Sociological Theory.

Sociological Theory

To be able to evaluate Functionalism, Marxism and Interactionism we must first look at the strengths and weaknesses in each. There are many variations and interpretations of each of these theories, therefore for the sake of simplicity only the key ideals will be discussed.

Functionalism looks at society as an organised structure of inter-related institutions; and the various ways these institutions interact together within a social structure. Examples of these ‘institutions’ are the family, work, education and religion. The Functionalist perspective is best understood using an organismic analogy: ‘Societies are comparable to living organisms (for example, a human being). Each part of the human body is linked, in some way, to all other parts. Individual organs combine to create something that is greater than the sum total of their individual parts.’ In social terms, these ‘organs’ equate to the aforementioned institutions. Each of these institutions has its’ separate role, and in order for society to to function effectively, these institutions must work in harmony with each other. It is also said that all parts of society have a purpose and also certain needs. The ‘purpose’ of the work institution, for example, is to create wealth and in order to achieve this it ‘needs’ people with a certain level of education. This example demonstrates the harmony required between two institutions in order to achieve a goal. Without education, the work institution would collapse due to lack of skilled workers, therefore having a diverse effect on society and all the institutions within that society. This view recognises that society is made up of various social institutions and how important each of these is to society.

Although the above theory may sound true, there are a number of criticisms that challenge this theory. Emile Durkheim talks about societies having ‘personalities’ (‘The Rules of Sociological Method’, 1895) he also discusses societies having ‘needs’ and ‘purposes’ in a way a human does. This is of course not the case, as it is the individuals of these social groups that have the ‘needs’ and also serve a ‘purpose’. The social group in which these individuals fall into are the products of individual action. Functionalism, also, cannot explain social change. Why should anything change if it is already functional in society? This approach of course does not allow for development, not only within the workplace, but also in all other areas. Humans have a natural instinct to improve and develop. This instinct will of course affect systems and processes, as we will always strive to improve all areas, whether it is education, family values or religious approaches. These ‘improvements’ will of course have a direct effect on the other institutions, causing social change; an area functionalists have a problem explaining. Functionalism also over emphasises the beneficial aspects of various institutions. It does not recognise that these institutions can and may be oppressive and exploitive. The workplace institution for example, at the time, was only really beneficial to the factory owners or the like. The actual workers were vastly underpaid and overworked. Therefore being only beneficial to one social group rather than the whole.

This is a preview of the whole essay

Marxism originated through the work of Karl Marx (1818-1883). Marx viewed contradiction and conflict as the basic foundation of all known human societies. He also saw society as a structure that is split into two parts. The first being the economic base (or infrastructure) and the second being the superstructure (political, legal and educational systems). Marx saw the economic base as the feeding spoon to the superstructure; essentially, the economic base shapes and influences the political, legal and educational systems. This leads Marx recognising society only had two classes, the ruling class (Bourgeois) and the subject class (Proletariat). The ruling class form the economic base, by owning land, factories and raw materials. This of course meant that they had money, which in turn could influence the political, legal and educational systems to work in their favour. The subject class on the other hand, worked for the ruling class, lived on property owned by the ruling class and also purchased goods from the ruling class. Due to the influence of the ruling class the political, legal and educational exposure experienced by the subject class was strongly governed by the ruling class, therefore every aspect of the subject class life was governed in some way by the ruling class. This can be defined as the ruling class ideology.

Marxism can be accused of being economically determinist. That is, there is over emphasis on the importance of money within all social relationships. This is of course may have been the case within political, educational and legal societies of the time, but what isn’t discussed is the influence of economic importance within family relationships or friendships. It cannot explain the non-economic conflicts that may arise, for example the confrontation between two religious groups stems from religious beliefs and not economic issues. Admittedly, Marx was the first to recognise a class system within society, but he still failed to recognise the individual interaction within society. Marxists lend themselves to examining social relationships in terms of their conflictual basis. Society is never viewed with a harmonistic approach. There was of course conflict between the ruling class and the subject class, but the social groups within these two groups are never examined and nor were the social harmonies of these groups. Marx also dismissed capitalism as an economic and political system, and viewed communism as the way forward, experience has disproved his theory. Communism is steadily reducing within today’s world; with the collapse of U.S.S.R the move towards capitalism is now steady and certainly practised in most countries around the world.

Interactionism is the perspective that tends to concentrate on small scale levels of social interaction, individuals, small social groups and so forth. The focus is on how individuals consciously act rather than how the individual reacts to social stimulation. Also the individuals’ interpretation of the behaviour of others allows Interactionists to understand the way the world is socially constructed. They also view society as being a piece of elaborate fiction; this idea is based on the fact that we create a society in order for us to make sense of the overwhelming range of behaviours we experience on a daily basis. Society does not have an objective existence as it is experienced subjectively by individuals. Another Interactionist view is that society is made up of labels. We like to give individuals labels in order to place them within a certain social group, for example criminals, homosexuals etc. This in turn affects our approach to those individuals, in the case of the ‘criminal’ label; we are likely to more cautious in our approach due to this categorisation. This is the first sociological theory that looks at society on an individual basis, allowing for in depth understanding of social groups.

This perspective, of course, has its criticisms. The first being the focus on the individual as the object of sociological study. There tends to be little understanding of social groups and social structures; due to the view of such groups and structures being elaborate fictions. This affects the view of power within society, social groups who have more power than others is not discussed, mainly due to the fact that social structure is deemed not to exist. Also little or no attempt is made to define and explain how the social relationships that we create reflect back on our own behaviour. Social change is not adequately addressed, due to the focus on the individual or small groups.

The three sociological theories all have their strengths and weaknesses. When considering each it is possible to see how all can be applied to today’s society. Functionalism does address issues that apply today. If certain areas of society were to collapse today, there would certainly be devastating effects on other areas of society; this does confirm the idea of all social groups being a part of a whole. Although, it is unlikely that if one group were to collapse that it would bring the whole of society down with it, it would take a collective of social groups to cause major damage. Marxism had the focus on economic rule, and class. Whilst class still exists it is now possible to move up and down those classes. Economic rule, however does still play a prominent part in certain societies today, and will continue to do so for years to come.

Interactionism looks at the individual and there influence and understanding of other social groups. This approach has allowed us to understand small social groups, which in turn allows us to gradually understand social groups in certain areas. However, none of the above theories will ever give us a true insight into how all societies work together. By taking parts of each and combining them to make a new theory is the only way that we may truly understand the social structure of the world around us.