitment, will be an important subtext in our analysis of the
relationship between the individual and society. For now,
however, it is sufficient to note these differences and their
relationships to the functionalist and conflict perspectives, as
summarized in figure 1.2 below.
Figure 1.2
Sociology's Main Theoretical Perspectives
Topic
Structural Functionalism
Conflict Theory
Symbolic Interactionism
Level of analysis
Macro—emphasis on social structures
Macro—emphasis on social structures
Micro—emphasis on individuals
Society
Society is a social system made up of large scale institutions (or
sub-systems) that function together for the good of the whole.
Society is a social system made up of large scale institutions (or
sub-systems) that function together for the good of

those holding power.
Presumes backdrop of large-scale social institutions, but does
not make main theoretical statements about them.
Interaction
Is structural and grounded in cultural patterns that engender
norms; occurs through structures embodying those norms with
actors including individuals and/or institutions.
Is structural and grounded in cultural patterns that engender
norms; occurs through structures embodying those norms with
actors including individuals and/or institutions.
Is face-to-face and grounded in symbols of individual's day-to-
day experience as learned through socialization.
Important ideas
System equilibrium—harmony or balance of society's
subsystems.
Functional—what meets society's needs.
Dysfunctional—what disturbs system equilibrium.
Manifest functions—those with intended or obvious
consequences.
Latent functions—those typically not seen and that typically
have "dysfunctional" impacts.
Conflict—Society is based on the struggle for scarce resources.
Exploitation—Those with resources seek to maintain their
position and do so by maintaining power.
Capitalism is the main factor in the imbalance of power among
groups and individuals; those with resources seek to maintain
their position.
Symbols—primarily linguistic and are the primary media
through which individuals and others interact.

Shared definitions make symbols possible.
Social stability and change
Society coheres through structurally embodied consensus;
change is predictable but generally not desired; occurs from
elements seen generally as dysfunctional for system integration,
so system integration works to contain it.
Society is potentially unstablebecause of inherent conflicts, but
those with resources seek to maintain those resources (power)
and generally do not desire change
By presuming backdrop of large-scale institutions, symbolic
interactionism generally does not address issue of structural
change.
Interaction between self and society
Socialization engenders cooperationbetween self and society
and enables goal attainment.
Socialization engenders compliance between self and society
and enables status quo maintenance.
Socialization occurs through language, gesture, and social
definitions.
Four Challenges Facing Contemporary Sociological Theory
As indicated earlier, sociology's three main perspectives
differently address the main questions defining sociology as a
discipline. Since the 1980s, however, four developments have
occurred that challenge sociology's main theoretical
perspectives: social location; globalization; virtual reality and
the advent of online interaction—or more generally, the rise of
the Internet and World Wide Web; and postmodernism.
Social Location
Social location is a reasonably new term in the vocabulary of
sociology. It is borne of the insights of feminist and other
rights-based social movements, and it made its debut within the
literature during the mid- to late 1980s. In concrete
terms, social location refers to the standpoint or social
grounding of one's personal identity, as rooted in such
seemingly unalterable characteristics as time, race, ethnicity,

sex, and age—and as some might argue, sexual orientation. The
critical words in this definition, however, are those of social
grounding and seemingly unalterable characteristics, for no
matter what one does or where one goes, such things as one's
age, race, sex, and ethnicity—as defined by one's society—come
along as well. The examples of age and sex (including sex
changes) will illustrate the point.
There is no denying that age and the aging process occur
regardless of one's efforts to stop them. To be sure, one can
work hard at "slowing" the aging process down—one can eat
well, exercise, and the like—but the process continues no matter
what we do. With each day, our bodies literally get older. This
we cannot change. What can change, however, and what often
do change, are the many assumptions society makes about what
age and aging mean. In the United States, for example, being
over 60 no longer means one is "old" and readying for
retirement, but rather, in many cases, it means preparing for a
second career to occupy one's "retirement years." In fact, "old"
is something Americans don't really want to be, and much of the
popular culture attests our efforts to postpone aging as much as
possible. In summary terms, then, although our bodies actually
do age, we find that society has differing expectations about
how and what we should do and be in those older bodies, and
many of these expectations differ widely from those of an
earlier generation. To speak about the ways society defines the
meaning of age, therefore, is to speak about the social location
of age or its social grounding, as distinct from its physical or
biological characteristics.
An even more dramatic example of social location has to do
with sex. At birth, each of us is typed as either female or male,
depending on whether our bodies exhibit female or male
genitals capable of classification. And, like age, one's
biological sex was once thought to be permanent and given,
regardless of other factors. Science, medicine, and biology,
however, have changed our knowledge of sexuality, and now,
although statistically rare, individuals can and do change their

