Comparing Three Sociological Theories

When you talk about Sociology there are three theories that come to mind. These theories have some similarities, but mostly have strong differences. The first theory, Functional Theory, has a main objective of examining how the various social parts work together for the good of the whole society. The second theory, Conflict Theory, is school of thought that assumes that social change and conflict are normal, expected aspects of social life. The third and last theory, The symbolic interactionist perspective, is the consideration of the symbols and details of everyday life, and what these symbols mean, and how people interact with each other. In the following paragraphs I will detail the essential features of these theories and how these theories differ.
Functional Theory understands society in a broad sense. Through shared values and norms, society creates a consensus that hold itself together. Most people that study sociology also believe in Capitalism. Society is more than the sum of its parts; rather, each part of society is functional for the stability of society as a whole. The different parts are primarily the institutions of society. Each institution is organized to fill different needs. Each need
When consensus is detected, it is the result of repression of the haves and have nots being exploited. The masses are not bound to society by their shared values, but by coercion at the hands of those in power. This perspective emphasizes social control, not consensus and conformity. Those with the most resources exercise power over others with inequality and power struggles result. Today, conflict theorists find social conflict between any groups in which the potential for inequality exists: racial, gender, religious, political, economic, and so on. These unequal groups usually have conflicting values and agendas, causing them to compete against one