ASSIGNMENT

IN

UNDERSTANDING CULTURE,
SOCIETY AND
POLITICS

SUBMITTED BY:

SONNY BOY A. SAJONIA

ABM-12

SUBMITTED TO:

REV. FR. ELMER LORETO, SVD

3 MAJOR THEORIES OF SOCIOLOGY

1. STRUCTURAL FUNCTIONALISM THEORY

The functionalist perspective is based largely on the works of Herbert Spencer, Emile
Durkheim, Talcott Parsons, and Robert Merton. According to functionalism, society is a
system of interconnected parts that work together in harmony to maintain a state of balance and
social equilibrium for the whole. For example, each of the social institutions contributes
important functions for society: Family provides a context for reproducing, nurturing, and
socializing children; education offers a way to transmit a society’s skills, knowledge, and culture
to its youth; politics provides a means of governing members of society; economics provides for
the production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services; and religion provides moral
guidance and an outlet for worship of a higher power.

The functionalist perspective emphasizes the interconnectedness of society by focusing

on how each part influences and is influenced by other parts. For example, the increase in single
parent and dual-earner families has contributed to the number of children who are failing in
school because parents have become less available to supervise their children’s homework. As a
result of changes in technology, colleges are offering more technical programs, and many adults
are returning to school to learn new skills that are required in the workplace. The increasing
number of women in the workforce has contributed to the formulation of policies against sexual
harassment and job discrimination.

Functionalists use the terms functional and dysfunctional to describe the effects of social
elements on society. Elements of society are functional if they contribute to social stability and
dysfunctional if they disrupt social stability. Some aspects of society can be both functional and
dysfunctional. For example, crime is dysfunctional in that it is associated with physical violence,
loss of property, and fear. But according to Durkheim and other functionalists, crime is also
functional for society because it leads to heightened awareness of shared moral bonds and
increased social cohesion.

Sociologists have identified two types of functions: manifest and latent (Merton 1968).
Manifest functions are consequences that are intended and commonly recognized. Latent
functions are consequences that are unintended and often hidden. For example, the manifest
function of education is to transmit knowledge and skills to society’s youth. But public
elementary schools also serve as babysitters for employed parents, and colleges offer a place for
young adults to meet potential mates. The baby-sitting and mate-selection functions are not the
intended or commonly recognized functions of education; hence they are latent functions.
 Functionalism, also called structural-functional theory, sees society as a structure with
interrelated parts designed to meet the biological and social needs of the individuals in that
society. Functionalism grew out of the writings of English philosopher and biologist, Herbert
Spencer (1820–1903), who saw similarities between society and the human body; he argued that
just as the various organs of the body work together to keep the body functioning, the various
parts of society work together to keep society functioning (Spencer 1898). The parts of society
that Spence referred to were the social institutions, or patterns of beliefs and behaviors focused
on meeting social needs, such as government, education, family, healthcare, religion, and the
economy.

Émile Durkheim, another early sociologist, applied Spence’s theory to explain how
societies change and survive over time. Durkheim believed that society is a complex system of
interrelated and interdependent parts that work together to maintain stability (Durkheim 1893),
and that society is held together by shared values, languages, and symbols. He believed that to
study society, a sociologist must look beyond individuals to social facts such as laws, morals,
values, religious beliefs, customs, fashion, and rituals, which all serve to govern social life.
Alfred Radcliff-Brown (1881–1955) defined the function of any recurrent activity as the part it
played in social life as a whole, and therefore the contribution it makes to social stability and
continuity (Radcliff-Brown 1952). In a healthy society, all parts work together to maintain
stability, a state called dynamic equilibrium by later sociologists such as Parsons (1961).

Durkheim believed that individuals may make up society, but in order to study society,
sociologists have to look beyond individuals to social facts. Social facts are the laws, morals,
values, religious beliefs, customs, fashions, rituals, and all of the cultural rules that govern social
life (Durkheim 1895). Each of these social facts serves one or more functions within a society.
For example, one function of a society’s laws may be to protect society from violence, while
another is to punish criminal behavior, while another is to preserve public health.

