This essay will look at that two structural theories of functionalism and Marxists, it will compare and contrast both perspectives and identify similarities and differences in their views of on education family, as well as highlighting the strengths and a weaknesses in both perspectives. Sociological Theory Map (Dierkes', 2010) Emile Durkheim, the French sociologist was one of the founding functionalists. Believed sociology should be studied scientifically methods, just as scientists study the natural world. His famous first principle of sociology was “study social fact as things!” This form of study is known as positivism. The functionalist draws an analogy between the function of society and the function of the human body.
Cognitive psychologists believe that mental processes and stored representations of the world determine behaviour and are central to human experience. Psychologists see the mind as a complex machine – where they believe that it is useful to model mental processes using an information-processing approach whereby: Information is examined from the outside world is received and encoded, Storage and representation of this information to ourselves, Ways in which this information is manipulated and used by the individual, And how we output information back into the world to be received by others. Many
Functionalism is a macro, structuralist theory. This means they see human behaviour being shaped as an influence of social forces. It is also seen as a consensus theory, as functionalists’ argue that, individuals are socialised into a shared value to ensure conformity and social order. However, this functionalists approach is criticised by action theorists, as they argue that individuals create society through their interactions. Unlike other functionalists, Parsons argues that individuals are integrated through socialisation and social order.
Sociologists can discover laws that determine how society works; this is called induction or inductive reasoning. This involves accumulating data about the world through observation and measurement. As knowledge grows we begin to see patterns. From this we can develop a theory that explains observations. After more observations verify the theory we can claim to have discovered the truth in the form of a general law.
The relationship between these two is they both help us find reasoning and uncover why many things in society are the way they are while also uncovering the bigger picture. Thus having the end goal of being able to have control and/or understanding over one’s life through certain actions. Researchers use sociological imagination to explain social things typically ignored by people steeped in individualism. They do this by having their subjects think about topics in society that have led to some sort of outcome, and get them to understand what causes led to that result. Outcomes are shaped by (but are not limited to) social norms, motives, and the social context (country, time period, and people they associate themselves with).
However, positivists, such as Comte and Durkheim believe sociology can and should be considered a science. According to positivists sociology should be considered a science. Comte is one such positivist that argued science and sociology were similar due to the fact they both wanted to look at cause and effect. Positivists, such as Comte, believe it’s possible to apply methods of natural sciences when studying society and by doing so we are able to gain true and objective knowledge. Positivists believe that just like nature, society is an objective reality made up of social facts, therefore is able to be observed and treated objectively.
Definition In practical terms symbolic interactionism is a theoretical perspective that argues that humans communicate through a world of complex symbols and engage in intricate interpretative work that actually creates the social world. It recognizes that individuals are not passive in making meaning and establishing social order and therefore offers a non-traditional angle on social reality. Researchers can therefore use symbolic interactionism to not only explore how we go about creating our selves, but also how we go about shaping society (O’Leary, 2007). The aim of symbolic interactionism is to discover the meanings of the individuals involved in a given social situation. This leads to the adoption of methods of research which yield qualitative rather than quantitative information (eds.
How this will be accomplished will be by comparing and contrasting their assumptions. Then I will state my opinion on which of the two better fits my personal sociological views. Functionalism and the conflict theory are sociological perspectives that present different assertions of studying the society and how the resultant perspectives of the society are enhanced. The functionalist perspective perceives the society as a system and on a large scale. The functionalist perspective presents social moulding of an individual rather than use of force to the individual in order to carry out societal roles.
Macro theories include Functionalism and Marxism, who see individuals as puppets, under the control of social structures. One micro approach to sociology is Weber’s social action theory. According to Weber, in order to understand human behaviour, we must take into account both the level of structural cause, and the level of subjective meaning that individuals attach to their actions. Weber argues that there are an infinite number of subjective meanings that actors give to their actions; however he attempts to classify actions into four types. Instrumentally rational action refers to action that is driven by a given goal, in order to achieve through the most efficient means.
This essay will first look at two different influential theories of social scientists Goffman (1959, 1971, 1972) and Foucault (1972, 1977, 1978) on how social order is made. This will enable us to then link these theories to the approaches of Buchanan and Monderman to provide better understanding on how each design creates order, highlighting contrasts and similarities along the way. Goffman developed the idea that social life is constructed by the everyday encounters and actions that take place between people. Repetitive interactions produce