primary and secondary sex characteristics. This type of change
notwithstanding, sex is also socially defined, in that it is
marked by specific gender expectations, or specific assumptions
about what is appropriate for male and female behavior, and
these tend to follow us even if one has experienced a sex
change. By way of illustration, Jan Morris'
book, Conundrum (1974) provides a vivid account of the
expectations Jan experienced once travel author James Morris
became the woman he always felt he should be.
To sum up this description of social location, then, we may say
two things: first, that as the examples of age and sex indicate,
social location refers to the fact that there are some
characteristics that are defined for us as we come into the world
and assume various places within it. Second, because these
characteristics are defined for us as we come into the world,
they are the filters through which we experience the world.
Thus, as one engages others in conversation, one never stands
as a man or woman only, or as light- or dark-skinned man or
woman only, or even as young or old, light- or dark-skinned
male or female only. Rather, one stands as all of these, as
defined by a given society, and with all that the combined
effects that such characteristics might imply for self-
understanding and the way in which one interprets, engages, and
is engaged by the world.
The concept of social location is an important challenge facing
sociological theory, and although many sociologists today
incorporate it into their introductory or more advanced texts, it
is yet a source of bias when not acknowledged. Moreover, it is
an observation of enormous significance as one considers the
ways in which individuals are connected in their day-to-day
interactions. As we continue in the course, we will have the
opportunity to look at social location as a factor that conditions
the relationship between the individual and society, and we will
examine its impacts in various sectors, but notably those of
institutional and interpersonal interactions.
Globalization

A second recent challenge to sociological theory is that of
globalization—again a theme evident from the 1980s onward,
but with ongoing tensions as one reviews the literature (cf.,
e.g., Giddens, 2003; Stigliz, 2002; The International Forum on
Globalization, 2002; and Soros, 2002). In
brief, globalization refers to the world-wide network of monies,
persons, economies, and communication systems, and the
combined effects these have for both developed and developing
nations. Globalization has both its advocates and opponents,
and among the challenges it poses to a discussion of the
individual and society are (1) the theoretical need for world-
based conceptual frameworks (rather than frameworks that
address individuals and societies only), and (2) the need for an
interdisciplinary perspective on economic and political
structures, and the role of poverty as a tool of political and
military power. As this course progresses, we will examine
several different theories about globalization and its impact on
social policy. In addition, we will look specifically at the role
of gender in policies of global scope, for it is in the experience
of women worldwide that policy implications of globalization
become screamingly clear.
Virtual Reality and Online Interaction
A third challenge facing an understanding of how individuals
and society interact (or are connected) is that of virtual reality
and the power of the Internet. Perhaps because it is now the
medium of our own interaction, it would appear to need little
comment or explanation. However, to the extent that individuals
interact through Web-based worlds such as this one, their self-
concept (and subsequent behavior) may be modified, as might
their assumptions about societies and other cultures, which, for
political or other reasons, may "lag" behind the electronic
curve. Virtual reality is an important factor conditioning the
relationship between the individual and society, if for no other
treason than that it is both there and not there. It thus raises a
host of legal questions which, in turn, recondition the
interaction of individuals in society. Indeed, some have even

argued that the advent of virtual reality poses anew the
philosophical question of visible and invisible, "heaven-and-
earth"-like realities that emerge as religious traditions undergo
change and/or secularization! As we look at the interaction
between society and our "cyber selves," we will indicate some
of the manifest and latent functions that virtual reality has for
people in their day-to-day life and why one might see it as
symbolic interaction at the most diffuse level.
Postmodernism
A fourth challenge facing sociological theory today—and
particularly the sociological discussion of how individuals and
society are connected—is that of postmodernism. The full
ramifications of this challenge will become more evident as the
course progresses, but for now it is sufficient to note
that postmodernism is a framework that focuses on the specific
and seemingly unrepeatable particulars of human experience.
Postmodernism's particular challenge to sociology is that it
undercuts the theoretical ability to make meaningful statements
about the lasting features of social and, ultimately, intellectual
organization. Put somewhat differently, postmodernism is, at
one level, a theory against theories, for its basic argument is
that real theory cannot be created simply because no human
experience is ever repeated in exactly the same way.
Postmodernism is one of the most strident of challenges facing
sociological theory today because it cuts at the heart of
continuity over time, a basic ingredient in the stability of social
interaction or the relationship between the individual and
society.
Resources for Rethinking the Relationship between the
Individual and Society
There are several theoretical resources that sociology offers as
tools for understanding how individuals and society interact or
are connected. We have already described, for example, such
concepts as the social system and manifest and latent functions
through our discussion of sociology's main theoretical

