Consensus perspective

2.0 Consensus perspective

Functionalism

Functionalism essentially views society as containing numerous interconnected parts which collectively form a system. The fundamental unit of analysis is society, and its assortments of parts can be comprehended in terms of their collective relationship. Functionalists’ in the preliminary stages of the approach tented to draw comparisons between society and organisms such as the human anatomy. Primarily the comparisons existed because they viewed society as operating in theoretically the same way as the organisms in the anatomy. Specifically, for one to understand the operation of an organ, such as the heart or lungs, it involves a profound understanding of its relationship with other human organs and, particularly, its general contribution towards the maintenance of the organism. Thus, in terms of society they argued that for one to understand the operation of it, an examination and analysis is required in order to determine its relationship with the other parts of society, and of course, its contribution to the maintenance of society. For example, social institutions such as family and religion can be analysed principally by researching their diverse system rather than analysing each particular unit individually. Consequently, through determining their contributions they make to the social system as a whole, they claim that they can understand the system. The functionalists also proposed additional contentions concerning their analogy. The predominant one, however, argued that just as organisms have particular needs that are necessary to be satisfied to ensure its survival, society has ones that are comparatively similar. In sociological terms these needs are deemed as ‘Functional prerequisites’.

2.1 Functional prerequisites:

Several functionalist advocators have endeavoured to try and prove the existence and identify functional prerequisites in practice. David and Moore (1967), for example, claimed that all societies appear to have some form of social stratification, and George Peter Murdock, proposed that the concept of family can be seen evidently in all societies. From their research, it is assumed that institutional arrangements, like social stratification and the family, fulfil needs that are characteristically common to all societies. Therefore, when one takes into consideration the concept of universal social stratification, it can be argued that all societies require a mechanism to ensure that social positions are sufficiently filled by motivated individuals. Furthermore, from the existence of the universal family, it can be logically assumed that some mechanism for the reproduction and socialisation of new members is a functional prerequisite of society. However, the problem with the viewpoint is related to its premise that claims that there is a homogeneous institution in every society which shares the same needs. Indeed, there may be a form of social stratification in all societies but it does not necessary mean that it reflects ‘the universal necessity which calls forth stratification in any social system’, like David and Moore maintained. In other words, it is simplistic and naïve to assume that stratification systems form the same function all societies.

An alternative approach to the identification of functional prerequisites involves a scrutiny of factors that could lead to the obliteration or breakdown of society. Marion J. Levy (1952), in response, argued that a society would deteriorate and cease to exist if members became extinct, if they became profoundly apathetic and indifferent, if they were involved in a war against all humanity, or if they were engrossed in another society. Unambiguously, in order to ensure and guarantee the existence of individuals in society, a system for reproducing new members and maintaining the health of existing members is indispensable. Effectively, this involves role differentiation and role assignment in that individuals have to be assigned to reproduce, care for members of society, and of course, to produce food. For the whole process to be maintained it is necessary and essential that individuals are motivated. If, however, they were to be apathetic and indifferent, the social system would breakdown due to deficient and inadequate effort. In order to ensure the system runs efficiently a system of goals and rewards are required to motivate the members of it. Levy claimed that because he was able to identify the specific factors that would lead to the cessation of society, he asserted he had identified the basic requirements that have to be present in order for a society to survive. The problem with this standpoint, however, is that its foundations rely on common sense and ingenuity. In terms of biological organisms it is practicable to identify basic needs, since it can be proven objectively that if these needs are not fulfilled, the organism dies. Societies, conversely, change rather than terminate. Consequently, attempting to identify the crucial aspects of a society that are essential to its existence would be vague and impractical.

A similar approach involves the deduction of functional prerequisites from an abstract model of the social system. Specifically, if society can be perceived as a system, then particular needs for survival can be deducted from an abstract model of the system. A system primarily is made of up numerous interrelated parts, and for adequate survival they have to be a minimal amount of integration. There also has to be some form of compatibility between them. From this analysis, it has been argued that the functional prerequisites may be inferred.

As a result of these assertions, functional analysis was prompted in the direction of the specific parts of society, specifically, to investigate and examine how they appear to contribute to the integration of the social system. Religions for obvious reasons became one of the predominant mechanisms that were studied in that the concept of it has been an extremely potent factor in terms of social integration. Religion, one could argue, reinforces the fundamental values of society, from which, it can be argued that social norms develop as well as the structure and behaviour of particular institutions in society. The social system’s parts are integrated in such a way that is infused with the same basic values. Although, when the particular institutions advocate conflicting values, the system ultimately disintegrates.

