Compare And Contrast The Three Key Sociological Perspectives
There are three key perspectives of how one views the world sociologically: Symbolic Interactionism, Functional Analysis (Functionalism), and Conflict Theory. Everyone has their own opinion of which perspective is most dominant, as in, which they see more evident in their lives. However, I find myself to believe there is a greater combination of both Symbolic Interactionism and Conflict Theory at play. Some individuals argue that Symbolic Interactionism disregards the macro level of social interpretation – the “big picture.” In other words, those with this perspective may miss the greater concerns of society by having a narrowed concentration on the “size of the ring” rather than the “quality of the marriage”. This is why I see the world as both symbolic and conflicting, conflict views
…show more content…
allowing me to see the “bigger picture” and symbolism as the details that makeup this picture.
I don’t much agree with Functionalism because it does not support individuals taking an active role in amending their social setting, even when such amendment may be profitable.
Functionalism’s origin can be found in the works of Emile Durkheim, who was particularly concerned about how social order is conceivable or how society remains fairly constant. This perspective translates each component of society in terms of how it impacts the stability of it as a whole. Society is more than the quantity of its shares; rather, each factor of the community is operative for the solidity of the society. The diverse parts are predominantly the institutions of society, each of which is systematized to satisfy various needs and each of which has specific effects for the structure and nature of society. The elements are interdependent. When one part of the system is dysfunctional, it affects all other parts and creates social problems, which leads to social change. Functionalism perceives active social change as unfavorable because the various parts of society will compensate in a seemingly natural way for any problems that may arise. In contrast, the conflict perspective encourages such
change.
Conflict Theory, which was predominantly embedded in Karl Marx's works on classism, presents society in a different light than do the functionalist. This latter viewpoint focuses on the positive characteristics of society that add to its stability, whereas, the Conflict Theory focuses on the adverse, clashing, and altering nature of society due to the competition for limited resources. The conflict perspective embraces the idea that social order is preserved by dominance and capability, rather than cohesion and compliance. According to conflict theory, those who are prosperous and have supremacy will take any necessary measures to hold on to it, essentially by suppressing the underprivileged and incapable. This perspective attributes to most of the social occurrences in our history, including wars and revolutions, wealth and poverty, discrimination and domestic violence.
Though I do agree with the Conflict Theory as the bigger picture, I find it can, at times be an overly negative view of society; this is why I see Symbolic Interactionism in the smaller aspect of things. Symbolic Interactionism was rooted in Max Weber’s declaration that individuals act according to their interpretation of their world, however, it was George Herbert Meade - with the assistance of Charles Horton Cooley - who offered this perspective to the domain of sociology. Society is thought to be socially constructed through human interpretation; we impose subjective meanings (or symbols) on objects, events, and behaviors in order to determine our relationships with them and make sense of our lives. Symbols tell us how you are related to others and how you should act toward them such as a teacher, a mother, a boyfriend, or a brother; also how you view social relations as in marriage and divorce.
To me, Symbolic Interactionism and Conflict Theory balance each other; one being a positive view of society at the micro level and the other a negative view of society at the macro level. Without the combination of the two, I would either see the world too closely, missing the greater aspect of things or too vaguely, missing the underlying details that make up the whole.
allowing me to see the “bigger picture” and symbolism as the details that makeup this picture.
I don’t much agree with Functionalism because it does not support individuals taking an active role in amending their social setting, even when such amendment may be profitable.
Functionalism’s origin can be found in the works of Emile Durkheim, who was particularly concerned about how social order is conceivable or how society remains fairly constant. This perspective translates each component of society in terms of how it impacts the stability of it as a whole. Society is more than the quantity of its shares; rather, each factor of the community is operative for the solidity of the society. The diverse parts are predominantly the institutions of society, each of which is systematized to satisfy various needs and each of which has specific effects for the structure and nature of society. The elements are interdependent. When one part of the system is dysfunctional, it affects all other parts and creates social problems, which leads to social change. Functionalism perceives active social change as unfavorable because the various parts of society will compensate in a seemingly natural way for any problems that may arise. In contrast, the conflict perspective encourages such
change.
Conflict Theory, which was predominantly embedded in Karl Marx's works on classism, presents society in a different light than do the functionalist. This latter viewpoint focuses on the positive characteristics of society that add to its stability, whereas, the Conflict Theory focuses on the adverse, clashing, and altering nature of society due to the competition for limited resources. The conflict perspective embraces the idea that social order is preserved by dominance and capability, rather than cohesion and compliance. According to conflict theory, those who are prosperous and have supremacy will take any necessary measures to hold on to it, essentially by suppressing the underprivileged and incapable. This perspective attributes to most of the social occurrences in our history, including wars and revolutions, wealth and poverty, discrimination and domestic violence.
Though I do agree with the Conflict Theory as the bigger picture, I find it can, at times be an overly negative view of society; this is why I see Symbolic Interactionism in the smaller aspect of things. Symbolic Interactionism was rooted in Max Weber’s declaration that individuals act according to their interpretation of their world, however, it was George Herbert Meade - with the assistance of Charles Horton Cooley - who offered this perspective to the domain of sociology. Society is thought to be socially constructed through human interpretation; we impose subjective meanings (or symbols) on objects, events, and behaviors in order to determine our relationships with them and make sense of our lives. Symbols tell us how you are related to others and how you should act toward them such as a teacher, a mother, a boyfriend, or a brother; also how you view social relations as in marriage and divorce.
To me, Symbolic Interactionism and Conflict Theory balance each other; one being a positive view of society at the micro level and the other a negative view of society at the macro level. Without the combination of the two, I would either see the world too closely, missing the greater aspect of things or too vaguely, missing the underlying details that make up the whole.