One of the main objectives of functionalism is to find out, how social order is possible. Parsons argues that social order is achieved through the existence of a shared culture, a central value system. This provides a framework that allows individuals to cooperate by laying down rules about how they should behave and defining the goals they should pursue. Social order is only possible so long as members of society agree to the norms and values. Parsons calls this agreement value consensus.
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).
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.
These differing views can be illustrated by the case studies of Monderman’s thesis and the Buchanan report, which focus on two different approaches to traffic governance. But first this essay will address both Goffman’s and Foucault’s theories. Goffman studied what he termed ‘interactional order’ – how society is constructed by its individuals, and how social order comes about through repetitive actions and interactions in the micro - the smallest scale of social life (Silva, 2009, p.309). Goffman believed that social behaviour was ‘dramaturgical’, with individuals each trying to put on a type of social ‘performance’ in order to best represent themselves, (Silva, 2009, p. 172) with the use of language, body language, eye contact and facial expression. He saw these ‘performances’ as everyday rituals of tact and trust, which make up the rules of conduct in an ‘invisible social order’.
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
This essay analyses differences in these approaches regarding SDO as an influential factor when predicting behaviours which can establish an individual’s position in a social hierarchy being context dependent as SIT claims or determined by an individual as SDT states. SDT was instigated by Sidanius and Pratto (1999) and inspired from SIT (Tajfel, 1978; Tajfel & Turner, 1986). The theory attempts to comprehend the foundation of forming and upholding group based social hierarchies. They claim hierarchically based societies are more essential for a sustainable continuation compared to democratic societies which are not as stable, group based hierarchies are able to maintain their stability by reinforcing several mechanisms in the form of prejudice, stereotypes and discrimination termed ‘legitimizing myths’, mainly through social policies exerted by high status groups. Similar to SIT, SDT states that low status groups or individuals attempt to progress their status, although SDT stresses the struggle of inequality between groups and dominance of higher status groups.
Interpretivism, also known as interpretivist involves researchers to interpret elements of the study, thus interpretivism integrates human interest into a study. Accordingly, “interpretive researchers assume that access to reality (given or socially constructed) is only through social constructions such as language, consciousness, shared meanings, and instruments” (Myers, 2008, p.38). Development of interpretivist philosophy is based on the critique of positivism in social sciences. Interpretivism is “associated with the philosophical position of idealism, and is used to group together diverse approaches, including social constructionism, phenomenology and hermeneutics; approaches that reject the objectivist view that meaning resides within the world independently of consciousness” (Collins, 2010, p.38). Moreover, interpretivism studies usually focus on meaning and may employ multiple methods in order to reflect different aspects of the issue.
Assess the Usefulness of Micro Sociology to Our Understanding of Society Assess the usefulness of micro sociology to our understanding of society (33marks) Micro sociology focuses on the actions and interactions of individuals and is a bottom-up approach. Such micro approaches, see society as shaped by its members, who possess agency, in other words, the ability to act as free agents. Micro approaches, also known as action theories, include social action theory, symbolic interactionism, phenomenology and ethnomethodoly. However, macro sociologists take a deterministic approach, as they believe that our actions are determined by society. Macro theories include Functionalism and Marxism, who see individuals as puppets, under the control of social structures.
For example the nature vs nurture debate. Talcott parsons (1902-79) were a key functionalist thinker. He saw society as a system made up of interrelated institutions (like the human body) He thought the main role of an institution was to socialise individuals so they behaved in acceptable ways. He argued that socialisation is the key to understanding patterns of human behaviour. Our behaviour is controlled by the rules of society into which we are born; the result is we don’t have to be told that what we are doing is socially unacceptable- we already know and feel uncomfortable if we don’t conform to social norms.
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).