2.2 Functionalist theorists

2.3 Emile Durkheim

Critics of functionalism have criticised its social system determinist view in that acceptance of it would mean individuals would have little, if any, form of free-will over their actions. In effect, this is because individuals are organised into families and systems of stratification because it is a mandatory and essential requirement that has to exist in order for society to survive. Consequently, certain prominent sociologists have questioned the objectiveness and logic behind the contention. Durkheim dismissed the criticisms as baseless, claiming that society has a reality over and above the individuals who encompass it. He proposed that members of society are constrained by what he deemed as ‘social facts’, by ‘ways of acting’, thinking and feeling, external to the individual, and are able to exercise a power of coercion. Beliefs and moral principles, he argued, are passed from one generation to the next and are collectively shared by individuals in society. Thus it is not the consciousness of an individual that shapes behaviour; rather it is the common beliefs and attitudes that exceed the individual. Durkheim’s conclusion was that society is system that obeys by its laws.

Durkheim argued that there were two methods that could be used to explain social facts. The first method’s purpose, he maintained, was to determine the source and cause of a social fact:

‘The determining cause of a social fact should be sought among the social facts preceding it and not among the states of individual consciousness - Durkheim’

An example of this premise is evident in his suicide rate research, where, he claimed that the cause of variations in suicide rates could be accounted for in terms of social facts in a society rather than from the individual. The explanation of a social fact, however, involves an analysis of its particular function within society, of its contribution to ‘the general needs of social organism’, of its ‘function and purpose in the establishment of social order’. Accordingly, Durkheim advocated that the elucidation and explanation for the continuing existence of a social fact could be determined by its function (i.e. its usefulness to society). Durkheim was very much contented to point out the differentiation between cause and function. For example, in terms of Christianity, the cause of it can be accounted for by referring to its Jewish origin whilst the reason why it exists in contemporary times requires an alternative explanation.

‘If the usefulness of a fact is not the cause of its existence, it is generally necessary that it be useful in order that it might maintain itself - Durkheim’

Hence, social facts continue to exist because they contribute in some way or another to the existence of society in that they provide ‘some social end’. Durkheim’s research was very much orientated towards functional analysis, mainly because he was intriguingly concerned with determining the functions of social facts. He proposed that society contains certain prerequisites, the most of important of which, is the need for social order. Effectively, Durkheim had a ‘homo duplex’ ideology of human behaviour. The first side of the personality that he proposed was the indifferent and selfish side whereas the second side contained moral values and beliefs. In terms of the former, he claimed that individuals are party influenced by selfish biological needs, which, subsequently, makes the social integration process somewhat more difficult. On the other hand, he claimed that society to some extent is influenced by moral values. Durkheim viewed the scrupulous and principled section of the personality as arising from consensus in the ‘collective conscious’. However, when there is a lack of consensus on fundamental moral issues, social cohesion is almost unfeasible and impossible, which, in turn, means that individuals would find it extremely difficult to form an integrated society.

2.4 Talcott Parsons

This is a preview of the whole essay

2.4 Talcott Parsons

Parson’s in his study was very much influenced by the English philosophy Thomas Hobbes. In one paradigm of his research he examined and analysed business transactions. In a transaction the parties cooperatively form a contract and in order to ensure that business conduct is orderly and systematic it is critical that the contract be bound by a ‘system of regulatory, normative rules’. Person anticipated that trepidation and apprehension are deficient in terms of their potency to make individuals obey the rules. He claimed that moral commitment was essential and he applied the concept of it to the business situation. Thus, the rules of business, he maintained, must ultimately be based on the foundations of shared values that state what is just, right and proper. Parson in his research was also very much concerned with value consensus, which is, of course, the fundamental integrating principle in society. Specifically, if one is committed and interested in the same values as someone else, then they will tend to share a common identity, which in turn, allows for cooperation and harmony. Values typically provide a notion of what is desirable and worthwhile whereas goals provide us directions in particular situations. Roles, however, provide the mechanism were values and goals are translated into action. A social institution is made of a combination of different roles and the structures of them are structured in terms of norms. Norms ensure that role behaviour is standardised, typical and predictable thus orderly. This therefore means that from the central value system - to the most specific – normative conduct – social system is infused with common values that allow the practicalities for social order.

2.5 Social equilibrium and functional prerequisites:

His philosophical recognition of value consensus led him to assert that the main function of sociology is to analyse the ‘industrialisation of patterns of value orientation in the social system’; where values are industrialised and behaviour is structured as a result of them. He held that a state of ‘social equilibrium’ is obtained when there is an all round balance between the parts of the system. The equilibrium can be maintained through socialisation and social controls. In the former this involves sociological values being passed on from one generation to another and internalised to structure an essential part of individual personalities. In the latter mechanisms in social control maintain the system by discouraging deviancy. In terms of the functionalism premise that society is a large system, he argued that parts of it are constructed from four main functional prerequisites – adaptation, goal attainment, integration and pattern maintenance. The function of any specific part of the social system is comprehended by considering their contributing to the prerequisites.