perspectives. By way of brief overview then, it will be helpful
to describe a handful of concepts that are yet relevant to our
analytical discussions, but not yet formalized. Further, we may
divide these concepts into three separate groups. First, and at
the most general level, there are what social theorist Robert
Nisbet (1966) has described as sociology's "unit ideas," i.e.,
those concepts that provide thematic unity to both the classical
and contemporary literature of the field. According to Nisbet,
classical and contemporary sociological thinking is grounded in
five pairs of concepts that include the contrasts between (1)
community and society, (2) authority and power; (3) status and
class; (4) the sacred and the secular; and last (5) alienation and
progress.
In our theoretical overview, most of these concept pairs would
fall within one or more of Parsons' many subsystems. For
example, the concept pair, community and society would be
seen as the two most abstract levels of individual-society
interaction, because the individual would be interacting with
both cultural norms (community) and social structures
(components of society). At the same time, concept pairs
of authority and power and status and class would be seen as
falling within political and economic subsystems, and often
within the intersection of work and gender roles. Similarly, the
concept pair of sacred and secular would fall within the
subsystem of religion (understood as a cultural system of
patterned meaning), while that of alienation and progress would
return us to work and the economy. We will, as the course
progresses, touch on each of these, and expand them beyond a
functionalist perspective. For now, however, it is sufficient to
note them as some of the building blocks we will employ.
Theoretical Paradigms
A second set of resources for discussing the relationship
between individual and society stems from the writings of
sociology's classical theorists, and these also bear mention as a
background to our work:
1. Marx's idea of capitalism as the vehicle of both exploitation

and alienation
2. Durkheim's idea of society as a sui-generis reality—that is, a
reality that both precedes and postdates the life of the
individual, and together with this, his idea of morality or social
norms as the vehicle of social cohesion
3. Weber's concept of bureaucracy as a form of social
organization
4. Weber's idea of modernity as both disenchantment and
rationalization
These concepts will figure prominently as we make our way
through the course, and particularly as we examine sociologies
of work and gender in American society and the impacts of
globalization and virtual reality in each of these areas.
Micro and Macro Perspectives
Our third set of resources for understanding the relationship
between the individual and society includes concepts drawn
from the wider vocabulary of sociology itself, including the
three theoretical frameworks we have earlier described. These
concepts include such ideas as groups, interaction, social order
and/or social organization, institutions, social structure,
culture—and once more, society. These concepts are introduced
briefly below.
Groups, Social Structure, and Social Interaction
If there is any concept that is basic to sociological analysis, it is
that of the group, or what virtually all introductory textbooks
describe as "any number of people with similar norms, values
and expectations, who interact with one another on a regular
basis" (Schafer 2005, 109). Some examples of groups include
workplace colleagues, other parents at your child's dance class,
the two-person group of the married couple, and of course, the
members of this class. Moreover, as these examples illustrate,
groups can and do vary in size, and this is an important fact.
For example, the Boy Scouts of America is a group, just as is
the married couple, yet the interactions with and within each are
far from similar. In the larger social group there are additional
layers of formalization that have specific implications for group