Another noted structural functionalist, Robert Merton (1910–2003), pointed out that
social processes often have many functions. Manifest functions are the consequences of a social
process that are sought or anticipated, while latent functions are the unsought consequences of a
social process. A manifest function of college education, for example, includes gaining
knowledge, preparing for a career, and finding a good job that utilizes that education. Latent
functions of your college years include meeting new people, participating in extracurricular
activities, or even finding a spouse or partner. Another latent function of education is creating a
hierarchy of employment based on the level of education attained. Latent functions can be
beneficial, neutral, or harmful. Social processes that have undesirable consequences for the
operation of society are called dysfunctions. In education, examples of dysfunction include
getting bad grades, truancy, dropping out, not graduating, and not finding suitable employment.
 According to functionalism, society is a system of interconnected parts that work together
in harmony to maintain a state of balance and social equilibrium for the whole. It is an approach
to understand, society is made various units smalls unit can be considered as family. For
example- all social institutions, organizations, professional organizations, units may be
understood through this approach. The beauty of this perspective is it looks at society in its
totality. It is completely based on integrity of the different organs of the society.

Example- we can understand the Road Transport organization which is also interlinked
with Educational Institutes, Financial Institutes, Electricity, Civil Aviation, Police etc. if there is
strike or any sort of disruption the employees of all departments will be equally affected and may
paralyze the function.

FUNCTIONALISM is a Macro theory because it focuses on the way each part of society
functions together to contribute to the whole.

Criticism

One criticism of the structural-functional theory is that it can’t adequately explain social
change. Also problematic is the somewhat circular nature of this theory; repetitive behavior
patterns are assumed to have a function, yet we profess to know that they have a function only
because they are repeated. Furthermore, dysfunctions may continue, even though they don’t
serve a function, which seemingly contradicts the basic premise of the theory. Many sociologists
now believe that functionalism is no longer useful as a macro-level theory, but that it does serve
a useful purpose in some mid-level analyses.
2. CONFLICT THEORY

The functionalist perspective views society as composed of different parts working

together. In contrast, the conflict perspective views society as composed of different groups and
interest competing for power and resources. The conflict perspective explains various aspects of
our social world by looking at which groups have power and benefit from a particular social
arrangement. For example, feminist theory argues that we live in a patriarchal society—a
hierarchical system of organization controlled by men. Although there are many varieties of
feminist theory, most would hold that feminism “demands that existing economic, political, and
social structures be changed” (Weir and Faulkner 2004, p.xii).

The origins of the conflict perspective can be traced to the classic works of Karl Marx.
Marx suggested that all societies go through stages of economic development. As societies
evolve from agricultural to industrial, concern over meeting survival needs is replaced by
concern over making a profit, the hallmark of a capitalist system. Industrialization leads to the
development of two classes of people: the bourgeoisie, or the owners of the means of production
(e.g., factories, farms, businesses); and the proletariat, or the workers who earn wages.

The division of society into two broad classes of people—the “haves” and the
“havenots”—is beneficial to the owners of the means of production. The workers, who may earn
only subsistence wages, are denied access to the many resources available to the wealthy owners.
According to Marx, the bourgeoisie use their power to control the institutions of society to their
advantage. For example, Marx suggested that religion serves as an “opiate of the masses” in that
it soothes the distress and suffering associated with the working-class lifestyle and focuses the
workers’ attention on spirituality, God, and the afterlife rather than on such worldly concerns as
living conditions. In essence, religion diverts the workers so that they concentrate on being
rewarded in heaven for living a moral life rather than on questioning their exploitation. .

Conflict theory looks at society as a competition for limited resources. This perspective

is a macro-level approach most identified with the writings of German philosopher and
sociologist Karl Marx (1818–1883), who saw society as being made up of individuals in
different social classes who must compete for social, material, and political resources such as
food and housing, employment, education, and leisure time. Social institutions like government,
education, and religion reflect this competition in their inherent inequalities and help maintain
the unequal social structure. Some individuals and organizations are able to obtain and keep
more resources than others, and these “winners” use their power and influence to maintain social
institutions. Several theorist suggested variations on this basic theme.

Polish-Austrian sociologist Ludwig Gumplowicz (1838–1909) expanded on Marx’s

ideas by arguing that war and conquest are the basis of civilizations. He believed that cultural
and ethnic conflicts led to states being identified and defined by a dominant group that had
power over other groups (Irving 2007).

German sociologist Max Weber agreed with Marx but also believed that, in addition to
economic inequalities, inequalities of political power and social structure cause conflict. Weber
noted that different groups were affected differently based on education, race, and gender, and
that people’s reactions to inequality were moderated by class differences and rates of social
mobility, as well as by perceptions about the legitimacy of those in power.