2.6 The prerequisites:

Adaptation: This prerequisite relates to the relationship between the system and its external environment. To ensure survival the social system must have, at least, some form of control of the environment. The physical needs of the members have to be met and society must be able to provide adequate food and shelter.

Goal attainment: Fundamentally this concerns the requirement and need that societies have, which is, to set goals towards which social activity is directed. Procedures for establishing and forming goals and ones to consider the priorities between the goals are institutionalised in the form of political systems. Government additionally provide the sufficient resources that can be used to attain the goals.

Integration: This is concerned with the ‘adjustments of conflict’ and to ensure that there is coordination and reciprocated modifications of the parts of the social system. Legal norms serve the purpose to define and regulate relations between individuals and institutions with the primary intention to minimise conflict. However, if a conflict does arise, the judicial system has the function of handling it thus ensuring that the system does not disintegrate.

Pattern maintenance: This relates to the predominant patterns of values industrialised in the society. In practice, these institutions incorporate a diverse amount of sociological concepts such as the family, education system and religion. Parson advocated that religion was the basic mechanism that could be used to provide the definitive justification of the values of the social system.

Parson claimed that any social system could be analysed and studied in terms of the functional prerequisites that he proposed. Accordingly, he believed that it was feasible to comprehend all parts of a society by referring to the functions they execute which relate to adaptation goal attainment, integration and pattern maintenance.

2.7 Sociological change:

The traditional functionalism view that the system being in equilibrium has been criticised recurrently due to its inability to explain sufficiently why society changes. Parson, although, endeavoured to try and defend the criticism by claiming that no system has absolute equilibrium. While a form of equilibrium is essential for the survival of society, he proposed that social change could be seen as a ‘moving equilibrium’. He perceived social change as a process of ‘social evolution’ from simple to more abstract forms of society. He believed that changes in culture (i.e. cultural values) determine the ‘broadest patterns of change’. An example that he asserted in relation to his argument related to the contemporary values of western society. He argued that the structure of modern society could be accounted for by referencing to the ancient Israelis and Greeks, the process of society acquiring the values from them, he claimed, was hereditary. He identified two sets of cultural values which he deemed ‘pattern variable A and B’. He proposed that these variables provide the necessary foundations that can be used to answer sociological problems in societies.

In terms of the variables in A, Parson claimed that they apply typically in simple societies whereas the variables in B are characteristically seen in advanced industrial societies. Social change therefore, he argued, requires a change towards the adoption of the pattern variables in B. If, however, if the society is unable to do so then it will result in a form of stagnation as pattern variables in A are deficient in that they are insufficient to allow a society to develop.

2.9 Sociological evolution:

Parson viewed the process of social evolution as one that involves a process of social differentiation. Specifically, the institutions and roles become somewhat differentiated and specialised. In effect, this generates a predicament for the process of social integration. That is, as parts of the society specialise and become distinctive it becomes extremely difficult to integrate them collectively in terms of common values. Parson maintained that the problem could be deciphered and solved by generalising the values.

2.10 Evaluation of functionalism

Advantages:

Functionalism’s views have offered invaluable insights that have been extremely useful to sociologists. Durkheim’s work, for example, has proved to be very useful in that it has helped contemporary sociologist to understand and study society.

Several of the ideologies behind functionalism have been applied to particular sociological situations. In particular, the functional belief that society should be seen as an integral whole; that society’s parts are independent; that social institutions exist and they have specific effects; and that society is structured and the particular structure influences individual behaviour. These, in practice, have proved to be much respected assumptions.

A significant assumption of the approach concerns the view of society being comprehensible, stable and orderly. Sociologists have relied on the principle of it to conduct research using the scientific method with the purpose to learn more about how society works.