experience not present in the intimacy of the two-person couple
group. At the same time, however, this larger group is still a
"number of people with similar norms, values, and expectations,
who interact with one another on a regular basis."
Social structure is also a basic sociological concept, for it refers
to "the way in which society is organized into predictable
relationships" (Schafer 2005, p. 103) or again, as Anderson and
Taylor (2005, p. 5) describe it, "the patterns of social
relationships and social institutions that comprise society."
These institutions and their relationships are what we take for
granted; they are the macro level units of society, and they
include such things as the government, the educational system,
family structure(s), religion, and the economy—many of the
things which in Parsons' terms are the subsystems within a
society.
Third, the concept of social interaction is, as we have seen from
our discussions of sociology's main theories, quite important.
As defined by introductory textbooks, social interaction is
"what people do when they are in one another's presence"
(Henslin 2005, 95). This definition, of course, presumes that
one is dealing with micro (or face-to-face level) interactions,
and not macro-level or institutionally based interactions. The
concept of interaction, however, is not and should not be
limited to face-to-face encounters, because interaction occurs
between organizations and their counterparts, as, for example,
when banks cash checks or when lobbyists increase political
influence.
Culture, Social Organization, and the Social Order
In the discussion on functionalism we noted that for functional
theorists such as Parsons, culture or the cultural system is the
collection of patterned meanings that characterize or define
society or the social system. More formally, however, culture is
"…the totality of learned socially transmitted customs,
knowledge, material objects and behavior" (Schaefer 2005, p.
58) that exist in a society. In this light, then, culture is not only
the norms and aspirations a society has for its members, but is

also a society's media of entertainment and recreation, its
language and ethnic indicators, its technologies and system-
based norms for all interactions. In a word, it is the identity of
the society and the "stock of ideas" and heritage upon which the
society's members consistently draw.
A concept closely related to that of culture is social
organization, or the formal and informal ways a society
organizes its general ways of being and living. For example, the
idea that football is a fall (but not a spring) sport is part of
America's informal social organization because for many, much
of life is organized around this fact. There is, however, no law
or compelling force that requires football to be played through
the fall; it just, in fact, is. Football's financial foundations,
however, are a different story, for these are tied to the sports
industry generally, as well as to the educational system and
clothing industry, and these ties are anything but informal.
Sometimes, theorists combine the ideas of culture and social
organization to speak abstractly about the "social order." In
essence, the social order is this combination, but it is also the
idea that this combination of culture and social organization is
relatively stable and continuous over time.
Finally, as if enough had not already been said about it, the
concept of society needs one further refinement, and that is its
formal definition. You will no doubt recall that in the
discussion of sociology's three theoretical perspectives, the idea
of society was described through Parsons's language of the
social system. This is entirely appropriate and valid, but it
needs to be pointed out here that the phrase the social system is
itself a theoretical construct. It is a term one uses to make sense
of a specific reality, but it is a metaphor, not something that is
necessarily the encompassing definition of a reality. Put this
way, any society may (in the context of sociology) be analyzed
as a social system, but by way of definition, societies are actual
concrete things. They are those realities comprised by specific
geographic boundaries within which people live and share a
culture (or perhaps even dominant and subcultures), but the

defining emphases of a society are its territorial character and
general culture, which members, as well as others, recognize.
The importance of the definitional emphasis is twofold: first, by
emphasizing that societies are things members and others
recognize about each other, this definition presumes the
presence of at least some developed social structure. Second, it
provides a basis by which one may make comparisons about
different types of societies and the range of structural
development one may find within them, a point of particular
importance when we consider issues of globalization.
The Individual and Society: A Preliminary Perspective
We began module 1 by noting that this course is about the way
individuals are connected to each other and connected to the
many other connections that already exist in the world and
precede our knowledge about them. To close this module, it will
be helpful to anticipate some of the specific contexts through
which those connections take shape, and what we shall be
asking about them as we examine them.
Making the Connections
In the remaining modules, we will look at several aspects of
work and social change within American society. We will
examine the routinization of work in what George Ritzer calls
our "McDonaldized" society, and we will consider its recasting
within contexts beyond the food industry as described, for
example, by Barbara Ehrenreich in Nickel and dimed: On (not)
getting by in America and Arlie Hochschild in The
commercialization of intimate life: Notes from home and work.
We will examine the American civil rights movement as an
example of cultural and social change and we will examine how
symbols are often a part of our own social constructions of
reality. We will examine virtual reality, globalization, and
postmodernism, and as we undertake each of these analyses, we
will regularly ask how individuals are connected to one another
and the social wholes of which they are a part, and further, how
sociology's theories themselves ground these questions by the

