Structural theories such as functionalism and Marxism are macro (large scale), and deterministic: they see society as a real thing existing over and above us, shaping our ideas and behaviour – individuals are like puppets, manipulated by society. Social action theorists use qualitative research methods to gather an in-depth understanding of human behaviour and the reasons behind such behaviour. This method investigates the why and how of decision making, not just what, where and when, for example, covert or overt participant observations and unstructured interviews. Structural approaches use methods that are scientific, as they want quantitative data (e.g. questionnaires and surveys).
Instead of studying social economics as a whole, other social sciences may study about the distribution of economic goods and how it affects an individual. In other words, a sociologist emphasizes social behavior, but a psychologist will focus more on individual behavior. Karl Marx believed that economics was the underlying key to understanding human society. His idea was that social conflict leads to change in society. Conflict resulted from the struggles of different social classes over the means of production.
There are three distinct characteristics that allow us to recognize the difference from modernity; changes in capitalism, changes in the consumer society, and the rise of a global society. There are many ways in which society in modernity can be separated from society at present in postmodernity. In modernity reason was based on the foundations upwards, whereas in postmodernity there are multiple factors and multiple levels of reasoning, almost wed-orientated. In modernity science was viewed as the universal optimism, whereas in postmodern times science was seen as a realism of limitations. Lastly, in modernity language was referential; which contrasts with the view in postmodernity that language has a meaning in social contexts through its usage.
The first sociological perspective, structural factualism, was established by Auguste Comte. Comte discussed the stages that societal knowledge must surpass, with significance on logical reasoning, as well as society as a structure and how it is composed of many parts (Murray, 2011). Herbert Spencer compared the structure of society to a human body due to the contribution of the many organs it takes to sustain life. Max Weber, one of the symbolic interactionists introduced the approach that society is a product of individual interactions (Murray, 2011). Central conflict theorist Karl Marx asserted that society is not a harmonious system, but riddled with unfairness, conflict and disorder.
The study goes ahead to establish how human beings change their attitudes when it comes to monetary issues and how they the use money to gain or ascend to power. Finally, the study aims at analyzing how money changes human personality and the society at large. The above aspects give a clear picture of the objectives of this study, which base its argument on
Talcott parsons (1902-1979) played a vital role in the development of functionalism as a sociological approach. He saw society as a system made up of interrelated institutions, which contributed to its smooth running and continuity. Criticisms of functionalism Criticisms of functionalism focus on its acceptance and rationalization of social inequality and societal evils. Since functionalism holds that all aspects of society are necessary, human rights issues like poverty, hunger, slavery, and genocide must be accounted for. Critics suggest that functionalism can be used as a rationalization of such issues.
However, you need to understand the basic terms and thought, then you also able to be applied to specific conditions in economic thinking. In other words, you have to improve your skills think like an economist. The author of Freakonomics positively shows the reader how to improve his thinking skills to think like an economist. If morality symbolizes how people want the world to work, economy symbolizes how the actually works. According to the authors: “It is well and good to opine or theorize about a subject, as humankind is wont to do, but when moral posturing is replaced by an honest assessment of the data, the result is often a new, surprising insight.” The research in Freakonomics shows that economic and social issues that often difficult, but not impossible, to quantify.
Recent studies of social movements have questioned the “substantive and theoretical” arguments of the classical models. This has led to a transition from a social-psychological to a political-organizational point of view in determining the development of movements. The main theoretical perspective to come out of this transition is the resource mobilization model. This model stresses the level of discontent and the varying levels of resources in determining the growth of insurgency. What’s left in questioning this model is the level of empirical evidence it has presented.
The theory that a sociologist picks to back has an effect on how they do research and how they look at problems. (Schaefer) The first theory is Structural Functional Theory, or functionalism. Functionalism is one of the oldest theories, and is still used today. In functionalism society is made up of different parts, and these parts work together to keep the society stable. Functionalism relies very much on the scientific method.
In the first chapter of his book, The Landscape of History, John Lewis Gaddis says, “But consider the power of metaphor, on the one hand, and the particular combination of economy and intensity with which visual images can express metaphor, on the other,” (2). This is one of the more intricate quotes pulled from Gaddis, where he is basically saying that not only do metaphors represent stories that are used to describe history, but also that metaphors can be images that are being used to represent something much larger. For example, historians tell a story like what actually happened, and maps show features that are like the territory that it is representing. Another thing Gaddis states in chapter one is, “The best you can do, whether with a prince or a landscape or the past, is to represent reality: to smooth over the details, to look for larger patterns, to consider how you can use what you see for your own purposes,” (7). Which supports the point being made that history may only be represented by a story as land may only be represented by a map.