Limitations:

Functionalism has been criticised by some who claim that it relies on teleological explanations. The focal denunciation consequently then is that it considers effects as causes. David and Moore, for example, proposed functions of social stratification and then argued that the effects explained its origin. However, an effect cannot elucidate and explain a cause because causes must always precede effects. Hence the effects of stratification cannot occur until a system of stratification has already been established. Additionally, particular functionalists have argued that members of society subconsciously respond to social needs and thus create the adequate institutions for the maintenance of society. Though, there is not evidence to back up the assertion.
Particular functionalists who maintained that social order could be obtained by the use of value consensus have been criticised intensely. They have criticised its presumption of consensus, asserting that there is little substantiation to show its existence. Research has produced inconsistent and vague findings that have been unable to reveal a widespread commitment to the sets of values that are seen to characterise Western society. Furthermore, the stability, one could argue, owes more to the absence of value consensus rather than the existence of it. Michael Mann, for example, argued that, ‘in a society where members compete for unequal rewards, ‘cohesion results precisely because there is no common commitment to core values’ (Sociology – Themes and Perspectives, respectively). If, however, all members were dedicated to the value of achievement, it can be argued, that the failure in terms of the value at the base of the stratification system could generate disorder. Additionally, consensus by concept may not be sufficient enough to cause social order. Critics have argued that it could produce results on the absolute contrary to the assertion.
The approach is very much based on the notion of determinism in that it views human behaviour as being the result of the system. In addition, the social system has particular needs, and individuals in society, functionalists claim, adapt to meet them. Indeed, if one analysed the foundations of the approach, the summary would be that it views humanity as being a continuous automation in that it is programmed, directed and controlled by the system. Therefore, if it is to be fully accepted it means individuals are the consequences of their society.
Particular sceptics have contented that the perspective ignores coercion and conflict. Only relatively few functionalists have gave serious consideration that some groups in society, which when acting in terms of their own interests, dominate others. Therefore, it can be concurred that social order is enforced through authority by the powerful, and that value consensus is merely a legitimation of the position of the dominant group. In terms of conflict, sceptics such as Lockwood have argued that Parson failed to recognise conflicts of interests that have a tendency to produce instability and disruption.
Up until the 60’s functionalism dominated sociology, in recent years, however, its influence has somewhat deteriorated. Critics have questioned the concept of ‘natural’ order and have challenged that supposing it exists, then how can one assume social patterns change from time to time and from place to place. In addition, by emphasising integration, critics argue, that it overlooks social inequalities, which in turn, could generate conflict.

3.0 Conflict perspective

The conflict perspective is based on many conflict approaches. In spite of their inconsequential differences, they all have a model of society as a whole and they collectively share the view of the structural approach. Additionally, all perspectives, in some form or another, share the notion that sociological groups have different interests. As a result, they propose that conflicts are always probable since that when different groups advocate their own individual interests, it tends to cause disagreement and in certain situations, resentment. Arguably, the two most prestigious standpoints within the approach are the Marxist and feminist conflict theories. A major difference between functionalism and the conflict perspective is that the conflict approach accentuates the existence of competing groups whilst functionalism views groups as being fully cooperative.

3.1 Marxism

Marxism became progressively influential from the 1970’s, mainly because it offered a comprehensive alternative to functionalism, which of course, at that time was experiencing disregard. The approach’s foundations are based on a German philosopher, economist and sociologist - Karl Marx. Essentially the preliminary assertion in his theory concerns human survival, that is, the need to produce food and material objects. In the process, they are effectively entering into social relationships with other individuals. He proposed that forces of production correspond with a particular set of social relationships. Communally, he called them the ‘infrastructure of society’ whilst he proposed another part of society, namely, the superstructure. In terms of the superstructure he claimed that it was influenced and shaped by the infrastructure. For example, the political, legal and educational institutes and the belief and value systems are principally determined by economic factors. A major change in the infrastructure consequently will result in a change in the superstructure. He claimed that all societies experience forms of exploitation by its members. In a capitalist society, for instance, Marx would have maintained that the employers exploit the subordinates. This, in turn, encourages group conflict as one gains at the expense of another. As a result, the conflict has to be resolved as a social system cannot survive unchanged if it contains contradictions. He maintained that the predominant contradictions in society are between the forces (e.g. land, raw materials, tools and machinery and the scientific and technological knowledge used in the production process) and relations of production (i.e. the ‘relations of production’ are the social relationship which individuals enter into in order to produce food). Marx viewed the means of production as consisting of the parts of the forces of production that can be legitimately owned. They thus include law, raw materials, machinery, buildings and tools, although, this does not technological or scientific knowledge.

The notion of contradictions between forces and relations of production can be highlighted in terms of the infrastructure. Marx held that only labour generates wealth, hence, in the capitalist society, wealth is produced by the labour. However, an abundance of this wealth is received by the capitalists – the owners of the means of production. The subordinate workers, conversely, are underpaid and receive insignificant value for the income they generate. Therefore, there is an evident contradiction between the forces of production and the relations of production. He believed that the conflict between capital and labour could not be resolved inside the framework of a capitalist economy itself.