metaphors they employ, e.g., the image of society as a "system"
requiring either maintenance or critique, or alternatively, a
symbol requiring interpretive construction.
Finally, as we explore the ways in which individuals connect
and are connected to one another in increasingly diverse and
diffuse social settings, we will look specifically at the
conditions affecting trust in the social order, and why the
"sociology of trust" with its implications for socialization,
interaction, and commitment and compliance has, since the
1990s, become such an important topic. These discussions will
take us variously into the areas of social change, civil and
human rights, and a variety of visions that might characterize a
full and challenging understanding of the relationship between
the individual and society.
References
Anderson, M. L., & Taylor, H. F. (2005). Sociology: The
essentials. Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth.
Berger, P. L., & Luckmann, T. (1966). The social construction
of reality. Garden City, NY: Anchor Books.
Blumer, H. (1966). "Sociological Implications of the Thought of
G. H. Mead." American Journal of Sociology,71: 535–544.
Freud, S. (1930/1989). Civilization and its discontents (J.
Strachey, Trans.). New York: Norton.
Giddens, A. (2003). Runaway world: How globalization is
reshaping our lives(2nd ed.). New York: Routlege.
Henslin, J. (2005). Sociology: A down to earth approach. (7th
ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
The International Forum on Globalization. (2002). Alternatives
to economic globalization. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.
Jung, C. G. (1981). The archetypes and the collective
unconscious (Collected works of C.G. Jung, volume 9, part I).
(2nd ed.). Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by.
Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Morris, J. (1974). Conundrum. New York: Harcourt Brace

Jovanovich.
Merton, R. (1967). On theoretical sociology: Five essays old
and new. New York: The Free Press.
Newman, D. (2004). Sociology: Exploring the architecture of
everyday life. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press.
Nisbet, R. (1966). The sociological tradition. New York: Basic
Books Inc.
Parsons, T. (1951). The social system. New York: The Free
Press.
Schaefer, R. T. (2005). Sociology. (9th ed.). New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Soros, G. (2002). On globalization. New York: Public
Affairs/Perseus Group Books.
Stiglitz, J. (2002). Globalization and its discontents. New York:
Norton.
Strada, M. J. (2000). Through the global lens: An introduction
to the social sciences. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson
Education, Inc.
Strada, M. J. (2003). Through the global lens: An introduction
to the social sciences. (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Pearson Education, Inc.
Wrong, D. H. (1961). "The Oversocialized Conception of Man
in Modern Sociology." American Sociological Review 26(2):
183-193.
http://www.aupress.ca/index.php/books/120219 FROM THIS
LINK CHAPTERS 1, 2, 3, &4
This reading discusses how social scientists analyze religion in
terms of what it does for the individual, community, or
society.http://www.sociologyguide.com/religion/social-
functions-and-dysfunctions-of-religion.php
This article talks about the allegation that some clergy are
suspected of helping those causing unrest in the Ukraine.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/07/world/europe/evidence-
grows-of-russian-orthodox-clergys-aiding-ukraine-
rebels.html?_r=0

This article discusses the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and its
history and ethnic relations, architecture, food, economy, and
political life. Pay particular attention to the section gender roles
and statuses.http://www.everyculture.com/Sa-Th/Saudi-
Arabia.html
A report that presents labor market and economic opportunities
for both men and women. The report touches on significant
progress towards gender equality in education around the world,
but notes persistent inequalities in
pay.http://www.oecd.org/social/50423364.pdf
In this module we present a brief history of modern society and
describe how the development of the modern world has had an
impact on the individual in society. We begin by discussing how
society's movement from small agrarian villages to urban
centers changed the way people interact within society—
especially through their work roles. In our discussion we will
briefly examine how Karl Marx and Max Weber defined this
era, but we'll spend most of our time investigating how modern
systems affect our lives today.
Most of our discussion of modern systems will focus on George
Ritzer's theory of the McDonaldization of society. Ritzer
proposes that the efficient, predictable, calculable, and highly
controlled system for delivering fast food to customers—first
and most notably exhibited in our society by McDonald's
restaurants—has become a system that is now pervasive all
through our lives, from our schooling to our medical
care.Module 2: The Individual in Modern SocietyTopics
IntroductionModernity: A Historical PerspectiveModernity and
ProgressModernization and the McDonaldization of Society
Introduction
Our exploration of the individual in society begins with the
individual in modern times. Sociologically, modern times began
in the second half of the eighteenth century. This was a
significant era in the Western world (specifically, western
Europe) because it marks the beginning of a social shift from an
agrarian-based society to an industrial one. The era was also

