Three Igms Of The Sociological Paradigm

In the study of sociology there are three major paradigms. These paradigms are functionalism, conflict theory, and symbolic interactionism. Each one views the world in very different ways, but ultimately their goal is the same: to understand why people behave the way they do in society. When faced with major social problems, these three paradigms have very different views of why they exist and how to solve them. To see how the paradigms offer different views, two social problems, in this case racism and religion, were taken and analyzed through the perspective of each paradigm. Functionalists view the world as parts that work together to keep society intact. They believe that everything that occurs has a specific purpose in maintaining balance in society. When it comes to an issues such as racism, functionalists would argue that it exists because racial minorities aren’t properly assimilating into society, and it’s causing imbalance in society. Functionalists might suggest that the only way to truly end racism would be for all minorities to be absorbed into the dominant society in all ways: socially, economically, and culturally. As for the issue of religion, functionalists
would say that religion is necessary for people to connect in society. Functionalists would say that religion causes conflicts because not everyone agrees on one. The only way for religion to create perfect balance in society is for everyone to accept one religion. This would allow society to find balance and harmony through a common belief. Conflict theorists believe that all societal groups are always competing for power, which creates tension in society.
Using this approach they would view racism as a problem that exists because of class conflict. The upper class is predominately one race, and therefore they use racism as a mechanism to keep the power within their class. Conflict theorists would probably agree that the only way to end racism would be to end class conflict, therefore creating complete equality. When faced with the matter of religion, conflict theorists might say that religion is a problem because it’s a concept used by a more powerful class to manipulate those less powerful in order to keep their power. Conflict theorists believe the only way for all conflicts to be solved is by eliminating class
conflict. Symbolic Interactionists believe that society is shaped through interactions in our everyday lives and that everybody’s beliefs come from their interpretation of the symbols that shape society. Conflicts arise whenever people’s definitions of certain symbols are not the same. Symbolic Interactionists would say that racism is a problem that is taught through exchanges in everyday life. People learn to have a racist mindset through many things: upbringing, negative experiences with certain races, and exposure to racially biased media. The only way to rid civilization of racism would be for everyone to agree that all races are equal, and for interactions in everyone’s lives to reinforce that idea. Symbolic Interactionists would say that religion influences the behavior of individuals because it shapes people’s beliefs. This, in turn, shapes non-religious things, such as the economy, gender equality, and education. Religion only becomes an issue when other religions teach conflicting ideas. The only way for a society to avoid disputes over religion are for everyone to believe in the same ideas of the central religion. The only way to avoid conflict in any situation is for everyone to have the same interpretations and understanding of all the symbols that shape society. By examining the social problems of racism and religion through the eyes of a functionalist, a conflict theorist, and a symbolic interactionist, the differences in each paradigm become more apparent. Although they are united by a common goal, each model has very diverse ways in which they offer explanations and solutions. By viewing social problems from the perspectives of all three paradigms, the problem is not only better understood, but the researcher’s sociological imagination is applied and expanded.