3.2 Contradictions and change:

Marx had a view of history as being divided up into several periods or epochs, each being characterised by a particular mode of production. In terms of significant changes, he proposed, that they are a result of new forces of production. For example, the change from the feudal to capitalist society can be traced back to the initiation of forces of production in the industrial society. This, ultimately, resulted in a new contradiction between the new forces of production and the old feudal relationships of production. The capitalist society required relations of production based on wage labour than in contrast to feudal society, which, relied on the traditional tied of lord and vassal. As they develop, Marx proposed, that the new forces of production tend to create a new set of relations of production. Subsequently, change and social order will both be affected, with the epoch of history, eradicating past social relationships.

Marx believed that the final epoch of history would be the communist or socialist society. He maintained that they would replace capitalism and that it would not result from a new force of production. Instead, he maintained, that it would be formulated on the basis of a resolution to counter the numerous contradictions in capitalist society. Collective productions will still exist, but the relations of production will be completely changed. In terms of the ownership of the means of production, Marx deemed them as being owned collectively rather than just by a single individual, the income, however, would be spread equally out among the subordinate members of society. The ideology behind this system, Marx believed, would suppress and alleviate social exploitation. Furthermore, a new infrastructure would be created that contained no contradictions and conflict.

3.3 Social Class:

Class divisions are the consequences of the differing relationships of members of society to the means of production. Marx viewed all societies as fitting it to a two-class model, where there is a ruling class and a subject class. The ruling or dominant class receives its dominance and power from the ownership and control of the means of production. The subject class, however, due to their lack of ownership and control of the means of production are powerless. Conflicts arise because the dominant class generate all the income whilst the productive labour is performed by the working subordinates. Since one class is gaining at the cost of another, the interests of their members are irreconcilable. While Marx claimed that society was characterised by a core struggle between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, he did identify the existence of additional classes. He maintained that members of the main social classes are unacquainted and naïve of the true nature of their situations, i.e. the actuality of the relationship between ruling and subject classes. The ruling class, he claimed, assume that they are representing the interests of society whereas the subject class accept this notion. The false consciousnesses are essentially the result of the relationships of dominance and subordination in the economic infrastructure being reproduced by the superstructure. The ruling class have their authority legitimated in the forms of legal statues, religious proscriptions and political legislation.

‘The relations of productions constitute ‘the real foundations on which rise legal and political superstructures and to which correspond definite forms of social consciousness. The mode of production in material life determined the general character of the social , political and spiritual processes of life’ - Marx

3.4 Evaluation of Marxism

Advantages:

Marx’s views have contributed significantly to the study as sociology as a whole.

Sociological research has consecutively showed that there is conflict and inequality in all aspects of society. For example, research has revealed that social class is a strong factor in terms of its correlation with educational success. Thus Marx and the conflict theory must have some relevance.

Again, like functionalism, Marx’s views and theory has helped sociologists comprehend and understand society.

Limitations:

Several critics have contented that Marx views on the direction of social change have failed to be corroborated. For example, they claim, that class conflict has little potency and that it has become institutionalised in advanced capitalist society. In terms of the proletariat, they concur, that there is little evidence to support the assertion that it’s becoming a class of itself. Rather, they maintain, the class structure of capitalist society has become extremely abstract and differentiated. Particularly, they have identified a steady growing middle-class between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie.
Marx profoundly advocated communism, proposing that it would provide the necessary means for social equality. However, contemporary communist regimes have contradicted the claim in that severe social inequality exists and that they have done little to generate equality.
Several critics have questioned Marx’s concept of economic determinism. Harlalambos and Holborn for example argue: ‘it is possible to select numerous quotations from Marx’s writings that support the views of his critics. In terms of these quotations, history can be presented as a mechanical process directed by economic forces which follow ‘iron laws’. Humans are compelled to act in terms of their constraints impose by the economy, and passively respond to impersonal forces rather than actively construct their own history. Thus the proletariat is ‘compelled’ by its economic situation to overthrow the bourgeoisie. The contradictions in the capitalist infrastructure will inevitably result in its destruction. The superstructure is ‘determined’ by the infrastructure, and human consciousness is shaped by the economic forces independent of human will and beyond humanity’s control. In this way, Marx can be presented as a crude positivist who sees causation solely in terms of economic forces.’
As the approach emphasises inequality and coercion division, it glosses over how shared values or independence generates unity among members of a society. In addition, some have argued that it is more oriented to proposing political goals than using scientific objectivity.