known for a greater focus on rapid social progress, rational
thought, and institutional organization. By the beginning of the
twentieth century, "modernism" became a movement that
affected social order, art, literature, and other aspects of
Western culture.
The changes that occurred between the late 1700s and the early
1900s defined some of the greatest changes in social thought,
interaction, and roles in Western history. The impact of this era
can still be felt today, with certain aspects of modern society
still in existence. This module will explore some of the aspects
of the modern era, how the remnants of modernism are still
prevalent today, and how the individual is affected by the
highly rational modern world.Modernity: A Historical
Perspective
As the eighteenth century gave way to the nineteenth century,
the individual increasingly worked in industrial jobs, moving
away from rural communities and into new and growing urban
centers. Roles during agrarian times were very different than in
industrial times. Agrarian work roles were personal, often
creative, and contributed directly to the local community. In
agrarian society individuals contributed to a farm economy with
jobs that directly contributed to daily life through such
activities as growing crops, milling flour, weaving cloth, or
making horseshoes. Additional craftsmen jobs came out of the
era, from stonecutting to woodworking. Craftsmen jobs (from
milling to metalworking) were generally equal in status and of
equal importance to the function of an agrarian village. This
lifestyle allowed individuals to be creative contributors to their
village (and, therefore, their world) through their work.
As society became more industrialized and urbanized, roles
changed. Work roles became more dehumanized and more
bureaucratized. What does this mean? In order for society to
function in an urban, industrial world, job roles had to become
more organized and structured. For example, a factory is
comprised of machine operators, packers, sanitation workers,
secretaries, book keepers, auditors, managers, executives, and

so on. In industrialized worksites, workers are organized
rationally and contribute at different levels of the workplace.
Pay differs depending on the position, and as a result status
differs.
Unlike agrarian work life, industrial work life is structured from
the top down and is deeply reliant on profits and efficiency.
This lifestyle, which became increasingly common in the
nineteenth and into the early twentieth century, was
considerably different than the agrarian lifestyle that preceded
it. Individuals lost the personal connection between work, life,
and community, and alienation became more common.
Individuals became commodities in the industrialized world
along with the other products that contributed to the industrial
process. This change affected the great thinkers, activists, and
artists of the era, thus fueling the modernist
movement.Modernity and Progress
The age of enlightenment was a great era of reason and
scientific study that occurred in eighteenth-century Europe.
This era ushered in a greater emphasis on the study and
classification of nature, the rise of democracy and democratic
movements (in the U.S. and France), and a general trend toward
reason and away from superstition and mysticism.
In the modern era that followed, scientific findings,
experimentation, and reason led to great progress. In a rational
sense, the progress of this early industrial era was profound.
Production and the sharing of goods and knowledge increased
significantly over the previous era. Also, the establishment of
institutions allowed individuals to become better educated or
receive mass-produced goods more efficiently and effectively.
This progress benefited many individuals, especially those at
the top of the system who were able to benefit from the
industrial and economic growth of the era and the wealth that
came with it.
This progress was not beneficial to all, however, and some
found the new industrial system to be oppressive to those at the
bottom of the new socioeconomic ladder. During the nineteenth

century, then, two men began to analyze the negative affects of
industrial changes on the modern world: both were German and
both were observers of social economics. These men were Karl
Marx and Max Weber.Karl Marx (1818–1883)
Marx was the first economic writer to discuss the social impact
of the changing times. Marx believed that humans were social
beings who needed to bond with society through their work. As
society industrialized, the individual became more and more
alienated from society through his work (Marx, 1963). Unlike
agrarian times, work no longer was a creative or social outlet
for people. Industrial work commoditized workers, making them
less human and more machine-like. Their output and production
became more important than their humanity. Additionally, the
industrialized worker lost power and status through his work.
Unlike previous times when the worker made an individual
contribution to his community, workers know were controlled
and manipulated by those who controlled the means of
production. This dehumanized workers, placing them in service
to the objects they produced, alienating them further from
community and family bonds.Max Weber (1864–1920)
Weber began his career focused on the industrialization of
Germany in the late 1800s and changes in the agrarian
economics of the earlier part of that century. One of Weber's
observations is how industrialization led society to a state of
rationalization—that is, a focus on efficiency, precision, and
calculability. Society no longer functioned based on the
everyday cooperation of a community through the trade of
craftsmen and farmers; society now functioned through
bureaucratic organization.
Weber (1921/1968) stated that
[from] a purely technical point of view, a bureaucracy is
capable of attaining the highest degree of efficiency, and is in
this sense formally the most rational known means of exercising
authority over human beings. It is superior to any other form in
precision, in stability, in the stringency of its discipline, and in
its reliability. It thus makes possible a particularly high degree

