What are the functionalist, conflict and symbolic interactionist theory of stratification?

by awazawaz (student)

If sociology was defined by Giddens (2011) as the scientific study of human groups and societies and individuals' behaviour in these groups, one could understand why stratification has been caching the sociologists' attention. Sociologically, stratification according to Kemper (1976) is the formation of a certain human society's individuals into layers and dealing with them in different ways according to this classification. Giddens (2011) adds gender, age, religious affliction and military rank as attributer to stratification. Three of the mail classic social theories which are: Functionalism, conflict theory and symbolic interactionism, have a different point of views when shed their lights on these crucial phenomenon according to their varied perspectives. In this paper, I will try to frame the basics of each of these theories respectively and then shed the light on stratification according to its perspective.

To start with functionalism which is associated with its pioneers Herbert Spencer and Emile Durkheim. Functionalists did not agree on depending on Charles Darwin's theory of evolution. While the former applied Darwin's law of “survival of the fittest”, Durkheim rejected it. They saw that individuals interact within the society in a way a certain balance in achieved. Subsequent to the competition between its members, each would gain a certain position in the structure of the system. All and all would 'function' parallel in order to achieve good for all. According to this way of analysis, functionalism would describe stratification as a normal reflect of the variance between individuals' abilities. Actually it is described as beneficial because these struggle between competence would assure that only the best qualified will be in the best position with all of the expected good returns of that for the society in all. (Carter, 2012). The first critique against functionalism is related to its vindication. In other words it tries to justify the inequality in the stratified society. According to functionalist maybe it would be normal to see a rich minister and his poor driver in their level of living and saying each of them serves as an organ of the body works in harmony in other organs for the good of the body like what Durkheim would like to put it (Giddens, 2011). But on the other hand, this is not always true, if for instance the driver and the minister had attended the same primary school and the former was much more qualified than the later. While the one who became driver did not afford a higher education, the later got parental care and a path to the top through familial relation entitled him to attend choices were never available for his fellow. Of course, on could conclude that the 'balance' that the society had reached is not always the best available.

This is a preview of the whole essay

By moving to the next theory, the human society starts to look more like a war battlefield. Conflict theory with its two leaders Karl Marx and Max Weber describe the life as a struggle between different actors in order to get the needs and goods. Marx focus more on class conflicts and saw a the society divided in to oppressed labours by those who own the mean of production and alienated the poor worker by preventing them from their real value of their efforts (Baylis, Smith & Owens, 2008; Carter, 2012). Marx calls up on workmen to revolt against this situation. Max Weber by his side tried not to focus on the economic factors only and related the conflict to the different interests like Marx but he focused more on the ways that the dominant enforce his role on the ruled in terms of different types of authority (Wallas & Wolf 2011).

If life is a conflict, there always be 'winner' and ' defeated' persons. This is one of the main reasons for stratification according to conflict theory. In other words it is not that ideal system that results normally. In other words, it is not a competition with fair roles assure the best person in best position. A conflict theorist would reject the idea on the organs works together for the good of all. In such hierarchical systems the upper powers works basically for their own interests ignoring and exploiting the poorer (Carter, 2012). Rather more, the rulers would do whatever it takes to maintain this situation and would with all the power would biased the legislations to their behave in what Marx call it Base-superstructure theory where the base or the means of production, their owners and the production relations would reflect of the surface many institutions like church, education, mass media... etc. All of these institutions work to legislate the base (Baylis, Smith & Owens, 2008). It is clear that conflict theory is against the stratification. While Marxism had huge impact on the world, Weber had most of his impact on the sociology and other sociologist theories (Wallas & Wolf 2011). From my society, I could name many Marxists, but no single 'Weberist'.

Apart from determining the nature of this conflict/functionality among the individuals, our third theory, symbolic interaction had a pretty different point of view. This theory narrows the focus to the individuals, and tries to understand how do persons uses symbols during their daily life in order to maintain fungible identity or individuality through interacting with others symbolically. Her the sociologist would put aside another functions and struggles and examine the language, gestures, clothing and other way of interaction and their role in building the society the way it is. They usually ignores partially the impacts of larger issues like power and structure on forming the social phenomena. (Giddens, 2011). Carter had listed three main scholars of symbolic interaction are George Herbert Mead, Charles Horton Cooley and Erving Goffman. Let's take them and everyone contribution to the theory and try to give an example for each case. Mead saw that the self is constructed during the process of interaction. Our example is an imagined Kurdish male teenager in Syria called Aram. Since he is from the oppressed Kurdish minority by the Arabic majority, he will develop a kind of Kurdish oppressed identity since the elementary school when he realise that his language is forbidden. Maybe before that he would not have that self- consciousness as Kurd till he interacts with the others basically in the elementary school. Cooley believes that this 'self' is continuously changing through interacting. In our case, Aram would change his self accordingly. Maybe he decides to accept the assimilation and become a standard Syrian Arab. Acting like Arabs, speaking like them, denying Kurdish as vernacular even in home. Or maybe, the more discrimination he would exposed to, the more he would became that Kurdish person that others dealing with him according to. Goffman thinks that identities are manipulated in different situations. Going back to Aram, he would act differently in different stages. Maybe in front of a conservative father, he would deny female freedom while in his university he speaks up loudly defending women rights. He would add more and more words of standardized Kurdish as a symbol of his concerning about his forbidden language. On the other hand, when Aram goes to the military services, he comes back with many signs of Alawii dialect of vernacular Arabic. Since the Alawiis are the ruler in Syria and most of the high-rank officers belong to this minority with distinctive dialect, using this dialect in the army would provide Aram with a better chance to get less oppression by using the tongue of the rulers. In all of these cases, Aram and other Kurds had maintained a growing identity and a self though symbolic interaction with the others. In all of the choices he would contribute to the his society stratification. Here the stratification was based on the term on ethnicity basically.

In conclusion, stratification as variation of individuals in the society and distribution of them into layers, classes and positions is one of the main sociological phenomenon that different social theories has been examining in different approaches. Functionalists' perspective was justificatory in sake of the balance, harmony and good for all of the members. Conflict theorist rejected this idea and tried to define the nature of the ongoing struggle between the haves and have-nots. And the last one, the symbolic interactionalism shifted the focus toward the individuals and their ways in maintaining identities through interacting with others in symbolic ways.

References:

Baylis, J., Smith, S. & Owens, P. 2008, The Globalization of World Politics, 4th, Oxford University, New York.

Carter, K. 2012, What is the functionalist, conflict, and symbolic interactionist theory of stratification?, Lecture notes distributed in the unit, Principles of Sociology, UKH, Erbil.

Giddens, A. 2011, Sociology, 6th, Polity Press, USA.

Kemper, TD 1976, 'Marxist and Functionalist Theories in the Study of Stratification: Common Elements that Lead to a Test', Social Forces, 54, 3, pp. 559-578, Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost, viewed 12 December 2012

Wallas, R. A. & Wolf, A. 2011, Contemporary Sociological Theory, Pearson Prentice Hall, New Jersey