4.0 Major differences between consensus and conflict perspective

Consensus ideology proposes that society consists of social institutions which are all dependent of each other and are vital for maintaining social order. The conflict paradigm (particular Marxists), conversely, holds that society has an infrastructure and a superstructure that work independently.
Conflict theorists emphasise conflict and contradiction whereas consensus theorists maintain that society’s institutions work within functional unity.
The consensus ideology considers value consensus as being the mechanisms for keeping society together. Conflict theorists reject the assertion and claim that values are imposed by the powerful groups in society.
The consensus theory highlights harmony, integration and stability. Conflict theory, however, proposes that conflict, struggle and change are more prevailing within society.

5.0 Functional analysis of religion

In terms of religion, Durkheim contented that, in religious life, individuals celebrate the power of society. This, he argued, explains why in society particular individuals transform certain (in)animate objects into sacred symbols (totem) of collective life. Durkheim pointed out three major functions of religion for the operation of society:

Social cohesion: Religion allows value consensus in that it unites individuals through shared symbols, values and norms. Religious doctrines and rituals form rules of ‘fair play’ that make organised life practical. Religion also speaks expressively about the important human concept of love. Thus, religion highlights one’s moral and emotions relationship to others (Wright and D’Antonio, 1980, respectively).
Social control: Every society uses religion imaginary and language to encourage traditionalism and agreement.
Proving meaning and purpose: Religious beliefs offer the comforting sense that the vulnerable human nature serves some great purpose. In light of this, Durkheim argued, people were less likely to collapse in despair when confronted with sociological problems.

6.0 Conflict analysis of religion

Religion claimed Marx, benefits the dominant class by legitimating the status quo and diverting individuals’ attention from the social inequalities of society. Consequently, it helps to produce a false consciousness. Similarly, it helps to dull the pain of oppression, in some religions for example:

They hold that individuals go to heaven after they die;
They generally praise people who are suffering repression;
They can offer hope for individuals when they experience sociological problems;
They justify social order and ones positioning within it.

In addition, Marx held that it forms or reinforces systems of stratification. The structure of the Christian church for example, has frequently created considerable wealth for its leaders. Conflict theorists have claimed that gender and ethnicity also are included in religions link with social inequality. For, example, most world religions have tented to encourage and promote male dominance.

7.0 Social action perspective

The social action perspective rejects the structural notion that society has structures that determine individual behaviour. Some action theorists acknowledge the existence of structures but they propose that its formation as being the result of individual actions. Max Weber’s contribution has been influential and indubitably he is the main proponent behind the perspective. He emphasises that society should be seen from a micro-level orientation. In short, he accepted and was influenced by a considerable amount of Marxism theory, particularly, he accepted Marx’s ideas on social conflict. However, he rejected Marx materialistic analysis, contending that societies differ fundamental in terms of the ways individuals in it think about the world.

Marx Weber

Weber viewed a social action as being an action carried out by individuals to whom one attaches a subjective meaning: ‘an action which takes account of the behaviour of others and it thereby oriented in its course - Weber’. Therefore, a particular action where one does not contemplate cannot be a social action. For example, if an individual crashes a car into someone, it cannot be classified as a social action because it was not the result of any conscious thought. Moreover, if an action does not take into consideration the existence and potential reactions of others, it is not social. In order for a social action to be explained, Weber maintained that before a cause of a social action could be identified, it was necessary to comprehend the meaning that an individual attaches to it. He identified two types of meaning, namely, arktuelles verstehen and erklarendes verstehen. The former can generally be translated into observational understanding. For example, it is possible to understand what happens when an individual hits a piece of wood with a hammer. The latter can be translated as explanatory understanding, which essentially requires the sociologist to understand the meaning of an act in terms of the motives that caused it. For example, in terms of the individual using the hammer, erklarendes verstehen would require an understanding of why the individual did it. Was it part of his job, was it to fix something, or was it an expressing of anger? In order to achieve this form of understanding, Weber believed than one would have to introspect from the point of view of the individual whose behaviour is under analysis.

This, however, is not adequate to explain a serious of events or actions. For a full causal explanation it is necessary to determine what had caused the motives that caused the actions. In the process, he attempted to ascertain associations between events and to form causal relationships. In his research he tried to demonstrate a relationship between Protestantism and capitalism. He proposed that ascetic Protestantism existed almost exclusively in capitalist societies. This, however, was insufficient to show a causal connection between the two as it does nothing to explain why ascetic Protestantism contributed to the rise of capitalism. As an attempt to understand the link, Weber researched possible motives for ascetic Protestants espousing capitalist behaviour. In conclusion, he claimed the predominant motive concerns the Christian concept of ‘heaven’.