German sociologist Georg Simmel (1858–1918) believed that conflict can help integrate
and stabilize a society. He said that the intensity of the conflict varies depending on the
emotional involvement of the parties, the degree of solidarity within the opposing groups, and
the clarity and limited nature of the goals. Simmel also showed that groups work to create
internal solidarity, centralize power, and reduce dissent. Resolving conflicts can reduce tension
and hostility and can pave the way for future agreements.

In the 1930s and 1940s, German philosophers, known as the Frankfurt School,
developed critical theory as an elaboration on Marxist principles. Critical theory is an expansion
of conflict theory and is broader than just sociology, including other social sciences and
philosophy. A critical theory attempts to address structural issues causing inequality; it must
explain what’s wrong in current social reality, identify the people who can make changes, and
provide practical goals for social transformation (Horkeimer 1982).

More recently, inequality based on gender or race has been explained in a similar manner
and has identified institutionalized power structures that help to maintain inequality between
groups. Janet Saltzman Chafetz (1941–2006) presented a model of feminist theory that attempts
to explain the forces that maintain gender inequality as well as a theory of how such a system can
be changed (Turner 2003). Similarly, critical race theory grew out of a critical analysis of race
and racism from a legal point of view. Critical race theory looks at structural inequality based on
white privilege and associated wealth, power, and prestige.

CONFLICT THEORY is a Macro theory because it focuses on the way Inequalities contribute
to social differences and perpetuate differences in power.

Criticism

Just as structural functionalism was criticized for focusing too much on the stability of
societies, conflict theory has been criticized because it tends to focus on conflict to the exclusion
of recognizing stability. Many social structures are extremely stable or have gradually progressed
over time rather than changing abruptly as conflict theory would suggest.
EXAMPLE:

Generally speaking, conflict theory offers explanations for socioeconomic change. For
example, the growth of union movements may be explained by the fact that employers and
employees have adverse interests based on their relationships to wealth and power. So if we
make an observation like “The rich get richer and the poor get poorer” we have to explain how
that circumstance comes about in a way that makes sense. Some might explain that condition by
arguing that some are destined to be poor and some destined to be rich. Others might explain that
condition by arguing that the personality traits of rich people are more adapted than the
personality traits of poor people. Conflict theory could instead argue that an individual’s relation
to wealth and power is a better predictor: the rich get richer because money makes money and
money is power. Conflict theory could instead argue that the poor get poorer because  the rich get
richer.

Real Life example:

People fight for food and water and even kill each other whenever there is a shortage. Survival is
what they seek. Another example might be that of labor unions, which are developed to fight for
the interests of workers, whereas trade organizations are made to fight for the interests of the
moneyed classes. 

An Example of Conflict Theory

For example, conflict theorists view the relationship between a housing complex owner and a
tenant as being based mainly on conflict instead of balance or harmony, even though there may
be more harmony than conflict. They believe that they are defined by getting whatever resources
they can from each other.

In the above example, some of the limited resources which may contribute to conflicts between
tenants and the complex owner include the limited space within the complex, the limited number
of units, the money which tenants pay to the complex owner for rent, and so on. Ultimately,
conflict theorists see this dynamic as one of conflict over these resources. The complex owner,
however gracious a landlord he or she may be, is fundamentally focused on getting as many
apartment units filled as possible so that he or she can make as much money in rent as possible.
This may introduce conflict between housing complexes, among tenant applicants looking to
move into an apartment, and so forth. On the other side of the conflict, the tenants themselves are
looking to get the best apartment possible for the least amount of money in rent.

This example illustrates that conflict can be inherent in all types of relationships,
including those that don't appear on the surface to be antagonistic. It also shows that even a
straightforward scenario can lead to multiple layers of conflict (in this case, between the tenants
and the owner, the owner and competing owners of other complexes, and between tenant
applicants looking to move into an apartent, for example).
3. SYMBOLIC INTERACTIONISM

Symbolic interactionism reflects the micro-sociological perspective, and was largely

influenced by the work of early sociologists and philosophers, such as George Simmel, Charles
Cooley, George Herbert Mead, and Erving Goffman. Symbolic interactionism emphasizes
that human behavior is influenced by definitions and meanings that are created and maintained
through symbolic interaction with others.

