Briefly explain some of the main features of any two sociological theories and evaluate some of the main differences between them. With reference to contemporary society.

by lkdfgd7g987tutaio (student)

Briefly explain some of the main features of any two sociological theories and evaluate some of the main differences between them.

With reference to contemporary society.

The argument for sociology being a science revolves around the idea that society is empirical; if this premise fails then so does the concept of sociology being a science. Karl Marx, the father of Marxism, believed society was the result of social structures and class conflicts. Herbert Blumer, a symbolic interactionist, on the other hand, argued “the essence of society lies in an ongoing process of action – not in a posited structure of relations” (Blumer, 1969) p71. Blumer believed the actions and interactions of individuals created the overall structure of macro and meso levels of society.

When applying the Marxist theory, Marxists would argue Margaret Thatcher (British prime minister from 1979-1990) was a political tyrant who created class inequality by implementing the poll tax, breaking up the unions and further stratifying education through removing the grammar schools. The conservative government of today, however, would argue to “save” the UK from the labour party, conservatives need to “channel Margaret [The iron lady] Thatcher’s zeal”, perceiving her as a political scholar (Gamp, 2017). When applying the symbolic interactionism’s (SI) theory, such truths or falsities in said statements don’t matter; the only importance is how people use the idea of Thatcher and how people use the social object of Thatcher to organise their behaviours and thoughts. A central feature and premises of symbolic interactionism (a postmodernity perspective) is to put interactions, symbols, and meanings as its core subject matter when studying contemporary society; this methodological approach is the optimal way of collecting empirical data according to symbolic interactionalism (SI). (Bown, Pountney & Marić, 2015) p21.

Sociological theories fall onto three analytical levels; micro-level, the study of the individual interactions (SI); meso-level, the studying of organisations, towns and cities; and macro-level, the focus of broader social functions and systems. (Marxism) (Turner, 2012). Blumer heavily criticises macro-level theories such as Marxism because “the human beings become a mere medium through which such initiating factors operate to produce actions” (Blumer, 1969) p73. According to Blumer, a weakness of Marxism and other macro-level theories is that these approaches don’t observe empirical objects, the implication being that if Marxists aren’t researching empirical data, then Marxism isn’t conducting science. Blumer believed a strength of SI was its ability to focus and observe empirical phenomena such as individuals and their interactions, and in by doing so, conduct social science.

This is a preview of the whole essay

Blumer’s criticism of macro-level theories correlates to the type of data these perspectives primarily use. Max Weber, a sociologist who profoundly influenced sociology, challenged the notion of only using quantitive data believing it to be an inferior way of observing social phenomena and instead created “Verstehen”. Verstehen was later adapted and called “social action theory” which today is used by symbolic interactionists to collect qualitative data to explain aspects of contemporary society (Andersen, Taylor & Logio, 2017) p17. Qualitative data consists of words and opinions and is, therefore, harder to replicate because the research method focuses on subjective data that can change; techniques such as unstructured interviews and participant observations can be used to gather qualitative data (Bown, Pountney & Maric, 2016) p27. Marxists criticise the primary use of qualitative evidence by SI because of the data’s vulnerability to change and consider this a weakness toward SI’s ability in explaining and understanding contemporary social life.

In comparison to qualitative data, Marxists and positives use a systematic method of gathering “social facts” called quantitative data because positives theorised that people’s conduct correlates to factors that are observable. Quantitative data is factual, numerical and gives absolute numbers and statistics in its answers; techniques such as closed question questionnaires or structured interviews can be used to collect quantitative data. Marxists believed that quantitative evidence is more reliable because it is easier to replicate. (Bown, Pountney & Maric 2016) p26. Although Blumer criticises theories such as Marxism for using large amounts of quantitative data, it’s important to note that he doesn’t discredit the usefulness of quantitative data entirely, or state observing larger social functions have no benefit. In fact, Blumer studies industrialisation in his last publication which used quantitative data (Blumer 1990). So, while interpretivists mainly collect qualitative data, it is important to note that all sociologists will inevitably use quantitative data, and vice-versa at some point in their careers.

Founding father Karl Marx created Marxism, and it had a massive multifold influence on sociology. Marxism’s conflict analyses focus on class conflict through the economic system of capitalism. Karl Marx believed there were two classes of individuals in society, the power class “bourgeoisie” who owned the factories and means of making money and the powerless class, “proletarian”, who were exploited by the power class and manipulated through means of social structures. (Bown, Pountney & Maric 2016) p43. Marx believed a revolution would occur where the proletariat would overthrow the bourgeoisie and that social conflict was the only means for change. A conflict theory like Marxism is the belief that all social change occurs because of an unbalance in society, unequal distribution of a resource. (Turner, 2014) p32.

