Comparison of Functionalism, Conflict Theory, and Symbolic Interactionism - Research Paper Example

Introduction to Sociology Comparison of modern social theories (functionalism, conflict theory, and symbolic interactionism) in terms of the following issues: The underlying Model Structural functionalism is concerned with explaining explain the apparent stability and how societies sustain internal stability and survive over time. The theory compares the society to an organism whereby many parts function collectively to maintain the whole. Societies in this case can be perceived to be coherent, bordered, and essentially relational constructs that act like organisms, with diverse parts (social institutions) working together to maintain and reproduce them (Andersen and Taylor 22). Conflict theory stipulates that society cannot be perceived as a complex system pursuing equilibrium, but rather as a competition fuelled by inherent inequalities. Hence, society is comprised of individuals, social structure, and organizations competing for limited resources in reflection of the inherent inequalities (Andersen and Taylor 22). The theory uses inequality (economic) as an explanatory metaphor by stipulating that the bedrock of conflict in society is predominantly economic. Symbolic interactionist theory infers a theoretical approach exploring the relationship between humans and society. The theory view communication (exchange of meaning via language and symbols) as the basis of how individuals make sense of their world. The fundamental concept of this theory is that human action can be understood via the exchange of meaningful communication or symbols (Brinkerhoff et al 30). The most important part of society The most important part of society, according to structural functionalist theory, is social institutions that are functionally integrated to shape a stable system where change in one institution will orchestrate a change in another. Thus, the diverse parts of society are perceived to work in unconscious, quasi-mechanical way in pursuit of the overall social equilibrium. Conflict theory sees the society as a competition for limited resources comprising of individuals who must compete for political, social, and material resources. Thus, the society is made up of classes of distinct groups with opposing interests. According to conflict theory, the society is in constant conflict over resources whereby some individuals and organizations possess more resources (power and influence) and employ those resources to sustain their positions of power in society (Dillon 56). The core principles of symbolic interactionism details that human action is guided by meanings that individuals hold whereby meanings arise out of social interaction and that social action emanates from fitting together of individual lines of action. Thus, individuals attach meanings to symbols and act in line with the subjective interpretation of the symbols. Hence, human society is a social product. Structural-functionalist theory appeals to me because the theory vividly captures the importance of various components that make up the society. Hence, all social and cultural phenomena are central and functional to the attainment of the state of equilibrium (Dillon 58). # 2 The American culture is frequently described as materialistic manifested by unquenchable desire for goods. Majority of American consumers hold the belief that acquisition and consumption is essential to their satisfaction in life and that broadened levels of consumption will render them happier. Materialism has been highlighted as a dominant characteristic of the American society whereby individuals engage in a compulsive striving after things whereby consumers perceive the number and cost of items/goods to be the primary indicator of success. Similarly, individuals elevate the means to acquire possessions over goals in life (Dillon 60). Ecological approaches to culture explain the diverse ways that individuals live around the world based on the distinct adaptations to a wide range of environments. Similarly, social ecologists demonstrate how individuals how ecological factors may yield to cultural change such as advancement in the technological means to harness the environment. Structural-functionalists, on the other hand, conceive the society as representing integration of institutions such as the family and the government whereby culture is presented as a system of normative beliefs that support social institutions (Jayapalan 57). Functionalists perceive the society as representing a complex system whose parts are integrated to promote solidarity and stability. The structural-functional model portrays culture as a complex strategy geared at meeting human needs. Thus, culture is perceived to represent relatively stable pattern grounded in core values. Structural-functionalist theory can be employed to explain how a society is organized, how it changes over time, and how the society’s structure and change influences human behaviors. Every society requires a culture to exist whereby the established cultural norms function to reinforce the fluid operation of the American culture. All members within the community cooperate to fulfill the societys needs, and the culture exists to fulfill its members’ needs. Functionalists approach culture with regard to values and view culture as mirroring the societal values. For instance, education is a central concept in the U.S. since it is highly valued. The culture of education, inclusive of the material culture such as textbooks, classrooms, and libraries, all reinforce the emphasis laid on the value of educating the American society. The cultural values that individuals hold guide people in making choices and thus the consumerist values that most Americans hold will guide them to make choices that are materialistic oriented (Jayapalan 65). # 3 Reform Judaism is a broad phrase that is employed to refer to various beliefs, practices and organizations that relate to Reform Jewish movement. One of the outstanding assertions is that Jewish law should be construed as a collection of general guidelines instead of a list of restrictions to be literally followed by all Jews. Durkheim defines religion in his book Elementary Forms of Religious Life as a combined system of beliefs and practices pertaining to sacred things, that is a collection of beliefs and practices that unite into a solitary moral community. According to Durkheim, religion forms one of the core forces that comprise the collective conscience. Durkheim views religion in the context of the entire society and appreciates its influence in shaping thought and conduct of the members of society. Religion in this case is not only a belief, but also frequent ceremonies by the believers, who develop and reinforce a sense of group solidarity. Rituals are essential in binding people together, as it allows individuals to get away from the routine aspects of daily life into enhanced realms of experience (Kaplan 27). According to Durkheim, individuals view religion as a determinant in shaping the wellbeing and continuance of society. Thus, religion functions to unite society’s members by facilitating them to affirm their shared values and beliefs. Durkheim’s views on religion can be employed in evaluating how religion shapes aspects of identity and community, especially among Reform Jewish congregation. Durkheim’s views on religion can be employed in exploring the relationship between belief and community, and lived existence of this religious congregation (Kaplan 28). Durkheim’s views on religion can be employed