Indeed, Weber’s research relating to capitalism epitomises his viewpoint that social institutions, in particular, ones where a lot of people behave in similar ways, could effectively cause mass social changes. Weber was also extremely interested in bureaucracies and he proposed many views regarding them. He believed that individuals were ultimately carrying out rational social actions with the purpose to fulfil the goals of bureaucracies. He believed that bureaucracies were the dominant force in society and that they restrict individual behaviour. To understand the process of modern society, Weber claimed, an understanding of bureaucracies was essential.

Evaluation of Weber – Social action theorist

Advantages:

Weber’ contributions have indubitably influenced sociology profoundly. His work has offered modern sociologist a base in which they can use to help them understand aspects of society.

The perspective offers a comprehensive alternative to the structural approach.

Weber’s claims about rationalisation have proved to be extremely useful in debates about modernity and postmodernity.

Limitations:

Several critics have claimed that he is guilty of methodological individualism. David Lee and Howard Newby, for example, argue ‘Weber was willing to treat all social forces and pressures as if they could be explained (or reduced) to the actions and purposes of seemingly isolated individuals’. The structure approach deeply rejected such views, deeming it as baseless. Additionally, Weber’s social action approach exists somewhat uneasy alongside his views on certain types of social institution. Consequently, it is difficult to unite his view that bureaucracies could intensely restrict individual freedom, or that society was divided into classes, with his assertion that society is primarily formed with individuals who chose courses of action according to their motives.
Weber’s views on bureaucracies and his emphasis on the importance of rationalisation to the development of modernity have been analysed rigorously by sceptics. Postmodernists on the whole argue that bureaucratic organisations are no longer the dominant institution in modern societies. Instead, they argue that organisations have become more supple and flexible and significantly less governed by rules and less hierarchy.

Symbolic interactionalism perspective

Symbolic interactionalism in its essence is very much based on the work of a number of American philosophers such as John Dewey, William I, Thomas and George Herbert Mead. Similar to the social action theory, symbolic interactionalism is concerned with explaining social actions in terms of the subjective meanings that individuals give to them. In contrast to the structural view of society, interactionalists envision society as the product of the everyday interactions of people doing things together (sociology- A global introduction, respectively). Much of the work conducted by the interactionalists related to the fluidity and temporary nature of interpretation and reinterpretation of behaviour during social interaction. In addition they were very concerned with researching the concept of negotiation of meaning during interaction. Moreover, from their views relating to labelling they proposed several theories such as the ‘self-fulfilling prophecy’.

George Herbert Mead

Mead viewed individual thought, experience and conduct as ultimately being of a social nature. They owe their nature, Mead claimed, to the fact that they interact in terms of symbols, the important of which are situated in language. A symbol is not just a representation of an object or event, rather it defines and interprets them in a specific way that designates a response to them. For example, when one considers the symbol ‘chair’, it does not only represent a class of objects and defines them as comparable; it also proposes a line of action, i.e. the action of sitting. Symbols therefore inflict particular meanings on objects and events, in the process, they principally eliminate alternative meanings. For example, particular chairs may be constructed out of wood or metal, due to which, they can be defined dissimilar and different objects. However, such differences are deemed inconsequential in that they are collectively characterised in terms of the symbol ‘chair’. Symbols, Mead proposed, allows individuals to act meaningfully with their natural and social environment. Without them, however, society and interaction would be impossible. Symbolic interactionalism is a necessary requirement since individuals largely have no functional instinct to influence and direct behaviour. Individuals are not built to respond automatically to particular stimuli, thus in order to survive they must form and live in a world where there is meaning.

Role-taking

Social life, he claimed, could only proceed if the meanings of symbols are predominantly shared by the population of a society as a whole. If, however, this didn’t happen, meaningful communication would be impossible. Common symbols although only provide the means in which human interaction can be achieved. In order for the interaction to proceed there has to be an interpretation by one of the meaning and intentions of others. This is fundamental possible by the existence of common symbols, although it is essentially accomplished by a process which mead worded ‘role-taking’. Quintessentially, the process of role-taking involves an individual adopting the role of another person by hypothetically placing themselves in the position of the person whom they are interacting. For example, if one observes an another individual shouting, singing or crying, they will put themselves in that individuals position to ensure that there is a understanding, i.e. an interpretation of its meaning attributed to the individual’s behaviour. From their interpretation they will make a response to the action of the other. Effectively, Mead viewed human interaction as an incessant process of interpretation and reinterpretation, where each takes the role of the other.