Marxism’s direct focus on social structures and class conflict is the main difference between it and symbolic interactionalism and is also a significant weakness of SI when applying the perspective to explain and understand contemporary social life because SI neglects social structures altogether. Bown, et al… (2016) p57 state “both functionalists and Marxists criticise interactionism for neglecting social structures which they argue impact directly on people’s lives”. For example, in the UK, aspiring 16-year old’s can now apply to become “apprentice sandwich artists” at Subway which will give them the privilege to work for £3.50 while performing the same unskilled functions of an ordinary worker at minimum wage (£7.50). (Chapman, 2017). The ability to have an apprenticeship for a job one doesn’t need skills for correlates to “the correspondence principle” by Bowles and Gentis (1976) which argued that the state school for the working-class pupil prepares them for a life of menial work by instilling conformity and passivity through socialisation via the hidden curriculum. See Appendix A, Table 10.2 which shows that 81% of children in 2006 from higher professional families obtained 5 or more GCSE grades at A*-C in comparison to 42% (a 39% difference) of children from families with unskilled manual backgrounds. This quantitive data supports the Marxist theory that one’s social class has a substantial impact on the probability of success, a significant conflict in society.

In contrast to SI, Marxism ability to analyse and explain conflict is a significant strength when applying the perspective to understanding and interpreting social life in contemporary society because this was the premises of Karl Marx’s theory (Bown, Pountney & Maric 2016) p44. However, a significant weakness of Marxism and other modernity perspectives to understanding contemporary society is the preconceived bias they hold; whether it’s Karl Marx, Herbert Spencer or any other influential sociologists from the modernity era, these sociologists were all inherently trying to prove a notion, a preconceived paradigm. For example, Marxists believe society is unbalanced via class conflicts, while functionalists believe society is equal through consensus, and feminists think gender inquality divides society; each of these classical theories has an agenda of trying to prove a belief. Marxism predetermined assumption of conflict is one of its weaknesses in the ability to understand and explain social life in contemporary society because it doesn’t allow the possibility of an alternative solution. SI in this regard is superior because the strength of symbolic internationalism in explaining modern society is that it has no agenda or bias, its objective is to be a social science; it’s for this reason you cannot classify SI as either a conflict or consensus theory. SI ability to analysing society with no preconceived bias is a significant strength in its ability to understand and explain contemporary social life because it allows the possibility for all possible outcomes and reasons, regardless of what they may be.

Symbolic interactionalism and Marxism are both useful sociological perspectives when explaining and understanding contemporary social life because together, these approaches provide a stable framework when analysing social phenomena. While there are no apparent similarities between these two perspectives, both methods can disentangle qualitative and quantitive data in some form, SI can observe unbiasedly, while Marxism offers the foundation to a robust analytical approach to conflict analyses. For SI, its weakness is the neglect of social structures, for Marxism, its preconceived bias of conflict, but together, these theories complement each other nicely and serve as compelling perspectives when understanding and explaining contemporary social society.

Books

Althusser, L. 1971, Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses. In L. Althusser (Ed.), Lenin and Philosophy and other Essays. New York: Monthly Review Press.

Andersen, M., Taylor, H. & Logio, K. 2017, Sociology - The Essentials. 9th ed. Boston, USA: Cengage Learning.

Blumer, H. 1969, Symbolic Interactionism: Perspectives and method. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Blumer, H. 1990, Industrialization as an agent of social change. A critical analysis. Chicago: Aldine

Bowles, S, Gintis, H. 1976, Schooling in capitalist America: Educational reform and the contradictions of economic life. New York: Basic Books.

Bown, D. Pountney, L. & Marić, T. 2015, AQA A-level Sociology Book 1. London: Hodder Education.

Bown, D. Pountney, L. & Maric, T. 2016, AQA Sociology for A-Level Book 2. London: Hodder Education.

DfES. 2005 & DCSF, 2008 in Haralambos, M & Holborn, M. 2013. Sociology, Themes and perspectives. London, Collins.

Turner, J. 2012, Theoretical Principles of Sociology: Mesodynamics. New York: Springer.

Turner, J. 2014, Theoretical sociology. Los Angeles: SAGE Publications.

Websites

Chapman, B. (2017). Subway is advertising for ‘Apprentice Sandwich Artists’ to be paid just £3.50 per hour. [online] The Independent. Available at: [Accessed 22 Nov. 2017].

Gamp, J. (2017). Conservatives say Margaret Thatcher spirit needed to defeat Corbyn government. [online] The Independent. Available at: [Accessed 24 Nov. 2017].

Final Word Count: 1413

Table 10.2 - Attainment of five or more GCSE grades A*-C, by social class, England and Wales, 2000-4, and England 2006 (percentages)

Source: Adapted from DfES. 2005 & DCSF, 2008 in (Haralambos & Holborn. 2013) p689

Page of