of calculability of results for the heads of the organization and
for those acting in relation to it. It is finally superior both in
intensive efficiency and in the scope of its operations and is
formally capable of application to all kinds of administrative
tasks (p. 223).
In other words, when mass production is the ultimate goal,
rational systems that emphasize efficiency, precision, and
control over personal creativity will best achieve that goal.
These systems are designed to benefit the authorities at the top,
in control of production, but some might say that they also
benefit the masses by providing access to affordable products
and improved technology. But, at what price? Weber states that
the rationalized systems that allow for affordable goods and
easy access to progress also work to hold us in a rationalized
"iron cage." Weber defined this iron cage as a series of
interconnected structures, which if fully rationalized, would
ground and guide virtually all human interaction. George Ritzer
summarizes Weber's concept further. It is one in which people
move seamlessly from "one rationalized system to
another...from educational institutions to rationalized
workplaces, from rationalized recreational settings to
rationalized homes. (Ritzer, 2004, p. 25)"
Further, Ritzer repeats Weber's overall concern that this world
of overlapping systems is nothing short of dehumanizing, for it
completely stifles human individuality and its creativity.
Indeed, as Weber once described it, it is a world in which
people become "cog[s] in the machine" as they move in and
around their caged environs, for the most part mindlessly and
without wonder (Weber, 1969, p. 455). So the question now
arises, has this actually all come to pass? George Ritzer
explores this further in his book, The McDonaldization of
Society.Modernization and the McDonaldization of Society
In George Ritzer's The McDonaldization of Society, he notes
that although McDonaldization is fully embodied in the fast-
food industry as illustrated by the history of McDonald's Inc.,
McDonaldization is also a process that goes beyond the fast-

food industry to encompass numerous other sectors of
experience. Hence, for Ritzer, McDonaldization is a "wide
ranging process…by which the principles of the fast-food
restaurant are coming to dominate more and more sectors of
American society, as well as the rest of the world. (Ritzer, p.1)"
McDonaldization is an example of the rationalization of society
and its structures—or to put the matter in more classical terms,
the iron cage of bureaucracy that sociologist Max Weber once
cautioned against. McDonaldization reflects our increasing
movement in and out of rationalized systems and the growing
loss of human creativity that results from this fact.
McDonaldization describes a system that emphasizes four
elements: efficiency, calculability, predictability, and control.
These four elements of McDonaldization are discussed at length
by Ritzer and are summarized briefly below.Elements of
McDonaldization: Efficiency
Ritzer begins his discussion of efficiency by pointing out that
our striving for efficiency has driven our lives to move at a
faster pace. In a McDonaldized world, the most efficient means
to an end is usually a means that has been tested and determined
by experts and taught to us all to follow. For example, who
among us has not placed an order at a fast-food counter, stood
aside while the worker pulled our desired food from a shelf,
given us a paper cup to fill with soda at the machines to which
we (but not the workers) walk, and then given us a tray from
which we eat and later use to collect our trash so we (and not
the workers) can slide it into the appropriately marked push
bins and then stack the tray on top of that same bin? This is a
recognizable pattern of behaviors taught to us by the fast-food
industry to move us along quickly and efficiently so the next
patrons can take our places. Of course, when we really stop to
think about it, we can probably recall many other patterns
taught to us from other areas of our lives (including school, the
workplace, our doctor's office, the self-checkout line at the
grocery store) that are all meant to move us through our lives
quickly and efficiently.Elements of McDonaldization:

Calculability
Calculability is the second principle of McDonaldization—for
both workers and their fast food customers. As a principle of
factory-line production, calculability required managers to
figure projected costs, outputs, and profits along side the extent
to which wasteful behaviors could be contained and/or
eliminated. Thus calculability was itself premised on efficiency,
and this applied as much to the development of the fast-food
industry, says Ritzer, as it did to such other precursor industries
as steel and automotive production. Moreover, as Ritzer also
notes, in a world in which computers would eventually evolve
almost as quickly as did fast-food chains (albeit well after the
development of fast-food chains) calculability could be
extended almost infinitely—and perhaps even magnificently—to
the ongoing needs of cost and projected outputs, and worker and
profit margins.
Interestingly, calculability is not only about money, says Ritzer
(cf., e.g., Ritzer, pp. 10-11). Rather, it is also about product
perception and the idea that if some of a product is good, then
"more is better," and especially so if gained at a nominal price.
Thus, the "lures" of "double," "triple," and "super-sized"
product amounts emerged, and with them, the calculated benefit
of customer satisfaction: a sense of gain for the customer, and—
of equal if not greater import—a definable profit amount for the
product producer.Elements of McDonaldization: Predictability
The third of McDonaldization's early elements, i.e.,
predictability, was also born of the marriage between rational
efficiency and scientific management. Primarily, predictability
refers to workers repeating the same tasks over and over again
(Ritzer, p. 83) so that outputs can be further specified, counted,
and calculated, with wasted efforts again kept to a minimum. At
the same time, though, says Ritzer, predictability also refers to
a certain level of customer standardization, because given that a
product has been standardized over time (by employees working
to certain standards), customers come to expect a certain level
of consistency about that product, i.e., its characteristic look,