in examining the concepts of Shabbat observance, Kosher practices, and function of belief for members and converts. The functional definition of religion as outlined by Durkheim is essential as it avails a way of understanding Reform Judaism. The congregants possess a desire to be affiliated with community and congregants participate in scheduled services pertaining to congregation membership such as Sunday conversion classes and Friday evening and Saturday morning Shabbat services. Most Jews can be considered to be culturally homogeneous and sharing a common identity. The Reform Judaism approach is consistent with Durkheim’s mode of examining whole structures in relation to parts (Jayapalan 42). This encompasses aspects such as observances of the Sabbath (Shabbat), dietary regulations, and attendance of services. There practices represent core symbols, which can be conceived as a group’s expression of the Reform Judaism on aspects of their culture and identity. # 4 Human History of Hunters and Gathers For a large part of human history, people have lived in hunting and gathering societies. Thus, one can assert that 99.75% of hominid history features human practicing as hunters and gatherers. In the contemporary society, hunters and gathers still exist, although marginally. Hunters and gathering societies have overtime disappeared quickly as they get replaced by more complex societies (Jayapalan 45). Subsistence Technology Early hominids were hunters and gathers from close to 2.5 million years ago, when stone tools were first registered within the archeological record. The development of technology for hunters and gathers was comparably slow. The subsistence technology or hunters and gathers are remarkably rudimentary. The tool kit for hunters and gathers featured light weapons such as bow and arrows, spears, and simple choppers and knives for skinning carcasses. Food collection tools detailed digging stick, simple wooden bowl, and slab of tree bark. Food preparation mainly encompassed rudimentary methods such as roasting in an open fire (Brinkerhoff et al 35). The Social Surplus Hunting and gathering societies are mainly small, with lifestyles depending on food extraction from the environment, which means that the societies cannot sustain an enormous population. Hunting and gathering societies are predominantly nomadic whereby the community extracts food from the environment and moves after its depletion. The population size in these communities is relatively small (Ross 12). Hunting and gathering societies also features enhanced prevalence of family and kinship structure as the central institution. Hunting and gathering societies usually do not have a formal education system, and children are socialized into a certain way of life via informal training and observation. The scarcity of resources within these societies leads to enhanced expectations on children in adding value to the community activities within the limits of their capabilities. Children’s independence and self-reliance are essential to the nomadic life. Hunters and gatherers extract what is already available within the environment, which forms their economic activity. The absence of production of food translates into a limited division of labor, and inadequate distribution of statuses and roles (Ross 20). The division of labor in these societies hinge on gender and age whereby men hunt while women gather. Hunting and gathering societies primarily do not have political systems, probably because of inadequate wealth or power to be distributed among the members. Nevertheless, some members within the society may accumulate prestige, but with no extensive power. Hunting and societies possess their own systems of explaining phenomena dominated by animism. # 5 Comparisons of conflict theories of Marx and Weber Karl Marx and Max Weber can be considered to be two of the most influential sociologists in the 19th century. Conflict in society is highlight three core elements, namely: conflict is an inherent attribute of society and an apparent feature of social life; the society details diverse social groups each with divergent values and interests; and, all societal conflict emanates from a clash between the dominant and lesser social groups owing to competition over scarce resources. Karl Marx and Max Weber can be considered to share a platform in the manner in which they viewed the society. Weber asserted that Marx was to narrow in his views and that he glorified economic issues as the fundamental forces causing change in society. Max, on the other hand, attempted to explore the macro-sociological forces to explain conflict in the society (Brinkerhoff et al. 32). Karl Marx focused on two groups: the capitalist class (dominant group) that owns and direct means of production, besides overseeing the distribution of means of production; and, the working class who avail labor. Max Weber also asserted that the society is rife with “conflict and struggle” over limited resources. Nevertheless, Max’s approach is distinct in the sense that there are multiple “status” groups within the society, each rich in diverse levels of social power (Turner 459). Max was predominantly concerned with the manner in which social structures influence human behavior by exploring how social class, power, and status influence human behavior and consciousness. Unlike Marx, Max’s investigation of the concept of social stratification does not endeavor to outline a historical analysis of societal development. Nevertheless, the two agree that class stratification has an apparent economic dimension. At the heart of Weber’s analysis of social stratification is the notion that all societies manifest hierarchical systems of dominance and subordination and that power is a significant determinant is channeling social relationships (Turner 460). Conflict is essentially normal and unavoidable part of social life. The society comprises of diverse social groups, each with opposing values and interests. The potential conflict may later become actual conflict as opposing groups are mobilized. The aggrieved group (subordinate) perceives to possess enough means to propagate violence in an effort to remedy the power imbalance (Whittaker 63). The powerless often generate ritual solidarity in compensation for the inadequacy of material resources. The ritualized energy yield both symbolic and moral appeal, which then fuels the problem of terrorism. The emotional energy generated maybe in the form of motivation, righteous indignation, and readiness to sacrifice, all decay factors and contributors to terrorism. Works Cited Andersen, Margaret and Taylor Howard. Sociology: Understanding a Diverse Society. Belmont: Thomson Higher Education, 2008. Print. Brinkerhoff, David, White Lynn and Ortega Suzanne. Essentials of Sociology. Belmont: Thomson Higher Learning, 2008. Print. Dillon, Michele. Introduction to Sociological Theory: Theorists, Concepts, and their Applicability to the Twenty-First Century. West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons, 2010. Print. Jayapalan, Andrew. Sociological Theories. New Delhi: Atlantic Publishers & Dist, 2001. Print. Kaplan, Dana. American Reform Judaism: An Introduction. New Jersey: Rutgers University Press, 2003. Ross, Kelly. The Foraging Spectrum: Diversity in Hunter-Gatherer Lifeways. Washington: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1995. Print. Turner, Jonathan. Handbook of Sociological Theory. New York: Springer Science, 2006. Print. Whittaker, David. Terrorists and Terrorism in the Contemporary World. New York: Routledge, 2004. Print. Read More