3. Major Perspectives in Sociology There are three general perspectives in modern sociology. They are (i) The functionalist perspective (ii) The conflict perspective and (iii) The inter---actionist perspective. {i) The Functionalist Perspective: The functionalist perspective draws its original inspiration from the work of Herbert Spencer and Durkheim. In the view of functionalists, society is like living organism in which each part of the organism contributes to its survival. Therefore, the functionalist perspective emphasizes the way that parts of a society are structured to maintain its stability. Spencer compared societies to living organisms. Any organisms has a structure, that is, it consists of number of interrelated parts, such as a head, limbs, hearts, blood veins, nervous system, and so on. Each of these parts has a function to play in the life of the total organisms. Spencer further argued that in the same way, a society has a structure ~it also further argued that in the same way, a society has a structure, it also consists of interrelated parts, such as the family, religion, state, education, economy, and so on. Each of these components also has a function that contributes to the overall stability of the social system. Modern structural- functionalism [which is usually referred to as functionalism] does not insist much on the analogy between a society and an organism. However, the general idea of a society as a system of interrelated parts, persists even now. Emile Durkheim’s analysis of religion represented a critical contribution to the development of functionalism. Durkheim focused on the role of religion in reinforcing feelings of solidarity and unity within group life. For over four decades, parsons dominated American sociology with his advocacy of functionalism. He saw society as a network of connected parts, each of which contributes to the maintenance of the system as a whole. Under the functionalist approach, if an aspect of social life does not serve some identifiable useful function or promote value consensus among members of a society ~ it will not be passed on from one generation to the next. The functionalist theory assumes that society tends to be an organized, stable, well- integrated system, in which most members agree on basic values. In the functionalist view, a society has an underlying tendency to be in equilibrium or balance. Social change is therefore, believed to be disruptive unless it takes place in a slow and gradualmanner. Because changes in one part of the system normally brings about changes elsev in the system. Functionalism presumes that a given element in the social system may have its own functions or dysfunctions. The proper ‘functions’ add to the stability of the order, whereas t dysfunctions may disrupt the social equilibrium Functionalism makes a distinction between ‘manifest functions’, that is, those that are recognized and intended, and “latent functions”, that is, those that are unrecognized and unintended. An important criticism of the functional perspective is that it tends to be inherently conservative. This theory, fails to pay sufficient importance to the changes that take place in the system. Further, it is commented that this perspective ignores the element of conflict and its role in the social system. (ii) The Conflict Perspective: The conflict perspective derives its strength and support from the work of Karl Marx, who saw the struggle between the social classes as the major fact of history. In contrast to functionalists emphasis on stability and consensus, conflict sociologists see the social world in continual struggle. The conflict theorists assume that societies are in a constant state of change, in which conflict is 2 permanent feature. Conflict does not necessarily imply outright violence. It includes tension, hostility, severe competition, and disagreement over goals and values. Conflict is not deemed here as an occasional event that disturbs the smooth functioning of the system. It is regarded as a constant process and an inevitable part of social life. Karl Marx viewed struggle between social classes as inevitable because of the exploitation of workers under capitalism. Expanding on Marx's work sociologists and other social scientists have come to see conflict not merely as a class phenomenon but as a part of everyday life in all societies. Thus in studying any culture, organization, or social group, sociologists want to know “sho benefits, who suffers, and who dominates at the expense of others”. They are concerned with conflicts between worien and men, rich and the poor, upper castes and the lower castes and so on. In studying such questions conflict theorists are interested in how society's institutions — including the family, government, religion, education, and the media, may help to maintain the privileges of some groups and keep others in a subservient position. The conflict perspective dominated the Western European sociology and was largely neglected in American sociology until the sixties. Modern conflict theory, which is associated with such sociologists as Marx did on class conflict. it C.WrightMills (1956) and Lewis Coser (1956), does not focus, aslans and th ith the kinds of changes that conflict an bring and consensus. conservative”. At present, the conflict perspe: ctive is accepted within the discipline of sociology 28 one valid way to gain insight into a society. One important contribution of conflict theon society through the eyes of those Blacks in America and South Afric scholarship in sociology has helped y is that it has encouraged sociologists to view People who rarely influence decision-making .Example, the ’, the untouchables in India, and so on similarly, feminist us to have a better understanding of social behavior. Thus a family’s social standing is also now considered from the women’s point of view and not solely from the husband's position or income. Feminist scholars have also argued for a gender- balanced study of society in which women’s experiences and contributions are visible as those of men. (iii) The Interactionist Perspective: The Functionalist and conflict perspectives both analysise society at the macro-level. These approaches attempt to explain society ~ wide patterns of behavior. However, many contemporary sociologists are more interested in understanding society as a whole through an examination of social interactions at the micro-level small groups, two friends casually talking with one another, a family, and so forth. This is the interactionist perspective. This perspective generalizes about fundamental or everyday forms of social interaction. From these generalizations, interactionists seek to explain both micro and macro- level behavior. The interactionist perspective in sociology was initially influenced by Max Weber. He had emphasized the importance of understanding the social world from the viewpoint of the individuals who act within it. Later developments in this theory have been strongly influenced by social psychology and by the work of the Chicago School of Sociology, particularly George Herbert Mead. The interactionist perspective focuses on social behavior in everyday life. It tries to understand how people create and interpret the situations they experience, and it emphasizes how countless instances of social interaction roduce the larger structure of society such as government, the economy and other institutions. This perspective presumes that it is onlythrough these social behaviour of the people that society can come into being. Society | ultimately created, maintained, and changed by the social interaction of its members. Blumer preferred to stress on the symbolic interaction approach laid down by G.H.Mead Symbolic interaction is the interaction that takes place between people through symbols-such as signs, gestures, shared rules, and most important, written and spoken language. Much of this interaction takes place on a face-to-face basis, but it can also occur in other forms. For example, symbolic interaction is taking place between the author of this book and the readers who read the sentences here. The interactionist perspective provides a very interesting insight into the basic mechanics of everyday life. It has the advantage of revealing fundamental social processes that other perspectives normally ignore. An Evaluation of the Three Perspectives: These three perspectives-functionalist, conflict and the interactionist-represent three different ways of understanding the same reality, that is social phenomenon. Each of these perspectives starts from different assumptions, each leads the investigator to ask different kinds of questions, and each viewpoint is therefore likely to produce different types of conclusions. These perspectives seem to be contradictory also. But we cannot say that one is “better” than the other two, or even that they always incompatible. Each of these perspectives focuses on a different aspects of reality: Functionalism primarily focuses on social order, and stability and Integration. d change Contradictions and (i) (ii) Conflict theory, primarily focuses on tension an Conflicts. Interactionsim, primarily on ordinary experiences of everyday life Such as Social interaction, Socialization Social processes etc. Each of the perspectives has a part to play in the analysis of society. Sociology makes use of all the three perspectives since each offers unique insights into the same problem being studied. (iii)