Concept of Self

As a consequence of role-taking, Mead claimed that individuals develop a concept of self. Specifically, since they are analysing themselves from the perspective of others, they are able to look upon themselves. Accordingly, the foundation and development of a self primarily relate to one’s ability to perceive themselves from other individuals’ perspectives. He identified two features of the self, that is, the ‘me’ and the ‘I’. In the former, it is basically the individual’s subjective opinion of him/herself. In the latter, this is the overall opinion that the individual has. The ‘I’ is the most important part and it can, in theory, have an influential influence over one’s behaviour. The concept of the self is gained from sense experience and goes through two main stages of development, the play stage and the game stage. The development of a conscious of self, in Mead’s view, is a vital part of the process of becoming a human being. In short, he proposed that it provides the base for though and action and is central to the foundations of society. By becoming self-conscious, individuals will become conscious and aware of what is expected of them, which in turn, will shape their behaviour as a result.

Culture, social roles and institutions:

In terms of culture, Mead accepted the concept of it and claimed that its influence can be seen evident in regards its influence on social roles. That is, how it is able to dictate what is appropriate behaviour for particular social roles. This tends to encourage people in social roles to act in accordance with the cultural norm or rather inline with the labelling that is attributed to their particular social role. Moreover, the individual will tend to mix the expected behaviour of his/her particular role with that of his/her concept of self. Social institutions still have an existence in that particular social roles are somewhat attached to them. Whilst symbolic interactionalism holds that cultural and social roles shape behaviour, it still believes that in the whole individuals have free-will over their behaviour.

2.10 Evaluation of Symbolic interactionalism

Advantages:

The perspective helps to correct an inherent bias in all macro-level approaches. Indeed, macro-level approaches have been influential and very good in terms of their contribution to understanding society. Unquestionably, the usefulness of abstract social structures such as the ‘family’ and ‘social class’ are profound but symbolic interactionalism helps to express how individuals actually experience society and how they do things collectively.

A lot of the assertions and context within the perspectives have been applied to other disciplines out within the social sciences. In most social psychology books, for example, symbolic interactionalism is usually covered as it offers extremely useful insights to psychologists.

A significant assumption of the approach concerns the view of society being comprehensible, stable and orderly. Sociologists have relied on the principle of it to conduct research using the scientific method with the purpose to learn more about how society works.

Limitations:

Critics have tented to accuse them of examining interaction in a vacuum. Specifically, they have tended to centre on small-scale-face-to-face interaction, whilst they put little emphasis on its historical or social setting. They have emphatically concentrated on specific situations and encounters, putting minimal consideration on the historical events that led up or the wider social structure which they occur. These, of course, have a tendency of influencing particular interaction situations thus the minimal focus has being deemed by sceptics as being a profound misjudgement.
While the perspective counterattacks the structural deterministic claim, critics have contented that the approach has went too far. Although they claim that action is not predetermined by such norms, they do admit to their existence. They fail to explain their foundations adequately, William Skidmore (1975) for example asserts, ‘interactionists large fail to explain why people consistently choose to act in given ways in certain situations, instead of in all the other ways they might possible have acted’. The approach also fails to sufficiently explain why standardised normative behaviour occurs and why individuals of society are influenced by social norms.
Critics have also argued that interactionists fail to explain the source of meanings to which they attribute such significance. In terms of labelling, for example, they fail to explain the origins of the means that are attached to particular individuals. Structural supports have argued that such meanings are not impulsively formulated in interaction situations rather they are systematically formed by the social structure.
The approach, some European critics have argued fails to take into consideration cultural ideas of societies this side of the Atlantic.

Action paradigm analysis of religion

The action perspective holds that religion is socially constructed and that it is one the main mechanisms in society where individuals can make sense of their life. It is constructed with symbolism and rituals. Thus, through various rituals, individuals develop the distinction between the sacred and profane. John J. Macionis argues ‘by placing everyday events within a cosmetic frame of reference people confer on their own fallible, transitory creations ‘the semblance of ultimate security and performance’. Marriage for example, may be primarily a contact between two people and one could assume that it can end when the individuals want it to. However, if partners define their relationship as holy matrimony, the bond will be far deeper. This fact can be seen evident in most societies as divorce rates are lower amongst religious people.

In situations where humans are confronted with insecurity or uncertainty, they bring sacred symbols to the fore. By bringing sacred symbols into particular situations; individuals are able to get over serious setbacks and predicaments. In contemporary sociological research interactionalists have researched newer religions such as scientology to find out how they give people meaning in a world which can often be irrational and stressful (Loftland, barker, respectively) .

Consensus perspective

This is a preview of the whole essay

Document Details

Related Essays

Compare and contrast a consensus and conflict perspective in relation to ou...

Examine the Five Factor Theory from a Social Cognitive perspective.

Outline what Goffman's Dramturgical Perspective involves by illustrating yo...

Sociology A Perspective on Identity