Sociologist W.I. Thomas (1966) emphasized the importance of definitions and meanings
in social behavior and its consequences. He suggested that humans respond to their definition of
a situation rather than to the objective situation itself. Hence Thomas noted that situations that
we define as real become real in their consequences.

Symbolic interactionism also suggests that our identity or sense of self is shaped by social
interaction. We develop our self-concept by observing how others interact with us a label us. By
observing how others view us, we see a reflection ourselves that Cooley calls the “looking glass
self.”

Symbolic interactionism is a micro-level theory that focuses on the relationships among

individuals within a society. Communication—the exchange of meaning through language and
symbols—is believed to be the way in which people make sense of their social worlds. Theorists
Herman and Reynolds (1994) note that this perspective sees people as being active in shaping the
social world rather than simply being acted upon.

George Herbert Mead (1863–1931) is considered a founder of symbolic interactionism though he

never published his work on it (LaRossa and Reitzes 1993). Mead’s student, Herbert Blumer,
coined the term “symbolic interactionism” and outlined these basic premises: humans interact
with things based on meanings ascribed to those things; the ascribed meaning of things comes
from our interactions with others and society; the meanings of things are interpreted by a person
when dealing with things in specific circumstances (Blumer 1969). If you love books, for
example, a symbolic interactionist might propose that you learned that books are good or
important in the interactions you had with family, friends, school, or church; maybe your family
had a special reading time each week, getting your library card was treated as a special event, or
bedtime stories were associated with warmth and comfort.

Social scientists who apply symbolic-interactionist thinking look for patterns of interaction
between individuals. Their studies often involve observation of one-on-one interactions. For
example, while a conflict theorist studying a political protest might focus on class difference, a
symbolic interactionist would be more interested in how individuals in the protesting group
interact, as well as the signs and symbols protesters use to communicate their message. The
focus on the importance of symbols in building a society led sociologists like Erving Goffman
(1922–1982) to develop a technique called dramaturgical analysis. Goffman used theater as an
analogy for social interaction and recognized that people’s interactions showed patterns of
cultural “scripts.” Because it can be unclear what part a person may play in a given situation, he
or she has to improvise his or her role as the situation unfolds (Goffman 1958).

Studies that use the symbolic interactionist perspective are more likely to use qualitative research
methods, such as in-depth interviews or participant observation, because they seek to understand
the symbolic worlds in which research subjects live.

Constructivism is an extension of symbolic interaction theory which proposes that reality is

what humans cognitively construct it to be. We develop social constructs based on interactions
with others, and those constructs that last over time are those that have meanings which are
widely agreed-upon or generally accepted by most within the society. This approach is often
used to understand what’s defined as deviant within a society. There is no absolute definition of
deviance, and different societies have constructed different meanings for deviance, as well as
associating different behaviors with deviance. One situation that illustrates this is what you
believe you’re to do if you find a wallet in the street. In the United States, turning the wallet in to
local authorities would be considered the appropriate action, and to keep the wallet would be
seen as deviant. In contrast, many Eastern societies would consider it much more appropriate to
keep the wallet and search for the owner yourself; turning it over to someone else, even the
authorities, would be considered deviant behavior.

EXAMPLE:

 A boy (Jeremy) and a girl (Kim) broke up last year. When Jeremy received an email from
Kim to go out he agreed and they went to a bar. Jeremy had a different kind of meaning
though in comparison with Kim. Jeremy went out as friends, where Kim went out as with
the meaning of ‘potential boyfriend’. Also in the communication the language was
misunderstood. Kim wanted to have a romantic night, while Jeremy wanted to have a talk
in a bar. This is also caused by the nonverbal element of emails. The third
miscommunication is under thought. When Jeremy replied so fast Kim thought that they
were going out to a romantic place. Jeremy went out just as ‘friends’. They both used an
internal dialogue to interpret the situation and to make a perception of the evening.

 Language is an instance of symbolic interaction. Words are symbols and we "fix"

meaning through the use of words. Words have commonly accepted meanings but it may
not always be so for all people and in all situations. Word punning, jokes are two
examples where the meanings of words suddenly transform in the sense that they convey
an entirely different meaning. So, the joke or the pun is lost on someone who fails to
grasp the intended meaning. Similarly, your joke no joke at all when the other party is not
kindly disposed to you.
Examples of Symbolic Interactionism

To better understand how those wearing this lens view reality, we can look at a specific example.
Imagine you have a sibling with whom you have had a rivalry your whole life. You see your
sister as having always received an unfair bias, getting what she wanted more than you have.
You perceive her as picking at your flaws when you interact or cutting you down in some way.
All of these experiences take place through a series of communications, social situations, and
thoughts you have about your sister.

