As stated in Giddens, sociologists who support this theory see individuals as not created by society but as the creators of society. Both the functional and conflict perspective, study society on a macro level. Unlike the micro study of society that looks to the individual, structural theory instead looks to society as a whole. Supporters of this theory view society as the creator of the individual, it is believed that the rules norms and values of society influence and govern the individuals. 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.
In this sense, who humans beings are, what they believe, and how they came to be, have all been influenced by society. Society has formed human nature to a point that is hard to argue against. ELABORATE/MORE EVIDENCE. To determine the social coordination/organization of society, Benedict stems many of her claims from observations of three groups: the Zuñi, Dobu, and Kwakiutl. In order to determine social coordination/organization, Benedict claims, “we need detailed information about contrasting limits of behaviors and the motivations that are dynamic in one society and not in another” (229).
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.
Structuralist Perspective Society is viewed as a complex system of structures that interact to perform various necessary functions. It is perceived that change is disruptive and gradual. This perspective uses macrosociology as it looks at society from a distance. Functionalism The functionalist perspective, also called functionalism, is one of the major theoretical perspectives in sociology. It has its origins in the works of Emile Durkheim, who was interested in how social order is possible or how society remains relatively stable.
Durkheim pin points major points throughout this book such as “the Division of Labor,” changes in society, mechanical and organic solidarity, and the abnormal and normal norms in which our modern society is constructed around. The major topic that every idea Durkheim confronts deals with the Division of Labor. He states that it is a notion of specialized labor that’s function is to increase production. Its moral purpose, moral being the common rules that allows us to coexist together, to keep us from killing each other. Durkheim says that the means of the Division of Labor is preventing conflict and having more people live together harmoniously; another way of social organization.
Socioeconomic class along with stratification have meaning only because of social psychology within the individual (Schaefer, 2011) and when motivating a group that surrounds an individual this is called conformity (kowalski & Westen. 2011) One might take part in the social strategy of blaming the victim when justifying an action. When considering conformity this can backfire if the out-group vises impose upon a person who is seeking to fit into a group. An example of this type of conformity happens considering bigoted lines of religion or race. However, one must assume that the environment is diverse then one will seek a group to join or follow a model.
A sociological theory is the same as a sociological perspective; it is a way that sociologists look at something. “A sociological theory is a set of ideas that provide an explanation for human society” Haralombus, M & Holborn, M 2008 page 855. The Marxism theory is known as a conflict theory, Marxism was founded by Karl Marx, (1818-1883) and Friedrich Engels, (1820-1895). “Marxism revolves around class conflict centred on the forces of production requiring social relationships to function. These combine to form the infrastructure and the superstructure i.e.
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.
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.
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.