taste, or feel as a known and now expected commodity. Thus,
like efficiency and calculability, predictability also applies to
customers, in that customers (as well as workers) become a part
of the McDonaldization process (cf., Ritzer, p. 83 and chapter 4,
passim).Elements of McDonaldization: Control through Non-
Human Technology
The fourth element of McDonaldization is control through non-
human technology, which again is tied to efficiency as applied
to factory-based production, and particularly in the development
of the moving assembly line as conceived by Ford's automotive
engineers. Thus, as Ritzer notes (in chapter 6 of his text), this
moving assembly line not only enhanced worker efficiency, it
also controlled this efficiency, and it would do so increasingly,
as it was, itself, perfected. To return, then, to our earlier
illustration: Who among has not walked to fill our cup,
entrusted our nutritional needs to the (robotically) clocked
production of fries, meat, and measured milkshakes, bussed our
own table, and in general, become the moving counterpart to an
obvious "behind-the-counter" worker who, once we order, now
moves us along for the final product, and thereby, final
profit.Summary
To sum the discussion up to this point: It is Ritzer's thesis that
these four elements—efficiency, calculability, predictability,
and control through non-human technology—all laid the
groundwork for the dynamics of a social phenomenon—
McDonaldization—as it would emerge from under the golden
arches of McDonald's in the mid-1950s. As the second half of
the twentieth century wore on, the four elements of
McDonaldization were increasingly applied to other areas of
everyday life, from how we receive our medical care to how we
receive our education. (See figure 2.1 for a description of how
the McDonaldization process has been generalized to other
venues in our society.) The more McDonaldized our world
becomes, the less we are able to act independently and
creatively within in it. It is, in a sense, a vicious cycle where we
are moved along quickly from activity to activity, rushed,

pushed, and in greater need of other short-cuts (McDonaldized
solutions) to feed, clothe, and entertain us.
The impact of this highly rationalized system on our lives is
described in a very personal and human way by Barbara
Ehrenreich in her book Nickel and Dimed: On (Not) Getting by
in America. We will conclude our study of the individual in
modern society by reading her book, which outlines her first-
hand experiences in a series of low-wage jobs in several
American cities. Ms. Ehrenreich puts a very human face on the
impact of the commoditizing of low-wage workers in this
country. Where Ritzer describes systems, Ehrenreich describes
personal experiences within these systems. This personal
description of how some individuals are impacted by a modern,
overly rational society greatly aids our discussion in module 2.
References
Ehrenreich, B. (2001). Nickel and dimed: On (not) getting by in
America. New York: Holt.
Marx, K. (1963). Alienated Labor. In T. B. Bottomore
(Ed.), Karl Marx: Early writings (T. B. Bottomore, Trans.). New
York: McGraw-Hill.
Ritzer, G. (2004). The McDonaldization of society. (Revised
new century ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press.
Weber, M. (1969). Some consequences of bureaucratization. In
L. Cozer & B. Rosenberg (Eds.), Sociological theories: A book
of readings (p. 455). (3rd ed.). New York: Macmillan.
Weber, M. (1921/1968). Max Weber on law in economy and
society (E. Shils & M. Rheinstein, Trans., p 223). New York:
Simon and Schuster.

Learning ResourcesLinksFROM THIS LINK CHAPTERS 1, 2, 3, &4 ht.docx

More Related Content

Similar to Learning ResourcesLinksFROM THIS LINK CHAPTERS 1, 2, 3, &4 ht.docx

More from croysierkathey

Recently uploaded

Learning ResourcesLinksFROM THIS LINK CHAPTERS 1, 2, 3, &4 ht.docx