Events will also be symbolic to you, representing more to you than the objective facts might
suggest. For instance, she receives a promotion with her company within a year of being hired.
Since you don't believe she has the skills for the job, you give the situation a particular meaning,
specifically, that it is unfair and that it is an example of how your sister always gets what she
wants.

Perhaps then your sister loses her job abruptly with no other job in sight and comes to you for
emotional support as she recovers from the loss. You and she grow closer as she expresses
appreciation for your help and solicits advice from you on how to move forward. Your role
changes from that of a critical onlooker who is jealous to one who is needed for support and
compassion. The loss of her job becomes an opportunity to connect with other aspects of who
your sister is as a person, rather than seeing her as your sister who has an unfair advantage in the
world. You give your sister a new meaning: that of a person in need of your support and perhaps
not always as lucky as you had thought.

Symbolic interactionists would look at this series of events and note how your experiences and
interactions with your sister form your understanding of reality. Before she loses her job, you
have one version of reality in your mind. Symbolically, you see your sister as having an unfair
advantage in the world and hold this idea in your mind. When the dynamic shifts and you play a
role of supporting her in a time of need, the meaning you give your sister's life fluctuates,
changes, and develops. All of this is based on the social interactions you have, the language used
to communicate, and the symbolic meaning you give to these events and thoughts.

SYMBOLIC INTERACTIONISM is a Micro theory as it focuses on one-to-one interactions

and communications.

Criticism

Research done from this perspective is often scrutinized because of the difficulty of remaining
objective. Others criticize the extremely narrow focus on symbolic interaction. Proponents, of
course, consider this one of its greatest strengths.
EXAMPLE FOR THE THREE SOCIOLOGICAL THEORIES:

FARMING AND LOCAVORES: HOW SOCIOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVES

MIGHT VIEW FOOD CONSUMPTION

The consumption of food is a commonplace, daily occurrence, yet it can also be

associated with important moments in our lives. Eating can be an individual or a group action,
and eating habits and customs are influenced by our cultures. In the context of society, our
nation’s food system is at the core of numerous social movements, political issues, and economic
debates. Any of these factors might become a topic of sociological study.

A structural-functional approach to the topic of food consumption might be interested

in the role of the agriculture industry within the nation’s economy and how this has changed
from the early days of manual-labor farming to modern mechanized production. Another
examination might study the different functions that occur in food production: from farming and
harvesting to flashy packaging and mass consumerism.

A conflict theorist might be interested in the power differentials present in the regulation
of food, by exploring where people’s right to information intersects with corporations’ drive for
profit and how the government mediates those interests. Or a conflict theorist might be interested
in the power and powerlessness experienced by local farmers versus large farming
conglomerates, such as the documentary Food Inc. depicts as resulting from Monsanto’s
patenting of seed technology. Another topic of study might be how nutrition varies between
different social classes.

A sociologist viewing food consumption through a symbolic interactionist lens would

be more interested in micro-level topics, such as the symbolic use of food in religious rituals, or
the role it plays in the social interaction of a family dinner. This perspective might also study the
interactions among group members who identify themselves based on their sharing a particular
diet, such as vegetarians (people who don’t eat meat) or locavores (people who strive to eat
locally produced food).
 SOURCES

https://laulima.hawaii.edu/access/content/user/kfrench/sociology/The%20Three%20Main
%20Sociological%20Perspectives.pdf

https://courses.lumenlearning.com/sociology/chapter/theoretical-perspectives/

https://www.quora.com/What-are-some-examples-of-functionalist-perspective-in-sociology?
fbclid=IwAR1nr8w0W69gSrMN2_VZAsz9UElxP1fzM_5FQh0USwhmqRmWZOfy_bI-9Us

https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-conflict-theory-What-are-some-real-life-examples

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/conflict-theory.asp

https://www.utwente.nl/en/bms/communication-theories/sorted-by-cluster/Interpersonal-
Communication-and-Relations/symbolic-interactionism/

https://www.quora.com/What-are-some-good-symbolic-interactionism-examples

https://study.com/academy/lesson/symbolic-interactionism-in-sociology-definition-criticism-
examples.html